Management Response to the Review of the Global Education Cluster Co-Leadership Arrangement UNICEF and Save the Children Draft 8 April 2011

Transcription

1 Management Response to the Review of the Global Cluster Co-Leadership Arrangement UNICEF and Save the Children Draft 8 April 2011 In November 2007 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between UNICEF and Save the Children agreeing to co-leadership of the Global Cluster. Significant areas of progress for the cluster during this time have included: Activation of the Cluster in 42 countries over this four year period, including in large scale emergencies such as those in Pakistan, Sudan, Haiti, and Myanmar. Increase in humanitarian funding for education from US$69 million in 2007 to US$275 million in 2010 as a part of Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAP) and Flash Appeals; A global Cluster Working constituted involving over 30 agencies working internationally, with both Authorities and a wider number of agencies involved at country levels; Development of the Cluster Strategic Plan , which charts the way forward in advancing humanitarian coordination and action in the sector. In 2010 an external Review of the Global Cluster Co-Leadership Arrangement was conducted with the purpose to both inform the forthcoming Global Cluster evaluation and to suggest improvements in the co-leadership arrangement s management and operations The co-lead review The Partnering Initiative (TPI), a group specializing in the use and effectiveness of cross-sector partnership, was selected to conduct this independent, impartial analysis. They took several months to review key documentation, conduct face to face and telephone interviews and issue an on-line survey. A total of 34 individuals were interviewed, representing UNICEF and Save the Children, as well as cluster members UNESCO, UNHCR, OCHA, INEE and Plan International. A further 39 individuals working with 21 field-based clusters completed the on-line questionnaire. The review produced an overall set of findings and recommendations for the co-lead partnership. In addition, a complementary evaluability component identifying potential indicators for a future global evaluation was developed. Much progress has already been made on adopting many of the recommendations developed, and with the adoption and implementation of this management response plan, enhanced performance is expected to continue. Commitment to co-leadership Following on the review, both UNICEF and Save the Children confirm their commitments at the highest levels to the success of the co-lead arrangement and of the Cluster s work. The recommendations and adoption of a joint response are welcomed as a means to ensure fulfillment of cluster accountabilities and responsibilities, and to strengthen global support of coordinated effective country level education response in emergencies. A number of factors were found to indicate that co-leadership contributes to achieving the Cluster objectives. These include its distinct character sending a strong signal on UN-NGO 1

2 partnership, achieving wide membership within the Cluster Working (ECWG), and significant progress toward mainstreaming cluster support within agencies. Key successes and challenges The co-lead review offers the overarching conclusion that the cluster structure has been set up according to the terms of the MoU, is progressing well in achieving its objectives and that the co-lead arrangement offers added-value to the Global Cluster in terms of the overall legitimacy of the Cluster, its institutional inclusiveness, the breadth of its agenda and its ability to provide countrylevel staff with appropriate information, tools and training. While the review highlights a number of challenges, these are framed by the fact that Cluster co-leadership has required setting up completely new structures and required a level of partnership relatively unfamiliar to the agencies. Challenges identified included the following: Set-up: Practical implementation of concepts of co-leadership was not sufficiently clarified, with procedures for management, decision-making and accountability inadequately defined. Set-up: There are continued concerns over the reliance on a single source of funding for the cluster. Overall management structure: Need for stronger buy-in and commitment of agencies in the Cluster Working (ECWG) to extend a sense of collective responsibility for the success of the cluster. Overall management structure: Lack of agreed clear process to which the agencies could be held accountable has put significantly more responsibility on individuals involved. External aspects: Support to country-level staff is seen as uneven. Country level staff would like to see stronger advocacy and more focus on country, rather than global, concerns. Relationship: Some of the co-lead agencies decisions in relation to human resources in the past have been less than satisfactory. Monitoring: No system in place to monitor effectiveness of the cluster or the health of the partnership between co-lead agencies. Recommendations and next steps As part of the management review, recommendations emerging were grouped under the themes of set-up, operations, relationship among partners, and added value and partnership sustainability. Fourteen recommendations were identified with a total of 40 specific actions suggested. UNICEF and Save the Children have carefully reviewed this full set, in the process noting a number that have already been acted on, including improvements in transparency and relationship-building. The attached matrix details a joint management response between the two organizations. A number of these agreed actions have already been incorporated into the management plan and annual work plans of key staff responsible for delivery on Cluster accountabilities. The co-lead review will also inform a global Cluster evaluation planned for

3 Joint UNICEF-Save the Children management response Review of the Global Cluster Co-Leadership Arrangement Date: 5 April 2011, Geneva Recommendation reference (summary) 1. Set up 1.1 (Re)-building the partnership Review recommends for the colead agencies to take a step back and re-build the partnership, structures and procedures, including defining partnership, benefits of co-leadership, and what success looks like. Joint response Action points Responsible By date The two agencies consider that current co-lead arrangements at global level are fit-for-purpose and are now working more effectively. Strengthening the partnership will continue to be the focus at global level, to which both organisations are fully committed at the highest level. It was agreed that effectiveness of support for education in emergencies remains the driver for the co-lead arrangement, while fully subscribing to the Principles of Partnership in the management of the partnership. Agreed that the primary focus now is to strengthen country level co-leadership/partnership arrangements, to ensure a well-coordinated, predictable, timely and effective education response in humanitarian crises. It was agreed that a light review and update of the Memorandum of Understanding (signed Nov 2007) is needed to better articulate objectives, definition of partnership, value-added potential of co-leadership, comparative advantage, and success, and to capture developments and experience with the cluster approach and Clusters in the three years since the MoU came into effect. The review will focus on Annex 1 outlining co-leadership arrangements. *Review MoU (see 1.2) *Establish mechanism to address and resolve arising issues, in particular in making country level partnerships work, for inclusion in MoU. * Develop proposal for review and approval by the Steering, including process of inhouse review in both agencies. *Each agency to strive for synergies in mainstreaming the education cluster in organisational structures and functions, keeping each other informed of steps taken, at ECU and level. ECU/CLAs Steering /ECU/ CLAs End Dec 2011 Sep 2011 End of June Partnership documentation Review recommends updating the MoU to reflect new understanding It was noted that the MoU review will need to take into account outcomes of current IASC discussions on humanitarian reform, as well as outcomes of UNICEF internal discussions on management of UNICEF (co)-led clusters, expected in the coming months. See above. Both agencies agree that the MoU requires updating as part of joint efforts to strengthen the coleadership arrangement. *Conduct a light review of the MOU and complete by end The will End Dec 2011

4 and expectations coming out of rebuilding process; and creating/updating and disseminating guidance on the cluster architecture including purpose and responsibility of each element of the cluster, roles and responsibilities each agency (and external agencies), lines of reporting/accountability, and decision-making and discrepancy resolution. Joint Country-Level Guidance on Cluster Establishment and Leadership already exists. This package was recently updated and is being widely disseminated. It was agreed that the Joint Guidance should be updated again in conjunction with the MoU revision, including clarifying models for country level co-leadership. Development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) between co-lead agencies and partners to guide ECU/Co- Lead Agency support for acute and protracted emergencies is a priority in the Cluster s new Strategic Plan (output 2.3). lead the process, supported by a drafting committee comprised of 4 members (2 from each agency), who will consult internally as appropriate. * Produce 1 st revised draft MoU for review. * Review 1 st draft (by telecon), agree finalisation process. * Finalise MoU for approval and sign-off by UNICEF Executive Director and Save the Children CEO. Drafting Committee Steering /Drafting Committee End of June 2011 Early Dec 2011 The MOU, joint guidance for country level, and SOPsconstitute the primary guiding documents moving forward. *Review and update Joint Guidance ECU/UNICEF Section/Save the Children cluster strategy unit Dec 2011 * Develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) concept note, framework, and SOPs Ibid. Sep Financial resources Review recommends diversifying the resource base for the Global Cluster beyond the Dutch Government, with focus on funding through Save the Children to promote equity between the partners; set up a trust fund for the ECU and certain cluster activities with joint decisionmaking on allocations. Both agencies acknowledge and highly value the support of the Government of the Netherlands to the Cluster through the EEPCT programme, which ends December The support has enabled the cluster to develop at all levels in support of achieving important results in the field, recognised in the EEPCT Progress Evaluation (PREV). At global level, funds have supported the development of institutional capacities of UNICEF and Save the Children to co-lead the cluster, and priority activities implemented by cluster partners. Diversifying the resource base for the Cluster is now an urgent priority. At the global level, the two agencies carry a joint responsibility to mobilise resources for (ECU) core operating costs for the medium term (2-3 years). *Hire consultant to develop fund raising strategy for the Cluster as a priority, using existing ECU budget. *Each agency to continue separate fundraising efforts, and keep eachother informed *Hold donor roundtable/ meeting on the Cluster Strategic Plan ECU CLAs, Steering CLAs, Steering, ECU ECU June 2001 (strategy ready) Ongoing

5 The immediate action step is to develop a funding mobilisation strategy, based on the Cluster Strategic Plan Both agencies will jointly agree which agency will approach specific donors, noting each is already taking steps to mobilise resources internally and externally. These efforts should continue, with regular information sharing through the ECU to ensure a joined up approach. In the spirit of collective and system-wide responsibility for the cluster approach, both agencies encourage other cluster partners to mobilise resources for education cluster workplan projects/activities. 1.4 ECU set-up The review recommends a full review of staffing using a clean sheet approach; ensure that JDs in the ECU emphasize partnership skills; clarify roles of Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator to strengthen management and accountabilities with option of equivalent Co-coordinators; and co-location of the ECU at UNICEF. Neither agency feels a trust fund is necessary or would yield efficiencies. The two agencies consider that the current staffing is appropriate and in line with those of other clusters, including UNICEF-led clusters, and aligned with delivery of the strategic plan and support to country clusters. It was further noted that cluster JDs, agency hiring policies and practices already emphasize partnership competencies. With regard to roles, Save the Children proposes equivalent Co-coordinator positions to reflect equality and joint accountability; UNICEF supports the principle but needs to review coherence with agency policy. In principle, UNICEF supports co-location at UNICEF Geneva to facilitate ECU teamwork; Save the Children prefers the current arrangement as part of a strengthened institutional presence in Geneva. This will be reviewed in *MoU update to clarify text on staffing; *Decide on location and cocoordinator positions, in consultation with HR departments. December Cluster architecture With a view to strengthening oversight of the Cluster, the review recommends splitting roles into a UNICEF-Save the Children It was agreed that MoU text related to staffing be reviewed and strengthened in line with the above. Decisions on location and co-coordination to be decided by year end. The basic recommended structures already exist in the and Strategic Advisory (SAG). It was agreed that the current, composed of Senior Managers and Line Managers in both agencies, should continue to oversee MoU implementation, manage *Clarify roles with Strategic Advisory co-chair, including communication channel. 6 April (Steering meeting)

6 management group overseeing the co-lead arrangement, and an expanded including other partners and regional/country levels staff to provide guidance to and be accountable for the full Cluster s strategy and activities. 2. Operations 2.1 Cluster oversight and coordination The (expanded) to more strongly oversee the work of the ECWG and ECU; greater connection between global leveland country clusters. 2.2 ECU planning, meetings, management and communication ECU to develop a Management Plan and operating budget; establish a meeting management system; new ECU staff to be appointed by consensus of senior management; to more strongly ensure ECU accountability. 2.3 Relationship with other stakeholders ECU and ECWG should use partnership building techniques towards a more robust wider partnership and stronger sense of collective responsibility for the the co-lead partnership, and ensure ECUaccountability (support agency leadership). It was also agreed that the SAG, retaining member composition, should continue in its advisory role, focusing on cluster strategy and activities. The existing SAG ToR is considered appropriate. The two agencies agree that this group cannot have a dual accountability/advisory role. It was noted that on resource mobilisation, SAG ToR needs to reflect coordination and communication thru the ECU to avoid collision. See 1.5. The two agencies agree that the does not oversee the ECWG, but the co-lead arrangement. There is a need to track country education clusters in terms of delivery on coordination accountabilities and results for education. This is ongoing work including by the IASC Task Team on the Cluster Approach, IM Task Team, and the Cluster (Strategic Plan outcome 3). The two agencies acknowledge the significant progress made on these recommendations. The Cluster has completed a 3-year Strategic Plan and annual workplan, including a progress monitoring system. The associated ECU management plan and budget, including a communication component, will serve as tool for the to provide guidance and support to the ECU and ensure accountability. It was recognised that all recent review and selection of candidates for ECU positions has been done jointly, in accordance with MoU. The hiring agency constitutes the selection panel; the co-lead agency participates in the panel. Agreed representation on the selection panel in future, for the two ECU coordinator positions. The two agencies recognise the high level of commitment of ECWG members to the Cluster, and active participation of many others in country clusters. It was agreed that greater buy-in and synergies in terms of ECWG partners taking on greater responsibility in delivery of strategic plan activities and strengthening cluster *The ECU and ECWG to develop appropriate monitoring system as per Strategic Plan. *Management plan reviewed and approved by the Steering *MoU text to clarify Steering participation in selection of ECU cluster coordinators. *Sustained actions to strengthen partnerships focused on strategic plan delivery and country support as per Strategic Plan 4.5 Dec 2011 April 2011 As needed ongoing

7 success of the global cluster; colead agencies to clarify the differences and synergies between INEE and the Cluster. 3. Relationship among partners 3.1 Identity Promote an Cluster identity, and provide guidance to cluster staff on how to represent the cluster (rather than own agency). 3.2 Transparency Greater transparency on UNICEF funding available to the cluster; greater clarity on procedures/ timings for processing allocations. 3.3 Institutional commitment Each co-lead agency review and renew commitment to the partnership, fulfil commitments. 4. Added value & partnership accountability 4.1 Added value to cluster goals Co-lead agencies to clarify purpose, role and structure of cluster architecture and operating procedures at country and global level; ECU/ECWG to prioritize provision of guidance, tools, and training to country clusters. activity at country level needs to be pursued. This includes working more closely with a set of key operational partners (as per Strategic Plan outputs and activities 4.5). The Cluster and INEE have developed strategic plans through a part joint/part parallel process. This helped clarify synergies and complementarities, and areas of collaboration reflected in respective strategic plans. The Cluster has a logo and style guide, which the ECU will continue to promote with country clusters, and revise as appropriate. Guidance on how to represent the cluster is addressed in Cluster Coordinator training and Handbook. It is recognised that, while coordinators represent the cluster, and should be able to act autonomously to achieve the objectives of the cluster, they are not separate or independent from the agency as accountability remains with the CLA, requiring balance. The two agencies agreed that transparency has improved. The ECU has prepared an overview of available funding for 2011, including ECU staffing and operating costs, for the, for monitoring and funding mobilisation purposes. Institutional commitment has already been expressed at executive level in both co-lead agencies. Co-lead agencies, at all organizational levels, to adhere to the spirit and the letter of the revised MoU. The two agencies agreed that the co-lead arrangement adds value, including by increasing awareness on the importance of education in emergencies, education provision, and heightened voice for children overall. Partnership is a pillar of humanitarian reform; the co-lead arrangement demonstrates that UN-NGO partnerships can work, add value, increase resources, and enhance results. Planned revision of Joint Guidance in MoU will clarify cluster operations (see 1.2); provision of guidance/tools/ *Sustain current efforts in promoting identity and guidance on representing the cluster. *Sustain the systems that have been put in place for transparency *Incorporate appropriate text in the MoU *Prepare a joint statement on the added value of the co-lead arrangement for the organizations and for the results for children and young people /education. and Steering and Steering MoU drafting group (see 1.1) ongoing ongoing June 2011

8 4.2 Added value to partner organisations Co-leads to review comparative advantages each brings and how to better exploit them. 4.3 Partnership sustainability Co-lead agencies to assess value gained from partnership; put into place a grievance procedure. training priority in Strategic Plan. See 1.2 to be addressed as part of MoU update. See 1.2 to be addressed as part of MoU update.