My interview was basically one question. How would I go about coordinating the MA sector in Myanmar?  My ToR was not much help either and my orientation was essentially "Good luck Kim. "....

I have now successfully started the MA AoR for Myanmar. I sit on the Strategic Advisory Group to the Protection Cluster, am in the ICCG, the Humanitarian Access Working Group, The Disability Working Group, the PC and CP AoR. I am also attending international organised events through UNMAS and UNICEF. I also have been nominated to sit on the Global Advisory Group for EORE.  So this training is going to be really crucial to give me the confidence to represent my AoR to full capacity.  

Mines and other explosive weapons cause grave human suffering and have personally affected me. I hope that going forward the members of this course will be able to support each other to gain knowledge to improve our skills to respond to humanitarian situations as we are witnessing globally.

To make an informed decision, data overrides opinions and is key. Coordination uses the information from data to guide lifesaving interventions for children and avoid duplication of any sort. 

What is your experience with Sub National/Regional AoR in supporting coordination roles?

What experience is there on effective and productive working with Humanitarian Country Team?

I have a question, As you have been coaching this program for several years, and of course have all the needed experience, what is the best way to strengthen the coordination efforts between partners to avoid duplications?
Thanks 

Coordination is a core responsibility, through coordination, needs and gaps are identified, duplication avoided, participation enhanced, humanitarian standards applied, and human rights protected. 

Developing and maintaining a network of effective partnerships with the various stakeholders involved, facilitates coordination, and leads to provision of assistance and protection of the affected population.

Successful coordination includes all stakeholders in the humanitarian response. These may include national authorities, service providers, the host community, civil society and, most importantly, the persons of concern (affected people). 

Successful partnerships, and hence successful coordination, are in part dependent upon attitudes, skills, good leadership, clear and transparent communication, and an ability to establish consensus and build trust. They enable the stakeholders to plan and carry out comprehensive actions, establish missing but critical connections, identify new and better ways to solve problems and link complementary skills and resources of diverse persons and organizations. 

Effective coordination is underpinned by reliable, up-to date cross-sector information, which enables all stakeholders involved to assess the needs of all groups and to plan interventions to meet them. 

To make a difference, all stakeholders involved in coordination must believe in its benefits, commit to the process, and ensure that representation of needs and concerns of affected people are prioritized at all levels.

Laura Suleiman

Since the effective and successful protection coordination involves a big number of stakeholders which may include national authorities, UN agencies, International and National Organizations, the host community, and the persons of concern (affected people). Each of them has its own mandate, priorities, resources...etc. How can we better enhance their commitment to the whole protection coordination process?

Laura Suleiman 

1- Key message: Protection and humanitarian principles should be always guiding the humanitarian organizations and workers, with maintaining the “do no harm” principles, specifically in a highly politicized context. Community-based protection and building on the affected population’s resilience should be in the center of humanitarian programing. 

2- Question: How to establish adequate leadership roles between national and sub-national cluster coordination setups, and between AoRs?

1)   “Focus on results and highlight that the end result is more important than individual cluster positions. A holistic protection approach will achieve better outcomes for all vulnerable populations.”

I found this a very important reminder for all of us (in particular for those wearing different agency hats and who might be receiving additional pressure to pursue specific positions)

2)   The HLP sub-cluster is not formally activated in my operation and there are many political sensitivities around the topic resulting in HLP often being a bit neglected (which is in stark contrast to the huge needs!). 

 

The HLP module shed light on the important role of the Shelter sector in ensuring security of tenure by verifying rights and documentation. It also served as a stark reminder that in many situations women and girls only have access to property rights through male relatives, with widows being unable to reclaim their rights and property and ultimately deprived of their lands (already noted this as follow-up for the next GBV AoR meeting :-)). 

1)   The cluster approach provides the coordination architecture for non-refugee humanitarian emergencies, while the Refugee Coordination Model is activated in refugee situations. 

In complex situations with diverse population groups, asylum-seekers and refugees as well as refugee returnees might be overlooked in the overall humanitarian response coordination mechanisms (e.g., they are not reflected in the Syria HNO). At the same time, specific protection approaches for asylum-seekers and refugees (such as BID procedures for refugee children seeking durable solutions) might not be fully integrated/endorsed by the CP sub-cluster. 

Are there best practice models to ensure the integration of both approaches in mixed displacement situations?

2)   The functions and responsibilities of AoR lead agencies are identical to those of Cluster Lead Agencies, including the responsibility of Provider of Last Resort (this was also one of my key take-away messages).

Are there any best practices from the field (apart from engaging the RC/HC), acknowledging that in general, the protection cluster would address the issue and take on provider of last resort responsibility?

3)   Coordination in north-east Syria is characterized by 2 separate coordination mechanisms and 2 authorities  on the ground with no room for official engagement between the hubs. At the same time, even intra-hub coordination is complicated by the fact that the are we are covering is huge (three Governorates) and requires online meetings to engage all stakeholders (including local authorities), some of whom might not be familiar with technology (+ the internet connection is not great).

I would be interested to hear about practical experiences from other clusters and technical tips to ensure meaningful and effective online coordination, and how to manage the transition to online tools with  ‘traditional’ stakeholders.

 

4)   While persons with disabilities prominently feature in all publications when it comes to ‘leaving no one behind’ or ensuring all population groups are included in our response (AGD, AAP approaches etc), my personal experience is that if there is no dedicated focal point, task force etc that addresses disability inclusion, protection coordination work often deals with this topic as an afterthought and - most importantly - usually fails to honor the key theme of the disability movement - “nothing about us, without us” (e.g. by empowering and giving greater visibility to disability rights organizations, DPOs or advocates etc.).

How we can ensure that protection coordination takes the lead in ensuring that we all “walk the talk” (or rather “walk all the very well drafted inclusion language in our key documents”) when it comes to disability inclusion. Do we need a Disability AoR? Or at least encourage an inclusion taskforce structure under the protection sector?

 

5)   Climate change induced displacement is not new but gaining more and more traction as a concept. Clusters have been responding to natural disasters (e.g., the cyclone Idai response in Mozambique) – however, what about climate-related slow-onset disasters (e.g., due to environmental degradation linked to drought) in areas that are shaped by conflict (and related displacement). 

How can we ensure that our response equally considers the different needs, and to provide practical guidance to authorities dealing with these different types of displacement (which might be neglected as driven by economic factors only)?

6)    How to best engage with military actors on protection (including GBV/SEA) and how does civil-military coordination impacts protection outcomes? What is the practice in the field?

Ensure that gaps in people’s needs are addressed. The presence of a protection program is to ensure that the most critical needs of the affected population are identified and met. Where this doesn’t happen, then we have a catastrophe. It is therefore, are key responsibility to, always profile the needs of the people as much as possible to donors, humanitarian agencies and government authorities.

 

A key question that I still need answered is, how can we shift the focus of humanitarian responses from “needs based” to more rights based?

My questions:

· “All clusters have a responsibility to protect affected population, all clusters’ interventions and activities should aim to ensure centrality of protection, as the protection is the objective and intended outcome of humanitarian action”. 

· “Protection cluster should bring together protection partners who have the necessary expertise, resources, access, and capacity. Working to improve the protection context of affected populations who face protection threats”. 

· “The protection and safety of GBV survivors can be achieved only through coordinated, collective and sustained action. We know good coordination of interventions works and pays direct humanitarian dividends. Only through effective coordination can we bridge any gaps, address persistent challenges and make progress against common objectives. Specifically, GBV coordination ensures that every humanitarian response, from the earliest phases of a crisis, provides safe and comprehensive life-saving services for GBV survivors and mitigates the risks of GBV. GBV coordination ultimate goal is to eliminate GBV in all settings and make progress towards peace, security and human rights”.

· “Coordination: Effective coordination is essential to ensure better protection, assistance, and lasting solutions for PoC. Partnership and good coordination to address GBV enhances effective response, reduces duplication, ensures standards are met, and increases accountability to affected populations”.

· “In times of crisis – whether caused by armed conflict, sudden onset disaster, or an epidemic – children face significant protection concerns.  Thus, the Child Protection Cluster’s aim, as an Area of Responsibility within the Global Protection Cluster, is to lead the coordination of child protection efforts in humanitarian settings in order to ensure children in emergencies are protected from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence”.

 

· Usually, I face challenges between liaising with two authorities, and two humanitarian hubs in the northeast of Syria, all parties are usually reluctant to coordinate among each other’s due to political reasons and the sensitivity of the situation. in this case how do I make sure that I’m doing effective coordination, without jeopardize the whole sub-cluster operation?

·  At the northeast of Syria, we have camp settings, collective shelter, and urban settings, all in which the populations faced non-stop emergencies. how can the GBV sub-Cluster prioritize its interventions, while the GBV sub-cluster lack the capacity due to staff double hatting, continuous emergencies, lack of funds, partners do not have the capacity, and there is shortage in coordination between humanitarian actors? 

·  Lack of funds is a serious issue specially when it comes to responding to critical lifesaving activities, and access. we have multiple return areas that we can not reach due to lack of funds. how can we advocate for more funds? and with whom? also we faced difficulties on obtaining funds to cover the dignity kits distribution during emergencies and to camps in NES (no DK was distributed since 2 years), we addressed this issue since a year with all involved agencies, and national clusters with no solution, so UNHCR wanted to step in and cover the DK distribution although it is not UNHCR’s mandate, is that considered a good coordination and prioritizing resources ?

· What to do if the GBV cluster partners are not actively engaged and capacitated? when holding the monthly meetings most of the partners are passive or are not engaged with planning, and strategic maters, they are only focusing on the technical identified objectives, and does not know how to analysis the GBV situation. 

· How to insure accountability to affected populations? knowing that PSEA, and complaint mechanisms are in place, but either those mechanisms are not functioning, or the focal persons are corrupted. in this case how should we insure the accountability? 

·  What are the best capacity building efforts we can deliver to the cluster partners? to enhance the quality of coordination. 

· How to address the inability of leading effective virtual coordination, while the connectivity and means are not available?