1

EC SHARE - ETHIOPIA PROGRAMME Accelerating Resilience Capacity in Southern and Eastern Ethiopia (ARCE)

STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONALIZED SUBNATIONAL COORDINATION STRUCTURES AND HARMONIZATION MECHANISMS

Project EU Ref: FED/2014/ 354-294 -–Project FAO Ref: GCP/ETH/089/EC

Strengthening Institutionalized Sub-national Coordination Structures and Harmonization Mechanisms

Proceedings

National Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum (NESF) in the area of Food Security &Resilience Building Programs in Ethiopia

What challenges (gaps and overlaps) and how to strengthen our coordination mechanisms for resilience building?

EU/FAO in Collaboration with

RED-FS, DRM-ATF and IGAD

NDRM ATF, Addis, 28-7-2016

Photo 1 The NESF participants (photo credit: ILRI / A. Habtamu)

2

Contents

List of acronyms NESF.................................................................................................................................................4

Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................................5

Background information .............................................................................................................................................6

Welcome and introductions .......................................................................................................................................7

The root causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia ...........................................................................................................8

Conceptual framework and definitions ......................................................................................................................8

Gender session ...........................................................................................................................................................9

Parallel working groups presentations .................................................................................................................... 10

National coordination parallel working group .................................................................................................... 10

RED&FS presentation ...................................................................................................................................... 10

DRM-ATF presentation .................................................................................................................................... 11

PSNP presentation ........................................................................................................................................... 12

IGAD presentation ........................................................................................................................................... 12

OCHA presentation .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Subnational coordination parallel working group ............................................................................................... 15

Regional ATF structures presentation ............................................................................................................. 15

USAID / PRIME presentation ........................................................................................................................... 15

The EU RESET – LRRD approach presentation ................................................................................................. 16

OCHA Regional presentation ........................................................................................................................... 16

DRM-ATF FAO Regional presentation ............................................................................................................. 16

EU-Share presentation .................................................................................................................................... 16

Knowledge management parallel working group ............................................................................................... 18

IGAD presentation ........................................................................................................................................... 18

ILRI presentation ............................................................................................................................................. 18

Presentations from the three working groups. ....................................................................................................... 20

World café conversation on collective impact for resilience coordination ............................................................ 20

Leadership and Commitment (backbone organization) ...................................................................................... 21

Joint work and capacity of joint action (mutually reinforcing activities) ............................................................ 21

Common Framework (common agenda) ............................................................................................................ 21

3

Trust and Continuous Communication (continuous communication) ................................................................ 22

Knowledge Management (shared measurement) .............................................................................................. 22

Open Space on concrete ways forward ................................................................................................................... 22

How to build trust among stakeholders? ............................................................................................................ 22

Developing an Ethiopian KM toolkit .................................................................................................................... 22

See all the action points happen at all levels ...................................................................................................... 22

Identifying the resilience backbone organization (RBO) ..................................................................................... 23

Developing accountability strategic framework and guidelines ......................................................................... 23

What is new? Making it happen .......................................................................................................................... 23

Closing statements and way forward (next steps) .................................................................................................. 24

Final comments and closing ................................................................................................................................ 24

Evaluation of the Forum .......................................................................................................................................... 25

List of appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 1 – Useful links ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix 2 – Agenda of the NESF ........................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 3 – Description of the NESF event and process ...................................................................................... 33

Appendix 4 – Definitions and conceptual framework ............................................................................................. 35

Appendix 5 – List of NESF participants .................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 6 – Forum (process) evaluation and next steps ...................................................................................... 47

Evaluation of the NESF Forum and its preparation process .................................................................................... 47

Next steps ................................................................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix 7 – Process documentation ..................................................................................................................... 51

Appendix 8 – List of all presentations given at the forum (in chronological order) ................................................ 53

4

List of acronyms NESF

AKLDP Agricultural Knowledge Learning Documentation and Policy project

DP Development Partner (donor agency)

DRI Disaster Risk Initiative

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRM-ATF Disaster Risk Management – Agricultural Task Force

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GIS Geographic Information System

GiZ German Development Cooperation Agency (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit in

German)

HRD Humanitarian Requirement Document

IDDRSI IGAD drought disaster resilience and sustainability initiative

IGAD Inter Governmental Agency for Development

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

KM Knowledge Management

LRRD Link between relief, rehabilitation and development

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MIS Management Information System

MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources

MoLF Ministry of Livestock and Fishery

NESF National Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum

NDRMC National Disaster Risk Management Commission

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OCHA United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

PIF Policy and Investment Framework

PRIME Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion

PSNP Productive Safety Net Program

Q&A Questions and answers

RBO Resilience backbone organization

RED&FS SWG Rural Economic Development & Food Security Sector Working Group

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

5

Executive summary

The National Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum (NESF) in the area of food security and resilience

building programs in Ethiopia conducted two days’ Forum from 7th to 8th December 2016 at ILRI compound in

Addis Ababa.

91 participants spanning donor agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governmental agencies’ and

other actors attended this forum which was the fourth of a series of which the three previous were organized by

EU and RED&FS SWG, while this one was organized by FAO and facilitated by ILRI team.

Throughout the two days, the participants attempted to identify the key gaps and overlaps in terms of resilience

coordination and to identify ways to mainstream coordination mechanisms and strengthening the

institutionalization of lessons and knowledge.

The key conclusions of the forum are the following:

- Coordination mechanisms are disconnected from each other and despite the fact that most actors value

coordination, there were only few incentives to date to connect all the spots around the coordination of

resilience. .

- Resilience and disaster risk management are cross-sectoral issues that are more complex to organize in a

satisfactory coordination mechanism. However, a number of discussions pointed to the suggestion of

entrusting the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) as the lead agency to coordinate

resilience building programs.

- The main gaps highlighted lie at the junction between: a) Humanitarian and development coordination,

b) federal and national coordination, c) planning and implementation (the policy in terms of resilience

building is sometimes there but not always applied).

- Connecting the capacities, insights, data, experience, transport and other logistical arrangements of the

various resilience-building and coordination initiatives would be a useful way forward, hopefully

supported by a general strategy or guidance document on the how to best coordinate resilience building

initiatives.

- Gender mainstreaming and transformation have a long way to go in resilience building programs and even

more in coordination spaces where too few women and youths can represent different, complementary

viewpoints to improving coordination.

- The virtues of knowledge management (KM) are too little known across the panel. As a result there is no

overall KM strategy to support the coordination of resilience, too little documentation of experiences and

sharing/dissemination of these. Setting up a space or platform to do so seems a useful way forward to

consider, hopefully backed with capacity development about KM.

The key next steps include the development of a short document (2 pager) that will synthesize some of the most

promising recommendations put forward by the NESF participants. This document will be used as a position paper

to organize a longer-term process to strengthen the coordination of resilience building initiatives in Ethiopia.

In February 2017, a short after action review meeting will look back at the achievements of the NESF against its

intended objectives.

6

Background information The European Union (EU), under its ''Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (EC/SHARE) program'' is providing

support to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) project “Strengthening Institutionalized

Subnational Coordination Structures and Harmonization Mechanisms”. This has taken on particular importance

following the El Niño phenomenon and ensuing drought in 2015-2016. The EC-SHARE program strategically links

development and resilience interventions to short-term humanitarian action. The EC-SHARE program is improving

resilience coordination in the country, and holding resilience and food security coordination and experience

sharing forums nationally and in six regional states (Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Somali, Oromia and SNNPR). The forums

will help identify key needs/gaps related to resilience coordination, and propose recommendations to address

these.

The EC-SHARE project aims at stimulating a wider process –beyond the forums- aiming at improving the

coordination of resilience-building initiatives in Ethiopia.

Objectives of the NESF process (beyond the Forum) are to increase the effectiveness of the overall development

process, through:

a) Enhancing subnational/regional coordination structures and harmonization mechanisms

b) Improving actions on resilience building and strengthening the link between relief, rehabilitation and

development

c) Strengthening the capacity for internalization and institutionalization of lessons/knowledge

d) Strengthening the mainstreaming of gender in the coordination mechanisms

Specific objectives of the National Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum (NESF) are to:

1. Share experiences around resilience coordination at national and sub-national level

2. Identify major gaps and overlaps in resilience coordination in the country

3. Propose concrete next steps to address major gaps and overlaps in resilience coordination in the country

4. Identify major knowledge management gaps and identify practical steps to close the gaps in support of

overall coordination

Please note that these proceedings are complemented with the direct and nearly verbatim notes of the NESF

forum, available at: http://ilri-events.wikispaces.com/NESF_Dec2016.

7

Welcome and introductions The Forum was opened with a welcome and introductory speech of, Her Excellency, Chantal Hebberecht (The

ambassador for the European Union), Mr. Mohammed Salih (Deputy Country Representative of FAO Ethiopia)

and Ato Dejene Abesha (The Representative and co-chair of the RED-FS WG) opened this fourth forum on food

security.

In their opening remarks, they

stressed the importance of

donor alignment and aid

effectiveness; the vital

importance of getting

marginalized communities to

become resilient in the face of

droughts and other shocks

(particularly with climate

change looming); the urgency of

coordinating all initiatives

geared towards developing

resilience and the difficulty of

coordinating to finance and

capitalize despite the intention

of many actors to invest in it etc.

They encouraged all participants

to give their best efforts in the two days and to focus on strengthening coordination mechanisms to ensure food

security and better livelihood options for the communities of Ethiopia relying on agriculture.

After the opening remarks, Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza (Dr.), the project coordinator elaborated how the National

Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum (NESF) in the area of food security & resilience building programs in

Ethiopia was organized. He further explained that this event followed different path from the previous forms

organized: mainly for two reasons:-

a) ‘Utilization’ focused approach

b) Participatory approach

With regards to the utilization focused approach, we intend to reflect not only on the importance of the forum

but also to its capacity to contribute resilience coordination mechanisms at large. The means and the intention

for this forum and the process around it was considered. The project aimed to ensure that this is not only an event

but actually an important milestone that effectively contributes to strengthening resilience coordination

mechanisms.

The participatory approach is introduced in more detail in a one-pager document, clarifying this event (refer

appendix 3). The project aimed from the start in June 2016, to involve technical working groups focusing on

different themes and aspects of the forum to develop more national ownership over this event and the process

beyond it.

Photo 2 Chantal Hebberecht (EU) welcoming all participants (photo credit: ILRI / A. Habtamu)

8

Rodriguez-Ariza pointed to the challenges associated with the participation and coordination of the process

leading to the forum. He emphasized the fact that the participants of the NESF would be the main actors of this

forum and that they actively involved in seeking solutions to challenges identified together.

The root causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia Mr. David Mogollón (Head of Section of the Rural Development and Food Security in the Delegation of the EU in

Ethiopia) presented the root causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia, as the core theme of Forum.

In his presentation, Mogollón emphasized: despite significant economic growth and progress with access to basic

services, there is still high vulnerability, poverty, malnutrition and food insecurity in the country, with recurrent

humanitarian support. The root causes of these challenges lie in the demographic growth which puts pressure on

resources (land, food, water,, climate variability and change, challenges in the agricultural sector nil productivity,

land tenure, lack of access to finance and technology etc.), wider economic trends (insufficient involvement of the

private sector, agricultural led economy, ). He also emphasized on the most vulnerable areas and options to

support the economic transition in these areas. His final message was improving coordination among partners at

different levels to strengthen and harmonize the efforts of all stakeholders in a sustainable manner for resilience

building in Ethiopia.

The presentation of David Mogollón is annexed.

Conceptual framework and definitions After a short break, the facilitators divided the group in to different groups to discuss and present solution, identify

gaps and overlaps and to suggest recommendations. The definitions of 5 key concepts were presented at the

forum, by the following organization. The reason for agreeing on a conceptual framework was pointed out during

the NESF preparation: to avoid any thematic dialogue that might hamper dialogues between stakeholders. One of

the coordination team members mentioned that at a previous resilience workshop over 40 definitions of resilience

were listed.

All organizations who presented the definitions are members of the coordination. The definitions of the following

5 key concepts were presented.

Coordination by Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza, FAO

Resilience by Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza, FAO

Coordination of resilience by Nathaniel Scott, USAID – (Please refer to the presentation of N. Scott).

Gender by Ankets Petros, Oxfam

Knowledge management by Ulrich Bormann, GIZ – (Please refer to the U. Bormann.

After introducing the key concepts’ definitions, the speakers proceeded with questions and answers.

One of the main comments raised by the participants is related to the importance of gender and not to focus only

on women but also to consider youth and other marginalized groups.

9

Photo 3 Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza (FAO) introducing the definition of 'coordination' (photo credit: FAO / T. Legesse)

Gender session The next session brought together four gender specialists:

Meron Kidane, from CARE Ethiopia

Immaculada Guixe, from European Union (EU)

Ankets Petros, from Oxfam

Wondimagegn Mekonnen, from United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

During the dialogue they had with the audience, the overall progress of gender issue in Ethiopia, and some

harmonization efforts carried so far were acknowledged. But, they also stressed that there is still too little

understanding of what gender is and that more efforts are needed to go in involving and identifying the (usually

different) coping mechanisms of not only girls and women but also boys and youth to raise awareness about

gender and to mainstream it. In that process it’s essential to involve also different actors (such as traditional

leaders) and to focus on the access to resources for example; women more resilient.

Women’s empowerment remains a very difficult issue that needs some qualitative indicators such as access to/

control over resources. Also there are hardly any gender accountability mechanisms, and at least there has to be

a baseline data that can be assessed when we want to undertake impact assessment of gender interventions.

10

The experts mentioned the availability of tools (such as CARE’s ‘Social Analysis in Action’ or the ‘gender

marker/scorecard’ which led to real breakthroughs in terms of gender norms. Petros pointed to the fact that

cultures are slow to change and that gender approaches also bear a risk, especially if not enough harmonization

happens across gender initiatives.

The final recommendation take-homes from the gender experts were that too few women are involved in

resilience coordination and a space needs to be created for them to engage on this. Right now, the leadership on

all gender matters in the national system is with the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs but gender

mainstreaming likely won’t take off without support from focal points in other ministries/sectors.

After the gender session, the 91 participants were split in three parallel working groups organized to focus on a)

National coordination of resilience, b) Subnational coordination of resilience and c) knowledge management.

Parallel working groups presentations The three working groups engaged on the group discussions in the afternoon of day 1 and early morning of day 2.

The full results of each parallel working group are presented below. At the end of day 1, a short plenary session

delivered out key reflections from participants. These focused on the interactive participation formats, on the lack

of harmonization that emerged from most presentations.

National coordination parallel working group On day 1, The National Coordination Working Group made five presentations: ‘RED&FS sector working group: an

overview and lessons learnt by Ato Dejene Abesha, RED&FS

‘DRM-ATF general Overview , Achievements and Lessons learnt from La Nino R 2010 /11 and El Nino

2015/16 Responses’ by Ato Tamrat Tsegaye, NDRMC and Mr. Adrian Cullis, AKLDP/Tufts University)

‘PSNP: 14 years of coordinating food security by Mrs. Fatima Naqvi, World Bank

‘IGAD’ by Dr.Edmealem Shitaye, IGAD

OCHA (Ato Tadesse / Paul Handley)

RED&FS presentation In his presentation, Ato Dejene briefed the establishment of the RED&FS SWG in 2008 based on the Paris

Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. He explained the organogram of the platform including the task forces and

technical committees it comprises, as well as the activities involved in the coordination of this platform.

RED&FS has achieved a certain degree of alignment with government policies, strategies and programs and there

are fairly structured mechanisms for joint planning and joint review, decision-making etc.

However, there are also challenges: the time required for coordination and various levels of commitment, the

necessity to ensure mutual accountability and, the challenge of decentralizing this process.

The key recommendations include:

Further alignment with government policies, strategies and programs

Use existing mechanism for establishing platforms

Inclusiveness, partnership commitment and effective leadership

11

Please refer to the presentation of Dejene Abesha.

DRM-ATF presentation The delegate from NDRMC, Ato Tarmrat Tsegaye and Mr. Adrian Cullis, presented the DRM-ATF mandate since its

establishment in 2002.

In this presentation co-chaired by Ato Tamrat Tsegaye and Adrian Cullis, the presenters came back to the mandate

of DRM-ATF (set up in 2002) to coordinate any agriculture related emergency and recovery interventions, and to

provide technical support in the previous droughts and crises.

Photo 4 Adrian Cullis (Tufts) introducing DRM-ATF and SAG (photo credit: ILRI / A. Habtamu)

The DRM ATF produced disaster preparedness, response and recovery road map as guidance to government

decision-makers and donors to prioritize livelihood-based responses.

The speakers identified the following challenges:

Ato Tamrat: poor targeting of beneficiaries; planning and implementation of least prioritized interventions over

relatively less affected areas; under reporting and incomplete information about fund allocation/utilization;

duplication of efforts; little/no accountability vis-à-vis affected population; the existence of formal l approach on

disaster risk management but not implemented adequately.

12

Adrian Cullis: No specific response on livestock and many of livestock lost as a result; Horizontal coordination was

not optimal; duplication of efforts (between non-governmental organizations [NGOs], government, donor

agencies etc.); not enough connection between federal and regional responses; not enough prioritization.

The following recommendations were proposed:

All agencies concerned must share ‘who does what where when’ in a timely fashion

Encourage better joint planning/monitoring and evaluation of emergency/recovery interventions

Provide more platforms for technical discussions and coordination of agricultural initiatives

Organize knowledge management of ATF experiences and print a compendium

Assign a backbone organization (e.g. the National Disaster Risk Management Commission [NDRMC] with

the mandate to coordinate drought management but rather with a supervising role rather than with an

implementing role

Get development partners (DPs) to ask what support is required from the government rather than decide

on their own where to allocate resources

Please refer the presentation of Ato Tamrat.

PSNP presentation The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) was set up in 2005 to improve food security, livelihoods and nutrition

and to enhance household and community resilience to shocks. It works with a safety net approach based on cash

transfers, permanent direct support, public works, nutrition and health linkages etc.

Mrs. Fatima Naqvi of the World Bank highlighted the leadership and commitment of PSNP in these areas and

zoomed in the targeting approach of the PSNP through geographic allocation and household targeting. This

program is implemented by several ministries and started with joint planning.

There were many Challenges: working in silos, un-clarity on roles and responsibilities across agencies involved,

little engagement, lack of common framework, lack of coordination for joint work and capacity and issues of trust

and communication.

The recommendations are:

Social protection programs that scale up in response to drought can mitigate the impacts of shocks on

household

We need to build on the investment of the past 14 years

Perhaps use PSNP as a platform to address the poorest i.e. a scalable safety-net, linkages to livelihoods,

health and other social services

Please refer the presentation of Mrs. Fatima Naqvi.

IGAD presentation Edmealem Shitaye, IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) Country Coordinator in

Ethiopia, referred back to the many shocks affecting the region and Ethiopia and to the 2011 summit that decided

13

to allow IGAD to coordinate regional work on drought/famine management by linking humanitarian and

development work. IGAD focuses on result-based joint planning and monitoring.

Shitaye looked at the various disaster risk initiatives (DRI’s) in Ethiopia and pointed to the many different projects

co-existing before zooming in on the coordination mechanism of the IGAD drought disaster resilience and

sustainability initiative (IDDRSI) with various clusters etc.

The challenges he highlighted, echoed the points that were raised by the previous speakers: silo thinking between

DPs and government; limitations in the choice of thematic interventions; the absence of a flagship program on

disaster risk management; the fact that the different DRIs are not yet strong enough on their own; the insufficient

linkages between humanitarian and development initiatives or across various flagship programs; the absence of

a knowledge management strategy and knowledge sharing practices. Shitaye recommended the following points:

Strengthen the IDDRSI-Project Coordination Units at all levels for stronger coordination and leadership

Establish/strengthen required platforms at all levels (TCs &TFs)

Design & undertake a harmonized and regular joint planning & implementation support/ supervision

mission and reporting mechanism

Establish strong KM system and feedback mechanisms among stakeholders engaged in drought resilience

building initiatives

Organize a regular learning experience events at all levels

Please refer the presentation of Edmealem Shitaye.

OCHA presentation In this last presentation from the national coordination working group, Ato Tadesse Bekele and Paul Handley

(OCHA) introduced the humanitarian coordination structure, presented maps showing how woredas were able to

anticipate harvest performance and came back on the OCHA 2016-2017 response to El Niño.

Handley and Tadesse stressed that the new ‘Humanitarian Requirement Document’ (HRD) is not only looking at

saving lives and livelihoods but also addressing development and/or risk reduction issues.

Recommendations from the speakers included: Get DPs to recognize the HRD Clarify the ability of development

programs to respond to humanitarian calls etc. Share knowledge, analysis and information between OCHA and

RED&FS

Mainstream DRM policies in public and private sectors

Improve the system inherited from the response to the last El Niño crisis

Please refer to the presentation of Paul Handley.

Questions and Answer session followed and further discussions

How to manage the risk of PSNP households dependent the support?

RED&FS is a natural platform for coordination and should be the lead, but for cross-boundary issues, IGAD

is mandated to coordinate activities

The question of NGOs involvement remains high: RED&FS deals with the most important ones, IGAD

engages with them through its 3W tool to map their activities in the country.

14

Now is the right time to reform the system that responds to El Niño and recurrent droughts (which can be

predicted etc.) – we just shouldn’t let that opportunity pass.

On day 2, The National coordination working group discussion was held, around the following topics:

How to improve coordination of resilience between agriculture and DRM sectors and across major

programs (PSNP, SLMP, AGP, and DRSLP) at national level?

What are key gaps and overlaps emerging from all these experiences?

How can development and humanitarian ‘worlds’ better align with each other at national level?

Why are good practices and lessons learned not mainstreamed?

The key recommendations that came out of these discussions were:

There are sometimes competing systems e.g. cash for food vs. food aid – this might need to be looked

into and ironed out? We might need a market-based approach to development and even in humanitarian

work, we could consider emergency market mapping: supply of inputs?

The fragmentation across sectors and agencies requires very clear roles and responsibilities to be

delineated in times of drought (or other crises) and otherwise.

DRM-ATF could be a useful platform for resilience building in the absence of crisis

It would be great for all ministries to consider how to integrate DRM in their working plans – to follow a

general strategy or strategic plan that includes DRM. Related to that all programs might need to have an

HRD response by having provisions in a contingency plan to be able to reallocate resources in case of

shocks?

Perhaps there is value in having one common plan on resilience as is the case with nutrition and the

National Nutrition Program.

Consider the role of the private sector and NGOs (and IGAD) more systematically?

Suggest having the National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) co-chaired by OCHA and

one development agency to build stronger linkages between humanitarian and development efforts?

Planning at woreda level seems the important crux of the matter: perhaps PSNP & HRD need to discuss

and link up at this level, also considering at existing capacities at woreda level.

Beneficiaries’ databases could be merged/shared?

All actors generally could do with more communication, documentation, sharing – but this boils down to

each agency’s internal organization, and there is as such no real platform to share all information about

resilience building across Ethiopia – although at least the upcoming MIS/GIS that will be mapping all level

interventions for all flagship programs should be a useful step in that direction.

Generally more efforts to develop strategic knowledge management (KM) initiatives are required for most

organizations in this ‘space’.

It might be necessary to agree on what constitutes ‘good practice’ i.e. a tested methodology that led to

good results (how did we get there?) and that is easily replicable/scalable.

15

Subnational coordination parallel working group

On day 1, three topics were given to this group:

1. Regional ATF structures and their contribution to strengthen coordination Mechanisms for resilience

building (Akloweg Nigatu, FAO Coordination Project)

2. Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion (USAID and PRIME/Michael Jacobs,

Mercy Corps)

3. The EU RESET – LRRD approach and its contribution and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to strengthen

coordination mechanisms for resilience building (Berhanu Taye and RESET clusters, EU)

They were followed by three other presentations given in a ‘bus stop’ rotating format:

4. Humanitarian OCHA (Cédric Petit, OCHA)

5. Regional DRM-ATF (Herrie Hamedu and Alemseged GebreMariam, FAO Field Office Coordinators)

6. EC-SHARE (Berhanu Taye, EU and Ibrahim Kasso, Bale Cluster)

Regional ATF structures presentation Akloweg Nigatu from FAO kicked off the series of presentation by introducing the regional agricultural task force

structures. He highlighted challenges of lack of coordination or lack of recognition of its importance, the

multiplicity of actors on the ground and high turnover which undermines trust, and the uncoordinated nature of

(too) many coordination meetings.

He recommended a few recommendation at the end of his presentation: gather evidence and examples of the

achievements through coordination, leave organizations that can’t commit to coordination, stimulate leadership

commitment for coordination, put in place joint planning / implementation / monitoring, and strengthen

information flows.

Please refer to the presentation of Akloweg Nigatu (FAO)

USAID / PRIME presentation Michael Jacobs of Mercy Corps introduced the experience of the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID)’s Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion (PRIME) program.

PRIME is a complex program across three regions and 10 implementing partners. It has to harmonize its strategic

approach through a flexible concept note (vs. inflexible plan) system and a common platform for activity reporting

– which helps all parties involved find out who does what where.

Recommendations highlighted: Use a flexible concept note approach supported by adaptive planning, hold

meetings and make decisions early to understand implementation challenges early, regularly refresh staff

capacities through training.

Please refer to the presentation of Michael Jacobs (Mercy Corps)

16

The EU RESET – LRRD approach presentation Berhanu Taye (EU) gave the last presentation of this group about the Link between Relief, Rehabilitation and

Development (LRRD) approach of the EU RESET cluster. This program covers nearly 3 million Ethiopians and is

implemented by over 30 NGOs. The coordination mechanisms of EU RESET work at consortium (project) level

through a coordination platform and at cluster (zone) level with another platform and terms of reference for joint

planning, review, monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

Please refer the presentation of Berhanu Taye (EU)

OCHA Regional presentation Cédric Petit introduced the duties of the regional OCHA platform which is used for emergency response. Resilience

is not an issue that this platform dealt with before but it is progressively touching upon it.

Challenges include: The resilience coordination efficiency varies from region to region. No agency staff is making

decisions as they are far from their headquarters. And there are staff turnover issues.

DRM-ATF FAO Regional presentation Herrie Hamedu and Alemseged Gebremariam introduced the experience of DRM-ATF in the regions. Successes

include timely response delivery, reduced duplication of resources, linking relief/rehabilitation and development,

some sharing of information and improved targeting of beneficiaries.

Their challenges include high staff turnover and low participation, the absence of woreda and zonal platforms,

the relatively limited joint planning and coordination and insufficient linkage between relief coordination and

development.

EU-Share presentation Berhanu Taye and Ibrahim Kasso introduced the good experience of the Bale, South-Omo and Wolayta clusters:

good horizontal coordination, some transparency measures put in place, technical synergy, joint monitoring,

rotational leadership, connection with a zonal task force, and the standardization of their approach. However they

also face challenges: no vertical coordination or presence of other coordination mechanisms.

These presentations further introduced and highlighted challenges: staff turnover in the OCHA regional platform,

lack of vertical coordination mechanisms, duplication of efforts with other coordination mechanisms, limited joint

planning, poor linkages between humanitarian and development efforts.

On day 2, this parallel working group focused on the challenges with vertical coordination: “How to improve

coordination of resilience between woreda, zonal, regional and federal level?”

17

Photo 5 Subnational coordination group participants discussing key gaps and overlaps (photo credit: ILRI / A. Habtamu)

The participants summarized the key challenges in subnational coordination:

government ownership and commitment

budget allocation from government

humanitarian and development partners need to work jointly (strengthen the link between the two)

avail resources for coordination

clarification of the concept ‘resilience’

research and policy support

existence of parallel coordination structures

government structures support to the donors/development actors is limited

overlapping of direction and follow up

weak communication flow and feedback

inconsistency of participants of the coordination structure

lack of review of the existing coordination structures’ performances.

They also pondered that the reason behind the insufficient mainstreaming of lessons learned was due to:

insufficient information exchange between NGOs (and between federal/regional/zonal/woreda levels) partly due

to the absence of a forum for this; frequent governmental restructuring which leads to confusion in the

coordination; insufficient documentation and promotion of lessons learned (usually not linked with the way

forward); absence of criteria to define what are good lessons learned.

18

The group made the following recommendations, going forward with aligning humanitarian and development

levels:

Map coordination structures

Share available information among humanitarian partners

Include resilience initiatives in Humanitarian side Operationalize LRRD by implementing policy/strategy

and directives that don’t disrupt ongoing development – establish link between RED&FS SWG and

OCHA/HCT

Use resources efficiently e.g. avoid repetitive pond/dug well rehabilitation and recovery during

emergency operations

Adopt development programs (e.g. PSNP)

Ensure government leadership

Allocate adequate budget to task forces.

After this group work, the participants from this working group joined the other working group participants.

Knowledge management parallel working group As other working groups, the knowledge management working group first introduced a couple of presentations

sharing the approach and results of KM in a couple of organisations: IGAD and the International Livestock Research

Institute (ILRI).

IGAD presentation Djemal Mansour introduced the experience of KM across IGAD member countries. Among the successes in this

effort, a harmonized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process that should lead to unified M&E strategies across

all resilience projects implemented in these countries; Draft data sharing policy and protocol documents; the

development of KM strategy in progress.

He also pointed some challenges: lack of understanding about what KM is, limited resources, technological change

outpacing technological capacity of staff, lack of commitment; duplication of efforts

Please refer the presentation of Djemal Mansour (IGAD)

ILRI presentation Peter Ballantyne of ILRI was skyped in to share the experience of this CGIAR research institute with the working

group.

The presentation talked about the dual approach to KM: codification (collecting information and documents and

curating them), personalization (sharing and communication of tacit knowledge).

Please refer the presentation of Peter Ballantyne.

The KM working group proceeded with a brainstorming session that focused on three questions:

1. What should Knowledge Management achieve in coordination spaces?

2. Why it has been achieved?

19

3. Why have things not been achieved?

The group also reflected on various issues and pointed to several challenges:

Tools: the need to harmonize these, the fact that there are good documentation experiences but that is not being

shared and there’s a need to focus on quality standards

Robust shared vision: There’s a lack of knowledge sharing culture in institutions and there is duplication of efforts.

Capacity: Capacity to effectively implement KM is very limited.

Strategy: There’s no effective platform for KM, there’s a need to create learning institutions – and there’s a lack

of leadership commitment to KM.

The group made the following recommendations (on day 2):

- Leadership commitment:

o One entity should take the lead on KM and use the IGAD framework, as well as strengthen RED&FS

and Planning and Programming Directorates of the two ministries.

o Develop a comprehensive coordination strategy including KM (specifying minimum requirements,

tools and platform)

o Allocate budget for KM and coordination (e.g. budget line for KM and coordination, contribution

for coordination spaces)

- Capacity development:

o Use a community of practice to train people on the basic definition of KM

o Then create awareness about KM for and influence top managers and decision makers

o Then organize training of trainers on tools, technology and finally organize in-house training on

KM

o Assign a dedicated KM person in each institution

- Improve learning from failure:

o Organize regular and structured lessons learnt sessions within/across organizations, between

donors and partners both at national and regional level (through NESF and RCESF).

20

=== [Day 2 ] ===

The second day continued with parallel working group sessions until all groups came together to share their

findings and work together on the collective ways forward.

Presentations from the three working groups. One by one, the rapporteurs of each of the three parallel working groups gave a short presentation introducing

the key take-homes from the working groups

- Refer the report of the national coordination working group - Refer the report of the subnational coordination working group - Refer the report of the knowledge management working group

World café conversation on collective impact for resilience coordination The whole set of participants discussed possible steps forward to achieve collective impact with resilience

coordination, based on the definition presented by Nathaniel Scott on the first day. These includes:

Leadership and Commitment (backbone organization)

Joint Work and Capacity for Joint Action (mutually reinforcing activities)

Common Framework (common agenda)

Trust and Continuous Communication (continuous communication)

Knowledge Management (shared measurement)

21

Photo 6NESF participants having a table discussion (photo credit: ILRI / A. Habtamu)

Leadership and Commitment (backbone organization) The participants felt that it might be worth considering NDRMC as the lead agency for coordination of resilience.

They suggested the development of national guidelines for coordination (out of need for accountability), hopefully

backed by the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. And they

recognized that resources are crucial to make coordination leadership a reality. The leadership of coordination

was suggested to fall under different line ministries since resilience is multi-sectoral. e.g. DRM-ATF could perhaps

be led under the consortium/board of MoLF and MoANR.

Joint work and capacity of joint action (mutually reinforcing activities) The groups discussed the need to build on existing efforts, to undertake more joint field work and joint analysis

across all stakeholders and perhaps to pre-empt tax for coordination (asking organizations to pay for the

facilitation of coordination of resilience). Based on a sound needs analysis (in terms of both vertical and horizontal

coordination), a diagnosis of the key gaps can then lead to joint planning. This needs to be accompanied by real

power to enforce decisions, and accountability measures, as well as harmonized rules, guidelines and strategy.

Common Framework (common agenda) The first measure to make this happen is to ensure clarity about who is the backbone organization (highest

government level – e.g. NDRMC etc.). Once that is clear, it becomes easier to develop a shared vision. And the

participants suggested having donors pool funds and give technical backstopping at different levels (Federal,

Regional, etc.).

22

Trust and Continuous Communication (continuous communication) Trust should be promoted as a value for coordination, and donor transparency would be seen by the participants

as a helpful step forward. Transparency (bottom up and top down) was co-opted as a crucial measure to build

trust. Finally, they also suggested developing a strong platform with a standard communication protocol (modus

operandi). The continuous communication can also be reinforced with feedback mechanisms at all levels (bottom-

up and top-down) and by establishing a network between implementers at federal and regional level. Finally, the

participants suggested that trust would be strengthened through the integrity of data and of people – and creating

a safe space to disclose ‘underachievement’ (focusing on drawing the lessons to improve rather than just on the

results).

Knowledge Management (shared measurement) KM is a challenge and it probably requires a separate strategy, following IGAD’s guidelines. The government’s

(MoLF and MoANR) endorsement of that KM strategy as well as that from the NDRMC was seen as crucial to make

it operational. Then the KM process could be initiated, a KM platform could be created for the coordination of

resilience building initiatives. In parallel, sensitization efforts to champion KM (collecting information and

collecting people) in organizations would be a useful step forward – and finally some systematic actions for

KM002E were suggested without further specification.

Open Space on concrete ways forward In an Open Space Technology session, participants were invited to propose concrete ways forward to improve the

coordination of resilience-building initiatives. Several topics came to the fore, though only six of them were

discussed in the end (and rated with popular votes).

How to build trust among stakeholders? The environment is constrained by the competition for funding and the duplication of efforts but building on more

transparency, communication and developing common ground, it should be possible to develop trust. It might be

helpful to entertain a dialogue with the government for guidelines about this.

Developing an Ethiopian KM toolkit A toolkit could include (verified) success stories and funding from different programs, and it should have regular

revisions as well as independent story writing and selection based on a set of criteria including gender. Hopefully

by the fact that it’s different from mere innovation, the toolkit of success stories could lead to uptake of useful

approaches and tools.

See all the action points happen at all levels Many issues came up in this Forum and the participants here suggested delivering key messages to the

government to ensure a better coordination mechanism is put in place. Whatever structure is elected to play a

key role in resilience coordination, it should have accountability mechanisms. That structure should then develop

23

a strategic document flanked with proper knowledge management (for documentation, learning, sharing) linking

back to accountability.

Identifying the resilience backbone organization (RBO) That RBO should be a leader and champion of resilience, facilitate rather than implement, cross-sectoral and

relevant, as well as participatory. Some suggestions going ahead: a) Create a resilience building directorate b)

Define/agree what is resilience and c) Explore hosting RBO in NDRMC – although there could be some issues with

the linkages to mandate – or in MoA/PSNP.

Photo 7 Participants discussing options for the backbone organization (photo credit: ILRI / A Habtamu)

Developing accountability strategic framework and guidelines The group of participants working on this issue recognized that one of the major issues with the lack of

accountability is that it leads to the duplication mentioned earlier and an inefficient use of scarce resources. Going

forward, a framework for accountability should be developed.

What is new? Making it happen This group wondered what lessons we could learn from other similar experience-sharing mechanisms. If new

actors are defined for the coordination of resilience, what is going to be the new role of governmental, NGO,

donor and private sector actors at woreda, zonal, regional and federal level?

24

Recommendations included: Challenging actors to change and improve; Developing and funding new roles for

different actors; Applying new technology as appropriate; using new media.

With these six groups, the open space session led to the final, closing, session.

Closing statements and way forward (next steps) Carlos Rodriguez Ariza reminded all participants that the results of the forum and the suggestions made

throughout would be used and examined by various actors, starting with a small coordinating committee

consisting of Dejene Abesha, Gary Wallace, Berhanu Taye, Ulrich Bormann, the FAO coordination team and the

ILRI facilitators.

He reminded everyone about the utilization focus and the fact that this forum is the start of the next process,

which would include the development of (these) proceedings, the distilling of the proceedings into a short

document that helps act as a starting point for a conversation about the real concrete steps towards improving

resilience coordination.

Rodriguez-Ariza summarized the following next steps:

Dissemination of the forum proceedings and appendices

Develop a web page where all the presentations will be placed

Develop an internal evaluation of the process and the products

Write a 2/3-pager with few key messages to be communicated to the main resilience coordination

mechanisms (RED&FS, ATF, IGAD, NDRM TWG…): including forum conclusions and recommendations for

strengthening coordination for resilience

Host a short after action review meeting of the process, outputs and outcomes of the NESF in February

2017 or so

Carlos thanked everyone for their hard work and active engagement and participation in the process leading up

to and at the forum itself and handed over to the final speakers.

Final comments and closing Mohammed Saleh (FAO deputy country representative), Berhanu Taye (EU) and Dejene Abesha (RED&FS) closed

the Forum by thanking participants for making their time-scarce agenda compatible with this forum. They also left

the participants with encouraging statements and reflections that the Forum had accomplished its objectives

despite taking a very different route – a paradigm shift – compared with previous similar forums, and it had

achieved a higher degree of professionalism.

Dejene Abesha in particular also reminded everyone that the conversations that took place in the two days of the

forum needed to be shared with key people in Ministries and among development partners. He underlined the

need to address the connection between RED&FS and DRM-ATF. He finally mentioned that coordination requires

partnership commitment and trust building, as well as strong accountability mechanisms and above everything

else, ‘building upon the existing work’ rather than come up with entirely new initiatives and structures.

Documentation of good practices is key and the forum was a very useful learning space. With his closing remarks

the meeting was concluded. .

25

Evaluation of the Forum An evaluation form was administered to about 30 participants present at the last hour of the meeting. The main

conclusions of the evaluation are mentioned below. Additional details about the evaluation are available as

appendix 6.

The topics addressed were important and adequately covered and they mapped where coordination of

resilience actually happens.

Various participants mentioned they particularly enjoyed the fact that gender and knowledge

management were addressed in the forum.

They also enjoyed the recommendations/ways forward identified. Presentations were short and clear.

The combination of national and subnational levels was also appreciated.

What was mentioned as missing, content-wise, was:

- The experience of other important flagship programs (SLMP, AGP etc.)

- A sense of insufficient disaggregation between different types of actors

- Linking national and subnational even more strongly

- Coordination tools

Process-wise, the participants really enjoyed and were engaged, interactive and participatory nature of the

process followed, the energy of the facilitators and the innovation put in facilitation methods. They felt there was

a good balance and adequate time to discuss issues and between plenary and working group sessions, and they

enjoyed the fact that everyone’s perspective was invited and the suggestions made reflected the integration of

these different perspectives.

What could have been improved on the process?

Some participants felt there was redundancy in certain conversations and that the second day could have been

shorter. Some pointed out that the next steps were not clear enough and may mean that it’s difficult to act upon

them. Presentations were difficult to see from the screen in the tent.

The main and most important comment made by many participants is that the participation by government staff

was really and clearly insufficient, also putting some question marks on the likelihood of some results achieved

on the basis of the discussion at the forum. The NESF was planned to be outside Addis but given the situation it

was decided to take place in Addis so as to secure its implementation. This could implied less participation by

government and other stakeholders.

See appendix 6 for complete evaluation results, including from the process evaluation meeting that took place on

9 December 2016 at the RED&FS secretariat.

26

List of appendices

1. Useful links

2. Agenda of the NESF

3. Description of the NESF event and process

4. Definitions and conceptual framework

5. List of NESF participants

6. Forum (process) evaluation and next steps

7. Process documentation

8. List of presentations given at the forum (in chronological order)

27

Appendix 1 – Useful links NESF event website: http://ilri-events.wikispaces.com/NESF_Dec2016

Pictures of the event: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7907304@N04/albums/72157674203121203

RED&FS secretariat: www.moa-redfs.gov.et

Appendix 2 – Agenda of the NESF Day 1 – Taking stock of current experiences – the WHY WHAT HOW WHO?

Time Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Rapporteur

Notes

8:00 to 8:30 am Registration of participants FAO team

8:30 to 9:00 am Participants introductions Facilitation team

9:00 to 9:25 am Inaugural Session

Welcome Remark

Welcome Speech

Opening speech

Amadou Allahoury (FAO country representative)

Ambassador – European Union (EU)

State Minister

9:25 to 9:40 am Introduction session

Briefing on the objectives and agenda of the workshop

Introducing ground rules

Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza (FAO Coordination Project)

Facilitation team

9:40 to 10:00 am

Framing session Presentation: addressing the root causes of poverty for resilience building

David Mogollón (EU)

10:00 to 10:45 am

Setting the landscape What are we talking about when we mention:

Resilience

Coordination

Coordination for resilience

Knowledge management in Coordination mechanisms

Gender in Coordination mechanisms

Carlos Rodriguez Ariza (FAO Coordination Project)

Nathaniel Scott (USAID)

Ulrich Bormann (GIZ)

Ankets Petros (OXFAM)

28

Time Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Rapporteur

Notes

10:45 to 11:15 am

Group photo and break

11:15 to 12:15 pm

Gender session

Dialogue on gender mainstreaming in coordination mechanisms

Ankets Petros (OXFAM)

John Meyer (CARE)

Ato Wondimagegn (UNFPA)

Inmaculada Guixe Ancho (EU)

12:15 to 12:30 pm

Short plenary session to remind all participants about their options:

A) National coordination group – Tent

B) Subnational coordination group – Lalilbela

C) Knowledge management group – Info centre

Facilitation team

12:30 to 1:45 pm

Lunch break

1:45 to 3:00 pm Parallel working group sessions

Working groups

National coordination group 15-minute presentations

1. The RED&FS platform and its contribution to reinforce coordination in the area of Resilience (Dejene Abesha, RED&FS) 15’

2. Contributions and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to strengthen

Sub-national coordination group 15-minute presentations

1. Regional ATF structures and their contribution and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to strengthen coordination mechanisms for resilience building (Akloweg Nigatu, FAO Coordination Project)10’

2. The USAID Resilience

approach, lessons and experiences from PRIME, GRAD, RESET clusters (USAID and PRIME/Michael Jacobs, Mercy Corps) 15’

Knowledge management working group 15-minute presentations

1. The ILRI CKM approach (Peter Ballantyne, ILRI) via Skype

2. GIZ experience

with KM (Said Choucri / Djemal Mansour, GIZ)

3. IGAD KM strategy

(IGAD)

4. The SLMP KM experience (Mr Habtamu Hailu,

29

Time Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Rapporteur

Notes

coordination mechanisms for resilience building. The perspective from the DRM ATF and the DRM ATF SAG (TBD NDRMCand Adrian Cullis, Tufts University) 15’

3. 14 years of

experience of PSNP coordinating food security (Fatima Naqvi, DCT/World Bank) 15’

Suggested rapporteur: Ato Desta Beyira (FAO regional representative, Oromia)

3. The EU RESET – LRRD approach and its contribution and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to strengthen coordination mechanisms for resilience building (Berhanu Taye and RESET clusters, EU) 15’

Suggested rapporteur: Dr. Abel Mersie (FAO regional representative,SNNPR)

National Program Coordinator for Sustainable Land Management Program at MoANR)

Suggested rapporteur: Tigist Mesele (RED&FS)

3.00 to 3.30 pm Break

3.30 to 4.45 pm Parallel sessions – continued

- Working groups

National coordination group

4. The IGAD - DRSLP- resilience approach and the Ethiopian CPP (Edmealem Shitaye, IGAD) 15’

5. Lesson from the

past responses to strengthen coordination mechanisms for resilience building. The perspective from the NDRM

Subnational coordination group Group conversations around presentations (bus stops):

4. EU RESET (Ibrahim Kasso DanchurchAid on behalf of RESET clusters)

5. Regional OCHA, regional

TWG and its contribution and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to strengthen coordination mechanisms for resilience building (Michael Ullman, Cédric Petit OCHA) 15’

Knowledge management working group Group brainstorming around ‘What can KM achieve in coordination spaces’? Suggested rapporteur (same as above): (Tigist Mesele, RED&FS)

30

Time Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Rapporteur

Notes

TWG and UN OCHA(Ato Tadesse NDRMC and Paul Handley, OCHA)

Suggested rapporteur

(same as above): Ato Desta

Beyira (FAO regional

representative, Oromia)

6. Regional ATFs and the contributions and challenges to strengthen coordination (Alemseged Gebremariam / Herrie Hamedu FAO Regional Coordinators and Yadessa Mossisa /Akloweg Nigatu, FAO Coordination Project)

Suggested rapporteur (same as above): Dr. Abel Mersie (FAO regional rep SNNPR)

4.45 to 5.15 pm Reflections for the day Facilitation team with participants

5.15 to 5.30 pm Close

5.30 pm Cocktail and bites

Day 2 – Visioning the future of resilience-building coordination in Ethiopia

Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Chairs/ Responsible person

Notes

8.45 to 9.00 am

Plenary recap of the previous day

Documentation / facilitation team

9:00 to 9.10 am

Reminder about working groups

Facilitation team

9:10 to 10:30 am

Parallel working groups Working groups

National coordination group Plenary discussion: Horizontal Coordination: How to improve coordination of resilience between agriculture and DRM sectors and across major programs (PSNP, SLMP, AGP, DRSLP) at national level? Group discussion:

Subnational coordination group Plenary discussion: Vertical Coordination: How to improve coordination of resilience between woreda, zonal, regional and federal level? Group discussion:

Knowledge management working group Plenary discussion: How to improve Knowledge management in coordination mechanisms? Group discussion:

31

Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Chairs/ Responsible person

Notes

a) What are key gaps and

overlaps emerging

from all these

experiences?

b) How can development

and humanitarian

‘worlds’ better align

with each other at

national level?

c) Why are good practices

and lessons learned not

mainstreamed?

a) What are key gaps and

overlaps emerging from

all these experiences?

b) How can development

and humanitarian

‘worlds’ better align

with each other at sub-

national level?

c) Why are good practices

and lessons learned not

mainstreamed?

a) What are key gaps and

overlaps emerging

from all these

experiences?

b) How can development

and humanitarian

‘worlds’ better align

with each other at

national level?

c) Why are good

practices and lessons

learned not

mainstreamed?

10.30 to 11.00 am

Coffee break

11.00 to 11.30 am

Results from working groups Rapporteurs from each group

(optional) social reporting team

11.30 am to 12.45 pm

Working on coordination for resilience (with the LRRD and collective impact perspectives)

Table facilitators (to be selected / appointed)

12.45 to 2.00 pm

Lunch break

2.00 to 2.15 pm

Introducing the Open Space: Suggested next steps

Facilitation team

2.15 to 4.15 pm

Open Space: suggested next steps including coffee break

Participants

4.15 to 4.45 pm

Review results and (tentative) prioritize suggested next steps

Participants

4.45 to 5pm

(Tentative) Individual tentative commitments

Participants

5 to – 5.30 pm

Next steps and closing remarks FAO team

Facilitation team

Officials to be identified from Ministry, EU, FAO

32

Sessions Speakers/ Presenters/ Chairs/ Responsible person

Notes

5.30 pm Close Amadou Allahoury (FAO country representative)

Ambassador – European Union (EU)

State Minister

33

Appendix 3 – Description of the NESF event and process

European Union FAO

Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum on Food Security – Resilience Building (NESF 7-8th December)

What challenges and how to strengthen our coordination mechanisms for resilience building? I. Overview and objectives: The EC, under its ''Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (EC/SHARE) program'' is providing support to the FAO project “Strengthening Institutionalized Subnational Coordination Structures and Harmonization Mechanisms”. This has taken on particular importance following the El Niño phenomenon and ensuing drought in 2015-2016. The SHARE program strategically links development and resilience interventions to short-term humanitarian action. The EC/SHARE program is improving resilience coordination in the country, and holding resilience and food security coordination and experience sharing forums nationally and in six regional states (Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Somali, Oromia and SNNPR). The forums will help identify key needs/gaps related to resilience coordination, and propose recommendations to address these. The forums have four objectives: (i) improved regional coordination structures; (ii) better coordinated resilience interventions; (iii) strengthened knowledge management capacities; and (iv) gender mainstreamed into all coordination mechanisms.

II. How/Why the Forums - Utilization focused Approach: Some of the main challenges of coordination mechanisms for resilience are already well known (see the Conceptual Framework Sheet). For this reason we wanted to do something different. From the beginning we were very much concerned about the use and utility of these Federal and Regional Experience Sharing Forums. So we opted for a utilization focused approach based in a participatory process for responding to key questions from key stakeholders (members of the coordination spaces). This is challenging in the current situation/context where stakeholders are too busy working in their own matters. Our challenge was capturing their attention for thinking together on how to coordinate for resilience and how to make it happen.

III. Organization: Experience Sharing Forums will be held nationally, and at six regional states. A technical coordination committee1has been established to organize the forum in a participatory manner. The technical committee recommended the establishment of three sectoral working groups (all including government and donors, agencies and NGOs), including: (a) national coordination structures (RED-FS, DRM-ATF and IGAD); (b) sub-national coordination structures (Regional DRM-ATF, RESET clusters and other coordination mechanism); and (c) resilience knowledge management. ToRs have been established for the technical coordination committee and each working group. The Government of Ethiopia is leading

1 Members including: MoANR, MoLF, ATA, RED FS Secretariat, National and Regional DRM ATF, IGAD, EU, FAO, USAID, WB, GIZ, AECID, ILRI, Save the Children, OXFAM, ACF etc.

34

the organization of the national and regional forums, with logistical support from FAO and technical support from the technical coordination committee and the three working groups.

IV. Participants: National forum participants will include federal government line ministries and institutions, coordination structures, and donors, agencies, NGOs, academia, and private sector actors working to increase resilience and food security in Ethiopia. Regional forum participants include regional bureaus/departments, FAO field offices, NGOs, regional DRM-TWG/ATF members and other actors working on resilience in the regions. V. Dates: The Regional Forums will be held between October and November 2016, while the National Forum will take place from the 7-8th of December 2016.

For additional information please contact Dr. Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza, FAOCarlos.RodriguezAriza@fao.org 0929 086 333

35

Appendix 4 – Definitions and conceptual framework

European Union FAO

EC SHARE – FAO - Strengthening Institutionalized Sub-national Coordination Structures and Harmonization Mechanisms Project Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum on Food Security – Resilience Building (NESF 7-8th December)

What challenges (gaps and overlaps) and how to strengthen our coordination mechanisms for resilience building?

Conceptual Framework for presenters The EC, under its ''Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (EC/SHARE) program'' is providing support to the FAO project “Strengthening Institutionalized Subnational Coordination Structures and Harmonization Mechanisms”. The EC/SHARE program aims to strategically link long term development interventions to short-term humanitarian action, in line with Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) and resilience principles. Under the EC SHARE FAO coordination project a taskforce with members from FAO, EU, USAID, RED&FS secretariat, DRM ATF, IGAD, GIZ , World Bank, and from NGOs: ACF, SCI, OXFAM, CARE, etc has been formed to facilitate the organization of planned experience sharing forums named ‘Coordination and Experience sharing forum in the area of food security - resilience building programs in Ethiopia’ both at Federal level and in six regional states (Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Somali, Oromia and SNNPR) where the project is operational.

Purpose of this Conceptual Framework: The Working Group for the organization of the National level Experience Sharing Forum (NESF) agreed, for the purpose of the NESF, to have a framework of action that (1) harmonizes concepts and definitions, avoiding unnecessary theoretical discussions, (2) binds all partner organizations to deliver their inputs and organize their task forces’ member organizations, (3) helps speakers, presenters and panelist to focus their presentations. The framework is intended to reflect on issues related to resilience, gender, knowledge management and coordination definition and guides to build up on the Link between Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) principles.

I. Resilience. There are various definitions for resilience, however, in a food security context, resilience is defined as “the ability of a household to keep with a certain level of well-being (i.e. being food secure) by withstanding shocks and stresses.” This depends on available livelihood options and on how well households are able to handle risks. This definition implicitly considers both (ex-ante) actions that reduce the risk of households becoming food insecure, and (ex-post) actions that help households cope after a crisis occurs which ultimately is tailored with LRRD. The NESF Task Force agreed that the resilience experience sharing should be focused on the drought prone areas. II. Coordination. Coordination can be defined as alignment, harmonization, synergies and integration of a range of development and humanitarian interventions to tailor the needs of most vulnerable groups contributing to increase the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of these interventions. -The Purpose of coordination is contributing to exchange of information's and experience, joint planning, review and monitoring, etc exercises, and to look for harmonization of approaches and modalities and integrations of interventions for better impacts. Coordination is a mean and the ultimate goal is saving lives and livelihoods, alleviating suffering, sustainable solutions and advocate for the rights of the affected. -Object of the coordination: (1) Vertical Coordination (Federal, Regional, Zonal and Woredas level); (2). Horizontal Coordination (Among organisations, functions / sectors / clusters, within organizations and programs (projects))

36

-Strategic and Operational Co-ordination: (1) Strategic coordination: Setting goals, Monitoring, Negotiating access, Advocating for principles; (2) Operational coordination: Avoid gaps and duplications, Improve efficiency, Provide common services to the community -Coordination degrees / extent / range: (1) (Low) Information sharing: (2)Co-ordinated planning (such as for joint assessments, common standards, joint training, integrated assistance); (3) (High) Co-ordinated implementation (includes M&E) -The work of coordinators falls into three broad categories: (1) Understand: Needs, Gaps and Priorities: Who is responding and what they are doing, What needs are unmet; (2) Influence: Promote an environment where coordination can occur, Promote accountability, Promote good humanitarian / developmental practice, Establish consent or secure humanitarian space or LRRD; (3) Facilitate: Strategic and operational coordination. -Technical / Administrative Coordination2: (1)Technical Coordination

To ensure harmonized approaches and consistent programming,

To facilitate information sharing including joint planning and assessment of results, research and studies, and other documentations related to lessons learned, and the scaling up of best good practices

To identify common concerns across operational areas and develop joint ways of dealing with them,

To promote national programmatic cohesion and to have better idea of who is doing what and where (response mapping),

To strengthen risk information gathering, early warning systems and contingency planning,

To foster sustainability, (2)Administrative Coordination

Commonly serving structures and procedures such as partnership governance,

Pooling of common resources (human and materials),

Strengthening working relationship between Government, DP's, NGOs/CSOs and other actors.

Jointly financing review and monitoring forums/workshops, external assessment, researches, etc. Other Logistics coordination.

-Coordination tools. Members of coordination spaces intend to coordinate through:

Joint situation analysis, project designing and planning at various levels,

Harmonization of implementation approaches, and to look for clear division of labor.

Joint Monitoring and evaluation (against the agreed M&E framework),

Regular coordination forums/meetings (information sharing, identification of priorities and joint decision making)

Alignment and Harmonization with Government flagship programmes,

Informal exchange of information,

Forums for Experience sharing and documentation of best practices.

Terms of Reference, Road Map, Operational Plan and Monitoring, Coordination Key performance Indicators, Response Plan, Agenda and Minutes with Action points, Follow up of the Action points, Bi weekly templates, Regular self-assessments.

2 Adapted from the EC/SHARE RESET standards for coordination

37

III. Coordination for resilience. Given that the concept of resilience has more than 40 definitions and that all of us we do not think the same when speaking about coordination, this project must count on its own definition of “coordination for resilience”. The coordination mechanism for resilience building permits the correct transition from the relief coordination mechanism/framework to the development coordination mechanism/framework. This is not evident as the challenges that relief and development mechanisms confront are different (see Comparative analysis of the coordination mechanisms for Relief, Development and Resilience Building in Annex): As explained a coordination mechanism for resilience building permits the correct transition from the relief coordination

mechanism/framework to the development coordination mechanism/framework with the following traits that the

presenters could refer to3:

1. Leadership and commitment (ownership, government / decision making AND backbone organisation): Leading organisations, coordinators, chairs... 2. Joint work and Capacity for joint action (harmonisation AND Mutually reinforcing activities): not only sharing information not separated silos 3. Common framework (alignment AND Common Agenda): (1) Disaster Risk Management, (2) Balancing and counting on different time frames (Short, Mid, Long Term), (3) Counting on Political agendas/windows and Technical approaches, (4) Balancing Sectoral/Territorial –Supply (Top down) and Demands Driven (Bottom up) approaches 4. Trust and Continuous communication 5. Knowledge management (Learning for adapting/improving AND shared measurement)(Communication, Joint M&E, Knowledge Management (Sharing, internalisation, Institutionalisation), Innovation, Evidence based decision making, Accountability –mutual/external/internal) 6. Mitigating Rivalry among key stakeholders about donors and funds: Financial mechanisms that assure the good enough cooperation and collaboration for assuring the relief development linkage

The previous elements could include a reference to the following aspects: (1) Horizontal Coordination (Link Relief, Rehabilitation and development stakeholders AND different sectors (Agriculture, WASH, Nutrition, Emergency Food Security…), (2) Vertical Coordination (From Federal to Regional, Zonal and Woreda level), (3) Joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, (4) Knowledge Management in Coordination spaces, (5) Gender mainstreaming in coordination spaces and (6) Singularities of Low lands or High lands

Even if the previous points are guidelines, all presenters are requested to address (very briefly) their perception on how gender is mainstreamed in the coordination spaces (see below IV Gender): what are the challenges for mainstreaming gender in the coordination mechanisms?

IV. Gender. In relation to the gender definitions we can find the following distinctions4: "Gender" refers to the social differences and relations between men and women, which are learned, vary widely among societies and cultures, and change over time. The concept is used in analysing the roles, responsibilities, constraints and needs of women and men in all contexts.

“Gender mainstreaming in coordination” is the process of integration of gender in all coordination spaces, mechanism and actions through assessing and addressing the different interests and needs of women and men, boys and girls, in all areas and levels (from policy to projects) so that women and men benefit equally from development and humanitarian interventions, and inequality is not perpetuated. Mainstreaming is not about adding a "woman's component" or a "gender equality component" into an existing coordinated activity. It goes beyond increasing women's participation; it means bringing the experience, knowledge, and interests of women and men to bear on the agenda. Mainstreaming does not replace the

3 This is the result of the agreement of the NESF Working Group, after comparative analysis of the requirements of relief and development mechanisms (see Annex) and the consideration of the key principles for the Collective Impact 4 http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3443&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

38

need for targeted, women-specific policies and programmes, and positive legislation and requires of gender-sensitive and committed institutions and organizations. IV. Knowledge management (KM) is the process of managing intellectual assets that allow any group of people (whether a team, an organization, a network) to achieve their objectives and develop a proactive learning attitude. KM is the combination of a) information management (creating, stocking, sharing, using, making accessible and managing the information available), b) knowledge sharing (intentionally exchanging insights, ideas, comments, questions, suggestions with other people online and face-to-face) and c) learning (developing an intentional approach to visioning what should happen, understanding what actually happened and anticipating future challenges and issues by taking proactive steps). KM as a process is interlinked with and inseparable from Organizational Learning (OL). Both are cyclical processes, often systemic, where knowledge is acquired on an individual or group level, then objectified on an organizational or network level and followed by its institutionalization, thus embedded in an organizational or network memory. KM and OL in coordination mechanisms require stable exchange spaces in order to be available over time. Single organizations in a network need to gather resources in order to provide these spaces. KM is a multi-disciplinary approach to achieving objectives by making the best use of knowledge. KM in coordination mechanisms is related to applying KM approaches between members of the same coordination platforms for achieving common objectives by making the best use of knowledge and information of the different involved organizations, and by stimulating individual, organizational and network learning across all parties involved.

Finally, the main question that we want to address is What challenges (gaps and overlaps) and how to strengthen our coordination mechanisms for resilience building? Therefore, with the objective of addressing the gaps in coordination for

resilience, the NESF presenters and panelist will discuss and show approaches that can enhance coordination for resilience

39

Annex 1

Coordination Culture Relief coordination mechanisms Development coordination mechanisms Coordination for resilience (LRRD coordination approach) mechanisms

Leadership, commitment and trust

High, different levels of accountability and rivalry for funds affect the trust

High, different levels of accountability and rivalry for funds affect the trust

High, mutual accountability and trust

Capacity of real/practical action/decision from the chairing and members

High and centralised Low and decentralised High and centralised/decentralised

Coordination Time frame

Short term DRM focused on response

Mid/Long term No special focus on DRM

Short, Mid, Long Term DRM integrated in coordination mechanisms

Complexity of the addressed problems

High (effects of the root problems are addressed)

Very high (effects and/or causes of the root problems are addressed at the same time but challenges in assessing, planning, sequencing and prioritizing)

Very high. Addressing from the effects to the root causes of the problems: assessing, planning, sequencing and prioritizing.

Approach to the root causes of the poverty

From the effects of the root causes/problems to the standard/classic solutions Does not use to involve beneficiaries and creates dependency

From the effects of the root causes/problems to the diverse and alternative solutions Involves beneficiaries and ensure independence and sustainability.

From the effects of the root causes/problems to the innovative solutions for addressing at the same time effects/causes Continuous and diverse degree of involvement of the beneficiaries avoiding dependency

Level of coordination innovation

No time for innovation while saving lives and high degree of risk aversion to innovation

Long periods of time for innovation and testing approaches with added value but challenges in integrating these innovations in the decision making process ready when the quick response is needed

Very high capacity (1) to apply innovations based in a high level of Knowledge Management; (2) integrate/internalize these innovations in the decision making process so as to make possible a quick/good enough response

Evidence based decision making

Narrow decision window Quick and dirty good enough information

Larger political window of opportunity Rigorous evidences demands

Very high capacity to take decisions in the short term based in (qualitative and quantitative) evidences

Kind of control/influence on the possible solutions

Complicated solutions with low level of control/influence

Complex solutions with very low level of control/influence

Complex solutions with very low level of control/influence

Kind of coordinated response

More Technical than Political More Political than technical Technical and Political

Coordination stakeholders

More Technical than Political More Political than technical Technical and Political

Frequency of coordination

Regular / Very frequent in favour of coordination

Irregular / No frequent against strong coordination linkages

Flexible and adapted to needs in SML term

40

Coordination Culture Relief coordination mechanisms Development coordination mechanisms Coordination for resilience (LRRD coordination approach) mechanisms

Kind of control/influence on the possible solutions

Simple solutions to complex problems and low capacity of influence with low level of control/influence from individual stakeholders

Complex solutions to complex problems and very low capacity of influence with very low level of control/influence from individual stakeholders

Complex solutions frequently with low level of control/influence from individual stakeholders

Level of accountability of the coordination mechanisms

High under an international supervision Depending on the national and local framework

High level of accountability to affected populations

Integration and joint work

Sharing information and fund raising Not full joint planning and implementation

Sharing information and fund raising Sometimes joint planning Not joint implementation

Not only at the level of sharing information and fund raising but also at the level of real joint planning and implementation

Kind of communication

Challenges in the short term for vertical and horizontal communication between the different sectors, the relief and development actors and between the federal and regional (regional, woreda and zonal) stakeholders

Low vertical and horizontal communication between the different sectors, the relief and development actors and between the federal level and regional (regional, woreda and zonal) stakeholders

High degree of vertical and horizontal communication between the different sectors, the relief and development actors and between the federal level and regional (regional, woreda and zonal) stakeholders

Sectoral (traditional clusters) and territorial (zonal/woreda) Coordination approach

Inter cluster (sectoral) –Top down Centralised (focused on priority needs and gaps)

Sectoral and territorial – Top down and bottom up Decentralised (focus on covering the territory, piloting and replicating)

Sectoral and territorial: bottom up and top down ( priorisation but aiming at a total coverture)

Rivalry among stakeholders about donors and funds

Very high competition. Against proper coordination / cooperation

Very high competition. Against proper coordination / cooperation

Financial mechanisms that assure the cooperation and collaboration for assuring the link relief development

Source: EC/SHARE-FAO Coordination Project

41

Appendix 5 – List of NESF participants # Full name Position Organization Mailing address

1 Firehiwot Mezgebu FSL TA Action Contre La Faim drmta@et.missions.acf.org

2 Merkeb Belay Consortium Manager Action Contre La Faim - Ethiopia merkebelay@gmail.com

3 David Palacious -

AECID Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development david.palacios@aecid.es

4 Hailemariam Hailemeskel - African Development Bank h.hailemeskel@afdb.org

5 Adrian Cullis Senior Researcher

Agricultural Knowledge Learning Documentation and Policy Project/TUFTS University Adrian.Cullis@tufts.edu

6 Berhanu Admassu Coordinator

Agricultural Knowledge Learning Documentation and Policy Project/TUFTS University berhanu.admassu@tufts.edu

7 Yelebe Benyam Intern

Agricultural Knowledge Learning Documentation and Policy Project/TUFTS University Kinfu.Yelebe@tufts.edu

8 Kassahun Negash Program Manager Amref Health Africa kassahunnegash1994@gmail.com

9 Misrak Makonnen Country Director Amref Health Africa misrak.makonnen@amref.org

10 Yeshitila Hailu HOP Amref Health Africa Yeshitila.Hailu@amref.org

11 Abdulkadir Mohammed

Head of Animal and Plant APADB drabdulkadir2002@gmail.com

12 Tesfakiros Hiluf Expert Bureau of Agriculture - Natural Resource tesfakiroshiluf@yahoo.com

13 Ben Irwin PM PRIME/RESET II CARE Ethiopia birwin@care.org

14 Elsabeth Solomon Gender Advisor CARE Ethiopia Elsabeth.Solomon@care.org

15 Meron Kidane Program Manager CARE Ethiopia mkidane@care.org

42

16 Guri Kamssa DCOP Catholic Relief Services gure.kumssa@crs.org

17 Wondimu Belyu Seed Advisor Catholic Relief Services wondimu.bayu@crs.org

18 Habtemariam Kassa Researcher Center for International Forestry Research - Ethiopia h.kassa@cgiar.org

19 Jemal Hassen Consortium Coordinator Concern World Wide jemal.hassen@concern.net

20 Ibrahim Kasso Program Manager Dan Church Aid - Ethiopia ibka@dca.dk

21 Tesfaye Tilahun Senior Social Protn. Economics DCT Tworkineh@worldbank.org

22 Ludwig Loeffler Dauthe Intern

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit ludwig.loeffler.dauthe@giz.de

23 Sashia Kellbach Intern Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit saskia.kallbach@giz.de

24 Amare Kindie Head of Animal and Plant DPFSCO/Amhara amare2002@yahoo.com

25 Wondwante Adamu Agricom expert Ethiopian Agriculture Investment Land Administration Agency wonduante.adamu@gmail.com

26 Asnake Abera Program Manager European Union Asnake.ABERA@eeas.europa.eu

27 Berhanu Taye - European Union Berhanu.TAYE@ec.europa.eu

28 David Mogollon Co-Chair European Union David.MOGOLLON@eeas.europa.eu

29 Luis Lechiguero - European Union Luis.LECHIGUERO@eeas.europa.eu

30 Mersha Aregaw Program Manager European Union Mersha.ARGAW@eeas.europa.eu

31 Akloweg Nigatu National Project Coordinator

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Akloweg.Nigatu@fao.org

32 Alemu Nurgi National Consultant Independent alemunu@gmail.com

33 Carlos Rodriguez-Arziza

Coordination for resilience

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Carlos.RodriguezAriza@fao.org

43

34 Fikre Mulugeta ESWG Coordinator

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Fikre.Mulugeta@fao.org

35 Hewan Teshome Programme Assistant

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Hewan.Teshome@fao.org

36 Joseph Oneka

Cluster Coordination Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Joseph.Oneka@fao.org

37 Samuel Elias Field Director and Coordinator

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Samuel.Elias@fao.org

38 Yadessa Mossisa

Field Monitor and Coordination Support

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia Yadessa.Mossisa@fao.org

39 Roba Fantalle Program Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia/Oromia Region

Roba.Fantalle@fao.orgORrobafntl@yahoo.com

40 Atsede H/Michael Field Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Representation in Ethiopia/Tigray Region Atsede.Hailemichael@fao.org

41 Herrie Hamedu Field Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Afar Regional Office Herrie.Hamedu@fao.org

42 Desta Beyera Field Officer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Oromia Regional Office Desta.Beyera@fao.org

43 Amsale Mengesha Senior Program Officer Gates Foundation

Amsale.Mengistu@gatesfoundation.org

44 Ulrich Bormann - Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit - GIZ ulrich.bormann@giz.de

45 Girma Getachew Programme Manager GOAL girmag@et.goal.ie

46 Kinfu Mamo LH Advisor GOAL kinfun@et.goal.ie

47 Agathe Martineau Country Representative Inter Aid France agathe.martineau@interaide.org

48 Getamesay Demeke Program Coordinator Inter Aide getu.demeke@interaide.org

49 Edmealem Shhitaye - Intergovernmental Authority for Development edmealem.shitaye@igad.int

50 Jemal Dagnew Database Expert Intergovernmental Authority for Development - PCU jemal.mensur@igad.int

44

51 Kebede Ayele Country Director International Development Enterprises - UK kayele@ideglobal.org

52 Olani Wirtu Program Director International Development Enterprises - UK owirtu@ideglobal.org

53 Frew Behabtu Country Program Officer

International Fund for Agriculture Development f.behabtu@ifad.org

54 Samir Rayees Consultant International Fund for Agriculture Development s.rayeescalvo@ifad.org

55 Ulac Demirag Country Director International Fund for Agriculture Development u.demirag@ifad.org

56 Ewen Le Borgne

Team Leader Knowledge, Engagement and Collaboration

International Livestock Research Institute E.LeBorgne@cgiar.org

57 Siboniso Moyo Country Director International Livestock Research Institute s.moyo@cgiar.org

58 Tsehay Gashaw

Knowledge Sharing and Web Communications Officer

International Livestock Research Institute T.Gashaw@dgiar.org

59 Gashaw Genebo Program Manager International Medical Corps ggenbo@internationalmedicalcorps.org

60 Daniel Van Rooijen PDF Researcher IWOLL d.vanrooijen@cgiar.org

61 Abera Awano Program Officer JICA AwanoAbera.ET@jica.jp

62 Sayuri Teramoto Advisor JICA Ethiopia teramoto.sayuri@jica.go.jp

63 Michael Jacobs Country Director Mercy Corps Ethiopia mjacobs@mercycorps.org

64 Tigist Messele - Ministry of Agriculture - Natural Resources tigist_mesele@yahoo.com

65 Sertse Sebuh RPLRP Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries sebuh.km@gmail.com

66 Tadesse Bekele Senior Consortium Manager

National Disaster Risk Management Commission tad_bek@yahoo.com

67 Tamrat Tsegaye Agronomist National Disaster Risk Management Commission tamrat@gmail.com

68 Debebe Digafe Program Director Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara ordafsadp@gmail.com

45

69 Solomon Begna Food Security Coordinator

Oromia Bureau of Agriculture - Natural Resource solejima@yahoo.com

70 Ayanle Omer RESET II Coordinator OXFAM Great Britain Ayomer@oxfam.org.uk

71 Dejene Biru ACCRA Coordinator OXFAM Great Britain dbiru@oxfam.org

72 Ankets Petros Gender Officer OXFAM International Apetros@oxfam.org.uk

73 Ismal Adan Program Manager Oxfam International Iadan@oxfam.org.uk

74 Riccardo Riccardi Deputy Country Director Oxfam International RRiccardi@oxfam.org.uk

75 Meron Wubishet M&E Manager PIN meron.wubshet@peopleinneed.c2

76 Nur Abdi Ex. Director PWO pastoralistwalfare@yahoo.com

77 Gary Wallace REDFS Secretariat RED&FS garwallace@gmail.com

78 Dejene Abesha REDFS Secretariat

Rural Economic Development and Food Security Sector Working Group dejeneabesha@yahoo.com

79 Aregawi Teklu Program And Specialist FSC Save the Children

Aregawi.Teklu@save the children.org

80 Abdulkadir Iman National Program Coordinator SDR - G12 Abdulkadir.Iman@giz.de

81 Nega Mekonnen Advisor (VCD) SNV Nmekonnen@snvworld.org

82 Tsedaey Tamir XM Specialist UNDP tsedey.tamir@undp.org

83 Tseday Tamir Specialist United Nations Development Programme tsedey.tamir@undp.org

84 Wondimagegn Fanta Program Analyst United Nations Population Fund wmekonnen@unfpa.org

85 Dubale Admasu Officer/Manager United States Agency for International Development Dadmasu@usaid .gov

86 John Edgar Deputy Office Chief United States Agency for International Development jedgar@usaid.gov

87 Nathaniel Scott Resilience team leader

United States Agency for International Development nscott@usaid.gov

46

88 Mesfin Kebede Consortium Coordinator

Vita - The Investment Partner with African Communities mesfinkukusha@gmail.com

89 Genene Degarfa Country Director VSF Germany genene@vsfa.org

90 Fatima Naqvi Deputy Coordinator World Bank fnaqvi@worldbank.org

91 Zena Afework - World Bank zdemissie@worldbank.org

47

Appendix 6 – Forum (process) evaluation and next steps This evaluation and ‘next steps’ report is based on various inputs:

For the evaluation:

- A meeting evaluation was held at the NESF forum on 7-8 December 2016 by means of

administering a print evaluation at the end of the forum. The quantitative and qualitative results

of this evaluation provide some inputs to this evaluation.

- A short meeting was held on 9 December 2016 at the secretariat of the RED&FS Sector Working

Group with Dejene Abesha, Tigist Mesele, Gary Wallace, Carlos Rodriguez Ariza, Akloweg Nigatu,

Yadessa Mossisa, Tsehay Gashaw and Ewen Le Borgne (author of this report). Part of that meeting

was to look back at the entire process leading to the forum. This constitutes the main ‘other’ input

to evaluating the NESF 2016 and the process leading up to it.

For the ‘next steps’:

- In one of the final sessions of the NESF 2016 on 7-8 December, Carlos Rodriguez Ariza introduced

the main ‘next steps’ that would follow from the forum.

- In addition, the aforementioned short meeting held on 9 December also looked forward at the

next steps required beyond the forum to act upon some of the suggestions put forward by

participants.

Evaluation of the NESF Forum and its preparation process The 24 evaluation forms collected at the end of the forum showed that the overall appreciation for the

event was about 7.5/10, with specific scores for:

- The venue: 7.3/10

- The responsiveness of the organizing team: 8.1/10

- The facilitation: 8.1/10

Highlights from these forms and from the short evaluation discussion on 9 December:

The topics addressed were important and adequately covered and they mapped where coordination of

resilience actually happens. Various participants mentioned they particularly enjoyed the fact that gender

and knowledge management were addressed in the forum. They also enjoyed the

recommendations/ways forward identified. Presentations were short and clear. The combination of

national and subnational levels was also appreciated.

What was mentioned as missing, content-wise, was:

- The experience of other important flagship programs (SLMP, AGP etc.)

- A sense of insufficient disaggregation between different types of actors

- Linking national and subnational even more strongly

- Coordination tools

48

Process-wise, the participants really enjoyed the very engaging, interactive and participatory nature of

the process followed, the energy of the facilitators and the innovation put in facilitation methods. They

felt there was a good balance and adequate time to discuss issues and between plenary and working

group sessions, and they enjoyed the fact that everyone’s perspective was invited and the suggestions

made reflected the integration of these different perspectives.

What could have been improved on the process side of things:

Some participants felt there was redundancy in certain conversations and that the second day could have

been shorter. Some pointed out that the next steps were not clear enough and may mean that it’s difficult

to act upon them. Presentations were difficult to see on the screen in the tent.

The main and most important comment made by many participants is that the participation by

government staff was really and clearly insufficient, also putting some question marks on the likelihood

of some results achieved on the basis of the conversations at the forum.

The short evaluation meeting held on 9 December further highlighted the following issues and ideas:

- The preparation process was generally too long, could have entailed a smaller coordination group

and fewer meetings, though it was good to start that process as early as FAO did.

- Regional representation was insufficient and that might be related to the lack of budget available

for that end.

- The conceptual framework could have been narrowed down and needs to be sharpened on

gender.

- Hosting the event in Addis means there is a risk in not having high attendance.

- While government was under-represented, NGOs were over represented.

Next steps

In terms of the next steps, these are the suggested ways forward:

What Who?

Finish proceedings ILRI facilitation team

Develop a 2-3 pager with key

ways forward on resilience, KM

etc.

FAO team based on ILRI’s

proceedings and draft

recommendations

Sit together to discuss

proceedings and 2-3 pager and

decide concrete steps forward

FAO and RED&FS

Discuss informally the updated

2-3 pager with other actors

RED&FS with EU, USAID etc.

Engage with NDRMC, DRM-ATF

etc.

RED&FS, FAO

49

Appendix: Full results of the discussion on 9 December (First Assessment)

Evaluation:

Strengths Improvable

Preparation

process:

coordination

meetings and tools

used

Good that

we started

early

- Communication problems

- Early stages were too participatory

- Overall it was too participatory a process

- It was a long process with the technical committee (6

months!)

- Perhaps 3 coordination meetings would have been enough?

Preparation

process: team

assembled and

leadership

- Too large a coordination group

- We didn’t have the project technical coordination committee

in place for the forum (that would have helped

- We were all busy with other work

- No budget for regional representation

- We rely on a backbone organization

- There was personal, not institutional involvement

Framing and

conceptual

framework for the

forum

- Gender needs to improve in the framework

- Narrow down the focus next time?

Venue and

logistical aspects

The venue

was nice

- Running this in Addis meant lower attendance

- The screen wasn’t easy to read in the tent

- The atmosphere was too hot in the tent

Speakers: quality,

diversity,

representativeness

and participants

- Lots of NGO folks

- Not enough government representation

- Attendance slumped from day 1 to day 2

- Regional representation was low (lack of resources to support

their participation?)

Facilitation and

(complex) process

management

People were

happy with

facilitation

- Same content on the afternoon of day 2 as earlier in the

forum

Ways forward:

- Develop key findings and put them into the proceedings

- Get RED&FS to digest these

- FAO and RED&FS to sit together

- RED&FS to suggest ways forward

50

- Develop a 2-3 pager with findings to share the way forward on resilience, knowledge management

etc.

- Table an informal discussion on this 2-3 pager with key actors

- Decide whether to address this at a future Ex-Com meeting

- Engage with NDRMC, DRM-ATF, FAO etc.?

- Address KM in gender?

51

Appendix 7 – Process documentation With a very strong focus on ‘utilization’ and participation, this forum has followed a very different process

compared with similar forums of this kind, as mentioned in the Description of the NESF event and

process(see appendix 3).This appendix offers a glimpse of the process that was followed.

The process that was going to lead to the forum started off in June. A first ‘coordination team meeting’

was held at ILRI, bringing together some of the people that were going to be the pillars of this process:

Carlos Rodriguez Ariza the project coordinator, and his team (Akloweg Nigatu and Yadessa Mossisa);

Dejene Abesha, Tigist Mesele and Gary Wallace from the RED&FS sector working group; Berhanu Taye

and Yohannes Regassa from the EU; Edmealem Shitaye from IGAD; Ewen Le Borgne from ILRI and a

handful of others.

This was going to be the first of in total seven technical coordination team meetings, ranging from 20 June

2016 to 15 November 2016. These meetings aimed at a) generating ownership from various institutions

and people over the process and the forum, b) practically help organize the forum through functional

working groups that separated the work and focused on finding resource persons (presenters etc.), useful

experiences and insights to showcase at the forum. Throughout these various coordination meetings,

nearly thirty persons were involved in one or more of these meetings and helped mobilize essential

resource persons even the later and more urgent stages of the process.

While the evaluation showed that this process was seen as somewhat cumbersome by some participants

and didn’t always lead to immediate clarity on some important matters (the two-hour coordination

meetings usually ran a little over time as much needed to be covered), they actually ensured that some

‘champions’ remained on board until the end. Among them, the most prominent champions were:

Berhanu Taye (EC), the RED&FS team, the GIZ team (represented by Ulrich Bormann and Abdulkadir Iman)

and the USAID team (with Dubale Admassu and particularly Nathaniel Scott in the later stages).

The participatory process leading to the forum veered, towards the end, increasingly towards a more

directive process as deadlines were getting close and there was not much time left for a thorough

participatory coordination effort. However the process evaluation showed that this was welcome by the

participants who were anxious to see the forum get fleshed out.

Some of the key milestones achieved at these different coordination meetings:

The first meeting (20 June) had 11 participants and introduced the overall objectives of the forum

and led to develop the working groups – with an agreement that the national coordination

working group would be merged with the subnational coordination working group. All

participants were invited to identify key experiences in their working group, and to think about

the objectives they saw as important for their working group to achieve.

The second meeting(27 July, 9 participants) focused on the key deliverables expected from each

working group and emphasized a) the need to closely involve governmental agencies and b) the

need to quickly hire a facilitation team.

The third meeting (16 September, 20 participants) introduced the (ILRI) facilitation team and

started reviewing the interesting experiences identified by each working group. An agreement

was made to set up a documentation structure (on Dropbox) to share all relevant documents, and

52

Nathaniel Scott (USAID) promised to give a presentation about ‘collective impact’ so we all know

what we are talking about.

The fourth meeting (7 October, 18 participants) emphasized the need to have a one-pager

summarizing the objectives of the forum (to invite possible resource persons) and to have a

tentative agenda for the forum to make it a more tangible event. The participants also agreed to

quickly release a call for inputs (experiences) to feature.

The fifth meeting (20 October, 16 participants) introduced the results from the first regional forum

(in Afar), came back on the unique selling point of the forum and introduced the tentative agenda

as drafted by facilitators. That meeting also led to the decision of holding the event in Addis Ababa

(not in Adama or Kuriftu, due to the security situation, in December 2016.

The sixth meeting(4 November, 8 participants) looked back at the Tigray regional forum, came

back on the difficulty of organizing work for the DRM-ATF working group and regrouped the

working groups into a) national coordination experiences, b) subnational coordination

experiences and c) knowledge management. Gender was also addressed as a point for concern as

it seemed it was not addressed sufficiently by any of the working groups.

The final meeting (15 November, 7 participants) came back on gender at the forum (with the

agreement to have a panel discussion about it), on the one-pager that had been developed, on

the process of sending invitations to key institutions and how to ensure their participation in this

late hour, not just for parallel working groups but also for the plenary (keynote) speakers. Finally

the conceptual framework was endorsed as draft and all participants (in this shorter meeting)

agreed that this would be the final coordination meeting before the forum.

The main lessons learned from the process leading to the forum are mentioned in the evaluation

(appendix 6) and they relate to:

Organizing a smaller coordination team and having fewer coordination meetings

Starting the process really early and with the facilitation team in as early as possible

Focusing the conceptual framework and having a very strong rationale for the grouping of ‘parallel

working groups’

Paying attention specifically to the involvement of the government, and paying attention to

practical details ensuring the participation of regional government staff

Paying more attention to the documentation of the process and of the forum with a dedicated

documentation/communication team

Running an interactive forum and linking it with a wider process

A separate document shared by the facilitation team with the FAO coordination team describes in more

details how this process went and can be used for the development of the next forum development

process.

53

Appendix 8 – List of all presentations given at the forum (in chronological

order) All these presentations are available online, including at the web page of the NESF.

Root causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia (David Mogollón, EU)

Resilience coordination framework – Applying collective impact to resilience coordination

(Nathaniel Scott, USAID)

Knowledge institutionalization (Ulrich Bormann, GIZ)

National coordination group:

o RED&FS sector working group: an overview and lessons learnt (Ato Dejene, RED&FS)

o DRM-ATF general overview, achievements and lessons learnt from La Niña response

2010/11 and El Niño 2015/16 (Ato Tamrat Tsegaye, NDRMC)

o PSNP: 14 years of coordinating food security (Fatima Naqvi, World Bank)

o The IGAD experience (Edmealem Shitaye, IGAD)

o Humanitarian coordination structure (Paul Handley, OCHA)

Subnational coordination group:

o Regional ATF structures and their contribution to strengthen coordination mechanisms

for resilience building (Akloweg Nigatu, FAO)

o Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion (USAID and

PRIME/Michael Jacobs, Mercy Corps)

o The EU RESET – LRRD approach and its contribution and challenges (gaps and overlaps) to

strengthen coordination mechanisms for resilience building (Berhanu Taye and RESET

clusters, EU)

Knowledge management group:

o GIZ support to knowledge management for IDDRSI (Chucri Sayegh / Djemal Mansour, GIZ)

o A snapshot of some communication and knowledge management approaches used by

ILRI (Peter Ballantyne, ILRI)

Reports from the three working groups:

o National coordination

o Subnational coordination

o Knowledge management

In addition, the following presentations on gender were shared afterwards:

- Wzt Gender and Ato Resilience: married or single? (Inmaculada Guixe Ancho, EC)

- Social analysis and action – an effective tool for gender transformation (Meron Kidane, CARE)