Cluster Sector Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM): Enhancing Gender Equality and GBV Protection
The CCPM framework allows for self-assessment of cluster performance in key areas like gender equality and protection against gender-based violence (GBV). It focuses on supporting service delivery with gender and inclusion considerations, strategic decision-making, gender-responsive strategy development, monitoring initiatives on gender equality and GBV protection, capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning, advocacy for gender equality, and accountability to affected populations. Implementation timings, steps, and ways to address gender and GBV within cluster functions are detailed to guide effective coordination and performance monitoring.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
3.1 Cluster / Sector Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM)
CCPM Self-assessment of cluster performance against the 6 +1 core cluster functions: 1. Support service delivery considering gender and inclusion 2. Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making 3. Strategy development that is gender and GBV responsive 4. Monitor and evaluate performance including initiatives on gender equality and GBV protection, prevention. 5. Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning including initiative to empower women and girls and reduce GBV 6. Advocacy for gender equality and protection against sexual exploitation, abuse and gender-based violence + Accountability to Affected People
The CCPM does not Monitor response (service delivery). Evaluate individual partners or coordinators. Evaluate if/when clusters should be deactivated, merged etc. (review of the cluster architecture). Exclude usage of other tools with the same purpose.
When to implement the CCPM? In protracted crises: Annually, but clusters decide when to implement it In new emergencies: 3 - 6 months after the onset and once every year thereafter. If several core functions have been registered as weak.
What are the steps for CCPM? STEPS 3. Analysis Action Planning 1. Planning 2.Survey 4. Monitoring OUTPUTS Decision on implementation Preliminary Report Final Report & Action Plan Quarterly Reports to HCT
How to address gender and GBV as aprt of core cluster function CCPM should discuss on empowerment programmes to ensure nutrition and food security for slow onset emergencies: How to asses need Market and skill competencies in the context The competencies to address the needs of women, girls and marginalized Capacity building Ensure services Ensure income generation, livelihood to continue food security Ensure social empowerment to reduce gender based violence Develop social networks and complaint mechanism for protection from GBV, trafficking, abusing and exploitation from community, outsiders as well ass by the Aid workers following IASC GBV guideline. Regular consultation and feedback from women, girls and marginalized
Scores and Colour Coding for CCPM Score Performance Status > 75% Good 51-75% Satisfactory, needs minor improvement 26-50% Unsatisfactory, needs major improvement 25% Weak
Nutrition Clusters that have completed CCPM in 2016-2017 South Sudan Somalia Chad Niger Yemen Mali Congo, D.R Ethiopia Bangladesh Sudan Syria C.A.R.
1: Supporting service delivery Overall rating: Good Challenges Information flow between MoH and Nutrition Cluster, national and sub-national level and from Cluster team to partners is weak Cluster approach and core function not well understood by some partners Poor attendance of mtgs by gov and tech staff in field based agencies What is working well In general, partners happy with how service delivery is going Reg mtgs are held Partners list updated regularly Websites developed IM reporting tools available and used Capacity mapping completed Systems to avoid duplications in place
2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory Borderline Unsatisfactory Challenges Prioritization of activities not grounded in strong analysis Gap analysis and prioritization of needs jointly with partners and other clusters is weak Analysis of some cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS and disability) weak What is working well ..(to partly address this core area) Some needs assessments done Some cross cutting issues analysed (gender, age)
3: Planning and strategy development Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory What is working well . Overall good application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines Strategic plan developed Challenges Need to clarify funding requirements, prioritization and cluster contributions to humanitarian funding considerations No deactivation or phase-out strategy Limited strategic planning at sub-national level Limited sub-national consultation on response plan
4: Implementation and Monitoring Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory Achievements Systems for regular partner reports are in place (with different level of satisfaction) Some information regularly shared Country bulletins produced Challenges Insufficient reporting back to partners on progress Field monitoring is infrequent Unclear mechanisms for sharing reports with WFP, UNICEF and the Cluster- leads to duplication and gaps Quality of partner reports Timeliness of report submission Limited consideration of partner reports in cluster reporting, publication of cluster bulletins and monitoring Lessons learned not documented and used for programming
5: Build capacity for contingency/preparedness Overall rating: satisfactory Achievements Partners felt involved in planning and risk assessments Challenges Limited partner involvement in risk assessment and analysis Contingency planning scenarios done by OCHA with no consultation of cluster No national contingency plan for nutrition Preparedness plans exist but are outdated
6: Advocacy Overall rating: wide range good to weak Challenges Issues requiring advocacy are not discussed comprehensively within the cluster or proactively taken forward when identified Unclear if advocacy issues get raised to HCT, limited feedback Advocacy has not been adequately addressed by the cluster What is working well . Some satisfied with advocacy discussions and results Advocacy around milk code received unified support
7: Accountability to affected people Overall rating: satisfactory Achievements Partners felt involved in planning and risk assessments Challenges Limited partner involvement in risk assessment and analysis Contingency planning scenarios done by OCHA with no consultation of cluster No national contingency plan for nutrition Preparedness plans exist but are outdated
