National Coordination and Experience Sharing Forum in the area of food security and resilience building programs in Ethiopia (NCESF)
7-8 December 2016
Participants at the NCESF 2016

ILRI Ethiopia Campus, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Table of Contents





See pictures about this forum here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7907304@N04/albums/72157674203121203

Opening remarks

Mohammed Saleh (deputy country representative, FAO)

Her excellency Chantal, ambassador from the EU.
All protocol observed. I should not forget my boss Mohammed Allahoury. I’m delivering these remarks on his behalf.
Let me first, on behalf of FAO, welcome all of you and thank you for making yourselves available for this important experience sharing forum on coordination for resilience.
There are cases where given countries/regions have to align and harmonise with initiatives to secure development assistance e.g. the Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra declaration on aid effectiveness.
The former MDGs – now transformed into SDGs – and the IGAD drought disaster resilience initiative at East African regional level and other programs in semi arid lands made coordination necessary among different actors who are working for the same goal of achieving resilience in communities.
We should aim at making decisions about development interventions and getting communities more resilient: we are developing a greater vision of what we are seeking to accomplish, if we figure out how to work together in a cooperative manner.
FAO Ethiopia is implementing (with generous contributions from the EU) one of the EU Share programs on coordination for resilience. Since the launch workshop on 27-28 April 2015, progress is appearing in the implementation through coordination capacity building, establishing DRR/Agricultural task forces and sharing information among organisations and sectoral bureaus involved in development and humanitarian responses.
However the challenges of coordination still exist. Some of them are prominent and we have not enough common agreement on what is coordination for resilience and how to address it [...] We have at the same time the challenge of coordination between zonal/regional/federal levels, humanitarian and development and different sectors.
Once again I want to stress that coordination is not an end but a means: it gives a better chance for people to get the services they need. Working groups, task forces etc. that do not coordinate their task force etc. [...] then people suffer. If a farmer who qualifies as a seed recipient has to go through several steps etc. or if the seeds are stopped somewhere there are unnecessary barriers.
Coordination requires trust, transparency etc.
In order to enter into a cooperative relationship etc. we have to let go of some issues. Organisations have to be willing to share the ownership and responsibility. Coordination support is one of the major mandates of FAO. FAO is actively working with the government to create a space to harmonise government programs and development partners’ programs to serve the rural communities, trying to strengthen our accountability to assure our continuing dedication and commitment towards achieving the best. Last but not least we would like to extend our appreciation to all organisations of the IGAD-RED&FS and ADRMC for technically making this forum happen.
Thank you for participating to this forum. Thank you and I wish you fruitful and successful deliberations for this forum.

Chantal Hebberecht (EU ambassador)

Representatives from governmental institutions at federal and regional level including research institutes, ILRI representative of the director general, representatives of [development partners], participants. SO many participants. It’s a great pleasure for me to speak today on behalf of the EU where we try to improve coordination of resilience and food security efforts.
Thank you FAO for leading the project and for its leading role in the organization of this important workshop. I also want to acknowledge the work of technical working groups on RED&FS, Development partners and NGOs who supported the structuring of this workshop.
Since the 2011 food crisis in the horn of Africa, we are looking at the importance of resilience.
Development is fully recognized by all humanitarian and development actors. The emergence of the resilience building agenda offers an opportunity to move from historical divisions into a more holistic, integrated and complementary approach.
Resilience building is a long term commitment. In national policies and strategies, it should be well integrated in accordance with established aid effectiveness principles. The EU approach which was issued in 2012 confirms the EU’s strong commitment to develop resilience. It underlines that increasing resilience is essential to EU with maximum complementarity with its humanitarian and dev’t interventions.
The EU Ethiopia RESET program was initiatied in 2012-2013 and was jointly implemented by ECHO and the EU delegation to Ethiopia and it addresses the recurrent long term needs in this country with geographical cluseters (41 woredas in 5 regions).
Coordination complementing programming delivers sustainable impact. Coordiantion is even more complicated. When it comes to resilience building its multi-sectoral nature involves multiple actors. It’s clear that improving coordination is key.
This forum should facilitate experience sharing and let particiapnts jointly assess the gaps of coordination structures and mechanisms on food security and resilience building.
I want you to pay attention to building more effective mechanisms to arrive at strong synergies and complementarities of resilience building initiatives.
I wish you a very fruitful exchange of experiences. I hope we take forward to the coordination.
I can’t stay for 2 days but it’s a pity because I have the impression that you will have a very great garden party

Dejene Abesha, chair of the Rural Economic Development and Food Security secretariat (RED&FS)

(On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture)
I am deeply honored to give a speech on behalf of the minister who can’t be here for urgent reasons.
Honourable Amadou, Chantal, everyone, "protocol observed".
On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) it gives me a great pleasure to make an opening remark.
We hope to reach middle income country status by 2025. The growth and transformation plan (GTP) has underpinned an agenda that includes accelerated growth towards high value commodities in the pursuit of elimination of agricultural gaps.
Our economy has performed better and after decades of stagnation there is evidence that Ethiopia has been able to develop a conducive enough environment.
However food security is linked to exploitation of natural resources (land, water, forest). The pressure of intense human activities poses a serious threat to resources etc. There is a widespread problem with soil erosion, food and fuel crisis.
...
Distinguished participants, most development partners recorgnise the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is considered the largest safety net program. The PSNP is a government program largely implemented by the government's system and EU is one of the development partners that has continually supported it.
A series of qlttv studies shows positive impact on livelihoods by PSNP even in case of food crisis etc. ...
The implementation of the Safety net program requires continuous engagement. Several lessons have been learned in the PSNP. ... Among these: Upfront financing is important for safety net. We need to identify areas of impact.
It is of paramount importance to remind us that drought is still affecting us and we are facing major challenges.
The global phenomenon of climate change is affecting Ethiopia more than anyone else.
My special thanks also go to the members of technical committees to make today’s event a reality without which it would have been difficult to realize it.
With this remark, please allow me to say that the NCESF is officially open.

Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza (FAO): objectives and agenda

We wanted to have a utilization focus in this forum. We have tried to do that with collaboration and participation. It wasn’t easy because collaboration and participatory processes are not easy. But these two days we’ll try to do something different and think together.
The protagonists will be you! Especially tomorrow but also today.
During this long process started in June there were expectations, we have personal frustrations and satisfactions. We met most people and it was very rich. Coordination is about institutions but also about persons. I would like to thank these members from the technical working groups: (giving the list).
Participation is easy? It doesn’t require time? We can do it in our free time? In reality it’s not like this…
Going through the agenda we’ll discuss what is coordination for resilience and we’ll work in different working groups that represent the different lines of the technical working groups. We’ll have lots of time to discuss. On day 2 we focus on ‘so what’? We’ll have time to discuss in the three working groups to think together about the next steps to strengthen coordination mechanisms…

Root causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia

See the presentation by David Mogollon (EU):

Conceptual definitions

Resilience

Definition provided by Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza, FAO.
We don’t just focus on the federal but on the regional level. This relates to the conceptual framework that you find in your bag. This is one of 40 definitions…

Coordination

Definition provided by Carlos Rodriguez-Ariza, FAO.

Q&A on coordination and on resilience:
  • The challenges of having different definitions of Resilience;
  • Major challenges: How to ensure resilience and the complexity of different tools to measure the resilience;
  • Recommendation in coordination: It was raised the need of paying attention to private sectors.

Coordination of resilience

Definition provided by Nathaniel Scott, USAID.

Q&A on coordination of resilience:
  • In general, it is about how coordination is difficult. It is about how difficult it is for individuals and the organization to pull themselves back from their mandate and from their individual solutions and need to solve the problem together or having collaborative solutions;
  • Lastly, he said it is a social problem not a physical problem, which needs time and a lot of effort.

See the presentation by Nathaniel Scott (USAID):

Gender

Definition provided by Ankets Petros, Oxfam.

Q&A about gender:
  • The definition of Gender mainstreaming needs to be improved;
  • Collection of gender disaggregated data particularly the importance of considering the social aspects like religion, ethnicity in gender analysis;
  • Which methodology is best for the gender analysis, as most of the tools are research oriented and need to be adapted? How does the analysis support the decision makers? They also requested to share the Oxfam - CARE Gender Analysis document to the wider group;
  • How vulnerable women are supported in resilience building? What actions need to be taken?
  • What research methodology does the presenter advise as best? Shall it be quantitative, qualitative or both? Ankets suggested to make it both quantitative and qualitative to make it comprehensive;
  • Which framework is best in taking gender analysis? The presenter suggests the Women Empowerment Approach;
  • Though women are considered during the targeting of beneficiaries, the involvement of women in the coordination forum is insignificant. Wondimagegne from UNFPA shared about the DRM Gender working Group where each sector comes together to discuss how to ensure the gender mainstreaming not only in programmatic interventions but also at coordination level, but this needs to be strengthened/scaled up. He also shared the previous experience of how the Gender Capacity Advisor working in UNFPA has supported in provision of guidance and advice in mainstreaming gender at inter cluster coordination and also at the EHCT level. Moreover, he mentioned how the UNFPA uses the gender marker to categorize whether proposals are gender focused or not;
  • Finally, He said the major gap is the poor linkage between relief and development intervention where there is so many coordination forums like CGBV sub cluster, HYNGO Gender Working Group and Gender Caring during relief but no linkage with the development partners.

Knowledge management

Definition provided by Ulrich Bormann, GIZ
See the presentation by Ulrich Bormann:
Know how, know when, know what?

Q&A on knowledge management:
  • How to store excess knowledge?
  • How to strengthen really knowledge management in a network and what does it need to be able to fulfil all the objective of knowledge management?

Gender mainstreaming

(A 'user-experience fishbowl' unfolded to unpack the experiences around gender in resilience coordination of Meron Kidane (CARE), Ankets Petros (Oxfam), Wondemagegn (UNFPA) and Inmaculada Guixe-Ancho (EU). It included questions thrown by the audience to the speakers).

- Meron:
  • It’s been said earlier, there are many gender training courses to mainstream it but perhaps not enough good tools to bring it to the ground. My experience is from the CARE 'social analysis in action' (SAA). It was introduced in Ethiopia in 2009. It’s an approach whereby we explore, reflect, facilitate and act. It’s a cycle and we act and come back. At the middle is a facilitator. S/he is a key actor for this program. When a woman needs help etc. the group comes up with ‘how can we solve that woman’s problem’ and with effective facilitation a lot of issues come to the surface about gender norms and behaviors. Progressively there are issues to access education/health/family planning issues etc. These are linked to structural issues. There’s also a level at kebele/woreda etc. Government engages as well as influential community leaders etc. It’s very well facilitated. The facilitators are very important because you can’t change something that you don’t recognize. The facilitators have to be engaged and communities prioritize issues. The changes that you see are really amazing at community level e.g. grey-haired men saying “I’m not waiting for my wife to serve me but I go fetch wood etc.” this is stuff you don’t normally hear. This has been a very good experience in CARE. You can find more information about this in CARE.
- Ankets:
  • I want to say sthg about our culture: it’s very traditional and there are lots of cultural issues. The effect on the lives of women etc. is important. These cultural issues cannot be fought within a few days or years but we need to invest a lot of effort into this. E.g. in resilience building seasons these traditions and cultural activities are affecting women and girls in unequal ways. I also want to raise the issue that our interventions can bring about some risks e.g. at field level we’re saving lives and helping people get more resilient but we can create inequalities but men and boys are also part of gender mainstreaming...
- Wondemagegn:
  • In the 2016 Humanitarian Requirement Document (HRD) there’s a package of minimum programming focusing a.o. on gender. It’s a big step to advance the mainstreaming component. In our country, when it comes to coordination, there is a gender working group in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) led by the previous early warning directorate in the DRM Commission (DRMC). What we were doing was to put sectoral focal points (for food, WASH, health, nutrition etc.) to discuss how best to ensure the mainstreaming component on the programming and sectoral responses. That has helped us a lot especially in the 2013 HRD and in 2014. We then observed sex-disaggregated data etc. The other component is the GenCap advisor who is advising ENCAET in playing a key role to advise different actors and the resilience groups in terms of advising different people etc. to address our programming.
- Inmaculada:
  • I’m very happy to hear about these different successes. Every day there are more and more initiatives mainstreaming gender and we have evidence that when we look at our interventions, when they integrate gender they are much more successful. In Ethiopia we conduct gender analysis and then we are in a better position to plan mainstreaming of gender and good experiences of projects to address tactical and strategic needs e.g. WASH that provides not only water but also includes women in water committees as presidents etc. We also have successful strategies to commit gender specialists in teams. When we see projects, we see that some organisations are trying to promote gender issues and to raise awareness on gender. We need to engage not only women and girls but also men and boys and also non traditional actors e.g. religious leaders etc. When we work on resilience we have activities addressing womens' economic empowerment. More access to income for women makes them much more resilient. All these good experiences on the ground make us more resilient for the coordination spaces but we still have many challenges e.g. for some of you resilience is still new. We still have a rough understanding of gender. Very little understanding. Resilience coordination spaces and fields of practice are mainly male-dominated. The lack of disaggregated data means it’s difficult to plan gender-sensitive activities. Many organisations have tools to ensure a gender-sensitive design for resilience interventions but the access to resources is a challenge. We think that coordination will happen naturally and we also think that gender will happen but we need to invest, otherwise gender equality will not happen. Little engagement of women in national organisations etc. How many women do we have today in coordination spaces? We need to create a space for women to join the resilience sector. Another challenge that we have is that we don’t pay attention to the vulnerability domain of women in Ethiopia e.g. pastoralist women need a proper attention.
- Wondemagegn:
  • In the GDV etc. we had the chance to go to Afar, Somali regions etc. to see how the drought was creating havoc in different groups. With that drought and loss of livelihood opportunities, most of the livestock was dead (confirmed by gender analysis conducted by CARE/OXFAM). Most bread winners were men and they lost their livestock. Some couldn’t cope with this pressure. Some couldn’t adjust to alternative livelihood options. So they were idle and not so productive which is one of the components of resilience. Women had to travel longer distance etc. It added 3, 5 and sometimes 8 hours of travel. It made them vulnerable to crossing isolated areas and difficult terrains to access water etc. If we are working on joint programming to address some of these issues we need to have that coordination to build resilience and look at different impacts. We have different vulnerability and different coping mechanisms. We have to pay attention to the coping mechanisms of women, girls, boys, men…
- Ankets:
  • There’s a big gap on accountability mechanisms. Maybe we can find some accountability mechanisms but we are not held accountable to these standards. If we are part of the coordination we have to feed these standards.
- Inmaculada:
  • We talk a lot about gender mainstreaming but we also need to have gender standalone actions sometimes, mainstreaming may not be enough…
- Wondemagegn:
  • The issue of PSEA (prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse) needs to be recognized as it is by UNFPA, UNICEF etc. We are launching a survey that will be sent to many humanitarian actors etc. How to go about it? Same advice about AAP…

Q&A
  • Q: How do the gender analytical tools translate into improved basic services in rural areas at times of drought?
  • A: One of the tools is the ‘gender marker/scorecard’ looking at programming aspects such as M&E and assessment. At this stage the tool ensures that programming is not blind enough to ignore segments of population. The assessment looks at the different vulnerabilities of men/women/boys/girls. This tool helps us identify and to generate evidence for our programming. Once we have done that it helps us know how much our program has reached different segments of the population.
  • Comment: Women could be supported specifically in resilience building. We are looking at not only different vulnerable groups but also as a source or resource to tackle some of the problems and build resilience capacity of that particular community to reduce risks of shocks/disasters.
  • Q: How to integrate religious dimensions in gender integration?
  • A: When we are looking at data we have to look at specific dimensions such as this one, specific segments of the population that belong to a specific ethnic group etc. Religious leaders will have a lot of roles to promote gender mainstreaming.
  • Q: How to ensure gender mainstreaming impact assessment?
  • A: I’ve never seen a project undertaken by a gender-sensitive organization. We have to be gender sensitive. Impact assessment yes and sometimes we want to evaluate gender but we didn’t plan a gender analysis at the beginning etc. so impact assessment for gender is very nice but we have to introduce gender from the beginning.
  • Q: How can a standalone project address gender issues?
  • A: It can. It means that sometimes it’s not just about gender mainstreaming but about going beyond that e.g. looking at specific activities that address gender inequality etc. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t include men etc.
  • Q: How to follow and empower women?
  • A: Empowerment is one of the most difficult things and that means we need gender sensitive indicators (e.g. women access / control of resources). Are they involved in decision making?
  • Q: How to scale up the existing gender mainstreaming tools for pastoral women?
  • A: The SAA is an integrated tool. All the other programs are also influenced and linked with this process. CARE also implements in pastoral areas etc. What changes are coming, specific examples etc. We do have existing programs even in pastoral areas that can easily be shared for scaling up in other locations. We also plan to have more learning and lessons coming out of the SA project so other organisations can also learn from the process we went through. What changed, how was it facilitated etc.
  • Q: How could we link SAA to the wider coordination mechanisms?
  • A: It has to be given a platform for discussing how to improve our programming, what impact measuring mechanisms we have etc.
  • Q: How can we set a mechanism to ensure gender balance?
  • A: Without budget it’s very difficult to ensure mainstreaming. It’s important. It also comes with a strategic document e.g. ToR etc that are gender-balanced. Are we focused on women issues? It’s a very important step. Work plans and M&E follow up etc.: coordination mechanisms have to have work plans that include gender issues and consider the needs/interests/possibilities of women, men, girls and boys.
  • Q: What do you mean by gender in coordination? Hopefully it’s not about how many women at meetings.
  • A: No it’s not but the meeting has to include issues of women. Women should be present to balance issues. It’s about bringing the issues on the table.
  • Q: Synergies created among gender initiatives?
  • A: I believe so. E.g. there are clusters (CBBP etc.) and working groups and there’s a gender analysis done by CARE and OXFAM bringing together human resources to compile resources at national level.
  • Q: How can we deliver effective coordination among different actors?
  • A: Actors have the responsibility to ensure gender balance. We have the responsibility to consider different actors and some community groups should be included. Different actors should be part of the coordination.
  • Q: Who in Ethiopia would be in a position to harmonize a gender framework?
  • A: In this context, if we’re asking for the institutions there’s the ministry of women and children affairs who is asked to work in relief too. Each sectoral ministry has their own focal point assigned for this particular area. It shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of one specific ministry but requires collaboration and joint effort.
  • Q: Any ideas for materials etc. for gender harmonization?
  • A: No idea but many NGOs and humanitarian actors working on this. There’s not enough harmonization. In the longer turn we are sending contradictory messages…

See the presentation by Inmaculada Guixe Ancho (EU) which was not presented at the forum but helped as background information for the conversation:
See the presentation by Meron Kidane (CARE) which was not presented at the forum but helped as background information for the conversation:

(From this point onwards, the participants split themselves in three groups: a) national coordination, b) subnational coordination and c) knowledge management).

National coordination group

Presentation by Dejene Abesha, co-chair of the RED&FS about the RED&FS experience and lessons learnt

See the presentation by Dejene Abesha:


Presentation by Ato Tamrat & Adrian Cullis

See the presentation by Ato Tamrat:

Hereby follow the verbal inputs from Adrian Cullis:
Resilience is meant to support long term agricultural gains. When DRM-ATF was launched in 2002-3 it was an el Nino year. It was then called emergency task force. In 2007 there was a paradigm shift towards the DRM agricultural task force. Then it relaunched in November 2010. I was involved in that when working with FAO.
Why was there a need for a strategic advisory group? Because this is an El Nino year and the scale of the crisis was significant. There needed to be a strategic advisory group. Our mandate was to support the chair, to support strategic decision-making etc. We produced two frameworks for action etc. We looked at advocacy messaging, monitoring reporting, contingency planning and early recovery.
High spots: Emergency seed response was one of the biggest ones in Africa in history (21 development partners were involved), we operated through various consortia. Rather than having implementing partners doing their own work we did it with consortia and an ex-post assessment was pleased with what happened: seeds were distributed in a timely manner etc.
Number of challenges: In Ethiopia, we find mixed farming and pastoral areas and we didn’t manage to mobilize an effective livestock response and lots of livestock died. The economy suffered from this 2015 livestock loss. We struggled with horizontal coordination between government, NDRMC, donors, NGOs etc. everyone was a hero. Everyone maintained their line. Coordinating across was actually very very difficult. We can coordinate at a federal level but it doesn’t mean it happened in the regions... How do we make NGOs do what’s right and prioritise interventions? What we see is a number of challenges.

Key reflections from the audience:
  • Drought is recurrent and predictable in the horn of Africa. I witnessed 8 major droughts. In Ethiopia we have moved to DRM but we haven’t mainstreamed drought cycle management in the different ministries. We thus approach each drought as something new.
  • Development partners (DPs) also feel that it’s their heroic efforts rather than they should require government to lead drought management efforts.
  • Recommendations: we need a back bone coordination structure. If we want to tackle the drought, the NDRMC has to be the coordinating body for drought management but it has to fulfil a coordinating function, not an implementation one. It has to manage early warning systems and hold initiatives to account and show that work on the ground is done by the Ministries.
  • I’d like to see that the new NDRMC takes on that coordination role and implementation is done by the line ministries. And the role of the DPs is to ask ‘what support does the government need?’. There’s been a lot of imports in this year. Why did the DPs immediately assume that the government needed support? The government should establish that. The humanitarian approach should follow the government’s request for assistance and not decide where to put the resources. I’d like to see a much more modest role for DPs and the government manages its droughts…
  • The involvement of private sector in the coordination is crucial even if they are sometimes involved particularly during emergency. Adrian shared for example the involvement of traders during implementation of commercial destocking, feed provision and seed suppliers.
  • The issue of mainstreaming/ implementation of Drought Cycle Management is raised. Hence, Adrian's emphasis on DRM Cycle management is clearly indicated in the DRM policy, it needs to be cascaded down.
  • The poor linkage between Humanitarian and Development is also raised and suggested to ensure the involvement of development partners during the emergency.
  • Following the decision on transition of DRM ATF to either to MoLF and /or MoANR, the leadership of MoLF is not satisfactory whereby this time it should have been calling the meetings and this need to be improved.
  • It was questioned if the woreda risk profile and contingency plan is being used as guiding document while implementing emergency/ development projects. For this, it was suggested NDRMC to encourage the woredas to use the woreda risk profile, to give delegation to use the contingency budget and create accountability.


PSNP presentation (Fatima Naqvi)

See the presentation by Fatima Naqvi:


Edmealem Shitaye (IGAD)

See the presentation by Edmealem Shitaye:


Ato Tadesse (DRC) and Paul Handley (OCHA)


See the presentation by Paul Handley:

The following is the rest of the (verbal) presentation by Ato Tadesse and Paul Handley.
This had been mentioned as the crisis management group. We changed the name to DRM-TWG (technical working group). It comprises government and other actors. It’s meant to save lives and livelihoods – that’s the major change.
The tool that has come out is the humanitarian requirement document which is about saving lives and livelihoods and also addresses our development or risk reduction components. Our HRD is by far enlarged to include resilience aspects by launching to our partners. We are beyond saving lives and building assets to our population. The document should also be endorsed and supported by DPs. This is cascaded in regions to monitor the situation on the ground to respond timely. Early warning system that triggers a response. We are trying to address resilience.
(Paul Handley)
The DRM-TWG is in the middle of the graph (representing the coordination structures). We have line ministries represented and that group coordinates – exceptionally this year with over billions of dollars of assistance to this country – emergency is fast moving and it requires information, decision-making. We looked at harvest forecasting and we could see the new drought shape up, not in details but still. We also looked at livestock body conditions which were not in very good conditions etc. We also do a humanitarian snapshot for how we respond to droughts etc.
Humanitarian coordination philosophy is that we are leading partners to consensus on ‘what’s the problem?’, ‘can we have a consensus on what we are going to do about it?’ (what will the Government and DPs take on?), What are the gaps? Then ‘how are we going to address those needs’ (based on operational sectoral plans) and finally ‘what resources will we need to do it’?
We have an HRD. We have a diverse project and on the development side there’s any number of initiatives. We now have that plan -the humanitarian requirement document- and though we don’t have one platform or one product we have GTPII and other bits of development work. Is there any opportunity to bring together our initiatives e.g. RED&FS etc. and we can share our analysis? This shouldn’t be a difficult step. We are now mapping where we need to come up with a humanitarian response. What’s the overlap? What would it take to stop humanitarian appeals? Are we clear on the ability of development programs to respond to humanitarian calls etc.? There’s not a great deal of overlap where humanitarian programs are responding to large challenges. Perhaps we’re not in the right places – perhaps we need to expand the program etc. Perhaps we need to further investigate this.

Questions and answers


Ato Dejene – RED&FS
  • Q: Where are we in terms of coordination even within the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries?
  • A: There is a cross pillar Task Force to address cross-cutting issues within the Ministry. Through researches and evidence-based answers the Ministry will take actions.
  • Q: How is the engagement of NGOs in the RED&FS?
  • A: Due to the large number of NGOs registered at the national level, the RED&FS is unable to engage all of them. Therefore, the RED&FS gives comparative advantage to the major NGOs depending on how big they are in terms of funding and the area they cover, the activities they undertake. The RED&FS is working on improving its linkages with NGOs in order to be better informed on who is doing what, where - especially in the Agricultural Sector.
  • Q: Is the RED&FS decentralized?
  • A: The RED&FS doesn’t go down to the regional level. DRM-ATF is decentralized however.
  • Q: How is the issue of gender integrated in the 5 committees of the RED&FS?
  • A: Gender is regarded as a cross cutting issue. Therefore, to do mainstreaming there is no Working Group specific to gender. However, there are Gender Units in all of the RED&FS’ pillars.
  • Q: Is there a crisis modifier component within the RED&FS to ease the consequences of the cyclical droughts?
  • A: The agro-climatology unit within the RED&FS was established to deal with the drought. However, due to the intensity and the recurrence of the droughts, it is recognized that there is a need to create a formalized body to take on this issue permanently.

Ato Tamrat / Adrian Cullis – ?? Tufts University
TO BE ADDED

Fatima Naqvi – World Bank


  • Q: How do you deal with scaling up?
  • A: What you do is that you target the poorest households and you identify what are those additional households that you want to ensure you cover. How can the program get equipped to deal with that. When you have moved from 7 to 30 hh’s you scale up through this mechanism. There was a separate relief structure as NDRMC is also taking care of relief

    • This is how we worked in DP’s. There’s no structure at grassroots level.
    • That’s right. But the relief work was done entirely differently
  • Q: How about the graduates who are resilient to drought? The PSNP experience for the past 14 years is good but we haven’t decreased beneficiaries – we need to decrease that number to certain levels so how do you evaluate it? I am a witness of a certain dependency syndrome. The issue of graduation is sometimes politicized by woreda administrators. Even if they are not graduates they are forced to be graduates. But after 6 months they’re still struggling. How to build resilience?
  • A: When you see it’s a 15 year old program, one very important component of a social protection program is that in a context like Ethiopia, until there’s no more poverty there will always be a set of households that are chronically poor. They will need a level of support all the time. That doesn’t mean they’re dependent countries, it’s also in European countries. This happens in every context. Then coming to the aspects of graduation and dependency, one thing is that I would challenge is the dependency syndrome. There’s only anecdotal evidence about that. We’re still taking that point that we don’t want this program to contribute to dependency and it relates to the fact that the numbers are not decreasing. People are graduating, certain sets of criteria etc. are household-based assets and PSNP wants to make that stronger to find out what the graduation program is all about. It could be that other households have fallen in or are coming into the program. PSNP started with 17.9 million and now it’s nearly 30% of the population. What you’re looking at is the criteria for graduation… The other aspect is that when you want people to graduate it’s about livelihoods. When you want people to graduate you give them training. Linking the poor to social services (education, nutrition) is very important to have a collective approach. One true thing about the drought is that the PSNP is doing an annual ‘re-certification’ and there’s still discussion about keeping the 17.9 mio people constant or not. Because of the drought there was a government decision that there wouldn’t be graduation.
    • That’s exceptional though – we need to see a paradigm shift. There are very productive areas that need food aid.
  • Q: The Population issue was mentioned and despite investment in PSNP, so long as the population increased the net effect of that investment to pull people out of poverty might be compromised. With that scenario, how much is PSNP working with organisations that focus on family planning etc. and have useful expertise? How can we join the team? Also looking at program components we have to look at the links with service utilization etc. and they will be considered beneficiaries. If we can consider the family planning component it would be great.
  • A: You raise a very important point. When talking about a holistic approach it’s not just about handing over but also at other elements that require investment and engagement from other ministries… it requires more coordination.
  • Q: Do you include family planning?
  • A: Family planning is one of the modules. One very important aspect is in the program document. Family planning is sensitive and it’s there and you know how to build upon it. Perhaps there doesn’t seem to be family planning but it’s important we use the approach of a platform – PSNP is not just a program but a platform, a governmental mechanism that helps you know where the poor are. You can start working with those poorest households. Nothing stops that initiative from happening. The MoA is recognizing that aspect and if others bring other resources to cater to the different needs, nothing should stop.
  • Q: What kind of public work are you doing in PSNP?
  • A: It’s mostly community-based: agriculture, infrastructures etc. and mostly what the communities identify e.g. school, basic health units but since the drought it’s mostly linked to livelihood initiatives and rehabilitation of agricultural channels etc.

Dr. Edmealem – IGAD

Q: Who is IGAD targeting to work on peace building issues in drought prone areas as it is constitutionally prohibited for NGOs to take on peace building issues in Ethiopia?
A: Peace building and conflict management are essential to undergo any developmental activities. Therefore, there are authorized governmental institutions that are responsible for this and NGOs act through these institutions. If the conflicts are internal, the institutions can act on different levels as early warning units to manage the conflicts beforehand. Should the conflicts be cross boundary, IGAD and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs take on this issue. NGOs should also be reminded that it is important to design conflict-sensitive projects and assess conflict of interests prior to implementation.
Q: There is only a Technical Working Group for Rangeland Management – why aren’t there other Technical Working Groups?
A: Rangeland was seen as a priority however IGAD is open to establish other Working Groups depending on their importance and relevance.
Q: Many parallel governmental agencies engage in coordination; which one to follow?
A: The RED&FS and its different Task Forces represent the main platform in Ethiopia and that is the recommended structure to follow. However, for cross boundary issues, IGAD is the one mandated to do coordination. It is important to note the difficulties faced during coordination, however IGAD has recently developed a tool – 3W, which enables it to map out and track the different NGO activities throughout the country. This tool is to be further strengthened as IGAD is working on making it more accessible to NGOs by giving them the opportunity to freely login on the 3W tool, and access diverse information.

Ato Tadesse and Paul Handley (OCHA)


  • Q: DRM withdrew from RED&FS a while ago. Most recently we were talking about whether DRM would come back and they said ‘no’. So I find it ironic that you want to come and we’d like to have you. The invitation is there.
  • A: The MoA is represented as the lead agency in the DRM council and we are the secretariat. There’s no way that the commission is missing RED&FS.
  • But that’s an internal governmental structure but we need to have a conversation at a joint level. I would relish having the opportunity of having DRM come over to RED&FS.

  • DRM is now multisectoral.
  • That’s why we now should be part of these platforms.
  • We have good policies but haven’t started implementing. We need to mainstream DRM policies in public and private sectors. When we ensure DRM in every sector then we’ll get this taken up.
  • RED&FS. IGAD are the guardians of resilience etc. and they think everyone has to come to them for resilience. RED&FS is the natural interface with MoA and MoLF etc. And you’re saying we have to come to you so we have 3 parties saying ‘come to me’.
  • I think it’s very clear: we have to recognize all the problems in 15 minutes. Let’s be a little patient and strategic. The NDRMC, the thinking group of IGAD should come to these guys (RED&FS). The resilience thinking of PSNP should come to you and that process over a period of 5-10 years could work out but it will take time and support and we move slowly. The IGAD did nothing during the drought. These have got to become aligned so the government says ‘we have resources’ and they can move these around in a way that makes sense and addresses their needs. If we cover resources for 6 months and resources run out we can’t be held responsible but when resources run out who will chip in to bring some more?
  • PSNP: it was supposed to be triggered by early warning response and from this profile we have extracted contingency adaptation plans.
  • The profile of preparing a contingency plan is extracted from the capacity of each woreda to try and address the root causes.
  • We need a system rather than be triggered by any random piece of legislation.
  • Why don’t we have one early warning response system?
  • The last El nino drought in 2002-3 led to PSNP. We have another El Nino. Now we need an integrated system so let’s make sure we don't waste the opportunity. The people that were sitting around this table back then came up with PSNP. What we mustn’t do is miss the opportunity to reform the system based on this otherwise people will judge us saying ‘you’re useless’. Now is our responsibility to do something different. If we go into another drought as dis-coordinated as we are we are in serious trouble.
  • 30 million people are food insecure in this country. We agree on the diagnosis.
  • We have independent mechanisms in the humanitarian sector. We need to work on the nuts and bolts. Now is the right time.

Subnational coordination working group


As part of the parallel working group, the sub-national coordination group discussed on three main presentations each covering an important facet of the overall program. These of each were supplemented with three field level lesson learnt conversations. The discussions in each panel were lively with contributions from a wide range of participants. The purpose of this report is to summarize the main points made during the Sub-national coordination group discussion.

Summary of the principal observations made during the main presentations
Key points from presentations

Regional DRM-ATF structures (Akloweg Nigatu, FAO)

See the presentation by Akloweg Nigatu:
Regional ATF structures and their contribution to strengthen coordination Mechanisms for resilience building (Akloweg Nigatu, FAO Coordination Project)

Mapping of RDRM-ATF: Six regional levels: 4 zonal level and two zonal levels are under establishment
Contributions of DRM-ATFs:
  • A face to face GOV-NGOs discussion platform;
  • Joint assessment for regional need assessment;
  • Information sharing mechanism (e.g early warning);
Challenges to coordination for resilience building
  • Lack of coordination skills, knowledge and experience;
  • Misconception by some coordination is not necessary and do not follow through with commitments. Considering coordination secondary to their work, resulting in related efforts not being prioritized;
  • Complication by the presence of too many actors;
  • Frequent turnover of staff;
  • Trust often depends on increasing levels of familiarity and contact among parties, which usually suffers with high turnover rates;
  • Too many coordination meetings and their purpose is not always clear.
Conclusions
  • The existing coordination structures proved to be valuable but should be more effective/efficient;
  • The functionality of structures constrained by low ownership, commitment and leadership;
  • Joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation is not exercised;
  • Limited information flow both top down and bottom up.
Recommendations
  • Showing evidence of achievements brought about by well-coordinated intervention (NESF);
  • Organizations that are unable to commit to a coordinated effort should be encouraged to operate independently;
  • Share examples of achievements that have been made through inter-agency cooperation;
  • Improved ownership, commitment and leadership to Strengthen the link between relief, rehabilitation and development for synergetic effect;
  • Put in place joint planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation supported by regular budget in addition to project support;
  • Develop/strengthen information flow and create access to all stakeholders.

Questions/answers
  • Q: Is ATF an emergency platform?
  • A: Yes, as the name indicates (DRM-ATF) it is more of a humanitarian response. However, it doesn’t mean that it has no elements of post-emergency activities and there are also efforts to link its emergency aspect with development approach. It links emergency responses to rehabilitation aspects.
  • Q: Is there any linkage between the different ATF levels?
  • A: Yes, there regional ATFs report to Federal ATF, although there is still a gap especially in the areas of capacity and data quality, coordinated linkages vertically ( this is expected from the EU funded FAO project due to the presence of strong positions at regional levels and close working culture with the government structures.
  • Q: Gaps and challenges are mentioned but in the recommendation nothing has been said about knowledge management.
  • A: Well taken.
  • Q: What is your conclusion about the ATF effectiveness?
  • A: The structure is there but if the question is about achieving our goal, there is a gap and challenges we are closely working on.

Pastoralist Areas Resilience Improvement through Market Expansion (USAID and PRIME/Michael Jacobs, Mercy Corps) - The Feed the Future Portfolio

See the presentation by Michael Jacobs:
Key points from the presentation
  • 10 implementing partners in three regions;
  • Five technical components and two cross-cutting (Gender and disability);
  • Main mechanism: harmonization of approach and Integration (layering).
Harmonizing the approach
  • Project proposal outlines the strategic approaches;
  • Engage the consortium to follow the approach (early meetings);
  • Concept note system helped.
Common Platform - Activity and Reporting
  • Concept Notes (proposed activities) uploaded onto a common system;
  • Web-based interface;
  • Activity is described with methodology, budget, targets;
  • Everyone can see the activities developed and completed in their regions as well as other regions;
  • How activities are developed;
  • What are results of those activities (good or bad)?
  • Provides the ability to analyze who was doing what and where.
PRIME tool for effective coordination
  • Joint Annual work planning with all partners;
  • Monthly partner meetings;
  • Quarterly Technical team meetings;
  • Co-location;
  • Dual reporting structure (Technical / Management) but not fully effective.
Lessons Learned
  • Time to warm up to concept notes: vs. Inflexible work plans;
  • Important to make decisions early in the game: Regular meetings helped to understand implementation challenges early, and agree on actions to resolve issues;
  • Adapt to changing situations: process for changing activities/ strategies through annual work planning, concept notes system, and regular technical meetings;
  • Refresh, refresh, and refresh regular refresher training for staff. This has improved the buy-in of PRIME’s approach and enhanced consortium results.

Questions / answers
  • Q: Is your web-based interface open for outsiders?
  • A: There is nothing outside of the consortium.
  • Q: What is the situation of your project now?
  • A: The current funding goes up to October and hope another will come;
  • Q: The pool is full of different clusters, to mention in addition to yours, the EU cluster, Swiss cluster and another Swiss cluster etc so there is no place to swim, how do you bring these tools together?
  • A: The idea of commitment is not a minor it is a biggest issue and where there is commitment we don’t have such difficulties.

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)

See the presentation by Berhanu Taye:
EU Ethiopia Resilience Building Program II (RESET II)
The presenter focused on most relevant issues leaving the details for the field/project level.

  • Covers Eight geographical clusters in 41 drought prone Woredas across five regional states;
  • Addresses about 2,8 million most vulnerable population;
  • Includes eight consortium projects which are implemented by eight leading and 25 partner NGOs;
  • Life-time five years (2016 – 2020) with a total budget of 48 million Euros.

Coordination mechanisms: Works with governments on two levels
- Consortium - project level: Among the EU RESET implementing partners linked to the Woreda level coordination plat form – local partners (woreda sector offices and other actors -NGOs, etc.) operating in the respective intervention woredas
- Cluster – Zonal level:
  • All actors: a platform of both the EU RESET partners and other actors in the respective cluster implementing resilience related interventions.
  • ToR for the coordination and common log frame developed for joint planning, review, M&E exercises

Questions / answers
  • Q: What lessons did you learnt about coordination?
  • A: We had some problems to bring to us those NGOs outside of our consortium/cluster not benefiting from the project budget ; we believe that our partner NGOs should play a proactive role. At project level (Woreda level), the problems are minimal. The other area we should work would be to link the clusters with the regional coordination forums; in this case, FAO is expected to fill the gaps.
  • Q: How do you select cluster leaders?
  • A: It is based on the election of the consortium members; agreement from all sides is a criterion.
  • Q: How do you select NGO partners?
  • A: EU-Fund is competitive and we keep on this. Competent organization secures fund.

(After tea break, a 'bus stop' helped introduce another set of three experiences as 'bus stations').
Three stations, EU-Share, RDRM-ATF and Humanitarian organization (OCHA).

Station 1: Humanitarian OCHA

Main activities
  • Co-chairs (Secretary) the DRM-TWG (ICCG) both at Federal and Regional level( DPBC is chair); led by Government;
  • The platform is used for emergency response;
  • Resilience: in general not yet touched but started to look at it;
  • Efficiency vary between regions, Oromia is the best and SNNPR is the least efficient; Gambella is also weak.
Challenges:
  • No agency staff making decision apart from Oromia at regional levels due to their destinations from their HQ;
  • Frequent change of attendees ( New persons for different sessions);

Questions / answers
  • Q: 1. Since OCHA is working mainly Humanitarian on fund activities, no resilience related questions raised.
  • A: but on linking development versus Emergency- they responded that as they are working on inventories from development.


Station 2: EU-Share

ECHO Bale, EU-South Omo and Wollaita clusters
  • Cover 5 sectors, livelihood, WASH, Health….
  • Horizontal coordination;
  • Technical and financial sub-committee for transparency;
  • Joint monitoring, cost covered by all;
  • Technical synergy;
  • Leadership is on rotational basis;
  • They are also part of bigger platforms eg Zonal Task Forces;
  • Standardization of approach e.g training of CAHW.
Challenges
  • No vertical coordination mechanism as it is project based;
  • Presence of other similar kinds of coordination mechanisms.

Questions / answers
  • Q: Do you see DRM-ATF as duplication of efforts as so many clusters working together
  • A: No, DRM-ATF is more of agricultural tendency so we look it as an influential platform and that is why we participate
  • Q: How is your reporting system?
  • A: We have two ways of reporting, each reports to government, for donors it is the responsibility of the cluster leader

Station 3: RDRM-ATF

(FAO Afar and Amhara regional office)

Successes
  • Effective and timely response delivery;
  • Reduced duplication of resources (3Ws);
  • Linking relief with rehabilitation and development;
  • Update information sharing up to Federal level;
  • Sharing of minutes to participants;
  • Improved targeting of areas and beneficiaries (participation of vulnerable communities).
Challenges
  • High staff turn over;
  • Low participation and frequent change of participants (inconsistent delegation);
  • Absence of Woreda and Zonal ATFs’ platforms;
  • Limited joint planning;
  • Lack clarity of coordination or TOR;
  • Poor linkage relief coordination to development.

Questions / answers
  • Q: Who chairs the ATF?
  • A: Afar: the head of the regional Pastoral and Agriculture Bureau; Amhara – RDPPC , however Amhara wants to shift Agriculture Bureau to lead the taskforce

See the overview report (PPT) of this parallel working group:
See the documentation/rapporteur's notes for this working group:

Knowledge management working group

See the IGAD presentation on knowledge management by Djemal Mansour:

See the ILRI presentation knowledge management by Peter Ballantyne: http://www.slideshare.net/ILRI/ckm-ec-sharedec2016

(In the knowledge management parallel session overall two presentations were made by Jemal Mansour from IGAD and Peter Ballantyne from ILRI. Some of the important issues addressed by two presenters are described below).

IGAD's experience with knowledge management (Djemal Mansour, IGAD)


Generally the first presentation focuses on the IGAD initiative on knowledge management across the member countries. In addition to this, he addressed the current success of IGAD on improving the knowledge management system.
The heads of state of member’s countries agreed to have a knowledge management system which is basically expected to enhance generation, access, use and integrated management of research, knowledge, technology and innovations in the IGAD region.
First the speaker defined knowledge management as systematic coordination of people, technologies and process in order to capture and add value through reuse and innovation.

The following IGAD major successes on knowledge management are presented below:
  • The IGAD drought disaster resilience and sustainability initiative (IDDRSI) draft documents have been developed and expected to be ratified in all member countries of the region which ultimately expected to improve the knowledge management system of the region on resilience;
  • Data sharing policy and protocol documents are being drafted. They govern all the member countries which are expected to create a clear guidelines for easier circulation of knowledge;
  • Harmonized M&E process which will be expected to create common monitoring and evaluation strategies by all the resilience projects implemented in the member countries. The pilot test has been done by the World Bank project which has the process and outcome and it has been found impressive result from the pilot test;
  • Spatial planning by using GIS technologies considered as a success because having spatial planning can help have a holistic approach for resilience.

The coordination strategies adopted by IGAD
  • Regional coordination among the members countries through common knowledge management platform;
  • At national level all ministers or sectors of the countries need to work in an organized and coordinated manner.

Tools of knowledge management
  • Technology (IGAD info, websites);
  • People (capacity building, incentives, champions);
  • Process (common strategy, protocols, policy).

The following key components of technologies designed for better knowledge management:
  • M&E system for project and programme level (Di Monitoring);
  • M&E system for baseline data and impact monitoring (IGAD Info);
  • Programme portfolio management - building a 3W map (who is doing what and where);
  • Geospatial portal;
  • Document Management System;
  • IDDRSI Website;
  • IGAD Intranet.

After completion of the first phase it is planned to have working group establishment at regional national and subnational level in the second phase.

Some of the challenges experienced in implementing KM strategies (tools):
  • More than one institution;
  • KM across countries with different cultures;
  • Various understanding and expectations of KM;
  • Limited resources;
  • Rapid technological change and different technological capacity;
  • Lack of commitment;
  • Duplication of efforts with in IGAD countries.

Some of the ways forward
  • Document finalized KM documents;
  • Data sharing protocols;
  • Geospatial capacity building activities;
  • IGAD Portal;
  • IGAD Info;
  • Dimonitoring and 3W application;

Partner’s organization working with IGAD: GIZ, USAID, EU.

The ILRI experience with knowledge management (Peter Ballantyne, ILRI)

A snapshot of communication and knowledge approaches

Two big KM approaches: codification and personalization
  • Knowledge described and warehoused for re-use (codification);
  • Knowledge in people shared and communicated focus on process (personalization).

Some of the actions taken by the organization (ILRI) are described below:
  • Voices from the field (actual situation of the livestock histories);
  • Capturing most significant changes from Africa and Ethiopia;
  • Innovation platform changes (how things are done);
  • Using technological tools to gather human feedback;
  • Open and accessible (open access for research, knowledge);
  • Open projects;
  • Open access information products repository;
  • EAP (Ethiopian Agricultural Portal - partners news);
  • Dissemination on social networks;
  • Woreda level knowledge center;
  • Events and meetings: what do most organizations do? Meetings!
  • Group dynamics;
  • Documenting events;
  • Capturing the process;
  • Regular follow-up and sharing through social media;

Questions / answers:
  • Q: Clarification on the personalization approaches of KM?
  • A: personalization means knowledge inside the people therefore the knowledge with the people must be connected and documented for further sharing.
  • Q: Difference between collecting and connecting?
  • A: he pointed that ILRI focuses on connecting people because the collection of information is not guaranteed with the use of information but collecting the information also is important.
  • Q: Dimonitoring and 3w (how comprehensive is it?
  • A: Only about the government or it includes other partner organization). Currently on the pilot level expected to be comprehensive after ratification of by all member countries. Moreover the dimonitoring tested with two projects of World Bank and it found that the dimonitoring is effective.
  • Q: Capture/Identification of the knowledge at grass root level?
  • A: They have not started yet
  • Q: Knowledge management audit? (SCA)
  • A: This has been covered rapidly not comprehensively; but it has implications and has created awareness about the previous issues of not sharing data is not there anymore.

Reflection on what KM achieving in coordination spaces or importance of coordination:
  • It helps to reduce duplication of the ideas;
  • It improves efficiency;
  • Success history;
  • Good practices.

Challenges identified in relation to KM in coordination
  • Lack of commitments;
  • Lack of culture sharing knowledge;
  • Not learning from failure;
  • Lack of capacity;
  • Lack of leadership.


After these presentations, a brainstorming session was held which led to this picture:
KMsnapshot.jpg

What is going well:
  • So far, sharing of bulletins, leaflets and posters have been done in coordination spaces;
  • Reduce duplication of resources;
  • There is good data collection tools ad website to share the experience/best practice of different organizations. Only limited within the organisation;
  • Efficient implementation.
What is going so-so:
  • Coordination (collective data management systematic approach);
  • Replication of best practice / learnings and designing projects (with better coordination + innovative approach);
  • Harmonization of tools;
  • Focus on quality standards (ongoing efforts);
  • Sharing of success stories, good practices but failure to share what has not gone well;
  • Good documentation of experiences;
  • Tools:
    • For KM, you start small and grow gradually;
    • Target --> multi levels;
    • It helps not to start from zero;
    • Learn from our and other failure;
    • Create opportunity to innovate our intervention;
    • Government and partners more together to share information;
    • Lack of commitment;
    • Failure stories/information not collected for learning;
    • Do we have a culture to share knowledge?
    • Robust shared vision +;
What could be improved (not going well enough):
  • Capacity limitations on KM;
  • Organizational culture in KM in coordination space (value of KM);
  • Lack of commitment on KM;
  • Limited capacity of institutions in knowledge management;
  • Capacity;
  • KM minimizes duplication of efforts;
  • Facing same problems every time;
  • Poor coordination;
  • Repetitive interventions but no change;
  • Poor knowledge management;
  • Mechanisms on how to share learnings are not clear;
  • At times non-usable/unnecessary information collected;
  • Duplication of efforts!! Avoid;
  • Unnecessary information;
  • No coordination for KM;
  • Efficiency;
  • Innovative thinking;
  • Create a learning institution. How??? Get support from top management;
  • KM in coordination spaces must be systematic and need to have a shared strategy to gather, store, disseminate and use knowledge;
  • Why have things not been achieved? Lack of leadership commitment;
  • No platform;
  • Coordinations have no harmonized strategy for KM;
  • Many ended up at gathering knowledge and failed to store systematically, disseminate and use knowledge;
  • Strategy.

See the overview report (PPT) of this KM parallel working group:
See the documentation notes for this KM parallel working group, based on which the results of day 2 discussions are presented below:

Key conversation notes from knowledge management parallel session (Day 2)

The second day discussion started with the challenges identified in yesterday session namely;
  • Lack of commitment from Leaders;
  • Low level of Capacity for KM;
  • No culture of Learning failure.
The following ways were forwarded to overcome the challenges raised on making use of KM as tool for coordination:

1. Leadership and commitment

The following organization suggested in taking the leadership in coordination of DRM ATF namely;
  • REDFS;
  • PPDs;
  • Two ministry (ministry of agriculture and natural resources and Ministry of livestock and fisheries).
Suggested recommendations to solve these problem/challenges:
  • The absence of guiding strategic manual is raised as main problem in making use KM as tool for coordination of DRM ATF. Therefore, it is suggested to develop draft strategic manual and incorporate the KM in that strategic manual;
  • Consulting IGAD in preparation and finalization of strategic manual;
  • While developing the strategic manual knowledge management aspect included by setting minimum requirement and tools set (technological aspect);
  • Each participating organization contributes budget to support coordination:
    • The implementing agency has to take as one activity and allocate a budget.
    • All the donors need to include coordination as their activities and allocate budget to coordination.

2. Capacity development

The capacity of actors of knowledge management needs to be improved through Skills improving training. Knowledge management personnel can also be assigned in addition to common monitoring and evaluation officer.
Capacity development needs to focuses on;
  • Creating awareness for leaders (top management officer), officers, managers, coordinator and others on the definition KM from very beginning;
  • Different technological tools which will be used as medium for the knowledge management needs to acclimatize different actors of KM through training; TOT; in-house training and others methods)
In-house training

TOT on KM

Tools/technology

Awareness

3. Leaning from failure (Culture)

Failure cannot be reported in most organization therefore;
  • The environment needs to be created to share failures (knowledge) and not repeat them again;
  • A regular and structured lesson learnt session needs to be organized quarterly or biannually.

End of day 1 reflections

  • At regional level, there are different clusters and consortiums but are not coordinated and yet we are taking about coordination;
  • Coordination between PSNP (under ministry of Agriculture) and humanitarian response programme (Federal state) is critical. During the actual intervention (provision of the food), it is without the knowledge of region or zone which will reach at woreda level and there is no coordination.
  • Two words: Harmonization and Coordination that are central elements to address resilience. The question is how and who should take the lead on coordination? We witness the availability of resources and efforts but also the lack of harmonization and coordination. To do that we need to start from the identification of problems and then we need to start from the planning. Otherwise, coordination will be on paper only.
  • The issue of resilience needs to be looked into from a regional perspective because resilience from the concept of resilience within the country does not alone guarantee resilience e.g. IGAD looks at resilience among adjacent countries.
  • Resilience is a national framework where DRM needs to be mainstreamed accross all sectors.
  • DRM ATF has been one of the debate points in the RED&FS. Suggestion: DRM ATF to be within the two sectors (MoANR and MoLF).

===============================
Day 2 ======================================================================

National coordination working group

(Following the presentations and Q&A sessions from the previous day, the group resumed its conversation on a few cross-cutting questions, with a much reduced group).

Plenary discussion on the following question:

How to improve coordination of resilience between agriculture and DRM sectors and across major programs (PSNP, SLMP, AGP, DRSLP) at national level?

  • Develop clear roles and responsibilities (and give more power to be able to enforce) e.g. DRMC coordinating. Who does what with emergencies where?
  • Who should take the lead on DRM? Fragmentation across all sectors;
  • When there is an emergency: Develop a common platform (for ATF);
  • When there is no emergency: DRM-ATF to be come THE platform and expand its partnership;
  • Ministry offices should sit together and integrate their planning (DRM in all working plans);
  • Develop a common plan on resilience (as for nutrition with the NMP);
  • Ensure DRM is present in 1) each sector with responsibility to ensure planning, implementation and representation at the national platform by one lead agency and 2) under supervision of NDRMC (second step);
  • Make the major programs more inclusive e.g. role of NGOs (covered in ATF) and private sector, and of IGAD?
  • HOW is coordination functioning?
  • NDRMC should have co-chairing by OCHA and one development agency;
  • Link DRMC with agricultural ministries.

(Then a world cafe ensued on the following three questions:
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?)

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

Overlaps:
  • HRD (emergency) / PSNP (serving chronically insecure households);
  • PSNP needs HRD inputs when there is an emergency;
  • Overlap: cash for food vs. food aid;
  • Targeting: PSNP households can't get HRD supportDevelop a space to learn NOW!
    • Planning at woreda level is the crux ==> PSNP & HRD need to discuss and link up
Gaps:
  • No sharing of beneficiaries' database. Align transport;
  • Finger pointing at each other (PSNP/HRD);
  • All programs need to have an HRD response by having provisions in a contingency plan to be able to reallocate resources;
  • Capacity gap between the two programs: at woreda/kebele level: target and implement effectively and understand the rationale and functioning of each other;
  • In each major program, improve coordination and communication --> improve it between them.

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

  • DRM TWG to help coordinate different ATFs chaired by NDRMC and co-chaired by OCHA. This is not enough! Add a development co-chair;
  • Private sector: missing but which private sector are we talking about? The private sector production matters (e.g. seeds, corporate social responsibility programs) --> help them focus their CSR efforts;
  • Need a market-based approach to development and even in humanitarian work, do emergency market mapping for supply (it helps avoid freed handout);
  • Create a space for this in DRM-ATF/ RED&FS;
  • Get involvement of private sector;
  • PSNP to take lessons on gaining efficiency (learning from humanitarian sector) and vice-versa humanitarian sector to learn lessons from development;
  • Alignment needs to happen among development partners too, not just inside governmental structures;
  • Avoid free handouts, give sthg in return (e.g. food for work, cash transfer etc.);
  • Strategic plan is necessary with contingencies e.g. RPLRP has a contingency plan including DRM.

Why are good practices and lessons learned not mainstreamed?

  • Good practices come from individual (organisational) lenses, so rather do this jointly (e.g. as CRS and FAO did it with the seed security assessment);
  • Good practices are context-specific, no 'best practice'.
  • There isn't enough M&E, documentation, sharing.
  • We need to develop a system to document good practices.
  • There is no platform to meet and share experiences.
  • ATF has forums (meetings) for technical discussions. It needs to increase.
  • There is an upcoming MIS/GIS mapping all level interventions for all flagship programs and connecting them all. It covers what they do, their areas of work and could thus contribute to triangulation of data.
  • More platforms may not help! Develop a good KM strategy and scale up.
  • DRM ATF to cascade their technical committees (and e.g. do one on KM).
  • Who will lead the main platform? Can it happen?
  • What is a good lesson/practice? This needs discussion.
    • Tested methodology that led to good results (how did we get there?)
    • Easily replicable/scalable

Subnational coordination group


How to improve Vertical Coordination for resilience between Woreda, zonal, Regional and Federal Level?


Speakers
Points raised
Edmealem Shitaye
(IGAD)
  • Establish strong coordination structure rather than here and there;
  • Coordination needs commitment, common agenda, working together. To achieve this we first need to change our mindset since everybody needs to keep its tertiary;
  • Political leadership is crucial otherwise it is difficult to achieve our objective;
  • Strengthening vertical coordination is necessary from federal up to Kebele level to achieve this vertical coordination structure government should take the leading role.
Ben (CARE)
  • Being coordinated may be missing the point: coordination should come with results on the ground in the livelihood of the community;
  • Coordination structures become stronger during emergency but need to sustain this for development and resilience interventions;
  • The main issue should be how to bring our interventions to link with government flagship programs to create resilience.
Roba
(FAO)
  • There is better information flow from regions to federal however this is rather weak from federal level to regions;
  • The government should take the leading role to coordinate the emergency and development intervention;
  • There is a lot of duplication of resources and lack of clarity because of weak data management and information system;
  • As we go to the lower administration, there is a big gap in understanding the necessity of information and coordination;
  • Government plays a special role at federal level and needs to set direction and guidelines to create strong coordinating structure at all levels.
Selomon
(Gov’t )
  • The presence of parallel coordination meeting structures;
  • Coordination is in infant stage; we have to work to improve its scope.
Berhanu
EU
  • Who is the responsible organization for resilience since resilience touches almost all sectors health, education, water, agriculture etc… it must be set clearly which organization is mandated for the resilience projects;
  • Coordination on itself may not bring change, it demands commitment, time and resources to achieve its final goal;
  • There is an overlap on the mandate of different sectors government, donors and NGOs;
  • Lack of leadership and communication from government.
Natneal
(USAID)
  • The government should allocate resources time and strategy for coordination;
  • Coordination initiatives by donors lack ownership and sustainability;
  • Separate thematic coordination group established to feed the biggest one like in ATF there is a livestock working group and a seed working group;
  • Put clearly who is mandated organization for the resilience projects;
  • Design a structure that coordinates both development and humanitarian interventions;
  • Lack of guidelines /direction from national for resilience projects.
See the summary report of the discussion:


Question (a) What are key gaps and overlaps emerging from all these experiences?

  • 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 lacking;
  • 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.

(b) How can development and humanitarian ‘worlds’ better align with each other at sub-national level?

  • Mapping of coordination structures and the sharing of available information among humanitarian partners;
  • The humanitarian side needs to include resilience initiatives;
  • Put in place policy/strategy and directives that don’t destruct the ongoing development (operationalize LRRD);
  • Efficient resource utilization (repetitive pond/dug well rehabilitation and recovery during emergency operations observed);
  • Establish the link between development and humanitarian partners (e.g. the link between RED&FS SWG and OCHA/HCT is lacking);
  • Adopt development programs (such as PSNP government flagship programme);
  • Government leadership is indispensable;
  • Budget allocation to the task forces.

(C) Why are good practices and lessons learned not mainstreamed?

  • Information exchange between NGOs is not there (even if there is, it could not be well understood);
  • No common forum for all partners (both development and humanitarian);
  • Frequent restructuring of the government who is responsible to spearhead the coordination;
  • Insufficient promotion of lessons;
  • No proper documentation of lessons learned (this is only done through conducting workshop without looking at ways forward);
  • No assessment of lessons learned and the absence of the standard/criteria for selecting good lessons;
  • Inter and Intra Federal, Regional, Zonal and Woreda information sharing is limited/lacking.

II. Working on Coordination for Resilience (the Way Forward)


1. Knowledge management:

  • The lead for KM is a challenge and find the way out;
  • Separate strategy such as IGAD’s strategy and guidelines are essential;
  • Initiate the KM process and get endorsed by the government (MoLF and MoANR) and to the NDRMC;
  • Creating KM platform for coordination for resilience;
  • Sensitization of KM to champion (collecting and connecting);
  • Create systematic actions for KM.

2. Leadership and Commitment

  • NDRMC should take the lead for coordination;
  • National Guidelines required for coordination for accountability;
  • Establish working group drawn from RED&FS SWG and HCT to link LRRD (Promoting LRRD);
  • HCT should have been in PSNP but didn’t work;
  • The leadership of coordination must be under different line ministries since it is multi-sectoral. e.g. DRM-ATF must be led under the consortium/board of MoLF and MoANR.

3. Joint Work and Capacity for Joint Action (Mutually Reinforcing Activities)

  • The gap between theory and practice is different for joint action;
  • Common framework required;
  • Commitment from Prime Minister’s Office and MoFEC in putting in place guidelines;
  • Involvement of National Planning commission (NPC) under MoFEC important;
  • Strategic document from higher level is indispensable;
  • Availing time and resources for coordination.

4. Shared Framework/Agenda

  • Clarity of the backbone organization (highest government level –NDRMC);
  • Shared vision;
  • Donors pool funds and give technical backstopping at different levels (Federal, Regional, etc.).

5. Continuous Communication and Trust (Transparency)

  • Strong platform with standard protocol (modus operandi);
  • Transparency (bottom up and top down);
  • Promotion of trust/transparency by donors.


Parallel working group results

See the presentations

See the report by the national coordination working group:
See the report by the subnational coordination working group:
See the report by the knowledge management working group:


World café on collective impact for resilience coordination

(We ran a world cafe to ask all participants to think about what next steps we can think of in terms of the 5 dimensions of the collective impact framework applied to resilience coordination. Each group of participants thus discussed 3 out of the 5 topics below).

Bearing in mind the challenges, gaps and overlaps highlighted, what ways forward do you suggest to improve resilience coordination around:
  • šLeadership and Commitment (backbone organization)
  • Joint Work and Capacity for Joint Action (mutually reinforcing activities)
  • Common Framework (common language)
  • Trust and Continuous Communication (continuous communication)
  • Knowledge Management (shared measurement)

Leadership and commitment

  • NDRMC to take the lead in chairing resilience coordination;
  • National guideline reflecting accountability and commitment in coordination;
  • Strengthening existing coordination space - promoting LRRD.

Joint planning and capacity for joint action

Clear roles & responsibilities
DRM-ATF to lead sectors (planning, implementation, monitoring) with outside support (TA) --> facilitated --> decision makers need to sit together.
Ato Abera (DRR director).

Group 1:
  • What --> How --> Why --> Who?
  • 1. Theory: Joint planning from the beginning;
  • 2. In practice: GAP (needs analysis, diagnosis, obvious, gap...);
  • How to do joint planning?
    • With/at different levels (vertical/horizontal coordination), different needs/problems/stakeholders;
    • 1. Strong & real: leadership, commitment (another CI principle) from GoE --> MoFED/Coop / Prime Minister Office. National planning commission (NPC - accountable to MoFED);
    • 2. Real power to enforce decisions;
    • 3. Accountability of member agencies;
    • 4. Harmonised: rules, guidelines, strategic document (at different levels, on coordination for resilience)
      • I. HOW: to run coordination for resilience (as it is multisectoral). Levels, knid of TWG, government + donors. WHO: NDRMC (mandated for coordination) but Prime Minister Office (speed);
      • II. Question: Why not? Ministry --> implementation. Mainstream in process. The DP/GoE strengthen institutional capacity building. Do they have the time to lead effective coordination. Coordination capacity building needs assessment?

  • Common understanding / analysis is basis for building a common vision (ask 5 why's);
  • Build on existing initiatives - impacts? Effectiveness;
  • Review/assess / SWOT existing systems --> findings;
  • Based on findings redesign;
  • Done need more analysis? Kicking can down road;
  • Joint field work / analysis - all stakeholders;
  • Forum to reach consensus: e.g. ATF;
  • Who - Gov / donors / NGOs engage at appropriate levels;
  • Paris Agreement - Aid effectiveness (carrot and stick);
  • Sector coordination in gov/donor/NGO;
  • PM Office - sector coordination;
  • Coordination tax - coordination support --> to pay for facilitation.

Common Framework


  • Clarity of the backbone organization (highest government level –NDRMC);
  • Shared vision;
  • Donors pool funds and give technical backstopping at different levels (Federal, Regional, etc.).


Trust and Continuous Communication

  • Is trust necessary? Would transparency not be enough?
  • Benefit from healthy competition;
  • Independent organization (state control?);
  • Strong coordination platform led by the government;
  • Capacity building for the government;
  • Communication protocols (link to previous 2 points);
  • Need to establish a network between implementers (at federal and regional level);
  • Feedback mechanism needed (close follow-up., bottom-up, top-down;
  • Transparency;
  • Integrity of data (common references) and human integrity;
  • Documentation;
  • Awareness raising;
  • Safe space for underachievement;

Knowledge Management

  • Exhaustively identify all gaps and challenges across the board (all actors(, ideally involving (led by) higher levels of government;
  • Consultative meeting that includes higher levels of government. What good practices there are;
  • Before dissemination, a reflection workshop;
  • How to support a KM strategy for the government to make it aware of the importance of KM?
  • A unified KM platform for all actors (especially the gov);
  • Networks and forums that actively include the government so it can lead coordination (harmonized documentation);
  • How would DRM lead?
  • When 'collecting', how is the gender component considered? As most vulnerable, target women directly. From these sort of initiatives, how to share lessons learned/good practices? ==> Common platform for cross-learning and decision-making;
  • Headline in 5 years: "Coordinated action curbs drought";
  • Lobbying to our respective organizations. Who would align? DRM? RED&FS?
  • One entity should be in the lead: a single strategy for RED&FS and DRM?
  • There should be one framework, strategy to guide (like IGAD's);
  • Start small: get approval for such a framework within the different concerned bodies (start in-house discussions);
  • In 5 years: "cross-ministerial resilience coordination platform established" = dream headline;
  • A real awareness (and leadership) of what KM means and involves;
  • Comes back to the discussion of collecting/connecting;
  • A structured information system to inform systematic joint action.

Open Space - next steps

(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).
The topics that were put forward including the few that were not addressed were:
  • To see the action points to happen and to review the next steps
  • NDRMC to lead on resilience/DRM - the back bone coordination organization
  • Choosing and supporting the resilience backbone institution (champion)
  • Transition DRM-ATF to DRM / resilience task forces in MoANR and MoLF
  • How to build trust among stakeholders?
  • Develop common framework agenda and resilience
  • What is new
  • Donor put a direction to implementing agency to coordinate each other
  • Recovery is prerequisite for resilience
  • Promote DRM policy - Most relevant to resilience and coordination
  • Required less area. Return is high. Managed at formal level
  • National level support for regional coordination
  • Joint work - joint capacity for action
  • Mainstreaming coordination forums in regular government structure and assignment of human resources (focal person) and budget. Strengthen linkage between emergency, resilience building and development. Create regional information management system at DPFspace to collect document and disseminate food security information
  • Common standard and guidelines for better coordination led by one responsible government entity
  • Develop culturally sensitive Ethiopian KM toolkit. Publish annual compendium of success stories
  • Strategising KM with coordination mechanisms
  • We need to develop accountability mechanism for coordination
  • Develop common standard on coordination
  • Creating conducive policy ground for collective action

The six topics actually discussed (some of which were the merger of several topics) were:
  • How to build trust among stakeholders?
  • Developing an Ethiopian KM toolkit
  • See all the action points happen at all levels
  • Identifying the resilience backbone organization
  • Developing accountability strategic framework and guidelines
  • What is new? Making it happen

(Each of these topics was then put to public vote for the popularity of the points put forward in the conversation. This amount of 'votes' is just indicative of the popular support for each conversation's importance and ways forward suggested).

How to build trust among stakeholders (lead: Nat Scott) – 13 votes

Insights:
  • Enabling environment is constrained;
  • Competition for money;
  • Duplication of efforts/gaps;
  • Conflict of interest/ideas.
Recommendations:
  • Improved transparency – process;
  • More relationship building:
    • Communication;
    • Common ground.
  • Dialogue with government for guidelines.

Ethiopian KM toolkit (Lead: Ulrich Bormann) – 13 votes

Insights:
  • Toolkit not flexible;
  • Implementers can contribute to success stories and finances e.g. AKLDP;
  • TK regular revision (lesson learning coops);
  • Success story verification;
  • Independent writing + selection.
Recommendations:
  • Innovation (donors/impl.) vs. success (government picks it up);
  • - Set of criteria, including gender.

To see the action points happen at all levels (lead: GOAL) – 11 votes

Insights:
  • Structures (ATF);
  • KM;
  • Linkage of federal level and regions;
  • Guideline and strategic doc.
Recommendations:
  • Delivery of message to government for a better coordination mechanism;
  • Accountability of the structure;
  • Develop strategic document;
  • KM – information sharing, documentation, learning, back to accountability structure.

Resilience backbone organization (RBO) (Lead: Luis/Adrian Cullis/Nat Scott) – 23 votes

Insights:
  • RBO should be:
    • Leader and champion for resilience;
    • Dedicated;
    • Facilitator (not implement);
    • Cross-sectoral;
    • Credible/relevant;
    • Participatory and inclusive.
Recommendations:
  • Create the resilience building directorate;
  • Define/agree what is resilience;
  • Explore hosting RBO in NDRMC. Caveat: linkages to mandate?) or MoA/PSNP.

Accountability strategic framework and guidelines (Lead: Berhanu Taye et al.) – 19 votes

Insights:
  • Coordination loose / no harmonization;
  • Lack of coordination may lead to conflicts of approaches, duplication of efforts, inefficient use of limited resources.
Recommendations:
  • Need to have guidelines/framework;
  • Need to develop accountability mechanism.

What is new? Making it actually happen Lead: Ben [CARE]) – 13 votes

Insights:
  • What can we get from other countries’ experience? (regional, zonal, woreda) experience sharing;
  • New actors/new task force for resilience ?? TF already exist;
  • New government position to coordination. Fed --> regional --> Z --> W – budget;
  • --> Zonal role;
  • Gov. --> new role / initiatives;
  • Donors --> new role / initiatives;
  • NGOs --> new role / initiatives;
  • Private sector role;
  • Community role / accountability;
  • Info + knowledge management systems – use of info – Afar – Solar info system.
Recommendations:
  • Challenge actors to change and improve;
  • Develop and fund new roles for different actors;
  • Apply new technology as appropriate;
  • New media.

Closing words

(The initial closing comments were given by Berhanu Taye [EU] but unfortunately not captured).

Mohammed Saleh (deputy country representative, FAO)

I wish I could have attended the whole session but due to other commitments it wasn’t possible but I’m sure you have done a good job as an outcome of your deliberations and as the conclusions you have ended up with something of big value in terms of strengthening the coordination and putting it in a more advanced context. The classic definition of coordination, synergies, complementarities etc. and that you are going beyond that for future planning of interventions and also to adopt the modalities for our joint interventions to work in areas where we are proceeding with this activity. I think each of you must have listened a lot. A lot of talk was there…
Thank you for each and everyone of you for the inputs you have contributed for this important exercise and for making yourselves available for 2 days to participate in this. I know many of you are busy and have many commitments and other things to do but it’s very much appreciated that you gave two days of your valuable time to make it a success.

Dejene Abesha (co-chair RED&FS SWG)

I have the privilege to make the closing remarks. I want to come back to aid effectiveness forums. We had three previously but there was a paradigm shift in the way that this one was organised. It was more professional than the previous ones. Professional in the sense that we have well structured points of discussion and I want to take this opportunity to appreciate the facilitators.
It was very fantastic because there was a lot of professional dynamism in this. When I see Adrian Cullies who wants to bring things to order, I always tell Gary and Adrian you have a lot of professionalism. That’s the kind of things that helps us promote professionalism in our organisations. We need outside knowledge and we need to encourage this.
I also like to appreciate the strength and stamina of Carlos. There was a program overlap and this became a reality so you must be happy.

Having a point of departure, I need to take some points of departure for tomorrow’s discussion.
In terms of DRM-ATF, this has been an issue voiced out a number of time in RED&FS and from the conversations here there is a program but we need to engage our DPs. In our share, what we take is that DRM in the livestock and fishery, we need to put in place something on board for indulgement for DRM-ATF to be mainstreamed in the MoLF so that DPs can have access etc. This has been discussed very well.
Tomorrow we’ll repeat the same in RED&FS and in both ministries.
Nathaniel Scott raise the issue of decentralization. We need regional inputs with time. It requires time. We need to discuss this in RED&FS.
Inclusiveness is there and we have the new NAF (New Agriculture Framework) and we need to see how we are integrating. We need to look into that.
Coordination/harmonization: there is no framework. Had we had an apex framework it would have been nice. It’s very difficult but we have to work and there’s room for improvement.
Partnership commitment is an important point. In that point there was a discussion on trust and transparency. This is a partnerhisp commitment of which one of the principles is transparency. The issue is how to ensure that trust and transparency? How do we evaluate it? Whose part is the DP’s and the government’s? Trust and transparency is one of the mutual accountability frameworks.
I have seen that there is a problem in terms of inter-intra sectoral coordination. EC Share doesn’t coordinate inside. We need to think about this inside NGOs, DPs, Government. This is an agenda to take into account.
Documentation of scaling up. There should be standardization, timelines etc. What used to be best practice should be obsolete. We need to take into account what Adrian said.
Last but not least ‘build on what’s existing’. We own it this way and unless we own it it won't happen.
I appreciated, it was a learning experience for me... We need to learn from the negative also. The type of organization that you had etc. We have done it and I hope that we take the documentation with us moving forward. Thank you very much.