Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER
Somalia Annual Nutrition Cluster Evaluation Report
Somalia Cluster Team during Mogadishu NiE Training
Somaliland Nutrition Strategy Launch
A moderate acute malnourished child in Dobley-Lower Juba Somalia
December 2012
Nutrition Cluster Coordination
UNICEF Somalia Support Centre (USSC) Tel: +254-20-7628400 United Nations, Block Q, Nairobi, Kenya Fax: +254-20-7623989 http://www.unocha.org/somalia/coordination/clusters/nutrition For more information, contact Leo Matunga, Nutrition Cluster Coordinator: lmatunga@unicef.org or Komborero Chirenda, Deputy Nutrition Cluster Coordinator: komborero.chirenda@wfp.org

Acronyms:
BNSP Basic Nutrition Services Package
CAFDARO
CAP CRC EPRP
Community Activity for Development and Relief Organization

Consolidated Appeal Process Cluster Review Committee Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans
HCT
IMAM
Humanitarian Country Team

Integrated Management of Acute Malnutrition
INGO LNGO
NIE NRRT SRCS ToR
International Non-Governmental Organization Local Non-Governmental Organization

Nutrition in Emergencies National Rapid Response Team Somalia Red Crescent Society Terms of Reference
UNICEF
UNOCHA 3Ws
United Nations Childrens Fund

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Who is doing What and Where
Acknowledgement:
The Nutrition Cluster Team greatly acknowledges the efforts made by all cluster partners and members (LNGOs & INGOs), UN agencies, inter-clusters teams, donors, government ministries and observers who actively participated in the 2012 evaluation process. The team also appreciate coordination support given by sub-national focal points, MoH, WFP and UNICEF for stressing emphasis on completion of the questionnaires by all partners in order for this to be a success.

1. Background
The Somalia nutrition cluster was created in 2006 after the country adopted the cluster system following recommendations by the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). The cluster system was established in order to strengthen humanitarian coordination and have a predictable and accountable response as part of the humanitarian reform. Somalia Nutrition Cluster has clearly defined ToR of roles and responsibilities; cluster response plans; cluster nutrition and IYCF strategies; IMAM, and survey/ surveillance guidelines validated and utilized at field level. The Nutrition Cluster has rapidly increased in size since the 2011 famine response with membership composing of government, LNGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, civil society, donors, and observers. Currently the Somalia nutrition cluster is one of the biggest clusters globally with about 400 members of which 145 are partners implementing active nutrition projects in Somalia with the support from various donor agencies. Due to the complexity of the operational environment in Somalia, the Nutrition cluster hold a national cluster meeting on a monthly basis in Nairobi and 14 other sub-national cluster meetings inside Somalia mainly chaired by UNICEF as a cluster lead agency and co-chaired by voluntary LNGOs.(see Annex II: Nutrition Sub-cluster Focal Point Map) The Nutrition cluster coordination team is currently made up of a Nutrition Cluster coordinator (UNICEF), Co-chair (LNGO-CAFDARO), Deputy nutrition cluster coordinator (WFP), Nutrition information management specialist (UNICEF), Nutrition cluster support officer (UNOCHA), Mogadishu based nutrition cluster assistant (UNICEF) and nutrition cluster data entry assistant (UNICEF). The first Somalia cluster evaluation was done end of November 2012 in order to assess review the performance of the cluster; document the achievements and identify areas of improvement based on recommendations.
2. Methodology
The Nutrition Cluster Evaluation was conducted in November 2012. An on-line evaluation questionnaire was directly circulated to 361 cluster members (UN, LNGOs, INGOs, Donors, Government Officials and other Somalia Cluster representatives team) actively participating in the Somalia Nutrition Cluster. 27% (96 members) managed to respond to the questionnaire, out of which 75 members completed the entire questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 3 questions on the background of the respondents, 52 statements on different topics regarding the Nutrition Cluster, and two open-ended questions to identify any best practices and ways forward for improved Nutrition Cluster coordination. Response options to the different statements ranged from 1 to 5 (5-strongly agree, 4-partly agree, 3-neutral, 2-partly disagree and 1-strongly disagree). Furthermore, respondents were given the option to provide free-text comments on each statement.

3. Objectives of the Nutrition Cluster Evaluation
To document the Nutrition Cluster achievements, lessons learnt and experiences in response implementation and identify recommendations for improved coordination and response. To identify constraints, challenges and key thematic areas where improvements can be made to ensure positive progression in year-2013. To review the performance of national and sub-national nutrition clusters coordination mechanisms
4. Findings 4.1 Composition of respondents
What stakeholder group do you International NGO 1.0% 1.0% belong to?
8.3% 28.1% Local NGO / Somalia Red Crescent Society UN Agency Donor 61.5% Other Cluster
Most respondents to the questionnaire (61.5%) work for LNGOs or Somalia Red Crescent Society. Other responses were received from international NGOs (28.1%), UN agencies (8.3%), donor agencies (1%) and other cluster representatives (1%). No responses were received from National Government representatives or Observers.
The graph on the right indicates that there was a nearly equal balance of respondents from national/Nairobi level and field level. Approximately 40 % participate in both national and field level coordination meetings.
At what level do you participate in the cluster coordination meetings?

National / Nairobi level 39.6% 43.8% Field level Both national and field level 16.7%

Many respondents are targeting more than 1 zone in Somalia as their main area of focus. The majority (80%) of respondents have South Somalia as their main area of focus. Approximately half of the respondents (53%) have Central Somalia included in their main area of focus, while only a small percentage of the respondents have Puntland zone (13.5%) or Somaliland zone (10.4%) as their main area of focus.
90.0% 80.2% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% South Central Puntland Somaliland 13.5% 53.1%
Which zone is your main area of focus?
10.4%
4.2 Cluster evaluation analysis

The analysis of the results on the questionnaire statements was calculated as rating average, a weighted average response to each item, ranging from 1 (the cluster needs to significantly improve on this topic) to 5 (the cluster has performed excellent on this topic). A summary table of the response analysis for each topic featured in the questionnaire is attached as Annex I. For each topic, the number of responses to the statements is listed, followed by the rating average and the total number of responses to the statement. In the next subsections, an analysis based on these responses is provided as well as the individual comments provided by the respondents.
4.2.1 Coordination
The cluster coordination support has been adequate at national level and less felt at field level. Coordination meetings at national level were well organized (according to 91% of the respondents) and conducted on monthly basis as planned, agenda disseminated well in time, minutes circulated to all registered partners and action points addressed appropriately. Cluster meetings were conducted at subnational clusters; however according to 13% of the respondents there is need to further improve this, e.g. to promote an action oriented approach, and maintain consistency with the planned calendar, quality on agenda items, minutes writing, information dissemination, follow up on action points and coordination capacity. Communication between national and sub-national level clusters was generally efficient (according to 68% of the respondents), though revitalization of sub-national cluster could improve the coordination process.

Most respondents indicated that the cluster coordination team is competent (88%), handles technical areas of responsibility adequately (78%), is easily approachable (90%), and an independent and impartial (neutral) representative of the cluster partners (78%). 84% of the respondents felt that partners were closely engaged during planning phase, decision making, implementation and monitoring process. According to many respondents, the nutrition cluster response plan objectives (95%) and ToR (85%) are very clear, and the coordination structure is effective (68%) for serving the needs of the cluster. Capacity building of subnational level cluster focal points was reflected as an area of need by (29%) of partners. Recommendations: Strengthen national and sub-national clusters coordination through training on cluster coordination and cluster approach awareness; Strengthen inter-cluster coordination approach in integrating programmes strategies, designing and implementation; Regularly circulate cluster coordination structure, roles and responsibilities for the benefit of new partners; Maintain minimum standards required for sub-national cluster focal points in order to improve coordination, technical support and leadership skills at field level.
4.2.2 Capacity Building

The trainings offered by the cluster to partners in 2012 were of a high quality (according to 70% of the respondents), and training materials were adequate (64%); however, post-training support was indicated by many partners (23%) to be inadequate. The Nutrition in Emergencies training (91%) conducted was of great importance to the partners (91%), although it could not cover all regions in 2012. Some of the partners requested for the opportunity to be also trained in NIE. Furthermore, Nutrition Cluster approach training is generally (94%) felt to be an important training that should be given to all cluster partners. Further needs for improvement were indicated, such as to offer more training opportunities to partners (32%), to translate cluster training materials into the local language (17%), to build technical capacity of partners (24%) for the need to improve the capacity to address nutrition needs in Somalia (40%). Recommendations: Strengthen the capacity of partners through NiE and relevant technical trainings/ on-jobtrainings on thematic key areas; Cluster to develop a multi-year capacity development plan and circulate at national and subnational cluster (where possible leading agencies, INGOs to harmonize training work plans); Training materials should also be translated into local language especially at field level.

4.2.3 Contingency Planning and Preparedness
Most partners (77%) agreed that partners are adequately involved in the development of contingency and emergency preparedness plans. Also the individual comments by the respondents do not indicate any need for improvements on this topic. Recommendations: The cluster needs to develop with partners a costed multi-hazard Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans (EPRP) which should be shared with all partners and can be activated in times of need; Cluster should advocate for the establishment of National Rapid Response Team (NRRT).
4.2.4 Resource Mobilization

According the majority (82%) of respondents, nutrition cluster partners have been committed to contributing to the Common Humanitarian Action Plan, CAP, and other multi-cluster strategic plans. There has been transparency (according to 73% of the respondents) in selection and resource allocation through close involvement of LNGO, INGOs, UN and Observers in CRC, feedback on updates were always shared with cluster partners. Moreover, the cluster is effective (88%) in advocating for funding for the cluster activities. Recommendations: Maintain timely sharing of Common Humanitarian Action Plans, work plans and multi-cluster strategic plans with national and sub-national clusters; Cluster will require to mobilize resources through relevant potential interested donors in collaboration with lead agencies to fund cluster work-plans which include partners and staff capacity building; Maintain CRC neutrality by appointing members through open-confidence voting.
4.2.5 Information Management

The general questions on Information Management have been responded to quite positively. Interestingly, when questions were more specific, respondents were more sceptical. For example, according to many (83%) respondents, there is more information that the cluster could reasonably collect from partners to increase situational understanding, status of response and to help address any relevant needs/gaps. Similarly, according to the majority of respondents (84%), the cluster could do a better job at processing information which partners provide and transforming this into useful tools etc. for partners. A significant proportion of the respondents (41%) have raised the issue that they are hesitant to share certain information with the cluster because of the confidentiality and/or privacy of the information. Recommendations: Cluster should improve its information management activities to be more proactive in collecting information and subsequently provide partners with more output on the information that has been collected; It is recommended that further advocacy is done with implementing agencies on the importance for timely sharing of information to promote collective decision-making and improved outcome;

Cluster coordination team to establish a data confidentiality and privacy policy within the cluster to ensure that sensitive, personally identifiable datasets are suitably anonymised and partners can be assured that the data they share will be treated confidentially when necessary; Strengthen reciprocal communication and information sharing between national and subnational clusters in order to effectively address action points from both levels; To effectively maintain an information dense cluster webpage through which partners are continuously updated.
4.2.6 Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning

Most respondents (84%) have indicated that monitoring, evaluation and learning activities are conducted adequately. Individual comments were provided to highlight that the cluster coordination team continuously conduct on job training during monitoring, follow up on partners not reporting and provides feedback on action points/ areas of improvement i.e. monthly reports. A proportion of the respondents (27%) indicated that the cluster coordination team does not regularly provide feedback to cluster partners on essential key issues. Recommendations: Cluster in collaboration with partners and stakeholders to promote and engage in joined supportive supervision, joined monitoring exercises and focus groups meeting/ discussions at field levels; Partners are recommended to regularly share lessons learnt so as to strengthen cross-learning mechanisms among partners; Cluster should promote nutrition partners exchange visits in order to enhance learning-by-doing approach.
4.2.7 Nutritional interventions/response

Nutrition interventions have been recommended based on actual needs and the cluster response is guided by clear set of standards and tools available to partners; however some partners highlighted the need to widely circulate minimum required standards and tools in response to emergencies. Despite the fact that most respondents (73%) acknowledge that the cluster coordination team is proactively involved in filling geographical gaps in nutrition services, a serious issue has been raised by a significant proportion of respondents (40%) that to their opinion the nutrition response in Somalia suffers from unnecessary duplications in the service delivery. Recommendations: Advocate formulation of National Nutrition Policy through close collaboration of national government, INGOs/ LNGOs partners, stakeholders and UN agencies; Cluster should regularly circulate minimum standards and tools which guides nutrition response process; The cluster coordination team should promote minimum duplications/ overlaps in nutrition service delivery through strengthening field cluster coordination mechanisms in order to improve accountability and cost effectiveness of the programmes; Recognition of marginalized diverse groups during strategy and programmes development.

4.2.8 Cross-cutting issues
Most respondents felt that the cluster strategy adequately addresses right of men, women, boys, girls, and diverse groups i.e. ethnic, religion, culture and politics (89%), adequately reflects the nutritional requirements of women and under 5 boys and girls (93%), and adequately reflects the concerns of diverse groups (76%).
4.2.9 Best practices

The following best practices were identified by the respondents: Timely information management and dissemination at both national and sub-national level also improve the partners understanding on BNSP, guidelines and minimum standards; Cluster proactive on timely feedback, follow ups and updates .i.e. continuous update and sharing of 3 Ws matrix resolved gross duplication/ overlaps of nutrition activities in the same localities; mapping also enabled cluster to timely identify gaps and efficiently prioritizing allocation of resources according to needs; The cluster practised neutrality, respect for human rights, accountability, transparency, equity, regularity and consistence; Resources were fairly distributed among the LNGOs, INGOs and UN agencies. All partners were always involved in decision making at cluster level; The cluster coordination team was approachable, used action oriented approach, consistency in responsiveness and managing cluster affairs, technically competent in achieving the objectives through capacity building, close involvement and participation of partners at all levels; Selection of sub-national cluster focal points was transparent, democratic and based on competency. This has improved coordination, technical support and commendable leadership at field level as well as help in dealing with disputes; The cluster always emphasized on consistency in maintain standards, quality, and promote access to IMAM services; The cluster developed capacity of partners through training conducted which resulted in better nutrition services delivery.
5. Conclusion:
This evaluation found that on the whole, the Nutrition Cluster met its mandate of ensuring accountability in national response to humanitarian emergencies. Partners felt the Cluster also largely met its mandate if clarifying the division of labour among organizations and helped define their roles and responsibilities within the different technical areas of emergency nutrition response. Given the attention and the results that have already been achieved by the Nutrition Cluster and its partners in Somalia, there is a unique opportunity today for the country to use the work already done as a stepping stone in moving forward to improve the nutrition situation. Whilst great work has been done in Somalia crises, further work is necessary in strengthening the understanding of the Cluster role amongst partners to ensure roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are understood and respected by all partners.

Annex I: Questionnaire Response Analysis
Strongly disagree Response Count 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 Rating Average 4.63 4.37 4.46 3.85 4.60 3.82 4.50 4.39 4.26 4.31 4.41 4.54 4.55 4.04 3.41 Partly disagree Strongly agree Partly agree
Statements related to Coordination
Neutral
4.
The Nutrition Cluster response plan objectives are clear 5. Nutrition Cluster TOR do exist and guide the clusters work 6. The nutrition cluster support has been adequate 7. The current coordination structure is NOT effective in serving the needs of the cluster 8. The nutrition cluster coordination meetings at national level (including Agenda and sharing of information) have been well organized 9. The nutrition cluster coordination meetings at sub-national / regional level (including Agenda and sharing of information) have been well organized 10. Nutrition cluster meetings are well facilitated/conducted 11. Nutrition cluster meetings are action-oriented 12. Opinions and views of Cluster partners are considered in the Cluster decision-making processes in a neutral way (i.e. without favouring any party) 13. The Cluster Coordination team is an independent and impartial (neutral) representative of the cluster partners 14. The nutrition cluster coordination team has effectively engaged with partners in addressing issues related to the Nutrition cluster 15. It is easy to approach the cluster coordination team 16. The cluster coordination team key positions (Cluster coordinator, Information manager, cluster support officer) are covered by competent staff 17. Technical areas of responsibility (e.g. cluster partner identification, gap analysis, advocacy, strategy development etc.) of the cluster coordination team are addressed adequately 18. Decision making in the cluster does NOT actively involve all partners Nutrition Cluster Coordination
56 46 49 7 59
21 24 26 10 15
3 9 4 9 4
1 2 2 17 3
0 1 1 38 0
20
36
10
59 46 43
11 25 23
7 4 8
4 4 4
1 1 2
49
14
13
52
16
55
18
56
14
31
30
10
11
13
12
20
24
N/A 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 2 2 1 1 1 2 4 2

19. NGOs that act as cluster focal points at subnational level provide adequate leadership and guidance Collaboration and communication between national and sub-national level clusters is efficient The cluster meets frequently, at regular intervals The cluster meets at an appropriate place/venue Actions points from meetings are NOT always followed up 9 25 20 15 7 6 3.18 82
20.
17 61 58 4
27 13 13 8
22 7 4 8
13 0 1 16
0 0 4 44 Strongly disagree
3 1 2 2
3.61 4.67 4.50 4.10
82 82 82 82
21. 22. 23.
Statements related to Capacity Building
24. 25. 26.
27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
32.
The cluster offers enough training opportunities to partners The training offered by the cluster to cluster partners is of a high quality The cluster offers adequate post-training support to partners who have participated in cluster training sessions The Cluster training materials are adequate (enough) The Cluster training materials are adequately translated into the local language Nutrition in Emergencies is an important training for partners "Nutrition Cluster approach" training should be given to all cluster partners The Cluster partners do NOT have the necessary capacities to respond to nutrition needs in Somalia Partner technical Capacity gaps are always addressed promptly and adequately
16 33 15 25 20 60 60 9 13
24 18 22 22 18 11 12 22 24
12 13 18 11 21 3 2 9 23
19 6 13 13 8 1 1 13 17
6 3 3 3 4 3 2 25 2 Strongly disagree
2 6 8 5 8 1 2 1 0
3.32 3.99 3.46 3.72 3.59 4.59 4.65 3.29 3.37
79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79
Neutral
Statement related to Contingency Planning and Preparedness
33.
Partners are adequately involved in development of contingency planning and
26
34
3.90
79
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
N/A
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
Neutral
N/A

emergency preparedness plans Strongly disagree
Statements related to Resource Mobilization
34.
35. 36.
Cluster partners contribute appropriately to the Common Humanitarian Action Plan / CAP 36 / Work Plan or other multi-cluster strategic plans The cluster is transparent in allocating 40 resources to partners The cluster is effective in advocating for 44 funding for the cluster activities
29
10
4.23
79
16 21
10 5
5 2
6 2
2 5
4.03 4.39
79 79
Strongly disagree
Statements related to Information Management
37. 38. 39.
40.
41. 42.
43.
44.
The cluster performs its information management role effectively The cluster performs its information dissemination role effectively Cluster Information products (website, maps, gaps, 3w matrix) are useful and help in making better informed decisions The cluster could do a better job at processing the information which partners are providing and transforming this into useful tools/guidance notes, etc. for partners The information provided by the cluster is in general sufficient for your needs You consider yourself to be a good cluster partner in relation to sharing information with the cluster You consider yourself to be a good cluster partner in relation to reporting timely on a monthly basis There is more information "out there" that the cluster could reasonably collect from partners to increase situational understanding, status of response and to help address any relevant needs/gaps
44 46 48
23 21 19
5 7 8
2 2 1
1 0 0
2 1 1
4.43 4.46 4.50
77 77 77
44
20
1.64
77
31 52
32 16
6 7
7 1
1 0
0 1
4.10 4.57
77 77
54
17
4.65
77
41
23
1.71
77
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
Neutral
N/A
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
Neutral
N/A

45. You are hesitant to share certain information with the cluster because of the confidentiality and/or privacy of the information 12 19 9 11 24 Strongly disagree 2 3.21 77
Neutral
Statements related to Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning
46. 47.
48.
The cluster coordination team performs its 38 monitoring and reporting roles adequately The cluster coordination team does NOT regularly provide feedback to cluster partners 5 on essential key issues The cluster coordination team encourages the sharing of field based lessons between 51 partners, for learning purposes
25 15
6 5
6 18
0 30
2 4
4.27 3.73
77 77
11
4.39
77
Strongly disagree
Neutral
Statements related to Nutritional interventions/response
49. 50.
51.
52.
The nutrition interventions in general have been based on actual need The nutrition cluster response is guided by a clear set of standards and tools available to all partners The nutrition response in Somalia suffers from unnecessary duplications in the service delivery The cluster coordination team is proactively involved in filling geographical gaps in nutrition services
47 43
21 17
5 10
2 3
0 2
1 1
4.51 4.28
76 76
10
20
13
11
21
3.17
76
32
23
3.96
76
Strongly disagree
Statements related to Cross-cutting issues
53.
54.
The cluster strategy adequately reflects the rights of men, women, boys, girls, and diverse 46 groups (e.g., ethnicity, religion, culture, politics) The cluster strategy adequately reflects the 56 nutritional needs of women and under 5 boys
17
4.46
75
14
4.65
75
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
Neutral
N/A
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
N/A
Response Count
Rating Average
Partly disagree
Strongly agree
Partly agree
N/A

and girls 55. The cluster strategy adequately reflects the concerns of diverse groups (e.g., ethnicity, 37 religion, culture, politics)
17
4.13
75

Annex II: Somalia 2012 Nutrition Sub-national Clusters Focal Point Map

Annex III: Somalia 2012 Nutrition Interventions and Implementing Agencies

Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Somalia Annual Nutrition Cluster Evaluation Report

Somalia Cluster Team during Mogadishu NiE Training

Somaliland Nutrition Strategy Launch

A moderate acute malnourished child in Dobley-Lower Juba Somalia

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Community Activity for Development and Relief Organization

Humanitarian Country Team

International Non-Governmental Organization Local Non-Governmental Organization

United Nations Childrens Fund

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

4. Findings 4.1 Composition of respondents

At what level do you participate in the cluster coordination meetings?

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Which zone is your main area of focus?

4.2 Cluster evaluation analysis

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

4.2.2 Capacity Building

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

4.2.4 Resource Mobilization

4.2.5 Information Management

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

4.2.6 Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning

4.2.7 Nutritional interventions/response

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

4.2.9 Best practices

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Statements related to Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

3.61 4.67 4.50 4.10

21. 22. 23.

Statements related to Capacity Building

24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

3.32 3.99 3.46 3.72 3.59 4.59 4.65 3.29 3.37

Statement related to Contingency Planning and Preparedness

Partners are adequately involved in development of contingency planning and

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Statements related to Resource Mobilization

Statements related to Information Management

37. 38. 39.

4.43 4.46 4.50

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Statements related to Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning

Statements related to Nutritional interventions/response

Statements related to Cross-cutting issues

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Nutrition Cluster Coordination

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Nutrition Cluster Coordination