Experience of Wolaita Cluster Consortia On EU EC

Experience of Wolaita Cluster Consortia On EU - EC SHARE/DG ECHO Joint Resilience Building June 27, 2014 Addis Ababa

Operational understanding of resilience • Targeting the most vulnerable households to withstand shocks through building their capacity. • In understanding, predicting and preparing to cope with unfavorable conditions • By injecting enough assets /strong livelihood base/ as a buffer to support them in a critical situation • Enhancing their skills and knowledge to create and manage resources in a sustained manner including NRM • Enhanced access to basic services • Creating households who have alternative strategies to help them cope with adverse conditions (PSNP, SP, on farm and off farm)

Cluster as a strategy for resilience building • Addressing resilience requires: – In depth knowledge of the area and beneficiaries – Mobilization of resources – Coordination of all actors – Addressing the multi-dimensional problems of the target HHs, communities, geographical locations – Sharing of expertise, experiences and best practices These require a common platform where prime actors can come together and work for common cause. This is what endorses the necessity of clustering/working as consortium; this is how the Wolayita cluster came into existence

Wolaita Clusters/consortia • ECHO-established in 2012 with three members (Concern, IMC, PIN) • DEVCO-EC-SHARE with five members (VITA, i. DE, Caritas Belgium, AMREF and ECC) • Work in 4 Woredas of Wolayita Zone in SNNPR supporting (ECHO-45, 000 HHs and ECSHARE 12, 000 HHs) • Duration 18 months-36 months • Budget is 6 m Euro

The main objectives of the Wolayita Clusters • EC SHARE/ECHO Focus on: – Food security/livelihood – WASH – Health and nutrition

Alignment with Country Development Polices Our cluster objectives directly link with the following comprehensive five year Ethiopian government GTP five- year (2010/11 -2014/15) which states • intensified small holder production system. • PSNP & Household Asset Building Program (HABP), • The Ethiopian Disaster Risk Management Strategic Program & Investment Framework (DRM-SPIF) • Coordination with local government to ensure relevance and local ownership of the intervention (Water, Prevention Focus Primary Health Care) • National Nutrition Guideline

How we are organized as a cluster : • National level: – Coordination/governance/board-National level – Programme coordination team/unit/-National – Technical task forces • Field level: – Zone coordination team including members and government – Woreda coordination team inclusive – Kebele coordination team

Lessons learned from practical Experiences (Consortium) • Consortium gives a collective power to influence/lobby and handle challenges with stakeholders. • Consortium improved collaboration & coordination among partners & creates opportunity: – For sharing expertise, skills & knowledge, – Efficient utilization of resources - Human, time & financial – Joint Assessment, Analysis, Planning, Implementation & M & E frameworks. – It also avoids duplication

Lessons learned from practical Experiences (Program) • Multi-sectoral response to multiple dimensional chronic & acute needs of vulnerable HHs (health, nutrition, WASH and livelihoods, DRM) brought tangible improvements & positive impact in the lives of vulnerable HHs & the communities. ( • Strengthening & diversifying livelihood strategies, allowed vulnerable HHs to be less vulnerable to shocks. • It helped to create an opportunity and capacity to prepare for possible risks proactively through preventive programming rather than responding at a disaster. • Cluster spirit/family, • transparency, • practical collaboration, • knowledge of beneficiaries • more clarity on the needs of the people

Challenges / gaps • At the beginning: – Lack of clarity on Coordination & management structure of Consortium – Coordination mechanisms with consortium partners were not sufficiently established. – Lack of clarity & common understanding on consortium approach & working modalities: joint planning, implementation, approach etc among partner staff & GO stakeholders, – Lack of Harmonizing the different needs, interest & ideas, M&E tools & indicators, etc

Challenges /gaps/continued • Resistance to change to consortium working modality, rather stick to respective organizational procedures and policies • Lack of initiation to meet & discuss openly among actors to resolve issues • Lack of multi-annual & flexible funding source

The way forward • Needs complete belief in cluster as a approach to tackle multi-dimensional problems of vulnerable HHs to build resilience • Develop a cluster model that is flexible and practicle in different contexts of Ethiopia • Commitment from all stakeholders particularly from donors and government in mobilizing resources in a meaningful and support the active involvement of frontline actors in sustained and sufficient manner

Cluster model for integrated multi-sectorial resilience building • Align with gov policy • Mobilize resource • Create supportive policy ev’t • Mobilization of local resources • Participatory mg’t/Coord National level Regional level Community level Household level • Set regional priorities • Ownership /leading. • Sensitivity to regional context • Need Ass. • Targeting • Package delivery of services/ multi-sec