Strategic Advisory Group Face-to-Face Meeting (29-30 August 2017)

Transcription

1 Strategic Advisory Group Face-to-Face Meeting (29-30 August 2017) Note for the record Attended: Apologies: GHC Unit (GHCU): Wilma Doedens (WD) Richard Garfield (RG) 30 minutes on day 1, via Skype Andre Griekspoor (AG), co-chair Trina Helderman (TH) David Lai (DL) Jorge Martinez (JM) Mary Pack (MP), co-chair Sonia Walia (SW), co-chair Dorit Nitzan (DN) Julie Hall (JH) stepped down in June 2017 Linda Doull LD) Elisabetta Minelli (EM) 5.1 Report against 2017 work-plan LD updated the SAG on the progress against 2017 work-plan activities, highlighting those on track, on hold or delayed and focusing on the implementation challenges. Next SAG meeting agenda to be built around the work-plan activities. The main point of discussions were around the implementation challenges and actions agreed by the SAG to address them. Partners participation in country support missions. SAG members raised that GHCU request of partners participation was not clear enough. If the request is clear, partners can build resources for this activity in their own resources. Alternatively, a pooled funding mechanism owned by the GHC unit could be created to fund partners participation in HC support missions. Pooled funding mechanism to support partners participation in country support mission to be explored. activity in workplan GHCU to issue call of interest for country support missions to partners

2 Health Cluster Support Programme. SAG members discussed the value added of this programme in a changing environment where WHO is building its internal and external rosters and the number of WHO stand by partners is increasing. The SAG suggested exploring the various surge options currently available and defining each one s pros and cons, as well as the need for more clarity on WHE s vision around this matter. Inter-cluster collaboration. LD provided an update on the activities funded through the OFDA grant. SAG members appreciated the progress - although delayed - in developing the operational frameworks and the planning of joint missions. A suggestion was made to explore the possibility of Cluster Lead Agencies collaborating to submit joint proposals to raise funds for supporting inter-cluster work. LD reported that follow-up on UNICEF inter-cluster representation on the GHC SAG still outstanding. Public Health Information Services. LD updated on the country rollout of the PHIS standards which is slower than anticipated. LD also updated on the proposal from F. Checchi (LSHTM) to develop a multi-agency consortium to strengthen WHE information management capacity and support as requested by WHE-HIM. Questions were raised around the consortium governance mechanism, data ownership and implications for the current GHC PHIS Task Team. Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs). LD informed the SAG Review of current surge mechanisms to be conducted to inform GHC s decision on how to respond to surge needs. Collaboration of Cluster Lead Agencies to submit joint proposals to raise funds for supporting intercluster work to be explored. Ensure PHIS roll-out continues at accelerated pace. Ensure decisions on establishing activity in workplan activity in workplan GHCU to follow up with UNCIEF inter-cluster collaboration unit. LD to clarify with HIM team nature of the PHIS consortium and report to SAG. activity in work

3 about EOCs established within the framework of the WHO EOC-Net programme compared to EOCs being spontaneously established by countries in response to perceived/actual weak cluster/sector coordination mechanisms but with insufficient consultation with the EOC-Net programme and the GHCU. LD has reached out to the WHO EOC- Net programme to clarify the interface with the Health Cluster. SAG members concurred that GHC partners are unfamiliar with EOCs and proposed this topic be presented during the October Partner Meeting. SAG members also suggested documenting some experiences (Yemen, NE Nigeria, Sudan, etc.) and develop a paper about good practices/lessons learned. Cash and Essential Package of Health Services. AG reported that work on these streamlines is on hold due to his temporary reassignment as Syria focal point. SW asked AG to re-circulate the draft cash position paper for comments to partners. About EPHS, the role of the Ministry of Health and partners was discussed, both in the design and implementation of the package. LD reported on the DARES Initiative between WHO, World Bank, World Food Programme, UNICEF, and SAG members asked for clarity and visibility on the overall objectives and the targeted countries so that the GHC can plan and target activities accordingly. Until the interface with GHC and DARES is clarified the SAG agreed the EPHS Task Team work shall be put on hold. EOCs includes WHO and GHC partners. Current experiences about EOCs to be collected and paper on good practices/lessons learned to be developed with consultant support. Ensure discussion about EOCs happen within WHO and GHC partners. plan session on EOCs in the October Partner Meeting. activities in workplan LD to ask Rick Brennan to present on the DARE initiative at the October Partner Meeting. AG to recirculate draft cash position paper among GHC partners. AG to present on status of work of cash and EPHS at the October Partner Meeting

4 The way forward will be considered during the next Partner Meeting. 5.3 Advocacy Phased approach to be implemented as recommended. MP summarized the GHC delays in taking up its advocacy function during the last years. She thanked HelpAge for drafting an initial advocacy strategy and plan and made the following suggestions. Considering the current lack of longer term funding to cover this area of work, the GHC should adopt a phased approach. The GHC could consider narrowing the scope of the strategy for to activities where funding is already available namely: 1) attacks on health care (OFDA 1); 2) Humanitarian Health Workforce (CDC). In addition, the GHC could consider creating an advocacy network of partners focal points that would commit to 1) enhance communications between country/global level about advocacy priorities and raise visibility on the collective voice.; 2) capacitate country clusters to work on advocacy (trainings; toolkits). To support this work, the GHC unit should be resourced with an advocacy focal point to bring together partners and move the advocacy agenda. At the same time, the GHC should work on finalizing the advocacy strategy and plan that can be used to raise funds for the advocacy area of work. LD reminded the SAG that existing funding for attacks and health workforce ends in March and July 2018 accordingly. GHC to roll out attacks methodology, according to OFDA 1 grant once WHO has finalised work on the revised methodology. GHC to organize a multistakeholder event on solutions for global health response capacity, as per the CDC grant. MP to draft concept note about advocacy priorities for and the advocacy network. GHCU to explore possibility to hire a consultant (7 days) to finalise advocacy strategy and plan (draft to be presented at Partner Meeting)

5 5.5 Emergency Medical Teams SAG decided conversation with EMTs should be continued as additional clarifications needed. LD reported the GHC SAG questions on EMTs had been discussed in a call with T. Fritsch, EMT SAG Chair, on 16 August and are included in the EMT SAG meeting agenda (30 August) as AOB. The EMT Secretariat have provided initial comment on the GHC questions as a background document to guide EMT SAG discussion. GHC SAG discussed the EMT SAG paper and expressed need for further clarification, including: Regarding the operational framework, additional clarity needed on how the TSPs fit with the EMT framework and will this now become a separate type (e.g. type 1, 2)? While contracting is not a current EMT model, will this be something the EMT model will move to in the future? What type of oversight will the EMT group have over these contracted models? What distinguishes these private groups from EMTs (per response)? Regarding Humanitarian Principles or International Humanitarian Law (IHL), this is quite different from medical ethics (per response). Will IHL and protection (per ICRC) be mainstreamed among any/all actor responding as an EMT? LD participated in the EMT SAG and AG joined for the session related to the GHC questions. LD reported the following main points: Several upcoming opportunities to clarify EMT language and processes: revision of the EMTs blue book; development of the first EMTs strategy; working group on accreditation of national EMTs. activity in workplan EMTs to be discussed at Partner Meeting, if any progress is made

6 Partners (including ICRC, IFRC) acknowledge the gap in trauma care and the valuable EMT role in filling it but also asked for additional clarification on respect/implementation of international humanitarian law and Humanitarian Principles. Red Cross movement suggested resolution of this issue requires discussion at agency Principals level. 5.6 Governance SAG members with overdue terms to terminate their term in December 2017, and new members to start as of January on the SAG SAG members terms EM summarized the current SAG members terms status and noted that the terms of AG, MP, RG and SW were overdue, according to the GHC TORs and SAG TORs that state that SAG members will serve for a two year term (see revision of SAG members terms for background). In addition JH stepped down in June AG s position is appointed by WHE/EMO and therefore representation will be decided by Director EMO. The SAG proposed to open up the vacancies for nominations at the October Partner Meeting with seats filled by January Given the high number of nominations received for the NGO/non-UN operational agencies in June 2016, SAG recognized the wide interest of partners to be part of this advisory body and appreciated a membership change. Institutional memory should be guaranteed through the other SAG members s/elected in 2016 and Concerning donor representation, GHC Coordinator will reach out to other donor partners to garner their interest. GHCU to ask EMO Director for feedback on nomination of Cluster Lead Agency representation GHCU to issue call for nominations for 3 NGO/non-UN operational partners seats (current MP, RG and JH that stepped down in June 2017) and elections to happen for new members to start in January GHCU to consult with ECHO about interest in donor seat

7 GHC Co-Coordinator LD introduced the option of creating a GHC Co-Coordinator position to be filled by a partner to promote greater inclusivity and better represent partners interests (see summary sheet for background). However, LD clarified that if this position is filled through a partner placement with no WHO contract, it could not function as a deputy and would have no management or financial approval authority. SAG viewed this option as diminishing the importance of the position and suggested that this position should be instead hired on a WHO contract with full delegated responsibilities. Finally, the SAG concurred that, to fully empower the GHCU, GHC shall submit a proposal to donors for: one deputy coordinator and two support staff (one advocacy focal point and an additional technical officer with a partner coordination function). GHCU shall hold the grant and hire staff on WHO contracts. SAG Co-Chair The SAG Co-Chair shall be elected by the SAG members. SAG suggested this process shall take place when the new members start in January Interest in joining the GHC LD reported that the GHCU received the following expressions of interest to join the GHC: Aspen Medical Syrian Arab Medical Association Convention pour le Bien Etre Social (DRC) SAG recommended the organizations consult the GHC website section on membership and submit an application to the GHCU. In particular, as per Aspen s request to observe the October Partner Meeting, SAG recommended that the GHC Co- Coordinator to be a WHO staff with full delegated responsibilities. GHCU to be strengthened with additional staff: advocacy focal point and a technical officer with partner coordination function. Process to take place in January Interested parties to submit application to the GHCU. GHCU to share Co-Coordinator Terms of Reference with the SAG. GHCU to issue call for nominations. GHCU to respond to interested parties to submit an application

8 membership s approval is needed prior to allowing the interested party to observe the meeting. SAG welcomed the application from a national NGO and suggested to look more into participation of national NGOs at the global level within the context of the localization agenda. SAG further discussed the results from the partner mapping exercise conducted by the GHCU and suggested a review of the GHC membership be conducted. A criteria for members status is that the organization shall contribute to the implementation of the GHC strategy and work-plan. However, only 21 out of 49 partners (42%) at the global level are active in the implementation of the work-plan. In addition, LD raised that several global partners are not active in any of the 23 Country Health Clusters. SAG suggested to prepare a snapshot about numbers of partners active in the Task Teams, SAG and in Country Health Clusters, and present this at the October Partner Meeting. The GHCU will then follow up with the individual agencies about their interest in continuing/terminating participation, according to the membership policy. Review of membership to be conducted at next Partner Meeting. GHCU to prepare background documents for a membership review at October Partner Meeting. 5.2 and 5.7 Health Cluster Strategy and GHC work-pan SAG reviewed the draft work-plan and commented on the key activities to be included. for planning. LD introduced the draft work-plan that is built around the strategic priorities and priority objectives of the Health Cluster Strategy LD mentioned that a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and a Resource Mobilization Strategy should be developed to support the SAG comments in work-plan and submit to WHO GHCU to present the work-pan at the - 8 -

9 implementation of the strategy, but no progress on these so far. SAG members discussed the various priorities and objectives and identified key activities to be implemented in 2018 and 2019 (see work-plan with SAG comments). Throughout the discussion, the following points were raised to guide the prioritization exercise: What is WHO responsibility vs GHC responsibility? For example, re: strengthening national government training of Ministry of Health in coordination; developing and availing technical guidance. How can we scale-up technical capacity? Can we capitalise on our partners technical expertise/capacity build consortia of partners about a particular technical expertise with the aim to provide technical support to countries (both desk and surge) sustained by a pooled funding mechanism? WD reported the experience of UNFPA country level team trainings: country team is trained and rolls-out training to the implementers. What is WHO doing about building preparedness? Who is going to be responsible for building the capacity of national/local actors? Monitoring, supervision and corrective action of implementing partners. Is this the responsibility of Health Cluster Coordinators, WHO Country Office, donors, international NGOs? An example is the score card piloted in NE Nigeria, looking at qualitative aspects of service delivery. October Partner Meeting. sessions on quality assurance and localisation in October Partner Meeting

10 5.8 October 2017 Partner Meeting LD presented the Partner Meeting agenda that was revised according to the SAG call (4 August)feedback. SAG members agreed on the agenda presented and requested the following sessions: DARES presentation by Rick Brennan Emergency Operations Centres Localisation Quality assurance SAG to draft questions to be addressed in the quality assurance session. LD to contact Rick Brennan