AWG

1. AWG GNC Face to Face 24 January 2013

2. AWG in 2012 • Very limited in it's proactive work over the last year • mainly due to the GNC focus on capacity building stemming from the ECHO proposals, • Reactive work has mainly been around the MIRA • No specific activities right now which is line with the GNC workplan. • Provide a channel for advice/comments on assessment related activities and information (from the GNC, from other organisations, from individuals etc). • Varying ‘levels’ of membership - some very active and provide rapid responses to requests, others are kept informed– list updated.

3. Proposition for AWG – Sept 2012 Key piece of work for the AWG would be the standard indicators list as that's somethingconcrete and can be defined in time (workplan Strategic area 4.4) From Workplan – The AWG could play a support role for GNC workplan and to the global cluster cell under the following Strategic Areas • 1.1: Input to GNC strategy – at least as co-chairs • 2.1: review of these tools – at technical level • 2.5: nutrition cluster handbook finalisation - Ensure assessment role clear and well-addressed in this document • 3.9: act as channel for specific technical support that cannot be addressed by Global coordination team • 4.2: self-explanatory and ensure relevant docs are posted and updated • 4.4: tools and needs • 4.5: Support to development of M+E framework • 4.6: technical support on assessments • 4.8: dissemination plan for tools - assistance/review of this For multi-sector needs assessment - NATF/MIRA: Preparation of nutrition indicators to feed into NATF workplan. (follow up from discussion on this subject in GNC meeting and further exchange between Josephine and OCHA).

4. AWG in 2013 - discussion • MIRA • AWG to focus efforts over next 3 months to identify suitable assessment indicators (that can be prepared and shared when outside initiatives such as the NATF/MIRA come our way). • key messaging around MIRAand nutrition indicators • Define the priorities • Clarify our role to include more information management as discussed in NY in Dec 2011 and match one of the pillars of the GNC strategy more closely. • Redefine operational modalities for the AWG for coming months/2013 • how best to keep interest and contributions in any initiatives.

5. Co-chair • Who would like a chance to be co-chair????

6. MIRA Facts: • Part of coordinated assessment approach – multiple sectors • Developed for sudden-onset emergencies (L3) • all the questions are about what has changed since the crisis. It was adapted in order to be accountable to affected population and to respond to their needs (whatever they consider their needs and severity of them are). • Community Level Assessment component is based on HESPER scale (perception) – how the affected population see the severity of problems in their community. • Secondary data collection component • MIRA has an analytical framework - liked and found useful. Limitations: • MIRA guidance is long, heavy, technical, inconsistent • Information in MIRA guidance is not detailed enough to support programming • CLA Questionnaire is a misunderstood component of the MIRA – • questions leading, subjective and not appropriate or representative of their context. • CLA questionnaire does not align with the MIRA Framework. • From the IYCF perspective, approach and style of the HESPER scale questioning not just an inconvenience but flawed.