HumanitarianResponse



Note for the File Global IMWG meetingThursday August 27, 2020 Participants: Ali Davis (iMMAP), Andrew Alspach (OCHA), Anita Russo (University of Georgia), Ariadna Andreu (ICRC), Alicia Gonzalez (UNHCR), Clementine Fu (DFID), Caryn Saslow (UNHCR), Daunia Pavone (IOM/Consultant), Eleonora Corsale (WFP), Eva Vognild (OCHA), Erik Kastlander (OCHA), Fawad Hussain (OCHA), Francoise Ghorayeb (UNFPA), Gael (GFSC), Hannoa Guillaume (GSC), Ivan Cardona (UNHCR), Javier Teran Castro (OCHA), Jos Berens (OCHA), Jolien Dekker (WFP), Joseph Bahemuka (UNICEF), Kashif (IOM), Kashif Rehman (OCHA), Kevin (GANGA), Kristina McKinnon (OCHA), Lilian Kastner (UNICEF), Luke Caley (IFRC), Marcus Elten (OCHA), Mame Diop (GEC), Mark McCarthy (OHCHR), Mohammad Al-Salman (), Naomi Morris (GHC), Ramy Zaki (GWC IMO), Raymond Hutubessy (WHO), Raul Soto (IOM), Rhonda Stewart (USAID), Sekou Traore (OCHA), Tala Chammas (OCHA), Thao () IntroductionThe chair Erik Kastlander (kastlander@), reviewed the agenda and opened the meeting. Review of?GIMAC?priorities and?lessons identified so far with the COVID-19?IM, Assessment, and Analysis?Fawad Hussain (fawadhussain@) gave an update on the Secondary Data Review (SDR) projects that were in the pipeline for funding:The iMMAP project and the DRC project on behalf of the DEEP board have both received funding. SDR work under these two projects will target 16 countries for a period of 8 to 9 months. iMMAP has already identified the 6 countries they begin work with. The other 10 countries are now being proposed based on a set of indicators that will be validated by the ICCG. The SDRs will be field focused; capacity building is now taking place within the country teams. Further updates on this will be given in upcoming GIMAC and IMWG COVID-19 ad-hoc meetings. Joseph Bahemuka (jbahemuka@), the UNICEF focal point to the GIMAC, gave an update on the Iraq Secondary Data Review (SDR): Lessons learned from Ethiopia has informed the Iraq strategy such as adding leads by sector, conducting review meetings, and having capacity building sessions on all phases of the SDR (tagging, cleaning/grouping, writing, editing, final editing & formatting). The Iraq SDR deployed a slightly different approach from Ethiopia when it comes to adding leads; leads were imported to DEEP by specific sectors. The Iraq SDR will contain key findings which will ease the analysis process. The tagging phase for the Iraq project is complete. The SDR team is working on the final edit of the document to be completed by August 28, 2020. SDR Iraq Key lessons:Once the SDR is exported from DEEP, it requires a review and editing.Share the SDR with initial findings with the country office before drafting the report.Engagement with requesting country. Clusters before, during and after the SDR is critical. Engage the country once the SDR is complete to present initial findings. Request to establish a field expert team to work on the analysis jointly with GIMAC.Updates on the Ethiopia field request: A draft of the internal report was produced on August 10. Quantitative side with data from the country and qualitative side with data tagged in DEEP. There is an ongoing GIMAC joint analysis to interpret the key findings. Focus was put on producing an interpretative and summarized document. Initial feedback from Ethiopia suggests that the SDR was quite useful and is being used in the mid-year review analysis and reporting. The SDR provided effective sources that were missed out on. In addition to the word document, Ethiopia received the SDR excel that gives more data on different aspects. The Ethiopia country team would like to get training on DEEP so that they can institutionalize the SDR process within the country with local actors and capacities. The draft report will be shared with Ethiopia ICCG for validation and joint analysis. For colleagues who are interested in the Ethiopia field request, the SDR will be published on the portal and access to the database will be granted. Based on what the country team is comfortable with sharing, analytical outputs will also be shared.GIMAC co-lead Workshop: A series of workshops are taking place to review, revise and validate internal, external and partners support of GIMAC key documents The first workshop took place on August 21, 2020. The documents included:GIMAC Documents registry GIMAC Protocols GIMAC Internal SOP working GIMAC Field support request mechanism; the new menu will be live next week.A second workshop is scheduled for 28 August 2020. The documents include: Revision and validation of Workshop 1 documents GIMAC data sharing protocol Active member document: IMPACTNext steps and next workshop Update on?field development of HNOsHRP toolkit highlights for IM Marcus Elten (elten@) gave an overview on the HRP package that was sent to the field: A knowledge platform has been set up; all HPC related material can be accessed through the platform by colleagues within and outside of OCHA. The package includes:An updated HPC step by step guidance and templates for the HRPs and HNOs in English with a French version coming in the next weeks. A JIAF guidance which has formalized over the last few months. An internal discussion is underway to include a guidance piece on projection that will give instructions on how to facilitate a structured discussion to determine and agree on the most likely scenario for the upcoming planning period. This piece is important because it brings implications for PiN aggregations. IMO colleagues are encouraged to look at the PiN aggregation methodology proposed in the JIAF guidance. OCHA in collaboration with REACH conducted a Webinar on PiN aggregation. All Webinar material including PiN aggregation-related material can be found here. Health PiN calculator Ali Davis (adavis@) gave an overview on the health and PiN severity methodology for 2021:The Health PiN 2021 is based on the theory that upon a crisis, a population should have access to a basic set of health services that are able to cover a certain amount of that population. The individuals not covered would be those in need. The assumption that standard service capacity covers the entire population before the crisis happens. If reliable baseline data is readily available, then measurements may need adjustment. The assumption that minimum service requirements of health are always the same. Many factors can impact the available services and change requirements. For example, in outbreaks, higher numbers of inpatient beds may be required, or more medical personnel. Another common factor that would impact who available services cover is displacement status. These factors are considered and help to adjust the service capacity.The PiN is the difference between the standard service capacity and the health affected population. In terms of COVID-19 and PiN, the Health Cluster:Is currently in discussions with the COVID Task Team to find the best method to calculate the number of people in need of COVID-19 related support over 2021. Has received a dataset from JHU that factors age into expected outcomes at district level that we are looking at incorporating into COVID needs.Will use a Medium Attack Rate and take the total number projected to contract COVIDA step by step of how the Health Clusters will be calculating PiN; For Set-Up:Create expert judgement groupIdentify health affected population Identify indicators Determine data reliability Revise thresholds Run PiN calculator For Finalization:Run Workshop Review scorecards and finalize health PiNReview scorecards and finalize health severity Update on the draft?guidance on data responsibilityJos Berens (berens@) gave a brief update on the Joint System-Wide Operational Guidance on Data Responsibility: The sub-group on data responsibility was initiated in January 2020 part of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Results group 1. The sub-group is co-led by UNHCR, OCHA Centre for Humanitarian Data, and IOM. It consists of 20 group members. The primary objective of the sub-group is to develop joint, system-wide guidance on data responsibility for endorsement by the IASC. Once endorsed, this operational guidance will serve as a benchmark for key actions and accountabilities vis-a-vis data responsibility in humanitarian action.Data responsibility entails a set of principles, processes and tools that support the safe, ethical and effective management of data in humanitarian response. This includes data privacy, protection, and security, as well as other measures to mitigate risk and prevent harm. In turn, it also includes measures to prevent the ‘missed use’ of data by promoting the safe sharing and use of data where appropriate. Please refer to the attached presentation for a more detailed explanation on Data Responsibility. Key updates include:Edits for clarity and consistency Number of principles reduced, and one-line description of principles added, both for accessibility Draft definitions are added Draft templates added:Data Responsibility Diagnostic Information Sharing Protocol SOP for Data Management ExerciseData Sharing Agreement tool Data Impact Assessment SOP for Data Incident Management Next Steps include:Receive targeted review of specific sections in the operational guidance Secure IASC endorsement of the operational guidance Devise a strategy for implementation Build a community of practice around data responsibility The Centre for Humanitarian Data has worked with the sub-group to develop an FAQ on Data Responsibility in the COVID-19 Response to bring together existing guidance and offer practical tips for how to address common challenges and opportunities related to data management in the response. Briefing on the UN Data Strategy Andrew Alspach (Alspach@) walked the IMWG members through main website for the UN data strategy.The strategy came out and was endorsed by the Secretary General earlier this year. The strategy contains the concepts and strategic approaches that IM colleagues have been pushing for when it comes to the management of data. It has at the highest level of the UN the recognition that this is something advantageous not only to the UN but also to the population the UN serves. The vision of the data strategy is to build a whole-of-UN ecosystem that unlocks our full data potential for better decisions and stronger support to the people the UN serves. The website contains:A summary and full version of the strategy The priorities for data action into eight areas of work The strategic approach taken is to look at used cases and identify practical used cases; there is a call out for everyone to propose different used cases to be involved in the data strategy.The key components seen in the strategy entail: Analytics Data Management People and Culture Data Governance Partnerships Technology Environment Please refer to the full Data Strategy to fully understand what is in-scope and out of scope for the strategy. Update on the upcoming UN75 anniversary and the Global Governance Forum The Chair (kastlander@) explained that the forum supports the UN75 declaration and is one of several innovation and partnership initiatives. The premise for the IM-related discussion at the Global Governance Forum is: While the UNSG's Data Strategy clearly identifies and addresses the need for more coherence in data and information underpinning the triple nexus, we lack concrete, well-resourced and empowered global-level mechanisms to support its implementation. Please refer to the attached presentation for a complete list of the sub-statements related to the premise. The aim of the Global Governance Forum “Table” is to discuss the creation of a global level mechanism to address the challenges. This is done through: The validation of premise and define main objectives of mechanism (session 1).Defining a high-level roadmap to establishing it (session 2).The table contains participants that create a broad representation of the different stakeholders. For a complete list of participants, please refer to the attached presentation. The results of the Global IM Governance survey around the premise and sub-statements include: Replies are largely from the humanitarian sector of the triple nexus, followed by development and peace and security. Replies are overwhelmingly from the UN and NGOs. Replies represented different positions in organizations ranging from executive management to strategic management, operational management, team leaders, and team members. Over 85% of respondents agree with the premise. Around 65% agree there is no sufficiently authoritative and comprehensive global framework to guide the work of the IM community. Over 70% agree that there is no consistent way for stakeholders to participate or contribute to information management. Around 70% agree that there is no sufficient global oversight and monitoring of IM capacity requirements and resources. Over 80% agree there is not sufficient global oversight and accountability for the quality (fitness-for-purpose) of information generated.Around 70% agree that the effectiveness of my work?relies on an exchange of data and information across the triple nexus. Around 40% agree with the statement “I regularly exchange data and information with actors across the triple nexus.”Those who have not taken the survey are encouraged to do so. Participants from the development, peace and security realm are especially encouraged. The survey remains open for those who wish to add their inputs. Briefing on Epi Modelling Raymond Hutubessy (hutubessyr@who.int) gave an overview of the COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) Phase One results from the Technical Group:The CMCC concept note can be accessed here. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was established to provide country governments, particularly low- and middle-Income countries (LMICs) which have limited capacity to develop their own models, and other model users with an overview of the aims, capabilities and limits of the main COVID-19 models in use. The aim of the CMCC is to:Provide country governments, particularly in LMICs, and other model users with an overview of the aims, capabilities and limits of the main COVID-19 models in use.Increase the understanding of model choice for different questions, support the understanding of key assumptions and parameters in the different models and how that can relate to differences in projectionsThe CMCC is made up the three following pillars:The COVID-19 Modelling group The Technical Group The Policy Group The CMCC has two phases:Phase 1 is an initial fitness-for purpose assessment of current COVID-19 model structures; this report is one of the two main deliverables of Phase 1. Phase 2 is an invitation for modelling groups to participate in the prospective modelling of a few selected policy questions. Key country-specific parameters:Infection and case fatality rates Age specific- based generally on assumptions from early observations in ChinaCurrent generally not country specific, though in some models, this can be user-specifiedTransmission ratesGenerally, from other settingsNow with model calibration this parameter is increasingly being estimated from country dataContact matricesCountry specific generally from inferred contact matrices, not from primary data collectionModel documentation and calibration:Apps available for many models with varying user specificationDocumentation availability varies significantly among the CMCC COVID-19 modelsModel calibration is attempted by all groups, with the frequency varying across the modelsThe models use different data as targets for model calibration. Reported deaths is used by multiple groups and may constitute an appropriate dataThe conclusions from the technical report drafted by the technical team include: All models are in constant development and developed relatively quickly given the evolution of the pandemicTo our knowledge, a unique exercise to date. It has brought together both infectious disease modelers, policy makers in LMICs and development partners to better connect policy design, analysis and implementation in the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic Current versions of the seven models share commonalities and differences that influence depending on the question of fit for purposeLessons for multi-model comparison:Keeping up with the rapidly changing context (e.g. the growing importance of face masks) and evolving modelsCollaboration with Policy Group of the CMCC provided the Technical Group with invaluable insights into what matters most for policy makers in LMICs at this time; Successive rounds of validation of intermediary comparison results with participating COVID-19 modellers lead to insights and course correction and strengthened the exerciseThe developed questionnaires are available and use for use with other models for countries to undertake targeted model comparisonsNext steps for phase 2 include: Work will focus on performing direct quantitative comparisons among participating models, using standardised parameter sets within the elicitation framework proposed by Shea et alDiscussion around how to keep this comparison up to date as relevant questions change and models changeDiscussion on how to make process available for comparisons of per country model comparisonsAOB The GIS sub-group sent a written update on meetings to date in 2020: Facebook data for good on 26/03/2020Health Facilities Catchment Areas Workstream Presentation by MSF/OCHA/ WHO/Healhsites.io/HIGT on 04/06/2020GRID3 Presentation by CIEESIN and WorldPop on 30/07/2020There was also a spin off “sub-sub-group” on health boundaries after the last two meetings that put like-minded people in contact across the world around this paramount topic. The next GIS sub-group meeting is scheduled for 24 September. Topic is still to be determined but may include MapX.In an upcoming meeting (potentially in one of the ad hoc meetings on COVID-19) UNICEF-led clusters will brief about the development of an online IM training.A reminder that every second week an ad-hoc IMWG meeting for COVID-19 will take place. Members are invited to tune in to the next meeting taking place on Thursday September 10, 2020.Next global IMWG meeting: The next regular Global IMWG meeting is planned for early November 2020. The chair will call on an earlier meeting if deemed necessary. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download