CCCM Global Cluster Meeting
5 May 2009
UNHCR Geneva – 15.00hrs
Kim Roberson (chair) UNHCR Roberson@unhcr.org
Lea Matheson IOM email@example.com
Anamaria Fonnegra IOM firstname.lastname@example.org
Gaitrie Ammersing UNHCR Ammersing@unhcr.org
Kritte Hoffritz UNHCR Hoffritz@unhcr.org
Laila Badawy NRC Laila.email@example.com
Gillian Dunn IRC gilliand@theIRC.org
Karen Walker Proact Network/CARE Karen.firstname.lastname@example.org
Tom Corsellis Shelter Centre email@example.com
Dina Abou Samra OCHA firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Adoption of the agenda – agenda adopted as stands
2. Adoption of the minutes – Minutes of the meeting of 5 February 2009 adopted
3. CCCM cluster meeting with donors
a) The CCCM Cluster donor meeting was held on the 23rd of March. The notes were
circulated to all those present and will be shared with all partners. The meeting was
convened by the cluster co-leads in response to a funding gap that is threatening the
wellbeing of the cluster in 2009. The meeting recognized that that CCCM is a new
cluster, and as such, is not as advanced as other clusters. Additionally, the difficulties
of mainstreaming were raised. The donors recommended that the cluster re-prioritize
the work plan and come back to them with funding needs.
b) On the 21st of April, the Canadian Mission and OCHA co-chaired the biannual
cluster lead – donor meeting. The primary theme of the meeting was accountability in
which a joint paper from the donors and OCHA was put on the table. The clusters did
not receive the paper with much turn around for discussion prior to the meeting. It
was felt by many of the cluster lead agencies that accountability needs to be discussed
with the IASC prior to an external discussion.
Accountability (and reporting line) from the cluster lead agencies to the ERC remains
a difficult issue. It has been continually raised in various forums with no conclusions.
However, the issue of how to ensure accountability within the cluster approach
remains. The US directly asked at the meeting: “who do they call when there is a
problem?”. The Global Cluster Leads suggested a meeting between the Global
Cluster Lead Agencies and the ERC where achievements and challenges both at field
and global level can be raised.
Prior to the meeting (two days), the Global Capacity Building Report was shared with
the donors. However, with the short period between receipt and the meeting the
donors were not in a position to discuss however many donors requested the
opportunity to come back to us. Funding issues were not directly discussed at the
The CCCM Secretariat will share the Chair Summary when received.
4. Prioritization of the 2009 Work Plan
Following the request of re-prioritization of the work plan at the CCCM/Donor
Meeting, the work plan was slightly restructured and shared with partners. The
review of the work plan will allow the cluster to approach donors and show what
needs to be done, and what is covered and what is not covered.
It appears that areas such as meetings, keeping global cluster partners informed,
information dissemination and bilateral meetings with donors and cluster partners will
be covered. CARE stated they have no more resources to finalize the camp closure
guidance. NRC will continue to approach donors for camp management activities.
Those activities that are covered will be placed on top of the work plan. The
remaining activities that the cluster will be requesting funds will be prioritized.
The Shelter Centre informed the cluster of the development of guidelines for
reconstruction after natural disasters stating these would assist in the linking CCCM
with other clusters. Additionally, it was suggested the camp planning guidelines
currently being developed are included. It was agreed they would insert the possible
activities into the CCCM work plan.
The CCCM Secretariat requested any suggestions on format to ensure better
presentation and clarity. Additionally, the CCCM Secretariat requested any other
inputs to be provided by next week to ensure the work plan is finalized in the next two
weeks. Partners are expected to ensure that their activity information is completely
filled into the format and with a cost if possible.
Based on the comments received by the partners, the work plan will be restructured
and shared with partners by 8 May 2009.
5. Update of Sphere Handbook
Next week there is a Sphere Board meeting to discuss the revision of the Handbook.
It is still unclear how to proceed with CCCM. In the meeting last December, there
was a clear request from partners to have a separate chapter despite the information
broadened by Sphere. However, subsequently some partners have raised reservations.
At a recent meeting, the Sphere team again stated that they could not include a
IRC believes that camp settings need to be included, but does not see a separate
chapter adding any particular value. Gillian stressed that the Sphere standards are
meant to be used in any situation, whether a camp setting or within an existing
community. Further, she believes CCCM issues should be mainstreamed into the
Sphere Handbook. Specific information regarding camp settings could be included in
the guidance notes in each chapter.
IRC also suggested that the CCCM Cluster look at the “Companion Standards” model
which is what INEE has done for education; however stressed this is a lot of work and
perhaps not needed.
The Shelter Centre invited the CCCM cluster to their Shelter Meeting on the 7th of
May to discuss Sphere with the Emergency Shelter Cluster.
IRC stated it is important that someone from CCCM attend the meeting. Gillian
stressed it is not a “how to” handbook and the context is very important. She advised
that the handbook will not likely be about process.
NRC echoed IRC that there should not be a separate chapter, but rather it needs to
incorporate issues that are specific to camp management in the various existing
chapters. Gaps that remain in coordination, information management, and monitoring
of services are difficult to standardize, but could be developed.
IRC agreed with the comment that there is nothing about coordination in the
handbook and these issues fit into the common standards chapter. However, they do
not feel there is anything different from CCCM in the guidance note that separates.
IRC informed the cluster that the revised version of the handbook will have cross
cutting issues integrated into each chapter. The idea being that issues are considered
in each sector area and it was believed much of this was already done in the Camp
The CCCM Secretariat explained the original concern about mainstreaming is that
over the last three years the cluster had worked hard to ensure its separate identity
from the Shelter and Protection Clusters. Most of the current standards and indictors
were under the “Shelter, Settlement and NFI” chapter.
It was agreed that it is essential that the CCCM is clearly highlighted in the handbook
in the various chapters, and not only in the Shelter chapter, to illustrate that CCCM
and Shelter are not the same.
The Shelter Centre stressed the need for CCCM issues to be clearly incorporated in
the various chapters in order to highlight the specific issues that need to be considered
in camp responses.
CCCM issues need to illustrate how people cope and find durable solutions, and how
managing camps are key to finding long term solutions. If camps are set up and
managed badly from the beginning, it creates long term problems.
NRC stated Sphere must be linked to the Camp Management Toolkit and suggested
perhaps a mapping should be undertaken. It was agreed that IOM would consolidate
the issues raised and discussed at this CCCM cluster meeting and share these with the
cluster partners in order to trigger a brainstorming process which would result in input
by the CCCM cluster to be presented at the 12th of May Sphere meeting.
Shelter Centre suggested a meeting the next day to begin the brainstorming which was
6. Update on On-going activities
a) Camp Closure: The Secretariat received the latest draft from CARE and is
in the process of review. The Camp Closure guidance is not quite finished as
it is a large document and feedback is needed. The time frame will depend on
whether CARE can move forward with a lack in funds. A meeting will take
place with CARE next week.
Shelter Centre and OCHA requested a copy to ensure the vocabulary is
consistent. If anyone else requests, we are happy to circulate.
b) Needs Assessment: There are two parts - data collection form and database.
All information gathered from the forms now has been integrated. The
database requirement document will be shared by the end of May. Database
is now ready to be developed. Piloting is still planned for end of the year-
the location is still to be determined.
c) CCCM Nepal is holding a combined CCCM/CM training of trainers in Nepal
to assistance in national capacity building and preparedness. They will not
become global trainers but national trainers. It is also a pilot to plan for
additional national ToT. NRC has carried about national camp management
training of trainers in 2006/7 as part of NRC camp management programmes
(e.g. Pakistan, Lebanon).
a) A CCCM newsletter will be developed to keep cluster partners informed of
developments. Space will also be provided for cluster partners to contribute.
b) Shelter Centre requests the CCCM cluster to participate in review of the
revision of the shelter reconstruction guidelines. Consultations will take place
at the Shelter Meeting this week and at a 1 July meeting hosted at OCHA in
c) Camp Management ToR will it be shared with partners for endorsement once
the CCCM Secretariat has reviewed.
d) Cluster Meetings proposed dates are: Early September (week of 10
September) and November/December. Shelter Meeting suggests scheduling a
meeting next to their meeting. Shelter Meeting to share dates after meeting