4W analysis, gap prioritisation and coordination trade-offs in a cluster

Anomaly: 113% of target in Dikwa signals double counting. The 5W lines add up activities, not people. D-01: 6,600 unique people (not 13,200). D-02: 900 + 50 households not in common = 950 households, i.e. 5,700 people. D-03: 2,400. Unique total for Dikwa: 14,700, i.e. 67% of target and 42% of PIN.

Corrected total: 81,700 − 24,900 + 14,700 = 71,500 people, i.e. 47% of target and 30% of PIN. Conversely, Ngala and Monguno are probably under-reported (reporting rates of 50% and 60%): their rates are minimums.

Corrected gaps (target − reached): Bama 8,400; Gwoza 30,800; Dikwa 7,300; Ngala 26,200; Monguno 7,800; total 80,500 people. Gwoza and Ngala account for 71% of the gap (57,000/80,500).

Criteria: gap against target and PIN, access, actual implementation capacity, risk of duplication (Dikwa to be verified before any new dispatch).

Gwoza and Ngala receive 71% of the kits (3,000/4,200), consistent with their share of the gap. The stock covers 25,200 people with kits, i.e. 31% of the remaining gap: this must be reported to the inter-cluster coordination group (ICCG).

Ngala: partner capacity (600 households) is not enough. The cluster lead agency steps in as provider of last resort with its mobile team, in coordination with convoy planning. This role remains conditional on access and resources: the cluster reports the residual gap to the ICCG and the humanitarian country team (HCT) and looks for a new partner.

Example: "Situation. As of 30 September, the cluster has reached 71,500 unique people, i.e. 47% of the HRP target and 30% of people in need. The reported figure (81,700) was corrected after double counting was detected in Dikwa; the reporting rate is only 75%. Gaps. Gwoza and Ngala account for 71% of the gap (57,000 people out of 80,500). The common pipeline stock (4,200 kits and 2,500 shelters) is allocated to these two LGAs as a priority; it covers only 31% of the gap. Constraints. Funding at 30%; access to Ngala limited to one convoy every two weeks; only one partner on the ground, with the cluster lead agency acting as last resort. Decisions requested. (1) Advocate with the HCT and the pooled fund for an allocation targeted at Gwoza and Ngala; (2) include Ngala in the access negotiation priorities, with a weekly convoy; (3) take the issue of directing assistance to return areas to the HCT, with the protection cluster, before any response from the cluster to the authority."

Reply to NGO E: its position is legitimate. The cluster does not need named lists. Principles: data minimisation, specific purpose, proportionality (IASC guidance on data responsibility in humanitarian action). Options: (1) bilateral comparison between the two partners concerned, on the basis of a data-sharing agreement, with the cluster receiving only the number of duplicates; (2) comparison of pseudonymised data (hashed identifier); (3) failing that, strict geographical division of sites and households to avoid overlap.

4W/5W tool: separate "unique people reached" from "outputs by activity"; written counting rule (a person is counted once per LGA and per period, whatever the number of activities); mandatory P-codes and site codes; automatic check above 100% of target; submission deadline and monthly feedback to partners on the quality of their data; public dashboard showing the reporting rate by organisation.

Principles: returns must be voluntary, safe, dignified and informed; assistance is based on needs and not on a political objective (impartiality, independence). 68% of households do not wish to return: making aid conditional on return would turn it into a forced return.

Approach: the cluster coordinator does not settle a policy issue alone: he or she consults the protection cluster, refers the matter to the ICCG and escalates it to the HCT and the Humanitarian Coordinator, who lead high-level dialogue with the authorities. The coordinator informs partners without giving them instructions contrary to their principles.

Reply to the authority: constructive and non-confrontational. The cluster is ready to support returns that meet the conditions (area assessments, shelter in places of return for households that choose to return), while maintaining assistance in the camps according to needs. Propose a joint working group on durable solutions.