4W gap analysis, meeting minutes and briefing note for a high-level mission

Évêché, food security: 4,200 + 3,900 = 8,100 people reported for 7,200 in need: at least 900 people counted twice (or served twice). The corrected figure is 7,200 at most.

Sites versus outlying areas: the two sites (25,700 people in need, 47%) receive most of the aid: in WASH, 23,200 / 25,700 = 90.3% coverage, against 3,400 / 28,500 = 11.9% in the three outlying areas, which nevertheless account for 53% of needs.

Most serious gaps: (1) Ouandago and Nana-Outa: no health assistance in Ouandago since the mobile clinic stopped (9,800 people), no water in Nana-Outa and almost nothing else; (2) protection: 12.7% coverage overall and 0% in Mbrès, although abductions are reported on the road; (3) WASH in the outlying areas (11.9%), with the Mbrès borehole broken down. Shelter (23.1%) is also very low, including in Lazare (33%). Duplications: food security at Évêché; also to be checked for the sites, where some rates close to 100% may hide double counting.

Minutes, Kaga-Bandoro inter-sector coordination meeting. Participants: 14 organisations; authorities absent. Opened at 10:20.

Key points: food security: overlap between Alpha and Beta at the Évêché site (8,100 people reported for 7,200 in need); health: Ouandago mobile clinic stopped for 5 weeks due to lack of funding; protection: unverified reports of abductions on the Mbrès road; WASH: Mbrès borehole broken down; Nana-Outa: no recent assessment, access by motorbike only; joint mission expected in 3 days; request from the sub-prefect to take part.

Next meeting: [date] at 9:00, same venue (proposal: fortnightly meeting on a fixed date, agenda circulated 48 hours in advance).

Example: "Situation. 54,200 people need assistance in the Kaga-Bandoro area, including 25,700 in the Lazare and Évêché sites and 28,500 in the Mbrès, Ouandago and Nana-Outa areas.

Coverage and gaps. The response is concentrated in the sites: 90% coverage in water, sanitation and hygiene against 12% in the outlying areas, which account for 53% of needs. Protection covers only 13% of people in need and shelter 23%. In Ouandago, there have been no health services since the mobile clinic stopped 5 weeks ago. Nana-Outa has not been assessed recently. An overlap in distributions at Évêché is being resolved.

Constraints. Access to Mbrès and Ouandago every other week, with an escort; Nana-Outa accessible only by motorbike; reports of abductions on the Mbrès road; breaks in the food pipeline during the quarter (6 weeks), now resolved.

Key messages. (1) The most serious needs are outside the sites, where access is difficult; (2) protection is the most underfunded sector; (3) the continuity of essential services depends on short-term funding.

Requests. (1) Emergency funding to restore the Ouandago mobile clinic; (2) support for a multi-sector assessment in Nana-Outa and for a protection presence in Mbrès; (3) advocacy for regular access to the outlying areas; (4) priority to the outlying areas in the next allocations."

Emails: the pipeline break is mentioned factually and without naming the organisation, because it explains part of the results and the mission needs to know. No ranking of NGOs is included.

Approach: the coordination group has no power to expel an organisation, and "being there first" is not a criterion: the criterion is meeting needs without duplication or gaps. I bring Alpha and Beta together with the food security focal point; I ask each for its lists (identifiers, without unnecessary personal data, under a sharing agreement) to measure the real overlap; I check the food baskets, frequencies and funding sources.

Solution: geographical division or division by blocks within the site, or redirection of one of the two organisations to an area that is not covered, as a priority Ouandago (39.8% food security coverage) or Nana-Outa (0%), if its funding and access allow. The decision is recorded in the minutes and in the 4W matrix, and each donor concerned is informed by the organisation it funds. I then propose a common rule: any new intervention in a site is announced to the group before it starts.

Large organisation: I understand the concern, but the break had a direct effect on food security in the area and it explains part of the figures: leaving it out would make the note inaccurate. I propose to mention it factually, without naming the organisation, stating that it has been resolved; the organisation can, if it wishes, present the measures taken to the mission itself.

Donor: I do not rank NGOs: that is not the role of coordination, which must remain neutral and keep the trust of all members, and I have no comparable performance data. I direct him to the group's public data (4W matrix, gap analysis), to the reports of the partners he funds and to existing monitoring mechanisms, and I offer him a presentation of the priority gaps to guide his allocations.