Briefing note and programme for a donor delegation visit

Priority: 1. D (lowest access to water, 680 people per latrine, highest share below 115 mm, no actor); 2. B (second worst on all indicators, no actor, accessible); 3. A (water trucking at 8 L, below the standard); 4. C (least bad, already covered, but still far below the standards).

Limitations: screening in accessible households, not representative: these are not prevalence rates; MUAC only, without weight-for-height or oedema; estimated average household size; one-week assessment in a fast-changing context (continuing arrivals).

Sample answer:

Briefing note, Doolow district, visit of [date].

Situation. Around 25,800 people (4,300 households) driven out by the drought have arrived in four displacement sites in the district. Arrivals are continuing.

Priority needs. Water: only 36% of households have 15 litres per person per day, the minimum set by Sphere; only 10% in site D. Sanitation: 181 functional latrines, i.e. one for 143 people, against one for 20 at most; around 1,100 are missing, raising fears of diarrhoeal diseases. Nutrition: among the 3,210 children screened, 14.5% have a MUAC below 125 mm and 4% below 115 mm, up to 6.6% in site D. These screening figures are not prevalence rates, but they point to a serious situation.

Current response. Our organisation has rehabilitated a borehole and is building 40 latrines in site C, and supports site A. A partner trucks water to site A, but at 8 litres per person per day. A mobile nutrition programme operates two days a week in site C only.

Gaps. Sites B (5,160 people) and D (4,080 people) have no actor in water, sanitation or nutrition. Site D is 50 minutes' drive away, on a flood-prone track with no network.

What we are asking for. (1) Additional funding to extend water and sanitation to sites B and D: water trucking followed by a durable solution, emergency latrines, hygiene promotion. (2) Support for advocacy with the nutrition cluster so that a treatment programme covers sites B and D. (3) Flexibility to adapt activities as arrivals evolve.

Contact: [name, position, telephone].

Programme: 8:00 to 8:15: welcome and security briefing at the base; 8:15 to 8:30: travel to site B; 8:30 to 9:30: site B, visit with the site committee and a women's group (access to water, lack of latrines); 9:30 to 9:45: travel to site C; 9:45 to 10:35: site C, borehole, latrines under construction, meeting with the water committee; observation of the nutrition programme without interrupting care; 10:35 to 10:45: return to the base; 10:45 to 11:00: end-of-visit discussion. Return well before 12:30. Site D (50 min drive, flood-prone track, no network) is not feasible in 3 hours together with a second site: presented using the map and the data.

Key messages: (1) 25,800 people have arrived, and arrivals are continuing; (2) water and sanitation far below the standards: 36% of households have 15 litres, one latrine for 143 people; (3) worrying nutrition signals, up to 6.6% of children below 115 mm in site D; (4) sites B and D have no actor: this is where additional funding would have the greatest effect; (5) we have a proven presence and capacity in sites A and C, ready to be scaled up.

"Thank you for the proposal. Showing only site C would give the delegation a falsely reassuring picture, when we are asking them to fund the sites that have nothing: the visit must show site B, which is 15 minutes away and compatible with the security rules. Site C stays on the programme to show what we are doing. As for the photos, I cannot agree to organise a meeting with mothers of children with severe malnutrition: families in distress are not in a position to give truly free consent in front of a donor, and these images undermine their dignity. The delegation can meet the site committee and a group of women volunteers, prepared in advance, with no promise of assistance. Photos are possible of infrastructure and activities, with consent, without children in distress or identifiable children's faces."