60 likes | 134 Views
Internal linkages in the GNC, GNC CT, SAG, NCCs. Q1. From the proposed visual on the internal relationship, Do you agree with this proposed structure and the groups?
E N D
Internal linkages in the GNC, GNC CT, SAG, NCCs Q1. From the proposed visual on the internal relationship, Do you agree with this proposed structure and the groups? • Don’t agree with diagram as it does not represent power dynamics/ relationships. E.g UNICEF as CLA-funds and recruits NCC and should be reflected as such.
Visual not showing the realities on the ground. Linkages need to be redefined. • Where does the blurred country cluster/sector fit in the whole visual eg Kenya/Darfur.
Q2. What adjustments do you propose and why? • Rewrite SAG ToRsif it will stay longer. Review and redefinition. Oversight for CLA and partners. • TFs to be formed and do bits of work. • Consider NCC to report to the GNC CT directly and not to UNICEF for neutrality????.
Q3. How should the SAG relate to the wider GNC? SAG with GNC • SAG is a sub-set of GNC • Provides oversight and direction • Rotating membership NCC with GNC • NCC placed at the core as they perform 100% cluster work. Probably playing a lot of coordination role than some partners • No double hatting. GNC partners should come and play the role at country as well. TF with SAG and GNC • Who initiates the decision to form a TF?? GNC partners
Q4. Are there any decisions that are automatically delegated to the SAG • Don’t want the SAG as de-facto WG. Too much burden on members. • Partners need to be consulted/informed on all issues. • SAG should remain oversight and advisory. • TFs to be formed for specific areas of work.
Q5. What are the next steps required to move this forward? • SAG needed. Review the TORs so that they remain advisory and offer direction. • Membership to be rotational. • UNICEF involvement as CLA.