1. OCHA Hargeisa Office Proposal for Lessons Learnt review process: OCHA desk review focusing on Preparedness and coordination process. Internal individual agency review focusing on both response and coordination. Review at general coordination forums to incorporate a wide range of input from different partners. The review may take place at: o The OCHA led Weekly Drought Coordination meeting. o Somalia NGO Consortium monthly coordination meeting o Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) coordination meeting. o Any other relevant forum.

2. Lessons Learnt review process Cont. Sectoral review with the support of the clusters (sector chair and co-chair to invite cluster support). This process may start with Internal ministerial review that will input to the sectorial review. Internal government review through different NERAD levels: o District Disaster Preparedness and Management Committee o Regional Disaster Preparedness and Management Committee o National Disaster Preparedness and Management Steering Committee o National Disaster Committee (to make decisions).

3. Structure of Analysis Preparedness for the drought: – Level of awareness on the unfolding situation by government, communities and humanitarian organizations. – The role of different coordination structures: government agencies ((Sectors, NERAD), line ministries,the UN agencies, NGOs, None state actors and affected communities. – Access to, availability and sufficiency of information to help plan mitigation measures. – Level of coordination at this stage. – Contingency resources available. – Gaps in contingency resources – Resource mobilization measure and funding challenges.

4. Structure of Analysis Cont. Impact of the drought and Needs: – How the drought impacted different regions, areas and communities differently (Generally, the impact of the drought was not uniform in all areas, communities and sectors. – What were factors that contributed to differential impact of the drought on different areas and communities. – The urgent needs resulting from the impact of the drought. – Existing community/household coping efforts.

5. Structure of Analysis Cont. Response: – How the response activities which were already on-going to meet protracted humanitarian, resilience and development needs before the on-set of the drought contributed to the mitigation of the worst impact of the drought. – Scope, relevancy and timeliness of response (humanitarian and recovery). – Age and gender disaggregation of the response. – Complementarity role of humanitarian and recovery intervention. – The challenges that resulted from the response (conflicts, dependency, expectation, inequity, age and gender implication). – Lessons learnt (what could have been done differently)

6. Structure of Analysis Cont. Coordination: – Coordination structures and mechanisms involved. – timeliness of activation of the coordination structures and mechanisms. – leadership role of government (National, Regional, district, NERAD, Sectors) – Support role of OCHA, UN lead agencies, NGO consortium, OIC and the clusters. – The role of non-state actors (business community, faith groups, the diaspora, political groups, volunteers, local communities) – Participation of humanitarian organization, including UN agencies, NGOs, OIC etc in meetings. – Effectiveness and efficiency of the different coordination structures and mechanisms – Effectiveness and efficiency of documentation, information sharing and communication. – Follow up of action points from the meetings;

7. Structure of Analysis Cont. Resource mobilization: – speed of resource mobilization: response by traditional and non-traditional donors to support response, – role of government and the humanitarian community in resource mobilization. (NEED FOR FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS)