Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

7/28/2019 Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

1/16

SOMALIA NUTRITION CLUSTER

Nutrition Cluster CoordinationUNICEF Somalia Support Centre (USSC)

United Nations, Block Q, Nairobi, Kenya

http://www.unocha.org/somalia/coordination/clusters/nutrition

For more information, contact Leo Matunga, Nutrition Cluster Coordinator: [email protected]

or Komborero Chirenda, Deputy Nutrition Cluster Coordinator: [email protected]

Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Somalia Annual Nutrition Cluster

Evaluation Report

Somalia Cluster Team during Mogadishu NiE Training Somaliland Nutrition Strategy Launch

A moderate acute malnourished child in Dobley-Lower Juba Somalia

December 2012


2/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Acronyms:

BNSP Basic Nutrition Services Package

CAFDARO Community Activity for Development and Relief Organization

CAP Consolidated Appeal Process

CRC Cluster Review Committee

EPRP Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans

HCT Humanitarian Country Team

IMAM Integrated Management of Acute Malnutrition

INGO International Non-Governmental Organization

LNGO Local Non-Governmental Organization

NIE Nutrition in Emergencies

NRRT National Rapid Response Team

SRCS Somalia Red Crescent Society

ToR Terms of Reference

UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

3Ws Who is doing What and Where

Acknowledgement:

The Nutrition Cluster Team greatly acknowledges the efforts made by all cluster partners and members

(LNGOs & INGOs), UN agencies, inter-clusters teams, donors, government ministries and observers who

actively participated in the 2012 evaluation process. The team also appreciate coordination support given

by sub-national focal points, MoH, WFP and UNICEF for stressing emphasis on completion of the

questionnaires by all partners in order for this to be a success.


3/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

1.BackgroundThe Somalia nutrition cluster was created in 2006 after the country adopted the cluster system following

recommendations by the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). The cluster system was established in orderto strengthen humanitarian coordination and have a predictable and accountable response as part of the

humanitarian reform.

Somalia Nutrition Cluster has clearly defined ToR of roles and responsibilities; cluster response plans;

cluster nutrition and IYCF strategies; IMAM, and survey/ surveillance guidelines validated and utilized at

field level.

The Nutrition Cluster has rapidly increased in size since the 2011 famine response with membership

composing of government, LNGOs, INGOs, UN agencies, civil society, donors, and observers. Currently the

Somalia nutrition cluster is one of the biggest clusters globally with about 400 members of which 145 are

partners implementing active nutrition projects in Somalia with the support from various donor agencies.

Due to the complexity of the operational environment in Somalia, the Nutrition cluster hold a nationalcluster meeting on a monthly basis in Nairobi and 14 other sub-national cluster meetings inside Somalia

mainly chaired by UNICEF as a cluster lead agency and co-chaired by voluntary LNGOs. (see Annex II:

Nutrition Sub-cluster Focal Point Map)

The Nutrition cluster coordination team is currently made up of a Nutrition Cluster coordinator (UNICEF),

Co-chair (LNGO-CAFDARO), Deputy nutrition cluster coordinator (WFP), Nutrition information

management specialist (UNICEF), Nutrition cluster support officer (UNOCHA), Mogadishu based nutrition

cluster assistant (UNICEF) and nutrition cluster data entry assistant (UNICEF).

The first Somalia cluster evaluation was done end of November 2012 in order to assess review the

performance of the cluster; document the achievements and identify areas of improvement based on

recommendations.

2.MethodologyThe Nutrition Cluster Evaluation was conducted in November 2012. An on-line evaluation questionnaire

was directly circulated to 361 cluster members (UN, LNGOs, INGOs, Donors, Government Officials and

other Somalia Cluster representatives team) actively participating in the Somalia Nutrition Cluster. 27%

(96 members) managed to respond to the questionnaire, out of which 75 members completed the entire

questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 3 questions on the background of the respondents, 52

statements on different topics regarding the Nutrition Cluster, and two open-ended questions to identify

any best practices and ways forward for improved Nutrition Cluster coordination. Response options to

the different statements ranged from 1 to 5 (5-strongly agree, 4-partly agree, 3-neutral, 2-partly disagree

and 1-strongly disagree). Furthermore, respondents were given the option to provide free-text comments

on each statement.


4/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

43.8%

16.7%

39.6%

At what level do you participate in the

cluster coordination meetings?

National / Nairobi

level

Field level

Both national and

field level

3.Objectives of the Nutrition Cluster Evaluation To document the Nutrition Cluster achievements, lessons learnt and experiences in response

implementation and identify recommendations for improved coordination and response.

To identify constraints, challenges and key thematic areas where improvements can be made toensure positive progression in year-2013.

To review the performance of national and sub-national nutrition clusters coordinationmechanisms

4.Findings4.1Composition of respondents

Most respondents to the

questionnaire (61.5%) workfor LNGOs or Somalia Red

Crescent Society. Other

responses were received

from international NGOs

(28.1%), UN agencies

(8.3%), donor agencies (1%)

and other cluster

representatives (1%). No

responses were received

from National Governmentrepresentatives or

Observers.

The graph on the right indicates that there

was a nearly equal balance of respondents

from national/Nairobi level and field level.

Approximately 40 % participate in both

national and field level coordination

meetings.

28.1%

61.5%

8.3%

1.0% 1.0%What stakeholder group do you

belong to? International NGO

Local NGO / Somalia

Red Crescent Society

UN Agency

Donor

Other Cluster


5/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

80.2%

53.1%

13.5%10.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

South Central Puntland Somaliland

Which zone is your main area of focus?Many respondents are targeting more

than 1 zone in Somalia as their main areaof focus. The majority (80%) of

respondents have South Somalia as their

main area of focus. Approximately half of

the respondents (53%) have Central

Somalia included in their main area of

focus, while only a small percentage of

the respondents have Puntland zone

(13.5%) or Somaliland zone (10.4%) as

their main area of focus.

4.2Cluster evaluation analysisThe analysis of the results on the questionnaire statements was calculated as rating average, a

weighted average response to each item, ranging from 1 (the cluster needs to significantly improve on

this topic) to 5 (the cluster has performed excellent on this topic). A summary table of the responseanalysis for each topic featured in the questionnaire is attached as Annex I. For each topic, the number of

responses to the statements is listed, followed by the rating average and the total number of responses

to the statement.

In the next subsections, an analysis based on these responses is provided as well as the individual

comments provided by the respondents.

4.2.1 CoordinationThe cluster coordination support has been adequate at national level and less felt at field level.

Coordination meetings at national level were well organized (according to 91% of the respondents) and

conducted on monthly basis as planned, agenda disseminated well in time, minutes circulated to allregistered partners and action points addressed appropriately. Cluster meetings were conducted at sub-

national clusters; however according to 13% of the respondents there is need to further improve this, e.g.

to promote an action oriented approach, and maintain consistency with the planned calendar, quality on

agenda items, minutes writing, information dissemination, follow up on action points and coordination

capacity. Communication between national and sub-national level clusters was generally efficient

(according to 68% of the respondents), though revitalization of sub-national cluster could improve the

coordination process.


6/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Most respondents indicated that the cluster coordination team is competent (88%), handles technical

areas of responsibility adequately (78%), is easily approachable (90%), and an independent and impartial

(neutral) representative of the cluster partners (78%). 84% of the respondents felt that partners were

closely engaged during planning phase, decision making, implementation and monitoring process.

According to many respondents, the nutrition cluster response plan objectives (95%) and ToR (85%) are

very clear, and the coordination structure is effective (68%) for serving the needs of the cluster. Capacity

building of subnational level cluster focal points was reflected as an area of need by (29%) of partners.

Recommendations:

Strengthen national and sub-national clusters coordination through training on clustercoordination and cluster approach awareness;

Strengthen inter-cluster coordination approach in integrating programmes strategies, designingand implementation;

Regularly circulate cluster coordination structure, roles and responsibilities for the benefit ofnew partners;

Maintain minimum standards required for sub-national cluster focal points in order to improvecoordination, technical support and leadership skills at field level.

4.2.2 Capacity BuildingThe trainings offered by the cluster to partners in 2012 were of a high quality (according to 70% of the

respondents), and training materials were adequate (64%); however, post-training support was indicated

by many partners (23%) to be inadequate. The Nutrition in Emergencies training (91%) conducted was of

great importance to the partners (91%), although it could not cover all regions in 2012. Some of the

partners requested for the opportunity to be also trained in NIE. Furthermore, Nutrition Cluster approach

training is generally (94%) felt to be an important training that should be given to all cluster partners.

Further needs for improvement were indicated, such as to offer more training opportunities to partners

(32%), to translate cluster training materials into the local language (17%), to build technical capacity of

partners (24%) for the need to improve the capacity to address nutrition needs in Somalia (40%).

Recommendations:

Strengthen the capacity of partners through NiE and relevant technical trainings/ on-job-trainings on thematic key areas;

Cluster to develop a multi-year capacity development plan and circulate at national and sub-national cluster (where possible leading agencies, INGOs to harmonize training work plans);

Training materials should also be translated into local language especially at field level.


7/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

4.2.3 Contingency Planning and PreparednessMost partners (77%) agreed that partners are adequately involved in the development of contingency

and emergency preparedness plans. Also the individual comments by the respondents do not indicate

any need for improvements on this topic.

Recommendations:

The cluster needs to develop with partners a costed multi-hazard Emergency Preparedness andResponse Plans (EPRP) which should be shared with all partners and can be activated in times of

need;

Cluster should advocate for the establishment of National Rapid Response Team (NRRT).4.2.4 Resource MobilizationAccording the majority (82%) of respondents, nutrition cluster partners have been committed to

contributing to the Common Humanitarian Action Plan, CAP, and other multi-cluster strategic plans.

There has been transparency (according to 73% of the respondents) in selection and resource allocation

through close involvement of LNGO, INGOs, UN and Observers in CRC, feedback on updates were always

shared with cluster partners. Moreover, the cluster is effective (88%) in advocating for funding for the

cluster activities.

Recommendations:

Maintain timely sharing of Common Humanitarian Action Plans, work plans and multi-clusterstrategic plans with national and sub-national clusters;

Cluster will require to mobilize resources through relevant potential interested donors incollaboration with lead agencies to fund cluster work-plans which include partners and staff

capacity building;

Maintain CRC neutrality by appointing members through open-confidence voting.4.2.5 Information ManagementThe general questions on Information Management have been responded to quite positively.

Interestingly, when questions were more specific, respondents were more sceptical. For example,

according to many (83%) respondents, there is more information that the cluster could reasonably collect

from partners to increase situational understanding, status of response and to help address any relevant

needs/gaps. Similarly, according to the majority of respondents (84%), the cluster could do a better job at

processing information which partners provide and transforming this into useful tools etc. for partners.

A significant proportion of the respondents (41%) have raised the issue that they are hesitant to share

certain information with the cluster because of the confidentiality and/or privacy of the information.

Recommendations:

Cluster should improve its information management activities to be more proactive in collectinginformation and subsequently provide partners with more output on the information that has

been collected;

It is recommended that further advocacy is done with implementing agencies on the importancefor timely sharing of information to promote collective decision-making and improved outcome;


8/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Cluster coordination team to establish a data confidentiality and privacy policy within the clusterto ensure that sensitive, personally identifiable datasets are suitably anonymised and partners

can be assured that the data they share will be treated confidentially when necessary;

Strengthen reciprocal communication and information sharing between national and sub-national clusters in order to effectively address action points from both levels;

To effectively maintain an information dense cluster webpage through which partners arecontinuously updated.

4.2.6 Monitoring, Evaluation & LearningMost respondents (84%) have indicated that monitoring, evaluation and learning activities are conducted

adequately. Individual comments were provided to highlight that the cluster coordination team

continuously conduct on job training during monitoring, follow up on partners not reporting and provides

feedback on action points/ areas of improvement i.e. monthly reports. A proportion of the respondents

(27%) indicated that the cluster coordination team does not regularly provide feedback to cluster

partners on essential key issues.

Recommendations:

Cluster in collaboration with partners and stakeholders to promote and engage in joinedsupportive supervision, joined monitoring exercises and focus groups meeting/ discussions at

field levels;

Partners are recommended to regularly share lessons learnt so as to strengthen cross-learningmechanisms among partners;

Cluster should promote nutrition partners exchange visits in order to enhance learning-by-doingapproach.

4.2.7 Nutritional interventions/responseNutrition interventions have been recommended based on actual needs and the cluster response isguided by clear set of standards and tools available to partners; however some partners highlighted the

need to widely circulate minimum required standards and tools in response to emergencies. Despite the

fact that most respondents (73%) acknowledge that the cluster coordination team is proactively involved

in filling geographical gaps in nutrition services, a serious issue has been raised by a significant proportion

of respondents (40%) that to their opinion the nutrition response in Somalia suffers from unnecessary

duplications in the service delivery.

Recommendations:

Advocate formulation of National Nutrition Policy through close collaboration of nationalgovernment, INGOs/ LNGOs partners, stakeholders and UN agencies;

Cluster should regularly circulate minimum standards and tools which guides nutrition responseprocess;

The cluster coordination team should promote minimum duplications/ overlaps in nutritionservice delivery through strengthening field cluster coordination mechanisms in order to improve

accountability and cost effectiveness of the programmes;

Recognition of marginalized diverse groups during strategy and programmes development.


9/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

4.2.8 Cross-cutting issuesMost respondents felt that the cluster strategy adequately addresses right of men, women, boys, girls,

and diverse groups i.e. ethnic, religion, culture and politics (89%), adequately reflects the nutritional

requirements of women and under 5 boys and girls (93%), and adequately reflects the concerns of

diverse groups (76%).

4.2.9 Best practicesThe following best practices were identified by the respondents:

Timely information management and dissemination at both national and sub-national level alsoimprove the partners understanding on BNSP, guidelines and minimum standards;

Cluster proactive on timely feedback, follow ups and updates .i.e. continuous update and sharing of3 Ws matrix resolved gross duplication/ overlaps of nutrition activities in the same localities;

mapping also enabled cluster to timely identify gaps and efficiently prioritizing allocation of

resources according to needs;

The cluster practised neutrality, respect for human rights, accountability, transparency, equity,regularity and consistence; Resources were fairly distributed among the LNGOs, INGOs and UN agencies. All partners were

always involved in decision making at cluster level;

The cluster coordination team was approachable, used action oriented approach, consistency inresponsiveness and managing cluster affairs, technically competent in achieving the objectives

through capacity building, close involvement and participation of partners at all levels;

Selection of sub-national cluster focal points was transparent, democratic and based oncompetency. This has improved coordination, technical support and commendable leadership at

field level as well as help in dealing with disputes;

The cluster always emphasized on consistency in maintain standards, quality, and promote accessto IMAM services;

The cluster developed capacity of partners through training conducted which resulted in betternutrition services delivery.

5.Conclusion:This evaluation found that on the whole, the Nutrition Cluster met its mandate of ensuring accountability

in national response to humanitarian emergencies. Partners felt the Cluster also largely met its mandate

if clarifying the division of labour among organizations and helped define their roles and responsibilities

within the different technical areas of emergency nutrition response.

Given the attention and the results that have already been achieved by the Nutrition Cluster and its

partners in Somalia, there is a unique opportunity today for the country to use the work already done asa stepping stone in moving forward to improve the nutrition situation.

Whilst great work has been done in Somalia crises, further work is necessary in strengthening the

understanding of the Cluster role amongst partners to ensure roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities

are understood and respected by all partners.


10/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Annex I: Questionnaire Response Analysis

Statements related to Coordination

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisag

ree

N/A

RatingAverag

e

Response

Cou

nt

4. The Nutrition Cluster response plan objectives

are clear56 21 3 1 0 1 4.63 82

5. Nutrition Cluster TOR do exist and guide the

clusters work46 24 9 2 1 0 4.37 82

6. The nutrition cluster support has been

adequate49 26 4 2 1 0 4.46 82

7. The current coordination structure is NOT

effective in serving the needs of the cluster 7 10 9 17 38 1 3.85 82

8. The nutrition cluster coordination meetings at

national level (including Agenda and sharing of

information) have been well organized

59 15 4 3 0 1 4.60 82

9. The nutrition cluster coordination meetings at

sub-national / regional level (including Agenda

and sharing of information) have been well

organized

20 36 10 6 4 6 3.82 82

10. Nutrition cluster meetings are well

facilitated/conducted59 11 7 4 1 0 4.50 82

11. Nutrition cluster meetings are action-oriented 46 25 4 4 1 2 4.39 82

12. Opinions and views of Cluster partners areconsidered in the Cluster decision-making

processes in a neutral way (i.e. without

favouring any party)

43 23 8 4 2 2 4.26 82

13. The Cluster Coordination team is an

independent and impartial (neutral)

representative of the cluster partners

49 14 13 4 1 1 4.31 82

14. The nutrition cluster coordination team has

effectively engaged with partners in

addressing issues related to the Nutrition

cluster

52 16 7 6 0 1 4.41 82

15. It is easy to approach the cluster coordinationteam

55 18 5 3 0 1 4.54 82

16. The cluster coordination team key positions

(Cluster coordinator, Information manager,

cluster support officer) are covered by

competent staff

56 14 8 2 0 2 4.55 82

17. Technical areas of responsibility (e.g. cluster

partner identification, gap analysis, advocacy,

strategy development etc.) of the cluster

coordination team are addressed adequately

31 30 10 3 4 4 4.04 82

18. Decision making in the cluster does NOT

actively involve all partners11 13 12 20 24 2 3.41 82


11/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

19. NGOs that act as cluster focal points at

subnational level provide adequate leadership

and guidance

9 25 20 15 7 6 3.18 82

20. Collaboration and communication betweennational and sub-national level clusters is

efficient

17 27 22 13 0 3 3.61 82

21. The cluster meets frequently, at regular

intervals61 13 7 0 0 1 4.67 82

22. The cluster meets at an appropriate

place/venue58 13 4 1 4 2 4.50 82

23. Actions points from meetings are NOT always

followed up4 8 8 16 44 2 4.10 82

Statements related to Capacity Building

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagre

e

Stronglydisag

ree

N/A

RatingAverag

e

Response

Cou

nt

24. The cluster offers enough training

opportunities to partners16 24 12 19 6 2 3.32 79

25. The training offered by the cluster to cluster

partners is of a high quality33 18 13 6 3 6 3.99 79

26. The cluster offers adequate post-training

support to partners who have participated in

cluster training sessions

15 22 18 13 3 8 3.46 79

27. The Cluster training materials are adequate

(enough)25 22 11 13 3 5 3.72 79

28. The Cluster training materials are adequately

translated into the local language20 18 21 8 4 8 3.59 79

29. Nutrition in Emergencies is an important

training for partners60 11 3 1 3 1 4.59 79

30. "Nutrition Cluster approach" training should

be given to all cluster partners60 12 2 1 2 2 4.65 79

31. The Cluster partners do NOT have the

necessary capacities to respond to nutrition

needs in Somalia

9 22 9 13 25 1 3.29 79

32. Partner technical Capacity gaps are alwaysaddressed promptly and adequately

13 24 23 17 2 0 3.37 79

Statement related to Contingency Planning and

Preparedness

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagree

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Count

33. Partners are adequately involved in

development of contingency planning and26 34 6 8 4 1 3.90 79


12/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

emergency preparedness plans

Statements related to Resource Mobilization

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagre

e

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Coun

t

34. Cluster partners contribute appropriately to

the Common Humanitarian Action Plan / CAP

/ Work Plan or other multi-cluster strategic

plans

36 29 10 4 0 0 4.23 79

35. The cluster is transparent in allocating

resources to partners40 16 10 5 6 2 4.03 79

36. The cluster is effective in advocating forfunding for the cluster activities

44 21 5 2 2 5 4.39 79

Statements related to Information Management

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagree

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Count

37. The cluster performs its information

management role effectively44 23 5 2 1 2 4.43 77

38. The cluster performs its informationdissemination role effectively

46 21 7 2 0 1 4.46 77

39. Cluster Information products (website, maps,

gaps, 3w matrix) are useful and help in

making better informed decisions

48 19 8 1 0 1 4.50 77

40. The cluster could do a better job at processing

the information which partners are providing

and transforming this into useful

tools/guidance notes, etc. for partners

44 20 9 1 2 1 1.64 77

41. The information provided by the cluster is in

general sufficient for your needs31 32 6 7 1 0 4.10 77

42. You consider yourself to be a good clusterpartner in relation to sharing information with

the cluster

52 16 7 1 0 1 4.57 77

43. You consider yourself to be a good cluster

partner in relation to reporting timely on a

monthly basis

54 17 3 1 0 2 4.65 77

44. There is more information "out there" that

the cluster could reasonably collect from

partners to increase situational

understanding, status of response and to help

address any relevant needs/gaps

41 23 8 4 1 0 1.71 77


13/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

45. You are hesitant to share certain information

with the cluster because of the confidentiality

and/or privacy of the information

12 19 9 11 24 2 3.21 77

Statements related to Monitoring, Evaluation &

Learning

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagree

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Count

46. The cluster coordination team performs its

monitoring and reporting roles adequately38 25 6 6 0 2 4.27 77

47. The cluster coordination team does NOT

regularly provide feedback to cluster partners

on essential key issues

5 15 5 18 30 4 3.73 77

48. The cluster coordination team encourages thesharing of field based lessons between

partners, for learning purposes

51 9 11 1 3 2 4.39 77

Statements related to Nutritional

interventions/response

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagree

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Count

49. The nutrition interventions in general have

been based on actual need

47 21 5 2 0 1 4.51 76

50. The nutrition cluster response is guided by a

clear set of standards and tools available to all

partners

43 17 10 3 2 1 4.28 76

51. The nutrition response in Somalia suffers from

unnecessary duplications in the service

delivery

10 20 13 11 21 1 3.17 76

52. The cluster coordination team is proactively

involved in filling geographical gaps in

nutrition services

32 23 9 7 4 1 3.96 76

Statements related to Cross-cutting issues

Stronglyagree

Partlyagree

Neutral

Partlydisagree

Stronglydisagree

N/A

RatingAverage

Response

Coun

t

53. The cluster strategy adequately reflects the

rights of men, women, boys, girls, and diverse

groups (e.g., ethnicity, religion, culture,

politics)

46 17 5 1 2 4 4.46 75


nutritional needs of women and under 5 boys56 14 4 0 1 0 4.65 75


14/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

and girls


concerns of diverse groups (e.g., ethnicity,religion, culture, politics)

37 17 9 5 3 4 4.13 75


15/16







Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Annex II: Somalia 2012 Nutrition Sub-national Clusters Focal Point Map


16/16






Tel: +254-20-7628400

Fax: +254-20-7623989

Annex III: Somalia 2012 Nutrition Interventions and Implementing Agencies

Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20

Documents

Transcript of Final Nutrition Cluster 2012 Evaluation Report 2013-02-20