VZCZCXYZ0004
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNR #2518/01 1591143
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 081143Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2305
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 6958
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 1692
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 4939
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3958
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

UNCLAS NAIROBI 002518 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AIDAC AFDROUGHT 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AF/E, EPRATT 
USAID/W FOR AA/DCHA, WGARVELINK, LROGERS 
DCHA/OFDA FOR GGOTTLIEB, AFERRARA, ACONVERY, PMORRIS, 
CGOTTSCHALK, CPRATT 
DCHA/FFP FOR JDWORKEN 
AFR/EA FOR JBORNS, JESCALONA 
USUN FOR EMALY 
BRUSSELS FOR PLERNER 
ROME FOR FODAG 
GENEVA FOR NKYLOH 
NSC FOR TSHORTLEY 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAID PREF SOCI UN XA
 
SUBJECT:  UN WORKSHOP ON INFORMATION MANAGEMENT IN 
AFRICA 
 
 
Summary 
 
¶1.  On May 29, the UN Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) convened a three-day 
humanitarian information network workshop in Nairobi 
focused on Africa-specific concerns.  This year's 
workshop is a continuation of a process begun in 2002. 
The primary purpose of the Nairobi workshop was to 
provide participants with a better understanding of 
managing information in challenging humanitarian 
environments.  Particular focus was given to 
discussions on strengthening humanitarian information 
management capacities in Africa, especially with regard 
to assessing humanitarian crises, identifying gaps, 
monitoring, evaluation, and early warning, as well as 
to taking stock of current best practices.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  From May 29 to 31, a Washington-based USAID/OFDA 
Information Officer and Nairobi-based USAID/OFDA 
Information Technology Specialist attended OCHA's 
Humanitarian Information Network workshop.  This year's 
workshop was a continuation efforts by OCHA to improve 
humanitarian information management that began in 
February 2002 with the Geneva Symposium of Best 
Practices in Humanitarian Information Exchange, and 
continued with follow-up workshops in Bangkok in 
December 2003 and Panama in August 2005. 
 
Broad-based Participation 
 
¶3.  Participants in the 2006 Nairobi workshop were 
drawn from key humanitarian organizations, including UN 
agencies, local and international non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs), national governments, regional 
organizations, donors, and other stakeholders. 
Participants primarily consisted of practitioners 
working in information management, information 
communications technology, and general information 
functions, but also included senior management from 
participating organizations. 
 
Purpose 
 
¶4.  The workshop's purpose was to strengthen 
humanitarian information management and exchange in 
Africa.  Information management was defined as the sum 
of all activities, including collection, processing, 
organization, and dissemination of information that 
assist humanitarian actors to achieve their goals in an 
effective and timely manner.  The workshop focused on 
Africa-specific humanitarian concerns to enable 
participants to better understand the management of 
information within a context of multiple humanitarian 
challenges.  Additionally, it provided support for the 
development of information management practices across 
Africa, and raised new issues in managing information, 
in particular the new UN-based cluster approach. 
 
¶5.  The workshop's objectives were to: 
 
-- Assess how information management can support 
delivery of humanitarian assistance; 
 
-- Promote and develop information management standards 
to enable professional and effective information 
exchange at the interagency level of support; 
 
-- Create linkages between information management, 
advocacy, and early warning; 
 
-- Create links between local and regional needs for 
information management standards, tools, and best 
 
practices in the context of specific humanitarian 
situations; and 
 
-- Develop and sustain regional standards and best 
practices among humanitarian information partners in 
Africa. 
 
Panel Discussions 
 
¶6.  Workshop panels were held on the following topics: 
 
-- Managing information in difficult humanitarian 
environments. Using the context of the Darfur 
emergency, this panel addressed the challenges of 
managing information in an environment of multiple 
humanitarian challenges such as movements of internally 
displaced persons, vast coverage area, and coordination 
among a large number of agencies.  Important points 
raised included recognizing information management as a 
collaborative process between the field and 
headquarters, knowing the target audience and user 
needs, distinguishing between what humanitarian actors 
need to know and what's nice to know, keeping the 
system simple, ensuring rapid turnaround of information 
products, and encouraging ownership among users of 
information systems. 
 
-- Supporting humanitarian partners to take informed 
decisions in the determination of priorities and the 
mobilization of resources.  This panel covered the role 
of information in accurately assessing needs, 
monitoring delivery assistance, and tracking who is 
doing what and where and identifying and addressing 
gaps to determine priorities for action.  Discussions 
focused on the use of the UN?s new cluster approach for 
activity analysis, which was a new concept for most 
participants. 
 
-- Managing information to support advocacy and public 
information in raising awareness and mobilizing 
response.  Discussion centered on the fine line that 
information specialists encounter between provision of 
information and advocacy efforts, especially within the 
sensitive and highly political arena of human security. 
The main issue raised was the risk of misinterpretation 
by information management staff of what constitutes 
advocacy. 
 
-- Early warning, preparedness, and response. 
Participants discussed personal and agency experiences 
on current early warning systems in Africa, lessons 
learned, and whether the systems provide timely 
communication of early warning signals to all actors, 
early preparedness, and early action, and whether these 
tools are shared among actors on the ground.  An 
important observation was the overwhelming number of 
early warning systems in use in Africa, and the lack of 
common terminology, standards, and classifications 
providing consistent and reliable information to 
humanitarian actors to allow for accurate situational 
analysis. 
 
Observations/Conclusions 
 
¶7.  With the growing complexity of humanitarian 
emergencies, effective information management has 
become a critical component of relief operations.  The 
2002 Geneva Symposium discussed pertinent concepts such 
as data standards, collection methods, processing, 
analysis, organization, quality, and dissemination of 
information for assessments and baseline data.  These 
issues, identified in 2002 as critical to supporting 
humanitarian operations, were addressed again during 
 
the 2006 workshop.  Discussion groups consistently 
cited similar themes of accessibility, inclusiveness, 
inter-operability, accountability, verifiability, 
relevance, objectivity, humanity, timeliness, and 
sustainability of the data that information management 
practitioners provide to humanitarian actors. 
 
¶8.  While the workshop raised key issues, several 
important concerns were not adequately addressed: 
 
-- Presently, no agency, person, or group has been 
mandated to take the lead in overseeing implementation 
of the action points raised.  Although previous 
workshops led to important conclusions and lessons, 
there was no lead agency to oversee implementation of 
the various recommendations made.  Similarly, it is not 
clear what the outcome of the 2006 Nairobi workshop 
will be and whether participating agencies will produce 
a workable framework with appropriate follow on 
activities. 
 
-- Humanitarian actors need to identify user needs and 
emphasize data sets and formats that directly support 
decision-making at the field level and promote data and 
information standards within the humanitarian community 
by expanding on partnerships. 
 
-- There is a clear need to engage local and national 
actors, civil society, and private sector groups in 
information management activities.  National 
participation in emergency planning, monitoring, and 
evaluation should also be encouraged.  This could be 
strengthened by building and strengthening national 
capacity in information management and exchange and 
embracing the use of local knowledge. 
 
BELLAMY