Meeting Facilitators

Daniela Rink – Senior Learning/Institutional Capacity Advisor

Dr. Aminu Abdu Bichi – Senior MEL Specialist EDU

 Co Facilitators

Richard Mibwala – CEO Snazzy Hope Foundation SHF

David Ojonugwa Jacob – Borno Coordinator SHF

 Note Taker

David Ojonugwa Jacob

 Meeting Convener

USAID Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity


  • Joachim Quadri, AHNi
  • Oluwaseun Ogundeko, Action Against Hunger Mustapha Shettima, Creative Associates
  • Holleng Bwakat, CRS
  • Ali Al Mokdad, DRC
  • Arie Claassens, iMMAP
  •  Igilima Ola Daniel, IRC
  • Usman Kundili, IRC
  • Ishaq Idrees, IRC
  • Abdulmalik Aliyu, IRC
  • Henry Abdul, Mercy Corp
  • Tijani Babakura, Mercy Corp
  • Anthony Etim, Mercy Corp
  • Abdullahi Umar
  • Abu Mukhtar, IOM
  • Yasmine Chawaf, Nigeria INGO Forum

Meeting Agenda

9:00 – 9:30 Overview of the Multi sectorial Approach

Introduction by Jacqueline I’m Connor

Jacqueline through a virtual interface gave an introduction and set out the objectives and purpose of the meeting, which includes:

  • To create synergy between USAID implementation partners activities and improve coordination at the state level
  • To kick-start a process for multi sectorial knowledge sharing among implementation partners at the state level.

She also gave an overview of the expected outcomes which is

  • Feedbacks on the templates.

9:30 – 9:50 Introductory Round of Implementation Partners

Daniela Rink ushered everyone present into the introductory round, where representatives from each implementation partners introduced themselves by name, position, organization, their activities and locations within and outside Borno state.

Dr. Aminu and Daniela Rink then divided meeting in two groups; the virtual group to be facilitated by both of them while the meeting for participants on ground was to be facilitated by the two co facilitators in the person’s of Richard Mibwala and David Ojonugwa Jacob. After discussing the item 1 to 4 of the communication template, the two groups will then reconvene through a hybrid session to summarize findings, decisions taken during the discussions by the IPs, and then reach a consensus that is fair and actionable in relation to the anticipated outcomes of the coordination meeting.

9:50 – 11:30 Drafting a Communication Plan

IPs present on ground made a list of objectives that’ll be part of the communication plan, which include:

  • Not duplicating what the cluster is doing
  • Lessons learnt conversations
  • Challenges sharing
  • Sharing referrals across Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance BHA partners
  • Geographical split and overlap
  • Increase understanding of what partners are doing

In the course of the discussions for this agenda IPs on the ground jointly decided and and agreed on the state coordination meeting intervals which should be a

  • monthly virtual meeting by MEAL focal points/sector focal points
  • A quarterly meeting which should be physical, and attended by high level implementation partners representatives

According to Mukhtar Umar the monthly meetings should be operational conversations while the quarterly meetings should be high level and strategic conversations.

The 3rd week of the month was chosen for the monthly coordination meeting while it was agreed upon by all the IPs present, that Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance BHA should determine the quarterly meeting date and time. On whether there should be a State Coordinator/Alternate Coordinator for the IPs coordination meetings, representatives of implementation partners present, unanimously sited that BHA should be responsible for coordinating the meeting in terms of both location and cost.

11:30 – 12:00 Getting Agreement on Who Takes on State Level SpO Coordinator Role And It’s Rotation

Both the virtual and On – ground IP group meetings for the first agenda came to an end and both groups linked up to the hybrid session to get an agreement on who should take on the SpO coordinator role, and what the rotation should be.

Dr. Aminu made a list of what came out of the IPs virtual discussion which are:

  • They should be a monthly hybrid meeting of IPs in the state
  • The cost of coordinating such meetings should be on rotational bases among IPs with presence in Maiduguri location
  • The coordination meeting should be hosted within the premises of IPs
  • They should be a coordinator from different organization’s for sustainability of that role
  • Both coordinator and alternate coordinator should come from different organization and both should provide leadership during the coordination meeting.

Anthony Etim listed the outcome of IPs discussion in the room which were:

  • BHA through a focal point person should be responsible for organizing the meetings by IPs
  • BHA should be responsible for any venue and meeting related cost.

During the discussions Joachim draw the attention of IPs present, that collaborating and working with each other was the main objective of the meeting. The meeting would avail the opportunities of learning from each other’s challenges across the board as such, sustainability would could be engendered so that at the exit of donors, most of the IPs that would have gone to being independent of donor fund would be able to leverage resources at the exit of the donor.

Anthony Etim made mention that they’re already coordination meetings going on in Maiduguri, and that it’ll be duplicating what is being discussed by partners at the IP levels would not be different from what is happening at the sector level, so bringing everybody together by BHA enforces all decision makers and all the focal points to come through and provide updates monthly.

Holleng Bwakat a virtual attendee also reminded participants of the SpO coordination meeting being different from other coordination meetings affects USAID partners which involves sharing programmatic challenges

Dr. Aminu went on to still bring the attention of the IPs back to the objectives of the coordination meeting, which was followed up by Daniela making emphasis on  how the coordination meeting is about implementation partners in Borno state and that it’s  not a large, quarterly meeting that USAID holds with implementation partners.

The IP responsible for coordinating the meeting should be the one responsible for the attendance as regards to ensuring the electronic attendance sheet is signed during USAID SpO coordination meetings

When as about who will draft SpO coordination meeting outcomes, Joachim Quadri contributed by suggesting that the setting up of meeting agendas shouldn’t be for the coordinator alone, each IP should contribute to the setting of the agenda.

When IPs were asked who will follow up that the next steps outlined in the summary of the meeting outcomes taken, Tijani and other IPs responded that

  • the chair for that day would take participants of the meeting through the action points. He would use the minutes of previous meetings to guide all present through action points.
  • Coordinator should be in charge of updating of updating USAID
  • Email was agreed upon for file sharing
  • There should be a drive administrator to hold and manage all information on the drive

Daniela asked a question; at whose platform would files be shared?

  • There should be a permanent drive where all coordination meetings and information would be stored and uploaded on

The files to be shared by IPs include;

  1. Primary Files-
  • Minute of the meeting
  • Agenda
  • Attendance
  1. Secondary files
  • Standard Operation Procedures SoPs

Tijani Babakura suggested that MEAL focal Person’s should be doing the update of the geo coordinates of each Activity by ward/LGA level

A consensus was reached by both the virtual and on- the-ground IP representatives to set up a Coordinator for the SpO meeting coordination and also an alternate coordinator, which was to be rotational among USAID implementation partners.

12:00 – 01:00 Lunch Break

Daniela Rink called for an hour long lunch break for the participants, after which all would reconvene to discuss about their shared work planning.

01:00 – 01:45 Discussions on shared work plans

Daniela Rink spoke on the various templates for the coordination meeting, Dr. Aminu also spoke about the shared work plan template and carried out an illustration of how to navigate or fill the shared work plan.

Tijani Babakura asked for an activity matrix or activity map that shows IPs activities and locations in the form of a template to serve as a guidance.

Daniela Rink according to her understanding, made mention that USAID would get back to the IPs, as it relates to the IP activity maps.

Joachim Quadri took the lead responsibility in coordinating the next joint action which is identifying the responsible IP who would be a coordinator for the next meeting. Tijani Babakura took the co – responsibility in alternately contributing to the next joint action.

Tijani Babakura also took the responsibility of setting up a WhatsApp group for the implementation partners

Joachim Quadri, Tijani Babakura, Oluwaseun Ogundeko and Usman Kundili were included to prepare a first  draft of the communication plan. The communication plan was to be shared by Joachim Quadri.

 Joachim Quadri, Tijani Babakura, Oluwaseun Ogundeko, Usman Kundili were to put together the shared work plan for the 2022 fiscal year (FY22). They were also to identify with BHA collocations and contagious activities and present this at the next monthly meeting.

01:45 – 2:00 Summary of outcomes reviews of action plan

Both Daniela and Dr. Aminu gave a summary of all the agenda discussions by the IPs present. Daniela gave a vote of thanks to all who partook in the hybrid SpO coordination meeting.