Reference Module for Cluster
Coordination at the Country Level
1st Revision July 2013
Table of Contents
1
Cluster and Sector Coordination ........................................................................ 4
2
Cluster Activation ................................................................................................. 6
3
Cluster Transition and De-activation.................................................................. 8
4
Cluster Functions ............................................................................................... 12
5
Inter-Cluster Coordination ................................................................................. 14
6
Role of Clusters in Preparedness ..................................................................... 17
7
Cluster Management Arrangements ................................................................. 19
8
Minimum Commitments for Participation in Clusters .................................... 21
9
Sub-National Level Coordination ...................................................................... 23
10 Sharing Leadership within the Cluster Approach ........................................... 24
11 Monitoring Cluster Coordination ...................................................................... 26
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................... 30
Further Reference ...................................................................................................... 30
Following the recommendations of an independent Humanitarian Response
Review in 2005, the cluster approach was proposed as one way of addressing
gaps and strengthening the effectiveness of humanitarian response through
building partnerships. The cluster approach ensures clear leadership,
predictability and accountability in international responses to humanitarian
emergencies by clarifying the division of labour among organizations and better
defining their roles and responsibilities within the different sectors of the
response. It aims to make the international humanitarian community better
organised and more accountable and professional, so that it can be a better
partner for the affected people, host governments, local authorities, local civil
society and resourcing partners.
However, the strength of the cluster approach relies on an understanding that
this approach is not the only humanitarian coordination solution. In some cases,
the cluster approach may co-exist with other coordination solutions – whether
national or international. An indiscriminate application of all clusters in every
emergency may waste resources and reduce opportunities for governments to
exercise their primary responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to people
in need.
This Module has been revised with field and global inputs. Two new chapters
have been added:- 1.Clusters and Sectors and 2. Role of Clusters in
Preparedness. Those chapters which have been significantly updated are 1.
Transition and De-activation of Clusters and 2. Inter-cluster Coordination.
Learning and case studies gathered on the components of the module will be
made available at http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/
Prepared by: IASC Sub-Working Group on the Cluster Approach
First Endorsed by: IASC Working Group on 31 August 2012
Revision Endorsed by : IASC Working Group on XXXXX 2013
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
2
Introduction
Cluster
coordination and
the
Transformative
Agenda
This Cluster Coordination Reference Module1 is about the basics of cluster coordination
in non-refugee situations2. It is compiled in response to a request by the IASC as a
reference guide for practitioners to facilitate the work through which humanitarian
outcomes can be improved and is included as one of the Transformative Agenda
Protocols. It outlines key concepts and draws attention to existing guidance, wherever
relevant. This reference module will be reviewed periodically based on feedback from the
field. Additional learning around the themes covered in this module will also be available
online3.
The IASC Principals reviewed humanitarian response efforts to several major disasters in
2010 and 2011 and pinpointed a number of shortcomings. Building on the 2005
Humanitarian Reform, they agreed to a set of actions in December 2011, referred to as
the IASC Transformative Agenda which focuses on improving, simplifying and
clarifying:
1. Leadership
2. Coordination
3. Accountability
4. Humanitarian Programme Cycle Components
5. Preparedness
This module covers key issues related to Cluster Coordination identified in the
Transformative Agenda. While the impetus for the development of the TA has come from
'Level 3' emergencies, most of the TA also applies in non-L3 situation, particularly in
relation to cluster coordination. Additional protocols beyond this module describing other
components of the Transformative Agenda can be found on the IASC website4
Using clusters
intelligently
Coordination is a means to an end – the ultimate aim of the humanitarian community is to
serve vulnerable populations effectively5. Accordingly, the scale of international
coordination arrangements should be tailored to the operational context, to support
national efforts6 based on existing capacity in order to direct as many resources as
possible towards delivering humanitarian assistance in a timely, predictable manner.
Developing complicated coordination arrangements should be avoided; not all clusters
need to be activated in every response. When clusters are considered for activation,
existing in-country coordination mechanism should be taken into account.
The IASC Transformative Agenda recognizes the need for Humanitarian Coordinators
(HCs), Resident Coordinators (RCs) and Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs) to be
empowered to make decisions that are right for their own country operations. While this
reference module focuses on the cluster approach as the principal tool available to the
international community for coordinating and accounting for their response, it falls to the
leadership of the humanitarian team at the country level to devise the most appropriate
‘coordination solutions’ taking into account the local operational situation.
1
This Module should be used alongside other guidance prepared under the IASC Transformative Agenda.
UNHCR has a mandated responsibility to lead and coordinate international action to refugee needs, and clusters are
not established in this context.
3
http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info
4 http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-template-default&bd=87
5 Accountability to affected populations is the ultimate objective of the IASC Transformative Agenda. In December
2011, the IASC Principals agreed to integrate commitments to accountability to affected populations into their individual
agencies' policies and operational guidelines. An Operational Framework on Accountability to Affected Populations was
also endorsed to determine participation, information provision, feedback and complaints handling with affected
populations at the country level.
6
For further guidance on working with national structures, please refer to the IASC Operational Guidance for Cluster
Lead Agencies on Working with National Authorities (July 2011).
2
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
3
1
Defining
cluster and
sectoral
Coordination
Cluster and Sector Coordination
Cluster coordination ensures clear leadership and accountability in international
responses to humanitarian emergencies. It aims to make the international humanitarian
community better organised and more accountable and so that it can be a better partner
for the affected population.
A formally activated cluster7 reports to the HC. Clusters are a temporary coordination
solution only used when the capacity of existing coordination and response mechanisms
are overwhelmed or constrained8 in their ability to appropriately respond to needs
according to humanitarian principles.
Sectoral coordination mechanisms, for the purposes of this description, are led by
government and report to the designated government bodies. The lifespan of crisis
sector coordination is defined by government policy or declaration.
In some countries, coordination mechanisms are referred to as clusters although they
may not have been formally activated. In essence the name of the coordination
mechanism does not matter, but a formally activated cluster9 has specific
characteristics and accountabilities.
Comparing the
lifecycle of
cluster and
sector
coordination
mechanism
It is useful to look at how the two coordination mechanisms respond in emergencies to
illustrate some differences.
Coordination
Mechanism
Government Led
(Where government
coordination
capacity exists)
Government Led
(Limited or
constrained
government
coordination
capacity)
Pre-existing
Formally Activated
Clusters
Crisis Phase
Recovery Phase
Government humanitarian
leadership; can be supported by
additional international coordination
capacity
Government leadership continues;
may move from humanitarian to preexisting or other recovery and
development coordination
structures; any additional
international capacity withdraws or
transforms to recovery support
Activate Clusters as needed; where
possible, co-leadership with
government bodies and NGO
Partners is strongly encouraged
Transition and Deactivation
Activated Clusters continue;
potentially activate additional
clusters depending on review of
coordination and response needs;
augment capacity in activated
clusters as needed
Transition and Deactivation or
transition to pre-crisis cluster
structure
It is important to note where leadership and accountability for coordination and response
mechanisms remain with government this does not restrict augmenting this with
additional coordination capacity.
Where clusters are activated, transition and
deactivation strategies should be considered as soon as possible
Whilst the response to limited or constrained government capacity is to activate the
appropriate clusters, there may be challenges in doing so ‘formally’, particularly where
7
Having followed the procedures as defined in Section 2 on Cluster Activation
Overwhelmed or constrained throughout the text refers to the size of need, number of actors, need for a multi-sectoral
approach which is not reflected in current structures or constrained in being able to respond according to humanitarian
principles eg actor in the conflict
9 as described in the section on Cluster Activation
8
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
4
capacity is ‘constrained10’; different ways of augmenting coordination and response
capacity may need to be found but still underpinned by the principles of the cluster
approach.
Comparison of
characteristics
and
accountabilities
of clusters and
sectors
Attribute
Activated Cluster
Sectoral Crisis Coordination
Leadership
Designated Cluster Lead Agencies lead and
manage the Cluster. Where possible, coleadership with relevant government bodies
and NGOs is strongly encouraged and
where possible, establish strong links
between humanitarian and development
coordination bodies to ensure that recovery
approaches are aligned to national
development objectives
National government or other
designated national agency
leads the sector. International
coordination and response
capacity can provide further
support
Accountability
Cluster Lead Agencies are accountable to
the HC and the ERC for the performance of
the relevant cluster in meeting needs as
expressed in the Strategic Response Plan in
accordance with national and humanitarian
law/principles
Government is accountable for
the response in the sector in
accordance with national and
humanitarian law/principles.
Provider of Last
Resort (POLR)
Where necessary, and depending on
access, security and availability of funding,
the cluster lead, as POLR, must be ready to
ensure the provision of services required to
fulfil critical gaps identified by the cluster and
reflected in the HC-led HCT Strategic
Response Plan” (revision to 2008 definition
underlined). Res. 46/182 notwithstanding
As stated in General Assembly
Resolution 46/182, national
authorities have primary
responsibility for taking care of
the victims of natural disasters
and other emergencies
occurring in their territory
Lifespan
Temporary (subject to regular review – see
Sections 3 and 11)
Long term structures as defined
by government
Mainstreaming
of Protection,
Early Recovery
Strategies,
Cross-Cutting
Issues
CLA responsible to ensure Protection and
Early Recovery strategies and cross-cutting
issues are mainstreamed into programming
International partners can advise
government on mainstreaming
and international actors are
responsible to adhere to
internationally agreed principles,
guidance and standards
Human
Resources for
Coordination
Cluster Lead Agency will ensure dedicated
Cluster staff in line with need including
coordinator and information management
functions
Government bodies responsible
to ensure sufficient coordination
and response capacity. Often
this results in personnel with
multiple responsibilities
Technical
Support
Technical support and guidance can be
provided from the relevant Global Cluster
Technical support and guidance
can be provided from the
relevant Global Cluster when
capacity and resources allow
Engagement of
the Global
Clusters for
Preparedness
The engagement of Global Clusters is not restricted to formally activated
clusters, but also related to the existence of humanitarian coordination and
response structures and the level of risk as identified by the IASC Emergency
Directors Group, informed by the IASC Early Warning Early Action Report
10
For example, where duty bearers are party to the conflict
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
5
2
Cluster Activation
Cluster activation means the establishment of clusters as part of an international
emergency response, based on the HCT’s analysis of humanitarian need and
coordination capacity on the ground, in consultation with national partners.
The IASC Principals agreed that the activation of clusters must be more strategic, less
automatic and time limited. The HC should only recommend the activation of clusters
when there is an identified need which is not being addressed. The ideal approach is to
support national mechanisms for sectoral coordination. To the extent possible, any new
clusters which are established should complement existing coordination mechanisms.
At the country level sectoral groups have always existed. Formally activating clusters
where there is limited or constrained capacity aims to ensure there is a clear system of
leadership and accountability for all the key sectors or areas of humanitarian response
within the international humanitarian response. Cluster activation is therefore intended to
strengthen rather than to replace sectoral coordination under the overall leadership of the
HC, with a view to improving humanitarian response in emergency situations.
Criteria for
cluster activation
Activation
procedures
The criteria for cluster activation are as follows:
1) A sharp deterioration or significant change in humanitarian situation leading to
response and coordination gaps
2) existing national response or coordination capacity is unable or constrained to
meet needs according to humanitarian principles (extent of need, number of
actors, multi-sectoral approach, constraints to a principled response)
The procedure for activating one or more clusters is as follows:
1. The RC/HC agrees with the HCT which clusters should be activated, based on the
contingency plan and with a clear rationale for each case that takes into account national
capacity and needs.
2. Global Clusters are alerted in advance of the proposed HCT meeting to discuss activation
so that they ensure appropriate and informed representation at country level in this
discussion.
3. The RC/HC selects Cluster Lead Agencies in consultation with the HCT based on the
agencies’ coordination and response capacity, as well as the location and level of its
operational presence and/or ability to increase this. The selection of Cluster Lead Agency
ideally mirrors the global-level arrangements but this is not always possible, and in some
cases other organizations may be better placed to take the lead. Shared leadership,
including using non-governmental organizations, should be considered.
4. Upon agreement within the HCT, the RC/HC sends a letter to the Emergency Relief
Coordinator (ERC) outlining the recommended cluster arrangements, suggested Cluster
Lead Agencies, and the rationale for the clusters selected for activation. If other
coordination solutions outside of the cluster have been agreed, these should also be
outlined in the letter.
5. The ERC transmits the proposal to IASC Principals and Global Cluster Lead and CoLead Agencies for approval within 24 hours and informs the RC/HC accordingly.
6. Once approved, the RC/HC informs relevant partners of the agreed clusters and
lead agencies.
It is recommended to inform global clusters as early as possible in the activation
discussion to ensure decisions are informed by the most recent learning.
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
6
A clear, feasible cluster transition plans and activities to support handover should be
developed at the earliest time possible to ensure clusters do not extend their life longer
than necessary with capacity-building of local partners in mind from the outset
Integrating Early
Recovery
Early recovery clusters are not usually activated at the country level because early
recovery should be integrated into the work of all clusters from the outset of the
humanitarian response. An Early Recovery Advisor may be appointed to support the
RC/HC on inter-cluster early recovery issues for a more effective mainstreaming of early
recovery across the clusters and to ensure that multidisciplinary issues, which cannot be
tackled by individual clusters alone, are addressed through an Early Recovery Network.
The network brings together early recovery focal points from each of the clusters to work
together on the integration, mainstreaming and coordination of early recovery issues and
activities.
Exceptionally, where early recovery areas of a thematic nature (e.g. emergency
employment, community structure, restoration of local governance) are not covered by
existing clusters or alternative mechanisms, the RC/HC may recommend a cluster be
established in addition to the network to address those specific areas.
Cluster activation
and the IARRM
In a level 3 response, clusters may be activated with the support of personnel deployed
through the Inter-Agency Rapid Response Mechanism (IARRM). The IARRM ensures
there are sufficient experienced people on the ground working within agreed structures to
either augment or fill core coordination functions required for an effective response. All
clusters should be prepared to deploy in a level 3 response, but the decision of which
clusters to activate will be taken within 72 hours from the level 3 declaration by the HCT
(if they are able to do so), supported by the IASC emergency/operational directors at
headquarters, and on the basis of analysis of coordination mechanisms in place.
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
7
3
What does
Transition and
De-activation of
Clusters Mean?
Cluster Transition and De-activation
Cluster de-activation is the closure of a formally-activated cluster supported by the
transfer of leadership and accountabilities for the core functions of clusters (as per the
Cluster Reference Module) from internationally led and accountable clusters, to national
led and accountable sectors11. This may include resuming coordination and pre-crisis
response structures, or establishing new structures where there were previously gaps
Cluster transition refers to the process (and potentially activities) by which the transfer
of leadership and accountabilities is planned and implemented over a period of time
which then results in de-activation of a cluster. This may necessitate the need for a
transition plan, which maps out phases of transition, specific benchmarks to be met for
each phase and activities to be implemented in order to meet the identified transition and
de-activation benchmarks
Why do we need
to De-Activate?
As per guidance on ‘activation’, clusters are meant to be timebound and less automatic ie
be active only when there are specific gaps in humanitarian response. Ensuring that
there is a requirement to review the need for clusters over time, promotes the goal of
national led humanitarian action and coordination mechanisms that follow humanitarian
principles is kept in mind.
Review of clusters on a periodic 12 basis ensures at worst that clusters remain light and
adapt to remain efficient, effective and fit for purpose, and at best, plan early for transfer
of leadership and accountabilities to national or other structures through transition
processes, and where necessary, capacity building activities to support the ability of
national or other structures to carry out cluster functions.
What Criteria
need to be met
for De-activation?
What Informs our
Decision Making
for Transition and
De-activation?
In order that activation is considered, there are two main criteria (1) Sharp deterioration or
significant change in humanitarian situation leading to response and coordination gaps
and (2) Evaluation of existing national response or coordination capacity is unable or
constrained13 to meet needs according to humanitarian principles 14 (size of need, number
of actors, multi-sectoral approach, constraints to respond using humanitarian principles).
Therefore at least one of the two following situations need to be met in order to consider
de-activation:1. There is a decrease in humanitarian need
2. There is increased capacity of national structures to meet humanitarian needs
according to humanitarian principles
Five principles are proposed to guide and inform decision making and processes on
transition and de-activation planning:1. Process is led by HC and HCT - Clusters, cluster partners and national counterparts
should also be involved in the review assessment and recommendations and any
transition and de-activation plans across the sectors.
11
De-activation can also lead to transfer of leadership and accountabilities to other internationally supported
mechanisms De-activation can also lead to transfer of leadership and accountabilities to other internationally supported
mechanisms
12 See paragraphs later in the paragraphs ‘When does De-Activation Planning Take Place for frequency of reviews
13 13 For example, where duty bearers are a party in the conflict
14For additional information For additional information
https://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/OOM_HumPrinciple_English.pdfhttps://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/OO
M_HumPrinciple_English.pdf, , http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-0021067.pdfhttp://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-1067.pdf
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
8
2. Focus on ability to lead and be accountable for Cluster Functions (as per this
CRM) according to humanitarian principles and according to outstanding
humanitarian needs. The cluster functions can also be used as a basis to formulate
any capacity building measures. The HC, HCT and CLAs remain with a responsibility
to ensure that preparedness actions are carried out, as set out in Section 6, Role of
Clusters in Preparedness.
3. Based on Assessment of National Capacity15 including:(a) Existence, structure and resources of appropriate response and coordination
mechanisms (according to context) - some clusters will have a more natural
counterpart to ‘hand over to’ than others, making transition easier and potentially
more rapid.
(b) Extent of residual or on-going humanitarian response needs and ability to
respond according to humanitarian principles
4. Informed by the Context - de-activation in sudden onset crises may be a more rapid
process than de-activation in complex or protracted emergencies. De-activation can
also be influenced by a government declaration of the end of an emergency phase
and a shift of focus to recovery and therefore more development focused
coordination structures. Clusters do not all have to be deactivated at the same time,
but is related to on-going need, or lack of clear national structures for transfer of
accountabilities. The probability of recurring or new disasters, or the costs of closure
and subsequent early re-establishment may outweigh potential benefits - including
additional capacity building and preparedness actions which may have taken place.
5. Guided by Early Recovery objectives – Early recovery objectives applied in
transition and de-activation ensure that humanitarian actors emphasise, reinforce and
build local capacity for more sustainable responses. Clusters should, where feasible,
engage with national actors in cluster leadership, and engage in building capacity of
national counterparts to take over coordination roles for humanitarian as well as more
recover or development coordination mechanisms. Caution should also be exercised
against transferring leadership before the capacity is in place
What happens to
Appeals
processes during
Transition and
after Deactivation?
De-activation of a cluster does not mean that there are no further humanitarian financing
needs. As part of humanitarian financing 16, transitional activities, including capacity
building, can be included to meet its core cluster functions and to ensure that residual or
on-going humanitarian needs and preparedness functions can be coordinated by national
or other crisis authorities.
How do
Accountabilities
Change during
Transition and
De-activation?
Under the transition process the line of accountability for the core cluster functions and
responsibilities (such as provider of last resort) must be clearly articulated. Whilst the
cluster is formally activated these accountabilities rests with the CLA. The transition plan
should outline how these accountabilities shift to the government, or other crisis
coordination mechanisms17.
It is not necessary to be a formally activated cluster to participate in any humanitarian
appeals process, nor is absence of funding a reason to de-activate a cluster.
15
See IASC Operational Guidance for Cluster Lead Agencies on working with National Authorities
See IASC SWG on Humanitarian Financing for information on funding for transition
17 The process will be clearest with clusters that have obvious government counterparts such as education and health.
Other clusters may have to work with a number of different government-led or civil-society mechanisms. Service
clusters may not have any natural counterparts, but may work with government or other coordination structures to
handover service provision if appropriate or carry out preparedness activities if services are no longer needed
16
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
9
Responsibilities continue for clusters and sectors for ensuring preparedness actions as
per the Preparedness Section
When does Deactivation
Planning Take
Place?
The following tables summarises recommendations from TA Protocols 18 with respect to
transition and deactivation across three different contexts:Context
Review
Implications
1. New
Emergency
Within 3 months: Review cluster
coordination structures to ensure they
are ‘fit for purpose’
HC/HCT - Ensure clusters have
developed transition or deactivation plans
2. New
Emergency
(Level 3)
(In addition to normal new emergency
reviews as above)
HC/HCT to develop transition
plan from L3 and report to ERC.
Within 3 Weeks of L3 Declaration: L3
Exit Strategy19
Plan for replacement or
demobilisation of IARRM surge
capacity.
3. Protracted
Crises
Annual review of clusters20 to ensure
structures fit for purpose; more
frequently where strategic response
plans are revised within a changing
humanitarian context21
Report back to ERC on review
results, rationale for structures,
any transition planning or deactivation
Where possible to be done ahead of
new strategic planning and resource
mobilization cycles
Good practice suggests that the HC/HCT along with clusters and national authorities,
should from the onset of a response develop transition and de-activation strategies.
Some immediate transition steps may include (1) involving national counterparts and
development partners in coordination and strategic planning from the outset (2) establish
strong links between humanitarian and development coordination bodies to ensure that
recovery approaches are aligned to national development objectives (3) where possible,
co-leadership of clusters with national authorities should be considered during the
activation process or as early as possible.
How is a Cluster
Review Carried
Out? How long
does it take?
Cluster reviews should be (1) led by the HC/HCT (2) involve clusters, cluster partners and
national counterparts and (3) be guided and informed by the five principles outlined
above. There is therefore flexibility for the HC/HCT to decide how best to carry out the
cluster review. The type and duration of the emergency, as well as an initial assessment
of national capacity and ability to respond according to humanitarian principles are
indicators as to how comprehensive a review maybe needed and therefore how long this
will take. However, clear and feasible handover plans should be considered from the first
phase, with capacity-building of local partners in mind from the outset.
As part of Cluster Transition and De-activation Plans, clusters:1. Map out the continued humanitarian response and coordination needs (based on the
six cluster functions)
2. Identify government or other appropriate coordination and response mechanisms to
take over leadership and accountability for cluster functions
3. Examine the capacity of the identified mechanisms to take these on
18
Including IASC Principles Transformative Agenda Compendium of Agreed Actions, No 33, December 2011
Protocol 2, Humanitarian System-wide Emergency Activation
IASC Principles Transformative Agenda Compendium of Agreed Actions, No 33, December 2011
21 Annual Reviews are also mentioned in Section 11, Coordination Monitoring Section
19
20
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
10
4. what capacity building measures and activities may need to be put in place during
transition to enable de-activation and over what period of time
5. Accountability for cluster functions between Cluster Lead Agencies (CLAs) and
national counterparts during any phased transition and de-activation plan should be
clearly laid out, with benchmarks to indicate transition between phases before
reaching de-activation
6. Proposed timing for transition measures and if appropriate, eventual de-activation
7. Proposed timing for any further cluster reviews as appropriate
8. How preparedness measures (as per Preparedness Section) will be ensured after deactivation and any continued role of the Cluster Lead Agency. The Sri Lanka study
outlines processes and timings of transition and de-activation in a protracted crisis
Role of Global
Clusters
When a review of cluster coordination architecture is planned, Global Clusters can be a
resource to support the review process and share any lessons learned.
It is
recommended that global clusters are informed at the beginning of the review planning
process in order to give timely support. The HC or OCHA office in-country can also see
support from OCHA globally to ensure current learning is available to inform the review.
Case Study – Sri Lanka
In Sri Lanka, 3 years after the cessation of the protracted armed conflict, an independent
review of clusters was carried out in August 2012 by the HCT, as well as consultations
with government, HCT members, NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
and other UN agencies. As a result of the overall review recommendations, cluster lead
agencies submitted cluster transition plans to the HCT, formally announcing transition
and de-activation plans for transfer of cluster leadership and accountabilities to
government line ministries. By the end of 2012, seven clusters had transferred
leadership to government counterparts. Residual humanitarian coordination needs and
transition to development activities was taken up under the UN Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF).
Protection remained as one of the main elements requiring
continued support (through Pillar Group 3 of the UNDAF), and it was agreed that
transition of leadership should be done in a phased and nuanced manner given the
sensitivity of issues and need for adherence to international norms and standards. A
Durable Solutions Policy Group was also formed to continue some work of the Protection
Cluster, including addressing needs of IDPs.
Is there an
Agreed Process
for De-activation?
Once a review of clusters has taken place and agreements made on transition plans and
any de-activation:1. Under the leadership of the HC, the HCT notes which clusters have successfully
transferred effective coordination responsibilities to national counterparts
(government or other), and recommends de-activation. The rationale for those
clusters which may still be required is presented during the review process, along
with a plan for their transition.
2. The HC provides a summary of the review to the ERC, outlining which clusters are to
transition and subsequently to be de-activated, along with an indication of other
sectoral coordination mechanisms in place, agency focal points engaging with these
sectoral coordination mechanisms, and the implications of these decisions on
contingency planning22.
3. The ERC shares this note with the IASC Principals and Global Cluster Lead and CoLead Agencies for their approval.
4. Once approved, the HC informs relevant partners of agreed arrangements.
22
Examples of such summary notes to the ERC can be found at http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
11
4
Cluster Functions
“Coordinators need to spend less time and attention on sophisticated approaches,
and devote more time to improving and practicing the basic functions of managing
coordination. We need to get back to the fundamentals, and build from there.”
(Valerie Amos, Emergency Relief Coordinator, February 2012)
Refocus on
Purpose of
Clusters
Focusing on the
core functions
The IASC Principals “agreed there is a need to restate and return to the original purpose
of clusters, refocusing them on strategic and operational gaps analysis, planning,
assessment and results.23” The aim of the cluster approach, as agreed in 200624, is to
strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to respond to humanitarian
emergencies, ensuring clearly designated leadership and accountability in the main areas
of humanitarian response. At the country level, the aim is to strengthen response through
predictability, accountability, and partnership by ensuring better prioritization and defining
roles and responsibilities of humanitarian organizations.
Consequently, the core functions of a cluster at the country-level are:
1. Supporting service delivery
o Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed
strategic priorities
o Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery
2. Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response
o Needs assessment and response gap analysis (across sectors and within the
sector)
o Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and
cross-cutting issues
o Prioritization, grounded in response analysis
3. Planning and strategy development
o Develop sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support realization
of the HC/HCT strategic priorities
o Apply and adhere to existing standards and guidelines
o Clarify funding requirements, prioritization, and cluster contributions for the HC’s
overall humanitarian funding considerations (e.g. Flash Appeal, CAP, CERF,
Emergency Response Fund/Common Humanitarian Fund)
4. Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results;
recommending corrective action where necessary
5. Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building (please refer Section 6)
6. Advocacy
o Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action
o Undertake advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected
population
Detailed ToRs for Cluster Coordinators, Cluster Lead Agencies and HCs exist which
outline the core responsibilities and accountabilities. Guidance also exists for HCTs.
23
24
Recommendation 26, IASC Transformative Agenda: Chapeau and Compendium of Actions (January 2012).)).)).
IASC Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response (November 2006).
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
12
This next section of the Cluster Function chapter is still under development. In order not
to delay any further the final review of the CRM, a description of what this section will
attempt to capture is described and will be further elaborated. This section will use the
CRM revision as an opportunity to describe critical humanitarian programming elements
where clusters have a responsibility; critical elements which have previously been
described as ‘cross-cutting issues’ and therefore often seen as optional, to the detriment
of affected populations (i) the core issues around diversity, (ii) protection. The section
will also describe approaches such as early recovery and the integration of environment
considerations.
Diversity as key
to impartial,
accountable
humanitarian
action
The principle of impartiality, at the core of humanitarian action, prescribes that assistance
and protection should be based solely on needs, without regard to any other
considerations. There is agreement that respect for diversity in humanitarian action is a
pre-requisite for the fulfilment of the commitments to accountability to affected
populations25
Recent advances in humanitarian policy reflection propose diversity as a label to
collectively describe the core issues that contribute to determining the needs of different
groups of the population during a humanitarian crisis. Under this label come the universal
determinants of gender and age (universal as everybody has a gender and an age, and
determinants as they largely define the role and position of an individual in society, and
therefore his or her needs in a crisis). Diversity also captures health and disability – an
average 13% of any given population suffers from some form of disability – and
conditions such as HIV/AIDS and mental health.
Humanitarian programmes which therefor do not reflect diversity, i.e. the fact that different
persons have different needs, may lead at best to the exclusion of large proportions of
the population and, at worst, to the actually worsening of pre-existing vulnerability
conditions. A poorly design programme can exclude 50% of the population and create
unnecessary suffering; the needs of a four-year-old boy raised in an informal settlement
will be radically different from those of an 80-year old woman with a disability living in a
wealthier neighbourhood.
Respect for diversity does not mean doing something different. It means doing things
differently. Placing latrines closer to dwellings doesn’t need any additional resource.
Neither does setting up a separate waiting line for older people at food distribution points.
Key questions around humanitarian programming are:1. Accessibility: Is my assistance programme accessible by everybody in the
population? Is my design excluding significant sectors of the population?
2. Adaptation: Is my programme adapted for the specific needs of different sectors of
the population?
Providing impartial humanitarian assistance thus requires a thorough analysis of the
distinct needs and capabilities of individuals
25
As part of the Transformative Agenda, in December 2011, the principals endorsed five Commitments on
Accountability to Affected People/Populations (CAAPs). The five commitments are 1) leadership, 2) transparency, 3)
feedback and complaints, 4) participation, and 5) design, monitoring and evaluation
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
13
5
Definition and
purpose
Inter-Cluster Coordination
Inter-cluster coordination consolidates sectoral planning and implementation by clusters
in order to work in a cohesive and effective manner to achieve agreed strategic
objectives. It also ensures that multidisciplinary and cross-cutting issues which cannot be
tackled by individual clusters alone or that call for concerted action are addressed
appropriately, that duplications and gaps between clusters are eliminated and synergies
are encouraged with the aim of delivering a more effective response to affected people.
Inter-cluster coordination is an integrating activity that seeks to harmonise individual
actors’ responses as part of an overarching humanitarian strategic response plan. As
such, determining the most appropriate form and function of inter-cluster coordination is
the responsibility of the HC and HCT, with appropriate support from OCHA.
Levels of InterCluster
Coordination
Humanitarian Country Team
1
2
3
Humanitarian Country Team
Cluster Lead Agencies represent their
designated clusters to ensure that
HCT decision making is informed by
inter-sectoral analysis
Cluster
Lead
Agency
Cluster
Lead
Agency
Relevant clusters group together to
coordinate the implementation of
specific strategic objectives
Cluster
Lead
Agency
Strategic
Objective 1
Cluster
Lead
Agency
Strategic
Objective 2
Cluster
Lead
Agency
Cluster
Lead
Agency
OCHA
Strategic
Objective 3
OCHA leads Coordination
across clusters and other
relevant national and
international actors ensure all
clusters are included in
strategic and operational issues
Cluster Coordination (examples for illustrative purposes)
Coordination of
inter-cluster
strategic
objectives and
operational
issues
The core of inter-cluster coordination is clusters combining to maximise synergies in
addressing common strategic objectives (per the strategic response plan), as
determined by the HC/HCT, and the practical coordination of operational issues and
activities for a more efficient and effective response.
Examples of Strategic Response Issues
Strategic Objective/Issue
Malnutrition
Cholera
Housing Reconstruction Strategies
Child Protection
Early recovery strategies - rubble removal
Population movements, Camp
Coordination, Management
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
Clusters Concerned
Nutrition, WASH, Food Security, Health
Health, WASH, Shelter
Shelter, WASH, Protection, Environment
Education, Protection WASH, Shelter
Shelter, Logistics, Protection
Potentially all clusters
14
Some global clusters propose checklists to assist country clusters in identifying common
issues which may need to be clarified between clusters to ensure no gaps or
duplication2627. The table below demonstrates some examples of common operational
issues between clusters:Examples of Operational Response Issues
Health and Hygiene Promotion - clarity of roles and synergies,
no overlap in content and outreach work)
Scheduling of distributions, vaccination campaigns to take
opportunity to target populations with multiple and to ensure
no competing activities scheduled at the same time
Humanitarian Access; linkages with government
Improving
linkages between
Clusters and
HCTs on a
strategic level
Food, Health, WASH, Nutrition,
Logistics
Potentially all clusters
Examples of How Clusters Can Work More Closely with their HCT
1.
3.
5.
7.
9.
Core Functions
common to all
inter-cluster
coordination
Health, Nutrition, WASH






HC or HoO Ocha Chairs ICC on specific
strategic issues
Specific frequency of consultation of HC
with Cluster Coordinators and CLAs (not as
agency) eg regular monthly meetings
Specific (and limited) Cluster Coordinators
attend HCTs on thematic issues
Sequencing of Cluster and ICC meetings to
feed issues into HCT Agenda development
Sharing of meetings notes/issues between
Clusters and HCT
Assignment of mentors to CCs from HCT
(outside of own CLA)
4. Assignment of specific HCT Members to
support planning, implementation and
monitoring of specific strategic objectives
6. Standard agreement that chair of ICC forum
participates in HCT providing a link between
clusters and HCT
8. CCs presence at HCTs alongside their CLA
representatives
10. Cluster Coordinators feed into their Reps to
influence HCT discussions
2.
Highlighting issues which require specific advocacy by the humanitarian country team
Proposing strategic priorities and resource allocation to the humanitarian team
Practical operational activities to achieve objectives by taking opportunities in a more
organized way to reduce potential overlaps and gaps between clusters
Identify critical inter-cluster synergies and coverage gaps based on joint
preparedness, needs assessment, prioritisation, resource and operational planning
and monitoring. Annex 1 illustrates examples of products and outputs within the
framework of the humanitarian programme cycle where clusters work together on
their development or implementation
Ensuring protection and early recovery inform the strategic response plan based on a
clear accountability framework28
Agreeing common standards, tools and services (including service clusters) to
provide a conducive strategic and operational environment for clusters
26
Inter-cluster matrices of roles and responsibilities between WASH and CCCM, Shelter, Health, Nutrition, Early
Recovery, Education http://www.washcluster.info/drupal/?q=technical-library/intercluster-coordination;
27 Protection cluster mainstreaming reference sheets and trainings being produced in collaboration with/for CCCM,
Wash, Shelter and Food Security clusters and will be available in the Protection Mainstreaming Section,
www.globalprotectioncluster.org
28 Still to be defined, including performance standards
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
15
Services and
activities creating
the right
environment for
effective intercluster
coordination
OCHA’s role and
responsibilities
for inter-cluster
coordination
Examples of Services and Activities Supporting an Enabling Environment
Common Standards/Approaches
Information Management Tools
Sphere Core Standards; Feedback
mechanisms for affected populations
4W Matrix, web platforms, mapping
Services clusters, for example information managers, but may also require dedicated
specialist capacity to work with and facilitate processes and outputs which are intercluster in nature e.g. needs assessment and information management
OCHA provides appropriate levels of capacity to support inter-cluster coordination as
determined by the HC/HCT in the following ways:








29
Facilitate delivery the components of the humanitarian programme cycle by clusters
including inter-sectoral needs analysis and recommendations for prioritisation (see
Annex 1)
Ensure and support inter-cluster coordination around planning and implementation of
specific strategic objectives
Support the identification and development of common advocacy issues around
strategic and operational issues
Facilitate an inter-cluster coordination forum ensuring all clusters and other relevant
national and international operational actors are fully involved in strategic planning
and implementation and other key issues arising from inter-cluster discussions
Keep the HC/HCT informed of operational progress and any issues which may
require input, advocacy or other support from them29
Support the HC/HCT to determine appropriate coordination mechanisms are in place
at all levels, including de-centralizing coordination by establishing sub-national
clusters/sectors in zones of operational importance including through monitoring
cluster coordination (cluster coordination performance monitoring and the review of
clusters) by the HCT
Support linkages between humanitarian and development coordination mechanisms
Contribute to an ‘enabling’ environment for clusters through the provision of intercluster information management tools and coordination, direct support in facilitating
multi-cluster assessments, pooled fund/common humanitarian fund mechanisms
Such HC/HCT support should be reinforced through the relevant Cluster Lead Agencies on the HCT
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
16
6
Accountability for
Preparedness
Role of Clusters in Preparedness30
Accountability for preparedness lies with the national authorities, and where applicable
with the Resident Coordinator. However, within the Humanitarian Program Cycle (HPC),
“Preparedness” relates to building capacities of the humanitarian system to better support
national capacities before, during and after a crisis for response and recovery.
While preparedness is usually associated with measures taken in advance or in
anticipation of an emergency, it can also be seen as strengthening response mechanisms
in an on-going response to be ready to deal with the deterioration of the crisis or new
shocks that may compound a crisis.
Preparedness –
Establishing
Coordination
Structures
Establishing which structures will be used to coordinate response and recovery is a key
component of preparedness. Preparedness actions should be undertaken using the same
structures and mechanisms that are likely to put in place for the response where possible.
Before a crisis this includes establishing good working relationships, reinforcing
coordination structures and clarifying roles and responsibilities between the humanitarian
community and the relevant national authorities, and within the humanitarian community.
During a crisis this means coordination of the response and being prepared for changes
in a dynamic crisis situation, including how coordination architecture may change moving
through the phases of a response.
After a crisis this means in identifying lessons learned from gaps in preparedness, which
need to be addressed in preparation for future crises.
Emergency
Response
Preparedness
(ERP) Approach
Risk Assessment
and Early
Warning
Minimum
Preparedness
Actions (MPAs)
The ERP Approach is made up of four components
1. Risk
Assessment
and Early
Warning
2.Minimum
Preparedness Actions
(MPAs)
3. Contingency
Response Planning
4. Standard
Operating
Procedures
A Risk Profile31 is developed to ensure coherence of understanding of potential risks
within and across functions. The Risk Profile should be used to identify which clusters
might be necessary and what risks could affect cluster-specific activities.
HC/HCT and Clusters should agree and prioritize MPAs actions necessary to ensure
appropriate arrangements within the following areas:


coordination
monitoring
resource mobilization



assessment
information management
capacity building and
training



planning/budgeting
public information
accountability to
affected populations
MPAs should be specifically tailored to the requirements, structure and mandates of each
cluster. In reviewing the MPAs, gaps may become apparent for priority attention.
Preparedness actions include pre-positioning of stocks, establishment of emergency
response rosters, regular training of enumerators for rapid needs assessments and/or
30
31
Preparedness activities are described in more detail within the Humanitarian Programme Cycle
Insert link to example of a risk profile
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
17
readiness for early deployment of regional or global rapid response mechanisms eg
UNDAC, ASEAN, IARRM.
Contingency
Response
Planning
Standard
Operation
Procedures
(SOPs)
Preparedness
Responsibilities
Clusters should engage in the Contingency Response Planning32 process of national
authorities, HCT or UNCT and provide technical support to it as needed. This includes
contributing to scenario planning, and overall objectives, and determining how these
objectives can be met by each cluster’s response activities, along with budget allocations
which can serve as useful inputs for Flash Appeals. Clusters should also discuss the
capacities of members to undertake specific activities within certain timeframes and
geographic coverage. It should include consideration of stock levels and standby human
resources.
The ERP approach includes a requirement of the RC or HC Coordinator and the Clusters
to develop SOPs for the first seven days after a crisis strikes. SOPs33 outline clear
roles and responsibilities and focus on continuity of operations, rapid scale-up of
humanitarian assistance and effective coordination within and among clusters. They
should include agreed rapid needs assessment tools to be used, including arrangements
for the collation and reporting of this data to inform response strategies and actions.
Building on the IASC Emergency Response Preparedness 34 (ERP) approach, the points
below outline where cluster accountabilities for preparedness lie at both the global and
country levels. These points are equally applicable to clusters or other sector-based
coordination mechanism.
The following table outlines the responsibilities at country and global level for
preparedness actions in relation ot the ERP approach in three different contexts35:1. Countries with Humanitarian Coordinators (HC)
2. Countries with Resident Coordinators (RC) at high risk of emergencies36
3. Countries with Resident Coordinators with low risk of emergencies
Countries with a
Humanitarian Coordinator
What
Who
All
HC/HCT
Components
with
of the ERP
Clusters/
Approach
Sectors
Global
Clusters
Countries with a Resident Coordinator37
Low Risk to Emergencies
High Risk to Emergencies
Who
What
Who
What
RC
through incountry
coordination
mechanisms
with sectors,
and national
authorities
Monitor that
ERP Actions
are put in
place and
support as
necessary
MPAs or specific
contingency
response planning
(particularly how
various national and
sub-national actors
will coordinate, as
well as with any
international
humanitarian actors
where this is sought)
RC
through incountry
coordination
mechanisms
with sectors,
and national
authorities
Global
Clusters
All
Components
of the ERP
Approach
(particularly
which
clusters will
be activated)
Provide
proactive
support to RC
and incountry
sectors to
ensure MPAs
are in place
32
Insert link to example of contingency plan
Insert link to example of a rapid needs assessment tool
34 need a link to where people can go to for more on this and we’ll footnote it
35 See documents of IASC SWG on Humanitarian Financing for Preparedness
36 High risk as identified by IASC Emergency Directors Group, in particular through the bi-annual IASC Early Warning
Early Action Report
37
As part of the Resident Coordinator ToRs
http://www.undg.org/unct.cfm?module=CountryTeams&page=RcEmailReport
33
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
18
7
Cluster Management Arrangements
This section covers the organization and coordination of the various cluster components
– the Cluster Lead Agency, the Cluster Coordinator and all cluster participants at the
national and sub-national level – in order to deliver on the core functions of the cluster. It
is important to balance the need for consultation on operational concepts with the need to
provide leadership of a cluster in an emergency to ensure key decisions are taken by a
manageable number of partners.
A well-run cluster is a formal deliverable of the Cluster Lead Agency and forms a part of
the agency’s work. However in practice, it has been recognized by the IASC and donors
that the efficient management or functioning of clusters is the joint responsibility of the
Cluster Lead Agency, the Cluster Coordinator, resourcing partners and all cluster
participants at the national and sub-national level.
Effective and
efficient cluster
management is a
shared
responsibility
Proposed criteria for participation in the more strategic, management work of the cluster 38
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Characteristics of
a well-managed
cluster
Operational relevance in the emergency
Technical expertise
Demonstrated capacity to contribute strategically and to provide practical support
Commitment to contribute consistently
Efficient cluster management should encompass the following characteristics:


Monitored performance of the six core cluster functions with regard to developing
programmes – which clearly contribute to the implementation of evidence-based strategic
objectives – based on the identification of good field practices and agreed international
benchmarks and standards;
Establishment and maintenance of an appropriate humanitarian coordination mechanism;
o
o
o
o




Strengthening pre-existing sectoral coordination through increased predictability
and accountability;
Building complementarity of partner actions: avoiding duplication and gaps;
Ensuring adequate resources are mobilized and are equitably allocated for the
effective functioning of the cluster and its response;
Effective and comprehensive integration of relevant cross-cutting issues,
including age, gender, environment and HIV/AIDs; linking with specific advisers
where available and identifying in-cluster focal points
Maintaining flexibility within the cluster to respond to changes in the operating
environment, evolving requirements, capacities and participation;
The effective use and transfer of information to, from and between cluster members and
other stakeholders;
Interaction with other clusters (including through inter-cluster coordination fora),
humanitarian actors, government counterparts, and relevant authorities for operational
planning, engagement and active contribution of operational partners;
Accountability to the affected population through ensuring women, men, girls and boy
have equal opportunity to participate throughout programme cycle, including inclusive,
consultative and feedback mechanisms.
38
General commitments for participation in clusters can be found in Section 8
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
19
No ‘one-size fits
all’ approach to
cluster
management
Strategic
Advisory Group
(SAG)
There is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach to cluster management. Due to the varying size,
scope and complexity of disasters and cluster response, the choice of a management
approach must be adapted to need and may change as the response evolves. However,
experience has provided some models for efficient cluster management which have been
approved by the IASC. In 2011, the IASC Principals agreed that “participation in clusters
should be better defined and managed to enhance the ability of clusters to provide
strategic direction, including through the creation of small ‘Steering Committees’ (SC) or
‘Strategic Advisory Groups’ (SAG) of key operational partners, complemented by
separate forums or mechanisms to ensure broader information exchange for all
cluster/sector partners”39.
Chaired by the Cluster Coordinator, SAGs are responsible for developing and adjusting
the cluster’s strategic framework, priorities and work plan for the cluster. SAG
membership should be representative of the overall cluster partnership. To be efficient
and effective SAG membership should also be limited to facilitate shorter discussions,
recommendations to or decision making for the broader cluster partnership. It is
recommended and should interact with the broader cluster membership to ensure a
regular flow of information.
SAG Member/Invitee Options
Possible SAG Members
National Level
-
Cluster Coordinator
Government (technical) representatives
National NGO technical experts
International NGO technical experts
Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement
technical experts40
UN Agency technical experts
OCHA (inter-cluster)
Sub-National Level
The need for sub-national management
should be determined by the national level
SAG on a context specific basis (please also
see section on sub-national coordination).
Membership does not need to directly mirror
national level and often has greater
representation of local authorities and NGO
partners in both leadership and/or technical
roles.
Potential Invitees to the SAG (as appropriate)
Sub-national cluster focal points
Donor representatives
Regional focal points, with technical expertise based at a regional level
Military representatives and other authorities, as appropriate
Technical
Working Groups
Technical Working Groups (known as ‘TWiGs’ or ‘TWGs’) are small task-oriented and
time-limited. They are created as needed, for example to agree minimum standards and
formulate appropriate technical practices, and advise the SAG accordingly. TWiGs are
coordinated by a focal point or technical advisor and consist of the necessary technical
experts
39
40
Final Summary and Action Points, IASC Principals meeting, 13 December 2011, recommendation 29.
Depending on context, RC/RC representatives may prefer to be invitees
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
20
8
Minimum Commitments for Participation in
Clusters
Without constant commitment by cluster participants, predictable coordination will not be
achieved.
The case for
commitment by
cluster
participants
These minimum commitments for participation in country-level clusters provide a
common basis of understanding of what organizations – whether local, national, or
international – commit to bring to clusters at the country level through their participation.
The commitments are not intended as a means to exclude organizations from
participating in clusters nor should they prevent actively seeking the participation of
national authorities within cluster coordination, as appropriate.
Balanced with these commitments from cluster partners, Cluster Lead Agencies have a
reciprocal responsibility41 to ensure that they lead clusters in a manner that goes beyond
simply sharing information and that they provide effective coordination with their subnational counterparts. Cluster Lead Agencies, together with the Cluster Coordinators, are
responsible for providing a forum for strategic response that meets the needs of affected
people and that feeds into other levels of strategic response (e.g. inter-cluster
coordination at the country and global levels).
Agreeing to the
commitments
All cluster partners, including Cluster Lead Agencies in their potential role as implementer
alongside other agencies, have common, mutual responsibilities to reach the objective of
effective and timely humanitarian response for affected people.
The minimum commitments are not prescriptive and should be adapted to actual
needs and context as cluster-based responses vary greatly in size, scope and
complexity. These commitments are a starting point and should be considered as
an absolute minimum to which organizations may build. Country-level clusters
should use this document as a basis when developing or updating their terms of
reference and their own commitments.
Minimum
commitments
The minimum commitments for participation in clusters include:
1. A common commitment to humanitarian principles, the Principles of Partnership42 through
for example, cluster-specific guidance and internationally recognized programme
standards, including the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for Protection
from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.
2. Readiness to participate in actions that specifically improve accountability to affected
populations as per the IASC Commitments to Accountability to Affected Populations 43
and the related Operational Framework.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of the duties and responsibilities within the cluster, as
defined through IASC terms of references and guidance notes44 and any guidance
specific to the cluster itself, as well as country cluster terms of reference, where available.
41
The terms of Cluster Coordinator, Cluster Lead Agency and Humanitarian Country Team are used as per the IASC
Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response (November 2006); the Joint letter
from Cluster Lead Agencies to their Directors/Representatives at Country Level (October 2009), IASC Guidance for
Humanitarian Country Teams (November 2009).
42 Equality, transparency, results-oriented approach, responsibility, and complementarity as defined in the statement of
commitment available at www.globalhumanitarianplatform.org
43
These commitments refer to leadership and governance; transparency; feedback and complaints; participation; and
design, monitoring and evaluation. See Revised Action Points, IASC Principals meeting, 13 December 2011.
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
21
4. Active participation within the cluster and commitment to consistently engage in the
cluster’s collective work.
5. Capacity and willingness to contribute to the cluster’s strategic response plan and
activities, which must include inter-cluster coordination
6. Commitment to mainstreaming of key programmatic cross-cutting issues (including age,
gender, environment and HIV/AIDs).
7. Commitment from a relevant senior staff member to engage consistently in the cluster
towards the fulfillment of its mission.
8. Commitment to work cooperatively with other cluster partners to ensure an optimal and
strategic use of available resources, including sharing information on organizational
resources.
9. Willingness to take on leadership responsibilities of sub-national and/or working groups,
as needed and as capacity and mandates allow.
10. Contribute to developing and disseminating advocacy and messaging targeted at various
actors, including, but not limited to, affected communities, the host government, donors,
the HCT, cluster lead agencies, and the media.
11. Ensure interpretation and effective communication (i.e. appropriate language) in order to
support diverse participation within the cluster, notably from local organizations (and
national and local authorities where appropriate).
Humanitarian workers at a coordination meeting in South Sudan's Pibor coordination hub, Jonglei State, where
inter-communal violence affected nearly 170,000 people. Aid organizations have recorded 165 violent incidents
with humanitarian consequences in the first five months of 2012 alone. Credit: OCHA
44
This includes, but is not limited to, the Generic Terms of Reference for Sector/Cluster at the Country Level and IASC
guidance on particular cross-cutting issues and information management.
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
22
9
Sub-National Level Coordination
Sub-national coordination refers to de-centralizing coordination from the national level by
establishing clusters/sectors in zones of particular operational importance. Structures
may be established at more than one administrative level if required (e.g. provinces and
districts in Pakistan), although the underlying principle of minimizing structures remains
firmly in place. Sub-national coordination is critical where the response take place in
remote areas (e.g. in Sudan) or over a large amount of territory (e.g. in the DRC).
Importance of
sub-national
coordination
Humanitarian operations that involve both national and sub-national level clusters have
been identified as more effective than coordination models that comprise a single national
level cluster. It is highly desirable to have sub-national clusters to facilitate decentralized
decision-making and enhance the response time between decision-taking and
implementation. In addition, sub-national level clusters are better suited to adapting
standards to local circumstances. They are also better placed to maintain close
cooperation with international, national and local NGOs and authorities in implementing
the strategic plan, implementing cross-cutting and multidimensional issues and
enhancing accountability to affected populations.
Sub-national level is where needs assessment and strategic planning starts. Different
regions may require difference approaches and therefore different strategic objectives
and prioritisation
Sub-national
cluster
establishment
The establishment of sub-national clusters should be formalized in terms of reference
(ToRs) which should follow the core functions of clusters and establish clear lines of
accountability to enable decentralized operational decision making. The ToRs should be
shared with the national Cluster Lead Agency for final endorsement. Inter-cluster
coordination at sub-national level may require direct support. In some instances, intercluster has been replaced by sub-national HCTs which included cluster representation
Within limits of available resources and operational context, sub-national clusters should
have full or part-time Cluster Coordinators. Sub-national clusters also offer opportunities
for humanitarian partners and national authorities to share cluster leadership.
In some instances it is noted that more capacity and seniority is needed at the subnational level, closer to operations, rather than at national level; in other examples,
national clusters were not needed. As with all clusters, sub-national clusters should only
be established on the basis of operational needs and should be de-activated as soon as
those needs are met or when there is local capacity to coordinate the response in that
area.
Relationship
between national
and sub-national
clusters
The national level clusters should provide support and policy direction to sub-national
clusters. There must be a clear link between corresponding sub-national and national
clusters in order to facilitate reporting, information-sharing and collaboration with national
and other sub-national level clusters; to promote national programmatic cohesion and
overall coordination to track trends; to identify common concerns across operational
areas; and to develop more upstream advocacy and programming strategies. To ensure
this coherence, the terms of reference should establish clear accountability lines between
national and sub-national clusters, thus enabling the decentralization of operational
decisions. There should also be a clearly understood sequencing between national and
sub-national bodies: national meetings should take place after sub-national meetings and
both discussions should be based on a reliable record of decisions taken and
issues raised.
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
23
10 Sharing Leadership within the Cluster
Approach
A number of evaluations and reports have found that clusters that share leadership
between UN, NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement45 and other key humanitarian
actors, including IOM, generally produce positive benefits by improving partnership,
advocacy and information for a better response. Sharing leadership ensures stronger
engagement and better coordination. This is especially true in remote field locations
where a UN presence may be limited or non-existent, and where often NGOs may have a
strong and consistent presence. In addition to access, NGOs can also bring technical
expertise; different approaches on accountability to affected people; long-term community
involvement and understanding; and an expansive partnership potential to any
leadership role.
Sharing
leadership
Shared leadership is an approach which allows for an equitable and meaningful
distribution of either Cluster Lead Agency or cluster coordination responsibilities at the
global, national and/or sub-national levels. It is accompanied by clear roles, mutual
understanding and defined accountabilities. The appropriate and transparent sharing of
leadership amongst different actors is a true reflection of the interdependency of the
humanitarian community to ensure an effective strategic response.
While dependent on the context, sharing leadership will require actors to go beyond the
norms of participation and implementation, and to define together clear and wellunderstood leadership roles and responsibilities. No matter what the level, an
examination of the leadership role to be shared, and its accompanying responsibilities
must be undertaken as part of a joint terms of reference development. This should cover
the complementary roles of the Cluster Lead Agencies, the Cluster Coordinators and the
cluster participants, ensuring that key aspects - such as accountabilities, strategy,
representation, advocacy, fundraising and visibility - are clear to all parties46.
Examples of
shared
leadership
There are several shared leadership examples. The Global Logistics Cluster embraces
shared leadership through the secondment of NGO staff with specialized skills to the
global cluster support cell. Seconded staff can be deployed to serve as Cluster
Coordinators while working in the support cell. This model is useful in providing training;
ensuring a consistent approach to each Logistics Cluster deployment; ensuring that
information management and reporting are handled consistently; applying lessons
learned uniformly; and engaging secondees in preparedness missions. It also allows
NGOs, which might not be in a position to take on the Provider of Last Resort
responsibilities, to operate with authority at the field level as secondees of the Logistics
Cluster, supported by WFP.
Another example is sharing cluster leadership across the timeframe of an operation with
one Cluster Lead Agency handing over to another in a planned and agreed fashion. The
model of shared leadership used by the Emergency Shelter Cluster in natural disasters
since 2006 is that of "phased leadership", whereby different agencies lead the cluster for
different phases of the response (e.g. agencies like IFRC with expertise in emergencies
and the required surge capacity mechanisms lead during the emergency and transitional
phases, handing over to agencies such as UN-Habitat with developmental expertise to
45
Subject to the mandates of the three different components of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement.
Please see the good practice catalogue on the IASC website. In South Sudan, for example, there is a process
of developing a generic terms of reference for NGO cluster co-coordinators.
46
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
24
lead during the recovery phase). Other learning can be found with CCCM and Education
clusters.
Parameters of
shared
leadership
For further
consideration
When considering sharing leadership of the cluster, the following points should be taken
into account:
1. Terms of reference or memoranda of understanding must be developed to ensure a
common understanding of roles and responsibilities with the leadership arrangement
within a specific context, as well as common accountabilities. Examples of different terms
of reference are available online47. Actors engaged in shared leadership should jointly
determine the shared leadership model that works best for their context. The terms of
reference must be completed and understood in advance as taking on a shared
leadership role will in most cases require actors to hire full-time staff.
2. Sharing leadership amongst actors can augment and strengthen cluster leadership but
should not relieve the designated in-country cluster lead agency of its core
responsibilities and agreed accountabilities, including Provider of Last Resort48.
3. Terms used to describe sharing leadership vary, with co-facilitator, co-coordinator, costeward, co-lead, sub-cluster coordination, sub-national leadership, work group
membership, task force chairs and secondment all used in different contexts. Within the
complex and diverse environment of response, harmonization of language should be
sought; Global Cluster Lead Agencies and HCTs are encouraged to provide guidance on
this during the development of terms of reference.
1. While potentially difficult in some cases, a goal within any response is for national
governments to uphold their responsibilities to their own people. Those who take on
shared leadership roles should assist with national capacity building.
2. There are transactional costs to sharing leadership effectively, in both workload and
financial terms. Resource partners, the RC/HC and the HCT need to ensure that funding
does not present a barrier to actors who would otherwise be in a position to share the
leadership of cluster responses. When possible (where financial mechanisms under its
authority exist) the HC/HCT should help to mobilize funds to support shared leadership
and in other countries donor support should be encouraged.49
3. Sharing leadership will not compensate for poor core leadership. The expectation is that
sharing leadership will improve strong leadership by increasing capacity. It is incumbent
upon the Cluster Lead Agency and its partners to ensure that qualified staff are placed in
positions of leadership.
4. Training opportunities in the competency areas required to ensure success within a
shared leadership structure must be provided to all relevant actors.
5. Not all actors are willing or able to share leadership responsibilities and, as with cluster
activation, decisions to share leadership should be based on an assessment of needs
and capacities on the ground.
47
http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info; other clusters eg CCCM, Education can also sources of ToRs
The 2008 definition of Provider of Last Resort (POLR) was revised by the IASC Principals in December 2011 to read:
“Where necessary, and depending on access, security and availability of funding, the cluster lead, as POLR, must be
ready to ensure the provision of services required to fulfil critical gaps identified by the cluster and reflected in the HCled HCT Strategic Response Plan.” (revision underlined)
49 The Framework on Cluster Coordination Costs and Functions in Humanitarian Emergencies at Country Level
(May 2011) highlights the value of NGOs taking on leadership roles in coordination and states that "donors will also
explore mechanisms to fund NGOs directly for coordination roles.”
48
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
25
11 Monitoring Cluster Coordination50
What is
Monitoring
Coordination?
Monitoring of cluster coordination refers to monitoring country clusters or sectors at
national and sub-national levels in both sudden onset and protracted crises at three
levels:1. Cluster Coordination Configurations is a snapshot of which clusters/sectors are
active, what dedicated resources are available to support their operation, and how
they are operating
2. Cluster Coordination Performance is a self-assessment of cluster performance
against the 6 core functions of clusters51 and accountability to affected populations
3. Cluster Coordination Review is an examination of the continuing relevance of
cluster coordination structures
Why Monitor
Cluster
Coordination?
Monitoring coordination at all levels is necessary to ensure that clusters are efficient and
effective coordination mechanisms, fulfilling their core cluster functions, supporting
delivery to affected people, meeting the needs of constituent members and ultimately
demonstrating accountability to affected populations.
A particular aspect of the
Transformative Agenda in relation to the cluster approach focuses on the need for
clusters to be time-bound and to ensure, where appropriate, and as soon as possible,
transition to nationally-led or support coordination structures.
Demonstrating the added value of coordination structures is important as part of
accountability as well as expressing value for money; giving an evidence base for
advocating continuing support for coordination costs from resourcing partners.
How does
Monitoring
Cluster
Coordination link
with Monitoring
Response?
Cluster Coordination aims to make the international humanitarian community better
organised and more accountable for a more effective and efficient response in support of
national authorities for affected populations. Cluster Coordination provides the structure
and processes in order to facilitate this. Monitoring response involves measuring the
inputs, outputs and ultimately the outcomes of interventions52. We monitor coordination
to ensure that it performs optimally to contribute to achieving the desired response
outcomes. Coordination and efficiency and effectiveness of the response are therefore
linked and monitoring of both components is therefore both important and
complementary.
Cluster Coordination aims to make the international humanitarian community better
organised and more accountable for a more effective and efficient response in support of
national authorities for affected populations. Coordination therefore provides the
structure and processes in order to facilitate this. Monitoring humanitarian response
involves measuring the inputs, outputs and ultimately the outcomes of interventions 53. If
coordination is key to enable an accountable, efficient and effective response, it is
important to monitor coordination to ensure that it performs optimally to contribute to
achieving the desired outcomes as set out in the country strategic response plan.
50
This section does not include cluster evaluation or system-wide humanitarian response monitoring, which is
described in the Humanitarian Programme Cycle Reference Module
51 As listed in Section 4, Cluster Functions
52
See the Humanitarian Programme Cycle Reference Module for further information
53 See the Humanitarian Programme Cycle Reference Module for further information
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
26
Coordination Configurations are an overview of the results of a set of questions which
describe the cluster/sector coordination structure, resources and aspects of how the
cluster operates and interacts with partners. The tool uses colours to code the content
entered into the tool, enabling a visual assessment of coordination performance. The
information can be used by clusters, HC/HCT as well as at global level to have a
snapshot assessment of how clusters are structured and how they operate. Results can
also be used in order to interpret some of the cluster performance monitoring findings and
therefore, it can be helpful to be completed before the coordination performance exercise.
1. Cluster
Coordination
Configurations
The data is gathered via OCHA country offices who work with clusters and sectors to
complete the table. OCHA at global level then compiles the information to make this
available online54. The information is currently updated every 6 months. An example
coordination configuration is given below.
Cluster performance monitoring is made up of 3 components:-
2. Cluster
Performance
A performance survey55 is available to cluster Partners (including
cross-cutting issue focal points) and Coordinators complete online
and focuses on the six core functions of clusters, with an additional
component on accountability to affected people. A report is then
generated per cluster56.
6.
Each cluster holds a meeting (Partners and Coordinator) to discuss
the results of the survey. This is an opportunity for self-reflection by
the cluster to examine which factors have contributed to the success
of functions and which functions require increased attention.
7.
54
http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/home/table
55 A survey has been developed at the IASC Sub-Working Group on the Cluster Approach and includes agreed
questions related to the core functions and accountability. It is strongly encouraged to use the same questions and the
pursuant support of the Global Clusters. Using the tool supports consistent comparison both cross-cluster and across
countries
56 The survey can be carried out for each cluster (or area of responsibility) at both national and sub-national levels.
Which coordination entities at what level on which to carry out performance monitor is flexible and to be decided at
country level. The technical implementation of the survey is supported by Global Clusters and OCHA at global level
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
27
A plan of action is then developed and shared, which addresses
identified needs and raising awareness on support needed from the
HC/HCT, Cluster Lead Agencies, Partners, OCHA, Global Clusters
and national authorities (if appropriate) in support of the cluster’s
accountability
8.
The Cluster Performance Report is used in all humanitarian responses with activated
clusters when there is time available for a more in-depth assessment of the quality of
cluster operations and production of key deliverables. If clusters are activated, it is
completed from 3 months after the onset of an emergency and every year thereafter. In
protracted crises, it is used immediately and then repeated every year. The reports and
action plans may also be used to inform the coordination review.
The cluster performance exercise is a country led process, supported by OCHA and
Global Clusters. It is preferable that coordination performance monitoring is done across
all clusters at the same time, however, if this is not possible, groups or individual clusters
can implement the exercise.
3. Cluster
Coordination
Review
Clusters are designed to fill gaps in sector coordination capacity where the humanitarian
situation or national capacity is unable or constrained 57 to meet needs according to
humanitarian principles. Clusters are therefore meant to be timebound, replaced as soon
as possible by nationally led or supported coordination mechanisms (where appropriate),
or other more recovery or development based coordination structures.
As part of the TA, Principals agreed that in new emergencies, cluster coordination
structures should be reviewed after 3 months, as for L3 emergencies58, and in protracted
crises, immediately and then on a yearly basis and therefore known as ‘Annual
Reviews’59, the results of which should be reported to the ERC. Initial recommendations
of the review to continue, merge, scale down, transition or deactivate are included as part
of a template which can be used for reporting to the ERC 60. Further information on
transition, transition planning and deactivation can also be found in Section 3. As further
case studies become available, they will also be available online 61
Timing of Cluster
Coordination
Monitoring
Given that the results of cluster coordination monitoring may inform strategic planning
processes cluster coordination monitoring should be done in advance of any strategic
planning and resource mobilisation activities.
Coordination
Configurations
Coordination
Performance
Coordination
Review
Strategic
Planning
Resource
Mobilisation
57
For example, where duty bearers are a party in the conflict
3 months aligns the review of coordination structures with the review of an L3 declaration (and empowered
leadership) which is reviewed at 3 months (Protocol 2, Humanitarian System-Wide Emergency Activation, April 2012
and Protocol 1. Empowered Leadership April 2012)
59 Recommendation 33,IASC Transformative Agenda: Chapeau and Compendium of Actions (January 2012)
60
Available on http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/
61 idem
58
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
28
Annex 2
HPC Related Inter-Cluster Products and Outputs
HPC Component
Related Typical Product/Outputs
Preparedness



Coordinated
assessments



Strategic
planning








Resource
Mobilisation


Implementation



Monitoring


Operational
Review/
Evaluation


Contingency Plan
Implementation of Minimum Preparedness
Actions (MPA)
Contribution to development of Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the
preparedness emergency response actions
Contribute to the Preliminary Scenario
Definition (PSD)
Contribute to Humanitarian Needs Overview
Multi-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment
(MIRA)
Contribute to strategic response plan
Strategic response plan indicators
Identification inter-sectoral synergies to
meet strategic response objectives
Proposed prioritisation of response activities
Ensuring the protection lens of the strategic
response plan is incorporated across
clusters
Clarification of responsibilities on issues
shared between clusters
Defining inter-sectoral needs provided by
service clusters
Ensuring integrated strategies on Early
Recovery
Flash/Consolidated Appeal
Pooled/Common Humanitarian Fund
applications
coordination of field activities between
clusters to ensure appropriate sequencing
and/or sharing of events to maximise impact
Design of inter-cluster interface with affected
populations
Identification of humanitarian access issues
and impacts
Joint mechanisms for accountability to
affected populations
Monitoring of achievement of strategic
objectives
Cluster Performance Monitoring; Contribute
to operational reviews, real-time evaluations
Contribute to review of design of
cluster/sector coordination structures and
transition to development coordination
structures
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
Examples of Inter-Cluster Elements of
Outputs
 Analysis of scenarios, multi-sectoral nature
of potential response
 Coordination structures, joint needs
assessment
 Agreement on coordination structures in
event of a crisis
 Joint analysis of situational and initial
needs assessment information
 Development of joint rapid assessment
approach


















Joint analysis of needs and multi-sectoral
dimension of response
Agreed multi-sectoral indicators
Appropriateness of Cash solutions
Joint inter-sectoral analysis to propose
prioritization of response activities
Agreed approach to protection analysis of
multi-sectoral strategies
Clarity of agreement which sector will plan
for activities which could be covered by
different clusters eg health care waste
Agreement on critical shared services
needed eg logistics
Common approaches on shared early
recovery actions eg cash based
emergency employment
Agreement proposals for timeline,
prioritisation for funding
Agreed process and prioritisation
Linking of timing different activities eg
vaccinations, nutrition assessments
Common approaches to Cash
Multi-sectoral approach for engagement
with communities
Joint analysis of impacts and proposed
advocacy strategy
Inter-cluster framework for community
feedback mechanisms
Joint analysis of objectives which are
multi-sectoral
Inter-cluster sharing of results and actions
to find common challenges and solutions
Agree common approach to review of
appropriateness of coordination structures;
agree approaches on engagement with
national structures
29
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CAP
CERF
CLA
ECHA
ERC
HC
HCT
IARRM
IASC
IFRC
IOM
MHPSS
NGOs
OCHA
RC
SC
SAG
TOR
TWiG/TWG
UNDAC
UNDG
UNDP
UNDOCO
UN-Habitat
Consolidated Appeals Process
Central Emergency Response Fund
Cluster Lead Agency
Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs
Emergency Relief Coordinator
Humanitarian Coordinator
Humanitarian Country Team
Inter-Agency Rapid Response Mechanism
Inter-Agency Standing Committee
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
International Organization for Migration
mental health and psychosocial support
non-governmental organizations
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Resident Coordinator
Steering Committee
Strategic Advisory Group
terms of reference
Technical Working Group
United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team
United Nations Development Group
United Nations Development Programme
UN Development Operations Coordination Office
United Nations Human Settlements Programme
Further Reference
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response, 2006
Operational Guidance on Designating Sector/Cluster Leads in Major New Emergencies, May 2007
Operational Guidance on Designating Sector/Cluster Leads in On-Going Emergencies, May 2007
IASC Draft Guidance on the Adaptation of Clusters in Transition, March 2011
Framework on Cluster Coordination Costs at the Country Level, May 2011
IASC Operational Guidance on Responsibilities of Cluster/Sector Leads an OCHA in Information
Management
Cluster Lead Agencies Joint Letter on Dual Responsibility, November 2009
IASC Generic Terms of Reference for Cluster Leads at Country Level
IASC Handbook for RCs and HCs on Emergency Preparedness and Response
Emergency Shelter Cluster Review in Myanmar
WASH Cluster Coordination Handbook, January 2009
WHO Health Cluster Guide, 2009
Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013
30