I

INTER-AGENCY STANDING COMMITTEE

WORKING GROUP MEETING

IASC Interim Self-Assessment of Implementation of the

Cluster Approach in the Field

15-17 November 2006

Conference Room A, UN Secretariat Building,

New York

Circulated 23 NOVEMBER 2006

Preface

During the IASC Working Group in July 2006, OCHA was requested “to lead a process to
evaluate the cluster approach in the pilot countries.” Given that field implementation had
been delayed for a number of reasons, including lack of guidance and funding, it was felt
that an interim self-assessment, rather than an evaluation (internal or external) would be
more appropriate at this point in time.

The Interim Self-Assessment is a progress report and is not intended to be a comprehensive
evaluation of the cluster approach. Such an evaluation is expected to take place in late
2007. The Self-Assessment is intended to highlight main trends, themes and lessons from
field experience, in order to inform IASC Working Group and Principals’ discussions about
the implementation of the cluster approach in the coming year.

Three exercises, carried out between September and October 2006 and led by an IASC
Core Learning Group, have contributed to this self-assessment:

Development of an Analytical Framework against which to assess efforts to
implement the cluster approach at the field level. Recognizing that benchmarks for
successful field implementation were not established prior to the roll-out of the
cluster approach, the Analytical Framework was based on the overall aim and
objectives of the approach, as outlined in the Preliminary IASC Guidance Note,
issued in July 2006. Based on this, the primary issues of concern for the Self
Assessment were the extent to which the cluster approach improved the
effectiveness of overall humanitarian assistance through: greater predictable
leadership and gap filling, strengthening partnerships, improving accountability to the
Humanitarian

Coordinator,

and

strengthening

field-level

coordination

and

prioritization.

Desk Review of more than 50 documents from various UN and non-UN IASC
sources. The documents included various formal and informal observations and
evaluations of agency efforts to implement the cluster approach at the field level in
both the four IASC-selected “roll out” countries (DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda)
and in “new” emergencies (e.g. Pakistan, Indonesia and Lebanon).

Four in-country self-assessments and workshops that took place in the “roll out”
countries.

The below document summarizes the main issues emerging from these three exercises. The
complete set of documentation (Analytical Framework, Desk Review and country reports)
has been shared with the IASC Core Learning Group.

The Self -Assessment was time-limited and took into account the views of individuals and
organizations that either submitted documentation for the Desk Review, attended
workshops, engaged in interviews, or responded to questionnaires. Insight from this base of
respondents may not, therefore, encapsulate all views or issues related to the cluster
approach. The Self-Assessment was also consciously focused on gathering input from field
practitioners, but given limited time, not all stakeholders were necessarily able to contribute
to the process.

Although some efforts have been made to incorporate the views of Global Cluster Leads, an
acknowledged gap in the Self-Assessment is the inadequate analysis of the role that Global
Cluster Leads may have played in supporting field implementation. As agreed by the IASC
WG in July 2006, a Report on Implementation of Global-Level Cluster Capacity-Building (i.e.
a report on the goals and objectives for each cluster as outlined in the revised 2006 cluster
appeal) will take place in early 2007, prior to the development of a 2007 Global Cluster
Appeal.

The documents covered in the Desk Review each reflect on a point in time in a fast evolving
process of roll out. Therefore, conclusions or lessons identified may have been surpassed
by events or may have been incorporated into subsequent response or by subsequent
clarification of policy guidance. The potential time lag of the Desk Review material is
balanced, to some extent, by the validation against findings from the four field workshops.

Despite the above constraints in the Self-Assessment methodology and time frame it is
noteworthy that there was a remarkable consistency of issues raised during the in-country
workshops and in the documents submitted for the Desk Review. There appears to be more
or less consensus among field and headquarters-based practitioners on the core strengths
and weaknesses of agencies’ efforts to implement the cluster approach. As such, the
lessons identified in the Self-Assessment point to a clearer direction for future
implementation of the approach.

Cluster lead agencies, other organizations, and country teams that provided inputs—many
of which were helpfully self-reflective and critical—should be particularly thanked for
approaching the Interim Self-Assessment in the spirit of learning and transparency, which
was its original intent.

General Observations

1. The overall perception among humanitarian partners is that the cluster approach has

demonstrated potential to improve the overall effectiveness of humanitarian response.
Field teams, especially in DRC, Somalia, Liberia and Lebanon credit the approach with
helping to focus more attention on long-standing “gaps” and creating a more predictable
response trigger for these areas, which in some cases meant deployment of increased
capacity to address unmet needs. Especially in new emergencies, roles and
responsibilities for “leading” different aspects of the response can be considered more
predictable today than one year ago. The cluster approach has also helped to foster an
atmosphere for critical reflection and debate at both the headquarters and field level on
the coordination structures and mind-sets needed to facilitate improved partnerships with
authorities (where appropriate) and between UN and non-UN partners.

However, many challenges remain and are fairly consistent across each of the

situations. These include (a) cluster leads interpret their role differently, making it difficult
for partners to know what to reasonably expect, and vice versa; (b) internal management
of clusters varies greatly depending on the skills of the individual leading; (c)
“participation” in clusters has come to mean attending (often poorly managed) meetings;
(d) some perceive that the clusters mainly serve the programme and financial interests
of cluster leads and that cluster leads are not always “honest brokers.”

3. Additionally, there has been inconsistency in the way field teams have applied the

cluster approach, with some (e.g. Pakistan, Somalia and DRC) regarding it as an
approach to strengthen leadership, coherence and sectoral coordination in all major
areas of humanitarian activity and others (e.g. Uganda) regarding clusters and sectors
as distinct bodies, which led to the development of a “two tiered” coordination structures.
The fact that the IASC has emphasized that clusters are primarily to fill “gaps” has been
interpreted by some as suggesting that “clusters” are fundamentally different “sectors,”
and has contributed to the confusion of field colleagues.

4. Some NGOs at the global level have expressed concern that the perceived distinction

between clusters and sectors has inadvertently increased the visibility of “new” clusters,
while “sectors”, such as education, continue to be less visible and, consequently, receive
less donor support. This argument is debatable, as it is far from certain if there is a
correlation between being called a “cluster” and receiving donor funds. Yet, these NGO
concerns highlight the different perceptions of the cluster approach among stakeholders,
which have been exacerbated by a lack of clear guidance.

5. There have been some differences between the application of the cluster approach in

new and ongoing emergencies. In new emergencies, the cluster approach was more
readily accepted as a way in which to organize a coordinated response, primarily
because the new approach was not competing with existing humanitarian coordination
frameworks. In ongoing emergencies (e.g. the IASC “roll out” countries), this was not
necessarily the case. The cluster approach was in some cases (particularly Liberia and
Uganda) perceived as “imposed” by headquarters. In ongoing emergencies, there has
been more difficulty in rationalizing the cluster approach with existing structures, which
has caused, in some cases, duplication of coordination mechanisms, frustration with
excess meetings, and further resistance to application of the approach.

6. The inability of the IASC to agree on clear guidance for the “cluster approach” and to

disseminate this to the field at the beginning of the process led to considerable confusion
at the field level and did not inspire confidence in the new approach. The Self-
Assessment confirms that confusion persists in some cases and remains an obstacle to
implementation.

7. Based on an analysis of the issues consistently raised by field colleagues, and the

current draft of the IASC’s Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach (which
benefited greatly from field inputs), it appears that some of the common concerns raised
during the Self Assessment, such as the confusion over the difference between clusters
and sectors, and the accountability of sector leads, may be addressed once the
Guidance Note is disseminated.

8. Documents submitted for the Desk Review, and the field workshops strongly

recommended that sector leads receive training to fulfill their roles and responsibilities,
as outlined in the generic Terms of Reference (which was first disseminated during the
Pakistan earthquake and has since been revised). In particular, recommendations called
for training on skills such as: meeting management, facilitation, consensus building, and
other cross-cutting skills necessary to carry out the ToR. Following discussions with
Cluster Leads in July 2006, OCHA hired a consultant in October 2006 to identify the
main generic training requirements of sector leads, in close collaboration with IASC

partners, and to design appropriate training tools to complement cluster-specific training.

9. Some field teams (Liberia, Uganda and Somalia) and interviews with several individuals

working on global cluster lead issues found that the relationship between global cluster
leads and field level clusters is still being worked out. Field colleagues were unclear on
the support and services they could reasonably expect from global cluster leads. At the
global level, clusters have interpreted their roles somewhat differently (often depending
on whether they are dealing with a specific technical issue, such as health, or a cross-
cutting issues, such as early recovery), and have made varying degrees of progress,
making it difficult to provide “predictable support” to the field. In some cases at the field
level, “clusters” were created for areas of humanitarian activity for which there is no
corresponding “lead” at the headquarters level. In other cases, field-based leads differed
from global leads. In such cases, it was doubly unclear—from both the perspective of the
field and global cluster leads—how to provide support.

10. The Self-Assessment reconfirmed the interdependence of the four main prongs of the

Humanitarian Reform Agenda: ensuring predictability and greater accountability of
humanitarian response; strengthening humanitarian leadership and coordination;
strengthening

partnerships;

and

improving

the

predictability

and

timeliness

humanitarian financing. It is apparent from the Self-Assessment that strengthening the
Humanitarian Coordinator system and working with donors to manage the competition
that arises from unpredictable funding both have a direct bearing on the success of the
cluster approach.

11.

The Self Assessment found that the process of “benchmarking,” which was identified in
the Humanitarian Response Review as a major factor for improving overall humanitarian
response and was expected by some to be included more rigorously in the humanitarian
reform process, is an issue that requires further elaboration. This issue is explored below
under the section on Accountability.

Predictable leadership and gap filling

12.

There is not yet sufficient information and comparative analysis to determine the extent
to which the cluster approach has contributed to more effective humanitarian response in
countries where it is being used. However, the cluster approach appears to have made a
predictable response more likely, by automatically triggering a designated group of
organizations to “lead” response in key emergency sectors. For example, by the time of
the Lebanon emergency, it was reasonably clear which organizations would be
responsible for mobilizing different aspects of the response, such as Logistics, Protection
and Water and Sanitation, which have been considered as “long-standing gap areas.”
This example stands in stark contrast to previous emergencies, such as Darfur, in which
lack of agency mandate and responsibility for gap areas led to lengthy discussions,
delays in response, and ad hoc solutions. Although there are clearly important issues to
be resolved – related to the consistency of cluster set-up and performance, the lack of a
common understanding of “leadership,” and internal management of clusters – the
achievement of greater predictability in countries using the cluster approach is clearly a
positive step forward.

13. According to some individuals working with global cluster leads, major questions remain

regarding the extent to which agencies have been able to ensure that their cluster lead
responsibilities and commitments are reconciled with their organization’s systems. While
agency Principals have agreed to the cluster approach, there is still a need to ensure
adequate interpretation of what these commitments mean for the organization, as a
whole, and to make the necessary institutional changes. While it is acknowledged that
these changes will require considerable time and effort, some individuals working within

the global clusters feel that much of the responsibility for institutional change is left to
them. The fact that there will only be one more cluster appeal (2007) gives greater
urgency to the need for senior management within agencies leading clusters to look for
means to mainstream their cluster responsibilities.

14. Based on analysis in the Desk Review and field workshops, it appears that some gaps

previously identified by country teams and IDD/inter-agency/donor missions in the “roll
out” countries are beginning to be addressed. Some cluster lead agencies have
expanded their presence to both provide greater sector coordination and increase
programming:

•

In the case of Water and Sanitation in the DRC it is clear that there is now much
greater capacity amongst humanitarian actors working in this sector. Investment in
this sector has grown exponentially, from US$ 1 million in 2005 to US$ 13 million in
2006. For 2007, the draft Humanitarian Action Plan includes US$ 99 million for water
and sanitation projects, representing about 15% of the total appeal. At least in terms
of resources, water and sanitation is no longer the “gap” area that it was in DRC one
year ago.

•

In the case of Protection, in Uganda, UNHCR has begun expanding its presence in
the north, as have sub-cluster leads, UNICEF and OHCHR. In the DRC a number of
new protection officers have been deployed, leading to better monitoring, advocacy
and follow-up, and there are several instances in recent months when MONUC
troops have been deployed to help protect civilians as a direct result of the advocacy
efforts by the Protection cluster. In Somalia, the application of the cluster approach
has finally put protection “on the agenda,” though gaps have not yet been
comprehensively addressed.

•

In the case of early recovery, implementation has been mixed, with a great deal of
uncertainty as to how best to ensure effective early recovery planning and
implementation across all areas of activity. In some instances (Uganda and DRC), an
early recovery cluster has been established and has helped to bring more attention
to return and reintegration issues, though concerns remain regarding the synergies
between the early recovery cluster and other clusters. In Liberia, it was unclear how
the early recovery cluster was to complement other early recovery initiatives and how
best to implement the cluster approach at all in a mainly “transitional” context. In
Somalia, following initial confusion and concerns about excessive meetings, efforts
are being made to ensure that early recovery issues are integrated into all sector
work, e.g. the health sector meeting now includes an agenda item on early recovery
and an agenda item on humanitarian issues, but both are addressed within the same
forum.

Again, while there are clearly still issues related to the level of participation and
effectiveness of these initiatives, there are more systematic attempts to meet needs in
previously considered “gap” areas.

15.

Documents submitted for the Desk Review and field workshops identified the
establishment of well-functioning information management (IM) systems as critical to
improving humanitarian response in terms of identifying and filling gaps, supporting
strategic planning and prioritization and reporting. The field identified IM gaps both
within, and across, sectors. As pointed out in Liberia and Uganda, filling gaps demands
knowledge of who is doing what, where (3Ws), as well as disaggregated data on needs.
As noted from the Liberia experience, it is important to ensure that in contexts where
there is an integrated UN mission, that appropriate and effective coordination and
information management systems are established to support and facilitate humanitarian
action, and that due consideration be given to the specific role that OCHA and HIC plays

in this regard. In DRC, the establishment of a web-based humanitarian information
exchange platform is viewed as a useful tool for disseminating information on the cluster
approach.

16. Field staff were largely unaware of efforts within the recently established IASC

Information Management Working Group to ensure a more rigorous and consistent
approach to IM in the field. An action plan, agreed by the IASC Working Group, includes
clarifying the roles of OCHA and sector leads in IM, and taking stock of existing IM tools
and how they could support better sector coordination. The group will also look at how
Humanitarian Information Centers (HIC)—a common service—should be enhanced.
These efforts should make full use of the lessons identified by field staff.

17.

In terms of “leadership,” the long delay in providing cluster roll-out countries with specific
guidance on the cluster approach, with detailed Terms of Reference for cluster leads,
meant that there was a lack of shared understanding of this role, both among the
institutions and individuals leading and participating in the clusters. In the absence of
guidance on cluster leadership, cluster leads improvised as best they could. Sometimes,
however, this improvisation contributed to the perception by non-UN partners that the
cluster approach was too “UN centric.” Several field teams validated findings in the Desk
Review that the separation of cluster lead and programme functions is often unclear, and
can exacerbate the perception that agencies are pursuing their own programme
priorities, especially when the cluster lead is also involved in funding decisions (e.g.
pooled funding or CERF, as in DRC). In Uganda, some clusters are perceived as “a lead
agency and their implementing partners,” which is contrary to the spirit of partnership as
construed in the humanitarian reform agenda (see Partnership section below).

18. To address some of these issues, some field teams, such as Somalia and DRC, have

appointed NGOs as “cluster co-chairs.” Some global cluster leads, such as WASH, have
recognized the need for dedicated sector leads (especially in new emergencies) and
have deployed staff accordingly, e.g. in Lebanon. Following the Lebanon crisis, an
internal evaluation of UNHCR’s performance called for the appointment of leaders “with
the necessary seniority and interpersonal skills to conduct meetings effectively and make
them into a forum for prioritization and decision-making,” and further noted the need for
cluster leaders to “place the interests of cluster members and the UN as a whole above
the interests of their respective agency.” In order to establish a common approach to
predictable sector leadership, all field teams recommended training for sector leads on
their roles and responsibilities, as outlined in their ToR.

Partnership

19.

While efforts to implement the cluster approach have helped strengthen partnerships
between UN and non-UN organizations in some places and have created a greater
“spirit” of collaboration, the general feeling is that there has not yet been sufficient
tangible progress in this area. That said, tensions arising from efforts to implement the
cluster approach have been a catalyst for frank, senior-level dialog at the headquarters
level on the obstacles that make closer collaboration more difficult (see Chairs’
Summary, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action: A Dialogue Between UN
and Non-UN Humanitarian Organizations, 12-13 July 2006). As a result, a Global
Humanitarian Platform has been established to agree on concrete measures to
strengthen collaboration.

20.

Field colleagues validated the Desk Review by noting that discussions about the cluster
approach raised expectations about partnership, but provided few feasible and practical
recommendations for realizing this. Most field teams in both new and ongoing
emergencies noted the need to include national NGOs in a meaningful way into strategic

discussions. However, from the perspective of some cluster leads and OCHA staff, the
issue of how to feasibly facilitate strategic discussions with dozens or hundreds of
different stakeholders remains a real dilemma. Broadly speaking, field level coordination
structures to facilitate partnership either do not yet exist or are inadequate. The Global
Humanitarian Platform has recognized this as a key concern, and aims to develop
concrete proposals for establishing inclusive Humanitarian Community Partnership
Teams at the field level.

21. A related issue is the extent to which individual NGOs can or even should represent a

“homogenous” or “unified” “NGO perspective.” Given the myriad of international and
national NGOs in a given emergency (not to mention UN agencies), how do cluster leads
and coordinators feasibly accommodate the myriad of interests? An early ICVA review of
the roll out of the cluster approach in the DRC (March 2006) highlights the dilemma of
ensuring appropriate NGO representation in existing coordination structures:

“The selection process of the NGOs and the responsibilities around that NGO
participation were unclear; no terms of reference were developed explaining what
participation entailed. There was no clear discussion about who (if anyone) the NGOs
represented. The “responsibilities” of the NGOs … were also not clearly discussed or
agreed. As such, there was no mechanism to feed in the views of other NGOs … nor
was there a mechanism to report back to other NGOs on what took place….. From the
perspective of NGOs that participate … as well as from the perspective of those NGOS
that do not, the NGOs attending the [meetings] do not represent anyone except
themselves: they participate in the meetings in their own right.”

22. In line with the above, some cluster leads at both the field and global level called for

greater clarity on the role of organizations participating in clusters. Given that cluster
leads are “accountable” for ensuring an adequate humanitarian response and providing
services and support as outlined in their ToR, and that success of clusters relies on
effective partnership with others, some cluster leads felt it was both pragmatic and fair to
expect some level of predictable commitment from participants.

23. Field teams in Uganda and Somalia noted that INGOs are often unaware of the extent to

which their headquarters, or NGO consortia to which they belong, are involved in
discussions and decisions regarding the humanitarian reform agenda. For example, a
number of INGOs (e.g. ACF, Danish Refugee Council, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, World
Vision) have developed position papers on the cluster approach and have contributed
significantly to the development of the IASC Guidance Note. Field colleagues suggested
that these views should “trickle down to the field level to ensure that positions are
organizational, rather than individual.”

24.

Much of the discussion on partnership has focused on the relationship between the UN
and non-UN humanitarian organizations. However, issues of visibility and competition for
funding, not to mention issues related to different programme priorities within the same
sector, can be as much an obstacle to closer collaboration between UN agencies as they
are between UN and non-UN organizations, and do not necessarily ensure that that “the
whole humanitarian response equals more then the sum of its parts.”

25. Many field teams cited competition for visibility and limited donor funding as an

impediment to partnership. There are differing views on the extent to which cluster leads
should be involved in humanitarian financing decisions, be they related to the CERF,
pooled funding, Flash Appeals or the CAP.

26. Some argue that clusters should be a mechanism through which project activities are

(peer) reviewed before being submitted to donors. This argument is based on a view that
only donors can effectively shape an incentive system to reward collaboration (see Desk

Review, Olsen and Hystad). Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) provides a sound
foundation for donors to make funding decisions based on a shared analysis of needs
and priorities, and for rewarding collaboration. Some have advocated that sector leads
should be more aware of and use GHD Principles in order to strengthen advocacy to
donors, and encourage their accountability to their GHD commitments. Others have
pointed out that the guidance issued for Flash Appeals and Consolidated Appeal
Process have, for a number of years, called on sector groups to jointly assess needs,
prioritize activities, and review projects according to agreed criteria. Thus, the cluster
approach simply improves on the long-standing practice of sector groups to play a role in
humanitarian financing decisions.

27. Others are concerned that the focus on “leads” may prejudice donors to fund cluster lead

agencies at the expense of other partners. The perception that donors have sometimes
used clusters as a filter for selecting partners causes further suspicion and undermines
partnership. Various pooled funding initiatives (which are not always viewed as
transparent) and the CERF—which the General Assembly has agreed cannot be
disbursed directly to NGOs—have done little to allay this perception. Many NGOs and
non-cluster lead UN agencies are deeply skeptical that that cluster leads can remain
“honest brokers” if they have undue influence on funding decisions.

28. Another issue is a perception among some that participation in clusters implies funding,

and if funding is not forthcoming, there is little incentive to collaborate. At the same time,
some NGOs are concerned about being too closely affiliated with “UN” funding
mechanisms. In Somalia, there is a growing perception that “partnership seems to be
funding related,” and in DRC it was felt that efforts should be made to emphasize that
the Pooled Fund should be used to support the clusters and not the other way around.
Some cluster leads have interpreted their relationship to “partners” as contractual
(Somalia and Uganda), which undermines the spirit of the humanitarian reform. In
Lebanon, UNHCR noted that in some cases “agencies ceased to attend cluster meetings
once they had obtained funding for their activities.”

29. If cluster leads, together with partners, were to play a larger role in humanitarian

financing decisions, leads would need to be perceived as “honest brokers,” independent
of their agency affiliations, and would need to lead a transparent process by which
funding proposals are reviewed in consultation with partners, based on evidence and
clear criteria. Donors, for their part, would need to live up to GHD principles by rewarding
collaboration. In truth, however, competition has been, and will likely remain, a reality in
the aid business. It may be necessary to agree on practical, operational tools to manage
the stated desire for more effective and coherent humanitarian response with the reality
of funding competition.

30.

Another area related to “partnerships” is the role of governments. The lack of specific
IASC mention of this matter in the earliest phases of the roll-out has caused some
(including UN member states) to conclude that the UN has positioned itself above
governments as the “lead” in humanitarian emergencies. In some respects, this issue
appears to have become overblown more by what was not explicitly said, than what was
said. The current version of the IASC guidance note related to clusters corrects this
omission, stating the clear responsibility of the government, where appropriate, for
leading humanitarian response, and the role of cluster leads to ensure cooperation
among international actors, appropriate linkages with government and local authorities,
and capacity building.

31. That said, as with NGOs, efforts to implement the cluster approach have heightened

recognition that national authorities are often overlooked as viable partners in
humanitarian action. This has spurred discussion among humanitarian organizations on
how best to include authorities in humanitarian coordination and decision-making

mechanisms at the field. In Somalia, as elsewhere, it is acknowledged that meaningful
consultation with authorities and affected communities is almost non-existent. In Liberia,
three of the seven clusters have yet to identify government counterparts at the national
level. Though few practical recommendations emerged from this Self Assessment, the
issue of how best to involve national authorities in humanitarian action is a matter that
still requires work.

Accountability

32. “Accountability" is a key principle of the humanitarian reform generally, and has a

specific meaning within the cluster approach. However, the revised draft IASC Guidance
Note on Using the Cluster Approach provides greater clarification on the accountability of
cluster leads to Humanitarian Coordinators, and outlines the scope and limitations of the
concept of “provider of last resort.” The draft generic Terms of Reference for Sector
Leads at the Country Level, which provides a detailed list of activities for which Cluster
Leads are accountable, has not yet been widely disseminated and used in the roll-out
countries. As a result, little progress has been made to ensure systematic accountability
of cluster leads to HCs.

33. There was initially much concern that the cluster approach demanded accountability of

non-UN actors to the UN. It took some time to explain to all humanitarian partners that
this is not the case. Some field colleagues, having not been involved in these
discussions and having not received adequate guidance from the IASC, still perceive
that the cluster approach demands NGO accountability to the HC or the UN (Somalia,
Uganda). The revised Guidance Note reflects a clearer understanding of “mutual”
accountability between UN and non-UN agencies in implementing the cluster approach,
stating ultimately that, “Individual humanitarian organizations can only be held
accountable to sector leads in cases where they have made specific commitments to this
effect.” In line with this, field staff in Uganda and Somalia have emphasized the need for
mutual accountability that is earned through trust and relationship building, and is not
imposed.

34. Apart from the question of accountability of Cluster Leads to the HC, there is concern

among field staff that more needs to be done to ensure greater accountability to
recipients of assistance and that this has not been adequately addressed within the
cluster approach, to date.

35. In many respects, the issue of ensuring greater accountability to recipients of aid is tied

to improving a collective approach to needs assessment and analysis, establishing
agreed objectives, identifying benchmarks and indicators of success, and effective
monitoring of programme implementation and impact. These are long-standing concerns
of the humanitarian community, and improvements have been attempted through such
efforts as Good Humanitarian Donorship, the Sphere Project, CAP and CHAP reform,
and the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, to name a few. Based on
field inputs to this Self Assessment, it is not yet evident that these efforts and tools are
being harnessed consistently to advance the aim of greater accountability to aid
recipients.

36. Field staff also raised the issue of benchmarking the “roll out” of the cluster approach. At

its inception, field teams began implementing the approach without guidance on what
was meant to be achieved, and how this would be measured. In preparation for any
future implementation of the cluster approach and the evaluation that is meant to take
place at the end of 2007, it will be immediately necessary to define benchmarks for
successful implementation, which should include reference to both process indicators
(e.g. rationalizing coordination structures, identifying leads for all areas of humanitarian

response, ensuring partnership) and impact indicators (e.g. to measure the impact of the
cluster’s work on affected populations).

Strategic coordination and prioritization

37. As mentioned above, improving strategic field-level coordination and prioritization has

been the subject of previous efforts to strengthen humanitarian response. The current
humanitarian reform, including the cluster approach, has perhaps not been articulated
strongly enough as a continuation of previous efforts, and the result is that processes
and tools that have been established previously have not always been sufficiently linked
to, or utilized in complementing, the approach.

38. There are some examples in which field teams have used existing tools to strengthen

coordination, planning and prioritization. In the DRC, there have been some
improvements to the “Action Plan,” which includes improved (for 2007) benchmarks and
indicators, as a result of a more systematic approach to collaboration in clusters. In
Uganda, the Needs Analysis Framework (NAF) was used by the Food Security sector
group as an evidence-based foundation for the CHAP. In Liberia, sector leads have
committed to identifying benchmarks for each sector, which will be reported to the IASC
CT so they can monitor progress.

39. Field staff identified several factors that seem to work against greater strategic

coordination and prioritization, namely poor or inconsistent sector leadership (mentioned
above), the unclear role of cluster participants and their “responsibility” to the wider
group (mentioned above), poor or non-existent IM systems (mentioned above),
overlapping

inappropriate

coordination

structures

both

the

capital

and

regional/district level, and confusion over the difference between “sectors” and “clusters,”
which has led in some cases to the creation of two-tiered field coordination mechanisms.

40. A lessons learned report produced by the Emergency Shelter Cluster following the

Pakistan earthquake notes that, despite having issued standardized planning tools, most
humanitarian organizations reverted to their own assessment and planning tools and
standards during the emergency, making it difficult to organize around a common
approach and work towards agreed objectives. A Red R/IOM review of the shelter
cluster in Pakistan notes “confusion” among stakeholders on the status and expected
role of standards and guidelines for cluster participants in terms of “adherence to them,
dissemination of them and resolution of any differences.” In Uganda, field colleagues
noted that some cluster work plans appear to be individual agency plans “knitted
together.”

41. The role of global clusters in developing common tools that can be used by the field is an

area where there have been different levels of progress. Some global clusters have been
able to provide tools to the field, but there remains a disconnect between the
understanding of the relationship between global and field level clusters. Global cluster
leads can only “offer” services to the field and not impose anything on them. At the same
time, there may be a need to better understand the requirements of field clusters so that
global clusters can better service them.

42. The Self-Assessment found that in some cases, coordination structures themselves

worked against effective coordination and prioritization, as well as integration of cross-
cutting issues such as gender and HIV/AIDs. Field colleagues often looked to the
Humanitarian Coordinator, with OCHA support, to ensure that such structures were
rational, efficient and effective and sometimes found leadership to be lacking. A major
source of confusion, especially in the “roll out” countries, was the creation of clusters
alongside existing sector groups, which gave rise in some cases (Somalia and Uganda)

to two-tiered coordination systems (one for clusters, one for sectors). In ongoing
emergencies, especially, field staff recommended that a thorough analysis of existing
coordination mechanisms is necessary before using the cluster approach. Other key
lessons regarding coordination structures include the need to ensure that:

•

designated leads are assigned for major areas of humanitarian action in a given
emergency, understand their roles and responsibilities, and report, in this capacity, to
the HC;

•

the cluster approach is not “added on” as an extra layer of coordination, but rather
the principles and standards of the approach are used to raise the bar of
performance of existing structures;

•

consideration is given on how best to ensure valid participation by INGOs and
national NGOs in all coordination mechanisms, bearing in mind the need to balance
representation with the pragmatic need to keep meetings manageable and strategic;

•

there is some forum for technical sector leads to discuss and propose strategies for
ensuring a cross-sectoral (e.g. holistic) approach to the response, and integration of
cross-cutting issues, which reports to a higher level, strategy/policy-making entity,
such as an IASC CT;

•

coordination structures are rationalized at both the capital and regional/district level
and seek to minimize meetings and maximize participation to improve strategic
decision making;

•

to the extent possible, and depending on the context, that discussions about relief
and early recovery (and where possible development) on a given issue (e.g. health)
are discussed in a single forum, with the aim of fostering more natural linkages
between

relief

and

development,

minimizing

meetings,

and

ensuring

that

development takes preparedness for emergencies into consideration.

43.

At the global level, coherence and coordination between global cluster leads and those
areas for which clusters have not been created (e.g. education, food, agriculture and
refugees) is considered by some to be too ad hoc. There is a need to ensure more
systematic collaboration between the various leads at the global level to ensure a more
complementary and coherent approach to addressing the concerns raised by the
humanitarian reform. While it is acknowledged that some work is now underway to
develop operational guidelines on cross-cutting issues, such as gender, HIV/AIDS, the
environment and early recovery, it is felt that this guidance should build on existing work
and be incorporated quickly into user-friendly “toolkits” for clusters as both the global and
field level.

Issues requiring further discussion and action

There are a number of issues that have emerged from the Self-Assessment that require
further action and which should be considered in discussions regarding further application of
the cluster approach. These include:

Ensure that lessons identified in this report are applied in future use of the cluster
approach. Key lessons include ensuring that gaps are adequately identified and addressed,
global cluster leads provide the necessary support to their respective field groups, sector
leads with the appropriate skill-set and training are appointed for priority areas of response,
coordination

mechanisms

are

efficient

and

inclusive,

and

facilitate

cross-sector

collaboration, IM systems are in place, and Humanitarian Coordinators, with OCHA support,
lead the process effectively.

Translate agreed guidance into training and a practical “toolkit.” To improve the field’s
understanding of the cluster approach, it will be necessary to translate agreed guidance,
lessons and best field practice into training and a user-friendly, field-based “toolkit” with

standard operating procedures, operational guidance and checklists for “operationalising”
the approach at the field level.

Develop additional operational guidance and resolve outstanding issues. It is
recognized that many of the major policy issues concerning the cluster approach have been
carefully defined in the revised Guidance Note following extensive consultation with partners
in the field and at headquarters. However, some practical issues raised in the Self
Assessment require additional action to avoid confusion at the field level. These include:

•

Providing more explicit operational guidance on how sector leads at the field level
should interpret their role in resource mobilization (mentioned in the ToR),
especially in relation to the CERF, pooled funding mechanisms, Flash Appeals
and CAPs.

•

Providing practical guidance on the role of the early recovery cluster at the field
level, as well as the role of sector leads in mainstreaming early recovery.

•

Clarifying the operational mechanics of using the cluster approach in countries
with integrated UN missions.

•

Identifying and promoting the tools that are available to promote greater system-
wide accountability to people affected by conflicts and disasters.

•

While at global level, some areas of humanitarian activity are referred to as
“clusters” and others are not, it is necessary to recognize that all areas of
humanitarian activity should strive to achieve standards of leadership, capacity,
preparedness, partnership and accountability. All areas of humanitarian activity
should receive equal recognition and treatment.

Prepare for 2007 evaluation of the cluster approach. It is proposed that OCHA begin
working with IASC partners immediately to ensure development of benchmarks for any
future implementation of the cluster approach (against which the evaluation will measure
progress), as well as a realistic timeline and methodology for the evaluation to be
undertaken.

Actions for the IASC WG

1. The IASC WG is requested to take note of the findings of the Interim Self-

Assessment, in particular when deliberating continued usage of the cluster
approach.

2. The IASC WG is requested to endorse that OCHA lead the process to ensure

timely follow up on the above-mentioned points, together with IASC and
cluster lead partners.

Annex 1

Desk Review:

A Summary of Formal and Informal Evaluations of

Agencies’ Efforts to Implement the Cluster Approach

Preface

This Desk Review highlights main trends, themes and key lessons drawn from more than 50 documents
submitted to OCHA HRSU from various UN and non-UN IASC sources (see Annex 1 for list of
documents provided to HRSU). The documents include various formal and informal observations and
evaluations of the application of the cluster approach at the field level in both the four IASC-selected
“roll out” countries (DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda) and in “new” emergencies (e.g. Pakistan,
Indonesia and Lebanon).

This Review is one aspect of the IASC Interim Self-Assessment of the Cluster Approach and will be
complemented by field-based surveys and workshops in the four “roll out” countries and consultations
with Global Cluster Leads. Its aim, therefore, is not to draw conclusions, as this will be done once all
aspects of the Interim Self-Assessment are completed.

Given that this Review was dependent on material provided by key stakeholders in what was admittedly
a very short time frame, it may not encapsulate all views or issues related to the cluster approach.
Furthermore, the documents covered in the Desk Review each reflect on a point in time in a fast evolving
process of roll out. Therefore, conclusions or lessons identified may have been surpassed by events or
may have been incorporated into subsequent response or by subsequent clarification of policy guidance.
The potential time lag of the Desk Review material is balanced, to some extent, by the validation against
findings from the four field workshops.

Despite constraints in the methodology and timeframe of the Self-Assessment, there was a remarkable
consistency of issues raised in nearly all documents, which suggests more or less consensus among field
and headquarters-based practitioners on the core strengths and weaknesses of agencies’ efforts to
implement the cluster approach.

In some cases, this Desk Review draws examples from the documents that were submitted to HRSU in
order to illustrate general challenges in applying the cluster approach. The result is that some clusters
and/or emergencies are more represented or “in the spotlight” than others. The use of such examples is
not intended to draw attention to or suggest criticism of particular clusters or sectors and should not be
interpreted as such.

Cluster lead agencies, other organizations, and country teams that provided inputs—many of which were
helpfully self-reflective and critical—should be particularly thanked for approaching the Interim Self-
Assessment in the spirit of learning and transparency, which was its original intent.

Executive Summary of Main Trends, Themes and Lessons Identified

1. The findings of the Desk Review reconfirm the interdependence of the four main prongs of the

Humanitarian Reform Agenda: ensuring predictability and greater accountability of humanitarian
response; strengthening humanitarian leadership and coordination; strengthening partnerships; and
improving the predictability and timeliness of humanitarian financing. It is apparent from the various
documents that strengthening the Humanitarian Coordinator system and working with donors to
manage the competition that arises from unpredictable funding both have a direct bearing on the
outcome of using the cluster approach.

2. The existing documents indicate that aspects of the cluster approach “showed worth” compared to

previous ways of working together. Positive experiences of the cluster approach were more evident
in new emergencies than ongoing emergencies. The following indicative comments suggest that for
many, the cluster approach provided a structure and a forum for stronger, more effective information
sharing and collaboration:
• clusters were a visible forum for information sharing and forward planning;
• the approach provided an “organizing framework” for response, that clearly identified

coordination and decision making structures;

• the approach encouraged colleagues to work together on multi-sectoral issues;
• the approach is a “good thing” in that info sharing and coordination has minimized duplication

and gaps;

• “opportunity for information sharing” and “networking on the fringes of meetings”,
• “the fact that a named agency was responsible for coordinating efforts in a particular area was

helpful;”

• “helped to promote accountability.”

3. There is not yet sufficient information and comparative analysis to conclude the extent to which the

cluster approach has contributed to more effective humanitarian response, in terms of addressing
needs and saving lives. However, in countries in which it has been used, the cluster approach appears
to have made a predictable response more likely, by automatically triggering a designated group of
organizations to deploy the necessary staff to “lead” response in key emergency sectors. For
example, by the time of the Lebanon emergency, it was more clear which organizations would be
responsible for mobilizing different aspects of the response, such as Logistics, Protection and Water
and Sanitation, which, less then one year ago were considered “long-standing gap areas” by the
IASC. This example stands in stark contrast to previous emergencies, such as Darfur, in which lack
of agency mandate and responsibility for gap areas led to lengthy discussions, delays in response,
and ad hoc solutions Although there are clearly still important issues to be resolved related to the
consistency of cluster performance, the lack of a common understanding of “leadership,” and internal
management of clusters, the achievement of greater predictability in countries using the cluster
approach is clearly a positive step forward.

4. Some gaps previously identified by country teams and IDD/inter-agency/donor missions in the “roll

out” countries are beginning to be addressed. For example, some cluster lead agencies have expanded
their presence to both provide greater sector coordination and increase programming (e.g. protection
in Uganda and DRC, WASH in Liberia); groups of agencies are working on issues previously
considered gaps (e.g. protection and return/early recovery planning), conducting more joint needs
assessments and analysis, and attempting to agree on strategies and priorities. Again, while there are
clearly still issues related to the level of participation and effectiveness of these initiatives, it is
becoming more of a common practice to attempt to meet needs in previously considered “gap” areas.

5. The inability of the IASC to produce clear guidance on the intricacies of the new “cluster approach”

and to disseminate this to the field at the beginning of the process led to considerable confusion at
the field level and did not inspire confidence in the new approach. Poor and sometimes contradictory
communication—from both headquarters to the field and field-level coordinators to country team
members—as to the aims and modalities of cluster implementation contributed to an overall sense
that the cluster approach was much more complicated and cumbersome than perhaps it needed to be.
This is turn contributed to skepticism about the added value of the new approach, fostered resistance

to what was perceived to be a headquarters or UN “imposed” process and fed suspicions of those
who believed they were less informed then others (though in most cases, most stakeholders were
equally ill informed).

6. The IASC generic Terms of Reference for Cluster Leads at the Country Level spells out the expected

role of the cluster lead in terms of the practical support and services they are to provide to cluster
participants. This TOR provides the basis for a new level of accountability to the HC. Yet
dissemination of the TOR in roll-out countries has been slow and uneven, and few efforts have yet
been made to train cluster leads in roll-out countries in how to carry out their new responsibilities.
There is wide consensus that cluster leads have interpreted their roles differently, making it difficult
for participants to know what to reasonably expect. A number of internal cluster management issues
have been identified, including conflict of interest between the needs of the cluster, and the
programme priorities of the agency leading the cluster; poor facilitation and meeting management by
the cluster lead; and the need for dedicated leads, especially in new emergencies.

7. Many stakeholders expected Humanitarian Coordinators, with OCHA support, to establish

mechanisms for cross-cluster coordination (especially information management) and integration of
cross-cutting issues (such as gender, HIV/AIDS, etc.). In several cases, such structures and
mechanisms were not put in place or considered effective.

8. There are some differences between the application of the cluster approach in new and ongoing

emergencies. In new emergencies, the cluster approach was more readily accepted by humanitarian
organizations as a standard way in which to organize a coordinated response, primarily because the
new approach was not competing with existing humanitarian coordination frameworks. In ongoing
emergencies (e.g. the IASC “roll out” countries), this was not necessarily the case. In the roll out
countries, the cluster approach was in some cases (particularly Liberia and Uganda) perceived as
“imposed” by headquarters. In these situations, there has been more difficulty in rationalizing the
cluster approach with existing structures, which has caused in some cases duplication of coordination
mechanisms, frustration with excess meetings, and further resistance to application. This was
exacerbated by lack of clear guidance from the IASC about the aims and modalities of using the
cluster approach.

9. Based on documents submitted for the Desk Review, it appears that efforts to implement the cluster

approach in roll-out countries have not yet led to a significant strengthening of partnerships between
UN and non-UN humanitarian organizations. However, tensions arising from the cluster approach
have been a catalyst for frank, senior-level dialog at the headquarters level on the obstacles that make
closer collaboration more difficult. A Global Humanitarian Platform has been established to agree on
concrete measures to strengthen collaboration. A key issue at the field level was that the cluster
approach raised expectations about partnership, but provided few feasible and practical
recommendations for realizing this.

10. Much of the discussion on partnership has focused on the relationship between the UN and non-UN

humanitarian organizations. However, issues of visibility and competition for funding, not to
mention issues related to different programme priorities within the same sector appear to be as much
an obstacle to closer collaboration between UN agencies as they are between UN and non-UN
organizations, and do not necessarily ensure that that “the whole humanitarian response equals more
then the sum of its parts.”

11. Competition for limited donor funding was cited as a major factor working against closer partnership

and collaboration (in terms of establishing more common approaches to assessment, analysis,
planning and prioritization). The fact that clusters in some places have been used by donors as a filter
for selecting partners further undermines partnership. Yet, competition has been and will likely
remain a reality in the aid business because, despite Good Humanitarian Donorship, most donors
have not on the whole changed their funding behavior.

12. “Accountability" is a key principle of the cluster approach. However, the draft generic Terms of

Reference for Cluster Leads at the Country Level, which provides a detailed list of activities for
which Cluster Leads are accountable, has not yet been widely disseminated and used in the roll-out

countries. There was initially a lot of concern that the cluster approach demanded accountability of
non-UN actors to the UN. It took some time to explain to all humanitarian partners that this is not the
case. Apart from the question of accountability of Cluster Leads to the HC, there is concern in the
field that more needs to be done to ensure greater accountability to recipients of assistance and that
this is not adequately addressed in the existing guidance on the cluster approach.

13. Many of the perceived problems of the cluster approach are, in fact, long-standing challenges to

coordination that continue to persist despite efforts to reform the humanitarian system. These
challenges include:

• the fact that humanitarian organizations have differing mandates and operational priorities,

which makes agreement on priorities and joint planning difficult under any circumstances;

• establishing viable partnerships with a myriad of UN and non-UN, international and national

humanitarian

organizations

while

maintaining

streamlined

and

efficient

coordination

mechanisms and strategic focus;

• weaknesses in the Humanitarian Coordinator system that contributed in some cases to poor

overall management and coherence of coordination mechanisms;

• the reality of competition that exists between humanitarian organizations, driven mainly by the

humanitarian financing system that makes it difficult to cede visibility or influence to a “lead”
who may thereby attract more donor attention. For their part, donors have not, on the whole,
applied Good Humanitarian Donorship principles to provide funding according to need, thereby
exacerbating competition.

14. The humanitarian reform agenda, and the cluster approach, did not create these problems, and in fact,

was conceived out of a desire to address them. However, many of the documents submitted for this
Desk Review suggest that long-standing coordination challenges have become conflated with the
humanitarian reform agenda. At the same time, there are a number of issues specific to the way in
which the cluster approach was “rolled out” that need to inform the next phase of implementation.
Maintaining the momentum of the humanitarian reform in the face of high expectations will be a key
challenge for the next phase of implementation.

The following section outlines in more detail the extent to which implementation of the cluster approach
at the field level met the aims of the cluster approach, as outlined in the IASC Preliminary Guidance
Note, issued in July 2006. This section also highlights a major, unanticipated issue that arose during
implementation, namely, the internal management of clusters.

Did the cluster approach help to clearly identify gaps in key sectors/areas of response and ensure
predictable leadership and adequate response in these sectors/areas?

On the whole the cluster approach has ensured predictable leadership in key sectors/areas of response in
roll-out countries, although there were different interpretations of “leadership” which created varying
expectations. Few of the existing documents mentioned the IASC generic Terms of Reference, which
defines the country-level cluster lead’s role primarily in terms of facilitating assessments, analysis,
planning, response and monitoring within a particular area of activity. The ToR appears to have been
seldom used by cluster leads, the HC, OCHA, or cluster participants to clarify roles and manage
expectations.

In “new emergencies” (e.g. Pakistan, Lebanon), using the cluster approach helped to bring greater
predictability to the response, by identifying clearer “leads.” For example, it was clearer in Lebanon then
it was in the initial phases of the Darfur operation, which agency was, in principle, responsible for
“leading” response in a particular area. Existing documents acknowledge that in both Pakistan and
Lebanon, large-scale loss of life was averted. However, it is not clear the extent to which more effective
leadership and coordination through the cluster approach contributed to successful outcomes.

Prior to the current humanitarian reform, the Internal Displacement Division (IDD) was tasked with
identifying gaps in response in eight situations of internal displacement, and to propose solutions to
ensure an effective collaborative response. Thus, IDD collected a good deal of information on major gaps
in the four ongoing emergencies that were selected by country teams and the IASC for implementation of
the cluster approach (DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda). Among the common gaps observed by the
IDD in each of the countries was: protection, emergency shelter, camp management (where camps
existed), return and reintegration and recovery in areas of return. All of these gaps are cited in the
Humanitarian Response Review. In addition, poor leadership at all levels (HC and sectoral) was often a
factor contributing to poor overall response.

The IDD, together with inter-agency, NGO and donor partners conducted a number of missions to each
of the “roll out” countries before and after the introduction of the cluster approach. Based on reports from
these missions, and other sources, it appears that some gaps are beginning to narrow despite delays due to
lack of funds for cluster leads to assume their new responsibilities, and lack of formal guidance about
cluster implementation. This appears to be helping to bring greater coherence to the overall response to
IDPs.

A more in-depth evaluation will be necessary to determine the impact of the cluster approach in
addressing the needs of vulnerable populations. That said, there is some evidence that gaps are beginning
to be addressed and capacity is beginning to be enhanced through, for example, expanded presence, inter-
agency assessments, gap analysis, and the development of common strategies. For example, in Uganda,
DRC and Somalia, protection presence has expanded and there is greater agreement on priorities
(although there are some questions as to the inclusivity of protection activities--see below under
partnership). In Uganda and DRC the cluster approach provided a greater opportunity and incentive for
relief and recovery organizations to collaborate more then they had to date on return and recovery efforts.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to create stronger partnerships between NGOs,
international organizations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and UN agencies to
address gaps in key areas of humanitarian response?

The documents submitted for the Desk Review suggest that the cluster approach has not yet helped to
significantly strengthen partnerships between UN and non-UN actors in humanitarian response.
However, the cluster approach has been a catalyst to begin a frank dialog at the headquarters and field

level between humanitarian organisations on the obstacles that make closer collaboration more difficult
(see Chairs’ Summary, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Action: A Dialogue Between UN
and Non-UN Humanitarian Organisations, 12-13 July 2006). The Dialogue agreed to establish a Global
Humanitarian Platform to formulate action plans for improving collaboration at the field level and
increasing strategic cooperation.

At the field level the application of the cluster approach—which raised expectations about increased
partnership and equality between UN and non-UN humanitarian organisations—has at times exposed
long-standing tensions and distrust between the various aid communities. In short, the pace of “roll out”
was far ahead of the attitude and behavioural changes needed within the system, and which now have an
opportunity to be addressed through the new Global Humanitarian Platform.

A key issue in both new and ongoing emergencies was that there was insufficient guidance on how to
feasibly realize “partnership” at the field level. One practical dilemma noted in various reviews of the
cluster application in Pakistan, Somalia and Lebanon was how to include national NGOs in a meaningful
way into strategic discussions. From the perspective of cluster leads and some OCHA staff, the issue was
how, practically speaking, to facilitate strategic discussions with dozens or hundreds of different
stakeholders. Concerns about diminishing returns of participation are real, and can lead to laundry lists of
activities and projects, rather then to agreed strategies and priorities. In short, the field level coordination
structures to facilitate valid partnership either do not yet exist or are inadequate.

A related issue is the extent to which individual NGOs can or should represent a “homogenous” or
“unified” “NGO perspective.” Given the myriad of international and national NGOs in a given
emergency (not to mention UN agencies), how do cluster leads and coordinators accommodate the
myriad of interests? An ICVA review of the roll out of the cluster approach in the DRC (March 2006)
highlights the dilemma of how existing coordination structures are insufficient:

“The selection process of the NGOs and the responsibilities around that NGO participation were
unclear; no terms of reference were developed explaining what participation entailed. There was no
clear discussion about who (if anyone) the NGOs in the HAG (Humanitarian Advocacy Group—the
primary coordination body in Kinshasa) represented. The “responsibilities” of the NGOs in the HAG
were also not clearly discussed or agreed. As such, there was no mechanism to feed in the views of other
NGOs to the HAG nor was there a mechanism to report back to other NGOs on what took place in the
HAG….. From the perspective of NGOs that participate in the HAG, as well as from the perspective of
those NGOS that do not, the NGOs attending the HAG do not represent anyone except themselves: they
participate in the meetings in their own right.”

The Red R/International Health Exchange “Report on Lessons Learnt, Emergency Shelter Cluster Hubs,
Pakistan” (February 2006) also highlights the above problem and suggests the development of “clear,
simple, easily translatable Terms of Reference setting out expectations and minimum requirements for
[cluster] members.”

Another key factor cited as an impediment to partnership is the competition for visibility—especially in
high-profile emergencies—which is invariably tied to competition for funding. Some NGOs and some
non-cluster lead UN agencies perceive that the cluster approach will necessarily prejudice donors to fund
cluster lead agencies, at the expense of other partners. Various pooled funding initiatives and the
CERF—which the General Assembly has agreed cannot be dispersed directly to NGOs—have done little
to allay this perception.

On the whole, despite the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative, donor behavior still often does little
to encourage collaboration. An academic working paper on the cluster approach by Ingar Falck Olsen
and Jan Hystad, commented that the cluster approach is perceived by some NGOs as a threat to their
autonomy and resource base. As a result, NGOs and UN agencies are “trapped in a ‘discourse of good
intentions,’ that does not allow them to voice their mixed feelings about the cluster approach… the best
alternative that remains is to say one thing and do the other [e.g. not collaborate in practice].” Olsen and
Hystad conclude that only donors can effectively shape an incentive system to reward collaboration, and
better results from joint humanitarian action.

The discussion on partnerships has focused primarily on non-UN humanitarian organizations. However,
it would be wrong to assume that UN agencies entirely buy-in to the cluster approach. Especially at the
field level, some agencies who have expertise in a given area of activity may see little incentive to being
a participant in a cluster that is led by another UN agency with a similar competence. Some non-cluster
lead agencies feel that the cluster approach gives exclusive visibility to “leads” to the detriment of
“members.”

Another area related to “partnerships” is the role of governments. The lack of specific IASC mention of
this matter in the earliest phases of the roll-out has caused some (including UN member states) to
conclude that the UN has positioned itself over government as the “lead” in humanitarian emergencies. In
some respects, this issue appears to have become overblown more by what was not explicitly said in
IASC guidance notes, than what was said. The current version of the IASC guidance note related to
clusters corrects this omission, stating the clear responsibility of the government for leading humanitarian
response, where appropriate, and the role of cluster leads to ensure cooperation among international
actors, appropriate linkages with government and local authorities, and capacity building.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to strengthen the accountability of Cluster Leads to
the Humanitarian Coordinator for different aspects of the humanitarian response where this is
lacking?

The long delay in providing cluster roll-out countries with specific guidance on the cluster approach,
with detailed terms of reference of cluster leads, meant that little progress was made in ensuring any
systematic accountability of cluster leads to HCs.

In some instances it was unclear, within cluster lead agencies, whether the cluster lead (individual)
should “report” to the HC directly, or through the agency’s Representative. In addition, the documents
suggest that overall, HCs may not have received much guidance and support in introducing the necessary
mechanisms to ensure effective implementation of the cluster approach. This appears to be especially
true for ongoing emergencies, where the cluster approach was often perceived as “imposed” by
headquarters and was in “competition” with existing coordination structures. In countries with new
emergencies, where there was no prior humanitarian coordination structure, the cluster approach
provided a clearer model for the division of labour and responsibilities.

According to the IASC ToR for HCs:

“The Humanitarian Coordinator is responsible for establishing and maintaining comprehensive
coordination mechanisms based on facilitation and consensus building. These mechanisms should be
inclusive of all the actors involved at the country level in the provision of humanitarian assistance and
protection, including in particular all locally represented members and standing invitees of the Inter-
Agency Standing Committee (IASC).”

Given the above, there are a number of issues arising in the various reviews to take into consideration:

•

In the four “roll out” countries, the cluster approach was initially added on as an extra layer of
coordination, without due consideration to rationalizing existing coordination mechanisms (this
has been corrected in some cases).

In Liberia, for example, this meant that the Early Recovery cluster was added to existing
recovery and development mechanisms.

In Somalia, the cluster groups appear to have been added to a number of existing
structures, some of which already included sector-based meetings similar to clusters.
While humanitarian agencies appear to have appreciated the establishment of clusters in
gap areas (particularly protection), there appeared to be no apparent justification—for
example—to maintain both a nutrition sector group and a nutrition cluster group. Ten
NGOs wrote to the HC in September 2006 calling for further rationalization of the
coordination arrangements, and reducing the number of meetings that were straining
limited NGO resources. [NB Apparently, these concerns are now being addressed.]

An ICVA report on cluster application in Uganda states “responsibility for the absence
of a focused, action-oriented humanitarian coordination structure, a clear humanitarian
strategy, and a lack of consolidated information management system falls squarely with
the HC.”

• The existing documents (for both new and ongoing emergencies) suggest that in most cases there

has been limited progress to establish mechanisms to ensure cross-sector collaboration, and to
ensure mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues, such as gender, HIV/AIDS, human rights and the
environment.

• Several documents suggest that some OCHA field offices did not always as active a role as

possible in promoting the cluster approach and in supporting its effective implementation.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to improve strategic field-level coordination and
prioritization?

Improving strategic field-level coordination and prioritization has been the subject of previous efforts to
strengthen humanitarian response, namely reform of the CAP (particularly efforts to improve strategic
planning through the CHAP), the Sphere Project, and Good Humanitarian Donorship (particularly efforts
to improve needs assessment and prioritization), among others. The current humanitarian reform,
including the cluster approach, has perhaps not been articulated strongly enough as a continuation of
previous efforts, and the result is that processes and tools that have been established previously have not
always been sufficiently linked to or utilized in the application of the cluster approach.

As a result, the cluster approach—in and of itself—appears to be running up against the same challenges
faced in previous attempts to improve strategic coordination and prioritization, without necessarily
drawing on the tools created in previous reforms to bolster success.

A lessons learned report produced by the Shelter Cluster following the Pakistan earthquake notes that
despite the existence of common tools and standards, most humanitarian organizations reverted to their
own assessment and planning tools and standards during the emergency, making it difficult to organize
around a common approach and work towards agreed objectives. A Red R/IOM review of the shelter
cluster in Pakistan notes “confusion” among stakeholders on the status and expected role of standards
and guidelines for cluster members in terms of “adherence to them, dissemination of them and resolution
of any differences.”

An IDD report on cluster implementation in Uganda (March 2006) noted that “following a coherent
approach [to protection] may prove to be a challenge given the respective mandates and programme
priorities of the [participating] organization. Ensuring that these activities together add up to an overall
improvement in the protection of IDPs will necessitate even greater coordination, prioritization and
monitoring.”

An ICVA report on cluster roll out in Uganda notes that “the majority of international NGOs appear as
project-driven with too little attention…to the effectiveness of the overall response…. On the whole, the
NGO programmes and projects come across as a patchwork lacking in structure or pattern. The total of
activities appears smaller then the sum of the parts.”

In both new and ongoing emergencies, the existing documents cite challenges to the internal management
of clusters. The degree to which internal management would directly affect success or failure of the
cluster approach may have initially been under estimated. Some of the main issues are:

• At the field level, each cluster took a different approach to their work, often picking and choosing

which elements of the generic cluster lead ToR they would implement. In Liberia, for example, this
resulted in different models for different sectors, which had a bearing on who participated
(government and NGOs) and the focus of work (from Summary Report of UNICEF visit to Liberia to
review the WASH cluster). The ToR was often not disseminated to cluster participants, making it

ANNEX 1

Existing reviews/evaluations of Humanitarian Reform implementation:

Background for IASC Interim Self-Assessment of Cluster Roll-Out Countries

(organized by date)

Document Title

Author/Source

Date

Humanitarian Response Review

Commissioned by the ERC and USG for
Humanitarian Affairs

August 2005

Various IASC documents related to the cluster
approach

IASC Secretariat

December 2005 – July 2006

Various OCHA/IDD/Inter-Agency mission
reports to cluster roll-out countries to DRC,
Liberia, Somalia and Uganda (pre and post cluster
roll out)

OCHA/Various IASC partners

December 2004 – March 2006

Background Paper 1: Strengthening NGO
Participation in the IASC

Beth Ferris

January 2006

Real time evaluation of the cluster approach in the
South Asia earthquake

IASC

February 2006

Report on Lessons Learnt: Emergency Shelter
Cluster Hubs, South Asia Earthquake, Pakistan

Red R/International Health Exchange

February 2006

The Evolving UN Cluster Approach in the
Aftermath of the Pakistan Earthquake: and NGO
Perspective

ActionAid

March 2006

Recommendations from the multi-donor mission
to Uganda 12-17 March

Donors (Canada, ECHO, Norway, Sweden,
United Kingdom, United States

March 2006

The Roll-out of the Cluster Approach in the DRC

ICVA

March 2006

Initial OCHA Observations on Implementation of
the Cluster Approach in DRC, Liberia and
Uganda

OCHA

April 2006

Uganda Trip Report, Observations

ICVA

May 2006

Response, Lessons, Follow-up Recommendations
(Pakistan)

Shelter Cluster

June 2006

ACF International Positioning vis-à-vis the
Reform of Clusters

Action Contre la Faim

June 2006

Liberia Review of WASH Cluster

WASH Cluster Support Team

July 2006

Background Paper 2: Enhancing UN / non-UN
Engagement at Field Level

ICVA, SCHR, InterAction, OCHA

July 2006

Background Paper 3: Overview of Consolidated
NGO Views in Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Humanitarian Action

ICVA, SCHR, InterAction, OCHA

July 2006

Background Paper 4: Summary Paper on the
Financing and Partnerships
between UN and non-UN Humanitarian
Organizations

ICVA, SCHR, InterAction, OCHA

July 2006

Chairs’ Summary: Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Humanitarian Action, a Dialogue between UN
and Non-UN Humanitarian Organizations

Jan Egeland, Beth Ferris

July 2006

Inter Agency Global WASH Cluster Review of
Java WASH Cluster

WASH Cluster

August 2006

ReliefWeb Usability Tests, Highlights of
Terminology Review “Cluster vs sector”

Telono (for ReliefWeb)

August 2006

Preliminary Findings and Recommendations:
Somalia Real-Time Evluation (Draft 1)

IASC Country Team, Somalia

August 2006

Email from Julie Dabo, Africa Humanitarian
Action to HRSU regarding the interim self
assessment of the cluster approach

Julie Dabo, Head of External Relations, Africa
Humanitarian Action

September 2006

Commentary on the Implementation and
Effectiveness of the Cluster Approach

Mercy Corps

September 2006

World Vision International Draft IWG Synthesis
Paper: Cluster Approach

World Vision International

September 2006

Comments on the Preliminary Guidance Note on
the Cluster Approach

Danish Refugee Council

September 2006

PowerPoint Presentation on lessons learned from
the Cluster Approach in the DRC (for Nairobi
regional workshop on Humanitarian Reform)

Andy Wyllie, OCHA Kinshasa

September 2006

PowerPoint Presentation on lessons learned from
the Cluster Approach in Somalia (for Nairobi
regional workshop on Humanitarian Reform)

On behalf of humanitarian organizations working
in Somalia

September 2006

Letter from 10 NGOs to Eric LaRoche, RC/HC
for Somalia

Danish Refugee Council, Oxfam Novib, Oxfam
GB, Concern Worldwide, UNA Consortium, Save
the Children UK, Gedo Health Consortium, Care
International, ACF, NGO SPAS

September 2006

End of Mission Report: ProCap Deployment with
UNHCR, Bunia, DRC

Irene Schmid, ProCap

September 2006

WASH Cluster PowerPoint Presentation to donors
post Lebanon emergency

WASH

September 2006

Planned Inter Agency Global WASH Cluster
Review of DRC

WASH Cluster

Planned for September 2006

Real Time Evaluation of UNHCR’s Role in the
Lebanon Emergency

UNHCR

October 2006

Keeping Recovery on Course: challenges facing
the Pakistan earthquake response one year on

Oxfam International

October 2006

Evaluations by Key Counterparts of the
Emergency Response in Lebanon

Key actors in the Lebanon response

October 2006

ToR for Review of the Emergency Shelter
Coordination Group operating from Yogyakarta,
Indonesia

IFRC

Expected in early October

Review of the Horn of Africa

OCHA ESU

Will be completed in October 2006

Working Paper: Negotiating Institutions in the
Market for Humanitarian Relief: A Study of the
Shaping of the Cluster Approach for Inter-
Organizational Coordination

Ingar Falck Olsen and Jan Hystad

Not dated

Annex 5

UGANDA

‘IN-COUNTRY SELF ASSESSMENT’

25 – 26 October 2006

INTRODUCTION
The Analytical Framework and Key Questions were distributed to the humanitarian community in Uganda
to the IASC, the UN Country Team, and through the OCHA sub offices to all NGOs working in the
districts.

The half-day meeting to discuss views was convened in Kampala. Attendees included UNICEF, WFP,
WHO, Save the Children, Oxfam, ICRC, ECHO, COOPI, GOAL, IRC, ACF, UNHCR, World Vision,
Caritas, AVSI, FAO, UNFPA, UNDP, OHCHR and the Humanitarian Coordinator. Some NGO
participants came from Lira and Pader, two of the conflict affected districts, to convey the views of the
non-UN community. All cluster leads and sub clusters participated. In total approximately 35 NGOs
participated, including through the written submission of information from Gulu, in the Self Assessment
of the Cluster Approach in Uganda, providing strong views and recommendations.

OVERVIEW OF KEY OBSERVATIONS
The Cluster approach was introduced with the visit of Dennis McNamara (OCHA) in November 2005. At
the outset, there was minimal consultation with the field and as such it was viewed as UN imposed reform,
thus limiting buy-in. Current understanding of the evolution of the Humanitarian Reform Agenda,
including the Humanitarian Response Review is minimal. Moreover, many viewed it as being a system
whereby funds would be channeled through UN agencies, an HQ driven process that did not allow any
time for preparation in country. Today it is clear that the concept is only now reaching those at the district
level. However many, especially in the NGO community accepted that the response in Uganda needed
improvement and acknowledged the potential of the cluster approach in addressing the required change,
but stated that the approach has yet to be fully rolled-out, especially at the district level.

The NGO community expressed appreciation for the formation and value of the IASC Country Team in
Kampala in the spirit of ‘partnership building.’ However, it is felt that the approach has yet to utilize the
best of NGO presence, especially in the districts.

While some see the cluster approach as a natural progression from the already functioning sector working
groups, the majority view it as a completely new phenomenon, which has caused some resistance. In some
ways the importance of the Reform Agenda has been diminished given the numerous missions and pilot
initiatives that have been introduced in the country. Today, the objectives of the approach remain unclear,
and there is an obvious need for continued training and education, which began in earnest only two
months ago.

Individual cluster/sector guidance has been sporadic when it has been provided but by and large there has
been very little in practical guidance from either the Global Cluster Leads, OCHA at large or lead agency
HQs. In addition the confusion between ‘cluster’ and ‘sector’ as terms has not been helpful. The resulting
vacuum has lead to various interpretations and misinterpretations of the cluster approach. For example,
cluster leadership is contingent upon the physical presence of the lead agency, rather than partnership
building with those organizations with existing capacity. This has hindered the response. In the same vein,
clusters are now receiving resources to increase their presence, although this comes only in the last few
months. In this regard some of the UN Cluster leads strongly felt that the current assessment of the impact
of the cluster approach is far too soon, with discussions being academic rather than realistic. The
Preliminary Guidance Note reached Uganda six months after the humanitarian community was asked to
implement the approach. The comparative advantage of the cluster approach is yet to be seen. Moreover it

was strongly felt that whilst the Global Cluster Leads have now acquired 22 million USD through the
Global Cluster Appeal, the practical support provided to the field for implementation, both in terms of
guidance, technical support, resources and tools has been nominal at best.

In retrospect, had the cluster approach been introduced in a phased manner with sufficient information,
clear timelines and benchmarks based on consultation with the field, one may have been able to see
further progress. However there is a current momentum to speed things up, and get out of ‘business as
usual.’ The humanitarian community in Uganda has suggested that consistent support from headquarters
in establishing the proper mechanisms, rather than short and periodic missions, may be a more worthwhile
support for implementation. Moreover, stakeholders acknowledged that the most challenging aspect of the
cluster approach, is the ‘change in mindset’ required, especially amongst UN agencies, in addressing their
new role as facilitators within a more inclusive cluster meeting of active organizations. In this regard the
continued sensitization of the humanitarian community in Uganda, coupled with reinforced guidance and
proper investment in each cluster, would make a ‘reformed’ response more feasible and rewarding. Given
the reality of the roll out thus far, any formal review will be regarded as inappropriate and futile if
undertaken before the end of 2007.

Did the cluster approach help to clearly identify gaps in sectors/areas of response and
ensure predictable leadership and adequate response in these sectors/areas?

There is a general feeling that the Cluster Approach has not been properly ‘rolled-out’ in Uganda, and as a
result the understanding of the purpose of the Approach is limited. A common question such as the
difference between a ‘cluster’ and a ‘sector’ remain troublesome. Furthermore, discussions to reconcile
the approach with existing government structures to avoid parallel decision making processes has yet to be
completed.

Predictable leadership is still in formation in Uganda. It provides a perspective of something new that is
felt is a strong and important step towards a better response.

he appointment of Cluster leads and

distribution of their contact details is limited at the national level. Most individuals had cluster leadership
added to their existing full-time job. The recruitment of dedicated cluster coordinators is on going and this
is expected to improve the facilitation of the response in clusters with the arrival of dedicated staff in the
next two months. However there remains, in some cases, a lack of understanding of the actual role of the
Cluster Lead by the Cluster leads themselves, this ties into the previously mentioned issue of the need for
a change of mindset. It was stated that some clusters currently are viewed simply as only the lead agency
with its implementing partners. This prevents a major objective of the reform: more inclusive meetings
amongst all actors which thereby strengthens the partnership of UN and non UN actors.

It is difficult to ascertain whether the approach has helped to clearly identify gaps in response
compared to previous mechanisms. The previous sectoral working groups conducted needs assessments
that identified gaps to a certain extent, however this is still need for improvement. Stakeholders
acknowledge that at the very least, it ‘has us thinking.’ Whilst the cluster approach may have helped in
identifying some gaps, “adequate response” has by no means taken place.

To cite one example, in Pader district NGOs strongly state that the cluster approach has yet to be
implemented and gaps still need to be filled. In some cases (watsan, health, food security and protection)
the cluster lead is not present, and in the absence of a cluster lead it is unclear who should fill their shoes.
Meetings are irregular and attendance is also, in some cases is very low. Simple mapping tools (who,
what, where) are yet to be fully utilized, thus limiting the possibility of strategic planning and
harmonization of activities. Common cluster/sector work plans have yet to be developed and as such there
is duplication, especially in the watsan area. Priorities are established at the national level with little
field consultation. The theory of Cluster ‘leadership’ differs to that in practice and lends to confusion.

Participants Recommendations

The role of the Cluster Lead (or designated focal point), and subsequent coordination amongst
lead agencies must be clarified and reinforced in order to avoid duplication.

Common information management tools to assist with gap identification are required.
A ‘briefing package’ for newly arrived actors would reduce overlaps.
NGOs requested that their role as a potential ‘Cluster lead’ should be discussed at the Kampala
level, as well as clarity on the role of the responsibilities of the Cluster Lead at national level vis-
à-vis district level.
Humanitarian Reform sensitization needs to be continued.

II.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to create stronger partnership between NGOs,
international organizations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and UN agencies
to address gaps in key areas of humanitarian response?

There is a greater spirit of collaboration in terms of partnership building, but the process of
institutionalizing the cluster approach has been slow. NGOs acknowledged that their involvement in the
IASC, and the transparent and open manner in which the Humanitarian Coordinator has lead the meeting
has been encouraging. There is an increase in the participation of international NGOs, but the same
cannot be said for national NGOs.

Some NGOs were uncertain that the changes found in meetings were the result of the cluster approach.
NGOs expressed the need for a uniformed strategy amongst the cluster leads in the activation of the
cluster approach, with benchmarks within a clear roadmap. In Lira it is felt that participation of
NGOs has lessened due to the increase in the number of meetings, a contradiction to the spirit of the
cluster approach. Whilst the UN may turn to their respective headquarters for guidance, there is not
always such a counterpart available to the non-UN community, and the NGO consortia at the global level
have yet to fulfill this role.

There was concern that the Government has yet to be brought fully on board with the process. In some
cases the lack of government presence in meeting has limited the discussion of participants who see them
as the decision making-body. There is a need to balance the humanitarian response with capacity building
of the national authorities. It is still too early to see the impact in terms of beneficiaries.

The key components of the cluster approach, this being the ‘provider of last resort’ and
‘accountability’ required further clarity, especially in terms of the role of NGOs as cluster participants.

Recommendations

Clear steps towards capacity building of national NGOs and national authorities is required.
Need for reform sensitization and‘re-packaging’ the cluster approach from that of a ‘new’ model,
to a system that aims to ‘strengthen’ existing mechanisms.

• It would be useful in the Guidance Note to outline the difference between the management

relationship of the UN agency and an implementing partner with the facilitation relationship of the
cluster lead with cluster participants.

III.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to strengthen the accountability of Cluster
Leads to the Humanitarian Coordinator for different aspects of the humanitarian Response
where this is lacking?

In practice ‘accountability’ to the Humanitarian Coordinator needs further improvement. There is a
moderate amount of support provided by the Clusters leads to the HC and vice versa, which must be
strengthened. It must be stated that there was little information regarding the issue of accountability at the
beginning of the roll out. This is slowly improving, and as all stakeholders begin to understand and
concept, especially that it is ‘two-way’, positive results are expected. Meetings are currently focused on
information sharing, rather than decision making, and this too affects the level of participation.

The question was raised as to how to balance cluster accountability with interventions in an environment
where the Government of Uganda has ultimate responsibility. Furthermore, NGOs felt that
accountability is primarily to donors not to the cluster, cluster lead or the government.

The larger question of ‘leverage’ remains. What is the incentive for accountability? Without an incentive,
beyond funding (the CAP is over 75% funded), it is difficult to formalize accountability mechanisms.

Participants Recommendations

The capacity of Cluster Leads must be enhanced (IM support, support from Global
Cluster leads, technical support etc…) and they in turn must be proactive in promoting
information sharing and coherent strategies.
Guidance on the responsibility of cluster participants is required.
Clear definition of accountability beyond the fund-raising tool is required. (Accountable
to whom? How? – Can you be expelled from a cluster? Can you be demoted from Cluster
lead? What are the benchmarks, who reviews performance, who ultimately decides?)

IV.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to improve strategic field-level coordination
and prioritization?

Strategic planning and prioritization at the field level is improving, but there is still a long way to go.
However there is little operational field level coordination at present. Linkages between clusters have
yet to be addressed. Some clusters appear to have agency work plans ‘knitted’ together to form cluster
work plans.

Integration of early recovery into planning is still a work in progress. Cross cutting issues for the most
part integrated into cluster strategies. Although Human Rights is a cross cutting issue, there is a feeling
that had it not been made a cluster, it would not have been properly addressed.

In order for proper prioritization, planning and coordination to take place an inclusive and standard needs
assessment framework is required. In this regard promotion of the NAF (Needs Analysis Framework) as
a comprehensive assessment tool for clusters would be useful. The Food Security sector’s utilization of
the NAF has proved extremely beneficial as a foundation for the CHAP / CAP.

The issue of cluster membership, or participation, needs to be addressed. It is felt that a strong
emphasis on ‘added value’ is required. Moreover in order to have participants ‘sign-on’ to cluster
strategies, participants must have a certain level of responsibility. When there are large numbers is
meetings, with representatives who are not equipped to take decisions, decision-making is hard and
progress limited. Consistent measures should be undertaken to ensure clusters are as inclusive a possible.

Terminology must also be addressed. In Uganda the Food Security, Shelter, Non-Food Items, and
Education Sectors, whilst remaining as sectors due to the understanding that they are not key gaps, operate
along the lines of the cluster approach. Therefore converting Food, Education, Shelter, and Non-Food
Items into clusters, with sector leads fulfilling the TORs of a Cluster Lead, would be help maintain
consistency and avoid confusion.

The success of the Cluster Approach depends largely on leadership and human resources. Placing the
right staff, with the appropriate background and skills, in the appropriate positions can make all
the difference. Profiles of staff within the cluster approach, in particular cluster coordinators, must be
revisited and recruitment policies streamlined.

Participants Recommendations

A comprehensive plan to disseminate the approach, especially to the Government, is required.
Promotion of the NAF and the development of clear lines of reporting and reporting formats, both
internally and externally, would be useful.
Full time cluster coordinators are essential.
Improved technical support and stand-by resources from Global lead to country level is required.

Annex 1

Cluster/Sector

What worked well/achievements

What did not work well/gaps

Food Security
(sector) –
FAO/WFP

•

Clear mapping and identification of maps

•

Most positive contributor to the CAP.

•

Coverage of gaps to be worked on.

•

Limited common methodology of data
collection and analysis.

•

Lack of clarity on whether a sector or
cluster. Fulfilling the TORs of a CL
needs to be addressed.

Health/Nutrition/
HIV/AIDS –
UNICEF

•

Work Plan/Strategy – joint
programming

•

Mapping

•

Better coordinated response.

•

More inclusive participation of
stakeholders.

•

Training

•

Some guidelines developed

•

Advocacy for better health care in
camps/returns areas.

•

Incorporation of HIV/AIDS
challenging

•

District level coordination, weaker
than the national level.

•

Reporting needs improvement

•

Need to harmonize tools for service
delivery.

•

Responsibility for filling gaps
according to comparative advantage.

•

Need to be proactive with the
government.

•

Information from assessments
sometimes 3 months late.

Education (sector)
– UNICEF

•

Joint needs assessments and standard
setting.

•

Improved information flow amongst
organizations and reporting.

•

Strategy developed.

•

Improved linkages with other relevant
clusters needed.

Wat/San –
UNICEF

•

Segregation of duties has been useful.

•

Useful in presenting ideas to the
districts.

•

Coordination improved

•

Mapping enabled gap identification.

•

Recruited a full time cluster
coordinator (L5) underway.

•

Least advanced, poorly managed.

•

Suffering from a developmental
approach.

•

Sub contracting may have to be
considered.

•

Indicators decided upon late – lack of
consultation with members.

•

Situation in districts variable.

•

Stronger focus on resourcing the
cluster required.

•

Need a full time coordinator for each
sector at a national level.

•

Coordination presence required at the
district level.

•

No clarity on whether other agencies
can take this on in the absence of the
CL

•

Need to turn info into action.

•

Lot of work done but improvement
needed.

•

Slow and irregular updating of
information

Protection – HCR

•

Protection strategy developed

•

Coordination of return-guiding
principles for return movements

•

Freedom of movement at the centre of
the Protection strategy with
government endorsement

•

CCCM not clearly defined and
developed

•

Process unclear, membership criteria
excluded some; precise status as a
cluster/sub-cluster etc

•

No/little link between protection data
and response

•

Confusion over relationships and roles
between and of leads and membership

•

Lack of capacity (cluster lead
presence) in Kitgum and Pader

•

Access has been a major constraint in
response-predate implementation of
the cluster

•

Talking about the same issues in many
different meetings due to number of
sub clusters.

Protection sub
cluster
Camp
Management -
HCR

•

Gulu and Lira-agreement with NGOs
for Camp Managers;

•

Background: Formed as was decided
protection would be improved in
camps through establishment of a
CMCC.

•

Too many camps (258)

•

Lack of clarity in the strategy and
goals of

•

Very late start ( Aug 06)

•

HC’s political decision (status as a
sub-cluster) – to keep HCR working
on CM.

•

Instead of mainstreaming protection in
camp management, limited the
activities of CM that do not now
correspond to traditional activities of a
CM cluster.

•

Current debate as to whether it should
be separated.

Protection sub
cluster
SGBV - UNICEF

•

Forum for information sharing

•

Better planning (CAP)

•

Strategy expedited by the cluster.

•

Training of stakeholders in the field

•

Started a process of mapping referral
chain.

•

Largely due to previous work of
UNICEF

•

Limiting as other gender issues fall
between the cracks, ie. Access to food,
tend to focus on sexual violence.

•

Felt that it would be better to have a
‘Gender Cluster’

Protection sub
cluster
Child Protection -
UNICEF

•

Trainings have taken place

•

Common tools developed

•

Increased number of beneficiaries
reached

•

Sub cluster strategy - roll out at
district level

•

Failed to develop a common referral
tool

•

Has not changed from previous
structure – no real added value.

•

Limited human resources.

Protection sub
cluster
Human Rights –
OHCHR

•

Strategy now in place, but was put
together before the cluster was
established.

•

No real change

Annex 4

SOMALIA

‘IN-COUNTRY SELF ASSESSMENT’

30 October 2006

INTRODUCTION
The Somalia IASC took the initiative to request that Somalia be added to the pilot countries with purpose of
enhancing the profile of Somalia. The IASC is led by the HC with participation of 7 UN agencies, 7 NGOs and
with ICRC as an observer. The IASC holds regular consultations with donors. The piloting of the clusters
model coincided with the onset of drought conditions in early 2006 (the worst in a decade), which exacerbated
an already dire humanitarian situation. To date there are 8 clusters in place namely Food (led by WFP),
Agriculture & Livelihoods (led by FAO and co-chaired by ASEP, a local NGO), Health (led by WHO),
Nutrition (led by UNICEF), Water/sanitation (led by UNICEF), Education (led by UNICEF), Protection (led by
UNHCR) and Logistics (led by WFP), most of the clusters were established in January 2006.

Roll-out of clusters at field level was hampered by limited humanitarian access except for Bakool and Bay
regions (where local reconciliation efforts enhanced humanitarian access); Wajid (Bakool region) became the
hub for coordination at field level, mainly as of March onwards. Meetings in other regions were held on an ad-
hoc basis and Nairobi remained the base for more regular coordination meetings.

It must be noted that security and absence of sustained humanitarian access in south-central Somalia (where
humanitarian needs are most acute), represent key challenges impacting assessments, coordination, gap filling
and the overall response.

Overview of methodology
The Analytical Framework was distributed to the UN and non-UN community prior to the half-day workshop.
Initial written feedback was received from the Education, Watsan and Nutrition clusters. The workshop
included 22 participants (8 national NGOs, 4 international NGOs and 7 UN Agencies.)

KEY OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Did the cluster approach help to clearly identify gaps in sectors/areas of response and ensure
predictable leadership and adequate response in these sectors/areas?

The clusters have developed during the course of the year with individual performance varying greatly. It is
acknowledged that this is still a learning process and as such it is too early to draw conclusions. Most
clusters made efforts to map ongoing activities in their respective areas of expertise, which facilitated a certain
level of coherence and limited large-scale duplications. Few clusters managed to conduct interagency
assessments, as mentioned above security and lack of sustained access were among the major constraints.

It is generally felt that the approach has helped to identify gaps. However there is ambiguity as to the extent to
which the cluster approach itself has resulted in an adequate response. Some felt that progress in response was
largely due to the drought itself, rather than the application of the cluster approach, arguing as to how exactly
the impact of the approach and subsequent gap filling and response would be measured. While the clusters
initially focused on drought response, in progress the clusters’ activities expanded to cover other relevant
humanitarian issues including displacements and contingency planning.

Prior to the application of the cluster approach there were a large number of overlaps, which have been and
continue to be addressed. Furthermore there is greater prioritization of activities, which helped to avoid
overlap. The gaps are known, but have yet to be comprehensively addressed. Humanitarian actors

Revised on 2 November 2006.

acknowledged that with the application of the cluster approach protection has finally been placed on the
agenda.

Concerning predictable leadership, the overall humanitarian reform is seen to be UN centric, with the
general feeling that “if you want predictable leadership, you need a leader that is acceptable to everyone.” The
appointment of cluster leads provides stakeholders with a ‘port of call,’ however, the ability of cluster leads to
address gap filling and act as provider of last resort is weak. Neither NGOs nor the UN realistically have the
capacity to fulfill the role of ‘provider of last resort’ in the context of Somalia.

Some of the issues addressed in this section will be revisited in the following questions.

Recommendations

There is need for better dissemination of the roles of the cluster leads.
The process of appointment of cluster leads (through the IASC) needs to be better publicized .
Dedicated cluster leads/ coordinators (individuals) are required.
Before implementing the cluster approach, a proper analysis of existing coordination mechanism is
required.
Success of local NGO co-chair leads has been seen in the Livelihoods cluster. Replicating this model in
other clusters should be considered, along with related criteria.
In Somaliland and Puntland, clusters should be considered within the already established sector
coordination structures, lead by the Government. Where there is no coordination in place, the cluster
approach should be used as a starting point.
Practical challenges of national NGOs participating in the cluster approach, needs to be addressed.

II.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to create stronger partnership between NGOs,
international organizations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and UN agencies to
address gaps in key areas of humanitarian response?

Some NGOs stated that their drought response operations were already running before the cluster approach was
introduced, and with their long term experience in Somalia were equipped to carry out assessments, develop
and implement response without being tied to a broader coordination mechanisms. As in the past, many
agencies coordinated at field level and not at the Nairobi level. In general, operational presence and capacity of
UN agencies and NGOs remain limited, particularly in central and south Somalia.

With the engagement of the NGOs at country-level IASC, the approach has contributed to more inclusive
decisions making at a strategic level. A number of INGOs are preparing position documents on the Cluster
Approach, which should trickle down to the field level to ensure that positions are organizational rather than
individual. It was acknowledged that few INGOs operating in Somalia have information on how involved
their agency is at Geneva level and this creates inconsistencies in positions and approaches.

UN post-drought analysis highlighted NGO capacity as a challenge to adequate drought response. NGOs felt
the pressure placed upon them by the cluster leads was unwarranted as NGOs were responding based on
their capacity which depended more on the availability of adequate human resources than availability of funds.

The fact that NGOs could only access CERF funds through a UN agency was felt to reinforce the UN-
centricity of the humanitarian reform. NGOs do not wish to be too closely associated with the UN when
there is a perception of the blurring of lines between the political and humanitarian mandate.

While some clusters endeavored to apply common standards, approaches to partnerships remain largely
inconsistent, including contractual arrangements, hampering the speed and efficiency of operations and
undermining trust among the various partners. The concept of partnership needs further exploration and debate,
as a sub-contractual arrangement is not true partnership.

Revised on 2 November 2006.

Partnership in the Somalia context seems to be funding related. Some felt that NGOs are viewed as
implementers with the cluster lead agency taking the role of the donor and ‘leader’. The spirit of partnership
on equal footing is hence seen as problematic under the current cluster system. . Equal partnerships
require a change of mind-sets and building of mutual trust.

A considerable portion of the humanitarian response has been mobilized through informal channels engaging
business communities, Diaspora and Islamic charities. These initiatives, some far more significant than
international community contributions, have not been adequately documented. Engagement with these key
actors, including with non-traditional donors, must be strengthened.

Partnership and meaningful consultation with local authorities and affected communities is almost non-
existent in some areas. Field consultations were often conducted in an ad-hoc manner with more emphasis on
donor requirements than beneficiary input. Main challenges include restricted humanitarian access and
lack of effective government institutions to support implementation of projects. Unified positions vis-à-vis
local authorities have yet to be realized.

As many INGOs are able to access funds directly, there is little advantage seen in accessing money
through the cluster. There is strong feeling that independence, neutrality and commitments to agency strategic
objectives must be protected. The ‘value-added’ of funds being channeled through UN agencies was also
questioned. However, the approach strengthens potential funding for national NGOs.

In Somalia, donors have participated in cluster meetings and invited proposals. Many proposals were
submitted by the INGO directly to the donor without input from the cluster lead. For the NGOs, this
method is workable. For the UN however it shows a lack of support by the donors for the cluster approach.
Whilst the aim of the cluster approach is to pull everyone together under a single strategic plan, with a single
funding appeal, donors often approach individual agencies and NGOs, in contradiction to the spirit of the
approach

Partnerships depend on the good will of agencies and require a conscious effort to build trust over time. This
trust will allow for equal debate and analysis of the issues rather than agencies protecting their position. It is
possible to strike a balance – protect independence and work successfully within the clusters. One cluster –
Livelihoods identified a national NGO co-chair, which worked well. This approach was not successful in other
clusters.
Partnership and accountability are inextricably linked.

Recommendations

The role of donors within the cluster approach, in particular the relationship with NGO and UN
agencies, must be assessed and relevant recommendations made.
The balance of power within a cluster (UN versus international NGOs and national NGOs)
must be recognized and steps taken within the cluster to address equity.
Roll-out of the approach must respect the autonomy of the agencies/organizations.
UN, NGOs and donors who want to work with local partners need to build their own capacity
with regards to monitoring and support systems that are required.

III.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to strengthen the accountability of Cluster Leads to
the Humanitarian Coordinator for different aspects of the humanitarian Response where this is
lacking?

Accountability remains rhetoric, as there is no clarity on what happens if a cluster lead cannot fulfill its
responsibilities. Global cluster leads must commit to supporting the country cluster leads in terms of finances
and personnel. Each cluster lead agency requires a designated full-time cluster lead person. This would serve
to separate the role of the cluster lead from the mandate of the agency, which to date has been
problematic. A dedicated cluster lead needs to be of a person of high caliber with emergency

Revised on 2 November 2006.

coordination experience who can pull actors together, provide a vision to the process, and develop
consultative work plans with agreed upon indicators and benchmarks.

Some NGOs feel that they are viewed as implementers with the cluster lead agency taking the role of
donor and leader. This raises issues on ‘partnership’ and the aspect of equality in this partnership and also of
accountability. If, as in the case of Somalia, the Cluster lead is not in a position to implement at all nor act as
the provider of last resort, pressure is placed on NGOs to expand and when the gaps are not covered, NGOs are
cited as (part of )the problem.

Some NGOs also feel that ‘accountability’ within the cluster is questionable, especially if an agency has
independent resources and is not looking for funding from within the cluster. In these cases, it is a relationship
of information –sharing rather than the cluster coordinating the activities of an agency and reporting successes
of that agency as a ‘cluster’ achievement.

A large number of field-based staff of both UN and NGOs lack seniority and are not empowered to make
decisions on behalf of their organizations, which limits the effectiveness of coordination forums held at field
level.

Capacity building of local partners needs to be supported with adaptations in funding and reporting
systems to ensure mutual accountability.

Recommendations

Indicators and targets should be derived from a cluster consultative process that includes the
beneficiaries to ensure a more effective response.
Careful recruitment of suitable dedicated cluster coordinators/leads is important as this serves
to strengthen accountability within a cluster.
In addition to dedicated cluster leads, for Somalia, clusters must also have field-based
coordinators and adequate resources to facilitate the implementation

IV.

To what extent did the cluster approach help to improve strategic field-level coordination and
prioritization?

The clusters model has generated an opportunity to handle humanitarian concerns in a comprehensive
manner, and there is general improvement in field level coordination, however there is still a disconnect
between Nairobi and the field which must be addressed. Efforts have been made to ensure complementarity
amongst the clusters. Most cluster leads eventually drew up joint response plans, mainly for the drought
response. These varied from cluster to cluster ranging from stocktaking of ongoing/planned interventions to
more strategic planning including prioritization. Whilst there was greater information sharing, coordination
of strategies needs to be improved. Little attention has been paid to cross cutting themes such as gender
and HIV/AIDS.

In Somalia, some clusters are not in accordance with global arrangements, namely Livelihoods, Food and
education. While the need for flexibility at country level is recognized, this diversion from globally agreed
frameworks questions leadership at global level.

Whilst it may be too early to evaluate the roll out of the cluster approach, the assessment allows for
corrections and adjustments in the evolution of the approach.

Some clusters experienced rapid turnover of their leads and some assumed this new responsibility as an
additional task to their regular job functions, which impacted negatively on the response. Support from Global
Clusters has been good in some cases, with guidance and technical support, but weak in others.

Harmonizing cluster coordination processes with the existing coordination mechanism caused some confusion
in the beginning, creating a parallel coordination structure, rather that ‘strengthening’ existing

Revised on 2 November 2006.

mechanisms. This inevitably led to more meeting and requests for information that in turn reduced
participation and buy-in, especially from the NGOs and some UN agencies, who felt that more time was spent
on providing information than being operational. Furthermore some agencies felt uncomfortable with
decision making taking place within the cluster, especially in their absence. In an effort to rationalize
meetings , a decision was made to merge the sectoral working groups and the clusters of health,
water/sanitation and education. The nutrition stakeholders recognized the need for common nutrition sectoral
working group and cluster meetings and have embedded the cluster coordination issues into the existing
coordination without compromising the accountability on the emergency needs.

It is felt that the success of the cluster approach depends on the goodwill of participants. Much of the success
in coordination is personality based and thus the recruitment and human resources aspect of the cluster
approach must be carefully considered, with the recruitment of staff with the right profile for the right job.

To support coordination good quality information management is required. This has to date been rather
weak across some of the clusters.

Furthermore,

there has been confusion on who take ultimate

responsibility for managing information. A proactive approach to gathering information is required, but this
raises the question as to the usefulness of the information itself. Information and the interpretation of data
must be meaningful and inclusive.

Recommendations

Dedicated information management for each cluster is required.
Clarification on the role of OCHA within the cluster approach, as well as their position on information
management is required.
Support from Global clusters must be better publicized and more rapidly disbursed.
As above, recruitment of suitable dedicated cluster coordinators/leads as well as field based
coordinators will bridge the disconnect between Nairobi and the field.

Revised on 2 November 2006.

Annex 1

(This does not include all clusters, but only those who have provided information. Many other agencies
participated in the self-assessment workshop which did not cover the attached matrix.)

Clusters

What worked well / achievements

What did not work well / gaps

Emergency Shelter

The establishment of the Emergency Shelter is in process and the cluster is yet to be endorsed by the
IASC in November. The first comprehensive approach to shelter has taken place over the last three
months bringing all actors working in this area together for the first time. The Shelter cluster has now
provided joint projects for the 2007 CAP and are awaiting the outcome as the real test to whether
strategic planning works.

Health

Mapping of heath facilities & dissemination of
information
Identification of gaps
Development of response plans (mainly for
drought-affected areas in south Somalia)
Appointment of a dedicated cluster focal point at
field level (based in Wajid)

High turn over of cluster leads
The cluster could have worked
within the existing sectoral working
group)
Room for improvement regarding
strategic planning

Camp Coordination
and management

Not relevant

Wat/San

Ability to quantify the impact stating that
following

the

cluster

approach,

62%

beneficiaries were accessed compared to 42%
previously.
Application of common standards
Development of response plans (mainly for
drought-affected areas in south Somalia)

Some standards were not realistic given
the context of Somalia

Nutrition

The cluster was embedded with the nutrition
sectoral working group at an early stage and
hence the number of meetings was rationalized
Effective early warning and monitoring
Standardized

protocols

the

malnutrition

management and the assessment procedures
Number

selective

feeding

programmes

increased e.g. SFP sites increased from 9 (in
April) to 34 (in Oct) in the five most drought
affected regions;
The number

children

rehabilitated/under

rehabilitation

the

selective

feeding

programmes has increased significantly
Mapping of programmes and elaborate gap
analysis
Intervention data bases updated regularly
The

integrated

programming

concept

well

embraced though yet to be realized

Availability of partners with capacity to
implement

particular

nutrition

programmes
Insecurity hindered expansion plans
Insecurity

hindered

coordination

meetings in some areas of concern
Resource inadequacy (funds, qualified
staff to implement highly specialized
nutrition programmes)
Integrated programme implementation
taking time to be initiate

Logistics

Integrated Logistics Cluster Database, pooling of
resources (joint use of cargo by air & sea,
overland transport & warehouses), identification
of bottlenecks & advocacy
Within 6 weeks, logistics capacity (tonnage
moved) increased 5x, new corridors opened up to
respond to the drought,

Cluster

deactivated

without

clear

decisions being communicated to cluster
members

Emergency
Telecommunication

Not relevant

Revised on 2 November 2006.

Clusters

What worked well / achievements

What did not work well / gaps

Protection

Putting Protection finally on the agenda and identification
of protection gaps
Initiatives established by the Protection Cluster include
Population Movement Tracking, Protection Monitoring
Network , IDP profiling exercise (first phase completed),
strengthening protection capacities through training of
trainers, IASC joint IDP strategy in place

Focus mainly on gap analysis
& coordination with minimal
operational response
Poor field presence in south-
central

Early Recovery

The notion of Early Recovery as a cross-cutting issue with
relevance to each Cluster, and particular relevance to the
Somali situation, was adopted across the board.
Early Recovery has been established as a “Working Group”
and not a Cluster. Roll-out is beginning at end-2006.
The Somalia Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP)
and area-based coordination by the RC’s office will
provide a framework for interventions.

Confusion over the evolving
definition of Early Recovery
during the CAP process.
The Working Group needs to
further sharpen the working
definition of Early Recovery
within the Cluster context.
The Working Group should
also aim to clarify how the
Working Group relates to the
Clusters,

ensure

Early

Recovery is treated onwards
both as a cross-cutting and
cluster issue.

Revised on 2 November 2006.

Clusters

What worked well / achievements

What did not work well / gaps

Education

Coordinated response among different actors (NGOs and
UN Agencies); Mobilization of Resources; Accountability
of the emergency response.
Mobilization of resources on behalf of partners
Involvement of key stakeholders
More than 20,000 pupils enabled to resume schooling (54%
of target), emergency school feeding program developed
(UNICEF, WFP & other educational partners)

Logistic difficulties.
Despite

the

immediate

mobilization of agencies
and

donors

for

the

drought response, delays
in

the

funding

release

resulted

delayed

response from the partner
NGOs.
Lack of reliable partners
in the Juba and southern
Gedo regions resulted in
partial geographical gaps
of the response plan.
Security

problems

and

difficult access to certain
location

resulted

difficulties in monitoring
the response at field level.

The volatile political
situation

prevented

effective

involvement of

the

national

authorities

for

the

drought

response
Nairobi based cluster
meetings

probably

resulted in a poor
involvement of

the

affected population.
Inadequate

capacity

building of national
institutions

national NGOs
Lack of clear link
between

relief

and

development at the
early phases

Livelihoods

Coordination at strategic level, provision of technical
expertise & guidance by the cluster lead
Strong engagement of national NGOs, a national NGO has
co-chaired the cluster
Development of response plans (mainly for drought-
affected areas in south Somalia)
Over half a million productive animals treated, fully
meeting the target
De-stocking of 30,000 shoats (100% of target) & 1,000
cattle (3% of target) & seed provision to 45,000 HH (50%
of target)

Food

Geographical allocation of responsibilities among the
respective agencies (avoid duplications).

Strategic coordination need to
be improved, lack of common
methodologies

Revised on 2 November 2006.

DRAFT 3

Annex 3

IASC INTERIM SELF-ASSESSMENT

CLUSTER APPROACH IN ROLL-OUT COUNTRIES

Workshop Report

LIBERIA

26 October 2006

Drafted by:

James Shepherd-Barron, Consultant, WHO

Isabelle Cyr, INGO Management Group Liberia

Trond Jensen, Humanitarian Field Coordinator, UNMIL-HCS

Attendance:

INGOs, the Management Steering Group of INGOs

National NGOs

Government of Liberia (Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, Liberia Reconstruction and Development

Commission)

Donors (ECHO, OFDA)

Cluster Leads

ICRC

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Country Context

i.It was decided to adopt the Cluster Approach in Liberia in November 2005 by the UN Country Team, in order to improve

predictability, accountability, effectiveness of and partnerships of humanitarian action. By February 2006 an Inter-agency

Standing Country Team had been established to ensure participation in and to oversee the implementation of the approach.

Individual Clusters developed terms of references and action plans throughout 2006.

ii.

There are a number of characteristics that may differentiate Liberia from other Cluster Approach pilot countries. Liberia is a
country in transition from relief to recovery, though it is recognised there will still be pockets of significant humanitarian

needs across Liberia for some time to come. Contingent on regional political developments humanitarian needs may also

re-emerge. This is seen, by some, as testing the role of the Cluster Approach as a concept designed to improve the

effectiveness (and efficiency) of emergency response, as it has been introduced at the final stage of an emergency.

iii.

A new Government was for the first time elected towards the end of 2005 through a transparent and fully democratic
process, being inaugurated in January 2006. Moreover, there is no UN OCHA to support the Cluster Approach process in

Liberia. The humanitarian coordination function has been subsumed into the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL).

These factors have caused the relevance of choosing Liberia as a Cluster roll-out country to be questioned by some

stakeholders at the country level.

iv.

The issue of ‘humanitarian space’ has been raised by several humanitarian actors given the integration of humanitarian
coordination in the UN Mission in Liberia and some NGO Cluster partners feel this may have a bearing on the Cluster

Approach in the country.

v.The Cluster Approach was overlaid onto an existing and partially functional sectoral and area-based coordination

mechanism without much understanding of how best to adapt the approach to existing systems or how to extend it to the

county level, though there was an understanding that the approach was intended to enhance rather than supplant existing

mechanisms.

vi.Consideration continues to be given to how best to fit Clusters with – and provide support to - increasingly functioning

Government structures and strategies as these are coming into place, such as the Government’s Interim Poverty Reduction

Strategy (IPRSP)and the Liberia Reconstruction and Development Committee (LRDC).

vii.Awareness of how to bring about the Cluster Approach, and the implications and benefits offered by the approach were

initially low. This stemmed from what is perceived to have been inadequate preparedness and proactive promotion of

guidelines on the part of the IASC and UN OCHA. Initial confusion led to a certain scepticism about what the added value

would be in a post-emergency, transitional scenario. As a result, buy-in was initially weak and participation was often limited.

viii.The transition of the Humanitarian Information Centre (HIC) into the National Information Management Centre. (NIMAC),

reflecting a shift from relief to recovery and concomitantly a greater emphasis on building Government’s information

management capacity, means that there is no longer a structure solely devoted to provide information for humanitarian

planning and response.

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 1 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

ix.Given poor capacity and sometimes unclear structures, the question of when and where Government assumes leadership

of Clusters remains unclear. There is, for example, no singular Government Ministry or institution dealing with water and

sanitation issues.

x.Initially there was an information gap between global Cluster Leads, UNOCHA and the IASC and the country level. This

meant that organisations acquired information through other channels. Though there has been great improvement, there

needs to be continued focus on active communication, not only within Clusters, but also within the UN system – with the

OCHA-Humanitarian Reform Support Unit playing a central role in ensuring that communications are maintained and

strengthened.

xi.The development of the County Support Teams to build capacity for and support Government planning at the county level

provides an opportunity for linkage with, and support for, the Clusters at the county level.

xii.This self-assessment was considered timely and relevant by participants as it can be used as a “spring-board” for

participatory transition planning

1.2

Workshop Methodology

i.The workshop was based on the Core Learning Group’s Analytic Framework and outline methodology paper. Accordingly, it

looked at achievements and outstanding ‘gaps’ in the overall Cluster Approach as perceived by some fifty participants by

Cluster (these are listed at Annex A). Each was presented by a member of the relevant Cluster. This was followed by Focus

Group discussions which were then presented in plenary session for additional comment. The four Focus Groups explored

the key aspects that underpin the rationale for the Cluster Approach, namely: To what extent has the Cluster Approach

been able to identify and address gaps in humanitarian assistance

helped build partnerships between humanitarian actors

helped improve coordination within and between Clusters

improved accountability

A final plenary discussion was then held on aspects of the Cluster Approach peculiar to Liberia in the context of the UN

Integrated Mission, UNMIL, and its application in post-emergency transition.

OVERVIEW OF KEY OBSERVATIONS

i.Given that Liberia is the pilot country with the most pronounced transitional stage characteristics, there is a limited

knowledge-base on the usage and lessons learned from Clusters in a transitional setting. This has resulted in different

interpretations and applications of approaches by individual Cluster Leads. Therefore there is a need to articulate

transitional mechanisms - based on country characteristics and needs – through a global and national participatory process.

ii.The implications of participation, and the value added of this participation, in Clusters remains unclear for some

humanitarian actors. As a result, ‘buy-in’ can vary. Consequently there needs to be a clear strategy in terms of ensuring full

engagement of partners. National NGOs are inadequately represented in the process.

iii.Awareness of “the vision” of the Cluster Approach could be enhanced through distribution of user-friendly and relevant

country-specific information to all stakeholders at country level. A clear understanding needs to be developed of how the

County Support Teams can best link to the Cluster Approach.

iv.Stakeholder groups should be encouraged to feed into revision and updating of guidelines and Terms of Reference for each

Cluster.

v.The IASC Country Team could consider formal and systematic monitoring of Cluster performance against agreed criteria,

and increasing utilisation of the ‘space’ for cross-Cluster dialogue with particular emphasis on integrated planning and

inclusion of cross-cutting issues when doing so.

vi.Development of standardised operating procedures, together with training in ‘strengthening partnerships’, ‘coordination

management’ and ‘information management’ for Cluster Leads (i.e those they appoint to act as Coordinators), and key

partners - along the lines of CAP training - would be welcomed by the Clusters

vii.The Cluster Approach as a concept is useful in as much as it provides a more focused forum for engagement of multiple

stakeholders. In the transition phase, Clusters can be phased out to become part of the regular coordination and line

management function of Government according to a specific timeframe and benchmarks.

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THEMATIC AREA

3.1

GENERAL

3.1.1

Added Value to Date

i.The introduction of Clusters as a reformed approach to leadership and coordination in January 2006, and the establishment

of an IASC Country team enabled the UN and its partners to further develop and improve humanitarian coordination in

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 2 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

Liberia. The process is also continues to contribute to the forging of stronger partnerships amongst Ministries of the new

Government, the donor community, non-governmental organizations, and the United Nations system.

ii.Application of the Cluster Approach in Liberia has not been without its challenges. Cluster Leads, more used to managing

IDP and refugee re-settlement and implementing long-term national development programmes, initially struggled to meet

the expectations associated with the shorter-term humanitarian role demanded by the Cluster Approach. However, a more

holistic multi-sectoral approach to the completion of the returns process and ensuring the sustainability of return has been

stimulated by the Cluster concept. It has also allowed the mobilisation of CERF funds to meet priority needs in an otherwise

uncertain funding environment.

3.1.2

Outstanding Issues

i.Clusters are, by definition, emergency-focused. Those that remain during post-emergency transitions do so to provide an

overall planning framework until such time as GOL can take on its responsibilities. This is especially true of the Early

Recovery Cluster, where aspects of governance, environment, livelihoods restitution, and the rule-of-law, for example,

needs to be mainstreamed in Cluster planning.

ii.There is a risk of duplication of effort when ‘docking’ the Cluster Approach onto existing sectoral coordination mechanisms;

a duplication which all-too-quickly may result in ‘meeting overload’ and disengagement. This situation can easily be

exacerbated in transitional settings where national and local coordination structures can often parallel the humanitarian

coordination architecture set up to respond to the initial crisis.

iii.

Clear Work plans (with indicators) and Terms of Reference need to be put in place by each Cluster in order to ensure a
clear understanding of responsibilities within both Government and the aid community. This will also enable the

measurement of progress towards pre-determined benchmarks and targets.

iv.It is difficult to judge the impact of the Cluster Approach if the factors that lead to, or constrain enhanced performance have

not been outlined and subjected to cost-benefit analysis. In Liberia there is an absence of such benchmarks.

v.It was not clear to many participants why Liberia was chosen as a roll-out (pilot) country for the Cluster Approach as: a)

OCHA is not present to support its implementation; and b) the emergency phase was largely considered to be over. In the

absence of UNOCHA providing support for the Cluster Approach in an integrated mission, it should be considered what the

implications and possible additional requirements might be to successfully implement the concept.

3.1.3

Recommended Benchmark Activities for 2007

i.An Early Recovery “network” needs to be established to ensure early engagement in the recovery process across all

Clusters. There also needs to be developed a clear understanding of interlinking and interdependent activities across

Cluster and what implications they carry.

ii.Use Liberia as a case-study on the challenges facing integration of Early Recovery into humanitarian and transitional

planning.

iii.Develop and test a ‘phase-in and phase-out’ strategy for Clusters with timelines, benchmarks, and impact indicators

established with national and county structures that are increasingly capacitated for preparedness and response

coordination. This with particular reference to the LRDC.

3.2

PREDICTABLE GAP-FILLING

3.2.1

Added Value to Date

i.Joint leadership in the Protection and Food Security Clusters, where strong GOL presence and commitment is evident,

could be used as a model for identifying and then filling sectoral gaps in other Cluster and Sub-Cluster areas.

3.2.2

Outstanding Issues

i.Predictable gap-filling will be inconsistent if Clusters do not adapt to meeting needs as they evolve, and if models of what

worked in similar crises elsewhere are not captured, learned from and applied. At present insufficient experience has been

accumulated to provide for learning across the four pilot countries.

ii.Mechanisms to address cross-cutting issues, inter-dependence, and interlinking needs to be identified through the IASC CT

to ensure that these are systematically addressed as an integrated part of any Cluster response.

iii.Humanitarian funding is decreasing in Liberia and, as so often in the post-emergency transitional phase, remains uncertain

and unpredictable. There is a risk of not being able to capitalise on successes to date and, moreover, a premature

departure of NGOs and agencies before Government capacities have been fully established. The Health Cluster, in

particular, where an estimated 90% of primary health care provision is supported by the non-governmental sector, is likely to

suffer from this.

iv.The filling of gaps demands knowledge of who is doing what where (and when), knowledge of disaggregated needs to the

lowest possible level, and a strategic framework to focus prioritization. The proactive follow-up required to maintain WDWW

and other mapping services declined with what many participants saw as the premature departure of the Humanitarian

Information Centre (HIC).

v.Embedding Early Recovery issues into Cluster work plans remains a challenge. There was little knowledge of the Early

Recovery “Network” concept.

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 3 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

3.2.3

Recommended Benchmark Activities for 2007

i.Define end-date and milestones for Cluster disengagement or merger against pre-determined criteria that properly reflect

objectives against a clearly defined ‘problem statement’.

ii.Clusters continue to report regularly to the IASC Country Team on their progress against a limited list of prioritized

indicators and benchmarks..

iii.The formal space provided by the IASC CT, needs to be utilised by the Cluster Leads to give regular (quarterly) technical

briefings, where inclusion of cross-cutting issues is systematically addressed and challenged by the Country Team

collectively.

iv.The Early Network concept needs to be developed and a clear strategy articulated. Ways of embedding the Early Recovery

Cluster in all other Clusters should be identified to ensure that Early Recovery considerations are adequately reflected.

v.Inclusion of all stakeholder groups, particularly the national NGOs, should be actively promoted by the IASC Country Team

and their advice sought in the setting of priorities.

vi.A checklist of ‘standard operating procedures’ to be used by Clusters would be helpful. An example would be monitoring of

attendance at coordination meetings.

vii.The present positive attention of Liberia around the world provides an opportunity for the Government and its’ humanitarian

partners to leverage additional resources by clearly articulating its humanitarian and transitional needs.

3.3

PARTNERSHIPS

3.3.1

Added Value to Date

i.The Cluster Approach provided a platform for joint assessment of need – albeit using often incompatible methodologies -

and planning.

3.3.2

Outstanding Issues

i.Relationships with identified GOL counterparts at national and local (County) level require strengthening where no

Government counterpart has yet been identified.

ii.Coordination is a management process that requires staff members to be trained in common systems and processes so that

the potential for fragmented response is minimised. This will require central and predictable funding through global Cluster

Lead mechanisms which eventually should include selected governmental and non-governmental personnel who can be

seconded to perform this function.

3.3.3

Recommended Benchmark Activities for 2007

i.It would be useful if composition of coordination teams, together with standardised operating procedures and Terms of

Reference for Cluster coordination functions and stakeholder groups were defined using demonstrated ‘best practices’ from

similar transition settings. Lessons learned from within the country could then be assessed together with the three other

Cluster roll-out countries in a workshop dedicated to mutual learning.

3.4

ACCOUNTABILITY

3.4.1

Added Value to Date

i.Clear leadership within certain Clusters (Health, Protection and Food Security - for example) has been perceived as

strengthening planning. This is especially the case where Government has the capacity – as opposed to just the willingness

-- to engage.

3.4.2

Outstanding Issues

i.The ‘provider of last resort’ stipulation as currently formulated actually acts as a disincentive in many cases as it allows

Cluster participants to evade their responsibilities

ii.There is as yet “no sense of joint responsibility”, with responsibility remaining vested solely in a single agency.

Consequently, there is no perceived gain to participation. There is limited understanding of the roles each stakeholder group

plays and therefore their responsibilities one to the other. These should be articulated within specific Terms of Reference

agreed at country level based on ‘generic’ templates generate by Cluster Leads at the global level.

3.4.3

Recommended Benchmark Activities for 2007

i.Cluster Leads identify ways to support, including staff, the Government where GOL capacities remain too weak to take on

the coordination role.

ii.Explore the possibility of a global fund be established under the Humanitarian Coordinator for capacitating common services

such as (independent) monitoring of Cluster performance, and information management.

iii.Donors could be requested by the HC to inform Clusters to continue to provide information who they are funding for what,

where, and when.

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 4 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

3.5

COORDINATION

3.5.1

Added Value to Date

i.Some Clusters (Food Security and Health, for example) have engaged successfully with Government counterparts.

3.5.2

Outstanding Issues

i.Merging and phase-out of Clusters should reflect not just outstanding humanitarian needs, but capacities within

Government.

ii.Application of Cluster ‘best practice’ through dialogue could be replicated by other Clusters.

iii.Government counterparts need to be identified for those Clusters where no obvious Line Ministry relationship exists, and

dialogue fostered with these individuals.

iv.There is a lack of reporting on, and therefore low awareness of, progress made by Line Ministries and Clusters. There is

therefore a need to strengthen information flows through the Clusters.

v.Consensus management practices can only be enhanced through full and proactive participation by representatives of all

stakeholder groups, including donors.

vi.Exit strategies need to be mainstreamed into 2007 planning, with due regard to contingency planning for worst-case

scenarios and building of capacity in partnership with GOL.

vii.Information Management requires a common platform to be established within a dedicated GOL structure so that consistent

statistical analysis can be undertaken for the benefit of all stakeholders.

viii.The Cluster Approach is not well developed at local (county) level, where it could be adapted to existing coordination

structures with the support of the County Support Teams so that systems better reflect application of appropriate national

sectoral policies, for example, without over-burdening their already limited capacities.

ix.The operational functions of coordination are consistently under-resourced. This limits the efficiency and effectiveness of the

Cluster approach as it hinders the creation of an ‘enabling environment’ with which to foster dialogue and facilitation.

3.5.3

Recommended Benchmark Activities for 2007

i.IASC CT to articulate what Clusters can do for Government through a collective briefing followed by a series of Cluster-

specific briefings, where the Government is not fully participating in the Clusters.

ii.GOL Cluster counterparts (focal points) to be identified, where the Government is not fully participating in the Clusters.

iii.GOL to invite WB to participate in Government-chaired Cluster coordination and planning meetings

iv.National NGOs to be engaged at the IASC Country Team level and their participation strengthened at the Cluster level.

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 5 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

Annex A

IASC – Interim Self-Assessment of Cluster Approach in Liberia Workshop

26 October 2006

Cluster-specific Achievements & Gaps

General

Achievements

Gaps

Very competent and energetic UN Country Team

Lack of clarity and information

Seeing NGOs as more dynamic partners

Sometimes confusion between Sector meetings &

Cluster meetings

Works when Country Team is present

Lack of global support and guidance

Donor buy-in to the system

What to do about a non-performing cluster

No clear definition of roles, need for clarification of

donor role

INGOs are irregularly attending

Competing egos of U.N. agencies

No timeline for transfer to GoL

U.N. agencies misunderstand roles and

responsibilities

Awareness?????

Poor support for local NGOs

Inadequate manpower

Lack of proper coordination in terms of meetings

Emergency coordination three years after the

emergency

Lack of clarification on cluster approach within

UNDAF-How does it fit?

Integrated Mission: does it risk humanitarian space

e.g. IASC chair linked to UNMIL

Different expectations

Lack of clarity over mechanism to hold agencies/

leads etc. accountable

Blurring lines between military and humanitarian

Lack of clarity of purpose

Coordination exercise or emerging preparedness or

both?

Cluster for humanitarian response or sector

development - unclear

Cluster is Sector or not?

Health

Achievements

Gaps

Broad participation from stakeholders

Some INGOs not mapping activities or collaborating

MoHSW part of Cluster (but need for further

involvement)

Inconsistent participation and involvement of GoL

Issues and problems identified quickly and

addressed

GoL/ Cluster Action on HIV/AIDS clumsy

Coordination at central level

Coordination - not decentralized to Counties

Advocacy and appeals

Time-bomb with incentive issue

G Gap identification and mapping

Mapping not updated (sites, responsibility)

Mapping not updated (sites, responsibility)
M.I.S. data push needs progress

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 6 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

Regular Meetings

Meetings at three levels

Active participation

Bottom-up- approach to need assessment/ gap

analysis not apply

Relation between GoL, MoHSW, WHO & NGOs

improved

More partners need to be encouraged to participate

Improved co-ordination and dialogue.

Appeal not resulting in funding

Strategy document available

Not functioning at County level

Built on existing coordination mechanisms

Role of UNMIL unclear
Maternal mortality & mobility rate still high

Food Security

Achievements

Gaps

Bringing all stakeholders together

Some key NGOs are not involved

Developed TOR and policy

Unclear how Cluster fits with other coordination

meetings / mechanisms

Platform for identifying priorities

Lack of clarity on roles

Coordination with GOL and stakeholders on CFSNS

(first comprehensive data set in the post-crisis

situation)

Slow movement on the development of the Food &

Nutrition strategy and monitoring mechanism

Effective handling of CERF process in line with GoL’s

priorities

Needs assessment, analysis and monitoring are

fragmented

Good, constructive government leadership with FAO

support

In most instances GoL participation is not

substantive

GoL participation

Lack of coordination in Counties

Great coordination between stakeholders (if

organizations are not participating it is not because

opportunity is not there)

Linking to related issues (Nutrition, Early Recovery)

unclear

Regular meetings

Few meetings

Protection

Achievements

Gaps

Regular meetings at the national and County level

(10 Counties) including sub-Clusters

Too many areas of protection being addressed

Good participation of INGOs and U.N. agencies

More collaboration with local NGOs in the Country

needed

Movement toward decentralization in regions

Loss of confidentiality

Shows progress

Little capacity development for sustainable

protection

Assimilated protection core group

Need for capacity building and plan for humanitarian

response

Referral system established from 10 County groups

to national PCG

No referral or reporting mechanisms to date on the

national level

Struggling in Counties

485 NRC monitors since January reporting protection

cases (818 cases referred Jan-June 2006)

Need for increase of the monitoring system

Comprehensive analysis of monitoring still lacking

Need for comprehensive data

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 7 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

Child protection and SGBV sub-Cluster chaired by

GOL

=> Starting to build the capacity of GoL (Ministries of

Gender & Health)

Little GOL engagement with international community

efforts

No progress with GoL

Need to strengthen the coordination with GoL

UNHCR have secretariat

Coordination between sub-Clusters could be

developed more, especially with sub-Cluster on Rule

of Law under Early Recovery Cluster

It is an active Cluster

Still need improved coordination among existing

information management systems on protection

Sub-groups feed in and join advocacy

Link/relationship between PCG/SGBV and ICN on

SEA still unclear, although attempt to clarify made

earlier in year

Camp closure assessment conducted by inter-

agency task force and protection issues identified in

34 closed camps (May 2006)

HIV/Aids not really mainstreamed in Protection

Cluster discussions

GBV sub-cluster POA in the final stage

Number of successful interventions at the County

level (following referral of reports by NRC and others)

Inter-agency trainings in some Counties

Support from UNMIL HRPS in Counties where

Cluster lead is not located

Dedicated staff within lead agency

National work plan on child protection, lead CPAs are

being encouraged to revitalize County coordination

Joint monitoring missions

Support to sub-Cluster lead on issues of orphanages

Water/Sanitation

Achievements

Gaps

Established contingency plan for CI

Many different views of expectations

Mapping facilities

Limited or no focus on current problem in Liberia

CERF funding

Need for higher priority on the role and development

of information management products and date base

Follow-through

Access results

Emergency supplies availability plan established

Who is coordinating?

Lack of Government of Liberia involvement

No standardized GOL specs wells and latrines

The gaps are especially worrisome because the

urgent humanitarian needs are great

Needs better Cluster leadership

Initially only focused on emergency response

capacity

=> Recovery fell through cracks

No “last resort” supply system

How do you define emergency preparedness in

Liberian context?

What happens to regular coordination?

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 8 of 9

30 October 2006

DRAFT 3

Early Recovery

Achievements

Gaps

Puts the issues on the agenda

Started late

Brings key players together, including the GoL

Definition of Early Recovery in Country context

should reflect back on definition of issues dealt with

in other clusters

Mapping: “Recycling”/ putting attention back on

earlier achievements & data and information products

Weak GoL coordination mechanisms

Network on Legal Assistance now meeting and

making link between Protection and Early recovery

Lack of understanding between Early Recovery

Cluster and others

Appealed for CAP funding

Link with other Clusters unclear

Early recovery was the RFTF

Forced to focus only on a few issues leaving out

critical issues e.g. governance

Camp Management

Achievements

Gaps

No specific meeting called “Camp Management “

meeting, however, activities went on under ICF and

PCG (e.g. camp closure assessment, funding of EFA

to address environmental gaps)

Information sharing management

Set up a common information mechanism

Interim Self Assessment Workshop, Liberia

Page 9 of 9

30 October 2006

Annex 2

FINAL REPORT

IASC Interim Self-Assessment of

Implementation of the Cluster Approach in the DRC

(24-27 October 2006)

Introduction

In November 2005 an OCHA-led mission visited DRC to discuss possible application of the
cluster approach. Following discussions with a wide range of humanitarian partners in Goma,
Bukavu and Kinshasa, the mission determined that there were particular gaps in four areas:
Protection; Water/Sanitation; Return/Reintegration and Logistics. Based on the mission’s
findings and recommendations, the Humanitarian Coordinator and members of the
Humanitarian Advocacy Group (HAG) in Kinshasa decided to implement the cluster
approach, to help fill these gaps and strengthen the overall humanitarian response in the DRC.
In recognition of the need to improve the impact of humanitarian action across all sectors, and
not just those in which significant gaps were identified, cluster leads were designated for ten
clusters and the new arrangements were reflected in the 2006 Humanitarian Action Plan.
Implementation of the cluster approach began in January 2006.

An IASC Interim Self-Assessment in the DRC took place from 24 to 27 October 2006,
facilitated by Luc Chauvin (UNICEF) and Mark Cutts (OCHA), with assistance from Andrew
Wyllie (OCHA Kinshasa). It included a three hour meeting in Kinshasa, attended by 45
people from ten NGOs, seven UN agencies (including all Cluster Leads) and ICRC; and three
90 minute teleconferences with humanitarian partners in the field (South Kivu, with 3 UN
agencies, ICRC and OCHA, as well as written comments from an NGO that was unable to
participate), Equateur (2 UN agencies, 2 NGOs and OCHA) and Ituri (2 NGOs, one UN
agency and OCHA). In each case, participants were sent details about the self assessment in
advance with a list of key questions. It also included a meeting with the Humanitarian
Coordinator, the Head of the MONUC Civil Affairs Section and the Chief of the Integrated
Office. In addition to these discussions, OCHA sent the terms of reference for the self-
assessment (including the Framework and Key Questions) by email to all Cluster Leads and
to a wide range of humanitarian actors inviting them to send in written comments. The final
report takes into account both the comments made during the meetings and comments sent in
by email. At the weekly meeting of the Humanitarian Advocacy Group (HAG) chaired by the
Humanitarian Coordinator in Kinshasa on 27 October, OCHA briefed on the main findings of
the self assessment exercise.

Overview of key observations

Concerning the main “gap” areas identified in November 2005 (Protection, Water/Sanitation,
Return/Reintegration and Logistics), the perception amongst humanitarian partners in the
DRC is that there has been considerable progress in filling gaps in at least two of these areas.
In the case of Protection, a number of new Protection Officers have been deployed, leading to
better monitoring, advocacy and follow-up on protection-related issues. In a number of cases
in the last few months, MONUC troops have been deployed to help protect civilians as a
direct result of the advocacy efforts of the Protection cluster. In the case of Water/Sanitation,
it may be too early to assess the impact of new programmes, but it is clear that there is now
much greater capacity amongst humanitarian actors working in this sector. Investment in
humanitarian activities in this sector has grown exponentially, from US$ 1 million in 2005 to
US$ 13 million in 2006. For 2007, the draft Humanitarian Action Plan includes US$ 99
million for Water/Sanitation, representing about 15% of the total humanitarian appeal. In
terms of humanitarian response capacity, water/sanitation is no longer the “gap” area that it
was in DRC one year ago.

In terms of partnership and coordination amongst humanitarian partners, the overwhelming
majority of those interviewed during the self-assessment felt that this had improved since the
introduction of the cluster approach. There were, however, serious concerns in four main
areas: (1) that although the Pooled Fund has been used to strengthen humanitarian response in
“gap” areas, the use of clusters for allocating resources from the Pooled Fund and the new
CERF is leading to a situation where the “honest broker” role of the cluster lead may be
compromised and the clusters themselves are coming to be perceived largely as tools of these
funding mechanisms rather than the other way around; (2) that some Cluster Leads are
perceived to be too authoritarian and seen to be abusing their positions to promote their own
agencies at the expense of NGOs, particularly when it comes to allocation of funds; (3) that
participation in clusters has come to mean participating in numerous cluster meetings at both
national and local levels, placing excessive demands on some organizations that have little
capacity to attend all of these; and (4) that there is a recognized need to ensure appropriate
(and in some cases stronger) linkages between clusters and Government/local authorities.

Observations and recommendations by thematic area

Predictable leadership and gap-filling

Overall, the decision to designate cluster leads has greatly enhanced the predictability of
leadership and gap-filling in the 10 sectors/areas of activity. There is now far greater attention
to the four areas identified in November 2005 as critical “gap” areas: Protection,
Water/Sanitation, Return/Reintegration and Logistics. In terms of protection, there is now
better coordination, advocacy and response (though still poor linkages in some places
between the Protection Cluster and sub-clusters such as for Sexual and Gender-Based
Violence); in terms of Water and Sanitation, there is now much more capacity than before,
stronger

leadership

and

activities

address

urgent

needs;

terms

return/reintegration, many of the activities in the Action Plan for 2007 (e.g. for Wat/San) are
focused on areas of return, which is an improvement over previous action plans, where there
was little analysis of main areas of return; and in the case of logistics, some felt that there has
also been some progress, while others (notably JLC staff) felt that the cluster approach had
not led to any improvement.

On the positive side, the basic concepts underpinning the cluster approach are relatively well
understood by cluster lead agencies in Kinshasa: all lead agencies have received and
disseminated internally the guidance note (including to field staff); the draft TORs for
country-level cluster lead have been used and adapted; individuals have been appointed as
national and provincial cluster focal points for all clusters and their contact information
communicated to partners; OCHA has created a web-based humanitarian information
exchange

platform

(http://www.rdc-humanitaire.net/)

which

supports

inter

alia

the

dissemination of information on cluster activities (including names and contact details of
cluster leads). In the field, the implementation of the cluster approach has enabled the creation
of sector specific coordination mechanisms that did not formally exist beforehand (e.g. for
protection, WASH, logistics and education in South Kivu).

In spite of these positive developments, however, some outstanding issues remain to be
addressed. About half of the 45 participants in the Kinshasa self-assessment workshop had
not read the guidance note, thus underlying the need for greater dissemination of information
on clusters especially to NGO partners; co-leadership of clusters in the field is not always
well understood and one person said it “tends to lead to confusion and de-responsibilization”;
similarly, the “supportive role” of a partner to a field cluster lead is often not well defined and
it was felt that this sometimes creates confusion in the management of the cluster; there were
complaints of too many meetings, some of which do not seem to be necessary (for example,
in one place a dynmamic functioning joint food security/nutrition coordination meeting was
replaced by two separate meetings when the food security and nutrition clusters were

formed); the separation of functions of cluster focal point (to ensure the coordination of
cluster participants) with that of its own agency programme implementation requirements is
also not always made; some cluster lead are perceived to be “authoritarian” rather than
“facilitators”; the use of clusters to allocate resources from the Pooled Fund has meant in the
words of one cluster lead representative in the field that what started as a “dynamic
coordination mechanism progressively turned into a forum to discuss funding needs”. This is
recognized to be a problem and at the HAG meeting on 27 October the Humanitarian
Coordinator stressed that “the Pooled Fund should be used to support the clusters and not the
other way round”.

Recommendations:

•

The revised Guidance Note should be translated into French and should be widely
disseminated. All IASC partners should help to ensure that their staff are familiar
with the new approach.

•

To ensure effective implementation of the new approach, capacity-building
programmes should be developed, particularly for Cluster Leads. In particular,
Cluster Leads should receive training/guidance as soon as possible on the new
approach, and on how to effectively carry out the functions listed in the Terms of
Reference for Sector/Cluster Leads.

Partnership and coordination

Of the 45 participants at the self-assessment meeting on 25 October, the overwhelming
majority felt that the introduction of the cluster approach has overall contributed to improving
the level of partnership amongst humanitarian actors.

In spite of this, however, a number of problems were identified. The cluster approach requires
that individuals assuming the role of cluster lead possess not only technical skills relevant to
their sector but also have essential facilitation and people skills. Some Cluster Leads are
perceived to be too “authoritarian” and to look at issues too much through the prism of their
own agencies’ priorities, and this has not helped to create a sense of joint ownership of the
cluster approach. Not all staff understand the cluster approach in the same way and this has
not helped. As one person put it, “the lack of clear guidance from Kinshasa leads to confusion
and to (local) cluster leads understanding the approach differently and thus explaining it to
partners in varying ways.” Also, some felt that there is a need to ensure better linkages
between clusters and Government/local authorities in some places. The fact that the clusters
were being used for allocating money from the Pooled Fund (most of which has gone so far to
UN agencies, or been channelled through them) has not helped to build confidence amongst
NGOs that clusters are there for everyone’s benefit. Also, some places (particularly in the
western Provinces) still work through “sectoral commissions” rather than clusters, and there is
still no clear agreement on the role of clusters in these areas.

Recommendations:

•

Concerning awareness of the cluster approach and training/guidance, see
recommendations above.

•

Concerning cluster meetings, these should be rationalized, with primacy being
given to the Provincial CPIA meetings and the HAG meeting at the Kinshasa level.
Cluster Leads should also consider combining some cluster meetings, rather than
having separate meetings for all clusters at every level.

•

Concerning the Pooled Fund, to alleviate the burden on clusters a rolling
application process should be developed based on specific criteria for vetting
projects.

•

Concerning the “sectoral commissions” that still exist in some parts of the country,
the Humanitarian Coordinator – with OCHA support – should ensure that there
are appropriate coordination arrangements for humanitarian activities throughout
the country. In some cases, this may call for differentiated approaches in particular

geographical areas, depending on the circumstances and the capacities of local
authorities, development actors and other stakeholders.

Accountability

It was felt that there was an improvement in the way that some UN agencies, as cluster leads,
are now being held accountable to the Humanitarian Coordinator. However, the lack of clear
guidance from the IASC until now on the specific responsibilities of Cluster Leads at the
country level, and the lack of training/guidance for cluster leads so far, has meant that it has
been hard to hold them accountable in a systematic way. Also, it was felt that there should be
more emphasis on the accountability of humanitarian organizations to vulnerable populations
and recipients of assistance/services.

Recommendations:

•

Cluster Leads should be familiarized with the new Terms of Reference for Cluster
Leads, as contained in the revised Guidance Note. They should receive proper
training/guidance in how to exercise the responsibilities listed in the terms of
reference, and they should then be held systematically accountable for carrying
these out.

Strategic planning

It was generally felt that the cluster approach has helped to improve strategic planning in the
DRC. Inputs for the 2007 Action Plan are considered to be a great improvement over the
inputs received for the 2006 Action Plan. The draft 2007 Action Plan is considered to have
better benchmarks and indicators than the 2006 Action Plan, though these need to be further
developed. Overall, however, it was felt that more work needs to be done to ensure better
needs assessment, monitoring, and reporting, if strategic planning is to be further improved.
Another major weakness was seen to be the lack of a clear and accessible database containing
information on humanitarian needs and actions in the DRC. In particular, some felt that
OCHA is not doing enough to improve overall information analysis and sharing of
information - a point with which the OCHA Office in the DRC agrees and is seeking to
address.

Recommendations:

•

OCHA should develop, in consultation with Cluster Leads and all humanitarian
partners in the DRC, a clear strategy to improve overall information management
in the country.

•

OCHA should work with Cluster Leads and all humanitarian partners in the DRC
to develop better benchmarks and indicators to measure the impact of
humanitarian programmes in general, and the impact of individual clusters.

Document Outline