table of contents - home page | unicef€¦ · web viewb1. national authorities’ ability to...

Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at the Country Level

Draft Revision June 2013

This Module has been revised and two new chapters have been added. New Chapters include 1.Clusters and Sectors and 2. Role of Clusters in Preparedness. Those chapters which have been significantly updated are 1. Transition and De-activation of Clusters and 2. Inter-cluster Coordination. The document is available for comments until 12 July, 2013 and all attempts will be made to update the document by 31 July 2013

Table of Contents

1 Cluster and Sector Coordination........................................................................4

2. Cluster Activation................................................................................................7

3 Cluster Transition and De-activation.................................................................9

4 Cluster Functions..............................................................................................14

5 Role of Clusters in Preparedness.....................................................................16

6 Cluster Management Arrangements................................................................19

7 Minimum Commitments for Participation in Clusters....................................22

8 Sub-National Level Coordination.....................................................................24

9 Sharing Leadership within the Cluster Approach..........................................26

10 Inter-Cluster Coordination................................................................................29

11 Coordination Performance Monitoring............................................................34

Annexes.....................................................................................................................36

Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................41

Further Reference.....................................................................................................42

Prepared by: IASC Sub-Working Group on the Cluster ApproachEndorsed by: IASC Working Group on 31 August 2012

Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013

Following the recommendations of an independent Humanitarian Response Review in 2005, the cluster approach was proposed as one way of addressing gaps and strengthening the effectiveness of humanitarian response through building partnerships. The cluster approach ensures clear leadership, predictability and accountability in international responses to humanitarian emergencies by clarifying the division of labour among organizations and better defining their roles and responsibilities within the different sectors of the response. It aims to make the international humanitarian community better organised and more accountable and professional, so that it can be a better partner for the affected people, host governments, local authorities, local civil society and resourcing partners.

However, the strength of the cluster approach relies on an understanding that this approach is not the only humanitarian coordination solution. In some cases, the cluster approach may co-exist with other “non-cluster” coordination solutions – whether national or international – or an alternative sectoral approach may be preferable. An indiscriminate application of all clusters in every emergency may waste resources and reduce opportunities for governments to exercise their primary responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to people in need.

2

This Cluster Coordination Reference Module1 is about the basics of cluster coordination in non-refugee situations2. It is compiled in response to a request by the IASC as a reference guide for practitioners to facilitate the work through which humanitarian outcomes can be improved. It outlines key concepts and draws attention to existing guidance, wherever relevant. This reference module will be reviewed periodically based on feedback from the field. This module covers both large-scale responses identified within the IASC Transformative Agenda3 as ‘level 3’4 and smaller scale (‘non-level 3’) responses.

Coordination is a means to an end – the ultimate aim of the humanitarian community is to serve vulnerable populations effectively5. Accordingly, the scale of international coordination arrangements should be tailored to the operational context, to support national efforts6 based on existing capacity in order to direct as many resources as possible towards delivering humanitarian assistance in a timely, predictable manner. Developing complicated coordination arrangements should be avoided; not all clusters need to be activated in every response.

The IASC Transformative Agenda recognizes the need for Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs), Resident Coordinators (RCs) and Humanitarian Country Teams (HCTs) to be empowered to make decisions that are right for their own country operations. While this reference module focuses on the cluster approach as the principal tool available to the international community for coordinating and accounting for their response, it falls to the leadership of the humanitarian team at the country level to devise the most appropriate ‘coordination solutions’ taking into account the local operational situation.

1 This Module should be used alongside other guidance prepared under the IASC Transformative Agenda. 2 UNHCR has a mandated responsibility to lead and coordinate international action to refugee needs, and clusters are not established in this context. 3 The IASC Principals reviewed humanitarian response efforts to several major disasters in 2010 and 2011 and pinpointed a number of shortcomings. Building on the 2005 Humanitarian Reform, they agreed to a set of actions in December 2011, referred to as the IASC Transformative Agenda which focused on improving leadership, coordination and accountability of international humanitarian response, particularly in large-scale emergencies.4 For more information on level 3 responses, please see the Level 3 Emergency Response Timeline (2012) or the IASC Transformative Agenda: How the System Responds to L3 Emergencies (2012) available on the IASC website. 5 Accountability to affected populations is the ultimate objective of the IASC Transformative Agenda. In December 2011, the IASC Principals agreed to integrate commitments to accountability to affected populations into their individual agencies' policies and operational guidelines. An Operational Framework on Accountability to Affected Populations was also endorsed to determine participation, information provision, feedback and complaints handling with affected populations at the country level.6 For further advice on this key issue, please refer to the IASC Operational Guidance for Cluster Lead Agencies on Working with National Authorities (July 2011).


Introduction

Using clusters intelligently

3

1 Cluster and Sector Coordination

This section outlines some of the main differences between a formally activated cluster system reporting to the HC and HCT and other forms of humanitarian coordination. Sectoral crisis coordination mechanisms for the purposes of this description are led by government and report to the designated government bodies

Formally activated clusters are a temporary coordination solution only used when the capacity of existing coordination and response mechanisms are overwhelmed or constrained7 in their ability to appropriately respond to needs according to humanitarian principles.

In some countries, coordination mechanisms are referred to as clusters although there is no formally activated cluster approach. In essence the name of the coordination mechanism does not matter, but a formally activated cluster8 has specific characteristics and accountabilities.

Coordination Mechanism

Crisis Recovery

Government Led

- With capacity- Government humanitarian

leadership; can be supported by additional international coordination capacity

- Government leadership continues; may move from humanitarian to pre-existing or other recovery and development coordination structures; any additional international capacity withdraws or transforms to recovery support

Government Led

- Limited or constrained capacity

- Activate Clusters as needed; where possible, co-leadership with government bodies and NGO Partners is strongly encouraged

- Transition and Deactivation

Pre-existing Formally Activated Clusters

- Activated Clusters continue; potentially activate additional clusters depending on review of coordination and response needs; augment capacity in activated clusters as needed

- Transition and Deactivation or transition to pre-crisis cluster structure

It is useful to look at how the two coordination mechanisms respond in emergencies to illustrate some differences.

A more extended table is available in Annex 1 which examines levels of national capacity and constraints, activation and accountability in crisis situations and transition/deactivation. Would be good to get feedback if Annex 1 necessary with new table above

7 Overwhelmed or constrained throughout the text refers to the size of need, number of actors, need for a multi-sectoral approach which is not reflected in current structures or constrained in being able to respond according to humanitarian principles eg actor in the conflict8 as described in the section on Cluster Activation


Defining Cluster and Sectoral Crisis Coordination

Comparing the Lifecycle of Cluster and Sector Coordination Mechanism

4

It is important to note where leadership and accountability for coordination and response mechanisms remain with government this does not restrict augmenting this with additional coordination capacity. Whilst the response to limited or constrained government capacity in a crisis is to activate the appropriate clusters, there may be challenges in doing so formally, particularly where capacity is constrained and different ways of augmenting coordination and response capacity may need to be found but still underpinned by the principles of the cluster approach.

In order to illustrate some of the key differences between clusters and sectors the table below examines the main characteristics and accountabilities.

Attribute Activated Cluster Sectoral Crisis Coordination

Leadership Designated Cluster Lead Agencies lead and manage the Cluster. Where possible, co-leadership with relevant government bodies and NGOs is strongly encouraged and where possible,establish strong links between humanitarian and development coordination bodies to ensure that recovery approaches are aligned to national development objectives

National government or other designated national agency leads the sector. International coordination and response capacity can provide further support

Accountability Cluster Lead Agencies are accountable to the HC and the ERC for the performance of the relevant cluster in meeting needs as expressed in the Strategic Response Plan in accordance with national and humanitarian law/principles

Government is accountable for the response in the sector in accordance with national and humanitarian law/principles.

Provider of Last Resort

Cluster lead agencies ensure the provision of services to fulfil critical gaps identified by the cluster and reflected in the Strategic Response Plan9

Government is responsible

Lifespan Temporary Long term structures as defined by government

Mainstreaming of Protection and Early Recovery Strategies, cross-cutting issues

CLA responsible to ensure Protection and Early Recovery strategies and cross-cutting issues are mainstreamed into programming

International partners can advise government on mainstreaming and international actors are responsible to adhere to internationally agreed principles, guidance and standards

Human Resources for Coordination

Cluster Lead Agency will ensure dedicated Cluster staff in line with need including coordinator and information management functions

Government bodies responsible to ensure sufficient coordination and response capacity. Often this results in personnel with multiple responsibilities

Technical Support

Technical support and guidance can be provided from the relevant Global Cluster

Technical support and guidance can be provided from the relevant Global

9Where necessary, and depending on access, security and availability of funding. From IASC Operational Guidance on the Concept of Provider of Last Resort http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-products-products&sel=18 and updated as per IASC TA Compendium of Agreed Actions


Comparison of Characteristics and Accountabilities of Clusters and Sectors

5

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-products-products&sel=18

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-products-products&sel=18

Attribute Activated Cluster Sectoral Crisis Coordination

Cluster when capacity and resources allow

Engagement of the Global Clusters for Preparedness

The engagement of Global Clusters is not restricted to formally activated clusters, but also related to the existence of humanitarian coordination and response structures and the level of risk as identified by the IASC Emergency Directors Group and informed by the IASC Early Warning Early Action Report

At the country level sectoral groups have always existed. Formally activating clusters where there is limited or constrained capacity aims to ensure that within the international humanitarian response, there is a clear system of leadership and accountability for all the key sectors or areas of humanitarian response. The cluster activation is therefore intended to strengthen rather than to replace sectoral coordination under the overall leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator, with a view to improving humanitarian response in emergency situations.

Cluster Coordination Reference Module | 2013 6

2. Cluster Activation

Cluster activation means the establishment of clusters as part of an international emergency response, based on the HCT’s analysis of humanitarian need and coordination capacity on the ground, in consultation with national partners.

The IASC Principals agreed that the activation of clusters must be more strategic, less automatic and time limited. The HC should only recommend the activation of clusters when there is an identified need which is not being addressed. The ideal approach is to support national mechanisms for sectoral coordination. To the extent possible, any new clusters which are established should complement existing coordination mechanisms.

In a level 3 response, clusters may be activated - if they do not already exist – with the support of personnel deployed through the Inter-Agency Rapid Response Mechanism (IARRM). The IARRM ensures there are sufficient experienced people on the ground working within agreed structures to either augment or fill the core coordination functions required for an effective response. All clusters should be prepared to deploy in a level 3 response, but the decision of which clusters to activate will be taken within 72 hours from the level 3 declaration by the HCT (if existent), supported by the IASC emergency/operational directors at headquarters, and on the basis of analysis of coordination mechanisms in place. Cluster activation will be regularly reviewed thereafter (as per the table in Section 2 on cluster transition and de-activation).

The criteria for cluster activation are as follows:a. Trigger event in the form of a new large-scale emergency or sharp deterioration

and/or significant change in an existing humanitarian situation leading to coordination gaps.

b. Evaluation of existing national response and coordination capacity and/or national response shows inability to appropriately meet needs.

c. Humanitarian needs justify a multi-sectoral approach that the existing coordination and response mechanisms can no longer adequately address.

d. The size of the operational presence (the number of actors and complexity of response) requires a sector-specific coordination mechanism, if this does not already exist.

The procedure for activating one or more clusters is as follows:

1. The RC/HC agrees with the HCT which clusters should be activated, based on the contingency plan and with a clear rationale for each case that takes into account national capacity and needs.

2. Global Clusters are alerted in advance of the proposed HCT meeting to discuss activation so that they ensure appropriate and informed representation at country level in this discussion.


Criteria for cluster activation

Activation procedures

7

3. The RC/HC selects Cluster Lead Agencies in consultation with the HCT based on the agencies’ coordination and response capacity, as well as the location and level of its operational presence and/or ability to increase this. The selection of Cluster Lead Agency ideally mirrors the global-level arrangements but this is not always possible, and in some cases other organizations may be better placed to take the lead.10 Shared leadership, including using non-governmental organizations, should be considered.

4. Upon agreement within the HCT, the RC/HC sends a letter to the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) outlining the recommended cluster arrangements, suggested Cluster Lead Agencies, and the rationale for the clusters selected for activation. If other coordination solutions outside of the cluster have been agreed, these should also be outlined in the letter.

5. The ERC transmits the proposal to IASC Principals and Global Cluster Lead and Co-Lead Agencies for approval within 24 hours and informs the RC/HC accordingly.

6. Once approved, the RC/HC informs relevant partners of the agreed clusters and lead agencies.

Decisions on the activation of clusters to fill operational gaps should take into account the protection needs of the affected population including the “areas of responsibility” of the Protection Cluster (i.e. child protection; gender-based violence; mine action; and housing, land and property). Cluster activation should also take into account needs within other cross-cutting areas such as age; environment; gender; HIV/AIDs; mental health and social well-being; and persons with disabilities. These issues should be integrated into the work of the clusters, as should early recovery and disaster risk reduction.

10 In the case of ‘service clusters’ (Logistics and Emergency Telecommunications) the selection of the Cluster Lead Agency normally mirrors global arrangements because they require a technical expertise to be effective and are less able to hand over to the other agencies without the necessary institutional infrastructure.

UNHCR is the Cluster Lead Agency of the Global Protection Cluster. However, at the country level in disaster situations or in complex emergencies without significant displacement, the three core protection mandated agencies (UNHCR, UNICEF and OHCHR) will consult closely and, under the overall leadership of the HC/RC, agree which agency, among the three, will assume the role of Cluster Lead Agency for protection.


Addressing issues which cut across clusters

8

3 Cluster Transition and De-activation

Cluster de-activation is the closure of a formerly-activated cluster supported by the transfer of leadership and accountabilities for the core functions of clusters (as per the Cluster Reference Module) from internationally led and accountable clusters, to national led and accountable sectors11. This may include resuming coordination and pre-crisis response structures, or establishing new structures where there were previously gaps

Cluster transition refers to the process (and potentially activities) by which the transfer of leadership and accountabilities is planned and implemented from internationally led cluster lead agencies to national led sectors over a period of time which then results in de-activation of a cluster. This may necessitate the need for a Transition Plan, which will map out phases of transition, specific benchmarks to be met for each phase and activities to be implemented in order to meet the identified transition and de-activation benchmarks

Why do we need to De-Activate?As per guidance on ‘activation’, clusters are meant to be timebound and less automatic ie be active only when there are specific gaps in humanitarian response. Ensuring that there is a requirement to review the need for clusters over time, promotes the goal of national led humanitarian action and coordination mechanisms that follow humanitarian principles is kept in mind.

Review of clusters on a periodic basis ensures at worst that clusters remain light and adapt to remain efficient, effective and fit for purpose, and at best, plan early for transfer of leadership and accountabilities to national or other structures through transition processes, and where necessary, capacity building activities to support the ability of national or other structures to carry out cluster functions.

What Criteria need to be met for De-activation?In order that activation is considered, there are two main criteria (1) Sharp deterioration or significant change in humanitarian situation leading to response and coordination gaps and (2) Evaluation of existing national response or coordination capacity is unable or constrained to meet needs according to humanitarian principles12 (size of need, number of actors, multi-sectoral approach, constraints to respond using humanitarian principles). Therefore at least one of the two following situations need to be met in order to consider de-activation:-1. There is a decrease in humanitarian need2. There is increased capacity of national structures to meet humanitarian needs

according to humanitarian principles

What will Inform our Decision Making whether to Transition or De-activate a Cluster?

11 De-activation can also lead to transfer of leadership and accountabilities to other internationally supported mechanisms12For additional information https://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/OOM_HumPrinciple_English.pdf, http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-1067.pdf


What does Transition and De-activation of Clusters Mean?

9

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-1067.pdf

https://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/OOM_HumPrinciple_English.pdf

Five principles are proposed to guide and inform decision making and processes on transition and de-activation planning:-

1. Process is led by HC and HCT - Clusters, cluster partners and national counterparts should also be involved in the assessment and recommendations made in the review of clusters; guided by the HC and HCT, they will play a key role in the development of any transition and de-activation plans across the sectors.

2. Focus on ability to lead and be accountable for Cluster Functions (as per this CRM) according to humanitarian principles – assessment of ability to meet accountabilities outlined in the cluster functions and according to outstanding humanitarian needs. The cluster functions can also be used as a basis to formulate any capacity building measures. The HC, HCT and CLAs remain with a responsibility to ensure that preparedness actions are carried out, as set out in the Preparedness section.

3. Based on Assessment of National Capacity13 – there are a number of different components of national crisis response capacity which need to be assessed:-(a) Existence, structure and resources of appropriate response and coordination

mechanisms (according to context) - some clusters will have a more natural counterpart to ‘hand over to’ than others, making transition easier and potentially more rapid.

(b) Extent of residual or on-going humanitarian response needs and ability to respond according to humanitarian principles

4. Informed by the Context - de-activation in sudden onset crises may be a more rapid process than de-activation in complex or protracted emergencies. Speed of de-activation can also be influenced by a government declaration of the end of an emergency phase and a shift of focus to recovery and therefore more development focused coordination structures. Clusters do not all have to be deactivated at the same time; some may need to remain longer, related to on-going need, or differences in national sector structures. The probability of recurring or new disasters (combined with national capacity) may also inform transition length and de-activation, or if the costs of closure and subsequent early re-establishment may outweigh potential benefits - including additional capacity building and preparedness actions which may have taken place; all should all be taken into consideration by the HC and HCT in Cluster Reviews.

5. Guided by Early Recovery objectives – (to be completed CGWER)

What happens to Appeals processes during Transition and after De-activation?

De-activation of a cluster does not mean that there are no further humanitarian financing needs. As part of humanitarian financing, transitional activities, including capacity building, can be included where this is required to meet its core cluster functions. It is essential that humanitarian financing is available to build the necessary capacity to enable the transition process and ensure that residual or on-going humanitarian needs and preparedness functions can be handled by national or other crisis authorities.

13 For more detailed analysis see IASC Operational Guidance for Cluster Lead Agencies on working with National Authorities


It is also not necessary to be a formally activated cluster to participate in any humanitarian appeals process. Neither is it a requirement for participation in any inter-sectoral/cluster coordination fora, nor is absence of funding a reason to de-activate a cluster.

How do Accountabilities change during Transition and De-activationUnder the transition process the line of accountability for the core cluster functions and responsibilities (such as provider of last resort) must be clearly articulated. Whilst the cluster is formally activated these accountabilities will rest with the Cluster Lead Agency. The transition plan should outline how these accountabilities shift to the government (or other crisis coordination mechanisms) when the cluster is formally de-activated. In many cases agencies who have played the CLA will assume responsibility to continue to support the government-led humanitarian coordination in their sector14. Responsibilities continue for clusters and sectors (regardless which) for ensuring preparedness actions as per the Preparedness Section.

When does De-activation Planning take place?

Good practice suggests that the HC/HCT along with clusters and national authorities, should from the onset of a response develop transition and de-activation strategies. Some immediate (and perhaps automatic) steps include (1) where appropriate, involving national counterparts and development partners from the outset and (2) establish strong links between humanitarian and development coordination bodies to ensure that recovery approaches are aligned to national development objectives (3) where possible, co-leadership of clusters with national authorities should be considered during the activation process or as early as possible

It is recommended that within the first 3 months of the onset of an emergency, there should at least be an initial review of clusters to ensure that the most appropriate coordination solutions are used and clusters remain fit for purpose in an evolving humanitarian situation and that transition and deactivation planning have been put in place. Particularly in protracted crises, TA Protocols demand there should be at least an annual review of clusters15, requiring HCs and HCTs to report back to the ERC of their on-going status16.

How is a Cluster Review Carried Out? How long does it take?

Cluster reviews should be (1) led by the HC/HCT and (2) involve clusters, cluster partners and national counterparts and (3) be guided and informed by the five principles outlined above. There is therefore flexibility for the HC and HCT to decide how best to carry out the cluster review.

14 This may be different from cluster to cluster. The process will be clearest with clusters that have obvious government counterparts such as education and health. Other clusters may have to work with a number of different government-led or civil-society mechanisms. Service clusters may not have any natural counterparts, but may work with government or other coordination structures to handover service provision if appropriate or carry out preparedness activities if services are no longer needed15 IASC Principals Transformative Agenda Compendium of Agreed Actions, No 33, December 201116 Further information can be found in the Coordination Performance Monitoring Section


The type and duration of the emergency, as well as an initial assessment of national capacity and ability to respond according to humanitarian principles are indicators as to how comprehensive a review maybe needed and therefore how long this will take.

As part of Cluster Transition and De-activation Plans, clusters maps out (1) the continued humanitarian response and coordination needs (based on the six cluster functions) (2) identifies government or other appropriate coordination and response mechanisms which would take over leadership and accountability for the cluster functions (3) the capacity of the identified mechanisms to take these on (4) what capacity building measures and

activities may need to be put in place during transition to enable de-activation and over what period of time (5) Accountability for cluster functions between Cluster Lead Agencies (CLAs) and national counterparts during any phased transition and de-activation plan should be clearly laid out, with benchmarks to indicate transition between phases before reaching de-activation (6) proposed timing for transition measures and if appropriate, eventual de-activation (7) proposed timing for any further cluster reviews (where streamlining of clusters17 or transition activities are recommended) and (8) how preparedness measures (as per the Preparedness section) will be ensured after de-activation and any continued role of the Cluster Lead Agency. The following case study outlines processes and timings of transition and de-activation in a protracted crisis

Case Study – Sri LankaIn Sri Lanka, 3 years after the cessation of the protracted armed, an independent review of clusters was carried out in August 2012 by the HCT, as well as consultations with government, HCT members, NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other UN agencies. As a result of the overall review recommendations, cluster lead agencies submitted cluster transition plans to the HCT, formally announcing transition and de-activation plans for transfer of cluster leadership and accountabilities to government line ministries. By the end of 2012, seven clusters had transferred leadership to government counterparts. Residual humanitarian coordination needs and transition to development activities was taken up under the UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF). Protection remained as one of the main elements requiring continued support (through Pillar Group 3 of the UNDAF), and it was agreed that transition of leadership should be done in a phased and nuanced manner given the sensitivity of issues and need for adherence to international norms and standards. A Durable Solutions Policy Group was also formed to continue some work of the Protection Cluster, including addressing needs of IDPs.

Is there an Agreed Process for De-activation?

Once a review of clusters has taken place and agreements made on transition plans and any de-activation:-1. Under the leadership of the HC, the HCT notes which clusters have

successfully transferred effective coordination responsibilities to national counterparts (government or other), and recommends de-activation. The rationale for those clusters which may still be required is presented during the review process, along with a plan for their transition.

2. The HC provides a summary of the review to the ERC, outlining which clusters are to transition and subsequently be de-activated, along with an indication of other sectoral coordination mechanisms in place, agency

17 Streamlining of clusters may also involve merging of clusters


focal points engaging with these sectoral coordination mechanisms, and the implications of these decisions on contingency planning18.

3. The ERC shares this note with the IASC Principals and Global Cluster Lead and Co-Lead Agencies for their approval.

4. Once approved, the HC informs relevant partners of agreed arrangements.

18 Examples of such summary notes to the ERC can be found at http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info


http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/

4 Cluster Functions

The IASC Principals “agreed there is a need to restate and return to the original purpose of clusters, refocusing them on strategic and operational gaps analysis, planning, assessment and results.19” The aim of the cluster approach, as agreed in 200620, is to strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies, ensuring clearly designated leadership and accountability in the main areas of humanitarian response. At the country level, the aim is to strengthen response through predictability, accountability, and partnership by ensuring better prioritization and defining roles and responsibilities of humanitarian organizations. Information management and analysis are key in this regard.

Consequently, the core functions of a cluster at the country-level are:

1. Supporting service delivery

o Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities

o Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery

2. Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response

o Needs assessment and response gap analysis (across sectors and within the sector)

o Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and cross-cutting issues including age, gender, environment, and HIV/AIDs

o Prioritization, grounded in response analysis

3. Planning and strategy development

o Develop sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support realization of the HC/HCT strategic priorities

o Apply and adhere to existing standards and guidelines o Clarify funding requirements, prioritization, and cluster contributions for the

HC’s overall humanitarian funding considerations (e.g. Flash Appeal, CAP, CERF, Emergency Response Fund/Common Humanitarian Fund)

4. Advocacy

o Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action

o Undertake advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population

5. Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results; recommending corrective action where necessary

19 Recommendation 26, IASC Transformative Agenda: Chapeau and Compendium of Actions (January 2012).20 IASC Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response (November 2006).


Delivering as a cluster

14

6. Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building in situations where there is a high risk of recurring or significant new disaster and where sufficient capacity exists within the cluster.

Finally, each cluster is also responsible for integrating early recovery from the outset of the humanitarian response. The RC/HC has the lead responsibility for ensuring early recovery issues are adequately addressed at country level, with the support of an Early Recovery Advisor. The Advisor works on inter-cluster early recovery issues for a more effective mainstreaming of early recovery across the clusters and to ensure that multidisciplinary issues, which cannot be tackled by individual clusters alone, are addressed through an Early Recovery Network21. Exceptionally, where early recovery areas are not covered by existing clusters or alternative mechanisms, the RC/HC may recommend a cluster be established in addition to the network to address those specific areas.

Aid workers conducting cholera awareness campaigns to at-risk communities in Niger. In 2012, nearly 4,000

cholera cases and over 80 deaths have been reported, mostly along the Niger River which recently flooded after heavy rains in the west of the country. Credit: UNICEF/S Mebrahtu

21 An Early Recovery Network addresses the multi-dimensional nature of early recovery by bringing together early recovery focal points from each of the clusters/sectors to work together on the integration, mainstreaming and coordination of early recovery issues and activities across all clusters/sectors.


Early recovery

15

5 Role of Clusters in Preparedness

Accountability for preparedness lies with the national authorities, and where applicable with the Resident Coordinator. However, within the Humanitarian Program Cycle (HPC), “Preparedness” relates to building capacities of the humanitarian system to better support national capacities before, during and after a crisis for response and recovery.

While preparedness is usually associated with measures taken in advance or in anticipation of an emergency, it can also be seen as any early action and capacity development which aims improve the overall effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of response and recovery.

Establishing which structures will be used to coordinate response and recovery is a key component of preparedness. As far as possible, preparedness actions should be undertaken using the same structures and mechanisms that are likely to put in place for the response. This is where consideration for the responsibilities of Clusters is brought into focus. In addition to supporting agency preparedness and readiness to coordinate, clusters each have an important role in supporting the establishment and function of national level coordination mechanisms, directed at improving preparedness, in their corresponding sectors of activity. The exact role will be dependent on what type of coordination mechanisms are in place, which will vary according to local capacity and context.

In practical terms, this means coordination before the onset of a crisis, including establishing good working relationships; reinforcing coordination structures; and clarifying roles and responsibilities between the humanitarian community and the relevant national authorities, as well as within the humanitarian community. It also means coordination during the crisis, in being prepared for changes in a dynamic crisis situation, and after a crisis, in identifying lessons learned from gaps in preparedness, which need to be addressed in preparation for future crises.

Cluster Preparedness Related to Coordination Mechanisms

Building on the IASC Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP22) approach, the points below outline where cluster accountabilities for preparedness lie at both the global and country levels. These points are equally applicable to clusters or other sector-based coordination mechanism.

.

In countries where humanitarian coordination structures are already established, including a Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), it is the responsibility of both the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and the country level clusters/sectors to ensure appropriate planning in each of the five components of the ERP approach and to optimize support to and engagement with national structures. Clusters/ sectors at country level should actively engage in preparedness actions, including planning, information management and capacity mapping or training of partners. Global Clusters should monitor these actions at country level and provide guidance and support, as necessary.

22 need a link to where people can go to for more on this and we’ll footnote it


Accountability for Preparedness

Preparedness – Establishing Coordination Structures

Countries with Humanitarian Coordinators

16

In countries identified as at high risk by the IASC Emergency Directors Group, in particular through the bi-annual IASC Early Warning Early Action Report (EWEA), the Resident Coordinator, through the appropriate in-country mechanisms and in cooperation with the national authorities, should implement contingency response planning and associated actions contained in the ERP approach in line with the Resident Coordinator terms of reference – and in particular to identify which clusters will be activated within different scenarios.

In the absence of Clusters, sectors of activity will still benefit from improved coordination. Global Clusters should provide support to sectors and potential cluster lead agencies to ensure that Minimum Preparedness Actions (MPAs) and Emergency Readiness Actions (ERAs) are in place. Global Clusters should promote the preparedness process at country level and provide proactive guidance and support to the Resident Coordinator.

Although a country may have no imminent threat, it is recommended that minimum sector/ cluster preparedness measures are in place to ensure readiness to respond to unforeseen events, such as rapid on-set natural disasters. Sectors at country level should ensure that preparedness measures are taken based on the Minimum Preparedness Actions (MPA) or specific contingency response plans developed for these countries. Preparedness activities at country level should include the relevant national authorities and be communicated to the Resident Coordinator, to ensure overall coordination and to facilitate a coherent overview of these measures. In particular, arrangements should be in place for how the humanitarian community will coordinate with national and various sub-national entities in the event of a natural disaster affecting one or more areas of the country.

Cluster Preparedness Related to the Emergency Response Preparedness (ERP) Approach

Specific functions of clusters at either country or global level, as appropriate, can be determined under each phase of the Emergency Response Preparedness approach, with particular focus to be given to the MPAs.

A Risk Profile is developed by the HCT/UNCT or other in-country coordination mechanism at that level, to avoid fragmentation and ensure coherence within and across functions. The Risk Profile should be used to identify which clusters might be necessary and what risks could affect cluster-specific activities. An example of a risk profile can be found at 23 XXX.

Clusters should agree and prioritize MPAs actions necessary to ensure appropriate arrangements within the following areas:

coordination assessment planning monitoring information management capacity building

and training resource

mobilization public information

23 Insert link to example of a risk profile


Countries with Resident Coordinators – High Risk

Countries with Resident Coordinators –Low Risk

Risk Assessment and Early Warning

Minimum Preparedness Actions (MPAs)

17

MPAs should be specifically tailored to the requirements, structure and mandates of each cluster. In reviewing the MPAs, gaps may become apparent for priority attention. Preparedness actions include pre-positioning of stocks, establishment of emergency response rosters, regular training of enumerators for rapid needs assessments and/or readiness for early deployment of a United Nations’ Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) Team. An example of a cluster MPA, developed by the IASC Sub-Working Group can be found at 24XXX

Clusters should engage in the Contingency Response Planning process of the HCT or UNCT and provide technical support as needed. This includes contributing to scenario planning, and overall objectives, and determining how these objectives can be met by each cluster’s response activities, along with budget allocations which can serve as useful inputs for Flash Appeals. Clusters should also discuss the capacities of members to undertake specific activities within certain timeframes and geographic coverage. It should include consideration of what can feasibly be achieved with stock levels and standby human resources. An example of a Contingency Plan can be found at25.

The Emergency Response Preparedness approach includes a requirement of the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator and the Clusters to develop SOPs for the first seven days after a crisis strikes. SOPs outline clear roles and responsibilities and focus on continuity of operations, rapid scale-up of humanitarian assistance and effective coordination within and among clusters. They should include agreed rapid needs assessment tools which can be implemented, where appropriate, jointly by international humanitarian and national actors, including arrangements for the collation and reporting of this data to inform response strategies and actions. Inter-agency SOPs are included in global level IASC ERP guidance. An example of a rapid needs assessment tool is available at26 XXX.

24 Insert link to example of cluster MPA25 Insert link to example of contingency plan26 Insert link to example of a rapid needs assessment tool


Contingency Response Planning

Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs)

18

6 Cluster Management Arrangements

This section covers the organization and coordination of the various cluster components – the Cluster Lead Agency, the Cluster Coordinator and all cluster participants at the national and sub-national level – in order to deliver on the core functions of the cluster. It is important to balance the need for consultation on operational concepts with the need to provide leadership of a cluster in an emergency to ensure key decisions are taken by a manageable number of partners.

A well-run cluster is a formal deliverable of the Cluster Lead Agency and forms a part of the agency’s work. However in practice, it has been recognized by the IASC and donors that the efficient management or functioning of clusters is the joint responsibility of the Cluster Lead Agency, the Cluster Coordinator, resourcing partners and all cluster participants at the national and sub-national level.

The criteria for participation in the more strategic, management work of the cluster are:

Operational relevance in the emergency Technical expertise Demonstrated capacity to contribute strategically and to provide practical support Commitment to contribute consistently

Efficient cluster management should encompass the following characteristics:

Monitored performance of the six core cluster functions with regard to developing programmes – which clearly contribute to the implementation of evidence-based strategic objectives – based on the identification of good field practices and agreed international benchmarks and standards;

Establishment and maintenance of an appropriate humanitarian coordination mechanism;o Strengthening pre-existing sectoral coordination through increased

predictability and accountability;o Building complementarity of partner actions: avoiding duplication and gaps; o Ensuring adequate resources are mobilized and are equitably allocated for the

effective functioning of the cluster and its response; o Effective and comprehensive integration of relevant cross-cutting issues,

including age, gender, environment and HIV/AIDs; Maintaining flexibility within the cluster to respond to changes in the operating

environment, evolving requirements, capacities and participation; The effective use and transfer of information to, from and between cluster

members and other stakeholders; Interaction with other clusters (including through inter-cluster coordination fora),

humanitarian actors, government counterparts, and relevant authorities for operational planning, engagement and active contribution of operational partners;

Accountability to the affected population through effective and inclusive consultative and feedback mechanisms.


Effective and efficient cluster management is a shared responsibility

Characteristics of a well-managed cluster

19

There is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach to cluster management. Due to the varying size, scope and complexity of disasters and cluster response, the choice of a management approach must be adapted to need and may change as the response evolves. However, experience has provided some models for efficient cluster management which have been approved by the IASC. In 2011, the IASC Principals agreed that “participation in clusters should be better defined and managed to enhance the ability of clusters to provide strategic direction, including through the creation of small ‘Steering Committees’ (SC) or ‘Strategic Advisory Groups’ (SAG) of key operational partners, complemented by separate forums or mechanisms to ensure broader information exchange for all cluster/sector partners”27. The number of SCs or SAGs formed will be context dependent and based on the need to ensure the required leadership.

Chaired by the Cluster Coordinator, the SAG is responsible for developing and adjusting the strategic framework, priorities and work plan for the cluster. SAG membership must be representative of the overall cluster partnership. Apart from operational UN, International Organization for Migration (IOM) and NGO representatives, SAG members have included government representatives/focal points; donors; national NGO forum representatives; representatives of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and National Societies; OCHA; cluster representatives; and where appropriate military liaison officers (see table below). However, to be efficient and effective and avoid the challenges arising from a large number of cluster partners, SAG membership should also be limited (up to a maximum of 15 partners in larger emergencies). To avoid feelings of exclusion among other cluster partners, the SAG (through the Cluster Coordinator) must interact with the broader cluster membership to ensure a regular flow of information.

Table 2. SAG Member/Invitee OptionsPossible SAG Members

National Level Sub-National Level

Cluster Coordinator (supported by an information management specialist and cluster administrative support officer)

National NGO technical experts International NGO technical experts IFRC representatives (in natural

disasters not affected by conflict) UN technical experts OCHA Government representatives

The need for sub-national management should be determined by the national level SAG on a context specific basis (please also see section on sub-national coordination).Membership does not need to directly mirror national level and often has greater representation of local authorities and NGO partners in both leadership and/or technical roles.

Potential Invitees to the SAG (as appropriate)

Sub-national cluster focal points Donor representatives Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement representatives Regional focal points, in instances where agencies may have technical

expertise based at a regional level Military representatives and other authorities, as appropriate

27 Final Summary and Action Points, IASC Principals meeting, 13 December 2011, recommendation 29.


No ‘one-size fits all’ approach to cluster management

Strategic Advisory Group

20

Technical Working Groups (known as ‘TWiGs’ or ‘TWGs’) are task-oriented and time-limited. They are created as needed, for example to agree minimum standards and formulate appropriate technical practices, or to find solutions to local issues and advise the SAG accordingly. TWiGs are coordinated by a focal point or technical advisor nominated by the SAG and consist of the necessary technical experts, usually not more than 15 people.

To facilitate communication with specific groups within the broader membership or outside of the cluster - such as experts in particular technical areas (including cross-cutting issues), military actors, government counterparts, and UN senior leadership - the SAG might also designate cluster partners to serve as a liaisons with these groups.

Yemeni girls stay at home to work when food is limited. With one of the greatest gender disparities in the world, school feeding programmes strive to encourage rural families to enrol their young daughters in basic

and secondary education. Credit: Yemen HCT


Technical Working Groups

21

7 Minimum Commitments for Participation in Clusters

Without constant commitment by cluster participants, predictable coordination will not be achieved.

These minimum commitments for participation in country-level clusters provide a common basis of understanding of what organizations – whether local, national, or international – commit to bring to clusters at the country level through their participation. The commitments are not intended as a means to exclude organizations from participating in clusters nor should they prevent actively seeking the participation of national authorities within cluster coordination, as appropriate.

Balanced with these commitments from cluster partners, Cluster Lead Agencies have a reciprocal responsibility28 to ensure that they lead clusters in a manner that goes beyond simply sharing information and that they provide effective coordination with their sub-national counterparts. Cluster Lead Agencies, together with the Cluster Coordinators, are responsible for providing a forum for strategic response that meets the needs of affected people and that feeds into other levels of strategic response (e.g. inter-cluster coordination at the country and global levels).

All cluster partners, including Cluster Lead Agencies in their potential role as implementer alongside other agencies, have common, mutual responsibilities to reach the objective of effective and timely humanitarian response for affected people.

The minimum commitments for participation in clusters include:

A common commitment to humanitarian principles, the Principles of Partnership29 through for example, cluster-specific guidance and internationally recognized programme standards, including the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.

Readiness to participate in actions that specifically improve accountability to affected populations as per the IASC Commitments to Accountability to Affected Populations30 and the related Operational Framework.

28 The terms of Cluster Coordinator, Cluster Lead Agency and Humanitarian Country Team are used as per the IASC Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response (November 2006); the Joint letter from Cluster Lead Agencies to their Directors/Representatives at Country Level (October 2009), IASC Guidance for Humanitarian Country Teams (November 2009).29 Equality, transparency, results-oriented approach, responsibility, and complementarity as defined in the statement of commitment available at www.globalhumanitarianplatform.org 30 These commitments refer to leadership and governance; transparency; feedback and complaints; participation; and design, monitoring and evaluation. See Revised Action Points, IASC Principals meeting, 13 December 2011.


The minimum commitments are not prescriptive and should be adapted to actual needs and context as cluster-based responses vary greatly in size, scope and complexity. These commitments are a starting point and should be considered as an absolute minimum to which organizations may build. Country-level clusters should use this document as a basis when developing or updating their terms of reference and their own commitments.

The case for commitment by cluster participants

Agreeing to the commitments

Minimum commitments

22

http://www.globalhumanitarianplatform.org/

Demonstrate an understanding of the duties and responsibilities within the cluster, as defined through IASC terms of references and guidance notes31 and any guidance specific to the cluster itself, as well as country cluster terms of reference, where available.

Active participation within the cluster and commitment to consistently engage in the cluster’s collective work.

Capacity and willingness to contribute to the cluster’s strategic response plan and activities, which must include inter-cluster coordination and cross-cutting issues (age, gender, environment and HIV/AIDs).

Commitment from a relevant senior staff member to engage consistently in the cluster towards the fulfillment of its mission.

Commitment to work cooperatively with other cluster partners to ensure an optimal and strategic use of available resources, including sharing information on organizational resources.

Willingness to take on leadership responsibilities of sub-national and/or working groups, as needed and as capacity and mandates allow.

Contribute to developing and disseminating advocacy and messaging targeted at various actors, including, but not limited to, affected communities, the host government, donors, the HCT, cluster lead agencies, and the media.

Ensure interpretation and effective communication (i.e. appropriate language) in order to support diverse participation within the cluster, notably from local organizations (and national and local authorities where appropriate).

Humanitarian workers at a coordination meeting in South Sudan's Pibor coordination hub, Jonglei State, where inter-communal violence affected nearly 170,000 people. Aid organizations have recorded 165 violent incidents with humanitarian consequences in the first five months of 2012 alone. Credit: OCHA

31 This includes, but is not limited to, the Generic Terms of Reference for Sector/Cluster at the Country Level and IASC guidance on particular cross-cutting issues and information management.


8 Sub-National Level Coordination

Sub-national coordination refers to de-centralizing coordination from the national level by establishing sub-clusters/sectors in zones of particular operational importance. Structures may be established at more than one administrative level if required (e.g. provinces and districts in Pakistan), although the underlying principle of minimizing structures remains firmly in place. Sub-national coordination is critical where the response take place in remote areas (e.g. in Sudan) or over a large amount of territory (e.g. in the DRC).

Coordination structures in humanitarian operations that involve both national and sub-national level clusters have been identified as more effective than coordination models that comprise a single national level cluster. Notwithstanding resource limitations and operational context considerations, it is highly desirable to have sub-national clusters to facilitate decentralized decision-making and enhance the response time between decision-taking and implementation. In addition, sub-national level clusters are better suited to adapting existing standards to local circumstances. They are also better placed to maintain close cooperation with international, national and local NGOs and authorities in implementing the strategic plan; paying attention to cross-cutting and multidimensional issues; ensuring greater community involvement and participation; and enhancing accountability to affected populations.

However, as outlined above, sub-national clusters should only be established on the basis of the operational needs and should be de-activated as soon as those needs are met or when there is local capacity to coordinate the response in that area.

The establishment of sub-national clusters should be formalized in terms of reference outlining the key functions of the sub-national cluster and the parameters within which it will operate. The agreed terms of reference should be shared with the national Cluster Lead Agency for final endorsement.

Within the limits of available resources and operational context, sub-national clusters should have full- or part-time sub-national level Cluster Coordinators. Sub-national clusters offer ideal opportunities for UN agencies, international and national NGOs as well as national authorities to share cluster leadership.

The national level clusters should provide support and policy direction to sub-national clusters. There must be a clear link between corresponding sub-national and national clusters in order to facilitate reporting, information-sharing and collaboration with national and other sub-national level clusters; to promote national programmatic cohesion and overall coordination to track trends; to identify common concerns across operational areas; and to develop more upstream advocacy and programming strategies. To ensure this coherence, the terms of reference should establish clear accountability lines between national and sub-national clusters, thus enabling the decentralization of operational decisions. There should also be a clearly understood sequencing between national and sub-national bodies: national meetings should take place after sub-national meetings and both discussions should be based on a reliable record of decisions taken and issues raised.


Importance of sub-national coordination

Sub-national cluster establishment

Relationship between national and sub-national clusters

24

The terms of reference of sub-national clusters should follow the core functions of the cluster at the country-level, while at the same time being streamlined and tailored to local operational realities. Accordingly, the working methods of sub-national clusters must be light and focused on service delivery and operational activities; ensuring reporting and information sharing with the national cluster and, through that mechanism, other sub-national clusters; and promoting the involvement of the affected populations in cluster activities to ensure that humanitarian actors respond adequately to their actual needs.

Coordination meeting at Agok in Warrap state, South Sudan. Thousands of residents of Abyei settled in Agok after being displaced by armed clashes in 2011. Credit: OCHA/D DeLorenzo


Types of sub-national activities

25

9 Sharing Leadership within the Cluster Approach

A number of evaluations and reports have found that clusters that share leadership between UN, NGOs, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement32 and other key humanitarian actors, including IOM, generally produce positive benefits by improving partnership, advocacy and information for a better response. Sharing leadership ensures stronger engagement and better coordination. This is especially true in remote field locations where a UN presence may be limited or non-existent, and where often NGOs may have a strong and consistent presence. In addition to access, NGOs can also bring technical expertise; different approaches on accountability to affected people; long-term community involvement and understanding; and an expansive partnership potential to any leadership role.

Shared leadership is an approach which allows for an equitable and meaningful distribution of either Cluster Lead Agency or cluster coordination responsibilities at the global, national and/or sub-national levels. It is accompanied by clear roles, mutual understanding and defined accountabilities. The appropriate and transparent sharing of leadership amongst different actors is a true reflection of the interdependency of the humanitarian community to ensure an effective strategic response.

While dependent on the context, sharing leadership will require actors to go beyond the norms of participation and implementation, and to define together clear and well-understood leadership roles and responsibilities. No matter what the level, an examination of the leadership role to be shared, and its accompanying responsibilities must be undertaken as part of a joint terms of reference development. This should cover the complementary roles of the Cluster Lead Agencies, the Cluster Coordinators and the cluster participants, ensuring that key aspects - such as accountabilities, strategy, representation, advocacy, fundraising and visibility - are clear to all parties33.

There are several shared leadership examples. The Global Logistics Cluster embraces shared leadership through the secondment of NGO staff with specialized skills to the global cluster support cell. Seconded staff can be deployed to serve as Cluster Coordinators while working in the support cell. This shared leadership model is useful in providing training; ensuring a consistent approach to each Logistics Cluster deployment; ensuring that information management and reporting are handled consistently; applying lessons learned uniformly; and engaging secondees in preparedness missions. It also allows NGOs, which might not be in a position to take on the Provider of Last Resort responsibilities, to operate with authority at the field level as secondees of the Logistics Cluster, supported by WFP.

32 Subject to the mandates of the three different components of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement.33 Please see the good practice catalogue on the IASC website. In South Sudan, for example, there is a process of developing a generic terms of reference for NGO cluster co-coordinators.


Sharing leadership

Examples of shared leadership

26

Another example is sharing cluster leadership across the timeframe of an operation with one Cluster Lead Agency handing over to another in a planned and agreed fashion. The model of shared leadership used by the Emergency Shelter Cluster in natural disasters since 2006 is that of "phased leadership", whereby different agencies lead the cluster for different phases of the response (e.g. agencies like IFRC with expertise in emergencies and the required surge capacity mechanisms lead during the emergency and transitional phases, handing over to agencies such as UN-Habitat with developmental expertise to lead during the recovery phase).

When considering sharing leadership of the cluster, the following points should be taken into account:

Terms of reference or memoranda of understanding must be developed to ensure a common understanding of roles and responsibilities with the leadership arrangement within a specific context, as well as common accountabilities. Examples of different terms of reference are available on http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/. Actors engaged in shared leadership should jointly determine the shared leadership model that works best for their context. The terms of reference must be completed and understood in advance as taking on a shared leadership role will in most cases require actors to hire full-time staff.

Sharing leadership amongst actors can augment and strengthen cluster leadership but should not relieve the designated in-country cluster lead agency of its core responsibilities and agreed accountabilities, including Provider of Last Resort34.

Terms used to describe sharing leadership vary, with co-facilitator, co-coordinator, co-steward, co-lead, sub-cluster coordination, sub-national leadership, work group membership, task force chairs and secondment all used in different contexts. Within the complex and diverse environment of response, harmonization of language should be sought; Global Cluster Lead Agencies and HCTs are encouraged to provide guidance on this during the development of terms of reference.

While potentially difficult in some cases, a goal within any response is for national governments to uphold their responsibilities to their own people. Those who take on shared leadership roles should assist with national capacity building.

There are transactional costs to sharing leadership effectively, in both workload and financial terms. Resource partners, the RC/HC and the HCT need to ensure that funding does not present a barrier to actors who would otherwise be in a position to share the leadership of cluster responses. When possible (where financial mechanisms under its authority exist) the HC/HCT should help to mobilize funds to support shared leadership and in other countries donor support should be encouraged.35

34 The 2008 definition of Provider of Last Resort (POLR) was revised by the IASC Principals in December 2011 to read: “Where necessary, and depending on access, security and availability of funding, the cluster lead, as POLR, must be ready to ensure the provision of services required to fulfil critical gaps identified by the cluster and reflected in the HC-led HCT Strategic Response Plan.”35 The Framework on Cluster Coordination Costs and Functions in Humanitarian Emergencies at Country Level (May 2011) highlights the value of NGOs taking on leadership roles in coordination and states that "donors will also explore mechanisms to fund NGOs directly for coordination roles.”


Parameters of shared leadership

For further consideration

27

Sharing leadership will not compensate for poor core leadership. The expectation is that sharing leadership will improve strong leadership by increasing capacity. It is incumbent upon the Cluster Lead Agency and its partners to ensure that qualified staff are placed in positions of leadership.

Training opportunities in the competency areas required to ensure success within a shared leadership structure must be provided to all relevant actors.

Not all actors are willing or able to share leadership responsibilities and, as with cluster activation, decisions to share leadership should be based on an assessment of needs and capacities on the ground.


10 Inter-Cluster Coordination

Inter-cluster coordination is coordination between clusters around all aspects of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle, in support of strategic evidence-based decision making by HCTs and the HC. Inter-cluster coordination ensures multidisciplinary and cross-cutting issues that cannot be tackled by individual clusters alone or that call for concerted action are addressed appropriately, that inter-cluster duplications and gaps are eliminated and synergies are encouraged with the aim of delivering a more effective response to affected people.

Inter-cluster coordination is a key means of discussing shared strategic and operational issues which are then fed to the HC/HCT for decision making and support. The focus of inter-cluster coordination is the preparation, operationalisation and review of the Strategic Response Plan.

The following core functions are common to all levels of inter-cluster coordination:

Identifying and operationalising critical inter-cluster/sectoral synergies and coverage gaps based on consolidated needs and capacity assessment, analysis and monitoring

Developing strategic response priorities and resource allocation for the HCT Incorporating components of a protection and early recovery strategy to inform the

strategic response plan Highlighting issues which require specific advocacy support from the HCT Practical coordination of operational activities, to achieve the strategic objectives

by taking opportunities to work more efficiently together and reduce potential overlaps between clusters

Putting in place an enabling environment through common standards and tools Addressing common operational issues and inter-cluster/sectoral needs from

service clusters

Inter-cluster coordination is most effective when Cluster Coordinators participate proactively and are able to represent appropriately the views of their cluster partners.

The Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), in consultation with cluster coordinators and Cluster Lead Agencies, should decide the best inter-cluster coordination arrangements for the country context, both at the national and sub-national level.

Inter-cluster coordination takes place at various levels and can take a number of different forms, depending on the specific coordination needs in-country


Humanitarian Coordinator

Coordination Facilitation and

Support

Humanitarian Country Team

Inter-Cluster CoordinationClusters

Purpose

Core Functions of Inter-Cluster Coordination

Levels of Inter-Cluster Coordination

29

1. At the HC/HCT: Coordination by the Cluster Lead Agencies to enable development of the Strategic Response Plan (see section 5) and leadership of the international humanitarian response operation in support of the national response.

2. Between the HC/HCT and the Clusters: two or more relevant clusters grouping to coordinate the development and implementation of specific strategic and operational objectives established by the HCT

Insert Diagram to show the linkages between strategic objectives, specific clusters and inter-cluster coordination

3. In support of clusters: Coordination between the cluster coordinators and other relevant national and

international operational partners and cross-cutting issue representatives around a specific strategic or operational issue.

Fora ensuring all clusters are informed of strategic and operational issues of common interest or concern

Support to the production of common strategic and operational products and outputs around the humanitarian programme cycle

Services and support to provide an enabling operational environment

The Coordination of Strategic and Operational Objectives by Groups of Clusters

Emphasis and support needs to be given specifically to inter-cluster coordination between smaller numbers of clusters that need to work together on specific strategic objectives of joint concern.

Examples of Strategic Response Issue

Examples of Clusters that may work together on this

Malnutrition Nutrition, WASH, Food Security, Food, HealthCholera Health, WASH, ShelterHousing Reconstruction Strategies Shelter, WASH, Protection, EnvironmentChild Protection Education, Protection WASH, Shelter

Early recovery strategies - Rubble Removal

Shelter, Logistics, Protection

As illustrated below in the example of the Survival Strategy in Pakistan, respective Cluster Coordinators organize themselves to determine the most appropriate arrangements for inter-cluster coordination at the national and sub-national level.

Case Study - Pakistan – Survival Strategy

The overall aim of the strategy was to save lives and to reduce morbidity among affected populations through the provision of food, life-saving maternal and neonatal, preventive and curative health and nutrition services, safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene practices. An integrated approach having a very strong component of community based interventions is essential to address the factors that contribute to the main mortality risks such as, acute diarrhoea, acute respiratory infections, malaria, measles, malnutrition, and maternal and neo-natal mortality/morbidity.

The aim of the multi-agency/cluster framework was to build upon the core functions of the respective clusters to maximise programmatic synergies between the sectors, to deliver more effective and efficient results.


Strategic Inter-Cluster Coordination

30

The multi-agency/cluster framework regarding analysis, prioritisation and strategy development and allowed cluster members to elaborate joint planning and programming processes.

As well as coordination of inter-cluster strategic interest, clusters need to work together on areas of shared operational interest which improve the efficiency of response. This may be done between two or more clusters. Some clusters at global level have proposed checklists to assist country level clusters in identifying common issues which may need to be clarified between clusters3637.

Examples of Operational Response Issues Examples of Clusters that may work together on the Operational Response Issue

Health and Hygiene Promotion - clarity of roles and synergies, no overlap in content and outreach work)

Health, Nutrition, WASH

Scheduling of distributions, vaccinations, campaigns to take opportunity to target populations with multiple activities of different sectors and to ensure no competing activities scheduled at the same time

Food, Health, WASH, Nutrition, Logistics

Joint field visits for issues of inter-cluster strategic concern eg outbreak investigations; floods resulting in an inter-agency assessment site assessments

Health and Protection (Afghanistan)Potentially all clusters

There are services and activities which help create the right environment within which inter-cluster coordination can operate more effectively. Enablers therefore represent a means to more effective inter-cluster coordination, rather than an end in themselves.

Enabler Typical Examples

Common Standards/Approaches Sphere Core StandardsFeedback mechanisms for affected populations

Information Management Standards

Common Operational Data Sets(CODS)Fundamental Operation Data Sets (FODS)38

Information Management Tools 4W Matrix

OCHA often provides support to ensure this enabling environment by facilitating work towards such common tools and standards.

This may be through bringing together resources within clusters, for example information managers, but may also require dedicated specialist capacity to work with and facilitate processes and outputs which are inter-cluster in nature eg needs assessment, information management

36 Inter-cluster matrices of roles and responsibilities between WASH and CCCM, Shelter, Health, Nutrition, Early Recovery, Education http://www.washcluster.info/drupal/?q=technical-library/intercluster-coordination; 37 Protection cluster mainstreaming reference sheets and trainings being produced in collaboration with/for CCCM, Wash, Shelter and Food Security clusters and will be available in the Protection Mainstreaming Section, www.globalprotectioncluster.org38 http://cod.humanitarianresponse.info/about


Operational Inter-Cluster Coordination

Enabling Environment

31

http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/

http://www.washcluster.info/drupal/?q=technical-library/intercluster-coordination

In the same way that the humanitarian programme cycle has relevance and implications at both the cluster and inter-cluster levels, the products associated with each component of the cycle also have cluster and inter-cluster elements.

The table in Annex 2 illustrates products or outputs within the framework of the HPC which have an inter-sectoral element to them, and include direct examples of the inter-sectoral nature of the output or product. The examples given refer to situations where two or more clusters may come together around such an element (and not always all clusters), as well as in some instances, all clusters.

The HC/HCT, informed by recommendations from Cluster Coordinators and Cluster Lead Agencies, is responsible for determining the need and the most appropriate mechanism to ensure inter-cluster coordination, beyond the HCT itself, particularly in operationalizing priorities identified by the HC/HCT that cut across sectors. This will be influenced by the complexity of the coordination challenges, the number of clusters activated, the existence of other coordination structures and any additional criteria identified by the HC/HCT.

This also includes the possibility of establishing an inter-cluster coordination forum bringing all the clusters together on issues of common strategic and operational interest. Inter-cluster coordination may also be facilitated through other more flexible approaches outside of larger more formal meetings to include any form of communication (eg physical, tele/video conferences) or working arrangements which brings added value where two or more clusters work together.

The HC/HCT, and Cluster Coordinators may consider, on a needs basis, including other stakeholders eg private sector, donors, NGOs in inter-cluster arrangements around a specific strategic or operational issue. The case study from Haiti describes such an example

Case Study - Haiti 2010

The interdependence between the many aspects of the humanitarian response underscored the need for inter-cluster coordination to enable effective information sharing and decision-making on topics that did not clearly fall under any one cluster’s ‘responsibility’. In the case of shelter provision and rubble removal, for example, this was addressed in the inter-cluster coordination forum and through bilateral meetings between the Shelter cluster and Early Recovery cluster leads.

A number of non-humanitarian actors (including foreign militaries and the private sector) had a critical role to play in rubble removal, and rubble removal was a necessary first step before humanitarian organisations could begin providing transitional shelter.


Inter-Cluster/ Sector Coordination Within the Framework of the HPC

Inter-Cluster Coordination Structures

Role of OCHA in Supporting Inter-cluster Coordination 32

OCHA is normally asked to ensure inter-cluster coordination with appropriate levels of dedicated capacity, and facilitate the operationalisation of the components of the humanitarian programme cycle where inter-cluster issues are identified at strategic and operational levels as illustrated in the example products of the HPC in Annex 2.

OCHA, may support inter-cluster coordination more broadly through support to providing an ‘enabling’ environment eg inter-cluster information management tools and coordination, direct support in facilitating multi-cluster assessments, pooled fund/common humanitarian fund mechanisms.

OCHA may be requested by the HC to establish an inter-cluster coordination forum to ensure all clusters are fully informed of strategic planning and other key issues arising from inter-cluster discussions and to keep the HC (HCT) informed of progress and any issues which may require input or support from them 39. Whilst not requiring to facilitate all inter-cluster coordination, OCHA would need to be kept up to date and informed of key issues arising from such inter-cluster discussions to ensure appropriate support

Early recovery is a vital element of an effective humanitarian crisis response, using humanitarian mechanisms in accordance with development principles. It is an integrated, inclusive, and coordinated approach to gradually turn the dividends of humanitarian action into sustainable crisis recovery, resilience building and development opportunities.

The Humanitarian Coordinator/Resident Coordinator (HC/RC) has the lead responsibility for ensuring early recovery issues are adequately integrated in the humanitarian programme cycle at country level in cooperation with national actors, with the support of an Early Recovery Advisor working on inter-cluster early recovery issues.

In order to focus on delivery of results, a flexible approach should be adopted for coordinating inter-cluster early recovery at the national level, using existing inter-cluster humanitarian coordination fora rather than creating new ones.

Together with the integration of early recovery into the work of country clusters, the HCT identifies if an additional coordination body needs to be created locally to meet specific early recovery needs (e.g. emergency employment, community infrastructure, restoration of local governance) which would not be covered otherwise. That body, or cluster, would be named according to its subject matter and not using the generic title of ‘early recovery’, so as to avoid possible confusion with the broader mainstreaming efforts.

It is the responsibility of each cluster to ensure the integration of a protection lens and cross-cutting issues, along with support from the HC and potential focal points for various cross-cutting issues direct to clusters and within inter-cluster co-ordination.

39 Such HC/HCT support needs should be reinforced through the relevant Cluster Lead Agencies on the HCT


Inter-cluster coordination and Early Recovery

Inter-cluster coordination and Cross-Cutting Issues

33

11 Coordination Performance Monitoring40

This section requires updating to list all performance monitoring processes and tools – (1) coordination activation checklist (2) country cluster configurations (3) cluster performance monitoring (and recent updates) and (4) Annual Cluster Reviews (fit for purpose), how they can support each other and the chronology; fitting with strategic planning and resource mobilisation

Monitoring coordination performance at the national and sub-national level in both sudden onset and protracted crises is necessary to ensure that clusters are efficient and effective coordination mechanisms, fulfilling the core cluster functions outlined in this Module, meeting the needs of constituent members, and supporting delivery to affected people. It is also necessary for accountability purposes to demonstrate the added value and justify the cost of coordination.

This section elaborates on two elements to monitor coordination performance41: (1) the Cluster Activation Checklist and (2) the Coordination Performance Report. Both enable the identification of areas for support, improvement, and follow-up actions. The Cluster Lead Agency can also use the processes in support of its accountability to the RC/HC and national authorities. While this section focuses on monitoring the performance of clusters, consideration should be given to extending the focus to include ‘other coordination solutions’ in subsequent revisions of this Module.

Cluster Activation Checklist Two weeks One month Two monthsThe Cluster Activation Checklist is a simple tool designed to monitor progress of cluster activation and implementation after the declaration of a level 3 emergency, in line with commitments and the level 3 emergency response timeline agreed under the Transformative Agenda42. The checklist can also be used in all other contexts where clusters are activated.

The checklist is completed by the Cluster Coordinator in consultation with other humanitarian actors and looks at the status of the cluster activation, staffing, establishment of core functions, and deliverables. It can be used as both an ongoing performance checklist as well as a management and reporting tool. Updated checklists should be produced by each cluster at periods of two weeks, one month and two months after the declaration of a level 3 emergency or in other contexts after the activation of clusters.

40 This section does not include cluster evaluation or system-wide humanitarian response monitoring, which will be articulated in a framework to be developed by December 2012. 41 The Cluster Activation Checklist and Coordination Performance Report formats are available on clusters.humanitarianresponse.org.42 Please see the Level 3 Emergency Response Timeline (2012) available on the IASC website.


The Coordination Performance Report43 is used in all humanitarian responses with activated clusters and when there is more time available for a more in-depth assessment of the quality of cluster operations and production of key deliverables. If clusters are activated, it is completed three months after the onset of an emergency and every six months thereafter. In protracted crises, it is used immediately and then updated every six months.

The report focuses on the IASC six cluster core functions, as outlined in this Module, with an additional component on accountability to affected people. The report is based on feedback collected through a consultative process, with inputs from the Cluster Coordinator and cluster partners. This is an opportunity for self-reflection by the cluster, identifying areas that are working well and those that require increased attention, raising awareness on support needed from the Cluster Lead Agencies, partners, and/or Global Clusters.

To facilitate the completion of the Coordination Performance Report, separate questionnaires for Cluster Coordinators and for cluster partners have been developed to monitor the performance of coordination at national and sub-national levels. These questionnaires are on-line self-assessment tools designed to monitor the performance of the cluster in achieving its six core functions including a component on accountability to affected populations. The questionnaires aim to assist clusters recording the perception of partners and of Cluster Coordinators and do not replace existing cluster performance tools based on peer review.

When there are sub-national clusters, each of the hubs should be treated as a separate entity and reported against by the partners locally present in that cluster and the sub-national Cluster Coordinator. This is a separate exercise to that performed by the national cluster as it brings additional detail and insight.

43 The Coordination Performance Report will be rolled out in a number of countries in November 2012, with broader implementation planned for 2013.


Coordination Performance Report Three months Then every six

months

35

The Philippine National Red Cross distributed blanket and hygiene goods and made a tour to reassess the damages and the condition of the evacuation centers after typhoon Ondoy hit Calamba city in the province

of Laguna, Philippines in 2009. Credit: IFRC/Y. Shimizu


Annexes


Annex 1 Draft: Cluster Leadership, Activation and Transition in different contextsThe most significant criteria for Cluster activation is the capacity of national authorities to provide humanitarian coordination to the affected population in line with the key principles of Humanitarian Response. The table below outlines a number of contexts either the capacity of the national authorities varies or their willingness or ability to adhere to humanitarian principles is compromised. These factors will influence Cluster Activation and decisions around how to transition out of the Cluster Approach.

National Authorities Capacity and willingness to coordinate

Cluster Activation and leadership

Cluster Lead Agency accountability

Transitioning/deactivation Remaining humanitarian needs

A 1. National authorities are able to lead National crisis response coordination structure exists for priority sector, and its capacity can be expanded to welcome large number of international partners Government responds to needs based on humanitarian principles

No need to activate clusters Sector ministry leads, using existing disaster coordination structure International and national partners coordinated under National crisis response coordination structure. In case of an L3, an HCT is established and decides which clusters are activated or not, in dialogue with national authorities.

Government structure accountable to lead the coordination and overall response If clusters are not activated, there is no formal CLA at country level. However, the GCLAs, when present in country, facilitate sector-wide support from all international partners to the national disaster coordination structure The agencies who have a cluster responsibility at the global level (GCLA) have the responsibility and subsequent accountability to the government and HC(T) through their offices in-country to ensure a predictable response in line with the Transformative Agenda process. Global Cluster lead Agencies, together with international partners present in country provide support to ensure predictable and adequate performance of coordination functions as defined under the

If there are no formal clusters, there is no formal cluster transition / de-activation. GCLA when present in country and international partners have responsibility to apply principles of early recovery GCLA when present in country, facilitate sector-wide support from international partners to the national structure to review and, if needed, improve preparedness capacity for similar and other hazards in the future (contributing to resilience and reducing need for international response next time)

Remaining humanitarian needs are addressed by existing National crisis coordination structure When the need to support response decreases, international partners will leave or close programmes to support the National crisis response efforts.

A 2. National authorities’ ability to lead is limited / insufficient National crisis response coordination structure exists, but insufficient capacity to coordinate large number of international partners or large scale response Government

No need to activate clusters (unless decided otherwise in dialogue with the relevant government sector lead ministry). International and national partners coordinated under National crisis response coordination structure Government ministry leads, but coordination capacity supported by the

GCLA when present in country and international partners have responsibility to apply principles of early recovery, and where possible use the response to strengthen National crisis / humanitarian response coordination capacity (based on disaster management capacity assessment). GCLA when present in country and partners support national counterpart to improve preparedness for similar and other

Remaining humanitarian needs addressed by existing National crisis coordination structure, supported as needed by remaining international partners


responds to needs based on humanitarian principles

country office of the GCLA as co-lead or co-chair

cluster approach International partners accountable to commit to the principles of the cluster approach

hazards in the future For any activated clusters GCLA and partners, together with national counterpart, start developing transition or exit strategy after 90 days

A 3. National authorities’ ability to lead is absent No National crisis response coordination structure exists for a priority sectorGovernment responds to needs based on humanitarian principles

Relevant clusters are activated. Coordination led by CLA. Obligation to seek involvement of national counterpart, at least as co-chair as early as possible

CLA accountability applies Cluster partners accountable to commit to cluster approach

Identify national counterpart to co-chair/co-lead as early as possible CLA and international partners have responsibility to apply principles of early recovery CLA and international partners use the response period to initiate and build National crisis response coordination capacity CLA and partners, together with national counterpart, start developing transition or exit strategy after 90 days CLA and partners support national counterpart to improve preparedness for similar and other hazards in the future

Sector specific clusters deactivate when humanitarian needs have decreased and demand for coordination decreased as numbers of international partners reduced. In the sectors with residual humanitarian needs, clusters are only de-activated if coordination capacity exists on the governmental side.


National Authorities Capacity and willingness to coordinate

Cluster Activation and leadership

Cluster Lead Agency accountability

Transitioning/deactivation Remaining humanitarian needs

B1. National authorities’ ability to lead is compromised (e.g. actor in the conflict, no full control/access in all affected areas) National crisis response coordination structure not able to coordinate all affected areas/populations and national authorities agree with Cluster Coordination

Clusters are activated and able to coordinate response for all affected areas/populations

CLA accountability applies Cluster partners accountable to commit to cluster approach RC/HC, on behalf of the HCT advocates for humanitarian space and a humanitarian response that covers the needs of the entire affected population

Identify national counterpart to co-chair/co-lead as early as possible CLA and international partners have responsibility to apply principles of early recovery CLA and international partners use the response period to initiate and build National crisis response coordination capacity CLA and partners, together with national counterpart, start developing transition or exit strategy after 90 days CLA and partners support national counterpart to improve preparedness for similar and other hazards in the future

Sector specific clusters deactivate when humanitarian needs have decreased and demand for coordination decreased as numbers of international partners reduced. In the sectors with residual humanitarian needs, clusters are only de-activated if coordination capacity exists on the governmental side.

B2. National authorities are able to lead coordination of the response but allegations that humanitarian principles are not respected National crisis response coordination structure exists but significant discrepancies between national authorities and the humanitarian actors in terms of the principles and objectives of the humanitarian response

National authority takes the lead. If government sector does not take the lead to coordinate, cluster is to be activated, with risk that activation is not approved by government Global CLAs should continue to try to coordinate the response for their sector, to the extent that the security and political situation allows.

RC/HC, on behalf of the HCT advocates for humanitarian space and a humanitarian response that covers the needs of the entire affected populationCluster partners accountable to commit to cluster approach

CLA and international partners have responsibility to apply principles of early recovery CLA and international partners, together with national counterpart, formulate transition or exit strategy after 90 days Support to national coordination capacity not appropriate as long as humanitarian principles not respectedCLA and international partners develop preparedness and contingency plans, where appropriate with national counterpart when political situation allows

If the clusters were activated, the relevant clusters remain unless guarantee that national authorities / structures can take care of the residual humanitarian needs in a satisfactory way.

B3.National authorities are not able to lead coordination of the response, and allegations the humanitarian principles are not respected No National crisis response coordination structure exists and significant discrepancies between national authorities and the humanitarian actors in terms of the principles and objectives of the humanitarian response

Clusters activated, with risk that activation is not approved by government Global CLAs should continue to try to coordinate the response for their sector, to the extent that the security and political situation allows.


Annex 2 HPC Related Inter-Cluster Products and Outputs

HPC Component

Related Typical Product/Outputs Examples of Inter-Cluster Elements of Outputs

Preparedness Contingency Plan Implementation of Minimum Preparedness

Actions (MPA) Contribution to development of Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the preparedness emergency response actions

Analysis of scenarios, multi-sectoral nature of potential response

Coordination structures, joint needs assessment

Agreement on coordination structures in event of a crisis

Coordinated assessments

Contribute to the Preliminary Scenario Definition (PSD)

Contribute to Humanitarian Needs Overview Multi-cluster Initial Rapid Assessment

(MIRA)

Joint analysis of situational and initial needs assessment information

Development of joint rapid assessment approach

Strategic planning

Contribute to strategic response plan Strategic response plan indicators Identification inter-sectoral synergies to

meet strategic response objectives Proposed prioritisation of response activities Ensuring the protection lens of the strategic

response plan is incorporated across clusters

Clarification of responsibilities on issues shared between clusters

Defining inter-sectoral needs provided by service clusters

Ensuring integrated strategies on Early Recovery

Joint analysis of needs and multi-sectoral dimension of response

Agreed multi-sectoral indicators Appropriateness of Cash solutions Joint inter-sectoral analysis to propose

prioritization of response activities Agreed approach to protection analysis of

multi-sectoral strategies Clarity of agreement which sector will plan

for activities which could be covered by different clusters eg health care waste

Agreement on critical shared services needed eg logistics

Common approaches on shared early recovery actions eg cash based emergency employment

Resource Mobilisation

Flash/Consolidated Appeal Pooled/Common Humanitarian Fund

applications

Agreement proposals for timeline, prioritisation for funding

Agreed process and priortisationImplementation

coordination of field activities between clusters to ensure appropriate sequencing and/or sharing of events to maximise impact

Design of inter-cluster interface with affected populations

Identification of humanitarian access issues and impacts

Linking of timing different activities eg vaccinations, nutrition assessments

Common approaches to Cash Multi-sectoral approach for engagement

with communities Joint analysis of impacts and proposed

advocacy strategyMonitoring Joint mechanisms for accountability to

affected populations Monitoring of achievement of strategic

objectives

Inter-cluster framework for community feedback mechanisms

Joint analysis of objectives which are multi-sectoral

Operational Review/ Evaluation

Cluster Performance Monitoring; Contribute to operational reviews, real-time evaluations

Contribute to review of design of cluster/sector coordination structures and transition to development coordination structures

Inter-cluster sharing of results and actions to find common challenges and solutions

Agree common approach to review of appropriateness of coordination structures; agree approaches on engagement with national structures


Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAP Consolidated Appeals ProcessCERF Central Emergency Response FundCLA Cluster Lead AgencyECHA Executive Committee on Humanitarian AffairsERC Emergency Relief CoordinatorHC Humanitarian CoordinatorHCT Humanitarian Country TeamIARRM Inter-Agency Rapid Response Mechanism IASC Inter-Agency Standing CommitteeIFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesIOM International Organization for MigrationMHPSS mental health and psychosocial supportNGOs non-governmental organizationsOCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsRC Resident CoordinatorSC Steering CommitteeSAG Strategic Advisory GroupTOR terms of referenceTWiG Technical Working GroupUNDG United Nations Development Group UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNDOCO UN Development Operations Coordination OfficeUN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme


Further Reference

Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response, 2006 Operational Guidance on Designating Sector/Cluster Leads in Major New Emergencies, May 2007 Operational Guidance on Designating Sector/Cluster Leads in On-Going Emergencies, May 2007 IASC Draft Guidance on the Adaptation of Clusters in Transition, March 2011 Framework on Cluster Coordination Costs at the Country Level, May 2011 IASC Operational Guidance on Responsibilities of Cluster/Sector Leads an OCHA in Information

Management Cluster Lead Agencies Joint Letter on Dual Responsibility, November 2009 IASC Generic Terms of Reference for Cluster Leads at Country Level IASC Handbook for RCs and HCs on Emergency Preparedness and Response Emergency Shelter Cluster Review in Myanmar WASH Cluster Coordination Handbook, January 2009 WHO Health Cluster Guide, 2009


http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/who-health-cluster-guide

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/wash-cluster-coordinator-handbook

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/emergency-shelter-cluster-review-myanmar

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/handbook-rcs-and-hcs-emergency-preparedness-and-response

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-generic-tor-cluster-leads-country-level

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/cluster-lead-agencies-joint-letter-dual-responsibility

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-operational-guidance-responsibilities-sector-cluster-leads-and-ocha-information

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-operational-guidance-responsibilities-sector-cluster-leads-and-ocha-information

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/framework-cluster-coordination-costs-and-functions-country-level

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-draft-guidance-adaption-clusters-transition

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-operational-guidance-ongoing-emergencies

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-operational-guidance-designating-sectorcluster-leads-major-new-emergencies

http://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/document/iasc-guidance-note-using-cluster-approach-strengthen-humanitarian-response