Report on implementation of global cluster capacity-building, Apr 2006 - Mar 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The present Report consolidates in one document the successes achieved and challenges confronted by each of the nine cluster working groups as they endeavoured over the past year to build global humanitarian response capacity in line with their agreed work plans. Each global cluster working-group has provided an update on its financial situation, achievements against objectives, indicators, field impact, attention to cross-cutting issues and risks and challenges. Cluster leads have confirmed that their cluster partners have been consulted on the content of the inputs provided to this report.

The present executive summary highlights some of the common themes emerging from efforts of the nine cluster working groups, in particular those relating to the preliminary impact of the global capacity-building effort on the timeliness and effectiveness of field-level humanitarian action. An over-arching theme raised of this report is that the wider humanitarian reform, and the cluster approach in particular, has challenged humanitarian actors to adopt a new working culture. This effort to change mindsets and working methods may not require specific funds, but it does require true commitment by the relevant agencies, in particular the cluster leads. The cluster working groups have all noted that this challenge has been critical, and those who have made the greatest advances in realising new, partnership-oriented working methods have also reported reaping the greatest rewards, in terms of streamlining and coherence of effort towards commonly agreed goals.

1. FUNDING AND FULFILMENT OF OBJECTIVES

Although the Cluster Appeal was eventually 65% funded, most clusters' ability to fulfil objectives outlined in their work plans were severely affected by late pledges and contributions (in one case, a pledge is still outstanding). Almost no funds were committed until July 2006, and most were not received until the autumn, over six months into the appeal cycle. Given that many clusters were not able to rely on existing internal resources for their more ambitious work plan objectives, this inevitably led to significant downscaling of performance. In the latter months of 2006, most clusters were at last more fully able to begin wide-scale implementation of their agreed work plans, and a number have reported that they will be able to spend over two-thirds of the funds that they have received by the end of the present appeal cycle (1 March 2007). All clusters, however, had to seek no-cost extensions to enable carry-over of funds received beyond this date.

These hurdles were further compounded in some cases by the speed with which the original appeal was put together, before all clusters had identified and brought into discussions all relevant partners. As the cluster working groups began to consolidate and form cohesive working teams over the course of summer 2006, a number of clusters significantly adjusted (and improved) their original work plans later in the year to take account of the concerns, capacities and competencies of new partners. In general - as working relationships and common understanding of humanitarian reform goals improved over the course of the year - this led to much greater clarification of capacity gaps and cluster objectives than had been evident in the original appeal submissions.

Despite initial delays in establishing effective funding modalities, four clusters reported very positive experiences with pooled funding mechanisms, whereby the cluster lead received all donor funds for global capacity-building, and then passed these on (either with no or low overheads) to appropriate cluster partners, following consultation on commonly agreed priorities. These clusters reported that the priority-setting and disbursement discussions helped build further trust and increased the sense of true partnership that the cluster concept is meant to foster. Three other clusters are now considering utilising similar pass-through mechanisms for the next appeal.

2. ACHIEVEMENTS IN GLOBAL CAPACITY-BUILDING AND FIELD IMPACT

There was general consensus that the regular meetings of the nine global cluster working groups significantly enhanced coherence and synergies between different operational agencies involved in similar sectors/areas of response. As 2006 progressed, most clusters also significantly increased their level of participation, indicating that formerly hesitant non-governmental partners began to appreciate the added value of joining the working groups as these began to focus more on products and results and less on composition and work planning. A few clusters also forged effective partnerships with relevant global-level governmental and private sector actors (e.g. the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and Ericsson Response) involved in the specific aspects of response.

Most clusters report having a much clearer understanding of global capacity and ongoing gaps as the year progressed, and many confirmed that the work on common standard-setting and harmonisation of tools, guidelines and training programmes, had led to greater pooling of knowledge and sharing of best practice among the various actors, better contingency planning, and more effective use of existing resources.

A number of clusters report that their efforts have improved predictability (in terms of clarifying who will do what in new emergencies) and accountability for the sector/area of response concerned, and most report that their work will, down the line, significantly improve adherence to common response standards and procedures. Finally, most clusters also report that their common training programmes and roster-development initiatives will improve the humanitarian community's ability to respond in a more timely and effective way to new emergencies. It is also commonly accepted that the interagency Cluster/Sector Lead Training programme, once launched in March 2007, will significantly widen the pool of reform-minded people able to lead response in new emergencies. Clearly, the ultimate test of the utility of global capacity-building efforts will be in the field. While it is still too early - given implementation delays caused by late- and under-funding - to judge the fieldlevel impact of the global capacity-building effort, it is clear that the past 18 months of work at the global level has borne some initial and important fruit. The cluster working groups' reports on this front also tally with several of the findings of the IASC Interim Self-Assessment of Implementation of the Cluster Approach in the Field.

Most clusters report that their efforts at the global level have led to significantly improved partnerships at the field level, indicating that the cluster approach, as intended, has positively impacted the working culture and communication between UN and non-UN actors. Cluster leads in particular noted that the partnership-building effort at the global level, once properly disseminated, has led to changed attitudes and improved collaboration on the ground. Some clusters note that the initial application of the approach in the field (e.g. Pakistan) was premature, since the concept of partnership, the efforts to increase capacity, and agreement on standards and roles were not yet in place at the global level let alone disseminated effectively to field colleagues. However, as 2006 progressed, cluster working groups engaged more actively in advising and supporting field responses such as Lebanon, Yogyakarta (Indonesia) and the Philippines, and many report that the resulting responses were more effective and predictable as a result of agreements and procedures that had been hammered out at the global level.

A few examples of concrete field impact of the capacity-building effort follow:

• The Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) cluster deployed experts to support CCCM coordination at the on-set of the recent crises in Ethiopia, Yogyakarta (Indonesia), Philippines and Timor-Leste, as well as in protracted emergencies in Uganda (including specifically on camp closure strategy) and Somalia. These initiatives led to more effective distribution of tasks, enhanced interface with national authorities on camp coordination issues, and thus to a consequent reduction of the potential for protection and assistance gaps in the camps;
• Early Recovery experts were deployed to support more effective recovery planning in Indonesia, Liberia, the Philippines, Somalia and Uganda. These deployments led to the inclusion of common strategies on early recovery in the appropriate country-strategy and appeal documents. An interagency early recovery rapid needs assessment took place in Uganda (Lira district) and in the Philippines. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a mapping of UN and non-UN reintegration/post-conflict/poverty reduction programmes was carried out to identify gaps;
• Emergency Shelter experts were deployed by the cluster to Lebanon, Timor-Leste, Yogyakarta (Indonesia), Somalia and Pakistan, leading to a more timely and effective shelter response in these emergencies, as well as a unified interface with national governments on the shelter response, so as to ensure better coordination with and support to national efforts; The Emergency Telecommunications cluster provided operational support for the inter-agency response in Lebanon, Mitwaba crisis (DRC) and Yogyakarta (Indonesia), resulting in predictable communications services being activated in a more timely manner than has been previously possible;
• The Logistics cluster was activated in the DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, and Yogyakarta (Indonesia), on a varying scale ranging from an informationsharing platform only, to this platform plus common ocean, air and overland transport services and warehousing. In Pakistan, the logistics cluster transported over 26,000 passengers and ,800 metric tonnes (MTs) of non-food consignments, and set up and coordinated supply routes and aid/overland transport assets out of the regional hubs;
• Field-level Health clusters have been established to ensure joint planning and joint action, stakeholder, and gap mapping, and common resource mobilisation and management in DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda, and were also established in response to the sudden-onset crises in Lebanon Pakistan, and the Philippines. This has led to better planning and enhanced complementarity in response;
• The Nutrition cluster guided the implementation of the cluster approach in the Lebanon crisis through weekly teleconferencing, emailing and technical support. Through weekly global consultations, gaps were identified and guidance was provided. The deployment to Lebanon of international nutritionists with appropriate skills by Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) cluster members resulted in the development of joint policy statements on infant and young child feeding, and the production of training and education materials. Significant guidance was provided to the cluster implementation in Somalia with very positive results in mapping of partners, identification of gaps and quality of actions and collaboration among cluster members;
• Under the auspices of the Protection cluster's capacity-building efforts, ten qualified and experienced Senior Protection Officers (SPOs) were recruited and deployed on 16 different assignments to protection-mandated agencies in ten countries. In five of these countries, the role of the SPOs has been to support the implementation of the cluster approach. 57 standby experts from the rosters of Save the Children (SC) (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), RedR and Austcare have been trained through the inter-agency ProCap training, and over half of those trained have been deployed in the field to support UN protection-mandated agencies in countries including Lebanon, Liberia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Timor Leste. Training workshops/programmes implemented by members of the Protection cluster working group have also enabled NGOs to assist and advocate for IDPs, and have strengthened their capacity to monitor their protection needs, in particular in areas with restricted access for UN agencies (Central African Republic [CAR], Somalia);
• Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH) cluster partners developed joint response strategies in Lebanon, Liberia and Yogyakarta (Indonesia), leading to significantly improved coordination of response, more effective programming and greater clarity on roles and responsibilities. Cluster activities also brought increased capacity to the WASH response in the DRC.

  3. RISKS AND CHALLENGES

  Despite these positive impressions of field impact, most clusters have also noted the challenge of translating the new partnership ethos fostered at the headquarters level to the field. For the technical, service-providing clusters (Emergency Telecommunications and Logistics) clarifying the services they can and cannot provide to field teams in new emergencies, as well as how their support differs from other common services, has been a challenge, and they report that efforts on this will be re-doubled in 2007. For the other clusters, establishing clear relationships with field-level sectoral/cluster groups has also proven complex, in part due to delays in effective dissemination of the whole humanitarian reform agenda to the field level and in part due to lack of internal coherence on global to field cluster communications. Most clusters will prioritise working with field counterparts to define more clearly what services, capacity, and other support they can offer to the field in 2007. In addition, it is clear that there is further progress to be made in some clusters in firmly establishing the attitudinal and cultural shifts necessary for the cluster approach to succeed.

  In this connection, several clusters note they will need to work extensively in 2007 on ensuring that the guidelines, tools and procedures that have been agreed to are systematically field-tested and applied, and to establish better mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the global cluster capacity-building on the field response. This is critical to ensure that the implementation of the humanitarian reform agenda, including the cluster approach, is fully field-driven and responsive to fieldlevel requirements.

  Many clusters reported positive engagement with national authorities at the field level, noting the advantages of providing one single, accountable focal point for the authorities and the Humanitarian Coordinators on a certain sector/area of response. Nevertheless, it is clear that the objectives and added-value of the global capacity-building exercise must be better explained to member states at the New York and Geneva levels as well as to national authorities at the field level. OCHA will take a lead role in this effort in 2007. Active participation by non-governmental partners in the global clusters has, in some clusters' views, been constrained by lack of resources at the headquarters level. Finding creative ways to ensure continued effective engagement by key NGO actors - whose programmes often form the majority share of response to emergencies, together with national-led responses - will be critical to ensuring the relevance of the global capacity-building exercise.

  Funding was, of course, a critical challenge to the successful implementation of the global capacitybuilding effort. Late and under-funding severely constrained several clusters' implementation of agreed priorities. Moreover, several agencies have expressed concern about how best to incorporate funding requirements for their new cluster commitments and responsibilities into their regular budgets from 2008 onwards. Donor support on confronting these two issues early in 2007 will be welcome.

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

  INTRODUCTION

  CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL TABLES

  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  CHAPTER 1: CAMP COORDINATION AND CAMP MANAGEMENT

  CHAPTER 2: EARLY RECOVERY

  CHAPTER 3: EMERGENCY SHELTER

  CHAPTER 4: EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS

  CHAPTER 5: HEALTH

  CHAPTER 6: LOGISTICS

  CHAPTER 7: NUTRITION

  CHAPTER 8: PROTECTION

  CHAPTER 9: WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE (WASH)

  CHAPTER 10: SUPPORTING MORE EFFECTIVE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE

  ANNEX I. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

  Note: The full text of this appeal is available on-line in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format and may also be downloaded in zipped MS Word format.

  Volume 1 - Full Original Appeal

  [zipped MS Word format]