Attachments
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
As the humanitarian system increasingly aligns on the common goal of furthering localisation2 , ABC models which shift decision-making structures away from the national level and move them closer towards communities seem like a common-sense step towards strengthening local actors’ role in the humanitarian system. Yet, ABC pilots to date have proved challenging in coming up with an operational model that works well and suits the priorities of all stakeholders. The ABC approach provokes a fundamental rethinking of the role of the Humanitarian Cluster System. Under the prevailing humanitarian architecture, the aim of the Cluster System is to coordinate multi-agency responses to large humanitarian emergencies and to improve the quality of humanitarian aid delivery. The cluster system categorises humanitarian activities into eleven work areas (or Clusters) and identifies coordinating organisations for each of them. The eleven clusters are led by UN agencies, based on their “technical” mandates, and supposed capacity to act as a service provider “of last resort”, in case of critical gaps. While this ensures that Cluster leads are able to provide technical support and guidance to implementing actors within “their” sector, in a worst-case (although, unfortunately, quite frequent) scenario, it can risk a conflict of interest. This is notably the case when a Cluster lead is “double hatting”, with joint responsibility both for funding and/or operations within their employer UN agency, and for coordinating the work of that agency, as the Cluster lead. Moreover, the concept of UN agencies as Cluster leads acting as the “provider of last resort” has too often failed to materialise in practice – limiting the relevance of this justification for the status quo model. Finally, the Cluster system has been criticised for being centred around capitalbased international humanitarian agencies, excluding local and national organisations from aid coordination activities despite, the widely accepted localisation. These shortcomings in the current coordination system have led to a rethinking, with a focus on Area-Based Coordination (ABC) models. These may take a number of forms, including both i) those where national structures maintain the mandate and responsibility for aid planning, but multisectoral operational coordination is devolved to local level; and ii) those were both aid planning and coordination shifts towards a multi-sectoral approach at the local level, rather than a sectorspecific lens at the national level. Depending on the context, this may entail coordination at the District, Governorate, Municipality, or other level which makes the most sense for response planning purposes (e.g. a watershed, a ‘catchment area’ of clustered displacement sites etc.). Regardless of the geographic level, ABC modalities identify local needs and capacities as the defining factors in decision-making for aid planning and delivery and empower local actors to take a much more central role in this process. ABC models therefore entail a repositioning of Clusters as technical reference points at the national level – responsible for quality assurance, the development and roll-out of standards through tools and approaches, and the sharing of best practices, both within and across contexts. Overall response planning and coordination will likely always need to be agreed at the central/ national level, to ensure coherence and buyin, and will therefore continue to involve the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and Cluster architecture at the macro level. However, in an ABC model, the responsibility for identifying needs and gaps, and the coordination of operational aid delivery would not sit with Clusters.