Cluster Approach Evaluation 2 Synthesis Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IASC CLUSTER APPROACH EVALUATION, 2ND PHASE APRIL 2010 Cluster Approach Evaluation 2 Synthesis Report Julia Steets, François Grünewald, Andrea Binder, Véronique de Geoffroy, Domitille Kauffmann, Susanna Krüger, Claudia Meier and Bonaventure Sokpoh 2 Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the members / standing invitees of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Acknowledgments The evaluation team would like to thank all those who have provided their support and input to this evaluation. We are particularly grateful for the excellent and constructive guidance and support from the evaluation management team of Claude Hilfiker and Andreas Schütz, the constructive inputs and feedback from the evaluation steering group, the wisdom and advice of the members of our advisory group, the great support from OCHA country offices, and the willingness of all those many individuals in the six case study countries and at the global level to provide their time and insights through interviews, their participation in the survey or group discussions and their feedback on earlier versions of the synthesis and country reports. Our thoughts are particularly with those who supported our evaluation mission to Haiti, many of whom were deeply affected by the earthquake of January 12, 2010. 3 Table of contents Acronyms. 5 Executive Summary . 8 1 Introduction . .17 2 Method. 19 2.1 Overall approach. 19 2.2 Scope of the evaluation. 20 2.3 Limits of the evaluation. 21 2.4 Organization of the evaluation and quality management. .24 3 Background. 24 3.1 Humanitarian reform and the cluster approach. .24 3.2 Implementation at country level. .26 4 Findings: The functioning of clusters. .28 4.1 Stronger, more predictable leadership. .28 4.2 Important but incomplete guidelines from global IASC and national HCT and / or OCHA. 30 4.3 Little perceived support by global clusters. .32 4.4 Insufficient cluster focus and management. .34 4.5 A crucial role for OCHA, but weak inter-cluster coordination . 35 4.6 Insufficient coordination with existing mechanisms . 37 4.7 Positive, but at times unexplored, interactions with other pillars of humanitarian reform. 39 5 Findings: Direct results and activities . 42 5.1 Stronger partnership. 42 5.2 Weak accountability to the HC, stronger peer accountability. 44 5.3 Improved, but still problematic information management. 46 5.4 Little coordination of needs assessments. .49 5.5 Enhanced coherence. 51 6 Findings: Effects on the quality of humanitarian response and the humanitarian system. .54 6.1 Some effects on coverage . .54 6.2 Minimal integration of cross-cutting issues. .56 6.3 Very little participation of affected populations. .58 6.4 Weakened ownership . .60 6.5 A complex interplay between clusters and the speed of response. .63 6.6 Stronger humanitarian identity, but threat to humanitarian principles. .64 6.7 Stronger ability of the humanitarian system to learn. 65 4 7 Implications for the logic model of the cluster approach. .66 8 Conclusions. 70 9 Recommendations. .79 1 Identify existing preparedness, response and coordination mechanisms and capacities and link with/support/complement them where appropriate . 79 2 Strengthen cluster management and implementation modalities. 80 3 Enhance the focus on strengthening the quality of humanitarian response in cluster operations and activities. 83 4 Increase the focus of resources for the cluster approach on the local level. 86 5 Provide sufficient funding and define adequate ways for linking clusters and financing mechanisms. .87 6 Resolve outstanding policy issues at the global level: i) links to peacekeeping and political missions and humanitarian space, ii) institutional issues . 89 Annex 1: Selection of support products produced or recommended by global clusters 91 Annex 2: Overview of country-level cluster portraits. 95 Annex 3: List of indicators used in the evaluation. 106 Annex 4: Findings and their sources . .116 Annex 5: Interviewees . .123 Annex 6: Documents and literature consulted for the synthesis report (selection). 127 Annex 7: Survey results. 133 Annex 8: Recommendations of this report as compared to previous reports. 143 Annex 9: Terms of reference for the evaluation. .147 5 Acronyms 3Ws. .Who does What Where (an information management tool) ACAPS. Assessment Capacities project ASEAN. Association of Southeast Asian Nations CAP. .Consolidated Appeals Process CCCM. Camp Coordination and Camp Management CERF. Central Emergency Response Fund CHF. .Common Humanitarian Fund CWGER . Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery DPA. .United Nations Department of Political Affairs DPKO. United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations DRC. .Democratic Republic of Congo ERC. Emergency Relief Coordinator ERF. Emergency Respond Fund ETC. Emergency Telecommunications FAO. .United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FSNAU. Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit for Somalia GBV. .Gender-Based Violence GenCap. .Gender Standby Capacity GPS. .Global Positioning System GRAD. .Gaza Response Activity Database HC. Humanitarian Coordinator HCT. .Humanitarian Country Team HERF. Humanitarian Emergency Response Fund HRF. .Humanitarian Response Fund IASC . Inter-Agency Standing Committee ICRC . International Committee of the Red Cross ICVA. International Council of Voluntary Agencies IDP. Internally Displaced Person IFRC. .International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies ILO. International Labour Organization IPC. Integrated Food Security Phase Classification INEE . Inter-Agency Network on Education in Emergencies INGOs. .International Non-Governmental Organizations INSARAG. International Search and Rescue Advisory Group IOM. .International Organization for Migration IRA. Initial Rapid Assessment MSF. .Médecins Sans Frontières NATF. Needs Assessment Task Force NFIs. .Non-Food Items NGO. Non-Governmental Organization OCHA. .United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 6 oPt. The occupied Palestinian territory OSOCC. On-Site Operations Coordination Centre ProCap. Protection Standby Capacity SMART. Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions SMS. .Short Message Service TORs. Terms of Reference UN. United Nations UNAIDS. .The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNDAC . United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination system UNDP. .United Nations Development Programme UNEP. United Nations Environment Programme UNFPA. United Nations Population Fund UNHCR. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNRWA. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East WASH. .Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP. .United Nations World Food Programme 7 Illustration 1 Places visited for the evaluation LONDON GENEVA NEW YORK ROME OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY MYANMAR CHAD UGANDA HAITI NAIROBI DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 8 Executive Summary The cluster approach was introduced as part of humanitarian reform in 2005. It seeks to make humanitarian assistance more effective by introducing a system of sectoral coordination with designated lead organizations. Since 2005, much energy, time and money have been invested in the implementation of the cluster approach at global and country levels. The shape and functioning of the cluster approach on the ground has continuously evolved in this time as humanitarian actors have adapted the initial design to their needs and constraints. This evaluation assesses the operational effectiveness and main outcomes of the cluster approach to date and aims to develop recommendations on how it can be further improved. It draws most strongly on six country studies,1 but also on global and regional interviews, a survey among humanitarian actors, as well as literature and document analysis. Developing and implementing the cluster approach has required a significant financial investment. Over $ 57 million has been raised through global appeals, global cluster lead organizations have contributed from their own budgets and annual coordination costs in each country with active clusters are several million dollars. This corresponds to less than 1% of total humanitarian aid.2 The country studies revealed that the cluster approach to date has contributed to the following main improvements and benefits in the context of humanitarian reform:3 • Coverage of humanitarian needs has improved in some thematic areas. Depending on the country context, this includes gender-based violence, child protection, disability, water and sanitation and nutrition. • Gaps in humanitarian assistance are better identified and duplications are reduced. As a result, humanitarian actors can better target their assistance and resources are used more efficiently. 1 Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Haiti, Myanmar, the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) and Uganda 2 The global appeals covered the period between April 2006 and March 2008. They focused on capacity building at the global level, especially the training of staff, the creation of stockpiles and the development of standards, guidelines, systems and tools. The global appeals, as well as funds raised for coordination at country level, amount to less than 1% of total aid (an average of 0.74% for the global appeals and around 0.6% for example in the cases of the oPt and DRC). 3 The cluster approach was not only designed to improve coordination, but also to strengthen global preparedness. Since the question of preparedness was covered in phase 1 of the evaluation, it was