SUMMARY OF MAINSTREAMING

Cluster[1] Functions and Costs

Benchmarks for Mainstreaming of Cluster Functions[2]:

  • Establishment of specific cluster coordination posts in agencies;
  • Cluster coordination functions are reflected in job descriptions of country representatives, cluster coordinators andall other relevant staff positions which may have cluster related functional responsibilities;
  • Cluster coordination functions are reflected in individual agencies’ core competencies and used to recruit staff where appropriate;
  • Descriptions of the cluster accountabilities and functions are included in agency orientation and induction packages for all staff;
  • Clusteraccountabilities and functions are included in agency’s staff training strategies;
  • The cluster functions are used in agency communication materials such as annual reports, speeches and/or statements by Principals of individual agencies;
  • Cluster functions are included in agencies’ knowledge management tools such as evaluation frameworks and lessons learned exercises.

Benchmarks for Mainstreaming of Cluster Costs:

  • Agency budget structures contain provisions for cluster coordination costs;
  • Cluster coordination and partnership costs are reflected in annual budget plans. The strategies of covering costs will vary from agency to agency because of their different finance structures;
  • Each Principal of a cluster lead agency advocates in their respective executive board/committee for the inclusion of funds for cluster activities;
  • The donor relations section of each cluster lead agency promotes the cluster approach and includes the costs in its fund raising strategies;
  • Each cluster lead agency prioritizes cluster functions/costs by giving them equitable/appropriate level of funding.[3]

Mainstreaming and sustainability efforts(paragraphs below and the information in the column on challenges in mainstreaming was taken directly from the “Impact of Global Capacity Building and Mainstreaming of Global/Sustainability of Global Capacity Building and Cluster Responsibilities” which was prepared for a donor meeting in November 2007.)

“It is widely recognised, however, that despite agencies’ commitment to mainstream some of the costs of stewarding this process into their core budgets, a varying proportion of these efforts will continue to require additional funding (both one-off and recurrent) over the longer-term. Cluster leads and partners are proposing that these be funded either through supplementary agency-specific appeals, project-financing or similar arrangements.

It bears repeating three points in this connection: (a) the response capacity-building exercise represents, for most agencies, significant additional work that is perceived to add value to the timeliness and effectiveness of international humanitarian response, but that does – despite efforts to ‘mainstream’ much of the activities under core programming – does incur additional costs; (b) NGO participation in the global exercise is frequently fully contingent on adequate donor support; and (c) cluster implementation at the field level also incurs additional costs for many agencies.“

CLUSTER LEAD AGENCY / CLUSTER / CHALLENGES (at the global and country level as identified in 2007 and updated in 2009) / STATUS OF CLUSTER FUNCTION BENCHMARKS AT BOTH COUNTRY LEVEL AND GLOBAL LEVEL / STATUS OF CLUSTER COST BENCHMARKS AT BOTH COUNTRY LEVEL AND GLOBAL LEVEL
FAO / Agriculture / FAO continues to prioritise the mainstreaming of its strengthened leadership and coordinated responses related to agriculture and food security within the global, regional and country level IASC Cluster Process.
In September 2009 FAO- TCER launched a mapping exercise to generate key information on its ongoing involvement in the humanitarian Clusters.
While at an early stage of analysis the information from the, standard questionnaire (sent to 50 FAO country Offices and 1 Regional Unit - West Africa) and the 48 country returns received, by end December 2009 FAO for the first time has access to a critical one shop data bank of key validated information on its involvement in humanitarian coordination.
For example FAO FA can now detail in 48 countries:
The title, focus and coordination mechanisms which FAO is involved.
The names, functional titles and levels of country leadership.
Geographic focus- national, regional or zone levels of each coordination arrangement.
Cluster membership.
Cluster focus.
Extent to which coordination functions are reflected in FAO key staff job descriptions.
If staff have had exposure to cluster training and strategies and if
Staff has access to cluster knowledge management tools.
By February 2010 FAO intends to distribute the first in what is planned to be a series of mapping results among the IASC member organizations, donors and key partners.
Critically and into the future cluster mapping as an ongoing dynamic process will help FAO establish predictable and improved Cluster targets, establish baselines and map out key area of need leading to performance management results.
Following the IASC WG decision in July 2009 to include country level coordination costs in country appeals FAO included Cluster Coordination costs in its 2010 CAP appeals.
The added responsibilities that come with a Global Cluster designation and FAO regulations requiring that any type of field level emergency work and HQs support including that of Cluster coordination needs to be funded through extra- budgetary sources requires, vital additional donor commitments for; improved capacity, staff strategic planning, development of tools, training and mainstreaming of cluster functions and there sustainability.
Maintaining its current cluster mainstreaming functions and above all its capacity strengthening support to country offices and key partners requires from FAO the person months engagement of; 25% of a D1, 100 of a P4, 100% of a senior consultant, 25% of a P3, 75% of a P1 and 75% of a P 5 based in Geneva.
With the requirement that these costs be supported extra budgetary it is critical that donor support for the GAC secretariat as currently structured be extended through 2012.
After 2012 and from anticipated performance management results it is forecasted that FAO would be in a position to restructure its core GAC secretariat to 1. P4 or P5 and a P2 and a P5 in Geneva. / Status of cluster functions at both country and global level.
Senior managers fully support the inclusion of the Cluster approach across all emergency actions.
Proactively responding to the cluster mapping finding generic TORs for Emergency Coordinators to be defined and adopted no late than February 28th.
Senior managers fully support the inclusion of the Cluster approach across all emergency actions.
New mainstreaming FAO cluster guide to be sent to all field offices by end February.
Double hating still the norm by designated Emergency Officers or FO EC however, on a case by case basis and subject to operation requirements and funding support the future trend is to have full time ACC.
Cluster training for EC and Representatives needs substantive work in 2010.
Cluster coordination functions will be more systematically included in FAO staff orientation and related recruitment packages.
Increasingly FAO field cluster personnel will be encouraged and supported to have cluster stakeholders look beyond cluster information/ coordination functions and more into strategic planning at country and regional level, including DRM, IPC and others as key planning and preparedness tools.
While inclusion in the CAP 2010 of Cluster functions has provided new opportunities for FAO to promote with donors Cluster coordination a consistent approach across all appeals needs to be adopted.
Inter global and country Cluster division of roles and responsibilities remains a problem. / Status of cluster cost benchmarks at both country and global level.
Actions taken to include country level costs and functions in CAP 2010 and all new appeals will include these elements. However in the absence of donor support to provide dedicated management and accountability effective cluster coordination will remain a challenge.
While positive strides have been made predictable; GC mainstreaming support and guidance including; critical staffing, training outreach, tools and cluster guide production and capacity building need to receive prioritization by donors.
IFRC / Emergency Shelter (convenor in disasters) /
  1. The need for recognition at all management levels within the IFRC Secretariat and amongst Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies as appropriate that these are additional responsibilities require additional commitments regarding capacity, allocation of funding, inclusion in strategic and personal workplans etc.
  2. The need for adequate recognition by the UN system of the institutional structure of the cluster partners at global, regional and national levels, in particular the non-UN agency Global Cluster Leads, and how the application of global cluster responsibilities may differ amongst the different global cluster leads and from country to country. This is required to ensure that the UN system can support rather than compromise mainstreaming to regional and national level.
  3. Although IFRC has mainstreamed cluster coordination costs in its annual appeal process since 2006, this has secured diminishing levels of financial support with zero dedicated cluster funding being provided to the 2009 appeal.
  4. Following the IASC Working Group decision in July 2009 to included country level coordination costs in country level appeals, IFRC has included this component as an additional component of the Emergency Appeals. However, funding to date through this appeal mechanism for cluster coordination in recent emergencies has been very limited, with zero funding for one response in which the shelter cluster was activated.
/ COUNTRY LEVEL:
  • Dedicated IFRC-led Shelter Coordination Teams (SCTs) deployed with coordination-specific job descriptions. Note SCTs incl. personnel from cluster partner agencies. Cluster coordination support functions provided by IFRC country and regional personnel e.g. Finance, Fund Raising, Human Resources, Security, Administration, Logistics are included as part of their regular IFRC responsibilities. Not separately identified in job descriptions.
  • Independent reviews of each cluster is a standard requirement with supporting tools and procedures. A performance management tool is also used at intervals during the life of each cluster.
GLOBAL LEVEL:
  • Cluster coordination functions included in the job descriptions of all IFRC Shelter & Settlement Department personnel – Head and Senior Officers, dedicated Shelter Coordination Team Officer, plus Regional Shelter Advisors. Cluster coordination support functions provided by IFRC global personnel e.g. Finance, Fund Raising, Human Resources, Security, Administration, Logistics are included as part of their regular IFRC responsibilities. Not separately identified in job descriptions.
  • Cluster coordination functions reflected in all references to IFRC’s shelter competencies and shelter-related recruitment.
  • Cluster coordination functions are not currently included in standard orientation and induction packages for staff.
  • Cluster functions are included in IFRC’s disaster management-related trainings at global and regional level – FACT, ERU, Relief, RDRT.
  • The cluster function is formally included as a component of IFRC’s shelter commitment in mid-year and annual reports, reports to the IFRC Governing Board, and as appropriate in statements by the Principal/key representatives.
  • An overall review of IFRC’s cluster commitment after 3 years is being finalised and will be repeated at similar intervals.
/ COUNTRY LEVEL:
  • Cluster coordination costs now included in IFRC Emergency Appeals for specific emergencies. These are separately budgeted and identified within the Emergency Appeal, with a separate project code to provide dedicated line management and accountability to the IFRC Global Shelter Cluster Coordinator.
  • National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are increasingly budgeting to provide in-kind contributions through the deployment of fundedShelter Coordination Team personnel.
  • Support for awareness raising and the coordination of country level preparedness outside of emergencies has been included in some annual country plans, but not consistently.
  • IFRC fund raising/donor relations personnel are promoting the cluster coordination component of the IFRC Emergency Appeals as an integral part of the communication with donors regarding the overall Emergency Appeals. A consistent approach across all regions has yet to be agreed.
  • The prioritization of cluster coordination costs is subject to prioritization by donors.
GLOBAL LEVEL:
  • Cluster coordination costs have been included in IFRC annual appeals since 2006.
  • Principal/Senior Management supports the inclusion of cluster coordination support in the annual appeal and the allocation of core funding to cover key costs.
  • Cluster coordination and the financial requirements are promoted as part of the overall IFRC funding raising process.
  • Cluster coordination costs are prioritised to reflect IFRC shelter commitments.

IOM / CampCoordination and CampManagement (disasters) / For IOM the main challenges stem from the projectized nature of IOM’s structure and how the staffing issues required for maintaining cluster coordination and tools will be sustained. As requested by the donors, IOM has attempted to mainstream staffing costs for cluster functions. However, at the recent Governing Council Meeting the 2010 budget that included cluster activities to be covered under the core costs was rejected.
Additionally, as it is uncertain how many on-going emergency operations and any new emergencies the CCCM cluster will be activated in, it is hard to determine the level of operational support required. Furthermore, funding for training and tools is of benefit for all cluster partners and not only the cluster lead agency. This requires additional funds beyond IOM’s staff training budget.
Preparedness costs and costs in “non’ officially activated clusters responses are not seen as priority yet are key for a predictable and efficient response. / COUNTRY LEVEL:
  • Dedicated Cluster Coordinators are established when the size of the crisis requires otherwise a position with dual responsibility carries out the responsibility.
  • The CoM/Regional Representative is accountable as the head of agency and reports on cluster issues at country team meetings. The inter-agency role is now included into the ToRs as new staff are deployed. The RMO, logistics officers and project development officers support the functions of the cluster as well as IOM operations.
GLOBAL LEVEL:
  • Cluster coordination functions are included in the job descriptions of all Emergency Post-Crisis Division Staff including the Director of Operational Support. Donor relations staff, the New York liaison office and the Director of External Relations also represent the cluster as required in various inter-agency forum, with donors and member states. ToRs, as they are being updated, will reflect these additional duties already being carried out.
  • A Cluster coordination position has been established within the IOM budget covered by discretionary income. Additional cluster staff is required to support the field clusters and cluster partners.
  • Cluster functions are included in the Emergency Post Crisis Training.
  • The IOM Chiefs of Mission training in 2010 will see a major change in which the Cluster framework and applicability will be dominant.
  • The IOM Induction CD -Rom currently does not have any reference to the Cluster framework however, it is undergoing a review early next year in which the cluster will be included.
  • Cluster functions are included in annual reports and to speeches by the Director General to IOM Council and Standing Committee
/ COUNTRY LEVEL:
  • Cluster coordination costs are included in FLASH and CAPs for specific emergencies such as the Philippines and El Salvador.
  • Preparedness activities are included in some country level contingency planning and appeals (i.e. Nepal) though depends on country mechanisms.
GLOBAL LEVEL:
  • CCCM Cluster costs have been included in IOM Migration Initiatives Appeal since 2009.
  • The Administration supports the inclusion of cluster coordination officer through the allocation of discretionary income for the cluster coordinator position.
  • The Director General has put forth to IOM’s Standing Committee on Programmes and Funds and to the Governing Council the inclusion of cluster costs into IOM’s funding structure (see challenge).
  • CCCM cluster functions are considered a core function of the Organization and are prioritized as such.
  • CCCM cluster global and field activities are discussed with visiting member state delegations as appropriate.

OCHA / Emergency Telecommunications (Process owner) /
  • Better alignment of Inter-agency functions with core agency functions and resourcing: Inter-agency functions often means additional responsibilities for staff, and can lead to requirement for additional financial resources to fulfill that role. There is reluctance to accept such responsibilities if funds are not available to deliver.
  • The availability of funds to support the Inter-agency efforts will continue to be a challenge and will require an ongoing effort to establish long-term partnerships with the private sector.
  • Training of field staff on Inter-agency issues: Staff in the field needs further training to raise their awareness of the cluster approach and their role in Inter-agency activities.
  • The understanding and acceptance of the cluster approach, particularly with regards to the ETC, remains a challenge to effective implementation of Inter-agency security telecommunications.
  • As a support cluster, the activation and roll-out of ETC is dependant on identified gaps on a case by case basis.
  • On a few occasions, the combination of the ETC with the Logistics cluster during the submission of project proposal has led to unnecessary confusion around service delivery and accountability.
/ COUNTRY LEVEL:
-“Terms of Reference for ICT Working Group at Country level” approved by the ETC in May 2009.
GLOBAL LEVEL:
-Cluster Coordination functions are included in job descriptions. / COUNTRY LEVEL:
GLOBAL LEVEL:
Long-term strategy:
-Posts including Cluster coordination functions are cost-planned every year.
Cost reduction:
-Existing ET partnerships with the Private Sector strengthened.
-Development of new partnerships planned in 2010.
Save the Children / Education / For Save the Children, the majority of funds come from restricted income, therefore flexibility is limited. The SC Alliance will continue to play a global advocacy role for education in emergencies, and best deploy our considerable operational capabilities. However any significant work undertaken on behalf of the education cluster – whether at a global or field level – will require an investment of resources. / COUNTRY LEVEL: