Humanitarian Reform

Humanitarian agencies have been looking at assigning UN agencies as cluster leads in sectors where there are often gaps in the humanitarian response. The idea is that there will be an improved and more predictable humanitarian response to those affected by conflict situations and natural disasters. Is the cluster approach actually addressing some of the most fundamental problems in the humanitarian system?

The whole cluster process has its roots in an effort that started in 2004 when the Emergency Relief Coordinator ERC and Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, decided that the humanitarian response system was not predictable enough in its response and something needed to be done. The slowness and inadequacy of the response in Darfur, Sudan prompted the ERC to commission the Humanitarian Response Review HRR late last year to examine the way in which the international humanitarian system responded to crises and to provide recommendations to improve the system. The fact that the HRR would not look at local and national responses was pointed out to the ERC early on in the process as a major gap, but the HRR continued anyway with its focus at the international level.

When the draft of the HRR came out, there was the recognition that the review was incomplete, given that it only looked at the international response. A number of observations and recommendations were made, but they were never really discussed in detail among humanitarian agencies who are part of the inter Agency standing Committee IASC, which brings together the UN, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, NGOs and IOM. Instead, the IASC was told by the ERC that the issue raised in the HRR to be taken up immediately was that of assigning cluster responsibilities in various sectors. The priority activity for improving the humanitarian system was decided by the ERC and the UN, with the suggestions of others to look at coordination and particularly the Humanitarian Coordinator HC function, and benchmarking being brushed aside to be addressed at later dates.
The cluster designation is seen by the UN as a genuine means of improving the way that the humanitarian system works and better ensuring accountability. The cluster leads are meant to provide a means of supporting the Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators in ensuring a coordinated response. Currently, there are no leads for IDPs in non-conflict situations (ie. Natural disasters) in the clusters for which UNHCR has responsibility. Discussions are continuing in the protection cluster on the issue of broader protection (beyond IDPs). There is also an acknowledgement that there are three types of clusters - provision of assistance to beneficiaries (health; water and sanitation; camp coordination and management; emergency shelter; and nutrition), service provision (telecommunications and logistics), and cross cutting issues (protection and early recovery), which will require close coordination with the other clusters.

NGOs and Clusters
NGO involvement in the clusters has been limited to date. Efforts were made by the three NGO consortia on the IASC to engage NGOs in the process, with the result that at least the Sphere focal points were involved in four clusters - health, nutrition, emergency shelter, and water and sanitation. Given the work of NGOs in developing the Camp Management Toolkit, the Norwegian Refugee Council was brought into the camp coordination and management cluster. A few NGOs participated in the protection cluster, which examined IDP protection and broader protection issues separately.

There are attempts to get NGOs more engaged in the work of the clusters. For many NGOs however, there are questions about how worthwhile such engagement is. Many of the discussions have been focussed on very technical aspects and issues around responsibilities of the cluster lead and what would be involved in creating a dedicated capacity at he headquarters or regional level. For many NGOs the proof of the value of this cluster approach will be at the field level. The challenge now is making sure that all of these efforts have an impact at the field level that is positive and not just a means of creating new layers of bureaucracy and coordination.

The issue is to address some of the fundamental problems in the humanitarian response system. Inadequate coordination mechanisms, led by the Resident or Humanitarian Coordinator, play a major role in a weak response. With regards to coordination, the problem does not seem to be a lack of coordination meetings (there are often too many such meetings), but the lack of joint analysis, which includes taking policy decisions on the type of response, and priority setting. The way in which needs are assessed and addressed is an area where much work remains to be done. Working with local and national capacities is still not the first and foremost course of action of many humanitarian agencies. Ensuring that well trained humanitarian staff are able to get to situations rapidly, and remain without rotating out quickly, is a challenge that agencies need to meet. The lack of funds allocated to so many neglected crises dooms the humanitarian response to be disproportionate between countries and populations.

Given the pace of the initiatives, many within the humanitarian community, particularly at the field level, are just beginning to hear about what is happening. Particular focus is given in the second piece to one of the biggest areas of potential change: the role of UNHCR vis a vis IDPs in conflict situations and th resulting challenges that will need to be tackled by the organisation. The two final pieces examine issues that were raised in the HRR, but which were pushed back for real examination until later in the year by the IASC: the issue of benchmarking, which is being taken forward by the UK’s Dept for International Development DFID, and the Humanitarian Coordinator function, which is supposed to be at the core of a well coordinated response. The hope is that by providing a critical reflection on the reforms, improvements will be made in the process to ensure that there is actually a better humanitarian response. It is true that the humanitarian system does not work in a predictable or impartial manner when looking at global humanitarian needs. An improved response, however, will require more than just the good will and efforts of humanitarian workers. Governments both those of countries where there are displaced persons and of donor countries - have a crucial role to play in enabling an improved humanitarian response. Without the will of governments, this exercise of reforming the humanitarian system risks being simply a navel gazing exercise on the part of humanitarians.

Source: International Council of Voluntary Agencies, 3 Oct 2005, volume 7-3