Iasc cluster approach evaluation, 2nd phase april 2010

Executive Summary
Introduction
Method
Background
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations

---

31
Missing guidance
Good practice:
Local guidance developed in 
Uganda
27
   Since clusters were first introduced in pilot countries including Uganda and DRC, much 
progress  has  been  made  and  the  cluster  approach  has  moved  from  a  “period  of  total 
darkness”
22
 to a relatively well understood concept and practice.
23
 At the same time, however, 
existing guidance is often not sufficiently known, including by cluster coordinators. Similarly, 
guidance  on  critical  aspects  is  missing  and  strongly  demanded  by  humanitarian  actors, 
including on:
 
•
   Criteria and processes for implementation, transition and exit
24
 to address the 
confusion  in  cases  where  clusters  are  implemented  only  for  some  disaster-
affected areas of a country. Whether clusters should be implemented or not was, 
for instance, contested or badly understood in the cases of Karamoja (Uganda), 
western  DRC,  West  Bank  (the  oPt)  and  regions  outside  the  east  of  Chad. 
Guidance for transition and exit could build on the local guidance developed in 
Uganda
25
 or the well-prepared phase-out process in Myanmar. 
 
•
   The  relationship  between  clusters  and  existing  coordination  structures  to 
improve links to, support for or integration with existing mechanisms.
 
•
   The  relationship  between  clusters  and  peacekeeping  missions  to  address 
problems arising for example in Haiti, DRC and Chad. 
 
•
   Criteria for cluster membership to enable country teams to better assess and 
address  the  risks  and  opportunities  of  including  donors,  the  private  sector, 
military actors and certain civil society actors. 
 
•
   Guidance  on  cluster  co-chair  or  co-facilitation  arrangements  at  country  and 
sub-national level.
22  OCHA official.
23   The IASC Interim Self-Assessment in 2006, for example, found that “The inability of the IASC to agree on 
clear guidance for the “cluster approach” and to disseminate this to the field at the beginning of the process 
led to considerable confusion at the field level and did not inspire confidence in the new approach. The 
Self-Assessment confirms that confusion persists in some cases and remains an obstacle to implementation.” 
IASC 2006, p. 3.
24   Cf. Stoddard, Harmer et al. (2008), § 228.
25   See IASC Uganda, Process to Merge or Modify or Close a Cluster / Sub Cluster, 2007; and Adapting the 
Clusters During Transition in Uganda, October 2008.