75
coordination are borne by donors and agencies, whereas the costs resulting from the
absence of coordination would be imposed on affected countries and populations.
Moreover, there is hardly any fundamental or principled opposition to the cluster
approach among humanitarian actors anymore. Provided that improvements are
made, the approach has significant potential for further improving humanitarian
response and thereby enhancing the well-being of affected populations. This
potential justifies further efforts and investments to improve and strengthen the
implementation of the cluster approach.
131
Beyond this overall assessment, several key issues emerged during the
evaluation:
132
The limits of coordination. The ultimate goal of the cluster approach is to improve
the effectiveness of humanitarian response.
67
Clusters can strengthen the quality of
humanitarian assistance through a variety of mechanisms, including for example
improved information sharing, the organization of a coordinated (not necessarily
joint) response to priority gaps, joint advocacy and enhanced learning. Better
coordination, however, does not automatically lead to a better situation of the
affected population:
•
Creating a coordination(+) platform does not automatically deliver the elements
that can improve humanitarian response. Instead, it takes a conscious effort to
move for example from sharing information to identifying and prioritizing gaps
to organizing a common response or to move from meetings to joint learning.
•
Coordination is not a magic bullet for improving response. It also requires
available funding, access to affected populations and quality approaches and
services of individual organizations. The cluster approach can therefore not
be seen in isolation and needs to be regarded as one of several elements for
improving the quality of humanitarian assistance.
133
The importance and impossibility of a genuine provider of last resort role. Humanitarian
reform and the cluster approach were developed to cover priority gaps in
humanitarian response and ensure that all basic needs in emergencies are covered.
The concept of provider of last resort - in the original sense of organizations
committing their own budgets or stocks to fill gaps if need be - is central to this goal:
It makes lead organizations responsible and accountable for ensuring that needs
in their sectors are covered. Since it is unrealistic to expect single organizations to
fill all gaps in their area, an IASC guidance note clarifies that lead organizations
have to do their utmost to try to fill gaps and, if necessary, advocate for additional
67 Cf. http://humanitarianreform.org
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: