Introduction
This report provides an overview of coordination arrangements in place in the main humanitarian operations. It is the first report to be based on analysis of data from the Cluster Description Mapping (CDM), a mapping exercise which was completed by cluster coordinators and OCHA field staff in the first quarter of 2016. The CDM was developed by the Global Cluster Coordinators Group, and replaces a number of different processes used in the past including a variety of ad hoc national level mapping initiatives and the cluster description questionnaire which was part of the Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM) process.
The aim of the description mapping is to provide an outline of coordination arrangements in the field and to present information on cluster management structure and the standard deliverables of country clusters and sectors as well as inter-cluster coordination mechanisms. The mapping information will be used to identify trends and gaps in cluster coordination management as well as specific cluster deliverables and should assist in informing global level support to coordination arrangements in the field.
The CDM took place in countries where clusters are activated and/or where a joint response plan for 2016 was developed. Information on cluster/sector, inter-cluster and HCT coordination structures in the following 27 countries is included in this report: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, CAR, DRC, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, OPT, Pacific, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria (Damascus based coordination), Turkey (for Syria response), Ukraine and Yemen.
While the CDM aims to be as comprehensive as possible, it is important to note that coordination and the actors involved is a “live process” and the information gathered through the mapping provides a “snapshot in time” which allows for some overall conclusions to be drawn. While every effort was made to obtain as complete a record of coordination arrangements across the 27 countries, invariably there are some minor gaps where this was not possible due to a range of factors. The intention is for the CDM to be updated several times during the year to ensure the information remains as current and inclusive as possible.
Finally it should be noted that the analysis is a quantitative as opposed to a qualitative exercise. Therefore while a cluster or inter-cluster group may confirm that, for example, it integrates gender in its work, the CDM cannot measure how comprehensive nor how effective this has been.