PAKISTAN
Cluster Transition Strategy (Sindh, Balochistan)
The de-activation of clusters is a decision to stand-down one or several clusters because either the cluster has transferred
responsibility for delivery and possibly capacities, tools, systems and resources to national and/or development partners
or because humanitarian needs in a particular sector have sharply decreased or ceased (e.g. when affected people have
returned, reintegrated or relocated).
...Clusters are supposed to be a temporary coordination solution and the aim should be to either resume or establish
national, development-oriented coordination mechanisms as soon as the humanitarian emergency phase ends. The
efficient de-activation of clusters is therefore based on (a) a regular review questioning the on-going need for clusters by
the RC/HC and HCT, and (b) the required planning to ensure transitional arrangements are put in place and are being
supported by capacity development and preparedness efforts.
IASC – Transformative Agenda , Cluster Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at the Country Level, Rev. 1, July 2013
Key Messages
1. In line with discussions already started in 2012, the Protection Cluster believes that the Cluster should be
deactivated and a transition of responsibilities to the relevant authorities should be pursued.
2. This option is envisaged in light of: a) the recurrent nature of natural disasters, requiring investments in
DRR and DRM and not only in humanitarian response; b) the cost-effectiveness of maintaining a fullyfledged Cluster structure, with its related human resources requirements, which have been steadily
decreasing and are now minimal; c) the fact that the authorities in 2013 have not requested any
humanitarian emergency assistance through formal processes or requests for a “Cluster response”.
3. The PC and its AORs consider the NDMA Gender and Child Cell (GCC) at the national level, the
PDMAs/FDMA GCC at provincial level, and the Social Welfare Department at District level and to various
degrees at Provincial level as the plausible Government Counterparts to take over the coordination of
general protection activities, child protection in Emergencies (CPiE), and the protection of women and girls,
including from GBV.
4. A strategic dialogue has already been on-going within the Cluster at national and provincial level, and with
the authorities, particularly in Sindh. The transition can capitalise on other preparatory work and capacity
building / technical support undertaken in 2012 and 2013, including the presence of Protection fora
already managed by authorities and the civil society (District Protection Working groups in Sindh).
However, the needed investment in transition support is still conspicuous, and different Areas of
Responsibility within the Cluster are at different degree of advancement in the transition process.
5. On-going transitional support will be needed throughout 2014 and should be provided through existing
regular programming of protection-mandated agencies, at least in some of the Areas of Responsibility.
Where such programmes and presence do not exist, solutions should be found within existing protectionmandated agencies to identify support capacity to facilitate the transition on general protection issues
outside the scope of CP and GBV. This is also in line with the announced cessation of the protection
Coordination Role in natural disasters scenarios by UNHCR, effective as 1st January 2014.
6. The most notable challenges to be overcome have been identified in the still weak operational capacity of
the identified authorities, including turn-over of staff; the manageability of a co-leadership relation at
Provincial level (PDMA/ SWD); the withdrawal of the NDMA GCC participation to the work of the Cluster
since March 2013; different levels of acceptance of the wide range of protection areas and topics, some
less “palatable” to the authorities; and the current unavailability of a protection-mandated agency willing
to coordinate the transition for the general protection aspects outside Child Protection and GBV.
1
1. Background
 The Protection Cluster (PC) in the context of natural disasters1 has been activated during the floods of 2010
in Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan to coordinate the humanitarian response to the flood emergency. After a
deactivation requested by the authorities in the first half of 2011, the PC was re-activated at national level
as well as in Sindh and Balochistan to respond to the 2011 floods and remained active in light of the
recurrent natural disasters in 2012 and 2013, to fulfil tasks related to preparedness and response. The
Cluster has been active at provincial level, cooperating with PDMA, and was able to maintain or re-activate
Protection Working Groups in some of the Districts affected by the 2011 and 2012 floods, in cooperation
with the Social Welfare Department.
 The level of human resources at the disposal of the PC for coordination in the context of natural disasters
has steadily decreased at provincial as well as at national level, reaching its lowest levels before the 2013
flood season.
Protection Cluster Pakistan 2012 /Sept. 2013
Pakistan Protection Cluster National Level UNHCR/ IRC (co-lead)
Sub-Clusters and Task forces
Natural Disasters
Complex
Emergency
Child Protection
sub-cluster
UNICEF
GBV
sub-cluster
UNFPA
Age & Disability
Task Force
Housing/Land/
Property Task Force
UNHABITAT (IN)
PROVINCIAL LEVEL structures
Protection
Cluster KP/FATA
(UNHCR/IRC
PDMA/ FDMA)
CP Sub-Cluster
KP/FATA (UNICEF)
GBV Sub-Cluster
KP/FATA (UNFPA)
Protection Cluster
Sindh (UNHCR/IRC)
CP Sub-Cluster
Sindh (UNICEF)
GBV Sub-Cluster
Sindh (UNFPA)
Protection Cluster
Baloch. (UNHCR)
CP Sub-Cluster
Baloch. (UNICEF)
GBV Sub-Cluster
Baloch. (UNHCR) (IN)
Focal Point
KP/FATA
ADTF Focal Points
Sindh (IN)
DISTRICT LEVEL Protection Working Groups (DSW / NGO)
9 DPWG in KP With CP and GBV
9 DPWG in Sindh
2 Focal Points in Balochistan (IN)
2 PWG in Punjab
KP/FATA TF
(UN Habitat/ NRC?)
(IN)
Protection Cluster Human Resources October 2013
Lead
Islamabad
UNHCR
1 Int
1 Nat (<50%) 1 Nat (50%)
1 IMO (100% +KP/FATA) based in ISB
IRC
1 Int
1 Nat (100%)
UNICEF
1 Int (50%)
1 Int (100% temp.)
1 Nat (50%)
UNFPA
1 Nat (50%)
1 Nat (50%)
ADTF
1 Nat
HABITAT
Punjab
Sindh
Baluchistan
KPK/FATA
1 Int (100%)
1 Nat (<50%)
1 Nat (<50%) GBV
1 Int
1 Nat
1 Nat (50%)
1 Nat (100%)
1 IMO (50%)
1 Nat (50%)
1 Nat
-
-
-
-
-
IN = inactive
Humanitarian Communications
(supports hum. actors and GoP)
KP/FATA only (IOM)
UN WOMEN
Gender mainstreaming
and gender expertise
GTF at national and Provincial level




100% resource dedicated to coordination
50% = Engagement with agency specific programs
< 50% = Engagement with agency specific multiple persons of concern (refugees)
Int. = International staff; Nat. = National staff; IMO = Information Management Officer
 In spring 2013, during the preparedness phase for the 2013 monsoon, and while the de-activation was
debated but not endorsed at HCT level, the PC discussed a “light cluster approach” for Sindh and
Balochistan. Based on the core functions of the Cluster as envisaged by the Transformative Agenda2, the
national and provincial coordinators agreed on a set of preparedness and response activities that the
cluster would be able to fulfil with the available human resources3. These activities included basic
coordination tasks; contributions to needs assessments (MIRA or other ad hoc assessments); preparedness
(e.g. revitalization of the District Protection Working Group or of District Focal Points, mapping of actors
and staffing levels); contribution to training and capacity building of partners and authorities; coordination
and monitoring of any possible disaster response at provincial level; contribution to advocacy;
participation in inter-cluster coordination.
 The absence of a request by the authorities for a contribution to the relief efforts, both during the 2013
monsoon season and during the recent earthquake in Balochistan, prompted another reflection on the
opportunity for cluster de-activation and transition of the coordination of protection activities in disaster
preparedness and response to the competent authorities. Such a transition had already been initially
considered and discussed during a workshop held in Sindh in summer 2012 organized by the Child
Protection sub-Cluster and with the participation of all PC Areas of responsibilities (AoRs). The subsequent
1
The present paper only refers to the activity of the protection Cluster in the context of natural disasters, on which the discussion on
the best configuration is now undertaken. This concept paper does not address the Protection Cluster configuration in the context of
the complex emergency, for which there is currently no discussion on any changes in the immediate future.
2
Transformative Agenda, Cluster Reference Module
3
“Protection cluster in natural disaster situation 2013: proposed arrangements for Sindh and Balochistan”, endorsed by the Protection
Cluster on 20 May 2013
2
flood response and the full activation of the cluster response in 2012 had temporarily halted the discussion
on the transition.
 The following strategy therefore builds on the conclusions of the Sindh 2012 workshop and on other more
recent consultations between the national and the Provincial coordinators, particularly in Sindh. It is
believed, however, that the same conclusions and strategy is applicable also for Balochistan.
 The proposed strategy also takes into consideration the cessation of UNHCR role of Cluster lead agency
and the related responsibilities in the context of the coordination of Protection in natural disasters in
Pakistan, which will become effective as of 1st January 2014.
2. Envisaged Strategy
 In line with the discussion already started in 2012, the Protection Cluster believes that the Cluster should
be deactivated and a transition of responsibilities to the relevant authorities should be pursued. Ongoing transitional support should be provided through existing regular programming of protectionmandated agencies, at least in some of the PC’s Areas of Responsibility. Where such programmes and
presence do not exist, solutions should be found within protection mandated agencies to identify support
capacity to guide and facilitate the transition on general protection issues outside the scope of CP and
GBV.
 This option has been envisaged in light of few factors:
a) the recurrent nature of natural disasters, which translates into a "cycle" of continuous preparedness,
response, recovery, preparedness that should require more investments in Disaster Risk Reduction and
Disaster Risk Management than only in humanitarian response;
b) the cost-effectiveness of maintaining a fully-fledged Cluster structure, with its related human resources
requirements and its "by-processes", sometimes erring on the side of excess;
c) increasingly and prominently in 2013, the fact that the authorities have not requested any humanitarian
assistance through formal processes (appeals and open request for a "Cluster response"), but have either
refused such offers or have chosen a bilateral approach asking the support only of certain UN Agencies and
NGOs or other stakeholders outside the Cluster system. This was evident both in the 2013 flood response
and the September Balochistan earthquake.
 The PC and its AORs consider the NDMA Gender and Child Cell (GCC) at the national level, the
PDMAs/FDMA GCC at provincial level and the Social Welfare Department at District level - and to
various degrees at Provincial level - as the plausible Government Counterparts to take over the
coordination of general protection activities, child protection in Emergencies (CPiE), and the protection
of women and girls, including from GBV. The first two institutions (NDMA and PDMA) have overall
responsibility in disaster management /relief response; the second institution (SWD), although not present
at national level, has a broader mandate and oversees broader social protection issues relating to children,
women, older persons, Persons with Disabilities (PWD) at provincial and district level. Many of those
protection issues are in fact endemic human rights issues in Pakistan and are exacerbated during
emergencies.
 The NDMA GCC, supported by the PDMA/FDMA GCC’s, has in the last year intensified its activity of policysetting and advocacy within the Government/ NDMA on the situation of persons with specific needs in the
disaster planning and response. In addition, during the course of 2013, Gender and Child Cells have been
instituted at all provincial levels. Although these steps do not overcome the principles and spirit of the
devolution of power, and as such do not create hierarchical relations between the federal and the
provincial GCCs, they however contribute to harmonization at institutional level, and hopefully at
operational level as well.
3
Progress towards transition so far at national, Sindh and Balochistan level
 The PC has already started to work towards this transition, but more negotiations are needed and a firm
commitment by the authorities to accept and work together to implement this process. Unfortunately,
since March 2013, NDMA ceased to attend the Protection Cluster meetings at national level and this may
determine the necessity for further dialogue to establish a road map for the transition outside the
Provinces.
 In June 2013, the Protection Cluster in Pakistan in cooperation with the Global Protection Cluster
organized a week-long training on Protection and Protection Coordination attended by more than 20
national and provincial authorities, largely from NDMA, PDMA and SWD, all over Pakistan;
 UNICEF and UN Women have continued to support the NDMA GCC with technical equipment, advice and
staffing support, although funding constraints may affect the possibility to continue this level of support
beyond 2013;
 Policy development is on-going at national level to strengthen the protection approaches in the disaster
cycle, particularly under the auspices of the NDMA GCC. In November, the GCC called for a workshop to
move forward with a Policy Guidance on the inclusion of vulnerable groups such as women, children, older
persons and persons with disabilities in all phases of the disaster cycle. It is noteworthy that the GCC has
expanded its initial coverage solely focused on women and children to wider categories of persons with
specific needs. The Protection Cluster recommended expanding this further to displaced population and
other groups at risk.
 Various other initiatives have already taken place to prepare the transition, particularly in Sindh:
4
-
In Sindh, since 2011, the Department of Social Welfare has been co-chairing District Protection
Working Groups (DPWGs) in the flood-affected districts. Some 9 WG are still active. Three of them
were revitalized after the floods 2012 and are possibly the most active today4;
-
In mid-2012, the Child Protection (CP) Sub Cluster in Sindh began the preparation for transitioning to
sector working groups at the provincial and district levels. In a workshop organized at provincial level,
it was confirmed that PDMA and SWD should carry a joint responsibility for CPiE coordination
with support from NGOs. Since that time, ToRs have been updated and capacity building support to
the respective actors has been enhanced.
-
Some refresher sessions on Protection, CP, GBV organised by the PC for the active DPWGs in Sindh
included some initial discussion on the possible transition. This continued investment on capacity
building was also aimed at increasing the ability of PWGs to function independently in the post 2013
scenario.
-
District based trainings on addressing GBV in humanitarian settings and coordination of GBV
prevention and response is being organized. These initiatives are geared towards transition efforts in
the province and strengthening preparedness for future emergencies. GBV SC will continue its efforts
in developing capacities on the ground as part of the approach to transition of cluster roles.
-
In a workshop organized in Sindh at the beginning of December 2013, PDMA / DDMA, local NGOs and
Social Welfare Officers from 7 districts (Karachi, TMK, Ghotki, Sukkur, Hyderabad, Badin, MPK),
expressed unanimous understanding and willingness to continue leading DPWGs even in the absence
of a formal cluster coordination and with reporting lines to the provincial office of the SWD.
-
The arrangement was also discussed with the Director of Operation in PDMA Sindh and with the
Assistant Director of the SWD. The PC in Sindh has requested SWD to formally write to the District
Officers for the continuation of DPWGs led by district SWD.
Kashmore, Shikarpur, Jacobabad, see after
4
 In Balochistan, the Cluster has traditionally been weak and with lower degree of articulation and presence
in the field. The Cluster has always maintained a unique structure and discussion forum, gathering all
different PC AoRs and meeting in Quetta. The capacity of the PDMA GCC and the SWD in Balochistan is
notably weaker, and the number of local NGOs with general protection and CPiE expertise is considerably
less than in Sindh. In addition, Balochistan does not have at this stage any functioning DPWG. As part of
the preparedness in 2013, the Cluster had been requested from the national coordinators to nominate
some Focal Points from amongst the protection-oriented NGOs active in the most disaster-prone Districts
but the task was never accomplished. While a number of PDMA and provincial SWD staff has received
training in protection mainstreaming in the disaster response, also through the inter-agency capacity
building programme, in protection/protection coordination and in CPiE, the relatively high turnover of staff
demands additional training and further advocacy and support for an effective transition in Balochistan.
Way forward in 2014
 At national level The Protection Cluster and sub-Clusters will have to formally entertain a dialogue with
the NDMA GCC to assess the willingness of this institution to take over a coordination role at national
level. This however will demand a certain stability and predictability in human and material resources from
the GCC and possibly some budgetary support for at least another year, while encouraging NDMA to
formally institute a budgetary autonomy for the GCC.
 In Sindh, further dialogue is needed to support the agreement between PDMA GCC and the SWD in a coleadership to coordinate protection activities, working on the reinforced presence of the SWD in the
districts and the mandated disaster-management competencies of the PDMA GCC. Recent developments
and the attitude demonstrated by PDMA and SWD lead to some cautious optimism on the readiness and
willingness by the authorities to assume coordination responsibilities.
 In the field of Child Protection, ongoing support to PDMAs and SWD, including in CPiE, is anticipated in
2014 through the bilateral support of UNICEF through its regular country program, linked with the OPII
Strategic Priority Area 3.
 The existing DPWGs should be maintained and possibly other fora should be reactivated. Since DPWGs are
addressing all different protection aspects (general protection, CP and GBV), the indication of focal points
within the DPWGs with expertise in the various areas of responsibility will be encouraged. The GBV subcluster has started already moving towards this direction in Sindh.
 The GBV Sub-Cluster has maintained its own sub-cluster structure at national and provincial level (Sindh,
Balochistan) only until the end of 2012 and at present it is not fully operational as Sub-cluster but some
coordination activities are functional at provincial level (Focal Points in Sindh). The GBV AoR will have to
still look for concrete proposals and counterparts for the handover of responsibilities, although at
provincial level the likely counterpart will still be the SWD, including through the Women Development
Department. The GBV AoR may need to agree on an approach that considers also the Reproductive Health
component of the GBV prevention and response, which sometimes provide for more appropriate entry
points in the sensitive social and cultural context of Pakistan and where synergies can be built with UNFPA
OPII strategic priorities.
 The Ageing and Disability Task Force (ADTF), largely active at national level, will continue its existence and
activities in the current structure, given the technical expertise required. However the ADTF has already
created good synergies with the Government, especially the GCC at NDMA level, and will be able to
continue its advisory, advocacy and capacity building role, for the authorities as well as in general for the
humanitarian community. The capacity of the ADTF to maintain expert focal points in the field (especially
in Sindh) will largely depend on the availability of funding support to allow for the presence of affiliated
ADTF members with operational capacity and projects in the field.
5
 A proposed structure of provincial coordination in Sindh has been partially elaborated as follows*:
Structure
Roles
Suggestions for Transitioning
the Protection Cluster (Prov.)
 Chair: PDMA GCC together
with Provincial SWD
 Members: NGOs, CBOs,
volunteers, Government
line departments, UN
agencies, INGOs, national
Human Rights Commission
(when active)
 IM: Authorities (PDMA)
with possible support from
NGOs
Same current roles
Membership
PDMA GCC, SWD, UNHCR,
UNICEF, UNFPA, UN Women,
Chairs of the DPWG (as
available), protection-oriented
INGO/NGOs, NHN network, PHF
network, Directorate for
Human Rights Women
Development Department
Functions
Same functions as in current
TOR, but an enhanced focus on
preparedness should be there.
Suggestions for Transitioning the
CP sub-Cluster (Prov.)
 Chair: PDMA GCC together with
Provincial SWD
 Co-Chair: Local organisation
 Members: NGOs, CBOs,
volunteers, Government line
departments, UN agencies,
INGOs
 IM: Nominated NGO (could be
rotating role)
Suggestions for Transitioning
the DPWG
 DPWG will address and
discuss all aspects of
protection (General, CP,
GBV).
 The DPWGs could draw on
existing NGO networks and
consortium at district level.
 The GBV Sub-Cluster has
some Focal Points within
the DPWG
Roles to remain the same, but the
actors would change
In addition to current members,
the following should also be
members:
Provincial Committee for
Child Welfare and
development
NHN Network
Gender and Child Cell,
PDMA
Baitumall
Same functions as in current TOR,
but an enhanced focus on
preparedness should be there.
Roles and actors (Chair, CoChair and members) continue.
Membership would remain
open to all, but some actors
that could be invited include:
BISP
NADRA
Zakkat Committee
District Authority
Members of existing
NGO councils,
networks and forums
Main functions to remain the
same, but with focus on
planning for a potential
emergency and more
participation in the DDMA
preparedness and response.
SWD and PDMA to re-activate
certain DPWG if deemed
appropriate and feasible.
District PWG in Sindh – Situation
PWG created under 2011
floods
PWG from 2010 ER and
resumed post 2012 floods
Badin (LHDP)- Active, Benazirabad – Active, Mirpurkhas (RSDO) – Active, Tando Mohammed Khan
(SDDO) Active, Umerkhot (SDD Org) Active
Tando Allah Yar inactive, Sangar inactive, Tharpakar inactive
Khairpur (Indus R. C) reactivating, Dadu (Speech) – Active, Shikarpur - Active (Dev. Initiative Netw.),
Jacobabad - Active (Save the Children), Kashmore - Active (CCHD)
Thatta (2010/2011) inactive, Jamshoro (2010/2011) inactive, Larkana inactive, QamberShahdadkot
inactive
* GBV coordination at provincial level to be still discussed
 In Balochistan, more dialogue and more capacity support will be needed to ensure an efficient
coordination at field level. PDMA Balochistan is believed to have some interest in ensuring continuity in
the coordination but the lack of coordination arrangements in the field will need to be overcome, at least
through the system of NGO focal points at District level. In all aspects of protection, more training and
capacity building will be needed.
 Specifically in the field of CPiE, additional training and further advocacy and support for the
institutionalisation of CPiE within government structures will be needed in Balochistan, most likely through
the bilateral support of UNICEF through its regular country program, linked with OPII SPA 3.
 In general, the process of transition will not happen from night to day. It will entail a good degree of
facilitation, additional capacity building, transfer of knowledge and techniques, both on technical
6
protection aspects and tools, as well as on soft-skills such as effective communication, running of
meetings, information management. In this perspective, the transition will still need the substantial
engagement of the protection-mandated Agencies, to provide the necessary support and “on the job”
training, at least for half a year into 2014.
3. Challenges
 The specificity of Protection, its articulated range of interventions, the absence of a unique referent from
amongst the authorities are some of the expected challenges that a transition of protection coordination
activities will entail in all contexts. In addition, the situation in Pakistan presents some specific ones.
 The operational and technical capacity of the GCCs and the SWD is the first challenge that the PC will face
in the transition, both at national as well as at Provincial level. These institutions are traditionally amongst
the least priority for the authorities when it comes to resource prioritisation. This in turn impacts their
possibility to be movable, ensure field presence, monitor, and follow up. The GCCs in particular, having
initially been a "donor creation", are not yet stable budgetary entities in the NDMAs and PDMAs and their
existence still depends on external support by donors or UN Agencies. The Protection Cluster has
continuously advocated for a process of institutional consolidation of the GCCs, while at the same time
encouraging some continuous donor support for limited supplementary time into 2014. These efforts will
have to continue during the transition phase.
 A second challenge, particularly felt at national level, is the increasingly looser contact that the NDMA has
decided to maintain with almost all Clusters, including the PC, since March 2013. A withdrawal from any
participation to the Cluster meetings, discussions, initiatives has occurred, despite the efforts made by the
PC and the numerous ad hoc invitations sent to the NDMA GCC. The discontinuation of the Governmental
co-chairing of the Cluster at national level has had an impact in the possibility for the NDMA GCC to follow
up developments and activities within the Cluster with the necessary focus and has created a gap that may
delay and/or prolong the transition. Although the PC has continued its interaction with the NDMA and
PDMA GCCs and is always consulted for feedback and opinion on initiatives, particularly at national level,
the lack of continuity on the more operational aspects of coordination is a shortcoming. This will require
negotiations at the highest levels with NDMA if the transition needs to become effective also at national
level. If – as a result - the NDMA GCC accepts a broader coordination role, this will require a very close
follow-up by Protection mandated agencies to terminate and consolidate the transition process.
 A third challenge, which may emerge particularly at provincial level, will be the effective possibility that
the two identified authorities (GCC and SWD) agree to work together. This is far from being ordinary in
the reality of the bureaucracy in Pakistan. While signals in Sindh have been so far positive, there is already
an indication that the DPWG Chairs will likely choose only to report to the SWD at Provincial level and not
to the PDMA GCC. Good offices from the outgoing Cluster Coordinators will be necessary during the
transition phase to convince the authorities that smooth cooperation and information sharing is critical.
 Associated to the above challenge, is the extremely high turnover of staff in these Government
institutions, which sometimes hampers the possibility to capitalize on the investments made in capacity
building. As evident during the last year, the Sindh Province is known as the worst example of high turnover and lack of continuity in the management of the PDMA. Such changes risk being disruptive and
bringing about different visions, focus, consideration for protection issues and for the work of the GCC at
every change of leadership. The outgoing cluster agencies will likely have extremely low influence on those
processes, and this may negatively affect the investment made in the transition.
 The devolution process in Pakistan has de facto created autonomous provinces, whose institutions are not
linked to the federal centre in a hierarchical relation. All processes are loose and fluid, and left to
"consultations", "lobbying", whilst eventually every Province decides on their own. This will present a
challenge in terms of proposal and coordination of harmonised approaches in protection, including policies
and operational structures. Only a very strong national GCC will be able to effectively steer this
harmonization process between the central and the provincial level on protection thematic issues.
7
 A fifth challenge is the level of "acceptance" by the authorities of the various areas of interventions and
issues that form the broad scope of “Protection”. Child protection, ageing and disability, gender and some
aspects of protection activities targeted to women/girls are palatable topics and areas of intervention for
the Government at both national and provincial level. Yet, other protection themes such as GBV, internal
displacement, discrimination in access to assistance, land and property, military or political interference in
assistance delivery, are certainly not amongst the most favourite topics for the authorities. This reinforces
the "differential speed" in which a transition can occur, with the possibility that some protection issues
will never be effectively considered in the taske over of responsibilities by the identified authorities.
 A sixth current challenge is the different level of advancement in the process of transition amongst the
different PC AoRs. Child Protection is clearly the best positioned, due to the long term investment made
by UNICEF as Agency (i.e. regular programmes) and as CP Sub-Cluster Lead in capacity building of
authorities. In the absence of specific forms of support to the authorities, and in the absence of operations
on the ground and “regular programmes”, the other PC Agencies have invested less time and resources in
the transition, which now appears at “variable speed” within the PC. This can only be overcome by an
increased support by the IASC protection mandated agencies to the transition process and an extended
engagement in capacity building and on the job training for the authorities. UNHCR has made abundantly
clear that this role will not be sustainable anymore for the Agency in 2014.
 Finally, it is clear that the transition is an incremental and time-demanding process. This will require a
continuation by protection-mandated agencies of some forms of support, facilitation, coaching, further
transfer of knowledge to the authorities, for at least half a year. The handing over by UNHCR of its
responsibility in the coordination of protection in natural disasters, effective as of 1st January 2014, will
leave the role of coordinating this transition and looking at the broader aspects of protection basically
uncovered, given the amply demonstrated unwillingness to take over by any of the other IASC-mandated
Protection Cluster agencies, and other actors that UNHCR has contacted during the course of 2013 (UNDP
and IOM). The co-facilitator IRC does not represent a real option, due to the level of acceptance that the
Government has vis-à-vis INGOs in a leading position, but also due to lack resources and different future
plans of the organisation. The discourse with authorities on taking over more general protection issues
may end up being without a "mentor" during the envisaged transition. This will possibly nullify the
investment made in the last years on the general protection side. It will be appropriate for the HC and the
PC Leads to agree on a negotiated solution and explore, for one more time, the possibility to identify a
protection-mandated agency – or a protection-support capacity (ideally roving) - capable to guide and
support the transition on general protection issues outside the scope of CP and GBV.
END
Protection Cluster, December 2013
8