Food Security Cluster Way Forward
Strategy
Overview
In Bangladesh, Humanitarian Clusters including the Food Security Cluster (FSC) were
established in early 2012. Clusters in Bangladesh are not formally activated under the IASC
system, but in practice they operate largely as though they were activated, while they work
on preparedness and related issues. The FSC is co-led by the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Food Programme (WFP). The
cluster leads are responsible for ensuring response capacity is in place and that assessment,
planning and response activities are carried out in collaboration with partners and in
accordance with agreed standards and guidelines.
The overall objective of the FSC is to be better prepared for and effectively respond to
humanitarian crises in a strategic and coordinated manner by assessing the situation and
impact and designing appropriate responses. Importantly, it is intended to avoid duplication
of efforts and capitalize on members’ field presence and expertise. The FSC members in
Bangladesh include UN agencies, I/NGOs and Government partners. The FSC in Bangladesh
focuses in particular on emergency response preparedness and coordination while providing
support to the Government and the Local Consultative Working Group on Disaster and
Emergency Response (LCG- DER) during both slow and sudden onset emergencies.
The cluster system has not been officially activated in Bangladesh. The FSC is working more
as a sector.
The FSC Bangladesh has four core areas of focus.
 Coordination
 Information management
 Needs Assessments
 Integrated Phase Classification (IPC)
Objectives
As part of one of the deliverables for the FSC project funded by ECHO, the FSC should
produce a sector transition strategy.
The objectives of this document are to present different options for the FSC to continue, to
be “sustainable” with limited financial support from donors in a few years; while being a key
humanitarian platform and actor in Bangladesh and a mechanism for coordination and
information sharing between GoB & Development Partners
1|Page
The FSC has developed this transition strategy in the spirit of the World Humanitarian
Summit and the Grand Bargain commitments with localization and building local actors’
capacity for better preparedness and response.
The outputs will be:
 A strategic plan for the FSC’s way forward
 A practical FSC - Action Plan for 2017 through 2019
 A SOP or minimum operational guideline
Steps
As part of this strategy,
 The FSC has developed a stock taking of its activities.
 Two Technical Working Groups were organised: the 1st one Group met to discuss
various topics, such as the role of the GoB or NGOs; the 2nd one to review the 1st
draft of the strategy
 A Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM) was implemented
 Informal meetings with GoB officials
Key evaluations and discussion within the FSC
Past evaluation in 2014
As part of the 2014 FAO and WFP Joint Evaluation of food security cluster coordination in
humanitarian action, the Bangladesh Food Security Cluster was evaluated on overall
performance and impact on humanitarian response
(http://foodsecuritycluster.net/document/faowfp-joint-evaluation-food-security-clustercoordination-humanitarian-action-aide-memoire). The conclusions and recommendations
resulting from this evaluation are still valid. Most importantly the recognition that:
“The Food Security Cluster in Bangladesh is a strong cluster which is a potential
model for others, specifically in its focus areas of preparedness, contingency
planning and needs assessment. It is widely acknowledged as outstanding among the
clusters in Bangladesh and is a force for inter-cluster coordination (which is
otherwise lacking). There is strong leadership from WFP and FAO based on clear
separation of agency and cluster agendas; and a relatively high level of ‘ownership’
and commitment to the cluster by members. The result is a cluster with a high
degree of common purpose, a shared vision of FS and a number of tangible outputs
and processes including the contingency plan for cyclones, facilitation of the IPC
process, strong involvement in joint needs assessment (JNA) and a good track record
in standard setting & training.”
It was notable that all people echoed this finding. In addition there was a widespread
request for increased general awareness of the humanitarian response mechanism and the
2|Page
role that food security cluster partners can play. Within this overall positive sense of
achievement there were areas still requiring attention.
Findings from the stock taking and TWG1
The FSC partners voiced a desire that the FSC continue, recognising the added value of
the current coordination mechanisms. The relevance and impact of the FSC was not
disputed.
Key activities to continue
Some key activities must continue, whatever the level of funding available:
 Coordination and information management:
◦ Contingency plan (floods, cyclone and earthquake) should be updated
regularly, in partnership with the Cash Working Group
◦ Sharing information with other FSC: with District Focal Point at sub-national
and global level
◦ Regular FSC meeting should be organized to ensure minimum coordination
◦ The 4W (who, what, where and when) should be maintained and shared
using online tools
 Capacity building for some activities, especially on information management and
needs assessment
 Needs Assessment
◦ Participation in the needs assessment
◦ Rapid Market Assessment (following a disaster)
◦ survey methodology and assessments for phase 3 (revision, capacity building
before data collection)
Government participation
As per the ToR of the HCTT, “the leadership of clusters will be assumed by government agencies
and the international counterpart agencies”. The Ministry of Food and Disaster Management
conducted this role for the first meeting on the launch of the FSC with the Deputy Country
Representative of WFP and the Country Representative of FAO in 2012.
For about one year and half (2012 and 2013), government staff from Department of
Agriculture Extension, Department of Livestock Services, Department of Fisheries
participated in some meetings.
Since then, apart from the participation of BBS in a few meetings in 2016, the GoB
participation has been low.
The FSC needs to ensure Government’s leadership. As Bangladesh should also be a signatory
of the Grand Bargain commitments, they have to take the lead with required support from
CLAs and other partners at some point.
No NGO has shown any interest to be a facilitator during the past discussions. The INGOEmergency Sub-Committee is represented by two INGOs for the FSC.
1
Stock taking was conducted on 16th March 2016, http://fscluster.org/bangladesh/document/fsc-bangladeshtwg-meeting-food-security
3|Page
Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring results
170130_FSC-Coordi
nationPerformance-final report.pdf
Funding for the FSC
The current funding of the FSC will end on 31st December 2016. ECHO has funded the FSC
project since 2012.
DFID has shown interest since February 2016 to fund the FSC as well as other clusters led by
UNICEF and WFP (WASH, nutrition, logistic).
This new project, under UNICEF umbrella, would probably start in April 2017. FAO and WFP
have covered the funding gap between January to April 2017 for the FSC-CC and UNICEF for
the IMO.
4|Page
Way forward Approach
What elements of
the FSC project
needs to be
sustained?
A service to the FSC partners
Activities such as Needs Assessment, Coordination, and Information Management needs to be sustained.
Is the CLAs going to
be providing any
support?
The Cluster Lead Agencies (CLA) will continue to support the FSC as co-chair as part of their corporate engagements.
The level of support will depend on the level of financial support they will receive.
WFP and FAO are the ‘provider of last resort’. This concept is critical to the cluster approach, and without it the
element of predictability is lost. It represents a commitment of cluster leads to do their utmost to ensure an
adequate and appropriate response. It is necessarily circumscribed by some basic preconditions that affect any
framework for humanitarian action, namely unimpeded access, security, and availability of funding2.
Concept
In case of a L2 or L3 emergency, the global FSC (gFSC) will deploy staff as Cluster Coordinator (national or subnational level) and/or Information Management Officer (IMO).
The minimum level of activities will be regular coordination meeting during pre and post disaster and circulation of
online 4W tools to coordinate the response.
Is the FSC going to
be providing initial
management or
financial support or
both?
2
The FSC will receive financial support for 2 years, from April 2017 to March 2018.
It will continue to receive management support from the two CLAs.
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/IASC%20Guidance%20on%20Provider%20of%20Last%20Resort.pdf
5|Page
Could the benefits
be maintained
without continued
support from a
donor?
The added value (i.e. benefits) of the FSC can be maintained without continued financial support of any donor. But a
few conditions are needed:
 CLAs are more involved in the day to day activities and/or
 A facilitator (volunteer basis) from FSC members
 The GoB plays a stronger role (example of Nepal or Philippines; Governments’ readiness and willingness to
accept the leadership was key in these two countries.
 Less meeting or activities (example of Nepal with a quarterly meeting during quiet time). The frequency of
the coordination meeting can be revised. In case there is no FSC cluster coordinator and IMO, the frequency
of the meeting – especially during quiet time – can be reduced to one meeting per quarter.)
There are potentially other stakeholders that could take over and sustain the FSC. Regional examples can be
explored such as the case of Nepal and Philippines where the FSC as well as other clusters are integrated within the
Government emergency coordination structures.
Considering that Bangladesh is now a middle income country, it becomes more and more accountable for
humanitarian response and preparedness. FAO and WFP can provide the necessary technical support for a smooth
transition.
However, 1st step from the GoB is to designate a ministry counterpart as the previous one (Ministry of Food &
Disaster Management) does not exist anymore.
Discussion, capacity building and engagement will then be conducted to transfer the FSC to the GoB.
SOD3 should also be revised accordingly which is planned by the Humanitarian Affairs Advisor under the UNRCO.
Other options can be also explored. For example, NGO can play a more important role as facilitator or co-chair of the
FSC. For example, in In Papua New guinea, one INGO is co-chairing and the government is chairing. CLAs are
providing technical support as required
Proposition:
GoB plays a central role in the FSC management as co-chair with the 2 other CLAs
Assumptions:
 Review of the humanitarian architecture with a line ministry for each cluster
 Role & responsibilities of clusters included in the SOD revision
 MoDMR designates a line ministry (or department) => play an active role
3
Standing Order on Disaster
6|Page
The staff designated should have this additional task in his/her job description and Annual Confidential Report (ACR)
to ensure his/her commitment and active participation.
Additionally, a staff from the NGO sector (national or international) can support the FSC as a facilitator or co-chair. It
can be on a rotational basis. The frequency of rotation can be every 6 months.
Options
What kind of training
and capacity building
and/ or resources
are required for this
stakeholder to be
able to take over and
sustain this activity?
Training/capacity building
1. To be familiarised with the concept of cluster and IASC coordination structures
2. Lead meetings of coordination
3. Understand the concept of FS, needs assessment (as developed by IASC), accountability to the FSC members
and HCTT
4. Accountability to the Affected Population, including gender and vulnerability issues
5. FSC tools such as the 4W, data analysis for needs assessment
Resources needed
- Two staff from the FSC team: cluster coordinator and Information Management officer
- Participation to the FSC-cluster coordinator training (X1)
- Participation in the FSC retreat (1/year)
Timeframe
- 2 years (as described below)
Based on the above
the following
strategy approaches
are most
appropriate:
- Phasing down over time (1.5 years):
• The donor to the FSC provides financial support for 2 years. This will help to prepare the phasing out and
transferring responsibility
As a result, the FSC team reduces its activities and transfer them to its ministerial counterpart.
• Special challenges include: timing; sensitizing of the FSC members and acceptance; maintaining benefit stream;
capacity of the ministry taking over responsibilities; viability of activity with reduced FSC’s staff support; managing
reputational risks
• Special challenges include: timing and transition; capacity building; whether scope, scale and quality of activities
can continue; viability of transfer of responsibility; managing reputational risks to the FSC if this transfer is
unsuccessful
7|Page
A complete phase out of the Cluster Lead Agency is not foreseen as their roles is to co-lead the FSC. The ministry will
be the Chair.
Workplan
Managing
Risks
Key activities and
milestones
• Timetable (phasing
if necessary)
• Training/capacity
building/mentoring
• Equipment
• FSC members
consultation/involve
ment during the
transfer of
responsibility
process
• Managing the
special challenges
How the special
challenges and risks
associated with the
option selected will
be addressed.
161123_workplan-indicators FSC way forward strategy.xlsx (or Annex 1)
The workplan will be determined during the CCPM review
risks
mitigation
timing
The workplan can be revised every quarter accordingly
sensitizing of the FSC members and
acceptance
Discussion is inclusive => members are involved in the process
from the beginning
maintaining benefit stream
Training, coaching and capacity building to the GoB co-chair
8|Page
Monitorin
g
Readiness indicators
should include
targets and be
aligned with the exit
strategy work plan.
capacity of the ministry/staff becoming a
cluster Chair
CLA to discuss with Secretary or DG if issue to ensure
activeness, staff quality and leadership
GoB staff – part time on FSC
CLAs to fill the gap
viability of activity with reduced FSC’s staff
support
CLAs and HAA to ensure activities are implemented
(preparedness, coordination, IM)
managing reputational risks of FAO, WFP, FSC
and FSC if unsuccessful
CLAs are the safeguard
GoB ministry to be accountable to HCTT
viability of Line Ministry becoming the Chair of
the FSC
A complete phase out of the CLAs is not foreseen as their
roles is to Chair the FSC. The ministry will be the Chair.
In case of a L3 emergency, the gFSC can provide additional
staff (CC, IMO) for a limited period of time
• milestones for the phasing down of responsibility: to be finalised with the GoB
◦ At least one GoB staff is designated and he remains the same for 3 years
◦ Leadership skills: s/he can lead the FSC
◦ Coordination skills: s/he can organise meeting and coordinate meeting, including meeting minutes, action
points and follow up
◦ IM skills: 4W management, mapping, dashboard
◦ Needs Assessment: lead the FS part in JNA, lead phase 3 NA (data collection, data analysis, reporting)
◦ Organizational capacity indicators: capacity to GoB ministry to take more responsibility
◦ Activity indicators: delivery of activities (training, meeting, etc.
 70% of each items needs to be reached.
 A CCPM will be conducted end of 2017
- Transfer of responsibility (6 months):
• milestones for the transfer of responsibility: to be finalised with the GoB
9|Page
 At least 90% of each items described above needs to be reached
 A CCPM will be conducted early 2019
Risks: The amount of time, advance preparation, and capacity building required to ensure a viable transition/exit is
almost always underestimated. Setting key milestones and targets for transfer of responsibility is advisable for
tracking progress and enabling mid-course adjustments where needed.
Annex 1
2016
Activity
Q4
2017
Q1
Q2
2018
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2019
Q4
Q1
Remarks
Q2
FSC members consultation
process
MoDMR designate a ministry
phases
Initiation
sharing work and
responsibilities
learning about the FSC
phase down
Transfer of responsibility
capacity building
FSC coordinator training
FSC retreat
date
TBD
June
or
July
mentoring
Information Management
Equipment
may be handed over to DMIC
handover
limited scope to buy additional items, except from 2
laptops (FSC teams)
10 | P a g e
Activity
2016
Q4
2017
Q1
Q2
2018
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2019
Q4
Q1
Q2
not considered at this stage, only if transfer of
responsibility is unsuccessful
fundraising
Monitoring and Evaluation of
the process
CCPM
Remarks
baseline
Evaluation
end of each quarter; evaluation based on the
performance indicators (phasing down and transfer of
responsibility + challenges/mitigation)
Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM)
other activities
DFID: report
PiC: FSC-CC; quarterly report
11 | P a g e