Leading coordination and influencing decisions

1Leading a cluster or working group

A useful cluster produces decisions, not just meetings. Good practice: agenda sent 48 hours ahead with the documents, clearly identified decision points, minutes within 72 hours with the list of actions, owners and deadlines. Interpretation and the local language allow national NGOs to take part.

The cluster's terms of reference set the rules: membership, decision-making, strategic advisory group (SAG), management of conflicts of interest. The annual Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM) lets members assess the coordination.

2Pooled funds and response plans as levers

Country-based pooled funds (CBPF), managed by OCHA under the Humanitarian Coordinator's authority, fund national and international NGOs and agencies directly. Clusters set the allocation priorities and take part in the technical review of projects. The CERF funds UN agencies, which may sub-grant to partners.

The Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) rests on the needs overview (HNO) and the Joint Intersectoral Analysis Framework (JIAF). Being present in these processes means influencing where and how humanitarian money is spent.

3Localisation: sharing power

Since the Grand Bargain (2016), signatories have committed to fund local and national actors more and more directly, and to include them in coordination. In practice: national NGO co-leadership of clusters, seats on the SAG and on the pooled fund's advisory board, indirect costs for local partners, and accessible meetings (language, venue, timing).

Localisation is not subcontracting: it means recognising local expertise and sharing decisions, not only tasks.

4Leading a cluster: governance, standards and accountability of coordination

Cluster coordinator, NGO co-facilitator or working group coordinator: none of these functions confers any hierarchical authority over members. Their power rests on the legitimacy of the rules, the quality of the analysis and the trust of partners. This section describes the tools that build that legitimacy.

The cluster's terms of reference: what they must contain

The Strategic Advisory Group

The SAG prepares strategic decisions: response plan priorities, pooled fund allocation strategy, standards, advocacy positions. It does not replace the plenary, which endorses them. A SAG works well when its members sit on behalf of groups of partners and not just their own organization, and when its meetings have an agenda and minutes circulated to members. For an NGO, sitting on it is one of the most effective ways of influencing a sector's strategy.

Harmonizing technical standards: the method

A cluster standard (kit composition, transfer value, latrine construction norm, treatment protocol) prevents discrepancies between partners that create tensions within communities. The usual method involves five steps:

1. Take stock of partners' current practices (composition, costs, criteria).
2. Compare them with reference standards (Sphere, global cluster standards, national norms) and contextual data (market prices, habits, community feedback).
3. Entrust a technical working group of three to six partners with drafting a proposal, with a costed justification.
4. Have it endorsed by the SAG, then by the plenary, with an effective date and a transition period for ongoing projects.
5. Review it at a set interval (for example every six months for a transfer value indexed to a minimum expenditure basket, or as soon as prices change by more than an agreed threshold).

Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM)

Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring is an annual exercise, carried out with the support of the global clusters. It includes an online questionnaire completed by partners and by the coordinator, which rates each of the core functions and accountability to affected people on a scale ranging from "good" to "weak". The results are discussed in plenary and lead to an action plan with owners and deadlines. A coordinator who honestly presents average results and a credible action plan earns more trust than a coordinator who presents flattering results with a low response rate.

Key point: accountable coordination answers to its members (CCPM, minutes, action point follow-up) and to affected people (integration of community feedback, public information on criteria and standards).

The coordinator's profile and working conditions

The global clusters recommend a dedicated coordinator (not a programme manager of the cluster lead agency who coordinates on top of their job), supported by an IMO, at least at national level and in priority areas. "Double-hatting" is one of the most frequent causes of poor performance and partner mistrust. The key skills are facilitation, negotiation, data analysis, technical knowledge of the sector and a detailed understanding of the humanitarian system and of donors.

5Country-based pooled funds and the CERF: the allocation cycle step by step

Country-based pooled funds (CBPFs) and the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) are the two funding mechanisms directly linked to the coordination architecture. They account for only a limited share of global humanitarian funding, but their influence exceeds their volume, because they fund collectively defined priorities and national actors.

The two instruments

The cycle of a pooled fund standard allocation

1. Allocation strategy (weeks 1 to 3): on the basis of the response plan and gap analysis, the HC, with the advisory board and the clusters, sets the amount, the priorities (sectors, areas, populations, modalities), the indicative envelopes per cluster and the selection criteria. The strategy may set a minimum share for national NGOs or intersectoral requirements.
2. Sectoral priorities (week 3): each cluster specifies, within its envelope, the priority activities and areas, drawing on its data.
3. Call for proposals (weeks 4 and 5): eligible partners submit their proposals in the fund's grant management system, with a logical framework, budget and monitoring plan.
4. Strategic review (week 6): a committee for each cluster (coordinator, co-facilitator, a few partners without conflicts of interest, financing unit) scores the proposals against a public scoring grid and selects those that will be developed further.
5. Technical and financial review (weeks 7 to 9): back-and-forth on technical quality, budget, indicators, and the mainstreaming of protection, gender and accountability.
6. Approval and contracting (weeks 9 to 11): approval by the HC, signature, first disbursement.

Eligibility and risk management

To receive funding from a pooled fund, an organization goes through a due diligence check (registration, legal documents, governance) followed by a capacity assessment (financial management, procurement, human resources, monitoring, sectoral experience). The assessment determines a risk level (low, medium, high) that governs maximum amounts, the number of disbursement tranches, the frequency of monitoring visits and financial spot checks, and audit requirements. The risk level is reviewed on the basis of performance: a national NGO that starts as high risk can, after well-managed projects and satisfactory audits, move to medium and then low risk.

Key point: a pooled fund does not select "the best organizations" in the absolute. It selects the proposals that best meet the allocation priorities, with a manageable level of risk. Reading the allocation strategy before writing a single line of the proposal is the first condition for success.

The CERF in practice

The CERF request is prepared under the authority of the HC, with the agencies concerned and the clusters, based on a prioritized analysis of life-saving needs. NGOs do not submit requests, but they influence the content: by providing assessment data, by signalling their implementation capacity and by negotiating rapid partnership agreements with the agency concerned. CERF reports require agencies to indicate the share of funds transferred to partners, including national ones: this is a negotiating argument for NGOs.

6Full example: the strategic review of a sectoral envelope

Fictional context: the Lomandi Humanitarian Fund launches a standard allocation of 8 million dollars. The allocation strategy sets an indicative envelope of 1.6 million for the WASH cluster, with three priorities: districts with severity 4 or above (Tiloko, Sarré, Baleko), cholera prevention, and at least 30% of the envelope going to national NGOs as direct partners. You are the WASH cluster co-facilitator for an international NGO that has not submitted a proposal, and you sit on the strategic review committee with the cluster coordinator, two partners without proposals and a representative of the OCHA financing unit.

Step 1: check for conflicts of interest

A UN agency, which is also the cluster lead agency, has submitted a proposal. The coordinator, an employee of that agency, recuses themselves for this file: they take part neither in the scoring nor in the discussion of this proposal, which is recorded in the minutes. You chair the discussion of this item.

Step 2: apply the scoring grid

The grid, published with the call for proposals, has five criteria totalling 100 points: relevance to the allocation priorities (30), technical quality and compliance with cluster standards (25), cost-effectiveness (15), mainstreaming of protection, gender, disability and accountability (15), presence and operational capacity in the area (15). Each member scores separately, then the scores are compared and differences of more than 10 points are discussed.

Step 3: build the recommendation

The committee does not mechanically select the highest scores: it also checks coverage of the priorities, the absence of duplication and compliance with the share reserved for national NGOs.

• P1 (82), P2 (78) and P5 (74) are selected: they cover Sarré, Baleko and Tiloko.
• P4 (70) and P6 (69) have similar scores. P6 largely overlaps with P1 in the same communes, whereas P4 provides the supply of chlorination inputs on which all partners in Tiloko and cholera prevention depend. P4 is selected, subject to justification of transport costs in the technical review. HydroAid is encouraged to revise its proposal for the next reserve allocation if a gap emerges in Baleko or in the IDP sites.
• P3 and P7 are not selected because they fall outside the geographic priorities; the minutes say so explicitly, so that the organizations understand the reason and do not take it as a judgement on their quality.

Share for national NGOs: (310,000 + 250,000) / 1,580,000 = 35%, above the 30% minimum. The 20,000 unallocated dollars return to the fund.

Step 4: manage risk without excluding

Eau Vive Doma is rated high risk: this is its first direct funding from the fund. Rather than excluding it, the financing unit provides for three disbursement tranches tied to reports, one monitoring visit per quarter, a mid-term financial spot check and support from Solidarité Bassin for equipment procurement, formalized in a technical partnership agreement that does not turn Eau Vive Doma into a subcontractor. The national NGO's budget includes its overhead costs, in line with the allocation strategy.

Step 5: communicate the results

The coordinator sends each organization a written reply with its score, the committee's observations and the decision. The minutes of the review, without detailed individual scores, are shared with cluster members. Organizations that were not selected may request an explanatory discussion.

What the example shows: the legitimacy of an allocation rests on criteria published in advance, individual scoring, explicit management of conflicts of interest, a decision that takes coverage into account and not only scores, and a reasoned communication to each applicant.

7Collective advocacy and prioritization when money is short

With the decline in humanitarian funding seen since 2024 and 2025, the question is no longer just "what needs to be done?" but "what needs to be done first with what is available?". Clusters are at the heart of this prioritization, and their credibility depends on the rigour with which they carry it out.

Prioritizing a response plan: a four-step method

1. Rank activities by degree of life-saving urgency: activities that prevent deaths in the short term (safe water in areas at risk of cholera, treatment of severe acute malnutrition, food assistance in emergency phase), then activities that prevent serious deterioration, then recovery activities.
2. Cross-reference with geographic severity: for the same activity, areas in phases 4 and 5 come before areas in phase 3.
3. Take feasibility into account: access, presence of partners, supply chain. A priority that cannot be implemented should be the subject of access advocacy, not of funding that sits idle.
4. Make visible the consequences of what is not funded: number of people who will not receive assistance, foreseeable risks. This is the basis for advocacy.

Building a cluster advocacy message

Public advocacy, quiet advocacy

Cluster advocacy is most often technical and quiet: notes to the HC, meetings with donors, exchanges with the authorities. Public positions (press releases, statements) are generally a matter for the HCT or the organizations themselves. Before taking any public position on a violation or an access impediment, the risks must be assessed for staff, national staff in particular, for the population and for the access of other organizations, and coordinated with the protection cluster and OCHA.

Key point: effective advocacy turns cluster data into a specific ask, addressed to the right decision-maker, by the right messenger. A message that contains no figure, no ask and no target is a complaint, not advocacy.

Mistakes in prioritizing under constraints

• Cutting all targets proportionally, without making choices, which dilutes assistance below effectiveness thresholds (reduced rations, transfers insufficient to cover the minimum expenditure basket).
• Dropping protection, accountability or psychosocial support activities without transition, on the grounds that they are not life-saving, when they are what makes life-saving assistance safe and accessible.
• Failing to inform communities and authorities of the cuts, which creates tensions and security incidents during distributions.
• Letting each organization cut back on its own, without coordination, which leaves some areas completely abandoned.

8Localization of coordination: moving from principles to practice

The commitments made since the 2016 Grand Bargain (funding local and national actors "as directly as possible", with a target of at least 25% of funds), the Charter for Change signed by international NGOs, and then the 2021 IASC guidance on the participation, representation and leadership of local and national actors in coordination mechanisms, have set a clear framework. Progress is real but uneven. This section provides concrete ways of moving it forward within a cluster.

Measuring where your cluster stands

Setting up co-facilitation by a national NGO: steps

1. Include co-facilitation in the terms of reference, with a description of roles (for example: chairing sub-national meetings, the technical working group, representation at the inter-cluster coordination group on a rotating basis).
2. Organize a transparent selection (call for candidates, election by members, one- to two-year term).
3. Fund the working time: a co-facilitator without a funded post (at least part-time) is an overstretched volunteer. The global clusters, pooled funds or some donors can fund these posts.
4. Provide support: pairing with the coordinator, access to global cluster training, participation in exchanges between coordinators.
5. Evaluate and adjust at the end of the term, using the CCPM and member feedback.

Sharing costs and risks

The IASC Guidance on the Provision of Overheads to Local and National Partners (2022) recommends that agencies and international NGOs share with their national partners part of the indirect costs they receive from donors, or fund their overheads in an equivalent way. Good practice is to apply to the partner a rate comparable to the one the intermediary receives, rather than keeping all of it. Risk sharing is the other side: national partners often bear most of the security and financial risk (disallowed costs, reimbursements demanded after a theft or seizure), without having the means to do so. An equitable partnership determines in advance who bears which losses, and how they are documented and dealt with.

Mistakes to avoid

• Confusing localization with subcontracting: entrusting implementation to national partners without giving them a role in design, coordination and decision-making.
• Making the capacity assessment a one-way exercise, which measures only what national organizations lack and never what they bring (contextual knowledge, acceptance, access).
• Recruiting the most qualified staff of national NGOs into agencies and international NGOs, without compensation or reflection on the resulting weakening.
• Multiplying training sessions without sustainable institutional funding.

Variations by context

• Sudden-onset crisis: local organizations are the first responders, often before international structures arrive. Involving them from the first meetings and in the first pooled fund allocations prevents them from being marginalized throughout the response.
• Conflict and high polarization: some local organizations may be perceived as close to one party. A detailed analysis of acceptance and of impartiality safeguards (selection criteria, complaints mechanisms, third-party monitoring) makes it possible to work with them without compromising the principles.
• Remote management: local partners provide most of the presence; their place in coordination must be proportionate to that role, including through hybrid meetings and seats in decision-making bodies.

9Interview questions and key references

Interview questions

1. "You are a cluster coordinator employed by the cluster lead agency. Your agency submits a proposal to the pooled fund. How do you handle the situation?"

A good answer describes formal recusal, recorded in the minutes, delegation of chairing to the co-facilitator, the use of a public scoring grid and transparency towards members. It mentions the separation between the coordination role and the programme role, and the dedicated coordinator rule.

2. "How would you conduct the strategic review of a sectoral envelope that is half the amount requested?"

The candidate presents an approach: checking for conflicts of interest, individual scoring against the published criteria, discussion of discrepancies, building a portfolio that covers the priorities without duplication and meets the requirements of the strategy (share for national NGOs), and reasoned communication to applicants.

3. "Funding for the sector falls by 40%. How should the cluster prioritize?"

The answer proposes ranking activities by degree of life-saving urgency, cross-referencing with geographic severity and feasibility, avoiding proportional cuts that push assistance below effectiveness thresholds, preserving the protection and accountability functions on which assistance depends, informing communities and documenting the consequences for advocacy.

4. "What does localization mean in practice within a cluster?"

The answer cites specific measures: funded co-facilitation, seats on the SAG and review committees, accessibility of meetings, share of pooled funds going directly to national actors, sharing of indirect costs and risks. It avoids generalities and can cite the Grand Bargain commitments and the IASC guidance.

5. "Your cluster's CCPM results are weak for the advocacy function. What do you do?"

The answer analyses partners' comments, presents the results in plenary, develops an action plan with the SAG (for example an advocacy working group, quarterly notes based on 4W data, a regular presentation to the inter-cluster coordination group), assigns owners and deadlines and follows up on implementation.

Key references

• Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country Level, including Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring (CCPM): IASC.
• Country-Based Pooled Funds Global Guidelines (CBPF Global Guidelines) and country operational manuals: OCHA.
• CERF reference documents and annual reports: CERF secretariat, OCHA.
• IASC Guidance on Strengthening Participation, Representation and Leadership of Local and National Actors in IASC Humanitarian Coordination Mechanisms (2021).
• Guidance on the Provision of Overheads to Local and National Partners: IASC (2022).
• Grand Bargain commitments (2016) and documents of the Grand Bargain 2.0 and subsequent frameworks; Charter for Change.
• Global cluster tools for coordinators (coordination guides, coordinator competencies, terms of reference templates).
• Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS, 2024 edition) and ALNAP publications on the State of the Humanitarian System.