Over more than 25 years in humanitarian WASH — including roles as National WASH Cluster Coordinator and WASH Manager with UNICEF in Ethiopia, Palestine, South Sudan and Amhara, and earlier coordination work in Cox’s Bazar and beyond — one constant has remained central to effective response: the quality of partnerships.
Cluster coordination is, at its heart, the art of bringing diverse organisations together around a common purpose. The IASC Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country Level makes this explicit: clusters exist to strengthen partnerships, improve predictability and accountability, and ensure that humanitarian action is collective rather than fragmented. The Global WASH Cluster reinforces this through its Partner Engagement guidance and Minimum Requirements for National Coordination Platforms, emphasising collaboration, local capacity strengthening, and inclusive participation.
The operating environment has grown more constrained. Funding is tighter, expectations on local and national actors are higher, and coordination teams themselves are often operating with reduced capacity. In this context, how we manage partnerships matters more than ever. Here are the personal lessons I have learned and how my own practice has improved over the years.
Lesson 1: Partnerships live or die between the meetings
Early in my coordination career I focused heavily on well-run meetings and information sharing. Over time I realised that the real work of partnership happened outside those meetings. In Tigray, Amhara, Gaza and Cox’s Bazar, trust was built through consistent presence, listening to less vocal local partners, and following through on small commitments. When coordination capacity is stretched, it is easy to default to information-sharing meetings. That is rarely enough.
What I learned and changed: I began treating relationship management as a core coordination function rather than an add-on. I protected time for bilateral engagement with national NGOs and government counterparts, briefed new partners more systematically, and kept contact systems simple and accessible. The quality of partnerships improved noticeably once I stopped measuring success mainly by attendance lists.
Lesson 2: Inclusive meetings are not the same as shared power
We successfully expanded the number of local and national organisations in coordination forums and increased their visibility in response plans. Yet decision-making power, priority-setting and control over resources too often remained upstream. Under tighter funding and sharper prioritisation of the most severe needs, the pressure on local partners intensifies — they are expected to deliver more, often with less flexibility and higher compliance burdens.
What I learned and changed: I moved more deliberately from consultation toward shared decision-making. I worked to strengthen Strategic Advisory Groups so they genuinely represented local voices, supported co-leadership arrangements at sub-national level where feasible, and advocated for more flexible funding that allowed local organisations to set their own institutional priorities. Over the years I became more conscious that expanding participation without shifting power risks turning localisation into cost and risk transfer.
Lesson 3: The Cluster Lead Agency is a partner, not the owner
One of the most sensitive and recurring challenges I encountered was the relationship between the Cluster Lead Agency and the coordination function itself. According to IASC guidance, the CLA is responsible for ensuring that cluster coordination functions effectively and independently. The agency is one partner among others; it is not meant to own the coordination platform or dominate decision-making.
In practice, I saw how easily this line can blur. When the CLA behaves as the owner of the cluster — intervening in day-to-day decisions, steering priorities toward its own programmatic interests, or limiting the voice of smaller partners — trust erodes quickly. Smaller and national organisations often experience this as neither fair nor transparent. Accountability of the CLA is essential (including as Provider of Last Resort), but accountability never means total interference or control. The coordination team must be able to act as a neutral facilitator.
What I learned and changed: I became more deliberate about protecting the independence of the coordination function. I clarified roles early, ensured Strategic Advisory Groups and technical discussions remained partner-driven, and pushed back — politely but firmly — when agency interests risked overriding collective priorities. Over time I learned that a CLA that supports rather than controls the cluster strengthens both the response and its own credibility as a partner.
Lesson 4: Capacity strengthening must be two-way and realistic
Capacity strengthening appears in every guidance document. In reality, high staff turnover, double-hatting and short-term funding cycles undermined continuity. The most useful support I saw combined technical training with practical help on donor requirements, reporting and institutional systems. Local partners often brought contextual knowledge and community trust that international actors lacked; recognising and valuing that contribution was as important as formal training.
What I learned and changed: I shifted from one-off workshops toward mutual learning and institutional strengthening. Where coordination staffing was reduced, I placed greater emphasis on knowledge transfer and documentation so institutional memory did not walk out the door with every rotation. I also learned to recognise and publicly value the non-monetary contributions of local partners — networks, access and contextual insight.
Lesson 5: Standards and accountability still matter under pressure
Clear Terms of Reference, joint workplans aligned with the Humanitarian Response Plan, and regular performance monitoring helped maintain quality without becoming overly bureaucratic. When resources shrink and prioritisation intensifies, the temptation to lower standards or overlook gaps grows. Partnerships that lack mutual accountability quickly fray.
What I learned and changed: I kept accountability mechanisms light but consistent, using Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring and the Global WASH Cluster Minimum Requirements as practical tools rather than compliance exercises. Over time I focused monitoring more on outcomes for affected people and on whether partnerships were becoming more equitable, rather than simply tracking activity completion.
Lesson 6: Inter-cluster and longer-term partnerships cannot be optional
Joint work with Health, Nutrition and Food Security clusters consistently delivered better results in cholera, flooding and displacement settings. As responses stretch longer and funding forces sharper choices, the need to connect humanitarian action with recovery and systems strengthening becomes more urgent. This requires a different partnership posture — more patient, more government-oriented, and focused on collective outcomes.
What I learned and changed: I invested earlier in inter-cluster collaboration tools and shared analysis. I began building relationships with development and government actors before transition discussions started, treating localisation and systems strengthening as continuous responsibilities rather than exit strategies. This longer-term orientation improved continuity and reduced the abruptness of later handovers.
Looking ahead
The frameworks we need already exist in the IASC Reference Module, the Principles of Partnership, and Global WASH Cluster guidance. The harder task is applying them honestly when resources are scarce, and pressure to prioritise is high. For me, the measure of successful partnership management remains straightforward: do local and national actors have greater voice, greater resources and greater autonomy at the end of a response than at the beginning? And does the collective effort deliver better, more accountable outcomes for the people we serve?
No comments:
Post a Comment