To ensure clusters remain active only where they add value, the HC/HCT should assess their relevance annually for protracted crises and within 3 months in a sudden-onset emergency. In case, response and coordination gaps no longer exists, clusters should be transitioned and de-activated. FAO and WFP will participate in such periodic reviews and will prepare transition or de-activation plans, with the FSC Coordinator actively supporting this process throughout.  

OCHA will coordinate with the HC (or RC/HC) and with the clusters to ensure reviews of the cluster coordination architecture (see 5.9.2). When a review occurs, the gFSC will support the in-country process and share lessons learned. Where an FSC is not formally activated, regular reviews are still recommended for the same purpose. 

When is De-Activation of a FSC Considered?

 The de-activation of formally activated FSC should be considered when at least one of the conditions that led to its activation (see 3.2) is no longer present:

1. The humanitarian situation has improved, significantly reducing humanitarian needs and consequently reducing associated response and coordination gaps.
2. National structures have acquired sufficient capacity to coordinate and meet residual humanitarian needs in line with humanitarian principles.

Four principles should guide and inform the transition and de-activation process for the FSC:

1. The formal process should be initiated and led by the HC (or RC/HC), in consultation with the HCT, wherever possible in close collaboration with national authorities and supported by OCHA. CLAs, cluster partners and national counterparts should be involved in drafting and agreeing the review and its recommendations and preparing transition or de-activation plans.
2. The process should be based on assessment of national capacities, including the presence, structure, and resources of relevant coordination mechanisms. For FSC, functions may be transferred to different national structures such as Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ministry of Social Welfare, and Ministry of Disaster Relief etc. at different times as part of the transition plan for phasing out.  
3. The process should take account of the context, including the scale of continuing or remaining humanitarian needs, and the ability of successor mechanisms to respond in line with humanitarian principles. Deactivation is usually faster in a sudden onset emergency when compared to a protracted emergency. The probability of recurring or new disasters should also be taken into account. 
4. The process should be guided by early recovery and resilience-building objectives. Integrating early recovery objectives in transition and de-activation planning early on can help ensure that humanitarian actors consider the sustainability of their response, take steps to build national and local capacity, emphasise preparedness, and support long-term recovery, development and peace objectives. 

The official process requires that the HC (or RC/HC) issues a letter to the ERC/EDG on the deactivation of the clusters. This should then be approved by the EDG. 

Deactivation of a cluster does not mean that humanitarian funding is no longer required. Funding will be required to conduct transitional activities, including capacity-building, and to enable national and other authorities to coordinate residual or continuing humanitarian needs or strengthen preparedness. Lack of funding is not a reason to deactivate a cluster.

There is limited practical guidance on when and how clusters should evolve into longer-term coordination. Ultimately, the evolution of the cluster coordination structure will depend on the long-term vision for coordination in the particular country and how the linkage between humanitarian and development issues is implemented. Ideally, a transition strategy will be developed and integrated into the FSC response strategy, including specific activities and benchmarks to indicate what needs to be done, and when, in order to prepare for and deliver the transition.