In the initial phase of the HRP , the FSC Coordinator should consider the following: 

• Actively participate in the HRP (kick-off) workshop convened by the RC/HC and OCHA.  
• Provide inputs (through ICCG) on intersectoral needs and response analysis, including on the selection of priority humanitarian needs to address, the analysis of response options and formulation of strategic objectives.
• Contribute to the review of the country strategy (and of the strategic objectives and indicators/monitoring requirements) and the overall strategic response plan as it is being developed (this is often done in coordination with the CLAs).
• Collaborate with other clusters to encourage a holistic/complementary approach to achieving strategic objectives, where possible.

The above should be done in close consultation with the FSC SAG / partners and CLAs.

Based on the country strategy, the FSC Coordinator will facilitate the development of a FSC response plan / HRP chapter (the content of which is unpacked in detail in below sections). 

Inclusive and Consultative Process: The FSC response plan is the result of a (usually lengthy) consultative process, with the SAG, Cluster partners and the CLAs (ensuring that CLAs are fully briefed on the FSC position and priorities to facilitate their advocacy in the HCT) – as well as national authorities, other key clusters coordinators and relevant focal points for AAP, protection and other cross-cutting issues (5.7). 

The Coordinator should facilitate and lead the HRP process, he/she should remain neutral and instead ensure that the voice of the FSC partners is reflected into the different key steps of the HRP .

It is critical that the Coordinator ensures that the FSC objectives, activities and targets are prepared with, reviewed and approved by the FSC partners and CLAs. In case any issues related to the FSC response planning is discussed in the HCT, the Coordinator should make sure to coordinate closely, not only with the CLAs, but also those select NGOs or NGO fora that are represented at HCT level. 

Be Proactive: The HRP is usually a predictable process and Coordinators can benefit from proactively preparing for the different element that will require FSC work between August-November, including:

• The overall scope (are all areas with food security needs covered?).
• The targets (consider the latest appeal targets and the methodology applied).
• Understanding the partners’ capacity (which would impact targets/requirements).
• Is it project or unit based costing? (if unit based, the FSC could initiate discussions on unit costs early on).  

Do Not Underestimate the Time Required:  The steps outlined for the HRP (scope and objectives, response analysis, specific objectives/indicators and targeting and costing – see Annex II) may appear straightforward (especially in some countries with existing HRP s) however, often, this process is very work intensive and requires significant time on behalf of the Coordination Team (and partners) – which should be reflected in the FSC HRP workplan. 

Many steps (objectives, targeting and costing especially) can have significant implications for the FSC response, cluster partners and ultimately, the ability of the FSC to collectively improve beneficiary food security in the coming year. These will require significant time to properly address with partners.

What is the overall role of the FSC Coordinator? The Coordinator should keep FSC partners updated, informed and engaged throughout the process of development of the HRP (this often includes developing FSC specific guidance to support the process). The process should be inclusive of all partners and not only the CLAs:

1. Many FSCs will utilise a workshop format to involve all partners in discussions. Alternatively, FSC teams may use the SAG (or a specific HRP task force/ TWG representative of FSC partners and government counterparts, if possible) to make the key decisions (for example, working on overall direction, the details of the logframe, guidance on priorities, objectives, activities/modalities etc.), which are then presented to the whole FSC group during a dedicated workshop or cluster meeting.
2. Whichever the format, the Coordinator should work with partners to determine the cluster objectives, formulate key activities, priority intervention areas (in line with the strategic objectives), monitoring indicators, targets and estimating the cost of the response plan. As mentioned under the Flash Appeal, these should be prepared with, reviewed and approved by the FSC partners and CLAs (without any external pressure). 
3. It is good practice to ensure that government counterparts agree with proposed Cluster strategy for the HRP (when applicable / relevant). 

• Work with partners and CLAs (as mentioned, some use the SAG for initial basic structure and consult full membership after) to prepare, review and ensure approval of the FSC Logframe, this includes:
• Agreeing on the Cluster strategy (to enable the design of the logframe) and on the prioritisation of the needs, target groups, objectives, activities and indicators - keeping in mind that the logframe has to be monitored and reported on. 
• Work with other CCs where relevant to ensure that activities are complementary and appropriately address priority inter-sectoral needs.
• The FSC logframe should be finalised by the Cluster and should not be subject to any external pressure – it should be cleared by FAO /WFP. 

Guidance and Resources: 

1. See up-to-date HPC guidance and relevant FSC documents on the FSC website (the FSC intranet also contains helpful resources – login is required from the GST).
2. See the online Indicator Handbook (gFSC 2020) and the general guidance on indicators (key food security indicators are included in Annex II in chapter 6). 

To facilitate the process when following a project based costing approach, the Coordinator should consider the following:  

• Criteria: Define criteria for HRP project submission in collaboration with the SAG. These should be set prior to the review. Communicate the criteria and procedure to partners (e.g. timeline, objectives, activities, target groups – the criteria can be used by partners as a checklist to ensure they cover all requirements as they develop their proposals/concept notes). 
• Review Committee: Facilitate the election of a review/vetting committee (in a transparent and fair manner, representing a diverse group of partners) to review proposals. Using the set criteria, the review committee should ensure that:

• The appealing partner is a FSC member or partner, has adequate capacities to respond in the given context and has adequate capacities for fundraising. 
• The project design is based on identified needs (based on assessments, either sectoral or agency specific assessments).
• The project targets the geographical coverage and population targeted under the HRP .
• The project activities (are in line with the HRP strategic priorities) fall under the FSC framework of response (logframe).
• The project is realistic and achievable. 
• The project clearly accounts to cross cutting and protection issues, ensuring inclusion and protection mainstreaming, and reflect country-specific criteria (e.g. IASC Gender and Age Marker).
• The project costing is reasonable.
• The project meets cluster minimum standards. 
• The project is coordinated with FSC or other organisations.

• Project Submission: Partners submit projects on the HPC Projects Module (a humanitarian ID is required – a manual for users is available here). A detailed training for partners on the process should be provided by OCHA at the country level. Coordinators should encourage all partners to attend.  
• Project Review and Endorsement: The Coordinator should facilitate (and take part in) the review and final agreement, document the decision-making process and communicate the decision to OCHA. 

To speed up the discussion, the vetting process can be initiated offline (prior to the actual review on the HPC Projects Module) by using the simple excel form commonly shared by OCHA in order to have an initial back and forth with partners on their projects.  

Note: In case an organisation, which is part of the review committee also submits projects, the Coordinator should ensure they do not take part of the review of their own projects (they will normally step out of the room during the project evaluation by the committee). In some cases (if questions are raised on the role of the Lead Agencies or the neutrality of the Coordinator), the same can apply to the Coordinator i.e. he/she should not review the project of FAO /WFP (according to his/her contract).   

• Prioritisation: Priorities should be defined with the partners. For example, what should be prioritised if only 25% / 50% / 75% of funding is received - this can be based on the type of activities (e.g. life-saving etc.), geographic areas or population groups.
• Validation: Present partners with an overview of the results of the process and ensure that both partners and the CLAs validate both the FSC targets and costing approach (as well as the full sector chapter narrative).  In some countries, the SAG officially endorses the targets and costs before these are shared with OCHA. 

After the Project Review Process: Following the completion of the project review process, the Coordinator (with the IMO) should consider the following:

• Define the FSC targets based on the approved projects and confirm with OCHA that the Projects Module FSC figures are considered as final.
• Ensure there are no gaps or overlaps at lower geographic levels, and if needed, ask partners to reconsider their positioning.  
• Have the FSCdata in order:
  • Ensure data collection in FSC’s own format (similar to 5W), to complement the HPC tools. Coordinators will need disaggregated data not provided by HPC Tools (e.g. targets by indicator, sectoral objective, admin 2, SADD)
  • In case of multi-sector projects, the Coordinator should ensure that specific targets and costs for FSC are clear / disaggregated from those of other clusters. 
  • It is recommended to prepare a complete table / list of FSC projects. 

Guidance and Resources:

1. See up-to-date guidance and relevant FSC documents on the FSC website.   
2. See this guidance/tip sheet on HRP Costing Methodology Options (OCHA, 2017). 
3. See Annex IV for an overview of Costing Options - Pros and Cons.

To facilitate the process when following a unit based (also known as activity based) costing approach, the Coordinator should consider the following:

• Targets: Through discussions/consultations with FSC partners, agree on targets to be reached for the year, based on needs and capacities, and by looking at geographical area and population (see FSC Targets above).
  • In parallel, get key figures / list of projects from partners (where they plan to operate, doing what type of interventions) to understand the potential gap between HRP official targets and potential implementation in the field. This should help provide the FSC team target specific areas and to identify activities.  
• Set of Activities: Ensure “units” for costing (basic activities) are defined with partners. This entails discussing and agreeing the main activities partners will implement. Generic FSC activities can be grouped into themes: 1) food assistance (further split by modality: cash/voucher/in-kind); 2) agricultural assistance (further split by type/modality); and 3) livelihoods assistance (further split by type/modality) - see 5.6 on harmonization of response packages. It is recommended that the Coordinator:
  • Consult with partners (including government) – this can be done through a workshop, through the SAG or through dedicated WGs, and discuss and agree minimum package for each intervention.
• Unit Costs: Ensure unit costing (for all activities) is agreed with FSC partners. Partners share their own costing per agreed activity and the FSC team calculates average (or range) costing per activity (more than one cost or range may be required to account for geographic difference, price fluctuation, etc.). Coordinators should avoid relying too much on WFP inputs alone for food assistance and FAO inputs for agricultural livelihood activities – they must be defined jointly with all partners, including the CLAs.
• Note:This participatory and consultative exercise may take several months however it is critical to involve all partners on each component. It is recommended to allow 3-5 months for this process depending on the country context.
• Keep a Record: Document how costs have been calculated – it is important to remain transparent, to capture the costs calculation methodology and share this with partners (see 5.11).   
• Validation: Present partners with an overview of the results of the process and ensure that both partners and CLAs validate the targeting and costing approach (as well as the full sector chapter).
  
  Guidance and Resources: See above. See also this Activity Based Costing – experience sharing discussion (gFSC, 2022). 

What is the role of the FSC Coordinator? The Coordinator should be prepared to defend the FSC’s HRP chapter (sometimes combined with the HNO PIN). Usually this is done in front of the ICCG and the RC/HC and HCT but can, in some cases, also be with the Government (in a one-day workshop setting).   

Regardless of the format or process, the key task remains: the Coordinator should be sure of all relevant facts, figures and methodologies, and be able to explain these in clear terms. This includes: 

• Needs and Targets (the Coordinator should summarise the key humanitarian needs, describe how the FSC determined, which PIN would be targeted and explain the criteria/thresholds);
• Strategy, objectives, activities and indicators, and modalities (focus on CVA);
• Proposed financial requirement;
• Proposed prioritization (activities, locations, vulnerable groups, approaches);
• Synergies, complementarities and inter-sectoral approaches;
• Cross-cutting issues (AAP, gender, disability, environment, centrality of protection – see 5.7);
• Risks / Assumptions.

Support: Contact the GST for support with the cluster defence preparation. 

Impact on the Role of the Coordinator: There are different options for multi-annual planning, each with different implications for the FSC in terms of what is required: 

• One option will maintain the same strategic framework i.e. the SOs, sectoral objectives and logframe (often more detailed than in annual HRP s) but with an annual revision (following on from an annual HNO) of the PIN, target, financial requirements, geographical coverage etc.   
• Another option adopted in some countries, will project the PIN, target and financial requirements for the full multi-year HRP period (although these may be revised yearly). Generally, PIN projections are discouraged due to the lack of an appropriate methodology, and country FSCs are encouraged to advocate for a multi-year strategy but where PIN and targets are defined annually.