OIM - Evaluation of the Common Pipeline Mechanism de 2026

Evaluation of the Common Pipeline Mechanism W Evaluation of the Common Pipeline Mechanism IOM

UN MIGRATION

HELP LOGISTICS ULTREIA Together. For a better world. GLOBAL SHELTER CLUSTER Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter and SettlementsThe opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. This publication was made possible through the support of the IOM Flexible Funding Mechanism and HELP Logistics. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the whole organization or partners of this evaluation.

Publisher: International Organization for Migration 17 route des Morillons P.O. Box 17 1211 Geneva 19

Switzerland T el.: +41 22 717 9111

Website: www.iom.int This publication was issued without formal editing by IOM.

This publication was issued without IOM Research Unit (RES) endorsement.

Cover photo: Common Pipeline items being loaded in South Sudan. © IOM 2025

Required citation: International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2026). Evaluation of the Common Pipeline Mechanism. IOM, Geneva.

ISBN 978-92-9278-133-0 (PDF)

© IOM 2026 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO). For further specifications please see the Copyright and T erms of Use. This publication should not be used, published or redistributed for purposes primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation, with the exception of educational purposes, e.g. to be included in textbooks.

Permissions: Requests for commercial use or further rights and licensing should be submitted to publications@iom.int. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/igo/legalcode PUB2026/005/LFinal evaluation report Evaluation of the

Common Pipeline Mechanismiii Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Acknowledgements This evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism was conducted mainly in the year 2025 and was made possible through the valuable contributions and expertise of colleagues and partners across the whole humanitarian community. Special acknowledgement is extended to HELP Logistics for its financial support, which, together with IOM Flexible Funding Mechanism, enabled the implementation of this evaluation. Through its technical expertise, HELP Logistics supported the delivery of the evaluation, including the organization and implementation of the field assessment component conducted in South Sudan, Bangladesh and Mozambique. Recognition is also extended to Ultreia for its significant contribution and engagement with field teams and partners which generated qualitative insights that informed the evaluation’s findings and recommendations. Acknowledgement is also extended to the former Global Shelter Cluster (Shelter, Land and Site Coordination Cluster currently), whose contributions supported a broader understanding of coordination structures and operational linkages related to Common Pipeline activities. Finally, sincere recognition is extended to all IOM Country Office colleagues, Common Pipeline managers, cluster and sector coordinators, implementing partners, and other stakeholders who contributed their time, knowledge, and perspectives throughout the evaluation process. Their engagement through interviews, surveys and country assessments provided essential insights into the achievements, challenges and opportunities for further strengthening Common Pipeline mechanisms. The continued engagement and commitment of all stakeholders involved

implementing partners, and other stakeholders who contributed their time, knowledge, and perspectives throughout the evaluation process. Their engagement through interviews, surveys and country assessments provided essential insights into the achievements, challenges and opportunities for further strengthening Common Pipeline mechanisms. The continued engagement and commitment of all stakeholders involved in Common Pipeline operations remain instrumental to strengthening coordinated and efficient humanitarian assistance. Construction of transitional shelter in Cox’s Bazar. © IOM 2025 1 2 3 4 5 6Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism iv Contents Acknowledgements iii List of figures and tables v Acronyms and abbreviations vi Executive summary vii 1 Introduction and background 1

▪ Background and objective 2

▪ Methodology and approach 3 2 Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism 5

▪ What is the Common Pipeline mechanism? 6

▪ Where is the Common Pipeline being used? 7

▪ Who uses the pipeline and who does it serve? 8

▪ Overview of global use of Common Pipeline mechanisms 10

▪ Overview of Common Pipeline and Common Pipeline-like mechanisms 11

▪ Main Common Pipeline stakeholders 13 3 Country visits 15

▪ Bangladesh – overview and key strengths 16

▪ Bangladesh – best practices and additional findings 17

▪ Mozambique – overview and key strengths 18

▪ Mozambique – best practices and additional findings 19

▪ South Sudan – overview and key strengths 20

▪ South Sudan – best practices and additional findings 21 4 Thematic evaluations 23

1. Governance and leadership

25

2. Scope: Geography, clusters and items

31

3. Operational effectiveness: Cost-efficiency and timeliness

34

4. Quality and standardization

37

21 4 Thematic evaluations 23

1. Governance and leadership

25

2. Scope: Geography, clusters and items

31

3. Operational effectiveness: Cost-efficiency and timeliness

34

4. Quality and standardization

37

5. Localization

39

6. Environmental sustainability

42

7. Coordination, neutrality and risk management

43

8. Systems and digitalization

44

9. Lifecycle of the Common Pipeline mechanism

45

10. Stakeholder satisfaction and qualitative feedback

46 5 Challenges and opportunities 49 6 Conclusion and recommendations 53

▪ Most important strategic recommendations 54

▪ Deep dive into strategic recommendation 3: Common Pipeline scope 57 1 3 5 2 4 6v Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism List of figures and tables Figure 1. Evolution of Common Pipeline implementation 7 Figure 2. The Common Pipeline in 2025 at a glance 8 Figure 3. Number of organizations using the Common Pipeline 2025 8 Figure 4. Individuals reached through the Common Pipeline 2024 9 Figure 5. Individuals reached through the Common Pipeline 2021–2024, in millions 9 Figure 6. Survey findings on Common Pipeline governance 28 Figure 7. Survey findings on the formalization and documentation of Common Pipeline mechanism 29 Figure 8. Survey findings on resources and tools provided to support Common Pipeline set-up and operations 29 Figure 9. Should there be a change in items? 32 Figure 10. Questions to Common Pipeline users 32 Figure 11. Approximately what share of items distributed under the cluster response are sourced through the Common Pipeline mechanism? 33 Figure 12. Survey findings on cost-efficiency of the Common Pipeline mechanism 35

Figure 10. Questions to Common Pipeline users 32 Figure 11. Approximately what share of items distributed under the cluster response are sourced through the Common Pipeline mechanism? 33 Figure 12. Survey findings on cost-efficiency of the Common Pipeline mechanism 35 Figure 13. Do you agree with the following statements about the Common Pipeline mechanism? 38 Figure 14. Do you agree with the following statements about the Common Pipeline mechanism? 38 Figure 15. What benefits did/does the Common Pipeline provide to your organization/operation? 40 Figure 16. If the Common Pipeline had not been available, how would your organization have obtained these relief items? 40 Figure 17. Approximately what share of items distributed under the cluster response are produced locally? 41 Figure 18. Survey findings on localization in Common Pipeline operations 41 Figure 19. Communication mechanisms used by Common Pipeline managers to communicate and coordinate distribution requests from partners 44 Figure 20. Stakeholder satisfaction with Common Pipeline performance: Common Pipeline managers and cluster coordinators’ feedback 46 Figure 21. Stakeholder satisfaction with Common Pipeline performance: Common Pipeline partner’s feedback 47 Table 1. Overview of Common Pipeline implementation globally 10 Table 2. Common Pipeline lifecycle 12 Table 3. Governance and leadership 26 Table 4. Detailed comparison of item prices in Mozambique and Bangladesh: Common Pipeline versus non-Common Pipeline 34 Table 5. Challenges and opportunities for the Common Pipeline mechanism 50 Table 6. Considerations for governance and leadership 55 Table 7. Considerations for scope (geography and items) 56 Table 8. Considerations for operational effectiveness 58 Table 9. Considerations for quality and standardization 59 Table 10. Considerations for localization 60

55 Table 7. Considerations for scope (geography and items) 56 Table 8. Considerations for operational effectiveness 58 Table 9. Considerations for quality and standardization 59 Table 10. Considerations for localization 60 Table 11. Considerations for environmental sustainability 61 Table 12. Considerations for systems 62 1 2 3 4 5 6Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism vi Acronyms and abbreviations 4W Who does What, Where and When 5W Who does What, Where, When and for Whom ADA Africa Development Aid API Application Programming Interface BoQ Bills of Quantities CCCM Camp Coordination and Camp Management CPRTS Common Pipeline Request Tracking System CVM Cruz Vermelha de Moçambique (Mozambique Red Cross Society) DGPC Direction Générale de la Protection Civile (General Directorate of Civil Protection) DRC Danish Refugee Council FLA Field-Level Agreement(s) GSC Global Shelter Cluster HCT Humanitarian Country Team ICCG Inter-Cluster Coordination Group IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies IGO Intergovernmental Organization JRP Joint Response Plan LTA long-term agreement(s) MHM Menstrual Hygiene Management NFI non-food item(s) NGO non-governmental organization(s) NRC Norwegian Refugee Council OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs PDM post-distribution monitoring RACI responsible, accountable, consulted and informed RTS Request Tracking System SAG Strategic Advisory Group SNFI Shelter and Non-Food Items SOP Standard Operating Procedure(s) SWRF Stock Withdrawal Request Form UCLBP Unité de Construction de Logements et de Bâtiments Publics (Unit for the Construction of Housing and Public Buildings) UN United Nations UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UN Refugee Agency)

SWRF Stock Withdrawal Request Form UCLBP Unité de Construction de Logements et de Bâtiments Publics (Unit for the Construction of Housing and Public Buildings) UN United Nations UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UN Refugee Agency)

UNICEF

United Nations Children's Fund WASH water, sanitation and hygiene WFP World Food Programme 1 3 5 2 4 6vii Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Executive summary The Common Pipeline Mechanism The Common Pipeline is a widely recognized mechanism that is increasingly being used in humanitarian responses. Opportunities Questions around ownership, funding/ service mechanism, institutionalization and parallel mechanism remain open. Strengths and benefits The Common Pipeline has demonstrated significant benefit in terms of timeliness, quality, cost‑efficiency and localization. Addressing a crucial gap in humanitarian response, it emerged organically as an IOM-driven initiative in response to the sector’s need for structured coordination and collaboration. Today, it operates in 11 countries, reaching between 2.5 and 4.4 million people annually, and serves over 500 partners. Over the past years, it has been adopted in an increasing number of operations. Various stakeholders have generally responded positively and encourage scaling up the approach. This is the first global evaluation of the approach. • Localization: Reliable source of high-quality shelter items and logistical support to national partners.

• Timeliness: In protracted emergencies, lead times are slashed by up to 90 per cent, from 3–6 months to a few days through a steady flow of prepositioned stocks. • Quality: Standardize and assure the quality of items throughout a response; Items sourced outside of the Common Pipeline are frequently of lower quality. • Cost: Procurement outside the Common Pipeline are often

a steady flow of prepositioned stocks. • Quality: Standardize and assure the quality of items throughout a response; Items sourced outside of the Common Pipeline are frequently of lower quality. • Cost: Procurement outside the Common Pipeline are often 20–100 per cent more expensive.

• Coordination: Reinforces cluster‑led decision-making.
• Strengthen governance: Define ownership, establish global SOPs and standards, anchor in cluster structure to resolve ambiguities. • Review funding and service model: Jointly determine a more appropriate model at global/ cluster level for Common Pipeline management; funding currently follows procurement, not coordination. • Review scope: Rigorous criteria to determine in which countries, regions, and clusters a Common Pipeline should be active in. • Reduce fragmentation: lowering the share of items distributed outside of the Common Pipeline.

1 2 3 4 5 6IOM Mozambique Common Pipeline, reception of essential household items. © IOM 2021/Fuad ISMAEL1 Introduction and background 1 3 5 2 4

61. Introduction and background

2 To date, no valuation has been carried out. Background and objective The Common Pipeline An increasingly important response mechanism. The Common Pipeline evaluation A first comprehensive review of the mechanism. 500+ partners Use the Common Pipeline; around 70 per cent of partners are national or local. Evaluation objectives • Review effectiveness of the mechanism: costbenefit, item quality, timeliness, coordination. • Review of Common Pipeline mechanism interacts with cluster or sector strategies. • Determine to what extent the Common Pipeline mechanism is standardized across responses and operations. • Determine success factors and areas of improvements. • Contribution to localization agenda. • Map of management structures. • Stakeholder satisfaction and performance review. 2.5–4.4 million

mechanism is standardized across responses and operations. • Determine success factors and areas of improvements. • Contribution to localization agenda. • Map of management structures. • Stakeholder satisfaction and performance review. 2.5–4.4 million Beneficiaries reached annually. 11 countries With an active common pipeline. Growing application Significantly increased use over the past years. 1 3 5 2 4 63 Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Methodology and approach An evidence-based approach to inform a neutral and independent, comprehensive analysis. Data collection methods Desk research • Review of key documentation: policies, project documentations, SOPs, etc. Timeline • November 2024 to February 2026. Consultations with Headquarters and Country Office entities • More than 40 in-depth interviews and workshops with several representatives of various entities (IOM, GSC, IFRC, etc.). • Targeted discussions and in-depth exchanges with field staff. In-person country assessments • 3 in-person country assessments from June to August 2025 (Mozambique, Bangladesh, South Sudan), each resulting in an individual diagnostic report. • Direct observation of practices, workflows, systems, challenges, unique aspects, and inter-functional coordination. Global surveys to countries with Common Pipeline operations (3 versions) • Version 1 – Common Pipeline managers: 8 responses from 8 countries. • Version 2 – Cluster/sector coordinators: 12 responses from 5 countries. • Version 3 – Common Pipeline partners/users: 100 responses from 8 countries. 1 3 5 2 4 6Distribution of humanitarian aid through the Common Pipeline in Ukraine. © IOM 20252 Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism 1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

6 What is the Common Pipeline mechanism? The Common Pipeline is a cluster-oriented supply chain coordination mechanism to streamline procurement, prepositioning and distribution of standardized relief items, mainly shelter and WASH. Definition

Common Pipeline mechanism 1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

6 What is the Common Pipeline mechanism? The Common Pipeline is a cluster-oriented supply chain coordination mechanism to streamline procurement, prepositioning and distribution of standardized relief items, mainly shelter and WASH. Definition There is no single definition of the Common Pipeline. It sometimes goes by other names, such as the Core Pipeline. In the contexts that were evaluated, it is understood to be the primarily IOM-managed mechanism to support the shelter cluster/sector response. Guiding Principles and expected benefits Key objectives • Procure and preposition shelter, NFI and WASH items on behalf of shelter cluster/sector partners. • Facilitate swift access to pre-positioned relief items by leveraging local networks and strategic stockpiling. • Fill capacity gaps of emergency response actors, such as host governments, to enable swift and effective emergency responses • Standardize the quality of relief goods across all operational contexts. • Support local organizations and authorities by providing access to high-quality, prepositioned goods, fostering a more localized humanitarian response.

Coordination: Serve as a single reference point among dozens of actors, to coordinate and balance supply/demand and distribution of shelter and related items in support of the humanitarian response and to meet operational priorities.

Time: Ensure the timely availability of pre‑positioned relief items for rapid emergency response.

Strategic stockpiling and minimized procurement delays ensure that critical supplies are available when urgently needed.

Quality: Ensure the delivery of high-quality and compliant relief supplies through harmonization and standardization.

This enables consistent specifications across locations, supporting reliable responses and strengthening local partner delivery.

Cost: Leveraging economies of scale, centralized procurement, and sector-specific expertise. A coordinated

through harmonization and standardization. This enables consistent specifications across locations, supporting reliable responses and strengthening local partner delivery.

Cost: Leveraging economies of scale, centralized procurement, and sector-specific expertise. A coordinated pipeline reduces duplication, lowers costs, and maximizes resource efficiency.

1 3 5 2 4 67 Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Where is the Common Pipeline being used? From its inception in what is now South Sudan, the Common Pipeline has expanded across countries with various decentralized approached based on past experiences. However, this mechanism has not yet been formalized. The Common Pipeline mechanism has reached a turning point: It is now being used successfully in several operations, but has not been formalized at the Global Shelter Cluster level (SOPs, definitions, activation protocols, tools, etc.) and remains de facto IOM-owned. The Common Pipeline was first used in the Sudan from 2005 onwards. In other operations, various approaches were used to coordinate the supply and delivery of non-food and shelter items in responses. The Birth of the Common Pipeline 2005–2011 Based on the Sudan experience, the Common Pipeline mechanism was established in South Sudan as IOM-led mechanism in 2011, and then copied in other operations, starting with Nepal. Post-Sudan applications 2011–2018 Based on the benefit in South Sudan and Nepal, IOM replicated this mechanism in other countries. While not formalized, it naturally evolved into a somewhat standard approach Common Pipeline Proliferation 2018–2024 …? 2025+ Ad hoc bespoke solutions for coordinating demand and supply developed at country level that are similar to the Common Pipeline

mechanism.

Illustrative: Ad hoc solutions partial

Bangladesh: Cox’s Bazar

Syrian Arab Republic (cross-border) Afghanistan Somalia Somalia Mozambique Haiti Pakistan Sudan Ukraine Occupied Palestinian Territory 2011 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 2021 2024 Formalization? Standardization? Institutionalization? Widespread adoption? … Common Pipeline Evaluation Nepal 2015 2016 Ethiopia Yemen Nigeria (WASH-only) 2020 2025 Being activated Kenya Yemen South Sudan Figure 1. Evolution of Common Pipeline implementation 1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

8 Who uses the pipeline and who does it serve? In 2025, over 500 partner organizations use the Common Pipeline mechanism across 11 operations. Annually, between 2.4 and 4.4 million beneficiaries are reached through the Common Pipeline. Figure 2. The Common Pipeline in 2025 at a glance 537 partners Use the Common Pipeline, with a wide range across operations, ranging from 9 to 160 partners. 11 countries With an active common pipeline + 1 additional country being activated 386 national partners 72%

Median: Local partners

64% 151 International partners 28% Source: Survey to Common Pipeline managers.

Notes: Figures display registered organizations, which may not all be active. In Pakistan, for example, only 25 organizations received stocks in 2025.

Includes 20 WASH partners, all of which are international organizations partners. Figure 3. Number of organizations using the Common Pipeline 2025 35 10 147 21 102 25 22 3 6 4 5 10 10 13 24 7 4 28 28 9 11 9 9 20 48 34 13 11 49 130 34 33

Common Pipeline 2025 35 10 147 21 102 25 22 3 6 4 5 10 10 13 24 7 4 28 28 9 11 9 9 20 48 34 13 11 49 130 34 33 Yemen Ukraine Sudan South Sudan Somalia Pakistan Mozambique Haiti Occupied Palestinian Territory Ethiopia Bangladesh Median 160 Local/national organizations International organizations/UN 1 3 5 2 4 69 Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Figure 4. Individuals reached through the Common Pipeline 2024 Figure 5. Individuals reached through the Common Pipeline 2021–2024, in millions Note: The Occupied Palestinian Territory operation not listed due to beneficiary tracking challenge.

Note: Figures show the reach of the Shelter Common Pipeline, not including the WASH common pipeline.

2.45 M 2.97 M 4.44 M 2.86 M 2021 2022 2023 2024 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 – Bangladesh Haiti Mozambique Pakistan Somalia South Sudan Sudan Syrian Arab Republic Ukraine 1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

10 Overview of global use of Common Pipeline mechanisms There is significant variance across operations in terms of sector leadership, coverage and partner management.

Note: Inclusion of the WASH sector in the Common Pipeline was gradual.

Country Duration Common Pipeline Status Common Pipeline Response leadership Shelter Cluster leadership Other sector(s) RTS South Sudan 2011–present Active IOM

IOM/NRC/ADA

WASH Custom solution NW Syrian Arab Republic 2017–2021 Deactivated

IOM/UNHCR

UNHCR

leadership Shelter Cluster leadership Other sector(s) RTS South Sudan 2011–present Active IOM

IOM/NRC/ADA

WASH Custom solution NW Syrian Arab Republic 2017–2021 Deactivated

IOM/UNHCR

UNHCR – – Bangladesh (Cox’s) 2018–present Active IOM

IOM and UNHCR

– Yemen 2018–present Active DRC UNHCR WASH Global standard Mozambique 2019–present Active IOM Varies by response (IFRC, IOM, CVM) – Global standard Afghanistan 2019–2020 Deactivated IOM–UNHCR co-lead

IOM and UNHCR

– – Somalia 2019, 2023–present Active IOM UNHCR – Global standard Haiti 2021, November 2022–present Active IOM

IOM/DGPC/

UCLBP WASH Global standard Pakistan 2022–present Active IOM Varies by response – Custom solution Sudan 2021–present Active IOM UNHCR WASH Global standard Ukraine 2023–present Active IOM UNHCR WASH – Occupied Palestinian Territory 2024–present Active IOM

NRC/IOM

WASH Custom solution Ethiopia 2025–present Active IOM IOM – – Kenya – Activation – IOM – – Table 1. Overview of Common Pipeline implementation globally 1 3 5 2 4 611 Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Overview of Common Pipeline and Common Pipeline-like mechanisms The Common Pipeline occupies a unique, delicate sweet spot between coordination, centralization and localization. More centralization Less centralization Lead agency supply coordination Common Pipeline as service for the Sector Partner-led initiatives

2 4 611 Evaluation of the Common Pipeline mechanism Overview of Common Pipeline and Common Pipeline-like mechanisms The Common Pipeline occupies a unique, delicate sweet spot between coordination, centralization and localization. More centralization Less centralization Lead agency supply coordination Common Pipeline as service for the Sector Partner-led initiatives Procurement for another organization Description: Occurs when a single agency is responsible for supply and distribution of items in an entire sector, usually as cluster lead. Sub-contracts partners.

Examples: WFP (Food distributions), UNICEF (Health WASH) Pro’s: Consolidated and unified SC, easy too coordinate, economies of scale.

Con’s: Limited localization, lead by international organization; concentrated power.

Description: One or more agencies manage supplies for the entire sector, as a standalone service independent of the overall cluster response.

Unique example: The

Common Pipeline Pro’s: Consolidated and unified SC, economies of scale, supports localization. Con’s: Difficult to separate responsibilities in practice, requires financial flows to be managed carefully for correct incentive structures.

Description: A large, usually int’l organization manages a pipeline for itself and potentially its partners as part of a wider sector response.

Examples: Rapid Response Mechanism Pro’s: Some economies of scale, depends on initiative.

Con’s: Potential ambiguities if not well integrated in overall sector response.

Description: A large, usually int’l organization offers procurement or logistics services to other smaller, often local organizations.

Not directly comparable; this is often in the absence of a formal mechanism.

Examples: Bilateral SC service provisions In the complete absence of any mechanisms, each organization mechanism carries out their supply chain management independently, fragmented.

Lead agency supply coordination Common Pipeline as service for the Sector Partner-led initiatives

formal mechanism.

Examples: Bilateral SC service provisions In the complete absence of any mechanisms, each organization mechanism carries out their supply chain management independently, fragmented.

Lead agency supply coordination Common Pipeline as service for the Sector Partner-led initiatives Procurement for another organization Description: Occurs when a single agency is responsible for supply and distribution of items in an entire sector, usually as cluster lead. Sub-contracts partners.

Examples: WFP (Food distributions), UNICEF (Health

WASH) Pro’s: Consolidated and unified supply chain, easy too coordinate, economies of scale. Con’s: Limited localization, lead by international organization; concentrated power.

Description: One or more agencies manage supplies for the entire sector, as a standalone service independent of the overall cluster response.

Unique example: The Common Pipeline Pro’s: Consolidated and unified supply chain, economies of scale, supports localization.

Con’s: Difficult to separate responsibilities in practice, requires financial flows to be managed carefully for correct incentive structures.

Description: A large, usually international organization manages a pipeline for itself and potentially its partners as part of a wider sector response.

Examples: Rapid Response Mechanism Pro’s: Some economies of scale, depends on initiative.

Con’s: Potential ambiguities if not well integrated in overall sector response.

Description: A large, usually international organization offers procurement or logistics services to other smaller, often local organizations.

Not directly comparable; this is often in the absence of a formal mechanism.

Examples: Bilateral supply chain service provisions In the complete absence of any mechanisms, each organization mechanism carries out their supply chain management independently, fragmented.

1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

12

formal mechanism.

Examples: Bilateral supply chain service provisions In the complete absence of any mechanisms, each organization mechanism carries out their supply chain management independently, fragmented.

1 3 5 2 4

62. Overview of the Common Pipeline mechanism

12 The Common Pipeline goes through various phases, from conception to deactivation.

Note: Phases 1 and 2 typically last for several days or weeks, but precise time stamps are missing. Standardization and institutionalization would yield better data.

1. Conception Emergency declaration and needs assessment Stakeholder engagement and mobilization Community and local cluster partner engagement Coordination with country shelter cluster Market assessment and capacity review

2. Activation

3. Ope