ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND ANNUAL REPORT

1

ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND

ANNUAL REPORT

2018

2

THE EHF THANKS ITS DONORS FOR THEIR

GENEROUS SUPPORT IN 2018

CREDITS This document was produced by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

(OCHA) Ethiopia. OCHA Ethiopia wishes to acknowledge the contributions of its committed staff at headquarters and in the field in preparing this document.

Full project details, financial updates, real-time allocation data and indicator achievements against

targets are available at gms.unocha.org/bi.

For additional information, please contact: Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund

[email protected]

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the

legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Financial data is provisional and may vary upon final certification.

mailto:[email protected]

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 FOREWORD

6 2018 IN REVIEW

7 HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT

10 EHF AT A GLANCE

12 ABOUT EHF HUMANITARIAN FUND

14 DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

16 ALLOCATION OVERVIEW

19 FUND PERFORMANCE

20 INCLUSIVINESS

22 FLEXIBILITY

24 TIMELINESS

25 EFFICIENCY

27 RISK MANAGEMENT

30 ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

31 AGRICULTURE

32 EDUCATION

33 EMERGENCY SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS

34 HEALTH

35 NUTRITION

36 PROTECTION

37 WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

39 ANNEXES

40 ALLOCATIONS BY RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION

41 EHF FUNDED PROJECTS

47 EHF ADVISORY BOARD

48 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

49 REFERENCE MAP

4 EHF 2018 ANNUAL REPORT

FOREWORD

I am pleased to share with you the 2018 Ethiopia Humanitarian

Fund (EHF) Annual Report. The document reviews EHF

operations and demonstrates how the Fund was used

strategically to address the urgent humanitarian needs of the

most vulnerable populations and communities in 2018. It also

provides an update on the management and accountability of

the Fund, and a brief overview of results by cluster.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to the Fund’s donors

for their long-standing partnership and support. Their strong

commitment continues to empower me to coordinate with our

partners so we can jointly deliver and respond to the highest

priority needs on the ground. In 2018, donor contributions

were US$75.7 million and together with a carry-over from 2017

of $10.2 million as well as $4.5 million in savings, the total

income was $90.4 million.

Our collective thanks go to the governments of Denmark,

Germany, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Sweden,

United Kingdom and United States for their generous support

and advocacy to sustain life-saving response through the EHF.

I also want to acknowledge the efforts of our partners, the

recipients of EHF funding – national and international NGOs

and UN agencies, funds and programmes – and cluster

support staff for their dedication and tireless response in

Ethiopia. The EHF funds enabled them to respond to

populations displaced and communities affected by drought,

floods, disease outbreak as well as conflict-related crises.

In line with the best practice, our EHF Strategic Advisory Board

welcomed Mother and Child Multi-Sectoral Development

Organisation (MCMDO), a new member which, going forward,

will represent National NGOs (NNGOs) in the decision-making

on the EHF strategy and allocation.

The added value and comparative advantages of the EHF

continues being demonstrated over time where in 2018, the

Fund supported response to numerous emergencies differing

in scale, magnitude, nature and location reaching close to 10.7

million people. Combining flexibility and strategic focus with

its robust accountability system, the EHF supported collective

prioritization, helped ensure timely allocation of scarce

resources, enabled humanitarian interventions and ultimately

strengthened humanitarian coordination, leadership and

efficiency of response.

Although international partners have largely focused on

responding to new displacement crises, in addition to

addressing food and livelihood insecurity as a result of years

of protracted drought conditions, some activities were

implemented towards recovery and resilience building in 2018.

The Emergency Shelter/Non-Food Items (ES/NFI) Cluster has

been liaising with the Government and partners that are

identifying transitional and durable solutions strategies to

sustainably address internal displacement.

Under the leadership and financing of the Government of

Ethiopia, and with the support of humanitarian partners

backed by generous funding from many donors, a major

humanitarian catastrophe was averted in 2018. However,

given the frequency, scale and nature of emergencies in

Ethiopia, it is anticipated that humanitarian response efforts

will continue into 2019. This will require continued resource

mobilization in addition to strengthened coordination and

information management. The EHF therefore remains one of

the most strategic funding mechanisms for humanitarian

response in Ethiopia.

.

Aeneas Chapinga Chuma Humanitarian Coordinator for Ethiopia

5

Every year, the

Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund proves to be one of

the most timely, flexible and effective

humanitarian financing

mechanisms in the country

Aeneas Chapinga Chuma

Humanitarian Coordinator

a.i. for Ethiopia


This Annual Report presents information on the achievements of the Ethiopia Humanitarian

Fund during the 2018 calendar year. However, because grant allocation, project

implementation and reporting processes often take place over multiple years (CBPFs are

designed to support ongoing and evolving humanitarian responses), the achievement of

CBPFs are reported in two distinct ways:

1. Information on allocations for granted in 2018 (shown in blue). This method considers

intended impact of the allocations rather than achieved results as project

implementation and reporting often continues into the subsequent year and results

information is not immediately available at the time of publication of annual reports.

2. Results reported in 2018 attributed to allocations granted in 2018 and prior years (shown

in orange). This method provides a more complete picture of achievements during a

given calendar year but includes results from allocations that were granted in previous

years. This data is extracted from final narrative reports approved between 1 January

2018 – 31 January 2019.

Figures for people targeted and reached may include double counting as individuals often

receive aid from multiple cluster/sectors.

Contribution recorded based on the exchange rate when the cash was received which may

differ from the Certified Statement of Accounts that records contributions based on the

exchange rate at the time of the pledge

EHF ANNUAL REPORT

2018 IN REVIEW

2018 IN REVIEW: HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT 7

2018 IN REVIEW

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT

Humanitarian situation in 2018 The humanitarian context in Ethiopia continues to evolve, characterised by both natural and man-made disasters – primarily protracted drought impact, flooding and conflict. These disasters are major drivers of displacement for large numbers of people, resulting in loss of human life and assets, disruption of livelihoods and damage to basic services and infrastructure. While Ethiopia continues to recover from years of back-to-back drought impact, additional humanitarian needs arose due to spikes in inter-communal conflict-induced displacements since April 2018. As of the end of the year, nearly 8 million people required multi-sector humanitarian assistance. Similar levels of needs are identified for 2019 by the national needs assessment conducted in November/December 2018.

Internal Displacements In 2018, Ethiopia saw a dramatic increase in inter-communal conflict, which led to a near doubling of the internally displaced population in the country to at least 3 million by the end of the year. One of the largest conflict incident occurred in April 2018 between the Gedeo (Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s (SNNP)) and Guji (Oromia) communities. At its peak, this conflict displaced nearly 1 million people. The scale and frequency of similar communal conflicts expanded since April, including in Jijiga and surrounding in August, Benishangul Gumuz-Oromia border in September 2018 and Amhara region since November 2018. Parts of Oromia-Somali, as well as Afar-Oromia regional boundaries remain volatile. The majority of IDPs continue to live with host communities, many of whom were already vulnerable pre-displacement. The remaining IDPs are living in overcrowded, sub-standard collective centres. The lack of adequate shelter, NFIs and basic health services increases their vulnerability to disease outbreaks as well as protection risks.

Drought and floods The belg/spring (mid-February-May) rains generally performed well in most parts of the country in 2018, and the harvest is projected to be near average according to FEWS NET food security outlook (October 2018-May 2019). In a normal year, this would have led to a reduction in the number of relief food beneficiaries during the second half of the year. Despite favourable rains however, the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities who suffered two previous consecutive years of severe droughts and who have lost productive assets, will continue to need humanitarian assistance and recovery support.

Significant numbers of people fled devastating floods in March/April 2018 which affected various parts of the country. DTM round 14 estimates that 500,000 people were displaced affected as a result of drought and floods.

Health and Nutrition Despite productive seasonal rains in much of the country in

2018, assessment findings suggest that the scale and

locations affected by high food insecurity remain unchanged

with 215 priority one, 134 priority two and 96 priority three

woredas/districts identified. This is almost half the country.

In Somali region in particular, where significant loss of assets

and livestock were experienced due to severe droughts in

2016/2017/18, affected communities have not been able to

recover their assets or their health and nutrition status. The

political instability in parts of the country also disrupted basic

services, including health and nutrition, causing significant

turnover of trained Government staff and the temporary

withdrawal of Implementing Partners (IPs). While systems

have resumed in some locations, the response has suffered

a considerable set back amidst high malnutrition and food

insecurity situation.

Additionally, protection risks and hygiene and sanitation

issues are still rife in displacement areas, posing serious

health outbreak risks, including Acute Watery Diarrhea

(AWD). At least 3,019 AWD cases were reported in 2018.

While there has been a drastic reduction in the number of

AWD cases being reported nationwide, the outbreak is still

active in parts of the country.

Humanitarian Response Plan

7.95M People targeted (Food)

9.45M People targeted (Non-Food)

$1.493 B Funding requirement


Security and access constraints The security environment in some locations has been volatile for both displaced populations and humanitarian practitioners resulting in limited accuracy on the number of people in need, limited or intermittent humanitarian

access, as well as challenges in the quality and reach of responses.

2018 TIMELINE

2018 IN REVIEW: HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT 9


EHF HUMANITARIAN FUND AT A GLANCE

2018 ALLOCATIONS

2018 IN REVIEW: EHF HUMANITARIAN FUND AT A GLANCE 11

RESULTS REPORTED IN 2018


2018 IN REVIEW

ABOUT THE ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND

EHF basics Established in 2006, the EHF responds to disasters triggered

by natural hazards, such as droughts, floods and outbreaks

of diseases, as well as conflict-related crises.

The EHF aims to support the timely disbursement of funds to

the most critical humanitarian needs in the context of both

the annual HRD and emerging unforeseen emergency needs.

Donor contributions to the EHF are un-earmarked. The HC

allocates funding through a consultative process, based on

identified humanitarian needs and priorities at the country

level. Inclusivity, flexibility, timeliness, efficiency and

accountability and risk management are the five global

principles which underpin the use of the EHF. Since its

inception in 2006, the EHF has mobilized $551.52 million and

allocated $542.1 million to 882 projects through 59 partners,

including UN agencies and NGOs.

Objectives of the EHF The EHF enables the delivery of humanitarian assistance by

specifically focusing on:

1. Ensuring more adequate, timely, flexible and effective

humanitarian financing using the pooled funding

mechanism;

2. Ensuring well prioritized use of resources, primarily in

support of the needs and strategies outlined in the national

HDRP;

3. Empowering the Humanitarian Coordinator to enhance

coordination;

4. Supporting coordination efforts through the cluster

approach;

5. Enhancing partnerships between UN and non-UN actors.

Allocation Modalities The EHF allocates funds through the Standard and Reserve

windows. At the HC’s discretion and following the HRD

release and inter-agency prioritization exercise, the Fund

issues a Standard Allocation for collectively identified

strategic needs. The cluster coordinators drive the

prioritization exercise and the HC in consultation with the

Advisory Board (AB) will determine the amount to be

allocated through the Standard Allocation. The Reserve

Allocation is open for proposals throughout the year,

responding to humanitarian needs identified in the HRD and

other emerging humanitarian needs.

Allocation Parameters The maximum allowable grant amount will be determined

and disbursed in tranches on the basis of project duration,

partner capacity and risk levels.

Funding Recipients EHF funding is available to eligible EHF recipients including

UN agencies, NGOs and the Ethiopian Red Cross. To be

considered eligible for funding, NGOs must participate in the

due diligence and capacity assessment processes. EHF

funds are channelled through partners that are best placed

to deliver prioritized activities in accordance with the agreed

strategy and humanitarian principles in a timely, and effective

manner.

Leadership and Governance The activities of the EHF are carried out under the HC’s

overall leadership. Supporting the HC are the Advisory and

Review Boards, as well as an OCHA-led Humanitarian

Financing Unit (HFU) that fulfils the EHF’s secretariat

functions. The HC chairs the Advisory Board which includes

senior-level participation of donors, UN organizations (in their

capacity as cluster lead agencies) and NGO representatives.

Cluster coordinators play a key role in prioritization as well as

project review at both strategic and technical levels in

consultation with government counterparts. OCHA chairs the

Review Board, which includes technical experts representing

UN agencies, international and national NGOs, government

and the Ethiopian Red Cross. Humanitarian donors attend as

observers.

In line with the best practice, the EHF Strategic Advisory

Board welcomed Mother and Child Multi-Sectoral

Development Organisation (MCMDO), a new member which,

going forward, will represent National NGOs (NNGOs) in the

decision- making on the EHF and strategy.

2018 IN REVIEW: ABOUT THE EHF HUMANITARIAN FUND 13

HOW DOES THE ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND WORK


2018 IN REVIEW

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

CONTRIBUTIONS TIMELINE

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

UTILIZATION OF FUNDS

In 2018, $75.7 million was mobilized from donors and an additional $10.2 million was carried over from 2017. A further $4.5 million was added based on an increased adjustment from other donors. The total income was $90.4 million. Funding was received from eight donors namely Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States. Approximately 23 per cent ($17.4 million) of contributions were received in the first half of the year. The majority of the funds - $58.2 million (77 per cent) were, however, received and disbursed in the second half of the year (from July). Together, they enabled the EHF to support a total of 142 projects worth $84.7 million for life-saving sectors of nutrition, WASH, health, agriculture, NFI/ES, education and protection in 2018 including 29 projects through the 1st standard allocation, 44 through the 2nd standard allocation and 59 through the 2018 1st reserve allocation. An additional 10 projects were supported under the 2nd Reserve allocation announced in December 2018 for support towards increased conflict related displacements.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2018 IN REVIEW: DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS 15

Donor trend Donor contributions to the EHF have increased over the

years. In 2018, the EHF received $75.7 million.

In 2017, the EHF received its highest income in totaling

$104.6 million, with $82.6 million mobilized from eight

donors and an additional $22 million carried over from 2016.

In the same year, the EHF received the second highest

donors’ contributions to CBPFs globally. Ireland, Germany,

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Republic of Korea, United

Kingdom and the United States contributed. In 2017, the

Fund allocated $92 million through 124 projects (more

projects with less funding than in 2018).

In 2016, the EHF received donor contributions of $ 59.2

million. Combined with a carry-over of $38 million from

2015, the total amount of funds made available came to

$97.3 million. The donor base expanded from six in 2015 to

nine in 2016, with the United States, Germany, Australia and

South Korea joining as first-time contributors.

The United Kingdom and the United States have for the past

years been the largest donors, giving $146 and $51 million,

respectively. Germany’s donation increased significantly

from $2.2 million in 2016 to $18.9 million in 2017 and $14.9

million in 2018. Korea, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland

provided consistent funding between 2016 and 2018 while

Denmark supported in 2016 and 2018. All these generous

contributions have enabled the EHF to contribute to the

humanitarian response over the years.

DONOR TREND

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Denmark

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Ireland

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Germany

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Korea, Republic of

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Sweden

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

Switzerland

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

United Kingdom

0

25

50

2014 2016 2018

United States


2018 IN REVIEW

ALLOCATION OVERVIEW

Empowering coordination

The EHF allocation modalities are structured under the

Standard and Reserve windows. A Standard Allocation

is triggered following the launch of the HDRP and a

subsequent prioritization exercise jointly undertaken by

the Government and key humanitarian partners that

clarifies acute relief needs and priority funding gaps

intended to inform donor funding decisions. A Reserve

Allocation is the type of funding modality, through which

the EHF remains open for business throughout the year,

availing timely and flexible response in the context of

the HDRP and other emerging needs.

Subject to funding availability, the HC in close

consultation with the EHF Advisory Board follows these

processes with allocation announcements. The cluster

coordinators drive the detailed allocation process within

the agreed upon procedures and timeframes.

Alignment to the Ethiopia HDRP

In coherence with the HDRP, allocations prioritized

activities that were lifesaving, with immediate and

highest impact, addressing the needs of the most

vulnerable. Activities that were responsive to the

sectoral plans and with coverage of the highest level of

geographical prioritization as identified in the

Government’s “hotspot woreda” classifications were

selected. Projects designed to be cost efficient and

submitted by organizations consistently engaged in

federal and local coordination efforts were prioritized.

Importantly, projects considered as “critically enabling”

that facilitate the timely delivery of other programs

(supplies, procurement and logistics related projects)

were supported.

Similar to the 2017 objectives, the 2018 HDRP identified

three Strategic Objectives to guide humanitarian action

in 2018: 1) Save lives and reduce morbidity due to

drought and acute food insecurity; 2) Protect and

restore livelihoods; and 3) Prepare for and respond to

other humanitarian shocks, including natural disasters,

conflict and displacement. During the HDRP Mid-year

review in July 2018, the objectives were slightly

amended to adapt to the evolving situation involving

more conflict-induced IDPs. As such, Strategic

objectives included more protection concerns and were

more inclusive in terms of disasters of natural origin and

human made. Subsequently, the three revised objectives

read as follows: (1) Save and protect lives and reduce

morbidity due to conflict and natural disasters; (2)

Protect and Restore livelihoods (3) Prepare for and

respond to other humanitarian shocks – natural

disasters, conflict and displacement. The mutually-

reinforcing strategic objectives developed to guide the

allocations in 2018 included (i) ensuring coherence with

needs-assessment findings; (ii) emphasizing cross-

cutting issues, in particular humanitarian protection,

accountability to affected populations, ‘do no harm’,

protection and gender; (iii) enhancing links between

operational and strategic objectives; and (iv) supporting

and strengthening Government coordination and

response mechanisms.

All applications received through the two windows

underwent technical review, led by cluster coordinators,

and a second-round appraisal by the EHF Review Board

to ensure strategic coherence, cost-effectiveness and

timely response. The EHF allocated more than $86

million supporting 142 multi-sector projects and

covering 12 per cent of the total non-food requirements

identified in the 2018 HDRP (initially US$1.66 billion to

reach 7.88 million people and reviewed to $1.494 billion

to meet the needs 9.45 million people). A total of four

allocations were made for the humanitarian response in

the country. The first two allocations were made

through the standard window (following the HDRP

revision, prioritization exercise and through a call for

proposals), while the other two were made through the

reserve window.

EHF Allocations in 2018

The first standard allocation was announced in April

2018 whose main objective was to support critical

humanitarian response priorities and funding gaps that

were agreed upon and presented in the Humanitarian

Prioritization Document for 2018 published on 23

February. The EHF allocated $16.2 million to support the

most critical funding gaps that are expected to emerge

in the first six months of 2018. The allocation supported

urgent needs in agriculture/livestock, education, health,

nutrition, protection and WASH sectors in key

humanitarian issues carried over from 2017 which

included continuing acute food insecurity, malnutrition

and water shortages in lowland mostly pastoral areas;

conflict-driven displacement; disease outbreaks and

protection concerns due to drought and conflict.

The second Standard Allocation of $23 million was

announced in July 2018 following a review of identified

gaps that were agreed upon and presented in the

Humanitarian Prioritization Document for 2018

published on 24 May 2018. These priorities were

released following preparatory work at regional level,

within sector-specific clusters and key UN and NGO

partners. Focus was placed on addressing urgent needs

in agriculture/livestock, ES/NFI, health, nutrition,

protection and WASH sectors. Key humanitarian issues

2018 IN REVIEW: ALLOCATION OVERVIEW 17

supported include continuing issues of conflict -driven

displacement crises; malnutrition and water shortages

in identified hotspot priority areas; and disease

outbreaks and protection concerns due to conflict.

Response priorities and the most-critical funding gaps

were considered in the context of the HDRP which, upon

review indicated and urgent requirement of $280.4

million to address critical gaps for coming six months

up to December 2018.

A reserve allocation of US$30 million was made to

support critical humanitarian response priorities that

were presented in the Humanitarian Prioritization

Document for 2018 published on 3 August 2018. The

‘Ethiopia Immediate Humanitarian Funding Priorities’

were released following the ‘Inter-cluster prioritization

plus exercise’, which identified ‘top priority’ -sector and

location-specific funding gaps. The strategy also

supported critical requirements that were included in

the response plan to the displacement around West Guji

(Oromia) and Gedeo (SNNPR), which requested $117.7

million to respond to the immediate needs of the IDPs

for the coming six months.

To provide response to emerging needs in the last

months of 2018 and first quarter of 2019, the EHF

issued a second Reserve Allocation of $14.2 million

whose main objective was to establish an essential

humanitarian supplies pipeline to address the urgent

and life-saving needs of displaced population in priority

locations.

Of the entire project implementation, 109 projects (77 per cent) were implemented by NGOs while 33 projects (23 per cent) were allocated to UN agencies. Of the entire allocation $54.1 million (64 percent) was allocated to NGOs while $30.5 million (36 per cent) was allocated to UN agencies.

Allocations made were appropriate for and responsive to the evolving humanitarian situation in Ethiopia as identified by the Inter-Cluster Prioritization exercise, discussed in the EHCT and endorsed by the HC. The Standard Allocation made in December 2017 as a bridging response for immediate needs identified in the last months of 2017 and early 2018 allowed a timely response to the needs of newly identified conflict-affected displaced people enabling humanitarian partners to kick start response efforts. Efforts were made to complement allocations from the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) with the EHF. Three CERF allocations were made for life-saving emergency interventions in response to drought, flood and displacements in the country. A total of $30 million was allocated through the Rapid Response Window to support the highest needs in Shelter and Non- Food Items (NFIs), Health, Nutrition and Wash.

Complementarity and Partnerships

To ensure complementarity with other humanitarian

funding streams, the EHF invites other major donors in

country, including ECHO and DFID, as observers in the

Review Board. Simultaneously, efforts were made to

complement allocations from the Central Emergency

Response Fund (CERF) with the EHF. Three CERF

allocations totaling $30 million were made for life-

saving emergency interventions in response to the

drought, flood and displacements in the country through

the CERF Rapid Response Window to support the

highest needs in Shelter and Non- Food Items (NFIs),

Health, Nutrition and WASH sectors.

2018 IN REVIEW: ALLOCATION OVERVIEW 19

EHF 2018 ANNUAL REPORT

FUND PERFORMANCE

With the introduction of the Common Performance Framework (CPF) in 2018, OCHA has added a

new tool to the set of management, reporting and accountability instruments for the Country-Based

Pooled Funds (CBPFs).

The CPF provides Humanitarian Coordinators (HC), Advisory Boards, OCHA and other stakeholders

a way to monitor and improve the performance of CBPFs. The tool is built on the five fundamental

principles (below) that guide the management of CBPFs: Inclusivity, flexibility, timeliness, efficiency

and accountability and risk management.

The CPF applies a common methodology and set of indicators based on the five principles to

measure Fund-management performance (Fund Management Level) and the extent to which the

use of the Fund adds value to the quality of response (Response Outcome Level).


PRINCIPLE 1

INCLUSIVENESS A broad range of humanitarian partner organizations (UN agencies and NGOs) participates in CBPF processes and receive

funding to implement projects addressing identified priority needs.

The Advisory Board has an appropriate size and

a balanced representation of CBPF stakeholders.

Target Number and percentage of seats at the Advisory Board by

type of actor (donor, INGO, NNGO, UN, government)

Result

Number and percentage of seats at the Advisory Board by

type of actor (Donor -4, INGO -2, NNGO-1, UN-2, 1 non-

contributing donor representative as an observer, the

Humanitarian coordinator and OCHA Head of Office)

COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY BOARD

Analysis

A streamlined Advisory Board is in place since 2016 where

representation is nominated through a transparent process

(Humanitarian Resilience Donor Group – HRDG for the donor

representation and the HINGO forum for NGO

representation). In line with best practices, and follow-up

action form 2017, a NNGO joined to in December 2018 to

represent NNGOs.

Follow up actions

To ensure review of the composition of the AB regularly.

The review committees of the Fund have the appropriate size

and a balanced representation of different organizations.

Target

Number and percentage of organizations engaged in the

development of allocation strategies, and the prioritization

(strategic) and selection (technical) of projects through

Review Committees broken down by type (INGO, NNGO, UN)

and by cluster.

Results

The Advisory Board Technical Working Group (ABTWG) is

composed of representatives from the Cluster leads, national

and international NGOs. In addition, the ABTWG also has

representation from four donors.

REPRESENTATIVES IN THE COMMITTEE

Analysis A technical working group of the Advisory Board is in place to

provide technical input to the EHF process. This group

continues to be instrumental in ensuring accountability of all

proposals through cross checking cluster reviews as well as

reviewing cost effectiveness of programming.

OCHA EHF actively participates in, facilitates and supports the

work of the SRC and may, at times, take part in decision-making

are representative of existing consortium (HINGO), an

umbrella/representative of NNGOs. Other major humanitarian

financing mechanisms/donors are represented in the group as

observers.

Follow up actions

Follow-up with SRC committees for more prominence in

project proposal reviews.

1 Inclusive governance 2 Inclusive programming

22%

11%

45%

22%

2 people

from United Nations

2 people

from INGOs

1 people

from NNGOs

4 people

from Donors

9TOTALPEOPLE

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1UN Agencies NNGOs INGOs OCHA Others

UN Agencies NNGOs INGOs OCHA Others

# of representatives that participated in average inTechnical Review Committee

# of representatives that participated in average inStrategic Review Committee

FUND PERFORMANCE 21

PRINCIPLE 1

INCLUSIVENESS

CBPF funding is allocated to the best-positioned actors,

leveraging the diversity and comparative advantage of

eligible organizations.

Target

Proportion of funding allocated to INGOs, NNGOs and

UN as well as by sector and geographic area.

Results

Approximately 61%% of funding ($51.4M) was allocated

to INGO, 3% (2.7M) to NNGO and 36% ($30.5M) allocated

to the UN.

FUNDING LEVEL BYF IMPLEMENTING PARTNER BY

SECTOR

Analysis

Large number of projects were implemented by NGOs. A

total of 109 projects were implemented by the NGOs while

33 were by UN agencies. All projects were implemented

through a total of 36 partners (both NGOs and UN). The

number of UN projects is significantly lower than those of

NGOs although funding to the UN is proportionately

higher. This is attributed to nature of projects that the UN

implements including support to national pipelines

including procurement of nutrition, health and NFI

supplies.

Follow up actions EHF will continue to work on expanding implementation

through eligible National NGOs.

Resources invested by OCHA’s Humanitarian Financing Unit

(HFU) in supporting the capacity of local and national NGO

partners within the scope of CBPF strategic objectives, for

example through trainings, workshops, communication

material to national partners.

Target

Amount and percentage of CBPF funding and HFU

budget invested in supporting and promoting the

capacity of local and national NGO partners within the

scope of CBPF strategic objectives, broken down by

type of investment.

Results

EHF clinic is operational weekly, providing an

opportunity for Implementing Partners to discuss with

EHF issues related to the EHF process.

Analysis

The clinic is well taken by IPs due to its flexibility with

timings and accommodating partner specific queries.

Follow up actions

Similar to the 2017 recommendation, the EHF will, in

2019, continue building the capacity of its

implementing partners through trainings as deemed

necessary.

3 Inclusive implementation 4 Inclusive engagement


PRINCIPLE 2

FLEXIBILITY The programmatic focus and funding priorities of CBPFs are set at the country level and may shift rapidly, especially in volatile

humanitarian contexts. CBPFs are able to adapt rapidly to changing priorities and allow humanitarian partners to identify

appropriate solutions to address humanitarian needs in the most effective way.

CBPF funding for in-kind and in-cash assistance is

appropriate.

Target Amount and percentage of CBPF funding allocated to in‐kind

and cash assistance (conditional, unconditional, restricted,

unrestricted, sector‐specific or multi‐purpose cash

transfers, as well as mixed in‐kind and cash projects) by

sector and geographic area

Results

$ 8.8 million (73%) allocated through in-kind assistance,

while $3.2 million went to cash assistance.

ALLOCATION THROUGH IN-KIND ASSISTANCE

Analysis The success of the cash assistance since 2016 promoted

for the continued implementation of the response modality.

In 2018, cash assistance projects continued to be

implemented with 9 projects (total $ 3,194,894.69) being

supported. All cash distributed was unconditional and was

sector specific for ES/NFI.

Follow up actions

Cash as a response modality continues to be strategically

prioritized and operationally considered, where appropriate,

as per CBPF cash guidance note.

CBPF funding supports an enabling operational environment

(common services).

Target Amount and percentage of CBPF funding allocated to

common services (logistics, security, coordination, needs

assessments, etc.)

Results

The Fund supported three projects through UNOPS for

operational support of Emergency Response to drought and

conflict-induced IDPs in different regions of the country.

ALLOCATION THROUGH COMMON SERVICES

Analysis

Unique logistics projects were supported in the year through

a mobile payment system which ensured that deployed

health workers in remote locations were paid their

allowances. The project also supported fleet management

services allowing health workers to visit remote/hotspot

parts of the country in addition to supply chain management

services to deliver supplies.

Follow up actions

The EHF will continue funding common services projects

including enabling programmes, support to national

pipelines and other support services to be provided by UN

agencies.

5 Flexible assistance 6 Flexible operation

FUND PERFORMANCE 23

PRINCIPLE 2

FLEXIBILITY

CBPF funding supports strategic planning and response to

sudden onset emergencies and applies the most appropri-

ate modality based on the objectives of each allocation to

generate operational impact at the right time.

Target Amount and percentage of CBPF funding allocated through

standard and reserve allocations broken down by type of

implementing partner, sector and geographic area

Results

The Standard Allocation had $38.8 million (46%) while the

Reserve Allocation had $45.9 million (54%).International

NGO: 97 projects (58% of the total number of projects

supported through standard allocation) for a total allocation

of $51.4 million (53% through Standard Allocation).

National NGO: 12 projects (58% though Standard allocation)

for a total allocation of $2.7 million (52% though Standard

allocation).

UN Agency: 33 projects (30% through standard allocation)

for a total allocation of $31 million (33% through standard

allocation).

ALLOCATION TYPE BY REGION

Analysis

A significant proportion of funds was allocated through the

Reserve Allocation in 2018. This was in part as a result of

the need to respond to the changes in the humanitarian

context and also based on fund availability.

Follow up actions

The allocations continue to demonstrate flexibility in

responding to sudden onset emergencies.

CBPF funding is successfully reprogrammed at the right time

to address operational and contextual changes.

Target

Project revision requests processed within 10 working days.

Results

An average of 40 days taken to review and finalize the

revision request including signature of Grant Agreement

Amendments (GAA). Processing the project revision requests

took longer as the review of these requests is done by

different stakeholders. In the year, HFU processed 78

revision requests.

Analysis

Revision requests allowed partners to reprogramme

originally planned activities and respond to actual needs in

the year. Common requests included NCE, budget

reprogramming, and changes to project location and

activities. On average revision requests are processed within

10 days, i.e. initial revision request. However, finalization of

revision requests took time, as some partners did not submit

final project revisions once the initial request was approved.

In addition, finalization signature of GAA took some time.

Follow up actions

Revision requests demonstrate flexibility due to changes in

the environment. Ensure partners submission of revision

requests are done on time.

7 Flexible allocation process

8 Flexible operation


PRINCIPLE 3

TIMELINESS CBPFs allocate funds and save lives as humanitarian needs emerge or escalate.

Allocation processes have an appropriate duration vis-à-vis

the objectives of the allocation timeline.

Target Average duration of the allocation process from launch of

allocation strategy to HC approval and IP signature of

selected projects by allocation type (standard and reserve).

Results

An average of 42 days was taken to process proposals, i.e.

from launch of allocation strategy to IP signature of Grant

agreements.

Analysis As per the EHF Operational Manual workflow the timeline for

standard window allocation is 34 working days. It took an

average of 24 days to process proposals under the standard

allocation. However, there was a delay in processing

proposals under the reserve allocation. Delays in finalising

the Reserve Allocation was due to the significant change in

the context leading to the issuance of the revised allocation

document and extension of the allocation timeline. This also

included awaiting the amended response plans.

Follow up actions

There is a need to consider exceptional scenarios which

take into account projects that were held awaiting donor

funding, and/or clarity/direction on strategies that have not

been disaggregated and calculated.

Payments are processed without delay

Target

10 days from Executive Officer signature of a proposal to

first payment.

Results

Average number of days for standard allocations: 6 days

Average number of days for reserve allocation: 6 days

Analysis

The processing timeline achieved is within the global

target

Follow up actions

The global target sets 10 calendar days (from EO clearance

of grant agreement). Thus, no follow up action is required.

Pledging and payment of contributions to CBPFs are timely

and predictable.

Target

Percentage of total yearly contributions received by quarter

broken down by donor.

Results

The highest contributions were made in Quarter 3 where

close to 60% of all allocations were received.

CONTRIBUTIONS PAID AND PLEDGED TIMELINE

Analysis

100% of all pledges made in Quarter 3 were received. This

timeline was in line with the strategic planning of the

Humanitarian Disaster and Resilience Plan (HDRP). The

second quarter was also the time that a significant

humanitarian response was initiated in response to floods

(that affected part of the country from April) as well as an

upsurge in conflict in some regions.

Follow up actions

The EHF will continue to encourage donors to adopt multi-

year funding to allow for predictability.

9 Timely allocation

10 Timely disbursements

11 Timely contributions

FUND PERFORMANCE 25

PRINCIPLE 4

EFFICIENCY Management of all processes related to CBPFs enables timely and strategic responses to identified humanitarian needs.

CBPFs seek to employ effective disbursement mechanisms, minimizing transaction costs while operating in a transparent

and accountable manner.

CBPFs have a critical mass to support the delivery of the

HRPs.

Target

Percentage of HRP funding requirements channeled

through the CBPF compared to globally set target

(15%) Results

Results

The EHF in 2018 contributed to 12% of the non-food

HRD requirements.

Analysis

The analysis is made against the total non-food needs

identified in the 2018 national Humanitarian Requirements

Document (HRD) and EHF supported 6.43% of the overall

requirement.

Follow up actions

EHF does not contribute to relief food requirements.

CBPF funding is prioritized in alignment with the HRP.

Target Proportion of CBPF funding allocated toward HRP priorities

by sector of total HRP funding disaggregated by gender,

age, and geographic area.

Results

100 per cent of the projects were strategically aligned with

priorities within the Humanitarian Requirement Document.

ALLOCATION BY HRP STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Analysis All funded projects responded to the HRD strategic priorities

and are linked to the inter cluster prioritization document.

EHF allocations in 2018 continued to demonstrate flexibility

to respond to emerging needs.

Follow up actions The EHF continues to support HRD priorities as further

guided by the inter-cluster prioritization exercise, which is

endorsed by the Ethiopian Humanitarian Country Team.

This is in addition to the continued support for other

emerging needs.

12 Efficient scale 13 Efficient prioritization

57%

11%

32%

$48MS01

$84.7MTOTAL

ALLOCATIONS

$9MS02

$27MS03


PRINCIPLE 4

EFFICIENCY

CBPF funding reaches people in need.

Target Number and percentage of targeted people in need reported

to have been reached by partners through the Fund’s

allocations (standard/reserve) disaggregated by gender,

age, sector, and geographic area

Results

On average 98 per cent of the people targeted were reached

(using data from project reports submitted during the

period covered by this report)

PEOPLE TARGETED AND REACHED

BY GENDERAND AGE

Analysis

Numbers of identified people in need and those receiving a

response would indicate close to 100 % of targeted people

in need of humanitarian response have reportedly been

reached. However, there is a possibility of double counting

of beneficiaries as some responses are multi cluster and

beneficiary information is captured at regional level

Follow up actions

No follow up actions required.

CBPF management is cost-efficient and context-

appropriate.

Target Value and percentage of HFU operations (direct cost) in

proportion to total value of contributions to the Fund

(yearly)

Results

0.7 million (1%)

HFU operations cost (cost plan) accounted for 1% of overall

contributions to the Fund in 2018.

CONTRIBUTIONS AGAINST TOTAL HFU EXPENDITURE

Analysis As with the 2017 analysis of this component, EHF has been

cost-effective in managing one of the largest CBPFs.

Follow up actions

To continue ensuring a transparent and cost-efficient use of

Fund.

14 Efficient coverage 15 Efficient management

FUND PERFORMANCE 27

PRINCIPLE 4

EFFICIENCY

CBPF management is compliant with management and op-

erational standards required by the CBPF Global

Guidelines.

Target

Level of compliance with management and operational

standards required by the CBPF Global Guidelines

Results

100% - EHF Operational Manual was updated in the first

quarter of 2018.

Analysis The EHF’s Operational Manual was revised based on the

latest version of global CBPF guidelines. The annual report

and allocation papers are compliant with global guidance

documents.

Follow up actions

No follow up actions needed.

PRINCIPLE 5

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT CBPFs manage risk and effectively monitor partner capacity

and performance. CBPFs utilize a full range of accountability

tools and measures.

CBPF funded projects have a clear strategy to promote the

participation of affected people.

Target Amount and percentage of CBPF funding (included as a

component of funded projects) allocated for activities to

promote the participation of affected people

Results

100% of approved proposals include a detailed plan on the

accountability to affected population (AAP). In addition, all

monitoring visits involve discussion with beneficiaries.

Analysis All proposals are required to indicate and outline a detailed

plan on the accountability to affected population (AAP). As a

follow-up, all monitoring instances include the consultation

with beneficiary’s component. This is reflected in all the

monitoring reports.

Follow up actions

All future programming of the EHF will ensure accountability

to the affected are considered.

16 Efficient management

17 Accountability to affected people


PRINCIPLE 5

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT

CBPF funding is appropriately monitored, reported and

audited

Target Rate of completion of planned monitoring, reporting and

auditing activities in accordance with operational modality

applied to each grant

Results

Some 83 per cent of projects were monitored, as per the

operational modality. However, the overall monitoring

coverage is about 140 percent due to monitoring of

additional projects which were not required as per the

operational manual but were covered due to the proximity

to projects that needed monitoring 5 projects were required

for financial spot-check as per the operational modality of

which EHF managed to conduct 3 (60%). However,

additional four projects were financially spot checked even

though it was not required. Out of the requirement the EHF completed audit of 99

projects (66%)

PROGRESS ON RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Analysis More projects were monitored than required due to

opportunities including proximity and multiple projects in

one location. This increased the monitoring coverage. There

were however some of the projects that required monitoring

but were not monitored mostly due to instability in the

country and insecurity in the project areas.

Follow up actions

The EHF will commit all the necessary resources and better

plan to meet 100% of the requirement in the coming years

18 Accountability and risk management for projects

FUND PERFORMANCE 29

PRINCIPLE 5

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT

CBPF funding is allocated to partners with demonstrated

capacity

Target Number and type of implementing partners and amount

and percentage of funding allocated by partner risk level

(based on PCA and PI)

Results A total of $71.5 million (83%) was allocated to 28 Low

risk partners while $13 million (16%) was allocated to 8

Medium Risk partners. No funding was allocated to High

risk partners.

IMPLEMENTATION PARTNER BY RISK LEVEL

Analysis

Allocation modalities were fully compliant with

operational modalities. 100% of funding was allocated to

either low or medium risk partners. no funding was

allocated by high risk partners.

Follow up actions

To revise risk level of partners before launch of an

allocation to ensure proper risk management of the

projects.

Appropriate oversight and assurances of funding

channeled through CBPFs.

Target

Number and status of potential and confirmed cases of

diversion by Fund

Results

1 self-reported case.

Analysis

The reported case is undergoing in compliance with CBPF

SOPs on fraud management.

Follow up actions

The case is ongoing and yet to be finalized

19 Accountability and risk management of

implementing partners

20 Accountability and risk management of funding

16%

84%

$84.7MTOTAL

ALLOCATIONS

$13.1MMEDIUM RISK8 PARTNER

$71.5MLOW RISK28 PARTNER



ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER 31

1 Results are based on 2018 data and may be underreported as implementation of projects and project-level reporting often continues into the subsequent year. For explanation of data see page 6.


AGRICULTURE

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES Objective 1: Saves lives and reduce morbidity due to drought and acute food insecurity through protecting the key livelihoods of the vulnerable households and ensuring milk availability and reducing the likelihood of families requiring emergency food. Objective 2: Livelihoods are protected and restored through provision of emergency feed, seeds and animal health services. agriculture and livestock objective Objective 3: To prepare for and effectively respond to humanitarian shock through implementation of mitigation activities like irrigation, crop, vegetable and fodder production

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

FAO

ALLOCATIONS

$ 5,700,887

PROJECTS

14

PARTNERS

13

TARGETED

PEOPLE

1,210,388

WOMEN

359,120

GIRLS

274,478

MEN

317,481

BOYS

259,309

EHF supported 14 Agriculture and Livestock projects worth

US $ 5.7 million. The projects were implemented by 13

partners in Afar, Amhara, Somali, Oromia and SNNP regions.

They addressed the emergency agriculture needs of over

1.2 million drought affected farmers and pastoralists. The

selected agriculture interventions were in line with the 2018

Humanitarian Disaster Resilience Plan (HDRP). To achieve

objectives 1 and 2 of the HDRP, eight partners provided

seed, livestock feed and animal health service. To attain

objective 3 of the HDRP, five partners supported irrigated

fodder development and rebuilding of herds through

restocking and improving access to animal health care.

OUTPUT INDICATORS TARGETED ACHIEVED %

# of livestock receive supplementary feeding 101,066 109,842 109

# of livestock treated 226,737 1,240,261 547

# of individuals benefited from provision of seed 137,000 188,705 138 1

3

8 of households receiving agricultural tools 1,500 1780 119 1

1

9

ALLOCATIONS1 PROJECTS PARTNERS PEOPLE TARGETED

2016 $1.0M 1 1 554,076

2017 $6.4M 17 11 PEOPLE REACHED

659,837

Allocations in 2018

Results reported in 2018



EDUCATION

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Ensure that emergency affected school-age girls and boys (including IDPs) continue

to have access to safe, quality and inclusive learning opportunities.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

UNICEF

ALLOCATIONS1

$ 1,987,364

PROJECTS

6

PARTNERS

4

TARGETED

PEOPLE

51,751

WOMEN

416

GIRLS

26,373

MEN

469

BOYS

24,493

EHF allocated $ 1,987,364.28 to implement six education

projects that contributes to the realization of the cluster

objective in 2018. During the year, four partners

implemented six education projects.

In the year, 51,751 beneficiaries were targeted for

assistance. Major activities included constriction of sex

disaggregated latrines, material support for selected

schools and training are the notable ones. To create

conducive school environment for students, female and

male separated latrines were constructed in 19 schools.

No result for education cluster was reported in 2018.

Allocations in 2018





EMERGENCY SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Provide immediate lifesaving assistance to displaced and affected households

through different modalities

Objective 2: Reinforce disaster risk mitigation, safe building practice and rehabilitation and

recovery efforts for disaster affected households

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

IOM

ALLOCATIONS

$ 12,173,321

PROJECTS

16

PARTNERS

11

TARGETED

PEOPLE

895,384

WOMEN

202,055

GIRLS

236,514

MEN

197,205

BOYS

259,610

EHF allocated some $ 12 million to implement 16 ES/NFI

projects that contribute towards the two cluster objectives.

In the year 11 partners, one UN agency and 10 NGOs

participated in implementing NFI and Emergency S helter

projects. Major activities included procurement, preposition

and provision of standard NFI kits for conflict and drought

induced internally displaced peoples. In addition, many

temporary collective shelters at various locations were

constructed.

In 2018, more than 895,000 beneficiaries were targeted for

NFI and Emergency Shelter assistance. Standard NFI kits

including cooking utensils, blanket, mattress, plastic sheet

and another necessary emergency household equipment

were distributed. In addition, some 59,620 IDP beneficiaries

benefitted from Cash based NFI assistance.

Volatile nature of the security situation in various part of the

country remained to be the major challenge in

accomplishing the planned activities timely. Unpredicted

number of conflict induced displacement has also been

observed to be a challenge for implementation

.


# of ES/NFI kits procured, distributed and prepositioned for affected population 8,3325 104,514 125

# of affected households (female headed and Male headed) received standard ES/NFI kits 25,175 37,935 151

# of ES/NFI cluster coordination meetings conducted 32 16 50

ALLOCATIONS PROJECTS PARTNERS PEOPLE TARGETED

20171 $6.2M 8 4 262,599

PEOPLE REACHED

249,449

Allocations in 2018





HEALTH

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Ensure access to integrated Primary Health Care (PHC including reproductive health)

for 2.6 million drought and conflict affected population (including IDPs), promoting

complementarity relationship with the nutrition, WASH, food and protection sectors to save lives

and reduce morbidity.

Objective 2: Protect around 6 million people at risk from communicable diseases outbreaks (focus

on AWD) through effective early warning, flexible rapid response mechanisms, and timely access

to appropriate case management to support FMOH and RHBs.

Objective 3: Strengthen the coordination and incident command mechanisms at all levels (Federal

to woredas) including preparedness and surge delivery capacity for natural and manmade

disasters.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

WHO

ALLOCATIONS

$ 15,272,085

PROJECTS

29

PARTNERS

10

TARGETED

PEOPLE

3,884,287

WOMEN

982,385

GIRLS

1,018,297

MEN

877,172

BOYS

1,006,433

To achieve the three health cluster objectives in 2018, EHF

supported 29 projects with a total budget of $ 15,272,085.

Ten partners, four UN agencies and six NGOs were engaged

in the implementation of these health response projects.

Depending on availability of permanent health institutions,

health services were provided to affected communities

through permanent or semi-permanent health structures

and Mobile Health and Nutrition Teams (MHNTs). Conflict

and drought induced internally displaced people and local

communities residing in the surrounding IDP centers were

the prime targeted beneficiaries in 2018.

Provision of Medical supplies, capacity building trainings for

health extension workers and health professionals and

establishment and deployment of MHNTs are the major

activities conducted in the year. MHNTs as well as health

professionals in permanent health institutions conducted

number of medical consultation with clients. Medical cases

that required higher level treatments have been referred to

hospitals. Through the supported projects 3,884,287

beneficiaries were targeted.

.


2016 $0.7M 3 2 5.8M


20181 $2.1M 5 4 3.6M


# of children under five years old with medical problem are treated with lifesaving drugs

5,206 10,562 203

# of children vaccinated against vaccine preventable diseases. 2,273 91,939 4,044

# of Mobile health and Nutrition team established and deployed 23 21 91

# of health workers or Health extension workers trained on case management of main childhood illness

290 289 99

Allocations in 2018





NUTRITION

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: 350,111 SAM cases (children under five years) and 3.48 million MAM cases (children under

five years and pregnant and lactating women) identified and treated for severe and moderate acute

malnutrition, ensuring the beneficiaries have access to IYCF-E support and expanded access to a

continuum of care for SAM-MAM case management.

Objective 2: Integrated response with WASH, Health, WASH and food or cash is promoted to mitigate

against nutrition vulnerability.

Objective 3: Approximately 20,000* acutely malnourished children from internally displaced population

timely identified and treated with MAM and SAM management services to prevent further impact of

the experienced shocks. (*13.5% population of U5 in 1 million IDP X 20% GAM estimated).

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

UNICEF/ENCU

ALLOCATIONS

$ 26,253,103

PROJECTS

43

PARTNERS

14

TARGETED

PEOPLE

1,406,971

WOMEN

496,575 GIRLS

436,157

MEN

49,183 BOYS

425,056

The EHF supported 43 emergency nutrition projects in the

year with a total contribution of some US$ 26 million. The

projects contributed to the treatment of acute malnutrition

among vulnerable groups, particularly children under five

and PLWs in target areas. The interventions also enabled

women to adopt key nutrition practices related to their

under-two-year-old children, including improved hygiene,

exclusive breast-feeding in the first six months. All the

projects strongly supported an effective community

management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) care creating

awareness of nutrition as a national development priority at

all levels; strengthened national and local capacities for

data collection and utilization of data on food, health and

nutrition in the project areas.

For improved care and feeding practices for mothers and

children, the projects implemented in target areas

successfully scaled-up the number and reach of infant and

young child feeding (IYCF) community groups and

enhanced supervision of them by trained supervisors.

Health extension workers (HEWs) and community members

were mobilized and capacitated to identify and refer

malnourished children using MUAC tapes, sensitized on key

nutrition messages to promote optimal practices and

promote good hygiene.

.

.


2016 $3.4M 2 2 0.8M


20181 $0.2M 1 1 1.0M


# of children under five with SAM who received treatment in OTP/ SCs by sex and age 4,867 4,841 99

# of boys and girls aged 6-59 months with MAM newly admitted in the TSFP program 48,406 22,955 124

# of PLWs receiving supplementary foods through Targeted/Blanket Supplementary Feeding Programmes (T/BSFP)

539.025 57,268 126

Allocations in 2018





PROTECTION

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Vulnerable groups, including women, girls and boys, elderlies and persons with

disabilities receive lifesaving protection interventions in response to GBV, neglect, abuse,

exploitation and other protection risks.

Objective 2: The protection needs of IDPs and other vulnerable groups are identified, recognized

and addressed by government, humanitarian and development actors.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

UNHCR

ALLOCATIONS

$6,263,956

PROJECTS

15

PARTNERS

12

TARGETED

PEOPLE

1,406,313

WOMEN

528,150

GIRLS

193,155

MEN

506,126

BOYS

178,882

To achieve the intended protection cluster objectives in

2018, EHF supported 15 projects with total budget of $

6,263,956. A total of 12 partners were engaged in the

implementation protection projects targeting more than

1.4 million beneficiaries. Protection related trainings for

beneficiaries, mass awareness campaign, children and

adult protection need identification and referrals are the

major activities implemented in 2018.

Volatile nature of the security situation in various part of

the country remain major challenge that retard

implementation of planed activities. Unpredicted number

of conflict induced displacement has also been observed

to be challenge for implementation.


20171 $2.6M 8 6 141,256

PEOPLE REACHED

154,548


# # of children with safe access to community spaces for socializing, play, learning 3,600

2,210 61

# of children provided with psycho-social assistance 7,885 3,230 41

# of community-based committees/groups working on SGBV prevention and response 40 41 103

# of identified children with specific needs that are assisted 2,823 3,788 134

Allocations in 2018





WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

CLUSTER OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Save lives by responding to emergencies through improved coordination at all

levels, to deliver water, sanitation and hygiene promotion assistance to affected populations.

Objective 2: Prepare for humanitarian shocks – flooding, drought and displacement and be well-

positioned to provide WASH services during the response phase of an emergency.

Objective 3: Assist the recovery process of affected population by rehabilitating non-functional

WASH infrastructure.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONS

UNICEF

ALLOCATIONS

$17,016,820

PROJECTS

33

PARTNERS

17

TARGETED

PEOPLE

1,852,126

WOMEN

535,732

GIRLS

404,280

MEN

493,270

BOYS

418,844

EHF allocated more than USD 17 million supporting 33 WASH emergency response projects. Majority of the projects were implemented in Somali, Oromia and SNNP regions where large number of conflict induced IDPs exist.

The interventions included emergency water trucking, rehabilitation of existing water points, lifesaving water and sanitation, hygiene promotion, distribution of WASH NFI and improving knowledge of personal and environmental hygiene. The rehabilitated existing water points and newly developed /constructed water points have improved access

of drought, flood affected community and conflict IDPs to clean and safe water. The affected community was supported to access the minimum water quantity, 5 liter/person in line with the national minimum standards. Provision of WASH non-food items (NFIs) such as Jerry cans, multipurpose soaps and water treatment chemicals have improved household sanitation and hygiene practice during transportation and storage of water at house hold level

.


# of people provided with sustained access to safe water supply 539,025 659,044 122

# of people provided with sustained access to safe and gender appropriate hygiene latrine facilities

7,180 7,584 106

# of households receiving hygiene kit (WASH NFIs] 54,191 55,617 103

# of IEC materials prepared and distributed 67,774 97,974 144


2016 $0.9M 2 1 5.9M


20181 $0.1M 1 1 7.4M

Allocations in 2018



Provision of WASH NFIs Halima Ahmed Many Ethiopians have continued to be affected by a variety of crises requiring immediate humanitarian response in a

number of sectors. The Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) program of World Vision also continued facilitating the

provision of a wide range of Non Food Items (NFI)s needs in Bule Hora, Tulo, Kochere and other districts in the country.

Halima Ahmed, 26 years old, and a mother of

four, was displaced from the Somali Regional

state and to a settlement site in Tulo district of

Oromia. Halima is among the hundreds of people

who received needed hygiene and sanitation kits

from World Vision Ethiopia.

“The items I received include Jerry can and

soaps, both for clothes and bathing my children.

We used to take the availability of these items for

granted in times of peace. But we now know how

essential they are when we become displaced

families. The Jerry cans help me collect enough

water and I bath my children with the soaps.

They’re clean and protected from diseases,” she

notes.

Yohannes Jebo World Vision also provided essential NFIs’ to people like Yohannes Jebo, 44 years old, and a father of eight in Baya Keble

of Kochere District, Gedio Zone in Southern Ethiopia (cf. photo below). Yohannes lost one of his legs in an accident few

years back. The conflict had greater repercussions on people with specific needs l ike Yohannes Jebo, because they couldn’t

flee immediately as they wished. EHF supported the provision of essential basic NFIs such as laundry and bathing soaps,

water collecting containers (Jerry Cans) to 639 households to help them cope with their difficu lt situation.

The same story was also shared by Zeritu Bedaso, a mother

of three, from Kelinso Mesko Kebele of Bule Hora District in

Oromia.

“I lost everything during the violence in my home village. My

house was burned and we had to seek refuge in the

temporary shelter where every bit of support is precious. We

thank World Vision for providing us with these essential

supplies of soaps and water collecting containers,” she says.

291 households including Zeritu’s received NFI’s in their

shelters including Jerry Cans, buckets and laundry and

bathing soap bars to improve their coping mechanism and

resilience for a couple of months.

EHF humanitarian partners such as World Vison Ethiopia

aims at responding to the immediate needs of children and

families, while looking into ways of sustainably addressing

the humanitarian challenges.

Halima Ahmed, 26 and a mother of four,

among the displaced and beneficiary of WVE

interventions

Yohannes Jebo, 44, among the beneficiaries for

NFI, Kochere District

ANNEXES 39


ANNEXES

This section comprises the key annexes to the Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund

2018 Annual Report such as (1) allocations by recipient organization, (2) list of

all EHF funded projects in 2018, (3) composition of the EHF Advisory Board in

2018, (4) Acronyms & abbreviations, and (5) a reference map.


ANNEX A

ALLOCATIONS BY RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION

ANNEXES 41

ANNEX B

EHF-FUNDED PROJECTS

# PROJECT CODE CLUSTER

ORGANIZATION BUDGET

1 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/9063 Nutrition Action Against Hunger $748,500.75

2 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/INGO/11565 Nutrition Action Against Hunger $600,000.01

3 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/9207 Agriculture Adventist Development and Relief Agency

$402,391.11

4 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10267 WASH Adventist Development and Relief Agency

$400,427.48

5 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/8961 Nutrition Care Ethiopia $756,373.95

6 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/8962 WASH Care Ethiopia $130,812.32

7 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9667 WASH Care Ethiopia $323,495.59

8 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9719 Nutrition Care Ethiopia $420,474.22

9 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/NFI/ES/INGO/10330 NFI and Emergency Shelter

Care Ethiopia $440,108.22

10 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9673 WASH Catholic Relief Services $250,149.70

11 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10205 WASH Catholic Relief Services $372,987.37


Catholic Relief Services $797,506.35

13 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/INGO/10917 Protection Catholic Relief Services $74,899.44


Catholic Relief Services $198,812.31

15 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/8980 WASH Concern Worldwide $722,283.02

16 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9649 Nutrition Concern Worldwide $399,596.46

17 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/INGO/10258 Nutrition Concern Worldwide $475,569.29

18 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/9619 Agriculture DanChurchAid $400,000.00

19 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/9018 Protection Danish Refugee Council $250,000.00

20 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/9019 WASH Danish Refugee Council $775,059.82

21 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/9661 Protection Danish Refugee Council $375,000.00

22 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/UN/10321 Agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

$399,994.65


23 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/9618 Agriculture Food for the Hungry $300,001.03

24 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N-H/INGO/8964 Nutrition (95%), Health (5%)

GOAL $636,092.08


GOAL $510,795.52

26 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-NFI/ES/INGO/9641

WASH (51%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (49%)

GOAL $574,707.46

27 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/INGO/10262 Agriculture GOAL $350,000.00

28 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/INGO/10263 Nutrition GOAL $351,433.48


GOAL $227,420.58


GOAL $499,991.30

31 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/9096 Protection HelpAge International UK $249,984.53

32 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N-H-WASH/INGO/9111

Nutrition (48%), Health (24%), WASH (28%)

International Medical Corps $1,345,792.74

33 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-N-NFI/ES/INGO/9664

WASH (44%), Nutrition (24%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (32%)

International Medical Corps $783,193.51

34 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/INGO/10326 Health International Medical Corps $166,999.86

35 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/INGO/11506 Nutrition International Medical Corps $95,989.33

36 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES-P-WASH/UN/9662

NFI and Emergency Shelter (58%), Protection (32%), WASH (10%)

International Organization for Migration

$3,975,115.91

37 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/UN/10265 WASH International Organization for Migration

$275,276.76

38 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/NFI/ES-WASH-H/UN/11567

NFI and Emergency Shelter (42.44%), WASH (27.26%), Health (30.3%)

International Organization for Migration

$8,999,979.72

39 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/9064 Nutrition Islamic Relief $210,573.82

40 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9651 WASH Islamic Relief $400,000.08

41 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/9665 Agriculture Islamic Relief $300,013.07

42 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9682 Nutrition Islamic Relief $125,317.84

43 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/INGO/10305 Nutrition Islamic Relief $241,216.41

44 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES/INGO/9620 NFI and Emergency Shelter

International Rescue Committee INC

$567,900.85

45 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/H/INGO/9621 Health International Rescue Committee INC

$342,143.34

46 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9622 WASH International Rescue Committee INC

$599,761.79

47 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/INGO/10269 Health International Rescue Committee INC

$199,999.97

48 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/E/INGO/10966 EDUCATION International Rescue Committee INC

$250,000.43

ANNEXES 43

49 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/9100 WASH Lutheran World federation $106,800.64

50 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9668 WASH Lutheran World federation $198,417.66

51 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10233 WASH Lutheran World federation $376,349.57

52 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/INGO/10270 Agriculture Lutheran World federation $348,342.35


Mercy Corps $288,146.83


Mercy Corps $1,198,242.29

55 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/INGO/11511 Nutrition Mercy Corps $169,540.78

56 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/NGO/8991 Nutrition Mothers and Children Multisectoral Development Organization (MCMDO)

$183,619.08

57 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/NGO/8992 Nutrition MCMDO $183,507.86

58 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/H/NGO/9049 Health MCMDO $165,944.40





63 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/NGO/10285 Nutrition MCMDO $287,557.16

64 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/NGO/10296 Agriculture MCMDO $400,113.66

65 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/NGO/10959 Health MCMDO $159,911.11



68 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/9098 WASH Norwegian Refugee Council $761,075.88

69 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/9105 EDUCATION Norwegian Refugee Council $495,430.50

70 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES/INGO/9604 NFI and Emergency Shelter

Norwegian Refugee Council $568,752.99

71 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/9634 Protection Norwegian Refugee Council $260,000.55

72 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9635 WASH Norwegian Refugee Council $600,190.36

73 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10208 WASH Norwegian Refugee Council $300,000.00


Norwegian Refugee Council $1,222,845.51

75 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/E/INGO/10277 EDUCATION Norwegian Refugee Council $179,717.11


76 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10317 WASH Norwegian Refugee Council $775,800.00

77 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/UN/10791 Protection OHCHR $167,958.08

78 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9656 WASH OXFAM GB $550,000.01

79 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10948 WASH OXFAM GB $380,000.08

80 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-NFI/ES/INGO/9632

WASH (60%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (40%)

People in Need $422,460.75

81 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/9043 Nutrition Plan International $545,981.26

82 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/9115 EDUCATION Plan International $492,228.23

83 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9672 Nutrition Plan International $216,876.36

84 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/INGO/10362 Nutrition Plan International $286,998.63

85 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/H/INGO/9089 Health Save the Children Fund $483,101.02

86 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/9090 WASH Save the Children Fund $600,000.00

87 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/9093 Nutrition Save the Children Fund $1,070,000.28

88 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9670 WASH Save the Children Fund $699,946.93

89 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9671 Nutrition Save the Children Fund $1,215,619.51

90 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/H/INGO/9674 Health Save the Children Fund $438,600.27

91 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/9679 Protection Save the Children Fund $369,687.17

92 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/INGO/10292 Nutrition Save the Children Fund $375,263.80

93 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/INGO/10295 Protection Save the Children Fund $500,000.02


Save the Children Fund $333,201.09

95 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/INGO/10329 Health Save the Children Fund $200,000.49

96 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10951 WASH Save the Children Fund $300,000.48

97 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/INGO/10952 Agriculture Save the Children Fund $399,973.47

98 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/INGO/11533 Nutrition Save the Children Fund $531,990.44

99 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/8985 Agriculture Trocaire $400,000.00

100 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/9625 Health United Nations Population Fund $299,998.95

101 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10348 Health United Nations Population Fund $250,063.48

102 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10352 Health United Nations Population Fund $200,408.23

ANNEXES 45

103 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/UN/10704 Protection United Nations Population Fund $320,085.90

104 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/P/UN/9616 Protection United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

$1,196,699.66

105 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/UN/10705 Protection United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

$184,240.24

106 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/UN/9687 Nutrition United Nations Children's Fund $400,004.52

107 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10325 Health United Nations Children's Fund $449,995.99

108 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/UN/10328 WASH United Nations Children's Fund $1,029,745.32

109 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/UN/10331 Nutrition United Nations Children's Fund $3,200,010.48

110 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10337 Health United Nations Children's Fund $299,915.63

111 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/UN/10846 Protection United Nations Children's Fund $350,613.32

112 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/UN/10964 WASH United Nations Children's Fund $521,413.78

113 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/UN/11540 Nutrition United Nations Children's Fund $1,300,015.85

114 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/9097 Health United Nations Office for Project Services

$999,846.31

115 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/9640 Health United Nations Office for Project Services

$145,391.82

116 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10318 Health United Nations Office for Project Services

$1,450,712.41

117 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/P/UN/11626 Protection UN Women $198,913.00

118 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/8982 Agriculture Vétérinaires sans Frontières Germany

$400,000.43

119 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/9647 Agriculture Vétérinaires sans Frontières Germany

$400,000.03

120 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/9607 Agriculture Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse

$600,057.20

121 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/UN/10301 Nutrition World Food Programme $3,999,998.79

122 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA2/N/UN/11551 Nutrition World Food Programme $2,000,000.83

123 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/9025 Health World Health Organization $997,949.09

124 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/9041 Health World Health Organization $748,284.57

125 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/UN/9629 Nutrition World Health Organization $307,609.49

126 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/9630 Health World Health Organization $1,014,750.55

127 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10236 Health World Health Organization $2,058,492.22

128 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/N/UN/10255 Nutrition World Health Organization $802,685.32

129 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/H/UN/10344 Health World Health Organization $499,327.58




132 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/8960 Nutrition World Vision Ethiopia $220,121.40

133 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/9627 Nutrition World Vision Ethiopia $74,115.50

134 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9628 WASH World Vision Ethiopia $369,909.14

135 ETH-18/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/INGO/9637 WASH World Vision Ethiopia $336,834.93

136 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/E/INGO/10223 EDUCATION World Vision Ethiopia $320,000.00

137 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/P/INGO/10224 Protection World Vision Ethiopia $500,000.05

138 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/WASH/INGO/10307 WASH World Vision Ethiopia $224,563.58


World Vision Ethiopia $250,000.00

140 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/A/INGO/10950 Agriculture World Vision Ethiopia $600,000.00

141 ETH-18/DDA-3379/RA1/E/INGO/10962 EDUCATION World Vision Ethiopia $249,988.01


ZOA Refugee Care $550,000.03

ANNEXES 47

ANNEX C

EHF ADVISORY BOARD

Stakeholder

Organization

Chairperson Humanitarian Coordinator

NNGO MCMDO

INGO World Vision

INGO Oxfam GB

UN United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

UN World Food Programme (WFP)

Donor United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)

Donor Ireland

Donor OFDA

Donor Sweden

OCHA/EHF United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)


ANNEX D

ACCRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Advisory Board IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding

AWD Acute Watery Diarrhoea LWF Lutheran World federation

Belg Short rains from February to May (in highland and midland areas)

MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition

CAHWs Community-based Animal Health Worker

MCMDO Mothers and Children Multisectoral Development Organization

CBPF Country-Based Pooled Fund

Meher Kiremt Long and heavy rains from June to September (in highland and midland areas)

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund NGO Non-Governmental Organization

CFW Cash-for-Work NNGO National Non-Governmental Organization

CMAM Community Management of Acute Malnutrition NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

CPF Common Performance Framework NWoW New Way of Working

CRS Catholic Relief Services

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

CSB Corn-Soya Blend, a blended food used in targeted supplementary feeding

OTP Outpatient Therapeutic Programme

DCA Danish Church Aid PI Performance Index

Deyr Short rains from October to December (Somali Region) PIN People in Need

DFID The Department for International Development, UK Plan Plan International

DRC Danish Refugee Council PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women

ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme

EHCT Ethiopian Humanitarian Country Team

Region The highest non-federal administrative structure, embracing zones and woredas

EHF Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund RHB Regional Health Bureau

ENCU Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit RUTF Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food

EO OCHA Executive Officer SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

ES/NFI Emergency Shelter/Non Food Items SC Stabilization Center

FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization SCI Save the Children International

FCS Funding Coordination Section SI Solidarités International

FMOH Federal Ministry of Health

SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region

GBV Gender-based violence TFP Therapeutic Feeding Programme

GMS Grant Management System TSF Targeted Supplementary Feeding

Gu Main rains from March to June (in Somali Region) TSFP Targeted Supplementary Feeding Programme

HC Humanitarian Coordinator UN United Nations

HEWs Health Extension Workers

UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security

HFU Humanitarian Financing Unit UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

HH Household UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

HINGO Humanitarian International Non-Governmental Organization

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

HRD Humanitarian Requirements Document VSF G Veterinaires sans Frontieres (Germany)

HRP Humanitarian Response Plan VSF S Veterinaires sans Frontieres (Suisse)

HWs Health Workers WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

ICCG Inter-Cluster Coordination Group WFP World Food Programme

IDP Internally displaced person WHO World Health Programme

INGO International Non-Governmental Organization

Woreda Administrative/geographic unit equivalent to district

IOM International Organization for Migration WV World Vision Ethiopia

IRC International Refugee Committee Zone Administrative unit consisting of several woredas

ANNEXES 49

ANNEX E

REFERENCE MAP


WEB PLATFORMS

https://www.unocha.org/ethiopia

gms.unocha.org

https://www.unocha.org/ethiopia

ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND ANNUAL REPORT

Documents

Transcript of ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND ANNUAL REPORT