Humanitarian Performance Report 2017 - 2018 September 2018

Figure 1A Rohingya girl with her parents' mobile phone at Jamtoli camp, by Faysal Ahmad.JPG

Christian Aid is a Christian organisation that insists the world can and must

be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from

poverty.

We work globally for profound change that eradicates the causes of poverty,

striving to achieve equality, dignity and freedom for all, regardless of faith or

nationality. We are part of a wider movement for social justice.

We provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need is great,

tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root causes.

christianaid.org.uk

Contact us

Christian Aid 35 Lower Marsh Waterloo London SE1 7RL T: +44 (0) 20 7620 4444 E: info@christian-aid.org W: christianaid.org.uk UK registered charity no. 1105851 Company no. 5171525 Scot charity no. SC039150 NI charity no. XR94639 Company no. NI059154 ROI charity no. CHY 6998 Company no. 426928 The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian Aid © Christian Aid

Cover photo: A Rohingya girl with her parents' mobile phone, Jamtoli camp, Bangladesh Photo credit: CA/F Ahmad

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

3

Introduction

Our humanitarian programmes are designed to save and protect lives and livelihoods, safely restore dignity and lay the foundations for early and longer-term recovery. From design through implementation and review, the quality of our work is an important determinant of impact at community level. In accordance with our principles, programmes should be accountable, needs-based, conflict sensitive, inclusive and timely. Good humanitarian action puts communities and people affected by crisis at the centre of decision making. It is critical to the delivery of successful humanitarian programmes that we reflect on our actions and continually assess our work. By capturing learning through the programme cycle, we help to ensure that we take the right steps to accomplish our desired impact and place affected communities at the heart of our decision making. Alongside our learning commitments under the Core Humanitarian Standard and our humanitarian evaluation policy, the annual Humanitarian Performance Report forms part of this reflection. In this report, we provide insight into the scope and scale of work undertaken by the humanitarian division in the financial year 2017/18. Using the Humanitarian Division’s (HD) strategic objectives as benchmarks, with input from colleagues across the organisation and partners, we outline some of the achievements and challenges we have seen over the past year in our humanitarian programmes. Our thanks to everyone who has provided inputs for this report.

If you would like to provide feedback on the content of the report, please email humanitarian@christian-aid.org

Annie Wright and Niall O'Rourke

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

4

The big picture

In 2017/18 the humanitarian division implemented projects in over 20 countries, below is a snapshot of that work.

1 See pages 13 - 15 for further detailed financial figures.

2 Humanitarian Digital Strategy paper (internal access only).

The hybrid approach

This year Christian Aid explored a hybrid model of implementation in three large humanitarian responses

(Nigeria, Bangladesh and DRC) – which is reflected in the figures and facts above. By adopting this

approach, we have been able to assist affected populations in areas where our partners did not have a

presence or the capacity to respond or ability to access funding due to restrictive donor requirements.

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

5

Humanitarian response

Rohingya refugee crisis

In August 2017, escalating violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine state

forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes,

including many Rohingya refugees who fled to Bangladesh in

search of peace and security. Those who fled walked for miles

and days on end, some with new-born babies or carrying their

elderly or disabled family members. Upon arrival in Bangladesh,

the displaced population was confronted with incredibly difficult

camp conditions, where limited medical facilities and

psychosocial support could leave people at risk of serious

illnesses. More than 850,000 refugees found themselves stuck

in dangerously crowded camps near the Myanmar border,

signalling the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.

By October 2017, Christian Aid had begun to respond to the

critical need to not only improve living conditions but also ensure

coordination of aid in the camps. Our team took responsibility for

the management of Jamtoli/Camp 15, home to 51,388 displaced

Rohingya. This hybrid approach was not a typical response for

Christian Aid but was the model through which we could be most

effective in this context: in the initial stages of the response,

traditional Christian Aid partners were not well placed to assume

camp coordination and management (CCCM) duties. By

engaging in CCCM we could also ensure that our fundamental

priorities, such as inclusion, protection and accountability to

affected populations, were present in the response. We planned

to fill the gap at the outset by employing a hybrid response

approach, directly managing Jamtoli while simultaneously

building capacity of local partners, supported by volunteers, to

take the lead in future. An operational review of this approach is

planned for later in 2018.

Focusing on the health of those in the camp became a top priority

given that almost 40% of children in Jamtoli were under 5 years

of age. By spring 2018 Christian Aid and our partners had

established one primary care clinic in Jamtoli/Camp 15, three

health camps and seven pop-up clinics. We had also conducted

over forty thousand door-to-door counselling and health care

visits and sixteen thousand sessions with pregnant and lactating

women or adolescent girls on ante- and post-natal care and

reproductive health. In terms of accountability, Christian Aid

created one information hub, supported four community radio

groups, provided audio recorders for verbal feedback,

established two-way communication between site management

and community mobilisers and undertook an accountability

survey (details in the side bar). Given the large scale of the

response, we also responded across food security, livelihoods,

WASH, shelter/NFI sectors and on DRR.

Accountability in action

In January, Christian Aid completed a

survey of 373 Rohingya people (194

women and 179 men) regarding

accountability mechanisms at

Jamtoli/Camp 15. Its recommendations

are now being adopted by humanitarian

agencies working in the Cox’s Bazar area.

Read the full report here.

Top 5 issues raised via our Jamtoli

feedback mechanisms:

• Food distribution (quality/type): 82% of women, 40% of men

• WASH facilities (latrines, etc): 77% of women, 37% of men

• Lack of info regarding services: 56% of women, 11% of men

• Food distribution (time/place): 46% of women, 22% of men

• Shelter/housing: 40% of women, 31% of men

Responding in Myanmar

Despite access challenges in Rakhine

state, Christian Aid have been able to

deliver humanitarian assistance via local

partnerships. Through this approach we

responded to the crises in Northern

Rakhine, proving that localised strategies

for humanitarian response can work well in

an increasingly constrained environment

such as Myanmar. Similarly, Christian Aid

in Myanmar is leading the initiative linked

to Grand Bargain localisation workstream,

aiming to accelerate localisation through

the strengthening of local and national

leadership of humanitarian response (for

more on the localisation workstream see

pages 9 and 11).

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

6

East Africa appeal

With famine declared in South Sudan in February 2017, the world’s

focus shifted to a region suffering from drought: the East Africa

region (including Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan) had 16 million

people on the brink of starvation and in urgent need of food, water

and medical treatment. Continued conflict in South Sudan only

exacerbated the needs of vulnerable communities. The DEC

launched an appeal in the last days of 2016/17, supporting

Christian Aid’s humanitarian teams to step into action in the

following 12 months across all three countries.

In Ethiopia our partners worked in South Omo providing

livelihoods support, cash and WASH activities to vulnerable

populations. Seeds and tools were provided to farmers and

animals were vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease. 5,794

women joined savings groups and 3,003 people received

unconditional cash transfers.

In Kenya we reached 38,957 people through a combination of

livelihoods, cash and disaster risk reduction projects in Marsabit

county. We delivered unconditional cash transfers to 10,800

people. As part of our livelihood activities, 200 women joined

savings groups and 22,500 livestock owners benefitted from

animal vaccinations. Additionally, 5,097 people have participated

in designing intercommunal rangeland management plans and

disaster risk reduction plans

In the northern areas of South Sudan, through our projects we

provided livelihoods and cash support to 17,512 people. Our work

improved the livelihoods of vulnerable communities through the

provision of seeds, tools and fishing gear. 17,153 people had

improved access to water through the creation of new boreholes

and training on hand pump mechanics to ensure sustainability of

this intervention.

Given the complexity of the crisis and the scale of ongoing need, the DEC reviewed the normal 6-month response period and extended the traditional timeline to allow for a further 12 months of response, without a recovery phase planned. This indicates the severe nature of the crisis and the ongoing needs as we move into the phase of Christian Aid appeal funded projects.

Livestock drink from a watering hole constructed through a livelihoods project Photo credit: CA/J Burns

European refugee crisis appeal

Although the Refugee Crisis Appeal

closes this year, in 2017/18 our

programme reached over 16,000 people

in Greece and Serbia through projects

focusing on food, nutrition, shelter,

education, legal aid, psychosocial

support and protection.

We also made strides in capacity

building and localisation, having our own

appeal funding allowed us to prioritise

work with our partners which supports

them in the long term, through investing

in their organisational, fundraising and

communications capacity. By supporting

systems and organisational growth, we

reinforced the long-term national

capacity in security training, security

systems, relevant and adapted

accountability systems, strategic review,

and fundraising mapping.

Middle East response

During 2017/18, the volatile nature of the

Syrian conflict, alongside counter

terrorism legislation, posed significant

challenges to our ability to respond

quickly and flexibly. However, despite

frequent disruptions, our food kitchen in

Eastern Ghouta was a major

achievement. In February and March

2018, during the height of the siege, our

partner was able to distribute food to

people in shelters, when the UN and

ICRC were unable to get food convoys

into the area, highlighting the value of

localisation in our response.

In Iraq, we continued projects with

internally displaced people (IDPs)

despite the Kurdish independence

referendum and ongoing volatility which

restricted access and provoked

movements of populations across the

country.

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

7

Kasai crisis

During the crisis, young men were often perceived as enemy fighters or forcibly

recruited. Samuel is happy to rebuild his family home.

Photo credit: CA/E Mulumba

In August 2016, violence and armed conflict between government security forces and the Kamuina Nsapu militia sparked massive displacement in Kasai, DRC. Between September 2017 and April 2018, hundreds of thousands of IDPs returned to their communities during a lull in the conflict. In total, more than 710,000 IDPs returned to the Kasai region, almost half of the previously displaced population of 1.4 million. However, many returned to find their houses burned and their possessions looted, facing continued risks of insecurity, malnutrition and health problems. With large numbers of houses, service buildings and infrastructure burned or destroyed, returnees were forced to stay in crowded accommodation hosted by the community, causing yet another humanitarian crisis. In 2017/18 Christian Aid and partners responded in three health zones: Nyanga, Mutena and Kamwesha. Nyanga Christian Aid responded through traditional and hybrid models. In our partnership model, we provided 4,500 people with hygiene kits alongside GBV and peace building awareness, including creating community groups for integrated implementation. Through the hybrid approach, where our local partners did not have capacity to respond or access to area-specific funding opportunities, we reached 60,000 people with almost 1,500 tonnes of in-kind food. Mutena Using the hybrid model we provided seeds, tools, agricultural training and cash to 9,000 people. The programme was implemented in close coordination with our local partner, to build capacity, share knowledge and increase their eligibility for future funding opportunities. Kamwesha Working through partners, we reached 12,500 people by rehabilitating community water points and school latrines, alongside community hygiene promotion. In March 2018, we commenced the distribution of hygiene NFIs and the rehabilitation of shelters for affected people. Our shelter project has since been replicated in the area by other agencies, demonstrating the appropriateness of the design.

Yemen

Since June 2017 the number of people in

need of humanitarian assistance in

Yemen rose by 1 million to reach 22.2

million people. Conflict, displacement,

and economic decline have placed

immense pressure on essential basic

services, food and quality of life.

In 2017/18 Christian Aid partnered with

Action Against Hunger (ACF) to provide

essential health and WASH services to

65,425 beneficiaries. As the number of

cholera cases rose, we provided

treatment to 20,865 and ensured 18,082

people benefitted from improved WASH

facilities. To reduce the impact of a

second wave of cholera predicted for the

summer of 2018, 27,122 people received

hygiene kits and participated in hygiene

promotion activities and a total of 26,499

people were visited by community health

workers. The priority for 2018/19 will be to

continue with cholera prevention,

increase water trucking to vulnerable

areas and develop a diarrhoea treatment

centre to leave the community with a

sustainable service.

Irish Aid

In 2017/18, Irish Aid’s primary

mechanism for humanitarian funding, the

HPP, allowed for the deepening of CA

Ireland’s resilience and conflict sensitivity

approach, informed by the Integrated

Conflict Prevention and Resilience (ICPR)

guide and the From Violence to Peace

framework. This continued in Burundi,

DRC, Lebanon and South Sudan and

expanded to include Myanmar. We

included a research component to build

on the conflict strand of the LPRR

research, assessing how integrating

conflict sensitivity and conflict analysis

can make programmes more effective,

contribute to community resilience and

aid in conflict prevention in protracted

conflicts.

The pre-positioned ERFS was used to

respond to emergencies in Bangladesh

(Rohingya crisis), India (floods in Assam)

and DRC (Kasai conflict).

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

8

Improving humanitarian programme delivery

Inclusion

As a signatory to both the Inclusion Charter and the Charter on the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, this year we developed inclusion tools and guidance for staff and partners, which were applied in various emergencies. These include the East Africa appeal, the Rohingya response and Christian Aid’s Irish Aid HPP portfolio. Learning on the use of these tools has been captured in two practice papers. Additionally, internal inclusion reporting templates now require sex, age and disability data globally and several trials have been completed using Washington Group Questions in contexts such as Burundi, Sierra Leone and Nepal. We are working to integrate intersectionality and inclusion into existing frameworks including the gender justice and resilience frameworks.

We are an active member of the ACT Alliance Community of Practice on Disability Inclusion, sharing resources and learning on inclusion mainstreaming. As a member of the DEPP Age and Disability Capacity Building Programme (ADCAP), we contributed to the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for older people and people with disabilities (cover image displayed on the right) and the related Good Practice Guide.

Cash

During 2017/18, Christian Aid and partners delivered 75 cash projects in over 15 countries. In northeast Nigeria, we continued to respond to the displacement and lobbied WFP for a shift from in-kind food to cash where markets were functional and people expressed a preference for cash. This successfully shifted in-kind food to cash for approximately 15,000 individuals. We also concluded the Cash Transfer Project (CTP) that used the Segovia platform. There were some challenges with the platform including the inability to deliver CTP using mobile money (with which the platform was integrated), lack of overlap between countries where platform was operational and our cash responses occurred and cost of using the platform. Our cash specialists will complete a review in late 2018 and document lessons learnt and consider possibilities for tracking cash programming going forward, to ensure we are able to meet our commitment to the Grand Bargain to increase our use of cash transfers in emergencies. In Bangladesh, although the government did not allow cash-based programmes, we participated in the Cash Working Group (CWG), a good platform to scope feasibility of cash projects, possible delivery modalities and collective advocacy for cash interventions. This push to share information early in the response will undoubtedly result in better cash programming where allowed and may even contribute itself to increased acceptance of and appetite for cash programming.

ECHO cash distribution: Borno State, Nigeria Photo credit: CA/K Ameh

ADCAP’s new inclusion standards for 2018 Image credit: ADCAP

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

9

Resilience Frameworks, research and methodologies

2017/18 was a busy time for resilience: we saw several long-term

projects come to an end and important pieces of research yield

results that promote localisation and put survivors at the forefront

of our responses. Some of the highlights of the year are listed

below, with some in-depth information on the LPRR in the sidebar.

• Our Resilience Framework was rolled out in 5 additional

countries (Brazil, Colombia, Mali, Sierra Leone and Ghana)

to reach a total of 30 country programmes.

• We closed the Christian Aid-led DFID-funded Preparedness

and Early Response to Public Health Emergencies project in

the Gambella Region of Ethiopia which strengthened the

Gambella health system through the integration of traditional

humanitarian preparedness approaches.

• A new legacy programme launched in South Sudan, Burundi

and Sierra Leone with aims to integrate the Resilience

Framework, ICPR and a health framework linking health

services, conflict prevention and resilience.

• Based on the Resilience Framework, a new USAID

programme in Kenya (2017- 2020) began seeking to integrate

risk-based approaches with service delivery.

• A pilot field test of the Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience (ICPR) tool was undertaken to make resilience programmes conflict sensitive in 10 villages in Pakistan and Kenya; ICPR was then rolled out in the DRC, South Sudan, Myanmar and Burundi.

• Finalised the King’s College London (KCL) research on how humanitarian response can build community resilience.

• Co-developed a new approach - Integrated Community-led Response – based on the findings of KCL research together with other NGOs and 10 local organisations from Myanmar and Kenya and field tested this in both countries; please see side bar for further details.

Localisation and survivor-led responses

In May 2017, the Philippines saw an outbreak of fighting between

government forces and local non-state armed actors which lasted

for five months. This resulted in mass displacement in Marawi, with

residents unable to return to their communities until April

2018. Christian Aid rapidly released Code 2 funds to local partners

who provided emergency assistance to hard-to-reach IDPs in

Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur using the survivor-led response

approach and the local CSO coordination mechanism. This was

the first time that local CSOs were visibly coordinated side-by side

with government and international organisations.

Moving on from the LPRR

The Christian Aid-led DFID-funded

Linking Preparedness Response and

Resilience (LPRR) sought to answer

how humanitarian response can build,

or not undermine, community

resilience. As part of the consortium,

KCL developed an academically-robust

research methodology to address two

main gaps in the literature, resulting in:

1. A recommendation to ask crises

survivors and first responders for

their recommendations.

2. A recognition of the lack of

systematic implementation and

evaluation of practical

recommendations.

Based on these research findings, an

innovative integrated community-led

response approach was developed,

along with Local to Global Protection

and the Church of Sweden, and field

tested by seven local partners during

emergencies in Myanmar and Northern

Kenya. Under testing, this approach

proved to:

• be rapid, easy and able to elicit

very high interest;

• give a sense of local ownership;

• respond flexibly and effectively to

local context;

• build on existing strengths and

efforts of self-help groups;

• enable participation of women’s

groups and other groups often

excluded;

• enable address of ‘non-traditional’

needs;

• exhibit no signs of additional

tension provoked by competition

for micro-grants, despite huge

competition.

The project also developed, together

with Saferworld, the ICPR

methodology. When tested in Kenya,

the ICPR approach yielded great

results in terms of inclusion and risk

reduction, particularly during times of

drought and political tensions, where its

implementation avoided further

escalation of violence. The ICPR has

now been adopted as part of Christian

Aid’s From Violence to Peace tools.

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

10

Accountability

Core Humanitarian Standard mid-term audit

CHS audit underway in Kenya Photo credit: CA/C Skehan

In January 2018, Christian Aid underwent a mid-term progress

audit (MTPA) against the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality

and Accountability, conducted by the independent quality

assurance body HQAI. The MTPA assessed our progress

against previously identified areas of non-compliance, as well as

any changes to the way that we implement CHS across all

development, humanitarian and advocacy activities globally. Two

auditors, accompanied by Christian Aid staff and partners,

undertook field visits to Kenya and the Philippines to assess how

Christian Aid works with partners to deliver quality and

accountable projects and programmes for the people they serve.

To do this the auditors examined the policies, systems,

structures, processes, guidelines and tools that we have in place

and if and how they affect partners’ practice.

The biggest success from the audit was the reduction of non-

compliances from 16 to 9, with the most important achievement

being an improvement in our inclusive programming, especially

as it was an area identified as weak in our previous audit. The

audit also demonstrated that we have room for improvement in

ensuring that partners have Codes of Conduct and that both

partners and communities understand what behaviour should be

expected and accepted. Christian Aid’s next maintenance audit

is planned for early 2019.

Following this year’s audit, we continue to work towards effective

and transparent accountability to affected populations through

both partner capacity building and our own development.

Protection against sexual

exploitation and abuse (PSEA)

Following the revelations of sexual abuse and abuse of power in the sector in early 2018, Christian Aid underlined its commitment to protection against sexual exploitation and abuse. Over 2017/18 we:

• Provided training to staff and volunteers in Nigeria and Bangladesh and surge staff in Nepal on Code of Conduct, protection against sexual exploitation and abuse, reporting and whistleblowing

• Developed Code of Conduct posters for use to communicate our commitments

• Increased compliance across the organisation with Code of Conduct training for staff and volunteers

Feedback and complaints

mechanisms

With accountability to affected

populations at the forefront of our

approach we need to ensure that we

provide communities with the confidence,

channels and tools to feedback to

Christian Aid and our partners. In

2017/18, we tried to emphasise this to

ensure that communities receive

assistance that is appropriate and

relevant at all project stages. Some

positive strides in this area included:

• Feedback and complaints mechanisms strengthened in Nigeria and Rohingya response.

• Accountability assessment conducted in Bangladesh to identify preferred ways for Rohingya to give feedback and make complaints to CA (see page 5 for further information).

Complaint mechanisms in Nigeria Photo credit: CA/C Skehan

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

11

A humanitarian sector that is fit for purpose

Global localisation agenda

This year, we strengthened on our commitment to work with like-minded

international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) on flagship

consortium localisation capacity-building programmes including:

• The Department for International Development (DFID) funded Linking Preparedness Response and Resilience programme in Kenya and Pakistan which is researching and piloting ways to put local communities and the local organisations that represent them in the lead of their own response and recovery.

• The Action Aid-led Shifting the Power (STP) project which is strengthening the ability of 55 Local NGOs in Bangladesh, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya and Pakistan to take a powerful role in humanitarian leadership structures in their countries. Five of 11 Christian Aid STP partners are now part of our Rohingya response. STP also facilitated the establishment of the Bangladesh network NAHAB - a platform comprising of 45 L/NNGOs which facilitate local and nationals entities to have a stronger voice and representation in humanitarian platforms, networks and the national disaster management structure.

• The Oxfam-led Financial Enablers project in the Philippines which is putting National NGO consortia in charge of running their own capacity building programmes.

• The Action Aid-led Transforming Surge Capacity project in the Philippines which is exploring ways of localising surge; CA initiated SAFER (Shared Aid Fund for Emergency Response), the local humanitarian fundraising platform in the Philippines which enables local NGOs to jointly appeal to the Philippines public for support (similar to DEC) for quick humanitarian assistance for disaster-affected communities.

• The ECHO-funded Accelerating Localisation through Partnership project in Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria and South Sudan which is researching best practice in INGO-NNGO partnership.

Our commitments to greater transparency

Christian Aid has gone

beyond IATI reporting

guidelines by publishing

the first full version of

Helicopter Public; this

allows members of the

public to interact and

engage directly with data,

rather than accessing

through the IATI Registry.

Through Helicopter Public,

users can filter projects related to emergency response and view

information about the objectives of the work and the partners involved.

Honouring our commitments

Increased data on who we support

This year, Charter for Change and Grand

Bargain asked us to demonstrate who

received funds from Christian Aid. We

reported that 8% of our humanitarian

grants went to international NGOs, 2% to

national and sub-national governmental

actors, 5% to internationally affiliated

organisations and 85% to local and

national NGOs.

Increased credit to partners

This year, Christian Aid carried out a

comprehensive survey of partners

globally to better understand if and

exactly how they would like to be

promoted and feature in our

communications, finding that the majority

did want this. We actively engaged senior

communications, media, publications,

digital and fundraising managers,

outlining our Charter for Change

commitment and sought a positive

response and definite actions from their

teams. Christian Aid now increasingly

names and credits partners across

communications channels – website,

social media, blogs, audio visual

materials, media engagement and

fundraising communications in the UK

and globally. This applies to Christian

Aid's broader development work as well

as humanitarian projects.

Project reach in Helicopter Public Image credit: CA/S Moody

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

12

Capturing learning

Given the changing operational context in which we work, we need to ensure our hybrid approach is planned in a way which does not undermine our localisation commitments. As such, we must be clear about the logic underpinning our interventions with local and national actors. With this in mind, we are working to strengthen how we capture our learning, monitor performance and use lessons to inform future quality responses.

Evaluation synthesis

In Autumn 2017, the HD completed an evaluation synthesis of all

our real time, midterm and final evaluations across all large-scale

programmes since 2014. This highlighted the following findings to

consider going forward:

• Improve facilitation of communication and coordination

between us and our partners.

• Improve connections and access for local partners to engage

in national coordination mechanisms.

• Ensure partner capacity assessments are up-to-date and a

launch workshop is held to address areas where partners need

capacity building.

• Strengthen our MEAL system.

• Carry-out transfers, fund approvals and procurement in a more

efficient manner.

• Include systematic power and gender analysis in beneficiary

selection.

• Increase consistency in the establishment and management

of feedback mechanisms at community level, as well as

emphasising and ensuring community participation.

Emergency simulation exercise (Simex)

In February 2018, colleagues representing all Asia programmes came together with managers, specialists (digital, cash, AAP and advocacy) and divisional support for a week-long workshop and simulation exercise. The objective was to examine our processes and allow lessons from this to feed into a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that we can refer to in future large-scale responses. A wealth of learning from the Simex was captured and fed into the SOPs, including:

• A renewed understanding of HD coordination with a Communications and Fundraising perspective across teams and regions

• We need to be consistently precise in our vocabulary, how the different teams in the response fit together and what are conflicting urgent priorities

• Consistently reminding ourselves of these lessons will help us improve performance going forward and enable better synergy, avoid duplication and improve communication

Safety and security

During 2017/18, we further strengthened our security position by

updating our Security Policy and Risk and Internal Control Self-

Assessment to set out clearer roles and responsibilities for

managing safety and security. The organisational Incident

Management Plan began a global review this year which will be

adapted, along with SMS alerts, to notify regional and overseas in

an emergency.

Start Fund engagement survey

In February 2018, the HD undertook a

review of our involvement with the Start

Fund over 2017/18. We wanted to tap into

knowledge at country level, learn how

teams view the mechanism and discover

how we can improve our engagement with

Start fund. Eighteen respondents across

11 countries completed our survey to

share their experiences with Start Fund

applications, projects and reporting.

We asked teams which part of the process

they found the most challenging. The

application stage was reported as the

most challenging with the following four

challenges identified: a) lack of time to

prepare the application; b) lack of

guidance on joint or consortium

applications; c) morale issues following

rejection can influence future applications;

d) lack of clarification on operational

models – respondents indicated that the

mechanism seemed to favour direct

implementation rather than our partnership

approach. Respondents were also asked

what the benefits of a local project

selection were; the most prominent

answers indicated that the presence of

local knowledge and the participatory

approach allowed for greater contextual

understanding and more appropriate

responses, speaking to our accountability

to affected populations.

We shared the results with Start Fund and

the study was discussed at their assembly

meeting in Spring 2018 with concern over

the idea that partnership models were not

favoured.

Word cloud from evaluation synthesis Image credit: CA/A Wright

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

13

Humanitarian programmes: key figures3

Table 1: Humanitarian spend 2017/18 (in millions)

Grants to partners 16.5

Operational 10.5

Direct delivery (including GIK) 13.7

Total 40.8 Operational figure reflects increased costs due to the hybrid approach.

Table 2: Humanitarian spend: breakdown across programmes (in millions)

• East Africa refers to all countries in the East Africa appeal (Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan) while Multi country refers to the global

Accelerating Localisation programme (Nepal, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan). Income related to specific appeals or sources of

income is recorded separately to general humanitarian spend at country level as reflect in CA systems and the table above.

• Nigeria’s large amount of spend is mainly attributable to direct implementation/GIK contracts from ICCO, ECHO, ACT, WFP, FAO,

and UNOCHA of which total spend was £12.9m.

Table 3: Salaries and direct costs: core funds

Salary costs 741,911

Programme support costs 193,643

Total 935,554

Table 4: Levies and management fees

CA appeals 482,025

DEC appeals 106,644

Start Fund 38,869

Total 627,538

Total figure does not include levies and management fees

on other institutional humanitarian income

3 The data shown is illustrative only. It does not form part of Christian Aid’s audited external reporting and may differ from our reported

financial statements. Therefore, the data is for the purposes of this document only and is not suitable for use for any other purpose

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Afg

ha

nis

tan

Ba

ng

lade

sh

Bu

rkin

a F

aso

Bu

run

di

Colo

mbia

DR

C

Ea

st

Afr

ica

Eth

iop

ia

Haiti/D

R

Hum

an

ita

rian

India

IOP

T/E

gyp

t

Ke

nya

Ma

law

i

Mu

lti cou

ntr

y

Mya

nm

ar

Nep

al

Nig

eri

a

Ph

ilipp

ines

Eu

rop

ea

n r

efu

ge

e c

risis

Roh

ing

ya

refu

gee

cri

sis

Sie

rra

Leo

ne

So

uth

Su

da

n

Syria

, Ir

aq

& L

eb

an

on

Ye

me

n

Za

mb

ia

Zim

bab

we

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

14

Table 5: Humanitarian spend: larger projects (CA & DEC appeals, ECHO, UN)

Table 6: Breakdown of humanitarian spend: larger projects

Region Country CA appeal DEC appeal IA HPP ECHO UN agencies Other

institutional Total

AME Bangladesh(including Rohingya)

3,981,729 324,721 - 837,033 1,439,407 10,192 6,593,082

India 202,060 - - - - - 202,060

IOPT/Egypt 196,236 - - - - 25,858 222,094

Myanmar - - 194,501 25,019 - 1,454,032 1,673,552

Nepal 225,861 1,262,980 - 23,847 - 4,743 1,517,431

Philippines 651,413 - - - - 92,215 743,628

Refugee Crisis

729,539 - - - - - 729,539

Syria/Iraq/ Lebanon

669,795 - 148,240 - - 421,446 1,239,481

Yemen - 811,002 - - - - 811,002

Africa Burkina Faso

- - - 418,104 - 3,315,553 3,733,657

Burundi - - 291,313 - - 17,217 308,530

DRC - - 452,486 - 161,306 - 613,792

East Africa 593,901 1,858,730 - - - - 2,452,630

Ethiopia 24,822 - - - 146,376 156,291 327,489

Malawi 35,489 - - - - 981,459 1,016,947

Nigeria - - - 1,065,719 12,12708 2,124,028 15,292,336

Sierra Leone

121,820 - - - - - 121,820

South Sudan

300,288 - 375,275 30,614 - 364,891 1,071,068

LAC Haiti 464,593 - - - - 72,356 536,949

Total 8,197,546 4,257,433 1,461,815 2,400,336 2,959,797 9,040,281 39,207,087

35,4

88.6

0

74,0

53.4

9

202,0

59.9

0

222,0

94.5

9

249,9

27.9

2

291,3

12.5

1

434,1

62.1

4

464,5

93.4

0

489,0

81.6

0

559,9

27.2

5

619,2

36.3

1

651,4

12.8

0

729,5

38.6

0

811,0

02.0

0

852,2

65.8

0

893,5

47.9

6

1,5

17,4

31.0

2

2,2

86,6

33.3

5

2,4

04,7

46.4

6

4,3

06,4

49.4

0

13,9

00,2

45.5

2

Ma

law

i

Sie

rra

Le

on

e

Ind

ia

IOP

T/E

gy

pt

Eth

iop

ia

Bu

run

di

Sy

ria

Ha

iti/

DR

My

an

ma

r

Ira

q/S

yri

a/L

eb

an

on

DR

C

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Re

fug

ee

Cri

sis

Ye

me

n

Bu

rkin

a F

as

o

So

uth

Su

da

n

Ne

pa

l

Ba

ng

lad

es

h

Ea

st

Afr

ica

Ap

pe

al*

Ro

hin

gy

a C

ris

is

Nig

eri

a

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

15

Table 7: Humanitarian spend: smaller projects (Code 2, IA ERFS, Scottish HEF, Start Fund)

Table 8: Breakdown of humanitarian spend: smaller projects

Region Country Crisis Start Fund

Code 2 IA ERFS Scottish HEF Total

AME Bangladesh Fire, monsoon 137,158 25,000 81,880 60,968 305,007

India Floods/monsoon 148,184 20,000 75,755 - 243,939

Myanmar Displacement - 80,000 - - 80,000

Nepal Floods/monsoon 54,795 - - - 54,795

Africa DRC Displacement 78,973 78,383 73,529 62,703 293,589

Kenya Election violence 19,202 - - - 19,202

Nigeria Flood, displacement 49,423 91,852 - - 141,276

Sierra Leone Mudslides 47,767 - - - 47,767

LAC Colombia Landslide - 30,000 - - 30,000

Haiti Hurricane - 49,637 - - 49,637

Global ACT RRF Contribution - 55,000 - - 55,000

Total 535,503 429,872 231,165 123,671 1,320,211

19

,20

2.2

4

30

,00

0.0

0

47

,76

6.7

0

49

,63

7.0

0

54

,79

5.0

3

55

,00

0.0

0

80

,00

0.0

0 14

1,2

75

.74

24

3,9

40

.01

29

3,5

88

.55

30

5,0

06

.50

Ke

ny

a

Co

lom

bia

Sie

rra

Le

on

e

Ha

iti

Ne

pa

l

AC

T R

RF

My

an

ma

r

Nig

eri

a

Ind

ia

DR

C

Ba

ng

lad

es

h

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

16

Quality and speed of response

The Humanitarian Division values learning from our experience and analysing our performance to ensure

informed decisions and programme design and delivery. We do this through measuring both the quality and

the speed of our response.

The Quality of Response indicator is based on a self-assessment conducted by programme staff that looks at

8 aspects of our work. Using this framework, HD tracks elements of programming and thematic approaches.

The process aims to promote reflection and conversation for HD and country teams. In 2017/18, we saw

improvements in scores for resilience, power and gender and M&E. Across preparedness activities,

participation and accountability, Sphere standards, timeliness and need-based scores we saw a marginal

decline when compared to 2016/17. In late 2017/18, we re-worked these quality standards and the process of

self-assessment to align with CHS and allow for a more evidenced-based methodology. This will be rolled out

into a digital process during the next phase of self-assessments in Autumn 2018, during which it will feed into

the wider push for programme quality at Christian Aid.

The speed of response indicator measures the time elapsed between allocation of funding and transfer to

partners. In 2017/18, 79% of the grants for immediate response (early appeal or emergency relief) were sent

in under 14 days, generating a green rating. The average number of days in Q3 was 14.8, generating the first

amber rating in over three financial years. The yearly average between allocation and paid transfers was 11

days.

Table 10: Humanitarian Performance: Speed of Response

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

(Green: 0-14 days; Amber: 15 – 28 days; Red: 29+ days)

Table 11: Speed of Response: Averages per quarter 2017/18

Period Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Average time 9.86 10.09 14.83 10.88

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Needs-Based

Timeliness

SphereStandards

Power/Gender

Participation &Accountability

M&E Learning

Resilience

Preparedness

Table 9: Humanitarian Performance: Quality of Response

2017-2018

2016-2017

2015-2016

Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18

17

Glossary

AAP Accountability to affected populations

ACF Action contre la faim

ADCAP Age and Disability Capacity Building Programme

CA Christian Aid

CCCM Camp coordination and camp management

CTP Cash transfer project

CWG Cash working group

DEC Disasters Emergency Committee

DEPP Disaster Emergency Preparedness Programmes

DFID Department for International Development

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

DRR Disaster risk reduction

ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

ERFS Emergency Response Fund Scheme

HD Humanitarian division

HPP Humanitarian Programme Plan

HQAI Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative

IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative

IA HPP Irish Aid Humanitarian Programme Plan

ICPR Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience

ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross

IDP Internally displaced people

INGO International non-governmental organisation

KCL King's College London

LPRR Linking Preparedness, Resilience and Response

MEAL Monitoring, evaluation and learning

MTPA Mid-term progress audit

NAHAB National Alliance of Humanitarian Actors, Bangladesh

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NNGO National non-governmental organisation

NFI Non-food item

SAFER Shared Aid Fund for Emergency Response

Simex Simulation exercise

WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

WFP World Food Programme