PARTIE I: DRC 2016 H ô ü ô ü ô F HF_Annual Report 20… · is for the calendar year 2016, for...

01

PARTIE I:

ALLOCATED

$57.3M

2016

DRCH F

ANNUAL REPORTDEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO

© OCHA/Serge Mabaluka, 2017

A word on the data:Contributions: Data refers to the donor contributions to the DRC HF received in 2016, including contributions received from DFID in December 2016 for 2017.

Allocations: Refers to new funding allocations approved by the Humanitarian Coordinator in 2016. This includes projects approved at the end of the year under 2016 allocations which may start implementation in January 2017. For the purposes of tracking funding, the sectoral components of multi-sector project budgets have been reported by cluster.

Financial Tracking Service (FTS): Data obtained from the FTS is used in this report to indicate the overall level of financial contributions to the 2016 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), and to explain the relative contribution of the DRC HF to the HRP. However, as 39% of the total funding received to the 2016 HRP is not attributed by cluster, it is not possible to say accurately how much each cluster received in 2016, nor the percentage contribution made by the DRC HF. Therefore data refers to the DRC HF’s contribution compared to original Cluster requirements.

Beneficiary numbers and targets reached: All data on results is for the calendar year 2016, for projects funded in 2014, 2015 and 2016 ongoing for all or part of the year. Data comes from partner reporting in January 2017 on actual people reached and results achieved during the period January to December 2016. Targets were calculated pro rata for the number of months of implementation in 2016. To minimise the possibility of double-counting, numbers of people reached excludes people reached through awareness-raising and sensitization sessions. Data on people reached may differ from the GMS Business Intelligence site as partner reporting in GMS was introduced gradually during 2016, and at the time of preparing the annual report was not complete for all projects

© OCHA/Gemma Cortes

01

DRC HF 2016 Overview ............................................................................... 02

Map of allocations ........................................................................................ 03

Foreword by the Humanitarian Coordinator ............................................. 04

Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 05

Humanitarian Context 2016 ........................................................................ 06

Donor Contributions ................................................................................... 07

Allocation Overview ..................................................................................... 08

Fund Performance and Management ........................................................ 10

Conclusion and Way Forward ..................................................................... 16

Annexes

Achievements by Cluster ................................................................ 18

Quick facts and basic information about the DRC HF ................. 22

Summary of stakeholder survey ..................................................... 23

DRC Humanitarian Fund projects funded in 2016 ....................... 26

Acronyms .......................................................................................... 34

DRC HF donors in 2016 ................................................................... 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

02

PARTIE I: DRC HF 2016Overview

Denmark

Luxembourg

Canada

Australia

Spain

Belgium

Norway

Ireland

Netherlands

Sweden

United Kingdom

$ millions

50.5%

17.1%

11.3%

6.2%

4.9%

4.3%

3.7%

0.7%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

2006 - 2015 contributions 2016 contributions

Donor contributions

Rapid, effective, adequate humanitarian action in line with humanitarian principles and standards

4

24.9%

Reduction in excess mortality and the morbidity of those affected by the crisis

3

7.5%

Protecting people affected by the humanitarian crisis and ensuring their human rights

2

7.6%

Immediate improvement in the living conditions of people affected by the crisis, especially the most vulnerable

1

60%

Allocations by HRP Strategic Objective

Allocations by sector (in US$ million)

Refugees

Nutrition

Coordination

Education

Protection

Shelter/NFI

Logistics

Food Security

Water, Sanitation, Hygiene

Health 18,9%

15,9%

15,2%

11,6%

9,1%

8,1%

7,4%

7,4%

5,2%

1,2%

10.8M

9.1M

8.7M

6.6M

5.2M

4.6M

4.2M

4.2M

3M

0.7M

$57.3 millionallocated

56.1%

22.5%21.4%# Projects by partner type

UN Agency [8]

International NGO [34]

National NGO [24]

Allocations by partner type

Allocations by partner type since 2006

01020304050607080

20162015201420132012201120102009200820072006

UN Agency National NGO Intern. NGO

# of projects financed since 2006, by partner type

Breakdown by allocation type


58.8%

21.7%14%

5.5%# Projects by allocation type

Standard [13]

Reserve [47]

Strategic programmes [4]

Joint unit [2]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

UN Agency National NGO Intern. NGO

20162015201420132012201120102009200820072006

11%of contributions to the HRPchannelled via the DRC HF

$45.4 millionTotal received

$57.3 millionTotal allocated

2.3 millionPeople assisted

Women : 713,838Men: 606,440Girl: 503,327

Boys: 436,47344Partners funded directly

49Financial spot check missions

70Projects received a field site monitoring visit

66Projects funded

469.9

153.9

102.9

56.4

47.3

39.2

36.3

6.3

6.2

3.7

1.8

20.2

12.2

6.6

3.3

2.8

0.3

03

PARTIE I:

NIGERIA

BURUNDI

RWANDA

ZIMBABWE

UGANDA

TANZANIA

CHAD

REPUBLIC OF

CONGOGABON

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

CAMEROON

REPUBLIC OFSOUTH SUDAN

ANGOLA

ZAMBIA

DR Congo: Map of allocations (2016)

The boundaries, names and designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Date of creation: 21 february 2017 Source:DRC CHF Contact: [email protected] www.unocha.org/drc www.rdc.humanitarianresponse.info

O110

Km

56.5KBas-Uele2.3M

Nord-Ubangi

3.2MSud-Ubangi

14.3MNord-Kivu

113KKasaï Central

28.2KSankuru

3.9MKinshasa

249.4KMaï-Ndombe

796.4KManiema

141.2K

Kasaï-Oriental

4.2MIturi

9.4MSud-Kivu

8.3MTanganyika

5.4MTshopo

Tshuapa

Kasaï

Lomami

Lualaba

Kwilu

Kwango

Kongo Central

2.7MEquateur

1.2MMongala

485.2KHaut-Katanga

28.2KHaut-Lomami

56.5KHaut-Uele

# projects by province

11-20 >207-103-61-20

04

FOREWORD BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR

For more than two decades, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has suffered a culmination of acute humanitarian crises. While relative calm was observed in 2014 and 2015, the situation deteriorated considerably in 2016 with the resurgence of conflicts in Tanganyika and North Kivu, the emergence of new intercommunal tensions in the Kasaïs and a continuous influx of refugees from Burundi and South Sudan.

Throughout the year, the DRC Humanitarian Fund (DRC HF) played a vital role in enabling humanitarian action, providing flexible, prioritized and timely resources. We allocated $57.3 million to 66 projects implemented by 44 partners across the country, making the DRC HF the third largest contributor to the 2016 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP). Through these allocations, 2.3 million people have been reached with humanitarian assistance.

Under the DRC HF Advisory Board’s stewardship, our allocations funded the highest collective priorities, contributing to the realization of the HRP’s four strategic objectives, and providing an important injection of funding in the fourth quarter, when other donor resources were exhausted.

Faced with new waves of population displacement in the east and the influx of refugees in the north, the DRC HF funded life-saving multi-sectoral interventions to assist and protect conflict-affected communities. The Fund’s added-value was enhanced by complementing CERF Rapid Response and Underfunded Emergencies allocations. As the cholera epidemic escalated along the Congo River, we used the reserve proactively to respond to the rapidly spreading epidemic, funding a flexible and adaptable response across

five provinces to prevent mortality and the spread of the epidemic.

We also leveraged the DRC HF to support a diverse array of humanitarian actors. Overall, 77% of funding went to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), of which 21% went directly to national NGOs - our front-line responders. The DRC HF is one of the most important funding sources for national NGOs in DRC, and in this respect is well on the way to achieving the Grand Bargain commitment of 25% by 2020. Through allocation processes, national and sub-national coordination mechanisms were strengthened. Humanitarian actors worked together to identify priority needs, and select projects that best respond to those needs.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our donors who in 2016 generously contributed US$ 45 million. These member states - Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom - have been partners of the DRC HF since its creation in 2006.

As we look to 2017, funding levels for the DRC are regrettably declining. We therefore need, more than ever, to ensure that money goes to the partners and projects that have the greatest impact. I remain convinced that the DRC HF is an invaluable tool in this endeavour, reinforcing our collective prioritization and strategic vision with funding at vital moments. For 2017, the HRP 2017-2019 calls for $748 million to assist 6.7 million people. Aiming to cover 10% of the HRP, the DRC HF’s funding target is $75 million1. Making this target a reality requires the engagement of the entire humanitarian community.

I would like to end my message by expressing my gratitude to the Joint Humanitarian Financing Unit for its team spirit and professionalism. I am proud of the strides we made in 2016 in using the DRC HF as a catalyst to promote quality programming, placing protection at the centre of decision-making and ensuring that the unique needs of people of different ages and genders were at the forefront of programmatic analysis and response. Looking ahead, we must continue to strengthen accountability to the most vulnerable and to donors. The Core Humanitarian Standard and the commitments of the World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain are our guiding references in this effort.

I sincerely thank all of our partners - NGOs, UN agencies, and donors - for making the DRC HF a success in 2016, and look forward to our continued close collaboration in the year ahead.

1. 10% represents an interim target towards the Secretary-General’s goal of 15% of HRP funding channeled through CBPFs by 2018.

Dr. Mamadou Diallo Humanitarian Coordinator

FOREWORDBY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR

05

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since its creation in 2006, the DRC Humanitarian Fund (DRC HF) has mobilized nearly $9681 million and allocated more than $950 million through 1,316 projects.

In 2016, the DRC HF continued to play a vital role as a timely and flexible funding instrument, supporting the humanitarian community to achieve its goals by funding the most critical needs identified in the HRP and responding rapidly to new emergencies throughout the year. The DRC HF received $45.4 million from six donors and allocated $57.3 million to 66 projects, of which almost 90 per cent were implemented by NGOs.

Contributions were received from Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom for a total of $45.4 million, a slight increase from 2015 contributions of $41 million. This represents 65 per cent of the DRC HF’s target for the year, which was $70 million (10 per cent of the HRP’s requirements of $690 million). The HRP 2016 received $414.8 million in contributions of which 11 per cent was channelled through the DRC HF.

During the year, the DRC HF financed 66 new projects implemented by 44 partners in ten sectors for a total of $57.3 million. Of these, 24 projects were implemented by national NGOs, 34 by international NGOs and 8 by UN agencies. Altogether, 130 HF-funded projects and programmes were active during the year. Through these projects, 2.3 million people received humanitarian assistance, 38 per cent of the HRP’s target2.

Two standard allocations accounted for 13 projects, for a total of $12.4 million. The remainder was composed of six reserve allocations (47 projects for $33.7 million), strategic programmes (4 projects for $8 million) and the operation of the Joint Humanitarian Financing Unit (JHFU) for $3.2million. The average allocation time for the reserve was between 17 (First Emergency) and 53 (Emergency) working days, while for the standard the average was 115 working days.

DRC also received three CERF grants in 2016, under the rapid response window for $5.6 million and the underfunded emergencies window for $11 million. The underfunded emergencies grant was complemented by a $14.5 million reserve Emergency allocation to cover life-saving needs of displaced and conflict-affected communities in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, in those sectors not covered by the CERF grant.

2016 was the year the Fund completed its alignment with the Country-Based Pooled Fund (CBPF) guidelines, changing its name to the DRC Humanitarian Fund. The Grant Management System and new Operational Manual were fully

1. All $ signs in the report refer to US dollars, unless otherwise indicated

2. Number of people actually reached during 2016 calendar year, as reported by partners

operationalised. GMS trainings were held around the country for implementing partners, reaching over 180 people, as well as information sessions on the DRC HF to familiarise all stakeholders with the new guidelines. With the application of the operational modalities, the DRC HF shifted to a fully risk-based approach for grant management.

Under its accountability framework, the JHFU carried out 70 project monitoring missions and 49 financial spot checks, and commissioned 23 independent audits during the year. The Advisory Board met five times, and provided strategic direction on fund governance, allocation windows, Grand Bargain commitments, prioritisation and litigious cases among others.

The stakeholder survey launched in February 2017 received a good response rate and indicated overall strongly positive perceptions of the DRC HF. The vast majority of respondents (over 75 per cent) agreed that the DRC HF is “always” or “often” meeting its three strategic objectives. Responses were mostly highly positive for the principles of flexibility and efficiency. Most aspects of accountability were viewed positively, although lower scores were given for accountability to affected people. The two principles for which respondents gave less positive answers were inclusiveness and timeliness.

Looking ahead to 2017, the DRC HF’s strategy integrates the outcomes of the World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain, making a particular contribution to increased transparency, commitments on supporting national responders, increased use of cash programming, multi-year planning and funding, and enhanced engagement between humanitarian and development actors. The DRC HF will use the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) on Quality and Accountability to strengthen the focus on funding an appropriate and timely response, paying special attention to gender and vulnerability, improving timeliness and dealing with bottlenecks, and communication, participation and feedback with affected communities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

06

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT AND HRP 2016

July - DecemberRe-escalation of

Luba – Twa conflict in Tanganyika. 118,000

persons affected.

FebruaryReserve 1st Emergency allocation to assist displaced, returnee and host populations in the Miriki area, in North Kivu province.

JuneCERF Rapid Response allocation for the yellow fever outbreak in 45 affected health zones in south-west DRC. 1.9 million people targeted.

Standard Allocation for the Territory of Nyunzu, Tanganyi-ka Province, to build the capacities of communities affect-ed by the intercommunal conflict between Luba and Twa.

AprilReserve 1st Emergency allocation to assist 90,000 flood victims in the provinces of Tshopo, Mongala and Equateur.

March - AprilSevere flooding results in crop losses and an increase in water-borne diseases, particularly cholera, in areas along the Congo River. More than 700,000 people affected.

January - FebruaryYellow fever epidemic declared in Angola in

January and spreads into DRC in late February

January 2016New outbreaks of violence and inter-community tensions are reported in North Kivu province, particularly South Lubero

In 2016, the DRC’s humanitarian context was exacerbated by pre-election political tensions, the spread of inter-communal violence, tensions in neighboring countries, and an economic slowdown. General elections originally scheduled to be held in November 2016 to determine a successor to President Joseph Kabila were postponed until 2017, with the Government citing the lack of an updated voter registration list. The period leading up to the constitutional end of the President’s mandate on 20 December was marred by deadly political protests, primarily in Kinshasa, Lubumbashi and Goma. The uncertainty over the electoral calendar continues to fuel local, provincial and national-level conflict.

In addition to continued fighting between the national security forces and various armed groups operating mainly in the eastern provinces (North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri), 2016 saw a rise in intercommunal conflicts particularly in Tanganyika and the Kasaï provinces. These conflicts, driven by contests for the control of customary power and resources, have led to large-scale population displacements.

As in 2015, population movements in 2016 accounted for more than half of humanitarian needs, with more than 2.1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) fleeing armed conflicts and violence. In the Kasaïs and Tanganyika, the rise in intercommunal tensions resulted in new displacement of about 578,000 people, including 400,000 in the province of Tanganyika and 178,000 in the Kasaï provinces. Overall, more than 7.3 million people were affected by the humanitarian crisis. Of these, 6.9 million people needed emergency assistance, including 4.2 million children.

As a result of conflict and displacement, more than 54,000 protection violations (murders, injuries, rape, etc.) were reported in the eastern part of the country, while close to 15,500 incidents of gender-based violence were responded to.

In 2016, the DRC welcomed nearly half a million refugees and forced returnees from neighboring countries, mainly from South Sudan, Burundi and the Central African Republic, where they fled fighting and violence.

Early in the year, a yellow fever epidemic broke out in Kinshasa and in the border areas with Angola, in the context of a shortage of yellow fever vaccines. More than 3,000 suspected cases were reported, including 121 deaths in five provinces. The response to this epidemic targeted a total of 1.9

people and led to the epidemic being contained and declared over in February 2017.

The cholera situation remained particularly worrying, on par with the last major epidemic of 2011-2012. During the year, more than 23,700 suspect cases were reported, including at least 688 deaths across the country. In addition, a measles epidemic raged through 21 health zones in 10 provinces, with nearly 15,200 reported cases, and a fatality rate of 1.3 per cent. Meanwhile, malaria remained the leading cause of hospitalization and death, with some 11.5 million cases reported in 2016, leading to more than 19,800 deaths.

Malnutrition affected about 3.9 million children under the age of five, while food insecurity affected about 4.4 million people, according to the 13th cycle of the Integrated Framework for the Classification of Food Security (IPC).

Between November 2015 and September 2016, climatic disturbances attributed to the El Niño phenomenon caused severe flooding and drought along the Congo River, affecting more than 770,000 people in 13 provinces and causing displacement of more than 106,000 Congolese.

Meanwhile, delivery of vital humanitarian assistance was hampered by access difficulties and increased security incidents, particularly against humanitarian workers. In 2016, the DRC ranked 4th in the world in terms of the number of security incidents targeting humanitarian actors.

The HRP 2016 included a strategic objective to ensure continuous improvement in the quality of humanitarian response, using the framework provided by the CHS. The World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016 recognized the importance of this principle in humanitarian decision-making processes, and adopted the CHS as a mechanism for improving the effectiveness of the response.

Of the $690 million needed to respond to the crisis in 2016, $414 million (60 per cent) was received as contributions to the HRP. The HRP 2017 is requesting $748 million to support the estimated 7.3 million people who will require humanitarian aid, an increase of 8.4 per cent compared to 2016. The strategy will specifically target 6.7 million people.

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT 2016

07

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

NovemberThree Reserve Emergency Allocations

to assist displaced populations and host communities affected by conflict

in the provinces of Tshopo, Ituri, North Kivu, and South Kivu.

OctoberReserve 1st Emergency Allocation to assist victims of cholera along the Congo River in the provinces of Equateur, Tshopo, Mongala, Mai Ndombe and Maniema.

August - DecemberWave of clashes between security forces and militia following the death of a customary chief in Kasai, Kasai central and Eastern Kasai provinces. Over 200,000 persons affected.

August - OctoberNew wave of refugees arrive in Haut Uélé and Ituri provinces (60,000 people) following the resurgence of clashes in South Sudan.

SeptemberCERF Rapid Response Allocation to assist South Sudanese refugees in Haut Uélé and Ituri provinces.

AugustCERF Underfunded Emergencies Allocation focuses on assistance to south Sudanese refugees, and displaced populations and host communities affected by conflict in North Kivu, Haut Uélé and Ituri provinces.

AugustStandard Allocation for the provinces of North and South Ubangui, to tackle severe malnutrition and food insecurity in refugee-hosting communities

Donors contributed generously to the DRC HF in 2016, giving $45.4 million. This represented a slight increase from 2015 contributions of $41 million.

In 2016, the DRC HF was ranked eighth out of 17 CBPF in terms of contributions received , accounting for 6.4 per cent of all contributions to CBPFs globally. Six donors contributed to the DRC HF over the course of the year, down from seven in 2015 and 2014. The United Kingdom continued as the biggest contributor ($20.2 million), followed by Sweden ($12.2 million), and the Netherlands ($6.6 million). Ireland, Belgium, and Luxembourg collectively contributed $6.4 million.

Most of the funds, 66 per cent, were received in the second half of the year. Nevertheless, thanks to contributions by the United Kingdom ($18 million) and Ireland ($3.3 million) at the end of 2015, $21 million was carried over into 2016, enabling rapid disbursement for life-saving priorities at the start of the year.

However, despite generous donor contributions and a slight reversal in the downward funding trend observed since 2010, 2016 contributions were far lower than 2014 and 2013 contributions, of $59 million and $71 million respectively, in the face of a persistent level of humanitarian needs. Contributions also fell short of the Fund’s target of $70 million, representing 10 per cent of the HRP’s requirements of $690 million.

Nevertheless, overall contributions to the HRP remained reasonably high, with over $414.8 million received of the $690 million requirements, representing 60 per cent coverage. Compared to other HRPs, the DRC plan ranked fifth globally in terms of coverage , but seventh in terms of total amount received. With $45.4 million, contributions to the DRC HF represented 6.6 per cent of the total amount requested and 11 per cent of the total amount received for the HRP 2016.

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

20.2

12.2

6.6

3.3 2.80.3

LuxembourgBelgiumIrelandNetherlandsSwedenUnitedKingdom

30

60

90

120

150

20162015201420132012201120102009200820072006

3

6

9

12

15

Irish AID SIDA DFIDNetherlands Luxembourg Belgium

Nov.Aug.JulyMayAprilMarchFeb.

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DRC HF IN 2016 (IN MILLION $US)

FUNDING TRENDS TO THE DRC HF SINCE 2006 (IN MILLION $US)

DONOR DEPOSITS BY MONTH (IN MILLION $US)

08

ALLOCATION OVERVIEW

The DRC HF allocated $57.3 million in 2016 to 66 projects in support of the HRP. Sixty per cent of the funds supported HRP Strategic objective 1, the immediate improvement of the living conditions of people affected by the crisis, especially the most vulnerable.

In 2016, the DRC HF used the flexibility of its different allocation modalities1 to fund adapted responses to the most urgent priorities within the HRP:

• 22 per cent of funds ($12.4 million) were allocated through two standard allocations, funding multi-sectoral two-year interventions that place affected communities front and centre of the response.

• 59 per cent of funds ($33.7 million) were allocated through six reserve allocations:

Three First Emergency allocations, providing a rapid three-month response to natural disasters and epidemic outbreaks.

Three Emergency allocations, financing six to twelve month multi-sectoral responses to conflict-induced displacement.

• 14 per cent of funds ($8 million) were allocated to strategic programmes (See boxed text on strategic programmes on page 13).

Standard allocation rounds funded vital humanitarian assistance and protection, while building community resilience

The first standard allocation of 2016 aimed to provide a holistic and conflict-sensitive response to communities affected by the intercommunal conflict between Luba and Twa in the territory of Nyunzu, Tanganyika province. With the ultimate objective of building the resilience and crisis prevention capacities of these communities, $7 million was allocated to improve access to basic services, strengthen food security and nutrition, and increase market access for 75,600 people. Two consortia were funded, composed of three national NGOs and four international NGOs. 1. See “Quick Facts and basic informations about the DRC Humanitarian Funds” in

annex for an overview of the different allocation modalities.

Through the second standard allocation, $5.4 million was provided to respond to the severe food insecurity and malnutrition crisis in North and South Ubangi provinces. In an area where the influx of Central African refugees has created strong pressure on access to basic services and heightened intercommunal tensions, the allocation called for partners to work with communities to initiate behaviour changes to reduce the impact of this protracted crisis. Two consortia, composed of six partners, will provide multi-sectoral assistance for 60,000 people.

ALLOCATION OVERVIEW

Gender mainstreaming

The IASC Gender Marker was used to mark all projects submitted under the standard and reserve allocations. Nine out of ten projects funded by the DRC HF were rated as “2a” and “2b”*. However, field monitoring visits noted that gender focus is often limited to providing beneficiary data disaggregated by age and sex, without genuinely taking into account the different needs of men, women, boys and girls during project implementation.

In 2017, gender mainstreaming will feature more prominently in field monitoring reports, ensuring different groups are consulted appropriately by partners during needs assessments, as part of a stronger focus on community resilience.

As part of its strategic priorities for 2017, the DRC HF will focus on meeting three quality criteria of the CHS. Under its focus on the first CHS commitment, the Fund will put greater attention on gender as a way of ensuring that the humanitarian response is appropriate and relevant. Specific training on gender is planned in the second quarter of 2017 for all JHFU staff, as well as training for implementing partners on gender mainstreaming.

2016 Highlights‧ 100,509 affected

people benefited from access to primary health care

‧ 942,937 affected people provided with access to clean drinking water

‧ 106,276 households provided with essential personal, household and hygiene items via fair and coupons or cash transfer

‧ 387,454 affected people benefiting from improved (physical) access

‧ 35,905 children in need with access to quality education

‧ 2,237 survivors of sexual violence provided with psychological support and treatment

‧ 15,023 children admitted for treatment of severe acute malnutrition

‧ 117,746 people provided with emergency food assistance

‧ 15,902 households provided with emergency shelter

09

ALLOCATION OVERVIEW


58.8%

21.7%14%

5.5%

Standard [13]Reserve [47]Strategic programmes [4]Joint unit [2]

10.8M

9.1M

8.7M

6.6M

5.2M

4.6M

4.2M

4.2M

3M

0.7M


56.1%

22.5%21.4%

UN Agency [8]International NGO [34]National NGO [24]

response to affected populations in compliance with humanitarian principles and norms.

4

24.9%

Reduction of overmortality and 3

7.5%

the humanitarian crisis and protection of their human rights.

2

7.6%

Immediate improvement of the

crisis and in priority the most

1

60%

HF ALLOCATIONS BY HRP STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2016

BREAKDOWN BY ALLOCATION MODALITY

ALLOCATIONS BY PARTNER TYPE

ALLOCATIONS BY CLUSTER

Complementarity with Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) Allocations

DRC benefited from $16.6 million in CERF funding in 2016, through two Rapid Response allocations and the second round of the Underfunded Emergencies allocation. In total, 16 projects were funded, with all allocation and reporting processes managed by the JHFU. The HCT agreed to integrate the monitoring of CERF projects into the DRC HF monitoring system. The first field site monitoring visits will be carried out by JHFU analysts in early 2017.

The first rapid response grant was allocated in June to respond to the yellow fever outbreak reported in 45 health zones in Kinshasa and the border area with Angola, the source of the epidemic. This $1.6 million grant targeting 1.9 people raised awareness amongst local populations for disease prevention, provided vector control and case management, and contributed to the successful containment and elimination of the outbreak in DRC. The epidemic was officially declared over in February 2017.

In September, following a sudden and significant increase in the number of South Sudanese crossing the border to take refuge in Haut Uélé and Ituri provinces, a second rapid response allocation was granted. The $4 million allocation aimed to meet the life-saving needs of 20,000 vulnerable new refugees and reduce pressure on local communities to mitigate the risk of conflict and tension between new arrivals and their hosts.

DRC was selected to receive $11 million under the second round of the Underfunded Emergencies allocation in August 2016. The HCT prioritised assistance to South Sudanese refugees, internally displaced populations and host communities affected by the conflict in North Kivu, Haut Uélé and Ituri provinces. As this allocation focused on the least-funded sectors of Education, Nutrition, Shelter and Food Security, the Advisory Board decided to complement it with a $14.5 million allocation from the DRC HF to cover the sectors of Protection, WASH, Logistics and Health in the same areas in South Irumu and North Kivu. The DRC HF allocation gave preference to funding NGO partners ineligible for CERF funding.

Funds were released rapidly through the reserve for urgent priorities

The reserve modality was used six times in 2016 in order to meet time-critical, urgent and unforeseen needs, as different crises around the country emerged or deteriorated.

The First Emergency modality was used twice in the first half of 2016, to enable a life-saving blanket food distribution ($960,000) for 15,000 households following a flare-up of land conflict between Hutu and Nande communities in Lubero, North Kivu, and to respond to severe flooding and a cholera outbreak in five provinces along the Congo River ($2 million).

In the second half of 2016, the cholera response was scaled-up with another First Emergency allocation ($4 million), enabling partners to reach newly-affected areas and implement mobile clinics to treat cholera cases on hard to reach islands and fishermen’s camps Following a country-wide needs identification and prioritisation exercise in Q4, the DRC HF covered life-saving gaps of $36 million in the provinces of North Kivu, South Kivu, Ituri and Tshopo to assist almost 900,000 people, including newly-displaced, returnees and host communities.

10

FUND PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Outcomes

Funding was directed to priority humanitarian needs, identified through inclusive processes.In 2016, the DRC HF reached 2.3 million people with some form of humanitarian assistance. Funding was directed primarily to the eastern provinces - Tanganyika, Haut-Katanga, North Kivu, South Kivu, Maniema and Ituri – identified as having the most acute levels of vulnerability in the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) 2016. The province of North Kivu, identified in the HNO as having the highest number of people in need of assistance (1.6 million), received the greatest percentage of HF funding (25 per cent).

During the year, as funding constraints became more evident, further prioritization of the HRP was necessary, through a participative process starting at field level. In the provinces, the Provincial Interagency Standing Committees (CPIA), composed of national and international NGOs and UN Agencies, identified funding gaps and prioritized the most critical life-saving activities. This analysis was compiled at Kinshasa level, debated in the National Inter-Cluster and the resulting prioritization presented to the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). On the basis of the HCT’s strategic orientations, the DRC HF Advisory Board recommended prioritizing allocations for response to the cholera epidemic, and conflict-induced displacement crises in Opienge, the North Kivu-Ituri border region, and several hotspots in South Kivu.

Ninety-one per cent of respondents in the DRC HF stakeholder survey reported that allocations “often” or “always” addressed the most priority humanitarian needs.

Humanitarian leadership and coordination was bolstered.As the third largest funding source for projects under the 2016 HRP, the DRC HF continued to be an important tool for the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). Throughout the year, funds were allocated on the basis of collectively agreed priorities and strategies, under the leadership of the HC and stewardship of the Advisory Board. The HC was able to finance a number of strategic programmes or projects, designed as key enablers of the response or with the aim of improving response effectiveness (see boxed text on page 13).

DRC HF processes reinforced the coordination system, working with and through the CPIA, clusters and national inter-cluster in the identification of priority needs, the evaluation and selection of projects, and the technical review of proposals. Allocation and eligibility processes incentivize close engagement by partners with the coordination system. To be nominated for the eligibility micro-assessment process, a partner must be an active member of a cluster.

Resources were mobilized for the implementation of the Humanitarian Response Plan. Contributions to the DRC HF represented 11 per cent of resources mobilized for the implementation of the HRP 2016. The plan appealed for $690 million to provide assistance to 6 million targeted people. By the end of the year, $414.8 million had been received representing 60 per cent coverage1, of which $45.4 million was channelled throug the DRC HF. Since 2006, the DRC HF has made a vital contribution to HRP implementation. Every year, DRC HF allocations have represented over 10 per cent of all contributions to the HRP.

In addition, through membership on the Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) group, the DRC HF successfully advocated for other donors to direct their funding to unmet needs in the HRP in complement to DRC HF allocations.


Is the DRC HF “Cash-Ready”?

The DRC HF aims to promote the most effective response in any emergency. As such, it is committed to systematically considering the feasibility and appropriateness of cash as a response modality, as is done for other forms of assistance. When cash is found to be feasible, it should be the preferred and default modality, as it offers greater choice and dignity for affected people. Multi-purpose cash is preferable as it represents an unrestricted and unconditional cash transfer enabling a household to cover, fully or partially, its basic needs that the local market and available services are able to meet appropriately and effectively.

In 2016, the DRC HF funded its first purely multi-purpose cash project for $715,000 with the aim of supporting conflict-affected households in North Kivu to improve their well-being, while building their resilience to future shocks. In addition, 14 projects provided assistance to cover food security or non-food item (NFI) needs via cash transfers or coupon and fair approaches, sometimes combined with in-kind assistance. Minor tweaks were made to the Grant Management System to enable partners to submit multipurpose cash projects. In 2017, the JHFU will work closely with OCHA to encourage more analysis of the feasibility of cash in response analysis by the CPIA and HCT, and with the national cash working group to strengthen the capacity of the JHFU to select, review and monitor multipurpose cash projects.

11


Fund Principles

A broad range of humanitarian partner organisations were mobilized and supportedThe DRC HF currently has 169 eligible NGO partners, of which 96 are national NGOs, the largest number of any humanitarian donor in the country. In 2016, 44 different partners received funding of which 19 were national NGOs. In terms of funding allocated, 23 per cent went to UN Agencies, 56 per cent to international NGOs and 21 per cent to national NGOs.

A challenge to be addressed in 2017 is the lingering perception that HF funds are primarily directed to UN Agencies, and very little funding directed to national NGOs, in contradiction with real funding trends.

New partners were brought on board in 2016. A partner capacity assessment exercise was carried out by an independent audit firm for 45 NGO partners, of which 9 were previously eligible to the DRC HF and 36 were new. Following the micro-assessment2, 34 partners were found to be eligible, having obtained a score of 70 per cent or over. Each was attributed a risk level was depending on their score (high, significant, moderate or low).

The DRC HF worked to ensure broad inclusivity in allocation processes. Review and scoring of project proposals is carried out by the CPIA, Clusters and JHFU, ensuring that no one group has predominant influence in decision-making. The strategic review committees and cluster-specific technical revision committees are always composed of members from UN agencies, international and national NGOs. Donors also participate as observers on the strategic review committees. HF Advisory Board membership is also representative of all stakeholder groups: UN, both national and international, NGOs and donors.

Funding rapidly adapted to the evolving humanitarian contextThe HC used the DRC HF’s flexibility to respond to a severe cholera outbreak along the Congo River, and to adapt the response as the epidemic evolved. As the number of cases dramatically increased following flooding in April, five cholera response projects were funded for an initial period of 3 months. However, in light of the severe challenge of controlling the outbreak in the thousands of islands and fishermen’s camps the length of the river, the extreme

-ment, reporting, and internal controls to determine the overall risk rating

inaccessibility of many affected areas and the risk of the spread of the disease downriver to Kinshasa, the HC decided to extend and adapt the projects for a quick, efficient and uninterrupted response. Those projects that demonstrated good performance were continued and budgets were increased to enable partners to move into new affected areas, reach more people at risk, and provide medical care for more cases. By the end of 2016, over 5,400 patients suffering from cholera had received free treatment, 271,891 people had access to clean drinking water, and almost 900,000 people had been reached through awareness-raising on cholera prevention.

At the project level, flexibility enabled partners to adapt their interventions to changes in context, to respond to new needs or make up for unforeseen delays and access issues. During the year, 48 project revisions (17 cost-extensions and 31 no-cost extensions) were granted out of a total of 130 ongoing contracts, concerning 36 projects implemented by 26 partners. Forty concerned NGO partners, of which twenty-four were no-cost extensions (NCE) and sixteen cost extensions (CE). For UN Agencies, seven NCEs and one CE were granted.

The most common reason for requesting a NCE was changes in project scope (activities, target beneficiaries or location) linked to evolutions of the context. Internal issues, such as delays in recruitment processes or signing contracts with sub-contracting partners, were also common but had to be combined with factors outside the organisations’ control, such as access or security challenges, to be accepted as justified reasons for an extension by the JHFU. Cost extensions were granted to enable partners to add new activities or reach more beneficiaries following a change in context giving rise to new needs. This was particularly true for five projects involved in the cholera response along the Congo River, for which the JHFU in collaboration with the concerned clusters requested the partners to move into newly-affected areas, treat more cases, scale-up prevention awareness-raising and adjust the response strategy as the epidemic evolved.

0

200

400

600

800

1000 HF Allocation

Appel

HRP

20162015201420132012201120102009200820072006

48revisionsgranted

Cost-extensionsNo-cost extensions

64.5% 35.5%

NO-COST EXTENSIONS AND REVISIONS

12

FUND PERFORMANCE

Reasons cited by partners when requesting project revisions

Timeliness of allocation processes was improved, but remains an area of focus for 2017The timeliness of allocation processes was improved in 2016 compared to 2015, but still remains a key challenge for the DRC HF. In the partner satisfaction survey, timeliness was the principle that scored the lowest, with 40 per cent

of respondents indicating that the DRC HF was “not very effective” or “ineffective” on this point.

Nevertheless, funds were allocated to save lives as humanitarian needs emerged or escalated. In response to severe flooding, 6 projects were funded under a Reserve First Emergency allocation in 17 working days from the launch of the allocation to the first disbursement. However, a subsequent Reserve First Emergency allocation took longer. Two Standard Allocations took place during the year, with the timeline for the second significantly shorter than the first – 95 working days as opposed to 136 working days. The DRC Operational Manual sets the target number of working days as maximum 102 for standard allocations, 56 for reserve Emergency and 26 for reserve First Emergency.

The length of time of allocation processes can be explained by partners requiring more time to become familiar with the new GMS, disruptions to the working week due to violent political protests in the period September to December, and delays in the technical review process. Certain clusters took longer than planned to provide comments, particularly during the

Allocation type

Allocation Allocation amount

Number of projetcts and

partners funded

Average number of working days

(From Launch of the allocation to

Reserve First Emergency

Assistance aux populations déplacées, retournées et autochtones de Miriki $960,000 1 / 1 Not available

Reserve Emergency Programmes strategiques $8 million 4 / 3 N/A

Reserve First Emergency

Conséquences inondations dans les provinces de la Tshopo, Mongala et Equateur $2 million 6 / 6 17

Standard Première Allocation Standard - Nyunzu $7 million 7 / 7 136

Standard 2ème Allocation Standard - Nord et Sud Ubangi $5.4 million 6 / 6 95

Reserve First Emergency $6 million 1 / 1 33

Reserve Emergency

Assistance humanitaire aux populations déplacées sur l’axe Bafwabalinga-Opienge-Baloba $3.6 million 5 / 5 52

Reserve Emergency

Assistance humanitaire aux déplacées de Shabunda, Kalehe et Fizi au Sud-Kivu $7.9 million 15 / 15 54

Reserve Emergency

Assistance aux déplacées sur l’axe Grand Nord - Sud-Irumu au Nord-Kivu et en Ituri $14.5 million 19 / 19 52

The Grant Management System (GMS)

2016 was the year the GMS became truly operational in DRC. Through a progressive roll-out, the GMS is now used for submission of project proposals by partners; the assessment, selection, and technical review of proposals; revision or amendments of projects; submission of narrative and financial reports by partners; tracking of payments; and the planning and follow-up of field monitoring missions. All 2015 and 2016 project data is captured in the system.

Over the course of the year, 182 people from 79 partner organizations received GMS training. One to two day training sessions were held in Kinshasa, Goma, Bukavu, Bunia, Lubumbashi and Kalemie.

The following features will be introduced during the first quarter 2017, bringing the GMS roll-out to completion:• spot checks• audits• closing of projects• the “Business intelligence” site (internal and external versions).

Delay in disbursement of funds

Delays due to government counterpart

Unfavourable climatic or environmental conditions

Insecurityto poor transport infrastructure

Internal delays (administrative, recruitment, etc)

Change of programme scope due to change in context/new needs 32%

22%

20%

13%

7%

3%

2%

2%

13

FUND PERFORMANCE

Fund processes were managed efficiently, in a transparent and accountable manner. By pooling donor contributions, the DRC HF enables transaction costs to be minimized and risks shared. During 2016, the DRC HF managed a total of 130 contracts with 66 partners including 66 new contracts and 64 contracts from previous years. Grant management by the JHFU offers greater reach and coverage in terms of project monitoring and control mechanisms than any one of its donors could implement on their own.

Efficiency in disbursement was achieved by preparing a maximum of paperwork in advance and pre-positioning funds in DRC, particularly for the $36 million Emergency allocations at the end of the year. Apart from a few exceptional cases, disbursements were made by the Managing Agent within the maximum agreed time of ten working days. A change in the bank used by the Managing Agent to make

international bank transfers to NGO partners has sped up transfer times to 48 hours in most cases.

Efficiencies were also realised in the management of partner audits, which are organised jointly with other UN Agencies in the framework of the Harmonised Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT), which led to approximately $27,000 in savings for the JHFU. The same principle is applied for spotchecks on implementing partners shared by other HACT-compliant Agencies.

Oversight and transparency were strengthened through the roll out of the on-line GMS (see boxed text on page 12). All allocation and grant management processes are now tracked in the system, offering centralization and better quality control of data, and easier follow-up of deadlines and analysis of bottlenecks.

Strategic Programmes

In 2016 the DRC HF supported four projects under this allocation, two more than in 2015: • the Rapid Response to Population Movements (RRMP) programme, jointly managed by OCHA and UNICEF;• the United Nations Humanitarian Air Service (UNHAS); • the coordination of the Logistics Cluster led by WFP; and• a review of the past 10 years of humanitarian action in the DRC, managed by UNOPS.

RRMP and UNHAS are “backbone” programmes of the DRC response, enabling the humanitarian community to respond quickly to urgent needs. The DRC HF contributed $ 4.3 million to RRMP, representing 17 per cent of its total budget, and $2.8 million to UNHAS, representing 10 per cent.

Through the RRMP, rapid needs assessments and multisectoral emergency assistance were deployed soon after alerts to reach vulnerable people affected by displacement. With DRC HF support, the mechanism reached 389,936 people. As a result, 228,391 people had access to safe drinking water, 12,161 had access to basic health care, 102,528 people had access to hygienic latrines, 90,132 received essential household items, and 24,570 children had access to education.

DRC HF funding to UNHAS contributed to the provision of safe, flexible and reliable air transport for 26,888 air passengers and 550 tonnes of freight. UNHAS is essential for humanitarian workers to reach the most vulnerable. In 2016, more than 30 destinations were covered on the regular schedule, allowing more than 200 organizations to effectively implement and monitor humanitarian interventions in areas that would otherwise be inaccessible.

When the Logistics Cluster was faced with closure due to lack of funds in late 2016, exceptional one-off funding ($430,000) was provided to enable continued functioning for 4 months while additional resources were mobilised. This allowed for a coordinated response and reduced duplication of activities and costs, particularly in several DRC HF allocations with significant logistics components, notably in the extremely hard to reach zone of Opienge, Tshopo province.

Late in 2016, the Advisory Board recommended providing $450,000 to fund a review of humanitarian action in the DRC since 2006. The aim of the study, to be carried out by independent researchers contracted by UNOPS, is to understand the most appropriate way to deliver humanitarian assistance in a complex and protracted crisis such as that of the DRC. Through an analysis of the lessons learned over the past ten years, recommendations will be provided to the humanitarian community in DRC to strengthen the effectiveness of the current response.

last quarter when allocations coincided with HRP planning processes. The JHFU on several occasions required additional time to consolidate and harmonize its technical revision comments with those of the Clusters.

While Cluster coordinators have expressed the need to streamline and simplify fund processes, they acknowledge that these are a reflection of the existing coordination structures in

country. In some cases, partners’ capacities are stretched and even when the DRC HF acts rapidly, partners cannot always rapidly scale-up their response. This may give the misleading impression of the Fund not being rapid or nimble, when this is not necessarily the case.

14

PARTIE I:

Risk was managed and partner capacity and performance effectively monitoredThe five pillars of the DRC HF’s accountability framework were effectively implemented in 2016: 1) risk management; 2) partner capacity and performance assessment; 3) field site monitoring; 4) reporting; and 5) audits.

Risk was managed both at the Fund and partner level. At Fund level, the risk matrix was updated and presented to the Advisory Board in May and September, identifying and ranking risks according to probability and impact, as well as indicating the necessary mitigation measures and those responsible. At partner level, grants were managed according to the operational modalities introduced by the new Operational Manual in February. This risk-based approach, applicable to both NGO and UN agency implementing partners, determines the frequency of field-site monitoring visits, quality assurance activities and partner reporting, as well as maximum amounts per project.

After a prolonged vacancy, the position of Monitoring and Evaluation manager within the JHFU was filled early in the year. Consequently, monitoring tools and templates have been revised, and renewed emphasis placed on the quality, speed and follow-up of monitoring reports. In addition, the JHFU received two tailor-made training sessions on results-based management, and monitoring and data collection techniques during the year.

In 2016, 70 projects received a field site monitoring visit. A “traffic light” system is used to score the projects, indicating the likelihood a project has of achieving its results. Forty projects (60 per cent) were assessed as satisfactory, while 27 projects (40 per cent) were rated unlikely to achieve the expected results unless the recommended corrective measures were immediately taken.

Monitoring visits were complemented by financial verification missions, known as “spot checks”, to assess the accuracy of financial documents and expenditure reported by partners. In collaboration with the other HACT-compliant UN Agencies, the JHFU carried out 49 financial spot check missions, supporting 40 implementing partners, of which 22 were national NGOs and 27 international NGOs.

During the year, 23 audits were carried out, of which 13 were partner audits and 9 were project audits of implementing partners with a risk level of “high”. In addition, a

special audit was triggered in September after anomalies were found during a routine field site monitoring visit of a Reserve First Emergency project. This resulted in an independent audit firm finding the partner liable to reimburse a portion of the project budget for assistance only partially provided.

Partner capacity assessments were carried out using the HACT micro-assessment

Field site monitoring

In line with its Operational Manual, the JHFU conducts regular field site monitoring visits using a risk-based approach, determined by the risk level of the partner, the duration, and the amount of the grant. Both NGO and UN agency implementing partners are visited.

Four full-time analysts are dedicated to field site monitoring, taking on average four days per project visit. During their visit, monitoring analysts hold individual interviews and focus group discussions with beneficiaries, local authorities and other stakeholders to check on project implementation, verify reports by the implementing partner, and assess overall satisfaction by all parties with project implementation and results. Each field visit is concluded with a debriefing and a comprehensive report, including recommendations to strengthen implementation.

Common weakness in project implementation found in 2016 included: (i) major delays in project implementation affecting the overall cohesion of the intervention; (ii) unreliable monitoring and data collection methods; (iii) inadequate beneficiary feedback and accountability mechanisms; and (iv) unjustified changes in project implementation modalities.

Monitoring priorities for 2017 include strengthening the risk-based approach, with improved remote monitoring modalities in case a field visit is not possible. Following a decision by the HCT, projects funded by the CERF will also be visited by JHFU monitoring analysts, using the same methodology.

HighImportantModerateLow

45

21

3 1


17

27

1

4

10

20

30

40

50 International NGO National NGO

UnsatisfactoryPartiallysatisfactory

SatisfactoryExcellent

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 International NGO National NGO


# OF FIELD VISITS IN 2016 BY PARTNER RISK LEVEL

# OF SPOT CHECKS IN 2016 BY PARTNER RISK LEVEL

RISK LEVEL OF NEW PARTNERS IN 2016

RESULT OF 2016 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

15

PARTIE I:

Accountability to affected people

Accountability to those affected by humanitarian crises ensures that the DRC HF finances quality projects that meet peoples’ priority needs, and reduces the risk of misallocation, abuse and corruption. To this end, the DRC HF aims to ensure that:

• Project beneficiaries are involved in the project implementation and are well-informed of the role and responsibilities of the implementing partner;

• Affected communities are made aware of, and accept, beneficiary identification criteria;

• The partner has a transparent and functional complaints and feedback mechanism in place, with project beneficiaries aware of its existence and how to use it.

In practice, full accountability to affected populations remains challenging:

• Field monitoring visits have observed that projects are not always properly presented to beneficiary communities, both at the onset and at the end of implementation.

• Government technical departments, often involved in project monitoring and implementation, remain structurally weak and are not always fully invested in the project objectives.

• Smaller partners don’t always have the technical capacities to set up a functional complaints and feedback mechanism, while for those few projects with a functioning complaints mechanism, feedback to affected communities is not always ensured.

• A dedicated email address ([email protected]), managed by the Head of the JHFU to register complaints, remains largely unknown and out of reach for project beneficiaries.

Under CHS Commitment 4, accountability to affected communities is one of the JHFU’s strategic priorities for 2017. It plans to finalise the DRC HF-specific accountability to affected people (AAP) framework started in 2016, which lays out AAP guiding principles and what these mean in practice for the JHFU staff and implementing partners, identifies gaps and prioritizes actions to improve AAP in the future.

methodology in favour of 45 NGOs. Following this assessment of their financial and administrative management capacities, 34 new partners were declared eligible for the DRC Humanitarian Fund, achieving a score of 70 per cent or higher. Of these new partners, 7 were attributed a risk level of “High” or “Important/Significant”, 21 a risk level of “Moderate” and 6 a risk level of “Low”.

For partners with ongoing projects, performance was tracked through an analysis of Past Performance twice in the year, in April and September. Partners were assessed on: quality and timeliness of implementation against targets; quality and timeliness of reporting; frequency, timeliness and justification of project revision requests; quality of financial management;

and audit findings. Of the 104 partners assessed to date, 34 (33 per cent) were found to have “excellent” or “satisfactory” performance, 47 (45 per cent) “partially satisfactory” performance, and 23 (22 per cent) “unsatisfactory” performance. The score resulting from the Past Performance analysis was used to inform funding decisions during allocations, thereby incentivizing good performance.

The Advisory Board met five times in 2016. Over the course of the year, 11 problematic or litigious cases were presented to the Board for follow-up action.

16

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

The past year has again proved the DRC HF to be a flexible, inclusive mechanism that provides vital funds for life-saving humanitarian action in the DRC and supports a wide range of partners. The DRC HF supported the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator and the Humanitarian Country Team, allowing them to allocate resources to critical needs of all contributions received for the HRP 2016, 11 per cent were channelled through the DRC HF. At the same time, DRC HF projects reached 2.26 million people, 38 per cent of the number target by the HRP. Over 20 per cent of funds allocated went directly to national NGOs.

2016 was the year the Fund completed its alignment with the CBPF guidelines, changing its name to the DRC Humanitarian Fund. The Grant Management System and new Operational Manual were fully operationalised. Significant efforts were put into communicating and training partners on these, and ensuring compliance for enhanced accountability.

A stakeholder survey revealed high levels of satisfaction and generally positive perceptions of the DRC HF. The vast majority of stakeholders agree that the DRC HF is “always” or “often” meeting its three strategic objectives. In addition, 70 per cent of stakeholders believe that the DRC HF plays an important role in improving the effectiveness of the overall response, through driving better quality programming, enabling a rapid response, and reducing transaction costs. Respondents highly appreciated the Fund’s flexibility, efficiency and accountability to donors. At the same time, feedback pointed to clear areas of focus for 2017, including the timeliness of allocation processes, strengthened communication with partners particularly on funding decisions, and accountability to affected people.

In line with HRP Strategic Objective 4, the DRC HF placed particular emphasis on quality and accountability in 2016 through the integration of the CHS. This will be continued in 2017 with a special focus on commitments to ensuring an appropriate, relevant, effective and timely response, and greater communication and feedback with beneficiaries. The World Humanitarian Summit in May and the resulting Grand Bargain commitments confirmed the importance of this approach, and will guide the DRC HF’s strategy and operations in the coming year.

Looking forward to 2017, the HRP 2017-2019 calls for $748 million to deliver multi-sectoral assistance to 6.7 million people in need, 700,000 more than last year. The general humanitarian context is deteriorating in the face of the current political deadlock, the economic downturn and an increase in intercommunal violence in previously peaceful areas of the country. Given the current acceleration of conflict and displacement dynamics, the projections underlying humanitarian planning for 2017 will be surpassed before the end of June.

In this context, the DRC HF remains a vital strategic tool. However, significant sustained resource mobilisation efforts are required if the Fund is to continue playing its role. The DRC HF’s strategy for 2017 seeks $75 million, 10% of the

HRP’s requirements. Predictable donor funding early in the year, multi-year commitments and attracting new donors are crucial to meeting this goal. The Common Performance Framework (CPF) to be rolled-out to all CBPFs in 2017 will be a key tool in measuring and communicating the Fund’s performance and impact to donors.

With the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance in DRC greater than in 2016, the effective and targeted use of DRC HF funds will be critical in helping the humanitarian community reach its objectives in 2017.

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD

Meeting Grand Bargain commitments in 2017

While all ten Grand Bargain commitments are integrated into the DRC HF’s strategy and operations, the funds has a special contribution to make to the following five commitments: Greater transparency

• The significant strides made with the GMS will be further improved through the roll-out of the Business Intelligence site, both internal and external versions.

More support and funding tools for local and national responders

• With 21 per cent of funding allocated directly to national NGOs, the DRC HF is well on the way to meeting the 25 per cent target by 2020. Support and capacity-building for our national partners remains central to the Fund’s work.

Increase the use and coordination of cash-based programming

• The potential for cash scale-up in allocations is clear; the DRC HF will work with the coordination system to make this a reality.

Increase collaborative humanitarian multi-year planning and funding

• Since 2014, the first CBPF to fund humanitarian projects of up to 24 months, the question is now how the DRC HF can best align with the three-year HRP.

Enhance engagement between humanitarian and development actors

• Already a focus for standard allocations, 2017 offers opportunities to deepen this approach, notably in the response in the Kasai provinces.

17

PARTIE I:

17

ANNEXES

ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

Education Food Security Health Logistics Nutrition Protection Non Food Items & Shelter

Water, Sanitation & Hygiene

© OCHA/Serge Mabaluka, 2017

18

ANNEXES : ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

EDUCATION

FOOD SECURITY

In 2016, 1.1 million school-age children were in need of emergency education support, sometimes after prolonged periods out of schooling. The DRC HF contributed to the education response in six allocations (two standard and four reserve), by financing the rehabilitation and equipment of classrooms, the provision of learning materials for children, support for teacher incentives to foster retention, provision of remedial courses, support to cover school fees for displaced families to promote reintegration, and capacity-building of teachers and principals

to sustain the quality of education, and promote peace education. In line with Cluster guidelines, a community-based approach is favoured, with support given to teachers, pupils and community members to develop and implement ‘school improvement plans’ via a cash transfer. In North Kivu and Ituri provinces, the DRC HF complemented the CERF Underfunded Allocation by ensuring more comprehensive geographic coverage of the education response for conflict—affected communities.

In 2016, approximately 4.5 million people were estimated to be in food insecurity. The DRC HF contributed to the Food Security response in situations of new displacement or returns, or when nutritional emergency thresholds were surpassed, prioritising the sector in five allocations (two standard and three reserve). In the provinces of North Kivu, North Ubangi, South Kivu, South Ubangi and Tanganyika, priority activities included distribution of emergency food rations, provision of agricultural and livestock inputs either through direct distributions or fairs,

and training and technical assistance for farmers on innovative agricultural techniques. In standard allocations, strong emphasis was placed on supporting communities to strengthen their livelihoods and food production capacity to prevent malnutrition and improve resilience. When fresh waves of displacement in the Miriki area, South Lubero, led to severe food insecurity and a rise in intercommunal tensions, the DRC HF supported a blanket food distribution to meet the immediate food needs of 75,000 people and ease tensions between new arrivals and host communities.

Funding by Cluster Objective


Key indicators

Key indicators

66,216 (110% of target)Beneficiaries reached with HF funding

Women : 11,936Men : 11,270

Girls : 21,632Boys : 21,378

$39.1 millionCluster requirements

$4.2 million (11%)DRC HF Funding allocated

7Partners supported

11* New projects funded

Cluster Lead : UNICEFCo-Facilitator : AIDES

AIDES, AIRD, AVSI, CAU, GLC, NRC , UNICEF

* 7 mon-sectoral projects and 4 multi-sectoral projects with an education component


Women : 137,724Men : 104,113

Girls : 134,058Boys : 101,314

$184 millionCluster requirements

$8.7 million (4.7%)DRC HF Funding allocated

10Partners supported

12* New projects funded

Cluster Lead : FAO/WFPCo-Facilitators : ACTED, CARITAS Belgique

WFP, ACP, COOPI, AIDES, NRC, ACTED, LWF, PUI, CARITAS Goma, CARITAS Butembo-Beni

* 4 mono-sectoral projects and 8 multi-sectoral projects with a food security component

Key indicators Target Reached %

Number of teachers trained 12,333 122%

12,949

24 24

Key indicators Target Reached %Number of people in need who received food assistance through a fair and coupons approachNumber of people in need who received food assistance through a direct distribution

52,259 94%93%99%

safe and protective learning environment for girls and 1

100%

1

97%

emergencies

2

1%

Coordination for rapid, evidence-based interventions that follow cluster guidelines

3

2%

19


HEALTH

LOGISTICS

Health was identified as a priority sector in seven allocations in 2016 (two standard and five reserve). The DRC HF contributed to the cholera response along the Congo River, and to improve the access of internally displaced people and host communities to basic health care. In the provinces of North Kivu, North Ubangi, South Kivu, South Ubangi, Tanganyika, and Tshopo, priority activities focused on the provision of primary health care and emergency obstetric and neonatal care for conflict-affected communities, case

management of sexual violence and health education for local communities on disease prevention. Mobile health clinics were often used to ensure access in hard-to-reach areas or where health infrastructure was damaged by conflict. In the cholera response, health and WASH partners worked hand in hand to provide immediate treatment and prevent transmission. In standard allocations, emphasis was placed on strengthening the capacity of health personnel and structures, and moving towards cost-recovery models for greater sustainability.

Physical access was a recurrent challenge in the response in 2016, and Logistics was identified as a priority sector in five allocations (two standard and three reserve). In the provinces of South Oubangi, South Kivu. and Tanganyika priority activities financed focused on clearing/repairing “black spots” on strategic axes (mud quagmires, bridges, etc), often through a ‘cash-for-work’ approach, to enable displaced, returnee and refugee populations to access markets and humanitarian assistance, and the rehabilitation of air strips to increase the capacity of humanitarian actors

to reach vulnerable populations. In Opienge, Tshopo province, the DRC HF supported the setting up of a common logistics service with a ‘lite’ road rehabilitation to enable partners to provide life-saving assistance to 28,000 newly-displaced people in an extremely hard-to-reach area; the first time humanitarian actors could access the zone in three years.



Key indicators

Key indicators


Women : 178,850Men : 165,864

Girls : 23,451Boys : 23,938


$2.9million (3%)DRC HF Funding allocated

7Partners supported

9*New projects funded

Cluster Lead : WFPCo-Facilitator : ACF

WFP, AVSI, ACTED, ASOV, Solidarités International, RHA, Handicap International

* 2 mono-sectoral projects and 7 multi-sectoral projects with a logistics component


Women : 96,031Men : 79,936

Girls : 82,519Boys : 67,961





Cluster Lead : WHOCo-Facilitators : ADRA, MDA

UNICEF, CARITAS Allemagne, ADRA, PUI, COOPI, ALIMA, IMC, IEDA Relief, IRC

* 7 mono-sectoral projects and 10 multi-sectoral projects with a health component

Key indicators Target Reached %93

32%Number of kilometres of road rehabilitated 233


suppliesNumber of cholera cases treated 99%Number of children vaccinated 111%Number of health workers trained or rtrainedNumber of survivals of sexual violence provided with medical treatment 92%

99%

Reduction of major logistics constraints to facilitate humanitarian activities

1

100%

Reduction of the impact of epidemics and other

integrated management of affected and at-risk persons

3

15%

Coverage of health-care needs of victims of human rights violations through corrective actions

2

20%

Access to basic health care for vulnerable displaced populations, returnees and their host communities in view of their empowerment through the Minimum Package of Activities and the purchase of kits

1

65%

20


NUTRITION

PROTECTION

In 2016, more than 2 million children were estimated to be suffering from severe acute malnutrition, and the DRC HF supported a nutritional response in four allocations (two standard and two reserve) when prevalence rates exceeded emergency thresholds. In the provinces of North and South Oubangi, Tanganyika, South Kivu and Tshopo priority activities funded included case management of severe and moderate acute malnutrition (with and without medical complications), organization of nutritional education sessions,

and support to nutritional treatment facilities with training, equipment and supplies. In the two standard allocations, emphasis was placed on building community capacity to detect and prevent malnutrition and behavior change for positive infant and young child feeding practices. Emphasis was placed on ensuring joint responses, addressing malnutrition alongside the strengthening of food security and access to primary health care while all projects contained a WASH component in line with the ‘WASH in Nut’ strategy.

The acute protection crisis experienced by the DRC was accentuated in 2016, marked by resurgence in conflict and human rights numerous violations. Protection was thus a priority sector in four allocations (one standard and three reserve). In the provinces of Ituri, North Kivu, South Kivu, Tshopo, and Tanganyika priority activities financed included the creation and support of community-based protection monitoring and referral systems, training monitors on the collection and documentation of human rights violations and awareness-raising

sessions for communities on respect for fundamental rights and the fight against impunity in areas affected by conflict and displacement. Child protection and support to survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) received particular attention, with support provided for the socioeconomic reintegration of children separated from armed groups, family mediation and reunification for unaccompanied/separated children, holistic support to SGBV survivors (medical, psychological, legal and socio-economic).



Key indicators

Key indicators


Women : 28,686Men : 21,508

Girls : 22,620Boys : 18,202


$3 million (5%)DRC HF Funding allocated

5Partners supported


Cluster Lead : UNICEFCo-Facilitator : COOPI

COOPI, PUI, ACF International, ADRA, PIN

* 1 mono-sectoral project and 6 multi-sectoral projects with a nutrition component


Women : 18,019Men : 23,365

Girls : 14,725Boys : 16,290





Cluster Lead : UNHCR ACODE, AJEDEC, AVREO, CADEGO, AVSI, CAMPS, CEDIER, COOPI, IRC, FHIDAH, IEDA Relief, PMU-AMI

* 7 mon-sectoral projects and 8 multi-sectoral projects with a protection component

Key indicators Target Reached %Number of children admitted for treatment of severe acute malnutrition 15,514Number of children admitted for treatment of moderate acute malnutrition

99%Number of people reached through awareness raising sessions on prevention of malnutrition 91%

feeding and integrated treatment of acute malnutritionNumber of nutritional treatment facilities supported and provided with nutritional inputs


Number of victims of violence supported with social and economic reintegrationNumber of children associated with armed groups supported to leave the group and provided with interim care

Number of people reached through protection awareness-raising sessions

of those most vulnerable to its effects.

1

100%

Prevention and mitigation of the risk of violations of the rights of affected persons

1

72%

Responding to violations of human rights while 2

15%

displacement, return, resettlement

3

12%

21


NON-FOOD ITEMS & SHELTER

WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

Fresh waves of displacement in the territories of Irumu (Ituri), Nyunzu (Tanganyika), Opienge (Tshopo), Shabunda, Fizi (South Kivu), Walikale and Lubero (North Kivu), and severe flooding in some provinces along the Congo River led to NFI/Shelter being identified as a priority sector in six allocations (one standard and five reserve). The response focused on providing the most vulnerable people affected by conflict or flooding with access to basic essential household and hygienic items, either via direct distribution, fairs or cash transfers. The latter two approaches are

favoured when conditions permit, as they offer beneficiaries greater choice and dignity. In the provinces of Tanganyika, Ituri and North Kivu, priority activities financed also included provision of materials and technical assistance to construct emergency shelter for displaced populations. In North Kivu and Ituri provinces, the DRC HF complemented the CERF Underfunded Allocation by ensuring more comprehensive geographic coverage for provision of NFIs to conflict—affected communities.

As DRC experienced a major cholera epidemic in 2016, access to safe drinking water, hygiene and sanitation for vulnerable populations became ever more important. As such, WASH was identified as a priority sector in seven allocations (two standard and five reserve). Priority activities financed focused on ensuring access to clean drinking water through the construction or rehabilitation of wells/water sources, improving access to sanitation infrastructure in communities, health centres and schools, and raising awareness on good

hygiene practices. Standard allocation projects emphasised enhanced community participation and capacity-building for maximum ownership and sustainability. In the cholera response along the Congo River, emphasis was placed on disinfecting homes and public places after exposure to the disease, installation of chlorination points, ensuring access to water and sanitation in cholera treatment centres, and cholera prevention efforts through mass media, door-to-door and community-level sensitisation sessions.



Key indicators

Key indicators


Women : 129,784Men : 110,462

Girls : 102,966Boys : 94,538





Cluster Lead : UNICEFCo-Facilitator : CARITAS Allemagne

UNICEF, LWF, Oxfam-GB, ACTED, ADRA, Solidarités International, ACF, CRRDC/DT, ASOV, HYFRO, PPSSP, CEPROSSAN

* 6 mono-sectoral projects and 9 multi-sectoral projects with a WASH component


Women : 78,770Men : 100,642

Girls : 79,671Boys : 87,162



8Partners supported


Cluster Lead : UNICEFCo-Facilitator : CRS

UNICEF, ADSSE, LWF, ADE, Solidarités International, CARITAS Goma, CARITAS Butembo-Beni

* 2 mono-sectoral projects and 8 multi-sectoral projects with an NFI/Shelter component

Key indicators Target Reached %Number of affected people provided with access to clean drinking waterNumber of water points/wells constructed or rehabilitated 92%

112%Number of homes and public places disinfected after cholera exposure

sure to disease


distribution

or cash transfer1 1

Access to drinking water and sanitation respecting established norms and standards, as well as promotion

communities

1

50%

Reduction of the effects of cholera epidemics or haemorrhagic fever among affected populations

2

39%

Access to drinking water and sanitation in malnutrition

nutritional crisis

3

11%

phenomena have better access to appropriate NFIs that

1

78%

activities and ensure their survival, protection, well-

2

22%

22

ANNEXES : QUICK FACTS AND BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE DRC HF

The DRC Humanitarian Fund (DRC HF) is a multi-donor pooled fund managed under the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). The Fund is used to support the timely allocation of donor resources to the most urgent humanitarian needs and critical gaps in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

It is the oldest of the 18 Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPF) that exist, alongside the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. Officially launched in 2006, it was born out of the Humanitarian Reform Initiative of 2005 which called for improved accountability and predictability in financing for humanitarian emergencies. With over ten years of operations, the DRC HF has well-established partnerships, and tried and tested procedures.

How the DRC HF worksThe DRC HF reinforces and relies on existing humanitarian coordination structures, which allows for evidence based prioritisation and complementarity with other humanitarian funding sources such as bilateral funding or the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).

The DRC HF has two allocation windows, with three modalities:

• Standard Allocations: Larger, strategic allocations, to fund multi-sectoral humanitarian interventions of up to 24 months with a strong focus on building community resilience. Allocations are targeted thematically or geographically, and focus on prioritised needs, activities and geographical locations identified in the HRP, ensuring a highly strategic and coordinated use of funds. Projects undergo a rigorous selection process involving Clusters and the Provincial Inter-Agency Standing Committees (CPIA).

• Reserve Allocations: a more rapid and flexible allocation mechanism, to tackle sudden-onset emergencies or the deterioration of existing crises.

Emergency: funding for complex humanitarian interventions of 4 to 12 months, often in situations of population displacement.

First Emergency: quick funding for limited life-saving activities for a maximum of 3 months, usually in response to disease outbreaks or natural disasters. It gives the HC the discretion to support immediate humanitarian response where necessary.

Funding recipientsDRC HF funding is available to UN organisations and international and national NGOs that have passed a due diligence and capacity assessment. Most implementing partners have long–standing partnerships with the DRC HF. In 2016, 169 partners were eligible, of which 44 directly received new funding.

Governance and managementThe HC oversees the fund and decides on funding allocations. In his role, the HC is supported by the DRC HF Advisory Board, IASC coordination structures, and a technical secretariat, the Joint Humanitarian Funding Unit (JHFU), led by OCHA with UNDP playing the role of Managing Agent (MA). The DRC HF Advisory Board represents the views of donors, the UN agencies and both the international and national NGO community and provides strategic advice to the HC on allocations, policies and governance. It is a forum to take decisions on the strategic direction of the Fund, review operational activities and litigious cases, and undertake periodic risk analysis.

The DRC HF is governed by an Operational Manual, aligned with the Operational Handbook for Country-Based Pooled Funds which describes the global set of rules that apply to all CBPFs worldwide. The DRC HF Operational Manual has been adapted and tailored to the humanitarian context in the DRC.

The JHFU manages the DRC HF on a daily basis on behalf of the HC. Its Programme and Operations entity (OCHA) has responsibility for oversight of allocations, reporting, monitoring and other accountability processes. The Finance entity (UNDP) disburses funds to UN Agencies, and is responsible for fund management related to non-governmental partners (contracting, disbursement, reporting and quality assurance).

For more information, refer to the DRC HF webpages:• www.humanitarianresponse.info/fr/operations/

democratic-republic-congo/pooled-fund-0

• mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HCG10

QUICK FACTS AND BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE DRC HF

DRC HF objectives

1. Improve the effectiveness of the humanitarian response by directing funding towards priority humanitarian needs, identified through inclusive and participatory processes.

2. Strengthen the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), while leveraging his/her humanitarian coordination role.

3. Mobilize resources and support coordination in support of the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP).

23

ANNEXES : SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

In February 2017, the DRC HF launched a country-wide stakeholder survey with the aim of understanding the perception and level of satisfaction of key actors vis-à-vis the Fund. In particular, the survey focused on on how well the DRC HF is meeting its three strategic objectives and respecting its five operating principles: Inclusiveness, Flexibility, Timeliness, Efficiency and Accountability. In total, 190 people responded, composed of NGO and UN implementing partners, cluster coordinators and co-facilitators, cluster members, OCHA coordination staff, and donors. Forty-three per cent of respondents were based in provincial capitals in DRC, and almost half (47 per cent) were from national NGOs, both DRC HF implementing partners and those wishing to become eligible. Many respondents had a long association with the DRC HF, with 40 per cent having 6 or more years’ experience with the Fund.

Overall, stakeholders had strongly positive perceptions for many questions. The vast majority (over 75 per cent) agree that the DRC HF is “always” or “often” meeting its three strategic objectives. Responses were mostly highly positive for the principles of flexibility and efficiency. Most aspects of accountability were viewed positively, although lower scores were given for accountability to affected people. The two principles for which respondents gave less positive answers were inclusiveness and timeliness.

Less than half of respondents feel that stakeholders have an influence on decision-making in allocation processes. Comments on inclusiveness made it clear that a misperception exists that a large portion of DRC HF funding goes to UN Agencies. A view shared by some is that it is always the same implementing partners who receive funding, and that greater space needs to be given to new partners, particularly national partners. The fact that the funding data does not back up these perceptions shows that the JHFU must redouble its efforts to clarify and communicate with stakeholders on this point, particularly at provincial level.

Concerning the principle of timeliness, the most negative perceptions were regarding whether implementing partners receive funding at the moment when they need it, followed by whether the DRC HF is effective at responding in a timely manner to new crises or needs. Many respondents pointed to the length and ‘heaviness’ of allocation processes, challenges partially linked to the complex coordination architecture in DRC and the nature of country-based pooled funds in general, but other points are within the control of the DRC HF to improve on. This is a clear priority work stream for the JHFU in 2017.

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

190Responses

Very Good [26%]Good [52%]Average [15%]

190Responses

190Responses

190Responses

RESPONSE IN %

24

ANNEXES : SUMMARY OF PARTNER SATISFACTION SURVEY

162Responses

25% UN - 25% INGO -50% NNGO [6%]25% UN - 50% INGO -25% NNGO [35%]50% UN - 25% INGO -25% NNGO [20%]I dont know [33%]Other [5%]

12. In your opinion, what is the ratio of the number of projects implemented by UN Agencies (UN) each year compared to the number implemented by national NGOs (NNGO) and international NGOs (INGO)?

162Responses

0% to 25% [16%]26% to 50% [23%]51% to 75% [21%]76% to 100% [3%]I don’t know [37%]

11. In your opinion, what is the percentage of funding allocated to UN Agencies by the DRC HF each year?

156Responses

14. Does the DRC HF allow its partners to adapt their projects to the evolving context?

Always [17%]Often [53%]Rarely [19%]Never [3%]I dont know [8%]

155Responses

16. Do DRC HF implementing partners receive funding at the moment when they need it?


162Responses

10. Do the stakeholders who participate in the DRC HF funding allocation processes

decision-making?


155Responses

projects funded by the DRC HF receive assistance at the moment when they really need it?


156Responses

13. How effective is the DRC HF at adapting to

context of the humanitarian crisis in RDC?

Very effective [10%]Effective [63%]Not very effective [21%]Ineffective [3%]I don’t know [4%]

155Responses

Very effective [5%]Effective [52%]Not very effective [37%]Ineffective [4%]I don’t know [2%]

15. How effective is the DRC HF at responding in a timely manner to new

needs?

172Responses

07. Does the DRC HF strengthen the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator?


172Responses

08. Does the DRC HF strengthen coordination between different humanitarian actors?


172Responses

09. Does the DRC HF strengthen resource mobilisation for the implementation of the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP)?


172Responses

needs done in a way that is inclusive and participatory?


172Responses


5. Do the DRC HF allocations address the most priority humanitarian needs?

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

INCLUSIVENESS

TIMELESS

FLEXIBILITY

25

ANNEXES : SUMMARY OF PARTNER SATISFACTION SURVEY

146Responses

24. How effective is the DRC HF Very effective [23%]Effective [45%]Not very effective [15%]Ineffective [1%] 146

Responses

25. How effective is the DRC HF Very effective [23%]Effective [43%]Not very effective [17%]Ineffective [5%]

145Responses Never [3%]

146Responses

Often [33%]162

Responses Never [1%]

145Responses

Poor [3%]

145Responses

Poor [3%]

145Responses

145Responses

146Responses

23. How effective is the DRC HF Very effective [23%]Effective [51%]Not very effective [12%]Ineffective [2%]146

Responses

22. How effective is the DRC HF Very effective [11%]Effective [55%]Not very effective [24%]Ineffective [4%]

147Responses

147Responses

Never [3%]

147Responses

rity with those of other

Never [3%] 147Responses

Often [57%]

Never [4%]

EFFICIENCY

ACCOUNTABILITY

TRANSPARENCY

26

ANNEXES : DRC HUMANITARIAN FUND PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2016

Partner type

Allocation Organization Project Name Province Cluster Funding

UN Agency

Reserve ; Première Urgence - Janvier 2016

WFP (World Food Programme)

Réponse d'urgence pour les ménages de l'axe secondaire de Lubero (Miriki-Luofu)

Nord-Kivu Sécurité Alimentaire 959 994,61

UN Agency

Strategic Programs ; Urgences - Février 2016


Provision of Humanitarian Air Services in DRC

Bas-Uele, Haut-Uele, Ituri, Nord-Kivu, Maniema, Sankuru, Sud-Kivu, Haut-Katanga, Haut-Lomami, Tanganyika, Kasai Central, Kasai Oriental, Kinshasa, Nord-Ubangi, Sud-Ubangi et Equateur

Logistique 2 825 474,10

UN Agency


UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund)

Réponse Rapide aux Mouvements de Population

Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu, Tanganyika, Haut-Katanga et Ituri

Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (19%), coordination (13%), Abris et Non vivres (42%), Santé (14%), Education (12%)

4 300 000,00

UN Agency



Coordination du Cluster Logisitique

Kinshasa, Ituri, Nord-Kivu, Tanganyika et Sud-Kivu

Logistique 429 982,41

UN Agency


UNOPS (United

Project Services)

Bilan de l'action humanitaire en RDC depuis 2006 Kinshasa Coordination 449 997,06

National NGO

Reserve ; Première Urgence - Avril 2016

ADSSE (Association pour le Developpement Social et la Sauvegarde de l'Environnement)

Réponse humanitaire de première urgence en AME et matériel de renforcement d'Abris aux sinistrés des inondations dans les provinces de l'Equateur et de la Mongala par une approche mixte : distributions directes et transfert monétaire.

Equateur et Mongala

Abris et Non vivres 202 501,78

International NGO


CARDCV (Caritas International Allemagne)

Riposte d'urgence contre l’épidémie de choléra dans la province de la Tshopo et dans la Mongala

Tshopo et Mongala Santé 513 347,97

International NGO


LWF ( Lutheran World Federation)

Appui d'urgence aux personnes affectées par les inondations de

dans la Province de la Tshopo

Tshopo

Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (70%), Abris et Non vivres (30%)

748 398,08

DRC HUMANITARIAN FUND PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2016

27


Partner type


UN Agency


UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund)

Coordination et appui a la reponse aux inondations dans les provinces de la Tshopo, Mongala et Equateur

Equateur, Mongala et Tshopo

Santé (38%), Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (57%), Coordination (5%)

755 659,75

International NGO


OXFAM GB (OXFAM GB)

Assistance Humanitaire aux populations victimes des inondations dans les provinces de l’Equateur et Mongala en République Démocratique du Congo

Equateur et Mongala

Eau, assainissement et Hygiène

1 865 466,65

International NGO


ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency)

Riposte d'urgence contre l'épidémie de choléra dans 8 Zones de santé des provinces de l' équateur et Mai-Ndombe touchées par les inondations.

Equateur, Mai-Ndombe et Mongala

Santé 1 386 018,40

UN AgencyJoint Unit ; Urgences - Mai 2016

the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs)

Unité Conjointe Fonds Humanitaire 2016 - Entité OCHA Kinshasa Coordination 1 768 977,50

UN AgencyJoint Unit ; Urgences - Mai 2016

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

Unité Conjointe Fonds Humanitaire 2016 - Entité PNUD Kinshasa Coordination 1 399 919,52

International NGO

Standard - Juin 2016

AVSI (Associazione Volontari per il Servizio Internationale)

Appui Intersectoriel pour la Paix et la Résilience des communautés vulnérables du Nord Lukuga dans le Territoire de Nyunzu

Tanganyika

Logistique (31%), Education (43%), Protection (26%)

1 343 793,31

National NGO


ACP (Action Contre la Pauvreté)

"Appui Intersectoriel pour la Paix et à la Résilience des communautés vulnérables du Nord Lukuga/territoire Nyunzu, volet sécurité alimentaire nutrition. Coordination AVSI "

Tanganyika Sécurité Alimentaire 600 466,88

International NGO


PU-AMI (Première Urgence - Aide Médicale Internationale)

Soutien à la résilience et la prévention des crises en faveur de la population du Territoire de

intercommunautaire, à travers une intervention multisectorielle garantissant l'accès aux services de santé primaire, EHA, en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition et accès aux marchés

TanganyikaSanté (63%), Nutrition (36%), Protection (1%)

1 380 000,00

National NGO


CRRDC/DT (Croix Rouge RDC /Tanganyika)

"Appui Intersectoriel pour la Paix et la Résilience des communautés vulnérables du Nord Lukuga dans le Territoire de Nyunzu."

TanganyikaEau, assainissement et Hygiène

477 377,11

International NGO


COOPI (Cooperazione Internazionale - COOPI)

Appui intersectoriel pour la Paix et la Résilience des communautés vulnérables du Nord Lukuga dans le Territoire de Nyunzu.

Tanganyika

Sécurité Alimentaire (35%), Nutrition (12%), Santé (28%), Protection (25%)

1 254 877,77

28


Partner type


National NGO


AIDES (Actions et Interventions pour le Développement et l'Encadrement Social)


inter communautaire, à travers une intervention multisectorielle garantissant l’accessibilité aux services de santé primaire, EHA, en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition,éducation et accès aux marchés.

Tanganyika

Sécurité Alimentaire (78%), Education (22%)

922 501,06

International NGO


ACTED (Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development)


intercommunautaire, à travers une intervention multisectorielle garantissant l’accessibilité aux services de santé primaire, EHA, en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition, éducation et accès aux marchés.

Tanganyika

Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (70%), Logistique (30%)

1 250 500,07

National NGO

Standard - Septembre 2016


"Appui au renforcement des efforts de résilience et de prévention des populations vulnérables des provinces du Nord et du Sud Ubangi à travers une approche multisectorielle en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition, accès aux services de base et appui aux moyens d’existence"

Sud-Ubangi

Sécurité Alimentaire (65%), Education (35%)

907 140,65

International NGO



Renforcement de la résilience de populations affectées par l'insécurité alimentaire et la

RCA, les inondations et les épidémies dans le territoire de Bosobolo. (Consortium COOPI-ADRA-GLC).

Nord-Ubangi

Nutrition (50%), Sécurité Alimentaire (50%)

1 103 474,42

National NGO


GLC (Groupe La Colombe)

Renforcement de résilience de populations affectées par l'insécurité alimentaire/

RCA, les inondations et les épidémies pour l’accès à une éducation de qualité des enfants vulnérables dans le territoire de Bosobolo. (Consortium COOPI-ADRA-GLC).

Nord-Ubangi Education 311 280,12

International NGO



Appui au renforcement des efforts de résilience et de prévention des populations vulnérables des provinces du Nord et du Sud Ubangi à travers une approche multisectorielle en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition, accès aux services de base et appui aux moyens d’existence

Sud-Ubangi Nutrition (55%), Santé (45%) 1 047 737,13

International NGO



Renforcement de la résilience de populations affectées par l'insécurité alimentaire et la

RCA, les inondations et les épidémies dans le territoire de Bosobolo. (Consortium COOPI-ADRA-GLC)

Nord-Ubangi

Santé (55%), Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (45%)

785 228,98

29


Partner type


International NGO



Appui au renforcement des efforts de résilience et de prévention des populations vulnérables des provinces du Nord et du Sud Ubangi à travers une approche multisectorielle en sécurité alimentaire, nutrition, accès aux services de base et appui aux moyens d’existence

Sud-Ubangi

Logistique (32%), Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (68%)

1 050 000,00

International NGO

Reserve ; Première Urgence - Octobre 2016

ALIMA (Alliance for International Medical Action)

"Riposte à l’épidémie de choléra dans les provinces du Maniema (ZS Alinguli, Kindu, Kailo, Kibombo et Kasongo) et de la Tshopo (ZS Yabaondo, Isangi, Yahuma, Opala, et Yaleko)"

Maniema et Tshopo Santé 1 260 000,72

International NGO

Reserve ; Urgences - Octobre 2016

ALIMA (Alliance for International Medical Action)

Accès aux soins de santé primaire pour les populations déplacées internes (IDPs) et les communautés hôtes dans les 5 aires de santé de la zone de santé d'Opienge (province de la Tshopo) accueillant la majeure partie des IDPs : AS Opienge, Balobe, Angamapasa, Babomongo, Basaula)

Tshopo Santé 650 000,00

National NGO



Appuis d'urgence à la scolarisation des enfants déplacés et autochtones d'OPIENGE / Territoire de Bafwasende

Tshopo Education 472 528,00

National NGO


AJEDEC (Association des jeunes pour le développement communautaire)

Appui au renforcement des mécanismes communautaires de prévention, prise en charge holistique et réintégration communautaire des enfants

sur l’axe Bafwabalinga- Opienge – Balobe au Sud du territoire de Bafwasende, en Province de la Tshopo.

Tshopo Protection 224 999,60

International NGO


ACF (Action Contre la Faim)

Réponse Rapide à la crise nutritionnelle à Opienge Tshopo

Nutrition (80%), Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (20%)

500 000,00

International NGO


Solidarités (Solidarités International)

"Assitance en EHA, AME et logistique en faveur des populations déplacées, retournées et hôtes de la Zone de Santé d'Opienge, Territoire de Bafwasende dans la Province de la Tshopo".

Tshopo

Logistique (63%), Abris et Non vivres (21%), Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (16%)

1 757 414,00

International NGO

Reserve ; Urgences - Novembre 2016

NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council)

Assistance Alimentaire et Contribution à la Résilience des Populations Affectées par les Déplacements dans le Territoire de Fizi, Axe Nyange.

Sud-Kivu Sécurité Alimentaire 1 478 568,02

National NGO


ADE (Action d'Espoir)

Assistance en Articles Ménagers Essentiels au ménages déplacés et d'acceuil sur l'axe Mulungu-Kamulila dans le groupement de Baliga, territoire de Shabunda en Province du Sud-Kivu

Sud-Kivu Abris et Non vivres 308 100,01

30


Partner type


International NGO


IEDA RELIEF (International Emergency and Development Aid)

Projet d’appui d’urgence aux soins de santé primaires d’urgence à la population vulnérable (déplacés, retournés et autochtones) de la zone de santé de Kalole en territoire de Shabunda dans la Province du Sud-Kivu.

Sud-Kivu Santé 650 000,39

International NGO



Assistance alimentaire d'urgence aux populations déplacées, retournées et hôtes affectés par

Shabunda , Sud Kivu, RDC

Sud-Kivu Sécurité Alimentaire 822 000,00

International NGO


AVSI (Associazione Volontari per il Servizio Internationale)

Assistance d’urgence pour le support des communautés déplacées et retournées sur l’axe Mulungu-Kolula en Territoire

d'améliorer l'accès des enfants à une éducation de qualité dans un environnement sur et protecteur.

Sud-Kivu Education 424 844,85

International NGO


AIRD (African Initiatives for Relief and Development)

Assistance humanitaire en éducation aux déplacés de territoire de Fizi dans la Province du Sud-Kiv


International NGO


IMC (International Medical Corps)

Assistance en soins de santé primaire et santé de la reproduction aux déplacés internes, retournés et les personnes affectées par les

Kalonge, Sud Kivu-RDC

Sud-Kivu Santé 375 000,00

National NGO


AVREO (Association des Volontaires pour la Recuperation des Enfants Orphélins, Abandonnés, Déplacés et Malnutris)

des communautés , la protection et la réintégration des enfants

Kivu.

Sud-Kivu Protection 505 400,00

International NGO


PIN (People In Need)

Réponse rapide et intensive à la crise nutritionnelle dans les zones de santé Kolula et Mulungu, territoire de Shabunda, Sud Kivu

Sud-Kivu Nutrition 421 703,05

International NGO



Appui d’urgence aux soins de santé de base en faveurs des personnes déplacées, retournées et familles d'accueils et prise en charge nutritionnelle des enfants malnutris sévères dans le territoire de Fizi (Axe Kimbi- Lulimba- Lulenge).

Sud-Kivu Santé (50%), Nutrition (50%) 779 200,76

National NGO


CAMPS-CELPA (Centre d'assistance Medico - Psychosocial)

Prise en charge holistique (psychosociale, médicale, réinsertion socio-économique et judiciaire et juridique) de 250 survivant(e)s des violences sexuelles dans les Territoires de Shabunda (Zones de santé de Kalole et Mulungu) et Kalehe (Zones de santé de Bunyakiri et Kalonge)


31


Partner type


National NGO


CAU (Collectif Alpha Ujuvi)

Appui à l'éducation inclusive et de qualité adaptée à tous les enfants déplacés, retournés et autochtones affectés par les

Sud-Kivu sur l'axe Mule-Cifunzi-Caminunu dans le groupement de Kalonge du Territoire de Kalehe


National NGO


CEDIER (Centre de Développement Intégral pour l’Enfant Rural)

Projet de renforcement des mécanismes de protection de la population civile des groupements Babungwe-Sud et Basikasilu dans le secteur de Ngandja en territoire de Fizi


National NGO


ASOV (Action Solidaire aux Vulnérables)

Appui à l’aménagement/réhabilitation des infrastructures de transport (route et pistes d’atterrissage) dans la zone de santé de Mulungu (territoire de Shabunda) et à l’accès à l’eau, à l’assainissement,l'hygène pour les populations affectées par les

dans la zone de santé de Kimbi-Lulenge (territoire de Fizi)

Sud-Kivu

Eau, assainissement et Hygiène (49.8%), Logistique (50.2%)

676 945,13

National NGO


RHA (Rebuild Hope for Africa)

Réhabilitation de la route Lulimba-Misisi-Lubichako-Nyange pour faciliter l’accès humanitaire, renforcement des capacités communautaires pour assurer la maintenance du tronçon routier Kalonge-Madiriri en territoire de Kalehe et livraison d’assistance en AME-Abris à 4500 personnes retournees sur l’axe Lulimba-Lubichako-Nyange en territoire de Fizi.

Sud-Kivu

Logistique (70%), Abris et Non vivres (30%)

410 152,40

National NGO


ADSSE (Association pour le Developpement Social et la Sauvegarde de l'Environnement)

Assistance en Articles Ménagers essentiels et en Abris d’Urgence aux populations déplacées, retournées et leurs communautés hôtes, affectées par la crise, axes : Komanda-Luna et Bela – Biakato – Mambasa - Nduye, à travers les foires, l’assistance monétaire et les distributions directes de KHI.

Ituri Abris et Non vivres 853 420,22

National NGO


ACOPE (Actions Concrète pour la Protection de l'Enfance)

Projet d'appui à la prise en charge

et la réinsertion communautaire des enfants affectés par les

Nord-sud Irumu au Nord Kivu et en Ituri

Nord-Kivu Protection 299 999,80

International NGO


Mercy Corps (Mercy Corps)

Cash multisectorielle pour les urgence en Nord Kivu: Béni - Oicha - Eringeti

Nord-KivuAssistance multisectorielle aux réfugiés

715 000,00

International NGO


IEDA RELIEF (International Emergency and Development Aid)

Protection des personnes

dans les territoires de Beni, Lubero, Sud Irumu et Walikale.

Nord-Kivu et Ituri Protection 700 000,00

32


Partner type


International NGO



Assistance humanitaire aux populations déplacées sur l’axe Grand Nord – Sud Irumu, Provinces du Nord-Kivu et Ituri, en République Démocratique du Congo (RDC)

Nord-Kivu et IturiProtection (78%), Santé (22%)

749 119,60

International NGO


NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council)

Education en situation d’urgences - accès à l’éducation de qualité dans un environnement sûr et protecteur en faveur des enfants

Lubero, Nord Kivu.

Nord-Kivu Education 407 355,73

International NGO


LWF ( Lutheran World Federation)

Assistance humanitaire d'urgence en AME et Sécurité Alimentaire en faveur des déplacés et autres populations vulnérables dans les territoires de Beni au Nord Kivu, Irumu et Mambasa en Ituri.

Nord-Kivu et Ituri

Abris et Non vivres (50%), Sécurité Alimentaire (50%)

1 329 247,00

International NGO


MEDAIR (Medair)

Réponse sanitaire d’urgence en faveur des populations vulnérables des zones de santé de Komanda et Oicha (territoires de Irumu et Beni) affectées par les crises ADF et FRPI.

Nord-Kivu et Ituri Santé 800 000,00

International NGO


IRC (International Rescue Committee)

Réponse d’urgence santé protection aux déplacés, retournés et la population autochtone sur l’axe Grand-Nord- Axe Walikale-Mubi-Djingala

Nord-KivuSanté (88%), Protection (12%)

1 283 747,52

National NGO


AJEDEC (Association des jeunes pour le développement communautaire)

Projet d’appui au renforcement des mécanismes de préventions, prise en charge transitoire et réintégration communautaire des enfants affectés par les

Territoire d’Irumu et le Territoire de Mambasa en Province de l’Ituri-RDC.

Ituri Protection 150 000,09

National NGO


CADEGO (Caritas Développement Goma)

Assistance Humanitaire aux

armés sur l’axe Walikale –Mubi-Njingala et dans la zone de sante de Piinga au Nord-Kivu.

Nord-Kivu

Sécurité Alimentaire (37%), Abris et Non vivres (18%), Protection (45%)

1 121 088,22

National NGO


Caritas Butembo (Caritas Butembo-Beni)

Assistance aux déplacés sur l'axe Grand Nord-Kivu - Irumu au Nord-Kivu

Nord-Kivu

Abris et Non vivres (39%), Sécurité Alimentaire (61%)

1 206 000,21

National NGO


CEPROSSAN (Centre de Promotion Socio-Sanitaire)

Amelioration de l'accès à l'eau,assainissement et à l'hygiène en faveur des populations retournés,déplacés en zones de santé de Kayna et Alimbongo

Nord-KivuEau, assainissement et Hygiène

499 782,00

National NGO


CAU (Collectif Alpha Ujuvi)

Accès en éducation inclusive et de qualité adaptée à tous les enfants déplacés, retournés et autochtones affectés par les

l'ITURI sur l'axe Komanda-Luna, Bela-Biakato-Mambasa-Nduye

Ituri Education 315 002,65

33


Partner type


National NGO


HYFRO (Hydraulique Sans Frontière)

Réponse d’Urgence WASH pour les personnes vulnérabilisées par les mouvements des populations

de santé de Oicha


500 000,57

International NGO


FHIDAH (Federation Handicap International. Direction Aide Humanitaire)

Appui multisectoriel des acteurs humanitaires intervenant dans la province du Nord Kivu.

Nord-Kivu et Ituri

Logistique (64.5%), Protection (35.5%)

775 999,98

International NGO



Assistance humanitaire aux populations déplacées, retournées et hôtes dans le Territoire de Beni à travers une réponse d’urgence multisectorielle en sécurité alimentaire, santé et protection des victimes des violences basées sur le genre

Nord-Kivu

Santé (35%), Sécurité Alimentaire (51%), Protection (14%)

1 464 103,00

International NGO


OXFAM GB (OXFAM GB)

Réponse à l’urgence humanitaire aux populations déplacées suite

de Buleusa/Ikobo axe grand-Nord en la province du Nord Kivu, et axe Mambasa-Biakato en province d’Ituri en RDC


800 000,00

National NGO


PPSSP (Programme de Promotion des Soins de santé primaires)

Assistance Humanitaire aux populations déplacées sur l'axe Bogoro-Gety-Boga-Tchabi et Oicha dans les Provinces de l'Ituri et Nord Kivu en République Démocratique du Congo

Nord-Kivu et IturiEau, assainissement et Hygiène

533 740,00

TOTAL 57,268,679.91

34

ANNEXES : ACRONYMS

CE Cost-extension

CPF Common Performance Framework

DFID UK Department for International DevelopmentDRC Democratic Republic of CongoFTS Financial Tracking ServiceGHD Good Humanitarian Donorship group

HACT Harmonised Approach to Cash TransfersHC Humanitarian Coordinator

HF Humanitarian FundHNO Humanitarian Needs OverviewHRP Humanitarian Response PlanJHFU Joint Humanitarian Financing Unit

MA Managing Agent NCE No-cost ExtensionNFI Non-Food ItemsNGO Non-governmental Organisation

SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based ViolenceUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHAS United Nations Humanitarian Air ServiceUNICEF United Nations Fund for Children

WFP World Food Programme

ACRONYMS

35

ANNEXES : DRC HF DONORS IN 2016

DRC HF DONORS IN 2016

Thank you for your generous financial contributions and continued support!

PARTIE I: DRC 2016 H ô ü ô ü ô F HF_Annual Report 20… · is for the calendar year 2016, for...

Documents

Transcript of PARTIE I: DRC 2016 H ô ü ô ü ô F HF_Annual Report 20… · is for the calendar year 2016, for...