Photo by: OCHA, 2010

Humanitarian Response Fund Ethiopia

Annual Report 2010 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Photo by: OCHA, 2010

Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2010

1

Table of Contents

NOTE FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR .................................................................. 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 2

GLOSSARY / ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 2

2010 HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT ............................................................................................................ 2

HRF IN 2010: ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2. INFORMATION ON CONTRIBUTORS...................................................................................... 8

2.1 CONTRIBUTIONS TO HRF FROM 2006 TO 2010............................................................................. 8

2.2 ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE FUND (HRF) DONOR REVIEW (JULY 2010) SUMMARY..... 9

3. FUND OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 SUMMARY OF HRF ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 10

3.2 RESULTS OF HRF PROJECTS PER SECTOR/CLUSTER ................................................................ 11

3.2.1 Overview of Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) Sector...................................................... 11

3.2.2 Overview of Nutrition Sector................................................................................................... 14

3.2.3 Overview of WASH Sector....................................................................................................... 16

3.2.4 Non Food Items/Emergency Shelter (NFIs/ES)....................................................................... 17

3.2.5 Common Humanitarian Services............................................................................................. 19

4. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF HRF ACHIEVEMENTS.................................................... 20

4 .1 INNOVATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF HRF IN 2010................................................................. 20

4.2 HRF AND HUMANITARIAN REFORM .............................................................................................. 22

5. PROJECT MONITORING IN 2010 ............................................................................................ 25

6. GENDER CONSIDERATION...................................................................................................... 27

7. CONCLUSION, CHALLENGES AND WAY FORWARD....................................................... 28

ANNEXES: ............................................................................................................................................ 30


2

Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator Dear colleagues, The favorable conditions in 2010 presented humanitarian partners with the opportunity to engage in interventions that went beyond emergency response. The seasonal rains performed well replenishing water and pasture resources, which contributed to improved food security conditions, providing communities with opportunities to enhance their livelihoods. Nevertheless, heavy rains towards the end of the year had a devastating effect on the livelihoods of communities in the eastern and south-eastern lowlands. Flooding was the major disaster to which the HRF and other donors responded to during the year. The HRF continued to be one of the major sources of funding for non food requirements, contributing significantly to the overall response to needs identified in the annual Humanitarian Requirements Document. Aligning its strategy with sectoral taskforces / clusters, the HRF allocated US$19.3 million during the year, thereby supporting a predictable and timely humanitarian response. Using $21.3 million carryover funds from 2009 and an additional $28.4 million contribution from Spain, Denmark, Italy, DFID, Sweden, Norway and Netherlands, the HRF supported activities including:

• Procurement of 3,140 MT of supplementary food, Corn-Soya-Blend (CSB) to the central procurement center;

• Establishment of 54 mobile health clinics, providing primary and essential health care services including therapeutic nutrition, immunization and micro-nutrient supplementation;

• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) related activities that benefited over 600,000 people through distribution of water treatment chemicals, construction / rehabilitation of water points, latrines and hand wash facilities;

• Nutrition response benefited 156,479 individuals through the treatment of severe and moderate malnutrition and provision of nutrition supplies;

• Supported over 198,000 households affected by flooding through livestock and seed interventions;

As in the previous years, the HRF has continued to engage in innovative approaches including the establishment of peer monitoring that facilitates practical sharing of best practices. Acknowledging the imperative of having predictable funding for non-food items (NFIs) in response to emergencies, over the review period the HRF supported the establishment of a national pipeline for core relief items in collaboration with partners in order to ensure minimum levels of preparedness. Looking forward, I am pleased to announce that the HRF will expand its reach by opening direct access to national NGOs in an effort to ensure inclusiveness in the humanitarian response. National NGOs thus far have been accessing the Fund through partnership and sub-granting, receiving allocations indirectly through international NGOs or UN agencies. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all stakeholders including the donors, UN agencies (clusters leads), members of the Review Board as well as local and international NGOs for their collaborative effort in making 2010 another successful year for humanitarian response in Ethiopia.

Sincerely Eugene Owusu Humanitarian Coordinator, Ethiopia


2

Acknowledgements The Government of Ethiopia: Our appreciation goes to the Government of Ethiopia for the unreserved support extended to the HRF. It is under such collaborative effort that the HRF met its major objectives in ensuring timely and appropriate funding for life-saving projects by partner agencies and subsequently supporting the pillars of the Humanitarian Reform Process. On behalf of the Review Board members, we would like to express our appreciation to the DRMFSS who through regular participation at the weekly Review Board meetings have brought fresh perspectives to the application review process. Donors: The humanitarian community would like to thank its donors for generously giving to life-saving emergency response in line with the principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship. In 2010, the Netherlands was the biggest contributor to the HRF donating 34% of the total funds received for the year, followed by contributions by the governments of UK and Denmark, and Sweden at 20%, 17% and 13% respectively. We are also grateful for the donations received from Norway, Italy, and Spain who are regular contributors to the Fund. Donors have continued to support the Fund despite the financial constraints caused by the global financial crisis which imposed stringent fiscal measures and cut-backs as donor countries prioritized their spending. In addition to the monetary contributions, donor representatives have been very supportive in maintaining a collaborative working relationship by sharing their resource of experts and knowledge base on the humanitarian donor community. Review Board: We would like to acknowledge the dedication and commitment of the members of the Review Board who have diligently worked to review and deliberate on proposals. Members devoted their time to review applications, engage in discussions on high-level policy issues and initiate innovative ideas. As we continue to strive for more innovation in our approach of improving efficiency in the Fund's performance, we encourage members to come forward with ideas to refine high-level policy issues that impact humanitarian funding decisions. We would like to thank CRS who has served as member of the Board for nearly two years and welcome CONCERN as our new Review Board member. Their collective effort drawn from their expertise has significantly contributed to make our goals reachable.

Clusters: Special gratitude goes to the cluster leads and their respective members for extending their unwavering support and dedicated services to the HRF. The work of the HRF would be incomplete without the clusters’ engagement in technical reviews of the numerous applications we received for funding. The cluster leads have been instrumental in taking the lead to carefully review and compile the comments and recommendations made by their review group members and ensuring the applicants’ follow through and refinement of applications. Our appreciation also extends to agencies that managed supply pipelines (CSB, RUTF and NFIs) which were critical in ensuring minimum preparedness and rapid humanitarian response. Implementing Partners: Our work would not be done without the strong support and commitment of the implementing NGO and UN partners who in addition to submitting proposals for various life-saving interventions across the country, also consistently participated in providing high quality technical inputs in reviewing applications. In addition, we would like to extend our special appreciation for agencies that made the commitment to carry out peer-to-peer monitoring missions in order to promote cross-learning opportunities. GENCAP Advisor: The HRF team would like to extend its appreciation to the GenCap advisor for the continued guidance extended to the HRF to ensure that it remains a gender-responsive funding mechanism. Thanks to the joint effort undertaken by the GenCap advisor and the HRF team, in 2010 the HRF continued to integrate cross-cutting issues, particularly gender mainstreaming in HRF supported projects. We are thankful for the dedication and commitment of the advisor in ensuring the practical changes in activities and methodologies for emergency response gained thus far will be reinforced through the introduction of the Gender Marker system beginning in 2010. OCHA staff and management: Finally we would like to acknowledge the strategic role played by OCHA, through their valuable feedback on applications and updates from the field, the HQ office in Geneva for their support in administrative functions of processing MOUs and transferring payments; and the OCHA office in NY for sharing the pooled fund learning process. The HRF extends its sincere appreciation for the collaborative support of all our partners and donors and look forward to continued partnership in humanitarian programming.


1

Glossary / Acronyms AWD Acute Watery Diarrhoea Belg Short rains from March to May (in highland and midland areas) CCRDA Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association CERF Central Emergency Response Fund COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale (NGO) CRS Catholic Relief Services (NGO) CSB Corn-Soya Blend, a blended food used in targeted supplementary feeding DCA Danish Church Aid Deyr Short rains from October to December (in Somali Region) DRM Disaster Risk Management DRMFSS Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector ENCU Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit EECMY- DASSC Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus- Development and Social Service Commission FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) FHI Food for the Hungry International (NGO) FSL Food Security and livelihoods GAA German Agro Action GenCap Gender Stand-by Capacity GM Gender Marker Gu Main rains from March to June (in Somali Region) HC Humanitarian Coordinator HH Household HRD Humanitarian Requirements Document HRF Humanitarian Response Fund IDP Internally Displaced Person IMC International Medical Corps INGO International Non-Governmental Organizations IOM International Organization for Migration IRC International Rescue Committee Meher Long and heavy rains from June to September (in highland and midland areas) MNB Multi Nutrient Block (MNB) MT Metric Tonnes NCA Norwegian Church Aid NFI/ES Non –food items and emergency shelter NGO Non-Governmental Organization OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN) OTP Outpatient Therapeutic Programme PACT Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Inc PCI Project Concern International PIN People In Need PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme Region The highest non-federal administrative structure, embracing zones and woredas RUTF Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food SC UK Save the Children UK SC US Save the Children US SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region SSA The Social Service Agency of the Protestant Church in Germany - Bread for the World TFP Therapeutic Feeding Programme TSFP Targeted supplementary feeding programme UN United Nations UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund (UN) WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Programme (UN) WHO World Health Organization (UN) Woreda Administrative/geographic unit equivalent to district WV World Vision Zone Administrative unit consisting of several woredas


2

1. Executive Summary 2010 Humanitarian Context Ranked 171 out of 182 countries on UNDP’s 2009 Human Development Index, Ethiopia remains one of the world’s most underdeveloped countries, annually confronting a number of complex situations and chronic humanitarian needs as a result of its vulnerability to natural hazards – particularly drought, flooding and disease – and the impact of internal and international tensions and conflict. While the root causes of Ethiopia’s vulnerability must be addressed through promotion of sustainable development, international humanitarian assistance remains essential to save the lives of millions of Ethiopians who would be unable to meet basic survival needs without external assistance. According to the annual Humanitarian Requirements Document, some 5.23 million people were understood to have required relief food assistance in early 2010. These are in addition to the 7.8 million people that receive support under the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP). This was largely due to the reduced yield of short- and long-season harvests attributed to the below-normal rains, which affected the eastern half of the country in particular, including southern Tigray, Eastern Amhara, the lowlands of Eastern Oromia, northern parts of Shinille and Jijiga in Somali, parts of SNNP, most Gambella and northern parts of Afar. Moreover, while un-seasonable rains received across most parts of the country between September and December 2009 brought about some improvement in pasture and water availability and contributed to the nourishment of late-planted meher crops, they negatively impacted earlier-planted crops in some lowland areas, mainly matured teff. The performance of the short rains in pastoral areas was also below normal in most areas of Somali Region, the lowlands of Borena and Bale zone in Oromia, and South Omo zone in SNNPR, insufficiently replenishing water sources and causing serious water shortages. Among the other effects of the below-average harvests, there was insufficient availability of seeds in the lowlands of Tigray and some parts of north-eastern Amhara region. The recurrent drought conditions affected livestock body condition and productivity, which were also compounded by drought-induced disease outbreaks, particularly in pastoral areas of Afar, Somali and Oromia (Borena and Bale lowlands). In recent years, there has been a significant decline in livestock herd size and productivity, including milk production, which has

significantly contributed to rising malnutrition among children under 5. As the year progressed, the food security situation improved significantly as good belg (short) and meher (long) rainfall performances led to strong harvests in most areas. The HRD was revised in the second half of the year based on the findings of the belg/gu seasonal assessment conducted in June and July 2010, and issued in late November. The revised HRD identified some 2.3 million people in need of emergency food assistance for the last two months of the year. In many parts of the country excessive rains also caused flooding, which temporarily displaced affected populations, damaged homes, crops and basic service infrastructure such as health centres and schools and led to reduced production in some pocket areas. In the final months of the year, the deyr short pastoral rains (normally from October to December) failed, kick-starting a prolonged dry season in lowland areas and resulting in the need for emergency water interventions in southern Somali Region and the Oromia lowlands. Throughout the year, acute watery diarrhoea (AWD) continued to pose a serious health threat at the national level due to the continued presence of risk factors including low latrine coverage, poor personal hygiene and sanitation practices, inadequate supplies of safe water and population movements, for example, to religious and other festivals where large crowds from various parts of the country gather for days at a time. Security and access challenges, particularly in the conflict-affected zones of Degehabur, Fik, Gode, Korahe and Warder in Somali Region, also continued to impose constraints on the humanitarian response in 2010. Restrictions on the movement of UN and INGOs prevailed, while shortages of military escorts delayed the movement of food convoys in particular. Moreover, community-level conflicts over issues including administrative boundaries and access to natural resources and basic infrastructure, continued to cause localised displacements in several regions, including Gambella, Oromia, SNNP and Somali regions. New asylum-seekers continued to enter the country in large numbers from Eritrea and Somalia. The influx of refugees from Somalia, affected by fighting in the southern part of the country, necessitated the


3

The HRF in brief: The Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) was established in March 2006 as a tool for the provision of flexible and predictable financing to promote greater effectiveness, accountability and partnership in humanitarian response. The HRF is part of the pooled funding element of the Humanitarian Reform process and is managed by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator, with support from OCHA. Through its standard operating procedures, the Fund works with partners to improve coordination at all levels and promote the involvement of relevant government-led sectoral task forces and/or clusters. These processes reduce duplications of effort, help to ensure that funds are targeted to those most in need, and promote complementary programming approaches to maximize impact. The HRF in Ethiopia has increasingly grown its reserve to become a key source of funding for rapid response to a diverse portfolio of humanitarian needs defined by sector and geography. Since its inception in 2006, donor contribution to the fund has increased from US$15.7 million to a peak of $68.4 million in 2008. Thanks to the generosity of its donors, the Fund continues to make significant contributions to life saving and life sustaining interventions by providing rapid and flexible humanitarian financing to its INGO and UN implementing partners. The Fund was established primarily as a funding mechanism for NGOs, but is also accessible through UN agencies and Ethiopian Red Cross. Between 2006 and 2010, the HRF supported 251 projects of which 67.3% was allocated for international NGOs. Through partnerships with INGOs and UN agencies, 20 national NGOs have been indirectly supported by the HRF.

establishment of a second refugee camp in the Somali Region, at Melkadida as the existing camp facility, located in Boqolomayo, reached its maximum holding capacity of 20,000 in late 2009. Additionally, influxes of Southern Sudanese fleeing conflict in neighboring regions led to onward displacements in Gambella.

HRF in 2010: With total contributions of US$ 28.4 million and a carry-over balance of $21.3 million, the HRF aligned its funding strategy with priority interventions identified by clusters, in close consultation with the Government. Table 1: 2010 Donor Contributions to the HRF

(Please refer to Chapter 2 for details on donor contribution trends since 2006). Throughout the year, the main hazard necessitating HRF support was flooding in eastern and south-eastern lowlands. Response to drought-induced malnutrition was the other main focus of HRF supported projects. Following consultative and coordinated prioritisation, HRF supported the following major sectors in 2010 for a total of $25.9 million: nutrition response including the procurement of corn-soya-blend (CSB) ($5.6 million), management of severe and moderate acute malnutrition and support to nutrition surveys and the revision of national guidelines on water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and acute watery diarrhoea (AWD) related response ($8.7 million); non-food items and emergency shelter (NFIs/ES) for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and flood affected people ($3.1 million); and support to livelihoods, through both agriculture and livestock supports ($8.0 million) and capacity building on safety and security of humanitarian personnel ($0.5 million). Additionally, the Fund was used in response to WASH and Education needs of refugees from Tigray and Somalia ($1.1 million). Major outcomes and intervention logic of the sectors/clusters are described in section 3.2 of this report.

Donors Amount in US$ Denmark 4,893,092United Kingdom (DfID) 5,600,000Italy 1,010,101Netherlands 9,790,210Norway 747,031Spain 2,664,002Sweden 3,696,600Carry-over from previous year 21,278,697Total received 49,679,733


4

In 2010, the geographic distribution of funding by HRF for the 56 projects it supported in seven regions and one Administrative zone. As indicated in the graph below, Afar Region was the highest recipient of funding followed by Oromia and Amhara regions.

Governance structure: With support from OCHA, the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) ensures that the decision-making process is inclusive, consulting a number of key partners, including the humanitarian cluster leads, UN agencies, NGO representatives and federal-level task forces as well as regional authorities. As administrator of the Fund, OCHA ensures that applications conform to HRF guidelines, responds to identified priorities, coordination and cost effectiveness. The HRF unit then circulates appropriate applications to the respective clusters for technical comments and follows up with feedback. Once the applications are revised based on the technical comments, they are shared with the HRF Review Board. The HRF Review Board comprising Government, UN agencies, NGO, CCRDA and Ethiopian Red Cross representatives makes funding recommendations using established guidelines and based on the merit and relevance of proposals in addressing identified

emergency needs. Once the Review Board has reviewed a proposal, it makes a recommendation to the HC, through OCHA. The HC decides on the recommendation of the Board and signs the relevant agreements. After reviewing the documentation and the decision-making process, OCHA Geneva deposits 80 per cent of approved funding directly into the applicant’s (NGO) bank account. The final 20 per cent is transferred upon receipt of final narrative and audited financial reports. In the case of UN agencies, Geneva deposits 100 per cent of the money following approval. The HRF Review Process diagram and list of Board members in 2010 are annexed (Annex I)

In June 2011, the HRF conducted a stakeholder survey to learn about how partners view the performance of the HRF. A Survey Monkey application developed questionnaire was distributed to several stakeholders comprised of INGO, UN agencies, donors, GoE and the Ethiopian Red Cross. The survey was open for three weeks. Out of the total 51 respondents nearly half (49 per cent) were from international NGOs, 27 per cent from UN agencies, 18 per cent from donors, and six per cent from others. Survey results on HRF governance: 80% - Board composition is a good balance between different stakeholders. 88 % - The management of the fund is sufficiently transparent. 92% - HRF has improved predictability of humanitarian financing in Ethiopia. 82% - HRF has strengthened the implementation of the cluster mechanism in Ethiopia. 76% - The work of the HRF has assisted UN OCHA in its advocacy work. 90% - HRF demonstrated an effective commitment to engaging in and promoting good partnerships. 94% - HRF has had an impact on improving coordination amongst humanitarian agencies. 88% - HRF has demonstrated and encouraged improved accountability in humanitarian response. 82% - HRF has the right balance between speed and quality control. 90% - The application review process is clear and transparent. 82% - Technical feedback from clusters on HRF applications helps improve quality.


5

Major achievements with HRF funding as reported by implementing partners in 2010

Note: Age and sex disaggregated data in some sectors do not add up to the total beneficiary number as some implementing partners did not report accordingly.

Food Security and Livelihoods – Livestock o 66,039 households (12,800 female headed, 44,396 male headed households ) benefited o 73,786 livestock fed with supplementary and survival feed o 91,970 bales of hay, 15,365 quintal of concentrate, 81,500 kilograms of MNB animal feed purchased and distributed o 285,000,000 litres of water treated with water chemicals o 820,107 livestock treated/de-wormed, 879,583 livestock vaccinated, 996 livestock slaughtered through de-stocking, 709 households restocked with 12,142 livestock, 536,000 doses of veterinary drugs and 363,786 doses of veterinary vaccines purchased and distributed o 268 community animal health workers received trainings Food Security and Livelihoods – Seed o 129,975 households (19,385 female headed and 110,560 male headed households benefited) o 34,351 quintal of different types of seed and 3,477 quintal of vegetable seed purchased and distributed o 41,299 hectares of land farmed using the above distributed seed o 35,668 different types of farm tools purchased and distributed Nutrition o 156,479 individuals (72,695 women, 29,709 girls, 27,004 men and 27,071 boys) benefited o 331 individuals (116 girls and 80 boys) SAM children with complications treated o 61,167 (31,929 girls and 29,238 boys) MAM children and 40,615 pregnant and nursing mothers received treatment o 57 MT of RUTF, 1,192 MT of CSB and 27.82 MT of oil distributed o 3,140 MT of CSB procured centrally by WFP o 54 Mobile health clinics established o 238 OTP sites received NFIs. o 1,643 health extension workers and 380 community volunteers received trainings WASH and AWD o 704,210 individuals (222,476 women, 89,281 girls, 230,303 men and 91,209 boys) o 103,174 Sachets of pur, 1,692,065 bottles of wuhagarr, 165,548 water tabs and 693,133 bishan gari purchased and distributed to treat 145 community level water schemes with 163,984,460 litres of water o 80 water points (23 springs, 9 bore holes, 7 roof catchments, 15 hand dug wells, 18 small scale irrigation, 1 reservoir, 8 rainwater harvesting systems and 7 cattle troughs) have been rehabilitated o 63 water points constructed (2 ponds and 8 hand dug wells, 21 shallow wells, and 14 spring protections) o 28,224 household latrines constructed o 53 institutional latrines with hand wash facility constructed o 122 hand wash facilities constructed o 120 water tanks of varying capacity procured and distributed o 72,032 jerry cans of varying capacity procured and distributed o 334,470 bars of soap distributed and 49,569 bottles of bleaching agent distributed o 3,167 wash committee members and community volunteers received various wash related trainings NFI and Emergency Shelter o 36,612 households (5,034 female headed households, 16,044 male households, 343 older people headed, 22 people with disabilities and 1,228 school students) received...info required here o 34,101 blankets and 400 bed sheets procured and distributed o 55,293 jerry cans, 10,664 sanitary and hygiene kits, 255,000 bars of soap procured and distributed o 15,000 plastic basins, 38,947 plastic plates, 44,944 plastic cups, 20,044 plastic jugs, 20,435 cooking pots, 23,086 aluminium ladles and 4,500 buckets procured and distributed o 24,560 pens, 5,625 pencils, 12,170 exercise books ,19,424 reference materials provided for who? and 5 libraries equipped o 23,298 corrugated sheets of iron, 21,180 KG of assorted nails, 800 metal sheet doors, 800 wooden sheet doors and 590 toilet slabs purchased for the construction of houses and latrines. To date, 160 houses and 160 toilets constructed and 20 persons received training with local artisan Use or not of full stops Common Services o 62 security related incidents involving UN/INGO responded to o 900 malnourished children with complications received in-patient therapy o 67 security assessment missions to 34 locations conducted o 288 access authorizations received and processed from EDF in the Somali Region o 9,137 field missions tracked o 15 security compliance surveys conducted o 136 weekly reports published o 124 Area Security Management Team (ASMT) meeting held in the project areas


6

Country Map

Legend(\ Nationa Capital P Regional Capital

International Boundary

Regional Boundary

Zonal Boundary

RoadPrimary Road

Secondary Road

River

Lake

Elevation (meters)

Below sea level

0 - 200

200 - 400

400 - 600

600 - 800

800 - 1,000

1,000 - 1,500

1,500 - 2,000

2,000 - 2,500

2,500 - 3,000

3,000 - 4,000

Above 4,000

Map data source(s): CSA Disclaimers: The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, cit or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.


7


8

2. Information on Contributors 2.1 Contributions to HRF from 2006 to 2010 Since its establishment in 2006 the HRF, as part of the pooled funding mechanism, receives contributions from different donors including the governments of Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The table below demonstrates the funding trends by donor.

The HRF’s donors have also been engaged at policy level discussions since the start of the Fund. In 2010, the donors were involved in two major discussions/workshops, namely, the livelihoods protection initiative and gender mainstreaming in HRF supported projects. The objective and outcome of the

workshops are highlighted in the Innovations and Developments section of this report (Section 4.1).

In addition to participating on policy level discussions, the HRF’s donors commissioned an independent evaluation of the Fund in 2010. The findings of the evaluation are summarised in the section below.

Table 2: Donor Contribution to the HRF 2006 – 2010 in USD

Donor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total/donor

Denmark

4,893,092 4,893,092

United Kingdom (DfID) 8,861,284 7,632,793 28,489,852 5,573,248 5,600,000 56,157,177 Ireland 4,352,602 2,033,133 6,385,735 Italy 857,233 1,010,101 1,867,334 Netherlands 5,012,000 3,395,940 25,675,614 15,441,176 9,790,210 59,314,940 Norway 1,553,277 2,022,776 2,644,228 2,232,764 747,031 9,200,076 Spain 1,293,661 2,664,002 3,957,663 Sweden 577,564 4,090,487 6,476,850 3,696,600 14,841,501 Switzerland 247,934 689,853 699,301 1,637,088 Total/year 15,674,495 13,629,073 68,093,530 32,456,472 28,401,036 158,254,606

92 per cent of participants in the recent HRF Stakeholders Survey indicated that HRF has improved predictability of humanitarian financing in Ethiopia.


9

2.2 Ethiopia Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) Donor Review (July 2010) Summary In 2010, donors to the HRF, commissioned an evaluation by an external consultant. The objective of the study was to review the role of the HRF in the overall context of donor strategies and plans. The evaluation focused on the capacity of the Fund to strengthen the overall humanitarian response and its impact on the OCHA mandate of humanitarian coordination. The Fund's cash flow in terms of income and expenditure was also analyzed. The output of the review was an analysis of the HRF to assess the performance of the Fund vis-a-vis other comparable pooled funds. The key findings of the review indicated that the HRF is a well managed, cost effective pooled funding mechanism that supports a diverse portfolio of INGO / UN delivered programmes and services. The HRF is also regarded as making a significant contribution to meeting non-food humanitarian priorities as one of the leading donors to the health, nutrition and WASH sectors. The review also acknowledged the HRF’s effort to harmonise donor approaches and has commended the practical examples of partnership implementation. Moreover, the review noted that the HRF has elevated gender awareness by obliging applicant organisations to apply dimensions outlined in the Gender Self Assessment Marker. Furthermore, the HRF, as part of the pooled funding element of the Humanitarian Reform Process has boosted the role of OCHA in Ethiopia and helped advance the Humanitarian Reform Process. However, the review noted that the lack of consistent, formal strategic advice from high level advisory committee may inhibit the growth/appropriateness of the HRF and limit its influence in shaping humanitarian preparedness and response. The review made the following key recommendations: i. ensure greater consistency/uniformity in the language and terminology used to outline the role of the HRF; ii. provide strategic proposal documentation, such as log frame and annual work plan, which includes realistic and achievable milestones, indicators and outputs; iii. apply greater rigour and clarity in setting funding parameters and applying appraisal processes through sharpening the workings of the HRF unit and clusters to enhance quality of applications and programme delivery; iv. identify a mechanism capable of providing consistent strategic advice and guidance; v. redefine funding parameters for humanitarian projects (revisit the funding and duration caps) and vi. consider the pros and cons resulting from the inclusion of local NGOs as recipients of HRF support. The findings of the analysis favoured a structured fund management analysis that aims to anticipate changes in the humanitarian environment and respond accordingly. It was also suggested that " more harmonised donor coordination

could further strengthen the role of the Fund as a gap filler for short-term emergency priorities.”

Extracts from the review: “The HRF is an appropriately targeted and effectively managed pooled mechanism that makes a disproportionate contribution to specific sectoral needs, in particular health, nutrition and WASH. The input of the HRF has also been of value in promoting partnership between UN agencies and INGOs, and strengthening the credibility, role and function of OCHA.” “Over the past four years the HRF has evolved into a highly regarded pooled funding mechanism both within and outside Ethiopia. Donor contributions to the HRF have increased year on year, as have funding allocations. Indeed, HRF disbursements have averaged USD 40 million for the past two years, and though the number of HRF supported programmes is reflective of need, the HRF portfolio has grown significantly, peaking at 81 projects supported in 2009. The HRF has become a significant donor for non food needs covering close to 50% of reported needs in the health and nutrition sectors in 2009.” “In enlarging its portfolio the HRF has remained responsive to geographical and sectoral gaps, and its programme of work is broadly consistent with priorities detailed in the Humanitarian Requirement Document (HRD).” The work of the HRF unit in overseeing the HRF portfolio was roundly commended and the HRF is favourably compared with other humanitarian funding mechanisms for its timeliness, flexibility and cost effectiveness.”

HRF Evaluations and Reviews Since the inception of the HRF, donors commissioned external evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the Fund to provide predictable, timely and appropriate humanitarian response. Stakeholder surveys have been conducted since 2007 to assess the understanding, views and thoughts of partners on the performance of the HRF. Every year the HRF undertakes donor missions to visit HRF supported projects in order to promote partnership and accountability.


10

3. Fund Overview 3.1 Summary of HRF Allocations The HRF has allocated approximately US$131.6 million to 251 multi-sectoral projects across the country since 2006. In 2010, the HRF had $49.7 million available in resources ($21.3 million a carry-over balance and $28.4 million in additional contributions from donors).

Requested for 2010

in US$ (Humanitarian Requirements Document)

Carry over from 2009

in US$

Amount received in 2010

in US$

Total available in 2010

in US$

651,836,899

21,278,697

28,401,036

49,679,733

57,427,209

27,161,815

8,280,261

16,657,551

31,895,281

22,685,404

500,000

18,256,618

4,184,3307,022,969 8,063,046

‐

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

Health & Nutrition WASH Education Agriculture

Requirement Total Donor Response HRF Contribution for the 2010 HRDs

Ethiopia’s humanitarian requirement in the year 2010 and donor responses compared with the HRF’s contribution.


11

Projects approved by the Humanitarian Coordinator in 2010 During the year, the HRF allocated $25.9 million to projects that were implemented by UN ($6.4 million) and International NGOs ($19.4 million). With regard to the number of projects, the HRF supported 56 projects of which 46 projects were implemented by NGOs while 10 were realised through UN agencies.

By partner type in US$ Number of UN and INGO Projects UN Agencies 6,448,297 UN Agencies 10 International NGOs 19,422,980 International NGOs 46 Total 25,871,277 Total 56

Note: HRF Ethiopia was not directly accessible to National NGOs in 2010. However, through partnerships with INGOs, seven national NGOs have been indirectly supported by the HRF to a total of $2.7 million. In total, 62 applications were received in 2010 of which, 56 were supported by the HRF and six applications were not recommended for funding. The table below describes the rate of acceptance by agency type.

Acceptance rate UN Agencies 91% International NGOs 90% Average acceptance rate 90%

Out of the total HRF funding in 2010, on average 87 per cent was allocated for direct program cost and the remaining 13 per cent for indirect programme costs. The HRF conducted the analysis on the basis of costings utilized directly and indirectly for the implementation of the project. Programme costs that are directly related to the implementation of the project and mainly incurred at the project site such as, direct programme staff (programme experts and staff at field office level); direct operational project costs (office rent at project site and project related telephone and utility expense); relief items, direct transportation costs (freight costs to transport relief items, vehicle rental at field office level) are categorised under direct programme costs. Programme costs that indirectly affect the performance of the project such as, indirect staff costs (administrative staff at HQ level), indirect operational project costs (office rent cost, utilities and stationary items for head office), indirect transportation and storage cost (vehicle rental at head office) fall under indirect programme costs. 3.2 Results of HRF Projects per Sector/Cluster 3.2.1 Overview of Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) Sector Although favourable conditions existed in this sector in 2010, with improved crop and livestock production, water and pasture availability, and positive market conditions resulting from the predominately good rains, the livelihoods of communities remain seriously eroded through consecutive years of shocks. In 2010, the HRF allocated the majority of its resources - $8,017,428 (31% of the total allocation) - to support 22 projects for livelihood support through the provision of seed and farm tools, animal health interventions, trainings and water point rehabilitation in parts of Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Gambella, Dire Dawa, Somali and SNNP regions. Localized hazards, including flooding and water-logging, damaged crops, and destroyed pasture, water schemes and traditional irrigation infrastructure, affected the lives and

livelihoods of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. Flash and river floods damaged livelihood and household assets including planted crops on large tracts of land, affected seed reserves and destroyed infrastructure such as bridges, roads, water sources and communal facilities in parts of Afar, Amhara, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray regions. More than 86,500 people were temporarily displaced in parts of Afar, Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Somali and Tigray in August and September due to flooding. Floods also swept away livestock, including cattle, shoats, equines and poultry. To ensure quick recovery of households affected by disasters, the HRF supported a number of interventions, including livestock vaccination, provision of livestock drugs and equipment, and the distribution of seeds, farm tools, and livestock feeds in Afar, Amhara, Dire Dawa, Gambella, Oromia, Tigray, Somali and SNNPR.


12

In addition to seven standalone livelihoods based emergency flood responses in Gambella, Oromia and SNNPR, the HRF has supported two major joint emergency response projects in Afar and Amhara regions with a consortium of NGOs and UN agencies including FAO, World Vision, FHE, CARE, Save the Children UK and Concern, allocating $4.7 million in funds. Furthermore, the HRF supported an emergency livelihood support project to internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Moyale and Hudet woredas of Somali Region assisting them to diversify and re-establish livestock-based livelihoods. The HRF has also allocated $3 million for emergency drought response interventions in Afar Region to mitigate the impact of the 2009 failed sugum (March to April) and karma (mid-July to mid-September) rains. Limited availability or shortage of seed supplies, inaccessibility (some due to damaged roads/bridges by flooding), remoteness of project sites, and price escalations are among the issues that challenged effective implementation of livelihood projects during the year. Best Practices: Complementarities of Different Services/Components – Save the Children UK Save the Children UK reported that complementarities of different components including supplementary feed, veterinary service and water provision assisted the overall success of the project. In the targeted project area – Teru woreda (Afar Region), Save the Children UK incorporated WASH components and rehabilitation of water supply schemes as animal feed supply without water is not advisable. The project was implemented with the close involvement and collaboration of consortium members (FAO, CARE and Farm Africa). Voucher system in veterinary services – CARE, Save the Children UK The utilisation of the voucher system in veterinary services, flexible feeding modalities, and integration and complementarities of different projects were identified as best practices within the sector. The flexible feeding modality allowed pastoral communities to utilise the livestock feed to their best interest based on their mobility pattern, distance from feed source and available household labour instead of forcing them to bring livestock to feeding centres. Lessons Learned – Save the Children UK While implementing the joint livelihood recovery project in flood affected areas of Amhara Region, Save the Children UK reported that some important practices need to be documented for future practices. Purchasing of seed

from local sources (farmers cooperatives/unions) within intervention woredas is highly recommended as it promotes the use of locally adaptable seeds preferred by beneficiary farmers and opens up market opportunities for local cooperatives. Success Story – Tarekegne Feleke, Amhara Region Ato Tarekegne Feleke is a farmer living in Ziguara kebele of East Estie woreda, South Gonder zone (Amhara Region). As with more than 80 per cent of people in Ethiopia, Tarekegne relies on farming his small plot of land to produce the food he needs to feed his family of six. The exceptional excessive rainfall of 2010 meher season led to flooding, destroying his planted farmland. Having lost his crops, he was in despair. Unfortunately at the time, Tarekegne was not able to secure a loan either from his relatives or neighbours, leaving him with no alternative to access replacement seeds such as chick pea and vetch. Luckily for Tarekegne, he was identified as in need by the government and was targeted and referred to CARE to receive emergency seed support from its flood response

project, funded by UNOCHA-HRF. He received 25 kg of vetch seed which covered 0.25 hectares of farm land. At harvest, Tarekegne yielded more than 2.5 quintals of crops although his land could have produced more if it was not for the unfavourable weather conditions. “The seed we received from the project helped us to sustain our livelihood,” stated Tarekegne. “Without the seed support, it was clear that our piece of land would have remained fallow. All I can say is thank you and God bless for implementing this project and mainly for the seed support in the time of our need and despair.”

South Gonder Zone, Amhara Region, Photo by CARE, 2010


13

Summary of FSL Sector - Livestock

Summary of FSL Cluster - Seed

Number of projects Budget in US$ Implementing

agencies Geographic Area

9 2,802,530 FAO, CRS, FHI, WV, Concern, SC UK, CARE & ZOA

Oromia, SNNP, Somali, D.Dawa, Gambella and Amhara,

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries 129,975 Households

■ Gender consideration: 19,385 female headed and 110,560 male headed households

■ Project results:

- 2,436 quintal of wheat, 1,354 quintal of maize, 1,452 quintal of teff, 1,200 quintal of sorghum, 603 quintal of barley, 26,070 quintal of chickpea and white bean, 318 quintal of Haricot bean, 3,477 quintal of vegetable seed distributed

- 41,299 hectare of land was covered with the distributed seed outlined above,

- 35,668 farm tools distributed,

- 37,527 farmers (4,917 female and 32,548 male) have received agricultural related trainings.

■ Added value: HRF assisted many households from becoming destitute, supporting them to produce fast maturing crops, following flood devastation.



13 5,214,898 FAO, CARE, Farm Africa, SC UK, SSA, SC US, WV ,FHI & ZOA

Afar, Somali, Gambella, Amhara

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries 66,039 Households

■ Gender consideration: 12,800 female headed and 44,396 male Headed Households


- 73,786 livestock fed with 91,970 bales of hay,

- 15,365 quintal of concentrate,

- 81,500 kilograms of multi-nutrient-blocks (MNB),

- 820,107 livestock treated/dewormed,

- 879,583 livestock vaccinated,

- 996 livestock slaughtered through destocking,

- 709 Households were restocked with 12,142 livestock,

- 536,000 doses of veterinary drugs and 363,786 doses of veterinary vaccines purchased and distributed,

- 268 community animal health workers received trainings.

■ Added value: HRF contributed to building up the resilience of vulnerable households by protecting their breeding livestock through provision of livestock feed and improving access to veterinary support.


14

3.2.2 Overview of Nutrition Sector The overall nutrition condition in 2010 was stable, mainly attributed to the improved food security situation following the good performance of 2010 belg and meher rains. The total number of hotspot woredas decreased from 385 in March/April to 303 in November 2010, indicating a 21.3 per cent reduction. The nutritional response during the year mainly focused on preparedness activities through purchasing and pre-positioning of nutrition supplies and medicines in hotspot areas. The HRF committed some $1.7 million to finance central bulk procurement of 3,140 MT of corn-soya-blend (CSB), the supplementary food critically required by WFP. Additionally, some 57 MT of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF), 1,192 MT of CSB and 27.8 MT of oil procured in 2009 were distributed during 2010. In addition to preparedness activities, the HRF devoted sizeable resources ($3.8 million) to the treatment of 10,162 severely and 61,167 moderately malnourished children as well as 40,615 pregnant and lactating women across the country. Despite the stable conditions, the highest malnutrition admission rates in eight years were reported due to the expansion of services through the Out-Patient Therapeutic Programme (OTP) roll out. This roll out led to increased reporting rates. According to the government’s Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit (ENCU), a total of 104,502 admissions into 5,760 TFP sites were reported at the end of December 2010 (over 80 per cent reporting rate), with an average rate of admissions of 17,610 per month. To improve access to health care and to reach vulnerable groups, the HRF supported the establishment of 54 mobile health clinics to provide primary and essential health care services including therapeutic nutrition, immunization and micro-nutrient supplementation. Complimentary services including the provision of specialised nutrition trainings to 1,643 health extension and community health workers and nutrition education to some 380 community volunteers were also supported during the year. The HRF innovatively supported the revision of national guidelines for emergency nutrition assessments, emergency

nutrition interventions and the development of standalone guidelines for the management of acute malnutrition in Ethiopia. The HRF supported this activity in order to guide and standardise emergency nutrition assessment and interventions and to ensure conformity with the internationally developed and improved standard guidelines. The HRF allocated $5.6 million, approximately 22 per cent of the overall annual disbursement, to support 13 nutrition-specific projects financing, Islamic Relief, CARE, World Vision, Save the Children US, Concern, IMC, Merlin, Mercy Corps and WFP during the year. Innovative Approach – CARE CARE used a Positive Deviance Approach to promote nutrition and rehabilitate malnourished children and women through effectively established and supported mother-to-mother groups at community level. Positive Deviance is an effective community mobilisation tool that assists in galvanizing communities into action by involving different strata of the community to work together to solve their problems and discover the solutions from indigenous knowledge, behaviour and practices. It focuses on maximising existing resources, skills and strategies to overcome problems and makes extensive use of participatory methodologies and the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) process to improve nutrition and the livelihood of the community. The project enhanced the capacity of mother groups on proper and positive child feeding, caring and hygiene practices and on the use of locally available and diversified food to feed their children. The mothers also adopted the positive behaviour of bringing their children to health posts for growth monitoring. Trained community nutrition volunteers made home visits for further follow up to sustain the behaviour. The project supported adolescent pastoralist girls through supplementary feeding to improve their nutritional status. Patients living with HIV/AIDS and elderly were also supported by the project. Similarly, the project provided gender sensitive service delivery training for project staff and government partners.


15

Success Story: Bereket Meshora Mona –Oromia Region Bereket, the youngest of seven siblings, is from a very poor family in Moyale woreda in Borena zone. The family survives on 0.5 hectares of land and a few cattle. His mother, W/ro Halise Harige, shared the tragic story of severely malnourished Bereket not properly nourished after his birth. He was a beneficiary of a nearby out-patient therapeutic feeding (OTP) programme and was referred to Chencha Stabilization Center after developing medical complications including vomiting and cough. He received intensive medical treatment and nutrition response before being transferred back to the OTP programme and later on to targeted supplementary feeding programme (TSFP). Bereket has now recovered. W/ro Halise remembers the old days and appreciates his improvement: “He is now in good health and has recovered from his medical complications. He can now eat semi-liquid food and drink water.” Bereket’s mother acknowledges the project saying, “It was this project that enabled me to carry today a living child.”

Summary of Nutrition Sector

Number of projects Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area

13 5,583,456 Islamic Relief, CARE, World Vision, SC US, Concern, IMC, Merlin, Mercy Corps and WFP

Afar, Amhara, Beneshangul Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP, Somali and Tigray

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries 156,479 individuals

■ Gender consideration: 72,695,women, 29,709 girls, 27,004 men and 27,071 boys


- 10,162 SAM children (5,286 girls and 4,599 Boys),

- 331 (116 girls and 80 boys SAM children with complications,

- 61,167 ( 31,929 girls and 29,238 boys) MAM children and 40,615 pregnant and nursing mothers received treatment,

- 57 MT of RUTF, 1,192 MT of CSB and 27.82 MT of oil have been distributed,

- WFP has centrally procured 3,140 MT of CSB,

- 54 mobile health clinics have been established,

- 238 OTP sites received NFIs,

- 1,643 health extension workers have been trained,

- 380 community volunteers received community health and nutrition education,

■ Added value: HRF has secured predictable availability of supplementary food, ensuring regular access on instalment basis to implementing partners, contributing to price stabilization and timely propositioning of supplies.

Stabilization Center, Moyale, Borena zone in Oromia (Photo by CARE, 2010)


16

3.2.3 Overview of WASH Sector Despite considerable improvements for the water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) sector with good belg and meher rains significantly replenishing water sources (the highest volumes in five years), many areas in the country have remained vulnerable to various WASH related hazards including, inadequate potable water supply and disease outbreaks due to poor hygiene and sanitation practices and services. Flooding was the primary hazard that occurred in 2010. Torrential and heavy rains affected some 925,943 people and displaced 88,943 in Afar, Amhara, Gambella, Oromia and Tigray regions in 2010. The flooding destroyed infrastructure including bridges, roads, water points and sanitation facilities and contaminated water sources. Outbreaks of water related diseases, mainly acute watery diarrhoea (AWD), followed the floods, and some 1,356 cases were reported in 23 woredas in Oromia, Somali and SNNPR. Low latrine coverage, poor personal hygiene and sanitation, inadequate supplies of safe water and increased population movement, as well as lack of community awareness, were among the factors, which contributed to the continued spread of the epidemic. HRF allocated a total of $7.1 million in financing to 16 projects across the country, supporting a variety of WASH activities ranging from water trucking to the construction of boreholes, distribution of water purification and hygiene supplies, water point rehabilitation, and construction of latrines and community sensitization workshops. Success Story – Abaganale Jilo, Oromia Region Ato Abaganale Jilo is one of the community elders who lived in Hara Jarte Kebele (Borena zone) for over 20 years. He is 60 years old and a father of seven children (four male and three females). He lives with his wife W/ro Qality Abaganale and unmarried children.

Hara Jarte Kebele has been a drought stricken area for many years - people migrate to other vicinities searching for water and feed for their livestock. According to Ato Abaganale, the nearest water point for the community to fetch water is from Weib River, about 20 kms from the area. It takes eight hours for a round trip to this river from Hara Jarte. This contributed to increased school dropout of girls and increased the workload on women. EECMY-DASSC constructed Hara Wole-twin pond, following the community’s appeal to the woreda

government officials to construct a permanent structure to address water shortages. The community supported the project by paving 13 km road in free labour.

Ato Abaganale is very happy: “We thank EECMY-SEC-DASSC, DCA and UNOCHA for their support in constructing this pond. We will not suffer again searching for water for our children and livestock. We can do whatever we want here: we can plough and rear our livestock.” He further noted, “Our girls can now attend schools and women can take part in other development endeavours.” Best Practices: Ecological Sanitation – CRS The implementation of ecological sanitation for emergency response to address sanitation problems is a very simple and cost effective intervention during emergencies, which helps to prevent likely disease outbreaks.

One-to-Five Family System – IRC IRC implemented the one-to-five family system during hygiene promotion activities where beneficiaries are clustered into groups of five households with one person tasked with promoting and following up on the group’s hygienic practices. The Ethiopian government appreciates the effectiveness of this system and it is being used to conduct hygiene promotion activities. Model Family Approach - PCI Project Concern International (PCI) integrated its WASH activities with government health strategies that promote the ‘Model Family Framework’ of the Health Extension Programme throughout the country. The Framework encourages hygiene and sanitation by creating competition

Flood Emergency Response project, photo by DCA, 2010


17

among families in target areas to maintain a clean family house and compound. Through promoting the Model Family standards, PCI succeeded in getting some 183

household latrines constructed and living conditions improved.

Summary of WASH Sector



16 7,104,728 Pact, SSA, Helpage, IMC, PIN, CRS, DCA, WV, IRC, COOPI, Merlin, GAA, NCA, PCI and Oxfam Canada

SNNPR, Afar, Oromia, Tigray, Somali and Amhara

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 751,910 individuals

■ Gender consideration: 243,941 women, 89,281 girls, 256,538 men and 91,209 boys


- 103,174 Sachets of PUR, 1,692,065 bottles of whuagar, 165,548 water tabs and 693,133 bishan gari purchased and distributed to treat 145 community level water schemes with 166,384,460 litres of water,

- 80 water points (23 springs, 9 bore halls, 7 roof catchments, 15 hand dug wells, 18 small scale irrigations, 1 reservoir , 8 rainwater harvesting systems and 7 cattle troughs) rehabilitated,

- 67 water points constructed (2 ponds and 8 hand dug wells, 21 shallow well, and 14 spring protection); 11 pipe lines extended,

- 28,224 household latrines constructed; 53 institutional latrines with hand wash facility constructed; 122 hand wash facilities constructed,

- 120 water tanks distributed; 72,032 jerry cans distributed; 334,470 bars of soap distributed, 49,569 bottles of bleaching agent distributed,

- 3,167 wash committees received various WASH-related trainings.

■ Added value: the various interventions within the sector assisted in averting the spread of waterborne diseases mainly during the flooding emergency and helped a considerable number of households gain access to clean water. Some of the interventions also extended beyond emergency response and provided sustainable solutions, including the construction and rehabilitation of water schemes.

3.2.4 Non Food Items/Emergency Shelter (NFIs/ES) In emergencies there is often loss of personal property and assets. In addition to food and water requirements, people affected by crisis require life saving core relief items (NFIs) for their survival, including blankets, sleeping mats, plastic sheeting, kitchen utensils, soap, washing powder and jerry cans to collect water and safe storage. During the year, the HRF supported the creation of a national NFIs pipeline, with decentralised management at sub-national levels in addition to federal stocks. The system is expected to improve predictability, timeliness and accountability related to the provision of Emergency Shelter and NFIs. The established pipeline is also expected to serve as a stepping stone for an effective emergency NFI coordination system.

NFIs voucher distribution, Gambella, Photo by IOM, 2010


18

Overall in 2010, HRF has allocated $3,133,288 for NFIs and emergency shelter financing UNICEF, IOM, HelpAge, World Vision, Oxfam Canada and Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), ensuring the survival of communities and improving living conditions. Innovative Approach – IOM IOM, in its project designed to address essential non-food items and hygiene and sanitation requirements of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Gambella, integrated an innovative approach to address key hygiene and sanitation needs for displaced women and adolescent girls, an issue often overlooked in humanitarian response. As issues of female hygiene are not to a large extent openly discussed in communities, a gender sensitive approach was designed, including a strong focus on consultation, awareness raising and sensitisation of women committees to identify specific needs and assistance modalities, to facilitate distribution and to create awareness in the community. This resulted in safe and gender-sensitive provision of hygiene kits for 5,762 displaced women and girls. Lessons Learned IOM shares an important lesson on the need to consider provision of hygiene kits in emergency response to enable equal participation of women and girls in social and public affairs. According to IOM, the intervention, helps prevent exclusion and isolation of women and girls during menstruation periods. Most importantly, reusable sanitary pads should be prioritized over disposable material for longer term impact beyond the immediate emergency phase.

Success Story: Majiok Puk, Gambella Region Majiok Guek Puk is 37 years old and has two wives and seven children, four girls and three boys. He is from the Gajouk Nuer clan, Debuok kebele in Akobo woreda, Gambella. When clan conflict broke out last year resulting in large scale displacement from Akobo woreda, Majok was in Akobo Sudan: “I heard the news that all the people from our village had left for Burbe and thankfully I found my family there.” Majok explains that none of their village’s inhabitants managed to bring their property as they escaped to save their lives. As a result, he lost 26 cattle and 40 goats. “These were all I had and my father died on the way.” Once Majok and his family arrived in Metar, in Wantawa woreda in Gambella, the temporary home for more than 2,000 families from Akobo, they built their tukul using available materials. However, there was nothing inside - no utensils, clothes or any sort of materials, just the bare mud floor and wooden walls. With non-food-items provided to displaced families by IOM, with funding from HRF, this has now changed; his wives are happy as they no longer have to borrow cooking pots and jerry cans from neighbours, his children have blankets and mosquito nets for sleeping and the family have soap for washing. His wives and older daughters have also received hygiene kits through the HRF funded project. Though Majok is happy with the non food items, he is still concerned about the future: “I do not have any income. As a bread-winner, I cannot provide my family with even basic necessities.” As he has lost all his livestock, Majok now hopes to be able to grow his own food if he is allocated a small piece of land and provided with seeds and tools.

NFIs/ES response, Gambella, Photo by IOM, 2010


19

Summary of NFIs/ES Cluster Number of projects Budget in US$ Implementing


6 3,182,163 Helpage, IOM, WV, Oxfam Canada, UNICEF and NCA

Oromia, Amhara, Gambella, Afar, SNNP and Tigray

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 36,612 households

■ Gender consideration: 5,034 female headed households, 16,044 male headed households, 343 older people headed, 22 people with disabilities and 1,228 school students.


- 34,101 blankets, 400 bed sheets, 27,331 plastic sheets, 14 shelter materials, 55,293 jerry cans, 10,664 sanitary and hygiene kits, 255,000 bars of soap, 15,000 plastic basins, 38,947 plastic plates, 44,944 plastic cups, 20,044 plastic jugs, 20,435 cooking pots, 23,086 aluminium ladles, 4,500 buckets, 24,560 pens, 5,625 pencils, 12,170 exercise books, and 19,424 reference materials provided. 5 libraries equipped,

- 23,298 corrugated sheets of iron, 21,180 KG of assorted nails, 800 metal sheet doors, 800 wooden sheet doors and 590 toilet slabs purchased for the construction of houses and latrines. To date, 160 houses and 160 toilets constructed. 20 persons received trainings with a local artisan.

■ Added value: HRF financing has established a national non-food-item (NFIs) pipeline to ensure predictable availability of items during emergencies which will ensure timely responses.

3.2.5 Common Humanitarian Services Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel Humanitarian access has been highly compromised during the year due to prevailing security challenges from internal clan/resources based conflicts, insurgency, cross border incursions and spill over effects of neighbouring crises, particularly from Somalia and Sudan. Humanitarian operations have been affected and safety and security of staff compromised.

The HRF in 2010 allocated over $500,000 to assist the efforts of United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) to enhance delivery of security and safety services for UN/INGOs operations and to improve humanitarian access through regular reporting on the security situation, timely response to security incidents, preparation of contingency planning and liaison/ coordination arrangements with local authorities in security affected and at-risk regions of Beneshagul-Gumuz, Oromia, Gambella and Somali.

Summary of Common Services Cluster



1 500,809 UNDSS Country Wide

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: All UN/INGO in project areas.

■ Project result:

- 62 security related incidents involving UN/INGO were responded to, 67 security assessments missions to 34 locations were carried out, 157 staff members benefited from 9 trainings, 288 access authorisations were processed an received EDF in the Somali region, 9,137 field missions were tracked, 15 security compliance surveys were conducted, 136 weekly reports were published, a total of 124 ASMT were held in the project areas.

■ Added value: HRF has assisted the effort to create conducive environment for humanitarian staff through various interventions including the provision of trainings such as hostage survival and mine awareness.


20

4. Summary and Analysis of HRF Achievements 4 .1 Innovations and Developments of HRF in 2010 Revision of National Guidelines for Emergency Nutrition Assessment and Interventions: As part of the various efforts to improve the quality of emergency information to better provide guidance on planning, targeting and allocation of limited resources, the nutrition cluster, under the coordination of the Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit (ENCU) and UNICEF, initiated the revision of the national guidelines on emergency nutrition assessment1 and intervention2, which were developed and published in 2002 and 2004, respectively. In order to ensure best practice in the field in both assessment and interventions, the project aims to upgrade the current guidelines with the latest knowledge and practice in nutritional assessment and intervention. It is based on Global Nutrition Cluster intervention toolkit and includes the recently approved WHO standards and admission criteria. It also plans to standardise the implementation of emergency nutrition assessments and interventions across the country and base the implementation of assessments and interventions on internationally acceptable standards to allow regional and global comparisons. All stakeholders were involved in the consultation process and a technical working group was established. The GenCap has also been strongly involved in the revision process to ensure the appropriate consideration of gender in the project implementation cycle of planning, assessing, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting of information disaggregated by age and sex. The revised guidelines are expected to be implemented in mid-2011. National Emergency Shelter and Non Food Items (ES/NFIs) Pipeline: The emergency shelter and non-food items (NFIs) project has created space for the establishment of a predictable national NFIs pipeline system, led by the Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS), with decentralised management at sub-national levels. In line with the Disaster Risk Management approach, this innovation has contributed to enhancing the capacities of partners to respond to sudden onset humanitarian crises by stockpiling NFIs. This system is expected to improve predictability, timeliness and accountability in the provision of emergency shelter and NFIs. The pipeline establishment is also expected to serve as a stepping-

1 Guideline for Emergency Standard Nutrition Assessment, DPPC, 2002. 2 Emergency Nutrition Intervention Guideline, EWRD/ENCU, 2004.

stone for an effective emergency NFIs coordination system. In 2010, the pre-positioning levels were determined based on the decentralised Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans for seven regional states (Gambella, Somali, Afar, Oromia, SNNP, Amhara and Tigray), which were prepared by regional authorities with support from humanitarian actors. At the initial stage the pipeline had a minimum preparedness level of 20,000 NFI kits. This may be revised pending a more detailed analysis of a nationwide NFI pre-positioning strategy. Central Procurement Facility for CSB In order to stabilise escalating prices of nutrition supplies, primarily corn-soya blend (CSB), the HRF funded a WFP project to provide a centralised service for the procurement of locally-produced fortified blended food. This mechanism facilitated the stabilisation of market prices, ensured quality and regular supply for beneficiaries and avoided stock piling of supplies as it is provided on instalment basis. During the reporting period, HRF funded two WFP projects worth approximately $4.7 million, which resulted in the distribution of 4,936 MT of fortified blended food. INGOs benefited from this intervention by accessing CSB from WFP, subject to recommendation by the HRF Review Board. Peer-to-Peer Monitoring The HRF fully implemented ‘peer-to-peer’ monitoring through the participation of experts from other agencies in monitoring teams, ensuring high quality technical input and practical cross-learning opportunities. The monitoring aims to enhance the quality of HRF supported projects through improved downward accountability, learning and timely information exchange. United Nations agencies have been involved in the process and the engagement of NGOs in the overall monitoring process has increased. Additionally, government officials have accompanied monitoring missions at lower levels (woreda and kebele levels), while federal level engagement requires further encouragement. Collaborations and Coordination with other Donors The HRF has worked diligently to harmonise humanitarian preparedness and response with both ECHO and USAID/OFDA. The donor-commissioned independent study indicates that, along with joint monitoring visits, 3Ws (who does what where) mapping has strengthened donor planning. The HRF also routinely


21

posts funding applications to donors and vice versa. Furthermore, HRF’s support for the central procurement of CSB has presented opportunities for co-financing of programmes with OFDA and ECHO. Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and HRF Greater integration between the HRF and CERF was implemented during the year. The $17 million allocation from the CERF under-funded window was discussed at HRF Review Board to ensure complementarities and avoid duplication in humanitarian response. The Review Board also provided technical reviews of concept notes prepared by the applicant agencies in order to assess their merit from various perspectives including conformity with CERF criteria and analyse their intent to support national priorities. Additionally, to attain balanced access of existing pooled funds, the HRF encourages greater utilization of the HRF by INGOs, as CERF is accessible for UN agencies. Livelihood Protection Initiative Prioritising livelihood protection projects has been a continuous challenge for HRF. Although the HRF policy document promotes more sustainable solutions, it is a recurrent topic of discussion at HRF Board meetings as there is no clear direction on how to implement this initiative systematically. In seeking to find a way forward to improve transparency and predictability in HRF funding to livelihood programming, the HRF organised a meeting with FAO that included TUFTS University Research Centre, NGOs, HRF donors and OFDA to discern possible tools that can be used to prioritise locations and activities most appropriate to build livelihood resilience among the most vulnerable. While the discussion on setting criteria for HRF supported projects continues, livelihood related projects will continue to benefit from technical reviews by relevant people from the clusters. Gender and HRF Workshop HRF continues improving quality programming by supporting enhanced gender consideration and analysis in all project applications. The HRF team has been working closely with the GenCap advisor and implementing partners on progressive steps to cement the initiatives started in 2009. Learning from the challenges experienced in endeavouring to incorporate gender analysis into programming in 2009, the HRF held its first gender workshop in April 2010. The workshop was attended by sixty five participants from UN agencies, INGOs and representatives from GoE. Also in attendance were the HC and GenCap advisor. The workshop offered a platform for the introduction of the gender marker and changes in HRF application and

reporting templates. Major changes in the revised guidelines and policies included the integration of gender considerations from project design through to project phase-out; development of a sector-specific gender checklist; and the revision of cluster review guidelines to incorporate gender perspectives. In addition, the need for specific gender indicators in proposal applications, log frames, budgets and reporting templates were included. ‘Dos’ and ‘Don’ts’ for HRF team The Gender workshop provided an opportunity for the HRF team to compile a list of ‘Do’s’ and ‘Don’ts’ on HRF funding in order to clarify fund expectations and crystallize fund requirements (routine procedures and processes).

This list aimed to provide guidance to the governing bodies including the Review Board and the HRF team on the management of the Fund and on relevant collaboration with other stakeholders.

Examples of ‘Do’s’ included improved collaboration with government partners, timely information sharing (on for example changes in procedures and guidelines) and speedy response to queries. On the other hand, resistance to feedback and overlooking humanitarian imperatives were cited among the ‘Don’ts’. In 2009, the HRF has prepared ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ for implementing partners to help partners gain an increased understanding of HRF’s working procedures. Revision of HRF Application Forms During the year, the HRF revised templates to improve reporting by including standard measurable indicators for all sectors. Implementing partners have regularly reported their deliverables and this has helped the HRF to aggregate project achievements. The revised forms include gender disaggregated indicators and achievements. Similarly, the nutrition cluster revised the HRF Narrative Application Form to guide applicants to include more detailed information and specify response methodologies. The revisions helped to improve the quality of submitted applications and the technical review processes. Use of Immediate Contingency Fund The use of the immediate contingency budget (equivalent to $20,000), which provides a capacity for immediate response to sudden onset emergencies, has continued during the year. Some $266,155 was made available during the year, of which $94,593 was utilized for immediate life saving interventions by five INGOs. The responses were for water trucking interventions in drought affected areas in Oromia and SNNP regions and provision of NFIs for flood affected IDPs in Amhara and Oromia regions. The Immediate Contingency Fund is a


22

mechanism created in 2008 by which applicants with projects already approved may request for an amount of $20,000 to be included in their overall budget. This resource is strictly used for direct programme costs and can be activated by an exchange of e-mails with OCHA without having to write full application. Its use is not restricted to the location or sectoral activities of the approved application, but to jointly identified life-saving interventions, resulting from a sudden onset crisis. In agreement with OCHA, it may be used for immediate response to needs arising in any area in which the applicant is able to respond. HRF Publications During the year, the HRF developed a tri-fold brochure that summarises the year’s achievements and major sectoral deliverables. The brochure also provides HRF status updates indicating donor contributions, allocations by region/sector as well as disbursements by type of agency (NGOs/UN). Additionally, the HRF produces a weekly update summarising the status of the Fund, indicates current year donor contributions, pledges, allocations and funding at-hand information. Increased Joint Projects The number of collaborative/joint project applications in which clear coordination mechanisms between implementing partners are demonstrated significantly increased in 2010. In response to drought and floods in Afar, a consortium of five NGOs and FAO jointly implemented livelihood protection and emergency response activities at the cost of $7.7 million. Additionally, HRF has supported a joint flood response project between six agencies in Amhara region at the cost

of $3 million. The HRF believes such joint projects promote coordination and maximize impact. External Evaluation of HRF In July of 2010, HRF donors commissioned an evaluation of the HRF for the benefit of the donor advisory group and technical committees. The review was intended to evaluate overall impacts of the HRF vis-à-vis its intended objectives within the context of donor strategy. The focus was on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Fund with regards to fund management, partner selection, project monitoring and coordination amongst stakeholders. The scope of the review included gauging the HRF for consistency with international trends and best practices in humanitarian financing, HRF as a financing mechanism for disaster risk management, donor coordination for more predictable humanitarian financing, HRF's absorption capacity and fund efficiency and appropriateness for effective humanitarian response. Please refer to section 2.2 for summarized key findings of the evaluation and recommendations. HRF Review Board Membership In efforts to make the HRF Review Board more inclusive, the HRF integrated CCRDA (the consortium of National NGOs) into the Board and followed up on regular Government representation through the Disaster Response Management and Food Security Sector - DRMFSS. In addition, two International NGO members of the Board, Save the Children UK and CARE, rotated out and GOAL and IRC joined the Board to serve for two years. See Annex II List of HRF Review Board members in 2010.

4.2 HRF and Humanitarian Reform In 2010, the HRF continued to provide support to the Humanitarian Reform agenda. Some of the key areas where the HRF contributed to advance the Humanitarian Reform Process are listed below: • Consultative and collaborative approach in engaging

with all humanitarian actors; • Providing a critical source of effective, rapid and

flexible humanitarian response through predictable, timely and adequate humanitarian financing;

• Efficiency in resource mobilisation to avoid funding duplicity in emergencies. Stronger and wide-reaching coordination including cluster support to government led Sectoral Task Forces;

• Strengthening the role and the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator, and enhancing the overall coordination mechanism.

The HRF Stakeholder Survey conducted in June 2011 included questions that relate to the Humanitarian Reform agenda. Out of the total 51 respondents, nearly half (49 per cent) were from international NGOs, 27 per cent from UN agencies, 18 per cent from donors, and six per cent from others. Below are the results of the survey in relation to the agenda: Cluster Approach and Coordination: The survey findings indicated that 82 per cent of respondents believed that the HRF supported the cluster roll-out in the country. As per the findings, the HRF engaged with the clusters to ensure harmonised, coordinated and timely response. The clusters provide technical reviews of proposals submitted for funding. For


23

instance, the Nutrition Cluster sets up a Review Working Group, which meets periodically to discuss the technical merits of individual proposals. According to 85 per cent of survey respondents the technical feedback from cluster on HRF applications helped improve the quality of projects. In addition, 94 per cent of survey respondents agreed that the HRF has had an impact on improving coordination amongst humanitarian agencies. Partnership The vast majority – 90 per cent - of the respondents were of the opinion that HRF had demonstrated effective commitment to engaging and promoting good partnership. According to the findings, the application review process was fair and balanced and inclusive of inputs from humanitarian partners. Ultimately, funding decisions are made by the HC based on recommendations forwarded by the Review Board. The Review Board is a transparent and a balanced body that is comprised of one prime and two alternate representatives from each of the member agencies INGO, UN, CCRDA, the GoE and the Ethiopian Red Cross. In addition, HRF strongly encourages consortium projects as well as peer-to-peer monitoring to promote partnership and sharing of best practices. The introduction of peer-to-peer monitoring of HRF supported projects has also been a popular tool for humanitarian networking and an excellent forum for exchanging ideas and sharing best practice. Adequate and Timely funding Through continuous dialogue and generous support from donors, the Fund received a consistent flow of income to ensure continued response throughout the year. No application was refused on the basis of lack of funds. The Fund covered 18 per cent of the non-food responses that addressed needs identified in the Joint Humanitarian Requirements Documents for 2010. With regard to timeliness, 80 per cent of survey respondents indicated

that HRF has the right balance between speed and quality control in processing of applications. However, respondents commented on the extended time taken in the MoU clearance process which often delays the timely commencement of projects. Predictability One of the key recommendations made in donor- sponsored evaluation of the HRF in 2010 was to aim for a more predictable funding contribution. The HRF has demonstrated its commitment to improve effective humanitarian response through enhanced partnership and greater predictability. Indeed, the stakeholders' survey results indicate that 92 per cent of respondents believe that the HRF has improved the predictability of humanitarian financing. A recurring theme in HRF held donor workshops has been strengthening donor coordination for a predictable humanitarian financing in Ethiopia. Accountability and Transparency HRF has demonstrated strong accountability in the form of good governance. The view of the HRF as a transparent and reliable funding partner is evidenced in the survey results where 88 per cent of the respondents agreed that the HRF has demonstrated and encouraged improved accountability in humanitarian response. To ensure the Fund’s accountability, the HRF regularly conducts monitoring visits to funded projects. In addition, the HRF team reviews reports submitted by implementing partners. Concerns on some of the reports are communicated to implementing partners for consideration. External auditors were hired to conduct audits of funded projects to ensure the proper management of resources in accordance with MoUs. In addition, 90 per cent of the respondents felt that the application review process was clear and transparent.


24

Source: HRF Stakeholders Survey 2010


25

5. Project Monitoring in 2010

In 2010, humanitarian partners broadly embraced the ‘peer-to-peer’ monitoring strategy, whereby experts from other agencies participate in monitoring of HRF funded projects. Peer-to-peer monitoring is designed to ensure high quality technical input and practical cross-learning opportunities in project implementation. Out of the total 56 projects supported by the HRF, over 68 per cent (32 projects) were monitored. The remaining 15 projects are yet to be monitored, while nine projects are less amenable for monitoring due to the nature of the project (i.e. central procurement pipelines, guideline revisions, assessment capacity etc). (see graph below) This form of monitoring aims to review the projects for quality of coordination/partnership and quality of output and deliverables and tries to identify and replicate good practices using this approach.

HRF Monitoring Coverage in 2010

68%

16%

32

Projects less amenableto monitoringUnmonitored projects

Monitored projects

Despite increased peer monitoring, there remains a challenge to keep pace with the growing number of widely scattered projects and projects with relatively short implementation lifespan. Generally, humanitarian stakeholders’ feedback and perception of the peer-to-peer monitoring is that it encourages openness, transparency, information exchange and lessons learned. It also promotes technological and methodological cross-breeding and learning. It is a type of monitoring that strengthens coordination and harmonisation of interventions. The peer-to-peer monitoring initiative is very useful both for the host agency, government and for those who participate in the team to share experiences and learn lessons. However, the lengthy periods required in

committing to field monitoring and the potential for conflict between reviewing organizations have been identified as drawbacks.

In 2011, the HRF plans to continue peer monitoring and further explore opportunities to link the process with the overall humanitarian coordination mechanism including planning and implementation through existing and functioning clusters and sectoral taskforces. The HRF envisages reaching at least 80 per cent of HRF supported projects in any given fiscal year by way of peer monitoring, and will endeavour to visit each project at least once during their implementation period. Information on project timeliness, relevance and deliverable/outputs as per agreed work plan and the project proposal will be assessed and analysed. See below summarized findings of the peer-to-peer monitoring during the reporting period:

Save the Children UK has undertaken peer-to-peer monitoring as a member of a team that visited PCI’s (Project Concern International) flood response project in Afar Region. The team conducted discussions with community level, woreda and regional level officials and project staff. Following the visit, Save the Children UK stated that, “ the practice is found to be innovative by its nature as it promotes cross learning among organizations, facilitates experience sharing, opens the door for mutual relationship, helps to identify gaps and paves the way for joint planning and action. Above all, the initiative creates a good ground for the establishment of partnerships and intervention strategies and approaches that can be replicated.”

“….the peer-to-peer evaluation encourages humanitarian organisations to improve the coordination exercise among themselves” comment from the June 2011 HRF Stakeholders Survey


26

Issues being monitored

Answers sought Common themes Common explanations Other Remarks

Timeliness How timely are HRF-funded interventions?

Start-up delay is common

Endorsement of project agreements, recruitment process and establishing a programme often require too long a time

Implementing partners with resources to provide upfront funding in order to reduce start-up delays

Progress on the delivery of outputs

What progress in achieving outputs of action plan?

Despite initial delays, service and physical outputs are eventually realised

Change in market prices and poor infrastructure contribute to delays in implementation

Quality of outputs To what extent do outputs and outcomes adhere to quality standards?

Outcomes related to behavioural change are difficult to monitor during trips

Behavioural change requires more time than the period granted in emergency interventions

Quality of coordination How well are the projects and partners’ actions coordinated locally?

Coordination is generally accepted

Application review process benefits from humanitarian coordination mechanisms

Relevance Is the intervention relevant to the humanitarian needs in the area?

Interventions are largely need based

Flexibility helps to maintain relevance

Participation What is the level of community involvement?

Community meetings are used to secure agreement targeting

Urgent requirements on the ground sometimes do not provide sufficient time to undertake community participation

Quality of beneficiary targeting

Who does the selection? What are the criteria used?

A criterion varies depending on the type of intervention. Beneficiary selection is largely done by local authorities.

Effectiveness/appropriateness of the intervention in addressing need

Is the project effective in its progress towards accomplishing its stated objective?

Outcome level results are difficult to understand through monitoring

Sector based evaluation might provide the answer

The involvement of local NGOs

Are local NGOs taking part in projects run by partners?

Some stakeholders implement their project in partnership with local NGOs, however, their involvement is not to the desired level.

HRF is planning to directly fund local NGOs

Gender mainstreaming Are the particular needs of men and women, boys and girls considered in implementation?

Encouraging progresses have been made at design. Implementation and reporting of HRF supported projects.


27

6. Gender Considerations In 2010, the HRF has made tremendous achievements ensuring the mainstreaming of gender considerations in humanitarian projects as compared to 2009 and beforehand. The engendering of the HRF formats/templates (application format, log frame, budget and progress and final reporting) and the introduction and institutionalization of the IASC Gender Marker (GM)3, significant progress has been made in enhancing the quality of the projects through promoting gender sensitive programming. According to the 2010 Gender Marker Report, the developments have encouraged gender analysis from problem identification to implementation and monitoring and evaluation. The donor commissioned external HRF review in July 2010 lauded the “strenuous efforts” the HRF made to promote gender sensitivity. The HRF’s adherence to the guidelines set out in IASC Gender Marker led to the improvement of the design and delivery of HRF-funded programmes. Regarded as a champion of gender sensitive programming, the HRF in Ethiopia has been commended for its committed leadership and strong facilitation in situating gender in a wider humanitarian programming and delivery. The very strong involvement of the GenCap advisor in the technical cluster review of projects has also assisted in improving the design of the projects. Improvement include the incorporation of practical actions to address the differential impacts of emergencies on men, women, boys and girls; activities to build the capacity of implementing partners; detailed inclusion of sex and age disaggregated data and information and infusing gender analysis into most of the projects. Informed by the analysis conducted in the 2010 Gender Marker Report, of the 39 projects funded between the adoption of the GM in April 2010 and November 2010, 44 per cent were coded ‘2’, indicating that the projects are designed to contribute significantly to gender equality by properly analyzing and integrating the different needs of women/girls and men/boys in the activities and outcomes. See Annex V for the Gender marker template self assessment for code description. 3 The IASC GM facilitates tracking gender allocations in humanitarian projects and nurtures gender equality results. More information and tools on www.oneresponse.info

Despite the achievements, there are additional steps to be taken. This includes strengthening technical support for the integration of cluster-specific minimum standards in individual cluster review templates/checklists to ensure inclusion of basic requirements. Fundamentally, sex and age disaggregated data should be collected, collated and analysed consistently to inform programming. This is an aspect that needs to be strengthened in order to enhance gender sensitive programming by all clusters. Thirdly, there is also the need to pro-actively explore whether the projects are being delivered as per project design and reflect the correctly assigned gender code The HRF is committed to and strives to focus on practical and innovative initiatives in order to translate gender commitments into action in humanitarian programming. It continues to create enabling environment to address the different needs of girls/women and boys/ men.

HRF Critical Gender Indicators Checklist Your emergency teams include women and men,

and you strive to achieve gender balance. Each emergency team has someone focusing on gender.

You analyse how the crisis affects women, men, boys and girls differently and any barriers or obstacles facing women and girls in particular. .

You collect data from women, men, boys and girls.

The data from women is collected by women. The data you use to measure effectiveness is

broken down by sex. You monitor intended and unintended effects of

the response on women and men. Women and men participate equally in decision-

making. Proposals and reports include specific gender

plans, goals, indicators and progress. You consider women’s and men’s different needs

and capacity in project plans and resources. Staff and partners are accountable to gender

equality goals. You work to prevent sexual exploitation and

abuse and provide medical, legal and economic support to survivors.

You have an SGBV referrals system that integrates SGBV issues into the entire response.

70 per cent of HRF Stakeholder Survey respondents indicate that applying the Gender Marker and the Self Assessment template has assisted the mainstreaming of gender planned humanitarian response.


28

7. Conclusion, Challenges and Way Forward Effort to improve effective programming and transparency were the central themes for the HRF in 2010. As described in previous chapters it was a year that witnessed several initiatives. Based on the activities and learning of the past year, the following issues will be advanced in 2011: HRF Advisory Board Meeting OCHA has made strenuous efforts to organise high-level Advisory Committee meetings during the year to provide strategic guidance to the Fund. This, however, did not materialize during the year. As an alternate mechanism, the HRF will organise a technical level Advisory Board meeting consisting of the HRF Review Board and Donors in 2011. The technical level Advisory Board will discuss policy related issues and pass decisions on key recommendations of the external donor evaluation conducted in 2010. Key recommendations of the external evaluation are summarised in section 2.2 of this report. Response Plan The absence of comprehensive sectoral needs analysis that can guide funding priorities of the HRF by way of location, suitable time and appropriate activity remained a challenge during the year. The HRF will take advantage of the initiative between OCHA and cluster leads to compile sectoral needs analysis (response road-mapping) to direct its priorities for the year. This effort/document is also hoped to provide a possible tool /guideline that can be used to prioritise feasible projects from livelihood programs. National NGO access to the Fund The HRF, thus far, did not provide direct support to indigenous Ethiopian NGOs. However, local NGOs have been accessing the Fund through the partnership and sub-granting approach used by international NGOs or UN agencies. Following directions from the Humanitarian Coordinator to allow direct access to National NGOs, the HRF will closely work with the CCRDA (a consortium of National NGOs) to develop a screening criteria for considerations. The issue will also be tabled at the next Advisory Board meeting (mid-2011) for discussion and guidance. Many respondents in the HRF stakeholder survey emphasised the need for providing direct access to the Fund for National NGOs. HRF engagement with DRM Linking mitigation, response and recovery initiatives was a further challenge faced by the HRF during the year. Although the HRF policy document promotes sustainable solutions, the absence of an overarching planning

mechanism/direction has challenged the systematic engagement of the Fund with initiatives beyond ‘response’. The HRF primarily supports the ‘response’ component of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and to a lesser extent ‘mitigation’ and ‘preparedness’ efforts and the initial ‘rehabilitation’ steps. This support is based on project plausibility and cost effectiveness and is considered on a case-by-case basis. Issues associated with targeting, cost effectiveness and exit strategies have limited funding considerations in the latter areas. The Advisory Board is expected to provide strategic guidance on the relationship of the HRF and DRM, which has also been a recurring recommendation from the HRF stakeholder survey. Meanwhile, the HRF will continue to explore opportunities and to create structured linkages and/or initiate possibilities for parallel support systems with other funding mechanisms. Reinforce ‘Peer-to-Peer’ Monitoring The HRF will continue to conduct peer-to-peer field level monitoring of projects to enhance engagement and collaboration with other humanitarian actors. It also plans to document lessons learned to encourage the replication of best practices and improve methodologies in HRF supported projects. The HRF plans to increase the peer-to-peer monitoring percentage to at least 80 per cent to ensure monitoring is supported by expert analysis. Reinforce Gender Considerations The HRF will continue to reinforce gender considerations in 2011 and will strive to ensure a 100 per cent compliance rate on the completion of the Gender Marker-Self Assessment template. Additionally, the GenCap will take part in peer-to-peer monitoring of projects that have specifically budgeted for gender related interventions in order to document lessons learned and share best practices. HRF stakeholders’ survey respondents noted the importance of ascertaining actual implementation of activities included in the gender marker template and enhance institutionalization of the approach. Support to and Engagement with Clusters Although encouraging cluster review practices to applications submitted for HRF funding consideration have been put in place, the HRF will put special emphasis in capacitating the support availed of by clusters in application review and project monitoring. The HRF will ensure greater inclusion of cluster members in the technical review process, which has been commended by respondents of the HRF stakeholder survey, so as to strengthen the effectiveness of the cluster


29

mechanism. The HRF will enhance its relationship with clusters and will continue to support sectoral strategies and priorities. Humanitarian Access The capacity of humanitarian agencies to respond to humanitarian needs continues to be hampered by administrative constraints, security challenges as well as lack of access. Restrictions on the movement of partners in Somali Region, particularly in the five zones (Degehabur, Fik, Gode, Warder and Korahe zones) where military operations are ongoing, continue to delay humanitarian response. The expulsion of one of HRF’s implementing partners (Samaritan’s Purse) coupled with the cited challenges have impacted HRF response in the region. In other parts of the country, particularly SNNPR, cumbersome administrative procedures have constrained humanitarian actors implementing capacity. As a result the HRF did not support any project in SNNP during the reporting year. OCHA continues to advocate for improved access in hard to reach areas using the various policy and strategic level forums engaging key stakeholders including Government to solicit sustainable solutions. HRF Publications In an effort to increase information sharing and ensure transparency, the HRF produces regular updates and maps. In the coming year, the HRF plans to produce an additional product, i.e., a quarterly bulletin that summarises the humanitarian context with recourse to the Fund and assesses response and deliverables by sectors as well as looking at ways forward to ensure shared understanding between all stakeholders. Stakeholders Feedback on Administrative Procedure/Processes In 2010, delays have been noted in project agreements processing (LoUs and MoUs) and closeout procedures (audit and release of 20 per cent final payment), impacting on effective and timely humanitarian response. The HRF will rigorously work to improve the overall process. A recurring theme from the HRF stakeholders’ survey indicates that MoU clearance, fund transfer and project closeout processes need improvement to ensure timely intervention. Suggestions have also been made to develop and share detailed budget guideline and review the HRF application template as respondents noted its lengthiness. Meanwhile, respondents appreciated effective management of the HRF mainly the activities of the Review Board and the HRF team for proactively

identifying emerging needs and implementing partners, providing follow-up and technical guidance as well as facilitating timely project appraisal. Continued Efforts to Support Effective Programming: Learning from past experience the HRF will:

o Continue to support centralised or highly coordinated procurement of materials for emergency response;

o Support collaborative project applications in which solid coordination mechanisms are demonstrated between implementing partners;

o Continue the use of contingency funds to be used immediately in response to sudden onset emergencies.

o Continue to include gender mainstreaming Improved Governance and Transparency

o The HRF will continue to organise the Advisory Review (HRF Board and Donors) meeting to discuss policy related issues;

o One international NGO will be rotated out and a new member nominated by the humanitarian NGO working group will be included in the HRF Board;

o Coordination and collaboration with other humanitarian donors will be maintained and extended;

o OFDA will be invited as an observing member of HRF Board to promote coordination and collaboration;

o Stakeholders’ survey will be conducted; Improved Application Approval Process, Learning and Monitoring:

o Support emergency assessments; o Facilitate higher quality and faster proposal

reviews; o Support cluster focal points; o Support peer monitoring of projects based

on standardised monitoring methods; o Develop evidence based impact assessment

tools to learn best practices; and o Proactively call for proposals when

situations demand.


30

Annexes: Annex I: HRF Review Process Diagram

Proposal Review and Fund Disbursement Process/Flow Proposal Submitted

Review by OCHA/HRF: identified priorities, budget review according to HRF guidelines, cost effectiveness

Review by HRF Board: national priority, cost effectiveness, coordination

MOU Sent to Agency

Funds Transferred to the Agency

(II) Does Not Meet Criteria

Proposal Rejected

(III) Proposal sent back for modification

Completed MOU along with signed RB minutes sent to Geneva for clearance

Agency completes MOU

Agency signs on cleared MOU

HC signs MOU and endorsement letter

MOU, HC endorsement letter and disbursement request letter sent to Geneva for fund transfer

Review by cluster/ taskforce : technical quality, methodology, regional priority, coordination

Meets Criteria

Meets Criteria

Geneva clears completed MOU

(I) Meets Criteria

Recommendation of the RB sent to HC for approval


31

Annex II: List of HRF Review Board Members in 2010 International NGOs CONCERN GOAL International Rescue Committee Government DRMFSS – Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector, Ministry of Agriculture UN agencies FAO UNDP UNHCR UNICEF WFP WHO Others CCRDA (Consortium of Christian Relief and Development Association) Ethiopian Red Cross IOM


32

Annex III: HRF Staff Contacts Name Title Tel Email Amy Martin Deputy Head of Office 0115 444248 [email protected] Tim Mander Program Manager 0115 545336 [email protected] Fekadu Tafa Programme Officer 0115 444052 [email protected] Meaza Duga Finance Associate 0115 444320 [email protected] Senait Arefaine Programme Officer 0115 444186 [email protected] Meron Berhane Programme Officer 0115 444424 [email protected]

Sophie Lul-seged Programme Officer - Consultant 0115 444052 [email protected]

Tersit Belete Programme Associate 0115 444469 [email protected]


33

Annex IV: 2010 Certified Financial Statement


34

Annex V : Gender Marker Template Self Assessment

Gender Code

Description and Project Examples Reasons for identified Gender Marker code

Ideas for achieving higher marker score and challenges that prevent this

0 Description There are no signs that gender issues were considered in project design. There is risk that the project will unintentionally nurture existing gender inequalities or deepen them. Project Examples • Removing rubble, repairing roads, installing water systems or providing non�food items with no indication that females and males both have the right to benefit or of differences in male and female needs, skills, abilities, protection concerns etc. • Training that is blind to the different needs and realities of both women and men.

1 Description: The project is designed to contribute in some limited way to gender equality. The design could be stronger and advance gender equality more. a) The project needs assessment includes a gender analysis that is not meaningfully reflected in activities and outcomes OR b) At least one activity and outcome aim to advance gender equality but this is not supported by the needs assessment Project Examples: • Analyzing the nutritional needs of men,

UNOCHA- HRF GENDER MARKER TEMPLATE SELF ASSESSMENT

The gender marker is a hands-on tool for use by clusters teams in designing projects and during the cluster vetting process. Identified gaps, areas of improvement and/or strategies will be addressed by the implementing organization. This template will be submitted together with the project applications to the UNOCHA-HRF unit.

Cluster/sector name ------------------- Project Title: Location: Implementing Agency/organization: Project Budget: Gender Marker Code:

Implementation period:


35

women, girls and boys; local food preparation; cooking & sharing practices but failing to reflect these local gender realities in activities and/or outcomes. • Setting up separate male/female toilets and bath areas for IDPs but providing no indication that male and female beneficiaries have a voice in ensuring the facilities are culturally appropriate and meet their respective needs.

2

Description: It is designed to contribute significantly to gender equality. The different needs of women/girls and men/boys have been analyzed and integrated well in the activities and outcomes. Project Examples: • Using vouchers, designed with inputs from male and female farmers, to provide agricultural training equally to women and men. • Providing demand�driven psycho�social services to girl and boy ex�combatants based on their different needs.

3 Description: The principal purpose of the project is to advance gender equality. The entire project either: a) assists women or men, girls or boys who suffer from discrimination creating a more level playing field OR b) focuses all activities on building gender specific services or more equal relations between women and men. Project Examples: • Providing reproductive health services to men where there is documented unmet need (e.g. where existing services only target women). • Promoting girls’ education or increasing the number of female teachers. • Preventing and/or responding to gender based violence or to sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers.


36

Annex VI: 2010 HRF Funded Project Details

HRF Funded Projects In 2010

Code Agency Sector Duration Location Approved Amount

Immediate Response Contingency

HRF/ETH/O313/201 Islamic Relief Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (15 Feb. - 14

Aug 10) NCE (31 Oct 10)

Somali Region, Hargele and Cherati woredas, Afder Zone 301,422

HRF/ETH/O313/202 Pact Ethipia Drought (WASH

(AWD))

6 months (17 Feb - 17 Aug 10)NCE 17 Nov. 10, 17 February 11

SNNPR, Dassenech woreda, South Omo Zone 466,600

HRF/ETH/O313/203

FAO (Joint) Drought (Agriculture(Livestock) 6 months (1 5 Feb. - 14

Aug 10)

Afar Region (Ada’ar, Ewa, Bure Mudaiyitu, Awash Fentale, and Dulecha woredas) 655,149

HRF/ETH/O313/204 CARE(Joint) Drought Agr

(Livestock) 6 months (1 5 Feb. - 15 Aug 10)

Afar Region (Erepti and Abhala woredas) 674,562

HRF/ETH/O313/205

Farm Africa(Joint)

Drought Agr (Livestock) 6 months (1 Mar. - 31

Aug 10)

Afar Region (Semu Robi and Amibara woredas) 687,425

HRF/ETH/O313/206 SC UK (Joint) Drought Agr

(Livestock) 6 months (17 Feb. - 17 Aug 10) NCE 17 Oct. 10

Afar Region (Teru, Bidu, Megale, Elidaar woreda) 695,023

HRF/ETH/O313/207

SSA (Bread for the World)

Drought WASH, Livestock and Capacity building

6 months (20 Jan - 19 July 10) NCE (19- Jul - 19 Sept.)

Afar Region, Zone 1, Eli Daar Woreda: (Andabba, Su’ula), Kori Woreda( Daaba, Kori/ Dabaysma, Lubak Daa), Dubte Woreda(Geega, Dagaba, Logya) & Awra Woreda (Urri Koma and Finto) 318,918

HRF/ETH/O313/208 WFP Drought Central

procurement of CSB

8 months (01 Feb - 30 Sep 10) NCE 31 March 2011

Country Wide 1,731,080

HRF/ETH/O313/209 CARE Drought (Nutrition) 6 months ( 01 Apr - 30

Sep 10) NCE (31 Dec 10)

Oromia, Moyale and Miyo woredas of Borena Zone, 533,178

HRF/ETH/O313/210

World Vision Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (01 April - 30 Sep 10) NCE (30 Nov 10)

Amhara Region (Tenta Woreda), Tigray Region (Astbi Womberta & Saesie Tsaeda Emba woreda) 215,706

HRF/ETH/O313/211

Samaritan's purse Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (01 April - 30

Sep 10)

Gambella Region, Jor, Jikawo, and Lare and Itang woredas, 311,149

HRF/ETH/O313/212

World Vision Drought (Nutrition) 6 months ( 01 April - 30 Sep 10) NCE (30 Nov 10)

SNNPR, Chencha, Humbo and Mirab Abaya Woredas in SNNPR 241,183

HRF/ETH/O313/213 SC US Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (28 April -28 Oct

10) NCE (28 Jan 11)

Afar region, Telalak and Delgafe Woredas of Zone 5 282,756

HRF/ETH/O313/214 Concern Drought (Nutrition) 5 months (01 May - 30

Sep 10)

Oromia, Dollo Mena Woreda, Bale Zone, 211,510 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/215 Helpage Flood (WASH &

NFI)

4 months (21 May - 21 Sep 10) NCE 21 Nov. 2010

Oromia region, Yabello District, Borena Zone 469,688 20,000


37

HRF/ETH/O313/216 UNDSS Common Services

12 months(01 June - 31 May 11) NCE (31 August 2011)

Oromia, Somali and Gambella regions 500,809

HRF/ETH/O313/217 SC US Drought (Nutrition) 6 months(10 June - 10

Dec 10) NCE 10 March 11

Somali Region - Dollo Ado, Dollo Bay, Filtu and Hudet woredas 499,431 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/218

Samaritan's purse

IDP (NFI & Agr/seed) 5 months (15 May - 15

Oct 10)

Gambella region, Wantawa, Jikow, Lare and Itang Woredas 635,161

HRF/ETH/O313/219 IOM IDP (NFI &

Capacity building) 6 months (10 May - 10 Nov 10) NCE 1 Dec. 2010

Gambella region,Wanthwa, Lare and Itang Woredas 610,750

HRF/ETH/O313/220 SC US IDP (Agr/Livestock) 6 months ( 1 June 10 - 30

Dec 10) NCE 30 Jan 11

Somali Region: Moyale and Hudet Woredas 662,492

HRF/ETH/O313/221

IMC

Drought (WASH and Nutrition)

5 months (01 June - 8 November 10) NCE 9 Nov - 30 Dec.

Oromia region, Messela, Miesso, Goba Koricha, and Tulu Woredas. West Hararghe Zone, 611,800

HRF/ETH/O313/222

PIN Drought (WASH (AWD))

6 months ( 1 June - 31 Dec 10) NCE 31 March 2011

SNNPR, Dasenech, Salamago and Nyangatom Woreda, South Omo Zone, 548,064

HRF/ETH/O313/223

CRS Flood (WASH & Agr/seed)

6 months (1 June 10 – 31 Dec.10)NCE 28 Feb 11

Oromia region, E. Hararghe Zone (Metta and Gorogutu woredas); Somali region, Shinille Zone, Erer woreda and D. Dawa Administration (rural Kebeles) 525,698 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/224

FHI Flood (Agr/seed) 6 months (1 4 July 10 – 14 Jan 10)

SNNPR, Kembata Zone (Angacha) and Hadiya Zone (Shashogo) 368,794 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/225

Merlin Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (1 7 Aug 10 – 17 Feb 11) NCE (30 April 11)

Oromia Region, Bale Zone (Rayitu, Sawena, Legehida, Gololcha, Ginnir and Guradamole Woredas) 110,657

HRF/ETH/O313/226

IRC Refugee (WASH, Education) 9 months (20 August 10 –

20 May 11) Tigray Region, My’Ayni Camp 700,000

HRF/ETH/O313/227

UNICEF Drought (Nutrition Guideline revision))

7 months (01 Sep -31 March 2011) NCE (31 July 2011)

Country wide

224,839

HRF/ETH/O313/228

Concern Drought (Nutrition) 6 months ( 1 August - 30 January 11)

Amhara Region, N.Wollo Zone, Habru Woreda 216,735 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/229

Dan Church Aid Flood (WASH) 6 months (07 Oct - 07 Apr 11) NCE 31 May 2011

Oromia Region, Borena, Dhas 642,893

HRF/ETH/O313/230

World Vision Flood (WASH, NFI) 4 months (28 Sep - 28 Jan 11)

Amhara region (Dawa Cheffa, Artuma Fursi, Kemissie, Antsokia and Habru) 284,112

HRF/ETH/O313/231

FAO Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (27 Oct 10 - 27

Apr 11) NCE (30 June 11)

Gambella (Wanthwa, Jikawo, Akobo and Lare ) 554,673


38

HRF/ETH/O313/232

COOPI Drought (WASH (AWD)) 6 months (28 Sep 2010-

28 Mar 2011)

Oromia (Guji zone -Adola-Rede, Ado-Shakiso, Sebaboru and Wadera) 565,016 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/233

UNICEF Flood (NFI procurement) 6 months (01 Nov- 30

April 11) NCE (31 July 11) Afar, Amhar and Tigray 1,220,402

HRF/ETH/O313/234

WVE Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (08 Oct 2010-

08 Apr 2011)

Amhara (Artuma Fursi, Dewa Cheffa, Kemissie, Jille Tumuga, Bati) 410,234 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/235

CONCERN Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (29 Sep 2010-

29 March 2011)

Amhara (Ambasel, D/zuria, D/Town, Kalu, W/babo, Habru) 599,379 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/236

FHI Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (28 Sep 2010-

28 March 2011)

Amhara (S/Gonder, N/Wolo, W/Gojam, S/Gonder) 447,197 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/237

FAO Flood (seed, livestock)

6 months (01 Oct 2010- 31 March 2011) NCE (30 June 11)

Amhara (Delanta, Albiko, Mekdela, Tenta, Gonder Zuria, L/Armachiho) 619,340

HRF/ETH/O313/238

SCUK Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (15 Oct 2010-

15 Apr 2011)

Amhara (Kobo, Dawunt, Meket, Gubalafto, Ziquala) 505,613

HRF/ETH/O313/239

CARE Flood (seed, livestock) 6 months (23 Sep 2010-

24 March 2011) Amhara (East Estie, Farta) 332,815 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/240

PCI Flood Response andAWD mitigation

6 months (1 Nov 10 - 30 Apr 2011) NCE (31 July 2011)

Afar (Zone 1 - Mille, Aysaita, Dubti and Afambo) 442,962

HRF/ETH/O313/241

Mercy Corps Drought (Nutrition (CSB)) 3 months (1 Nov 2010 -

31 Jan 2011)

Somali (Degehabur Zone - Erer and Dembel woredas Shinile Zone , Gashamo and Aware) 112,050

HRF/ETH/O313/242

SCUK Nutrition (assessment)

6 months (1 Oct 2010- 31 Mar 2011) NCE (31 April 2011) Country wide 118,203

HRF/ETH/O313/243

UNFPA Protection (GenCap) 12 months (1 Nov 10 - 31 Oct 2011) Country wide 197,415

HRF/ETH/O313/244

MERLIN Drought (AWD) 2 months (1 Nov. 10 - 31 Dec. 10)

Oromia region, Bale Zone, Golocha district, 24,620 6,155

HRF/ETH/O313/245

NCA Flood (WASH ) 6 months (1Nov. 10 - 31 April 11)

Oromia region, Guji Zone (Liben woreda) 156,986

HRF/ETH/O313/246

Oxfam Canada Drought (AWD (WASH))

6 months (1 Nov. - 31 April 11) NCE (15 June 2011)

Oromia region, Guji Zone (Goro Dola , Uraga, Dama and Kercha Woredas) 543,147

HRF/ETH/O313/247

IRC AWD (WASH)) 6 months (20 Nov. 10 – 4 May 11)

SNNPR, Gedeo Zone (Dilla Zuria, Kochere, and Yirgachefe Woredas) 602,337 20,000


39

HRF/ETH/O313/249

GAA Flood (AWD(WASH)) 6 months (01 Dec.10 - 31

May 11) NCE (30 June 2011)

Afar Region, Amibara, Awash-Fantale, Gewane and burimodaitu woredas(Zone 3) 480,354

HRF/ETH/O313/250

FAO(Joint) Flood (Agr,/livestock)

6 months (15 Oct.10 - 15 Apr. 11)

Afar Region, Awash-Fentale, Amibara, Buremodaiyitu, Gewane, Dubti, Ada’ar, Dewe, Telalak, Dalifage, Awra, Teru, Koneba, Megale, Berhale, Afdera, Yalo and Abala woredas 133,840

HRF/ETH/O313/251 CARE(Joint) Flood

(Agr,/livestock) 6 months (1 Dec.10 - 31 May 11) NCE 30 June 11

Awash-Fentale and Gewane woredas 337,999

HRF/ETH/O313/252 SC UK(Joint) Flood

(Agr,/livestock) 6 months (1 Dec.10 - 31 May 11) NCE 30 June 11

Assayita and Mille woreda 359,233 20,000

HRF/ETH/O313/253 Farm Africa(Joint)

Flood (Agr,/livestock)

6 months (20 Dec.10 - 20 June. 11)

Amibara and Buremodayitu woredas 507,154

HRF/ETH/O313/254 Concern Drought (Nutrition) 6 months (01 Dec - 31

May 11)

Amhara Region, Delanta Woreda, South Wollo Zone 222,719

HRF/ETH/O313/255 IRC Refugee (WASH) 6 months (01 Dec - 31 May 11)

Somali Region, Sheder Refugee Camp 368,006

HRF/ETH/O313/256 NCA IDP (Protection, WASH)

6 months 15 Dec - 15 June 11)

SNNPR, Derashe Special Woreda 653,384

HRF/ETH/O313/257 ZOA Flood(Livestock & Seed)

4 months (15 Jan - 14 May 11)

Gambella Region, Itang districts 152,460

GRAND TOTAL

25,871,277 266,155


40

Annex VII: Planned Vs. Achievements Refer to the attachment in excel format.

Photo by: OCHA, 2010

Documents

Transcript of Photo by: OCHA, 2010