1SHF Sudan 2015 annual RepoRt
SudanHumanitarianFund
SHF
2015AnnuAl RepoRt
2015S u D A n
A woman
carri
es blan
kets
in a new se
ttlement in
Zamza
m camp, N
orth D
arfur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
United Nations
SHF
2 SHF Sudan 2015 annual RepoRtW
ater p
oint in A
bu Shouk IDP C
amp, N
orth D
arfur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Organisations receiving SHF funding in 2015: Almassar, AMVo, AoRD, AoSCD, ApDHWo, ARC, ASSISt, BpWo, CAFoD, CIS, CRS, CW, DRC, el Ruhama, FAo, FpDo, GAH, GFo, GoAl, HAD, HAI uK, IMC, IoM, IRW, JASMAR, KpHF, lABenA, MC Scotland, nCA, nDu, nIDAA, oCHA, oxfam America, pBA, plan, RDn, RHF, RI, SC, SoRC, SRCS, tearfund, tGH, toD, toHD, uMCoR, unFpA, unHCR, unICeF, upo, VCo, VSF (Germany), WFp, WHo,WR, WVI
oCHA wishes to acknowledge the contributions made in the preparation of this document, particularly by SHF implementing partners, sector coordinators, sector monitoring and reporting officers, unDp Sudan Fund Management unit, and the Multi-partner trust Fund office.
For additional information:http://www.unocha.org/sudan/shf
Clarifications on the report:
Donor contributions: Data refers to the donor contributions to the SHF for 2015, including contributions received from DFID in December 2014.
Allocations: Refers to funding allocations approved by the HC in 2015, including second round allocations made in late 2015. Some SHF projects began implementation in 2015 but had not yet been completed as at end 2015 as a result of some of the funds being allocated late in the year.
Funding expenditures: the cut-off date for the 2015 expenditure which is released by MptF is December 2015 and does not therefore correlate to the programmatic results which cover up to March 2016.
Transfers: Refers to disbursements so far made of the 2015 allocated amounts, considering that disbursements are made in tranches and some are still pending for 2015 projects.
Financial Tracking Service (FTS): Data obtained from the FtS is used in this report to indicate the overall level of financial contribution to the 2015 Sudan Humanitarian Response plan (HRp), and to explain the relative contribution of SHF to the HRp. For the purpose of this report, SHF-allocated funds in 2015 are considered as funding towards the 2015 HRp even if some of funds were not fully utilised in 2015.
Sector Achievements: this report covers sector achievements of 2014 and 2015 projects which were completed between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016. the 2014 projects in this report were partially reported in the annual report 2014 based on progress reports. this report captures the remainder of those project results. the 2015 projects with a completion date beyond 31 March 2016 will be included in the SHF 2016 annual report.
Beneficiary numbers: to minimise the duplication of beneficiary numbers reached by different sectors and with different allocation modalities, beneficiary numbers for the core pipeline allocations and for the support sectors of Coordination and Common Service (CCS) and logistics and emergency telecommunications (let) which do not provide direct service and assistance to people have been removed. the report also avoids using an overall total number of beneficiaries and uses only beneficiary numbers per sector, as there are overlaps between sectors and if sector total are added, the total figure may consequently be overstated.
3
table of Contents ............................................................................................... 3
SHF 2015 Dashboard ......................................................................................... 4
Sudan Reference Map .............................................................................................. 5
Foreword .................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 7
Top Contributors to the HRP ..................................................................................... 8
Information on Contributions .......................................................................... 9
Allocation Overview ........................................................................................ 10
Allocation Strategy ......................................................................................................... 10
Allocation by type of Allocation ..................................................................................... 10
Core pipeline Allocation ................................................................................................. 10
Allocation by HRp priority .............................................................................................. 10
Allocation by type of Agency ......................................................................................... 11
Allocation by Sector ....................................................................................................... 11
Allocation by State ......................................................................................................... 11
2015 After Action Review Findings and Recommendations .......................................... 11
Complementarity with unoCHA’s Central emergency Response Fund (CeRF) ............ 12
Fund Performance & Management ................................................................. 13
Review processes and the Global Country-Based pooled Fund Handbook .................. 13
timeliness of SHF Allocation .......................................................................................... 14
Working Days taken to Complete Allocations ............................................................... 14
timeliness of the Sudan SHF Allocation ......................................................................... 14
Inclusiveness and partnerships ....................................................................................... 14
SHF Allocation 2006 to 2015 by organisation type ...................................................... 14
Revisions and no-Cost extensions (nCe) ....................................................................... 15
Summary of Financial Management ............................................................................... 15
Accountability & Risk Management ............................................................... 16
Accountability Framework .............................................................................................. 16
Risk Management ........................................................................................................... 16
Monitoring Mechanisms and lessons learned .............................................................. 16
nGo eligibility, nomination and Capacity Assessment ................................................. 17
nGo Annual Audit ......................................................................................................... 17
Summary of Sector Results ............................................................................. 19
CooRDInAtIon AnD CoMMon SeRVICeS ............................................................... 20
eDuCAtIon ................................................................................................................... 22
eMeRGenCy SHelteR/non-FooD IteMS ................................................................. 24
FooD SeCuRIty AnD lIVelIHooDS ........................................................................... 26
HeAltH ........................................................................................................................... 28
loGIStICS AnD eMeRGenCy teleCoMMunICAtIonS ........................................... 30
nutRItIon ..................................................................................................................... 32
pRoteCtIon ................................................................................................................. 34
ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR .............................................................................................. 36
WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene ........................................................................... 38
Conclusions & Way Forward ................................................................... 40
Annexes ...................................................................................................... 41
table of Contents
Page no.
4 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
SHF 2015 Dashboard
SHF donor contributions
Common Coordination Services
Accurate and timely information including disaggregated data collected through registration and verification allowed for humanitarian actors to plan and undertake first level analysis when responding to the crisis.
Education Enrollment of 19,662 school children in basic education (134% of the children targeted) in IDP camps and gatherings.
Emergency Shelter/non-Food Items
Distribution ES/nFI assistance to 53,560 households.
Food Security & livelihoods
Provision of emergency agricultural inputs to 150,884 people; emergency livestock inputs and services to 2,306,707 people; and emergency livelihoods training and start-up kits to 13,590 persons.
Health operation of 73 health facilities to provide minimum basic package of health services in IDP camps and gatherings to 1,764,162 beneficiaries.
logistics and Emergency Telecommunication
Provision of humanitarian air services to 40,557 passengers and movement of 165.6 MTs of humanitarian cargo to 41 locations.
nutrition Treatment of 30,587 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 28,554 suffering from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM); 58,703 children under five and pregnant and lactating women supported by emergency blanket supplementary feeding programmes.
Protection Identification of and response to the protection needs of mainly newly displaced communities through protection workers deployed; improved physical security for displaced or returning communities as a result of mine action; and improved access and partner presence in areas which were inaccessible to humanitarian actors for many years.
Recovery Return and Reintegration
Improved access to basic and life-saving services for 122,647 returnees, IDPs and host community members.
Refugee Multi-Sector
Provision of essential items and services to 182,844 South Sudanese refugees including; non-food items, water, sanitation and hygiene, and health and protection services.
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene
Access to newly constructed or rehabilitated latrines and water points for 914,085 people.
Highlights of results
SHF allocation per Sector
CCS $1,811,158 3%
EDu $3,445,267 6%
ES/nFIs $3,717,950 7%
FSl $5,344,392 10%
HEA $11,450,158 21%
lET $3,700,000 7%
nuT $6,611,786 12%
PRo $3,571,446 7%
RMS $6,283,741 12%
RRR $544,819 1%
WASH $7,117,774 13%
0 5 10 15
$million
$8.1 millionSHF funding to nnGos
15%
$28.8 millionSHF funding to un
54%
$16.7 millionSHF funding to InGos
31%
$38.1 millionstandard allocations
71%
$7.6 millionCore pipeline
14%
$3.0 millionreserve
6%
Funding per type of agency
uK 53%
norway 12%
Sweden 12%
Denmark 10%
Ireland 5%
netherlands 4%
Germany 2%
Switzerland 2%
0 10 20 30
$million
15%54%
31%
International NGO
National NGO
UN agency
SHF allocation by state $million
0.85
0.22
0.46
0.29
0.56
2.30
0.06
2.00
4.20
5.50
1.10
0.32
3.6212.70
9.30
3.10
6.00
1.21
0.06
$53.6 million*
allocated
168number of allocations
56number of partners
$53.5 milliontotal contribution to SHF
* Includes fees
8donors
11sector supported
4
5SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Halfa
El Malha
Sodari
Dalgo
Algolid
Haya
Dongola
Al Daba
Jabiet Al Maadin
Bara
Halayeb
Abu Hamed
Ed Damer
Jebrat El Sheikh
TalodiAbyei
El Qaneb
MerawiTokar
El Radoom
Kutum
Barbar
Um Buru
Dordeb
Um Rawaba
Bau
Agig
Kornoi
Shendi
El Dindir
Keilak
Abu Jubaiha
Mellit
Abu Jabra
El Butana
El Nehoud
Ghubaysh
Habila
Sinkat
Atbara
El Dali
El Salam
Shiekan
Abu ZabadWad Banda
Kass
Bahr El Arab
Abyei Area
El Salam
Mukjar
El Kuma
Kosti
Atbara River
Umm Keddada
El Taweisha
El Fasher
Telkok
Kreinik
El Kurumuk
Aroma
Sunta
Zalingei
Sennar
Sheiria
El Fashaga
El Sireaf
Sharq El Nile
Adila
North Delta
El Roseires
Rashad
El Matammah
Al Tadamon
Kalimendo
El AbassiyaBielel Al Sunut
Lagawa
Yassin
Wadi Salih Al Qoz
El Douiem
TendaltiAzum
El Manageel
Ailliet
El Salam
El Gutaina
Ed Daein
Karari
El Faw
Um Dafug
Kulbus
Katayla
Tawilla
Kubum
Nertiti
Kebkabiya
BabanusaGeissan
Heiban
Basonda
Dilling
Buram
Middle Gedaref
Eastern El Gezira
Sirba
Gereida
NiteagaEl Jabalian
HabilaAbu Houjar
Bindisi
Um El QuraEl Tina
RahadEl Berdi
Alwehda
Hamashkoreib
Beida
Khashm Ghirba
Ed El Fursan
Al Quresha
Jebel Moon
Kadugli
Singa
Wad El Helew
Umm Badda
Qala El Nahal
Gedaref
Rabak
El Rahad
Al Mafaza
Umm Ramtta
Dar El Salam
Al Buram
Reif Ashargi
Rokoro
Shattai
Umm Durein
Alborgag
Tullus
Assalaya
Suakin
El Souki
Umm Dukhun
El Hasaheesa
WesternEl Galabat
El Ferdous
RuralKassala
El Geneina
Abu Karinka
Eastern Sennar
Khartoum North
SouthernEl Gezira
Marshang
El Kamleen
El Damazine
Halfa El Jadeeda
Saraf Omra
Um Durman
WesternKassala
Dimsu
Eastern El Galabat
ShargJabel Marra
Jabal Aulia
ForoBaranga
Port Sudan
GreaterWad Madani
Nyala
Khartoum
Nyala North
Kassala
S U D A N
C H A D
E T H I O P I A
L I B Y A
E G Y P T
S O U T H S U D A N
E R I T R E A
K S A
C . A . R .
Bentiu
Aweil
Malakal
SingaRabak
Kadugli
Gedaref
Kassala
Dongola
Ed Daein
Zalingei
El Obeid
Ed Damer
El FasherEl Geneina
Ed Damazin
Port Sudan
Nyala
Khartoum
Wad Madani
Asmara
Addis Ababa
El Fula
Red
Sea
SOUTH KORDOFAN
WHITENILE
BLUE NILE
SENNAR
GEDAREF
KASSALA
RED SEA
RIVERNILENORTHERN
EASTDARFUR
SOUTHDARFUR
WESTDARFUR
CENTRALDARFUR
ALGEZIRA
KHARTOUM
NORTH KORDOFAN
NORTH DARFUR
WESTKORDOFAN
40°0'0"E38°0'0"E36°0'0"E34°0'0"E32°0'0"E30°0'0"E28°0'0"E26°0'0"E24°0'0"E22°0'0"E20°0'0"E
22°0
'0"N
20°0
'0"N
18°0
'0"N
16°0
'0"N
14°0
'0"N
12°0
'0"N
10°0
'0"N
kilometer
0 50 10025
Date: March 2014Sources: Boundaries (IMWG), roads (WFP, UNJLC), settlements (OCHA)Feedback: [email protected]/sudan www.reliefweb.int
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. Final status of the Abyei area is not yet determined.
kilometres
0 50 10025
Country capital
State capital
Primary/paved road
Abyei PCA Area
Undetermined boundary
Locality boundary
State boundary
International boundary
LEGEND
Lake
River Nile
Sudan: Administrative Map March 2014
Map credit: OCHA Sudan/CIS - Feedback: [email protected], www.unocha.org/sudan, reliefweb.int
International boundary
State boundary
Locality boundary
Country capital
State capital
River Nile
Lake
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used onthis map do not imply of�cial endorsement or acceptance by theUnited Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudanand the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.Final status of the Abyei area is not yet determined. Final Localityboundaries for the Kordofan States not veri�ed
Main roadUndetermined boundary
Sudan Reference Map
6 SHF SuDAn 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Women an
d child
ren near
their s
helters
in Zamza
m IDP ca
mp,
North D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
6
FoReWoRDFrom the united nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator
Sudan continues to face significant and diverse humanitarian needs, both protracted and emerging, and at the end of the year, more than 3 million people remained internally displaced. During 2015, some 359,000 people were newly displaced internally, over 194,000 refugees crossed into Sudan, and many states in Sudan remained above emergency malnutrition thresholds.
the 2015 Humanitarian Response plan (HRp) appealed for uS$1.04 billion, to which donors generously contributed $53.5 million through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. In line with the HRp, the main objectives of the fund in 2015 were 1) to provide emergency relief to people affected by conflict and disaster; 2) to provide humanitarian protection to affected populations; 3) to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition [below emergency levels across Sudan]; and 4) to strengthen resilience and facilitate durable solutions for conflict-affected people, including voluntary return and integration.
through its different allocation processes, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund has in 2015 supported the response to new emergencies, as for example the dengue fever outbreak, but also supported vulnerable people in protracted displacement and people suffering from malnutrition. the allocation in the second half of the year complemented the CeRF underfunded emergencies Grant to north Darfur by providing funds to support the humanitarian response to displacement in South and Central Darfur.
through a coordinated prioritisation and allocation process, humanitarian actors worked together to identify priority needs and select projects that best responded to those needs. the SHF has boosted the effectiveness of the humanitarian response and its coordination mechanisms. the engagement of all stakeholders – implementing partners, IASC Sectors, national and international nGos, un agencies, donors, members of the Advisory Board, and the Humanitarian Country team – remains key to the success of the Sudan Humanitarian Fund.
the SHF continues to build capacity and provide funding directly to national nGos who have already established trust and links with the communities, thereby facilitating delivery of assistance to people in need in hard-to-reach areas. It encourages partnerships between national and international actors to ensure that people receive the life-saving assistance they need.
Following internal and external review processes including the tri-annual external evaluation, I was happy to see the important steps undertaken towards a clearer definition of the fund’s governance and procedures, a more explicit definition of the fund strategy and an updated accountability framework that includes a risk-based grant management approach.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank our donors – Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the netherlands, norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the uK – for their continued financial support as well as their involvement in the strategic orientation of the fund through their participation as SHF Advisory Board members. the commitment of our donors is particularly noteworthy, as humanitarian needs in recently emerging global and regional crises have noticeably increased in 2015.
In addition to the donors, I would also like to thank all the people and organisations who have contributed to SHF operations in 2015, especially the members of the Advisory Board and the IASC Sectors. My particular appreciation goes to the strong team working on the fund both at oCHA and unDp.
the 2016 HRp foresees no decrease in humanitarian needs in Sudan. Continued donor support is therefore crucial if the Sudan Humanitarian Fund is to continue to provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable people in an efficient manner.
I would like to express my commitment to keeping the Sudan Humanitarian Fund fit for its stated purpose of providing principled humanitarian funding to alleviate the suffering of people in need in Sudan.
Marta RuedasUnited Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator
the purpose of this annual report is to provide an overview of the Sudan Humanitarian Fund during 2015 including contributions, allocation processes, fund performance and accountability mechanisms, and results achieved in each of the humanitarian sectors.
CONTexT
the 2015 Sudan Humanitarian Response plan (HRp) targeted assistance to an estimated 5.4 million of the most vulnerable people, including 1.2 million of the most severely malnourished children under age five. Vulnerability is primarily driven by conflict-induced displacement, chronic food insecurity and malnutrition.
At the end of 2015, some 3.1 million people in Sudan were internally displaced; the majority in Darfur. A further 0.7 million people were refugees displaced from their country of origin or South Sudanese who were unable to return to South Sudan.
During 2015, 247,000 people were displaced from their homes by conflict in Darfur. 110,000 of these internally displaced persons received humanitarian assistance in 2015, while 70,000 live in areas to which humanitarians have limited or no access (mainly in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur). About 67,000 of the people displaced this year have returned to their area of origin.
In government-controlled areas of South Kordofan State an estimated 52,000 people were displaced in 2015, of whom 21,000 people have returned; and in government-controlled areas of Blue nile State, an estimated 60,000 people were displaced (24,000 relocated; 26,000 returnees; and 10,000 displaced) during 2015.
DONOR SUPPORT
In 2015, the SHF received contributions from eight donors amounting to $53.5 million. the contributions represented a seven per cent decrease in comparison with SHF funding in 2014, and accounted for eight per cent of funding for the Sudan HRp 2015. this remains at a similar level in comparison to the last three years. not taking into account the 2014 contributions intended for 2015, a more significant downtrend is apparent. Globally, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund was the fifth largest oCHA-managed country-based pooled fund in 2015 and accounted for 8 per cent of donor contributions to 18 pooled funds globally.
More than 20 per cent ($10.9 million) of donor contributions was received before the start of the year, while the remaining 80 per cent ($42.6 million) was contributed throughout 2015. Germany presented itself as a new donor to the fund in 2015.
TARgeTeD AllOCATIONS
Funding was channelled through 11 sectors to 168 projects. More than 90 per cent of funds was allocated to projects that addressed the HRp’s strategic objectives 1 (saving lives) and 2 (protection). the SHF targeted 65 per cent of its funding towards the Darfur region, whereas the 77 per cent of the 2015 HRp funding was directed towards the Darfur states.
As in 2014, the SHF conducted two allocation rounds during the year. In addition, the Reserve for emergencies window
was used to respond to rapid-onset crises including the displacement in north Darfur following conflict in eastern Jebel Marra, displacement in east Darfur, the refugee influx in West Kordofan State and the viral haemorrhagic fever outbreak. FUND MANAgeMeNT
In 2015, numerous consultation and evaluation processes were undertaken to ensure that the Sudan Humanitarian Fund would remain fit for purpose, including the 2011-2014 external evaluation, the first allocation after action review, and the in-country review process. All recommendations made were combined under three categories, namely strategy, governance and accountability, in a management response plan with proposed actions for the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. As a result, an operational Manual including all SHF procedures and governance arrangements was drafted and discussed during the second half of 2015. Clear criteria were established for the Reserve for emergencies and it was agreed that the Reserve for emergencies would constitute 20 per cent of the incoming contributions of the fund to ensure a more dynamic and re-active funding mechanism. Besides Advisory Board meetings related to allocations and ad-hoc topics, bi-annual meetings to review the SHF operations were put in place, and the first bi-annual meeting took place in november 2015. the draft operational Manual also introduced risk-based grant management in line with the Global Country-based pooled Fund Handbook.
this report provides a comprehensive overview of the results and challenges of the fund in 2015. It also identifies some recommendations for the coming cycle including speeding up SHF allocation and disbursement procedures to ensure the fund remains a timely and responsive financing instrument, and to increase the donor base to maintain or expand the contribution level.
7
Contributed
$53.3million
Sectors supported
11
Partners
56Donors
8
Allocated
$53.6million
executive Summary
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Total HRP 2015 funding
$667,498,176Total HRP 2015 requirements
$1,035,894,093Covered
Donor contributions to SHF 2015
$53,539,493SHF 2015 donor share tototal HRP funding
4
8
12
0
DEC 2014
JAN 20
15
MAR 20
15
APR 2015
APR 2015
APR 2015
MAY 20
15
MAY 20
15
SEP 2015
SEP 2015
DEC 2015
DEC 2015
UK Denmar
k
Sweden
Irelan
d
German
y
Switzerla
nd
Norway
Denmar
k
UK Netherla
nds
UK Irelan
d
SHF CONTRIBUTION TIMELINE $million
64%
8%
1 Donors not speci�ed2 Central Emergency Response Fund3 Individuals & organisations
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mon
aco
Fran
ce
Belg
ium
Kore
a, R
epub
lic o
f
Luxe
mbo
urg
Saud
i Ara
bia
Aust
ralia
Qat
ar
Priv
ate3
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Irela
nd
Den
mar
k
Ger
man
y
Nor
way
Switz
erla
nd
Swed
en
Can
ada
Japa
n
CER
F2
Car
ry-o
ver1
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Euro
pean
Com
miss
ion
Vario
us
Unite
d St
ates
$million
8
top Contributors tothe HRp
wom
an fr
om J
ebel
Sai
ey, N
orth
Dar
fur ©
A. G
onza
lez/
UN
AM
ID
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Total HRP 2015 funding
$667,498,176Total HRP 2015 requirements
$1,035,894,093Covered
Donor contributions to SHF 2015
$53,539,493SHF 2015 donor share tototal HRP funding
4
8
12
0
DEC 2014
JAN 20
15
MAR 20
15
APR 2015
APR 2015
APR 2015
MAY 20
15
MAY 20
15
SEP 2015
SEP 2015
DEC 2015
DEC 2015
UK Denmar
k
Sweden
Irelan
d
German
y
Switzerla
nd
Norway
Denmar
k
UK Netherla
nds
UK Irelan
d
SHF CONTRIBUTION TIMELINE $million
64%
8%
1 Donors not speci�ed2 Central Emergency Response Fund3 Individuals & organisations
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Mon
aco
Fran
ce
Belg
ium
Kore
a, R
epub
lic o
f
Luxe
mbo
urg
Saud
i Ara
bia
Aust
ralia
Qat
ar
Priv
ate3
Finl
and
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Irela
nd
Den
mar
k
Ger
man
y
Nor
way
Switz
erla
nd
Swed
en
Can
ada
Japa
n
CER
F2
Car
ry-o
ver1
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Euro
pean
Com
miss
ion
Vario
us
Unite
d St
ates
$million
9
CONTRIBUTION TReNDS
In 2015, the SHF received $53.6 million, a slight decrease from 2014 ($57.5 million) and 2013 ($54.7 million). However, the donor base expanded from six donors in 2013 and seven in 2014 to eight donors in 2015, with Germany becoming the newest SHF donor. the uK, norway, Sweden and Denmark donated 87 per cent of the total contribution.
CONTRIBUTION TIMINg
About 61 per cent ($32.7 million) was contributed between end-2014 and mid-2015, which allowed SHF to allocate 59 per cent ($31.7 million) of the total contribution under the 1st standard allocation and a special allocation in the first quarter of 2015. the remainder of contributions ($20.8 million) in the last quarter of 2015 enabled the SHF to launch the 2nd standard allocation (35% or 18.9 million) in September. throughout the year, the SHF also set aside funds (6% of total contribution or $3 million) to respond to critical life-saving emergency situations.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THe HRP
the Financial tracking Service (FtS) recorded $667.5 million donor contributions to the Humanitarian Response plan (HRp) in 2015 or 64 per cent of the total requirement. the SHF contribution made up eight percent of the total contribution to the HRp 2015.
2015 SHF DONORS
UK
Norway
Swed
en
Denm
ark
Irelan
d
Nethe
rland
s
Germ
any
$mill
ion
Percentageof funding
28.2
53%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Switz
erlan
d
6.6
12%
6.3
12%
5.2
10%
2.7
5%
2.2
4%
1.1
2%
1.0
2%
CHAPTER 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 2013 2014
$mill
ion 54.7 53.6
2015
57.5
79.8
SHF contributions trends since 2012
Information on Contributions
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
10
AllOCATION STRATegy
the SHF maintained two standard allocations in 2015 as it did in 2014. the standard allocations remained the main fund allocation modality for the SHF, accounting for 71 per cent of the total allocated funds ($37.8 million). the first standard allocation targeted the highest identified needs as per the Humanitarian needs overview 2015 (Hno) and the Humanitarian Response plan 2015 (HRp), i.e. top and high priority projects in the HRp. As part of its strategy to focus on delivery and impact, this allocation prioritised well performing partners, limited the number of projects and partners for maximum impact and risk mitigation, minimised and rationalised sub-granting, and encouraged a multi-sector approach. the second standard allocation mainly focused on the responses to new and protracted displacement in South and Central Darfur, South Sudanese refugee influx and the nationwide measles outbreak.
A special allocation covered core pipelines, SHF management, sector coordination, sector M&R officers and unHAS operations. A reserve allocation was created, later called the Reserve for emergencies, to respond to new critical life-saving emergency situations throughout the year.
AllOCATION By TyPe OF AllOCATION
the first standard allocation channeled 36 per cent of the total allocation ($19 million) to fund 86 projects, while 35 per cent ($18.8 million) funded 48 projects under the second standard allocation. under a special allocation, 23 per cent of the total funding ($12 million) was disbursed to 21 projects in the first quarter of the year. In addition, thirteen critical life-saving emergency projects were funded under the reserve allocation, amounting to six per cent of the total allocation ($3 million).
CORe PIPelINe AllOCATION
Sector Org. Budget
Education unICEF $464,984
ES/nFIs unHCR $1,674,000
FSl FAo, WFP $1,162,500
Health WHo, unICEF, unFPA $1,069,456
nutrition unICEF $1,023,000
Protection unFPA $465,000
RMS unHCR, unFPA $463,887
WASH unICEF $1,300,000
Total $7,622,827
AllOCATION By HRP PRIORITy
More than 90 per cent of the total fund was disbursed to projects addressing strategic objective 1 (saving lives) and 2 (protection) of the HRp 2015. Another eight per cent addressed objective 3 (food security) and one per cent addressed objective 4 (strengthen resilience).
HRP 2015 Strategic Objectives Weighting of SHF Allocations
Saving lives Save lives of vulnerable people affected by conflict and disaster. 72%
Protection Protect conflict-affected populations from violence, neglect and exploitation.
19%
Food Security Reduce food insecurity and malnutrition below emergency levels across Sudan.
8%
Strengthen Resilience
To strengthen resilience and facilitate durable solutions for conflict-affected people, including voluntary return and integration.
1%
Total 100%
Allocationoverview
10
Allocation breakdown
36%
23%
35%
1st Round Standard Allocation
SHF Reserve Allocation
Special Allocation
2nd Round Standard Allocation
6%
CHAPTER 2
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
11
AllOCATION By TyPe OF AgeNCy
un agencies received the majority of the SHF funding with 54 per cent of the total allocation. the funding allocated to national nGos slightly increased from 13 per cent in 2014 to 15 per cent in 2015. Allocation to nGos, both national and international, slightly decreased from 47 to 46 per cent in comparison with 2014. of the ten top fund recipients, one was a national nGo.
AllOCATION By SeCTOR
the Health Sector received the largest fund allocation with 21 per cent of the total allocation, followed by WASH (13 per cent), nutrition and RMS (both 12 per cent). Increases from last year’s fund allocation are noted for Health (18 per cent in 2014) and RMS (6 per cent in 2014) and decreases for education (10 per cent in 2014), eSnFI (10 per cent in 2014) and FSl (13 per cent in 2014).
Sector Amount Allocated % of SHF % of funding
CCS $1,811,158.08 3% 27%
EDu $3,445,267.39 6% 10%
ES/nFI $3,717,950.93 7% 48%
FSl $5,344,392.38 10% 2%
HEA $11,450,158.47 21% 31%
lET $3,700,000.00 7% 12%
nuT $6,611,786.55 12% 16%
PRo $3,571,446.12 7% 46%
RMS $6,283,741.55 12% 11%
RRR $544,819.60 1% 21%
WASH $7,117,774.38 13% 29%
Total $53,598,495.45 100% 10%
AllOCATION By STATe
the largest fund allocations went to South Darfur (24 per cent) and Central Darfur (17 per cent). Significant contributions were also made for north Darfur (11 per cent) and South Kordofan (10 per cent).
the Darfur region remained the largest recipient of SHF funding. About 60 per cent of the allocated fund in 2013, 70 per cent in 2014 and 65 per cent in 2015 went to the Darfur region.
2015 AFTeR ACTION RevIeW FINDINgS AND ReCOMMeNDATIONS
An After Action Review involving all stakeholders was held following the first standard allocation process and resulted in the following recommendations:
1. to enhance communication among all stakeholders and at all levels in the SHF programme cycle
2. to ensure all stakeholders understand their roles and responsibilities at each stage of the cycle
3. to improve the overall timeliness of the cycle to ensure a swift process for all
4. to introduce a grade of flexibility in the Hno priorities so as to review the sector’s priorities at the time of the actual submission of projects
5. to identify ceiling/floor standards appropriate to both national and international nGos
6. to reduce the information required for the development of the concept note
0
40
80
120
160
INGO NNGO UN
$mill
ion 90.2
30.1
132.6
Allocation 2012 - 2015 by type of agency
5%63%
32%
International NGO
National NGO
UN agency
South Darfur 24%
Central Darfur 17%
north Darfur 11%
South Kordofan 10%
White nile 8%
East Darfur 7%
West Darfur 6%
Blue nile 4%
Khartoum 4%
north Kordofan 2%
West Kordofan 2%
Kassala 2%
Sennar 1%
nile 1%
Abyei 1%
Gedaref 1%
Red Sea 0.4%
Al Gezira 0.1%
northern 0.1%
Allocation by State
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
12 SHF SuDAn 2014 AnnuAl REPoRT3 $7 million of the $32 million allocations in the first round of allocation was used to compliment CERF Funds during the project period of six months
12 Displac
ed girl
is pict
ured in
a cla
ssroom in
El Sala
m IDP ca
mp,
North D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
COMPleMeNTARITy WITH UNOCHA’S CeNTRAl eMeRgeNCy ReSPONSe FUND (CeRF)
In 2015, SHF management structures and processes were partially leveraged for processing some $24 million of CeRF grants to Sudan, in particular to support sectors in the prioritisation and submission of CeRF proposals and in CeRF reporting processes.
For each of the 2015 CeRF allocations, complementarity was sought with the SHF. early in 2015, CeRF funded the response to tackle the measles outbreak that occurred in Darfur. During the second allocation of the SHF, $4 million was set aside to respond to the continued measles outbreak in different parts of the country.
the second 2015 SHF allocation also targeted gaps not addressed by the CeRF Rapid Response Grant to respond to an influx of refugees in White nile State. this was preceded by support through the SHF Reserve for emergencies to address a refugee influx in West Kordofan State.
As the second 2015 SHF allocation was launched shortly after the 2015 underfunded emergencies Grant, the prioritisation results which were based on field consultations were used for both allocations. As the CeRF allocation focused on new displacement in north Darfur, the SHF allocation focused on new and protracted displacement in South and Central Darfur, which was identified as the second priority.
12 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
A woman
wait
s to co
llect
water f
rom a
water p
oint in N
ifash
a
camp, N
orth D
arfur.©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
13
RevIeW PROCeSSeS AND THe glOBAl COUNTRy-BASeD POOleD FUND HANDBOOk
An extensive review of the SHF took place in 2015, through multiple review processes. Firstly, an external evaluation of the 2011-2014 took place as planned. Secondly, the oCHA Head of office took the initiative to launch consultations with key stakeholders on how to keep the fund fit for purpose, as the Sudan Humanitarian Fund had been a long-standing fund. this resulted in working groups on three subjects: the strategic use of the SHF, governance and accountability, on which various stakeholders consulted in detail and for which recommendations were put forward. thirdly, as every year, the SHF technical unit undertook an After Action Review following the 2015 first standard allocation.
In addition, oCHA headquarters launched the Global Country-based pooled Fund (CBpF) Handbook in February 2015 as well as a policy instruction for country-based pooled funds in order to harmonise oCHA-managed funds but also to introduce new policies mainly with regards to risk-based grant management. the global CBpF Handbook provides a framework and set of guidelines and procedures that can be tailored to country-specific contexts and operations in a country-specific operational Manual.
A first set of commitments from the SHF technical unit was presented to the Advisory Board in August. these included the sharing of a draft operational Manual and a clear definition of criteria for the Reserve for emergencies. In September, the SHF technical unit collated all recommendations from the three review processes into an implementation matrix which contains a management response on each recommendation and proposed actions.
Between September and December, the draft operational Manual was presented to the Advisory Board and Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) sectors, and was revised several times based on discussions and feedback. A final version is to be presented to the Advisory Board in the first quarter of 2016.
the following paragraphs capture the main highlights of the changes which were introduced.
Regarding the governance of the fund, the main outcomes were captured in the draft operational Manual, which defines responsibilities of all stakeholders and specifies the composition and functioning of Strategic Review and technical Review committees. It also contains indicative timelines for the different allocation processes. Furthermore, it was agreed that the SHF technical unit would present an operational review of the fund to Advisory Board members on a bi-annual basis in order to ensure regular review of the fund’s performance.
on strategic fund usage, the SHF technical unit made efforts to clearly express the humanitarian needs and priorities to be addressed within the allocation papers through the formulation of ‘cases for funding’. A clearer definition of priorities should gradually lead to a faster allocation process. During the second allocation, multi-sectorial projects were introduced for the first time in Sudan, as well as the concept of ‘common priority localities’. ‘Common priority localities’ are high priority localities that all sectors agreed to prioritise, in order that a comprehensive and coherent humanitarian response is ensured in localities with substantial needs.
During the year, clear criteria for projects under the Reserve for emergencies window were defined.
At the end of 2015, a survey was held among Advisory Board members on the strategic use of the fund, resulting in a positioning document for the fund for 2016.
on accountability, the Humanitarian Country team has developed Minimum operating Standards which also form a basis for the SHF. Risk management of partners and performance monitoring is defined in the draft operational Manual as explained in a dedicated section below.
throughout the review processes, the SHF maintains the ambition to remain fit for purpose in the Sudanese humanitarian context. Regular review remains
CHAPTER 3
Fund performance & Management
141414 Pasto
ralist
with
his ca
ttle in
Khor A
beche ID
P camp, S
outh
Darfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
necessary but the work done thus far provides the cornerstone for an effective and strengthened leadership of the SHF by the Humanitarian Coordinator.
Main challenges remain:
• Defining allocation priorities resulting in a coherent response through the sectors
• the balance of timeliness versus inclusiveness in many steps of the process• the balance of timeliness versus quality of technical review• the streamlined functioning of strategic review committees• the accountability of sector M&R officers on monitoring and reporting• the roll-out of risk-based grant management
TIMelINeSS OF SHF AllOCATIONS
While improvements have been made in the last few years and delays are being reduced every year, stakeholders often state that the SHF standard allocations remain a resource-intensive and lengthy process.
In 2015, it took three and a half months to complete the first standard allocation, excluding the prioritisation process. An inclusive strategic review process and a thorough quality assurance and review process take a substantial amount of time. the Reserve for emergencies process is significantly more efficient. the process usually takes place within one month but has on some occasions taken only two weeks.
WORkINg DAyS TAkeN TO COMPleTe AllOCATIONS
Steps Special alloc. First round Second round Reserve
1: Submission of proposal 5 6 11 5
2: Strategic review / 20 11 /
3: Preliminary approval / 3 2 /
4: Technical & financial review 15 20 14 6
5: Final approval by HC 12 13 11 3
6: Disbursement 5 7 12 9
Total 37 69 61 23
INClUSIveNeSS AND PARTNeRSHIPS
the SHF remains one of the main direct sources of funding for national nGos in Sudan, who cannot access bilateral funds from other humanitarian donors. this has, however, led to some organisations who have limited funding sources outside the SHF relying too heavily on SHF funding1. partnerships with and support for national nGos is instrumental in facilitating humanitarian response in areas of limited access.
the share of SHF funding allocated to nGos has steadily increased from 15 per cent in 2006, when the fund was established, to 46 per cent in 2015. In total, nGos have received a cumulative 38 per cent of all SHF funding since 2006. the share of funding to national nGos is also steadily increasing, from 11 per cent in 2013 to 15 per cent in 2015. taking into account secondary sub-granting, the total share received by national nGos is 19% of all SHF funding.
SHF AllOCATION 2006 TO 2015 By ORgANISATION TyPe
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
NNGOs INGOs UN agencies
14 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT1 SHF Sudan evaluation, Feb 2015.
RevISIONS AND NO-COST exTeNSIONS (NCe)
In 2015, 14 per cent (20 projects) requested project revisions, of which 11 were no-cost extensions and 9 were project revisions.
the proportion of requests was highest for InGos at 60 per cent, followed by nnGos at 25 per cent and lowest for un agencies at 15 per cent. A total of 63.3 percent of revision requests were submitted to the SHF tu less than two weeks before the end of the project.
the sector with the highest number of requests was the WASH Sector. While 5 nGos (4 InGos and 1 nnGo) submitted 2 or more requests within different sectors, 2 InGos submitted more than one request for the same project.
Insecurity and inaccessibility due to conflict and the rainy season remain the most commonly cited reasons for delays in project implementation. Access restrictions also include delays to signing technical Agreements related to administrative procedures.
Reasons Frequency %
Inaccessibility 3 19
other 3 19
Insecurity (new conflict in Jebel Marra area) 2 13
Staffing / recruitment delays 2 13
Procurement delays 2 13
Delays in finalising PPA 1 6
Delays to transfer of funds from SHF 1 6
Internal administrative delays 1 6
Programmatic delays 1 6
SUMMARy OF FINANCIAl MANAgeMeNT
During the 2015 fiscal year, $42.6 million in contributions was received, compared to $52.1 million received in 2014. transfers totalled $59.1 million during the year, exceeding contributions due to 2014 second round allocations being transferred in January of 2015. Refunds of $2.7 million also contributed to transfers in excess of contributions.
expenditures of $51.7 million were reported by participating organisations in 2015, compared to $54.5 million in 2014. In 2015, un agencies accounted for 52.4 per cent of reported expenditures, with the balance of 48 per cent attributable to nGos.
2015 management and administrative costs of the SHF total $3.25 million, which is 6.1 per cent of total contributions. this does not include the allocations to agencies for sector monitoring and reporting focal points who contribute to the monitoring of the fund’s projects. the budget for the oCHA SHF technical unit was $1.17 million, with actual spending of $851,859, representing 73 per cent of the technical unit budget.
15
Management and administrative costs
13%
26%
54%
$1,737,400 UNDP as Managing Agent for NGOs
$851,819 SHF Technical Secretariat
$426,013 Administrative Agent Fee - Multi- Partner Trust Funds Of�ce
0.02%7%
$230,000 Audit for NGO projects
$682 Bank charges
Total cost $3.2 million
Source: SHF-TS and MPTF, February 2016
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
1616
ACCOUNTABIlITy FRAMeWORk
An Accountability Framework for the fund was developed in late 2014 and has been updated and integrated in the draft operational Manual. the main changes are:
• the introduction of risk-based grant management including operational modalities and partner performance monitoring
• Definition of partner eligibility criteria• Standard operating procedures (Sops) related to field monitoring• A recommendations log for field monitoring visit recommendations • Risk-based planning of field monitoring visits• An updated description of fraud mitigation and reporting• Introduction of a complaints mechanisms
RISk MANAgeMeNT
An essential part of risk-based grant management is the performance monitoring of partners resulting in a performance management index that informs the risk level of the partner. Monitoring of partner performance started as of the second allocation of 2015.
partner risk level also defines operational modalities including disbursement tranches, narrative and financial reporting requirements, and monitoring obligations for each project based on the partner risk level, the project budget and project duration.
the annual analysis of financial performance data generated through the audits and the Financial Management unit (FMu) internal nGo database showed there was a continued overall reduction of ineligible expenditures and improvement in the quality of the reporting, measured by the number of exchanges between nGos and the FMu required to finalise quarterly financial reports.
A draft risk management framework identifying all risks and their potential probability and impact was presented to the Advisory Board in February 2015. the above-mentioned implementation matrix will form the basis for an update of the risk management framework of the SHF in 2016. the risk management framework will then be used as a management tool to ensure continuous improvement of the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. In that way, the current implementation matrix is similar to the risk management framework, though it does not articulate the underlying risks to which the recommendations correspond.
A complaints mechanism available to all stakeholders has been put in place since September 2015, in line with the launch of the 2015 second standard allocation.
An integral element of risk management is fraud management and mitigation. Continuing the focused fraud management and mitigation measures instituted in 2014, partners provide an updated organisation fraud policy with each first standard allocation and continue to submit quarterly fraud reports. Additionally, the capacity assessment meeting with potential partners includes a discussion on fraud, with partners requested to demonstrate their fraud mitigation practices and policies. Similarly, for the nGo annual audit, price Waterhouse Coopers was requested to include fraud mitigation and management in the assessment of each partner’s internal controls and in the management letter.
MONITORINg MeCHANISMS AND leSSONS leARNeD
As part of the risk-based grant management approach, projects under the 2016 allocations will require mandatory field monitoring visit(s) based on the partner risk level, the project budget and project duration. During 2015, Sops on field monitoring visits were defined and put in place. the Sops reflect and take into account some of the recommendations from the SHF external evaluation. A recommendations log was introduced to strengthen the follow-up of recommendations made by sector M&R officers or SHF technical unit monitoring staff during field monitoring visits.
Childre
n in A
lthoura
Shemal in El F
asher, N
orth D
arfur ©
A.
Gonzalez/U
NAMID
Accountability& Risk Management
CHAPTER 4
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Childre
n at U
NAMID
’s bas
e in M
ellit, N
orth D
arfur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
17
the joint SHF technical unit and sector M&R teams monitored 55 per cent of projects under the 2014 second standard allocation that were still ongoing in 2015, and 74 per cent of projects under the 2015 first standard allocation. About 33 per cent of projects under 2015 second standard allocation were monitored, while plans are made to conduct field visits in the second and third quarter of 2016, as most of these projects started in December 2015 or early 2016.
the monitoring of projects was based on project logical frameworks, work plans and progress against indicators. the M&R team conducted interviews with community leaders and beneficiaries to ensure accountability and transparency of project activities. At the end of the mission, comprehensive monitoring mission reports were drafted and shared with all stakeholders for follow-up and action.
key lessons learned
• Delay of implementation can occur due to length of time taken to sign technical Agreements with national authorities
• Sustainability of projects that solely rely on SHF funding is poor• the volume of projects requiring monitoring is high• Monitoring cross-cutting issues is not carried out optimally• Integration of financial and programmatic monitoring could be explored
Recommendations
• Clarify where delays in signing technical Agreements is the cause of revision requests in the GMS
• Discuss and analyse sustainability of projects relying on SHF funding in preparation of 2016 allocations
• Set minimum monitoring coverage i.e. 50 per cent and include this target in projects on sector coordination
• Reduce number of projects to ensure better follow-up and analysis• Continued training of M&R officers i.e. environment, gender, accountability
to affected populations• Develop joint programmatic and financial monitoring
NgO elIgIBIlITy, NOMINATION AND CAPACITy ASSeSSMeNT
In 2015, the new partner nomination process was separated from the allocation process. the objective was to allow the sectors to focus on new partners able to make a contribution to the sector strategy, rather than identifying potential partners based on project proposals. With the nomination process launched in november, sectors nominated 15 potential new partners, comparable to the previous year’s 14 new nominations. of these, nine or 64 per cent met the capacity criteria, bringing the total number of eligible SHF nGo partners to 94.
It should be noted that while new partners are nominated and assessed annually, a decreasing percentage of eligible partners are being funded annually. In 2014, 70 per cent of eligible partners were funded, compared to only 58 per cent in 2015.
Further, a risk-rated capacity assessment was introduced during the 2015 new partner nomination process. potential partners now receive a risk score for the different areas of the capacity assessment.
NgO ANNUAl AUDIT
An annual audit of projects implemented by nGo partners was conducted by price Waterhouse Coopers. For the 2015 audit exercise, 163 projects being implemented by 51 partners were audited, representing $25.6 million in expenditure. A total of 68 per cent of expenditure and 44 per cent of projects were implemented by InGos and the remaining 32 per cent of expenditure and 56 per cent of projects were implemented by nGos.
An important measure of compliance is the percentage of ineligible expenditure relative to total audited expenditure. In 2015, ineligible costs accounted for 1.1 per cent of audited expenditure, representing a decrease from last year’s level of 1.38 per cent. the project-based audit includes a review of internal controls, with a management letter issued identifying any process or
Displac
ed child
in La
bado vi
llage, N
orth D
arfur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
1818
procedural weaknesses. these form the basis of follow-up by the FMu, and are used for the design of future risk mitigation and capacity-building measures.
1.1%
98.9%
Eligible
Ineligible
Audit line Unsupportedcost
Other/overstatement
No budgetline
Accruedexpenses
2% 55% 35% 4% 5%
$4,150 $149,224 $95,808 $10,278 $13,660
% of ineligibleexpenditures
Ineligible expenditures catagory
vAlUe FOR MONey
Initial measures to strengthen the SHF’s value for money (VfM) were implemented in 2014. In 2015, benchmarks for budget categories per sector were used to evaluate efficiency during the standard allocations both when assessing projects and when reviewing projects during technical and financial review processes.
A VfM framework for the SHF with additional measures will be presented to the Advisory Board in 2016. the aim is to further assess whether individual implementing partners and sectors are employing an optimal use of resources to achieve expected project outputs and outcomes, but also whether the SHF as a funding mechanisms performs optimally.
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
19SHF Sudan 2015 annual RepoRt
IDPs c
leaning up th
e land in
Forobara
nga, W
est Darf
ur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Summary ofSector Results
Coordination& Common
Services
Education EmergencyShelter/Non-Food Items
Food Security& Livelihoods
Health Nutrition Protection RefugeeMulti-Sector
Water,Sanitation& Hygiene
Logistics &EmergencyTelecom.
lead agency: unoCHA/IoM
CooRDInAtIon &
CoMMon SeRVICeS
leSSONS leARNeD
• Important to continue engaging with DtM users to ensure that the tools remain useful to them and the information is shared in a meaningful manner. to achieve this, the DtM working group which was recently set up will work closely with users, such as oCHA.
• Continue to engage, inform and involve GoS in DtM activities.
• Continue to advocate for additional funding, in particular to ensure that donors understand the need for DtM to be country-wide and not restricted to specific states or crises.
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF2
the following HRp sector objectives are supported by the Displacement tracking Matrix (DtM) project:
objective 1: Strengthen the humanitarian coordination system.
objective 2: Strengthen humanitarian actors’ response through the establishment of information collection, analysis and sharing systems.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
the DtM project for the CCS sector covers north, South, West, east and Central Dafur.
SHF added value
the added value of the SHF is that it aided the provision of principled, timely, quantitatively sufficient, well-targeted, and cost-effective humanitarian assistance through the DtM.
Key performances
• IoM’s Displacement tracking Matrix (DtM) strengthened the coordination of humanitarian interventions by undertaking registration and verification of new IDps and sharing timely, updated information with oCHA and other humanitarian actors. this information, including disaggregated data allowed for humanitarian actors to plan and undertake first level analysis when responding to crises.
CHAlleNgeS
• lack of funding is a significant challenge to the scale up and roll out of the DtM. Funding shortfalls impact the project by limiting the crises that can be covered, especially when simultaneous and large displacements occur; curbing the use of technology, such as biometric updates of camp populations and by reducing the number of human resources needed for increased deployment and use of tools.
• Access is also a key challenge which restricts DtM teams from reaching all displaced populations.
2020 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT2 In 2015, the management cost of the SHF Technical Unit is included as a allocation to the CSS sector. It will be listed as a direct cost to the fund as of 2016.
21A woman
seat
next to
her shelte
r in Zam
zam ID
P cam, N
orth D
arfur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 10%
21%
37%
27%
4%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $19.21 million
27%HRP secured funding $6.72 million
SHF allocated funding $1.81 million
65%
35%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
5%
95%
INGO
NNGO
UN
5%
100%
Sector lead unoCHA, IoM
Sector partners unoCHA, IoM
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
number of individuals (government authorities/humanitarian agencies) trained
50 35 70%
number of reports sent to partners/relevant agencies highlighting needs
2 5 250%
Men
47,581Women
38,930Boys
17,055Girls
20,021
SHF % ofsecured funding
21
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
eDuCAtIon
lead agency: unICeF
the SHF fund remains the main source of programming to support the education of most vulnerable and disadvantaged boys and girls in Internally Displaced person (IDp) camps in Sudan.
Construction of new learning spaces in the existing schools has significantly assisted partners to accommodate new influx of displaced children from Jebel Mara, which has ensured right to basic education of thousands of children. this has also provided opportunities to children, particularly girls who have never been to school, even in their area of origin.
provision of SHF funds for education response helped in advocating with Moe to complement resources by deploying teaching personnel, supplies and certification of students in IDp camps and gatherings.
SHF 2015 Achievement
the education Sector in 2015 with SHF support managed to achieve more than double the anticipated targets, including 52 per cent girls. this was reached through optimal use of funds and resources including community mobilization which helped to reach more than the planned beneficiaries.
the education Sector prioritized some of the education in emergencies (eie) activities in 2015 including psychosocial support for children through which SHF reached 11,484 children (232 per cent of the target), 8,634 children supported to access education (247% of the target) through construction and rehabilitation of 147 classrooms (115 per cent of the target) constructed/rehabilitated in camps and gatherings. provision of gender-sensitive latrines has been integral part of eie response and18,499 children (boys and girls) benefited from construction of WASH facilities that include toilets, drinking water and installation of washing pads for hygiene. However, it was not possible to reach all education in emergency standards. the average number of children per classroom (standard of 50 children per class) is 123 children per classroom, and more than 300 children used one latrine on average where the standard is 30 girls/50 boys per latrine. WASH in schools remains a huge obstacle for eie especially in camps and gatherings. the SHF 2015 provided 77,216 children with education in emergency supplies and recreational kits. partners trained 312 teachers on psychosocial support, core eie subjects and various topics including life skills, inclusive education and health and hygiene education; in addition, sector partners achieved full target of training of 521 parent teacher Association (ptA) members who were trained and involved in school co-management.
In general 19,662 out-of-school children were supported to get enrolled in basic education (134% of the targeted children) in and outside the IDp camps.
CHAlleNgeS
• the funding shortfall is the main obstacle in expanding eie activities in host communities with large IDp influx. the education Sector was only funded up to 10 per cent of it is actual needs for eie while the school feeding programme received 45% of the funding.
• Access restriction and insecurity caused delays in the implementation of some activities.
leSSONS leARNeD
• the needs were higher than the response planned by the SHF 2015, some organizations strived to get more funding to fill some of the gap. Community mobilization helped to exceed targets and to ensure value for money and accountability for the affected population. the recruitment of local people to implement some activities reduced the cost of activities and increased community participation in the project implementation. In addition, monitoring the activities through the ptAs accelerated the implementation of the project and improved the sense of community ownership. therefore, working closely with the community in general contributed immensely to the project’s success.
• Coordination between the SHF partners in the same geographical area helped to improve the impact on education for example,in Darfur, thousands of children were displaced before the end of the school year and the final exams for grade eight. SHF partners extended support to the Ministry of education to conduct the exam for newly displaced children for the third year running. For those who missed exams and classes in other grades, partners organised catch-up classes.
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
the SHF results aim to meet the education Sector objectives set out for the Humanitarian Response plan (HRp) 2015.
objective 1: to increase access to inclusive and protective life-saving education (formal and non-formal) for children and adolescents affected by emergencies.
objective 2: to improve the quality of education (formal and non-formal) to ensure continuity of relevant education during and after emergencies for the most vulnerable pre-school and primary school aged children and adolescents.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
Continued violence and displacement in Darfur region has affected the education of thousands of children. Considering the massive education in emergencies (eie) needs including accommodating newly displaced children in existing learning spaces, the education Sector is focusing the response in the following localities of Darfur states: • Central Darfur: umm Dukhun, nertiti (West Jebel Marra) and Rokoro
(north Jebel Marra).• West Darfur: Foro Baranga (Foro Baranga & Mangarasa camps and
Sirba.• north Darfur: Kutum, tawilla and Zamzam camp.• east Darfur: Adila and Abu Karinka.• South Darfur: Kalma, otash (nyala north) and Kass camps and um
Dafug locality.
In addition, the education Sector received an emergency reserve grant to respond to the new arrivals after the eruption of conflict in the Jebel Marra region of Darfur. the emergency reserve grant enabled partners to assist newly displaced children to access learning centres in tawilla and Shangil tobaya, north Darfur State.
Availability of core pipeline has improved the education Sector response capacity in addressing newly emerging humanitarian situations. pre-positioning and timely release of education supplies in flood and conflict-affected areas has minimised the disruption to the education of children in Blue nile, Kordofan and Darfur states. A large quantity of essential education supplies has also been allocated to the refugee response in White nile State.
the education Sector at the national level to some extent supported appropriate coordination and adequate monitoring and reporting activities.
SHF added value
SHF funding in 2015 enabled the education Sector to restore access to quality eie interventions through essential education activities like the construction of temporary learning Spaces (tlS) including rehabilitation, provision of school gender-sensitive WASH packages, basic education supplies and teacher training.
Key performances
SHF funds significantly contributed to ensuring access and provision of quality education to 77,000 children (52 per cent of them girls) mainly in the Darfur region.
2222 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
2323
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES
4%
95%
1%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $59.51 million
10%HRP secured funding $33.17 million
SHF allocated funding $3.44 million
80%
5%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve15%
51%
INGO
NNGO
UN20%
29%
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
SHF % ofsecured funding
23
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of children supported with psychosocial support 4,947 4,947 100%
# of classrooms rehabilitated in camps and gatherings
67 40 60%
# of PTA members trained and involved in school management
519 432 83%
# of school age children enrolled in basic schools in camps and gatherings
14,620 12,488 85%
# of school age children received education materials, textbooks and other quality interventions in camps and gatherings
17,810 15,088 85%
# of SHF projects of 2016 allocation are monitored through a field visit in line with the 2016 operational Modality
2,026 1,026 51%
# of teachers trained 264 312 118%
number of children (% male and female) with access to gender-sensitive WASH facilities (in line with InEE and SPHERE minimum standards).
2,700 5,334 198%
number of children (disaggregated by gender) benefiting from construction of temporary learning spaces and rehabilitation of existing classrooms.
3,500 5,334 152%
number of children who have received education in emergency supplies and recreational materials
54,000 54,954 102%
Men
359Women
266Boys
11,800Girls
12,379
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
Sector lead unICEF
Sector partners CRS, DRC, FPDo, nIDAA, PBA, Plan, uMCoR, unICEF, uPo, WVI
Stuedets
in a sc
hool for d
isplac
ed girls
in Zam
zam ca
m, North
Darf
ur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
eMeRGenCy SHelteR/
non-FooD IteMS
lead agency: unHCR
the total number of beneficiaries assisted with eS/nFIs in 2015 was 96,216 households (481,084 beneficiaries). SHF contributions therefore covered over 50% of all eS/nFI assistance provided by the sector in 2015.
• partners utilised SHF funding to cover the costs of assessments, distributions, monitoring (on-site and post distribution) procurement and distribution of shelter construction material and training. In some cases eS/nFIs specific to a particular specific group (like older people), were procured as these are not available from the nFI core pipeline.
. CHAlleNgeS
• Inadequate funding for partners to conduct assessments/distributions due to reduction in sector envelopes from SHF was a key challenge during this period.
• the nFI Common pipeline which provides at least 75% of the eS/nFI response through partners continued to face challenges relating to customs clearance of shipments in port Sudan. Following advocacy and discussions with the authorities, all items were finally released. unHCR has received assurance from the authorities that new shipments will not be blocked by customs authorities at the ports.
• unHCR and partners were unable to transport stocks to distribution points: road corridors or airstrips were closed due to insecurity/access restrictions/road conditions.
• Assessments and verifications must be conducted prior to distribution to ensure fair and equitable service provision. Generally distributions should be done only after the situation has stabilized and assessments are conducted to identify the needs. Ideally, un and other organisations’ staff should be present on site to monitor the assistance provided, but most often this does not happen due to insecurity and lack of travel permits. this is a very common challenge in the context of Sudan. Additionally, the process of verification and assessment of newly displaced people often takes up to three months, especially in larger camps, resulting in a delay in distribution of nFIs and other services.
leSSONS leARNeD
• the strategic decision to maintain carry-over stocks from the previous year allowed rapid response to the needs of populations in Darfur newly displaced as a result of fighting in the first quarter of 2015.
• the monitoring and post distribution monitoring exercises have resulted in the minimisation of errors and increased quality of partner outputs.
• More emphasis on coordination between eS/nFI sector, unHCR field offices, and government counterparts has enabled partners in their areas of action to provide more solid results in assessments and distribution.
• Whilst efforts to speed up the process of verification are ongoing, the sector has responded with communal shelters at the sites of displacement as an immediate first response. IDps may now receive eS/nFI and other humanitarian assistance while they await registration.
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
objective 1: timely provision of lifesaving emergency shelter and non-food items (eS/nFIs) to conflict & disaster-affected newly displaced and returnees.
objective 2: ensure the most vulnerable persons with specific needs (pSns) of the protracted IDps receive renewal eS/nFIs.
objective 3: protracted internally displaced, pSns and returnees in rural Darfur provided with transitional environmentally friendly shelter with simultaneous training in the technical aspects of shelter to increase resilience, reduce aid-dependency, and increase community knowledge and capacity towards self-sufficiency.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
the geographical focus of the sector remained the five Darfur states and the border areas of Blue nile, South Kordofan and West Kordofan states, where needs grow due to ongoing conflict and displacement, and in other areas affected by floods.
SHF added value
the SHF played a key role in the eS/nFI sector response as a result of the early funding received by the eS/nFI common pipeline in 2015, which allowed early replenishment of carry-over stocks. the stocks were utilized to respond to crises at the beginning of the year. In addition, this allowed for pre-positioning of stock in field locations that were likely to get cut–off during the rainy season. Many national partners do not have direct links for bi-lateral funding and the SHF was essential to cover assessment, distribution and monitoring costs. transitional shelter projects funded by the SHF allowed the sector to deliver aid to returnees in their areas of origin and protracted IDps with specific needs in rural Darfur.
Key performances
• In support of the above objectives, 27 partners were allocated $3.7 million in the 2014 second round and 2015 first round SHF standard allocations to implement 27 projects. this included an early allocation to the eS/nFI core pipeline which supported 77 per cent of the eS/nFI distributions in the country. Items included in the core pipeline include, plastic sheets, jerry cans, kitchen sets, sleeping mats and blankets.
• through the SHF, the Sector was able to deliver assistance to 53,560 households (267,800 beneficiaries).
2424 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
25
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES
10%
85%
5%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $26.32 million
48%HRP secured funding $7.68 million
SHF allocated funding $3.71 million
32%
51%49%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
18%54%
INGO
NNGO
UN28%
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of conflict/disaster affected households provided with nFIs from other Pipelines
1,500 1,500 100%
# of conflict/disaster affected households provided with nFIs from the Common Pipeline or RoS Contingency stocks
30,060 23,031 77%
# of environmentally friendly shelters provided 1,035 855 83%
# of environmentally friendly shelters provided to newly displaced
20 20 100%
# of people served with renawal nFIs from core pipelines
24,000 19,750 82%
number of newly displaced conflict/disaster affected, returnee households who receive emergency shelter and non-food items for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats
649,624 666,442 103%
number of most vulnerable pre-existing IDP households who receive renewal nFIs for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats
388,567 255,687 66%
number of returnee/ protracted IDP households provided with environmentally friendly shelters
13,701 8,829 64%
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
65,501Women
83,231Boys
59,089Girls
59,979
Sector lead unHCR
Sector partners AoSCD, ARC, CRS, El Ruhama, GFo, HAI uK, IoM, nCA, RDn, SoRC, SRCS, TEARFunD, TGH, unHCR, uPo, WVI
25A woman
carri
es human
itaria
n supplie
s in Zam
zam ca
mp for ID
Ps,
North D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
FooD SeCuRIty &
lIVelIHooDS
lead agency: FAo, WFp
Key performances
• emergency agricultural inputs: 131,284 persons were provided with emergency agricultural inputs outside camps in resident communities out of the total targeted 163,589 persons (80 per cent of target). Additionally, 19,600 persons benefitted from emergency agricultural inputs in camps and gatherings out of the total targeted 21,000 persons. In terms of quantity of inputs provided, 755 tons of seed input was provided against the planned target of 753 tons, which is slightly over 100%. Meanwhile, 24,360 assorted hand-tools were provided against the planned target of 36,720.
• emergency livestock inputs and services: 1,616,707 persons were provided with emergency livestock inputs and services outside camps in resident communities out of the total targeted 1,538,000 persons (105 per cent of target). Additionally, 690,000 persons benefitted from emergency livestock inputs and services inputs in camps and gatherings out of the total targeted 720,000 persons. Moreover, 94 Community-based Animal Health Workers were provided with refresher trainings and equipment/kits against the targeted 95.
• emergency livelihoods training and start-up kits: 13,590 persons were provided with livelihoods trainings and packages of start-up kits against the targeted 11,670.
CHAlleNgeS
• Fund insecurity, lack of access, rainfall shortage, water scarcity, and pasture problems in widespread areas adversely impacted the sector interventions. there were delays in the timely production of vaccines by the national laboratory. High prices of inputs reduced the quantity of inputs purchased and distributed to beneficiaries and the coverage areas by partners. poor grazing pasture and water scarcity induced by el nino caused depletion of pasture and poor health of livestock. early transhumant movement, over-crowding and over-grazing in destination areas impacted animal health and increased tribal conflict.
leSSONS leARNeD
• Improved assessment should be considered by SHF partners to ensure beneficiary households provided with agricultural inputs are able to secure seed for the next season.
• Strengthen emergency livestock inputs and support services with funding for livestock vaccination, treatment, pasture and water services with special emphasis on the most destitute vulnerable communities owning fewer than 10 animals.
• enhance provision of livelihoods trainings and package of start-up kits to diversify income-generating and skills development of vulnerable communities with emphasis on destitute women and youth.
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp Sector objectives supported by SHF
the SHF results contributed significantly to the achievement of the following FSl – HRp 2015 objectives:
objective 1: Reduce acute food insecurity and save lives of vulnerable people affected by conflict and disasters [aligned with So1] (80%).
objective 2: Restore and improve food and livelihood security of households in affected areas of the country [aligned with So3] (20%).
Geographical focus of SHF projects
Geographically, FSl-SHF 2015 contributed in responding to acute needs of most vulnerable population in 7 states and 41 localities:
• Blue nile State: Bau, el Kurmuk, Al tadamon and Geissan.
• South Darfur State: Bielel (without Kalma camp), Gereida camp, Kalma camp, Kass (without Kass camp),otash camp and Sharg Jabel Marra, Marshang).
• Central Darfur State: Azum, Bindisi, Mukjar, nertiti (West Jebel Marra), Rokoro (north Jebel Marra), umm Dukhun, Wadi Salih and Zalingei.
• east Darfur State: Adila, Sheiria, yassin, ed Daein, and Abu Karinka.
• north Darfur State: el Fasher (without Zamzam camp), el Malha, el Sireaf, Kutum, Saraf omra, Zamzam camp, el taweisha, um Buru, umm Keddada, Kornoi, tawilla and el tina.
• South Kordofan State: Kadugli, el Abassiya, Rashad, Al Qoz.
• West Darfur State: Jebel Moon.
SHF added value
the FSl SHF 2015 core-pipeline, first and second standard allocations, contributed in responding effectively, efficiently and timely to the acute needs of most vulnerable target population in the target geographic areas noted above. the core pipeline allocation facilitated FSl Sector response in the procurement and distribution of much needed, mainly time-critical inputs for the people in need. the sector used SHF standard allocations to undertake multiple interventions aimed at addressing acute food insecurity with primary emphasis on saving-lives of the population with greatest needs.
2626 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
27
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES
27%
73%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $357.00 million
2%HRP secured funding $309.46 million
SHF allocated funding $5.34 million
28%
75%25%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
18%
34%
INGO
NNGO
UN
48%
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
96,467Women
115,416Boys
64,765Girls
79,746
Sector lead FAo, WFP
Sector partners ASSIST, BPWo, CIS, DRC, FAo, MC Scotland, nIDAA, TEARFunD, TGH, VCo, VSF
27Food dist
ribute
d by W
FP in A
l Sala
m IDP ca
mp, South
Darf
ur
© A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of animals vaccinated/treated in camps and gatherings
720,000 690,000 96%
# of IDPs in camps and gatherings supported with agricultural inputs and services
21,000 18,900 90%
# of partners (individuals from Government, nGos, CBos, un) trained on food security and livelihoods related areas outside camps and gatherings
25 25 100%
no of people provided with agricultural inputs and services
163,589 131,284 80%
no. of CAHWs trained and equipped 95 94 99%
no. of people trained and assisted with packages of emergency livelihoods start-up kits [e.g. restocking, agro-food processing, fisheries
11,670 13,590 116%
number of camp profiles conducted and shared
10 10 100%
number of livestock vaccinated/ treated 1,538,000 1,616,707 105%
Quantity of assorted tools (Pcs) provided 36,720 24,360 66%
Quantity of seeds (MT) provided 753 755 100%
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
HeAltH
lead agency: WHo
by trained rapid response teams (RRt) in which SHF health projects supported the training of 37 RRt at state and locality level, almost double the planned target for 2015.
• Measles vaccination coverage reached 78 per cent.
CHAlleNgeS
• lack of availability of sufficient qualified health staff remains a big threat for the health sector to provide high quality health services.
• Accessibility to some of the project sites during the rainy season and conflict poses a challenge to the implementation of activities and delivery of essential health services.
leSSONS leARNeD
• Selection of the partners should be based on established partnership with local authorities and field presence.
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
the Health Sector interventions funded by SHF directly contributed to the health sector HRp objectives:
objective 1: to continue supporting delivery of primary health care services including emergency referral services for vulnerable population affected by natural and manmade emergencies.
objective 2: to strengthen technical and institutional capacities in emergency preparedness and Response at national, state and locality level to prepare for, to detect, to prevent and respond promptly to public health risk or events.
objective 3: to contribute to the reduction of maternal and child morbidity and mortality among vulnerable populations.
SHF added value
SHF allocations played a major role in ensuring continuity in providing quality health care services to the affected population in Darfur, Kassala and South Kordofan. the SHF provided 10-20 percent of the total funding for the health sector and remains one of the most regular sources of income for the partners.
SHF added a great value in responding to measles and VHF outbreaks in greater Darfur, and South Kordofan states as it was utilised by Health Sector partners to provide the initial response to contain the outbreaks and it encouraged other donors to contribute funds to control the outbreaks.
Key performances
• SHF 2014 second allocation and 2015 first standard allocation ensured the continuity in delivery of primary health care in IDp camps/gatherings and host communities in the five Darfur states, Kassala, Blue nile, Abyei and South Kordofan. During 2015, the Health Sector operated 73 health facilities providing the minimum basic package of health services in camps and IDp gatherings reaching 89 per cent of the target or 1,764,162 beneficiaries.
• A total of 826 health workers were trained, exceeding the annual target of 812.
• the Health Sector detected, investigated and responded to 96 per cent of emergency/outbreak events reported within 72 hours. All verification missions were conducted
282828 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Acting quickly in an emergency - how rapid-release funding saves lives: Following an outbreak of dengue fever declared by the Ministry of Health (MoH) in october 2015, uS$1.2 million was disbursed from the Reserve for emergencies (Rfe) window of the Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF).
the Rfe is a rapid, timely and flexible allocation mechanism used to respond to sudden-onset and time critical humanitarian crises as they arise, and prioritises life-saving activities facing funding shortages. the Rfe is an essential element of the overall response, enabling humanitarian partners to provide effective assistance to affected populations when emergencies arise.
the outbreak was first reported in Darfur in late August 2015. the first two months of response to the outbreak was led by the MoH with support from the World Health organisation (WHo) and health partners. the response in subsequent months was hampered by limited resources. By May 2016, the caseload had increased from 17 to 512 cases in Darfur, Kordofan and Kassala. West Darfur was worst-affected with about 65 per cent all cases mainly in 2 localities. According to the MoH, the majority of cases affected children aged 5 to 14 years old. In December 2015, partners requested complementary support of $1.2 million from the SHF to ensure the continuity of ongoing activities and help stem the outbreak.
Following a review of caseloads and morbidity data, the project was implemented in the six worst affected localities in West, Central, east and north Darfur. the approval of the request by the SHF Advisory Board in three days is a testament to the responsiveness of the Fund to emerging crises. Fund disbursement followed after 15 days, which was crucial to ensuring a timely response to curb the spread of the disease.
SHF funds were used to support critical activities including vector control targeting 1.2 million individuals and surveillance, ensuring timely case management. Additional staff were trained and medical supplies were provided to run 6 mobile clinics and fixed health facilities. the overall response, including public health campaigns, was coordinated by MoH with the support of WHo and partners. In May 2016, 462,000 people had benefitted from vector control and health education activities, with a similar amount targeted for the remaining project period.
Dengue fever, a type of Viral Haemorrhagic Fever (VHF), is a febrile illness that affects infants, young children and adults with symptoms appearing 3-14 days after the bite of a mosquito infected with the virus. Dengue is not transmitted directly from person-to-person and symptoms range from mild fever to incapacitating high fever, with severe headache, pain behind the eyes, muscle and joint pain, and rash. early clinical diagnosis and careful clinical management by trained physicians and nurses increase the chance of patient survival.
29
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 3%
17%
55%
24%
1%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $65.26 million
31%HRP secured funding $36.66 million
SHF allocated funding $11.45 million
11% 81%8%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
12%
22%
INGO
NNGO
UN
66%
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of community awareness sessions conducted 10 8 80%
# of health facilities in camps and gatherings rehabilitated and equipped
2 1 50%
# of health facilities providing minimum basic package of health services in camps and gatherings
82 73 89%
# of health facilities providing basic emergency obstetric care in camps and gatherings
3 3 100%
# of health workers trained or retrained 812 826 102%
# of outpatient consultations in camps or gatherings
1,568,066 1,399,537 89%
% coverage of Penta 3 vaccination under one year of age
90% 81% 90%
% of births assisted by skilled birth attendant 65% 62% 95%
% of communicable disease outbreak detected and response initiated within 72 hours
100% 96% 96%
% of emergency events reported, investigated and response initiated within 72 hours of reporting.
96% 73% 76%
Coverage of Measles vaccine in children below one year of age
90% 78% 87%
number of midwives trained 77 71 92%
number of Rapid Response teams trained 17 37 218%
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
463,096Women
620,695Boys
329,490Girls
350,881
29
Sector lead WHo
Sector partners APDHWo, ARC, CIS, GAH, GoAl, HAD, IMC, IoM, IRW, KPHF, nCA, RHF, SC, SRCS, ToD, unFPA, unICEF, WHo, WR, WVI
A nurse w
ith m
edicatio
n pro
vided b
y the W
HO in K
hor Abech
e,
South D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
lead agency: WFp
leSSONS leARNeD
• unHAS continues to offer a crucial service to its users to reach difficult locations and overcome insecurity inherent to road transport. need to review fleet to match with requirements and funding levels.
loGIStICS & eMeRGenCy
teleCoMMunICAtIonS
303030
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
objective 1: provide logistics services to support the humanitarian community’s response within the 2015 HRp and identify gaps in the logistics capacity.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
Blue nile, Central Darfur, east Darfur, Kassala, Khartoum, north Darfur, north Kordofan, Red Sea, SouthDarfur, South Kordofan and West Darfur.
SHF added value
unHAS was able to maintain operations throughout the year and at the beginning of the next year without disruptions, despite irregular flow of contributions.
Key performances
• As part of logistics and emergency telecommunications (let) sector, unHAS provided crucial humanitarian air services to the HRp and was able to move 40,557 passengers and 165.6 Mts of light cargo. A total of 41 locations were served while 100 per cent of all medical and security evacuations requested were responded to. unHAS achieved this with a fleet of six aircrafts; one emb135, one Dash-8 and four MI-8 Helicopters. A performance management tool was introduced in February of the same year and is used to keep track of costs per passenger and per seat per mile and these figures can be compared with other operations globally to check efficiency and effectivity.
CHAlleNgeS
• Regular supply of Jet-A1 especially during the rainy season proved a challenge but in mitigation unHAS maintains approximately 50,000 litres bulk supply in the three main capitals of Darfur which helped avoid a pipeline break. Bad weather, mainly dust storms, lead to flight delays and in some cases flight cancellations.
30 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
3131
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 2%
2%
73%
1%
22%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $31,42 million
12%HRP secured funding $29.60 million
SHF allocated funding $3.70 million
68%
32%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
100%
INGO
NNGO
UN
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
% of medical and/or security evacuation air transport requests responded to
100% 100% 100%
no of nGos, un agencies and donor organization personnel provided with safe, effective and efficient access to beneficiaries and project implementation sites
43,492 42,520 98%
Qty of MT of light cargo such as medical supplies, high energy foods and information and communications technology (ICT) equipment transported
257 177 69%
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
981Women
981Boys
-Girls
-
31
Sector lead WFP
Sector partners WFP
A humanita
rian fli
ght by W
FP to re
ach is
olated p
laces i
n Darf
ur
© EU/ECHO
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
nutRItIon
lead agency: unICeF
issues continuous to increase nutritional vulnerability and result in a high incidence of acute malnutrition.
• the low coverage of nutrition partners in difficult to access locations remained a major cause of concern, especially in Central and east Darfur States.
• there were intermittent breakages in the WFp supply pipeline for supplementary food and other non-food commodities, which made it impossible for some partners to provide targeted Supplementary Feeding programmes (tSFp) services to MAM beneficiaries and consequently there was an increase in defaulters and absentees.
leSSONS leARNeD
• Complementarity with other funding sources helped partners to provide a complete nutrition package and overcome potential gaps.
• Standardising the cost per beneficiary for activities ensured rational use of the limited SHF resources.
• the early disbursement of SHF funding helped continuity of ongoing nutrition projects without interruption.
32
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
• objective 1: to contribute to the reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with acute malnutrition.
• objective 2: Increase access to integrated programmes for the prevention of under nutrition in highly vulnerable communities and groups.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
the humanitarian response in 2015 targeted 1.5 million children under the age of five as well as pregnant and lactating women to provide lifesaving and preventive services in critical priority localities across Sudan states mainly in east, West, Central, South and north Darfur and South and West Kordofan states.
Key performances
• to meet the sector objectives, ten nutrition partners (2 un agencies, 11 InGos and 3 nnGos) received $7.377 million from in 2015 as part of 43% funding received of the HRp appeal as of the end of 2015.
• twenty-six SHF funded nutrition project reports indicated that live-saving and prevention interventions has helped prevent an increased incidence of acute malnutrition cases as well as reducing maternal deaths and life-threatening pregnancy complications.
• through SHF funding, a total of 30,587 children affected by Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) and 28,554 children affected by Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) received treatment.
• A total of 281,696 women received awareness and counseling services on infant and young child feeding (ICyF) programmes that helps reduce the risk of malnutrition among young children.
• In addition, the SHF funding complimented the emergency blanket supplementary feeding programmes which were provided to 58,703 nutritionally at risk children under five and pregnant and lactating women in nutritionally vulnerable communities.
CHAlleNgeS
• the biggest challenge is the inability to address the underlying causes of malnutrition such as poor hygiene and sanitation, food insecurity, poor access to health services and inadequate caring practices of children and women in a multi-sectorial way on a large scale. these
32 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of children treated for moderate acute malnutrition 23,823 19,652 82%
# of children treated for severe acute malnutrition 4,290 3,539 82%
# of pregnant and lactating women treated for moderate acute malnutrition
2,402 1,756 73%
number of under 5 years children receiving emergency food ration support
37,721 35,695 95%
# of facility staff trained on management of acute malnutrition 56 39 70%
# of facility staff trained on preventative nutrition activities 80 100 125%
# of MAM treatment programmes meeting national performance indicators
19 16 84%
# of SAM treatment programmes meeting national performance indicators
7 7 100%
# of women and men reached with preventative nutrition messages and activities
187,791 127,266 68%
Proportion of CMAM centers linked to/integrating Infant And Young Child Feeding (IYCF) in emergencies (at community and facility levels) and Social and Behavioral Change Communications (SBCC) activities
64% 48% 75%
33
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 4%
15%
75%
4%
2%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $95.23 million
16%HRP secured funding $41.16 million
SHF allocated funding $6.61 million
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
76%
18%6%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
58%11%
INGO
NNGO
UN
31%
Men
98,465Women
230,120Boys
115,343Girls
127,352
Sector lead unICEF
Sector partners Almassar, AMVo, ARC, ASSIST, CIS, CRS, CW, GoAl, IMC, nCA, RI, SC, Tearfund, unICEF, WVI
SHF % ofsecured funding
33A child
in a
food d
istrib
ution ce
ntre in
Rwanda c
amp fo
r IDPs,
North D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
pRoteCtIon
lead agency: unHCR
GBV, other vulnerable groups) or activities (mine action for instance). SHF funding was also used to strengthen the capacity of authorities and service providers through training, policy support and dissemination of minimum standards.
• Improved physical security for displaced or returning community as of the destruction of 750 unexploded ordnances and 31,012 small arms ammunitions. the SHF-funded mine action projects targeted areas in South Kordofan and Blue nile which have been exposed to armed conflict leading to a significant presence of explosive remnants of war in the target communities.
• Improved access and partner presence in areas which were inaccessible to humanitarian actors for many years such as nertiti, Guldo and Golo, Rokoro localities (Central Darfur) and el Kurmuk, Gaissan, tadamon and el Roseires localities (Blue nile). With the support of SHF funds, the Child protection sub-sector introduced third party monitors into nGo and government partners to verify and report grave child rights violations. this enhanced the quality of the reporting and the response.
• Community-based child protection capacities were a focus of the 2015 allocations. new child-friendly spaces (CFS) and new community-based child protection networks (CBCpns) have been established, while existing CFS and CBCpns were supported and used as referral mechanisms.
• SHF funds were used to disseminate the manual on psychosocial support developed by the Child protection sub-sector together with unICeF, Ahfad university and the national Council for Child Welfare. Guidance materials on the protection of persons with specific needs, developed by the protection Sector, was also developed and disseminated among partners, including the Ministry of Social Welfare at the state level.
CHAlleNgeS
• the mapping of services (for example GBV services, legal aid) remains patchy, and sharing of updated information on available services is insufficient among protection partners.
• Insufficient funds to implement protection activities, even though protection partners have access to areas of concern, remains a missed opportunity, especially in the Child protection sub-sector.
leSSONS leARNeD
• the referral work by protection partners needs to be improved. More technical guidance on referral pathways and multi-sector case management, as well as more accurate service mapping is required to make sure that social workers can efficiently refer individuals to the relevant services in a safe and timely way. In general, there is a need for more synergy in the protection response, involving the integration of all sub-sectors.
• the protection Sector has been keen to ensure that national nGos have access to SHF funding, with the objective to strengthen Sudan-based protection capacities. to achieve this, the protection sector needs to be able to allocate funds below the threshold applicable to other sectors.
• technical guidance on community-based protection needs to be disseminated more systematically, to ensure that protection partners (general protection) provide consistent and quality support to community protection networks. there is a need to improve the understanding of community mobilisation mechanisms and structures in place, and how they complement and interact with each other.
34
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
objective 1: Address emergency humanitarian protection needs of newly displaced persons and other affected population, including women and children.
objective 2: prevent and mitigate protection risks for people in areas affected by conflict.
objective 3: Strengthen the capacity of protection service providers.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
the protection sector had wide coverage with SHF funding including across the five Dafur states, north, South and West Kordofan, Abyei pCA Area, Blue nile and Khartoum states and eastern states including Kassala and Red Sea.
SHR added value
SHF is a critical source of funding for the protection Sector and enabled funds to be directed to the needs of people affected in the new displacement crises during the year. the efficient disbursement of funding from the SHF enabled a timely response during these crises. SHF funds for the core pipeline/protection made the local procurement of personal hygiene kits more cost effective and ensured that the composition of the kits was in line with the sub-sector standards.
Key performances
• SHF funding supported an essential objective of the protection Sector strategy, which is to ensure the access of vulnerable groups, including children and women at risk, to lifesaving protection services in response to emergency protection needs, including family tracing and reunification, psychosocial counselling, referral and legal services. SHF funding helped the protection Sector, including child protection and GBV organisations, to deploy protection workers mainly in recently displaced communities in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue nile, to identify and respond to the protection needs of very vulnerable groups.
• SHF funding supported the objective of the protection Sector to strengthen community-based protection capacities. each project had a component aimed at mobilising protection capacities in target communities. protection networks were created or supported to enable them to fulfill essential protection functions, with regard to specific groups (children, women at risk of
34 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Disp
laced w
omen carry
firewood in
to th
e UNAM
ID b
ase in
Khor Abech
e, South
Darf
ur © A
. Gonza
lez/UNAM
ID
35
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 1%
28%
71%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $44,88 million
46%HRP secured funding $7,69 million
SHF allocated funding $3,57 million
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# community-based protection networks created 18 24 133%
# community-based protection networks supported 136 171 126%
# of children supported with psychosocial support 78,442 121,541 155%
# of monitoring missions where there are attacks reported which affect the civilian population
162 48 30%
# of people (men, women, girls and boys) received MRE 63,832 45,745 72%
# of people provided with assistance to resolve disputes (judical or customary/informal)
1,155 1,158 100%
# of reported cases of grave rights violations 800 1,018 127%
# of unaccompanied and separated children for whom family tracing has been successful
847 1,444 170%
# of victims of violence receive legal services 106 51 48%
# of victims of violence receive psychosocial services 1,455 1,380 95%
number of people, including women and children, receiving in-dividual or community based psychosocial support and services
101,070 77,807 77%
number of referral mechanisms maintained or established with a continued support including for women, children, older people and persons living with disabilities
116 135 116%
number of SuAMs, who are identified, documented, provided with interim care or reunified.
1,356 515 38%
73%
9%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve 18%
41%43%
INGO
NNGO
UN17%
Men
59,977Women
87,385Boys
109,191Girls
114,412
Sector lead unHCR
Sector partners AMVo, AoRD, ASSIST, FPDo, GAH, GoAl, HAI uK, JASMAR, nDu, nIDAA, PBA, Tearfund, ToHD, unFPA, unHCR, unICEF
SHF % ofsecured funding
35
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
lead agency: unHCR
administered to 488 children under 5 years of age and 1,100 children under 5 years received emergency food ration support.
• SHF funds supported protection activities targeting South Sudanese children and women, who represent about three quarters of the population. About 78,000 women benefited from women’s centres, training and livelihoods activities and a total of 133,000 children benefited from assistance including child-friendly spaces, birth registration and direct support to unaccompanied and Separated Children. the SHF contribution was particularly important for these protection activities as the area was underfunded, and activities would not have taken place without SHF funding.
the SHF relocated and provided basic relief services to 4,000 South Sudanese refugees in Khartoum, documentation services covered 15,161 refugees in 2015, and 536 uAMs/ Separated Children (SC) were identified and received assistance.
the fund provided 42,260 South Sudanese refugees (23 per cent of total refugees) with access to livelihood and income generation activities as well as access to safe energy and fuel sources.
CHAlleNgeS
• Some of the most significant challenges to implementation included access and capacity in restricted areas. In South Kordofan and West Kordofan, insecurity hampered activities.
• Delays to project onset were caused by the rainy season and due to delays caused by negotiating technical agreements with the governments.
• Challenges in delivering legal and protection assistance to South Sudanese refugees in Khartoum due to a lack of clear definition of their status by the government.
• only 17 per cent of South Sudanese children were provided with access to education in South and West Kordofan schools owing to a lack of teacher incentives and issues over the curriculum.
leSSONS leARNeD
• the involvement of South Sudanese refugees in all activities was achieved by establishing project committees which facilitated refugee participation and helped to mobilise local communities.
• the delivery of services where both host community and refugees were targeted (especially health centres, schools and water sources) contributed to the integration of both communities and reduced the risk of conflict over resources.
• the use of the Refugee Multi-Sector forum at state level to identify achievements and gaps, as well coordinate the activities, facilitated sector project implementation and avoided overlapping with other funding sources.
• Increased monitoring of RMS projects allowed for timely identification of challenges in implementation and ensured regular follow up with partners.
36
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
objective 1: ensure access to basic needs and essential services for refugees, asylum seekers and refugee returnees.
objective 2: ensure effective protection of refugees, asylum seekers, refugee returnees and those with undetermined nationality status, with particular attention to vulnerable groups including children, youth, women at risk, survivor/victims of trafficking and kidnapping and SGBV.
objective 3: Facilitate durable solutions including promoting self-reliance and livelihoods, resettlement and voluntary repatriation where possible.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
protection activities took place in White nile, South Kordofan, West Kordofan, West Darfur, South Darfur, Central Darfur and Khartoum states.
SHF added value
SHF funding contributed to meeting the critical needs of the South Sudanese new arrivals in Sudan, especially life-saving assistance in White nile, Khartoum and South Kordofan. the funding received supported RMS to provide lifesaving and emergency assistance to South Sudanese refugees. this was particularly important in 2015 as Sudan became the largest recipient of South Sudanese refugees in the region. Without the support of the SHF, 182,844 South Sudanese would not have been provided with essential non-food items, water and sanitation, and health services and protection, including access to water, hygiene promotion, sanitary materials, medical treatment, vaccination, and support to vulnerable persons.
Key performances
• the Reserve for emergencies funding supported the South Sudanese refugees in July 2015 in the areas of Health, nutrition, nFIs and protection in Kharasana, West Kordofan. A total of 8,000 refugees in Kharasana received non-food items, improved primary health care and reproductive health services. A total of 1,600 children and women were reached with the extended programme on Immunization tetanus toxoid vaccines. every identified survivor of SGBV received assistance. A total of 320 person of concern had access to psychosocial support. treatment for SAM was
36 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
37
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 1%
18%
13%
59%
9%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $240.76 million
11%HRP secured funding $55.97 million
SHF allocated funding $6.28 million
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of refugees assisted with livelihoods measures 41,325 42,000 102%
# of refugees, asylum-seekers and refugee returnees assisted essential services
6,000 6,130 102%
number of affected people (men, women & children) trained on WASH aspects
150 183 122%
number of beneficiaries by gender and age having access to livelihoods activities
260 260 100%
number of children under 5 years of age treated from SAM 488 435 89%
number of under 5 years children receiving emergency food ration support
1,100 988 90%
Percentage of identified survivors/victims of SGBV and trafficking/kidnapping receiving assistance
100% 100% 100%
Percentage of identified uAMs/SC receiving assistance 100% 50% 50%
Percentage of outbreaks of communicable diseases which are investigated and response initiated within 72 hours
100% 100% 100%
Percentage of people who have access to safe means of excreta disposal
100% 163% 163%
Percentage of refugee children (boys and girls) are enrolled in quality learning spaces
100% 17% 17%
Percentage of refugee children having access to vaccination services
100% 105% 105%
Percentage of refugees having access to health services including reproductive health
100% 108% 108%
Percentage of refugees who have access to safe water supply 100% 114% 114%
Percentage of sites with a GAM rate of under 15% 100% 100% 100%
Percentage of South Sudanese new arrivals in receipt of nFIs and Emergency Shelter
100% 100% 100%
81%
10%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve 9%
66% 15%
INGO
NNGO
UN19%
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
38,282Women
66,105Boys
34,243Girls
44,214
37
Sector lead unHCR
Sector partners AMVo, ASSIST, CAFoD, CIS, CRS, FAo, FPDo, IoM, SC, unFPA, unHCR, unICEF, uPo, WHo
South Sudan
ese re
fugee at N
FI dist
ributio
n site
in K
hor Omer,
East D
arfur ©
UN
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
WAteR, SAnItAtIon &
HyGIene
lead agency: unICeF
• Ground water depletion in some IDp camps has impacted access to water.
• Flooding has impacted WASH facilities in some areas.
leSSONS leARNeD
• projects that involved close community consultation, engagement and participation yielded excellent results, for example the target for the construction of new latrines was exceeded reaching 111 per cent. SHF can be used as an opportunity to strengthen collaboration and integration among partners through refugee multi-sectoral projects.
38
SHF ReSUlTS
2015 HRp sector objectives supported by SHF
WASH Sector interventions were aligned with life-saving objectives of the Sector Response plan, including to sustain and expand the access to water supply, sanitation and hygiene services in the camps, with the focus on service delivery to the most vulnerable population in the IDp settlements and surrounding host communities.
Geographical focus of SHF projects
WASH Sector partners committed to cover 23 localities with high and critical needs in north Dafur, West Dafur, Central Dafur, South Dafur, east Dafur, Kassala and Blue nile. these locations include the camps where drinking water coverage is lower than the basic minimum survival need in emergency context of 7.5 litres per person per day.
SHF added value
the SHF is a significant funding source for sector partners, specifically national nGos, to carry out life-saving assistance activities, which would otherwise not happen. SHF funding has supported the initiative of solar panel installation in IDp camps, significantly increasing the sustainability of the water supply for vulnerable communities.
Key performances
• the total number of beneficiaries reached by the WASH sector was 914,085 people (411,367 women, 299,470 men, 178,325 girls and 137,265 boys), achieving 89% of planned targets.
• Sector partners collectively constructed a total of 1,383 new latrines and rehabilitated 2,776 existing ones.
• Monitoring found 96 per cent of installed water points to be functional.
• Hygiene promotion activities reach 191,876 beneficiaries, exceeding the target of 102 per cent.
• training was delivered to 1,216 people on topics ranging from operation and maintenance, community mobilisation, awareness raising on hygiene promotion and construction/disinfection of latrines.
CHAlleNgeS
• Access and insecurity remained the most significant challenges to implementing essential WASH activities to support people in need.
• Crime around or relating to the WASH facilities including the theft of solar panels threatened project outcomes.
38 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
39
EASTERNSUDAN
BLUENILE
SOUTHKORDOFAN
ABYEI
DARFUR
KHARTOUM
OTHERNORTHERN
STATES 5%
9%
81%
1%
4%
Geographic coverage
HRP requirement $69.35 million
29%HRP secured funding $24.55 million
SHF allocated funding $7.11 million
SHF funding proportion to HRP 2015
SHF funding per category SHF funding per type of organisation
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
# of community members trained on management of water, sanitation and hygiene services
760 948 125%
# of existing water points rehabilitated 58 32 55%
# of garbage cleaning campaigns conducted 7 8 114%
# of latrines rehabilitated 863 1,383 160%
# of new latrines constructed 2,505 2,776 111%
# of new/ additional water points constructed 6 5 83%
# of people reached with hygiene education messages and awareness raised
69,820 79,695 114%
# of people served by vector control measures. 360 360 100%
# of people served by solid waste management 59,749 60,000 100%
# of water points maintained and operated 66 54 82%
71%
21%8%
Standard
Commonpipeline &services
Reserve
9%
40% 52%
INGO
NNGO
UN
SHF % ofsecured funding
Men
266,628Women
365,323Boys
119,958Girls
162,176
Sector lead unICEF
Sector partners ARC, ASSIST, CIS, FPDo, IoM, IRW, lABEnA, MC Scotland, nCA, oxfam America, TEARFunD, TGH, uMCoR, unICEF, WHo, WVI
39Women fil
ling a
Wate
r Rolle
r in a
water p
oint in A
bu Shouk cam
p,
North D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
Beneficiaries reached (excluding special allocations)
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
A disp
laced w
oman is
pict
ured in
side th
e UNAM
ID b
ase in
Khor
Abeche, S
outh D
arfur ©
A. G
onzalez/U
NAMID
40
Conclusions & Way Forward
40
At the end of 2015, the Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) was renamed Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF). this name change is part of standardising names of oCHA-managed pooled humanitarian funds, which all use the same tools and processes.
the SHF has significantly contributed to a coordinated humanitarian response in Sudan in 2015. the SHF accounted for 8 per cent of total HRp funding, implemented through 168 projects of 56 partner organisations. In line with a strong commitment to principled humanitarian action, the SHF seeks to address humanitarian needs in Sudan, including in hard-to-reach areas of the Darfur region, South Kordofan and Blue nile states. A dynamic and timely Reserve for emergencies is essential to address unforeseen needs.
the fact that the SHF provides direct funding to national nGos constitutes a significant comparative advantage. It promotes the responsibility of national actors and builds capacity of local implementers. At the same time, the SHF will continue to promote partnerships between national and international actors to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid in the most efficient way possible.
the fund also introduced improvements across various fund management areas (e.g. strategic use of the fund, accountability and governance) in 2015 through a major review involving many stakeholders. While significant change has been initiated in 2015, much of the implementation will take place in 2016. It will therefore be important to monitor the impact of the changes against the goal of achieving a more effective and timely response to address priority humanitarian needs. Balancing timeliness and accountability will remain a challenge and requires ongoing evaluation. Despite the slight decline in donor contributions, the SHF continues to be an important source of humanitarian funding in Sudan. In 2015, the SHF continued to advocate for predictability of donor funding with commitments made early in the year and to encourage multi-year commitments. Multi-year funding allows the SHF to plan and disburse funds when and where they are most needed, ensuring the SHF’s role as a strategic partner in responding both to sudden-onset and protracted emergencies. Attracting new donors to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund will be important to help achieve that objective.
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
41
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
1 CooRDInAtIon & CoMMon SeRVICeS
International organization for Migration
un Agency Registration and verification of IDPs and populations affected by natural disasters and conflicts in Sudan.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$316,324.00
2 CooRDInAtIon & CoMMon SeRVICeS
office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
un Agency Strengthening Humanitarian Coordination and Common Services in Sudan: CHF Management Cost
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$1,170,000.17
3 eDuCAtIon Catholic Relief Services
International nGo Provision of Access to Quality Education for new IDPs in um Dukhun
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$247,685.14
4 eDuCAtIon Danish Refugee Council
International nGo Improving access to inclusive and quality lifesaving education for displaced and other vulnerable children in Jebel Marra area in Central Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$375,247.52
5 eDuCAtIon Save the Chil-dren
International nGo Access to basic education for children affected by conflict in Abu Karshola
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$297,029.70
6 eDuCAtIon united Peace organization
national nGo Increase of access to protective and qualitative lifesaving education for newly displaced and most affected school aged children in Kalma IDPs camp.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$99,009.90
7 eDuCAtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Provision of effective emergency education response through supply pipeline
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$464,984.00
8 eDuCAtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Education Sector coordination and adequate monitoring and reporting mechanisms
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$73,348.50
9 eDuCAtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Provision of Education in Emergency Assistance in Tawila and Shangil Tobay of north Darfur for newly Displaced IDP Children
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$161,024.00
10 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
American Refugee Committee
International nGo Continuation of Emergency nFIs support to IDPs in camps and IDPs in gatherings (women, men, girls and boys), especially those with special needs (people with disabilities and the elderly) in Kalma camp and Alsalam locality - South Darfur.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$79,999.95
11 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
Catholic Relief Services
International nGo Basic nFI and Shelter support to emergency & conflict affected communities in West & Central Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$89,168.32
12 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
norwegian Church Aid
International nGo nFI and ES support for IDPs in Central Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$69,603.96
13 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
Sustainable Action Group
national nGo Provision of Improve Shelter materilas to new Arrivals in Korma & nFIs to long Term, Disaster Affected, Returnees ,War affected in Tina, Korn ,umbro in north Darfur State
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$97,905.94
14 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
united nations High Com-missioner for Refugees
un Agency ESnFI Project: The nFI Common Pipeline
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$599,788.00
15 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency ESnFI Project: The nFI Common Pipeline
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$378,523.00
16 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
united Peace organization
national nGo To provide nFIs and transitional shelter and emergency shelter to newly displaced people, returnees and most vulnerable populations affected by conflict/flood and encourage the communities to reduce environmental damage
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$79,207.92
AnnexeSA1: list of projects
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
42
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
17 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
American Refugee Committee
International nGo Continuation of Emergency nFIs support to IDPs in camps and IDPs in gatherings (women, men, girls and boys), especially those with special needs (people with disabilities and the elderly) in South and East Darfur states
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$81,367.08
18 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
Catholic Relief Services
International nGo Shelter and nFI humanitarian support to disaster and conflict affected communities in West and Central Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$173,267.28
19 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
Great Family organization
national nGo Provision of emergency/transitional of nFIs, environment friendly shelter materials and alternative building techniques to vulnerable in Shattai and um Dafog localities in South Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$70,523.70
20 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
HelpAge International uK
International nGo Emergency Shelter and non-Food Item (ES&nFI) assistance for vulnerable older people and their dependents in areas of return and IDP camps in South Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$109,164.73
21 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Strengthen community based emergency preparedness and response in Central and South Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$112,234.44
22 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
Rehaid Elfursan Rural Development net
national nGo Distribution of ES & nFI to new displaced People and Conflict and Disaster affected peopel in otash, Alsalm & katila Camps of South Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$53,404.75
23 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
TEARFunD International nGo Increased Emergency Response for conflict-affected communities in Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$133,663.37
24 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency ES/nFIs sector coordination , monitoring and reporting
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$149,806.81
25 eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency ESnFI Project: The nFI Common Pipeline
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$1,674,000.00
26 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Food & Agriculture organization of the united nations
un Agency Support to restore livestock and agriculture -based livelihoods of newly IDPs and returnees in the five Darfur states
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$839,234.00
27 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
organization for Voluntary Humanitarian Assistance Programme
national nGo Reduce food insecurity and improve livelihoods for vulnerable new IDPs and host communities in South Kordofan and East Darfur States.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$286,068.35
28 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Business and Professional Women organization
national nGo Improve livelihood and Food Security of newly IDPs and Food Insecure Host Communities in Saraf omra locality in north Darfur State
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$169,957.41
29 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
CARE International Switzerland in Sudan
International nGo South Kordofan Emergency Food Security and livelihood Assistance Project
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$300,742.65
30 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Danish Refugee Council
International nGo Food security and livelihood Intervention for Vulnerable Conflict and Disaster Affected Populations in Central Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$324,752.45
31 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Food & Agriculture organization of the united nations
un Agency FSl Sector: Core Pipeline "Emergency assistance to support food security and livelihoods of newly Displaced persons and extremely vulnerable host communities in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue nile States
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$1,162,500.00
32 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Food & Agriculture organization of the united nations
un Agency FSl sector coordination , monitoring and reporting
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$187,445.81
33 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Mercy Corps Scotland
International nGo Reduce Household Food Insecurity and Improve livelihoods of newly Displaced Persons and Extremely Vulnerable Host Communities of otash camp in South Darfur State, and in Kadugli in South Kordofan State
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$263,070.82
42 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
43
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
34 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Sudanese Development Call organization
national nGo Food security and livelihoods emergency assistance for IDPs and conflict affected communities in Blue nile State.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$257,656.00
35 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
TEARFunD International nGo Project Title: Promoting lifesaving food security and livelihoods interventions for both men and women in East Darfur (Shaeria and Yassin localities)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$307,626.73
36 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Vet-care organization
national nGo Provide life-Saving Food and livelihood Security Support to IDPs and Vulnerable Host Community Households in South Kordofan State
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$256,846.54
37 FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
Vétérinaires sans Frontières Germany
International nGo "Improve household food and livelihoods security of IDPs and host populations in Central Darfur State"
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$321,990.67
38 HeAltH American Refugee Committee
International nGo Improving Comprehensive Health Care services including Maternal and child care to IDPs and host communities in East Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$198,018.52
39 HeAltH norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Provision of Sustainable Emergency Primary Health Care Services to Vulnerable Populations in El neem IDPs camp and Surrounding Host Communities, East Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$194,936.88
40 HeAltH united nations Population Fund
un Agency Increase access to quality reproductive health care for vulnerable populations in north Darfur
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$100,000.65
41 HeAltH united nations Population Fund
un Agency Increased quality reproductive health care services for most vulnerable women in target localities in South Darfur, north Darfur and South Kordufan.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$200,000.00
42 HeAltH united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Provision of emergency primary health care services to the newly displaced people in north Darfur State
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$115,005.85
43 HeAltH united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Ebola Prevention Communication in Sudan
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$470,890.00
44 HeAltH united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Boosting immunization services to reach the unreached children in West and South Kordofan states and access to skilled delivery in South Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$200,047.00
45 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Provision of primary health care services in Geldo - jabel mara Central Darfur State
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$250,000.00
46 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Essential preparedness for prevention and containment of Ebola Virus Disease.
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$892,900.00
47 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Support access to emergency health services for the new IDPs and conflict affected communities in East Darfur and South Kordofan States
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$324,300.00
48 HeAltH Anhar for Peace, Development and Humanitarian Work organization
national nGo Provision of quality primary health care services to the vulnerable IDPs and affected communities (women, men, boys, girls, people of special needs, etc) in El serief (El serief locality); 3 Shangil Tobayi camps (Dar El salam locality); and Alabsi camp (Mellit)locality, ) in north Darfur State 2015, Sudan
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$222,774.00
49 HeAltH American Refugee Committee
International nGo Enhancing Emergency Health Response to IDPs in camps and Host Communities in East and South Darfur States
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$389,646.92
50 HeAltH CARE International Switzerland in Sudan
International nGo South Kordofan and South Darfur Emergency Assistance and Recovery Program (Support provision of lifesaving integrated primary and reproductive healthcare)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$198,020.23
51 HeAltH Global Aid Hand national nGo Continue supporting life-saving health services for the most vulnerable population in Abyei PCA area.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$128,438.52
52 HeAltH GoAl International nGo Continue supporting the provision of quality and sustainable Primary Health Care and community health promotion services to vulnerable communities in north Darfur (Kutum and Al Waha localities)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$297,096.37
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
444444
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
53 HeAltH Humanitarian Aid and Development organization
national nGo Contribution to reduction of morbidity and mortality rates (to below emergency thresholds|) among vulnerable IDPs and host communities (women, men, boys, girls, people of special needs, etc) through full package of life saving primary health care services in Zamzam camp (El Fasher rural); and Alsalam camp (El Fasher locality) in norh Darfur State in 2015
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$247,204.77
54 HeAltH norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Provision of Sustained Integrated Emergency Primary Health Care Services to IDPs and Host Communities affected by the recurrent crisis in Zalengei and Bilel localities in Central and South Darfur States
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$198,018.91
55 HeAltH united nations Population Fund
un Agency Health Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$150,000.00
56 HeAltH united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Core pipelines to enhance access to primary health care services in conflict affected locations.
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$200,008.00
57 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Health Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$719,448.00
58 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Support to health sector coordination, monitoring and reporting mechanisms in Sudan
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$167,856.25
59 HeAltH World Health organization
un Agency Emergency life-saving services for the communities affected by conflict, displacement and disasters in 38 high priority localities in Sudan
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$384,900.40
60 loGIStICS & eMeRGenCy teleCoM.
World Food Programme
un Agency unHAS: Provision of Humanitarian Air Service in Sudan
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$2,500,000.00
61 loGIStICS & eMeRGenCy teleCoM.
World Food Programme
un Agency unHAS: Provision of Humanitarian Air Service in Sudan
2015 -2nd Round Standard Allocation
$1,200,000.00
62 nutRItIon American Refugee Committee
International nGo Continuation of Integrated Community based Management of Acute Malnutrition Support to new (2014) IDPs in Kalma camp and Al Salam locality - South Darfur State, Sudan
2014 – 2nd Round Stand-ard Allocation
$200,000.00
63 nutRItIon International Medical Corps
International nGo Comprehensive nutrition programming to respond to identified gaps in nutrition services in Central Darfur.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$198,019.80
64 nutRItIon norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Emergency nutrition support for vulnerable conflict affected households in South and Central Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$196,882.18
65 nutRItIon Relief International
International nGo Provision of emergency nutrition services to Al-malha locality, north Darfur, Sudan
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$183,168.35
66 nutRItIon Relief International
International nGo Promoting community –based prevention and treatment of acute malnutrition in Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$253,600.00
67 nutRItIon American Refugee Committee
International nGo Integrated Community-Based Management of Acute Malnutrition for IDPs and Host Communities in East and South Darfur States
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$159,097.44
68 nutRItIon CARE International Switzerland in Sudan
International nGo South Kordofan and South Darfur Emergency Assistance and Recovery Program (Support provision of integrated management of acute malnutrition)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$129,472.33
69 nutRItIon Concern Worldwide
International nGo Provision of comprehensive nutrition interventions for vulnerable communities in South Kordofan State.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$147,262.50
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
45
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
70 nutRItIon GoAl International nGo Improve access to quality preventive and curative care of acute malnutrition in populations with a critical nutrition situation affected by conflict in Kutum, north Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$255,444.79
71 nutRItIon norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Integrated Emergency nutrition interventions for malnourished children, pregnant and lactating women among conflict affected IDPs and Host communities in Bilel and Zalingei localities South and Central Darfur States.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$299,187.84
72 nutRItIon Save the Children
International nGo Improving Access to Integrated Quality Emergency and Early Recovery nutrition, Assistance for IDPs, disaster affected and vulnerable Populations in camps and gatherings in Blue nile, South Kordofan and Central Darfur states in Sudan
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$445,544.38
73 nutRItIon TEARFunD International nGo Increasing access and quality of nutrition services in conflict-affected communities in East Darfur (Shaeria, Yassin and Ed Daein)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$261,386.14
74 nutRItIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency nutrition Sector: Core Pipeline: Ensure effective emergency nutrition response through smooth supply pipeline
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$1,023,000.25
75 nutRItIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency nutrition sector coordination , monitoring and reporting
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$187,250.00
76 nutRItIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Emergency food rations for newly displaced children and women.
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$160,500.00
77 nutRItIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Provision of life-saving nutrition treatment services to newly displaced communities in East Darfur
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$218,782.90
78 pRoteCtIon Global Aid Hand national nGo Strengthening Humanitarian Protection Against Gender Based Violence for Conflict Affected Vulnerable Women and Children in South and East Darfur States
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$98,680.20
79 pRoteCtIon Global Aid Hand national nGo Strengthen human protection of the extremely vulnerable (EVI) civilians in Rashad, Abu Jubaiha and El Abassya localities in South Kordofan
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$78,866.34
80 pRoteCtIon Global Aid Hand national nGo Strengthen the Human Protection (with special consideration of girls and boys) and Enhance Protection System in South Kordofan and Abeyei, Sudan
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$89,009.90
81 pRoteCtIon united nations Population Fund
un Agency Strengthening lifesaving, Comprehensive, and Multi-Sectoral Prevention and Response to GBV Survivors in Darfur, Blue nile and South Kordofan
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$250,032.00
82 pRoteCtIon united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency Ensure Protection Services and Assistance to IDPs, and other conflict affected populations in and Blue nile and South Kordofan States through protection sector coordination and monitoring, and direct responds
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$184,275.50
83 pRoteCtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Emergency response to north Darfur crisis
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$214,636.65
84 pRoteCtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Protection and community based reintegration of conflict affected children in Sudan
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$400,000.00
85 pRoteCtIon united Peace organization
national nGo Enhancing the community' capacity to identify and track incidents/violence and other related protection concerns in timely manner
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$100,000.58
86 pRoteCtIon organization for Voluntary Humanitarian Assistance Programme
national nGo Ensuring Protection Services and Assistance for Persons with special needs mainly women, children , disable and elderly among IDPs in South and East Darfur State.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$113,862.17
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
464646
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
87 pRoteCtIon Friends of Peace and Development organization
national nGo Emergency land Release to promote free and safe movement among IDPs, returnees and war affected to reduce risk, impact and effects of landmines/ERWs in Abu-karshola, Diliing and Talodi localities in South Kordofan State.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$99,010.64
88 pRoteCtIon Global Aid Hand national nGo Strengthen Child Protection Systems and Mechanisms in South Kordofan,and South Darfur States
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$158,432.76
89 pRoteCtIon Global Aid Hand national nGo Strengthen Protection Mechanisms for the Extremely Vulnerable IDPs in South and East Darfur States and Provide Support for the Extremely Vulnerable Women and Women with Special needs
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$74,244.52
90 pRoteCtIon GoAl International nGo Reducing the risk of Gender Based Violence by addressing emergency protection needs and empowering vulnerable, conflict-affected women through informal literacy in Kutum and El Fasher localities, north Darfur.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$148,513.73
91 pRoteCtIon HelpAge Inter-national uK
International nGo Supporting the protection and inclusion of older people in humanitarian programmes in South Darfur
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$140,652.54
92 pRoteCtIon national Demining units organization
national nGo Reduce the risk of death/ injuries from mines/ ERW among vulnerable people, conflict affected communities, and humanitarian community through survey and clearance of ERW/ mines contaminations in Blue nile State
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$99,009.90
93 pRoteCtIon Sudanese Development Call organization
national nGo Enhancing the lifesaving Child Protection Services for IDPs and War Affected People in South Kordofan State.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$99,010.31
94 pRoteCtIon TEARFunD International nGo Promoting lifesaving protection services of boys and girls in conflict affected communities of West Jabel Mara (nertiti locality)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$99,009.90
95 pRoteCtIon unFPA (united nations Population Fund)
un Agency Protection Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$465,000.00
96 pRoteCtIon united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency Protection sector coordination , monitoring and reporting
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$195,508.26
97 pRoteCtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Child Protection emergency assistance to vulnerable conflict affected children, including uASC and winterization for newly displaced IDPs in north Darfur
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$200,000.00
98 pRoteCtIon united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Provision of emergency Child Protection to newly displaced communities in East Darfur state.
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$120,000.50
99 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
Food & Agriculture organization of the united nations
un Agency Emergency livelihood Support for the South Sudanese Refugees in White nile and South Kordofan states.
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$800,000.00
100 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency Voluntary relocation of South Sudanese communities from Shagara open area to Bantiu site, Khartoum
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$717,875.00
101 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
organization for Voluntary Humanitarian Assistance Programme
national nGo Protection and Assistance to South Sudanese Refugees and host communities in South Kordofan State
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$227,723.18
102 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
organization for Voluntary Humanitarian Assistance Programme
national nGo Provision of WASH Services for South Sudanese Refugees in Kharasana West Kordofan State
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$148,514.93
103 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
CARE International Switzerland in Sudan
International nGo Responding to unmet WASH needs of South Sudanese Refugees in South Kordofan
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$217,821.78
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
47
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
104 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
International organization for Migration
un Agency Support for South Sudanese Affected by Conflict
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$240,695.22
105 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
Save the Children
International nGo "Protection and humanitarian assistance for refugees and asylum seekers in Central Darfur umshalya"
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$118,813.23
106 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
Save the Children
International nGo Emergency Response For South Sudanese Refugees in South Kordofan State, Sudan
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$227,181.20
107 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
united nations Population Fund
un Agency RMS Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$285,000.00
108 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency RMS Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$178,887.00
109 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
united nations High Commissioner for Refugees
un Agency Protection of newly arrived South Sudanese refugees in Kharasana, West Kordofan State
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$120,171.70
110 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Emergency nutrition response for new South Sudanese refugee arrivals in Kharasana
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$152,342.32
111 ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
World Health organization
un Agency life-saving primary health care services and vital public health interventions for 8,080 Refugees settled, host communities and possible new arrivals/refugees transiting through the area in Kharasana reception West Kordofan- Sudan
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$264,960.89
112 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
Friends of Peace and Development organization
national nGo Scale-up and Sustain Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services to conflict and floods affected community in north Darfur.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$209,117.82
113 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
International organization for Migration
un Agency WASH Activities in South Kordofan and West Kordofan States
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$129,638.00
114 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Provision of emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Guldo, Central Darfur state.
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$148,514.85
115 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
norwegian Church Aid
International nGo Emergency Water, sanitation and hygiene promotion for vulnerable communities in South and Central Darfur States.
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$106,810.78
116 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
oxfam America International nGo Water, Sanitation and Hygiene response for the conflict affected people in South Darfur
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$256,454.46
117 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
united nations Children's Fund
un Agency WASH Emergency Response to Jabel Marra- Central Darfur
2014 - CHF Reserve Allocation
$100,000.00
118 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
united nations Children's Fund
un Agency Providing and sustaining WASH lifesaving interventions for vulnerable populations including IDPs and newly conflict affected populations in the Darfur region
2014 – 2nd Round Standard Allocation
$217,334.00
119 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
American Refugee Committee
International nGo Integrated Basic WASH Services to Support IDPs,in East and South Darfur States
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$284,651.14
120 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
Women organization for Development & Capacity Building
national nGo WASH live saving for nutritionally vulnerable in Rural Kassala locality in Kassala state.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$203,947.35
121 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
oxfam America International nGo Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Support for the conflict affected and vulnerable people living in South Darfur.
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$393,777.23
122 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
TEARFunD International nGo Increasing access and quality of emergency WASH services in conflict affected communities of East Darfur (Shaeria locality)
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$283,830.69
123 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
united Methodist Committee on Relief
International nGo Improving Access to Sustainable WASH Services for conflict affected Populations, IDPs and host communities in Abu Karinka locality of East Darfur State
2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation
$274,624.06
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
48484848
# Sector org. org. type project title Allocation type Budget
124 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
united nations Children's Fund
un Agency WASH Sector: Core Pipeline 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$1,300,000.00
125 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
united nations Children's Fund
un Agency WASH sector coordination , monitoring and reporting
2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF Management Cost, Sector Coordination and M&R, unHAS)
$187,464.00
126 WAteR, SAnItAtIon AnD HyGIene
World Health organization
un Agency Enhanced access to safe water and vital pro-motive and integrated vector control interventions for IDPs and GAM affected communities in 16 prioritized localities/locations in Sudan over a period of 12 month
2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation
$508,849.20
A2: list of Standard output Indicators
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
CooRDInAtIon & CoMMon SeRVICeS
number of individuals (government authorities/humanitarian agencies) trained 50 35 70%
number of reports sent to partners/relevant agencies highlighting needs 2 5 250%
eDuCAtIon
# of children supported with psychosocial support 4,947 4,947 100%
# of classrooms rehabilitated in camps and gatherings 67 40 60%
# of PTA members trained and involved in school management 519 432 83%
# of school age children enrolled in basic shools in camps and gatherings 14,620 12,488 85%
# of school age children received education materials, textbooks and other quality interventions in camps and gatherings
17,810 15,088 85%
# of SHF projects of 2016 allocation are monitored through a field visit in line with the 2016 operational Modality
2,026 1,026 51%
# of teachers trained 264 312 118%
number of children (% male and female) with access to gender-sensitive WASH facilities (in line with InEE and SPHERE minimum standards).
2,700 5,334 198%
number of children (disaggregated by gender) benefiting from construction of temporary learning spaces and rehabilitation of existing classrooms.
3,500 5,334 152%
number of children who have received education in emergency supplies and recreational materials
54,000 54,954 102%
eMeRGenCy SHelteR & non-FooD IteMS
# of conflict/disaster affected households provided with nFIs from other Pipelines 1,500 1,500 100%
# of conflict/disaster affected households provided with nFIs from the Common Pipeline or RoS Contingency stocks
30,060 23,031 77%
# of environmentally friendly shelters provided 1,035 855 83%
# of environmentally friendly shelters provided to newly displaced 20 20 100%
# of people served with renewal nFIs from core pipelines 24,000 19,750 82%
number of newly displaced conflict/disaster affected, returnee households who receive emergency shelter and non-food items for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats
649,624 666,442 103%
number of most vulnerable pre-existing IDP households who receive renewal nFIs for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats
388,567 255,687 66%
number of returnee/ protracted IDP households provided with environmentally friendly shelters
13,701 8,829 64%
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
49
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
FooD SeCuRIty & lIVelIHooDS
# of animals vaccinated/treated in camps and gatherings 720,000 690,000 96%
# of IDPs in camps and gatherings supported with agricultural inputs and services 21,000 18,900 90%
# of partners (individuals from Government, nGos, CBos, un) trained on food security and livelihoods related areas outside camps and gatherings
25 25 100%
no of people provided with agricultural inputs and services 163,589 131,284 80%
no. of CAHWs trained and equipped 95 94 99%
no. of people trained and assisted with packages of emergency livelihoods start-up kits (e.g. restocking, agro-food processing, fisheries)
11,670 13,590 116%
number of camp profiles conducted and shared 10 10 100%
number of livestock vaccinated/ treated 1,538,000 1,616,707 105%
Quantity of assorted tools (Pcs) provided 36,720 24,360 66%
Quantity of seeds (MT) provided 753 755 100%
HeAltH
# of community awareness sessions conducted 10 8 80%
# of health facilities in camps and gatherings rehabilitated and equipped 2 1 50%
# of health facilities providing minimum basic package of health services in camps and gatherings
82 73 89%
# of health facilities providing basic emergency obstetric care in camps and gatherings 3 3 100%
# of health workers trained or retrained 812 826 102%
# of outpatient consultations in camps or gatherings 1,568,066 1,399,537 89%
% coverage of Penta 3 vaccination under one year of age 90% 81% 90%
% of births assisted by skilled birth attendant 65% 62% 95%
% of communicable disease outbreak detected and response initiated within 72 hours 100% 96% 96%
% of emergency events reported, investigated and response initiated within 72 hours of reporting.
96% 73% 76%
Coverage of Measles vaccine in children below one year of age 90% 78% 87%
number of midwives trained 77 71 92%
number of Rapid Response teams trained 17 37 218%
loGIStICS & eMeRGenCy teleCoMMunICAtIonS
% of medical and/or security evacuation air transport requests responded to 100% 100% 100%
# of nGos, un agencies and donor organisation personnel provided with safe, effective and efficient access to beneficiaries and project implementation sites
43,492 42,520 98%
Qty of MT of light cargo such as medical supplies, high energy foods and information and communications technology (ICT) equipment transported
257 177 69%
nutRItIon
# of children treated for moderate acute malnutrition 23,823 19,652 82%
# of children treated for severe acute malnutrition 4,290 3,539 82%
# of pregnant and lactating women treated for moderate acute malnutrition 2,402 1,756 73%
number of under 5 years children receiving emergency food ration support 37,721 35,695 95%
# of facility staff trained on management of acute malnutrition 56 39 70%
# of facility staff trained on preventative nutrition activities 80 100 125%
# of MAM treatment programmes meeting national performance indicators 19 16 84%
# of SAM treatment programmes meeting national performance indicators 7 7 100%
# of women and men reached with preventative nutrition messages and activities 187,791 127,266 68%
Proportion of CMAM centres linked to/integrating Infant And Young Child Feeding (IYCF) in emergencies (at community and facility levels) and Social and Behavioral Change Communications (SBCC) activities
64% 48% 75%
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
50
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
pRoteCtIon
# community-based protection networks created 18 24 133%
# community-based protection networks supported 136 171 126%
# of children supported with psychosocial support 78,442 121,541 155%
# of monitoring missions where there are attacks reported which affect the civilian population 162 48 30%
# of people (men, women, girls and boys) received MRE 63,832 45,745 72%
# of people provided with assistance to resolve disputes (judical or customary/informal) 1,155 1,158 100%
# of reported cases of grave rights violations 800 1,018 127%
# of unaccompanied and separated children for whom family tracing has been successful 847 1,444 170%
# of victims of violence receive legal services 106 51 48%
# of victims of violence receive psychosocial services 1,455 1,380 95%
number of people, including women and children, receiving individual or community based psychosocial support and services
101,070 77,807 77%
number of referral mechanisms maintained or established with a continued support including for women, children, elderly, and persons living with disabilities
116 135 116%
number of SuAMs, who are identified, documented, provided with interim care or reunified 1,356 515 38%
ReFuGee MultI-SeCtoR
# of refugees assisted with livelihoods measures 41,325 42,000 102%
# of refugees, asylum-seekers and refugee returnees assisted essential services 6,000 6,130 102%
number of affected people (men, women & children) trained on WASH aspects 150 183 122%
number of beneficiaries by gender and age having access to livelihoods activities 260 260 100%
number of children under 5 years of age treated for SAM 488 435 89%
number of under 5 years children receiving emergency food ration support 1,100 988 90%
Percentage of identified survivors/victims of SGBV and trafficking/kidnapping receiving assistance
100% 100% 100%
Percentage of identified uAMs/SC receiving assistance 100% 50% 50%
Percentage of outbreaks of communicable diseases which are investigated and response initiated within 72 hours
100% 100% 100%
Percentage of people who have access to safe means of excreta disposal 100% 163% 163%
Percentage of refugee children (boys and girls) are enrolled in quality learning spaces 100% 17% 17%
Percentage of refugee children having access to vaccination services 100% 105% 105%
Percentage of refugees having access to health services including reproductive health 100% 108% 108%
Percentage of refugees who have access to safe water supply 100% 114% 114%
Percentage of sites with a GAM rate of under 15% 100% 100% 100%
Percentage of South Sudanese new arrivals in receipt of nFIs and Emergency Shelter 100% 100% 100%
50 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
5151
Sectorplanned
menReached
menplanned women
Reached women
planned boys
Reached boys
planned girls
Reached girls
total planned
total reached
%
EDuCATIon 3,836 3,503 3,898 3,982 69,855 61,519 81,256 69,962 158,845 138,966 87%
ES/nFIs 202,227 121,916 306,640 169,469 157,105 89,137 189,895 97,223 855,867 477,745 56%
FSl 439,284 532,773 471,585 542,022 347,228 384,780 356,918 390,330 1,615,015 1,849,905 114%
HEAlTH 1,188,658 932,194 1,696,569 1,234,885 663,804 564,430 716,295 624,698 4,265,326 3,356,207 79%
nuTRITIon 136,143 119,203 331,653 971,832 182,574 294,689 194,565 330,521 844,935 1,716,245 203%
PRoTECTIon 132,135 50,874 179,180 87,507 171,492 119,815 167,433 109,526 650,240 367,722 57%
RRR 54,346 36,962 72,235 47,657 21,358 10,892 26,413 14,092 174,352 109,603 63%
RMS 24,679 7,783 32,577 9,556 13,108 7,424 20,576 9,280 90,940 34,043 37%
WASH 303,361 293,498 428,033 360,120 222,765 166,435 242,284 234,699 1,196,443 1,054,752 88%
Total 2,484,669 2,098,706 3,522,370 3,427,030 1,849,289 1,699,121 1,995,635 1,880,331 9,851,963 9,105,188 92%
A3: Beneficiaries per Sector
http://www.unocha.org/sudan/
http://www.unocha.org/sudan/shf/
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/operations/sudan/common-humanitarian-
fund-SHF
http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSD20
http://www.unocha.org/cerf/cerf-worldwide/where-we-work/sdn-2015
http://ftsbeta.unocha.org/appeals/1068/summary
https://www.facebook.com/unoCHASudan
https://twitter.com/unocha_sudan
A4: useful links
oCHA Sudan:
Sudan SHF:
Sudan SHF:
MptF gateway Sudan:
CeRF Sudan:
FtS Sudan:
oCHA Sudan Facebook:
oCHA Sudan twitter:
output Indicator target Achieved % progress
WAteR, SAnItAtIon & HyGIene
# of community members trained on management of water, sanitation and hygiene services 760 948 125%
# of existing water points rehabilitated 58 32 55%
# of garbage cleaning campaigns conducted 7 8 114%
# of latrines rehabilitated 863 1,383 160%
# of new latrines constructed 2,505 2,776 111%
# of new/additional water points constructed 6 5 83%
# of people reached with hygiene education messages and awareness raised 69,820 79,695 114%
# of people served by vector control measures. 360 360 100%
# of people served by solid waste management 59,749 60,000 100%
# of water points maintained and operated 66 54 82%
SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
52 SHF SuDAn 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
AAAp Accountability to Affected populationApDHWo Anhar peace, Development and Humanitarian Work organisationARC American Refugee CommitteeASSISt organization for Voluntary Humanitarian Assistance
CCAA Civil Aviation AuthorityCBCpn Community-Based Child protection networkCBpF Country-Based pooled FundCBpns Community Based protection networksCCS Common Coordination ServicesCeRF Central emergency Response FundCFS Child-Friendly SpacesCFW Cash for WorkCIS CARe International SwitzerlandCRS Catholic Relief ServicesCW Concern Worldwide
DDFID Department of Foreign International DevelopmentDRC Danish Refugee CouncilDtM Displacement tracking Matrix
eeFMA electronic Flight Management ApplicationeIe education in emergencieseS/nFIs emergency Shelter/non-Food Items
FFAo Food and Agriculture organisationFMu Fund Management unitFpDo Friends of peace and Development organisationFSl Food Security and livelihoodFtR Family tracing and ReunificationFtS Financial tracking Services
gGAH Global Aid HandGBV Gender Based ViolenceGFo Great Family organisationGMS Grant Management SystemGoS Government of Sudan
HHAC Humanitarian Aid CommissionHC Humanitarian CoordinatorHAD Humanitarian Aid and Development organisationHAI HelpAge InternationalHFu Humanitarian Financing unitHHs Households Hno Humanitarian needs overviewHRp Humanitarian Response plan
IIASC Inter-Agency Standing CommitteeIDps Internally Displaced peoplesIMC International Medical CorpsIoM International organisation for MigrationInGo International non-Government organizationICyF Infant and young Children Feeding
JJM Jebel Marra
llABenA Women’s organization for Development & Capacity Building
M
A5: list of Acronyms
52 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
53
MA Managing AgentMC Scotland Mercy Corps ScotlandMptF Multi-partner trust FundMoAR Ministry of Animal ResourcesMoH Ministry of HealthMou Memorandum of understandingM&R Monitoring and ReportingMRe Mine Risk educationMAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition
NnCA norwegian Church AidnCe no-Cost extensionnDu national Demining units organizationnGos non-Governmental organisationnIDAA Sudanese Development Call organization
OoCHA office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
PpA practical ActionpDM post-Distribution MonitoringpRG programme Review GroupptA parent and teachers Association
RRDn Rehaid elfursan Rural Development netRI Relief InternationalRMS Refugee Multi-sectorRRt Rapid Response teamRRR Recovery, Return and Reintegration
SSAG Sustainable Action GroupSC Save the ChildrenSGBV Sexual and Gender Based ViolenceSHF Sudan Humanitarian FundSQM Square MetresSAM Severe Acute MalnutritionSop Standard operating procedureSo Sector objective
TtlS temporary learning SpacestRC technical Review Committeetu technical unit
UuASC unaccompanied and Separated ChildrenuFe under-Funded emergency unAMID united nations Mission in DarfurunDp united nations Development programmeunFpA united nations Fund for populationunHCR united nations High Commission for RefugeesunICeF united nations Children FunduMCoR united Methodist Committee on ReliefunHAS united nations Humanitarian Air ServicesunMAS united nations Mine Action Servicesupo united peace organisationun united nationsuK united Kingdom
vVfM Value for MoneyVCo Vet-Care organisationVSF Vétérinaires sans Frontières Germany
WWASH Water, Sanitation and HygieneWFp World Food programmeWHo World Health organisation
53SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
54 SHF SuDAn 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
Contact list
name title Contact phone
SHF Technical Unit (OCHA Sudan HFRMS)
Bavo Christiaens Humanitarian Affairs officer
Fund Manager [email protected] +249 912170422
laksmita noviera Humanitarian Affairs officer
Monitoring & Reporting [email protected] +249 912178032
Adil Saad Humanitarian Financing Analyst
FTS, GMS & Monitoring [email protected] +249 912174436
Randa Mergani Humanitarian Financing Analyst
nCE/Revision/Standard Allocation
[email protected] +249 912 160419
Aniella van Bakel Humanitarian Affairs officer
Reserve Allocation [email protected] +249 91217 0426
UNDP/FMU (Sudan SHF managing agent)
Elizabeth Whitehead Head of the unDP Sudan Fund Management unit [email protected] +249 966210923
MPTF Office (Sudan SHF administrative agent)
olga Aleshina Senior Portfolio Manager [email protected]
Humanitarian Coordinator
oCHA (ex-officio)
Almanar Voluntary organization
united Kingdom
Denmark
Germany
Ireland
netherlands
norway
Sweden
Switzerland
unHCR
unICeF
WHo
InGo Steering Committee
MeMBeRS oF SHF ADVISoRy BoARD
CHAIR:
SeCRetARIAt:
nnGo RepReSentAtIVe:
DonoR RepReSentAtIVeS:
un RepReSentAtIVeS:
InGo RepReSentAtIVe:
54 SHF 2015 AnnuAl REPoRT
55
About SHF
Quick facts and basic information about the Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF)
the latest version of this document is available on http://unocha.org/sudan. Full project details and financial updates, can be viewed, downloaded and printed from http://fts.unocha.org.
Design and layout: oCHA Sudan/CIS
For additional information, please contact [email protected] or see www.unocha.org/sudan.
produced by oCHA SudanSeptember 2016
the Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) is a cost-effective way to support humanitarian action in Sudan. under the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), the SHF aims to support the timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to the most critical humanitarian needs as defined by the Humanitarian Response plan (HRp) or any agreed upon strategy by the HC.
HOW SHF WORkS
the Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) receives contributions from donors – mainly governments – into a single fund, with an annual target between 10 and 15 per cent of the total humanitarian funding available to Sudan. the money is used for humanitarian operations on a rolling basis through regular allocation rounds or is set aside for future response to in–country emergencies. the SHF reinforces and relies on existing humanitarian coordination structures, which allows for evidence based prioritisation and complementarity with other humanitarian funding sources such as bilateral funding or the united nations Central emergency Response Fund (CeRF). A specific positioning paper has been developed for the SHF to highlight the main strategic focus for 2016 and to serve as an overarching framework for 2016 allocations.
THe SHF HAS TWO AllOCATION MODAlITIeS:
• the bulk of SHF funding is allocated through one or, if funding allows, two standard allocation rounds. eligible nGo partners apply for funding and undergo a rigorous selection process. their interventions are assessed against prioritised needs, activities and geographical locations, ensuring a highly strategic and coordinated use of funds.
• the Reserve mechanism is a rapid, timely and flexible allocation mechanism that funds response to tackle sudden onset issues and critical needs as they arise. Approximately 20 per cent of the SHF’s annual contributions are set aside in the “Reserve for emergencies.” It gives the Humanitarian Coordinator capacity to support immediate humanitarian response where necessary.
FUNDINg ReCIPIeNTS:
SHF funding is available to un organisations and international and national nGos that have passed a due diligence and capacity assessment. Most implementing partners have long–standing partnerships with the SHF. In 2015, 58 partners were directly supported by SHF.
gOveRNANCe AND MANAgeMeNT:
the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) for Sudan oversees the fund and decides on funding allocations. In its role, the HC is supported by the SHF technical unit in the office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (oCHA) including the fund’s managing agent unDp Fund Management unit (FMu), SHF Advisory Board and IASC coordination structures.
the SHF Advisory Board represents the views of donors, the un agencies and both the international and national nGo community and provides strategic advice to the HC on SHF allocations, policies and governance. It is a forum to share information on funding gaps and coverage, ensuring the transparency and relevance of Sudan HF allocations, to review the operational activities of the fund and undertake periodic risk analysis.
the SHF is governed by an operational Manual, which is within the framework provided by the operational Handbook for Country-Based pooled Funds (CBpFs) which describes the global set of rules that apply to all CBpFs worldwide. the SHF operational Manual has been adapted and tailored to the humanitarian context in Sudan.
the SHF technical unit handles programmatic aspects and provides daily fund management support to the HC, which includes oversight of allocations, reporting, monitoring and other accountability processes. the unDp FMu supports the SHF technical unit disburses funds to un Agencies, and is responsible for fund management related to non-governmental partners (contracting, disbursement and financial reporting).
For more information refer to the Sudan SHF webpages:
• http://www.unocha.org/sudan/shf/• http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSD20/
2015 DonoRS to tHe SHF
united Kingdom DenmarkSweden netherlands norway Ireland Switzerland Germany
55
56 SHF Sudan 2015 annual RepoRt
United Nations
SHF
