Emergency Response Fund

Transcription

1 Emergency Response Fund Zimbabwe Photo by: IOM/Emmanuel Murwisi Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 0

2 Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator The ERF for Zimbabwe continued to support short term, high impact humanitarian response projects. ERF resources were accessible to both international and national actors. Projects considered for funding were evaluated against criteria developed and agreed by the ERF Board and the humanitarian community to ensure that 1) interventions were supported by up-to-date evidence-based information, 2) duration of implementation is up to six months and 3) Interventions aim at reducing risk of excess mortality (life-saving activities). As before, funding decisions were taken through ERF Board in consultation with representatives of key stakeholders from clusters. The ERF Review Board was chaired by the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and comprised of three representatives from UN Agencies, one national and one international NGO. OCHA Zimbabwe provided secretariat support to management of the fund. In 2013, ERF enhanced its management structure following review of the ERF Charter to incorporate the Global ERF Guideline recommendations such as setting up a separate Advisory Board and a Review Board with clear Terms of Reference. The Advisory Board comprised of the Review Board and Donor representatives and mainly provided policy guidance and strategic direction to the Fund while the Review Board played the technical role of reviewing funding proposals and making funding recommendations. These changes strengthened the governance of the ERF in Zimbabwe. During the course of the year, ERF funded four projects responding to malaria outbreak with training of Village Health Workers and provision of mosquito repellents, house spraying and distribution of informative material on malaria. The fund also facilitated the success of the Seasonal Targeted Assistance programme by WFP through provision of logistical support to transport food from a central warehouse to districts where distributions were done. The fund then supported two projects responding to flood and storm displaced people through provision of temporary shelter, non-food items, WASH and health care. One of the two projects partly used the fund to preposition emergency response material following flood warning messages by the Department of Civil Protection and weather forecast by the Meteorological Services. The humanitarian community in Zimbabwe agreed that the situation in Zimbabwe had evolved enough to transition from humanitarian to early recovery and development. Consultations with the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT), Donors and Government partners during the humanitarian appeal workshop held in October 2012 resulted in the launching of a lighter humanitarian appeal addressing residual humanitarian needs and supported by the ERF focusing on unpredicted emergencies. The ERF was used to strategically fill critical funding gaps, unforeseen needs and increased requirements. In view of this, partners indicated a strong interest to expand and enhance the ERF up to US$5 million with tightened targeting criteria to facilitate effective, timely access to resources and response. An ERF project was therefore included in the 2013 Zimbabwe Humanitarian GAPs. Fundraising activities and meetings with several donors locally and at headquarters level were done during the first half of the year but unfortunately no funding was raised. Donors however guaranteed to support and provide funding to ERF in the event of a defined need arising. Despite improvements in the humanitarian situation in the country, the ERF remained an essential tool to provide swift, flexible response to unforeseen humanitarian needs and gaps. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Donors, ERF Advisory and Review boards and implementing partners for their unwavering commitment and dedication in humanitarian assistance work. 1

3 Table of Contents I. NOTE FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR...1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...2 COUNTRY MAP...4 III. INFORMATION ON CONTRIBUTORS...5 IV. FUND OVERVIEW SUMMARY OF ERF ALLOCATIONS IN RESULTS OF ERF PROJECTS PER SECTOR/CLUSTER Overview of Food Sector Overview of Health Sector Overview of Multi-Sector... 7 V. PROJECT MONITORING...8 VI. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES...9 VII. RISK MANAGEMENT VIII.ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS GLOSSARY

4 Executive Summary At the beginning of 2013, the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe continued to improve and remained largely stable. This was due to concerted efforts by the Government of Zimbabwe, donors and other stakeholders to address the humanitarian needs arising from the challenges that the country faced over the last decade. Alongside these efforts, over the last three years, the recovery and development actors under the leadership of the Government of Zimbabwe had also continued to make steady investments. Despite these positive gains, humanitarian challenges remained. These included food insecurity mainly caused by drought and floods the impact of which was more visible in the south of the country and sporadic outbreaks of waterborne diseases. In addition, a wide range of highly vulnerable groups such as the chronically ill, returned migrants, asylum seekers and those in displacement-like situations continued to require humanitarian aid. The Government and the humanitarian community agreed to continue addressing the remaining humanitarian needs in the area of food, health, WASH and protection through humanitarian coordination and resource mobilization mechanisms. With this, the humanitarian community agreed to launch a lighter appeal called the Zimbabwe Humanitarian GAPs. The GAPs contained ten high-priority humanitarian projects in the areas of food, health (including nutrition), WASH and protection. Alongside the planned responses in the four areas, a modest Emergency Response Fund (ERF) managed by OCHA on behalf of the humanitarian community was in place. The objective of the ERF was to provide timely and predictable funding to unforeseen humanitarian needs that may arise during the course of the year and was appealing for US$5 million in the Humanitarian GAPs. Interventions funded under the ERF were to be short term with an implementation period not exceeding six months. As it is a pooled fund of un-earmarked contributions from various donors, the ERF had the advantage of operating with greater flexibility and speedier approval processes than other transitional or developmental funds. This approach adopted by the humanitarian community in 2013 aimed at ensuring that all the remaining humanitarian needs in the country were addressed while at the same time consolidating the gains that the country had made towards recovery and development through the appropriate mechanisms. In 2013, ERF funded four projects responding to food, shelter/nfis and health needs. The projects were implemented by three organisations namely WFP; food project, IOM; 2 shelter/nfis projects and UMCOR with a health project. The shelter/nfi projects assisted populations affected and displaced by severe hail and wind storms experienced in several districts in the country. Some households had their property destroyed totally and others partially. With funding from ERF, IOM provided temporary shelter in the form of tarpaulins and NFI kits. Heavy rain forecast by the Meteorological Department, flood warnings by the Department of Civil Protection, limited non-governmental capacity and procurement lag time prompted IOM to secure funding from ERF to preposition emergency material ahead of floods. This arrangement eventually facilitated quick response to flood victims when the rains eventually came. WFP had food for the Seasonal Targeted Assistance (STA) Feeding programme but needed funding for logistical support to move food to the respective districts and facilitate its distribution. ERF provided funding to WFP so that food could reach the vulnerable people during the peak hunger period. UMCOR responded to malaria outbreak that had affected populations in Manicaland. The ERF was instrumental in addressing urgent humanitarian needs that fell outside the 2013 Humanitarian GAPs. 2

5 ERF projects implemented were aligned with cluster strategies, plan of action and coordination structures agreed during cluster or sector working group meetings. In addition to working with cluster members, the projects extensively involved working with local and national authorities providing an integrated and holistic approach to programming of interventions. Implementation of the health project complemented work of national programmes like the National Malaria Control Programme. The shelter project covered humanitarian gaps in communities and individuals that had not received emergency assistance from government and humanitarian partners response activities. For the WASH component, the implementing partner organization coordinated with the WASH cluster and Environmental Health Alliance to coordinate provision of emergency WASH kits. The fund also enhanced coordination of the STA programme with other government led programmes like the Grain Loan Scheme where WFP implemented its projects in districts not covered by the government, thereby circumventing duplication of efforts. ERF funding was also complementary to the Humanitarian GAPs Appeal and Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) allocations. Through ERF, OCHA strengthened coordination, partnership among stakeholders and ensured programmatic and financial accountability by engaging the remaining four clusters and the humanitarian community at large in the decision making processes of the Fund throughout the programme cycle. The ERF was managed by the ERF team in the OCHA country office under the oversight of the Humanitarian Coordinator. The OCHA ERF team was composed of the Head of Office, one international and one general service staff who managed the fund, reviewed projects and provided secretariat support to the ERF Review Board (RB) and Advisory Board (AB). The ERF AB was chaired by the HC and had five representatives namely three UN agencies: World Food Programme, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, International Organisation for Migration, one International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO): Norwegian Refugees Council and one National Non-Governmental Organization (NNGO): Revival of Hope. These members were nominated by their respective bodies for a period of one year. Towards mid-year, an ERF Advisory Board was formed to primarily provide policy and strategic direction of the fund. This was in line with Global ERF Guidance on the management of ERFs. The AB comprised of all ERF RB members and two donors namely Swedish Embassy and ECHO. A revision of the ERF Zimbabwe Charter was done to reflect the below 1) project selection criteria which ensured that only urgent and short-term emergency projects are funded, 2) the application process and 3) clear functions of the Review and Advisory Board. The new criteria guaranteed that: 1) Interventions were supported by up-to-date evidence-based information (survey data, assessments etc); 2) Interventions supported under ERF takes not more than six months to implement with a possibility of a maximum of three months no cost extension and should address significant increases in vulnerability of affected populations, due to new shocks, that exceeded community coping capacity and government resources for response (including new arrivals/returnees, newly displaced, etc); 3) Interventions aim at reducing risk of excess mortality (life-saving activities) and/or addressing basic humanitarian needs (both physical and psychological) of targeted populations. This saw the ERF being productively used to respond to the shelter, food and health needs of the vulnerable communities in the country. ERF funding was efficiently disbursed in time for effective implementation of projects. In February 2013, OCHA Zimbabwe had an opportunity of hosting a mission from OCHA headquarters ERF Funding Coordination Services who came to review the Zimbabwe ERF, consult with stakeholders and provide guidance on the way forward for the country office ERF phase out and closure plan. 3

6 Country map showing districts assisted in

7 Information on Contributors At the beginning of 2013, the Humanitarian Coordinator and OCHA had planned to mobilise US$5million to address any unanticipated emergencies throughout the year. Efforts to raise this money did not result in new funding. Nonetheless, the donor community indicated both ability and willingness to provide additional financial support to the fund should the need arise during the course of the year. Funds used in projects implemented in 2013 were carry overs from 2012 amounting to US$1,679,855. This carryover represent grants from the Government of Norway who had been consistent in providing funds to ERF since its inception and were the last ERF donors in 2011 and Donor/Year Total Denmark - 849,608 3,914, ,764,081 Ireland - 647, ,668 Italy , ,369 Norway 1,316, , , , ,037-4,547,872 Switzerland - 251, ,256 Total 1,316,780 2,547,634 4,772, , , ,037-11,069,246 Fund Overview Summary of ERF Allocations in 2013 Requested for 2013 in US$ Carry over from 2012 in US$ Amount received in 2013 in US$ 5,000,000 1,679, ,679,855 Total available in 2013 in US$ Disbursed ERF funds in 2013 by partner type in US$ Disbursed ERF funds in 2013 by project type in US$ UN Agencies 722,895 Emergency response 566,199 International NGOs Preparedness 247,900 91,204 National NGOs 0 Innovative (if any) 0 Total 814,099 Total 814,099 5

8 Results of ERF Projects per Cluster Overview of Food Number projects of Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area 1 224, WFP Chiredzi District, Masvingo Province Outputs Total number of beneficiaries:127,375 Gender consideration: The project benefited 11,260female and 10,394 male children under 5 years, 26,494 female and 24,456 male children between 5 18 years; 28,481 female and 26,290 male adults. Project results: i.e. 85% of the targeted households had at least borderline food consumption; 90% of targeted households consumed at least 3 food groups on average per day for the duration of the project. ERF s added value to the project: Helped save lives and protect livelihoods of people in Chiredzi through support to WFP s Cooperating Partner s capacity and operational costs to enable the success of the Seasonal Targeted Assistance programme. Overview of Health Number projects of Budget in US$ Implementing agencies 1 91, United Methodist Committee on Relief - UMCOR Outputs Total number of beneficiaries 67,500 people. Geographic Area Ngorima, Mutsvangwa, Biriwiri, Muchadziya, Nyahode, Chakohwa, Nyanyadzi, Hot Springs, Gudyanga and Shinja districts in Manicaland Province Gender consideration: 35,100 women, 32,400 men of which about 5,300 were girls and 4,800 boys benefited from the project. Project results: 15,500 anti-mosquito repellents were distributed to beneficiaries including children and pregnant women. Malaria prevention leaflets, posters and IEC material were distributed to targeted beneficiaries, health facilities, schools, business centers and churches. 2-day refresher training for 10 Village Health Workers. 250,000 children vaccinated against measles, etc. ERF s added value to the project: ERF funding helped mitigate incidences of malaria and raise awareness and knowledge on malaria prevention. 6

9 Overview of Multi-Sector Number projects of Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area 2 497, IOM Mashonaland Central, Manicaland, Masvingo, Midlands, Matabeleland North and South Provinces. Outputs Total number of beneficiaries IOM targeted 16,000 people with both projects, 8,000 with each. Gender consideration: First project responded to 4,400 females and 3,600 men while the second one assisted 4,320 females and 3,680 males. Project results: IOM provided food assistance to 3,000 individuals, NFIs (including WASH kits) to 7,835 individuals, emergency shelter to 9,025 people and emergency health to 3,480 people. Assistance given to vulnerable people affected by floods and storms throughout the country broken down by percentage of the 2 projects show that, 76,5% of the projects was for temporary shelter, 15% focused on emergency health/wash and 5% on food. IOM used 3.5% for coordination support services in the field. ERF s added value to the project: With the rapid and flexible ERF funding critical emergency health, NFIs and shelter needs of affected people were addressed in a timely manner. ERF allocation per cluster in % 27.50% 7% 2.50% 38.25% Food Shelter/NFIs WASH Coordination Support Health 7

10 Project Monitoring Monitoring was done to assess the timelines, adequacy and effectiveness of interventions. Implementing partners undertook project monitoring based on their Monitoring and Evaluation frameworks and tools. All partners presented in the project proposals how they would monitor their projects. This was also articulated in the workplans whereby monitoring was an ongoing activity for some and at specified intervals for others i.e once a month until project closure. Post assistance/implementation monitoring was conducted to see whether project benefits continued after implementation as well as establishing any remaining gaps for possible assistance. WFP s project on food and IOM s project on shelter and NFIs are yet to submit reports. The other two projects from IOM and UMCOR reported success in achieving set objectives. Monitoring helped IOM to refocus their intervention to Gwanda and Mberengwa districts in Midlands after recording a reduced number of outstanding needs in the sites initially targeted for assistance. All funded projects were monitored by ERF staff or Humanitarian Affairs Officers (HAO) during routine field missions. Information gathered was relayed to the ERF Board and implementing partners with a view of using the lessons learnt to improve service delivery to the beneficiaries. In 2013 OCHA conducted at least one (2-3days) monitoring visit per project, two staff visited the IOM project responding to flood victims in Chiredzi and Beitbridge and one monitored the UMCOR health project in Manicaland. OCHA had an opportunity of meeting the District Administrators (DA) for Chiredzi and Beitbridge who highly commended the work partners were doing with funding from ERF. The DA however appealed for more assistance and intervention in durable solutions to prevent the same people from getting affected by floods and storms every year. Staff from the DA s office accompanied the monitoring team to project sites. UMCOR distributed mosquito repellant, produced and disseminated malaria prevention materials and conducted a refresher course for VHWs on management of malaria and referral procedures for severe cases. This reduced caseloads on health facilities. Good practice is this project was seen at Biriiri clinic which went further to attach the VHWs to the local clinic for a period of one week so that they practice under qualified nurses supervision before being released to the community. Food distribution during a Seasonal Targeted Assistance Programme in Chiredzi District. Photo by: WFP/Tomson Phiri UMCOR submitted a narrative report at the end of the project indicating the success of the project. Post implementation monitoring demonstrated that knowledge of malaria was consistently high in terms of understanding causes with 86,6% of respondents giving accurate answers, 99% of the answers identifying correct signs and symptoms of malaria and 80.9% of respondents identifying appropriate medication. 96,2% of those affected sought treatment with 47,9% accessing it within 24hours and only 12% taking more than 72hours to access treatment. Challenges encountered by Implementing partners included getting the right quantities of response materials at the planned time; i.e gum poles to support tarpaulines or getting the right quantities of the efficacious repellent suitable for children under five, pregnant and lactating mothers. This resulted in delays in implementation and use of improvised material. Another challenge encountered was when NGOs were discouraged from activities that involved gathering of people until after the presidential election period. ERF implementing partners had to suspend operations for about a month and half and later requested for no-cost extension to complete their projects. OCHA observed during its monitoring visits that some implementing partners had excellent working relationships with local authorities and collaborate during assessments and implementation activities. This facilitated easy access to hard to reach districts, villages or wards. 8

11 Cross-Cutting Issues All Implementing partners well-articulated gender issues in their proposals, this was an improvement from previous years. Food assistance conducted a gender analysis to understand the social and gender dynamics that could help or hinder assistance effectiveness. Distribution of shelter and NFIs paid particular attention to specific gender needs of individuals in households. Men, women and children s perspectives on accessing humanitarian assistance were considered during project implementation. Sexual reproductive health information and supplies were provided to both male and female beneficiaries. WFP embarked on initiatives to raise gender awareness levels through training of its food truckers, field monitors and for other staff training in gender based violence and anti-gender based violence messaging when addressing beneficiaries. The programme also aimed at increasing the participation of women in food distribution committees to enable them to enjoy the same benefits as their male counterparts. Dissemination of Gender Based Violence and HIV/AIDS information was done in all targeted locations during shelter and NFI distributions by IOM. A Village Health Worker demonstrating how to use a condom at an HIV/AIDS session during shelter and NFI distribution programme by IOM. Photo by: OCHA/Sally Muwani The ERF took advantage of the UN Women Gender Advisor to provide services to facilitate implementation of the Gender Marker in all ERF funded interventions. The graphs below compare gender considerations in ERF projects in 2012 and 2013 showing some improvement in consideration for women and boys needs while a 2.3% decrease for girls needs is also depicted. Beneficiaries gender distribution for 2012 ERF Projects 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, ,328 50,639 44,388 34,959 Men Women Girls Boys 9

12 Risk Management During its course of work and through field missions, the office conducted risk analysis to be better prepared for eventualities being an election year, risk analysis heightened and the office identified the following risks; access issues due to the political situation, delays in supply of goods due to shortages in the market, deviation from project objectives resulting from divergent priorities, lack of clear identification of issues to be addressed due to the transition context, lack of commitment by local authorities and misappropriation of relief items. To mitigate these risks, the office maintained close collaboration with partners and local authorities both at national and field level ensuring that the purpose of the fund is well articulated to all stakeholders including beneficiaries. The criteria for selecting proposals was also revised to ensure that only urgent, shortterm emergency projects were funded. The revised criteria required that 1) interventions be supported by up-to-date evidence-based information 2) interventions implemented in not more than six months and should address significant increases in vulnerability of affected populations due to new shocks that exceed community coping capacity and government resources for response and 3) interventions aim at reducing risk of excess mortality (life-saving activities) of targeted populations. This strategy went a long way in informing partners about how the fund functions. This was evidenced by the office recording a low number of rejected proposals because partners had a better understanding of the criteria and how to write ERF proposals. Close monitoring through field missions and regular dialogue and exchange with the government helped reduce access issues as well as a better understanding of the situation as some projects had to defer implementation until after the election period to avoid clashes with the authorities. This enhanced the effectiveness of the management of the fund in that appropriate actions were taken at the right time. 10

13 Achievements and Conclusion Following the adoption of the Global ERF Guidelines and recommendations by the mission from Funding Coordination Section (FCS), ERF Zimbabwe introduced an ERF Advisory Board separate from the ERF Review Board. This enhanced independent decision making, transparency and accountability of the two boards. In 2013, due to reduced activity in the fund, the AB met once and the RB four times. The tightening of project criteria helped ERF screen projects faster for quick response. It also made the fund more focused, reserving limited funds available for real emergencies. Constant interface with clusters played a major role in directing funds to where they were needed most. Decisions on whether to fund a project or not were done after consultation with clusters and careful consideration of proposed activities. The services of the Gender Advisor further enhanced gender considerations in all projects. Through provision of logistical support for food distribution, ERF strengthened synergies with other programmes that were ongoing like the STA. Changes in the humanitarian architecture in the country which saw the movement from the usual Consolidated Appeal to a Humanitarian GAPs resulted in the ERF remaining operational mainly to cater for any unplanned humanitarian needs arising from meteorological hazards, the constitutional processes or disease outbreaks. Efforts were made by the HC and OCHA Head of Office (HoO) to mobilize new resources to replenish the ERF to stand ready during these critical events but no new funding was received. Consequently, fundraising activities were discontinued in June In light of these developments, and in line with the OCHA Country Office transition plan, OCHA Senior Management Team (SMT) approved the closure of the Zimbabwe ERF in December In view of the flood season, the board and humanitarian community agreed to maintain the selection criteria until March At the end of 2013, ERF had a balance of US$801,

14 Glossary AB CERF DA ERF FCS HAO HC HCT HoO INGO IOM NFI NNGO OCHA RB SMT STA UMCOR UNHCR WFP Advisory Board Central Emergency Response Fund District Administrator Emergency Response Fund Funding Coordination Section Humanitarian Affairs Officer Humanitarian Coordinator Humanitarian Country Team Head of Office International Non-Governmental Organization International Organization for Migration Non-Food Items National Non-Governmental Organization Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Review Board Senior Management Team Seasonal Targeted Assistance United Methodist Committee on Relief United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees World Food Programme 12