Humanitarian Response Fund

Credit: OCHA Indonesia/Mindaraga Rahardja

Annual Report 2010 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator

implementation of the Fund. Monitoring and evaluation The Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) is an important should be maintained in order to allow continued financial tool in Indonesia, as it allows flexibility in improvement of HRF as a funding mechanism. addressing the most urgent and crucial needs while strengthening the coordination amongst humanitarian actors. In 2010, the HRF demonstrated its usefulness in The HRF is also useful as a coordination tool in succesfully filling the gaps in humanitarian needs existed emergency response and recovery. The Cluster Leads in response to the West earthquake. have committed themselves as HRF Board Members, which review project proposals, review policy issues and evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the Fund. The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has demonstrated By having Cluster Coordinators as HRF board members increased capacity in disaster management during these who will review each proposal as it is submitted, the recent years by establishing disaster management review process is greatly expedited. Reviewing a structures both at the national and local levels. However, proposal is done through email, while the HRF Board further support for capacity building programmes is still Members will meet physically to discuss priorities and needed at the local level as the structure is newly other strategic issues concerning the HRF. This brings established and has not been adequately capacitated. added value to the promptness of HRF proposal Thus, the Fund remains crucially relevant in reducing the approval, and also allows Cluster Coordinators to remain gaps for both small and large scale disasters. updated on the current humanitarian situation in Indonesia. The 2010 Natural Disaster Risk Index, issued by Maplecroft, ranked Indonesia the second highest nation most at risk from extreme weather and other hazardous geophysical events. Indonesia is constantly threatened by a large variety of hazards from landslides, floods, drought, forest fires, earthquakes to tsunamis. Among these hazards, earthquakes - despite their infrequency - remain potentially the most dangerous and most unpredictable. Having learned the hazards, high risk levels and the importance of a high level of preparedness, I believe the HRF should continue to be available in this country and its implementation should remain fast, flexible and leverage other resources.

In 2010, nineteen HRF projects were implemented in response to unfilled gaps of the earthquake response and two other projects met the remaining humanitarian needs of the survivors of the Mentawai Islands’ earthquake and tsunami. Other projects in reaction to several other disasters in Indonesia are currently under review.

In 2010, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) conducted an evaluation of OCHA. I commend OCHA for its continued great work that is reflected in the evaluation report and encourage follow up of recommendations which will enhance the

1 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Executive Summary

On September 30, 2009, a 7.6 Richter scale earthquake coordinators conducted initial rapid assessment using a struck the western Sumatra coast; the epicenter was planning method previously developed in the cluster located 45 kilometers west-northwest of City. system’s contingency planning process. If further The earthquake resulted in 1,195 fatalities, two missing information and funding gaps came to light from further persons, 619 heavy injuries and 1,179 light injuries. The input from the cluster, and if no other donors and other earthquake also damaged a total of 249,833 houses stakeholders will fill these gaps, the HRF will issue an (114,797 of which were completely destroyed), 2,512 assesment on the issue and respond to these needs. The education facilities (containing 9,051 classrooms), 899 Nineteen HRF projects which were implemented in health facilities, 1,010 government facilities and reponse to this disaster was a result and fulfillment of building, 2,104 places of worship, 177 kilometres of these observed gaps. All of the 19 projects were roads, 4,980 metres of bridges, 25 hotels, irrigation approved after GoI declared the emergency response canals, markets and other buildings. Education and phase was over, but the projects remained useful and economic and social activities were heavily disrupted for relevant as GoI’s post emergency response assistance had weeks. not been appropriated. HRF was crucial in filling and bridging this time gap. The West Sumatra earthquake occurred less than a month after a 7.3 earthquake struck southern coasts of West Another disaster hit Mentawai Islands, another region in Java on 2 September 2009, killing 81 people, injuring the West Sumatra province in 2010. On 25th October 1,248 others and demolishing 65,643 homes, as well as 2010, an earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale causing extensive damage to public infrastructure. The struck the islands and triggered three-meter high tsunami West Sumatra earthquakes have thus raised a second waves. At least 15,000 were directly affected, with a wave of demands on the disaster management actors, total of 461 people dead and 43 others were missing. both government agencies and non-government While temporary shelter and clean water assistance were organizations. From the outset, the Government of set up by GoI and Indonesian Red Cross, there were Indonesia led the emergency response to the affected other urgent needs of education, protection, and hygiene. regions. The Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana Two HRF projects for Mentawai Islands were approved (BNPB) or National Agency for Disaster Management, and implemented within emergency response phase to coordinated the effort, leading the whole range of meet these needs. In this kind of disaster, when Cluster ministries from Health, Education, Social Welfare, Approach is not activated, OCHA and HRF Review Women’s Empowerment, Planning, Public Works, to the Board members (i.e. Cluster Coordinators) received Army and the Police to cooperate. The Government of information from its staff on the ground or through its Indonesia issued a state of emergency for the following networks. Thus information provided in the project two months, although it was later shortened to a month. proposals could still be well verified. The Goverment also welcomed and coordinated One proposal responded to humanitarian needs of international assistance. The Humanitarian Coordinator, populations affected by Mount Merapi eruptions, which representing the the United Nations and the international claimed 341 lives and enforced unplanned evacuation of humanitarian community, led and lended support to the more than 200,000 people. This proposal addressed the Government in emergency response measures, through need of WASH for populations that did not receive the cluster mechanism and structure already in place. At WASH assistance from humanitarian responders. least 115 international non-governmental organizations and hundreds of national organizations provided A total of 22 HRF projects was approved throughout assistance since the first week of emergency response. 2010, with total budget of US$2,140,332. $397,983, or All major donors also visited the affected areas and 19%, of the funds were channeled to national Non- pledged their contributions. In both Padang and Jakarta, Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for four projects, United Nations Office for the Coordination of while $1,742,349, or 81%, funded international NGOs Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) worked to coordinate the for 18 projects. response among international partners, both bilateral and In 2010, the majority of HRF implementing partners non-governmental, placing a strong emphasis on working were international NGOs. There were 18 projects in close coordination with the Government provincially implemented by 11 international NGOs while the other and with the local authorities. OCHA and cluster four projects were implemented by four national NGOs.

2 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

It is important to note that all international NGOs worked North Sumatra, landslide in Teluk Wondama district of with national partners to implement projects. OCHA West Papua, and Mount Merapi eruptions in the therefore saw the need to increase participation of Yogyakarta and Central Java provinces. OCHA played national NGOs to directly access HRF, since national role in emergency responses of those disasters and HRF NGOs are more familiar with local situation and context. remained available to be accessed. However, gaps were covered by many government agencies and non- Of the 22 projects, 14 projects responded to the needs of government actors including private sector and mass temporary shelter, four projects assisted education media, thus the HRF was not released unless a clear gap needs,and four projects addressed the needs of WASH. was identified. There were cases in which the gaps were These projects were all inter-related, as assistance to one obvious when humanitarian actors completed their sector positively affected and enabled another project in a assistance while the needs remained unfulfilled. In such different sector. For example, temporary shelter cases, the HRF supported the most vulnerable disaster- assistance enabled children to return to their normal lives affected people. . and allowed them to continue their education. At least 15 other proposals were rejected in 2010 as they OCHA developed the new HRF Guidelines in 2010 in did not meet HRF goals and objectives, had unclear or alignment with ERF Guidelines provided by OCHA weak project strategy, or NGOs failed to show its headquarters. The process of developing the new capacity and capability to manage projects. National guidelines included involvement of board members and NGOs were largely encouraged to apply to the HRF, as assessment of other funding mechanisms by main donors the Fund aimed to target NGOs already familiar with the in the country. It also considered government capacity local context and practices. OCHA understands the need and its funding instrument. All projects implemented in to feature HRF especially to national NGOs, thus it will 2010 followed the new HRF Guidelines. invite national NGOs to HRF information sessions that In 2010, there were some low to medium scale disasters, will familiarize them with the HRF as a funding including Mount Sinabung eruptions in Karo of mechanism.

3 Humanitarian Response Fund 2010 Indonesia

In 2010, the Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) helped alleviate the distress of disaster-affected populations caused by 2009 West Sumatra earthquake, October 2010 earthquake and tsunami that hit Mentawai Islands and Mt. Merapi eruptions. The Fund received continued support from the Government of Sweden. A total of 22 projects have strategically addressed the most vulnerable disaster-affected NORTH SUMATERA people and filled humanitarian gaps that were not covered by Government of Indonesia and other stakeholders. About 42,000 people are direct beneficiaries of these projects, which met the needs of temporary shelter, education and WASH. Disaster Risk Reduction was part of the project activities, in the form of trainings, focused group discussions and project socialization. The HRF Project Managers actively participated in government-led and Cluster Approach coordination fora, which aimed to synergize humanitarian assistance, avoid duplication and overlaps, and more effectively identify most urgent gaps to be filled. The HRF is also designed as complementarity to GoI emergency response and early recovery strategies.

PASAMAN

PASAMAN BARAT

LIMA PULUH KOTO

WPNK-JC TEMANGGUNG KOTA SALATIGA SEMARANG RIAU BANJARNEGARA SRAGEN

WONOSOBO

KOTA MAGELANG MAGELANG CENTRAL JAVA BOYOLALI KOTA SURAKARTA AGAM KARANGANYAR

KEBUMEN BUKIT TINGGI SUKOHARJO SLEMAN KLATEN PURWOREJO TANAH DATAR KOTA YOGYAKARTA KULONPROGO

DI YOGYAKARTA BANTUL WONOGIRI PADANG GUNUNGKIDUL PARIAMAN KOTA SAWAH LUNTO /SIJUNJUNG

PACITAN KOTA WEST SUMATERA PADANG SOLOK

DHARMASRAYA Projects Implementor KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI National NGO

WEST SUMATERA SOLOK SELATAN

International NGO

Projects Details

Duration NGO Location (Incl. Duration)

PLAN Pariaman Utara Sub-district, Pariaman City 4 Months Korong Aur Malintang, Pariaman Utara, Save the Children 3 Months Projects by Sector Pariaman City JAMBI Korong Batu Basa, Pariaman Utara, Save the Children 3 Months Pariaman City Education Malalak Selatan, Malalak Sub-district, Agam Catholic Relief Service (CRS) 2 Months PESISIR SELATAN District Malalak Barat, Malalak Sub-district, Agam WASH Catholic Relief Service (CRS) 2 Months KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI District Padang Sago Sub-district, Padang Muslim Aid 6 Months Pariaman Koto Bongko, Sn Geringging, Padang Church World Service (CWS) 4 Months Pariaman District Batu Kalang, Padang Sago Sub-district, Islamic Relief 4 Months Padang pariaman District Relief International Ulakan Tapakis, Padang Pariaman District 4 Months International Relief Development Patamuan, Padang Pariaman District 3 Months (IRD) Sungai Limau and Pilubang Sub-district, CORDAID / AMAN 11 Months Padang Pariaman CORDAID / Pusat Studi T-shelter Enam Lingkung Sub-district, Padang Pembangunan Perdamaian 7 Months Pariaman District (PSPP) VII Koto Padang Sago Sub-district, Padang CORDAID / Bina Swadaya 9 Months Pariaman District Habitat for Humanity V Koto Timur, Padang Pariaman District 5 Months KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI ’s People Forum (APF) Padang Pariaman District 5 Months Save the Children Agam and Padang Pariaman districts 6 Months Kuranji and Nanggalo Sub-district, Padang World Relief 5 Months City Nagari Sungai Asam, VI Lingkung Sub- BENGKULU PADMA 5 Months district, Padang Pariaman District Yayasan Ananda Marga Padang Pariaman and Kota Pariaman 6 Months Indonesia (AMURT) Pagai Selatan, Pagai Utara of Mentawai PLAN 6 Months Islands Funding Allocation by Cluster Pagai Selatan, Pagai Utara of Mentawai PLAN 6 Months Islands KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI 1500000 Srumbung, Dukun and Sawangan Subdistricts of Magelang District, Central US $1,393,166 Nahdatul Ulama Java Province, and Cangkringan, Pakem 5 Months 1200000 and Turi Subdistricts of Sleman District, DI Yogyakarta Province 900000 14 Projects Legend: 600000 US $ 398,512 Province boundary Elevation (m) US $ 348,654 1,500 - 2,000 3,000 - 4,000 300000 District boundary Below Sea Level 600 - 800 4 Projects 2,000 - 2,500 4,000 - 5,000 4 Projects Projects_area 0 - 200 800 - 1,000 0 200 - 400 1,000 - 1,500 2,500 - 3,000 Above 5000 T-shelter Education WASH 400 - 600 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Information on Contributors Sida was the sole contributor to Indonesia HRF in 2010. Since 2007, Sida has funded US$ 8,130,635 (with the final contribution of US$ 2,340,450 in 2011). Sida Funding to Indonesia HRF 2007 – 2010 (as of 31 December 2010) Funding Funding Project # of Project (SEK) (US$) Period 7,500,000 1,115,375 2007-2008 15 13,000,000 1,876,460 2008-2010 21 15,000,000 2,070,150 2010 21 20,000,000 728,200 * 2010-2011 0

Data based on OCHA Contributions Tracking System

Note *: Funding reflected was the first transfer only, as the final transfer (US$2,340,450) was received in 2011. Although Sida does not have an office or a humanitarian representative in Indonesia, OCHA Indonesia maintains contact with and provides updates to the Embassy of Sweden on humanitarian issues in the country and HRF implementation. In 2010, Sida conducted an evaluation of its humanitarian assistance in Indonesia. The evaluation focused on the humanitarian response to the West Sumatra earthquake of 30 September 2009. Other than through HRF, Sida channeled its resources to CERF and provided bilateral grants to UNDP and Plan International in response to the West Sumatra earthquake in 2009.1

1 Sida evaluation report, http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/Sida%20Utv% c3%a4rderingar/Case%20Study%20Report%20Indonesia .pdf

4 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Fund Overview

Summary of HRF Allocations in 2010 Requested for 2010 Carry over from 2009 Amount received in 2010 Total available in 2010 in US$ in US$ in US$ in US$ 1,000,000,00 2,193,378 728,866 2,922,244

Approved HRF funds by partner type in US$ Approved HRF funds by project type in US$ UN Agencies n/a Emergency response / early recovery 2,140,332 International NGOs 1,742,349 Preparedness 0 National NGOs 397,983 Innovative (if any) 0 Total 2,140,332 Total 2,140,332

Results of HRF Projects per Cluster

Overview of Temporary Shelter cluster

Implementing Number of projects Budget in US$ Geographic Area agencies

14 1,393,166 Plan International, Save the Children Padang Pariaman district and (two projects), Catholic Relief Services Padang city of West Sumatra (two projects), Muslim Aid, Church World Services, Relief International, CORDAID (three projects), Habitat for Humanity, World Relief and PADMA Outcomes

A total of 4,790 household transitional shelters were constructed in Padang Pariaman district, Padang and Pariaman Cities, which housed 21,845 people All projects started with program socialization and included training on earthquake resistant shelters. The training material was discussed and agreed in Shelter Cluster meetings and endorsed by local government. Different levels of difficulty in the training and was varied depending on the audience (different material was conveyed for adult beneficiaries, children, local government and carpenters). The training material has simple Build Back Better and Sphere Standard messages With adequate shelter, households were able to restart their livelihood, continue education for children, and prevent further obstacles, such as health, protection and GBV issues. Provision of temporary shelter allowed beneficiaries to accelerate their recovery from disaster.

5 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Overview of Education cluster

Implementing Number of projects Budget in US$ Geographic Area agencies

4 398,512 Aceh People Forum, Save the Children, Padang Pariaman and Mentawai AMURT and Plan International Islands districts and Pariaman city of West Sumatra Outcomes

Project results: 78 temporary classrooms of elementary schools and 12 temporary kindergarten schools were constructed, with latrines and washing facilities. The assistance enables children to learn in safer environment. Total number of beneficiaries is 14,265 children. Teachers reported that school attendance is almost the same as the one before the earthquake, due to the assistance provided by the projects. Provision of teaching material and training for parents on psychosocial support and for teachers on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), continued by learning sessions for school children.

Overview of WASH cluster

Implementing Number of projects Budget in US$ Geographic Area agencies

4 348,654 International Relief and Development, Padang Pariaman and Mentawai Islamic Relief, Plan International and Islands Districts of West Nahdlatul Ulama Sumatra, Sleman District of Yogyakarta and Magelang District of Central Java Outcomes

Construction of 37 communal latrines, 6 reservoirs, and 11 washing facilities fulfilled needs in WASH sector. Specifically for Mentawai, 801 hygiene kits were distributed to 801 families in remote areas with challenges to access water and obtain hygiene items. To meet the needs of daily water consumption and agricultural production, 4.2 kilometers of water pipe system was installed, 3.4 kilometers of irrigation channel was repaired and 170 meter lining concrete was reconstructed. At least 6,034 beneficiaries were reached. Hygiene promotion activities included trainings, distribution of posters and banners at some strategic places close to communities (such as schools, communal latrines, Posyandus and local government offices) and campaign trough radio broadcast. Approximately 3,000 beneficiaries were reached with better knowledge and awareness of hygiene practices. At least 1,800 poor households that were highly affected by Mt. Merapi eruptions received facilities for clean water and sanitation.

6 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Summary and analysis of achievements When providing temporary shelter assistance, In 2010, the Humanitarian Response Fund was mainly implementing partners used varied approaches. Some utilized to fill the gaps that existed between the closure of partners provided phased cash grant, while some others the West Sumatra earthquake emergency response and provided inputs including building material and technical the operation of its early recovery phase. During this experts. A project developed temporary workshop within period, the fund addressed the most crucial needs of villages and organized beneficiaries to jointly prepare targeted communities. As the emergency response phase parts for the shelters, such as bamboo sheetings, doors was declared over at the end of October 2010, with the and door frames, and windows and frames. Another exception of a few sub-districts with concentration of project designed child-friendly temporary shelters. IDPs, GoI shifted its focus on transition to recovery These variations of assistance were discussed in advance measures. However, as this was near the end of the 2010 in shelter cluster meeting. In term of direct inputs, each fiscal year, recovery funds were processed in the shelter costed between US$ 200 and $555, but most of following year which led to delayed disbursement of the assistance ranged between US$ 250 and $325 per recovery assistance. Thus, the HRF was instrumental in temporary shelters. The lower cost was due to more the provision of transitional shelter, education and water, salvage material required for use, while the higher cost sanitation and hygiene assistance. was attributed to higher quality of building material used, which provide longer lasting shelters. Nearly all projects The need for shelter was considered a high priority, with used salvaged material from damaged houses. Although the difference was significant, cluster coordinator and a high number of damaged houses, and the shelter local government endorsed the projects. However, assistance provided for emergency response was mainly OCHA advocated GoI and cluster coordinators to have plastic sheeting and emergency tents, which lasted only minimum and maximum standard of assistance, in order for several months. By providing more durable shelter to avoid unrest amongst populations because of quality assistance, the affected populations were able to resume variances in assistance. For all projects, simple training their normal lives; children continued their education as was conducted prior to temporary house construction. they were provided proper facilities to sleep, men Simple standards conveyed during the training included restarted their livelihoods or were able to search for Safe (resistant to earthquakes and other hazards), alternative incomes as family members were provided Adequate (with good ventilation and drainage, of a good housing. Provision of proper shelter assistance also size, gender-sensitive with appropriate privacy), and significantly contributed to prevention of disease and the Durable (materials are strong and last 18-24 months). increase of security. Furthermore, HRF was utilized to Build Back Better approach was also encouraged in construct temporary classrooms in distant areas without training and physical work. The approach has allowed education assistance, clean water and other hygiene community to led effort that best suited the peoples’ facilities. needs. It may require a little bit longer recovery work, but the results are much effective. Based on assessments made by GoI, non-government actors, and data from cluster leads, the most damaged During project visits, OCHA observed high level of areas were Padang Pariaman District, Pariaman and involvement of women and children. There was a Padang Cities, however the earthquake also affected nine temporary shelter project that was designed to include a other districts and municipalities. Thus, the HRF high participation rate of children tasked to monitor the responded to crucial needs in those locations, and progress of activities, also for the children’s targeted the most vulnerable populations through funding empowerment. They were equipped with video camera to 19 projects. and stationery. The project clearly increased community awareness of the vital role of children. Besides response to the needs triggered by the 30 There were 2,515 damaged schools and education September 2009 earthquake in West Sumatra province, facilities (equal to 9,051 schoolrooms) due to 2009 West HRF also funded two projects in Mentawai Islands of Sumatra earthquake and 2010 Mentawai Islands tsunami. West Sumatra province due to earthquake and tsunami on While the government committed to rebuild or 25 October 2010. Those projects helped in response to rehabilitate the schools, HRF projects provided needs of education, hygiene, and child protection. temporary classroom space, before the permanent ones

7 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010 from GoI would be rebuilt. Children returned to school humanitarian actors were on the field trying to although they had to study at temporary classrooms provide assistance. During coordination meetings, (cemented floor, plywood wall and corrugated iron roof) gaps and overlaps were identified through proper and were provided with new teaching material to coordination among all stakeholders. Thus, HRF encourage their eagerness to study. Teachers reported was released only when gaps existed. that the attendance rates after the disaster were only  The HRF allowed implementing partners to slightly lower to rates prior to the disaster and they complement project funding with other sources, thus affirmed that funding from the HRF was highly strengthening project implementation and increasing instrumental in allowing children to return to school. the impact to target beneficiaries.. HRF project They also appreciated the DRR modules they taught to approval process is quicker than most other funding the school children. mechanisms, and this allowed NGOs to start providing assistance as soon as possible with funds from the HRF, which was then later complemented by other funding sources.  HRF linked national and regional planning strategies with local support initiatives. HRF was designed to link with national and provincial governments’ response and recovery planning, so that its projects and its implementation was supported by the goverment while being responsive to the local context and urgent needs. During project Projects from the WASH sector were located in strategic implementation, HRF partners shared and discussed areas within community. Majority of West Sumatra their projects and strategies with related government population were able to access water easily. Thus, officials at national and local levels. funding was targeted in communities with little access to  clean water and dependant on rain water. HRF HRF is instrumental in building the capacity of succeeded in providing these communities with national NGOs and communities. Despite the fact alternative water sources, which enabled communities to that the HRF primarily funded international NGOs, access water throughout the year. WASH project due to these international NGOs worked with national and Mt. Merapi eruptions was implemented to fill the gaps local NGOs in project implementation, thus that could not be met by other resources. enhancing the capacities of national NGOs. The community was also strengthened as every project Highlights of achievement from HRF implementation in had training activities and other forms of community 2010 are: gathering, where NGOs inserted simple DRR  Funding from the HRF strengthened coordination messages to communities. These messages, such as between the government, NGO and donors. build back better and household preparedness plan, Implementing partners were required to report to are considered necessary as communities live in GoI as soon as the HRF proposal was approved in earthquake prone areas. They were taught to realize order to avoid duplication of assistance. Other major that the disaster in their area could reoccur and thus donors were aware of the functions of the HRF. they need to be prepared. Within the first week of emergency responses for 2009 West Sumatra earthquake and 2010 Mentawai Islands earthquake and tsunami, hundreds of

8 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Project Monitoring

OCHA conducted project monitoring through several building material and manpower (carpenters) due to ways, including relying on verbal reports by high demand. implementing partners and conducting project visits.  All projects were coordinated by local government Some partners also shared photos of their activities. For to ensure appropriateness of assistance. projects that lasted for more than three months, interim Coordination meetings were regularly conducted by reports were required. OCHA, Cluster Coordinators and then continued by In conducting monitoring, OCHA invited board Early Recovery Network team at provincial and members, which are Cluster Coordinators at the national district levels. There was a high level of level and government officials. However, in 2010 no participation of HRF implementing partners in the joint monitoring visits were realized. OCHA conducted meetings. Monitoring missions revealed the strong monitoring to 17 out of 21 ongoing projects in 2010 coordination amongst involved partners as there through three visits which took place in March, July and was no overlap of assistance between the projects. August. In March, six projects were visited that were  HRF assistance, especially transitional shelter, implemented by Plan International, Save the Children proved to be at the ‘right amount’. It was not low (two temporary shelter projects), CRS (two projects) and enough that would lose beneficiaries interest, but IRD. In July, OCHA visited Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid was not too high to discourage beneficiaries’ and World Relief projects while in August, CORDAID participation. The assistance from the projects also (three projects), Save the Children’s education project, enhanced empowerment in the communities. CWS and AMURT were visited. The four projects which was not visited though planned was cancelled due  Most HRF implementing partners in 2010 had to occurrences of some disasters in the last quarter of experience in previous emergency responses in 2010. Indonesia, including 2004 Aceh tsunami, 2006 Yogyakarta and Central Java earthquake, 2007 The visit is usually started by implementing partner’s West Sumatra earthquake and 2008 Bengkulu staff briefing on the progress of project activities. Then, earthquake. The experiences contributed to OCHA meets with local leaders and discussed the latest enhanced effectiveness of HRF project situation and concerns, efforts made by government and implementation. non-government actors, the usefulness of HRF assistance, coordination mechanism of assistance and  Capacity development of local and national NGOs further recovery plan. During this visit beneficiaries and was achieved with assistance provided to local non-beneficiaries were informally interviewed on their NGOs in proposal writing, budget preparation, understanding of the project, the usage of assistance international response standards and program provided by HRF, their participation in project activities, cycles/timelines. As a result the timelines of all and gender issues. projects was facilitated through the capacity building efforts and commitment to the local Besides monitoring missions, OCHA also visited projects partners. for the Sida evaluation, which was conducted in mid- 2010. OCHA staff and independent evaluators visited  The Community Participation model, utilized with some HRF projects in West Sumatra and Banten the formation of groups and group accountability, provinces. was an effective method of ensuring participation, overall program success, utilizing individual and Highlights from project monitoring are: community strengths and developing individual and  No significant delays in project implementation, community capacities. although some projects faced difficulty in getting good quality of project inputs, both in terms of

9 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Gender Considerations

OCHA and the Review Board promoted gender projects began, women willingly took part in activities mainstreaming since HRF is introduced to NGOs. for numerous reasons. Another reason includes the Gender considerations were included in the HRF benefit their participation in the project would result by Guidelines, which encouraged NGOs to describe gender maintaining their social roles in their community and issues in their program design. Gender consideration is a whilst allowing their husband to find income somewhere neccesary requisite for a project to be approved for HRF else to fulfill their daily needs. funding. Sex and age disaggregated data must also be Another example of results on gender consideration is the included in the proposal. Upon project approval, NGOs cooking areas of transitional shelters. HRF should ensure that project activities consult with implementing partners and household beneficiaries beneficiaries (men, women, girls and boys). Based on constructed shade extension to allow women to cook in project monitoring and evaluation findings, projects with more appropriate way. Decision-making in designing good gender consideration in their program design have transitional shelters was being shared more equally by proved to have better implementation results. This may women and men. be caused by better analysis of targeted community and combined with appropriate planning, which exercised With regards to WASH projects, HRF implementing good community participation. partners have ensured that women and girls have sufficient security and privacy in WASH facilities. During monitoring and evaluation visits to HRF projects, Locations of WASH facilities were selected by men and OCHA staff and other participants of the visit were women. Community developed committee to maintain usually gender balanced. This balance and its purposes the facilities that have gender equality. Temporary were mentioned in meetings with stakeholders to raise schools provided by HRF projects have proved to have awareness on gender issues. A wide range of equal access for boys and girls. After the disaster, there beneficiaries (men, women, girls and boys) were were no significant drop-outs of boy and girl students in consulted. . The effectiveness of the activities in schools assisted through HRF. addressing the issue was reviewed. There are some lessons to be learned and shared with other actors, including other HRF implementing agencies. Thus, OCHA encouraged every implementing agency to communicate to each other and share good practices. It was observed during monitoring and evaluation visits that women and men have equal access to programme information in all HRF project implementation. This condition increased awareness of the HRF programme and thus increased participation of women and men. All HRF projects were implemented in West Sumatra, where its society is well-known for its matriarchal culture. Women play a significant role in balancing the concerns of individuals (family members) and society (community in their neighborhood). They are active in community gathering and other social events. Thus, roles of women were more visible in comparison to those in most other parts of Indonesia. From the project’s socialization to its closure, and during monitoring and evaluation, women and men exercised a strong focus on gender equity. For example, the high participation of women in project activities was reflected in the cleaning the rubble from their houses and other buildings, collecting building material, and monitoring project progress. Before the disaster, women were accustomed In a transitional shelter project implemented in Padang to physical work that was usually done by men in other Sago Sub-district of Padang Pariaman District, there was parts of Indonesia. After the earthquake, once relief a single woman who reconstructed her own house

10 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010 without significant assistance from other people. It was approach at field level was transformed into Early not because her neighbors did not want to help, but they Recovery Network, with a Gender Specialist who knew that she had a commitment to rebuild her house by oversaw gender concerns in overall remaining her own strength. Communities have own thought, humanitarian and recovery programs in West Sumatra. system and practices related to gender. The Inter-agency Standing Committee Gender Marker As the emergency response of 2009 West Sumatra was exercised for Indonesia HRF in 2010, and will earthquake was declared over by GoI, the cluster continue to be implemented through 2011.

11 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Conclusion Considering that the humanitarian situation in parts of Some implementing partners were able to use the Indonesia remains fragile, a funding mechanism that coordination forum with GoI to conduct advocacy related allows humanitarian organizations to respond rapidly to to humanitarian concerns. the urgent needs of vulnerable communities is an The Fund has strategically filled humanitarian gaps. The important need. Furthermore, DRR and early recovery HRF is not granted in all disaster occurrences in initiatives should be continued as these initiatives will Indonesia. When gaps are not clearly identified or many contribute positively when a disaster strikes. The humanitarian actors have provided enough assistance, flexibility of the HRF is one of its main strengths, an funding from the HRF was not released. In addition, the observation highlighted by government officials, board Fund is effectively utilized to respond the humanitarian members and implementing partners. As a funding needs even when the government did not welcome mechanism managed by the Humanitarian Coordinator international assistance. As a mechanism that is in with knowledge of the country context, the HRF was able placed in Indonesia before a disaster strikes, HRF allows to meet rapidly changing needs and respond to widening quick decision by the HC that is needed during gaps. emergency response. Implementing partners of the HRF in 2010 were mainly Although some monitoring visits were conducted to HRF international NGOs. National NGOs should be more projects, monitoring activities should be better planned encouraged to apply to the Fund, as national NGOs tend and exercised. Joint monitoring visits with government, to know more about the local contexts and situations of donor representatives, board members and other relevant beneficiaries. HRF partners, including board members, actors could be conducted. Strengths in a project should international NGOs and OCHA, should support building be communicated to other projects for potential capacities and integrity of national NGOs so that overall replication, if relevant. For example, innovation in a effectiveness of assistance to the disaster-affected transitional shelter project could be applied to other population can be enhanced. International NGOs should similar projects. A project with strong collaboration with continue working with their national and local partners in the private sector could inspire other projects to have HRF projects, and whenever possible, increase their roles similar approach. Advocacy to a local government on in planning and implementing the projects. particular humanitarian concerns could be replicated by In its implementation, the Fund increased the quality of other projects to local government in other districts. coordination practices during emergency response. Even The Fund was managed with high transparency. when the Government of Indonesia declared the Decisions were well communicated to stakeholders. emergency response over while some humanitarian needs Every project was communicated well to BNPB and local remained, the HRF implementing partners enriched the governments. In order to maintain the transparency of discussion in coordination meetings and thus the decision the Fund, more regular updating of funded projects could and commitment was made by coordination participants be shown on the OCHA website. to support quick recovery of disaster affected people and contribute to their development of durable solutions.

12 Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

Glossary AMURT Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team BNPB National Agency for Disaster Management CERF Central Emergency Response Fund CORDAID a Catholic Organization for Development Cooperation CRS Catholic Relief Services CWS Church World Services DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ERF Emergency Response Fund GBV Gender Based Violence GoI Government of Indonesia HRF Humanitarian Response Fund IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IRD International Relief and Development NGOs Non Government Organizations OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Sida The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency UNDP United Nations Development Programme WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

13