Humanitarian Response Fund Indonesia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Humanitarian Response Fund Indonesia 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 Sumatra 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 West Sumatra 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 Padang 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