SHF 2017 FIRST ALLOCATION ROUND

Strategic Review report Projects Recommended for Funding

13 March 2017

1. Overview 8 • Results 8 • Process 10 • Recommendations 11

2. Case 1 (Displacement): Strategic Review results 12 • Education 12 • Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items 13 • Food Security and Livelihood 14 • Health 15 • Nutrition 16 • Protection 18 • WASH 19 • Refugee Consultation Forum 21

3. Case 2 (Returnees): Strategic Review results 22

4. Case 4 (Common services) 23

Annex 1: Strategic Review Committee members 24

1. Overview

o This document presents the recommend projects to the Advisory Board and then to the Humanitarian Coordinator for pre- approval in line with the 2017 first Allocation paper. o It includes the results of the Strategic Review Committees (SRCs) meetings and the SHF Technical Unit’s (TU) comments and shows to what extent these results are in line with the allocation strategy. o The document aims to ensure transparency of the process by describing potential issues. o Upon HC preliminary approval of the recommended projects, partners will be requested to develop full project proposals. Final approval of projects and amounts only takes place after successful Technical Review when the HC gives her final approval.

• Results o Out of 113 projects submitted, 61 concept notes for a total value of $19.1 million are presented to the Advisory Board. This does not include the protracted displacement pilot (case 3) which will be launched at a later stage, nor 17 projects that were ineligible as per the allocation strategy criteria. An overview of the results per case for funding are presented below:

Table 1: Recommend amounts and number of concept notes per case for funding1

Amounts Number of Number of Recommended submitted and eligible concept notes Amounts (US$) eligible (US$) concept notes recommended Sector

Case 1 : Displacement Education 2,884,616 13 1,400,000 5 Emergency shelter and NFI 3,156,817 12 1,300,000 6 Food security and livelihoods 2,779,604 8 1,399,969 3 Health 6,828,324 18 3,650,000 9 Nutrition 6,067,274 21 3,000,000 13 Protection 5,092,161 21 1,400,000 6 Refugees 3,285,815 9 1,500,001 6 Water, sanitation and hygiene 4,200,724 10 3,155,194 10 subtotal case 1 39,769,757 98 16,805,163 49

Case 2: Returns 3,285,815 9 $2,499,969 6

Case 4: Common services DTM and M&R officers 824,453 6 $ 824,453 6 Total 43,880,024 113 $19,129,616 61

An average project submission was around $391,000 where the average recommended project was only $313,600. During the 2016 first allocation strategic review 82 projects were proposed totaling $29.3 million averaging $358,000 per project.

1 Amounts per sector include shares in multi-sector projects. The number of concept notes per sector includes all concept notes for the sector including multi-sectorial concept notes. The total number of projects does not double count the multi-sector projects.

Area based approach: common priority localities

Table 2: Approximate amounts recommended to common priority localities Locality (US$/No. of EDUCATION EMERGENCY FOOD HEALTH NUTRITION PROTECTION WATER, TOTAL SHELTER AND SECURITY AND SANITATION projects)/Sector NON-FOOD LIVELIHOODS AND HYGIENE ITEMS Nertiti 143,956 (1) 136,256 (2) 146,990 (1) 541,007 (5) 165,446 (3) 95,970 (1) 282,659 (2) 1,512,285 (15) Golo 365,852 (2) 136,256 (2) 39,197 (1) 329,991 (4) 278,392 (4) 143,955 (1) 809,645 (4) 2,103,290 (18) Kebkabiya 226,929 (1) (0) 146,990 (1) 140,628 (2) 21,006 (1) 279,936 (2) 200,424 (1) 1,015,913 (8) Tawilla 266,609 (1) (0) 39,197 (1) 199,609 (3) 205,682 (3) 265,491 (2) 150,000 (1) 1,126,589 (11) El Kurmuk 193,310 (1) 90,000 (1) 102,900 (1) 364,890 (3) (0) 286,511 (2) (0) 1,037,610 (8) Nyala 203,345 (1) 115,940 (2) 117,592 (1) 407,033 (3) 159,100 (1) (0) 269,231 (1) 1,272,241 (9) Total 1,400,000 (7) 478,452 (7) 592,868 (6) 1,983,158 (20) 829,626 (12) 1,071,864 (8) 1,711,960 (9) 8,067,928 (69) o Common priority localities are well covered and represent 47% of the allocations under the displacement case (case 1). The most recent displacement (Golo, Nertiti) makes up 45% of the allocations under the common priority localities. o Sectors Health, Nutrition and WaSH are advised to coordinate closely with their partners to avoid duplication on the common priority localities and take into account other funding streams. o The table does not include the RRR response to 3 villages in Um Dukhum. All targeted sectors are covered within this approach.

Sector specific localities

Table 3: Projects recommended per sector priority localities EDUCATION EMERGENCY FOOD HEALTH NUTRITION PROTECTION WATER, REFUGEE SHELTER AND SECURITY AND SANITATION CONSULTATION NON-FOOD LIVELIHOODS AND HYGIENE FORUM ITEMS No. of sector specific localities covered/ Total sector specific localities in 0/15 1/7 3/5 13/20 10/14 3/9 5/8 8/8 allocation paper

o The table indicates that sector specific localities are primarily of added value for the bigger envelopes Health, Nutrition and WASH.

Multi-sector projects o 18 out of 107 projects were submitted as multi-sector projects and focused mostly on the common priority localities. o Eight of the 18 multi-sector projects are recommended as a multi-sector project. Four of the multi-sector projects are recommended as single sector projects. o Three of the eight recommended projects are between Education and Protection sectors, while the remainder involves the Health, Nutrition and WASH sectors. FSL and ESNFI sectors do not take part in any multi-sector projects. o In addition, for sector specific localities, two multi-sector approaches based on single sector concept notes are recommended.

Multi-annual commitments o Projects under case 2 on returnees all specified a brief description on what those projects could achieve in year two. This can be further worked out during the Technical Review of the projects. o Almost no health and nutrition projects have indicated a request for multi-year funding. The SHF Technical Unit recommends to ask partners about their interest in multi-year funding during the Technical Review and recommend a number of projects for multi-year funding.

Procurement projects o 5 pipeline projects (NFI, Livelihoods, Nutrition and two WASH pipelines) were submitted for a total value of $2,900,683. o 3 pipeline projects (NFI, Livelihoods, Nutrition) are recommended by SRCs for a total value of $1,647,601. This is 8.6% of the total allocations. o While for the nutrition and livelihoods pipelines, needs for pipeline supplies were clearly indicated by the partners in the concept notes, this was less clearly the case for NFI and not at all for WASH.

Community participation officers o Few partners indicated interest in a community participation officer. The SHF Technical Unit and the protection sector coordinator will discuss this with partners in common priority localities during Technical Review.

Allocation by type of partner Table 4: No of projects and amounts recommended per organization type Number of Amount Organization Type concept notes % % recommended recommended International NGO 33 54% 11,893,839 62% National NGO 10 16% 2,042,415 11% UN Agency 18 30% 5,193,362 27% 61 $19,129,616 Grand Total

o The bulk of the allocation (62%) is going to international NGOs which is a significant increase compared to 2016. o 11% of funding is directly going to national NGOs while a number of them work together with international NGOs or UN agencies as sub grantees. o The amount of the allocation going to UN agencies is in line with the positioning of the Fund.

Allocation by risk levels Table 5: No of projects and amounts recommended per risk level (only for NGOs) Number of Amount Risk Level concept notes % % recommended recommended High 4 9% 598,762 4% Medium 7 16% 2,301,255 17% Low 32 74% 11,036,237 79% o The table shows that a significant amount of the allocation is going to low risk partners.

• Process o An eligibility check was done by the SHF Technical Unit. Partners that have requested an explanation have received one. While one SRC decided to discuss an ineligible project, no SRC has exceptionally recommended such a project. o As this was the second year with a clear description of Strategic Review Committees described in the Operational Manual, the scoring process in all SRCs was consistent and with due respect to the ground rules. • Criteria used to select projects after initial scoring have mainly been in line with those specified in the allocation paper resulting in a selection that was based on the scoring. • If a project with a lower score project was recommended, a clear reason for this exception is stated in the below. • While during the allocation paper preparation, the IASC sector coordinators have been strongly involved in the definition of criteria for eligibility/scoring and final selection, this remains important for future allocations. o Regarding the composition of the SRC, • The SHF Technical Unit ensured that no NGO was present in more than two SRCs. • The FSL sector had one scoring member that had not submitted its scoring so only 5 members participated in the SRC. • The WaSH sector had a finance person participating which was considered as a great help to comment on budgets. • There was a strong involvement of sector M&R officers with half of the committees led by sector M&R officers. • No SHF donors have participated in the Strategic Review Committees. • Government representative were present as observers in five out of the nine Strategic Review Committees. o Regarding the timeliness, • No requests for extension of the submission deadline were received this year.

• All SRC members were well prepared and had submitted their scores to the SHF Technical Unit before the start of the SRC meeting. Consequently, all scoring took place within two days while several SRCs did the scoring in one day. This is a significant improvement over last year. • Three sector coordinators submitted the SRC report within the deadline, five the next day. • The health sector coordinator only submitted a final version today after an additional discussion on budget amendments. In this document, the original project budgets have been taken into account. • Compiling the scores before the meetings and projecting them during the sessions facilitated the SRC discussions. o Regarding the use of the scorecard, • SRC assessment of the gender marker is a challenge. • The calculation and justification of the number of beneficiaries is often absent in the concept notes. • It is often difficult to score multi-sector projects. Linkages between sector responses are often not articulated and input boxes in the GMS often have limited space. • Few partners indicated sharing of PSC with their sub-grantee. The scoring on the sharing of PSC was often not understood by SRC members. • The introduction of performance indicators seems positive. o The SHF Technical Unit advocates for SRC reports to reflect only discussions that took place during the SRC meeting.

• Recommendations o Taking into account the above, the SHF Technical Unit requests the Advisory Board to advise on the proposed allocations as described in more detail in the sections below in this document. More detailed comments and recommendations are available in the sector SRC reports. o The SHF Technical Unit requests the Advisory Board to endorse the following recommendations: • Sectors Health, Nutrition and WaSH to coordinate closely with their partners to avoid duplication on the common priority localities and take into account other funding streams. • The SHF Technical Unit to ask health and nutrition partners about their interest in multi-year funding during the Technical Review and recommend a number of projects for multi-year funding. • (EDU) DRC and IRW to liaise with TGH on WASH in education facilities in Golo and consider sub- granting if deemed appropriate. • (ESNFI) Keep budgets for NCA, CRS and SORC projects as submitted by the partner as no justification is given for increase. The leftover funds can be reallocated to ESNFI core pipeline. • (ESNFI) ESNFI sector coordinator to discuss with the partners of recommended projects the exact amounts of NFIs that can be included in each of the recommended projects. • (ESNFI) ESNFI sector coordinator to investigate the feasibility of direct procurement by SHF partners in local markets in line with early recovery. • (FSL) For the two recommended projects, to limit the risks related to the management of the consortia by limiting the number of partners to four (including the consortia leader) with a presence in the state in the two recommended consortia. • (HEA) WHO project to limits its focus to the support of basic health services and remove preparedness activities and related procurement in order to align the project with the SHF positioning and allocation papers. The project will be reduced by $193,170, this amount that will be added to UNFPA project for reproductive health kits. • (WASH) The amount requested in the WASH pipeline is too low to be significant ($51,225) and could be added to partner projects to do the procurement themselves. • (RCF) UNHCR to be conditional upon a) that UNHCR has unfettered access to all proposed localities and; b) bring the project in line with the SHF positioning by working through NGOs and by significantly reducing the amount of sub-granting (Ref. 2016 first allocation recommendation: RMS to work towards increased capacity of NGOs in order to have sufficient NGO partners for the front line response.) • (RRR) In line with the RRR SRC recommendation, ESNFI sector coordinator to coordinate with UN HABITAT and other partners involved, to recommend a design for transitional shelter appropriate for Sudan in different areas and specifically in Um Dukhun. • (RRR) TGH as high scoring project to include the proposed livelihood activities (total project budget of $500,000) while CRS to complement for $200,000 with a focus on access to animal health care.

2. Case 1 (Displacement): Strategic Review results

Please find below the SRC scoring and ranking per sector as well as the SHF Technical Unit recommendations based on the SRC outcomes. The SHF Technical Unit request endorsement of its recommendations so projects can go to the next phase of the 2017 SHF First Round Allocation (project development).

• Education a. SRC scoring and ranking Original Recommend SRC Partner Project title Localities Budget ed Budget score USD USD Save the Children (SC) Integrated education and protection response North -> Tawilla 93.2 $266,609 $266,609 for newly displaced people in Tawilla in SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/INGO/4849 (EDU 60%, PROTECTION 40%) UNICEF Multi-sector (Education & CP) Restore access –Elkurmuk, 88.9 $420,238 $420,238 to education and provide lifesaving child North Darfur -Kebkabiya protection services for emergency affected children in Sortoni, North Darfur and Kurmuk, Blue Nile SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/UN/4893 (EDU 66%, PROTECTION 34%) Danish Refugee Ensuring access to safe learning spaces for Central Darfur, 87.7 $359,889 $359,889 Council (DRC) conflict-affected children in North and West 1) Neriti (West Jebel Jebel Marra, Marra) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/INGO/4930, 2) Golo (central Jebel (EDU 60%, PROTECTION 40%) Marra)

Peace Bridge Saving Access to Education and Protection -Nyala 80.6 $186,104 $203,345 Association (PBA) Services for the most Affected and Vulnerable new IDPs in Otash camp in South Darfur State, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/NGO/4871 (EDU 60%, PROTECTION 40%)

Islamic Relief Integrated Emergency Assistance to affected Central Darfur - Nertiti Worldwild (IRW) people in West Jabal Marra Nertiti Central (west Jebel Marra) Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH-N-H-E/INGO/4888 70.1 $149,919 $149,919 (WASH 20%, Nutrition 31 %, Health 28%, Education 21%)

TOTAL $1,400,000

o 13 projects were scored of which five were multi-sector projects; the five highest scoring projects are recommended. o There should be stronger integration between WASH and Education responses, especially in terms of provision of the latrines in the schools. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o The SHF Technical Unit recommends DRC and IRW to liaise with TGH (Triangle GH), who has a project recommended for WaSH, on WaSH in education facilities in Golo and consider sub-granting if deemed appropriate.

• Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items a. SRC scoring and ranking Origi SRC Recommended Partner Project title Localities nal score Budg Budget USD et Norwegian NFI and ES Support for IDPs in South and South Darfur: Otash 77.8 $189,851 $200,000 Church Aid Central Darfur camp (Nyala North); (NCA) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/UN/4796 Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Jebel Marra); Golo (Central Jebel Marra) International Restoring Basic Human Dignity through South Darfur: Kass, 71.0 $556,774 $200,000 Organization for Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items Nyala, Gereida (without Migration (IOM) (ES/NFI) Assistance Gereida camp) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/UN/4858 Catholic Relief Shelter and NFI humanitarian support to : Beida 68.7 $165,815 $200,000 Service (CRS) conflict affected communities in West Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/INGO/4822

Alsalam Enhance social protection wellbeing and Blue Nile: El Kurmuk 68.6 $119,947 $90,000 Organization for provision of immediate live saving INFs/ES Rehabilitation and services for vulnerable people affected by Development conflict in Kurmuk locality of Blue Nile state (AORD) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/P-ESNFIs/NGO/4816 (Protection 60%, ES/NFI 40%) Sudanese Ensure timely Provision and assistance of Central Darfur: Nertiti 63.0 $158,601 $160,000 Organization for ESNFIS to Newly Displaced in Golo and (West Jebel Marra), Golo Rehabilitation and Nertiti Locality, Central Darfur state (Central Jebel Marra) Construction SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/NGO/4750 (SORC) United Nations The NFI Common Pipeline Blue Nile: El Kurmuk; NA $650,000 $450,000 High SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/UN/4796 South Darfur: Nyala; Commissioner for Kass camp; Gereida Refugee camp; Central Darfur: (UNHCR) Nertiti (West Jebel Marra); West Darfur -> Beida TOTAL $1,300,000

o SHF TU received 14 concept notes for ES/NFI sector, consisting of one core pipeline, two multi-sector, one consortium and ten regular projects. Three concept notes are considered ineligible because the budget was below the minimum floor. o 5 projects are recommended including the NFI core pipeline project. A Kabkabyia Small Holders Charity (KSCS) project in North Darfur is not selected despite a considerable score because gap is minor for ESNFI in this area. o The UNHCR’s core pipeline budget is reduced to accommodate IOM-lead consortia project partnering with three local NGOs. o Due to the nature of the activities (ie. mainly procurement and distribution), project duration is shortened from 12 to maximum six months, taking into consideration that pipeline items should arrive in a timely manner. o The Strategic Review Committee has confidence that quality NFI items are available in the country and the partners have capacity to procure locally in timely manner. The sector coordination requests for a separate envelope for the core pipeline. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o The SHF TU recommends to keep budgets for NCA, CRS and SORC projects as submitted by the partner as no justification is given for increasing the budgets. The leftover funds can be reallocated to the ESNFI pipeline. See the below table for recommended budget figures on those projects. o The SHF TU recommends the ESNFI sector coordinator to discuss with the partners of recommended projects the exact amounts of NFIs that can be included in each of the recommended projects. o The SHF TU recommends the ESNFI sector to investigate the feasibility of procurement in local markets in line with early recovery strategies and by SHF partners directly.

Original Recommended Partner Project title Budget USD Budget USD Norwegian Church Aid NFI and ES Support for IDPs in South and Central Darfur $189,851 $189,851 (NCA) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/UN/4796 Catholic Relief Service Shelter and NFI humanitarian support to conflict affected $165,815 $165,815 (CRS) communities in West Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/INGO/4822 Sudanese Organization for Ensure timely Provision and assistance of ESNFIS to Newly $158,601 $158,601 Rehabilitation and Displaced in Golo and Nertiti Locality, Central Darfur state Construction (SORC) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/NGO/4750 United Nations High The NFI Common Pipeline $650,000 $495,733 Commissioner for Refugee SUD-17/HSD20/S1/ESNFIs/UN/4796 (UNHCR)

• Food Security and Livelihood a. SRC scoring and ranking SRC Original Recommen Partner Project title Localities score Budget ded Budget USD USD Practical Improving Food Security and Livelihood North Darfur: Kebkabiya, 89.4 $489,968 $489,968 Action Assets for IDPs, Returnees and Tawilla Vulnerable Host Communities in the South Darfur: Otash camp areas of Golo and Nertiti in Central (Nyala North) Darfur, Otash Camp in South Darfur, and Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Kebkabiya and Tawila in North Darfur. Jebel Marra), Golo (Central SUD-17/HSD20/S1/FSL/INGO/4848 Jebel Marra)

Mercy Corps Provision of lifesaving emergency food Blue Nile: El Kurmuk, El 87.7 $490,000 $490,000 Scotland security and livelihood support to the Roseires IDPs and destitute vulnerable host -> Kadugli, Abu communities’ in Kordofan and Blue Nile Karshola States (PSC sharing consortia) SUD- : Abu Zabad, 17/HSD20/S1/FSL/INGO/4783 Babanusa Food and Restoring food security and saving lives NA $420,000 $420,000 Agriculture of the IDP and extremely vulnerable Organization resident households in (FAO) North Darfur, South Darfur, Central Darfur, Blue Nile, South Kordofan and West Kordofan States. SUD- 17/HSD20/S1/FSL/UN/4789 TOTAL $1,399,968

o 8 concept notes (CN) were received for FSL sector. They include one core pipeline project, two consortia, one multi- sector and four single sector projects. o Three projects are recommended, which includes the two consortia projects and the core pipeline project. The two consortia projects cover 12 prioritized localities in six states with a total of 12 members (including the consortia leaders). b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o While both consortia may result in better cost efficiency and effectiveness, better coverage of geographical areas, strengthening international and national partnership and ultimately better service to beneficiaries, the SHF Technical Unit recommends the below to limit the risks related to the management of consortia: • maximum four partners (including the consortia leader) for each consortia project; • to work with one partner per state (or at minimum a complete locality).

• Health a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Original Recomme Partner Project title Localities Budget nded score USD Budget USD World Relief (WR) Comprehensive Primary Health care Services West Darfur: El Geneina 84.6 $448,160 $448,160 for Vulnerable Communities in West and Central Darfur: Nertiti Central Darfur (West Jebel Marra), Azum, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/INGO/4775 Golo (Central Jebel Marra)

World Health Emergency life-saving health interventions : Abyei PCA Area 81.1 $702,711 $702,711 Organization (WHO) through improved access to essential PHC Blue Nile: El Kurmuk, services including referral, ensuring availability Geissan of emergency medicines and medical supplies North Darfur: El Fasher, for the communities affected by conflict, Kebkabiya, Kutum, displacement and disasters in 18 high priority Tawilla localities in Sudan. South Darfur: Nyala, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/UN/4876 Gereida (without Gereida camp), Kass (without Kass camp), Marshang, Shattai, Um Dafug South Kordofan: Kadugli, Talodi Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Jebel Marra), Zalingei, Golo (Central Jebel Marra) Panhealth Care Support the Provision of basic Health and Blue Nile: El Kurmuk 75.7 $250,000 $250,000 Organization Nutrition Services to communities affected by (PANCARE) conflict and disaters in the Blue Nile State (multi sector) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N-WASH/NGO/4841 HEALTH (50%), NUTRITION (25%), WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (25%) Kuwaiti Patients Support and Improved access to quality, North Darfur: Tawilla 73.6 $482,439 $482,439 Helping Fund (KPHF) sustainable and integrated primary health care South Darfur: Nyala, services for targeted vulnerable IDPs, returnees Otash camp(Nyala North) and host communities in Deraij & Otash IDPs camps in South Darfur state and Tawella (Galab ) in North Darfur state . SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/INGO/4804 International Medical Multi - Sectoral Integrated Health and Nutrition South Darfur: Bielel 72.9 $634,200 $634,200 Corps (IMC) Humanitarian Support to Conflict Affected and (without Kalma camp), Vulnerable Populations in Targeted localities of Kalma camp South, Central and West Darfur States. West Darfur: El Geneina, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N/INGO/4872 Beida HEALTH (65%), NUTRITION (35%) Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Jebel Marra), Zalingei, Golo (Central Jebel Marra American Refugee Provision of integrated primary health care South Darfur: Gereida 71.2 $471,299 $471,299 Committee (ARC) services to internally displaced persons (IDPs) camp, and host community affected by conflict and Gereida (without Gereida disaster in South and States (Multi- camp), Kalma camp, sector) Ed Daein, Yassin SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/INGO/4754 Concern Worldwide Sustainable health and nutrition interventions West Darfur: Jebel Moon 70.8 $173,295 $173,295 (CW) for Conflict-affected IDPs, Returnees and Host Communities in Jebel Moon locality, West Darfur state (multi-sector). SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N/INGO/4788 HEALTH (65%), NUTRITION (35%)

Norwegian Church Aid Provision of Sustained Integrated Emergency South Darfur: Bielel 68.5 $352,566 $352,566 (NCA) Primary Health Care Services to IDPs and Host (without Kalma camp) Communities Affected by the Recurrent Crisis Central Darfur: Nertiti in West Jebel Marra (Nertiti), Zalengei and (West Jebel Marra), Bilel Localities, Central and South Darfur Zalingei States SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/INGO/4792

United Nations Comprehensive Primary Health care Services Blue Nile: El Kurmuk, 64.8 $328,500 $135,330 Population Fund for Vulnerable Communities in West and Geissan (UNFPA) Central Darfur North Darfur: Kebkabiya, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/UN/4759 Tawilla

TOTAL $3,650,00 0

o 18 eligible concept notes have been submitted for Health, the SRC is recommending 9 concept notes for HC approval. One Save the Children (SCS) project was not recommended by the SRC although it scored within the recommended o projects. The concept note does not include a health context analysis for Tawil la nor does it justify how this project would avoid duplicating the ongoing MSF and MOH response in Tawilla. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o The SHF Technical Unit recommends that the WHO project limits its focus to the support of basic health services and removes preparedness activities and related procurement, so that the project is in line with the SHF positioning. The project will be reduced by $193,170, an amount that will be used for the UNFPA project. o The SHF Technical Unit recommends the UNFPA project to increase its supervision activities and link with NGOs responding in the targeted health centres.

Original Recommen Partner Project title Budget ded Budget USD USD World Health Emergency life-saving health interventions through improved access to $702,711 $509,542 Organization (WHO) essential PHC services including referral, ensuring availability of emergency medicines and medical supplies for the communities affected by conflict, displacement and disasters in 18 high priority localities in Sudan. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/UN/4876 United Nations Comprehensive Primary Health care Services for Vulnerable Communities $328,500 $328,500 Population Fund in West and Central Darfur (UNFPA) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H/UN/4759

• Nutrition a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Original Recommend Partner Project title Localities score Budget ed Budget USD USD Save the Emergency life-Saving Nutrition Intervention in South Kordofan: Alleri; 89.6 $400,000 $233,300 Children (SC) conflict affected areas in South Kordofan state Abu karshola; Reif Asharqi; SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/INGO/4758 Tadamon

World Health Nutrition lifesaving service provision through North Darfur: Dar El 86.1 $168,159 $150,042 Organization improved quality of SAM Inpatient services Salam, El Fasher, (WHO) including provision of standard package of training Kebkabiya, Ailliet, and monitoring in 11 prioritized localities in 4 states. Tawilla SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/UN/4799 South Darfur: Bielel (without Kalma camp), Kass (without Kass camp), Marshang South Kordofan: Tadamon Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Jebel Marra), Golo (Central Jebel Marra) American Integrated Community-based Management of Acute South Darfur: Kalma camp 84.9 $214,474 $180,181 Refugee Malnutrition services to Internally Displaced People Committee (IDPs) in Kalma camp - South Darfur (ARC) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/INGO/4915 (Multi-sectoral with WASH)

International Multi - Sectoral Integrated Health and Nutrition South Darfur: Bielel 80.0 $341,492 $341,492 Medical Corps Humanitarian Support to Conflict Affected and (without Kalma camp), (IMC) Vulnerable Populations in Targeted localities of Kalma camp South, Central and West Darfur States. West Darfur: El Geneina, SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N/INGO/4872 Beida HEALTH (65%), NUTRITION (35%) Central Darfur: Nertiti (West Jebel Marra), Zalingei, Golo (Central Jebel Marra) Save the Integrated Health, Nutrition and WASH emergency North Darfur: Tawilla 77.4 $150,000 $105,179 Children (SC) response for affected populations in Tawilla in North Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N-WASH/INGO/4760 HEALTH (40%), NUTRITION (30%), WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (30%)

World Vision Integrated Lifesaving WASH, Health and Nutrition South Darfur: Otash camp 76.0 $192,307 $159,100 International services for IDPs and Host Communities in South (Nyala North) (WVI) Darfur – SHF Nutrition, WASH and Health SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N-WASH/INGO/4934 HEALTH (40%), NUTRITION (25%), WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (35%) World Relief Lifesaving Nutrition Interventions in West and West Darfur: Genei 76.0 $392,671 $191,000 (WR) Central Darfur Central Darfur: Nertiti SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/INGO/4765 (West Jebel Marra), Golo (Central Jebel Marra) Almanar Provision of Community Based Management of South Kordofan: Abu 75.7 $282,439 $181,056 Voluntary Acute Malnutrition Integrated Health System for karshola, Tadamon Organization Conflict Affected Populations in South Kordofan (AMVO) State SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/NGO/4900 Kuwaiti Support the provision of nutrition services in Dar El North Darfur: Dar El 74.1 $489,033 $180,000 Patients Salam, Abo Zreega & Galab in North Darfur Salam, Tawilla Helping Fund SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/INGO/4805 (KPHF) Islamic Relief Integrated Emergency Assistance to affected people Central Darfur: Nertiti 73.9 $221,309 $135,461 Worldwide in West Jabal Marra Nertiti Central Darfur (multi- (West Jebel Marra) (IRW) sector and multi-year) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH-N-H-E/INGO/4888 NUTRITION (28%), WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (42%), EDUCATION (30%)

Cooperation Provision of integrated Community based North Darfur: El Taweisha, 73.5 $293,192 $200,161 for Management of Acute Malnutrition and sustainable Ailliet Development prevention of under nutrition in the most vulnerable Organization communities in Ailliet locality (CDO) North Darfur. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N/NGO/4803

Concern Sustainable health and nutrition interventions for West Darfur: Jebel Moon 73.5 $93,312 $93,000 Worldwide Conflict-affected IDPs, Returnees and Host (CW) Communities in Jebel Moon locality, West Darfur state (multi-sector). SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N/INGO/4788 HEALTH (65%), NUTRITION (35%)

United Provision of live saving treatment of severe acute Procurement NA $850,028 $850,028 Nations malnutrition in Sudan Children's Fund

TOTAL $3,000,000

o 21 concept notes were submitted, 13 concept notes are recommended by the SRC. o The concept notes were ranked based the scoring given by SRC. Projects above the agreed upon cut-off point of 72% were recommended for funding. The budget amount for each recommended project was adjusted based on rationalized target beneficiaries, achievable coverage of services and reasonable cost per beneficiaries of projects. The rationalization took into consideration: • Reasonable project targets considering the partners capacity, malnutrition level and locality context. • Project cost per beneficiary particularly for SAM treatment at 100$ per case. (Excluding the RUTF cost). • Achievable programmatic coverage ( minimum coverage of 50% and maximum 90$% in camp settings) o The total caseload of SAM targeted by SHF 2017 projects is 21,947, while the UNICEF core pipeline concept note under this envelop is able to cover only 50% (11,000 cartons) of this caseload. As a result, a gap in the RUTF core pipeline may impact the SHF funded projects during their implementation. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o / • Protection a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Original Recomme Partner Project title Localities score Budget nded USD Budget United Nations Ensuring Access to Quality and Protective North Darfur: Sortony 88.7 $223,251 $223,25 2 Children's Fund Education to IDPs Most At Risk in Central Blue Nile: Kurmuk (UNICEF) Darfur, Nertiti Locality SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/UN/4893 EDUCATION (66%), PROTECTION (34%)

Danish Refugee Ensuring access to safe learning spaces for Central Darfur: Nertiti, 83.4 $239,925 $239,926 Council (DRC) conflict-affected children in North and West Golo Jebel Marra SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/INGO/4930 EDUCATION (60%), PROTECTION (40%)

Nada Elazhar for Provision of urgent Gender Based Violence North Darfur: Kutum, 68.8 $245,200 $245,200 Disaster Prevention (GBV) ,Child Protection(CP) & General Sortony and Sustainable Protection(GP) services for IDPs in North Development (Nada) Darfur State (Sortony, Kutum) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/P/NGO/4877 JASMAR (JASMAR) Emergency lifesaving through land release Blue Nile: Bau, Kurmuk 67.9 $367,630 $367,630 operations to promote free and safe movement to IDPs, returnees, at risk populations and humanitarian actors in landmine/ ERWs contaminated areas in Baw and ElKurmuk localities in BN state. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/P/NGO/4847

United Nations Strengthening Lifesaving, Comprehensive, and North Darfur: Tawilla, 63.6 $239,999 $146,253 Population Fund Multi-Sectoral Prevention and Response to Kutum (UNFPA) GBV Survivors in Darfur (North and South) South Darfur: Gereida, and Blue Nile Kass SUD-17/HSD20/S1/P/UN/4739 Blue Nile: Bau Save the Children (SC) Integrated education and protection response North Darfur: Tawilla 62.3 $177,739 $177,739 for newly displaced people in Tawilla in North Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/E-P/INGO/4849 EDUCATION (60%), PROTECTION (40%) TOTAL $1,400,000

o 21 projects were scored, 6 projects are recommended by the Protection SRC. o With the exception of a project from Almanar, the selection of recommended projects is based on the scores. The Almanar project was not recommended as there was not enough explanation on the child protection and GBV activities implemented by the sub-grantee (45 per cent of the project proposal) and as a stand-alone general protection project this would not be in line with the allocation strategy. o The UNFPA project is recommended to only focus on the commonly prioritized localities within the reduced envelope. The recommended budget was reduced accordingly. o Save The Children is recommended to consult with the sector on the choice of the sub-granting partner to build upon existing activities and avoid disruption of the ongoing response with a new partner. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o /

• WASH a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Origi Recommend Partner Project title Localities score nal ed Budget Budg USD Save the Children (SC) Integrated Health, Nutrition and WASH North Darfur - 77,00 $150,000 $150,000 emergency response for affected populations Tawilla in Tawilla in North Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N-WASH/INGO/4760 (Health 40%, Nutrition 30%, WaSH 30%) World Vision Integrated Lifesaving WASH, Health and Otash camp -Nyala 75,00 $269,231 $269,231 International (WVI) Nutrition services for IDPs and Host North (SD) Communities in South Darfur - SHF Nutrition, WASH and Health SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N-WASH/INGO/4934 (Health 40%, Nutrition 25%, WaSH 35%) Care International Provide life-saving emergency WASH Abukarshola, Talodi 74,00 $400,001 $400,001 Switzerland in Sudan services to the most vulnerable people (SK) (CIS) affected by conflict and disaster in Abukarshola and Talodi localities, South Kordofan state SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4830 Concern Worldwide Improving access to safe clean water supply, Jebel Moon (WD) 74,00 $239,580 $239,580 (CW) community sustainable mechanisms and sanitation among IDPS and underserved communities in Jebel moon Locality SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4807

Triangle Generation Expand and enhance life preserving Wash, Golo -Central Jebel 72,00 $393,005 $393,005 Humanitaire (TGH) FSL and WASH services to IDPs, returnees Marra (CD) and host community affected by conflict in Golo, Central Jebel Marra. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH-FSL-ESNFIs- E/INGO/4844 WaSH 46%, FSL 33%, Education 21%

World Relief (WR) Life Saving WASH Interventions In Jebel Nertiti – West Jebel 71,00 $471,090 $471,090 Maraa Areas of Central Darfur. Marra, Golo –Central SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4753 Jebel Marra (CD) Oxfam Providing emergency WASH services for El Fasher, Kebkabiya 70,00 $572,641 $572,641 protracted and new emergency IDPs and (ND), Kalma camp under-served populations living in North and (SD) South Darfur . SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4755 Islamic Relief Integrated Emergency Assistance to returnees Golo -Central Jebel 70,00 $228,201 $228,201 Worldwide (IRW) of Golo locality in Central Darfur (multi- Marra (CD) sector) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/N-WASH-E/INGO/4923 Nutrition 28%, WaSH 42%, Education 30%

NCA (Norwegian Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Shattai (SD), Nertiti - 69,00 $472,037 $141,611 Church Aid) response to IDPs and host communities in West Jebel Marra; Nertiti (West Jebel Marra) in Central Darfur Golo -Central Jebel and Shattai in South Darfur states. Marra, (CD) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4935 American Refugee Provision of integrated WASH services to Kalma (SD) 69,00 $289,825 $289,825 Committee (ARC) conflicted affected people living in Kalma camp SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/INGO/4913 (Multi-sectoral with Nutrition) UNICEF (United WASH Sector: Core Pipeline NA $760,045 $51,225 Nations Children's SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/UN/4853 Fund) TOTAL $3,206,410

o 24 projects were submitted and 10 projects were recommended, of which 6 were 100% WASH and 4 were multi-sector projects. o The budget of the Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) project was significantly reduced as the SRC asks NCA to focus on Shattai locality only. Other higher scoring projects have covered the other localities targeted by the NCA project. o The WASH SRC recommends adapting projects to include pipeline items (not in line with the allocation strategy, see recommendation below). b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o As the amount requested from the WaSH pipeline is too low to be significant, the amounts could be added so that partners can do the procurement themselves. The SHF Technical Unit was unable to find the $51,225 that the WASH SRC attributed to the WaSH pipeline within the recommended concept notes.

Original Recommen Partner Project title Budget ded Budget USD USD UNICEF (United WASH Sector: Core Pipeline $760,045 $0 Nations Children's SUD-17/HSD20/S1/WASH/UN/4853 Fund)

• Refugee Consultation Forum a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Original Recomme Partner Project title Localities score Budget nded USD Budget United Nations High Protection and life saving assistance for West Kordofan: $275,320 $275,320 Commissioner for newly arrived South Sudanese refugees in Keilak, El Salam 77.2 Refugees (UNHCR) West Kordofan, South Kordofan and South Kordofan : Abu South Darfur States. Gubeiha, Alleri SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/UN/4801 South Darfur: Buram American Refugee Provision of life saving WASH East Darfur: Abu Jabra 73.3 $257,899 $180,000 Committee (ARC) intervention to South Sudanese Refugees and host community in Abujabra locality, East Darfur State SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/INGO/4928 CARE International Provision of integrated healthcare and South Kordofan: Abu 70.5 $341,837 $341,837 Switzerland in nutrition services for the affected South Gubeiha Sudan (CIS) Sudanese refugees and the host community in Abujebiha locality, South Kordofan (Multi-sector) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/INGO/4827 United Nations Live-saving reproductive health and East Darfur: El 67.8 $200,00 $200,000 Population Fund gender-based violence prevention and Ferdous, Bahr El Arab, (UNFPA) response interventions for South Abu Jabra; South Sudanese Refugees in South and West Kordofan: Abu Kordufan and in East Darfur Gubeiha SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/UN/4731 West Kordofan: Keilak Almanar Voluntary Provision of Community Based East Darfur: El 56.5 $315,022 $196,422 Organization Management of Acute Malnutrition Ferdous; West (AMVO) Integrated Health System East Darfur and Kordofan: Keilak West Kordofan States South Sudanese refugees camps. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/NGO/4921 Islamic Relief Improving resilience and livelihood for West Kordofan: Abyei 53.5 $528,909 $331,741 Worldwide (IRW) Refugees and Host communities of El – Mirriam locality to enhance access to services and sustainability- PSC sharing consortia SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RCF/INGO/4782 TOTAL $1,525,320

o 10 projects have been scored, 6 projects are recommended by the RCF SRC. o The ARC project is recommended to reduce the budget to $180,000 as certain budget categories (e.g. staffing, maintenance of the water yard) were too high and not all activities were considered necessary. In addition, there was a budget issue in GMS with the project of AMVO. However, the individual costing for several activities (e.g. MUAC screening) was too high. Hence, it is recommended to decrease the budget to $196,422. o The projects are selected based on the highest scores, except from WHO (score 61.4) and CIS (score 60.1). WHO was not selected as following the recommendation of two UN projects, priority is given to the NGO projects. CIS has not been selected due to the fact that CIS and sub-granting partners currently have limited presence in West Kordofan which would increase start-up time considerably and the fact that the SHF has started a similar response with different partners. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o The SHF Technical unit recommends the project of UNHCR to be conditional upon a) that UNHCR has unfettered access to all proposed localities and b) bring the project in line with the SHF positioning by working through NGOs and by significantly reducing the amount of sub-granting (Ref. 2016 first allocation recommendation: RMS to work towards

increased capacity of NGOs in order to have sufficient NGO partners for the front line response.) o The IRW project can only be included up to $306,421 to fit within the $1,500,000 envelope.

3. Case 2 (Returnees): Strategic Review results a. SRC scoring and ranking

SRC Original Recomme Partner Project title Localities score Budget nded USD Budget IMC (International Multi-Sectoral Integrated Health and Nutrition Central Darfur -> Umm 89 $432,203 $300,000 Medical Corps) Support Program to Conflict Affected Dukhun Returnees and Host Populations living in Targeted villages in Um-Dukhun locality, Central Darfur State. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/H-N/INGO/4890

TGH (Triangle Emergency response and resilience Central Darfur -> Umm 88 $640,018 $350,000

Génération enhancement in returnees’ areas (Um Dukhun Dukhun Humanitaire) locality, Central Darfur), phase 1 SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/INGO/4820 COOPI (Cooperazione Support to smooth recovery and integration of Central Darfur -> Umm 76 $200,000 $200,000 Internazionale - returnees and resident community of Orschi Dukhun COOPI) Administrative Unit in North Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/INGO/4785

CRS (Catholic Relief Protecting and promoting education, WASH Central Darfur -> Umm 75 $598,862 $350,000 Services) services, livelihoods recovery in Um Dukhun Dukhun locality, west Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/INGO/4910

UNDP (United Nations Promotion of Sustainable Return and Central Darfur -> Umm 72 $450,367 $150,000 Development Reintegration of IDPs and Refugees in Darfur Dukhun Programme) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/UN/4840 SORC (Sudanese Provision of Environmentally friendly Central Darfur -> Umm 69 $299,994 $150,000 Organization for transitional shelters and strengthening of Dukhun Rehabilitation and livelihoods and income generating activities for Construction) returnees in Garaaya, Beltebei and Magan villages of Umdukhun locality in Central Darfur state, Multi-Sector. SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/NGO/4751 TOTAL $1,500,000

o 9 projects were submitted under the RRR sector, 1targetting Um Barru and the remainder Um Dukhun locality. o 1 project was below the initial cut-off point and was not scored. o The RRR sector sent a detailed gap analysis for Umm Dukhun to its partner after the allocation launch as specified in the allocation paper. In the gap analysis, guidance was provided on the amounts for the 4 response pillars within the RRR framework. This was followed in the distribution of envelopes to projects with the exception of an increase of $50,000 for basic services and a reduction of $50,000 for livelihoods. o The two shelter projects scored very close and the project with the highest score was selected. However, the ES/NFI sector’s feedback did not include a recommendation on the best type of shelter for Um Dukhun area. Therefore, the type of transitional shelter still needs to be further discussed and the final proposal needs to be based on a recommendation by shelter experts in Sudan and the selected partner will be requested to follow this recommendation. b. SHF Technical Unit observations and recommendation to the Humanitarian Coordinator o In line with the RRR SRC recommendation, the SHF Technical Unit recommends UNHCR (ESNFI) sector to coordinate with UN HABITAT and other partners involved to recommend a design for transitional shelter appropriate for Sudan in different areas and specifically in Um Dukhun. o The SHF Technical Unit does not agree with dividing up the TGH multi-sector project without a strong justification. It recommends that TGH as high scoring project includes the proposed livelihood activities (total project budget) while CRS complements for $200,000 with a focus on access to animal health care.

Original Recommended Partner Project title Budget Budget USD USD TGH (Triangle Emergency response and resilience enhancement in returnees’ areas (Um $640,018 $500,000 Génération Dukhun locality, Central Darfur), phase 1 Humanitaire) SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/INGO/4820 CRS (Catholic Relief Protecting and promoting education, WASH services, livelihoods $598,862 $200,000 Services) recovery in Um Dukhun locality, West Darfur SUD-17/HSD20/S1/RRR/INGO/4910

4. Case 4 (Common services) a. Submissions

Original Partner Project title Budget USD IOM (International Organization for Implementation of the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) and emergency $350,000 Migration) information management in Sudan FAO (Food & Agriculture Monitoring and reporting support for Food Security and Livelihoods Sector $53,601 Organization of the United Nations) humanitarian pooled fund allocations in Sudan UNHCR (United Nations High Monitoring and reporting support for Protection Sector humanitarian pooled $120,843 Commissioner for Refugees) fund allocations in Sudan UNICEF (United Nations Children's Monitoring and reporting support for Nutrition Sector humanitarian pooled fund $99,998 Fund) allocations in Sudan UNICEF (United Nations Children's Monitoring and reporting support for Education Sector humanitarian pooled $100,000 Fund) fund allocations in Sudan WHO (World Health Organization) Monitoring and reporting support for Health Sector humanitarian pooled fund $100,011 allocations in Sudan TOTAL $ 824,453 o These projects are now under technical review.

Annex 1: Strategic Review Committee members

Sector SRC Member Organization Role WASH Musheera Hassan Almassar Charity Organization for Voting Nomads(NNGO) WASH Mubarak Abdalla Organization for Voluntary Voting Humanitarian Assistance Programme(NNGO) WASH Paul Murph International Aid Services (INGO) Voting WASH Eisa Mustafa United Nations Children’s Fund Voting (UN agency) WASH Anwar Erbara World Health Organization Voting WASH Mohamed Yalia World Relief (INGO) Voting WASH Adil SAAD OCHA Observer WASH Salah El siddag DWSU / WES Observer WASH Anna Slawczewa OCHA Observer WASH Hana Mohamed Ali DWSU / WES Observer WASH Mohammed Ishag Altaib UNICEF Observer Juma Education Awad Abdelaziz Algak Peace Bride Organization Voting Education Shad Sabir Ahmed Friends of Peace and Development Voting Organization Education Lisa JEAN Triangle Generation Humanitaire Voting Education Eunice Ndiang’ui Danish Refugee Council Voting Education Nada Abdo Hassan UNHCR Voting Education Tilal Mohamed Salih UNICEF Voting Education Adil SAAD OCHA Observer Education Wigdan Adam Save the Children Sweden Observer Education Anna Slawczewa OCHA Observer Education Amina Akasha UNICEF Observer Education Saeed Omer UNICEF Observer Education Bavo Christiaens OCHA Observer ESNFI Amel Nourien AORD Voting ESNFI Amin Elfadl UMOCOR Voting ESNFI Asfand Waqar IOM Voting ESNFI Lisa Wijekl ZOA Voting ESNFI Sabah Elbasha UNHCR Voting ESNFI Adam Amin SAG Voting ESNFI Laksmita Noviera OCHA Observer ESNFI Rami Khalid UNHCR Observer ESNFI Ahmed Bakhiet UNHCR Observer FSL Salwa MOHAMMED CAFOD Voting FSL Siham M. Osma Practical Action Voting FSL Abdalla Ismail FAO Voting FSL Esam Habish WFP Voting FSL Momen S. Mohammed Vet Care Organization Voting FSL Laksmita Noviera OCHA Observer FSL Elsadig KHALID UNDP Observer FSL Baligha Takana FAO Observer Nutrition Zemzem Yebio TOD Voting Nutrition Noun Yagoub AMVO Voting

Nutrition Samia Elhussein Islamic Releif Worldwide(IRW) Voting Nutrition Ibtihalat M. Alhassan Save the children Voting Nutrition Fawzia Elsharif UNICEF Voting Nutrition Amira M. Almunier WHO Voting Nutrition Dr. Eman Swar FMoH-NNP Observer Nutrition Osama M. Ismail FMoH-NNP Observer Nutrition Randa Merghani OCHA Observer Nutrition Anteneh G. Dobamo UNICEF Observer Nutrition Najlaa O. Khidir UNICEF Observer Protection Sanaa Mahmoud NIDAA Voting Protection Shazah Ahmed NADA Voting Protection Asim Elzubair Save the Children Sweden Voting Protection Elsadig Sidieg IRW Voting Protection Jean Choi UNICEF Voting Protection Mastura Hamid UNFPA Voting Protection Zahra Sadeghi Protection Observer Protection Haifa Younis Protection Observer Protection Aniella van Bakel OCHA Observer Protection Almutaz Mustafa Angabo UNICEF Observer Protection Karanja Ephraim UNFPA Observer Protection Sara Awad Dakkam MOSW Observer Protection Ali Ibrahim UNMAS Observer RCF Osman Fadul UMCOR Voting RCF Hanan El Haj CIS Voting RCF Ismael Dawod Mahdi FPDO Voting RCF Elke Mayrhofer UNFPA Voting RCF Dereje Wubishet UNHCR Voting RCF Shahinda Hejazi El Ruhama Voting RCF Miranda Gaanderse UNHCR-RCF Observer RCF Muzzamil Mohammed Nour UNHCR-RCF Observer RCF Aalaa Taha UNHCR-RCF Observer RCF Aniella van Bakel OCHA Observer RRR Ahmed SAWA Voting RRR Saeed Abdulhai Mohamed SORC Voting RRR Elina Silen UNDP Voting RRR Zuhair Imam UNHCR Voting RRR Mazin Khalid IMC Voting RRR Daniel Wortman CRS Voting RRR Bavo Christiaens OCHA Observer RRR Ibrahim HAC Observer RRR Eva Lescrauwaet UNDP Observer Health Camilo Valderram Health Cluster/WHO Observer Health Randa Merghani OCHA Observer Health Farha Eldoma FMOH Observer Health Eiman Karrar Health Cluster/WHO Observer Health Yousif Goma’a WHO Voting Health Abeer Abdelsalam UNFPA Voting Health Betemariam Gebre Zewde IMC Voting Health Grace Wachuka GAH Voting

Health Cecilia Adalla CRS Voting Health Alia’a Hilal ADD Voting