Humanitarian Response Fund Ethiopia Annual Report 2014 Office for Coorddination of Humanitarian Affairs 1 | P age CONTENTS NOTE FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR ................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 7 HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 12 INFORMATION ON CONTRIBUTORS ................................................................................... 12 Donor contribution - 2014 ........................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 15 ALLOCATION OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 15 2.1 Allocation Strategy ......................................................................................................... 15 2.2 Allocation Breakdown .................................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Allocation by Agency Type ......................................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Allocation by Sector ................................................................................................ 19 2.2.4 Acceptance versus Rejection Rate ......................................................................... 19 2.3 Fund Performance ......................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 3: ............................................................................................................................. 22 ALLOCATION RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 22 Nutrition ................................................................................................................................... 22 WASH ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Health ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................... 30 Protection (Refugee Response) .............................................................................................. 33 Non-Food Items and Emergency Shelter ................................................................................ 36 NFI & Shelter ........................................................................................................................... 37 Common Services ................................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 40 ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT..................................................................... 40 CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 43 CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD ................................................................................. 43 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ 44 ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................... 46 2 | Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Government of Ethiopia year, followed by the Governments of The Office for the Coordination of Sweden (18 per cent), Switzerland (5 Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) commends percent) and Ireland (3 percent). the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) for Review Board promoting a collaborative environment that OCHA extends its appreciation to Review enables all humanitarian partners to supports Board members who, through their its efforts to provide emergency assistance dedicated participation in proposal review to disaster-affected populations and to build meetings, ensured a timely and needs-based national capacity for disaster prevention, response to emergencies throughout mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery Ethiopia. The collective effort of Review and rehabilitation. The Disaster Risk Board members, who include Cluster Leads Management (DRM) – Strategic Programme (UN Agencies) and representatives from and Investment Framework (DRM-SPIF), a Humanitarian International Non- tool developed to facilitate an effective Governmental Organizations (HINGOs1), implementation of the National DRM the Red Cross Movement, the Consortium of policy, was launched in 2014. A DRM-SPIF Christian Relief and Development Steering Committee and Taskforces have Association (CCRDA) and the Ethiopian been established to support the Government Government is essential to making the Fund in operationalizing the DRM policy and transparent and accountable to all DRM-SPIF including development of stakeholders. guidelines and operational documents. A This year, the Board met 24 times to review comprehensive risk assessment data for the and provide funding recommendations to 38 Woreda Disaster Risk Profile was collected applications. The Board also reviewed and from 300 woredas, of which profiles were supported no-cost extensions and developed for 200 woredas and Contingency reprogramming requests. OCHA Plans for 50 woredas. acknowledges the contributions made by Save the Children Fund, whose two-year Donors tenure concluded at the end of the year and OCHA gratefully acknowledges the who was replaced by HelpAge International. generous financial support of donors to the HRF which allowed time-critical Clusters humanitarian interventions to support The HRF gratefully acknowledges the chronic water, nutrition and agricultural important role played by Cluster leads who needs. Donor funding also supported the are an important technical partner to the national effort in controlling the sudden HRF. Cluster leads drive the review process outbreak of desert locust and help finance to and compile and submit comments on the kick start the response efforts of technical merit of the proposals made by accommodating the first arrivals of South Review Group members. They also provide Sudanese refugees. As in past years, the UK close follow-up of the recommendations was HRF’s largest supporter, contributing made to the applicant organizations. 74 per cent of total funds received for the 1 HelpAge, World Vision Ethiopia and Child Fund. 5 | Page Appreciation is also extended to World Food contributing to the successful outcome of Programme (WFP) and the United Nations projects by facilitating smooth engagement Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for managing with government authorities, promoting the the supply pipelines (Corn-Soya Blend achievement of common deliverables and (CSB)/Oil) and Ready-to-Use Therapeutic advancing learning opportunities within the Food (RUTF) which are critical in ensuring sector. minimum preparedness for rapid humanitarian response. OCHA Staff and Management OCHA acknowledges colleagues in the Implementing Partners country office (including sub-offices) for The HRF could not have fulfilled its their expertise and timely input to project mandate without the active involvement of applications, in OCHA headquarters for the its NGO and UN partners who responded to valuable administrative services they the needs of disaster-affected communities provided, including processing of across Ethiopia, helping people and families Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) to survive and rebuild their lives, and and disbursement of payments, and in restoring safety, dignity and hope. The very Funding Coordination Section (FCS) in active participation of HRF partners in OCHA New York headquarters for the high- ‘peer-to-peer’ monitoring missions in 2014, level advisory services provided to the HRF an essential feature of HRF-supported in the administration and management of projects, was consistently cited as pooled funds. 6 | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2014 Humanitarian Response Fund • 169,417 refugees were supported (HRF) funding strategy prioritized lifesaving through nutrition, WASH, health and interventions with limited engagements in emergency shelter/non-food items livelihood support. Despite significant needs interventions. across all sectors, the humanitarian response in Ethiopia remained underfunded given Complementarity with the Central more high-profile emergencies around the Emergency Response Fund (CERF) world during the year. As a result, the continued. In 2014, the HRF in support of national Humanitarian Requirements the Humanitarian Coordinator facilitated the Document (HRD) was only 58 per cent allocation of $33 million from CERF ($21 funded at the end of the year. million through the Rapid Response window and $12 million