Hum anitarian Response Fund Ethiopia OCHA, 2011 OCHA, 2011 Annual Report 2011 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2011 Table of Contents Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator ................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 2011 Humanitarian Context ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Map - 2011 HRF Supported Projects ............................................................................................. 6 2. Information on Contributors ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Donor Contributions to HRF .......................................................................................................... 7 3. Fund Overview .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Summary of HRF Allocations in 2011 ............................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 HRF Allocation by Sector ........................................................................................................ 8 3.1.2 HRF Allocation by Region ....................................................................................................... 9 3.1.3 HRF Allocation (by type of Agency and number of projects) ................................................... 9 3.1.4 Acceptance versus rejection rate .......................................................................................... 10 3.1.5 HRF Contributions towards the Humanitarian Requirements Document (HRD) ................... 10 3.2 Results of HRF Projects per Cluster / Sector .............................................................................. 11 3.2.1 Nutrition Sector ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 WASH Sector ........................................................................................................................ 16 3.2.3 Agriculture Sector .................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.4 Protection .............................................................................................................................. 18 3.2.5 NFI Sector ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.6 Common Services ................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.7 Refugee Sector ..................................................................................................................... 20 4. Summary and analysis of achievements .......................................................................................... 24 4.1 HRF Innovations and Developments in 2011 .............................................................................. 24 4.2 HRF and Humanitarian Reform ................................................................................................... 26 5. Project Monitoring ............................................................................................................................. 29 6. Gender Consideration ....................................................................................................................... 32 7. Conclusion, challenges & way forward ............................................................................................. 34 Glossary/Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 35 Annexes: ............................................................................................................................................... 36 1 Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2011 Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator 2 Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2011 Acknowledgements The Government of Ethiopia: numerous applications we receive for funding. The Appreciation goes to the Government of Ethiopia for cluster leads have been instrumental in taking the lead on their unreserved support of the HRF. It is because of such diligently reviewing and compiling the comments and collaborative effort that the HRF met its major objectives recommendations made by their review group members of ensuring timely and appropriate funding for life- and ensuring the applicants’ follow through and saving projects by partner agencies, and subsequently improvement of applications. Our appreciation also supporting the pillars of the Humanitarian Reform extends to agencies that managed supply pipelines (CSB Process. and RUTF) which were critical in ensuring minimum preparedness and rapid humanitarian response. Donors: Thanks go tothe HRF donorsfor generously giving to Implementing Partners: life-saving emergency responses in line with the The role of the HRF is to support humanitarian response; principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship. During the the success or failure of the HRF is determined by the year, the government of the United Kingdomwas the impact that the resources it manageshave in delivering biggest contributor to the HRF, donating 42 per cent of timely and appropriate humanitarian response. Thus the total funds received for the year, followed by most important work is that of our implementing contributions from the governments of the Netherlands, partners. Reviews and evaluations have consistently Sweden and Denmark at 16per cent, 14per cent and noted how well they have performed. 13per cent respectively. Recognition is also extended for the donations received from Norway, Ireland, Italy, Members of the HRF,also appreciated that our partners Switzerland and Spain, who are regular contributors to continued to demonstrate solidarity in coordinating the Fund. Appreciation is also notedfor the strategic efforts to provide a coherent response by consistently guidance and direction provided by members of the providing high-quality technical inputs in reviewing Advisory Board. applications. In addition, the valued added of agencies that made the commitment to carry out peer-to-peer Review Board: monitoring missions during the year, which promoted Basic to the achievements of the HRF was the dedication cross-learning opportunities, is noted. and commitment of the members of the Review Board who in 2011 met 35 times to review and deliberate on OCHA staff and management: proposals. Members devoted their time to review Finally the strategic role played by OCHA, through their applications, engage in discussions on high-level policy valuable feedback on applications and updates from the issues and initiate innovative new ideas. The collective field, the HQ office in Geneva for their support in effort of the Review Board members was vital in administrative functions of processing MOUs and ensuring the continued transparency and accountability transferring payments, and the Funding Coordination of the Fund to all stakeholders. GOAL and IRC served as Section in New York for providing overall guidance and members of the Board for nearly two years before for sharing the pooled fund learning process, is retiring at the end of 2011.IMC and Save the Children acknowledged. US have now taken up their seats. Their tireless work and contributions drawn from their expertise and experience The HRF extends its sincere appreciation for the provide much added value in ensuring the prioritization collaborative support of all our partners and donors and and quality of the projects funded by the HRF. look forward to continued partnership in humanitarian programming. Clusters: Special gratitude goes to the Cluster Coordinators and their respective cluster members for extending their unwavering support and dedicated services to the HRF. The work of the HRF would be incomplete without the clusters’ engagement in technical reviews of the 3 Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2011 1. Executive Summary 1.1 2011 Humanitarian Context The impact of the prolonged La Niñaconditions, which to June), while delayed onset of the belg (February to prevailed over the Horn of Africa between mid-2010 and May) rains extended the lean season by at least two the first quarter 2012, was deterioration in the months in many areas. Throughout the country, cases of humanitarian situation in many parts of Ethiopia: malnutrition significantly increased with some 139,066 primarily in the southern and south-eastern lowlands, and severely malnourished children admitted in Therapeutic also in belg-dependent central highland areas of the Feeding Programme (TFP) sites between July and country. As the coping mechanisms of the most November 2011. vulnerable, which had been previously eroded by successive dry spells/drought, were depleted, food and The drought and its impact on mostly pastoralist nutritional insecurity increased rapidly in the most- households (water and pasture shortages,