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 Sudan 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.