2016 Annual Report - unocha.org · The second half of 2016 witnessed low levels of internal civilian displacement, as a result of unilateral cessation of hostilities by the Sudanese

2016AnnualReportSudan Humanitarian Fund

SHF

United Nations

SHF

Photo © UN agencies

Organisations receiving SHF funding in 2016:

ADRA, Almassar, AMVO, AORD, APDHWO, ARC, ASSIST, CDO, CIS, COOPI, CRS, CW, DDRA, DRC, El Ruhama, FAO, FPDO, GAH, GOAL, IAS, IMC, IOM, IRW, JASMAR, KPHF, KSCS, LABENA, Nada, NCA, NUMAD, Oxfam America, PANCARE, Plan, PODR, RI, SAG, SRCS, TGH, UMCOR, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UPO, VSF (Germany), WHO, WR, WVI, ZDPO

OCHA wishes to acknowledge contributions made in preparation of this document, particularly by SHF implementing partners, IASC Sector Coordinators, IASC Sector monitoring and reporting officers, the UNDP Sudan Fund Management Unit, and the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office.

For additional information:

http://www.unocha.org/sudan/shf

Clarifications on the report:

Donor contributions: Data refers to the donor contributions to the SHF for 2016.

Allocations: Refers to funding allocations approved by the Humanitarian Coordinator in 2016. Many SHF projects began implementation in 2016 but have not yet been completed and will be included in sector achievements of the 2017 SHF Annual Report.

Transfers: Refers to disbursements made so far of the 2016 allocated amounts, considering that disbursements are made in tranches and some are still pending for 2016 projects.

Financial Tracking Service (FTS): Data obtained from the FTS is used in this report to indicate the overall level of financial contributions to the 2016 Sudan Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP), and to explain the relative contribution of the SHF to the HRP. For the purpose of this report, the SHF allocated funds in 2016 are considered as funding towards the 2016 HRP even if some of funds were not fully utilised in 2016.

Sector Achievements: This report covers sector achievements of projects that have been completed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2016.

Beneficiary numbers: To minimise the duplication of beneficiary numbers reached by different sectors and with different allocation modalities, beneficiary numbers for procurement projects and for support sectors such as the Common Coordination Sector (CCS) and Logistics and Emergency Telecommunication Sector (LET) - which do not provide direct service and assistance to people - have been removed.


2

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 3

Foreword ...................................................................................................................... 4

SHF 2016 Dashboard ...................................................................................................... 5

Humanitarian Context ................................................................................................... 6

Allocation Overview ...................................................................................................... 7A. Positioning of the Sudan Humanitarian Fund ..................................................................................................... 7B. 2016 1st Allocation .............................................................................................................................................. 8C. Reserve for Emergencies ................................................................................................................................... 9D. Complementarity with CERF .............................................................................................................................. 10

E. Cross-cutting Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 11F. 2016 After Action Review Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................ 11

Performance ................................................................................................................ 12A. Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................................... 12B. Principles ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

Donor Contributions ...................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions and Way Forward ....................................................................................... 18

Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 19Summary of Results by Sector .................................................................................................................................. 19 COORDInAtIOn & COmmOn SERvICES ........................................................................................................... 20 EDuCAtIOn .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 EmERgEnCy SHEltER/nOn-FOOD ItEmS ...................................................................................................... 22 FOOD SECuRIty & lIvElIHOODS ..................................................................................................................... 23 HEAltH ................................................................................................................................................................. 24 nutRItIOn ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 PROtECtIOn ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 REFugEE multI-SECtOR .................................................................................................................................. 27 RECOvERy, REtuRn & REIntEgRAtIOn ......................................................................................................... 28 wAtER, SAnItAtIOn & HygIEnE ....................................................................................................................... 29list of Projects Ended in 2016 .................................................................................................................................. 30SHF Allocations to the 2016 HRP Strategic Objectives ............................................................................................ 342016 SHF logical Framework Indicator Report ........................................................................................................ 35Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................. 36Contact list ............................................................................................................................................................... 37About SHF ................................................................................................................................................................. 38

3

Table ofContents

Tabl

e of C

onte

nts

ForewordFrom the united nations Humanitarian Coordinator

In 2016, Sudan continued to face significant and diverse humanitarian needs related to recent and protracted population displacement, natural disasters, disease outbreaks and food insecurity and malnutrition. The Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) has proven to be a flexible tool to support the emergency humanitarian response while also supporting vulnerable people in a situation of long-term displacement, and facilitating initial returns in fragile areas.

Together with the OCHA Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), the SHF was instrumental in responding to people displaced because of armed conflict in the Jebel Marra area and in providing assistance to South Sudanese refugees arriving in different states in Sudan, including Darfur.

The Fund has increased its support to front line responders in line with the World Humanitarian Summit core commitments. Almost 60 per cent of the funding was allocated directly to national and international NGOs. The SHF also launched innovative approaches including common priority localities, consortia, sharing of indirect costs aiming at a more comprehensive response, increased collaboration and coordination between partners and more equal partnerships.

The 2016 SHF Operational Manual provided greater clarity on procedures; a performance management index supporting a risk-based grant management approach was rolled out; measures on fraud detection were intensified and the Fund uses an up-to-date risk management framework.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all SHF stakeholders including the members of the advisory board, the IASC Sectors and especially our donors – Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK – for their continued financial support and involvement in the strategic orientation of the fund.

Significant humanitarian needs will continue to be present in Sudan, with the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance in Sudan at 4.8 million in 2017. Continued donor support is therefore crucial if the SHF is to continue to provide life-saving assistance to vulnerable people in an efficient manner.

Marta RuedasHumanitarian Coordinator

4

Photo © UN agenciesFore

word

United Kingdom

$19.6 million

Ireland

$3.3 million

Netherlands

$6.8 million

Denmark

$5.3 million

Switzerland

$0.5 million

Gremany

$1.1 million

Sweden

$9.3 million

Norway

$2.4 million

BLUENILE

SENNARGEDAREF

S. KORDOFANE. DARFURS. DARFUR

C. DARFUR

W. DARFUR

N. KORDOFAN

WHITENILE

KASSALA

AL GEZIRA

RIVER NILE

RED SEANORTHERN

N. DARFUR

W. KORDOFAN

KHARTOUM

Abye ia rea 0.3

5.4 2.9

0.4

0.3

1.2

0.30.3

2.0

6.2

4.7

3.91.1

8.4 0.4

1.0

0.08

< $1 million

$1 million - $3 million



> $7 million

5

SHF 2

016 D

ashb

oard

SHF 2016Dashboard

2016 donor contributions

Allocation by state ($million)

4,389,292total number of beneficiaries targeted with 2016 allocations

$38.8 milliontotal allocation in 2016

% of Allocation by type oforganization

30%INGOs

28%NNGOs

42%UN agency

Sector %

RmS 22%

wASH 16%

nut 16%

HEA 14%

PRO 9%

FSl 8%

ES/nFIs 7%

EDu 5%

CCS 3%

T O T A L 100%

Allocations by Sector

4%total allocated as % of2016 HRP requirements

113number of projectsfunded in 2016

49number of partnersfunded in 2016

$48.3 milliontotal contributions

Sectors Men Women Boys Girls Total %

COORDINATION AND COMMON SERVICES - - - - - 0%

EDUCATION 1,394 2,362 10,797 12,406 26,959 1%

EMERGENCY SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS 30,761 57,182 33,473 36,879 158,295 4%

FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS 111,447 132,102 90,605 92,257 426,411 10%

HEALTH 350,241 382,188 201,362 215,403 1,149,194 26%

NUTRITION 161,840 243,113 135,458 144,047 684,458 16%

PROTECTION 38,999 88,564 61,652 76,602 265,818 6%

REFUGEE MULTI-SECTOR 55,764 96,873 44,113 56,558 253,308 6%

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 359,419 388,862 338,311 338,257 1,424,849 32%

Grand Total 1,109,866 1,391,247 915,771 972,409 4,389,292 100%Number of beneficiaries has been adapted to minimize duplication within a sector and excludes procurement projects

6

Hum

anita

rian C

onte

xtHumanitarianContext

The humanitarian context in Sudan in 2016, especially during the first half of the year, saw a major increase in the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance. Significant new internal displacement occurred from Darfur’s Jebel Marra area due to conflict, there was an increase in the number of food insecure people as a result of poor harvests related to the El Niño phenomenon and a refugee influx from South Sudan continued throughout 2016.

By early 2016, some 4.6 million food insecure people in Sudan were in need of assistance and it was anticipated that El Niño meteorological events could push an additional 1.2 million people into food insecurity, bringing the total number of people in need of food and agriculture assistance to 5.8 million people, according to the 2016 Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO).

In 2016, approximately 158,600 people were newly displaced across Darfur, according to the UN and partners. Up to an additional 6,000 people were also reportedly displaced (in addition to about 122,600 who have reportedly returned after being displaced during the year) but the UN and partners have been unable to verify these figures due to a lack of access to the relevant locations. The vast majority of the displacement in 2016 was triggered by the conflict in the Jebel Marra. This has brought the number of IDPs in need of humanitarian assistance to 2.3 million people across Sudan, according to 2017 HNO.

The influx of refugees from South Sudan to Sudan continued during 2016, as 134,000 people fleeing conflict and food insecurity in South Sudan sought shelter and assistance in various parts of Sudan, according to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). By the end of 2016, there were about 300,000 South Sudanese refugees in Sudan who arrived after December 2013. The number of refugee arrivals from South Sudan in 2016 was the highest in any given year since conflict broke out in December 2013, and accounted for almost half of the total number of refugees who arrived since December 2013.

The second half of 2016 witnessed low levels of internal civilian displacement, as a result of unilateral cessation of hostilities by the Sudanese Armed Forces in Darfur and in Blue Nile and South and West Kordofan, and by armed groups in the same areas.

Towards the end of 2016, the Government issued amended Directives regulating humanitarian work in Sudan, which are expected to facilitate the access and delivery of humanitarian assistance to a number of areas that were previously inaccessible to humanitarian organisations.

In 2016, donor contributions amounted to about $567 million for Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) activities (58 per cent of the overall requested amount) and an additional $81 million for humanitarian assistance outside of the HRP. Despite decreasing humanitarian funding since 2011, humanitarian partners in 2016 provided assistance to over 3.9 million people across Sudan, including 2.4 million IDPs in Darfur.

Meanwhile, by the end of 2016, the overall number of people in need of humanitarian assistance had decreased by about 1 million people and was estimated at about 4.8 million people. This came after the El Niño event dissipated towards the second half of 2016 and turned into La Niña, with average and above-average rainfall across many parts of Sudan which resulted in harvests above the five-year average in most parts of Sudan.

There are about 7,900 aid workers in 186 national and international humanitarian organisations in Sudan. This includes 4,200 aid personnel in Darfur, which constitutes a significant reduction from over 17,000 staff in Darfur prior to 2009.

Against this backdrop of decreasing humanitarian funding and decreasing presence of humanitarian staff, increased advocacy and outreach to existing and new donors is needed, especially on funding the activities within the humanitarian-development nexus.


The SHF allocated $38.8 million in 2016 to 113 projects in support of the HRP. With reduced funding, only one allocation round took place at the beginning of the year, in addition to allocations through the Reserve for Emergency allocations which continued on a rolling basis during 2016.

A. 2016 POSITIONING OF THE SUDAN HUMANITARIAN FUND

In early 2016, following a survey of Advisory Board members, a Fund positioning statement was developed to clarify the broader strategy of the Fund within the HRP and to provide a framework for all allocations during the year.

The positioning paper mention the focus of the fund on both sudden-onset emergencies and the protracted crisis, with a commitment to increase the funding for sudden-onset emergencies through the Reserve for Emergencies allocations to a minimum of 20 per cent of the total allocations. It also highlighted the need for integration of early recovery and resilience activities, as well as attention to cross-cutting issues as gender, protection, environment and accountability to affected populations.

Ahead of the World Humanitarian Summit, the SHF prioritise the provision of funding to NGOs working as front-line responders to the emergencies in Sudan.

Centralised procurement, common services, sector coordination and preparedness are usually not prioritised for funding, but can be considered if a critical need is identified.

Overall purposeThe Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) is a country-based pooled fund that should contribute to the overall operational impact of “the provision of timely, coordinated, principled assistance to save lives, alleviate suffering and maintain human dignity” within Sudan. The SHF aims to promote a strategic and coordinated response towards the highest priorities in support of the Humanitarian Response Plan (or HC agreed strategy) and acute emergency needs. Projects should be based on the fundamental humanitarian principles and be in line with the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) approved Minimum Operating Standards.

7

Allo

catio

n Ove

rvie

w

AllocationOverview

NNGO INGO UN

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2013 2014 2015 2016

11% 13% 15% 28%

38% 34% 31% 30%

51% 53% 54%

42%

Positioning statement

The SHF facilitates response to new emergencies identified through joint or coordinated needs assessments. The Reserve for Emergencies, guided by specific criteria, equaling a minimum of 20 per cent of the overall SHF is foreseen in 2016 alongside other allocations. The response to the protracted crises in Sudan remains important with an increased focus on multi-sector and longer term responses that integrate early recovery and resilience components. Short term projects are encouraged to link to and leverage other funding sources in order to promote sustainability and/or continuity. The SHF will attempt to scale up the size of grants or work through consortiums to enable more coherent coverage and more strategic allocations. The SHF promotes the integration and mainstreaming of cross cutting issues such as gender, environment, ‘do no harm’, protection, and accountability to affected populations at all project stages.

Funding of sector coordination is not considered a priority for the SHF as all lead agencies have made commitments to the IASC Cluster Coordination system at the global level. The provision of funding for Monitoring & Reporting officers who monitor both the SHF and sector projects, are considered a benefit to both the fund and enhanced sector coordination.

Emergency preparedness and needs assessments can be exceptionally eligible for funding when critical importance and a funding gap coincide.

Core pipelines and common services (telecom, logistics including UNHAS, Security, Data tracking) will be eligible for top up funding through ongoing standard or reserve allocations in order to address critical funding gaps (and within the scope foreseen for UN agencies). No funding is available for an early allocation to core pipelines or common services in 2016.

Food aid (except for therapeutic food) is too resource intensive given funding levels of the SHF. It is of very low priority for the SHF and will ordinarily not be considered for SHF funding.

The SHF will prioritize the provision of funding to NGOs working as front-line responders to the emergencies in Sudan as increasingly encouraged in the humanitarian environment and as clearly stated by donors to the Sudan HF as a principal added value. The SHF will target 70 per cent of direct funding to be allocated to NGOs. Sectors are encouraged to ensure national NGO participation to enhance capacity and facilitate funding by the SHF. International NGOs are encouraged to explore sub-granting partnerships with national NGO partners. Strengthening partnerships with national NGOs to gradually build their capacity and ultimately improve humanitarian response is important. In that respect, programme support costs (7 per cent) should be shared proportionally with non-governmental sub-grantees. We promote an approach of working in partnership with the government through collaboration and capacity enhancement and promote this over sub-granting to the government.

Marta RuedasHumanitarian Coordinator

Percentage of allocations per type of organization

B. 2016 1ST ALLOCATION

The 2016 allocation consisted of five cases for funding, each defining a separate strategy, for a total of $29.4 million. Each case defines a different approach or theme in line with the diverse humanitarian needs in Sudan.

Case for funding Amount in million USD

Darfur/South Kordofan/west Kordofan/Blue nile (incl. common pipelines)

20.69

South Kordofan IDP consortium pilot 2.5nutrition/El niño in Eastern Sudan 2.0South Sudanese refugees 2.5Common services 1.7Total: 29.4

The first and principal case for $20.7 million consisted of multi-sector responses to mainly new displacement in 2016 as a result of conflict in the Jebel Marra area. As such, Sortony

(Kebkabiya locality) and Tawilla locality, both in North Darfur, as well as Nertiti and Rokero localities in Central Darfur were defined as common priority localities. Three other localities, Kutum and Um Baru localities in North Darfur and Sheria in East Darfur were also defined as common priority localities. Localities with a high HNO score were a top priority for almost all IASC Sectors, and projects in those localities were prioritised during the Strategic Review. This prioritisation aimed at a comprehensive and integrated response across all sectors in those localities. The allocation resulted in a comprehensive multi-sector response in all the common priority localities except for Sheria, where 6 partners submitted projects that did not meet the SHF eligibility criteria. Um Baru locality was included as a common priority locality because of recent returns that had taken place in an area where development actors were not yet present but are expected to engage soon.

IASC Sectors also included sector-specific localities, allowing critical gaps in other localities to be addressed. This also included some localities in which displacement was of a protracted nature.

This first case also included support to core pipelines, procurement by UN agencies, for a total of $7.1 million. Three IASC Sectors, Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items, Food Security and Livelihoods and Nutrition, used this to support the response carried out by their respective SHF partners, while other sectors as Education, Health, Protection and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene used the procured supplies for emergency preparedness and gap filling.

2016 allocation highlights

1,076,990 people benefited from outpatient medical consultations

29,771 children under five were treated for severe acute malnutrition

780,777 children were provided with improved access to drinking water

A second case for funding consisted of a $2.5 million multi-sector consortium in South Kordofan, led by a protection partner. The objective was to mainstream protection and gender in the response in three adjacent localities affected by conflict in and around the Nuba mountains and as such support the second strategic objective of the 2015 HRP: “To provide humanitarian protection to affected populations.” Supported by a Gender Advisor, minimum commitments on gender were developed within every IASC Sector. These minimum commitments will be to the benefit of the larger humanitarian community in Sudan.

In line with the third strategic objective of the 2015 HRP: “To reduce food insecurity and malnutrition below emergency levels across Sudan” and the Sudan El Niño Mitigation and Preparedness Plan, $2 million was allocated to a consortium project addressing malnutrition in a comprehensive manner, complemented by livelihoods, health and water and sanitation responses in Gedaref, Kassala and Red Sea states. The approach targeted over 200,000 beneficiaries including 10,353 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM). A

A MULTI-SECTOR APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE RETURN IN NORTH DARFUR

The UN and partners have launched a multi-sector, multi-annual, area-based pilot programme to support the sustainable return of more than 30,000 men, women and children in Um Baru locality, North Darfur State, who originally left the area as a result of conflict and food insecurity in Darfur. The goal of this pilot programme – to be carried out by eight NGOs and coordinated by the Recovery, Returns & Reintegration (RRR) Sector – is to ensure that these people who have returned following either being internally displaced in Darfur or having fled to Chad, are assisted to re-establish their lives in their place of origin.

Based on an early recovery approach, this $800,000 project funded by the SHF, aims to provide access to basic services in health, water and sanitation, education and nutrition, which will be strengthened with livelihoods projects, protection and social services, enabling communities to better resist the impact of shocks and crises.

The Um Baru pilot emphasises the importance of the humanitarian-development nexus in a protracted crisis, which was a key issue at the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016. The focus of this pilot is to analyse coping mechanisms, risks and vulnerabilities and to strengthen local capacity. Ultimately, the project aims to ensure voluntary, dignified and safe return.

A return village in Um Baru locality, North Darfur (2016, UNDP)

8

Allo

catio

n Ove

rvie

w

9

Allo

catio

n Ove

rvie

w

nutrition survey is planned to measure whether a reduction of malnutrition levels has been achieved.

The fourth case consisted of support to the refugee response, mainly to newly arrived refugees in South and West Kordofan but also as an expansion of the services in White Nile where the biggest caseload of recently arrived refugees live in camps.

Finally, a limited amount of $1.7 million was allocated to common humanitarian services. This included $0.5 million for Displacement Tracking Services by IOM, $0.6 million for security services for humanitarian actors by UNDSS and $0.6 million for sector Monitoring and Reporting officers.

Meiram

$1.6 million

8,000

Bielel, Meiram

AUG$2.5 million

10,000

Al Nimir

SEP

$1.7 million

17,000

Kass, Otash

AUG

S O U T H S U D A N

South Sudanese refugees

Jebel Marra displacement

Malnutrition

Acute Watery Diarhea

CASES

Allocated amount

Expected beneficiaries

Khartoum

BLUENILE

SENNAR

GEDAREF

S. KORDOFAN

E. DARFURS. DARFUR

C. DARFUR

W. DARFUR

N. KORDOFAN

WHITENILE

KASSALA

AL GEZIRA

N. DARFUR

W. KORDOFAN

KHARTOUM

Abyeiarea$1.8 million

25,000

Khor Omer

APR

$1.6 million

800,000OCT

Blue Nile, Sennar,Al Gezira, Gedaref,S. Kordofan, E. Darfur,Khartoum, Kassala

$0.5 million

5,500SEP

Blue Nile, W. DarfurC. Darfur, N. Darfur

C. RESERVE FOR EMERGENCIES

In 2016, the Reserve for Emergencies has responded to four main acute emergencies. The majority of the funding (60 per cent) was allocated to respond to the arrival of South Sudanese refugees in Sudan. In addition, funding was allocated to respond to the needs of people internally displaced from the Jebel Marra area (18 per cent), the outbreak of acute watery diarrhoea (AWD) (18 per cent) and the unexpected spike in malnutrition in Sudan (5 per cent).

South Sudanese refugees ($5.6 million)In 2016, 134,000 South Sudanese refugees arrived in Sudan. The SHF Reserve for Emergencies responded on three different occasions.

In April 2016, the SHF kickstarted the response by allocating funding for emergency shelters and the WASH response (including water trucking, latrines and water supply network) for new refugee arrivals in Khor Omer, East Darfur. Due to heightened food insecurity and the ongoing conflict in South Sudan’s Northern Bahr El Ghazal and Warrap states, the number of South Sudanese refugees arriving in Khor Omer reportedly increased from 5,000 people in February to almost 29,000 by the end of May 2016. Initially, the refugees settled within the existing IDP camp in Khor Omer, East Darfur. However, the Government of Sudan aimed to relocate the refugees to a new camp in Kario, about 45 km from Khor Omer. Due to delays in the confirmation of land allocation for the new site, the development of the new site started by 20 August 2016. Hence, the construction of semi-permanent structures could not be done until the new site was established and the refugees had been relocated. While funding was allocated in the early stages of the response, the relocation resulted in a significant delay in part of the response. SHF funding was complemented by a CERF Rapid Response grant in June 2016.

In August 2016, funding was allocated to respond to the pressing needs of South Sudanese new refugee arrivals in Beliel, South Darfur (4,313) and El Meiram, West Kordofan (3,410), including initial reception arrangements for new arrivals and registration and assistance delivery for the existing caseloads. Despite continued new arrivals, limited assistance reached these locations. The response complemented existing services in Beliel and El Meiram (Health, Nutrition and WASH in Beliel, and Health in El Meiram) which were catered for smaller populations and were overwhelmed by the arrival of new refugees.

In September 2016, the SHF Reserve for Emergencies allocated funding to support the initial site development for new refugees in Al Nimir in East Darfur and critical life-saving assistance (ES/NFI, Health, Nutrition, Protection and WASH) for 10,000 refugees from Raja town, Western Bahr el Ghazal state in South Sudan due to an outbreak of fighting which erupted on 15 June 2016. In addition, the SHF Reserve for Emergencies allocated funding for the establishment of a reception centre in El Ferdous town for new refugee arrivals from South Sudan.

Jebel Marra Displacement ($1.7 million)In 2016, 158,600 people were newly displaced in Darfur, of whom 14,672 people arrived in Kass camp, 8,209 in Otash camp, 4,574 in Mershing village and 1,123 in El Malam town in South Darfur throughout the year. Reserve for Emergencies funding was provided to respond to increasing new displacements of an initial 4,000 people to Kass and of 13,000 people to Otash in South Darfur who arrived between January and July 2016. These IDPs arrived in new or existing collective settlements or camps, where services were insufficient to meet the needs of old IDPs and absorb an additional caseload. The SHF allocated funding to construct emergency shelters

10

in Kass, to respond to critical needs in water, sanitation and hygiene for newly displaced population in Kass and Otash and to respond to critical protection needs of the newly displaced in both camps and Mershing village and El Malam town. This funding geographically complemented the SHF first allocation and CERF grants. In early 2016, $0.3 million was allocated to provide life-saving nutrition treatment services to 1,500 children in Central Darfur affected by the conflict in Jebel Marra.

Acute Watery Diarrhea ($1.6 million) In August 2016, an outbreak of Acute Watery Diarrhoea (AWD) started in Sudan. Throughout 2016, more than 6,000 AWD cases were reported, with 173 deaths. The SHF allocated funding to the Health and WASH lead agencies to prevent the transmission of acute watery diarrhoea to other communities, localities, and states, reducing the morbidity and mortality in Al Gezira, Blue Nile, East Darfur, Gedaref, Kassala, Khartoum, Sennar and South Kordofan states.

MalnutritionAn updated trend analysis from the nutrition program surveillance in Sudan showed spikes in levels of SAM in excess of expected levels in the targeted states. This surge was associated with new emergencies related to the effects of El Niño, early onset and severe hunger gap, acute watery diarrhoea and other disease outbreaks linked with the rainy season, as well as displacement caused by flooding. These new emergencies added stress to an already precarious nutrition

situation. The SHF Reserve for Emergencies aimed to provide urgent life-saving treatment of an estimated 5,500 children in Blue Nile and Central, North and West Darfur.

D. COMPLEMENTARITY WITH CERF

CERF grants and the SHF regularly complemented each other during 2016. The 1st allocation took place soon after a $9.6 million CERF grant to respond to the new displacement of 20,000 people to Sortony and 31,000 to Tawilla, and with four localities in and near the Jebel Marra defined as common priority localities. The 1st SHF allocation contributed $4 million to the response to the Jebel Marra crisis. The Reserve for Emergencies further complemented geographically, by allocating funding to assist people displaced from the Jebel Marra area to South Darfur State.

The refugee response benefited from a $6.9 million CERF grant under the 2015 1st round of the Underfunded Emergencies Window. Subsequently, within the refugee response case of the 1st allocation, funding for the provision of services in El Salam and El Jabalain camps in White Nile State which were not addressed by the CERF allocation was defined as a priority. In June, a $7.9 million CERF Rapid Response grant complemented the initial SHF Reserve for Emergencies response to support the refugees that arrived in Khor Omer.

Allo

catio

n Ove

rvie

w

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$billi

on

Total Allocations HRP Funding received HRP requirements

15% 14% 11% 7% 13% 19% 13% 12% 10% 9% 7%

SHF allocations as percentage of HRP funding received from 2006 to 2016

75%25%1st allocation$29,190,094Reserve for Emergencies$9,589,488

TOTAL $38,779,582

Breakdown by allocation Window

Sector Allocated Amounts %

Refugee multi-Sector $8,468,508 22%

water, Sanitation & Hygiene $6,153,323 16%

nutrition $6,125,830 16%

Health $5,353,541 14%

Protection $3,639,587 9%

Food Security & livelihoods $3,110,842 8%

Emergency Shelter/non-Food Items $2,715,742 7%

Education $2,112,201 5%

Coordination & Common Services $1,100,008 3%

T O T A L $38,779,582 100%

Allocations by cluster

30%

28%

42%International NGO$11,663,848National NGO$10,667,970UN Agency$16,447,764

TOTAL $38,779,582

Allocations by type of organization

11

Allo

catio

n Ove

rvie

w

16%

13%

1%

43%

19%

8%

NU

MB

ER

OF

PR

OJE

CTS

18

21

15

9

49

1

A: Neutral Impact on environmentwith No mitigation

A+: Neutral Impact on environment withmitigation or enhancement

B: Medium environmental impact withNO mitigation

B+: Medium environmental impact withmitigation (sector guidance)

C+: High environmental impact withmitigation (ESSA or EIA & CEAP)

N/A: Not applicable, only used fora small number of services

%

113EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

MA

RK

ER

Environment marker

E. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUESGender marker No. of

projects2b. the principal purpose of the project is to advance gender equality 82a. The project is designed to contribute significantly to gender equality 86

1. the project is designed to contribute in some limited way to gender equality 10

n/A. not applicable 9 113

76 per cent of projects received a gender marker 2a score. 7 per cent of the projects with 2b score were Protection projects with targeted actions to advance gender equality. 9 per cent were scored 1 as they only contributed in a limited way to gender equality. Only 8 per cent of projects were scored as ‘not applicable’ as they were mainly procurement or common services projects.

In terms of environment marker, 43 per cent of the projects scored as B+, having a medium impact on environment with mitigation measures adopted. About 35 per cent of the projects have a neutral environmental impact, and 54 per cent of them were having mitigations or enhancements. Moreover, 13 per cent of the projects have a medium impact with no mitigation measures. Only one project (1 per cent) has a high environmental impact, this was a nutrition-led consortia combined with health, WASH and FSL to respond to El Niño in eastern Sudan, and takes mitigation measures into consideration. About 8 per cent of projects were scored as ‘not applicable’ as they were mainly procurement or common services projects.

F. 2016 AFTER ACTION REVIEW FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An After Action Review involving many stakeholders was held following the first standard allocation process and resulted in the following recommendations which were further discussed during the development of the SHF Risk Management Framework.

Strenghts• Cases for funding are a good approach, as well as the

inclusion of field offices in the field prioritization process. • Increased funding for NGOs is needed but tight link with

sectors and technical sector support is required.

• Feedback from the Technical Review is useful to improve the quality of proposals and is an important capacity-building activity.

Recommendations for improvement• More discussion is needed on thematic priorities for the

overall allocation strategy across sectors and also within sectors.

• Consortia initiatives/ multi-sectorial approaches need additional guidelines.

• Partner performance should be included in the Strategic Review process.

• Reduced timeline for TRC can only take place with submission of higher quality proposals, which can be achieved through focused trainings.

The SHF Reserve for Emergencies has had a significant impact in responding to new emergencies in Sudan in 2016. A few considerations for further improvement:

• The development of cases for funding by the sectors takes quite some time, especially for coordinated multi-sector responses. One option could be to return to the more standard reserve procedure in which all SHF partners can apply directly to the SHF Reserve for Emergencies.

• The majority of the funding under the Reserve for Emergencies has been allocated through UN agencies (67 per cent). This can be due to country-specific regulations in which UN agencies can respond faster through the agreements they have with the Government of Sudan. Nevertheless, a significant number of no-cost extensions were requested and need to be looked into.

‘

‘‘

‘

‘‘

12

PerformancePe

rform

ance

A. CBPF OUTCOMES

OUTCOME 1: Improve the effectiveness of the humanitarian response by directing funding towards priority humanitarian needs. Priority needs are identified through an inclusive and participatory process, which includes national actors (e.g. NGOs).

In 2016, the SHF allocated funding to support an estimated 4.4 million people with humanitarian assistance. The two states that received most funding, respectively North Darfur ($6.7 million) and East Darfur ($5.7 million), are also the states that received the biggest influxes of displaced people in 2016. The SHF supported the response to all sudden-onset emergencies except for the floods. While discussions with partners have taken place on responding to floods, the request was finally handled by the IOM Rapid Response Fund in a coordinated approach with the SHF. Throughout the year, the SHF Technical Unit coordinated with other donors bilaterally or through the SHF Advisory Board and coordinated closely with the CERF secretariat.

As part of the standard allocation process, the SHF Technical Unit organized an inclusive process to further prioritize within the HRP. These processes started at the field level where OCHA field offices and sectors in those field localities discussed with national and international partners and submitted a ranking of humanitarian response priorities for SHF funding within the state. As shown from the After Action Review and field visits, this process is highly appreciated by field staff. The inputs from this field prioritization step were used by the IASC sectors and subsequently by the SHF Technical Unit in drafting the 2016 1st allocation paper.

OUTCOME 2: Strengthen the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), while leveraging his/her humanitarian coordination role.

As an inclusive and principled funding source, the SHF continued to be an important funding source in Sudan based on

collectively agreed priorities and strategies. Especially, the Reserve for Emergencies window, allowed the HC to respond to sudden-onset emergencies when other funding was not readily available.

SHF initiatives, such as the protection-led consortium, have resulted in sector-specific Minimum Commitments on gender, and such tools will be to the benefit of the larger humanitarian community in Sudan.

Finally, the SHF piloted projects for returnees in Um Baru, North Darfur, aiming to bridge the humanitarian response towards recovery and hence support the HC on the humanitarian-development nexus. Discussion with peacebuilding and development actors as the Darfur Community Peace and Stabilisation Fund and the United Nations Darfur Fund have started to ensure better complementarity and the exploration of synergies within UN funds.

OUTCOME 3: Mobilize resources and support coordination in support of the humanitarian planning framework i.e. Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP).

The SHF pilots programmes in line with HRP strategies as for example the pilot to returnees in Um Baru, a protection-led response in South Kordofan and an integrated response to malnutrition in eastern Sudan. The Fund also put a focus on the multi-sector response and the integration of early recovery components in line with HRP strategies.

The SHF allocations in 2016 represent only 4 per cent of the total HRP requirement and 7 per cent of the actual funding towards the HRP. This is a decrease compared to 2015, with an HRP at similar funding levels. While donors have regularly testified their confidence in the Fund especially after the reform process that started in 2015, funding levels have not increased. The SHF Technical Unit therefore developed a resource mobilisation strategy with an action plan based on the below goal, objectives and indicators.

Goal Sufficient and timely funding for life-saving projects available through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund

Objective 1 Secure greater support for the SHF

Indicators• Expand the donor base of the SHF to include 10 donors by 2018• Realize multi-year commitments for the SHF from 3 donors by 2018• Increase funding for the SHF to total 15% of the annual HRP request by 2019

Objective 2 greater visibility of the humanitarian need in Sudan and work of the SHF is achieved

Indicators • Non-Sudan based donor representatives participate in field visits• Donors based outside of Sudan are engaged in the SHF

Objective 3 Improve funding coordination and information sharing on the SHF

Indicators • Prospective donors, prospective gulf donors, the private sector and private donors received the SHF funding dashboard and other information updates


SHF resource mobilisation strategy

13

Perfo

rman

ce

B. COUNTRY-BASED POOLED FUND (CBPF) PRINCIPLES1

PRINCIPLE 1: Inclusiveness: A broad range of humanitarian partner organisations (UN agencies and NGOs) participates in CBPF processes and receive funding to implement projects addressing identified priority needs.

The SHF continued to ensure broad inclusivity through all its processes. The SHF remains one of the main direct sources of funding for national NGOs in Sudan, as national NGOs have limited access to bilateral funds from other humanitarian donors.The Strategic Review process, in which project proposals are reviewed and scored by a committee in which national NGOs, international NGOs and UN agencies are equally represented, is seen as a strategic tool and as a capacity building tool for participants. The SHF Advisory Board is also representative of all stakeholder groups: national NGOs, international NGOs, UN and donors.

As not all partners may have the same institutional experience with funds and timely access to information, the SHF Technical Unit has undertaken considerable efforts to boost partners’ knowledge and awareness of SHF procedures and guidelines. As such, six full-day orientation sessions were carried out for partners in the five Darfur states and Blue Nile State. Furthermore, 8 sessions on the allocation process and concept note/full project proposal development for partners were organised in Khartoum, 8 sessions to Strategic Review Committees on scoring process, 6 budget clinics for national partners, 8 coaching clinic sessions on narrative reporting for 33 partner participants through the Grant-Management System (GMS), 2 sessions on gender mainstreaming for SHF partners under the South Kordofan consortium and the RRR Um Baru pilot.

1The four (4) principles originally included in the Policy Instruction plus the fifth, Risk Management and Accountability, introduced through the Common Performance Framework (draft).

NNGOs INGOs UN Agencies

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

7% 32% 62%

Percentage of SHF Allocations 2006 to 2016 by Organization Type

Of the 16 potential partners nominated in 2016, 11 met or exceeded the minimum capacity criteria. This resulted in 94 eligible partners in 2016, an increase of 13 per cent from 2015. The percentage of eligible partners receiving allocations in 2016 decreased to 43 per cent in 2016, compared to 58 per cent in 2015, and 70 per cent in 2014. Given this declining percentage, the Advisory Board approved the recommendation to suspend new partner nominations for the 2017 allocation year.

Eligibility NGOs 2015 2016nngOs 41 (49%) 53 (56%)IngOs 42 (51%) 41 (44%)new Partners (included above) 9 11total Eligible Partners 83 94% of Eligible Partners Receiving Allocation

58% 43%

PRINCIPLE 2: Flexibility: The programmatic focus and funding priorities of CBPFs are set at the country level and may shift rapidly, especially in volatile humanitarian contexts. CBPFs are able to adapt rapidly to changing priorities and allow humanitarian partners to identify appropriate solutions to address humanitarian needs in the most effective way.

The 2016 SHF positioning, based on a survey with SHF Advisory Board members, was an important tool to define the focus of the Fund. With reduced funding, less focus was given to common services and sector coordination.

The Reserve for Emergencies has been the principal tool to allow partners to respond to new emergencies

as described above. While initially at 20 per cent of the expected contributions, it was further increased with incoming contributions during the year. At the end of the year, 25 per cent of allocations went to address sudden-onset emergencies. This is significantly higher than during the previous years.

Reserve for Emergency allocations

2014 2015 2016

$ amount $5.8 million $3 million $9.6 millionPer cent of contributions 10.4 6 25

PRINCIPLE 3: Timeliness: CBPFs allocate funds and save lives as humanitarian needs emerge or escalate.

Timeliness within the SHF is about facilitating the response to humanitarian needs in a timely manner. The discussion on timeliness should not be reduced only to the length of the process, as it needs to take into account the type of projects funded and the capacity of coordination structures and implementing partners. The standard allocation often responds to important but less urgent needs than a Reserve for Emergency allocation, for which a short process is often more critical. As stated above, the development of cases for funding for the Reserve for Emergencies before they are accepted by the SHF Advisory Board often takes significant time, which is not included in the process. Country-specific constraints such as access difficulties and early assessments may play a role in this. For standard allocations, the quality of project submissions can significantly affect the Technical Review stage. For the Reserve for Emergencies, time taken to develop a case for funding is not included and may be significant.

14

Perfo

rman

ceTimelines of allocations

Steps First Allocation Reserve for Emergencies

number of projects submitted 72 projects 30 projects 1: Submission of proposals 15 62: Strategic review 8 n/A3: Preliminary approval 5 n/A4: Technical and financial review 27 145: Final approval by HC (incl. contracting)

6 3

6: Disbursement 5 21 total (working days) 66 44

PRINCIPLE 4: Efficiency: Management of all processes related to CBPFs enables timely and strategic responses to identified humanitarian needs. CBPFs seek to employ effective disbursement mechanisms, minimizing transaction costs while operating in a transparent and accountable manner.

Through the pooling of resources and the centralisation of the management of funds, the SHF minimizes transaction costs for donors.

As described in the 2015 SHF Annual Report, the SHF underwent a comprehensive review process that was presented to the SHF Advisory Board as a list of commitments. These included the development of the SHF Operational Manual but also commitments on the strategic use of the fund and stronger performance monitoring of partners. In May, the SHF Technical Unit sent an updated version of the commitments with status of implementation to the SHF Advisory Board. This showed completion of 85 per cent of the commitments. Remaining commitments were integrated in the discussion on the Risk Management Framework (see next page), which constitutes a management framework to continuously improve the Fund.The Advisory Board has further been informed on all fund processes through bi-annual Operational Review meetings in which the functioning of the Fund was outlined in detail. These Operational Reviews have been appreciated by several donors but were considered rather technical by others. Recommendations as a result of the Operational Review in June 2015 included the need for OCHA to develop a Resource Mobilisation Strategy, an increase of the Reserve for Emergencies, and that no partner admissions would take place in 2016.

As part of the Value for Money approach, the SHF continues to update guidance on staffing and general operating costs per sector and is engaged in consultation with sectors to better understand costing for sector responses. Besides improving Value for Money for partner projects, the SHF Value for Money framework also aims to improve Value for Money of the SHF funding mechanism. It does this through the presentation of all administrative costs before the submission of the yearly budgets.

Management and administrative costs Amount % unDP as managing Agent for ngOs 1,563,227 49%Administrative Agent Fee - multi-Partner trust Funds Office

459,820 15%

SHF technical Secretariat 918,676 29%Audit for ngO Projects 223,318 7%Bank Charges 612 0.02%T O T A L 3,165,653 100%

Management and administrative costs of the SHF totalled $3.17 million in 2016, representing 8.2 per cent of total contributions of $46 million. The increase from 6.1 per cent of contributions in 2015 is due to the decrease in contributions and spending significantly below budget for the SHF Technical Secretariat in 2015 due to position vacancies.

Finally, the approach includes a logical framework for which reporting on the indicators can be found in the annex.Efficiency of project implementation is also measured through no-cost extensions. In 2016, 24 per cent (21 projects) requested project revisions, of which eight were project revisions and thirteen no-cost extensions. Only one request was rejected following a second revision request. $47,017 was reimbursed to the SHF.

In 2016, 21 projects requested project revisions including eight project revisions and 13 no-cost extensions. This is 24 per cent of projects on which results are included in this report. Only one request was rejected following a second revision request. The proportion of requests was highest for INGOS at 67 per cent, followed by NNGOs at 24 per cent and the lowest for UN agencies at 9 per cent. The two sectors with the highest number of requests were RMS and WASH. Five NGOs (4 INGOs and 1 NNGO) submitted 2 or more requests, but none for the same project.

Changes in budgets, location and beneficiaries were the most cited reasons for revision requests. In addition to programmatic delays, these constituted almost 50 per cent of all revision requests.

Reasons for project revisions %Other (changes in budget, location, beneficiaries) 34%Programmatic Delays 15%Delays in Disbursement of Funds 9%Delays in Organization’s Internal transfer of Funds 9%Insecurity 6%Inaccessibility 6%Staffing/Recruitment Delays 6%Procurement delays 6%Delay in Securing Supplies from Pipeline 6%Delays in finalizing PPA 3%

Continued improvements to the on-line Grant Management System (GMS) increase oversight and transparency. Almost all allocation and grant management processes can now be tracked in the system. In 2017, the SHF Technical Unit will add information on field financial spot checks, audit results and the closure of projects.

PRINCIPLE 5: Accountability and Risk Management:

CBPFs manage risk and effectively monitor partner capacity and performance.

A. RISK-BASED GRANT MANAGEMENT

Risks to the SHF were managed both at partner and fund level. In 2016, the SHF introduced the risk-based grant management approach in which the risk of a partner determines its operational modalities in line with the SHF Operational Manual published in February 2016. This risk-based approach

15

Perfo

rman

ce

determines the frequency of field-site monitoring visits, quality assurance activities and partner reporting, as well as maximum amounts per project.

The 2016 Eligibility list included the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) risk rating which is based on a micro-assessment of risks related to an organisation’s financial, operational, and administrative capacities. The HACT risk rating was used as the starting point for the risk-based management approach for the SHF.

UNDP/HACT risk ratings of NGOs

SHF partners High medium low total total %IngO 1 2 38 41 44nngO 16 19 18 53 56Total 17 21 56 94 100Total % 18 22 60

As of the second allocation of 2015, the performance of partners was recorded through the Performance Management Index (PMI). The PMI rates performance based on five criteria; project proposal development, quality of implementation (monitoring and/or reporting findings), timelines and quality of narrative reporting, timelines and justification of revision requests and no cost extensions, financial performance, and audit findings. At the end of 2016, the PMI of 40 partners was determined. 10 partners (25 per cent) showed good performance, 10 partners (25 per cent) satisfactory performance, 12 partners (30 per cent) need performance improvement and 6 partners (15 per cent) a poor performance. For the 2017 first standard allocation, the scorecard included a scoring regarding the previous performance of partners and the performance risk ratings of partners have been adjusted to reflect their previous performance.

2016 Allocations per risk level

SHF recipient

Risk levelsHigh medium low total total %

IngO $11,696,669 $11,696,669 30

nngO $1,021,751 $3,142,206 $6,377,364 $10,541,321 27

un $16,447,764 $16,447,764 43

Total $1,021,751 $3,142,206 $34,521,796 $38,685,753 100

Total % 3 8 89

B. RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The SHF Risk Management Framework 2016 was presented to the Advisory Board in September and finalized in November 2016. The Risk Management Framework is based on several reviews (Road Map Working Group, After Action Reviews of 2015 and 2016, OCHA External Evaluation of 2015 as well as the donor mission to South Darfur in 2016) and two risk management working meetings that took place with representatives from SHF donors, IASC Sector Coordinators, INGOs and NNGOs. The outcomes have been incorporated into the SHF Risk Management Framework.

The SHF Risk Management Framework identifies 11 risks, reflects existing measures and lists 25 additional mitigation measures which will be implemented and monitored. The Risk Management Framework will be reviewed on a yearly basis.

Of the 11 risks, three risks have been identified which are likely to happen and will have a major impact.

1. Declining and late contributions will not allow SHF to reach impact and leverage coordination: to mitigate the risk and effect of declining funding contributions, an SHF Resource Mobilization Strategy has been developed and approved by the SHF Advisory Board.

2. Risk of fraud, corruption, facilitation payments and financial mismanagement: to mitigate the risk of fraud and corruption, in addition to the annual audit, SHF started to pilot the forensic audit. The forensic audit has been conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) from Nairobi, Kenya in December 2016 and assessed two INGOs and four NNGOs. As a result of the findings, two NNGOs have been temporarily suspended for the first standard allocation for 2017. The forensic audit was conducted prior to the regular audit which provides more focus than the standard audit. After the standard audit, the temporary suspension of one NNGO was lifted. One NNGO remains suspended.

3. Lack of government collaboration impedes SHF objectives. To mitigate this risk, the HC and OCHA are continuous advocating for a broader understanding and implementation of humanitarian principles, minimum operating standards in Sudan and improvement of access.

C. MONITORING

In 2016, the SHF maintained seven sector national M&R officers based in lead agencies for a total budget of nearly $560,000. As it has been practiced since 2014, SHF TU prepared a generic ToR for the position with a focus on SHF monitoring and reporting responsibilities. M&R officers often take on additional sector responsibilities.

In light of the donor funding trends and pooled-fund global direction, the SHF TU assessed the above M&R modality and suggested a modified modality that will be applied gradually. The SHF Advisory Board agreed to apply a transitional arrangement, where five M&R officers (Education, FSL, Health, Nutrition and Protection) would be maintained unti March 2018, and two M&R officers would be stationed with SHF TU. The SHF monitoring and reporting responsibilities will be completely returned to the SHF TU in 2018.

The SHF TU jointly with sector M&R officer monitored 56 per cent of projects under 2015 allocations that were still ongoing in 2016 and 45 per cent of projects under 2016 allocations. Sector monitoring plans for 2016 projects have been updated for implementation in 2017. In 2016, the GMS monitoring window was rolled out and a field monitoring Standard Operating Procedure was fully implemented. The SHF TU, sector M&R officers and partners intensified bilateral review meetings to complement field monitoring. However, timely submission of field monitoring reports remains a challenge.

In 2016, a rolling basis reporting timeline according to respective project’s expiry date was introduced. This replaced the previous arrangement, where two standard reporting timelines (i.e. mid-term in March and final in November) per year were applied to all projects regardless of respective project’s starting and ending dates. Timely submission of narrative reports by partners remains a significant challenge, as shown in the below diagram. In 2017, SHF TU will gradually take over the responsibility to review reports from sectors, with sufficient time for sector M&R officers to provide comments, if deemed necessary.

16

Perfo

rman

ceTimeliness of narrative report submission by IPs

8.5%

59%

8.5%Submitted on time

Within one month afterthe deadlineWithin 2- 3 months

More than 3 monthsafter the deadline

%

NARR

ATIV

E RE

PORT

S 24%

Financial Monitoring of SHF projects and partners includes the review of periodic financial reports, field-based financial monitoring missions (‘spot checks’), quarterly fraud reporting, and the independent external audit. Partners are first prioritized for spot checks based on their HACT risk, with the prioritization updated following the annual audit exercise at the beginning of the year. Spot checks are also conducted when specific issues are identified through project monitoring or during the review of narrative reports. In the future, spot checks will be aligned with the Operational Modalities in the SHF Operational Manual. Importantly, financial spot checks also serve as an opportunity for the SHF TU to provide focused capacity support to partners. In 2016, the SHF TU conducted a total of 11 financial spot checks, against a target of 20. The main issue identified during these financial missions was the need for more regular field-based capacity support for high risk partners. In particular, as the amount of funding and number of donors from whom they receive funds increases, many of these partners have been stretched beyond their capacity, which in turn affects their performance – both programmatically and financially.

D. AUDITS

Fraud Management and MitigationRisk management efforts in 2016 included the ongoing requirements of quarterly fraud reporting by all SHF Executive Directors and Country Directors, for which there was 100% compliance throughout the year. The year ended with a fraud training by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) which was attended by all active SHF partners, in addition to some donors.

With the SHF’s sustained focus on fraud awareness, the SHF TU has experienced more enquiries from partners, as well as an increase in fraud mitigation trainings and activities by partners. A new action in the SHF’s fraud mitigation and management efforts was the pilot of forensic audit in December 2016, conducted by a specialized unit of PWC. For the forensic audit, the SHF TU chose certain budget lines to be audited across the group of selected partners. The budget lines were chosen based on observations during budget technical reviews and partner financial reporting. While the typical audit reviews a partner’s practices against their own internal controls, policies and procedures, the forensic audit compared partner’s practices and results across the selected budget lines. This comparative approach identified irregularities and differences in practices that could potentially be an indication of fraud or financial mismanagement.

During the pilot, seven partners were audited across three budget lines. The audit results did not identify any instances of fraud. There were, however, certain findings that led the SHF to suspend certain partners from eligibility pending the results of the full audit commencing in early 2017. Given the value of the results, the SHF TU plans to engage another forensic audit in 2017.

NGO ANNUAL AUDITThe annual audit of projects implemented by SHF NGO partners was conducted by PWC. For the 2016 audit exercise, 127 projects implemented by 53 partners were audited. The audit included $18.2 million in expenditures, approximately 87 per cent of total expenditures reported for the fiscal year. INGOs accounted for 63 per cent of audited expenditures, with NNGOs comprising the balance of 37 per cent.

An important measure of compliance and partner performance is the percentage of ineligible expenditures relative to total audited expenditures. In 2016, $371,000, representing 2 per cent of audited expenditures, were ineligible. This significant increase from 1.1 per cent in ineligible expenditures in the previous year is primarily attributable to three partners and the category of general ledger inconsistencies. The SHF is refunded by partners for the amount of ineligible expenditures. The summary below represents the various categories of ineligibility of expenditures.

Ineligible expenditures

47%

26%

7%General LedgerInconsistenciesAccrued expenses

Unsupported costs

Other/Overstatement/Reporting on Audit Line

20%

% O

F IN

ELIG

IBLE

EXP

ENDI

TURE

REAS

ON

The SHF TU acknowledges that the findings of the forensic audit provided a sharpened focus for the annual audit exercise, which contributed to increased audit findings, including 2 disclaimers, 2 qualified and 3 adverse audit opinions. Partners receiving such opinions are ineligible to receive SHF funding.

The project-based audit also includes a review of internal controls, with a management letter issued identifying any process or procedural weaknesses. These form prioritization for ‘spot checks’ and focused capacity support by the SHF TU. The Management Letter comments are also used for the design of future risk mitigation and capacity-building measures.

17

Dono

r Con

tribu

tions

Donor Contributions

In line with overall funding trends in 2016, donor contributions to the SHF also declined compared to previous years. Eight donors contributed almost $46 million over the course of the year. The United Kingdom continued as the biggest contributor ($19.6 million), followed by Sweden ($9.3 million), and the Netherlands ($6.8 million). Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Germany and Switzerland collectively contributed $12.6 million. The 2016 SHF funding represented about 4 per cent of the overall humanitarian funding requirements of the 2016 HRP.

Ireland

$3.3 million

Netherlands

$6.8 million

Denmark

$5.3 million

Switzerland

$0.5 million

Gremany

$1.1 million

Sweden

$9.3 million

Norway

$2.4 million

United Kingdom

$19.6 million

Contributions in the first half of 2016 amounted to $30.8 million or 64 per cent of the total amount, allowing the SHF to launch its 1st standard allocation. Another $7.5 million or 16 per cent of the total contribution was received in the third quarter of the year, and the remaining nearly $10 million or 21 per cent of the total contribution was deposited in December as year-end contributions. The availability of funds in the second half of the year also enabled rapid funding for life-saving priorities through Reserve for Emergency allocations as crises escalated.

0

2468

101214161820

JAN MAR APR AUG SEP NOV DEC

$milli

on

6% 22% 36% 11% 5% 13% 8%

Contributions

Contributions by donors to the SHF and HRP have been on a downwards trend in the last few years. The almost $48.3 million contributed to the SHF in 2016 reflected a 14 per cent decrease in available funding compared to 2015 and a 20 per cent from 2014. Correspondingly, out of the requested $971.7 million in the 2016 HRP, only $566.8 million was received by the end of the year indicating a three per cent decrease from the $582.9 million received in 2015.

18

Conc

lusio

ns an

d Way

Forw

ard

Conclusions and Way Forward


In 2016, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund has again been instrumental in responding to humanitarian needs in Sudan in an inclusive and coordinated manner. Especially with regards to sudden-onset crises, it has provided the Humanitarian Coordinator and partners a tool to respond to new displacements, a spike in severe acute malnutrition and an acute watery diarrhoea outbreak. Sudan remains a country that is prone to disaster and conflict, translating into significant humanitarian needs for its population and for the refugees it hosts from neighbouring countries.

A clear positioning of the Fund was developed and efforts continued to make allocations more strategic. A significant shift in the percentage of allocations going to front line responders was realized in 2016 and will continue in 2017.

2016 was the year of the roll-out of a risk-based grant management approach, including a partner performance index, tracking partner performance during the whole SHF project cycle. Increased attention was paid to monitoring and reporting and to financial control mechanisms. Progress was reported in a transparent way through bi-annual Operational Review meetings. Through these efforts, the SHF is raising the implementation standards of humanitarian projects, with positive spillovers to other programmes implemented by our partners.As identified in the risk management framework, a major challenge for the SHF in coming years will be to mobilise additional resources, as end of year projections showed a significantly declining trend in donor contributions. A resource mobilization strategy was developed and will be rolled out in 2017. The SHF will aim to demonstrate results and follow-up on initiatives and pilots launched in 2016.

The SHF Technical Unit will also continue to regularly review procedures, in order to stay fit for purpose, remain efficient and present significant value for money for donors.

In 2017, the SHF will further contribute to the Grand Bargain commitments, in particular to support front line responders, increase transparency, increase multi-year funding and scale up cash-based programming. The SHF will also reinforce engagement with recovery and development actors, notably through increased collaboration with the Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund and the UN Darfur Fund.

Annexes


SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY SECTOR

Sector MEN WOMEN BOYS GIRLS T O T A L % CoveredPlanned Reached Planned Reached Planned Reached Planned Reached Planned Reached

CCS 169,150 135,362 144,131 196,415 85,651 231,462 76,068 245,890 475,000 809,129 170%EDU 1,026 659 1,951 594 6,635 9,725 8,352 9,320 17,964 20,298 113%ES/NFIs 17,981 30,343 52,564 52,073 26,875 30,725 31,024 34,037 128,444 147,178 115%FSL 44,759 47,582 49,563 55,710 26,792 29,202 27,421 29,421 148,535 161,915 109%HEA 307,367 220,334 363,614 280,285 163,883 274,358 169,721 302,013 1,004,585 1,076,990 107%NUT 3,884 9,561 83,031 45,098 45,245 54,883 47,716 54,326 179,876 163,868 91%PRO 20,285 16,891 28,041 39,139 5,660 5,507 7,992 8,417 61,978 69,954 113%RRR 3,422 4,022 4,131 4,131 2,209 2,089 1,853 1,973 11,615 12,215 105%

RMS 31,159 34,917 45,124 42,029 40,547 44,371 41,527 46,041 158,357 167,358 106%

WASH 228,912 237,475 304,277 314,546 216,632 228,519 260,347 270,731 1,010,168 1,051,271 104%

Grand Total 827,946 737,146 1,076,426 1,030,020 620,130 910,841 672,021 1,002,169 3,196,523 3,680,176 115%

Number of beneficiaries reached versus planned in calendar year(1 January to 31 December 2016)

3,196,523Targeted beneficiaries

3,680,176Reached beneficiaries

• Summary of Results by Sector

• List of Projects Ended in 2016

• SHF Allocations to the 2016 HRP Strategic Objectives

• 2016 SHF Logical Framework Indicator Report

• Acronyms

• Contact List

• About SHF

COORDINATION & COMMON SERVICES

CCS

20

Coor

dina

tion &

Com

mon

Serv

ices

The SHF accounts for 12 per cent of total funding, contributing significantly to the implementation of this key humanitarian action.

SHF Results

The SHF contributed 25 per cent of total funding for the Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM), greatly contributing to the implementation of this key humanitarian action.

The IOM-implemented DTM is an ongoing project for the registration, tracking and assessment of mobile populations in Sudan. DTM interventions took place in 38 localities across 7 states (all Darfur, SK and WK), registering over 420,000 IDPs, returnees and refugees.

DTM data was shared among humanitarian stakeholders, through the OCHA-led Information Management Working Group (IMWG) and other information-sharing platforms, at both state and federal levels, on a monthly, weekly or daily basis depending on the level of the crisis. Data collected was analysed to identify vulnerable groups, needs and gaps, and aided the provision of principled, timely, quantitatively sufficient, well-targeted, and cost-effective assistance.

The IMWG uses DTM data on regular basis for programmatic purposes, such as during the Humanitarian Needs Overview and Humanitarian Response Plan development processes. DTM working group members meet regularly and are updated by IOM on the progress of DTM outcomes and plans.

Challenges / Lessons learned

• In South Kordofan, insecurity on the ground due to an army offensive temporarily halted activities for two months. In addition, since there are no camps in Kordofan, IDPs are gathered in small groups. The registration and verification exercises became costlier and time-consuming.

• In Darfur, recruiting trained and qualified field staff and access issues were the main challenges.

• Using tablets and smart phones in the registration exercises was limited due to the security issues. In February 2016, registration activities were suspended in Sortony and Tawilla, North Darfur.

• The availability of real-time data remains a challenge.

• Important to continue engaging with DTM users to ensure that the tools remain useful and the information is meaningfully shared. The recently set up DTM working group will support this objective by engaging the IMWG.

• The standardization of the registration form led to collection of more detailed information on beneficiaries.


Indicators Target Achieved % Achievednumber of IDPs, returnees and refugees reported, registered and verified

475,000 422,740 89%

2016 HRP requirements $16,024,0892016 secured funding $9,119,3452016 SHF allocated funding $1,100,008

Targeted 475,000Reached 809,129

80%

136%

270%

323%

169,150135,362

144,131196,415

% Covered 170.3%

85,651231,462

76,068245,890

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

21

Educ

atio

n

EDUCATION

EDUIn 2016, the SHF contributed 6 per cent of the funding required and 19 per cent of funding secured by the Sector when excluding school feeding ($18,561,364).

SHF Results

The Sector’s main achievement was to provide access to education in emergency situations, increasing school attendance rates by up to 34 per cent in some of the targeted IDP camps, as confirmed by the State Ministry of Education’s records for newly registered children.

Main activities implemented included the construction and rehabilitation of temporary and semi-permanent classrooms, and the provision of gender-sensitive WASH facilities in schools and learning spaces. The projects prioritized activities that provided emergency-affected children with quality education and recreational materials. There was an additional focus on provision of trainings to teachers and members of Parent Teacher Associations, with two projects training female teachers to organise activities for girls (e.g. sports training). The teachers were trained on the school and pre-school curriculum and on providing psychosocial support for emergency-affected children. Additionally, projects disseminated messages on hygiene education, peacebuilding, children’s rights and environmental conservation to school and pre-school

children. Overall, the sector exceeded the defined target beneficiaries by 26 per cent or almost 61,717 people, most of them receiving Education in Emergencies supplies and recreational materials followed by life-skills, hygiene and health education (29,338) and access to gender-sensitive WASH facilities (24,696). The activities helped children to increase access to lifesaving education, improve its quality and ensure its continuity.

SHF-funded Education projects were implemented in all five Darfur States.


• The start of projects was often delayed because of delays in the endorsement of technical agreements.

• Ongoing conflict in the Jebel Marra area resulted in massive displacement and inaccessibility.

• Deterioration in local currency value resulted in increased prices of construction activities.

2016 HRP requirements $35,706,987*2016 secured funding $10,890,783*2016 SHF allocated funding $2,112,201

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievednumber of children (% male and female) with access to gender-sensitive wASH facilities (in line with InEE and SPHERE minimum standards).

20,286 24,696 122%

Number of children (disaggregated by gender) benefiting from construction of temporary learning spaces and rehabilitation of existing classrooms.

12,376 14,538 117%

number of children accessing the life-skills, hygiene and health education.

25,834 29,338 114%

number of children provided with appropriate seating (desks, benches, and chairs)

5,523 7,555 137%

number of children who have received education in emergency supplies and recreational materials

35,144 39,975 114%

number of teachers (% male and female) trained on psychosocial support and providing support sessions to children

899 967 108%

number of teachers who have been trained on core subjects and various topics according to need including life skills, inclusive education and health and hygiene education.

799 1,030 129%



80%

48%

139%

128%

2,0371,623

2,9631,409

% Covered 126%

21,46429,736

22,64628,949

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

*excluding school feeding

22

Emer

genc

y She

lter/

Non-

Food

Item

s

In 2016, SHF allocation for ES/NFI Sector constituted 9 per cent of the total HRP requirements and 34 per cent of total Sector funding.

SHF Results

ES/NFI partners completed nine projects and reached more than 147,000 people in 2016, exceeding the target by 15 per cent. Specifically, projects provided almost 40,000 newly displaced and returnee families in need with emergency shelter and non-food items (nearly 50 per cent over target). Additionally, 1,600 protractedly displaced and returned families received environmentally friendly shelter kits. Due to limitation of supplies, less than 50 per cent of the target IDP population received renewal NFI kits.

Target beneficiaries included new and protracted IDPs, both in camps and those living in host communities or in informal gatherings in rural areas, as well as returnees in Central, North South and West Darfur.

Partners distributed ES/NFI kits from the SHF-funded NFI Core Pipeline (CP) managed by UNHCR. The NFI CP includes five key items; plastic sheets, jerry cans (20 lt), blankets, sleeping mats and kitchen sets. ES/NFI kits are sometimes complemented by locally sourced materials, such as woven grass/straw matrasses, walling and roofing material, bamboo or wooden poles, and rope for an improved emergency shelter, especially in locations where this material is not easily available. In some places. metal rods rather than wooden poles or bamboo sticks are provided for the frame. In most cases, the shelter construction material is funded through the SHF. Additionally, the sector provides transitional shelter, using gravel, steel bars and bricks or soil stabilized blocks (SSB) made from cement, sand and soil.

A number of partners complemented the distribution of NFI and shelter material with soft component activities, such as community awareness sessions on environment, tree planting, disaster risk reduction, risk management and mitigation techniques, gender and HIV/AIDS, as well as training on emergency shelter construction, energy safe/fuel efficient stove and SSB making.

Overall, projects not only contributed to the physical protection of vulnerable people from the elements and mitigated health threats but also contributed to the safety and security of extremely vulnerable female-headed households. SHF-funded ES/NFI interventions helped restore the dignity of affected populations, and laid the foundation for their recovery.


• Some projects were implemented in insecure areas, which made access challenging in particular in locations such as Nertiti locality in Jebel Marra and Um Dafug localities in South Darfur. As a consequence, partners temporarily suspended activities until such time as security was assured by the local authorities and UNDSS.

• Transportation of ES/NFIs was delayed in some cases due to limited road access as a result of heavy rains or floods.

• The NFI CP was not fully funded in 2016, resulting in a shortage of ES/NFIs for the planned response. As a result, the planned distribution to vulnerable protracted IDPs was disrupted, as the available stock was diverted to respond to an unforeseen mass influx of IDPs from Jebel Marra to various parts of Central, North and South Darfur.


EMERGENCY SHELTER/NON-FOOD ITEMS

ES/NFIs

Indicators Target Achieved % AchievedNumber of newly displaced conflict/disaster affected, returnee households who receive emergency shelter and non-food items for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats

26,820 39,986 149%

number of most vulnerable pre-existing IDP households who receive renewal nFIs for protection from the elements to mitigate health threats

51,856 22,200 43%

number of returnee/ protracted IDP households provided with environmentally friendly shelters

1,682 1,600 95%



169%

99%

114%

110%

17,98130,343

52,56452,073

% Covered 115%

26,87530,725

31,02434,037

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

23

Food

Secu

rity &

Live

lihoo

ds

The SHF allocations represented 4 per cent of the sector’s requirements and 46 per cent of total funding received for livelihoods interventions (excluding food). The El Niño phenomenon had a significant effect on livelihoods’ needs in 2016.

SHF Results

Mainly, SHF partners’ completed projects in 2016 ensured the distribution of seeds and tools, livestock vaccination and treatment, as well as the provision of livelihoods start-up kits, consisting of items such as food processing tools (e.g. cheese making), to allow vulnerable people to increase and diversify their income. Beneficiaries attended trainings to improve their capacity on farming and livelihood activities. Trainings on livestock vaccination were arranged for Community Animal Health Workers, who currently assist vaccination and treatment of the affected communities.

FSL projects broadly targeted in and off-camp, new and protracted IDPs, and most vulnerable host communities in Darfur, the South Central Region, and eastern Regions.

Overall, the sector exceeded the defined target beneficiaries by 10 per cent, or almost 162,000 people, including 51,850 with crop and vegetable seeds, 7,500 with farming tool kits and 2,100 with livelihood start-up packages. In particular, for distribution of farming tool kits, the number of beneficiary exceeds the target by 35 per cent, thanks to low prices of locally manufactured tools. Livestock vaccination and health treatment services were provided to almost 230,000 small and large ruminants. Beneficiary numbers include the complete households to which assistance was provided.

The activities helped the targeted population to improve food security, to support their

livelihoods, and strengthen their farming and livelihoods skills. It is also expected that these activities will provide a basis for self-reliance and help reducing dependency on food aid distribution for the most vulnerable conflict-affected population.

The FSL Sector piloted a consortia-approach, led by FAO with six national and international NGO partners. While FAO focused on provision of crop seeds, animal vaccination and drugs, and quality assurance of implemented activities, the six partners focused on other components as described above.


• FSL projects are time-sensitive in nature, related to the seasonal calendar of rain-fed farming. Seed distribution needs to happen well in advance of the planting season. In 2016, the impact of El Niño resulted in below average rains and affected winter farming, causing a shift from winter season activities to summer season activities and consequently a need to adjust the type of the seeds.

• El Niño also caused above-average water shortages and pasture deficits, affecting regular livestock migratory patterns. This obstructed timely veterinary service delivery and disrupted cheese-making activities.

• The impact of El Niño on crop production and livestock movement further caused changes in the time frame and procurement plan for summer and winter seasons’ activities.


FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

FSL

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievedno of people provided with agricultural inputs and services 51,850 51,850 100%no of CAHws trained and equipped 70 70 100%no. of people trained and assisted with packages of emergency livelihoods start-up kits [e.g. restocking, agro-food processing, fisheries

1,910 2,089 109%

number of livestock vaccinated/ treated 250,000 227,574 91%number of livestock vaccinated/ treated 5,555 7,492 135%Quantity of seeds (mt) provided 152.00 149.87 99%

2016 HRP requirements $77,590,767**2016 secured funding $6,750,132**2016 SHF allocated funding 3,110,842


106%

112%

109%

107%

44,75947,582

49,56355,710

% Covered 109%

26,79229,202

27,42129,421

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

**excluding food

24

Heal

th

SHF allocations represented 9 per cent of total 2016 requirements and 20 per cent of total funding received by the sector in the year.

SHF Results

The Health Sector’s SHF partners reached 1,004,585 beneficiaries through 78 health facilities and 13 projects in Blue Nile, the five Darfur states and South and West Kordofan. The projects provided the basic minimum package of primary health care services, including maternal and child health, emergency referral services, trauma care, training of human resources for health service provision, and quality monitoring of service delivery. Initial response to public health threats such as outbreaks or alert investigation and rumour verification were also supported.

Overall, the sector overachieved in the number of outpatient consultations for boys and girls, reaching 107 per cent of the overall target. The sector also overachieved in capacity building targets for health workers, midwives and rapid response teams. Vaccination of children under the age of one for Pentavalent and Measles reached 82 per cent of the target, due to a Measles outbreak, a Haemorrhagic Fever outbreak and an ongoing Acute Watery Diarrhoea (AWD) outbreak which required more efforts on capacity building.

In December 2015, WHO and UNICEF received US$1,004,089 to respond to the Viral Haemorrhagic Fever/Dengue Fever outbreak in six (out of 27) of the most affected localities in Central, East, North and West Darfur states. Project activities aimed at the interruption of the virus transmission cycle, timely access to appropriate treatment of cases, and strengthened surveillance allowing early identification of cases and vector control activities.

In August 2016, the first cases of an AWD outbreak were notified and successively spread, affecting eight states; Al Gezira, Blue Nile, East Darfur, Gedaref, Kassala, Khartoum, River Nile and Sennar. A response was initiated by WHO and UNICEF, receiving US$830,544 to provide life-saving treatment for an estimated 2,000 cases of AWD cases in targeted states. The main goal was to stop the transmission of the disease to other communities, localities, and states, reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by AWD. The response is still ongoing in 2017.


• Case overload is observed in some areas due to closure of neighboring health facilities because of overall HRP 2016 underfunding, thus the number of patients seen exceeded the targeted number of beneficiaries which utilized the planned medicines and supplies available for the projects and increased the number of stock outs.

• Movement of South Sudanese refugees in South Kordofan unexpectedly added to the caseloads in the surrounding clinics.

• In Blue Nile, implementation of projects was challenging due to the sparse distribution of the population as well as their high mobility rate due to insecurity. Medical referral for serious cases from health clinics proved to be a very complicated process due to car rental costs and the price of complementary drugs. This in addition to the secondary level clinics being poorly equipped.

• Hiring medical staff remains a challenging and lengthy process in hard to reach and volatile areas which causes delays in project implementation.

• Difficulties receiving required data for the timely processing of the AWD response proposal.


HEALTH

HEA 2016 HRP requirements $59,549,747 2016 secured funding $26,417,757 2016 SHF allocated funding $5,353,541

Targeted 1,004,585 Reached 1,076,990

72%

77%

167%

178%

307,367 220,334

363,614280,285

% Covered 107%

163,883274,358

169,721302,013

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

Indicators Target Achieved % Achieved% of birth assisted by skilled birth attendants (all female). 60% 61% 102%% of emergency events reported, investigated and response initiated within 72 hours of reporting.

80% 76% 95%

Coverage of measles vaccine in children below one year of age 93% 82% 88%Coverage of Penta valent vaccine in children below one year of age 85% 82% 96%number of health workers trained 1,759 1,908 108%number of midwives trained 92 142 154%number of outpatient consultations 1,004,585 1,076,990 107%number of Rapid Response teams trained 36 38 106%% of birth assisted by skilled birth attendants (all female). 60% 61% 102%

25

Nutri

tion

SHF allocations represented 8 per cent of the requirements and 90 per cent of total funding received by the sector (excluding food), greatly contributing to attain the Sector’s objectives.

SHF Results

Through SHF funding, Nutrition partners reached 109,209 vulnerable children suffering from malnutrition through 54 Outpatient Therapeutic Programmes (OTPs) and 54,659 women and men through a range of services. Projects in 2016 focused on treatment of children U5 from SAM and MAM of pregnant and lactating women (PLW). Education and counselling for mothers and caretakers of children U5 in Infant and Young Child feeding practices, hygiene and sanitation were provided. Capacity building activities focused on improving the quality of care, monitoring and reporting.

The sector focused on life-saving and preventive activities in localities identified as top priorities by partner consultations at the national and sub-national levels. The sector targeted the most vulnerable children and mothers in and around IDP camps, new and protracted displaced persons, and the most vulnerable host communities in Blue Nile, East, North and South Darfur, Gedaref, Kassala and South and West Kordofan.

Since 2015, Sudan has experienced unpredictable rainfall patterns due to El Niño, which has negatively affected harvests, water availability and food supplies, altered transhumance routes, and led to migration. In eastern Sudan, the sector piloted two multi-sector consortia (Health, FSL, Nutrition and

WASH) to cover the most critical needs. The consortium in Gedaref and Kassala was led by the Sudanese Red Crescent Society and another consortium in Red Sea was led by IAS.

The sector reached 91 per cent of the target beneficiaries or 163,868 people, including 109,209 children. Treatment for acutely malnourished children was provided to boys and girls U5 through 112 nutrition facilities supported by 10 SHF partners. Some targets were overachieved, e.g. 2,528 wasting PLW received specialized nutritious food to ensure healthy pregnancies (136 per cent). 385 per cent of targeted pregnant women were provided with iron and folic acid for 6 months.


• The nutrition sector will organise workshops with partners to better estimate expected caseloads hence reduce the difference between targeted and achieved beneficiaries.

• There were pipeline breakages, during which time project could not provide Targeted Supplementary Feeding Programmes (TSFP) services to MAM patients. Some only received health and nutrition education sessions during these breaks.

• In some areas, long distances between stabilization centres and OTPs created significant additional costs for referral of complicated cases.

• RUTF core pipeline allocated through SHF covered 11,244 children, or 40 per cent of the achieved target; the remaining pipeline requirements were covered by the UNICEF pipeline.


NUTRITION

NUT

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievednumber of children under 2 years at risk of mAm receiving specialized nutritious food

11,676 39,596 339.1%

number of children under 5 years of age treated for mAm 28,492 28,094 98.6%number of children under 5 years of age treated for SAm 33,979.00 28,071.00 82.6%number of children under 5 years of age treated from SAm with complications in in-patient facility

1,500 1,700 113.3%

number of facilities providing OtP/SC/SFP’s services for Acute malnutrition treatment services

121 112 92%

number of mothers and caretakers of children under 5 years receivinginfant and young Child Feeding (yCF) counselling in emergencies and participating in BCC activities.

138,183 128,796 93.2%

number of Plw at risk of acute malnutrition receiving specialized nutritious food

1,850 2,528 136.6%

number of pregnant women affected by emergency provided with Iron and folic acid for 6 months.

2,340 9,001 384.7%

number of sector coordination meetings. 12 22 183.3%Proportion of CmAm centers linked to/integrating Infant and yCF in emergencies (at community and facility levels) and Social and Behavioral Change Communications (SBCC) activities

48% 46% 46%

2016 HRP requirements $77,590,767** 2016 secured funding $6,750,132**2016 SHF allocated funding $6,125,830

Targeted 179,876 Reached 163,868

246%

54%

121%

114%

3,8849,561

83,03145,098

% Covered 91.1%

45,24554,883

47,71654,326

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

**excluding food

26

Prot

ectio

n

SHF funding played a significant role in the 2016 Protection response; the sector secured $12.5 million of its HRP requirements, of which $3.6 million (30 per cent) was funded through SHF.

SHF Results

Five national partners received funding under the 1st and 2nd allocations of 2015 and finalised project implementation in 2016, totalling $0.6 million. One international partner withdrew from Sudan due to funding challenges, causing the termination of its SHF project. With SHF funding, the sector was able to assist people in need under general protection, child protection, gender-based violence mitigation and response and mine action in Bau, El Damazine, Geissan (Blue Nile), Kadugli, Abassia, Abu Jubaiha, Delling (South Kordofan), and Nertiti (Central Darfur).

SHF funding enabled partners to support community-based committees and structures; provide individual or community-based psychosocial support; identify, document and support people with special needs (e.g. counselling, vulnerability assessment, direct support through provision of disability relief items, cash or non-food items, indirect support through referral to services); establish and strengthen community centres, women’s centres and child-friendly spaces, conduct capacity building for government officials, service providers and humanitarian actors and awareness-raising campaigns, set up and strengthen referral mechanisms and facilitate identification, registration, family tracing and reunification, reintegration and alternative care for unaccompanied and separated children and clear land from mines. Women were trained on the use of fuel-efficient stoves and provided with the necessary items.

Protection partners provided individual or community-based psychosocial support

and services to 35,045 people (110 per cent of the target). The majority was targeted through community-awareness sessions and community-based protection structures, to foster sustainability of the intervention. In addition, there have been 3,122 persons with special needs (92 per cent of the target) identified and documented. These persons were either provided with targeted support or referred to relevant services.


• Some partners reported delays or disruptions in implementation of their projects due to a delay in signing technical agreements with the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC), the rainy season or insecurity at project sites. For the 2017 1st round allocation, partners were requested to take such challenges into consideration and incorporate mitigation measures.

• In 2016, due to sensitivities on protection engagement by international partners and other reasons, all partners were national. This limited the sector’s ability to benefit from technical expertise and experience of international partners and prevented capacity development of national partners. The inclusion of protection in multi-sector projects seems to ease access constraints for protection work, thus 2 international and 2 national NGOs were funded under the 2017 allocation for multi-sector interventions.

• Due to access challenges for the sector in 2016, monitoring of some projects could only be done by national staff. New directives from HAC in December 2016 sent positive signals regarding access, e.g. the Protection Sector Coordinator obtained access for an international staff to visit SHF projects in South Kordofan in 2017. The sector will encourage SHF partners to report access restrictions for follow up with the OCHA SHF Technical Unit.


PROTECTION

PRO

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievednumber of people, including women and children, receiving individual or community based psychosocial support and services

31,844 35,045 110%

Number of active community-based protection committees identified/created and supported

4 4 100%

Number of people with specific needs, especially women and children, at high risk of violence, exploitation and neglect identified and documented

3,400 3,122 92%

number of protection monitoring reports produced 10 10 100%number of referral mechanisms maintained or established with a continued support including for women, children, elderly, and persons living with disabilities

8

11 138%

Number of SUAMs, who are identified, documented, provided with interim care or reunified.

60 60 100%



83%

140%

97%

105%

20,28516,891

28,04139,139

% Covered 113%

5,6605,507

7,9928,417

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

27

Refu

gee M

ulti-

Sect

or

In 2016, the SHF contributed 6 per cent of the sector’s requirements and 27 per cent of total funding to the Sector, excluding food-related needs and contributions.

SHF Results

On 17 March 2016, the Sudanese government announced a decision that all South Sudanese in Sudan are to be treated as foreigners. This decision superseded the Four Freedoms Agreement of September 2012, by which people of South Sudan were not treated as refugees in Sudan. The legal status of South Sudanese in Sudan changed and the South Sudanese response is no longer under the auspices of the Humanitarian Aid Commissioner (HAC); it is now guided by the Commissioner for Refugees (COR).

There were 16 SHF-funded RCF projects finalised in 2016 (4 by national partners, 4 by international partners and 8 by UN partners). The total amount was US$4.6 million and funding was allocated during the second round allocation and special allocation for 2015 and under the reserve for emergencies for 2016. SHF funding enabled partners to respond to the critical needs of South Sudanese in Jebal Aulia, Sharq El Nil, Um Badah (Khartoum), El Salam, El Jabaleen (White Nile), and the new arrivals in Ed

Daein (East Darfur). In addition, with SHF funding, partners could provide assistance to the Chadian and Central African Republic (CAR) refugees in Um Dafug (South Darfur) and Azum (Central Darfur).

SHF funding enabled partners to provide a multi-sector response, including: education, emergency shelter/non-food items, livelihood opportunities, health, nutrition, protection and WASH, in the abovementioned areas. Among others, SHF partners reached 24,944 new South Sudanese arrivals with sufficient improved drinking water (15 litres per person per day) and 14,330 people benefitted from increased livelihood opportunities. In localities targeted by health partners, 79 per cent of refugees had access to health services, including reproductive health.


• Partners reported challenges in receiving supplies from the Sudan Ministry of Health and delays in international procurement.

• Relocations and difficulties regarding land release resulted in delays in the implementation of activities, especially hard components such as construction of latrines and shelters.

Indicators Target Achieved % Achieved% of South Sudanese new arrivals in receipt of nFIs and emergency shelter.

77% 69% 69%

Number of beneficiaries by gender and age having access to livelihoods activities

10,646 14,330 135%

number of children who have received education in emergency supplies and recreational materials

1,950 2,005 103%

Number of people who have access to sufficient improved drinking water 24,944 24,944 100%number of people reached with hygiene messages and sensitization activities

24,944 24,944 100%

Percentage of identified survivors/victims of SGBV and trafficking/kidnapping receiving assistance

32% 36% 36%

Percentage of refugee children (boys and girls) are enrolled in quality learning spaces

32% 32% 32%

Percentage of refugee children having access to vaccination services 95% 97% 97%Percentage of refugees having access to health services including reproductive health

80% 79% 79%

Percentage of refugees who have access to safe water supply 100% 100% 100%Percentage of sites with a gAm rate of under 15% 100% 53% 53%

2016 HRP requirements $136,349,394**2016 secured funding $30,906,153**2016 SHF allocated funding $8,468,508

REFUGEE MULTI-SECTOR

RMS



112%

93%

109%

111%

31,15934,917

45,12442,029

% Covered 105.7%

40,54744,371

41,52746,041

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

**excluding food

28

Reco

very

, Ret

urn &

Rein

tegr

atio

n

The SHF did not allocate any funds to the sector in 2016. Nevertheless, two projects, funded at the end of 2015, carried out their activities in 2016. Two NGOs (one international and one national), working in close coordination to maximize coverage and effectiveness, utilized $363,793.75 of 2015 SHF funding to respond to the sector’s objectives of improving economic self-reliance and social reintegration of the following beneficiaries in the Otash and Kalma camps in South Darfur as well as in host communities of Bilel, Nyala North and Buram.

SHF Results

Projects aimed to address the critical needs and gaps for protracted IDPs and returnee women, men, boys and girls exposed to risks of violence and exploitation while seeking means of livelihoods. The projects improved sustainable access to basic and life-saving services and increased economic self-reliance and social reintegration of conflict-affected populations by providing a range of activities such as:

• Supporting and strengthening viable income-generating activities through vocational training and start-up kits, small grants and links with local micro-finance institutions.

• Encouraging target communities to generate savings to be used during

critical times to finance agricultural inputs purchase.

• Providing cash-for-work and short-term employment for most vulnerable youth and women, to generate income and increase self-reliance.

• Conducting training for community members including women, men, girls and boys to identify, manage and reduce risks related to climate-related hazards (floods, droughts) and develop prevention action plans.

• Rehabilitation of hand-pumps, latrines, primary health centres.

• Strengthening analysis and planning capacity of local institutions and Community-Based Organizations on social local reintegration of IDPs and returnees.

In order to maximize the interventions’ effectiveness, planning and implementation took into account gender and age factors, aiming to alleviate women’s and youths’ reduced access to livelihood opportunities and access to land, property and start-up capital. This approach had the added value of preventing young males from idleness and vulnerability to recruitment into violence-fueling enterprises. Government officials, state parliamentarians, legislators, line ministries and local authorities received training on recovery planning, public services and returnees’ socio-economic reintegration.

2016 HRP requirements $27,286,7852016 secured funding $5,307,2112016 SHF allocated funding n.A.

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievedno. of people trained and assisted with packages of emergency livelihoods start-up kits

400 400 100%

number of disaster preparedness and prevention community action plans developed

50 50 100%

number of IDPs assisted with support for return or integration 250 250 100%number of returnee / protracted IDP households provided with environmentally friendly shelters (5 persons/household)

10 10 100%

number of trained individuals 435 642 148%number of vulnerable communities trained to maintain critical infrastructure

3 3 100%

RECOVERY, RETURN & REINTEGRAION

RRR



118%

100%

95%

106%

3,4224,022

4,1314,131

% Covered 105%

2,2092,089

1,8531,973

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

29

Wat

er, S

anita

tion &

Hygi

ene

SHF provided over 25 per cent of the total resources allocated to the sector in the HRP 2016. Through SHF standard allocations and reserve emergency funds, the sector reached over 1 million people affected by conflict and health hazard outbreaks.

SHF Results

Sector interventions were aligned with the sector objective of sustaining and expanding access to water supply, sanitation and hygiene services of the most vulnerable among IDPs and host communities. The sector objective was in turn aligned with the HRP objective to provide emergency relief to people affected by conflict and disaster.

WASH sector partners’ interventions covered 43 localities. Specifically: 16 localities in South Darfur, 10 in North Darfur, 8 in Central Darfur, 4 in East Darfur, 1 in West Darfur and 4 in Blue Nile. Main achievements included:

• A 20 per cent increase in water coverage of existing IDP camps, ensuring 10 litres per person per day.

• Over 50,000 people obtained access to latrines.

• More than 225,000 beneficiaries reached through hygiene promotion interventions.


• Ground water depletion due to increased concentration of people in areas with limited ground water; private sector operators drilling borehole for business purposes; poor hygiene practices.

• Impact of floods on WASH facilities.• Lack of funding affecting the level of

coverage. • Interventions’ effectiveness is

strengthened by multi-sector projects like the El Niño consortium in eastern Sudan.

• Solar systems to replace diesel engines would support sustainability.

• Partners’ capacity building in project design and monitoring is key.

• Strengthen community participation and contribution.

Indicators Target Achieved % Achievednumber of people with access to improved drinking water 746,863 780,770 105%number of affected people reached with hygiene messages and sensitization activities

251,649 225,608 90%

number of affected people having access to safe means of excreta disposal

52,507 52,525 100%

number of affected people served by solid waste disposal activities 76,810 37,936 49%


WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

WASH


Targeted 1,010,168Reached 1,051,271

104%

103%

105%

104%

228,912237,475

304,277314,546

% Covered 104.1%

216,632228,519

260,347270,731

MEN

WOM

ENBO

YSGI

RLS

By type:

Beneficiaries

30

List o

f Pro

ject

s End

ed in

2016

List of Projects Ended in 2016

Org. Org. type Project title Allocation type Budget

COORDINATION & COMMON SERVICESInternational Organization for migration

un Agency Displacement tracking matrix - Registration, tracking and assessments of mobile populations in Sudan

2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation

$341,206.95

International Organization for migration

un Agency Implementation of Displacement tracking and the Development of Information management Systems in Sudan

2015 -2nd Round Standard Allocation

$299,950.96

EDUCATIONunited methodist Committee on Relief

international ngO Enhancing Access to Primary Education for Children in Adilla and Abukarinka localities of East Darfur State


$297,029.21

Catholic Relief Services International ngO Protective and life-saving Education Services for IDP Children in west and Central Darfur


$396,026.69

united Peace Organization national ngO increase of access to protective and qualitative lifesaving education for newly displaced and extremely conflict affected school age children in camps and gatherings.


$204,200.00

Friends of Peace and Development Organization

national ngO Enhancing Equal gender Access for life Saving Quality Education for war Affected Children in north Darfur


$264,900.29

Danish Refugee Council International ngO Increasing access to inclusive and quality lifesaving education for children affected by conflict in Jebel Marra area in Central Darfur


$396,040.42

Sudanese Development Call Organization

national ngO Enhancing the Access of IDPs children to life saving education in South Darfur, nyala north locality Otash camp


$181,458.09

Plan International International ngO Delivering life saving emergency education for IDP chil-dren in Zam Zam and tawila localities in north Darfur


$396,039.60

world vision International International ngO Protective life saving Emergency Protection Education in South Darfur-Sudan


$265,382.79

EDuCAtIOn (60%) PROtECtIOn (40%)Peace Bridge Association national ngO Saving Access to Education and Child Protection Services

for the most Affected and vulnerable new IDPs in camps of Kalma, Otash and AlSalam in South Darfur State.


$244,721.84

EMERGENCY SHELTER/NON-FOOD ITEMSunited Peace Organization national ngO Provision of ES/nFI and environmentally friendly shelter

materials to newly displaced , conflict affected population , protracted IDPs and returnees undeserved areas affected by emergencies


$113,861.39

Sudanese Organization for Rehabilitation and Construc-tion

national ngO Assist vulnerable long term IDPs, newly displaced & Disaster affected population and returnees with ES & nFI and Environmental friendly transitional shelters in west and Central Darfur.


$79,206.84


un Agency Provision of Emergency Shelter to Conflict/disaster affected IDPs in Darfur


$174,329.81

world vision International International ngO life saving through Enhancing the protection and emer-gency shelter/NFIs for vulnerable conflict and disaster affected populations specially women and children in South Darfur States


$148,334.10

Sudanese Red Crescent Society

national ngO Provision of nFIs and Emergency assistance to most affected (IDPs) in South Darfur


$79,998.42

Sudanese Organization for Rehabilitation and Construction

national ngO "to provide needs-based and timely emergency shelter and non-food items to people affected by conflict and disaster, returnees and vulnerable protracted IDPs."


$69,151.96

norwegian Church Aid International ngO Emergency shelter and non-Food Items 2015 -2nd Round Standard Allocation

$148,514.72

El Ruhama for Development and Humanitarian Aid

national ngO Improve Access to Basic non Food Items and Emergency and Environment Friendly Shelter Construction materials for returnees, IDPs and most vulnerable people affected by conflict and natural disaster in South Darfur


$99,000.90

Alshroog Organization for Social and Culture Development

national ngO Assist newly IDPs and conflict affected populations in camps with ES & nFI and improved emergency shelter ( metal frame), and provide returnees by transitional shelters


$100,007.55

31

List o

f Pro

ject

s End

ed in

2016

Org. Org. type Project title Allocation type Budget

FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODStriangle génération Humanitaire

International ngO Reduce acute food and livelihoods insecurity of new IDPs and conflict-affected populations in Um Dukhun and mukjar localities in Central Darfur


$305,734.91

Food & Agriculture Organization of the united nations

un Agency Reduce food insecurity and support livestock and agriculture - based livelihoods of vulnerable households in South Darfur State


$1,200,000.04

HEALTHSave the Children International ngO treatment of infected people by Dengue Hemorrhagic

fever out break in Krenik ( west Darfur State), Zalngi and Azoom ( Central Darfur State)

2015 – CHF Reserve Allocation

$99,009.90

united nations Children's Fund

un Agency Response to Dengue Fever Outbreak in Kerenik, genena, Zalingi, Azoom, Eddain and Elserif localities in west, Central, East, and north Darfur States (Sudan)


$275,005.60

International medical Corps International ngO Supporting delivery of quality and life saving primary healthcare services to vulnerable communities in Central, South, and west Darfur.


$445,545.37

Kuwaiti Patients Helping Fund International ngO Improved access to Quality, Sustainable and Integrated Primary Health Care services for targeted vulnerable IDPs, Returnees and host communities in Deraij camp in South Darfur state.


$173,267.40

world Health Organization un Agency measles outbreak response in 65 localities (in 7 states) with ongoing or high risk of outbreak (operational support)


$1,592,009.24


un Agency Providing Priority Health Care Support for Conflict and Disaster Affected Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in South Darfur.


$199,978.72

world Relief International ngO Support Primary Health Care Services for vulnerable groups in Krenik and geneina locality, west Darfur


$198,564.45

world vision International International ngO Sustained lifesaving Primary Health Care for vulnerable and disaster affected populations in South Darfur State


$198,019.76

Sudanese Red Crescent Society

national ngO Emergency Health Support for affected population in South Darfur States Otash camp South Kordafan and Blue nile


$244,077.70

tAlAwIEt ORgAnIZAtIOn FOR DEvElOPmEnt

national ngO Enhanced provision of primary health, through provision of directly mother and child health services and improvement of health status of targeted community , in Kassala state.


$288,126.18

unICEF un Agency measles outbreak response in 65 localities (in 7 states) with ongoing or high risk of outbreak (procurement)


$2,407,991.34

HEAltH (53%) PROtECtIOn (47%)united nations Population Fund

un Agency life-saving RH and gBv interventions in South Darfur (Otash IDPs camp, Kalma IDPs camp, Alsalam IDPs camp, umDafoug and Deriej camp ) and Central Darfur (nertiti, Zallingy, wadi Salih, umDukhun, mukjar, Bindisi and Azoom)


$724,999.90

HEAltH (66%) wAtER, SAnItAtIOn & HygIEnE (34%)world Health Organization un Agency Response to the outbreak of viral Hemorragic fever/

Dengue Fever in the most affected 6 localities in north, west, Central and East Darfur states


$829,084.15

NUTRITIONInternational medical Corps International ngO Supporting Community-based management of Acute

malnutrition Services in Central and South Darfur.2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation

$229,929.15

world vision International International ngO Integrated Community based management of Acute malnutrition to enhance quality treatment and sustainable prevention of undernutrition among nutritionally vulnerable communities of South Darfur


$168,316.83

Relief International International ngO Nutrition Support to Conflict affected population in North Darfur


$284,897.85

Almanar voluntary Organization

national ngO Provision of Community Based management of Acute Malnutrition Integrated Health System for Conflict Affected Populations in Khartoum and South Kordofan States


$277,872.15

Almassar Charity Organization for nomads

national ngO treatment of malnutrition among severely affected u5 children and pregnant and lactating women in Serif and Kutum localities/north Darfur


$133,921.41

International medical Corps International ngO Comprehensive nutrition Support Program for target Communities in South and Central Darfur States


$315,028.00

32

List o

f Pro

ject

s End

ed in

2016

Org. Org. type Project title Allocation type Budgetnorwegian Church Aid International ngO Integrated Emergency nutrition interventions for

malnourished children, pregnant and lactating women among conflict affected IDPs and Host communities in Bilel and Zalingei localities South and Central Darfur States


$384,073.29

Organization for voluntary Humanitarian Assistance Programme

national ngO Emergency nutrition Assistance to vulnerable IDPs and Conflict affected Communities in Tullus locality in South Darfur State


$320,955.92


un Agency Provision of life-saving nutrition services to vulnerable emergency affected populations in Central and South Darfur


$443,900.20


un Agency Provision of life-saving nutrition treatment services to children in Central Dafur affected by the Conflict in Jebel marra

2016 - SHF Reserve for Emergencies

$266,227.13

PROTECTIONAlmanar voluntary Organization

national ngO Support to vulnerable people and communities affected by displacement in South Kordofan


$123,762.45

Alsalam Organization for Rehabilitation and Development

national ngO Protection Assistance and Psychosocial Support to the conflict affected people in Blue Nile State


$79,205.68


national ngO Provision of emergency Child Protection monitoring, response and care services , across IDPs camps / gathering in Blue nile State


$99,012.48

turath Organization for Human Development

national ngO Reducing the Risk of gBv by Empowering vulnerable population in South Kordofan


$73,536.00


national ngO Ensuring Persons with Special needs access to Social care services in nertiti and guldo localities in Central Darfur State.


$233,830.22

HelpAge International uK International ngO Supporting the protection and inclusion of older men and women in humanitarian programmes in South Darfur


$201,368.50

REFUGEE MULTI-SECTORCatholic Relief Services International ngO Essential nutrition and Education Support to South

Sudanese Refugees in Khartoum State2015 – 1st Round Standard Allocation

$277,169.38

united Peace Organization national ngO Increase access to lifesaving basis needs and essential services to the most vulnerable refugees and host communities in umdafug locality, South Darfur State.


$128,712.87

Almanar voluntary Organization

national ngO Emergency Response for South Sudanese Refguees in Khartoum State


$69,306.72

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development

International ngO Support to Education in Emergencies in the Refugee site um Sangor, El Redis, Jouri and the host community in white nile State


$198,087.03

united Peace Organization national ngO Increase access to lifesaving basis needs and essential services to the most vulnerable refugees and host communities in umdafug locality, South Darfur State


$148,500.59


national ngO Improve access to education services to the new South Sudanese refugees in white nile State.


$197,998.26

united nations Population Fund

un Agency live-saving RH and gBv interventions for South Sudanese Refugees in El Jabalein and Al Salam (white nile State)


$609,999.51

united nations High Commissioner for Refugees

un Agency Protection and access to basic services for Chadian and Central African Republic (CAR) refugees in South and Central Darfur.


$299,591.44


un Agency Protection and access to basic services for South Sudanese refugees in white nile State


$696,917.75

world Health Organization un Agency Emergency primary health care services and vital public health interventions for 130,000 South Sudanese refugees settled in white nile Camps - Sudan


$600,008.92

united methodist Committee on Relief

International ngO Provision of Emergency Shelter Support to South Sudanese Refugees in Khor Omer IDPs Camp of Edeian locality of East Darfur State


$374,626.43


un Agency Support for nFIs for refugees in East Darfur 2016 - SHF Reserve for Emergencies

$564,878.41


un Agency Increase access to lifesaving wASH services to South Sudanese Refugees new Arrivals in Khor Omer of East Darfur State.


$408,980.05

33

List o

f Pro

ject

s End

ed in

2016

Org. Org. type Project title Allocation type Budgetunited nations High Commissioner for Refugees

un Agency RmS sector monitoring and reporting 2015 – Special Allocations (Core Pipelines, CHF management Cost, Sector Coordination and m&R, unHAS)]

$75,321.62

RECOVERY, RETURN & REINTEGRATIONmercy Corps Scotland International ngO Building resilience of protracted IDPs and Returnees

through an early recovery approach in South Darfur2015 -2nd Round Standard Allocation

$181,633.10

united Peace Organization national ngO Enhance the community capacity to maintain lifesaving basic service and improve economic self-reliance


$182,160.65

WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENEIslamic Relief worldwide International ngO Improving water ,Sanitation and Hygiene Services for

conflict affected population in Blue Nile and Central Darfur States


$465,517.82

world vision International International ngO Sustaining the provision of life-saving safe water, sanitation and hygiene promotion services for IDPs and conflict affected populations in South Darfur State


$252,346.53

mercy Corps Scotland International ngO Provision of life Saving wASH Services to the IDPs and Seriously Affected Populations in umgonya and Hajeer villages in Bielel locality - South Darfur


$263,792.09


national ngO Provide and Sustain wASH Services for vulnerable and Underserved Population in‎ Millet ‎localities - ‎North Darfur State‎


$210,643.13

norwegian Church Aid International ngO Emergency water, Sanitation and Hygiene response in Central and South Darfur states.


$198,020.08

triangle génération Humanitaire

International ngO maintain and expand life preserving wASH services to new IDPs and population affected by conflict in Um Dukhun locality in Darfur.


$218,215.52

CARE International Switzerland in Sudan

International ngO Emergency Relief and Building Resilience for conflict-affected people in gereida camp, South Darfur (wASH)


$297,025.57


national ngO wASH Services for protracted IDPs, returnees and vulnerable host communities in El-Fursan locality in South Darfur State


$198,000.72

world Health Organization un Agency Enhanced access to safe water and vital integrated promotive and vector control interventions for new IDPs in 6 prioritized localities/locations in South and Central Darfur states over a period of 12 month.


$184,983.74


un Agency Providing life-saving wASH assistance in Otash Camp, South Darfur


$369,997.03

united methodist Committee on Relief

International ngO water Supply trucking to the South Sudanese Refugees in Khor Omer IDP Camp


$74,897.86

world Health Organization un Agency water Quality testing and vector control core pipeline to support continued access to Emergency wASH services in 11 high priority localities (SHF priorities for wASH sector)

2016 – SHF 1st Round Standard Allocation

$190,186.08

wAtER, SAnItAtIOn & HygIEnE (60%) REFugEE multI-SECtOR (40%)world Health Organization un Agency Access to lifesaving Vector control services for conflict

induced new IDPs in tawila, Sartony and Kabkabya locations in north Darfur, and new South Sudanese refugees in Khor Omer - East Darfur, Sudan


$270,994.62

EDU 5%

CCS 3%

ES/NFIs 7%

FSL 8%

HEA 13%NUT 16%

PRO 9%

RMS 22%

WASH 16%

SSO3. Strengthen humanitarian actor’s response

through the establishment of information collection, analysis and sharing systems.

SSO1. Respond to emergency humanitarian protection

needs of vulnerable people, in particular women and children, among communities

newly affected by conflict or disasters.SSO2. Prevent and mitigate protection risks for

people in areas affected by conflict or disasters.

SSO1. Ensure equitable access of refugees, asylum

seekers and refugee returnees to basic and essential services.

SSO2. Ensure effective protection of refugees, asylum seekers, refugee returnees and those with

undetermined nationality status, with particular attention to vulnerable groups including children, youth, women at risk, and survivor/victims of trafficking, kidnapping and gender-based violence.

SSO3. Facilitate durable solutions including promoting self-reliance and livelihoods,

resettlement and voluntary repatriation where possible

SSO1. Provide and or sustain WASH services to

3,500,000 (1,029,000 boys; 1,071,000 girls; 1,925,000 women and 1,575,000 men)

IDPs and underserved populations in Darfur, Kordofan, Blue Nile and eastern Sudan

SSO1. Increase access to inclusive and protective lifesaving

education (formal and non-formal) for children and adolescents affected by

emergencies.SSO2. Improve the quality of education (formal and

non-formal) to ensure continuity of relevant education during and after emergencies for the most vulnerable pre-school and primary school aged children and adolescents.

SSO1. To ensure timely shelter provision to newly displaced

people in the location of gathering or camp.

SSO2. To provide needs-based and timely emergency shelter and non-food items to people

affected by conflict and disaster, returnees/ integrated IDPs and vulnerable protracted IDPs.

SSO1. Reduce food insecurity of vulnerable people

affected by natural disasters and conflict (life-saving).

SSO2. Restore and sustain food and livelihood security of vulnerable households (IDPs, residents /

host communities) in affected areas.

SSO1. Provide primary health care services including

referral services for vulnerable population affected by conflict and natural disasters.

SSO2. Strengthen the capacities to prepare, detect and respond promptly to public health risk or

events at federal, state and locality level.SSO3. Ensure Maternal and Child health (MCH) services for the reduction of maternal and child morbidity and mortality among vulnerable

populations.

SSO1. Provision of quality lifesaving nutrition services for

acutely malnourished children (boys and girls 6-59 months of age) and PLW among

highly vulnerable communities.SSO2. Improve equitable access to integrated

program interventions for the prevention of under nutrition among affected communities.

OUTCOME 1: Protect the lives and fundamental

well-being of civilians affected by conflict and natural disaster.

OUTCOME 2: Strengthen self-reliance and facilitate durable solutions including through reintegration and voluntary return (HRP 2016).

OUTCOME 3: Ensure life-saving emergency relief is provided to to the most vulnerable people affected

by conflict and disaster.

OUTCOME 4: Reduce food insecurity and malnutrition to below

emergency levels.

HRP OBJECTIVES9.2%

19%

2%

1%

16%

3%

5%

1%

6%

1%

6%

2%

8%

1%

4%

14%

2%

6%

3%

0.3%

86.4%

4.1%

34

SHF A

lloca

tions

to th

e 201

6 HRP

Stra

tegi

c Obj

ectiv

es

OCHA Sudan:SHF:SHF:MPTF gateway Sudan:CERF Sudan:FTS Sudan:OCHA Sudan:OCHA Sudan:

http://www.unocha.org/sudan/http://www.unocha.org/sudan/shf/https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/operations/sudan/common-humanitarianfund-SHFhttp://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSD20http://www.unocha.org/cerf/cerf-worldwide/allocations-country/2016https://fts.unocha.org/appeals/520/summaryhttps://www.facebook.com/unOCHASudanhttps://twitter.com/unocha_sudan

USEFUL LINkS:

% Percentage of total budget per HRP objective % Percentage of total budget per

sector objective X% Percentage of total budget per sector

SHF Allocations to the 2016 HRP Strategic Objectives

$38,779,571 total budget

35

2016

SHF L

ogic

al Fr

amew

ork I

ndic

ator

Repo

rt

Indicators Target AchievementsOutcome 1 Improved humanitarian response% of allocations processed within identified timelines 100 33 for Reserve for Emergencies# of training days provided to stakeholders by the HFu 12 26 sessions/4 different topicsOutcome 2 Strengthened humanitarian leadership Risk management procedures developed in Operational manual yes yes% of Allocations with an individual monitoring plan 100 100 # of IP Financial Spot Checks carried out variable 7/14 (10 done in total) % of reports submitted by partners on time (for 2016 allocations) 85 8.5Annual Reports published annually yes yes# of governance items reviewed and/or updated 3 3Outcome 3 Better coordination and resources mobilised# of AB meetings held per year; minutes shared 4 6% of HRP as fund’s annual fund-raising target 8 4

2016 SHF Logical Framework Indicator Report


36

AcronymsAc

rony

ms


AADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency)Almassar (Almassar Charity Organization for nomads)AmvO (Almanar voluntary Organization), AORD (Alsalam Organization for Rehabilitation and Development), APDHwO Anhar Peace, Development and Humanitarian work Organisation ARC American Refugee Committee ASSISt Organization for voluntary Humanitarian Assistance

CCBPF Country Based Pooled Fund CCS Coordination and Common ServicesCDO (Cooperation for Development Organization)CERF Central Emergency Response FundCIS CARE International SwitzerlandCOOPI (Cooperazione Internazionale)CRS Catholic Relief ServicesCw Concern worldwide

DDDRA (Darfur Development and Reconstruction Agency)DFID Department of Foreign International DevelopmentDRC Danish Refugee CouncilDtm Displacement tracking matrix

EEl Ruhama (El Ruhama for Development and Humanitarian Aid) ES/nFIs Emergency Shelter/non-Food Items

F FAO Food and Agriculture OrganisationFmu Fund management unitFPDO Friends of Peace and Development OrganisationFSl Food Security and livelihoodFtS Financial tracking Services

GgAH global Aid HandgBv gender Based violencegmS grant management System

HHAC Humanitarian Aid CommissionHC Humanitarian CoordinatorHFu Humanitarian Financing unitHnO Humanitarian needs OverviewHRP Humanitarian Response Plan

IIAS (International Aid Services), IASC Inter-Agency Standing CommitteeIDPs Internally Displaced Peoples ImC International medical CorpsIngO International non-government Organization IOm International Organisation for migration IRw (Islamic Relief worldwide)

JPPA

KKPHF (Kuwaiti Patients Helping Fund)KSCS (Kabakabiya Small Holders Charitable Society)

LlABEnA women Organization for Development & Capacity Building

MmA managing AgentmPtF multi-Partner trust Fundm&R monitoring and ReportingmAm moderate Acute malnutrition

Nnada (nada Elazhar for Disaster Prevention and Sustainable Development)nCA norwegian Church AidnCE no-Cost ExtensionsngOs non-governmental OrganisationnngO national ngOnumAD (national units for mine Action and Development (formerly nDu))

OOCHA Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

P PA Practical ActionPAnCARE (Panhealth Care Organization)PODR (People Organization for Development and Rehabilitation)

RRI Relief InternationalRmS Refugee multi-sectorRRR Recovery, Return and ReintegrationRCRC Red Cross and Red Crescent

SSAg Sustainable Action groupSAm Severe Acute malnutrition SgBv Sexual and gender Based violenceSHF Sudan Humanitarian FundSO Sector ObjectiveSRCS (Sudanese Red Crescent Society)

TtgH (triangle génération Humanitaire)tRC technical Review Committee

UunDP united nations Development ProgrammeunDSS (united nations Department of Safety and Security)unFPA united nations Fund for PopulationunHCR united nations High Commission for RefugeesunICEF united nations Children FundumCOR united methodist Committee on ReliefuPO united Peace Organisationun united nations

VvSF vétérinaires sans Frontières germany

W wASH water, Sanitation and HygienewFP world Food ProgrammewHO world Health OrganisationwR (world Relief) wvI (world vision International)

ZZDPO (Zulfa Development and Peace Organization)

37

Cont

act L

ist

Name Title Contact PhoneSHF Technical Unit (OCHA Sudan HFRmS)

Bavo Christiaens Humanitarian Affairs Officer Fund manager [email protected] +249 912170422laksmita noviera Humanitarian Affairs Officer monitoring & Reporting [email protected] +249 912178032Adil Saad Humanitarian Financing

AnalystFtS, gmS & monitoring [email protected] +249 912174436

Randa mergani Humanitarian Financing Analyst

nCE/Revision/Standard Allocation [email protected] +249 912 160419

Aniella van Bakel Humanitarian Affairs Officer Reserve Allocation [email protected] +249 91217 0426SHF Technical Unit (unDP/Fmu managing agent)

Elizabeth whitehead Head of the unDP Sudan Fund management unit [email protected] +249 966210923MPTF Office (Sudan SHF administrative agent)

Olga Aleshina Senior Portfolio manager [email protected]

Humanitarian CoordinatorOCHA (Ex-Officio)Almanar voluntary Organization united KingdomDenmarkgermanyIrelandnetherlandsnorwaySwedenSwitzerlandunHCRunICEF wHOIngO Steering Committee

MEMBERS OF SHF ADVISORY BOARD

CHAIR:SECREtARIAt:

nngO REPRESEntAtIvE:DOnOR REPRESEntAtIvES:

un REPRESEntAtIvES:

IngO REPRESEntAtIvE:

Contact List

About SHF


38

Abou

t SHF

The Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) is a cost-effective way to support humanitarian action in Sudan. Under the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), the SHF aims to support the timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to the most critical humanitarian needs as defined by the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) or any agreed upon strategy by the HC.

How SHF works

The Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) receives contributions from donors – mainly governments – into a single fund, with the aspiration of reaching 15 per cent of the total humanitarian funding requirements in Sudan. The money is used for humanitarian operations on a rolling basis through regular allocation rounds or is set aside for future response to in–country emergencies. The SHF reinforces and relies on existing humanitarian coordination structures, which allows for evidence-based prioritization and complementarity with in-country humanitarian, development and peacebuilding funding mechanisms and donors. A positioning paper has been developed for the SHF to highlight the main strategic focus for 2017 and to serve as an overarching framework for 2017 allocations.

The SHF has two allocation modalities:

• The bulk of SHF funding is allocated through one or, if funding allows, two standard allocation rounds. Eligible NGO partners apply for funding and undergo a rigorous selection process. Their interventions are assessed against prioritized needs, activities and geographical locations, ensuring a highly strategic and coordinated use of funds.

• The Reserve mechanism is a rapid, timely and flexible allocation mechanism that funds responses to sudden-onset issues and critical needs as they arise. Approximately 20 per cent of the SHF’s annual contributions are set aside in the “Reserve for Emergencies”. It gives the Humanitarian Coordinator the capacity to support immediate humanitarian response.

SHF funding is available to UN organisations and international and national NGOs that have passed a due diligence and capacity assessment. Most implementing partners have long–standing partnerships with the SHF. In 2016, 47 partners were directly supported by SHF.

The Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) for Sudan oversees the fund and decides on funding allocations. In its role, the HC is supported by the SHF Technical Unit in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) including the fund’s managing agent UNDP Fund Management Unit (FMU), SHF Advisory Board and IASC coordination structures.

The SHF Advisory Board represents the views of donors, UN agencies and both the international and national NGO community and provides strategic advice to the HC on SHF allocations, policies and governance. It is a forum to share information on funding gaps and coverage, ensuring the transparency and relevance of SHF allocations, to review the operational activities of the fund and undertake periodic risk analysis.

The SHF is governed by an Operational Manual, which is within the framework provided by the Operational Handbook for Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPFs) which describes the global set of rules that apply to all CBPFs worldwide. The SHF Operational Manual has been adapted and tailored to the humanitarian context in Sudan.

The SHF Technical Unit handles programmatic aspects and provides daily fund management support to the HC, which includes oversight of allocations, reporting, monitoring and other accountability processes. The UNDP FMU supports the SHF Technical Unit disburses funds to UN agencies, and is responsible for fund management related to non-governmental partners (contracting, disbursement, financial reporting).

Donors to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund in 2016

Thank You for your Generous Financial Contributions and Continued Support.

Sudan Humanitarian FundUnited Nations

SHF

2016 Annual Report - unocha.org · The second half of 2016 witnessed low levels of internal civilian displacement, as a result of unilateral cessation of hostilities by the Sudanese

Documents