Emergency Response Fund – Afghanistan Afghanistan - … Report 2013 ERF... · Emergency Response Fund – Afghanistan Annual Report 2013 3 Executive Summary The Afghanistan ERF

Emergency Response Fund – Afghanistan Annual Report 2013

1

Emergency Response Fund Afghanistan

Annual Report 2013 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Credit: OCHA Sub-office Eastern Region/OCHA HAO - Haji Said Alam Hygiene promotion session at Metherlam IDP settlement

Date: 19 August 2013


1

Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator

2013 saw the successful restart of the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) in Afghanistan, with donor contributions in excess of US$11 million and the support of 31 emergency projects across the country. From the outset, it was decided to use the ERF strategically in support of the Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP), giving particular attention to the provinces in greatest need and sectors with clear gaps in emergency capacity, including health, nutrition and protection.

With the issuance of a call for proposals in January, the ERF generated substantive interest among grass root NGOs, many of whom had never previously participated in the coordinated humanitarian system. This brought several benefits to coordination in a country where clusters had struggled to attract Afghan partners: First, Afghan NGOs were introduced to sector experts and the assessment methodology and standards that apply to clusters. Second, international partners strengthened their awareness of the operational capacity held by Afghan NGOs. Third, the local knowledge and community access of Afghan ERF partners led to a more even, needs-based geographical catchment area of the Fund.

The high activity level of the ERF in 2013 showed that an emergency response mechanism was still needed in Afghanistan, despite having been in protracted conflict for thirty five years. In particular, as the conflict intensified and spread across the country, Afghanistan’s most contested areas witnessed elevated humanitarian need due to displacement, violence, intimidation, interruption of basic services or inability of people to access services. A significant expansion of ERF projects into conflict areas was achieved. For example, the volatile Eastern Region received 35 per cent of the ERF, compared to 0 per cent in 2012. Similarly, the Southern Region received 12 per cent, and the Central Region 22 per cent, reflecting a combination of conflict-induced and natural disaster induced emergencies.

Consistent governance of the ERF was ensured through quarterly meetings of the Advisory Board under my Chairmanship. This body, bringing together donor, UN and NGO representatives, provided strategic direction to the Fund. In

particular, there was a strong call to prioritize Afghan NGOs and to support them to the maximum extent possible during the application process. Consequently, the ERF secretariat spent much time and resources on coaching Afghan NGOs, and the portion of funding allocated to them reached 42 per cent.

The Review Board was also reconstituted with NGO representatives and national cluster coordinators. The recommendations made by this body laid the groundwork for solid funding decisions. The reviews were done in 48 hours, as part of a wider effort to reduce the time span between the submission of a proposal, the funding decision and the eventual disbursement of the first instalment of the grant. We managed to reduce this time period to three weeks.

Despite the progress made in the governance of the ERF, the level of participation in the Review Board remained a challenge. This problem largely reflected the operational reality in Afghanistan, with frequent turnover of staff and punishing workloads. However, the legitimacy of the process relies on the proper functioning of the governance bodies, hence my insistence that members play an active part throughout.

As we enter 2014, the ERF approaches its end with the establishment of a Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF). The CHF, which becomes operational in April, has a reserve mechanism which replaces the ERF. But the CHF also allows for a wider set of activities to be funded, thereby reinforcing the priorities outlined in the CHAP. For our NGO partners, the CHF opens an avenue towards projects that are both larger in scale and longer in duration. But again, participation in coordination and in the common identification of priorities within each sector will remain crucial.

I take this opportunity to thank our faithful donors, as well as our NGO partners who saved many Afghan lives and reduced the misery of many others through ERF funded projects in 2013.

Mark Bowden Humanitarian Coordinator, Afghanistan


2

Table of Contents NOTE FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR ............ ..............................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................3

COUNTRY MAP .......................................................................................................................................................7

INFORMATION ON CONTRIBUTORS ....................... .............................................................................................8

FUND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF ERF ALLOCATIONS IN 2013 ................ ........................................................................................9

RESULTS OF ERF PROJECTS PER CLUSTER .............................................................................................................9

OVERVIEW OF EMERGENCY SHELTER AND NFI CLUSTER ..........................................................................................9

OVERVIEW OF WASH CLUSTER ............................................................................................................................ 10

OVERVIEW OF PROTECTION CLUSTER ................................................................................................................... 11

OVERVIEW OF FOOD SECURITY AND AGRICULTURE CLUSTER (FSAC) .................................................................... 12

OVERVIEW OF HEALTH CLUSTER ........................................................................................................................... 12

OVERVIEW OF NUTRITION CLUSTER ...................................................................................................................... 13

OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION CLUSTER ..................................................................................................................... 14

PROJECT MONITORING ..................................................................................................................................... 15

CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES................................................................................................................................... 18

SUCCESS STORY – ERF GLOBAL PILOT OF CASH-BASED ASSI STANCE ................................................. 17

RISK MANAGEMENT ................................... ........................................................................................................ 18

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONCLUSION ....................... ......................................................................................... 19

FUTURE OF THE ERF .......................................................................................................................................... 20

FUNDS ALLOCATION OVERVIEW ......................... ............................................................................................ 21

GLOSSARY .......................................... ................................................................................................................. 23


3

Executive Summary The Afghanistan ERF is an impartial source of humanitarian funding which enables rapid access to funding for activities in response to sudden onset or unforeseen emergencies, including natural disasters and conflict.

Since its inception in Afghanistan in 2009, the ERF has provided Afghan and international NGOs with access to rapid and flexible funding to deliver life-saving assistance to the most vulnerable population. The governance of the Fund also serves to strengthen coordination of emergency response activities in Afghanistan. OCHA manages the Fund on a day to day basis through a dedicated ERF secretariat, on behalf of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). Total contributions from January 2009 to December 2013 amounted to US$24.9 million from seven donors.

Following a period of low activity, the ERF was re-invigorated towards the end of 2012. While the ERF previously had predominantly focused on shelter interventions in response to natural hazards in northern Afghanistan, the 2013 ERF encouraged NGO partners to respond to conflict-induced needs in the Southern and Eastern regions. A particular effort was made to channel ERF grants to eligible Afghan NGOs with access to extremely vulnerable populations affected by conflict.

The strategic, thematic and geographic priorities outlined in the 2013 CHAP provided direction to ERF funding decisions. The priorities for the Fund were to reinforce the protection of civilians; reduce mortality and morbidity; and assist the recently displaced.

Geographically, NGOs operating in Kandahar, Hilmand, Nangarhar, Ghazni and Kunar were particularly encouraged to apply for funds, focusing on the sectors of health, nutrition and protection. Following a call for proposals issued in January, the ERF supported 31 emergency projects totalling US$ 9.1 million. 14 projects responded to conflict-affected people, two projects assisted earthquake victims, seven projects responded to drought in the western and central highlands, three winterization

projects, two projects for nutrition support due to food insecurity and poverty and three projects supported flood-affected communities. In total, ERF funding in 2013 provided 8,322 households with emergency shelter and non-food items, 13,805 families with water, sanitation and hygiene, 1,627 families with nutrition, 4,603 families with health services, 3,307 families with protection, 4,128 households with food security and 196 families with emergency education.

Financial update as of December 31, 2013

Funds available during the year

US $14,247,737

Disbursed/committed US $9,102,162

Remaining balance US$5,145,575

ERF Allocation by Sector Chart 1

Out of total funds disbursed, 24 per cent was allocated to emergency shelter, 22 per cent to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), 19 per cent to protection, 13 per cent to food security and agriculture (FSAC), 10 per cent to health, 9 per cent to nutrition and 3 per cent to education.

Protection

19%

WASH

22%

Nutrition

9%

Health

10%FSAC

13%

Education

3%Emergency

Shelter/NFI

24%

Allocation by Sector


4

Brief overview of the humanitarian context

Afghanistan has been in protracted conflict for thirty five years, which has seriously hampered poverty reduction, disaster risk reduction and development. More than 100,000 people were affected by natural disasters in 2013, including earthquake, flooding and extreme winter conditions while more than 120,000 people were internally displaced by armed conflict in 2013 alone. This represented a 25 per cent increase in new internal displacement compared to 2012. The conflict is causing increasing harm to civilians and is the predominant driver of acute humanitarian needs. In total 631,000 people were recorded as displaced by conflict. The principal reasons for displacement are armed conflict; general deterioration of security; and intimidation.

In addition, there are a number of chronic factors that shape the humanitarian landscape in Afghanistan, such as extreme poverty, low health provision, violence/tribal conflicts, corruption, criminality, drug production and trafficking, human trafficking, and gender-based violence (GBV).

More than 5.7 million people have returned to Afghanistan in the last ten years, representing nearly a quarter of the population.

Highlights of the response

In 2013, the escalation and geographical spread of conflict restricted humanitarian access to large parts of the country. The impact of the deteriorating security situation on already vulnerable people heightened the urgency for humanitarian action. The ERF played a modest albeit strategic role in mobilizing rapid response to the acute needs arising from conflict.

The ERF applied a set of life-saving criteria when selecting projects for funding. Afghanistan has suffered eight droughts in the course of the past eleven years due to chronic under-development. Dryness in five provinces in the west, southwest and central highlands, earthquakes in the northeast and east, as well as flooding in the east, north and central regions has caused displacement of Afghans to urban centers. After armed conflict, flooding constitutes the second largest emergency risk to vulnerable Afghans.

Summary on the Fund’s instrumental role

In 2013 Afghan and international NGOs were encouraged, through the ERF, to participate in cluster coordination at the national level, in Regional Humanitarian Teams at the regional level, and in Operational Coordination Teams (OCTs) at the provincial level. Familiarity with the Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) has enabled NGOs to use the CHAP Needs and Vulnerability Analysis Index, which ranks Afghanistan’s thirty-four provinces according to need, to inform their ERF proposal formulation.

Through the ERF funding mechanism, international and Afghan NGOs were able to respond to conflict-induced needs in the Southern and Eastern regions.

As there was no coordination structure in place at the provincial level before 2012, field based NGOs played a marginal role in coordination, which took place in regional capitals and Kabul. The establishment of OCTs at the provincial level in 2012-13 promoted access and participation by Afghan NGOs, by bringing coordination mechanisms to frontline responders.

National and international NGO partners were encouraged to submit project proposals that supported clearly articulated life-saving priorities. By mapping who does what where and analysing the gaps in capacity and response, OCHA and cluster focused attention of the ERF to the most underserved parts of Afghanistan.

Operating in parallel with direct, bilateral funding agreements between individual NGOs and donors, the ERF was the only pooled funding source of its kind available to NGOs. For many Afghan NGOs, the ERF represented a unique funding opportunity.

ERF orientation workshops were conducted in six regions of Afghanistan. The workshops focused on providing an understanding of the purpose and application of the ERF; understanding roles and responsibilities (OCHA, clusters, Review Board, applicant organisation); understanding project funding criteria (types of projects eligible for ERF funding); understanding the funding limits and criteria; awareness of the process for the receipt and review of project applications by the ERF Review Board; and awareness of the required actions by recipient organisations (e.g. financial and narrative proposals and reports).

These workshops provided Afghan NGOs with the awareness and motivation to submit quality


5

proposals. As a result, in 2013 42 per cent of ERF funds were allocated to Afghan NGOs, and 58 per cent of funds were allocated to projects in very remote and insecure locations. In total, 97 proposals were submitted during 2013. Out of those, 66 were submitted by national NGOs and 31 by international NGOs. 49 proposals of national and 7 proposals of international NGOs were rejected.

In many respects Afghan NGOs have a comparative advantage in the delivery of emergency assistance, as they often enjoy better access and communication with targeted communities than foreign organisations. International NGOs, on the other hand, tend to produce higher quality project proposals and reports, and implement more consistently in accordance with international standards.

As of January 2014, the Humanitarian Coordinator established a Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF). Part of the funding available through the CHF will be held in a reserve window, which will serve to respond to rapid-onset emergencies thereby replacing the ERF. Until the CHF’s reserve allocation and standard allocation funding becomes available in 2014, the ERF will continue to fill this need so as to ensure there is no gap in pooled funding resources to enable emergency response. The investment in the capacity of Afghan NGOs, which was bolstered through strategic ERF allocations, is likely to be continued by the CHF in order to improve response in hard-to-access areas.

Challenges to Afghan NGOs:

1. Afghan NGOs are only active in cluster coordination in selected field locations where they have ongoing projects. Therefore, they are under-represented in national clusters.

2. Most Afghan NGOs have no core funding to initiate projects before receipt of first payment or to sustain their core administrative costs after completion of project until receipt of final instalment. Overall budget challenges limit their capacity to hire and maintain qualified professional staff, have stockpiles or conduct immediate assessments.

Many Afghan NGOs struggle to hire competent staff due to the low salaries being offered and poor human resource management

Coordination & management of the ERF

In support of the Humanitarian Coordinator, OCHA manages the ERF’s administrative and decision-making structure, ensuring technical assessment of proposals by the Review Board, soliciting strategic guidance by the Advisory Board, and engaging with cluster coordinators who play a key role in the prioritization and recommendation of individual proposals.

There are six clusters at the national level: Emergency Shelter/NFIs, Nutrition, Protection, Food Security and Agriculture, WASH and Health. These clusters are replicated by regional working groups and provincial OCTs.

In general, humanitarian access diminished in 2013, particularly due to the expansion of conflict into the north and west. Whilst urban centres remained accessible to humanitarians, humanitarian access in contested rural areas became increasingly subject to less predictable constraints requiring operational flexibility and greater tolerance of risk on the part of NGOs.

Humanitarian access was also advanced through engagement with community-based organisations, local shuras (community leaders), intermediaries, remote-management, and outsourced monitoring and evaluation. These access initiatives involved additional financial costs to both implementers and donors.

The timelines; how rapidly funds were disbursed

In 2013, the average timeline for processing ERF proposals in Afghanistan was 27 working days. While this is the fastest turnaround of ERF proposals for OCHA globally, the ERF secretariat faced various delays in the work flow including security related movement restrictions, short working days during Ramadan and numerous rounds of review and improvements to individual proposals.

The Advisory Board, bringing together representatives from the donor, UN and NGO community met quarterly under the chairmanship of the Humanitarian Coordinator. The Review Board, composed of cluster coordinators and NGO representatives, met monthly and reviewed proposals electronically on an ongoing basis. The following steps were followed during the application process:


6

1. Rapid assessment at emergency site to identify needs.

2. Sharing assessment findings with the relevant OCHA sub-offices and regional clusters.

3. Proposal drafting in accordance with the ERF application formats.

4. Submission of proposal and IP Capacity Assessment Form to OCHA.

5. The ERF Secretariat checked the eligibility of the applicant NGO and reviewed the proposal against criteria set in the global ERF guidelines. The Secretariat also suggested adjustments of the proposals as required.

6. The ERF Secretariat circulated the proposal electronically to the ERF Review Board with a 48 hour timeline for response.

7. The RB members recommended or rejected the proposal with appropriate justifications.

8. The ERF Secretariat provided a summary of the feedback from the Review Board and submitted the recommended proposal to the Humanitarian Coordinator for decision.

9. The Humanitarian Coordinator either endorsed or rejected the project.


7

Country Map


8

Information on Contributors Summary/table on donor contributions of the reporti ng year

Donor Decision Date Amount of Contribution Paid in US$ Remark

Norway 27 June 2013 1,143,492 Paid Canada September 2013 3,875,969 Paid Sweden (Sida) 17 December 2013 3,048,316 Paid

Total 8,067,777

Summary Donor Contributions to ERF from 2009 to 201 3

Following external review, the Afghanistan ERF was reactivated and its governance bodies reconstituted during the last quarter of 2012. In support of the revitalisation of the Fund, donors increased contributions to the Afghanistan ERF to US$12.1 million representing 49% of all contributions received since the establishment of the Fund in 2009. Of the US$4.2 million carried over from 2012 into 2013, two contributions totalling US$2.8 million were received from Sweden and Ireland in December 2012 and a further US$1.2 million received from Norway in late September 2012 for use in 2013. Norway and Sweden provided further generous contributions in 2013 with Canada making its first ever contribution to a country based pooled fund in September 2013, its contribution was the biggest ERF donor in Afghanistan last year.

Amount in US$

Donor 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Grand Total

AusAID

422,000.00

422,000.00

Denmark

1,779,043.00 1,779,043

IRISH AID

625,000.00 547,196.00 519,481.00 1,691,677

Netherlands

700,000.00

700,000.00

Norway

1,082,261.00 1,283,697.00 1,211,471.00 1,143,492 4,720,921

Sida 3,450,250.00

2,969,987.00 2,240,302.00 3,048,316 11,708,855

Canada

3,875,969.00 3,875,969.00

Grand Total 3,450,250.00 2,829,261.00 4,800,880.00 5,750,296.00 8,067,777 24,898,465


9

Fund Overview Summary of ERF Allocations in 2013 1

Disbursed ERF funds in 2013 by partner type in US$

UN Agencies 0 International NGOs 5,318,642.49 National NGOs 3,783,519.87 Total 9,102,162.36

Results of ERF Projects per Cluster

Overview of Emergency Shelter and NFI Cluster

Number of projects Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area

7 2,214,922.81 DRC, NRC, NPO/RRAA, WSTA, INTERSOS and ACF

Central, Northern, North-eastern, Eastern and Western regions of Afghanistan/ Kabul, Faryab, Jawzjan, Saripul, Balkh, Kunduz, Takhar, Nangarhar, Laghman, Kunar and Ghor Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 8,322 families (114,741 individuals targeted) while 44,504 people were reached according to the reports received by the end of 2013 from completed projects.

Projects Status No. of projects Number of Beneficiaries

Targeted Number of Beneficiaries

Reached

Families Individuals Families Individuals

Financially Closed 2 6,400 38,400 7,177 43,146

Completed and Final Report Submitted 1 194 1,358 194 1,358

Completed and Final Report Awaiting 2 635 4,265

Ongoing in 2014 2 1,093 70,718

Total

7

8,322

114,741

7,371

44,504

■ Gender consideration: 48,271 women, 49,074 men, 8,515 girls and 8,881 boys benefited from the ES/NFI projects.

1 To enable the earlier publication of the ERF Annual Report (15 February), the amount of disbursements and the remaining balance of the Fund are an estimate based on programmatic figures. The ERF’s certified financial statement of accounts is available on 31 March of the following fiscal year.

Requested for 2013 in US$

Carry over from 2012 in US$

Amount received in 2013 in US$

Total available in 2013 in US$

10,000,000 6,179,960 8,067,777 14,247,737


10

■ Project results: 512 two rooms and 210 one room permanent shelters and 200 transitional shelters constructed.

■ 1,000 families received heating and complementary food through cash based Interventions for 3 months.

■ 1,922 families received technical support related to shelter construction.

■ 6275 IDP families living in informal settlements in Kabul received sufficient fire wood.

■ 900 Households received cash for heating needs, such as wood and fuel.

Overview of WASH Cluster


9 2,019,628.42 ASAARO, NCRO, SRP, SORA, ADEO, HRDA, Afghan aid, and RI

Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western regions of Afghanistan/ Kunar, Laghman, Balkh, Kandahar, Ghor , Nimroz and Zabul Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 13,805 families (83,700 people) while 11,861 people were reached according to the reports received by the end of 2013 from completed projects.

Projects Status No. of projects Number of Beneficiaries Targeted Number of Beneficiaries

Reached


Completed and Final Report Submitted

2 1,575 11,861 1,575 11,861

Completed and Final Report Awaiting 2 2,740 16,480

Ongoing in 2014 5 9,490 55,359

Total

9 13,805 83,700 1,575 11,861

■ Gender consideration: 31,483 women, 30,608 men, 10,784 girls and 10,825 boys benefited from WASH projects.

■ Project results: 161 bore/ tube wells and 4 deep wells constructed, 14 water reservoirs constructed, 1,047 latrines/toilets constructed, 73,506 people received sanitation and hygiene education, 1,324 water containers distributed, 4,290 hygiene kits distributed and 13,780 working days (540 skilled and 13,240 unskilled) labour benefited from cash for work;

■ ERF’s added value to the project: 13,805 families were helped to mitigate the potential spread of diseases and protected from waterborne diseases through rapid and flexible ERF funding of the WASH cluster/sector.


11

Overview of Protection Cluster


5 1,726,314 Alpistan, The Halo Trust, SHAO, NCRO and WCC

North-eastern, Central, Southern and Eastern regions of Afghanistan/ Badakhshan, Daykundi, Logar, Hilmand, Kunar and Kandahar Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 3,307 families (21,480 individuals targeted) while 12,923 people were reached according to reports received by the end of 2013 from completed projects.

Projects Status No. of projects Number of Beneficiaries Targeted Number of Beneficiaries

Reached


Completed and Final Report Submitted 3 1,897 12,900 1,904 12,923

Completed and Final Report Awaiting

1 410 2,460

Ongoing in 2014 1 1,000 6,120

Total

5 3,307 21,480 1,904 12,923

■ Gender consideration: 9,404 women, 8,721 men, 1,617 girls and 1,737 boys benefited from the Protection projects.

■ Project results: a meteorological network installed, a Mountain Emergency Response Team (MERT) established, media and school activities to teach avalanche awareness is in place, avalanche mapping is available;

■ 820 solar panels, 410 dry batteries, 410 Direct Current Fans along with accessories distributed and installed for 410 IDP families.

■ 853,769 sqm of minefields cleared, 635,216 sqm of land cleared from mines and ready for shelter construction, and 138,344 sqm of minefields cleared for agriculture.

■ 25 Child Friendly Spaces established, 35 Community Based Child Protection Shuras (CBCPS) in place, 75 community volunteers and CBCPS members trained and 3,000 children (boys and girls) referred and counselled with basic education, health and psychosocial support.

■ ERF’s added value to the project: 3,307 IDP families and their children protected from natural hazards/seasonal bad weather conditions; and provided with basic education, health and psychosocial support.


12

Overview of Food Security and Agriculture Cluster ( FSAC)


3 1,130,211.59 CG, Medair, ACF Central, and Western regions of Afghanistan/ Daykundi, Bamyan and Ghor Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 4,128 families (27,200 people targeted); the projects’ final reports were not submitted until the end of 2013. Therefore the reached beneficiaries total may vary from the targeted numbers.

Projects Status No. of projects Number of Beneficiaries Targeted

Number of Beneficiaries Reached


Completed and Final Report Awaiting 1 1,428 10,000

Ongoing in 2014 2 2,700 17,200

Total

3 4,128 27,200 - -

■ Gender consideration: 11,752 women, 11,935 men, 1,681 girls and 1,831 boys benefited from the FSAC projects.

■ Project results: 279 MT wheat, 454 MT wheat flour, 108 MT rice, 24.54 MT beans, 41.69 MT mungbeans, 38,430 litres of cooking oil, 41.1 MT sugar and 5.12 MT salt were distributed as food rations.

■ 850 farmers received wheat seeds 21.25 MT, fertilizer DAP 21.25 MT and fertilizer UREA 42.5 MT.

■ ERF’s added value to the project: The most vulnerable families (4,128 families) in dryness affected communities had access to adequate nutrition through the distribution of food rations.

Overview of Health Cluster


3 905,034.55 EMERGENCY, NRDOAW and ASCYWO

Southern, South-eastern and North-eastern regions of Afghanistan/ Helmand, Paktia, Logar, Ghazni, Maidan-Wardak and Badakhshan Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 4,603 families (27,800 people targeted) while 16,684 people were reached according to reports received by the end of 2013 from completed projects.

Projects Status Projects Nos. Number of Beneficiaries Targeted Number of Beneficiaries

Reached


Completed and Final Report Submitted 1 2,633 15,800 2,780 16,684


13


Ongoing in 2014 1 1,300 8,000

Total

3 4,603 27,800 2,780 16,684

■ Gender consideration: 12,192 women, 11,439 men, 2,087 girls and 2,082 boys benefited from health services.

■ Project results: 19 temporary static health units and first aid posts for providing trauma stabilization and treatment and referral to hospitals were established in conflict affected areas; two health services and referral sub centers for treatment, basic emergency curative and referral services were established.

■ 26,610 patients were appropriately treated; 1,826 severely injured patients were referred to hospitals; 1,488 surgeries were performed; and 114 other severe cases including pregnant women were delivered to hospitals.

■ ERF’s added value to the project: 27,800 patients received appropriate treatment through the provision of emergency health services in six provinces that are severely affected by armed conflict and acute health problems due to a lack of health facilities.

Overview of Nutrition Cluster


3 821,983 AWARD/ ASCYWO, PU-AMI and ACF Central, Eastern and Western regions of Afghanistan/ Ghazni, Kunar and Ghor Provinces

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 1,627 families (10,769 people); the projects’ final reports were not submitted until the end of 2013; therefore the number of beneficiary may vary from the targeted numbers.

Projects Status No. of Projects Number of Beneficiaries Targeted Number of Beneficiaries

Reached



Ongoing in 2014 1 999 6,993

Total 3 1,627 10,769 - -

■ Gender consideration: 6,159 women, 2,738 men, 870 girls and 1,002 boys benefited from nutrition projects.

■ Project results: 3,226 pregnant and lactating women received education on Infant and Young Child feeding practices;

■ 550 Tuberculosis patients received food rations each month for six months, in total 205.6 MT of food was distributed;

■ 899 households received cash based interventions for complementary nutritious food, as well as hygiene items. 677 beneficiaries received complementary nutrition products.

■ ERF’s added value to the project: reaching marginalized, vulnerable people with nutritional support mitigated the effects of malnutrition among the under-fives and adults, thereby reducing mortality. There was also improved nutrition, health and well-being of more than 10,000 people in three provinces ranked highly for malnourishment.


14

Overview of Education Cluster

Number of

projects

Budget in US$

Implementing agencies Geographic Area

1 284,067.99 BEST Eastern region of Afghanistan/ Nangarhar Province

Outputs

■ Total number of beneficiaries: 196 families (1,372 people targeted); the projects’ final reports were not submitted until the end of 2013; therefore the number of beneficiaries may vary from the targeted numbers.

■ Gender consideration: 372 women, 400 men, 250 girls and 350 boys benefited from the emergency education project.

■ Project results: 250 girls and 350 boys attended multi grade and multi age accelerated learning classes.

■ 12 female and 16 male teachers attended teacher training courses.

■ 600 school age children received accelerated emergency education.

■ ERF’s added value to the project: 600 school age children, 250 Girls and 350 boys, benefited from primary and middle education opportunities; while 80 adults (50 per cent women) benefited from literacy and numeracy classes.


15

Project Monitoring A key priority in 2013 was to reinforce the ERF accountability framework. At the start of the year, OCHA set itself the target of monitoring all ERF projects, and a comprehensive monitoring and reporting system was developed to this effect. The main building block of the monitoring system was a database recording all available project information, including key deliverables and indicators, as well as the monitoring activities undertaken. While more than 41 per cent of the projects were monitored through multiple field visits, 76 per cent of the projects were visited at least once by 15 December 2013. For ERF globally the targeted monitoring rate is 70 per cent.

OCHA Field Offices were the main conduits of periodic monitoring visits to ERF project implementation sites, and a project monitoring form was utilized to record progress towards project objectives as well as any challenges encountered in the delivery of assistance. Implementing partners submitted monthly, interim and final progress reports to the ERF team, which subsequently provided individual feedback and guidance on any adjustments required to the project’s implementation. To supplement OCHA’s own monitoring, local authorities and communities were mobilized to conduct field visits during the projects’ life cycle with the involvement of NGOs operating in project areas and the support from relevant government departments at the provincial and district levels. OCHA prepared a comprehensive monitoring report for the ERF Advisory Board meeting in November 2013, outlining the ERF project monitoring methodology, key findings from project site visits, an analysis of challenges and achievements in OCHA’s monitoring, and an overview of all ERF projects, including observations made by beneficiaries regarding the relevance and success of individual projects. OCHA undertook 32 field monitoring visits to complement the reporting done by implementing partners. Field visits also provided qualitative information about project activities, recorded challenges and

best practices and identified specific issues to be addressed by the partner or OCHA. Issues identified were mostly raised and resolved at the regional level, although particular problems were brought to the attention of the ERF secretariat and resolved at the director level. As part of its field monitoring OCHA encouraged participation of both regional cluster leads and representatives from local authorities as appropriate. This resulted in the verification of project achievements in the target areas As 2014 marks the transition from ERF to CHF in Afghanistan, it is useful to review and build upon lessons learned from ERF monitoring and reporting. Although a number of challenges have been recorded and addressed, a key finding from monitoring visits was that the performance of Afghan and International NGOs had improved to a satisfactory level. Innovative Programming – Several ERF partners made use of innovative programming tools such as cash based assistance, which allows beneficiaries to select and purchase relief items according to need, or the installation of solar panels to generate electricity. Such innovative programmes had a high impact on the lives of IDPS living in isolated areas and were appreciated by communities and beneficiaries. In the area of cash based assistance, which Afghanistan piloted globally for ERF in 2013, additional learning is need to ensure best practices and to encourage such interventions on a wider scale. Remote Monitoring – OCHA conducted a phone satisfaction survey in the Eastern region for two projects. 65 random calls were made by HAOs (focal points to the projects), representing 14 per cent of the total 419 families, the beneficiaries of the shelter projects which were severely affected by earthquake. Following this test of remote monitoring, OCHA may consider expanding the use of phone surveys in order to cross-check that targeted beneficiaries actually receive assistance in hard to reach areas. One of the best practices was the use of remote call monitoring to verify assistance received by beneficiaries. This approach proved useful to effective monitoring of projects implemented in inaccessible areas, but required accurate and complete beneficiary lists to be made available from the outset of the project.


16

Set Standards / Price Range – In collaboration with clusters, the ERF Secretariat set standards for specific project components and corresponding price ranges. Practical examples included design of latrines, shelters and wells. This proved helpful during proposal review monitoring. It allowed monitoring teams to make comparisons between projects and implementers, and to assess achievements without having expertise in all sectors Access and Creative Monitoring Tools – Due to access constraints OCHA was unable to visit certain project implementation sites, although this represented less than 50 per cent of all sites. Most projects were carried out in several locations, which allowed OCHA to visit some but not all project components. Additional creative monitoring tools need to be developed and tested at the field level in order to ensure effective monitoring in inaccessible areas. Possible tools could include web-based project monitoring, using a range of web-based data management systems, GPS referencing, interactive mapping and digital and advanced photography; triangulated local monitoring, using a combination of vendors, local government officials, and community members for programme quality and accountability assurance; and phone surveys whereby beneficiaries receive a call to cross-check that they have received the assistance outlined in the project description.

Capacity Building / Quality Indicators – Within limited resources, OCHA strengthened the capacity of Afghan partners in the area of project design through organising “log frame clinics” and providing support to project proposal development. Ensuring good quality indicators and deliverables from the outset proved essential to effective monitoring. Sustainability / Resilience – Sustainability of projects was identified as a weakness and challenge for the ERF mechanism, given the short implementation period. A particular dilemma was faced when seeking to incorporate resilience components into projects that were primarily intended to provide lifesaving assistance. As the root causes of vulnerability often remained un-addressed following the completion of the project, the community or beneficiaries sometimes found themselves in a state of repeated emergency (i.e. water trucking, winterization relief etc.). Monitoring Functions – Project monitoring was both time consuming and demanded a high level of technical expertise in order to properly assess achievements. In order to meet a 100% project monitoring target and ensure project weaknesses are properly addressed in the future, OCHA will need to allocate designated resources for these functions.

Key Monitoring and Reporting Results Site Visits & Reporting Target – 100% monitoring of all projects (at least once during project cycle) • 32 field monitoring visits have been completed with 30 reports already submitted by OCHA teams as of 1 December 2013. • 22 out of 29 projects approved by 1 December 2013 had already been visited at least once since their inception. 10 projects out of 22 had already been visited twice or more. • 10 final reports had already been submitted by partners to update OCHA on progress made as of 1 December 2013. Overview of Project Achievements • 15 projects were implemented with a “high” level of achievement against targets. • 5 projects showed “medium” progress due to technical difficulties or delays. • 2 projects were scored as “low” satisfaction following the first site visit.


17

Success Story – ERF global pilot of cash-based assistance

The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) introduced the use of conditional cash assistance in support of emergency shelter interventions in 2010. Following a successful start, cash-based assistance was further expanded across Afghanistan integrating lessons learned. In 2013, the ERF supported NRC in its efforts to respond with conditional cash grants to the emergency needs of 470 forced refugee returnee and IDP households, who were living in tents or sub-standard housing in Nangarhar and Laghman provinces.

Emergency shelter assistance took the form of a conditional cash transfer grant, a toolkit and key construction materials that are harder to find in local markets (i.e. windows, doors, etc.). Assistance was made conditional on beneficiary household participation through unskilled labour and the construction of the shelter foundation at their own cost. Beneficiaries were supported throughout the construction process by NRC staff offering technical support on shelter design and advice on procurement. Community mobilization is a central component of the operation, with mobilisers participating in every stage of the process from beneficiary selection to monitoring of works and cash distributions. To ensure accountability and safety, payments were made directly to beneficiaries through NRC or a Hawala agent.

Payments were conditional on progress made by families on the completion of various stages of work on their shelter. Furthermore, selected families in each area of operation were divided into small support working groups of 4 families. Families in each group had to complete each stage of construction before any of them could receive the next payment. Families were therefore encouraged to support each other throughout the construction process.

Beneficiary feedback on the use of cash transfers were very positive overall. Beneficiaries appreciated the flexibility the approach provided, as well as the ownership afforded to them over quality and timeliness. The approach also supported local construction businesses as beneficiaries preferred to procure materials locally; thereby limiting transportation costs but also allowing them a greater opportunity for negotiating prices as community members. Vulnerable households also felt a greater sense of dignity. Using a cash transfer approach allowed families to make their own choices depending on their needs, their ability to negotiate with suppliers, and the market variety.

From an OCHA perspective, cash as a means to deliver emergency assistance could usefully be explored further under the ERF or other pooled funding mechanisms. However, it requires capacity building of partners as well as learning to ensure that the approach is coherent, efficient, and brings added value to the beneficiaries.

Credit: NRC

Credit: NRC


18

Cross-Cutting Issues

In 2013, 55 per cent of ERF beneficiaries were women and girls, and a deliberate effort was made by both applicant NGOs and the Review Board to render the projects gender-sensitive. The criteria for beneficiary selection included gender as a main component, giving priority to assistance for female-headed households, widows, children, the elderly, and disabled community members.

Security related access constraints as well as cultural sensitivities did occasionally impede direct contact between female beneficiaries and humanitarian workers. In such cases, the specific needs of women and girls were assessed by other community members.

Consistent efforts were made by ERF partners to enable women, girls, boys and men of all ages and abilities to benefit from ERF projects. In northern Afghanistan, female council members were actively involved in decision-making. However, in the majority of provinces, women are not members of Community Development Councils.

The gender marker was incorporated into the ERF application format, which encouraged an active consideration of gender issues from the start of the project design.

Gender considerations were also an integral part of project reviews and final reports. The table below shows the gender disaggregated data for EFR beneficiaries.

Risk Management The ongoing conflict, poverty and corruption in Afghanistan require all funding mechanisms to manage risks effectively. This also applies to humanitarian partners.

Afghanistan has experienced a prolonged period of insecurity and international military presence, during which time humanitarian and development assistance formed part of donor countries’ counter insurgency strategies. In this context, high levels of financial and operational risk were accepted. This is no longer the case, as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is set to leave Afghanistan in 2014.

Managing an ERF in Afghanistan entails a certain level of risk, which can be mitigated through a set of measures, including initial capacity assessment of implementing partners and localized context analysis to assess elevated risk locations requiring the application of multi-functional monitoring tools. As a general rule, high risk partners and implementation areas are subject to a higher level of control and monitoring than low risk partners and implementation areas.

Risk Identification and Risk Assessment - Main Factors in Afghanistan • A lack of consensus and understanding

amongst humanitarian actors on chronic, acute and sudden onset humanitarian needs.

• Uneven distribution of NGO capacity in priority needs districts and provinces across Afghanistan.

• Insufficiently comprehensive technical review and scoring mechanism to review and assess the numerous proposals submitted.

• Working with local government structures entails some capacity limitations and potential bias or interference in beneficiary selection.

• The NGO law is ambiguous and does not make adequate distinction between non-profit NGOs and commercial contractors.

• Complex local conflict dynamics reducing timely access to people in need resulting in delays to response and additional cost.

• Monitoring practices require ongoing development and improved application to ensure that project risks are effectively and efficiently mitigated.

• Project monitoring is demanding in terms of time and requires good technical expertise in order to properly assess achievements.


19

• Weak administrative capacity of Afghan NGOs in the areas of financial and programmatic recording of project results and reporting.

• Subjectivity of risk analysis as it suffers from shortage of adequate information in a very dynamic and volatile context.

1. In 2013, the proposal review process was strengthened with both field and national inputs required on top of feedback from the Review Board. This resulted in 89 per cent of the proposals submitted by Afghan NGOs to be rejected.

2. New partners to the ERF went through a capacity assessment process. In 2013, Afghan NGOs went through a more thorough due

diligence process including cross-checking of credentials and capacity with the Ministry of Economy and previous donors, review of audit reports; physical check of office and staff presence and capacity, as well as requirement to submit monthly progress reports.

3. High frequency of monitoring - ERF funded projects implemented by Afghan NGOs were monitored through multiple visits, with cross-checking of information with local authorities.

4. Remote call monitoring was piloted as a tool to check assistance delivered to beneficiaries in inaccessible areas.

Achievements and Conclusion The ERF was re-started in the fourth quarter of 2012 after an independent evaluation. The evaluation recommended renewed efforts to mobilize resources; to strengthen transparency of decision making and make more timely funding decisions; and to enhance the governance of the fund through better functioning Advisory and Review Boards. The governance bodies were subsequently reconstituted and convened regularly, stimulating active participation in strategy formulation and project evaluations by key constituencies.

NGO partners were encouraged to submit project proposals guided by clearly defined strategic, thematic and geographic priorities, while OCHA invested additional resources in identifying and building the capacity of Afghan NGOs. Consequently, 42 per cent of ERF funds were allocated to national NGOs, and 58 per cent to international NGOs. Out of 97 submitted proposals (US$32 million), 31 projects (US$9.1 million) were approved.

The ERF provided lifesaving interventions targeting 292,715 vulnerable people in 2013. Twelve Afghan and thirteen International NGOs were equipped with the financial resources to implement projects in Water, Sanitation & Hygiene, Emergency Shelter/Non-food Items, Food Security and Agriculture, Nutrition, Health, protection and Education.

In 2013, the performance of the ERF secretariat improved dramatically with the time spent processing proposals reduced from three months to three weeks, and regular communication products such as the monthly funding update were issued. Consequently, donor confidence in the Fund was restored and fresh contributions were received by the ERF in the second half of 2013.

More than 76 per cent (22 out of 29 projects approved by 1 December 2013) of the ERF projects had already been visited once since inception, whilst 41 per cent (12 out of 29) had already been visited twice or more. The objective remains to visit all projects at least once during their project lifetime. The monitoring visits showed that the performance of Afghan NGO had improved significantly compared to previous years. Remote call monitoring strengthened the projects’ oversight system.

Strong networks with local and international NGOs, communities, community councils, Community Development Councils (CDCs) and the local government ensured timely and efficient implementation of emergency projects. Community involvement in the project selection and implementation process contributed to successful and uninterrupted implementation of projects. The courage and commitment of aid workers who worked in high-risk, insecure areas further increased the local communities’ support to the projects.


20

The participation of women was crucial to the success of ERF projects. In some cases, such as the Kabul Informal Settlements projects, the participation rate of women and girl reached 70 per cent. The ERF was actively used as a tool to reach women, as most projects made provision for adequately trained female staff and other modalities for making assistance available to the female population.

The involvement of community elders, in collaboration with local government, proved to be the best way to ensure transparent and effective targeting and implementation.

The Future of the ERF 2013 saw further work to explore the rationale for establishing a Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) in Afghanistan, based on the country context, an analysis of humanitarian funding and an OCHA HQ assessment mission, as well as consultations with stakeholders in Kabul and Geneva. Three important conditions were identified as in place for a CHF. First, a strong Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP) process now in its second year provides a tool to inform prioritized funding decisions on humanitarian response. Second, the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) has been successfully restarted and donor confidence restored- in humanitarian pooled fund governance at country level. Third, the CHF’s establishment enjoys support from donors and the humanitarian community at large and is considered a logical and coherent step to adapt humanitarian funding tools to the evolving humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

The CHF for Afghanistan was approved by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator in early 2014. The CHF will include a reserve window, which will replace the ERF by responding to rapid-onset emergencies outside the CHF standard allocation rounds. At the request of the Advisory Board, the ERF will continue to operate until all funds on account have been disbursed. The implementation of these projects coupled with the completion of reporting and audit requirements should see the Fund formally closed by mid-2015. An initial standard allocation of the Afghanistan CHF is foreseen for April 2014.


21

Funds Allocation Overview

Norway

21%

Sweden

20%

Ireland

5%Denmark

16%

Multi

(Carry-

over)

3%

Canada

35%

Donor Contributions

(Paid)

Allocation to

International

NGOs

58%

Allocation to

National

NGOs

42%

Allocation by Recipients

Central

10%

Eastern

35%

Southern

12%

Northern

5%

Central

Highlands

12%

Northeastern

2%

Western

13% Multi Region

11%

Allocation by Region


22

No Agency Type of Services Person Men Women Boys Girls Gender Marker

1 ASAARO WASH 6,500 3,158 2,707 337 297 1

2 NCRO WASH 9,780 3,694 3,829 1,039 1,217 1

3 SRP WASH 3,300 1,194 1,283 445 378 2a

4 SORA WASH 1,600 681 624 146 149 2a

5 ADEO WASH 6,700 2,956 3,043 355 346 2a

6 HRDA WASH 10,261 4,592 4,499 670 500 1

7 Afghanaid WASH 21711 4,342 4,589 6,400 6,380 1

8 RI WASH 14748 6,129 6,512 996 1,111 2a

9 HRDA WASH 9,100 3,861 4,396 437 406 1

Sub-total WASH 83,700 30,608 31,483 10,825 10,784

10 DRC ES/NFI 33,000 16,035 13,745 1,712 1,509 1

11 NRC ES/NFI 5,400 2,040 2,114 574 672 1

12 NRC ES/NFI 2,665 964 1,036 360 305 2a

13 NPO/RRAA ES/NFI 1,358 578 530 124 126 2a

14 WSTA ES/NFI 1,600 706 727 85 83 2a

15 INTERSOS ES/NFI 718 320 316 46 36 2a

16 ACF ES/NFI 70,000 28,431 29,804 5,980 5,784 2a

Sub-total ES/NFI 114,741 49,074 48,271 8,881 8,515

17 Alpistan Protection 400 151 157 43 50 1

18 Halo Trust Protection 10,500 4,455 5,073 504 468 1

19 SHAO Protection 2,000 972 833 104 91 2a

20 NCRO Protection 2,460 929 963 261 306 2a

21 WCC Protection 6,120 2,214 2,379 826 701 2a

Sub-total Protection 21,480 8,721 9,404 1,737 1,617

22 CG FSAC 7,200 3,066 2,808 656 670 1

23 Medair FSAC 10,000 4,411 4,542 530 517 1

24 ACF FSAC 10,000 4,458 4,402 645 495 1

Sub-total FSAC 27,200 11,935 11,752 1,831 1,681

25 Emergency Health 15,800 6,417 6,727 1,350 1,306 2a

26 Emergency Health 8,000 3,325 3,532 540 603 2a

27 NRDOAW/ ASCYWO

Health 4,000 1,697 1,932 192 178 2a

Sub-total Health 27,800 11,439 12,192 2,082 2,087

28 AWARD/ ASCYWO

Nutrition 3,226 0 3,226

2b

29 PU-AMI Nutrition 550 208 215 58 68 2a

30 ACF Nutrition 6993 2,530 2,718 944 801 2a

Sub-total Nutrition 10,769 2,738 6,159 1,002 870

31 BEST Education 1,372 400 372 350 250 2a

Sub-total Education 1,372 400 372 350 250

Total 287,062 114,915 119,634 26,709 25,804


23

Glossary ACF: Action Contre la Faim

ADEO: Afghanistan Development and Education Organization

AFN: Afghani Currency

Alpistan Afghanistan : A branch of Alpistan ONLUS (no profit NGO in Italian)

ANDMA : Afghan National Disaster Management Authority

AOG: Armed Opposition Group

ARCS: Afghan Red Crescent Society

ASAARO : Afghan Social and Agriculture Affairs Rehabilitation Organization

ASCYWO: Assistance and Save the Children, Youths and Women Organization

AWARD : Afghan Women Association for Rehabilitation and Development

BEST: Basic Education and Employable Skills Training

CBO: Community Based Organization

CDCs: Community Development Councils

CERF: Central Emergency Response Fund

CFW: Cash for Work

CHF: Common Humanitarian Fund

CG: Caritas Germany

DRC: Danish Refugee Council

ERF: Emergency Response Fund

FSAC: Food Security and Agriculture Cluster

GBV: Gender-Based Violence

HC: Humanitarian Coordinator

HCT: Humanitarian County Team

HRDA: Human Resources Development Agency

HRF: Humanitarian Response Funds

HRT: Humanitarian Regional Team

IDPs: Internally Displace People

IOM: International Organization for Migration

IP: Implementing Partner

NCRO: New Consultancy and Relief Organisation

NGO: Non-Government Organization

NPO/RRAA : Norwegian Project Office/Rural Rehabilitation for Afghanistan

NRC: Norwegian Refugee Council

NRDOAW: Nawayee Rehabilitation Association for Afghanistan

OCHA; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affaires

OCT: Operational Coordination Team

PU-AMI: Première Urgence – Aide Médicale Internationale

RI: Relief International

SHAO: Social and Humanitarian Assistance Organization

SORA: Solidarity Organization for Rehabilitation of Afghanistan

SRP: Shahrukhi Rehabilitation Project

UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

WASH: Water Sanitation and Health

WCC: War Child Canada

WSTA: Watan Social Technical Services Association

Emergency Response Fund – Afghanistan Afghanistan - … Report 2013 ERF... · Emergency Response Fund – Afghanistan Annual Report 2013 3 Executive Summary The Afghanistan ERF

Documents