common humanitarian f - ocha sudan common... · 2012 south sudan common humanitarian fund ... **...

Common Humanitarian Fund 2012

Annual ReportSouth Sudan

2012 South Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund Organisations receiving CHF funding in 2012: ACF-USA, ACTED, ADRA, AMURT International, ARC, AWODA, BCDA, BRAC, CARE International, CCM, CUAMM, CDoT, CMA, CMD, Concern Worldwide, COSV, CRADA, DDG, FAO, FHSS, GOAL, Horn Relief, IMC-UK, Intermon Oxfam, Intersos, IOM, IRC, IRW, LCED, MAG, Malaria Consortium, ManiTese, Medair, Mercy Corps, Merlin, NCA, NHDF, NPA, NRC, NVPF, Oxfam GB, PCO, Relief International, Samaritan’s purse, SCISS, Solidarites International, SPEDP, SSUDA, Tearfund, THESO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIDO, UNKEA, UNOPS, VSF-Suisse, VSF-Belgium, VSF-Germany, WFP, WHO, World Relief, WV South Sudan.

Cover photos: UNICEF, UN/Toby Lanzer, UNDP/Brian Sokol, UNICEF/Brian Sokol, WFP/Ph Herzog, MercyCorps/Mathieu Rouquette Design and layout: Karen Kelleher Carneiro

OCHA South Sudan wishes to acknowledge the contributions made in the preparation of this document, particularly by United Nations agencies, cluster coordinators and co-coordinators, cluster M&R specialists, non–governmental organizations, UNDP South Sudan and the Multi- Partner Trust Fund office.

For additional information: www.unocha.org/south-sudan/ [email protected] Produced by OCHA South Sudan May 2013

COMMON HUMANITARIAN FUND

SOUTH SUDAN

2012 Annual Report

JONGLEI

UPPER NILE

UNITY

WARRAP

WESTERNEQUATORIA

EASTERN EQUATORIA

WESTERNBAHR EL GHAZAL

CENTRALEQUATORIA

NORTHERNBAHR

EL GHAZAL

SOUTHDARFUR

EASTDARFUR

NORTHDARFUR

NORTHKORDOFAN

SOUTHKORDOFAN

BLUE NILE

GEDAREF

El Obeid

Kadugli

Al Fashir

Aweil

Torit

Bentiu

Kwajok

Rumbek

Malakal

Juba

DEMOCRATICREPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

UGANDA

ETHIOPIA

KENYA

CENTRALAFRICANREPUBLIC

SUDAN

WHITE NILE

SENNAR

LAKES

Gore

GuluArua

Buta

Kosti

Mendi

Mbale

Watsa

Kitale

Dilling

Ar Rahad

An Nahud

Niangara

AdDuwaym

Wad Madani

Al Gadarif

Dembi Dolo

Begi

Lira

Barah

Kutum

Gimbi

Hoima

Bunia

Wamba

AzileDungu

Sinjah

Shuwak

Sennar

Mellit

Soroti

Kitgum

Andudu

Isirio

Titule

Maridi

Talawdi

Es Suki

Sawdiri

Masindi

Faradje

Tandalti

Ad Daein

Mungbere

AbuZabad

Al Muglad

Al Hawatah

Bafwasende

Ar Rusayris

UmmRuwabah

Wau

Bor

Yambio

Yei

Ezo

Ayod

Waat

Renk

Raja Leer

Adok

Tonj

Boma

Nasir

Pibor

Akobo

Oriny

Mayom

Yirol

LafonMundri

Kapoeta

Pochalla

Gogrial

Tambura

Terekeka

Chukudum

War-Awar

Kajo-Keji

Old Fangak

Lui

Muni

Atar

Akun

Akot

Nyal

Dajo

Koch

Tali

Jikou

Radom

Narus

Magwi

Liria

Mvolo

Thiet

Kangi

Kodok

Melut

Churi

Amadi

Nzara

Maiwut

Naandi

Shambe Kongor

Abwong

Gerger

Ikotos

Pageri

Juaibor

Cueibet

Ganylel

Awerial

Wanding

Kuajiena

Athidway

Marial-Lou

Riangnhom

Likuangole

Duk Fadiat

Boro Medina

Deim Zubeir

Source Yubo

Padak/Baidit

Marial-Baai

Mangalla

Li Rangu

MankienTuralei

Walgak

Akuem

Pajok

Warrap

Tonga

Lodwar

Kolowa

Kakuma

Lokichar

Lokitaung

Lokichoggio

Obo

Zémio

Djéma

M'BokiBambouti

Nimule

ABYEI

Nyala

The information shown on this map does not imply official recognition or endorsement of and physical,political boundaries or feature names by the United Nations or other collaborative organizations. UN OCHA and affiliated organizations are not liable for damages of any kind related to the use of thisdata. Users noting errors or omissions are encouraged to contact [email protected].

** Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan not yet determined.** Final status of Abyei area not yet determined.

0 100 200 km

Country Capital

State Capitals

Populated place

Rivers

Lakes

Undetermined boundary*

International boundaries

State boundaries

Abeyi region**

REFERENCE MAP

States, state capitals and major settlements in South Sudan May 2013

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Information on contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Overview of 2012 CHF allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CHF monitoring and management in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Summary of cluster strategies and achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Coordination and Common Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Emergency Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Food Security and Livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Logistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mine Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Multisector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Non-Food Items and Emergency Shelter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Challenges and the way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Annexes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Annex1: List of advisory board members in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Annex 2: Contact list of CHF team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Annex 3: FAQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Annex 4: CAP funding by cluster ($ million). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Annex 5: CHF projects’ results indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Annex 6: List of acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Annex 7: Useful links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

TABLE of CONTENTS

83% High priority

13% Medium priority

4% Low priority

KEY DRIVERS OF THE CRISIS

CHF FUNDING BY CAP PRIORITY

Sou

rces

: Hum

anita

rian

Fund

ing

Uni

t, FT

S, F

EW

SN

ET,

OC

HA

, WFP

Political tensions with Sudan flared with military confronta-tions in March-April 2012 further straining the fragile economic situation.

Food insecurity deteriorated doubling the number of people in need of food assistance from 1.2 to 2.4 million.

Refugee arrival strained the humanitarian response as 175,000 people, four times as many as anticipated, arrived.

Internal conflict displaced 190,000 people and flooding affected 340,000 across the country.

Government capacity contracted as a result of austerity measures making aid organizations providers of first resort.

Operating environment remained challenging and costly due to poor infrastructure and the volatile security environment.

Humanitarian needs in South Sudan increased significantly in 2012 as the country faced major challenges, including the continued arrival of refugees from Sudan, violence related displacement, floods and worsening food security. The impact of the oil production shut down in January 2012 was felt heavily through-out the country with austerity measures deepening vulnerability. The CHF supported the humanitarian response in hot spot areas in the following seven states: Jonglei, Lakes, Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Unity, Upper Nile, Warrap and Western Bahr el Ghazal.

Education

Non-food items / shelter

Logistics

Water, sanitation, hygiene

Food security (livelihoods)

Health

Protection

Multisector

Nutrition

Coordination

Emergency telecoms

Mine Action

CHF FUNDING AND PROPORTION OF TOTAL SECURED

27%14.8m

27%

5.5m 25%

12.5m 22%

12.9m 21%

24.4m 21%

10.6m 20%

1.6m 16%

0.2m 14%

1.6m 4%

9.5m

40%7.0m

59%7.8m

Carry-over to CHF 2013

118m

113m

108m

5m

Allocations

Allocations and fees

Total donor deposits

SITUATION OVERVIEW

SEASONAL EVENTS AND CHF ALLOCATIONS

Main harvest

Floods

Preposition. Supply

UTILISATION OF CHF CONTRIBUTIONS (US$)

HIGHLIGHTS OF RESULTSCoordination & Common Services: 93 security assessment missions conducted.

Education: 47,296 emergency-a�ected children and youth attending temporary learning spaces.

Emergency Telecommunications: 449 UN and NGO sta� members trained on ETC services usage.

Food Security & Livelihoods: 87% of 1.1m people targeted by CHF reached.

Health: 99% of disease outbreaks investigated within 72 hours.

Logistics: 7,371 MT of humanitarian cargo moved.

Mine Action: 532,769 square meters of hazardous areas cleared and released to local communities.

Multisector: 25,081 of returnees assisted to return and over 170,000 refugees provided with NFI kits.

Nutrition: 42,552 children severely acutely malnourished children treated.

Protection: 3,478 people receiving protection advice/assistance.

WASH: 74% of 331,180 targeted acutely vulnerable provided with sustained access to safe water supply.

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec JanOct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Feb Mar

Violence incidence pa ttern

Standardallocation 1

CHFreserve 1

CHFreserve 2

Standardallocation 2

CHFreserve 4

Hunger gap

Dry season

Main harvest

Dry season

Floods

CHFreserve 3

Main rainy season

Planting season

CHF 2012 DASHBOARD

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 2012 3

When South Sudan won its hard-fought independence in July 2011, the international community rallied to show its solidarity with the new nation. In one of the clearest manifestations of this support, donors contributed gener-ously to the South Sudan consolidated appeal (CAP) to meet the needs of vulnerable people. In 2012, partners participating in the CAP received US$788 million against overall requirements of $1.18 billion to save lives and build resilience across the country. The funding channeled through the South Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) represented 15 percent of financing for projects in the CAP and by the end of the year the CHF was the largest fund of this type in the world.

By bringing the aid community together to decide where to direct shared financial resources, the CHF has boosted the effectiveness of humanitarian action, delivering value well beyond the dollars allocated to individual projects.

The CHF has helped the Humanitarian Country Team translate its vision and strategy into real progress on the ground. It has allowed clusters to get time-sensitive projects up and running – especially important given the impact of the rainy season on the work of aid agencies. It has also strengthened coordination at all levels, for example by fostering joint decision-making. As this report shows, the fund also provided invaluable flexibility to respond to breaking crises over the course of the year, including the large-scale arrival of refugees from Sudan.

Over the course of the year, the CHF team has continuously sought to make the fund transparent and account-able. The purpose of this first annual report is to provide an overview on the fund: how it works and supports key objectives of the CAP. The report also explains the role played by humanitarian stakeholders in promoting a strategic and evidence-based allocation of resources and presents some of the key achievements of clusters, including the establishment of a monitoring and reporting framework. The section on challenges and way for-ward offers a critical reflection on the fund and suggestions on how it can work even better in the coming years. One priority is to continue to speed up allocations, making sure resources reach people in need, on time. Other priorities are to strengthen risk management and monitoring of the CHF’s impact on communities so that we can learn from past experience and deliver better programmes.

Partners in South Sudan are fortunate to have a strong cluster system and an engaged and well-informed donor community. I would like to thank all the people and organizations who have contributed to the success of the CHF in its first year, especially the members of the Advisory Board and the clusters. I am privileged to chair the CHF and particularly lucky to have a strong team working on the fund both at OCHA and UNDP. The achieve-ments and lessons of 2012 set the stage for an exciting year ahead.

Toby Lanzer Humanitarian Coordinator

FOREWORD

Ph

oto

: UN

DP

/Bri

an S

oko

l

Further information on the CHF is available on the

following websites:

http://www.unocha.org/south-sudan/financing/

common-humanitarian-fund

http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSS10

and on the UNOCHA South Sudan Facebook page.


The South Sudan CHF was established in February 2012. During its first year of operation the fund re-ceived contributions from seven donors totalling just over $118 million, allowing it to support 180 projects across the country’s ten states. This made it the larg-est fund of its kind in the world in 2012.

The CHF played an important role in providing fund-ing to jump-start operations at the beginning of the year, when funding was low and aid agencies had little time to pre-position supplies before the rainy season. It also provided a funding lifeline to NGOs in the wake of the refugee crisis which saw the arriv-al of four times the number of refugees anticipated by partners for 2012. Throughout the year, the CHF helped fill gaps in the response and prevent a dis-ruption of activities during the transition to long term funding models, particularly in the health sector. In support of the strategy outlined in the CAP, the CHF provided flexible funding to ensure coordinated pro-curement, warehousing, transport and delivery of life-saving supplies, allowing partners to reach peo-ple in crisis.

The CHF targeted its funding towards “hot spots areas”, namely Jonglei, Lakes, Norther Bahr el Ghazal, Unity, Upper Nile, Warrap and Western Bahr el Ghazal.

The CHF has provided value beyond its financial re-sources. The fund has helped strengthen the central role of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in setting a coherent strategy for the response and influenc-ing programming. It has also empowered the cluster system by delegating authority to formulate strate-gies and response plans. The inclusiveness of the cluster approach, with UN agencies and NGO part-ners co-leading the clusters, has put humanitarian organizations on an equal footing in the manage-ment of the fund, bolstering partnership within South the aid community. In early 2012, several of the in-novations introduced by the South Sudan CHF were recognised by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) “Champions” and could serve as good prac-tice for other countries.

A key priority for the CHF in 2012 was to establish an accountability framework. The first step in this direction was to deploy monitoring and reporting (M&R) specialists to eight main clusters receiving CHF funds. The preliminary results from this initia-tive are positive, showing that the CHF has made solid progress in establishing a common methodol-ogy and shared tools to measure results. However, the roll-out of the policy is still at an early stage and

significant efforts are needed from clusters for it to succeed, in particular to establish stronger links with the CAP targets and ensure that monitoring is used to improve the quality of programme delivery.

This Annual Report provides a comprehensive over-view of the results and challenges of the fund in its first year and is intended as a resource for donors and other partners to further strengthen humanitar-ian financing and action in South Sudan. While the report covers CHF allocations disbursed between March and December 2012, the overview of cluster results goes up to March 2013, when many projects closed. Finally, the report identifies recommenda-tions to continue to strengthen the governance of the fund, to improve the quality and timing of the allo-cation process, the speed of disbursements and to ensure that the fund adds real value to the work of the humanitarian community.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Source: South Sudan CHF TS 2012

Onward Transport Assistance (OTA)IOM provides stranded returnees with

onward transportantion assistance to reachtheir final destination. IOM provides OTA

by air barge, rail and road

SUDAN

CENTRALAFRICAN

REPUBLIC

DEMOCRATICREPUBLIC OFTHE CONGO UGANDA

KENYA

ETHIOPIA

JUBA

Western Bahrel Ghazal

Northern Bahrel Ghazal

Western Equatoria

Central Equatoria

Eastern Equatoria

Jonglei

Lakes

Warrap

Upper Nile

Unity

34m31%

17m16%

11m10%

15m14%

13m12%

5m5%

4m4%

4m4%

3m2%

2m2%

Abyei

CHF allocations by state 2012

CHF standard allocation priorities in 2012

• Pre-positioning of emergency life-saving core pipelines to ensure essential common services and logistics support.

• Supporting emergency safety-nets in hot-spot areas with large numbers of vulnerable people including displaced, returnees and high level of malnutrition.

• The food aid operation and refugee programme were ineligible for standard allocations as CHF funding would have limited impact on beneficiaries, given the large overall budget. For these operations, the HC reached out to bilateral donors. (However, the CHF reserve was used during the course of the year to respond to the large-scale arrival of refugees from Sudan)

VIOLENCE, FOOD INSECURITY AND REFUGEES

KENYA

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

Abyei

4’

16’12’

112’65’

UGANDADRC

SUDAN

ETHIOPIA

CentralEquatoria

Eastern EquatoriaWesternEquatoria

WesternBahr el Ghazal

NorthernBahr el Ghazal

Lakes

UnityWarrap

Jonglei

UpperNile

76 - 100%

Cross-border incident!

!

% of food insecure people per county 2012

Inter/intra-communal, others

51 - 75%

26 - 50%

0 - 25%

2’

Violence related incidentsand refugees in 2012

Refugees as of 31 Dec ‘12’ = number per 1,000

CAR

Abyei

Violence, food insecurity and refugees in 2012

Source: OCHA, UNHCR, Food Security and Livelihood Cluster

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 20126

2012 CAP strategic objectives

1. Prepare for and respond to emergencies on time.

2. Reduce food insecurity.

3. Maintain frontline services in hot spot areas.

4. Ramp up support for returnees during transit.

5. Strengthen protection for at-risk communities.

6. Reduce costs and improving the operational environment.

7. Improve coordination.

CHF innovationsWhen creating the CHF, partners wanted the fund to boost

humanitarian action by improving predictability, accountabil-

ity, leadership and partnership. They introduced innovations

such as removing cluster ceilings for allocations, promoting

evidence-based allocations, using cost-efficiency as a selec-

tion criterion and ensuring that project portfolios were selected

“blindly”, i.e. without knowing which organization had put the

proposal forward. The deployment of the M&R specialists to the

clusters boosted capacity to measure the results achieved by

the clusters with CHF funding. All of these initiatives contribut-

ed to a more strategic and inclusive approach to the manage-

ment of the fund.

Humanitarian needs in South Sudan increased sig-nificantly in 2012 as a consequence of the security, political and economic situation. The country faced major challenges including the continued arrival of refugees from Sudan, violence-related displace-ment, floods and worsening food insecurity. The priority areas for humanitarian action were Jonglei, Lakes, Northern Bahr El Ghazal, Unity, Upper Nile, Warrap and Western Bahr El Ghazal states.

Political tensions with Sudan flare up In January 2012, political tension with Sudan led South Sudan to shut down oil production, the source of 98 per cent of Government revenue. As the Government’s capacity to deliver basic social services contracted, aid organizations increasingly found themselves as the primary providers of basic social services. The political stalemate culminated in military confrontations in March-April 2012 which added to overall humanitarian needs and strained the already fragile economic situation.

Humanitarian needs exceed projectionsSome of South Sudan’s challenges in 2012 far ex-ceeded projections, with worst case scenarios triggered early in the year. Due to a poor harvest, soaring fuel prices, inflation and border closures the number of food insecure people doubled in 2012. By the end of the year, 2.3 million people were receiving food assistance.

Over 175,000 refugees fleeing conflict in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan states arrived in South Sudan in 2012, four times more than quadrupling the original projection of 40,000 new arrivals. The scale of needs strained partners’ capacity to provide as-sistance and insecurity at the border with Sudan and overcrowding in the settlements posed serious

concerns for the refugee response. Meanwhile, inter-communal violence continued to cause dis-placement, with 190,000 people uprooted from their homes.

Around 132,000 South Sudanese returned from Sudan during the year. While the pace of returns was slower than expected, the majority of returnees were concentrated in locations lacking access to ade-quate services or land and absorbing them became a challenge. By the end of the year some 20,000 re-turnees were stranded in transit inside South Sudan. Flooding also generated humanitarian needs, affect-ing 340,000 people in ten states.

Aid agencies step up to meet needsAgainst this backdrop of increasing vulnerability, aid organizations scaled up their operations. The chal-lenging environment required innovative strategies, especially to pre-position supplies in deep field lo-cations ahead of the rainy season. Aid agencies also worked to improve emergency response and coordi-nation, increasing livelihoods support and bolstering resilience at the community level.

In light of increased needs, the CAP was revised from $776 million to $1.18 billion. Donors responded positively to the revised strategy and by the end of the year the CAP was 67 per cent funded.

CONTEXT

Context

The scope of the crisis

42%

17%

16%

10%

8%

4% 3%

232m

118m

113m

40m

USA

CHF

ECHO

CERF

49.7 UK

20 Netherlands

19.1 Sweden

12.1 Norway

9.3 Australia

5.1 Denmark

2.9 Ireland

2012 CHF donors ($ million)

Donor contributions to CHFs around the world Jan-Dec 2012 ($ million)

Top contributors to CAP 2012 ($ million)

Source: UNDP MPTF Gateway

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50 Donor deposits

Allocations

JanuaryDecemberNovemberOctoberSeptemberAugustJulyJuneMayAprilMarchFebruaryJanuary

Mill

ions

Allocations and donor deposits ($ million)

Source: UNDP MPTF Gateway

Source: South Sudan CHF Technical Secretariat (allocations); UNDP MPTF Office (donor deposits)

DRC

90 .4m

Sudan

79 .9m

Somalia

71m

CAR

5 .4m

South Sudan

118 .3m

Source: CHF TS Jan. 13


Despite continuing global financial pressures and competing priorities generated by crises around the world, donors provided solid support to the South Sudan CHF during its first year. Seven donors con-tributed $118 million making the South Sudan CHF the best funded pooled fund of the year and a key funding channel for responding to the needs iden-tified in the 2012 CAP. By the end of 2012 the CHF was the second largest donor for projects in the CAP.

Between them, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom donated 75 per cent of the total contributions to the South Sudan CHF. The other

contributors were Australia, Denmark, Ireland and Norway.

The majority of donor contributions were deposited in the first and third quarters of the year, which en-abled the fund to make two allocations of some $40 million. The first allocation took place in March 2012, before the onset of the rainy season and the second in September before the beginning of the dry sea-son. Steady deposits of contributions enabled the humanitarian community to use the CHF reserve to respond to emerging needs throughout the year.

INFORMATION on CONTRIBUTORS

Information on Contributors

40%

37%

23%

2012 allocations per allocation type

1st round standard allocation

2nd round standard allocation

CHF reserve

Source: CHF TS Jan 13

54%10%

33%

3%

2012 CAP funding ($ million)

Bilateral and other funding sources $629.7

CHF contribution $118.3

CERF allocations $40.0

Funding gap $388.9

Source: FTS and CHF TS Jan 13

Western Equatoria

WBeG

Central Equatoria

Eastern Equatoria

Lakes

NBeG

Jonglei

Warrap

Unity

Upper Nile 31%

2%

16%

14%

12%

10%

5%

4%

4%

34m17m

14.8m

13.3m

10.9m

5.3m

4.3m

4.2m

2.7m

2.2m2%

22% 24.4m

ETCCCS

Mine ActionProtectionNFI & ES

EducationFSL

NutritionHealthWASH

LogisticsMultisector 22%

14%

12%

12%

10%

9%

7%

6%

5%

1%

1%

24.4m14.8m

12.9m

12.5m

10.6m

9.5m

7.8m

7.0m

5.5m

1.6m

1.6m

0.2m

2012 CHF allocation per cluster 2012 CHF allocation per state

Source: South Sudan CHF TS


CHF contribution to overall funding The CHF contribution to the CAP was the second largest after that of the US and was followed by the contributions from ECHO and CERF.

The CHF allocations helped address some of the funding imbalances among humanitarian partners by prioritizing underfunded clusters. For those clusters able to mobilize resources from bilateral donors, the CHF provided top-up funding to bridge critical gaps.

To ensure maximum impact of CHF allocations, over 80 per cent of CHF funding was allocated to high priority projects in the CAP.

Breakdown of CHF allocations Standard and reserve allocationsThe South Sudan CHF has two allocation windows, the standard allocation and the reserve mechanism. Standard allocations are used to channel the bulk of CHF resources to priority projects in the CAP. The reserve mechanism is used for rapid and flexible allocation of funds to meet unforeseen needs or crit-ical gaps in the humanitarian response.

In 2012, the CHF allocated $108 million to 180 proj-ects. 77 per cent of this funding was allocated through the two standard allocations, $43.9 and $39.9 million respectively. 23 per cent, $24.6 million, was allocated through the CHF reserve. Of the remainder, around $4.8 went to administrative fees and a balance of around $5 million was carried over to 2013.

The overall strategy for the two standard allocations was to ensure that clusters received funding for high-priority activities in hot-spot areas, in line with CAP priorities. Pre-positioning of supplies before the rainy season was a top priority.

80 per cent of the CHF reserve allocations went to partners scaling up the response to the arrival of refugees from Sudan in the first half of 2012. In the health sector, partners providing frontline services received funding to sustain activities while funding streams for the national health system were transi-tioning to longer-term mechanisms and NGO fund-ing had dropped sharply. Finally, the reserve was used to support projects facing critical funding gaps as a result of rising fuel prices and inflation.

Allocations per agency typeUN agencies received the largest portion of CHF funding, securing 58 percent of available fund-ing for 47 projects. These included the core pipe-lines, which provide services to the humanitarian community as a whole. International and national NGOs received 42 per cent of CHF funding, spread across 133 projects. The relatively low level of fund-ing directed to national NNGOs – only $5.3 million - highlights the limited reach of the fund to national partners.

CHF allocations per cluster and state Given the higher than expected number of refugee arrivals and a steady flow of returnees, 22 per cent of CHF resources went to multisector projects respond-ing to needs among refugees and returnees and host communities. With support to other clusters providing life-saving services, the CHF also ensured an integrat-ed package of assistance to people in need. Finally, to maintain and expand physical access for the human-itarian community in crisis areas, the CHF supported the logistics cluster. This was particularly important given that up to 60 per cent of South Sudan is cut off during the rainy season.

OVERVIEW of 2012 CHF ALLOCATIONS

Overview of 2012 CHF Allocations

Source: OCHA FTS Jan 13

Source: South Sudan CHF TS

58%

37%

5%

2012 allocations per agency type

UN $63,193,599 47 projects

INGOs $39,880,368106 projects

NNGOs $5,366,599 27 projects

CHF allocations to projects in the CAP priority level

83%

13%4%

High

Medium

Low

CHF allocations and deposits Jan 2012-Jan 2013

Dry season Dry seasonMain rainy season

Cumulative allocations

Allocation

0

40,000,000

80,000,000

120,000,000

OctJulAprJan 12

Donor deposits covered 100% of the allocation within the first month enabling rapid disbursement.

Donor deposits stretched over 4 months to cover the second round allocation leading to a prolonged disbursement.Cumulative deposits

DepositDisbursement

NovAugMayFeb DecSepJunMar Jan 13

Source: UNDP MPTF Gateway; CHF TS

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 2012 9Overview of 2012 CHF Allocations

In terms of geographic priorities, the highest por-tion of CHF funding was allocated to hot-spot areas hosting large numbers of vulnerable people. Unity and Upper Nile were prioritised because of the ref-ugee response. In the other priority states, the CHF targeted support to front-line services for people displaced by conflict or flooding, along with new re-turnees and host communities. Although not hot spot areas, Central, Eastern and Western Equatoria states and Western Bahr el Ghazal State also received some funding from the CHF, primarily to ensure the provision of basic health services.

Timeline for allocations and disbursement The deposits by donors of CHF contributions in February allowed the completion of the first stan-dard allocation in March and the full disbursement of funding in April, thus leaving little time to partners to prepare ahead of the rainy season. The disburse-ment of the second standard allocation in September stretched over four months as two donor contribu-tions were only deposited at the end of the year. The four reserve allocations were made in May, June, July and December with disbursement completed within a month.

Disbursements from the Multi Partner Trust Fund of-fice (MPTF) to UN agencies, including to UNDP for NGO projects, were completed within three days of the submission of the funds transfer request. At each allocation, disbursement of funds to NGOs was pri-oritised to ensure organizations without the ability to “pre-finance” projects received money as quickly as possible. When donor deposits were delayed, allo-cations to UN agencies were made in installments.

UNDP acted as the Participating UN Organization (PUNO) for NGO projects funded by the CHF. It was the first time that the UNDP country office undertook contracting and fund disbursement for CHF projects

and the first allocation round took longer than antic-ipated, with average contracting and disbursement times of seven and five working days from the com-plete submission of documents from partners. For the second round allocation, UNDP was able to re-duce the contracting time to five working days and faster processing of contracts and fund disburse-ment is a priority for the office in 2013.

The disbursement of CHF allocations involves sever-al partners and good visibility of where each project is in the process is key to preventing delays. A prior-ity for the CHF Technical Secretariat in 2013 will be to set up a database to track projects and improve visibility on the timeframe of disbursements.

CERF/CHF complementarity During 2012, CHF funds were mobilized in con-junction with grants from the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).

In February 2012, as funding for the humanitarian response in South Sudan was slow to materialize, the CERF allocated $20 million from its underfunded window, which was used to procure and distribute relief stocks before the onset of the rainy season. The CERF funding was complemented by a CHF alloca-tion in March 2012 supporting the common transport service (CTS) and the Logistics Cluster – the back-bone of the humanitarian operation and one of the most underfunded sectors – along with front line ser-vice providers in deep field locations.

In July 2012, at the height of the refugee arrivals from Sudan, pooled funding supported the scale up of the refugee response. A CERF rapid response grant of $20 million supported UN programmes in education, food aid, health, nutrition, and protection. To com-plement this, the CHF reserve allocated $10 million to NGO projects in critical sectors not covered by Lesson learned

on 2012 standard allocations

Given the significant impact

of the rainy season on

access to remote areas of

South Sudan, the allocation

timeline is key to the

effectiveness of the CHF. In

2012, the first standard allo-

cation was completed too

close to the rains. Adjusting

the timeline to have the first

allocation round completed

by 1 January would allow

the fund to take better

advantage of the window

of opportunity offered by

the dry season to allow

due time for procure-

ment, transportation and

pre-positioning of supplies.

The CHF Advisory Board is

reviewing this possibility.


the CERF. To decide where funds should go, UNHCR prepared a concept note outlining priority activities in each cluster which was not covered by the CERF grant. Cluster coordinators helped UNHCR vet proj-ect proposals in the Peer Review Teams. The co-operation between UNHCR and clusters in manag-ing pooled funding to the refugee response allowed UNHCR to benefit from the expertise of clusters and improving information-sharing on the refugee re-sponse among partners.

With regard to other funding streams, the level of funding from other sources was a key consideration when deciding on CHF allocations.

Sub-grant funding Some of the partners funded in 2012 sub-granted part of their funding to other organizations including government line ministries. Altogether, 18 projects (15 UN agency and three international NGO projects) sub-granted $11.6 million of the allocated $24 million. Some of the main reasons for sub-granting were to:

❖ Build technical capacities and coordination skills of national partners.

❖ Ensure better alignment of activities as per nation-al priorities and global standards.

❖ Sub-contract part of the implementation of a proj-ect to specialized organizations.

❖ Mobilize resources for cluster partners.

The CHF allows sub-granting only when the pass-through agency adds meaningful value in the pro-cess, such as enhanced technical guidance or increased monitoring, reporting and evaluation ca-pacity of the implementing partner.

Administrative Agent financial summaryThe South Sudan CHF 2012 annual financial report by the Administrative Agent (AA) is available on the fol-lowing website: http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSS10.

As detailed in the report, by the end of 2012, the South Sudan CHF received $118.3 million from seven contributors. $97.6 million was transferred to recipi-ent UN agencies (“Participating Organizations”) in 2012. The participating organizations reported $50.7 million in expenditure, bringing the delivery rate as of 31 December 2012 to 52 per cent. The lower than expected delivery rate was due to the delay in the second standard allocation. The AA’s report covers January to December 2012 and as such does not in-clude the $14 million which was transferred in January 2013 to complete disbursement of funds allocated in September and December 2012.

Overview of 2012 CHF Allocations

Mainstreaming gender

In 2012, the IASC gender marker was not a compulsory criterion for CHF funding but

clusters nevertheless considered it and other cross-cutting issues such as environmen-

tal impact and HIV/AIDS when selecting projects. An overview of projects submitted for

CHF funding shows that most of the clusters attached gender marker scores to projects.

However, there have been challenges with ensuring a consistent approach in the applica-

tion of the gender marker to ensure that it is not a pro-forma exercise. The CHF has enabled

a systematic collection of sex and age disaggregated data by standardising CHF reporting

formats and ensuring that all output indicators are disaggregated. This has provided an

entry point for a meaningful gender analysis of cluster achievements and the impact of

the CHF. In 2013, the CHF turned the gender marker into a compulsory project selection

criterion. This measure should be matched by further efforts to roll out the gender marker

in CHF-funded projects.

Step 1: Development of the CHF allocation policy paper (12 days)The Technical Secretariat develops the CHF allocation policy paper in

consultation with the Advisory Board, the ISWG and the HCT.

Step 2: Launch of the allocation process (1 day)The HC releases the policy paper which outlines priorities for the allocation

and general criteria for project prioritisation, including 1) CAP priority level

and gender marker, 2) availability of funding from other donors (to ensure

sustainability), 3) value for money and 4) absorbtion capacity of the partner.

Step 3: Cluster consultations and review (16 days)Clusters initiate consultations with their partners on allocation priorities and

convene Peer Review Teams (PRT) which review funding proposals submit-

ted by cluster partners to asses adherence to cluster priorities and value for

money and rank each proposal. The recommended portfolio of projects is

submitted by the clusters to the CHF Technical Secretariat for a preliminary

technical review.

Step 4: Cluster defences to Advisory Board (4 days)Cluster coordinators and co-coordinators present and defend their proposed

portfolios before the CHF Advisory Board. Once the Board has made a deci-

sion the HC informs the clusters of the final funding recommendations.

Step 5: Final project submissions (5 days)Clusters address issues raised by the Board, and allocate funds to projects

according to cluster-defined criteria. The final portfolio of projects to be fund-

ed is submitted to the CHF TS for a thorough technical review to ensure that

the issues raised by the Board are adequately addressed.

Step 6: Approval by HC and acceptance by recipients (7 days)The HC issues allocation letters to authorize disbursement of funds.

Step 7: Disbursement of funds (8-15 days)with MPTF office disbursing the funding to PUNOs within 3-5 daysDisbursement of funds to UN agencies is processed by the Multi-Partner Trust

Fund (MPTF) Office in UNHQ. Disbursements to NGOs is processed by UNDP

South Sudan on the basis of signed contracts and submitted payment requests.

8 w

eeks

While the steps for emergency reserve allocations are the same, the process is compressed, with the full technical review happening before the Advisory Board decision on funding.

The allocation process


CHF monitoring mechanism and lessons learned Following the establishment of the CHF, the Advisory Board, in consultation with the HCT, agreed to strengthen the monitoring and reporting mechanisms of the fund and of the humanitarian re-sponse more broadly by adopting a two-pronged monitoring and reporting framework. The purpose of the framework was to monitor CHF-funded projects and strategic outcomes at the cluster level as reflected in the CAP.

The M&R framework used the CHF as an entry point to gather re-sults, lessons and good practices to improve programme delivery of clusters and boost clusters’ capacity to monitor and report on their results. Eight monitoring and reporting specialists on UNV contracts were recruited with CHF funding and deployed to the clusters which received the most CHF funds in 2012. OCHA also recruited an M&R officer to coordinate the roll-out of the framework and provide direct support to the four clusters without a specialist. In the last quarter of 2012, this group of professionals formed a monitoring and reporting working group to coordinate M&R activ-ities. The group works in close collaboration with the Inter-Sector Working Group (ISWG) and reports directly to the Humanitarian Coordinator. It focused its initial activities on setting-up the M&R mechanisms for the CHF and supporting the clusters in their on-going M&R efforts. This work is detailed in the summary of cluster strategies and achievements in this report.

Key results ❖ Aligning CHF standard indicators with the clusters’ CAP in-dicators, to improve measurement of CHF contributions to project achievements and improve coherence of reporting requirements.

❖ Setting up CHF reporting mechanisms which enabled collection and aggregation of mid-term and end-term data from project partners. High reporting rates (98 and 93 per cent respectively) demonstrated the commitment of clusters and their partners to report on the use of CHF funding, and to improve programming and the operation of the fund.

❖ Making 16 visits to CHF funded projects between October 2012 and March 2013 to improve the methodology for assessing the contributions of CHF projects to the overall achievements against the CAP and to feed into the continuing development of monitoring tools. The limited number of monitoring missions is explained by the fact that monitoring missions to CHF proj-ects started in the last quarter of 2012, when the M&R structure started.

❖ Boosting capacity on project design in clusters and among their partners via activities such as logframe clinics and support to project proposal development.

CHF MONITORING and MANAGEMENT in 2012

CHF Monitoring and Management

Humanitarian Coordinator: The Humanitarian Coordinator is respon-sible for the overall management of the CHF and provides strategic direction; mobilizes financial resources; defines the size and scope of each standard and reserve allocation; approves projects; authorizes disbursements; ensures resources are allocated in accordance with established procedures; and supervises the monitoring and evaluation of the humanitarian response.

CHF Advisory Board: The CHF Advisory Board provides guidance to the HC on management of the CHF and serves as a forum for discuss-ing strategic issues. The Board consists of two UN agency represen-tatives, representatives from the NGO Forum and the NGO Steering Committee, two contributing donor representatives and one non CHF contributing donor representative as an observer. OCHA and UNDP provide secretarial support to the Advisory Board.

CHF Technical Secretariat (joint OCHA and UNDP team): Under the supervision of the HC, the Technical Secretariat oversees the day-to-day operations of the CHF, including the programmatic and financial management of projects and oversight of the project management

cycle. The UNDP component of the Technical Secretariat is known as the “Managing Agent” for its role in the financial and programmatic management of the NGO project cycle.

Cluster Coordinators and Co-coordinators: Cluster coordinators and co-coordinators lead each cluster and help ensure a transparent and strategic CHF allocation process. They establish priorities, con-vene Peer Review Teams including UN Agencies and NGO partners to recommend projects for funding and are responsible for defending cluster allocation strategies before the CHF Advisory Board. They sup-port CHF monitoring and reporting by defining indicators and promot-ing common technical standards.

Multi-Partner Trust Fund: The UNDP Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) office, based in New York, is the Administrative Agent of the CHF. It receives, administers and manages contributions from donors, and disburses funds to the participating organizations in accordance with the decisions of the HC. The MPTF prepares the annual consolidated financial report and regular financial statements for the CHF donors and other stakeholders.

CHF roles and responsibilities


The experience in strengthening CHF M&R to date shows that:

❖ The support provided by the M&R specialists has been key as a catalyst to strengthen M&R activi-ties in the clusters and the CHF.

❖ The CHF offers useful leverage to help clusters strengthen M&R mechanisms and access qual-itative information on the impact of their pro-grammes. This effect has been visible at different levels: from putting M&R on the agenda and de-veloping clusters’ M&R systems, to facilitating the collection of disaggregated data to improve facil-itate a targeted response to differentiated needs.

❖ The two-pronged M&R framework sets an ambi-tious agenda which requires a carefully crafted strategy that builds on existing M&R systems in clusters and avoids a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

❖ The M&R working group is a key forum for collab-oration and exchange of experience and learn-ing across clusters, which can help address emerging issues such as improved gender anal-ysis and accountability to affected people.

A key step in continuing to roll out the framework will be to conduct more monitoring missions to look at the results of humanitarian action across differ-ent sectors in a specific area or among a specific group of beneficiaries.

Risk management and financial reporting The issue of risk management is at the heart of the CHF’s management and operation, and is ad-dressed by UNDP both at the time of contracting and of fund disbursement. UNDP rules make it man-datory to conduct a capacity assessment of NGO partners before contracting and fund disburse-ment, to assess project and financial management capacity and the track record of the organization receiving funds in terms of past implementation of activities. Partners are also asked to demonstrate previous capacity on reporting, financial manage-ment and implementation capacity, in addition to their legal registration in the country. Being the first year of the fund and due to the fact that the first standard allocation was made close to the begin-ning of the rainy season, UNDP used the existing capacity assessment for partners that had previ-ously received funding from the Sudan CHF for the 2012 first standard allocation. However, for all the new partners recommended by clusters, a fresh ca-pacity assessment was undertaken. Risk mitigation is done by breaking down the project budget into calendar quarters and paying the partner for only one quarter at a time. The subsequent payments are done only after the partner has reported on the previous advance and shown reasonable fund absorption, which should be around 80 per cent of the previously paid advance. Each project has to be audited by an independent external auditor at least once during its lifetime. As an additional risk

management component, projects with annual ex-penditures over $400,000 in any one calendar year have to be audited annually to ensure compliance with UNDP’s corporate regulations. UNDP will be conducting the audits of the 2012 CHF allocations in the course of 2013 since the majority of projects were completed in the year following the allocation.

Participating UN organizations and IOM provide the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office in UNHQ - the Administrative Agent for the CHF - certified finan-cial statements prepared in accordance with the reporting provisions of the South Sudan CHF TOR and the MOU. On this basis, the Administrative Agent prepares annual financial statements for the calendar year by 31 May of each year.

CHF management structure The management framework of the South Sudan CHF is based on the principles of leadership and partnership. The fund is a tool for the Humanitarian Coordinator to direct resources towards the most pressing priorities. The presence of NGO, UN and donor representatives on the CHF Advisory Board ensures that inclusive consultations on the strategic focus of allocations.

Bearing in mind the available financing, the Advisory Board decides on strategic priorities. Clusters are briefed about the available financing and the strategic priorities, and are empowered to consult the members of their clusters in order to for-mulate response plans. These are then considered by Peer Review Teams (PRTs).

The PRT review process ensures that projects rec-ommended for funding have gone through a solid technical review which considered: 1) alignment of the projects to the strategic focus of the allocation; 2) evidence of need; and 3) viability and cost effi-ciency of programmes.

Careful management of and within the clusters has allowed them to address some key issues. The ab-sence of cluster-specific envelopes at the outset of the allocation process promotes needs-based al-locations rather than a proportionate distribution of resources across sectors. And, while clusters are encouraged to present realistic portfolios of proj-ects targeting the most urgent needs, they are, at the same time, reminded that over-sized requests for funding would come at the expense of other clusters. The approach agreed by humanitarian partners when the CHF was established has pro-moted collective responsibility for the humanitarian operation.

The management of the CHF has greatly benefited from UN agencies and NGOs sharing the responsi-bility of leading the clusters. This has made all as-pects of work, such as prioritizing projects for fund-ing, more transparent and inclusive. The education, health, nutrition, protection, and WASH clusters are


Reasons for NCE request

Source: CHF TS Jan 13

Procurement delays

Programmatic delays

Inaccessibility

Staffing/recruitment delays

Insecurity

Delays in finalising PPA

Internal admin. delays

Delays in disbursement of funds

18%

14%14%

11%

11%

7% 4%21%

Analysis of no-cost extensions

In 2012, 88 per cent of the

180 projects that received

funding from the CHF

successfully implemented

project activities as planned.

The remaining 12 per cent

(22 projects) requested and

received no-cost extensions

(NCE).

Of the 22 projects that

received NCEs, 19 were sub-

mitted by NGOs and three by

UN agencies. The Nutrition

Cluster had the highest num-

ber of NCEs (six out of 22)

followed by the Food Security

and Livelihood and Protection

clusters (four NCEs each).

Procurement or program-

matic delays due to the late

arrival of pipeline supplies,

difficulties in procuring

construction material or se-

curing enough fuel supplies

following the sharp spike in

prices were among the main

reasons delaying project im-

plementation. Inaccessibility

of areas of operations during

the rainy season was also a

significant constraint along

with recruitment delays due

to lack of skilled manpower or

insecurity.


co-led by a UN agency and an NGO. The Food Security and Livelihoods and Multisector clusters are co-led by two UN agencies. The cluster leads report directly to the Humanitarian Coordinator and are, as such, independent of the contracting organisation.

Value for money Value for money is at the heart of the decision-making process on CHF funding allocations, to improve the efficiency of the humanitarian re-sponse and increase the positive impact of every allocated dollar. In 2012, a value for money analysis was done both at the strategic and operational levels.

At the strategic level, this approach led the CHF to focus on the key components of the humanitarian operation in South Sudan: core pipe-lines, essential common services and logistics support. By enabling pipeline managers to procure supplies at an economy of scale, the CHF helped enable programmes implemented by NGOs in deep field loca-tions. Support to the Common Transport Service (CTS) contributed to lowering costs of private transport hire which is extremely expensive in South Sudan, and enabled access for aid organizations into crisis areas. To ensure greater returns on the investment of CHF resources, the HC and the Advisory Board decided that food aid and refugee programmes – both very large operations – would be ineligible for the standard alloca-tions, given the limited impact that CHF funding would have as a propor-tion of overall costs. For these operations, the HC instead reached out to bilateral donors to help key agencies mobilize resources.

At the operational level, value for money was used as a criterion by the clusters when reviewing project proposals. To determine if a project rep-resented good value, clusters considered several factors including the guidance developed by the CHF Technical Secretariat on the calcula-tion of direct and indirect costs.

South Sudan is a challenging operational environment where costs are inevitably high. As such, the Advisory Board has been flexible when considering comparisons of key unit costs in hard-to-reach areas to en-sure that the fund meets its life-saving objective. It is in this vein that the refugee response received funding through the CHF reserve to respond to the unfolding refugee crisis in mid-2012.

Capacity building Clusters and the CHF Technical Secretariat launched several initiatives to promote access to the CHF by national NGOs. The Education and WASH clusters held workshops to explain the CHF process and the al-location strategy and to develop projects proposals. OCHA teamed up with RedR to support two workshops on humanitarian financing mech-anisms, criteria for accessing pooled funds (CERF and CHF) and CHF project proposal writing. After the second standard application, UNDP held a specific session for partners receiving CHF funding to explain contracting and fund disbursement. Finally, a presentation was given to the national NGO forum to raise awareness about the CHF.

While these initiatives were well received and resulted in an improve-ment of received proposals, the low level of access of NNGOs calls for continued investments in national partners. A challenge going forward will be to ensure that more clusters build capacity. This may be par-ticularly difficult for clusters with numerous partners due to time and resources to be devoted to this effort. The CHF TS remains committed to promoting better understanding of pooled funding mechanisms and greater engagement by NNGOs in the CHF and will carry out aware-ness-raising sessions at the state level. It also continues to mentor fund recipients on CHF guidelines and templates on a one-to-one basis, as required.


Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Set-up of the CHF

CHF standard allocation #1

2012

2013

CHF reserve

CHF reserve

CHF reserve

CHF standard allocation #2

CHF reserve

CHF 2012 annual report

HCT adopts M&R framework

Financial reporting by NGO partners to managing agentQ2-Y1




Re

cru

itme

nt an

d d

ep

loyme

nt of M&

R sp

ecia

lists

CHF mid-term narrative reporting and aggregation

MRWG launched

CHF final narrative reporting and aggregation

Mo

nito

ring

visits to CH

F pro

jec

ts

CHF monitoring and reporting activities in 2012 (April 2013)

MPTF annual consolidated financial report (UN agencies)

Information in this section has been collected and aggregated on the ba-sis of a list of standard output indi-cators agreed upon when the CHF was set-up in early 2012, prior to the establishment of the Monitoring and Reporting Working Group (MRWG). While the results reported provide a pertinent picture of the results achieved by projects funded by the CHF in 2012, a series of lessons have been gathered by the MRWG during

the aggregation process. The results reported may not capture fully the ex-tent of results achieved. A revision of indicators to improve CHF monitoring and reporting is currently ongoing and will be applied in forthcoming al-locations along with additional efforts to better determine the attribution of results achieved with CHF funding, particularly when co-funding a larger scale project.

SUMMARY of CLUSTER STRATEGIES and ACHIEVEMENTS


COORDINATION AND COMMON SERVICES

Ph

oto

: UN

DP

/Bri

an S

oko

l

In South Sudan, the consequences of a protracted crisis accentuate the need for preparedness and a well-coordinated hu-manitarian response. 180 aid agencies including UN agencies, NGOs, diplo-matic missions and donor organizations are providing assistance to vulnerable communities, creating a major need for effective coordination and common ser-vices. The overall strategy of the Common Services and Coordination Cluster in 2012 aimed to support the mobilization and delivery of assistance in response to assessed needs in three ways:

❖ Improve humanitarian coordination, facilitate effective emergency pre-paredness, strengthen humanitarian response and support increased re-sponsibility of the government in hu-manitarian action.

❖ Provide quality information to human-itarian actors in South Sudan to en-sure activities are evidence-based.

❖ Facilitate safe and timely access to populations in need.

CHF support to activities of the Common Services and Coordination Cluster con-sisted of funding to two projects from its reserve allocation: UNDP’s project Recruitment of Monitoring and Reporting Specialist for the CHF and UNDSS‘s project Security Support to UN and Implementing Partners in South Sudan.

The first project aimed to strengthen the monitoring and reporting of humanitari-an assistance in South Sudan, including on the impact of the CHF. The DSS proj-ect sough to provide security support to UN agencies and other partners operat-ing in South Sudan.

384 humanitarian per-sonnel transported for urgent humanitarian missions and nine hu-manitarian personnel evacuated or relocated due to security, safety or medical related situation over a period of eight months.

Eight M&R specialists recruited and deployed to selected clusters.

CAP objectives and CHF priorities

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: CCS

CHF FUNDING IN PROPORTION TO CAP 2012

CAP requirement

CAP secured funding

CHF allocated funding

$13.7 million

UNDP, UNDSSCHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEMobilize and coordinate timely and appropriate humanitarian assistancein response to assessed needs.

CHF KEY RESULTS

Planned Achieved %Output indicator

No. of humanitarian personnel trans--ported for urgent humanitarianmissions.

No. of security assessment missionscarried out upon request.

No. of airstrips assessed.

No. of M&R specialists in selected clusters.

No. of monitoring visits to CHF fundedprojects.

No. of reports by partners on CHFfunded projects.

$9.7 million (70%)

$1.6 million (16% of secured funding)

0

50’

100’

150’

200’

C. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria

Jong

lei

Lake

s

NB

eG

Uni

ty

Up

per

Nile

War

rap

WB

eG

W. E

qua

toria

PARTNERS SELF-ASSESSMENT

Projects reporting good results 100%Projects reporting moderate results 0%Projects reporting limited results 0%

2 reports received out of 2 due

UN agencies

100%

NNGOs0%

INGOs0%

2 CHFfundedprojects

Geographic coverage CHF funding per type oforganization

Core pipeline

CHF FUNDING PER CATEGORY

Frontline services

n/a

100%

CHF portion of securedfunding

OCHANGO Secretariat

Cluster leadCluster co-lead

REPORTING

-

-

-

8

90

180

384

93

54

8

16

168

-

-

-

100%

18%

93%

n/a


CHF resultsThe project to strengthen the monitoring and reporting of humanitar-ian assistance contributed valuable support to clusters to improve monitoring and reporting at the cluster and CHF levels. The proj-ect funded eight monitoring and reporting specialists who were de-ployed to work in the different clusters. The work of the specialists was guided by the M&R policy framework adopted by the HCT and cross-cluster coordination and learning was achieved by establish-ing a Monitoring and Reporting Working Group (MRWG). Further de-tails on the results of this project are captured in the chapter on the monitoring mechanism and general monitoring lessons.

With regards to the provision of security support to improve the humanitarian operating environment, CHF funding allowed the UN Department Safety and Security (UNDSS) to provide air support to aid agencies’ response to humanitarian crises in areas across the ten states where access by road was a major challenge. UNDSS was able to put in place mitigating measures for the safety and security of the humanitarian community by using its plane to con-duct security risk, airstrip and road assessments and aerial as-sessments for fire safety and prevention. These activities were in-strumental to ensuring the safety and security of the humanitarian community. Support was also been provided for medical and ca-sualty evacuations, and support to high-level field visits. The plane was available within thirty minutes within request for evacuations. The project also supported information-gathering to provide com-prehensive security analysis to the humanitarian community.

CHF added valueFunding M&R specialists for the clusters, was an innovation which has been recognized by cluster coordinators and the CHF Advisory Board as making monitoring of humanitarian action in South Sudan more systematic and coherent. For the security support, the CHF prevented the disruption of an important service to aid partners working in deep field locations.

Other results include: ❖ 384 humanitarian staff were able to access areas that otherwise could not have been flown to by UNMISS or UNHAS flights.

❖ 93 security assessments were carried out.

❖ 54 airstrips were assessed.

❖ 17 humanitarian personnel were evacuated or relocated due to security, safety of medical related situations.

❖ 86 analytical reports produced and disseminated.

Challenges and lessons learned For the UNDSS-implemented project, aircraft and crew safety are serious concerns which sometimes limit operations in high-risk areas, as illustrated for instance by the shoot-down of an UNMISS helicopter in December 2012.

For the pilot monitoring and reporting project, challenges were linked to the roll-out of the initiative. The need to further clarify the purpose of monitoring activities and the staggered arrival of the M&R specialists meant that the M&R working group was only up and running and able to plan its work in late 2012. This delay cre-ated difficulties in prioritising between the need to build strategic systems at the cluster level and conduct field monitoring of specific projects, and resulted in a lower than expected number of monitor-ing visits completed by the end of the year. These challenges are being addressed as the initiative continues to be rolled out.

Summary of Cluster Strategies and Achievements

“The deployment of a M&R specialist to the cluster has been extremely valuable and boosted our capacity to measure results and plan ahead.”

— Protection Cluster Coordinator

EDUCATION

Ph

oto

: Mer

cyC

orp

s/M

ath

ieu

Ro

uq

uet

te

For the 2012 CHF allocations, the Education Cluster applied the CAP 2012 strategy to the geographic locations most prone to emergencies and with the lowest capacity to provide education services. The CAP objectives were to:

❖ Increase access to protective tempo-rary learning spaces in emergencies.

❖ Supply emergency teaching and learning materials to ensure continui-ty of education.

❖ Deliver life-saving messages and psychosocial support to emergency affected children and youth.

“Quality education saves lives by providing physical protection from the dangers and exploitation of a crisis environment. When a learner is in a safe learning environment, he or she is less likely to be sexually or economically exploited or exposed to other risks, such as forced or early marriage, recruitment into armed forces...”

— Minimum Standards for Education, INEE: 2010.



CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: EDUCATION


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$39.8 million

ADRA, FH, Intersos, Mercy Corps, NHDF,PCO, SSUDA, UNESCO, UNICEF

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEEnsure that children and youth affected by acute emergencies haveaccess to quality lifesaving education.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of Temporary Learning Spaces established.

No. of School in a Box and Recreationkits distributed to emergency affectedchildren, youth and teachers.

No. of teachers (M/F) in emergencyaffected areas trained to provide lifeskills education and psychosocialsupport.

No. of emergency affected childrenand youth (M/F) attending temporarylearning spaces.

$13.2 million (33%)


0

1m

2m

3m

Uni

ty

U. N

ile

War

rap

Jong

lei

NB

eG

W. E

qua

toria

NB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s




UN agencies

53.5%

INGOs28%

NNGOs18.5%

13 CHFfundedprojects


Core pipeline


Frontline services

53%

67%


United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF)Save the Children


REPORTING

339

3,841

1,11425% (F)75% (M)

46,24539% (F)61% (M)

292

3,453

1,15017% (F)83%(M)

47,29640% (F)60% (M)

86%

90%

103%

102%


CHF funding in 2012 contributed substantially to the three education sector objectives in the 2012 CAP, all aimed at ensuring that children and youth have access to life-saving education in acute emergencies.

CHF resultsCHF funding in 2012 contributed substantially to the cluster’s over-all objective of ensuring that children and youth have access to life-saving education in acute emergencies. The CHF funded ac-tivities in Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile and Warrap states. Education partners made strong progress on almost all indicators defined in the funded projects, despite three projects still being ongoing at the time of the preparation of this report.

Attention to cross-cutting issues was one of the cluster’s prioriti-sation criteria for allocating CHF funding, and partners strongly engaged with these issues. All project proposals paid particular attention to girls’ education, with a marked impact on school at-tendance. The ratio of girls to boys attending temporary learning spaces increased during the reporting period, and in three of the four states targeted, exceeded the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in regular education. Given that girls’ attendance is usually a sig-nificant challenge in emergency contexts, this is a substantial achievement; for many girls in South Sudan, emergency education is the first experience of education and can provide a gateway into regular schooling.

Child protection, HIV/AIDS, WASH, and environment also emerged as key issues addressed by partners during project implementa-tion. Coordination on child protection in particular was boosted at regional and national levels. For example, close collaboration with the child protection sub-cluster on school occupation by armed groups or forces strengthened advocacy. 84 per cent of all occu-pied schools were vacated in 2012.

Other good practices reported by partners centred on commu-nity engagement and synergies between projects. For example partners combined Education in Emergencies (EiE) activities with cash-for-work or community labour projects targeting female headed households to increase women’s participation and pro-mote community ownership.

CHF added valueAs the largest source of funding for the Education Cluster in 2012, the CHF played a central role in the provision of EiE ser-vices. As the only source of funding for several organizations, it provided start-up capital for smaller organizations, particularly national NGOs, to begin implementing projects. Providing direct funding to these organizations improved value for money by re-ducing transaction costs and helped strengthen local capacity and human resources for ongoing EiE activities. CHF funding also increased preparedness and response planning within the Education Cluster, by enabling supply pre-positioning in strate-gic hubs. Finally, CHF funding allowed organizations to fund staff dedicated to EiE. This improved coordination and efficiency by promoting joint assessment and information sharing and reducing duplication of responses.

Monitoring and reportingThe cluster made significant progress on M&R in 2012. Regular monitoring by partners included collection of gender-disaggre-gated quantitative data on enrolment, beneficiary status and proj-ect activities, and interviews and focus groups with education ac-tors and children affected by emergencies.

The recruitment of an EiE surge consultant and a M&R specialist allowed for field visits to around half of the projects funded by the CHF in 2012.

20

30

40

50

Upper Nile

Warrap

Jonglei

Unity

Temporary learning space attendance

(CHF March 13)

Temporary learning space attendance

(CHF Sept 12)

Girls attendance at temporary learning spaces (%)

Source: Education Cluster

Testimony

“I could not go to school in the camp because the whole class-room was leaking, only one teach-er was available, and school books were not available. Since the project came, we received books and play games in school. This is why I attend classes regularly,”

— 12 year old girl, Mina Returnee Camp,

Renk.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Temporary learning space attendance (CHF March 13)

Regular school attendance (EMIS 2012)

Upper NileWarrapJongleiUnity

Girls’ school attendance: Comparison between emergency and regular school attendance (%)

Source: Education Cluster

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 2012 19Summary of Cluster Strategies and Achievements

A new M&R system was created allowing partners to report activi-ties and needs online from the county level. This information can be accessed by all partners, improving coordination and efficiency.

Efforts to improve monitoring of qualitative and outcome-lev-el achievements were launched through the commission of an Education Cluster Impact Study with a focus on accountability to affected populations. These efforts will be continued in 2013.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ Late distribution of supplies through the core pipeline prevent-ed several partners from meeting their Round 2 project targets. Flexibility on extensions and budget revisions for CHF projects allowed these projects to continue beyond their initial planned periods. A monitoring system has been created which gath-ers data from both the pipeline and recipient partners to more closely follow supply movement.

❖ Delays in the delivery of materials and training impeded the provision of psychosocial support and life skills messages by cluster partners. Additional CHF funding helped finalise these activities which will be used in 2013 projects.

❖ The difficulty in quickly transferring WASH activities to the WASH Cluster to ensure that all temporary learning spaces were equipped with gender segregated latrines is reflected in comparatively low achievement on this indicator. New options, including local construction methods, have been considered in 2013 to tackle this issue.

❖ Sharp escalation in costs, particularly of construction materi-als and fuel, due to the closure of the border with Sudan, con-strained operations. The construction of learning spaces from local materials will continue and is promoted by the cluster as a good practice as it increases durability, sustainability, and com-munity ownership. The resulting structures are also more appro-priate for the local climate than prefabricated tents. Flexibility

in budgeting and allocation revisions helps partners operate in South Sudan’s changeable economic environment.

❖ Late distribution of CHF funds combined with short project durations exacerbated the impact of seasonal access con-straints. This notably affected smaller local NGOs which cannot pre-finance their activities.

❖ Geographic targeting was valuable in prioritising allocation to the most vulnerable areas but limited partners’ ability to respond to emergencies in other areas, and to prioritise responses to multiple emergencies. The cluster recommends a more bene-ficiary-focused targeting strategy together with the recruitment by partners of dedicated EiE staff.

EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATION

Ph

oto

: ET

C C

lust

er/M

arta

Dab

bas

During emergencies, access to tele-communication in the field is critical to ensuring a coordinated humanitarian response and the safety and security of humanitarian personnel. The ICT in-frastructure in South Sudan is poor, with no public telecommunications, over-stretched capacities of mobile network providers and limited internet connectiv-ity. The Emergency Telecommunications Cluster (ETC) was established in 2012 to provide emergency telecommunica-tions and IT services to allow UN agen-cies, NGOs and the Government of South Sudan to better coordinate relief operations without depending on public infrastructure. Its three main objectives in 2012 CAP were:

❖ Maintaining and providing sustain-able radio communications indepen-dent from public infrastructure with coverage in the ten state capitals.

❖ Providing emergency response through establishing telecommuni-cations infrastructure and services in new sites as needed.

❖ Offering standardized ICT platforms, training and procedures to avoid du-plication and ensure cost-effective services.

In 2012, facing significant underfunding, the ETC Cluster received funds from the CHF reserve to support the response to an ongoing emergency in the Abyei area and in Yida refugee settlement in Unity State.


“ETC is no doubt a life saver […]The installa-tion and availability of these services has greatly improved the means of communication includ-ing dissemination of information from Yida to the outside world”

— An NGO working in Yida refugee settlement

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: ETC


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$3.4 million

WFPCHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEProvide emergency security telecommunications, communications centre(COMCEN) and IT services that will allow UN agencies, NGOs and theGoSS to better coordinate assessment, rescue and relief operations inde--pendent from public infrastructure.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of UN and NGO staff memberstrained on ETC services usage.

No. of users reporting delivery of theservice as “satisfactory” and within“satisfactory” timeframe.

$1.5 million (42%)

$210,248 (14% of secured funding)

0

50’

100’

150’

200’

250’

C. E

qua

toria

Uni

ty

Jong

lei

War

rap

NB

eG

W. E

qua

toria

NB

eG

Jong

lei

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s



1 report received out of 1 due

UN agencies

100%

INGOs0%

1 CHFfundedproject


Core pipeline n/a


Frontline services 14%


WFPn/a


REPORTING

400

80%

449

90%

112%

113%

n/a

NNGOs0%


CHF resultsThe CHF contributed directly to remedying the dire need for emer-gency telecommunications for humanitarian partners responding to the influx of refugees in Yida and displaced people in Abyei. Humanitarian partners urgently needed data connectivity to sup-port operations and inter-agency coordination. At the time, capaci-ty in terms of staff and assets in the area was limited.

CHF added valueWith the CHF funding, the cluster was able to strategically preposi-tion stock and acquire the necessary ETC emergency kits and an adequate number of staff to provide data connectivity and security telecommunications. The prepositioned strategic stock enabled the cluster to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of the humanitarian community, improve the operational security environ-ment for staff and assets, improve ETC preparedness to respond to new emergencies, and enhance the operational response and coordination among agencies.

Monitoring and reporting The ETC cluster uses several tools to monitor the progress of its activities including:

❖ Regular exchange of information and surveys among partners through ETC Working Group meetings.

❖ Network operational statistics.

❖ User surveys to collect qualitative feedback from ETC partners on the service provided.

❖ Regular monitoring of the cluster emergency response capacity (stock and staff).

❖ Challenges and lessons learned.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ Funding remains a significant challenge for ETC.

❖ Logistical constraints due to inconsistent policies applied by national authorities related to importation and customs clearing procedures affected the performance of the cluster.

❖ Poor infrastructure to deliver equipment negatively affects the performance of the cluster.

❖ Poor infrastructure constitutes a severe obstacle to the delivery of equipment, particularly during the rainy season.

With the CHF funding, the cluster was able to strategically preposition stock and acquire the necessary ETC emergency kits and an adequate number of staff to provide data connectivity.


FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS

Ph

oto

: UN

DP

/Bri

an S

oko

l

CHF allocations directly supported two of the Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) Cluster’s 2012 CAP objectives:

❖ Improving food availability through food assistance and support for household food production.

❖ Improving livestock health and con-tain disease outbreaks to protect livelihood assets and food security of agro-pastoral households.

During the first allocation, key priorities were agricultural support to affected populations, core pipeline funding for veterinary supplies and supporting inte-grated program responses in areas with high food insecurity.

In the second round allocation, the pri-orities were to respond to the human health scare triggered by animal dis-ease outbreaks in refugee settlements, to address the worsening food insecu-rity and malnutrition following exces-sive floods in Jonglei, Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Unity states, and to mit-igate the impact of dry season livestock movements in the Abyei area and Unity and Warrap states.


In 2010, out of all the arable land in South Sudan, only 4.5% was cultivated, posing a major challenge for food security.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: FSL


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$405.1 million

ACTED, ACF, ADESO, AMURT, AWODA, CMD,FAO, Intermon Oxfam, IRW, MANITESE, Mercy--Corps, NPA, RI, SCiSS, SPEDP, VSF-Belgium, VSF-Germany, VSF-Switzerland.

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSERespond to food security emergencies and strengthen livelihoods of ruraland peri-urban populations affected by conflict, and natural disasters in South Sudan

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of people provided with seeds.

No. of people provided with handtools.

No. of heads of livestock vaccinated.

$309.5 million (76%)

$9.5 million (27% without food assistance)

0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

2.5m

Up

per

Nile

War

rap

NB

eG

Jong

lei

Uni

ty

Lake

s

C. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria

WB

eG

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

47%

NNGOs5%

INGOs48%



Core pipeline(without food assistance)


Frontline services

52%

27%

CHF portion ofsecured funding

FAO/WFPVSF-Belgium


REPORTING

597,550

473,222

2,554,077

634,187

477,318

1,131,421

106%

101%

44%

11% Livelihood89% Food security


CHF resultsCHF funding allowed the cluster to address the needs of nearly one million people affected by food insecurity. In particular, a livestock disease outbreak of crisis proportions in Maban County, Upper Nile State, was contained and partners carried out vaccinations and treatments of livestock in Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile states. The cluster distributed over 1,000MT of seeds that benefitted over 600,000 people. The CHF also supported communities with 20,000 fishing gears, built 54 household granaries, and maintained and serviced 10 vaccine cold chain facilities. Nearly 500,000 people were provided with hand tools while over 2,000 were trained on good agricultural practices as well as post-harvest management.

The cluster improved mainstreaming of environmental concerns in projects by mandating an environmental impact assessment be-fore implementation of activities, such as carcass disposal and construction of slaughter slabs, which were likely to have a high environmental impact. This allowed partners to systematically in-clude mitigation measures in their activities.

CHF added valueFunding to both the livelihoods pipeline and frontline services en-abled FSL partners to access seeds, tools and veterinary supplies from the pipeline, cut transaction costs and benefit from economy of scales due to bulk-buying of pipeline items.

The CHF was also critical in ensuring cohesiveness and coordina-tion within the cluster. The delegation of responsibility in the alloca-tion process to the clusters generated transparency and strength-ened coordination. The CHF provided the cluster with a tool for responding to needs emerging in any given geographical location outside the mainstream bilateral funding to partners.

Monitoring and reportingThe FSL Cluster monitoring and reporting system is anchored on a central 3W (“who does what where”) database of partners that was instituted in 2012. The database tracks partners’ plans and re-sponses, including providing data disaggregated by gender. Over the course of the year the system improved reporting by cluster partners.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ Inconsistent policies and procedures implemented by national authorities with respect to tax exemptions, the livestock vac-cination calendar, and access to veterinary supplies from the core pipeline cold chain significantly affected CHF results.

❖ There were inconsistencies between partners and the core pipeline manager in planning and sharing information on vac-cination needs and timing. The FSL Cluster will address this by holding planning sessions within the livestock and fisheries sub-cluster.

❖ Coordination between the core pipeline manager and the Government at national level for cold chain management and inconsistent procedures for vaccine supply and release at state level posed challenges. The FSL cluster will work with Government and other partners to establish standard operation procedures for the request and release of vaccines from the core pipeline.

❖ Limited needs analysis to determine the full cost of vaccines as part of veterinary supplies managed by the core pipeline and cost of delivery led to under-budgeting for resources and sup-plies. To better inform subsequent CAP and CHF processes,

the cluster enhanced the livestock situation and needs analysis through the Agriculture and Livestock Situation Analysis (ALSA) component within the food security information system.

❖ Weak guidance on technically approved and standard response procedures was noted among some veterinary partners. The cluster will work to strengthen the technical and operation-al procedures within the livestock and fisheries sub-clusters and advocate for capacity building with respect to Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards.


HEALTH

Ph

oto

: UN

ICE

F/A

dri

ae O

hae

sian

In the 2012 CAP, the health cluster set three main objectives:

❖ Maintaining existing safety nets by providing basic health services.

❖ Ensuring emergency response activi-ties such as outbreak control.

❖ Strengthening the capacity for emer-gency response.

The activities planned to achieve these objectives fell in two categories: re-plenishing the health core pipelines

(emergency trauma kits and vaccines) and supporting frontline services to vul-nerable groups and displaced people.

For the CHF allocations, the cluster prioritized projects aiming to ensure continuity of basic services in high-risk counties, improve emergency pre-paredness and surge capacity, and re-spond to breaking health crises.


Over the course of the year, 31,600 births (about 9 per cent of total births) were attended to by skilled birth attendants.

Over 510,000 children under five years were vaccinated against measles, resulting in a significant reduction in reported measles cases from 1,818 in 2011 to 1,503 in 2012.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: HEALTH


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$109.7 million

CARE, CCM, CCM/CUAMM, CDoT, CMACOSV, GOAL, IMC-UK, IOM, IRC, Medair,Merlin, NCA, NHDF, RI, SCiSS, Tearfund,THESO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNIDO, WHO,WVSS

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEEnsure continuation of basic services in high risk locations and vulnerablepopulations, as well as emergency preparedness and response across South Sudan.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of children under five provided withmedical consultations.

No. of children under five given measlesvaccination.

No. of births attended by skilled birthsattendants.

No. of new communicable diseaseoutbreaks detected and responded to within 72 hours.

No. of people benefitted from emergencydrugs supplies - IEHK / trauma kit / RH kit / PHCU kits.

No. core pipeline kits given to emergencysituations.

No of health workers trained in MISP / communicable diseases / outbreaks / IMCI / CMR.

$55.6 million (51%)


0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

2.5m

3m

3.5m

Up

per

Nile

War

rap

Jong

lei

NB

eG

Uni

ty

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s

WB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

36.7%

NNGOs13.8%

INGOs49.5%



Core pipeline


Frontline services

21%

23%


WHOIMC


REPORTING

374,681

542,677

8,403

95

692,198

191

1,867

408,100

512,148

31,604

94

734,444

282

1,952

109%

94%

376%

99%

106%

148%

105%


CHF resultsCHF-funded projects were implemented across the country by 17 international NGOs, four national NGOs and four UN agencies.

CHF provided crucial bridge funding for purchasing and deliver-ing core pipeline supplies and ensuring continuous provision of frontline services across the ten states. Health partners provided over 408,000 consultations for children under five years and over 734,000 people benefitted from emergency drug supplies.

The CHF also helped partners develop a training curriculum and train 500 health workers at all levels of the health system. The train-ing, which included on-the-job skills, improved primary health care service delivery and increased the involvement of traditional birth attendants. Minor rehabilitation works and installation of solar fridg-es to maintain the cold chain for immunization services contributed to improved immunization coverage.

HIV/AIDS was a major concern in the implementation of projects and some of the test kits expired during the project period. With regard to mainstreaming gender, trainings were provided on the referral pathways for gender-based violence (GBV) survivors, with an emphasis on the health, psychosocial and social consequences of sexual assault. Men and women were given equal opportunities in recruitment processes and training.

Women’s empowerment was a major focus of the cluster and women were consistently encouraged to participate in community meetings and take part in decision-making. This helped change community dynamics and community leaders have begun to invite women to attend important meetings to oversee health promotion activities. Women’s groups from different villages have contributed to the dissemination of health messages to community members.

CHF added value The CHF ensured the continuity of basic health services at a time when longer-term funding streams were being put in place and partners, in particular national NGOs, faced serious funding gaps.

Monitoring and reportingPartners monitored projects using their own or the Ministry of Health monitoring and reporting formats. In areas where the Health Management Information System (HMIS) is implemented, partners provided data to the system. Some partners conducted self-as-sessments using organization-specific project management tools during field visits.

Health reports were shared with stakeholders on a weekly or monthly basis. Gender-disaggregated epidemiological data was collected, analyzed and disseminated monthly to stakeholders.

As projects receive funding from multiple sources, disaggregating achievements to reflect the impact of a particular donor’s contribu-tion is a challenge. Furthermore, due to understaffing, the Health Cluster was not able to independently verify the information re-ceived from partners on service delivery.

Challenges and lessons learned The major challenge for the health cluster over the year was to provide consistent health services and control disease outbreaks in the context of frequent population movements due to conflict and flooding. In some areas, the prolonged rainy season and the


ETHIOPIA

SUDAN

SOUTH KORDOFAN

BLUE NILE

KENYA

UGANDA

DEM. REPUBLIC

OF THE CONGO

C.A.R.

JUBA

Terekeka

Yei

LopaKapoeta

N.

KapoetaEast

Torit

MagwiIkotos

Kajo-Keji

Bor SouthPibor

Pochalla

Akobo

Yirol W.

Yirol E.

Awerial

Mundri

Mvolo

Nyirol

Rumbek N.

Renk

Melut

MabanPariang

Raga

Tambura

Nagero

Wau Jur

Tonj N.Tonj E.

Aweil E.

W.E.

Aweil C.

Aweil N.Twic

Gogrial Koch

Guit

Leer

Tonj S.

Cueibet

Ezo

MaridiIbba

Wulu

Ayod

Duk

Fangak

Maiwut

Uror

LongochukCanal

Baliet

Manyo

Panyikang

Twic East

YambioNzara

Reported measles outbreak

In 2012

In 2011

Mayom

EAST. EQUATORIA

WARRAP

LAKES

CENTR.

EQUATORIA

WEST. EQUATORIA

WEST. BAHR

EL GHAZALJONGLEI

UPPER

NILEUNITY

N. BAHR

EL GHAZAL

RumbekC.

SOUTH DARFUR EAST

DARFUR

Abyei

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 201226 Summary of Cluster Strategies and Achievements

resulting flooding restricted transportation of supplies and limited communities’ access to health services. Inadequate qualified per-sonal also compromised service delivery.

Other challenges included: ❖ The limited medical background of some of the local health staff in the country also hindered effective implementation of programmes. Delays in procurement and the allocation process affected programme implementation.

❖ Insecurity continued to be a challenge in some areas, causing poor demand of services and high turnover of both national and international staff.

❖ The Health Cluster has been understaffed during the reporting period, making project visits difficult. To fill this gap, partners used Health Cluster and NGO Forum meetings to get feedback on project implementation.

❖ The prepositioning of drugs and medical supplies in the dry season in anticipation of logistical challenges and service in-terruptions during the rainy season contributed greatly to main-taining services.

Partners found innovative ways to overcome various challenges that they faced. For example, the hiring of day workers and using

donkey-cart transport contributed to one partner’s success to pre-position medical supplies. Another partner organized out-reach health care services in cattle camps including vaccination for children and women of reproductive age, increasing health ser-vice coverage.

Counties reporting measles outbreak in 2011 and 2012

Source: Health Cluster

Testimony

On 23 February 2013, a 25-year old mother was urgent-ly brought to the maternity ward from Thotwat village in Ayod County - Jonglei. Her name was Nyakor and she was 9 months pregnant. Nyakor had profuse vaginal bleed-ing and needed an immediate caesarean operation. The COSV midwife quickly assessed the situation and informed the County Health Department about the need for referral. Nyakor was flown on a UNDSS flight to Bor hospital, where an operation saved the mother’s life. The relatives were happy for the support from COSV team. One relative said, “What COSV has done is really good, and shows their con-cern for the community.”

The 2012 Logistics Cluster CAP strat-egy was to provide continued support to the humanitarian community by ex-panding physical access for humanitar-ian organizations into crisis areas, and to provide common logistics services to support emergency operations. CHF priorities included support to the follow-ing cluster activities:

❖ Mapping, road accessibility studies and civil-military liaison.

❖ Common transport services for areas with no or limited commercial logistics options (air, barge, boats and truck transport for passengers and cargo).

❖ Warehousing in key locations for trans-shipment and pre-positioning.

❖ Road and airstrip repairs.


“We really appreciate the services rendered to us and I have been very much impressed how such a complicated apparatus as logistics in South Sudan has been done in such an efficient and fast manner. So, only compliments and no complaints from my side!”

— NGO in Pibor

LOGISTICS

Ph

oto

: WF

P/P

h H

erzo

g

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: LOGISTICS


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$66 million

IOM, WFP, WFP/UNHASCHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEProvide essential logistical support functions to the humanitarian commu--nity in order to facilitate a timely and cost-effective emergency response.

CHF KEY RESULTS


Humanitarian cargo moved by airlift (MTs)

Humanitarian cargo moved by bargeboat (MTs)

Humanitarian cargo moved by truck (MTs)

No. of convoys with force protectionarranged.

$54.9 million (83%)


0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

Up

per

Nile

War

rap

Jong

lei

NB

eG

Uni

ty

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s

WB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

100%

NNGOs0%

INGOs0%

6 CHFfundedprojects


UNHAS


Logistic operations

12%

51%


WFPna


REPORTING

450

2,380

2,820

18

633

1,903

4,835

29

141%

80%

171%

161%

DISCLAIMER:The funding reported in the snapshot differs from what is reported in the FTS as some projects classified underthe Logistics cluster received funding from the CHF Reserve to implement activities to assist refugees under theMulti Sector. The funding reported here thus only captures CHF funding channeled to partners through theLogistics cluster.


CHF resultsHumanitarian logistic operationsCHF funding increased transport capacity to organizations pro-viding frontline services in hard-to-reach areas. Specifically, two Mi8-MTV heavy lift helicopters were deployed to deliver life-saving cargo to otherwise unreachable destinations. Regular consulta-tions with the Inter-Sector Working Group helped ensure the best possible use of these costly assets.

CHF funding also provided Common Transport Services (CTS) via road and river transport. A dedicated fleet of 13 trucks for in-ter-agency use was managed by the Logistics Cluster. This ded-icated fleet helped maintain pipeline deliveries to deep field lo-cations where commercial transport capacity was unavailable or insufficient and supported the returnee operation. However, part-ners faced several challenges with regard to river movements by barge which caused delays in the delivery of humanitarian cargo.

Through a mailing list for humanitarian partners moderated by the Logistics Cluster, the cluster assisted organizations with coordinat-ing convoys, including convoys using escorts for protection. Using the mailing list and the Logistics Cluster website, the humanitar-ian community received regular updates on access constraints, geospatial mapping, tax exemptions, customs clearing and other logistics related information.

A customer survey found that 84 per cent of respondents had been using Logistics Cluster services for six months or more. 85 per cent ranked the cluster as either being Satisfactory (33 per cent), Good (44 per cent) or Excellent (8 per cent). 77 per cent of the respon-dents felt that the current level of Logistics Cluster response was appropriate to the emergency context in South Sudan.

UN Humanitarian Air ServiceIn 2012, the CHF reserve provided funding twice to the United Nations Humanitarian Operations Services (UNHAS) to help bridge funding gaps. The funding ensured continuity of the service over a total period of 10 weeks to areas with intensive ongoing humanitar-ian activity, such as Maban, Yida, Pibor, Waat, and Akobo, among others. During this period, UNHAS transported nearly 20,000 pas-sengers and responded to 25 security and medical evacuation re-quests. The support from the CHF gave UNHAS a much-needed window to identify new funding sources.

CHF added valueCHF funding significantly increased the ability of the Logistics Cluster to provide support to the entire humanitarian community in South Sudan. CHF resources contributed to ongoing efforts to speed up and better coordinate the delivery of humanitarian cargo in a deteriorating emergency context. The CHF also played a criti-cal role in enabling continuous humanitarian air services, by bridg-ing funding gaps for UNHAS on two occasions during the year.

Monitoring and reportingDifferent M&R mechanisms were used by the cluster in 2012:

❖ Common Transport Service (CTS) requests were recorded us-ing a detailed tracking mechanism. This will be further strength-ened in 2013 by using a purpose-built online Relief Item Tracking Application (RITA) developed by the Global Logistics Cluster. This tool will allow users and CTS staff to track consignments in real-time and the Logistics Cluster to monitor key performance


A dedicated fleet of 13 trucks for inter-agency use was managed by the Logistics Cluster. This dedicated fleet helped maintain pipeline deliveries to deep field locations where commercial trans-port capacity was unavailable or insufficient and supported the returnee operation.

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 2012 29Summary of Cluster Strategies and Achievements

indicators of projects and play an important part in informing proj-ect strategy by generating humanitarian supply data.

❖ User group meetings relating to all projects were conducted on a regular basis to ensure activities were guided by the needs of the cluster partners. The deployment of a Roving Logistics Officer increased feedback from the field, helped identify bot-tlenecks and increased coordination of limited logistics assets.

❖ A customer survey to gauge the views of partners on the per-formance of the cluster and identify opportunities for service improvement was released in August 2012. The survey also provided information on the partners who were actively us-ing the cluster, including their geographical location and their respective humanitarian mandates. Results were validated through follow-up field visits to Unity, Upper Nile and Western Bahr el Ghazal states. This activity will be repeated on an an-nual basis.

Challenges and lessons learnedDespite some challenges with reporting on the impact of qualita-tive coordination and information-sharing services, the projects in the Logistics Cluster CHF portfolio have met or exceeded most targets set forth in the CHF proposals for 2012. Some of the main challenges that led to delays in implementation or delivery of hu-manitarian relief cargo include:

❖ Competition with external actors for usage of the limited com-mercial barge capacity and low river levels led to delays.

❖ The change in national regulations regarding the issuance of tax exemptions, vehicle registration, port and aviation require-ments, infrastructure projects, and customs clearing.

❖ Customs delays in clearing cargo coming into South Sudan.

❖ Security concerns along major road and river corridors.

❖ Poor reporting of storage capacity of inter-agency storage facil-ities managed by partner organizations.

The absence of qualitative monitoring indicators has made it difficult to fully capture cluster results on coordination and information-shar-ing. The tracking system used to log and monitor requests from part-ners does not record the reason for cancellations of requests, which could create a misleading picture of the cluster’s achievements.

ETHIOPIA

SUDAN

SOUTH KORDOFAN

KENYA

UGANDA

DEM. REPUBLIC

OF THE CONGO

C.A.R.

JUBA

EAST. EQUATORIA

WARRAP

LAKES

WEST. EQUATORIA

WEST. BAHR

EL GHAZALJONGLEI

UPPER

NILEUNITY

N. BAHR

EL GHAZAL

Abyei

Cluster warehouse

Helicopter (circle 50km)

Road corridor

River corridor

RumbekH

H

Legend

0 120km

SOUTH DARFUR

EASTDARFUR

H

Boma

Pibor

Likungole

Akobo

Waat

Maban

Renk

MalakalBentiu

Wau

Bor

Melut

Yida

RajaAweil

Overview of transport corridors and cluster capabilities

Source: Logistics Cluster

Testimony

“The humanitarian community in Jonglei State would like to extend its heartfelt appreciation for the work well done by the Logistics Cluster staff and aircrew in Jonglei […]. We were thus able to reach some of the most vulnerable caseloads who would otherwise not been reached due to inaccessibility”

OCHA’s Letter of appreciation for the Jonglei operation – Emergency

response in September 2012 - UNHAS

MINE ACTION (SUB-CLUSTER OF PROTECTION CLUSTER)

Ph

oto

: UN

MA

S/M

arco

Gro

b

The CHF strategy for the Mine Action sub-cluster was to bridge the most crit-ical funding gaps in areas in need as identified in the CAP strategy where funding from other sources was not available. Priorities for CHF funding supported all three of the sub-cluster’s CAP objectives:

❖ Providing emergency survey and clearance of landmines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) in areas experiencing recent conflict, high rates of displaced people and/or high levels of landmines/ERW.

❖ Facilitating safe access for other hu-manitarian actors, including clearing land to enable the projects of other

clusters.

❖ Reducing the risk of death and injury from landmines and ERW by provid-ing community-targeted mine risk ed-ucation activities.

For the CHF allocation, priorities includ-ed landmine and ERW clearance and mine risk education in areas charac-terized by recent conflict, high rates of returnees and high levels of landmines/ERW. Geographical priorities included the northern border states and Jonglei.


Over 530,000 square meters of land, equivalent to approximately 75 football pitches, were cleared and released in the targeted states.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: MINE ACTION


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$51.7 million

DDG, MAG, NPA, UNICEFCHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEReduce the threat and impact of landmines and ERW.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of square metres of hazardousareas and minefields cleared andreleased to local communities.

No. individuals reached with MineRisk Education including at-riskpopulations and humanitarianworkers.

$38.6 million (75%)


0

200’

400’

600’

800’

Up

per

Nile

Uni

ty

Jong

lei

War

rap

NB

eG

W. E

qua

toria

NB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s




UN agencies

14%

INGOs86%

6 CHFfundedprojects


Core pipeline n/a




UNMASHI


REPORTING

340,000

169,000

532,769

107,319

157%

64%

n/a


CHF resultsCHF funding enabled partners to clear mines and dispose of ex-plosive ordnance in Jonglei, Upper Nile and Warrap states and provide mine risk education.

Over 530,000 square meters of land, equivalent to approximate-ly 75 football pitches, were cleared and released in the targeted states. In Maban County, Upper Nile State, four minefields were cleared releasing 180,000 square metres of land. Cluster-bombs from pre-2012 conflicts were also cleared and the land was used for the Jamam refugee camp.

Partners provided mine risk education (MRE) to over 160,000 peo-ple from host and displaced communities in targeted areas. The risk education teams also collected information from communi-ties about newly discovered hazards and passed the information to partners for clearing these threats, ensuring a coordinated re-sponse by the sub-cluster. In Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile states, CHF funding enabled partners to provide training to CBOs, school teachers and peer educators on how to provide risk education in hard-to-reach communities. Mine awareness training was also pro-vided to NGO and UN staff.

Recognising that ERW affect men and women in different ways, gender was taken into consideration when planning and imple-menting projects. Women are comparatively more exposed to landmines and UXOs due to their involvement in collecting fire-wood, fetching water, rearing livestock and other agricultural activ-ities. Projects specifically endeavoured to ensure that women from targeted communities were trained as community focal persons in project planning and implementation. In addition, CHF-funded organizations ensured that gender was factored in when recruiting staff.

CHF added value The CHF helped strengthen coordination among mine action part-ners due to the allocation process which involved intensive collab-oration within the sub-cluster. By bridging critical funding gaps, CHF funding allowed existing projects to continue and ensured val-ue for money by reducing project start-up and stand-down costs. CHF funding also increased the efficiency of MRE activities by sup-porting local CBOs providing MRE at the community level.

Monitoring and reportingThe monitoring and reporting architecture in Mine Action sub-clus-ter has three elements:

❖ Each implementing partner has its own mine-clearance and risk education organizational standard operating procedures (SOPs) which include internal quality management and assur-ance procedures. SOPs must be approved by the sub-clus-ter lead and fall within the Government’s National Technical Standard Guidelines (NSTGs) and the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS).

❖ UNMAS as the sub-cluster lead manages and implements the external monitoring system. External quality assurance is per-formed by UNMAS in conjunction with the National Mine Action Authority (NMAA) who undertake monthly quality assurance vis-its to each clearance site or task.

❖ UNMAS manages the Information Management System for Mine Action (IMSMA) which is used globally in all humanitarian mine action operations and records all mine action clearance data.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ Mine clearance teams have heavy machinery which cannot op-erate fully in the rainy season and pose transportation challeng-es. These were overcome to some extent by smaller more mo-bile teams responding to emergency clearance requests when the heavy machinery was delayed or unable to operate.

❖ An integrated strategy combining strong initial investment in ca-pacity building, follow-up and monitoring is critical to strength-en local capacity to implement MRE activities and ensure their sustainability.

❖ In 2012, the Mine Action Sub-Cluster started to improve the tools for measuring the impact of mine action.


MULTISECTOR

Ph

oto

: UN

MIS

S/M

arti

ne

Per

ret

The CAP 2012 strategic objectives for the Multisector were to:

❖ Support the voluntary, safe and dignified return of South Sudanese from Sudan, refugees from asylum countries; and Abyei displaced pop-ulation in South Sudan and provide onward transportation assistance to those unable to transport themselves.

❖ Provide protection and assistance to refugees and asylum seekers in South Sudan.

The CHF supported those efforts by funding two projects totalling around $4 million as part of the standard allo-cation for the emergency return sec-tor. Refugee needs were addressed

through two CHF reserve allocations, each of $10 million. The allocations supported the Common Transportation Services (CTS), enabling access for humanitarian staff and supplies to peo-ple in need and onward transport as-sistance for returnees. The allocations also bridged critical funding gaps for projects responding to health, nutrition, non-food items and shelter and water and sanitation needs of refugees.


Around 25,000 South Sudanese from Sudan and other countries were provided with onward transportation assis-tance, NFIs, supplemen-tary feeding, medical services and temporary shelter at transit and way stations.

95,000 people in four refugee camps provided with safe and portable water supply of up to 20 litres per person per day.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: MULTISECTOR


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$205.3 million

ARC, ACTED, GOAL, IMC-UK, IOM,Oxfam GB, Solidarites International,UNHCR, UNOPS

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEAssist returnees and refugees, particularly those who are vulnerable andstranded, and strengthen the capacity of State actors to protect and assistreturnees, refugees and the Abyei displaced population.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of returnees assisted torepatriate/return.

No. of returnees in transit sites and newarrival refugees assisted with temporaryemergency shelter.

Km of access road repaired/improved.

No. of refugees benefited from supple-mentary feeding programmes.

No. of refugees provided with full NFIkits.

$118.4 million (58%)


0

5m

10m

15m

20m

Up

per

Nile

Uni

ty

C. E

qua

toria

WB

eG

NB

eG

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s

Jong

lei

War

rap

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

71%

NNGOs0%

INGOs29%



Core pipeline


Frontline services

n/a

21%


IOM / UNHCRn.a


REPORTING

24,000

18,131

70

17,665

162,693

25,081

26,055

78

12,120

170,954

105%

144%

111%

69%

105%

n/a


CHF resultsThe CHF funding to IOM and UNHCR supported the voluntary, safe and dignified return of around 25,000 South Sudanese from Sudan and other countries, by providing onward transportation as-sistance, NFI kits, supplementary feeding, medical services and temporary shelter at transit and way stations.

Under the refugee response, the 2012 CHF funding to UNOPS pro-vided increased access to 70 kilometres of road leading to four refugee camps in Maban County, Upper Nile State. As a result of improved access over 14,000 refugees were relocated from flood prone areas in Jamam to Gendrassa refugee camp. NFIs and shel-ter kit were provided to relocated refugees.

CHF funding to WASH activities in refugee camps in Maban and Yida resulted in increased access to latrines and hygiene facili-ties for 30,000 refugees; with 80 per cent of them demonstrating increased knowledge in personal hygiene. The CHF funding also contributed to the increased provision of safe and portable water supply of up to 20 litres per person per day for 95,000 people in Yida, Batil, Jamam, and Gendrassa refugee camps.

In terms of nutrition activities in Maban County, the CHF funding contributed to the reduction in severe acute malnutrition through targeted supplementary feeding to 12,120 refugees.

CHF added valueThe allocations from the CHF reserve contributed greatly to the scale-up of the response to the unprecedented influx of refugees in 2012. The increase in the scale of the humanitarian operation led to the relocation of refugees to more conducive settings like Gendrassa camp and allowed humanitarian partners to provide assistance in compliance with SPHERE standards.

The CHF standard allocations contributed to addressing funding gaps against the CAP and further complemented the core pipeline projects by supporting the Common Transport Service (CTS).

Monitoring and reporting The CHF implementing partners monitored routine activities through internal weekly reports and shared weekly data at the sec-tors and refugee coordination meetings in Maban and Yida. Health, nutrition and WASH data were submitted weekly to UNHCR by partners. The weekly data were compiled into the UNHCR Health Information Systems and shared with partners at national refugee coordination meetings in Juba.

Concerning the logistics for CTS and onward transportation assis-tance to returnees, a relief items tracking application (RITA) was created and maintained by the Logistics Cluster to monitor cargo services. Regular updates were shared with partners. The CTS tracking and consolidation system allowed for rapid deployment of the fleet of trucks where needs were most urgent.

In order to standardize monitoring and reporting within the multi-sector, the M&R specialist in the cluster has been revising, devel-oping, and testing the following M&R tools and methodologies for CHF funded projects:

❖ multisector performance framework

❖ outline of the multisector monitoring and reporting plan

The refugee crisis in South Sudan peaked in June 2012, when 37,000 refugees arrived in Unity and Upper Nile states in a single month.


ETHIOPIA

SUDAN

South Kordofan

Blue Nile

East. Equatoria

Warrap

Lakes

Centr. Equatoria

West. Equatoria

West. BahrEl Ghazal

Jonglei

UpperNileUnity

N. Bahr El Ghazal

KENYA

UGANDA

DEM. REPUBLICOF THE CONGO

C.A.R.

JUBA16’

12’

4’

40’Jan Dec

220’

Refugees in 2012 influx

South Darfur

EastDarfur

65,000Pariang

112,000Maban


❖ multisector standard output indicators

❖ template for the multisector standard indicator reference sheets

These tools and methodologies, among others, will inform the mul-tisector M&R systems that will be rolled out in 2013. Workshops for partners on the application of these tools and methodologies are being planned in collaboration with UNHCR.

Challenges and lessons learnedMultisector partners reported the following challenges and lessons learned during the implementation of the CHF portfolio:

❖ Procurement and transport costs were high and increased fur-ther in the rainy season when access by road was not possible, forcing partners to bring in goods by air or river.

❖ Specific manufactured materials with limited supply, including borehole hand pumps, were expensive to access in the local and regional markets, raising operational costs.

❖ Tensions between host and refugee communities rose during the second half of 2012, complicating programme delivery. The main drivers of the tension were competition over natural re-sources, use of land and livestock grazing.

❖ The lack of clarity around the number of refugees in each refu-gee camp made site planning and operational planning difficult. This challenge is being addressed by the current biometric reg-istration process.

❖ A growing number of obstacles created by local authorities, including the imposition of taxes and strict regulations on the use of natural resources and on the hiring of contractors have hampered the response.

Refugees in South Sudan in 2012

Source: UNHCR

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2013

2012

DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJan

Comparison returnee arrivals 2012 and 2013

Source: IOM

Testimony

Awad recalls the 25 February air strike that targeted his village in Blue Nile State, Sudan. He and his family woke up that morning to a backdrop of muffled explosions from aerial bombardments. Awad lost his two daughters; Yasindi aged 9 and Mohasim, aged 10 as a result of the bombing.

Awad, who now lives in a refugee camp in South Sudan, says he is relieved that as he deals with his grief, some of the responsibility of taking care of his family is now being shared with UNHCR and humanitarian aid workers.

Comparison returnee arrivals 2012 and 2013

NON-FOOD ITEMS AND EMERGENCY SHELTER

Ph

oto

: UN

MIS

S/M

arti

ne

Per

ret

In 2012, in line with the overall CAP strategy the NFI and Emergency Shelter Cluster focused the CHF allocation strategy on ensuring timely procure-ment of supplies and supporting front-line partners to enable sufficient stor-age in deep field locations prior to the rainy season, and timely delivery of NFI and emergency shelter to populations affected by conflict and disaster, re-turnees, and other vulnerable people. The cluster’s CHF strategy mirrored the central CAP 2012 strategic objective of ensuring sufficient quantities of NFI and ES materials are pre-positioned in strategic locations based on patterns of need, and ensuring those pre-posi-tioned items can be moved in a timely manner to where they are needed most. The CHF allocation enabled the

implementation of the ‘hub and spoke’ pre-positioning strategy , involving bulk storage in key ‘hubs’, and identification of more partners in deep field, high-risk, ‘spoke’ locations that are often inacces-sible in the rainy season. Stock stored in these locations minimized the use of expensive air assets, and sped up re-sponse times. The common pipeline procurement and a thorough review of cost per household across each proj-ect proposal ensured value for money. The cluster focused on expanding the capacity of organizations with a proven performance and special consideration was given to areas with little or no exist-ing partner coverage.


Over 573,000 people affected by disaster or emergency were provid-ed with NFIs

Over 118,400 NFIs and emergency shelter kits procured, trans-ported and stored in partners’ warehouses

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: NFI


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$20.8 million

Intersos, IOM, LCED, Medair, NCA, SCiSS,WVSS

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEEnsure that displaced people, returnees and host communities have inclu--sive access to appropriate shelter solutions, including essential non-fooditems.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of emergency or disaster affectedpeople provided with NFI or loose items.

No. of emergency or disaster affectedpeople provided with emergency shelter support.

No. of returnees provided with NFI orloose items.

No. of returnees provided with emergencyshelter support.

No. of NFI and ES kits procured, transpor--ted and stored in partner warehouses.

No. of post-distribution reports informingimproved NFI assessment, targeting anddistribution.

$17.4 million (84%)

$7 million (40% of secured funding)

0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

Jong

lei

War

rap

Uni

ty

Up

per

Nile

NB

eG

Lake

s

WB

eG

W. E

qua

toria

C. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

73%

NNGOs1%

INGOs26% 9 CHF

fundedprojects


Core pipeline


Frontline services

62%

23%


IOMWorld Vision


REPORTING

551,750

147,750

182,750

48,750

102,000

36

573,556

133,992

159,410

37,923

118,416

27

104%

91%

87%

78%

116%

75%


CHF resultsNFI and ES partners achieved clear results with CHF funding. At the frontline, the CHF put additional boots on the ground, enabling rapid response, improved field coordination and better reporting. CHF funds maintained the healthy supply chain into South Sudan, preventing a pipeline break and enabling continuous preposition-ing of stock in the deep field.

Field coordination was improved with the establishment of CHF-funded state focal points in four key states: Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile and Warrap. The state focal points conducted regular meet-ings, avoided duplication, identified gaps and ensured liaison with Juba to mobilise surge support where required. Dedicated NFI-ES staff were more available to implement rapid, quality response. To bridge the gaps left by the challenge of rapid staff turnover, the cluster also built two mobile response teams with CHF funds that have proven to be fast and flexible, and filled both coordination and response gaps in areas without partners present. This is a significant achievement of CHF funds because NFI is often seen as an add-on to broader staff portfolios and the cluster has previously struggled to secure skilled human resources necessary for quality response and effective liaison.

To build a cadre of adequately skilled staff, the CHF 2012 en-abled the cluster to hold a national level workshop which brought together RRC State Directors, cluster state focal points and key cluster partners, to build consensus on cluster policy and ap-proach. This workshop format is being devolved to the state level. Lastly, the cluster has also strengthened its capacity in post-dis-tribution monitoring, the results of which have inspired change and progress towards higher quality programming and guidance, such as changes to the standard NFI kit in the common pipeline. Representing a step towards gender mainstreaming, the standard kit in 2013 will begin including kangas, which are lengths of cotton cloth intended to better meet the specific needs of women as a multi-purpose item.

CHF added valueThe CHF funding enabled NFI and Emergency Shelter pipeline pro-curement, which has kept the common pipeline healthy into 2013. With an approximate six month procurement lag between ordering stock and delivery to field locations, timely procurement is essen-tial to sustain the supply chain. The CHF enabled pre-positioning by securing field storage in existing locations and enabling new cluster storage facilities to be erected. This strategy paid off during the 2012 floods when pre-positioning in areas like Yuai, Waat and Lankien enabled the first waves of response to be delivered from the ground, saving significantly on the use of air assets.

Though the rainy season cuts off road access to large tracts of the country, new access routes open as waterways rise, meaning the demand for transport and replenishment of supplies in accessible field warehouses does not in fact wane during the rains. A key chal-lenge in 2012 was accessing transport assets, particularly boats and barges, which drove up transport prices. Additionally in 2012, the rising cost of fuel, the closure of Sudan’s borders, delays with tax exemption at the border and attempts to levy internal taxation all impacted on pipeline operations.

From a broader perspective, the CHF is an invaluable funding mechanism, providing the cement for cluster coordination and by extension, the ability to respond to emergencies in a coherent manner.

“The CHF is an invaluable funding mechanism, pro-viding the cement for cluster coordination and the abil-ity to respond to emergencies in a coherent manner.”

— NFI and ES Cluster Coordinator


Testimony

Dede is an elderly widow who lives in Boma Town, Pibor County, Jonglei State. In January 2013, Dede and her fam-ily were displaced from their home by fighting in the town. Their tukul was burnt to the ground. They set up temporar-ily underneath a tree nearby, until they were verified some days later by the IOM/Medair team, and received tokens. On distribution day Dede was the first to arrive. When she received the items she rushed home to check what she had received, which included plastic sheeting, given the destruction of her shelter. Right away, she borrowed a pan-ga from a neighbor, cut poles and asked some local boys to assist in setting up a temporary shelter with the plastic sheet. From there, she has begun the reconstruction of her damaged tukul.

Monitoring and reportingThe cluster has enhanced its existing monitoring mechanisms throughout 2012. For monitoring of pipeline activities and frontline projects, the cluster has developed a standard pipeline request form and standard response reporting formats. Response reports are shared as they happen with local and national level stakehold-ers to ensure accountability and coordination. In addition, monthly stock and distribution summary reports are submitted to state fo-cal points. These are consolidated in Juba to provide country-wide data. The reporting compliance rates of partners are tracked by state focal points, with gaps followed up as needed. Consolidated data from these reports forms the basis of information for output indicators, which have been reviewed in 2012.

Post-distribution monitoring is one of the cluster’s strengths and in 2013, the guidelines will be made more gender responsive and us-er-friendly for partners, as well as to ensure comparability of data gathered so that the cluster can better analyse trends. A key chal-lenge for the cluster monitoring remains the collection of reliable, accurate gender and age disaggregated data. The standard for-mats are the first step towards improvement; ensuring compliance and adequate human resource capacity is the next step and a key focus in 2013.

Lessons learnedPost-distribution monitoring: in July 2012, the cluster released Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Guidelines, designed to help part-ners assess the appropriateness, effectiveness, and coverage of a response by collecting quantitative and qualitative data from key stakeholders. These include the beneficiaries themselves, as well as host community members. By feeding the lessons learned back

into programming decisions, the cluster is holding itself account-able to beneficiaries. The cluster also provided technical support to partners in implementing PDM.

Building partnership with RRC from state to county level: the na-tional workshop held in December 2012 to build consensus on cluster guidelines and approaches is cascading to state level in 2013, with the first held in Upper Nile State in April 2013.


ETHIOPIA

SUDAN

SOUTH KORDOFAN

Blue NILE

KENYA

UGANDA

DEM. REPUBLIC

OF CONGO

C.A.R.

JUBAEAST. EQUATORIA

WARRAP

LAKES

CENTR.

EQUATORIA

WEST. EQUATORIA

WEST. BAHR

EL GHAZALJONGLEI

UPPER

NILEUNITY

N. BAHR

EL GHAZAL

Terekeka

Yei

LofonKapoeta

N.

KapoetaEast

BudiTorit

MagwiIkotos

Kajo-Keji

Bor SouthPibor

Pochalla

Akobo

Yirol W.

Yirol E.

Awerial

Mundri

Mvolo

Nyirol

Rumbek N.

Renk

Melut

MabanPariang

Raga

Tambura

Nagero

Wau Jur

Tonj N.Tonj E.

Aweil E.

W.E.

Aweil C.

Aweil N.Twic Mayom

Gogrial Koch

Guit

Leer

Tonj S.

Cueibet RumbekC.

Ezo

MaridiIbba

Wulu

Ayod

Duk

Fangak

Maiwut

Uror

LongochukCanal

Baliet

Manyo

Panyikang

Twic East

YambioNzara

Abyei

Vulnerability rank

1 - 8 (highest)

9 - 17

18 - 25

26 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 78 (lowest)

SOUTH DARFUR EAST

DARFUR

Abyei

Shelter and non-food items vulnerabilityComposite index by county

Source: NFI Cluster

NUTRITION

Ph

oto

: M

ED

AIR

/Ste

lla C

het

ham

The Nutrition Cluster’s strategy for CHF allocations in 2012 focused on providing support to the cluster’s CAP objectives:

❖ Provide emergency nutrition services to prevent, detect and treat acute malnutrition among children under five, pregnant and lactating women and other vulnerable groups in high priority states.

❖ Strengthen nutrition emergency pre-paredness and response capacity across the country.

The strategy included training and ed-ucation components, and provision of nutrition supplies for the management of severe acute malnutrition. CHF fund-ing targeted high-risk and underserved communities, locations with high num-bers of internally displaced people or returnees, and locations that were sig-nificantly food insecure. Areas with high prevalence of malnutrition and areas showing increased nutrition vulnerabil-ity due to poor child mortality and mor-bidity indicators were also prioritised.


45,000 children were treated for severe malnutrition and over 537,000 people were reached by nutrition awareness and education sessions.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: NUTRITION


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$89.2 million

ACF-USA, ARC, BRAC, CARE, CCM/CUAMMConcern Worldwide, COSV, CRADA, GOALIMC-UK, Malaria Consortium, Medair, MerlinNHDF, RI, SP, SCiSS, Tearfund, UNICEF, UNIDO, UNKEA, WRI, WVSS

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEEnsure provision of emergency nutrition services in priority states in SouthSudan and focusing on high risk underserved communities and in areaswhere there is food insecurity, and/or high numbers of internally displacedpeople and returnees.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of Out Patient Theraputic Program(OTP) sites for the treatment of SevereAcute malnourished (SAM) children.

No. of children admitted/treated for SAM.

No. of children and P&LW treated forMAM.

No. community members reached withnutrition awareness and education.

No. of nutrition/health workers and com--munity representatives trained on com--munity management of acute malnutritionscreening and referral, and IYCF.

$52.5 million (59%)


0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

2.5m

Jong

lei

War

rap

NB

eG

Up

per

Nile

Uni

ty

E. E

qua

toria

Lake

s

WB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

24.3%

NNGOs8.4%

INGOs67.3%



Core pipeline


Frontline services

15%

22%


UNICEFACF-USA


REPORTING

219

41,394

143,570

492,663

9,302

240

42,552

62,614

537,064

11,076

110%

103%

44%

109%

84%

DISCLAIMER:The funding reported in the snapshot differs from what is reported in the FTS as some projects classified underthe Nutrition cluster received funding from the CHF Reserve to implement activities to assist refugees under theMulti Sector. The funding reported here thus only captures CHF funding channeled to partners through theNutrition cluster.


CHF resultsThe cluster successfully screened over 225,000 children for mal-nutrition and treated 42,500 for severe acute malnutrition (SAM). The quality of SAM treatment was good although in specific areas higher than desired levels of defaulting, i.e children not completing treatment, were observed. A further around 49,000 children and 13,900 pregnant and lactating women were treated for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). Fewer cases of MAM were treated than intended, primarily due to limited availability of treatment supplies. CHF funding supported treatment of vulnerable groups including patients with kala-azaar and tuberculosis. Almost universally, treatment was combined with nutrition education for caregivers to improve the nutritional status of infants and young children.

To prevent malnutrition, partners distributed vitamin A, deworm-ing and micronutrient supplements to vulnerable groups, including over 30,000 women and 50,000 children. More people than antic-ipated – over 537,000 people – were reached by nutrition aware-ness and education sessions. Blanket supplementary feeding had limited success as only 36 per cent of the planned numbers of children (aged 6 to 36 months) were provided supplementary food during the lean period. This was primarily due to limited access of partners to appropriate supplies.

The capacity of health workers and communities to address mal-nutrition improved. Some 2,800 health and nutrition workers and 8,300 community representatives were trained on community man-agement of acute malnutrition, screening and referral, and infant and young child feeding. CHF also supported nutrition surveys in 23 counties.

Cross-cutting issues were mainstreamed throughout cluster activ-ities. CHF projects that demonstrated gender-sensitive program-ming were given advantage in the allocation process. Nutrition cluster activities promoted outcomes that were gender-appropri-ate, e.g. pregnant and lactating women, as primary caregivers and a nutritionally vulnerable group, were targeted for the provision of micronutrient supplements and education on infant and young child feeding practices and education topics delivered at the com-munity and health facility levels were tailored around gender roles. At an organizational level, partners collected gender disaggregat-ed data to support program design and considered gender when recruiting staff.

The Nutrition Cluster’s response to environmental issues centred on waste disposal. Partners worked to improve waste disposal from feeding centres and to educate caregivers on disposal of waste at home. Partners also shared messages on sanitation and hygiene, including appropriate human waste disposal practices and house-hold waste management.

CHF added valueThrough the CHF, the cluster was able to support four projects implemented by national NGOs, increasing both programme cov-erage and coordination in high-need areas. CHF supported the development of Ministry of Health staff capacity at national, state and county levels for the establishment of stabilization centres and outpatient treatment programmes. Funding of the nutrition pipe-line provided flexibility to move supplies to high-need areas and to pre-position stock prior to the rainy season.


15.4 14.1 12.9 12.2 8.4 7.8 7.2 6.7 5.6 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.3 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.6

Tim

or-L

este

Nig

er

Ch

ad

Sou

th S

udan

DR

C

Bur

und

i

Bur

kina

Faso

Ca

mb

odia

Mya

nm

ar

Djib

outi

Gu

ine

a-B

issa

u

Ga

mb

ia

Tog

o

Tanz

ani

a

Bhu

tan

Mal

awi

Mau

rita

nia

Lib

eria

Rw

and

a

Arm

enia

Sw

azila

nd

Co

lom

bia

Per

u

High rate of malnutritionMDG indicator for severely underweight children under 5 years in selected countries (%)

Source: UN MDG Progress Report 2012; South Sudan Household Health Survey 2010


Monitoring and reporting At the project level, partners monitored projects through structured supervision of nutrition activities that ensures the quality of treat-ment and allows for on-the-job capacity building. Partners under-took 189 such visits in 2012. Issues identified were raised through either state or national level coordination mechanisms. At the na-tional level, partners provide monthly reports on their activities in each county including gender disaggregated indicators of prog-ress and quality and information about treatment supply stocks. In 2012, the cluster began to undertake field monitoring visits to complement the monthly reports by providing qualitative informa-tion about projects, recording best practices and identifying issues across regions or sectors. At the field level, monthly summaries are shared with state focal points to support field level coordination. Monitoring at the field level is also supported by the cluster lead agency which provides technical support to partners.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ While good progress was made overall in implementing the cluster strategy, availability and access to supplies posed chal-lenges. A number of partners were not able to secure supplies and hence did not reach their targets for targeted supplemen-tary feeding and blanket supplementary feeding activities. In particular, partners were not able to reach as many children as expected due to breaks in the pipeline of supplementary foods for the treatment of MAM, while switching of pipeline commodi-ties made additional education of caregivers necessary.

❖ The default rate of children enrolled in treatment for SAM was af-fected by the long distances of some communities to treatment sites. Partners also reported that the transience of particular populations, including returnees, made onward referral difficult.

❖ Partners had difficulty finding and retaining appropriately

skilled and qualified staff, particularly in more remote areas. At the site level, management and storage of supplies was also a challenge for some partners.

❖ Flooding and insecurity limited beneficiary access to treatment sites. This resulted in longer treatment times and defaulting and further limited the number of people reached for screening and community mobilization activities.

❖ Building capacity among partners to undertake surveys and rapid assessments is important to enable the cluster to respond to situations as they develop.

❖ Projects with a strong community focus are able to reduce de-faulting rates and increase uptake of services. This approach is particularly important in ensuring both engagement in treatment initiatives and preventative behaviours.

❖ Delivering nutrition programmes in conjunction with WASH, health and food security activities provides a coherent experi-ence for communities and simultaneously addresses underlying causes of malnutrition.

❖ During the implementation of activities, partners collaborated on shared surveys, redistributing supplies, providing referrals and coordinating programs. This coordination at the programme lev-el should be encouraged and strengthened.

❖ Sustaining achievements in building the capacity of county health departments will be challenged by austerity measures.

❖ Experience suggests that remote supervision during inaccessi-bility (e.g. due to flooding) can encourage the capacity building and ownership of field staff and help ensure continuity of activ-ities in an emergency.


PROTECTION

Ph

oto

: UN

ICE

F/B

rian

So

kol

CHF allocations were directed to projects that contributed to at least one of the clus-ter’s three objectives in the 2012 CAP:

❖ Monitor and reduce the adverse ef-fects of displacement and human-itarian emergencies on the civilian population.

❖ Provide support to survivors of GBV and improve prevention in six priority states.

❖ Reunify separated, unaccompanied and abducted children with their fam-ilies; release children and youth from armed forces and groups; and pro-vide psycho-social services to emer-gency-affected children.

CHF allocation priorities, as reflected in the protection CHF portfolio, focussed

on ensuring emergency frontline re-sponse capacity and supporting dis-placed people while working on dura-ble solutions. Projects in hot spot areas were prioritized.

Systematic protection monitoring and assessments - designed to ensure over-all awareness of needs and targeted response or referral - formed important parts of the activities funded through the CHF. Gender was mainstreamed in all projects as a fundamental com-ponent of the protection response. The cluster also emphasized support to na-tional NGOs and to projects with mul-tiple sources of funding to spread the burden of “start-up” costs and increase the effectiveness of CHF investments.


Over 94,000 out of 103,000 registered (separated / unaccom-panied) children were reunited with their families or were assured alternative care arrangements.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: PROTECTION


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$69,4 million

ARC, CRADA, IRC, NRC, NVPF, WVSS,NHDF, UNHCR, UNICEF

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEMitigate the effects of grave violations on the civilian population by wayof targeted and coordinated interventions with particular reference tovulnerable groups.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of people receiving protectionadvice and administrative/legalassistance (on return/(re)integration, service schemes and procedures,land and property matters or otherrights).

No. of people receiving/havingaccess to GBV response services inpsycho-social, health, justice, securitysectors.

No. of identified and registered(separated/unaccompanied) childrenreunited with their families or alternativecare arrangements assured.

$21.5 million (31%)


0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

Jong

lei

NB

eG

War

rap

Up

per

Nile

Lake

s

Uni

ty

C. E

qua

toria

W. E

qua

toria

E. E

qua

toria

WB

eG




UN agencies

23%

INGOs65%



Core pipeline n/a




UNHCRNRC


REPORTING

3,205

13,965

103,569

3,478

1,565

94,592

109%

11%

91%

n/a

NNGOs12%


CHF resultsWith CHF funding, protection partners were able to increase the number of “boots on the ground” to monitor activities and assess needs; provide trainings on frontline response; and establish com-munity protection committees and teams identifying and assisting vulnerable cases in areas of displacement and return. Partners promoted collaborative dispute resolution strategies, especially on issues around land and natural resources. They also provided trainings on protection-related issues to frontline service provid-ers, community leaders and volunteers, ensuring community par-ticipation and ownership in both prevention and response. Joint protection and assessment and monitoring missions were a major component of the projects implemented in 2012, and their reach greatly exceeded the initial target.

Protection awareness messages were disseminated in commu-nities through radio and information materials. Structured cam-paigns, such as the “16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence” and International Women’s Day, also offered outreach opportuni-ties. Child protection activities included disseminating messages on violence against children, separation of children from families, child labour and forced recruitment.

Protection partners implementing activities aimed at changing behaviors often faced resistance to change due to cultural norms and attitudes. Despite these challenges, ten out of fifteen partners receiving CHF funds successfully carried out awareness raising activities on gender-based violence (GBV), tackling the traditional-ly low reporting rates from survivors and communities affected by violence. Projects carried out by protection partners in this area ensured that response services and referral systems for GBV sur-vivors were in place and known to communities. Demonstrating the impact and importance of these activities, partners’ reports show that where referral and response systems were made available, the number of beneficiaries accessing services increased.

Protection partners paid close attention to gender balance in the implementation of their planned activities, i.e. by involving men and boys in GBV-related activities, ensuring that female clients re-ceived assistance on land and access to civil status documenta-tion issues, and providing “protective presence” accompaniment and personal security trainings. Gender was an essential com-ponent of protection activities carried out by partners in 2012 as reflected by the fact that most project reported against the GBV output indicator.

CHF added valueThe CHF provided a funding lifeline to the protection cluster in 2012, as funding from other sources was limited. Without CHF funding, life-saving projects might not have been able to start or be sustained over the course of the year. Even more importantly, national NGOs benefited from being involved in the CHF process, which brought them closer to more experienced national and inter-national humanitarian organizations.

The CHF provides a valuable feedback mechanism for national NGOs whose capacity building needs are high both in terms of im-mediate response and longer term development objectives. CHF support for a M&R specialist for the Protection Cluster was also an extremely valuable aspect of the CHF process in South Sudan.


Protection partners implementing activities aimed at changing behaviors often faced resistance to change due to cultural norms and attitudes. Despite these challenges, ten out of fifteen CHF partners successfully carried out awareness raising activities on gender-based violence.

ETHIOPIA

SUDAN

South Kordofan

Blue Nile

East. Equatoria

Warrap

Lakes

Centr. Equatoria

West. Equatoria

West. BahrEl Ghazal Jonglei

UpperNile

UnityN. Bahr

El Ghazal

KENYA

UGANDA

DEM. REPUBLICOF THE CONGO

CENTRALAFRICANREPUBLIC

JUBAIncidents

South Darfur

EastDarfur

Cross-border incident

Inter/intra-communal,other incidents


Source: OCHA (April 2013)

Conflict incidents in 2012Reported intra-/inter-communal, cross-border and other incidents


Monitoring and reporting mechanismThe monitoring of CHF-funded projects was mainly carried out internally by the implementing partners. The M&R specialist who joined the cluster in November 2012 visited two projects funded through the second standard allocation. The visits provided an opportunity to identify monitoring and reporting challenges and solutions with colleagues implementing protection activities on the ground. In terms of reporting, all the requested reports were duly submitted and their quality ensured by the joint efforts of partners and the cluster. All partners reported disaggregated figures. In certain thematic areas, however, the use of divergent indicators by different partners challenged coherent reporting. At the final CHF reporting stage the cluster worked to ensure uniformity among partners on indicators and monitoring strategies. Suggestions on the improvement of indicators continue to be sought from col-leagues in the field during the monitoring visits.

Lessons learned ❖ Though staff and time-intensive, establishing a trusting relation-

ship with communities by actively involving both male and female community leaders was vital to the success of outreach activities addressing GBV and child protection and disseminating relevant information. However, in order to increase the level of reporting on protection, community awareness and engagement must grow further. Ensuring that survivors accessing services are not stig-matized for seeking assistance by maintaining confidentiality is paramount.

❖ Project planning must adapt to the cultural context. One partner highlighted that since counselling is an unfamiliar practice to most South Sudanese women, ‘tea talks’ offer a better setting for discussing sensitive issues such as GBV.

❖ Radio is the preferred means of reaching the population, but presents difficulties in audience monitoring - especially the mon-itoring of women and girls’ exposure to broadcasted messages.

Testimony

During the awareness-raising and sensitization sessions in Nasir, Upper Nile State, early marriage was identified as the main form of GBV in the area. At the end of one of the sessions, one woman told the group: “I gave my 14 year old daughter to marriage and took her away from school. I am now going to take her back to school. I am willing to pay back the dowry. I have received support to ensure that my girl gets back her rights as a child and gets education as she deserves.”

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE (WASH)

Ph

oto

: UN

DP

/Bri

an S

oko

l

The key priorities for the WASH Cluster in the 2012 CAP were to:

❖ Increase access to safe water, san-itation and hygiene services among emergency-affected and acutely vul-nerable communities.

❖ Strengthen community capacity to withstand WASH crises.

❖ Facilitate behaviour change in hy-giene and sanitation practices in acutely vulnerable communities.

CHF funding focused on responding to acute emergency needs. CHF provid-ed for 31 per cent of funding secured by the WASH core pipeline thus ensur-ing that WASH partners had sufficient emergency supplies throughout the year. CHF funds were used primarily for projects targeting hot spot areas of increased vulnerability.


245,800 people out of the 331,000 planned were provided with sustainable access to safe water, e.g. 15 litres per person and day within one kilometre.

239 water points rehabilitated in priority states.

DISCLAIMER:The funding reported in the snapshot differs from what is reported in the FTS as some projects classified underthe WASH Cluster received funding from the CHF reserve to implement activities to assist refugees under theMultisector. The funding reported here thus only captures CHF funding channeled to partners through theWASH cluster.

CLUSTER SNAPSHOT: WASH


CAP requirement

CAP secured funding


$102.7 million

ACF-USA, BCDA, CARE, CMD, GOAL,Intermon Oxfam, Intersos, IOM, Medair,NHDF, Oxfa-GB, SP, Solicarites Intl., UNICEF

CHF recipients

CAP CLUSTER PURPOSEIncrease access to safe water and improved sanitation and hygienepractices among emergency-affected and acutely vulnerable comm--unities in South Sudan.

CHF KEY RESULTS


No. of people provided with sustainedaccess to safe water supply (15 litres/person/day within 1 km distance).

No. of new/ additional water pointsconstructed.

No. of existing water points rehabilitated.

No. of new latrines constructed.

No. of latrines rehabilitated.

No. people served with solid wastemanagement.

No of households receiving a hygiene kit.

$60.3 million (59%)


0

0.5m

1m

1.5m

2m

2.5m

3m

3.5m

Up

per

Nile

War

rap

Uni

ty

NB

eG

Jong

lei

Lake

s

W. E

qua

toria

WB

eG

C. E

qua

toria

W. E

qua

toria




UN agencies

52%

NNGOs5%

INGOs43%



Core pipeline


Frontline services

31%

17%


UNICEFMedair


REPORTING

331,180

69

228

931

242

16,034

12,074

245,860

71

239

1,518

243

11,432

9,196

74%

103%

105%

163%

100%

71%

76%


CHF resultsThe results achieved with CHF funding were aligned with the CAP objectives, and helped the WASH Cluster exceed the target it had set in the CAP for its operations.

Using CHF funding, project partners reached over 245,000 peo-ple. Projects delivered over 70 additional water points and rehabil-itated an additional 239 water points in project areas.

CHF funding also supported sanitation activities with over 1,500 new latrines constructed and some 240 latrines rehabilitated. These achievements gave access to hygienic latrine facilities for nearly 83,000 people. Solid waste management services were provided to over 11,000 people. Hygiene services were also deliv-ered to acutely vulnerable communities by distributing over 9,000 hygiene kits and training over 2,000 hygiene promoters to spread hygiene messages. Communities were trained in operating and maintaining WASH services. Training and capacity building efforts by the cluster included training for 18 pump mechanics in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Warrap states.

By providing support for the WASH Cluster core pipeline, CHF funding contributed to the delivery of emergency WASH supplies to an estimated 220,000 emergency-affected people at the mid-term review of the project, already meeting 70 per cent of the proj-ect’s target.

Among the best practices highlighted in partners’ reports, commu-nity participation stood out as a key factor in success. Reports from many projects in the WASH portfolio credited the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) method for achieving reductions in open defecation.

Gender and environmental issues were mainstreamed into the WASH CHF portfolio by all CHF-funded partners. Recognising the central role of women in WASH, projects included specific consul-tations with women on the locations and design of water points and latrines. Many projects supported the formation and operation of gender-balanced water management committees which provided opportunities for men and women alike to have a voice in WASH projects.

Specific needs of children were addressed by integrating hygiene promotion and WASH education in schools. This allowed for sep-arate training tailored to children, and also recognised the way in which schools can be used as central points for dissemination of hygiene messages. The low number of female teachers, and bar-riers to open discussion with male teachers made it difficult to ad-dress girls’ hygiene, an important issue affecting girls’ education. In recognition of this challenge, one project targeted training for male teachers in girls’ hygiene needs at school during menstruation.

Environmental issues are gradually being integrated in the work of the WASH Cluster, with projects in the CHF portfolio comprising solid waste management activities. Other environmental issues in-clude the need to use local timber for construction material, partic-ularly in emergency contexts.

CHF added valueThe active role played by the cluster coordinators and peer review teams in the CHF allocation process allowed funding to be chan-nelled in a strategic way. With other funding secured by partners, CHF funds were directed towards critical projects with funding



gaps, or to high-priority projects in geographic locations with ca-pacity gaps. The CHF therefore had an immediate impact on the ability of WASH partners to meet urgent water, sanitation and hy-giene needs in South Sudan.

Monitoring and reporting ❖ Partners report on a monthly basis to the WASH Cluster on the results achieved in the areas of water supply, sanitation, hy-giene and community capacity development activities. These reports track progress towards specific CAP targets.

❖ In 2012, an M&R specialist joined the WASH Cluster to further strengthen the cluster’s M&R mechanisms.

❖ In 2013, a monitoring protocol is being developed and piloted for use across the WASH Cluster. Complementary to the current monthly reporting, it will provide increased verification of out-puts, information on the quality and standard of projects and serve as a mechanism for community feedback. This will help the cluster provide targeted and relevant support to partners, and ensure quality WASH programming.

Challenges and lessons learned ❖ Access to project sites was particularly difficult in 2012 due to rains and flooding. While the rainy season is considered in pro-gram planning, flooding in 2012 was particularly bad, affecting 43 of 79 counties. Constructing suitable WASH infrastructure in areas prone to recurrent flooding is an ongoing challenge.

❖ Price fluctuations driven primarily by border closures with Sudan, the restriction of the flow of goods into South Sudan and national austerity measures indirectly affected prices on im-ports, raising the costs of operations.

❖ Scarcity of materials in markets in project areas meant many goods required procurement and transportation from Juba. This significantly raised project costs above the projected figures at the start of the year.

❖ A lack of qualified and skilled WASH personnel in South Sudan

continues to present challenges to WASH programme delivery. Humanitarian capacity in general has been stretched by the growing refugee response, reducing partners’ capacity to deal with other emergencies.

❖ Service delivery to returnee populations was hindered by tech-nical challenges in finding suitable sites to drill boreholes at re-turnee resettlement sites and lack of decision-making regarding land allocation, notably in Northern Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile states.

❖ The cluster faced difficulties in providing supplies from the WASH core pipeline to partners on time. The cluster is looking at enhancing stock availability in key locations that are accessi-ble during the rainy season to serve as back up for warehouses and hubs that are normally affected during the rains to avoid disruption.


Testimony

“I was forcefully displaced with my family in December 2011 as a result of fighting between [the] South Sudan Army and a non-state armed group. When fighting erupted in my vil-lage, Atar, our tukul [hut] was burned to ashes along with our food. All our valuable properties were stolen and we fled to the bush, where we remained until we eventually arrived to Ayod town in February 2012. Among those who received us were RRC and CMD staff, chiefs and the local authority. We were taken to the IDPs camp and were given food and water. CMD staff distributed non-food items in November 2012, which included buckets, blankets, jerry cans, water filters, soaps and water chlorine/purification tabs and we were amongst the beneficiaries targeted.”

— Nyanhial, 65 year old, currently in IDP camp in Ayod town.


During the consultations on the CHF annual report, the Advisory Board and clusters widely acknowledged that the fund had contrib-uted to more efficient and predictable humanitarian action in South Sudan. At the same time, partners identified several challenges fac-ing the fund related to the realities of working in any fragile state, and suggested some improvements. These are outlined below.

Risk management issues. Given the size the CHF, and the high number of projects supported by the fund, risk management will continue to require close attention. The large amount of funding channeled through the CHF represents the greatest risk to its sound financial management. Ensuring that recipient organizations have established procedures in place to prevent, detect and respond to fraud is an important consideration before assigning funding. The audits of CHF-funded projects in 2012 will begin in June 2013. Based on the outcomes of the audits, the CHF Secretariat, in par-ticular UNDP, will engage with partners to strengthen risk manage-ment and mitigate potential weaknesses. UNDP will also continue to conduct capacity assessments of NGOs receiving funds for the first time in advance of allocations, and periodic or ad hoc assess-ments of NGOs who have already received funds in the past and have won an additional award from the fund. The CHF Secretariat will continue to conduct briefing sessions on budget preparation and reporting requirements. Any delays in financial reporting will be followed up jointly with the clusters. In the event that wrong-doing is suspected, the CHF Secretariat will promptly inform the Advisory Board and clusters to ensure that a full investigation is conducted, remedial measures are taken, and lessons learned are integrated in future strategies.

The importance of timeliness of contributions. One of the key aspects of the Good Humanitarian Donorship agenda is timeliness of funding. This is especially important in South Sudan, given the constraint of the rainy season when over half of the country floods and access to communities is difficult, or even impossible. As such, the bulk of the work must take place in the dry season, i.e. from November to May. Having financial resources available well before the beginning of this period is paramount to the effectiveness of the entire relief operation. In 2012, the effectiveness of both stan-dard allocations was challenged due to delays in donor deposits. The deposit of money into the CHF in March meant the allocation process started towards the end of the dry season, giving partners little time to carry out programmes before the rains. For the second allocation, the delay of deposits into the CHF meant that disburse-ments had to be completed over a period of four months. This was a concern particularly for organizations that cannot pre-finance their activities. For allocations in 2013 and beyond, the CHF would benefit from donors making resources available at specific times in order to take maximum advantage of favourable conditions for project implementation. These moments are notably in the wake of the launch of a new CAP or immediately after the CAP MYR, in November and July of each year.

Expanding the number of donors would give the fund a more sol-id base While donors contributed very generously to the CHF in its first year, the relatively small number of donors makes the fund susceptible to the consequences of global financial austerity and competing pressures from other crises around the world. It will be equally important for the Humanitarian Coordinator to continue separate fundraising efforts for large operations such as the food aid, logistics and refugee programmes to reduce competition for resources and ensure that CHF funding is invested where it can make the biggest difference.

Expanding the access by national partners would contribute to the longer term sustainability of programmes. In 2012, the limited access by national partners to CHF-funding hampered im-plementation of the principle of partnership and development of national capacity. Increasing the number of national partners will not only increase the clusters’ response capacity on the ground, which is important given the size of the country, but also create opportunities for longer-term and more sustainable activities to take hold. Overcoming this challenge will require a more consis-tent engagement by all clusters to reach out to and mentor nation-al counterparts on cluster priorities and technical standards. The CHF Secretariat will also need to continue to raise awareness on the functioning of the CHF and provide training on application mo-dalities, monitoring and reporting.

Maintaining a strong cluster coordination system is critical for the efficient management of the fund. The success of the South Sudan CHF rests on the strength of the cluster coordination sys-tem, including to formulate operational priorities for CHF-support and to manage monitoring of the fund’s achievements. To date, UN agencies have showed strong commitment to the cluster approach and have managed to mobilise bilateral resources for cluster coor-dination, whereas NGO co-leads operate on a voluntary basis. The Advisory Board could consider how to make the work of clusters more sustainable.

Maintaining a stable capacity for monitoring and reporting in clusters is key to improving programme delivery. The deploy-ment of M&R specialists to clusters was an important innovation for the CHF and is widely seen as a useful initiative. The ability to further strengthen monitoring and reporting activities will de-pend on the continued availability of this dedicated capacity in the clusters. Retaining M&R specialists on UNV contracts has proven problematic given the high cost of living and challenging working environment in South Sudan. In this vein the Advisory Board has already agreed to explore avenues for continuing this initiative and improving the contractual status for the M&R specialists to prevent high staff turnover.

Determining the CHF contribution to achievements. As the CHF mainly co-funds projects, attributing results to the fund versus

CHALLENGES and the WAY FORWARD

Challenges and the Way Forward


In 2012, the South Sudan CHF was one of the most important sources of humanitarian funding, accounting for some 15 per cent of money given for projects in the CAP. The resources provided by the fund ranged from approximately 4 to 59 per cent of over-all funding secured by clusters, thus making a significant contri-bution to the achievements of some clusters which, without CHF funding, could have not implemented their activities. The educa-tion cluster, which in the past years has suffered from underfund-ing, is a case in point. Here, the CHF played a key role in rolling out education in emergencies by providing 59 per cent of all re-sources mobilised by the cluster and supporting both the pipeline and frontline service providers. The fund also played an important role in strengthening the cluster coordination system and was an important tool for the Humanitarian Coordinator to direct funding to priority activities.

Deploying M&R specialists to the clusters has proved to be a useful and innovative modality to bolster the quality of the work of clus-ters, as well as their learning and ownership. The establishment of the Monitoring and Reporting Working Group and the full staffing of the UNDP component of the CHF TS have helped lay the basis for strengthened risk management. The integration of the work of OCHA and UNDP is important to maintain the financial and pro-grammatic accountability of the fund in 2013. However, noting that the management of the CHF is a collective responsibility, the con-tinued engagement of all stakeholders in following up on the results of the upcoming audits will be key.

Diligent follow-up on the challenges mentioned in the previous section will help the CHF continue to be a tool for more targeted, predictable and efficient humanitarian action in South Sudan in the years ahead.

Ph

oto

: Mer

cyC

orp

s/M

ath

ieu

Ro

uq

uet

te

other donors is a challenge. Efforts to improve attribution will in-clude helping organizations strengthen project design through Logframe clinics and collection of best practices and feedback by partners on this issue including through monitoring visits.

Strengthening communication to partners will help improve the allocation process. In 2012, partners were sometimes frustrated by the lack of visibility on where in the allocation process their proj-ect was at any given time. In 2013, the CHF Secretariat will work to improve the efficiency and transparency of CHF allocations by increasing regular and timely communication with partners and es-tablishing a database to manage the different steps of the allocation.

An automated system which records the life-span of a project and alerts partners and the CHF TS of upcoming deadlines will prevent delays by ensuring real-time flow of information to partners on the status of submissions. It will also enable the CHF TS to analyze the main cause for delays and further improve the allocation process.

Building better understanding in the Government on humani-tarian financing. Some Advisory Board members have raised the possibility of involving the Government of South Sudan in key steps of the CHF allocation process as a way to promote better under-standing of the scope and functioning of humanitarian financing. This possibility will be reviewed in 2013.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Name Title Contact

OCHA South Sudan team

Federica D’Andreagiovanni Head of the Humanitarian Financing Unit [email protected]

Thomas Onsare Nyambane Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected]

Meron Berhane Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected]

Kizito Iranya National Humanitarian Affairs Officer [email protected]

Anne-Sophie Le Beux Monitoring and Reporting Officer [email protected]

UNDP South Sudan team

Ashutosh Jha Programme Specialist [email protected]

Rashid Mogga Finance Specialist [email protected]

Ahmed Rajab Finance Associate [email protected]

Blessing Kachere Contracting Officer [email protected]

UNDP/MPTF New York team

Olga Aleshina Senior Portfolio Manager [email protected]

Ernesto Calderón Portfolio Analyst [email protected]

Myasanda Hlaing Operations Associate [email protected]

Patricia Stockeyr Programme Associate [email protected]


ANNEX 1 LIST of ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS in 2012 Chair: Humanitarian Coordinator

Donor Representatives: Representatives of two CHF contributing donors (Sweden and DfID)

UN Representatives: Two country representative of UN agencies (UNHCR and UNICEF with IOM and WHO as alternate)

NGO: Representatives from the NGO Forum and NGO Secretariat

Observer: ECHO

ANNEX 2 CONTACT LIST of CHF TEAM

Annex

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 201250 Annex

ANNEX 3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONSWhat is the difference between the CAP and the CHF?The CAP is a planning document outlining humanitarian requirements by humanitarian organizations in South Sudan to meet most urgent humanitarian needs. The CHF is a pooled fund mechanism to avail funding to humanitarian projects. The CHF uses the CAP as its primary allocation framework. While the CAP is the “demand side” the CHF represents the “supply side”.

What is the difference between the standard and reserve allocations? The CHF standard allocation mechanism is used to allocate the bulk of the CHF resources (up to 80 per cent) and to ensure funding for priority projects in the CAP. Two standard allocation rounds per year are envisaged under this mechanism. The first standard allocation is normally launched at the beginning of the year, to facilitate pre-positioning of supplies at the field level and sustain operational capacity of hu-manitarian organizations throughout the rainy season. A second allocation is normally completed in the wake of the midterm review of the CAP to ensure that funding from the CHF targets the highest priority components of the revised humanitarian strategy.

The CHF reserve mechanism is used for the rapid and flexible allocation of funds to meet unforeseen needs and critical gaps. Projects in and outside the CAP are eligible for allocation of funds from the reserve.

Who is eligible for funding?Funding proposals are accepted from UN agencies, IOM, the Red Cross Movement, and international and national non-governmental humanitarian organizations.

What is the maximum duration of a CHF project?12 months.

What is the start date of a CHF project?The start date of a project can be as early as the approval date of the allocation and no later than when a grant is received.

What are the reporting requirements?A narrative report is submitted to the CHF Technical Secretariat at midterm and end of the project. For projects with duration of six months or less, only a final report is required. Financial reporting is submit-ted by NGOs to UNDP (as Managing Agent for NGO partners) on a quarterly basis prior to requesting payment for the next quarter. UN agencies submit estimated expenditures at midterm and end of the project to the CHF Technical Secretariat with the final certified financial reporting submitted to MPTF Office in New York on an annual basis.

ANNEX 4 CHF and CERF SUPPORTED LIST of PROJECTS

Organization Agency CHF CERF Cluster Project code

ACF-USA Total $2,645,000

INGO 420,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46176

500,000 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46161


700,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46407

440,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46407

ACTEDTotal $869,527

INGO 270,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46402

599,527 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/51730

ADRATotal $376,573

INGO 376,573 Education SSD-12/E/46058

AMURT InternationalTotal $350,001

INGO 350,001 FSL SSD-12/A/46322

ARCTotal $1,567,961

INGO 250,000 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/51738



500,529 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL

341,479 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL

AWODATotal $ 60,000

NNGO 60,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46355

BCDATotal $53,942

NNGO 53,942 WASH SSD-12/WS/51705

BRACTotal $199,940

INGO 199,940 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46210

CARETotal $1,050,000

INGO 300,000 Health SSD


450,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46291

CCM Total $575,000

INGO 300,000 Health SSD-12/H/46151

275,000 Health SSD-12/H/46151

CCM / CUAMMTotal $595,000



CDoTTotal $650,004

NNGO 300,000 Health SSD-12/H/46167

350,004 Health SSD-12/H/46167

CHF South Sudan Annual Report 2012 51Annex


CMATotal $585,000


235,000 Health SSD-12/H/46180

CMDTotal $160,004

NNGO 70,003 FSL SSD

90,001 WASH SSD

Concern WorldwideTotal $400,000


COSVTotal $350,000

INGO 200,000 Health SSD-12/H46187


CRADATotal $401,534

NNGO 150,000 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46262

251,534 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL/45983

DDGTotal $556,925

INGO 278,205 MA SSD-12/MA/46060

278,720 MA SSD-12/MA 46060

FAOTotal $4,500,064

UN 1,735,212 3,003,480 FSL SSD-12/A/46142

2,500,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46142

264,852 FSL SSD-12/A/46142

FHSS Total $383,081


GOALTotal $2,223,555


285,000 Health SSD-12/H/46232



400,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46425

Horn ReliefTotal $199,746

INGO 199,746 FSL SSD-12/A/46252

IMC-UKTotal $2,075,000


1,000,000 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/51737


575,000 Nutrition SSD

Intermon OxfamTotal $648,390

INGO 297,950 FSL SSD-12/A/50921

350,440 WASH SSD-12/WS/51334

IntersosTotal $1,671,563


541,647 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46159

749,963 WASH SSD-12/WS/46314

IOMTotal $15,671,563

UN 365,000 Health SSD-12/H/51418

3,499,005 969,420 LOGS SSD

1,710,000 Logs SSD-12/CSS/46053

507,103 LOGS SSD-12/CSS/46053


890,668 2,599,030 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46154



IOM (continued) UN 299,279 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46168

3,946,682 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46154

750,002 1,067,774 WASH SSD-12/WS/46342

350,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46342

IRCTotal $1,884,999


285,000 Health SSD-12/H/46249




IRWTotal $250,000

INGO 250,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46316

LCEDTotal $51,74

NNGO 51,743 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/51416

MAGTotal $230,874

INGO 230,874 MA SSD-12/MA/46096

Malaria ConsortiumTotal $550,000


250,000 Nutrition SSD-12\H\46200

ManiteseTotal $197,838

INGO 197,838 FSL SSD-12/A/46360

MedairTotal $1,625,020


175,000 Health SSD-12/H/46305

200,020 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46184


450,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46309

Mercy CorpsTotal $1,899,711


549,349 Education SSD-12/E/46075

415,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46394

435,680 FSL SSD-12/A/51433

MerlinTotal $825,000




NCATotal $276,405


76,405 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46284

NHDFTotal $1,916,402

NNGO 411,543 Education SSD-12/E/46076

213,812 Health SSD-12/H/46201




400,000 WASH SSD-12WS/46313

129,986 WASH SSD-12/WS/46313

175,000 Nutrition SSD-12/H/ 46283



NPATotal $850,000

INGO 260,000 FSL SSD-12/A/51430

295,000 MA SSD-12/MA/46100

295,000 MA SSD-12/MA/46100

NRCTotal $200,063

INGO 200,063 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL/46212

NVPFTotal $845,562

INGO 397,590 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL/46571

447,972 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL-46571

Oxfam GBTotal $2,799,901

INGO 999,901 WASH SSD-12/WS/46333

1,800,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46333

PCOTotal $493,549



Relief International Total $1,001,618

INGO 100,000 Health SSD/-12/H/46248

301,550 FSL SSD-12/A/46300

300,000 Health SSD-12/H/46248



Samaritan’s PurseTotal $1,267,676


440,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46335

SCISSTotal $1,279,215

INGO 215,062 FSL SSD-12/A/46462

450,000 Health SSD-12/H/47047

414,158 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46308


Solidarites InternationalTotal $2,200,000

INGO 500,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46424

1,700,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46424

SPEDPTotal $71,700

INGO 71,700 FSL SSD-12/A/46545

SSUDATotal $542,890



TearfundTotal $440,684



THESOTotal $597,211

INGO 200,000 Health SSD

397,211 Health SSD-12/H/46391

UNDPTotal $856,000

UN 856,000 CCS SSD-12/CSS/51411

UNDSSTotal $733,325

UN 733,325 CCS SSD-12/CSS/45913

UNESCOTotal $300,000

UN 300,000 Education SSD-12/E/51237

UNFPATotal $770,100

UN 320,000 227,929 Health SSD-12/H/46211

450,100 Health SSD-12/H/46211



UNHCRTotal $12,923,324

UN 955,288 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/46222


1,026,665 13,041,971 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/46418



UNICEFTotal $14,861,640

UN 2,793,866 612,441 Education SSD-12/E/46093

1,093,465 Education SSD-12/E/46093

600,000 1,574,672 Health SSD-12/H/46251

400,000 Health SSD-12/H/46271

665,014 Health SSD-12/H/46251

225,245 MA SSD-12/MA/46103


1,517,341 4,667,080 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46186/R

567,491 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46207/R

524,150 1,615,792 Protection SSD-12/P-HR-RL/46306


750,070 4,066,545 WASH SSD-12/WS/46469

4,500,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46469

400,000 WASH SSD-12/WS/46469

UNIDOTotal $339,280

NNGO 79,000 Health SSD-12/H/46388

190,280 Health SSD-12/H/46388


UNKEATotal $300,000

NNGO 150,000 Nutrition SSD-12/H/46242

150,000 Nutrition SSD-12//H/46242

UNOPSTotal $1,500,000

UN 1,500,000 Multi Sector SSD-12/MS/51733

VSF-BelgiumTotal $580,000

INGO 380,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46417

200,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46417

VSF SwissTotal $247,665

INGO 247,665 FSL SSD-12/A/46172

VSF -GermanyTotal $400,009

INGO 200,000 FSL SSD-12/A/46429

200,009 FSL SSD-12/A/46195

WFPTotal $9,751,677

UN 210,248 ETC SSD-12/CSS/46580

- 4,397,966 FSL SSD-12/A/46147

2,775,693 LOGS SSD-12/CSS/45928

3,125,736 LOGS SSD-12/CSS/46051

2,500,000 Logs SSD-12/CSS

1,140,000 Logs SSD-12/CSS/46051



WHOTotal $1,784,952

UN 250,006 2,199,991 Health SSD-12/H/46367

299,980 Health SSD-12/H/46336

399,966 Health SSD-12/H/46378

835,000 Health SSD-12/H/46367

World ReliefTotal $284,497



WVSS2,149,669

INGO 393,552 Nutrition SSD

175,000 Health SSD

594,847 NFI&ES SSD-12/S-NF/46257

500,063 Nutrition SSD -12/H/46304

486,207 Protection SSD

Total 108,440,526 40,044,091


Common Services and Coordination Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

The number of humanitarian personnel transported for urgent humanitarian missions in response to emergency security situations/ able to access areas that otherwise could not have been flown to by UNMISS or UNHAS/WFP flights

Number of humanitarian personnel transported

- 384 -

Number of security assessment missions carried out upon request

Number of incidents reported against number of security assessment mission request-ed (target 100%)

- 93 -

Number of security assessment missions carried out in area of operations

Number of security assess-ment missions carried out in

- 78 -

Number of airstrips assessed Number of airstrips assessed - 54 -

The number of evacuated or relocated humanitarian personnel due to security, safety or medical related situations

Target is 100% - Number received (Target) / Number achieved

- 17 -

Submission of regular analytical reports on security situation providing comprehensive security analysis to understand the South Sudan context

Number of analysis provided - 86 -

Roll out of M&R Specialists in 8 selected clusters No. of Specialists 8 8 100%

Monitoring visits to CHF funded projects No. of visits 90 16 18%

Rate of reporting rate by partners on CHF funded projects

No. of reports received 180 168 93%


This annex presents the cumulative results achieved by clusters partners with 2012 CHF funding, as of end March 2013 which corresponds to the project end date of over 85 per cent of the 2012 funded projects. Every project was asked to submit a report on their results. 93 per cent of these reports had been received at the time of writing. As such, it is estimated that the results presented below capture about 80 per cent of the total results achieved. The gender breakdown is indicative and may differ from the total number of beneficiaries reported as not all partners have reported gender disaggregated data.

ANNEX 5 CHF PROJECTS’ RESULTS INDICATORS

Annex

Education Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries - number of emergency affected children and youth (M/F) attending temporary learning spaces

No. of children and youth 46,245 47,296 102%

Girls 17,808 (39%)

18,690(40%)

105%

Boys 25,290(61%)

28,606(60%)

113%

Temporary learning spaces established No. of TLS 339 292 86%

Emergency affected learning spaces provided with gender segregated latrines

No. of TLS or Damaged Schools

309 190 61%

School in a Box distributed to emergency affected children, youth and teachers

No. of Kits 1,986 1,756 88%

Recreation Kits distributed to emergency affected children, youth and teachers

No. of Kits 1,855 1,697 91%

Teachers (M/F) in emergency affected areas trained to provide life skills education and psychosocial support

No. of teachers 1,114 1,150 103%

Females (% of total) 25% 17% -

Males(% of total) 75% 83% -

Trained teachers (M/F) who use training materials and apply psychosocial and lifesaving principles in their teaching in emergency affected learning spaces

No. of teachers 769 824 107%

Females (% of total) 85 71 84%

Males(% of total) 282 312 111%

Children and youth (M/F) reporting feeling safe and protected in emergency affected learning environments




Total indirect beneficiaries No. of indirect beneficiaries 88,644 87,633 99%

Blackboards distributed No. of blackboards 250 140 56%

Latrines built No. of latrines built 66 63 95%

Hygiene kits distributed No. of kits 71 - 0%

Total direct beneficiaries core pipeline No. of beneficiaries 32,400 32,000 99%

School in a Box distributed to emergency affected children, youth and teachers

No. of Kits 400 400 100%


Education Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Recreation Kits distributed to emergency affected children, youth and teachers

No. of Kits 400 400 100%

Classroom tents distributed to emergency affected schools

No. of tents 100 100 100%

ECD Emergency kits distributed to emergency affected children

No. of kits 330 100 30%

Blackboards distributed to emergency affected schools No. of blackboards 400 400 100%

Tarpaulins distributed to emergency affected schools No. of tarpaulin sheets 150 150 100%

Emergency Telecommunications Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Number of operational areas covered by 24 hours a day by seven days a week (radio rooms and security telecommunications systems)

Number of operational areas 10 10 100%

Number of users reporting delivery of the service as “satisfactory” and within “satisfactory” timeframe

Number of users 80% 90% -

Number of UN and NGO staff members trained on ETC services usage

No. of trainees 400 449 112%

Women 120 45 38%

Men 280 404 144%

Food Security and Livelihoods Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries No. of beneficiaries 1,127,294 975,815 87%

Women 648,518 572,918 88%

Men 479,226 402,897 84%

Quantity of seeds distributed MTs 1,122 1,054 94%

People provided with seeds No. of beneficiaries 597,550 634,187 106%

Women 346,121 368,355 106%

Men 247,614 262,032 106%

Households who received seed vouchers No. of HH 22,200 22,200 100%


Food Security and Livelihoods Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Local production of seeds Number of farmers involved in seed production

20 20 100%

Women 10 6 60%

Men 10 14 140%

Distribution of hand tools No. of beneficiaries 473,222 477,318 101%

Women 333,219 337,133 101%

Men 238,563 240,345 101%

Trainings for seeds and tool recipient farmers No. of trainees 10,070 8,751 87%

Women 5,864 5,379 92%

Men 3,816 3,059 80%

Number of facilitators trained for Farmer Field Schools No. of trainees 202 200 99%

Women 93 37 40%

Men 98 42 43%

Training of beneficiaries through FFS No. of trainees 3,300 1,700 52%

Women 1,950 1,180 61%

Men 1,350 520 39%

Livestock vaccination Heads of Livestock vaccinated

2,554,077 1,131,421 44%

Livestock treatment Heads of Livestock treated 830,705 623,741 75%

Training of CAHWs No. of CAHWs trained 660 800 121%

Women 107 140 131%

Men 398 578 145%

Rehabilitation of veterinary centers No. of centers 50 50 100%

Cold chain establishment Number of gas fridges established

9 8 89%

Number of technicians trained in cold chain manage-ment and solar/gas fridge maintenance

No. of trainees 14 27 193%

Women 5 14 280%

Men 9 13 144%

Provision of disease surveillance kits No. of kits 150 109 73%



Health Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries No. of beneficiaries 3,750,120 3,618,125 96%

Women 1,161,152 1,120,604 97%

Girls 1,021,847 899,262 88%

Men 692,284 670,060 97%

Boys 874,838 862,848 99%

number of <5 consultations (male and female) No. of children 374,681 408,103 109%

Girls 159,969 205,808 129%

Boys 168,141 195,247 116%

Number of measles vaccinations given to under 5 in emergency or returnee situation

No. of children 542,677 512,148 94%

Number of births attended by skilled birth attendants No. of births 8,403 31,604 376%

Communicable disease outbreaks detected and re-sponded to within 72 hours

No. of outbreaks detected / No. of outbreaks responded

95 94 99%

Number of antenatal clients receiving IPT2 second dose No. of antenatal clients 20,642 38,547 187%

Number of health facilities providing BPHS No. of health facilities 88 82 93%

Number survivors of SGBV receive clinical management of rape treatment

No. survivors 49 - 0%

Number of direct beneficiaries from emergency drugs supplies (IEHK / trauma kit / RH kit / PHCU kits)

No. of beneficiaries 692,198 734,444 106%

Number of core pipeline kits given to emergency situations

No. of kits / No. of emergencies

191 282 148%

Number of health workers trained in MISP / communica-ble diseases / outbreaks / IMCI / CMR

No. of trainees 1,867 1,952 105%

Women 535 574 107%

Men 779 1,224 157%

Total indirect beneficiaries No. of indirect beneficiaries 2,024,333 1,648,709 81%


Logistics Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Humanitarian cargo moved by airlift MTs 450 633 141%

CM - 2,065 -

Humanitarian cargo moved by barge boat (Mt) MTs 2,380 1,903 80%

CM - 6,420 -

Humanitarian cargo moved by truck (Mt) MTs 2,820 4,835 171%

CM - 11,590 -

Storage capacity made available to the humanitarian community (spm)

SPM 5,670 7,360 130

Cargo Movement Requests(Airlift) executed No. of requests / No. executed requests

917 597 65%

Cargo Movement Requests(Barge and Boat) executed No. of requests / No. executed requests

1,135 967 85%

Cargo Movement Requests(Trucks) executed No. of requests / No. executed requests

2,245 2,047 91%

Convoys with force protection arranged No. of convoys 18 29 161%

Maps produced for the cluster partners No.of maps 71 97 137%

Total indirect beneficiaries No. of indirect beneficiaries 70 101 144%

Number of barge boat movements No. of movements - 16 -

Number of partners provided with support No. of partners - 99 -

Number of trucks procured Number of trucks procured - 16 -

Number of trucks made available Number of trucks available - 10 -

UNHAS - Number of passengers transported No. of Passengers 12,000 19,605 163%

UNHAS - Number of tons of light cargo transported No. of MT 50 59 118%

UNHAS - Number of medical evacuation requests received and responded

Target is 100% - to be presented as follows:

Number received (Target) / Number Requested (Achievement)

110 110 100

UNHAS - Average no. Of passengers transported monthly

No. of pax 6,000 7,352 123%

UNHAS - No. Of organizations availing air service No. of Users 180 230 128%

UNHAS - No. of aircraft made available No. of Aircraft 12 11 109%


Mine Action Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries - number of people directly benefitting from demining activities


Women 64,060 36,994 58%

Girls 117,620 51,087 43%

Men 78,060 30,819 39%

Boys 127,620 54,888 43%

Square Metres of hazardous areas including dangerous areas (DA), suspected hazardous areas (SHA) and minefields (MF) released to local communities, includ-ing the number of destroyed ERW.

No. of sqm 340,000 532,769 157%

Individuals reached through Mine Risk Education and the Landmine Safety Project including at-risk populations (e.g., refugees, IDPs, displaced) and humanitarian aid workers (e.g. UN and NGO personnel)

No. of MRE and LSP beneficiaries

169,000 107,319 64%

Peer-to-peer educators trained to provide Mine Risk Education

No. of peer-to-peer educators

560 766 137%

MultiSector Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Protection - Number of returnees assisted to repatriate/return


Protection - Number of returnees registered No. of refugees 24,000 25,081 105%

Women 8,164 7,996 98%

Girls 3,117 6,892 221%

Men 9,035 5,749 64%

Boys 3,684 4,444 121%

Protection - Reception/transit centres and other facili-ties/infrastructure in established and, or maintained

No. of structures 2 19 950%

Protection - Refugees passing through way station/tran-sit facilities/Reception centres


Women 9,520 9,317 98%

Girls 6,770 11,175 165%

Men 9,733 6,356 65%

Boys 7,108 11,083 156%

Protection - Number of people assisted to return No. of beneficiaries 9,000 16,626 185%


MultiSector Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Women 3,164 5,839 185%

Girls 1,667 4,659 279%

Men 2,635 3,674 139%

Boys 1,534 4,605 300%

Vulnerable 50 73 146%

Health - Number of health facilities per number beneficiaries

No. of health facilities 2 1 50%

Nutrition - Number of beneficiaries in supplementary feeding programmes


Women 2,575 1,136 44%

Girls 7,030 5,516 78%

Men 1,114 2 0.18%

Boys 6,978 5,466 78%

Water - Litres of portable water supplied Litres per day 40 21 53%

Sanitation - Number of sanitation facilities No of sanitation facilities 1,209 2,248 186%

Shelter - Number of people with adequate and secure shelter


Women 3,020 3,242 107%

Girls 4,070 4,369 107%

Men 2,233 2,397 107%

Boys 3,808 4,087 107%

NFIs - Number of people provided with full NFI kit No. of beneficiaries 162,693 170,954 105%

Women 35,133 38,004 108%

Girls 51,450 52,103 101%

Men 26,659 28,495 107%

Boys 49,451 52,352 106%


Nutrition Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries No. of beneficiaries 1,186,508 1,032,863 87%

Women 604,624 492,271 81%

Girls 418,952 254,791 61%

Men 73,529 82,913 113%

Boys 389,394 153,614 39%

Stabilization centers (SC) No. of SC 270 278 103%

Out Patient Therapeutic Program (OTP) sites for the treatment of Severe Acute malnourished (SAM) children

No. of OTP site 219 240 110%

Children admitted/treated for SAM No. of Children 41,394 42,552 103%

Girls 20,151 19,784 98%

Boys 18,754 17,913 96%

Quality of SAM treatment Number of partners achiev-ing the SPHERE standard cure rate (> 75%)

20 17 85%

Number of partners achiev-ing the SPHERE standard default rate (< 15%)

20 14 70%

Number of partners achiev-ing the SPHERE standard death rate (< 10%)

20 17 85%

MAM treatment centers No. of MAM centers/TSFP 138 119 86%

Children admitted/treated for MAM (Moderate Acute Malnutrition)

No. of TSFP 81,318 48,762 60%

Girls 34,910 17,948 51%

Boys 32,662 17,949 55%

Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLWs) admitted/treat-ed for MAM (No. of TFSP)

No. of TSFP 62,252 13,852 22%

Children supplemented with Vitamin A No. of Children 128,680 55,521 43%

Girls 58,166 19,474 33%

Boys 56,684 18,086 32%

Children de-wormed No. of children 148,339 50,077 34%

Girls 267,026 22,559 8%

Boys 253,028 20,687 8%


Nutrition Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

PLWs supplemented with Micronutrients No. of PLWs 47,626 30,687 64%

Children enrolled for supplementary food No of BSFP 128,700 46,429 36%

Girls 53,284 13,266 25%

Boys 53,573 13,178 25%

Children screened in the community No. of Children 247,241 225,018 91%

Girls 124,095 114,044 92%

Boys 110,746 98,889 89%

Health and nutrition workers trained (includes facility and community level health workers)

No. of health workers 3,427 2,761 81%

Inpatient treatment of SAM No of trainees 349 324 93%

Outpatient treatment of SAM No of trainees 1,688 2,441 145%

Treatment of MAM No of trainees 1,363 2,477 182%

IYCF No of trainees 1,581 4,381 277%

Screening and referral No of trainees 5,419 6,452 119%

Community representatives trained No. of lead mothers in MSG and CBOs

5,875 8,315 142%

In IYFC No. of lead mothers in MSG and CBOs

3,240 5,909 182%

in screening and referral No. of lead mothers in MSG and CBOs

4,083 5,672 139%

Community members made aware through the commu-nity education sessions

No of community members 492,663 537,064 109%

Women 220,065 238,281 108%

Men 96,873 102,392 106%

Supervisory visits/quarter/nutrition treatment sites Supervisor visits per site 281 189 67%

Cluster coordination meetings attended in a quarter coordination meetings attended

129 166 129%

Timely and complete reports submitted every month monthly reports 204 211 103%

Total indirect beneficiaries No. of indirect beneficiaries 1,185,583 1,175,381 99%


Protection Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries No. of beneficiaries 190,572 155,999 82%

Women 60,034 60,072 100%

Girls 41,618 24,462 59%

Men 49,392 47,749 97%

Boys 39,528 23,716 60%

Joint protection assessments or monitoring missions carried out with reports completed (with sex and age disaggregated data, and particular reference to vulnerable groups) (also consider: Number of joint conflict assessments, including strategic early warning assessments, produced)

No. of assessments/missions with reports

65 113 174%

Protection/”Do no harm”/conflict sensitivity trainings targeting humanitarian partners (Protection cluster members), communities or government actors

No. of training participants 1,779 2,707 152%

Beneficiaries receiving protection advice and admin-istrative/legal assistance (on return/(re)integration, service schemes and procedures, land and property matters or other rights)


Women 1,192 2,088 175%

Girls 504 110 22%

Men 1,001 1,163 116%

Boys 512 57 11%

Response plans developed that include a conflict analysis/ sensitivity strategy to reduce violence and promote peace building

No. of response plans 21 9 43%

Response plans developed that incorporate community protection strategies to reduce violence and promote peace building

No. of response plans 31 17 55%

Beneficiaries receiving/having access to GBV response services in one or more sector: psycho-social, health, justice, security [sector(s) to be specified in project plan/target]


Women 7,609 1,104 15%

Girls 2,267 387 17%

Men 2,815 47 2%

Boys 1,275 27 2%

People reached with behaviour change messages on sexual violence and forced/early marriage



Protection Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Women 37,541 32,391 86%

Girls 15,788 18,800 119%

Men 34,419 26,505 77%

Boys 15,848 16,896 107%

Identified and registered (separated/unaccompanied) children reunited with their families or alternative care arrangements assured

No. of children reunited/in care

2,350 2,550 109%

Girls 692 1,020 147%

Boys 1,658 1,530 92%

Children/youth (minors) released from armed forces and groups

No. of children 240 173 72%

Girls 57 19 33%

Boys 183 154 84%

Crisis affected children receiving psycho-social support and services

No. of children 8,439 7,494 89%

Girls 4,388 2,955 67%

Boys 4,051 4,539 112%

Total indirect beneficiaries No. of indirect beneficiaries 588,632 1,009,105 171%

Beneficiaries of protective presence activities (i.e. pro-tective patrol, field visits, etc.)


Beneficiaries of mass information campaigns on rights awareness, to deter threats of violence


Social workers, health workers, police officers and Protection Cluster partners trained on GBV

No. of beneficiaries 217 220 101%

Child Protection workers trained No. of beneficiaries 320 315 98%

Non-food items and Emergency Shelter Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries – number of people provided NFI and emergency shelter support

No. of beneficiaries 1,102,500 1,039,074 94%

Women and girls (including female headed households)

623,900 586,922 94%

Men and boys 478,600 452,152 94%


Non-food items and Emergency Shelter Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total emergency or disaster affected people provided with NFI or loose items



309,060 321,378 104%

Men and boys 242,690 252,178 104%

Total emergency or disaster affected people provided with emergency shelter support



82,740 75,035 91%

Men and boys 65,010 58,957 91%

Total returnees provided with NFI or loose items No. of beneficiaries 182,750 159,410 87%


102,360 89,218 87%

Men and boys 80,390 70,192 87%

Total returnees provided with emergency shelter support



27,340 21,221 78%

Men and boys 21,410 16,714 78%

Number of NFI and ES kits procured, transported and stored in partner warehouses

No. of kits 102,000 118,416 116%

Number of SSRRC and partner staff trained in NFI in-cluding stock management, assessment, targeting and distribution

No. of staff trained 378 317 84%

Post-distribution reports informing improved NFI as-sessment, targeting and distribution

No. of post-distribution reports

36 27 75%

Number of NFI dedicated staff for deployment in emergency

No. of staff 53 34 64%

Response time between assessment and distribution of NFIs

Average number of days/weeks

16 18 92%

Pipeline (en-route in/to SS and under procurement) kits 36,995 35,500 96%

Stock in Lead Agency/Partner’s warehouses for pre-positioning

kits 36,995 32,900 89%


Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Unit of measurement Target Achieved % Achieved

Total direct beneficiaries - Number of people provided with sustained access to safe water supply (15 litres/ person/day within 1 km distance)


Women 103,531 74,922 72%

Girls 78,208 59,598 76%

Men 80,972 59,216 73%

Boys 68,967 50,122 73%

New/ additional water points constructed Number 69 71 103%

Existing water points rehabilitated Number 228 239 105%

New latrines constructed No. of Stance/Latrine Holes 931 1,518 163%

Latrines rehabilitated No. of Stance/Latrine Holes 242 243 100%

People provided with sustained access to hygiene latrine facilities


Women 24,917 25,113 101%

Girls 20,399 19,295 95%

Men 21,993 20,457 93%

Boys 20,006 17,662 88%

People served by solid waste management. No. of beneficiaries 16,034 11,432 71%

Women 8,482 5,760 68%

Men 7,552 5,672 75%

Households receiving a hygiene kit. No of Household 12,074 9,196 76%

People trained on hygiene promotion messages to be shared with their community

No. of trainees 1,834 2,487 136%

Women 889 1,147 129%

Men 875 1,251 143%

Community members trained on management of water, sanitation and hygiene services.



Girls - - 0%

Boys 234,771 83,721 36%

Pipeline (en-route in/to SS and under procurement) at mid-term

$US $ 2,005,009

$ 2,327,496

116%

Stock in Lead Agency/Partner’s warehouses for pre-positioning at mid-term

$US $ 2,005,009

$ 1,494,697

75%



ANNEX 6 GLOSSARY ACRONYMS

AA Administrative Agent

AB Advisory Board

ACF-USA Action Against Hunger-USA

ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

ALSA Agriculture and Livestock Situation Analysis

ARC American Refugee Committee

AWODA Aweil Window of Opportunities and Development Agency

BCDA Bakpiny Community Development Agency

BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

CAP Consolidated Appeal

CAR Central African Republic

CBOs Community Based Organizations

CCM Comitato Collaborazione Medica (Medical Collaboration Committee)

CCS Coordination and Common Services

CDoT Catholic Diocese of Torit

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund

CHF Common Humanitarian Fund

CHF TS Common Humanitarian Fund Technical Secretariat

CLTS Community –Led Total Sanitation

CMA Christian Mission Aid

CMD Christian Mission for Development

CMR Clinical Management of Rape survivors

COSV Comitato di Coordinamento delle Organizzazione per il Servizio Volontario

CRADA Christian Recovery and Development Agency

CTS Common Transport Services

CUAMM Medici Con Africa

DDG Danish De-mining Group

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office

EiE Education in Emergencies

ERWs Explosive Remants of War

ETC Emergency Telecommunication Cluster

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FH Food for the Hungry

FHSS Food for the Hungry South Sudan

FSL Food Security and Livelihoods

FTS Financial Tracking System

GBV Gender based violence

GoSS Government of South Sudan

HC Humanitarian Coordinator

HCT Humanitarian Country Team

HI Handicap International

HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

HMIS Health Management Information System

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee

ICT Information Communication and Technology


IDPs Internally Displaced Persons

IEHK Inter- Agency Emergency Health Kit

IMAS International Mine Action Standards

IMCI Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses

IMC-UK International Medical Corps UK

IMSMA Information Management System for Mine Action

INEE Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies

IOM International Organization for Migration

IRC International Rescue Committee

IRW Islamic Relief Worldwide

ISWG Inter Sector Working Group

IT Information Technology

IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding

LCED Lacha Community and Economic Development

M&R Monitoring and Reporting

MAG Mines Advisory Group

MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition

MERLIN Medical Emergency Relief International

MISP Minimum Initial Services Package

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPTF Multi Partner Trust Fund

MRE Mine Risks Education

MRWG Monitoring and Reporting Working Group

MT Metric Tones

NBeG Northern Bahr el Ghazal

NCA Norwegian Church Aid

NCEs No-Cost Extensions

NFI Non Food Items

NFI&ES Non-Food Items and Emergency Shelter

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

NHDF Nile Hope Development Forum

NMAA National Mine Action Authority

NNGOs National Non-Governmental Organizations

NP Nonviolent Peaceforce

NPA Norwegian People’s Aid

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

NSTGs National Technical Standard Guidelines

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OTP Outpatient Therapeutic Program

PCO Peace Corps Organization

PDM Post Distribution Monitoring

PHCU Primary Health Care Unit

PPA Project Partnership Agreement

PUNO Participating United Nations Agency Organization

RH Reproductive health

RI Relief International

RITA Relief Items Tracking Application

RRC Relief and Rehabilitation Commission

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

SCISS Save the Children in South Sudan

SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

SPEDP Sudan Peace and Education Development Programme

SSUDA South Sudan Development Agency

THESO The Health Support Organization

TORs Terms of Reference

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programnme

UNDSS United Nations Department for Safety and Security

Annex


ANNEX 7 USEFUL LINKS

OCHA South Sudan: http://www.unocha.org/south-sudan

South Sudan CHF: http://www.unocha.org/south-sudan/financing/common-humanitarian-fund

UNDP: http://www.ss.undp.org/south_sudan/en/home.html

MPTF gateway: http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/HSS10

Financial Tracking System: www.fts.unocha.org

CERF: http://www.unocha.org/cerf/

Relief Web: http://www.reliefweb.int

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNHAS United Nations Humanitarian Air Services

UNHCR United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nation Children’s Fund

UNIDO Upper Nile Initiative and Development Organization

UNKEA Upper Nile Kalaazar Eradication Association

UNMAS United Nations Mine Action Service

UNMISS United Nations Mission In South Sudan

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNV United Nations Volunteer

USA United States of America

UXO Unexploded Ordnance

VfM Value for Money

VSF-Belgium Veterinaires Sans Frontieres - Belgium

VSF-Germany Veterinaires Sans Frontieres - Germany

VSF-Suisse Veterinaires Sans Frontieres - Suisse

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WBeG Western Bahr el Ghazal

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WVSS World Vision South Sudan

common humanitarian f - ocha sudan common... · 2012 south sudan common humanitarian fund ... **...

Documents