1 / 10

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Coordination & Common Services (CCS)

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Coordination & Common Services (CCS) Presenter: Stella Ajwang/HAO/OCHA 17 Jan 2012. CHF Sector Priorities.

landry
Download Presentation

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Coordination & Common Services (CCS)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sudan CHF 2012 1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Coordination & Common Services (CCS) Presenter: Stella Ajwang/HAO/OCHA 17 Jan 2012

  2. CHF Sector Priorities • Improve the efficiency of humanitarian programs by providing common services, expansion of mapping services and provision of security advice and support. • Building capacities of local and all international partners through training, providing assets, partnership initiative and advocacy.

  3. CHF Geographical priorities • Darfur (North, West and South)  Areas of new displacements with urgent humanitarian needs.  IDPs and returnees requiring durable solutions. • Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan  Areas which remain underserved with severe access impediments.  Fill the gap created by the departure of UNMIS in July 2011.

  4. Sector strategy for addressing priorities • Common Services and Coordination precondition for effective humanitarian operations delivered by 11 other sectors: security telecommunications, air transport, security advice, maps, sex-and age-disaggregated data. • Provide security services due to deteriorated security situation in Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. • Gather evidence to support advocacy for humanitarian access in restricted parts of Darfur and Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. • Increase technical and management capacity of national humanitarian partners to improve their response to current needs on the ground. • Provide IDP camp management structures and accurate reporting to ensure the adequate use of resources.

  5. Evidence supporting priority needs (targeted beneficiary populations) • All humanitarian partners rely on CCS services:26 UN organizations, 125 INGOs, 3800 NGOs, RCRC Movement, 22 Government ministries, camp coordination & management support in 8 IDP camps hosting 309,000 IDPs and host communities. • SRC and other national actors in Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan require increased capacity to ensure continuity of aid delivery. • More than 300 international + 2,500 national INGO staff in Darfur require security training and services. • Over 500,000 IDPsand aid beneficiaries require re-verification in Darfur  to avoid duplicate aid. • Lack of effective management structures and community participation mechanisms in Zamzam IDP camp  200,000 IDPs need improved delivery and flow of basic services. • UNHAS funded separately by CHF Special Allocation. OCHA is no longer receiving CHF funds for coordination.

  6. Areas of Coordination & Common Services needs

  7. Why CHF funding is critical right now • Coordination and Common Services are a precondition for effective humanitarian operations delivered by 11 other sectors. • Coordination & Common Services increase efficiency in the humanitarian system. • Lack of rehabilitated telecommunications infrastructure would leave humanitarians less able to communicate in remote areas during the first half of 2012. • Without security training and advice over 2,500 NGO staff are at greater safety risk. • Improved camp coordination would reduce duplication, gaps, increase the flow of services. • Data and maps will allow efficient planning and implementation by humanitarian actors.

  8. Value for money ensured through • Rationale for Common Services: cost efficiency, reducing costs as compared to services provided by individual agencies. • Reliable and up-to-date high quality information a necessity for appropriate resourcing for humanitarian operations. • Coordination avoids duplications and identifies gaps: contributing to cost efficiency and effectiveness. • Selection of projects presented by organisations with solid reputation. • Cost of items were compared across projects – ensured costs relative to others. • Organizations requested to use common pipeline facilities in order to reduce costs. • Projects whose services will be provided on cost recovery basis scored higher. • Projects over 40% of admin/human resources costs given lower scores.

  9. Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals I Total Recommended Sector Envelope: 2,968,754 USD Total requested amount / Total TRG-recommended amount: 6,424,633 USD Total number of recommended projects: 8 Recommended UN/NGO/NNGO percentage: UN 63.5% / INGO 36.5% Total Recommended Sector Envelope versus historical trend or basis for envelope: 2011: 3,098,743 USD 2006-2011 average: 2,418,501 USD Approach to determining project allocation amounts (NOT scoring methodology): 1. Projects with excessive cost were brought in line with standards 2. Relevancy of project activities and to the affected population 3. Projects that have no other source of funding

  10. Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals II

More Related