slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense 17 th January 2012 Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense 17 th January 2012 Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense 17 th January 2012 Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense 17 th January 2012 Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods. Key Issues to be Addressed. New displacement in the Three Protocol Areas and Darfur at the peak of 2011 agricultural season;

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense 17 th January 2012 Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods' - brandice

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Sudan CHF 2012

1st Round Sector Defense

17th January 2012

Sector: Food Security and Livelihoods


Key Issues to be Addressed

  • New displacement in the Three Protocol Areas and Darfur at the peak of 2011 agricultural season;
  • Congestion of livestock, overgrazing and spread of livestock diseases due to blockage of livestock migratory routes along border areas to South Sudan;
  • Poor performance of 2011 summer season, especially in Eastern Sudan, North Darfur and North Kordofan due to erratic and late onset of rainfall;
  • The huge livelihoods demand and the increasing number of returnees in Darfur;
  • Effects of high food prices on net food buyers, especially the IDPs, returnees and extremely vulnerable resident host communities.

CHF Geographical priorities

  • Three Protocol Areas (South Kordofan, Blue Nile, Abyei);
  • Darfur Region (North, South and West Darfur);
  • Eastern Sudan;
  • States bordering the Three Protocol Areas (N/Kordofan, Sennar, W/Nile, Gedaref)

CHF Sector Priorities

  • Provision of food assistance, support to staple crops and vegetable production, vaccination and treatment of livestock, livestock diseases surveillance to IDPs, returnees, drought-affected households and border-affected nomads;
  • Support to rural livelihoods diversification and income generationas means for early settlement in the area of return in Darfur and the Three Protocol Areas;
  • Capacity building of partners, effective preparedness and response to food security and livelihoods emergencies.

Sector strategy for addressing the priorities

  • Build resilience of conflict and drought affected rural households to survive, safeguard their basic livelihoods, reduce aid dependency and vulnerability;
  • Improve livestock survival through vaccination, treatment, provision of livestock feed, water points and pasture rehabilitation:
    • Avoiding spread of diseases;
    • Improving watering and feeding conditions;
      • Hence safeguarding basic livelihoods.
  • Support early stages of resettlement of returnees in Darfur, the Three Protocol Areas;

Sector strategy for addressing the priorities...

  • Strengthen capacity of partners (NNGOs, CBOs, Gov’t) to effectively address food and livelihoods emergencies (preparedness, response):
    • Foreseeing and identifying needs (assessments, etc.)
    • Addressing emergencies, mgt of interventions (DRM, PCM, reporting, etc.)
    • Implementation of interventions will be through NGOs (mainly national ones).

Whatevidence supports your identified priority needs?

  • List of assessments carried out:
    • Mid-season crop production assessment carried out by FAO SIFSIA Programme in August 2011;
    • Inter-agency assessments of areas of return in West Darfur in August 2011;
    • Inter-agency needs assessment carried out in October 2011 in areas of return in South Darfur by FAO, WFP, UNDP, SMoAR, SMoA;
    • Rapid mid season 2011 assessment carried out in Darfur in October 2011 by FAO and SMoA;
    • Rapid livestock needs assessment in North Darfur by FAO and SMoAR in October 2011;
    • Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission (CFSAM) carried out in Sudan in Nov/Dec 2011.

What evidence supports your identified priority needs? ...

  • Some findings of the assessments:
    • Sorghum harvest 2011 significantly below average: < 50% of 2010, 3.6 million ha harvested (FEWSNET Dec 20122 Alert/CFSAM 2011);
    • 8 million ha of sorghum cultivated, 2011: 15% < 2010 and 12% below 5-year average (FEWSNET Dec 2011 Alert/CFSAM 2011);
    • Household food stocks expected to run out in March/April instead of May/June (FEWSNET Dec 2011 Alert/CFSAM 2011);

Findings of the assessments ....

  • Above-average food prices are expected with peaks during the extended lean season (FEWSNET Dec 2011 Alert/CFSAM 2011);
  • FS situation is in humanitarian emergency phase in some parts of Darfur, Abyei and South Kordofan. Acute food and livelihoods crisis phase exists in some parts of Darfur, Blue Nile, South and North Kordofan. Eastern Sudan is moderately food insecure (IPC Sept 2011);
  • Water points for livestock have dried up and pasture has been exhausted, leading to early migration of pastoralists (risk of conflict);
  • Probability of high livestock mortality due to lack of pasture and water, spread of diseases in zones of high livestock concentration.

Affected Population and Target Beneficiaries

  • Affected population = 8 million (1.2 million households):
  • IDPs ( 2.7 million persons)
  • Returnees (305,000 persons)
  • Nomads/pastoralists (1.8 million persons)
  • Refugees (88,000 persons)
  • Vulnerable households (2.3 million persons)
  • Target beneficiaries for CHF 2012 projects:
    • Proposed projects = 4.9 million persons (817,000 households)
    • Recommended projects = 2.6 million persons (430,000 households)

Why is CHF funding critical right now to meet these sector priorities?

  • Coincidence of negative factors in vast areas of the country severely affected agricultural production in 2011 : armed conflict, protracted crises, drought, blocked migratory routes for cattle, …
  • 9 out of 15 States have GAM levels above 15, i.e., risk to shift upwards in the lean period of 2012, (SHHS, 2010);
  • Provide support to the affected population before the start of rainy season in April/May 2012;
  • Cost of food crises relief > cost of prevention;
  • Avoid an ever rising food aid dependency;
  • Build resilience and self-reliance of the most vulnerable groups

How were value for money and low indirect costs ensured?

  • Prior to evaluation: advice to reduce indirect costs by increasing budgets for activities that will directly benefit the affected population;
  • Projects with high indirect cost were awarded less points/marks. Agreed by TRG members: direct cost of given project > 70% of total project cost;
  • Ensuring quality and timeliness of inputs procured/delivered to beneficiaries ;
  • Delivery of inputs through partners, especially NNGOs

Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals

Total Recommended Sector Envelope: US$ 10.9 million

Total requested amount : US$ 36.5 million

Total TRG-recommended amount: US$ 10.9 million

Core pipeline amount received: US$ 3.2 million

Total projects:

Submitted : 45 projects

Recommended : 24 projects for US$ 10.9 million

Recommended: UN (42%); INGO (50%), NNGO (8%)


Approach to determining project allocation amounts (NOT scoring methodology)

  • Relevance of activities, geographical coverage, capacity of partners to implement proposed activities and flexibility of partners to operate in various locations were considered;
  • Projects with budgets US$ 1million and above were allocated 30% of the amounts requested;
  • Projects with amounts less than US$ 1million but more than US$ 0.5 million were allocated 45% of the amounts requested;
  • Projects with amounts equal to US$ 0.5 million or below were recommended to receive 65% of the amounts requested.