Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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.
Sudan CHF 2012 1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Coordination & Common Services (CCS) Presenter: Stella Ajwang/HAO/OCHA 17 Jan 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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