humanitarian performance report 2017 - 2018 · psychosocial support could leave people at risk of...
Post on 10-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Humanitarian Performance Report 2017 - 2018 September 2018
Figure 1A Rohingya girl with her parents' mobile phone at Jamtoli camp, by Faysal Ahmad.JPG
Christian Aid is a Christian organisation that insists the world can and must
be swiftly changed to one where everyone can live a full life, free from
poverty.
We work globally for profound change that eradicates the causes of poverty,
striving to achieve equality, dignity and freedom for all, regardless of faith or
nationality. We are part of a wider movement for social justice.
We provide urgent, practical and effective assistance where need is great,
tackling the effects of poverty as well as its root causes.
christianaid.org.uk
Contact us
Christian Aid 35 Lower Marsh Waterloo London SE1 7RL T: +44 (0) 20 7620 4444 E: info@christian-aid.org W: christianaid.org.uk UK registered charity no. 1105851 Company no. 5171525 Scot charity no. SC039150 NI charity no. XR94639 Company no. NI059154 ROI charity no. CHY 6998 Company no. 426928 The Christian Aid name and logo are trademarks of Christian Aid © Christian Aid
Cover photo: A Rohingya girl with her parents' mobile phone, Jamtoli camp, Bangladesh Photo credit: CA/F Ahmad
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
3
Introduction
Our humanitarian programmes are designed to save and protect lives and livelihoods, safely restore dignity and lay the foundations for early and longer-term recovery. From design through implementation and review, the quality of our work is an important determinant of impact at community level. In accordance with our principles, programmes should be accountable, needs-based, conflict sensitive, inclusive and timely. Good humanitarian action puts communities and people affected by crisis at the centre of decision making. It is critical to the delivery of successful humanitarian programmes that we reflect on our actions and continually assess our work. By capturing learning through the programme cycle, we help to ensure that we take the right steps to accomplish our desired impact and place affected communities at the heart of our decision making. Alongside our learning commitments under the Core Humanitarian Standard and our humanitarian evaluation policy, the annual Humanitarian Performance Report forms part of this reflection. In this report, we provide insight into the scope and scale of work undertaken by the humanitarian division in the financial year 2017/18. Using the Humanitarian Division’s (HD) strategic objectives as benchmarks, with input from colleagues across the organisation and partners, we outline some of the achievements and challenges we have seen over the past year in our humanitarian programmes. Our thanks to everyone who has provided inputs for this report.
If you would like to provide feedback on the content of the report, please email humanitarian@christian-aid.org
Annie Wright and Niall O'Rourke
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
4
The big picture
In 2017/18 the humanitarian division implemented projects in over 20 countries, below is a snapshot of that work.
1 See pages 13 - 15 for further detailed financial figures.
2 Humanitarian Digital Strategy paper (internal access only).
The hybrid approach
This year Christian Aid explored a hybrid model of implementation in three large humanitarian responses
(Nigeria, Bangladesh and DRC) – which is reflected in the figures and facts above. By adopting this
approach, we have been able to assist affected populations in areas where our partners did not have a
presence or the capacity to respond or ability to access funding due to restrictive donor requirements.
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
5
Humanitarian response
Rohingya refugee crisis
In August 2017, escalating violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine state
forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes,
including many Rohingya refugees who fled to Bangladesh in
search of peace and security. Those who fled walked for miles
and days on end, some with new-born babies or carrying their
elderly or disabled family members. Upon arrival in Bangladesh,
the displaced population was confronted with incredibly difficult
camp conditions, where limited medical facilities and
psychosocial support could leave people at risk of serious
illnesses. More than 850,000 refugees found themselves stuck
in dangerously crowded camps near the Myanmar border,
signalling the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.
By October 2017, Christian Aid had begun to respond to the
critical need to not only improve living conditions but also ensure
coordination of aid in the camps. Our team took responsibility for
the management of Jamtoli/Camp 15, home to 51,388 displaced
Rohingya. This hybrid approach was not a typical response for
Christian Aid but was the model through which we could be most
effective in this context: in the initial stages of the response,
traditional Christian Aid partners were not well placed to assume
camp coordination and management (CCCM) duties. By
engaging in CCCM we could also ensure that our fundamental
priorities, such as inclusion, protection and accountability to
affected populations, were present in the response. We planned
to fill the gap at the outset by employing a hybrid response
approach, directly managing Jamtoli while simultaneously
building capacity of local partners, supported by volunteers, to
take the lead in future. An operational review of this approach is
planned for later in 2018.
Focusing on the health of those in the camp became a top priority
given that almost 40% of children in Jamtoli were under 5 years
of age. By spring 2018 Christian Aid and our partners had
established one primary care clinic in Jamtoli/Camp 15, three
health camps and seven pop-up clinics. We had also conducted
over forty thousand door-to-door counselling and health care
visits and sixteen thousand sessions with pregnant and lactating
women or adolescent girls on ante- and post-natal care and
reproductive health. In terms of accountability, Christian Aid
created one information hub, supported four community radio
groups, provided audio recorders for verbal feedback,
established two-way communication between site management
and community mobilisers and undertook an accountability
survey (details in the side bar). Given the large scale of the
response, we also responded across food security, livelihoods,
WASH, shelter/NFI sectors and on DRR.
Accountability in action
In January, Christian Aid completed a
survey of 373 Rohingya people (194
women and 179 men) regarding
accountability mechanisms at
Jamtoli/Camp 15. Its recommendations
are now being adopted by humanitarian
agencies working in the Cox’s Bazar area.
Read the full report here.
Top 5 issues raised via our Jamtoli
feedback mechanisms:
• Food distribution (quality/type): 82% of women, 40% of men
• WASH facilities (latrines, etc): 77% of women, 37% of men
• Lack of info regarding services: 56% of women, 11% of men
• Food distribution (time/place): 46% of women, 22% of men
• Shelter/housing: 40% of women, 31% of men
Responding in Myanmar
Despite access challenges in Rakhine
state, Christian Aid have been able to
deliver humanitarian assistance via local
partnerships. Through this approach we
responded to the crises in Northern
Rakhine, proving that localised strategies
for humanitarian response can work well in
an increasingly constrained environment
such as Myanmar. Similarly, Christian Aid
in Myanmar is leading the initiative linked
to Grand Bargain localisation workstream,
aiming to accelerate localisation through
the strengthening of local and national
leadership of humanitarian response (for
more on the localisation workstream see
pages 9 and 11).
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
6
East Africa appeal
With famine declared in South Sudan in February 2017, the world’s
focus shifted to a region suffering from drought: the East Africa
region (including Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan) had 16 million
people on the brink of starvation and in urgent need of food, water
and medical treatment. Continued conflict in South Sudan only
exacerbated the needs of vulnerable communities. The DEC
launched an appeal in the last days of 2016/17, supporting
Christian Aid’s humanitarian teams to step into action in the
following 12 months across all three countries.
In Ethiopia our partners worked in South Omo providing
livelihoods support, cash and WASH activities to vulnerable
populations. Seeds and tools were provided to farmers and
animals were vaccinated to prevent the spread of disease. 5,794
women joined savings groups and 3,003 people received
unconditional cash transfers.
In Kenya we reached 38,957 people through a combination of
livelihoods, cash and disaster risk reduction projects in Marsabit
county. We delivered unconditional cash transfers to 10,800
people. As part of our livelihood activities, 200 women joined
savings groups and 22,500 livestock owners benefitted from
animal vaccinations. Additionally, 5,097 people have participated
in designing intercommunal rangeland management plans and
disaster risk reduction plans
In the northern areas of South Sudan, through our projects we
provided livelihoods and cash support to 17,512 people. Our work
improved the livelihoods of vulnerable communities through the
provision of seeds, tools and fishing gear. 17,153 people had
improved access to water through the creation of new boreholes
and training on hand pump mechanics to ensure sustainability of
this intervention.
Given the complexity of the crisis and the scale of ongoing need, the DEC reviewed the normal 6-month response period and extended the traditional timeline to allow for a further 12 months of response, without a recovery phase planned. This indicates the severe nature of the crisis and the ongoing needs as we move into the phase of Christian Aid appeal funded projects.
Livestock drink from a watering hole constructed through a livelihoods project Photo credit: CA/J Burns
European refugee crisis appeal
Although the Refugee Crisis Appeal
closes this year, in 2017/18 our
programme reached over 16,000 people
in Greece and Serbia through projects
focusing on food, nutrition, shelter,
education, legal aid, psychosocial
support and protection.
We also made strides in capacity
building and localisation, having our own
appeal funding allowed us to prioritise
work with our partners which supports
them in the long term, through investing
in their organisational, fundraising and
communications capacity. By supporting
systems and organisational growth, we
reinforced the long-term national
capacity in security training, security
systems, relevant and adapted
accountability systems, strategic review,
and fundraising mapping.
Middle East response
During 2017/18, the volatile nature of the
Syrian conflict, alongside counter
terrorism legislation, posed significant
challenges to our ability to respond
quickly and flexibly. However, despite
frequent disruptions, our food kitchen in
Eastern Ghouta was a major
achievement. In February and March
2018, during the height of the siege, our
partner was able to distribute food to
people in shelters, when the UN and
ICRC were unable to get food convoys
into the area, highlighting the value of
localisation in our response.
In Iraq, we continued projects with
internally displaced people (IDPs)
despite the Kurdish independence
referendum and ongoing volatility which
restricted access and provoked
movements of populations across the
country.
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
7
Kasai crisis
During the crisis, young men were often perceived as enemy fighters or forcibly
recruited. Samuel is happy to rebuild his family home.
Photo credit: CA/E Mulumba
In August 2016, violence and armed conflict between government security forces and the Kamuina Nsapu militia sparked massive displacement in Kasai, DRC. Between September 2017 and April 2018, hundreds of thousands of IDPs returned to their communities during a lull in the conflict. In total, more than 710,000 IDPs returned to the Kasai region, almost half of the previously displaced population of 1.4 million. However, many returned to find their houses burned and their possessions looted, facing continued risks of insecurity, malnutrition and health problems. With large numbers of houses, service buildings and infrastructure burned or destroyed, returnees were forced to stay in crowded accommodation hosted by the community, causing yet another humanitarian crisis. In 2017/18 Christian Aid and partners responded in three health zones: Nyanga, Mutena and Kamwesha. Nyanga Christian Aid responded through traditional and hybrid models. In our partnership model, we provided 4,500 people with hygiene kits alongside GBV and peace building awareness, including creating community groups for integrated implementation. Through the hybrid approach, where our local partners did not have capacity to respond or access to area-specific funding opportunities, we reached 60,000 people with almost 1,500 tonnes of in-kind food. Mutena Using the hybrid model we provided seeds, tools, agricultural training and cash to 9,000 people. The programme was implemented in close coordination with our local partner, to build capacity, share knowledge and increase their eligibility for future funding opportunities. Kamwesha Working through partners, we reached 12,500 people by rehabilitating community water points and school latrines, alongside community hygiene promotion. In March 2018, we commenced the distribution of hygiene NFIs and the rehabilitation of shelters for affected people. Our shelter project has since been replicated in the area by other agencies, demonstrating the appropriateness of the design.
Yemen
Since June 2017 the number of people in
need of humanitarian assistance in
Yemen rose by 1 million to reach 22.2
million people. Conflict, displacement,
and economic decline have placed
immense pressure on essential basic
services, food and quality of life.
In 2017/18 Christian Aid partnered with
Action Against Hunger (ACF) to provide
essential health and WASH services to
65,425 beneficiaries. As the number of
cholera cases rose, we provided
treatment to 20,865 and ensured 18,082
people benefitted from improved WASH
facilities. To reduce the impact of a
second wave of cholera predicted for the
summer of 2018, 27,122 people received
hygiene kits and participated in hygiene
promotion activities and a total of 26,499
people were visited by community health
workers. The priority for 2018/19 will be to
continue with cholera prevention,
increase water trucking to vulnerable
areas and develop a diarrhoea treatment
centre to leave the community with a
sustainable service.
Irish Aid
In 2017/18, Irish Aid’s primary
mechanism for humanitarian funding, the
HPP, allowed for the deepening of CA
Ireland’s resilience and conflict sensitivity
approach, informed by the Integrated
Conflict Prevention and Resilience (ICPR)
guide and the From Violence to Peace
framework. This continued in Burundi,
DRC, Lebanon and South Sudan and
expanded to include Myanmar. We
included a research component to build
on the conflict strand of the LPRR
research, assessing how integrating
conflict sensitivity and conflict analysis
can make programmes more effective,
contribute to community resilience and
aid in conflict prevention in protracted
conflicts.
The pre-positioned ERFS was used to
respond to emergencies in Bangladesh
(Rohingya crisis), India (floods in Assam)
and DRC (Kasai conflict).
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
8
Improving humanitarian programme delivery
Inclusion
As a signatory to both the Inclusion Charter and the Charter on the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action, this year we developed inclusion tools and guidance for staff and partners, which were applied in various emergencies. These include the East Africa appeal, the Rohingya response and Christian Aid’s Irish Aid HPP portfolio. Learning on the use of these tools has been captured in two practice papers. Additionally, internal inclusion reporting templates now require sex, age and disability data globally and several trials have been completed using Washington Group Questions in contexts such as Burundi, Sierra Leone and Nepal. We are working to integrate intersectionality and inclusion into existing frameworks including the gender justice and resilience frameworks.
We are an active member of the ACT Alliance Community of Practice on Disability Inclusion, sharing resources and learning on inclusion mainstreaming. As a member of the DEPP Age and Disability Capacity Building Programme (ADCAP), we contributed to the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for older people and people with disabilities (cover image displayed on the right) and the related Good Practice Guide.
Cash
During 2017/18, Christian Aid and partners delivered 75 cash projects in over 15 countries. In northeast Nigeria, we continued to respond to the displacement and lobbied WFP for a shift from in-kind food to cash where markets were functional and people expressed a preference for cash. This successfully shifted in-kind food to cash for approximately 15,000 individuals. We also concluded the Cash Transfer Project (CTP) that used the Segovia platform. There were some challenges with the platform including the inability to deliver CTP using mobile money (with which the platform was integrated), lack of overlap between countries where platform was operational and our cash responses occurred and cost of using the platform. Our cash specialists will complete a review in late 2018 and document lessons learnt and consider possibilities for tracking cash programming going forward, to ensure we are able to meet our commitment to the Grand Bargain to increase our use of cash transfers in emergencies. In Bangladesh, although the government did not allow cash-based programmes, we participated in the Cash Working Group (CWG), a good platform to scope feasibility of cash projects, possible delivery modalities and collective advocacy for cash interventions. This push to share information early in the response will undoubtedly result in better cash programming where allowed and may even contribute itself to increased acceptance of and appetite for cash programming.
ECHO cash distribution: Borno State, Nigeria Photo credit: CA/K Ameh
ADCAP’s new inclusion standards for 2018 Image credit: ADCAP
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
9
Resilience Frameworks, research and methodologies
2017/18 was a busy time for resilience: we saw several long-term
projects come to an end and important pieces of research yield
results that promote localisation and put survivors at the forefront
of our responses. Some of the highlights of the year are listed
below, with some in-depth information on the LPRR in the sidebar.
• Our Resilience Framework was rolled out in 5 additional
countries (Brazil, Colombia, Mali, Sierra Leone and Ghana)
to reach a total of 30 country programmes.
• We closed the Christian Aid-led DFID-funded Preparedness
and Early Response to Public Health Emergencies project in
the Gambella Region of Ethiopia which strengthened the
Gambella health system through the integration of traditional
humanitarian preparedness approaches.
• A new legacy programme launched in South Sudan, Burundi
and Sierra Leone with aims to integrate the Resilience
Framework, ICPR and a health framework linking health
services, conflict prevention and resilience.
• Based on the Resilience Framework, a new USAID
programme in Kenya (2017- 2020) began seeking to integrate
risk-based approaches with service delivery.
• A pilot field test of the Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience (ICPR) tool was undertaken to make resilience programmes conflict sensitive in 10 villages in Pakistan and Kenya; ICPR was then rolled out in the DRC, South Sudan, Myanmar and Burundi.
• Finalised the King’s College London (KCL) research on how humanitarian response can build community resilience.
• Co-developed a new approach - Integrated Community-led Response – based on the findings of KCL research together with other NGOs and 10 local organisations from Myanmar and Kenya and field tested this in both countries; please see side bar for further details.
Localisation and survivor-led responses
In May 2017, the Philippines saw an outbreak of fighting between
government forces and local non-state armed actors which lasted
for five months. This resulted in mass displacement in Marawi, with
residents unable to return to their communities until April
2018. Christian Aid rapidly released Code 2 funds to local partners
who provided emergency assistance to hard-to-reach IDPs in
Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur using the survivor-led response
approach and the local CSO coordination mechanism. This was
the first time that local CSOs were visibly coordinated side-by side
with government and international organisations.
Moving on from the LPRR
The Christian Aid-led DFID-funded
Linking Preparedness Response and
Resilience (LPRR) sought to answer
how humanitarian response can build,
or not undermine, community
resilience. As part of the consortium,
KCL developed an academically-robust
research methodology to address two
main gaps in the literature, resulting in:
1. A recommendation to ask crises
survivors and first responders for
their recommendations.
2. A recognition of the lack of
systematic implementation and
evaluation of practical
recommendations.
Based on these research findings, an
innovative integrated community-led
response approach was developed,
along with Local to Global Protection
and the Church of Sweden, and field
tested by seven local partners during
emergencies in Myanmar and Northern
Kenya. Under testing, this approach
proved to:
• be rapid, easy and able to elicit
very high interest;
• give a sense of local ownership;
• respond flexibly and effectively to
local context;
• build on existing strengths and
efforts of self-help groups;
• enable participation of women’s
groups and other groups often
excluded;
• enable address of ‘non-traditional’
needs;
• exhibit no signs of additional
tension provoked by competition
for micro-grants, despite huge
competition.
The project also developed, together
with Saferworld, the ICPR
methodology. When tested in Kenya,
the ICPR approach yielded great
results in terms of inclusion and risk
reduction, particularly during times of
drought and political tensions, where its
implementation avoided further
escalation of violence. The ICPR has
now been adopted as part of Christian
Aid’s From Violence to Peace tools.
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
10
Accountability
Core Humanitarian Standard mid-term audit
CHS audit underway in Kenya Photo credit: CA/C Skehan
In January 2018, Christian Aid underwent a mid-term progress
audit (MTPA) against the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality
and Accountability, conducted by the independent quality
assurance body HQAI. The MTPA assessed our progress
against previously identified areas of non-compliance, as well as
any changes to the way that we implement CHS across all
development, humanitarian and advocacy activities globally. Two
auditors, accompanied by Christian Aid staff and partners,
undertook field visits to Kenya and the Philippines to assess how
Christian Aid works with partners to deliver quality and
accountable projects and programmes for the people they serve.
To do this the auditors examined the policies, systems,
structures, processes, guidelines and tools that we have in place
and if and how they affect partners’ practice.
The biggest success from the audit was the reduction of non-
compliances from 16 to 9, with the most important achievement
being an improvement in our inclusive programming, especially
as it was an area identified as weak in our previous audit. The
audit also demonstrated that we have room for improvement in
ensuring that partners have Codes of Conduct and that both
partners and communities understand what behaviour should be
expected and accepted. Christian Aid’s next maintenance audit
is planned for early 2019.
Following this year’s audit, we continue to work towards effective
and transparent accountability to affected populations through
both partner capacity building and our own development.
Protection against sexual
exploitation and abuse (PSEA)
Following the revelations of sexual abuse and abuse of power in the sector in early 2018, Christian Aid underlined its commitment to protection against sexual exploitation and abuse. Over 2017/18 we:
• Provided training to staff and volunteers in Nigeria and Bangladesh and surge staff in Nepal on Code of Conduct, protection against sexual exploitation and abuse, reporting and whistleblowing
• Developed Code of Conduct posters for use to communicate our commitments
• Increased compliance across the organisation with Code of Conduct training for staff and volunteers
Feedback and complaints
mechanisms
With accountability to affected
populations at the forefront of our
approach we need to ensure that we
provide communities with the confidence,
channels and tools to feedback to
Christian Aid and our partners. In
2017/18, we tried to emphasise this to
ensure that communities receive
assistance that is appropriate and
relevant at all project stages. Some
positive strides in this area included:
• Feedback and complaints mechanisms strengthened in Nigeria and Rohingya response.
• Accountability assessment conducted in Bangladesh to identify preferred ways for Rohingya to give feedback and make complaints to CA (see page 5 for further information).
Complaint mechanisms in Nigeria Photo credit: CA/C Skehan
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
11
A humanitarian sector that is fit for purpose
Global localisation agenda
This year, we strengthened on our commitment to work with like-minded
international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) on flagship
consortium localisation capacity-building programmes including:
• The Department for International Development (DFID) funded Linking Preparedness Response and Resilience programme in Kenya and Pakistan which is researching and piloting ways to put local communities and the local organisations that represent them in the lead of their own response and recovery.
• The Action Aid-led Shifting the Power (STP) project which is strengthening the ability of 55 Local NGOs in Bangladesh, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya and Pakistan to take a powerful role in humanitarian leadership structures in their countries. Five of 11 Christian Aid STP partners are now part of our Rohingya response. STP also facilitated the establishment of the Bangladesh network NAHAB - a platform comprising of 45 L/NNGOs which facilitate local and nationals entities to have a stronger voice and representation in humanitarian platforms, networks and the national disaster management structure.
• The Oxfam-led Financial Enablers project in the Philippines which is putting National NGO consortia in charge of running their own capacity building programmes.
• The Action Aid-led Transforming Surge Capacity project in the Philippines which is exploring ways of localising surge; CA initiated SAFER (Shared Aid Fund for Emergency Response), the local humanitarian fundraising platform in the Philippines which enables local NGOs to jointly appeal to the Philippines public for support (similar to DEC) for quick humanitarian assistance for disaster-affected communities.
• The ECHO-funded Accelerating Localisation through Partnership project in Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria and South Sudan which is researching best practice in INGO-NNGO partnership.
Our commitments to greater transparency
Christian Aid has gone
beyond IATI reporting
guidelines by publishing
the first full version of
Helicopter Public; this
allows members of the
public to interact and
engage directly with data,
rather than accessing
through the IATI Registry.
Through Helicopter Public,
users can filter projects related to emergency response and view
information about the objectives of the work and the partners involved.
Honouring our commitments
Increased data on who we support
This year, Charter for Change and Grand
Bargain asked us to demonstrate who
received funds from Christian Aid. We
reported that 8% of our humanitarian
grants went to international NGOs, 2% to
national and sub-national governmental
actors, 5% to internationally affiliated
organisations and 85% to local and
national NGOs.
Increased credit to partners
This year, Christian Aid carried out a
comprehensive survey of partners
globally to better understand if and
exactly how they would like to be
promoted and feature in our
communications, finding that the majority
did want this. We actively engaged senior
communications, media, publications,
digital and fundraising managers,
outlining our Charter for Change
commitment and sought a positive
response and definite actions from their
teams. Christian Aid now increasingly
names and credits partners across
communications channels – website,
social media, blogs, audio visual
materials, media engagement and
fundraising communications in the UK
and globally. This applies to Christian
Aid's broader development work as well
as humanitarian projects.
Project reach in Helicopter Public Image credit: CA/S Moody
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
12
Capturing learning
Given the changing operational context in which we work, we need to ensure our hybrid approach is planned in a way which does not undermine our localisation commitments. As such, we must be clear about the logic underpinning our interventions with local and national actors. With this in mind, we are working to strengthen how we capture our learning, monitor performance and use lessons to inform future quality responses.
Evaluation synthesis
In Autumn 2017, the HD completed an evaluation synthesis of all
our real time, midterm and final evaluations across all large-scale
programmes since 2014. This highlighted the following findings to
consider going forward:
• Improve facilitation of communication and coordination
between us and our partners.
• Improve connections and access for local partners to engage
in national coordination mechanisms.
• Ensure partner capacity assessments are up-to-date and a
launch workshop is held to address areas where partners need
capacity building.
• Strengthen our MEAL system.
• Carry-out transfers, fund approvals and procurement in a more
efficient manner.
• Include systematic power and gender analysis in beneficiary
selection.
• Increase consistency in the establishment and management
of feedback mechanisms at community level, as well as
emphasising and ensuring community participation.
Emergency simulation exercise (Simex)
In February 2018, colleagues representing all Asia programmes came together with managers, specialists (digital, cash, AAP and advocacy) and divisional support for a week-long workshop and simulation exercise. The objective was to examine our processes and allow lessons from this to feed into a set of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that we can refer to in future large-scale responses. A wealth of learning from the Simex was captured and fed into the SOPs, including:
• A renewed understanding of HD coordination with a Communications and Fundraising perspective across teams and regions
• We need to be consistently precise in our vocabulary, how the different teams in the response fit together and what are conflicting urgent priorities
• Consistently reminding ourselves of these lessons will help us improve performance going forward and enable better synergy, avoid duplication and improve communication
Safety and security
During 2017/18, we further strengthened our security position by
updating our Security Policy and Risk and Internal Control Self-
Assessment to set out clearer roles and responsibilities for
managing safety and security. The organisational Incident
Management Plan began a global review this year which will be
adapted, along with SMS alerts, to notify regional and overseas in
an emergency.
Start Fund engagement survey
In February 2018, the HD undertook a
review of our involvement with the Start
Fund over 2017/18. We wanted to tap into
knowledge at country level, learn how
teams view the mechanism and discover
how we can improve our engagement with
Start fund. Eighteen respondents across
11 countries completed our survey to
share their experiences with Start Fund
applications, projects and reporting.
We asked teams which part of the process
they found the most challenging. The
application stage was reported as the
most challenging with the following four
challenges identified: a) lack of time to
prepare the application; b) lack of
guidance on joint or consortium
applications; c) morale issues following
rejection can influence future applications;
d) lack of clarification on operational
models – respondents indicated that the
mechanism seemed to favour direct
implementation rather than our partnership
approach. Respondents were also asked
what the benefits of a local project
selection were; the most prominent
answers indicated that the presence of
local knowledge and the participatory
approach allowed for greater contextual
understanding and more appropriate
responses, speaking to our accountability
to affected populations.
We shared the results with Start Fund and
the study was discussed at their assembly
meeting in Spring 2018 with concern over
the idea that partnership models were not
favoured.
Word cloud from evaluation synthesis Image credit: CA/A Wright
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
13
Humanitarian programmes: key figures3
Table 1: Humanitarian spend 2017/18 (in millions)
Grants to partners 16.5
Operational 10.5
Direct delivery (including GIK) 13.7
Total 40.8 Operational figure reflects increased costs due to the hybrid approach.
Table 2: Humanitarian spend: breakdown across programmes (in millions)
• East Africa refers to all countries in the East Africa appeal (Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan) while Multi country refers to the global
Accelerating Localisation programme (Nepal, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan). Income related to specific appeals or sources of
income is recorded separately to general humanitarian spend at country level as reflect in CA systems and the table above.
• Nigeria’s large amount of spend is mainly attributable to direct implementation/GIK contracts from ICCO, ECHO, ACT, WFP, FAO,
and UNOCHA of which total spend was £12.9m.
Table 3: Salaries and direct costs: core funds
Salary costs 741,911
Programme support costs 193,643
Total 935,554
Table 4: Levies and management fees
CA appeals 482,025
DEC appeals 106,644
Start Fund 38,869
Total 627,538
Total figure does not include levies and management fees
on other institutional humanitarian income
3 The data shown is illustrative only. It does not form part of Christian Aid’s audited external reporting and may differ from our reported
financial statements. Therefore, the data is for the purposes of this document only and is not suitable for use for any other purpose
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Afg
ha
nis
tan
Ba
ng
lade
sh
Bu
rkin
a F
aso
Bu
run
di
Colo
mbia
DR
C
Ea
st
Afr
ica
Eth
iop
ia
Haiti/D
R
Hum
an
ita
rian
India
IOP
T/E
gyp
t
Ke
nya
Ma
law
i
Mu
lti cou
ntr
y
Mya
nm
ar
Nep
al
Nig
eri
a
Ph
ilipp
ines
Eu
rop
ea
n r
efu
ge
e c
risis
Roh
ing
ya
refu
gee
cri
sis
Sie
rra
Leo
ne
So
uth
Su
da
n
Syria
, Ir
aq
& L
eb
an
on
Ye
me
n
Za
mb
ia
Zim
bab
we
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
14
Table 5: Humanitarian spend: larger projects (CA & DEC appeals, ECHO, UN)
Table 6: Breakdown of humanitarian spend: larger projects
Region Country CA appeal DEC appeal IA HPP ECHO UN agencies Other
institutional Total
AME Bangladesh(including Rohingya)
3,981,729 324,721 - 837,033 1,439,407 10,192 6,593,082
India 202,060 - - - - - 202,060
IOPT/Egypt 196,236 - - - - 25,858 222,094
Myanmar - - 194,501 25,019 - 1,454,032 1,673,552
Nepal 225,861 1,262,980 - 23,847 - 4,743 1,517,431
Philippines 651,413 - - - - 92,215 743,628
Refugee Crisis
729,539 - - - - - 729,539
Syria/Iraq/ Lebanon
669,795 - 148,240 - - 421,446 1,239,481
Yemen - 811,002 - - - - 811,002
Africa Burkina Faso
- - - 418,104 - 3,315,553 3,733,657
Burundi - - 291,313 - - 17,217 308,530
DRC - - 452,486 - 161,306 - 613,792
East Africa 593,901 1,858,730 - - - - 2,452,630
Ethiopia 24,822 - - - 146,376 156,291 327,489
Malawi 35,489 - - - - 981,459 1,016,947
Nigeria - - - 1,065,719 12,12708 2,124,028 15,292,336
Sierra Leone
121,820 - - - - - 121,820
South Sudan
300,288 - 375,275 30,614 - 364,891 1,071,068
LAC Haiti 464,593 - - - - 72,356 536,949
Total 8,197,546 4,257,433 1,461,815 2,400,336 2,959,797 9,040,281 39,207,087
35,4
88.6
0
74,0
53.4
9
202,0
59.9
0
222,0
94.5
9
249,9
27.9
2
291,3
12.5
1
434,1
62.1
4
464,5
93.4
0
489,0
81.6
0
559,9
27.2
5
619,2
36.3
1
651,4
12.8
0
729,5
38.6
0
811,0
02.0
0
852,2
65.8
0
893,5
47.9
6
1,5
17,4
31.0
2
2,2
86,6
33.3
5
2,4
04,7
46.4
6
4,3
06,4
49.4
0
13,9
00,2
45.5
2
Ma
law
i
Sie
rra
Le
on
e
Ind
ia
IOP
T/E
gy
pt
Eth
iop
ia
Bu
run
di
Sy
ria
Ha
iti/
DR
My
an
ma
r
Ira
q/S
yri
a/L
eb
an
on
DR
C
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Re
fug
ee
Cri
sis
Ye
me
n
Bu
rkin
a F
as
o
So
uth
Su
da
n
Ne
pa
l
Ba
ng
lad
es
h
Ea
st
Afr
ica
Ap
pe
al*
Ro
hin
gy
a C
ris
is
Nig
eri
a
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
15
Table 7: Humanitarian spend: smaller projects (Code 2, IA ERFS, Scottish HEF, Start Fund)
Table 8: Breakdown of humanitarian spend: smaller projects
Region Country Crisis Start Fund
Code 2 IA ERFS Scottish HEF Total
AME Bangladesh Fire, monsoon 137,158 25,000 81,880 60,968 305,007
India Floods/monsoon 148,184 20,000 75,755 - 243,939
Myanmar Displacement - 80,000 - - 80,000
Nepal Floods/monsoon 54,795 - - - 54,795
Africa DRC Displacement 78,973 78,383 73,529 62,703 293,589
Kenya Election violence 19,202 - - - 19,202
Nigeria Flood, displacement 49,423 91,852 - - 141,276
Sierra Leone Mudslides 47,767 - - - 47,767
LAC Colombia Landslide - 30,000 - - 30,000
Haiti Hurricane - 49,637 - - 49,637
Global ACT RRF Contribution - 55,000 - - 55,000
Total 535,503 429,872 231,165 123,671 1,320,211
19
,20
2.2
4
30
,00
0.0
0
47
,76
6.7
0
49
,63
7.0
0
54
,79
5.0
3
55
,00
0.0
0
80
,00
0.0
0 14
1,2
75
.74
24
3,9
40
.01
29
3,5
88
.55
30
5,0
06
.50
Ke
ny
a
Co
lom
bia
Sie
rra
Le
on
e
Ha
iti
Ne
pa
l
AC
T R
RF
My
an
ma
r
Nig
eri
a
Ind
ia
DR
C
Ba
ng
lad
es
h
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
16
Quality and speed of response
The Humanitarian Division values learning from our experience and analysing our performance to ensure
informed decisions and programme design and delivery. We do this through measuring both the quality and
the speed of our response.
The Quality of Response indicator is based on a self-assessment conducted by programme staff that looks at
8 aspects of our work. Using this framework, HD tracks elements of programming and thematic approaches.
The process aims to promote reflection and conversation for HD and country teams. In 2017/18, we saw
improvements in scores for resilience, power and gender and M&E. Across preparedness activities,
participation and accountability, Sphere standards, timeliness and need-based scores we saw a marginal
decline when compared to 2016/17. In late 2017/18, we re-worked these quality standards and the process of
self-assessment to align with CHS and allow for a more evidenced-based methodology. This will be rolled out
into a digital process during the next phase of self-assessments in Autumn 2018, during which it will feed into
the wider push for programme quality at Christian Aid.
The speed of response indicator measures the time elapsed between allocation of funding and transfer to
partners. In 2017/18, 79% of the grants for immediate response (early appeal or emergency relief) were sent
in under 14 days, generating a green rating. The average number of days in Q3 was 14.8, generating the first
amber rating in over three financial years. The yearly average between allocation and paid transfers was 11
days.
Table 10: Humanitarian Performance: Speed of Response
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
(Green: 0-14 days; Amber: 15 – 28 days; Red: 29+ days)
Table 11: Speed of Response: Averages per quarter 2017/18
Period Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Average time 9.86 10.09 14.83 10.88
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Needs-Based
Timeliness
SphereStandards
Power/Gender
Participation &Accountability
M&E Learning
Resilience
Preparedness
Table 9: Humanitarian Performance: Quality of Response
2017-2018
2016-2017
2015-2016
Humanitarian Performance Report: 2017/18
17
Glossary
AAP Accountability to affected populations
ACF Action contre la faim
ADCAP Age and Disability Capacity Building Programme
CA Christian Aid
CCCM Camp coordination and camp management
CTP Cash transfer project
CWG Cash working group
DEC Disasters Emergency Committee
DEPP Disaster Emergency Preparedness Programmes
DFID Department for International Development
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DRR Disaster risk reduction
ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
ERFS Emergency Response Fund Scheme
HD Humanitarian division
HPP Humanitarian Programme Plan
HQAI Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative
IATI International Aid Transparency Initiative
IA HPP Irish Aid Humanitarian Programme Plan
ICPR Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP Internally displaced people
INGO International non-governmental organisation
KCL King's College London
LPRR Linking Preparedness, Resilience and Response
MEAL Monitoring, evaluation and learning
MTPA Mid-term progress audit
NAHAB National Alliance of Humanitarian Actors, Bangladesh
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NNGO National non-governmental organisation
NFI Non-food item
SAFER Shared Aid Fund for Emergency Response
Simex Simulation exercise
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
top related