TABLE OF CONTENTS Humanitarian Fu… · 37 education 38 health 39 nutrition 41 protection 42...

ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND

ANNUAL REPORT2019

2

CREDITS This document was produced by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Ethiopia. OCHA Ethiopia wishes to acknowledge the contributions of its committed staff at headquarters and in the field in preparing this document.

The latest version of this document is available on the EHF website at https://www.unocha.org/ethiopia

Full project details, financial updates, real-time allocation data and indicator achievements against targets are

available at gms.unocha.org/bi.

For additional information, please contact:

Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund

[email protected]

Tel: +251 (0)11 554 5336/+251 (0)115 444186

Front Cover

Millennium Kassa, 110, grade 2, she is filling the water container from the new water point. Credit: UNICEF Ethiopia/Photographer Nahom Tesfaye

The designations employed and the presentation of material on this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Financial data is provisional and may vary upon financial certification

THE EHF THANKS ITS DONORS FOR THEIRGENEROUS SUPPORT IN 2019

CZECH REPUBLIC

MALAYSIA

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 FOREWORD

6 2019 IN REVIEW7 HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT12 ABOUT THE ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND15 DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS17 ALLOCATION OVERVIEW20 ERC STRATEGIC STEERS

21 FUND PERFORMANCE22 INCLUSIVENESS24 FLEXIBILITY26 TIMELINESS28 EFFICIENCY31 ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT

35 ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER36 AGRICULTURE37 EDUCATION38 HEALTH39 NUTRITION41 PROTECTION42 SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS43 WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

45 ANNEXES46 ALLOCATIONS BY RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION47 EHF-FUNDED PROJECTS54 EHF ADVISORY BOARD55 ACCRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS56 REFERENCE MAP

4

FOREWORD

DR CATHERINE SOZI Humanitarian Coordinator for Ethiopia

EHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

I am pleased to share with you the 2019 Ethiopia Hu-manitarian Fund (EHF) Annual Report. The document summarizes major achievements of the Fund along with allocations, expenditures and results per sector. It also provides an update on the management and accountabil-ity of the Fund.

In late 2018 and the majority of 2019, the internal displacement crisis in Ethiopia had taken the attention and resources of the Government and the humanitarian partners due to its acuteness and severity. The situation was unforeseen and overwhelming on top of the existing extreme weather variability with many areas experiencing drought, while others were impacted by flood.

I am proud to say that the EHF continued to play an important role as a timely and efficient financing mech-anism, supporting the humanitarian community achieve its goals by funding the most critical needs in response to the ongoing and emerging humanitarian situation in the country. Combining flexibility and strategic focus supported by robust accountability mechanism, I believe that the Fund has been instrumental in the response to shared priorities, helped ensure timely allocation of scarce resources, and ultimately strengthened humanitar-ian coordination and leadership.

In 2019, the EHF allocated $60.6 million supporting 126 multi-sector projects across the country. This amounts to 18 per cent of the humanitarian funding received against the non-food needs identified in the Humanitarian Response Plan.

Acknowledging that this strategic contribution of the EHF was made possible by the generous support of its do-nors, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the traditional and new donors of the Fund. In 2019, the EHF received US$ 63.4 million from 13 donors, with four of them – Canada, Czech Republic, Malaysia and New Zea-land - being new contributors to the Fund. I appreciate the continued support and welcome the new partnerships.

Translating the commitment into action - to advance lo-calization - the EHF expanded its national partners’ base by almost doubling the number of national partners who have access to direct funding. A national NGO representa-tion is also included in the senior governance structure

of the Fund – the Advisory Board – whereby strategic and policy issues related to the Fund are discussed. This effort will continue in the coming year with a dedicated capacity established in the Humanitarian Financing Unit.

Looking into 2020, the condition of the IDPs and return-ees is anticipated to remain dire which will require urgent and sustained multi-sector humanitarian assistance as well as recovery support beyond the ongoing food and shelter assistance. The impact of the ‘worst’ desert locust infestation in 25 years is projected to be experienced in the year with considerable threat posed on food security and livelihoods of at least 200,000 people in six regions of the country.

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic that has created havoc in the world is also likely to infect several people in Ethiopia with significant socio-economic impact on mil-lions of others. People living in informal settlements such as IDPs, pastoralists, and refugees, particularly in remote, water-scarce areas are the most vulnerable. This puts on an additional pressure on the already limited health ser-vices and will divert response from regular and pre-exist-ing health needs in the country. Additional resources are highly required to put in place the minimum preparedness and response packages to halt the spread and mitigate the adverse impacts.

These risk drivers are in addition to the chronic food inse-curity that will continue to require significant resources in 2020. It is evident that recovery support will be essential to ensure food supply capacities and enhance livelihoods of communities to ease their transition out of humani-tarian requirement. This is indicative of the need for opti-mized resource mobilization and coordination endeavors.

Building on our efforts and partnership, I am confident that we, collectively can come together to avert a human-itarian crisis and timely assist those that are in desperate need. For this, the EHF stands committed and will remain one of the strategic funding mechanisms for life-saving humanitarian assistance in Ethiopia.

5

I am proud to say that the EHF continued to play an important role as a timely and efficient financing mechanism, supporting the humanitarian community achieve its goals by funding the most critical needs in response to the ongoing and emerging humanitarian situation in the country. DR CATHERINE SOZI HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR ETHIOPIA

Benishangul Gumuz region Foziya Juhar, 7 and Hawa Adem, 7 wash their hands.

Credit: UNICEF Ethiopia/Tadesse

This Annual Report presents information on the achievements of the Ethi-opia Humanitarian Fund during the 2019 calendar year. However, because grant allocation, project implementation and reporting processes often take place over multiple years (CBPFs are designed to support ongoing and evolving humanitarian responses), the achievement of CBPFs are reported in two distinct ways:

Information on allocations granted in 2019 (shown in blue). This meth-od considers intended impact of the allocations rather than achieved results as project implementation and reporting often continues into the subsequent year and results information is not immediately available at the time of publication of annual reports.

Results reported in 2019 attributed to allocations granted in 2019 and prior years (shown in orange). This method provides a less com-plete picture of achievements during a given calendar year but includes results from allocations that were granted in previous years. This data is extracted from final narrative reports approved between 1 February 2019 - 31 January 2020.

In order to avoid double counting, highest number of targeted/reached beneficiaries across projects per location are used to determine aggre-gated figures.

Contribution recorded based on the exchange rate when the cash was received which may differ from the Certified Statement of Accounts that records contributions based on the exchange rate at the time of the pledge.

2019 IN REVIEWEHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

2019 IN REVIEW: 7

HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT

2019 IN REVIEW

Humanitarian situation in 2019The humanitarian landscape in 2019 was characterized by adverse situations including displacements caused by in-ter-ethnic conflict and violence, drought conditions leading to food insecurity, unseasonal rainfall causing flooding, disease outbreaks and desert locust infestations. At the beginning of the year, 8.3 million people were identified as requiring food and non-food assistance which quickly grew to 8.6 million before mid-year due to increasing conflict-related displacements. Floods and disease outbreaks exacerbated the already dire humanitarian situation.

Violence, Clashes and Internal Displacement The year 2019 seen frequent incidences of inter-communal conflicts and clashes between Government forces and un-identified armed groups in various pocket areas across the country with southern and western Oromia being the worst hit. Conflicts and violence caused the internal displacement of some 3.2 million people in the country starting from late 2018. Although many of the displaced people returned to their places of origin following the Government’s return and rehabilitation strategy in April 2019, most remained secondarily displaced either for fear of reprisal attacks or as their homes have mostly been damaged or destroyed. The situation still remains fragile in communities that were affected by communal conflict particularly in Western and Southern Oromia, parts of Amhara and areas bordering with Tigray region, Benishangul Gumuz and Dire Dawa City Administration.

Drought and Floods The year 2019 seen frequent incidences of inter-communal conflicts and clashes between Government forces and un-identified armed groups in various pocket areas across the country with southern and western Oromia being the worst hit. Conflicts and violence caused the internal displacement of some 3.2 million people in the country starting from late 2018. Although many of the displaced people returned to their places of origin following the Government’s return and rehabilitation strategy in April 2019, most remained secondarily displaced either for fear of reprisal attacks or as their homes have mostly been damaged or destroyed. The situation still remains fragile in communities that were affected by communal conflict particularly in Western and Southern Oromia, parts of Amhara and areas bordering

with Tigray region, Benishangul Gumuz and Dire Dawa City Administration.

Desert Locust Desert locust infestation, which was reported to be the worst to hit the Horn of Africa countries in 25 years, affected and continue to threaten a further reduction of the meher harvest in Ethiopia. According to official reports, up to late 2019, locusts infested an estimated 2,350 km2 in more than 125 woredas in Somali, Amhara, Tigray, Oromia and SNNP regions since the infestation started in June 2019. In affect-ed localized areas, households harvested immature crops to avoid large-scale crop losses. In pastoralist areas of Afar, Oromia and Somali regions, locusts destroyed vast areas of grazing land and vegetation, which deteriorated pasture availability for livestock. Desert locusts are expected to continue hatching in areas where conditions are largely fa-vorable for breeding, such as in Somali region. While efforts to scale up major control operations are ongoing, crop and pasture loses – yet to be quantified – have been registered with the compounding severe threat to the livelihoods of households in the affected localities.

HealthIn addition, Ethiopia remains vulnerable to epidemic out-breaks where cholera remains one of the major public health hazards throughout the country. As of mid-November 2019, nearly 2,000 cases of cholera were reported in Ethiopia from almost all regions. Other epidemics in 2019 in Ethi-opia include measles, polio, malaria and chikungunya. As of November 2019, nearly 9,000 suspected measles cases were reported from Afar, Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and So-

Humanitarian Response Plan

8.86M People in need

8.30M People targeted

$1.314B Funding requirement

8 EHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

First EHF Standard Allocation to respond to identified humanitarian priority needs

Second EHF Standard Allocation to humanitarian needs prioritized in the Mid-Year Review

CERF allocation for drought early action for parts of Somali and Oromia regions

CERF allocation to support secondarily displaced population in Somali and Oromia regions

Government strategy on return of IDPs - Recovery & Rehabilitation

2019 HRP launch 8.3M people targeted with requirement of $1.3B

Serious access challengesdue to conflict & violence

Horn of Africa Drought forecast

2019 Mid-Year Review released with 7.8M people targeted and revised requirement of $1.1B

Flood related displacement

Contributions$M

Allocations$M

10.0

11.1

5.1

18.6

3.0

6.3

9.0

1.0

4.8

4.6

10.0

1.0

35.0

25.0

mali regions, including among adults up to 45 years of age while over 53,000 suspected cases of chikungunya were reported in Dire Dawa City Administration and Afar region; polio outbreaks were reported in Oromia and Somali regions, during the year.

Security and Access Localized armed confrontations, ethnic violence, intra-com-munal tensions and social unrest continued to challenge operations and the safety of the population and aid work-ers in parts of the country. Most reported access incidents relate to active hostilities with unidentified armed groups (UAGs) as well as between ethnic groups mostly in West and Southern Oromia.

Meanwhile, armed clashes and social unrest continued to pose an indirect threat to aid workers. During late 2019, two aid workers were killed and two injured in Gambella region while travelling to carry-out relief activities in an incident where the circumstances behind the attack still remain unclear; six others were temporarily arrested. Ethnic ten-sions in Amhara region involving ethnic-Qemant as well as with neighboring communities of Benishangul Gumuz and

Tigray, and particularly Amhara - Oromo inter-communal conflict (mainly in Dire Dawa and the Hararghes) escalated towards the end of the year. In Somali region, the access sit-uation has improved, particularly the boundary dispute with southern Oromia while tensions along boundary areas and resource-based clan conflicts continue. In some areas, such as Awi zone (Amhara) and Gedeo zone (SNNPR), partners continue to seek pragmatic ways to assist conflict-displaced communities regardless of status as per the humanitarian imperative of ‘leaving no one behind’ and the principles of operational independence, neutrality, and impartiality.

On a related note, humanitarian operations and partners’ physical access have been impaired in many areas including parts of Afar, Amhara, Tigray, and Somali regions, due to flash floods and river overflow.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

First EHF Standard Allocation to respond to identified humanitarian priority needs

Second EHF Standard Allocation to humanitarian needs prioritized in the Mid-Year Review

CERF allocation for drought early action for parts of Somali and Oromia regions

CERF allocation to support secondarily displaced population in Somali and Oromia regions

Government strategy on return of IDPs - Recovery & Rehabilitation

2019 HRP launch 8.3M people targeted with requirement of $1.3B

Serious access challengesdue to conflict & violence

Horn of Africa Drought forecast

2019 Mid-Year Review released with 7.8M people targeted and revised requirement of $1.1B

Flood related displacement

Contributions$M

Allocations$M

10.0

11.1

5.1

18.6

3.0

6.3

9.0

1.0

4.8

4.6

10.0

1.0

35.0

25.0

2019 IN REVIEW: HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT 9

2019 TIMELINE


ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND AT A GLANCE

See explanatory note on p.6

13.2

12.0

11.9

10.5

5.0

4.0

3.8

0.3

-

Coordinationand Support Services

Education

Agriculture

Protection

Health

Nutrition

Emergency Shelter and NFI

WASH

Allocationsin US$ million

Addis Ababa

Tigray0.8M0.17M people

Amhara3.4M

0.07M people

BenishangulGumz2.4M

0.12M people

Afar2.3M0.11M people

Dire dawa0.32M0.01M people

Addis Abeba1.44M0.68M people

Somali18.1M0.49M people

Oromia26.5M0.59M people

SNNP

Gambela

5.4M0.27M people

Harari

1.3

1.3

1.6

1.8

2.6

3.1

2.8

For people reached visit: http://bit.ly/CBPF_overview

Malaysia

Korea, Republic of

Czech Republic

Italy

Canada

Switzerland

New Zealand

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

United States

Germany

UK

1.1

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.01

3.4

4.1

7.79.8

11.3

22.9

Results are based on 2019 data and may be underreported as implementation of projects and project-level reporting often continues into the subsequent year and also highest number of targeted/reached beneficiaries across projects per location are used to determine aggregated figures as to avoid double counting.

1.1M

3.0M

0.9M

0.2M

2.9M

0.1M0.3M

29.9M

31.6M

13.3M

RegionFunding amountIn US$ million

Peoplereached

Addis Ababa

Tigray

Amhara

BenishangulGumz

Afar

Dire dawa

SomaliOromia

SNNP

Gambela

95k

118k69k

3k

8k

574k295k

289k

46k

WOMEN TARGETED

REACHED

MEN

GIRLS

BOYS

TARGETED

REACHED

TARGETED

REACHED

TARGETED

REACHED

Targeted Reached Percentage

Returnees

Other

Internally Displaced People

Host Communities targetedreached

Coordination and Support Services

Education


Water Sanitation Hygiene

Nutrition

Food Security

Health

Protection

1.7

3232

631.1

46

4.622

0.20.1

0.9 39%96%

101%94%84%

121%

99%100%

0.4

0.8

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.02

0.001

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.02

0.001

2017

2018

2019

2019 ALLOCATION

2019 IN REVIEW: 11

ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND AT A GLANCE

Results are based on 2019 data and may be underreported as implementation of projects and project-level reporting often continues into the subsequent year and also highest number of targeted/reached beneficiaries across projects per location are used to determine aggregated figures as to avoid double counting.

1.1M

3.0M

0.9M

0.2M

2.9M

0.1M0.3M

29.9M

31.6M

13.3M

RegionFunding amountIn US$ million

Peoplereached

Addis Ababa

Tigray

Amhara

BenishangulGumz

Afar

Dire dawa

SomaliOromia

SNNP

Gambela

95k

118k69k

3k

8k

574k295k

289k

46k

WOMEN TARGETED

REACHED

MEN

GIRLS

BOYS

TARGETED

REACHED

TARGETED

REACHED

TARGETED

REACHED

Targeted Reached Percentage

Returnees

Other

Internally Displaced People

Host Communities targetedreached


Education



Nutrition

Food Security

Health

Protection

1.7

3232

631.1

46

4.622

0.20.1

0.9 39%96%

101%94%84%

121%

99%100%

0.4

0.8

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.02

0.001

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.02

0.001

2017

2018

2019

RESULTS REPORTED IN 2019


ABOUT THE ETHIOPIA HUMANITARIAN FUND2019 IN REVIEW

EHF in brief Since its establishment in 2006, the Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund (EHF) responded to disasters triggered by natural haz-ards, such as droughts, floods and outbreaks of diseases, as well as conflict-related crises. The EHF aims to support the timely disbursement of funds in response to the most critical humanitarian needs identified in the national Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) and also to emerging and un-planned for emergency requirements.

So far, the EHF has mobilized US$ 604 million and allocated some $600 million to 1,011 projects through 59 partners, including the United Nations (UN) agencies and non-gov-ernmental organizations (NGOs).

In 2019, the EHF allocated $60.6 million supporting 126 projects in Nutrition, WaSH, Health, Protection, Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items (ES/NFI), Agriculture, Common Services and Education clusters. Funding is received from thirteen donors namely Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Rationale for EHF fundingThe EHF enables the delivery of humanitarian assistance by specifically focusing on:

1. Ensuring more adequate, timely, flexible and effective humanitarian financing through the use of the pooled funding mechanism,

2. Ensuring well prioritized use of resources, primarily in support of the needs and strategies outlined in the national HRP,

3. Empowering the HC (Humanitarian Coordinator) to enhance coordination,

4. Supporting coordination efforts through the clus-ter approach,

5. Enhancing partnerships between UN and non-UN actors.

What are the target sectors? Donor contributions to the EHF are un-earmarked. The HC allocates funding through a consultative process, based on identified humanitarian needs and priorities in Nutrition, Health, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH), Emergency

Shelter and Non-Food Items (ES/NFI), Agriculture and Live-stock, Education, and Protection sectors at the country level. Inclusiveness, flexibility, timeliness, efficiency, partnership, transparency and value for money are the principles that underpin the use of the EHF.

What are the EHF Allocation Modalities? The EHF has two windows for allocating funds: (a) Standard Allocation and (b) Reserve Allocation. At the HC’s discretion and following on the HRP and the inter-cluster prioritization exercises, the Fund issues a Standard Allocation for collec-tively identified strategic needs. Cluster coordinators drive the prioritization exercise and the HC, in consultation with the Advisory Board (AB), will determine the amount to be allocated through the Standard Allocation. The Reserve Allocation is open for proposals throughout the year, re-sponding to humanitarian needs identified in the HRP and other unprecedented humanitarian needs.

The maximum allowable grant amount will be determined and disbursed in tranches on the basis of project duration, partner capacity and risk levels.

Who are eligible? Eligible recipients include UN agencies, NGOs and the Ethi-opian Red Cross. International and national NGOs (INGOs and NNGOs) participate in the due diligence and capacity assessment processes to determine eligibility.

What is EHF’s Leadership and Governance Structure? The activities of the EHF is carried out under the overall lead-ership of the HC, supported by the Advisory Board, Advisory Board Technical Working Group (ABTWG) and an OCHA-led Humanitarian Financing Unit (HFU) that fulfills the EHF’s sec-retariat functions. The HC chairs the Advisory Board, which includes senior-level participation of donors, UN organiza-tions (in their capacity as cluster lead agencies) and NGO representatives (INGOs and NNGO). Cluster coordinators, in consultation with Government counterparts, play a key role in prioritization as well as project review at both strategic and technical levels. OCHA chairs the Advisory Board Tech-nical Working Group, which includes technical level experts representing donors, UN agencies, international and national NGOs. Humanitarian donors attend as observers.

How is accountability Ensured? The EHF accountability framework strikes a balance between providing assistance to people in need, while implementing

2019 IN REVIEW: 13

viable and effective oversight mechanisms. These account-ability management efforts include:

• Development of an accountability framework, includ-ing a Risk Management Framework to identify risks to the EHF, analyze their potential impact and create strategies to mitigate them,

• Establishment of proper governance mechanisms to ensure the transparency and quality of alloca-tion decisions,

• Verification of partner eligibility and capacity through clear due diligence and capacity assessment processes,

• Tracking performance of each grant recipient through-out the project implementation and closeout,

• Development of clear monitoring, reporting and audit requirements,

Compliance to OCHA’s Global Guidelines for Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPF).

What are the Means of Safeguarding Transparency? The OCHA HFU generates periodic public information prod-ucts during the year with information on donor contributions and allocations, including the EHF Update, Allocation Dash-boards and Costing Matrix.

The HC, supported by OCHA HFU and in close consultation with the Cluster Coordinators, prepares the narrative Annu-al Report of the EHF activities based on information that each participating UN agency and NGO partner provides. Published at the beginning of the second quarter of the following year, the Annual Report features best practices, lessons learned and challenges, and showcases the achieve-ments of the Fund.


HF

UTILIZATION OF FUNDS

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Malaysia

Korea

Czech Republic

Italy

Canada

Switzerland

New Zealand

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

United States

Germany

UK

1.1

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.01

3.4

4.1

7.79.8

11.3

22.9

CONTRIBUTIONS TIMELINE

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

UK ItalyUnited States Denmark Germany United States IrelandUK New Zealand

UK Sweden Czech Republic

Korea Canada Malaysia

Sweden SwitzerlandIreland

5.1 18.6 3.0 6.3 9.01.0

4.8 4.6 10.01.1

2019 IN REVIEW: 15

UTILIZATION OF FUNDS

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Malaysia

Korea

Czech Republic

Italy

Canada

Switzerland

New Zealand

Ireland

Denmark

Sweden

United States

Germany

UK

1.1

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.01

3.4

4.1

7.79.8

11.3

22.9

CONTRIBUTIONS TIMELINE

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

UK ItalyUnited States Denmark Germany United States IrelandUK New Zealand

UK Sweden Czech Republic

Korea Canada Malaysia

Sweden SwitzerlandIreland

5.1 18.6 3.0 6.3 9.01.0

4.8 4.6 10.01.1

DONOR CONTRIBUTIONS2019 IN REVIEW

During the year 2019, the EHF received donor contributions of $63.4 million from 13 donors namely, Canada, Czech Re-public, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Although the total contributions received in the year decreased from $75.7 million in 2018 to $63.4 million, the donor base expanded from eight in 2018 to 13 in 2019, of which Canada, Czech Republic, Malaysia and New Zealand contributed to the Fund for the first time. The total income of the Fund during the year was $66.7million including $3.3 million adjustment and carry over resources from 2018.

EHF allocations are based on available contributions and disbursements are made as per actual transfer/deposit of donor contributions. Some eight per cent ($5.1 million) of funds was received in the first quarter of the year resulting in delayed allocation. About 44 per cent ($27.9 million) were received in the second quarter of the year. Overall, more than 51 per cent of funding was received in the first half of the year enabling the Fund to respond to the needs of returnees and IDPs and other prioritized needs in the coun-try. Early donor contributions/ commitments help the Fund to be predictable and direct to strategic funding decisions.

The first and the second Standard Allocations announced in April and November 2019, disbursed a total of $60.6million supporting 126 life-saving projects. The prioritized sectors for funding were Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WaSH), Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items (ES/NFI), Nutri-tion, Health, Protection, Education and Agriculture sectors. Among the prioritized sectors, WaSH received the highest funding with $13.2 million allocation. The contributions enabled implementation of immediate life-saving activities including access to safe water, establishment of sanitation facilities, support to health and nutrition services, averting pipeline breaks for critical resource supplies, response to


DONOR WITH MULTI-YEAR FUNDING

2018 - 2021

2019 - 2022

United Kingdom

Switzerland

63.6M

2.5M

United States

Ireland Korea, Republic of

UK

Sweden

GermanyDenmark

Switzerland

10.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

20192018201720162015

$2.9M $3.0M 2.3M11.3M

20192018201720162015

4.0M 3.4M

20182018201720162015

0.5M 0.2M

20192018201720162015

20192018201720162015

0.7M

43.4M

22.9M

29.5M

9.8M

7.7M

20192018201720162015

20192018201720162015

3.1M 1.0M

DONOR TREND

20192018201720162015

2019 IN REVIEW: ALLOCATION OVERVIEW 16

shelter and other needs of IDPs/returnees and host commu-nities and coverage of protection needs through inclusion of protection indicators in proposals for delivery of integrated programming in the project areas.

Donor trendDonor contribution to the EHF has been generous over the years. During the last 14 years, 17 donors provided and committed a total of $604.9 million to the Fund. Since recent years, however, contribution trends to the EHF have varied and mobilizing timely and adequate resources for immediate life-saving needs has been challenging. Increase in number and intensity of competing global emergencies have led to diversion of global resources and played the key role to the marginal decrease in donor contribution to the Fund in 2019.

In 2019, EHF received some $63.4 million from 13 donors which in the overall is a slightly declining figure compared to 2017 and 2018; $82.6 million and $75.6 million were re-ceived, respectively. However, the number of donors has significantly increased from eight in 2017 and 2018 to 13 in 2019. In addition, the donor base has expanded by four in the year. The EHF accounted for approximately 18 per cent of the HRPnon-food funding.

Overall, the UK has contributed the largest amount ($265 million) since the establishment of the Fund, followed by Netherlands and Sweden. Comparing contributions for the past two years, UK, Germanyand USA have been the top three donors contributing $48.4million, $26.2million and $24.5mil-lion respectively. Since 2007, Sweden hasbeen supporting the Fund, providing 9 per cent of the overall total funding, be-coming the third top donor. Denmark sporadically supported the Fund since 2009, being the fifth top donor considering the overall funding.

Ireland has consistently supported EHF since 2008,being the 7th largest donor. The USA continues tosupport the fund since its first contributions in 2016. Korea has maintained its level of funding since 2016. The Government of Italy contributed in the year, after nine years of disruption (last contribution was in 2011).

In the second half of 2019, Switzerland committed multi-year funding to the EHF i.e. the second donor for multi-year funding next to the UK. Switzerland has been regularly contributing to the Fund since 2011. Multi-year donor commitments enable the Fundto be more innovative, creative and strategic with more predictable sources of funding.

2019 IN REVIEW: 17

DONOR WITH MULTI-YEAR FUNDING

2018 - 2021

2019 - 2022

United Kingdom

Switzerland

63.6M

2.5M

United States

Ireland Korea, Republic of

UK

Sweden

GermanyDenmark

Switzerland

10.0

15.0

25.0

35.0

45.0

20192018201720162015

$2.9M $3.0M 2.3M11.3M

20192018201720162015

4.0M 3.4M

20182018201720162015

0.5M 0.2M

20192018201720162015

20192018201720162015

0.7M

43.4M

22.9M

29.5M

9.8M

7.7M

20192018201720162015

20192018201720162015

3.1M 1.0M

DONOR TREND

20192018201720162015

ALLOCATION OVERVIEW2019 IN REVIEW

Enabling Coordination The EHF follows two types of fund allocation modalities – the Standard Allocation and the Reserve Allocation. A Standard Allocation is activated following the launch of the Humani-tarian Response Plan (HRP) and the ensuing Prioritization Exercise – an activity where-by the Government and the In-ter-Cluster Coordination Group identify critical humanitarian needs and priority funding gaps. A Reserve Allocation, on the other hand, is prompted on a periodic basis, at the discretion of the Humanitarian Coordinator, to avail timely and flexible funding in response to collectively identified strategic needs within the context of the HRP or unforeseen emergencies including disease outbreaks, conflicts and displacements.

The Humanitarian Coordinator, in consultation with the EHF Advisory Group, determines the amount to be allocated where the Cluster Coordinators facilitate the allocation process as per the agreed upon procedures and timeline.

Alignment to the Ethiopia HRPIn consistency with the 2019 Humanitarian Response Plan and the Prioritization Statement, EHF allocations prioritized activities that address life-saving needs with immediate impact on the lives and livelihoods of targeted beneficiaries. In 2019, EHF continued to support activities that are respon-sive to the time-sensitive nature of requirements, critically enabling multi-sector responses in hotspot geographic lo-cations linked with highest priorities identified in the HRP.

The Fund supported bridge funding gaps while promoting cost-effectiveness, flexibility, transparency, efficiency, and coordination both at the national and sub-national levels. The 2019 EHF allocations also ensured inclusion of cross-cut-ting themes such as accountability to affected populations, protection, disabilities and age, and the principle of ‘do no harm’ with special consideration and stand-alone funding to security and access projects. All projects supported in this year’s allocations implemented the gender and age marker methodology.

EHF Allocations in 2019 The EHF issued two standard allocations during the year. The first standard allocation was announced in April, 2019 to respond to critical humanitarian priorities and funding gaps that were identified in the annual Humanitarian Re-sponse Plan launched in February 2019. Soon after, the ‘Ethiopia Immediate Humanitarian Funding Priorities’ was released based on a joint Government and humanitarian partners’ exercise that reprioritized most-critical funding

gaps for the first half of 2019. In this regard, the EHF al-located $35 million in response to the announced funding gap to address critical humanitarian needs in agriculture/livestock, education, Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Items, health, nutrition, protection and WaSH sectors arising from conflict-driven displacement crises, malnutrition and water shortages in identified hotspot areas, disease outbreaks and protection concerns.

In the second standard allocation, announced in Novem-ber 2019, the Humanitarian Coordinator in consultation with the EHF Advisory Board approved $25 million to help bridge critical funding gap (out of the nearly $230 million high priority funding requirements) identified in the Mid-Year Review of the Humanitarian Response Plan targeting the most vulnerable populations and immediate life-saving activities for the second half of the year.

Complementarity and Partnerships One of the key tenets of CBPFs is working in partnership and in complementarity with other humanitarian funding entities. To promote partnership and ensure complementarity with other donors, a forum linked to the inter-cluster coordina-tion group is established where the EHF and other existing rapid response funding mechanisms regularly brainstorm and update on priorities, funding plans and pipeline informa-tion. Separately, the EHF consolidates and shares a matrix whereby humanitarian responses made by the EHF, ECHO and OFDA are mapped. The aim of this exercise is to avoid resource duplication and also guide resource investments.

Additionally, EHF supported processing of two CERF (Central Emergency Response Fund) Rapid Response allocations with a total funding of $21.5M for drought early action and to support secondarily displaced population in parts of the country during 2019. Additionally, the EHF supported process revision requests drafting and compilation as well as following up clearance of 2018 CERF final reports and 2019 interim reports.

Amount Category Timeline$35M Standard allocation April 2019$25M Standard allocation November 2019

2019 ALLOCATIONS

18 EHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT 2019 IN REVIEW: ALLOCATION OVERVIEW 18

8.2

4.0

3.9

3.8

2.2

1.5

0.2

0.1

24748

10000

-


Education

Agriculture

Nutrition



Protection

Health

13.2

12.0

11.9

10.5

5.0

4.0

3.8

0.3

-


Education

Agriculture

Protection

Health

Nutrition


WASH

SUBGRANT BY PARTNER TYPE

PEOPLE TARGETED BY CLUSTER

ALLOCATIONS BY CLUSTER

1.3

2.3

3.4

Standard allocations

INGOs

$41.9M

UN Agencies

$16M

NNGOs

$2.7M

Directimplementation

NNGOs

$1.6M

NNGOs

$1.9M

Others/Government

$1.3M

3.1Msubgranted

1.7Msubgranted

ALLOCATIONS BY STRATEGIC FOCUS

S01 Lives are saved and sustained

S02 Protection services for affected communities are provided

S03 Livelihoods and basic service delivery are supported to strengthen resilience to recurrent shocks

Allocations by strategic focus

$43.3M SO1 $8.1M SO2 $9.2M SO3

ALLOCATIONS BY TYPEGENDER MARKER PROJECTS

1 - Unlikely to contribute to gender equality (no gender equality measure and no age consideration)2 - Unlikely to contribute to gender equality (no gender equality measure but includes age consideration)3 - Likely to contribute to gender equality, but without attention to age groups4 - Likely to contribute to gender equality, including across age groups

TARGETED PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY

JANUARY - DECEMBER 2019

19FUND PERFORMANCE

8.2

4.0

3.9

3.8

2.2

1.5

0.2

0.1

24748

10000

-


Education

Agriculture

Nutrition



Protection

Health

13.2

12.0

11.9

10.5

5.0

4.0

3.8

0.3

-


Education

Agriculture

Protection

Health

Nutrition


WASH

SUBGRANT BY PARTNER TYPE

PEOPLE TARGETED BY CLUSTER

ALLOCATIONS BY CLUSTER

1.3

2.3

3.4


INGOs

$41.9M

UN Agencies

$16M

NNGOs

$2.7M

Directimplementation

NNGOs

$1.6M

NNGOs

$1.9M

Others/Government

$1.3M

3.1Msubgranted

1.7Msubgranted

ALLOCATIONS BY STRATEGIC FOCUS

S01 Lives are saved and sustained

S02 Protection services for affected communities are provided

S03 Livelihoods and basic service delivery are supported to strengthen resilience to recurrent shocks

Allocations by strategic focus

$43.3M SO1 $8.1M SO2 $9.2M SO3

ALLOCATIONS BY TYPEGENDER MARKER PROJECTS

1 - Unlikely to contribute to gender equality (no gender equality measure and no age consideration)2 - Unlikely to contribute to gender equality (no gender equality measure but includes age consideration)3 - Likely to contribute to gender equality, but without attention to age groups4 - Likely to contribute to gender equality, including across age groups

TARGETED PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY

JANUARY - DECEMBER 2019

Diverse set of partners EHF allocations strengthened partnerships in humanitari-an response by allocating funds to local and international humanitarian organizations.

The overall EHF allocation prioritized support to NGOs with 73 per cent of the funding ($45 million) allocated to 25 dif-ferent partners. Out of which, National NGOs received $2.7 million through direct funding, and an additional $2million through sub-granting agreements. The United Nations agen-cies that provide specialized services (logistics, procurement and coordination) were supported with 27 per cent of the funding ($16.3 million).


Support for women and girls, including tackling gender-based violence, reproductive health and empowerment

Programmes targeting disabled people

Education in protracted crises

Other aspects of protection

$1MAllocations

5 Projects

177kTargeted beneficaries

in 2019 committed to contribute significantly to gender equality.

In 2019, 96 projects out of the total 126 projects will likely contribute to gender equality, including across age groups

The Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund prioritized programmes targeting disabled people,

4%

$4M allocated

supporting 11 projects,

targeting over 10k girls

and 11k boys

in 2019

Increasing amount of funding in the protection sector

$4M allocated

21 projects in 2019

# of projects in protection sectors

Aligning with the Emergency Relief Coordinator’s (ERC) priorities whereby people with disabilities and women and girls to be considered in all response, the EHF pays increased attention in identifying this segment of the population during proposal development and reporting.

In the year, the EHF supported projects to deliver education for emergency affected children and to create learning opportunities for displaced school age children.

In 2019, the EHF encouraged partners to consider basic protection related indicators to mainstream protection response in project proposals.

2019201820172016

26

14

21

0 1.8 0.2 1.02019201820172016

Allocations amount togender equality

2550

65

90%

ERC’S STRATEGIC STEERS

In 2019, the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) Mark Lowcock identified four priority areas that are often underfunded and lack the desirable and appropriate consideration in the allocation of humanitarian funding.

These four priority areas were duly considered when prioritizing life-saving needs in the allocation processes.

.

Support for women and girls, including tackling gender-based violence, reproductive health and empowerment

Programmes targeting disabled people

Education in protracted crises

Other aspects of protection

$1MAllocations

5 Projects

177kTargeted beneficaries

in 2019 committed to contribute significantly to gender equality.

In 2019, 96 projects out of the total 126 projects will likely contribute to gender equality, including across age groups

The Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund prioritized programmes targeting disabled people,

4%

$4M allocated

supporting 11 projects,

targeting over 10k girls

and 11k boys

in 2019

Increasing amount of funding in the protection sector

$4M allocated

21 projects in 2019

# of projects in protection sectors

Aligning with the Emergency Relief Coordinator’s (ERC) priorities whereby people with disabilities and women and girls to be considered in all response, the EHF pays increased attention in identifying this segment of the population during proposal development and reporting.

In the year, the EHF supported projects to deliver education for emergency affected children and to create learning opportunities for displaced school age children.

In 2019, the EHF encouraged partners to consider basic protection related indicators to mainstream protection response in project proposals.

2019201820172016

26

14

21

0 1.8 0.2 1.02019201820172016

Allocations amount togender equality

2550

65

90%

FUND PERFORMANCEEHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

The EHF measures its performance against a management tool that provides a set of indicators to assess how well a Fund performs in relation to the policy objectives and operational standards set out in the CBPF Global Guidelines. This common methodology enables man¬agement and stakeholders involved in the governance of the Funds to identify, analyze and address challenges in reaching and maintaining a well-performing CBPF.

CBPFs embody the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, and function according to a set of specific principles: Inclusiveness, Flexibility, Timeliness, Efficiency, Accountability and Risk Management.


REPRESENTATIVES IN THE COMMITTEE

# of representatives that participated in average inStrategic Review Committee

# of representatives that participated in average inTechnical Review Committee

2 2UNAgencies

InternationalNGOs 1 Cluster

Coordinator 1 OCHA 1 NationalNGOs

4 2ClusterCoordinator

InternationalNGOs 2 UN

Agencies 1 OCHA 1 NationalNGOs

COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY BOARD

INCLUSIVENESSA broad range of humanitarian partner organizations (UN agencies and NGOs) partici¬pates in CBPF processes and receive funding to implement projects addressing identified priority needs.

PRINCIPLE 1

1 Inclusive governance

The Advisory Board has a manageable size and a balanced representation of CBPF stakeholders.

TargetThe EHF Advisory Board includes four members of Donors, two representatives from the Humanitarian International NGO, one National NGO and two Humanitarian UN agencies in this membership for 2019.

Results

AnalysisThe EHF Advisory Board size mirrors the global guideline whereby the overall membership will not exceed the recom-mended maximum size of 12 seats.

The selection of Advisory Board members is received through existing constituencies. The International Humanitarian NGO forum nominates INGO membership to the Board; while the Humanitarian Response and Development Group selects donor representatives.

In the year, the EHF had DFID, Sweden, Switzerland, and OFDA as its donor members; WFP and UNICEF representing the UN agencies; MCMDO as the National NGO representa-tive, and Oxfam GB and World Vision as INGOs.

Follow up actions The EHF plans to expand the NNGO representation in the Advisory Board by adding one additional member to ensure an equitable and balanced representation among members.

2 Inclusive programming

The review committees of the Fund have the appropriate size and a balanced representation of different partner con¬stit-uencies and cluster representatives

TargetThe number of the organizations engaged in the EHF Ad-visory Board Technical Working Group (INGO, NNGO, UN) and Cluster Review Committees for technical and strategic selection and review of proposals.

Results

AnalysisThe EHF Advisory Board Technical Working group member-ship mirrors the composition of the Advisory Board with technical level representation. Cluster Coordinators are also members of this committee. In addition, Cluster Review committees organize agile review processes. This group provides an important contributes in providing quality pro-gramming as well as cost effective response.

Follow up actionsThe EHF plans to include a representation from a constitu-ency that can provide gender lens to project proposals. UN Women used to attend such technical meetings but stopped representation due to capacity issues related to staffing.

23FUND PERFORMANCE

REPRESENTATIVES IN THE COMMITTEE

# of representatives that participated in average inStrategic Review Committee

# of representatives that participated in average inTechnical Review Committee

2 2UNAgencies

InternationalNGOs 1 Cluster

Coordinator 1 OCHA 1 NationalNGOs

4 2ClusterCoordinator

InternationalNGOs 2 UN

Agencies 1 OCHA 1 NationalNGOs

COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY BOARD

INCLUSIVENESSPRINCIPLE 1

3 Inclusive implementation

CBPF funding is allocated to the best-positioned actors, lev-eraging the diversity and comparative advantage of eli¬gible organizations.

TargetEHF funding proportion allocated to INGOs, NNGOs and UN agencies.

Results

AnalysisThe EHF allocations encourage proactive identification of best placed partners for the response through cluster coor-dination and working group mechanisms. As the response requirements including sectoral and geographic priorities are clearly defined in the allocation documents, clusters take the led undertaking partner/project selection. This approach ensures efficient and timely response.

In an effort to provide balanced access to the existing pooled funding mechanisms, the EHF by design prioritizes funding to NGOs, except for projects whereby support to a United Nations agency present an added value related to common procurement, logistics and coordination services. CERF funding is for UN agencies.

Follow up actionsWith the increased number of NNGOs eligible for direct partnership with the EHF, and the continued commitment to expand the partnership, the EHF expects a balanced funding between the different types of partners.

4 Inclusive engagement

Resources are invested by OCHA’s Humanitarian Financing Unit (HFU) in supporting the capacity of local and national NGO partners within the scope of CBPF strategic objectives.

TargetAmount of HFU resource invested in supporting and promot-ing the capacity of local and national NGO partners within the scope of CBPF strategic objectives

ResultsEHF clinic is operational weekly to discuss on issues related to GMS and program manageement issues. At the beginning of the year, the fund organized a refresher workshop to all partners to introduce new features of the GMS, allocation strategy and to share audit and monitoring findings and recommendations.

AnalysisThe EHF also conducts individual / on demand consultations with partners to address specific requests or wide range of issues ranging from programmatic to financial, compliance and accountability. In addition, for national partners, during capacity assessment processthat includes financial spot check, the EHF provides explicit recommendations to en-hance the institutional, financial and programmatic capacity.

Follow up actionsThe EHF to continue building the capacity of its implement-ing partners through different approach including trainings, and consultations.

Training type Organizations type

# of organizations trained

# of people trained

Familiarization training/workshop

UN 8 16 people

INGOs 32 52 people

NNGOs 1 2 people

Total 41 70 people


CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING

BY ORGANIZATION TYPE BY SECTOR

BY CONDITIONALITY BY RESTRICTIONS

2.1

0.05

0.04

0.03

-

WASH

Protection

Agriculture

Shelter/NFIs

ALLOCATION THROUGH COMMON SERVICES

FLEXIBILITYThe programmatic focus and funding priorities of CBPFs are set at the country level and may shift rapidly, especially in volatile humanitarian contexts. CBPFs are able to adapt rapidly to changing priorities and allow humanitarian partners to identify appropriate solutions to address humanitarian needs in the most effective way.

PRINCIPLE 2

5 Flexible assistance

CBPF funding is allocated for cash assistance.

TargetEHF amount and percentage of funding allocated to cash assistance (conditional/ unconditional).

Results

AnalysisThe 2019 EHF allocations modality was to support 30 per cent cash and 70 per cent in-kind basket for the Emergency Shelter/ Non-Food Items response, which is also aligned with the direction included in the national Humanitarian Response Plan.

Follow up actionsThe EHF will continue to prioritize cash as a preferred modality of response, where feasible, including it as a re-quirement in its ‘allocation principles’ in all Allocation Strat-egy documents.

6 Flexible operation

CBPF Funding supports projects that improve the common ability of actors to deliver a more effective response.

TargetEHF funding allocated to improve the common ability of actors to deliver a more effective response.

Results

AnalysisThe EHF supported a humanitarian NGO consortium project (SWAN), drawn from four INGOs -Save the children, World Vi-sion, Action Against Hunger and Norwegian Refugee Council, that facilitated timely and coordinated multi-sector response in ES/NFI, WASH and Health across the country, providing immediate response and prepositioning essential supplies both through in-kind and cash modalities. The approach minimizes beneficiary overlaps, standardizes assistance packages and reach affected populations at scale in targeted hot spot locations. Additionally, the supplies can be made available to other operating actors as per the guidance of clusters ensuring immediate response.

In view of the challenging security conditions, the Fund also financed UNDSS to support humanitarian assistance pro-grams through the delivery of safety and security services.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to support ‘critically enabling’ projects that are important for the implementation of other pro-grammes. This include projects focused on augmentation of logistics, support to national pipelines and other sup-port services.

ALLOCATION TYPE BY REGION

Allocations$25M$10M$3M


$60.6MStandardallocations

NUMBER OF REVISIONS IN 2019

45

27

22

15

13

4

3

2

-

nternal Admin Delays

Delay in Securing Supplies from Pipeline

Delays in finalizing PPA

Staffing/Recruitment Delays

Procurement Delays

Programmatic Delays

Inaccessibility

Insecurity

Reasons for No Cost Extension/NCE

Addis Ababa

Tigray

AmharaBenishangul

Gumz

Afar

Dire dawa

SomaliOromia

SNNP

Gambela

25FUND PERFORMANCE

CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING

BY ORGANIZATION TYPE BY SECTOR

BY CONDITIONALITY BY RESTRICTIONS

2.1

0.05

0.04

0.03

-

WASH

Protection

Agriculture

Shelter/NFIs

ALLOCATION THROUGH COMMON SERVICES

ALLOCATION TYPE BY REGION

Allocations$25M$10M$3M


$60.6MStandardallocations

NUMBER OF REVISIONS IN 2019

45

27

22

15

13

4

3

2

-

nternal Admin Delays

Delay in Securing Supplies from Pipeline

Delays in finalizing PPA

Staffing/Recruitment Delays

Procurement Delays

Programmatic Delays

Inaccessibility

Insecurity

Reasons for No Cost Extension/NCE

Addis Ababa

Tigray

AmharaBenishangul

Gumz

Afar

Dire dawa

SomaliOromia

SNNP

Gambela

FLEXIBILITYPRINCIPLE 2

7 Flexible allocation process

CBPF funding supports strategic planning and response to needs identified in the HRPs and sudden onset emergencies through the most appropriate modalities.

TargetThe EHF funding allocated through the Standard and Reserve allocations in response to national strategic documents.

ResultsThe EHF made two Standard Allocations in 2019 in response to requirements identified in the Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) and its subsequent revision document. A total of US$ 60.6 million was disbursed supporting 126 multi-sector projects across the country.

8 Flexible implementation

CBPF funding is successfully reprogrammed at the right time to address operational and contextual changes.

TargetThe number of revisions processed and reasons for the revision request.

Results98 revisions for 79 projects processed during the period, which included a total of 162 type of revisions.

AnalysisThe EHF in 2019 did not organize a Reserve Allocation as the main humanitarian needs were within the HRP priori-ties identified, hence structured around the Standard Allo-cation window.

Follow up actionsThe EHF will continue supporting collectively identified sec-toral priorities in the national strategic document provided funding is available.

AnalysisIn 2019, the fluidity of the humanitarian situation particularly the change of context from IDP to returnees, necessitated for many projects to adjust their original planning to ensure relevance of the response. The common revision types re-lated to changes in project duration, location and activities.

Additionally, a significant driver of change in programming was due to the increased insecurity and access challenges from the inter-communal contexts.

Follow up actionsThe EHF does not consider revision request as an indica-tor of poor performance and planning unless indicated by monitoring and other compliance processes. Hence, the EHF encourages implementing partners to continually re-view their project relevance to the context and make the necessary adjustments.


AVERAGE WORKING DAYS OF PAYMENT PROCESSING

Average working days from EO signature of a proposal to first payment

Standard Allocations

201920182017

7 6 4

TIMELINESSCBPFs allocate funds and save lives as humanitarian needs emerge or escalate.

PRINCIPLE 3

9 Timely allocation

CBPFs allocation processes have an appropriate duration.

TargetThe average duration of the allocation process from dead-line of application submission to HC approval of projects as outlined in the operational manual.

Results

10 Timely disbursements

Payments are processed without delay

Target10 days from Executive Officer signature of a proposal to first payment.

ResultsAverage number of days for standard allocations: 4 days

AnalysisThe processing timeline achieved is shorter than the set standard global target of ten working days.

Follow up actionsMaintain the improved capacity in FCS.

The average allocation processing timeline for the year stands at 30 days from deadline of submission of projects to the HC approval. This does not include exceptions of projects under special envelopes as different coordination structures and review processes were applied (out of 126 projects 12 projects from Somali region enveloped alloca-tion and SWAN proposal are not included in the average calculation).

AnalysisThe first-round allocation took extended time (from launch to HC approval) in order to accommodate an additional fund-ing. The amount was received with the condition of the EHF considering the resource as part of the ongoing allocation for immediate dispersal. As a result, Cluster Coordinators were advised to put on hold an already progressed allocation to consider the additional resources.

For the second- round allocation, enveloped provisions for SWAN and Somali region response required extended sub-mission deadline. Organizing sub-national coordination fo-rum for the prioritization and review of proposals required additional days. For the SWAN project, cluster coordinators requested extension for the proposal submission as there were several issues for consideration based on the lessons learned from the first supported project.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to strive to balance speed and quality of response. In exceptional situations, whereby conditions necessitate delays in allocation and application processing, the EHF will transparently communicate the progress with the stakeholders.

CONTRIBUTIONS TIMELINESS

2%

Milestones Category 2017 2018 2019From allocation closing date to HC signature of the grant agreement

StandardAllocations

33 <24 30

ReserveAllocations

33 >24 N/A

27FUND PERFORMANCE

AVERAGE WORKING DAYS OF PAYMENT PROCESSING

Average working days from EO signature of a proposal to first payment

Standard Allocations

201920182017

7 6 4

CONTRIBUTIONS TIMELINESS

2%

11 Timely contributions

Pledging and payment of contributions to CBPFs are timely and predictable.

TargetNumber of multi-year agreements secured and timely con-tributions received

Results

TIMELINESSPRINCIPLE 3

AnalysisThe EHF secured multi-year funding from two donors – Unit-ed Kingdom and Switzerland. This increases the predictabil-ity of the EHF funding and ensured timely allocations. The majority of EHF funding was received on time, with pledges realized into payments within the time frame of one month

Follow up actionsThe EHF will continue to advocate for increased and/or continued multi-year funding arrangement


ALLOCATION BY HRP STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

S01 Lives are saved and sustainedS02 Protection services for affected communities are providedS03 Livelihoods and basic service delivery are support-ed to strengthen resilience to recurrent shocks

EFFICIENCYManagement of all processes related to CBPFs enables timely and strategic responses to identi-fied humanitarian needs. CBPFs seek to employ effective disbursement mechanisms, minimizing trans¬action costs while operating in a transparent and accountable manner.

PRINCIPLE 4

12 Efficient scale

CBPFs have a significant funding level to support the de-livery of the HRPs.

Target15% of HRP funding received.

ResultsThe EHF covered 18 per cent of the non-food funding re-ceived in the HRP and 10 per cent of the total HRP funding.

AnalysisThe EHF contribution against the HRP funding is made for the non-food sectors only as by design the Fund does not support relief food requirements.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to be one of the critical non-food financ-ing mechanism in the country.

13 Efficient prioritization

CBPF funding is prioritized in alignment with the HRP.

TargetProportion of EHF funding allocated toward HRP strate-gic objectives

Results

AnalysisThe majority of EHF funding supported HRP Strategic Objec-tive 1 – ‘Lives are saved and sustained’, which aligns with the core objective of the Fund. Support to Strategic Objective 2 and 3 - related to ‘Protection services for affected com-munities are provided’ and ‘Livelihoods and basic service delivery are supported to strengthen resilience to recurrent shocks’ respectively.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to support commonly identified HRP priorities as further guided by the inter-cluster prioritization exercise, which is endorsed by EHCT. Other emerging needs will also be supported as required.

PEOPLE TARGETED AND REACHED BY GENDER AND AGE

Standardallocations

Reserveallocations

5.4

5.6

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.4

3.5

3.6

-

Boys

Girls

Men

Women3.3

3.8

2.9

2.9

3.4

3.9

3.2

3.2

reachedtargeted 9.4

13.4

6.58.6

6.510.0

9.1

13.3

29FUND PERFORMANCE

ALLOCATION BY HRP STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

S01 Lives are saved and sustainedS02 Protection services for affected communities are providedS03 Livelihoods and basic service delivery are support-ed to strengthen resilience to recurrent shocks

PEOPLE TARGETED AND REACHED BY GENDER AND AGE

Standardallocations

Reserveallocations

5.4

5.6

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.4

3.5

3.6

-

Boys

Girls

Men

Women3.3

3.8

2.9

2.9

3.4

3.9

3.2

3.2

reachedtargeted 9.4

13.4

6.58.6

6.510.0

9.1

13.3

EFFICIENCYPRINCIPLE 4

14 Efficient coverage

CBPF funding reaches people in need.

TargetNumber of people targeted and reached through EHF funding allocations disaggregated by gender, age and sector.

Results

AnalysisThe targeted and reached population are calculated based on a commonly agreed methodology set to ensure synergized approach between the different CBPFs. Thus, the report is based on data received from 143 projects that had implementation and reporting in the fiscal year. The results of projects that were supported in 2019 are not necessarily considered for this as their implementa-tion/reporting crosses into the next year.

To provide the best estimated beneficiary number, a common methodology ‘Max’, where the highest values per sector are considered, to avoid double counting of targeted and reached beneficiaries.

Follow up actionsFurther refine the beneficiary calculation approach by col-lecting project delivery data through woreda level breakdown.

In hundered thousand


HFU DIRECT COSTS AGAINST TOTAL ALLOCATION

15 Efficient management

CBPF management is cost-efficient and context-appropriate.

TargetEHF direct operation cost expenditure in proportion to to-tal allocation.

Results

EFFICIENCYPRINCIPLE 4

16 Efficient management

CBPF management is compliant with management and op-erational standards required by the CBPF Global Guidelines.

TargetCompliance rate/level with management and operational standards required by the global guidelines.

ResultsThe EHF achieved complete compliance with the estab-lished standards

AnalysisThe EHF operational manual has been updated to capture changes in operation context of the country with increased security and access challenges, which were reflected in the risk management framework of the manual.

Follow up actionsThe EHF operational manual is a living document whereby changes in operation and contexts are continually updated.

AnalysisThe EHF has been cost effective in managing one of the largest CBPFs.

Follow up actionsContinue ensuring a transparent and cost-efficient use of Fund.

ACCOUNTABILITY TO AFFECTED PEOPLE

2 The project incorporates high quality programmaing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment1 The project partially incorporates high quality program-maing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment0 The project does not incorporate high quality program-maing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment

31FUND PERFORMANCE

HFU DIRECT COSTS AGAINST TOTAL ALLOCATION

ACCOUNTABILITY TO AFFECTED PEOPLE

2 The project incorporates high quality programmaing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment1 The project partially incorporates high quality program-maing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment0 The project does not incorporate high quality program-maing in terms of gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected people, HIV/AIDs and environment

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENTCBPFs manage risk and effectively monitor partner capacity and performance. CBPFs utilize a full range of ac-countability tools and measures.

PRINCIPLE 5

17 Accountability to affected people

CBPF funded projects have a clear strategy to promote the participation of affected people.

TargetAmount and percentage of EHF funding (included as a com-ponent of funding) allocated for activities to promote the participation of affected people.

ResultsMajority of approved proposals include a detailed plan on the accountability to affected population (AAP). In addition, all monitoring visits involve discussion with beneficiaries. In addition, one of the critical evaluation areas in conducting capacity assessment of candidate partners is the existence and practice of strong AAP mechanisms.

AnalysisThere is an evidence to confirm that affected populations have been involved in the different stages of the project management cycle in varying degrees. Most of the visited projects lack consultation with affected communities at the time of design. Consultation during design is made mainly with government authorities at region, zone and woreda levels. However, at implementation stage of the project, all visited project exhibited enough consultation with affected communities.

Follow up actionsMost of the projects exhibited availability and functional-ity of complaints feedback mechanism (CFM). However, awareness of the beneficiaries and utilization of the system requires improvement.

Since AAP is a new system/ service to Ethiopia a lot remains to be done in the future. There is a need to ensure that the existing mechanisms are put in place to enable affected populations to provide feedback and complaints feed into management decisions.


High Medium Low Ineligible

IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTNER RISK LEVEL TYPE

Implementation by partner risk level type

Updated risk level based on performance index

Number of capacity assessment conducted

4 Created in 20191 0 Revised in 201924 Created andrevised in 20193

1 Capacity assessment is created and conducted in 20192 Capacity assessment is only revised in 2019, regardless of what year it was created3 Capacity assessment is created, conducted and revised in 2019

4 New Capacity assessments conducted during the year

FieldMonitoring

Financial spotchecks

Final narrativereport

Highrisk

Mediumrisk

Lowrisk

PROGRESS ON RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

completed

required

Final financialreport

Audits

completed

required

22

39

39

34

33

1

38

36

31

1

22

107

92

67

109

5

103

76

63

18 Accountability and risk management for projects

CBPF funding is appropriately monitored, reported and audited.

TargetRate of completion of required monitoring, reporting and auditing as per the operational modality applied to each grant

ResultsIn 2019, the EHF achieved more than 300 per cent monitoring coverage in the year. The monitoring team monitored 142 projects. The implementation of many projects from 2018 allocation continued well into 2019. As a result, the moni-toring of the projects was conducted in 2019.

For projects supported under the second-round standard allocation, the projects were not matured enough for mon-itoring missions to be initiated. Hence, project visits will be conducted in 2020.

As per the requirements of the operational modality, six financial spot-checks and 94 audits were conducted and completed’.

AnalysisThe EHF applied risk-based project management aligned with the global approach for determining the frequency and type of accountability measures. Whilst prioritizing projects rated as ‘high’ and ‘medium’ risks for field visits, the EHF monitors all projects that are in close geographic proximity due to the internal policy of visiting projects once in its life time.

On monitoring findings, the overall EHF projects are the first responders in response to disasters (drought and conflict) in all regions. The projects are highly appreciated by the communities and local administrations. Most of the pro-jects are also complementing the community and regional governments initial response. durable solution through local government staff capacity building, development of irrigated fodder production and construction and rehabilitation of water schemes.

Follow up actionsThe EHF strives to ensure compliance with the required coverage of the accountability requirements for audit, mon-itoring, reporting and financial spot check.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENTPRINCIPLE 5

33FUND PERFORMANCE

High Medium Low Ineligible

IMPLEMENTATION BY PARTNER RISK LEVEL TYPE

Implementation by partner risk level type

Updated risk level based on performance index

Number of capacity assessment conducted

4 Created in 20191 0 Revised in 201924 Created andrevised in 20193

1 Capacity assessment is created and conducted in 20192 Capacity assessment is only revised in 2019, regardless of what year it was created3 Capacity assessment is created, conducted and revised in 2019

4 New Capacity assessments conducted during the year

FieldMonitoring

Financial spotchecks

Final narrativereport

Highrisk

Mediumrisk

Lowrisk

PROGRESS ON RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

completed

required

Final financialreport

Audits

completed

required

22

39

39

34

33

1

38

36

31

1

22

107

92

67

109

5

103

76

63

19 Accountability and risk management of implementing partners

CBPF is allocated to partners as per the identified capacity and risk level.

TargetAmount and percentage of funding allocated by partner risk level based on capacity assessment and performance index.

ResultsThe EHF conducted four capacity assessment of new or-ganizations, of which three are NNGOs. In addition, in the year, EHF adjusted risk level of four partners as per the performance index. A total of $50.3 million (83%) was al-located to 26 Low risk partners while $10.3 million (17%) was allocated to 7 Medium Risk partners. No funding was allocated to High risk partners.

AnalysisThe EHF expanded its national NGO partners’ base, providing direct funding eligibility to additional three national partners. The EHF sought the support of cluster coordinators to nom-inate national NGOs for possible partnership.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to increase the number of eligible partners in particular, national partners to provide equita-ble partnership.



20 Accountability and risk management of funding

Appropriate oversight and assurances of funding is admin-¬istered through CBPFs.

TargetNumber and status of potential and confirmed incidents/cases of diversion of the Fund.

ResultsThe EHF has 4 self-reported incidents which relate to mis-appropriation and mismanagement of EHF funding. All the reported cases are not closed but reported to HQ to comply with the standard operating procedure of incident management.


AnalysisThe EHF utilizes all accountability measures to identify any issues related to mis-management of resources. Whilst there is a strong capacity assessment in place for new partners that checks on the institutional, financial and technical ca-pacity of the organization, for the existing partners the EHF further applies field visits and financial spot check to assess the performance of the organizations.

Follow up actionsThe EHF continues to conduct detailed financial spot check and monitoring of existing humanitarian projects, and also as part of capacity assessment process to determine the risk level of new partners.

4Reported Incidents

4 on going cases

Reported cases: # of incidents (allegation, suspected fraud, confirmed fraud, theft, diversion, looting, destruction, etc.) in 2019, either open or closed.

On going cases: # of incidents for which measures (inquiry, assurance, measures, settlement etc.) were still on going as of 31 December 2019

ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

EHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

This section of the Annual Report provides a brief overview of the EHF allocations per cluster, targets and reported results, as well as lessons learned from 2019.

The cluster level reports highlight indicator achievements against planned targets based on narrative reports submitted by partners within the re-porting period, 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2020. The achievements indicated include reported achievements against targets from projects funded (when applicable), 2017, 2018 and/or 2019, but whose reports were submitted between 1 February 2019 and 31 January 2020. The bulk of the projects funded in 2019 are still under implementation and the respective achievements against targets will be reported in the sub-sequent EHF reports.


AGRICULTURE


CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: Core agriculture livelihood of affected house-holds are supported. Objective 2: Basic agriculture livelihoods are supported to strengthen households’ resilience to recurrent shocks.Objective 3: To prepare for and effectively respond to hu-manitarian shocks through implementation of mitigation ac-tivities like irrigation, crop, vegetables and fodder production.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONSFAO

ALLOCATIONS

$3.97M

WOMEN38,657

GIRLS29,583

MEN55,981

BOYS27,952

PARTNERS

8

PROJECTS

11

TARGETEDPEOPLE

152,173

Results reported in 2019

ALLOCATIONS

2017 $0.5M

2018 $5.7M

PROJECTS

1

14

PARTNERS

1

13

In 2019, to achieve the envisaged Agriculture and Food security strategic objectives, the EHF supported 11 emer-gency agriculture projects worth $3.97 million which is 7 per cent of the total allocation. The projects were implemented in Oromia, Somali, Afar, Amhara and Benishangul Gumuz regions by eight partners.

The projects addressed the dire needs of drought, flood and conflict affected farming and pastoralist communities; the interventions include improving access to essential ani-mal health services, vaccination and treatment of disaster affected livestock, provision of seeds and tools to farmers who lost assets by disaster.

Allocations in 2019

1 Results are based on 2019 data and may be underreported as implementation of projects and project-level reporting often continues into the subsequent year and also maximum beneficiary number per sector is considered to avoid double counting. For explanation of data see page 6.

PEOPLE TARGETED

616,597

PEOPLE REACHED

624,958

OUTPUT INDICATORS TARGETED ACHIEVED %

# of households benefited from provision of seed, roots and Tubers

Women 7,076 3,559 50

Men 12,676 19,771 156

# of target communities that have the knowledge, commitment and ability to improve their own livelihoods

, ,

Women 6,304 7,588 120

Men 6,314 8,560 136


# households accessing improved animal health services

10,000 35,000 350

# of households benefited from provision of seed, roots and Tubers

19752 23330 118

# of target communities that have the knowledge, commitment and ability to improve their own livelihoods

12618 16148 128

# of people received fodder seeds

1980 1980 100

ReachedTargeted

37ACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER


CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: Deliver education for emergency af-fected children. Objective 2: Create learning opportunities for displaced school age children recurrent shocks.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONSUNICEF


Number of emergency-affected school age boys and girls benefiting from emergency school feeding.

Girls 11,222 10,269 92

Boys 13,074 10,911 83

Number of emergency-affected school-age children receiving learning stationary in IDPs.

Girls 3,850 3,127 81

Boys 3,998 3,163 79

ALLOCATIONS

$3.79M

WOMEN1,989

GIRLS10,045

MEN1,381

BOYS11,333

PARTNERS

5

PROJECTS

11

TARGETEDPEOPLE1

24,748


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $0.99M

2018 $1.74M

20191 $0.5M

PROJECTS

1

5

2

PARTNERS

1

4

2

The EHF, under the Education Cluster allocated $3,790,002 (6 per cent of the total allocation) to implement 11 projects that contributes to the cluster objectives in 2019. In the year, five partners participated in implementing the 11 projects under the sector. Construction of TLS (Temporary Learning Spaces), trainings for teachers on ALP (Accelerated Learning Programme), scholastic material support, distribution of high energy biscuits are among the major activities implemented under the cluster.

In the reporting year, 16,324 (99 % of the target) beneficiaries were reached through education cluster.

Allocations in 2019


Number of students benefited from TLS

14,473 14,487 100

Number of displaced primary school age girls and boys who has access to learning opportunities through Accelerated Learning Program, ALP.

6,986 6,986 100

Number of TLSs equipped with furniture and reading materials

19 19 100

Number of primary school teachers/facilitators who receive orientation/training on ASR and ALP

340 202 59


PEOPLE TARGETED

16,468

PEOPLE REACHED

16,324

EDUCATION

ReachedTargeted


HEALTHACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER

CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: Provide accessible essential health services to affected populations, focusing on main causes of morbidity and mortality, including SRH.Objective 2: Prepare, detect and respond to epidemic prone disease outbreaks. Objective 3: Ensure quality, inclusive and responsive essential health services sensitive to specific needs of affected populations. Objective 4: To strengthen resilience among affected pop-ulations through MHPSS service and referral mechanisms.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONSWHO


# of children vaccinated against vaccine preventable diseases.

Girls 10,335 11,351 110

Boys 10,125 11,208 111

# of health workers or Health extension workers trained on case management of main childhood illness (malaria, pneumonia and diarrheal diseases)- IMNCI/iCCM

Women 385 621 161

Men 185 214 116

ALLOCATIONS

$10.47M

WOMEN210,381

GIRLS212,156

MEN193,764

BOYS203,844

PARTNERS

10

PROJECTS

21

TARGETEDPEOPLE

820,145


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $2.1M

2018 $10.6M

PROJECTS

3

23

PARTNERS

3

10

EHF supported 21 projects in 2019 implemented by 10 partners with a total budget of $10,466,531.53. The effects of prolonged drought, food insecurity, scarcity of water and large population displacement were the main drivers of health risks within tar-geted communities.

The health sector, to save lives of affected people by reducing health-related hazards, deployed MHNTs, provided medicines and medical supplies, and conducted capacity building to health professionals at various levels. As part of health response, health professionals were trained with AWD response, clinical support for GBV survivors and surveillance.

The sector also strengthened the capacity of the FMOH in emergency response, surveillance and prevention at facility and community levels including through rapid response team deployment and emergency immunization, as well as supporting mitigation measures needed to prevent outbreaks.

Allocations in 2019


# of children under five years old with medical problem are treated with lifesaving drugs

87,083 139,535 160

AWD: # of RDTs, specimen transport media, and reagent kits distributed to the FMoH

2,352 2,400 102

# of beneficiaries reached by health education and communication messages and disaggregated by age and sex

51,457 50,530 98

# of people who have access to MNHT services(% of people addressed by MHNT in the woreda)

240,853 327,169 136

PEOPLE TARGETED

861,283

PEOPLE REACHED

829,148


ReachedTargeted


NUTRITIONACHIEVEMENTS BY CLUSTER


# of boys and girls aged 0-59 months treated at SC for SAM with medical complications

Girls 561 759 135

Boys 543 739 136

# of children under five with MAM who received treatment in TSFP

Girls 41,915 42,844 102

Boys 38,201 39,183 103

ALLOCATIONS

$11.87M

WOMEN93,952

GIRLS52,201

MEN28,253

BOYS50,154

PARTNERS

13

PROJECTS

29

TARGETEDPEOPLE1

224,560


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $9.0M

2018 $20.1M

PROJECTS

2

40

PARTNERS

2

13

Allocations in 2019


# of SAM children treated and cured

9,788 9,889 101

# total MAM children treated and cured

249,952 266,741 107

# of OTPs sites established/Rehabilitated

1,854 1,966 106

# of PLWs receiving supplementary foods through Targeted/Blanket Supplementary Feeding Programmes (T/BSFP)

84,725 78,723 93

PEOPLE TARGETED

301,984

PEOPLE REACHED

283,856

CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: To provide timely access to life-saving quality treatment of acute malnutrition among children under five years of age and pregnant and lactating women. Objective 2: To strengthen life-saving preventive nutrition services for vulnerable populations focusing on prevention of micronutrient deficiencies. Objective 3: To contribute to health system strengthening within the National Health Extension Programme and sup-port early warning system to ensure effective emergency nutrition response.


The EHF allocated $11.9 million to implement 29 emergency nutrition projects that contribute to reduce morbidity and mor-tality associated with under-nutrition and increased illnesses of communities affected by drought, conflict and with poor access to primary health care services. Targeted woredas for nutrition intervention were prioritized based on high malnutri-tion cases, limited woreda capacity to respond to the nutrition need and presence of IDPs.

The projects focused to address both moderate and severe acute malnutrition to reach under-five children and PLW through full Community based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) continuum of care which includes community mobi-lization; Outpatient Therapeutic Program (OTP); Stabilization Center (SC) and Targeted Supplementary Feeding Program (TSFP). The TSFP program also addressed the TSFP commod-ity availability pipeline from WFP which provided for Priority 1 woredas only. Project beneficiaries also received targeted coun-seling on Maternal, Infant and Young Child Nutrition (MIYCN).


ReachedTargeted

40 EHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT SUCCESS STORIES 40

The 2019 gu (April to June) and dyre (October to December) rains had completely failed in large parts of Somali region putting women and chil-dren at greater risk of malnutrition and disease. Many families in this area lost most of their goats due to shortage of water, forage and livestock disease. The following story is an example of the community’s desperation and the need for sustained life-saving assistance.

“My name is Fatumo and I am 35 years old. I live with my five children and my husband in Metahr village, in Dollo Baye, Somali region. We are pas-toralists and the livestock are our main source of income and sustenance to our family. Previously, we used to own 70 sheep and goats, three cattle, two donkeys and two camels. In the last two years, due to severe drought in this area, we lost

Somali region Ahmed being treated in the Dollo Ado Stabilization Center Credit: Save the Children Ethiopia

A young life saved through health and nutrition support

most of our livestock and remain with only few goats and a donkey

Two weeks ago, my son Ahmed fell ill; he had diarrhea and vomiting. At the time, I was very worried and took him to the nearby health post. There, they gave him syrup and ORS [oral rehy-dration solution]. But, his condition didn’t show any sign of improvement, instead it worsened and I finally decided to take him to Dollo Ado health center. When I took him here, he was very sick and weak that he couldn’t even open his eyes. He had lost weight. Thanks to the support we received at the health center, one week later his health improved, he is able to take milk and other food too. He regained weight and is doing well” .




# of people with specific needs identified

Women 41,830 14,364 34

Girls 40 191 478

Men 40,152 11,821 29

Boys 40 210 525

# of women in reproductive age receiving sanitary materials

Women 2,544 3,550 140

Girls 2096 1076 51

Men

Boys

ALLOCATIONS

$4.99M

WOMEN165,341

GIRLS39,470

MEN177,561

BOYS21,401

PARTNERS

14

PROJECTS

26

TARGETEDPEOPLE

403,773


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $0.2M

2018 $5.5M

PROJECTS

1

12

PARTNERS

1

10

To achieve the intended protection cluster objectives, EHF allocated $4,987,158 supporting a total of 26 projects, 20 standalone and 6 multi-sector projects. The major activities included protection-related trainings for beneficiaries, mass awareness campaigns, children and adult protection need identification and referrals.

To mainstream protection response, majority of the projects included basic protection related indicators. The general ob-servation from monitoring results was that consideration of basic protection indicators is a promising initiative with most partners showing interest particularly in identification of cases and referral services. Most of the projects have established beneficiary complaint and feedback mechanism (CFM), how-ever awareness and utilization of the system requires im-provement. On SGBV/PSEA, it is observed that non-protection partners are showing commitment to advocate and support the

Allocations in 2019


# of vulnerable persons identified and referred for psychosocial support

1,200 1,376 115

# of children and women receiving Psycho-social support

14,800 15,659 106

# women and children participated in group psychosocial support sessions

2,500 4,259 170

# of identified children with specific needs that are assisted

3660 4363 119

PEOPLE TARGETED

898,844

PEOPLE REACHED

353,792

PROTECTION CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: The Protection needs of IDPs, IDP returnees and other groups with specific needs are identified, rec-ognized and addressed by government, humanitarian and development actors. .Objective 2: Women, including women with disabilities and older persons, adolescent girls, and children, are protected from violence, exploitation and abuse, receive response services and benefit.Objective 3: Improve the living standards and strengthen service delivery for IDPs.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONSUNHCR



ReachedTargeted


SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS



# of HHs (males and females) received emergency/transitional shelters

Women 3,459 5,217 151

Men 3,381 5,041 149

# population trained in basic settlement planning and emergency tent erection

Women 100 73 73

Men 100 133 133

ALLOCATIONS

$12.0M

WOMEN204,193

GIRLS56,696

MEN47,974

BOYS67,600

PARTNERS

13

PROJECTS

21

TARGETEDPEOPLE1

376,463


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $0.04M

2018 $7.9M

PROJECTS

1

14

PARTNERS

1

11

In 2019, EHF allocated $12,025,829 (20 per cent) for Emer-gency Shelter and NFI response supporting 21 projects. Some of the major activities undertaken included procure-ment, prepositioning and provision of standard NFI kits to conflict and drought induced IDPs and construction of temporary shelter for returnees. In addition, damaged public buildings, which were used as temporary collective shelters at various locations, were repaired.

In the reporting year, the EHF reached 285,772 (119% of the target) beneficiaries. Material price fluctuations, shortage in supply of NFI kits in local markets and volatile nature of the security situation in various part of the country remain major challenges in 2019. The Government’s initiative of en-couraging returns also affected implementation of planned activities in several locations.

Allocations in 2019


# of ES/NFI kits procured, distributed and prepositioned for affected population

26,943 28,832 107

# of affected households (female and Male headed) received standard ES/NFI kits

297 177 60

# of HHs receiving ES/NFI cash-based assistance

15,391 12,878 84

# of ES/NFI items distributed that meet the standardized ES/NFI types

16,315 15,541 95

PEOPLE TARGETED

235,608

PEOPLE REACHED

285,772

CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: Contribute to the protection of IDPs by providing life-saving ES/NFIs to improve their living conditions and the capacity for self-recovery.Objective 2: Ensure that displaced and affect-ed people have adequate protection, safety, digni-ty, well-being and equitable access to shelter solutions. Objective 3: Ensure support in livelihoods and reintegration/resettlement by improving shelter-related infrastructure.

LEAD ORGANIZATIONSIOM



ReachedTargeted


WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE


CLUSTER OBJECTIVESObjective 1: To provide safe drinking water to disaster af-fected communities and IDPs.Objective 2: To provide sanitation facilities to disaster af-fected communities and IDPs.Objective 3: To provide life-saving WaSH NFI.



# of people benefited from developed/rehabilitated water schemes

Women 28,964 29,041 100

Men 28,427 2,6838 94

Boys

# of people provided with sustained access to safe and gender appropriate hygiene latrine facilities

Women 110,656 136,963 124

Men 103,688 129,390 125

ALLOCATIONS

$13.16M

WOMEN204,193

GIRLS70,758

MEN51,454

BOYS68,008

PARTNERS

21

PROJECTS

29

TARGETEDPEOPLE1

394,413


ALLOCATIONS1

2017 $3.9M

2018 $13.9M

PROJECTS

4

31

PARTNERS

3

17

In 2019, EHF allocated more than USD 13 million to support 29 WASH emergency response projects implemented by 21 partners implemented in Somali, Oromia, Amhara and SNNP regions where access to safe water was a challenge due to large scale conflict induced displacement.

Total of 35 projects reported their achievement in 2019 and reached 84 % of their planned number of beneficiaries. The WASH interventions included emergency water trucking to IDPs, rehabilitation and expansion of non-functional water points, construction of communal toilets, distribution of water treatment chemicals & WASH NFI and promotion of hygiene and sanitation practice.

The actions improved IDPs and disaster affected communi-ty access to clean and safe water. The provision of WASH NFIs and construction of communal latrines have improved household sanitation and hygiene practice and prevented the occurrence of water borne diseases outbreak.

Allocations in 2019


# of people benefited from developed/rehabilitated water schemes

57,391 55,879 97

# of beneficiaries reached with key hygiene messages

108,439 129,634 120

# of households receiving hygiene kit (WASH NFIs and dignity kits)

4,122 5,078 123

# of people provided with sustained access to safe water supply

464,851 457,475 98

PEOPLE TARGETED

266,012

PEOPLE REACHED

223,511


ReachedTargeted


Babile district is found in one of the most arid locations of East Hararghe zone in Oromia re-gion. Following the recent communal conflict between the Somalis and the Oromos in the area, villagers found most of the water supply sources and water schemes damaged and destroyed upon return. Safia, a 57-year-old woman, was among the returnees, with seven other members of her family, to their area of origin in Obbo village in the zone.

Safia tells that life after return was challenging es-pecially with the use of unprotected water sources. Her children used to suffer from diarrhea a lot and as a result were absent from school most of the time and she had to spend a lot of money on medication. She had to walk for more than 30 minutes to get some water.

Oromia region Rehabilitated water well, Babile, Oromia Credit: IOM Ethiopia

Oromia region The situation before the water scheme rehabilitation Credit: IOM Ethiopia

The Story of Safia: Access to safe water in the wilderness

After the rehabilitation of hand-dug wells and water pumps in the village, Safia describe the sit-uation as follows, “now we fetch water from only 5 minutes walking distance with the jerry cans we were provided. We can also keep our hygiene using the kits we received and the training given.” Safia concludes, “we will always remember the support we were given each moment we drink or use water.”

ANNEXESEHF 2019 ANNUAL REPORT

Annex A

Annex B

Annex C

Annex D

Annex E

Allocations By Recipient Organization

EHF-funded projects

EHF advisory board

Accronyms and abbreviations

Reference Map


National NGO

Mothers and Children Multisectoral Development Organization

OHCHR

United Nations Department of Safety and Security

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

United Nations Office for Project Services

United Nations Population Fund

United Nations Children's Fund

World Health Organization

International Organization for Migration

Lutheran World federation

Adventist Development and Relief Agency

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse

People In Need

OXFAM GB

Concern Worldwide

Cooperazione Internazionale - COOPI

HelpAge International UK

Norwegian Church Aid

Vétérinaires sans Frontières (Germany)

Danish Refugee Council

Islamic Relief

ZOA Refugee Care

Plan International

Mercy Corps

Catholic Relief Services

Care Ethiopia

AAH

International Medical Corps

GOAL

World Vision Ethiopia

International Rescue Committee INC

Norwegian Refugee Council

Save the Children Fund

See Annex D for accronyms

8.3

4.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.5

2.1

2.1

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.0

1.0

5.6

4.4

2.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.3

0.2

2.7

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

United Nations

International NGO

46ANNEXES

ALLOCATIONS BY RECIPIENT ORGANIZATIONANNEX A

National NGO

Mothers and Children Multisectoral Development Organization

OHCHR

United Nations Department of Safety and Security

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

United Nations Office for Project Services

United Nations Population Fund

United Nations Children's Fund

World Health Organization

International Organization for Migration

Lutheran World federation

Adventist Development and Relief Agency

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse

People In Need

OXFAM GB

Concern Worldwide

Cooperazione Internazionale - COOPI

HelpAge International UK

Norwegian Church Aid

Vétérinaires sans Frontières (Germany)

Danish Refugee Council

Islamic Relief

ZOA Refugee Care

Plan International

Mercy Corps

Catholic Relief Services

Care Ethiopia

AAH

International Medical Corps

GOAL

World Vision Ethiopia

International Rescue Committee INC

Norwegian Refugee Council

Save the Children Fund

See Annex D for accronyms

8.3

4.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.5

2.1

2.1

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.1

1.0

1.0

5.6

4.4

2.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.3

0.2

2.7

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

United Nations

International NGO

47ANNEXES

EHF-FUNDED PROJECTSANNEX B

# PROJECT CODE CLUSTER ORGANIZATION BUDGET

1 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13053 Nutrition AAH $498,375.09

2 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14643 Protection AAH $200,000.11

3 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-N-A/INGO/14712

WASH (33%), Nutrition (36%), Agriculture (31%)

AAH $1,048,218.19

4 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/14745 Agriculture AAH $200,001.77

5 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14792 Nutrition AAH $157,813.86

6 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/INGO/13087

WASH ADRA $251,773.94

7 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N-WASH/INGO/13052

Nutrition (66%), WASH (34%)

CARE $789,901.49

8 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/NFI/ES/INGO/13058

NFI and Emergency Shelter

CARE $700,000.70

9 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/13086 Agriculture CARE $300,000.90

10 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14667 Nutrition CARE $273,910.78

11 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-NFI/ES/INGO/14604

WASH (53.64%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (46.36%)

COOPI $584,231.01


WASH CRS $214,286.54

13 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13045 Protection CRS $205,644.41



CRS $890,617.62



CRS $229,944.33

16 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13090 Nutrition CW $178,445.00

17 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14752 Nutrition CW $237,752.89


WASH DRC $499,550.15

19 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-P/INGO/14579

WASH (63.65%), Protection (36.35%)

DRC $550,000.65



20 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N-H/INGO/12990

Nutrition (91%), Health (9%)

GOAL $829,709.05



GOAL $980,065.93

22 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/13088 Agriculture GOAL $379,102.22

23 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N-H/INGO/14648


GOAL $651,425.56


WASH GOAL $256,759.28



GOAL $199,982.88


WASH HAI $450,000.00



HAI $150,000.00

28 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N-H-P/INGO/13076

Nutrition (54%), Health (35%), Protection (11%)

IMC $873,663.59


WASH IMC $499,644.01

30 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N-H-WASH-P-NFI/ES/INGO/14603

Nutrition (29.06%), Health (25.73%), WASH (25.9%), Protection (0%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (19.31%)

IMC $1,169,834.23

31 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/NFI/ES-WASH-P/UN/13081

NFI and Emergency Shelter (60.4%), WASH (35.43%), Protection (4.17%)

IOM $2,399,720.14

32 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/NFI/ES/UN/13091


IOM $874,753.36

33 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES/UN/14676


IOM $560,024.46

34 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/14775 Health IOM $335,000.42

35 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/UN/14783 Protection IOM $250,000.79

36 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES-WASH/UN/14784

NFI and Emergency Shelter (69.57%), WASH (30.43%)

IOM $1,150,000.26

37 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13071

Nutrition IR $96,957.75

49ANNEXES



WASH IR $255,000.00

39 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13084

Nutrition IR $576,424.98

40 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH-P/INGO/14779

WASH (100%), Protection (0%)

IR $187,800.34

41 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/12960

EDUCATION IRC $300,001.86


WASH IRC $349,947.00



IRC $765,125.00

44 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/12966

Protection IRC $200,001.50

45 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/INGO/13013

Health IRC $600,012.71

46 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13059


47 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/INGO/14555

Health IRC $235,000.00

48 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14695


49 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/E/INGO/14696

EDUCATION IRC $425,000.00


WASH LWF $191,156.01

51 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N-H/INGO/12992

Nutrition (82.6%), Health (17.4%)

MC $1,107,518.75

52 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N-H/INGO/14547

Nutrition (79.4%), Health (20.6%)

MC $349,374.06

53 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/NGO/13075

Health MCMDO $599,994.04

54 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/NGO/13097

Nutrition MCMDO $764,554.31

55 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/A/NGO/14664

Agriculture MCMDO $445,632.02



56 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/NGO/14666

Nutrition MCMDO $545,298.61

57 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/NGO/14729

Health MCMDO $329,991.21


WASH NCA $403,892.32


WASH NCA $409,389.95



NRC $1,112,500.40

61 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13035

Protection NRC $200,000.00

62 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13036



WASH NRC $400,000.00


WASH NRC $565,515.00

65 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/13057

Agriculture NRC $250,000.00

66 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/E/INGO/14656

EDUCATION NRC $450,000.00



NRC $200,000.01

68 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14693


69 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14698


70 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/E/INGO/14702

EDUCATION NRC $300,000.00

71 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/14786

Agriculture NRC $250,000.01

72 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/UN/13109 Protection OHCHR $209,987.50


WASH OXFAM GB $299,732.88


WASH PIN $292,810.15

51ANNEXES


75 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13066

Nutrition Plan $883,329.78

76 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/13080

EDUCATION Plan $200,000.01

77 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14759

Nutrition Plan $199,998.15

78 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/INGO/13063

Health SC $681,924.95

79 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13067

Protection SC $230,000.67


WASH SC $500,000.00

81 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13096

Nutrition SC $904,521.28

82 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13098


83 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/13099

EDUCATION SC $499,999.97

84 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/13221


85 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14747


86 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/E/INGO/14766


87 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14773

Protection SC $200,000.11

88 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N-H/INGO/14782


SC $888,991.17

89 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/NFI/ES-WASH-H/INGO/14898

NFI and Emergency Shelter (33%), WASH (33%), Health (34%)

SC $3,000,000.02

90 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/CSS/UN/13231


UNDSS $296,122.54

91 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/12998 Health UNFPA $499,985.89

92 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/UN/13228 Protection UNFPA $183,300.63

93 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/14578 Health UNFPA $206,030.93

94 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/UN/14655 Protection UNFPA $200,140.83



95 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P-NFI/ES/UN/13093

Protection (60%), NFI and Emergency Shelter (40%)

UNHCR $635,504.78

96 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/UN/14687 Protection UNHCR $200,000.00

97 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/WASH/UN/13054

WASH UNICEF $1,107,361.83

98 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/UN/13230 Protection UNICEF $170,682.43

99 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/WASH/UN/14549

WASH UNICEF $1,500,563.14

100 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/13085 Health UNOPS $473,380.60

101 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/UN/13106 Nutrition UNOPS $154,156.85

102 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/14801 Health UNOPS $235,630.01

103 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/13082

Agriculture VSF $280,000.28

104 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/14662

Agriculture VSF $750,000.24

105 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/A/INGO/13089

Agriculture VSFS $290,000.60

106 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/12918 Health WHO $1,950,305.73

107 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/UN/13078 Nutrition WHO $236,143.65

108 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/H/UN/13100 Health WHO $653,998.28

109 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/H/UN/14739 Health WHO $1,059,219.75



112 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/13048

EDUCATION WVE $200,000.00

113 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/N/INGO/13050

Nutrition WVE $160,107.00

114 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/P/INGO/13051

Protection WVE $200,000.00


WASH WVE $500,000.02

116 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA1/E/INGO/13094


53ANNEXES




WVE $361,500.00

118 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/A/INGO/14671

Agriculture WVE $498,929.98

119 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/E/INGO/14673


120 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/N/INGO/14674

Nutrition WVE $312,596.48

121 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14679


122 ETH-19/DDA-3379/SA2/P/INGO/14780




ZOA $612,532.66



ZOA $208,340.77



ZOA $190,008.34


WASH ZOA $250,000.00


EHF ADVISORY BOARDANNEX C

STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATION

Chairperson Humanitarian Coordinator

NNGO MCMDO

INGO World Vision

INGO Oxfam GB

UN United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

UN World Food Programme (WFP)

Donor United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)

Donor Ireland

Donor OFDA

Donor Sweden

OCHA/EHF United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

55ANNEXES

AB Advisory BoardABTWG Advisory Board Technical Working GroupAWD Acute Watery Diarrhea BELG Short Rains (February to May) in Highland and

Midland Areas CAHWS Community-Based Animal Health WorkerCBPF Country-Based Pooled FundCERF Central Emergency Response Fund CFW Cash-for-Work CMAM Community Management of Acute Malnutrition CPF Common Performance Framework CRS Catholic Relief Services CSB Corn-Soya Blend, a Blended Food Used in Tar-

geted Supplementary Feeding DCA Danish Church Aid DEYR Short Rains (October to December) in

Somali Region DFID The Department for International De-

velopment, Uk DRC Danish Refugee Council ECHO European Civil Protection and Humanitarian

Aid Operations EHCT Ethiopia Humanitarian Country Team EHF Ethiopia Humanitarian Fund ENCU Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit EO Executive Officer (Ocha) ES/NFI Emergency Shelter/Non Food Items FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization FCS Funding Coordination Section FMOH Federal Ministry of Health GBV Gender-Based Violence GMS Grants Management System GU Main Rains (March to June) in Somali Region HC Humanitarian Coordinator HEWS Health Extension Workers HFU Humanitarian Financing Unit HH Household HINGO Humanitarian International Non-Governmental

Organization HRP Humanitarian Response Plan HWS Health Workers ICCG Inter-Cluster Coordination Group IDP Internally Displaced Person INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IOM International Organization for Migration IRC International Refugee Committee IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding LWF Lutheran World Federation

MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition MCMDO Mothers and Children Multi-Sectoral Develop-

ment Organization MEHER Kiremt Long and Heavy Rains (June To Septem-

ber) In Highland and Midland AreasNGO Non-Governmental Organization NNGO National Non-Governmental Organization NRC Norwegian Refugee Council NWOW New Way of Working OCHA Office for The Coordination Of Humani-

tarian Affairs OFDA Office of US Foreign Disaster AssistanceOTP Outpatient Therapeutic ProgrammePI Performance Index PIN People in Need PLAN Plan International PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme REGION The Highest Sub-National Administrative Struc-

ture Embracing Zones and Woredas RHB Regional Health Bureau RUTF Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition SC Stabilization Center SCI Save The Children International SI Solidarités International SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and

People’s Region TFP Therapeutic Feeding Programme TSF Targeted Supplementary Feeding TSFP Targeted Supplementary Feeding Programme UAGS Unidentified Armed GroupsUN United NationsUNDSS United Nations Department Of Safety

and Security UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund VSF G Veterinaires Sans Frontieres (Germany) VSF S Veterinaires Sans Frontieres (Suisse) WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Programme WOREDA Administrative/Geographic Unit Equiva-

lent to District WVE World Vision Ethiopia ZONE Administrative Unit Consisting of Several Wore-

das (Districts)

ACCRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONSANNEX D


REFERENCE MAPANNEX E

SUDAN

SOUTHSUDAN

SOMALIA

YEMEN

KENYA

ERITREA

SAUDI ARABIA

DJIBOUTI

Blue Nile

AddisAbaba

Asosa

Awasa

Harer

Mek’ele

Nazret

Asayta

Gambela

Jijiga

Bahir Dar

Dire Dawa

Red Sea

Gulf ofAden

100 km

Map Sources: ESRI, UNCS.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. Map created in Sep 2013.

ETHIOPIA

unocha.org/Ethiopiagms.unocha.orgfts.unocha.org

SOCIAL MEDIA OCHA_Ethiopia

facebook.com/UNOCHA #InvestInHumanity

TABLE OF CONTENTS Humanitarian Fu… · 37 education 38 health 39 nutrition 41 protection 42...

Documents

Transcript of TABLE OF CONTENTS Humanitarian Fu… · 37 education 38 health 39 nutrition 41 protection 42...