Global Evaluation of the Common Humanitarian Fund. Country Report: Sudan

Transcription

1 Global Evaluation of the Common Humanitarian Fund Country Report: Sudan May 2015

2 Global Evaluation Team [from The KonTerra Group] Silvia Hidalgo Cécile Collin Martin Fisher Dorian LaGuardia Marie Spaak Velina Stoianova Report Authors Velina Stoianova Martin Fisher Cover photo Sudanese Children by David Stanley is licensed under CC BY 2.0 Copyright 2015 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs i

3 Acknowledgements The Evaluation Team would like to thank the numerous stakeholders with whom it has collaborated during this evaluation. Thanks are due in particular to the OCHA office in Sudan for the time and support provided during the mission, and to the staff and management of OCHA s partners who gave so generously of their time. The team also wishes to thank the staff and management of the Strategic Planning, Evaluation and Guidance Section for rapidly mobilizing data, and for engaging a network of global partners in the evaluation process. It is as a direct result of this level of cooperation and enthusiasm that the realization of this evaluation has become possible. Disclaimer The contents and conclusions of this evaluation report reflect strictly the opinion of the authors, and in no way those of the United Nations, OCHA, donors or other stakeholders. Evaluation Management OCHA Evaluation Manager: Research and Quality Assurance: Chief, Evaluation and Oversight Unit (a.i.): Tijana Bojanic (Victoria Saiz-Omeñaca and Daniel Christensen) Frederieke van Herk Victoria Saiz-Omeñaca ii

4 Executive Summary CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report 1. This country level report for the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for Sudan has been prepared within the broader Global Evaluation of the CHF, undertaken at the end of 2014, and is one of five country-level papers prepared as part of the overall review. 2. The Sudan CHF has been operational since 2006 and is the second oldest CHF after that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Over the period covered by this evaluation, Sudan presents an increasingly challenging operational environment stemming from the Sudanisation policy 1 decreed by the Government of Sudan and from dwindling resources. In spite of the challenges, the Sudan CHF has made important contributions toward the humanitarian assistance in the country as a key donor for many time-sensitive and critical activities, as well as for some traditionally underfunded sectors. The Fund has built long-standing partnerships with United Nations (UN) agencies 2, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Sudanese Red Crescent Society and through them is funding projects across the country. A particular attraction for humanitarian donors is the CHF s ability to work with national NGOs (NNGOs), which are able to operate in some of the geographic areas that the international agencies cannot reach. 3. The CHF in Sudan plays a key role in marshalling the support and engagement of humanitarian stakeholders together with the Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), locally known as the Humanitarian Work Plan (HWP) and since 2014 as the Strategic Response Plan (SRP). With more time dedicated to planning and review of operating ways and procedures, many good practices and lessons learnt from the CHF have been subsequently translated to the HWP/SRP, thus contributing to the Plan s improvement. Stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation agree that to date the HWP/SRP has been heavily process-driven, relatively hastily put together, and as a whole a weak planning tool for the response to humanitarian needs in the country. This has negatively influenced the CHF s ability to be more strategic in its decision-making on allocations. 4. Following a decade of investments in the humanitarian response to the crisis in Darfur, resilience programming is becoming a key factor for ensuring that chronic and longer-term needs are taken into account as part of immediate humanitarian actions. Existing pooled funding streams focusing on recovery, resilience and development activities in Sudan are struggling to gather support and are falling short of expectations, thus increasing the reliance of humanitarian partners on the CHF and the HWP/SRP for funding these areas of the humanitarian response. The CHF is supporting resilience and durable solution projects when those are clearly linked to humanitarian priorities, but could still play a much stronger role, especially since more than two-thirds of its activities continue to be implemented in the Darfur region. In order to maintain the Fund s readiness to respond to pressing humanitarian needs, the emergency reserve should be increased from its current levels of 5 to 10 percent of the annual CHF funding, to address spikes in humanitarian needs and to better support unforeseen lifesaving activities. 5. In order for the CHF to achieve its full potential, it requires strong leadership, planning and coordination structures in which to operate. As a Country-based Pooled Fund (CBPF) the CHF has provided the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) with a powerful instrument for leveraging coordination, strengthening partnerships and improving the planning processes in the country. However, the HC s leadership of the overall aid strategy in Sudan has been weak as evidenced by the general lack of input by international aid donors beyond the CHF Advisory Group (AG); the insufficient strategic guidance offered by the Sudan SRP; and the perceived deficiency of the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) as a coordination and strategy-setting forum. The absence of humanitarian donors at the HCT level has led to the use of the CHF AG as the main policy setting forum for humanitarian action, thus putting too much pressure on the CHF. Furthermore, the lack of a clear vision for the overall direction that international aid, and more particularly humanitarian assistance should take in Sudan is also limiting the strategic nature of the CHF and its ability to develop its own long-term vision in support of the humanitarian community and the people it is trying to help. 6. Nevertheless, the Sudan CHF has made great progress in strengthening the role of the sectors in Sudan. 3 The Fund is the only substantive humanitarian funding in the country that is allocated through a coordinated sector approach, and as such it is well placed to contribute to a holistic and principled focus on delivering humanitarian aid. The CHF is currently funding the sector coordinator positions in six key sectors, as well as a sectoral monitoring and reporting (M&R) specialist in seven sectors. These investments enhance the CHF planning 1 The term Sudanisation refers to the requirement by the Government of Sudan that at least part of the humanitarian response is implemented through national partners, including through governmental institutions. The term is used by the Government of Sudan and by the United Nations among others (see Ministry of Interior HAC, Report of the Government Emergency Chamber on Flood Response, 25/8/2013 and 2 For the purpose of this evaluation this category includes the International Organization for Migration (IOM). 3 Coordination in Sudan is not organized around clusters, however the country has a strong and coordinated sector system that performs all the standard tasks of the clusters. iii

5 CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report process, which supports the overall humanitarian planning processes in the country, and facilitate the alignment with other humanitarian pooled funds, such as the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). 7. Through the participatory process articulated around the sectors, the Sudan CHF plays an important role in building partnerships with humanitarian organizations. Due to its long trajectory and its traditionally large share in the overall humanitarian financing in the country, the CHF has long-standing collaboration with the majority of its implementing partners. This has promoted an increasingly close relationship, which has had a particularly positive effect on the development of a good level of understanding with some NNGOs, but has also led to heavy reliance on CHF funding for the humanitarian work of some UN agencies. INGOs rely less on CHF funding as they appear to have a wider donor base for their activities in Sudan, including recourse to their own headquarters (HQ) emergency reserve, as well as access to multi-year partnerships with bilateral donors. 8. However, the very participatory and structured approach that increases the Fund s transparency and inclusivity makes it process-heavy and detracts from its flexibility and timeliness, both crucial features of humanitarian pooled funds. While the Sudan CHF emergency reserve 4 continues to be the fastest humanitarian funding mechanism in Sudan, it is too small to be able to make a significant impact in the face of increasing humanitarian needs in Sudan. The standard allocation process, on the other hand, has become too timeconsuming which is at odds with the CHF s objective of addressing critical interventions and life-saving needs, and constitutes the chief grievance of CHF implementing partners. The requirement that all projects supported by the standard allocations be included in the HWP/SRP increases both the CHF s leverage on implementing partners participation in existing coordination structures, and the need for longer planning processes in order to ensure the adequate alignment of projects priorities with those of the SRP. The standard allocation timeframe has lengthened over the period covered by this evaluation, largely due to the Sudan CHF s leadership in piloting the new global CBPF guidelines and tools, which has resulted in changing allocation criteria and processes. As the CHF s implementing partners become more familiar with the new allocation criteria, project standards and online systems, the time spent on technical reviews and preparation of Project Partnership Agreements (PPA) 5 should be reduced, allowing for a speedier standard allocation process and for better alignment with the life-saving nature of the bulk of CHF activities. 9. The Sudan CHF has displayed strong management capacity in the past two years as testified by the CHF s ability to be flexible and innovative in piloting the implementation of new processes and templates, provide reliable service in NGO financial grant management, and strengthen NGOs capacities. Up until 2013 OCHA facilitated gender and environmental advisors who worked closely with CHF implementing partners and M&R officers to increase their awareness and strengthen the gender and environment components of project designs, proposals, implementation and M&R. The reinstitution of these roles would be highly beneficial for the future enhancement of crosscutting issues. 10. The CHF Technical Unit is highly valued by the Funds implementing partners for its support and leadership. At the same time there has been insufficient backing by OCHA HQ in the roll-out of the new systems; its inability to provide adequate staffing for the Fund in the field raises the perceived risk level of OCHA and the CHF among donors. Key positions in the OCHA office in Khartoum have been left vacant and replacement for critical OCHA HFRMU staff has been extremely slow. 11. In order to ensure a more strategic and efficient use of funding and to be accountable both to donors and beneficiaries, the CHF introduced a new accountability framework in The new framework consists of an enhanced capacity assessment process, a partner-based risk management framework, enhanced risk management, strengthened M&R processes, and field-based (in addition to desk-based) project audits. 12. Having dedicated time and resources to improving the M&R of its activities, the Sudan CHF is now acknowledged to have the most robust monitoring system among humanitarian actors in Sudan with effective feedback provided to key decision-makers. The CHF is funding national M&R officers in seven key sectors, 6 recognizing the need for adequate resourcing of M&R work and an opportunity for enhancing the M&R of other OCHA pooled funds, such as the CERF. The integration of the CHF M&R officers within their respective sectors is complemented with cross-sector M&R missions and joint monthly M&R meetings. This ensures that lessons learnt 4 Definitions: Reserve Allocation is the process used for the rapid and flexible allocation of funds in the event of unforeseen emergencies or to address gaps in humanitarian needs. Between five and ten percent of total available funds is set aside in the CHF reserve to give the HC the capacity to support immediate humanitarian response. Standard Allocation is the process through which most of the funds are allocated to ensure funding for priority projects is disbursed in line with the HWP/SRP objectives. The standard allocation process takes place once, or if funding levels allow twice a year, and is based on Allocation Strategy papers formulated under the leadership of the HC. Special Allocations are used to fund the core pipelines, to provide early allocations that are time-critical and need to take place in the early part of the year, and to support sector leads and monitoring costs. 5 The PPA sets out the terms and conditions under which UNDP, as the CHF Managing Agent, transfers funds from the CHF to NGO partners. The PPA includes the project s objectives and activities, work plan, the project budget, etc. 6 The seven sectors are Protection; Nutrition; Food Security and livelihoods; Emergency Shelter and Non-food items; Water, sanitation and hygiene; Health; and Education. iv

6 CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report and good practices are shared across sectors and among implementing partners, and that no opportunity is missed to improve project quality throughout the project cycle. However, there is still room for improvement as the integration of key findings from M&R activities should go beyond the revision of current project and sector level work, and inform the design of future humanitarian responses within the CHF and SRP framework. 13. Risk management is a key concern of pooled fund donors everywhere and donors in Sudan are uneasy about the degree to which effective M&R and risk management can be carried out in the country. The Sudanisation governmental policy requires that at least part of the humanitarian response is implemented through national partners, which makes a centralized M&R of sub-granted funds very challenging. While M&R of pass-through funding is hard, monitoring and risk management of implementation and resources sub-granted further down the funding chain becomes even harder. The CHF has made every effort to establish oversight systems for funding that is passed-through within the implementation system. 14. However, as with other elements of humanitarian assistance, a degree of risk avoidance still exists and CHF donors are not willing to accept a more equitable share of the risk with OCHA and other partners in view of the intrinsic challenges and risks of working in Sudan. This has translated into an ever more complex allocation process and accountability systems, which then challenges the nature of the CHF as a fast and flexible funding source in complex humanitarian environments. Moreover, humanitarian donors in Sudan have been slow to make multi-year commitments to the Fund, or to ensure the predictable level of support that would allow the CHF to play a more strategic role or to develop a longer-term strategy for Sudan. 15. Nevertheless, the Sudan CHF is an important and appreciated funding mechanism that promotes the humanitarian strategy in the country despite the challenges caused by reduced levels of funding, the lack of an overall strategic framework within which to operate, and unclear vision as to the future of the aid agenda in Sudan. RECOMMENDATIONS Urgent recommendations Recommendation Reference in text Responsibility Timeliness 1. The HC should invite donors back to the HCT to avoid utilizing the CHF AG as the main forum for donors strategic involvement with the humanitarian planning process. Page 13/ paragraph 68 HC < 3 months 2. Dissemination of CHF M&R reports should be made directly to implementing partners, as well as through the relevant sectors, to avoid delays and inconsistency in the speed of distribution. p.22/ par.119 CHF Technical Unit < 3 months Important recommendations Recommendation Reference in text Responsibility Timeliness 3. The allocated time for the technical review phase needs to be shortened to avoid lengthy standard allocation processes. The CHF and sectors should decide locally, together with the IP, when the different processes can be sped up. [As the IPs become more familiar with the new CBPF allocation requirements and procedures, project proposals are increasingly being submitted to the required standard, and this already cuts down the overall time taken.] p.18/par.97 CHF Technical Unit From next standard allocation 4. The time taken for the preparation of PPA needs to be shortened to allow implementing partners to initiate funded activities as soon as possible after final approval has been issued. p.19/par.98 UNDP FMU From next standard allocation 5. In order to support a more timely allocation process, CHF p.19/par.99 CHF AG/CHF < 9 months v

7 CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report donors should make funding commitments in the latter part of the previous year. 6. HWP/SRP strategic planning must be strengthened to allow for more targeted use of CHF funding. donors p.16/par.85 HC/OCHA < 9 months 7. Develop a multi-year allocation strategy for the CHF, aligned with the overall humanitarian strategy in Sudan. p.11/par.60 and 61 CHF Technical Unit/CHF AG On going 8. In connection to the above recommendation, the Sudan CHF should consider increasing the funding for resilience components and durable solutions in the region of Darfur, through the CHF standard allocation process. p.10/par.54 CHF Technical Unit/CHF AG < 9 months 9. Increase the Emergency Reserve to at least 20 percent of the annual allocation to provide sufficient resources for meeting unforeseen or increasing needs. p.10/par.54 CHF Technical Unit/CHF AG < 9 months 10. OCHA must ensure that the HFMRU is fully staffed at any time and no key positions remain vacant to ensure the effective management of the CHF and to reduce the high organizational risk perception among its donor base. p.21/par.112 OCHA HQ On going 11. Findings from M&R must be clearly used to underpin the planning and design of future humanitarian response strategies within the CHF and SRP framework. p.23/par.122 CHF Technical Unit On going 12. The Sudan CHF should limit he share of passed-through funding to 7 percent of the project budget in order to filter all projects that rely heavily on sub-granting to second-level implementing partners. p.23/par.127 CHF Technical Unit/CHF AG < 9 months Desirable improvements Recommendation Reference in text Responsibility Timeliness 13. Reinstate the Gender and Environment advisor positions to support the project planning, proposal and implementation of CHF projects p.15/par.81 to 83 OCHA < 1 year vi

8 CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report Table of Contents Executive Summary... iii Recommendations... v Table of Contents... vii List of Figures... viii List of Tables... viii Abbreviations... viiix Introduction... 1 Methodology... 1 Context... 2 Overview of the CHF... 2 Funding Levels and Trends... 3 Objectives of the CHF... 4 Management Structure... 5 Allocation Strategy... 6 Findings of the Evaluation... 7 Contribution of the CHF in Sudan The CHF and the Humanitarian Response Plan for Sudan... 7 The CHF and Resilience Building CHF and the Humanitarian Reform Process Strengthening Leadership Clusters and Coordination Crosscutting issues Planning Processes Partnerships Timeliness of the Humanitarian Response Coherence and Quality of the Response Capacity and performance Issues Effectiveness of Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation Systems Appropriateness of Risk Management Practices Follow-up to previous evaluation Conclusions Recommendations Annex 1: List of persons interviewed Annex 2: Bibliography Annex 3: Evaluation Questions vii

9 LIST OF FIGURES CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report Figure 1: Map of Sudan showing affected population numbers... 2 Figure 2: Cumulative contributions to the Sudan CHF (figures in US$ million)... 3 Figure 3: Annual contributions from donors to the Sudan CHF (figures in US$ million)... 4 Figure 4: Allocation modalities as share of all CHF annual allocations... 6 Figure 5: Sudan CHF funding by sector... 6 Figure 6: Sudan CHF and HWP/SRP funding levels... 8 Figure 7: Index value variations in CHF, CERF and SRP funding levels compared to the 2010 values... 8 Figure 8: CHF and CERF allocations as share of the SRP funding... 9 Figure 9: The Humanitarian Programme Cycle Figure 10: Accountability to Affected Populations and the CHF process Figure 11: CHF allocations by implementing partner Figure 12: Quarterly distribution of CHF donors contributions LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Snapshot of funds and activities managed by the Sudan CHF Table 2: Evolution of the timeframe for CHF standard allocations Table 3: Follow-up to recommendations made in the 2011 CHF Sudan country report Table 4: Follow-up to recommendations made in the 2011 CHF evaluation Synthesis Report viii

10 CHF Evaluation 2015 SUDAN Country Report Abbreviations AA CAP CERF CHF DAC DFID DRR ECHO FCS FMU FTS HACT HC HCT HFRMS HGA HNO HWP IASC IDP INGO MA M&R MPTF NGO NNGO OCHA PRG RR SRP TOR TRC UFE UN USAID Administrative Agent Consolidated Appeal Process Central Emergency Response Fund Common Humanitarian Fund Development Assistance Committee Department for International Development (United Kingdom) Disaster Risk Reduction The European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department Funding Coordination Section (OCHA) Funds Management Unit (UNDP) Financial Tracking System Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers Humanitarian Coordinator Humanitarian Country Team Humanitarian Financing and Resource Mobilization Section (OCHA) Humanitarian Gender Advisor Humanitarian Needs Overview Humanitarian Work Plan Inter-Agency Standing Committee Internally Displaced Person International Non-Governmental Organization Managing Agent Monitoring and reporting Multi-Partner Trust Fund (UNDP) Non-Governmental Organization National Non-Governmental Organization Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Programmatic Review Group Rapid Response Strategic Response Plan Terms of Reference Technical Review Committee Under-Funded Emergency United Nations The United States Agency for International Development ix

11 Introduction 1. This country level report for the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for Sudan has been prepared within the broader Global Evaluation of the CHF undertaken at the end of 2014, and is one of five country-level papers prepared as part of the overall review. As such it is designed to identify specific issues and successes of the CHF in Sudan and to provide the basis for sharing experiences and lessons learned across the five other countries where the CHF currently operates. 2. The evaluation is an external and independent assessment of the CHF mechanism contributing toward the requirements of the CHF Monitoring and Reporting Framework. It will support further progress of the CHF mechanism, particularly in the areas of risk management in fragile contexts and resilience. 3. The scope of the evaluation considers three main themes: Thematic: The CHF mechanism, its contribution to the humanitarian response, and its role among the funding instruments Geographic: Global (cover five CHFs in detail: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan; with comparisons where relevant and possible with the most recent CHF in Afghanistan). Temporal: This review covers the period since the last CHF evaluation in 2011 through to the end of The overall evaluation set out to address a series of areas: to evaluate the CHF mechanism relative to its objectives, and to identify its stronger and weaker points, including at individual country level; to examine the practices and approaches in terms of the management of risk, to resilience programming in fragile contexts, and their application in relation to the CHFs to determine progress made since the last evaluation in 2011 to identify good practices which can be replicated elsewhere and recommend adjustments which will strengthen the overall CHF mechanism 5. After presenting a brief summary of the CHF in Sudan, this report addresses the series of questions presented in the evaluation s Terms of Reference with a specific focus on Sudan. Some of the evaluation questions (EQs) are more relevant at a consolidated or global level and have only been addressed here as relevant. The individual EQs are referenced by section in footnotes, and can be found in full as Annex 3. Conclusions drawn from the findings and a number of recommendations for the Sudan CHF team to consider follow. Methodology 6. The Evaluation included a desk review of all relevant information sources, including that about the CHFs and pooled funding mechanisms in general. OCHA s Humanitarian Financing and Resource Mobilization Unit (HFRMU) in Sudan provided further relevant documentation, which was supplemented by the evaluation team s research. The field phase was conducted between 7 and 15 December 2014 and included a briefing with the OCHA Khartoum office team and a series of interviews with key CHF stakeholders in Sudan. 7. In total 38 organizations, departments and entities were interviewed, covering some 80 respondents. Three projects of two CHF implementing partners were visited in the Khartoum area. A debriefing session was held in Khartoum for OCHA s HFRMU and the United Nations Development Programme s (UNDP) Funds Management Unit (FMU). 8. The field research was followed by an in-depth data and analysis phase wherein the data collected during the desk review and field phase were analysed and compared with additional comparative information. Different humanitarian financing databases were examined for accuracy and relevance to the Sudan CHF s contributions and allocations. Due to considerable variations and inconsistencies in funding volumes reported, a combination of funding sources has been selected as the most robust approach to obtain hard data evidence for the report. This information is cited throughout this report. 9. This analysis provided the basis for the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. In most cases there are several corroborating sources combined with the authors subject matter expertise and experience. The analysis, findings and conclusions in this report will be compared and contrasted to those of the other country reports and provide an analytical basis for the Global Report. 1

12 Context 10. The humanitarian situation in Sudan is characterized by ongoing conflict in the western region of Darfur dating back to 2003, violent clashes and renewed conflict in other areas of the country, high vulnerability to disasters, precarious livelihoods and chronic poverty. Internal and regional political, military, and socio-economic challenges continue to generate protracted conflicts and insecurity, driving large scale internal displacement, inward and outward refugee flows and extensive human suffering, with around 6.9 million affected people presently needing humanitarian assistance and protection Sudan is the largest recipient of humanitarian assistance in the world for the past decade receiving some US$11 billion 8 and remains one of the largest humanitarian operations in existence. However, following the independence referendum and the proclamation of the Republic of South Sudan in July 2011, international attention has Source: Sudan Strategic Response Plan 2014 gradually diverted from the Sudanese context and humanitarian financing has steadily declined. At the same time, the number of affected people has steadily increased from some four million in 2011 to 6.9 million in 2014, while requirements and funding for the United Nations (UN) led Common Appeal Process (CAP) locally known as Humanitarian Work Plan (HWP) and later the Strategic Response Plan (SRP) have been declining. Thus funding requirements per beneficiary have dropped from $283 in 2011 to just $143 in 2014 due to the growing population of concern and lower size of humanitarian global requirements in the HWP/SRP. 12. Against the backdrop of growing humanitarian needs and shifting international attention, foreign organizations especially international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) have substantially reduced their operations in the country due to government restrictions and the pressure to partner with NNGOs for the implementation of humanitarian programmes. This new policy of Sudanisation of humanitarian activities commenced after the International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-bashir in March 2009 and the subsequent expulsion of 13 INGOs and the dissolution of three NNGOs. Shortly after those events, an official announcement decreed that Sudanese NNGOs would gradually take over all humanitarian assistance in the country. Overview of the CHF Figure 1: Map of Sudan showing affected population numbers 13. The Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for Sudan was established in 2006 and is the second oldest CHF after that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As a country-based pooled fund (CBPF), the CHF is a multidonor financing instrument managed by OCHA and operating under the leadership of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) at the country level. The aim of the CHF is to disburse funding in a timely and predictable manner; to strengthen humanitarian coordination in the country under the leadership of the HC; to ensure that funds are channelled to jointly agreed priorities, and to help respond to critical anticipated and unforeseen needs. In that 7 OCHA (2014) Sudan Revised Strategic Response Plan Based on data from the GHA Report

13 sense, the CHF is complementary to other strategic funding mechanisms, namely the CERF and bilateral contributions marshalled under the SRP. 14. The Fund allocates resources to projects in the HWP through one or two standard allocations per year, while also having the possibility to use an Emergency Reserve envelope for emerging needs. In addition to those funding streams, CHF also undertakes special allocations which include support to core pipelines, sector leads and monitoring costs, and early allocations (as needed) that are time-critical and need to take place in the early part of the year. Thus the CHF allows its implementing partners NNGOs, INGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and UN agencies (for the purpose of this evaluation this category includes the International Organization for Migration) to better respond to the most critical and urgent humanitarian needs, as well as addressing key gaps in the humanitarian response in the country. 15. By pooling contributions and targeting commonly agreed priorities, the CHF aims to increase the impact of humanitarian financing. Transaction costs are rationalized in the CHF Technical Unit, with a joint OCHA-UNDP team overseeing administration, monitoring, reporting, auditing, capacity assessments and other accountability measures. Funding Levels and Trends Prior to the independence of the Republic of South Sudan in 2011, the Sudan CHF was the largest country based pooled fund in existence, having mobilized over $1.1 billion in total since its inception. However, funding levels and the scope of activities covered by the CHF in Sudan itself began declining following the split of the country in 2011 as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Snapshot of funds and activities managed by the Sudan CHF CHF funding in US$ million CHF allocation in US$ million Number of projects Number of partners M&R visits rate N/A % % % Source: Based on data from CHF annual reports and OCHA Funding Coordination Section (FCS) 17. Even when funding for South Sudan is excluded from the 2011 data, the 2014 CHF allocations present a 45 percent drop from the 2011 levels. 18. The average size of the allocations in 2011 was just over $500,000, decreasing by an average of 11 percent a year until reaching $350,000 in The number of projects and implementing partners have also been reduced significantly. However, funding to NNGOs has experienced sustained growth throughout the CHF s life, rising from 0.02 percent of all allocations in 2006 to 13 percent in Figure 2: Cumulative contributions to the Sudan CHF (figures in US$ million) Source: Based on data from the Sudan Grants Management System 19. Overall funding to the Sudan SRP has followed a similar trend to the CHF, decreasing both in terms of requirements and actual funding. The share of needs met within the Sudan SRP has fallen from 65 percent in 2011 to 54 percent in 2014, the lowest level of funding recorded in Sudan since 2005 when the HWP received just 53 percent of the resources sought. Despite this downward trend, the Sudan CHF continues to be a key source of humanitarian financing, representing on average 12 percent of all funding to the HWP/SRP over the period The CHF in Sudan benefits from a steady donor base. Between 2011 and 2014, $368 million was mobilized from nine humanitarian donors as shown in Figure 2. The highest number of donors 9 This answers evaluation question (EQ)14, What has contributed to trends in funding of each CHF? Can any inferences be drawn for the future funding of CHFs in general? 3

14 supporting the Fund at any given time during this period was eight and is currently down to seven. Australia and Spain halted their financial backing of the CHF in 2013, while Switzerland joined the Fund s donor base in 2014 becoming its newest donor. 21. The United Kingdom (UK) has been the largest single donor to the CHF in Sudan with $171 million given in the four-year evaluation period, two and a half times more than the second most generous donor: Sweden. Since the CHF s inception in Sudan, the UK alone has donated $525 million or 48 percent of all the funding. While the UK is the most important contributor to the pooled funds globally, such significant reliance on a single donor poses a serious challenge for the Sudan CHF s sustainability. The Fund is making considerable efforts in attracting new donors and in maintaining the level of funding, as demonstrated by the incorporation of Switzerland, additional (second-round) allocations by regularly contributing donors and the active engagement of other, still noncontributing donors, with the CHF process. However, ample room remains for further expanding the CHF donor base and reaching out to non-traditional donors, including the private sector. 22. Donor fatigue has been identified as a key area of concern for the humanitarian community in Sudan. 10 Without exception, all donors to the Sudan CHF have reduced their contributions to the Fund in the period covered by this evaluation (see Figure 3), diverting their attention to the humanitarian needs in South Sudan and other emergency contexts. The largest net decrease came from the UK: in 2014 its contribution was $56 million, a drop of 71 percent since The largest percentage reduction came from The Netherlands: the 2014 funding represented a 78 percent cut compared to the 2011 levels. Figure 3: Annual contributions from donors to the Sudan CHF (figures in US$ million) United Kingdom Sweden Norway The Netherlands Denmark Ireland % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Spain Australia Switzerland Source: Based on data from the Sudan Grants Management System (GMS) 23. Dwindling resources for both the CHF and the SRP in Sudan are accompanied by cuts in other humanitarian funding, which has experienced a 55 percent drop from its 2011 levels. This bleak humanitarian financing landscape might suggest that, after more than a decade of intensive humanitarian action, international aid in Sudan is shifting to development assistance, in line with the new political discourse of recent years, 11 and that there is no actual reduction in resources for the country. Development aid data, however, does not reveal any substantial increase in funding in the country over the period analysed, with official development assistance (ODA) resources other than humanitarian aid experiencing only marginal annual variations. Objectives of the CHF 24. The Sudan CHF brings together a number of key stakeholders to support the timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to Sudan s most critical humanitarian needs under the HC s direction. There are four overarching strategic objectives of the Sudan CHF: 12 Objective 1: To give the HC greater ability to target funds at the most critical needs. Objective 2: To strengthen the response capacity, including greater sectoral responsibility and accountability. 10 Interviews with humanitarian stakeholders in Khartoum, self-assessment questionnaire for the CHF manager in Sudan and Sudan CHF Resource mobilization draft strategy paper The 2013 Doha Donor Conference adopted the Darfur Development Strategy. 12 OCHA (2013) Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund 2014 Allocation Strategy Paper 4

15 Objective 3: To have more predictable and timely funding of operational UN agencies and their NGO implementing partners in undertaking emergency activities, responding to urgent humanitarian needs and critical humanitarian gaps. Objective 4: To strengthen coordination both at the field and headquarter levels. 25. In line with the Terms of Reference for the fund, the CHF targets the highest identified needs as per the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) and the SRP, i.e. top and high priority projects only. The Fund is also intended to improve humanitarian outcomes by providing committed funds earlier than under previous arrangements; strengthening the planning and coordination process; tying the funding allocation to the Work Plan/SRP; broadening participation in this Plan; channelling funds toward the most urgent needs; and by ensuring that funds are available for rapid responses to unforeseen circumstances. 13 Management Structure 26. The HC has responsibility over the strategy, allocations, general oversight and coordination of the CHF, supported and advised by the CHF Technical Unit, sector leads and the CHF Advisory Group. 27. The CHF Technical Unit is composed of the Humanitarian Financing and Resource Mobilization Section (HFRMS) of OCHA Sudan and the UNDP Fund Management Unit (FMU). It also has focal points for all key humanitarian sectors. 28. The CHF Advisory Group is chaired by the HC and represents the views of donors, the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) and the NGO community, and provides strategic guidance and advice to the HC on the management policies and allocation priorities of the Fund. The group also provides a forum for representatives and the HC to discuss funding gaps and share information on funding coverage. The AG is currently composed of three UN Heads of Agency/Representatives (UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR), three NGO representatives (two INGOs and one NNGO), all contributing CHF donors and two non-contributing bilateral donor representatives with observer status. At present the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) are observer members of the CHF Advisory Group. 29. The CHF Working Group (WG) is made up of working level representatives of the CHF Advisory Group and is chaired by the Head of the CHF Technical Unit. Its aim is to provide the CHF AG with all necessary support, to review and make recommendations on CHF management procedures, to conduct final review of allocations, and to review evaluation recommendations and next steps. 30. Sector leads 14 manage processes at the sectoral level to ensure a transparent, prioritized and technically sound allocation of funds. They ensure a more coherent and effective response by mobilizing sector partners to respond in a coordinated and strategic manner. Sector leads participate in the CHF processes at two levels: the Programmatic Review Group and the Technical Review Committee. 31. The Programmatic Review Group (PRG) is responsible for the programmatic review of projects concept notes and the prioritization of funding at the sector level. It is facilitated by the sector lead (and co-lead if relevant), and comprises two UN partners, and two to three NGO partners (including an NNGO). A member of the HFRMS takes part in the PRG in an advisory capacity to ensure quality, transparency and fairness of the process. One donor representative is invited to participate in the PRG as an observer. At the request of the sector lead, a member from the technical line ministry may also be invited to attend the PRG. However, the sector lead, OCHA HFRMS and the government representative (if invited) do not vote on projects during the scoring process. 32. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) is responsible for undertaking a review and quality control of all CHF project proposals, paying particular attention to the quality of the entire proposal including budgets, work-plan and log-frame. The TRC consists of members from the CHF Technical Unit and from the sectors under review (including but not limited to the sector lead). One donor representative is invited to participate in the TRC as an observer. 33. Finally, the UNDP Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office (MPTF) acts as an Administrative Agent of the Fund; The functions cover negotiating contribution agreements, managing the received funding, transferring the funding to the UN agencies and Managing Agent for approved projects, producing annual financial reports and maintaining 13 OCHA (2008) Sudan Common Humanitarian Fund Revised Terms of Reference, July Clusters are groups of humanitarian organizations, both UN and non-un, in each of the main sectors of humanitarian action. They are designated by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) and have clear responsibilities for coordination. There are no clusters in Sudan, however the country has a strong and coordinated sector system that performs all the tasks of the clusters. 5

16 the real-time online platform on the CHF finances. The UNDP s FMU in Sudan acts as a Managing Agent of the CHF and is responsible for the fund disbursement to UN agencies and for elaborating PPAs with NGOs. Allocation Strategy 34. As mentioned, the CHF in Sudan has two core allocation modalities: the standard allocation and the emergency reserve allocation. The standard allocation process is the mechanism through which the HC consults with partners to ensure the best possible use of available CHF funds according to humanitarian needs and is closely linked with the overall annual planning process. This process involves consultations with sectors and other relevant partners at central and state levels, and presents a high degree of transparency. 15 Priorities are aligned with those of the HWP/SRP and defined by each sector following consultations with sector members and sector defences. 35. The emergency reserve mechanism is used for rapid and flexible allocation of funds to meet unforeseen needs or to address critical gaps that are also considered high priority in the humanitarian response. Funding priorities under the emergency reserve are determined by the HC with advice from CHF Advisory Board. In some cases these allocations are for newly emerging needs, but can also support activities that have failed to receive funding in the SRP or through the standard allocation process. Figure 4: Allocation modalities as share of all CHF annual allocations 36. During the period covered by this evaluation, the bulk of the Sudan CHF funding has been allocated through the standard allocation process via one or two allocations per year (see Figure 4). Typically, between 10 and 15 percent of all expected funding has been earmarked for the emergency reserve between 2011 and However, in spite of these indicative levels, the use of the reserve has been chiefly dependent on the actual levels of humanitarian income for the CHF. When funding falls short of expectations, resources set aside for the emergency reserve have been reduced accordingly. Thus, in 2013, $7.6 million was earmarked for unforeseen needs, but due to low funding levels only $5.8 million of the emergency reserve projects could be funded. The share of funding for each allocation modality can also change yearly, based on the humanitarian situation in the country at the time. 37. Thematic and sector-level funding priorities within the allocation model may also vary, as shown in Figure 5, although the CHF s primary attention always falls on urgent, life-saving humanitarian needs while sectorlevel allocation priorities are usually defined based on sector 77% 72% 89% 70% 21% 11% 7% 7% 9% 10% 6% 8% 9% 2% Standard allocation Core Pipelines Emergency Reserve Other Special Allocations Source: Based on data from CHF Annual reports and OCHA Funding Coordination Section (FCS) Figure 5: Sudan CHF funding by sector This section addresses: Evaluation Question 25: How appropriate is the prioritization and decision-making on resource allocation? This section examines how appropriate is the prioritization and decisionmaking on resource allocation within the CHF. The evaluation found that the annual share of allocation modalities depends on the overall funding available in each of the years analysed, and that allocations tend to support more heavily the under-funded sectors of the Sudan HWP/SRP. Source: Based on data from OCHA Financial Tracking Service (FTS) for 2011 data, CHF Annual reports and OCHA FCS 15 Transparency being defined by the CHF Allocation Strategy as the degree to which allocation decisions can be explained and rationalized 6

17 proposals and following sector defences. Currently, the Fund requires that implementing partners submit separate project proposals for each sector activity they undertake, even if they take place in the same geographic area (for instance in the same village or refugee camp). The CHF Technical Unit is examining the possibility of introducing multi-sector proposals for future standard allocation processes. This will be a positive step toward more integrated sector work but only if accompanied by enhanced inter-sector strategy. 38. Over half of the cumulative CHF funding for Sudan for the years went to just four sectors: food security and livelihoods (FSL) with 16 percent; health with 15 percent; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) with 12 percent; and education with 10 percent. Of these, FSL and health have always been funded above the average sector level and education and WASH at very near the sector average. On the other hand, the Sudan CHF s net support to well-funded sectors, such as coordination and common services (CCS) and logistics and emergency telecommunications (LET) is low, taking only 9 percent and 3 percent respectively of the total CHF funding for the period. 39. Food aid part of Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) in Figure 5 tends to make up a large volume of all SRP funding and is also among the best-funded aid activities. Following the reduction in its size the CHF in Sudan has made positive steps toward rationalizing the use of its resources by targeting key, life-saving sectors that are also less likely to attract sufficient resources from other donors. In line with that decision the Fund has come to an agreement with the World Food Programme (WFP) to halt its allocation to food aid, as WFP decided voluntarily not to apply for more CHF funding. Thus, in 2012 the CHF s funding to WFP s food aid programmes dropped to just over $700,000 or one percent of the annual CHF allocation. This represented a reduction of 80 percent compared to the 2011 levels. Funding for food aid has completely stopped since In relative terms the Sudan CHF s allocations tend to support more heavily the under-funded sectors of the HWP/SRP. Thus, on average the CHF makes up 52 percent of the non-food items and emergency shelter (NFI/ES) sector funding; 49 percent of the mine action (MA) sector; 43 percent of the basic infrastructure/ governance, infrastructure and early recovery sector (BI/GIER); 41 percent of the protection sector; and 40 percent of the returns and early reintegration/recovery, return, and reintegration (RES/RRR) sectors. Findings of the Evaluation THE CHF AND THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLAN FOR SUDAN 41. Despite the increasing number of vulnerable communities and ever-present humanitarian needs in Sudan, funding for both the Sudan CHF and the Sudan HWP/SRP has been steadily declining. HWP funding levels for activities in Sudan (excluding humanitarian assistance in the current Republic of South Sudan) have been dwindling since by an annual average of 18 percent. The requirements for the SRP in 2011 and 2012 were around $1.1 billion a year and in 2013 and 2014 fell below $1 billion. Coupled with an increasing number of people in need, this trend translates into reduced humanitarian requirements per beneficiary for the HWP/SRP: a 50 percent drop in 2014 compared to the 2011 levels. The reduction of overall funding requirements in the HWP/SRP reflects the continuous effort to ensure more focused humanitarian activities and better targeting of the most vulnerable, as well as a more rigorous project selection process, while at the same, indicates an increasing awareness of the donor fatigue in Sudan and the need for the humanitarian community to develop more conservative and limited response plans to the humanitarian challenges in the country. This section addresses: Evaluation Question 1: How, and to what extent, has the CHF contributed to the collective results of the humanitarian community? Evaluation Question 2.1: To what extent are CHFs linked with other donor funding mechanisms in-country and multi-donor funding mechanisms globally? Evaluation Question 11: To what extent has the availability of CHF funding supported targeting and contributed to improved coverage to ensure that the most vulnerable groups needs are addressed? This sub-section addresses issues related to the CHF contribution to the collective results of the humanitarian community in Sudan and its capacity to support better humanitarian targeting and improved coverage of humanitarian needs through the HWP/SRP. It also examines the CHF coordination with other key humanitarian funding mechanisms in the country. The evaluation found that the Sudan CHF makes key contributions to the overall humanitarian strategy in the country by enhancing participation, informing key decision-making within the HWP/SRP processes and increasing its complementarity with other key humanitarian pooled funds, such as the CERF. 42. The Sudan HWP/SRP has been covered below the average global CAP levels in 2012 ad 2013, and has only exceeded the average CAP coverage by one percent in 2011 and This compares unfavourably with the period covered by the previous CHF evaluation when the Sudan HWP was funded well above the average for other consolidated appeals. 16 The figures exclude allocations to South Sudan for the year funding figures exclude allocation for South Sudan and are based on data from the 2012 Sudan CHF Annual report. 7

18 43. The fall in funding levels for the Sudan SRP between 2011 and 2014 has been mirrored by the reduction in contributions to the CHF. As reflected in Figure 6, the share of CHF allocations as part of funding for the SRP has decreased from a height of 13 percent in 2012 to just 10 percent in However, the CHF continues to play a vital role in the SRP process as a galvanizer for the engagement of humanitarian stakeholders with the coordination system in the country. To date the HWP/SRP in Sudan has been heavily process-driven, relatively hastily put together and a weak planning tool for the overall response humanitarian needs in the Figure 6: Sudan CHF and HWP/SRP funding levels Source: Based on data from CHF Annual reports and OCHA FCS country. 18 With more time dedicated to planning and review, the CHF has been successful in addressing many issues that the HWP/SRP had not addressed, such as needs assessment methodologies, prioritization of needs, coordination, etc. In that sense, the Sudan CHF has been instrumental in contributing to collective results of the humanitarian community by enhancing overall strategy, planning and coordination The requirement for all projects submitted through the CHF standard allocation modality to be part of the SRP ensures that implementing partners have incentives to actively participate in all relevant strategic and sector level processes. However, as funding continues to decline and implementing partners investments of time and resources become more significant than the financial return from the CHF process, their attention may turn to other funding modalities, including other pooled funds such as the CERF that have greater resources and shorter funding allocation processes. 45. Sudan is the largest recipient of CERF funding, receiving $256 million since 2006 and representing 6.8 percent of all CERF allocations. Up to 78 percent of this funding has been allocated through the Rapid Response (RR) window, although during the period covered by this evaluation the share of the Underfunded Emergency Funding (UFE) stream has grown substantially, representing the largest CERF funding modality for Sudan during the years 2012 to Unlike CHF and SRP funding levels, humanitarian resources channelled through the CERF in Sudan have been rising since the start of the evaluation period (Figure 7). Figure 7: Index value variations in CHF, CERF and SRP funding levels compared to the 2010 values 2010 values = CHF CERF HWP/SRP Source: Based on data from OCHA CERF, OCHA FTS, CHF annual reports and OCHA US$ million CHF allocations CHF funding as % of SRP requirements 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% HWP/SRP funding CHF allocations as % of SRP funding 46. OCHA in Sudan has begun implementing some of the good practices described in CERF guidance on harmonization between the CERF and CBPFs, including having the same staff working on the CERF and CHF, incorporating CERF projects into CHF monitoring processes, and having joint After Action Reviews. The use of the same prioritization process for the CHF and the CERF Underfunded emergency grants in 2013 and 2014 increased the inclusivity and transparency of the CERF allocations. 47. The complementarity of the two funds is ensured at the proposal stage through the inclusion of a specific section in all project proposals, explaining how CHF and CERF funded activities will relate to each other, and at the allocation stage by ensuring that the AG has the funds complementarity in mind when reviewing CHF and CERF applications. There are examples 20 of agencies having used CHF grants to continue activities initiated with CERF money (purchase of education materials with a CERF grant and construction of educational spaces with CHF 18 Based on the self-assessment questionnaire for the CHF manager in Sudan and stakeholder interviews in country. 19 Based on the self-assessment questionnaire for the CHF manager in Sudan. 20 Mowjee, T. (2014) Review of Value Added of CERF in Sudan, Policy2Practice Team. 8

19 funding by UNICEF in North Kordofan) and to supplement CERF funded work (FAO purchase of animal feed to complement its animal vaccination projects). While the two funds are used in a complementary way to some extent, there is currently no joint strategy to maximize complementarity, and complementarity was not a criterion for the sectors when selecting and prioritizing projects While CERF allocations in Sudan continue to be smaller than those of the CHF, the latter has been losing ground in recent years: while the funding difference between the CHF and the CERF was $77 million in 2011, it was down to just $11 million in Moreover, as shown in Figure 8, CERF is playing an increasingly critical role in supporting the SRP, with funding shares reaching eight percent of the SRP in 2014, far above the two percent levels in 2011 and close to CHF s 10 percent contribution to the SRP in Figure 8: CHF and CERF allocations as share of the SRP funding 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% CHF as % of HWP/SRP CERF as % of HWP/SRP Source: Based on data from OCHA CERF, OCHA FTS, CHF annual reports and OCHA FCS 49. The CERF is a key contributor to UN agencies in Sudan the only humanitarian stakeholders that can access the resources directly. Still, the CERF Secretariat estimated that some 17 percent of all CERF allocations in Sudan in 2012 were passed on from the recipient UN agency to NGOs for implementation. 22 However, delays in the pass-through process mean that while CERF remains highly important for the UN community, it is less attractive as a donor for NGOs in Sudan, despite its growing contribution to the humanitarian response in country. 50. Especially for NGO implementing partners, the transparency and accountability of the CERF allocation processes through the UFE window are greater than through the RR window. This is due to the use of the CHF s PRGs that ensure not only an open dissemination of information, but also a more transparent selection of implementing partners. While currently there is no set strategy for determining CERF funding priorities in Sudan, in practice CERF often takes a sectoral approach and supports lifesaving projects as identified in the SRP in areas of critical and high need. 51. CHF funding through the standard allocation modality focuses on the highest priority level of the SRP and is aligned with the strategic objectives of the Plan, which is based on the HNO process. Distribution of resources, on the other hand, does not necessarily mimic that of the SRP. In 2014, four strategic objectives were agreed for the Sudan CHF s first standard allocation in line with the objectives of the SRP: i) Saving lives: Reduction of morbidity and mortality rates to below emergency thresholds and improvement in well-being; ii) Protection: Conflict affected and displaced persons are more effectively protected from violence and exploitation; iii) Resilience: The most vulnerable households, groups and communities are better able to mitigate risk and withstand shocks and stresses; and iv) Durable solutions: Progress toward durable solutions is achieved for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and affected communities in targeted localities. The 2014 CHF allocation strategy determined that 90 percent of the resources were to be channelled to saving lives and protection compared to a combined 67 percent under the SRP. Only 10 percent of the CHF resources were to be channelled toward resilience and durable solutions as compared to a combined 33 percent in the SRP: a considerable drop for all activities addressing chronic issues in a country that faces protracted crises across much of its territory. 21 Ibid. 22 OCHA (2012) UN Agency SubGranting of CERF Funds to Implementing Partners. CERF Secretariat, May 2012: available from 9

20 THE CHF AND RESILIENCE BUILDING 52. As the risks associated with conflict, climate change, natural disasters and global shocks become increasingly complex and interconnected, a more integrated resiliencebased approach that simultaneously and coherently addresses short, medium and long-term needs is required in order to support fragile and conflict-affected states in finding long-term, sustainable solutions to crises. 23 Resilience plays an important role in ensuring that chronic and longer-term needs are incorporated into immediate humanitarian actions. It provides both a framework for how systems and people anticipate, absorb, resist and bounce back from the effects of a shock; as well as a way to make programmatic links between recovery, development and sustainable actions overall. This section addresses: Evaluation Question 3: Given that all CHF countries face protracted crisis, what is its value added with respect to addressing chronic issues, preparedness, and recovery? Evaluation Question 3.1: To what extent are CHF-funded projects linked to disaster risk reduction, recovery, and long-term development programmes? This sub-section examines the role that the Sudan CHF plays in financing resilience building; its value added with respect to addressing chronic issues and recovery, and its linkage to disaster risk reduction and longterm development planning in Sudan. While the CHF supports resilience when it has been identified as humanitarian priority within the SRP, in the past it has done so to a lesser degree than the share of resilience within the Plan. Moreover, while CHF welcomes the inclusion of resilience components in its life-saving programming, it does not do enough to specifically target a resilience focus of core humanitarian action, especially in geographic areas where humanitarian operations have been ongoing for over a decade. 53. Given the close linkages between priorities in the SRP and the CHF, the latter can fund resilience programming when clearly identified as a humanitarian priority. Nonetheless, it appears to be accepted among humanitarian stakeholders that the CHF should prioritize support to core humanitarian programming (i.e. to lifesaving needs) when funding levels are reducing. 24 While it is understandable to advocate for a narrowing of the CHF focus when resources are scarce, this does not have to translate automatically into all-around short-term, acute emergency activities. Instead, funding prioritization should factor in the nature and breadth of targeted needs, the availability of other funding sources for the different types of demands faced by the humanitarian community, and the theory of change underpinning the CHF strategic objectives. 54. Given the protracted nature of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, CHF should enhance its focus on resilience components in its allocations, by clearly targeting resilience elements within core humanitarian programming in the relevant contexts. At the same time, an increase of the emergency reserve levels to at least 20 percent of the annual CHF allocation, will maintain the Fund s readiness to address unforeseen needs and new crises as they emerge. 55. As noted earlier, resilience and durable solutions have been identified as key priorities for the 2014 SRP in Sudan. Nevertheless, despite allocating nearly 70 percent of its resources to Darfur where needs are mostly chronic, the Sudan CHF has been shy in funding those priorities to a degree comparable with their weight in the SRP. The CHF s allocations to the recovery, return, and reintegration (RRR) sector have dropped from $5.2 million (seven percent of the annual allocation) in 2012 to $1 million (one percent of the CHF funding) in There are strategic as well as circumstantial reasons for this. 56. While there has been a clear interest in moving toward long-term approaches to aid in Sudan, and most noticeably in Darfur, studies 25 as well as qualitative evidence from the field phase of this evaluation indicate that those efforts are falling short of expectations. In the meantime, the CHF has funded both rehabilitation projects and logistics, reflecting the need to address a combination of the protracted nature of the crisis, and the limitations faced by the humanitarian community. 26 However, the CBPFs attempts to engage in support for longer-term interventions are likely to be inconsistent, given that the CBPFs priorities tend to be revised and redirected as funding levels fluctuate. Thus, when humanitarian needs remain high and funding levels for humanitarian response overall and for the CBPF in particular are low, it is likely that the Fund s focus will fall on urgent, life-saving needs. When coupled with shrinking bilateral funding in Sudan, such prioritization decisions are likely to have a greater impact on some organizations and sectors than on others. Education, food security and livelihoods, logistics and emergency telecommunications, recovery, return and reintegration and multi-sector work focusing on refugees are the most heavily focused sectors addressing resilience and durable solutions priorities. So, in the absence of reliable and functioning development, stabilization and recovery strategies and instruments, the challenges of how the CHF prioritizes resilience will remain unaddressed. 23 UNDP (2014) Financing Recovery for Resilience. MPTF, June Self-assessment questionnaire for the CHF manager in Sudan and Taylor, G. (2014). Country Based Pooled Fund Mechanisms: Mapping and comparative analysis. 25 The recent Review of Value Added of CERF in Sudan and Country Based Pooled Fund Mechanisms: Mapping and comparative analysis both indicate that development initiatives have failed to gain traction and actual funding levels remain well bellow pledges. 26 Taylor, G. (2014) Country Based Pooled Fund Mechanisms: Mapping and comparative analysis. Humanitarian Outcomes, March

21 57. On the other hand, recent changes in CHF funding have also had an adverse impact on the Fund s ability and willingness to focus on resilience and durable solutions. In recent years, the UK has significantly reduced its funding to the Sudan CHF, moving from $78 million in 2011 to just $22 million in Furthermore, by March 2015, the UK had not yet made any commitments or contributions to the Sudan CHF for the year Being the largest humanitarian donor to the Fund, representing on average just under half of all resources, any scale-back in the UK s funding or shift in its humanitarian strategy for Sudan can potentially have devastating consequences for the CHF. 58. In 2013 the UK s Department for International Development (DFID) adopted the Sudan Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme (SHARP), a three-year programme with a budget of some $100 million. The idea is to focus on building household and community resilience with half of the programme s resources intended for the Darfur region with the other half split between Blue Nile and South Kordofan states. 27 To date some $3 million has been disbursed and another $8 million committed for the fiscal year This programme runs parallel to the Sudan CHF and focuses on the same regions where some 80 percent of the CHF s resources are channelled. Wishing to avoid duplication in the use of its humanitarian assistance in the country, DFID has exerted its considerable influence over the Sudan CHF and has shaped the CHF donors decision to ensure that the Fund s resources are only marginally used to support resilience and durable solutions in Sudan. While such action clashes with the principles of good donorship and is at odds with the nature of unearmarked pooled financing, in practice the CHF management lacks the means to withstand similar pressures and undue influence over the Fund s strategy. Only multi-year funding commitments from current donors and a diversification of the CHF s donor base can provide some grounds for longer-term and more strategic prioritization of the CHF s objectives, unbiased by donors changing funding priorities. 60. Multi-year funding is also the way forward when addressing chronic issues, preparedness, disaster risk reduction and recovery in countries facing protracted crisis. Sudan, like most other countries where the CHF is operational, is a recipient of long-term humanitarian assistance. The term 29 indicates that the country has been receiving larger than average shares of their ODA in the form of humanitarian assistance for eight years or more. In the case of Sudan this trend dates back to at least the mid-1990s, i.e. the country has been receiving long-term humanitarian assistance for some twenty years. In such chronic crises, needs tend to remain consistent over protracted periods and multi-annual planning seems more appropriate for addressing those needs. Unfortunately, to date the Sudan CHF has been slow in mobilizing multi-year commitments from donors, 30 which translates into uncertain funding levels from one year to the next. 61. Finally, the annual planning cycle of the CHF also poses important limits on how much it can contribute to the long-term approach to aid. CHF allocations also tend to work as complementary funding to on-going projects and programmes, although this complementarity is likely to change as other funding sources become scarcer. Moreover, regular outbreaks of fresh violence and natural disasters (floods or droughts) tend to have priority over chronic needs. CHF AND THE HUMANITARIAN REFORM PROCESS 62. The Humanitarian Reform process stemmed from a review of the humanitarian response system, which was commissioned by the Emergency Relief Coordinator in mid to examine perceptions that humanitarian response did not always meet the basic requirements of affected populations in a timely fashion, and varied considerably from crisis to crisis. The Reform focused on more adequate, timely, flexible and effective humanitarian financing, including through pooled financing mechanisms; a strengthened HC office, providing more strategic leadership and coordination at the inter-sector and sector levels; and the implementation of the cluster approach to build up This section addresses: Evaluation Question 9.1: How do CHFs integrate with the Humanitarian Programme Cycle? This sub-section section introduces the key elements of the Humanitarian Reform process and examines the CHF s alignment with and contribution to its implementation in Sudan. The Fund is a key instrument for promoting the Reform process and a critical tool in strengthening the implementation of the Humanitarian Programme Cycle. capacities in gap areas as part of wider efforts to ensure adequate response capacity, predictable and enhanced leadership, accountability, predictability and strong partnerships in all sectors Based on data from DFID s Development Tracker: 29 The terminology was developed by Development Initiatives Global Humanitarian Assistance programme and is based on their analysis of ODA and humanitarian assistance. Reliable data on humanitarian assistance is only available since the 1990s, although the trend of long-term recipients of humanitarian aid may go even further back. 30 In March 2015 the Sudan CHF secured the first multi-year commitment: Sweden has committed $1.2 million to be split in equal shares for the years 2016 and

22 63. In line with this process, the Humanitarian Programme Cycle was developed in 2014 to help prepare for, manage and deliver humanitarian response. The cycle consists of five elements: needs assessment and analysis; strategic response planning; resource mobilization; implementation and monitoring, and operational review and evaluation. Every step builds on the previous and leads to the next, offering guidance on how different elements should be incorporated into project planning, implementation, and assessment. 64. There are different stakeholders leading on each stage, with OCHA, the clusters/sectors 31 and the HCT playing the key roles. The CHF in Sudan has been instrumental in shaping the strategic thinking and planning of the humanitarian response Source: Humanitarian Response website in the country. As noted earlier in the report, many key decisions around needs assessment approaches, M&R strategies, coordination and resource mobilization for humanitarian assistance in Sudan have taken place around the CHF table, and the Sudan CHF is thus fully aligned with the Humanitarian Programme Cycle. However, as long as the SRP continues to be a rather generic, unfocused and weak tool for the overall planning of the humanitarian response, this will limit the CHF strategic impact. STRENGTHENING LEADERSHIP 65. Following an analysis of persisting challenges in humanitarian leadership and coordination, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Principals launched the Transformative Agenda (TA) in December of The TA comprises a set of actions to address such acknowledged challenges, as well as to enhance accountability for the achievement of collective results. These actions include: Strong leadership: Establishing a mechanism to deploy strong, experienced senior humanitarian leadership to guide the humanitarian response from the outset of a major crisis; Strong coordination: The strengthening of leadership capacities and rapid deployment of humanitarian leaders at various levels, to ensure the coordination architecture functions well; Improved strategic planning at the country level that clarifies the collective results the humanitarian community sets out to achieve and identifies how clusters and organizations will contribute to them; Figure 9: The Humanitarian Programme Cycle This section addresses: Evaluation Question 9: How, and to what extent does the CHF mechanism contribute to the humanitarian reform initiatives, including the Transformative Agenda? Evaluation Question 9.2: What have been the effects of the CHF on humanitarian leadership and coordination structures at the country level? This sub-section examines issues related to the CHF s effects on humanitarian leadership and coordination structures at the country level, and the Fund s contribution to the humanitarian reform initiatives, such as the Transformative Agenda. It also reviews in detail the capacity of the HC and the quality of the HC s leadership in Sudan. The evaluation found that while the CHF plays a pivotal role in enhancing humanitarian coordination and strengthening existing structures in country, the weak humanitarian leadership in Sudan has limited the Fund s ability to fulfill its potential. Enhanced accountability of the HC and members of the HCT for the achievement of collective results and of the humanitarian community toward the affected people; and Streamlined coordination mechanisms adapted to operational requirements and contexts to better facilitate delivery. 66. The Sudan CHF has largely served the key objectives of the TA, especially vis-à-vis strengthening coordination and increasing accountability. The CHF is the only substantive humanitarian funding available in Sudan that is allocated through a coordinated sector approach, and as such it is well placed to contribute to a holistic and principled approach to delivering humanitarian aid in Sudan. As a key planning and funding tool, the CHF brings stakeholders to the table and, in regular allocations, promotes sector prioritization and targeting. It is also a key resource at the service of the humanitarian leadership structures in the country, notably the HC and the CHF Advisory Group. 31 Clusters are groups of humanitarian organizations, both UN and non-un, in each of the main sectors of humanitarian action. They are designated by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) and have clear responsibilities for coordination. Sudan does not have clusters, but the country has a strong and coordinated sector system that performs all the tasks of the clusters. 12

23 67. The HC has a distinct and important role in any humanitarian context, among other things in developing the strategy for the CBPFs while ensuring that they are managed in accordance with accepted polices and procedures, including those articulated in the 2014 Operational Handbook for CBPFs. 32 The HC is responsible for: 1. Leading the process at country level of establishing and closing a CBPF. 2. Chairing the Advisory Board and providing strategic direction for the CBPF. 3. Leading country-level resource mobilization for the fund supported by the OCHA Country Office and in coordination with relevant OCHA entities at headquarters. 4. Approving the use of and defining the strategic focus and amounts of fund allocations. 5. Making final decisions on projects recommended for funding. This responsibility is exclusive to the HC and cannot be delegated. 6. Making final decisions on projects recommended for funding. This responsibility is exclusive to the HC and cannot be delegated. Funding decisions can be made at the discretion of the HC, without a recommendation from the AB, for circumstances, which require an immediate response. In addition, the HC has the authority to overrule recommendations from the review committee(s). 7. Approving projects and initiating disbursements. 8. Ensuring complementary use of CBPF funding with other funding sources, including the CERF. 9. Ensuring that the Advisory Group and the review committee(s) are functioning in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Handbook. 68. The HC s leadership 33 of the overall aid strategy in Sudan has been weak as evidenced by the general lack of coordination among international aid donors beyond the CHF Advisory Group; the insufficient strategic guidance offered by the Sudan SRP; and the perceived deficiency of the HCT as a coordination and strategy-setting forum. The absence of a clear vision for the global direction that international aid, and more particularly humanitarian assistance, should take in Sudan is also limiting the strategic impact of the CHF and is hindering its potential. Furthermore, the HC decided to exclude the donors from the HCT meetings and discussions, based on recommendation issued by Senior Transformative Agenda Implementation Team (STAIT) in March 2014, and use their representation on the CHF s AG to coordinate and plan their support toward the SRP. There was considerable frustration expressed by stakeholders around this decision, and the evaluation agrees that this would seem inappropriate. The CHF acts as one donor among many and its AG meetings should be focused on the strategy and oversight of the CHF, rather than be expected to work as the overall donor coordination and planning body for the whole SRP. 69. At the same time the HC in Sudan is deemed to have been very diligent in his role as Fund manager both in terms of quality control of the CHF s strategy and individual allocations, and in his timely approval of relevant documents and processes. However, some stakeholders interviewed as part of this evaluation criticized the HC for being too development focused, not paying enough attention to the needs and concerns of the humanitarian community in Sudan and for not taking a hard enough stance vis-à-vis the Government of Sudan. CHF implementing partners voiced their frustration particularly with the Sudan Government s Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) presence on some of the PRGs, which, in principle, is at the invitation of the respective sector but in practice is perceived as unavoidable should the HAC decide it wishes to attend. Humanitarian organizations would have liked the HC to exercise the same level of resolution shown when he decided to exclude humanitarian donors from the HCT meetings (and from the distribution of HCT meeting minutes) in order to safeguard the neutrality of the coordination structures. 70. Highly politicized environments, such as Sudan s, present serious challenges for the work of an HC who must balance the humanitarian agenda by guarding and promoting the implementation of humanitarian principles, while respecting the sovereign role of the host country and their lead in the international aid processes that take place within the territory of the state. This is particularly challenging when the national government is part of the humanitarian problem, as evidenced by the International Criminal Court s indictment of the president of Sudan over the situation in Darfur. The fragility of the balance between the humanitarian and political agenda was evidenced when the Government of Sudan ordered the RC/HC and the UNDP Country Director to leave the country on 25 December 2014, just two weeks after the evaluation team had interviewed the HC. 32 OCHA (2014) Operational Handbook for Country Based Pooled Funds, available from 33 This answers EQ 19, How adequate are capacities of the HCs (and their offices) for their CHF related roles? 13

24 CLUSTERS AND COORDINATION 71. Coordination in Sudan is not organized around the clusters, but the country has a strong and coordinated sector system that performs all the standard tasks of the clusters. As per the CBPFs Operational Handbook, clusters/ sectors support the CHF at two levels: strategically they ensure that there are clear links between the Fund, the HRP/SRP and cluster strategies; and at an operational level they provide technical expertise to the process of project prioritization and to the technical review of projects. 72. While sectors are key stakeholders of the whole CHF process in Sudan, their involvement is particularly relevant at the PRG and TRC levels. The PRGs are facilitated by the sector coordinators, who do not have voting rights, and are responsible for the programmatic review of project This section addresses: Evaluation Question 9.2: What have been the effects of the CHF on humanitarian leadership and coordination structures at the country level? This section focuses on the role that the CHF plays in enhancing coordination through the sector system in Sudan and highlights the CHF s power to galvanize participation at cluster level to a higher degree than the HWP/SRP are able to achieve. At the same time, in recognition of the key role that sectors play in the planning and delivery of humanitarian response, the CHF has provided relevant funding for the sector coordinator positions in key life-saving areas. proposals and the prioritization of funding at the sector level. The TRCs undertake the review and quality control of all CHF project proposals, paying particular attention to the quality aspects including budgets, work-plans and logframes. 73. The CHF s power to foster coordination and participation above and beyond what other common processes (such as the HWP/SRP) are able to achieve has been examined earlier in the report. The nature of the CHF both as a process and as a funding source ensures high engagement by the humanitarian stakeholders. However, participation can be very demanding and can strain the resources of the humanitarian community in country, and especially on that of the sectors. At the same time, the quality of a sector-led process depends heavily on adequate resources and on the individual quality and competence of sector leadership. Recognizing these challenges the Sudan CHF provided important financial support to the sector coordination system in the country by funding the sector lead positions of the six life-saving sectors (WASH, Nutrition, Protection, Health, FSL and NFI/ES), permitting the responsible agencies to recruit dedicated and experienced individuals for these posts. In 2014 this support amounted to $630, Over the period covered by this evaluation, the CHF management has streamlined the coordination of the Fund s processes. In the past, the technical or quality review was first undertaken by the sectors in the PRGs, then by the respective sector focal points in the CHF Technical Unit, subsequently by a TRC and finally by UNDP. This meant that the proposals were subject to many levels of review, but these were disjointed and not comprehensive. For the first standard CHF allocation in 2014, PRGs were re-focused on strategic issues, while the TRCs comprising representatives from UNDP FMU and the CHF Technical Unit were convened to review all preapproved projects. Some changes have also been considered with regard to the sector defences and the process by which sector envelopes (i.e. the maximum amount of funding to be allocated to each individual sector) are determined. 75. The Sector Defences are a series of meetings in which the sector coordinator makes a presentation and defends the sector strategy to the CHF AG. The CHF Technical Unit acts as the secretariat to the AG and consolidates the feedback and decisions from the AG for each sector. The quality of each sector defence is heavily reliant upon the presentation skills of the sector coordinators and their ability to clearly articulate the needs and the merit of the sector proposal. In the 2014 standard allocations, sector defences have been used to determine sector envelopes, causing considerable additional work for the sectors as they have to prepare an estimated envelope for their defence and then re-convene PRGs after the defence to adjust sector proposals to the final sector envelope. The CHF proposes to organize sector defences earlier in the allocation process and to re-focus their attention on strategy rather than a mix of strategy and project proposals, which will contribute toward making the mechanism more useful and effective. 14

25 CROSSCUTTING ISSUES 76. In line with the Principles and Good Practice of Humanitarian Donorship (principle 7), CHF funded projects are required to include specific project components that address how affected populations will be involved in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a project. This is a critical aspect of any project design and ensures accountability to and communication with affected communities while improving the effectiveness of projects. 34 The CHF in Sudan has taken the lead in rolling out a framework on AAP, covering all steps of the CHF process (see Figure 10). The CHF guidelines will encourage and enable partners to incorporate accountability mechanisms into their work plans. 77. To ensure that partners are delivering on their AAP commitments and to track their performance against beneficiary perspectives, verification and accountability checks are built into the selection process and field M&R of funded projects. Findings from monitoring visits and feedback from beneficiaries will inform future policies and funding decisions. Figure 10: Accountability to Affected Populations and the CHF process This section addresses: Evaluation Question 7: How effectively does OCHA utilize the CHF mechanism to promote the humanitarian agenda (e.g. accountability to affected populations, gender equality)? This section examines how the CHF in Sudan has focused on addressing three key crosscutting issues: accountability to affected populations (AAP), gender and environment. The evaluation found that the Fund has taken important steps toward ensuring that crosscutting issues are taken into account not only at the proposal level, but that they are also properly articulated throughout the process conception, implementation and M&R. For that purpose, the Sudan CHF has developed key processes and has funded for a limited period of time gender and environmental advisors to work with sectors and implementing partners. 78. Capacity building and awareness raising workshops with CHF implementing partners are included in the framework in order to facilitate continuous learning and improvement. 79. Finally, the CHF aims to serve as a platform for advocating AAP among all stakeholders including government actors, donors and development partners, and to inform on best practices of AAP. 80. In 2011 the IASC introduced the use of a Gender Marker in the CAP process. The IASC Gender Marker is a tool that codes, on a scale from 2 to 0, whether or not a humanitarian project is designed to ensure that women, men, boys and girls of all ages will benefit equally from it, and that its aim is to contribute to increasing Source: Sudan CHF Accountability to Affected Populations Framework gender equality. In line with HWP/SRP priority identification and as directed by the IASC Gender Marker, CHF project proposals are required to include an analysis of needs and priorities for girls, boys, women and men; and the demographics of target populations are indicated by gender and age as appropriate and possible. The Sudan CHF only funds projects, which score 2A or 2B on the IASC Gender Marker, thus ensuring that no gender-blind projects are funded and that all CHF funded allocations are gender sensitive or contribute to gender equality. 81. Gender coding has been criticized as a cosmetic process and a recurrent shortcoming in gender-scored project proposals is the lack of strategic gender integration throughout the proposed activities. The Sudan CHF has taken effective steps to ensure that the use of the Marker transcends the mere project proposal writing stage. This has been achieved by incorporating gender indicators into the M&R of CHF funded projects and deploying a dedicated Humanitarian Gender Advisor (HGA) during 2012 and 2013 who worked with implementing partners to enhance their understanding of gender, improve their project proposals and where necessary provide the relevant training. The CHF implementing partners interviewed during the field stage of this evaluation highly valued the advice and support received from the HGA and unanimously stated that the CHF investment had delivered identifiable and measurable results on the ground. The continuation of this support function would be highly valuable in the future. 34 See IASC (2012) Accountability to Affected Populations: Tools to Assist in Implementing IASC AAP Commitments. 15

26 82. In 2013, a total of 127 CHF proposals were reviewed by the HGA to ensure coding accuracy and quality control. While gender is mainstreamed at the CHF proposal drafting stage, obtaining reliable gender disaggregated data remains a challenge and this has been included in the process of strengthening the HNO to include gender sensitive data. Since 2013, the CHF has been supporting the practical implementation and increased accountability of the Gender Marker through its inclusion in the regular M&R of CHF allocations. All CHF sector M&R focal points have received theoretical and practical training from the HGA and all monitoring missions undertaken in 2013 and 2014 have specifically monitored results related to gender mainstreaming. Reports from monitoring missions in 2013 and 2014 showed that overall projects performed well with regard to gender with a balanced representation of the needs of women, men, boys and girls. 83. The Sudan CHF has also proven to be a valuable mechanism in underpinning the integration of environmental concerns into the overall humanitarian response. The deployment in 2013 of an Environmental Field Advisor in CHF monitoring missions has resulted in practical advice on how to improve the integration of environmental issues in humanitarian activities in the field. Based on these lessons and on the use of the Environmental Marker in the coding of CHF project proposals, the Marker was updated with supporting documentation to help humanitarian partners in future coding. In the future, these improvements will increasingly contribute to the mainstreaming of environmental considerations in future CHF projects, especially if the advisory function could be continued. PLANNING PROCESSES 84. In a humanitarian context lacking an overall aid strategy and where planning processes through the HWP/SRP are weak, the Sudan CHF continues to play a pivotal role in defining humanitarian strategies and practice. With its dual nature as a strategic process (Annual Allocation Strategy and Guidelines) and a source of funding, the CHF has a considerable impact on the humanitarian planning process in Sudan. The wellfunctioning donor coordination forum of the CHF Advisory Group brings together contributing donors as well as key bilateral government partners such as USAID and ECHO. Humanitarian donors in Sudan were excluded from the HCT by the former HC and therefore see the CHF process as a window into the humanitarian planning and coordination processes in the country. 85. The weak prioritization and strategic focus of the HWP has been somewhat improved with the 2014 Sudan SRP, yet still requires the continuous input of the CHF to advance in strategic decisions that affect the humanitarian community s overall approach. With more time dedicated to strategic thinking and revisions, the CHF has addressed issues of overlapping sector responsibility (such as delimiting that in line with global guidelines, WASH activities in schools fall under the purview of the Education sector); avoided duplications in sectors strategy for camp operations, etc Notwithstanding the CHF s considerable contributions to the humanitarian planning in Sudan, as a CBPF it actually depends on the existence of a functioning strategic framework in order to achieve its full potential. This is especially relevant in a chronic humanitarian crisis and a context characterized by donor fatigue following decades of considerable investments in short-term and emergency-focused activities. The HC, UNDP and OCHA should lead an overarching process for the rethinking of the international aid approach to Sudan. PARTNERSHIPS 87. The UN agencies, INGOs, NNGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement can apply for and receive funding from CBPFs, but while all UN agencies are automatically eligible for funding, NGOs must undergo a capacity assessment process. Due to its long trajectory in the country, the Sudan CHF has longstanding partnerships with the majority of its implementing partners, which have allowed for increasingly close relationships and strategic cooperation. This has had a particularly positive effect on 35 Self-assessment questionnaire for the CHF manager in Sudan. This section addresses: Evaluation Question 12: How, and to what extent, has the CHF contributed to strengthening the humanitarian planning processes? This section highlights the findings of the evaluation that the Sudan CHF plays a significant role in defining the humanitarian strategies and practice in the country, partly because of the HC s decision to task the CHF with these responsibilities and for the CHF to coordinate all external donor support towards the HWP. A comprehensive strategic framework needs to be developed and would assist in all future CBPF decisionmaking. This section addresses: Evaluation Question 13: How successful are CHFs in facilitating and strengthening partnerships? This section examined the CHF s role in strengthening partnerships in country. Through its participatory processes the CHF fosters partnerships with a variety of humanitarian actors, including donors, sectors and CHF implementing partners. As a CBPF, the Sudan CHF aspires to provide equitable opportunity to all humanitarian organizations to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies. 16

27 the development of good working understandings with some NNGOs, but has also led to a heavy reliance on CHF funding for the humanitarian work of some UN agencies. This is the case for the FAO between 2011 and 2014 when it received on average 50 percent of its income under the HWP/SRP from the CHF. 88. The split of funding between UN and NGO implementing partners has not varied dramatically during the period , each side receiving a nearly equal split of CHF allocations. However, among the NGO group, NNGOs have been increasingly well represented among the CHF recipients, rising from six percent (2011) to 13 percent (2014) of all implementing partners. Figure 11: CHF allocations by implementing partner 2014 US$28m US$18m US$7m 2013 US$34m US$26m US$7m 2012 US$40m US$29m US$7m US$1m 2011 US$90m US$57m US$9m 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UN INGO NNGO SRCS Source: Based on data from CHF Annual reports and OCHA FCS 89. The CHF has taken several measures to increase the access of NGOs, and especially of NNGOs, to CHF funding and to promote their participation in the wider humanitarian response effort: NGOs are regularly consulted on the CHF allocation strategies either individually or through the Inter-Sector Coordination Group. In 2013 and 2014 the CHF funded capacity building projects through the coordination and common services (CCS) sector with the aim to enhance NNGOs capacity, and by extension their eligibility for CHF funding. NGOs were allotted two representatives on the CHF Advisory Group, which is the governing body for the Fund. Considering the low absorptive capacity of some NGOs and in order to avoid deterring them from applying for CHF funding, the minimum CHF allocation to a single project has been revised (on ad hoc basis) downwards from $200,000 to as low $60,000. In 2014, a third of all CHF projects being implemented by 28 NNGOs and 22 INGOs had budgets below $200,000. Substantial investment has been made in the CHF M&R capacity over the period , with more focus on monitoring NGOs projects and building their capacity to improve the quality of project implementation. 90. Some context-specific changes have also affected the distribution of CHF resources between partners in recent years. While a degree of pass-through has always existed between UN agencies and INGOs, the recent Sudanisation policy introduced by the Government of Sudan actually requires international organizations to partner with local authorities and NNGOs in delivering their humanitarian projects. The implementation of this policy implies that in addition to the 100 projects allocated to NGOs, the remaining 37 allocations for the UN agencies are also technically co-implemented by one or more NNGO(s) as required by the policy. In terms of funding, in 2014 $2.5 million from CHF allocations to UN agencies was passed through to other actors; of this, $1.3 million went to government institutions and at least $0.5 million to NNGOs. 91. This sub-granting to partners has, however, also increased the complexity of the allocation process and reduced the overall accountability of the Fund, as centralized oversight of the allocations is difficult. A finding from several of the M&R missions in 2013 and 2014 has been that some of the CHF recipients that are sub-granting funding to other implementing partners have incomplete M&R routines that prevent them from properly monitoring the funds they pass through and consequently to be fully accountable for the funding. At the same time, for the CHF it has proven difficult to gather all the relevant information in order to monitor some of the sub-granted projects, especially where the pass-through has been to government entities. 92. While financing NGOs remains the primary vehicle for delivering humanitarian aid in Sudan, there are risks associated especially in terms of working with NNGOs. The CHF experience in Sudan shows that where one single NNGO is allocated multiple sector projects, the quality of their implementation decreases as they become overstretched beyond their absorptive capacity. The high turnover in the senior staff of NGOs (both national and international) also poses another accountability risk. With the current access constraints, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to monitor some of the projects implemented by NGOs that operate in remote and securityconstrained areas, with the consequent insufficiency of quality control to such projects. 17

28 TIMELINESS OF THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE 93. The CBPFs are intended to finance more quickly and predictably than other funding mechanisms while doing so in alignment with the HWP/SRP priorities. This key characteristic of the CHF makes timeliness a fundamental criterion in evaluating the Fund s efficiency and effectiveness. And yet the ability of the CHF to be the fastest funding mechanism in-country is dependent upon internal as well as external factors. 94. Among the crucial internal factors are the mechanisms and processes for project allocation and disbursement. The CHF s main allocation modalities the standard allocations and the emergency reserve allocations fare very differently in this regard. 95. The CHF emergency reserve proved to be the fastest mechanism for funding humanitarian response in Sudan, with a timeframe ranging from just 24 hours (from submission of funding request, through consultation with Advisory Group, to HC s approval) in the case of UN agencies, to some eight working days. No other sectorwide funding mechanism is currently able to make funding decisions that quickly. The core pipelines and early allocations are typically done at the end of the previous year to ensure the early procurement and delivery of common goods. Nevertheless, there have been instances where implementing partners have noted that core pipeline distribution has been delayed despite early allocations of This section addresses: Evaluation Question 2: Where do CHFs fit within the humanitarian architecture in each country, and can any inferences be identified relating to the place of the CHF mechanism in the global humanitarian architecture? Evaluation Question 2.1: To what extent are CHFs linked with other donor funding mechanisms in-country and multi-donor funding mechanisms globally? Evaluation Question 5: How does the CHF affect the coherence of the humanitarian response? Evaluation Question 4: How does the CHF affect the timeliness of the humanitarian response? Evaluation Question 24: How timely, efficient and effective are allocation processes? Stakeholder views on timeliness, efficiency and effectiveness of allocation process? This section examines issues related to the timeliness, efficiency and effectiveness of the CHF allocation processes, as well as to the impact of the Sudan CHF on the timeliness of the humanitarian response in Sudan. While the CHF emergency reserve has proven to be a very quick allocation mechanism, the standard allocation has become increasingly cumbersome and slow. This is largely due to the gradual introduction of the new CBPFs guidelines in Sudan, and to the subsequent increase in the time required to incorporate the new steps in the CHF processes, while maintaining high quality project proposals by giving enough time to implementing partners to comply. CHF funding, but there has been no substantial evidence of a tangible negative impact on the implementation of projects. 96. The need for all projects supported by the standard allocations to be included in the HWP/SRP increases both the CHF s leverage on implementing partners participation in existing coordination structures, and the need for longer planning processes. In 2014 the Sudan CHF piloted the use of the CBPF Global Guidelines for its first standard allocation. The new Guidelines, coupled with increasing demands of quality assurance and accountability, has added further layers to the existing processes and considerably increased the workload of sectors, the CHF Technical Unit and humanitarian donors engaged in the review process. Thus, the standard allocation modality in Sudan has become too time-consuming, which constitutes the chief grievance of CHF implementing partners. Table 2: Evolution of the timeframe for CHF standard allocations OCHA CHF UNDP FMU Preparatory stage Consultations Sector level work CHF Allocation Strategy Early and Special allocations Submission of proposals PRG AG revisions / Sector Defences Detailed project proposals development Technical reviews Allocation letters HC approval PPA and contracting Disbursement to IP First standard allocation 2011 October 6 October 25 - November 15 November 15 - December 14 December 16 - January 13 N/A N/A N/A January 16 - January 27 February March 2 March 18 - April 18 April 24 First standard allocation 2012 October 12 October October 19 - November 1 October 26 - November 9 November December 1 - January 20 N/A November 20 - December 15 December 1 - January 20 February 8 April 8-24 From April 11 First standard allocation 2013 October 24 October 24 - November 7 November 7 - November 20 November 21 - December 13 December 13 - January 20 January January February 17 March April 8 - May 15 From May 8 First standard allocation 2014 August 20 - November 6 November 12 November November 20 - December 9 December 9 - January 5 December 11 - January 9 January January 26 - February 6 February February 24 - April 18 April 18 - May 14 April 18 - May 14 May 12 - June 8 June 8 Source: Based on information provided by OCHA Sudan HFRMS 97. An examination of the key milestones at the start of the standard allocation process shows increasing delay and considerably longer overall duration, notably in the final technical review and disbursement stages. This is 18

29 partly due to the new project proposal format, under the CBPF Global Guidelines, and also the simultaneous rollout of the Global Grants Management System (GMS) database. The general quality of proposals, presented for the first standard allocation round in 2014, was reportedly extremely poor, resulting in a longer than planned technical review process during which the CHF Technical Unit worked with partners to improve the project quality to the required level. As organizations become more familiar with the new allocation criteria and project standards, and acquire greater skill in the use of the GMS, time for this stage should be reduced. This will allow for the preparation of Project Partnership Agreements (PPAs) and subsequent disbursement of funds to take place earlier in the year, to be better aligned with the seasonal calendar, and to better comply with the life-saving nature of the bulk of CHF activities. 98. It is important to note that under both allocation modalities the UN agencies enjoy a much more streamlined process and experience considerably shorter waiting times for contracting and disbursements than NGOs. This is due to the different fund management processes applicable between the UN and NGO implementing partners under the UNDP MPTF framework, which only requires PPAs for NGOs. The UNDP Managing Agent operates under the Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) that was revised in 2014 and ensures that processes are as streamlined and responsive to implementing partners as possible. However, timeliness is also constrained by the need for CHF funding to arrive in the UNDP account prior to any PPA contracting and disbursement. This is often critical at the beginning of the year, when the CHF serves as the first source of funding or implementing partners do not have the capacity to pre-finance approved activities. 36 Not surprisingly, this is particularly challenging for NNGOs and the smaller INGOs. 99. In that respect, timely contributions from CHF donors play a critical role for the timeliness of the Fund s ability to make allocations. Coupled with the pressure to conduct core pipeline/special allocations, as well as the first standard allocation round as early as possible in the year, the unpredictability of donors funding levels and the delay in formalizing contributions to the CHF all contribute to the unwelcome stretching of the process. This was the case with the 2013 standard allocation when the lack of sufficient funding deposits at the time of completion of the allocation process led to a considerable delay in the signing of approval letters and consequent PPA signatures and/or disbursement of funds. Figure 12: Quarterly distribution of CHF donors contributions US$ million Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source: Sudan CHF Technical Unit contributions to the Fund in 2013 and 2014, although this trend did not continue in Unfortunately, in general, humanitarian donors have been progressively delaying their contributions to the Sudan CHF over the period covered by this evaluation. While in 2011 two-thirds of the annual funding was made available in the first quarter of the year, since 2012 the majority of funds are being paid in the second quarter, at the time when ideally contracting and disbursements should be taking place. DFID, the largest contributor to the Sudan CHF, is one of the few donors that have made an effort to provide early 101. Some CHFs contending with similar difficulties, like the South Sudan CHF, are not deterred by this situation and are conducting their first round of standard allocations even before the start of the year. Still, the lack of donor deposits in the MPTF account and the inability of UNDP to proceed with the disbursement of project funds ahead of the receipt of pledged funding has required prioritizing the payment to some organizations or critical projects over others as part of a readjustment of the standard payment procedures. COHERENCE AND QUALITY OF THE RESPONSE 102. The contributions of the Sudan CHF to the coherence and quality of the humanitarian response articulated around the HWP/SRP have been examined earlier in this report. The Fund has been a driver for the strategic advancement of the Sudan SRP and has sought increased alignment with other humanitarian pooled funding mechanisms such as the CERF. This section examines the CHF s coherence with non-humanitarian multi-donor funds and with bilateral funding in Sudan. 36 The fact that some organizations are wholly dependent on CHF funding and that there is sometimes an expectation that CHF funding will be received is an additional concern. 19