Haiti - Emergency Relief Response Fund: 2015 Annual Report

I.2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Advisory Board (AB) has approved a realistic 2015 annual strategy on 2 February 2015. The strategic approach focused its priorities on the most urgent humanitarian needs to respond to cholera outbreaks, disaster reduction and response and unforeseen emergencies.

The year 2015 received solely a Sweden’s contribution of US$ 0.5 million. However the ERRF had an important carry-over of US$ 3,2 million as UK Aid contribution of US$1.6 million was registered in October 2014.

According to the allocation strategy, the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) approved seventeen projects for US$3.5 million which represent six per cent of global fund received for humanitarian response in Haiti (US$53,0 million). Four sectors were particularly targeted: cholera response, disaster reduction and response and as unforeseen emergency health and protection.

In response to cholera epidemic and other diarrheic diseases, the Fund reinforced the response to outbreaks. Strong field presence was maintained and reinforced early in 2015 aimed to provide a comprehensive response capacities materialized by efficient operational mobile teams, reinforcement of institutional capacities and huge awareness campaign particularly in remote areas. As result, outbreaks remained under control even if government capacities were very weak. A total amount of US$ 2.2 million has been disbursed for ten projects in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Health. The main purpose was to cut the chain of transmission of cholera in high risk areas and, ipso facto, to reduce institutional and community morbidity and mortality. Projects funded reached around 888,857 people, including 451,249 women, 359,565 men and 78,043 children.

The fund also supported small mitigation activities in the most high-risk communes mainly to reinforce training of communities on alert systems, rehabilitation of river banks and ravines, creation of community intervention teams, cleaning of canals and rehabilitation of infrastructures included wash commodities that can be used as emergency shelters. Important awareness campaign was also conducted. The sector received US$ 0.8 million for four projects. Projects funded reached around 114,800 people, including 59,700 women, 39,800 men and 15,300 children.

A health and two protection projects were funded in the framework of unforeseen emergencies. Indeed a funding gap regarding vaccination against diphtheria was released and the Fund covered it. Furthermore, in June 2015, DR has deported irregular Haitian migrants. Response to this new humanitarian emergency needed to be quickly engaged.

In this regards, the HC agreed to support health activities through a project with US$ 0.1 million. The project vaccinated around 52,700 people. Two protection projects for US$ 0.2 million reached around 55,551 people.

The Fund supported Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), United Nations (UN) and International Organization for Migration (IOM). The main recipients of funds were NGOs. Globally, NGOs received US$ 2,4 million to implement eleven projects corresponding to seventy two per cent of funds among which National NGOs received US$ 0.5 million to implement three projects. UN Agencies and IOM received around US$ 1 million for six projects corresponding to twenty-eight per cent.

Globally, around 1,111,971 people, including 554,845 women, 454,069 men and 103,057 children were reached by the implemented activities which represent US$ 3.12 per capita.

The fund launched an AB meeting in February 2015 and the review process continued to be supported by sectoral leads as cluster were deactivated.

However it was noticed that feedback from review members was received with delay due to understaffing of sectors.

The risk continued to be managed through a risk management framework approved by the AB and audit process. Except NNGOs which need to be reinforced, it has been noticed that no major concerns were incurred by Implementing Partners (IP). NNGOs needed an institutional and technical capacity building but the level of funding didn’t allow these activities. Priority was given to response to urgent need.

The ERRF allowed UN Agencies, IOM and National and International NGOs to continue to implement response to the most urgent humanitarian needs in Haiti. It was used strategically to kick start response to cholera outbreaks and deportation needs while UN agencies were negotiating substantial funds from Central Emergency Relief Fund (CERF) and other donors.

Efforts to monitor projects were intensified in a political challenging context. Indeed, political demonstrations cancelled field missions as daily UN security section restricted movement in the field.
Audit of twenty-seven NGO’s projects implemented in 2014 and 2015 was undertaken and twenty of them have been audited. Fifteen are financially closed. Administrative processes delayed (since September 2015) audit of the seven remaining projects.

In conclusion, despite its instrumental role in the humanitarian architecture, the main challenge of the Fund remains the mobilization of resources. While it has been requested to keep it opened in 2016, in parallel, it is strongly recommended to undertake a resource mobilization campaign to reach traditional and new donors. It would be better that donors make a support spreading more than a year.