AFGHANISTAN HUMANITARIAN NEEDS OVERVIEW 2014 ANNEX A

Transcription

1 ANNEX A AFGHANISTAN HUMANITARIAN NEEDS OVERVIEW 2014 Emergency Shelter and NFI Cluster... 2 Food Security and Agriculture Cluster... 6 Health Custer Nutrition Cluster Protection Cluster Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Cluster Multi-Sector Excel spreadsheet with compilation of all cluster detailed needs analysis with indicators can be found at :

2 ANNEX A - ES/NFI Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 EMERGENCY SHELTER AND NFI CLUSTER HIGHLIGHTS 580,825 people will be in need of emergency shelter and NFI assistance across Afghanistan in Most provinces are highly vulnerable to new displacements due to a combination of impacts from natural disasters and insecurity due to internal conflicts. Disaster Risk Reduction measuress are needed to minimize the vulnerability of the provinces that are prone to natural disasters. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology To inform the Vulnerability Ranking Methodology, data was obtained only at the Provincial level due to restricted humanitarian space and displacement patterns. UNHCR, along with its partners, are not able to profile IDPs in all districts and therefore the availability of data is inconsistent across districts. Provincial level data provides an overview of displacement patterns, trends and general vulnerabilities. In addition, the displacement trends of the last three years show that the majority of conflict and natural disaster-induced IDPs are moving towards the main cities and provincial centres. The ranking itself was based on the following indicators, presented below with their corresponding datasets and sources. Total recorded natural disaster and conflict-induced IDPs (1 January Aug 2013). This indicator captures the displacement trends as a result of conflict and natural disasters, resulting in ranking of provinces which currently contain the highest number of recently displaced people. This ranking enables the cluster to project provinces with high and very high vulnerability and the likelihood of new displacements which will need immediate relief assistance (ES & NFIs) in Source: Natural disaster and conflict-induced IDPs displaced from 1 January 2011 until 31 August (UNHCR PMT and IOM HAP databases). Security Incidence from January 2011 to August 2013: The cluster considered security incidents, (including intimidation, armed clashes, air strikes and confrontation/disputes), as an indicator given that security incidends are the primary cause of displacement (refer to UNHCR Monthly Update chart below). Additionally, security incidents such as abduction and assassination were considered as a secondary cause of displacement (e.g. abductions of community elders by AGEs). The aim of this indicator is to identify the provinces prone to insecurity and vulnerabilities due to the above factors which may create new displacements. Source: Total security incidents recorded between January 2011 and 31 August (UNDSS). Cause of Displacement* *Source: UNHCR Monthly IDPs statistical update August

3 ANNEX A - ES/NFI Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Seasonal Natural Hazard Ranking: This indicator includes flooding, flash floods and extreme winter hazards. The ranking of these hazards enables the cluster to identify the provinces most prone to natural seasonal hazards which contribute to possible displacement of people who may need ES and NFIs in Source: Seasonal Natural Hazard Ranking OCHA seasonal hazards analysis/chap Total Number of People Affected by Natural Disasters - non IDPs (1 January Aug 2013): This indicator captures trends of populations affected (but not displaced) by natural disasters. This indicator helps to identify vulnerable provinces where local population will need ES and NFIs. Source: People Affected by Natural Disasters (non IDPs) IOM HAP database, 1 January August Total Houses Damaged and Destroyed ( Aug 2013): This indicator ranks the provinces where affected populations may need emergency shelter and/or permanent shelter. Source: Total houses damaged and destroyed as a result of natural disasters IOM HAP database, 1 January Aug Results of Cluster Analysis Based on the results of the cluster analysis, the provinces of Faryab and Hirat are ranked very high for vulnerability. These two provinces currently host the largest number of conflict-induced IDPs as well as having experienced a high number of security incidents. In addition, these two provinces also have a large number of populations affected by natural disasters. 16 provinces - Badakhshan, Badghis, Balkh, Ghazni, Ghor, Hilmand, Jawzjan, Kabul, Kandahar, Kunar, Saripul, Takhar, Uruzgan, Logar, Maydan Wardak and Nangarhar have a vulnerability ranking of high. The displacement trends over the last three years show that these provinces experienced a combination of high insecurity and natural disasters, which resulted in a higher number of displacements. Provincial capitals and large cities are the main areas hosting the biggest portion of displaced population. In contrast, Samangan is ranked very low in terms of vulnerability. Baghlan, Daykundi, Kapisa, Khost, Nimroz, Nuristan, Panjsher and Zabul provinces are ranked low. Khost, Nuristan and Zabul provinces are insecure due to continuous fighting and on-going violence. There is also limited access to basic services. In response, the affected communities prefer to flee to relatively secure provinces, (e.g. Nangarhar and Kabul). Conflict-induced IDPs for 2013 are not included in the data for Kandahar, Khost and Uruzgan provinces owing to access constraints in those areas. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of districts in lower ranked provinces which remain of concern. These include Khamard and Shibar (Bamyan province), Kiti, Miramor and Sang-e-Takht (Daykundi province), Lash-e-Juwayn (Farah province), Kohban and Tagab (Kapisa province), Jajimaydan and Sabari (Khost province), Emamsaheb (Kunduz province), Barg-e-Matal, Duab and Paruns (Nuristan province), Chamkani and Sayedkaram/Mirzaka (Paktya province), Dara/Ab Shar and Paryan (Panjsher province) and Khuram Wa Sarbagh (Samangan province) are all of concern as they remain vulnerable to natural disasters. Access to these districts is also limited. Similarly the districts of Balabuluk and Bakwa (Farah province), Tagab (Kapisa province), Kamdesh, Barg-e-Matal and Waygal (Nuristan province) are also of concern due to insecurity and limited humanitarian access. The people in need have been identified in accordance with the indicators set by the ES & NFI cluster. They have been discussed and agreed upon with the Protection cluster as well as ES & NFI cluster partners. The methodology is as follows: Indicator 1: Natural disasters and conflict-induced IDPs People in need: 50% of the total IDPs for the last three years were considered still vulnerable to natural disasters and conflicts, along with a projected increase of 20%. An additional 135,000 people are projected to be internally displaced due to conflicts in 2014, and therefore also considered as people in need. Threshold: The ES & NFI cluster considered the SOPs agreed upon between the Emergency Preparedness subgroup and the Government of Afghanistan that below 100 families (700 people) the provincial Government will respond to assist the IDPs. The ES & NFIs cluster can consider responding below the threshold of 700 affected families if the provincial Government does not have capacity for immediate assistance and approaches the cluster for assistance. 3

4 ANNEX A - ES/NFI Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Indicator 2: Natural disaster affected population People in need: The same methodology as used for Indicator 1 has been adopted for this indicator, but does not include the additional 135,000 projected conflict-induced IDPs for the year Threshold: The same threshold as used Indicator 1 has been considered for this indicator. Indicator 3: Houses Damaged & Destroyed People in need: The ES & NFI cluster considered that 50% of the number of damaged and destroyed houses for the past three years (2011 to 2013) and projected a 20% increase due to increased seasonal and natural hazards. The population affected is considered as 67,057 with an estimation of 6 people per family affected by damaged and destroyed houses. Threshold: ES & NFI cluster agreed to respond when at least 30 houses are damaged or destroyed. Here again the Provincial Government can approach the cluster if they do not have the capacity and resources to assist immediately. Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) For the ES & NFI cluster there is no major gap to respond to the needs. Currently the cluster has relatively good presence in the provinces ranked very high or high. Please see the table below: 4

5 ANNEX A - ES/NFI Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High Ranked Provinces/Districtss Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? Emergency assessment following a natural disaster or conflict that has affected or displaced populations. Newly conflict and natural disaster induced IDPs and affected population Country wide UNHCR and IOM in close coordination with cluster partners Following the displacement reported. Limited or lack of access. Insecurity Needs assessment Conflict induced IDPs Countrywide UNHCR in coordination with concerned partners i.e DoRR Jan 2014 Insecurity, accessibility, IP capacity Tracking and needs assessment of NDinduced IDPs ND-induced IDPs Countrywide IOM Ongoing (began Nov 2013) Possibly insecurity Post-distribution Evaluation ND-affected families who received assistance Countrywide IOM Jan 2014 Insecurity Mapping of needs and gap analysis Newly conflict and natural disaster induced IDPs and affected population Country wide National ES & NFIs cluster in close coordination with cluster members Date not yet confirmed. The process will start Jan 2014 Insecurity, accessibility, IP capacity 5

6 ANNEX A - ES/NFI Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

7 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 FOOD SECURITY AND AGRICULTURE CLUSTER HIGHLIGHTS 2.7 million people are in need of humanitarian food security-related assistance in Of which 2.2 million people will be very severely food insecure and about 500,000 people will need assistance to recover from transitory shocks (natural disasters, conflict/insecurity). Food insecurity has both geographic and seasonal variations in Afghanistan. It is most prevalent in the northern parts of the country and central highlands, and most acute in winter and spring lean seasons. 11 provinces, (Badghis, Daykundi, Badakhshan, Ghor, Balkh, Bamyan, Farah, Faryab, Logar, Sari-Pul, and Takhar), rank either very high and high in terms of humanitarian needs and vulnerability to shocks. The rural poor, women and children, IDPs, as well as destitute urban households are more at risk of hunger. Food insecurity in urban areas is emerging as a particular concern, as migration to cities increases in the face of displacement caused by conflict and natural disasters. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology Sources of data In 2013 FSAC has dedicated more resources than ever to capture evidence of the acute food insecurity situation in Afghanistan. During spring time FSAC members developed and refined a unique assessment tool. In summer time, 220 field enumerators and supervisors from 24 member agencies, (including 16 international NGOs and eight national NGOs), have received three-day training sessions in Jalalabad, Kandahar, Hirat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul. Data collection started shortly after Ramadan and was carried out until late September This Seasonal Food Security Assessment (SFSA) consisted of 8,500 household interviews, 850 community interviews and 134 discussions with traders. It provides data for all 34 provinces with the required level of confidence at provincial level. Results of the SFSA are able to capture both the seasonality impact and the acute food insecurity. FSAC has also considered NRVA 1 data to understand the long-term trends of food insecurity, as well as the WFP tool related to the exposure to natural disasters. The two sources of information inform the chronic element of the food insecurity. Lastly, FSAC utilised the caseload figures for natural disaster-affected populations (IOM, OCHA) and conflict-induced IDPs (UNHCR) in this humanitarian needs review. Methodology for cluster ranking On 13 October 2013, FSAC organized a national one-day workshop in Kabul to share the understanding of the food security situation, ensure a consensual analysis and increase the buy-in from its members. The audience consisted of 60 participants that recently received training on and/or exposure to food security concepts and the IPC framework. Participants included a fair share of regional representatives (24 participants from all six regions) and reflected the diversity of FSAC membership (six government officers present). The participants were given the chance to discuss the provincial ranking and identify specific concerns. The ranking is based upon the following indicators that reflect different aspects of the current food security situation and/or vulnerability to shocks: 1. Kilo-calorie intake deficiency [CSO/WFP, NRVA, 20,400 households, 34 provinces]. 2. Exposure to natural disasters, (floods, drought, landslides, land degradation), is a composite indicator reflecting the frequency of the hazard events, (and not severity), at provincial level [WFP, , 34 provinces]. 3. The Food Consumption Scores (FCS) is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency, and relative nutritional importance of different food groups [FSAC, 2013 SFSA, 8,500 households, 34 provinces]. 4. The Household Hunger Scale (HHS) measures household food access and is built around three questions representing varying degrees of food hunger experienced in a household by the number of times households have experienced hunger within the last 30 days [FSAC, 2013 SFSA, 8,500 households, 34 provinces]. 1 NRVA National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment 7

8 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview The Reduced Coping Strategy Index (CSI) is built around five questions that represent varying degrees of food coping strategies carried out by a household within the last seven days [FSAC, 2013 SFSA, 8,500 households, 34 provinces]. 6. The percentage of the provincial population affected from 2011 onwards by natural disasters [IOM & OCHA, caseloads, 34 provinces]. 7. The percentage of the provincial population consisting of conflict induced IDPs from 2011 onwards [UNHCR, caseloads, 34 provinces]. Five thresholds have been identified for each indicator so that they can easily be collated. Higher weightings were given to indicators informing the acute food insecurity. Results of Analysis The needs and vulnerability analysis is built from recent, reliable and nationwide data. A one-day workshop ensured analysis was shared and discussed adequately with FSAC members. Participants constituted a fair representation of regional representatives and of the diversity of food security stakeholders. Information was collected from all 34 provinces which ensured that the provincial ranking could be achieved with a high degree of confidence. FSAC members agreed with the proposed ranking with the exception of two provinces: Samangan and Nuristan, where they advocated for a higher food insecurity status. On one hand, FSAC secretariat recognizes that bias may exist, depending upon the quality of the data collection. On the other hand, participants who disagreed with the results of the two provinces could not back their statements with evidence. The issue will be further discussed during the IPC workshop due to take place in early November. As you can see from the table below, the province of Badghis is ranked Very High, in that our analysis identified it as experiencing very high levels of needs as well as vulnerability to shocks. A further 12 provinces were recorded as having High needs and vulnerability. Whilst these provinces will be the focus of the cluster, FSAC should still have the capacity to respond to shocks that may occur in provinces that ranked Medium, Low and Very Low. Needs & Vulnerability Very high (1) High (12) Medium (6) Low (9) Very low (6) Provinces Badghis Daykundi, Badakhshan, Ghor, Balkh, Bamyan, Farah, Faryab, Logar, Sari-Pul, Takhar, Hilmand, Jawzjan Kunar, Laghman, Panjsher, Zabul, Kunduz, Nimroz, Ghazni, Hirat, Kapisa, Khost, Nuristan, Paktika, Paktya, Samangan, Nangarhar Uruzgan, Parwan, Wardak, Kandahar, Kabul, Baghlan, 8

9 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Needs & vulnerability Scale Kcal intake deficiency (w: 1) Food Consumption Score (w:2) Household Hunger Scale (w:1) Coping Strategy index (w:1) Exposure to natural hazards (w:1) Vulnerability to natural disasters (w:1) Vulnerability to conflict (w: 0.5) Overall provincial ranking [5] Very High 60.1% - more Poor >30% * +20% +30% % +2% +23 [4] High 40.1% - 60% Poor 20-30% ** 20% -more 20-30% % % [3] Medium 20.1% - 40% Poor+bord > 20% *** 20% -more 15-19% % % [2] Low 10.1% - 20% Poor+Bord 15-20% **** 20% - more 5-15% % % [1] Very Low 0.1% - 10% Poor+Bord <15% ***** 80% - more 0 - <5% % % Province NRVA Badakhshan 5 2 Badghis 5 5 Baghlan 2 1 Balkh 3 3 Bamyan 4 4 Daykundi 3 4 Farah 1 3 Faryab 3 3 Ghazni 4 1 Ghor 2 3 Hilmand 1 3 Hirat 2 1 Jawzjan 3 3 Kabul 3 1 Kandahar 2 1 Kapisa SFSA 2013 SFSA 2013 SFSA WFP ND caseloads / Pop IDP caseloads / Pop Total score Level of needs & Vulnerability High Very High Very Low High High High High High Low High High Low High Very Low Very Low Low 9

10 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Khost 4 1 Kunar 2 3 Kunduz 3 2 Laghman 5 3 Logar 3 3 Maydan Wardak 1 1 Nangarhar 2 1 Nimroz 2 3 Nuristan 4 1 Paktika 2 1 Paktya 3 1 Panjsher 2 3 Parwan 3 1 Samangan 3 3 Sari Pul 4 3 Takhar 4 3 Uruzgan 4 1 Zabul Low Medium Medium Medium High Very Low Low Medium Low Low Low Medium Very Low Low High High Very Low Medium * (extreme hunger), ** (Extreme + very), *** (Extreme + very + moderate), **** (Extreme + very + moderate + little), ***** (No hunger at all) 10

11 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Accounting For Data Inaccuracies Under the conditions with which data is collected and forecasting, a measure of inaccuracy or uncertainty on every indicator is inevitable. The propagation of these errors in the different steps of the final ranking score could significantly impede the appropriateness of the ranking. One FSAC member agency has tested this hypothesis and introduced the following uncertainties (error bars) on the different indicators: Kcal intake deficiency, FFS, CSI: +/- 10% (flat, random): a standard assumption given the sample quality. Exposure to natural hazard: +/- 5 % (flat, random): solid study on 50+ years of data. Vulnerability to natural disasters and conflicts: +/- 30% (flat, random): there is a huge uncertainty on the population of certain province (up to 100 % in certain districts). HHS: no detail provided on the data used to calculate the indicator. An artificial random variation of 15% on the priority score itself was introduced. In total, 20 simulations on the final ranking scores were run. According to these simulations, 10 provinces have a ranking that vary from categories 4-5 (future CHF focus) and categories FSAC acknowledges the need to rank provinces according to their vulnerability and needs and prioritise interventions. Composite indicators are a useful tool if the limitations in terms of analysis are recognised. Indicators should support the ranking only and be complemented by other types of evidence based on local knowledge. As a result, the above table is only indicative and provinces that are not amongst the most vulnerable ones should also receive consideration. The following paragraph provides an understanding of particularly food insecure districts in provinces that do not rank High or Very High in terms of needs and vulnerability. Most food insecure districts in provinces that rank medium, low and very low Except for Nimroz province, the information is not based on concrete findings, but on the perceptions of the participants of the workshop. The following districts are believed to face needs and vulnerabilities that are not reflected by the overall ranking of the provinces : Kang, Chakhansur and Zaranj in Nimroz (Relief International assessment). Farsi, Chishti Sharif, Koshki-Kona,Shindand, Kohsan, Gulran in Hirat (in terms of insecurity and remotness). Ruyi Du Ab, Dara-i-Suf Bala, Dara-i-Suf Payeen in Samangan. Mandol, Parun, Duab in Nuristan. Dangam, Asmar, Nari in Kunar (high insecurity). Behsud 1, Behsud 2 in Wardak (part of central highlands). 11

12 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Calculation of the needs caseloads FSAC will be using three indicators for the 2014 estimated needs caseloads, covering the severe/acute food insecurity and the exposure to natural disasters as well as conflict and insecurity. Very severe food insecurity: 2,228,208 people Only very severely food insecure populations will be considered as a proxy of the acute food insecurity. A very severely food insecure person has a diet of less than 1,500 Kcal per day while all people with a diet of less 2,100 Kcal per day are considered as food insecure. Severely food insecure populations (1,500 to 1,800 Kcal/day/person) and moderate food insecure populations (1,800 to 2,100 Kcal) are not taken into consideration to ensure that only the most vulnerable part of the afghan population will receive prioritised assistance. While about eight million people are food insecure in Afghanistan, an estimated number of 2,228,208 people are facing very severe food insecurity. Please find below the breakdown per province. Province Very severely food insecure (<1,500 Kcal/p/d) Total food insecure (< 2,100 Kcal/p/d) Population % Population % KABUL 250, ,197, KAPISA 2, , PARWAN 31, , WARDAK 2, , LOGAR 12, , NANGARHAR 37, , LAGHMAN 90, , PANJSHER 5, , BAGHLAN 16, , BAMYAN 43, , GHAZNI 361, , PAKTIKA 18, , PAKTYA 21, , KUNARHA 1, , NOORISTAN 26, , BADAKHSHAN 358, , TAKHAR 214, , KUNDUZ 94, , SAMANGAN 62, , BALKH 59, , SAR-E-PUL 54, , GHOR 11, , DAYKUNDI 9, , UROZGAN 58, , ZABUL 39, , KANDAHAR 29, , JAWZJAN 21, , FARYAB 23, , BADGHIS 127, , HERAT 52, , FARAH 4, , NIMROZ Total 7, , ,152, ,644,

13 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 NRVA 2007/08 Helmand 2, , Khost 72, , Exposure to disasters: 488,768 people FSAC also considers in need of humanitarian assistance the populations that have recently been affected and/or will be affected by transitory shocks in 2014, so as to ensure they can recover from, and avoid falling into, chronic food insecurity. Households affected by either natural disasters and/or displaced by conflicts/insecurity will receive the most relevant assistance in food and/or livelihood recovery. FSAC is aligning its estimated needs caseloads (and thresholds) with the ES/NFI cluster for consistency. About 331,274 IDPs and 157,494 natural-disaster affected populations are considered as in need of assistance. **Humanitarian Threshold *(People in Need) 331, ,494 Province Conflict & Natural Disaster IDPs (2011 to 2013) Natural Disaster Affected (2011 to 2013) Badakhshan 4,385 6,228 Badghis 19,756 8,039 Baghlan 62 2,305 Balkh 43,544 33,229 Bamyan 42 13,975 Daykundi 20 14,449 Farah 6,302 4,053 Faryab 19,717 12,027 Ghazni 13,752 2,973 Ghor 21,834 13,774 Hilmand 44,463 15,491 Hirat 63,088 11,577 Jawzjan 5,162 5,780 Kabul ,554 Kandahar 5,191 11,756 Kapisa Khost Kunar 8,773 3,218 Kunduz 867 3,345 Laghman 445 1,435 Logar ,937 Wardak ,990 Nangarhar 12,177 7,045 Nimroz Nuristan Paktika ,904 Paktya 1,903 4,660 Panjsher Parwan ,609 Samangan

14 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Sari Pul 4,683 14,202 Takhar 2,899 6,150 Uruzgan ,200 Zabul 0 6,601 Groups that are facing higher food insecurity and/or higher vulnerability to shocks The Seasonal Food Security Assessment provides solid evidences that a few population groups are more food insecure and vulnerable to shocks than others. The issue has been discussed during the workshop and perceptions from participants were collected. Please find below the main results: Gender of the head of households: Households headed by a female are more food insecure (+3.5%) and borderline (+4.8%) than households headed by a male. Maritas status of the head of households: Households with a widowed head are less food secure (-9.1%) than households with a married head. Ability of the head of households: Households headed by a disabled person whom is unable to work are less food secure (-9.2%) than households with a head with no disability. Shelter type of the households: Households living in a house with hard walls are more food secure (+5.3%) than households living under a tent. Internally displaced households are slightly more food insecure (+1.7%) than permanent residents. Participants of the workshop also raised issues with regard to intra-household food insecurity, noting particularly the risk of malnutrition of children of five years of age and people with disabilities, and the marginalisation of aged persons and persons with disabilities. These groups are therefore believed to be more at risk. Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) Please find below the presence of FSAC partners across the provinces of Afghanistan. The province of Logar may not have enough food security actors to provide a response that matches the needs since no NGOs are reported to have activities in this province. Needs and Vulnerability Provinces Partners that reported CHAP aligned activities in 2013 Other FSAC partners active in the provinces Very high Rank 5 Badghis (8) NEI, FAO, WFP NPO/RRAA, CoAR, AREA, World Vision, DAIL Daykundi (8) NEI, Caritas, ACF, WFP CoAR, DAIL, NCA, Oxfam, Badakhshan (20) MRRD, Concern, FAO, WFP, Oxfam, NEI, AfghanAid, Mission East, NCA, Focus, Acted, CoAR, CARD-F, GIZ, AREA, HIA-Hungary, BVWO, PRB, DAIL, DACAAR, High Rank 4 Ghor (12) Balkh (24) Islamic Relief, FAO, WFP, ACF NRC, NEI, MRRD, WFP CoAR, CRS, Afghanaid, MADERA, World Vision, CHA, ADRA, DAIL HIA Hungary, FAO, NPO/RRAA, WHH, PIN, COAR, Care, HiH, CHA, DACAAR, JDA, SORA, Save the Children, SFL, IR, ACTED, OHW, DAIL, Action Aid, SHA Bamyan (10) Helvetas, MRRD, WFP, FAO, SI, Islamic Relief DAIL, CRS, MEDAIR, Save the Children Faryab (18) MRRD, WFP, NRC, CHA, FAO, NEI, NCA ACTED, Save the Children, NPO/RRAA, HIA- Hungary, CoAR, ASAARO, WHH, DAIL, JDA, DACAAR, Tearfund 14

15 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Farah (5) DACAAR, WFP, MRRD CRS, DAIL Sari-Pul (14) Takhar (8) MRRD, FAO, NEI, NRC MRRD, NEI, Shelter for Life, FAO, Mission East, WFP Shelter For Life, ZOA, IR,Save the Children, NPO/RRAA, HIA-Hungary, WFP, DAIL, SOFAR, JDA, AREA, DAIL Logar (4) FAO, WFP, MRRD DAIL Hilmand MRRD, WFP, IR DAIL, ROP, OWH, HAPA Jawzjan FAO, DAIL, CARE, Tearfund, NEI, MRRD, NRC, WFP, ZOA WHH Kunar HAPA, FAO, FGA, Helvetas, MADERA, NEI, NPO/RRAA, SHPOUL, WFP, ROP DAIL, Relief International, Medium Rank 3 Laghman DACAAR, FAO, MADERA, NEI, ROP, WFP DAIL Panjsher NEI, IR WFP, DAIL, Zabul MRRD, IR, WFP DAIL, OHW, HAPA Nimroz MRRD, IR, WFP DAIL, ANCC, HAPA Kunduz MRRD, NEI, NRC, SFL, WFP DAIL, FAO, ACTED, AREA, FOCUS, SDRO, Ghazni - Hirat AHDAA, CHA, CRSDA, CVG, DACAAR, FAO, MRRD, NEI, NRC, RAADA, WFP DAIL, INTERSOS, RWDOA Kapisa FAO, NEI, MRRD, WFP DAIL Khost FAO, WFP DAIL, AREA, WADAN Low Rank 2 Nuristan MADERA, SHPOUL, WFP DAIL, FAO Paktika WFP DAIL, Paktya WFP, PIN DAIL, ASR Samangan ACF, NEI, MRRD, Helvetas, SI, WFP, MEDAIR DAIL, FAO, JDA, PIN, SCA, Afghanaid, WHH Nangarhar HAPA, FAO, CHA, Helvetas, IR, MADERA, NEI, NRC, NPO/RRAA, ROP, SHPOUL, WFP DAIL, WHH Very Low Rank 1 Uruzgan MRRD, IR, WFP Parwan NEI, IR, MRRD, FAO, WFP DAIL, DAIL, ANCC, Save the Children, ZOA, ROP, HAPA 15

16 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Wardak NEI, MRRD, WFP, MADERA, MEDAIR DAIL Kandahar FAO, Tearfund, NEI, IR, WFP DAIL, ADA, CHA, HAPA, ROP, VARA, Kabul Baghlan ACTED, IR, NEI, PIPA/AWRC, SI, WFP FAO, NEI, MRRD, Helvetas, Mission East DAIL, Oxfam, WHH FOCUS, ACTED Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts WFP and FAO have the capacity to intervene in any province, depending upon the presence of implementing partners. In 2013, FAO and WFP have been working with the following partners, (whom are also to be considered as FSAC partners): FAO : SOFAR, AFS, NPO/RRAA, UNHCR, MADERA, ADA, Islamic Relief, ASAARO, CHA, CoAR, AREA, GVC, ACTED, PRB, Afghanaid and ME ; WFP: ADRA, CRSDO, DRRD, DOWM, NAC, ASCHIANA, IOM, MEHR, UNCHR, SDOP, DDA, DAIL, AAID, ABM, ASDSO, AREA, IOM, MCA, MDAO, NVDA, URB, APA, CDC, SWOD, MAL, NVDA, NPO- RRAA, HIA, CHA, Tearfund, ZOA, ADWRO, AAG, ALO, HAPA, ANCC, KWDO, DOWA. However, the presence of partners at provincial level does not guarantee they are able, or willing, to reach any area within the province. Highly insecure districts in Badghis, Ghor, Saripul, Faryab and Badakhshan will face a shortage of partners on food security. The district-level 3Ws can inform about coverage gaps in provinces with high humanitarian needs. The government authorities, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, are facing the same challenges and cannot access too insecure areas. It is hoped that provincial authorities, (ANDMA, MAIL, other stakeholders from PDMC), will mobilize their resources in wheat grains (provincial strategic grain reserves), to respond to needs according to the guidelines developed by the Emergency Preparedness Sub-Working Group. Although the above-mentioned provinces should be targeted as a priority, FSAC should still be able to intervene in other provinces that would be affected by severe shocks, such as floods, landslides and drought. whenever the capacity of the government authorities is too low to ensure an effective and timely response. Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 In 2014, the FSAC is planning to contribute and/or conduct two food security assessments, namely a pre-harvest assessment in April as well as a seasonal assessment in July. It is hoped that MAIL will be able to resume its agriculture prospect assessments and release a first report by late June. Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? Pre-harvest Communities, Actors 34 provinces WFP, FAO, FEWSNET April / May Elections Agriculture Prospect Communities 34 provinces MAIL June/July Funding Seasonal Assessment Households 34 provinces FSAC partners July Funding Muti-Sectoral Assessment (Food Security, Nutrition, WASH) Households Daykundi ACF April/May Elections, Funding Vulnerability Mapping Households Kabul ACF March None 16

17 ANNEX A - FSAC Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

18 ANNEX A - Health Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 HEALTH CUSTER HIGHLIGHTS Conflict and insecurity continue to have the greatest impact on population health status. Districts and provinces reporting increased security incidents, civilian casualties and displacement, rank highest in terms of needs and vulnerability. The disruption of health services with closure of clinics and hospitals (more than 770 over the past two and a half years), and suspension of outreach/mobile health services has severely compromised access to essential curative and preventive care. Coverage of essential vaccinations is dangerously low and disease outbreaks result in high case fatality. The country is experiencing increased morbidity and mortality, particularly among most vulnerable groups, children and pregnant and lactating women witnessed a significant increase in reported weapon wounded patients, resulting both from the on-going conflict between pro-government forces and armed opposition groups but also as a result of increasing lawlessness. As the ISAF presence in the country scales down, Afghan civilian service providers are taking on the brunt of transport and treatment of casualties, habitually in insecure environments. In responding to specific weapon related trauma and management of mass casualty scenarios, the health system is notably unprepared. Sudden onset natural disasters compound pre-existing vulnerabilities with considerable impact in communities not reached by BPHS services. Response to natural disasters has improved over the past years through better cooperation and inter-sector coordination. However, the perpetual reliance on humanitarian support for provision of medicines, supplies, temporary services, and reactive campaigns remains unchanged. Disease outbreaks constitute one of the most serious health impacts of disasters. In these scenarios, timeliness of adequate response is the cornerstone for prevention of significant mortality and morbidity. Impact of the successful 2012 national measles vaccination campaign has been evident through 2013 and the benefits will continue to be seen into 2014 even if routine vaccination coverage remains poor. Potential for large scale outbreaks of other vaccine preventable diseases however remains high, particularly among populations affected by drought, floods, harsh winter, or displacement. Maintaining an effective early warning mechanism and adequate emergency response capacity to manage disease outbreaks remains vital in the Afghanistan context. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology Health cluster members are confident that the vulnerability ranking exercise conducted at district level enables an accurate, contextualised analysis of the many complex factors that might impact on community health status. This analysis provides a basis from which identified needs can be prioritised for humanitarian assistance. Significant variations in the health situation often exist between districts and sub-districts within one province. Multiple criteria that reflect not only population vulnerability, but also health impact and local capacity of the health system have been used to identify areas with higher likelihood for humanitarian need, including; Number of outbreaks reported and investigated from 2009 to date by each district (DEWS data). Frequent occurrence of outbreaks in the same community may reflect reduced immunity in the population implying a breakdown of routine preventive health care services, and suggest evidence of poor nutrition, and/or a deterioration of the living environment (common during population movements, due inadequate access to safe water and sanitation, and progression of unhealthy practices). Due to potential bias that may be introduced where capacity issues lead to under-reporting of outbreak events, incidence data is interpreted in parallel with complimentary information from local health services and in consideration of local knowledge and experience held by cluster partners. Vaccination coverage (HMIS data): provides information on the percentage of children who have received vaccines and those that remain vulnerable to disease. The coverage levels provide a good indicator of health system performance, as well as population access to these services. Access to health services is defined by the MoPH as having access to a functioning health facility within two hours walking distance. The main contributors impeding access to health care are impaired movement of health staff and community members due to conflict and insecurity, interruption of funding, difficult terrain, extreme weather conditions, and isolation of rural and scattered communities. A mapping of functioning, non-functioning and mobile health services was undertaken and complimented with data from HMIS, information from partners and data collected during campaigns (polio & measles). Information gathered against these key indicators at district level, along with analysis of events of previous years and established trends informed the overall vulnerability mapping. 18

19 ANNEX A - Health Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Each district received a score between 1 and 5 for each of the three health indicators reflecting the level of vulnerability, (1 indicative of low vulnerability and 5 very high). The average score of the district against the three indicators was determined with the result enabling a ranking of districts according to their needs and vulnerability. In addition to this quantitative approach, additional considerations were factored in for some districts where access is known to be particularly difficult and populations are very underserved by health facilities. Taking account of these additional qualitative factors is important in analysis of the indicators. For instance, additional analysis is required where districts have reported extremely low or zero vaccination coverage but have also indicated no disease outbreaks. Cluster members with knowledge of these districts attribute such results to capacity constraints in disease outbreak reporting and/or inability to access these areas which are notably those most affected by conflict. Nine districts have accordingly been scored with higher vulnerability taking into account these considerations. The process undertaken by the health cluster enabled the identification of the very high and high risk districts and the size of population in each, most in need of immediate humanitarian assistance. To provide a general overview of how this need is distributed on a national level, a rudimentary provincial ranking was determined through calculation of the overall ranking of the provinces according to an average of their district scores, weighted by population. This average was then reclassified to achieve a relative ranking from 1-5, comparable to the methods adopted by the other clusters. The summation of district level data to provide a picture of overall provincial ranking has in some cases concealed the stark variance in needs between districts. More than half of the 101 districts ranked as having very high and high health vulnerability are to be found in provinces that, taking into account complete population figures, are overall ranked as medium and low. Issues of access, localised conflict and mass movements of people away from insecure areas escalate vulnerabilities in very specific areas. The dynamic nature of this Afghan context requires responsive, flexible interventions capable of reaching communities caught up in, and fleeing conflict. Results of Analysis Needs & Vulnerability Scoring Disease Outbreaks Vaccination coverage Access to HC / coverage & security Provinces Very high (5) > 17 events < 60% High (4) events 60-74% Medium (3) 6-9 events 75-84% Low (2) 5-4 events 85-94% Very low (1) < 4 events 95% >40% of population has no/difficult access to HF 29-39% of population has no/difficult access to HF 20-29% of population has no/difficult access to HF 10-19% of population has no/difficult access to HF < 10% of population has no/difficult access to HF Helmand, Kandahar, Nooristan (3) Badghis, Nimroz, Bamyan, Daykundi, Paktya (5) Kapisa, Balkh, Badakhshan, Logar, Laghman, Zabul, Herat, Paktika, Panjsher, Kunarha, Urozgan, Wardak, Samangan, Farah, Parwan, Ghor (16) Baghlan, Kunduz, Kabul, Nangarhar, Ghazni, Jawzjan, Khost, Faryab, Sar-e-pul (9) Takhar (1) The provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Badhis, Paktika, Ghor and Nuristan were identified with very high vulnerability, and Nangarhar, Kunar, Maidan Wardak, Paktya, Uruzgan, Nimroz, Bamyan and Daikunki ranked highly vulnerable. The increased vulnerability to negative health impacts in these provinces can be attributed to the large proportion of the population impacted by insecurity and violent incidents, and the associated poor performance and coverage of the public health system. These factors can be further compounded by harsh terrain and extreme weather, and recurrent natural disasters. 19

20 ANNEX A - Health Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Afghanistan has experienced an almost 60% increase (as compared with 2012) in trauma caused by weapons. Incidence is concentrated in conflict affected, insecure areas where the health system is most constrained and infrastructure and equipment regularly destroyed or damaged in violent incidents. Generally, facilities lack intensive care services, blood banks, essential equipment and supplies as well as the staffing capacity and skill to triage and stabilise casualties hospitalised due to conflict. Insecure roads, the high cost of transportation and insufficient and ill-equipped ambulances impede referral to provincial hospitals. In 2012 a large proportion of this particular case-load has been addressed by specialised organisations, capable of providing treatment and facilitating evacuations from active conflict zones, including the ICRC and ISAF forces. The ongoing withdrawal of ISAF through 2014 and the downscale of ICRC operational presence will have significant impact on management of trauma casualties in Afghanistan. The security situation and the coverage and performance of health care systems are better in Balkh, Farah, Khost, Kabul, Kunduz, Jawzan, Ghazni, Takhar, Panjgsher, and Sari Pul provinces which were ranked 1 and 2. The local context in these provinces has allowed for the implementation of several developmental programmes contributing to the improvement of other determinants of health as reflected by very low occurrence of outbreaks, and 0 proper coverage by vaccination and health services In the provinces given a medium ranking, Badakhshan, Baghlan, Langhman, Logar, Faryab, Parwan, Samangan and Zabul there are also significant numbers of people in need of immediate humanitarian interventions on a district level. Almost half of the districts ranked as having very high and high vulnerability are to be found in provinces that, taking into account complete population figures, are overall ranked as medium and low. This highlights the need to analyse and respond to population vulnerabilities and health system capacities on a district level Weapon Wounded total 1st quarter of last 3 years Provinces rated 3 (medium needs/vulnerability) containing high and very highly ranked districts Provinces rated 2 (low needs/vulnerability) containing highly ranked districts Farah 3 Badakhshan 3 Faryab 2 Bakwa 5 Kohestan 4 Shirintagab 4 Khak-e-Safed 5 Raghestan 4 Khan-e-Char Bagh 4 Purchaman 5 Darwaz 4 Qorghan 4 Balabuluk 4 Koran wa Monjan 4 Ghazni 2 Balkh 3 Paktika 3 Dehyak 4 Shortepa 4 Gyan 5 Charkent 4 Ghor 3 Kunar 3 DoLayna 4 Dara-e-Pech 5 Taywarah 4 Hirat 3 Pasaband 4 Injil 5 Lal Wa Sarjangal 4 Adraskan 5 Tolak 4 Karukh 4 Farsi 4 According to geographic distribution, the vulnerability mapping and ranking of districts undertaken in 2013 largely reflects the patterns of need identified in the previous year. However, the deterioration of the security situation and relative stagnation of developmental gains has resulted in a significant increase in the total number of people in need of humanitarian support year on year, increasing from 3.1 to 5.4 million. 20

21 ANNEX A - Health Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) The public health system in Afghanistan predominantly functions through provision of BPHS by contracted national and international NGOs, determined by competitive bid. Selection is largely driven by cost with subsequent implications for achievable coverage and quality of service provision. Where MoPH undertake service provision directly, capacity is severely constrained by targeting of governmental employees and the subsequent reluctance of staff to work or travel to insecure regions. Access and coverage of independent health NGOs across the country is better. This is however variable dependent upon successful negotiation for local access as well as the financial and operational capacity to perform and achieve results through quality, culturally sensitive interventions that earn confidence from communities. Districts where insecurity is high and conflict is ongoing clearly present the greatest challenge for cluster members to respond. Health facilities, infrastructure and supply chains regularly suffer collateral damage. Occupation of health facilities by parties engaged in the conflict has lead to intimidation and harm of health staff and patients and resulted in closure of clinics for many months, sometimes years. Where possible, cluster members have adapted to the context, operating outreach and mobile services and increasingly working through locally hired staff and partner organisations or paying additional hardship allowances to deal with the difficulties in finding qualified staff willing to work is insecure/conflict zones. These adaptive approaches to intervention require significant additional financial and operational resources. In spite of sustained efforts and some successes, the challenge of ensuring access to qualified female staff remains very real in Afghanistan and the extremely low percentage of skilled female practitioners has severe, negative implications for reproductive health services. Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts Despite the challenges the health cluster members continue to provide a critical level of coverage across almost all districts of the country, where possible, establishing synergies between BPHS activities and humanitarian interventions. Even in provinces ranked 4/5 (high/very high risk) in terms of security incidents, the health cluster reports at least three implementing members in each. The success of improved access for emergency health teams in 2013 in Helmand is a good example, where even during active fighting the health facilities remained open and functioned 24/7 to deal with increased health needs. Health cluster implementing partners still face many challenges regarding physical access in Kandahar, Helmand, Badghis, Farah, Faryab, Khost, Kunar, Nuristan, Logar, Paktya, Paktika and Maidan Wardak where individual districts can become and remain inaccessible for long periods or the level of danger makes the risk of operating unacceptable. Therefore, leaving large population groups isolated without access to either basic or emergency health services. Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? Vaccination coverage survey Children up to 5years of age Nationwide MoPH, WHO and UNICEF Aug 2014 Planning due to inaccurate population data; monitoring security and harsh terrain 21

22 ANNEX A - Health Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

23 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 NUTRITION CLUSTER HIGHLIGHTS Country level vulnerability analysis is severely hampered by the absence of recent national level nutrition data. The last nutrition survey was conducted in More recent data is available however, this information is localised and gathered through small scale surveys only. These assessments, often undertaken to inform CMAM programme baselines, have been limited to district level data collection, inevitably producing varying estimates of malnutrition prevalence that cannot accurately inform a national vulnerability assessment. Absence of data to inform a current estimate of the prevalence of malnutrition in Afghanistan was compounded by discrepancies in the anthropometric data of the Afghanistan Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010/11 (MICS). The subsequent omission of anthropometry data critically undermined the quality and utility of the report. Having identified a need to strengthen the skills of government and NGO personnel in assessment, monitoring, evaluation, and data management technique, the Nutrition cluster has contextualised a number of standardized tools and provided significant training and technical support to ensure the National Nutrition Survey (NNS) recently undertaken across the country at provincial level will provide meaningful data. Absences in available current proxy data, such as IPC, WASH and other Food Security indicators further undermine effective vulnerability analysis. As the FSAC cluster work to complete their own vulnerability mapping processes the nutrition cluster will seek to incorporate this analysis of factors contributing to the underlying causes of malnutrition. The challenges posed by limited national nutrition data are further compounded by low capacity levels and sparse coverage of nutrition services. The implementation, monitoring, and supervision of needed interventions are impeded by human resource constraints. Insecurity and poor infrastructure impose further limitations on efficient implementation of programmes with nutrition services not available in some high priority provinces. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology Due to the lack of recent nutrition data, representative at national and provincial levels to support the vulnerability analysis, the cluster planned to use existing Health Management Information System (HMIS) national level routine data which includes nutrition in emergency indicators and non-anthropometric proxy data. Vulnerability would be based upon identification of SAM and MAM caseloads observed in each of the provinces, incidence of acute diarrhea data (both based on HMIS) and levels of food insecurity. However, owing to considerable limitations of the HMIS 2 use of this data for calculation of malnutrition incidence was not considered reliable enough. Geographical access and utilisation data were not available or accurate to adjust the HMIS caseload. Therefore many nutrition actors did not feel comfortable with using HMIS to define vulnerability The identification of nutrition vulnerability was therefore based upon a set of proxy indicators utilising complimentary information to assess the impact of other factors affecting the underlying causes of under nutrition. This process drew on key health indicators, assessment of food security data and analysis of vulnerability to shocks as well as the impact of ongoing conflict on access. These aggravating factors were weighted according to their influence level on nutritional status (weighting between 0.25 and 0.75 for those considered as having less impact, weighting from 1 to 1.75 for those considered as having a high impact) and the reliability of data available for each factors (a weight was given within the pre-define range). While this process has enabled a general picture of vulnerability across the provinces the cluster recognises the importance of anthropometric data to inform its prioritisation of resources and effectively target interventions. At the time of writing the results of the National Nutrition Survey were imminent. This data, once available will provide a much clearer picture of global acute malnutrition levels, the proportion of severe acute malnutrition as well as levels of micronutrient deficiencies. Incorporation of this information into the vulnerability ranking already developed will provide a very strong assessment of nutrition needs and vulnerabilities and will be critical in the development of the cluster s strategic response. Results of Analysis Based on the vulnerability mapping exercise, the four provinces of Badgis, Nanagahar, Uruzgan and Zabul were rated very high. Another 9 provinces (Badakhshan, Balkh, Ghore, JawzJan, Kunar, Laghman, Nuristan, Saripul and 2 For example data available was based at clinic level and biased as mostly unwell children attend clinics; methodology of collecting and reporting data may not be standardized at field level; necessary tools to collect such data may not be either available or not functioning properly and therefore estimates maybe used, and in many cases the most needy groups such as the poor and most disadvantaged are either too far from clinics or due to other barriers are unwilling to go to clinics), 23

24 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Takhar) were rated with high vulnerability. The remaining 21 provinces were assessed as having medium or low vulnerability. Difference is noted from last year s priority ranking as a different data set and methods were used. No food security data was available for Helmand and Khost, and therefore previous data from 2007 was used to complete the analysis for these provinces. No district level analysis was undertaken and therefore this ranking does not enable accurate identification of very highly vulnerable districts or pockets where levels of malnutrition may be found to be particularly high despite the province receiving an overall moderate or low ranking. In order to identify target caseloads the nutrition cluster has also made use of 16 small scale SMART nutrition surveys conducted by cluster members in 2011/2012. Provinces with similar characteristics were grouped together and an average of the GAM of the provinces surveyed was used as a basis for malnutrition estimates in provinces unsurveyed. Both SAM and MAM calculations were based on the 2011 and 2012 small scale surveys completed by vulnerability analysis as well as decision tools from the GNC. This process was advised by UNICEF HQ with consultation of the Centre for Disease Control. Using this approach, combining the ranking of vulnerability based on aggravating factors and estimates of GAM and SAM drawn from existing surveys, the nutrition cluster has identified 1.4 million people in need, more than 80% of which are children under 5 years old. As soon as the NNS data becomes available, the new information will be incorporated into the clusters vulnerability ranking and subsequently inform prioritization, planning and targeting. 24

25 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 CHAP Vulnerabililty Analysis Framework Nutrition Cluster Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Indicator 5 Vulnerability Scale W: 1 W: 1 W:.25 W: 1.5 W: 1.5 Version 3 As of 16 Oct 2013 [5] Very High 733 or More 13 or More 4.32% or More 3.14% or More [5] More 60% 21 or More Very High [4] High 590 to to % to 4.31% 1.92% to 3.13% [4] % 17 to 20 High [3] Medium 505 to to % to 2.02% 0.94% to 1.91% [3] % 15 to 16 Medium [2] Low 417 to to % to 0.91% 0.40% to 0.93% [2] % 12 to 14 Low [1] Very Low 232 to to % to 0.16% 0.01% to 0.39% [1] 10% or less 7 to 11 Very Low Provinces Acure Diarrhea Deases (HMIS, U5 caseloads per 1000, Apr 2012 to Jun 2013 ) Measles outbreaks (HC/DEWS, cumul/distr, 2012-Aug/2013) Vulnerability to Conflict (UNHCR conflict # of individuals as of Aug-2013 / Population) Vulnerability to natural disasters (IOM/OCHA 2012-Sep2013 ND affected individuals / Population) 25 Food insecurity (Kcal intake) (WFP/NRVA preliminary findings) Provincial Ranking Provinces a Value b Score c Value f Score p Value d Score e Value k Score o Score f Value z Score Overall Ranking Badghis % % Very High Nangarhar % % Very High Urozgan % % Very High Zabul % % Very High Badakhshan % % High Balkh % % High Ghor % % High Jawzjan % % High Kunar 1, % % High Laghman % % High Nuristan % % High Sar-e-Pul % % High Takhar % % High Bamyan % % Medium Logar % % Medium Paktya % % Medium Dykundi % % Low Faryab % % Low Helmand % % Low Hirat % % Low Kandahar % % Low Khost % % Low Kunduz % % Low Nimroz % % Low Paktika % % Low Samangan % % Low Baghlan % % Very Low Farah % % Very Low Ghazni % % Very Low Kabul % % Very Low Kapisa % % Very Low Maydan Wardak % % Very Low Panjsher % % Very Low Parwan % % Very Low Overall Scoring

26 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) The CHAP 2013 played an important role in expanding the coverage of community-based management of acute malnutrition, which is also used as an entry point for complimentary nutrition programmes. Although nutrition capacity in the country is still considered to be low, particularly areas where programmes are still initiating, three out of the four very high ranking provinces are implementing CMAM. The exception is Zabul. Major International NGOs such as Save the Children and Oxfam Novib have started working in the previously under-served Southern Region providing technical support to Local NGOs who are managing implementation of nutrition services. The approach of pairing International and National NGOs for capacity improvement and technical backstopping has proven to be effective and is highly recommended as a way of expanding coverage. While nutrition services should be incorporated to local delivery of BPHS, in general it is mistakenly seen as low priority and hampered by lack of government capacity in terms of required technical human resources. The 3W map shows district coverage and is largely based on delivery of CMAM activities (OTP, SFP and TFU). It also indicates other agencies implementing nutrition interventions critical to the prevention of under nutrition in a humanitarian context including IYCF and management of micronutrient deficiencies. In the map these programmes are colour coded based on the number of programmes per district - the more programmes the darker the colour. The map also shows dots representing CMAM components, for example one dot in a district means at least one component of CMAM is in place. It also shows the names of agencies and programs per province. Maintaining accurate information of programmes and actors is limited by cluster member inputs and reporting. Only CMAM programmes provide regular reporting to the cluster. A new reporting format has been developed that will hopefully overcome these challenges and enable the maintenance of an accurate database of activities and implementers. A challenge still to address is the communication with actors operating with no presence in Kabul to provide representation at the cluster. 26

27 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts Due to limited capacity and expertise there is inadequate coverage of nutrition services across Afghanistan. The situation is particularly bad in those provinces ranked with very high vulnerability as these provinces are also those affected by conflict and hard to reach. While the nutrition cluster members report at least one organisation operation in each province, Zabul and Badghis remain areas of concern. Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? SMART Surveys < 5 years old and Pregnant/Lactating mothers Disaster prone provinces Cluster Partners March-Nov Security, Funds 27

28 ANNEX A - Nutrition Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

29 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 PROTECTION CLUSTER HIGHLIGHTS UNHCR s Population Movement Tracking (PMT) data, which covers the period from 1994 to date, indicates a total of over 590,000 conflict-induced IDPs in Afghanistan today, with over 71,000 displaced in 2013 so far. It is highly likely that there are many more IDPs, as the PMT data is based on IDPs who have been assessed and recorded by IDP Taskforces only. In addition, IOM data indicates that since 2011 some 58,000 persons have been displaced due to natural disasters, with Balkh province having the highest level of natural disaster-induced displacement in the country. Of the total 590,000 conflict-induced IDPs in the UNHCR PMT database at August 2013, approximately 332,000 were displaced before 2011, while 43.78% (or approximately 258,000 IDPs) were displaced post Hilmand, Faryab, Hirat, Baghdis and Ghor rank highest in terms of level of static IDP population and of influx since While an ongoing verification exercise in relation to IDP caseloads recorded in the PMT database will be completed before year end, APC analysis indicates that the 258,000 IDPs displaced post-2011 remain in need of humanitarian interventions to safeguard their protection rights, particularly as in recent times, the humanitarian community has faced significant challenges in gaining access to displaced populations. The 58,000 post-2011 natural-disaster IDPs may also fall within this category, if they still have protection concerns related to their displacement. For the 332,000 pre-2011 caseload, while not totally discounting the need for humanitarian interventions, particularly relevant in the case of secondary or multiple displacements following the initial displacement, there is some evidence to suggest that many of these caseloads may have been able to adopt some form of survival strategies and/or coping mechanisms; consequently interventions targeting these caseloads may more appropriately focus on enhancing coping mechanisms and achieving sustainable durable solutions. The nature of the conflict in 2013, with the drawdown of International Miliary Forces (IMF) troops, has evolved. Insurgents and other armed groups are attempting to expand their territorial footprint by challenging progovernment territorial control, in particular in more remote, rural or inaccessible in provinces such as Kunar, Ghazni and Khost and in strategic provinces such as Nangarhar, by engaging in ambushes, ground engagements and localised clashes. With the security transition well underway and Afghan security forces increasingly assuming security responsibility, Afghan security forces no longer benefit from IMF support and in particular air assets, and are increasingly embroiled in ground engagements, with a consequent sharp increase in civilian casualties. Other tactics employed by armed opposition groups include targeted killings designed to undermine and weaken state authority, occupation of health and education infrastructure, intimidation and harassment which have led to increased levels of displacement and civilian casualties (particularly in Hilmand, Kunar, Nangarhar, Maydan Wardak, Ghazni and Kandahar). For civilian populations, this change in tactics and escalation in conflict activity, often conducted in contravention of applicable international humanitarian and human rights standards by both parties to the conflict, has engendered increased exposure to protection risks, in particular for more vulnerable sections of the community, such as women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Civilians in conflict areas also face repressive governance by armed opposition groups, restrictions on movement and consequent ability to use displacement as a survival strategy, fear of reprisal attacks and retaliatory intimidation by both parties to the conflict, deliberate denial of access to humanitarian assistance, and other violations. While displacement due to ground engagements is generally short-term, displacement due to intimidation, harassment, occupation or control of communities by insurgents, weakened government governance, is often longer term; and is characterized by a breakdown in community structures and safety nets, and a general perception of insecurity, raising a number of protection concerns, in relation to child protection, gender-based violence, housing land and property violations and exposure to mine/explosive Remnants of War (ERW) risks. Finally, shrinking humanitarian space and access in the face of the probability of more acute protection and humanitarian needs in 2014 poses significant challenges for protection actors, and remains a core concern for The overall protection ranking indicates that significant protection challenges remain for all displaced persons, in particular in Hilmand, Nangahar, Hirat, Kunar, Faryab, Ghazni, Maywdan Wardak and Kandahar, all of which are ranked very high for one or more of the chosen indicators. Other areas of concern from the protection perspective are Khost, Badghis, Paktika, and Ghor, which ranked high in the overall protection ranking. Non-adherence to international standards in the conduct of hostilities by all parties to the conflict is negatively impacting, and having a detrimental effect, on the protection of civilians. Displaced caseloads, and in particular newly displaced caseloads are beset by challenges such as inadequate access to basic services; disruption to family life, destruction of livelihoods and property leading to reliance on negative coping mechanisms. Children in particular are forced into child labour, denied access to education and health facilities, and exposed to protection risks such as child recruitment. In the first 6 months of 2013, a total of 768 SCR 1612 violations against children (killing & maiming, attacks against schools and health facilities, abduction, denial of humanitarian access, sexual violence and recruitment) have been recorded. According to UNAMA s 2013 mid year Protection of Civilians report, women killed and injured from ground engagements 29

30 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 increased by 64% in 2013 and ground engagements were the second leading tactic harming children (40% increase over 2012), after ERW casualty figures. In areas falling under insurgent control, women and children face particular violations related to enjoyment of basic human rights and freedoms, and face higher levels of protection risks and threats. The already parlous state of housing, land and property rights are exacerbated during, and as a result of, displacement: displaced populations face homelessness and landlessness, insecurity of tenure, distress sale of property, loss of title documentation, illegal occupation of property, inadequate housing and shelter, loss of and inability to re-establish livelihoods, and tension with host communities over land (including agricultural land), water and meagre infrastructural resources. For the mine action sector, although 75% of known minefields have been cleared, the 25% remaining still makes Afghanistan one of the most landmine- and ERW-impacted countries in the world. In spite of significant achievements, an average of 40 civilians were injured or killed per month in 2013 as compared to 30 per month in Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which are generally indiscriminate in their effect, remain the leading cause of civilian deaths in Population affected by mine contamination data indicates that city or urban districts in Ghazni, Wardak, Helmand, Kabul, Nuristan, Logar and Nangarhar are the most seriously impacted posing significant physical protection concerns as civilians are increasingly migrating to urban areas in search of security, livelihoods and services. Mine action data also indicates that IDP populations are living within 5 km of a hazard in Ghormach (Badghis), Qaysar (Faryab), Laskergah (Helmand), Guzara and Herat City (Herat), Maydanshahr (Wardak), Qalat (Zabul), Shibergan (Jawzjan) and Panjwayi (Kandahar), further exposing IDPs to danger in the place of displacement. It should be noted that the level of mine contamination affecting IDPs is ongoing in tandem with the ongoing IDP verification exercise being undertaken by UNHCR; thus further detail is expected. Finally, mine action data clearly indicates that more than 84% of child casualties caused by mines are boys and more than 83% of adult casualties are men; the most dangerous provinces in this respect are Nangarhar, Kandahar and Kunar. Increasing reliance by parties to the conflict on civilian medical infrastructure poses a significant threat to civilian use of such already-limited infrastructure, as do violations of international standards regarding the respect for medical facilities by all parties. 64 such incidents were registered over the last 18 months, the majority of which took place in the Eastern and Central provinces, and include arrest, detention and interrogation of medical workers and patients; abduction of medical personnel; cordoning and search of health facilities for suspected wounded combatants and assault/ threats and intimidation. Ambulances have either been directly attacked or caught in the crossfire occasionally resulting in the deaths and injuries of health personnel and patients. In Nangarhar and elsewhere health facilities are commonly occupied and used as bases for coordinating or conducting military operations. When such occupation occurs, it can cause disruption to the provision of health services, structural damage to the facilities and may transform such facilities into legitimate targets by the other parties to the conflict. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology The APC has a broad area of responsibility within the humanitarian response to the on-going crisis in Afghanistan. To represent the different protection issues throughout the country four separate indicators have been selected: conflict-induced displacement, security incidents (with an emphasis on the impact on civilians), civilian casualties, and level of mine contamination. These four indicators guide the vulnerability ranking in terms of providing a backdrop of the general protection environment and inform the identification of the most pressing protection needs. Due to lacuna in comprehensive datasets caused, inter alia, by access constraints and the broadness of protection issues it was decided not to rank the different provinces on the district level. Going into that amount of detail could give the impression that protection issues only exist within certain districts of a province; the province level analysis allows for emphasising the protection problems throughout the country without misdirecting attention. It should be noted that as of this moment there is insufficient (baseline) data available to focus on the topical issues within the broader protection agenda. Thus, no indicators are used to indicate problems that fall within the realm of GBV, Child Protection, and Housing, Land and Property (HLP). In order to reach a ranking for the conflict displacement indicator the APC has drawn on the UNHCR PMT database which contains data on IDPs who have been assessed by IDP Taskforces. This database allows for the delineation of the influx of IDPs into a certain province by year. Given the humanitarian focus of the CHAP 2014, it was decided to attempt to provide an indicative categorisation of the total IDP caseload, on the basis that newly displaced persons may be considered to have critical protection and humanitarian concerns, whereas conventional wisdom would tend to indicate that more protracted displaced caseloads may have developed some measure of coping strategies. Therefore, it was decided to accord significant importance to the past three year influx figures into a province (January 2011 end of August 2013). Two control indicators were used which adjust for gaps and peaks (due to data collection limitations) in the data and point towards more pressing protection concerns. IDPs who have been displaced for over three years obviously continue to suffer from protection violations and may 30

31 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 continue to have humanitarian needs, thus the final sub-indicator used is the total static number of IDPs within a province. For the security incidents indicator the immap and UNDSS datasets were used (January 2011 September 2013). The focus lies mostly on the impact of the conflict on civilians, including the effect that increased targeting of government officials and humanitarians can have on the civilian population s perception of security, and the effect that such perceptions may have on displacement patterns. However, the presence of armed confrontations and airstrikes also informs this ranking, thus taking military activities into account. The indicator of civilian casualties takes the overall number of civilian deaths and injuries due to conflict-related activities into account and points towards PoC concerns within the higher ranked provinces. Due to data limitations this indicator uses a range of one year only (September 2012 end of August 2013). The detailed MACCA mine action dataset was used to indicate the pressing physical protection concerns related to the presence of mine hazards. In order to develop a clear picture of the impact of mines on the population of a province the indicator takes into account the number of people living within 500 meters of the borders of a minefield or battlefield (as determined by Landscan data), the numbers of IDPs living within 5 km of a hazard (using UNHCR PMT data), as well as the size of the contaminations. The four indicators were discussed during a cluster meeting at which the thematic sub-cluster coordinators were present. Comments and suggestions offered during the meeting were incorporated to the extent possible and the final draft was sent out to the regional sub-cluster coordinators in the field for their input and assessment. Through this layered process of consultations the final draft ranking was determined. Results of Analysis Cluster ranking of Hilmand and Nangarhar as very high is borne out by by the increased conflict in these areas and by the significant protection challenges and the sharp deterioration in protective environments in particular in Nangarhar, as a result of increased insurgent activity; this, along with the shrinking humanitarian space, is a concern which has been raised by the Eastern Region Protection Cluster. Nangahar has very high levels of civilian casualties, security incidents, displacement, a large static IDP population and high levels of population affected by mine contamination. Hilmand ranks very high in terms of civilian casualties, high on security incidents, with particular emphasis on the number of armed clashes, has high levels of displacement and static IDP populations. Mine contamination affecting the population and IDPs is very high. Both Hilmand and Faryab (ranked) high recently been the theatre of high levels of armed conflict in 2013, and both provinces pose significant challenges in terms of access to distressed populations for the humanitarian community, who have suffered a serious downturn in the protection environment as a result of these factors. Hirat ranks high due to the fact that it is the province with the highest level of displacement into the province since 2011 (52% of its total IDP population), has registered a high level of security incidents (in particular assassinations, abductions of government officials and reported intimidation of local population), and because of the level of population and IDPs affected by mine contamination. Kunar ranks very high in terms of civilian casualties, security incidents, high levels of conflict-induced displacement (with a high static IDP population), and mine contamination, reflecting recent armed opposition group focus on the north east of the country. Maydan Wardak, which earlier in the year notoriously suffered from increased military activity, ranks high for the level of security incidents (in particular attacks impacting on civilians and civilian infrastructure), civilian casualties, the level of displacement since 2011, as well as very high levels of population and IDPs affected by mine contamination. Ghazni has recorded one of the highest scores in terms of number of armed clashes and armed attacks impacting on civilians and civilian infrastructure, while also ranking very high in relation to populations affected by mine contamination and displacement levels over the past 3 years. Badghis, Faryab, Farah, Hirat and Ghor have each recorded high levels of influx since 2011 and have high percentages of newly displaced populations, with concomitant increasing protection concerns. Baklh has a very high ranking in terms of percentage of newly displaced IDP population, and in terms of number of armed clashes. Paktika ranks high in terms of security incidents and civilian casualties, whilst Khost has a high civilian casualty rate, and very high security incidents, in particular IEDs and armed attacks. Kandarhar presents something of an anomaly whilst ranking very high in terms of civilian casualties and high in most of the security incident sub-indicators (IED explosions, airstrikes and armed clashes) there is no conflictdisplacement influx data for 2011 and 2013; the province does however have a very high static IDP population. 31

32 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Kandahar would probably have been given a ranking of very high if displacement data for 2011 and 2013 was available, however, the Cluster considers Kandahar as one of the more vulnerable provinces. Nimroz, Bamyan, Daykundi, Panjsher and Samangan have all been ranked very low due largely to the very low levels of recorded influx since 2011 (some instances where no data is available), due to access constraints and may therefore not present a wholly accurate representation of the displacement status; and to generally low levels of security incidents. However, Samangan is ranked high in terms of mine contamination. Badakhshan, despite having recently been the theatre of a sharp escalation in active conflict, is ranked low due to low levels of civilian casualties, recent influx and security incidents; however this is a province which we know presents serious protection concerns, in particular in relation to denial of access to humanitarian assistance in contravention of the requirement that humanitarian assistance should be provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality, and in relation to serious restrictions on freedom of movement and other protection violations. Kapisa, Nuristan, Sari Pul, Baghlan, Parwan and Zabul are also ranked low Zabul for lack of data on recent IDP influxes since 2011 (which raises access concerns), a low static IDP population, relatively low levels of security incidents (except armed clashes) and civilian casualties. Nuristan (ranks low in relation to limited information available due to access and limited partners), Kapisa, Sar-i-Pul rank low on all indicators, as do Baghlan and Parwan, which rank relatively low as well. In the CHAP 2013, the provinces which ranked very high for overall protection were Kandahar, Hilmand, and Nangarhar. For the CHAP 2014, the top most vulnerable provinces are Hilmand and Nangahar, with Hirat, Kunar, Faryab, Ghazni, Maydan Wardak and Kandahar running a very close second, reflecting the escalation of the conflict in the northwest and northeast regions (Faryab, Kunar, Nangarhar areas which appear to be of strategic importance to insurgents). Hirat is included in the top most vulnerable provinces due in large part to the recorded total of influx over the past 3 years (a factor that was not considered in the CHAP 2013 analysis). Arguably, Kandahar, which scores high or very high on most indicators (except for influx since 2011 for which there is little to no data), should also be included in the top most provinces. Kabul, ranked medium, despite major protection challenges for IDPs, presents an anomaly due largely to the lack of data on IDP influx since 2011, and on the difficulities of determining the location and size of the static IDP population, since people migrating to the capital do not necessarily report to any centralised locations to seek assistance or signify their arrival. Kabul does however rank very high in terms of the level of population affected by mine contamination. Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) The south generally presents a concerning picture in relation to the ability of cluster members to both gather credible and reliable protection and humanitarian data and to respond to the needs. For example, since the beginning of an ongoing pro-government military offensive in May to dislodge AGEs in the 5 northern districts of Helmand, it has proven extremely challenging to obtain reliable, verified data on the numbers of displaced persons and their protection and humanitarian needs. This phenomenon is due to both a lack of protection actors present in such areas, and as a result of serious access constraints. The same is true of many of the southern provinces. A further complication is the lack of protection information that is available in areas with fewer actors and difficult access. While IDP Task Forces are present in Central, Central Highlands, South, Southeastern, North, Northeastern, Eastern, Western regions, they are primarily involved in rapid assessment of needs, coordinating IDP humanitarian response and pursuing solutions for IDPs in accessible areas. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has wide field coverage and operational capacity in human rights and protection monitoring. Child Protection actors are spread very thinly on the ground in all regions although one actor in Paktika and Paktya has a significant operational presence in 19 districts in relation to care of under 18s outside school. UNICEF (in collaboration with UNAMA-Human Rights), through its offices in Mazar, Jalalabad, Kabul, Kandahar, Herat and Gardez is instrumental in monitoring the 6 grave violations against children in armed conflict. The three major UN protection agencies (UNAMA-Human Rights, UNICEF, UNHCR) and OCHA have presence and protection and human rights monitoring capacity and a degree of operational capacity in all regions of the country, but are generally restricted in terms of effective operational access due to security constraints. For HLP issues, the North, South, East, West and Central regions of the country are covered by larger UN or INGO cluster members; with limited capacity provided by government departments such as DAIL, DoWA, DoJ, DoRR, DuRRD, Cadastral Departments, Arazi and Municipal Authorities. The number of HLP actors remains limited and operational capacity in the Southeastern, Northeastern areas is lacking. Mine Action actors are present in all regions, and have significant access to village level through a network of community embedded staff, complemented by substantial Afghan Red Crescent Society presence. The Mine-Free Community Impact Survey which is currently ongoing serves as a very useful protection information gathering tool at village level. For GBV, the Central, Central Highlands, Eastern, Southern, Northern, Northeastern and Western regions are covered by a 32

33 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 network of UN agencies, national and international NGOs to varying degrees of coverage, with UNFPA present in Central, Central Highlands, Eastern, Northern and Western regions. The South Eastern region has no GBV actors. The Emergency Response Mechanism (ERM) is present in Badakhshan, Bamyan, Ghor, Kabul, Samangan, Bakhl, Paktya and is an important protection monitoring and information collection partner for the Protection Cluster. The ICRC, together with the Afghanistan Red Cross Society has presence and operational capacity in the entire country. The Cluster has developed a district-level sector-based 3W map rather than an activity-based map. This is designed to provide a broad brush overview of protection actors by sector (Housing, Land and Property, Child Protection in Emergencies, GBV and Mine Action) and by location. The Cluster will develop an activity-based 3W as a matter of urgency. Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts Hilmand, the top most ranked province is covered by an array of protection actors, ranging from UN agencies, INGOs and NNGOs covering issues such as protection and human rights monitoring, assessments, coordination and information sharing, mine clearance, mine/erw risk education, victim assistance for persons with disabilities, legal services and peacebuilding and dispute resolution. Access remains a problem. Faryab has protection actors engaged in information and legal assistance (including on HLP issues), demining, mine clearance and mine risk education, monitoring and reporting on children in armed conflict, protection monitoring, reporting and assessments, management of safe houses, legal awareness, women and youth capacity building. Kunar and Nangarhar have protection actors engaged in the full range of protection activities from child protection, GBV, HLP, protection and human rights monitoring, emergency response, and mine action. With respect to provinces ranked high Hirat, Maydan Wardak, Badghis, Ghazni, Farah, Ghor, Kandahar, Balkh, Paktika Pakitka is particularly well covered by the Afghan Red Crescent Society which undertakes s range of protection activities; Hirat is well covered from all protection aspects protection and human rights monitoring, child protection (training, livelihoods), HLP issues, emergency response for IDPs, training, psychosocial care, provision of shelter for women, mine action (education, demining), legal assistance, and victim assistance for persons with disabilities, with similar operational capacity within Ghor, Farah and Badghis. Maydan Wardak has a number of UN protection agencies, ICRC, AIHRC and INGOs present and operational, covering issues such as women s rights, human rights and protection monitoring, emergency response, detention monitoring, mine awareness, clearance and education. Kandahar has a similar coverage to Helmand, although again access remains a severe constraint. Ghor is farily well covered in some of the major protection sectors mine action, child protection, protection assessments, monitoring of human rights and protection violations, and emergency response. None of the provinces ranked low or very low have any concerns in relation to several partners. Laghman has a number of partners which limited access to a number of districts. Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 The Cluster considers the IDP verification and Kabul baseline/profiling assessments planned for 2014 as priority activities, along with the Child Protection, GBV and HLP assessments. Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed IDP caseload verification planned (except Kabul) Population Groups Targeted IDP caseloads Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District All regions (except Kabul) Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? UNHCR October/November/December Access, funding, capacity Kabul baseline/profiling IDP caseloads Kabul provnce TBC TBC Identification, funding, capacity CPiE/GBV baseline survey & rapid assessments HLP baseline survey IDP durable solution assessment IDPs IDPs, refugee returnees and other vulnerable populations All regions UNHABITAT TBC Insecurity, access, capacity IDPs Northern region UNHCR TBC Insecurity, access Documentation Survey IDPs Northern Region UNHCR TBC Access 33

34 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

35 ANNEX A - Protection Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

36 ANNEX A - WASH Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE CLUSTER HIGHLIGHTS The WASH cluster has ranked 11 provinces as having either a very high or high level of vulnerability and need. This is a reduction in priority provinces by nine compared to last year. Partner presence and capacity is significantly limited in the provinces with the highest need and vulnerability. Security and poor access remain key concerns, causing reduced access for WASH cluster partners to respond to the WASH humanitarian needs and opening up gaps n service coverage. Maintaining the quality of services is also affected, where insecurity inhibits partners for undertaking effective monitoring of interventions. There are a large number of districts that have a high need and vulnerability although they are located in the lower ranked provinces. This is particularly the case with regards to data on IDPs. Hirat province ranked low in the index, while it includes three districts, (Hirat city, Injil and Gozara districts), that rank very high in terms of IDP and returnee needs and vulnerability. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology The WASH cluster need analysis conducted in 2012 for the CHAP 2013 was based on regional and provincial data. The cluster analysis in 2013 (for CHAP 2014) was initially aimed at gathering district level information. However, all the available data still limits the cluster to provincial-level analysis. The only possibility for partial district-level information was sourced from IDP/returnees and natural disaster data. For the current analysis the information sources that were suggested by the cluster coordination unit was discussed in the cluster monthly meeting during which the partners formed a taskforce to work on the analysis. As proposed by the cluster partners, the available information sources were given weights as far as their importance, accuracy and reliability was concerned. Based on this, the key souces of information for the CHAP 2014, (decided by the cluster), are: (Afghan year ) water related diseases HMIS, WHO. Weight of 1.5, Constructed Water Sources from 1991 to 2013 RuWatSIP / UNICEF / WASH Cluster with families per water point, (based on agreed government norms and thresholds) Weight of 0.5. Natural Disaster data (IOM/OCHA). Weight of 1.0. IDP/returnees UNHCR data. Weight of 1.5. NRVA data on access to safe drinking water. Weight of 1.5. The available NRVA data on open defecation as mentioned above is regional and unrealistic to adapt it to provincial level. Other secondary sources of information, such as hand washing data from MICS , will be used for determining the caseloads. The cluster also used secondary data, including the SSDA WASH vulnerability study (dated 2012), and assessments conducted by the cluster partners, for comparing results. The water related diseases data from HMIS is common data that has been used by Health, Nutrition and WASH clusters. As mentioned above, the WASH cluster partners agreed on establishing a taskforce for conducting the analysis with membership including ACF, UNICEF, DACAAR, MRRD, OHW, SI, and WHH. A draft document was shared with all partners for comments. The cluster taskforce met on 16 September in DACAAR and on 18 September in MRRD and agreed the methodology and sources of information, as well as the thresholds used in determining the vulnerability. After the first draft was shared with the cluster partners, some partners requested another cluster meeting to explain the process and clarify some of the concerns they had on information sources. This meeting was held in late October and agreement was made on the final sources of the data and weights given to each data source. 36

37 ANNEX A - WASH Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 The cluster has been facing shortage of appropriate and reliable data on emergency WASH, particularly regarding sanitation. As a result, data on safe drinking water had a greater influence on the WASH vulnerability results. The sanitation data available was related to open defecation, (from the National Risk and Vulnerability Assesment NRVA, dated 2008), which was regional, not provincial. It is difficult and maybe misleading if we adapt it to provincial-level or district-level. In 2012 the NRVA regional data on open defecation was interpreted and adapted to provincial-level by the WASH cluster. The result was found not to be satisfactory as the regional percentage adapted to some of the provinces was either very low or high. An example was Badakhshan, where the regional percentage of 3.1 % was adapted while this province suffers much more than the average 20% of open defecation for the country (NRVA, 2008). Using the water point functionality assessment result which was conducted in 2012 in the north and based on the experience of key WASH NGOs in the sector, a non-functionality factor of 0.35 was applied to the indicator for families per water point. This factor could have largely influenced the ranking if this indicator was the only one for consideration. As mentioned above this indicator was not given high load by the partners and some of them had concerns on its reliability. Therefore, application of non-functionality did not have much influence on the overall ranking. Results of Analysis The 2013 cluster analysis identified Kunar in the East, Sari Pul in the North and Ghor in the West as having very high ranking vulnerability with regards to WASH. The same analysis also found eight provinces, (namely Baghlan, Badakhsahn, and Jawzjan in the north and north east, Daykundi in central highland, Nuristan in the east, and Urozgan, Hilmand, and Nimroz in the south), as high ranking WASH vulnerable provinces. The information sources that had high load on the ranking were with regards to IDPs, water-related diseases and NRVA access to water data. The situation is different if we consider safe drinking water and hygiene and sanitation promotion separately. The high and very high ranking provinces are subjected to drought, flash flood and displacement due to IDPs. This exercise identified eight provinces (Kabul, Parwan, Panjsher, Paktya, Takhar, Paktika, Khost and Kandahar) as very low, and six provinces (Kapisa, Bamyan, Ghazni, Samangan, Hirat and Farah) in the low rank. The other nine provinces are ranked medium. Again, the ranking will be different if we considered safe drinking water and sanitation and hygiene promotion separately. The key reason for very low and low WASH vulnerability rankings are due to low or no incidence of diseases, a low number of families per water point, a low number of conflict IDPs, a low number of natural disaster-affected populations and a high percentage of people with access to safe drinking water. Furthermore, there are a large number of districts that have a high need and vulnerability although they are located in the provinces with very low, low or medium ranking. This is particularly the case if we use proxy indicators like IDPs and natural disaster data. As an example, Hirat province ranked low in this exercise, while if we consider IDP/returnee data, there are three districts in the province, (Hirat city, Injil and Gozara districts), that rank very high. For details please see the WASH vulnerability analysis matrix. Looking into the availability of additional data, as compared to last year, there are changes observed from previous analysis. There are reduced priority provinces from the WASH cluster from 20 to only 11 provinces. Differences from last year also came about from dropping NRVA open defecation data, which was regionally based. In 2013 the cluster identified 17 high and three very high WASH vulnerable provinces. In the current analysis there three provinces ranked very high and eight provinces ranked high, distributed around the country. Generally there are gaps in proper and reliable information sources. Also the cluster and the Line Ministries had concerns on NRVA assessment in the definition of WASH facilities. This was brought to the attention of the Central Statistic Organization (CSO) during the year by MRRD and the WASH Cluster Coordinator. It was agreed with CSO that the definition of WASH facilities will be provided by the sector and has been taken into consideration in the coming survey that will be conducted by CSO for the NRVA. Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) Security remains a common challenge, creating gaps in service provision and causing reduced access for WASH cluster partners to respond to the WASH humanitarian needs. Quality of services are affected by insecurity as there are no opportunities for implementing partners to undertake effective monitoring of interventions. The lack of humanitarian actors focused specifically on WASH interventions in the country is another key challenge. Development and humanitarian WASH interventions are mixed within the mandates of the cluster partners and, except for a few actors, the rest work for both purposes depending on the availability of funding. This gap in capacity remains high, although in recent years capacity building initiatives, coupled with the availability of emergency funds, have directed partners towards humanitarian activities. Having qualified staff in emergency 37

38 ANNEX A - WASH Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 areas, despite the cluster capacity building and training interventions, remains another gap to be addressed in 2014 and beyond. Another challenge that remained unaddressed in previous years is the preference of partners to work in areas where security is good and access is very high. The number of partners in insecure or unstable areas ranges from zero to a maximum of one or two WASH partners. Donor condition to work in specific geographical location is also generally another push for interventions in specific areas. The government also faces security concerns and a lack of capacity, as well as shortages of qualified emergency WASH staff. They also lack contingency plans indicating their presence and capacity, particularly at district-level and below. Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts Cluser partner presence and access to very high ranking provinces is limited. According to the cluster 3Ws, (and excluding UNICEF and RRDs), there is no active partner in Sari pul, only one active partner in Ghor, and two active partners in Kunar. In the eight high ranking provinces the partners presence ranges from one in Baghlan, three in Badakhsahn, two in Jawzjan, two in Daykundi, one in Uruzgan, one in Hilmand and no partners at all in Nuristan or Nimroz. Fortunately RRDs are the only WASH partner present at provincial-level all over the country. Their programmes are mostly implemented through community development councils (CDCs), across the majority of provinces although most of these activities are developmental. UNICEF, USAID, the World Bank and Japan are their key donors. In addition to CDCs, the District Development Assembly (DDA) also works closely at district-level in the WASH planning and implementation. RRDs also play a major role in the emergency preparedness, response planning, implementation and coordination with the support of ANDMA and the cluster partners across the country. As mentioned above, there are eight very low and six low ranking provinces where NGO presence is comparably good. In these provinces, in addition to NGO partners, UNICEF and RRDs are also present for possible WASH interventions. Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? Rates and underlying causes of non-functionality of water points All types National MRRD/UNICEF/DACAAR May 2014 Access Access to safe drinking water All National NRVA-CSO Nov 2013 Formalization of the assessment Ghor 2 nd phase WASH assessment Drought affected 6 districts RRD/UNICEF Oct 2013 Delayed due to passing responsibility from UNICEF WR to CR WASH cluster partners individual assessments Natural disaster and conflict affected TBD MRRD/Partners 2014 TBD 38

39 ANNEX A - WASH Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview

40 ANNEX A - Multi Sector Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 MULTI-SECTOR HIGHLIGHTS 1. Regional capitals and large cities with relatively better security situations are the natural migration for returnees in order to source viable economic opportunities. Therefore the provincial rankings reflect these trends. 2. Popular entry points for undocumented Afghan migrant returnees and deportees need a mechanism to identify vulnerable families and individuals, including unaccompanied minors, unaccompanied women, physically or mentally handicapped or seriously injured people, and provide necessary support to ensure a safe return to their final destination. Otherwise these vulnerable populations will be at risk of death, displacement, sexual abuse, kidnap and other kinds of violation of human rights around the border areas. 3. Land tenure is a large factor to be taken into consideration for returnees and undocumented vulnerable migrants in regards to their basic humanitarian needs. Unfortunately no information is currently available to reflect land availability and costs, which may further assist in stream-lining humanitarian needs across the provinces. Vulnerability Ranking Methodology Three sources of data were used and assessed as indicators of the existence of acute needs for humanitarian support of Afghan returnees of each province across Afghanistan. These were: The number of beneficiaries of UNHCR s voluntary repatriation programme per first destination province for 32 months, from January 2011 to August 2013 (Weight 4), The number of beneficiaries of IOM s post-arrival assistance to vulnerable undocumented Afghan migrant returnees per first destination province (Weight 4). Per province of entry point (Weight 3) for 12 months, from September 2012 to August 2013), The data source for this information was the UNHCR VolRep database and the IOM record on vulnerable undocumented Afghan returnees from Iran and Pakistan The provincial ranking by vulnerability and need was based on the following indicators: Indicator #1 - The last 32-month trend of the voluntary repatriation of returning Afghan by first destination province. Indicator #2 - The last 12-month trend of the vulnerable undocumented Afghan returnees by first destination province. Indicator #3 - The last 12-month trend of the vulnerable undocumented Afghan returnees by province of entry point. Indicators #1 and #2 are given the same weighting, but #3 was weighed lower (3/4) as it is only applicable to undocumented Afghan migrant returnees, despite being a very important indicator of immediate humanitarian support. Results of Analysis The analysis showed very high vulnerability and need in the provinces of Hirat and Nanghahar. Hirat is the most popular entry point from Iran, (Islam Qala). Nanghahar is the most popular entry point from Pakistan, (Torkham). The capitals of Hirat, (Hirat City), and Nanghahar, (Jalalabad City), are the big cities close to the border. Probably many returnees are originally from there. Hirat City and Jalalabad City are relatively stable and have good livelihood opportunities. As a result they are popular destinations for the returnees who are originally from the same region (West or East). Provinces identified as having high need and vulnerability include: North Region Central Region Kunduz, Baghlan and Balkh are popular destinations from Iran, both through Islam Qala and Milak. They also see some returns from Pakistan. As the capital, Kabul is a popular destination from both Iran and Pakistan, where people go in search of livelihoods opportunities. 40

41 ANNEX A - Multi Sector Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Western Region Eastern Region South Region Nimroz is a very popular destination from Iran especially through its Milak Border Point, as well as from Pakistan through Spin Boldak. For many, their place of origin may be Kandahar or Hilmand however, due to the security situation, they often opt to return to Nimroz. Kunar and Laghman are popular destinations from Pakistan especially through the close Torkham Border Point. Presumably those returnees are originally from these provinces. Hilmand and Kandahar should be ranked as high, (though the result by three indicators are low and middle), as they receive returnees from Pakistan through various boarder stations where undocumented vulnerable individuals may go unrecorded due to monitoring restrictions in politically sensitive locations. Very low need/vulnerability provinces were recorded as Badghis, Pangsher, Nuristan, Paktika, Samangan, Uruzgan and Zabul. These are very unpopular destinations for returnees probably due to low accessibility from border points (on account of the distance and the security situation) and there are more attractive destinations nearby or on the way, such as Kabul. This analysis does not present any changes from last year and the priority focus remains the same, since there are no districts of concern in the medium, low or very low ranked provinces. Cluster Response Capacity (3W Map) Muhmand Dara District of Nanghahar, (with Torkham border), has been strained by continuous threat over possible mass return of about 400,000 undocumented Afghans from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in Pakistan. Increasing returns of undocumented families have been observed since April Since November 2012, IOM has established a transit centre in Torkham to screen, identify and assist Persons with Special Needs (PSNs) among deported undocumented Afghans (non-refugees). This setting has good capacity for the current caseload. However, the collective preparedness assessment among HRT members shows the weakness of the capacity to transport people from the transit centre to their final destinations in case of mass returns. In that case the flow of the assistance would be impacted upon and this would cause negative consequences, such as over-population in the centre that would require, amongst other assistance, emergency shelters. A similar collective capacity assessment is on-going among HRT in the West, considering the possible increase of undocumented Afghan migrants through Milak border in Zaranj of Nimroz Province and Islam Qala Border in Khosan District of Hirat Province. The initiation of a protection social network by the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD) is currently not operational. Therefore the humanitarian People with Specific Needs (PSN) network plans to further build the MoLSAMD capacity and relations in the communities to strive towards a more sustainable system for the most vulnerable of society. Further returnee monitoring through a national tracking and quantifiable approach allows for a better understanding of humanitarian needs in regards to safe return and reintegration. This information is used to provide further assistance on their return, for example shelter, NFIs, HLP assistance and basic health and sanitation. There is a need to continue to build capacity of the MoRR to take the leadership of the MoU for the collaboration of the other Ministries in charge of sectors that support reintegration of returnees, (as a part of the improvement of the quality of life of the whole population), along with appropriate recommendations in approaches, locations and activities based on good data management of returnees. This takes over the burden from NGOs and IOs to coordinate with both the Ministry in direct charge of their project activity, (such as MoLSAMD for vocational training or MRRD for community development), and MoRR and helps the government share all the information on activities for returnees and harmonize with the overall national development plans. Cluster Partner Access to Very High and High ranked provinces/districts On account of the unstable security situation, Hilmand is the only province ranked as high need/vulnerability in which no cluster partners are currently working. In contrast, there are relatively many cluster partners working in Pangsher and Samangan, which are provinces recorded as having very low need/vulnerability. 41

42 ANNEX A - Multi Sector Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview 2014 Cluster Assessment Planning for 2014 Assessments Planned or Needed Type of Assessment Planned/Needed Population Groups Targeted Geographic Area Region/ Province/ District Lead Agency & Partners Date Planned Constraints? Mapping of needs and gap analysis Refugee returnees (returned in last 3 years) Countrywide UNHCR in coordination with concerned partners i.e DoRR August-September 2014 Insecurity, accessibility, IP capacity Assessment of collective preparedness for the return of undocumented Afghans from Iran Humanitarian Actors Hirat and Nimroz IOM and UNHCR (Hirat) September- October 2014 Very limited information from Iran External review of the impact of completed return and reintegration activities ( ) Beneficiaries in the past projects (including all kinds of returnees and host communities) Hirat, Nimroz, Ghor, Kabul and Nanghahar IOM and a selected external reviewer (company or institute) November 2013 March 2014 Report is out June 2014 Insecurity, weather (winter), accessibility, external reviewer s capacity 42

43 ANNEX A - Multi Sector Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview