SUDAN Humanitarian Crises Analysis 2015 January 2015 Each year, Sida conducts a humanitarian allocation exercise in which a large part of its humanitarian budget is allocated to emergencies worldwide. This allocation takes place in the beginning of the year as to ensure predictability for humanitarian organisations and to allow for best possible operational planning. In an effort to truly adhere to the humanitarian principles Sida bases its allocation decisions on a number of objective indicators of which the most important are related to the number of affected people, vulnerability of affected people and level of funding in previous years. One of the indicators is also related to forgotten crises in order to ensure sufficient funding also to low profile crises. Besides this initial allocation, another part of the humanitarian budget is set aside as an emergency reserve for sudden onset emergencies and deteriorating humanitarian situations. This reserve allows Sida to quickly allocate funding to any humanitarian situation throughout the year, including additional funding to Sudan. 1. CRISIS OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction to the crisis, conflict and natural disasters Humanitarian needs in Sudan are mainly caused by the armed conflict in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile, with large-scale displacement and food insecurity but also natural hazards such as floods and droughts. The ongoing violence in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile has forced millions of people to abandon their homes and livelihoods, prevented access to basic services and increased vulnerability to malnutrition and disease. Entering its twelfth year, the conflict in Darfur is rooted in competition over land and resources. 2013 and 2014 saw an intensification of the fighting and, as a result, a deepening of the humanitarian crisis, with over 400,000 new displacements in Darfur in 2014. Increasingly, the conflict has taken on multiple dimensions; a range of armed groups and criminal gangs are operating in the region with more widespread and unpredictable violence, affecting mainly civilians. Kidnappings and carjackings have become common, with targeting of United Nations Agencies and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) seriously constraining humanitarian operations. The separation between South Sudan and Sudan in 2011 led to a number of unresolved issues such as border demarcation, citizenship, demobilisation and the status of certain regions. Further negotiations will be required to resolve the dispute over Abyei and the precise location of the border between the two states however the ongoing civil war in South Sudan has diverter the attention from the negotiations. Currently there is open warfare between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People s Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N) in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, including aerial bombardment and serious on- ground fighting, with severe humanitarian consequences and limited access for humanitarian actors. The lack of access and first-hand information is a challenge; it difficult to know the exact extent and severity of what is happening on the ground. Population growth, rapid urbanisation combined combined with climate change and poor natural resource management contribute to conflict and worsening of the humanitarian situation. However, there are also areas with high agricultural potential, especially in Kassala and Gedaref. Seasonal drought as well as flooding is common, particularly during the period from May to September when the highest amounts of rainfalls normally occur. This is also the period of the main hunger gap. The annual flooding affected over 270,000 people between July and September 2014. In other parts of the country, the problem is too little rainfall which damages the harvest leading to food insecurity. It is estimated that 5.2 million people are food insecure across Sudan. Malnutrition among children in Sudan is chronic, with constant emergency level rates of more than 10% Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) and more than 2 % of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM). Some localities in North Darfur and Red Sea State report GAM rates above 30 per cent. 1.2 Geographical areas and affected population In Sudan the most acute needs are found in the conflict areas of Darfur, South and West Kordofan and Blue Nile and Abyei. The new influx of refugees from South Sudan is concentrated to White Nile, though the South Sudanese population is spread across the country. Other parts of the country continue to be affected by food insecurity, disease outbreaks, malnutrition and spill-over effects of conflict. Overall, a total of 6.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance according to recent assessments at country level. Almost 4.4 million people are in need of humanitarian aid in the greater Darfur region, with 2.5 million internally displaced, 1.2 million food-insecure residents, 470,000 children under 5 acutely malnourished, and 150,000 returnees. Displaced people are mainly concentrated in 110 camps, of which eight are hosting more than 50,000 people. Eighty per cent of the households are female-headed households making them particularly vulnerable. Women, children and people with specific needs are most likely to face protection concerns. Due to the ongoing violence there are little incentives for displaced people to return to their original homes and livelihoods. For a large part of the population the 1
protracted conflict and the lack of basic services and livelihood opportunities has led to dependency of food relief, health, Non-Food-Items (NFIs), water and sanitation (WASH). One million people are in need of humanitarian aid in South and West Kordofan and Blue Nile state, with 540,000 people live in displacement (including 252,000 people displaced in areas known to be under the control of non-state armed actors). Apart from displacement of population the fighting has led to serious food insecurity with disrupted agricultural activities for three consequent years. 270,000 resident people are food insecure and another 130,000 children are acutely malnourished. 102,800 people are currently considered to be in need of humanitarian assistance in Abyei. This includes 20,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), 61,000 returnees, 15,000 vulnerable people from the Misseriya tribe and 6,800 people from Unity State. Access to Abyei is still severely restricted from Sudan and currently the main part of assistance is provided by humanitarian organisations based in South Sudan. Before the outbreak of violence in South Sudan in December 2013, there were already up to 350,000 individuals of South Sudanese origin still residing in Sudan at risk of statelessness. The new conflict in South Sudan has so far led to another 107,000 people seeking refuge in Sudan with a continuing influx after the rainy season. In the Eastern Sudan humanitarian needs are mainly related to the long-standing Ethiopian and Eritrean refugee crisis with a population that remain dependent on humanitarian support, and the chronically high food insecurity with alarmingly rates of malnutrition among children. 1.3 Risks and threats Sustained violence over the last two years has led to even more people seeking safety in camps, competing for limited services such as healthcare, water and sanitation. The conflict has disrupted preventive and curative health activities, access to healthcare and disease control programmes. This increases the risk of communicable disease among people living in camps due to overcrowding, inadequate sanitation and safe drinking water. There is a threat of the reemergence of polio, especially in SPLM-N controlled areas, where vaccinations against polio, measles and other preventable diseases have not been carried out since June 2011. While the overall level of HIV among displaced people is not known, prevalence of HIV has been detected as high as 1.2 percent among pregnant women in a North Darfur surveillance site. Displaced people are at a heightened risk of physical abuse, exploitation and gender based violence. Responsibility for civilian protection lies with the Government of Sudan (supported by the United Nations- African Union Mission in Darfur, UNAMID, in Darfur) but protection services are insufficient. A generic risk in all countries with humanitarian needs is the risk of corruption. With general challenges in all societal pillars including law, order, stability and justice - the area of checks and balances also becomes fragile. Sudan ranks on number 173 on Transparency Internationals Index for 2014. 2. IN COUNTRY HUMANITARIAN CAPACITIES 2.1 National and local capacities and constraints The Government agency in charge of humanitarian affairs is the Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC), represented at federal and state level. Centrally, HAC is a coordinating body under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and relies on line ministries and Sudanese NGOs to deliver humanitarian assistance, but in provinces the regional HACs are reporting to state authorities. A main challenge is restrictions of movement and access to conflict areas, both for International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) but also for local NGOs. Procedures such as travel permits and security controls can result in lengthy and expensive delays or, at worst, denials. The Government has launched a Sudanization Plan, with the aim of nationalizing all humanitarian interventions. As much as this is positive in terms of an increased number of national NGOs (NNGOs) delivering humanitarian aid, in circumstances of internal armed conflict, there is a risk of NNGOs not being able to respond in a principled manner. Today there are a handful of larger national NGOs with good capacity, but most Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and smaller NGOs have limited capacity though they are well anchored in the community. 2.2 International operational capacities and constraints The humanitarian response is managed in collaboration between UN OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) for the UN and the HAC on the part of the Government of Sudan. Overall coordination for humanitarian issues is done through the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) led by the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). Humanitarian response is coordinated through the Strategic Response Plan/Humanitarian Work Plan (SRP/HWP) and 11 sectors. At the time of publicing Sida s Humanitarian Crisis Analysis for Sudan the SRP/HWP had not yet been finalised. 2
The main UN agencies in the country are World Food Program (WFP), The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). Apart from the UN agencies, the largest humanitarian actors inside the Humanitarian Work Plan 2014 are International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Save the Children Sweden, World Vision, Oxfam, Norwegian Church Aid, Catholic Relief Services, Concern, Care, Plan and Tearfund. Other large humanitarian actors outside of the HWP are the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). The main coordination body for the approximately 80 internal NGOs in Sudan is the INGO forum. Humanitarian access is difficult (but not impossible) due to security, political and environmental constrains. Large parts of the country are directly affected by the conflict which leads to restriction of movement and access to population in need. Despite increasing humanitarian needs, the number of aid workers in Sudan has been steadily decreasing over the last years, partly due to the security and administrative constrains limiting operations but also to competing crises and decreased funding. Donor contributions per affected person in Sudan have reduced by half per affected person from 2012 to 2014. In South Kordofan and Blue Nile the UN and its partners still remain unable to undertake humanitarian assessments and deliver humanitarian assistance in areas controlled by the SPLM-N. During the rainy season in June to October physical access is also severely limited, with lack of infrastructure and a poor road network. 2.3 International assistance The United States (US) is by far the largest humanitarian donor in Sudan, mainly focusing on food aid. European Commission's Humanitarian aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO) is the second largest donor to Sudan with a regional strategy covering both Sudan and South Sudan. The US and ECHO do not support the Common Humantiarian Fund (CHF). Main donors (other than Sweden) are Japan, United Kingdom and Norway. There are also some non-oecd DAC donors in Sudan such as Turkey and Qatar. Except for United Kingdom s Department for International Development (DFID) and Norway, many donors have scaled down or halted development aid to Sudan over the last years. Humanitarian funding has also experienced a decrease as a result of challenging access and strained economies in donor countries. 3. SIDA S HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE PLAN 3.1. Sida s role Earlier response: Sida s earlier humanitarian response has focused on support to the CHF, the ICRC and the Sudan Red Cross (SRC), OCHA (coordination), Save the Children Sweden SCS (mainly education and protection), International Aid Services IAS (water and sanitation), Plan (child protection, education and camp coordination) and Unicef (child protection and wash). Nine Rapid Response Mechanism RRM applications were approved over the year, most of them secondments through MSB but RRMs were also channelled to SCS, SRC and Church of Sweden CoS, focusing on the escalating need in Darfur and the South Sudanese refugee response. In 2012 Sida supported the Transitional Solutions Initiative (TSI) in East Sudan jointly managed by UNHCR and UNDP. Results and lessons learnt: As the second largest donor to the CHF, Sweden has been an active member of the CHF Advisory Group, focusing on issues such as transparency and accountability, gender, capacity building and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). There is still much room for improvement of fund management, in particular related to the allocation process, transparency and prioritisation. The ICRCs operations were suspended for the larger part of 2014 due to problems related to renewal of the organisations work agreement. The agreement was finally signed in November. The TSI has not been successful in achieving its objectives and was shut down in 2014. 3.2. Response Priorities 2015 Humanitarian Focus: Sida s humanitarian assistance in Sudan should mainly focus on life-saving support within critical clusters such as protection, health, nutrition, WASH, shelter/nfis, food security and livelihoods FSL and education, as it is strongly linked to child protection. Geographical priorities will be in line with the priorities of the SRP, focusing on conflict affected areas but also other areas where needs might arise. Continued support to the CHF will allow Sweden to fund the most prioritized and urgent areas, contributing to timely prepositioning of supplies and to supporting NNGOs. With additional support to the ICRC, Swedish Mission Council (SMC), Plan, Save the Children Sweden (SCS) United Nations Humanitarian Air Services UNHAS, UNHCR and OCHA, Sida will ensure a principled humanitarian assistance through a multi-sectorial response focusing on protection, improvement of water and sanitary situation in IDP and refugee settlements, provision of education and child protection, improved logistics, refugee and IDP coordination as well as an improved humanitarian coordination. In addition, through supporting the Swedish Red Cross (SRC) Sweden will support a strengthened resilience to disasters at community level. The proposed support will focus on the most vulnerable groups, with women and girls being particularly vulnerable to Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV). Sida will continue to advocate for protection, prevention and response to SGBV. Sidas role in Sudan will be adjusted in 2015, with thirty per cent of the 3
position in Khartoum focusing on follow up of humanitarian support. Discussions are ongoing on how to best utilise this percentage. Links to development: The Swedish strategy for development cooperation in Sudan was finalized in December 2014. Synergies between development and humanitarian support can be found in particular within results area two, focusing on women s and children s rights. Last year, UNICEF was supported with 10 MSEK from the humanitarian frame. The funding is unearmarked, focusing mainly on child protection. As this support is relevant for the second results area within the development strategy it is recommended to continue funding UNICEF from the Sudan-country frame. 3.3. Partners The total amount for the Sudan-specific humanitarian assistance in 2014 was 123 MSEK, including several contributions throught Sida s Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM). The final proposed amount for humanitarian support to Sudan in 2015 is 93 MSEK. This year Sida has had to propose a decreased support for all partners applying for funding in Sudan, which will most likely have an impact on operations, particularly for smaller NGOs who are more dependent on secured funding early in the year. Additional support is expected to be channelled through the RRM but can at this stage not be included in the proposed allocation plan. Framework agreements: There are six framework agreements partners applying for funding in Sudan for 2015: SCS, SRC, ICRC, Plan, SMC/IAS and CoS. In addition, OCHA and the CHF are considered relevant for continued funding. The United Nations office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN/OCHA): OCHA plays a crucial role in Sudan, being the main coordination body communicating and collaborating with the HAC. Sida supports a continuation of the funding to OCHA in 2014, in line with Sweden s humanitarian strategy (Goal 3). In terms of coordination Sweden would like to see a strengthened OCHA, not only in monitoring but also in terms of overall humanitarian coordination, ensuring humanitarian principles are being followed and actively working for improved access. 2 MSEK is contributed to OCHA. Save the Children Sweden (SCS): SCS has a long tradition of working in Sudan, growing significantly when taking over activities from SC-UK and SC-US as they were suspended by the Government in 2008-2009. It is recommended to continue the support to SCS as they are an important actor focusing on child protection, education and health across Sudan. They are also the only NGO co-leading a sector (education). The quality of reporting will be followed closely for the coming years. Sida propose a support of 5 MSEK focused on child protection in conflict. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): The ICRC has a significant presence in Sudan, and with their specific status they have sometimes had slightly better access to areas such as Jebel Mara in Darfur. As explained above, the suspension has severely affected ICRC s operations in 2014. To be able to start up and scale up the operations in 2015 Sida recommends continued funding to the ICRC and propose an allocation of 10 MSEK. SRC: The SRC are supporting the Sudanese Red Crescent Society (SRCS) who, as national society, has a special status and access to restricted areas.this should be closely monitored by the SRC and a close dialogue between SRC and SRCS is required with the aim of strengthening coordination and ensuring that humanitarian principles are being followed. The proposed support focus on the National Community Health Volunteer Programme NCHVP strengthening community resilience to disasters and an IHL programme jointly managed by ICRC.The added value of having a Swedish delegate in Khartoum is not entirely clear to Sida. Today, several different Partner National Societies (PNS) are present (with representatives) in Sudan and a discussion on the cost efficiency of this operational set-up should also be initiated with the SRC. Sida propose an allocation of 6 MSEK to the SRC. SMC/IAS: IAS has had a long presence in the country and carries out relevant programmes focusing on safe and sustainable WASH solutions in West and South Darfur, South Kordofan and Eastern Sudan (Red Sea State). Sida recommends continued funding to SMC/IAS in Sudan. It is recommended that Sida continues its support to SMC/IAS for 2015 with 6 MSEK. PLAN: Plan will assist IDPs in North Darfur focusing on education, child protection and camp coordination. Sida has supported the proposed programme for two years. Sida will closely follow up on achieved results for the 2013-14 support, organisational capacity in terms of conflict sensitivity as well as cost efficiency. The concept note outlines rather high costs/beneficiaries for example compared to SCS. It is recommended that Sida continues its support to Plan for 2015 with 5 MSEK. Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF): The main channel for Sweden s humanitarian assistance is proposed to be the CHF. Sweden is one of the largest donors to CHF and has supported the CHF Sudan since 2009. There is a strong need to improve the management of the Sudan CHF in terms of efficiency and Sweden will closely follow up with 4
OCHA and monitor the fund to see whether it will become more strategic. Sida recommends that the full amount allocated to the CHF should be disbursed in the beginning of the year (during the first round) not to cause any delays in project implementation. It is recommended that Sida continues its support to the CHF for 2015 with 15 MSEK. United Nations Humanitarian Air Service (UNHAS): With limited infrastructure, vast distances and high insecurity on the road, air transport is often the only secure transport option in assisting beneficiaries. Sida has previously argued that UNHAS receives early funding from the CHF. This year Sida propose to deduct the support to CHF slightly to instead support UNHAS with bilateral funding of 3 MSEK. By doing this Sida will avoid additional administrative fees and ensure a better follow up of the support, through separate reporting from the Worl Food Programme (WFP). SIDA S HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SUDAN IN 2015 Recommended partner for Sida support Sector/focus of work (incl. integrated or multi sectorial programming) Final proposed support CHF Multi-sector 55 MSEK ICRC IHL, protection, food security, health 10 MSEK SRC Health, IHL, capacity building 6 MSEK SCS Child protection, education, health, WASH 5 MSEK Plan Child protection, education, coordination 5 MSEK SMC WASH 6 MSEK OCHA Coordination 2 MSEK UNHAS Logistics 3 MSEK TOTAL: 92 MSEK SOURCES ECHO: Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) 2015, Sudan and South Sudan OCHA: South Sudan Humanitarian Needs Overview, draft 24 October 2014 OCHA: Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin Issue nb 47 UNHCR: Refugee Emergency Revised Regional Response Plan, January December 2014 Plus meetings and presentations with/from donors and partners during visit to Sudan in November 2014 5