humanitarian response fund indonesia - unocha erf 2010.pdf · kota sawah lunto kota solok pariaman...

Humanitarian Response Fund Indonesia

Credit: OCHA Indonesia/Mindaraga Rahardja

Annual Report 2010 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Humanitarian Response Fund – Indonesia Annual Report 2010

1

Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator The Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) is an important financial tool in Indonesia, as it allows flexibility in addressing the most urgent and crucial needs while strengthening the coordination amongst humanitarian actors. In 2010, the HRF demonstrated its usefulness in succesfully filling the gaps in humanitarian needs existed in response to the West Sumatra earthquake.

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) has demonstrated increased capacity in disaster management during these recent years by establishing disaster management structures both at the national and local levels. However, further support for capacity building programmes is still needed at the local level as the structure is newly established and has not been adequately capacitated. Thus, the Fund remains crucially relevant in reducing the gaps for both small and large scale disasters.

The 2010 Natural Disaster Risk Index, issued by Maplecroft, ranked Indonesia the second highest nation most at risk from extreme weather and other hazardous geophysical events. Indonesia is constantly threatened by a large variety of hazards from landslides, floods, drought, forest fires, earthquakes to tsunamis. Among these hazards, earthquakes - despite their infrequency - remain potentially the most dangerous and most unpredictable. Having learned the hazards, high risk levels and the importance of a high level of preparedness, I believe the HRF should continue to be available in this country and its implementation should remain fast, flexible and leverage other resources.

In 2010, nineteen HRF projects were implemented in response to unfilled gaps of the West Sumatra earthquake response and two other projects met the remaining humanitarian needs of the survivors of the Mentawai Islands’ earthquake and tsunami. Other projects in reaction to several other disasters in Indonesia are currently under review.

In 2010, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) conducted an evaluation of OCHA. I commend OCHA for its continued great work that is reflected in the evaluation report and encourage follow up of recommendations which will enhance the

implementation of the Fund. Monitoring and evaluation should be maintained in order to allow continued improvement of HRF as a funding mechanism.

The HRF is also useful as a coordination tool in emergency response and recovery. The Cluster Leads have committed themselves as HRF Board Members, which review project proposals, review policy issues and evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the Fund. By having Cluster Coordinators as HRF board members who will review each proposal as it is submitted, the review process is greatly expedited. Reviewing a proposal is done through email, while the HRF Board Members will meet physically to discuss priorities and other strategic issues concerning the HRF. This brings added value to the promptness of HRF proposal approval, and also allows Cluster Coordinators to remain updated on the current humanitarian situation in Indonesia.


2

Executive Summary On September 30, 2009, a 7.6 Richter scale earthquake struck the western Sumatra coast; the epicenter was located 45 kilometers west-northwest of Padang City. The earthquake resulted in 1,195 fatalities, two missing persons, 619 heavy injuries and 1,179 light injuries. The earthquake also damaged a total of 249,833 houses (114,797 of which were completely destroyed), 2,512 education facilities (containing 9,051 classrooms), 899 health facilities, 1,010 government facilities and building, 2,104 places of worship, 177 kilometres of roads, 4,980 metres of bridges, 25 hotels, irrigation canals, markets and other buildings. Education and economic and social activities were heavily disrupted for weeks.

The West Sumatra earthquake occurred less than a month after a 7.3 earthquake struck southern coasts of West Java on 2 September 2009, killing 81 people, injuring 1,248 others and demolishing 65,643 homes, as well as causing extensive damage to public infrastructure. The West Sumatra earthquakes have thus raised a second wave of demands on the disaster management actors, both government agencies and non-government organizations. From the outset, the Government of Indonesia led the emergency response to the affected regions. The Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana (BNPB) or National Agency for Disaster Management, coordinated the effort, leading the whole range of ministries from Health, Education, Social Welfare, Women’s Empowerment, Planning, Public Works, to the Army and the Police to cooperate. The Government of Indonesia issued a state of emergency for the following two months, although it was later shortened to a month. The Goverment also welcomed and coordinated international assistance. The Humanitarian Coordinator, representing the the United Nations and the international humanitarian community, led and lended support to the Government in emergency response measures, through the cluster mechanism and structure already in place. At least 115 international non-governmental organizations and hundreds of national organizations provided assistance since the first week of emergency response. All major donors also visited the affected areas and pledged their contributions. In both Padang and Jakarta, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) worked to coordinate the response among international partners, both bilateral and non-governmental, placing a strong emphasis on working in close coordination with the Government provincially and with the local authorities. OCHA and cluster

coordinators conducted initial rapid assessment using a planning method previously developed in the cluster system’s contingency planning process. If further information and funding gaps came to light from further input from the cluster, and if no other donors and other stakeholders will fill these gaps, the HRF will issue an assesment on the issue and respond to these needs. The Nineteen HRF projects which were implemented in reponse to this disaster was a result and fulfillment of these observed gaps. All of the 19 projects were approved after GoI declared the emergency response phase was over, but the projects remained useful and relevant as GoI’s post emergency response assistance had not been appropriated. HRF was crucial in filling and bridging this time gap.

Another disaster hit Mentawai Islands, another region in the West Sumatra province in 2010. On 25th October 2010, an earthquake measuring 7.2 on the Richter scale struck the islands and triggered three-meter high tsunami waves. At least 15,000 were directly affected, with a total of 461 people dead and 43 others were missing. While temporary shelter and clean water assistance were set up by GoI and Indonesian Red Cross, there were other urgent needs of education, protection, and hygiene. Two HRF projects for Mentawai Islands were approved and implemented within emergency response phase to meet these needs. In this kind of disaster, when Cluster Approach is not activated, OCHA and HRF Review Board members (i.e. Cluster Coordinators) received information from its staff on the ground or through its networks. Thus information provided in the project proposals could still be well verified.

One proposal responded to humanitarian needs of populations affected by Mount Merapi eruptions, which claimed 341 lives and enforced unplanned evacuation of more than 200,000 people. This proposal addressed the need of WASH for populations that did not receive WASH assistance from humanitarian responders.

A total of 22 HRF projects was approved throughout 2010, with total budget of US$2,140,332. $397,983, or 19%, of the funds were channeled to national Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for four projects, while $1,742,349, or 81%, funded international NGOs for 18 projects.

In 2010, the majority of HRF implementing partners were international NGOs. There were 18 projects implemented by 11 international NGOs while the other four projects were implemented by four national NGOs.


3

It is important to note that all international NGOs worked with national partners to implement projects. OCHA therefore saw the need to increase participation of national NGOs to directly access HRF, since national NGOs are more familiar with local situation and context.

Of the 22 projects, 14 projects responded to the needs of temporary shelter, four projects assisted education needs,and four projects addressed the needs of WASH. These projects were all inter-related, as assistance to one sector positively affected and enabled another project in a different sector. For example, temporary shelter assistance enabled children to return to their normal lives and allowed them to continue their education.

OCHA developed the new HRF Guidelines in 2010 in alignment with ERF Guidelines provided by OCHA headquarters. The process of developing the new guidelines included involvement of board members and assessment of other funding mechanisms by main donors in the country. It also considered government capacity and its funding instrument. All projects implemented in 2010 followed the new HRF Guidelines.

In 2010, there were some low to medium scale disasters, including Mount Sinabung eruptions in Karo Regency of

North Sumatra, landslide in Teluk Wondama district of West Papua, and Mount Merapi eruptions in the Yogyakarta and Central Java provinces. OCHA played role in emergency responses of those disasters and HRF remained available to be accessed. However, gaps were covered by many government agencies and non-government actors including private sector and mass media, thus the HRF was not released unless a clear gap was identified. There were cases in which the gaps were obvious when humanitarian actors completed their assistance while the needs remained unfulfilled. In such cases, the HRF supported the most vulnerable disaster-affected people. .

At least 15 other proposals were rejected in 2010 as they did not meet HRF goals and objectives, had unclear or weak project strategy, or NGOs failed to show its capacity and capability to manage projects. National NGOs were largely encouraged to apply to the HRF, as the Fund aimed to target NGOs already familiar with the local context and practices. OCHA understands the need to feature HRF especially to national NGOs, thus it will invite national NGOs to HRF information sessions that will familiarize them with the HRF as a funding mechanism.

RIAU

WEST SUMATERA

JAMBI

NORTH SUMATERA

BENGKULU

WEST SUMATERA

SOLOK

PASAMAN

PESISIR SELATAN

AGAM

SOLOK SELATAN

PASAMAN BARAT

DHARMASRAYA

LIMA PULUH KOTO

TANAH DATAR

KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI

SAWAHLUNTO/SIJUNJUNGPADANG PARIAMAN

PADANG

KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI

KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI

KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI

KOTA SAWAH LUNTOKOTA SOLOK

PARIAMAN

PAYAKUMBUHBUKIT TINGGI

PADANG PANJANG

National NGO

International NGO

Projects Implementor

Projects by Sector

Education

WASH

T-shelter

0

300000

600000

900000

1200000

1500000

T-shelter Education WASH

14 Projects

4 Projects 4 Projects

US $1,393,166

US $ 398,512US $ 348,654

Funding Allocation by Cluster

In 2010, the Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) helped alleviate the distress of disaster-affected populations caused by 2009 West Sumatra earthquake, October 2010 earthquake and tsunami that hit Mentawai Islands and Mt. Merapi eruptions. The Fund received continued support from the Government of Sweden. A total of 22 projects have strategically addressed the most vulnerable disaster-affected people and filled humanitarian gaps that were not covered by Government of Indonesia and other stakeholders. About 42,000 people are direct beneficiaries of these projects, which met the needs of temporary shelter, education and WASH. Disaster Risk Reduction was part of the project activities, in the form of trainings, focused group discussions and project socialization. The HRF Project Managers actively participated in government-led and Cluster Approach coordination fora, which aimed to synergize humanitarian assistance, avoid duplication and overlaps, and more effectively identify most urgent gaps to be filled. The HRF is also designed as complementarity to GoI emergency response and early recovery strategies.

Projects Details

District boundaryProvince boundary

Projects_areaAbove 50004,000 - 5,0003,000 - 4,000

2,500 - 3,0002,000 - 2,5001,500 - 2,000

1,000 - 1,500800 - 1,000600 - 800

400 - 600200 - 4000 - 200Below Sea Level

Elevation (m)Legend:

NGO Location Duration(Incl. Duration)

PLAN Pariaman Utara Sub-district, Pariaman City 4 Months

Save the Children Korong Aur Malintang, Pariaman Utara, Pariaman City

3 Months

Save the Children Korong Batu Basa, Pariaman Utara, Pariaman City

3 Months

Catholic Relief Service (CRS) Malalak Selatan, Malalak Sub-district, Agam District

2 Months

Catholic Relief Service (CRS) Malalak Barat, Malalak Sub-district, Agam District

2 Months

Muslim Aid Padang Sago Sub-district, Padang Pariaman

6 Months

Church World Service (CWS) Koto Bongko, Sn Geringging, Padang Pariaman District

4 Months

Islamic Relief Batu Kalang, Padang Sago Sub-district, Padang pariaman District

4 Months

Relief International Ulakan Tapakis, Padang Pariaman District 4 Months

International Relief Development (IRD) Patamuan, Padang Pariaman District 3 Months

CORDAID / AMAN Sungai Limau and Pilubang Sub-district, Padang Pariaman

11 Months

CORDAID / Pusat Studi Pembangunan Perdamaian (PSPP)

Enam Lingkung Sub-district, Padang Pariaman District

7 Months

CORDAID / Bina Swadaya VII Koto Padang Sago Sub-district, Padang Pariaman District 9 Months

Habitat for Humanity V Koto Timur, Padang Pariaman District 5 MonthsAceh’s People Forum (APF) Padang Pariaman District 5 MonthsSave the Children Agam and Padang Pariaman districts 6 Months

World Relief Kuranji and Nanggalo Sub-district, Padang City

5 Months

PADMA Nagari Sungai Asam, VI Lingkung Sub-district, Padang Pariaman District

5 Months

Yayasan Ananda Marga Indonesia (AMURT) Padang Pariaman and Kota Pariaman 6 Months

PLAN Pagai Selatan, Pagai Utara of Mentawai Islands

6 Months

PLAN Pagai Selatan, Pagai Utara of Mentawai Islands

6 Months

Nahdatul Ulama

Srumbung, Dukun and Sawangan Subdistricts of Magelang District, Central Java Province, and Cangkringan, Pakem and Turi Subdistricts of Sleman District, DI Yogyakarta Province

5 Months

IndonesiaHumanitarian Response Fund 2010

CENTRAL JAVA

DI YOGYAKARTA

WONOGIRI

MAGELANG

GUNUNGKIDUL

KLATENPURWOREJO

BOYOLALI

SRAGEN

WONOSOBO

KEBUMEN

SLEMAN

BANTUL

SUKOHARJO

KULONPROGO

KARANGANYAR

SEMARANGBANJARNEGARA

TEMANGGUNG

PACITAN

KOTA SALATIGA

KOTA SURAKARTA

KOTA YOGYAKARTA

KOTA MAGELANG

WPNK-JC


4

Information on Contributors Sida was the sole contributor to Indonesia HRF in 2010. Since 2007, Sida has funded US$ 8,130,635 (with the final contribution of US$ 2,340,450 in 2011).

Sida Funding to Indonesia HRF 2007 – 2010 (as of 31 December 2010)

Funding (SEK)

Funding (US$)

ProjectPeriod

# of Project

7,500,000 1,115,375 2007-2008 15

13,000,000 1,876,460 2008-2010 21

15,000,000 2,070,150 2010 21

20,000,000 728,200 * 2010-2011 0

Data based on OCHA Contributions Tracking System

Note *: Funding reflected was the first transfer only, as the final transfer (US$2,340,450) was received in 2011.

Although Sida does not have an office or a humanitarian representative in Indonesia, OCHA Indonesia maintains contact with and provides updates to the Embassy of Sweden on humanitarian issues in the country and HRF implementation.

In 2010, Sida conducted an evaluation of its humanitarian assistance in Indonesia. The evaluation focused on the humanitarian response to the West Sumatra earthquake of 30 September 2009. Other than through HRF, Sida channeled its resources to CERF and provided bilateral grants to UNDP and Plan International in response to the West Sumatra earthquake in 2009.1

1 Sida evaluation report, http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/Sida%20Utv%c3%a4rderingar/Case%20Study%20Report%20Indonesia.pdf


5

Fund Overview

Summary of HRF Allocations in 2010Requested for 2010

in US$ Carry over from 2009

in US$ Amount received in 2010

in US$ Total available in 2010

in US$ 1,000,000,00 2,193,378 728,866 2,922,244

Approved HRF funds by partner type in US$ Approved HRF funds by project type in US$ UN Agencies n/a Emergency response / early recovery 2,140,332 International NGOs 1,742,349 Preparedness 0 National NGOs 397,983 Innovative (if any) 0 Total 2,140,332 Total 2,140,332

Results of HRF Projects per Cluster

Overview of Temporary Shelter cluster

Number of projects Budget in US$ Implementing agencies Geographic Area

14 1,393,166 Plan International, Save the Children (two projects), Catholic Relief Services (two projects), Muslim Aid, Church World Services, Relief International, CORDAID (three projects), Habitat for Humanity, World Relief and PADMA

Padang Pariaman district and Padang city of West Sumatra

Outcomes

� A total of 4,790 household transitional shelters were constructed in Padang Pariaman district, Padang and Pariaman Cities, which housed 21,845 people

� All projects started with program socialization and included training on earthquake resistant shelters. The training material was discussed and agreed in Shelter Cluster meetings and endorsed by local government. Different levels of difficulty in the training and was varied depending on the audience (different material was conveyed for adult beneficiaries, children, local government and carpenters). The training material has simple Build Back Better and Sphere Standard messages

� With adequate shelter, households were able to restart their livelihood, continue education for children, and prevent further obstacles, such as health, protection and GBV issues. Provision of temporary shelter allowed beneficiaries to accelerate their recovery from disaster.


6

Overview of Education cluster


4 398,512 Aceh People Forum, Save the Children, AMURT and Plan International

Padang Pariaman and Mentawai Islands districts and Pariaman city of West Sumatra

Outcomes

� Project results: 78 temporary classrooms of elementary schools and 12 temporary kindergarten schools were constructed, with latrines and washing facilities. The assistance enables children to learn in safer environment.

� Total number of beneficiaries is 14,265 children. Teachers reported that school attendance is almost the same as the one before the earthquake, due to the assistance provided by the projects.

� Provision of teaching material and training for parents on psychosocial support and for teachers on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), continued by learning sessions for school children.

Overview of WASH cluster


4 348,654 International Relief and Development, Islamic Relief, Plan International and Nahdlatul Ulama

Padang Pariaman and Mentawai Islands Districts of West Sumatra, Sleman District of Yogyakarta and Magelang District of Central Java

Outcomes

� Construction of 37 communal latrines, 6 reservoirs, and 11 washing facilities fulfilled needs in WASH sector.

� Specifically for Mentawai, 801 hygiene kits were distributed to 801 families in remote areas with challenges to access water and obtain hygiene items.

� To meet the needs of daily water consumption and agricultural production, 4.2 kilometers of water pipe system was installed, 3.4 kilometers of irrigation channel was repaired and 170 meter lining concrete was reconstructed. At least 6,034 beneficiaries were reached.

� Hygiene promotion activities included trainings, distribution of posters and banners at some strategic places close to communities (such as schools, communal latrines, Posyandus and local government offices) and campaign trough radio broadcast. Approximately 3,000 beneficiaries were reached with better knowledge and awareness of hygiene practices.

� At least 1,800 poor households that were highly affected by Mt. Merapi eruptions received facilities for clean water and sanitation.


7

Summary and analysis of achievementsIn 2010, the Humanitarian Response Fund was mainly utilized to fill the gaps that existed between the closure of the West Sumatra earthquake emergency response and the operation of its early recovery phase. During this period, the fund addressed the most crucial needs of targeted communities. As the emergency response phase was declared over at the end of October 2010, with the exception of a few sub-districts with concentration of IDPs, GoI shifted its focus on transition to recovery measures. However, as this was near the end of the 2010 fiscal year, recovery funds were processed in the following year which led to delayed disbursement of recovery assistance. Thus, the HRF was instrumental in the provision of transitional shelter, education and water, sanitation and hygiene assistance.

The need for shelter was considered a high priority, with a high number of damaged houses, and the shelter assistance provided for emergency response was mainly plastic sheeting and emergency tents, which lasted only for several months. By providing more durable shelter assistance, the affected populations were able to resume their normal lives; children continued their education as they were provided proper facilities to sleep, men restarted their livelihoods or were able to search for alternative incomes as family members were provided housing. Provision of proper shelter assistance also significantly contributed to prevention of disease and the increase of security. Furthermore, HRF was utilized to construct temporary classrooms in distant areas without education assistance, clean water and other hygiene facilities.

Based on assessments made by GoI, non-government actors, and data from cluster leads, the most damaged areas were Padang Pariaman District, Pariaman and Padang Cities, however the earthquake also affected nine other districts and municipalities. Thus, the HRF responded to crucial needs in those locations, and targeted the most vulnerable populations through funding to 19 projects.

Besides response to the needs triggered by the 30 September 2009 earthquake in West Sumatra province, HRF also funded two projects in Mentawai Islands of West Sumatra province due to earthquake and tsunami on 25 October 2010. Those projects helped in response to needs of education, hygiene, and child protection.

When providing temporary shelter assistance, implementing partners used varied approaches. Some partners provided phased cash grant, while some others provided inputs including building material and technical experts. A project developed temporary workshop within villages and organized beneficiaries to jointly prepare parts for the shelters, such as bamboo sheetings, doors and door frames, and windows and frames. Another project designed child-friendly temporary shelters. These variations of assistance were discussed in advance in shelter cluster meeting. In term of direct inputs, each shelter costed between US$ 200 and $555, but most of the assistance ranged between US$ 250 and $325 per temporary shelters. The lower cost was due to more salvage material required for use, while the higher cost was attributed to higher quality of building material used, which provide longer lasting shelters. Nearly all projects used salvaged material from damaged houses. Although the difference was significant, cluster coordinator and local government endorsed the projects. However, OCHA advocated GoI and cluster coordinators to have minimum and maximum standard of assistance, in order to avoid unrest amongst populations because of quality variances in assistance. For all projects, simple training was conducted prior to temporary house construction. Simple standards conveyed during the training included Safe (resistant to earthquakes and other hazards), Adequate (with good ventilation and drainage, of a good size, gender-sensitive with appropriate privacy), and Durable (materials are strong and last 18-24 months). Build Back Better approach was also encouraged in training and physical work. The approach has allowed community to led effort that best suited the peoples’ needs. It may require a little bit longer recovery work, but the results are much effective.

During project visits, OCHA observed high level of involvement of women and children. There was a temporary shelter project that was designed to include a high participation rate of children tasked to monitor the progress of activities, also for the children’s empowerment. They were equipped with video camera and stationery. The project clearly increased community awareness of the vital role of children.

There were 2,515 damaged schools and education facilities (equal to 9,051 schoolrooms) due to 2009 West Sumatra earthquake and 2010 Mentawai Islands tsunami. While the government committed to rebuild or rehabilitate the schools, HRF projects provided temporary classroom space, before the permanent ones


8

from GoI would be rebuilt. Children returned to school although they had to study at temporary classrooms (cemented floor, plywood wall and corrugated iron roof) and were provided with new teaching material to encourage their eagerness to study. Teachers reported that the attendance rates after the disaster were only slightly lower to rates prior to the disaster and they affirmed that funding from the HRF was highly instrumental in allowing children to return to school. They also appreciated the DRR modules they taught to the school children.

Projects from the WASH sector were located in strategic areas within community. Majority of West Sumatra population were able to access water easily. Thus, funding was targeted in communities with little access to clean water and dependant on rain water. HRF succeeded in providing these communities with alternative water sources, which enabled communities to access water throughout the year. WASH project due to Mt. Merapi eruptions was implemented to fill the gaps that could not be met by other resources.

Highlights of achievement from HRF implementation in 2010 are:

� Funding from the HRF strengthened coordination between the government, NGO and donors. Implementing partners were required to report to GoI as soon as the HRF proposal was approved in order to avoid duplication of assistance. Other major donors were aware of the functions of the HRF. Within the first week of emergency responses for 2009 West Sumatra earthquake and 2010 Mentawai Islands earthquake and tsunami, hundreds of

humanitarian actors were on the field trying to provide assistance. During coordination meetings, gaps and overlaps were identified through proper coordination among all stakeholders. Thus, HRF was released only when gaps existed.

� The HRF allowed implementing partners to complement project funding with other sources, thus strengthening project implementation and increasing the impact to target beneficiaries.. HRF project approval process is quicker than most other funding mechanisms, and this allowed NGOs to start providing assistance as soon as possible with funds from the HRF, which was then later complemented by other funding sources.

� HRF linked national and regional planning strategies with local support initiatives. HRF was designed to link with national and provincial governments’ response and recovery planning, so that its projects and its implementation was supported by the goverment while being responsive to the local context and urgent needs. During project implementation, HRF partners shared and discussed their projects and strategies with related government officials at national and local levels.

� HRF is instrumental in building the capacity of national NGOs and communities. Despite the fact that the HRF primarily funded international NGOs, these international NGOs worked with national and local NGOs in project implementation, thus enhancing the capacities of national NGOs. The community was also strengthened as every project had training activities and other forms of community gathering, where NGOs inserted simple DRR messages to communities. These messages, such as build back better and household preparedness plan, are considered necessary as communities live in earthquake prone areas. They were taught to realize that the disaster in their area could reoccur and thus they need to be prepared.


9

Project Monitoring OCHA conducted project monitoring through several ways, including relying on verbal reports by implementing partners and conducting project visits. Some partners also shared photos of their activities. For projects that lasted for more than three months, interim reports were required.

In conducting monitoring, OCHA invited board members, which are Cluster Coordinators at the national level and government officials. However, in 2010 no joint monitoring visits were realized. OCHA conducted monitoring to 17 out of 21 ongoing projects in 2010 through three visits which took place in March, July and August. In March, six projects were visited that were implemented by Plan International, Save the Children (two temporary shelter projects), CRS (two projects) and IRD. In July, OCHA visited Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid and World Relief projects while in August, CORDAID (three projects), Save the Children’s education project, CWS and AMURT were visited. The four projects which was not visited though planned was cancelled due to occurrences of some disasters in the last quarter of 2010.

The visit is usually started by implementing partner’s staff briefing on the progress of project activities. Then, OCHA meets with local leaders and discussed the latest situation and concerns, efforts made by government and non-government actors, the usefulness of HRF assistance, coordination mechanism of assistance and further recovery plan. During this visit beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were informally interviewed on their understanding of the project, the usage of assistance provided by HRF, their participation in project activities, and gender issues.

Besides monitoring missions, OCHA also visited projects for the Sida evaluation, which was conducted in mid-2010. OCHA staff and independent evaluators visited some HRF projects in West Sumatra and Banten provinces.

Highlights from project monitoring are:

� No significant delays in project implementation, although some projects faced difficulty in getting good quality of project inputs, both in terms of

building material and manpower (carpenters) due to high demand.

� All projects were coordinated by local government to ensure appropriateness of assistance. Coordination meetings were regularly conducted by OCHA, Cluster Coordinators and then continued by Early Recovery Network team at provincial and district levels. There was a high level of participation of HRF implementing partners in the meetings. Monitoring missions revealed the strong coordination amongst involved partners as there was no overlap of assistance between the projects.

� HRF assistance, especially transitional shelter, proved to be at the ‘right amount’. It was not low enough that would lose beneficiaries interest, but was not too high to discourage beneficiaries’ participation. The assistance from the projects also enhanced empowerment in the communities.

� Most HRF implementing partners in 2010 had experience in previous emergency responses in Indonesia, including 2004 Aceh tsunami, 2006 Yogyakarta and Central Java earthquake, 2007 West Sumatra earthquake and 2008 Bengkulu earthquake. The experiences contributed to enhanced effectiveness of HRF project implementation.

� Capacity development of local and national NGOs was achieved with assistance provided to local NGOs in proposal writing, budget preparation, international response standards and program cycles/timelines. As a result the timelines of all projects was facilitated through the capacity building efforts and commitment to the local partners.

� The Community Participation model, utilized with the formation of groups and group accountability, was an effective method of ensuring participation, overall program success, utilizing individual and community strengths and developing individual and community capacities.


10

Gender Considerations OCHA and the Review Board promoted gender mainstreaming since HRF is introduced to NGOs. Gender considerations were included in the HRF Guidelines, which encouraged NGOs to describe gender issues in their program design. Gender consideration is a neccesary requisite for a project to be approved for HRF funding. Sex and age disaggregated data must also be included in the proposal. Upon project approval, NGOs should ensure that project activities consult with beneficiaries (men, women, girls and boys). Based on project monitoring and evaluation findings, projects with good gender consideration in their program design have proved to have better implementation results. This may be caused by better analysis of targeted community and combined with appropriate planning, which exercised good community participation.

During monitoring and evaluation visits to HRF projects, OCHA staff and other participants of the visit were usually gender balanced. This balance and its purposes were mentioned in meetings with stakeholders to raise awareness on gender issues. A wide range of beneficiaries (men, women, girls and boys) were consulted. . The effectiveness of the activities in addressing the issue was reviewed. There are some lessons to be learned and shared with other actors, including other HRF implementing agencies. Thus, OCHA encouraged every implementing agency to communicate to each other and share good practices.

It was observed during monitoring and evaluation visits that women and men have equal access to programme information in all HRF project implementation. This condition increased awareness of the HRF programme and thus increased participation of women and men.

All HRF projects were implemented in West Sumatra, where its society is well-known for its matriarchal culture. Women play a significant role in balancing the concerns of individuals (family members) and society (community in their neighborhood). They are active in community gathering and other social events. Thus, roles of women were more visible in comparison to those in most other parts of Indonesia. From the project’s socialization to its closure, and during monitoring and evaluation, women and men exercised a strong focus on gender equity. For example, the high participation of women in project activities was reflected in the cleaning the rubble from their houses and other buildings, collecting building material, and monitoring project progress. Before the disaster, women were accustomed to physical work that was usually done by men in other parts of Indonesia. After the earthquake, once relief

projects began, women willingly took part in activities for numerous reasons. Another reason includes the benefit their participation in the project would result by maintaining their social roles in their community and whilst allowing their husband to find income somewhere else to fulfill their daily needs.

Another example of results on gender consideration is the cooking areas of transitional shelters. HRF implementing partners and household beneficiaries constructed shade extension to allow women to cook in more appropriate way. Decision-making in designing transitional shelters was being shared more equally by women and men.

With regards to WASH projects, HRF implementing partners have ensured that women and girls have sufficient security and privacy in WASH facilities. Locations of WASH facilities were selected by men and women. Community developed committee to maintain the facilities that have gender equality. Temporary schools provided by HRF projects have proved to have equal access for boys and girls. After the disaster, there were no significant drop-outs of boy and girl students in schools assisted through HRF.

In a transitional shelter project implemented in Padang Sago Sub-district of Padang Pariaman District, there was a single woman who reconstructed her own house


11

without significant assistance from other people. It was not because her neighbors did not want to help, but they knew that she had a commitment to rebuild her house by her own strength. Communities have own thought, system and practices related to gender.

As the emergency response of 2009 West Sumatra earthquake was declared over by GoI, the cluster

approach at field level was transformed into Early Recovery Network, with a Gender Specialist who oversaw gender concerns in overall remaining humanitarian and recovery programs in West Sumatra.

The Inter-agency Standing Committee Gender Marker was exercised for Indonesia HRF in 2010, and will continue to be implemented through 2011.


12

ConclusionConsidering that the humanitarian situation in parts of Indonesia remains fragile, a funding mechanism that allows humanitarian organizations to respond rapidly to the urgent needs of vulnerable communities is an important need. Furthermore, DRR and early recovery initiatives should be continued as these initiatives will contribute positively when a disaster strikes. The flexibility of the HRF is one of its main strengths, an observation highlighted by government officials, board members and implementing partners. As a funding mechanism managed by the Humanitarian Coordinator with knowledge of the country context, the HRF was able to meet rapidly changing needs and respond to widening gaps.

Implementing partners of the HRF in 2010 were mainly international NGOs. National NGOs should be more encouraged to apply to the Fund, as national NGOs tend to know more about the local contexts and situations of beneficiaries. HRF partners, including board members, international NGOs and OCHA, should support building capacities and integrity of national NGOs so that overall effectiveness of assistance to the disaster-affected population can be enhanced. International NGOs should continue working with their national and local partners in HRF projects, and whenever possible, increase their roles in planning and implementing the projects.

In its implementation, the Fund increased the quality of coordination practices during emergency response. Even when the Government of Indonesia declared the emergency response over while some humanitarian needs remained, the HRF implementing partners enriched the discussion in coordination meetings and thus the decision and commitment was made by coordination participants to support quick recovery of disaster affected people and contribute to their development of durable solutions.

Some implementing partners were able to use the coordination forum with GoI to conduct advocacy related to humanitarian concerns.

The Fund has strategically filled humanitarian gaps. The HRF is not granted in all disaster occurrences in Indonesia. When gaps are not clearly identified or many humanitarian actors have provided enough assistance, funding from the HRF was not released. In addition, the Fund is effectively utilized to respond the humanitarian needs even when the government did not welcome international assistance. As a mechanism that is in placed in Indonesia before a disaster strikes, HRF allows quick decision by the HC that is needed during emergency response.

Although some monitoring visits were conducted to HRF projects, monitoring activities should be better planned and exercised. Joint monitoring visits with government, donor representatives, board members and other relevant actors could be conducted. Strengths in a project should be communicated to other projects for potential replication, if relevant. For example, innovation in a transitional shelter project could be applied to other similar projects. A project with strong collaboration with the private sector could inspire other projects to have similar approach. Advocacy to a local government on particular humanitarian concerns could be replicated by other projects to local government in other districts.

The Fund was managed with high transparency. Decisions were well communicated to stakeholders. Every project was communicated well to BNPB and local governments. In order to maintain the transparency of the Fund, more regular updating of funded projects could be shown on the OCHA website.


13

GlossaryAMURT Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team

BNPB National Agency for Disaster Management

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund

CORDAID a Catholic Organization for Development Cooperation

CRS Catholic Relief Services

CWS Church World Services

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

ERF Emergency Response Fund

GBV Gender Based Violence

GoI Government of Indonesia

HRF Humanitarian Response Fund

IDPs Internally Displaced Persons

IRD International Relief and Development

NGOs Non Government Organizations

OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Sida The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

humanitarian response fund indonesia - unocha erf 2010.pdf · kota sawah lunto kota solok pariaman...

Documents