CLUSTER: Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster

Transcription

1 South Sudan CHF Standard Allocation CLUSTER: Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster General overview of cluster portfolio Partners submission PRT recommended Core pipeline $ 6,000,000 $ 3,800,000 Frontline services $ 8,307,510 $ 5,990,318 Total $ 14,307,510 $ 9,790,318 1

2 Justification: Responding to shocks: interventions look at supporting HHs affected by shocks (natural and man made) to meet their needs and /or re -enter the production cycle Protecting livelihoods assets focusing on livestock diseases and out breaks (NBeG and Unity) Livelihoods seasonality: provision of livelihoods inputs before the wet season (agriculture, livestock, fisheries) Geographical/needs coverage: highly food insecurity areas including NBeG,Unity, Jonglei, Warrap, Upper Nile (within these counties coverage focuses at the most food insecure areas where reliable partners are present with specific attention to under served areas) 2

3 Lessons Learnt Improved project quality thanks to an adequate needs analysis Resources are scarce hence need for appropriate targeting based on identified needs Promoting local seeds/tools production system to minimize the threats related to the use of imported inputs, to minimize costs and to enhance the use of locally adapted varieties Capacity of implementing organizations - partners performance plays an important role Accountability/ monitoring: based on reports submitted but also on field visits to track implementation 3

4 How does the proposed cluster portfolio of projects reflect these lessons? During the technical evaluation of each project a quite substantive weight assigned to how the needs analysis is presented and how it flows with the project justification and the proposed activities Apply the same judgment to the M&E part of each projects as well as to the budget rational Local procurement and production favoured The introduction of the PERFORMANCE INDEX support the evaluation of the partners capacity Use of SMART indicators, in line with the standard cluster indicators 4

5 Linkage to cluster strategy: Responding to Shocks Protect and diversify livelihoods Animal vaccinations & treatment Promote public health Provision of livelihood resources/inputs after shocks Support to core pipeline Livestock restocking Cash based programming Promotion of community based seeds security Integration of food production, post harvest handling, preservation and livelihood diversification Linkages with clusters: Protection and Nutrition Health, Wash, Nutrition, Protection, Education 5

6 6

7 How does the proposed cluster portfolio of projects link to the strategy of 2013 CHF second standard allocation round? Some projects are still ongoing therefore other priority areas have been selected Some areas (counties) are not priorities areas anymore No proper justification that ensures continuity Are there overlaps with the last allocation and how are they justified? At county level in Aweil North - Aweil East - Akobo- Rubkona - Unity Based on needs: high priority areas, the amount allocation last time wasn't sufficient to cover for the caseload Hot spot for livestock disease (Unity) need for continued support How does the proposed CHF allocation compliment other funding steams/ secured funding? Some partners have secured some funds for CAP 2014 interventions so the CHF is topping up the gaps (7 partners) For others is an absolute start (8 partners) 7

8 Cluster Expenditure Financial tracking : UN 84% 91% NNGOs 99% 84% INGOs 88% 73% How has the cluster dealt with partners with low CHF utilization rates? Not considered in this allocation unless is a critical areas and no other partners are targeting that area Given low priority in the allocation If selected they will be closely monitored 8

9 Monitoring and Performance The cluster M&E tools are: M&R specialist seconded by UNDP/UNV Reporting on CHF funded Projects Cluster and Sub-Cluster meetings Field visits Pipeline tracking How has the monitoring of CHF projects from previous allocations supported key learning that has enhanced programme delivery? Financial burn-rates show partners level of effectiveness in planning and implementing projects thereby providing an insight on performance. Improved field surveys to effective monitor projects implementation and impacts. 9

10 Briefly describe how you used the Performance Index provided by OCHA The PI was used during the PRT for the project selection especially when several partners were proposing projects in one area. The PI informed on who better performed in previous allocations Low ranking of the performance index was considered only to cover a priority area and where there was no other partners available 10

11 Overview of Core Pipeline Supporting Projects Proposed number of projects: 1 Total US$ value of projects: Before revision USD 6,000,000. After revision USD 3,800,000. Core pipeline Number of beneficiaries supported: 120,200 Supplies Quantity of supplies Seeds Seeds production materials Assorted hand tools & equipment Vaccines Drugs Animal restocking Fishing gears and equipment Item Transported 474 MTs 7,750 pieces 47,250 pieces 18,000 vials 1,000 vials 1,000 (goats) 105,020 pieces Transportation cost (USD) Seeds 32,900 Livestock inputs 15,000 Fishing inputs 36,000 Staff Costs 512,660 USD 13% of total budget 11

12 Expected results: Increased HHs food production for improved food, income, nutrition, and livelihood security of vulnerable food insecure HHs Livelihood assets protected for an improved access to food resources by vulnerable pastoral, agro-pastoral and finishing communities Enhanced capacity and production of local seeds system Challenges in the performance of the pipeline projects in the past allocations (2012/2013): Timely delivery due to procurement requirements ( procurement per se., procedures and testing) Government procedures on release of vaccines - late delivery Reduced accessibility due the allocation done in March (by the time procurement was done the arrival coincided with wet season) Explain how the proposed allocation to the pipeline project(s) addressed performance challenges. Use of local seeds increased compared to international procurement Given the early funds allocation more time will be available for procurement and prepositioning Joint Tracking System between FAO and the FSL Detailed distribution plan to be provided by the core pipeline manager 12

13 Overview of Frontline Services Supporting Projects Number of projects: 14 Geographic priorities: NBeG (3), Unity (3), Jonglei (6), Warrap (1), Upper Nile (3) Total US$ value of projects : $ 8,307,510 ($ 5,990,318 recommended) Expected results: Improved Food security by supporting vulnerable HHs with livelihood inputs provision and income transfers Livelihood assets protected Timely response to livestock diseases How will you ensure the frontline projects in your portfolio will receive supplies from the pipeline on time? Joint Tracking System between FAO and the FSL Detailed distribution plan to be provided by the core pipeline manager 13

14 Overview of Allocation Process in the cluster PRT process : Draft priorities shared with CHF Secretariat for policy document Technical meeting to discuss & agree on evaluation criteria Call for proposals detailing the above PRT composition (FSL 4- CHF 1- UN 2 - INGO 4- NNGO 1) Review of proposals against set criteria & other considerations (PI and past CHF funding) Review of selected proposals based on comments given followed by PRT Explain how you ensured cluster portfolio of projects provide value for money Budget rationalized based on the number of beneficiaries, cost per beneficiaries and geographical coverage, % of direct vs indirect costs Selected most needed locations Challenges in the process Timeline was tight and some proposals were written in a hurry The emergency scope of the CHF left resilience out which confused partners Review fatigue How would you do it differently/better next time? Allocate adequate time for proposal preparation and more Italian coffee 14

15 Next steps Brief explanation of criteria on possible budget reduction / increase Reduction: partners to reduce project coverage & targets or # of activities Increase: i) 14 projects selected but more are available, ii) incorporate potential projects Brief explanation on implications of a budget reduction / increase on the key results expected from the portfolio Reduction: Limit the number of target beneficiaries & consequently food insecurity alleviation & diet diversification for nutrition Compromised protection of livelihood assets to shocks Compromised response to livestock disease outbreaks Increase: Support more vulnerable people Geographic coverage expanded Improved food security among beneficiaries during intervention period 15