Consultants for Development

Review of

Danish Mission Council

Development Department’s

Emergency Relief Fund

2010 – 2013

Final Report

Consultants for Development (CD) Erik Toft Copenhagen August 15, 2014

Review of DMCDD’s Emergency Relief Fund, 2010-2013

Draft Report 2

List of Contents Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... 3

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 3

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

2 The review ............................................................................................................................. 4

3 Danish Mission Council Development Department .............................................................. 5

3.1 Advantages/disadvantages of church organisations ................................................... 6

4 The Emergency Relief Fund (ERF) ......................................................................................... 8

4.1 Financial overview of the ERF ...................................................................................... 9

4.2 Criteria for support from the ERF ............................................................................... 10

5 DMCDD’s administration of the ERF ................................................................................... 10

5.1 Capacity of DMCDD to administer the ERF ................................................................ 12

5.2 Application processing ............................................................................................... 13

5.3 Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 15

5.4 Reviews ....................................................................................................................... 16

6 Member and partner organisations .................................................................................... 16

6.1 Capacity of MOs and their partners ........................................................................... 18

7 The ERF projects .................................................................................................................. 20

7.1 Relevance and effectiveness ...................................................................................... 20

7.2 Timeliness ................................................................................................................... 26

7.3 Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 27

8 Findings and recommendations .......................................................................................... 28

8.1 Advantages/challenges of church organisations ....................................................... 28

8.2 Criteria for support from the ERF ............................................................................... 28

8.3 Administration of the ERF .......................................................................................... 28

8.4 MOs and partner organisations ................................................................................. 31

8.5 The ERF projects ......................................................................................................... 31

9 Conclusions and the way forward ....................................................................................... 35

Annex A - TOR ............................................................................................................................ 37

Annex B - People met ................................................................................................................ 41

Annex C - Main documents ....................................................................................................... 42

Annex D - Members of DMCDD................................................................................................. 43

Annex E - Agreement between DMCDD and Danida ................................................................ 45

Annex F - Criteria for Support ................................................................................................... 53

Annex G - Format for ERF applications ..................................................................................... 56

Annex H - Overview of processing of ERF projects ................................................................... 59

Annex I - Interventions by sector .............................................................................................. 62

Annex J - Relevance, vulnerability targeting, flexibility and coordination ................................ 65


Draft Report 3

Acknowledgement The development of this report was only possible with the cooperation of the many people met as listed in Annex B, including staff from Danish Mission Council Development Department (DMCDD), and staff from member and partner organisations in Denmark and in Sri Lanka as well as community and government representatives in Sri Lanka. The openness with which interviewees shared information was welcome and very valuable. Erik Toft Consultants for Development (CD) Email: [email protected] Web: toft.CD July 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark

Abbreviations Abbreviation Explanation

CISU Civil Society in Development

Danida Danish International Development Assistance

DKK Danish Kroner

DMC Danish Mission Council

DMCDD Danish Mission Council Development Department

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

ERF Emergency Relief Fund

IDP Internally Displaced Person

MENA Middle East and North Africa

MO Member Organisation

NFI Non-food Item

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

TOR Terms of References

UN United Nations


Draft Report 4

1 Introduction This report contains the findings and recommendations from a review of the Danida funded Emergency Relief Fund (ERF) administered by the Danish Mission Council’s Development Department (DMCDD). The review is based on desk studies and interviews with relevant stakeholders in Denmark and in Sri Lanka. The review is the first since a 2004 review of the Emergency Relief Fund (ERF), and is intended as a forward looking exercise aimed at benefiting both DMCDD and MFA. Readers who want to skip the detailed background and analysis can fast forward to chapter 8 on page 28 that contains a summary of the findings along with recommendations, and for an even shorter summary skip forward to chapter 9 on page 35. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author’s and not necessarily those of Danida or DMCDD.

2 The review As per TOR (included in Annex A) the overall purpose of the review is to assess the possibilities for future joint activities and cooperation between the MFA and DMCDD on the basis of a solid and updated foundation. The review is to include:

an assessment of DMCDD’s administration of the ERF, including processing of individual grants for emergency assistance and the cooperation between DMCDD and the MO's.

establishment of whether the rationale behind the pool is coherent, and whether the pool still meets the described objectives, including especially an analysis of the pertinence and efficiency of the Emergency Relief Fund.

TOR further specifies that the review should identify the approach taken by DMCDD, assess the capacity, the relevance and efficiency of its work. The review covers the period from 2010 to 2013. The main questions to be answered through the review include:

Is the ERF relevant?

Is the ERF efficient?

Could the ceiling be raised for project grants? The review was carried out through an analysis of relevant documents – main documents made available are listed in Annex C - and through interviews with i) relevant DMCDD staff; ii) DMCDD member organisations (MOs); iii) partners in Sri Lanka; iv) others donors and government representatives in Sri Lanka; and v) Danida staff.


Draft Report 5

To gain a better understanding of the administration of the ERF, interviews were conducted with relevant DMCDD staff - including the head of the secretariat and relevant project consultants - as well as with the previous members1 of the board’s ERF sub-committee. Insight into the experiences from past ERF funding was obtained through interviews with DMCDD MOs (Assist, Baptistkirken, Danmission, Dansk Europamission, DEM, Mission Afrika, and Mission Øst). The mission to Sri Lanka took place from June 14 to 19 with the aim of:

i. Understand the relationship/collaboration between the Danish MOs and the local partners working in emergency settings.

ii. Understand the capacity of the local partners, including their positions in the local civil society and their relations with authorities and other humanitarian actors, as well as what the partners comparative advantages are.

iii. Obtain feedback from beneficiaries on the quality and timeliness of the support provided by the local partners.

On Sri Lanka the local partners NCEASL and LEADS were met along with government representatives, donors, the UN and beneficiaries. A full list of people met is included in Annex B.

3 Danish Mission Council Development Department Danish Mission Council Development Department (DMCDD) is an umbrella organisation for Danish churches and church-based organisations aiming at improving general living conditions of the most marginalised groups in developing countries. At the time of writing DMCDD has 31 members (listed in Annex D) whom together have a popular foundation of more than 100,000 people contributing financially to the MOs2. Members of Danish Mission Council (DMC) have the right to membership of DMCDD, and other church organisations can apply for membership. The overall objective of DMCDD is to contribute to “The social, physical, mental and spiritual development of human beings into their full potential as women and men” with the specific objectives:

i. The development of the capacity of local communities and groups so they can acquire knowledge and recognize and change their living conditions without losing their integrity and independence.

1 Two new members were elected in 2014 but as they do not yet have much experience with the ERF, interviews

were conducted with the outgoing members. 2 ”Kapactitetsundersøgelse, Dansk Missionsråds Udviklingsafdeling (DMR-U) – Endelig rapport”, Danida -

Konsulentnetværket, March, 2013


Draft Report 6

ii. The development of just and democratic structures of society locally, nationally and globally.

iii. The development of responsible ways of managing the natural resources and protecting the environment.

iv. The development of channels for an increased mutual exchange of knowledge, experience and inspiration between the South and the North and for responsible mutual action.

DMCDD has an independent 7-member board elected by the annual general assembly. The board employs a Director responsible for day-to-day management of the DMCDD secretariat. The secretariat consists of a total of 10 staff: 1 Director, 5 project consultants/coordinators, 1 communication officer, and 3 finance/admin staff. As not all staff work fulltime, the total woman-years is 8.8. The MOs of DMCDD have partnerships with churches and NGOs in developing countries, mainly African and Asian, and benefit from advice, consultations and administrative services from DMCDD. In addition to the ERF, DMCDD is administering four other funds:

i) Mini Program (DKK 22.2 million in 2014), funded by Danida3; ii) Genbrug til Syd (DKK 10 million in 2014), funded by Danida; iii) Børnefamilieydelse (DKK 1.5 million in 2014), funded by the Ministry of Children,

Gender Equality, Integration and Social Affairs. ii) and iii) can be accessed irrespective of DMCDD membership whereas i) like the ERF is only available for the 31 DMCDD member organisations. Additionally, in 2013 DMCDD was administering 13 projects implemented by MOs and funded by CISU or Danida. DMCDD also has incomes from member fees. The total turnover in 2013 was almost DKK 43 million of which the ERF constitutes a little less than 5% (DKK 2 million).

3.1 Advantages/disadvantages of church organisations

In recent years faith based organisations have been thriving globally with increased budgets for organisations such as Catholic Relief Services and World Vision although funding in Denmark remains stable.4 Four of the 8 Danish NGOs with humanitarian partnership agreements are faith based (Caritas, DanChurchAid, ADRA and Mission East). During interviews, DMCDD, MOs and their partners stated that the advantages of church based organisations included being present on the ground already before the disaster

3 Of which 2.2 million is for Skolepenge for which access is not restricted to DMCDD members. 4 World Vision is probably the largest western development/humanitarian NGO in financial terms and increased

its income with 6% from 2012 to 2013 to almost DKK 5.5 billion.


Draft Report 7

occurred, having local knowledge, having low operational costs. Many interviewees were emphasising the important role religion plays in many beneficiaries’ day-to-day lives, supposedly providing a better understanding of the beneficiaries' needs. NGOs, including perhaps especially faith based organisations, can often draw on large numbers of volunteers, as indeed also many of the MOs and partners of DMCDD do. The use of volunteers might increase legitimacy and contribute with knowledge of the local context. There are also risks associated with using volunteers, including that the implementation might be less smooth due to unavailability of volunteers at the right time, in the right place and with the right skills. The capacity, criminal records, etc. of volunteers are typically also less rigorously screened than salaried employees. Volunteers are typically not experts in humanitarian aid and there is a risk that overly reliance on volunteers will hamper the development of the type of and way aid is delivered – an example is the limited move towards cash based assistance in lieu of food and NFI distribution as described in section 7.1.1. The local and often many decades long presence of DMCDD partner organisations probably leads to a higher level of trust in the organisation, facilitating implementation of especially activities where the timeframe is longer and more radical changes to peoples’ lives and environment perhaps are required. Although this might not matter for all emergencies, there is no doubt that a long-term presence on the ground also in many emergencies facilitates access and contributes to improved cultural and social awareness. There is an inherent risk that faith based organisations discriminate against people who does not belong to their own faith, and/or that the delivery of humanitarian assistance will be coupled with proselytism. The project documents reviewed and the interviews held with MOs, partner organisations, and beneficiaries did not indicate that proselyticism had occurred. There is no evidence - be it in project documents or from interviews with beneficiaries, partner organisations or MOs - that there has been any discrimination based on religious or other parameters. Some proposals, e.g. project 13-01, provide a breakdown of beneficiaries by their religious affiliation. And many interviewees on Sri Lanka were confused when they were asked if the religious dimension of the concerned partner (ADT) was reflected in their activities: the first few interviewees did not even know ADT was a religious organisation, and the consultant was politely requested by ADT not to ask that question as it could create future problems for ADT due to the on-going religious conflicts in Sri Lanka. However, there are a couple of examples of funding of projects that might be targeting people mainly based on their religious affiliation: Project 12-07 in Bamako, Mali, explicitly targeted Christians IDPs only with the argument that they were especially vulnerable as they were displaced from the North without any means of support in Bamako – something which possibly would apply also to other groups and which made implementation less efficient5. In project 12-08 a bible school and orphanage was rebuilt with ERF support after a fire. These

5 The cost per beneficiary is DKK 460, the third highest of all the ERF funded projects.


Draft Report 8

two projects - out of the 35 assessed in this review – point to the need for DMCDD to be more clear as to why targeting of Christian beneficiaries may be appropriate, e.g. due to distinct vulnerabilities or needs. As seen from the above there are both potential advantages and disadvantages to the use of faith based organisations such as DMCDD MOs and partners in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. As to if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages depends on the specific context as well as the history of the partners. It is important to ensure that ERF projects are aligned with the humanitarian principle of impartiality and as such can not be accused of discrimination, be it due to religion, race or otherwise. It is therefore recommended that procedures are put in place to ensure that justification is provided if interventions will be targeting certain groups only.

Recommendation 1: Establish checks to ensure that ERF projects are in line with the humanitarian principles - especially the principle of neutrality - by ensuring that specific justification is provided in cases where one group only is targeted for interventions.

4 The Emergency Relief Fund (ERF) The Emergency Relief Fund (ERF) is funded by Danida and applications can be submitted throughout the year by MOs and their partners. Each grant can be up to DKK 250,000. The 2009 “Samarbejdsaftale om nødhjælpspulje mellem Udenrigsministeriet og Dansk Missionsråds Udviklingsafdeling" specifies that the ERF can only be used as per the objectives and criteria described in the agreement (included in Annex E). The application form attached to the 2009 Samarbejdsaftale specifies that the objectives are:

Yde en tids- og områdebegrænset nødhjælp og humanitær bistand i akutte, lokale katastrofesituationer til særligt udsatte grupper og at yde en ligeledes tidsbegrænset “allerførste førstehjælp” i større katastrofesituationer, hvor medlems- og/eller partnerorganisationer er til stede lokalt og har komparative fordele.

Skabe mulighed for, at DMR-U’s medlemsorganisationer i katastrofesituationer hurtigt kan reagere på appeller fra udsendte medarbejdere og/eller velkendte, faste samarbejdspartnere om nødhjælp og humanitær bistand i form af økonomisk, materiel og anden støtte.

Medvirke til at fastholde og styrke den folkelige forankring af dansk udviklingsbistand, herunder den humanitære bistand, i medlemsorganisationernes bagland og i de brede kirkelige og folkelige kredse, de har kontakt til.

From 2010 to 2013 the ERF has been funded with an annual grant of DKK 2 million. The agreement from 2009 specifies that the funds can only be used as per the criteria and


Draft Report 9

principles defined in the application. The administration of the grant has to be according to the guidelines for administration of pooled funds. In recent years there has been changes to the guidelines of other pooled funds (and a new fund has been established), and it could be considered if it would be useful to revise the 2009 ERF agreement to ensure it is in line with other pooled funds.

Recommendation 2: Consider if the 2009 agreement between DMCDD and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be revised to ensure it is in line with other pooled funds.

4.1 Financial overview of the ERF

Yearly breakdowns of the annual grants along with the original budget stipulated in the 2009 agreement are included in table 1 below. Table 1: Breakdown of annual grants Activity Agreement

2009 (DKK) Expenditure 2010 (DKK)

Expenditure 2011 (DKK)

Expenditure 2012 (DKK)

Budget 2013 (DKK)

Total (DKK) 2010-2013

Emergency projects 1,820,000 1,882,000 1,844,000 1,863,000 1,845,000 7,434,000

Technical assistance 45,000 33,000 44,000 44,000 40,000 161,000

Monitoring 25,000 1,000 0 0 10,000 11,000

Audit 10,000 0 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000

Administration (5%) 100,000 96,000 100,000 101,000 100,000 397,000

Total 2,000,000 2,012,000 1,993,000 2,018,000 2,000,000 8,023,000

The actual expenditures consistently differ from the budget stipulated in the 2009 agreement in that no funds have been spent on monitoring during 2010-12 (and only a small amount is budgeted for 2013) – for more on this, please refer to section 0. More funds are instead allocated to projects. Overall, DKK 7.4 million (93%) out of a total of more than DKK 8 million has been spent on direct support to ERF projects. The technical assistance (approximately 2%) is for time spent on assessing the applications, dispatching letters of confirmation, transferring funds, etc. The technical assistance was equal to 70 and 67 hours in 2011 and 2012 respectively6, or approximately 8 hours per project. Additionally, an overhead of 5% is charged, which means that the total administrative cost is 7% which is reasonable given the many (35) grants disbursed, and in line with the overhead for other funding mechanisms supported by Danida. The audits of projects are available in hard copies at DMCDD. The annual audits of the ERF confirm that the ERP is administered in accordance with the guidelines from Danida, and that the procedures and internal controls in DMCDD are supportive of the Danida guidelines, relevant Danish laws, and standard practices.

6 2013 was atypical as more hours were spent due the development of the note ”Kortlægning af

nødhjælpspuljen”.


Draft Report 10

4.2 Criteria for support from the ERF

The ERF Criteria for Support used by DMCDD to administer the ERF (see Annex F for the full text) states that projects eligible for support must: 1) provide emergency relief or humanitarian intervention in “connexion with an

unforeseen or suddenly emerged catastrophe”, 2) “relieve smaller, local disasters” in areas where the partners are already present, or 3) in the case of a larger emergency situation to a) “time-limited very first, first aid”; b) to

marginalised areas or groups; c) to special interventions (such as reconciliation or trauma healing, or d) to special operations if the partner has a comparative advantage.

There is no explicit hierarchy of the criteria. It is uncertain why there are different criteria for different sizes of emergencies. The overlap between the three criteria would in reality mean that almost any emergency (small and large as long as partners are already present, and sudden on-set and prolonged as long as they are smaller and local) can be supported with almost any type of humanitarian interventions (e.g. with ‘special interventions’ and ‘special operations’).

Recommendation 3: Revise the Criteria for Support to make it clearer what can be supported and what can not.

The 'Ansøgningsskema" (annex to the agreement with MFA, page 3) specifies that the support is to assist beneficiaries until they can take care of themselves again. This seems to be overly ambitious considering that funds can only be made available for one year, and possibly this is not the intention but should instead be until somebody else would be able to take care of the beneficiaries, e.g. the government or larger emergency organisations. For more on the criteria and the relevance of the projects, please refer to chapter 0.

5 DMCDD’s administration of the ERF Requests for support from the ERF are submitted by MOs using a simple format as included in Annex G. MOs often first make telephone contact to enquire if there are any funds left and to get a preliminary indication whether the application is within the scope of the ERF. This contributes to ensure that only relevant proposals are submitted, thus limits the number of (written) rejections. No records are kept of the informal applications rejected, making it impossible to quantify the actual interest in funding from the ERF. Based on interviews with MOs it does, however, not seem that MOs experience frequent rejections.


Draft Report 11

The request is processed by the DMCDD Director who, if required, might ask supplementary questions and elaboration on parts of the application. In the job description for the DMCDD Director, administration of the ERF is not very prominent (it is only mentioned as part of a more general bullet point) and it might be necessary to consider if this task should be more prominent, taking into consideration that not only is time spent on it, but as timing is crucial additional workload can be required at any time, including during weekend and holidays. The capacity assessment of DMCDD recommended that the job descriptions of DMCDD staff should be revised to reflect the new structure and changing areas of responsibility, and it would probably be worth considering a revision in this conjunction.

Recommendation 4: Revise the job description of the DMCDD Director to reflect the time required for administration as well as unpredictability hereof.

If more funds are made available to the ERF, and thus potentially more projects are to be supported, it should also be considered if the administration of the ERF should remain with the DMCDD Director as he might come under pressure, especially from board members, to approve certain projects. If the administrative task is delegated to DMCDD staff, it will be easier for the Head of the Secretariat to keep arm’s length. It should be noted that the review did not collect any evidence of such pressure. A larger ERF portfolio might also mean larger or more complex projects, in which case it might be necessary to source qualified external advisory services to ensure a continued high quality of projects, including keeping abreast with the latest developments within the domain of humanitarian assistance (see also section 7.1.1 for more on this).

Recommendation 5: If a more substantial ERF portfolio with larger or more complex projects is realised, DMCDD should consider if and when external advisory services are required for ensuring high technical quality of ERF projects.

If the application is approved the relevant MO is informed, the requested funds are transferred to the MO for forwarding to the parnter, and a letter of confirmation is emailed. Attached to the letter of confirmation are the guidelines for reporting and accounting, two questionnaires for use during audit of the funds, and the DMCDD Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct, all of which are found to be of satisfactory quality. By signing the Letter of Confirmation, MOs and partners are asked to confirm that the ERF conditions are accepted and will be observed. However, not all letters are available.

Recommendation 6: Ensure MOs and partners confirm that they will abide by the conditions for the ERF grant.

Although the MOs are formally submitting the applications, most of the applications are developed by the partner organisations as are the final reports. MOs’ involvement mainly consists of providing technical advice during the development of the application and the final reports. The MOs are the formal recipients of the ERF funds, and the funds are


Draft Report 12

channelled through them, making the MOs ultimately responsible towards DMCDD, which in itself provides strong incentives for the MOs to ensure that the partners on whose behalf they apply for funding have the necessary capacity to implement the projects. The transfer of funds to partners through MOs might cause a slight delay, normally only a matter of a day or two, but it could be more if the transfer takes place during holidays, and add an unnecessary extra cost. For partners with sufficient capacity and experiences in receiving funds from abroad it could be considered transferring the funds directly to them, provided that a system is established that ensures the funds remains the responsibility of MOs. Inspiration for this could be found in procedures for the other funds administered by DMCDD.

Recommendation 7: Consider how and if funds could be transferred directly to some partners.

5.1 Capacity of DMCDD to administer the ERF

As indicated in TOR (Annex A), a capacity assessment of DMCDD was undertaken in 20137, and this review will utilise also the findings from that. The 2013 capacity assessment found that DMCDD generally have the capacity to satisfactory administer not only its current portfolio of funds, but also additional funds. The assessment found that the staff of DMCDD were experienced and that generally the administration was well-functioning and adhering to Danida guidelines in their administration of the funds. The core administrative tool for administering the ERF projects is a folder for each project and a simple spreadsheet. The project folder contains the application, letter of confirmation (mainly from DMCDD only as per the above), final reports, including financial reports, and any other supporting documents. The spreadsheet lists all the projects with information on the country, MO, amount, and if the audited accounts have been received or not. A new database for keeping track of the projects funded by the mini programme is being developed. Such a database might potentially be useful also for improved administration of the projects funded through the ERF – unfortunately the database has not been developed with ERF projects in mind. Using a dedicated database with mandatory records would assist in ensuring all documents are available, including the signed letters of confirmation.

Recommendation 8: Ensure that the mini programme database can also accommodate the requirements of the ERF, or alternatively establish a more detailed database than the present.

7 ”Kapactitetsundersøgelse, Dansk Missionsråds Udviklingsafdeling (DMR-U) – Endelig rapport”, Danida -

Konsulentnetværket, March, 2013


Draft Report 13

5.2 Application processing

Part of the rationale behind the fund is that responses can be initiated quickly as the partners are already on the ground. This requires that the applications are processed timely. After initial assessment of a proposal by the DMCDD Director, it is forwarded, using email, to a small sub-committee consisting of two representatives of the board of DMCDD. The sub-committee approves or reject the application. If an application is submitted by a MO represented in the sub-committee, the representative of the concerned MO does not participate in the process of approving/rejecting the application. Annex H includes a table with details of the processing time from receipt of the application over approval to final reporting. Members interviewed were in general satisfied with the processing time, with most applications processed within a few days. Based on email correspondence between MOs and DMCDD it is clear that efforts are made to ensure high quality proposals – there is evidence of several back and forth clarifications/answers. As an example: DMCDD and the board sub-committee were clearly well aware of the complicated aspects of one of the more difficult projects, project 13-08 which supported only a few of the most vulnerable IDPs for a few weeks in a protracted crisis (see also section 7.1 for more on this). One of the then members of the board sub-committee approving the ERF projects represented the participating organisation, but excused himself participating in the decision on this proposal. There are, however, no detailed instructions for how such cases should be handled, nor are there any specific description of the roles and functions of the sub-committee members. Such clear descriptions would be useful for future references.

Recommendation 9: Develop TOR for the ERF board sub-committee.

There have been instances where the processing time has been longer than desirable, sometimes due to the need for repeated revisions of the original application. Time taken for approval was satisfactory for almost two thirds (22) of the projects based on an assumption that a two week processing time is satisfactory if the time is less than two weeks in cases of sudden-onset emergencies - for a protracted crisis, timing is less critical, and non-satisfactory if the approval has taken more than two weeks. The processing time was non-satisfactory for a quarter (9) of the projects, and unknown for 4 projects. It should be noted that this information in many instances is based on dates of computer files which might not provide 100% accurate information due to a potential delay between approval of the application and the date of archiving the proposal It should be noted that this is based partly on dates of files as there generally are no other ways of tracking dates of receipt of applications, dates of approvals, and dates of submission of letter of confirmation/transfer of funds. A graphical presentation of this is included in figure 1 on the next page. See also section 7.2 for more information on the importance of timely processing.


Draft Report 14

Adding to the time required for processing the ERF proposals, is the fact that the communication is between DMCDD and the relevant MO, who in turn communicate with the partner, potentially delaying feedback to requests for more information. It would possibly be quicker if follow-up communication is directly between DMCDD and the partners. To ensure ownership by the MOs, the direct communication should only be after the MO has submitted the first draft of the proposal, and the MOs should be copied on all communication.

Recommendation 10: Consider if DMCDD should communicate directly with the relevant partners - after the first draft of the proposal has been submitted through the MO - to improve processing time.

Timely reporting is also a requirement of the ERF – funds have to be accounted for latest three months after completion of the activities. Out of the 35 projects funded, 5 have not submitted final reports on time, and in a couple of instances the final reports can not be located (see Annex H for details and figure 1 below). Figure 1: Timeliness of processing and reporting

To allow for continuous monitoring, follow-up, and possibly more timely management of ERF supported projects, including the processing/approval process and final reporting, a database containing the important milestones should be established. This would include date of disaster, first contact, dates of receipt of final application, dates of approval, date of dispatch of letter of confirmation, dates for receipt of confirmation that MOs and partners will adhere to the conditions of the grant, and date of final reporting. The application and reporting forms could also include tables with the relevant dates indicated.

Recommendation 11: Establish a database that includes information on important dates and documents relevant to the administration of the ERF. If possible, this should be included in the up-coming database for mini projects.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Processing Reporting

Satisfactory (S) Non-satisfactory (NS) Not due yet/unknown as of now


Draft Report 15

The duration of an ERF funded project can not exceed 12 months as per the ERF Criteria for Support. As per figure 2 below, only one project has lasted 12 months, with the vast majority lasting only between one and 6 months, which is found to be reasonable considering the relatively small grants. Figure 2: Duration of ERF funded projects

5.3 Monitoring

From 2010 to 2013 no monitoring of on-going ERF projects has been done by DMCDD - in 2013 a visit by the DMCDD director was paid to partners in Sri Lanka and Myanmar who had implemented past ERF projects. MOs occasionally monitor ERF projects if they are anyhow visiting a project in the vicinity of the ERF project; this information is not, however, fed into the DMCDD archives. There is no reason to believe that the activities are not implemented as described in the applications/final reports, but it is not possible to verify this, except for the projects visited on Sri Lanka, where interviewees confirmed were implemented as described. Although it will not be possible to monitor all projects, it is important to send a signal that monitoring visits might take place. It is therefore recommended that monitoring of at least one or two projects is undertaken yearly – this should be done also in the more remote locations where MOs do not often visit. This could in some instances be done in conjunction with visits to other project activities, and thus partly funded by other sources. If it is not possible to combine monitoring of ERF projects with visits funded by other sources there is likely to be budgetary implications as the DKK 25,000 allocated is insufficient.

Recommendation 12: Ensure that monitoring of one or two ERF projects is done yearly, if possible in conjunction with other visits.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

No. of projects


Draft Report 16

Furthermore, it would be useful if copies of information from MOs’ monitoring visits are archived also at DMCDDD. This could be achieved by i) expanding the form used for monitoring of mini programme projects to also include a section on ERF projects, and ii) by developing a separate simple form for ERF projects that are visited without any connection with mini programme projects. This information then has to be archived either in the new database or as a separate file in the project folder.

Recommendation 13: Ensure that information from MOs’ monitoring visits is archived at DMCDD through expansion of existing monitoring forms used for other projects, or through the use a separate monitoring form.

5.4 Reviews

As shown in section 7.1.1 not all the projects supported by the ERF are utilising the latest best practices to their full extent. External assistance to ensure this should be considered, e.g. through the use of external advisory services for assessment of proposals as also described on page 11, or, alternatively, an annual or so external brief review of projects could be conducted, possibly in some years desk-based and in some years focusing on a thematic aspect. The review would focus on the projects and their implementation modalities in view of the criteria for support and best practices.

Recommendation 14: If no external advisory service is contracted for assessing proposals, regular brief external reviews of ERF projects should be conducted.

6 Member and partner organisations Of the 31 DMCDD members, almost a third (11) have been granted funds from the ERF for a total of 35 projects, e.g. an average of a bit more than 3 projects per MO, as per table 2 below. Danmission has received the most grants (7) followed by Mission Africa, IAS and Dansk Europamission with 5 or 6 grants each. A total of 30 different partners have been implementing ERF projects, e.g. different partners for almost all projects. LEADS on Sri Lanka is the partner that has been implementing the most ERF funded projects (three), followed by ADT on Sri Lanka and Shalom Foundation in Myanmar, each with two projects.


Draft Report 17

Table 2: MOs that have benefited from the ERF MO 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Danmission 2 2 3 7

Mission Afrika 2 2 2 6

IAS 1 2 1 1 5

Dansk Europamission 1 1 2 1 5

Assist 1 2 3

Det Danske Missionsforbund 1 1 2

Mission Øst 1 1 2

Baptistkirken 1 1 2

Ethiopermissionen 1 1

DEM 1 1

Skandinavisk Børnemission 1 1

Total 9 8 10 8 35

The support has been provided in 24 countries Table 3: ERF projects per country as per table 3 to the right. Sri Lanka has had the most projects (6), followed by Myanmar (4), and Pakistan with three. A mapping of the countries is included in figure 3. Figure 3: 2010-13 ERF project countries

Partners in 9 countries in Asia have been supported by 19 projects, partners in 13 countries in Africa has been supported by 14 projects, and partners in 2 countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have been supported by 2 projects. Or in other words, a little more than half of the projects have been implemented in Asia, 40% in Africa and 5% in MENA. The regional distribution is illustrated in figure 4 below.

Region Country Projects

Asia Sri Lanka 6

Asia Myanmar 4

Asia Pakistan 3

Africa Cameroun 2

Africa Burundi 1

Asia Cambodja 1

Africa CAR 1

Africa DRC 1

MENA Egypten 1

Asia Filippinerne 1

Africa Guinea 1

Asia Indien 1

Asia Indonesien 1

Africa Liberia 1

Africa Mali 1

Asia Nepal 1

Africa Nigeria 1

Africa Sierra Leone 1

Africa Somalia 1

Africa Sudan 1

Africa Sydsudan 1

MENA Syrien 1

Asia Tajikistan 1

Africa Tanzania 1


Draft Report 18

Figure 4: Regional distribution of ERF projects

6.1 Capacity of MOs and their partners

Except IAS and Mission East, the MOs generally only have limited experiences with implementing humanitarian activities. IAS define themselves as a humanitarian organisation with an annual turnover of DKK 12 million, of which approximately DKK 4 million are humanitarian funds. Mission East has an annual turnover of approximately DKK 90 million of which around half is humanitarian funding. Mission East is also one of the 8 Danish NGOs that have a humanitarian partnership agreement with Danida and thus have access to substantial other humanitarian funding from Danida. In line with the guidelines for applications to CISU (Civil Society in Development) - whereby organisations that have a framework agreement with Danida can not apply for funds through CISU - it is recommended that organisations having a humanitarian partnership agreement with Danida are ineligible for funding through the ERF.

Recommendation 15: Revise guidelines to clarify that organisations with a humanitarian partnership with Danida are not eligible for funding through the ERF.

Other MOs are not specialised in implementing humanitarian interventions, including Danmission, one of the largest MOs of DMCDD with an annual turnover in 2012 of DKK 64 million, of which more than a third was from their framework agreement with Danida. Danmission define themselves as a non-humanitarian organisation and likewise are most of their partners, and normally only get involved in humanitarian interventions under special circumstances - often when other organisations can not access the affected population. As the MOs’ involvement in implementation of the ERF funded projects is limited it is important that the partner organisations have sufficient capacity to implement the projects. Two partner organisations (LEADS and ADT on Sri Lanka) were visited during this review. Both of them clearly are well-experienced and have a high capacity for implementing


Draft Report 19

humanitarian projects. This was confirmed by beneficiaries, government representatives, and other donors (a USAID project), who all praised the support provided by the partner organisation (ADT). The two partners stated they adhere to the Code of Conduct for International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief as well as other standards, including Sphere and government standards. ADT, as an indication of their capacity to implement humanitarian projects in fragile settings, also have their own Safety and Security Handbook. It is, however, unlikely that the two organisations are representative of the broader group of partners to the DMCDD MOs. Most other partners are likely to be much smaller with more limited capacity to implement emergency projects, and possibly with less knowledge of humanitarian principles and the latest best practices (cf. also the discussion in section 7.1.1 on cash based assistance). This limited capacity is also reflected in the responses by some MOs as to if the grant limit of DKK 250,000 should be increased, where some MOs stated that it would be possible, others that it would be possible for some partners, and others again that the grant limit should not be increased on account of their partners’ limited capacity. There was general agreement that if the total amount of funds available to the ERF is not increased, the present limit of DKK 250,000 should be maintained; this will ensure a wider coverage. As discussed in section 7.1.2 the ERF projects generally are targeting the most vulnerable, are coordinating with other actors, and have a flexible approach. Coupled with a focus on people in need regardless of race, religion, etc. these parameters are indications of a general understanding of some of the basic humanitarian principles. The reporting format does not request specific references to humanitarian principles, and the extent to which the principles are implemented throughout could not be established by this review. Due to the uneven capacity of MOs and partner organisations it could be considered, if more funds are made available to the ERF, if there should be two funding windows, one (smaller grants, e.g. up to DKK 250,000) for MOs and partners with limited capacity, and one larger window for MOs and partners with higher capacity to implement humanitarian projects. This would require that a more detailed capacity assessment of the MOs and partners compared to what is required today should be conducted. E.g. in addition to listing the humanitarian projects that the MOs and partners have been implementing in the past, basic information on their (humanitarian) turnover, number of staff, experiences from management of past ERF projects, etc. would also be required.

Recommendation 16: Consider, in case more funds are made available to the ERF, if the grant limit should be increased for some partners based on more robust capacity assessment of such partners, including their track record of management of past ERF grants.


Draft Report 20

7 The ERF projects

7.1 Relevance and effectiveness

Almost all the ERF funded projects (32 out of 35) are found to be relevant to the objective of the ERF - please also refer to Annex J for assessment by project. The perhaps most notable exemption is project 13-08 through which 2,500 IDPs out of 18,000 in an IDP camp were supported with food and tents for a few weeks. This support can not qualify as a very first response (they had been displaced since 2009) and perhaps it is not a smaller local disaster – providing such assistance for a few weeks is only a drop in the ocean, and the funds might have been utilised more efficient if they were given directly to World Vision who is in charge of food distribution in the camp. See also section 5.2 for more on the approval process for this project. The two other projects which did not fully fulfil the criteria are project 10-04 and 12-07, both of which did not provide sufficient justification that they targeted all that were most in need. It is difficult to ensure that all projects are equally relevant, but care has to be taken that the Criteria for Support are fulfilled.

Recommendation 17: Ensure that all supported projects are in line with the Criteria for Support.

Only one project (12-08) is found not to be fully relevant to the needs of the population: the project bought, amongst other things, library books, computers and office equipment, something which is not normally considered lifesaving. See also page 25 for an analysis of the extent to which the projects are targeting the most vulnerable. Two other projects provided insufficient information to clearly assess if the activities were relevant to the needs or not. In summary, it is found that most of the projects are relevant to the objective of the ERF as well as to the needs of beneficiaries.

7.1.1 Types of interventions

Different types of interventions have been supported through the ERF as indicated in figure 5 below. A more detailed overview of the different types of interventions by project can be found in Annex I.


Draft Report 21

Figure 4: Types of interventions

Food assistance and NFIs The by far most common type of intervention is food distribution which has been done in two thirds (23 out of 35) of the projects. In almost half (15) of the projects food distribution is combined with distribution of NFIs – distribution of NFIs have taken place in a total of 19 projects. Distribution of food and NFIs is a typical and relevant first response to a sudden-onset disaster. Increasingly, cash based assistance in various forms are being used by the main actors such as WFP and others in emergency responses. A few ERF projects have taken the first small steps small in the direction of considering and using cash based assistance e.g.:

Project 12-04: Cash transfer was done in locations where security did not permit distribution, indicating that cash transfers was indeed possible.

Project 12-06: There were discussions on the advantages of providing vouchers for purchase of undergarment, but no indications that the ‘next step’ - cash transfers - was considered even though it is likely that at least some beneficiaries would prefer other types of clothing or would indeed more urgently need something different, e.g. medical assistance or the like

Project 12-07: Daily distribution of bread was difficult as beneficiaries lives scattered, and it was considered giving cash, but it was dismissed for unclear reasons: “it wouldn’t be fair to do cash distribution” and beneficiaries were given spaghetti instead. This is possibly an example of beneficiaries being given something else than what they preferred, and as the distribution was taking place in Bamako it is unlikely that bread (and all the other food items for that matter) was not readily available.

23

19

65

45

2 24

9

0

5

10

15

20

25


Draft Report 22

Cash based assistance can be advantageous if the goods requested (typically food or NFIs, but can also be e.g. water) are available locally, and can take different forms, including direct cash transfer, be it conditional or unconditional, or it can be in the form of vouchers. The transaction cost for a local partner purchasing and distributing a relatively small amount of food or NFI can be high, and include cost for purchase (quotations, quality control), transport (potentially the amount is so small that they can not e.g. fill a truck), storage, distribution, etc. And there is a risk that not all of the goods are to the likings of the beneficiaries or that some beneficiaries need to resell the goods (often at a much lower price than the purchase value) as they need money for medicine or the like instead. Cash transfers, unconditional especially, reduce the transaction costs, meaning more resources are available to beneficiaries. An example of where cash based assistance might have improved efficiency is project 12-01 during which four different types of beneficiaries were to be given different types of NFIs. It would probably have been easier and cheaper to provide cash instead of administering four different types of beneficiaries/sets of NFIs. As indicated by some of the Danish member organisations, cash based assistance, however, clash with the traditional perception of the role of the church as a provider of tangible goods and not cash. Some MOs and partners were also concerned that cash can easier be misused for e.g. alcohol or other non-essential goods8, or that the temptation for partner staff might be too high; numerous studies, however, show that the use of cash for non-essential goods rarely occur, and the counter argument is that food can also be sold by beneficiaries and the profit used for purchasing non-essential goods. The risk of partner staff running away with some of the funds also exists in relation to food or NFI distribution (albeit it is more difficult to make a bag of rice disappear than a USD 100 note), but can be countered by improved monitoring systems. Distribution of large amounts of cash, especially on a regular basis, has been associated with security risks, especially in volatile conflict settings. However, due to the relatively small amount available for the ERF projects, cash transfers would typically be a one-off occurrence only, greatly reducing the risk, and in many countries there is now also the possibility of transferring money directly to the beneficiaries’ mobile phones. The Criteria for Support stated that “Distribution of cash should normally be avoided but can be accepted in special cases if this is clearly stated in the application”. If this is because it is assumed that the partner organisations do not have the required capacity to implement cash based interventions, it must be considered if the partner organisations are the right ones to implement relief activities. Of course, the limited scale of many of the projects might make this less efficient, but this also applies to the other types of distribution partner engage in. It is recommended that interventions to the extent possible are cash based, e.g. by requesting the MO/partner organisation to argue why a cash based intervention would not work, e.g. due to non-existing markets, safety concerns, etc.

8 And who defines anyhow what that is better than beneficiaries themselves.


Draft Report 23

Recommendation 18: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage the use of cash based assistance.

To further support the use of cash based assistance, DMCDD should consider making available to its MOs basic information on advantages and disadvantages of cash based assistance, experiences, as well as best practices in different circumstances. Inspiration for such information can be obtained from the internet, e.g. from the Cash Learning Partnership website (http://www.cashlearning.org/).

Recommendation 19: Share information on best practices on the use of cash based assistance with MOs.

Most projects with NFI distribution consist of cooking equipment, blankets etc., all of which is typical relevant as a first response to a disaster where people have been displaced. However, there are also a couple of less relevant projects with distribution of e.g. glasses (project 11-02) that are not normally considered part of an emergency response, and the distribution of herbal medicine for colds and flus (project 11-08) – something that might be important for cultural reasons and which can alleviate some of the symptoms, but is very unlikely to have any real impact on the disease itself. In other projects painkillers have been distributed. Project 10-07 distributed, amongst other things, first aid kits with not only painkillers but also antibiotics to camp management committees, and a whole range of other medicine – antibiotics is surely best left to qualified medical staff to prescribe rather than to a camp management committee that may not have any medical background. Nowhere is it mentioned that these supplies would not be available to the population unless they were brought in by the partner organisation. To ensure that only appropriate items are distributed, it could be useful if the projects were guided by the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response as described in the Sphere Project. To facilitate the use of such standards it could be consider developing a simple guidance note on what the standards are about and how they are used.

Recommendation 20: Consider if a note on the use of minimum standards as described in the Sphere Project would be useful as guidance for the specific interventions.

Other types of assistance Shelter, health, WASH, and livelihood interventions featured in more than half (20) of the 35 ERF projects, often in conjunction with food or NFI distribution. Such interventions are also relevant in most emergency situations, and can be a crucial supplement to food and NFI interventions. Shelter interventions include support to reconstruction of houses and distribution of (replacement) tents. The projects with health interventions range from support to information campaigns on the importance of polio vaccinations over rebuilding of health centers to distribution of painkillers or antibiotics. WASH interventions have included development of new water sources and water trucking.


Draft Report 24

Support to livelihood has mainly consisted of assistance to restart small-scale business through distribution of initial stocks and necessary equipment. Protection and peacebuilding Only four projects included elements of protection and peacebuilding, including two projects with activities on advocacy for the rights of IDPs (12-04 and 12-07, in Syria and Mali respectively). Two projects included elements of peacebuilding: In project 13-05 (Central African Republic) a quarter of the budget is reserved for support to an already established peace building committee, and in project 13-06 (Guinea) where a 5-day workshop on trauma healing and reconciliation is held in addition to distribution of food and NFIs, also a quarter of the budget - it is uncertain how much experience the partner have in conducting such workshops. All four projects having elements of protection and peacebuilding have been implemented in 2012 and 13, perhaps an indication that there has been a slight change in focus in recent years. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and recovery Four projects (projects 12-01, 12-03, 12-09, and 13-07) have included DRR elements such as disaster risk awareness and management training and advocacy. Eight projects, four of which are overlapping with the livelihood projects described above, have included recovery elements, mainly support to restarting small-scale business and rehabilitation of basic infrastructure such as water facilities and schools or houses. DRR and recovery are certainly relevant in most emergencies although usually not as a first response. DRR can contribute to reduce the need for future emergency support, and support to recovery activities will assist in accelerating the recovery from a disaster. As also applies to the projects containing elements of protection and peacebuilding as described above, the projects having elements of DRR are all from 2012 and 13, possibly indicating a shift towards DRR interventions. The format for development of ERF proposals includes a section on DRR (section 9: “Measures which could be taken to help to strengthen local capacity to respond to future emergency situations and increase preparedness in areas often hidden by natural disasters”). For some of the proposals it has clearly been a difficult and creative process to develop anything meaningful to write in that section. Section 9 was originally anticipated to be used to outline some of the first ideas for a project that potentially could be funded through one of the other funds available at DMCDD, i.e. mainly through a mini project. In reality this has never happened, and one of the MOs described how difficult it was to do, partly due to the emphasis on capacity development and involvement of the civil society in the mini projects.


Draft Report 25

Writing section 9 might be a waste of crucial time if it is anyhow unlikely to be funded through the ERF or other sources of funds - funding through the ERF might in any case be difficult due to the limited funds available to ERF projects and the focus on short-term emergency interventions. However, if there are obvious possibilities for DRR activities, perhaps mainly at community or individual levels, it should be possible to indicate so. It is therefore proposed that section 9 is made in optional.

Recommendation 21: Section 9 of the proposal format should be optional and only filled in when relevant.

Given the many good reasons for implementing DRR and recovery activities, it should be considered if the Criteria for Support should be revised to reflect this, e.g. through specifying that incorporation of DRR and recovery elements in the applications are encouraged.

Recommendation 22: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage elements that addresses DRR and recovery.

Due to the difficulties of completing DRR and recovery projects within a 12 month timeframe, it would be useful to investigate in more details if and how such projects could be expanded beyond 12 months.

Recommendation 23: Investigate the relevance and possibilities for an extension of DRR and recovery projects beyond 12 months.

7.1.2 Vulnerability, coordination and flexibility

Focus on vulnerability Of the 35 projects, two thirds (23) were explicitly targeting the most vulnerable as assessed the projects' description of how the most vulnerable would be targeted. For a quarter (9) of the projects it is uncertain to what extent the most vulnerable were targeted, which does not mean it was not done, only that is was not described in the applications or final reports. In many sudden-onset emergencies it might also not make sense to start differentiating between those who have nothing, and those who have almost nothing - such assessments might also add substantially to the transaction costs, and might indeed lead to (additional) conflicts. Three projects would appear not necessarily to target the most vulnerable, i.e. project 10-04 targeting ex-business people, 12-07 targeting only Christian IDPs, and project 123-07 supporting the reconstruction of a bible school and orphanage. Overall most of the projects have focused on the most vulnerable, with three notable exceptions, constituting less than 10% of the total project portfolio. Flexibility


Draft Report 26

Flexibility is crucial for successful intervention in emergencies, especially in the first phase when detailed information on needs might not be available. Analyses of the proposals/final reports for indication of preparedness to be flexible or if any of the activities were changed after approval of the proposal (as reported in the final report) show that more than two thirds (25) of the 35 projects were applying a flexible approach. Examples are project 11-03 where the originally foreseen water trucking did not take place as people had moved; and project 12-09 in which it was decided to include also community sensitisation on disaster prevention as it was requested by the beneficiary communities. If there are no references made to flexibility in the application or in the final report, it does not mean that the approach was not flexible; instead there might simply not have been a need for changing anything. Coordination Past experiences have shown that coordination is crucial for successful and efficient interventions in emergencies. Analyses of the proposals and final reports reveal that for 28 of the 35 ERF projects (80%), the proposals or (in most cases) the final reports describe how coordination with other actors was ensured. If a proposal or report does not mention coordination, it does not mean it was not done, only that it was not considered important enough to be included in the narratives – or perhaps because if was considered ‘of course, we always do that’. The proposal format contains a sub-bullet point on how the activities were coordinated. However, to increase the likelihood that coordination is properly considered from the onset of the intervention, it would be useful to make the coordination aspect more prominent, e.g. by including a separate section for description on how coordination will be ensured.

Recommendation 24: Increase the likelihood that interventions are coordinated with other actors by inserting a separate section on coordination aspects in the proposal format.

7.2 Timeliness

During the first response to a sudden onset emergency, timing is important. Furthermore, as it is assumed that one of the advantages of the present ERF modality with the use of local partners, the capacity to respond quickly is important, and an analysis of timing can provide useful information as to if the presumed comparative advantage does indeed exist. The two main factors to analyse when assessing timeliness would thus be the time taken to approve (or reject) the proposals, and the time from the proposals have been approved to implementation commences. As seen in section 5.2, there time taken for processing applications was satisfactory for two thirds of the projects and non-satisfactory for a quarter.


Draft Report 27

As quick implementation is equally important, the ERF projects have been rated satisfactory if implementation has commenced within two weeks from approval of the proposal (see details in Annex H). Overall, for almost two thirds (21) of the projects the implementation commenced within a satisfactory timeframe, and 14 commenced within an unknown timeframe (of which 8 are unknown because the final reports are not due yet). The in some instances delayed commencement of activities is possible related to the relative low capacity of some of the partners in which case additional staff might have to be hired, or the remoteness of some locations can delay the transfer of funds. The ERF Criteria for Support stipulates that projects should be completed within 12 months. Two thirds of the supported projects lasted less than 4 months. This supports a focus on first response.

7.3 Efficiency

The financial efficiency can be measured by analysing the cost per beneficiary and how much of the funds are spent directly on beneficiaries. The number of beneficiaries for a project is, however, a very crude measurement that is difficult to compare across different types of projects of different duration: If 10,000 people are reached for 1 day with e.g. painkillers, how does that related to feeding 1,000 people every day for 4 months? Assuming it makes sense to make such calculations, the average cost per beneficiary is DKK 36. However, if the project with the by far largest number of beneficiaries (58,000 that were targeted for an information campaign in project 10-5) is omitted, the cost per beneficiary will increase to almost DKK 50. Back of the envelope calculations show that on average 91% of the ERF funds are spent directly on beneficiaries, ranging from 72 to 100%. These costs are not necessarily the full cost of implementing the projects as the member or partner organisations might contribute towards the administrative cost with funding from other sources (for information by project, please refer to Annex I), and the value of the use of volunteers is unknown. Some projects might be spreading too thin, e.g. project 11-02 spread over three locations in Egypt, and project 12-07 was implemented in 6 locations in Lebanon, all of which add to the cost of implementation. Given the relative small grants for each project, which, all other things being equal, typically would increase the administrative costs - e.g. by increasing the transactions costs disproportionally: procurement and transport of e.g. 2 tons of food might be very similar to procurement and transport of 30 tons of food - the projects are found to be efficiently implemented.


Draft Report 28

8 Findings and recommendations This chapter summarises the findings from the previous chapters and includes all recommendations.

8.1 Advantages/challenges of church organisations

There are potential advantages and disadvantages to the use of faith based organisations to deliver humanitarian assistance, with the balance depending on numerous unquantifiable factors. There is a risk that faith based organisations will be accused of proselytising or favouring Christians. This review found no evidence of ERF funds being spent on proselytising, but there are one or two projects that appear to target only Christians. It is, however, important that the ERF adheres to the humanitarian principle of neutrality by providing justification if projects are targeting only certain groups.

Recommendation 1: Establish checks to ensure that ERF projects are in line with the humanitarian principles - especially the principle of neutrality - by ensuring that specific justification is provided in cases where one group only is targeted for interventions.

8.2 Criteria for support from the ERF

Given the changes to other pooled funds it could be considered if the 2009 ERF agreement should be revised in order to ensure it is in line with other pooled funds.

Recommendation 2: Consider if the 2009 agreement between DMCDD and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be revised to ensure it is in line with other pooled funds.

The Criteria for Support from the ERF are not clear and opens up for supporting almost anything, including a small sub-set of larger groups in protracted crisis, support which will be like a drop in the ocean without any substantial impact.

Recommendation 3: Revise the Criteria for Support to make it clearer what can be supported and what can not.

8.3 Administration of the ERF

Overall, the administration of the ERF is efficient with a total overhead of 7%, consisting of 5% for administration and 2% for technical support for approval of proposals and disbursement of grants. Administration of the ERF is the responsibility of the Head of the DMCDD Secretariat with administrative and financial support from an assistant. Processing of ERF proposal takes time


Draft Report 29

and the workload can be unpredictable, neither of which is adequately reflected in the job description for the DMCDD Director.

Recommendation 4: Revise the job description of the DMCDD Director to reflect the time required for administration as well as unpredictability hereof.

If more funds are made available to the ERF there will potentially be more projects to administer, or the projects will be more complex, additional work will be required. More complex projects might also require that sourcing of advisory services to ensure the technical quality of the projects.

Recommendation 5: If a more substantial ERF portfolio with larger or more complex projects is realised, DMCDD should consider if and when external advisory services are required for ensuring high technical quality of ERF projects.

Only for a few of the projects are signed confirmation that partners will abide by the conditions for the grant available.

Recommendation 6: Ensure MOs and partners confirm that they will abide by the conditions for the ERF grant, and ensure that signed confirmations are archived.

Time and resources could be saved by transferring the funds directly to some partners from DMCDD instead of through MOs.

Recommendation 7: Consider how and if funds could be transferred directly to some partners.

A database is being developed for use for administration of mini programme projects. This database would be useful also for administering the ERF projects.

Recommendation 8: Ensure that the mini programme database can also accommodate the requirements of the ERF, or alternatively establish a more detailed database than the present.

After initial processing by the DMCDD Director, the proposals are forwarded to a two-person sub-committee of the board for approval. There are no TOR for the sub-committee, which could be useful as guidance, e.g. in situations when proposals are forwarded from a sub-committee member’s own organisation.

Recommendation 9: Develop TOR for the ERF board sub-committee.

MOs were generally satisfied with the processing time of proposals although the review find that for a quarter of the proposals the processing was non-satisfactory, defeating the


Draft Report 30

purpose of a quick response to sudden-onset emergencies. Part of the reason for the delays is the need to communicate with partner organisations through MOs.

Recommendation 10: Consider if DMCDD should communicate directly with the relevant partners after the first draft of the proposal has been submitted through the MO to improve processing time.

Final reporting on the projects was delayed or missing for a total of 5 projects. It is difficult to trace the actual time taken to approve proposals or the time for submission of final reports, and it is recommended that a database for tracking of crucial data is established.

Recommendation 11: Establish a database that includes information on important dates and documents relevant to the administration of the ERF. If possible, this should be included in the up-coming database for mini projects.

Most ERF projects are implemented within 6 months, with only one projects lasting the maximum 12 months.

8.3.1 Monitoring

No monitoring of ERF projects has been conducted by DMCDD during 2010 and 2013. MOs might have visited some of the projects in conjunction with visits to other projects, but there is no system for feeding back information from such visits to DMCDD.

Recommendation 12: Ensure that monitoring of one or two ERF projects is done yearly, if possible in conjunction with other visits.

Recommendation 13: Ensure that information from MOs’ monitoring visits is obtained archived at DMCDD through expansion of existing monitoring forms used for other projects, or through the use a separate monitoring form.

8.3.2 Reviews

This review is the first since 2004, and not all practices are aligned with current best practises. Given that DMCDD and most MOs and partners are not specialised in humanitarian assistance it is recommended that brief external reviews of the ERF portfolio are conducted regularly, i.e. annually or so. If external assistance is sourced for reviewing applications, there might not be a need for regular reviews of the portfolio.

Recommendation 14: If no external advisory service is contracted for assessing proposals, regular brief external reviews of ERF projects should be conducted.


Draft Report 31

8.4 MOs and partner organisations

From 2010 to 2013 almost a third of the 31 members of DMCDD have received funds from the ERF for a total of 35 projects. Danmission received the most grants (7), and three MOs received 5 or 6 grants each. The 35 projects have been implemented by 30 different partners with LEADs on Sri Lanka having implemented the most projects (3). The support has been provided in 24 countries of which a bit more than half are in Asia, 40% are in Africa, and 5% are in MENA. Six projects have been implemented in Sri Lanka, and in Myanmar and Pakistan four and three projects respectively. Most MOs do not have much experience with implementing humanitarian projects with the exception of IAS and Mission East. It is recommended that organisations that already have humanitarian partnership agreement with Danida are ineligible for applying to the ERF.

15: Revise guidelines to clarify that organisations with a humanitarian partnership with Danida are not eligible for funding through the ERF.

Some of the partner organisations, including – perhaps especially – the two partners visited on Sri Lanka, have significant experiences with implementing humanitarian activities. Those two partners, and potentially others, are likely to have the capacity to implement grants larger than the present ceiling of DKK 250,000. Others are less likely to have the required capacity to implement larger grant, as was confirmed by some of the MOs that clearly stated that not all their partners could implement larger grants. If more funds are made available to the ERF it could be considered if the ceiling should be increased for partner organisations with sufficient capacity.

Recommendation 16: Consider, in case more funds are made available to the ERF, if the grant limit should be increased for some partners based on more robust requirements to the capacity assessment of such partners, including their track record of management of past ERF grants.

8.5 The ERF projects

8.5.1 Relevance and effectiveness

Almost all the ERF projects (32 out of 35) are relevant to the objective of the ERF. Those who are less relevant include support for a few weeks to a few protracted IDPs in a large camp.

Recommendation 17: Ensure that all supported projects are in line with the Criteria for Support.

Only one project, supplying amongst other things library books and computers, clearly did not fully respond to only humanitarian needs. Thus, most project are also relevant also the needs of beneficiaries.


Draft Report 32

The most common types of assistance provided are distribution of food and NFIs, in 23 and 19 projects respectively, and mostly in combination. Such interventions are relevant for a first response to a sudden-onset disaster. However, in many instances it might have been more efficient to provide some form of cash based assistance, which would also give beneficiaries more flexibility in what type of support they wanted. As of now, the Criteria for Support discourages the use of cash transfers whereas it is the reviewers opinion that it, on the contrary, should be argued why cash transfer it not used.

Recommendation 18: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage the use of cash based assistance.

There was some resistance among some MOs and partners to the use of cash based assistance, partly because of traditions, and partly because MOs do not know enough about the advantage of cash based assistance (and exaggerate the potential for misuse). It would therefore be useful if DMCDD could share basic information on advantages, disadvantages and best practices on implementation of cash based assistance with MOs.

Recommendation 19: Share information on best practices on the use of cash based assistance with MOs.

In a few projects (three) NFIs were distributed that are not usually seen in a humanitarian context, including glasses, painkillers and antibiotics, the latter potentially harmful. It is important to ensure that only appropriate and relevant interventions are implemented, and it is suggested that projects to the extent possible are guided by the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response as described in the Sphere Project, possible based on a simple guidance note.

Recommendation 20: Consider if a note on the use of minimum standards as described in the Sphere Project would be useful as guidance for the specific interventions.

Other interventions include shelter, health, WASH and livelihood interventions - often in conjunction with food or NFI distribution. Such interventions are also relevant during an emergency situation. Two projects included advocacy for protection of IDPs, and two projects included elements of peace building/reconciliation. It is uncertain to what extent the partners have in experiences with conducting such activities. Four projects included DRR activities in the form of training and advocacy. Eight projects also had elements of recovery, mainly assistance to re-start small business and rehabilitation of infrastructure. The format for submission of proposals for ERF funding, includes a section (section 9) on measures which could be taken to reduce future emergency situations and increase


Draft Report 33

preparedness. This section is not very useful at the moment as funding is not available for such interventions, and it is suggested the section is made optional.

Recommendation 21: Section 9 of the proposal format is made optional and only filled in when relevant.

DRR and recovery, however, are important interventions and applicants should be encouraged, whenever relevant, to include elements that address this.

Recommendation 22: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage elements that addresses DRR and recovery.

As DRR and recovery interventions can be difficult to complete within a 12 month timeframe, it should be investigated if it is relevant and how the duration of such projects could be expanded beyond the current limit of 12 months.

Recommendation 23: Investigate the relevance and possibilities for an extension of DRR and recovery projects beyond 12 months.

Project with elements of protection, peacebuilding and DRR are all from 2012 and 2013, possibly indicating a recent shift towards these activities. Two thirds (23) of the ERF funded projects explicitly targeted the most vulnerable while three projects probably did not. As a point of departure, focus should be on the most vulnerable unless there is adequate justification for not doing so. Most projects (more than two thirds) applied a flexible approach to exact what type of assistance would be provided depending on the (changing) context. Four out of every five projects described how coordination with other actors would be ensured. As coordination is important, especially in larger disasters, it is important to ensure that attention is paid to coordination in all projects. This could be achieved by ensuring a more prominent placement of coordination aspects in the proposals.

Recommendation 24: Increase the likelihood that interventions are coordinated with other actors by inserting a separate section on coordination aspects in the proposal format.

8.5.2 Timeliness

The duration of the approval process of two thirds of the ERF projects is satisfactory. This does not mean that the approval time was non-satisfactory for all the remaining as it was difficult to obtain accurate dates for submission of proposals and approval (see also recommendation 9 above).


Draft Report 34

Two thirds of the projects commenced implementation within two weeks of approval of the project. For the remaining projects the lead time is unknown as it is not specified, i.e. it could also be within a satisfactory period.

8.5.3 Efficiency

The cost per beneficiary9 has been DKK 50 which is considered reasonable. The average ERF funded projects uses only 9% of the allocated funds on indirect costs although this figure does not necessarily reflect the real cost as some partners use volunteers or supplement the ERF funding with other sources.

9 It should be noted that calculating this figure is full of caveats due to the wide range of activities and different

durations, e.g. comparing provision of water to 1,000 people for 4 months is different from distributing

painkillers for 10,000 on one day.


Draft Report 35

9 Conclusions and the way forward Almost all interventions supported by the ERF are relevant for humanitarian (first) response with the possibility of bringing the support up-to-date with increased consideration of cash based assistance and minimum standards. Most projects (two thirds) target the most vulnerable and most (more than two thirds) projects also applied a flexible approach to implementation, and four out of five projects indicated attention was paid to the importance of coordination with other actors. No signs was found of ERF supported projects being used for proselytising, but one or two projects were targeting Christians only. Except for two MOs, most MOs do not have substantial humanitarian experiences. Some partners have the capacity to implement grants larger than DKK 250,000, while others do not. Most of the projects were approved and commenced timely. The cost per beneficiary is reasonable (DKK 50) and the projects are implemented efficiently with only 9% indirect cost charged by partners, and a total of 7% by DMCDD. A total of 24 recommendations have been made, most are relatively minor recommendations that can be easily implemented. Some recommendations will demand more resources to implement, and some will depend on if the total allocation to the ERF is increased, e.g. an increase of the present grant ceiling for some organisations. Table 4 on the next page contains the full list of recommendations, and reflects these three different categories of recommendations. Assuming some of the minor recommendations are implemented, there are no substantial objections to the continued allocation of Danida funding to the ERF. If more funds are allocated to the ERF some of the implementation modalities might need to change, e.g. external advisory services might be required, possibly larger grants can be given to some MOs/partners, and there might be an opportunity for selected funding also of DRR and recovery projects. The reviewer appreciates the fact that there is an alternative to the eight larger organisations with humanitarian partnership agreements with Danida. Diversity can lead to more innovation and increases the public basis for the Danish humanitarian assistance. It might, however, be difficult to justify support only (besides to the eight humanitarian partnership organisations) to Christian organisations as other NGOs might also want occasionally to access humanitarian funding. This would apply especially if there was to be a substantial increase in the total annual allocation to the ERF.


Draft Report 36

Table 4: Overview of recommendations. Recommendation Minor Major If larger ERF

allocation

1: Establish checks to ensure that ERF projects are in line with the humanitarian principles - especially the principle of neutrality - by ensuring that specific justification is provided in cases where one group only is targeted for interventions

√

2: Consider if the 2009 agreement between DMCDD and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be revised to ensure it is in line with other pooled funds

3: Revise the Criteria for Support to make it clearer what can be supported and what can not.

√

4: Revise the job description of the DMCDD Director to reflect the time required for administration as well as unpredictability hereof.

√

5: If a more substantial ERF portfolio with larger or more complex projects is realised, DMCDD should consider if and when external advisory services are required for ensuring high technical quality of ERF projects.

√ √

6: Ensure MOs and partners confirm that they will abide by the conditions for the ERF grant.

√

7: Consider how and if funds could be transferred directly to some partners.

8: Ensure that the mini programme database can also accommodate the requirements of the ERF, or alternatively establish a more detailed database than the present.

√

9: Develop TOR for the ERF board sub-committee. √

10: Consider if DMCDD should communicate directly with the relevant partners - after the first draft of the proposal has been submitted through the MO - to improve processing time.

√

11: Establish a database that includes information on important dates and documents relevant to the administration of the ERF. If possible, this should be included in the up-coming database for mini projects.

√

12: Ensure that monitoring of one or two ERF projects is done yearly, if possible in conjunction with other visits.

√

13: Ensure that information from MOs’ monitoring visits is archived at DMCDD through expansion of existing monitoring forms used for other projects, or through the use a separate monitoring form.

√

14: If no external advisory service is contracted for assessing proposals, regular brief external reviews of ERF projects should be conducted.

√

15: Revise guidelines to clarify that organisations with a humanitarian partnership with Danida are not eligible for funding through the ERF.

16: Consider, in case more funds are made available to the ERF, if the grant limit should be increased for some partners based on more robust capacity assessment of such partners, including their track record of management of past ERF grants.

√ √

17: Ensure that all supported projects are in line with the Criteria for Support. √

18: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage the use of cash based assistance. √

19: Share information on best practices on the use of cash based assistance with MOs. √

20: Consider if a note on the use of minimum standards as described in the Sphere Project would be useful as guidance for the specific interventions.

√

21: Section 9 of the proposal format should be optional and only filled in when relevant √

22: Revise the Criteria for Support to encourage elements that addresses DRR and recovery.

√

23: Investigate the relevance and possibilities for an extension of DRR and recovery projects beyond 12 months.

√

24: Increase the likelihood that interventions are coordinated with other actors by inserting a separate section on coordination aspects in the proposal format.

√


Draft Report 37

Annex A - TOR

Terms of Reference Review of Danish Mission Council’s Development Department’s Emergency Relief Fund, DMCDD, 2010 – 2013 Background Danish Mission Council’s Development Department, DMCDD The Danish Mission Council Development Department, DMCDD, was founded in 1986 as a professional umbrella organisation, today consisting of 31 Danish churches and chuch-based organisations, partnering with other churches and church-based organisations in the South. DMCDD manages various tasks in regard to its MOs’ development work, and the secretariat is established by the MOs to accommodate the need for a continuous professional support and upgrading of qualifications of each organisation’s development work. Such efforts are often based on long-term partnerships with churches and congregations in which specific development activities – e.g. projects within the social sector – are part of a broader cooperation. Since the beginning of the 1990s DMCDD has acted as host organisation for pools financed through the MFA. This includes the Mini-programme with an annual financial frame of DKK 18 million (2014), as well as the Emergency Relief Fund of DKK 2 million. In addition, DMCDD supports MOs who apply for single project grants at CISU. Emergency Relief Fund DMCDD has since 2001 administered an Emergency Relief Fund with an annual financial frame of DKK 2 million. DMCDD’s MOs can through this pool apply for support to local emergency work in countries, where the Member Organisations (MO) already work through local partner organisations (PO). Through the pool DMCDD can, without the preapproval of the MFA, grant up to DKK 250,000 to the emergency work of its MOs. The projects must be implemented and completed within the timeframe of maximum one year. It must be a temporary intervention in local emergency situations and “very first emergency actions” in larger emergency situations, channelled through existing local channels. The objective of the Emergency Relief Fund is to enable DMCDD’s MOs and their local partners in responding early to natural and man-made disasters in areas, where the actors are already present and thus can render immediate assistance. The primary target group is vulnerable and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, whom are often the most affected by disasters. Grants from the Emergency Relief Fund must support the target group throughout an emergency until the affected again can take care of themselves. The emergency work is coordinated with authorities and if necessary other organisations that give emergency assistance in the affected areas.


Draft Report 38

DMCDD wants to explore the possibility to expand the grant ceiling for each organisation in order to reach a greater amount of people. This is due to the fact that the administrative costs remain the same in spite of an increased amount of recipients, thus it is a way to achieve greater value from the means. The latest review of the Emergency Relief Fund which took place in 2004 recommended that DMCDD’s Emergency Relief Fund for humanitarian assistance was extended. In 2013 a capacity assessment of DMCDD was conducted in order to assess DMCDD’s capacity to enter a framework agreement with the MFA. The study concluded that DMCDD generally possess solid professional, organisational, administrative and financial capacity to both manage the current pool portfolio and to possibly manage additional portfolios. The capacity assessment did however not pay attention to the administration of the Emergency Relief Fund which is why it is considered relevant to undertake a separate review of this. Purpose The overall purpose of the review is to assess the possibilities for future activities and cooperation between the MFA and DMCDD, which will provide a solid and updated foundation for further dialogue. Following areas should be included in the review:

Assessment of DMCDD’s administration of the Emergency Relief Fund, including processing of individual grants for emergency assistance and the cooperation between DMCDD and the MO's.

Establishing of whether the rationale behind the pool is coherent, and whether the pool still meets the described objectives, including especially an analysis of the pertinence and efficiency of the Emergency Relief Fund.

Tasks/extent In relation to the assessment of tasks it should be considered that a capacity assessment of DMCDD already is completed. Therefore it will be sufficient to focus on the administration of the Emergency Relief Fund itself and not go in depth with the overall administrative capacity of DMCDD. The review should be based on assessments undertaken in Denmark supplemented with a short visit in Sri Lanka, which is one of the countries, where DMCDD has supported several emergency activities. The review is to identify the professional approach, capacity, relevance, and efficiency of DMCDD’s work and it shall assess the work in regard to the guidelines within the Emergency Relief Fund under the cooperative agreement between DMCDD and the MFA, as well as MFA’s Strategy for Humanitarian Aid. The review is to cover activities in the period 2010 – 2013. The review must encompass, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

DMCDD’s administration of the Emergency Relief Fund o The relevance of DMCDD’s approach to humanitarian assistance,

including the specific focus and comparative advantages/challenges of church organisations.


Draft Report 39

o The professional capacity of DMCDD in relation to humanitarian aid, including support to MOs with regard to counselling and project application / grant, project administration and monitoring, and DMCDD’s support to MOs with regard to competency development, learning, etc.

o DMCDD’s overall management of the Emergency Relief Fund, including quality and compliance with procedures, guidelines, etc.

o MO’s assessment of the cooperation with DMCDD. o DMCDD’s quality assurance through the assessment of applications as well

as supervision and monitoring of grants through the Emergency Relief Fund.

o DMCDD’s capacity (systems and practical completion) of professional and financial monitoring and professional support to partners.

Relevance and efficiency of the Emergency Relief Fund o Is the Emergency Relief Fund an efficient tool for relevant and efficient

humanitarian assistance (cf. the guidelines for the Emergency Relief Fund within the cooperation agreement between DMCDD and the MFA)?

o Would it be appropriate to raise the ceiling for single grants or is the current level suitable?

o The capacity of membership organisations and partner organisations to carry out humanitarian activities (including knowledge of the humanitarian principles as well as focus on vulnerability, climate change and natural disasters, protection of conflict affected populations, etc.).

o Does DMCDD and its MOs benefit from synergy between DMCDD’s development activities and humanitarian assistance?

Reporting Reporting must be in English addressed to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, HCP. The report must cover the issues outlined under purpose and include relevant annexes. An initial inception report must be produced to encompass a further description of the proposed approach for the review as well as a timetable. First draft of the report must be presented July 1, 2014. Comments must be submitted July 21, 2014 at the latest. A final report of around 20 pages must be available at least one week after the receipt of the comments. Staffing and timetable The review will be completed by: Erik Toft, Team Leader The review will be completed in continuous dialogue with the MFA. DMCDD has given their consent to contribute to the review, e.g. by organising focus group interviews, etc. The review will be implemented in the period April 2014 – July 2014. The consultant will after a preliminary evaluation of key background documents draw up a note for discussion with DMCDD and HCP, containing a plan of action including a plan for field visits where methodology, focus on the capacity assessment and information needs are further clarified. The note will also contain a timetable for the execution of the work.


Draft Report 40

Overall timetable:

March - April 2014 Preparation of ToR, initiation and evaluation of procurement, entering contract with external consultant

April – July 2014 Preparation of concept note, conduct consultations with:

DMCDD

Select DMCDD MOs

Select partner organisations

Potentially other relevant individuals and organisations

May or June 2014 Short field visit to Sri Lanka

July 1, 2014 First draft of the report

July 28, 2014 Final report

Tentative estimate of time consumption:

Inception phase 5 days

Focus groups and interviews 10 days

Field work, incl. preparation 10 days

Report 3 days

Final report, incl. integration of comments 2 days

Total expected time consumption 30 days

Background material:

Strategy for Danish Humanitarian Action 2010 – 2015

DMCDD capacity assessment 2013

DMCDD Emergency Support Fund Criteria and Guidelines for Reporting and Accounting

Annual reports, accounts, etc.


Draft Report 41

Annex B - People met The table below provides details of the people interviewed. For the group meetings names of participants were not recorded, instead it is indicated how many people were present. The date indicated is the date of the first meetings, subsequent meetings are not recorded.

Name Organisation Date

Ida Ljunggren Danida 15/5-14 [email protected]

Lars Udsholt DMCDD 15/5-14 [email protected]

Torben Madsen IAS 2/6-14 [email protected]

Michelle Lind Kappel Assist 2/6-14 [email protected]

Jakob Swartz DEM 2/6-14 [email protected]

Samuel Nymann Eriksen Dansk Europamission 12/6-14 [email protected]

Morten Kofoed Baptiskirken 10/6-14 [email protected]

Carsten Bruhn Lauritsen Mission Afrika 10/6-14 [email protected]

Helle Hansen DMCDD 10/6-14 [email protected]

Thore Eklund Mission Afrika 11/6-14 [email protected]

Thoumiyan Sondaram NCEASL (ADT), Sri Lanka 15/6-14 [email protected]

Mr. Baranya Disaster Mangement Committe, Batticaloa 16/6-14

R. Neduncheliyan Director, Planning, Batticaloa District Secretariat

16/6-14

Mr. Sivapragasam ILO, Batticaloa 16/6-14

Ebenezer Dharshan NCEASL (ADT), Sri Lanka 16/6-14

Old woman Beneficiary, Illupadickokenia community 16/6-14

Old woman Beneficiary, Illupadickokenia community 16/6-14

Disabled man Beneficiary, Illupadickokenia community 16/6-14

4 men + 4 women Beneficiaries, Ruthukudiyiruppu Welfare Society

16/6-14

Kamalanathan Jeyathas Spice Program (USAID project) 16/6-14

Dave Navindra LEADS, Sri Lanka 18/6-14

Diodri LEADS, Sri Lanka 18/6-14

Geoffrey NCEASL, Sri Lanka 18/6-14

Rajeeva Hodagedaren NCEASL, Sri Lanka 18/6-14

Nik Bredholt Danmission 25/6-14 [email protected]

Anika Back Danmission 25/6-14

Rune Back Danmission 25/6-14

Kim Hartzner Mission Øst, Copenhagen 24/6-14 [email protected]

Vibeke Førrisdahl Mission Øst, Copenhagen 24/6-14 [email protected]

Alex Mission Øst, Bruxelles 24/6-14


Draft Report 42

Annex C - Main documents

The below is a list of main documents reviewed.

Strategy for Danish Humanitarian Action 2010 – 2015

DMCDD capacity assessment 2013

DMCDD capacity assessment 2013 - Sammenfatning

Response to 2013 capacity assessment

Bevillingsnotits 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2010

Organisatorisk Årsberetning 2013

Bestyrelsens forslag til Arbejdsplan for DMRU 2014-16

Emergency Relief Fund Criteria for Support

Emergency Relief Fund Guidelines for Reporting and Accounting

Emergency Relief Fund Format for Applications

Kortlægning af Nødhjælpspuljen 2010-2013

List of DMCDD MO.

All ERF project documents, including applications, budgets, final reports, etc. for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Samarbejdsaftale om nødhjælpspulje mellem Udenrigsministeriet og Dansk Missionsråds Udviklingsafdeling, 2009

Programdokument – Nødhjælpspulje til humanitære indsatser, 2010

2004 Review of ERF

Project applications for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013

Final project report for 2010, 2011, 2012 and (some) 2013

http://dmcdd.org/


Draft Report 43

Annex D - Members of DMCDD

Aktive Kristnes Omsorgsarbejde / Active Christian Care Vardevej 106, 7100 Vejle Tlf.: 75725100 http://ako-danmark.dk/

Apostolsk Kirkes Mission / Danish Apostolic Church Mission

Lykkegårdsvej 100

6000 Kolding, Tlf.: 79321600

www.apostolic.dk

Assist

Glenstrup Søvej 12, Holmgaard

8990 Fårup

Tlf.: 86452307

www.assist-denmark.dk

Baptistkirken i Danmark / Danish Baptist Union Lærdalsgade 7, st.tv, 2300 København S. Tlf.: 32590708 www.baptistkirken.dk

Brødremenighedens Danske Mission / Danish Moravian Mission Nørregade 12 6070 Christiansfeld Tlf.: 74562233 www.bdm-dk.dk

Danmission Strandagervej 24 DK-2900 Hellerup Tlf.: 39629911 www.danmission.dk

Dansk Armeniermission / Danish Armenian Mission Kirkebyen 5 6640 Lunderskov Tlf.: 75585002 www.armenien.dk

Dansk Balkan Mission / Danish Balkan Mission Brændstrup Røddingvej 5A 6630 Rødding Tlf.: 74 82 17 57 www.balkanmission.dk

Dansk Etiopier Mission / Danish Evangelical Mission Katrinebjergvej 75 8200 Aarhus Tlf.: 7356 1260 www.dem-dk.dk

Dansk Europamission / Danish European Misison Postboks 60 2880 Bagsværd Tlf.: 44441313 www.daneu.dk

Dansk Kherwara-Mission / Mission Kherwara Drosselvej 8 6740 Bramming Tlf.: 75174105 www.kherwara.dk

Den Anglikanske Kirke i Danmark / The Anglican Church

Churchillparken 6

1263 København K

Tlf: 31118518

www.st-albans.dk

Den Danske Israelsmission / Danish Israel Misison Katrinebjergvej 75 8200 Aarhus Tlf: 74 56 22 33 www.israel.dk

Det Danske Bibelselskab / Danish Bible Society Frederiksborggade 50 1360 København K Tlf.: 33127835 www.bibelselskabet.dk

Det Danske Missionsforbunds Internationale Mission / The

Mission Covenant Church of Denmark

Rosenlunden 17

5000 Odense

Tlf.: 66148331

www.missionsforbundet.dk

Frelsens Hær / Salvation Army Denmark Frederiksberg Allé 9 1621 København V Tlf.: 33314192 www.frelsens-haer.dk

International Aid Services Blåhøj Stationsvej 27 7330 Brande Tlf.: 75345855 www.ias.nu

Kirkernes Integrations Tjeneste / Church Integration Ministries

Smallegade 47, 1

2000 Frederiksberg

www.kit/danmark.dk

Viva Danmark Klostergade 34, 3. sal 8000 Århus C Tlf.: 40231942 www.viva.dk

Luthersk Mission / Danish Lutheran Mission Industrivænget 40 3400 Hillerød Tlf.: 48244476 www.dlm.dk

http://ako-danmark.dk/

http://www.apostolic.dk/

http://www.assist-denmark.dk/

http://www.baptistkirken.dk/

http://www.bdm-dk.dk/

http://www.danmission.dk/

http://www.armenien.dk/

http://www.balkanmission.dk/

http://www.dem-dk.dk/

http://www.daneu.dk/

http://www.kherwara.dk/

http://www.st-albans.dk/

http://www.israel.dk/

http://www.bibelselskabet.dk/

http://www.missionsforbundet.dk/

http://www.frelsens-haer.dk/

http://www.ias.nu/

http://www.kit/danmark.dk

http://www.vivanet.dk/

http://www.dlm.dk/


Draft Report 44

MAF Danmark / Mission Aviation Fellowship Fasanvang 6 3450 Allerød Tlf.:48174641 www.maf.dk

Metodistkirkens Verdensmission / United Methodist Church Denmark Lupinvej 40 8700 Horsens Tlf.: 75642019 www.metodistkirken.dk

Mission Øst / Mission East Sankt Lukas Vej 13 2900 Hellerup Tlf.: 39 61 20 48 www.miseast.dk

Selskabet til Støtte for Pakistans Kirke / Society in Aid Sandager Kirkevej 26, Sandager 5610 Assens Tlf.: 64791028 www.pakistanskirke.dk

Skandinavisk Børnemission / Scandinavian Children's Mission

Peter Bangs Vej 1D

2000 Frederiksberg

Tlf.: 72100167

www.childrensmission.dk

Spedalskhedsmissionen / The Leprosy Mission International Skibbroen 6, 2, Postbox 13 6200 Aabenraa

Tlf.: 35294254 www.spedalsk.dk

Mission Afrika Lyseng Allé 15A 8270 Højbjerg Tlf. 86725050 www.missionafrika.dk

Ungdom med Opgave / Youth With A Mission Randersvej 195 8544 Mørke Tlf.: 86974055 www.ywam.dk

Fremtid og Håb / Future and Hope

Soldalen 13, Gårslev

7080 Børkop

Tlf.: 45821680

www.fremtidoghaab.dk

Projekt U-landshjælp til Selv-hjælp / PULS

Co formand Elly Vesterager

Stationsvej 20

6920 Videbæk

Tlf.: 97171742

www.ulandshjaelp.dk

Operation Mission / Operation Mobilisation

A.F. Beyersvej 1

2720 Vanløse

Tlf.: 38335122

www.omdanmark.org

http://www.maf.dk/

http://www.metodistkirken.dk/

http://www.miseast.dk/

http://www.pakistanskirke.dk/

http://www.childrensmission.dk/

http://www.spedalsk.dk/

http://www.sudanmissionen.dk/

http://www.ywam.dk/

http://www.fremtidoghaab.dk/

http://www.ulandshjaelp.dk/

http://www.omdanmark.org/


Draft Report 45

Annex E - Agreement between DMCDD and Danida


Draft Report 46


Draft Report 47


Draft Report 48


Draft Report 49


Draft Report 50


Draft Report 51


Draft Report 52


Draft Report 53

Annex F - Criteria for Support

DMCDD EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND

Criteria for Support

The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Danida) is funding an Emergency Relief Fund

administered by the Danish Mission Council Development Department (DMCDD). Member

organizations of DMCDD and their regular partners in developing countries can apply for

support from the DMCDD Emergency Relief Fund in support of relief activities and

humanitarian assistance according to the below mentioned criteria:

1. DMCDD can approve up to DKK 250,000 per emergency relief activity and/or

humanitarian intervention, including rehabilitation of damaged houses and buildings, in

connexion with an unforeseen or suddenly emerged natural or human-made catastrophe.

Funding from Danida/DMCDD should be deposited in a separate bank account unless

otherwise agreed.

2. Support can be given to activities limited as to time and geographical coverage in order to

relieve smaller, local disasters in areas where the Danish member organizations and/or

their local partners already are present and have been working together for some time.

3. In case of larger emergency situations support can be given (a) to time-limited “very first,

first aid” during the first days/weeks until local or national authorities or national and

international relief- and aid organizations can take over the responsibility for the relief

work, (b) to focused support to marginalized areas or groups not helped by others, (c) to

special interventions (e.g. reconciliation measures or trauma healing) or (d) to special

operations if the partner has a comparative advantage which could be helpful in the given

situation.

4. Normally emergency relief efforts financed by the DMCDD Emergency Relief Fund

should be completed within twelve months.

5. It is assumed that relief interventions normally are provided through existing local

channels utilizing already existing local capacities to meet the needs in cooperation with

well-known partners on the ground, with whom the Danish member organization has had

a long term partnership, and who have experience with implementing relief, humanitarian

and development interventions.

6. If the Danish member organization has no seconded expatriate based in the area of

operation, the member organization must be able otherwise to follow up and supervise

the emergency operation, if needed.


Draft Report 54

7. Salaries of seconded expatriate staff and permanent local staff cannot be covered from the

DMCDD Emergency Relief Fund as they are expected to work as volunteers in

emergency situations. However, temporary staff recruited in emergency situations may be

paid a reasonable honorarium

8. The emergency operation has to be carried through regardless of religious, ethnic and

political affiliations and nationalities in the communities concerned, primarily

considering the most disadvantaged groups, especially women and children, and other

vulnerable groups, according to the needs of communities and families.

9. Purchase of relief items should where possible be based on quotations from two to three

supplies and suppliers should be encouraged to offer special prices in order to help as

many affected people as possible.

10. Purchase, transport and distribution of relief items should be supervised by a

representative of the Danish member organization or the partner organisation and an

independent supervisor, e.g. representing the local authorities to make sure that the relief

items are purchased at the best prices available an delivered at the point of destination to

avoid losses and theft during transportation and storage at safe places, to secure that only

beneficiaries meeting the selections criteria are benefitting and to minimise the risk of

corruption and fraud. Distribution of cash should normally be avoided but can be

accepted in special cases if this is clearly stated in the application.

11. Individuals or families receiving relief items should sign a receipt form stating the items

and quantities received. Number of children, women and men assisted should be

recorded.

12. An inventory of major relief equipment purchased should be kept and a Document of

Transfer shall be signed by the implementing partner and DMCDD at the end of the relief

intervention.

13. The emergency operation shall be coordinated with relevant local and national authorities

and other relief organizations working in the same area.

14. Wherever possible the local authorities and the target group shall be involved in the

carrying through of the relief efforts.

15. Relief activities shall endeavour to respect the local culture, customs and structures of the

affected communities.

16. When organizing the emergency activities it must be secured that there is no unnecessary

strain on the environmental situation.

17. When relevant and possible advocacy intervention on behalf of or in cooperation with

disaster victims shall be considered and planned for.

18. It should be considered whether measures to prevent or minimize similar emergency

situations in the future and strengthen local capacity to meet emergency situations and


Draft Report 55

reduce vulnerability to future disasters can be incorporated into the emergency activities

planned for or if possible into follow-up interventions. Furthermore, it is essential that the

emergency activity does not lead to permanent dependence on foreign aid and it should

be considered whether there will be additional needs for long term reconstruction,

rehabilitation and development interventions, which might be supported via DMCDD.

19. The member and partner organizations are obliged in information materials to mention

that the emergency activities and humanitarian assistance supported by the Emergency

Relief Fund are (partly) financed by Danida through DMCDD.

20. In information activities relating to disaster situations the human dignity of disaster

victims must be respected and emphasis should be put on advocacy for the rights of the

victims to receive humanitarian assistance whenever needed and without discrimination

rather than presenting them as hopeless objects.

21. Applications for support from the DMCDD Emergency Relief Fund are to be submitted

in English in accordance with the DMCDD format for relief applications (appendix. 1).

22. At latest three months after completing the activities or the part that has been financed by

the DMCDD Emergency Relief Fund, the member or partner organization shall submit a

final report together with provisional accounts to DMCDD

23. At latest three months after completion of the activities financed by the DMCDD

Emergency Relief Fund, the member or partner organization must submit the final

financial and audited accounts.

24. Final reports and financial and audited accounts must be prepared in accordance with

"Guidelines for reporting and accounting for funds from the DMCDD Emergency Relief

Fund" (appendix 2).

25. The Danish member organization and the partner shall allow and facilitate any inspection

of the relief activities and access to reports, accounts and other documents which may be

desired by DMCDD, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Danish Auditor

General. The date for such inspections shall normally be agreed upon will in advance.

The right of access shall continue for five years after the completion of the activities.

In case of larger and longer-lasting emergency operations, where there is a need of more than

DKK 250,000 in support, the Office for Humanitarian Assistance, Development Policies and

Civil Society in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affaires may be approached for possible support

DMCDD may assist MOs in the process.

DMCDD

March 2012


Draft Report 56

Annex G - Format for ERF applications

APPLICANTS A. DMCDD member organization (name, full address, phone and fax no., e-mail address):

Contact person (name, position):

Seconded personnel from the Danish member organization to supervise the relief activities, if

relevant (name, position, location, full address, phone and fax no., e-mail address):

B. Local partner organization (name, full address, phone and fax no., e-mail address):

Contact person (name, position):

C. Person responsible for the implementation (name, full address, phone and fax no., e-mail

address):

D. Location of emergency (country, region, district):

E. Kind of emergency/title of intervention (e.g. assistance to draught or flood victims,

refugees or to victims of violent conflicts):

D. Budget (state currency - DKK, USD or local currency – and attach a detailed budget):

(Currency) DKK

Amount applied for (max. DKK 250,000):

Own contribution from Danish member organization:

Own contribution from local partner organization:

Contributions from other sources (specify):

DESCRIPTION OF THE EMERGENCY SITUATION 1. General background information on the situation, which has led to the requested

support from the DMCDD Emergency and Relief Fund (what factors have caused the

humanitarian problems you want to address, which areas are affected etc?).


Draft Report 57

2. How many families/people have or are likely to be affected by the emergency situation

in the area, where you want to offer assistance? (if possible specify worst affected

communities, areas and social or ethnic groups).

3. Most urgent humanitarian needs to be covered (e.g food, water, medicine, clothing,

shelter, rehabilitation of damaged houses and buildings, trauma healing, reconciliation efforts

etc.).

4. Target group(s) for the relief activities planned ( if possible specify the expected number

of communities, families, children (girls/boys), women and men to be assisted and explain how,

by whom and according to which criteria the families or individuals to receive relief aid have

been or will be selected?).

5. Relief activities to be undertaken (describe the different activities planned for, e.g. food

distribution, supplying drinking water, distributing drugs, providing shelter, repair of

houses/buildings, transport of materials etc. and describe possible advocacy work to be

undertaken together with the disaster victims. Major changes in the implementation plan and

budget must be approved by DMCDD in beforehand).

6. Implementation of the planned relief activities (how will the relief activities be organized

and, if relevant, coordinated with local or other organizations to avoid overlap of relief

activities. Who will be responsible for purchase and distribution of relief items and how will

the purchase and distribution be supervised and controlled? How will the target groups and

local and/or national authorities be involved? From where will you get the relief items

needed?).

7. Estimated implementation period (normally max. 12 month).

8. Expected results (outputs) of the intervention (what is the situation expected to be for the

target group(s), when the relief support or humanitarian assistance comes to an end? Mention

success criteria (indicators) and means of verification which will be used to assess whether the

expected results has been achieved).

9. Measures which could be taken to help to strengthen local capacity to respond to future

emergency situations and increase preparedness in areas often hidden by natural disasters

(do you foresee a need for disaster preparedness interventions and long term interventions to

support reconstruction, rehabilitation and development efforts after the first relief period,

which might be supported by DMCDD?).

10. Other overseas or local partners to support or participate in the relief efforts? (if so,

please give details).

11. Past experience with relief activities (if any) of: a) The Danish member organization:

b) The local partner organisation:


Draft Report 58

12. Brief history of the partners, mission, main activities and areas of operations

a) The Danish MO:

b) The local partner organisation:

c) Brief history of the partnership and main sectors of cooperation:

13. Environmental concerns (are there any environmental concerns to be considered when

implementing the planned activities?).

14. Major assumptions and risks (what are the major preconditions for a successful

implementation and which risk factors could delay, disturb or hinder the implementation of the

planned activities?).

15. Other relevant information concerning the emergency situation, e.g. other planned

interventions and support from other sources to such supplementary activities.

Attachments A. Detailed budget for the planned relief activities (include, if relevant, own contribution

and contributions from other partners or sources).

B. Documentation relevant to the application, including a map of the area

Application prepared by

Name…………………………………………..

Position……………………………………………………….. Date…………………………...

Endorsement

(signature of person authorized to sign on behalf of the Danish member organization)

Name.................................................................. Signature...........................................................

Position....................................................................................... Date.........................................

DMCDD

March 2012


Draft Report 59

Annex H - Overview of processing of ERF projects

No. Situation Date of disaster

First contact Final application

Letter of confir-

mation10

Start of imple-

mentation

Project duration [months]

Final report received

Conclusion (S=Satisfactory, NS=Non-satisfactory)

Processing [S if < 2 weeks if sudden onset]

Implementation [S if commenced within 2 weeks]

Reporting [S if final report submitted on time]

NP-10-1 Conflict Within past 6 months

28.12.2009 13.1.2010 28. 1 2010 4 12.8.2010 S ? S

NP-10-2 Recovery 05 2009 15.12.2009 13.1.2010 03 2010 (planned: 02)

9 10.2.2011 NS ? S

NP-10-3 Damaged crops

On-going 5.1.2010 28.1.2010 4.2.2010 02 2010 12 Received, can not be located

NS S NS

NP-10-4 Conflict On-going 9.4.2010 20.4.2010 04 2010 9 9.3.2011 S S S

NP-10-5 Disease 04 2010 30.4.2010 8.5.2010 05 201 6 (planned 3)

21.12.2010 S S S

NP-10-6 Natural disaster

17.5.2010 1.6.2010 4.6.2010 9. 6 2010 2 19.10.2010 S S S


19.7.2010 23.7.2010 N/A 07 2010 1 18.10.2010 S S S


07 2010 31.7.2010 3.8.2010 5.8.2010 08 2010 4 (planned: 01)

21.10.2010 ? S S


22.7 2010 5.8.2010 6.8.2010 08 2010 3 8.9.2011 S S S


01 2011 24.1.2011 08.2.2011 02 2011 4 15.8.2011 NS S S

NP-11-2 Conflict 25.1 2011 18.2.2011 5.3.2011 06 2011 6 27.12.2011 NS S

NP-11-3 Drought 09 2010 12.4.2011 19.4.2011 05 2011 (planned: 04)

3 15.8.2011 ? ? S

10 Or transfer of funds if earlier


Draft Report 60



Letter of confir-

mation10

Start of imple-

mentation







NP-11-4 Conflict 9. 6 2011 28.6.2011 27.7.2011 1.8.2011 08 2011 6 5.1.2012 ? S S


07 2011 3.8.2011 4.8.2011 N/A 1 Not received

S ? NS


28.8 2011 6.9.2011 7.9.2011 13.9 2011 1 6.10.2011 S S S

NP-11-7 Drought 24.9.2011 26.9.2011 10 2011 7 Received, can not be located

S S NS


25.11.2011 7.12.2011 15.12.2011 12 2011 2 14.3.2012 S S S


09 2011 21.11.2011 1.12.2011 20.12.2011 12 2011 7 15.7.2012 NS S S


30.12.2011 11.1.2012 18.1.2012 02 2012 3 Date unknown

S S S

NP-12-3 Fire 31.12.2011 12.1.2012 13.1.2012 01 2012 6 13.5.2013 S S S

NP-12-4 Conflict 01 2012 26.01.2012 15.3.2012 30.4.2012 04 2012 2 30.11.2012 ? S S


02 2012 18.03.2012 22.3.2012 23.3.2012 02 2012 6 20.7.2012 S S S


31.3 07.04.2012 11.4.2012 9.5.2012 05 2012 1 1.7.2012 NS S S

NP-12-7 Conflict 22.4 11.05.2012 23.5.2012 25.5.2012 06 2012 2 21.2.2013 S S S

NP-12-8 Fire 28.4 09.05.2012 6.7.2012 1.8.2012 2 14.12.2012 NS ? S


08 2012 29.08.2012 7.9.2012 7.9.2012 4 25.02.2013 S ? S


12 2012 19.12.2012 22.12.2012 27.12.2012 15.1 2013 3 Received, can not be located

S S NS


16.1.2013 23.01.2013 7.2.2013 20.2.2013 02 2013 1 Not received

NS Not known yet S


16. 6 2013 12.7.2013 17.7.2013 25.7.2013 Not known yet

8 Not due yet S Not known yet Not due yet


Draft Report 61



Letter of confir-

mation10

Start of imple-

mentation








08 2013 21.08.2013 3.9.2013 4.9.2013 Not known yet

4 Not received

S Not known yet S

NP-13-4 Conflict On-going 14.10.2013 15.10.2013 Not known yet

1 Not received

S Not known yet



NP-13-6 Conflict 07 2013 13.11.2013 10.12.2013 Not known yet



8. 11 2013 20.11.2013 30.11.2013 Not known yet



1 Not received

NS Not known yet NS

No. of Satisfactory (S) 22 21 24

No. of Non-Satisfactory (NS) 9 0 5

Unknown 4 6 1

Not due yet/unknown as of now 0 8 5


Draft Report 62

Annex I - Interventions by sector No. Member

organisation Type Amount

[DKK] Direct cost [%]

Intervention No. of bene-

ficiaries11

Cost/be-neficiary [DKK]

Comments

Food NFI Shelter Health WASH Live-lihood

Protec-tion

Peace-building

DRR Reco-very

10-1 Det Danske Missions-forbund

Conflict 100,000 -

√ 7,000 14

10-2 Assist

Recovery 250,000 72

√ √ 318 786 Only recovery, no relief

10-3 Danmission

Damaged crops

250,000 79

√ 2794 89

10-4 Mission Afrika Conflict 250,000 97

√ √ 850 294 Only recovery, no relief

10-5 Mission Øst Disease 134,000 82

√ √ 58,260 2 Information campaign

10-6 IAS Natural disaster

249,716 98

√ √ 7,962 31

10-7 Dansk Europa-mission

Natural disaster

250,000 93

√ √ 900 278 Pain killers, antibiotics, etc.

10-8 Danmission Natural disaster

250,000 -

√ √ 10,010 25

10-9 Mission Afrika

Natural disaster

237,277 86

√ √ 548 433

11-1 Assist

Natural disaster

250,000 90

√ √ √ 9,400 27

11-2 Danmission Conflict 250,000 100

√ √ √ 6,744 37 Spread over 3 locations. Gave glasses.

11-3 International Aid Services

Drought 250,000 -

√ √ 1,500 167

11-4 Danmission Conflict 250,000 98 √ √ √ 10,545 24

11 If only families/households are mentioned in the application/report it is assumed that each family/household consists of 6 people.


Draft Report 63

No. Member organisation

Type Amount [DKK]

Direct cost [%]


ficiaries11


Comments


Protec-tion

Peace-building

DRR Reco-very


Natural disaster

250,000 90

√ √ 1,017 246

11-6 Dansk Ethioper Mission

Natural disaster

164,300 96

√ √ 564 291


Drought 250,000 90

√ 3,481 72

11-8 Assist Natural disaster

180,000 82

√ 2,340 77 Herbal drugs for colds, flu.


168,355 94

√ √ √ √ √ 4,800 35


250,000 91

√ √ √ 16,212 15

12-3 Mission Afrika Fire 183,000

95

√ √ √ 343 534 Bible examples used in the DRR training (e.g. Noahs ark)

12-4 Danmission Conflict 250,000 90

√ √ √ 28,948 9 Spread over 6 locations

12-5 Baptistkirken Natural disaster

196,977 98

√ √ 3,900 51


Natural disaster

250,000 100

√ √ 3,469 72

12-7 Mission Afrika Conflict 163,900 91 √ √ √ 356 460


Fire 240,611 97

√ 1,000 241


Natural disaster

166,950 84

√ √ 1,107 151

12-10

Dansk Europa-mission

Natural disaster

250,000 100

√ √ √ 9,590 26


Natural disaster

250,000 100

√ √ √ 1,500 167

13-2 Mission Øst Natural disaster

250,000 83

√ √ 1,103 227


Draft Report 64


Type Amount [DKK]

Direct cost [%]


ficiaries11


Comments


Protec-tion

Peace-building

DRR Reco-very

13-3 IAS Natural disaster

250,000 81

√ 12,500 20

13-4 Mission Afrika Conflict 197,232 93 √ 1,503 131

13-5 Mission Afrika Conflict 244,500 - √ √ - -

13-6 Ethiopier missionen

Conflict 244,130 89

√ √ √ √ 1,728 141

13-7 Skandinavisk Børnemission

Natural disaster

250,000 86

√ √ √ 4,800 52

13-8 Baptistkirken Conflict 225,294 97 √ √ √ 2,509 90

Total/average 7,846,242 91 23 19 6 5 4 5 2 2 4 9 9,037 36


Draft Report 65

Annex J - Relevance, vulnerability targeting, flexibility and coordination The table below provides an overview of all the projects supported by the ERF since 2010. For each project a number of details are listed, including who, where, and what (‘Intervention’). An empty cell does not indicate that is was not done, only that information was not provided as to if it was done or not, e.g. if the cell for coordination is empty it does not mean that coordination did not take place, only that it is not described in the application or the final report. If something was clearly not considered, it is indicated by a minus sign (÷). No. Member

organisation Local partner Type Country Relevant Most

vulnerable Flex-ible

Coordi-nation

Comments

To ERF To need


Christian Concerned for Burma og Free Burma Rangers

Conflict Burma √ √ √ √

10-2 Assist

LEADS Recovery Sri Lanka √ √ √ √ √

10-3 Danmission

Shalom Foundation Damaged crops

Myanmar √ √ √ √ √

10-4 Mission Afrika LCCN Conflict Nigeria ÷ (√) ÷ √ Targeting business people

10-5 Mission Øst Disease Tajikistan √ √ √ √ √

10-6 IAS New Life Hand of Help Natural disaster

Sri Lanka √ √ √ √ √


RCCM Church Natural disaster

Pakistan √ √ √ √ √

10-8 Danmission Church of Pakistan Natural disaster

Pakistan √ √ √ √ √

10-9 Mission Afrika

Eglise Fraternelle Luthérienne du Cameroun (EFLC)

Natural disaster

Cameroun √ √ √

11-1 Assist

Lanka Evangelical Alliance Development Service (LEADS)

Natural disaster


11-2 Danmission Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services (CEOSS)

Conflict Egypten √ √ (√)


Nugal Welfare Asso-ciation Drought Somalia √ √ √ √

11-4 Danmission Shalom Foundation Conflict Myanmar √ √


Draft Report 66


Local partner Type Country Relevant Most vulnerable

Flex-ible

Coordi-nation

Comments

To ERF To need


Rochester christian Church Ministry of Pakistan

Natural disaster

Pakistan √ √ √

11-6 Dansk Ethioper Mission

Lutheran Church in Liberia (LCL) Natural disaster

Liberia √ √ (√) √ √


Good News for Children and Youth Drought Tanzania √ √ √ √ √

11-8 Assist LEADS Natural disaster


12-1 Danmission ICC Natural disaster

Cambodia √ √ √ √ √

12-2 Danmission Arcot Lutheran Church (ALC) Natural disaster

Indien √ √ √ √

12-3 Mission Afrika Den Anglikanske Kirke i Bo Fire Sierra Leone √ √ √

12-4 Danmission FDCD Conflict Syrien √ √ √ √ √

12-5 Baptistkirken UEBB Natural disaster

Burundi √ √ √ √ √


Alliance Development Trust

Natural disaster


12-7 Mission Afrika

Dooni-Dooni Mali Conflict Mali ÷ ? ÷ √ Christians only


Voice of Peace Fire Thailand √ ÷ For a church and orphanage. Included library books, computers, office equipment


National Christian Development Organization

Natural disaster

Syd-Sudan √ √ √ √ √

12-10

Dansk Europa-mission

Alliance Development Trust Natural disaster



Bless Indonesia Foundation Natural disaster

Indonesien √ √ √ √ √

13-2 Mission Øst Nepal Red Cross & KIRDARC Natural disaster

Nepal √ √ √ √ √

13-3 IAS International Aid Services Sudan Natural disaster

Sudan √ √ √ √


Draft Report 67


Local partner Type Country Relevant Most vulnerable

Flex-ible

Coordi-nation

Comments

To ERF To need

13-4 Mission Afrika CAPDI/EFLC Conflict Cameroun √ √ √ √ √

13-5 Mission Afrika Evangelical Lutheran Church of Central CAR OSEELRCA & LWF

Conflict CAR (√) (√) √ Included staff houses at health clinic

13-6 Ethiopier missionen Lutheran Church in Liberia Conflict Guinea √ √ √

13-7 Skandinavisk Børnemission

Children's Mission Phils. Inc. Natural disaster

Filippinerne √ √ ÷ √ Is targeting the “Scandinavian Village” built by the partner

13-8 Baptistkirken UNION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES OF DRC

Conflict DRC ÷ √ √ √ For a few protracted IDPs in a camp for a few weeks

Total considering 32 34 23 25 28

Total not considering 3 0 3 0 0

Unknown 0 1 9 10 7

Documents

Consultants for Development