EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 9.4.2010 
SEC(2010)398 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
 
Accompanying document to the  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
Annual Report on the Humanitarian Ai d Policy and its Implementation in 2009 
COM(2010)138 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Policy ...................................................................................................................... ..... 4 
1.1. Implementation of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid............................. 4 
1.2. International Humanitarian Law .................................................................................. 5 1.3. Coherence between humanitarian aid and other policies............................................. 5 1.4. Good Humanitarian Donorship.................................................................................... 7 1.5. External relations questions ......................................................................................... 8 1.6. Cross-cutting issues.................................................................................................... 10  
1.7. Aid effectiveness........................................................................................................ 1 1 
1.8. Sectoral policies ......................................................................................................... 13 
1.9. Outlook 2010.............................................................................................................. 14 
2. Implementation of humanitarian aid in 2009........................................................ 15 
2.1. A needs-based approach............................................................................................. 16 
2.2. Top 10 humanitarian crises in  terms of funding allocations...................................... 17 
2.3. Africa.................................................................................................................... ...... 18 
2.4. Middle East and Mediterranean ................................................................................. 44 2.5. Caucasus and Central Asia......................................................................................... 52 2.6. Asia and the Pacific.................................................................................................... 57  
2.7. Latin America and the Caribbean .............................................................................. 77 2.8. Disaster preparedness activ ities, including DIPECHO.............................................. 84 
2.9. Case studies on the launching of humanitarian aid.................................................... 88 
3. Aid management....................................................................................................... 93 
3.1. Ways and means of delivering aid ............................................................................. 93 
3.2. Co-ordination of humanitarian funds......................................................................... 96 3.3. Evaluations............................................................................................................... .. 98 
3.4. Control of use of funds............................................................................................. 100 3.5. Co-operation with humanitarian aid's stakeholders ................................................. 102 3.6. Visibility and communication.................................................................................. 102 3.7. Security and safety issues......................................................................................... 103 3.8. Training.................................................................................................................. .. 104 
EN 3   EN 4. Annexes ................................................................................................................... 10 5 
4.1. Introduction to financial tables................................................................................. 105 
4.2. Financial tables......................................................................................................... 1 06 
5. Glossary................................................................................................................... 1 37 
EN 4   EN 1. POLICY  
1.1. Implementation of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 
The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid1 underlines the European Union's 
commitment to upholding and promoting the fundamental humanitarian principles of 
humanity, neutrality, impartiality and indepe ndence and to promoting the respect of 
international law on humanitarian is sues, human rights, and refugees. 
An Action Plan to implement the consensus was adopted on 29 May 20082. This sets out a 
series of practical actions to enable the European Union's human itarian donors to take a more 
closely co-ordinated approach. The aim is to ensure that the European Union maximizes the 
effectiveness of its contribu tion to the collective interna tional humanitarian response. 
The Action Plan  
To facilitate implementation, related actions have been grouped into six action areas: 
Area 1: Advocacy, promotion of humanitari an principles and international law 
Area 2: Implementing a quality aid approach 
Area 3: Reinforcing capacities to respond 
Area 4: Strengthening partnerships 
Area 5: Enhancing coherence and co-ordination 
Area 6: Aid continuum 
Implementation of the Action Plan is largely on track: out of 49 ac tions foreseen in the Plan, only 
seven still need to be implemen ted as of January 2010. Of these,  two are scheduled to start by 
2011-12. They concern measurability and particip ation of disaster-affected communities. A 
mid-term review is scheduled for 2010 and a final review will take place in 2012. Other 
actions, such as reviews of modalities for emer gency decisions or of transition mechanisms, 
will also be carried out in 2010 and may become a part of legislative proposals. A few actions 
are experiencing slight delays, such as th e European Commission's Good Humanitarian 
Donorship implementation plan, disseminatio n of material concerning humanitarian 
principles.  
Throughout 2009, the priority was implementation of the 2005 International Humanitarian 
Law guidelines and the development of sectoral  policies. Most of the Action Plan will be 
implemented earlier than initially scheduled. 
                                                 
1 The Consensus was endorsed in December 2007 by  the Presidents of th e Commission, Council and 
European Parliament 
2 SEC(2008)1991 
EN 5   EN 1.2. International Humanitarian Law  
International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seeks to limit the effects of armed 
conflict on civilians. It protects  people who are not actively i nvolved in hostilities, or who 
have ceased to be involved. It restricts the means and met hods of warfare.  International 
humanitarian law is also known as the la w of war or the law of armed conflict. 
International humanitarian law is part of international law, the body of rules governing 
relations between states. International law is co ntained in agreements be tween states – treaties 
or conventions – in rules which consist of state practice that they consider legally binding, and 
in general principles. 
International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a state 
can actually use force. This is governed by an im portant, but distinct, part  of international law 
set out in the United Nations Charter. 
The Commission and Member States have work ed to implement commitments made in the 
European Consensus on Humanitarian Ai d and at the 2008 Brussels Conference on 
International Humanitarian Law. However, th e situation on the gr ound is worsening. The 
potential list of countries whose governments si mply do not abide by the law is getting longer. 
A particularly gruesome aspect of such violatio ns is the increasing use of sexual violence as a 
weapon of war, particularly in the eastern pa rt of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 
ECHO is working on a systematic approach to in tegrate all gender issues into its humanitarian 
operations. Meanwhile, humanitarian  aid operations in the countries  concerned will build this 
aspect into their response strategies. 
Advocacy for the protection of the humanitari an space must continue unabated. Numerous 
governments continue to disregard commitment s made in the Geneva Conventions. Such 
problems need ongoing political impetus if the Commission and the EU are to make progress 
in what is, admittedly, an extremely challenging area3. 
1.3. Coherence between humanitarian aid and other policies 
1.3.1.  Transition and Linking Relief, Reha bilitation and Development (LRRD) 
In 2009, the Commission worked extensively with  other Commission services to refine the 
concept of linking relief, rehab ilitation and development. This followed previous development 
in EU polices and instruments such as policies on fragility and security in development, the 
establishment of the Instrument for Stability, and reorganisation of co -operation instruments. 
This work complements the day-to-day work of  country desk officers and personnel in the 
field who work on transition si tuations in the countries fo r which they are responsible. 
Nonetheless it is worth mentioning that the LRRD approach is not limited to the notion of exit 
strategies for humanitarian aid, particularly in  situations where humanitarian and development 
actors are present for a long period. As indicated  in the European Consensus on Humanitarian 
Aid, LRRD challenges are tackled by applying a policy mix of hu manitarian, stabilisation and 
development interventions which ensure th e coherence of European interventions 
programmed and implemented simultaneously or successively in a country.  
                                                 
3 http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0 .nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet  
EN 6   EN 1.3.2.  Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) – Climate Change 
Throughout 2009, policy work on Disa ster Risk Reduction and climate change was driven 
forward.  
The Commission produced a Communication on EU strategy supporting Disaster Risk 
Reduction in developing countries4 (February 2009) and developed a plan to implement EU 
risk reduction strategy. 
Based on this Communication, th e new strategy entitled " A Strategic Approach to Disaster 
Risk Reduction in Humanitarian Aid " builds on the Commission’s experience in disaster 
preparedness. The main aim is to define a c oherent framework for ri sk reduction, financed 
from the humanitarian aid budget in the context of the EU policy and st rategy in this field, 
linking the Communication with the Hyogo Framework of Action5. 
The Commission has also started work on its ow n approach to the humanitarian impact of 
climate change. It will re view current knowledge on clim ate change, analyse current 
responses to natural disaster s, and formulate recommendations  for EU-financed humanitarian 
operations. 
In the run-up to the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, the Commission called 
on the international community to reinforce the link between disaster risk reduction activities 
and adapting to climate change, as to merge them in a coherent and innovative approach. This could boost the overall efficien cy of humanitarian aid. 
The Commission took part in th e Global Platform for Disaster  Risk Reduction organised by 
the UN International Strategy for Disaster Redu ction (UNISDR) in Geneva. This was a good 
opportunity to enhance European institutions' i nvolvement in disaster risk reduction. ECHO 
organised a particularly succe ssful Commission stand, which en abled it to make available 
information and create new links and potential synergies with other or ganisations involved in 
risk reduction. 
Finally, the Commission through ECHO devel oped strategic dialo gue and strengthened 
relations in risk reduction, part icularly with UNISDR, which is  an important player in the 
field of disaster risk  reduction and adaptation to climate change. 
1.3.3.  Civil Protection 
Co-ordination with EU civil protection actors and the Commission's Monitoring and 
Information Centre (MIC) was actively strengt hened i.e. through training sessions organised 
by the Community Mechanism for Civil Protec tion and the 23rd Meeting of the Directors-
General for Civil Protection from the EU Memb er States, European Ec onomic Area countries 
and candidate countries in Gothenburg in December 2009. 
                                                
 
4 COM(2009)84 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/aid/dipecho_en.htm 
EN 7   EN The European Commission also distributed joint situation reports from field level on disasters 
outside the EU. This helped to strengthen co-o rdination among EU huma nitarian aid and civil 
protection actors and rapid and coherent info rmation was made available to EU Member 
States. Implementation of the Commission's 20 08 Communication on Rein forcing the Union's 
Disaster Response Capacity conti nued in line with the Action Plan. 
1.3.4.  Civil-Military relations 
Civil-military issues also took greater pr ominence in 2009. The Commission became more 
active in calling for the protection of human itarian space and the humanitarian mandate. 
Several meetings were held, including a cont ribution to the Finabel Military Committee6 in 
Poland in June. The EU continued to fund ci vil-military liaison acti ons in the field in 
countries including Afghanistan. 
1.4. Good Humanitarian Donorship 
The Commission was co-chair (together with the Netherlands) for th e Good Humanitarian 
Donorship (GHD) Initiative for the period Ju ly 2008-July 2009. This coincided with the 
adoption of the European Consensus on Human itarian Aid and helped to build up the good 
donorship project by involving all EU donors in the process. The Commi ssion thus showed its 
strong commitment to leading policy and st rategic dialogue processes among donors both at 
EU and international levels. 
The co-chairs drew up a work plan in consu ltation with other donors, with comments from 
Inter-Agency Standing Committee7 representatives. The plan aims to structure work on good 
donorship around three main priorities: 
• Partnership 
• Humanitarian financing based on needs 
• Applying good donorship operationally 
Work progressed over the year on  all three priorities. The ne wly-appointed co-chairs have 
indicated they would like to cont inue this over the year ahead. 
Four  main one-day  'working level' donor meetings and two major senior-level meetings 
among donors and Inter-Agency Standing Committee partner representatives were organised 
in Geneva and Montreux. Ahead of each Geneva  meeting, the co-chairs met representatives 
from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Aid (OCHA), the International 
Council of Voluntary Associations (one of the main humanitarian NGO umbrella groups) and 
the Standing Committee for Humanitarian Response, which includes the Red Cross 
Movement and its secretariat, co-chairs of the Global Humanitarian Platform.  
                                                 
6 The Finabel Military Committee is an expertise forum contributing to european land armies 
interoperability since 1953  – www.espace-finabel.eu 
7 The Inter-Agency Standi ng Committee (IASC) is the primary mech anism for inter-agency co-ordination 
of humanitarian assistance. It is a unique forum involving the key UN and non-UN humanitarian 
partners - http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/ 
EN 8   EN The co-chairs also held a meeting with the full membership of the Inter-Agency Standing 
Committee-Good Humanitarian Donorship contac t group, which was re-established this year 
to liaise with donors. The Netherlands also conven ed four shorter meetings of the Rome group 
on good donorship, for which the Commissi on provided assistance and inputs. 
As a result of this ro le, the Commission was able to use good donorship as a bridge between 
EU work and discussions with other donors and partner represen tatives. The agenda reflected 
a balanced and operational view of good donor ship in practice. Discussions on needs 
assessment were considerably boosted as a result.  There was closer examination of ways in 
which the principles of good donorship and g ood practice could be a pplied in the field, 
particularly as regards improving donor co-o rdination. The Republic of Korea was the 36th 
donor to join the initiative. The Organisati on for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) 'humanitarian' peer review framew ork was thoroughly revised by consensus to 
include renewed emphasis on quality (e.g. cro ss-cutting issues) and more humanitarian-
sensitive formulation around 'transition' (ear ly recovery). The good donorship process was 
broadened beyond 'like-minded' core donors, a nd is increasingly viewed by Inter-Agency 
Standing Committee as the ke y interlocutor with which to tack le a range of systemic issues on 
a consensual basis. 
The Commission also used its role  in the good donorship  process to strength en the integration 
of new European members. It continued as  convenor of sessions for newcomers to the 
process, convening sessions co- hosted with Hungary a nd Estonia respectivel y. In addition, in 
its capacity as Good Humanitarian Donorship co -chair, the Commission was invited to speak 
at the OCHA Donor Support Group outreach event in Tallinn in June 2009. 
1.5. External relations questions 
1.5.1.  Council Working Group on Humanita rian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) 
The work of this group was successfully launched under the Czech Presidency of the 
European Council at the start of 2009 and contin ued under Swedish stewardship in the second 
half of the year. The impetus for the gr oup came during negotiati ons on the European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Having a dedi cated forum for regular policy exchange 
among Member State and Commission experts gave  a boost to developi ng a more coherent, 
co-ordinated EU approach to  humanitarian policy and action. 
The working group, which brings t ogether representatives from Member States capitals, met 
10 times over the year. The Commission drew  up a work plan with incoming EU 
Presidencies, with points on specific humanitari an crises (e.g. the Myanmar (Burma), Chad, 
Colombia, DRC, Gaza Strip, the Philippine s, Saharawi refugees, Somalia, Sri Lanka, 
Sudan/Darfur, Zimbabwe), sectoral subj ects (e.g. Food Aid C onvention, HIV/AIDS 
guidelines, cash and voucher guidelines, trans port study), and co-ordination on specific 
subjects (e.g. UN needs assessment work, UN Economic and Social Committee). 
In its first year of work, th e group established itself as th e Council point of reference for 
questions on humanitarian aid and a useful forum for regular policy level exchanges and 
closer co-ordination by EU expe rts on humanitarian aid policy a nd operational strategies. It 
has been instrumental in helping the Commis sion and Member States to develop shared 
analysis on thematic (incl uding food assistance) and geogra phical issues and raising the 
profile and relevance of humanitarian issu es with other Council working bodies, notably 
geographical working groups (as was the case fo r Sri Lanka for example), the Political and 
Security Committee and the Committee of Perman ent Representatives, which in turn feed in 
EN 9   EN to the Foreign Affairs Council. Discussions took place in the working group on the possible 
extension/renewal of the Food Aid Convention,  and on the implementation of International 
Humanitarian Law guidelines by the Working Party on International Public Law. In time, this 
is leading to increased consistency and cohe rence in the application of the humanitarian 
principles and good practices outlined in  the Consensus for Humanitarian Aid. 
The working group also facilita ted streamlining of the work of the Humanitarian Aid 
Committee's work. This committee can now focu s exclusively on the Commission’s financing 
proposals for humanitarian aid. This meant fewer meetings, and more use of the written 
procedure. Since strategic issues are now r outinely put on the working group's agenda, the 
need for informal Humanitarian Aid Committee meetings was reduced. 
On a strategic level, the working group has allowed the European Union to make its 
humanitarian aid activities more coherent. There is an annual exchange on individual 
humanitarian aid policies and budgets. This took  place in several stages at the beginning of 
2009. Policies produced by the Commission are of ten taken up by Member States (for 
instance, the HIV/AIDS and protection guidelin es); individual EU donor s’ activities in 
specific crises are better co-ordinated and EU positions on specific issues are discussed ahead 
of international meetings (e.g. on UN needs as sessment work). On a day-to-day basis, the 
work of the group was facilitate d by the Commission’s initiative to make its situation reports 
on specific humanitarian crises widely availabl e. These reports soon became major source of 
information for a wide audience of stake holders within and outside of Europe. 
1.5.2.  Co-operation with EU Institutions, Member States, International organisations and 
other donors 
After elections to the European Parliament  in June 2009, ECHO focused on following the 
day-to-day work of the newly constituted co mmittees (mainly the Committee on Development 
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs). The Co mmission worked closely with the Committee 
on Development to raise awareness and interest in humanitarian issues. Several meetings were 
held with the new Chair of the Committee on Development, Ms Eva Joly, and the new 
standing Humanitarian Rapporteur, Ms Barbara St riffler, to discuss humanitarian policy and 
operational issues. 
Regarding contacts with EU Member State dono rs, a high-level visit to the United Kingdom 
in February consolidated an already solid working relationship between the Commission and 
the Department for International Developmen t. Newer EU Member States were involved 
through newcomers' sessions for the Good Donor ship Initiative, which the Commission 
facilitated and through an OCHA Donors' Suppor t Group in Tallinn. In the context of the 
Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid an d Food Aid, the Commission now regularly 
fields requests from Member States for bila teral discussions, thus reinforcing EU co-
ordination in humanitarian aid. 
The Commission ensured close co ntact throughout the year w ith relevant international 
organisations, particularly the UN and the Re d Cross Movement, on both policy development 
and operational issues. Numerous high-level mee tings and strategic dial ogues were organised 
in Brussels to ensure close contacts with key UN agencies and partners. A special emphasis 
was put on close co-operation with UN Emer gency Relief Coordinator John Holmes.  
EN 10   EN In addition, the Commission ensured representa tion at UN and Red Cross Movement related 
meetings and processes, mainly in New York , Geneva and Rome, in close liaison with 
relevant EU Delegations. Through ECHO's active participation in the OCHA and 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Donor Support Groups, and through its 
observer status at World Food Programme Executive Board meetings and the UN High 
Commissioner for Refugee's Executive Commi ttee, the Commission provided inputs to 
strategic decision-making and gui dance at these organisations. 
The Commission continued to promote EU-co-or dinated positions as we ll as resolutions and 
statements in UN bodies reflec ting Commission policy.  The Commission also  took part in a 
tri-partite meeting with the United States a nd the United Kingdom with OCHA in New York 
in October. 
Throughout the year, the Commi ssion through ECHO also had extensive contacts with non-
EU donors, both at an operational level and at policy level at headquart ers. These included a 
strategic dialogue with the Unite d States in April 2009 as well ot her meetings with other key 
and non-traditional donors. 
1.6. Cross-cutting issues 
The Commission is committed to mainstreaming cr oss-cutting issues throughout its activities. 
They include, for example, gender equality or children's rights. These objectives are promoted 
and supported in all humanitarian aid operation s through the contents of financing decisions 
and contracts. They are also vital to strengthen  the impact of humanitarian aid in general and 
should be taken into account and integrated into all projects. 
1.6.1.  Gender 
In 2009 the Commission received th e results of the review it commissioned on gender issues 
in humanitarian aid, including strategies ag ainst gender-based violence in humanitarian 
settings. This review, a commitment in the Cons ensus Action Plan, was the first step in the 
Commission's drive to strengthe n its gender approach in the delivery of humanitarian aid. 
The review looked at the experiences of selected donor governments and partners, and 
presented good practice and reco mmendations. It proposed developi ng a policy of  identifying 
specific target areas for gender-related activities and practical steps to be taken to integrate 
gender considerations more fully in humanitari an operations. It also recommended that the 
Commission's position on issues such as sexua l and gender-based violence, gender analysis, 
gender data and information systems, gender in  the cluster system and capacity building etc 
should be clarified. 
The Commission took stock of the review's re commendations and has started to work on 
ensuring integration of the specific needs, vulne rabilities and capacities of different segments 
of the population in the design and implementa tion of its humanitarian interventions. In 
November 2009, the Commission held a consultation with partners to di scuss the results of 
the review and to open the debate on two ch allenging issues: gender mainstreaming and 
gender-based violence. This meeting enabled ge nder experts and policy makers to meet and 
helped to identify key issues to be deve loped in the forthcoming policy document. 
EN 11   EN Finally, the Commission c ontributed to the development of the Gender Action Plan as well as 
to the implementation of the EU Comprehensive approach to UN Security Council resolutions 
1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security. 
1.6.2.  Children 
After the adoption of a document on children in emergencies8 in 2008, the Commission 
continued in 2009 its work mainly through calling for more attention to children's needs in 
EU-funded humanitarian interventions. Preventi ng separation during return programmes is a 
high priority. The Commission also continued to  work on a better inte gration of children's 
rights and needs in EU policies. 
1.7. Aid effectiveness 
1.7.1.  Needs assessment 
The Commission has been actively engaged in debates on setting-up better co-ordinated, more 
coherent common needs assessment.  
This thinking is being developed in the context of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee 
Needs Assessment Task Force. The Needs A ssessment Group (created in March 2009), which 
later became the IASC Needs Assessment Task  Force (July 2009), has developed Terms of 
Reference and a work plan for Septembe r 2009-September 2010. The Commission organised 
a multi-donor consultation on humanitarian needs a ssessment in May to facilitate a concerted 
donor approach to needs assessment. The mee ting triggered regular informal exchanges 
among donors. The Commission also proposed a multi-donor letter to Sir John Holmes in 
support of OCHA's role in needs assessment.  The letter was signe d in May 2009 by 25 
humanitarian donors. 
On 16 October 2009, the Commission organise d a Donor Roundtable in Geneva on a 
Common Needs Assessment/Dashboa rd. The meeting expressed continued strong support for 
more reliable assessment, and support fo r the work of OCHA and the IASC Needs 
Assessment Task Force to this end.  
1.7.2.  Capacity building 
The Commission is committed to the Capacity  Building approach through the European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. In the Consen sus, the Commission, EU Member States and 
the European Parliament agreed that " …supporting the development of the collective global 
capacity to respond to hum anitarian crises is one of the fundamental tenets of our [EU] 
approach "9. Correspondingly, the Consensus Action Plan asks the EU to " …explore how to 
enhance support to capacity bu ilding, including in the cluste r approach and provisions for 
reinforcing local capacity… and to promote a multi-donor approach to capacity building "10..  
                                                 
8 SEC(2008)135 
9 As adopted by the Council, EP and Commission on 18 December, (OJ 2008/C/ 25/01 of 30.01.2008). 
10 Commission Staff Working Document ‘European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid – Action Plan’ 
SEC(2008)1991, 29.5.2008 
EN 12   EN In addition, as a Good Humanitarian Donor , the Commission is committed to allocating 
"funding to strengthen c apacities for response"11. 
Following up on this commitment, an extensive consultation process was launched in 2008 
and continued into 2009. This involved cons ultations with partne rs, other donors and 
humanitarian actors. It conc luded with a Round Table Conf erence in January 2009. As a 
result, Financing Guidelines for Capacity Bu ilding were adopted in September 2009. These 
identify the main gaps in the global human itarian system and define how the EU's 
humanitarian funding can best be used to address these gaps. 
For 2009 and 2010, €25 million is available for EU humanitarian Capacity Building Funding. 
This is primarily for:  
– needs assessment work by OCHA, the Food an d Agriculture Organisation and the World 
Food Programme (WFP);  
– building global humanitarian health capacity, es pecially through the heal th cluster roll-out, 
through World Health Organisation;  
– building global humanitarian water/sanita tion capacity, especially through the 
water/sanitation cluster roll-out, through th e United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); 
building global humanitarian lo gistics capacity through WFP,  especially through the 
logistics cluster;  
– building local, regional and international cap acity to respond to di sasters through the 
International Federation of the Red Cro ss and the Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). 
Over €25 million of EU humanitarian Capa city Building funding since 2006 has been 
allocated to the cluster approach, so a works hop to review progress on this was held at the 
ECHO Partners' Conference in December 2009. 
As part of the 2009 Capacity Building progra mme, the EU has supported OCHA's project on 
“strengthening the co-ordination of human itarian response”. This included several 
components, including the Assessment and Cla ssification of Emergencies. An important 
element is the development of a Humanitari an Dashboard, a tool to consolidate needs 
assessment and other core humanitarian informa tion across sectors, presenting information in 
a one-page summary of key information and i ndicators, to strengthen evidence-based 
humanitarian decision-making. The tool was fiel d-tested in Kenya in late 2009. This led to 
improvements that will be piloted in early 2010. 
                                                 
11 GHD principle 18, but also principle 8 on strength ening the capacity of affected countries and local 
communities and principle 10 to support and promote the central and unique role of the UN.  
EN 13   EN 1.8. Sectoral policies 
In line with the Consensus Action Plan, a number of  sectoral policy initiatives were either in 
progress or completed in 2009. 
1.8.1.  Health 
The Commission prepared a Position Paper on User  Fees for Primary Health Services. This 
was presented to the Council Working Group. There is international consensus that user fees 
discriminate against the poor and most vulnera ble, as only those who can pay get access to 
primary health care. The Commission's position is  that partners running the emergency health 
care programmes that EU funds should not ask users to pay fees. However, development 
partners could consider levying fees during the rehabilitation process in exceptional 
situations, as a means of working towards financial sustainability.  
Regarding the Novel Flu caused by Influenza A (H1N1), the Commission set up a task force 
to monitor the risk and to adjust the EU -funded humanitarian response as necessary. 
The Commission is taking part in a Communication on “ The EU role in global health ” to be 
published in April 2010. The EU  continued to fund WHO from budget earmarked for capacity 
building, to enable it to continue its leadersh ip role for the Global Health Cluster and to 
support country health clusters so that these function efficiently. By the end of 2009, there 
were 36 partners in the cluster, 51 new Health  Cluster Coordinators were trained, and new 
tools such as a Health Cluster Guide a nd an assessment tool were finalised. 
1.8.2.  Protection 
After a thorough stakeholder c onsultation process, funding guidelines on protection in 
humanitarian assistance were finalised in 2009. The document wa s very well received, even if 
some organisations would have prefe rred a broader definition of protection. 
The guidelines aim to define the framework in which the Commission should fund protection 
activities, as well as specifying the type of part ners and activities eligible. The guidelines also 
provide recommendations as to how to progr amme and monitor protection activities. 
Protection is approached in many different ways from the fundamental delivery of 
humanitarian assistance to institution-buildi ng and deployment of peacekeeping troops. The 
Commission opted for an operational approach in  its guidelines. Prot ection is defined as 
support to " non-structural activities aiming at reducing the ri sk and the impact of human-
generated violence, coercion, deprivation and abuse of vulnerable individuals or groups in 
the context of humanitarian crises ". The humanitarian aid budge t will therefore not fund 
activities such as long-term institution-building pr ocesses, which are a structural process that 
challenges society as a whole by aiming to cha nge policy, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour. 
The guidelines recognise that protec tion is as important in natural disasters as it is in conflict 
situations. They identify three leve ls of protection interventions:  
– "Pure" protection activities; 
EN 14   EN – Interventions whose main objective is prot ection, but achieved through assistance;  
– Other humanitarian interventions, in which prot ection should be mainstreamed in order to, 
at the very least, "do no harm“. 
On the more operational side, the guidelines in sist on the need to recognise programmes, 
whose main objective is protect ion, as such, even when the objective is achieved through 
material assistance. This is important to ensure coherence between needs assessments, objectives, results, activities and indicators. 
Monitoring protection programmes is challengi ng. Quantifying a protection problem can be 
very difficult. For example, it is hard to meas ure a reduction in abuse. Moreover, the impact 
of protection activities is often linked to factors beyond the control of programme operators. 
The timeframe is also an obstacle to measuring impact. However, where it is impossible to define realistic impact indicators, the leve l of activity can at  least be measured. 
1.8.3.  The use of cash and vouchers in humanitarian crises 
In 2009, the Commission finalised work launched two years earlier on the use of cash and 
vouchers in humanitarian cris es, with the adoption of f unding guidelines in mid-2009, 
following extensive consultation with the main actors active in this field
12. 
It defines the standards to be followed dur ing the full cycle of projects using cash and 
vouchers as a means of deliv ering humanitarian aid. Alternative ways of delivering 
humanitarian assistance should be  systematically analysed and compared in project proposals. 
The Commission believes that both cash-based a nd in-kind humanitarian assistance can be 
appropriate, and the choice depends on the context.  It aims to provide funding to meet needs 
in the most appropriate, cost-effective and safe way in each case. Nevertheless, the guidelines 
aim to facilitate wider use of  cash and vouchers to reduce costs and improve delivery of 
humanitarian aid, and to empower  beneficiaries by offering them more choice, thus helping to 
foster self-esteem. 
The Commission does not expect  rapid, profound changes in the way humanitarian is 
delivered, though it sees potential for a gr adual increase in cash-based systems. 
The implementation of these guidelines will be monitored closely and an evaluation of their 
implementation will be carried out within two year s with a view to amending them if need be.  
1.9. Outlook 2010 
Overall trends and individual crisis situati ons show the current main challenges facing 
humanitarian aid:  
– decreasing humanitarian space: a growi ng number of countries where access to 
beneficiaries has become mo re difficult or impossible; 
                                                 
12 UN agencies such as WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, inte rnational organisations like ICRC/IFRC, NGOs like 
OXFAM, ACF, Horn Relief, CARE Kenya and Me mber States’ humanitarian aid departments 
EN 15   EN – worsening security situation for be neficiaries and aid workers alike; 
– steep increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters; 
– difficulties of linking short-term humanita rian aid to longer-term development co-
operation activities. 
The Commission-implemented EU-funded human itarian aid operations will address these 
issues. It is clear the answer lies not only in the quantity, but also in the quality of aid. In 
addition, there will have to be pressure through a dvocacy at the highest levels to counter some 
of the most serious impediments to carrying out humanitarian aid oper ations. This applies 
particularly to access to bene ficiaries, and growing disregar d for international humanitarian 
law. 
The context is bleak and the pros pect of maintaining humanitarian  budgets at current levels in 
2010 and beyond is unlikely, given that donor countries have to manage problematic budget 
deficits. The Commission will respond in two main ways: 
– by addressing the main challenges horizonta lly, through policies to make aid more 
effective, and by bringing probl ems to the attention of deci sion-makers and the general 
public;  
– through systematic, equitable and consistent programming to allocate what funding is 
available. 
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF HU MANITARIAN AID IN 2009 
This synopsis of EU-funded hum anitarian operations is presen ted on a geographical basis, 
organised around the five regions of th e world where ECHO implements EU-funded 
humanitarian actions. 
Each section has the same struct ure to facilitate comparison:  
(1) Overview of funding per country (region) and/or per humanitarian crisis in which 
ECHO has been active. For all types of inte rventions, humanitarian aid is implemented 
through Commission funding decisions and gr ant agreements with partners, who 
implement specific humanitarian operations in the field. The overview tables show 
funding decisions in 2009. 
(2) Description of humanitarian needs that we re identified, the main objectives and 
achievements and, where applicable, the transition between emergency, relief, 
rehabilitation and development. 
This overview includes a ll countries/crises for which ther e were funding decisions in 2009 as 
well as those for which funding was made availa ble in previous years,  resulting in ongoing 
implementation in 2009. 
In section 2.8, there is information on disaster  preparedness activitie s undertaken in 2009 to 
reduce both the vulnerability and ex posure of people to risks and disasters as well as to reduce 
the costs of such disasters. 
EN 16   EN The figures in this chapter provide a general overview and/or illustrate the content of the 
chapter. Complete financial information is given in section 4. 
2.1. A needs-based approach 
The EU provides assistance to populations with th e greatest humanitarian needs, irrespective 
of origin, religion or political creed. 
For a number of years, ECHO has been using a two-pronged approach to identify those with a 
high priority for humanitarian needs. The fi rst approach is the evaluation of the needs 
undertaken in the field by experts and geographical  units. In addition to the immediate reports 
about crisis areas, analyses ar e carried out to provide inform ation on specific needs. At the 
same time, a comparative analysis is conducted to identify those countr ies which may require 
humanitarian assistance. This analysis has two dimensions: 
– the Global Needs Assessment13 based on national indicators,  classes more than 140 
countries according to the occurrence of a r ecent crisis (natural disaster or conflict, 
including the weight of displa ced people or refugees on the population) and the degree of 
vulnerability of the population, incorporating various indica tors (e.g. human development 
index, mortality of children under 5), 
– the Forgotten Crisis Assessment attempts to identify serious humanitarian crises where the 
people affected do not receive sufficient in ternational aid and/or media coverage. 
These are important tools for ensuring coherence in  allocating resources among countries 
according to their needs, independe ntly of any type of pressure. 
Using this method, the Commission identified 44 c ountries or territories in crisis in 2009. Out 
of these, 17 were classed as "extremely vulnerable". This meant a rise on figures for 2008, when there were 41 countries in crisis, 15 of wh ich were "extremely vulnerable". A rise in the 
number of natural disasters partly accounted for this.  
Of the 17 "extremely vulnerable" countries or  territories, 14 were in sub-Saharan Africa 
(including Chad, the Democratic Republic of  the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, 
Uganda and Zimbabwe). The others were Chec hnya (Russian Federation), Afghanistan and 
East Timor. 
These vulnerable areas
14 received a total of €429 million or 81% of the initial budget allocated 
to geographical decisions, under the humanitarian and food aid budget lines. 
The following were classified as "forgotten crises":  
• The inter-ethnic conflic t in Myanmar (Burma): people displaced internally and Burmese 
refugees in Thailand. The population groups affected by cyclone Nargis; 
                                                 
13 The methodology used and the results for 2009 are available at the following internet address 
http://EU.europa.eu/ echo/information/stra tegy/index_en.htm  
14 Countries with a Crisis Index of 3 
EN 17   EN • Colombia: People affected by the internal armed conflict; 
• Yemen: People affected by th e conflict in the north; 
• Sahrawi refugees in Algeria; 
• India: People affected by various  conflicts in Kashmir, North East India, as well as the 
conflict relating to Naxalite demands; 
• Bangladesh: Rohingya refugees and the Chittagong Hill Tracts crisis. 
These forgotten crises received 12%15of the budget for geographically delineated decisions. 
2.2. Top 10 humanitarian crises in terms of funding allocations 
In 2009, the top 10 crises in  terms of funding allocations were the following  
TOP 10 FUNDING 2009
313437 404551 546671116
020406080100120140
Sudan
Pakistan
OPT
DRCongo Ethiopia
Somalia
Kenya
Afghanistan
Chad
Sahelmio €
 
EU humanitarian funding for these crises was €544 million, or 63% of  the total funding of 
operational budget dedicated to countries and regions. Of this, 68% was earmarked for 
countries in Africa.  
                                                 
15 €40.5 million out of an initial budget of €350.3  million for geographica lly delineated decisions 
(humanitarian aid budget line) 
EN 18   EN 2.3. Africa 
In 2009, humanitarian and food aid in terventions were funded in about half the countries in 
Africa, through 36 funding decisions worth a total of €489 million, 53% of the total budget 
managed by ECHO (€931.7 million). 
In descending order, the ten main countries in which funding were  required were: Sudan, 
DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Chad, Sahel16, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Burundi/Tanzania. 
Funding in response to natural disasters was made  available as follows: recurrent epidemics in 
Southern Africa and West Africa (cholera, meni ngitis), droughts in Western Africa, Horn of 
Africa, Madagascar and floods in West Africa. 
ECHO implemented drought preparedness activities in the Greater Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, 
Kenya and Uganda), and funded an ECHO Flight  service for humanitarian operators in DRC 
and for emergency interventions elsewhere. 
HUM.AID FOOD AID EDF DIPECHO TOTAL
SUDAN & CHAD 94 600 000 53 000 000 2 000 000 149 600 000
Sudan 75 600 000 40 000 000 115 600 000
Chad 19 000 000 13 000 000 2 000 000 34 000 000
CENTRAL AFRICA 57 500 000 20 000 000 2 000 000 79 500 000
Central African Republic 2 000 000 2 000 000
Congo Brazaville 2 000 000 2 000 000
Democratic Republic of Congo 30 000 000 15 000 000 45 000 000
Echo-Flight 8 500 000 8 500 000
Burundi andTanzania 17 000 000 5 000 000 22 000 000
HORN of AFRICA 87 000 000 63 000 000 23 475 000 173 475 000
Eritrea 3 000 000 3 000 000
Ethiopia 14 000 000 27 000 000 10 000 000 51 000 000
Kenya 3 000 000 29 000 000 8 000 000 40 000 000
Somalia 40 000 000 5 000 000 45 000 000
Uganda 17 000 000 2 000 000 5 475 000 24 475 000
Regional Drought Preparedness 
Programme (RDPP)10 000 000 10 000 000
WEST AFRICA 25 550 000 21 000 000 4 900 000 51 450 000
Sahel and coastal states 9 550 000 20 000 000 4 900 000 34 450 000
Liberia 11 000 000 1 000 000 12 000 000
Regional West Africa 5 000 000 5 000 000
SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN OCEAN 18 500 000 12 000 000 4 300 000  735 000 35 535 000
Southern Africa 5 500 000  735 000 6 235 000
Madagascar 2 800 000 2 800 000
Zambia 1 500 000 1 500 000
Zimbabwe 13 000 000 12 000 000 25 000 000
TOTAL AFRICA 283 150 000 169 000 000 36 675 000  735 000 489 560 000Funding decisions adopted in 2009
Country/region
                                                 
16 Coastal states not included 
EN 19   EN Sudan and Chad, Central Africa 
The region of Central Africa, Su dan and Chad represents the la rgest single concentration of 
ECHO humanitarian activities in the world. This  is partly a reflection of the sheer scale of 
need: for example, five million people in Su dan are affected by conflict, displacement, 
drought, floods and epidemics. It is also an i ndication of the complexity  and recurrent nature 
of crises in these countries. Th ere is, for example, a highly comp lex web of conflicts in Darfur 
and South Sudan; a million internally displaced people returned to the DRC, but at the same 
time another million were displaced in a different  part of the country. Many of the crises cut 
across national boundaries, for example, the Da rfur-Chad dynamic and the Lord's Resistance 
Army's attacks in South Sudan, Central Af rican Republic and North-Eastern DRC. Many 
crises occur in situations where the state's pres ence and basic facilities are very weak, or even 
non-existent. 
Conflict is the major factor creating humanitarian  crises in this region, displacing people from 
their homes, preventing them from enjoying a st able lifestyle, from earning their livelihoods 
and denying them access to basic services. But c onflict also hinders the effectiveness of the 
humanitarian response. Organisa tions are frequently unable to work, or are constrained from 
working to capacity. On top of this, there is often administrativ e interference from central and 
local authorities who are suspicious of independ ent humanitarian aid, and wanting to exercise 
a degree of control over it. 
All this takes place against a background of ex tremely weak infrastructure – which creates 
serious logistical challenges for humanitarian  agencies, and appalling poverty. Four of the 
countries in the region figure in the botto m 10 of the UN's Human Development Index17. 
Nevertheless, ECHO was able to administer effective humanitarian  projects through its 
partners and to reach around ten million pe ople in serious and urgent need in 2009. 
Sudan 
Humanitarian needs 
Sudan represents the largest single country in tervention by ECHO in 2009. This was justified 
by the scale of humanitarian needs, in Darfur , the Transitional Areas and also in the South 
where the humanitarian situation signif icantly deteriorated over the year. 
The pattern of the conflict changed in Darfur  in 2009, with a reduction in the scale and 
intensity of armed confrontations. Neverthele ss, clashes between rebel factions, between 
rebels and government forces, and between trib es continued to take place, displacing 138 000 
people and forcing humanitarian organisations to limit or suspend their op erations. After more 
than six years of crisis, the humanitarian si tuation remains characterised by large-scale 
displacement. Two million people are still living in camps and settlements; two million others 
are affected by the conflict; a nd there are 40 000 refugees fr om Chad. All are dependent on 
international assistance for survival.  
                                                 
17 http://hdr.undp.org 
EN 20   EN Maintaining an adequate humanitarian response continued to be very challenging in 2009. 
This was due to the scale of the needs, ongoing displacement (even if this diminished 
compared to previous years), pressure on scar ce natural resources, a nd the attitude of the 
Sudanese authorities towards humanitarian operations. The expul sion from North Sudan of 13 
International NGOs (INGOs)18 and three national NGOs in March aggravated existing aid 
delivery gaps and weakened the influence of organisations. UN agen cies, along with line 
national ministries and the remaining NGOs, st epped in to fill the gaps left by expulsions, 
thereby helping to avoid a large-scale humanita rian catastrophe. However, deeper analysis 
reveals that the quality of basic service deliver y deteriorated, and the effective coverage of 
needs decreased significantly. Protection needs were not met, and assessment and emergency 
response capacities were extremely weak, especially  in remote and rural areas. On top of that, 
the cost of operations continued to rise becau se of security and logistical constraints. 
In South Sudan, the humanitarian situation de teriorated in 2009, with violent inter-tribal 
clashes and indiscriminate attacks by the Lord 's Resistance Army, whic h killed 2 500 people, 
displaced more than 350 000 others, and brought  in more than 20 000 refugees from the 
Democratic Republic of Congo a nd Central African Republic. Becau se of these conflicts, plus 
meagre rainfall, drought and high food prices, severe food shortages significantly increased 
throughout South Sudan, affecting a million peopl e. This exacerbated a situation that was 
already serious, given that over two million refug ees and displaced people had returned since 
the end of the civil war to ar eas totally lacking in basic se rvices. In addition, both South 
Sudan and the Transitional Areas were subject  to recurrent disease outbreaks (cholera, 
meningitis) and to deadly haemorrhagic fevers such as kala-azar . 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Over the last five years, about €535 million were allocated for Sudan. ECHO has adapted its 
response as the situation changed in the country, in particular in Darfur, the South, and the 
Transitional Areas. In 2009, €115.6 million were al located for Sudan. Darfur benefited from 
71% of the total alloca tion, while 20% went to the South, 3% to the North and Transitional 
Areas, and 6% to national operations. 
The conflict in Darfur generated one of the biggest-ever population displacements, and the 
EU's commitment has been significant since the beginning of the cr isis in 2003. Since 2007, 
support for food aid, emergency food security a nd livelihood assistance have risen sharply. 
Food aid is now the biggest singl e sector. ECHO has also mainta ined a strong commitment to 
the South and the Transitional Ar eas since 2005, supporting the retu rn and the reintegration of 
two million refugees and displaced people.  
In mid-2008, ECHO started supporting th e UN World Food Programme's emergency 
activities in South Sudan to help newly displaced people, and others needing food aid. Though the return of th ose displaced came to an end, ECHO's involvement in South Sudan 
increased, so as to respond to new emergencies in 2009. 
                                                
 
18 International Non-Governmental Organisation 
EN 21   EN Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, ECHO focused on life-saving and life-preserving support. It targeted 6.5 million 
people in need of humanitarian assistance, mo st of them displaced people, refugees and 
returnees. General food distributi on was the largest single res ponse both in terms of overall 
funding (32%) and coverage, with 3.6 million be neficiaries in Darfur and 436 000 in South 
Sudan. More than 5.2 million people across Suda n benefited from health care (14% of 
funding), mainly through primary health care se rvices. Short-term food security intervention 
(11%), such as support for agricultural an d livestock activities, reached over 1.2 million 
people. Therapeutic and supplementary feedi ng programmes (11%) benefited more than 1.1 
million people, mostly children under five. Water, sanitation and hygiene promotion reached 1.3 million beneficiaries (9%). ECHO gave subs tantial support (10%) to humanitarian air 
transport services, used by 50 000 people from 170 organisations. Shelter and other essential 
items were distributed to 2.8 million people. 
Overall, the Commission maintained a flexible approach to allow for an immediate response 
to new emergencies on the basis of identified needs. 
Working environment  
The working environment in all areas was ex tremely challenging, and access was constrained 
by logistical difficulties, administrative obstruction and insecurity. Darfur was particularly hard hit by administrative impediments, including the pressure to "S udanize " humanitarian 
aid and by the expulsion of NGOs in Marc h 2009. Civilians, humanitarian workers and 
peacekeepers were all targ ets for violence. There were five high-profile cases of abduction of 
expatriates from March 2009 onwards: Médeci ns Sans Frontières (MSF), International 
Medical Aid (AMI), GOAL, United Nations-Afr ican Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) 
and ICRC. Insecurity has completely change d the way in which humanitarians operate, 
drastically reducing their field presence and le ading to the suspension and closure of some 
operations. 
The authorities continued to restrict access to the Transitional Areas and the East. In the 
South, access was limited by the poor road network, lack of adequate infrastructure, and flooding during the rainy season. Wh ile inter-tribal and clan attacks do not usually target aid 
workers directly, they often cr eate temporary no-go zones. Access is also seriously restricted 
in areas affected by LRA attacks. 
It was very difficult for the humanitarian commun ity to maintain the respect of humanitarian 
space and principles. Some progress was made  when the authorities accepted a Joint 
Verification Mechanism to allow the monitoring and evaluation of those returning, ensuring they did so, on a voluntary, safe and sustainabl e basis. Also, the High Level Committee where 
humanitarian issues are discussed with the Sudanese authorities was strengthened and 
enlarged. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The conditions for an exit strategy in Darfur will  only come about when there is an inclusive 
peace agreement covering all parties to the conflic t. Instability and insecurity are preventing 
substantial and definitive returns, so a flexible humanitarian approach is still required. Due to 
the lack of local capacity and effective develo pment and recovery instruments, humanitarian 
operators continue to be th e main providers of a safety net in South Sudan and the 
EN 22   EN Transitional Areas, but many vulne rable people are not covered. Efforts to link humanitarian 
operations to development, particularly to the 10th EDF programme, have been seriously 
hampered by the decision of the Sudanese government not to ratify the revised Cotonou 
Agreement. Humanitarian aid cannot compensa te for the absence of development funding. 
However, support is necessary in the immediat e term for the populations  in great need of 
basic services, also to help prev enting further destabilisation. This is particularly important in 
view of elections in 2010 and a referendum  on the independence of the South in 2011. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Various Commission services work closely t ogether on Sudan, as well as with the EU 
Delegation. The Commission also re gularly shares its contextual analysis and concerns with 
Member States in COHAFA19, with the EU Special Representa tives, and with its partners, 
particularly in the aftermath of the NGO expu lsions. Regular co-ordination meetings take 
place in Khartoum with ot her humanitarian donors. Repr esentatives from the Commission 
have actively participated in the High Level Committee in Khartoum, and in the high-level donor meetings for Darfur held in New York and Geneva. 
Chad 
Humanitarian needs 
Since 2003, 257 000 Sudanese refugees have fled the province of Darfur to the border 
provinces of Eastern Chad, which are among the poorest regions of the c ountry. In the south, 
the regions of Moyen Chari, Logone Oriental and Salamat are hosting some 67 000 refugees 
from the Central African Republic. Since 2006 , about 168 000 people have been internally 
displaced in the south-eastern part of Chad ne ar the border with Darfur. In certain areas, 
particularly in Southern  Assounga and the Dar Sila, voluntary  returns to villages of origin 
have been registered since 2007. From Dece mber 2008, when a survey on nutrition drew 
attention to an alarming situation, the humanitari an aid community reinfo rced its mobilisation 
in the region of Kanem to combat malnutrition. 
The country is extremely vulnerable, thre atened by epidemics and floods as well as 
malnutrition. In addition to displacements in the eastern and southern regions of the country, 
2009 also saw floods and a meningitis epidemic in  the south. Food insecurity is expected to 
increase.  
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2003, in the eastern part of the country, th ere has been an emergency response to the 
arrival of Sudanese refugees fl eeing conflict in Darfur . A separate response assisted internally 
displaced people over 2006-2007. Since then, hos t populations close to the displacement 
territories 2007 have also need ed assistance to maintain ba sic services. ECHO has had to 
respond to new emergencies, and will do so until security improves enough to allow the 
repatriation of displaced people.  Parallel to this influx to the East further humanitarian 
operations were launched to ai d refugees from Central African  Republic coming to Southern 
Chad. Since 2008 the strategy on humanitarian  aid has included a transition phase in 
connection with actions impl emented by the EU Delegation. In December 2008 ECHO started 
                                                 
19 EU Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 
EN 23   EN to implement EU funded humanitarian activitie s in the region of Kanem to overcome acute 
malnutrition. 
EU funding increased over the period 2006-2007 as a result of internal displacement. Due to 
the arrival of new humanitarian actors in Chad along with the intervention in Kanem, the sum 
total stabilised at €34 million in 2009. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the EU contributed to alle viating the vulnerability of t hose affected by intervening in 
all traditional humanitarian aid sectors: nutriti on and health, water/san itation, shelter and other 
essentials, protection, educati on and community services. ECHO also intervened in co-
ordination, humanitarian air transp ort, food aid and food security. 
All Sudanese refugees benefited from opera tions funded by the EU, in all, about 257 000 
people, as well as 168 000 others who were  internally-displaced, including those who 
voluntarily returned to their vi llages of origin. In the South, ECHO supported 53 000 refugees 
from the Central African Republic. Lastly, EC HO continued to support  host populations in 
areas where refugees are to be settled and disp laced. In the absence of accurate censuses of 
the host populations in these ar eas, it remains extremely difficu lt to quantify the number of 
beneficiaries affected. 
In the region of Kanem, EU financed a firs t food aid operation in early December 2008. This 
benefited 12 000 women, and children, of whom 7 000 were severely malnourished. This was 
followed by a decision of €2 million under the 10th EDF in 2009 to strengthen the 
humanitarian presence and aid response in the area. The response may have to be stepped up again, as food shortages could poten tially grow even worse in 2010.  
Overall, there was a satisfactory response in  terms of meeting th e needs of the most 
vulnerable. Major crises were averted, and the health supervision mechanism alerted actors in time to prevent decline in the main indicators. The maintenance of a humanitarian air service meant humanitarian aid workers were able to ga in access to all areas of intervention, ensuring 
neutrality and independence. However this required an emergency mobilisation of funds 
during the second half of 2009. The initial Globa l Plan of €30 million was revised, bringing 
funding up to €32 million. 
Working environment 
The year 2009 was marked by increasingly frequent  and violent criminal acts in Eastern Chad. 
This climate contributed to restricting human itarian space, leading some organisations to 
suspend their activities. In 2009, there was a new t ype of criminally-motiv ated security threat, 
with humanitarian workers being taken ho stage for ransom. Various humanitarian 
organisations such as ' Médecins sans Frontières' , 'Action contre la Faim ', 'Solidarités'  and 
'International Committee of the Red Cross ' have been affected by th is insecurity situation; 
ICRC in particular has had a delegate ki dnapped on the 22nd of Oc tober 2009 and has only 
been released after 89 days of detention. 
EN 24   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In southern regions which hosted Central Af rican refugees, the Commission's strategy has 
changed since 2008, with the intr oduction of mechanisms to s upport reviving agriculture, as 
well as income-generating projects. This appr oach was developed with and through the EU 
Delegation, which started food secu rity programmes in the regions  of Maro and then Goré, in 
parallel with ECHO pr eparing to withdraw. 
In the East, there needs to be a shift from emergency responses to programmes promoting 
self-sufficiency, assuming recipients could take  on more responsibility. However, prospects 
are restricted because the government of Ch ad lacks decentralised services, and more 
development actors are needed in key sectors such as health, education and agricultural 
development. 
Co-ordination of aid 
A joint mission by ECHO and the American humanitarian departments (BPRM20 and 
OFDA21) took place in January 2009, allowing joint anal ysis of the situation as well as better 
co-ordination of actions financed by the tw o major humanitarian donors in Chad. Moreover, 
ECHO takes active part in the work of the info rmal group of donors for Chad, which is based 
in Geneva. 
Central African Republic  
Humanitarian needs 
At the end of 2006, the increased level of figh ting between government forces and rebels in 
the northwest and northeast of the country, togeth er with the increase in foreign incursions 
and attacks by road bandits led to the disp lacement of more th an 200 000 people. Although 
the level of violence and instability diminished  in 2008, in 2009 conflict le vels rose again as a 
result of a faltering peace process, new rebe l movements and a rise in ethnic tension. The 
global humanitarian context remains complex, with conflict and post-conflict situations. The international economic crisis exacerbated the situ ation. The most urgent needs were 
water/sanitation, food security, health, other es sentials, protection and logistical support. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
ECHO became involved in the Republic in 2 007. €8 million were allocated in 2007 and 
implemented in 2007-08, and €7.8 million in 2008 for implementation mostly in 2009, topped up by €2 million in 2009 in response to an increase in LRA attacks. Since mid-2007, the 
Commission has significan tly contributed to a c ontinuous and effective re lief response in the 
northern regions affected by conf lict. Water/sanitation, food secu rity, health, protection, other 
essentials and humanitarian ai r support have predominated w ith an increasing focus on 
nutrition programmes. Presence in the fiel d was expanded in 2007-08, and implementing 
capacity and geographical coverage went on expanding into 2009. However, logistical and 
security constraints have slowed down the rate of expansion. 
                                                
 
20 Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration 
21 Office of U.S. Foreign Di saster Assistance (OFDA) 
EN 25   EN Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The EU's objective was to provide assistance for displaced people, refugees, returnees and 
vulnerable groups, to promote stabilisation and re settlement. In the northwest of the country, 
gradual improvements observed in 2008 allowed operations in new areas. Then in 2009, small-scale conflicts shifted from the northwest  to the north-centre and northeast, and there 
was a new refugee influx from the Democratic Republic of Congo. ECHO's approach has been sufficiently flexible to respond immediat ely to the evolving situation and to maintain 
multi-sectoral assistance to 160 000 displaced people and return ees, 30 000 refugees and other 
vulnerable groups. 
Working environment  
Despite efforts to initiate dialogue among the parties to th e conflicts, humanitarian access 
became increasingly restricted because of factors such as official denial, banditry, conflict and 
logistics. There was a worrying increase in viol ence targeting international organisations. This 
resulted in aid being w ithdrawn from some areas. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
ECHO has, as far as possible, focused EU-funde d intervention in areas and sectors identified 
in the development strategy. This has meant fund ing actions facilitating an exit strategy from 
humanitarian aid towards recove ry projects, especially for fo od security and water/sanitation. 
Discussions with the EU Delegation are ongoi ng so as to promote this trend through 
complementary initiatives and in struments. However, these e fforts will be jeopardised if 
conflict and insecurity go on. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The Commission liaises on issues of common concern with the only other donors present in 
the country, namely France and the US Aid or ganisations have access to funding UN Pooled 
Funds such as the Centra l Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and the Common Humanitarian 
Fund (CHF); EU- and CHF-funded projects are of ten implemented in the same areas, hence 
the need for clos e co-ordination. 
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 
Humanitarian needs 
Despite successful elections, the DRC is still far from peaceful. It remains a country of 
marked contrasts. Although a million displaced pe ople were able to return home and regain 
self-sufficiency, renewed conflict and military operations in North and South Kivu in the East uprooted more than a million people, putting them in urgent need of health care, water, food and shelter. Violence against women and children remains a particular pr oblem, especially in 
conflict zones, with victims requiring ur gent medical and psyc hological assistance. 
The situation in the Eastern region, especially  Orientale Province and North and South Kivu, 
continues to give serious cause for concern. In the first eight months of 2009, 775 000 people 
were displaced in the provinces of North a nd South Kivu, and 455 000 in the eastern districts 
of Orientale Province. Major cl ashes between the Congolese arme d forces and their allies and 
rebel armed groups (including the LRA) sin ce early 2009 are among the factors to blame. 
EN 26   EN The situation was calmer in Katanga, but there was a marked slowdown in the repatriation of 
Congolese refugees from Zambia and Tanzania, b ecause of growing insecu rity in the areas to 
which refugees were returning. 
Finally, the region of Dongo, along  the river Ubangi between the DRC and the Republic of 
Congo, was tormented by violent conflict from the end of Oc tober 2009. These conflicts 
created huge movements of refugees fro m the DRC into the Republic of Congo. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Humanitarian needs have matched conflict leve ls. At the height of the fighting (1996-2003) 
development aid was suspended and the EU -funded humanitarian aid programme became 
very broad covering the whole c ountry. After peace agreements, th e level of conflict subsided, 
allowing development aid to resume. However, persistent intermittent conflict in the East 
prolonged the need for emergency assistance. EC HO thus scaled down from the peak of EU-
funding in 2000-03, though in the past five years, aid has remained relatively stable, with a 
budget of €45 million in 2009. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In a country which is among the world's need iest, the Commission's strategy is focused on 
internally-displaced people in conflict situa tions and on protection-related issues. Aid has 
targeted those most vulnerable in the worst- affected regions: victims of conflict, those 
displaced, and host communities affected by population movements. Help and protection for female victims of conflict is a high priori ty, with provision of obstetric care and special 
programmes for victims of sexual violence. Th e special needs of vul nerable children have 
also been taken into account, par ticularly regagrding the risk of  separation from their families 
during return journeys, and recruitment by armed groups. 
EU funded programmes supporting 35 health z ones, which provided coverage for three 
million people and curative care for a million patients. There was care for 9 100 victims of sexual violence; 122 500 people gained improve d access to clean water, and 72 000 displaced 
families received survival kits. Some 160 000  households received support for seeds and 
tools, 135 km of key access roads were rehabil itated and 14 500 refugees were assisted in 
repatriation from neighbouring c ountries. The same applied to 11 000 people, who went back 
to Rwanda. There was food assistance for 2.8 million people. 
Working environment 
The working environment in the DRC is extr emely difficult: logistics are a constant 
challenge, due to lack of basic infrastructure. This is made worse by an increasing level of 
government interference in humanitarian affair s, looking to influence who does what, where 
and how. Security in the zones where EC HO operates has also become increasingly 
problematic, with an ever-growing number of restricted areas. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
ECHO has continued to hand over health progra mmes to development partners in areas that 
have stabilised. However, in North and Sout h Kivu and Orientale Province the process has 
been reversed. Several health di stricts have to ask extra EU s upport to face increased needs. 
EN 27   EN Co-ordination of aid 
The Commission is fully involved in the an nual process led by the UN Humanitarian 
Coordinator to formulate humanitarian st rategy and a new Humanitarian Action Plan. 
The Global Humanitarian Donorship initiative in the DRC continues to foster active co-
operation among donors. This is extremely rele vant, given the growi ng number of funding 
instruments and programmes in the East of the country, including those being implemented at 
the initiative of the Congolese au thorities. ECHO plays an active part in this process and 
closely monitors financing mechanisms such as the Pooled Fund and the Central Emergency 
Response Fund , although it does not contribute to them. 
Co-ordination with development instruments c ontinues. The multisectoral rehabilitation aid 
programme, financed from the 9th EDF and specifically designe d to complement ECHO's 
programmes, is set to continue until Decembe r 2012. The €23 million Food Security Thematic 
Programme22 (FSTP) will take over from EU human itarian aid for longer-term food security 
initiatives. The Instrument for Stability23 has also allocated €10 m illion, mostly for the reform 
and stabilisation of the secu rity sector in the Eastern part of the country. 
ECHO Flight 
Humanitarian needs 
There is no safe and reliable means of trans port between the supply and personnel entry points 
and the main humanitarian destinations. Over land travel is dangerous and time-consuming, 
sometimes even impossible, given security cons traints or lack of roads. The use of ECHO 
Flight services enables humanitarian NGOs to ke ep inventory stockpiles at field locations at 
low levels, reducing the risk of confiscation or theft by armed ba ndits or local militias. This 
makes quality control easier, as supervisory visits can be made more frequently. Having airborne stand-by evacuation capa city is essential for many agen cies to enable them to go on 
implementing projects. ECHO Flight also operate s in Kenya, to serve humanitarian operators 
in areas where alternative access has become too dangerous. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
As the security situation improved, ECHO was able  to expand its geogra phical coverage. This 
increased the need for air transp ort, so there has been a sma ll but steady incr ease in funding, 
from €6 million in 2006, to €8.5 million in 2009. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The aim has been to facilitate implemen tation of humanitarian and post-emergency 
development projects in difficult or inaccessibl e areas. After a tender process, ECHO entered 
into a service agreement with  DAC Aviation, a commercial ope rator, providing suitable and 
secure aircraft. This has been satisfactorily ac hieved, using three aircraft operating a mix of 
fixed and flexible schedules. 
                                                
 
22 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/food_safety/international_dimension_enlargement/ 
r12546_en.htm  
23 http://EU.europa.eu/external _relations/ifs/index_en.htm 
EN 28   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
There are no plans at present to hand over th is operation to the EU Delegation, though this 
might be possible at later stage. 
Burundi and Tanzania 
Humanitarian needs 
Given the close links between the two countri es in terms of huma nitarian needs, the 
Commission again combined Burundi and Tanzan ia into one Global Plan, and administered 
field operations from Bujumbura, w ith a small field office in Kigoma. 
Tanzania continues to host a large refug ee population, almost entirely dependent on 
humanitarian aid. At the beginning of 2009, ther e were still 125 000 refugees in Tanzania, 
mainly Burundians and Congolese. Repatriation was very slow, and at the end of the year, 
there were still 100 000 refugees in two camps, needing food, water, shelter, protection and 
health care. Most of those who fled to Tanzan ia in 1972 are in the process of naturalisation, 
and the 30 000 who have asked to return  to Burundi have been repatriated. 
After 15 years of conflict, th ere has been no fighting in Burundi since April 2008. The 
reconstruction and stabilisation process is underway, with the s econd democratic elections in 
the country's history scheduled for 2010. Desp ite a major repatriation exercise, living 
conditions remain difficult. Burundi also hos ts three camps for 19 000 Congolese refugees, 
with a further 11 000 registered refugees living in urban areas and needing care and 
maintenance support. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Assistance has evolved from life-saving emergency aid to re habilitation and development. 
Chronic poverty, independent of the conflic t, means many Burundians are in a very 
vulnerable position, and will remain so. The return of refugees, though positive, has added to this vulnerability. So, despite the increase in de velopment aid, there is still a need for some 
humanitarian assistance. Furthermore, the situation in the Eastern DRC remains highly 
uncertain, and there could be a further infl ux of Congolese refugees. The Commission is 
progressively reducing EU assistance, fr om around €31.6 million per year in 2005-07, to 
€22 million in 2009. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009  
The main aim is to limit mortality and morbid ity rates, and to support resettlement and 
stabilisation. ECHO’s strategy for 2009 focu sed on water/sanitation, health, nutrition, 
housing, protection and transport. Vulnerable  groups in Burundi, such as unaccompanied 
children, the disabled and the el derly, have also been targete d, and repatriation programmes 
have been financed in Tanzania. In the two countries, there was ai d for 21 000 children under 
the age of five and 130 000 refugees living in  camps, together with 40 000 returnees from 
Tanzania and up to a million vulnerable people in Burundi. 
EN 29   EN Working environment  
Burundi has been free of conflict since Ap ril 2008. The demobilisation, disarmament and 
reintegration of the last party to have given up armed struggle, the Palipehutu-FNL , is now 
under way, with the support of the internationa l community. However, peace and stability 
could be jeopardised if the outcome  of the elections is challenged. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The transition to development programmes in  Burundi began in 2007 and remained high on 
the agenda in 2009. Ongoing and enhanced sy nergy among Commission services made it 
possible to implement several new multi-sector programmes, progressively reducing humanitarian aid. These programmes include: th e Post Conflict Rural Development Project; 
the Food Security Thematic Progra mme; and the Santé Plus project. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The constructive, ongoing and wide-ranging dial ogue between the European Commission and 
the EU Delegation resulted in several new multi- sector programmes in health, post-conflict 
rural development and food secur ity; Co-ordination on LRRD and other matters is also being 
pursued with other development players, including DFID
24, Swiss and German Co-operation, 
World Bank and the Global Alliance for Vacci nes and Immunisation. There has been a 
national committee for coor dinating aid since 2005. 
2.3.1.  Horn of Africa 
In 2009, the rains failed in the Horn of Af rica. This, combined with conflicts and 
displacement, high food and fuel prices, as well as livestock diseases, exacerbated food 
insecurity. About 20 million people became depende nt on food assistance. This number could 
rise in 2010, particularly among marginal fa rmers, pastoralists and low-income urban 
dwellers. Lack of adequate pasture has ma de conditions worse for livestock, reducing 
pastoralists' income and access to staple foods.  
In 2009, the Commission allocated of €173 million to  respond to this crisis. The initial budget 
was only €87 million, so additional resources were mobilised from the EU humanitarian 
operational reserve (€13 million), the EU Em ergency Aid Reserve (€50 million) and the 
European Development Fund (€23 million). Food ai d was ECHO's main sector of intervention 
and the World Food Programme its main part ner, especially in Ethiopia and Kenya. 
Because of political instability  and continuing conflict and violence in Somalia, it has not 
been possible to put in place an adequate monitoring system for humanitarian operations. There were also serious access problems and very limited implementing capacity in Eritrea 
and the Somali region of Ethiopia. Kenya faces an increasing influx of Somali refugees. The 
Horn of Africa remains a region where the pres ervation of humanitarian space and the respect 
of humanitarian prin ciples are at risk. 
                                                
 
24 UK Department for In ternational Development 
EN 30   EN Eritrea 
Humanitarian needs 
Eritrea suffers recurring dry peri ods. Moreover, the country is still officially at war with 
Ethiopia and Djibouti. There has been no survey  since 2006, so there is little information on 
the humanitarian situation. The la test EU-Joint Research Cent re cereal production estimate is 
140 000 tons, 30% below the 10-yeas average, a nd only 25%, at best, of minimum needs for 
the year. Based on a fairly realistic figure of fi ve million people, this means the country needs 
over 660 000 million tonnes of cereal to make up the balance. Although there is no reliable data, an alarming number of people were admitted to nutr ition programmes up to October 
2009. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
A total of €23.6 million were allocated for Er itrea from 2005 to 2009. ECHO's interventions 
progressively shifted from water/ sanitation support to include h ealth, nutrition and protection, 
with an increasing focus on nutrition. Howeve r, implementing capacity has continued to 
decrease because of logistical  and administrative c onstraints affecting al l partners, including 
the expulsion of several NGOs. EU humanitari an allocations have progressively been 
reduced, from €6 million in 2007, to €4 million in 2008, and €3 million in 2009. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In May 2009, there was a €3 m illion funding decision. The scope  of this was three-fold: 
detection and management of acu te malnutrition, improvement of maternal healthcare, and 
food security in the Ethiopia-Eritrea border areas, targeting people whose lives had been 
disrupted by conflict. The number of partners in Eritrea decreased, following the expulsion of 
an NGO partner in August 2009. The few remaini ng partners (the UN a nd ICRC) are working 
under the strict control of the Government. This  has had two consequen ces. First, the quality 
of programmes is deteriorating, because of the lack of (reliable) data , needs assessment and 
monitoring capacity, as well as training capacity  hampered by lack of access. Second, limited 
implementation capacity has mean t that funds available could not be deployed. This meant 
that although funding worth €3 million was originally envisaged, only €1 million was 
committed in 2009. 
Working environment 
Because of Government restrictions, resulting in shrinking humanitarian space, lack of 
reliable data and effective implementation capacity, ECHO could not implement all of the 
funding allocated in 2009 and is not at present able to support interventions to address the 
needs of vulnerable groups. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Unless working conditions improve enough to allow humanitarian actors to work according to 
the guiding principles of humanitarian aid, the EU will not be able to fund activities in Eritrea. 
EN 31   EN Ethiopia 
Humanitarian needs 
Lack of rain in 2008 meant lack of food, and up to 6.2 million people needed food assistance 
in 2009. The number of people affected was pr obably far higher than the Government's 
conservative official figure. Those in distre ss moved elsewhere, and their livestock died, 
according to reports from the pastoralist lowland areas. There was also conflict over 
resources, malnutrition, and erosion of liv elihoods. Many people lacked basic productive 
assets. During 2009, the prevalence of acute watery diarrhoea (AWD-Cholera) increased 
sevenfold as compared to 2008. The conflict in the Somali Region and military operations 
restricted regular food deliveries to market, further aggravating the very fragile situation in 
this remote region. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Ethiopia had copious harvests from 2004 to 2007, improving food security. However, from 
2008 onwards, the situation deteriorated rapidly.  The number of people in need of food aid 
peaked, reaching 6.4 million in October 20 08, and in December 2009, the number was 
estimated at 6.2 million. Less rain immediately means less production and more need for food 
aid. Acute watery diarrhoea was first reported  in April 2006, and became widespread, with 
more than 18 000 cases reported in September 2009. The trend is rising, mainly because people drank water from contaminated sources. Poor hygiene in general and migrant labourers 
became vectors for its transmission.  
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, EU allocated €52.6 million for Ethiopia,  out of which €37 million was for food aid, 
€14 million for general humanitarian aid and €1.6 million to a Regional Drought Decision for 
Disaster Risk Reduction.  
The major objectives can be summarised as follows: 
• To relieve human suffering caused by natural and/or man-made disa sters through provision 
of assistance in the health, food assistance and water/sanitation sectors to those most 
vulnerable, including refugees and internally displaced persons  
• To contribute to alleviating the impact of the current drought and frequent drought cycles 
on targeted vulnerable local communities. 
The EU supported food assistance, nutritional s upport, epidemic response, primary health 
care, water, sanitation and hygiene, food secu rity and livelihood support and animal health. 
The number of beneficiaries totalled 6.85 m illion, of whom 62% r eceived food aid. ECHO 
helped to ensure access to basic survival item s, sustained livelihood recovery, and resilience 
built up. This was achieved by providing food to  those identified in accordance with the 
national food aid targeting guide lines, nutritional response pr ogrammes including outreach 
therapeutic programmes, as we ll as supplementary feeding programmes. Treatment centres 
were set up to respond to epid emics, and acute watery diarrh oea awareness programmes were 
implemented, as well as educational programme s on safe hygiene and sanitation practices.  
EN 32   EN There was also support for better access to safe  drinking water. Those who had lost the means 
to grow food as crops failed were given a second chance with supplies of inputs such as seeds and fertilizers. 
Working environment 
There were no serious threats to  humanitarian workers. However, in Somali Regional State, 
security remained fragile. In particular, the Ogaden, which covers more than half of the 
region, was threatened area because of conflict between the Ogaden National Liberation Front 
(ONLF) and the Ethiopian Defen ce Forces. In the southern Orom iya area, ethnic clashes are 
common, and exacerbated by drought, when access to pasture and water becomes scarce. The 
Gambella Region has insecurity problems b ecause of the conflict between the Anuak, 
Majangir, highlander settlers a nd Nuer (from Sudan). The Somali Regional State is the most 
difficult to access, possible only on a case- by-case basis when ensured by the Regional 
Government and the Ethiopian Defence Forces . In the Ogaden, access restrictions are 
imposed on all international NGOs and UN ag encies. According to ECHO partners, the 
current situation has improved since 2006 and 20 07, when access was almost impossible, but 
it is still a major concern. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
ECHO's Office in Ethiopia an d the EU Delegation work clos ely with other donors to pursue 
an LRRD policy. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The Humanitarian Donors Co-ordination Group ha s been consolidated thanks to the active 
involvement of OFDA
25, DFID, the Netherlands Embassy and the Humanitarian Response 
Fund (HRF)26 of OCHA. ECHO plays an essential a nd active role in this group, which 
regularly discusses the humanitarian situation in the country, to inform the decision-making 
process of individual donor ag encies. The group aims to avoid double-funding and geographic 
overlap; and discusses the implementa tion capacity of potential partners. 
Kenya 
Humanitarian needs 
The crisis in the Northern and Eastern part of th e country is the result of near-total failure of 
the long rains in 2009, coupled with erratic short rains. This combination added to the 
accumulated impact of five consecutive failed seasons since 2006. The frequent recurrence of 
dry episodes means that pastoralists and agro -pastoralists are not ab le to recover between 
droughts. Food insecurity and mal nutrition have to be seen in the context of poor development 
of marginalised arid and semi-arid lands, the weak health system, conflicts over resources, 
lack of governance at central and district leve ls, and poor management of the grain market.  
                                                 
25 Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance 
26 Humanitarian Response Fund (HRF) gets fundin g from The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom 
EN 33   EN Malnutrition of children under the ag e of five has peaked above WHO27 emergency levels. 
Daadab refugee camps, built to  accommodate 90 000 people, hosted 280 000 refugees at the 
end of 2009. More than 10 000 ref ugees have been relocated to  Kakuma, which hosted former 
refugee camps during the South Sudan crisis. Existing refugee camps are operating far above 
their capacity, increasing the stress on refugees and agencies providing assistance. Refugees 
arrived at the camps at the rate of more than 5 000 a month in 2009. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2005, more than €83.5 million in EU human itarian assistance has been allocated to 
Kenya. There was a peak in 2008 (€23.5 million) to meet the needs of those affected by post-election violence. Severe drought and the cont inuous influx of refugees made 2009 another 
bad year. The total budget allocation in 2009 was €40 million, out of which €10 million was for interventions in refugee camps. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
ECHO had two main objectives. It supported re fugees in vital sect ors such as food, 
water/sanitation and health. It al so aimed to alleviate the imp act of recurrent  drought cycles 
through improved response and more emergenc y capacity, including humanitarian food aid 
and other forms of emergency food assistance (i ncluding nutritional su pport and short-term 
food security and livelihood support). There was also  a first-line response to urgent needs in 
the face of severe drought. To bridge the peak hunger period (Decembe r-March), EU made 
funds available to step up di stribution of food for 350 000 childre n and pregnant or lactating 
women. 
A substantial contribution to WFP should carry over into 2010 to respond to the significant 
rise in the number of food aid beneficiaries due to acute  seasonal stress. Through four 
successive Decisions, the Commi ssion proved able to scale up it s response in line with the 
situation. In response to the drought, the EU supported food aid including funding for 
UNICEF (€1.5 million) and a Blanket Supplemen tary Feeding with the WFP (€7.5 million); 
emergency livestock interventions, mainly restocking; emergency water interventions, 
integrated into wider actions and a "food for work" intervention. Almost all of these were 
carried out in the arid lands of Kenya. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In line with the 10
th EDF, key sectors are road infrastructure and rural development. The 
focus is not on the arid and semi-arid lands. The mid-term review was an  opportunity to stress 
the need for closer co-ordination. EU is not th e lead donor in the health  and nutrition sectors, 
though many aspects will be integrated under the rural development chapter. There was close 
co-ordination among all EU services to ensure th at food facility was us ed as an opportunity 
for linkage with development, a nd some of the partners and type s of activities show this. Co-
ordination has intensified since the 9th EDF, for instance over the Drought Management 
Initiative. This initiative supports the jo int Government of Kenya / World Bank Drought 
Contingency Fund. The arid and semi-arid lands are increasingly viewed from a development 
perspective with donors comm itting medium term funds. 
                                                 
27 World Health Organisation (UN) 
EN 34   EN Somalia 
Humanitarian needs 
Humanitarian needs remained overwhelming in  Somalia, a country afflicted by almost 20 
years of conflict and instability. Worsening cy clical droughts, floods, and epidemic outbreaks 
aggravate and compound the situation. The huma nitarian crisis rema ined widespread and 
severe throughout 2009, with half of the populat ion, an estimated 3.76 million people, in need 
of humanitarian aid. In 2009, th e number of people displaced increased from 1.3 million in 
January to 1.55 million in September, including  524 000 in the Afgooye corridor. Those in 
need include 1.4 million rural people affected by severe drought, 655 000 urban poor who continue to struggle with very  high prices for food and other essentials, and more than 1.42 
million people displaced by conflict. Around 93% of those displaced are concentrated in 
South and Central Somalia. The main cause of displacement in Somalia is insecurity (86.2%) 
followed by drought (7.8%) and lack of liveliho od (4.7%). The numbers of people displaced 
are likely to rise in 201 0. As well as suffering the impact of  conflict, people in most parts of 
Somalia are seeing a sharp de terioration in thei r situation, with livelihoods undermined, 
coping strategies eroded, high commodity prices , inflation, a continuing currency devaluation, 
and persistent drought in Ce ntral and Northern Somalia. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
From 2005 to 2009, the EU provided aid reachi ng a total of €126 million for the period. In 
2009, following the escalation of the conflict and related di splacement from Mogadishu, 
worsening drought and the overall intensificatio n of the humanitarian crisis, the Commission 
has progressively increased EU support th rough the Global Plan and other regional 
humanitarian aid decisions to €45 million. The main aim remained the same throughout the 
period: ' To assist the victims of insecur ity and climatic hazards in Somalia '. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The main sectors addressed were health care , nutrition, water/sanitati on, food security, food 
aid, co-ordination and drought preparedness/response. The €45 million allocation in 2009 reflected the need to respond in real time to increasing needs. EU support in Somalia reached 
an estimated three million people, though it is hard to calculate figures accurately. In the 
health sector, EU support focused on primary health care, including both in-patient and out-
patient, specialised mother and child health car e, paediatrics and emergency war surgery as 
well as curative nutrition. Regarding food security, there were several components 
programmed, including reinforcement of emergency veterinary services
28 in response to 
outbreaks of livestock diseases threatening he rds across the centre and south of Somalia as 
well as close to the border with Kenya. Seeds a nd tools were delivered, and there were cash- 
based interventions, income-generating activities or unconditional cash, as well as other initiatives to restore the ability to make  a livelihood. EU humanitarian assistance has 
contributed to the WFP food aid pipeline, targeting about 2.2 million people. One key 
programme in Mogadishu provided roughly 75 000 cooked meals a day. Water/sanitation , a 
sector of vital importance in Somalia, incl uded improved access to water and hygiene. When 
                                                
 
28 The veterinary initiatives also aim to ensure that morbidity rate of critical livestock diseases would not 
exceed 20% and mortality rates kept below the normal  20% thus contributing si gnificantly to ensuing 
the protection of people's livestock herds and livelihoods 
EN 35   EN appropriate, water trucking continued in 2009. In th e past, most assistance went to the Central 
and Southern Regions. However, because of th e drought in the Pastoral Central Northern 
regions and the influx of displaced people to other areas of the North, the focus has been 
adjusted to include more support for Puntland and Somaliland.  
Working environment 
The so-called Djibouti peace process  has not yet produced any reconciliation between the 
Transitional Federal Government and Opposition Groups. As a result, thousands of civilians 
in and around Mogadishu are caught up in th e impact of renewed hostilities. Though the 
numbers of humanitarian intern ational staff in Somalia rose in 2009, most of them based in 
the North, they had difficulties moving in an unrestricted manner outside established compounds. There were fewer incidents targeti ng humanitarian personnel or assets, a fact 
clearly related to the decrease in the numbers of UN and NGO staff in South Somalia, as well 
as to operational changes limiting staff exposure to  risk. Fighting for control of territory and 
the targeting of humanitarian assets frequently prevented acce ss to populations in need or 
interrupted assistance activities, particul arly in Mogadishu and the South Somalia
29. That is 
why ECHO's partners and other aid agencies  were unable to undertake accurate field 
assessments, do proper monitoring, or scale up their activities to meet growing needs. 
Furthermore, infringements of humanitarian la w repeatedly undermined  and restricted the 
ability of humanitarian actors to reach thos e in need of assistance. Despite this, the 
Commission has sought ways to improve the de livery of aid in Somalia, through rigorous 
selection of partners and programmes. It wi ll go on with this, building on experience and 
lessons learned. ECHO partners have been ch allenged to develop imaginative and effective 
ways of going on with their mission, while remaining fully accountable.  
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Links with development are a major challenge,  partly because the geographic coverage of 
programmes but also because of high levels  of insecurity preventing easy access and 
monitoring. Nevertheless, co-o rdination and cooperation are en sured, especially over rural 
development and social services. 
Uganda 
Humanitarian needs 
In September 2009, about 1.4 million of people were still classified as displaced, of whom 1.2 
million were in the Acholi region, where displace ment has been prolonged and suffering more 
intense. Although most have now abandoned the camps, there has not yet been an official 
statement to declare the end of displacement, mainly because of the lack of services and 
infrastructure in the areas to which they retu rned. There are still 148 camps to be phased out 
and officially closed, and some 1 107 trans it sites still house around 218 300 displaced people. 
The Karamoja region faced a fourth consecutive year of below-average rainfall in 2009. The 
situation was exacerbated by insecurity because of cattle raiding and the Government of Uganda's forceful disarmament programme. Restrictions on move ment have, to some degree, 
been eased, but the future of the disarmament programme is not clear,  and livelihoods remain 
precarious. In April 2009, malnutrition in the region was estimated at 9% global acute 
                                                
 
29 Somalia UN CAP 2010 sources 
EN 36   EN malnutrition, reaching 10% in some district s, and 1.6% severe acute malnutrition. WFP 
provided food aid to some 1.1 million people in the region. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
Since 2005, the EU has contributed  to providing continuous, effec tive relief response in areas 
affected by conflict in the north-central region. This has met basic needs such as 
water/sanitation, health care, food and other essentials, as well as  protection and co-
ordination. Over the years, reli ef has been scaled up signific antly, and extended to the region 
of Karamoja. Insecurity hindered access unt il 2006. The assistance implemented by ECHO 
has started with camp services  and psycho-social and re-int egration assistance, and then 
included assistance to those returning home. The Commission allocated €14 million in 2005, increasing to €19 million in 2006 and €24.6 million in 2007 (including €8 million of food aid). In 2008 support amounted to €25.5 million (including €3.9 million through the regional 
drought decision). In 2009, the allocation wa s €24.5 million, including funds from the 10
th 
EDF, and to which part of the regi onal drought decision is to be added. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
ECHO’s Global Plan for 2009 included two specific objectives: 
1) to provide timely, integrated humanitarian support, with particular  emphasis on extremely 
vulnerable people, to those internally displaced living in camps, and retu rnees, as well as to 
those affected by climate hazards 
2) to continue strengthening management and co-ordination of the humanitarian response 
among multilateral and bilateral agencies and non-governmental agencies in Uganda. 
Main achievements include: (1) Health: support to major hospi tals and health centres in th e Acholi and Karamoja regions, 
including health education and disease surveill ance; support to outreach preventive healthcare 
services in return areas of Acholi, and mobile  clinics. HIV/AIDS and malaria prevention were 
integrated into all h ealth care programmes. 
(2) Water, Sanitation and Hygi ene: operation and maintenance of water systems in camps 
(with emphasis on handing over infrastructure to local authorities); rehabilitation and construction of water systems in return areas,  where 156 new water points were installed and 
204 existing water points rehabilitated. Hygiene awareness raising was integrated into all 
water/sanitation programmes. 
(3) Food security: Support to reducing depende nce on food aid by increasing self-reliance 
among displaced people through livelihood security  programmes. After crop failure in 2009 in 
the Acholi and Teso regions, an emergency deci sion targeted areas wh ere the harvest brought 
in less than half the yield expected. 
(4) Food aid: The WFP terminated general food distribution to displaced people in April 2009 
because of a shortfall in funding. ECHO co ntinued to assist some 100 000 extremely 
vulnerable people throug h nutrition programmes. 
EN 37   EN (5) Protection:  UNHCR continued to support displaced people, to ensure they were not 
coerced during the return pro cess. There was also support  for phasing out camps, and 
reintegration of extremely vulnerable persons. Follow-up visits of form erly abducted children 
reintegrated into their communities continued, and there were referrals for specific cases. 
Psycho-social support also continued. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for northern Uganda made a faltering start 
during 2009. It will, hopefully, gather pace during 2010. The EU Delegation in Uganda has 
scheduled the launch of two ma jor contributions to the plan  in 2010. Other major donors such 
as the World Bank and the UK's DFID also pl an to start major investments for northern 
Uganda in 2010. 
Regional drought preparedness programme 
Humanitarian needs 
The inhabitants of the Greater Horn of Africa are severely affected by recurrent man-made 
and natural disasters, leading to persistent vul nerabilities and reducing their capacity to cope. 
At the beginning of 2009, about 12 million people living in these arid lands had significant 
humanitarian needs. The coping capacities of those exposed to  drought have been 
progressively eroded as a result of environmenta l policy failures and a lack of development. 
These nomadic pastoralists rely on the opportunistic  use of natural resour ces, or the ability to 
move with their herds to areas with more wa ter and better pasture. The effects of climate 
change — rising temperatures and increasingly  erratic rainfall – have  a serious impact on 
livelihoods. The combination of scarcer natural resources, inadequate resource management 
and a rise in the population in much of the regi on has increased competition for resources, and 
made conflict over them more likely. The se vere drought of 2009 has exacerbated these 
trends. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
In 2006, the Commission adopted its first €15 m illion Regional Drought Decision to enable 
timely, relevant humanitarian responses to reduc e the impact of drought on rural populations. 
Given the success of this, there was a furthe r €30 million in 2008 and a further €10 million in 
2009, for preparedness and mitigation measures. In parallel, funding made available for 
timely, short-term responses in 2008 and 2009. The 2008 and 2009 decisions included components for advocacy and technical co-ordina tion to strengthen the technical coherence of 
these operations and create stronger links with development actors, and to raise awareness of 
the need to reduce the drought risk in the Horn of  Africa. This approach reflects best practice 
in drought management which focuses on co mmunity capacity building, and involvement 
with local authority drought services  at strategic and operational levels. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The 18-month 2008 Regional Drought Decision, which came to an end in June 2009, was 
immediately followed by another programme for a 12-month period, to be implemented in the 
drought-prone areas of the Greater Horn of Africa. Given the scal e of needs and lessons learnt 
from past interventions, th e 2009 decision was intended to complement actions ECHO has 
already implemented in the region. Partners were  asked to prioritise key sectors: disaster 
EN 38   EN preparedness (with a focus on Early Warning Sy stems), institutional linkages, information and 
communication, and small-scale infrastructure and services, and Food Assistance (with a 
focus on emergency food security and short- term livelihood support, and food security 
information and analysis). Activities will continue in line with the Drought Cycle Management approach, which promotes community-based knowledge in drought 
preparedness, strengthening of local resilien ce and early warning. ECHO's drought 
preparedness approach targeted up to 12 million pa storalists and/or agro-pastoralists, directly 
and indirectly. 
Working environment 
Poor security and lack of access to target popul ations constrained the implementation of some 
activities in 2009. Restrict ed access to Eritrea for humanitarian actors meant the project there 
was ended prematurely. The worsening securi ty situation in Somalia also hindered the 
implementation of two cross-bord er projects. Other s ecurity constraints were encountered in 
Ethiopia's Southern and Ogaden regions, and in  the Karamoja region of Uganda, requiring 
ECHO to have to choose very carefully the places and types of intervention it could support. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Linkage has significantly improved since the Regional Drought Decision. However, ECHO 
(in co-operation with other EU instruments) ha s to find a path which will guarantee that 
projects which have been started can be scal ed up appropriately, as well as their durability. 
The Commission will continue  to focus on supporting operati ons at community level, 
respecting existing institutional di saster risk reduction framewor ks in the region. This should 
create conditions for a smooth ex it strategy. Best practices and le ssons learnt in drought cycle 
management can be shared and replicated by governments and development stakeholders in the region, and also integrated into the humanitarian actions. 
Co-ordination of aid  
Good examples of co-ordinati on include the EU Delegation in Kenya's Drought Management 
Initiative, which initiative s upports the joint Government of Kenya / World Bank Drought 
Contingency Fund. In Uganda, the ECHO-implem ented drought preparedne ss is co-ordinated 
with the EU Delegation's Karamoja  Livelihoods Programme (KALIP). 
2.3.2.  West Africa 
West Africa is one of the poorest and most underdeveloped re gions in the world with 10
30 
countries ranked at the bottom of the list  of the 182 countries in the 2007 UN Human 
Development Index. Three quarters of the populati on lives in rural areas and relies mainly on 
subsistence agriculture. 
The region experiences disast ers ranging from war and civil conflict, to sudden natural 
disasters such as floods, as well as slow -onset disasters such as drought and acute 
malnutrition. Climate change means many coun tries are already showing signs of massive 
environmental stress. Those most vulnerable th ere are the first vic tims of global warming. 
                                                 
30 Togo, Benin, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. 
EN 39   EN Increasingly erratic rains, se vere floods, drought and a rise in the number of epidemics are 
curbing prospects for development. Political instability and poor go vernance are further 
complicating factors.  
The initial 2009 budget allocation for West Af rica was €27 million, and nearly doubled to 
€51.5 million by the end of the year. The poor 2009/2010 agricultural season means a drop in 
food production, raising fears of ma jor shortages in the region. 
Sahel and coastal states 
Humanitarian needs 
Lack of food appears to be a critical issue in the Sahel's humanitarian needs. Rainfall is 
erratic, and livestock is reared in harsh e nvironmental conditions aggravated by climate 
change (droughts, floods). High food prices, reduced incomes and locust plagues limit 
household coping mechanisms. About 1.2 milli on of the children under five, 11.1% of the 
current population of 55 million people in five Sahel countries  (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, 
Mauritania and Niger) suffer from global acut e malnutrition. Of these, 268 000 (2.4%) suffer 
from life-threatening severe acute malnutritio n because of lack of essential food and poor 
access to basic health services. In 2009, bringing  down acute malnutrition, as well as infant 
and maternal mortality rates, continued to  be the main aim of humanitarian aid. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2005, a total of €219.6 million has been allo cated to cover humanitarian needs in the 
five countries of the Western Sahel, as well as  in the Sahel zones of  neighbouring states. In 
2009, aid worth €33 million was earmarked to co mbat under-nutrition. Lessons learned from 
the 2005 food shortage crisis in Niger and Ma li were important fo r providing good indicators 
to deal with similar problems in the Sahel. There was stress on encouraging integration of humanitarian interventions into the national health system and structures. Decades of 
inadequate investment in the health system, a massive shortage of trained personnel and 
scarce stocks of essential medicines and equipm ent mean there has to be a sustained level of 
development assistance before humanitarian ag encies can withdraw completely. The health 
system started to see the delivery of assistan ce in 2009, partly as a result of advocacy work 
implemented by ECHO. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, interventions were supported in Burkin a Faso, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Chad. 
These substantially contributed to improving emer gency nutrition and health care services in 
the region. The pattern in each country was different, but humanitari an operations are 
evolving from re-active, quick-impact emergenc y mode to more sustainable, integrated 
projects involving local health and nutrition structures. This generates increased responsibility at national level, and also creates conditions for humanitarian aid to exit, as development 
actors increasingly introd uce long-term support to the nutrition sector. 
Funding covered treatment of 250 000 children for acute malnutrition and reached three 
million other beneficiaries indirectly. The Comm ission helped to pilot sustainable medico-
nutritional early detection and health care syst ems, complemented by actions to improve 
livelihood protection, access to clean water and better analysis of early-warning data. The 
EN 40   EN promotion of free access to basic health care for children under five and for pregnant and 
nursing women is a long-term, essential objective , though much more work and investment is 
needed before the policy is transposed into servic es at village health centre level. Initiatives to 
promote wider use of Ready to Use Therapeu tic Foods were further encouraged. Through 
ECHO, the Commission successfully spearhead ed the implementation of routine rapid 
nutrition surveys to improve ac cess to reliable baseline information. In 2009, that became a 
standard tool in West Africa. In addition, the Commission adopted an emergency decision 
worth €3 million in early September in response to  severe floods in Burkina Faso and Niger. 
At the end of 2009, the 24 000 people still in tents at the transit camps started to move to new 
sites allocated by the government. EU humanitari an funding is supporting the resettlement of 
the most vulnerable people in th ese areas by providing them w ith kits (food, shelter material 
and other essentials). 
Working environment 
The precarious security conditi ons in Niger, Mali, Mauritania,  Nigeria and Chad remain a 
serious cause for concern. There may also be spill over in Guinea, following possible instability there. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The Sahel strategy was intended to encourage de velopment partners to make available large-
scale follow-up investment to combat under-nut rition sustainability. There was good progress 
in 2009, with a number of development donors contributing to the sector. The 10
th European 
Development Fund National Indicative Programmes (NIP)  in the Sahel is becoming 
increasingly involved. EDF funds  were made available to ta ke over nutritio n projects in 
Guinea, Togo and the Ivory Coast. The Food Facility and Food Security Thematic Programme funds took over nutrition programmes in Burkin a Faso, Mali, Mauritania and Niger. Other 
significant donors in this sector  are: the World Bank; Canada; the United States; UNICEF; the 
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the United Kingdom; Spain; the Asian Development 
Fund and Norway. To reinforce collaboration at country and regional level, an extra 
Commission's Field Expert was posted full-tim e in Burkina Faso from December 2009, to 
strengthen dialogue with the EU Delegation there, but also w ith regional organi sations such as 
the permanent inter-state committee to combat drought in the Sahel. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Efforts to step up active dialogue with all EU services and other donors present in the Sahel 
involved regular exchanges of information and experience in 2009. The UN cluster system 
provided considerable support. Advocacy work was taken to a new level with EU investment in the joint UNICEF, WFP, FAO and W HO initiative on nutrition called REACH
31. It will 
help keep nutrition high on the development ag enda while showing that malnutrition needs to 
be tackled to achieve long-term sustainable development in the Sahel. NGO partners were 
encouraged to work more closely together and their willingness to do so was taken into 
consideration in funding decisions. Member State missions in the region are regularly 
informed as to the Commission's work and a number of operations have been co-funded.  
                                                 
31 Global Framework for Action, Renewed Effort Ending Child Hunger and Malnutrition 
EN 41   EN ECHO has actively participated  in many recent initiatives on nutrition promoted by major 
institutional donors including EU Member Stat es, the UN family, the World Bank and US aid 
agencies. 
Liberia 
Humanitarian needs 
Since the end of the conflict in Liberia, human itarian needs in the country have diminished. 
There has been a big push to improve access to basi c services and provide support to restore 
livelihoods. Still, there are significant needs. Th e health sector still lacks qualified staff 
despite the efforts of a committed Minster of  Health. Water/sanitation facilities have 
improved, but much remains to be done in many rural communities, as well as in urban areas 
especially Monrovia, where ther e are regular cholera outbreaks. There are still food shortages 
in numerous counties, though efforts are being made to improve the situation. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Humanitarian aid has switche d from direct support for returning displaced people and 
refugees, and resuming access to basic services, to activities more focused on encouraging the 
transition to long-term development assistance. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
Funding worth €12 million in 2009 was designed to consolidate previous interventions and to 
prepare for the handover of ECHO implemented operations to development funding. The focus was mainly on the health sector, food a ssistance, and water/sa nitation and to help 
beneficiaries recover the means to ensu re their livelihood at community level. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Despite the difficulties, there has been some si gnificant progress. The EDF will, as a priority, 
take over the funding of EU humanitarian aid su pported programmes in the health sector in 
the second half of 2010. The supported Monrovia nutrition programme that EU has supported 
will be integrated into Ministry  of Health structures. A LRRD strategy for Food Security was 
completed and ECHO was able to  phase out this se ctor in 2009. In wate r/sanitation, ECHO 
contributed to the work of a consortium of five  NGOs and UNICEF. LRRD in this sector will 
be facilitated by the creation of a National Water Resource and Sanitation Board  in 2010. 
Regional (epidemics) 
Humanitarian needs 
Epidemics are more frequent in West Africa than anywhere else, with 20% of the world 
epidemic alerts for 2% of the world's popul ation. People there ar e more vulnerable to 
communicable diseases because of poverty, lack  of basic sanitation f acilities and low hygiene 
standards. Other contributing factors are malnut rition in post-emergency or structurally weak 
countries, and limited capability to  respond to public h ealth risks. West African countries are 
particularly prone to epidemics of cholera, meningitis, Lassa fever, yellow fever and hepatitis E. The region is also vulnerable to ne w epidemics, as was seen with an outbreak of 
dengue fever in Cap Verde. 
EN 42   EN Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
During the first semester of 2009, both Niger an d Nigeria were affected by a major meningitis 
epidemic. The Commission responded through ad hoc  and emergency decisions with a total of 
€3.45 million. More than eight million people at ri sk were quickly vaccinated. In many cities 
on West Africa’s coastal countries, cholera has become endemic and is one of the major 
causes of epidemics in the regi on. To enable high-risk countri es to respond effectively in 
future, preparedness activitie s are currently being funded in Guinea Bissau and Guinea 
Conakry. In April 2009, the Commission allocate d funds to early epidemic response and the 
continuation of cholera prepare dness activities, particularly in Mali (measles epidemic) and 
Cap Verde (dengue fever epidemic). 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Most countries still need  external support to re spond swiftly to epidemics and to prevent them 
recurring. Outbreak detection and control interventions ha ve been improved in some 
countries, thanks to better ep idemic surveillance and Early Warning Systems, but donor 
support has diminished and gove rnment contingency plans, where these ex ist, are under-
funded. Health systems do not have  the capacity to abso rb more patients, nor  the resources to 
respond. Certain epidemics require a high level of  expertise, which countries lack. Recurrent 
health emergencies need far more co-ordination, including information management, as well as technical support and resource mobilisation. 
2.3.3.  Southern Africa, Indian Ocean 
The overall picture in the regi on was mixed in 2009. There were free and fair elections in 
South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia. But the elected President of Madagascar was ousted in a civilian coup, and the new Government of National Unity in 
Zimbabwe experienced difficulties. Zimbabwe is still subject to suspension of development co-operation under article 96 of the Cotonou Agr eement, and similar measures were enacted 
against Madagascar. In both c ountries, elections are due to take place in 2010. The harvest 
was generally very good acros s the region, except in southe rn Madagascar and northern 
Namibia, contributing to better food security prospects. The flood/cyclone season passed off 
quite calmly, though there was unusually severe  flooding in southern Angola and northern 
Namibia. The repercussions of the political situation in Zimbabwe are, however, still felt in neighbouring countries, as demonstrated by th e cholera epidemic in early 2009, and the 
continuing waves of migration from Zimbabwe. 
 
Humanitarian needs 
The countries of Southern Africa face challeng es from what has been described as the “ Triple 
Threat ” – chronic food insecurity, HIV/AIDS and poor governance. These challenges, 
together with poor water/sanitation and health  structures and a high incidence of natural 
disasters, make the region one of the most vulnerable in the world. Nine of the countries32are 
ranked at the bottom of the list of the 182 countries on the 2007 UN Human Development 
Index. Food production in the region still relies mainly on erratic rain fall. Climate change 
(droughts, floods) and other shocks (epidemics, political unrest) furthe r reduce resilience and 
limit household coping mechanisms. In 2009, EC HO concentrated on tracking, assessing and 
                                                 
32 Angola, Comoros, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe 
EN 43   EN tackling new emergency needs, and on preparin g vulnerable populations for natural disasters 
to improve their resilience. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2005, a total of €150 million has been allocated to cover needs in the region. In 2009, 
€34.8 million was allocated through decisions for epidemic response (cholera), food/nutrition 
crisis and repatriation, as well as  to provide basic essential se rvices to vulnerable groups in 
Zimbabwe. Emergency needs assessment missions  were carried out in Namibia (floods), 
Angola (floods), Madagascar  (food/nutrition), Malawi (e arthquake), South Africa 
(Zimbabwean migrants). These resulted in an ad hoc fundi ng decision for Madagascar. The 
flood/cyclone season in the East  of the region passed off relativ ely calmly in 2009, after two 
difficult years. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
ECHO supported humanitarian aid in Zimbab we, Zambia and Madagascar. There was an 
emergency cholera response to  support actions, mainly in Zimbabwe, as well as in 
Mozambique and Zambia. Disaster preparedness funding was mobilised to complement and boost actions in Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique. Many of these projects will run into 2010. In Zimbabwe, funds allocated in  2009 substantially cont ributed to improving 
emergency health care services, epidemic re sponse and food security. There was funding to 
assist the repatriation of 12 000 Congolese ref ugees from Zambia. In Madagascar, funding 
supported food security/nutrition status for peopl e affected by drought in the south. There was 
very close monitoring of the humanitarian situation, with emergency needs assessment 
missions carried out in co-ordination and coll aboration with EU Dele gations in the region. 
Working environment 
Security conditions across the region in 2009 we re very satisfactory, though one project in 
Zimbabwe had to be terminated because of  political interferen ce at local level.  
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The Commission's strategy is to ensure that hu manitarian interventions are sustainable and 
coherent with ongoing development activities. ECHO-implemented interventions add value in 
a context where many of the countr ies benefit from substantial 10
th European Development 
Fund allocations, Malawi, Madagascar, Mozambique and Zambia – are among the top ten 10th 
EDF recipients. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Efforts continued in 2009 towards active dialo gue with other donors present in the region. 
ECHO regularly exchanged information and expe riences with other donors and humanitarian 
actors on the ground. 
EN 44   EN Zimbabwe 
Humanitarian needs 
The major challenge in Zimbabwe is to rebuild essential health and water/sanitation services, 
which have all collapsed. The massive cholera outbreak at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, 
which saw 100 000 cases and more than 4 000 d eaths, was evidence of this. With the 
dollarization and the liberalisation of the economy  at the beginning of th e year, inflation has 
been defeated. This, together wi th the very good harvest, means that availability of food is no 
longer a problem. Access to food is, however, more problematic for those vulnerable groups 
who do not have land or foreign currency. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Humanitarian aid has switched from food aid/f ood security activities and support to displaced 
people to targeted food secu rity actions, and on re-estab lishing basic health and 
water/sanitation services fo r the population as a whole. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the focus was on continuing to support basic health and wate r/sanitation services. 
Liberalisation of the economy at the beginning of the year and the good harvest enabled 
humanitarian actors to shift from food distributions to pi lot livelihood interventions. €25 
million were allocated to support vulnerabl e Zimbabweans, €13 million of which was for 
health and water/sanitation, and €12 million for re-establishing livelihoods. Another €4.5 
million were allocated from a regional emergency decision to tackle the cholera epidemic and control its spread. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The main features of EU funding in 2009 were a shift from food-based to health care and 
water/sanitation interventions. There was a conscious effort  to support new humanitarian 
partners. Many of the food security interven tions funded in 2007 and 2008 were taken over by 
longer-term funding from the F ood Facility and the Thematic  Food Security Budget Line 
managed by the EU Delegation. This will allo w the Commission to reduce funding from its 
food aid budget line, and possibly to phase it out in 2010. As development assistance under 
article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement is still suspended, it is highly unlikely that the 
Commission will be able to phase out its health and water/sanitation in the foreseeable future. 
This was one of the issues discussed dur ing a mission which took place in July 2009 to 
identify a short-term strategy of support to the new Unity Government. 
2.4. Middle East and Mediterranean 
ECHO has predominantly been involved in preser ving the dignity of it s beneficiaries in the 
Middle East and Mediterranean in  2009. Some of the longest-runn ing humanitarian crises in 
the world persist in this region, including the plig ht of the Saharawi refugees in Algeria, living 
in camps in the Sahara desert under extremely harsh conditions. 
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East 
(UNRWA) marked its 60
th anniversary in 2009, one of the best illustrati ons of the complexity 
and persistence of the crisis in  this region. The political contex t in which the crisis unfolds 
EN 45   EN comes under an intense media spotlight from tim e to time, though the humanitarian situation 
is overlooked or soon forgotten. 
Funding for humanitarian assistance in  the region is shown below.  
HUM.AID FOOD AID DIPECHO TOTAL
MIDDLE EAST and MEDITERRANEAN  58 975 000 50 500 000 109 475 000
Occupied Palestinian Territory 25 000 000 41 000 000 66 000 000
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon 6 000 000 6 000 000
Syria 4 000 000 4 000 000
Iraqi Crisis 20 000 000 20 000 000
Yemen 2 500 000 2 500 000
Western Sahara 5 475 000 5 500 000 10 975 000Funding decisions adopted in 2009
Country/region
 
Palestinian population in the occupied  Palestinian territories and Lebanon 
One year after the Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip that killed 1 455 Palestinians and 
wounded 5 305 people, 20 000 people are still di splaced, 6 345 houses are still in need of 
major repair. Reconstruction c ould not start, and the humanita rian situation has worsened 
dramatically. 
In the West Bank, the Israeli au thorities restrict freedom of  movement, with a continued 
impact on all aspects of civilian life.  
The EU has repeatedly called for immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of 
crossings to enable the flow of  humanitarian aid, commercial  goods and persons to and from 
Gaza, as well as for a freeze on settlements construction, evictions and demolitions in the 
West Bank/East Jerusalem33. Funding of humanitarian aid has risen considerably over the past 
few years, as the situation of Palestinia ns in West Bank, Gaza Strip and Lebanon has 
deteriorated. In 2009, EU funding helped to meet the urgent  needs of the Palestinian 
population in occupied Territories and Le banon. There was funding for livelihood support 
(food assistance and cash-for-w ork projects), water/sanita tion operations, basic health 
services, including psycho-social su pport, and protection activities. 
Humanitarian needs  
The situation on the ground in the Gaza Strip  has worsened. Far from development, the region 
faces economic and social de-development. 
In the West Bank, settlement activities, confiscation of land, forced evictions, house 
demolitions and displacements have continued unabated in 2009. Israel i authorities impose 
restrictions on freedom of movement that continue to af fect all aspects of civilian life, 
undermining economic growth and hindering pe ople’s access to education, employment, 
health care and other servic es. In Lebanon, Palestinian ref ugees live in ve ry precarious 
                                                 
33 EU Council Conclusions on the MEPP, 8 December 2009 
EN 46   EN circumstances, with limited access to basic services, including health, and no social 
protection. 
Humanitarian space has shrunk, creating a gr owing need for sustained protection and 
advocacy activities. An estimat ed quarter of the Palestinian population lacks food (60.5% of 
Gazans). With rising commodity prices and the dr ought of the last few years, access to food 
remains one of the salient features of this cr isis, along with access to safe drinking water, 
means of making a living, psycho-social a ssistance and primary health services. 
Humanitarian aid response over the past five years 
The EU has been providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian population — including in 
neighbouring countries — since 2005. A total of €399 million has been made available, of 
which €112 million is from the food aid budget line (as from 2007). 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the European Commission made availa ble €72 million for humanitarian operations 
benefiting Palestinians in the Pa lestinian territory and in Lebanon. 
The bulk of the funds, €66 million, went to operations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip . 
In the protection sector, the EU focused on pr evention of violations of international 
humanitarian law by supporting the ICRC in  its protection mandate, making possible 
prisoners' visits, livelihood support and access to agricultural land in areas affected by the 
separation barrier. There was also funding for lega l assistance to victim s of eviction and house 
demolition. In the health sector, the EU conti nued its support to the primary health care 
system. There was integrated assistance in vulnerable geographical areas to ensure a 
minimum standard of equitable access to healt h. It also provided assistance for emergency 
medical services in Gaza Strip, as well as opht halmic care and rehabilitation services for 
people with disabilities. It funded focused psycho-social work in schools with children 
identified as vulnerable in the West Bank, and structured sessions in community based 
organisations with children and adolescents in the Gaza Strip. Parents, teachers and school 
councillors participated in aw areness-raising sessi ons on psychosocial distress that they and 
their children may experience and were trai ned on coping mechanisms. The EU also funded 
activities to address the reinte gration of ex-child detainees throughout the West Bank, besides 
funding UNICEF's co-ordination role in the se ctor. In water/sanita tion sector, the EU 
provided 180 000 of those most vulnerable with  access to safe drin king water. In the 
immediate aftermath of the Is raeli attack on Gaza in early 2009, the EU funded free water 
distribution. It supported food assistance projects that distribut ed free fresh and dry food to 
both refugees and host populations of the Gaza Stri p. In the most vulnerable areas of the West 
Bank hit by water scarcity and recurrent drought, it funded f odder distributions for herders 
lacking access to markets and grazing areas for their flocks. There was support for small 
farmers and livestock herders, enhancing food production and income generation capacity 
among Bedouin communities via sh ort-term assistance, including veterinary support and cash-
for-work activities. Additi onally, there was a specia l focus on co-ordination. 
For Palestinian refugees in Lebanon  (€6 million), the EU helped to improve the quality of 
secondary health services fo r the most vulnerable, provid ed by hospitals managed by the 
EN 47   EN Palestinian Red Crescent Society. In addition, it helped to improve  health services for elderly 
people, people with disabilities and young peopl e suffering psycho-social distress. Palestinian 
refugees also received help to improve access to clean water supplies and adequate shelter. 
Protection capacities were incr eased at local a nd national levels through information 
dissemination, co-ordination and advocacy. 
As for the specific situation in the Nahr el Bared Camp, relief has continued to mitigate some 
of the worst impacts of the 2007 crisis, ensuring access to shelte r, food, water/sanitation, basic 
infrastructures, health needs (including psycho- social support) and other services for families 
affected. 
Working environment 
The working environment both in West Bank a nd Gaza Strip remains uns table. Restrictions 
on access, inter-Palestinian tensions and pressures from local authorities that want to exert 
some form of control on humanitarian actions make the working environment challenging and 
volatile. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In view of the political contex t, there was little scope for exit strategies in 2009. What little 
was achieved was done with full co-ordination with more deve lopment-oriented community 
instruments and funding, particularly in the food, water/sanitation a nd health sectors. 
Consistency and complementarity with operations  to assist Palestinian refugees in Lebanon 
were also sought, but with limited outcome. 
Co-ordination of aid  
In the Occupied Palestinian territories, there was close co-ordination has been maintained 
with other donors, to ensure complementarity between human itarian assistance and other 
programmes, notably Pegasus. 
Syria 
Humanitarian needs  
There has been a severe lack of rain in the Mi ddle East over the last three years. In Syria, 
drought has affected the whole co untry, especially the governorat es in the East and North. 
Three of these are considered the country's food basket. The Ea stern governorates are home to 
the so-called Badia region, the largest and most arid in Syria. Consisting of rangelands and 
desert areas, it is home to most of the c ountry's livestock. According to UN assessment 
missions, some 1.3 million people in eastern Syri a have been affected, out of whom some 
800 000 have lost almost all their livelihoods  and face extreme hardship. Out of those 
severely affected, 160 000 are highly vulnerabl e. This group consists of women-headed 
households, pregnant women, the sick and handica pped, children (0-14 y ears), elderly people, 
and families with large numbers of children. 
EN 48   EN Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
Syria, as a middle income country, is not usually a recipient of EU human itarian aid, with the 
notable exception of support to Iraqi refugees living in Syria (see Ir aqi crisis). However, 
in 2009, support worth €4 million was made availa ble to mitigate the impact of recurrent 
drought on livestock herders. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The main aim of two subsequent funding decisi ons (of which one was an emergency decision) 
was to provide humanitarian food aid for thos e most vulnerable to drought. ECHO provided 
assistance to ensure their basic domestic and livelihood needs would be met until the 
beginning of the next harvest season, expected in June 2010. The action is intended to prevent 
their situation dete riorating any further. Those most at risk are marginalised Bedouin, animal 
herding and rain-fed farming communities who have exhausted all other coping mechanisms. 
Working environment 
The Syrian authorities did not authorise international NGOs to respond to the crisis, but given 
the scale of the disaster, the United Nations  agencies, with the support of the national 
authorities, to launch a $52.9 million Syria Drought Response Plan  in August 2009. ECHO 
responded to this. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The draft 2011-2013 Country Strategy Paper envisage s support to an integrated programme to 
foster the socio-economic development of a targ eted rural area in the North of Syria.  
Co-ordination of aid 
The EU's support has succeeded in raising attenti on and interest from the other donors in this 
rather forgotten disaster. In addition, it is pl aned to launch an integrated socio-economic 
development in the drought-aff ected rural areas, with linkage s between the emergency phase 
of the response and th is longer-term operation. 
Iraqi crisis 
Humanitarian needs  
Since the 2003 war, Iraq has been faced with a dire security situ ation characterised by 
sectarian violence and ongoing asymme tric warfare, particularly af ter the attack on the Holy 
Shrine at Samara in February 2006. 
However, since the middle of 2007 with the m ilitary surge of the Mu lti-National Force Iraq 
against insurgents and militias (Sadr city in April-May 2008, Dyala governorate in July-
August), the number of violent incidents in Iraq has fallen. A ccording to the United Nations, 
civilian casualty rates are dow n by 74% since August 2007, close to the pre-Samara level. 
Nevertheless, Iraq remains a very dangerous co untry, where civilians are killed on a daily 
basis. Many areas remain inaccessible to hum anitarian actors due to continued violence. 
Insecurity has limited the population's mobility a nd access to basic servic es, and has severely 
damaged public infrastructure. Reconstruction efforts are badly need ed, but are severely 
EN 49   EN hindered by continued violence resulting in high levels of unemployment,  a steady decline in 
basic services and signifi cant deterioration in health and education provision.  
Neighbouring Syria, and Jordan to a lesser extent, is struggling to  cope with a high number of 
refugees: 220 000 UNHCR-registered  refugees from Iraq are in Syria, and 52 000 in Jordan as 
of October 2009. There is also an unknown numbe r of unregistered re fugees, resulting in 
strain on national housing, hea lth and education systems. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
The EU's financial support, ta rgeting both the population within  Iraq and Iraqi refugees in 
neighbouring countries, mainly Syria and Jordan, remains around €23 million per year since 
2007. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the EU provided humanitarian assistan ce worth €20 million for those vulnerable in 
Iraq, particularly those displaced, and to Iraqi refugees living in nei ghbouring countries. The 
decision included a significant protection compone nt, as well as activities in health and 
psycho-social support, water/sanitation and other essentials, as well as co-ordination within 
Iraq. An external evaluation conducted at the end of 2009 validated the strategy.  
Working environment  
Humanitarian access remains a major issue, due to continued sectarian violence and 
heightened security risks. Few agencies are present on the ground, so it is difficult to reach 
those most vulnerable, especially the internal ly displaced. Security and access constraints are 
also the main challenges for ECHO, as it cannot ope rate its normal service, with expatriate or 
local staff to assess needs, and mana ge and monitor activ ities on the ground. 
A limited number of INGOs have opened offices with internati onal staff in the Southern 
governorates, where the security situation is less risky. However, they implement 
development-type projects related to structur al problems, and do not work on emergencies. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
There is a  continuum  process with the operations funded EU non-humanitarian instruments. In 
the hosting countries, EU humanitarian aid provide s direct support to th e refugees, while other 
instruments help local structures to absorb th e impact of their large numbers with assistance 
for health, education and sanitation. In Iraq (€65.8 million under the 2009 and 2010 
programming), the focus is on building capacity in the social sectors (health, education, €43.8 
million) and the rule of law (€20-22 million), while humanitarian aid is concentrated on 
emergencies in protection, water/sanitation, and health. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The co-ordination with other donors is good. There are regular meetings with Member States 
and the United States in Amman and Damasc us. Co-ordination in Iraq is limited by the 
security issue. 
EN 50   EN Yemen 
Humanitarian needs 
Yemen is the poorest state in the Arab world. It faces food insecurity, widespread water 
scarcity and depletion of its natural resources. In recent y ears, the government has been 
confronted with an intermittent internal ar med conflict in Sa'ada in Northern Yemen, a 
growing Southern separatist movement, clashes with tribal groups controlling the rural areas 
and a resurgence of terrorist groups including Al-Qaida. 
The humanitarian challenges facing Yemen are multiple: natural disasters such as flooding 
and drought, arrival of refugees from the Horn  of Africa, mainly from Somalia and more 
recently, the war in the Northern governorate of  Sa'ada which is exacerbating political and 
development crises in the count ry. In 2009, for the first time, the Yemeni government allowed 
the UN to launch an appeal for international aid. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
EU support in Yemen started in 1993, to help  victims of a major flood. Since 2005, the EU 
has allocated over €8 million to finance actions in several Yemenite governorates to help people made available by natural disasters, epid emics and internal conflict. There has also 
been support for refugees arriving in Yemen. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the Commission adopted tw o decisions for a total of €2.5 million. The first enabled a 
swift response to the flow of di splaced people, providing relief for those affected by clashes in 
North Yemen. There was assistance for 7 500 households, corresponding to approximately 
50 000 final beneficiaries. 
In November, there was an emergency decision to finance key elements of the UN Flash 
Appeal that were underfunded. The aims were  to provide emergency shelter and basic 
household items for those most vul nerable, particularly in camp s for the displaced, to reduce 
morbidity and mortality, particularly among childr en under the age of five, through preventive 
water/sanitation and hygiene inte rventions, and to facilitate co-ordination to ensure an 
appropriate response. 
Working environment 
Work in Northern Yemen is hampered by insecu rity. There is growing dissatisfaction with the 
way the government manages inte rnational aid, and open tensions  with the local population 
over the distribution of aid. There are restrict ions on the movement of humanitarian aid 
workers even outside the war zone. Guaran teeing access is a precondition for any future 
increase in implementing capacity. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The EU is committed to joining internationa l partners, including Yemen's neighbours, in 
assisting the government through a comprehensive approach enco mpassing security, political 
dialogue, humanitarian and economic assistance.  The aim is to ensure the coherence and 
effectiveness of domestic and international e fforts. Nonetheless, respect for humanitarian 
principles has to be guara nteed in any action taken. 
EN 51   EN The Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid held a debate on the 
situation in Yemen on 14 October. 
– OCHA should play a fundamental role in  humanitarian advocacy and strengthened co-
ordination between the different UN agencies and 
– a better demarcation between humanitarian an d development aid actions is needed to 
ensure efficient and effective humanitarian aid. 
Sahrawi refugees (Algeria) 
Humanitarian needs 
Since 1975, tens of thousands of Sahrawi refu gees have been hosted by Algeria in camps 
situated in the South-Western region of Ti ndouf. The living conditions of the Sahrawi 
refugees, who have been living in these camps fo r more than 30 years, are extremely difficult. 
Refugees depend completely on humanitarian aid to meet th eir basic needs: food, health, 
water/sanitation, shelter, hygiene and education. Th e refugees are not able to earn a living in 
the camps or within the Tindouf area. Access to ba sic social services is provided in the camps 
thanks to external financial resources a nd refugees who work, mostly without pay. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU has been providing humanitarian aid to  the Sahrawi refugees since the early 1990s. 
Since 2005, a total of €51 million in  funding has been allocated. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The EU's aid to the Sahrawi, living as refugees  in the Tindouf camps is consistent with its 
strategy of focusing on regions w ith the greatest needs and on forgotten crises. The Sahrawi 
refugees, who have been living in camps located in the desert region of Tindouf since 1975, are victims of one of the longest-runni ng humanitarian crises, largely forgotten. 
It is unlikely that the situation of refugees will  change in the short-term. The EU's aid covers 
basic needs such as: food aid, health and nu trition, water/sanitation, shelter and other 
essentials. An external evalua tion conducted during the first se mester of 2009 validated this 
strategy. 
Working environment 
In contrast to other refugee s ituations, the beneficiaries themselves manage international aid, 
including distribution of f ood and non-food products, via st ructures they or their 
representatives set up. The local Sahrawi organisations and structures act as the local counterparts of the international agencies and NGOs involved in humanitarian aid. This 
contributes to the success of projects (poten tial ownership, lower cost of humanitarian 
operations) but can also be a constraint (insu fficient local capacity, limited participation of 
beneficiary communities) and a risk, particularly as regards monitoring. The quality of aid monitoring by international agencies and NGOs depends on their arrangements with Sahrawi 
counterparts, and the latter’s acceptance of accountability and control requirements. This 
applies both to measuring impact, and to ensu re appropriate use of public funds. Since 2005, 
there has been an improvement in  this respect, especially foll owing formal commitments from 
the Sahrawi authorities in 2004. These improvements need to be maintained and consolidated, 
EN 52   EN both to ensure transparency in the use of pub lic funds and to improve the quality of aid 
delivered to refugees. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Given that this is a "forgotten crisis", a major constraint is the limited number of donors. As 
there is no solution in sight, the need for aid wi ll continue. More sour ces of funding would be 
help to reduce dependence on the capacities of a handful of donors. In view of the conditions 
prevailing in the camps, it is hard to envisage  a transition to development. However, there 
have been some attempts to explore this, with other EU instruments and the Spanish 
development agency.  
Co-ordination of aid 
Both on the ground and at headquarters, the Co mmission liaises very closely with other 
donors, particularly the Spanish, Italian, Swi ss and Swedish development agencies, and the 
UN agencies. This involves examining the overall strategy, sectoral pr iorities and funding 
from the various partners. Th ere is also co-ord ination by sector on the ground to improve 
consistency and to avoid overlapping. The Co mmission has good relations with its partners 
and with the Sahrawi authorities, which it wi ll seek to maintain to improve the quality, 
targeting, implementation a nd monitoring of projects. 
2.5. Caucasus and Central Asia 
The main purpose in these coun tries has been to preserve dignity. The good news is that 
Chechnya and Georgia no longer need humanitarian aid in response to past conflicts., so 2009 
is set to be the last year in which funding is made available. 
In 2009, ECHO managed a total of €12.3 million in this region. 
HUM.AID FOOD AID DIPECHO TOTAL
CAUCASUS and CENTRAL ASIA 8 300 000 2 000 000 2 000 000 12 300 000
Chechnya crisis 6 000 000 6 000 000
Georgia 2 000 000 2 000 000 4 000 000
Tajikistan  300 000  300 000
Southern Caucasus 2 000 000 2 000 000Country/regionFunding decisions adopted in 2009
 
Chechnya crisis 
Humanitarian needs  
The number of displaced people in neighbourin g republics is around 12 000, of whom less 
than half want to return. In I ngushetia, half of them are of I ngush origin, and are already quite 
well integrated. Fewer than 2 000 of those disp laced are living in temporary shelters in 
Ingushetia and Dagestan, and around 4 000 in Ch echnya. The number of Chechen refugees in 
Azerbaijan fell throughout 2009, leaving 1 300 at the end of the year. Some 30 000 returnees 
are living in private-sector acco mmodation, waiting for assistan ce to reconstruct their houses. 
ECHO's caseload is decreasing, and all needs are covered. Now a long-term approach is 
required. Most of the donors, including th e EU, will end funding by the end of 2010. The 
EN 53   EN Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has aske d the UN family, with the exception of UNHCR, 
to close their country programmes in 2010. This could seriously hamper a smooth transition to 
a more development-oriented approach.  
In the North Caucasus region, the situation is stable, but a surge in armed terror attacks and 
serious human rights violations can not be ruled out. There were reports  of abductions, suicide 
bomb attacks, clashes between law enforcemen t agents and militants, and other incidents 
throughout 2009. Nevertheless, the increase in vi olence and tension did not have a direct, 
significant impact on ECHO's operations at field le vel. Partners continued to implement their 
projects, facing challenges as they arose. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
The EU has been supporting victims in the Nort hern Caucasus since the beginning of the 
Chechen conflict. From 2005, the total funding made available has reached €90 million. The 
level of funding has been adapted according to needs. The phasing-out strategy ECHO 
introduced in 2008 is the result of both socio-economic improvements, and successful implementation of reconstruction and rehabili tation projects. Funding  has been reduced 
accordingly, and made available where needs remain. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009  
With a budget of €6 million, the EU humanita rian intervention focused on the following 
sectors: livelihood support activities for returnee s and former food aid be neficiaries; shelter 
and community infrastructure activities and protect ion, including legal advice, monitoring 
returnees, and assistance to Chechen refugees in Azerbaijan. 
Working environment  
The situation is tense, and the number of incide nts rose in 2009, compared to previous years. 
The main challenges are: 
1) Lack of effective protection: inability of pr otection agencies to carry out their mandates to 
defend civilians from human right s violations such abductions, ar bitrary detentions or extra- 
judiciary killings; lack of  a civil society network; 
2) Growing violence and instability in the w hole the North Caucasus – Dagestan, Ingushetia, 
Chechnya and Kabardino-Balkaria. However, th is is not seen as likely to lead to 
displacement. 
EN 54   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
There are no plans for future action after humanitarian aid withdr aws by the end of 2010. 
There are concerns that because other major do nors and aid agencies have similar phase-out 
timeframes, there will not be enough staff to mon itor the situation in Ch echnya and to provide 
support to the few local NGOs and human rights or ganisations that still have the courage to 
work there. However, support via the Europ ean Initiative for Huma n Rights and Democracy 
instrument is likely. 
LRRD with other EU instruments, which aim at encouraging democratisation, strengthening 
of the rule of law and the tran sition to a market economy in th e Newly Independent States is 
not possible in the near future, as the Russian Government has shown diminishing interest in 
the present form of bilateral cooperation programmes after the TACIS34 programme signed in 
2006. Consequently, there is no bilateral coopera tion programme foreseen for Russia for the 
programming period 2011-2013. 
Co-ordination of aid  
Overall, the Commission ha s a very good relationship w ith other donors and the EU 
Delegation. The aim is to co-ord inate assistance to achieve the best possible outcomes for 
beneficiaries. 
Georgia 
Humanitarian needs 
The conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in South Ossetia in August 2008 led 
to a series of financial decisi ons to make available aid for t hose affected. The allocation for 
2008 was €8 million, complemented by €4 milli on in 2009 (€2 million for humanitarian aid 
and €2 million for food aid). 
The situation of 30 000 people displaced in A ugust 08 is now stable. Basic needs are covered 
and rehabilitation projects are in place. The situation of 50 000 ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia 
is also steady, following the change of the pol itical status quo, after Russian recognition of 
independence. This was not been  affected by the withdrawal of  the United Nations Observer 
Mission in Georgia du ring the summer of 2009. In South O ssetia, humanitarian needs were 
well covered by the Ministry of the Russian Fe deration for Civil Defe nce, Emergencies and 
Elimination of the Consequences of Natural Disasters. As for the situation of the small Georgian population remaining in South O ssetia, the ICRC, the only international 
organisation on the spot, is taking care of basic needs. 
The situation is now entering the reconstruction phase, and the Commission is in a position to 
continue the phasing-out strategy it initiated previously. The international community, particularly the EU and U.S., reacted quickly  to support Georgia. New funding instruments 
were put in place, including the EU Instrument  for Stability intended to provide medium- and 
long-term solutions for those affected, comp lementing EU humanitarian aid's approach. 
                                                
 
34 Technical Assistance to the Comm onwealth of Independent States 
EN 55   EN In addition, funding worth €2 million for disaster  prevention (DIPECHO) was made available 
for the South Caucasus in November 2009. This programme has a regional  approach covering 
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. In 2010, ECHO will maintain a limited presence in 
Georgia to follow up remaining operations, as we ll as new DIPECHO initiatives. This will 
allow the Commission to monitor the humanitarian  situation and to facilitate a quick response 
if new needs arise. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU has funded aid worth a total of €18 mill ion since 2005. Funding has been adapted to 
needs. It was increased in 2008 to address the hu manitarian situation in  the aftermath of the 
war that year, and decreased in 2009 in lin e with reorganisation in the field, and the 
replacement of humanitarian funding by ot her medium- and long-term instruments. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
Funding worth €2 million was made available to provide protection and relief assistance to 
those affected by war in Georgia. This f unded protection activities; family reunification 
activities; close monitoring of pe ople residing in protected areas in the former buffer zone, as 
well as Georgians remaining in South Osse tia. Clearance of unexplode d ordnance continued 
during 2009, particularly important to allow the local population in the ar ea adjacent to South 
Ossetia to resume farming. Firewood was identif ied as one of the most urgent needs in 
villages, and distribution continued during 2009. Psycho-social support was maintained, 
especially for children affected by the war, and for their carers. 
Funding of €2 million for food aid enabled distri bution of food rations and cash for work in 
villages, as well as in new resettlements built by the Government to host people displaced by 
the new conflict. 
Working environment 
Tension on the administrative border between S outh Ossetia and Georgia proper was constant. 
The European Union Monitoring Mission presence in  the area helped to ensure that violence 
did not escalate. Some new mechanisms were designed in the context of Geneva Talks to 
ensure a rapid response mechanism and the use of non-violence as a coping mechanism 
among the parties. The main challenge after th e humanitarian phase-out is to ensure the 
protection of those at risk on this border.  
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
More medium- and long-term oriented instrument s have been put in place, allowing ECHO to 
phase out smoothly. 
The EU Instrument for Stability allocate d €14 million for 2009 to support confidence-
building, political reform, socio- economic integration of  displaced people, and assistance in 
Abkhazia. 
EN 56   EN The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument has provided €43.5 million to 
support Georgia's internally displaced people action plan , complementing funding worth 
€51.5 million, made available in 2008. The aim is to assist the government via the Municipal 
Development Fund, to improve the living condi tions of displaced people by providing long-
term housing solutions, adequate infrastructure, and services to promot e their integration, as 
well as development in host areas. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Good synergy was ensured among various EU instruments. 
Tajikistan 
Humanitarian needs The EU has provided humanitarian aid for Tajikist an since 1994 to meet needs in the wake of 
civil war. In 2003, ECHO formulated a three- year phasing-out strategy, and programming 
ended in September 2007. For the future, frequent natural disasters seem to be the country's 
biggest risk. In 2009, there were severe spring floods. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU has provided a total of €12 million in hu manitarian aid since 2005 and completed its 
aid response in 2007. Support for disaster pr eparedness activities ha s continued through 
DIPECHO Action Plans. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009  
Prolonged, heavy rains in April and May 2009 caused multiple floods, mudflows, flash 
floods, rock-falls and landslides. Mo re than 2 000 buildings (houses and social facilities) were 
destroyed or severely damaged, and 11 000 pe ople were directly affected. Through an 
emergency decision, the Commission mobilised €300 000 to finance the rehabilitation of nine 
water systems in the Rash Valley and the construction of a new water supply for 3 000 internally displaced people from the city of Khalton, who have been re-housed by the 
government. All water systems will be managed and maintained by Tajik local authorities. 
In addition, the EU maintained a presence in Tajikistan through its 5
th DIPECHO Action Plan 
for Central Asia, monitoring natural disasters. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country  
Water supply operations funded by an emergenc y decision in 2009 have been handed over to 
local authorities. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The ECHO office in Tajikistan actively particip ates in meetings organised by the Committee 
of Emergency Situations on Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Risk Reduction in the framework 
of the Rapid Emergency Assessment Co-ordin ation Team mechanism. Operations funded 
after the May 2009 floods were selected on the basis of a joint needs assessment mission by 
the Monitoring Information Centre and EC HO, after consultation with other donors. 
EN 57   EN 2.6. Asia and the Pacific 
In 2009, humanitarian aid and food aid operations were funded in more than 15 countries in 
Asia and the Pacific region, following the adopti on of 29 funding decisions granting a total of 
€206 million or 22% of the total budget committed. 
EU humanitarian assistance was provided and/ or implemented in the following countries: 
HUM.AID FOOD AID EDF DIPECHO TOTAL
SOUTH ASIA 105 000 000 42 500 000 10 000 000 157 500 000
Afghanistan  27 000 000 10 000 000 37 000 000
Pakistan 41 500 000 29 000 000 70 500 000
Bangladesh 11 000 000 2 000 000 13 000 000
India 7 000 000 7 000 000
Nepal/Bhutan 4 500 000 1 500 000 6 000 000
Sri Lanka 14 000 000 14 000 000
South & South-West Asia 10 000 000 10 000 000
SOUTH-EAST & EAST ASIA 37 000 000 8 500 000 45 500 000
Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand 11 500 000 7 000 000 18 500 000
Indonesia 4 500 000 4 500 000
Philippines 12 000 000 12 000 000
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 9 000 000 1 500 000 10 500 000
PACIFIC  700 000  650 000 1 500 000 2 850 000
Pacific  700 000 1 500 000 2 200 000
Papua New Guinea  650 000  650 000
TOTAL ASIA & PACIFIC 142 700 000 51 000 000  650 000 11 500 000 205 850 000Country/regionFunding decisions adopted in 2009
 
2.6.1.  South Asia 
The region is driven with inst ability and open conflic ts (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) 
and 2009 saw, once again, an accentuation of tens ions and violence. Consequently the number 
of people in need of humanitarian assistance in creased. One particular cause for concern for 
the Commission was Sri Lanka, where over 300  000 people were trapped for five months 
within the theatre of hostilit ies and unable to flee to safety . And when the fighting finally 
ended, most were held captive in camps for anot her six months. The process of release started 
towards the end of the year and the Commi ssion remains committed to providing protection 
and other forms of humanitari an assistance for resettleme nt, throughout the year ahead. 
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the humanitarian  crises are twofold: on the one hand the 
'Afghan' crisis affects not only Afghanistan but  also Iran and Pakistan, where almost four 
million Afghan refugees are still living; on the other hand Pakistan went through a major 
population displacement in 2009. In  Afghanistan the deterioration in security and the 
consequences of extensive military operations, aggravated by years of drought and recurrent 
small scale disasters, caused a sharp increase in  humanitarian needs in 2009 which is likely to 
continue next year with more than 250 000 IDPs . In Pakistan, after the displacement of more 
than two million people in May, the situation ha s further deteriorated with new displacements 
in other parts of the country and major problem s with gaining access to the beneficiaries due 
to insecurity and the constraint s imposed on humanitarian workers. 
EN 58   EN In all three countries, humanitarian workers have  often been the direct targets of violence or 
hostility, as the lines between parties in the c onflicts and humanitarian  workers are becoming 
increasingly blurred. This adds  to the risks involved in providing humanitarian assistance to 
the victims. Consequently, some of those mo st in need become unreachable and cannot be 
assisted. 
Afghanistan (including Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran) 
Humanitarian needs 
The main groups with substantial humanita rian needs in 2009 were the over 250 000 
internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Af ghanistan affected by the conflict, primarily 
refugees who returned from Pakistan and Iran, although the level of return has been lower than expected, secondly th e illegal Afghans immigrants deported from Iran and the host 
communities receiving these retu rnees and, finally, the high food- insecure population affected 
by recurrent natural disasters, including many years of drought, the recent severe flooding in 
the north and the global rise in food prices. The needs of the returnees and IDPs included 
protection, transport and resettlement support, pl us food, shelter, and water/sanitation for the 
most vulnerable such as female headed househol ds. Over five million refugees and displaced 
people have returned since 2002. Many of them, together with their host communities, have 
required continuing support to a void a major humanitarian crisis , particularly in the area of 
water/sanitation where Afghanistan has some of  the worst indicators in the world. Another 
significant area for humanitarian  support remains protection a nd food assistance for the food-
insecure population. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU has been funding projects addressing th e needs of vulnerable people affected by the 
consequences of the Afghan conflict and natural hazards since 1992. Between 2005 and 2009 
The Commission spent €262 million, including €25.8 million from the food aid budget line. 
The main focus was on the needs of the over five million returnees, IDPs and the most 
vulnerable host communities. Assistance was also provided to the victims of natural disasters, 
notably of the severe flooding in northern Af ghanistan in 2009. Protec tion, water/sanitation, 
food, shelter, basic livelihood support, security a dvice and humanitarian flights were the main 
areas of activity. Activities in the health se ctor were taken over by the EU Delegation in 2004. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The focus in 2009 was on assisting the IDPs and the return of refugees and ensuring basic 
livelihood support for the most vul nerable and for their host co mmunities. In parallel, the 
Commission worked with UNHCR to attain du rable solutions for the Afghan populations 
remaining in Pakistan and Iran, preparing for the time when they would no longer be 
considered as refugees. 
The EU funded €25 million of humanitarian aid fo r victims of the Afghan crisis under its 
2009 Global Plan, covering registration and transpor tation of refugees from Pakistan and Iran 
to Afghanistan, plus continuing support for th e most vulnerable of the remaining refugees. 
Protection assistance was provided, notably in the form of continued support for both 
UNHCR and ICRC to perform th eir respective protection mandate roles. Shelter, together 
with water/sanitation, were the other most im portant areas of activity within Afghanistan. 
Responses to localised natural disasters were  supported with increasing emphasis on building 
EN 59   EN up local capacity. All projects were implemented w ith full respect for the key issue of gender. 
Given the constraints of security and geography, support for security advisory services for aid 
agencies in Afghanistan and for a subsidised humanitarian flight service was maintained. In 
2009, a total of €10 million in fo od assistance was allocated to  Afghanistan in order to 
respond to the food insecurity linked to years of recurrent drought fo llowed by serious 
flooding in 2009. 
Working environment 
Along with various other players, the Commis sion has continued to advocate the need to 
respect basic humanitarian principles and intern ational humanitarian law, in particular for 
humanitarian space and protecti on of civilians in a country wh ere the line between military 
and civilian intervention is very  blurred, putting at risk the live s of humanitarian workers and 
the projects themselves. The overall security situation in Afghanistan remains volatile and 
extremely unpredictable. Attacks on humanitarian aid workers ha ve increased over the last 
few years. Access and humanitarian space are mo re limited than ever and this situation is 
likely to persist. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Close co-ordination on LRRD matters is taking  place with a view to ensuring that their 
programmes are mutually compatible and a han dover wherever possible as was the case with 
health programmes in 2004. Regarding assistance to  refugees in Pakistan and Iran, a clear 
distinction is to be made between funding for strict humanitarian purposes and more 
developmental actions. In Afgha nistan, assistance has remained  focused on the pockets of 
greatest need. In the food sector, a comprehe nsive LRRD strategy between food assistance 
and the Food Security Thematic Programming also continued in 2009. 
Pakistan 
Humanitarian needs 
Since August 2008, the conflict between the Pakist an military and various militant groups in 
the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) a nd the Federally Administered Tribal Areas 
(FATA) has intensified significantly, leaving 168  000 internally displ aced persons (IDPs) by 
the beginning of 2009. Following a broken ceasefire,  the Taliban advanced  further south from 
Swat in early April. This offensive and the Pa kistani army’s counter-offensive unleashed an 
unprecedented level of mass displa cement with two million more fleeing their homes in less 
than a month to take refuge in other part s of NWFP. The vast majority of IDPs (90 %) stayed 
with host families and not in the established camps, putting extra pressure on an already very poor population. At the end of May 2009, the army  declared that it had taken over Swat 
District. Despite the heavy military presence, pockets of active conflict continue to affect the population in these areas. Nevertheless, an of ficial large-scale retu rn operation started on 
13 July 2009, with strong support from the authorities. Since then, according to official 
estimates, 1.66 million people have returned to their places of origin. A further 1.3 million remain displaced, bringing the total population movement acknow ledged by the authorities to 
almost 3 million people. 
EN 60   EN Further major military operations began in mi d-October in South Waziristan (FATA), causing 
the displacement of 260  000 families according to official sources (460  000 people have 
sought official registration as ID Ps). Military operati ons are also continui ng in other areas of 
FATA, including Orakzai, Khyber and Bajaur, tr iggering further displa cements. Populations 
in need include the internally displaced people , the returnees, the pe ople who stayed in the 
conflict zones and the host families. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
After initially being involved ma inly in response to the Afghan refugee crisis (assistance for 
Afghan refugees on Pakistani soil), humanitari an aid has become increasingly engaged in 
responding to natural disasters, including disa ster risk reduction unde r the standard DIPECHO 
programme and the response to the 2005 ear thquake when assistance worth almost 
€ 50 million was provided. Nevertheless, after the earthquake, the EU progressively scaled 
down its support in Pakistan, ex cept for its assistance to Af ghan refugees, as access to 
Pakistan’s Baluchistan area was not granted at  the time of the floods and earthquake in 2007. 
After the initial displacements of populatio n in August 2008, the EU's contribution to 
combating the humanitarian crisis increased from €  1.5 million, channelled through ICRC, in 
2008 to €  70.5 million of humanitarian assistance to the population affected by the conflict in 
2009, following the displacement of almost three m illion civilians. The humanitarian situation 
is likely to remain critical in the months ahead. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the Commission allocated €  70.5 million in relief assist ance to respond to immediate 
and basic needs of the populati on affected by the internal c onflict (IDPs, returnees, people 
trapped in the conflict zone or host families). This included: (1) support for emergency food aid pipelines managed, amongst others, by WFP and serving an estimated 2.2 million people; 
(2) support for the ICRC’s protec tion activities and distribution of food and other essentials 
(NFIs) to 490
 000 IDPs, returnees and persons trapped in the conflict zone s; (3) support for 
provision of protection and NFIs by UNHCR to 800  000 IDPs; (4) provision of health care to 
more than 1 million IDPs by WHO and its part ners; and (5) support for UNICEF to provide 
water, sanitation and hygiene to 96  000 IDPs. Support for co-ordin ation of humanitarian 
assistance was channelled through UNOCHA. 
Working environment 
Throughout the year, the Commission, along with  various other players, continued to 
advocate the need to respect basic humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, 
in particular for humanitarian space and acc ess for humanitarian workers, protection of 
civilians, voluntary and safe return, the right  to assistance based on needs rather than 
officially vetted registration st atus and freedom of movement  for IDPs from Waziristan. 
Access to the areas of displacement from South Waziristan is not possible for expatriates and 
rather limited for national staff. The overall security situation in Pakistan remains volatile and extremely unpredictable. More th an 700 civilians have been kill ed over the last three months 
in a wave of attacks across the country. Humanita rian aid workers face serious risks to their 
lives and have also paid a big price in the fo rm of stress. Access and humanitarian space are 
more limited than ever. 
EN 61   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
With little prospect of an early end to the confli ct in Pakistan and major constraints such as 
security and access, LRRD efforts are focusing  on coordinating responses to the continuing 
needs. The Commission liaises with othe r donors to advocate that humanitarian 
considerations be reflected in  reconstruction policies and progr ammes. In terms of disaster 
risk reduction, LRRD efforts will be main tained in a highly disaster-prone country. 
Bangladesh 
Humanitarian needs 
Bangladesh, the world’s most densely populate d country, is highly vul nerable to natural 
disasters, in particular floods, cyclones and earthquakes. This vul nerability is exacerbated by 
climate change. Cyclone Aila hit the south-western coast of the country on 25 May 2009, 
affecting over four million peopl e and displacing over one million. 
The protracted crisis affecti ng the unregistered Rohingya refug ees living in an unofficial 
settlement in Leda was aggravated when some 25  000 newly displaced people, driven out of 
their villages, had to be added to those requiri ng assistance. This populat ion lives in absolute 
destitution with no access to ba sic services and malnutrition rates also well above emergency 
thresholds due to severe food insecurity. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU contributed with €3 million when the country was hit by severe floods in 2004 and 
2006, providing food rations, safe drinking water and emergency items. In 2004, the EU also 
provided €0.8 million to support victims of comm unal violence in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. 
In 2007, the country was severely hit by two sp ells of monsoon and by cyclone Sidr. The EU 
allocated €6.5 million for the flood victims and €25.5 million for the cyclone victims, for 
integrated relief assistance, shelter, wate r/sanitation. Support for unregistered Rohingya 
started in 2007 with the reloca tion of 10 000 persons to a more appropriate site (€1.5 million), 
followed by emergency food aid in 2008 (€350 000). 
In 2008, the EU funded assistance in response to  flooding in the south-western region (€1.5 
million) and to the food insecurity crisis cau sed by an invasion of rodents (€1.65 million). 
The total amount funded by the EU between 2005 and 2009, was €43.4 million. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, €  9 million was allocated to the victims of cyclone Aila. The emergency needs of 
those still living on breached emba nkments will remain the top prio rity until people can return 
to their destroyed homes. Wherever the situation permitted, restoration of livelihoods and reconstruction of shelters was initiated. This will continue next year. Furthermore, ECHO 
implemented the last package of assistance (€
 5 million) addressing the needs for shelter for 
people affected by Sidr35. 
                                                 
35 The cyclone that hit the country in November 2007 
EN 62   EN Basic humanitarian assistance wa s extended to unregistered R ohingya refugees settled in 
Leda, despite major security problems and tensions with local communities (€1 million). The EU also contributed (€1 million) to support 25  500 un-registered Rohingya refugees, taking 
refuge close to the official UNHCR camp, in or der to avoid further deterioration of the 
humanitarian situation created by the monsoon. A ssistance focused on health care, therapeutic 
feeding, safe drinking water and sanitary conditions. 
Finally, the EU funded food assistance worth €2 million, to make up for crop destruction by 
rodents in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
LRRD in the area of food security and disa ster preparedness/disast er risk reduction is 
particularly important, as stru ctural issues in these sectors contribute directly to the 
humanitarian crises caused by sudden disasters. 
In the case of cyclone Aila, close co-ordinatio n is being ensured with the Instrument for 
Stability and the EU Delegation to link th e EU’s emergency action with longer-term 
initiatives, particularly on shelter reconstruc tion (e.g. construction of cyclone-proof houses or 
new cyclone shelters). 
Active collaboration by the Commis sion helped to secure a site  for relocating the Rohingya 
refugees in 2007. Close co-ordination is en sured supporting two official camps for 
documented Rohingya refugees. 
India 
Humanitarian needs 
The conflict between Maoist fi ghters (Naxals) and security forces intensified in 2009. 
Chhattisgarh, in particular its southernmost district, is one of the worst affected areas and the population (mainly tribal people and schedule d castes) are caught between the conflicting 
parties. Some areas are totally inaccessible and the region generally acutely lacks basic social 
services, as it is practically im possible to hire doctors or teach ers to work in such a risky 
environment. Tens of thousands are displaced  as a consequence of the fighting and this 
number is rising due to the recent escalation in ho stilities. Several indepe ndent reports point to 
serious human rights violations, including use of child soldiers. 
Violence in Jammu and Kashmir remained a caus e for concern in 2009. Access to some of the 
victims was impossible at times and remains restricted. 
Cyclone Aila hit West Bengal, in partic ular the Sunderbans ar ea on 25 May 2009. Although 
the immediate needs of those wors t hit were addressed, to a certa in extent, by th e authorities’ 
response, concerns remained a bout a long-term food gap, given that the standing crops were 
destroyed and the land was left saline. 
The 2009 monsoon season started late and brought below-average rainfall. Some places were 
therefore affected by drought, wh ile serious flooding was occurri ng in others. On the other 
hand, food reserves are very high and should be enough to ensure f ood security for the 
population in general. The Commission is, neve rtheless, monitoring th e situation, paying 
particular attention to minoritie s and other marginalised groups. 
EN 63   EN Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU has been funding projects addressing th e needs of people affect ed by the conflict in 
Jammu and Kashmir since 2005 and in  Chhattisgarh too since 2007.  
India is also prone to natura l disasters and the EU provided humanitarian assistance to the 
victims of such disasters in that country over the last five years, including the 2004 South 
Asia tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthqua ke and monsoon flooding in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 
2008. Assistance was also provided to the victims of the Mizoram rat plague in 2008 and of 
the Koshi River flooding in 2009. 
Over a five-year period, the Commission allocated a total bud get of €34 million. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In the aftermath of the conf lict in Kashmir, approximately  30 000 people received psycho-
social support and protection including children in orphanages and specialised services for 
people living with disabilities. In Chhattisga rh, over 35 000 people benefited from curative 
and preventive basic he alth care services. 
The Commission allocated €2 million in humanitar ian aid for the victims of the Koshi River 
flood in Bihar, including for emergency shelte r, drinking water and improved sanitation, 
health and livelihood support. 
Assistance to the tune of €3 million, to bridge  the food gap for the victims of cyclone Aila 
was approved towards the end of the year. Th ese operations are currently being initiated. 
In the Sri Lankan refugee camps in Tamil Na du, the EU continued to  finance shelter, 
water/sanitation, livelihood and protection activ ities, including support for possible returns 
following the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In Jammu and Kashmir, past EU support for non-formal education is being continued. In 
Chhattisgarh a State Partnership Programme has been signed between the Commission and the State authorities, aiming at equitable delive ry of and access to quality  health and education 
services, accompanied by improved forest-bas ed tribal livelihoods,  with the aid of 
governance, institutional reform and capacity-building at State a nd decentralised levels. This 
programme is expected to be a valuable vehicle for linking reli ef and rehabilita tion, and will 
ultimately allow the Commission to exit from this crisis. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Co-ordination is facilitated by organising regul ar meetings (India team meetings, Country 
Strategy Paper discussions, etc.) backed up by  ad hoc  informal contacts. India is graduating 
out of aid and therefore just a few donors remain active. In general, the EU is the only 
external donor operating in the humanitarian context in India. 
EN 64   EN Nepal/Bhutan 
Humanitarian needs 
The conflict between Maoist rebels and the Royal Army cost 13  000 lives. Although it ended 
in 2006, the country is still suffering from its  consequences, marked by high volatility and 
frequent outbreaks of violence. The conflict isolated populations and disrupted trade and 
agriculture; it destroyed water supply systems and communications infrastructure. Health 
centres do not function properly and lack trained personnel, hygiene products and medicines 
as well as waste treatment equipment and system s. The Nepalese authorit ies are still not able 
to give support to communities due to the unstable political situation. 
Some 88  00036 Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin ar e victims of a forgo tten crisis and have 
been stuck in camps since 1992, accepted neither  by Nepal nor Bhutan and totally dependent 
on external aid. In the absence of a political  solution, the United Stat es and other countries 
offered resettlement options  and since 2008 more than 20  000 refugees have been resettled as 
a result. 
In 2009, the hilly areas in the mid- and far-west suffered the worst drought of the last 40 
years. The drought, followed by heavy rains, destroyed over 70 % of the crops in some districts, 
affecting 2.7 million people. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2005, the EU has provided a total of €34 million in respons e to the food-related needs 
of the Bhutanese refugees and the humanitarian needs of the victims of the armed conflict, the 
monsoon flooding in 2007 and 2008 and the drought in 2006. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
Primary and reproductive healthcare was extended to 100 000 people and 32 250 people 
benefitted from water/sanitation systems. In all, 250 000 people gained security from anti-
mine operations and food aid was distributed to  over 90 000 Bhutanese re fugees. The EU also 
financed disaster preparedness activities wo rth €2.6 million, benefiting over 240 000 people. 
Working environment 
Although there is no majo r risk to humanitarian staff, most operations were delayed by 
blockades stemming from political instability. A ccess to hilly areas, the worst hit by drought 
and floods, is very difficult. Some villages can only be reached by helicopter. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The EU humanitarian aid contribution for Bhut anese refugees is backed up by support from 
development aid for UNHCR’s camp manage ment. The resettlement programme brought 
renewed hopes of a workable solution. The major ity of refugees are expected to opt for 
resettlement, but given the size of  the caseload it is very likely to take close to five years to 
complete the process. During that time, politi cal efforts will be sustained to lobby for a 
solution for those neither able nor willing to relocate, including a return to Bhutan and the 
                                                 
36 Previously 108  000 refugees 
EN 65   EN possibility for others to settle  legally in Nepal. Socio-economi c development, with the support 
of development partners, is expected to a llow the Commission to wind down its operations 
linked to the conflict. 
Co-ordination of aid 
There is proficient co-ordination between  the Commission and humanitarian partners. 
DIPECHO partners have joined forces to esta blish a particularly pr oductive platform, now 
formally accepted as a valid partner in all o fficial initiatives conc erning disaster risk 
reduction. 
Sri Lanka 
Humanitarian needs 
The conflict between the governme nt of Sri Lanka and the Libe ration Tigers of Tamil Nadu 
(LTTE), which had been continuing in the nort h of the country since 1983, ended on 19 May 
2009 when the President formally declared vi ctory over the Tamil Tiger rebels. During the 
last months of the conflict almost 300  000 people, mostly ethnic Tamils, were trapped by the 
fighting in a narrow strip of land in Mullai tivu with little or no access to humanitarian 
assistance. Severe violations of internationa l humanitarian law were committed by both sides 
during that period and thousands  of civilians were killed and wounded. By mid-May, over 
280  000 people had fled the conflict  zone and were being detain ed by the government in IDP 
camps in northern Sri Lanka. 
In October, the government began rapidly to re lease IDPs from the camps. By mid-December, 
over 170  000 people had returned to their places of  origin in the north. IDPs have been 
returning to areas which are h eavily mined, lack basic infras tructure and have a strong 
military presence. The majority of returnees liv e with host families and there are huge needs 
for de-mining, protection, temporary shel ters, house repairs, livelihood recovery, 
water/sanitation and other essentials. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since 2005 the EU has provided over €64 million of humanitarian assistance to the population 
affected by the conflict and over €43 million in response to the tsunami. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the EU provided €14 million in emergenc y relief assistance to over 500 000 IDPs 
and the population affected by the conflict in Sri Lanka and to 30 000 Sri Lankan refugees 
living in camps in Tamil Nadu, India. The focu s has been on the population affected by the 
escalation in the conflict since 2006. 
This has included: support for the efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross 
(ICRC) to bring relief  and protection to 300  000 people trapped in the conflict zone; 
emergency life-saving assistance to over 280  000 people detained in IDP camps; assistance to 
over 600  000 returnees, IDPs and host families in the form of protection, food security, 
shelter, other essentials, water/sanitation, de mining and co-ordination. All the projects have 
been implemented by ECHO partners, the UN, ICRC and INGOs. 
EN 66   EN Working environment 
While security conditions for aid workers have improved since the end of the conflict in May 
2009, the government of Sri Lanka is still failing to respect basic humanitarian principles. 
Government hostility to the ai d community also hampers opera tions, causing lengthy delays 
in obtaining visas and author isations. At the e nd of 2009, ECHO established a series of 
benchmarks for future humanitarian funding, including complete free dom of movement for 
IDPs, full and unhindered access for humanitarian agencies a nd donors, voluntary, safe and 
dignified return and access for protection activ ities. Some progress has been made by the 
government towards the benchmarks, such as the release of over 170  000 IDPs from the 
camps. However, many difficulties remain and th e Commission will continue to engage with 
the government to emphasise the importance of complying with these humanitarian 
benchmarks.  
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In terms of LRRD, humanitarian aid progr ammes will be linked with programmes which 
complement and go beyond humanitarian emergency aid by concentrating on the medium-term needs of returnee IDPs and host communities in Sri Lanka. 
Other programmes in favour of war affected communities and contracted in 2009 amounted to 
€54.5 million, of which €6.5 million under the Instru ment for Stability, €36 million under the 
Development Cooperation Instrument and €12 m illion under the regional facility 'Assistance 
to Uprooted People'. 
2.6.2.  South-East and East Asia 
South-East and East Asia is one of the mo st disaster-prone areas  in the world. In 2009, 
numerous countries in the region were, once ag ain, severely affected by natural disasters. 
Successive tropical storms and typhoons caused da mage in the Philippines, affecting more 
than 9 million people. In Se ptember, tropical storm Ketsan a devastated Manila and the 
neighbouring areas, flooding up to 80
% of the capital and displacing hundreds of thousands. 
Typhoon Parma caused extensive flooding and landsli des in Northern Luzon. Vietnam, Laos 
and Cambodia were also badly affected by typhoon Ketsana and typhoon Mirinae in early 
November, causing the most severe storm damage  of the last 40 years. Indonesia was hit by 
two major earthquakes in 2009. On 2 September, an earthquake of magn itude 7 struck the 
West Java province, affecting 700  000 people. On 30 September, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake 
struck West Sumatra (Padang), affecting 1.2 million people in 18 districts. More than 1  100 
people were killed. 
In Myanmar (Burma), the immediate relief need s after the devastating cyclone Nargis were 
addressed satisfactorily, paving the way for lo ng-term recovery. However, the humanitarian 
situation in the rest of the c ountry continued to give cause for concern and clashes between 
ethnic groups and the Burmese army in the bo rder region with China in mid-2009 triggered 
mass displacements. In 2009 the European Union tightened its sanctions  against the country. 
On 28 December 2009, the Thai government deported approximately 4  000 Lao Hmong back 
to Laos after classifying them as illegal immigrants. The EU urged Laos to respect the rights of those who return and to allow humanitarian  groups and diplomats free and open access to 
the returnees. 
EN 67   EN In the Philippines, following the August 2008 armed upheaval betwee n the government and 
the main armed opposition groups — the Moro  National Liberation Front and the Moro 
Islamic Liberation Front — the EU continue pr oviding assistance for displaced populations in 
Mindanao. At the end of 2009, 300 000 people were still displaced. 
The 6th DIPECHO Action Plan for South East As ia was successfully implemented in 2009 
and the effects are clearly visible when comp ared with areas that have received no 
preparedness support. 
Myanmar (Burma) 
Humanitarian needs 
Since its independence in 1948, Burma/Myanmar’s history has been punct uated by civil wars 
with government forces fighting against militant ethnic groups. This protracted low-intensity 
conflict coupled recently with the drive to harness the count ry’s natural resources, has 
displaced hundreds of thousands to other parts of the countr y or to neighbouring countries, 
particularly Bangladesh and Thailand. In 2009 th e European Union tightened and extended its 
sanctions against the country. Consequently, hu manitarian assistance remains an important 
share of Commission's interventions in the country which continues to be implemented 
through UN agencies and NGOs. 
Tensions between the government of Myanmar and the various ethnic groups living along the 
country’s eastern borders increased in 2009 wi th armed clashes involving ethnic Karen and 
Kokang groups. The July offensive by the Burmes e army and its ally on some posts of the 
Karen National Liberation Army forced some 4 000 ethnic Karen to flee to Thailand. 
Currently they have found refuge in two temp orary sites outside the existing camps. Aid 
agencies and district authoritie s are providing assistance to them. 
The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights ha s observed massive human rights violations, 
notably affecting ethnic groups. Gulf States ha ve seriously affected the country's economy. 
Likewise, Western economic sanc tions have added to the hard ship for ordinary people. 
Myanmar (Burma) is reported to have the highest number of child soldiers in the world. It is 
estimated that 70 000 or more in its army of  approximately 350 000 soldiers. The lack of 
clean water, desperately poor health environm ent and widespread lack of hygiene are the 
main causes of the water-borne illnesses which account for 50% of morbidity among young 
children. According to UNICEF, diarrhoea is the second biggest cause of mortality among 
children under five, after malaria. Around 57% of  the population have no  access to sanitation 
facilities and 40% have no access to safe drinki ng water. The most widespread sources of 
water in the country are village wells and ponds which lack any proper protection and are 
therefore often a source of cont amination. Access to basic health  care is almost non-existent 
in many remote areas of the country. 
The immediate relief needs following the devasta ting cyclone Nargis which hit the Irrawaddy 
Delta in May 2008 have been addr essed satisfactorily, paving th e way for long-term recovery. 
Although there are a large number of new human itarian agencies in the Irrawaddy Delta, they 
have not been given permission to extend their activities to remote areas inhabited by ethnic 
minorities. 
EN 68   EN Despite the broad media coverage which the ‘ Rohingya boat people ’ received at the beginning 
of the year, the situation in Northern Rakhine  State has been slowly worsening as border 
tensions with Bangladesh have been mounting. 
The economic impact of the devastation caused by cyclone Nargis had an adverse impact on 
the general humanitarian situation in Burm a/Myanmar in 2009 too. The decrease in demand 
for oil, jade and teak, particularly on the Chinese market, and the consequences of the 
economic crisis on demand for fo reign labour in richer ASEAN37 countries and the Gulf 
States have seriously affected the country’s economy. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
EU-funded operations in Myanmar (Burma) over the last five years have focused on the 
ethnic minority areas affected by the low-intensity c onflict, in particul ar, along the borders 
with Thailand, India and China.  Support has also been provided to the stateless Rohingya 
population in Northern Rakhine State and to the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand, which 
host up to 135 000 refugees. Since May 2008, emergency assistance totalling €39 million has been provided to the victims of cyclone Nargis. 
The humanitarian situation of vulnerable populations affected by the conflict in Myanmar 
(Burma) and of Burmese refugees from that country along the Thai-Burmese border seems a 
"forgotten crisis". However,  ECHO continues its support. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009 the Commission's activities continued to focus on Northern Rakhine State and the 
ethnic areas along the border w ith China and Thailand (such as Shan, Kayah, Mon and Kayin 
States and the Tanintharyi Di vision) along with the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. To 
continue responding to the humanitarian need s, the Commission allocated €18.5 million under 
the 2009 Global Plan targeting mainly protecti on, food/nutrition, water/sanitation and health 
activities. In response to cyclone Nargis, a decision releasing €22 million was adopted in 
December 2008 and implemented in the course of 2009. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
At the end of 2009, the Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund, a five-year $100 million 
programme, was launched by the EU and other major donors. This support links up particularly well with the phasi ng-out of EU-funded operations in the delta area affected by 
cyclone Nargis. Funding for the Burmese refuge e camps in Thailand has also been provided 
by AIDCO, as the European Commission is l ooking for solutions offering a more durable 
livelihood for the refugees with the aim of  gradually scaling down and phasing out its 
operations. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The most important aspect if the activities supported by EU-funding are to be more efficient 
and sustainable is close collaboration with ot her EU instruments. This not only strengthens 
the link between relief, rehabil itation and development, but also, together with joint inter-
service advocacy vis-à-vis other stakeholders su ch as EU Member States, USAID or the Thai 
                                                
 
37 Association of Southeast Asian Nations 
EN 69   EN Government, contributes to putting relevant issu es on the international agenda and promoting 
durable solutions. Commission staff regularly participates in inter-agency co-ordination meetings and are actively engaged in donor task force meetings. 
Thailand 
Humanitarian needs 
Burmese refugees : The nine refugee camps along the Thai -Myanmar border are populated by 
predominantly Karen and Karenni refugees from Myanmar (Burma). The resettlement 
programme to third countries which starte d in 2004 has reduced their number from the 
original total of 150  000. On 30 September 2009, there were 109  041 registered refugees, 
whereas TBBC38 reported about 132  448 camp-dwellers benefiting from the organisation’s 
food assistance, despite the fact that more than 54  000 have been resettled (out of which 
14 039 left in the first nine months of 2009). The modest decline in the camp population 
cannot be explained by demographic trends al one. According to a UNHCR source, free access 
to services, particular ly food, has been the main push/pull factor for ‘new entries’. The hope 
of resettlement in a third country, mainly the United States, is another popular reason for 
young people to enter these camps. This means that genu ine asylum-seekers mix with aspiring 
illegal migrants, thus complicating camp manage ment, status determination and resettlement 
efforts. In February 2009, UNHCR started pilo t screening of unregistered camp-dwellers in 
four of the nine camps. The majority of the screened people are expected to be granted 
refugee status. Should this exercise prove suc cessful, it could be extended to the other camps. 
After several decades of the Burmese refug ee camps, a different type of response and 
assistance are required than in the early years after the camps were opened. Donors agree that 
it is imperative to move from hand-outs to mo re long-term and sustainable solutions which 
include livelihood alte rnatives. This transition is particular ly important, because refugees have 
become totally dependent on aid af ter such a long time in camps. 
The recently finalised draft Five-year Strate gic Plan produced by the Committee for the Co-
ordination of Services to Displaced Persons  in Thailand (CCSDPT) and UNHCR marks a 
significant step forward in this process. It wi ll provide a good basis for dialogue with the Thai 
government on finding sustainable solutions fo r the refuges by providing them with an 
alternative to increase their self-reliance. 
Lao Hmong : The Hmong, an ethnic minority group which has inhabited the northern region of 
Laos for centuries, were recruited as guerrilla  fighters by the US military in its ‘secret war’ 
against communist forces in Laos in th e 1960s. When the communists prevailed in 1975, 
thousands of Hmong fled to neighbouring Tha iland and sought resettlement abroad. Since 
2006, a further 7  000 Hmong have sought refuge in Thaila nd and been regrouped in a closed 
camp in Petchabun province. Three thousand we re repatriated to La os, although concerns 
were raised about how far their move was voluntary. Another group of 432 Hmong were 
recognised by UNHCR, but 158 of th em were arrested and detain ed in Nong Khai detention 
centre in North-East Thailand. The USA, Canada , the Netherlands and Au stralia have offered 
resettlement, but the government of Laos insists that they have to return to Laos first. 
On 28 December 2009, some 5  000 Thai military personnel entered the Petchabun camp and 
started repatriating the 4  000 Hmong who had been classified  as illegal immigrants by 
                                                 
38 Thailand Burma Border Consortium 
EN 70   EN Thailand. They were transported to Laos in  buses. The second group of Hmong were deported 
on 29 December. None of them had been inform ed of their deportation and concerns were 
expressed about their safety. Acco rding to the Lao government, the 4  371 returnees will 
initially be placed in a centre 80 km east of  Vientiane and then housed in villages in 
Bolikhamsai and Vientiane provinces, where eac h family will receive a house and a plot of 
land. 
On 28 December, the day the first move took  place, the Swedish Presidency issued a 
statement declaring that it was ‘deeply dismay ed’ at the deportation and warning that the 
move could violate refugee law. The EU urged Laos to respect th e rights of those who return 
and to allow humanitarian groups and diplom ats free and open access to them. In Laos, the 
EU (France, Germany and the EU Delegation) , together with the US and Australian 
Ambassadors, presented a demarche on 30 December, calling for immediate access to the returnees for the internationa l community, particularly to the group from Nong Khai who 
were recognised as ‘persons of concern’. The Laos Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs emphasised that the government considered these people illegal migrants and that, after processing, they would be sent b ack to their original homes or resettled in new villages. The 
Commission is continuing to monitor this situ ation closely and is in close contact with 
UNHCR and International Or ganisation for Migration. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Given the political stalemate in Myanmar (Burma ), refugees living in Thailand have received 
extensive support from the EU ov er the last five years in the form of food, health and 
water/sanitation. In 2009, the Commission starte d scaling down the EU contribution to the 
Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the EU continued to provide assistance to  the Burmese refugees, with a total of €8.75 
million under the decision granting Myanmar (Burma) €18.5 million. This is just slightly 
lower than the 2008 figure of €9.5 million. Provisio n of food assistance and health services 
has stabilised the nutritional situation in the ca mps and prevented major outbreaks of disease. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
In 2009, the Commission started scaling down EU funding for Burmese refugees in Thailand 
as the humanitarian situation ha s been consolidated. After decad es of these camps, a different 
type of response and assistance with more l ong-term livelihood options are required than in 
the early years after the camps were ope ned. The Commission's strategy has been co-
ordinated with other EU instruments and other donors. It has become necessary to target the needs of the most vulnerable refugee group s better. At the same time the European 
Commission is currently looking for the most effective way to accompany early implementation of the five-year Strategic Plan of the CCSDPT and UNHCR. 
EN 71   EN Co-ordination of aid 
EU's financial support for the Burmese refugees in Thailand has been scaled down in close 
co-ordination with other EU inst ruments and donors. Regular meeti ngs are held at field level. 
In November 2009, the Commission participated in  a field visit by Heads of Mission to one of 
the refugee camps. 
Indonesia  
Humanitarian needs 
In 2009, two earthquakes generated enormous humanitarian needs in Indonesia. On 
2 September, an earthquake of magnitude 7 struck West Java province, affecting 700  000 
people and destroying or damaging up to 142  000 houses. The area affected was so extensive 
that it took a long time to assess the unmet human itarian needs, which were mostly for shelter, 
with a large number of people displaced in difficult conditions. 
On 30 September, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck West Sumatra (Padang), affecting 
1.2 million people in 18 districts. Over 1  100 people were killed. The disaster destroyed or 
damaged more than 180  000 houses. 
The responses to these two disasters were very  different. The West Ja va earthquake attracted 
very little external assistance, after the Pres ident declared that it was not necessary. By 
contrast, the West Sumatra ear thquake attracted close to 200 organisations and massive 
funding (up to $50 million), leading to overl apping of activities and compromising the 
efficiency and efficacy of the response. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
This period was marked by the earthquake an d tsunami which devastated Aceh and the 
Northern Sumatra coasts on 26 December 2004. For this crisis alone, the Commission disbursed close to €60 million on projects r unning from 26 December 2004 to 30 June 2007. 
Other smaller crises were addressed during the period 2005-2009, includ ing displacement due 
to ethnic violence, drought and malnutrition, ep idemics, earthquakes, smaller tsunamis, and 
the destructive earthquake that shook the city of Yogyakarta and the surrounding areas in May 
2006. In 2008, the Commission responded to malnutr ition in the eastern pa rt of the country 
with projects implemented mainly in 2009. The total EU humanitarian contribution to Indonesia, excluding the tsunami re sponse, was close to €20 million. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In response to the West Java earthquake, an emer gency decision releasing €
 1.5 million was 
adopted to address needs for te mporary shelter. After the West Sumatra earthquake, a primary 
emergency decision granting €  3 million was adopted to cover needs for emergency shelter, 
water/sanitation, basic necessities, transport,  mapping and co-ordination. Considering the 
massive funding made available in response to  this crisis, the Commission has decided to 
allocate no more funding for the time being. 
EN 72   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Food insecurity is not going to be addressed in Nusa Tengara Timur (NTT) as part of a 
comprehensive LRRD approach, since the Com mission Country Strategy for the period 2007-
2013 does not include food security as an area of activity. Hence,  Indonesia was not selected 
as a beneficiary under the Food Fa cility. However, EU-funded proj ects are being co-ordinated 
with the interventions supported by other exte rnal instruments in West Timor and by the 
Multi-Donor Support Facility f unded by the Dutch and Danish governments. Nevertheless, 
the Commission will continue to  advocate support und er long-term instruments and by other 
donors to address the serious f ood insecurity in NTT. As far as the response to the 
earthquakes is concerned, the Commission will co ntinue to assess the situation and will act in 
accordance with its mandate should further needs be identified. 
Philippines 
Humanitarian needs 
Mindanao : Following the August 2008 armed upheaval between the Philippines government 
and the main armed opposition groups — the Mo ro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and 
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front  (MILF) — the EU had to con tinue providing assistance for 
the displaced population living in evacuation centr es, makeshift shelters or with host families 
in Mindanao. At the end of 2009 about 300  000 people were still displaced. Living conditions 
in evacuation centres and displacement sites failed to meet SPHERE39 standards and basic 
services were not provided.  
The humanitarian situation of the people affect ed by the conflict was aggravated by recurrent 
flooding. After some improvement during the second ha lf of the year, the security situation in 
the conflict zone deteriorated after the election-related massacr e of 57 people in Maguindanao 
on 23 November. 
The recent conflict in Mindanao is a forgotten crisis which ha s attracted no international 
media attention, while the government continues to downplay the severity of the situation. 
Humanitarian agencies are also finding it difficult to raise funds to respond. 
Typhoons : Several tropical storms and typhoons caused heavy damage in the north and in the 
centre of the country at the end of Septem ber and in October 2009, affecting more than 
9 million people. Tropical storm Ketsana devastated the national capital region and 
neighbouring areas, flooding up to 80 % of Manila and displaci ng hundreds of thousands. 
Typhoon Parma caused extensive flooding and landslides in Northern Luzon, hitting agricultural production hard. Exte nsive humanitarian needs include d shelter, water/sanitation, 
food, health, logistics, telecomm unications and co-ordination. 
                                                
 
39 SPHERE project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response 
http://www.sphereproject.org   
EN 73   EN Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
EU humanitarian interventions in the Philippine s over the last five years (€ 21.7 million) have 
focused on the response to displacement due to  the violence affecting Mindanao and on the 
response to natural disasters.  
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the Commission provided €12 million to respond to the increasing humanitarian 
needs in areas affected by conflicts (€3 m illion) and to the typhoon season (€9 million), of 
which €2 million was allocated to the vi ctims of tropical storm Ketsana.  
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
There is a close cooperation with EU-funded c onflict prevention projec ts in Mindanao. From 
2011 onwards, specific funding will target the people displaced by the 2008 crisis, which should allow the Commission to phase out its res ponse to this crisis if  the situation evolves 
favourably. 
In case of typhoons, the Commission will assess th e situation in order to cover any persisting 
needs. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Co-ordination is facilitated by organising regul ar meetings, both at headquarters and in the 
country. These are backed up by ad hoc informal contacts. Only a few donors are active in 
Mindanao. As for natural disasters, the EU-funde d operation is being co-ordinated with other 
humanitarian players, in cluding the UN country team. 
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 
Humanitarian needs 
Vietnam, one of the world’s most disaster-p rone countries, has developed good coping 
mechanisms over the years to prepare for a nd cushion the impact of natural hazards. 
Nonetheless, local capacity can be exhausted wh en disasters such as heavy rains and typhoons 
are more intense than normal. In Laos and Cambodia, the prevalence of general hazards and major disasters is considered medium to low compared with other Asian countries, but the 
overall vulnerability of these countries can cause relatively high risks for communities when disasters strike. Food insecurity is an endemic problem, particular ly in Laos where it has been 
aggravated lately by an extraordinary rodent  outbreak causing widespread loss of crops and 
stocks, triggering a serious food shortage in seven Northern provinces early in 2009. 
Natural disasters are increasing. 2009 was yet a nother year marked by repeated episodes of 
extensive flooding and by two major typhoons — Ketsana (29 September) and Mirinae (2-
3 November) — on a scale which overstretched the local capacity for relief and rehabilitation, 
causing the most severe storm dama ge for the last 40 years. In all, 14 central and southern 
provinces suffered from the combined effect s of typhoons Ketsana and Mirinae. After 
devastating Vietnam, typhoon Ketsana ravaged five  southern provinces in Laos, amongst the 
most vulnerable and food-insecure in the countr y, and seven northern and central provinces of 
Cambodia. Tens of thousands of households, al ready exposed to food in security near the end 
EN 74   EN of a lean season, had their food stocks and ba sic assets decimated, leaving them facing 
pressing food needs long ahead of the next rice ha rvest. In addition to food, the most urgent 
needs generated by the typhoons were for shelte r, water/sanitation, health and livelihood 
recovery. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
The EU responded to natural disa sters in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Its contribution was 
limited to €1.41 million for flooding and typhoons in Vietnam over the period 2002-2006, but the increasing climate-related hazards prompted the Commission to take actions five times in 
the last three years: twice in response to typhoon Lekima in Vietnam (October 2007) with a 
total of €3 million, once in response to tropica l storm Kammuri in Vi etnam and Laos (August 
2008), with a total of €1.5 million, and twice in  response to the 2009 typhoons in Vietnam, 
Laos and Cambodia, with a tota l of €9 million. In spring 2009, the EU contributed with €1.5 
million to address the most urgent food needs generated by the rodent outbreak in Laos. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In the immediate aftermath of typhoon Ketsana,  a primary emergency decision releasing 
€
 2 million was adopted to address the consequen ces of the disaster, with the objective of 
providing immediate life-saving assistance to the victims. Five humanit arian operations were 
mounted in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia under th is financing decision, bringing assistance to 
350  000 beneficiaries in the form of food aid, non- food relief items, shelter, water, sanitation, 
hygiene and emergency medical care until December 2009. A second financing decision 
granting €  7 million was taken on 17 December 2009 with the objective of enabling the 
affected populations in the three countries to restore livelihoods and coping capacity quickly, 
while helping families and children to return  to their normal life. Twelve six-month 
humanitarian operations were initiated under this financing decision, aiming to assist 
approximately 1 million beneficiaries in the earl y recovery phase during the first half of 2010. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Longer-term structural recovery is or will be organised by the central and local governments 
of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos supported by inte rnational development assistance. In these 
countries, continuation of the DIPECHO programme in the most  disaster-prone areas, as 
confirmed by the 7th DIPECHO Action Plan star ting in 2010, is aiming to disseminate best 
practice on typhoon/flood preparedness and to cons olidate adoption of such best practice by 
national authorities and incorporat ion into relevant legislation. 
Co-ordination of aid 
In all three Mekong countries, co -ordination is ensured by ex changes of information and 
regular participation in meetings  at headquarters (such as on th e Country Strate gy Paper or in 
the Mid-Term Review process). At field level,  EU Delegations are constantly informed and 
involved in the follow-up to humanitarian activit ies, in order to guara ntee appropriate linkage 
to development aid whenever feasible and re levant. As far as ot her donors are concerned, 
bilateral contacts (notably with USAID40, AUSAID41 and CIDA42) are maintained and 
                                                 
40 US Agency for International Development 
41 The Australian government’s overseas aid programme. 
42 Canadian International Development Agency 
EN 75   EN information is exchanged on an ad hoc  basis whenever emergencies occur and also, fairly 
systematically, in the context of DIPECHO.  
North Korea (Democratic People 's Republic of Korea — DPRK) 
Humanitarian needs 
Although the food security  situation remained precarious in 2009, this was mainly due to 
structural problems, such as lack of m odern agricultural know-how, techniques and 
equipment, distribution problems and vulnerability to external  shocks. In November 2009, the 
Commission saw no evidence to support declarati on of a food crisis in  the country, although 
there are high expectations regarding the possible findings of the ongoing MCIS (multi-
cluster integrated survey) led by UNICEF, fo cusing particularly on malnutrition data and 
updating the last national assessment undertaken in 2004. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Between 2005 and 2007, the Commission allocated €23.7 million to finance health and 
water/sanitation programmes. Th e Commission's humanitarian aid office was then closed and 
no further funding has been provided since 2008. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009 the EU provided no humanitarian assistance to DPRK. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
After an 11-year presence, on 14 May 2008, the Co mmission officially closed its ECHO field 
office in Pyongyang. This decision wa s in line with the strategy for 2008 as the humanitarian 
situation in DPRK had consolidated over th e preceding years. For the period 2007-2010, the 
Commission has allocated €35 million under it s Food Security Thematic Programme.  
Co-ordination of aid 
Although no funding decision was taken for DPRK in 2009, due to the very special political 
context, the Commission continued its inter- service dialogue and co -ordination with EU 
Member States on the humanitarian situation.  This largely concerned the food security 
situation in the country give n the huge WFP Emergency Oper ation (EMOP) and the lessons 
shared on health and water/sanitation. 
Timor-Leste  
Humanitarian needs 
In 2009, Timor Leste saw the end of the displacem ent crisis unleashed by the civil unrest in 
2006. The return process was init iated in 2008 on the basis of the government’s strategy and 
continued until August 2009, when the last IDPs le ft Metinaro, the largest and last camp in 
use. The last operations funded by the EU, under a 2008 funding decision, aimed at 
addressing the remaining needs in the camps  and accompanying the return process in a 
sustainable way. 
EN 76   EN Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Since the country became independe nt in 2002, the EU has provided €  13.8 million in 
emergency assistance to the most vulnerable vi ctims of violence and in response to alarming 
levels of malnutrition. The f ood aid and supplementary feedi ng programmes were phased out 
in 2006 when long-term programmes tackling the causes of malnutrition were put in place by 
the Commission. Since June 2006, following the out break of violence, the EU has provided 
assistance totalling €  7.8 million to the IDPs. Since 2008, EU-funded operations have 
gradually shifted from relief assistance in th e IDP camps to a more comprehensive strategy 
focusing on the return of IDPs. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
No new funding was granted for Timor Lest e in 2009, although most of the 2008 projects 
continued into the first part of 2009. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy from  the sector and/or country  
The Commission stepped up its LRRD strategy at the end of its hum anitarian operation in 
Timor Leste. The phase-out in mid-2009 coin cided with implementation of the action 
supported by the Instrument for Stability which started at the end of 2008. One component of 
the Instrument for Stability programme aims  at improving social and economic conditions 
within communities for reintegration of internally displaced people. Focus is on IDP return and food insecurity from various funding inst ruments and programmes (the Instrument for 
Stability, the Food Secur ity Thematic Programme, the Water Facility, the Rural Development 
Programme under the 9th and 10th EDF, etc). 
Co-ordination of aid 
EU-funded interventions ar e co-ordinated with other stakehol ders present in the country, such 
as Member States and other don ors. Regular meetings and c ontacts also take place in 
Brussels. 
2.6.3.  Pacific 
The Pacific region was hit by numerous localised  disasters with in particular the tsunami 
which struck Samoa and Tonga in Septembe r 2009, which caused unusually severe damage, 
calling for EU humanitarian in tervention. Financial support was also given after a cholera 
outbreak in Papua New Guinea. In 2009, the firs t Disaster Preparedne ss Programme for the 
Pacific was launched by the Commission, target ing Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands 
and Vanuatu. 
Humanitarian needs 
The risks inherent in the exposure of vulnerabl e populations in the Pacific region are regularly 
demonstrated by successive disast ers, some more serious than others. While the governments 
of the island states have made efforts, within their means, to prepare their populations better, 
when disasters strike external aid is frequently needed, as the response ca pacity of small states 
rapidly becomes overstretched. The dispersion of a relatively small population over an 
enormous area means that the number of people a ffected by a disaster often remains low in 
comparison with other regions. Nevertheless, th e logistical challenges of helping those in 
need can render humanitarian aid operations rather costly. 
EN 77   EN In August 2009, Papua New Guinea was struck  by a cholera epidemic which quickly 
overwhelmed the country’s health system and, despite support from international agencies, 
could not be brought under control for a long time. 
An earthquake in September generated a ts unami which hit Samoa and Tonga, killing 138 
people and affecting 4  500. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
Given the remote location of the region (as obser ved from Europe) and the presence of very 
active donors in the South Pacific, i.e. Austra lia and New Zealand, who have a tradition of 
responding swiftly to di sasters, the EU's involvement in funding humanitarian assistance is 
regular, but less frequent than in other parts of  the world. Humanitarian aid funded by the EU 
over the last few years has included assistance to victims of a tsunami in the Solomon Islands (€
 550  000), to populations affected by cyclones on the Cook Islands (€  200  000) and to 
vulnerable persons in Papua New Guinea affected by eruptions of volcanoes. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
The measures taken in response to the needs caused by the floods in the second half of 2008 
in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands continued. The EU provided funding of €700 000. 
The EU contributed to replenishing IFRC's Disaster Response Emergency Fund which was 
used to assist victims of the tsunami in Samo a. The EU also supported the response to the 
cholera outbreak in Papua New Guinea with  €650 000. Finally, €1.5 million from disaster 
preparedness budget line was used to launch a pilot programme to support community-based 
disaster preparedness action. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
So far, the EU has not been involved in longer humanitarian assistance programmes in 
countries in the region. The scal e of the disasters has normally  been such that there was no 
need for particular LRRD hand-over strategies. It remains to be seen whether the recently 
started pilot projects for community based di saster preparedness will be suitable for 
continuation and/or scaling up, in which case linkages with development activities would 
have to be identified. 
2.7. Latin America and the Caribbean 
Many of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) re gion are recurrently 
affected by natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, dr oughts, cold waves, landslides, 
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, et c. The EU was called on to res pond to an array of disasters 
on different scales in 2009 — floods and landslides unleashed by hurricane Ida in El Salvador 
and Nicaragua, droughts in Guatemala, Paraguay  and Bolivia, floods in Peru and Paraguay, 
hurricanes in Cuba and a dengue epidemic in Gu atemala. The disasters which affected only a 
limited number of people were covered by a speci fic decision on small-scale disasters. The 
response to the dengue outbreak was funded under an epidemics decision adopted at the end 
of 2008 to prepare the most vulnerable LAC count ries better for epidemics and provide an 
emergency response. In addition, the action in response to the natural disasters which affected 
Latin America and the Caribbean region in 2008 c ontinued, notably for th e hurricanes in Haiti 
and Cuba, tropical depression No 16 in Honduras and Guatemala, the drought in Honduras 
EN 78   EN and Paraguay and the cold wa ves in Bolivia and Peru. Apar t from responses to natural 
disasters, The EU's humanitarian assistance to victims of Colombia’s prolonged internal 
conflict continued in 2009, in cluding support for IDPs, for rural populations facing 
restrictions on movement and on access to basi c goods and services and for Colombians in 
need of protection who fled to neighbouring co untries. In Haiti, the EU took action to reduce 
malnutrition and mortality rates. 
In view of the recurrent nature of natural disa sters and their humanitarian impact, the disaster 
preparedness programme (DIPECHO) continued, with the aim of impr oving the capacity of 
communities at risk to prepare for and protect themselves against natural disasters better. 
DIPECHO provided a continuous programme, enabling different organisations to become 
involved in disaster risk reduction and filli ng a gap by creating a platform for community-
focused disaster preparedness and a means to  reach isolated and vulnerable communities. 
In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the Commission continued to work closely with 
other programmes and donors to make the transition to long-term development. 
In 2009, humanitarian aid and food aid in Latin America and the Caribbean region were 
funded by adopting nine funding deci sions releasing a total of €  42 million, which was 5 % of 
the total budget committed. 
The following countries/regi ons were covered in 2009: 
HUM.AID FOOD AID DIPECHO TOTAL
LATIN AMERICA 13 800 000  525 000 12 000 000 26 325 000
Central America 1 000 000 1 000 000
South America 10 000 000 10 000 000
Guatemala  800 000  525 000 1 325 000
Colombia 12 000 000 12 000 000
Peru 2 000 000 2 000 000
CARIBBEAN 7 000 000 2 000 000 7 000 000 16 000 000
Regional Caribbean 7 000 000 7 000 000
Cuba 2 000 000 2 000 000
Haiti 5 000 000 2 000 000 7 000 000
TOTAL LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN 20 800 000 2 525 000 19 000 000 42 325 000Country/regionFunding decisions adopted in 2009
 
Central America (El Salvador , Guatemala, Nicaragua) 
Humanitarian needs 
Central America is one of th e most disaster-prone regions  in the world. More than 80 % of the 
area is at high risk of earthquakes, volcanoes,  flooding, landslides and hurricanes. Every year, 
Central America is severely a ffected by tropical storms, heavy rains and floods, particularly 
during the hurricane season (July to November). 
EN 79   EN In 2009, hurricane Ida and relate d floods and landslides seriously  affected El Salvador and 
Nicaragua. El Niño led to dr ought conditions in many Centra l American countries, but 
particularly affected Guatemala. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
From 2005 to 2009, a total of €  21.29 million was allocated to Central America. This included 
the response to hurricane Stan in Guatemala a nd El Salvador and to  hurricane Felix in 
Nicaragua.  
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, an emergency decision releasing €  1 million was adopted to assist the most 
vulnerable populations in El Salvador and Ni caragua affected by hurricane Ida and related 
floods and landslides. A total of 45  000 people benefited from EU -funded operations. Five 
projects were financed, c overing food assistance, emerge ncy rehabilitation of houses, 
water/sanitation, basic health services and ma instreaming disaster preparedness activities. 
In response to the drought in Guatemala, €  1.325 million were allocated from the 
humanitarian and food aid budget lines to imp rove the nutritional situation of the most 
vulnerable populations, in particul ar children under five suffe ring from acute malnutrition. 
Distribution of food aid, food-fo r-work activities, nu tritional recovery and measures to 
strengthen nutritional services  and surveillance along with wate r/sanitation projects improved 
the humanitarian situation of the most vul nerable populations affe cted by drought and 
addressed pockets of acute malnutrition. Disaster  risk reduction was mainstreamed into the 
response to make small-scale farmers’ households more resilient. 
The drought in northern Nicara gua was addressed by the Sma ll-scale Disasters Decision 
adopted at the end of 2008. The Commission also continued actions  launched in 2008 in 
response to the drought in Honduras (€  1 million) and to tropical depression No 16 in 
Honduras and Guatemala (€  1.17 million) as well as to implement the Sixth DIPECHO Action 
Plan (€  10 million) in Central America. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Close dialogue continued with the aim of bridging the gap between emergency relief and 
more medium- to long-term action, including th e Instrument for Stability, the Food Facility 
and the Food Security Thematic Programme. 
Co-ordination of aid 
At the start of each emergency response, a di alogue was initiated with Member States and 
humanitarian aid agencies to share informati on about the action planne d and avoid overlaps. 
South America (except Colombia) 
Humanitarian needs 
South America is one of the most disaster-prone  regions in the world,  exposed to panoply of 
natural hazards due to its  geography, geology and climate. El  Niño and La Niña contribute to 
warming and cooling in the easte rn and central Pacific and cause regular floods and droughts.  
EN 80   EN The Andean region is particularly vulnerable  to earthquakes — the la st major one, causing 
significant loss of human life and physical da mage, occurred in Peru  in August 2007 — and 
many volcanoes are still active there. The vulnerabil ity of the people most at risk from natural 
disasters has continued to increase over the la st few decades, as climate change has further 
aggravated the situation. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
From 2005 to 2009, a total of €  23.9 million was allocated to South America, in response to 
the earthquake in Peru, to floods in Bolivia a nd Ecuador, to cold waves in Peru and Bolivia 
and to drought in Paraguay. In 2009, action in  South America (excluding Colombia) was 
funded under the 2008 Small-scale Disasters Decision.  
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, the EU's funding for the humanitari an response was mainly provided under the 
Small-scale Disasters Decision adopted at the end of 2008 (€  1 million). In this connection, an 
emergency response (food assistance, other e ssentials, water/sanita tion and shelter) was 
provided to droughts, floods and landslides in Bolivia, Peru and Paraguay, combined with 
mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
The Commission continued actively to explore avenues for LRRD with the EU Delegations in 
the region and with other EU instruments. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Dialogue is continuing with Member States  and humanitarian aid agencies to share 
information about the action planned and avoid overlaps. 
Colombia (including Colombians in n eed of international protection in 
Ecuador and Venezuela) 
Humanitarian needs 
For well over four decades, Colombia has been suffering from an intern al conflict, involving 
different protagonists (government, guerrilla and new illegal armed groups, many of whom 
are made up of former paramilitary groups). As a result, some 300  000 people are displaced 
every year. Altogether, between 3.1 and 4.6 mi llion people (depending on the source) have 
been displaced since 1985. In addi tion, UNHCR estimates that some 373  000 Colombians are 
refugees or in a refugee-like situation. Most of them have fled the conflict to neighbouring 
countries (Ecuador or Venezuela). Despite a so phisticated protection system and substantial 
allocations by the Colombian government, ther e are significant gaps in humanitarian 
assistance, particularly during the time immediat ely following displacement and in the rural 
areas, where the population often has to face re strictions on movement  and on access to basic 
goods and services because of  the conflict. Women, childre n and Afro-Colombian and 
indigenous communities are partic ularly vulnerable. The incr easing blurring of civil and 
military lines, the resulting reduction of humanitarian space and the threat to the humanitarian principle of independence are causes for con cern. In the neighbouring countries, protection 
(notably determination of ref ugee status) and emergency assist ance for new arrivals are the 
EN 81   EN most pressing humanitarian issues to address. In addition, Colombia is  vulnerable to natural 
disasters, particularly floods, earthquakes a nd volcanic eruptions. National response capacity 
might not be sufficient in ar eas affected by conflicts.  
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
From 2005 to 2009, the Commission allocated a total of €35.5 milli on to improve the 
humanitarian situation of the victims of the Co lombian conflict, both in Colombia itself and in 
neighbouring countries (Ecuador , Venezuela and Panama). 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, a total of €  12 million was allocated for the victims of the conflict (both inside 
Colombia and in neighbouring countries). In 2009, some 80  000 internally displaced people 
received emergency food and other essentials duri ng the first three months  of displacement. In 
addition, more than 40  000 ‘new’ internally displaced peop le (displaced for less than 12 
months) and rural populations f acing restrictions on movement  and on access to basic goods 
and services received short-term assistance to improve th eir humanitarian situation, including 
access to primary health care, water/sanitation, improved shelter and psycho-social assistance. 
Protection was the leitmotiv of  all EU-funded humanitarian operations in Colombia. The 
Commission continued to concentr ate on the more remote rural areas, where state institutions 
are generally not present or government assist ance is insufficient. Protection of children 
remained a priority. Activities in this area in cluded integrating IDP children in accelerated 
learning cycles with a view to preparing them  for re-integration into the formal education 
system and, at the same time, helping to prev ent their recruitment by illegal armed groups. EU 
assistance was intended to cover humanitarian emergency needs not sufficiently covered by 
the aid provided by the Colombian government . However, implementing partners were 
required not to substitute for the state, but ac tively to seek to involve local state sectoral 
institutions with a view to  handing over operations to them in the near future. 
The EU also financed projects to assist the vi ctims of the Colombian conflict who had fled to 
the neighbouring countries  Ecuador and Venezuela. More than 60  000 Colombians in need 
benefited from international protection activities (notably determination of refugee status) and 
emergency aid (food assistance, primary health care, water/sanitation and shelter) provided by 
UNHCR with EU humanitarian support. 
Working environment 
In line with Colombia’s policy of ‘democratic se curity’, a presidential directive was issued in 
March 2009, seeking ‘alignment’ of armed forces and civilian state entities. As a result, an 
increasing number of mi xed civil-military brigades have been organised, blurring civil and 
military lines. In line with the humanitarian prin ciple of independence, ECHO partners have 
refused to participate in these mixed brigades. Ho wever, there is a clear possibility of further 
shrinking of humanitarian space. 
EN 82   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Close regular contacts are maintained with the EU Delegation to seek LRRD. Since the 
budget line for ‘uprooted people’ ended, links ha ve been sought with other thematic budget 
lines, the Instrument for Stability and the support for peace and stability provided under 
bilateral cooperation. Moreover,  ECHO’s partners were as ked actively to seek the 
involvement of state sectoral institutions in th e aid operations with a view to paving the way 
for handover/exit in the near future. 
Co-ordination of aid 
The main co-ordination forum in Colombia is  the Inter-Agency Sta nding Committee which — 
quite uniquely — includes not  only UN agencies but also NGOs. ECHO participates as an 
observer in the IASC. Furthermore, dial ogue with Member States is continuing. 
2.7.1.  Caribbean 
Cuba 
Humanitarian needs 
Cuba is prone to disasters, particularly to hu rricanes. The country is still recovering from the 
2008 season, when three hurricanes hit the country in less than three months and caused damage of some $10 billion. More than 500
 000 houses and over 169  000 hectares of crop 
land were damaged. This is all the more signi ficant because Cuba regularly has to import 
some 80 % of the food it needs. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  
From 2005 to 2008, no funding was allocated to  Cuba. In 2009, a decision was taken to 
provide a continuous hurricane response (€  2 million), focusing on emergency rehabilitation 
of shelter. 
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In response to the two hurricanes which struck  Cuba at the end of August and in early 
September 2008, €  2 million were allocated under a region al funding decision. In view of the 
continuing serious humanitarian impact of thes e disasters, in early  2009 a follow-up funding 
decision was adopted. It focused on emergency reha bilitation of shelter, benefiting the most 
vulnerable populations affected. Great importanc e was attached to mainstreaming DRR in the 
response, in particular to maki ng houses more hurricane-resistant. 
In addition, for the first time sinc e 2003, two DIPECHO projects (total: €  540  000) were 
started in Cuba. They are funded under the new — Seventh — DIPECHO Action Plan for the 
Caribbean. 
LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
Regular meetings are held to discuss stra tegies. The foundations for linking relief, 
rehabilitation and development were laid dur ing a mission in November 2008. As a result, the 
Instrument for Stability, the Food Facility a nd the Food Security Thematic Programme budget 
line have taken over funding of basic agricultural recove ry activities. 
EN 83   EN Haiti 
Humanitarian needs 
After the country was seriously affected by th ree hurricanes and a tropical storm during the 
2008 hurricane season, Haiti is no longer a for gotten crisis. It remains, however, a pilot 
country for the new multi-service, inter-institutio nal ‘fragile situation’  initiative. Under-5 
mortality and acute malnutrition are high. Pocket s of acute malnutritio n persist in several 
departments. Most people have no access to clean  water, sanitation or health services. The 
country imports over 50 % of its food (over 80 % of its rice), which means that price rises hit 
household food security hard, with the risk of sparking riots (as was the case in 2008). Access 
to proper health care services remains a challenge,  in particular as far as maternal health is 
concerned. The country is also highl y vulnerable to natural disasters. 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 
From 2005 to 2009, a total of €27.6 million was al located in response to different natural 
disasters and crises in Haiti, including food a ssistance, distribution of other essentials, access 
to primary health care and safe water/sanitation.  
Humanitarian objectives an d achievements in 2009 
In 2009, a Global Plan with a budget of €  7 million was adopted to address the different 
humanitarian needs in a more comprehensiv e way. The Commission's strategy in Haiti is to 
reduce malnutrition and mortality by means of multi-sectoral humanitarian aid, at the same 
time as responding to disasters and undertaki ng disaster preparedness operations. Food 
assistance is part of the multi-sectoral strate gy, including food secur ity (agricultural inputs 
and livelihoods), community therapeutic care and malnut rition programmes. In 2009, the 
ECHO office in Haiti was re-opened after ten years and a Global Plan was adopted. With a 
total budget of €  7 million, it is focusing on reducing malnut rition and mortality. It also allows 
a response to natural disasters and epidemics. As one example, a rapi d response was provided 
to the diphtheria outbreak in October 2009. 
In addition to the funding under the Global Pl an, the Commission allocated funds to the 
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ Disaster Relief Emergency 
Fund in September and October 2009, in re sponse to floods and mudslides. Over €  1 million 
was also allocated to three DIPECHO projects  in Haiti, under the Seventh DIPECHO Action 
Plan for the Caribbean. Meanwhile, implementa tion of the funding decisions taken in 2008 in 
response to tropical storm Fay and hurri canes Gustav, Hanna and Ike continued (€  8.7 
million). 
Working environment 
Haiti remains a fragile democracy, with crime rates high. Security co nditions are therefore 
somewhat difficult. Violence linked to gangs and/ or elections continues to affect some urban 
areas. Consequently, in October 2009 the mand ate of MINUSTAH (the UN peace-keeping 
force) was extended for one more year. 
EN 84   EN LRRD – possible exit strategy fr om the sector and/or country 
There is an in-country dialogue with other major donors to identify LRRD opportunities. 
Synergies should be achieved via the Food Fac ility and Food Security Thematic Programme, 
but more donors are required in the health sector. Clearly, th e earthquakes that devastated 
Haiti in January 2010, after this report was drafte d, have fundamentally altered the prospects. 
Co-ordination of aid 
Continuous dialogues are held with Memb er States to co -ordinate action. 
2.8. Disaster preparedness activities, including DIPECHO 
Disaster preparedness helps to save lives, speed  up recovery and soften the impact of future 
hazards. Disaster preparedness proves that peop le are far from helpless but can face hazards 
with the appropriate local knowledge , practice and response mechanisms. 
EU's main contribution to the global disaster risk reduction efforts remains the DIPECHO 
programme which targets highly vulnerable commun ities living in seven of the most disaster-
prone regions in the world. In ECHO terminology, this is called the ‘ community-based 
approach’ . 
Since launching the DIPECHO programmes, th e Commission has invested more than 
€ 180 million in the associated Action Plans. 
Region Funding
1998-2008Funding 
2009Funding
1998-2009
Southern Africa 5 000 000  735 000 5 735 000
Southern Caucasus 2 000 000 2 000 000
Central Asia 22 375 000 22 375 000
South Asia 19 200 000 10 000 000 29 200 000
South-East Asia 31 680 000 31 680 000
Central America 32 480 000 32 480 000
South America 23 740 000 10 000 000 33 740 000
Peru 2 000 000 2 000 000
Caribbean 16 975 000 7 000 000 23 975 000
Pacific 1 500 000 1 500 000
Other - Capacity-building  200 000  200 000
Total DIPECHO programmes 151 450 000 33 435 000 184 885 000
Drought preparedn ess (on the HA budget) 40 000 000 10 000 000 50 000 000
Total disaster preparedness activities 191 450 000 43 435 000 234 885 000DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES (+DIPECHO) 1998-2009
 
EN 85   EN DIPECHO in Southern Africa 
The south-east African and sout h-west Indian Ocean regions ar e exposed to a wide range of 
natural disasters, such as floods, cyclones a nd volcanic eruptions. Their exposure to natural 
hazards, combined with socio-economic fact ors such as high population density, extreme 
poverty and, in most parts of southern Africa,  a high incidence of HI V and AIDS, heightens 
the potential impact of disast ers. Due to their extreme povert y, these vulnerable population 
groups have very low capacity to recover from losses. Furthermore, the current capacity in 
these regions to cope with disasters is limite d. Consequently, support from the international 
community is definitely needed to promote preparedness activities, mitigation projects and 
early-warning systems. 
Following the Action Plan launched in 2008, a sum of €735 000 was mobilised to supplement 
the ongoing disaster preparedness action (DIPEC HO) in Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi and 
Mozambique. Many of the projects will run into 2010. 
DIPECHO in South Caucasus 
The South Caucasus region is prone to natura l disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, 
floods, flash floods, avalanches a nd debris flows. The risk of earthquakes is particularly high, 
as shown by past events cau sing numerous casualties (Sp itak in Armenia in 1988) or 
extensive damage (Baku in 2000 and Tbilisi in 2002). 
On the basis of two identification missions conducted by its experts, the Commission 
allocated €  2 million to the Disaster Risk Reduction/ DIPECHO Action Plan in this region to 
support implementation of existing and planned national disaster risk reduction plans and 
policies, including the Hyogo Framework for Action for 2005-2015. 
In each project supported, ECHO will pay pa rticular attention to coordinating and 
consolidating national platforms,  the link between disaster risk  reduction and climate change, 
project sustainability, the multi-country approach and greater consideration of vulnerable population groups, such as women, th e elderly and disabled people. 
This Action Plan, adopted by the Commission in November 2009, will be implemented from 
March 2010 to August 2011. 
DIPECHO in Central Asia 
Central Asia is particularly exposed and vulnerable to natura l disasters such as landslides, 
avalanches, floods, earthquakes an d drought and to climate cha nge. It is therefore highly 
appropriate to invest in community-based disaster preparedness and response capacity. 
In 2009, ECHO proceeded to implement the 5t h DIPECHO Action Plan for Central Asia 
adopted in 2008. Its total budget of €  7.325 million is financing thirty operations in the five 
Central Asian countries. 
The main activities include preparing emergency plans at the level of communities, training 
students and population groups in  disaster preparedness tec hniques, improving the early-
warning systems, training and equipping search  and rescue teams, building small mitigation 
works, supporting the setting-up of national and regional disaster risk reduction platforms, 
strengthening and advocating disaster risk re duction amongst national authorities and other 
EN 86   EN development bodies and promoting public-private  partnerships in disaster risk reduction 
operations. 
50% of the funding was allocated to operations by  local communities and local authorities, 25 % 
to national authorities, 5 % to regional cooperation and 15 % to the Red Crescent societies. Over 
two million people have benefited from the Action Plan. 
DIPECHO in South Asia 
South Asia is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to  natural disasters (especially 
floods, landslides, droughts, eart hquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and forest fires) and the growing 
concerns about the impact of climate change are of particular relevance to this part of the 
world. It is a region where social and political structures, demographic pr essures, the structure 
of settlements, agricultural practices a nd economic development leave the population 
extremely vulnerable to natural disasters. Not only peoples’ lives but al so their livelihoods are 
at risk each time. Some populations are even mo re vulnerable as they live in very remote 
areas, belong to minority groups and are forgo tten or neglected by their own authorities. 
Recurring disasters, even very small-scale on es, have a greater impact each time on these 
populations already suffering from extreme poverty. Recent events in the region, from 
cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh at the end of 2007 to the floods in India and Nepal in 2008, have 
drawn further attention to the importance of prev ention measures to reduce the impact of such 
natural disasters on the population, es pecially on the most vulnerable. 
The Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan launched in 2009 (€  10 million) is focusing on the most 
vulnerable local communities and institutions in volved in risk reduction in Bangladesh, India 
and Nepal. Depending on the security situati on and access to the beneficiaries at their 
locations, operations might be envisaged in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. 
Furthermore, regional programming could ta ke into account the whole of South Asia, 
including Bhutan, if deemed relevant for th e overall coherence of the proposed project. 
Estimates suggest that approximately 3 million pe ople will benefit directly from this Action 
Plan. 
DIPECHO in South America 
South America is one of the most disaster-prone  regions in the world,  exposed to panoply of 
natural hazards due to its  geography, geology and climate. El  Niño and La Niña contribute to 
warming and cooling in the easte rn and central Pacific and ca use regular floods and droughts. 
The Andean region is particular ly vulnerable to earthquakes — the last major one, causing a 
significant loss of human life and physical da mage, occurred in Peru  in August 2007 — and 
many volcanoes are still active there. The vulnerabil ity of the people most at risk from natural 
disasters has continued to increase over the la st few decades, as climate change has further 
aggravated the situation. 
Implementation of the Sixth DIPEC HO Action Plan started in 2009 (€  10 million) in 
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colo mbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and 
Venezuela. The aid provided should assist  approximately 1 million beneficiaries.  
A wider DRR action was launched as a pilot exer cise, with the aim of enhancing preparedness 
and coping capacity for earthquakes and tsunamis in Peru (€  2 million). 
EN 87   EN DIPECHO in the Caribbean region 
The Caribbean region is prone to  frequent natural disasters, especially hurricanes and floods. 
The region’s vulnerability is accentuated by hi gh population density, fast demographic growth 
and widespread poverty. This leaves communities with less capacity for coping in the event of 
disasters. 
From 2005 to 2008, a total of €  11.86 million was allocated for emergency responses to 
different natural disasters, incl uding food assistance, distribution of other essentials, access to 
primary health care and safe water/sanitati on. This amount includes, in particular, the 
response to tropical storms and hu rricanes, for instance to the three hurricanes and the tropical 
storm which hit the Caribbean hard in 2008. 
The emergency response to the hurricanes and tr opical storms which struck the Caribbean in 
2008 continued. Apart from a new DIPECHO Ac tion Plan (€5 million), wider DRR action 
was launched as a pilot exercise to strengthen  disaster management in the Caribbean (€2 
million). 
DIPECHO in the Pacific region 
The Pacific region ranks among the most disaster -prone regions in the world in terms of 
recurrence, severity and scope of hazards, with high exposure to cyclones, earthquakes, 
tsunamis, floods, tidal surges, landslides, flash fl oods, droughts, forest fi res, volcano eruptions 
and epidemics. This is compounded by envir onmental degradation and climate change. 
According to a recent World Bank report43, between 1950 and 2004 extreme natural disasters 
accounted for 65 % of the total economic impact of disa sters on the region. Ten of the fifteen 
most extreme events reported over the last half- century occurred in the last fifteen years. The 
number of mortalities and people affected might  appear rather low in comparison with usual 
disaster statistics, but the Paci fic countries rank among the highest  in terms of the number of 
casualties and people affected per 100  000 population44. 
In 2009, the first Disaster Preparedness Pr ogramme for the Pacific (€1.5 million) was 
launched by the Commission, targeting Papu a New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and 
Vanuatu. Approximately 600  000 persons will be targeted by this pilot programme to support 
community-based disaster preparedness action. 
Drought preparedness programme in the Horn of Africa  
In 2006, the Commission a dopted its first (€  10 million) Regional Drought Decision. The 
objective was to allow timely and relevant huma nitarian responses in order to reduce the 
impact of droughts on the main a ssets of rural population groups . To build on the success of 
this approach, the Commission stepped it up w ith an additional allocation of €30 million in 
2008, followed by a further €  10 million in 2009, with the aim of supporting appropriate 
preparedness and mitigation measures setting an example. 
                                                 
43 Not if but when: Adapting to natural hazards in the Pacific islands region — a policy note’, World 
Bank, 2006: http://www.preve ntionweb.net/files/ 1141_NaturalHazardspacific.pdf. 
44 Source: Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) " International Disaster 
Database ", www.emdat.net 
EN 88   EN Activities will be kept in line with the drought  cycle management approach, which promotes 
community-based knowledge in drought prepare dness, strengthening local resilience and 
Early Warning Systems. Up to 12 million pastoralists and/or agro-pastoralists have been targeted, directly and indire ctly, by ECHO’s approach to re gional drought preparedness. 
For further information on the dr ought preparedness programme in the Horn of Africa, see the 
Horn of Africa section. 
2.9. Case studies on the launching of humanitarian aid 
Pakistan : unprecedented internal displacement 
Context and key dates 
The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (F ATA), North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) 
and Baluchistan, along the border with Afghanista n, have become the scene of shifting areas 
of conflict, notably between the Pakistan  military and various militant groups. Since August 
2008 , the conflict has intensified sharply with a c onsequent escalation of humanitarian needs, 
including 168  000 civilian internally displaced persons  (IDPs) by the end of 2008, mainly 
from Bajaur and Mohmand. From January  to April 2009 , an additional 379  000 people were 
displaced in the region. 
Following the violation of the 16 February 2009  ceasefire45 by the Pakistan i Taliban, the 
military launched an offensive in the Dir and Buner districts in NWFP followed, on 9 May, 
by others in Swat and Buner. This military offensive forced  a mass, unprecedented population 
displacement in the region with more than tw o million fleeing their homes in less than a 
month to take refuge in other parts of NW FP, notably in Peshawar, Mardan, Swabi and 
Noshwera. 
Given the scale of the disaster, the humanitari an community and the authorities mobilised to 
respond to the most urgent n eeds of the population by establishing camps, but the vast 
majority of the displaced people (90 %) nevertheless chose to stay with host families, putting 
extra pressure on an already ve ry poor and vulnerable population. 
On 20 May 2009 , the government of Pakistan organised a donors’ conference in Islamabad 
inviting the international commun ity to support the UN efforts in the relief phase, after which 
the government would take respon sibility for the rehabilitation  and reconstruction phases. On 
21 May 2009 , the UN presented a revised Humanitarian  Action Plan for Pakistan requesting 
almost $544 million by the end of 2009. 
The International Committee of the Red Cro ss (ICRC) twice extended its emergency appeal46 
and NGOs were heavily present on the ground. UNOCHA decided to increase its presence in 
view of the need for stronger prot ection of humanitarian principles. 
From 29 May to 5 June 2009 , the Commission sent an assessm ent mission to Pakistan, after 
an emergency decision was adopted on 26 May. 
                                                 
45 The Malakand Accord, agreed upon after two years of fighting on 16 February 2009, included a 
ceasefire in Swat (between the Talib an and the army) and imposition of Sharia law in the districts of 
Malakand, Swat, Shangla, Buner, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan. 
46 ICRC — 1st revision, 5 March 2009 , and second revision, 4 June. 
EN 89   EN At the first EU–Pakistan summit, held in Brussels on 17 June , the European Commission 
announced €72 million in humanitarian aid and a further €  52 million in development aid to 
support the rehabilitation process. 
ECHO's response  
The Commission had been present in Pakistan for many years assisting the Afghan refugees 
and responding to emergencies such as the 2005  earthquake. However, the ECHO's office was 
closed when the first displacements of population took place from Bajaur in FATA, following military interventions in the area in 2008. 
Alerted by its partners about the situati on, the Commission decided to support the ICRC’s 
work, given its neut ral mandate, under a €
 1.5 million funding decision. After monitoring and 
assessing the situation, it became clear that further support was necessary.  
Crisis in May 2009 
The Commission was preparing a €  5.5 million decision when more than 2 million people 
were displaced from Swat. The obvious solu tion was to change the decision into an 
emergency decision. Following the accelerated procedure, the emergency decision was 
adopted on 26 May . 
Immediate ECHO assessment mission 
As mentioned earlier, an assessment  mission was sent to Pakistan from 29 May  to 5 June . A 
field visit by three Commission representatives to six official camps (housing almost 56% of 
the total camp population), one school, humanita rian hubs (for registration, food and NFI 
distribution to off-camp IDPs) and host families gave the mission a fair picture of the needs, 
the current level of response and the urgent need for support.  
Speaking directly with victims gave the team  a clear understanding of the human dimension 
of the crisis. People were still in shock after losing their relatives and fleeing from their homes. The situation for women was particularly dreadful: forced to leave their villages, often 
leaving their houses for the first time, keepi ng their excessively warm clothes for cultural 
reasons, staying mostly under their shelters in temperatures of up to 48°C and limiting their 
drinking to avoid having to go out during the day. Fans and Purd ah walls were installed very 
quickly to solve this situation but not applicable everywhere. 
The plight of the 90% of the IDPs living in  public buildings such as schools was no better 
because of appalling hygienic conditions. Host  families were horrifyingly overcrowded, as 
hosting four or five displaced families meant having over 30 people in a single household. 
The field visit was followed up by meetings with all relevant stakeholde rs from the UN, ICRC 
and Pakistani Red Crescent Society to NGOs and local authorities at provincial and federal 
levels. Other donors present in Islamabad, in cluding the EU Member States, the US and 
Japan, etc., were given debriefi ngs on the mission. Feedback was sent to Brussels every day. 
ECHO's funding response 
The decision to scale up EU support was th erefore taken immediately and funds were made 
available very quickly. 
EN 90   EN In the first instance, €20 million were allo cated. The €5.5 million emergency decision was 
amended to produce a decision releasi ng €25.5 million, which was adopted on 2 July . 
Contracts were signed immediat ely to cover the needs from 1 May on. 
A further €45 million was requested from the EU Budget's Emergency Aid Reserve. Taking 
into account the urgency of the situation, all of the EU institutions involved agreed very 
quickly on the transfer of f unds. Another funding decision wa s immediately prepared for 
adoption. Once more, the willingness of all the in stitutions involved to proceed quickly was 
greatly appreciated and resulted in  quick adoption (on 1 September 2009). 
Further assessment missions were sent from Kabul and Delhi in early July and late August. At 
the beginning of September, a Commission presence was established by basing one ECHO 
technical assistant in Islamabad.  
Advocacy for funding 
The entire crisis was under-funded for a long  time and the Commission played a role in 
advocating for a more generous response from the international community in general and 
from EU Member States in particular. 
Challenges  
The May 2009  displacements were followed by a prematur e return in July. Then in October, 
further military interventions in South Wazirist an and Orakzai triggered fresh displacements, 
although on a more moderate scale. 
The security situation is also a vital concern, sinc e the safety of humanitarian staff is at stake. 
Many (too many)  humanitarian workers were killed in 2009. 
The Commission's other main concern is the loss of humanitarian space  for the agencies due 
to the heavy involvement and tight control of the authorities. This raises problems, e.g.: 
• the general challenge of operating in a principled way : the problem of independence  in 
terms of needs assessment and targeting beneficiaries  on the basis of humanitarian 
principles; 
• the problem of access to the beneficiaries in the areas affected by the conflict. 
These concerns were heightened  following the displacements from South Waziristan  (in 
October) because: 
• only local NGOs  were granted access to provide humanita rian assistance. So far, de facto, 
access has been denied to UN ag encies and international NGOs; 
• it seems that many IDPs who are not  registered and that there are restrictions on freedom 
of movement  for IDPs from Waziristan. 
Protection of civilians is another major worry: in many cases IDP returns  appeared to be 
coerced and premature at a time of recurren t fighting in other areas (NWFP and FATA). 
Access to  assistance remains hindered,  both for female–headed households in that cultural 
environment and for the civilians wh o stayed behind during the conflict.  
EN 91   EN The lack of recognition by the Pakistani authorities  that there is indeed a conflict situation in 
Pakistan and that there are hum anitarian needs is still a general stumbling-block. This non-
recognition of an armed conflict also supports  the non-recognition of the need to apply 
relevant IHL rules. 
It is crucial for the international community to continue insisting on application of 
humanitarian principles. The call to engage with  Pakistan on important global issues such as 
counterterrorism, trade and development is clea r. However, it should under no circumstances 
endanger humanitarian space and principles.  
The humanitarian situation is likel y to continue to deteriorate in the months and years ahead 
following military intervention in various re gions. Nevertheless, if the conditions for 
implementing projects in accordance with huma nitarian principles are not present, the 
Commission might have  to review its strategy in Pakistan. 
Yemen : a forgotten humanitarian crisis in  a country at the centre of the 
world’s attention 
Since the last week of 2009, following an aborte d attempt by a terrorist trained in Yemen by 
Al-Qaida to destroy an American plane on Chri stmas Day, a significant level of interest has 
been shown in this country. However, little media attention has been paid to the humanitarian 
situation there. That is the paradox: a forgo tten humanitarian crisis behind the headlines. 
Background: a forgotten but complex crisis  
Yemen is a very vulnerable country. It is th e poorest state in the Arab world, with an 
estimated 35% of the population47 below the poverty line. It faces  food insecurity, widespread 
water scarcity and depletion of its natural resources, including oil. In recent years the 
government has been confronted with an interm ittent armed conflict in Sa’ada in Northern 
Yemen, a growing southern separatist movement , clashes with the tribal groups controlling 
the rural areas and a resurgence of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaida . 
Against a backdrop of poverty and political inst ability, the humanitarian challenges facing 
Yemen are multiple, including: 
• natural disasters such as fl ooding in the eastern governorat e of Hadramout in October 2008 
or drought in Al Ma hwit governorate; 
• more than 60  000 people have arrived on boats from the Horn of Africa so far this year. 
The country was already hosting over 152  000 refugees, most of them Somali; and 
• the current sixth war in Yemen’s Northern gove rnorate of Sa’ada which is exacerbating the 
political and development cris es in the country. In 2009, fo r the first time, the Yemeni 
government allowed United Nations (UN) agencies  to launch an appe al for international 
aid in response to the conflict in Sa’ada. 
International organisations active in the c ountry have country pr ogrammes encompassing 
humanitarian, recovery and development aspect s. The overall level of humanitarian funding 
                                                 
47 The total population of Yemen is estimated at 23 million, of whom 45 % are under 15 years of age. The 
crude birth rate is 42.42 births per 1  000 population. 
EN 92   EN for Yemen in 2009 was in the range of €  24.6 million48. However, the extent of needs in the 
country exceeds current operational capacity an d requires a comprehensive approach similar 
to other complex emergencies. To meet this challenge, a Yemen Human itarian Response Plan 
for 2010 was launched by OCHA in Decembe r 2009, requesting total funding of €  117 million 
to cover humanitarian needs. 
Nevertheless, implementing capacity is ha mpered by insecurity. There is growing 
dissatisfaction with the way the government mana ges international aid and open tension with 
the local population concerning distribution of aid. Movements of humanitarian personnel are 
restricted, even outside the war zone in th e northern part of the country. Guaranteeing 
humanitarian access is a precondition for any future increase in implementing capacity. 
The sixth war in Northern Yemen   
In mid-August the sixth round of war began between  Huthis rebels and na tional forces in the 
governorate of Sa’ada. Fighting spread to the neighbouring governorate of  Amran. This is the 
worst fighting since the conflict began in 200 4. The armed conflict ha s escalated further, 
spilling over into Saudi Arabia, and huma nitarian workers on the ground are becoming 
increasingly concerned about the plight of civilians. 
According to the UN, as many as 175 000 people have now been displaced by the conflict in 
the north of the country. For some, this is their second or third displacement. Access to Sa'ada 
and Al Jawf governorates remains very difficult. 
The situation is steadily worsening, as the coping  mechanisms of the civilians caught in the 
fighting and their host families are becoming exhausted. Access has yet to be guaranteed for 
humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance and their stocks in Sa'ada are dwindling. 
On 2 September, OCHA launched a flash appeal  for a total of €16 million including food aid, 
shelter, other essentials , camp management, water/sanitation and hygiene items. 
ECHO's strategy in the crisis in Northern Yemen  
The main objective is to support action to prot ect and assist the popu lation affected by the 
conflict. Since 2008, following the fifth round of fighting the EU has been supporting ICRC 
actions in Sa'ada in favour of IDPs and the host population. 
In March 2009, the Commission adopted a fundi ng decision releasing €1 million. Actions was 
taken under this decision when the conflict fl ared up again, allowing an immediate response 
to the new flows of displaced people. 
In November €  1 million was made available by an emergency decision to finance key aspects 
of the UN flash appeal that were underfund ed. The emergency decision targeted three 
objectives: 
• to provide emergency shelter and basic hous ehold items to most vulnerable IDPs, in 
particular in the IDP camps; 
• to reduce morbidity and mortality among th e population affected by the conflict, in 
particular children under-five, with the aid of preventive water/ sanitation and hygiene 
(WASH) measures and by trea ting acute malnutrition; and 
                                                 
48 OCHA financing tracking system, data for 2008. 
EN 93   EN • to facilitate co-ordination of humanita rian action in Yemen. While international 
organisations are gearing up their humanitarian  activities in Yemen, it is necessary to put 
in place a strong co-ordinated approach to ensure an adequate humanitarian response. The EU is the largest contributor in this sector. 
The emergency decision raised the total funding available in 2009 for the conflict in Northern 
Yemen to €
 2 million. 
West Africa: focus on the 2009 Mening itis epidemic in Niger, Chad and 
Nigeria  
Meningitis is a seasonal disease that spreads every year throughout  the Sahel in a belt that 
spans from Senegal to Ethiopia. In 2009, a ma ssive outbreak severely affected Niger, 
Northern Nigeria and South West Chad with many thousands of victim s, mostly children, 
adolescents and young adults. Over 50 000 people c ontracted meningitis from the start of the 
epidemic in February 2009. Almost 3 000 people died. It was the worst outbreak in at least 5 
years. 
The Commission responded immediately by sendi ng experts to evaluate the humanitarian 
needs and making available €4,68 million through ad hoc and emergency decisions to respond to this large scale epidemic. 
The rapid vaccination of those at high risk was vital. The campaign was put into action 
quickly and it is estimated that 90% of targ eted population was vaccinated in time. Public 
awareness raising in the most affected comm unities played a key role in this massive 
mobilization.  
This vaccination campaign was unprecedented in its  size and required the urgent mobilization 
of thousands of staff, doctors a nd nurses, as well as logisticians  and cold chain specialists. A 
total of 8 million people between 2 and 30 years of age were immunized in Niger, Nigeria and 
Chad, between March and May 2009 making this the largest campaign ever.  
To reach the maximum number of people at ri sk, hundreds of emergenc y medical teams went 
door to door vaccinating people in  the most remote villages. “ We have come here today to get 
the vaccination. People visited our village to explain why it is important to come and get the 
shot. I am happy to be able to protect my family .” says Tayo, a young beneficiary. 
3. A
ID MANAGEMENT  
Humanitarian aid is often delivered in an emergency and/or situations where access to 
beneficiaries is difficult due to logistical or secu rity constraints. To make sure that the best 
use is made of public funds under these circumstances, the Commission pursues an active 
relationship with its stakeholders and has put  in place various monitoring and co-ordination 
mechanisms. Some of their key features are described below. 
3.1. Ways and means of delivering aid 
The EU is the only humanitarian donor to have  a worldwide network of field experts who 
play a key role in assessing the humanitarian  needs and monitoring the EU-funded operations. 
The aid itself is implemented by a limited number  of humanitarian organisations, which have 
EN 94   EN both the financial and operational capacity to manage emergency operations in often difficult 
circumstances. 
3.1.1.  Experts in the field 
The Commission manages its humanitarian activiti es from its headquarters in Brussels via a 
network of more than 40 field offices all over the world. 
In order to meet the target set by the post-tsunami action plan of January 2005, the 
Commission has consolidated its network of field experts with the aim of organising multi-
sectoral rapid response teams. This allows it  to dispatch its field experts and programme 
assistants rapidly in response to new crises to  carry out humanitarian needs assessments and 
help co-ordinate humanitarian activities in the field. 
By the end of 2009, more than 100 experts and 300 local staff were in place. New field offices 
had been opened in Port au Prince (Haiti) and Gaza and the one in Islamabad (Pakistan) had 
been re-opened. 
3.1.2.  Relations with partners 
The Commission does not intervene directly on  the ground, but implements its mandate by 
funding about 200 partners ranging from non- governmental organisations, United Nations 
agencies, other international organisations su ch as the International Committee of the Red 
Cross and the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies and 
specialised agencies of EU Member States. 
Having a diverse range of pa rtners is important for th e Commission since it allows 
comprehensive coverage of an ever-growing list of  needs in different parts of the world and in 
increasingly complex situations. Grants and cont ributions are decided on the basis of the best 
proposals covering the n eeds of the most vulnerable beneficiaries. 
Relations between ECHO and its implementing partners are governed by Framework 
Partnership Agreements (FPA), which define the roles and responsibil ities in humanitarian 
operations financed by the European Uni on. The FPAs govern relations with both non-
governmental organisations (NGO) and international organisations (IO). 
In the case of United Nations agencies, th e Financial and Admi nistrative Framework 
Agreement between the EC and UN (FAFA) sets  out the general legal framework governing 
relations between them in the domain of humanitarian aid. 
Further information on these Agreements  is available on ECHO’s website at: 
http://EU.europa.eu/echo/a bout/actors/partners_en.htm .  
EN 95   EN In 2009, the relative shares of  funding for these three categories of partners were: 
IO: 14%NGOs: 
47%
UN: 39%
 
However, the figures from 2007 on are not entirely  comparable with those for previous years, 
due to the creation of the humanitarian food ai d budget line under which a significant portion 
of food aid is implemented by a small numbe r of UN and international organisations.  
In 2009, the relative shares of f unding for food aid for the three categories of partners were: 
UN 59%, NGOs 37% and IO 4%. 
53%
52%
47%
44%
47%
34%
37%
42%
46%
39%
12%
11%
11%
10%
14%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
NGO UN Int OrgFunding by category of partners (2005-2009) 
[food aid included as of 2007]
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 
EN 96   EN 3.2. Co-ordination of humanitarian funds 
Various mechanisms are in place to ensure the co-ordination of the humanitarian funds 
implemented by ECHO with those of other hum anitarian actors involved in response. 
– Co-ordination with Member States  is ensured by regular meetings with their 
representatives in the Humanitarian Aid Co mmittee (HAC) which, in accordance with the 
Humanitarian Aid Regulation, gives an opinion on all funding decisions exceeding 
€ 2 million49 before they are adopted by the Commi ssion. In January 2009, in line with the 
European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, a dedicated working group in the Council was 
set up to cover humanitarian and food aid issues — the ‘ Council Working Group on 
Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid’  (COHAFA); 
– When a disaster strikes or whilst tracki ng existing humanitarian operations, Commission 
experts also take the opportuni ty to keep up to date with the funds being considered or 
made available by other humanitarian organi sations, including other donors and agencies 
in both the private and public sectors; 
– The Commission organises annual meetings with  its major partners, in particular United 
Nations organisations and international organi sations (e.g. the Red Cross), to co-ordinate 
strategies and fundi ng (‘strategic dialogue’ (SD) meetings); 
– Co-ordination with NGOs  is ensured via a dedicated network (VOICE) and an annual 
conference with partners; and 
– An IT application  has been developed to collect human itarian aid contributions from EU 
Member States (called the ‘14-poi nts application’). This database50, which is accessible to 
anyone51, gives details of the global EU (EU + Member States) humanitarian assistance 
provided by year and country. The system is linked to the OCHA52 Financial Tracking 
System (FTS). 
The core objective of the 14-poi nts application is to cover al l humanitarian aid contributions, 
whichever government department is responsible for them. The definition of what constitutes 
humanitarian aid — and therefore should be reported — is a difficu lt question and Member 
States have developed thei r own working definitions. 
                                                 
49 € 10 million for emergency action 
50 Available since 1 January 2003 
51 https://webgate.EU.europa.eu/hac  
52 United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Aid 
EN 97   EN In 2009, humanitarian aid contributions totalling €  2 248 million were reported in ECHO’s 14-
points application, of which 59% were from  Member States and 41% from EU funds. 
Repartition of aid between Member States and EU
MEMBER 
STATES
59%EU
Humanitarian Aid
60%
EU 
Disaster 
Preparedness
4%EU 
Technical 
assistance
3%EU 
 Food Aid
33%ECHO
41%
EU - Disaster Preparedness EU - Food Aid
EU - Humanitarian Aid EU - Technical assistance
MEMBER STATES
 
On the whole, approximately the same countries  benefited from humanitarian aid from the 
Member States and from the EU. The two complex emergencies dating back to previous years — Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo — are the biggest recipien ts with more than 
one third of the total allocated  to the top 10 beneficiaries. 
Looking at the top 10 recipients, 70% of the fu nding went to African countries in 2009, with 
the balance going to the occupi ed Palestinian territories, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  
050100150200250€Mio.EU Member States
Member States 99 127 84 64 67 65 42 45 50 23
EU 116 54 66 71 45 37 51 40 25 34Sudan DRC OPT Pakistan SomaliaAfgha-
nistan  Ethiopia KenyaZim-
babw eChad
 
Looking at the geographical breakdown of the total funding in 2009, as planned, the largest 
share went to African countries  (46.7%), 13% to Asia and 10.3% to the Med iterranean and 
Middle East region. The 21.5% cl assified as ‘other’ stand fo r contributions allocated to 
unspecified countries, meaning mainly to UN ag encies and other humanit arian aid activities. 
EN 98   EN Repartition of aid by main regions
46.7%
21.5%13.0%10.3%5.4%1.9% 1.1%
Africa
other
Asia
Mediterranean & Middle East
Europe, Caucasus & Central Asia
Latin America
Caribbean & Pacific islands
 
3.3. Evaluations 
The Commission has an evaluation function which is responsible for evaluating the activities 
it funds, mostly using independent evaluators. The legal basis for this activity is set out under 
Article 18 of the Humanitarian Aid Regulation:  the Commission is required to "regularly 
assess humanitarian aid operations financed by th e Community in order to establish whether 
they have achieved their objectives and to pr oduce guidelines for improving the effectiveness 
of subsequent operations." Furthermore, Artic le 27 (4) of the Financial Regulation requires 
EU Institutions to undertake evaluations in line with the guidance provided by the 
Commission. 
Each year, an indicative Evaluation Programme is established after consulting the EU 
Humanitarian Aid Committee. This programme is  flexible and can be adapted to include 
evaluations not in the original programme, in  response to particular events or changing 
circumstances. 
Evaluations can cover not only reviews of ope rations funded by the EU, but also thematic 
issues and partnerships. The aim is to increase the level of co-ordination within the 
Commission and with EU Member States and other major donors. 
3.3.1.  The 2009 work programme 
The Commission continued to evaluate it s major humanitarian aid programmes.  
In 2009, thirteen evaluations and reviews were finalised or launched:  
– nine evaluations  on Food Aid, DIPECHO Caribbea n, DIPECHO Central Asia, the 
Regional Drought Decision [Horn of Africa], Bu rundi, Iraq, Nepal Sa hrawi refugee camps 
and Sahel; 
EN 99   EN – Three reviews/studies  on mapping donor co-ordination at field level, gender, unit cost 
approach.  
– A call  for tenders on air trans port was also launched combining elements of both 
evaluation and review.  
These evaluations and reviews provide valuable input for further sectoral policy development 
and increase the effectiveness of th e EU’s humanitarian aid activities. 
3.3.2.  Results from some evaluations finalised in 2009 
Sahrawi refugee camps : The evaluation took place betwee n April and May 2009, focusing 
on the funding provided under the 2006-2008 deci sions. The aim was to advise ECHO on 
priorities, make specific recommendations fo r improving the impact of its humanitarian 
response and provide advice on its strategy for 2009 onwards. ECHO-implemented action has 
had a continuous positive impact on the direct beneficiaries. It has helped to support family and community life in difficult circumstances . The food received makes a significant impact 
on the Sahrawi diet, as all assess ments have demonstrat ed that the refugees continue to rely 
on the commodities provided. This action makes a difference ensuring that the refugees' most 
basic needs for food, water/sa nitation, shelter and medicine s are largely covered. The 
programme’s positive impact would be increased by a strategic policy to reduce the levels of 
vulnerability and security by means of more stable programmes and providing buffer stocks. 
Responses that protect and support food security  should be further based on a sound analysis, 
in consultation with the benefi ciary population. Responses in the form of shelter take account 
of people’s coping strategies an d strengths. In the health sector, the number of players 
involved undermines concerted action and efforts to avoid any negative impact. Joint action, 
for example in schools for repairs and water/ sanitation, has had an additional impact. 
Burundi
: The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the appropriateness of ECHO-
implemented actions in Burundi over the pe riod 2006–2009, in order to establish whether the 
objectives have been achieve d, but focusing mainly on its LRRD strategy. EU assistance 
complied with its general objectives and re sponded to major humanitarian needs in the 
country. However, the evaluation found that one of its partners had continued with free 
distribution of food aid for too long, whereas food or cash for work would have been more 
appropriate and would have proba bly led to better results (regaining self-sufficiency). The 
repatriation and reintegration of 180 000 refugees has not le d to major tension, which is 
considered to be a great success. Many people had feared that such a massive influx of 
refugees could lead to new outbreaks of violen ce. The main reasons justifying the presence of 
ECHO in Burundi are to follow up the repatria tion and reintegration of the approximately 
40 000 refugees still remaining in the camps in Tanzania and of approximately 15 000 
refugees from 1972. At the moment , all these refugees are expected to be repatriated before 
the end of the year (2009). The follow-up of the reintegration process will take at least six months. The evaluation recommended that the Commission maintain a presence in Burundi 
until at least the end of 2011. This will also allo w for an alert for the elections in 2010, which 
some fear might lead to new violence. Th e integrated approach  to repatriation and 
reintegration should continue to be employe d. Together with other stakeholders, the 
Commission should also address the problem of the refugees from 1972 who have remained 
without access to land.  
EN 100   EN DIPECHO programme in the Caribbean : Since 1999, ECHO has implemented six 
DIPECHO Action Plans in the Caribbean, supp orting 66 projects implemented by twenty one 
different NGOs, UN agencies, academic institu tions and government bodies. The evaluation 
covering the last two Action Plans running between 2006 and 2009 concluded that they have 
had a significant impact on the lives of poor co mmunities in vulnerable areas of the region. 
For example, the four hurricanes that hit the island of La Gonave  during August and 
September 2008 were reported to have caused si x deaths in target communities, compared 
with more than twenty-four during similar even ts in 2006. Action plans are relevant given the 
high-risk nature of the region and the focus on addressing needs of vulnerable people in the 
highest-risk communities. This was reinforced by the severe flooding which occurred during 
the time frames of the action plan, affecting all the communities covered by the project in 
Haiti and the Dominican Republic. DIPECHO is , therefore, relevant to communities. 
Moreover, DIPECHO remains relevant, even esse ntial, in that it is one of the very few 
funding sources for DRR initiatives in the region that targets the community level. 
Further details of the evaluations carri ed out can be found on ECHO website at 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policie s/evaluation/intr oduction_en.htm   
3.4. Control of use of funds 
3.4.1.  Internal control 
Correct implementation of EU-funded operations is ensured by several layers of checks at 
various stages of the project cycle fro huma nitarian operations. The main aspects of the 
control strategy developed by the Commission, its supervision and monitoring procedures and 
the ex-ante and ex-post controls  are described below including: 
• Strict selection and quality control mech anisms for partners under the Framework 
Partnership Agreement (FPA) signed with  NGOs and International organisations53 that 
define the financial credentials and expertise required of implementing partners, combined 
with both regular and ad hoc assessments of FP A partners in order to  ensure that these 
requirements are met continuously. Financial management and control requirements for 
UN bodies are defined in the EU-UN Financ ial Administrative Framework Agreement 
(FAFA);  
• Project monitoring by a network of field experts (technical assistants) worldwide. These 
specialists are based in the field in order to facilitate  operations funded by the EU, 
regardless where, and maximise their impact . They closely monitor projects and write 
regular reports. In order to enhance th e rapid reaction capacity and monitoring of 
operations, the number of field experts has gr adually been increased in recent years. 
Currently about 100 field experts are ba sed in the various field offices;  
• Regular field visits to projects by geogra phical desks, auditors and management; 
                                                 
53 Mainly IFRC, ICRC and IOM 
EN 101   EN • An obligation for the partners to provide reports after the end of the operations to justify 
their expenses; 
• A thorough analysis of these reports and checks of eligib le expenditure by both the 
operational and financial desk officers. Various  procedures, such as check-lists and double 
checking, have been set up to ensure that all financial transactions are in line with the 
financial rules, comply with sound financial ma nagement and are recorded correctly in the 
accounting system. Expenditure which is not sufficiently s upported in final reports is 
disallowed and deducted from the final payment; 
• Approximately ten evaluations are undertak en on average each year, focusing on major 
country operations (i.e. operations receivi ng funding totalling about €50 million and which 
have not been evaluated in the last three years) , partners and thematic issues. The results of 
these evaluations can be found on ECHO's website at http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/ evaluation/introduction_en.htm;  
• EU-funded activities implemented by external (p artners and contractors) are subject to a 
financial audit. The audit strategy is based on a two-track approach: audits are performed 
both at partners' headquarters on  a cyclical basis for finalised projects and in the field for 
ongoing projects. 
In 2009, five members of ECHO's audit team and a budget of €2.5 million for contracts with 
external auditors were allocated to audits.  
In 2009, 53 audits were performed at headquarters;  47 field audits were finalised on projects 
under way; 8 office audits were carried out and 4 humanitarian procurement centres were 
assessed. 
Audit recommendations are a valuable channel fo r feed back for improvements to partners’ 
reporting systems. Furthermore, audit findings on the eligibility of expenditures are analysed by Commission officials and appropr iate follow-up action is taken, such as recovery of funds. 
• ECHO also has an internal audit capability  (IAC), which provide s an independent and 
objective opinion on the quality of the internal  control systems and helps the Director-
General and management to control risks and monitor compliance. 
The checks listed above should not be seen in is olation. Each of them c ontributes to providing 
overall reasonable assurance on the legali ty and regularity of the transactions. 
3.4.2.  External control 
The Commission's operations and its financial management in the field of humanitarian 
assistance are further audited by the Intern al Audit Service (IAS) of the European 
Commission and the European Court of Auditors. 
The task of the Internal Audit Service is to audi t the internal control systems that exist within 
the European Commission. In its 2008 annual In ternal Audit Report, the IAS reported on 
implementation of the FAFA. In 2009, the IAS also  audited the financial management of food 
assistance and endorsed without reservati on, the internal control systems audited. 
EN 102   EN The European Court of Auditors audits the EU's finances. Its observations and 
recommendations are published in its annual re port and in special reports to the European 
Parliament and the European Council. 
For the 2008 financial year, the European Court of Auditors concluded that key internal 
controls of the Commission in relation to humanitarian aid were effective except for the internal audit capability whic h had only just been set-up that  year. The Court nevertheless 
noted that 2008 was a transitional year for the IAC and that the full benefit of the new set-up 
was expected in 2009 . 
All Commission departments are accountable to the European Parliame nt and the Council, 
notably in annual reports giving details of their activities. Th eir budget management is also 
continuously audited by the Cour t of Auditors, which reports to  Parliament and the Council. 
Every year, the Parliament and Council give their opinion on the discharge of past budgets. 
Finally, the specialised committ ees of the budget authority exercise control over financial 
management in EU bodies and organise yearly  hearings with the Commissioners concerned 
before deciding on the discharge of the Commission. 
3.5. Co-operation with humanitarian aid's stakeholders 
As in previous years, the Commission maintained an active relationship in the humanitarian 
area with other EU institutions, Member States  and international orga nisations and continued 
to promote respect for international humanitari an law and humanitarian principles (humanity, 
impartiality, non-discrimination and neutrality), particularly in relati on to developments under 
the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It also  ensured that the necessity to respect the 
humanitarian space during emergencies was du ly taken into account in the European and 
international debate. 
3.6. Visibility and communication 
The broad objective of the Commission's communi cation work on humanitari an issues is to 
boost understanding, both in Europe a nd in countries where Commission-funded 
humanitarian operations are implemented , of the practical c ontribution made by 
humanitarian aid to the EU's commitment to solidarity with the world's most vulnerable 
people. The high profile and rapidly moving e nvironment of humanitarian aid means that 
media-oriented activities are central to the stra tegy. The EU is collectively the world's largest 
relief donor, with the Commission managing the ma jority of EU fundi ng in this area. It, 
therefore, plays a leadership  role in communicating the unde rlying values of European 
humanitarian aid. EU citizens strongly support acti on at European level to help crisis victims. 
Humanitarian aid policy theref ore offers a continuing oppor tunity for the Commission to 
'connect' positively with citizens. Effectiv e communication with young people, who are 
generally more receptive, could have longer-term humanita rian benefits.  
Printed publications
 were issued, including leaflets on pr otection of the humanitarian space, 
thematic leaflets entitled "From Relief to De velopment", ECHO Flight, "Humanitarian Aid at 
a Glance", a brochure for children, p hoto-albums, postcards and calendars. 
Audiovisual items  were produced such as reports an d images featuring ECHO-implemented 
actions in crisis zones. 
EN 103   EN Other communication products  included press releases, eye-witness accounts published on the 
ECHO part of the Commission website, new count ry-specific web sectio ns, an annual review 
and a range of other publications. 
Joint communications campaigns were carried  out with major institutional partners  such as (1) 
WFP, with the broadcast of a film on EU-financed WFP activities in Ne pal; (2) UNHCR, with 
a cinema spot in Greece, Ireland and the Nether lands; (3) Save the Children, with a repeat of 
the UK festivals campaign; and (4) WHO/UN ICEF/ACF, with a joint communication 
campaign on mid-upper arm circumference as a measurement of malnutrition following new 
WHO standards. 
Other events  were also organised, such as (1) inte grated awareness-raising campaigns in 
Cyprus and Northern Italy; (2 ) profile-raisin g in the 2009 " Tour de France humanitaire "; (3) 
the Brussels' round table on the impact of clim ate change on humanitarian aid; and (4) the 
ISDR global platform for disast er risk reduction in Geneva. 
3.7. Security and safety issues 
Humanitarian aid organisations operate in difficult environments , typified by unpredictability, 
volatility, insecurity and problems with ga ining access to the people affected. These 
conditions combined with the fact that opera tions are carried out by third parties (ECHO's 
partners) make achievement of policy objectiv es a challenging task. This explains why 
security is a high prio rity for the Commission. 
During 2009, a significant number of violent act s were committed, directly or indirectly, 
against humanitarian aid workers. In particular, there has been an upward trend in the number of incidents involving national/ local NGO staff. These security incidents continued to 
undermine the operational efficiency and effec tiveness of humanitarian partners. Fortunately, 
no significant security-related incidents involv ing Commission headquar ters or field staff 
were recorded despite the increasing number of  missions to hostile environments such as 
Afghanistan, Colombia, Haiti or Sri Lanka and the new Commission deployments in high-risk 
countries and areas, such as the Gaza Strip a nd Pakistan. An increase in the number of 
criminal acts against Commission staff in the field such as burglaries and break-ins was, 
nevertheless, reported during 2009. 
In this context, the Commission continued its efforts to improve the overall security of 
humanitarian aid personnel – be they Commission or partners' sta ff in the field – in order to 
adapt an increasingly volatile and insecure e nvironment. The Commission has established its 
own comprehensive security policy, taking in to account the specif ic of delivery of 
humanitarian aid. 
To respond to the growing security threats,  the Commission set up a security team for 
DG ECHO at the end of 2008. The ove rall purpose is to develop and implement the security 
policies and procedures for relevant staff at  headquarters and in the field, within the 
Commission's security framework. 
Cooperation and co-ordination with  other Commission department s, other EU institutions and 
leading stakeholders are also es sential in order to deliver e ffective security solutions. On 
security-related issues, relations within the Commission and with the Security office of the 
EN 104   EN Council, UNDSS54, ICRC and NGOs' security set-ups  are therefore primarily the 
responsibility of th e Security team. 
Finally, specific security plan s were produced during the year  for all ECHO Offices in the 
field. The security coordinator provided advice a nd support on a wide range of issues such as 
protective security measures, and security pl ans for field offices in high-risk areas. A 
permanently manned security system ensured non-stop 24/7/365 support for security crises. 
The Commission also promoted its security arra ngements in seminars and fora organised by 
international organisations and NGOs. 
3.8. Training 
The EU finances networks and training in the humanitarian field. 
One example is NOHA, the first network of uni versities at European  level dealing with 
development of education on humanitarian action. It seeks greater professionalism among humanitarian workers by providing a solid  intellectual grounding and developing sound 
concepts and principles that would, in turn, le ad to "good practice". It also contributes to 
greater awareness of humanitarian issues amon g the broader public and policy-makers. It has 
been a model for other quality networks. 
The NOHA Master’s programme is an inter-university, multidisciplinary postgraduate 
programme launched in 1993 that provides high-qua lity education and professional skills for 
personnel working or intending to work in the area of international human itarian assistance. 
NOHA takes an interdisciplinary approach, linki ng theory, practice, participatory learning and 
case-based analyses. 
NOHA was developed jointly by the Europ ean Commission under the auspices of the 
Socrates/Erasmus programme. Th e NOHA Master’s programme is the first of its kind in the 
world, bringing together seven uni versities from all over Europe. 
The objectives pursued by this training are: – to pool academic resources a nd cultural traditions in or der to accommodate diverse 
individual, academic and employment need s in the field of humanitarian action; 
– to provide the academic and professional prof iles and skills for personnel working in the 
field of international humanitarian action; 
– to train a team of professionals in the field of humanitarian action who are able to share 
their experience world-wide and harness Euro pe's potential for innovation and social and 
economic development; 
– to contribute to the quality and visibility of  higher education in Europe by implementing a 
well-defined joint Masters programme in seven universities which responds to an academic 
and professional profile within a common fr amework of comparable and compatible 
qualifications in terms of profile, learning outcomes, skills, workload and level (comparable level of intellectual academic endeavour); and 
– to become a world reference as a quality edu cation and training system in the field of 
humanitarian action offering a programme op en to graduates and scholars from third 
                                                
 
54 United Nations Department of Safety and Security 
EN 105   EN countries which allows mobility between th e institutions in the NOHA network and leads 
to a joint Master's degree  in humanitarian action. 
Administration and organisation of the NOHA programme are enti rely in the hands of the 
universities participating. Further informa tion on this training is available at 
http://www.nohanet.org . 
4. ANNEXES  
4.1. Introduction to financial tables 
ECHO implements the part of the EU's general annual budget that is allocated to humanitarian 
aid. Over the last five years, an average of €793 million per year has been committed to 
humanitarian aid. 
Sources of funds for humanitarian assistance  
On the whole, the Commission has two sour ces of funding for human itarian assistance: 
• The general EU budget.  Humanitarian aid falls under Ti tle 23 of the budget, which is 
divided into four lines:  
– the main one which covers humanitarian operations; 
– a line which covers food aid activities from 1 January 2007; 
– a line which covers operational support a nd disaster preparedness operations; and 
– a line for support expenditure.  
• The European Development Fund  which is used for ACP countries.  
To be able to respond rapidly to specific aid requirements created by events which could not 
have been foreseen when the budget was esta blished, the Commission may also call on an 
Emergency Aid Reserve (Title 40) . To mobilise this Emergenc y Aid Reserve, a trilateral 
agreement between the Commission, the Council and Parliament has to be obtained. In the 
case of ACP countries, the Commission also draw s on financial resources available under the 
European Development Fund (EDF), which ha s a provision for emerge ncy and humanitarian 
aid. 
In recent years, the humanitarian  assistance budget has systemati cally been topped up, either 
by the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR), or by transfers from other budget lines under the 
'external aid' heading or, in th e case of ACP countries, by usi ng resources from the European 
Development Fund (B-envelope), ranging fr om €71 million in 2001 to €187 million in 2008. 
In practice, the Commission applies the same pr inciples and guidelines to aid financed from 
the EDF and to aid from the general budget. It uses the Framework Partnership Agreement for 
operations funded from either source. 
 
EN 106   EN 4.2. Financial tables 
1. Budget and decisions for Huma nitarian Aid 1993-2009 (in € '000) 
TOTAL
Food Total BUDGET
Aid Em. Aid Res. Other (Com A ppr.)
1993 171,400 209,000 136,010 516,410 90,180 606,590 604,800 99.7%
1994 266,000 212,000 21,200 499,200 263,770 762,970 764,100 100.1%
1995 256,000 254,500 132,000 642,500 46,455 688,955 694,100 100.7%
1996 321,500 324,000 13,970 659,470 10,380 669,850 656,700 98.0%
1997 315,100 0 122,720 437,820 7,420 445,240 441,600 99.2%
1998 325,100 150,000 5,113 480,213 37,387 517,600 517,642 100.0%
1999 330,850 346,000 50,000 726,850 83,432 810,282 812,910 100.3%
2000 471,050 (2) 0 21,410 492,460 2,850 495,310 491,715 99.3%
2001 473,000 40,000 10,000 523,000 20,750 543,750 543,704 100.0%
2002 441,845 80,000 0 521,845 17,475 539,320 537,790 99.7%
2003 441,690 100,000 44,910 586,600 14,105 600,705 600,349  99.9%
2004 490,000 0 28,184 518,184 52,228 570,412 570,342  100.0%
2005 495,500 130,000 5,156 630,656 23,170 653,826 652,499  99.8%
2006 495,729 140,000 7,561 643,290 28,060 671,350 671,007  99.9%
2007 514,400 217,760 0 8,854 741,014 28,200 769,214 768,530 99.9%
2008 528,020 223,251 177,000 10,477 938,748 0 938,748 936,642 99.8%
2009 547,026 230,025 110,000 7,317 894,368 37,325 931,693 930,450 99.9%
TOTAL 1993-2009 6,884,210 671,036 2,272,500 624,882 10,452,628 763,187 11,215,815 11,194,880 99.8%
AVERAGE YEARS 1993-2009 404,954 223,679 133,676 36,758 614,860 44,893 659,754 658,522 99.8%
AVERAGE LAST 5 YEARS 516,135 223,679 111,400 7,873 769,615 23,351 792,966 791,826 99.9%
(1) Total of chapter B7-21 (lines 210A,210,214,217,219) - As of 01.01.2004 (23.0104 & 23.0201, 23.0202 and 23.0203)
(2) Part of the emergency reserve was transferred to the budget line B7-210. The emergency reserve (line B7-910) was reduced fr om 346 MEUR in 1999 to 203 MEUR in 2000 and the budget in chapter B7-21 was increased by 140 MEUR. It is important to note 
that the budget was not increased - it was only an increase of the chapiter B7-21 (humanitarin aid) with a corresponding decrea se in the chapter B7-91 (emergency aid reserve)YEARHumanitarian 
AidReinforcementsBUDGET COMMISSION  (1)Implementation
rateCOMMITTED 
FUNDSEDF
 
 
EN 107   EN 2. Sources and use of funds 
The total committed under the 2009 budget for ope rational and support expenditure by the end 
of the year was €930 million . The commitments were subdivided into the following categories 
of expenditure: 
– €921 million for operational expenditure. Funds for humanitarian aid operations were drawn 
from four sources : 
• €571 million from the main budget line for humanitarian aid (23.0201); 
• €280 million from the budget line for food aid (23.0202); 
• €33 million from the budget line fo r disaster preparedness (23.0203); 
• €37 million from the 10th EDF (02.10.21.20); plus 
– €9 million for support expenditure  (ex BA line – 23.0104). 
The budget for administrative expenditure,  relating to humanitarian aid policy for 2009 was  
€20 million, which brings the total spent on human itarian assistance (admin istrative expenditure 
included) in 2009 to €950 million. Out of the total funds allocated by the Commission for humanitarian aid, 97% are used directly to fund  humanitarian aid operations, the balance being 
used for support expenditure (1%) an d administrative expenditure (2%).
 
The sources and use of funds  are illustra ted below: 
Funding sources  Categories of expenditure  
Hum Aid 
81%EDF
4%
Adm Budg
2%Revenue
1%Emer-
gency Aid 
Reserve
12%
Operat. 
Exp
97%Admin. 
Exp
2%Support 
Exp
1%
 
 
EN 108   EN 3. Contracts finalised by ECHO in 2009 
Individual legal commitments are made on the ba sis of global commitment s (funding decisions). 
They fall into four main categories: 
– Grants or contributions for humanitarian aid operations – FPA55 or FAFA56 contracts; 
– Grants for studies and training (including NOHA); 
– Service contracts for au dits, evaluation, informa tion, communication, etc. 
– Commitments for experts and im prest accounts where each indi vidual commitment can cover 
several underlying commitments (contracts for e xperts, insurance, various expenditures for 
the imprest account, etc.). 
In 2009, 1 088 individual legal commitments  were signed57 adding up to a total of €844 
million. 
The table below shows the trend in contracts over the last 10 years. 
Number of finalised contracts 1998-2009
1088 113411481086
885926878 89111191214
0200400600800100012001400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
                                                 
55 Framework Partnership Agreement 
56 EC/UN Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement 
57 Commission's Budget: Operational and Support Expenditure + EDF resources 
 
EN 109   EN 4. Sectoral breakdown of activities 
The sectoral breakdown is based on the main area of activity covered by each grant or 
contribution agreement signed by ECHO.  
The largest share of funding ( 38%) is for food and nutrition, ma inly under the specific food aid 
budget line but also for agreements under the ma in budget line which have a substantial food 
component.  
Health and medical support (16%) and water/sa nitation (15%) are the other main areas of 
activity. 
Protection
8%Shelter
6%Disaster 
preparedness
5%
Health, 
Medical, 
Psycho support
16%Water / 
Sanitation
15%Support to 
special 
operations
5%Coordination
3% Transport
2% Other
2%Food, Nutrition, 
therapeutic or 
supp.feeding 
38%
 
 
EN 110   EN 5. Geographical breakdown of funding decisions, 2003-2009 – Global overview 
Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Africa 301,555,000 247,716,500 322,060,000 422,760,000 551,847,000 506,410,000 
SUDAN & CHAD 103,000,000 59,000,000 111,500,000 140,950,000 197,000,000 149,600,000 
Chad  12,000,000 14,000,000 14,500,000 30,500,000 30,000,000 34,000,000 
Sudan  91,000,000 45,000,000 97,000,000 110,450,000 167,000,000 115,600,000 
HORN of AFRICA 48,088,000 40,120,000 64,050,000 77,673,950 167,897,000 173,475,000 
Djibouti     1,400,000   
Eritrea 1,000,000 4,620,000 6,000,000 6 ,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 
Ethiopia 6,998,000 4,500,000 5, 000,000 20,000,000 39, 700,000 51,000,000 
Kenya 3,850,000 2,000,000 9,050,000 9, 000,000 23,500,000 40,000,000 
Somalia 9,150,000 9,000,000 10,00 0,000 18,000,000 43, 797,000 45,000,000 
Uganda 18,620,000 14,000,000 19,000,000 24,673,950 25,500,000 24,475,000 
Regional Drought Decision   15,000,000  30,00 0,000 10,000,000 
Echo-Flight (1) 8,470,000 6,000,000      
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN 
OCEAN 107,690,000 98,750,000 103,250,000 139,900,000 126,200,000 115,035,000 
Angola 8,800,000 2,000,000 3,000,000     
Cameroon     2,000,000   
Burundi (2) 18,990,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 19,500,000 27,500,000 22,000,000 
Central African Republic 470,000   8,000,000 7 ,800,000 2,000,000 
Congo-Brazzaville 2,000,000 2,000,00 0    2,000,000 
Congo (D. R.) 40,000,000 38,000,000 43,000,000 42,500,000 45,550,000 45,000,000 
Gabon        
Madagascar 2,000,000 500,000  5,380,833 1, 500,000 2,800,000 
Malawi  5,000,000      
 
EN 111   EN Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Mozambique — Botswana   2,000,000 7,000,000    
Namibia 1,000,000    350,000   
Tanzania 14,900,000 13,500,000 16,050,00 0 12,000,000    
Zambia 2,000,000 3,500,000 2,200,000 2 ,000,000  1,500,000 
Zimbabwe 15,000,000 15,000,000 12,000,000 30,200, 000 25,000,000 25,000,000 
Regional — .Southern Africa 2,000,000 1,750,000  5,819, 167  5,500,000 
Regional — South-East Africa     3,500,000   
Regional — Great Lakes   1,000,000     
DIPECHO — South-East Africa     5,000,000 735,000 
Echo-Flight  (1) 530,000 500,000 7,000,000 7, 500,000 8,000,000 8,500,000 
(1) Echo-flight was used mostly for Air Operations in the Horn of  Africa but as of 2001 also for Air Operations in Central Afri ca. From 2006, it is only used in Central Africa. For the years up to 2003 a 
detailed breakdown by region was not available in the funding dec ision and the breakdown for these years is therefore indicativ e. 
(2) The regional decisions in 2008 & 2009 for Burundi/Tanzania include the assistance  to Burundese refugees in Tanzania and hav e been included under <Burundi>. 
WEST AFRICA  25,300,000 38,550,000 41,650,000 47,926,050 39,100,000 51,450,000 
Benin  1,050,000      
Burkina Faso        
Guinea      1,300,000   
Guinea Bissau   1,000,000  500,000   
Liberia — Ivory Coast — Nigeria 25,300,000 29,200,000 26,500,000 19,100,000 16,600,000 13,550,000 
Mali — Niger — Mauritania  8,300,000 12,000,000 240, 000 2,000,000 1,900,000 
Senegal    1,086,050    
Regional — Sahel    25,500,000 15, 700,000 31,000,000 
Regional — West Africa (including Epidemics)    2,150,000 2,000,00 0 3,000,000 5,000,000 
 
EN 112   EN Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Eastern Europe, Caucasus, 
Mediterranean, Middle East 93,205,000 87,587,000 183,950,000 124,897,118 152,635,000 121,775,000 
MEDITERRANEAN & MIDDLE EAST 48,855,000 48,887,000 144,900,000 99,090,000 124,860,000 109,475,000 
Algeria        
Iraq crisis    17,800,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 
Morocco 975,000       
Palestinian Territories 37,350,000 34,000,000 84,000,000 60,000,000 73,260,000 66,000,000 
Palestinian refugees (Leb anon, Jordan, Syria)  2,576,000 50,000,000 10,300,000 9,500,000 10,000,000 
Yemen  2,530,000 3,000,000  990,000 2,100,000 2,500,000 
Western Sahara (Sahrawi) 8,000,000 9,311,000 10,900,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,975,000 
EUROPE, CAUCASUS & CENTRAL ASIA 44,350,000 38,700,000 39,050,000 25,807,118 27,775,000 12,300,000 
Caucasus (Chechnya crisis) 28,500,000 26,300,000 26,000,000 20,807,118 11,000,000 6,000,000 
Georgia 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 4,000,000 
Moldova, Republic of     3,000,000 700,000   
Mongolia 1,000,000 900,000      
Tajikistan 8,350,000 6,000,000 5,000,000  750,000 300,000 
DIPECHO — Central Asia 2,500,000 3,500,000 6,050,000  7,325,000 2,000,000 
   
 
EN 113   EN Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Asia, Latin America 134,523,630 267,445,370 118,491,305 157,365,678 192,327,000 231,325,000 
Tsunami 169,630 122,830,370      
SOUTH ASIA  67,284,000 84,000,000 56,300,000 87,555,000 94,257,000 157,500,000 
Afghanistan (Afghan conflict, including aid for 
victims in Iran & Pakistan) 35,160,000 20,000,000 22,500,000 27,000,000 34,800,000 37,000,000 
Pakistan  48,000,000 1,000,000  1,500,000 70,500,000 
Iran 7,661,000       
Bangladesh 5,763,000   9,925,000 20, 501,000 13,000,000 
India 3,000,000  6,000,000 2,630,000 5 ,990,000 7,000,000 
Nepal — Bhutan 4,000,000 6,000,000 7,800,000 6 ,000,000 7,966,000 6,000,000 
Sri Lanka 6,500,000 4,000,000 12,00 0,000 15,000,000 19, 000,000 14,000,000 
Regional (India, Nepal, Bangladesh)    19,500,000 4,500,000   
DIPECHO — South Asia 5,200,000 6,000,000 7,000,00 0 7,500,000  10,000,000 
SOUTH EAST & EAST ASIA 48,870,000 38,415,000 37,591,305 29,745,695 64,000,000 45,500,000 
Burma — Myanmar — Thailand 19,720,000 16,500,000 15,700,000 19,000,000 39,000, 000 18,500,000 
Cambodia 3,500,000 2,000,000      
China 2,000,000    2,000,000   
East Timor 250,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000   
Indonesia 3,500,000 2,000,000 9,867,000 1,600,000 2 ,000,000 4,500,000 
Laos 1,500,000 1,200,000    1,500,000 
North Korea 16,750,000 13,715,000 8 ,000,000 2,000,000    
Philippines 1,650,000 500,000 564,305 2,145,695 6, 500,000 12,000,000 
Vietnam   460,000 2,000,000    
Vietnam — Cambodia — Laos     2,500,000 9,000,000 
DIPECHO — South East Asia     10,000,000   
 
EN 114   EN Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
LATIN AMERICA 18,200,000 22,200,000 24,600,000 40,064,983 34,070,000 28,325,000 
Bolivia     1,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000   
Colombia 8,500,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 12,500,000 12,000,000 
Cuba 1,000,000     2,000,000 
Ecuador   1,000,000  2,000,000   
Guatemala   2,600,000   1,325,000 
Honduras    500,000 1,000,000   
Honduras — Guatemala     1,170,000   
Nicaragua    6,000,000    
Paraguay    1,500,000 1,400,000   
Peru    10,064,983 1,000,000   
Regional — Central America  5,700,000 2,000,000   1,000,000 
Regional — South America 2,700,000    2,000,000   
DIPECHO — Andean Communities / Peru  4,500,000  6,500,000  2,000,000 
DIPECHO — South-East and Central America 6,000,000  6,000,000 1,500,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 
CARIBBEAN  17,477,000 11,096,500 1,610,000 15,760,000 21,650,000 14,000,000 
Bahamas 480,000       
Comoros  1,100,000      
Dominican Republic 1,600,000  250,000  250,000   
Grenada 2,250,000       
Haiti 11,197,000  160,000 4,500,000 16, 000,000 7,000,000 
Jamaica 1,200,000       
St Vincent & Grenadines 750,000       
Suriname   700,000  400,000   
Regional — Caribbean  6,496,500 500,000 7 ,260,000 5,000,000  
DIPECHO — Caribbean  3,500,000  4,000, 000  7,000,000  
 
EN 115   EN Country/Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
PACIFIC   200,000   550,000   2,850,000 
Solomon Island    550,000    
Papua New Guinea  200,000    650,000 
Regional — Pacific      700,000 
DIPECHO — Pacific      1,500,000 
              
THEMATIC FUNDING / CAPACITY BUILDING 19,430,000 20,500,000 19,500,000 27,500,000 2,534,000 25,200,000 
Protection of refugees (UNHCR)  5,000,000 4,000,000     
Response co-ordination strengthening 
(OCHA) 4,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 3,500,000  1,770,000 
Protection of victims of armed conflicts (ICRC)  4,000,000 3,000,000     
Protection of children and women (UNICEF) 2,000,000  1,800,000 1,500,000  4,800,000 
Preparedness and response capacity to hum. crises (UNICEF) 5,430,000  4,200,000 4,500,000    
Humanitarian logistic capacities/Response (WFP)    4,300,000  4,830,000 
Emergency Shelter Cluster (UNHCR)    900,000    
Response to Natural Disasters (IFRC)  3,500,000  4,000,000  4,500,000 
Support Health Emergencies (WHO) 3,500,000 4,000,000  4,300,000  4,300,000 
Assessing Emergency Needs in food security 
(WFP) 4,500,000  3,500,000 4,500,000 2,534,000 980,000 
Food security response (FAO)       4,020,000 
DREF DECISION     2,000,000   
GRANTS AND SERVICES   1,000,000 1,400,000 2,300,000 4,500,000 
              
 
EN 116   EN OTHER EXPENDITURE 21,628,000 29,250,000 26,005,667 34,607,038 32,998,941 41,239,710 
Experts 13,500,000 18,750,000 14,350,000 20,500,000 19,670,000 19,600,000 
Regional Imprest Accounts — Regional 
offices  (3) 1,800,000 4,000,000 4,650,000 4,900,000 5,330,000 12,500,000 
Support Expenditure (audit, evaluation, information, etc) 6,328,000 6,500,000 6,188,894 8,900,262 7,812,327 8,575,485 
Use of re-assigned revenue   816,773 306,776 186,614 564,225 
(3) Until 2008, the budget for the Imprest accounts for a country/r egion was often part of the c ountry funding decisions. As of  2009, all these budgets are consolidated in 1 funding decision. 
             
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION 2004-
2009 570,341,630 652,498,870 671,006,972 768,529,834 936,641,941 930,449,710 
 
 
EN 117   EN 6. Funding decisions for humanitarian ai d in 2009 (by country/area in decision) 
Country/sub-region Decisions in € Country/sub-region Decisions in € Country/sub-region Decisions in €
AFRICA, CARIBBEAN, PACIFI C 497,175,000 EASTERN EUROPE / CAUCASUS 10,300,000 LATIN AMERICA 16,325,000
Burundi  (+refugees in Tanzania) 22,000,000 Georgia 4,000,000 Colombia 12,000,000
Central African Republic 2,000,000 Northern Caucasus (Chechnya crisis) 6,000,000 Cuba 2,000,000
Chad 34,000,000 Tajikistan 300,000 Guatemala 1,325,000
Congo 2,000,000 Regional Central America 1,000,000
Congo (Democratic Republic) 53,500,000 MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA 109,475,000
Eritrea 3,000,000 Western Sahara (Sahrawi) 10,975,000 DIPECHO 33,235,000
Ethiopia 51,000,000 Iraq crisis 20,000,000 South America 10,000,000
Haiti 7,000,000 Middle East (Palestinian population) 66,000,000 Southern Caucasus 2,000,000
Kenya 40,000,000 Middle East (Lebanon) 6,000,000 South Asia 10,000,000
Liberia 12,000,000 Syria 4,000,000 Southern Africa 735,000
Madagascar 2,800,000 Yemen 2,500,000 Caribbean 7,000,000
Niger 1,900,000 Peru 2,000,000
Nigeria 1,550,000 ASIA 193,000,000 Pacific 1,500,000
Papua New Guinea 650,000 Afghanistan 37,000,000
Sahel 31,000,000 Bangladesh 13,000,000 Capacity Building 25,200,000
Somalia 45,000,000 India 7,000,000 Capacity building 25,200,000
Sudan 115,600,000 Indonesia 4,500,000
Uganda 24,475,000 Laos 1,500,000 Other funding 36,600,000
Zambia 1,500,000 Myanmar (Burma)/Thailand 18,500,000 Technical assistance 32,100,000
Zimbabwe 25,000,000 Nepal 6,000,000 Grants and Services 4,500,000
Regional West Africa 5,000,000 Pakistan 70,500,000
Regional Pacific 700,000 Ph ilippines 12,000,000
Regional Southern Africa 5,500,000 Sri Lanka 14,000,000
Regional Drought Preparedness 10,000,000 Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia 9,000,000Total ECHO funding 2009 921,310,000
 
 
EN 118   EN 7. ECHO's humanitarian assistance implementing partners 
7.1. List of contracts for humanitarian aid operations 
Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
ACF - FRA ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM, (FR) NGO FRANCE 18,285,941.00 2.19% 
ACH- ESP ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE, (ESP) NGO SPAIN 13,226,321.00 1.58% 
ACP ASAMBLEA DE COOPERACION POR LA PAZ, (E) NGO SPAIN 1,115,422.08 0.13% 
ACSUR - MADRID Asociación para la Cooperación con el Sur “LAS SEGOVIAS” NGO SPAIN 350 000.00 0.04% 
ACTED AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION TE CHNIQUE ET AU DEVELOPPEMENT, (FR) NGO FRANCE 9,456,190.00 1.13% 
ACTIONAID ACTIONAID NGO UNITED KINGDOM 5,231,520.00 0.63% 
ADRA - DEU Adventistische Entwicklungs- und Katastrophenhilfe e.V. NGO GERMANY 2,661,815.61 0.32% 
ADRA - DK ADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF AGENCY - DENMARK NGO DENMARK 500 000.00 0.06% 
AGA KHAN AGA KHAN FOUNDATION (United Kingdom) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 1,256,602.00 0.15% 
AMI - FRA AIDE MEDICALE INTERNATIONALE, (FR) NGO FRANCE 4,476,765.00 0.54% 
AMI - PRT FUNDAÇÃO DE ASSISTÊNCIA MÉDICA INTERNACIONAL, (PT) NGO PORTUGAL 139,612.00 0.02% 
ASB - DEU ARBEITER-SAMARITER-BUND DEUTSCHLAND e.V. NGO GERMANY 261,090.00 0.03% 
ASF-BELGIUM Aviation sans Frontières Belgique/Piloten zonder Grenzen België NGO BELGIUM 699,047.90 0.08% 
AVSI ASSOCIAZIONE VOLONTARI PER IL SERVIZIO INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) NGO ITALY 1,858,284.39 0.22% 
BIOFORCE Institut Bioforce Développement Rhône Alpes NGO FRANCE 64,038.00 0.01% 
CAFOD CATHOLIC AGENCY FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 300 000.00 0.04% 
CAM COMITE D'AIDE MEDICALE NGO FRANCE 814,881.00 0.10% 
 
EN 119   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
CARE - AUT CARE ÖSTERREICH - VEREIN FÜR ENTWICKLUNGSZUSAMMENARBEIT UND 
HUMANITÄRE HILFE NGO AUSTRIA 8,271,561.16 0.99% 
CARE - DEU CARE INTERNATIONAL DEUTSCHLAND E.V. (DEU) NGO GERMANY 4,324,733.00 0.52% 
CARE - FR CARE FRANCE, (FR) NGO FRANCE 1,589,634.00 0.19% 
CARE NEDERLAND 
(FORMER DRA) Stichting CARE Nederland NGO NETHERLANDS 2,075 000.00 0.25% 
CARE - UK CARE INTERNATIONAL UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 2,154,005.00 0.26% 
CARITAS - AUT CARITAS AUSTRIA, (AUT) NGO AUSTRIA 500 000.00 0.06% 
CARITAS - BEL CARITAS INTERNATIONAL NGO BELGIUM 300 000.00 0.04% 
CARITAS - CZE CHARITA CESKA REPUBLIKA NGO CZECH REPUBLIC 130 000.00 0.02% 
CARITAS - DEU DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND e.V, (DEU) NGO GERMANY 3,310,799.00 0.40% 
CARITAS - FRA CARITAS FRANCE - SECOURS CATHOLIQUE, (FR) NGO FRANCE 1,740 000.00 0.21% 
CESVI CESVI NGO ITALY 954,083.00 0.11% 
CHRISTIAN AID - UK CHRISTIAN AID (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 1,791,190.00 0.21% 
CISP COMITATO INTERNAZIONALE PER LO SVILUPPO DEI POPOLI (ITA) NGO ITALY 961,415.58 0.12% 
CONCERN UNIVERSAL CONCERN UNIVERSAL (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 359,689.00 0.04% 
CONCERN WORLDWIDE CONCERN WORLDWIDE, (IRL) NGO IRELAND 5,016,661.56 0.60% 
COOPI COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) NGO ITALY 8,202,705.00 0.98% 
CORDAID CATHOLIC ORGANISATION FOR RELI EF AND DEVELOPMENT AID (NLD) NGO NETHERLANDS 5,512,845.00 0.66% 
COSV - MILAN COMITATO DI COORDINAMENTO DELLE ORGANIZZAZIONI PER IL SERVIZIO 
VOLONTARIO (ITA) NGO ITALY 1,041,200.00 0.12% 
CRIC CENTRO REGIONALE D INTERVENTO PER LA COOPERAZIONE (ITA) NGO ITALY 1,030 000.00 0.12% 
CROIX-ROUGE - AUT OESTERREICHISCHES ROTES KR EUZ (CROIX ROUGE), (AUT) NGO AUSTRIA 667,954.00 0.08% 
 
EN 120   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
CROIX-ROUGE - BEL BELGISCHE RODE KRUIS/CROIX ROUGE DE BELGIQUE, (BEL) NGO BELGIUM 1,488,393.14 0.18% 
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU DEUTSCHES ROTES KREUZ, (DEU) NGO GERMANY 1,482,167.00 0.18% 
CROIX-ROUGE - DNK DANSK RODE KORS, (DNK) NGO DENMARK 2,219,749.00 0.27% 
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP CRUZ ROJA ESPAÑOLA, (E) NGO SPAIN 3,405,527.40 0.41% 
CROIX-ROUGE - FIN SUOMEN PUNAINEN RISTI (C ROIX ROUGE FINLANDAISE) NGO FINLAND 1,689,406.00 0.20% 
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA CROIX-ROUGE FRANCAISE NGO FRANCE 7,819,773.23 0.94% 
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD HET NEDERLANDSE RODE KRUIS (NLD) NGO NETHERLANDS 2,115,417.00 0.25% 
CROIX-ROUGE - NOR NORGES RODE KORS (NORWEGIAN RED CROSS) NGO NORWAY 411,998.00 0.05% 
DAC AVIATION INTL DAC Aviation International Limited SUP CANADA 8,500 000.00 1.02% 
DANCHURCHAID - DNK FOLKEKIRKENS NODHJAELP, (FKN) NGO DENMARK 4,790,534.50 0.57% 
DIAKONIE DIAKONISCHES WERK der Evangeli schen Kirche in Deutschland (DEU) NGO GERMANY 1,175 000.00 0.14% 
DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU) JOHANNITER-UNFALL-HILFE e.V. (DEU) NGO GERMANY 450 000.00 0.05% 
DRC DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP NGO DENMARK 8,894,498.00 1.07% 
ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office EC   32,893,029.01 3.94% 
EMDH ENFANTS DU MONDE - DROITS DE L'HOMME NGO FRANCE 236,691.00 0.03% 
FAO UNITED NATIONS - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION UN INTERNATIONAL 22,169,249.00 2.66% 
FSD__573 Fondation Suisse de Déminage (FSD) NGO SWITZERLAND 368,247.00 0.04% 
GCIDS GREEK COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY, (GRC) NGO GREECE 400 000.00 0.05% 
GERMAN AGRO ACTION DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE e.V. NGO GERMANY 8,757,626.00 1.05% 
GLOBAL NETWORK Global Network of Civil Society Or ganisations for Disaster Reduction NGO UNITED KINGDOM 135 000.00 0.02% 
 
EN 121   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
GOAL GOAL, (IRL) NGO IRELAND 5,577,704.00 0.67% 
GVC GRUPPO DI VOLONTARIATO CIVILE (ITA) NGO ITALY 1,650 000.00 0.20% 
HALO TRUST THE HALO TRUST (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 500 000.00 0.06% 
HANDICAP (BEL) HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL (BEL) NGO BELGIUM 555,500.00 0.07% 
HANDICAP (FR) HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL (FR) NGO FRANCE 4,268,168.00 0.51% 
HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership NGO SWITZERLAND 100 000.00 0.01% 
HEALTH UNLIMITED Health Limited (Trading as NGO UNITED KINGDOM 217,050.00 0.03% 
HELP HELP- HILFE ZUR SELBSTHILFE E.V. (DEU) NGO GERMANY 5,967,594.01 0.71% 
HELPAGE 
INTERNATIONAL - UK HELPAGE INTERNATIONAL (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 150 000.00 0.02% 
HILFSWERK AUSTRIA HILFSWERK AUSTRIA NGO AUSTRIA 150 000.00 0.02% 
HOPE´87 HOPE''87 - HUNDREDS OF ORIGINAL  PROJECTS FOR EMPLOYMENT NGO AUSTRIA 399,663.00 0.05% 
ICCO Interkerkelijke Organisatie voor  Ontwikkelingssamenwerking NGO NETHERLANDS 5,500 000.00 0.66% 
ICMC THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION (CHE) NGO SWITZERLAND 1,060,292.00 0.13% 
ICRC-CICR COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE (CICR) IO SWITZERLAND 82,155,065.00 9.84% 
IFRC-FICR FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES SOCIETES DE LA CROIX-ROUGE ET DU 
CROISSANT ROUGE IO SWITZERLAND 13,599,300.00 1.63% 
IMC UK International Medical Corps UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 3,286,408.00 0.39% 
INITIATIVE 
DEVELOPPEMENT INITIATIVE DEVELOPPEMENT NGO FRANCE 330,915.00 0.04% 
INTERMON INTERMON OXFAM, (E) NGO SPAIN 2,930,327.00 0.35% 
IOM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (INT) IO SWITZERLAND 14,240,825.63 1.71% 
IRC - UK International Rescue Committee UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 8,704,572.00 1.04% 
 
EN 122   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
IRD Islamic Relief Humanitäre Organisation in Deutschland e.V. NGO GERMANY 400 000.00 0.05% 
ISLAMIC RELIEF ISLAMIC RELIEF WORLDWIDE NGO UNITED KINGDOM 3,378,300.00 0.40% 
MADERA-FR MISSION D'AIDE AU DEVELOPPEM ENT DES ECONOMIES RURALES  NGO FRANCE 1,782,273.00 0.21% 
MAF Mission Aviation Fellowship International NGO UNITED KINGDOM 700,480.00 0.08% 
MALTESER HILFSDIENST MALTESER HILFSDIENST e.V., (DEU) NGO GERMANY 4,862,800.00 0.58% 
MAP MEDICAL AID FOR PALESTINIANS (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 250 000.00 0.03% 
MAPACT MapAction NGO UNITED KINGDOM 21,436.00 0.00% 
MDM - ESP MEDICOS DEL MUNDO ESPAÑA NGO SPAIN 249,978.45 0.03% 
MDM - FRA MEDECINS DU MONDE NGO FRANCE 6,775,855.00 0.81% 
MDM - GRC MEDECINS DU MONDE, (GRC) NGO GREECE 640 000.00 0.08% 
MEDAIR CH Medair NGO SWITZERLAND 4,327,496.46 0.52% 
MERCY CORPS 
SCOTLAND MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 6,399,440.00 0.77% 
MERLIN MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 12,759,320.00 1.53% 
MISSION OST - DNK MISSION OST NGO DENMARK 676,649.00 0.08% 
MPDL MOVIMIENTO POR LA PAZ, EL DESARME Y LA LIBERTAD, (E) NGO SPAIN 707 000.00 0.08% 
MSF - BEL MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES BELGIQUE/ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN 
BELGIE(BEL) NGO BELGIUM 5,900 000.00 0.71% 
MSF - CHE MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES - SUISSE (CH) NGO SWITZERLAND 4,631,800.00 0.55% 
MSF - ESP MEDICOS SIN FRONTERAS, (E) NGO SPAIN 2,810,562.00 0.34% 
MSF - FRA MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES (F) NGO FRANCE 3,465,108.00 0.42% 
MSF - NLD ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN (NLD) NGO NETHERLANDS 5,712 000.00 0.68% 
 
EN 123   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
MUSLIMAID Muslim Aid NGO UNITED KINGDOM 1,550 000.00 0.19% 
NOHA NETWORK ON HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE EDU SPAIN 500 000.00 0.06% 
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE 
COUNCIL NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NOR) NGO NORWAY 9,387,108.00 1.12% 
OCHA UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS UN INTERNATIONAL 12,726,460.00 1.52% 
OIKOS OIKOS - COOPERAÇÃO E DESENVOLVIMENTO NGO PORTUGAL 300 000.00 0.04% 
OXFAM - BEL OXFAM-Solidarite(it), (BEL) NGO BELGIUM 2,710 000.00 0.32% 
OXFAM - UK OXFAM (GB) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 27,781,746.00 3.33% 
PA_05 PRACTICAL ACTION NGO UNITED KINGDOM 710,889.20 0.09% 
PAHO UNITED NATIONS - PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION UN INTERNATIONAL 1,599,719.00 0.19% 
PEOPLE IN NEED Clovek v tísni, o.p.s. NGO CZECH REPUBLIC 1,094,488.00 0.13% 
PIPA People in Peril Association NGO SLOVAKIA 45 000.00 0.01% 
PLAN GERMANY Plan International Deutschland e.V. NGO GERMANY 300 000.00 0.04% 
PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK PLAN INTERNATIONAL (UK) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 1,622,207.00 0.19% 
PMU INTERLIFE PMU INTERLIFE/PINGST FFS NGO SWEDEN 1,190 000.00 0.14% 
PREMIERE URGENCE PREMIERE URGENCE, (FR) NGO FRANCE 5,877,058.00 0.70% 
PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-
FERRAND PHARMACIENS SANS FRONTIERES COMITE INTERNATIONAL NGO FRANCE 406,883.00 0.05% 
PTM FUNDACIÓN MUNDUBAT, (E) NGO SPAIN 2,050 000.00 0.25% 
REDR RedR - Engineers for Disaster Relief NGO UNITED KINGDOM 129,724.00 0.02% 
RI-UK Relief International-UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 897,956.00 0.11% 
SAVE THE CHILDREN - 
NLD SAVE THE CHILDREN (NLD) NGO NETHERLANDS 2,129,063.43 0.26% 
 
EN 124   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount 
Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK THE SAVE THE CHILDRE N FUND (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 18,336,176.00 2.20% 
SCD-RB Red Barnet NGO DENMARK 500 000.00 0.06% 
SI SOLIDARIDAD INTERNACIONAL, (E) NGO SPAIN 550 000.00 0.07% 
SIF-FR SECOURS ISLAMIQUE FRANCE NGO FRANCE 280,438.00 0.03% 
SOLIDARITES SOLIDARITES, (FR) NGO FRANCE 6,679,731.00 0.80% 
SOS KINDERDORF INT. SOS-KINDERDORF INTERNATIONAL (AUT) NGO AUSTRIA 963,125.00 0.12% 
STCH Fundación Save The Children NGO SPAIN 610 000.00 0.07% 
TEARFUND - UK TEARFUND (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 2,914,681.00 0.35% 
TERRE DES HOMMES - 
CHE TERRE DES HOMMES-CHE NGO SWITZERLAND 3,550,781.00 0.43% 
TERRE DES HOMMES 
(TDH) - ITA FONDAZIONE TERRE DES HOMMES ITALIA ONLUS NGO ITALY 832,408.00 0.10% 
TRIANGLE TRIANGLE Génération Humanitaire, (FR) NGO FRANCE 2,875 000.00 0.34% 
TSF, FRANCE TELECOMS SANS FRONTIERES NGO FRANCE 265 000.00 0.03% 
UCODEP__298 Unity and Cooperation for Development of Peoples NGO ITALY 700 000.00 0.08% 
UNDP-PNUD UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME UN INTERNATIONAL 7,097,251.13 0.85% 
UNESCO UNESCO UN INTERNATIONAL 499,891.00 0.06% 
UNFPA UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND UN INTERNATIONAL 802,862.60 0.10% 
UNHCR UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES - BELGIUM UN INTERNATIONAL 53,544 000.00 6.41% 
UNICEF UNICEF UN INTERNATIONAL 39,564,412.00 4.74% 
UNRWA UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN 
NEAR EAST UN INTERNATIONAL 16,330 000.00 1.96% 
VOICE ASBL VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS IN COOPERATION IN EMERGENCIES NGO BELGIUM 135 000.00 0.02% 
 
EN 125   EN Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's nationality Amount Contracts % on the total 
of operations 
VSF - BE Vétérinaires Sans Frontières- Belgique - Dierenartsen Zonder Grenzen - Belgie um NGO BELGIUM 963,853.00 0.12% 
VSF G Tierärzte ohne Grenzen e.V. NGO GERMANY 2,144,690.00 0.26% 
VSF-SUISSE Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse NGO SWITZERLAND 530 000.00 0.06% 
WFP-PAM WORLD FOOD PROGRAM UN INTERNATIONAL 146,373,762.00 17.53% 
WHO WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION - ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE UN INTERNATIONAL 10,960,242.00 1.31% 
WORLD VISION DEU WORLD VISION, (DEU) NGO GERMANY 4,342,946.00 0.52% 
WORLD VISION - UK WORLD VISION - UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 1 000 000.00 0.12% 
ZOA ZOA-Vluchtelingenzorg NGO NETHERLANDS 655 000.00 0.08% 
TOTAL: 834,836,743 100.00% 
 
EN 126   EN 7.2. List of contracts for humanitaria n aid operations – Top 25 partners 
Partner's short name Partner's long name Partner's 
category Partner's 
nationality Amount 
Contracts % total of 
operations Cumul % 
WFP-PAM WORLD FOOD PROGRAM UN INTERNATIONAL 146,373,762.00 17.52% 17.52% 
ICRC-CICR COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE (CICR) IO SWITZERLAND 82,155,065.00 9.84% 27.36% 
UNHCR UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES - BELGIUM UN INTERNATIONAL 53,544 000.00 6.41% 33.77% 
UNICEF UNICEF UN INTERNATIONAL 39,564,412.00 4.74% 38.50% 
OXFAM - UK OXFAM (GB) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 27,781,746.00 3.33% 41.83% 
FAO UNITED NATIONS - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION UN INTERNATIONAL 22,169,249.00 2.65% 44.48% 
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK THE SAVE THE CHILDRE N FUND (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 18,336,176.00 2.20% 46.68% 
ACF - FRA ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM, (FR) NGO FRANCE 18,285,941.00 2.19% 48.87% 
UNRWA UN RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN NEAR EAST UN INTERNATIONAL 16,330 000.00 1.95% 50.82% 
IOM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (INT) IO SWITZERLAND 14,240,825.63 1.70% 52.53% 
IFRC-FICR FEDERATION INTERNAT. DES SOCIETES DE LA CROIX-ROUGE ET DU CROISSANT 
ROUGEIO SWITZERLAND 13,599,300.00 1.63% 54.16% 
ACH- ESP ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE, (ESP) NGO SPAIN 13,226,321.00 1.58% 55.74% 
MERLIN MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL (GBR) NGO UNITED KINGDOM 12,759,320.00 1.53% 57.27% 
OCHA UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS UN INTERNATIONAL 12,726,460.00 1.52% 58.79% 
WHO WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION - ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE UN INTERNATIONAL 10,960,242.00 1.31% 60.10% 
ACTED AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION TE CHNIQUE ET AU DEVELOPPEMENT, (FR) NGO FRANCE 9,456,190.00 1.13% 61.23% 
NORWEGIAN REF. COUNCIL NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NOR) NGO NORWAY 9,387,108.00 1.12% 62.36% 
DRC DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP NGO DENMARK 8,894,498.00 1.06% 63.42% 
GERMAN AGRO ACTION DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE e.V. NGO GERMANY 8,757,626.00 1.05% 64.47% 
IRC - UK International Rescue Committee UK NGO UNITED KINGDOM 8,704,572.00 1.04% 65.51% 
DAC AVIATION INTL DAC Aviation International Limited SUP CANADA 8,500 000.00 1.02% 66.53% 
CARE - AUT CARE ÖSTERREICH-VEREIN FÜR ENTWICKLUNGSZUSAMMENARBEIT UND 
HUMANIT HILFENGO AUSTRIA 8,271,561.16 0.99% 67.52% 
COOPI COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) NGO ITALY 8,202,705.00 0.98% 68.50% 
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA CROIX-ROUGE FRANCAISE NGO FRANCE 7,819,773.23 0.94% 69.44% 
UNDP-PNUD UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME UN INTERNATIONAL 7,097,251.13 0.85% 70.29% 
TOTAL TOP 25 PARTNERS: 587,144,104 70.29% 
 
EN 127   EN 7.3. Contracts by category and nationality of partners 
NGOs 
Nationality of partner TOTAL % ALL % NGOs 
UNITED KINGDOM 102,538,391 12.28% 27.62% 
FRANCE 77,490,342 9.28% 20.87% 
GERMANY 40,441,261 4.84% 10.89% 
SPAIN 28,005,138 3.35% 7.54% 
NETHERLANDS 23,699,325 2.84% 6.38% 
DENMARK 17,581,431 2.11% 4.74% 
ITALY 17,230,096 2.06% 4.64% 
SWITZERLAND 14,568,616 1.75% 3.92% 
BELGIUM 12,751,794 1.53% 3.43% 
AUSTRIA 10,952,303 1.31% 2.95% 
IRELAND 10,594,366 1.27% 2.85% 
NORWAY 9,799,106 1.17% 2.64% 
FINLAND 1,689,406 0.20% 0.46% 
CZECH REPUBLIC 1,224,488 0.15% 0.33% 
SWEDEN 1,190 000 0.14% 0.32% 
GREECE 1,040 000 0.12% 0.28% 
PORTUGAL 439,612 0.05% 0.12% 
SLOVAKIA 45 000 0.01% 0.01% 
SUBTOTAL NGOs 371,280,675 44.47% 100.00% 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 
IOs 109,995,191 13.18%   
UNITED NATIONS 
UN 311,667,849 37.33%   
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY 
CANADA 8,500 000 1.02%   
UNIVERSITIES 
NOHA 500 000 0.06%   
ECHO - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
EC - ECHO 32,893,029 3.94%   
GRAND TOTAL 834,836,743 100.00%   
 
EN 128   EN 7.4. List of contracts for human itarian aid operations in 2009 – by beneficiary country and 
implementing partners 
AFGHANISTAN 35,270,296 CONCERN UNIVERSAL 359,689
ACF - FRA 1,739,814 CONCERN WORLDWIDE 950,000ACTED 3,430,557 DANCHURCHAID - DNK 1,000,000ACTIONAID 1,800,175 IFRC-FICR 373,000AGA KHAN 351,540 ISLAMIC RELIEF 1,882,000CARITAS - DEU 632,332 MSF - NLD 600,000DRC 1,503,040 MUSLIMAID 1,550,000EMDH 236,691 OXFAM - UK 1,457,100GERMAN AGRO ACTION 860,000 PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK 310,000ICRC-CICR 6,100,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,150,000IFRC-FICR 406,300 SOLIDARITES 400,000IRC - UK 863,154 WFP-PAM 2,000,000MADERA-FR 1,782,273 BELIZE 411,998
MAF 700,480 CROIX-ROUGE - NOR 411,998MEDAIR CH 1,413,496 BHUTAN 486,355
MISSION OST - DNK 450,000 UNDP-PNUD 486,355NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 1,508,000 BOLIVIA 1,895,000
OCHA 2,000,000 ACH- ESP 370,000PEOPLE IN NEED 1,094,488 COOPI 595,000RI-UK 347,956 FAO 150,000SOLIDARITES 1,600,000 OXFAM - UK 420,000UNHCR 6,450,000 STCH 360,000ALGERIA 9,065,000 BURKINA FASO 9,287,021MDM - GRC 640,000 ACF - FRA 1,002,380MPDL 157,000 CROIX-ROUGE - BEL 988,565OXFAM - BEL 1,450,000 FAO 399,875PTM 1,750,000 HELP 2,744,908TRIANGLE 900,000 IFRC-FICR 570,000UNICEF 100,000 INTERMON 260,000WFP-PAM 3,825,000 MSF - FRA 700,000WHO 243,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 950,000ARGENTINA 623,000 TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 974,531
CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 360,000 UNICEF 327,000
UNDP-PNUD 263,000 WFP-PAM 369,762
AZERBAIJAN 800,000 BURUNDI 12,900,000
DRC 300,000 AVSI 250,000
UNHCR 500,000 CARITAS - BEL 300,000
BANGLADESH 15,030,200 CARITAS - DEU 1,400,000
ACF - FRA 780,000 CORDAID 200,000ACTIONAID 1,418,411 CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 200,000CARE - UK 500,000 FAO 1,500,000CHRISTIAN AID - UK 300,000 GVC 750,000
 
 
EN 129   EN ICRC-CICR 800,000 COLOMBIA 11,415,353
IMC UK 250,000 ACH- ESP 700,000
SOLIDARITES 650,000 CISP 211,416UNHCR 3,900,000 CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 650,537UNICEF 700,000 CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 670,000
WFP-PAM 2,000,000 CROIX-ROUGE - NLD 353,400
CAMBODIA 580,000 DIAKONIE 800,000
CONCERN WORLDWIDE 80,000 FAO 200,000OXFAM - UK 500,000 HELPAGE INTERNATIONAL - UK 150,000
CAPE VERDE 283,862 HILFSWERK AUSTRIA 150,000
AMI - PRT 83,862 ICRC-CICR 3,500,000
WHO 200,000 MDM - FRA 300,000
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 4,724,308 MPDL 250,000
ACF - FRA 370,335 OCHA 250,000
ICRC-CICR 500,000 OXFAM - UK 350,000
MSF - FRA 350,000 PAHO 200,000MSF - NLD 400,000 PLAN GERMANY 300,000OCHA 200,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 230,000PREMIERE URGENCE 600,000 SI 550,000
TRIANGLE 275,000 UNHCR 900,000
UNICEF 1,528,973 WFP-PAM 700,000WFP-PAM 500,000 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF 53,496,701
CHAD 34,257,145 ACH- ESP 1,446,158
ACF - FRA 2,813,000 ACTED 1,500,000
ACTED 1,252,260 AMI - FRA 1,700,000
ASF-BELGIUM 699,048 AVSI 404,916CARE - FR 791,243 CARITAS - FRA 700,000COOPI 1,262,520 DAC AVIATION INTL 8,500,000
FAO 737,000 DIAKONIE 375,000
HELP 625,736 FAO 3,772,636ICRC-CICR 3,000,000 HANDICAP (BEL) 255,500IMC UK 600,000 ICRC-CICR 4,500,000INTERMON 1,387,316 IRC - UK 626,583
IRC - UK 1,211,908 MALTESER HILFSDIENST 2,199,000
MSF - FRA 335,108 MEDAIR CH 604,000OCHA 500,000 MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 842,276OXFAM - UK 612,178 MERLIN 1,000,000PREMIERE URGENCE 1,000,000 MSF - BEL 3,350,000
SOLIDARITES 1,025,600 NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 298,563
UNFPA 504,228 OCHA 1,250,000UNHCR 5,700,000 OXFAM - BEL 460,000WFP-PAM 9,800,000 OXFAM - UK 2,555,011
WHO 400,000 PMU INTERLIFE 450,000
 
 
EN 130   EN PREMIERE URGENCE 1,807,058 OXFAM - UK 2,074,307
UNHCR 2,000,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,848,645UNICEF 3,900,000 WFP-PAM 14,000,000WFP-PAM 9,000,000 WORLD VISION - UK 1,000,000COTE D'IVOIRE 240,000 FIJI 250,000UNICEF 240,000 UNICEF 250,000CUBA 2,540,000 GEORGIA 4,500,000ACSUR - MADRID 350,000 CARE - AUT 505,000HANDICAP (BEL) 300,000 DRC 250,000MPDL 300,000 HALO TRUST 500,000OIKOS 300,000 ICRC-CICR 1,000,000OXFAM - BEL 450,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD 245,000PTM 300,000 WFP-PAM 2,000,000STCH 250,000 GUATEMALA 270,000
UNDP-PNUD 290,000 IFRC-FICR 120,000DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1,795,932 PAHO 150,000
ACP 365,422 GUINEA 475,000
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 454,990 ACH- ESP 300,000INTERMON 413,011 UNICEF 175,000PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK 562,509 GUINEA-BISSAU 494,978
ECUADOR 2,110,000 MDM - ESP 249,978
CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 260,000 UNICEF 245,000CRIC 330,000 HAITI 13,357,920
INTERMON 320,000 ACF - FRA 1,680,782UNDP-PNUD 400,000 ACTED 1,502,259UNHCR 800,000 AMI - FRA 530,000EL SALVADOR 800,000 AVSI 261,497
CARE - FR 200,000 CESVI 434,271IFRC-FICR 200,000 CHRISTIAN AID - UK 779,707IOM 150,000 CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 184,167WFP-PAM 250,000 FAO 983,750ERITREA 1,000,000 INITIATIVE DEVELOPPEMENT 330,915
ICRC-CICR 1,000,000 MDM - FRA 825,000ETHIOPIA 29,483,850 MSF - NLD 750,000
ACF - FRA 1,500,000 OXFAM - UK 802,424
CARITAS - DEU 450,000 PAHO 49,719CORDAID 1,159,543 SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD 424,063DANCHURCHAID - DNK 450,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 499,116GOAL 1,500,000 TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 926,250IFRC-FICR 2,000,000 WFP-PAM 2,394,000IRC - UK 900,000 INDIA 7,128,336
MDM - FRA 601,355 ACTIONAID 991,719
MERLIN 1,000,000 ADRA - DEU 705,460MSF - BEL 1,000,000 AGA KHAN 395,062
 
 
EN 131   EN CARE - UK 66,228 OXFAM - UK 916,709
CARITAS - DEU 263,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,700,000CHRISTIAN AID - UK 211,483 UNICEF 1,500,000CONCERN WORLDWIDE 197,984 VSF - BE 290,000DANCHURCHAID - DNK 380,000 VSF G 380,000GERMAN AGRO ACTION 205,700 VSF-SUISSE 530,000HANDICAP  (FR) 936,500 WFP-PAM 10,500,000ICRC-CICR 1,000,000 LAOS 3,576,515
MALTESER HILFSDIENST 275,200 CARE - AUT 859,465MSF - BEL 250,000 HEALTH UNLIMITED 217,050MSF - NLD 600,000 WFP-PAM 2,500,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 325,000 LEBANON 8,200,000
UNICEF 325,000 ACH- ESP 284,674INDONESIA 4,499,956 CARITAS - AUT 500,000
ASB - DEU 261,090 CARITAS - FRA 700,000CROIX-ROUGE - NLD 864,405 CROIX-ROUGE - NLD 897,612IOM 1,783,461 DRC 500,000MAPACT 13,270 HANDICAP  (FR) 444,869MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 280,160 MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 660,000OCHA 167,570 NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 1,512,845OXFAM - UK 1,130,000 PREMIERE URGENCE 1,200,000IRAN 1,000,000 UNRWA 1,500,000
UNHCR 1,000,000 LIBERIA 12,000,000
IRAQ 15,250,000 ACF - FRA 890,000
ICRC-CICR 8,000,000 ICRC-CICR 750,000OCHA 600,000 IRC - UK 822,531UNHCR 5,500,000 MDM - FRA 700,000UNICEF 1,150,000 MERLIN 3,000,006JORDAN 1,452,000 OXFAM - UK 1,700,000
CARE - AUT 985,000 PMU INTERLIFE 740,000CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 467,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,070,000KENYA 28,659,766 UNICEF 1,357,239
ACH- ESP 1,200,000 WFP-PAM 100,000CARE - DEU 1,900,000 WHO 870,224
CARE - UK 675,000 MADAGASCAR 2,618,009
CONCERN WORLDWIDE 500,000 CARE - FR 598,391
COOPI 948,000 FAO 914,480CORDAID 800,000 SIF-FR 280,438DANCHURCHAID - DNK 695,057 UNICEF 224,700FAO 800,000 WFP-PAM 600,000GERMAN AGRO ACTION 2,625,000 MALI 3,118,863
ISLAMIC RELIEF 600,000 ACH- ESP 350,000
MSF - CHE 1,000,000 CHRISTIAN AID - UK 500,000NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 1,100,000 CROIX-ROUGE - BEL 499,828
 
 
EN 132   EN MSF - BEL 300,000 PA_05 360,890
OXFAM - UK 300,000 UNFPA 298,635SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 669,035 UNICEF 302,000UNICEF 500,000 WFP-PAM 1,500,000MAURITANIA 2,367,000 NICARAGUA 306,701ACH- ESP 950,000 ACH- ESP 108,000CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 750,000 ADRA - DEU 198,701SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 667,000 NIGER 9,012,933
MOZAMBIQUE 462,766 CONCERN WORLDWIDE 599,486
INTERMON 210,000 CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 1,253,446OXFAM - UK 252,766 MDM - FRA 400,000MYANMAR (BURMA) 26,963,008 MSF - BEL 1,000,000
ACF - FRA 4,945,510 MSF - CHE 2,490,000ADRA - DEU 943,800 MSF - ESP 539,000AMI - FRA 801,765 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,035,001CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 497,000 UNICEF 1,696,000GERMAN AGRO ACTION 810,000 NIGERIA 2,730,000
ICRC-CICR 850,000 MSF - ESP 768,000IOM 4,625,180 MSF - FRA 1,230,000IRC - UK 880,419 MSF - NLD 732,000MALTESER HILFSDIENST 488,600 PAKISTAN 46,635,527
MDM - FRA 421,000 ACTED 504,941MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 1,213,477 ACTIONAID 400,758MSF - CHE 300,000 AGA KHAN 510,000MSF - NLD 750,000 CARE - UK 382,777OXFAM - UK 654,888 CARITAS - DEU 565,467SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,382,470 CONCERN WORLDWIDE 309,173SOLIDARITES 1,082,491 DANCHURCHAID - DNK 963,731TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA 432,408 FSD__573 368,247UNDP-PNUD 1,800,000 HANDICAP  (FR) 693,799UNHCR 2,584,000 HOPE´87 399,663WFP-PAM 1,500,000 ICMC 162,292NEPAL 7,623,719 ICRC-CICR 12,000,000
ACTIONAID 320,531 IRC - UK 400,000
ADRA - DEU 413,855 MDM - FRA 500,000
CARE - AUT 307,096 MERLIN 1,299,889CONCERN WORLDWIDE 500,000 NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 787,700CROIX-ROUGE - DNK 420,110 OCHA 500,000HANDICAP  (FR) 513,000 OXFAM - UK 2,437,090ICRC-CICR 500,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 700,000MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 347,397 UNHCR 9,750,000MERLIN 645,000 UNICEF 2,000,000MISSION OST - DNK 226,649 WFP-PAM 9,000,000OXFAM - UK 968,556 WHO 2,000,000
 
 
EN 133   EN PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, OCCUPIED 61,000,000 INTERMON 340,000
ACH- ESP 3,625,000 PERU 4,310,757
ACP 750,000 CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 350,000ACTED 1,050,000 COOPI 691,354CARE - AUT 5,615,000 FAO 391,508CARE - DEU 280,000 GERMAN AGRO ACTION 150,000CISP 750,000 PA_05 349,999COOPI 1,700,000 UNDP-PNUD 2,377,896CRIC 700,000 PHILIPPINES 11,399,655
CROIX-ROUGE - DNK 800,000 ACH- ESP 249,689DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU) 450,000 CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 400,000GCIDS 400,000 CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 300,000GVC 900,000 HANDICAP  (FR) 630,000HANDICAP  (FR) 500,000 ICRC-CICR 2,000,000ICRC-CICR 4,500,000 IFRC-FICR 500,000IMC UK 625,350 IOM 960,000IRD 400,000 MAPACT 8,166MAP 250,000 MSF - CHE 391,800MDM - FRA 1,320,000 OCHA 100,000MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 2,400,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 320,000MERLIN 800,000 TSF, FRANCE 190,000NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 700,000 WFP-PAM 5,150,000OCHA 1,250,000 WHO 200,000OXFAM - BEL 350,000 RUSSIA 5,210,000
OXFAM - UK 3,700,000 ACF - FRA 180,000PREMIERE URGENCE 1,270,000 DRC 750,000RI-UK 200,000 FAO 700,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD 1,460,000 HELP 450,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 350,000 ICRC-CICR 800,000SCD-RB 500,000 IMC UK 500,000TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 400,000 IRC - UK 700,000TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA 400,000 UNDP-PNUD 130,000UCODEP__298 700,000 UNHCR 1,000,000UNICEF 1,030,000 SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 420,000
UNRWA 14,330,000 CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 420,000
WFP-PAM 6,300,000 SOMALIA 41,465,574
WHO 244,650 ACF - FRA 1,050,000
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 934,310 ADRA - DEU 400,000
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 450,000 CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 1,000,000UNICEF 235,000 CESVI 519,812WHO 249,310 CONCERN WORLDWIDE 900,000
PARAGUAY 1,018,706 COOPI 900,000
COOPI 150,000 COSV - MILAN 506,129CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 528,706 DRC 4,691,458
 
 
EN 134   EN FAO 3,000,000 HANDICAP  (FR) 550,000
ICRC-CICR 14,605,065 ICRC-CICR 10,000,000IRC - UK 700,000 IFRC-FICR 300,000ISLAMIC RELIEF 499,993 IMC UK 600,000NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 3,400,000 IOM 5,325,699OCHA 800,000 ISLAMIC RELIEF 396,307OXFAM - UK 500,000 MALTESER HILFSDIENST 400,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,099,992 MDM - FRA 720,000SOLIDARITES 780,000 MEDAIR CH 1,610,000SOS KINDERDORF INT. 963,125 MERLIN 4,499,116UNHCR 2,150,000 MSF - CHE 450,000UNICEF 2,000,000 MSF - NLD 1,430,000VSF G 1,000,000 OCHA 2,738,890SRI LANKA 10,450,000 OXFAM - UK 1,400,000
ACTED 216,173 PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-FERRAND 406,883CARE - DEU 298,283 RI-UK 350,000DRC 500,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,380,066GERMAN AGRO ACTION 285,000 SOLIDARITES 500,000ICRC-CICR 3,000,000 TEARFUND - UK 2,914,681MSF - FRA 850,000 TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 500,000MSF - NLD 450,000 TRIANGLE 1,700,000OXFAM - UK 745,544 UNDP-PNUD 1,350,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 200,000 UNHCR 2,600,000UNHCR 900,000 UNICEF 6,878,500UNICEF 350,000 VSF G 764,690WFP-PAM 2,000,000 WFP-PAM 48,100,000ZOA 655,000 WHO 2,253,058SUDAN 119,491,729 WORLD VISION DEU 2,292,372
ACH- ESP 2,342,800 SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 4,148,000
ADRA - DK 500,000 FAO 1,000,000CAFOD 300,000 ICMC 898,000CAM 814,881 TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 750,000CARE - UK 530,000 UNRWA 500,000CONCERN WORLDWIDE 630,019 WFP-PAM 1,000,000
COOPI 1,955,831 TAJIKISTAN 300,000
CORDAID 2,475,126 GERMAN AGRO ACTION 150,000
COSV - MILAN 535,071 UNICEF 150,000CROIX-ROUGE - AUT 567,000 TANZANIA 7,600,000
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 548,000 CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 2,000,000
DANCHURCHAID - DNK 1,301,747 UNHCR 4,600,000DRC 400,000 WFP-PAM 1,000,000FAO 1,000,000 THAILAND 8,750,000
GERMAN AGRO ACTION 1,083,000 AMI - FRA 1,445,000
GOAL 2,097,993 ICCO 5,500,000
 
 
EN 135   EN IRC - UK 550,000 CROIX-ROUGE - DNK 999,639
MALTESER HILFSDIENST 1,200,000 CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 380,700SOLIDARITES 55,000 CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 1,467,327UGANDA 21,158,979 GERMAN AGRO ACTION 2,588,926
ACH- ESP 1,300,000 GOAL 1,279,711AVSI 941,871 HELP 2,146,950CONCERN WORLDWIDE 350,000 ICRC-CICR 1,750,000FAO 2,600,000 IMC UK 711,058GOAL 700,000 IOM 396,486ICRC-CICR 1,000,000 IRC - UK 349,977IRC - UK 700,000 MDM - FRA 988,500MEDAIR CH 700,000 MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 656,130MSF - ESP 800,000 MERLIN 395,441OCHA 450,000 MSF - ESP 243,562OXFAM - UK 2,418,255 OXFAM - UK 499,637UNHCR 1,400,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,579,851UNICEF 1,200,000 SOLIDARITES 586,640VSF - BE 673,853 UNICEF 5,300,000WFP-PAM 4,475,000 WORLD VISION DEU 600,574WORLD VISION DEU 1,450,000 UNSPECIFIED/NEUTRAL ZONE 5,209,891
VENEZUELA 640,000 IFRC-FICR 2,450,000
CARITAS - FRA 340,000 OXFAM - UK 560,000UNHCR 300,000 PAHO 1,200,000VIETNAM 5,793,109 UNESCO 499,891
ACTIONAID 299,926 UNICEF 500,000CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 550,000 GRANT FACILITY 1,794,130
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 2,265,000 AMI - PRT 55,750MALTESER HILFSDIENST 300,000 BIOFORCE 64,038OXFAM - UK 578,485 CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 65,000PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK 749,698 CARITAS - CZE 130,000SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 1,050,000 CROIX-ROUGE - AUT 100,954YEMEN 3,000,000 GLOBAL NETWORK 135,000
ICRC-CICR 1,000,000 HAP 100,000OCHA 150,000 IFRC-FICR 180,000
UNHCR 1,250,000 MERLIN 119,868
UNICEF 600,000 NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 80,000
ZAMBIA 1,720,000 OXFAM - UK 248,796
IOM 1,000,000 PIPA 45,000MSF - ESP 460,000 REDR 129,724UNHCR 260,000 SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 130,000
ZIMBABWE 26,979,855 TSF, FRANCE 75,000
ACF - FRA 1,334,120 VOICE ASBL 135,000CARE - DEU 1,846,450 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 32,893,029
CORDAID 878,176 ECHO FIELD 32,893,029
 
 
EN 136   EN CAPACITY BUILDING 25,200,000 DREF DECISION 2,000,000
FAO 4,020,000 IFRC-FICR 2,000,000
IFRC-FICR 4,500,000 NOHA Network 500,000
OCHA 1,770,000 NOHA Program 500,000
UNICEF 4,800,000WFP-PAM 5,810,000 TOTAL CONTRACTS 2009 834,836,743
WHO 4,300,000
 
 
EN 137   EN 5. GLOSSARY  
ACF Action contre la Faim 
ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific States 
ASEAN Association of South-east Asian Nations 
AUSAID Australian government's overseas aid programme 
AWD Acute watery diarrhoea 
BPRM Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration 
CCSDPT Committee for the Co-ordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand 
CERF Central Emergency Response Fund 
CHF Common Humanitarian Fund 
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency 
COHAFA Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 
DFID UK Department for International Development 
DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO 
DRR Disaster risk reduction 
EAR Emergency Aid Reserve 
EDF European Development Fund 
EU European Union 
EWS Early warning systems 
FAFA The EC/UN Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 
FCA Forgotten crises assessment 
FPA Framework Partnership Agreement (betw een the Commission and its operating partners)
FTS Financial Tracking System (OCHA) 
GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship 
GNA Global needs assessment 
HRF Humanitarian Response Fund 
IAC Internal Audit Capability 
IAS Internal Audit Service 
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee 
ICRC international committee of the red cross 
IDP Internally displaced people 
IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies 
IHL International Humanitarian Lam 
INGO International non-governmental organisation 
IO International organisation 
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean 
LRRD Linking relief, rehabilitation and development 
MCIS Multi cluster integrated survey 
MIC Monitoring and Information Centre 
MINUSTAH United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti 
MSF Médecins sans Frontières 
NGO Non-governmental organisation 
OCHA UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Aid 
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  
OFDA Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance 
REACH Global Framework for Action, Renewed Effort Ending Child Hunger and Malnutrition 
SD Strategic dialogue 
SPHERE SPHERE project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response 
UN United Nations 

 
EN 138   EN UNAMID UN African Union Mission in Darfur 
UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety and Security 
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund 
UNISDR UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 
UNRWA UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in near East 
USAID US Agency for International Development 
WASH Water/sanitation and hygiene 
WFP UN World Food Programme 
WHO UN World Health Organisation