Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid – ECHO Annual Report 2006 {COM(2007) 555 final}
Date: 2007-09-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ECHO, activity report, comparative study, humanitarian aid













EUR-Lex - 52007SC1227 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC1227

Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid – ECHO Annual Report 2006 {COM(2007) 555 final}  /* SEC/2007/1227 final */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 28.9.2007SEC(2007) 1227COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid – ECHOAnnual Report 2006 {COM(2007) 555 final}TABLE OF CONTENTS1. COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY OVERVIEW 21.1. Africa 21.1.1. Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa 21.1.2. Central Africa/Great Lakes 21.1.3. Southern Africa 21.1.4. West Africa 21.2. Caribbean and Pacific 21.3. Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Southern Caucasus, Central Asia, including Mongolia 21.4. Mediterranean and Middle East 21.5. Asia 21.5.1. Tsunami 21.5.2. Kashmir Earthquake (Pakistan/India) 21.5.3. South Asia 21.5.4. South-East Asia 21.5.5. East Asia 21.6. Latin America 21.6.1. Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua) 21.6.2. South America except Colombia 21.7. Disaster preparedness activities (including dipecho) 22. RELATIONS WITH OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS, MEMBER STATES, MAJOR HUMANITARIAN PARTNERS AND NON-EU DONORS 22.1. EU Institutions and Member States 22.2. Relations with international organisations and non-EU major donors 23. OTHER ACTIVITIES 23.1. Experts in the field 23.2. Security issues 23.3. Policy issues 23.4. Communication and information 23.5. Training initiative 23.6. Thematic funding and Grant Facility 24. FINANCE, AUDIT AND EVALUATIONS KEY INDICATORS ON LEGALITY AND REGULARITY AND SOUND MANAGEMENT SUPPORTING REASONABLE ASSURANCE 25. FINANCIAL TABLES 25.1. DG ECHO budget and decisions for Humanitarian aid 1993 - 2006 25.2. Evolution of Humanitarian Aid's initial budget and amount of financial decisions over the last 10 years 25.3. DG ECHO's finalised contracts 1998-2006* 25.4. Geographical breakdown of funding decisions 2001-2006 – Global overview 25.5. Funding decisions for humanitarian aid in 2006 25.6. Distribution of Contracts by Partner category 25.7. DG ECHO Contracts by Category and Nationality of Partners 2006 26. LIST OF ACRONYMS 2COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY OVERVIEWThis synopsis of the EC funded humanitarian operations is presented on a geographical basis, organised around the six regions of the world where DG ECHO funds humanitarian actions.Each of these geographical sections has the same structure to permit parallel reading:-  Each of the sections starts with an overview of the funding per country (region) and/or per humanitarian crisis in which DG ECHO intervened as well as the main partner humanitarian organisations through which the aid was channelled. For all types of interventions, humanitarian aid is implemented through Commission funding decisions and grant agreements with partners, who implement the specific humanitarian operations in the fields. The overview tables provide the amount of funding decisions taken for that year and the amount of grant agreements that have been concluded in respect of the funding decisions concerned. Since grant agreements can be concluded between the date of the adoption of the funding decision till the end of the following year (n+1 rule) the amount of grant agreements for certain funding decisions is likely to increase further as the funds under 2006 decisions which were not entirely used at the date of drafting this report can still be used in 2007.-  For each of the countries (regions) a description is given of the humanitarian needs that were identified, the main objectives and achievements and, where applicable, the transition between emergency and development or the 'so-called' LRRD: linking relief, rehabilitation and development issues.This country-by-country overview includes all countries/crises for which funding decisions were adopted in 2006 and also those for which funding was made available in previous years but the implementation was still on-going in 2006 (example Tsunami, Kashmir earthquake).In sections I.7 and III.6 further information is provided on two types of horizontal funding: a) disaster preparedness activities undertaken in 2006 in order to reduce both vulnerability and exposure of people to risks and disasters as well as to reduce the economic costs of such disasters and b) capacity building actions financed in 2006 through thematic funding and the grant facility , with a view to improve the institutional capacities of partner humanitarian organisations in some specific areas , so that these organisations are better able to respond quickly and efficiently to emergencies.The figures in this chapter are given to provide the general overview and/or to illustrate the contents of the chapter. The reader may find exhaustive financial information in Chapter V.AfricaIn 2006, Africa was by large the region which received most of the EC humanitarian aid funding (around 48% of the annual budget). The main areas/countries of intervention are listed below:[pic]* The total amount of grant agreements exceeds the decision amount, since some funds not used under the first grant agreement were used for a new one.Horn of Africa and Eastern AfricaRegional drought preparednessHumanitarian needsSome of the worst humanitarian indicators in the world are available for the region targeted. Typically, in humans (wasting in children under-5 years of age) Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) rates are between 17 and 30 and Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) rates are between 5 and 8, pointing to an acute humanitarian crisis. SPHERE standards are not met at all in any parts of the region, which is characterised by poor access to water as well as browse and pasture. For populations which depend heavily on the access to water for their own health as well as that of their livestock, this is the crucial issue and one which is pursued by DG ECHO with vigour in its response strategy. Absence of government-led surveillance systems for food security (livestock and crop-related) are some of the main challenges facing humanitarian actors in the region. Vaccination campaigns in livestock are last-minute corrective solutions and failure to address the main causes leads to this makeshift approach. TLU/AAME[1] ratios are beyond the salvageable in the remotest parts of countries covered.The pastoralist way of life is in crisis not just because of the man-made factors described above. Unfavourable climatic conditions, ever shorter periods between drought cycles, intense periods of drought, high population growth, unpalatable terrain and disease outbreaks are some of the major factors which mitigate recovery of herds and render pastoralists vulnerable to the slightest shocks.Insecurity in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) has had a knock-on effect in the region as a whole. Whether it is the conflict on the Eastern borders of Sudan/Western/Ethiopia, South-East Ethiopia/Somalia as well as inter-clan conflicts over pasture and natural resources such as water, they have imposed involuntary movements in search of secure areas of pasture, increased pressure on resources and causing refugee caseloads.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsEUR 10,000,000 in total targeted seven countries of the GHA (Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Uganda and Kenya) financing regional or national projects. DG ECHO actions supported the establishment of contingency planning measures, early warning systems and community-based mechanisms for response to the inevitable cycles of drought. The majority of projects came on stream in the second half of 2006. Impact and achievements will be measured during a mid-term evaluation in 2007 and at the end of the current programme cycle (end of 2007).LRRDIn Ethiopia and Eritrea actions funded under this Decision are reinforced national or regional policies. Given the reduced autonomy of the local communities, national policies were respected and activities steered by the authorities.Actions financed under this Decision throughout the region linked up with the nutritional, food aid and food security programmes managed by EC Delegations (for example the EC Delegation in Ethiopia's call for proposals under the recent Food Security Programme for NGO actions in the pastoral areas of South Ethiopia). Another envelope of EUR 5,000,000 is being allocated by the Delegation for emergency relief interventions in the pastoral areas of Ethiopia.The Drought Management Initiative (DMI) of the EC Delegation in Kenya (EUR 17,000,000) was approved in November 2006 by the Commission. LRRD will be assured as the government's (Programme Implementing Unit, fully integrated in the Special Office under the President of Kenya, funded by the EC), will be in a position to take over from DG ECHO's activities in the forthcoming years.Regional emergency Drought ProgrammeHumanitarian needsThe Horn of Africa has been affected by another failure of the short rains season leading to a severe food and livelihood crisis, due to successive rain failures since 2001. The arid and semi arid lands of Kenya, Southern Somalia, Ethiopia and Djibouti are hardest hit by food and water shortages, as well as insufficient grazing pastures for livestock. This current situation is thought to be too much for many already impoverished pastoral communities to bear, leading to a number of reported deaths from malnutrition, and calls for an emergency. The current situation is foreseen to last for the next 6 months, the habitual period of drought. The populations affected are mainly nomadic pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities who rely on short rains for water and livestock for survival.Even though the region is known for its regular cycles of drought and rain failures, the past few years have seen these cycles become ever more recurrent, frequent, and severe. This is resulting in pastoral communities trying to survive in an increasingly fragile environment. Should these rains fail, then whole communities are faced by water shortages and insufficient pastures, resulting in food insecurity and a livelihood crisis. These consecutive rain failures have also been aggravated over the years by a lack of structural development support from local authorities.The present drought is affecting the border region of Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The lack of drought preparedness structures and lethargy over a problem that has persisted for many years may affect the situation harder than it might otherwise have.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission adopted an emergency decision in the first quarter of 2006 (EUR 5,000,000) covering Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia, with focus on provision of food, protection of livestock assets, nutrition and health-related activities, as well as water activities in the region.This decision will complement the ongoing activities under the recently adopted decisions for Kenya, the Somalia Global Plan and the ad hoc decision for Ethiopia (see country by country activities). No humanitarian intervention is presently being implemented in Djibouti.LRRDN/AEritreaHumanitarian needsThe five year long unresolved border dispute with its neighbour, Ethiopia, has continuously led to decline in many sectors: livelihoods, health, food security, engendering greater levels of poverty. Eritrea is currently facing challenges posed by years of chronic drought, desertification, poor infrastructure and continued insecurity along the border with Ethiopia. Economic decline has led to worrying humanitarian indicators. A rate of 21.9% of GAM is estimated within children under 5 years old, even more in some areas, SAM rate is estimated at 4.1%. More than 50% of the women and children are reported to be chronically malnourished. The penury and poor quality of water, consequences of successive years of drought (2002, 2004 and partially 2005), insufficient and unbalanced distribution of rains, lack of water points and weak maintenance, are directly responsible for the worrying water-borne disease morbidity rates commonly found in rural areas. Losses of livestock have been commonly reported over the past years, leading to asset depletion and less and less resilience on the part of the rural communities to cope with harsh periods. An estimated 40% of the Eritrean population relies on livestock as its main source of income.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission adopted in 2006 a decision of EUR 6,000,000. Despite an overall difficult environment due to administrative constraints and Government policies, partners have been able to maintain a satisfactory implementing capacity. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness decision.DG ECHO's strategy was to provide support to civilian population trying to overcome drought consequences in a protracted deep crisis context. DG ECHO interventions targeted two main sectors, water and sanitation, and nutrition. The achievements obtained included (i) an improved access to safe drinking water, (ii) water, feeding and veterinary cares to animals in order to maintain a minimum livelihood’s level for the targeted households, (iii) nutritional cares, (iv) primary health care in remote rural areas of the country, (v) ICRC nationwide protection activities and (vi) assistance in forms of seeds and tools and livestock feeding in order to improve the coping capacities of highly food insecure persons.LRRDN/A.EthiopiaHumanitarian needsThe May 2005 national elections led to even greater instability in Ethiopia, with virtually the whole country being affected by regional conflicts and inter-clan conflicts. Beside the usual tense areas, such as the border between Afar and Somali regions, South Oromya, Somali and Gambella regions, new conflict areas appeared, creating new caseloads of IDPs[2]. The end of 2006 was marked by open hostilities between the Ethiopian military and the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, leading to the demise of the latter in Somalia and heavily engaging the Ethiopian military in this Gulf of Aden bordering territory.Like for the Horn of Africa, the 2005/2006 drought posed a major threat to livelihoods as pastoralists, in remote, insecure areas, leading to a lack of pasture and grazing lands for pastoralists. Water, pasture and grazing lands remained insufficient, and high population growth is outweighed the carrying capacity of the land. Floods caused more needs amongst the vulnerable populations.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsTwo funding decisions adopted in 2006 (EUR 3,000,000 from the humanitarian aid budget, and EUR 2,000,000 from the EDF budget) – were implemented. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness and the Regional Drought emergency decisions.The overall intervention strategy was to address acute needs, occurring mainly on top of a chronic fragile context, in various situations, notably health crises (epidemics, primary health care and nutrition), drought and floods consequences and protection of civilians in conflict situations and emergencies. In addition, DG ECHO supported the overall coordination effort of the humanitarian community by OCHA.LRRDThe EC Delegation supports nutritional, food aid and food security programmes in Ethiopia. The Drought Preparedness Programme provides the best assurance for LRRD.KenyaHumanitarian needsAs for the Horn of Africa as a whole, the nomadic pastoralists of the Northern provinces of Kenya are facing the decline of their livelihoods due to a series of concurrent factors: high population growth, poor services and transport infrastructure, lack of pasture and grazing for livestock due to adverse climate and failure by government to support and promote the livestock trade as well as to bolster livelihoods through active policies in this regard. The region houses some of the worst humanitarian indicators in the world. The refugee influx from Somalia late in the year caused increased needs in all sectors of intervention.  The floods and rift valley fever outbreak further undermined livelihoods although heavy water coverage in some areas may lead to a better harvest next time round.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission adopted an emergency decision for food aid (EUR 5,050,000). Building on the emergency response, a further funding decision was adopted towards the end of the drought cycle for operations focusing on drought recovery for EUR 2,000,000. A further decision for EUR 2,000,000 was adopted to meet the needs of Somali refugees fleeing the conflict between the Transitional Federal Government and the Islamic Courts in Somalia. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness and the Regional Drought emergency decisions.DG ECHO contributed to a World Food Program whereby DG ECHO's contribution enabled to reach 2,885,721 beneficiaries. More than half a million people received health services, nutritional support and water, and protection activities reached nearly 300,000 beneficiaries.LRRDThe Drought Management Initiative (DMI) was adopted under 9th EDF and is set to link in with the Regional Drought Preparedness Decision, which in turn seeks to take over from the emergency Drought response or relief efforts funded in 2006. DG ECHO announced in its 2007 strategy that particular attention would be paid to LRRD in Kenya.SomaliaHumanitarian needsYears of civil war and confrontation with its neighbours have wracked Somalia, leaving it ungovernable and the main services and infrastructure care lacking, coupled with the black market trade in goods, its harsh climate and high population growth, have resulted in the country facing dire humanitarian needs, in virtually all sectors, notably in water and sanitation and health. The high malnutrition rates prevalent in other countries in the region apply here as well. A refugee caseload, largely as a result of the Ethiopian incursion, added itself to those existing in neighbouring countries, in Kenya. The needs increase when the security situation renders implementing difficult.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe Commission adopted a Global Plan of EUR 10,000,000. DG ECHO focus has been in support of health, nutrition, water and sanitation, livestock, food security and support to the IDPs. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness and the Regional Drought emergency decisions. Partners' access and monitoring of the programmes remain the main challenges for delivering the EC humanitarian assistance to the Somali population.Support to food security interventions was by far the sector that reached the largest number of beneficiaries. DG ECHO supported access to health care for 394,392 Somalis from out-patient consultation and treatment to nutrition and access to specialised in-patient services such as mother and child health care, paediatrics, nutrition and surgery.DG ECHO was able to contribute to maintaining overall hospital mortality rates to below 4 % and cure rates at above 90 % and below emergency levels. Water and sanitation issues have been a huge challenge and received significantly more support than in 2005. Livestock support covered assistance to the veterinary services that were able to vaccinate 1.1 million head of livestock and treat at least 1.9 million head of livestock, all along the spine of Somalia supporting 140,000 people. This resulted in a reduction of disease and animal morbidity protecting against the loss to people's livelihoods. DG ECHO has supported a pilot caseload of IDPs in Mogadishu.LRRDLRRD is currently a major challenge for the EC as a whole, not least because of the different geographic coverage of the EC Delegation and DG ECHO in programming, but also because of the high levels of insecurity that characterise Somalia. Nevertheless, the EC Delegation remains firmly committed to Somalia and especially in the Rural Development and Social Services sectors.SudanHumanitarian needsThe peace agreement of January 2005 putting an end to the 20-years civil war between the North and the South was positive but it also opened the door to the return of thousands of refugees and IDPs to an already depleted area, thus generating further humanitarian needs. One of the consequences of this has been a series of disease outbreaks: yellow fever, meningitis and cholera that required swift humanitarian response. The humanitarian situation in large parts of Sudan remained therefore highly precarious, requiring a continued substantial level of engagement to assist the most vulnerable populations.The three year long conflict in Darfur has led to 3 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, including more than 2 million IDPs and 200,000 refugees in Chad. Since the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in May 2006, the situation further deteriorated. The conflict has become increasingly fragmented, with rising insecurity, new waves of IDPs, as well as additional violations of International Humanitarian Law.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe main objective was to provide assistance to save and protect lives among the most vulnerable and needy populations through integrated emergency assistance. In addition, DG ECHO support aimed at stabilising conditions of people and communities with severely strained coping mechanisms and, whenever possible, contributing to a gradual process of recovery through the enhancement of self-reliance. The main sectors of intervention were health and nutrition, water and environmental sanitation, emergency preparedness and response, household food security, protection and operational support and special mandates. DG ECHO continued covering the whole territory with a neutral approach and according to needs in strict respect of internationally recognised humanitarian principles.The EUR 40,000,000 initially programmed for 2006 was increased by an additional amount of EUR 40,000,000 for the benefit of the victims of the crisis in Darfur.Moreover, in order to respond to the worsening of the security, access and humanitarian situation in Darfur and Chad, DG ECHO decided to mobilise further EUR 17,000,000 to provide vital support to the most pressing needs. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness decision.LRRDDG ECHO continued to assist the Sudanese population in need, affected by conflict and natural disasters as long as alarming humanitarian indicators appeared. It is not excluded that with peace in the different regions of Sudan and a more stable situation, rehabilitation and sustainable development assistance will be able to gradually take over and build upon the relief work provided for decades.LRRD possibilities have slowly but steadily increased since the resumption of formal cooperation, especially in the food security and water and sanitation sectors. Thus, DG ECHO has been able to decrease its support to operations in many areas of North Sudan and concentrate its efforts in the neediest regions (i.e. Darfur, the transitional areas and South Sudan). However, needs are so overwhelming in all sectors in, notably, South Sudan, that both humanitarian and development assistance will have to go hand in hand for a long while. Hopefully, in the next few years, LRRD continuum will become effective, eventually leading to take over of existing longer term DG ECHO interventions, while DG ECHO focuses on short term interventions to address new needs.UgandaHumanitarian needsThe year 2006 has seen a series of dramatic changes in the humanitarian situation in Northern Uganda. Peace talks started in Juba providing the best opportunity yet for a peace agreement between the Government and the rebel LRA. The impact of these talks on security and access was initially significant, leading to an improvement in humanitarian indicators and to improved freedom of movement of IDPs.DG ECHO's priority in 2006 was to address the core emergency humanitarian needs in IDPs camps. Water and sanitation, health and nutrition, non-food items, shelter, food security, camp planning, protection, coordination, have been the main sectors of interventions. This approach in Uganda has been consistent with DG ECHO’s 2006 strategy (Needs based, LRRD, “forgotten crisis”, mainstreaming of Children and HIV/AIDS).Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO’s strategy for 2006 included two specific objectives:-  To relieve the suffering of IDPs, host communities and refugees in Uganda via improved water and sanitation, health and nutrition, livelihoods and food security, protection, camp planning, non-food items, and via the enhanced coordination of humanitarian interventions;-  To maintain a technical capacity in the field and to assess needs, appraise project proposals co-ordinate and monitor the implementing of operations.The activities focused mainly on the following sectors: (1) Health with support to hospitals, Health Centres (HC), financing of mobile clinics and fight against Malaria and HIV/AIDS; (2) Water and sanitation: scale-up of water supply in IDP camps, latrine construction, hygiene promotion and cholera Response; (3) Food security with distribution of agricultural inputs, organisation of seeds fairs. Although much still remains to be done, DG ECHO has contributed to stabilising the nutrition rates and preventing people dying from hunger. DG ECHO has also continued to reduce dependency on food aid by increasing self-reliance of IDPs through livelihood security programmes, income generating activities and innovative stacked micro-gardening where land access is limited ; (4) Protection of children and women, Legal Aid provided for IDPs through Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance and (5) Infrastructure : the construction of the Patongo Airstrip has improved humanitarian access to the most difficult and insecure area in Northern Uganda and also serves a developmental purpose as a first example of successfully Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) in Pader district.Throughout 2006 DG ECHO was able to consolidate and improve upon past years of the humanitarian response in-country. A EUR 15,000,000 decision has been entirely contracted. Additional EUR 4,000,000 have been mobilised from the EDF budget. Overall, two million IDPs were targeted by DG ECHO funded operations. The country has also benefited from the Regional Drought Preparedness decision.LRRDLRRD continued to be at the forefront of DG ECHO's strategy in Uganda. DG ECHO worked closely with DG DEV on its Rehabilitation programme for Northern Uganda (funded by the EDF). DG ECHO started to actively prepare to phase out and transfer its health programmes to the development sector over an estimated period of two to three years.Central Africa/Great LakesRegional (Cassava Mosaic Virus)Humanitarian needsThe cassava (manioc) plant is regarded as a major subsistence crop by a large percentage of the population in the Great Lakes. It is vital for both food security and income generation. It represents the main component of the daily menu of the most vulnerable people in the region and is their main staple in terms of per capita calories consumed. However, this plant is now facing an unusually severe cassava mosaic virus disease which has been spreading within the Great Lakes Region. The mosaic virus is having devastating effects on food security and is even responsible for localised malnutrition and starvation. In the absence of available solutions, the production has dropped from 3.5 millions to 0.5 million of tons within the last couple of years.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission adopted a decision of EUR 1,000,000 in order to reduce the high rates of malnutrition in families that traditionally subsisted on cassava. The programme was linked up with the unique opportunity presented by the current return home of refugees and internally displaced people, following the recent improvements in security in the sub-region.A reduction in malnutrition rates has been noted across the region. The regional approach has also had an important affect in reducing cross contamination from country to country.LRRDMultiplication is on-going thanks to the capacity building inherent in the programme. FAO will continue this programme on larger scale with other donors.BurundiHumanitarian needsChronic complex emergency arising from the previous 10 years of civil war and population displacements. However, following the latest peaceful elections and formation of a new government, measures are being taken to prepare for a major repatriation exercise. Fighting in Bujumbura Rural seems also to have reduced to a merely symbolic status. Living conditions for the population remain difficult, with the country having experienced a decade of war and displacement, restricted access to healthcare and reduced quality of available health services. Burundi currently occupies the first place in DG ECHO’s vulnerability rankingsThere are 117,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) remaining around the countryside. Burundi also hosts two camps of Congolese refugees. Both groups need care and maintenance support. The country is also vulnerable to the effects of regional pressures and instability.Generally, the displaced, orphans, children and female-headed households, as well as the Batwa minority (1%), are among the most vulnerable groups within Burundi society. In addition to this, the past years have seen the need for rapid interventions for recurrent epidemics of cholera and meningitis in several provinces.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe principal objective is to save and preserve life in the aftermath of a ten-year civil war in Burundi, entailing major loss of life, physical, psychological or social suffering and material damage.DG ECHO’s intervention strategy for 2006 was focused on the following specific objectives:-  IDPs/Returnees/Refugees : to provide multi-sectoral humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations; comprising displaced persons, returnees, refugees and host communities in areas directly affected by conflict. Special attention will be given to children, adolescents and women.-  Special mandates: to support international agencies in the execution of their special mandates.This assistance was channeled through a multi-sector programme implemented by NGOs, United Nations agencies and the Red Cross (ICRC) for an amount of EUR 17,000,000.The impact of the programme has been considerable for Burundian IDPs and repatriated refugees, Congolese refugees and Rwandan asylum seekers. In the health sector, 2,400,000 million people were able to receive treatment. Health centers and public hospitals were supplied with essential medicines. In addition, seeds and seed protection food aid were distributed. Within the framework of the fight against cholera, almost 120,000 people were provided with potable water and specialized treatment centers as well as receiving hygiene education. Lastly, people benefited from DG ECHO supported protection activities.LRRDIn 2006, mine clearance and psycho-social activities have already been taken over by donors, in particular by Belgian cooperation. Certain water and sanitation activities previously financed by DG ECHO have been taken over by the Delegation's "Water Facility" programme and by Swiss cooperation.A two-year financing proposal of EUR 7,800,000 in the health sector, funded from the 9th EDF B-envelope, will be decided in 2007.Democratic Republic of the CongoHumanitarian needsThe East of the country has remained significantly affected by the effects of the war. Essential social services continue to be neglected and there is a resultant problem of food insecurity, poor health and social dislocation. Nonetheless in 2006 the country has enjoyed successful elections and improved security with many regions in the East now beginning to achieve some stability. This has allowed hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people and tens of thousands of refugees to return home. However, this return is proving particularly difficult as the home areas have been heavily devastated by war. In the few areas where there is still insecurity, civilians are subject to harassment and violence which forces them to flee their homes and sources of economic livelihood. This was notably the case in central Katanga where some 300,000 people were affected by a local conflict. Women and children are being disproportionately affected by the violence. The poor logistics infrastructure remained a huge impediment to the provision of humanitarian aid.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe principal objective of DG ECHO's strategy was to contain the mortality and morbidity rates among the targeted population groups within emergency thresholds and to support the resettlement and stabilization process where possible.The specific objectives aimed at providing (1) population of targeted health zones with an equitable access to a minimum package of basic healthcare, with special emphasis on women and children, (2) displaced, resettling and host families with an integrated package of community-based assistance designed to respond to immediate needs, while paving the way for a rapid return to productive activity and thus contributing to the stabilization of conflict –affected areas.Recent surveys have shown that mortality and malnutrition figures have fallen back to normal in the majority of areas covered by the programme. Also some 1 million IDPs and 40,000 refugees have returned home successfully thanks to the support given to programmes promoting re-integration (health, shelter, food security, basic infrastructure and road rehabilitation). On the other hand some 30,000 people a month had to be provided with emergency assistance due to the effects of continued conflict. The crisis in Katanga, which was particularly severe, required an additional decision for 5 MEURO in order to provide 130,000 people with nutritional support and other basic life saving assistance. This more recent decision is still on-going.LRRDIn the course of the year DG ECHO was able to hand over some 6 health programmes to the 9th EDF and two to the World Bank. Discussions are on-going to hand over more health programmes in newly stabilised areas, notably to USAID in South Kivu. DG ECHO was also closely involved with DG DEV and the Delegation to assist with the programming of the 10th EDF.Democratic Republic of the Congo – Echo-flightHumanitarian needsThe humanitarian needs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well as the logistic difficulties of operating there are highlighted in the section above. In DRC there is no safe and reliable linkage between the supply and personnel entry points and the main humanitarian destinations. Overland travel is dangerous and time consuming, or even impossible due to security constraints or absence of infrastructure. Following the improvement in the security situation in DRC, DG ECHO has, also in geographic terms, expanded its engagement in the country. This has created an additional need for air transport.The use of ECHO Flight services enables humanitarian NGOs to reduce inventory stockpiles at field locations which often run the risk of confiscation or theft by armed bandits or local militia. It increases productivity of field personnel due to the ability to plan rest and recreation rotations at an appropriate frequency; and it increases the quality of humanitarian operations as supervisory visits can be conducted more frequently. In addition, an airborne stand-by evacuation capacity remains for many agencies a sine qua non for continuing project implementing.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsPrincipal objective : To facilitate the implementing of humanitarian and post-emergency development projects in difficult or inaccessible areas.Specific objectives :-  To provide safe, reliable, efficient and cost-effective humanitarian air transport capacity.-  To create a technical assistance capacity in the field, to assess needs, appraise operational proposals and to coordinate and monitor the implementing of operations.After a tender process DG ECHO entered into a service agreement with DAC aviation, a private operator, to provide suitable aircraft and operate a safe and reliable hub and spoke service to meet the objectives. This was achieved using three aircraft operating a mixture of a fixed and a flexible schedule.LRRDThere are no current plans to hand over this operation to DG DEV/Delegation but eventually it may become a possibility.TanzaniaHumanitarian needsTanzania continues to host the largest refugee population on the African continent. The refugees are almost entirely dependent on humanitarian aid for survival. At the beginning of 2006 there were 348,000 refugees mainly from Burundi and DRC living in 12 camps in Western Tanzania under UNHCR protection. During 2006 one camp closed and the refugee population decreased by approximately 62,000, due mainly to Burundian repatriation. Despite major improvements in the refugees’ countries of origin, most refugees were not yet able to return home. Humanitarian needs include food, water, shelter, protection and health care.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO’s first aim was to continue the support it had provided for several years to this refugee “Care and maintenance” operation. The second aim was to support facilitated repatriation of refugees to transit centres in their country of origin. The objectives of DG ECHO’s Tanzania Global Plan 2006 were met. An amount of EUR 11,500,000 was allocated to the refugee programme. Programmes were supported in the sectors of water, sanitation, transport, health, nutrition, shelter, protection and repatriation. The European Commission continued to be UNHCR’s key donor for this programme and 348,000 refugees, as well as some members of the local community near the camps, benefited from this funding. Specific efforts were made to target vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied minors, disabled people and elderly persons without family support. Attention was paid to gender-related problems, via the Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Programme. Reproductive health services continued to receive support, with Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV programmes running in every camp.In the sphere of repatriation, the programme was well organised, using Project Profile registration system as much as possible and achieving the goal of voluntary return in safety and dignity. In 2006 nearly 42,000 Burundians were repatriated as well as nearly 17,000 Congolese. The general and under-5 mortality rates remained below 1/1000/month and vaccination coverage was over 99%. A second, ad hoc, decision of EUR 4,550,000 was adopted at the end of 2006 using funds from the 9th EDF B-envelope for similar objectives.LRRDThis has been partially addressed by EDF expenditure in three areas: the Special Programme for Refugee-Affected Areas (SPRAA, EUR 2,000,000; 2001-2007), Article 73 Cotonou support for the longer-term camp sectors of education, environment, health and water/sanitation (EUR 4,000,000; 2003-2005) and the transfer of food aid to the EC Food Security Budget Line, administered by EuropeAid Co-operation Office (since the end of 2003).Southern AfricaAngolaHumanitarian needsIn 2006, Angola saw the emergence of several epidemics, measles, wild polio and above all cholera. The first outbreaks of cholera started in Luanda in February, and quickly spread to 15 of the 19 provinces. Initial mortality rates were very high, reaching 9% of cases in Benguela. By the end of the year, more than 70,000 cases had been recorded, of which 2,700 fatalities. Such epidemics are the consequence of extremely poor sanitation and access to water, overcrowded conditions and the chronic weakness of the health system.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsHumanitarian needs in the country, which are still substantial though now largely covered by longer-term transitional programmes, are monitored from Harare.The widespread cholera epidemic resulted in the adoption in April and May of two emergency decisions (EUR 1,500,000 each) in order to tackle and contain the outbreak.LRRDN/AMozambiqueHumanitarian needsMozambique is a country with an extremely high level of chronic vulnerability affecting a large proportion of the population. This vulnerability is compounded by the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, as well as various climatic phenomena such as erratic rainfall patterns, cyclones, floods and drought. Drought was a major problem in 2006, with the arid zones in the South and Centre of the country experiencing serious difficulties of access to water.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsA EUR 2,000,000 funding decision, adopted in 2006 on the 9th EDF B-envelope provided support to alleviating the effects of drought by funding water and sanitation interventions. Activities included the rehabilitation of wells and boreholes, provision of water filters, cholera prevention and treatment.  LRRDN/AZambiaHumanitarian needsZambia suffers high levels chronic vulnerability, compounded by the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic affecting a large proportion of the population. Drought was also a major problem in 2006, mainly in the South and West of the country, where most livelihoods are based on subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry. The deterioration in livelihoods was compounded by a serious outbreak of the cattle disease known as Corridor Disease.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsA funding decision for EUR 2,200,000, adopted in 2006, aimed to prevent further deterioration of livelihoods by funding water and sanitation, emergency food security and animal vaccination interventions.ZimbabweHumanitarian needsIn 2006 Zimbabwe continued to be immersed in a profound crisis. The country has been suffering from chronic food insecurity since the 2002 drought. The problems common to the Southern African sub-region – high rates of people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS, declining soil productivity and erratic rainfall – are exacerbated in Zimbabwe by the adverse implementing of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), wider inappropriate economic policies and rapid decline of social services. The situation of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), victims of the countrywide 'clean up' operation in 2005 remained a subject of serious concern. Despite improved food production in 2006, which was much closer to the needs of the country than in 2005, an estimated 1.9 million people were in need of food assistance in the agricultural season 2006/2007. This includes the resident vulnerable population, in particular people living with HIV/AIDS, orphans and other vulnerable children (OVC) as well as internally displaced persons (IDPs).Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe principal objective of 2006 humanitarian interventions was to mitigate the socio-economic breakdown and deteriorating situation of vulnerable groups in Zimbabwe. The European Commission adopted a Global Plan for Zimbabwe of EUR 12,000,000. Based on the strategy developed by DG ECHO and its partners, the Global Plan focused on reinforcing immediate food security needs at household level; on increasing access to safe water sources and basic sanitation facilities and on provision of an integrated assistance, including non-food items, water and sanitation and HIV/AIDS prevention to IDPs.The vulnerable groups, including people living with HIV/AIDS, orphans and other vulnerable children (OVC) and IDPs were provided with the improved food security conditions; increased access to safe water and sanitation facilities, and improved health, hygiene and HIV/AIDS protection knowledge.LRRDThe signature of the 9th EDF country strategy paper (CSP) remains suspended by the Council Decision of 18 February 2002. The EC financial support is re-oriented to programmes in direct benefit of the Zimbabwean population, social sectors, democratisation, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The evolution of the situation in the country has not permitted to meet the conditions for the full resumption of the EC development cooperation. Due to above it is not possible to engage in a comprehensive LRRD process in Zimbabwe. Main pre-condition to envisage the LRRD programmes in future is an improvement and stabilization of the political situation.West AfricaRegional response to epidemicsHumanitarian needsThe occurrence of epidemics is persistent in West Africa, representing 40% of disasters occurring in the region from 1975 to 2003. Epidemics are more frequent in West Africa than elsewhere, with 20% of the world epidemic alerts for 2% of the world population being at serious risk from outbreaks of cholera, meningitis, hepatitis E, viral haemorrhagic fever and yellow fever. The region is also seeing an increased risk of avian influenza epidemic with confirmed animal cases in Niger, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Nigeria where the first human case was confirmed in January 2007. During the 2006 rainy season, cholera outbreaks occurred in Sierra Leone, Niger, Liberia and Guinea. Lassa fever cases were reported in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In 2006 Burkina Faso suffered one of the biggest meningitis epidemics in the last years. None of them required the mobilisation of ECHO funds. The increased circulation of yellow Fever Virus has been confirmed by the onset of Yellow Fever cases in Ivory Coast, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Togo.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, a EUR 1,250,000 decision was adopted, in order to improve the response capacity so that reported outbreaks are rapidly assessed by qualified personnel, and to ensure that operations aimed at containing and controlling confirmed epidemics are implemented swiftly. In Togo, DG ECHO supports WHO for the implementing of a vaccination campaign against Yellow Fever. In Liberia, after years of vaccination program disruption high risk of measles epidemic was contained thanks to DG ECHO support to UNICEF vaccination campaign. Rapid evaluation and timely response are important to epidemics containment and reducing the risk of becoming major humanitarian emergencies. In this perspective, DG ECHO funded the UN agency "World Health Organisation" to conduct a rapid field risk assessments during the initial phases of the epidemics facilitating the operational response and resources mobilization.LRRDExternal support to fight against epidemics in West Africa is still needed. Outbreaks detection and control intervention have been improved in the region mainly due to better epidemic surveillance and Early Warning Systems but the availability of donors support has been reduced and Governments contingency plans are rarely or not enough funded.Support to regional aspects of humanitarian aida) Regional reinforcement of child protection issuesHumanitarian needsSierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire have experienced massive internal conflicts or have been affected by conflicts in neighbouring countries. Many children have been directly affected due to forced recruitment in army groups, separation from their families or sexual exploitation. The absence of law and order and the cross border mobility of these children require child protection organizations to strengthen their institutional network and information exchange on a regional level.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, EUR 400,000 was allocated for regional child protection activities in West Africa dedicated to reinforcing specialist agencies and institutions. A regional database of protection incidents has been implemented. Reviews and best practice guidelines on psychosocial support and mental health, gender based violence have been developed and adopted among the participating organizations.LRRDRegional protection issues have slowly shifted to the human right sphere and long term and institutional projects have been promoted towards other donors like OFDA[3] or SIDA[4]. DG ECHO will cease support for this sector in 2007 as the regional institutions are now believed to be in strong position to support and promote their activities themselves.b) Improved humanitarian access to the population through a humanitarian air service in the sub-region.With very poor road infrastructure and very difficult access especially in the rainy season, improving access to those in need of humanitarian aid is a challenge in the region. A reliable and appropriate air service is essential for humanitarian workers to accomplish their mission.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsMore than 8,000 humanitarian workers have been transported over Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Cote d’Ivoire with a EUR 500,000 contribution.LRRDAs peace returns to the region, investment in road infrastructure has restarted and the humanitarian needs to move IDPs or resettle refugees have been greatly reduced. However needs for a humanitarian air service continues in Liberia.ChadHumanitarian needsFrom April 2003 to mid-2004, some 215,000 Sudanese refugees from Darfur poured into the Chad frontier provinces of Ennedi, Wadi Fira and Ouaddai, which are among the country's poorest regions, suffering from chronic food insecurity and lacking the resources and capacity to accommodate large numbers of people. Since then there has been no further major influx of refugees. The Sudanese refugees are completely dependent on international aid. The armed groups that have established themselves in Eastern Chad and the spread of bandit raids since autumn 2005 have meant an increase in violence against the civilian population. In Ouaddaï in particular, ethnic alliances were forged along similar divides that underlie the Darfur crisis. Some areas have suffered depopulation, and humanitarian agencies are now trying to help some 100,000 displaced persons. The Southern provinces of Moyen-Chari and Logone Oriental have since 2003 hosted some 48,000 refugees from the Central African Republic. No large-scale repatriation of refugees or promotion of the return of displaced persons can be foreseen for the near future in either the East or the South of Chad. 2006 saw an increase in cases of encroachment on the humanitarian space, and particularly on the civilian character of the camps. Eastern Chad has become a theatre of military operations. The general trend in the situation highlighted the need to consolidate the contingency and security plans.It is against this background that DG ECHO remained engaged in Chad.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsA Global Plan of EUR 13,500,000 was adopted in 2006 and an additional allocation of EUR 1,000,000 was released from the 9th EDF B-envelope to help finance the World Food Programme air service.Through its operational partners, DG ECHO maintained multi-sector assistance to refugees in the camps of Eastern and Southern Chad. It also supported targeted food security, health and nutrition operations to help meet the needs of the displaced persons and the most vulnerable sections of the population living in Eastern Chad.The continuing rise in acts of violence and banditry raises doubts about the ability to satisfactorily maintain the humanitarian aid programmes in the camps of Eastern Chad. Precautionary evacuations of non-essential humanitarian staff were carried out in January and April 2006 in the most sensitive areas.The outlook for the Darfur crisis and the risk that insecurity in the sub-region will last indefinitely mean that the sustainability of the projects must be seriously considered and an optimum cost-effectiveness ratio sought. The operations carried out in 2006 provided evidence that the beneficiaries will not be able to maintain the existing basic services by themselves if the humanitarian workers in Eastern Chad are evacuated or leave.  LRRDThe arrival since June 2005 of some 18,000 refugees in Southern Chad, in addition to the 30,000 already there since 2003, has destabilised the methodology put in place by the various partner organisations. The strategy of reducing assistance and promoting self-sufficiency mechanisms still applies in the Yaroungou camp (Moyen Chari) whereas a semi-emergency exists in the Amboko camp, its extension and the new camps at Gondjé and Dossei (Logone Oriental). With a view to facilitating the link between relief, rehabilitation and development, EUR 4,000,000 has been released from the 9th EDF B envelope in support of a project to revive agriculture in Yaroungou refugee camp and the surrounding area.Ivory CoastHumanitarian needsThe ongoing crisis in Ivory Coast has had a dramatic impact on the population with massive disruption of social services and many people displaced. The health sector in particular was badly affected as well as access to clean water and sanitation facilities. Food security was a problem and many of the most vulnerable in particular women and children were at risk of violence and exploitation.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsProjects supported by the DG ECHO decision for EUR 5,200,000 in 2006 covered assistance in the food security sector, protection of livelihoods, support for basic health facilities, improved access to clean water and measures to improve the protection of children at risk.LRRDGood coordination with the European Commission's Delegation and joint planning of the articulation of aid instruments resulted in an effective LRRD strategy permitting DG ECHO to reduce the level of its humanitarian activities and the handover to longer-term development aid.GuineaHumanitarian needsHundreds of thousands of refugees were pushed across the Guinean border by wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia in addition to some population movements from Ivory Coast but on a smaller scale. The end of the wars and the stabilisation of the situation in those countries allowed the initiation of a long repatriation process, still going on in 2006.In December 2006, around 22.000 refugees (Liberian and Ivorian) were still completely dependant on humanitarian assistance for their survival. The humanitarian situation of the communities around the camps has been deteriorating as a result of the socio-economic and political crisis in the country. Two general strikes and demonstrations have taken place during 2006, generating strong reaction from the police and military forces. Many civilians have been killed or injured, and Human Rights have been clearly transgressed.The poor condition of the roads has maintained the Guinea Forestière region completely isolated during the rainy season with the consequent increase of prices and also with problems of deployment of humanitarian assistance to the camps. Cholera epidemic has become endemic in Guinea, and 3.230 cases with 218 deaths have been reported in 2006.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe EUR 1,500,000 allocated to Guinea was used to promote the repatriation process and assist refugees and surrounding communities with special focus on vulnerable groups. In addition to the support to repatriation of Liberian refugees, basic services like health, water and sanitation, and protection have been guaranteed during 2006 thanks to DG ECHO funding support. These services also benefited the communities close to the camps. The deadline fixed by UNHCR to finish the assisted repatriation of the Liberian refugees is June 2007. Despite the reduction of the assistance (food distribution has been reduced and it is only supplied to the vulnerable, the Liberian education programme has been shifted to the Guinean curriculum), the remaining refugees in the camps are reticent to return.In December, a EUR 2,000,000 ad hoc decision has been adopted for Liberia and Guinea, out of which EUR 400,000 was earmarked for Guinea to maintain assistance to the refugees and vulnerable population.LRRDThe European Commission planned to start implementing a project of EUR 12,000,000 to support community rehabilitation, peace building and income generating activities in Guinea where DG ECHO is active, but due to several constraints, the programme has been delayed. DG ECHO will maintain its support to care and maintenance activities in the camps until the refugees leave, but activities are also planned for local communities, in order to favour the integration of refuges into the communities and with the aim to cover possible gaps until development programmes come into place at least in areas where DG ECHO is active.Guinea Bissau/SenegalHumanitarian needsIn March/April 2006, following the outbreak of violence in the Casamance region covering North of Guinea Bissau and South of Senegal, resulting in the displacement of 8,500 people and more than 20,000 people totally isolated because of the conflict.In the middle of the harvest season, and in an already very poor area, people could not go on with agricultural activities anymore. The conflict exacerbated the vulnerability of a population just recovering from an internal conflict in Guinea Bissau.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe objective of the EUR 1,000,000 emergency decision was to assist the displaced and the isolated population providing them with immediate health care and water supply, as well as food and non food items, protection, and assistance to restore livelihoods destroyed by the conflict.LRRDIt has been a one shot decision, with one of the two operations implemented in coordination with the EC Delegation in Bissau in the frame of a more sustainable food security approach.LiberiaHumanitarian needsThe 1989-2003 civil war killed around 250,000 people and forced the displacement of a third of the 3 million population, who become either internally displaced or refugees in neighbouring countries. Besides the direct human suffering and material impact, the conflict also had a huge psychological impact on those who suffered, perpetrated or witnessed violence. Many children were enrolled as child soldiers, people became victim of torture and women suffered from large-scale sexual violence. 3 years after the signature of the peace agreements, the majority of the population remains without access to adequate services including healthcare, drinking water, sanitation, shelter and livelihood opportunities. With the increasing confidence in the stability of the country after the successful presidential elections end of 2005, the return of 314,000 IDPs to their areas of origin was completed and the repatriation movement of refugees accelerated with consequent extra pressure on the scarce existing basic social infrastructures in the areas of return.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThrough a EUR 16,400,000 Global Plan, DG ECHO has been fully engaged in continuing the humanitarian response related to the voluntary and assisted return of tens of thousands of Liberians and the reconstruction of their communities. DG ECHO has been targeting refugees, IDPs, vulnerable sections of the population like female-headed households and children, and host communities. The operations have contributed to restoring access to basic services such as water and sanitation in rural areas but also in urban Monrovia, access to health care including mental health care, and to improving food security. Attention has been given to protection issues such as activities to reduce gender based violence and assistance for survivors, tracing and reunification of separated children etc.In August, a EUR 1,400,000 ad hoc decision has been adopted with funds from the 9th EDF B-envelope to support people returning home and starting their livelihoods in their area of origin mainly through providing assistance for subsistence farming and access to safe drinking water.In December 2006 a EUR 2,000,000 ad hoc decision has been adopted for Liberia and Guinea, out of which EUR 1,600,000 was earmarked for Liberia to assist refugees, returnees and vulnerable population. The operations under this decision will be implemented in 2007.LRRDDespite the positive developments, Liberia still requires humanitarian assistance and support until the Government has the capacity to take over from international agencies in a Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development context (LRRD). 2006 has been the first year of transition in various sectors. Coordination has taken place with the other development services of the Commission in order to identify timely complementarities in the areas of return. In the selection of its partners, DG ECHO took into consideration their capacity to stay beyond the humanitarian crisis, and cover the transitional period. However, the lack of capacity of the newly elected government to elaborate policies and provide for key basic services has delayed the adoption of clear strategies to upon which assistance could be based.NigerHumanitarian needsThe carryover of vulnerability from the nutritional crisis in 2005, concerns about the massive damage done to the coping mechanisms of the most affected households and continued very high Global Acute Malnutrition rates justified the maintenance of humanitarian aid in 2006. In February 2006, the Government of Niger declared that 14% (1.8 million people) of the population were at high risk from malnutrition. The 2005 crisis was the result of a combination of factors (spells of drought and locusts as well as a sudden trade imbalance with food produce moving to richer neighbouring countries, leading to net food-deficits and price hikes), impacting on an already precarious situation of poverty and illiteracy.Therapeutic and supplementary feeding programmes, improved access to primary health care and short-term food security activities were needed.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO allocated a total of EUR 12,000,000 to assist in bringing relief to those most in need. Cure rates approached 80%, saving the lives of many of the 63,600 severely malnourished children treated. The positive achievements of these efforts and those of the other humanitarian agencies that were active in Niger can be seen from the drop in the Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) rate which was estimated as over 15% in 2005 was estimated at just over 10% at the end of 2006.LRRDDG ECHO’s interventions were programmed in close collaboration with the other Commission aid services and a road map outlining the articulation of the various aid instruments was agreed in February 2006. This covered the DG ECHO commitments in 2006 and the mobilisation of extra European Development Fund (EDF) resources for food security and a renewed commitment to food security in the 10th EDF Country Strategy Paper for Niger. A DG ECHO liaison office was opened in the European Commission Delegation in Niamey.Caribbean and PacificThe Caribbean region is prone to frequent disasters, especially hurricanes and floods. Some islands also experience volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis. The region's vulnerability is accentuated by high population density, fast demographic growth and much poverty. This combination results in vulnerable communities with few coping capacities in the event of disaster.DG ECHO continued to support community-based Disaster Preparedness and Risk Reduction, through its DIPECHO programme. It also launched fresh support for the Pan American Disaster Response Unit, funded flood responses in Suriname and Haiti, and maintained its office in the Dominican Republic. DG ECHO has worked with DG DEV, EuropeAid Co-operation Office and the EC Delegations, assisting them with inclusion of disaster management and risk reduction in their development agendas, and several complementary programmes of institutional support and capacity-building were recently launched in the region.Funding covered the following issues / countries:[pic]Strengthening disaster management capacity in the Caribbean regionHumanitarian needsThe Caribbean region experiences frequent disasters, and there is need for rapid response. The Red Cross national societies are often in the front line, when a catastrophe occurs.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO launched fresh support for the Pan American Disaster Response Unit, run by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in order to strengthen the disaster response and management capacity in the Caribbean region.Dominican RepublicHumanitarian objectives and achievementsThe Dominican Republic houses the DG ECHO office for the Caribbean region, based in Santo Domingo. This office provides Technical Assistance essential to DG ECHO's operations in the region, including need assessment, monitoring and responding to disasters. To ensure the functioning of this office for the duration of a year, an amount of EUR 250.000 was made available.HaitiHumanitarian needsSudden torrential rain caused flooding in North Western part of Haiti in September and October 2006, seriously affecting 1,000 families, who needed emergency relief, due to damaged or destroyed houses and crops.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsAn emergency decision was adopted in order to provide assistance in the sectors of water/sanitation, food security and essential non-food items.SurinameHumanitarian needsHeavy seasonal rains resulted in severe floods in May 2006, submerging many schools, clinics and homes. More than 20,000 people were seriously affected.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO allocated funds under an emergency decision for activities in the sectors of health, water/sanitation and food security/nutrition to cover substantial livestock and crop losses. Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Southern Caucasus, Central Asia, including MongoliaFunding in this geographical region was to provide humanitarian assistance in the following countries:[pic]Northern CaucasusHumanitarian needsThe situation evolved quite significantly in Chechnya over 2006: security has much improved in the Republic, especially in Grozny, where an impressive reconstruction effort took place which already started to dramatically change the aspect of the formerly bombed-out capital. In parallel with the socio-economic improvements, however, little progress took place in terms of human rights.The improvement in the general situation allowed DG ECHO to phase out from certain sectors and reduce other activities. However, considering the extent of destructions and hardship suffered by the population and with more than 60% of the people unemployed, there remained significant humanitarian needs which were not attended by the authorities and which justified the continuation of a significant humanitarian aid programme.In Ingushetia and in Dagestan, the number of persons displaced by the conflict remained rather stable, with no major movements of return to Chechnya. These families being extremely vulnerable, humanitarian needs remain pending for durable solutions.As for the Chechen refugees hosted in Azerbaijan, their situation did not change in 2006 and they remain a forgotten and under-assisted caseload with significant protection problems and no durable solutions in sight, which justified a continued support from DG ECHO.  Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThis forgotten humanitarian crisis remained one of DG ECHO’s operational priorities in 2006, with funding totalling EUR 26,000,000. The European Commission continued to be the main donor in the region.Throughout the Northern Caucasus, the activities focused on protection, notably legal counselling for IDPs, returnees and residents. Food distribution continued, although a drastic decrease took place, with basic food aid provided to the most vulnerable people in Chechnya and school-feeding to primary school in Chechnya. Shelter rehabilitation projects were increased in order to allow IDPs who had returned to Chechnya and who were displaced for a second time to return to their homes and restart their lives. 500 households received construction materials for the basic rehabilitation of their house in Chechnya.DG ECHO implemented its phase-out plan in the water and sanitation sector, with a gradual transition of water trucking and sanitation activities in Grozny and in spontaneous settlements for IDPs in Ingushetia to local authorities.Due to the absence of any demining so far and the high prevalence of accidents, especially with children, DG ECHO continued to fund a mine risk education programme which benefited 100,000 people, including 20,000 children.In order to answer the very serious issue of war-related trauma, DG ECHO funded a significant psychological programme which reached 2,500 beneficiaries, of which 1,600 children.Working conditions for humanitarian staff remained very difficult, due to bureaucratic hassle and access restrictions. However, there was on the whole a noticeable progress in access to Chechnya due to a certain stabilisation there.LRRDThe special TACIS programme of EUR 20,000,000 for the North Caucasus which was supposed to start this year was delayed due to the fact that it was signed by the Russian party only in September.Southern Caucasus (Georgia)Humanitarian needsAlthough the situation improved in Georgia, the country was still faced with unmet humanitarian needs due to the frozen conflict around Abkhazia. The situation there remained very precarious. Despite some improvements due to the resumption of Russian tourism, the economy of the self-declared Republic remained in shambles and the absence of a conflict settlement and of recognised authorities as well as the international embargo hindered any sustainable development.In Western Georgia, the overall economic situation benefited from the general improvement in the country, but the region was still affected indirectly by the conflict with Abkhazia and the high number of displaced people there, many of whom have been living in run-down collective centres for more than ten years with limited or no economic opportunities.  Humanitarian objectives and achievementsWith EUR 2,000,000 funding, DG ECHO continued to finance food-security and income-generation projects in Western Georgia, especially Abkhazia, as well as the basic and most urgent rehabilitation of collective centres for IDPs and a pilot project of shelter rehabilitation for Georgian returnees in Abkhazia. It also supported the last phase of a mother-and-child health project in Samegrelo, the region most affected by the unresolved conflict with Abkhazia.LRRDThe Commission, through its Rehabilitation budget line, committed EUR 4,000,000 in support to recovery projects around the dividing line between Abkhazia and Georgia proper. Close consultations were held between DG ECHO and the European Delegation in Tbilisi in order to see how the two budget lines could be as complementary as possible, and how the Rehabilitation budget line could progressively take over some of the projects supported by DG ECHO. This took place to some extent, but unfortunately, due to delays, part of the Rehabilitation money had to be allocated to another project, which did not allow yielding the full results of the process engaged.MongoliaNo funding decision was adopted, in the absence of any new natural disaster. However, the two food-security programmes financed under the 2005 decision (EUR 900,000) were mostly implemented in 2006.TajikistanHumanitarian needsTajikistan continues to recover from the disastrous effects of civil war from 1992 to1997, and drought between 1999 and 2001. Progress has, however, been made over the last few years in terms of both political stability and strong economic growth. This transformation has allowed for the refocusing of efforts away from humanitarian needs and towards longer term poverty relief and sustainable economic development. Underlying humanitarian needs will, however, persist in a country which still has 64% of its population living below the poverty line, limited access to safe drinking water, and an overstrained health system.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn May 2006, the European Commission adopted its final package of humanitarian assistance in favour of vulnerable populations in Tajikistan. This decision (EUR 5,000,000) constituted the final action in DG-ECHO's three-step phase out from the country. This amount represented a further stepping down by EUR 1,000,000 from the previous year, and focussed again on health, water and sanitation, and food assistance interventions. In particular, a big push was made in the health sector, notably through the delivery of a functional national medicines procurement system which will improve population access to quality health services and sustainable access to essential medicines.Other focussed areas of intervention included targeting acute child malnourishment through support to therapeutic feeding centres, sanitation and hygiene education in schools, rehabilitation of rural water-drinking supply systems, and small scale agricultural production and income generation schemes.LRRDHandover of project responsibilities and equipment will take place during the finalisation of actions under the 2006 funding decision (expected throughout spring and autumn 2007). Where possible, DG ECHO has sought to link its operations to poverty alleviation efforts delivered through EuropeAid Co-operation Office in order to ensure a smooth transition from relief to rehabilitation and development. DG ECHO has also worked closely in the field with other development actors in order to ensure a smooth transition and help plug gaps in service as best as possible. It is likely that some isolated pockets of humanitarian need will remain, particularly in rural areas, as a result of widespread poverty throughout the country. However, at the same time it is clear that the humanitarian instrument of the European Commission is not appropriate to address these systemic problems caused by poverty.An evaluation of LRRD in Tajikistan is envisaged during the course of 2007. DG ECHO will continue to remain active in Tajikistan through its DIPECHO Action Plan for Central Asia, and will continue to monitor the humanitarian situation in Tajikistan and remain alert to any deterioration.Mediterranean and Middle EastFunding in these regions was to provide humanitarian assistance in respect of the following crises:[pic]Algeria – Sahrawi refugeesHumanitarian needsSahrawi refugees who have lived for the past 30 years in camps in the desert in the South-Western Algerian region of Tindouf continued to depend essentially on international aid in all sectors, from food to health, from water and sanitation to shelter.On 11 February 2006, the camps were seriously affected by flash rains which flooded the camps, destroying communal infrastructure, such as schools and health centres, damaging about 25% of the tents and destroying 50% of mud-brick houses which are used by the refugees and flushing away their belongings, including the food rations received from the World Food Programme.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, two funding decisions were adopted. Firstly, a primary emergency decision of EUR 900,000 to provide food rations, shelter and non food items. Secondly, a "regular" financing decision of EUR 10,000,000. About half of the funding is dedicated to the provision of food to the refugees. This includes the provision of both basic and fresh food. The provision of fresh food, for the second consecutive year, aims at increasing the diversity in the food intake, especially on micro-nutrients and vitamins, as was recommended by the 2005 WFP/UNHCR nutritional survey. The other half of the funding covers multiple other needs such as: hygiene kits, medicines, water and sanitation and shelter (tents). The decision also attempts to improve the sectoral approaches to humanitarian aid, in a context of a long-term protracted and relatively stable humanitarian crisis.LRRDNot applicable in the circumstances prevailing in refugee camps.Occupied Palestinian Territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Lebanon, Jordan and SyriaHumanitarian needsa) Related to the Palestinian crisisFollowing the Hamas victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006, the Government of Israel stopped the transfer of Palestinian value added taxes and customs duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA) which account for around 50% of the PA budget, precipitating thus a fiscal crisis. Consequently, around 161,000 PA employees who directly support another one million people (over 25% of the Palestinian population) did not receive any salaries any longer[5]. At the same time, main donors have reduced various categories of foreign assistance, mainly budgetary support to the PA. Consequently, the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has continued to worsen: household incomes have fallen, assets and coping mechanisms exhausted, and living conditions further eroded by the considerable decline in the quality of essential services like health and education and the economic and/or physical inability of most Palestinians to access them. Half of the Palestinian population was in poverty, rising to 68% in the Gaza Strip. Unemployment remained high at 37%. The ongoing conflict and the occupation have a strong psycho-social impact on the population. Regular access to safe water in the West Bank where nearly 40% of the communities lack water networks was a major concern, as well as the nearly 40% of the population who were food insecure.All these factors maintained the population in a situation of high vulnerability and dependency towards external humanitarian assistance, whereas the closure policy and the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land continued. At the end of 2005 the UN had launched a USD 215 million appeal to cover anticipated humanitarian needs for 2006 which, following the serious aggravation of the humanitarian situation, had been replaced by a revised USD 384 million appeal in 2006. As in previous years, vulnerable Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria and, particularly, Lebanon were also affected indirectly by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in need of aid.b) Related to the conflict in LebanonThe one-month long conflict (12 July – 14 August 2006) between Israel and Hezbollah resulted in the death of over 1,100 people, injury of a further 4,055, displacement of more than 900,000 people in Lebanon, and widespread damage to homes and civilian infrastructure. The most urgent needs to be addressed were emergency health care, food and non-food items delivery, water supplies, and temporary shelter. Although the process of rebuilding is under way, it will take some time for the country to fully recover. In the meantime, remaining humanitarian needs of the affected population exist in the following sectors: clearance of unexploded munitions, shelter, water and sanitation, emergency health needs, specific food needs, and income generation activities.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission made available in 2006 EUR 134,000,000 for humanitarian operations benefiting Palestinians in the Palestinian Territories, Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and the victims of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Summer 2006. This substantial increase compared to the initial indicative allocation of EUR 34,000,000, partly drawn from the Commission's Emergency Aid Reserve, was due to the additional humanitarian needs which had arisen following the Hamas victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006, and the resulting financial crisis of the PA as well as from the unforeseen conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah movement which heavily affected the civilian population.The bulk of the funds, approximately EUR 81,000,000, went to operations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in eight sectors: food; health, water and sanitation, temporary job creation, protection, shelter rehabilitation, psycho-social support and co-ordination. About one third of funds went to operations targeting beneficiaries affected by the construction of the barrier on Palestinian land.For Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, hospitals managed by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society were provided with adequate safety standards, as well as quantity of quality water. Services to disabled persons, the elderly and children were funded, as well as protection activities. In Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, funds were earmarked for the rehabilitation of dilapidated, unsafe and unhealthy shelters.In Lebanon, the Commission's response to the humanitarian crisis has been prompt and substantial with the adoption of two emergency decisions of EUR 10,000,000 each followed by a post-emergency/early recovery phase decision of EUR 30,000,000. Operations addressed humanitarian needs of the affected population in the following sectors: clearance of unexploded munitions, shelter, water and sanitation, emergency health needs, specific food needs, and income generation activities.LRRDIn view of the overall political context, LRRD was still not an option for the Palestinian Territories in 2006. However, full co-ordination was ensured with more development-oriented Community instruments and funding, particularly in the food and health sectors, as well as with the Temporary International Mechanism[6], in order to avoid any duplication. Consistency and complementarity with operations in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria funded under other budget lines were also ensured.In Lebanon, following the crisis in the summer of 2006, close coordination was established with DG RELEX and EuropeAid Co-operation Office. Moreover, DG ECHO participated to the damage and needs assessments undertaken by the other services. The DG ECHO funding that will be partly implemented in 2007 focuses on the livelihood recovery, which will help beneficiaries return as quickly as possible to "normality" and on demining. DG RELEX intends to allocate further funding to the de-mining sector from 2008, thus ensuring a continuation of the life-saving efforts made under the humanitarian aid budget.YemenHumanitarian needsYemen is a country with a great degree of vulnerability due to the wide-spread poverty, low human development indicators, and a history of humanitarian crises –both man-made and resulting from natural disasters. In rural areas, only 32% of the population on average has access to potable water. The corollary of waterborne illnesses explains partly the strong vulnerability of children under five whose mortality rate remains relatively high. It is also reported that 46% of children are moderately or severely underweight (chronic malnutrition). Maternal deaths account for 42% of mortality among women aged 15-49.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsNo funding was provided in 2006, because a funding decision was adopted at the end of December 2005 granting EUR 2,500,000 aimed to provide drinking water in rural areas or among the most vulnerable and a support to primary health care. Awareness-raising to hygiene and to sustainable management of resources accompanied these activities to perpetuate the results.The focus in 2006 was therefore to pursue the implementing of the projects funded under the 2005 decision.LRRDThe assistance provided is very much an LRRD intervention and linkages have been sought with the authorities as well as other donors including the EC. The self-sustainability, and the incorporation of a development dimension, is a characteristic of the interventions.AsiaEC humanitarian assistance was provided and/or implemented in the following countries:[pic]TsunamiHumanitarian needsThe tsunami left behind desolation, death and misery but the situation today is not the same in all affected areas. This is explained by the differences in the intensity of the disaster, the local authorities’ reactions, the local coping mechanisms and the degree of difficulty, or ease, of access to affected areas.In the Indonesian province of Aceh , 170,000 people were killed by the tsunami, which had a huge impact on housing and livelihoods, displacing more than half a million people and causing economic damage estimated at USD 4.5 billion, including USD 1 billion damage to the productive sectors like agriculture and fisheries and a very significant impact on public infrastructure, like roads and bridges. At the end of 2006, the number of reconstructed houses was less than half the planned figure of 136,000. People still displaced were either living in Temporary Living Centres (TLCs), in temporary shelters or with friends and relatives. Operations went on throughout 2006 to assist food security and livelihood recovery, care and maintenance of transitional shelters like provision of water and sanitation, rehabilitation of health structures and psychosocial activities.After Indonesia, Sri Lanka was the country hardest hit by the tsunami, which affected over two thirds of the island’s coastline. In all, 35,322 people were killed, 1 million displaced and 250,000 lost their livelihoods. The conflict-affected North and East were especially hard hit, experiencing two-thirds of the deaths and almost 60% of the displacement. Reconstruction and recovery in the conflict areas has been severely delayed by the renewed violence. Bureaucratic delays have also impeded progress throughout the country. At the end of 2006, between 100,000 and 150,000 people were still displaced and in transitional shelters or with friends and relatives. There were ongoing needs throughout the year particularly in food security, care and maintenance of transitional shelters, water and sanitation, camp management, livelihood recovery and psychosocial activities.India is the only country which experienced the effects of both of the last two major natural disasters: the tsunami and the Pakistani earthquake. The tsunami caused widespread damage, affecting 2,260 km of coastline plus the whole of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, killing more than 16,000 people and displacing 700,000. Projects were implemented in the most affected districts. People were rapidly accommodated in the relief camps, from which, later on, they were moved to individual temporary houses provided by the government, NGOs and other civil societies. The tsunami also damaged an estimated 84,000 boats. India did not call for international assistance and the authorities responded to the emergency phase in a robust and timely manner. Therefore DG ECHO decided not to intervene in the emergency phase, but to complement the authorities’ activities in the rehabilitation phase.Due to ongoing and unmet needs, four new projects were funded in 2006. These projects focused on improved shelter and water-sanitation facilities in temporary camps, and livelihood recovery (with a focus on low-caste, non-fishing, communities), to almost 7,000 families. 24% of the tsunami affected families still living in temporary shelters.The Maldives consists of a series of coral atolls rising directly from the sea. In terms of global impact, it was the country hardest hit by the tsunami, with one third of the total population severely affected. The surge of water unleashed by the tsunami brought about a temporary rise in sea levels which flooded 69 out of the 200 islands completely and another 70 extensively. Only 9 islands were not flooded. A total of 12,500 people were displaced, houses and water systems destroyed or damaged, and health equipment and infrastructure damaged on many islands. Access to drinking water was a major issue, as water collection tanks were damaged and wells contaminated with salt water. Thousands of houses were affected and the fishing and agriculture sectors suffered a significant loss of livelihood equipment and tools.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsAlthough the tsunami occurred in the final days of December 2004, almost all the activities took place in 2005 and 2006. The bulk of operations took place in Indonesia and Sri Lanka with smaller operations in India, in the Maldives and in Thailand.LRRDThe Tsunami Indicative Programme adopted by the European Commission in May 2005 allocated EUR 207,000,000 of the total EUR 350,000,000 to Indonesia , which is being fully implemented through the World Bank managed Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Aceh, North Sumatra and Nias. The intervention focuses on reconstruction of houses and public infrastructures like roads, bridges, airports, ports, etc., as well as schools and health centres. The funds are also dedicated to livelihood recovery programmes.The Tsunami indicative Programme allocated EUR 95,000,000 to Sri Lanka over 2005-2006. The EC intervention focuses on restoring livelihoods and reconstruction of key economic infrastructure. EUR 39,000,000 has been allocated to rebuild a major road damaged by the tsunami from Matara to Ampara and a further EUR 30,000,000 programme will reconstruct feeder roads to this main road for communities in the Ampara district. Livelihoods and environmental support to these communities will also be provided and a further livelihoods programme will focus on 6 tsunami districts in the North and East.Kashmir Earthquake (Pakistan/India)Humanitarian needs2006 began with earthquake victims still enduring the winter. Shelter, domestic items (such as blankets and clothes) and health remained the main needs. With the spring, recovery began. The Government of Pakistan (GoP) announced the introduction of the recovery phase starting in April as the emergency phase began to scale down. This included the return of most of the 160,000 formally registered internally displaced people (IDPs). Nevertheless, some camps remained for those such as the landless and widows, who were unable to settle back in their area of origin. New population displacements on a much smaller scale continued, however, due to landslides resulting from the earthquake or its aftershocks, and especially when combined with heavy monsoon rains in July. While needs such as shelter became largely recovery needs – with the GoP providing financial compensation for home reconstruction, the humanitarian focus remained on primary health care, and with increased emphasis on water and sanitation and livelihood support.Humanitarian Objectives and AchievementsDG ECHO's response evolved according to the needs. The EUR 48,600,000 allocated in the final quarter of 2005 following the earthquake was 100% contracted. A further EUR 1,000,000 was allocated for the 2006/7 winter for air transport to ensure access to ongoing humanitarian operations in highland areas. For the winter 2005/2006, the " Race against Winter " operation was successfully completed to ensure no 'second wave' humanitarian catastrophe amongst earthquake victims in remote highland areas. The emphasis was on air transport for access, and consolidated temporary shelter, domestic items and health care.While health assistance continued throughout the year, it evolved in nature from medical evacuation and large scale secondary care such as surgery, to maintaining a good delivery of primary health care, with the introduction of an integrated monitoring and guidance system which improved the response to disease outbreaks – during the summer in particular there was emphasis on containing outbreaks of water borne disease. This was complemented by, and was done in coordination with, the increased interventions in the water and sanitation sector. Initial recovery was assisted through early livelihood support projects, such as for seeds and tools. Assistance such as health, and water and sanitation, for IDPs continued throughout the year, with 35,000 IDPs still remaining at the end of the year.LRRDWith the announcement by the GoP of the introduction of the recovery phase in April, DG ECHO initiated and organised a meeting of EU Member States to review the humanitarian funding response. This was followed by a meeting with other Commission services, EU Member States, United Nations, Red Cross/Crescent and International Non-Governmental Organisations to plan the linkage of the humanitarian relief assistance with the recovery phase.Towards the end of the year, DG ECHO funded projects – for example for IDPs – put increasing emphasis on capacity building for the local authorities to facilitate their taking over of the projects in early 2007. Further, in 2006 EuropeAid Co-operation Officeallocated EUR 50,000,000 to UNICEF, UNDP and Asia Development Bank for recovery phase assistance to follow on from the humanitarian relief provided.South AsiaAfghanistan (including Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran)Humanitarian needsThe main groups with substantial humanitarian needs in 2006 were the over 130,000 refugees who returned from Pakistan and Iran, the returning Internally Displaced People (IDPs) within Afghanistan and the host communities receiving these returnees. The needs of the returning refugees and IDPs included transport and resettlement support, as well as shelter and water and sanitation for the most vulnerable such as female headed households. With over 4,700,000 refugees and displaced people having returned since the fall of the Taliban at the end of 2001, many of these and their host communities have required continuing support to avoid a major humanitarian crisis, particularly in the sector of water and sanitation where Afghanistan has some of the worst global indicators. A further significant area for humanitarian support was protection, especially in the South of Afghanistan. The continued vulnerability of much of the population also meant that humanitarian aid was required in response to the drought that developed in large parts of Afghanistan in 2006.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO’s strategy for 2006 was focused on assisting the return of refugees and IDPs and ensuring basic livelihood support for the most vulnerable and for their host communities. In parallel, DG ECHO worked with DG RELEX and UNHCR to attain durable solutions for the Afghan populations remaining in Pakistan and Iran, preparing for the time when they would cease to be considered as refugees.The European Commission adopted a Global Plan of EUR 20,000,000 for victims of the Afghan crisis, covering the registration and transportation of refugees from Pakistan and Iran to Afghanistan, as well as continuing support for the most vulnerable of the remaining refugees. Shelters and water and sanitation were the main sectors of intervention within Afghanistan. Responses to localised disasters were made with an increasing emphasis on building up local capacity. All projects were implemented with full respect to the key issue of gender. Protection assistance was provided, notably through continued support to both UNHCR and ICRC in their respective protection mandate roles. Given the constraints of security and geography, support to security advisory services for aid agencies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to a subsidised humanitarian flight service was maintained.A separate EUR 2,500,000 decision in emergency humanitarian aid was also adopted for an estimated 2,500,000 victims affected by severe drought in Afghanistan. Significantly less snowfall in the last winter and the failure of rains in much of the country during the critical spring season caused severe drought throughout the country. Access to food and clean water supplies, as well as food security were improved for the most vulnerable populations, with a particular focus on disabled persons and female headed households.LRRDClose coordination is taking place on LRRD matters between DG ECHO and DG RELEX and EuropeAid Co-operation Office, with a view to ensuring the mutual compatibility of their programmes and a handover wherever possible. Increasingly, and in line with progress at the international conferences for durable solutions, DG ECHO has phased down assistance to refugees in Pakistan and Iran, while in Afghanistan assistance has remained focused on the pockets of greatest need. The Uprooted People budget line has been the main instrument for LRRD in this process.BangladeshHumanitarian needsBangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world, is highly vulnerable to substantial flooding between July and September each year. In 2006 monsoon floods caused embankment breaches, which in turn resulted in sudden-onset flooding of villages and farmland, leading to death and injury of people and livestock, thus affecting over 135,000 families, as their houses were partially or totally destroyed, or marooned for weeks and their crops and livestock were destroyed.The serious humanitarian situation of the 10,000 illegal Rohingya refugees on the border with Burma continued to be of concern to DG ECHO. The EC Delegation in Dhaka is trying to find a solution with the government in order to allow humanitarian aid to be brought to these people.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO approved an emergency decision of EUR 4,000,000 in favour of communities in Bangladesh (EUR 1,000,000) and India (EUR 3,000,000) affected by floods. The humanitarian aid package consisted mainly of food rations and provisions for drinking water.LRRDAs part of regular coordination with the EC Delegation and DG RELEX, options are being analysed to assist in the provision of food aid and food security to some of the most vulnerable among the chronic flood victims in Bangladesh.IndiaFor tsunami related operations, see point 5.1.Humanitarian needsDespite the continuation of an encouraging high level dialogue initiated in 2004 between India and Pakistan, violence in Jammu and Kashmir remained high, with limited media coverage of the effects of the conflict on local populations. The deep psychological effects of this violence cannot be easily mitigated and women and children are the most vulnerable.The 2006 monsoon season caused severe flooding in several States, destroying crops, houses, livestock and social infrastructure such as water and sanitation. Over 4 million households were affected.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn the context of the conflict in Kashmir, EUR 2,000,000 was allocated. 4,000 people received psychosocial support and protection, despite considerable access difficulties for partners, caused mostly by bureaucratic problems. Moreover, DG ECHO approved a EUR 4,000,000 humanitarian aid package for the flood victims (of which EUR 3,000,000 for India and EUR 1,000,000 for Bangladesh), including provisions for emergency shelter, food rations, drinking water and improved storage and sanitation facilities, health, hygiene and medical support and livelihood support.DG ECHO continued to finance projects in nutrition and the provision of water and sanitation to the Sri Lankan refugee children living in camps in Tamil Nadu.LRRDThe only place where the linking between relief and rehabilitation is appropriate is Jammu and Kashmir, where the small DG ECHO support for non formal education is being continued by EuropeAid Co-operation Office and the EC Delegation.IraqHumanitarian needsThere was a serious deterioration in the humanitarian situation in Iraq during 2006, particularly after the bombing of the Samarra shrine on 22 February, which unleashed a wave of sectarian violence, causing over 600,000 people to be displaced within Iraq and over a million to leave the country. Instability and insecurity drastically increased, with a rise in attacks by insurgents and militias, in abductions, assassinations, criminal activity and in civilian and military deaths. 35,000 civilians were killed and 36,000 injured in Iraq in 2006. Furthermore, only 32% of Iraqis have access to clean drinking water, and only 19% have access to a good sewage system, which has considerably increased the incidence of waterborne diseases such as diarrhoea. Iraq's health system suffers from years of neglect and war, with diarrhoea, measles, respiratory infections, and malaria (compounded by under-nutrition) leading to very high rates of infant and child mortality. Tuberculosis and cholera have re-emerged.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsAlthough the level of humanitarian need in Iraq considerably increased in 2006, the very serious security situation made it extremely difficult to find partners working effectively on the ground, to have access to potential beneficiaries and to deliver aid without it being hindered or diverted. Therefore, DG ECHO did not finance humanitarian aid in Iraq in 2006, but instead sought to better understand the situation so that help could begin to be given in 2007.Nepal/BhutanHumanitarian needsNepal is among the world’s poorest countries and remains the scene of two forgotten humanitarian crises.The violent conflict initiated by Maoist rebels in 1996 cost over 13,000 lives. The year started with an upsurge in violence, but in March the Maoists and the seven-party alliance tried a new understanding and the following month the Maoists supported a series of street protests called by the seven-party alliance. These developed into a widely supported "people's movement", which by late April had forced the King to restore the House of Representatives. The first session of the House appointed a new Prime Minister and one of the new government's first measures was to declare an infinite ceasefire with the Maoists. Subsequent peace talks culminated in a Peace Agreement in November. Constituent Assembly elections are planned for mid June 2007.Although the country is now on a peace and stability path, the situation remains very volatile and the consequences of the 10-year conflict are still heavy. The conflict isolated populations in the worst affected areas and disrupted trade and agricultural activities; it destroyed water supply systems and communications infrastructure. Most of the community drinking water systems constructed during the 1980s and 1990s are no longer working effectively. Health posts are not functioning properly and suffer from a lack of trained personnel, hygiene, medicines and waste treatment equipment and systems. The Nepalese authorities have not been able to give support to communities due to budget cuts and security concerns.A second forgotten crisis has trapped over 105,000 refugees, including 21,000 children, who were expelled from Bhutan between 1990 and 1992. Since then they have been stuck in seven camps in the South-East of Nepal, accepted by neither Nepal nor Bhutan, and are totally dependent on external aid. No political solution seems in sight for them.Towards the end of the year, the accumulated effects of drought had created a situation of nutritional crisis in the Western part of the country, to which DG ECHO responded through the provision of food aid.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006 the population living in the areas affected by the conflict, and particularly children, continued to benefit from protection activities, with particular emphasis on the re-establishment and maintenance of contacts between dispersed family members and on the promotion of international humanitarian law. Additionally, a particular focus was put on the protection of children displaced by the conflict and without access to primary education and basic healthcare. Primary healthcare was provided for over 300,000 people in the mid and far Western regions. Also, 10,000 people benefited from the construction of drinking water systems and latrines.During the last quarter of the year, the equivalent of two months of food support were provided to over 120,000 vulnerable subsistence farmers and their families, affected by the drought, and supplementary dry rations were distributed to needy pregnant and lactating women and children below two years. Supplementary and therapeutic feeding operations were conducted for moderate and severely malnourished individuals in the affected areas, with priority for under fives and lactating/pregnant women.Food was distributed to Bhutanese refugees, representing a third of their annual requirements and DG ECHO also supported a supplementary food ration programme for 3,300 vulnerable refugees (malnourished children under five, pregnant women and nursing mothers, tuberculosis patients and elderly sick people).LRRDThe contribution to the Bhutanese refugees’ food needs is complemented by support from EuropeAid Co-operation Office for UNHCR’s management activities in the camps.Sri LankaFor tsunami related operations, see point 5.1.Humanitarian needsThe conflict between Tamil separatists and the Government of Sri Lanka intensified dramatically during 2006 leading to a serious humanitarian crisis in the country. The ceasefire agreement of February 2002 now exists only on paper and open warfare is ongoing on several fronts in the North and East of the country. Over 3,000 people lost their lives during 2006 as a result of the renewed conflict. More than 200,000 people have been displaced and a further 17,000 have fled to India. This is in addition to the existing caseload of 320,000 IDPs from earlier stages of the conflict, between 100,000 to 150,000 tsunami IDPs and 60,000 Sri Lankan refugees already in camps in Tamil Nadu.The humanitarian space has diminished due to severe restrictions on access, security concerns and bureaucratic procedures. Violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are reported daily including a marked increase in disappearances, abductions and forced recruitment of adults and children. Since August 2006, 22 local staff of humanitarian agencies have been killed in the North-East of the country including 17 staff of the French NGO Action Contre La Faim . Aid agencies are unable to work to their full capacity leading to a critical shortage of basic services in some areas particularly in the Jaffna peninsula and in the Wanni.In addition, the coping mechanisms of both IDPs and local population are severely depleted due to the protracted nature of the crisis, the loss of livelihoods and escalating food costs. IDPs and vulnerable population in the North and East require food and food security, protection, shelter, adequate water and sanitation and basic household items.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn response to the conflict DG ECHO adopted a decision for EUR 7,000,000. This provided shelter, water and sanitation, food security, non food items and protection to over 300,000 IDPs and vulnerable populations affected by the conflict.As the conflict intensified, an emergency decision for EUR 5,000,000 was adopted later in response to emergency appeals from ICRC and the UN. This decision provided emergency relief and protection activities for victims of the conflict in Sri Lanka and also included a component to provide water and sanitation for Sri Lankan refugees in the camps in Tamil Nadu, India.South-East AsiaBurma/MyanmarHumanitarian needsIn Myanmar, ruled by a military regime since 1962, forced village relocations and ongoing armed resistance by ethnic minorities have led to an exodus of refugees to neighbouring countries (over 150,000 in Thailand and 28,000 remaining in Bangladesh). In Northern Rakhine State 236,000 returnees of the Muslim minority have now gone back to Myanmar, but they do not enjoy any citizenship rights. In other border States and Divisions adjoining Thailand, there is an estimated number of over 500,000 internally displaced persons. The situation in the health sector in the country is extremely poor with one of the lowest per capita government expenditures in the world. The under-five mortality rate is 108 per 1,000 live births and over 35% of children under five are underweight. The main causes of premature death are malaria, HIV/AIDS, acute respiratory infections and diarrhoeal diseases (only 66% of rural populations have access to safe water and 57% to safe sanitation). Because of the political situation, the EU Common Position and the Regulation renewing sanctions against Burma has been extended for one year. Under the EU Common Position, non-humanitarian programmes remain suspended with certain exceptions. Most other donors are also reluctant to provide support in that context and official development assistance per capita is very low (around EUR 2/person).Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006 DG ECHO’s activities in Myanmar continued to be based on three main sectors: health and nutrition/food aid; protection and water and sanitation. In the health sector, activities continued to focus on access to primary health care and on malaria control programmes, since malaria is the largest single cause of death among children under five. In the water and sanitation sector, the aim was to improve access to drinking water and reduce the level of water-borne diseases, such as diarrhoea and chronic malnutrition. This was complemented by targeted nutrition programmes which treated over 17,000 acute malnourished children and women and food aid activities benefiting 33,000 people. DG ECHO also funded activities to protect civilians and prisoners.DG ECHO gave priority to the highly vulnerable border groups, notably to those living in remote rural areas on the borders with Bangladesh, India, China and Thailand, those lacking access to basic social services or those suffering discrimination on ethnic (Mon and Karen minorities) or religious grounds (the Muslim Rakhine in Northern Rakhine State).In 2006 two humanitarian aid funding decisions were adopted, granting a total of EUR 6,300,000 for Burma/Myanmar[7]. These cleared the way to provide health services to over 500,000 people, with another 217,000 obtaining improved water and sanitation facilities and over 250,000 returnees and detainees benefiting from protection activities.In order to closely monitor the operations and to better contribute to coordination among humanitarian agencies, DG ECHO has had a technical office in Yangon since December 2005.LRRDGiven the current EU Common Position, LRRD cannot be fully applied in Burma/Myanmar, but good coordination exists with the Uprooted People budget line managed by DG RELEX/EuropeAid Co-operation Office to complement these activities and avoid duplication. For example a nutrition programme in Northern Rakhine State is completed by a food security programme funded through this budget line.ThailandFor tsunami related operations, see point 5.1.Humanitarian needsThe number of Burmese refugees along the Thailand-Burma border has increased from 10,000 in 1984 to 143,000 in December 2005 and 154,000 in December 2006. A continuing low-intensity conflict between ethnic groups (notably of Karenni and Karen origin) and the military regime in Yangon has led to a steady flow of refugees (600 to 800 per month over the past few years). In 2006 resettlement opportunities in third countries were offered to 4,913 refugees while over 5,000 new arrivals entered the 9 camps along the Thai Burma border, where the refugees' dependence on external aid is almost total. The majority of these refugees have now been living in the camps for over 10 years, where they are subject to a number of significant restrictions and their quality of life is very precarious. On top of the basic humanitarian needs (shelter, food, health care, water and sanitation), social and psychological problems are increasing, as well as violence within the camps.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, DG ECHO continued the provision of food aid, cooking fuel and basic health care for the Burmese refugees living in the camps on the Thailand-Burma border, for an amount of EUR 9,400,000 on the EUR 15,500,000 total decisionLRRDGiven the circumstances, LRRD cannot be fully applied to the refugee camps in Thailand but good coordination exists with the EC budget line for Uprooted People to complement these activities and avoid duplication.An exceptional support for food aid worth EUR 1,300,000 was provided by RELEX/ EuropeAid Co-operation Office through this budget line in December. Other actions include the development of vocational training for the refugees.CambodiaHumanitarian needsCambodia has one of the highest rates of infant and child mortality in South-East Asia, leading WHO to describe the situation as a child survival crisis. Lack of access to safe water is one of the factors contributing to an infant mortality rate of 98 per 1,000 live births and an under-five mortality rate of 124 per 1,000 live births. The regions where most of the population is indigenous (Mondolkiri and Rotanokiri) and those which were under Khmer Rouge control until 1999 (Oddar Meanchey and Pailin) are particularly vulnerable.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn an effort to help combat the high level of infant mortality, DG ECHO supported a number of water and sanitation programmes in remote areas. Extra support has been given to basic public health services and community health education sectors through funding UNICEF and WHO programmes. Mine clearance activities and mine risk education campaigns continued in Pailin in the North West, together with sanitation activities to help reclaim unused land. All programmes, which are being financed under a final decision of EUR 2,000,000 approved in late 2005, will finish in the first half of 2007, at which point DG ECHO will phase out of Cambodia. This phasing-out is being linked to the implementing of development-oriented programmes, which will tackle the root causes of the poverty in the country.LRRDDG ECHO’s gradual phasing-out strategy has been coordinated with other EC instruments, which are financing longer-term programmes. In 2006 in particular, two DG ECHO-funded projects in Cambodia have been continued under the Commission Food Security thematic budget line: one programme in Pailin (CARE) and one programme in Rattanalkiri (German Agro Action).  IndonesiaFor tsunami related operations, see point 5.1.Humanitarian needsA cholera outbreak threatening more than 130,000 people hit in the highlands central region of West Papua at the end of April.An earthquake with a magnitude of 6.2 on the Richter scale that hit a densely populated area in the Provinces of Yogyakarta and Central Java on 27 May had huge humanitarian consequences, claiming the lives of nearly 6,000 people and making more than one million people homeless.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn Papua, DG ECHO responded by an emergency decision in order to provide safe water supply and sanitation to the population affected by the cholera outbreak and to control the morbidity and mortality rates by cutting the vector of transmission. The intervention proved to be beneficial in stopping the outbreak and the district administration lifted the status of emergency.In Yogyakarta, a primary emergency decision was immediately adopted to provide life saving support. The support of DG ECHO helped partners to undertake evacuations and life-saving measures, and provide emergency relief assistance. It was followed by an emergency decision to ensure support for the injured and those made homeless by the earthquake and focussed on providing shelters, non-food items, health, water and sanitation including logistics.LRRDIn Yogyakarta, the humanitarian aid provided by DG ECHO has been linked to rehabilitation through the Java earthquake Recovery Fund (JRF), which is co-chaired by the Commission Delegation as one of the main contributors.LaosHumanitarian needsChanges in traditional agricultural practices following the ban on shifting cultivation and on poppy cultivation along with the resettlement into more accessible lowland areas alongside roads, have created humanitarian needs among the indigenous minorities as well as those resettled. Both groups suffer from high rates of mortality and morbidity. This is further aggravated by the legacy of the Indochina war – unexploded ordnance, shells and landmines which contaminate many of the areas in which they live and seriously constrain their livelihoods and food security.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, DG ECHO continued providing assistance to vulnerable communities in Laos, via two programmes funded in December 2005. The objective of these programmes is to cover the needs of highly vulnerable remote communities, often hosting ethnic Hmong who, having been in hiding since the end of the Indochina war, had started to emerge from the forests. The areas targeted by the programmes were inaccessible to foreign humanitarian agencies until recently, because of their proximity to militarised zones. Provision of food and safe drinking water, health and sanitation training, malaria awareness and prevention activities, as well as access to sustainable livelihoods, have been the main achievements so far. UXO[8] clearance is also carried out when it is necessary for the successful completion of the project.Both ongoing programmes will be finishing in early 2007, at which point DG ECHO’s gradual phasing-out strategy initiated in 2005 will be completed. As explained below, this phasing-out is being linked to the implementing of development-oriented programmes, which will tackle the root causes of the poverty in the country.LRRDSince 2004 DG ECHO has engaged in a successful dialogue with other European Commission's services to identify opportunities for LRRD. Since then, four DG ECHO-funded projects have been continued under the Commission Food Security thematic budget line. A further Food Security call for proposals is planned for 2007.PhilippinesHumanitarian needsThe situation in Mindanao saw positive developments in 2006, with the informal ceasefire of 2003 still holding, thus allowing most of the displaced families to return to their areas of origin. As the returnees lost most of their productive assets when they were displaced, they still need some external support to restart their livelihoods.The Philippines is prone to frequent typhoons and 2006 brought five in succession from September to December, the strongest of which was the Durian typhoon. The typhoons completely destroyed an estimated 300,000 houses. It also triggered slides of old lava on the slopes of the Mayon volcano in the Albay province. These sudden lava slides claimed the lives of more than 1,000 people, and destroyed the houses and fields of many other families, who had to move to makeshift evacuation centres, with no place to return to. The resulting humanitarian needs were in the form of emergency shelter, food, water and sanitation, and medical supplies.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO’s objectives in response to the typhoons that struck the Albay province were to provide integrated relief to the most vulnerable typhoon-affected communities, in particular those that had to move to evacuation centres because their homes and land had been lost to the lava flows, and those whose houses had been totally destroyed by the typhoon. These objectives were met through a EUR 2,000,000[9] emergency decision approved in December 2006.LRRDIn 2006 DG ECHO completed its last operations by supporting more than 50,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and returnees in Mindanao. The two DG ECHO projects that came to an end in 2006 have been taken on by development orientated funding agencies. The Oxfam-GB project was continued by funding under the EC's Uprooted People budget line, while ACF will continue to work in the area. Other longer-term programs are also being implemented by the European Commission.Timor Leste (East Timor)Humanitarian needsIn 2006, the fragile stability forged in the short history of Timor-Leste as an independent nation suddenly gave way to civil strife and communal violence. Although the underlying causes of the current crisis are the extreme poverty and underdevelopment in the country, the direct cause of the unrest is to be found in political tensions carried over from the years of fighting for independence, which resulted in a dangerous rivalry between the army and the national police. The situation of unrest culminated in two particularly bloody incidents in April and May in the streets of Dili. The violence turned into riots, and uncontrolled gangs now continue to terrorize the civilian population, despite the quick deployment of a multinational force, which has been followed by the deployment of a UN political and peace keeping mission "UNMIT"[10].This internal crisis triggered the displacement of up to 140,000 people – more than 15% of the country’s total population –, which fled their homes in Dili because of the violence. While some have returned home, a large number of IDPs are still living under poor conditions in cramped camps in and around Dili, and an even larger number is being hosted by relatives and friends in the rural areas.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsTo cover their immediate humanitarian needs, an emergency decision of EUR 3,000,000 was taken for the provision of food, non-food items, emergency shelter, water, sanitation, camp management and protection for the conflict-displaced population. This decision aimed at preserving the lives and providing immediate assistance to the population of Timor-Leste affected by the internal conflict. IDP and population needs are in general fairly well covered, thanks to the strong commitment of the international community to the stability and development of Timor-Leste. Nevertheless, humanitarian needs will continue as long as a large number of people remain displaced by the conflict, and DG ECHO is planning further support in 2007.LRRDThe previous DG ECHO nutrition/Food Security interventions were completed in late 2006. This was coordinated with the new EC Food Security Budget Line and Rural Rehabilitation programmes.East AsiaNorth KoreaHumanitarian needsThe protracted humanitarian crisis in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is caused by a combination of the continuing decline of the economy and the inability of the Government to effectively redress the situation with appropriate development measures. This also means that there are still considerable humanitarian needs in the various parts of the country which, however, can be addressed best by longer term instruments in a sustainable way. On average the malnutrition of Koreans is “high” according to WHO classifications. The most recent UNICEF-led nutritional assessment in 2004 confirmed this: 37% of children were stunted; 7% were “wasted”, with a low weight/height ratio which could be life-threatening. Although the economic reforms of 2002 have brought about some changes, over the past year the average North Korean has found it more difficult to feed his family and to stay healthy. Basic drugs are supplied only through international aid and the needs of particularly vulnerable groups such as the handicapped and the elderly are greatly neglected. The water supply networks in the towns lack the energy necessary to operate them, materials to disinfect the water and spare parts to maintain broken pipelines. Furthermore substantial needs exist in sanitation which are, however, outside DG ECHO's mandate. If international aid were not given, there would be a high risk that the achievements of recent years would be rapidly lost. In 2006 the DPRK was also affected by flooding which had a limited impact on the humanitarian situation of the population.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsHumanitarian assistance was resumed in April 2006 under the new structure of the European Union Programme Support (EUPS) including only European Union's resident NGOs. This enabled DG ECHO partners to finish their already commenced, but suspended operations. In June-July 2006, DG ECHO's fact-finding mission to the DPRK recommended the phasing out of the DG ECHO programme in DPRK. The evolution in the humanitarian situation no longer justifies humanitarian assistance to DPRK as defined within the mandate of DG ECHO. Most of the ongoing projects have increasingly evolved into transition type interventions. However, given the character of these interventions in line with earlier DG ECHO strategies in DPRK and the paucity of alternative funding sources, DG ECHO decided to launch an ad hoc Decision for an 18-month phasing-out period. This Decision focuses on and combines water and sanitation and health as the principal sectors of intervention. With the new Financing Decision in 2006 DG ECHO intended to improve the water and sanitation provision for 300,000 people and to ensure vital medical supplies for EUR 8,000,000.  LRRDDue to the nuclear standoff triggered in the autumn of 2002 and aggravated by the DPRK's nuclear test in October 2006, resulting in UNSC 1718, the international community was reluctant to finance development programmes. Effectively, DG ECHO is the only donor consistently financing the crucial health and water and sanitation sectors. At the same time DG ECHO actively advocated for EuropeAid Co-operation Office's upscaling phasing in with food security projects.VietnamHumanitarian needsVietnam has over the years developed good coping mechanisms to counter the impact of natural disasters. However, local capacity can be exhausted where disasters such as flash floods and typhoons exceed their normal intensity. In October 2006, typhoon Xangsane struck the South-Eastern coastline affecting 1.3 million people, causing extensive damage and initiating the need for shelter for displaced people and livelihood recovery .Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO adopted a EUR 460,000 emergency decision in November 2006 to address the consequences of the typhoon. The objectives were to provide assistance to the victims of the typhoon through housing rehabilitation and livelihood recovery, incorporating the best practices that previous disaster preparedness operations have developed.LRRDReconstruction and recovery is well supported by the central and local government of Vietnam which, alongside foreign assistance, has also allocated financial grants and loans to the most vulnerable families. The continued presence of the DIPECHO programme in the affected regions will contribute to the dissemination of typhoon preparedness best practices and to their adoption by the national and local legislation.Latin AmericaThe EC Humanitarian Assistance in this part of the world was, in 2006, mainly to respond to natural disasters and also in respect of the internal conflict in Columbia.[pic]Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua)Humanitarian needsCentral America is one of the most disaster-prone regions of the world. More than 80% of the area is at high risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding and hurricanes; particularly from July to November. Every year Central America is badly affected by tropical storms, heavy rains and floods. In 2006 the situation was somehow better than in previous years. However, in El Salvador, there were significant floods in May that delayed the post-Stan operations and between 17 December 2006 and 15 January 2007, there were more than 1,000 tremors of which 157 were perceived by the population.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsIn 2006, the operations financed by DG ECHO were designed to respond to the Stan disaster of October 2005. Because there were remaining needs unmet by local institutions, two additional post-Stan decisions were adopted in 2006: one for Guatemala and one for El Salvador. More than 250,000 people benefited from these interventions, mainly in water and sanitation, distribution of emergency non food items, health, food security and shelter sectors. In this crisis DG ECHO gave special attention to the needs of women and children in shelters through a specific programme of psychosocial support.The additional funds were focused on helping victims to regain their self-sufficiency and establishing a basis for local and national reconstruction. Projects included improved home rehabilitation, water and sanitation, basic health services, agricultural support and disaster preparedness. DG ECHO continued to support the return of the most vulnerable populations, helping them regain a minimum level of self-sufficiency.DG ECHO has also continued its monitoring activities in Guatemala to prevent and address malnutrition among the most vulnerable (in particular children under five, pregnant women and nursing mothers), in coordination with local health authorities.LRRDStrong links with the Delegations and the other services of the Commission have been in place since the beginning of the crisis. This successful LRRD has been incorporated into the planning for the financial instruments in the new 2007/2013 Country Strategy Papers. Meetings between partners and national or local authorities have been facilitated by DG ECHO.South America except ColombiaHumanitarian needsSouth America is among the most highly disaster-prone regions of the world, exposed to panoply of natural disasters due to its geography, geology and climate: The El Niño event, attributed to warming in the Eastern and central Pacific, is causing regular floods and droughts. The Andean region is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and many volcanoes are still active. 2006 was representative in this regard with an increasing number of disasters occurring throughout the year, often affecting the most vulnerable.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsDG ECHO responded to the humanitarian needs arising from the floods in Bolivia in January 2006 which generated damage to crops, houses and infrastructure. DG ECHO adopted an emergency decision to meet the most urgent needs of the victims, in terms of water and sanitation, health, emergency repairs to health centres and schools, and disaster preparedness. Food aid and short-term emergency agricultural activities were also implemented.Later on in the year, a similar flood phenomenon occurred in Ecuador where torrential rains throughout the country caused flooding and landslides, directly affecting over 165,000 people. DG ECHO reacted with a second emergency decision to assist 79,289 of the most vulnerable people. Programmes included restoring access to water and sanitation, distributing hygiene products, and disinfecting health centres and schools hit by flooding. Food aid was also provided and epidemiological surveillance was conducted to monitor the risk of epidemics. Disaster preparedness was integrated into projects.LRRDDG ECHO and DG RELEX have worked together to ensure that a Disaster Risk Reduction component is included in the planning for the financial instruments in the new 2007/2013 Country Strategy Papers.Colombia (including Colombian refugees in Ecuador and Venezuela)Humanitarian needsFor more than 40 years Colombia has suffered from a long-term internal conflict between government, paramilitary and guerrilla groups. As a result, over 3 million people have been displaced from their home areas since 1985, with up to 220,000 new IDPs in 2006. More than 200 communities were in a situation of confinement or were blocked by combats among armed actors.In addition, UNHCR estimates that more than 450,000 Colombians have been forcedly displaced to neighbouring countries (Ecuador, Venezuela and to a lesser extent Panama). Of these, less than 50,000 have obtained the status of refugees. Most IDPs settle in shanty towns, often with no legal title to the land, building precarious shelters out of plastic, wood and cardboard or with relatives and families. IDPs displaced to an unfamiliar urban environment often very quickly see their food security situation deteriorate and their household economy collapse. Communities confined or blocked by combats loose access to food and to basic services, as insecurity does not allow them to go to their crop fields their access to markets is limited and public health services cannot reach them.Most asylum seekers need emergency help in terms of food and sanitation immediately after arrival in their country of exile. Later they need assistance with knowing their rights and finding their way through the process of registering as a refugee and help in integrating socially and economically in their new country.Colombia is also vulnerable to natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and floods.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe European Commission adopted a Global plan of EUR 12,000,000 to support Colombian people affected by violence. In the first 10 months of 2006 over 37,500 people received food aid and more than 45,000 received non-food items from ICRC during their first 3 months after being displaced. Subsequent to this emergency phase, more than 40,000 new IDPs (less than 12 months of displacement), host populations and confined or blocked populations received humanitarian post-emergency assistance including improved shelter, distribution of non-food items, access to basic services (primary health care, water and sanitation) and psychosocial assistance. DG ECHO continued to concentrate on the rural areas, often the more remote ones, where state institutions are generally not present.In 2006 protection of children continued to be a priority for DG ECHO in Colombia. Up to October 2006 more than 3,500 new IDP children were integrated in non formal education programmes in order to prevent their recruitment by illegal armed actors. IDP children resettle with their families in urban areas heavily controlled by the armed groups and are in danger of forced recruitment, social cleansing or violence.DG ECHO also financed projects in Ecuador, Venezuela and Panama. With DG ECHO funding, UNHCR has continued its efforts to improve the protection framework for asylum seekers by strengthening the national institutions involved in the reception, registration, documentation, assistance and integration of refugees. Protection and support services were provided for more than 45,000 Colombians to cover basic food, nutrition, shelter, health, water and sanitation and educational needs and helping the refugees in the reception, registration, documentation and assistance and integration process.LRRDIn Colombia, LRRD works well. There are 3 types of links in Colombia. The first is where a single partner receives both Uprooted Peoples (UP) and DG ECHO funds and works with the same beneficiaries, in the first stages with DG ECHO financing and then later under the UP programme. Secondly, in the conflict-affected areas the UP and DG ECHO support are complementary, with UP focusing its work essentially on communities where some level of stabilisation has been gained. Thirdly, complementarity is achieved through the Delegation providing institutional support to the State assistance mechanisms in order to improve the quality of the government’s assistance, whereas DG ECHO prioritises grassroots support. The DG ECHO office in Bogotá liaises closely with the Delegation on the selection of UP projects, to ensure continuity with DG ECHO activities.Disaster preparedness activities (including dipecho)Humanitarian needsThere has been a considerable rise in the number and intensity of disasters over the last decades. In developing countries, population growth, poor governance, increasing impoverishment, poor management of natural resources and consequently depletion and degradation of soil are factors that contribute to increased risks and vulnerabilities. Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, drought, wildfires, tropical cyclones and associated storm surges, tsunami and volcanic eruptions claim a heavy toll in terms of the loss of human lives, destruction of economic and social infrastructure, not to mention a negative impact on already fragile ecosystems.Furthermore, in some parts of the world, natural disasters are a recurrent phenomenon that can have severe impacts on fragile livelihoods. In some regions disasters seem to be more frequent and vulnerable people tend to face more risks and have less time to recuperate their livelihoods in between disasters. This draws attention to the value of preparedness in any disaster management policy and strategy. DG ECHO's programme to support community-based disaster preparedness projects, DIPECHO, covers six regions worldwide - Central America, the Andean Community, the Caribbean, Central Asia, South Asia, and South-East Asia. All six regions are highly prone to hazards that have devastating consequences for the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. In Central and South America the main disasters are recurrent floods, landslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, hurricanes and droughts; in the Caribbean the recurrence of tropical storms, floods and volcano eruptions cause regular humanitarian crises; and in Central, South and South East Asia floods, typhoons, landslides, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and forest fires undermine already fragile livelihoods. DIPECHO targets the most vulnerable groups in these regions and in localities where the coping mechanisms are particularly weak both in terms of local resources and the capabilities of national disaster response mechanisms. In all of these regions initiatives on disaster preparedness and prevention are emerging at national and at regional level, but they tend to suffer from a lack of resources and outreach capacity. Coordination between national governments is often not very advanced or is limited to exchanges of views and knowledge or establishment of early-warning systems that are not always adapted to disaster prone areas with limited infrastructure.Humanitarian objectives and achievementsThe global objective of DG ECHO's disaster preparedness activities is to reduce the impact of future disasters and hence the need for humanitarian aid in the aftermath of a disaster. Disaster preparedness projects and preparedness components mainstreamed in relief are mostly implemented in countries with prevalent humanitarian needs but in some countries, DG ECHO's sole presence is DIPECHO interventions. However, when a disaster strikes, DIPECHO has proven to be the first response instrument as it has allowed communities to be prepared and respond primarily by themselves. Due to DIPECHO funding, the vulnerable communities can directly benefit from early warning systems, tested evacuation plans, on-the-spot training in first aid and search and rescue etc. that increase the local coping capacities.DIPECHO Action Plans are implemented at three levels:i. at community level, where they enhance the capacities of local communities at risk and of local authorities, through training, awareness-raising, setting up early warning systems and risk mapping;ii. at national level, where activities strengthen the capacity of national disaster management services and help to produce and disseminate maps/contingency plans;iii. at regional level, where cooperation and coordination of disaster preparedness activities is encouraged, in particular through the exchange and dissemination of data, knowledge and good practices.LRRDIt is internationally recognised that efficient Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) requires longer term engagement by development stakeholders and national authorities. DG ECHO's contribution to global DRR efforts - consisting mainly of fostering a preparedness culture and investing in community-based preparedness measures - is one contribution among several required. Hence, DG ECHO's programmatic efforts are combined with continuous advocacy efforts at headquarters level and in the six regions targeted by DIPECHO to encourage development stakeholders to invest in DRR. DG ECHO continues to encourage other Commission services, such as DG RELEX, DG DEV and EuropeAid Co-operation Office, EU Member States, other donors, local authorities and NGOs to build on DIPECHO lessons and best practices.In several countries there is close coordination between Commission services, such as in Central America where an active relationship in the field and at headquarters level has been established. Good coordination is also experienced in the Andean Community and in the Caribbean Region. In Central, South and South East Asia the same levels of coordination has not been achieved even though DG ECHO has been engaged for a long time and will continue to engage in advocacy on several levels to ensure the sustainability of its DIPECHO investments in these regions.But even if good coordination has been established between Commissions services, it does not mean that Disaster Risk Reduction is systematically taken into consideration in high-risk countries. The new round of EC Country Strategy Papers 2007-2013 leaves room for improvement and DG ECHO will therefore continue its advocacy to encourage mainstreaming of DRR and notably relevant preparedness aspects in longer term sector programmes such as education, health, environment, and food security.As a general observation, high levels of complementarity between DIPECHO projects and development projects can be seen as a challenge in terms of the difference in approaches by the different actors: DG ECHO's short-term community-based approach versus the macro-level approach applied by most donors. Even in countries where DRR is recognised as a national development priority, interventions that benefit the most vulnerable groups are often neglected by authorities and donors. This is an important challenge for the DIPECHO programme in the years to come but a necessary condition for substantial contributions by the EC to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015.The funding provided by DG ECHO for DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness projects in six disaster prone regions is shown in the table below. Given the fact that the duration of these types of actions are typical 12-15 months, the table provides the cumulative funding in 2006 (since 1999), as well as the funding decisions adopted in 2006. Since the 2006 funding decisions were adopted in the last months of the year, a number of grant agreements were only signed in early 2007.[pic]CaribbeanOver the period 1998-2006, five DIPECHO Action Plans have been implemented in the Caribbean region, which represents an ECHO investment of some EUR 12,900,000 in disaster preparedness. The Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan for the Caribbean continued to be effectively implemented, with several operations modified in order to extend or enhance their activities.The overall aim of the DIPECHO operations is to enable local communities to prepare for and mitigate natural disasters. Some operations are country-specific, targeting the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Others are regional, covering Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, Guyana, St Lucia and Dominica. Cuba is participating in the regional DIPECHO operation being implemented by UNDP.Central AmericaCentral America is particularly exposed to natural disasters such as volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tropical storms, and landslides. The losses and destruction that result from these disasters are significant from a social and economic point of view and reduce the development potential of the region. Furthermore, Central America experiences frequent small-scale disasters affecting relatively few communities, where donors are unlikely to intervene due to the limited scale of the event, but which have a considerable negative impact on the livelihoods of those affected. These events, as well as large-scale disasters such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and Stan in 2005, highlight the increasing need for disaster preparedness activities in the region, and the significance of community-based disaster risk reduction efforts. Such efforts enable the communities at risk to mitigate the disasters and prepare themselves for when natural disasters occur.A Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan for Central America was launched in 2006. An amount of EUR 6,000,000 was allocated to improve the capacities of communities at risk to better prepare for and protect themselves against natural disasters. The new decision covers six countries in the region: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, the latter two countries being covered only by regional projects. This funding decision brings the DIPECHO funding in the region to a total of EUR 18.480.000.Andean CommunityThe Andean Region is one of the most highly disaster-prone regions of the world, exposed to panoply of natural disasters due to its geography, geology and climate: The El Niño event, attributed to warming in the Eastern and central Pacific, causes regular floods and droughts. The region is also particularly vulnerable to earthquakes and many volcanoes are still active. Since 1999, four DIPECHO Action Plans have been implemented. In total, DG ECHO has invested some EUR 17,200,000 in disaster preparedness of the Andean Community.The Fourth Action Plan for the Andean region, with a budget of EUR 4,500,000 was implemented in 2006 through the funding of projects in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.On the basis of lessons learned from previous Action Plans and needs identified in the field through the consultative process, greater emphasis was placed on the most vulnerable populations in disaster-prone areas such as urban centres; on maintaining access to basic services such as health, water and sanitation during a disaster; on the identification of indicators to assess local capacity and needs, with the funding of bi-national and regional projects. Coordination with national and regional authorities remains a real commitment in the programme.Central AsiaCentral Asia is permanently threatened by potential large-scale disasters resulting directly or indirectly from disasters. Risk is exacerbated by poor national coping capacity and a near absence of co-ordination mechanisms, analysis and preventative measures. Drought is also a potential disaster. In addition to potential large scale threats, Central Asia is characterised by numerous small or medium scale disasters. One after the other, they erode capacities and threaten the livelihoods of people.An evaluation of the three first DIPECHO Action Plans for Central Asia carried out in mid-2006 concluded that actions taken had had a positive effect on reducing the impact of natural disasters on vulnerable populations, ensuring preparedness to respond, and establishing and continuing support of early warning/intervention systems. The evaluation noted that DIPECHO had provided a much more systematic way for vulnerable communities to address associated risks. It went further to note that preparedness and response activities, such as first aid training and development of emergency rescue teams, had saved lives, pulling people alive from avalanches and rescuing people from floods. Key to the recommendations was that DG ECHO should continue its DIPECHO programme in the region.In December 2006, the European Commission adopted its Fourth DIPECHO Action Plan for Central Asia (EUR 6,050,000), drawing on the recommendations of the evaluation. This new decision covers Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, including small cross border initiatives with Northern Afghanistan and will bring the total DIPECHO investment in the region to EUR 15,050,000. Operations under this action plan will commence in early 2007 and the foreseen activities will include developing local disaster management plans, disaster and vulnerability mapping, establishing early warning systems, training and equipping rapid response, search and rescue and medical teams, and developing curricula and training programmes on safe construction practices.Additionally an increased co-operation with UN agencies is expected to improve coordination and linking to national platforms for disaster preparedness. Operations will include the piloting of activities in Turkmenistan and border areas of Afghan Badakhsan, as well as the scaling up of activities in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.South AsiaSouth Asia is one of the most vulnerable regions to natural disasters. The social and political structures, demographic pressures, the structure of settlements, agricultural practices and economic development result in a population which is extremely vulnerable to natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, cyclones, drought and landslides. From 2001-2006, DG ECHO launched three DIPECHO Action Plans with a total investment of EUR 11,700,000.The Third DIPECHO Action Plan for South Asia with a budget of EUR 6,000,000 was launched in 2005 and implementing of projects carried out in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and for the first time Pakistan. Clear priorities were given to a community-based approach for the most remote, disaster prone areas and vulnerable people while at the same time targeting earthquake-prone vulnerable populations in urban areas, such as big cities in Bangladesh and the Kathmandu valley.Coordination mechanisms between partners and joint advocacy for Disaster Risk Reduction and thus also a culture of preparedness, have been the most important achievements during this Action Plan. DG ECHO has directly contributed to raising national awareness about DRR, reiterating the obligation of authorities to implement the Hyogo Framework for Action using community-based projects as the main advocacy platform for overall disaster management practices.South East AsiaSouth East Asia is another highly disaster-prone area in the world. This area is particularly exposed to floods, flash flooding, typhoons, landslides, earthquakes, drought, forest fires, volcanos and tsunamis. The losses and destruction that result from these disasters are considerable from a social and economic point of view, reducing the development potential of the poorer countries of the region especially where larger parts of the populations are living in remoter areas with weak infrastructure. The disasters that affected this region in 2006 highlighted yet again the importance of disaster preparedness activities – especially at the community level. Over the years DG ECHO has launched 5 Regional Action Plans for South East Asia of which the latest was adopted in November 2006. This Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan (EUR 7,000,000) covers seven countries in the region: Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, although Lao PDR and Thailand are only covered by regional projects. This recent Action Plan brings the total DIPECHO investment in South East Asia to the level of EUR 21,680,000.The strategy for the Fifth Action Plan was defined in collaboration with the main stakeholders in each country through the analysis of existing legislation, donor activities in DRR and the current/planned national DRR strategies.Other – new initiative in disaster preparedness activitiesAs a new development in 2006, DG ECHO adopted a significant regional decision (EUR 10,000,000) on disaster preparedness for pastoralist populations in the Greater Horn of Africa (Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Eritrea). DG ECHO actions supported the establishment of contingency planning measures, early warning systems and community-based mechanisms for response to the inevitable cycles of droughts.For drought preparedness programme in the Horn of Africa, see point 1.1.RELATIONS WITH OTHER EU INSTITUTIONS, MEMBER STATES, MAJOR HUMANITARIAN PARTNERS AND NON-EU DONORSEU Institutions and Member StatesAs in previous years, DG ECHO pursued an active relationship with other institutions and Member States.At the Community institutional level , DG ECHO was active throughout 2006 with a view to ensuring that the humanitarian principles remained high on the agenda within the EU institutions. This was particularly the case in discussions with military and civil protection actors.DG ECHO also maintained close contacts with other Commission services such as DG RELEX (in relation to crisis management) and DG Environment (for civil protection matters) in order to ensure the coherence of the overall Community response. Moreover, DG ECHO participated in different meetings and Council working groups (e.g [11], Prociv[12], COASI, CODEV). DG ECHO continued to underline its firm commitment to the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. This principled approach is essential for the acceptance and ability of humanitarian workers to operate in complex political and security contexts. . DG ECHO also advocated for compliance with the UN Guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in disaster relief (Oslo Guidelines) and the UN Guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in support of UN humanitarian activities in Complex Emergencies (MCDA Guidelines) to preserve the humanitarian space. Relations with the EU Military Staff (including the new Civil-military Cell) were consolidated and further developed.With regard to Member States , eight monthly meetings of the Humanitarian Aid Committee (HAC) were organised as well as two informal meetings. The Austrian and Finnish Informal HAC meetings took as their themes the reform of the international humanitarian system, Member States financing decisions as well as the interaction between humanitarian aid and civil protection.In relation to the European Parliament, DG ECHO presented its draft operational strategy for 2007 to the Development Committee. It followed discussions of the civil protection financial instrument in the Environment and Development committees. DG ECHO also followed the presentation by Mr. Barnier of his report entitled " For a European civil protection force: Europe aid ". Throughout 2006, DG ECHO consolidated its working relationship with the new standing rapporteur for humanitarian aid.Relations with international organisations and non-EU major donorsOn the international front, DG ECHO participated in various meetings such as the UN-OCHA High Level Working Group, the Montreux Retreat on the CAPS[13], the annual Good Humanitarian Donorship meetings and the UN-OCHA and ICRC Donors Support Group missions to Pakistan and Sudan/Darfur, the UNDAC Advisory Board DG ECHO continued to support the dissemination and implementation of the UN guidelines on the use of Military and Civil Defence Assets in Humanitarian operations and to be active in various meetings organised by UN-OCHA in this regard such as Consultative Group of the MCDA. Implementation of the humanitarian reform agenda has also be a significant focus in 2006. DG ECHO was also represented at the Humanitarian Segment of the ECOSOC and followed closely humanitarian issues during the UN General Assembly (UNGA).With regard to the annual Strategic Programming Dialogue (SPD) with major partners, meetings were held in 2006 with UNOCHA, UNICEF, WHO, WFP, UNHCR ICRC, IFRC, VOICE and MSF to discuss the strategies and main priorities of each organisation.Concerning its relations with non-EU major donors , regular contacts were maintained with the US Administration (USAID and PRM) through the year. These contacts have targeted general policy issues and humanitarian operations in specific countries with a view to ensuring a coherent and complementary response.OTHER ACTIVITIESExperts in the fieldIn order to meet the target of 100 experts defined in the post-tsunami action plan of January 2005, DG ECHO pursued its consolidation in the recruitment of field experts, aiming at organising multi-sectoral rapid response teams. This allows DG ECHO to rapidly dispatch its field experts to new crisis situations to carry out humanitarian needs assessments and participate in the coordination of humanitarian activities in the field.In 2006, experts were recruited in the context of the reinforcement of Regional Support Offices, to work in new country offices or to reinforce existing ones. At the end of the year, 90 experts were under contracts and 10 recruitment procedures were ongoing. This number fluctuates slightly with the closure or downsizing of certain offices and the reinforcement of others according to needs.Security issuesThe security of humanitarian personnel in the field is a growing concern for all humanitarian agencies. During the reporting period, there was a slight increase in violent acts involving national staff but no critical safety/security incidents involving DG ECHO staff was reported.Activities carried out in 2006 included: (1) security training activities, (2) dissemination of professional advice on the implementation of protective physical security measures and contingency plans for field offices, review of security plans, dissemination of DG ECHO security guide to new field staff, and (3) development of closer and more effective working relations with existing and new security-specific contacts within the European Union, International Organisations (IO) and NGO communities, representing DG ECHO in security/safety international meetings.DG ECHO is committed to assist partners in their efforts to ensure that field staff can do their work effectively and safely, and to promote advocacy for humanitarian space. The best way to preserve this is to maintain a high level of engagement in the Good Humanitarian Donorship principles, to remain committed to high quality assistance and to maintain a transparent dialogue with other key players, bilaterally and in multilateral humanitarian fora.Policy issuesAt the end of 2006, DG ECHO launched an extensive consultation process of the EC's humanitarian partners, Member States and the European Parliament on key humanitarian issues such as the aim, principles and values on which humanitarian aid is based, the challenges faced by humanitarian actors and the implementation of humanitarian aid.The result of this consultation will feed into the preparation of a Commission Communication which will seek an EU consensus on the principles and best practice of humanitarian action and to set out an agenda for implementing a more closely co-ordinated approach, so that the European Union maximises its contribution to the collective international humanitarian response. The European Consensus should pursue scope for a more coherent, consistent and comprehensive approach to humanitarian aid.Guidelines on water and sanitation were disseminated so as to guarantee the consideration of these aspects in DG ECHO interventions. Work on food aid and food security has been pursued as well as on health issues and work has been initiated on protection and on cash and vouchers in emergencies.DG ECHO was also involved in the Global monitoring for environment and security (GMES) initiative for the implementation of information services dealing with environment and security. As far as emergency response is concerned, it should provide improved rapid mapping and damage assessment services.Communication and informationRegarding its communication strategy, DG ECHO undertook a range of actions in pursuit of its objectives to disseminate key humanitarian messages and to communicate the European Commission’s role in helping the victims of humanitarian crises. It continued to place emphasis on reaching wide audiences through mass media and to focus on young Europeans in particular.With regard to printed publications, a thematic brochure on solidarity, photo-books, postcards and bookmarks as well as presentational leaflets for Regional Support Offices were printed.Audiovisual items were produced on the Kashmir earthquake and broadcasted in European countries as well as on European by Satellite (EbS).Other communication products included press releases, witness accounts published on the DG ECHO website, new country-specific web sections, editorial features in four airlines in-flight magazines, an Annual Review and a range of other publications.A Eurobarometer poll on humanitarian aid, covering EU and accessing country citizens, was carried out. Support for EU humanitarian aid was largely unchanged at the high level of around 90%. Spontaneous identification of the EU as a humanitarian actor rose slightly from 5% to 7% while the proportion claiming to know that the EU funds humanitarian aid was almost at 60%.Other events were also organised, such as (1) integrated awareness-raising campaigns in Hungary and Malta. This included a humanitarian village in Budapest, a week-long itinerant road show in Malta, exhibitions, etc; (2) participation in EuropeAid Co-operation Office “May 9th” schools campaign and (3) participation in fairs and exhibition in European cities.DG ECHO also continued to focus its efforts on communicating with specific target audiences, notably young people. Further work was undertaken, including training sessions, for DG ECHO staff and partners, with a view to encourage wider communication reflex.Training initiativeDG ECHO continued to support the Network on Humanitarian Assistance (NOHA), which offers a one-year multi-disciplinary post-graduate diploma with seven universities participating across Europe [14] with the backing of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) and other actors of the humanitarian relief community.Thematic funding and Grant FacilityThematic funding is covered by article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) n° 1257/96 on humanitarian aid. While remaining crisis-oriented and answering primarily to the needs of populations that are victims of humanitarian disasters and conflicts, DG ECHO also finances, to a limited extent, the reinforcement of the core capacities of its partners.Given the central role played by the main international organisations with a humanitarian mandate (UN relevant agencies, ICRC, IFRC …) in the effective delivery of humanitarian aid, DG ECHO continued in 2006 to support the reinforcement of their institutional capacities through thematic funding programmes.The funding provided for the Thematic funding in respect of the above partners is in the table below.[pic]In 2006 DG ECHO financially supported the strengthening of information management and systems by UN-OCHA (EUR 3 million), including developments of HIC (humanitarian information centres), ReliefWeb and the Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System (GDACS) in view to improve the coordination of humanitarian assistance amongst the international community, an UNHCR programme to improve registration of refugees (project Profile) and emergency preparedness (EUR 4 million). Thematic funding also contributed to the WFP (EUR 3.5 million) in view to reinforce their capacity to accurately assess humanitarian needs in the food sector. DG ECHO contributed to two UNICEF programmes to develop capacities of the humanitarian community in the field of child protection in emergencies (EUR 1.8 million) and to strengthen their capacity to prepare and rapidly respond to emergencies (EUR 4.2 million).Programmes were ongoing (on 2005 financing) with IFRC on disaster management and emergency preparedness and WHO with support to the Health Action in Crisis (HAC) programme.DG ECHO also financed, through a programmatic funding, protection activities for victims of armed conflict by ICRC (EUR 3 million) in Congo RD, Rwanda and Sierra Leone.A new approach to thematic funding has also been developed in the second part of the year, according to which future thematic funding in 2007/2008 will be centred around a common theme which is the support to the humanitarian reform, in particular the cluster approach and coordination.As regards NGOs, the equivalent of thematic funding is the Grant Facility. Based on article 4 of Council Regulation n° 1257/1996, the Grant Facility was established by DG ECHO during the Nineties with the aim to finance capacity building of non governmental partner organisations on the most relevant humanitarian aid issues, by means of training, studies or networking.Paying attention to the major developments in the humanitarian context, funding under the Grant Facility continued in 2006 along two main axes:(a) Triggering effective synergies within the civil society for representation and advocacy purposes, notably in respect to the defence of the humanitarian space;(b) Improving the performance of the international response system by addressing identified technical gaps.FINANCE, AUDIT AND EVALUATIONS KEY INDICATORS ON LEGALITY AND REGULARITY AND SOUND MANAGEMENT SUPPORTING REASONABLE ASSURANCEDG ECHO has formal systems for regularly monitoring financial information and providing adequate management information. Specific financial indicators have been incorporated into an overall scoreboard.The proper implementation of DG ECHO-funded operations is ensured through several layers of checks and controls at the various stages of the project cycle of humanitarian operations. The main aspects of the control strategy developed by DG ECHO, its supervision and monitoring procedures and the ex-ante and ex-post controls are described below:Strict selection and quality control mechanisms for partners under the current Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) defining the requirements for financial credentials and expertise of implementing partners. Regular as well as ad hoc assessment of FPA partners ensures that these requirements are maintained continuously: in the context of the first annual assessment exercise under the current FPA, DG ECHO submitted 170 partners to an annual assessment. 47 of these partners were identified as requiring further analysis.Out of this group 15 partners were requested to provide DG ECHO with supplementary information. As a final result, DG ECHO proceeded with the termination of the FPA concluded with 4 partners. No suspensions took place.-  Day-to-day control of progress of projects. Each contract is monitored by the desk and field expert via a project appraisal worksheet (“fichop”);-  Project monitoring through a network of DG ECHO field experts (technical assistants) worldwide. These specialists are based in the field in order to facilitate and maximise the impact of the operations funded by the European Commission, regardless whatever country or regions where the project is implemented. These experts monitor closely the projects and establish regular reports;-  Regular field visits of projects by geographical desks, auditors and DG ECHO Management. In 2006, there have been 317 monitoring missions and field audits;-  Obligation for partners to produce intermediate and final reports and to justify their expenses;-  Thorough analysis of these reports and control of eligible expenditure by both operational and financial desk officers of DG ECHO. Various procedures, such as the use of check-lists and double checking, have been set up to ensure that all the financial transactions are in conformity with the financial rules, comply with sound financial management and are recorded correctly in the accounting system.-  696 final reports related to humanitarian aid operations were analysed in detail and the final payment was processed in 2006;-  Expenditures which are not sufficiently supported in the final report are disallowed and discounted in the final payment. If the humanitarian organisation can during the contradictory phase provide complementary justification, the reports are re-analysed and if justified, a complementary payment is made. 285 complementary payments were processed in 2006;-  The amount of abnormal RAL is less then 3% of the annual budget and refers to a litigious case for which a Court decision is pending.-  DG ECHO undertakes approximately ten evaluations each year on average, focusing on major country operations (i.e. operations funded for a total of about € 50 million and which have not been evaluated in the past three years), partners and thematic issues. In 2006, the following actions were completed.-  Reviews aimed at capacity building : A review on drug supply quality produced a concept paper and model guidelines to help DG ECHO's partners maintain a realistic, standardized and coherently applied system for "Quality Assurance" based on existing international and WHO guidelines. The Security review 2 produced a methodology for "the training of trainers" in security matters and a guide to assist NGO collaboration at field level.-  Evaluation of partnerships: As for the evaluations of DG ECHO partnerships, the ones with Save the Children UK and ICRC were completed. The evaluation underlined the complementarity of mandates and the shared values as regards the promotion of IHL, impartiality, independence and neutrality.-  Evaluation of operations: In 2006 evaluations were launched in Zimbabwe , for the Darfur crisis, for DIPECHO in Central Asia. The overall assessment of the evaluators was that DIPECHO in Central Asia is fully in line with DG ECHO's mandate. The report stressed that actions are appropriate because they support preventive actions that reduce/eliminate hazard impact, ensure preparedness to respond to disasters and lead to the establishment and continued support of early warning/intervention systems. The report recommended continuing support for disaster preparedness in Central Asia through at least 2012. In Zimbabwe, the evaluators recommended that DG ECHO should restructure its portfolio of interventions with the view to refocusing on its mandate and to concentrate only on "unmet needs" and "areas of distinct comparative advantage".-  Ex-ante evaluations: For the first time, ex-ante evaluations were undertaken, covering three regions: droughts in the Western-Sahel region, DIPECHO in the Mercosur plus Chile region and DIPECHO for Sudden Onset Natural Disasters in the South-East Africa and the South-West Indian Ocean.More details on these evaluations are on DG ECHO’s internet site http://ec.europa.eu/comm/echo/evaluation/index_en.htm.-  DG ECHO-funded activities implemented by external parties (partners and contractors) are as part of the control activity subject to financial audit . DG ECHO's audit strategy is based on a 2-track approach: audits are performed both at the DG ECHO partners' headquarters (normally once every two years) for finalised projects and in the field for ongoing projects.-  In respect of the Headquarter audits, DG ECHO uses an external firm of auditors to scrutinise DG ECHO projects over a two-year cycle involving an examination of partners’ systems and the use of DG ECHO funds. Field audits were in 2006 carried out by ECHO staff.-  The total resources devoted in 2006 to audits are 5 staff members in DG ECHO's audit sector and a budget of € 2 million for contracts with external auditors. Some key indicators in respect of the output of these financial audits:-  55 headquarter audits were completed;-  20 field audits were finalised by DG ECHO officials on projects under way;-  The total amount of the sample of projects for which headquarter and field audits were finalised in 2006 was € 214 million. In relation to the average annual implemented budget over the last five years (which is € 606 million) the audit sample, which is checked in detail by external auditors, covers 35% of the volume of operations funded by DG ECHO.-  Following these audits and in addition to the preventive benefits, DG ECHO issued recovery orders for an amount of € 0,6 million in 2006;-  Audit recommendations are an important tool feeding information back for improvements to partners’ reporting systems. Furthermore, all audit findings related to the eligibility of expenditures are analysed by DG ECHO officials and adequate follow-up actions, such as recovery of funds, are taken.The controls listed above should not be seen in isolation. Each of them contributes in providing the overall reasonable assurance on the legality and regularity of the transactions. FINANCIAL TABLESDG ECHO budget and decisions for Humanitarian aid 1993 - 2006[pic] Evolution of Humanitarian Aid's initial budget and amount of financial decisions over the last 10 years[pic]DG ECHO's finalised contracts 1998-2006*[pic]* include grant agreements for humanitarian aid and contracts for support expenditure (audits, evaluations, information) and for technical assistance** includes contracts finalised in year N on the budget of same year*** includes contracts from financial year N and any contract from previous financial years but signed in financial year NGeographical breakdown of funding decisions 2001-2006 – Global overview[pic]Funding decisions for humanitarian aid in 2006a) Decisions adopted by the Commission as of 31.12.2006[pic]b) Execution countries of Decisions adopted by the Commission as of 31.12.2006[pic]Distribution of Contracts by Partner categoryDG ECHO funds three categories of humanitarian organisations: European NGOs, United Nations Organisations and International Organisations (mainly International Red Cross). The relative share of funding is illustrated below:[pic]DG ECHO Contracts by Category and Nationality of Partners 2006[pic][pic][pic]LIST OF ACRONYMSACP | Africa, Caribbean and Pacific |ACTED | Agence d'aide à la coopération technique et au développement |CAPS | United Nations Consolidated Appeals for Humanitarian Crises |CSP | Country Strategy Paper (EDF) |DIPECHO/DPP | DG ECHO’s Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Programme |DRC | Democratic Republic of Congo |DG ECHO | Humanitarian Aid Directorate-General |DG RELEX | Directorate General for External Relations |DG DEV | Directorate General for Development and Relations with ACP countries |EDF | European Development Fund |EU | European Union |FAFA | The EC/UN Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement |FAO | United Nations – Food and Agriculture Organization |FPA | Framework Partnership Agreement (between DG ECHO and its operational partners) |HOLIS | Humanitarian Office Local Information System |ICRC | International Committee of the Red Cross |IDP | Internally displaced persons |IFRC | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies |INGO | International Non-governmental organisation |IOM | International Organisation for Migration |LRRD | Linking relief, rehabilitation and development |MCDA | Military and Civil Defence Assets |MSF | Médecins sans Frontières |NOHA | Network on Humanitarian Assistance |NGO | Non-governmental organisation |OFDA | Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance |PAHO | United Nations – Pan American Health Organisation |SPD | Strategic Planning Dialogue |SPP | Strategic Planning and Programming |UNHCR | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees |UNDP | United Nations Development Programme |UNFPA | United Nations Population Fund |UNICEF | United Nations Children’s Fund |UNOCHA | United Nations - Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs |UNRWA | United Nations - Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East |UXO | Unexploded Ordnance |WFP | United Nations - World Food Programme |WHO | United Nations-World Health Organisation |[1] Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)/Adult African Male Equivalent (AAME)[2] Internal Displaced Persons[3] Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance[4] Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency[5] 2007 UN Consolidated Appeal Process for the oPts, December 2006.[6] http://www.delegy.ec.europa.eu/en/TIM%20US-EC%20June%2015%202006%20rev.pdf[7] One decision of EUR 15,500,000 of which EUR 6,100,000 for Burma/Myanmar and one decision of EUR 200,000[8] Unexploded ordnance[9] Of which EUR 564,305 from the 2006's budget and EUR1,435,695 from the 2007's budget[10] [11]8:BEJKPQRpqrst–—˜­³´ÎÐ & + , - > A ùõêùæõâÛÔâÍÂÍÂ»ÂÍ·³¯â¯¨¡³š“?‡xqmahw;àhw;àmHnHu[pic]hw;à  h¦OšhÍDÐ  h!±hð~ëhˆLÞhl |Ï5?hˆLÞhˆLÞ5?hˆLÞ  h!±h  h¦Ošh·W  hFhERj  hFhÙþUnited Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste[12] Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management[13] Civil Protection and Environmental Emergencies[14] Consolidated Appeals Process[15] Université Catholique de Louvain - Belgium, Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille III (UPCAM) - France, Ruhr-Universität Bochum - Germany, University College of Dublin - Ireland, Universidad de Deusto - Spain, University of Uppsala - Sweden and University of Groningen - The Netherlands