Commission staff working document accompanying the Report from the Commission Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) - Annual Report 2008 [COM(2009)290 final]
Date: 2009-07-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ECHO, activity report, humanitarian aid

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 1.7.2009 
SEC(2009)825 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
Report from the Commission  
Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid – ECHO 

Annual Report 2008 

[COM(2009)290 final] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Part I  Special Topics .............................................................................................................. 3 

Part II  General programming principles................................................................................ 15 

Part III  Country-by-country overview.................................................................................... 17 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

ACP Countries ........................................................................................................... 19 

Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Southern Caucasus, Central Asia, 
including Mongolia .................................................................................................... 51 

Mediterranean and Middle East ................................................................................. 56 

Asia ............................................................................................................................ 61 

Latin America and Cuba ............................................................................................ 79 

Disaster preparedness activities (including dipecho)................................................. 86 

PART IV.- Policy issues .......................................................................................................... 96 

PART V. - Relations with stakeholders ................................................................................... 98 

PART VI. - Other Issues ........................................................................................................ 100 

PART VII. - Evaluations and outside assessments ................................................................ 105 

PART VIII. - Financial tables ................................................................................................ 107 

PART IX. - List of acronyms ................................................................................................. 139 

EN 

   EN 

 
PART I SPECIAL TOPICS 

1.1. 

The Top 10 humanitarian crises in terms of funding 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. Sudan 

The  Darfur  region  (Sudan)  is  considered  the  worst  humanitarian  situation  in  the 
world  and  consequently  the  international  humanitarian  aid  effort  is  enormous.  The 
lives  of  millions  of  people  depend  on  external  aid.  In  2008,  €167  millions  were 
allocated to cover humanitarian and food aid needs. 

2. Palestinian territories, including refugees in Lebanon 

The serious humanitarian situation did not show any improvement throughout 2008, 
in spite of the resumption of the structural assistance to the Palestinian Authority in 
December 2007. In addition to the political situation, the most vulnerable segments 
of the Palestinian population in the West Bank of Gaza were affected by two climate 
elements, frost and drought. A funding of €82.8 million was allocated, to help cover 
the needs 

3.  Democratic Republic of Congo 

The  country  has  posed  a  significant  challenge  to  humanitarian  organisations  over  a 
number of years with recurrent outbreaks of fighting in the Eastern causing hundreds 
of thousands of people to flee their homes. The funding allocated in 2008 reached a 
total amount of €45.5 million to cove r humanitarian and food needs. 

4. 

Burma/Myanmar (Nargis) 

In  early  May  2008,  Cyclone  Nargis  passed  over  Burma  (Myanmar)  hitting  the 
Irrawaddy  delta,  after  forming  in  the  Bay  of  Bengal,  causing  the  death  or 
disappearance  of  more  than  100  000  people  and  2.5  millions  of  victims  out  of  50 
millions of inhabitants. DG ECHO responded with a series of decisions for a total of 
€39 million. 

5.  Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran 

€36.3  million  was  addressed  to  vulnerable  people  affected  by  crises  and  natural 
disasters in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. .  

EN 

4 

   EN 

6. 

Somalia 

The humanitarian crisis in Somalia has further deteriorated since the beginning of the 
year, affecting 43% of the entire population of the country1. Given the scope of the 
crisis,  almost  half  of  the  aid  (€46  milli on)  has  been  allocated  to  food  assistance 
programmes, which includes general distribution of food rations in the most critical 
areas.  

7. 

Chad 

The operations funded in 2008 covered two areas: the East where Sudanese refugees 
and Chadian IDPs are located and the South which hosts refugees from the Central 
African  Republic.  The  aid  totalling  €30  m illion  is  multi-sectoral,  covering  among 
other  sectors  water  and  sanitation,  health,  nutrition,  food  aid  and  food  security, 
primary education, shelter and the humanitarian air service.  

8.  Drought preparedness programme 

Giving  the  deterioration  in  terms  of  chronic  and  structural  drought  related 
emergencies, DG ECHO has embarked on a new approach which intends to address 
the  drought  related  needs  within  a  short-medium  term  perspective  with  focus  on 
water,  human/animal  health  and  livelihood  support  in  the  huge  arid  and  semi-arid 
areas  inhabited  by  pastoralist  and  agro-pastoralist  communities.  A  total  funding  of 
€30 million was allocated to respond to these needs. 

9. 

Iraq (crisis) 

Assistance to the victims of the Iraqi crisis, whether inside or outside Iraq, has been 
stepped  up  in  2008.  DG  ECHO  allocated  €30  million  to  respond  to  the  needs  of 
refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan and to a lesser extent in Lebanon and Turkey, 
and to the needs of the displaced and local population inside Iraq 

10.  Zimbabwe 

The  general  objective  in  2008  was  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  socio-economic 
breakdown  on  the  deteriorating  situation  of  vulnerable  groups.  Humanitarian 
operations (for €25 million) were funded in 
the areas of emergency household food 
security  and  agriculture,  water  and  sanitation  and  integrated  assistance  to  the  most 
vulnerable population. 

1 

EN 

According the Food Security Analysis Unit Somalia 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

Two case Studies on the launching of humanitarian aid 

1. Myanmar – Cyclone Nargis 

Context 

Myanmar is the largest country in mainland South-East Asia with a population of 51.5 million 
of people. Floods occur regularly and the country is prone to cyclones, landslides, earthquakes 
and  drought.  On  2nd-3rd  May  2008,  Cyclone  Nargis  struck  Myanmar,  sweeping  through  the 
Ayeyarwady  delta  region  and  the  country's  main  city,  Yangon.  2.4  million  people  were 
affected and many lost their livelihoods (fishing, farming, casual labouring). 140,000 people 
were killed. Cyclone Nargis is the worst natural disaster in the history of Myanmar. 

(map) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Chronology of Events 

3rd May 
- ECHO Yangon Head of Office reports that Yangon is severely affected by the 
cyclone  with  fallen  trees  and  roofs  destroyed.  Electricity  and  water  supply  is  interrupted. 
There is no news from other areas in the country, presumably worse affected than Yangon.  

4th May 
-  The  Ministry  of  Social  Welfare  announces  10.000  deaths  and  thousands  of 
wounded. Due to travel restrictions for foreigners, aid agencies start deploying national staff 
to  assess  the  situation  in  affected  areas.  The  ECHO  field  expert  contacts  partners  with 
presence  in  the  Ayeyarwady  delta,  but  they  have  not  yet  received  any  updates  from  their 
teams in the field.  

5th May - As the ECHO expert does not yet have a travel permit, the local ECHO Programme 
Assistant travels to South Dagon Township (Yangon Division) to assess damages and needs. 
A Primary Emergency Decision is launched. DG ECHO meets with 10 partners who started 
to  assess  the  situation  and  to  distribute  relief  items.  Only  organisations  having  a 
Memorandum of Understanding signed with the authorities are able to work in the affected 
areas.  Since  travel  authorisations  for  international  staff  are  necessary  to  leave  the  capital 
(and they are not being granted), the organisation of relief becomes very difficult.  

8th  May  -  Ten  clusters  are  activated  by  the  United  Nations.  The  Disaster  Coordination 
Centre is established at the UNDP2 compound to centralise information. However, only a few 
agencies  have  supplied  the  system  with  the  necessary  input.  DG  ECHO's  staff  from 
neighbouring countries arrived to assist the ECHO expert in Yangon: the Health and Water 
Sanitation  &  Health  (WASH)  experts  and  the  Regional  Information  Officer  from  ECHO's 
Regional  Support  Office  in  Bangkok,  the  Rapid  Response  Coordinator  from  ECHO's  New 
Delhi Office and the Food Security Expert from the EC Delegation in Bangladesh. All experts 
have  been  granted  a  visa  for  3  days.  A  5-day  extension  is  given  but  restricted  to  Yangon. 
ECHO experts are blocked in Yangon. The local ECHO Programme Assistant goes to Labutta 
Township to assess the situation in the delta. As the Government is still not issuing visas for 
aid workers, a parallel cluster system is being set up in Bangkok.  

9th  May  -  A  United  Nations  Flash  appeal  of  $110  million  for  6  months  is  launched.  The 
number  of  people  affected  by  the  cyclone  is  now  estimated  at  1.2-1.9  million,  with  63.000- 
100.000  people  dead  or  missing.  Limited  humanitarian  aid  is  arriving.  The  main  obstacles 
are visa and travel restrictions and insufficient levels of relief authorised by the Government 
of  Myanmar  to  enter  the  country.  The  first  official  donor  meeting  is  organised  and  an 
UNDAC team arrives. DG ECHO is part of the team through its' Regional Disaster Response 
Coordinator.  

13th  May  -  An  extraordinary  General  Affairs  and  External  Relations  Council  (GAERC)  is 
convened by the French Presidency to discuss the situation in Burma/Myanmar. EU Member 
States approve Commissioner Michel's trip into the country.  

15th May - European Commissioner Louis Michel arrives in Yangon and meets the Ministers 
of  Planning,  Social  Welfare  and  Health.  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  (MIC)  is 
deployed to Yangon. They use DG ECHO facilities and joint Sit Reps are prepared. MIC and 
DG ECHO start working together to identify the destinations for the water treatment plants 

2 

United Nations Development Programme 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
made  available  by  the  EU  Member  States  through  MIC.  This  equipment  will  be  used  to 
support  the  operation  of  ECHO  partners.  At  a  meeting  with  its  partners  in  Yangon  ECHO 
announces a new Emergency and Food Aid Decision.  

17th  May  -  The  ECHO  Head  of  Office  is  finally  able  to  visit  the  most  affected  area  by 
helicopter  in  a  1-day  visit  organised  by  the  Government  for  the  representatives  of  the 
international community. ECHO experts continue to assess some of the townships of Yangon 
Division, where it is possible to travel. 

21st May - MIC team leaves Myanmar. 

24th May - Access to the affected areas for international staff, as well as importation of relief 
goods  is  expected  to  be  granted  in  the  next  few  days.  ECHO  Rapid  Response  Programme 
Assistant  from  Bangkok  joins  the  ECHO  team  in  Yangon.  Yangon  is  a  seething  mass  of 
humanitarian workers blocked in the town without access to the affected areas. 

25th  May  –  An  ASEAN3  UN  Pledging  conference  is  convened  into  Yangon.  Donors  remain 
cautious  with  their  commitments.  Main  condition  for  further  assistance  remains  unhindered 
humanitarian access to the affected area.  

27th May - ECHO is granted authorisation for 3 teams of experts to travel to the field. Each 
team are deployed to a different area of the delta during 3 days.  

1st week of June - The ECHO teams deployed from Bangkok and New Delhi are replaced by 
the  Emergency  Response  team  from  Bangkok.  Under  international  pressure,  access  to  the 
delta finally becomes possible for all humanitarian organisations. In June, the Tripartite Core 
Group  (ASEAN,  Myanmar  Government  and  the  UN)  launches  the  idea  of  the  Post  Nargis 
Joint Assessment (PONJA).  

DG ECHO response to Cyclone Nargis 

The  Post  Nargis  Joint  Assessment  (PONJA)  conducted  in  July  2008  revealed  overall  losses 
and damages estimated at $4 billion. The UN revised its' Flash Appeal4 on 10th July 2008 of 
€481.8  million.  Four  Decisions  amounting  to  a 
total  of  €39  million  were  adopted  by  the 
European  Commission  between  May  and  December  2008:  Primary  Emergency  Decision: 
Food  Aid:  €5 million,  Ad  Hoc  Decision: 
€2 million,  Emergency  Decision:  €10  million, 
€22 million  (including  €5  million  for  food  aid/
security).  The  Commission  funding  for  the 
initial  emergency  phase  benefitted  1.4  million  people  in  seven  sectors:  shelter,  food,  water, 
sanitation, health, nutrition, protection and logistics. The Ad Hoc decision of €22 million will 
provide  early  recovery  and  livelihood  support  for  up  to  850,000  persons  and  food  aid  and 
short-term food security support for up to 500,000 persons. The principal focus is on shelter, 
water/sanitation, and health/nutrition. 

Other EC funding in Myanmar 

DG ECHO has financed activities for the conflict affected population inside Myanmar since 
1992, and  the  Burmese refugee camps in Thailand since 1995. A new €18.5 million  Global 
Plan for 2009 has been adopted providing protection, water/ sanitation, health, nutrition and 

3 
4 

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN 
Myanmar Tropical Cyclone Nargis Revised Appeal, 10 July 2008 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
food.  In  2007,  DG  RELEX  and  DG  AIDCO  produced  the  first  Multi-Annual  Indicative 
Programme for Myanmar for the period 2007-2010 (€32 million). Funds have been allocated 
to  the  Three  Diseases  Fund  for  tuberculosis,  malaria  and  HIV-Aids  (and  to  a  primary 
education programme. In addition, several EC thematic budget lines such as Aid to Uprooted 
People,  Non-state  actors  address  mid-term  needs.  DG  RELEX/AIDCO  2008  support  of 
€6 million  through  the  Food  Security  Thematic  Funding,  mainly  targeting  the  Ayeyarwady 
delta,  will  complement  DG  ECHO's  operation.  This  amount  together  with  an  additional 
€24.4 million  under  the  Food  facility  will  be  spen t  through  a  Livelihood  and  Food  Security 
Trust Fund which is planned to extend to other parts of the country. There is therefore a good 
opportunity for 'Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development' (LRRD) activities. 

Aid provided by other donors 

The revised UN Flash Appeal of $477,077,946 had been financed at 65% as of 27th January 
2009.  According  to  the  14-points  system,  the  EU  Member  States  provided  €102,671,793  to 
Myanmar in 2008. 

Follow up/recommendations 

•  A  meeting  with  all  ECHO  partners  should  be  organised  a  couple  of  months  after  the 
disaster  to  share  information  on  the  humanitarian  situation,  project  experience  and 
questions  related  to  implementation.  Material  for  a  "lessons  learned"  exercise  could  be 
generated, using for instance a questionnaire. 

•  The absence of DRR measures in the disaster area significantly increased the damage and 
loss  of  life.  However,  it  was  difficult  to  integrate  DRR  measures  into  the  majority  of 
projects,  since  they  addressed  mainly  emergency  needs.  In  the  cases  where  emergency 
repair  of  houses,  health  centres,  schools  and  water  and  sanitation  systems  were  at  stake, 
partners  were  advised  to  include  DRR  components.  Further  examination  on  how  to 
mainstream DRR into emergency response is needed. 

•  Due  to  travel  restrictions,  the  first  ECHO  technical  assistants'  assessment  mission  took 
place 26 days after the cyclone. The crucial role of national staff in this type of situation 
has to be stressed. 

•  Financing the WFP-EMOP has allowed WFP to expand its presence in the delta where it 
played  a  fundamental  umbrella  role  and  where  an  active  dialogue  was  set  up  with  local 
authorities. The WFP also acted as aid recipient for the arrival of cargo from abroad and 
destined to, at the time, unregistered organisations. The other WFP "Special operation" co-
financed  by  ECHO  -  logistical  support  to  agencies  active  in  the  Delta  -  provided 
fundamental support in a complicated political/ logistical context.  

•  Coordination with Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) at field level was good. MIC 
had to work through ECHO partners due to lack of access to the affected area. They were 
based at the ECHO office. MIC sent a team which could be very much complementary to 
ECHO  but  working  procedures,  mandates,  objectives  and  limits  were  not  clearly  spelled 
out. Joint Situation Reports (Sit Reps) were achieved. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

Other Issues 

Given the fact that cyclone Nargis has highlighted Myanmar's extreme vulnerability to natural 
disasters and the need need better and more organised disaster preparedness, DRR measures 
have  been  integrated  in  all  relevant  actions  in  the  latest  DG  ECHO  funding  decision.  The 
comparative  example  of  Bangladesh,  hit  by  the  even  more  severe  cyclone  SIDR  in  2007, 
shows that where DRR activities were in place, the death toll was 50 times less than in the 
area hit by cyclone Nargis, with a similar geographical setting. The post cyclone period is the 
best time to begin raising awareness and integrating disaster risk reduction into early recovery 
actions. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  efforts  of  Commissioner  Louis  Michel,  Sir  John  Holmes  and  UN 
Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon and other prominent figures in late May, the humanitarian 
space  was  finally  opened  up,  which  shows  that  the  international  community  can  indeed 
achieve a break-through by strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of impartiality and 
neutrality even in such a complex disaster response such as the one in Myanmar. This became 
however  only  possible  with  involving  ASEAN  into  the  main  coordination  structure,  the 
Tripartite Core Group (TCG). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

2. Georgia crisis 

Context 

The  start  of  the  short  (7th  to  12th  August)  but  violent  conflict  in  South  Ossetia  between 
Georgia and Russia took the world by surprise, in the middle of the Olympic Summer Games, 
although tensions about the breakaway region between the two countries were already rising 
from some months beforehand. 

DG ECHO's response 

Despite  this,  ECHO's  deployment  was  swift,  with  one  Technical  Assistant  on  site  two  days 
after  the  start  of  the  war  and  in  fact  before  several  implementing  partners.  The  deployment 
proved also adequate in size in view of the needs and the limited access to conflict areas, with 
three Technical Assistants on site during the emergency phase of the international response. 
The  profile  of  the  team  also  corresponded  well  to  the  needs  required  during  the  first  phase 
(protection,  shelter,  Non-Food  items)  and  the  rotation  between  the  experts  took  place 
smoothly.  

In  Brussels,  the  permanence  system  worked  efficiently  and  allowed  the  adoption  of  a 
€1 million  Primary  Emergency  Decision  on  Sunda y  10th  August,  i.e.  three  days  after  the 
conflict  began.  Here  again,  the  size  and  profile  of  the  team  in  charge  of  the  response  was 
adequate,  given  the  fact  that  the  crisis  was  the  only  major  one  which  took  place  during  the 
summer. 

DG ECHO's financial response to this highly politicized crisis which attracted a lot of donors' 
attention,  including  EU  Member  States,  proved  appropriate  in  volume  and  pertinent  in  the 
timeline:  after  the  Primary  Emergency  Decision  of  10th  August,  two  other  decisions  were 
adopted by the Commission in the course of 2008. An emergency decision of €5 million was 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
adopted  afterwards  (on  22nd  August)  in  order  to  cope  with  the  immediate  needs  of  the 
133,500 people displaced by the conflict as well as the most vulnerable population staying in 
South  Ossetia  and  in  needs  of  protection,  unexploded  ordnance  (UXO)  removal,  food, 
household kitchen and hygiene kits and psychosocial support. Finally a third (ad hoc) decision 
worth €2 million was approved on 4th December in order to respond to the needs in food and 
firewood  for  the  returnees  as  well  as  to  ensure  the  winterization  of  the  collective  centres 
hosting the long-term IDPs. 

The Commission's response to the crisis was a well coordinated exercise in which DG ECHO 
played  a  prominent  role.  On  the  ground  the  EC  Delegation  in  Georgia  provided  effective 
support to ECHO experts. The cooperation between the services on site was excellent. After 
the arrival of the DG Environment (DG ENV) Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) on 
16th  August,  DG  ECHO  and  the  MIC  teams  worked  in  a  complementary  and  synchronized 
way, notably through joint situation reports.  

Before  the  MIC  team's  arrival,  DG  ECHO's  experts  had  started  to  send  detailed  situation 
reports  which  were  dispatched  to  the  Commission's  services,  as  well  as  the  Member  States, 
the  Council  and  the  Parliament.  DG  ECHO  situation  reports  and  the  joint  situation  reports 
helped to provide Brussels Headquarters and Member States with consolidated information on 
needs  and  on  the  activities  of  Humanitarian  Aid  and  Civil  Protection  services  and  the 
Delegation. The reports were also useful in passing messages to Member States regarding the 
needs,  the  coordination  of  in-kind  assistance,  the  concerns  about  human  rights  violations  in 
South  Ossetia  and  the  relatively  slow  deployment  of  United  Nations  agencies  in  the  buffer 
zone. 

In  Brussels,  the  coordination  was  equally  good  during  the  first  phase  of  the  response  with 
Commission's  coordination  meetings  chaired  by  DG  Relex  with  the  participation  of  the 
Secretariat General. There was  also  a  good  exchange  of  information  between  DG  ENV  and 
DG ECHO on the principle of deployment of the MIC team, the working methods as well as 
the sectors of intervention to avoid, such as war surgery and medicines. DG ECHO actively 
participated in Councils' meetings where the swift and effective EC humanitarian assistance 
was recognized. 

Finally  in  terms  of  visibility  for  the  Commission,  DG  ECHO's  swift  reaction  attracted  a 
noticeable  interest  from  the  international  media,  both  on  site  and  in  Brussels.  In  Georgia, 
DG ECHO deployed its Regional Information Officer (RIO) to Georgia as well as one APTN 
(Associated  Press  Television  News)  personnel.  This  provided  good  visibility  to  the 
commission in general through the distribution by APTN as well as Europe-by-satellite (EbS) 
of three news reports about the Commission’s humanitarian activities to more than 400 main 
news channels around the world and dozens of interviews of the RIO with international mass 
media. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

1.3. 

The European consensus and its related action plan 

In  recent  years,  humanitarian  aid  has  changed  significantly,  reflecting,  among  other  things, 
the changing character of conflicts. Nowadays,  these are more often fought inside countries 
by  irregular  forces.  The  number  of  internally  displaced  people  continues  to  increase, 
international  humanitarian  law  is  often  neglected  by  warring  parties  and  there  are  more 
attacks on relief workers. Natural disasters also tend to occur more frequently and are more 
devastating in their effects - partly as a result of climate change. In parallel to this, there are 
more  and  new  actors  engaged  in  providing  humanitarian  assistance,  with  different  agendas 
and modus operandi, further increasing the need for coordination. 

Against  this  background  of  a  more  complex  and  difficult  humanitarian  environment,  an 
international  reform  effort,  led  by  the  United  Nations,  is  underway  to  make  the  global 
humanitarian aid effort more effective. The European Union - taking the Member States and 
the  European  Commission  together  -  as  the  world's  largest  international  humanitarian  aid 
donor  has  a  particular  responsibility  in  spearheading  this  international  endeavour.  There 
should  be  a  fresh  impetus  given  to  a  collective  EU  approach  in  dealing  with  contemporary 
challenges in humanitarian aid. 

Opinion  polling  highlights  the  solidarity  of  EU  citizens  with  the  world's  most  vulnerable 
communities - and also shows that they favour a common European approach in humanitarian 
aid. 

Following  these  considerations  and  a  wide-ranging  consultation  of  Member  States  and 
humanitarian organisations, the signing of the European Consensus5 on Humanitarian Aid 
by the Presidents of the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission in 
December 2007  is  a  considerable  step  forward  for  the  European  Union  which  has  finally 
given  itself  a  common  set  of  values,  principles  and  objectives  intended  to  strengthen  the 
coherence  of  its  overall  humanitarian  action.  Significantly,  the  Consensus  stresses  the 
importance of the principle of diversity of the implementing partners and, as such, recognises 
that each of these bodies has comparative advantages in the response to specific situations or 
circumstances. 

The  European  Consensus  underlines  the  European  Union's  commitment  to  upholding  and 
promoting the fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and 
independence  and  to  advocating  strongly  for  the  respect  of  International  Law,  including 
International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law and Refugee Law. The objective of EU 
humanitarian  aid  is  to  provide  a  needs-based  emergency  response  aimed  at  preserving  life, 
preventing and alleviating human suffering and maintaining human dignity wherever the need 
arises if governments and local actors are overwhelmed, unable or unwilling to act. 

The Consensus was followed by the adoption of an action plan in May 20086. The purpose of 
this  Action  Plan  is  to  set  out  a  series  of  practical  actions  for  the  European  Union's 
humanitarian donors that taken together form the EU's substantive agenda for implementing a 
more  closely  co-ordinated  approach.  The  overall  aim  is  to  ensure  that  the  European  Union 

5 
6 

OJ C 25 – 30/1/2008 
SEC(2008)1991 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
maximises  the  effectiveness  of  its  contribution  to  the  collective  international  humanitarian 
response. 

In order to facilitate the implementation of the action plan, related actions have been grouped 
together into six 'action areas': 

•  area one: advocacy, promotion of humanitarian principles and international law, 

•  area two: implementing quality aid approaches; 

•  area three: reinforcing capacities to respond; 

•  area four: strengthening partnership; 

•  area five: enhancing coherence and coordination and 

•  area six: the aid continuum. 

More  detail  on  the  European  consensus  and  the  related  action  plan  is  available  at  the 
following address: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/consensus_en.htm 

EN 

14 

   EN 

PART II 

GENERAL PROGRAMMING PRINCIPLES 

DG  ECHO  provides  assistance  to  populations  with  the  greatest  humanitarian  needs, 
irrespective of origin, religion or political creed. 

For  a  number  of  years,  DG  ECHO  has  been  using  a  two-pronged  approach  to  identify  the 
population with high priority humanitarian needs. The first approach is the evaluation of the 
needs undertaken in the field by experts and geographical units. In addition to the immediate 
reports about crisis areas, analyses are carried out to provide information on specific needs. At 
the  same  time,  a  comparative  analysis  is  conducted  to  identify  those  countries  which  may 
require humanitarian assistance. This global analysis has two dimensions: 

–  the Global Needs Assessment (GNA)7 based on national indicators, classes more than 140 
countries according to the existence of a recent crisis (natural disaster or conflict, including 
the  weight  of  displaced  people  or  refugees  on  the  population)  and  the  degree  of 
vulnerability of the population, incorporating various indicators (e.g. human development 
index, mortality of children under 5). 

–  the Forgotten Crisis Assessment (FCA) attempts to identify serious humanitarian crises in 

which populations affected do not receive sufficient international aid.  

The GNA and FCA are important tools for ensuring coherence in the allocation of resources 
among the various countries according to their respective needs and independent of any type 
of pressure. 

As a result of the GNA exercise, 15 countries or territories have been identified for the 2008 
exercise as being particularly vulnerable to existing crises, of which 11 in sub-Saharan Africa 
(Angola, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo R.D., Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Mozambique, 
Somalia,  Sudan,  Uganda  and  Zimbabwe),  the  others  being  Afghanistan,  East  Timor, 
Chechnya and Yemen.  

These  high  vulnerable  areas  received  a  total  of  €322  million  or  84%   of  the  initial  budget 
allocated to geographical decisions, under the humanitarian aid budget line. 

As  a  result  of  the  2008  FCA  exercise,  the  following  crises  were  classified  as  "forgotten 
crises":  

–  Sahrawi refugees in Algeria; 

–  Chechnya and the neighbouring republics affected;  

–  Populations affected by conflicts in India; 

–  Bhutanese  refugees  as  well  as  continuing  instability  and  security  concerns  in  a  post-

conflict situation in Nepal;  

7 

The  methodology  used  and  the  results  for  2008  are  available  at  the  following  internet  address 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/information/strategy/index_en.htm  

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Crisis  caused  by  the  conflict  in  Burma/Myanmar:  population  internally  displaced  or 

refugees in neighbouring countries, 

–  Populations affected by the conflict in Colombia; 

–  Populations affected by the conflict in Abkhazia (Georgia);  

–  Populations affected by food insecurity in the Nusa Tengarra Timur in Indonesia; and  

–  Populations affected by the crisis in Haiti.  

These  forgotten  crises  received  11%8of  the  budget  covering  the  geographical  decisions. 
Except for Abkhazia, these crises had already been identified as "forgotten crises" in previous 
years. 

8 

EN 

€41.5 million on €386 million of geographic decisions 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
PART III  COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY OVERVIEW 

This  synopsis  of  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:  

(1) 

(2) 

Each  section  starts  with  an  overview  of  the  funding  per  country  (region)  and/or  per 
humanitarian crisis in which DG ECHO has intervened. 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 
field. The overview tables provide the amount of funding decisions taken for that year. 

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 "LRRD9". 

This  country-by-country  overview  includes  all  countries/crises  for  which  funding  decisions 
were adopted in 2008 and also those for which funding was made available in previous years 
but the implementation was still on-going in 2008. 

In sections III.6 and VI.3 further information is provided on two types of horizontal funding: 
disaster preparedness activities undertaken in 2008 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,  capacity  building  actions  financed  in  2008  with  a  view  to  improving  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  general  overview  and/or  to  illustrate  the 
content of the chapter. Exhaustive financial information will be found in Chapter VIII. 

The  map  on  the  next  page  resumes  the  geographical  areas  of  DG  ECHO's  humanitarian 
interventions in 200810. 

9 
10 

Linking relief, rehabilitation and development 
At the level of contracts signed in 2008 

17 

EN 

   EN 

                                                 
EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
1. ACP Countries 

In 2008, humanitarian and food aid interventions were funded in 38 countries in Africa, the 
Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), through the adoption of 34 funding decisions for a total of 
€547  million,  which  represents  59%  of  the 
total  budget  committed  by  DG ECHO  and  435 
grant agreements for a total amount of €514 11 million. 

1.1. 

AFRICA 

The first ten countries/areas in terms of humanitarian and food aid provided were in order in 
2008:  Sudan,  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  (DRC),  Horn  of  Africa,  Somalia,  Chad, 
Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Uganda, Burundi and Liberia. 

In addition to continued assistance provided to vulnerable populations in countries affected by 
ongoing humanitarian crises,  funding was provided in response to natural  disasters: cyclone 
Ivan  in  Madagascar,  flooding  in  Namibia,  recurrent  epidemics  in  West  Africa  including 
cholera  in  Guinea  Bissau,  hurricanes  Hanna,  Gustav  and  Ike  and  tropical  storm  Fay  in  the 
Caribbean region. 

Furthermore,  DG ECHO  supported  drought  preparedness  activities  in  the  Greater  Horn  of 
Africa (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda), and funded an ECHO Flight 
service for humanitarian operators in DRC and for emergency interventions in other areas.  

In  2008  as  in  previous  years,  Africa  was  by  far  the  region  which  received  most  of  EC 
humanitarian  aid  funding,  around  59%  of  the  final  budget  (€936.6  million).  The  main 
areas/countries of intervention are listed below (*): 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

SUDAN & CHAD

98 000 000

99 000 000

197 000 000

81 000 000

86 000 000

167 000 000

17 000 000

13 000 000

30 000 000

HORN of AFRICA

78 297 000

89 600 000

167 897 000

Sudan 

Chad

Djibouti *

Eritrea

Ethiopia *

Kenya *

Somalia *

Uganda *
Regional Drought Preparedness Programme

1 400 000

1 400 000

4 000 000

4 000 000

4 000 000

35 700 000

39 700 000

5 500 000

18 000 000

23 500 000

20 797 000

23 000 000

43 797 000

14 000 000
30 000 000

11 500 000

25 500 000
30 000 000

11 

Humanitarian aid budget line €253 million; Food aid budget line €244 million, Dipecho €5 million and 
EDF €12 million 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
*  including  the  country  allocation  from  the  Horn  of  Africa  regional  decision  (food  aid  - 
€40.6M). 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

CENTRAL & SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN OCEAN

79 650 000

41 550 000

121 200 000

Burundi

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Democratic Republic of Congo

Echo-Flight

Madagascar

Namibia

Tanzania

Zimbabwe

Regional South East Africa

11 136 775

5 500 000

16 636 775

2 000 000

7 800 000

2 000 000

7 800 000

30 000 000

15 550 000

45 550 000

8 000 000

1 500 000

 350 000

8 000 000

1 500 000

 350 000

8 863 225

2 000 000

10 863 225

10 000 000

15 000 000

25 000 000

3 500 000

3 500 000

WEST AFRICA 

26 100 000

13 000 000

39 100 000

Guinea (Conakry)

Guinea Bissau

Liberia

Mauritania/Senegal

Sahel 

Regional West Africa

1 300 000

1 300 000

 500 000

 500 000

15 600 000

1 000 000

16 600 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

5 000 000

10 700 000

15 700 000

3 000 000

3 000 000

Total (1)

282 047 000 243 150 000

525 197 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6. 

1.1.1. Sudan and Chad 

Sudan  remained  the  main  crisis  for  DG ECHO.  The  humanitarian  situation  in  Darfur 
remained dramatic with 4,500,000 people affected, including around 250,000 newly displaced 
in 2008. Maintaining an adequate humanitarian response was a challenge also because of lack 
of protection for civilians and humanitarians, with access at its lowest point in the last 5 years 
because of insecurity and administrative impediments. In the South and transitional areas, the 
political  and  security  equilibrium  remained  precarious.  DG ECHO  funded  actions  aimed  at 
reducing  excess  mortality  and  morbidity  among  highly  vulnerable  populations,  IDPs12  in 
particular,  through  integrated  assistance  in  the  sectors  of  food  assistance,  health,  nutrition, 
water  and  environmental  sanitation,  emergency  preparedness  and  response,  household  food 
security, as well as by providing financial support to common services including humanitarian 
aid transportation. 

In Chad, assistance focussed on IDP and refugee camps in the East (Sudanese) and the South 
(Central  African),  as  well  as  on  vulnerable  local  populations.  A  multidimensional 

12 

Internally Displaced Persons 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
international  presence  was  deployed  with  the  objective  to  secure  the  camps  and  protect  the 
civilians.  A  general  mass  return  of  IDPs  has  not  happened  in  2008  and  the  overall  context 
remains volatile and unstable. 

a) Sudan 

Humanitarian needs 

The  conflict  continued  in  Darfur  with  widespread  armed  confrontations,  clashes  between 
rebel factions and inter-tribal fighting, causing large displacements and forcing humanitarian 
organizations to limit or suspend operations. After more than five years of protracted crisis, 
the humanitarian situation remained dramatic with 4,500,000 affected people. Of these, more 
than  2,500,000  were  living  in  overcrowded  camps  and  settlements,  50,000  were  Chadians 
refugees and the rest were nomads and those from rural communities, all of them depending 
on international assistance in terms of food aid, health, nutrition, water and sanitation, shelter, 
and  emergency  support.  Maintaining  an  adequate  humanitarian  response  represented  a 
challenge  because  of  the  magnitude  of  the  crisis,  ongoing  displacements  (around  250,000 
newly  displaced  in  2008),  but  also  because  of  the  lack  of  protection  for  civilians  and  the 
humanitarian  community  in  this  region  where  International  Humanitarian  Law  is  constantly 
violated. Access to people in need was at its lowest point since 2003 because of insecurity and 
administrative obstacles. 

The  Comprehensive  Peace  Agreement  (CPA)  signed  in  January  2005,  putting  an  end  to  the 
20-years civil war between the North and the South, was positive. However the political and 
security equilibrium remains precarious in Southern Sudan and the transitional areas, leading 
to  regular  fighting's  and  insecurity.  Since  the  CPA  an  estimated  2,00,000  of  refugees  and 
IDPs started returning to areas where nutrition, health, water and sanitation and public health 
and  hygiene  continue  to  be  source  of  major  concern,  thus  generating  further  humanitarian 
needs. Sudan is also regularly affected by severe natural disasters such as floods and droughts, 
as well as by a series of disease outbreaks.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG ECHO's  engagement  in  Sudan  has  increased  since  the  eruption  of  the  Darfur  crisis  in 
2003 that remains one of the biggest and most worrying humanitarian situations in the world. 
In  parallel,  with  the  signature  of  the  Comprehensive  Peace  Agreement  (CPA),  DG ECHO's 
support  to  Southern  Sudan  and  the  transitional  areas  started  focusing  on  the  return  and 
reinstallation  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  people  in  areas  totally  lacking  basic  services, 
whereas steadily phasing out from the IDP camps around Khartoum. DG ECHO has engaged 
in strengthening the preparedness and response to outbreaks of diseases such as yellow fever, 
meningitis,  cholera  and  hemorrhagic  fever,  as  well  as  to  the  floods  and  droughts,  regularly 
affecting most of the regions of Sudan. Since 2007, DG ECHO sharply increased its support 
to  food  aid,  emergency  food  security  and  livelihood  assistance  in  Sudan  and  particularly  in 
Darfur where food assistance represents two third of the international aid. In the last 5 years, 
large parts of Sudan required a continued substantial level of engagement to assist the most 
vulnerable populations. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements  

The  main  objective  was  to  reduce  excess  mortality  and  morbidity  among  highly  vulnerable 
populations in Sudan through integrated assistance. In addition, DG ECHO support aimed at 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
improving  humanitarian  and  operational  environments  through  support  to  special  mandates, 
as  well  as  common  services  including  the  humanitarian  air  service.  The  main  sectors  of 
intervention  were  food  aid,  health  and  nutrition,  water  and  environmental  sanitation, 
emergency preparedness and response, household food security and operational support. The 
approach has been flexible enough to allow an immediate response to every new emergency. 
DG ECHO  continued covering the whole territory with  a neutral approach and according to 
needs in strict respect of internationally recognised humanitarian principles. Sudan benefited 
from  €70  million  programmed  fo r  general  assistance,  alongside  with  €72  million  from  two 
separate  global  food  aid  decisions  to  address  food  aid  and  emergency  food  security  needs. 
Two additional ad hoc decisions, of respectively €14 million for food assist ance in Darfur and 
€11  million  for  common  services,  have  been  m obilised  in  December  2008  to  be  able  to 
respond to increasing needs mostly in 2009.  

LRRD13 – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

DG ECHO continued to assist Sudanese population in need, affected by conflict and natural 
disasters, whenever alarming humanitarian indicators appeared. Thanks to the stabilisation of 
the  situation  in  the  North  and  in  certain  parts  of  Southern  Sudan  and  transitional  areas, 
rehabilitation and sustainable development assistance are gradually taking over and building 
upon the relief work provided for decades. DG ECHO has been able to decrease its support to 
operations  while  identifying  bridging  operations.  If  LRRD  possibilities  have  increased, 
mostly  in  the  food  security  sector,  needs  for  basic  services  are  so  overwhelming  that  both 
humanitarian and development assistance will have to go hand in hand for the long term in 
Southern  Sudan  and  the  transitional  areas.  However,  in  the  coming  year,  efforts  to  link 
humanitarian  aid  with  development  actions  of  the  Commission  will  be  hampered  by  the 
suspension  of  the  10th  EDF,  because  the  revised  Cotonou  Agreement  will  likely  not  be 
ratified if it refers to the International Criminal Court. 

b) Chad 

Humanitarian needs 

From April 2003 to end 2008, some 265,00014Sudanese refugees from Darfur poured into the 
Eastern  Chadian  frontier,  an  area  that  has  suffered  from  decades  of  civil  conflict.  This 
politically  and  economically  marginalised  region  suffers  from  chronic  food  insecurity  and 
lack of necessary resources and capacity to accommodate large numbers of displaced people, 
and the Sudanese refugees are completely dependent on international aid. Furthermore, since 
2006, about 180,000 people have been internally displaced in South-east of Chad at the border 
with  Darfur  most  of  which  have  been  displaced  in  2007,  and  more  than  36,30015  Chadians 
have found refuge in Darfur. These displacements are the result of an armed conflict between 
the  government  and  rebel  groups,  including  the  attack  on  N’Djamena  in  February  2008, 
incursions  by  neighbouring  Sudanese  militia,  growing  violence  between  different 
communities and increased level of banditry. In addition, the Southern provinces are hosting 
some  18,000  refugees  from  the  Central  African  Republic  since  2003,  a  number  that  rose  to 
56,00016 in 2008. The deployment of a multidimensional international presence, composed of 

13 
14 
15 
16 

Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development 
UNHCR, September 2008 
UNHCR, June 2007 
UNHCR, September 2008 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the European  peace keeping operation in Chad and Central African Republic  (EUFOR)  and 
the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MIaNURCAT I) was 
authorised  by  the  UNSC17  resolution  1778,  with  a  mandate  ending  mid-March  2009.  These 
deployments  should  contribute  to  the  securitisation  of  the  camps  and  to  the  protection  of 
civilians. However, a general mass return of IDPs has not happened in 2008 and the overall 
context  remains  volatile  and  unstable.  During  the  first  ten  months  of  2008,  UNOCHA18 
reported 124 security incidents against humanitarian organisations in the East. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG  ECHO  is  supporting  relief  operations  in  Eastern  Chad  since  September  2003  when  an 
emergency decision was taken to assist the first refugees coming from Darfur. With the rising 
number of refugees, IDPs, and host communities affected by the Darfur conflict, the Chadian 
conflict  and  insecurity,  DG ECHO  remained  and  increased  its  support  to  Eastern  Chad.  In 
parallel,  in  2005,  DG ECHO  started  assisting  refugees  coming  to  Southern  Chad,  fleeing 
insecurity  in  Central  African  Republic.  Projects  aimed  at  promoting  economic  security  and 
maintaining  nutritional  levels  have  been  carried  out  in  and  outside  camps  and  where 
vulnerability of local populations is very high. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

Through  its  operational  partners,  DG ECHO  maintained  multi-sector  assistance  to  refugees 
and IDPs in camps of Eastern and Southern Chad, supporting food aid, food security, health 
and nutrition, water and sanitation and protection operations, as well as shelter and non food 
items distributions. Although most needs of the local Chadian population are not linked to the 
presence  of  refugees  and  IDPs,  the  increased  pressure  on  natural  resources  in  regions 
structurally  weak  and  under  developed  made  food  security,  health,  nutrition,  water  and 
sanitation projects necessary to mitigate tension between refugees, IDPs and local population, 
as well as addressing most critical needs.  

A  Global  Plan  of  €17  million  and  €13  million  from   the  food  aid  decision  were  adopted  in 
2008 to address needs in health, nutrition, food aid, food security, protection, education, water 
and  sanitation  through  programmes  delivered  by  UN  agencies,  NGOs  and  the  Red  Cross 
Movement.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

With  a  view  to  facilitating  the  link  between  relief,  rehabilitation  and  development,  pre-
rehabilitation  operations  have  been  carried  out  in  the  South  of  Chad  where  partner's 
organisations  are  putting  an  exit  strategy  in  place.  Discussions  with  other  relevant 
Commission's  services  have  intensified  with  a  view  to  further  promote  LRRD  through  the 
various complementary initiatives and instruments available in Southern Chad. However any 
attempt to develop sustainability of the operations and LRRD is at stake if conflict and related 
insecurity in the sub-region last.  

17 
18 

United Nations Security Council 
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
1.1.2. Horn of Africa 

A total amount of €167.9 million was allocated to th e countries/areas of the Horn of Africa.  

In Kenya, DG ECHO responded to the humanitarian emergency caused by the post-election 
turmoil and consequent displacement of more than 500,000 people. As early as 10th January 
2008,  emergency  assistance  was  provided  to  displaced  people  in  the  form  of  shelter, 
protection, food, water, sanitation and non-food items. Following this emergency, DG ECHO 
continued providing support to population affected by the post-election violence by allocating 
funds  for  provision  of  vouchers  and  cash  to  respond  to  immediate  needs  and  to  support  the 
rapid  rebuilding  of  livelihoods.  Distribution  of  vouchers  and  cash  has  facilitated  the  quick 
recovery of over 20,000 households or 120,000 people who make a living from agriculture or 
other  sectors.  A  continuous  response  to  the  high  level  of  chronic  malnutrition  rates  in  the 
North-East  -  mainly  through  health/nutrition  and  water/sanitation  interventions  -  had  been 
provided throughout 2008. In arid and semi-arid lands, DG ECHO had supported the World 
Food Programme Emergency Operation benefiting severely drought affected populations with 
targeted food aid. DG ECHO assisted as well Somali refugees with food aid in Dadaab camps, 
which faced a drastically growing refugee influx in the second half of 2008. 

Food  security  situation  seriously  deteriorated  in  large  areas  of  Ethiopia,  with  6.4  million 
people in need of emergency food assistance estimated by the Government towards the end of 
2008.  DG ECHO  responded  in  a  substantial  way,  considerably  increasing  its  initial  food 
assistance  allocation.  DG ECHO's  funded  interventions  aimed  at  protecting  and  restoring 
livelihoods,  as  well  as  at  contributing  to  sustain  nutrition,  health,  water  and  sanitation, 
agricultural recovery and drought preparedness. 

Eritrea  continued  to  face  the  challenge  of  years  of  chronic  drought,  desertification,  lack  of 
access  to  safe  water  and  poor  infrastructure.  Despite  the  lack  of  reliable  data,  malnutrition 
rates remain far above the commonly accepted emergency thresholds. DG ECHO intervened 
in health/nutrition and water/sanitation sectors. Despite an overall difficult environment due 
to  administrative  constraints  and  difficulties  to  access  some  areas  of  the  country,  the  few 
partners  still  operating  in  Eritrea  have  maintained  an  acceptable,  though  far  from  ideal, 
implementing capacity. Regular monitoring remained difficult. 

Humanitarian  needs  remained  overwhelming  in  Somalia,  a  country  afflicted  by  18  years  of 
open ended conflict and instability, where the overall situation is aggravated and compounded 
by worsening cyclical droughts, floods, and epidemic outbreaks. In 2008 the country faced its 
worst  insecurity  situation  since  the  early  1990s.  This  resulted  in  some  1,300,000  IDPs,  the 
vast majority of whom were newly displaced due to the conflict in Mogadishu. Besides IDPs, 
1,900,000  people  remained  affected  by  the  crisis,  in  need  of  humanitarian  assistance. 
Therefore, combined IDPs and other affected population, some 45% - a 77% increase in the 
course  of  2008  -  of  the  total  estimated  population  of  Somalia  depended  on  international 
humanitarian  aid  at  the  end  of  2008.  DG ECHO  responded  by  continuing  to  focus  on  the 
sectors  of  health,  including  support  to  war  wounded  people,  water  and  sanitation,  food 
security, and distribution of non food items, showing a good capacity to respond to real time 
increases in need for intervention/ 

In  Uganda,  albeit  cautious,  process  of  IDPs'  return  continued  in  the  North-central  region. 
450,000  people,  however,  continued  to  live  in  camps  in  the  Acholi  region.  The  Karamoja 
region was faced with the third consecutive year of erratic rainfall, a situation exacerbated by 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
insecurity in particular. This has resulted in malnutrition rates close or above the emergency 
threshold  and  it  is  expected  further  deteriorate.  DG ECHO  supported  5  major  hospitals  and 
several  health  centres  in  the  Acholi  region,  as  well  as  operation  and  maintenance  of  water 
systems in camps. DG ECHO also assisted IDPs to increase self-reliance through livelihood 
security  programmes  and  income  generation  activities.  Food  aid  was  also  distributed  in  the 
north-central region, as well as in flood and drought affected parts of the country. Protection 
and psychosocial/reintegration assistance was also provided. 

A  number  of  humanitarian  interventions  were  supported  by  DG ECHO  under  the  Regional 
Drought  initiative  assisting  up  to  12  million  pastoralists  and/or  agro-pastoralists  leaving  in 
arid and semi-arid lands of Horn of Africa. These operations focused in particular on drought 
preparedness  including  support  to  water,  animal  health,  better  management  of  natural 
resources and early warning systems.  

Eritrea 

Humanitarian needs 

The  situation  of  no  peace  –  no  war  with  its  neighbour,  Ethiopia,  has  continuously  led  to 
decline  in  many  sectors:  livelihoods,  health,  food  security,  engendering  greater  levels  of 
poverty.  Eritrea  has  faced  challenges  posed  by  years  of  chronic  drought,  desertification  and 
poor infrastructure. Economic decline has led to worrying humanitarian indicators. Although 
these have not been accurately measured for three years, malnutrition rates remain far above 
the  commonly  accepted  emergency  thresholds  and  admissions  in  specialised  feeding 
programmes  is  high.  The  lack  of  access  to  safe  water,  consequences  of  successive  years  of 
drought,  insufficient  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 commonly been reported over the past years, leading to asset 
depletion  and  reduced  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. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

A total amount of €21.6 million has been allocated to Eritrea from 2004 to 2008. Following 
the  1998-2000  war  with  Ethiopia,  the  country  has  been  affected  by  several  droughts  and  a 
continuous  decline  in  livelihoods  due  to  the  economic  crisis.  DG  ECHO  interventions  have 
progressively  shifted  from  a  water  and  sanitation  support  to  a  more  comprehensive  strategy 
including health, nutrition and protection, with an increasing focus on nutrition. At the same 
time, the implementing capacity has continued to decrease due to logistical and administrative 
constraints affecting all partners, accompanied by the progressive reduction of NGOs. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

A  funding  decision  adopted  in  2008  of  €4  million  from  the  humanitarian  aid  budget  aid 
budget,  running  for  15  months,  has  been  implemented.  Despite  an  overall  difficult 
environment  due  to  administrative  constraints  and  Government  policies,  partners  have  been 
able  to  maintain  an  acceptable  implementing  capacity.  DG  ECHO's  strategy  was  to  provide 
support  to  civilian  population  trying  to  overcome  the  humanitarian  consequences  in  a 
protracted  deep  crisis  context.  DG  ECHO  interventions  targeted  two  main  sectors,  health  - 
including nutrition - and water and sanitation. Approximately 50,000 children under the age 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
of  5  and  pregnant  and  lactating  women  received  nutritional  cares,  including  3,000  severely 
malnourished  children  that  have  recovered  or  are  in  the  process  of  recovering.  More  than 
200,000 persons have had the opportunity to receive primary and/or secondary health care in 
remote  rural  areas  of  the  country.  More  than  130,000  people  benefited  from  livelihood 
support, mainly in the agricultural sector. The access to water and sanitation of 40,000 people 
has been improved. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  the  current  context  a  comprehensive  LRRD  is  difficult  to  apply.  However  DG ECHO's 
funded projects are financed on the EDF, especially in the nutrition and water and sanitation 
sectors.  

Ethiopia 

Humanitarian needs 

The food security situation seriously deteriorated in 2008 in large areas of the country despite 
an earlier estimation of increase in food production in the Meher19 season of 2007 compared 
to 2006. The major causes of food insecurity were: (1) less production in the Meher of 2008 
than  expected;  (2)  failure  of  rains  implying  crop  production  loss.  Moreover,  in  pastoralist 
areas,  problem  of  pasture,  water  availability  and  animal  disease  outbreak  caused  massive 
livestock deaths, migration, and consumption of wild foods as well as closure of schools; (3) 
high  food  price  raises  and  a  general  inflation  limited  access  to  food  and  (4)  inter-ethnic 
conflicts  over  resources  were  reported  in  many  parts  of  the  country  particularly  related  to 
water and pasture. Conflict in the Ogaden, in Somali Regional State, continued to constrain 
humanitarian  access  and  military  operations  resulted  in  movement  restrictions  and  trade 
embargo. Serious shortages of food and basic survival and goods were also reported.  

The  synergy  of  the  factors  listed  above  intensified  rapidly  deteriorating  the  humanitarian 
situation  in  the  country.  The  food  shortages  also  caused  unprecedented  low  levels  of  the 
national grain reserve in the country. The consequences were manifested by severe increase in 
child  malnutrition.  High  prevalence  of  kwashiorkor  and  the  case  of  severely  acutely 
malnourished  adults  was  also  reported,  which  was  not  seen  since  2003.  A  country  wide 
Humanitarian  Requirements  document  was  issued  by  the  Government  of  Ethiopia  in  April 
and  revised  twice  (June  and  October).  Initially  the  number  of  people  in  need  of  emergency 
food assistance was estimated to be 2.2 million in April and grew to 6.4 million in October. 
Including the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) beneficiaries, this number is believed 
was between 12 and 13 million. The crises affected both pastoralist lowland and agricultural 
highland areas of the country. The eastern half of the country including Somali, eastern and 
south-eastern  Oromia,  most  parts  of  SNNPR,  eastern  Amhara,  pocket  areas  of  Tigray, 
Benishangul Gumuz, Afar, Gambella and Harari regions were affected. Successively through 
the year, DG ECHO enlarged its support with the aim to provide humanitarian aid in favour of 
the  most  vulnerable  population  affected  by  climatic  hazards  and  local  conflicts,  mainly  in 
food aid, nutrition, food security, health, water and sanitation and protection sectors. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

19 

Meher is the long rainy season (i.e., mid June to mid September) in most highlands of Ethiopia where 
90 to 95% of overall annual production comes from. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
From  2004  to  2008,  DG  ECHO  has  allocated  €76.2  million  to  Ethiopia  out  of  which  €39.7 
million  in  2008.  The  allocation  was  stepwise,  made  in  response  to  the  deteriorating 
humanitarian situation in the country.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

DG  ECHO  carried  out  five  financial  decisions  in  2008  for  a  budget  of  €4  million  for 
humanitarian  aid  and  €35.7  million  from  th e  food  aid  budget.  Another  €5.9  million  was 
funded  through  the  Drought  Preparedness  decision  in  the  Horn  of  Africa.  The  aim  of  the 
decisions  was  to  alleviate  the  suffering  of  vulnerable  people  victimized  by  food  shortages, 
malnutrition,  epidemics  and  water  born  diseases  as  a  result  of  natural  hazards.  The  support 
assisted  people  to  sustain  themselves  and  protect  their  livelihood  assets.  It  also  provided 
support to people who needed input to reconstitute themselves through agricultural recovery 
initiatives.  Spatially,  the  major  beneficiary  regions  were  Southern  Nations  nationalities  and 
Peoples Region, Somali Regional State (SRS), Oromya, Amhara and Tigray. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The smooth linkage between Relief, Rehabilitation and Development has been ensured in all 
DG  ECHO  supported  projects.  Activities  implemented  by  DG  ECHO  partners  are  closely 
linked  with  lasting  agencies  that  will  takeover  when  the  short  duration  humanitarian  actors 
leave  the  area.  Local  capacity  is  built  particularly  on  the  management  of  emergency 
situations.  DG  ECHO  is  closely  working  with  the  Rural  Development  and  Food  Security 
Section of the EC Delegation where development funds should be used also to cover chronic 
requirements. 

Kenya 

Humanitarian needs 

The humanitarian situation deteriorated significantly in 2008 due to the post election violence, 
a drought and a Somali refugee influx. Following the announcement of the election results in 
December  2007,  violence  erupted  resulting  in  the  death  of  an  estimated  1,300  persons  and 
displacement of at least half a million people. Following a political settlement and the creation 
of  a  coalition  Government,  the  situation  stabilised.  Most  IDPs  returned  in  their  places  of 
origin,  although  several  thousands  remained  in  transit  sites  or  have  resettled.  The  weather 
conditions in most of the arid and semi-arid lands have not been favourable. The food security 
and water situation in most of Northern Kenya deteriorated with more than one million people 
severely affected. More than 66,000 newly arrived Somali refugees were registered in Dadaab 
camps  in  2008.  Existing  refugee  camps  are  operating  far  above  their  capacity,  increasing 
stress on refugees and agencies providing assistance.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

From  2004  to  2008,  DG  ECHO  has  allocated  €47.4  million  to  Kenya  but  the  needs  for 
humanitarian  aid  have  never  been  as  high  as  in  2008,  with  several  crises  simultaneously 
affecting  large  numbers  of  people.  In  2008,  DG  ECHO  allocated  €2.3  million,  excluding 
ECHO flight operations, to assist the post election violence IDPs and to help with the rapid 
recovery of those who have returned, to nutrition  projects in  North Eastern Province and to 
World  Food  Programme  Emergency  Operation  in  the  arid  and  semi-arid  lands.  In  addition 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
DG ECHO contributed to the WFP refugee operation in support of Somali refugees in Dadaab 
camps.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

Efficient  and  rapid  multi-sectoral  assistance  was  provided  to  the  500,000  IDPs  at  the 
beginning of the year. The humanitarian situation in IDP sites was rapidly stabilised and the 
impact of a major humanitarian crisis was quickly mitigated. More than 100,000 former IDPs 
are  benefiting  from  an  early  recovery  intervention  and  are  assisted  in  rebuilding  their 
livelihood  through  a  voucher  based  programme.  Nutrition  projects  have  contributed  to 
stabilise the nutritional situation in North Eastern Province and progress have been registered 
in the treatment and the prevention of acute malnutrition.  

The  nutritional  situation  in  many  districts  remains  however  unsatisfactory  with  malnutrition 
rates  far  above  commonly  accepted  humanitarian  thresholds.  The  World  Food  Programme 
(WFP) emergency operation addressed the urgent needs of 1.4 million people, mainly in the 
arid and semi arid lands affected by drought and poor rains. More than 230,000 refugees in 
the three camps near Dadaab received a full food aid ration through out 2008. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Following  the  return  of  the  majority  of  post  election  violence  related  IDPs,  DG  ECHO 
contributed  to  the  early  recovery  of  20,000  households  with  voucher  based  interventions. 
Several longer term interventions have now been initiated by various actors and DG ECHO is 
not  considering  allocating  more  resources  to  the  post  election  violence  affected  population. 
The 2008 short rains have performed below average in many parts of the country and the food 
security  and  water  situation  is  deteriorating.  Several  contributing  factors  to  the  currently 
deteriorating  food  availability  and  accessibility  situation  are  noted.  While  development 
interventions aiming at mitigating the impact of droughts and high food prices are on-going, 
the  relief  needs  are  unfortunately  growing,  especially  in  the  arid  and  semi-arid  lands.  The 
influx  of  refugees  from  Somalia  is  sadly  not  expected  to  stop  and  refugee  related 
humanitarian needs are increasing.  

Somalia 

Humanitarian needs 

For the past 18 years Somalia has remained a country of open ended conflict and instability 
with  overwhelming  humanitarian  needs  that  are  aggravated  and  compounded  by  worsening 
cyclical  droughts,  floods  and  various  epidemic  outbreaks.  Somalia  has  just  faced  its  worst 
insecurity situation since the early 1990s as a result of increased conflict and fighting between 
the  Ethiopian  National  Defence  Force  (ENDF)/Somali  Transitional  Federal  Parliament  and 
Government  (TFG)  and  the  Armed  Opposition  Groups;  political  tension  over  the  current 
Djibouti Agreement and increased criminality the targeting of humanitarian aid workers and 
increased sea piracy which had the affect of compromising the delivery of aid shipments by 
sea.  This  has  resulted  in  over  1,300,000  IDPs  in  Somalia  today  representing  18%  of  the 
population. 900,000 of these are newly displaced due to the conflict in Mogadishu which has 
been ongoing since mid 2007. Impacts of these displacements are particularly felt over Lower 
Shabelle and the central regions where host communities have been already severely stressed 
by  successive  poor  rain  failures.  IDP  populations  fleeing  Mogadishu  have  only  served  to 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
increase the pressure on these vulnerable host communities, exhausting water sources, food, 
fuel, health infrastructure and accommodation.  

Besides the 1,300,000 IDPs, there are also 1,900,000 people affected by the crisis and who are 
in  a  humanitarian  emergency  or  acute  food  and  livelihood  crisis,  representing  27%  of  the 
population,  living  in  both  urban  and  rural  areas.  Combined  the  IDPs  and  affected  local 
population  totalling  3,200,000  people  represent  45%  of  the  Somalia  total  population  and  an 
increase of 77% since January 2008.  

In  addition  to  the  massive  consequence  of  the  conflict,  the  overall  situation  of  Somalia  is 
deteriorating  at  an  accelerated  pace  due  to  dramatic  food  prices  inflation;  a  continuing 
currency devaluation20; and persistent drought stricken regions of Central, Hiran as a result of 
largely  poor  and  failed  rains  for  several  consecutive  seasons  preventing  communities  for 
achieving any recovery. These factors still severely undermine economic activity contributing 
to the overall deterioration in the humanitarian situation. Repeated security incidents against 
humanitarian  community  such  as  kidnapping  threats,  harassment,  roadside  bombs  and 
administrative  interference  and  hindrances  placed  a  burden  on  humanitarians  and  restricted 
their  ability  to  operate.  The  main  humanitarian  needs  identified  were  shelter  and  non  food 
relief  items,  health  and  nutrition,  emergency  food  assistance,  water  and  sanitation,  and 
coordination. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Each  year,  from  2004  to  2008,  the  Commission  has  increased  its  humanitarian  support  for 
Somalia aid for a total amount of €93.3 million 21. In 2008 alone, following the escalation of 
the conflict and IDP displacement from Mogadishu as well as the overall intensification of the 
humanitarian  crisis,  the  Commission  has  progressively  adjusted  its  aid  by  adopting  several 
humanitarian  aid  decisions,  for  a  total  of  €43.8  million.  The  principal  objective  of  aid 
remained the same throughout all the period: "to assist the victims of insecurity and climatic 
hazards in Somalia". The main sectors of intervention in response to the needs were in health, 
water and sanitation, food security and non food items.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

As  indicated  above,  in  2008  a  total  of  €45.8  million  was  allocated.  These  funds  focused 
support  on  health  care,  nutrition,  water  and  sanitation,  food  security,  food  aid,  multi-sector 
support in favour of the new IDP caseloads, co-ordination and drought preparedness. These 
have, over the past year, been able to impact the lives of approx. 3 million Somalis. The year 

20 

21 

Markets in southern Somalia have been in disarray due to the prolonged conflict, rising global food and 
fuel prices, political instability, and uncontrolled and excessive printing of the Somali Shilling for most 
of the past year While the shilling lost value by 55% from Jan '08 to Oct '08 in the main Bakara market 
of  Mogadishu,  it  has  remained  relatively  stable  compared  to  the  USD  over  the  last  few  months 
devaluing by only 4% from September 2008 (SoSh34,000) to October 2008 (Sosh35,225). However the 
shilling value is still about half its value compared to the five year average. Similar trends are observed 
in all other southern Somalia markets. The Somaliland Shilling has remained relatively stable, although 
it  lost  value  slightly  from  SlSh  6,000  per  dollar  in  January  2008  to  SlSh  6,250  in  October  2008, 
representing a depreciation of 4%. While prices of imported commodities such as rice, sugar, cooking 
oil  and  petrol  have  increased  significantly  in  all  markets  from  January  2008  to  October  2008,  prices 
generally  remained  stable  over  the  last  few  months  and  have  in  many  cases  even  declined.  However 
imported commodity prices remain high, even if at lower levels compared to last year 
Regional decisions not included 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
started with an estimated population in need of 1,800,000 people which was increased by 77% 
to 3,200,000.  

The  above  number  reflects  DG  ECHO’s  ability  to  have  responded  to  real  time  increases  in 
need  for  intervention.  Beneficiary  figures  are  very  hard  to  calculate  accurately  and  some  of 
the  beneficiaries  benefited  from  one  and  several  of  the  same  sectors;  however,  what  can  be 
clearly accounted for  is that  access to  health  care  was  ensured  for  approx.  973,500  Somalis 
focusing on primary health care, including both in patient and out patient, specialised mother-
and-child  health  care,  paediatrics  and  emergency  war  surgery22  as  well  as  curative  nutrition 
interventions. In terms of food security, supported interventions were able to reach hundreds 
of  people  through  a  number  of  different  components  including  support  to  reinforcing 
emergency veterinary services in response to outbreaks of livestock diseases threatening the 
loss of pastoralist livestock herds across the central and south of Somalia as well as close to 
the border regions of Kenya in order to ensure that morbidity rate of critical livestock diseases 
would  not  exceed  20%  and  mortality  rates  kept  below  the  normal  20%  thus  contributing 
significantly to ensuing the protecting people's livestock herds and livelihoods.  

In food aid, 597,562 IDPs and host communities have been supported with food aid purchased 
though  Somali  traders  in  2008  focused  on  central  Somali  and  in  Mogadishu,  as  well  as  the 
Afgoye corridor complimenting the other activities mentioned above. One key programme is 
also the wet feeding programme in Mogadishu providing roughly 75,000 cooked meals a day. 
Water and sanitation, a sector of vital importance in Somalia, have directly assisted 822,926 
beneficiaries  with  improved  access  to  water  (i.e.  through  rehabilitation  of  water  points  and 
ground  surface  dams)  and  hygiene.  A  major  drought  affected  the  central  regions  in  2008, 
however,  through  the  ICRC  and  other  agencies,  DG  ECHO  supported  the  delivery  of  in 
excess of 2,300,000 litres of water a day for a 4 months period.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

LRRD is currently a major challenge for the EC as a whole, not least because of the different 
geographic coverage of 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. 

Uganda 

Humanitarian needs 

Since 1986 a protracted violent conflict between the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the 
Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has continued in the north-central region of the country. The 
majority of the population in this area had been forced to abandon their homes, many as early 
as  1996,  resulting  in  some  1.5  million  internally  displaced  persons  residing  in  camps 
throughout  the  regions  of  Acholi,  Teso,  and  Lango  in  2002.  The  cessation  of  hostilities 
agreement  in  2006  and  the  promising  Juba  peace  process  resulted  in  the  commencement  of 
the  return  process  for  displaced  communities.  By  the  end  of  2008  displacement  was 
considered  to  have  ended  in  Lango,  and  to  be  very  close  to  ending  in  Teso  (some  camps 
remain due to fear of Karimojong raiding).  

22 

ICRC alone has treated 2,612 war wounded in Mogadishu 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In the Acholi region however, where the displacement has been more prolonged and suffering 
more intense, some 450,000 persons continued to live in camps. It is to be seen if the delays in 
the signing the final peace agreement and the UPDF (Ugandan armed forces) attack on LRA 
bases  in  DR  Congo  in  December  2008,  followed  by  massacres  of  the  local  Congolese 
populations,  spell  the  end  of  the  peace  process  and  the  resumption  of  hostilities  within 
Uganda's borders.  

The return process remains very cautious in Acholi, particularly amongst those communities 
living close to the borders of Sudan and DR Congo. The Karamoja region has been faced with 
the  third  consecutive  year  of  erratic  rainfall  in  2008,  and  the  situation  is  exacerbated  by 
insecurity  due  to  a  gun  culture  that  produces  violent  cattle  raiding,  and  GoU's  forceful 
disarmament  programme.  Ongoing  livestock  disease  including  outbreaks  of  goats  plague 
(PPR)  for  shoats  and  Contagious  Bovine  Pleuro-Pneumonia  (CBPP)  for  cattle  further 
undermine the coping capacities of the local population. The last round of nutrition surveys 
for Karamoja from September 2008 show an overall average GAM23 rate of 9.5%, while the 
districts  of  Moroto  and  Kotido  register  above  the  emergency  threshold  of  10%.  Given  the 
negligible harvest of 2008, most humanitarian actors assume that the nutritional situation will 
only  degrade  further  during  2009  and  WFP  will  be  targeting  some  950,000  persons  in 
Karamoja through their emergency operations. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

Since 2004, DG ECHO has greatly contributed to the provision of a continuous and effective 
relief response in the conflict-affected areas of the north-central region; the response to basic 
needs  such  as  water  and  sanitation,  health,  non  food  items,  and  food  security  as  well  as 
protection and coordination, have been scaled-up significantly over the years and extended to 
the region of Karamoja also. Humanitarian access, due to insecurity, had been an important 
constraint until 2006. The assistance provided by DG ECHO has evolved from camp services 
and psychosocial and re-integration assistance, to include assistance for the return process. In 
response  to  the  worsening  of  the  humanitarian  crisis,  DG  ECHO  funded  €101.1  million  for 
the 5-year period (2004-2008). 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

DG ECHO’s strategy for 2008 included three specific objectives:  

(1) 

(2) 

in  the  framework  of  the  current  Internally  Displaced  People  return  and  transitional 
phase, provide adequate support and assistance to returnees, while continuing to assist 
the most vulnerable population in Internally Displaced People camps;  

strengthen  the  management  and  coordination  of  humanitarian  response  among 
multilateral and bilateral agencies and non governmental agencies in Uganda; and 

(3)  maintain  a  technical  capacity  in  the  field  to  assess  needs,  appraise  project  proposals 

and to co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of operations.  

The following sectors were focused on:  

23 

Global Acute Nutrition 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a) Health: Support to hospitals and Health Centres, including support to Village Health Teams 
for health education and disease surveillance; HIV/AIDS and malaria prevention components 
were integrated into all health care programs and mainstreamed into food security and water 
and  sanitation  programs;  condom  distribution  in  return  areas  through  Village  Health  Teams 
and Response to Hepatitis E epidemic was supported, including deployment of medical staff 
in targeted HCs;  

b) Water and Sanitation: Continued operation and maintenance of water systems in camps and 
increased  focus  on  rehabilitation  and  construction  of  water  systems  in  return  areas; 
construction  of  family  based  and  institutional  latrines  have  been  supported  as  well  as 
integration of hygiene promotion across all water and sanitation programs;  

c) Food security: DG ECHO has continued to reduce dependence on food aid by increasing 
self-reliance  of  IDPs  through  livelihood  security  programmes  and  income  generating 
activities;  

d) Food Aid: IDPs, flood-affected and drought-affected people were assisted with food aid in 
2008.  Mother  and  Child  Health  and  Nutrition  programmes  continued  in  2008  and  over 
330,000  beneficiaries  (newborns,  pregnant  and  lactating  mothers)  have  been  assisted  with 
supplementary food rations and  

e)  Protection  and  psychosocial/reintegration  assistance:  extremely  vulnerable  children  and 
women received assistance and adolescents were provided with psychosocial support through 
Interpersonal Therapy for Groups (IPTG). 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Achievements  included  operations  under  the  9th  EDF  Northern  Uganda  Rehabilitation 
Programme  (NUREP);  two  projects  specifically  targeting  conflict-affected  districts  in 
northern  Uganda  under  the  EC  Water  Facility;  a  €4  million  project  on  'vouchers  for  work' 
under the food security budget line, gradually moving northwards from Lango region in 2007 
to south Gulu and Pader districts in 2008/09 to replace DG ECHO financed free hand-out of 
vouchers.  

The  next  steps  will  be  carried  out  under  the  10th  EDF  programmes,  €20  million  Northern 
Uganda  -  Agricultural  Livelihoods  Recovery  Programme  (ALRP)  and  the  €15  million 
Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP). 

Regional Drought Preparedness  

Humanitarian needs 

Approximately  15  million  pastoralists  are  at  risk  of  morbidity  and  mortality  in  the  Greater 
Horn of Africa (GHA). Because of the specific nature of nomadic pastoralists and its linkages 
with natural resource and land management, the needs arise as a result of environmental and 
institutional  policy  failures.  One  of  the  most  important  traditional  coping  mechanisms  for 
nomadic communities, the opportunistic use of natural resources, or the ability to move with 
herds to areas with better pasture and water during periods of stress, has been progressively 
eroded.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
The  €15  million  decision  adopted  in  2006  was  the  first  one  adopted  by  the  Commission  to 
mitigate the effects of the recurrent drought in the Horn of Africa. Evaluation of impact of this 
kind  of  preventive  approach  was  very  successful  and  DG  ECHO  decided  to  continue  and 
reinforce  the  regional  drought  initiative  with  a  new  allocation  in  2008.  The  on-going 
humanitarian interventions, funded under this drought decision, focus on better management 
of natural resources, early warning systems and support to water and livestock. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

An 18-month funding decision was adopted in January 2008 for an amount of €30 million had 
been  entirely  committed.  2008  saw  the  drought  preparedness  and  drought  response  projects 
being implemented in 4 countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and cross-border interventions to 
Somalia). Projects were not implemented in Eritrea due to restricted access and Djibouti did 
not benefit from funding as previous activities have been continued by development partners. 
Up  to  12,000,000  pastoralists  and/or  agro-pastoralists  have  been  targeted,  directly  and 
indirectly,  by  operations  funded  through  this  Decision.  DG  ECHO  has  embarked  on  a  new 
approach  as  far  as  addressing  drought  issues  in  the  Greater  Horn  of  Arica  (GHA)  is 
concerned,  given  the  continuing  deterioration  in  terms  of  chronic  and  structural  drought 
related emergencies.  

This  approach  intends  to  address  the  drought  related  needs  within  a  short-medium  term 
perspective  developed  in  the  framework  of  a  Regional  Drought  Decision  (RDD)  for  the 
countries of the Horn of Africa, with focus on water, animal health, human health, livelihood 
support;  preparedness  and  coordination.  In  line  with  the  decision's  objectives,  the  emphasis 
was put on the Drought Cycle Management (DCM) approach as well as on close monitoring. 
As  drought  cycles  are  now  much  more  frequent  (shorter  cycles  of  2-3  years  are  now 
commonplace),  there  is  little  time  for  recovery  in  order  to  rebuild  resilience  and  capital  (in 
terms of animal numbers). 

The  Drought  Cycle  Management  (DCM)  uses  this  phenomenon  and  promotes  community 
based knowledge in drought preparedness, local resilience and Early Warning Systems (EWS) 
in order to deliver the right response at the right phase of the drought cycle. Activities funded 
under the previous drought decision of 2006 had a substantial positive impact on reducing the 
negative effects of the 2008 drought.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

LRRD was intensified with EC Delegations on the 9th and 10th EDF. Concrete examples are 
the  Delegation  Kenya  Drought  Management  Initiative  (DMI)  designed  jointly  with  ECHO 
Regional Support Offices (RSO) expertise. This initiative is taking over previous DG ECHO 
funded  activities  in  North  Western  Kenya,  while  also  attempting  to  strengthen  the 
Government of Kenya/World Bank supported Drought Contingency Fund. In Uganda, the EC 
Delegation  is  preparing  a  €15  million  longer   term  intervention  that  will  link  up  with 
DG ECHO  interventions  under  previous  and  current  Regional  Drought  initiatives.  The  DGs 
DEV/AIDCO-led  Horn  of  Africa  Initiative  (EC-HoAI),  which  began  its  preliminary  work 
during  2007  and  continued  it  through  2008,  is  seeking  complementarities  between  projects 
financed  in  the  Horn  of  Africa  through  their  different  instruments  (10th  EDF,  EC-HoAI, 
ECHO RDP).  

1.1.3. Central Africa, Southern Africa and Indian Ocean 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
The insecurity and complex crisis in Burundi as a result of 10 years of civil war, population 
displacements, and an ever precarious security situation has now given way to a criminality 
linked to a lack of opportunity for the population and to the disarmament process which has 
yet  to  produce  the  expected  results.  Furthermore,  the  country  hosted  three  camps  of 
Congolese  refugees.  ECHO  provided  assistance  to  IDPs,  returnees,  refugees  and  vulnerable 
host  communities,  covering  the  health/nutrition  sector,  delivering  food  aid,  promoting 
sanitation and funding protection activities, with focus on children, adolescents and women, 
and within a LRRD perspective as much as possible. 

In the Central African Republic, ECHO continued to support 200,000 people who had been 
displaced as a consequence of the action of domestic and foreign rebel groups and banditry in 
the North. ECHO assisted IDPs, refugees, returnees and vulnerable host communities with an 
integrated  package  including  water  and  sanitation,  food  security,  education,  health  and 
protection activities. In order to better assess needs and monitor interventions, ECHO opened 
an office in Bangui in July 2008. 

Contrasting  needs  in  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  where,  on  one  hand,  some  one 
million  IDPs  were  assisted  to  return  home  and  regain  self-sufficiency,  whilst  on  the  other 
hand renewed conflict in North Kivu uprooted an estimated 250,000 people who were thrown 
in urgent need of medical care, water, food and shelter. Violence against women and children 
remained  a  major  problem,  particularly  in  the  East.  DG ECHO  contributed  to  contain 
mortality and morbidity rates and to support the resettlement and stabilization process. 

ECHO Flight was maintained in order to serve humanitarian operators in DRC essentially. It 
was also used for emergency operations elsewhere (e.g. in Kenya). 

Tanzania  continued  to  host  the  largest  refugee  population  on  the  African  continent,  almost 
entirely dependent on international aid. However, in the course of the year the repatriation of 
Burundian  and  Congolese  accelerated,  leaving  some  150,000  refugees  whose  return  will 
largely,  though  not  exclusively,  depend  on  developments  in  their  countries  of  origin.  The 
Government  of  Tanzania  maintains  its  objective  to  close  all  camps.  Whilst  maintaining  a 
certain  degree  of  assistance  for  camps  care  and  maintenance,  DG  ECHO  focused  more  on 
interventions aimed at facilitating the repatriation process. 

The socio-economic collapse in Zimbabwe was further compounded by problems common to 
Southern Africa, like high rates of HIV/AIDS, declining soil productivity and erratic rainfall. 
Whilst  pre-  and  post-electoral  violence,  including  a  Government  suspension  of  NGO  field 
operations, marked the first half of the year, the last quarter was characterized by a massive 
cholera  epidemic,  still  not  under  control  as  the  year  ended,  which  is  the  most  obvious 
symptom  of  the  collapse  of  the  public  health  structures.  The  epidemic  also  spread  to  South 
Africa, where part of the Limpopo province was declared a disaster area, with more limited 
cases recorded in Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia. Against this background, DG ECHO's 
main  focus  was  on  public  health  interventions,  including  water  and  sanitation,  essential 
medicines, and cholera treatment and control, as well as on food aid and food security, with a 
particular emphasis on the link between both. 

Emergency  decisions  were  adopted  in  response  to  floods  and/or  cyclones  affecting 
Madagascar and Namibia, whilst an ongoing decision was adapted to take account of flooding 
in Mozambique. An emergency decision was also adopted after heavy fighting in Chad and 
the Central African Republic led to an influx of 15,000 refugees into Cameroon.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
The return of some 20,000 Congolese to DRC was assisted from two camps in Zambia.  

Finally,  the  first  disaster  preparedness  (DIPECHO)  programme  in  sub-Saharan  Africa  was 
launched, covering Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique and the Comoros. DIPECHO projects 
aim  to  prepare,  and  reinforce  the  capacities  of,  vulnerable  local  populations  affected  by 
natural disasters. 

Burundi and Tanzania 

Humanitarian needs 

In view of the close links between the two countries in terms of humanitarian needs, ECHO 
took the decision in 2008 to combine Burundi and Tanzania in one Global Plan, and to run 
field operations in both countries from Bujumbura. At the same time, ECHO's office in Dar-
el-Salaam was closed, leaving a small field office in Kigoma. Tanzania 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 2008, an estimated 205,000 refugees remained in Tanzania, of whom are 
Burundians, Congolese and people of mixed origins. Whilst repatriation to their countries of 
origin is underway, their humanitarian needs whilst in Tanzania include food, water, shelter, 
protection and health care. 

The insecurity and complex crisis in Burundi as a result of 10 years of civil war, population 
displacements, and an ever precarious security situation has now given way to a criminality 
linked to a lack of opportunity for the population and to the disarmament process which has 
yet to produce the expected results.  

Though a major repatriation exercise has been undertaken, living conditions for populations 
remain  difficult.  Burundi  also  hosts  three  camps  for  more  than  17,000  Congolese  refugees, 
with an additional 13,000 registered refugees living in urban areas. This group needs care and 
maintenance  support.  The  country  is  also  vulnerable  to  effects  of  regional  pressures  and 
instability.  In  Tanzania,  the  vast  majority  of  the  registered  Burundian  refugees  from  1993 
have been repatriated, leaving 45,000 in Mtabila camp to be repatriated by the end of 2009. 
The refugees from 1972 are for the majority of them in the process of naturalisation, leaving 
27,000 to be repatriated by end 2009.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

As Burundi has emerged from conflict, the assistance required has evolved in a corresponding 
manner  from  life  saving  emergency  humanitarian  aid  to  rehabilitation  and  development. 
Chronic poverty independent of the conflict has left, and will for the foreseeable future leave, 
many Burundians in a very vulnerable position. The return of refugees, though positive, has 
added to this vulnerability and implied a continuing need for Humanitarian assistance despite 
growing development aid support.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements  

The  principal  objective  is  to  contain  mortality  and  morbidity  rates  among  the  targeted 
population  groups  emergency  thresholds  and  to  support  the  resettlement  and  stabilisation 
process  where  possible  through  appropriate  integrated  activities.  DG  ECHO’s  intervention 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
strategy for 2008 was focused in the sectors of: water, sanitation, health, nutrition, housing, 
protection and transport and improving conditions for the repatriation of refugees. Vulnerable 
groups  in  Burundi  have  also  been  targeted  (unaccompanied  minors,  the  disabled  and  the 
elderly) and above all repatriation programmes have been financed in Tanzania, which have 
achieved the desired objectives - namely, voluntary return in safety and in dignity. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  2008,  some  water  and  sanitation  activities  previously  financed  by  DG  ECHO  have  been 
taken over by the Delegation's "Water Facility" programme and the Belgium cooperation. 

The  constructive,  ongoing  and  wide-ranging  dialogue  between  DG  ECHO,  the  Head  of 
Delegation and representatives of DG DEV24 and DG AIDCO25, which has resulted in several 
new multi-sector programmes in the health, post-conflict rural development and food security 
sectors. 

Cameroon 

Humanitarian needs 

At  the  beginning  of  2008,  a  coalition  of  three  Chadian  rebel  groups  tried  to  overthrow  the 
Chadian government. Heavy combat took place in N'djamena, causing flight of around 15,000 
people  towards  the  country.  In  addition,  the  number  of  Central  African  refugees  (mostly 
Mbororos  pastoralists)  fleeing  the  attacks  of  armed  bandits  ("coupeurs  de  route")  in  the 
Central  African  Republic  had  been  increasing  over  the  last  months  of  2007.  With  the  joint 
arrival  of  the  Chadians  and  the  increase  of  Central  African  refugees,  the  Government  of 
Cameroon  and  humanitarian  agencies  already  present  in  the  country,  were  no  longer  in  a 
position to provide sufficient assistance to refugees. The most urgent needs were identified in 
the sectors of water and sanitation, food aid, non-food items, health and shelter. In the light of 
these events, DG ECHO mobilised €2 million in an emergency decision. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

The objective of DG ECHO strategy was to provide emergency relief assistance to refugees 
and  vulnerable  host  communities.  Chadian  refugees  benefitted  from  water  and  sanitation 
activities,  health  services,  distribution  of  non-food  items  and  protection  activities.  Most  of 
these  refugees  went  back  to  Chad  once  the  situation  had  calmed  down  and  order  had  been 
restored.  Central  African  refugees  received  food  aid  rations,  non-food  items  kits  and  had 
access  to  preventive  and  curative  primary  health  care,  to  potable  water  and  protection 
activities.  The  host  population  also  benefitted  from  humanitarian  assistance,  notably  in  the 
sectors of health and water and sanitation. 

24 
25 

Directorate-General for Development – DG DEV 
EuropeAid Cooperation – DG AIDCO 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Central African Republic 

Humanitarian needs 

At the end of 2006, the northwest and northeast of the country were severely affected by the 
increasing fighting between government forces and rebels. This violent activity, together with 
the increase in the number of bandits ("coupeurs de route") attacks, led to the displacement of 
more  than  200,000  people,  provoking  a  humanitarian  crisis.  The  most  urgent  needs  were 
identified  in  the  sectors  of  health,  water  and  sanitation,  food  security,  non-food  items, 
education and protection.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG ECHO intervened in the country in 2003 and 2004 through the adoption of two decisions 
targeting  needs  in  the  health  sector.  DG  ECHO  resumed  its  presence  in  Central  African 
Republic  in  mid-2007  by  funding  operations  for  a  total  amount  €8  million  providing 
multisectoral humanitarian assistance. In the light of the increasingly fragile situation in the 
country,  DG  ECHO  decided  to  remain  involved  in  Central  African  Republic,  mobilising  a 
further €7.8 million to cover the period September 2008 until December 2009 and opening an 
office in Bangui in July 2008. Humanitarian assistance continues to address the most pressing 
humanitarian needs but in the meantime, and where possible, tries to link with the incoming 
development programmes. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements  

The objective of DG ECHO's strategy was to provide assistance to displaced people, refugees, 
returnees and vulnerable host communities affected by the conflict in order to reduce excess 
mortality  and  to  promote  stabilisation  and  resettlement.  Gradual  improvements  can  be 
observed. DG ECHO contributed to the provision of access to basic health services, water of 
good  quality,  education  and  improved  quality  seeds.  These  activities  and  the  increased 
presence  of  humanitarian  organisations  enhanced  the  protection  of  conflict-affected 
communities.  Thus,  and  after  nearly  two  years  of  displacement,  many  IDPs  were  able  to 
return to their villages on a more permanent basis: at the beginning of 2008 197,000 people 
were still displaced, whilst in October 2008, the number of IDPs was estimated at 108,000. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

DG ECHO has, to the extent possible, focused its intervention in areas and sectors identified 
by DG Development's strategy. In 2008, it proved possible to hand over some operations to 
longer-term  funding.  The  LRRD  strategy  in  food  security  sector  is  being  smoothly 
implemented.  In  2008,  the  EC  Delegation  committed  a  first  tranche  of  €5  million  from  the 
FSTP  (Food  Security  Thematic  Programme).  In  addition  €3  million  from  the  "Programme 
d'Accompagnement et de Stabilisation" was allocated to a north east region and allowed the 
transfer of a water and sanitation operation initially financed by DG ECHO. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
Democratic Republic of Congo 

Humanitarian needs 

Despite  successful  elections  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  (DRC)  has  not  returned  to 
complete  peace  and  stability.  Some  areas,  such  as  Katanga  and  South  Kivu  enjoyed  calmer 
times to the extent of allowing the return of refugees and internally displaced people, but in 
North  Kivu  renewed  conflict  has  caused  suffering  and  more  displacement  of  populations. 
There  have  also  been  a  series  of  epidemic  outbreaks;  most  notably  of  cholera.  There  have 
been  contrasting  differences  in  the  needs  to  be  met.  On  the  one  hand,  some  one  million 
displaced  people  have  been  assisted  to  return  home  and  regain  their  self-sufficiency. 
Essentially  this  has  required  the  re-establishment  of  basic  social  services  and  food  security. 
On the other hand, some 250,000 people were uprooted by the relapse into conflict in North 
Kivu since August 2008 and were in urgent need of medical care, water, food and shelter. The 
Haut  Uélé  district  has  also  been  the  scene  of  displacements  of  vulnerable  populations 
following the attacks by the Uganda-based Lord's Resistance Army. Violence against women 
and children has remained a particular problem in DRC, particularly emphasized in  conflict 
zones.  The  legal  aspects  aside,  victims  have  required  urgent  medical  and  psychological 
assistance.  DG  ECHO  will  continue  to  target  the  most  vulnerable,  particularly  women  and 
children in whatever sector of intervention. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Humanitarian needs have been in direct correlation with the conflict. At the height of fighting 
(1996-2003),  development  aid  was  suspended  and  DG  ECHO  had  a  significant  programme 
covering  the  whole  country.  With  the  various  peace  accords  the  major  fighting  subsided, 
alleviating  humanitarian  needs  and  allowing  development  aid  to  resume.  This  has  enabled 
DG ECHO to reduce its level of assistance, but not entirely as intermittent conflict persisted 
in the East, perpetuating the need for emergency assistance.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The  principal  objective  of  DG  ECHO's  strategy  was  to  contain  the  mortality  and  morbidity 
rates  among  targeted  population  groups  within  emergency  thresholds  and  to  support  the 
resettlement  and  stabilization  process  where  possible.  In  order  to  achieve  this,  DG  ECHO 
developed a Global Plan for €30 million a nd attributed €15.55 million for food aid.  

In  terms  of  impact,  an  increasing  number  of  partners  have  shown  by  local  surveys  that 
malnutrition  levels  and  mortality  rates  have  decreased.  In  most  areas,  these  rates  are  now 
below emergency levels. They remain directly linked to the security environment and poverty 
levels.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

DG ECHO has continued to hand over health programmes to development partners in those 
areas  that  have  stabilised.  However,  in  North  Kivu  the  process  was  reversed  with  several 
health  districts  having  to  turn  temporarily  back  to  DG  ECHO  for  extra  support  to  face  the 
increased  needs.  Despite  the  elections,  Government  services  have  been  slow  to  return,  but 
development  funds  are  now  visible,  even  in  the  east,  where  they  now  exceed  emergency 
funds.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
ECHO Flight 

Humanitarian needs 

The 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 commitment 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 also 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 implementation. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The  principal  objective  of  the  funding  was  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  humanitarian 
and  post-emergency  development  projects  in  difficult  or  inaccessible  areas.  The  specific 
objectives  were:  (1)  to  provide  safe,  reliable,  efficient  and  cost-effective  humanitarian  air 
transport capacity and (2) to create a technical assistance capacity in the field, to assess needs, 
appraise  operational  proposals  and  to  coordinate  and  monitor  the  implementation  of 
operations. 

After  a  tender  process,  DG  ECHO  entered  into  a  service  agreement  with  DAC  Aviation,  a 
commercial 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.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

There  are  no  current  plans  to  hand  over  this  operation  to  DG  DEV/delegation  but  this  may 
become a possibility.  

Madagascar 

Humanitarian needs 

Madagascar  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 
various  climatic  phenomena  such  as  erratic  rainfall  patterns,  cyclones,  floods  and  drought. 
Floods and cyclones were a major problem in the first part of 2008. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

A  €1.5  million  emergency  funding  decision,  adopt ed  in  March  2008  provided  support  to 
vulnerable populations affected by cyclone Ivan and resultant flooding in the north-east of the 
country.  DG  ECHO-funded  interventions  were  followed  up  by  food  security  interventions 
funded from the food aid budget line later in the year, to offset the loss of harvests.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
Namibia 

Humanitarian needs 

Namibia has the highest GINI co-efficient – a measure of income inequality – in the world. In 
March/April  2008,  the  northern  provinces  of  Namibia  were  affected  by  the  most  severe 
flooding in 50 years, which caused the displacement of 60,000 people. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

A €350,000 emergency funding decision was adopted  in April 2008 to support to emergency 
relief, water and sanitation, and health interventions. In view of the loss of harvests during the 
flooding,  DG  ECHO  mobilised  funding  from  the  food  aid  budget  line  later  in  the  year  to 
support food security interventions for flood-affected populations. 

Zimbabwe 

Humanitarian needs 

In 2008, Zimbabwe continued to be immersed in a profound crisis affecting all economic and 
social sectors. Whilst pre- and post-electoral violence, including a Government suspension of 
NGO field operations, marked the first half of the year, the last quarter was characterized by a 
massive cholera epidemic, still not under control as the year ended, which is the most obvious 
symptom  of  the  collapse  of  the  public  health  structures.  The  epidemic  also  spread  to  South 
Africa, where part of the Limpopo province was declared a disaster area, with more limited 
cases recorded in Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia. Against this background, DG ECHO's 
main  focus  was  on  public  health  interventions,  including  water  and  sanitation,  essential 
medicines, and cholera treatment and control, as well as on food aid and food security. The 
socio-economic collapse is further compounded by problems common to the Southern African 
sub-region  –  high  rates  of  people  infected  and  affected  by  HIV/AIDS,  declining  soil 
productivity and erratic rainfall. UN World Food Programme was providing food assistance to 
almost 3 million people. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

The levels of humanitarian funding have remained fairly steady over the last five years, from 
€15  million  in  2004  and  2005,  to  €12  million 
in  2006  and  €30.2  million  in  2007.  Though 
efforts have been made to try to gradually reduce assistance in 2006 and 2007, when an initial 
allocation of €8 million was made as a result of th e deterioration in the humanitarian situation 
in Zimbabwe, levels of funding have had to be increased. The initial allocation for 2007 was 
increased by €7.2 million, with the objective of  changing the focus of DG ECHO's strategy to 
support for the health/public health sector. Additionally, €15 millions were added on the food 
aid budget line. Finally, €25 million were a llocated in for 2008, including €15 million from 
the food aid budget line. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The  principal  objective  of  2008  humanitarian  interventions  was  to  mitigate  the  impact  of 
socio-economic breakdown in Zimbabwe by reinforcing the access of vulnerable populations 
to basic essential services. The Global Plan adopted in July 2008 consolidated the change in 
DG  ECHO's  strategy,  and  reinforced  the  focus  on  health  and  public  health  interventions.  A 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
much  stronger  emphasis  was  placed  on  the  link  between  food  aid  and  food  security 
interventions  with  a  view  to  breaking  the  cycle  of  dependence  on  the  former.  The 
humanitarian  situation,  particularly  in  the  health  and  public  health  sector,  continues  to 
deteriorate, with no indication of prospects for improvement in 2009 in absence of a political 
solution. It seems, however, highly probable that needs will increase in the course of 2009. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Though the 10th EDF provides an allocation of funding for Zimbabwe, it seems unlikely that 
the Country Strategy Paper will be signed, as development cooperation remains suspended by 
the  Council  Decision  of  18th  February  2002.  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. It is therefore not possible at this stage to engage 
in  a  comprehensive  LRRD  process  in  Zimbabwe  in  absence  of  an  improvement  and 
stabilization of the political situation. 

1.1.4. West Africa 

In Liberia, DG ECHO focussed its support on access to basic services, to provide support to 
restart farming activities, and to foster re-integration. Good progress was registered in terms 
of LRRD in the food security sector. 

DG  ECHO's  engagement  was  substantial  in  Sahel,  where  interventions  aimed  at  addressing 
the  causes  of  acute  malnutrition  ranged  from  therapeutic  and  supplementary  feeding 
programmes to measures aimed at improve access to primary healthcare and clean water and 
activities  to  strengthen  coping  mechanisms  and  protect  livelihoods.  Particular  attention  was 
devoted to promoting LRRD and achieving integration of the nutritional care into the national 
health systems. 

Besides  the  programme  of  fight  against  malnutrition,  DG  ECHO  financed  in  Mauritania  a 
repatriation operation of over 20,000 former refugees.  

Activities  were  also  funded  in  Guinea,  Togo  and  Côte  d'Ivoire  aiming  at  treating  acute 
malnutrition. 

Emergency  response  was  provided  to  the  cholera  epidemic  in  Guinea  Bissau,  whereas 
vaccination campaigns were funded in Liberia, Nigeria and Niger. 

Liberia 

Humanitarian needs 

Since  the  end  of  the  conflict  in  Liberia,  humanitarian  needs  in  the  country  have  evolved 
greatly.  Important  efforts  have  been  made  to  improve  access  to  basic  services,  to  provide 
support  to  restart  farming  activities  and  to  foster  re-integration.  However,  challenges  were 
important and the situation  in  the country is still very difficult: full substitution remains  the 
main  characteristic  of  the  health  sector  despite  all  the  efforts  of  a  committed  MoH26,  the 
situation in water and sanitation sector has improved in areas of return but a lot remains to be 
done  in  numerous  rural  communities  as  well  as  in  urban  areas  especially  Monrovia,  where 

26 

Ministry of Health 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
regular  cholera  outbreaks  occur  and  finally,  food  insecurity  is  still  prevalent  in  numerous 
counties though efforts have been made to improve the situation.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Humanitarian  aid  has  evolved  from  direct  support  to  repatriation  of both  IDPs  and  refugees 
and the attempt to resume access to basic services, to activities more focused on reintegration 
and restoration of livelihoods.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

In  2008,  the  focus  has  been  on  initiating  the  resuming  of  livelihoods  at  community  level 
through food assistance and water and sanitation interventions. In health sector, the objective 
was to continue the provision of support and to attempt to secure the basis for a proper hand 
over of DG ECHO's support. More than €16  million, including €1 million for food aid, was 
allocated in support of vulnerable Liberian populations. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The main features of DG ECHO's funding in 2008 were support for mainly ongoing partners 
to consolidate previous interventions and to mainstream the targeting of the 'forgotten' most 
vulnerable into the development agenda within the maximum potential contract duration of 18 
months. Despite the difficulties encountered in the field some improvement can be noted:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

in the health sector, ongoing discussions are taking place to secure a link between DG 
ECHO supported interventions and the EDF;  

the  LRRD  strategy  in  the  Food  security  sector  has  been  completed  and  DG  ECHO 
should be able to phase out from this sector; and  

in  the  water  and  sanitation  sector,  DG  ECHO  contributed  to  a  consortium  of  five 
NGOs which defined a 5 years strategy supported by various donors. This intervention 
enabled  the  mainstreaming  of  remaining  humanitarian  needs  into  a  five  years  plan 
whose global objective is geared towards development.  

Mauritania 

Humanitarian needs 

Following his election to the Presidency of Mauritania in 2007, Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi 
gave a speech on the Refugee day aimed at putting an end to the “refugee problem and turn 
the page on this episode of internal conflicts”. He referred to the expulsion of approximately 
60,000  Mauritanians  who,  as  a  result  of  the  border  conflict  and  subsequent  ethnic  tensions 
between  Mauritania  and  Senegal  in  April  1989,  sought  refuge  in  Senegal  and  Mali.  The 
President's speech opened the door for repatriation and thousands of evacuees expressed their 
will to go back to their country. The return of an expected 20,000 former refugees raised the 
issue of assisting the repatriation process. There were manifest needs in terms of protection as 
well as basic humanitarian assistance. DG ECHO launched a €2 million ad-hoc decision. The 
fund's  bulk  was  granted  to  UNCHR  who,  after  signing  a  tripartite  agreement  with  the 
Government of Mauritania and the refugees' representatives, launched the repatriation. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Throughout  the  year,  DG  ECHO  supported  a  €1.5  million  UNCHR-run  operation  which 
managed  to  repatriate  over  5,000  former  refugees.  They  were  provided  with  integrated 
assistance:  not  only  broad  humanitarian  assistance  (food  and  non  food  items,  shelter  and 
sanitation)  but  also  transport  and  protection  assistance.  Furthermore,  it  was  envisaged  to 
facilitate reintegration through the promotion of income generating activities. Previsions had 
anticipated a far higher number of returnees but the military coup of summer 2008 changed 
the  political  scene  and  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  refugees  and  their  trust  in  the  new 
government's alleged engagement of respecting the Tripartite Agreement. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Following  the  military  putsch  and  the  consequent  coming  into  force  of  Art  96  of  the 
Agreement,  the  majority  of  Official  Development  Assistance  between  the  EC  and  the 
Government of Mauritania was suspended excepted ongoing contracts, humanitarian aid and 
direct support to populations. As a consequence, the EC Delegation in Nouakchott approved a 
project of direct assistance to the repatriates and the host communities. Lengthy negotiations 
between  DG  ECHO  and  the  Delegation  and  other  Commission's  services  allowed  avoiding 
any  overlapping  between  DG  ECHO  and  Delegation-funded  projects.  The  Delegation  will 
therefore support an operation focused on strengthening food security, generating sources of 
revenues and carrying out an advocacy and information campaign.  

The Sahel region 

Humanitarian needs 

Lessons learned from the nutritional crisis in 2005 in Niger and Mali and profound concern 
over  the  continued  very  high  Global  Acute  Malnutrition  rates  throughout  Sahel  led  to  the 
reinforcement of the 2007 Sahel Global Plan with an extra €15.7 m illion (€10.7 million from 
the food aid budget and €5 million from the human itarian aid budget). The principal objective 
remains a sustainable reduction in acute malnutrition and infant and maternal mortality rates 
in  5  Sahel  countries  (Burkina  Faso,  Chad,  Mali,  Mauritania  and  Niger),  as  well  as  in  the 
Sahelian zones of neighbouring countries which have also been affected by malnutrition rates 
well  beyond  the  emergency  threshold  of  10%,  with  peaks  of  over  20%  in  some  areas. 
UNICEF  estimate  that  4  million  children  until the age  of 5 years  suffer from chronic  under 
nutrition  with  under  nutrition  being  held  responsible  for  over  50%  of  all  child  deaths.  This 
translates into the harsh calculation that half (300,000) of the 600,000 children that die before 
reaching  5  years  of  age  in  the  Sahel  do  so  from  malnutrition  or  related  causes.  Infant  and 
maternal  mortality  rates  in  the  Sahel  are  amongst  the  worst  in  the  world.  Unless  the  Sahel 
countries are provided with massive and sustained support in their fight against malnutrition 
there  is  no  chance  that  they  will  achieve  progress  towards  the  Millennium  Development 
Goals.  

The  root  causes  of  acute  malnutrition  are  multi-sector  and  therefore  action  to  deal  with  it 
needed also to be multi-sector. DG ECHO responded to this enormous "silent" emergency by 
different types of interventions: screening and treatment of malnourished children, assistance 
to  promote  food  security,  livelihoods  protection,  access  to  clean  water,  as  well  as  advocacy 
and  awareness  raising  activities  to  mainstream  nutrition  into  development  policies  (LRRD). 
An  integrated  approach  involving  both  humanitarian  and  development  aid  instruments  has 
been actively encouraged. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Experience with activities to respond to the 2005 nutritional crisis in Niger and Mali provided 
DG ECHO with good indicators for a road map to deal with the similar problems in the other 
countries  of  the  Western  Sahel  region  in  2008.  In  Niger,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  children 
have been treated in more than 800 feeding centres. Modern nutritional protocols, approaches 
and products especially the new RUTF (ready to use therapeutic foods) were introduced and 
become  nationally  adopted.  To  facilitate  access  to  basic  health  services,  the  Government 
decreed  a  waiver  of  healthcare  user  fees  for  the  under-fives  and  pregnant  and  lactating 
women. 

Efforts  to  integrate  the  humanitarian  response  to  the  2005  crisis  into  local  structures  and 
systems were emphasised from 2007. Humanitarian agencies worked to reinforce capacity of 
local health structures to take charge of the caseload of mal-nourished children. 

This  will  take  time  as  decades  of  inadequate  investment  in  health  infrastructure,  a  massive 
shortage  of  trained  personnel  and  scarce  stocks  of  essential  medicines  and  equipment 
necessitate  a  dedicated  and  sustained  level  of  development  assistance  before  humanitarian 
agencies can withdraw. The delivery of this development assistance is taking longer than had 
been  hoped  for.  Much  work  has  also  gone  into  trying  to  improve  the  functioning  of  early 
warning analysis and response systems. The failure of these systems into which much aid had 
been invested over the past years to provide adequate data on the extent of the 2005 crisis was 
a particular disappointment. 

A particular effort is now been made to co-relate early warning information from the health 
system with the food security data. The fact that national protocols on the identification and 
treatment of nutrition have now been agreed in all Sahel states is a major step forward. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

•  In Niger: 

DG ECHO has supported operations providing nutritional treatment and access to health care 
for children under five, benefiting over 900,000 children and mothers mostly in the southern 
regions.  DG  ECHO  partners  are  working  closely  with  government  services  to  facilitate  the 
integration  of  these  essential  services  into  the  healthcare  system.  DG  ECHO  supported 
action/research  initiatives  into  the  use  of  "ready-to-use"  therapeutic  foods  and  encouraged 
new strategic thinking to improve action in the combat against acute malnutrition. Activities 
to  protect  the  livelihoods  of  nearly  1  million  people  to  enable  them  to  cope  better  with  the 
hungry season and with the rise in world food prices were supported. 

•  In Burkina Faso 

DG ECHO supported operations providing nutritional treatment and access to health care for 
children  under  five  benefiting  60,000  children  and  over  15,000  pregnant  women.  10,000 
families have been helped with livelihood protection. 

•  In Mali 

DG ECHO supported operations providing nutritional treatment and access to health care for 
children under five benefitting over 30,000 people. Complementary actions to promote food 
security  and  access  to  drinking  water  have  also  been  carried  out  in  areas  with  high  rates  of 
acute malnutrition. 

•  In Mauritania. 

DG ECHO supported operations providing nutritional treatment and access to health care for 
children  under  five  and  women  suffering  from  malnutrition.  In  2008,  a  nutritional  survey 
supported  by  DG  ECHO  confirmed  the  incidence  of  acute  malnutrition  in  the  south  of  the 
country had reached alert levels. Efforts were concentrated on the integration of the treatment 
of  malnutrition  in  national  structures  in  the  south  of  the  country.  At  the  same  time, 
complementary interventions to improve access to drinking water were carried out. 

•  At regional level,  

DG  ECHO  supported  UNICEF  in  updating  the  protocols  for  treating  malnutrition  and 
provided training for medical staff in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Mauritania. DG ECHO is 
also  supporting  cross-border  initiatives  to  raise  awareness  and  educate  people  about 
nutrition-related matters using local languages.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country  

Malnutrition can only be dealt with in a sustainable way through an integrated and articulated 
aid strategy involving all aid instruments. DG ECHO's Sahel strategy was therefore designed 
from  the  onset  as  an  LRRD  strategy  involving  all  the  Commission's  humanitarian  and 
development  aid  instruments.  To  promote  close  integration  with  other  Commission  aid 
services  DG  ECHO  opened  antennae  within  the  EC  Delegations  in  Niamey,  Niger  and  in 
Ouagadougou,  Burkina  Faso.  A  considerable  effort  was  made  to  ensure  the  inclusion  of 
humanitarian concerns such as malnutrition and high infant and maternal mortality rates in the 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
10th EDF Country Strategy Papers (CSP) and National Indicative Programmes (NIP) for the 
Sahel. While the main focus of the 10th EDF programmes is on general budget support which 
makes it difficult to specify particular issues, there is reference to the need for EDF funding to 
improve  nutritional  security  and  help  reduce  the  unacceptably  high  levels  of  infant  and 
maternal  mortality  caused  by  malnutrition.  DG  ECHO  is  working  with  other  Commission 
services to see to what extent the performance indicators in budget support can be fine-tuned 
to monitor progress towards a reduction in malnutrition. DG ECHO has also had contacts with 
World Bank offices in the Sahel on the same issues. 

Epidemics (regional) 

Humanitarian Needs 

West  African  countries  are  highly  vulnerable  to  communicable  diseases  because  their 
structural  weakness,  poverty,  lack  of  basic  sanitation  facilities,  low  hygiene  standards  and 
malnutrition.  Some  of  these  countries  are  still  struggling  with  the  aftermath  of  conflict 
situation. They are particularly prone to epidemics of Cholera, Meningitis, Lassa and Yellow 
Fever and Hepatitis E. The region is also seeing an increased risk of avian influenza epidemic 
with confirmed animal cases in Niger, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Benin, Ghana and Nigeria 
where the first human case was confirmed in January 2007. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In March 2008, following a series of associated Measles and Meningitis epidemics in Niger 
and Nigeria along with a Yellow fever outbreak in Liberia, DG ECHO launched a €1 million 
emergency humanitarian aid decision to respond to various epidemics. 

In  August  2008,  DG  ECHO  responded  to  the  Cholera  emergency  in  Guinea  Bissau  with  a 
€500,000 Emergency Humanita rian Aid Decision. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Most  African  countries  still  need  external  support  to  respond  in  a  timely  manner  and/or  to 
prevent recurrent epidemics. Outbreak detection and control intervention have been improved 
in  certain  countries  mainly  due  to  better  epidemic  surveillance  and  Early  Warning  Systems 
but, the availability  of  donor support  has been reduced and Governments contingency plans 
are rare or not sufficiently funded. Health systems still have neither the capacity to absorb the 
increased  number  of  patients,  nor  the  resources  to  respond  to  the  epidemics  using  public 
health measures. Certain epidemics require a high level of expertise which is not available at 
the country level. As such, the recurrent health emergencies in most of the African countries 
need  considerable  and  sustainable  efforts  in  terms  of  coordination,  including  information 
management, of technical support and of resource mobilization. 

1.2. CARIBBEAN 

Rapid response was provided during the hurricane season to about 250,000 people affected in 
Haiti, Cuba, the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos, and Jamaica, through the provision of food, non-
food  items,  water,  sanitation,  health,  shelter,  as  well  as  emergency  rehabilitation  and 
livelihoods. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
By 2008, humanitarian needs were so great in Haiti that DG ECHO's response was substantial 
and  it  included  food  aid,  nutritional  assistance,  as  well  as  interventions  in  the  health,  water 
and  sanitation  sectors.  In  addition  to  the  rapid  response  mentioned  above  for  the  Caribbean 
region, Haiti benefited from  a  dedicated emergency  response with assistance included food, 
non-food items, water, sanitation, shelter, health, and emergency communication. 

Following severe floods which affected Suriname mid-2008, DG ECHO provided assistance 
to the victims in the sectors of food aid and food security.  

Funding covered the following issues / countries: 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

CARIBBEAN

10 250 000

11 400 000

21 650 000

Haiti

Suriname

Regional Caribbean

5 000 000

11 000 000

16 000 000

 400 000

 400 000

5 250 000

5 250 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6. 

Caribbean Region 

Humanitarian needs 

The Caribbean region is prone to frequent natural disasters, especially hurricanes and floods. 
The region's vulnerability is accentuated by high population density, fast demographic growth 
and  great  poverty.  This  results  in  communities  with  few  coping  capacities  in  the  event  of 
disaster. In 2008, DG ECHO continued to provide community-based Disaster  Preparedness, 
through its DIPECHO programme, as well as Emergency Relief, Food Aid and Multi-sectoral 
Humanitarian Aid. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since  2004,  DG  ECHO  has  provided  all  types  of  humanitarian  aid,  as  described  above.  In 
2008, the new features were a large amount of Emergency Relief, due to the severity of the 
hurricane season, and a large amount of Food Aid, due to increased malnutrition in Haiti and 
Suriname. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The  objective  of  providing  a  rapid  response  to  disasters  was  met,  via  a  regional  funding 
decision. During the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, the Caribbean was affected by Tropical 
Storm  Fay,  Hurricanes  Gustav,  Hanna  and  Ike,  all  of  which  emerged  within  one  month, 
aggravating the damage caused by each previous hurricane and resulting in considerable loss 
of  life  and  enormous  suffering.  Thousands  of  people  lost  their  homes  and  livelihoods,  and 
damage  to  crops  was  great.  Numerous  roads  and  bridges  were  destroyed,  whilst  extensive 
flooding  prevented  access  to  many  regions.  An  Emergency  decision  for  €5  million  was 
adopted on 14th October 2008 for the Caribbean region, responding to Hurricane Gustav and 
subsequent  storms:  €2.7  million  allocated  to  Ha iti,  €2  million  to  Cuba  and  €300,000  to  the 
Bahamas,  Turks  and  Caicos  Islands  and  Jamaica.  Emergency  relief  and  recovery  assistance 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
were provided for 250,000 hurricane victims in the sectors of food, non-food items, water and 
sanitation, health, shelter, emergency rehabilitation and livelihoods. Another regional decision 
was adopted in 2008 (€250,000) in order to provid e technical assistance for all humanitarian 
aid operations in the Caribbean region. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

After the above mentioned hurricanes, some European Development Funds were allocated to 
rehabilitation in the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Haiti and Jamaica. 

Haiti 

Humanitarian needs 

Haiti was a "Forgotten crisis" for DG ECHO in 2008 and a Pilot country for the new multi-
service,  inter-institutional  "Fragile  situation"  initiative.  In  2007,  a  DG  ECHO-funded 
evaluation had already revealed under-5 mortality of 86/1,000 and National acute malnutrition 
of  over  9%,  with  entire  Departments  at  12-18%.  Most  people  do  not  have  access  to  clean 
water,  sanitation  or  health  services.  In  April  2008  there  were  riots  due  to  the  problem  of 
sharply  rising  food and  fuel  prices, known as "La vie chère". Haiti imports over  50%  of its 
food (over 80% of its rice) and sharp price rises meant that people could not afford to feed 
themselves and their families. The Prime Minister was forced to resign and the government 
was in disarray for 5 months. Finally, an impetus was created by the emergency needs brought 
by  the  hurricanes,  described  above,  leading  to  inauguration  of  a  new  government  on 
5th September 2008. Vast needs remained to be faced by the new government. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

For several years DG ECHO responded to catastrophes and crises in Haiti, but was not pro-
active.  By  2008  humanitarian  needs  were  so  great  that  this  changed  and  DG  ECHO 
implemented three Food Aid decisions and an ad-hoc decision in Haiti, as well as emergency 
response and disaster preparedness. Moreover, the Commission decided to re-open an ECHO 
office in Haiti27 and to schedule Global Plan funding for 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

DG ECHO's strategy in Haiti is to reduce malnutrition and mortality through Multi-sectoral 
humanitarian  aid,  as  well  as  responding  to  Disasters  and  undertaking  Disaster  preparedness 
operations. €1 million is allocated to Haiti under  6th DIPECHO Action Plan in the Caribbean 
(€4  million,  2007-9).  Food  assistance  is  part  of   the  multi-sectoral  strategy,  including  Food 
Security (agricultural inputs and livelihoods), Community Therapeutic Care and Malnutrition 
programmes, as well as basic Food Aid. 

In  2008,  €8  million  was  allocated  to  Haiti  via  Ad  hoc  funding  decisions  (€3  million  for 
Health,  Water  and  Sanitation  and  €5  million 
from  2  Food  Aid  decisions).  During  the 
hurricane  season,  Haiti  was  severely  affected  by  Tropical  Storm  Fay,  Hurricanes  Gustav, 
Hanna and Ike. In addition to the regional Emergency decision mentioned above, a primary 
emergency  decision  (€2  million)  was  adopted  in   response  to  Hurricane  Hanna.  Eight  out  of 
ten  departments  were  severely  affected  and  approximately  one  million  people  required 

27 

There had been one between 1993 and 1998 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assistance, which was provided in the sectors of food, non-food items, water and sanitation, 
health, shelter and emergency communications. Finally, an emergency food aid decision (€6 
million) was adopted to provide nutritional assistance for recovery in Haiti. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  above-mentioned  operations,  there  were  LRRD  components  such  as  rehabilitation  of 
sewage  systems  and  donation  of  water  equipment.  DG  ECHO  worked  closely  with  other 
Commission services, undertaking Disaster prevention and Risk reduction programmes in the 
region. DG ECHO also collaborated closely with DG Environment's Monitoring Information 
Centre,  which  sent  an  expert  mission  to  Haiti  through  the  Community  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism. Its main focus was assessment of the most urgent technical assistance needed in 
order to repair bridges damaged or destroyed by hurricane Hanna. 

Suriname 

Humanitarian needs 

At  the  end  of  May  2008  heavy  rains  caused  serious  flooding  in  the  southern  provinces  of 
Suriname,  destroying  crops,  homes  and  livelihoods  and  a  DG  ECHO  assessment  mission 
showed the need for urgent assistance to flood victims, in the sectors of Food Aid and Food 
Security. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG  ECHO  had  not  been  involved  in  Suriname  since  2006  when  there  was  an  Emergency 
decision for flood response. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

DG  ECHO  provided  urgent  relief  for  approximately  3,000  families,  with  an  allocation  of 
€400,000 on food aid.  

LRRD 

In  the  above  operation,  sustainability  should  be  achieved  via  capacity-building  of  the 
Suriname Red Cross, but classic LRRD was not present. 

1.3 

PACIFIC 

In  the  Pacific,  2008  was  for  the  most  part  a  relatively  calm  year  and  no  assistance  from 
DG ECHO was required. 

Humanitarian needs 

Pacific  is  notorious  for  its  earthquakes,  volcanic  eruptions,  tsunamis  and  floods.  However, 
2008  was  for  the  most  part  a  relatively  calm  year  and  no  country  requested  international 
assistance  from  DG  ECHO.  In  December  2008  a  series  of  tidal  waves  and  floods  affected 
Papua  New  Guinea,  Marshall  Islands  and  the  Fiji.  This  prompted  an  evaluation  mission  of 
DG ECHO  Rapid  Response  Coordinator,  whose  recommendations  were  consequently 
followed up by DG ECHO in the early days of 2009. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

The last DG ECHO intervention dates back to 2007 when emergency humanitarian operations 
were funded to respond to an earthquake and the following tsunami in the Solomon Islands. 
DG ECHO provided a rapid response leading to an Emergency decision (€550,000) to assist 
5,000 people in the sectors of shelter, health, water, sanitation, education and relief items. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

DG  ECHO  continued  to  monitor  the  humanitarian  situation  in  the  Pacific  region  primarily 
through  the  active  presence  in  the  region  of  the  Rapid  Response  Coordinator  from  the 
Regional  Support  Office  in  Bangkok  who  supervises  the  Pacific  countries  through  missions 
and ensures continuous coordination with EC Delegations, DG ECHO partners (International 
Organizations  and  NGOs),  as  well  as  with  other  major  stakeholders  and  donors  like  the 
Australian and New Zealand Governments.  

LRRD - possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Coordination with development actors is ensured both at field and Headquarters level, where 
the  situation  in  the  Pacific  was  subject  of  regular  meetings  and  exchanges  of  information 
amongst  several  Commission  services,  in  particular  DG  Development  and  EuropeAid 
Cooperation Office together with the Monitoring Information Centre. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
2.  Eastern  Europe,  Russian  Federation,  Southern  Caucasus,  Central  Asia,  including 

Mongolia 

The situation in this geographical region is characterised by an overall positive evolution of 
the protracted crises that required a Commission humanitarian intervention in the past years, 
allowing  for  an  exit  strategy  expressed  in:  a  reduction  of  the  size  of  the  humanitarian  aid 
programme  (phasing  down  –for  example  in  the  Caucasus),  an  end  of  humanitarian  aid 
(phasing  out  –like  in  Tajikistan)  as  well  as  a  process  of  hand-over  to  development-oriented 
instruments (LRRD- in Georgia and Tajikistan). 

At the same time, the region remains vulnerable to hazards to which national structures do not 
always  have  a  sufficient  response  capacity  and  which  the  more  vulnerable  segments  of  the 
population don’t have the coping mechanisms to overcome. In those cases, DG ECHO stands 
ready  to  intervene  on  the  basis  of  humanitarian  needs  assessments  (as  was  the  case  in  the 
Republic of Moldova in 2007). 

Funding in this geographical region was to provide humanitarian assistance in the following 
countries / areas (*): 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

EUROPE, CAUCASUS & CENTRAL ASIA

20 450 000

Caucasus (Chechnya crisis)

Georgia

Moldova, Republic of

Tajikistan

11 000 000

8 000 000

 700 000

 750 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6. 

20 450 000

11 000 000

8 000 000

 700 000

 750 000

Northern Caucasus 

Humanitarian needs 

Reconstruction in Chechnya, once a Republic entirely destroyed by two devastating conflicts, 
continues  in  full  swing.  However,  its  benefits  are  not  yet  perceived  by  the  majority  of  the 
population  which  has  not  yet  recovered  the  assets  lost  during  the  two  wars  and  are  kept 
destitute due to the lack of job opportunities.  

While food insecurity is currently only affecting the most vulnerable groups of the population, 
high levels of poverty and unemployment persist and have largely shifted to rural areas. 90% 
of  the  population  in  Chechnya  and  61%  in  Ingushetia  live  under  subsistence  level  (as 
compared  to  17.8%  Russian  Federation  average).  Unemployment  in  Chechnya  affects  over 
60% of the population.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
Basic  shelter  needs  still  require  support  in  order  to  promote  the  return  of  the  Internally 
Displaced People (IDP) and refugee populations. Around 20,000 private houses are still to be 
reconstructed according to recent estimates.  

And,  last  but  not  least,  the  need  for  Protection  is  paramount  due  to  the  poor  observance  of 
Rule of Law and Human Rights in the region. Though the security situation in Chechnya has 
significantly improved for the civilian population, the conditions in the rest of the region have 
steadily  deteriorated  in  the  last  few  years,  notably  in  Ingushetia,  but  with  no  noticeable 
humanitarian  impact  yet.  The  entire  region  remains  highly  unstable.  Human  rights 
organisations continue to report severe violations of human rights, notably abductions, torture 
and fabricated judiciary cases. 

The situation for the Chechen refugees hosted in Azerbaijan did not change in 2008 and they 
remain  a  forgotten  and  under-assisted  caseload  with  significant  protection  problems  and  no 
durable solutions are in sight, which has justified a continued support from DG ECHO. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

The Commission has been supporting victims in the Northern Caucasus since the beginning of 
the Chechen conflict. Five years ago, the humanitarian assistance provided by DG ECHO was 
covering most humanitarian sectors including food aid, non food items, water and sanitation 
and medical activities. From 2004, funding has reached €112 million.  

In  2008,  DG  ECHO  adopted  a  phasing-out  strategy  for  its  assistance  to  the  victims  of  the 
Chechen  conflict  as  a  result  of  the  socio-economic  improvements  and  the  successful 
implementation  of  reconstruction  and  rehabilitation  projects.  This  phasing  out  is  concretely 
translated into a reduction of funding and a focus on sectors and areas where needs remain.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

With a total budget of €11 million, the European Commission still remains the main donor in 
the region. In 2008, DG ECHO has refocused its efforts on four main sectors, i.e. protection 
(including  for  Internally  Displaced  Persons  (IDPs)  in  Ingushetia  and  Dagestan  and  for  the 
refugees from Chechnya hosted in Azerbaijan who represent forgotten caseloads), shelter for 
those  still  displaced  within  Chechnya,  livelihood  support  activities  and  health  notably 
healthcare for mother and child and handicapped people.  

Difficulties to enter Chechnya continues to remain a concern for several DG ECHO partners, 
less  for  security  reasons  than  because  of  the  Russian  Authorities'  administrative  procedures 
(e.g. stricter rules on visa). 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The 2009 funding decision is foreseen in the perspective of a continued phasing out strategy. 
Over  the  last  two  years,  the  local  authorities  have  started  investing  in  reconstruction  and 
rehabilitation  of  basic  infrastructures  and  social  services.  However,  the  benefits  of  these 
investments  do  not  always  reach  the  most  vulnerable  groups  of  the  population.  The  federal 
government opposes foreign external development aid. 

In  addition,  under  the  Special  Programme  for  Northern  Caucasus  (Tacis)  a  €20  million 
reconstruction  programme  for  social  services  and  private  sector  development  has  been 
financed and is implemented by the Delegation of the European Commission to Russia since 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
2006.  Since  then  the  health  systems  of  the  three  republics  in  the  North  Caucasus  have 
received considerable help from the European Commission through contribution agreements 
with UNICEF and WHO and in 2008 this programme was completed by the conclusion of an 
agreement  with  the  EBRD  for  job  creation  through  private  sector  development  and  SME 
support through the banking sector. 

Southern Caucasus (Georgia) 

Humanitarian needs 

DG ECHO’s  original  strategy  of  gradually  handing  over  of  its  activities  in  the  region  had  to  be 
modified accordingly to new needs which arose as a result of the armed conflict between Georgia and 
the Russian Federation in August 2008.  

Tens  of  thousands  of  civilians  fled  the  fighting.  Some  102,800  of  the  estimated  133,500 
persons displaced in Georgia have now been able to return home according to official figures 
provided  by  the  Georgian  government.  However,  the  humanitarian  needs  of  the  IDPs, 
returnees  and  affected  population  in  areas  of  shelter,  protection,  food  and  non  food  items 
distribution and psychosocial support remain persistent.  

Even  if  not  directly  involved  in  the  armed  conflict  mentioned  above,  humanitarian  needs 
remained  in  Abkhazia  due  to  the  unresolved  conflict  with  Georgia  and  the  international 
isolation of this de-facto independent republic. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

Before  the  armed  conflict  erupted  last  summer,  DG ECHO's  assistance  was  focusing  on  the 
remaining needs of the frozen conflict in Abkhazia. The main activities implemented refer to 
livelihood support activities and shelter. 

Following  the  conflict,  DG ECHO  adjusted  its  intervention  and  strategy  to  address  the  new 
acute needs that emerged 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

To  address  the  most  urgent  humanitarian  needs  of  IDPs,  returnees  and  affected  local 
population,  DG ECHO  has  provided  a  total  of  €8  million  in  2008,  aiming  to  achieve 
protection and provide assistance to the most vulnerable ones.  

The  main  needs  addressed  have  been:  shelter,  protection,  non  food  items  distribution  and 
psychosocial support.Three different financial decisions were adopted in this context: Primary 
Emergency (€1 million), Emergency (€5 million) and Ad Hoc decision (€2 million). 

Under the Ad Hoc decision, DG ECHO also continues funding activities aimed at improving 
living  conditions  for  the  most  vulnerable  segments  of  the  population  in  Abkhazia  and  help 
them regain a minimum of self-sufficiency: food security/income generation projects and the 
improvement of shelter conditions, especially for returnees. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
New  instruments  will  be  put  in  place.  Once  implementation  is  underway,  this  should  allow 
DG ECHO  to  phase  out  from  Abkhazia  for  instance,  provided  the  situation  does  not 
deteriorate.  

•  EC Instrument for Stability. EC has allocated €15M to re spond to the needs under the UN 
Flash  Appeal.  The  main  projects  funded  are:  winterisation/housing  support  and  early 
recovery of IDPs livelihoods. 

•  Under  the  European  Neighbourhood  Partnership  Instrument  (ENPI),  the  EC  (EuropeAid) 
continues  to  fund  an  ongoing  rehabilitation  programme  for  the  conflict  areas  with  €6 
million  for  2008,  the  focus  for  that  year's  contribution  being  on  the  Georgian-Ossetian 
conflict  zone,  supporting  IDPs  and  confidence  building  measures.  Following  the  2008 
conflict,  it  was  decided  that  priority  should  be  given  to  the  needs  of  the  new  IDPs.  The 
contents of this programme are currently under preparation. 

•  The  major  ENPI  contribution  however  consists  of  two  targeted  budget  support 
programmes  adopted  in  2008,  one  of  €10  m illion  already  disbursed  in  2008,  and  a 
complement of €51,5 million, to support Georgia' s IDPs Action Plan. The aim is to assist 
the  Government  of  Georgia  via  the  Municipal  Development  Fund,  to  improve  the  living 
conditions of IDPs by providing durable housing solutions (construction of new houses in 
new settlements). 

Republic of Moldova  

Humanitarian needs 

In  2007,  the  Republic  of  Moldova  was  hit  by  a  severe  drought,  which  affected  80%  of  the 
country. The drought inflicted serious damage to the agricultural sector and in particular was a 
harsh blow for the most vulnerable small farmers who depend on livestock and home gardens.  

An assessment undertaken by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Food 
Programme (WFP) and DG ECHO after the DG ECHO intervention in 2007 concluded that 
another intervention would be needed in 2008 to tackle the effect of the drought for the most 
vulnerable  small-scale  households.  The  conclusions  were  that,  as  the  estimated  2007  wheat 
harvest would reach only 44% of that of the previous year and a mere 28% for sunflower and 
27%  for  corn,  the  returns  on  land  leased  by  the  majority  of  small  holders  would  be 
dramatically reduced, thus compromising the next sewing season.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

A  decision  of  €3  million  was  taken  in  2007  whic h  consisted  of  distribution  of  fodder, 
feedstuff  for  cows,  pigs,  sheep,  goats  and  poultry.  15,000  rural  vulnerable  households 
benefited from this assistance. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The objective of DG ECHO funding in the Republic of Moldova in 2008 (€700,000) has been 
to address the remaining humanitarian needs resulting from the 2007 drought by covering the 
basic  food  needs  of  the  most  vulnerable  rural  households  affected  through  the  provision  of 
agricultural  inputs.  Through  the  project,  approximately  87,600  vulnerable  small-scale 
households  in  the  most  affected  sectors  of  Central,  Southern,  Northern,  Gagauzia  and 
Transnistria regions have been able to plant 0.5 ha of maize on time, with good quality seed, 
thereby improving their food security situation. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The  provision  of  humanitarian  aid  was  needed  due  to  the  particular  acuteness  of  the  2007 
drought. DG ECHO's mandate ended after the second decision. Efforts should now focus on 
supporting  Moldovan  coping  mechanisms  towards  climatic  hazard  by  adequate  structural 
reforms of agricultural techniques. 

Tajikistan 

Humanitarian needs 

The  Commission  has  provided  humanitarian  aid  to  Tajikistan  since  1994  to  answer  the 
humanitarian needs resulting from the civil war. In 2003, a three-year phasing down strategy 
was  defined,  which  led  to  the  ending  of  the  programming  in  September  2007.  Today,  the 
humanitarian  needs  still  requiring  response  are  those  resulting  from  the  frequent  natural 
disasters affecting the country. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

The  Commission  has  been  providing  humanitarian  aid  to  Tajikistan  for  total  funding  of 
€20.1 million since 2004.  

In 2003 a three-year phasing out strategy was decided and effectively put in place resulting in 
completing  DG ECHO  humanitarian  aid  while  support  in  disaster  preparedness  continued 
through the DIPECHO Action Plans. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

At  the  beginning  of  2008,  Tajikistan  experienced  a  cold  wave  reportedly  the  coldest  in  25 
years, which affected about 2 million people. In addition to suffering from the cold, a large 
part of the population did not have anymore access to drinkable water and electricity supply. 
Moreover, large quantities of seeds and agricultural assets have been destroyed by the frost. 
To  support  the  most  affected  population,  DG  ECHO  mobilised  €750,000  to  provide 
humanitarian assistance to over 60,000 vulnerable people. 

In addition, DG ECHO continues to remain active in Tajikistan through its DIPECHO Action 
Plan for Central Asia, monitoring closely the natural disasters continuing to affect the country. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

With  the  end  of  DG  ECHO  funding,  some  of  these  interventions,  in  particular in the health 
and  food  sectors  were  accepted  for  financing  by  other  European  Commission  cooperation 
instruments. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
3. Mediterranean and Middle East 

In  2008,  DG ECHO  continued  its  large-scale  intervention  in  response  to  the  humanitarian 
needs  of  the  Palestinian  populations  affected  by  the  crisis,  both  in  the  occupied  Palestinian 
territories as well as in neighbouring countries.  

In addition, increased humanitarian needs linked to the crisis in Iraq prompted a humanitarian 
response inside Iraq as well as in neighbouring countries, host to a large refugee caseload.  

The response to man-made disasters continued in the region with the provision of assistance 
to  the  Sahrawi  refugees  in  Algeria,  and  with  a  small-scale  response  to  Yemen  affected  by 
crisis and storm.  

Funding  in  these  regions  aimed  at  providing  humanitarian  assistance  in  respect  of  the 
following crises (*): 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

MEDITERRANEAN & MIDDLE EAST

62 100 000

62 760 000

124 860 000

Palestinian Territories

Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon

Iraq Crisis (including Syria)

Yemen

Western Sahara

25 500 000

47 760 000

73 260 000

9 500 000

9 500 000

20 000 000

10 000 000

30 000 000

2 100 000

2 100 000

5 000 000

5 000 000

10 000 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6. 

Occupied  Palestinian  Territories  (West  Bank  and  Gaza  Strip),  Lebanon, 
Jordan and Syria (Palestinian crisis) 

Humanitarian needs 

After eight years of conflict following the start of the second intifada, the humanitarian crisis 
in  the  occupied  Palestinian  territories  continued  in  2008,  within  the  context  of  unceasing 
fragmentation and isolation of the West Bank and the continued blockade of the Gaza Strip. 
The  most  recent  round  of  negotiations  initiated  at  the  Annapolis  conference  of  November 
2007 has so far failed to provide solutions to long-disputed issues between the State of Israel 
and  the  Palestinian  Authority.  In  the  meantime,  daily  violence  continued,  both  between 
Palestinians and Israeli Defence Forces as well as between Palestinian factions. IIn addition, 
the Gaza blockade progressively suffocated the Strip, up to the outbreak of the Israeli strikes 
on 27th December; further to protracted launches of mortars from Gaza based Hamas linked 
factions.  Furthermore,  the  growing  dependency  on  international  aid  and  the  unremitting 
deterioration  of  the  socio-economic  situation  of  the  Palestinian  population  both  contribute 
substantially to the complexity of this protracted crisis. 

The  context  in  Lebanon  is  largely  influenced  by  the  situation  in  the  occupied  Palestinian 
territories,  with  a  sense  of  despair  and  resentment  also  largely  widespread  amongst  the 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
Palestinian  refugee  population.  As  for  the  Nahr  el  Bared  Camp  (NBC)  crisis  that  started  in 
April 2007, the degree of destitution for the vast majority of refugee families displaced from 
NBC  remained  very  high  in  2008.  Families  still  found  themselves  in  overcrowded  and 
substandard housing with limited access to basic services and livelihoods opportunities. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

The  Commission  has  been  providing  humanitarian  aid  to  the  Palestinian  population  in  and 
outside the occupied Palestinian territories since the outbreak of the second Intifada. A total 
amount of €366 million has been  made available since 2004.  

As reflected in the table, the aid provided has kept up with developments on the ground, such 
as  the  steady  aggravation  of  the  crisis,  the  contributions  of  other  donors  to  cover  different 
types of needs, upsurges of humanitarian needs (e. g. increased humanitarian needs due to the 
suspension  of  other  forms  of  assistance  following  the  Hamas'  victory  in  the  Palestinian 
Legislative Council elections in January 2006, the Nahr el Bared crisis in Lebanon Palestinian 
Refugee camps) and DG ECHO’s own assessment of the needs and that of other organisations 
as well as implementing conditions on the ground.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

The  European  Commission  made  €82.7  available  million  for  humanitarian  operations 
benefiting  Palestinians  in  the  Palestinian  territory,  and  Palestine  refugees  in  Lebanon 
including the victims of the conflict in and around the Nahr el Bared refugee camp.  

The bulk of the funds, €73.3 million, went to oper ations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip 
in  the  following  sectors:  food  assistance;  health;  water  and  sanitation;  cash-for-work; 
protection; psycho-social support, and co-ordination. Various projects were aimed at coping 
with  the  humanitarian  consequences  of  the  economic,  fiscal  and  social  crisis  of  2008.  A 
substantial  part  of  the  funds  went  to  operations  targeting  beneficiaries  affected  by  the 
construction  of  the  barrier  on  Palestinian  land  in  the  West  Bank.  As  opposed  to  previous 
years' programmes, operations in the Gaza Strip represented the majority of funding with 56% 
of the budget for the whole occupied Palestinian territory. 

For Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (€9.5 m illion), DG ECHO helped to improve the quality 
of  secondary  health  services  provided  by  the  hospitals  managed  by  the  Palestinian  Red 
Crescent Society to the most vulnerable Palestinian refugees and by improving access to the 
basic  humanitarian  right  of  clean  water  supply  resources  (Southern  Lebanon).  As  for  the 
situation in the Nahr el Bared camp, relief efforts have mitigated some of the worst impacts of 
the  2007  crisis,  ensuring  access  to  shelter,  food,  water  and  sanitation,  basic  infrastructures, 
health needs (including psycho-social support) and other services for the affected families.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  view  of  the  overall  political  context,  LRRD  was  only  a  partial  option  in  some  limited 
sectors for the Palestinian territory in 2008. For this purpose, full co-ordination was ensured 
with  more  development-oriented  Community  instruments  and  funding,  particularly  in  the 
food,  water  and  sanitation  as  well  as  health  sectors.  Consistency  and  complementarity  with 
operations in favour of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria funded under other 
budget lines were also ensured. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon (Iraqi crisis)  

Humanitarian needs  

Since the 2003 war and the fall of the Hussein regime, the Republic of Iraq has been faced 
with a dire security situation characterized by sectarian violence and an ongoing asymmetric 
warfare. In particular, Iraq suffered from significant instability, where clashes between Sunni 
and Shi'a communities as well as among the Shi'ites continue unabated. Violent deaths are a 
daily  occurrence,  and  although  attacks  on  the  Multi-National  Force  Iraq  (MNFI)  and  bomb 
explosions have been reduced since the second half of 2007, there are several violent deaths 
per day. This unremitting violence inside Iraq has led to continued mass internal and external 
displacement  affecting  much  of  the  surrounding  region.  A  significant  proportion  of  the 
internally displaced and of the refugees (306,000 have been registered by UNHCR at the end 
of  2008)  has  run  out  of  resources,  leaving  them  and  their  host  communities  increasingly 
vulnerable,  and  the  arrival  of  refugees  in  neighbouring  countries,  notably  Syria  and  Jordan, 
has put a significant strain on the infrastructure of host countries and on the provision of basic 
services such as water, sanitation, health, and education. However the reduction  in violence 
witnessed  in  Iraq  in  2008  led  to  the  return  of  their  areas  of  origin  of  25,000  refugees  and 
190,000 internally displaced people. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

In response to a growing protection crisis and increasing humanitarian needs inside Iraq, and a 
major refugee crisis in neighbouring countries, DG ECHO allocated since 2007 €47.8 million 
for the Iraqi crisis.  

This  is  the  first  re-engagement  of  the  Commissions'  humanitarian  aid  department  with  Iraq 
since the phase out of its operations in Iraq following the 2003 Iraq war (for which more than 
€100 million were allocated).  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

To  address  the  most  urgent  humanitarian  needs  of  Iraqi  refugees  in  the  Iraq  neighbouring 
countries,  notably  Jordan  and  Syria,  the  Commission  has  provided  a  total  of  €14  million  in 
2008, aiming to achieve protection and provide assistance to the most vulnerable refugees.  

These  funds  have  contributed  to  finance  the  provision  of  basic  health  and  psychosocial 
support, as well as social and education services, including the distribution of food (in Syria) 
and basic household items. 

The  population  of  Iraq  and  notably  Internally  Displaced  Persons  (IDPs)  have  been  assisted 
through a support worth €11 million, implemented  notably by the International Committee of 
the Red Crescent (ICRC), to cover protection and water and sanitation activities.  

In  addition,  the  ICRC  received  a  €5  million  alloca tion  for  food  and  seeds  to  respond  to  the 
needs  of  the  most  vulnerable  rural  populations  affected  by  the  severe  drought  of  the 
2007/2008 winter and IDPs displaced within governorates.  

It has to be noted that, while there are significant humanitarian needs, there are also 
significant impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid inside Iraq, i.e. severe security 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
concerns and problems of access, that prevent the Commission from allocating funds 
commensurate to the level of needs. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Given the overall volatile situation in Iraq, and the lack of perspective on the refugee situation 
in neighbouring countries, LRRD was not an option for the Iraqi crisis in 2008. However, full 
co-ordination  and  consistency  was  ensured  with  more  development-oriented  Community 
instruments  and  funding,  and  should  the  security  conditions  continue  to  improve,  LRRD 
could become a reality in the coming two years.  

Algeria – Sahrawi refugees 

Humanitarian needs 

The living conditions of the Sahrawi refugees, who have lived for the past 30 years in camps 
in  the  desert  in  the  South-Western  Algerian  region  of  Tindouf,  remain  difficult  and  the 
caseload continues to substantially depend on international humanitarian assistance to cover 
basic needs in all sectors (food, health, water and sanitation, shelter, hygiene, education). The 
main  issue  of  concern  is  the  nutritional  status  of  the  refugees,  notably  under-fives  and 
pregnant  and  lactating  women,  with  high  levels  of  anaemia  and  chronic  malnutrition.  Few 
institutional donors provide humanitarian aid in this context which, according to DG ECHO’s 
classification, still amounts to a forgotten crisis. In contrast to this limited institutional donor 
interest,  there  is  a  large  support  from  European  civil  society  organisations  and  regional 
authorities (mostly from Spain and Italy), which increases the volume of assistance received 
by the refugees but also raises coordination challenges.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years 

The Commission has been providing humanitarian aid to the Sahrawi refugees since the early 
1990s. Between 2004 and 2008, a total funding of €48 millions was allocated. 

The funding levels reflect both the relative stability of the crisis, and the contribution of other 
donors  to  cover  different  types  of  needs,  upsurges  of  humanitarian  needs  (such  as  the 
February  2006  floods).  In  addition,  the  conditions  particular  to  this  crisis  (hostile  natural 
environment, prolonged dependency on assistance, difficulty to retain qualified local staff in 
the basic public services, limited number of donors, lack of LRRD perspective) have led to a 
significant  emphasis  on  improving  the  quality  of  aid  interventions  in  key  sectors,  such  as 
water  and  sanitation,  food/nutrition  and  health,  through  the  involvement  of  sectoral  experts 
from the Regional Support office.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In  2008,  humanitarian  assistance  allocations  remained  at  the  same  level  of  2007  and  was 
provided from two sources: €5 million were a llocated under the second food aid decision of 
2008 to provide for basic food assistance (through the World Food programme) and for fresh 
food  to  complement  and  diversify  the  food  intake  of  refugees  especially  on  micro-nutrients 
and vitamins. Another €5 million of humanitarian  aid were approved in October 2008 to cover 
other basic needs of refugees such as water, sanitation, health, nutrition hygiene and shelter.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
Although LRRD is not applicable in the circumstances prevailing in the refugee camps, there 
are  successful  attempts  to  link  DG  ECHO-funding  to  that  from  other  instruments  and  other 
donors. Within the Commission, EuropeAid Cooperation Office is funding a project under the 
“NGO  co-financing”  programme  which  provides  for  veterinary  services  in  the  camps,  thus 
supporting  the  main  local  coping  mechanism  for  the  refugees,  and  complementing  existing 
food  assistance.  There  is  also  a  good  LRRD  dynamic  between  DG  ECHO  and  the  support 
provided by the Spanish Cooperation, in a 3-year framework, in the health sector.  

Yemen 

Humanitarian needs 

Yemen is a country with a great degree of vulnerability due to the widespread poverty, low 
human  development  indicators,  and  a  history  of  humanitarian  crises,  both  man-made  and 
resulting from natural disasters. Armed clashes between government forces and followers of 
the Believing Youth movement continued during all the year 2008 in the North of the country. 
Mid  2008,  about  100,000  civilians  were  forced  to  flee  the  Saada  region.  Yemen  is  also 
hosting  a  sizeable  refugee  population  from  the  Horn  of  Africa  (notably  from  Somalia  and 
Ethiopia  with  50,000  new  refugees  in  2008).  Finally,  Yemen  was  hit  by  a  tropical  storm  in 
October.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

The  assistance  in  the  last  five  years  amounts  to  €8.62  million.  An  independent  evaluation 
conducted  in  2005  recommended  that  a  gradual  phase-out  from  Yemen  takes  place,  as  the 
humanitarian  aid  interventions  were  reaching  the  limit  of  addressing  more  long-term 
development needs. This was completed in 2007 and since that time, DG ECHO interventions 
address only needs resulting from specific crises and natural disasters.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

For  the  year  2008,  although  no  funds  were  initially  budgeted,  DG  ECHO  had  to  prepare 
financial decisions totalising €2.1 million. 

The  first  decision  concerns  provision  of  humanitarian  aid  to  the  internally  displaced  people 
affected by the conflict in the North of the country. €1 million was mobilised to provide basic 
items, food and surgical services. The second decision of €600,000 provided immediate relief 
assistance to the affected population by the tropical storm in the Eastern part of the country. 
The  third  decision  of  €500,000  was  taken  at  the  e nd  of  the  year  aiming  at  reinforcing  the 
shelter capacity of the refugee camp in Kharaz and in Ahwar, as the number of new Somalis 
and Ethiopian (Oromos) arrivals increased all along 2008 (over 50,000 persons).  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The assistance provided in the past years was very much an LRRD intervention and linkages 
were  sought  with  the  authorities  as  well  as  other  donors  including  other  services  of  the 
Commission.  The  phasing-out  from  Yemen  can  be  considered  as  having  been  completed  in 
2007, although new relatively short term operations were still necessary for specific crises in 
2008. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
4. Asia 

In 2008, humanitarian and food aid interventions were funded in 20 countries in Asia, through 
the adoption of 32 funding decisions for a total amount of €158.3 million 28 which represented 
17% of the total budget committed by DG ECHO. 

EC humanitarian assistance was provided and/or implemented in the following countries (*) 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

SOUTH ASIA 

64 850 000

29 407 000

94 257 000

Afghanistan/Pakistan /Iran

Bangladesh

India

Nepal

Inde/Nepal 

Sri Lanka

26 500 000

9 800 000

36 300 000

10 500 000

10 001 000

20 501 000

2 850 000

3 140 000

5 990 000

4 500 000

3 466 000

7 966 000

4 500 000

4 500 000

16 000 000

3 000 000

19 000 000

SOUTH EAST & EAST ASIA

44 000 000

10 000 000

54 000 000

Burma/Myanmar (Nargis)

29 000 000

10 000 000

39 000 000

China

East Timor

Indonesia

Philippines

Vietnam/Laos

Total (1)

2 000 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

6 500 000

2 500 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

6 500 000

2 500 000

108 850 000

39 407 000

148 257 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6; 

4.1. 

SOUTH AND SOUTH WESTERN ASIA 

The  region  is  characterised  by  instability  and  open  conflicts  (Afghanistan,  Pakistan,  Sri 
Lanka)  and  the  year  2008  saw  an  accentuation  of  tensions  and  violence.  Consequently  the 
number  of  people  in  need  of  humanitarian  assistance  increased,  particularly  in  Sri  Lanka, 
where over 350,000 people were displaced by the escalation of the conflict in the Vanni and a 
further 300,000 people in the north remain extremely vulnerable. 

In Afghanistan the intensification of the conflict is hampering efforts to promote the return of 
refugees  and  increasing  the  numbers  of  the  internally  displaced  in  need  of  humanitarian 
assistance.  A  further  consequence  of  increased  violence  is  lack  of  humanitarian  access  to 
some  of  the  most  vulnerable  people,  a  common  source  of  problems  during  2008  in  the  two 
above countries. 

28 

Of which €108.9M was on the humanitarian aid budget line; €39.4M on food aid budget line and €10M 
on Dipecho budget line - see section on Dipecho activities. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  Pakistan  humanitarian  access  has  also  been  severely  constrained  due  to  the  violence, 
notably in North West Frontier Province. 

And  in  the  three  countries  humanitarian  actors  have  too  often  been  the  direct  targets  and 
victims of this violence. 

In August a breach in the embankment of the Koshi river, when the river was flowing at its 
highest due to the monsoon, caused massive flooding in South East Nepal and in the Indian 
State of Bihar, affecting over 33 million people. At the height of the crisis, an estimated over 
4  million  people  were  displaced.  While  most  have  now  returned  to  their  villages,  the 
destruction in terms of housing, social infrastructure and agricultural land, will take years to 
recover. 

Afghanistan (including Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran) 

Humanitarian needs 

The main groups with substantial humanitarian needs in 2008 were the over 350,000 refugees 
who  returned  from  Pakistan  and  Iran,  the  deported  illegal  Afghans  from  Iran,  the  battle 
affected  Internally  Displaced  People  (IDPs)  within  Afghanistan,  the  host  communities 
receiving  these  returnees  and  the  high  food  insecure  populations  affected  by  many  years  of 
drought,  the  last  one  being  in  2008,  and  by  the  global  rise  in  food  prices.  The  needs  of  the 
returnees and IDPs included transport and resettlement support, as well as food,  shelter and 
water and sanitation for the most vulnerable such as female headed households. With over 5 
million  refugees  and  displaced  people  having  returned  since  2002,  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  and  food  assistance  for  the  highly  food  insecure 
population.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG  ECHO  has  funded  projects  addressing  the  needs  of  vulnerable  people  affected  by  the 
consequences of the Afghan conflict and natural hazards since 1992. Between 2003 and 2008, 
DG ECHO has spent €197 million including €15.8  million from the food aid budget line. 

The main intervention targeted the needs of the over 5 million returnees, IDPs and the most 
vulnerable  host  communities.  Assistance  to  the  victims  of  natural  disasters,  notably  of  the 
severe  drought  that  affected  Afghanistan  in  2008,  was  also  provided.  Water  and  sanitation, 
food,  shelter,  protection,  basic  livelihood,  security  advice  and  humanitarian  flights  were  the 
main sectors of activity. Activities in the health sector were taken over by the EC Delegation 
in a successful LRRD exercise in 2004. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

DG ECHO’s strategy for 2008 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. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
DG  ECHO  under  its  Global  Plan  funded  €25  million  of humanitarian aid 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.  Shelter  together  with  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 Afghanistan, 
and to a subsidised humanitarian flight service was maintained. 

€9.8  million  from  the  global  food  aid  decision  wa s  allocated  to  Afghanistan  in  order  to 
respond to the consequences of the 2008 drought that was coming after almost three years of 
recurrent  drought.  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. Food assistance to battle affected IDPs in the South of the country 
was also provided. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Close coordination is taking place on LRRD matters between DG ECHO and DG RELEX and 
EuropeAid  Cooperation  Office,  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  mutual  compatibility  of  their 
programmes and a handover wherever possible as it has been the case for health programmes 
in 2004. Regarding assistance to refugees in Pakistan and Iran, DG ECHO closely coordinated 
with the EC Delegation (through the Uprooted People budget line) so that a clear distinction 
of funding between strict humanitarian and more developmental actions was respected, while 
in Afghanistan assistance has remained focused on the pockets of greatest need.  

In the food sector, a comprehensive LRRD strategy between DG ECHO's food assistance and 
the  EuropeAid's  Food  Security  Thematic  Programming  was  designed  and  implemented  in 
2008. 

Pakistan  

Humanitarian needs 

Pakistan  is  subject  to  frequent  natural  disasters,  notably  in  2008  these  were  flooding  in  the 
North  West  Frontier  Province  (NWFP)  and  an  earthquake  in  Balouchistan.  The  main 
humanitarian needs in 2008 were, however, in favour of displaced population due to conflict. 
This  was  notably  in  NWFP  and  the  Federally  Administered  Tribal  Areas  (FATA)  with 
estimated numbers of displaced fluctuating between 100,000 and 400,000 people. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

While initially involved mainly in relation to the Afghan refugee crisis (assistance to Afghan 
refugees in Pakistani soil), humanitarian aid had become increasingly engaged in responding 
to  natural  disasters,  although  local  capacity  for  such  response  has  also  been  increasing 
significantly  since  the  2005  earthquake.  Now  humanitarian  aid  actors  are  increasingly 
concerned with the consequences of conflict within Pakistan. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
Humanitarian Objectives and Achievements  

To  assist  those  displaced  by  conflict  during  the  latter  half  of  the  year,  €1.5  million  was 
allocated to ICRC to assist 60,000 displaced. This included an initial food ration, shelter, and 
domestic  items  as  well  as  medical  and  water  and  sanitation  support  for  displaced  and  host 
communities. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

With little prospect for an early end to the conflicts in Pakistan, and major constraints such as 
security and access, LRRD efforts are focused more on coordinating responses to the ongoing 
needs. 

Bangladesh 

Humanitarian needs 

Bangladesh,  the  world's  most  densely  populated  country,  is  highly  vulnerable  to  natural 
disasters,  in  particular  earthquakes,  floods  and  cyclones.  This  vulnerability  is  being 
exacerbated by climate change factors. In 2008, four humanitarian crises have been dealt by 
DG ECHO. 

The total amount of 2008 funding decisions for Bangladesh was €20.5 million broken down 
below in needs covered. 

After completion in 2007 of the immediate emergency relief programmes in response to the 
SIDR  cyclone  that  severely  hit  the  country  in  November  2007  affecting  close  to  9  million 
people  and  destroying  more  than  500,000  houses,  food  stocks,  livelihoods  and  basic 
infrastructures,  DG ECHO  funded  additional  emergency  programs  in  2008  to  address 
continuing basic shelter needs (€9 million) and  food aid/short term early recovery programs 
(€8 million).  

In addition, an estimated 10,000 Rohingya (Muslim minority from Burma/Myanmar's Arakan 
State) undocumented refugees who used to live in overcrowded and appalling conditions in a 
makeshift  camp  in  Teknaf,  without  access  to  drinkable  water  or  adequate  sanitation  were 
moved  to  a  new  site  with  DG  ECHO  support.  Humanitarian  assistance  through  a  €351,000 
emergency  food  aid  distribution/Cash  for  Work  program  (under  food  aid  budget  line)  was 
released to respond to a food crisis caused by cholera outbreak and heavy monsoon during the 
transfer of Rohingya refugees to the new location. 

Bamboo  flowering  in  the  Chittagong  Hill  Tracts  region  led  to  the  multiplication  of  rodents 
and consequent crop destruction. In an area where food insecurity is  already very high,  this 
led  to  a  food  crisis  which  DG  ECHO  addressed  through  emergency  food  aid  programs 
totalling €1,6 million (under the food aid budget line). 

Heavy monsoon downpour end of September combined with heavy water flow coming from 
upstream India rivers, resulted in waterlog flooding in Jessore and Shatkhira Districts in the 
South-West region of Bangladesh. It is estimated that the floods have affected over 196,000 
people  and  around  80,000  had  been  displaced  and  were  living  in  appalling  conditions  in 
makeshift shelters or under the open sky. DG ECHO provided €1.5 million to address urgent 
needs  in  the  areas  of  food  security,  emergency  water  and  sanitation  activities,  livelihood 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
restoration  and  shelter.  Some  disaster  preparedness  measures  had  also  been  included  in  the 
operations, as much as was possible in the context of an emergency intervention. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

In 2004, ECHO also provided humanitarian assistance to the people of Chittagong Hill Tracts, 
who were victims of communal violence.  

DG ECHO intervened in Bangladesh whenever a natural disaster exceeding the local coping 
capacity  struck  the  country.  In  2004  and  2006,  the  country  was  hit  by  severe  floods  where 
DG ECHO  provided  food  rations,  safe  drinking  water  and  emergency  items.  2007  was  a 
particular harsh year with two spells of monsoon floods in August and September displacing 
millions  of  people.  Then,  cyclone  SIDR  hit  the  country  on  15th  November  2007  where 
DG ECHO  responded  through  a  primary  emergency  decision  and  two  emergency  decisions 
totalling €8.4 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

With the latest €5 million allocation in favour of SIDR cyclone victims, DG ECHO responded 
as much as possible to the large outstanding humanitarian needs in the shelter sector. 

DG ECHO has also quickly addressed the emergency humanitarian needs arising from floods 
as well as the food security crisis. 

Finally,  DG  ECHO  succeeded  to  move  the  10,000  Rohingya  undocumented  refugees  to  a 
decent site where they can live with some dignity and basic services.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  Bangladesh  LRRD  in  sectors  of  food  security  and  disaster  preparedness/disaster  risk 
reduction are particularly important, as structural issues in these sectors contribute directly to 
the humanitarian crises caused by sudden onset disasters. 

Close coordination is ensured with the DG for External Relations Stability Instrument and EC 
Delegation,  so  as  to  link  the  emergency  interventions  of  DG  ECHO  with  the  longer  term 
interventions  of  the  European  Commission.  For  example,  the  Stability  Instrument  has 
allocated €13 million to cyclone affected areas  thus ensuring effective LRRD with DG ECHO 
interventions. 

Active  collaboration  with  EC  Delegation  has  facilitated  the  granting  of  a  site  for  the 
relocation  of  Rohingya  refugees,  and  close  coordination  is  maintained  between  DG  ECHO 
and  the  EC  Delegation/EuropeAid/DG  RELEX  who  are  supporting  two  official  camps  for 
documented Rohingya refugees. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
India 

Humanitarian needs 

After a relative lull in 2007, violence in Jammu and Kashmir flared up again in the summer 
2008. Access to some of the victims was impossible at times and remains restricted. 

In  the  Southern  part  of  Chhattisgarh  State,  Naxalite  (Maoist)-related  violence  remains 
significant  and  the  population  (mainly  tribal  people  and  scheduled  castes)  are  caught  in  the 
conflict.  Some  areas  are  totally  inaccessible  and  in  general  the  region  is  acutely  lacking  in 
basic social services, as it is practically impossible to hire doctors or teachers to work in such 
a risky environment. Tens of thousands are displaced as a consequence of the fighting. 

Bamboo  flowering  in  Mizoram  caused  a  massive  increase  in  the  numbers  of  rodents  who 
proceeded to eat the standing crops and stocked seeds. Villagers turned to other alternatives to 
feed  their  families,  but  over  time  these  became  depleted.  Like  in  Bangladesh,  a  silent  crisis 
followed because of the rat infestation. 

In  August  the  Koshi  River  broke  through  an  embankment  (in  Nepal),  destroying  crops, 
houses, livestock and social infrastructure. As the river flows south into the Ganges, soon the 
Indian State of Bihar was flooded. Over 33 million people in Bihar were affected. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since  2004  DG  ECHO  has  funded  projects  addressing  the  needs  of  conflict-affected 
populations  in  Jammu  and  Kashmir  to  the  tune  of  €8  million.  2007  was  the  first  year  of 
DG ECHO  intervention  in  Chhattisgarh  and  so  far  this  assistance  has  added  up  to  €1.5 
million. 

India  is  prone  to  natural  disasters  and  DG  ECHO  provided  humanitarian  assistance  to  the 
victims of a series of these in the past 5 years, including the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, the 
2005 Kashmir earthquake, and monsoon flooding in 2004, 2006 and 2007. In 2008 assistance 
was  provided  to  the  victims  of  the  Mizoram  rat  plague  and  the  victims  of  the  Koshi  River 
flooding. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008, DG ECHO allocated a total amount of €6 million to India of which €2.9 million in 
humanitarian aid and €3.1 million in food aid. An  emergency decision has also been adopted 
to respond to the floods in the State of Bihar affecting India and Nepal (€ 4.5 million)  

In the context of the conflict in Kashmir, approximately 40,000 people received psychosocial 
support  and  protection,  including  children  in  orphanages.  In  Chhattisgarh,  20,000  people 
benefited  from  curative  and  preventive  basic  healthcare  services  and  7,500  internally 
displaced families benefited from improved water and sanitation. 

DG  ECHO  continued  also  to  finance  projects  in  shelter  and  the  provision  of  water  and 
sanitation to the Sri Lankan refugees living in camps in Tamil Nadu. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  past  DG  ECHO  support  for  non-formal  education  and  child 
protection are is being continued by EuropeAid and the EC Delegation. 

In Chhattisgarh a State Partnership Programme has been signed between the EC Delegation 
and the State authorities, aiming at the equitable delivery of and access to quality health and 
education  services,  as  well  as  improved  forest-based  tribal  livelihoods,  through  governance, 
institutional  reform  and  capacity  development  at  state  and  at  decentralized  levels.  It  is 
expected that this programme will be a valuable vehicle for linking relief and rehabilitation, 
and will ultimately allow DG ECHO to exit from this crisis. 

Nepal 

Humanitarian needs 

Nepal  is  one  of  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 and although it 
was formally brought to an end with the signature of the Peace Agreement in November 2006, 
the  country  is  still  suffering  from  its  consequences,  marked  by  high  volatility  and  frequent 
spates of violence.  

trade  and  agricultural  activities; 

Against this poor socio-economic background and political instability, the toll of the 10-year 
conflict  is  still  heavy.  The  conflict  isolated  populations  in  the  worst  affected  areas  and 
disrupted 
it  destroyed  water  supply  systems  and 
communications  infrastructure.  Most  of  the  community  drinking  water  systems  constructed 
during  the  1980s  and  1990s  are  not  working  effectively.  Health  posts  are  not  functioning 
properly  and  still  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 103,000 refugees, including 22,000 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. In the absence of a political solution, the United Sates and other 
countries have offered a resettlement options and 7,000 refugees could leave in 2008. 

The  2008  monsoon  season  caused  severe  flooding  in  the  Terai  plains,  destroying  crops, 
houses,  livestock  and  infrastructure.  Main  region  affected  have  been  the  Kailali  district  and 
the  Saptari  and  Sunsari  district  that  were  flooded  after  the  brake  in  the  embankment  of  the 
Koshi River. Over 200,000 people were affected. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since 2004, DG ECHO has provided close to €32 m illion of humanitarian and food aid for the 
refugees and for victims of the armed conflict. 

Nepal  is  prone  to  natural  disasters  and  DG  ECHO  provided  humanitarian  assistance  to  the 
victims of monsoon flooding in 2007 and 2008, as well as to victims of drought in 2006. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008 populations living in the most affected areas by the conflict continued to benefit from 
protection activities, with particular emphasis on support to internally displaced people. 

Primary and reproductive healthcare was provided to over 300,000 people in the mid- and far- 
west regions. Also, 18,250 people benefited from the construction of drinking water systems 
and latrines. 

Food aid was distributed to 103,000 Bhutanese refugees, representing a third of their annual 
requirements.  DG  ECHO  also  supported  a  supplementary  food  ration  programme  for 
vulnerable refugees (malnourished children under five, pregnant women and nursing mothers, 
tuberculosis patients and elderly sick people). 

DG  ECHO  approved  €2.4  million  in  humanitarian  aid  for  the  flood  victims,  including 
provisions  for  emergency  shelter,  food  rations  and  clothing.  In  addition  to  this,  the 
Commission also financed disaster preparedness projects. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The  contribution  to  the  Bhutanese  refugees’  food  needs  is  complemented  by  support  from 
EuropeAid  Co-operation  Office  for  UNHCR’s  management  activities  in  the  camps.  2008 
brought fresh hopes in terms of a possible solution to this crisis through resettlement in third 
countries, from which the refugees can continue to lobby to return to Bhutan. It is foreseen 
that a majority will opt for the resettlement option, thus significantly reducing the number of 
those requiring continuing assistance. However, given the size of the caseload, it will take at 
least 5 years to complete the process. During that time political efforts will be maintained to 
lobby for a solution for those not able or willing to relocate, including for a return to Bhutan 
and the possibility for others to settle legally in Nepal. 

DG  ECHO  is  also  carefully  monitoring  the  evolution  of  the  socio-political  situation.  It  is 
hoped that socio-economic development will be made possible through progressive political 
stability, enabling the development partners to occupy their natural space and, consequently, 
allowing DG ECHO to close down its operations linked to the conflict. 

Sri Lanka 

Humanitarian needs 

In January 2008 the Government of Sri Lanka abrogated the 2002 ceasefire agreement with 
the  Liberation  Tigers  of  Tamil  Eelam  (LTTE)  and  launched  a  major  assault  on  Tamil  held 
territory in the north of the country. By the end of the year, the army made significant gains 
and over 300,000 civilians had been forced to flee from shelling and aerial bombardment and 
move  eastwards  into  a  LTTE  controlled  district.  Due  to  repeated  displacement,  access 
restrictions and disruption to livelihood caused by the fighting, almost all of the displaced are 
dependent on humanitarian aid.  

Relief  assistance  was  being  provided  to  the  displaced  by  ECHO  funded  partners  and  other 
humanitarian  agencies,  but  in  September  2008  the  government  ordered  all  INGOs  and  UN 
agencies  working  in  the  Vanni  to  relocate  their  humanitarian  and  development  operations 
outside the conflict area for security reasons. The International Committee of the Red Cross 
(ICRC)  was  the  only  organization  allowed  to  remain  present  and  continued  limited  relief 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
assistance  and  protection  activities.  After  pressure  from  international  agencies,  the 
government  also  agreed  to  the  establishment  of  WFP  humanitarian  convoys  but  due  to 
security  and  other  restrictions  these  convoys  have  only  been  able  to  supply  around  50%  of 
food  needs.  At  the  end  of  the  year,  heavy  monsoon  rains  exacerbated  the  problem  and  in 
addition to food, there were also urgent needs for shelter materials, medical supplies and other 
essential items. 

While focus on humanitarian needs in 2008 has been in the Vanni, a further 500,000 IDPs and 
locally  vulnerable  population  in  Jaffna  and  other  districts  of  the  north  and  east  were  still  in 
need of humanitarian assistance following earlier stages of the conflict.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since  2003  the  Commission  has  provided  over  €64  million  of  humanitarian  assistance  and 
over  €43  million  in  response  to  the  tsunami.  Related  tsunami  projects  ended  mid  2007  and 
focus has now returned to the escalating conflict in the north. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008 DG ECHO provided €19 million in emergenc y relief assistance to over 800,000 IDPs 
and conflict affected population in Sri Lanka and 30,000 Sri Lankan refugees living in camps 
in  Tamil  Nadu,  India.  This  included  an  emergency  decision  for  €2  million  specifically  for 
IDPs in the Vanni.  

Main sectors of intervention were protection, food aid and food security, shelter and non food 
relief items, water and sanitation, coordination and security. In Tamil Nadu the focus was on 
water and sanitation.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

In  terms  of  LRRD,  DG  ECHO  works  closely  with  other  Commission  services  to  link  with 
programmes  which  complement  and  go  beyond  DG  ECHO  emergency  interventions  by 
concentrating on the medium term needs of returnee IDPs and host communities in Sri Lanka. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

SOUTH EAST AND EAST ASIA  

The region is extremely exposed to natural disasters but 2008 was a particularly bad year: in 
May  cyclone  Nargis  struck 
in 
Burma/Myanmar,  affecting  up  to  2.4  million  people,  and  in  Sichuan  province  in  China,  a 
devastating  earthquake  affected  45  million  people.  In  addition  to  these  two  major  events, 
Vietnam and Lao People's Democratic Republic saw the landfall of tropical storm Kammuri 
and subsequent flooding.  

the  Ayeyarwady  delta  region  and  Yangon  city 

The  political  scene  was  dominated  by  the  turmoil  in  Thailand  and  massive  demonstrations, 
which  eventually  resulted  in  a  change  of  Government.  Given  the  political  stalemate  in 
Burma/Myanmar, refugees living in Thailand continued to be a priority for DG ECHO. The 
year 2008 saw the freezing of relations between the two Koreas and South Korea did not send 
its  usual  food  and  fertiliser  aid  into  the  North.  However,  as  a  long-term  food  security 
approach better addresses the problem, DG ECHO did not intervene. 

The  Philippines  saw  an  escalation  in  the  conflict  between  the  Government  and  the  armed 
opposition  groups,  the  Moro  National  Liberation  Front  (MNLF)  and  the  Moro  Islamic 
Liberation Front (MILF), leaving numerous people displaced. In East Nusa Tenggara/Eastern 
Indonesia (NTT) the nutritional status of vulnerable groups continued to deteriorate causing 
ECHO to intervene, and in Timor Leste support to the return and integration process of IDPs 
continued.  

In 2008, the Sixth DIPECHO Action Plan for South East Asia was adopted benefitting up to 
1,675,000 people. 

Burma/Myanmar 

Humanitarian needs 

The  protracted  crisis  in  Burma/Myanmar,  ruled  by  a  military  regime  since  1962,  is 
characterised  by  ongoing  low-intensity  conflict  between  the  Army  and  non-ceasefire  ethnic 
groups. This is however not the only reason causing internal displacement which is also due 
to land confiscation for natural resources, teak rubber and bio-fuel plantations and livelihood 
vulnerability-induced  displacement  (migration).  The  ethnic  conflict  resulted  in  150,000 
Burmese refugees in refugee camps in Thailand and 28,000 mainly Rohingyas in Bangladesh. 
Many  thousands  of  Rohingyas  and  other  ethnic  minorities  are  looking  for  jobs  as  illegal 
migrants in Southern Thailand, Malaysia or as far as the Gulf countries.  

Although about 236,000 Muslim Rohingyas returned into Northern Rakhine State (NRS) from 
Bangladesh, they live in a precarious situation and require humanitarian assistance. According 
to  the  Thailand-Burma  Border  Consortium  (TBBC)  in  2007  there  were  503,000  IDPs  in 
Eastern  Burma/Myanmar.  Out  of  these,  99,000  were  hiding,  109,000  in  relocation  sites  and 
295,000  in  ceasefire  areas.  Access  to  these  groups  is  very  difficult  for  the  international 
humanitarian community, while many IDPs have already integrated into their new villages. 

These  vulnerable  groups  live  in  extreme  poverty,  where  basic  services  such  as  health  and 
education  are  absent.  Infectious  diseases,  like  malaria,  tuberculosis  and  HIV/AIDS,  make 
them even more vulnerable. Soaring fuel and rice prices early 2008 had a negative impact on 
the  general  humanitarian  situation  in  Burma/Myanmar.  The  rodent  crisis  also  affecting 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
Bangladesh and Mizoram, India has spelt over into Chin state by destroying paddy fields and 
grain stocks. The overall impact of this latter crisis is still unknown due to the absence of any 
comprehensive food security assessment.  

On  2nd  -3rd  May  2008,  cyclone  Nargis  struck  Burma/Myanmar,  sweeping  through  the 
Irrawaddy  (Ayeyarwady)  delta  region  and  the  country's  main  city,  Yangon.  Strong  winds 
compounded by a high tidal surge flattened many villages and several townships were 95% 
destroyed.  An  estimated  2.4  million  people  have  been  affected  and  many  have  lost  their 
livelihoods (fishing, rice production etc.). Almost 140,000 people have been killed or remain 
missing.  

The Irrawaddy delta is a heavily populated area of 7,35 million people – the most populous of 
Myanmar's states and divisions, with an average population density of 466 persons per square 
mile.  It  is  the  main  rice  producing  area  of  the  country.  Before  the  devastating  cyclone, 
international humanitarian community did not have access to this part of the country.  

Because  of  the  political  situation,  under  the  EU  Common  Position  only  humanitarian 
assistance can be implemented.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since  2004,  DG  ECHO  allocated  €70.9  million 
populations in Burma/Myanmar affected by the protracted crisis.  

to  provide  assistance  for  vulnerable 

To  respond  to  the  immense  humanitarian  needs  after  cyclone  Nargis  in  2008,  DG  ECHO 
allocated €39 million. Relief activities in the cy clone-affected Irrawaddy delta will continue 
until early 2010.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008, DG ECHO’s activities in Burma/Myanmar continued to be based on the following 
sectors: protection, health, water and sanitation, nutrition and food aid. Due to the worsening 
humanitarian situation it became necessary to increase DG ECHO's contribution to nutrition 
and become involved again in food assistance in NRS. 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 Rohingyas in NRS). 

After  cyclone  Nargis  hit  the  Irrawaddy  delta,  DG  ECHO  deployed  its  humanitarian  experts 
quickly to reinforce its field office in Yangon. €2 million was made available without delay to 
respond  to  the  immediate  needs  under  a  primary  emergency  decision.  An  additional  €15 
million was allocated still in May 2008 to meet urgent relief and food needs. The proper use 
of  the  funding  could  only  be  guaranteed  after  humanitarian  access  was  granted  to  the 
international  community  by  the  Government  of  the  Union  of  Myanmar.  In  December  2008, 
the Commission approved further €22 million to cover still unmet relief needs in remote parts 
of  the  Delta.  Sectors  of  intervention  are:  shelter,  water  and  sanitation,  primary  health  care, 
food assistance and nutrition, early recovery and disaster risk reduction.  

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Given the current EU Common Position, LRRD cannot be fully applied in Burma/Myanmar, 
but good coordination exists with the Aid to Uprooted People action managed by EuropeAid 
to  complement  humanitarian  activities  activities  and  avoid  duplication.  For  example  a 
nutrition  programme  in  Northern  Rakhine  State  is  complemented  by  a  food  security 
programme  funded  through  this  budget  line.  In  2007,  EuropeAid  launched  a  Food  Security 
Thematic  Programme  of  €8 million  for  four  years  –  providing  further  opportunities  for 
LRRD.  Funds  are  also  allocated  to  the  "Three Diseases  Fund"  for  tuberculosis,  malaria  and 
HIV-AIDS  through  the  first  ever  approved  Multi-Indicative  Programme  (MIP)  for 
Burma/Myanmar (€18 million over four years). Given the large scale of needs in the health 
sector, DG ECHO still needs to provide complementary funding.  

In  November  2008  a  dialogue  has  started  between  the  European  Commission  and  the 
Government  of  the  Union  of  Myanmar  on  Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDGs).  A 
political and financial commitment from the government on improving health indicators could 
facilitate DG ECHO's exit from this sector.  

With the last financing decision which will end on 31/05/2010, there is a good potential for 
LRRD  in  the  cyclone-affected  Irrawaddy  delta  with  DG  ECHO  addressing  the  most  urgent 
early recovery needs, while long-term instruments can facilitate the setting up of a livelihood 
and food security trust fund. 

Thailand 

Humanitarian needs 

The  number  of  Burmese  refugees  along  the  Thailand-Burma  border  has  increased  from 
10,000 in 1984 to 153,000 in 2006. In 2006 the resettlement of Burmese refugees into third 
countries  started  resulting  in  the  most  skilled  ones  leaving  first  the  camps.  Due  to  the 
resettlement process the number of registered refugees by UNHCR has decreased to 116,997, 
while  TBBC  feeding  figures  report  about  135,623  refugees.  Unfortunately,  the  number  of 
camp  populations  does  not  follow  the  same  decreasing  trend  as  new  "entries"  occupy  the 
"vacant"  shelters  of  those  left.  As  camp  populations  are  not  allowed  to  leave  the  camps 
officially  and  look  for  job  outside  the  camp,  these  are  entirely  dependent  on  external 
assistance. It is important to highlight that there are about 1.5-2 million illegal migrants from 
Burma/Myanmar alone living in Thailand.  

Resettlement options are, not the most popular among refugees who would prefer returning to 
Burma/Myanmar one day or integrating into Thai society. The majority of these refugees have 
now  been  living  in  the  camps  for  over  20  years,  where  they  are  subject  to  a  number  of 
significant restrictions and abuses and their quality of life is very precarious. On top of basic 
humanitarian needs (shelter, food, health care, water and sanitation), social and psychological 
problems are increasing, as well as violence within the camps and trafficking outside. 

The  international  community  has  a  double  task  in  this  context:  provision  of  humanitarian 
assistance for the Burmese refugees in camps in Thailand, while through a reinforced donor 
coordination  and  enhanced  strategic  dialogue  it  needs  to  continue  advocating  to  the  Royal 
Thai  Government  (RTG)  for  durable  solutions,  opening  up  the  camps  and  facilitating  the 
integration of  refugees  into  Thai  society. The European  Commission plays  an  active role in 
this regard. Involving the RTG is not only the task of the donor community but also the UN 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
and  the  INGOs  providing  services  there.  The  political  turmoil  in  Thailand  in  2008  did, 
however, not favour this process.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Given  the  political  stalemate  in  Burma/Myanmar,  refugees  living  in  Thailand  received 
extensive  support  from  DG  ECHO  in  the  form  of  food,  health  and  water  and  sanitation.  In 
2009 DG ECHO will start with the gradual downscaling of its contribution for the Burmese 
refugee camps in Thailand.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008, DG ECHO continued the provision of essential food items and cooking fuel, health 
care  and  water  and  sanitation  through  its  partner  organisations.  Assistance  reached  camp 
populations in six camps out of nine.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Given  the  circumstances,  LRRD  cannot  be  fully  applied  to  refugee  camps  in  Thailand. 
However  good  coordination  exists  with  the  EC  instrument  for  Aid  to  Uprooted  People  to 
complement  humanitarian  aid  and  avoid  duplication  particularly  in  health  and  water  and 
sanitation. Both in Brussels and Bangkok, DG ECHO has been advocating to other donors to 
urge the RTG to find durable solutions for one of the world's oldest refugee caseloads, while 
also calling for better burden-sharing among donors. The European Commission is the largest 
donor for Burmese refugees in Thailand.  

China 

Humanitarian needs 

The devastating earthquake of 8.0 magnitude of the Richter scale on 12th May 2008 affected 
some  45  million  people,  killing  an  estimated  90,000  and  leaving  five  million  homeless  in 
Sichuan  province.  This  tremor  was  followed  by  several  hundreds  of  aftershocks,  some  of 
them  being  stronger  than  5.6  on  the  Richter  scale.  The  Chinese  authorities  organised  very 
quickly  the  immediate  emergency  efforts,  while  also  allowing  the  deployment  of  foreign 
search and rescue teams. 84,000 people were rescued, 1.5 million evacuated and 4.3 million 
injured treated. International aid was also authorized.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

In  recent  years  DG  ECHO  did  not  intervene  in  China  taking  into  account  the  country's 
response capacities.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

Given the enormous extent of the disaster and the huge number of people affected, DG ECHO 
decided to allocate €2 million to provide imme diate assistance through the Netherlands Red 
Cross. 8,511 tents were purchased and distributed within 2 months.  

Timor-Leste 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
Humanitarian needs 

The  main  humanitarian  issue  the  country  has  been  facing  since  2006  is  civil  unrest.  At  the 
beginning  of  2008  there  were  an  estimated  100  000  registered  displaced  people:  30,000 
people in IDPs camps and 70,000 persons with host families in Dili. In spring 2006, riots and 
fierce demonstrations took place in Dili after a large dismissal of soldiers from the army. In a 
country  which  has  experienced  instability  since  its  1999  referendum  for  independence, 
tensions increased quickly, leading to an outbreak of violence forcing around 150,000 people 
to leave their homes.  

To address the IDPs issues and more broadly  early recovery challenges in a comprehensive 
and  coordinated  manner,  the  recently  elected  Government  of  Timor  Leste  adopted  the 
National Recovery Strategy (NRS) in January 2008. The NRS allocates $35 million for IDPs' 
return package for a maximum amount of $4500 per family. This return package is to be spent 
on building materials depending on the IDPs vulnerability. 2008 can be characterised by the 
massive return of IDPs (70,000 from host families and 20,000 from IDP camps). By end of 
2008,  only  10,000  remained  in  camps.  This  process  can  be  interpreted  as  a  success  but  the 
situation remains complex. 

Disputes  over  land  ownership,  perceived  fear  from  further  violence  on  return  and  limited 
economic opportunities prevent those who are still remaining in the camps at the end of 2008 
from return. The value of the NRS incentives will most likely compel most of the displaced to 
seek  alternative  arrangements  in  the  coming  months.  Overall  the  volatility  of  the  security 
situation remains of concern and 2009 will be an indicator of success for the reintegration in 
the medium term. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Since  the  country  became  independent  in  2002,  DG  ECHO  has  provided  €14  million  in 
emergency assistance to the most vulnerable victims of violence and in response to alarming 
levels of malnutrition. The food aid and supplementary feeding programmes were phased out 
in 2006 when long term programs tackling the causes of malnutrition have been put in place 
by the Commission. Since June 2006, following the outbreak of violence, the Commission has 
provided  relief  assistance  to  the  IDPs  for  a  total  amount  of  €8  million.  DG  ECHO 
interventions have progressively shifted in 2008 from relief assistance in the IDPs camps to a 
more comprehensive strategy to focus on the return of IDPs.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements  

In 2008, DG ECHO mainly targeted IDPs. DG ECHO adopted a €2 million ad-hoc decision 
on  22  May  2008,  focusing  its  intervention  on  the  support  to  return  and  integration  of 
estimated  30,000  IDPs  in  the  camps  at  the  end  of  2007.  DG  ECHO  strategy  is  to  provide 
multi-sector  assistance  to  the  population  affected  by  the  crisis,  with  access  to  water  and 
sanitation in the camps and transitional shelters, camp management, protection and transport 
of IDPs, return monitoring, food aid rations for the returnees, health and child protection. The 
five  projects  funded  under  the  last  decision  will  be  completed  between  February  and  July 
2009. If there is no further outbreak of violence, this last decision is foreseen to be the phase-
out decision for DG ECHO, by filling the gap during this transitional period for the return of 
IDPs.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country  

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
DG  ECHO's  interventions  are  coordinated  with the  newly  established  EC  delegation  in  Dili 
and with other stakeholders present in the country, such as Member States and other donors.  

With the significant return of IDPs in the last six months of 2008, DG ECHO has reinforced 
its LRRD strategy with other services of the Commission. The phase-out planned after mid-
2009  will  coincide  with  the  implementation  of  the  actions  supported  by  the  Instrument  for 
Stability  (IfS)  which  started  at  the  end  of  2008.  One  component  of  the  IfS  programme  will 
aim at improving social and economic conditions within communities for the reintegration of 
IDPs. This will complement the DG ECHO funded projects.  

The  EC  delegation  is  focusing  its  attention  on  IDP  return  and  food  insecurity.  It  is 
contributing to this process through various funding instruments/programs (IfS, Food Security 
thematic  programme,  Water  Facility,  Rural  Development  Programme  in  9th  and  10th  EDF 
etc). 

Indonesia 

Humanitarian needs 

Large humanitarian needs are regularly caused by recurrent natural disasters, Indonesia being 
located in one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world - the so-called ‘ring of fire’ - 
where there is a particularly high vulnerability to earthquakes, floods and landslides.  

In June 2008, East Nusa Tenggara/Eastern Indonesia (NTT) provincial government reported 
23  deaths  of  children  under  five  due  to  malnutrition  since  January  2008,  which  was  also 
confirmed  by  DG  ECHO  partners.  After  consecutive  droughts  from  2002  to  2007,  the  food 
security situation in NTT has been on the edge of emergency thresholds. This downward trend 
was verified by a nutritional survey undertaken by Care/Church World Service/HKI at the end 
of  2007.  Household  food  insecurity,  environmental  conditions,  inadequate  care  and  feeding 
practices,  poor  access  to  safe  drinking  water  and  insufficient  maternal  and  child  health 
services  have  been  identified  as  major  underlying  causes  of  malnutrition  among  young 
children. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years  

This period was marked by the earthquake and tsunami which devastated Aceh and Northern 
Sumatran  coasts  on  26th  December  2004.  For  this  crisis  only,  DG  ECHO  disbursed  an 
amount of close to €60 million with projects ru nning from 26th December 2004 to 30th June 
2007.  

Other smaller crises were addressed by DG ECHO during the years 2003-2008: displacement 
due  to  ethnic  violence,  drought  and  malnutrition,  epidemics,  earthquakes,  smaller  tsunamis, 
and  in  May  2006,  the  destructive  earthquake  that  hit  the  city  of  Yogyakarta  and  the 
surrounding  areas.  The  total  contribution  of  DG  ECHO  to  Indonesia  excluding  the  tsunami 
response was €21.9 million.  

DG ECHO intervened already in 2005 with €2 m illion to help vulnerable population affected 
by natural disasters and malnutrition in Papua and Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT).  

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements  

In October 2008, DG ECHO adopted a €2 million  ad-hoc decision, to improve household and 
community  resilience  in  order  to  cope  with  the  disaster-prone  environment  and  prevent 
degradation of the nutritional status of vulnerable groups in NTT. 

The  present  intervention  aims  at  supporting  very  vulnerable  families  undergoing  acute  food 
and livelihood crisis, restoring their coping capacities while trying to introducing positive and 
sustainable  behaviour  changes.  This  should  avoid  the  total  exhaustion  of  these  people's 
capacities  to  face  the  recurrent,  small-scale  natural  disasters  -  such  as  floods,  landslides, 
earthquakes, pest infestation and drought - that affect them.  

Projects  are  mainly  focusing  on  the  reinforcement  of  livelihoods  through  seeds  distribution 
and capacity-building, access to clean water and irrigation, promotion of good care practices 
for infants and mainstreaming of disaster preparedness.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country  

In Aceh and Nias, as well as in Yogyakarta rehabilitation and recovery programmes funded 
under a Multi Donor Trust co-chaired by the EC are ongoing.  

For the food insecurity in NTT a comprehensive LRRD is difficult to be implemented under 
the  2007-2013  CSP  as  food  security  has  not  been  foreseen  as  a  sector  of  intervention. 
However, DG ECHO funded projects are being coordinated with the interventions supported 
by  Aid  to  Uprooted  people  for  West  Timor  and  by  the  Multi  donor  support  facility  funded 
also by the Dutch and Danish Government. Nevertheless, DG ECHO will continue advocating 
to longer term instrument and other donors on the serious food insecurity situation NTT has 
been facing. Indonesia was not selected as a beneficiary under the Food facility.  

North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea - DPRK) 

Humanitarian needs 

The 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  address  the  situation  with  appropriate  development  measures. 
There remain still considerable needs, particularly in food production, health and sanitation, in 
the various parts of the country which are of a structural nature and therefore can be addressed 
best by longer term instruments in a sustainable way. 

2008  saw  the  deadlock  of  the  6-Party  Talks  (6PT)  and  freezing  relations  between  the  two 
Koreas.  Although  energy  aid  for  DPRK  continued  being  delivered  under  the  6PT,  South 
Korea did not send its usual annual food and fertiliser aid into the North.  

In  mid-May  DPRK  requested  food  aid  from  WFP  due  to  the  destructions  caused  by  the 
August  2007  floods,  soaring  food  and  fuel  prices  in  the  international  markets  to  be  able  to 
feed its most vulnerable populations. Four US-based organisations and WFP were provided an 
unusually good access to undertake rapid food security assessments in the country. European 
NGOs constituting the so-called EUPS structure were not invited to join this exercise despite 
their long years of experience and knowledge.  

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
The findings of the assessment were not new to the Commission and also confirmed that the 
current  long-term  food  security  approach  addresses  better  the  country's  needs.  EU  Member 
States also share this view, although the food security situation remains fragile.  

The  United  States  pledged  500,000  MT  of  food  aid  to  be  distributed  by  four  United  States' 
NGOs and WFP. In September WFP also launched a $503 million EMOP for 18 months to 
tackle DPRK's chronic food insecurity and prevent that the situation would turn really severe.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 
Between 2004 and 2007, €40.6 million 29 have been provided for humanitarian assistance by 
DG ECHO. This assistance has been allocated to cover the immediate needs of flood-affected 
populations, to address food/nutritional problems, improve access to water as well as health 
care.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In the first half of 2008 DG ECHO partners completed their health and water and sanitation as 
well as flood emergency projects in DPRK. The very specific structure of EU resident NGOs, 
the European Union Programme Support (EUPS), continues to function well. All parties (DG 
ECHO, NGOs and the North Korean authorities) concerned adhered to the modus operandi of 
this arrangement. The co-ordination of this structure was handed over to EuropeAid when DG 
ECHO closed its field office on 14th May 2008 and exited from the country.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Due to the nuclear standoff triggered in the autumn of 2002 and aggravated by the DPRK's 
nuclear  test  in  October  2006,  the  international  community  has  been  reluctant  to  finance 
development programmes. In line with UN Security Council - Resolution 1718, the EU also 
introduced restrictive measures against DPRK. This framework also limits the possibilities of 
co-operation with DPRK which is restricted only to humanitarian assistance.  

DG ECHO's advocacy activities proved to be successful: in addition to food security projects 
financed  under  the  Food  Security  LRRD  Thematic  Programme,  DG  EuropeAid  could  also 
launch a financing decision under DCI Special Measures: "Foster the Dialogue Process with 
the  Democratic  People's  Republic  of  Korea  (DPRK)  through  support  to  Health,  Water  and 
Sanitation and Institutional Strengthening for 2008". This latter instrument complemented by 
the possibilities provided under food security will enable that the vast knowledge and lessons 
learnt accumulated in health and in water and sanitation over the years will be taken on board 
by  other  services,  also  ensuring  institutional  memory.  DG  ECHO  shared  the  external 
evaluation  on  its  approach  in  DPRK  in  2004-2007  with  DG  EuropeAid  as  well  as  other 
relevant external evaluations.  

29 

€16.7 million (2004), €13.7 million (2005), €8 million (2006) and €2 million (2007) 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Philippines 

Humanitarian needs 

With  the  armed  upheaval  of  the  conflict  between  the  Government  of  the  Philippines  (GoP) 
and the main armed opposition groups, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the 
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), DG ECHO had to intervene to provide assistance for 
displaced populations living in evacuation centres, makeshift shelters and with host families 
in  Mindanao.  About  375,000  people  became  displaced.  Living  conditions  in  evacuation 
centres  and  displacement  sites  do  not  meet  SPHERE  standards  and  basic  services  were  not 
provided either.  

The humanitarian situation of the conflict-affected people was from time to time aggravated 
by recurrent flooding. The security situation in the conflict zone has also deteriorated. 

The  recent  conflict  in  Mindanao  became  quickly  a  forgotten  crisis  as  it  did  not  attract  any 
international media attention, while the Government aimed at downplaying the severity of the 
situation. Humanitarian agencies also face difficulties in raising funds to respond.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG  ECHO's  interventions  in  Philippines  over  the  last  5  years  focused  on  the  response  to 
displacement  due  to  the  internal  conflict  affecting  Mindanao  and  to  response  to  natural 
disasters.  DG  ECHO  supported  conflict-affected  populations  between  1997  and  2005  for 
€7 million with the last contribution of €500,000 

in 2005 for conflict-affected populations.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

To respond to the increasing humanitarian needs, DG ECHO in 2008 allocated a total of €6.5 
million  through  two  financing  decisions  to  help  conflict-affected  populations.  Sectors  of 
intervention  were  food  aid,  distribution  of  non-food  items,  emergency  water  and  sanitation, 
primary health care and improvement of evacuation centres.  

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

There is a close co-operation with the EC Delegation in Manila which has conflict-prevention 
projects in Mindanao.  

Vietnam and Laos 

Humanitarian needs 

While  the  prevalence  of  general  hazards  and  major  disasters  in  Lao  PDR  is  considered 
medium to low as compared to other Asian countries, it is the acute vulnerability that causes 
relatively high risks for communities when disasters occur. As far as Vietnam is concerned, 
this country has over the years developed good coping mechanisms to counter the impact of 
natural disasters. Even so, however, local capacity can be exhausted when disasters such as 
heavy  rains  and  typhoons  exceed  their  normal  intensity.  This  was  again  the  case  in  2008,  a 
year marked by repeated episodes of extensive flooding, which overstretched local resources 
for relief and rehabilitation.  

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
On  8th  August  2008  tropical  storm  Kammuri  hit  the  coastal  areas  of  Vietnam  and 
subsequently  weakened  into  a  tropical  depression  that  produced  extremely  heavy  rains  and 
flooding in the northern and north-central provinces of Lai Chau, Dien Bien, Yen Bai, Thai 
Nguyen, Phu Tho, Quang Ninh, Ha Giang, Bac Can, Tuyen Quang and Lang Son. In the same 
event Lao PDR  also  experienced heavy rainfall, causing the Mekong River and many of its 
tributaries  to  flood  their  banks.  Worst  affected  were  the  northern  and  central  provinces  of 
Bokeo, Luang Prabang, Khammuan, Luang Namtha, Bolikamxay and the capital of Vientiane. 

In Vietnam the floods and landslides cut major highway and rail links to the region bordering 
southern  China  and  destroyed  telephone  and  electricity  lines,  killing  more  than  150  people 
and  affecting  more  than  93,000  persons,  mainly  belonging  to  poor  ethnic  minorities  who 
depended on agriculture and aquaculture for their livelihood. In Lao PDR landslides killed six 
people  and  affected  more  than  204,000  people.  Flood  water  inundated  large  areas  of 
agricultural  land,  destroyed  crops,  and  damaged  homes  and  infrastructure,  leading  the 
Government of Lao PDR to appeal for international assistance.  

Against  this  background,  the  most  urgent  needs  were  food  assistance,  water  and  sanitation, 
health, basic school materials and livelihood support. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

DG  ECHO's  response  to  natural  disasters  in  Vietnam  and  Laos  has  been  traditionally 
commensurate  to  the  circumstances.  While  its  contribution  was  limited  to  €1.4  million  for 
flooding and typhoons in Vietnam over the period 2002-2006, the increase in climate-related 
hazards over the past two years has led DG ECHO to intervene three times: twice in response 
to typhoon Lekima (October 2007) for a total amount of €3 million and once in response to 
storm Kammuri (August 2008), for an amount of €1.5 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

The €1.5 million emergency decision adopted by  DG ECHO to address the consequences of 
storm Kammuri and subsequent floods had the objective to provide immediate assistance to 
the  victims  to  quickly  restore  livelihoods  and  coping  capacities  and  assist  families  and 
children to go back to normal life. Three emergency operations were conducted in Vietnam 
under this financing decision and two in Laos. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Recovery  is  supported  by  the  central  and  local  governments  of  Vietnam  and  Laos.  The 
continued presence of the DIPECHO programme in the affected regions intends to contribute 
to  the  dissemination  of  typhoon/floods  preparedness  best  practices  and  consolidate  their 
adoption by national authorities and incorporation into the relevant legislation. 

5. 

Latin America and Cuba 

Many of the countries in Latin America and Cuba are recurrently affected by natural hazards 
such as floods, hurricanes, droughts, cold waves, landslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes. 
DG ECHO was called on to respond to an array of disaster events in 2008 – floods in Bolivia, 
Ecuador, Guatemala and Honduras, three subsequent hurricanes in Cuba, cold waves in Peru 
and Bolivia, drought in Paraguay and Honduras. In addition, emergency actions in response to 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
natural disasters which affected Latin America in 2007 continued notably the Peru earthquake 
and hurricane Felix in Nicaragua.  

Given the frequency of natural disasters in the region and the fact that they often concern only 
a relatively small number of people but create serious humanitarian emergency needs among 
them, a funding decision was launched to respond to small-scale disasters in the region. In the 
same vein, an epidemics decision was prepared potentially benefitting ten countries in Latin 
America  and  the  Caribbean,  selected  on  the  basis  of  their  vulnerability  and  frequency  of 
outbreaks, to better prepare them for epidemics and respond to outbreaks. 

Apart  from  the  response  to  natural  disasters,  DG  ECHO's  humanitarian  assistance  to  the 
victims  of  Colombia's  prolonged  internal  conflict  continued  in  2008,  including  support  for 
IDPs, rural population facing restriction of movement and access to basic goods and services, 
and Colombians in need of protection who fled to neighbouring countries. In the framework 
of the Global Plan Colombia 2008, a response to the floods was provided, which affected a 
large part of Colombia in the last trimester of the year.  

In Latin America, DG ECHO continued to work closely with other programmes and donors to 
ensure the transition to longer-term development. 

The EC Humanitarian Assistance in this part of the world was, in 2008, mainly used to cover 
humanitarian  needs  created  by  the  internal  conflict  in  Colombia  and  to  respond  to  natural 
disasters throughout the region (*). 

Country/Region

Funding Decisions adopted in 2008

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

TOTAL

LATIN AMERICA 

20 070 000

4 000 000

24 070 000

Bolivia

Colombia

Ecuador

Honduras

Honduras/Guatemala

Peru

Paraguay

Regional Latin America 

2 000 000

1 000 000

3 000 000

12 000 000

 500 000

12 500 000

1 500 000

 500 000

2 000 000

1 000 000

1 000 000

1 170 000

1 170 000

1 000 000

1 000 000

1 400 000

2 000 000

1 400 000

2 000 000

(*) Dipecho programmes excluded from these tables– refer to part III.6. 

5.1. 

CENTRAL AMERICA (GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, NICARAGUA)  

Humanitarian needs 

Central 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, landslides and hurricanes. Every year, 
Central  America  is  badly  affected  by  tropical  storms,  heavy  rains  and  floods,  particularly 
during the hurricane season (July to November). 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
In 2008, a tropical depression caused heavy floods, affecting all Central American countries 
but  particularly  Honduras  and  Guatemala.  Previously,  a  drought  had  affected  the  south  of 
Honduras.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

From 2004 to 2007, a total of €16.8 million was allo cated to Central America. This amount 
included  notably  the  response  to  hurricane  Stan  in  Guatemala  and  El  Salvador  and  to 
hurricane Felix in Nicaragua. In 2008, total allocation to Central America was €2.2 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

In 2008, DG ECHO action in Central America focused on responding to the emergency needs 
caused  by  Tropical  Depression  No.  16  in  Honduras  and  Guatemala  and  by  the  drought  in 
Honduras. An emergency decision of €1.17 million wa s adopted to assist the most vulnerable 
population  in  Honduras  and  Guatemala  affected  by  the  floods  and  landslides  caused  by  the 
Tropical Depression. A total of 35,000 people benefitted from DG ECHO-funded operations. 
Five  projects  were  financed,  covering  water  and  sanitation,  basic  health  services,  food 
assistance and disaster preparedness activities. 

In response to the drought in southern Honduras, €1 million was allocated from the food aid 
budget line to improve the nutritional situation of the most vulnerable population and enhance 
small-scale farmer households’ resilience in the drought-affected southern part of the country. 

DG  ECHO  also  continued  its  monitoring  of  actions  in  response  to  hurricane  Felix  in 
Nicaragua.  

LRRD – possibly exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

The strong links  with the EC Delegation and other Commission services were reinforced in 
Nicaragua after hurricane Felix. With the aim of bridging the gap between emergency relief 
and  reconstruction,  DG  ECHO  actively  contributed  to  preparing  a  proposal  under  the 
Instrument for Stability (€7.5 million). Activ ities build upon ECHO operations and focus on 
the water and sanitation and early recovery. LRRD has also been incorporated in the planning 
for  the  financial  instruments  in  the  new  Country  Strategy  Paper  2007-2013.  In  the  case  of 
Honduras,  a  close  dialogue  between  DG  ECHO,  the  EC  Delegation  and  EuropeAid  was 
maintained to explore avenues for LRRD through the Food Facility/Food Security Thematic 
Budget Line. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

CUBA 

Humanitarian needs 

Cuba  is  prone  to  disasters,  particularly  to  hurricanes.  The  hurricane  season  2008  was 
especially  difficult  for  the  country,  with  three  hurricanes  making  landfall  in  less  than  three 
months. In addition, in August 2008, two tropical storms had already caused flooding on the 
island.  Loss  of  life  was  largely  avoided  thanks  to  the  renowned  preparedness  capacity  of 
Cuba.  Ahead  of  the  three  hurricanes,  more  than  4.2  million  people  were  evacuated.  In 
addition, measures were taken to protect agriculture, livestock and fishing sectors. However, 
despite  all  preparedness  efforts  undertaken,  the  three  hurricanes  caused  major  damage  to 
houses, agriculture, infrastructure, education and health care institutions. Hurricanes damaged 
more than 500,000 houses, thus affecting some 18 per cent of the total population. More than 
169,000 hectares of crop land were damaged by the two first hurricanes alone, affecting over 
700,000 tons of food and, thus, severely impacting food production and food security. This is 
the  more  significant  because  Cuba  typically  has  already  to  import  some  80  per  cent  of  the 
required foodstuffs. In addition, hurricanes caused severe damage to education and health care 
institutions. 

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

From 2004 to 2007, €1 million was allocated to hurricane response.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

In  response  to  hurricanes  Gustav  and  Ike,  which  made  landfall  at  the  end  of  August  and  in 
early  September  2008,  €2  million  were  allocated  from  a  regional  funding  decision  to  Cuba. 
The  offer  of  EC  humanitarian  assistance  was  accepted  once  EC-Cuba  cooperation  was 
officially resumed in October 2008. Five actions were funded in the most affected provinces, 
focusing on emergency rehabilitation of shelter and health care institutions as well as on basic 
agricultural recovery and the distribution of non-food items. 

LRRD – possibly exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

During an inter-service mission in November 2008, the foundations were laid for LRRD with 
the Instrument for Stability and the Food Facility/Food Security Thematic Programme, taking 
over basic agricultural recovery activities from DG ECHO. 

5.3. 

SOUTH AMERICA (EXCEPT COLOMBIA) 

Humanitarian needs 

South America is among the most disaster-prone regions of the world, exposed to panoply of 
natural hazards due to its geography, geology and climate. The phenomena of "El Niño" and 
"La  Niña",  attributed  to  warming/cooling  in  the  eastern  and  central  Pacific,  are  causing 
regular floods and droughts. The Andean region is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes - the 
last major one, causing significant loss of human life and physical damage, occurred in Peru 
in August 2007 - and many volcanoes are still active. The vulnerability of the people most at 
risk of natural disasters continued to increase over the past decades, and climate change has 
further  aggravated  the  situation.  The  year  2008  was  representative  in  this  regard  with  an 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
increasing  number  of  hazards  occurring  throughout  the  year,  often  affecting  isolated 
vulnerable communities with little institutional or donor presence.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

From  2004  to  2007,  more  than  €15  million  was  a llocated  to  South  America,  mainly  in 
response  to  floods.  In  2008,  the  allocation  to  South  America  in  response  to  disasters 
(excluding Colombia) totalled €7.4 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

DG  ECHO  responded  to  the  humanitarian  needs  arising  from  the  floods  in  Bolivia  in  early 
2008,  which  generated  damage  to  crops,  houses  and  infrastructure.  DG  ECHO  adopted  an 
emergency decision of €2 million to meet the most  urgent needs of  the victims, in terms of 
food  assistance,  short  term  food  security  and  livelihood  support,  Provision  of  temporary 
shelters  and  emergency  rehabilitation  of  schools,  water,  and  sanitation  and  hygiene 
promotion.  As  those  affected  are  highly  vulnerable  to  such  events,  DG  ECHO's  response 
included  building  the  communities  capacity  to  respond  to  disaster.  Approximately  206,375 
people were assisted through the Commission's humanitarian aid. 

In Ecuador, the annual rainy season was seriously worsened by the "La Niña" phenomenon, 
and the country experienced heavy and continuous rainfall in the first few months of 2008.  

Floods  affected  14  provinces,  which  represents  more  than  50%  of  the  territory.  DG  ECHO 
adopted  an  emergency  decision  of  €1.5  million 
to  assist  the  most  affected  populations, 
focusing on food assistance, short term food security and livelihood support, water, sanitation 
and  hygiene  promotion,  emergency  rehabilitation  of  schools,  and  health.  Disaster 
preparedness  was  integrated  into  the  response,  focusing  on  activities  such  as  community 
preparedness,  capacity  building  and  public  awareness.  Approximately  103,590  people  were 
assisted. Moreover, € 500,000 were allo cated under the food aid budget line. 

A  particularly  cold  spell  of  weather  in  2008  badly  affected  subsistence  and  alpaca  farmers 
living over 3,500 metres in the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes. Erratic climatic patterns at the 
beginning  of  the  year,  combined  with  crop  and  animal  diseases,  and  increased  food  prices 
seriously affected the livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations, resulted in what could 
be  described  as  "a  silent  disaster"  which  was  unfolding  as  seeds  became  scarce,  natural 
pastures  were  affected,  and  animals  were  dying  from  malnutrition  and  respiratory 
complications as a result of the cold wave.  

DG ECHO's intervention (€1 million for each co untry, funded under the food aid budget line) 
aimed  to  improve  overall  food  availability  through  the  production  of  local  food  crops  from 
improved planting materials and reducing alpaca mortality. 

In  Paraguay,  a  particularly  severe  and  prolonged  drought  in  the  Chaco  region,  placing 
vulnerable  populations  at  risk  because  of  the  lack  of  a  secure  supply  and  storage  of  clean 
water, and causing subsistence crops to fail and chronic malnutrition. DG ECHO adopted an 
emergency  decision  of  €1.4  million  to  respond  to  the  humanitarian  needs,  focusing  on 
restoring basic access to water, sanitation and hygiene and strengthening resilience to future 
climatic shocks. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
LRRD – possibly exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

DG ECHO  continued  to actively  explore avenues for LRRD with the EC delegations in the 
region  and  DG  RELEX,  seeking  ways  to  undertake  activities  in  the  framework  of  the 
corresponding country strategy papers or thematic budget lines.  

5.4. 

COLOMBIA  (INCLUDING  COLOMBIANS  IN  NEED  OF  PROTECTION  IN  ECUADOR, 
VENEZUELA AND PANAMA) 

Humanitarian needs 

For more than 40 years Colombia has suffered from an internal conflict, involving different 
actors  (government,  guerrilla,  former  paramilitary  groups  who  have  formed  new  splinter 
groups).  As  a  result,  more  than  300,000  people  have  been  displaced  in  2008  alone.  In 
cumulative  terms  (and  depending  on  the  source),  between  2.5  and  4.1  million  people  have 
been  displaced  since  1985.  In  addition,  UNHCR  estimates  that  more  than  500,000 
Colombians are refugees or in a refugee-like situation. Most of them have fled the conflict to 
neighbouring  countries  (Ecuador,  Venezuela  and  Panama).  Due  to  the  conflict,  rural 
communities often have to face restricted access to basic goods and services. This has a direct 
negative  impact  on  their  livelihood  as  they  are for  instance  prevented  from  cultivating  their 
fields or going to markets. Furthermore, their access to public health services is very limited.  

Most  Colombians  newly  arriving  in  the  neighbouring  countries  need  emergency  assistance 
such  as  food,  water  and  sanitation  immediately  after  arrival.  Subsequently,  they  require 
assistance to know their rights and the steps to take in the refugee registration process, and to 
foster  their  integration.  Colombia  is  also  vulnerable  to  natural  disasters,  particularly  floods, 
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last five years  

From  2004  to  2007,  ECHO  allocated  a  total  of  €44  million  to  improve  the  humanitarian 
situation  of  victims  of  the  Colombian  conflict  both  in  Colombia  itself  and  in  neighbouring 
countries  (Ecuador,  Venezuela,  Panama).  Further  €1.5  million  was  allocated  for  flood 
emergency response.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements 

€12.5  million  was  allocated  to  support  the  Colo mbian  population  affected  by  the  armed 
conflict,  of  which  €500,000  unde r  the  food  aid  budget  line.  Some  70,000  people  received 
assistance  (food  and  not-food  items)  via  the  ICRC  during  their  first  three  months  of 
displacement. In addition, more than 40,000 new IDPs (less than 12 months of displacement), 
confined or blocked populations and, to some extent, host communities 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 more remote rural areas, where state institutions are 
generally  not  present  or  government  assistance  is  not  sufficient.  Protection  of  children 
continued  to  be  a  priority  for  DG  ECHO  in  Colombia.  More  than  7,500  IDP  children 
benefitted  from  specific  protection  measures.  In  addition,  humanitarian  assistance  was 
provided to vulnerable conflict-affected people who were seriously affected by floods in the 
last quarter of the year.  

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
DG ECHO also financed projects in Ecuador, Venezuela and Panama to assist the victims of 
the  Colombian  conflict  who  have  fled  to  those  neighbouring  countries.  With  DG  ECHO 
funding,  UNHCR  continued  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, 
assistance and integration process.  

LRRD – possibly exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

Close  regular  contact  is  maintained  with  the  EC  Delegation  to  seek  LRRD.  Linking  was 
sought via the budget line Uprooted Peoples, which started implementation of its last projects, 
and other thematic budget lines, via the institutional support the Commission provided to state 
assistance mechanisms in order to improve the quality of the government’s assistance and via 
the  Instrument  for  Stability.  Furthermore,  DG  ECHO  partners  were  asked  to  involve  state 
sectoral  institutions  to  the  largest  extent  possible  with  a  view  to  handing  over  operations  to 
them in the future. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
6. 

Disaster preparedness activities (including Dipecho) 

Humanitarian needs 

There has been a considerable rise in the number and intensity of disasters over the last few 
decades partly due to climate change. In many developing countries, population growth, poor 
governance,  increasing  impoverishment,  poor  management  of  natural  resources  and 
consequently depletion and degradation of soil are factors that have contributed 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  existing  programme  to  support 
community-based disaster preparedness projects, DIPECHO, covers seven regions worldwide, 
specifically South-East Africa (including South-West Indian Ocean), Central America, South 
America, the Caribbean, Central Asia, South Asia, and South-East Asia.  

All seven regions are highly prone to hazards that have devastating consequences for the lives 
and livelihoods of thousands of people. South East Africa is a region exposed to a wide range 
of  natural  disasters  such  as  floods,  cyclones  and  volcanic  eruptions;  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/cyclones,  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  regional  levels,  but  they  tend  to 
suffer  from  a  lack  of  resources  and  the  capacity  to  reach  out  to  the  populations  and 
communities  most  at  risk.  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 achievements 

The  global  objective  of  DG ECHO's  disaster  preparedness  activities  is  to  strengthen  the 
preparedness capacities of the most vulnerable communities so that they can better face future 
disasters.  This  contributes  to  reducing  the  impact  of  disasters  and  hence  the  need  for 
humanitarian  aid  in  the  aftermath  of  future  disaster.  Disaster  preparedness  projects  and 
preparedness  components  integrated  in  relief  interventions  are  mostly  implemented  in 
countries  with  prevalent  core  humanitarian  needs  but  in  some  countries,  DG ECHO's  sole 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
presence is DIPECHO interventions. However, when a disaster strikes, DIPECHO has proven 
to be a crucial first response instrument as it has allowed communities to be better prepared 
and  to  respond  by  themselves  providing  basic  relief  and  first  aid  in  the  critical  first  hours 
and/or days following a disaster when national or external aid were not yet available. 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: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

the main focus is put at community level, where they enhance the capacities of local 
communities  at  risk  and  of  local  authorities,  through  activities  such  as  training, 
awareness-raising, setting up early warning systems and risk mapping; 

at  national  level,  where  activities  strengthen  the  capacity  of  national  disaster 
management  services  and  help  to  produce  and  disseminate  maps/contingency  plans; 
and 

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. 

LRRD – possible exit strategy of the sector and/or country 

It is internationally recognised that efficient Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) requires a 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  programming  work  is  combined  with  continuous  advocacy 
efforts  at  headquarters  level  and  in  the  seven  regions  targeted  by  DIPECHO  to  encourage 
development  stakeholders  to  invest  in  DRR.  DG ECHO  continues  to  encourage  other 
Commission  services,  such  as  DG  for  External  Relations,  DG  Development  and  EuropeAid 
Co-operation Office, EU Member States, other donors, local authorities and NGOs to build on 
DIPECHO lessons and best practices. 

DG  ECHO  has  been  improving  the  coordination  of  its  DRR  interventions  with  the  other 
services  of  the  Commission  and  has  achieved  good  results  in  certain  regions.  Nonetheless 
DG ECHO  will  continue  its  advocacy  to  encourage  the  integration  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 action plans and 
development projects can be seen as a challenge in terms of the difference in approaches by 
different  actors:  DG ECHO's  short-term  community-based  approach  versus  macro-level 
approach  applied  by  most  donors.  Even  in  those  countries  where  DRR  is  recognised  as  a 
national  development  priority,  interventions  that  benefit  the  most  vulnerable  groups  do  not 
always receive attention. 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. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
The  funding  provided  by  DG ECHO  for  DIPECHO  Disaster  Preparedness  projects  in  seven 
disaster prone regions is shown in the table below. The table below provides the cumulative 
funding from 1998 until 2007 as well as the funding decisions adopted in 2008. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
It  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  when  looking  at  this  table  that  each  "DIPECHO"  region  only 
benefits from a budgetary allocation every two years, given the fact that the duration of these 
types of actions are typically 12-15 months. 

Disaster Preparedness Funding 1998-2008 

Funding 
1998-2007 

Funding 
2008 

Funding 
1998-2008 

Southern Africa/Indian 
Ocean 
Caribbean 
Central America 
South America 
Central Asia 
South Asia 
South East Asia 
TOTAL DIPECHO 
Drought preparedness (1) 

16.975.000   
22.480.000
23.740.000   
15.050.000
19.200.000   
21.680.000
119.125.000
10.000.000

5.000.000

10.000.000

5.000.000 
16.975.000 
32.480.000 
23.740.000 
22.375.000 
19.200.000 
31.680.000 
10.000.000
32.325.000 151.450.000 
40.000.000 
30.000.000

7.325.000

TOTAL Disaster 
preparedness activities 
(1) the Drought preparedness programme is mentioned under 6.8 and further described under 
ACP countries  

62.325.000 191.450.000 

129.125.000

6.1.  SOUTHERN  AFRICA  AND  INDIAN  OCEAN  (MADAGASCAR,  MALAWI,  MOZAMBIQUE, 

COMOROS) 

Humanitarian needs 

The  south-east  African  and  south-west  Indian  Ocean  region  is  exposed  to  a  wide  range  of 
natural  disasters,  such  as  floods,  cyclones,  and  volcanic  eruptions.  The  exposure  to  natural 
hazards,  combined  with  socioeconomic  factors  such  as  high  population  density,  extreme 
poverty  and,  in  much  of  southern  Africa,  a  high  incidence  of  HIV  and  AIDS,  increases  the 
potential  impact  of  disasters.  Due  to  their  extreme  poverty,  these  vulnerable  population 
groups have a very low capacity to recover from losses. Furthermore, the current capacity in 
the south-east African and south-west Indian Ocean region to cope with disasters is limited, 
and support from the international community is needed, to promote preparedness activities, 
mitigation projects and early warning systems.  

Evolution of humanitarian aid in the last 5 years 

Not applicable, first DIPECHO action plan in this region 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
  
 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2008 

A  decision  for  €5  million  was  adopted  in  July  2008  –  the  first  of  its  kind  in  sub-Saharan 
Africa - followed by a call for expressions of interest to conduct disaster preparedness actions 
in  Madagascar,  Malawi,  Mozambique  and  the  Comoros,  the  countries  of  the  region  most 
susceptible  to  natural  disasters.  The  principal  objective  is  to  reduce  the  impact  of  future 
disasters  in  the  south-east  African  and  south-west  Indian  Ocean  region,  by  preparing 
vulnerable  populations  in  the  areas  most  affected  by  recurrent  natural  hazards,  with  the 
specific  objective  of  supporting  strategies  that  enable  local  communities  and  institutions  to 
better  prepare  for,  mitigate  and  respond  adequately  to  natural  disasters,  by  enhancing  their 
capacities to respond, thereby increasing resilience and decreasing vulnerability. As a result of 
the evaluation of the call for expressions of interest, funding was provided to 17 actions in the 
region starting on 1st October 2008. 

6.2. 

CARIBBEAN 

Over the period 1997-2007, six DIPECHO action plans were implemented in the Caribbean 
region, which  represents a  DG ECHO investment  of  €16.9  million  in  disaster  preparedness. 
The last action plan was launched in September and runs until February 2009. Whilst over the 
years  thematic  and  geographic  considerations  have  slightly  changed,  the  Caribbean 
DIPECHO  programme  remained  mostly  focused  on  natural  events  of  hydro-meteorological 
origin. However, other phenomena such as drought and earthquakes are also going to be taken 
into  consideration.  The  decision  of  expanding  thematic  priorities  came  as  the  result  of  an 
analysis based on the following criteria: recurrence of the natural event; level of exposition to 
the  most  recurrent  hazard  in  terms  of  population  and  economic  value  at  risk;  institutional 
response capacity; governments' priorities. 

The focus of the last  action plan  was kept  on  the most  vulnerable  communities facing risks 
deriving  from  natural  disasters.  The  main  sector  of  interventions  included  the  following 
activities:  awareness  raising  among  communities  on  disaster  related  issues;  organization  of 
Community  Emergency  and  Disaster  Response  Committees;  creation  of  functional  teams 
responsible for the preparation and the implementation of immediate responsive action in case 
of  disaster;  training  of  community  members  and  staff  of  public  institutions;  elaboration  of 
community  emergency  plans  and  evacuation  route  maps;  installation  of  community  early 
warning systems.  

The  hurricane  season  of  2008  demonstrated  tragically  the  Caribbean  region’s  exposure  and 
vulnerability to disasters. Hurricanes and tropical storms devastated parts of Haiti and Cuba 
(three hurricanes made landfall on Cuba in less than three months) and also caused important 
damage  in  Jamaica,  the  Cayman  Islands  and  Turks  and  Caicos.  Hurricanes,  floods  and 
mudslides  claimed  more  than  800  lives  in  the  region  with  Haiti  particularly  affected. 
Moreover,  some  114  people  perished  in  floods  caused  by  Tropical  Storm  Noel  in  the 
Dominican Republic, Haiti and Jamaica in November 2007. In Suriname in June 2008, severe 
flooding  occurred,  causing  tremendous  damage  to  inland  communities.  Earthquakes  and 
droughts are also frequent in certain areas of the region, especially in Cuba and Haiti. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
DIPECHO  funded  projects  tend  to  focus  on  local  communities  and  leave  more  ambitious 
efforts of  institutional  strengthening  at  national level to development donors. The impact of 
the top-bottom approach, mainly based on institutional strengthening will take a long time to 
affect  community  needs  and  also  faces  unpredictable  political  risks.  Therefore,  programmes 
that directly support communities and their basic organizations, i.e. bottom-up approach, have 
proven to be the better way for immediate reinforcement of coping and resilience capacities. 
However,  strengthening  synergies  between  DG  ECHO  and  programmes  funded  by 
development  donors  remains  a  priority,  as  highlighted  by  the  last  evaluation  of  DIPECHO 
programme in 2004. 

6.3. 

CENTRAL AMERICA 

Central  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,  Stan  in  2005  and  Felix  in  2007,  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  lessen  the  impact  of  the 
disasters and prepare themselves for when natural disasters occur.  

A Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan for Central America was implemented in 2007 and 2008. An 
amount  of  €7,5  million  was  allocated  to  improve 
the  capacities  of  communities  at  risk  to 
better  prepare  for  and  protect  themselves  against  natural  disasters  in  six  countries  in  the 
region: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, the latter two 
countries being covered only by regional projects.  

The  strategy  for  the  Sixth  Action  Plan  was  defined  in  collaboration  with  the  main 
stakeholders  in  each  country  through  four  national  consultative  meetings  and  one  regional 
consultative  meeting,  an  analysis  of  existing  legislation,  donor  activities  in  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction (DRR) and the current/planned national DRR strategies and the recommendations 
from  the  external  evaluation  carried  out  in  2007.  The  funding  decision  for  the  Sixth 
DIPECHO Action Plan, for an amount of €10  million, was adopted in March 2008 and will be 
implemented until February 2010. It will support strategies that enable local communities and 
institutions to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to natural disasters by enhancing their 
capacities  to  cope  and  respond,  thereby  increasing  resilience  and  reducing  vulnerability  in 
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
6.4. 

SOUTH AMERICA 

South America is among the most disaster-prone regions of the world, exposed to a panoply 
of natural hazards due to its geography, geology and climate. Capacity to cope varies greatly 
across  the  region  and  even  within-country.  Since  1999,  five  DIPECHO  Action  Plans  have 
been implemented, with the main focus being on the Andean Community. The lessons learnt 
from  the  implementation  of  these  five  DIPECHO  Action  Plans  and  from  the  repeated  and 
recurrent disasters in the region, whether large or small-scale, have confirmed the need to put 
into  place  efficient  early  warning  systems,  enforce  building  codes,  prepare  communities  to 
react in the first hours of a disaster, train people, organise awareness campaigns, mitigate the 
impact of disasters and carry out advocacy towards all relevant stakeholders. These types of 
activities are carried out in the framework of the projects financed under, DIPECHO.  

The  Fifth  Action  Plan  for  South  America  was  launched  in  the  last  quarter  of  2007  and 
implementation  continued  throughout  2008.  An  amount  of  €6,5  million  was  allocated,  and 
twenty  projects  were  funded:  in  Bolivia,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Peru,  Venezuela;  two  cross-
border projects (Bolivia-Peru and Argentina; Bolivia-Paraguay) and two regional projects. A 
specific  emphasis  was  put  on  regional  cooperation,  exchange  of  information,  capacity 
building  and  training  and  advocacy  at  national  and  regional  level.  Very  good  coordination 
mechanisms and joint initiatives have emerged at national level, often at the initiative of the 
DIPECHO partners. Such efforts will be further encouraged and supported in the framework 
of the Sixth Action Plan as they are perceived as being very good practices notably in the field 
of advocacy towards the authorities and the donor community. 

To take stock of the lessons learned from the Fifth Action Plan and prepare the ground for the 
Sixth Action Plan, an extensive consultation process was organised in the last quarter of 2008: 
national  workshops  took  place  in  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Peru,  Paraguay, 
Venezuela  and  a  regional  consultative  meeting  in  Peru.  This  process  involved  over  440 
Disaster  Risk  Reduction  experts  representing  more  than  250  different  institutions  (national, 
regional,  local  authorities,  Non  Governmental  Organisations  (NGOs),  UN  agencies,  Red 
Cross  family,  regional  organisations,  academia  etc.).  The  conclusions  of  the  consultative 
process will provide the basis for the implementation of the Sixth Action Plan. The funding 
decision, for an amount of €10 milli on, was adopted in December.  

6.5. 

CENTRAL ASIA 

Central Asia is particularly exposed to natural disasters such as landslides, avalanches, floods, 
earthquakes  and  drought.  The  losses  and  destruction  that  result  from  these  disasters  are 
considerably  high  from  a  social  and  economic  point  of  view,  reducing  the  development 
potential of the poorer countries and specific provinces of the region where large proportions 
of the population live in remote areas. This situation highlights the appropriateness to invest 
in community-based disaster preparedness and response capacity.  

In  2008,  the  Commission  adopted  and  launched  its  5th  DIPECHO  (Disaster  Preparedness 
ECHO) for Central Asia for an amount of €7.32 5 million which covers the five Central Asia 
countries (Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
Experience has once more demonstrated that during natural disasters (for instance, last years' 
earthquakes  in  Tajikistan  and  in  Kyrgyzstan),  casualties  and  damages  can  considerably  be 
reduced thanks to good disaster preparedness activities. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
6.6. 

SOUTH ASIA 

In  2008,  the  implementation  of  the  fourth  Action  Plan  launched  on  the  2007  budget  did 
continue.  Beneficiary  countries  of  these  Disaster  Preparedness  activities  were  Afghanistan, 
Pakistan,  Bangladesh,  India,  Nepal  and  for  the  regional  component  Bhutan  as  well.  This 
represents a total of €7.5 million and 25 projects,  most of them in favor of India, Nepal and 
Bangladesh,  reaching  over  3  million  most  vulnerable  beneficiaries  exposed  to  reoccurring 
natural  disasters.  Due  to  the  nature  of  the  naturals  disasters  that  regularly  hit  South  Asia, 
multi-hazard  approach  has  been  widely  used  although  many  activities  focused  on  the 
preparedness to floods, amongst others, setting up of community based early warning systems 
-  increasing  their  capacities  in  better  preparedness  for  response.  Earthquake  disaster 
preparedness  was  also  addressed  by  majority  of  partners  in  the  region.  This  decision  also 
aimed to improve advocacy for Disaster Risk Reduction measures. Regional co-operation was 
also encouraged with ECHO’s support to two regional initiatives seeking more coordination 
and synergies among the regional stakeholders in Disaster Risk Reduction. Moreover a new 
hazard has been identified in the framework of this Action Plan: with the global warming the 
GLOF30  phenomena  needs  to  be  addressed  and  the  Action  Plan  contributed  to  exchange 
experiences in order to find solutions. In 2009 it is planned to launch the fifth Action Plan for 
a total amount of €10 million. 

6.7. 

SOUTH EAST ASIA 

South East Asia is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world, particularly exposed to 
natural  disasters  such  as  floods,  flash  floods,  cyclones,  typhoons,  landslides,  earthquakes, 
tsunamis,  droughts,  forest  fires  and  volcano  eruptions.  The  capacities  of  South  East  Asian 
countries to cope with disasters are insufficient considering the great impact of disaster events 
on  the  population.  In  many  instances,  the  losses  could  be  largely  mitigated  or  avoided  by 
simple  preventive  measures.  In  2008  the  Sixth  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  for  South  East  Asia 
was adopted for an amount of €10 million. The  programme targets Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao 
PDR,  the  Philippines,  Timor  Leste,  Vietnam,  as  well  as  Burma/Myanmar  and  Thailand 
through regional initiatives. By December 2008, 30 projects had been approved, including 4 
Regional initiatives, benefitting an estimated 1,675,000 people. The DIPECHO programme in 
South East Asia will continue to address both the risks of large scale disasters, as well as the 
expected  impact  of  the  accumulation  of  recurrent,  small  and  medium-scale  natural  events 
through enhancing better emergency preparedness, while encouraging innovative actions and 
joint initiatives 

30 

Glacier Lake Outburst Floods 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.8. 

DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMME IN THE HORN OF AFRICA  

The decision of €10 million adopted in 2006 was  the first one adopted by the Commission to 
mitigate  the  effects  of  the  recurrent  drought  in  the  Horn  of  Africa.  The  evaluation  of  the 
impact of this kind of preventive approach was very successful and DG ECHO has decided to 
continue and reinforce the regional drought initiative with €30 million allocated in 2008 for 
18  months.  The  on-going  humanitarian  interventions,  funded  under  this  drought  decision, 
focus on better management of natural resources, early warning systems and support to water 
and livestock. 

For more information on the drought preparedness programme in the Horn of Africa, see the 
Horn of Africa section.  

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
PART IV.  POLICY ISSUES 

Throughout  2008,  DG  ECHO’s  policy  agenda  was  largely  driven  by  the  European 
Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid31  of  December  2007.  It  order  to  implement  the 
commitments  made  by  the  EU  in  the  Consensus,  the  Commission  developed  a  Consensus 
Action Plan32 for the years 2008-2013. This action plan was adopted in May and endorsed by 
the Council in July. 

As  part  of  the  implementation  of  the  action  plan,  a  conference  on  International 
Humanitarian  Law  (IHL)  was  held  at  the  European  Parliament  in  September  2008.  The 
objective  of  this  conference  was  to  raise  awareness  of  IHL  violations  and  explore,  in  the 
framework of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, ways to better promote respect 
of  IHL  at  the  level  of  the  European  Union.  The  conference  provided  a  major  impetus  for  a 
further implementation of the IHL guidelines of 2005, work that is ongoing. 

The Consensus is firmly based on the "Good Humanitarian Donorship"(GHD) initiative of 
2003 and with the signature of the Consensus the number of countries adhering to GHD was 
considerably  enlarged  and  now  includes  all  EU  member  states.  The  Initiative  is  based  on  a 
catalogue of 23 principles that provide agreed guidance to international humanitarian donors 
and state actors such as the military and civil protection forces. In 2008, DG ECHO agreed to 
co-chair  the  GHD  initiative  together  with  the  Netherlands  based  on  a  streamlined 
programme  of  activities  that  addresses  major  international  policy  issues  such  as  the 
assessment of needs by various humanitarian actors. 

In  order  to  improve  the  quality  of  its  assistance,  the  Consensus  Action  Plan  foresees  policy 
work in a number of areas. Therefore, DG ECHO is working with relevant partners on a range 
of  policy  issues  including  food  assistance,  protection,  gender,  HIV-AIDS  and  disaster 
preparedness. 

In 2008, a number of these initiatives came to fruition and others were initiated. For instance, 
a  staff  working  paper  on  children  in  humanitarian  crises  was  approved  by  the  college  as 
part  of  a  package  entitled  "A  Special  Place  for  Children  in  External  Action".  The  ensuing 
Council conclusions contain specific reference to humanitarian action. Implementation sheets 
that  will  guide  the  implementation  of  the  policy  are  being  developed.  DG  ECHO  also 
finalised  guidelines  on  tackling  the  HIV/AIDS  pandemic  in  emergency  situations,  after 
consultation of a wide range of partners. Checklists are currently being developed to facilitate 
implementation of these guidelines. A third set of funding guidelines concerns the use of cash 
and vouchers in emergencies. They will allow DG ECHO to consider more systematically 
cash and vouchers as delivery options for the assistance projects it finances. 

2008 also saw advances in the formulation of protection guidelines that should be finalised 
soon. Policy work on gender issues was also initiated, starting with a review of best policies 
and practices among donors and various humanitarian agencies. In reaction to the increasing 
number of hydro-meteorological disasters, DG ECHO has also commenced analytical work 
about this issue. 

31 
32 

OJ C 25 – 30/1/2008 
SEC(2008)1991 – May 2008 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally, in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its capacity building activities 
for NGOs and international humanitarian organisations, DG ECHO created a working group 
to  develop  a  coherent  capacity  building  policy.  First  elements  of  a  more  needs-driven 
approach  to  capacity  building  were  already  used  in  the  consultation  and  design  process 
leading  to  substantive  programmes  for  NGOs  (€1.8  million)  and  a  large  number  if 
international organisations (€27 million). 

DG ECHO continued to provide political and financial support for the cluster approach that 
has  been  established  through  the  UN-instigated  humanitarian  reform.  The  cluster  approach 
aims at clarifying the division of labour among organisations, and better defining their roles 
and  responsibilities  in  order  to  identify  and  plug  response  gaps  in  the  overall  humanitarian 
effort.  DG ECHO  has  used  its  bilateral  dialogues  with  humanitarian  organisations, 
international meetings and its Delegations in Geneva and New York to advocate for increased 
accountability of UN-agencies and other organisations. 

At  the  level  of  the  Commission,  the  College  adopted  in  March  2008  a  communication  on 
"Reinforcing  the  Union's  Disaster  Response  Capacity"  to  which  several  Commission 
services,  including  DG  ECHO,  contributed.  The  Communication’s  purpose  is  to  respond  to 
the  increasing  number  of  disaster  response  challenges,  whether  they  arise  from  natural 
disasters or man-made crises. The activities foreseen should reinforce the Union's capacity to 
provide  a  coherent  response  to  disasters  in  its  own  territory  and  in  third  countries.  In  this 
context  and  in  the  framework  of  the  implementation  of  the  Consensus  Action  Plan,  DG 
ECHO launched a study on international humanitarian logistics response capacities that 
will be finalised in 2009. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
PART V.  RELATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS 

1. 

EU Institutions and Member States 

As  in  previous  years,  DG ECHO  pursued  an  active  relationship  with  other  Institutions, 
Member  States  and  International  Organisations  and  continued  to  promote  the  respect  for 
international  humanitarian  law  and  humanitarian  principles  (humanity,  impartiality,  non-
discrimination  and  neutrality),  particularly  in  relation  to  developments  under  the  Common 
Foreign  and  Security  Policy.  It  ensured  also  that  the  necessity  to  respect  the  humanitarian 
space during emergencies has duly been taken into account in the European and international 
debate. 

In 2008, the work and consultations leading to the Consensus Action Plan represented a key 
process for DG ECHO's active interaction with the European Parliament and the Council on 
humanitarian issues. In this context, DG ECHO contributed to the Hearing organised on 29th 
January 2008 by the European Parliament Committee on Development as a follow-up to the 
Consensus.  

At the Community institutional level, DG ECHO continued to be active throughout 2008. It 
participated actively in discussions on the extension of the mandate of the Council Working 
Group  on  Food  Aid,  which  has  been  renamed  the  Working  Group  on  Humanitarian  Aid 
and Food Aid (COHAFA). The Council decided that this extension of the mandate should 
come into effect as of January 2009. 

DG ECHO also maintained close contacts with other Commission services in particular with 
DG  Environment  –  civil  protection  and  DG  External  Relations  as  far  crisis  response  is 
concerned.  Good  coordination  between  these  services  ensured  an  effective  Commission 
response to a number of disasters, in particular to the devastating effects of cyclone Nargis in 
Burma/Myanmar.  Close  contacts  with  other  Commission  services  where  also  maintained  or 
developed on the various policy issues DG ECHO was working on. 

With  regard  to  Member  States,  six  regular  monthly  meetings  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Committee  (HAC)  were  organised  as  well  as  two  informal  meetings  that  took  place  in 
Brdo/Slovenia  and  Marseilles/France.  In  addition,  DG  ECHO  organised  consultations  with 
Member  States  on  the  Consensus  Action  Plan  and  was  actively  involved  in  the  discussions 
leading to the establishment of COHAFA. 

In relation to the European Parliament, DG ECHO continued to monitor, in particular, the 
work of the DEVE Committee and to further consolidate the relations with the Humanitarian 
"Rapporteur". In 2008, the EP Development Committee was requested to exercise the right of 
scrutiny  using  the  urgency  procedure  on  6  occasions  to  allow  the  Commission  to  respond 
swiftly  to  the  pressing  humanitarian  needs  arising  in  particular  from  the  food  aid  crisis  and 
cyclone Nargis. The EP Development Committee replied favourably to all the 6 requests. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
2. 

International organisations and non-EU major donors 

On  the  international  front  and  in  order  to  ensure  a  strategic  and  trustworthy  dialogue 
between  DG ECHO  and  UN-agencies,  NGOs  and  the  Red  Cross  Movement  (ICRC  and 
IFRC),  yearly  high-level  Strategic  Partnership  Dialogues  (SPDs)  are  organised  with  each 
organisation.  The  SPDs  represent  an  opportunity  for  DG ECHO  to  exchange  views  on  key 
issues and developments with its main partners. 

DG ECHO  participates  actively  in  the  OCHA  and  ICRC  Donor  Support  Groups  through 
which  main  donors  provide  strategic  advice  to  the  organisations.  Activities  include  regular 
meetings in Geneva and New York, as well as participation in yearly high-level international 
conferences and field missions. A high level meeting between P. Zangl, DG ECHO’s Director 
General,  and  Sir  John  Holmes,  the  UN’s  Emergency  Response  Coordinator  and  Head  of 
OCHA, took place in July 2008. This meeting was followed up by technical level meetings 
between DG ECHO and OCHA in Brussels, which were, in particular, related to an exchange 
of expertise on programming and needs assessments. 

In 2008, an evaluation of DG ECHO support to international organisations to strengthen their 
response capacities (thematic funding programmes) was carried out. This led to some changes 
in  the  approach  and  the  launch  of  a  new  funding  decision  for  what  is  now  called  capacity 
building programmes for international organisations. 

the  US  Administration  (USAID33  and  PRM34) 

In the framework of its relations with non-EU major donors, DG ECHO maintained contacts 
with 
through  regular 
videoconferences,  addressing  general  policy  issues  and  humanitarian  operations  in  specific 
countries  with  a  view  to  ensuring  a  coherent  and  complementary  response.  A  strategic 
programming dialogue with the US Administration took place in April. 

in  particular 

DG  ECHO  also  contributed  to  negotiations  with  Brazil  concerning  the  inclusion  of 
humanitarian  elements  in  the  Joint  Action  Plan  with  that  country  which  was  finalised  in 
December. 

33 
34 

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration - US (PRM) 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PART VI.  OTHER ISSUES 

1. 

Experts in the field 

In order to meet the target of 150 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  assisted  by  about  50  locally  employed 
programme  assistants.  This  allows  DG ECHO  to  rapidly  dispatch  its  field  experts  and 
programme assistants to new crisis situations to carry out humanitarian needs assessments and 
participate in the coordination of humanitarian activities in the field. 

In  2008,  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, 
98  experts  were  under  contracts  and  5  recruitment  procedures  were  ongoing.  This  number 
fluctuates slightly with the closure or downsizing of certain offices and the reinforcement of 
others according to needs. 

2. 

Security issues 

The security of humanitarian personnel in the field is a growing concern for all humanitarian 
bodies.  During  the  past  year,  there  were  a  significant  number  of  violent  acts  directly 
committed against humanitarian aid workers. In particular, the number of incidents involving 
national/local  NGO  staff  increased  compared  to  those  involving  international  staff.  These 
security  incidents  continued  to  undermine  the  operational  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of 
humanitarian partners. In this context, DG ECHO pursued its efforts aiming at improving the 
overall security of humanitarian assistance personnel - be it DG ECHO personnel or staff 
from  implementing  partners  -  in  order  to  take  account  of  increasingly  volatile  and  insecure 
environments in which most humanitarian personnel are working. 

DG ECHO  has  established  its  own  comprehensive  security  policy,  taking  into  account  the 
specificity of humanitarian aid delivery.  

The security coordinator in place provided advice and support on a wide range of security-
related  issues  (e.g.  protective  security  measures  for  existing  and  new  ECHO  facilities  and 
residences, security plans for ECHO field offices in high risk areas, etc.) and a permanence 
ensured continual 24/7/365 support during security/crisis situations. DG ECHO also promoted 
and  disseminated  the  ECHO  security  reviews  among  its  FPA  partners  and  continued  to 
advocate for greater cooperation on security-related issues. 

Finally,  to  respond  to  the  growing  security  threats  directly  involving  humanitarian  aid 
workers, DG ECHO set up a Security Cell in the last quarter of 2008 which will need to be 
consolidated in 2009. 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
3. 

Capacity building35 

Capacity  building  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.  

The  Commission's  commitment  to  working  closely  with  international  institutions  in 
improving the global humanitarian response capacity when providing humanitarian assistance 
is  demonstrated  through  its  capacity  building  programme.  Funding  allocations  have  helped 
aid  organisations  such  as  the  UN  agencies  and  the  Red  Cross/Crescent  movement  to 
strengthen their response capacity in humanitarian crises 

A  new  approach  has  been  developed  for  the  period  2007/2008,  centring  thematic  funding 
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 in order to finance capacity building of non governmental partner organisations 
on the most relevant humanitarian aid issues.  

In 2008, an evaluation took place of DG ECHO's Thematic Funding and Grant Facility. The 
purpose of this evaluation was to look into the relevance of both Thematic Funding and Grant 
Facility, their achievements and lessons-learned, which will feed into DG ECHO's reflexion 
as to how to develop a possible future capacity building approach.  

The  evaluation  concluded  that  Thematic  Funding  is  a  highly  relevant  tool  for  strengthening 
the capacities of DG ECHO's UN/Red Cross partners to respond to emergencies in a timely, 
effective  and  predictable  way.  It  has  enabled  DG  ECHO  to  play  a  more  strategic  role  and 
build stronger relations with its partners.  

Even though more modest in scope, the Grant Facility has also been highly relevant for DG 
ECHO's NGOs partners and the projects examined have achieved results and impact. 

Thematic Funding is a unique capacity building instrument. No other donor has an approach 
which  establishes  a  coherence  and  synergy  between  global,  institutional  and  operational 
levels. Thematic Funding should be seen as high quality earmarked funding for building the 
capacity of DG ECHO's partners. This represents a comparative advantage over those donors 
whose capacity building is rooted in the provision of un-earmarked funding. There are strong 
expectations  among  partners  that  DG  ECHO  as  the  largest  EU  humanitarian  aid  donor  will 
continue distributing to developing the capacities of its partners. 

The main recommendations for both tools are the following: 

•  DG ECHO should continue providing capacity building support to its partners, 

35 

Previously called Thematic funding and Grant Facility 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  DG ECHO should open access to Thematic Funding to all of its partners and integrate both 
tools  through  a  phased  approach,  which  would  enable  DG  ECHO  to  prepare  the 
management  of  the  consolidated  mechanism  and  for  a  consultation  with  NGOs  to  take 
place, 

•  DG ECHO should develop a five-year strategy whilst respecting the current 18/24 months 
implementation period and offer its partners the possibility of receiving follow-up funding 
within the five-year period and 

•  DG  ECHO  should  take  advantage  of  the  proposed  EU  Council's  Working  Party  on 
Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid to facilitate the discussion on how DG ECHO's capacity 
building  instrument  can  add  value  to  the  other  EU  donors'  funding  modalities,  discuss 
capacity  building  priorities,  and  identify  Member  States  interested  in  supporting  multi-
donor projects. 

The challenge for a third generation of Thematic Funding and Grant Facility, over the period 
2009-2014 is to develop, adopt and implement a more systematic capacity building strategy in 
respect  of  its  partners.  This  would  not  only  strengthen  the  capacity  of  its  partners  and  the 
political credibility of DG ECHO with the international donor community, but also facilitate a 
more effective utilisation of internal DG ECHO human resource capacity.  

Detail  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/evaluation/thematic_en.htm. 

evaluation 

can  be 

this 

found  on  DG  ECHO's 

Internet  page 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
4. 

Finance and Audit  

DG ECHO has formal systems for regularly monitoring financial information and providing 
adequate management information. Specific financial indicators have been incorporated into 
an  overall  scoreboard.  Detailed  financial  information  and  on  the  systems  in  place  to 
coordinate humanitarian aid with other key players and on the control of the use of funds can 
at:
be 

report 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding/key_figures/echo_en.htm  

published 

financial 

found 

the 

in 

5. 

Communication and information 

Regarding its communication strategy, DG ECHO undertook a range of actions in pursuit of 
its  broad  objective  to  boost  understanding  in  Europe  and  developing  countries  of  the 
concrete contribution made by humanitarian aid to the EU commitment of solidarity with 
developing  countries.  The  EU  is  collectively  the  world's  largest  humanitarian  donor.  As  the 
leading  relief  funder  in  the  Union,  the  Commission  has  a  leadership  role  in  communicating 
the values that underlie European aid.  

Within  the  EU,  there  is  a  high  level  of  support  for  humanitarian  action  at  European  level. 
While public awareness of the Commission's work in this area has increased, many Europeans 
still have only a limited knowledge of the subject. The delivery of relief strikes a chord with 
most people and therefore presents an opportunity for the Commission to 'connect' positively 
with citizens. 

With regard to printed publications, leaflets on the Humanitarian Aid Consensus, on the Horn 
of  Africa,  Food  Aid,  Disaster  Preparedness,  youth  brochure  reprint  with  new  design  on 
solidarity dedicated to the young people, photo-books, postcards and calendar were printed. 

Audiovisual items were produced such as reports/images featuring DG ECHO in crisis zones.  

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. 

Joint  communications  with  major  institutional  partners  were  carried  out  such  as  (1)  WHO: 
operational  contract  for  the  Palestinian  territories;  (2)  EMDH:  Monitoring  of  exhibition  on 
humanitarian action in Lebanon in Berlaymont and Charlemagne; (3) ACF: Emergency food 
aid  simulation  in  Paris  on  World  Food  Day;  (4)  Handicap  International:  Joint  stand  on  de-
mining at humanitarian village linked to the Cinéma des Vérités in Paris.  

Other  events  were  also  organised,  such  as  (1)  Integrated  awareness-raising  campaigns  in 
Austria, Cyprus, Denmark and UK, Youth action in Slovakia implemented in the first quarter 
of the year; (2) Participation in EuropeAid Cooperation Office “May 9th” schools campaign 
in Romania, Germany and Sweden; (3) talks on EC Humanitarian aid (visiting groups or in 
the context of the Communication Plan of Action with ICRC) and (4) Increased participation 
in major humanitarian events, fairs and exhibition in European cities (Salon des Solidarités-
Paris, Development Days, Stand at Annual Partners conference). 

6. 

Training initiative 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
DG 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  Europe36  with  the  backing  of  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs), 
inter-governmental  organisations  (IGOs)  and  other  actors  of  the  humanitarian  relief 
community. 

This European Master's Degree was created in 1993 as result of concerted efforts on the part 
of  the  Network  on  Humanitarian  Assistance  (NOHA)  Universities,  working  in  close 
collaboration  with  two  Directorates-General  of  the  European  Commission:  DG  for 
Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) and DG for Education and Culture. The initiative was a response 
to  a  growing  need  for  higher  educational  qualifications  specifically  suited  to  addressing 
complex humanitarian emergencies. 

The objectives followed by this training are: 

–  To pool academic resources and cultural traditions in order to accommodate a diversity of 

individual, academic and employment needs in the field of humanitarian action, 

–  To  provide  the  academic  and  professional  profiles  and  competencies  for  high  personnel 

working in the field of international humanitarian action, 

–  To train a team of professionals in the field of humanitarian action who are able to share 
their experiences world-wide and to foster European potential of innovation and social and 
economic development, 

–  To  contribute  to  the  quality  and  visibility  of  European  higher  education  through  the 
implementation  of  a  well-defined  joint  masters  programme  offered  by  and  in  seven 
universities  which  responds  to  an  academic  and  professional  profile  in  a  common 
framework of comparable and compatible qualifications which describes qualifications in 
terms of profile, learning outcomes, competences, workload and level (comparable level of 
intellectual academic endeavour) and 

–  To  become  a  world  quality  reference  education  and  training  system  in  the  field  of 
humanitarian  action  offering  a  programme  opened  to  the  participation  of  third-country 
graduate  students  and  scholars  which  involves  mobility  between  the  institutions  of  the 
NOHA Network and leads to the award of Joint Degree Master in Humanitarian Action. 

–  More information on this programme is available at http://www.nohanet.org  

36 

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 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PART VII.  EVALUATIONS AND OUTSIDE ASSESSMENTS 

1. 

Evaluations 

In terms of evaluations, DG ECHO has an evaluation programme that covers the evaluation 
of operations, partnership and thematic issues. The function focuses on ex-post, ex-ante and 
real time evaluations of operations (usually where more than €50 million of funds had been 
committed  or  which  had  not  been  evaluated  for  three  years  or  more  as  far  as  the  ex-post 
evaluations  are  concerned,  and  depending  on  operational  priorities  for  the  others)  and  on 
reviews/studies  on  sectoral  issues.  The  staffing  involved  in  the  management  of  these 
evaluation  activities  is  of  4  staff  members.  The  budget  allocated  to  evaluations  was  of 
€1.8 million. 

In 2008, 15 evaluations and reviews were finalised and/or launched:  

•  Thematic  issues:  DIPECHO  interventions  in  Central  America,  South  Asia,  Caribbean; 
thematic  funding,  disaster  risk  reduction  mainstreaming,  food  aid,  regional  drought 
decisions, monitoring, gender and unit cost approach; 

•  Country  operations:  Real  time  in  Sahel  (West  Africa),  North  Korea  (DPRK),  Zimbabwe 

and Colombia and  

•  Partners: UNRWA (joint evaluation with German Ministry of Foreign Affairs). 

These  evaluations  globally  confirm  the  appropriateness  and  relevance  of  DG ECHO  funded 
projects and of the methodology for needs assessment.  

The evaluation reports are widely distributed and discussed in depth with the stakeholders as 
they provide an important contribution to DG ECHO's operational strategy.  

More 
these 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/echo/evaluation/index_en.htm. 

evaluations 

details 

are 

on 

on  DG ECHO’s 

internet 

site 

2. 

Outside assessments 

In  recent  years,  there  were  2  outside  assessments  which  touched  upon  the  performance  of 
DG ECHO as a humanitarian donor: 

–  The  DAC  Peer  Review37,  conducted  in  2007,  was  overall  very  positive  in  respect  of  the 
added  value  of  the  humanitarian  assistance  provided  by  the  Community  in  relation  to  its 
the  overall  donor  performance  of  DG ECHO.  Its  main 
member  states  and  of 
recommendations  related  to  the  need  to  increase  DG ECHO's  influence  on  humanitarian 
international policies and to address the significant under-funding of the DG ECHO's base 
budget.  

37 

The  Development  Co-operation  Directorate  (DCD-DAC)  within  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-
operation and Development 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The DAC Peer Review report is available in the OECD website "Review of the Development 
Co-operation Policies and Programmes of the European Community"38. 

–  DARA,  an  independent  organisation  committed  to  improving  the  quality  of  development 
and  humanitarian  organisations  through  evaluation,  made  a  comparative  assessment  in 
2007  and  in  2008  on  the  adherence  of  humanitarian  donors  to  the  indicators  of  "good 
humanitarian  Donorship".  In  this  comparative  analysis,  the  European  Commission  was 
ranked in the 5th place overall amongst the 23 main governmental donors, in both years. 

The results are available on DARA's website http://www.daraint.org/web_en/dara1.html  

38 

http://www.oecd.org/document/48/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39758640_1_1_1_1,00.html 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
                                                 
PART VIII. FINANCIAL TABLES 

1. 

DG ECHO budget and decisions for Humanitarian aid 1993 - 2008 (in '000) 

YEAR

Humanitarian 
Aid

Food
Aid

Reinforcements

Total

Em. Aid Res.

Other

BUDGET COMMISSION  (1)

LOME
(EDF)

TOTAL
BUDGET
(Com Appr.)

COMMITTED 
FUNDS

Implemen-
tation
rate

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

171.400

266.000

256.000

321.500

315.100

325.100

330.850

471.050

473.000

441.845

441.690

490.000

495.500

495.729

514.400

528.020

209.000

212.000

254.500

324.000

136.010

516.410

90.180

606.590

21.200

499.200

263.770

762.970

132.000

642.500

46.455

688.955

13.970

659.470

10.380

669.850

0

122.720

437.820

7.420

445.240

150.000

346.000

(2)

0

40.000

80.000

100.000

0

130.000

140.000

217.760

0

5.113

480.213

37.387

517.600

50.000

21.410

10.000

726.850

492.460

523.000

83.432

810.282

2.850

495.310

20.750

543.750

0

521.845

17.475

539.320

44.910

28.184

5.156

7.561

8.854

586.600

518.184

630.656

643.290

741.014

14.105

600.705

52.228

570.412

23.170

653.826

28.060

671.350

28.200

769.214

223.251

177.000

10.477

938.748

0

938.748

604.800

764.100

694.100

656.700

441.600

517.642

812.910

491.715

543.704

537.790

600.349

570.342

652.499

671.007

768.530

936.642

TOTAL 1993-2008

6.337.184

441.011

2.162.500

617.565

9.558.260

725.862

10.284.122

10.264.430

99,7%

100,1%

100,7%

98,0%

99,2%

100,0%

100,3%

99,3%

100,0%

99,7%

99,9%

100,0%

99,8%

99,9%

99,9%

99,8%

99,8%

AVERAGE
YEARS 1993-2008

AVERAGE
LAST 5 YEARS

396.074

220.506

135.156

38.598

597.391

45.366

642.758

641.527

99,8%

504.730

220.506

89.400

12.046

694.378

26.332

720.710

719.804

99,9%

(1) Total of chapter B7-21 (lines 210A,210,214,217,219) - As of 01.01.2004 (23.0104 & 23.0201 & 23.0202)

(2) Part of the emergency reserve was transferred to the budget line B7-210. The emergency reserve (line B7-910) was reduced from 346 MEUR in 1999 to 203 MEUR in 2000 and the budget in chapter B7-21 was 
increased by 140 MEUR. It is important to note that the budget was not increased - it was only an increase of the chapiter B7-21 (humanitarin aid) with a corresponding decrease in the chapter B7-91 (emergency aid 
reserve)

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2. 

DG ECHO's finalised contracts 1998-2008* 

Number of finalised contracts 1998-2008 (*)

1206

1202

1214

1119

1148

1134

1086

891

878

926

885

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Includes grant agreements for humanitarian aid and contracts for support expenditure 

* 
(audits, evaluations, information) and for technical assistance. 

Includes  contracts  from  financial  year  N  and  any  contract  from  previous  financial 

** 
years but signed in financial year N. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
3. 

Geographical breakdown of funding decisions 2002-2008 – Global overview 

Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Africa, Caribbean, Pacific

199.450.000

227.785.000

301.555.000

247.716.500

322.060.000

422.760.000

551.847.000

SUDAN & CHAD

18.175.000

24.000.000

103.000.000

59.000.000

111.500.000

140.950.000

197.000.000

175.000

18.000.000

2.000.000

22.000.000

12.000.000

91.000.000

14.000.000

45.000.000

14.500.000

97.000.000

30.500.000

110.450.000

30.000.000

167.000.000

HORN of AFRICA

26.520.000

28.200.000

48.088.000

40.120.000

64.050.000

77.000.000

167.897.000

2.000.000

1.750.000

7.750.000

2.500.000

4.500.000

2.120.000

1.300.000

2.000.000

9.000.000

8.000.000

1.000.000

6.998.000

3.850.000

9.150.000

4.620.000

4.500.000

2.000.000

9.000.000

18.620.000

14.000.000

7.900.000

7.900.000

8.470.000

6.000.000

6.000.000

5.000.000

9.050.000

10.000.000

19.000.000

15.000.000

6.000.000

20.000.000

9.000.000

18.000.000

24.000.000

1.400.000

4.000.000

39.700.000

23.500.000

43.797.000

25.500.000

30.000.000

All Africa

Chad 

Sudan 

Djibouti (1)

Eritrea

Ethiopia (1)
Kenya (1)
Somalia (1)
Uganda (1)

Regional Drought Decision

Echo-Flight (2)

(1) Amounts in 2008 include the country allocation from the Horn of Africa regional decision (food aid - €40.6M) 

(2) Echo-flight was used mostly for Air Operations in the Horn of Africa but as of 2001 also for Air Operations in Central Africa. From 2006, it is only used in Central Africa. For 
the years 2001-2003 a detailed breakdown by region was not available in the funding decision and the breakdown for these years is therefore indicative 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN 
OCEAN

132.900.000

140.500.000

107.690.000

98.750.000

103.250.000

139.900.000

126.200.000

12.000.000

8.900.000

8.800.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

Angola

Cameroon

Central African Republic

Congo-Brazzaville

Congo (Dem. Rep.)

Gabon

Madagascar

Malawi

Mozambique / Botswana

Namibia

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Regional Burundi / Tanzanie

Reg.Southern Africa (Lesotho/Swaziland) 

Regional South East Africa

Regional Great Lakes

DIPECHO South East Africa

Echo-Flight (1)

38.100.000

300.000

1.000.000

1.500.000

3.000.000

2.000.000

44.500.000

30.000.000

1.000.000

4.000.000

44.000.000

24.000.000

100.000

5.000.000

13.000.000

15.000.000

25.000.000

470.000

2.000.000

40.000.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

2.000.000

15.000.000

33.890.000

2.000.000

2.000.000

38.000.000

500.000

5.000.000

3.500.000

15.000.000

30.500.000

1.750.000

8.000.000

2.000.000

7.800.000

43.000.000

42.500.000

45.550.000

5.380.833

1.500.000

2.000.000

7.000.000

2.000.000

30.200.000

31.500.000

5.819.167

2.200.000

12.000.000

33.050.000

1.000.000

350.000

25.000.000

27.500.000

3.500.000

5.000.000
8.000.000  

500.000

500.000

530.000

500.000

7.000.000

7.500.000

EN 

110 

EN 

 
  
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

WEST AFRICA 

21.250.000

31.185.000

25.300.000

38.550.000

41.650.000

46.600.000

39.100.000

Benin

Burkina Faso

Guinea  

Guinea Bissau

Liberia / Ivory Coast / Nigeria

Mali / Niger / Mauritania

Senegal

Regional Sahel

Regional West Africa (incl Epidemics)

600.000

29.740.000

845.000

20.500.000

750.000

1.050.000

25.300.000

29.200.000

8.300.000

1.000.000

26.500.000

12.000.000

2.150.000

19.100.000

25.500.000

2.000.000

1.300.000

500.000

16.600.000

2.000.000

15.700.000

3.000.000

CARIBBEAN 

605.000

3.900.000

17.477.000

11.296.500

1.610.000

15.760.000

21.650.000

Bahamas

Comoros

Dominican Republic

Grenada

Haiti

Jamaica

Papua New Guinea

St Vincent & Grenadines

Suriname

Regional Caribbean

DIPECHO Caribbean

PACIFIC

Solomon Island

205.000

400.000

480.000

1.600.000

2.250.000

11.197.000

1.200.000

750.000

1.100.000

200.000

6.496.500

3.500.000

1.400.000

2.500.000

250.000

250.000

160.000

4.500.000

16.000.000

700.000

500.000

7.260.000

4.000.000

550.000

550.000

400.000

5.000.000

EN 

111 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Eastern Europe, NIS, 
Mediterranean, Middle East

147.430.000

194.141.261

93.205.000

87.587.000

183.950.000

124.897.118

152.635.000

MEDITERRANEAN & MIDDLE EAST

63.930.000

144.281.261

48.855.000

48.887.000

144.900.000

99.090.000

124.860.000

Algeria

Iraq crisis

Morocco

13.000.000

2.000.000

97.138.761

Palestinian Territories

35.000.000

38.000.000

Palestinian refugees                  (Lebanon, 
Jordan, Syria)

Yemen 

Western Sahara (Sahrawi)

975.000

37.350.000

34.000.000

84.000.000

60.000.000

73.260.000

2.576.000

50.000.000

10.300.000

9.500.000

17.800.000

30.000.000

1.590.000

14.340.000

2.000.000

5.142.500

2.530.000

8.000.000

3.000.000

9.311.000

10.900.000

990.000

10.000.000

2.100.000

10.000.000

EUROPE, CAUCASUS & CENTRAL ASIA

40.500.000

42.200.000

44.350.000

38.700.000

39.050.000

25.807.118

27.775.000

Caucasus (Chechnya crisis)

Georgia

Moldova, Republic of 

Mongolia

Tajikistan

DIPECHO Central Asia

28.000.000

1.800.000

700.000

10.000.000

26.000.000

2.200.000

1.000.000

10.000.000

3.000.000

28.500.000

4.000.000

1.000.000

8.350.000

2.500.000

26.300.000

2.000.000

900.000

6.000.000

3.500.000

26.000.000

2.000.000

5.000.000

6.050.000

20.807.118

2.000.000

3.000.000

11.000.000

8.000.000

700.000

750.000

7.325.000

WESTERN BALKANS

43.000.000

7.660.000

FRY - Serbie

FRY - Kosovo

fyROM

Regional

7.660.000

37.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

1.000.000

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Asia, Latin America

Tsunami

165.615.000

133.560.000

134.523.630

267.445.370

118.491.305

157.365.678

192.327.000

169.630

122.830.370

SOUTH ASIA 

90.229.000

73.889.000

67.284.000

84.000.000

56.300.000

87.555.000

94.257.000

Afghanistan / Iran / Pakistan

73.254.000

55.839.000

42.821.000

68.000.000

23.500.000

27.000.000

Bangladesh

India

Nepal / Bhutan

Sri Lanka

Regional (India, Nepal, Bangladesh)

DIPECHO South Asia

5.000.000

3.675.000

8.300.000

2.650.000

4.000.000

8.100.000

800.000

2.500.000

5.763.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

6.500.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

6.000.000

7.800.000

12.000.000

5.200.000

6.000.000

7.000.000

9.925.000

2.630.000

6.000.000

15.000.000

19.500.000

7.500.000

36.300.000

20.501.000

5.990.000

7.966.000

19.000.000

4.500.000

SOUTH EAST & EAST ASIA

47.740.000

45.560.000

48.870.000

38.415.000

37.591.305

29.745.695

64.000.000

Burma / Myanmar / Thailand

Cambodia

China

East Timor

Indonesia

Laos

North Korea

Philippines

Vietnam

Vietnam / Laos

DIPECHO South East Asia

8.965.000

5.500.000

4.450.000

1.935.000

3.540.000

1.130.000

21.025.000

1.195.000

11.560.000

19.720.000

4.000.000

4.800.000

2.000.000

3.500.000

1.700.000

17.000.000

1.000.000

3.500.000

2.000.000

250.000

3.500.000

1.500.000

16.750.000

1.650.000

16.500.000

2.000.000

2.500.000

2.000.000

1.200.000

13.715.000

500.000

EN 

113 

15.700.000

19.000.000

39.000.000

3.000.000

9.867.000

8.000.000

564.305

460.000

3.000.000

1.600.000

2.000.000

2.145.695

2.000.000

2.000.000

2.000.000

2.000.000

6.500.000

2.500.000
10.000.000  

EN 

 
  
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

LATIN AMERICA

27.646.000

14.111.000

18.200.000

22.200.000

24.600.000

40.064.983

34.070.000

Bolivia

Colombia

Cuba

Ecuador

Guatemala

Honduras

Honduras/Guatemala

Nicaragua

Paraguay

Peru

Regional Central America

Regional South America

DIPECHO - Andean Communities

DIPECHO - South East and Central America

9.200.000

600.000

8.000.000

8.500.000

1.000.000

12.000.000

1.000.000

12.000.000

1.000.000

2.600.000

6.028.000

3.818.000

1.640.000

6.360.000

520.000

1.591.000

4.000.000

2.700.000

6.000.000

5.700.000

2.000.000

4.500.000

6.000.000

1.000.000

13.000.000

3.000.000

12.500.000

500.000

6.000.000

1.500.000

10.064.983

6.500.000

1.500.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

1.170.000

1.400.000

1.000.000

2.000.000

10.000.000  

EN 

114 

EN 

 
  
 
Country/Region

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

EN 

115 

EN 

 
  
 
   CAPACITY BUILDING

11.700.000

23.196.000

19.430.000

20.500.000

19.500.000

27.500.000

2.534.000

Protection of refugees (UNHCR)

11.700.000

11.000.000

5.000.000

4.000.000

Humanitarian Information systems (OCHA)

1.200.000

4.000.000

4.000.000

3.000.000

3.500.000

Protection of victims of armed conflicts 
(ICRC)

10.000.000

4.000.000

3.000.000

Protection of children and women (UNICEF)

996.000

2.000.000

1.800.000

1.500.000

Preparedness and response capacity to 
hum.crises (UNICEF)
Humanitarian logistic capacities - Response 
Depot Network (WFP)

Emergency Shelter Cluster (UNHCR)

Response to Natural Disasters (IFRC)

Support Health Emergencies (WHO)

Assessing Emergency Needs in food 
security (WFP)

DREF DECISION

GRANTS AND SERVICES

5.430.000

4.200.000

4.500.000

3.500.000

4.000.000

3.500.000

4.500.000

3.500.000

4.300.000

900.000

4.000.000

4.300.000

4.500.000

2.534.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

1.400.000

2.300.000

OTHER EXPENDITURE

13.595.000

21.666.000

21.628.000

29.250.000

26.005.667

34.607.038

32.998.941

Experts

8.000.000

12.037.000

13.500.000

18.750.000

14.350.000

20.500.000

19.670.000

Regional Imprest Accounts /            Regional 
offices
Support Expenditure                       (audit, 
evaluation, information,...)

Use of re-assigned revenue

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION        

2002-2008

1.025.000

4.880.000

1.800.000

4.000.000

4.650.000

4.900.000

5.330.000

4.570.000

4.749.000

6.328.000

6.500.000

6.188.894

8.900.262

7.812.327

816.773

306.776

186.614

537.790.000

600.348.261

570.341.630

652.498.870

671.006.972

768.529.834

936.641.941

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
 
4. 

Funding decisions for humanitarian aid in 2008 (by country/area in decision) 

Country/sub-region

Decisions in €

Country/sub-region

Decisions in €

AFRICA, CARIBBEAN, PACIFIC

546.847.000

ASIA

Burundi

Chad

Cameroun

Central African Republic

16.636.775

Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran

30.000.000

Bangladesh

2.000.000

China

7.800.000

East Timor

Congo (Democratic Republic)

53.550.000

India

Djibouti

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Guinea  

Guinea Bissau

Haiti

Kenya

Liberia

Madagascar

Mauritania/Senegal

Namibia

Sahel

Somalia

Sudan

Suriname

Tanzania

Uganda

Zimbabwe

Regional West Africa

Regional Caribbean

1.400.000

India/Nepal

4.000.000

Indonesia

39.700.000

Myanmar/Burma

1.300.000

Nepal

500.000

Philippines

16.000.000

Sri Lanka

23.500.000

Vietnam/Laos

16.600.000

1.500.000

LATIN AMERICA

2.000.000

Bolivia

350.000

Colombia

15.700.000

Ecuador

43.797.000

Honduras

167.000.000

Honduras/Guatemala

400.000

Paraguay

10.863.225

Peru

25.500.000

Regional Latin America

25.000.000

3.000.000

DIPECHO

5.250.000

Central America

Regional South East Africa

3.500.000

Central Asia

Regional Drought Preparedness

30.000.000

South East Asia

South East Africa

EASTERN EUROPE / NIS

20.450.000

Georgia

Moldova, Republic of 

8.000.000

Capacity Building

700.000

Assessment & analysis of hum. Needs

Northern Caucasus (Chechnya crisis)

11.000.000

Tajikistan

750.000

Other funding

MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA

124.860.000

DREF Decision

Western Sahara (Sahrawi)

10.000.000

Grants and Services

Technical assistance

Iraq crisis

Middle East (Palestinian population)

Middle East (Lebanon)

Yemen

30.000.000

73.260.000

9.500.000

2.100.000

148.257.000

36.300.000

20.501.000

2.000.000

2.000.000

5.990.000

4.500.000

2.000.000

39.000.000

7.966.000

6.500.000

19.000.000

2.500.000

24.070.000

3.000.000

12.500.000

2.000.000

1.000.000

1.170.000

1.400.000

1.000.000

2.000.000

32.325.000

10.000.000

7.325.000

10.000.000

5.000.000

2.534.000

2.534.000

29.300.000

25.000.000

2.000.000

2.300.000

Total ECHO funding 2008

928.643.000  

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
5. 

Partners in DG ECHO's humanitarian assistance 

5.1. 

Partners categories 

DG ECHO does not implement assistance programmes itself. It is a donor who implements its 
mission  by  funding  Community  humanitarian  actions  through  partners  which  have  signed 
either  the  Framework  Partnership  Agreement  (FPA)  such  as  European  NGOs  and 
International  Organisations  (Red  Cross  family)  or  the  Financial  and  Administrative 
Framework Agreement (FAFA) for the UN agencies. 

The relative share of these 3 categories of partners is illustrated below: 

UN
46%

Int. Org.
10%

NGO
44%

Over the last five years there has been a decrease in NGO funding against an increase of UN 
funding as shown in the picture below. 

Funding by category of partner (2004-2008)
[with food aid as from 2007]

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

%
2
6

%
3
5

%
2
5

%
7
4

%
4
4

%
6
% 4
2
% 4
7
3

%
4
3

%
9
2

%
9

%
2
1

%
1
1

%
1
1

%
0
1

NGO

UN 

Int.Org.

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

The figures given from 2007 are, however, not entirely comparable with previous years; given 
the integration of the food aid budget line. Food aid is largely implemented by a small number 
of UN and International Organisations and less by NGOs. 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
 
 
5.2.  Contracts by Category and Nationality of Partners 2008 

Contracts  signed  with  NGOs  are  summarised  below,  ranked  by  nationality  of  partner  in  the 
table below. The two next tables show a repartition of contracts signed with UN agencies and 
International Organisations. 

Nationality of partner

Total

% ALL

% NGO

United Kingdom

103.069.857

11,77%

27,01%

France

Germany

The Netherlands

Spain

Denmark

Italy

Ireland

Belgium

Austria

78.531.287

8,97%

20,58%

39.769.525

4,54%

10,42%

26.399.004

3,01%

6,92%

26.020.543

2,97%

6,82%

22.851.704

2,61%

5,99%

20.579.441

2,35%

5,39%

12.216.555

1,39%

3,20%

9.094.770

1,04%

2,38%

7.405.619

0,85%

1,94%

Other countries

35.594.088

4,06%

9,33%

SUBTOTAL NGOS*

381.532.391

43,57% 100,00%

International (IO, UN)

494.218.772

56,43%

GRAND TOTAL

875.751.163

100,00%

International 
Organisations 

Red Cross (ICRC)
Red Cross (IFRC)
International Organization 
for Migration
Mekong River Commission

Amount 
Contract
78.865.000
3.827.000

%

9,01%
0,44%

6.777.927

0,77%

353.273
TOTAL 89.823.200

0,04%
10,26%

UN Agency

FAO
OCHA
PAHO
UNCHS - HABITAT
UNDP-PNUD
UNFPA
UNHCR
UNICEF
UNRWA
WFP-PAM
WHO

TOTAL

Amount 
Contract
26.355.614
7.335.000
1.890.000
349.783
5.743.316
330.000
53.545.034
32.572.031
38.000.000
228.034.945
10.239.849
404.395.572

%

3,01%
0,84%
0,22%
0,04%
0,66%
0,04%
6,11%
3,72%
4,34%
26,04%
1,17%
46,19%

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
 
5.3.  List of contracts for humanitarian aid operations by partner 

CONTRACTS FOR HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS IN 2008  

Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

ACF - FRA 

ACH- ESP 

ACP 

6000054039 

NGO 

ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM, (FR) 

21.105.663 

2,41% 

6000056743 

NGO 

ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE, (ESP) 

8.964.874 

1,02% 

6000055731 

NGO 

ASAMBLEA DE COOPERACION POR LA PAZ, (E) 

830.771 

0,09% 

ACSUR - MADRID 

6000055754 

NGO 

6000055547 

NGO 

Asociación para la Cooperación con el Sur ¿LAS 
SEGOVIAS¿ 
AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION 
TECHNIQUE ET AU DEVELOPPEMENT, (FR) 

6000055953 

NGO 

ACTIONAID 

6000053698 

NGO 

6000057779 

NGO 

Adventistische Entwicklungs- und Katastrophenhilfe 
e.V. 
ADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF 
AGENCY - DENMARK 

375.000 

0,04% 

7.924.869 

0,90% 

5.179.056 

0,59% 

3.588.000 

0,41% 

957.000 

0,11% 

6000055954 

NGO 

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION (United Kingdom) 

958.036 

0,11% 

6000055590 

NGO 

AIDE MEDICALE INTERNATIONALE, (FR) 

3.825.249 

0,44% 

6000053398 

NGO 

ARBEITER-SAMARITER-BUND DEUTSCHLAND 
e.V. 
Aviation sans Frontières Belgique/Piloten zonder 
Grenzen België 

1.200.288 

0,14% 

653.334 

0,07% 

ACTED 

ACTIONAID 

ADRA - DEU 

ADRA - DK 

AGA KHAN 

AMI - FRA 

ASB - DEU 

ASF-BELGIUM 

6000074230 

NGO 

EN 

120 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

AVSI 

6000056014 

NGO 

ASSOCIAZIONE VOLONTARI PER IL SERVIZIO 
INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

AYUDA EN ACCIÓN 

6000084697 

NGO 

AYUDA EN ACCIÓN, (E) 

BBC-TRUST 

6000074339 

NGO 

BBC World Service Trust 

CAFOD 

CAM 

CARE - AUT 

CARE - DEU 

CARE - FR 

6000059489 

NGO 

CATHOLIC AGENCY FOR OVERSEAS 
DEVELOPMENT (GBR) 

6000068308 

NGO 

COMITE D'AIDE MEDICALE 

6000054941 

NGO 

6000054038 

NGO 

CARE ÖSTERREICH - VEREIN FÜR 
ENTWICKLUNGSZUSAMMENARBEIT UND 
HUMANITÄRE HILFE 
CARE INTERNATIONAL DEUTSCHLAND E.V. 
(DEU) 

6000054722 

NGO 

CARE FRANCE, (FR) 

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA) 

6000055823 

NGO 

Stichting CARE Nederland 

CARE - UK 

CARITAS - BEL 

CARITAS - CZE 

CARITAS - DEU 

CARITAS - FRA 

CARITAS - LUX 

6000055956 

NGO 

CARE INTERNATIONAL UK 

6000055022 

NGO 

CARITAS INTERNATIONAL 

6000119111 

NGO 

CHARITA CESKA REPUBLIKA 

6000055305 

NGO 

DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND e.V, (DEU) 

5.120.187 

0,58% 

6000055573 

NGO 

CARITAS FRANCE - SECOURS CATHOLIQUE, (FR)

300.000 

0,03% 

6000056898 

NGO 

FONDATION CARITAS LUXEMBOURG 

350.000 

0,04% 

EN 

121 

EN 

4.161.930 

0,48% 

200.000 

0,02% 

530.254 

0,06% 

1.040.025 

0,12% 

810.000 

0,09% 

5.805.619 

0,66% 

1.480.724 

0,17% 

5.635.575 

0,64% 

1.399.298 

0,16% 

7.275.451 

0,83% 

749.275 

0,09% 

320.000 

0,04% 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

CHRISTIAN AID - UK 

6000059497 

NGO 

CHRISTIAN AID (GBR) 

CHURCH OF SWEDEN AID 

6000060233 

NGO 

LUTHERHJÄLPEN(SWE) 

CISP 

6000055971 

NGO 

COMITATO INTERNAZIONALE PER LO 
SVILUPPO DEI POPOLI (ITA) 

CONCERN UNIVERSAL 

6000055957 

NGO 

CONCERN UNIVERSAL (GBR) 

CONCERN WORLDWIDE 

6000057507 

NGO 

CONCERN WORLDWIDE, (IRL) 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

2.527.268 

0,29% 

198.000 

0,02% 

1.965.000 

0,22% 

141.145 

0,02% 

6.794.998 

0,78% 

6000055976 

NGO 

COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

9.797.382 

1,12% 

COOPI 

CORDAID 

6000055816 

NGO 

COSV - MILAN 

6000055963 

NGO 

CRIC 

6000055955 

NGO 

CROIX-ROUGE - AUT 

6000058971 

NGO 

CATHOLIC ORGANISATION FOR RELIEF AND 
DEVELOPMENT AID (NLD) 
COMITATO DI COORDINAMENTO DELLE 
ORGANIZZAZIONI PER IL SERVIZIO 
VOLONTARIO (ITA) 
CENTRO REGIONALE D INTERVENTO PER LA 
COOPERAZIONE (ITA) 
OESTERREICHISCHES ROTES KREUZ (CROIX 
ROUGE), (AUT) 

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 

6000055102 

NGO 

DEUTSCHES ROTES KREUZ, (DEU) 

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK 

6000058807 

NGO 

DANSK RODE KORS, (DNK) 

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 

6000056766 

NGO 

CRUZ ROJA ESPAÑOLA, (E) 

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 

6000056709 

NGO 

SUOMEN PUNAINEN RISTI (CROIX ROUGE 
FINLANDAISE) 

EN 

122 

6.331.402 

0,72% 

920.846 

0,11% 

1.230.000 

0,14% 

700.000 

0,08% 

2.055.269 

0,23% 

2.796.683 

0,32% 

5.218.435 

0,60% 

2.232.000 

0,25% 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 

6000000646 

NGO 

CROIX-ROUGE FRANCAISE 

4.864.707 

0,56% 

CROIX-ROUGE - NLD 

6000055722 

NGO 

HET NEDERLANDSE RODE KRUIS (NLD) 

4.825.926 

0,55% 

CROIX-ROUGE - NOR 

6000057646 

NGO 

NORGES RODE KORS (NORWEGIAN RED CROSS) 

500.000 

0,06% 

CROIX-ROUGE - SWE 

6000060228 

NGO 

SVENSKA RÖDA KORSET 

DAC AVIATION INTL 

6000176094 

SUP 

DAC Aviation International Limited 

977.966 

0,11% 

8.000.000 

0,91% 

DANCHURCHAID - DNK 

6000058809 

NGO 

FOLKEKIRKENS NODHJAELP, (FKN) 

7.900.850 

0,90% 

DIAKONIE 

6000055019 

NGO 

DIAKONISCHES WERK der Evangelischen Kirche in 
Deutschland (DEU) 

1.150.000 

0,13% 

DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU) 

6000055229 

NGO 

JOHANNITER-UNFALL-HILFE e.V. (DEU) 

155.000 

0,02% 

DRC 

DWF 

EMDH 

FAO 

6000058798 

NGO 

DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP 

6000068952 

NGO 

Development Workshop France 

9.541.588 

1,09% 

520.000 

0,06% 

6000055538 

NGO 

ENFANTS DU MONDE - DROITS DE L'HOMME 

506.525 

0,06% 

6000055556 

UN 

UNITED NATIONS - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 
ORGANIZATION 

26.355.614 

3,01% 

FSD__573 

6000062750 

NGO 

Fondation Suisse de Déminage (FSD) 

400.000 

0,05% 

GERMAN AGRO ACTION 

6000055234 

NGO 

DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE e.V. 

11.999.394 

1,37% 

GOAL 

GTZ 

EN 

6000057512 

NGO 

GOAL, (IRL) 

6000057485 

GOV 

DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR TECHNISCHE 
ZUSAMMENARBEIT 

5.181.557 

0,59% 

350.000 

0,04% 

123 

EN 

 
  
Amount 
Contract 

% 

500.000 

0,06% 

300.000 

0,03% 

Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

HALO TRUST 

HAMMER FORUM 

HANDICAP (FR) 

6000055959 

NGO 

THE HALO TRUST (GBR) 

6000055011 

NGO 

HAMMER FORUM e.V. 

6000055532 

NGO 

HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL (FR) 

2.698.589 

0,31% 

HEALTH NET TPO 

6000055825 

NGO 

HEALTHNET INTERNATIONAL 
TRANSCULTURAL PSYCHOSOCIAL 
ORGANIZATION (NLD) 

260.545 

0,03% 

HELP 

ICCO 

ICMC 

ICRC-CICR 

IFRC-FICR 

IMC UK 

INTERMON 

IOCC - GR 

IOM 

IRC - UK 

6000055223 

NGO 

HELP- HILFE ZUR SELBSTHILFE E.V. (DEU) 

4.749.297 

0,54% 

6000055831 

NGO 

6000062768 

NGO 

6000055654 

6000055660 

IO 

IO 

Interkerkelijke Organisatie voor 
Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 
THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION 
COMMISSION (CHE) 
COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE 
(CICR) 
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES SOCIETES 
DE LA CROIX-ROUGE ET DU CROISSANT ROUGE 

6000099796 

NGO 

International Medical Corps UK 

6000056746 

NGO 

INTERMON OXFAM, (E) 

6000057875 

NGO 

6000055563 

IO 

INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN 
CHARITIES 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR 
MIGRATION (INT) 

297.508 

0,03% 

855.000 

0,10% 

78.865.000 

9,01% 

3.827.000 

0,44% 

1.898.912 

0,22% 

3.584.000 

0,41% 

250.000 

0,03% 

6.777.927 

0,77% 

6000055964 

NGO 

International Rescue Committee UK 

11.670.139 

1,33% 

EN 

124 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

IRD 

6000264239 

NGO 

Islamic Relief Humanitäre Organisation in Deutschland 
e.V. 

ISLAMIC RELIEF 

6000055965 

NGO 

ISLAMIC RELIEF WORLDWIDE 

MADERA-FR 

6000055608 

NGO 

MISSION D'AIDE AU DEVELOPPEMENT DES 
ECONOMIES RURALES  

Amount 
Contract 

% 

329.550 

0,04% 

4.324.599 

0,49% 

1.594.466 

0,18% 

MALTESER HILFSDIENST 

6000054029 

NGO  MALTESER HILFSDIENST e.V., (DEU) 

3.392.008 

0,39% 

MAPACT 

MC 

MDM - ESP 

MDM - FRA 

MEDAIR CH 

MEDAIR UK 

6000250301 

NGO  MapAction 

6000255607 

NGO  Malaria Consortium 

6000056756 

NGO  MEDICOS DEL MUNDO ESPAÑA 

6000055581 

NGO  MEDECINS DU MONDE 

6000067397 

NGO  Medair 

6000055972 

NGO  MEDAIR UK (GBR) 

MEDICO INTERNATIONAL 

6000055225 

NGO  MEDICO INTERNATIONAL, (DEU) 

MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION 

6000100128 

IO 

Mekong River Commission 

10.500 

0,00% 

203.903 

0,02% 

124.333 

0,01% 

6.120.100 

0,70% 

3.386.946 

0,39% 

750.000 

0,09% 

349.808 

0,04% 

353.273 

0,04% 

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND 

6000055399 

NGO  MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND (GBR) 

2.357.639 

0,27% 

MERLIN 

6000071402 

NGO 

MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELIEF 
INTERNATIONAL (GBR) 

MISSION OST - DNK 

6000057764 

NGO  MISSION OST 

10.898.689 

1,24% 

1.268.960 

0,14% 

EN 

125 

EN 

 
  
MPDL 

MSF - BEL 

MSF - CHE 

MSF - ESP 

MSF - FRA 

MSF - LUX 

MSF - NLD 

Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

6000055749 

NGO 

6000002431 

NGO 

MOVIMIENTO POR LA PAZ, EL DESARME Y LA 
LIBERTAD, (E) 
MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES 
BELGIQUE/ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN 
BELGIE(BEL) 

6000057526 

NGO  MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES - SUISSE (CH) 

4.897.163 

0,56% 

6000056751 

NGO  MEDICOS SIN FRONTERAS, (E) 

6000055577 

NGO  MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES (F) 

2.782.480 

0,32% 

1.400.000 

0,16% 

6000056908 

NGO  MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES (LUX) 

240.000 

0,03% 

6000054030 

NGO 

ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN (NLD) 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

739.352 

0,08% 

3.300.000 

0,38% 

5.449.000 

0,62% 

1.764.986 

0,20% 

949.900 

0,11% 

MUSLIMAID 

6000238558 

NGO  Muslim Aid 

NORWEGIAN PEOPLE'S AID 

6000057635 

NGO 

NORSK FOLKEHJELP (NOR) 

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL 

6000057638 

NGO 

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NOR) 

6.331.015 

0,72% 

NOVIB 

OCHA 

OIKOS 

OXFAM - BEL 

OXFAM - UK 

6000055196 

NGO 

6000067546 

UN 

Nederlandse Organisatie voor 
Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 
UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE 
COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS 

279.459 

0,03% 

7.335.000 

0,84% 

6000100137 

NGO 

OIKOS - COOPERAÇÃO E DESENVOLVIMENTO 

1.714.331 

0,20% 

6000062792 

NGO 

OXFAM-Solidarite(it), (BEL) 

6000055981 

NGO 

OXFAM (GB) 

2.487.400 

0,28% 

24.923.401 

2,85% 

EN 

126 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

PAHO 

6000067529 

UN 

UNITED NATIONS - PAN AMERICAN HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION 

PEOPLE IN NEED 

6000056658 

NGO 

Clovek v tísni, o.p.s. 

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK 

6000057475 

NGO 

PLAN INTERNATIONAL (UK) 

PMU INTERLIFE 

6000060221 

NGO 

PMU INTERLIFE/PINGST FFS 

POLISH HUMANITARIAN 
ORGANISATION 

6000056007 

NGO 

Polska Akcja Humanitarna 

PREMIERE URGENCE 

6000055612 

NGO 

PREMIERE URGENCE, (FR) 

PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-FERRAND 

6000053712 

NGO 

PHARMACIENS SANS FRONTIERES COMITE 
INTERNATIONAL 

PTM 

PUNTO SUD 

REDR 

RI-UK 

6000055727 

NGO 

PTM-mundubat, (E) 

6000142912 

NGO 

punto.sud 

6000063967 

NGO 

RedR - Engineers for Disaster Relief 

6000198146 

NGO 

Relief International-UK 

1.890.000 

0,22% 

579.698 

0,07% 

1.573.576 

0,18% 

1.050.000 

0,12% 

290.000 

0,03% 

4.879.178 

0,56% 

2.252.642 

0,26% 

1.750.000 

0,20% 

100.000 

0,01% 

336.757 

0,04% 

349.999 

0,04% 

SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD 

6000055914 

NGO 

SAVE THE CHILDREN (NLD) 

4.106.669 

0,47% 

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 

6000057469 

NGO 

THE SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND (GBR) 

15.565.966 

1,78% 

SCD-RB 

SI 

6000061869 

NGO 

Red Barnet 

6000056745 

NGO 

SOLIDARIDAD INTERNACIONAL, (E) 

SOLIDARITES 

6000055549 

NGO 

SOLIDARITES, (FR) 

EN 

127 

386.623 

0,04% 

550.000 

0,06% 

10.743.479 

1,23% 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

Amount 
Contract 

% 

SOS KINDERDORF INT. 

6000055201 

NGO 

SOS-KINDERDORF INTERNATIONAL (AUT) 

900.000 

0,10% 

STCH 

6000196970 

NGO 

Fundación Save The Children 

TEARFUND - UK 

6000057468 

NGO 

TEARFUND (GBR) 

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE 

6000057524 

NGO 

TERRE DES HOMMES-CHE 

TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA 

6000057918 

NGO 

FONDAZIONE TERRE DES HOMMES ITALIA 
ONLUS 

901.298 

0,10% 

3.421.633 

0,39% 

2.072.069 

0,24% 

1.654.286 

0,19% 

TRIANGLE 

TROCAIRE 

TSF, FRANCE 

UCODEP__298 

UNCHS - HABITAT 

UNDP-PNUD 

UNFPA 

UNHCR 

UNICEF 

UNRWA 

6000055141 

NGO 

TRIANGLE Génération Humanitaire, (FR) 

3.251.975 

0,37% 

6000057559 

NGO 

Trocaire, (IRL) 

6000055567 

NGO 

TELECOMS SANS FRONTIERES 

240.000 

0,03% 

98.270 

0,01% 

6000060459 

NGO 

Unity and Cooperation for Development of Peoples 

749.997 

0,09% 

6000068998 

6000055554 

6000055534 

6000055529 

6000055643 

6000067513 

UN 

UN 

UN 

UN 

UN 

UN 

United Nations Human Settlements Programme 

349.783 

0,04% 

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 

5.743.316 

0,66% 

UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND 

330.000 

0,04% 

UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR 
REFUGEES - BELGIUM 

UNICEF 

UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY 
FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN NEAR EAST 

53.545.034 

6,11% 

32.572.031 

3,72% 

38.000.000 

4,34% 

EN 

128 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

ABAC key 

Partner's 
category 
code 

Partner's long name 

VOICE ASBL 

6000108161 

NGO 

VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS IN 
COOPERATION IN EMERGENCIES 
Vétérinaires Sans Frontières- Belgique - Dierenartsen 
Zonder Grenzen - Belgie um 

6000055036 

NGO 

6000118639 

NGO 

Tierärzte ohne Grenzen e.V. 

6000073643 

NGO  Welfare Association 

VSF - BE 

VSF G 

WA-UK 

WFP-PAM 

WHO 

6000067587 

6000053109 

UN 

UN 

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION - 
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE 

WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 

228.034.945 

26,04% 

WORLD VISION DEU 

6000053871 

NGO  WORLD VISION, (DEU) 

WORLD VISION - UK 

6000055982 

NGO  WORLD VISION - UK 

ZOA 

6000054025 

NGO 

ZOA-Vluchtelingenzorg 

TOTAL

Amount 
Contract 

% 

185.774 

0,02% 

1.718.987 

0,20% 

1.700.000 

0,19% 

300.000 

0,03% 

10.239.849 

1,17% 

1.850.000 

0,21% 

4.567.922 

0,52% 

3.449.197 

0,39% 

875.751.163  100,00% 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
  
 
 
5.4.  List of contracts for humanitarian aid operations – Top 25 partners 

CONTRACTS FOR HUMANITARIAN OPERATIONS IN 2008 - TOP 25 PARTNERS 

HOPE SHORT 
NAME 

LE KEY 

PARTNERS LONG NAME 

WFP-PAM 

ICRC-CICR 

UNHCR 

UNRWA 

UNICEF 

FAO 

6000067587  WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 

6000055654  COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE CICR) 

6000055529  UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES – BELGIUM 

6000067513 

UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN 
NEAR EAST 

6000055643  UNICEF 

6000055556  UNITED NATIONS – FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION  

OXFAM - UK 

6000055981  OXFAM (GB) 

6000054039  ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM (FR) 

FPA  
Cat. 

UN 

IO 

UN 

UN 

UN 

UN 

Amount 

% 

Cumul  
% 

228.034.945  26,04%  26,04% 

78.865.000 

9,01%  35,04% 

53.545.034 

6,11%  41,16% 

38.000.000 

4,34%  45,50% 

32.572.031 

3,72%  49,22% 

26.355.614 

3,01%  52,23% 

NGO 

NGO 

24.923.401 

2,85%  55,07% 

21.105.663 

2,41%  57,48% 

6000057469  THE SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND (GBR) 

NGO 

15.565.966 

1,78%  59,26% 

6000055234  DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE E.V. 

6000055964  INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE UK 

MERLIN 

6000071402  MEDIAL EMERGENCY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL (GBR) 

SOLIDARITES 

6000055549  SOLIDARITES, (FR) 

NGO 

11.999.394 

1,37%  60,63% 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

11.670.139 

1,33%  61,96% 

10.898.689 

1,24%  63,21% 

10.743.479 

1,23%  64,43% 

WHO 

COOPI 

EN 

6000053109  WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION – ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE 

UN 

10.239.849 

1,17%  65,60% 

6000055976  COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

NGO 

9.797.382 

1,12%  66,72% 

130 

EN 

ACF - FRA 
SAVE THE 
CHILDREN - UK 
GERMAN AGRO 
ACTION 
IRC - UK 

 
  
ACH- ESP 
DAC AVIATION 
INTL 

HOPE SHORT 
NAME 

LE KEY 

PARTNERS LONG NAME 

DRC 

6000058798  DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP 

6000056743  ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE (ESP) 

FPA  
Cat. 

NGO 

NGO 

Amount 

% 

Cumul  
% 

9.541.588

1,09%  67,81% 

8.964.874

1,02%  68,83% 

6000176094  DAC AVIATION INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 

SUP 

8.000.000

0,91%  69,75% 

ACTED 

6000055547 

AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION TECHNIQUE ET AU DEVELOPPEMENT, 
(FR) 

NGO 

7.924.869

0,90%  70,65% 

DANCHURCHAID - 
DNK 

6000058809  FOLKEKIRKENS NODHJAELP, (FKN) 

NGO 

7.900.850

0,90%  71,56% 

OCHA 

6000067546 

UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN 
AFFAIRS 

UN 

7.335.000

0,84%  72,39% 

NGO 

7.275.451

0,83%  73,22% 

NGO 

6.794.998

0,78%  74,00% 

CARE - UK 
CONCERN 
WORLDWIDE 
IOM 

6000055956  CARE INTERNATIONAL, UK 

6000057507  CONCERN WORLDWIDE, (IRL) 

6000055563  INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (INT)  

IO 

6.777.927

0,77%  74,77% 

CORDAID 

6000055816  CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT AID (NLD) 

NGO 

6.331.402

0,72%  75,50% 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
  
5.5.  List of contracts for humanitarian aid operations in 2008 - by country and partners 

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

AFGHANISTAN
UNHCR
ICRC-CICR
DRC
ACF - FRA
MADERA-FR
ZOA
CARE - UK
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
ACTIONAID
SOLIDARITES
IRC - UK
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
MEDAIR CH
ACTED
PEOPLE IN NEED
AGA KHAN
MISSION OST - DNK
FAO
CARITAS - DEU
RI-UK
UNDP-PNUD
IMC UK
TEARFUND - UK
NOVIB
OXFAM - UK
BBC-TRUST
ALGERIA
WFP-PAM
PTM
OXFAM - BEL
TRIANGLE
UNHCR
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
WHO
MPDL
MDM - ESP
UNICEF
AZERBAIJAN
UNHCR
DRC
BANGLADESH
WFP-PAM
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
DANCHURCHAID - DNK
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
ISLAMIC RELIEF
MUSLIMAID
CARE - UK
ACF - FRA
WORLD VISION - UK
SOLIDARITES
MSF - NLD
ACTIONAID
CHRISTIAN AID - UK
CARITAS - DEU
HANDICAP (FR)

EN 

BOLIVIA
FAO
STCH

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
INTERMON
BURUNDI
UNHCR

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK
ACH- ESP
COOPI
BURKINA FASO
ACF - FRA
FAO

32.508.702
6.700.000
6.100.000
2.484.958 OXFAM - UK
1.764.774 WFP-PAM
1.594.466
1.449.197
1.355.460
1.200.000
1.130.731
1.096.979
1.000.000 WFP-PAM
860.000 MSF - FRA
810.372
750.842
579.698
508.036
468.960 WFP-PAM
CARITAS - DEU
355.769
AVSI
350.000
CORDAID
349.999
FAO
349.458
ICRC-CICR
348.912
SOLIDARITES
290.632
IMC UK
279.459
UNICEF
200.000
CARITAS - BEL
130.000
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU
12.196.685
5.600.000
CAMBODIA
DANCHURCHAID - DNK
1.750.000
1.330.000
ZOA
1.250.000 WHO
1.100.000 MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION

430.000
300.000
212.352
124.333
100.000

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK
UNDP-PNUD
ACTIONAID
CAMEROON
UNHCR

1.170.000 WFP-PAM

670.000
500.000 MDM - FRA

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

25.057.815

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

7.150.000 WFP-PAM
3.537.005
2.450.000
2.360.000
2.199.119
1.764.986
1.047.071
1.009.937 OCHA

SOLIDARITES
ACTED
ACF - FRA
UNICEF
IRC - UK
AMI - FRA

CENTRAL AMERICA
UNICEF
PAHO
IFRC-FICR

940.000
800.000
500.000
450.857
358.840
340.000
150.000

132 

3.150.000
1.000.000
660.000
640.000
270.000
250.000
180.000
150.000
6.100.621
1.630.627
1.500.000
1.000.000
850.000
719.994
400.000
16.679.275
4.500.000
4.000.000
1.750.000
1.400.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
800.000
780.000
500.000
500.000
249.275
200.000
2.729.929
500.000
450.000
395.920
353.273
349.594
346.361
334.781
2.000.000
1.000.000
500.000
455.000
45.000
4.791.000
1.000.000
791.000
720.000
700.000
500.000
450.000
430.000
200.000
1.420.000
545.000
440.000
435.000

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

CHAD
UNHCR
WFP-PAM
ICRC-CICR
COOPI
ACF - FRA
IRC - UK
INTERMON
HELP
PREMIERE URGENCE
ACTED
CARE - FR
SOLIDARITES
OCHA
UNICEF
WHO
OXFAM - UK
ASF-BELGIUM
CHINA
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
COLOMBIA
ICRC-CICR
UNHCR
WFP-PAM
DIAKONIE
SI
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
ACH- ESP
MDM - FRA
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
OXFAM - UK
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
OCHA
MPDL
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND
PAHO
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
CHURCH OF SWEDEN AID
COMOROS
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
DAC AVIATION INTL
ICRC-CICR
AMI - FRA
ACTED
ACH- ESP
FAO
COOPI
AVSI
CARITAS - BEL
DIAKONIE
ASF-BELGIUM
CARITAS - FRA

31.373.851 WFP-PAM

IOM
PREMIERE URGENCE

8.915.034
UNHCR
8.500.000
UNICEF
SOLIDARITES
3.300.000
1.682.831 MALTESER HILFSDIENST
1.304.890
1.164.301
1.120.000 MERLIN
729.847 OCHA
628.700
601.583 MSF - BEL
587.447
510.000
500.000
500.000 OXFAM - BEL
500.000 MDM - FRA
494.521 MSF - ESP
334.697 MEDAIR CH

IRC - UK

PMU INTERLIFE
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
TEARFUND - UK

2.000.000 MSF - NLD
2.000.000

COSTA RICA

10.327.670 OCHA

IFRC-FICR
PAHO
CISP
DJIBOUTI
FAO

COTE D'IVOIRE
3.500.000
ACF - FRA
900.000
750.000
CUBA
650.000 OIKOS
550.000 GERMAN AGRO ACTION
500.000
400.000
400.000
350.000
350.000
300.000 WFP-PAM
300.000 MSF - CHE
250.000
250.000
249.670
230.000
200.000
198.000
346.397
346.397
53.974.756
8.000.000
3.065.000 WFP-PAM
2.000.000
ECUADOR
1.780.000
UNHCR
1.250.000 WFP-PAM

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
INTERMON
ACP
EAST TIMOR
IOM
PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK
TRIANGLE
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
UNDP-PNUD

946.498
799.876
782.195
500.000
500.000
318.637
300.000

CARITAS - DEU
COOPI
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
CRIC
INTERMON
PAHO

11.947.000
3.500.000
2.500.000
2.285.000
2.218.990
1.856.924
1.633.513
1.457.660
1.250.000
736.073
700.000
640.000
616.053
585.000
438.000
383.400
330.000
328.936
326.000
495.000
495.000
580.000
580.000
2.000.000
510.000
500.000
410.000
400.000
180.000
4.071.596
2.671.596
1.000.000
400.000
1.064.206
583.435
400.000
80.771
2.407.546
863.709
373.000
350.000
300.837
300.000
220.000
2.850.000
850.000
500.000
300.000
300.000
300.000
250.000
250.000
100.000

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

EL SALVADOR
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
CARE - FR
OXFAM - BEL
OIKOS
PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK
ERITREA
ICRC-CICR
UNICEF
WHO
OXFAM - UK
MDM - FRA
ETHIOPIA
WFP-PAM
ACF - FRA
UNICEF
FAO
CROIX-ROUGE - FIN
MSF - BEL
OXFAM - UK
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
GOAL
DANCHURCHAID - DNK
MDM - FRA
ICRC-CICR
MERLIN
MSF - ESP
CARITAS - DEU
CROIX-ROUGE - AUT
IRC - UK
ADRA - DEU
WORLD VISION - UK
COOPI
OCHA
GEORGIA
WFP-PAM
ICRC-CICR
DRC
UNHCR
CARE - AUT
HALO TRUST
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD
WORLD VISION DEU
PREMIERE URGENCE
GUATEMALA
ACH- ESP
COOPI
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
OXFAM - UK
WFP-PAM
TROCAIRE
GUINEA
UNICEF
WFP-PAM

1.955.000 GUINEA BISSAU

HAITI

450.000 MSF - ESP
425.000
390.000 OXFAM - UK
345.000 WFP-PAM
345.000

ACTED

4.650.130 MSF - NLD
1.700.000
900.000
900.000
650.130
500.000
48.576.919
20.000.000

PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-FERRAND
FAO
ACF - FRA
TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE
CARE - FR
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
PAHO

AVSI

UNICEF
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
CHRISTIAN AID - UK
TSF, FRANCE
HONDURAS

3.343.115 MDM - FRA
3.000.000
2.275.200 MSF - FRA
2.000.000
2.000.000
2.000.000
1.813.604
1.620.000
1.250.000 WFP-PAM
1.200.000 GOAL
1.140.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
725.000
700.000 OIKOS
660.000
INDIA
ACTIONAID
650.000
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
600.000
ADRA - DEU
400.000
CHRISTIAN AID - UK
200.000

DANCHURCHAID - DNK
ASB - DEU
UNDP-PNUD
PAHO
AYUDA EN ACCIÓN

CARE - UK
ICRC-CICR
CARITAS - DEU
UNICEF
ACTED
DANCHURCHAID - DNK
CONCERN WORLDWIDE

7.500.000 OXFAM - UK
3.000.000
1.000.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
500.000
400.000
300.000 MSF - NLD
300.000
HANDICAP (FR)
200.000 GERMAN AGRO ACTION

2.265.000 MSF - ESP

550.000 MALTESER HILFSDIENST
420.000
INDONESIA
405.000 OXFAM - UK
350.000 WFP-PAM
300.000
240.000
1.300.000
750.000
550.000

FAO
ACF - FRA
CROIX-ROUGE - DNK
CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
ASB - DEU

400.000
400.000
15.119.332
3.347.610
2.650.000
1.080.241
1.000.000
998.550
939.895
832.973
672.069
669.940
600.000
500.000
370.000
316.693
300.000
300.000
284.361
214.000
43.000
3.585.000
1.000.000
820.000
415.000
385.000
345.000
220.000
200.000
200.000
15.706.166
2.349.021
2.147.201
1.808.000
1.285.868
1.250.577
1.045.268
1.000.000
955.187
913.580
782.604
550.000
543.428
268.000
249.289
204.313
178.830
175.000
3.964.614
625.359
600.000
548.500
520.268
505.622
350.000
302.182
297.395
215.288

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

IRAN
UNHCR
IRAQ
ICRC-CICR
UNHCR
OCHA
PREMIERE URGENCE
JAMAICA
IFRC-FICR
JORDAN
CARE - AUT
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
KAZAKHSTAN
OCHA
KENYA
WFP-PAM
CORDAID
COOPI
CARE - UK
OXFAM - UK
ACH- ESP
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
VSF - BE
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
ICRC-CICR
UNICEF
CAFOD
MERLIN
WORLD VISION - UK
ISLAMIC RELIEF
CROIX-ROUGE - DNK
WORLD VISION DEU
PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK
KYRGYSTAN
IOM
UNDP-PNUD
LAOS
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
IFRC-FICR
WFP-PAM
LATIN AMERICA
IFRC-FICR
LEBANON
UNDP-PNUD
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
PREMIERE URGENCE
MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND
ACTED
SCD-RB
IRD
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
MPDL
OXFAM - UK

750.000
750.000
19.150.000
13.000.000

HANDICAP (FR)
ACH- ESP
ISLAMIC RELIEF
LIBERIA

5.300.000 OXFAM - UK

600.000 MERLIN
250.000
ICRC-CICR
300.000 WFP-PAM
ACF - FRA
300.000
DRC
1.545.000
1.000.000 GERMAN AGRO ACTION

545.000
390.000
390.000
36.776.212
11.500.000 MDM - FRA

IRC - UK
UNICEF
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
SOLIDARITES

PMU INTERLIFE

UNHCR
ADRA - DK
TEARFUND - UK

3.574.541
2.800.000
2.642.093
2.021.623 MSF - CHE
1.900.000
1.761.950 WHO
1.718.987 MADAGASCAR
1.514.207
CARE - FR
1.500.000 WFP-PAM
1.500.000
1.040.025 MEDAIR CH
752.786 MDM - FRA
750.000
700.000
450.000
350.000 MALAWI
300.000 GOAL
600.000
300.000
300.000 MALI

UNICEF

FAO
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
ICCO

CHRISTIAN AID - UK
COOPI

1.084.050

UNICEF

515.050 WFP-PAM
369.000 MAURITANIA
200.000
300.000
300.000 MOLDOVA, REPUBLIC OF

UNHCR
UNICEF

UNDP-PNUD

9.402.104
2.309.497 MOZAMBIQUE
2.054.962 OIKOS
UNHCR
1.466.965
INTERMON
807.969
UNCHS - HABITAT
732.829
UNDP-PNUD
386.623
329.550
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
288.804 GERMAN AGRO ACTION
277.000 OXFAM - UK
222.838

214.300
210.783
99.984
18.144.951
3.300.000
1.660.655
1.500.000
1.500.000
1.348.500
1.250.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
990.000
790.000
670.000
600.000
550.000
500.000
500.000
450.796
410.000
125.000
5.177.795
2.378.188
500.000
475.000
450.000
417.000
360.139
299.960
297.508
630.009
275.728
177.606
176.675
1.500.000
1.000.000
500.000
1.849.800
1.500.000
349.800
700.000
700.000
3.139.134
659.331
500.000
350.000
349.783
348.000
343.357
308.356
280.307

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

MYANMAR
WFP-PAM
MSF - CHE
ACF - FRA
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
MERLIN
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
IFRC-FICR
WORLD VISION - UK
TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA
AMI - FRA
MALTESER HILFSDIENST
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
CARE - DEU
ICRC-CICR
ACTIONAID
ADRA - DEU
EMDH
MDM - FRA
MAPACT
NAMIBIA
CROIX-ROUGE - SWE
UNICEF
NEPAL
WFP-PAM
CARE - AUT
ICRC-CICR
MERLIN
MSF - NLD
MISSION OST - DNK
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
IRC - UK
UNFPA
OXFAM - UK
HANDICAP (FR)
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
UNICEF
NICARAGUA
CARE - FR
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
ACSUR - MADRID
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
CRIC
OXFAM - UK
NIGER
BBC-TRUST
HELP
MSF - CHE
FAO
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
MSF - BEL
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
MSF - ESP
TSF, FRANCE
NIGERIA
MSF - FRA
MSF - NLD

PAKISTAN
ICRC-CICR
UNHCR
PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, OCCUPIED
UNRWA

25.275.756
11.942.630
1.500.000
1.492.370
1.304.310
1.290.310 WFP-PAM
1.200.000

CARE - AUT

ICRC-CICR
ACH- ESP
CISP

800.000 WHO
800.000
769.286
645.249
545.000 OXFAM - UK
540.000 MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND
535.000 MDM - FRA
COOPI
500.000
CARE - FR
414.576
CROIX-ROUGE - DNK
380.000
TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA
356.525
ACP
250.000
UCODEP__298
10.500
PREMIERE URGENCE
1.249.966
SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD
977.966
CRIC
272.000
ACTED
9.355.359
UNICEF
4.227.195
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
810.019
700.000 MEDICO INTERNATIONAL
550.000
HANDICAP (FR)
500.000 OXFAM - BEL
450.000 WA-UK
410.000 MERLIN
350.000
330.000
328.145
320.000
200.000
180.000
2.400.000
590.000
410.000
375.000
375.000
330.000
320.000
8.109.389
400.254
1.960.332
1.740.000 WFP-PAM
ICRC-CICR
1.500.000
IOM
973.300
ACH- ESP
600.000
499.733
CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)
380.500 OXFAM - UK

POLISH HUMANITARIAN ORGANISATION
IOCC - GR
TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE
DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU)
PANAMA
UNHCR
UNDP-PNUD
PARAGUAY
INTERMON
COOPI
CROIX-ROUGE - FIN
STCH
UNDP-PNUD
PERU
FAO
PHILIPPINES

55.270 GTZ

490.000
250.000
240.000

CHRISTIAN AID - UK
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU
STCH

2.250.000
1.500.000
750.000
75.165.505
37.500.000
9.100.000
3.495.600
3.000.000
2.900.000
2.315.188
1.785.000
1.520.000
1.300.000
1.013.000
1.000.000
985.000
900.000
885.000
750.000
749.997
700.000
700.000
650.000
550.000
430.000
378.982
349.808
335.000
329.400
300.000
298.530
290.000
250.000
250.000
155.000
210.000
120.000
90.000
1.400.000
564.000
418.000
232.000
141.000
45.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
8.274.835
3.900.000
1.500.000
600.000
471.743
420.000
352.577
350.000
290.954
289.263
100.298

EN 

136 

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

RUSSIA
DRC
IRC - UK
UNHCR
FAO
ACF - FRA
HELP
IMC UK
WFP-PAM
CARITAS - CZE
HANDICAP (FR)
HAMMER FORUM
UNICEF
MDM - FRA
UNDP-PNUD
SENEGAL
WHO
SOMALIA
ICRC-CICR
WFP-PAM
ACF - FRA
UNICEF
DRC
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
SOLIDARITES
ISLAMIC RELIEF
SOS KINDERDORF INT.
VSF G
COOPI
ADRA - DEU
FAO
IRC - UK
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
SRI LANKA
ICRC-CICR
WFP-PAM
ZOA
DRC
UNHCR
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
ASB - DEU
OXFAM - UK
CARE - DEU
FSD__573
HANDICAP (FR)
IOM
OCHA
ACTED
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

SUDAN

ACF - FRA
SOLIDARITES

9.325.648
2.135.648 WFP-PAM
ICRC-CICR
1.400.000
UNICEF
1.400.000
700.000
UNHCR
550.000 MERLIN
500.000 OXFAM - UK
500.000
FAO
400.000 WHO
320.000
320.000
300.000 OCHA
300.000
250.000
250.000
1.086.050
1.086.050
36.375.409
14.000.000
7.000.000
2.564.020 GOAL
2.000.000 MSF - NLD
1.220.980
1.201.300 MEDAIR CH
1.060.500 GERMAN AGRO ACTION

SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD
IRC - UK
TEARFUND - UK
CORDAID
TRIANGLE
IOM
PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-FERRAND
CARE - UK

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

DANCHURCHAID - DNK
CROIX-ROUGE - DEU
NORWEGIAN PEOPLE'S AID
COSV - MILAN
CAM

COOPI
VSF G
AMI - FRA
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
ACH- ESP
AVSI

925.496
900.000
900.000
850.000
750.000
700.000 MSF - CHE
637.416
636.399
629.298
400.000
14.800.002
3.500.000
2.000.000 WORLD VISION DEU
IMC UK
1.550.000
CROIX-ROUGE - NOR
1.250.002
HANDICAP (FR)
1.000.000
800.000
INTERMON
700.000 MDM - FRA
ADRA - DK
600.000
500.000 MALTESER HILFSDIENST
ISLAMIC RELIEF
400.000
TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE
400.000
REDR
400.000
IFRC-FICR
400.000
400.000
HEALTH NET TPO
300.000 MC
300.000
300.000

161.290.857
78.400.120
13.000.000
7.965.926
4.200.000
3.888.748
3.842.063
3.500.000
3.058.929
2.918.453
2.750.000
2.550.000
2.506.669
2.300.000
2.046.001
1.756.861
1.651.975
1.500.000
1.254.092
1.185.559
1.180.000
1.000.000
1.000.000
997.637
990.000
985.850
963.824
949.900
920.846
810.000
806.367
800.000
800.000
750.000
749.611
687.160
663.042
600.000
550.000
500.000
500.000
500.000
500.000
457.000
453.018
400.000
400.000
336.757
300.000
260.545
203.903

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
 
PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

PARTNERS BY COUNTRY in 2008

SURINAME
IFRC-FICR
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
WFP-PAM
ICMC
TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE
ICRC-CICR
UNRWA
TAJIKISTAN
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
UNICEF
GERMAN AGRO ACTION
SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD
AGA KHAN
UNDP-PNUD
CARITAS - LUX
MISSION OST - DNK
OXFAM - UK
ACTED
CHRISTIAN AID - UK
WHO
FAO
TANZANIA
UNHCR
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
WFP-PAM
UNICEF
TOGO
UNICEF
UGANDA
WFP-PAM
UNHCR
DANCHURCHAID - DNK
IRC - UK
ICRC-CICR
OXFAM - UK
ACH- ESP
AVSI
FAO
GOAL
UNICEF
MEDAIR CH
MEDAIR UK
CARITAS - DEU
WHO
WORLD VISION DEU
OCHA
CONCERN WORLDWIDE
MSF - NLD
UZBEKISTAN
HANDICAP (FR)

VENEZUELA
NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL
UNHCR
VIET NAM
CROIX-ROUGE - FRA
SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
CARE - DEU
DWF
ACTIONAID
ACTED
CROIX-ROUGE - NLD
CROIX-ROUGE - ESP
EMDH

400.000
400.000
7.705.000
5.000.000
855.000
750.000
600.000
500.000
6.244.987
1.349.987
995.000
600.000
600.000
450.000 OXFAM - UK
360.000
350.000
350.000 OXFAM - UK
330.000
280.000
200.000
200.000
180.000

UNHCR
ZAMBIA
IOM
UNHCR
ZIMBABWE

YEMEN
ICRC-CICR

10.755.725 WFP-PAM

5.900.000
2.000.000
2.000.000 GERMAN AGRO ACTION

FAO
UNICEF

HELP

855.725
650.000 WORLD VISION - UK
650.000 MSF - NLD
ICRC-CICR

29.263.950
11.185.000 GOAL

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK
2.000.000
ACF - FRA
1.800.000
1.772.349
IFRC-FICR
1.500.000 MSF - ESP
1.317.651
1.000.000 MDM - FRA
1.000.000 MSF - LUX
1.000.000 GRANT FACILITY
1.000.000
1.000.000

IRC - UK
VOICE ASBL
800.000 OXFAM - UK
750.000
700.000
673.950
600.000
450.000
400.000 WFP-PAM
315.000
210.000
210.000

UNSPECIFIED

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK
CONCERN UNIVERSAL
PUNTO SUD
THEMATIC FUNDING
FAO

TOTAL CONTRACTS 2008

500.000
250.000
250.000
4.127.264
840.000
613.545
545.724
520.000
499.090
346.770
282.135
180.000
150.000
150.000
1.600.000
1.000.000
350.000
250.000
1.597.294
1.257.294
340.000
25.160.980
7.000.000
4.687.017
3.100.000
1.740.465
1.559.118
1.477.922
1.300.000
700.000
655.829
591.467
545.736
513.000
493.150
305.576
251.700
240.000
986.918
200.000
185.774
180.000
180.000
141.145
100.000
2.534.000
1.491.000
1.043.000
200.004

875.751.163

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
 
PART IX.  LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ACTED 

CSP 

AGENCE D'AIDE A LA COOPERATION TECHNIQUE ET 
AU DEVELOPPEMENT 

COUNTRY STRATEGY PAPER (EDF) 

DIPECHO/DPP 

DG ECHO’S 
PREVENTION PROGRAMME 

DISASTER 

PREPAREDNESS 

AND 

DRC 

DRR 

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION  

DG ECHO 

HUMANITARIAN AID DIRECTORATE-GENERAL 

EDF  

ESDP 

EU 

EUMS 

FAFA 

FPA 

GAM 

GHD 

HOLIS 

ICRC 

IDP 

IFRC 

IHL 

INGO 

IOM  

EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND  

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY 

EUROPEAN UNION 

MILITARY STAFF OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 

THE  EC/UN  FINANCIAL  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE 
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT 

FRAMEWORK PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (BETWEEN 
DG ECHO AND ITS OPERATIONAL PARTNERS)  

GLOBAL ACUTE MALNUTRITION 

GOOD HUMANITARIAN DONORSHIP 

HUMANITARIAN  OFFICE  LOCAL 
SYSTEM 

INFORMATION 

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS 

INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS 

INTERNATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF  RED  CROSS  AND 
RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES 

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 

INTERNATIONAL 
ORGANISATION 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR MIGRATION 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
LRRD 

MCDA 

MIC 

MSF 

NOHA 

NGO 

OFDA 

LINKING 
DEVELOPMENT 

RELIEF, 

REHABILITATION 

AND 

MILITARY AND CIVIL DEFENCE ASSETS 

MONITORING AND INFORMATION CENTRE 

MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES 

NETWORK ON HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION 

OFFICE OF U.S. FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE 

SITREP 

SITUATION REPORT 

SPD 

SPP 

TCG 

UN-CHS-
HABITAT 

UNDP 

UNESCAP 

UN-FAO 

UNFPA 

UNHCR 

UNICEF 

UNOCHA 

UN-PAHO 

UNRWA 

STRATEGIC PLANNING DIALOGUE 

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING  

TRIPARTITE CORE GROUP 

NATIONS 
UNITED 
SETTLEMENTS - HABITAT (UNCHS) 

CENTRE 

FOR 

HUMAN 

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 

UNITED  NATIONS  ECONOMIC  AND 
COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 

SOCIAL 

UNITED  NATIONS  -  FOOD  AND  AGRICULTURE 
ORGANIZATION 

UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND 

UNITED  NATIONS  HIGH  COMMISSIONER  FOR 
REFUGEES 

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN’S FUND 

UNITED 
FOR 
COORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS 

NATIONS 

OFFICE 

- 

THE 

UNITED  NATIONS 
ORGANISATION 

-  PAN  AMERICAN  HEALTH 

UNITED  NATIONS  -  RELIEF  AND  WORKS  AGENCY 
FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST 

UN-WFP 

UNITED NATIONS - WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME 

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
UN-WHO 

UNITED NATIONS -WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION 

UXO 

WASH 

UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE 

WATER, SANITATION AND HEALTH 

EN 

141 

   EN