Annual Report on the Humanitarian Aid Policy and its Implementation in 2009 COM(2010)138
Date: 2010-04-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ECHO, EU aid, EU financing, emergency aid, humanitarian aid, international human rights law, natural disaster, report, war

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 9.4.2010 
SEC(2010)398 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Accompanying document to the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Annual Report on the Humanitarian Aid Policy and its Implementation in 2009 

COM(2010)138 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

1.7. 

1.8. 

1.9. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

2.8. 

2.9. 

3. 

Policy ........................................................................................................................... 4 

Implementation of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid............................. 4 

International Humanitarian Law .................................................................................. 5 

Coherence between humanitarian aid and other policies............................................. 5 

Good Humanitarian Donorship .................................................................................... 7 

External relations questions ......................................................................................... 8 

Cross-cutting issues.................................................................................................... 10 

Aid effectiveness........................................................................................................ 11 

Sectoral policies ......................................................................................................... 13 

Outlook 2010.............................................................................................................. 14 

Implementation of humanitarian aid in 2009........................................................ 15 

A needs-based approach............................................................................................. 16 

Top 10 humanitarian crises in terms of funding allocations ...................................... 17 

Africa.......................................................................................................................... 18 

Middle East and Mediterranean ................................................................................. 44 

Caucasus and Central Asia......................................................................................... 52 

Asia and the Pacific.................................................................................................... 57 

Latin America and the Caribbean .............................................................................. 77 

Disaster preparedness activities, including DIPECHO.............................................. 84 

Case studies on the launching of humanitarian aid.................................................... 88 

Aid management....................................................................................................... 93 

3.1.  Ways and means of delivering aid ............................................................................. 93 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

Co-ordination of humanitarian funds ......................................................................... 96 

Evaluations................................................................................................................. 98 

Control of use of funds............................................................................................. 100 

Co-operation with humanitarian aid's stakeholders ................................................. 102 

Visibility and communication .................................................................................. 102 

Security and safety issues......................................................................................... 103 

Training .................................................................................................................... 104 

EN 

2 

   EN 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

Annexes ................................................................................................................... 105 

Introduction to financial tables................................................................................. 105 

Financial tables......................................................................................................... 106 

Glossary................................................................................................................... 137 

EN 

3 

   EN 

1. 

POLICY 

1.1. 

Implementation of the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 

The  European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid1  underlines 
the  European  Union's 
commitment  to  upholding  and  promoting  the  fundamental  humanitarian  principles  of 
humanity,  neutrality,  impartiality  and  independence  and  to  promoting  the  respect  of 
international law on humanitarian issues, human rights, and refugees. 

An Action Plan to implement the consensus was adopted on 29 May 20082.  This  sets out a 
series of practical actions to enable the European Union's humanitarian donors to take a more 
closely co-ordinated approach. The aim is to ensure that the European Union maximizes the 
effectiveness of its contribution to the collective international humanitarian response. 

The Action Plan  

To facilitate implementation, related actions have been grouped into six action areas: 

Area 1: Advocacy, promotion of humanitarian principles and international law 

Area 2: Implementing a quality aid approach 

Area 3: Reinforcing capacities to respond 

Area 4: Strengthening partnerships 

Area 5: Enhancing coherence and co-ordination 

Area 6: Aid continuum 

Implementation of the Action Plan is largely on track: out of 49 actions foreseen in the Plan, only 
seven still need to be implemented as of January 2010. Of these, two are scheduled to start by 
2011-12.  They  concern  measurability  and  participation  of  disaster-affected  communities.  A 
mid-term  review  is  scheduled  for  2010  and  a  final  review  will  take  place  in  2012.  Other 
actions, such as reviews of modalities for emergency decisions or of transition mechanisms, 
will also be carried out in 2010 and may become a part of legislative proposals. A few actions 
are  experiencing  slight  delays,  such  as  the  European  Commission's  Good  Humanitarian 
implementation  plan,  dissemination  of  material  concerning  humanitarian 
Donorship 
principles.  

Throughout  2009,  the  priority  was  implementation  of  the  2005  International  Humanitarian 
Law  guidelines  and  the  development  of  sectoral  policies.  Most  of  the  Action  Plan  will  be 
implemented earlier than initially scheduled. 

1 

2 

The  Consensus  was  endorsed  in  December  2007  by  the  Presidents  of  the  Commission,  Council  and 
European Parliament 
SEC(2008)1991 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

International Humanitarian Law  

International  humanitarian  law  is  a  set  of  rules  which  seeks  to  limit  the  effects  of  armed 
conflict  on  civilians.  It  protects  people  who  are  not  actively  involved  in  hostilities,  or  who 
have  ceased  to  be  involved.  It  restricts  the  means  and  methods  of  warfare.  International 
humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. 

International  humanitarian  law  is  part  of  international  law,  the  body  of  rules  governing 
relations between states. International law is contained in agreements between states – treaties 
or conventions – in rules which consist of state practice that they consider legally binding, and 
in general principles. 

International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a state 
can actually use force. This is governed by an important, but distinct, part of international law 
set out in the United Nations Charter. 

The  Commission  and  Member  States  have  worked  to  implement  commitments  made  in  the 
European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid  and  at  the  2008  Brussels  Conference  on 
International  Humanitarian  Law.  However,  the  situation  on  the  ground  is  worsening.  The 
potential list of countries whose governments simply do not abide by the law is getting longer. 
A particularly gruesome aspect of such violations is the increasing use of sexual violence as a 
weapon of war, particularly in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 
ECHO is working on a systematic approach to integrate all gender issues into its humanitarian 
operations. Meanwhile, humanitarian aid operations in the countries concerned will build this 
aspect into their response strategies. 

Advocacy  for  the  protection  of  the  humanitarian  space  must  continue  unabated.  Numerous 
governments  continue  to  disregard  commitments  made  in  the  Geneva  Conventions.  Such 
problems need ongoing political impetus if the Commission and the EU are to make progress 
in what is, admittedly, an extremely challenging area3. 

1.3. 

Coherence between humanitarian aid and other policies 

1.3.1.  Transition and Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) 

In  2009,  the  Commission  worked  extensively  with  other  Commission  services  to  refine  the 
concept of linking relief, rehabilitation and development. This followed previous development 
in EU polices and instruments such as policies on fragility and security in development, the 
establishment of the Instrument for Stability, and reorganisation of co-operation instruments. 
This  work  complements  the  day-to-day  work  of  country  desk  officers  and  personnel  in  the 
field who work on transition situations in the countries for which they are responsible. 

Nonetheless it is worth mentioning that the LRRD approach is not limited to the notion of exit 
strategies for humanitarian aid, particularly in situations where humanitarian and development 
actors are present for a long period. As indicated in the European Consensus on Humanitarian 
Aid, LRRD challenges are tackled by applying a policy mix of humanitarian, stabilisation and 
development 
interventions 
programmed and implemented simultaneously or successively in a country.  

the  coherence  of  European 

interventions  which  ensure 

3 

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/humanitarian-law-factsheet 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
1.3.2.  Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) – Climate Change 

Throughout  2009,  policy  work  on  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  and  climate  change  was  driven 
forward.  

The  Commission  produced  a  Communication  on  EU  strategy  supporting  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction in developing countries4 (February 2009) and developed a plan to implement EU 
risk reduction strategy. 

Based  on  this  Communication,  the  new  strategy  entitled  "A Strategic  Approach  to  Disaster 
Risk  Reduction  in  Humanitarian  Aid"  builds  on  the  Commission’s  experience  in  disaster 
preparedness.  The  main  aim  is  to  define  a  coherent  framework  for  risk  reduction,  financed 
from  the  humanitarian  aid  budget  in  the  context of  the  EU  policy  and  strategy  in  this  field, 
linking the Communication with the Hyogo Framework of Action5. 

The  Commission  has  also  started  work  on  its  own  approach  to  the  humanitarian  impact  of 
climate  change.  It  will  review  current  knowledge  on  climate  change,  analyse  current 
responses to natural disasters, and formulate recommendations for EU-financed humanitarian 
operations. 

In the run-up to the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, the Commission called 
on the international community to reinforce the link between disaster risk reduction activities 
and adapting to climate change, as to merge them in a coherent and innovative approach. This 
could boost the overall efficiency of humanitarian aid. 

The Commission took part in the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction organised by 
the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) in Geneva. This was a good 
opportunity  to  enhance  European  institutions'  involvement  in  disaster  risk  reduction.  ECHO 
organised  a  particularly  successful  Commission  stand,  which  enabled  it  to  make  available 
information and create new links and potential synergies with other organisations involved in 
risk reduction. 

Finally,  the  Commission  through  ECHO  developed  strategic  dialogue  and  strengthened 
relations  in  risk  reduction,  particularly  with  UNISDR,  which  is  an  important  player  in  the 
field of disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change. 

1.3.3.  Civil Protection 

Co-ordination  with  EU  civil  protection  actors  and  the  Commission's  Monitoring  and 
Information Centre (MIC) was actively strengthened i.e. through training sessions organised 
by  the  Community  Mechanism  for  Civil  Protection  and  the  23rd  Meeting  of  the  Directors-
General for Civil Protection from the EU Member States, European Economic Area countries 
and candidate countries in Gothenburg in December 2009. 

4 
5 

COM(2009)84 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/aid/dipecho_en.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
The European Commission also distributed joint situation reports from field level on disasters 
outside the EU. This helped to strengthen co-ordination among EU humanitarian aid and civil 
protection  actors  and  rapid  and  coherent  information  was  made  available  to  EU  Member 
States. Implementation of the Commission's 2008 Communication on Reinforcing the Union's 
Disaster Response Capacity continued in line with the Action Plan. 

1.3.4.  Civil-Military relations 

Civil-military  issues  also  took  greater  prominence  in  2009.  The  Commission  became  more 
active  in  calling  for  the  protection  of  humanitarian  space  and  the  humanitarian  mandate. 
Several  meetings  were  held,  including  a  contribution  to  the  Finabel  Military  Committee6  in 
Poland  in  June.  The  EU  continued  to  fund  civil-military  liaison  actions  in  the  field  in 
countries including Afghanistan. 

1.4. 

Good Humanitarian Donorship 

The  Commission  was  co-chair  (together  with  the  Netherlands)  for  the  Good  Humanitarian 
Donorship  (GHD)  Initiative  for  the  period  July  2008-July  2009.  This  coincided  with  the 
adoption  of  the  European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid  and  helped  to  build  up  the  good 
donorship project by involving all EU donors in the process. The Commission thus showed its 
strong commitment to leading policy and strategic dialogue processes among donors both at 
EU and international levels. 

The  co-chairs  drew  up  a  work  plan  in  consultation  with  other  donors,  with  comments  from 
Inter-Agency Standing Committee7 representatives. The plan aims to structure work on good 
donorship around three main priorities: 

•  Partnership 

•  Humanitarian financing based on needs 

•  Applying good donorship operationally 

Work  progressed  over  the  year  on  all  three  priorities.  The  newly-appointed  co-chairs  have 
indicated they would like to continue this over the year ahead. 

Four  main  one-day  'working  level'  donor  meetings  and  two  major  senior-level  meetings 
among donors and Inter-Agency Standing Committee partner representatives were organised 
in Geneva and Montreux. Ahead of each Geneva meeting, the co-chairs met representatives 
from  the  UN  Office  for  the  Co-ordination  of  Humanitarian  Aid  (OCHA),  the  International 
Council of Voluntary Associations (one of the main humanitarian NGO umbrella groups) and 
the  Standing  Committee  for  Humanitarian  Response,  which  includes  the  Red  Cross 
Movement and its secretariat, co-chairs of the Global Humanitarian Platform.  

6 

7 

The  Finabel  Military  Committee  is  an  expertise  forum  contributing  to  european  land  armies 
interoperability since 1953 – www.espace-finabel.eu 
The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) is the primary mechanism for inter-agency co-ordination 
of  humanitarian  assistance.  It  is  a  unique  forum  involving  the  key  UN  and  non-UN  humanitarian 
partners - http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/ 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
The  co-chairs  also  held  a  meeting  with  the  full  membership  of  the  Inter-Agency  Standing 
Committee-Good Humanitarian Donorship contact group, which was re-established this year 
to liaise with donors. The Netherlands also convened four shorter meetings of the Rome group 
on good donorship, for which the Commission provided assistance and inputs. 

As a result of this role, the Commission was able to use good donorship as a bridge between 
EU work and discussions with other donors and partner representatives. The agenda reflected 
a  balanced  and  operational  view  of  good  donorship  in  practice.  Discussions  on  needs 
assessment were  considerably boosted  as a result.  There  was  closer  examination  of  ways  in 
which  the  principles  of  good  donorship  and  good  practice  could  be  applied  in  the  field, 
particularly  as  regards  improving  donor  co-ordination.  The  Republic  of  Korea  was  the  36th 
donor  to  join  the  initiative.  The  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development 
(OECD)  'humanitarian'  peer  review  framework  was  thoroughly  revised  by  consensus  to 
include  renewed  emphasis  on  quality  (e.g.  cross-cutting  issues)  and  more  humanitarian-
sensitive  formulation  around  'transition'  (early  recovery).  The  good  donorship  process  was 
broadened  beyond  'like-minded'  core  donors,  and  is  increasingly  viewed  by  Inter-Agency 
Standing Committee as the key interlocutor with which to tackle a range of systemic issues on 
a consensual basis. 

The Commission also used its role in the good donorship process to strengthen the integration 
of  new  European  members.  It  continued  as  convenor  of  sessions  for  newcomers  to  the 
process, convening sessions co-hosted with Hungary and Estonia respectively. In addition, in 
its capacity as Good Humanitarian Donorship co-chair, the Commission was invited to speak 
at the OCHA Donor Support Group outreach event in Tallinn in June 2009. 

1.5. 

External relations questions 

1.5.1.  Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid (COHAFA) 

The  work  of  this  group  was  successfully  launched  under  the  Czech  Presidency  of  the 
European Council at the start of 2009 and continued under Swedish stewardship in the second 
half  of  the  year.  The  impetus  for  the  group  came  during  negotiations  on  the  European 
Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid.  Having  a  dedicated  forum  for  regular  policy  exchange 
among Member State and Commission experts gave a boost to developing a more coherent, 
co-ordinated EU approach to humanitarian policy and action. 

The working group, which brings together representatives from Member States capitals, met 
10  times  over  the  year.  The  Commission  drew  up  a  work  plan  with  incoming  EU 
Presidencies, with points on specific humanitarian crises (e.g. the Myanmar (Burma), Chad, 
Colombia,  DRC,  Gaza  Strip,  the  Philippines,  Saharawi  refugees,  Somalia,  Sri  Lanka, 
Sudan/Darfur,  Zimbabwe),  sectoral  subjects  (e.g.  Food  Aid  Convention,  HIV/AIDS 
guidelines,  cash  and  voucher  guidelines,  transport  study),  and  co-ordination  on  specific 
subjects (e.g. UN needs assessment work, UN Economic and Social Committee). 

In  its  first  year  of  work,  the  group  established  itself  as  the  Council  point  of  reference  for 
questions  on  humanitarian  aid  and  a  useful  forum  for  regular  policy  level  exchanges  and 
closer  co-ordination  by  EU  experts  on  humanitarian  aid  policy  and  operational  strategies.  It 
has  been  instrumental  in  helping  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  develop  shared 
analysis  on  thematic  (including  food  assistance)  and  geographical  issues  and  raising  the 
profile  and  relevance  of  humanitarian  issues  with  other  Council  working  bodies,  notably 
geographical  working  groups  (as  was  the  case  for  Sri  Lanka  for  example),  the  Political  and 
Security Committee and the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which in turn feed in 

EN 

8 

   EN 

to the Foreign Affairs Council. Discussions took place in the working group on the possible 
extension/renewal  of  the  Food  Aid  Convention,  and  on  the  implementation  of  International 
Humanitarian Law guidelines by the Working Party on International Public Law. In time, this 
is  leading  to  increased  consistency  and  coherence  in  the  application  of  the  humanitarian 
principles and good practices outlined in the Consensus for Humanitarian Aid. 

The  working  group  also  facilitated  streamlining  of  the  work  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid 
Committee's work. This committee can now focus exclusively on the Commission’s financing 
proposals  for  humanitarian  aid.  This  meant  fewer  meetings,  and  more  use  of  the  written 
procedure.  Since  strategic  issues  are  now  routinely  put  on  the  working  group's  agenda,  the 
need for informal Humanitarian Aid Committee meetings was reduced. 

On  a  strategic  level,  the  working  group  has  allowed  the  European  Union  to  make  its 
humanitarian  aid  activities  more  coherent.  There  is  an  annual  exchange  on  individual 
humanitarian aid policies and budgets. This took place in several stages at the beginning of 
2009.  Policies  produced  by  the  Commission  are  often  taken  up  by  Member  States  (for 
instance,  the  HIV/AIDS  and  protection  guidelines);  individual  EU  donors’  activities  in 
specific crises are better co-ordinated and EU positions on specific issues are discussed ahead 
of  international  meetings  (e.g.  on  UN  needs  assessment  work).  On  a  day-to-day  basis,  the 
work of the group was facilitated by the Commission’s initiative to make its situation reports 
on specific humanitarian crises widely available. These reports soon became major source of 
information for a wide audience of stakeholders within and outside of Europe. 

1.5.2.  Co-operation with EU Institutions, Member States, International organisations and 

other donors 

After  elections  to  the  European  Parliament  in  June  2009,  ECHO  focused  on  following  the 
day-to-day work of the newly constituted committees (mainly the Committee on Development 
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs). The Commission worked closely with the Committee 
on Development to raise awareness and interest in humanitarian issues. Several meetings were 
held  with  the  new  Chair  of  the  Committee  on  Development,  Ms  Eva  Joly,  and  the  new 
standing Humanitarian Rapporteur, Ms Barbara Striffler, to discuss humanitarian policy and 
operational issues. 

Regarding contacts with EU Member State donors, a high-level visit to the United Kingdom 
in February consolidated an already solid working relationship between the Commission and 
the  Department  for  International  Development.  Newer  EU  Member  States  were  involved 
through  newcomers'  sessions  for  the  Good  Donorship  Initiative,  which  the  Commission 
facilitated  and  through  an  OCHA  Donors'  Support  Group  in  Tallinn.  In  the  context  of  the 
Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid, the Commission now regularly 
fields  requests  from  Member  States  for  bilateral  discussions,  thus  reinforcing  EU  co-
ordination in humanitarian aid. 

The  Commission  ensured  close  contact  throughout  the  year  with  relevant  international 
organisations, particularly the UN and the Red Cross Movement, on both policy development 
and operational issues. Numerous high-level meetings and strategic dialogues were organised 
in Brussels to ensure close contacts with key UN agencies and partners. A special emphasis 
was put on close co-operation with UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

In addition, the Commission ensured representation at UN and Red Cross Movement related 
meetings  and  processes,  mainly  in  New  York,  Geneva  and  Rome,  in  close  liaison  with 
relevant  EU  Delegations.  Through  ECHO's  active  participation  in  the  OCHA  and 
International  Committee  of  the  Red  Cross  (ICRC)  Donor  Support  Groups,  and  through  its 
observer  status  at  World  Food  Programme  Executive  Board  meetings  and  the  UN  High 
Commissioner  for  Refugee's  Executive  Committee,  the  Commission  provided  inputs  to 
strategic decision-making and guidance at these organisations. 

The Commission continued to promote EU-co-ordinated positions as well as resolutions and 
statements in UN bodies reflecting Commission policy. The Commission also took part in a 
tri-partite meeting with the United States and the United Kingdom with OCHA in New York 
in October. 

Throughout the year, the Commission through ECHO also had extensive contacts with non-
EU donors, both at an operational level and at policy level at headquarters. These included a 
strategic dialogue with the United States in April 2009 as well other meetings with other key 
and non-traditional donors. 

1.6. 

Cross-cutting issues 

The Commission is committed to mainstreaming cross-cutting issues throughout its activities. 
They include, for example, gender equality or children's rights. These objectives are promoted 
and supported in all humanitarian aid operations through the contents of financing decisions 
and contracts. They are also vital to strengthen the impact of humanitarian aid in general and 
should be taken into account and integrated into all projects. 

1.6.1.  Gender 

In 2009 the Commission received the results of the review it commissioned on gender issues 
in  humanitarian  aid,  including  strategies  against  gender-based  violence  in  humanitarian 
settings. This review, a commitment in the Consensus Action Plan, was the first step in the 
Commission's drive to strengthen its gender approach in the delivery of humanitarian aid. 

The  review  looked  at  the  experiences  of  selected  donor  governments  and  partners,  and 
presented good practice and recommendations. It proposed developing a policy of identifying 
specific  target  areas  for  gender-related  activities  and  practical  steps  to  be  taken  to  integrate 
gender  considerations  more  fully  in  humanitarian  operations.  It  also  recommended  that  the 
Commission's position on issues such as sexual and gender-based violence, gender analysis, 
gender data and information systems, gender in the cluster system and capacity building etc 
should be clarified. 

The  Commission  took  stock  of  the  review's  recommendations  and  has  started  to  work  on 
ensuring integration of the specific needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of different segments 
of  the  population  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  its  humanitarian  interventions.  In 
November  2009,  the  Commission  held  a  consultation  with  partners  to  discuss  the  results  of 
the  review  and  to  open  the  debate  on  two  challenging  issues:  gender  mainstreaming  and 
gender-based violence. This meeting enabled gender experts and policy makers to meet and 
helped to identify key issues to be developed in the forthcoming policy document. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

Finally, the Commission contributed to the development of the Gender Action Plan as well as 
to the implementation of the EU Comprehensive approach to UN Security Council resolutions 
1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security. 

1.6.2.  Children 

After  the  adoption  of  a  document  on  children  in  emergencies8  in  2008,  the  Commission 
continued  in  2009  its  work  mainly  through  calling  for  more  attention  to  children's  needs  in 
EU-funded humanitarian interventions. Preventing separation during return programmes is a 
high  priority.  The  Commission  also  continued  to  work  on  a  better  integration  of  children's 
rights and needs in EU policies. 

1.7. 

Aid effectiveness 

1.7.1.  Needs assessment 

The Commission has been actively engaged in debates on setting-up better co-ordinated, more 
coherent common needs assessment.  

This  thinking  is  being  developed  in  the  context  of  the  Inter-Agency  Standing  Committee 
Needs Assessment Task Force. The Needs Assessment Group (created in March 2009), which 
later  became  the  IASC  Needs  Assessment  Task  Force  (July  2009),  has  developed  Terms  of 
Reference and a work plan for September 2009-September 2010. The Commission organised 
a multi-donor consultation on humanitarian needs assessment in May to facilitate a concerted 
donor  approach  to  needs  assessment.  The  meeting  triggered  regular  informal  exchanges 
among  donors.  The  Commission  also  proposed  a  multi-donor  letter  to  Sir  John  Holmes  in 
support  of  OCHA's  role  in  needs  assessment.  The  letter  was  signed  in  May  2009  by  25 
humanitarian donors. 

On  16  October  2009,  the  Commission  organised  a  Donor  Roundtable  in  Geneva  on  a 
Common Needs Assessment/Dashboard. The meeting expressed continued strong support for 
more  reliable  assessment,  and  support  for  the  work  of  OCHA  and  the  IASC  Needs 
Assessment Task Force to this end.  

1.7.2.  Capacity building 

The  Commission  is  committed  to  the  Capacity  Building  approach  through  the  European 
Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. In the Consensus, the Commission, EU Member States and 
the  European  Parliament  agreed  that  "…supporting  the  development  of  the  collective  global 
capacity  to  respond  to  humanitarian  crises  is  one  of  the  fundamental  tenets  of  our  [EU] 
approach"9.  Correspondingly,  the  Consensus Action Plan asks the EU to "…explore how to 
enhance  support  to  capacity  building,  including  in  the  cluster  approach  and  provisions  for 
reinforcing local capacity… and to promote a multi-donor approach to capacity building"10..  

8 
9 
10 

SEC(2008)135 
As adopted by the Council, EP and Commission on 18 December, (OJ 2008/C/ 25/01 of 30.01.2008). 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  ‘European  Consensus  on  Humanitarian  Aid  –  Action  Plan’ 
SEC(2008)1991, 29.5.2008 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
In  addition,  as  a  Good  Humanitarian  Donor,  the  Commission  is  committed  to  allocating 
"funding to strengthen capacities for response"11. 

Following  up  on  this  commitment,  an  extensive  consultation  process  was  launched  in  2008 
and  continued  into  2009.  This  involved  consultations  with  partners,  other  donors  and 
humanitarian  actors.  It  concluded  with  a  Round  Table  Conference  in  January  2009.  As  a 
result,  Financing  Guidelines  for  Capacity  Building  were  adopted  in  September  2009.  These 
identify  the  main  gaps  in  the  global  humanitarian  system  and  define  how  the  EU's 
humanitarian funding can best be used to address these gaps. 

For 2009 and 2010, €25 million is available for EU humanitarian Capacity Building Funding. 
This is primarily for:  

–  needs assessment work by OCHA, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World 

Food Programme (WFP);  

–  building global humanitarian health capacity, especially through the health cluster roll-out, 

through World Health Organisation;  

–  building  global  humanitarian  water/sanitation  capacity,  especially 

the 
water/sanitation  cluster  roll-out,  through  the  United  Nations  Children's  Fund  (UNICEF); 
building  global  humanitarian  logistics  capacity  through  WFP,  especially  through  the 
logistics cluster;  

through 

–  building  local,  regional  and  international  capacity  to  respond  to  disasters  through  the 

International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). 

Over  €25  million  of  EU  humanitarian  Capa city  Building  funding  since  2006  has  been 
allocated  to  the  cluster  approach,  so  a  workshop  to  review  progress  on  this  was  held  at  the 
ECHO Partners' Conference in December 2009. 

the  co-ordination  of  humanitarian  response”.  This 

As part of the 2009 Capacity Building programme, the EU has supported OCHA's project on 
“strengthening 
included  several 
components,  including  the  Assessment  and  Classification  of  Emergencies.  An important 
element  is  the  development  of  a  Humanitarian  Dashboard,  a  tool  to  consolidate  needs 
assessment and other core humanitarian information across sectors, presenting information in 
a  one-page  summary  of  key  information  and  indicators,  to  strengthen  evidence-based 
humanitarian  decision-making. The  tool  was  field-tested  in  Kenya  in  late  2009.  This  led  to 
improvements that will be piloted in early 2010. 

11 

GHD  principle  18,  but  also  principle  8  on  strengthening  the  capacity  of  affected  countries  and  local 
communities and principle 10 to support and promote the central and unique role of the UN.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
1.8. 

Sectoral policies 

In line with the Consensus Action Plan, a number of sectoral policy initiatives were either in 
progress or completed in 2009. 

1.8.1.  Health 

The Commission prepared a Position Paper on User Fees for Primary Health Services. This 
was presented to the Council Working Group. There is international consensus that user fees 
discriminate  against the  poor  and most  vulnerable,  as only  those who can  pay get access to 
primary health care. The Commission's position is that partners running the emergency health 
care  programmes  that  EU  funds  should  not  ask  users  to  pay  fees.  However,  development 
partners  could  consider  levying  fees  during  the  rehabilitation  process  in  exceptional 
situations, as a means of working towards financial sustainability.  

Regarding the Novel Flu caused by Influenza A (H1N1), the Commission set up a task force 
to monitor the risk and to adjust the EU-funded humanitarian response as necessary. 

The Commission is taking part in a Communication on “The EU role in global health” to be 
published in April 2010. The EU continued to fund WHO from budget earmarked for capacity 
building,  to  enable  it  to  continue  its  leadership  role  for  the  Global  Health  Cluster  and  to 
support  country  health  clusters  so  that  these  function  efficiently.  By  the  end  of  2009,  there 
were  36  partners  in  the  cluster,  51  new  Health  Cluster  Coordinators  were  trained,  and  new 
tools such as a Health Cluster Guide and an assessment tool were finalised. 

1.8.2.  Protection 

After  a  thorough  stakeholder  consultation  process,  funding  guidelines  on  protection  in 
humanitarian assistance were finalised in 2009. The document was very well received, even if 
some organisations would have preferred a broader definition of protection. 

The guidelines aim to define the framework in which the Commission should fund protection 
activities, as well as specifying the type of partners and activities eligible. The guidelines also 
provide recommendations as to how to programme and monitor protection activities. 

Protection  is  approached  in  many  different  ways  from  the  fundamental  delivery  of 
humanitarian  assistance  to  institution-building  and  deployment  of  peacekeeping  troops.  The 
Commission  opted  for  an  operational  approach  in  its  guidelines.  Protection  is  defined  as 
support  to  "non-structural  activities  aiming  at  reducing  the  risk  and  the  impact  of  human-
generated  violence,  coercion,  deprivation  and  abuse  of  vulnerable  individuals  or  groups  in 
the  context  of  humanitarian  crises".  The  humanitarian  aid  budget  will  therefore  not  fund 
activities such as long-term institution-building processes, which are a structural process that 
challenges society as a whole by aiming to change policy, attitudes, beliefs and behaviour. 

The guidelines recognise that protection is as important in natural disasters as it is in conflict 
situations. They identify three levels of protection interventions:  

–  "Pure" protection activities; 

EN 

13 

   EN 

–  Interventions whose main objective is protection, but achieved through assistance;  

–  Other humanitarian interventions, in which protection should be mainstreamed in order to, 

at the very least, "do no harm“. 

On  the  more  operational  side,  the  guidelines  insist  on  the  need  to  recognise  programmes, 
whose  main  objective  is  protection,  as  such,  even  when  the  objective  is  achieved  through 
material  assistance.  This  is  important  to  ensure  coherence  between  needs  assessments, 
objectives, results, activities and indicators. 

Monitoring  protection  programmes  is  challenging.  Quantifying  a  protection  problem  can  be 
very difficult. For example, it is hard to measure a reduction in abuse. Moreover, the impact 
of protection activities is often linked to factors beyond the control of programme operators. 
The  timeframe  is  also  an  obstacle  to  measuring  impact.  However,  where  it  is  impossible  to 
define realistic impact indicators, the level of activity can at least be measured. 

1.8.3.  The use of cash and vouchers in humanitarian crises 

In  2009,  the  Commission  finalised  work  launched  two  years  earlier  on  the  use  of  cash  and 
vouchers  in  humanitarian  crises,  with  the  adoption  of  funding  guidelines  in  mid-2009, 
following extensive consultation with the main actors active in this field12. 

It  defines  the  standards  to  be  followed  during  the  full  cycle  of  projects  using  cash  and 
vouchers  as  a  means  of  delivering  humanitarian  aid.  Alternative  ways  of  delivering 
humanitarian assistance should be systematically analysed and compared in project proposals. 

The  Commission  believes  that  both  cash-based  and  in-kind  humanitarian  assistance  can  be 
appropriate, and the choice depends on the context. It aims to provide funding to meet needs 
in the most appropriate, cost-effective and safe way in each case. Nevertheless, the guidelines 
aim  to  facilitate  wider  use  of  cash  and  vouchers  to  reduce  costs  and  improve  delivery  of 
humanitarian aid, and to empower beneficiaries by offering them more choice, thus helping to 
foster self-esteem. 

The  Commission  does  not  expect  rapid,  profound  changes  in  the  way  humanitarian  is 
delivered, though it sees potential for a gradual increase in cash-based systems. 

The implementation of these guidelines will be monitored closely and an evaluation of their 
implementation will be carried out within two years with a view to amending them if need be.  

1.9. 

Outlook 2010 

Overall  trends  and  individual  crisis  situations  show  the  current  main  challenges  facing 
humanitarian aid:  

–  decreasing  humanitarian  space:  a  growing  number  of  countries  where  access  to 

beneficiaries has become more difficult or impossible; 

12 

UN agencies such as WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF, international organisations like ICRC/IFRC, NGOs like 
OXFAM, ACF, Horn Relief, CARE Kenya and Member States’ humanitarian aid departments 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
–  worsening security situation for beneficiaries and aid workers alike; 

–  steep increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters; 

–  difficulties  of  linking  short-term  humanitarian  aid  to  longer-term  development  co-

operation activities. 

The  Commission-implemented  EU-funded  humanitarian  aid  operations  will  address  these 
issues.  It  is  clear  the  answer  lies  not  only  in  the  quantity,  but  also  in  the  quality  of  aid.  In 
addition, there will have to be pressure through advocacy at the highest levels to counter some 
of  the  most  serious  impediments  to  carrying  out  humanitarian  aid  operations.  This  applies 
particularly  to  access  to  beneficiaries,  and  growing  disregard  for  international  humanitarian 
law. 

The context is bleak and the prospect of maintaining humanitarian budgets at current levels in 
2010 and beyond is unlikely, given that donor countries have to manage problematic budget 
deficits. The Commission will respond in two main ways: 

–  by  addressing  the  main  challenges  horizontally,  through  policies  to  make  aid  more 
effective,  and  by  bringing  problems  to  the  attention  of  decision-makers  and  the  general 
public;  

–  through  systematic,  equitable  and  consistent  programming  to  allocate  what  funding  is 

available. 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMANITARIAN AID IN 2009 

This  synopsis  of  EU-funded  humanitarian  operations  is  presented  on  a  geographical  basis, 
organised  around  the  five  regions  of  the  world  where  ECHO  implements  EU-funded 
humanitarian actions. 

Each section has the same structure to facilitate comparison:  

(1) 

(2) 

Overview  of  funding  per  country  (region)  and/or  per  humanitarian  crisis  in  which 
ECHO has been active. For all types of interventions, humanitarian aid is implemented 
through  Commission  funding  decisions  and  grant  agreements  with  partners,  who 
implement  specific  humanitarian  operations  in  the  field.  The  overview  tables  show 
funding decisions in 2009. 

Description  of  humanitarian  needs  that  were  identified,  the  main  objectives  and 
achievements  and,  where  applicable,  the  transition  between  emergency,  relief, 
rehabilitation and development. 

This overview includes all countries/crises for which there were funding decisions in 2009 as 
well  as  those  for  which  funding  was  made  available  in  previous  years,  resulting  in  ongoing 
implementation in 2009. 

In section 2.8, there is information on disaster preparedness activities undertaken in 2009 to 
reduce both the vulnerability and exposure of people to risks and disasters as well as to reduce 
the costs of such disasters. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

The  figures  in  this  chapter  provide  a  general  overview  and/or  illustrate  the  content  of  the 
chapter. Complete financial information is given in section 4. 

2.1. 

A needs-based approach 

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

For a number of years, ECHO has been using a two-pronged approach to identify those with a 
high  priority  for  humanitarian  needs.  The  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 analysis has two dimensions: 

–  the  Global  Needs  Assessment13  based  on  national  indicators,  classes  more  than  140 
countries  according  to  the  occurrence  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 attempts to identify serious humanitarian crises where the 

people affected do not receive sufficient international aid and/or media coverage. 

These  are  important  tools  for  ensuring  coherence  in  allocating  resources  among  countries 
according to their needs, independently of any type of pressure. 

Using this method, the Commission identified 44 countries or territories in crisis in 2009. Out 
of  these,  17  were  classed  as  "extremely  vulnerable".  This  meant  a  rise  on  figures  for  2008, 
when there were 41 countries in crisis, 15 of which were "extremely vulnerable". A rise in the 
number of natural disasters partly accounted for this.  

Of  the  17  "extremely  vulnerable"  countries  or  territories,  14  were  in  sub-Saharan  Africa 
(including  Chad,  the  Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo,  Ethiopia,  Kenya,  Somalia,  Sudan, 
Uganda  and  Zimbabwe).  The  others  were  Chechnya  (Russian  Federation),  Afghanistan  and 
East Timor. 

These vulnerable areas14 received a total of €429 million or  81% of the initial budget allocated 
to geographical decisions, under the humanitarian and food aid budget lines. 

The following were classified as "forgotten crises":  

•  The  inter-ethnic  conflict  in  Myanmar  (Burma):  people  displaced  internally  and  Burmese 

refugees in Thailand. The population groups affected by cyclone Nargis; 

13 

14 

The  methodology  used  and  the  results  for  2009  are  available  at  the  following  internet  address 
http://EU.europa.eu/echo/information/strategy/index_en.htm 
Countries with a Crisis Index of 3 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Colombia: People affected by the internal armed conflict; 

•  Yemen: People affected by the conflict in the north; 

•  Sahrawi refugees in Algeria; 

•  India:  People  affected  by  various  conflicts  in  Kashmir,  North  East  India,  as  well  as  the 

conflict relating to Naxalite demands; 

•  Bangladesh: Rohingya refugees and the Chittagong Hill Tracts crisis. 

These forgotten crises received 12%15of the budget for geographically delineated decisions. 

2.2. 

Top 10 humanitarian crises in terms of funding allocations 

In 2009, the top 10 crises in terms of funding allocations were the following  

TOP 10 FUNDING 2009

m io €

116

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

71

66

54

51

45

40

37

34

31

Sudan

Pakistan

OPT

DRCongo

Ethiopia

Somalia

Kenya

Afghanistan

Chad

Sahel

EU  humanitarian  funding  for  these  crises  was  €544  million,  or  63%  of   the  total  funding  of 
operational  budget  dedicated  to  countries  and  regions.  Of  this,  68%  was  earmarked  for 
countries in Africa.  

15 

€40.5  million  out  of  an  initial  budget  of  €350.3
(humanitarian aid budget line) 

  million  for  geographically  delineated  decisions 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

Africa 

In 2009, humanitarian and food aid interventions were funded in about half the countries in 
Africa, through 36 funding decisions worth a total of €489 million, 53% of the total budget 
managed by ECHO (€931.7 million). 

In  descending  order,  the  ten  main  countries  in  which  funding  were  required  were:  Sudan, 
DRC, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Chad, Sahel16, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Burundi/Tanzania. 

Funding in response to natural disasters was made available as follows: recurrent epidemics in 
Southern Africa and West Africa (cholera, meningitis), droughts in Western Africa, Horn of 
Africa, Madagascar and floods in West Africa. 

ECHO implemented drought preparedness activities in the Greater Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, 
Kenya and Uganda), and funded an ECHO Flight service for humanitarian operators in DRC 
and for emergency interventions elsewhere. 

Country/region

Funding decisions adopted in 2009

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

EDF

DIPECHO

TOTAL

SUDAN & CHAD

94 600 000

53 000 000

2 000 000

Sudan 
Chad

75 600 000
19 000 000

40 000 000
13 000 000

2 000 000

CENTRAL AFRICA

57 500 000

20 000 000

2 000 000

Central African Republic
Congo Brazaville
Democratic Republic of Congo
Echo-Flight
Burundi andTanzania

2 000 000

30 000 000
8 500 000
17 000 000

15 000 000

5 000 000

2 000 000

149 600 000

115 600 000
34 000 000

79 500 000

2 000 000
2 000 000
45 000 000
8 500 000
22 000 000

HORN of AFRICA

87 000 000

63 000 000 23 475 000

173 475 000

Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kenya
Somalia
Uganda
Regional Drought Preparedness 
Programme (RDPP)

3 000 000
14 000 000
3 000 000
40 000 000
17 000 000

10 000 000

27 000 000 10 000 000
29 000 000
8 000 000
5 000 000
2 000 000

5 475 000

WEST AFRICA 

25 550 000

21 000 000

4 900 000

Sahel and coastal states
Liberia
Regional West Africa

9 550 000
11 000 000
5 000 000

20 000 000
1 000 000

4 900 000

3 000 000
51 000 000
40 000 000
45 000 000
24 475 000

10 000 000

51 450 000

34 450 000
12 000 000
5 000 000

SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN OCEAN

18 500 000

12 000 000

4 300 000

 735 000

35 535 000

Southern Africa
Madagascar
Zambia
Zimbabwe

5 500 000

 735 000

13 000 000

12 000 000

2 800 000
1 500 000

6 235 000
2 800 000
1 500 000
25 000 000

TOTAL AFRICA

283 150 000 169 000 000 36 675 000

 735 000 489 560 000

16 

Coastal states not included 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
Sudan and Chad, Central Africa 

The region of Central Africa, Sudan and Chad represents the largest single concentration of 
ECHO  humanitarian  activities  in  the  world.  This  is  partly  a  reflection  of  the  sheer  scale  of 
need:  for  example,  five  million  people  in  Sudan  are  affected  by  conflict,  displacement, 
drought, floods and epidemics. It is also an indication of the complexity and recurrent nature 
of crises in these countries. There is, for example, a highly complex web of conflicts in Darfur 
and South Sudan; a million internally displaced people returned to the DRC, but at the same 
time another million were displaced in a different part of the country. Many of the crises cut 
across national boundaries, for example, the Darfur-Chad dynamic and the Lord's Resistance 
Army's  attacks  in  South  Sudan,  Central  African  Republic  and  North-Eastern  DRC.  Many 
crises occur in situations where the state's presence and basic facilities are very weak, or even 
non-existent. 

Conflict is the major factor creating humanitarian crises in this region, displacing people from 
their homes, preventing them from enjoying a stable lifestyle, from earning their livelihoods 
and denying them access to basic services. But conflict also hinders the effectiveness of the 
humanitarian response. Organisations are frequently unable to work, or are constrained from 
working to capacity. On top of this, there is often administrative interference from central and 
local authorities who are suspicious of independent humanitarian aid, and wanting to exercise 
a degree of control over it. 

All  this  takes  place  against  a  background  of  extremely  weak  infrastructure  –  which  creates 
serious  logistical  challenges  for  humanitarian  agencies,  and  appalling  poverty.  Four  of  the 
countries in the region figure in the bottom 10 of the UN's Human Development Index17. 

Nevertheless,  ECHO  was  able  to  administer  effective  humanitarian  projects  through  its 
partners and to reach around ten million people in serious and urgent need in 2009. 

Sudan 

Humanitarian needs 

Sudan represents the largest single country intervention by ECHO in 2009. This was justified 
by  the  scale  of  humanitarian  needs,  in  Darfur,  the  Transitional  Areas  and  also  in  the  South 
where the humanitarian situation significantly deteriorated over the year. 

The  pattern  of  the  conflict  changed  in  Darfur  in  2009,  with  a  reduction  in  the  scale  and 
intensity  of  armed  confrontations.  Nevertheless,  clashes  between  rebel  factions,  between 
rebels and government forces, and between tribes continued to take place, displacing 138 000 
people and forcing humanitarian organisations to limit or suspend their operations. After more 
than  six  years  of  crisis,  the  humanitarian  situation  remains  characterised  by  large-scale 
displacement. Two million people are still living in camps and settlements; two million others 
are affected by the conflict; and there are 40 000 refugees from Chad. All are dependent on 
international assistance for survival.  

17 

http://hdr.undp.org 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
Maintaining  an  adequate  humanitarian  response  continued  to  be  very  challenging  in  2009. 
This  was  due  to  the  scale  of  the  needs,  ongoing  displacement  (even  if  this  diminished 
compared  to  previous  years),  pressure  on  scarce  natural  resources,  and  the  attitude  of  the 
Sudanese authorities towards humanitarian operations. The expulsion from North Sudan of 13 
International  NGOs  (INGOs)18  and  three  national  NGOs  in  March  aggravated  existing  aid 
delivery  gaps  and  weakened  the  influence  of  organisations.  UN  agencies,  along  with  line 
national  ministries  and  the  remaining  NGOs,  stepped  in  to  fill  the  gaps  left  by  expulsions, 
thereby  helping  to  avoid  a  large-scale  humanitarian  catastrophe.  However,  deeper  analysis 
reveals  that  the  quality  of  basic  service  delivery  deteriorated,  and  the  effective  coverage  of 
needs decreased significantly. Protection needs were not met, and assessment and emergency 
response capacities were extremely weak, especially in remote and rural areas. On top of that, 
the cost of operations continued to rise because of security and logistical constraints. 

In  South  Sudan,  the  humanitarian  situation  deteriorated  in  2009,  with  violent  inter-tribal 
clashes and indiscriminate attacks by the Lord's Resistance Army, which killed 2 500 people, 
displaced  more  than  350 000  others,  and  brought  in  more  than  20 000  refugees  from  the 
Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic. Because of these conflicts, plus 
meagre  rainfall,  drought  and  high  food  prices,  severe  food  shortages  significantly  increased 
throughout  South  Sudan,  affecting  a  million  people.  This  exacerbated  a  situation  that  was 
already serious, given that over two million refugees and displaced people had returned since 
the  end  of  the  civil  war  to  areas  totally  lacking  in  basic  services.  In  addition,  both  South 
Sudan  and  the  Transitional  Areas  were  subject  to  recurrent  disease  outbreaks  (cholera, 
meningitis) and to deadly haemorrhagic fevers such as kala-azar. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Over the last five years, about €535 million were allocated for Sudan. ECHO has adapted its 
response  as  the  situation  changed  in  the  country,  in  particular  in  Darfur,  the  South,  and  the 
Transitional Areas. In 2009, €115.6 million were al located for Sudan. Darfur benefited from 
71% of the total allocation, while 20% went to the South, 3% to the North and Transitional 
Areas, and 6% to national operations. 

The  conflict  in  Darfur  generated  one  of  the  biggest-ever  population  displacements,  and  the 
EU's commitment has been significant since the beginning of the crisis in 2003. Since 2007, 
support  for  food  aid,  emergency  food  security  and  livelihood  assistance  have  risen  sharply. 
Food aid is now the biggest single sector. ECHO has also maintained a strong commitment to 
the South and the Transitional Areas since 2005, supporting the return and the reintegration of 
two million refugees and displaced people.  

In  mid-2008,  ECHO  started  supporting  the  UN  World  Food  Programme's  emergency 
activities  in  South  Sudan  to  help  newly  displaced  people,  and  others  needing  food  aid. 
Though  the  return  of  those  displaced  came  to  an  end,  ECHO's  involvement  in  South  Sudan 
increased, so as to respond to new emergencies in 2009. 

18 

International Non-Governmental Organisation 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  ECHO  focused  on  life-saving  and  life-preserving  support.  It  targeted  6.5  million 
people  in  need  of  humanitarian  assistance,  most  of  them  displaced  people,  refugees  and 
returnees.  General  food  distribution was the largest single response  both in terms  of overall 
funding  (32%)  and  coverage,  with  3.6  million  beneficiaries  in  Darfur  and  436 000  in  South 
Sudan.  More  than  5.2  million  people  across  Sudan  benefited  from  health  care  (14%  of 
funding), mainly through primary health care services. Short-term food security intervention 
(11%),  such  as  support  for  agricultural  and  livestock  activities,  reached  over  1.2  million 
people.  Therapeutic  and  supplementary  feeding  programmes  (11%)  benefited  more  than  1.1 
million people, mostly children under five. Water, sanitation and hygiene promotion reached 
1.3  million  beneficiaries  (9%).  ECHO  gave  substantial  support  (10%)  to  humanitarian  air 
transport services, used by 50 000 people from 170 organisations. Shelter and other essential 
items were distributed to 2.8 million people. 

Overall, the Commission maintained a flexible approach to allow for an immediate response 
to new emergencies on the basis of identified needs. 

Working environment  

The working environment in all areas was extremely challenging, and access was constrained 
by  logistical  difficulties,  administrative  obstruction  and  insecurity.  Darfur  was  particularly 
hard  hit  by  administrative  impediments,  including  the  pressure  to  "Sudanize"  humanitarian 
aid  and  by  the  expulsion  of  NGOs  in  March  2009.  Civilians,  humanitarian  workers  and 
peacekeepers were all targets for violence. There were five high-profile cases of abduction of 
expatriates  from  March  2009  onwards:  Médecins  Sans  Frontières  (MSF),  International 
Medical  Aid  (AMI),  GOAL,  United  Nations-African  Union  Mission  in  Darfur  (UNAMID) 
and  ICRC.  Insecurity  has  completely  changed  the  way  in  which  humanitarians  operate, 
drastically  reducing  their  field  presence  and  leading  to  the  suspension  and  closure  of  some 
operations. 

The  authorities  continued  to  restrict  access  to  the  Transitional  Areas  and  the  East.  In  the 
South,  access  was  limited  by  the  poor  road  network,  lack  of  adequate  infrastructure,  and 
flooding during the rainy season. While inter-tribal and clan attacks do not usually target aid 
workers directly, they often create temporary no-go zones. Access is also seriously restricted 
in areas affected by LRA attacks. 

It was very difficult for the humanitarian community to maintain the respect of humanitarian 
space  and  principles.  Some  progress  was  made  when  the  authorities  accepted  a  Joint 
Verification Mechanism to allow the monitoring and evaluation of those returning, ensuring 
they did so, on a voluntary, safe and sustainable basis. Also, the High Level Committee where 
humanitarian  issues  are  discussed  with  the  Sudanese  authorities  was  strengthened  and 
enlarged. 

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

The conditions for an exit strategy in Darfur will only come about when there is an inclusive 
peace agreement covering all parties to the conflict. Instability and insecurity are preventing 
substantial and definitive returns, so a flexible humanitarian approach is still required. Due to 
the lack of local capacity and effective development and recovery instruments, humanitarian 
operators  continue  to  be  the  main  providers  of  a  safety  net  in  South  Sudan  and  the 

EN 

21 

   EN 

Transitional Areas, but many vulnerable people are not covered. Efforts to link humanitarian 
operations  to  development,  particularly  to  the  10th  EDF  programme,  have  been  seriously 
hampered  by  the  decision  of  the  Sudanese  government  not  to  ratify  the  revised  Cotonou 
Agreement.  Humanitarian  aid  cannot  compensate  for  the  absence  of  development  funding. 
However,  support  is  necessary  in  the  immediate  term  for  the  populations  in  great  need  of 
basic services, also to help preventing further destabilisation. This is particularly important in 
view of elections in 2010 and a referendum on the independence of the South in 2011. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Various  Commission  services  work  closely  together  on  Sudan,  as  well  as  with  the  EU 
Delegation. The Commission also regularly shares its contextual analysis and concerns with 
Member  States  in  COHAFA19,  with  the  EU  Special  Representatives,  and  with  its  partners, 
particularly  in  the  aftermath  of  the  NGO  expulsions.  Regular  co-ordination  meetings  take 
place  in  Khartoum  with  other  humanitarian  donors.  Representatives  from  the  Commission 
have  actively  participated  in  the  High  Level  Committee  in  Khartoum,  and  in  the  high-level 
donor meetings for Darfur held in New York and Geneva. 

Chad 

Humanitarian needs 

Since  2003,  257 000  Sudanese  refugees  have  fled  the  province  of  Darfur  to  the  border 
provinces of Eastern Chad, which are among the poorest regions of the country. In the south, 
the regions of Moyen Chari, Logone Oriental and Salamat are hosting some 67 000 refugees 
from  the  Central  African  Republic.  Since  2006,  about  168 000  people  have  been  internally 
displaced  in  the  south-eastern  part  of  Chad  near  the  border  with  Darfur.  In  certain  areas, 
particularly  in  Southern  Assounga  and  the  Dar  Sila,  voluntary  returns  to  villages  of  origin 
have  been  registered  since  2007.  From  December  2008,  when  a  survey  on  nutrition  drew 
attention to an alarming situation, the humanitarian aid community reinforced its mobilisation 
in the region of Kanem to combat malnutrition. 

The  country  is  extremely  vulnerable,  threatened  by  epidemics  and  floods  as  well  as 
malnutrition. In addition to displacements in the eastern and southern regions of the country, 
2009 also saw floods and a meningitis epidemic in the south. Food insecurity is expected to 
increase.  

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since 2003, in the eastern part of the country, there has been an emergency response to the 
arrival of Sudanese refugees fleeing conflict in Darfur. A separate response assisted internally 
displaced  people  over  2006-2007.  Since  then,  host  populations  close  to  the  displacement 
territories  2007  have  also  needed  assistance  to  maintain  basic  services.  ECHO  has  had  to 
respond  to  new  emergencies,  and  will  do  so  until  security  improves  enough  to  allow  the 
repatriation  of  displaced  people.  Parallel  to  this  influx  to  the  East  further  humanitarian 
operations were launched to aid refugees from Central African Republic coming to Southern 
Chad.  Since  2008  the  strategy  on  humanitarian  aid  has  included  a  transition  phase  in 
connection with actions implemented by the EU Delegation. In December 2008 ECHO started 

19 

EU Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
to  implement  EU  funded  humanitarian  activities  in  the  region  of  Kanem  to  overcome  acute 
malnutrition. 

EU funding increased over the period 2006-2007 as a result of internal displacement. Due to 
the arrival of new humanitarian actors in Chad along with the intervention in Kanem, the sum 
total stabilised at €34 million in 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, the EU contributed to alleviating the vulnerability of those affected by intervening in 
all traditional humanitarian aid sectors: nutrition and health, water/sanitation, shelter and other 
essentials,  protection,  education  and  community  services.  ECHO  also  intervened  in  co-
ordination, humanitarian air transport, food aid and food security. 

All  Sudanese  refugees  benefited  from  operations  funded  by  the  EU,  in  all,  about  257 000 
people,  as  well  as  168 000  others  who  were  internally-displaced,  including  those  who 
voluntarily returned to their villages of origin. In the South, ECHO supported 53 000 refugees 
from  the  Central  African  Republic.  Lastly,  ECHO  continued  to  support  host  populations  in 
areas where refugees are to be settled and displaced. In the absence of accurate censuses of 
the  host  populations  in  these  areas,  it  remains  extremely  difficult  to  quantify  the  number  of 
beneficiaries affected. 

In the region of Kanem, EU financed a first food aid operation in early December 2008. This 
benefited 12 000 women, and children, of whom 7 000 were severely malnourished. This was 
followed  by  a  decision  of  €2  million  under  the  10 th  EDF  in  2009  to  strengthen  the 
humanitarian presence and aid response in the area. The response may have to be stepped up 
again, as food shortages could potentially grow even worse in 2010.  

Overall,  there  was  a  satisfactory  response  in  terms  of  meeting  the  needs  of  the  most 
vulnerable. Major crises were averted, and the health supervision mechanism alerted actors in 
time to prevent decline in the main indicators. The maintenance of a humanitarian air service 
meant humanitarian aid workers were able to gain access to all areas of intervention, ensuring 
neutrality  and  independence.  However  this  required  an  emergency  mobilisation  of  funds 
during the second half of 2009. The initial Global Plan of €30 million was revised, bringing 
funding up to €32 million. 

Working environment 

The year 2009 was marked by increasingly frequent and violent criminal acts in Eastern Chad. 
This  climate  contributed  to  restricting  humanitarian  space,  leading  some  organisations  to 
suspend their activities. In 2009, there was a new type of criminally-motivated security threat, 
with  humanitarian  workers  being 
taken  hostage  for  ransom.  Various  humanitarian 
organisations  such  as  'Médecins  sans  Frontières',  'Action  contre  la  Faim',  'Solidarités'  and 
'International  Committee  of  the  Red  Cross'  have  been  affected  by  this  insecurity  situation; 
ICRC in particular has had a delegate kidnapped on the 22nd of October 2009 and has only 
been released after 89 days of detention. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

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

In  southern  regions  which  hosted  Central  African  refugees,  the  Commission's  strategy  has 
changed since 2008, with the introduction of mechanisms to support reviving agriculture, as 
well  as  income-generating  projects.  This  approach  was  developed  with  and  through  the  EU 
Delegation, which started food security programmes in the regions of Maro and then Goré, in 
parallel with ECHO preparing to withdraw. 

In  the  East,  there  needs  to  be  a  shift  from  emergency  responses  to  programmes  promoting 
self-sufficiency,  assuming  recipients  could  take  on  more  responsibility.  However,  prospects 
are  restricted  because  the  government  of  Chad  lacks  decentralised  services,  and  more 
development  actors  are  needed  in  key  sectors  such  as  health,  education  and  agricultural 
development. 

Co-ordination of aid 

A  joint  mission  by  ECHO  and  the  American  humanitarian  departments  (BPRM20  and 
OFDA21) took place in January 2009, allowing joint analysis of the situation as well as better 
co-ordination of actions financed by the two major humanitarian donors in Chad. Moreover, 
ECHO takes active part in the work of the informal group of donors for Chad, which is based 
in Geneva. 

Central African Republic  

Humanitarian needs 

At the end of 2006, the increased level of fighting between government forces and rebels in 
the  northwest  and  northeast  of  the  country,  together  with  the  increase  in  foreign  incursions 
and attacks by road bandits led to the displacement of more than 200 000 people. Although 
the level of violence and instability diminished in 2008, in 2009 conflict levels rose again as a 
result  of  a  faltering  peace  process,  new  rebel  movements  and  a  rise  in  ethnic  tension.  The 
global humanitarian context remains complex, with conflict and post-conflict situations. The 
international  economic  crisis  exacerbated  the  situation.  The  most  urgent  needs  were 
water/sanitation, food security, health, other essentials, protection and logistical support. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

ECHO  became  involved  in  the  Republic  in  2007.  €8 million  were  allocated  in  2007  and 
implemented in 2007-08, and €7.8 million in 2008 for implementation mostly in 2009, topped 
up  by  €2  million  in  2009  in  response  to  an 
increase  in  LRA  attacks.  Since  mid-2007,  the 
Commission has significantly contributed to a continuous and effective relief response in the 
northern regions affected by conflict. Water/sanitation, food security, health, protection, other 
essentials  and  humanitarian  air  support  have  predominated  with  an  increasing  focus  on 
nutrition  programmes.  Presence  in  the  field  was  expanded  in  2007-08,  and  implementing 
capacity  and  geographical  coverage  went  on  expanding  into  2009.  However,  logistical  and 
security constraints have slowed down the rate of expansion. 

20 
21 

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration 
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The  EU's  objective  was  to  provide  assistance  for  displaced  people,  refugees,  returnees  and 
vulnerable groups, to promote stabilisation and resettlement. In the northwest of the country, 
gradual  improvements  observed  in  2008  allowed  operations  in  new  areas.  Then  in  2009, 
small-scale  conflicts  shifted  from  the  northwest  to  the  north-centre  and  northeast,  and  there 
was  a  new  refugee  influx  from  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo.  ECHO's  approach  has 
been  sufficiently  flexible  to  respond  immediately  to  the  evolving  situation  and  to  maintain 
multi-sectoral assistance to 160 000 displaced people and returnees, 30 000 refugees and other 
vulnerable groups. 

Working environment  

Despite  efforts  to  initiate  dialogue  among  the  parties  to  the  conflicts,  humanitarian  access 
became increasingly restricted because of factors such as official denial, banditry, conflict and 
logistics. There was a worrying increase in violence targeting international organisations. This 
resulted in aid being withdrawn from some areas. 

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

ECHO has, as far as possible, focused EU-funded intervention in areas and sectors identified 
in the development strategy. This has meant funding actions facilitating an exit strategy from 
humanitarian aid towards recovery projects, especially for food security and water/sanitation. 
Discussions  with  the  EU  Delegation  are  ongoing  so  as  to  promote  this  trend  through 
complementary  initiatives  and  instruments.  However,  these  efforts  will  be  jeopardised  if 
conflict and insecurity go on. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The Commission liaises on issues of common concern with the only other donors present in 
the country, namely France and the US Aid organisations have access to funding UN Pooled 
Funds such as the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) and the Common Humanitarian 
Fund (CHF); EU- and CHF-funded projects are often implemented in the same areas, hence 
the need for close co-ordination. 

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 

Humanitarian needs 

Despite  successful  elections,  the  DRC  is  still  far  from  peaceful.  It  remains  a  country  of 
marked contrasts. Although a million displaced people were able to return home and regain 
self-sufficiency, renewed conflict and military operations in North and South Kivu in the East 
uprooted more than a million people, putting them in urgent need of health care, water, food 
and shelter. Violence against women and children remains a particular problem, especially in 
conflict zones, with victims requiring urgent medical and psychological assistance. 

The situation in the Eastern region, especially Orientale Province and North and South Kivu, 
continues to give serious cause for concern. In the first eight months of 2009, 775 000 people 
were displaced in the provinces of North and South Kivu, and 455 000 in the eastern districts 
of Orientale Province. Major clashes between the Congolese armed forces and their allies and 
rebel armed groups (including the LRA) since early 2009 are among the factors to blame. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

The situation was calmer in Katanga, but there was a marked slowdown in the repatriation of 
Congolese refugees from Zambia and Tanzania, because of growing insecurity in the areas to 
which refugees were returning. 

Finally, the region of Dongo, along the river Ubangi between the DRC and the Republic of 
Congo,  was  tormented  by  violent  conflict  from  the  end  of  October  2009.  These  conflicts 
created huge movements of refugees from the DRC into the Republic of Congo. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Humanitarian needs have matched conflict levels. At  the height of the fighting (1996-2003) 
development  aid  was  suspended  and  the  EU-funded  humanitarian  aid  programme  became 
very broad covering the whole country. After peace agreements, the level of conflict subsided, 
allowing  development  aid  to  resume.  However,  persistent  intermittent  conflict  in  the  East 
prolonged the need for emergency assistance. ECHO thus scaled down from the peak of EU-
funding in 2000-03, though in the past five years, aid has remained relatively stable, with a 
budget of €45 million in 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  a  country  which  is  among  the  world's  neediest,  the  Commission's  strategy  is  focused  on 
internally-displaced  people  in  conflict  situations  and  on  protection-related  issues.  Aid  has 
targeted  those  most  vulnerable  in  the  worst-affected  regions:  victims  of  conflict,  those 
displaced, and host communities affected by population movements. Help and protection for 
female  victims  of  conflict  is  a  high  priority,  with  provision  of  obstetric  care  and  special 
programmes  for  victims  of  sexual  violence.  The  special  needs  of  vulnerable  children  have 
also been taken into account, particularly regagrding the risk of separation from their families 
during return journeys, and recruitment by armed groups. 

EU  funded  programmes  supporting  35  health  zones,  which  provided  coverage  for  three 
million  people  and  curative  care  for  a  million  patients.  There  was  care  for  9 100  victims  of 
sexual violence; 122 500 people gained improved access to clean water, and 72 000 displaced 
families  received  survival  kits.  Some  160 000  households  received  support  for  seeds  and 
tools,  135  km  of  key  access  roads  were  rehabilitated  and  14 500  refugees  were  assisted  in 
repatriation from neighbouring countries. The same applied to 11 000 people, who went back 
to Rwanda. There was food assistance for 2.8 million people. 

Working environment 

The  working  environment  in  the  DRC  is  extremely  difficult:  logistics  are  a  constant 
challenge,  due  to  lack  of  basic  infrastructure.  This  is  made  worse  by  an  increasing  level  of 
government interference in humanitarian affairs, looking to influence who does what, where 
and  how.  Security  in  the  zones  where  ECHO  operates  has  also  become  increasingly 
problematic, with an ever-growing number of restricted areas. 

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

ECHO has continued to hand over health programmes to development partners in areas that 
have  stabilised.  However,  in  North  and  South  Kivu  and  Orientale  Province  the  process  has 
been reversed. Several health districts have to ask extra EU support to face increased needs. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

Co-ordination of aid 

The  Commission  is  fully  involved  in  the  annual  process  led  by  the  UN  Humanitarian 
Coordinator to formulate humanitarian strategy and a new Humanitarian Action Plan. 

The  Global  Humanitarian  Donorship  initiative  in  the  DRC  continues  to  foster  active  co-
operation  among  donors.  This  is  extremely  relevant,  given  the  growing  number  of  funding 
instruments and programmes in the East of the country, including those being implemented at 
the  initiative  of  the  Congolese  authorities.  ECHO  plays  an  active  part  in  this  process  and 
closely monitors financing mechanisms such as the Pooled Fund and the Central Emergency 
Response Fund , although it does not contribute to them. 

Co-ordination  with  development  instruments  continues.  The  multisectoral  rehabilitation  aid 
programme,  financed  from  the  9th  EDF  and  specifically  designed  to  complement  ECHO's 
programmes, is set to continue until December 2012. The €23 million Food Security Thematic 
Programme22 (FSTP) will take over from EU humanitarian aid for longer-term food security 
initiatives. The Instrument for Stability23 has also allocated €10 m illion, mostly for the reform 
and stabilisation of the security sector in the Eastern part of the country. 

ECHO Flight 

Humanitarian needs 

There is no safe and reliable means of transport between the supply and personnel entry points 
and  the  main  humanitarian  destinations.  Overland  travel  is  dangerous  and  time-consuming, 
sometimes  even  impossible,  given  security  constraints  or  lack  of  roads.  The  use  of  ECHO 
Flight services enables humanitarian NGOs to keep inventory stockpiles at field locations at 
low levels, reducing the risk of confiscation or theft by armed bandits or local militias. This 
makes  quality  control  easier,  as  supervisory  visits  can  be  made  more  frequently.  Having 
airborne stand-by evacuation capacity is essential for many agencies to enable them to go on 
implementing projects. ECHO Flight also operates in Kenya, to serve humanitarian operators 
in areas where alternative access has become too dangerous. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

As the security situation improved, ECHO was able to expand its geographical coverage. This 
increased the need for air transport, so there has been a small but steady increase in funding, 
from €6 million in 2006, to €8.5 million in 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The  aim  has  been  to  facilitate  implementation  of  humanitarian  and  post-emergency 
development projects in difficult or inaccessible areas. After a tender process, ECHO entered 
into a service agreement with DAC Aviation, a commercial operator, providing suitable and 
secure aircraft. This has been satisfactorily achieved, using three aircraft operating a mix of 
fixed and flexible schedules. 

22 

23 

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/food_safety/international_dimension_enlargement/ 
r12546_en.htm  
http://EU.europa.eu/external_relations/ifs/index_en.htm 

EN 

27 

   EN 

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

There are no plans at present to hand over this  operation to the EU Delegation, though this 
might be possible at later stage. 

Burundi and Tanzania 

Humanitarian needs 

Given  the  close  links  between  the  two  countries  in  terms  of  humanitarian  needs,  the 
Commission  again  combined  Burundi  and  Tanzania  into  one  Global  Plan,  and  administered 
field operations from Bujumbura, with a small field office in Kigoma. 

Tanzania  continues  to  host  a  large  refugee  population,  almost  entirely  dependent  on 
humanitarian  aid.  At  the  beginning  of  2009,  there  were  still  125 000  refugees  in  Tanzania, 
mainly  Burundians  and  Congolese.  Repatriation  was  very  slow,  and  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
there were still 100 000 refugees in two camps, needing food, water, shelter, protection and 
health care. Most of those who fled to Tanzania in 1972 are in the process of naturalisation, 
and the 30 000 who have asked to return to Burundi have been repatriated. 

After  15  years  of  conflict,  there  has  been  no  fighting  in  Burundi  since  April  2008.  The 
reconstruction and stabilisation process is underway, with the second democratic elections in 
the  country's  history  scheduled  for  2010.  Despite  a  major  repatriation  exercise,  living 
conditions  remain  difficult.  Burundi  also  hosts  three  camps  for  19 000  Congolese  refugees, 
with  a  further  11 000  registered  refugees  living  in  urban  areas  and  needing  care  and 
maintenance support. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Assistance  has  evolved  from  life-saving  emergency  aid  to  rehabilitation  and  development. 
Chronic  poverty,  independent  of  the  conflict,  means  many  Burundians  are  in  a  very 
vulnerable position, and will remain so. The return of refugees, though positive, has added to 
this vulnerability. So, despite the increase in development aid, there is still a need for some 
humanitarian  assistance.  Furthermore,  the  situation  in  the  Eastern  DRC  remains  highly 
uncertain,  and  there  could  be  a  further  influx  of  Congolese  refugees.  The  Commission  is 
progressively  reducing  EU  assistance,  from  around  €31.6  million  per  year  in  2005-07,  to 
€22 million in 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009  

The  main  aim  is  to  limit  mortality  and  morbidity  rates,  and  to  support  resettlement  and 
stabilisation.  ECHO’s  strategy  for  2009  focused  on  water/sanitation,  health,  nutrition, 
housing,  protection  and  transport.  Vulnerable  groups  in  Burundi,  such  as  unaccompanied 
children, the disabled and the elderly, have also been targeted, and repatriation programmes 
have been financed in Tanzania. In the two countries, there was aid for 21 000 children under 
the  age  of  five  and  130 000  refugees  living  in  camps,  together  with  40 000  returnees  from 
Tanzania and up to a million vulnerable people in Burundi. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

Working environment  

Burundi  has  been  free  of  conflict  since  April  2008.  The  demobilisation,  disarmament  and 
reintegration  of the last  party  to  have  given up armed struggle, the Palipehutu-FNL, is now 
under  way,  with  the  support  of  the  international  community.  However,  peace  and  stability 
could be jeopardised if the outcome of the elections is challenged. 

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

The transition to development programmes in Burundi began in 2007 and remained high on 
the  agenda  in  2009.  Ongoing  and  enhanced  synergy  among  Commission  services  made  it 
possible  to  implement  several  new  multi-sector  programmes,  progressively  reducing 
humanitarian aid. These  programmes  include: the Post Conflict Rural  Development Project; 
the Food Security Thematic Programme; and the Santé Plus project. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The constructive, ongoing and wide-ranging dialogue between the European Commission and 
the  EU  Delegation  resulted  in  several  new  multi-sector  programmes  in  health,  post-conflict 
rural development and food security; Co-ordination on LRRD and other matters is also being 
pursued with other development players, including DFID24, Swiss and German Co-operation, 
World  Bank  and  the  Global  Alliance  for  Vaccines  and  Immunisation.  There  has  been  a 
national committee for coordinating aid since 2005. 

2.3.1.  Horn of Africa 

In  2009,  the  rains  failed  in  the  Horn  of  Africa.  This,  combined  with  conflicts  and 
displacement,  high  food  and  fuel  prices,  as  well  as  livestock  diseases,  exacerbated  food 
insecurity. About 20 million people became dependent on food assistance. This number could 
rise  in  2010,  particularly  among  marginal  farmers,  pastoralists  and  low-income  urban 
dwellers.  Lack  of  adequate  pasture  has  made  conditions  worse  for  livestock,  reducing 
pastoralists' income and access to staple foods.  

In 2009, the Commission allocated of €173 million to  respond to this crisis. The initial budget 
was  only  €87  million,  so  additional  resources  were  mobilised  from  the  EU  humanitarian 
operational  reserve  (€13  million),  the  EU  Em ergency  Aid  Reserve  (€50 million)  and  the 
European Development Fund (€23 million). Food ai d was ECHO's main sector of intervention 
and the World Food Programme its main partner, especially in Ethiopia and Kenya. 

Because  of  political  instability  and  continuing  conflict  and  violence  in  Somalia,  it  has  not 
been  possible  to  put  in  place  an  adequate  monitoring  system  for  humanitarian  operations. 
There  were  also  serious  access  problems  and  very  limited  implementing  capacity  in  Eritrea 
and the Somali region of Ethiopia. Kenya faces an increasing influx of Somali refugees. The 
Horn of Africa remains a region where the preservation of humanitarian space and the respect 
of humanitarian principles are at risk. 

24 

UK Department for International Development 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
Eritrea 

Humanitarian needs 

Eritrea  suffers  recurring  dry  periods.  Moreover,  the  country  is  still  officially  at  war  with 
Ethiopia and Djibouti. There has been no survey since 2006, so there is little information on 
the humanitarian situation. The latest EU-Joint Research Centre cereal production estimate is 
140 000 tons, 30% below the 10-yeas average, and only 25%, at best, of minimum needs for 
the year. Based on a fairly realistic figure of five million people, this means the country needs 
over 660 000 million tonnes of cereal to make up the balance. Although there is no reliable 
data,  an  alarming  number  of  people  were  admitted  to  nutrition  programmes  up  to  October 
2009. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

A total of €23.6 million were allocated for Er itrea from 2005 to 2009. ECHO's interventions 
progressively shifted from water/sanitation support to include health, nutrition and protection, 
with  an  increasing  focus  on  nutrition.  However,  implementing  capacity  has  continued  to 
decrease because of logistical and administrative constraints affecting all partners, including 
the  expulsion  of  several  NGOs.  EU  humanitarian  allocations  have  progressively  been 
reduced, from €6 million in 2007, to  €4 million in 2008, and €3 million in 2009. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  May  2009,  there  was  a  €3  m illion  funding  decision.  The  scope  of  this  was  three-fold: 
detection  and  management  of  acute  malnutrition,  improvement  of  maternal  healthcare,  and 
food  security  in  the  Ethiopia-Eritrea  border  areas,  targeting  people  whose  lives  had  been 
disrupted by conflict. The number of partners in Eritrea decreased, following the expulsion of 
an NGO partner in August 2009. The few remaining partners (the UN and ICRC) are working 
under the strict control of the Government. This has had two consequences. First, the quality 
of programmes is deteriorating, because of the lack of (reliable) data, needs assessment and 
monitoring capacity, as well as training capacity hampered by lack of access. Second, limited 
implementation  capacity  has  meant  that  funds  available  could  not  be  deployed.  This  meant 
that  although  funding  worth  €3  million  was  originally  envisaged,  only  €1  million  was 
committed in 2009. 

Working environment 

Because  of  Government  restrictions,  resulting  in  shrinking  humanitarian  space,  lack  of 
reliable  data  and  effective  implementation  capacity,  ECHO  could  not  implement  all  of  the 
funding  allocated  in  2009  and  is  not  at  present  able  to  support  interventions  to  address  the 
needs of vulnerable groups. 

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

Unless working conditions improve enough to allow humanitarian actors to work according to 
the guiding principles of humanitarian aid, the EU will not be able to fund activities in Eritrea. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

Ethiopia 

Humanitarian needs 

Lack of rain in 2008 meant lack of food, and up to 6.2 million people needed food assistance 
in  2009.  The  number  of  people  affected  was  probably  far  higher  than  the  Government's 
conservative  official  figure.  Those  in  distress  moved  elsewhere,  and  their  livestock  died, 
according  to  reports  from  the  pastoralist  lowland  areas.  There  was  also  conflict  over 
resources,  malnutrition,  and  erosion  of  livelihoods.  Many  people  lacked  basic  productive 
assets.  During  2009,  the  prevalence  of  acute  watery  diarrhoea  (AWD-Cholera)  increased 
sevenfold  as  compared  to  2008.  The  conflict  in  the  Somali  Region  and  military  operations 
restricted  regular  food  deliveries  to  market,  further  aggravating  the  very  fragile  situation  in 
this remote region. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Ethiopia  had  copious  harvests  from  2004  to  2007,  improving  food  security.  However,  from 
2008  onwards,  the  situation  deteriorated  rapidly.  The  number  of  people  in  need  of  food  aid 
peaked,  reaching  6.4  million  in  October  2008,  and  in  December  2009,  the  number  was 
estimated at 6.2 million. Less rain immediately means less production and more need for food 
aid.  Acute  watery  diarrhoea  was  first  reported  in  April  2006,  and  became  widespread,  with 
more  than  18 000  cases  reported  in  September  2009.  The  trend  is  rising,  mainly  because 
people drank water from contaminated sources. Poor hygiene in general and migrant labourers 
became vectors for its transmission.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, EU allocated €52.6 million for Ethiopia,  out of which €37 million was for food aid, 
€14 million for general humanitarian aid and 
€1.6 million to a Regional Drought Decision for 
Disaster Risk Reduction.  

The major objectives can be summarised as follows: 

•  To relieve human suffering caused by natural and/or man-made disasters through provision 
of  assistance  in  the  health,  food  assistance  and  water/sanitation  sectors  to  those  most 
vulnerable, including refugees and internally displaced persons  

•  To contribute to alleviating the impact of the current drought and frequent drought cycles 

on targeted vulnerable local communities. 

The  EU  supported  food  assistance,  nutritional  support,  epidemic  response,  primary  health 
care,  water,  sanitation  and  hygiene,  food  security  and  livelihood  support  and  animal  health. 
The  number  of  beneficiaries  totalled  6.85  million,  of  whom  62%  received  food  aid.  ECHO 
helped to ensure access to basic survival items, sustained livelihood recovery, and resilience 
built  up.  This  was  achieved  by  providing  food  to  those  identified  in  accordance  with  the 
national  food  aid  targeting  guidelines,  nutritional  response  programmes  including  outreach 
therapeutic  programmes,  as  well  as  supplementary  feeding  programmes.  Treatment  centres 
were set up to respond to epidemics, and acute watery diarrhoea awareness programmes were 
implemented, as well as educational programmes on safe hygiene and sanitation practices.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

There was also support for better access to safe drinking water. Those who had lost the means 
to grow food as crops failed were given a second chance with supplies of inputs such as seeds 
and fertilizers. 

Working environment 

There were no serious threats to humanitarian workers. However, in Somali Regional State, 
security  remained  fragile.  In  particular,  the  Ogaden,  which  covers  more  than  half  of  the 
region, was threatened area because of conflict between the Ogaden National Liberation Front 
(ONLF) and the Ethiopian Defence Forces. In the southern Oromiya area, ethnic clashes are 
common, and exacerbated by drought, when access to pasture and water becomes scarce. The 
Gambella  Region  has  insecurity  problems  because  of  the  conflict  between  the  Anuak, 
Majangir, highlander settlers and Nuer (from Sudan). The Somali Regional State is the most 
difficult  to  access,  possible  only  on  a  case-by-case  basis  when  ensured  by  the  Regional 
Government  and  the  Ethiopian  Defence  Forces.  In  the  Ogaden,  access  restrictions  are 
imposed  on  all  international  NGOs  and  UN  agencies.  According  to  ECHO  partners,  the 
current situation has improved since 2006 and 2007, when access was almost impossible, but 
it is still a major concern. 

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

ECHO's Office in Ethiopia and the EU Delegation work closely with other donors to pursue 
an LRRD policy. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The  Humanitarian  Donors  Co-ordination  Group  has  been  consolidated  thanks  to  the  active 
involvement  of  OFDA25,  DFID,  the  Netherlands  Embassy  and  the  Humanitarian  Response 
Fund  (HRF)26  of  OCHA.  ECHO  plays  an  essential  and  active  role  in  this  group,  which 
regularly discusses the humanitarian situation in the country,  to inform the decision-making 
process of individual donor agencies. The group aims to avoid double-funding and geographic 
overlap; and discusses the implementation capacity of potential partners. 

Kenya 

Humanitarian needs 

The crisis in the Northern and Eastern part of the country is the result of near-total failure of 
the  long  rains  in  2009,  coupled  with  erratic  short  rains.  This  combination  added  to  the 
accumulated impact of five consecutive failed seasons since 2006. The frequent recurrence of 
dry  episodes  means  that  pastoralists  and  agro-pastoralists  are  not  able  to  recover  between 
droughts. Food insecurity and malnutrition have to be seen in the context of poor development 
of  marginalised  arid  and  semi-arid  lands,  the  weak  health  system,  conflicts  over  resources, 
lack of governance at central and district levels, and poor management of the grain market.  

25 
26 

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance 
Humanitarian  Response  Fund  (HRF)  gets  funding  from  The  Netherlands,  Norway,  Sweden  and  the 
United Kingdom 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
Malnutrition  of  children  under  the  age  of  five  has  peaked  above  WHO27  emergency  levels. 
Daadab refugee camps, built to accommodate 90 000 people, hosted 280 000 refugees at the 
end of 2009. More than 10 000 refugees have been relocated to Kakuma, which hosted former 
refugee camps during the South Sudan crisis. Existing refugee camps are operating far above 
their capacity, increasing the stress on refugees and agencies providing assistance. Refugees 
arrived at the camps at the rate of more than 5 000 a month in 2009. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since  2005,  more  than  €83.5 million  in  EU  human itarian  assistance  has  been  allocated  to 
Kenya. There was a peak in 2008 (€23.5 million) to meet the needs of those affected by post-
election  violence.  Severe  drought  and  the  continuous  influx  of  refugees  made  2009  another 
bad year. The total budget allocation in 2009 was €40 million, out of which €10 million was 
for interventions in refugee camps. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

ECHO  had  two  main  objectives.  It  supported  refugees  in  vital  sectors  such  as  food, 
water/sanitation and health. It also aimed to alleviate the impact of recurrent drought cycles 
through  improved  response  and  more  emergency  capacity,  including  humanitarian  food  aid 
and  other  forms  of  emergency  food  assistance  (including  nutritional  support  and  short-term 
food security and livelihood support). There was also a first-line response to urgent needs in 
the  face  of  severe  drought.  To  bridge  the peak  hunger  period  (December-March), EU  made 
funds available to step up distribution of food for 350 000 children and pregnant or lactating 
women. 

A substantial contribution to  WFP should carry over into 2010 to respond to the significant 
rise  in  the  number  of  food  aid  beneficiaries  due  to  acute  seasonal  stress.  Through  four 
successive  Decisions,  the  Commission  proved  able  to  scale  up  its  response  in  line  with  the 
situation.  In  response  to  the  drought,  the  EU  supported  food  aid  including  funding  for 
UNICEF (€1.5 million) and a Blanket Supplemen tary Feeding with the WFP (€7.5 million); 
emergency  livestock  interventions,  mainly  restocking;  emergency  water  interventions, 
integrated  into  wider  actions  and  a  "food  for  work"  intervention.  Almost  all  of  these  were 
carried out in the arid lands of Kenya. 

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

In  line  with  the  10th  EDF,  key  sectors  are  road  infrastructure  and  rural  development.  The 
focus is not on the arid and semi-arid lands. The mid-term review was an opportunity to stress 
the need for closer co-ordination. EU is not the lead donor in the health and nutrition sectors, 
though many aspects will be integrated under the rural development chapter. There was close 
co-ordination among all EU services to ensure that food facility was used as an opportunity 
for linkage with development, and some of the partners and types of activities show this. Co-
ordination  has  intensified  since  the  9th  EDF,  for  instance  over  the  Drought  Management 
Initiative.  This  initiative  supports  the  joint  Government  of  Kenya  /  World  Bank  Drought 
Contingency Fund. The arid and semi-arid lands are increasingly viewed from a development 
perspective with donors committing medium term funds. 

27 

World Health Organisation (UN) 

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
Somalia 

Humanitarian needs 

Humanitarian  needs  remained  overwhelming  in  Somalia,  a  country  afflicted  by  almost  20 
years of conflict and instability. Worsening cyclical droughts, floods, and epidemic outbreaks 
aggravate  and  compound  the  situation.  The  humanitarian  crisis  remained  widespread  and 
severe throughout 2009, with half of the population, an estimated 3.76 million people, in need 
of  humanitarian  aid.  In  2009,  the  number  of  people  displaced  increased  from 1.3  million in 
January  to  1.55  million  in  September,  including  524 000  in  the  Afgooye  corridor.  Those  in 
need  include  1.4  million  rural  people  affected  by  severe  drought,  655 000  urban  poor  who 
continue to struggle with very high prices for food and other essentials, and more than 1.42 
million  people  displaced  by  conflict.  Around  93%  of  those  displaced  are  concentrated  in 
South and Central Somalia. The main cause of displacement in Somalia is insecurity (86.2%) 
followed by drought (7.8%) and lack of livelihood (4.7%). The numbers of people displaced 
are likely to rise in 2010. As well as suffering the impact of conflict, people in most parts of 
Somalia  are  seeing  a  sharp  deterioration  in  their  situation,  with  livelihoods  undermined, 
coping strategies eroded, high commodity prices, inflation, a continuing currency devaluation, 
and persistent drought in Central and Northern Somalia. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

From 2005 to 2009, the EU provided aid reaching a total of €126 million for the period. In 
2009,  following  the  escalation  of  the  conflict  and  related  displacement  from  Mogadishu, 
worsening drought and the overall intensification of the humanitarian crisis, the Commission 
has  progressively  increased  EU  support  through  the  Global  Plan  and  other  regional 
humanitarian  aid  decisions  to  €45 million.  The  main  aim  remained  the  same  throughout  the 
period: 'To assist the victims of insecurity and climatic hazards in Somalia'. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The main sectors addressed were health care, nutrition, water/sanitation, food security, food 
aid,  co-ordination  and  drought  preparedness/response.  The  €45  million  allocation  in  2009 
reflected the need to respond in real time to increasing needs. EU support in Somalia reached 
an  estimated  three  million  people,  though  it  is  hard  to  calculate  figures  accurately.  In  the 
health sector, EU support focused on primary health care, including both in-patient and out-
patient,  specialised  mother  and  child  health  care,  paediatrics  and  emergency  war  surgery  as 
well  as  curative  nutrition.  Regarding  food  security,  there  were  several  components 
programmed,  including  reinforcement  of  emergency  veterinary  services28  in  response  to 
outbreaks  of  livestock  diseases  threatening  herds  across  the  centre  and  south  of  Somalia  as 
well as close to the border with Kenya. Seeds and tools were delivered, and there were cash- 
based  interventions,  income-generating  activities  or  unconditional  cash,  as  well  as  other 
initiatives  to  restore  the  ability  to  make  a  livelihood.  EU  humanitarian  assistance  has 
contributed  to  the  WFP  food  aid  pipeline,  targeting  about  2.2  million  people.  One  key 
programme  in  Mogadishu  provided  roughly  75 000 cooked meals a  day.  Water/sanitation, a 
sector of vital importance in Somalia, included improved access to water and hygiene. When 

28 

The veterinary initiatives also aim to ensure that morbidity rate of critical livestock diseases would not 
exceed 20% and mortality rates kept below the normal 20% thus contributing significantly to ensuing 
the protection of people's livestock herds and livelihoods 

EN 

34 

   EN 

                                                 
appropriate, water trucking continued in 2009. In the past, most assistance went to the Central 
and  Southern  Regions.  However,  because  of  the  drought  in  the  Pastoral  Central  Northern 
regions  and  the  influx  of  displaced  people  to  other  areas  of  the  North,  the  focus  has  been 
adjusted to include more support for Puntland and Somaliland.  

Working environment 

The  so-called  Djibouti  peace  process  has  not  yet  produced  any  reconciliation  between  the 
Transitional Federal Government and Opposition Groups. As a result, thousands of civilians 
in  and  around  Mogadishu  are  caught  up  in  the  impact  of  renewed  hostilities.  Though  the 
numbers of humanitarian international staff in Somalia rose in 2009, most of them based in 
the  North,  they  had  difficulties  moving  in  an  unrestricted  manner  outside  established 
compounds.  There  were  fewer  incidents  targeting  humanitarian  personnel  or  assets,  a  fact 
clearly related to the decrease in the numbers of UN and NGO staff in South Somalia, as well 
as to operational changes limiting staff exposure to risk. Fighting for control of territory and 
the  targeting  of  humanitarian  assets  frequently  prevented  access  to  populations  in  need  or 
interrupted  assistance  activities,  particularly  in  Mogadishu  and  the  South  Somalia29.  That  is 
why  ECHO's  partners  and  other  aid  agencies  were  unable  to  undertake  accurate  field 
assessments,  do  proper  monitoring,  or  scale  up  their  activities  to  meet  growing  needs. 
Furthermore,  infringements  of  humanitarian  law  repeatedly  undermined  and  restricted  the 
ability  of  humanitarian  actors  to  reach  those  in  need  of  assistance.  Despite  this,  the 
Commission  has  sought  ways  to  improve  the  delivery  of  aid  in  Somalia,  through  rigorous 
selection  of  partners  and  programmes.  It  will  go  on  with  this,  building  on  experience  and 
lessons  learned.  ECHO  partners  have  been  challenged  to  develop  imaginative  and  effective 
ways of going on with their mission, while remaining fully accountable.  

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

Links  with  development  are  a  major  challenge,  partly  because  the  geographic  coverage  of 
programmes  but  also  because  of  high  levels  of  insecurity  preventing  easy  access  and 
monitoring.  Nevertheless,  co-ordination  and  cooperation  are  ensured,  especially  over  rural 
development and social services. 

Uganda 

Humanitarian needs 

In September 2009, about 1.4 million of people were still classified as displaced, of whom 1.2 
million were in the Acholi region, where displacement has been prolonged and suffering more 
intense.  Although  most  have  now  abandoned  the  camps,  there  has  not  yet  been  an  official 
statement  to  declare  the  end  of  displacement,  mainly  because  of  the  lack  of  services  and 
infrastructure in the areas to which they returned. There are still 148 camps to be phased out 
and officially closed, and some 1 107 transit sites still house around 218 300 displaced people. 
The Karamoja region faced a fourth consecutive year of below-average rainfall in 2009. The 
situation  was  exacerbated  by  insecurity  because  of  cattle  raiding  and  the  Government  of 
Uganda's forceful disarmament programme. Restrictions on movement have, to some degree, 
been eased, but the future of the disarmament programme is not clear, and livelihoods remain 
precarious.  In  April  2009,  malnutrition  in  the  region  was  estimated  at  9%  global  acute 

29 

Somalia UN CAP 2010 sources 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
malnutrition,  reaching  10%  in  some  districts,  and  1.6%  severe  acute  malnutrition.  WFP 
provided food aid to some 1.1 million people in the region. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  

Since 2005, the EU has contributed to providing continuous, effective relief response in areas 
affected  by  conflict  in  the  north-central  region.  This  has  met  basic  needs  such  as 
water/sanitation,  health  care,  food  and  other  essentials,  as  well  as  protection  and  co-
ordination. Over the years, relief has been scaled up significantly, and extended to the region 
of  Karamoja.  Insecurity  hindered  access  until  2006.  The  assistance  implemented  by  ECHO 
has  started  with  camp  services  and  psycho-social  and  re-integration  assistance,  and  then 
included assistance to those returning home. The Commission allocated €14 million in 2005, 
increasing  to  €19  million  in  2006  and  €24.6  million  in  2007  (including  €8  million  of  food 
aid). In 2008 support amounted to €25.5 million  (including €3.9 million through the regional 
drought  decision).  In  2009,  the  allocation  was  €24.5  million,  including  funds  from  the  10 th 
EDF, and to which part of the regional drought decision is to be added. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

ECHO’s Global Plan for 2009 included two specific objectives: 

1) to provide timely, integrated humanitarian support, with particular emphasis on extremely 
vulnerable people, to those internally displaced living in camps, and returnees, as well as to 
those affected by climate hazards 

2)  to  continue  strengthening  management  and  co-ordination  of  the  humanitarian  response 
among multilateral and bilateral agencies and non-governmental agencies in Uganda. 

Main achievements include: 

(1) Health: support to major hospitals and health centres in the Acholi and Karamoja regions, 
including health education and disease surveillance; support to outreach preventive healthcare 
services in return areas of Acholi, and mobile clinics. HIV/AIDS and malaria prevention were 
integrated into all health care programmes. 

(2)  Water,  Sanitation  and  Hygiene:  operation  and  maintenance  of  water  systems  in  camps 
(with  emphasis  on  handing  over  infrastructure  to  local  authorities);  rehabilitation  and 
construction of water systems in return areas, where 156 new water points were installed and 
204  existing  water  points  rehabilitated.  Hygiene  awareness  raising  was  integrated  into  all 
water/sanitation programmes. 

(3)  Food  security:  Support  to  reducing  dependence  on  food  aid  by  increasing  self-reliance 
among displaced people through livelihood security programmes. After crop failure in 2009 in 
the Acholi and Teso regions, an emergency decision targeted areas where the harvest brought 
in less than half the yield expected. 

(4) Food aid: The WFP terminated general food distribution to displaced people in April 2009 
because  of  a  shortfall  in  funding.  ECHO  continued  to  assist  some  100 000  extremely 
vulnerable people through nutrition programmes. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

(5)  Protection:  UNHCR  continued  to  support  displaced  people,  to  ensure  they  were  not 
coerced  during  the  return  process.  There  was  also  support  for  phasing  out  camps,  and 
reintegration of extremely vulnerable persons. Follow-up visits of formerly abducted children 
reintegrated  into  their  communities  continued,  and  there  were  referrals  for  specific  cases. 
Psycho-social support also continued. 

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

The  Peace,  Recovery  and  Development  Plan  for  northern  Uganda  made  a  faltering  start 
during 2009. It will, hopefully, gather pace during 2010. The EU Delegation in Uganda has 
scheduled the launch of two major contributions to the plan in 2010. Other major donors such 
as  the  World  Bank  and  the  UK's  DFID  also  plan  to  start  major  investments  for  northern 
Uganda in 2010. 

Regional drought preparedness programme 

Humanitarian needs 

The  inhabitants  of  the  Greater  Horn  of  Africa  are  severely  affected  by  recurrent  man-made 
and natural disasters, leading to persistent vulnerabilities and reducing their capacity to cope. 
At the beginning  of  2009, about 12 million people living  in  these arid lands had significant 
humanitarian  needs.  The  coping  capacities  of  those  exposed  to  drought  have  been 
progressively eroded as a result of environmental policy failures and a lack of development. 
These nomadic pastoralists rely on the opportunistic use of natural resources, or the ability to 
move  with  their  herds  to  areas  with  more  water  and  better  pasture.  The  effects  of  climate 
change  —  rising  temperatures  and  increasingly  erratic  rainfall  –  have  a  serious  impact  on 
livelihoods.  The  combination  of  scarcer  natural  resources,  inadequate  resource  management 
and a rise in the population in much of the region has increased competition for resources, and 
made  conflict  over  them  more  likely.  The  severe  drought  of  2009  has  exacerbated  these 
trends. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

In 2006, the Commission adopted its first  €15 m illion Regional Drought Decision to enable 
timely, relevant humanitarian responses to reduce the impact of drought on rural populations. 
Given the success of this, there was a further €30 million in 2008 and a further €10 million in 
2009,  for  preparedness  and  mitigation  measures.  In  parallel,  funding  made  available  for 
timely,  short-term  responses  in  2008  and  2009.  The  2008  and  2009  decisions  included 
components for advocacy and technical co-ordination to strengthen the technical coherence of 
these operations and create stronger links with development actors, and to raise awareness of 
the need to reduce the drought risk in the Horn of Africa. This approach reflects best practice 
in  drought  management  which  focuses  on  community  capacity  building,  and  involvement 
with local authority drought services at strategic and operational levels. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The  18-month  2008  Regional  Drought  Decision,  which  came  to  an  end  in  June  2009,  was 
immediately followed by another programme for a 12-month period, to be implemented in the 
drought-prone areas of the Greater Horn of Africa. Given the scale of needs and lessons learnt 
from  past  interventions,  the  2009  decision  was  intended  to  complement  actions  ECHO  has 
already  implemented  in  the  region.  Partners  were  asked  to  prioritise  key  sectors:  disaster 

EN 

37 

   EN 

preparedness (with a focus on Early Warning Systems), institutional linkages, information and 
communication,  and  small-scale  infrastructure  and  services,  and  Food  Assistance  (with  a 
focus  on  emergency  food  security  and  short-term  livelihood  support,  and  food  security 
information  and  analysis).  Activities  will  continue  in  line  with  the  Drought  Cycle 
Management  approach,  which  promotes  community-based  knowledge 
in  drought 
preparedness,  strengthening  of  local  resilience  and  early  warning.  ECHO's  drought 
preparedness approach targeted up to 12 million pastoralists and/or agro-pastoralists, directly 
and indirectly. 

Working environment 

Poor security and lack of access to target populations constrained the implementation of some 
activities in 2009. Restricted access to Eritrea for humanitarian actors meant the project there 
was  ended  prematurely.  The  worsening  security  situation  in  Somalia  also  hindered  the 
implementation of two cross-border projects. Other security constraints were encountered in 
Ethiopia's  Southern  and  Ogaden  regions,  and  in  the  Karamoja  region  of  Uganda,  requiring 
ECHO to have to choose very carefully the places and types of intervention it could support. 

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

Linkage  has  significantly  improved  since  the  Regional  Drought  Decision.  However,  ECHO 
(in  co-operation  with  other  EU  instruments)  has  to  find  a  path  which  will  guarantee  that 
projects  which  have  been  started  can  be  scaled  up  appropriately,  as  well  as  their  durability. 
The  Commission  will  continue  to  focus  on  supporting  operations  at  community  level, 
respecting existing institutional disaster risk reduction frameworks in the region. This should 
create conditions for a smooth exit strategy. Best practices and lessons learnt in drought cycle 
management can be shared and replicated by governments and development stakeholders in 
the region, and also integrated into the humanitarian actions. 

Co-ordination of aid  

Good examples of co-ordination include the EU Delegation in Kenya's Drought Management 
Initiative,  which  initiative  supports  the  joint  Government  of  Kenya  /  World  Bank  Drought 
Contingency Fund. In Uganda, the ECHO-implemented drought preparedness is co-ordinated 
with the EU Delegation's Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP). 

2.3.2.  West Africa 

West  Africa  is  one  of  the  poorest  and  most  underdeveloped  regions  in  the  world  with  1030 
countries  ranked  at  the  bottom  of  the  list  of  the  182  countries  in  the  2007  UN  Human 
Development Index. Three quarters of the population lives in rural areas and relies mainly on 
subsistence agriculture. 

The  region  experiences  disasters  ranging  from  war  and  civil  conflict,  to  sudden  natural 
disasters  such  as  floods,  as  well  as  slow-onset  disasters  such  as  drought  and  acute 
malnutrition.  Climate  change  means  many  countries  are  already  showing  signs  of  massive 
environmental stress. Those most vulnerable there are the first victims of global warming. 

30 

Togo, Benin, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

                                                 
Increasingly  erratic  rains,  severe  floods,  drought  and  a  rise  in  the  number  of  epidemics  are 
curbing  prospects  for  development.  Political  instability  and  poor  governance  are  further 
complicating factors.  

The  initial  2009  budget  allocation  for  West  Africa  was  €27  million,  and  nearly  doubled  to 
€51.5 million by the end of the year. The poor  2009/2010 agricultural season means a drop in 
food production, raising fears of major shortages in the region. 

Sahel and coastal states 

Humanitarian needs 

Lack  of  food  appears  to  be  a  critical  issue  in  the  Sahel's  humanitarian  needs.  Rainfall  is 
erratic,  and  livestock  is  reared  in  harsh  environmental  conditions  aggravated  by  climate 
change  (droughts,  floods).  High  food  prices,  reduced  incomes  and  locust  plagues  limit 
household  coping  mechanisms.  About  1.2  million  of  the  children  under  five,  11.1%  of  the 
current  population  of  55  million  people  in  five  Sahel  countries  (Burkina  Faso,  Chad,  Mali, 
Mauritania and Niger) suffer from global acute malnutrition. Of these, 268 000 (2.4%) suffer 
from  life-threatening  severe  acute  malnutrition  because  of  lack  of  essential  food  and  poor 
access to basic health services. In 2009, bringing down acute malnutrition, as well as infant 
and maternal mortality rates, continued to be the main aim of humanitarian aid. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since 2005,  a  total of €219.6 million has been allo cated to cover humanitarian needs in the 
five countries of the Western Sahel, as well as in the Sahel zones of neighbouring states. In 
2009, aid worth €33 million was earmarked to co mbat under-nutrition. Lessons learned from 
the 2005 food shortage crisis in Niger and Mali were important for providing good indicators 
to  deal  with  similar  problems  in  the  Sahel.  There  was  stress  on  encouraging  integration  of 
humanitarian  interventions  into  the  national  health  system  and  structures.  Decades  of 
inadequate  investment  in  the  health  system,  a  massive  shortage  of  trained  personnel  and 
scarce stocks of essential medicines and equipment mean there has to be a sustained level of 
development  assistance  before  humanitarian  agencies  can  withdraw  completely.  The  health 
system started to see the delivery of assistance in 2009, partly as a result of advocacy work 
implemented by ECHO. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  interventions  were  supported  in  Burkina  Faso,  Niger,  Mali,  Mauritania  and  Chad. 
These substantially contributed to improving emergency nutrition and health care services in 
the  region.  The  pattern  in  each  country  was  different,  but  humanitarian  operations  are 
evolving  from  re-active,  quick-impact  emergency  mode  to  more  sustainable,  integrated 
projects involving local health and nutrition structures. This generates increased responsibility 
at  national  level,  and  also  creates  conditions  for  humanitarian  aid  to  exit,  as  development 
actors increasingly introduce long-term support to the nutrition sector. 

Funding  covered  treatment  of  250 000  children  for  acute  malnutrition  and  reached  three 
million  other  beneficiaries  indirectly.  The  Commission  helped  to  pilot  sustainable  medico-
nutritional  early  detection  and  health  care  systems,  complemented  by  actions  to  improve 
livelihood  protection,  access  to  clean  water  and  better  analysis  of  early-warning  data.  The 

EN 

39 

   EN 

promotion  of  free  access  to  basic  health  care  for  children  under  five  and  for  pregnant  and 
nursing women is a long-term, essential objective, though much more work and investment is 
needed before the policy is transposed into services at village health centre level. Initiatives to 
promote  wider  use  of  Ready  to  Use  Therapeutic  Foods  were  further  encouraged.  Through 
ECHO,  the  Commission  successfully  spearheaded  the  implementation  of  routine  rapid 
nutrition surveys to improve access to reliable baseline information. In 2009, that became a 
standard  tool  in  West  Africa.  In  addition,  the  Commission  adopted  an  emergency  decision 
worth €3 million in early September in response to  severe floods in Burkina Faso and Niger. 
At the end of 2009, the 24 000 people still in tents at the transit camps started to move to new 
sites allocated by the government. EU humanitarian funding is supporting the resettlement of 
the most vulnerable people in these areas by providing them with kits (food, shelter material 
and other essentials). 

Working environment 

The  precarious  security  conditions  in  Niger,  Mali,  Mauritania,  Nigeria  and  Chad  remain  a 
serious  cause  for  concern.  There  may  also  be  spill  over  in  Guinea,  following  possible 
instability there. 

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

The Sahel strategy was intended to encourage development partners to make available large-
scale follow-up investment to combat under-nutrition sustainability. There was good progress 
in 2009, with a number of development donors contributing to the sector. The 10th European 
Development  Fund  National  Indicative  Programmes  (NIP)  in  the  Sahel  is  becoming 
increasingly  involved.  EDF  funds  were  made  available  to  take  over  nutrition  projects  in 
Guinea, Togo and the Ivory Coast. The Food Facility and Food Security Thematic Programme 
funds  took  over  nutrition  programmes  in  Burkina  Faso,  Mali,  Mauritania  and  Niger.  Other 
significant donors in this sector are: the World Bank; Canada; the United States; UNICEF; the 
Bill  and  Melinda  Gates  Foundation;  the  United  Kingdom;  Spain;  the  Asian  Development 
Fund  and  Norway.  To  reinforce  collaboration  at  country  and  regional  level,  an  extra 
Commission's  Field  Expert  was  posted  full-time  in  Burkina  Faso  from  December  2009,  to 
strengthen dialogue with the EU Delegation there, but also with regional organisations such as 
the permanent inter-state committee to combat drought in the Sahel. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Efforts to step up active dialogue with all EU services and other donors present in the Sahel 
involved  regular  exchanges  of  information  and  experience  in  2009.  The  UN  cluster  system 
provided considerable support. Advocacy work was taken to a new level with EU investment 
in  the  joint  UNICEF,  WFP,  FAO  and  WHO  initiative  on  nutrition  called  REACH31.  It  will 
help keep nutrition high on the development agenda while showing that malnutrition needs to 
be  tackled  to  achieve  long-term  sustainable  development  in  the  Sahel.  NGO  partners  were 
encouraged  to  work  more  closely  together  and  their  willingness  to  do  so  was  taken  into 
consideration  in  funding  decisions.  Member  State  missions  in  the  region  are  regularly 
informed as to the Commission's work and a number of operations have been co-funded.  

31 

Global Framework for Action, Renewed Effort Ending Child Hunger and Malnutrition 

EN 

40 

   EN 

                                                 
ECHO  has  actively  participated  in  many  recent  initiatives  on  nutrition  promoted  by  major 
institutional donors including EU Member States, the UN family, the World Bank and US aid 
agencies. 

Liberia 

Humanitarian needs 

Since the end of the conflict in Liberia, humanitarian needs in the country have diminished. 
There has been a big push to improve access to basic services and provide support to restore 
livelihoods.  Still,  there  are  significant  needs.  The  health  sector  still  lacks  qualified  staff 
despite  the  efforts  of  a  committed  Minster  of  Health.  Water/sanitation  facilities  have 
improved, but much remains to be done in many rural communities, as well as in urban areas 
especially Monrovia, where there are regular cholera outbreaks. There are still food shortages 
in numerous counties, though efforts are being made to improve the situation. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Humanitarian  aid  has  switched  from  direct  support  for  returning  displaced  people  and 
refugees, and resuming access to basic services, to activities more focused on encouraging the 
transition to long-term development assistance. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

Funding worth €12 million in 2009 was designed to consolidate previous interventions and to 
prepare  for  the  handover  of  ECHO  implemented  operations  to  development  funding.  The 
focus  was  mainly  on  the  health  sector,  food  assistance,  and  water/sanitation  and  to  help 
beneficiaries recover the means to ensure their livelihood at community level. 

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

Despite the difficulties, there has been some significant progress. The EDF will, as a priority, 
take over the funding of EU humanitarian aid supported programmes in the health sector in 
the second half of 2010. The supported Monrovia nutrition programme that EU has supported 
will be integrated into Ministry of Health structures. A LRRD strategy for Food Security was 
completed and ECHO  was able to phase out this sector in 2009. In water/sanitation, ECHO 
contributed to the work of a consortium of five NGOs and UNICEF. LRRD in this sector will 
be facilitated by the creation of a National Water Resource and Sanitation Board in 2010. 

Regional (epidemics) 

Humanitarian needs 

Epidemics  are  more  frequent  in  West  Africa  than  anywhere  else,  with  20%  of  the  world 
epidemic  alerts  for  2%  of  the  world's  population.  People  there  are  more  vulnerable  to 
communicable diseases because of poverty, lack of basic sanitation facilities and low hygiene 
standards. Other contributing factors are malnutrition in post-emergency or structurally weak 
countries, and limited capability to respond to public health risks. West African countries are 
particularly  prone  to  epidemics  of  cholera,  meningitis,  Lassa  fever,  yellow  fever  and 
hepatitis E. The region is also vulnerable to new epidemics, as was seen with an outbreak of 
dengue fever in Cap Verde. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

During the first semester of 2009, both Niger and Nigeria were affected by a major meningitis 
epidemic. The Commission responded through ad hoc and emergency decisions with a total of 
€3.45 million. More than eight million people at ri sk were quickly vaccinated. In many cities 
on  West  Africa’s  coastal  countries,  cholera  has  become  endemic  and  is  one  of  the  major 
causes  of  epidemics  in  the  region.  To  enable  high-risk  countries  to  respond  effectively  in 
future,  preparedness  activities  are  currently  being  funded  in  Guinea  Bissau  and  Guinea 
Conakry. In April 2009, the Commission allocated funds to early epidemic response and the 
continuation  of  cholera  preparedness  activities,  particularly  in  Mali  (measles  epidemic)  and 
Cap Verde (dengue fever epidemic). 

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

Most countries still need external support to respond swiftly to epidemics and to prevent them 
recurring.  Outbreak  detection  and  control  interventions  have  been  improved  in  some 
countries,  thanks  to  better  epidemic  surveillance  and  Early  Warning  Systems,  but  donor 
support  has  diminished  and  government  contingency  plans,  where  these  exist,  are  under-
funded. Health systems do not have the capacity to absorb more patients, nor the resources to 
respond. Certain epidemics require a high level of expertise, which countries lack. Recurrent 
health emergencies need far more co-ordination, including information management, as well 
as technical support and resource mobilisation. 

2.3.3. 

Southern Africa, Indian Ocean 

The  overall  picture  in  the  region  was  mixed  in  2009.  There  were  free  and  fair  elections  in 
South  Africa,  Malawi,  Mozambique,  Botswana  and  Namibia.  But  the  elected  President  of 
Madagascar  was  ousted  in  a  civilian  coup,  and  the  new  Government  of  National  Unity  in 
Zimbabwe  experienced  difficulties.  Zimbabwe  is  still  subject  to  suspension  of  development 
co-operation under article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, and similar measures were enacted 
against  Madagascar.  In  both  countries,  elections  are  due  to  take  place  in  2010.  The  harvest 
was  generally  very  good  across  the  region,  except  in  southern  Madagascar  and  northern 
Namibia, contributing to better food security prospects. The flood/cyclone season passed off 
quite  calmly,  though  there  was  unusually  severe  flooding  in  southern  Angola  and  northern 
Namibia. The repercussions of the political situation in Zimbabwe are, however, still felt in 
neighbouring  countries,  as  demonstrated  by  the  cholera  epidemic  in  early  2009,  and  the 
continuing waves of migration from Zimbabwe.  

Humanitarian needs 

The countries of Southern Africa face challenges from what has been described as the “Triple 
Threat”  –  chronic  food  insecurity,  HIV/AIDS  and  poor  governance.  These  challenges, 
together  with  poor  water/sanitation  and  health  structures  and  a  high  incidence  of  natural 
disasters, make the region one of the most vulnerable in the world. Nine of the countries32are 
ranked  at  the  bottom  of  the  list  of  the  182  countries  on  the  2007  UN  Human  Development 
Index.  Food  production  in  the  region  still  relies  mainly  on  erratic  rainfall.  Climate  change 
(droughts, floods) and other shocks (epidemics, political unrest) further reduce resilience and 
limit household coping mechanisms. In 2009, ECHO concentrated on tracking, assessing and 

32 

Angola, Comoros, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
tackling new emergency needs, and on preparing vulnerable populations for natural disasters 
to improve their resilience. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since 2005, a total of €150 million has been allocated to cover needs in the region. In 2009, 
€34.8 million was allocated through decisions for  epidemic response (cholera), food/nutrition 
crisis  and  repatriation,  as  well  as  to  provide  basic  essential  services  to  vulnerable  groups  in 
Zimbabwe.  Emergency  needs  assessment  missions  were  carried  out  in  Namibia  (floods), 
(earthquake),  South  Africa 
Angola 
(Zimbabwean  migrants).  These  resulted  in  an  ad  hoc  funding  decision  for  Madagascar.  The 
flood/cyclone season in the East of the region passed off relatively calmly in 2009, after two 
difficult years. 

(food/nutrition),  Malawi 

(floods),  Madagascar 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

ECHO  supported  humanitarian  aid  in  Zimbabwe,  Zambia  and  Madagascar.  There  was  an 
emergency  cholera  response  to  support  actions,  mainly  in  Zimbabwe,  as  well  as  in 
Mozambique and Zambia. Disaster preparedness funding was mobilised to complement and 
boost actions in Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique. Many of these projects will 
run into 2010. In Zimbabwe, funds allocated in 2009 substantially contributed to improving 
emergency health care services, epidemic response and food security. There was funding to 
assist  the  repatriation  of  12 000  Congolese  refugees  from  Zambia.  In  Madagascar,  funding 
supported food security/nutrition status for people affected by drought in the south. There was 
very  close  monitoring  of  the  humanitarian  situation,  with  emergency  needs  assessment 
missions carried out in co-ordination and collaboration with EU Delegations in the region. 

Working environment 

Security  conditions  across  the  region  in  2009  were  very  satisfactory,  though  one  project  in 
Zimbabwe had to be terminated because of political interference at local level.  

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

The  Commission's  strategy  is  to  ensure  that  humanitarian  interventions  are  sustainable  and 
coherent with ongoing development activities. ECHO-implemented interventions add value in 
a  context  where  many  of  the  countries  benefit  from  substantial  10th  European  Development 
Fund allocations, Malawi, Madagascar, Mozambique and Zambia – are among the top ten 10th 
EDF recipients. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Efforts  continued  in  2009  towards  active  dialogue  with  other  donors  present  in  the  region. 
ECHO regularly exchanged information and experiences with other donors and humanitarian 
actors on the ground. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

Zimbabwe 

Humanitarian needs 

The major challenge in Zimbabwe is to rebuild essential health and water/sanitation services, 
which have all collapsed. The massive cholera outbreak at the end of 2008/beginning of 2009, 
which  saw  100 000  cases  and  more  than  4 000  deaths,  was  evidence  of  this.  With  the 
dollarization and the liberalisation of the economy at the beginning of the year, inflation has 
been defeated. This, together with the very good harvest, means that availability of food is no 
longer a problem. Access to food is, however, more problematic for those vulnerable groups 
who do not have land or foreign currency. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Humanitarian aid has switched from food aid/food security activities and support to displaced 
people  to  targeted  food  security  actions,  and  on  re-establishing  basic  health  and 
water/sanitation services for the population as a whole. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  the  focus  was  on  continuing  to  support  basic  health  and  water/sanitation  services. 
Liberalisation  of  the  economy  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  and  the  good  harvest  enabled 
humanitarian  actors  to  shift  from  food  distributions  to  pilot  livelihood  interventions.  €25 
million  were  allocated  to  support  vulnerable  Zimbabweans,  €13 million  of  which  was  for 
health  and  water/sanitation,  and  €12 million 
for  re-establishing  livelihoods.  Another  €4.5 
million were allocated from a regional emergency decision to tackle the cholera epidemic and 
control its spread. 

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

The  main  features  of  EU  funding  in  2009  were  a  shift  from  food-based  to  health  care  and 
water/sanitation  interventions.  There  was  a  conscious  effort  to  support  new  humanitarian 
partners. Many of the food security interventions funded in 2007 and 2008 were taken over by 
longer-term  funding  from  the  Food  Facility  and  the  Thematic  Food  Security  Budget  Line 
managed by the EU Delegation. This will allow the Commission to reduce funding from its 
food aid budget line, and possibly to phase it out in 2010. As development assistance under 
article  96  of  the  Cotonou  Agreement  is  still  suspended,  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  the 
Commission will be able to phase out its health and water/sanitation in the foreseeable future. 
This  was  one  of  the  issues  discussed  during  a  mission  which  took  place  in  July  2009  to 
identify a short-term strategy of support to the new Unity Government. 

2.4.  Middle East and Mediterranean 

ECHO  has  predominantly  been  involved  in  preserving  the  dignity  of  its  beneficiaries  in  the 
Middle East and Mediterranean in 2009. Some of the longest-running humanitarian crises in 
the world persist in this region, including the plight of the Saharawi refugees in Algeria, living 
in camps in the Sahara desert under extremely harsh conditions. 

The  United  Nations  Relief  and  Works  Agency  for  Palestinian  Refugees  in  the  Near  East 
(UNRWA) marked its 60th anniversary in 2009, one of the best illustrations of the complexity 
and  persistence  of  the  crisis  in  this  region.  The  political  context  in  which  the  crisis  unfolds 

EN 

44 

   EN 

comes under an intense media spotlight from time to time, though the humanitarian situation 
is overlooked or soon forgotten. 

Funding for humanitarian assistance in the region is shown below.  

Country/region

Funding decisions adopted in 2009

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

DIPECHO

TOTAL

MIDDLE EAST and MEDITERRANEAN  

58 975 000

50 500 000

Occupied Palestinian Territory
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon
Syria
Iraqi Crisis
Yemen
Western Sahara

25 000 000
6 000 000

20 000 000
2 500 000
5 475 000

41 000 000

4 000 000

5 500 000

109 475 000

66 000 000
6 000 000
4 000 000
20 000 000
2 500 000
10 975 000

Palestinian population in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon 

One  year  after  the  Israeli  offensive  on  the  Gaza  Strip  that  killed  1 455  Palestinians  and 
wounded  5 305  people,  20 000  people  are  still  displaced,  6 345  houses  are  still  in  need  of 
major  repair.  Reconstruction  could  not  start,  and  the  humanitarian  situation  has  worsened 
dramatically. 

In  the  West  Bank,  the  Israeli  authorities  restrict  freedom  of  movement,  with  a  continued 
impact on all aspects of civilian life.  

The  EU  has  repeatedly  called  for  immediate,  sustained  and  unconditional  opening  of 
crossings to enable the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from 
Gaza,  as  well  as  for  a  freeze  on  settlements  construction,  evictions  and  demolitions  in  the 
West Bank/East Jerusalem33. Funding of humanitarian aid has risen considerably over the past 
few  years,  as  the  situation  of  Palestinians  in  West  Bank,  Gaza  Strip  and  Lebanon  has 
deteriorated.  In  2009,  EU  funding  helped  to  meet  the  urgent  needs  of  the  Palestinian 
population  in  occupied  Territories  and  Lebanon.  There  was  funding  for  livelihood  support 
(food  assistance  and  cash-for-work  projects),  water/sanitation  operations,  basic  health 
services, including psycho-social support, and protection activities. 

Humanitarian needs  

The situation on the ground in the Gaza Strip has worsened. Far from development, the region 
faces economic and social de-development. 

In  the  West  Bank,  settlement  activities,  confiscation  of  land,  forced  evictions,  house 
demolitions  and  displacements  have  continued  unabated  in  2009.  Israeli  authorities  impose 
restrictions  on  freedom  of  movement  that  continue  to  affect  all  aspects  of  civilian  life, 
undermining  economic  growth  and  hindering  people’s  access  to  education,  employment, 
health  care  and  other  services.  In  Lebanon,  Palestinian  refugees  live  in  very  precarious 

33 

EU Council Conclusions on the MEPP, 8 December 2009 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
circumstances,  with  limited  access  to  basic  services,  including  health,  and  no  social 
protection. 

Humanitarian  space  has  shrunk,  creating  a  growing  need  for  sustained  protection  and 
advocacy activities. An estimated quarter of the Palestinian population lacks food (60.5% of 
Gazans). With rising commodity prices and the drought of the last few years, access to food 
remains  one  of  the  salient  features  of  this  crisis,  along  with  access  to  safe  drinking  water, 
means of making a living, psycho-social assistance and primary health services. 

Humanitarian aid response over the past five years 

The  EU  has  been  providing  humanitarian  aid  to  the  Palestinian  population  —  including  in 
neighbouring  countries  —  since  2005.  A  total  of  €399  million  has  been  made  available,  of 
which €112 million is from the food aid budget line (as from 2007). 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, the European Commission made available €72 million for humanitarian operations 
benefiting Palestinians in the Palestinian territory and in Lebanon. 

The bulk of the funds, €66 million, went to operations in the  West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 

In  the  protection  sector,  the  EU  focused  on  prevention  of  violations  of  international 
humanitarian  law  by  supporting  the  ICRC  in  its  protection  mandate,  making  possible 
prisoners'  visits,  livelihood  support  and  access  to  agricultural  land  in  areas  affected  by  the 
separation barrier. There was also funding for legal assistance to victims of eviction and house 
demolition.  In  the  health  sector,  the  EU  continued  its  support  to  the  primary  health  care 
system.  There  was  integrated  assistance  in  vulnerable  geographical  areas  to  ensure  a 
minimum  standard  of  equitable  access  to  health.  It  also  provided  assistance  for  emergency 
medical  services  in  Gaza  Strip,  as  well  as  ophthalmic  care  and  rehabilitation  services  for 
people  with  disabilities.  It  funded  focused  psycho-social  work  in  schools  with  children 
identified  as  vulnerable  in  the  West  Bank,  and  structured  sessions  in  community  based 
organisations  with  children  and  adolescents  in  the  Gaza  Strip.  Parents,  teachers  and  school 
councillors  participated  in  awareness-raising  sessions  on  psychosocial  distress  that  they  and 
their children may experience and were trained on coping mechanisms. The EU also funded 
activities to address the reintegration of ex-child detainees throughout the West Bank, besides 
funding  UNICEF's  co-ordination  role  in  the  sector.  In  water/sanitation  sector,  the  EU 
provided  180 000  of  those  most  vulnerable  with  access  to  safe  drinking  water.  In  the 
immediate  aftermath  of  the  Israeli  attack  on  Gaza  in  early  2009,  the  EU  funded  free  water 
distribution.  It  supported  food  assistance  projects  that  distributed  free  fresh  and  dry  food  to 
both refugees and host populations of the Gaza Strip. In the most vulnerable areas of the West 
Bank  hit  by  water  scarcity  and  recurrent  drought,  it  funded  fodder  distributions  for  herders 
lacking  access  to  markets  and  grazing  areas  for  their  flocks.  There  was  support  for  small 
farmers  and  livestock  herders,  enhancing  food  production  and  income  generation  capacity 
among Bedouin communities via short-term assistance, including veterinary support and cash-
for-work activities. Additionally, there was a special focus on co-ordination. 

For  Palestinian  refugees  in  Lebanon  (€6  million),  the  EU  helped  to  improve  the  quality  of 
secondary  health  services  for  the  most  vulnerable,  provided  by  hospitals  managed  by  the 

EN 

46 

   EN 

Palestinian Red Crescent Society. In addition, it helped to improve health services for elderly 
people, people with disabilities and young people suffering psycho-social distress. Palestinian 
refugees  also  received  help  to  improve  access  to  clean  water  supplies  and  adequate  shelter. 
Protection  capacities  were  increased  at  local  and  national  levels  through  information 
dissemination, co-ordination and advocacy. 

As for the specific situation in the Nahr el Bared Camp, relief has continued to mitigate some 
of the worst impacts of the 2007 crisis, ensuring access to shelter, food, water/sanitation, basic 
infrastructures, health needs (including psycho-social support) and other services for families 
affected. 

Working environment 

The working environment both in West Bank and Gaza Strip remains unstable. Restrictions 
on  access,  inter-Palestinian  tensions  and  pressures  from  local  authorities  that  want  to  exert 
some form of control on humanitarian actions make the working environment challenging and 
volatile. 

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

In view of the political context, there was little scope for exit strategies in 2009. What little 
was achieved was done with full co-ordination with more development-oriented community 
instruments  and  funding,  particularly  in  the  food,  water/sanitation  and  health  sectors. 
Consistency  and  complementarity  with  operations  to  assist  Palestinian  refugees  in  Lebanon 
were also sought, but with limited outcome. 

Co-ordination of aid  

In  the  Occupied  Palestinian  territories,  there  was  close  co-ordination  has  been  maintained 
with  other  donors,  to  ensure  complementarity  between  humanitarian  assistance  and  other 
programmes, notably Pegasus. 

Syria 

Humanitarian needs 

There  has  been  a  severe  lack  of  rain  in  the  Middle  East  over  the  last  three  years.  In  Syria, 
drought  has  affected  the  whole  country,  especially  the  governorates  in  the  East  and  North. 
Three of these are considered the country's food basket. The Eastern governorates are home to 
the  so-called  Badia  region,  the  largest  and  most arid  in  Syria.  Consisting  of  rangelands  and 
desert  areas,  it  is  home  to  most  of  the  country's  livestock.  According  to  UN  assessment 
missions,  some  1.3  million  people  in  eastern  Syria  have  been  affected,  out  of  whom  some 
800 000  have  lost  almost  all  their  livelihoods  and  face  extreme  hardship.  Out  of  those 
severely  affected,  160 000  are  highly  vulnerable.  This  group  consists  of  women-headed 
households, pregnant women, the sick and handicapped, children (0-14 years), elderly people, 
and families with large numbers of children. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Syria, as a middle income country, is not usually a recipient of EU humanitarian aid, with the 
notable  exception  of  support  to  Iraqi  refugees  living  in  Syria  (see  Iraqi  crisis).  However, 
in 2009,  support  worth  €4  million  was  made  availa ble  to  mitigate  the  impact  of  recurrent 
drought on livestock herders. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The main aim of two subsequent funding decisions (of which one was an emergency decision) 
was to provide humanitarian food aid for those most vulnerable to drought. ECHO provided 
assistance  to  ensure  their  basic  domestic  and  livelihood  needs  would  be  met  until  the 
beginning of the next harvest season, expected in June 2010. The action is intended to prevent 
their situation deteriorating any further. Those most at risk are marginalised Bedouin, animal 
herding and rain-fed farming communities who have exhausted all other coping mechanisms. 

Working environment 

The Syrian authorities did not authorise international NGOs to respond to the crisis, but given 
the  scale  of  the  disaster,  the  United  Nations  agencies,  with  the  support  of  the  national 
authorities, to launch a $52.9 million Syria Drought Response Plan in August 2009. ECHO 
responded to this. 

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

The draft 2011-2013 Country Strategy Paper envisages support to an integrated programme to 
foster the socio-economic development of a targeted rural area in the North of Syria.  

Co-ordination of aid 

The EU's support has succeeded in raising attention and interest from the other donors in this 
rather  forgotten  disaster.  In  addition,  it  is  planed  to  launch  an  integrated  socio-economic 
development in the drought-affected rural areas, with linkages between the emergency phase 
of the response and this longer-term operation. 

Iraqi crisis 

Humanitarian needs 

Since  the  2003  war,  Iraq  has  been  faced  with  a  dire  security  situation  characterised  by 
sectarian violence and ongoing asymmetric warfare, particularly after the attack on the Holy 
Shrine at Samara in February 2006. 

However, since the middle of 2007 with the military surge of the Multi-National Force Iraq 
against  insurgents  and  militias  (Sadr  city  in  April-May  2008,  Dyala  governorate  in  July-
August), the number of violent incidents in Iraq has fallen. According to the United Nations, 
civilian  casualty  rates  are  down  by  74%  since  August  2007,  close  to  the  pre-Samara  level. 
Nevertheless,  Iraq  remains  a  very  dangerous  country,  where  civilians  are  killed  on  a  daily 
basis.  Many  areas  remain  inaccessible  to  humanitarian  actors  due  to  continued  violence. 
Insecurity has limited the population's mobility and access to basic services, and has severely 
damaged  public  infrastructure.  Reconstruction  efforts  are  badly  needed,  but  are  severely 

EN 

48 

   EN 

hindered by continued violence resulting in high levels of unemployment, a steady decline in 
basic services and significant deterioration in health and education provision.  

Neighbouring Syria, and Jordan to a lesser extent, is struggling to cope with a high number of 
refugees: 220 000 UNHCR-registered refugees from Iraq are in Syria, and 52 000 in Jordan as 
of  October  2009.  There  is  also  an  unknown  number  of  unregistered  refugees,  resulting  in 
strain on national housing, health and education systems. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The  EU's  financial  support,  targeting  both  the  population  within  Iraq  and  Iraqi  refugees  in 
neighbouring countries, mainly Syria and Jordan, remains around €23 million per year since 
2007. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, the EU provided humanitarian assistance worth €20 million for those vulnerable in 
Iraq, particularly those displaced, and to Iraqi refugees living in neighbouring countries. The 
decision  included  a  significant  protection  component,  as  well  as  activities  in  health  and 
psycho-social  support,  water/sanitation  and  other  essentials,  as  well  as  co-ordination  within 
Iraq. An external evaluation conducted at the end of 2009 validated the strategy.  

Working environment  

Humanitarian  access  remains  a  major  issue,  due  to  continued  sectarian  violence  and 
heightened security risks. Few agencies are present on the ground, so it is difficult to reach 
those most vulnerable, especially the internally displaced. Security and access constraints are 
also the main challenges for ECHO, as it cannot operate its normal service, with expatriate or 
local staff to assess needs, and manage and monitor activities on the ground. 

A  limited  number  of  INGOs  have  opened  offices  with  international  staff  in  the  Southern 
governorates,  where  the  security  situation  is  less  risky.  However,  they  implement 
development-type projects related to structural problems, and do not work on emergencies. 

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

There is a continuum process with the operations funded EU non-humanitarian instruments. In 
the hosting countries, EU humanitarian aid provides direct support to the refugees, while other 
instruments help local structures to absorb the impact of their large numbers with assistance 
for  health,  education  and  sanitation.  In  Iraq  (€65.8  million  under  the  2009  and  2010 
programming), the focus is on building capacity in the social sectors (health, education, €43.8 
million)  and  the  rule  of  law  (€20-22  million),  while  humanitarian  aid  is  concentrated  on 
emergencies in protection, water/sanitation, and health. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The co-ordination with other donors is good. There are regular meetings with Member States 
and  the  United  States  in  Amman  and  Damascus.  Co-ordination  in  Iraq  is  limited  by  the 
security issue. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

Yemen 

Humanitarian needs 

Yemen  is  the  poorest  state  in  the  Arab  world.  It  faces  food  insecurity,  widespread  water 
scarcity  and  depletion  of  its  natural  resources.  In  recent  years,  the  government  has  been 
confronted  with  an  intermittent  internal  armed  conflict  in  Sa'ada  in  Northern  Yemen,  a 
growing Southern separatist movement, clashes with tribal groups controlling the rural areas 
and a resurgence of terrorist groups including Al-Qaida. 

The  humanitarian  challenges  facing  Yemen  are  multiple:  natural  disasters  such  as  flooding 
and  drought,  arrival  of  refugees  from  the  Horn  of  Africa,  mainly  from  Somalia  and  more 
recently,  the  war  in  the  Northern  governorate  of  Sa'ada  which  is  exacerbating  political  and 
development crises in the country. In 2009, for the first time, the Yemeni government allowed 
the UN to launch an appeal for international aid. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

EU support in Yemen started in 1993, to help victims of a major flood. Since 2005, the EU 
has  allocated  over  €8  million  to  finance  actions  in  several  Yemenite  governorates  to  help 
people  made  available  by  natural  disasters,  epidemics  and  internal  conflict.  There  has  also 
been support for refugees arriving in Yemen. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, the Commission adopted two decisions for a total of €2.5 million. The first enabled a 
swift response to the flow of displaced people, providing relief for those affected by clashes in 
North  Yemen.  There  was  assistance  for  7 500  households,  corresponding  to  approximately 
50 000 final beneficiaries. 

In  November,  there  was  an  emergency  decision  to  finance  key  elements  of  the  UN  Flash 
Appeal  that  were  underfunded.  The  aims  were  to  provide  emergency  shelter  and  basic 
household items for those most vulnerable, particularly in camps for the displaced, to reduce 
morbidity and mortality, particularly among children under the age of five, through preventive 
water/sanitation  and  hygiene  interventions,  and  to  facilitate  co-ordination  to  ensure  an 
appropriate response. 

Working environment 

Work in Northern Yemen is hampered by insecurity. There is growing dissatisfaction with the 
way  the  government  manages  international  aid,  and  open  tensions  with  the  local  population 
over  the  distribution  of  aid.  There  are  restrictions  on  the  movement  of  humanitarian  aid 
workers  even  outside  the  war  zone.  Guaranteeing  access  is  a  precondition  for  any  future 
increase in implementing capacity. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The  EU  is  committed  to  joining  international  partners,  including  Yemen's  neighbours,  in 
assisting the government through a comprehensive approach encompassing security, political 
dialogue,  humanitarian  and  economic  assistance.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  the  coherence  and 
effectiveness  of  domestic  and  international  efforts.  Nonetheless,  respect  for  humanitarian 
principles has to be guaranteed in any action taken. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

The  Council  Working  Group  on  Humanitarian  Aid  and  Food  Aid  held  a  debate  on  the 
situation in Yemen on 14 October. 

–  OCHA  should  play  a  fundamental  role  in  humanitarian  advocacy  and  strengthened  co-

ordination between the different UN agencies and 

–  a  better  demarcation  between  humanitarian  and  development  aid  actions  is  needed  to 

ensure efficient and effective humanitarian aid. 

Sahrawi refugees (Algeria) 

Humanitarian needs 

Since  1975,  tens  of  thousands  of  Sahrawi  refugees  have  been  hosted  by  Algeria  in  camps 
situated  in  the  South-Western  region  of  Tindouf.  The  living  conditions  of  the  Sahrawi 
refugees, who have been living in these camps for more than 30 years, are extremely difficult. 
Refugees  depend  completely  on  humanitarian  aid  to  meet  their  basic  needs:  food,  health, 
water/sanitation, shelter, hygiene and education. The refugees are not able to earn a living in 
the camps or within the Tindouf area. Access to basic social services is provided in the camps 
thanks to external financial resources and refugees who work, mostly without pay. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU has been providing humanitarian aid to the Sahrawi refugees since the early 1990s. 
Since 2005, a total of €51 million in  funding has been allocated. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The  EU's  aid  to  the  Sahrawi,  living  as  refugees  in  the  Tindouf  camps  is  consistent  with  its 
strategy of focusing on regions with the greatest needs and on forgotten crises. The Sahrawi 
refugees, who have been living in camps located in the desert region of Tindouf since 1975, 
are victims of one of the longest-running humanitarian crises, largely forgotten. 

It is unlikely that the situation of refugees will change in the short-term. The EU's aid covers 
basic  needs  such  as:  food  aid,  health  and  nutrition,  water/sanitation,  shelter  and  other 
essentials. An external evaluation conducted during the first semester of 2009 validated this 
strategy. 

Working environment 

In contrast to other refugee situations, the beneficiaries themselves manage international aid, 
including  distribution  of  food  and  non-food  products,  via  structures  they  or  their 
representatives  set  up.  The  local  Sahrawi  organisations  and  structures  act  as  the  local 
counterparts  of  the  international  agencies  and  NGOs  involved  in  humanitarian  aid.  This 
contributes  to  the  success  of  projects  (potential  ownership,  lower  cost  of  humanitarian 
operations)  but  can  also  be  a  constraint  (insufficient  local  capacity,  limited  participation  of 
beneficiary  communities)  and  a  risk,  particularly  as  regards  monitoring.  The  quality  of  aid 
monitoring by international agencies and NGOs depends on their arrangements with Sahrawi 
counterparts,  and  the  latter’s  acceptance  of  accountability  and  control  requirements.  This 
applies both to measuring impact, and to ensure appropriate use of public funds. Since 2005, 
there has been an improvement in this respect, especially following formal commitments from 
the Sahrawi authorities in 2004. These improvements need to be maintained and consolidated, 

EN 

51 

   EN 

both  to  ensure  transparency  in  the  use  of  public  funds  and  to  improve  the  quality  of  aid 
delivered to refugees. 

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

Given that this is a "forgotten crisis", a major constraint is the limited number of donors. As 
there is no solution in sight, the need for aid will continue. More sources of funding would be 
help to reduce dependence on the capacities of a handful of donors. In view of the conditions 
prevailing  in  the  camps,  it  is  hard  to  envisage  a  transition  to  development.  However,  there 
have  been  some  attempts  to  explore  this,  with  other  EU  instruments  and  the  Spanish 
development agency. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Both  on  the  ground  and  at  headquarters,  the  Commission  liaises  very  closely  with  other 
donors,  particularly  the  Spanish,  Italian,  Swiss  and  Swedish  development  agencies,  and  the 
UN  agencies.  This  involves  examining  the  overall  strategy,  sectoral  priorities  and  funding 
from  the  various  partners.  There  is  also  co-ordination  by  sector  on  the  ground  to  improve 
consistency  and  to  avoid  overlapping.  The  Commission  has  good  relations  with  its  partners 
and  with  the  Sahrawi  authorities,  which  it  will  seek  to  maintain  to  improve  the  quality, 
targeting, implementation and monitoring of projects. 

2.5. 

Caucasus and Central Asia 

The  main  purpose  in  these  countries  has  been  to  preserve  dignity.  The  good  news  is  that 
Chechnya and Georgia no longer need humanitarian aid in response to past conflicts., so 2009 
is set to be the last year in which funding is made available. 

In 2009, ECHO managed a total of €12.3 million in this region. 

Country/region

Funding decisions adopted in 2009

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

DIPECHO

TOTAL

CAUCASUS and CENTRAL ASIA

8 300 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

12 300 000

Chechnya crisis
Georgia
Tajikistan
Southern Caucasus

Chechnya crisis 

Humanitarian needs 

6 000 000
2 000 000
 300 000

2 000 000

6 000 000
4 000 000
 300 000
2 000 000

2 000 000

The  number  of  displaced  people  in  neighbouring  republics  is  around  12 000,  of  whom  less 
than half want to return. In Ingushetia, half of them are of Ingush origin, and are already quite 
well  integrated.  Fewer  than  2 000  of  those  displaced  are  living  in  temporary  shelters  in 
Ingushetia and Dagestan, and around 4 000 in Chechnya. The number of Chechen refugees in 
Azerbaijan fell throughout 2009, leaving 1 300 at the end of the year. Some 30 000 returnees 
are living in private-sector accommodation, waiting for assistance to reconstruct their houses. 

ECHO's  caseload  is  decreasing,  and  all  needs  are  covered.  Now  a  long-term  approach  is 
required.  Most  of  the  donors,  including  the  EU,  will  end  funding  by  the  end  of  2010.  The 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked the UN family, with the exception of UNHCR, 
to close their country programmes in 2010. This could seriously hamper a smooth transition to 
a more development-oriented approach.  

In the North Caucasus region, the situation is stable, but a surge in armed terror attacks and 
serious human rights violations can not be ruled out. There were reports of abductions, suicide 
bomb  attacks,  clashes  between  law  enforcement  agents  and  militants,  and  other  incidents 
throughout  2009.  Nevertheless,  the  increase  in  violence  and  tension  did  not  have  a  direct, 
significant impact on ECHO's operations at field level. Partners continued to implement their 
projects, facing challenges as they arose. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The  EU  has  been  supporting  victims  in  the  Northern  Caucasus  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Chechen conflict. From 2005, the total funding made available has reached €90 million. The 
level  of  funding  has  been  adapted  according  to  needs.  The  phasing-out  strategy  ECHO 
introduced  in  2008  is  the  result  of  both  socio-economic  improvements,  and  successful 
implementation  of  reconstruction  and  rehabilitation  projects.  Funding  has  been  reduced 
accordingly, and made available where needs remain. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

With  a  budget  of  €6  million,  the  EU  humanita rian  intervention  focused  on  the  following 
sectors:  livelihood  support  activities  for  returnees  and  former  food  aid  beneficiaries;  shelter 
and  community  infrastructure  activities  and  protection,  including  legal  advice,  monitoring 
returnees, and assistance to Chechen refugees in Azerbaijan. 

Working environment 

The situation is tense, and the number of incidents rose in 2009, compared to previous years. 
The main challenges are: 

1) Lack of effective protection: inability of protection agencies to carry out their mandates to 
defend civilians from human rights violations such abductions, arbitrary detentions or extra- 
judiciary killings; lack of a civil society network; 

2) Growing violence and instability in the whole the North Caucasus – Dagestan, Ingushetia, 
Chechnya  and  Kabardino-Balkaria.  However,  this  is  not  seen  as  likely  to  lead  to 
displacement. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

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

There  are  no  plans  for  future  action  after  humanitarian  aid  withdraws  by  the  end  of  2010. 
There are concerns that because other major donors and aid agencies have similar phase-out 
timeframes, there will not be enough staff to monitor the situation in Chechnya and to provide 
support to the few local NGOs and human rights organisations that still have the courage to 
work there. However, support via the European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy 
instrument is likely. 

LRRD with other EU instruments, which aim at encouraging democratisation, strengthening 
of the rule of law and the transition to a market economy in the Newly Independent States is 
not possible in the near future, as the Russian Government has shown diminishing interest in 
the present form of bilateral cooperation programmes after the TACIS34 programme signed in 
2006. Consequently, there is no bilateral cooperation programme foreseen for Russia for the 
programming period 2011-2013. 

Co-ordination of aid  

Overall,  the  Commission  has  a  very  good  relationship  with  other  donors  and  the  EU 
Delegation.  The  aim  is  to  co-ordinate  assistance  to  achieve  the  best  possible  outcomes  for 
beneficiaries. 

Georgia 

Humanitarian needs 

The conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in South Ossetia in August 2008 led 
to a series of financial decisions to make available aid for those affected. The allocation for 
2008 was €8 million, complemented by €4 milli on in 2009 (€2 million for humanitarian aid 
and €2 million for food aid). 

The situation of 30 000 people displaced in August 08 is now stable. Basic needs are covered 
and rehabilitation projects are in place. The situation of 50 000 ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia 
is  also  steady,  following  the  change  of  the  political  status  quo,  after  Russian  recognition  of 
independence. This was not been affected by the withdrawal of the United Nations Observer 
Mission  in  Georgia  during  the  summer  of  2009.  In  South  Ossetia,  humanitarian  needs  were 
well covered by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergencies and 
Elimination  of  the  Consequences  of  Natural  Disasters.  As  for  the  situation  of  the  small 
Georgian  population  remaining  in  South  Ossetia,  the  ICRC,  the  only  international 
organisation on the spot, is taking care of basic needs. 

The situation is now entering the reconstruction phase, and the Commission is in a position to 
continue  the  phasing-out  strategy  it  initiated  previously.  The  international  community, 
particularly  the  EU  and  U.S.,  reacted  quickly  to  support  Georgia.  New  funding  instruments 
were put in place, including the EU Instrument for Stability intended to provide medium- and 
long-term solutions for those affected, complementing EU humanitarian aid's approach. 

34 

Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States 

EN 

54 

   EN 

                                                 
In addition, funding worth €2 million for disaster  prevention (DIPECHO) was made available 
for the South Caucasus in November 2009. This programme has a regional approach covering 
Georgia,  Azerbaijan  and  Armenia.  In  2010,  ECHO  will  maintain  a  limited  presence  in 
Georgia  to  follow  up  remaining  operations,  as  well  as  new  DIPECHO  initiatives.  This  will 
allow the Commission to monitor the humanitarian situation and to facilitate a quick response 
if new needs arise. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU has funded aid worth a total of €18 mill ion since 2005. Funding has been adapted to 
needs. It was increased in 2008 to address the humanitarian situation in the aftermath of the 
war  that  year,  and  decreased  in  2009  in  line  with  reorganisation  in  the  field,  and  the 
replacement of humanitarian funding by other medium- and long-term instruments. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

Funding  worth  €2  million  was  made  available  to  provide  protection  and  relief  assistance  to 
those  affected  by  war  in  Georgia.  This  funded  protection  activities;  family  reunification 
activities; close monitoring of people residing in protected areas in the former buffer zone, as 
well as Georgians remaining in South Ossetia. Clearance of unexploded ordnance continued 
during 2009, particularly important to allow the local population in the area adjacent to South 
Ossetia  to  resume  farming.  Firewood  was  identified  as  one  of  the  most  urgent  needs  in 
villages,  and  distribution  continued  during  2009.  Psycho-social  support  was  maintained, 
especially for children affected by the war, and for their carers. 

Funding of €2 million for food aid enabled distri bution of food rations and cash for work in 
villages, as well as in new resettlements built by the Government to host people displaced by 
the new conflict. 

Working environment 

Tension on the administrative border between South Ossetia and Georgia proper was constant. 
The European Union Monitoring Mission presence in the area helped to ensure that violence 
did  not  escalate.  Some  new  mechanisms  were  designed  in  the  context  of  Geneva  Talks  to 
ensure  a  rapid  response  mechanism  and  the  use  of  non-violence  as  a  coping  mechanism 
among  the  parties.  The  main  challenge  after  the  humanitarian  phase-out  is  to  ensure  the 
protection of those at risk on this border. 

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

More medium- and long-term oriented instruments have been put in place, allowing ECHO to 
phase out smoothly. 

The  EU  Instrument  for  Stability  allocated  €14  million  for  2009  to  support  confidence-
building,  political  reform,  socio-economic  integration  of  displaced  people,  and  assistance  in 
Abkhazia. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

The  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  Instrument  has  provided  €43.5  million  to 
support  Georgia's  internally  displaced  people  action  plan,  complementing  funding  worth 
€51.5 million, made available in 2008. The aim is  to assist the government via the Municipal 
Development Fund, to improve the living conditions of displaced people by providing long-
term housing solutions, adequate infrastructure, and services to promote their integration, as 
well as development in host areas. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Good synergy was ensured among various EU instruments. 

Tajikistan 

Humanitarian needs 

The EU has provided humanitarian aid for Tajikistan since 1994 to meet needs in the wake of 
civil  war.  In  2003,  ECHO  formulated  a  three-year  phasing-out  strategy,  and  programming 
ended in September 2007. For the future, frequent natural disasters seem to be the country's 
biggest risk. In 2009, there were severe spring floods. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU has provided a total of €12 million in hu manitarian aid since 2005 and completed its 
aid  response  in  2007.  Support  for  disaster  preparedness  activities  has  continued  through 
DIPECHO Action Plans. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009  

Prolonged,  heavy  rains  in  April  and  May  2009  caused  multiple  floods,  mudflows,  flash 
floods, rock-falls and landslides. More than 2 000 buildings (houses and social facilities) were 
destroyed  or  severely  damaged,  and  11 000  people  were  directly  affected.  Through  an 
emergency decision, the Commission mobilised €300  000 to finance the rehabilitation of nine 
water  systems  in  the  Rash  Valley  and  the  construction  of  a  new  water  supply  for  3  000 
internally  displaced  people  from  the  city  of  Khalton,  who  have  been  re-housed  by  the 
government. All water systems will be managed and maintained by Tajik local authorities. 

In addition, the EU maintained a presence in Tajikistan through its 5th DIPECHO Action Plan 
for Central Asia, monitoring natural disasters. 

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

Water supply operations funded by an emergency decision in 2009 have been handed over to 
local authorities. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The ECHO office in Tajikistan actively participates in meetings organised by the Committee 
of Emergency Situations on Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Risk Reduction in the framework 
of  the  Rapid  Emergency  Assessment  Co-ordination  Team  mechanism.  Operations  funded 
after the May 2009 floods were selected on the basis of a joint needs assessment mission by 
the Monitoring Information Centre and ECHO, after consultation with other donors. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

2.6. 

Asia and the Pacific 

In 2009, humanitarian aid and food aid operations were funded in more than 15 countries in 
Asia and the Pacific region, following the adoption of 29 funding decisions granting a total of 
€206 million or 22% of the total budget committed. 

EU humanitarian assistance was provided and/or implemented in the following countries: 

Country/region

Funding decisions adopted in 2009

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

EDF

DIPECHO

TOTAL

SOUTH ASIA 

105 000 000

42 500 000

10 000 000

157 500 000

Afghanistan  
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India
Nepal/Bhutan
Sri Lanka
South & South-West Asia

27 000 000
41 500 000
11 000 000
7 000 000
4 500 000
14 000 000

10 000 000
29 000 000
2 000 000

1 500 000

SOUTH-EAST & EAST ASIA

37 000 000

8 500 000

Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand
Indonesia
Philippines
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia

PACIFIC

Pacific
Papua New Guinea

7 000 000

1 500 000

11 500 000
4 500 000
12 000 000
9 000 000

 700 000

 700 000

10 000 000

37 000 000
70 500 000
13 000 000
7 000 000
6 000 000
14 000 000
10 000 000

45 500 000

18 500 000
4 500 000
12 000 000
10 500 000

 650 000

1 500 000

2 850 000

 650 000

1 500 000

2 200 000
 650 000

TOTAL ASIA & PACIFIC

142 700 000

51 000 000

 650 000

11 500 000

205 850 000

2.6.1. 

South Asia 

The region is driven with instability and open conflicts (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) 
and 2009 saw, once again, an accentuation of tensions and violence. Consequently the number 
of people in need of humanitarian assistance increased. One particular cause for concern for 
the  Commission  was  Sri  Lanka,  where  over  300 000  people  were  trapped  for  five  months 
within  the  theatre  of  hostilities  and  unable  to  flee  to  safety.  And  when  the  fighting  finally 
ended, most were held captive in camps for another six months. The process of release started 
towards the end of the year and the Commission remains committed to providing protection 
and other forms of humanitarian assistance for resettlement, throughout the year ahead. 

In  Afghanistan  and  Pakistan,  the  humanitarian  crises  are  twofold:  on  the  one  hand  the 
'Afghan'  crisis  affects  not  only  Afghanistan  but  also  Iran  and  Pakistan,  where  almost  four 
million  Afghan  refugees  are  still  living;  on  the  other  hand  Pakistan  went  through  a  major 
population  displacement  in  2009.  In  Afghanistan  the  deterioration  in  security  and  the 
consequences of extensive military operations, aggravated by years of drought and recurrent 
small scale disasters, caused a sharp increase in humanitarian needs in 2009 which is likely to 
continue next year with more than 250 000 IDPs. In Pakistan, after the displacement of more 
than two million people in May, the situation has further deteriorated with new displacements 
in other parts of the country and major problems with gaining access to the beneficiaries due 
to insecurity and the constraints imposed on humanitarian workers. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
In all three countries, humanitarian workers have often been the direct targets of violence or 
hostility, as the lines between parties in the conflicts and humanitarian workers are becoming 
increasingly blurred. This adds to the risks involved in providing humanitarian assistance to 
the  victims.  Consequently,  some  of  those  most  in  need  become  unreachable  and  cannot  be 
assisted. 

Afghanistan (including Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran) 

Humanitarian needs 

The  main  groups  with  substantial  humanitarian  needs  in  2009  were  the  over  250 000 
internally  displaced  persons  (IDPs)  within  Afghanistan  affected  by  the  conflict,  primarily 
refugees  who  returned  from  Pakistan  and  Iran,  although  the  level  of  return  has  been  lower 
than  expected,  secondly  the  illegal  Afghans  immigrants  deported  from  Iran  and  the  host 
communities receiving these returnees and, finally, the high food-insecure population affected 
by recurrent natural disasters, including many years of drought, the recent severe flooding in 
the  north  and  the  global  rise  in  food  prices.  The  needs  of  the  returnees  and  IDPs  included 
protection, transport and resettlement support, plus food, shelter, and water/sanitation for the 
most vulnerable such as female headed households. Over five million refugees and displaced 
people have returned since 2002. Many of them, together with their host communities, have 
required  continuing  support  to  avoid  a  major  humanitarian  crisis,  particularly  in  the  area  of 
water/sanitation  where  Afghanistan  has  some  of  the  worst  indicators  in  the  world.  Another 
significant area for humanitarian support remains protection and food assistance for the food-
insecure population. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU has been funding projects addressing the needs of vulnerable people affected by the 
consequences of the Afghan conflict and natural hazards since 1992. Between 2005 and 2009 
The Commission spent €262 million, including  €25.8 million from the food aid budget line. 

The  main  focus  was  on  the  needs  of  the  over  five  million  returnees,  IDPs  and  the  most 
vulnerable host communities. Assistance was also provided to the victims of natural disasters, 
notably of the severe flooding in northern Afghanistan in 2009. Protection, water/sanitation, 
food, shelter, basic livelihood support, security advice and humanitarian flights were the main 
areas of activity. Activities in the health sector were taken over by the EU Delegation in 2004. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The  focus  in  2009  was  on  assisting  the  IDPs  and  the  return  of  refugees  and  ensuring  basic 
livelihood  support  for  the  most  vulnerable  and  for  their  host  communities.  In  parallel,  the 
Commission  worked  with  UNHCR  to  attain  durable  solutions  for  the  Afghan  populations 
remaining  in  Pakistan  and  Iran,  preparing  for  the  time  when  they  would  no  longer  be 
considered as refugees. 

The  EU  funded  €25  million  of  humanitarian  aid  fo r  victims  of  the  Afghan  crisis  under  its 
2009 Global Plan, covering registration and transportation of refugees from Pakistan and Iran 
to  Afghanistan,  plus  continuing  support  for  the  most  vulnerable  of  the  remaining  refugees. 
Protection  assistance  was  provided,  notably  in  the  form  of  continued  support  for  both 
UNHCR  and  ICRC  to  perform  their  respective  protection  mandate  roles.  Shelter,  together 
with  water/sanitation,  were  the  other  most  important  areas  of  activity  within  Afghanistan. 
Responses to localised natural disasters were supported with increasing emphasis on building 

EN 

58 

   EN 

up local capacity. All projects were implemented with full respect for the key issue of gender. 
Given the constraints of security and geography, support for security advisory services for aid 
agencies in Afghanistan and for a subsidised humanitarian flight service was maintained. In 
2009,  a  total  of  €10 million  in  fo od  assistance  was  allocated  to  Afghanistan  in  order  to 
respond  to  the  food  insecurity  linked  to  years  of  recurrent  drought  followed  by  serious 
flooding in 2009. 

Working environment 

Along  with  various  other  players,  the  Commission  has  continued  to  advocate  the  need  to 
respect  basic  humanitarian  principles  and  international  humanitarian  law,  in  particular  for 
humanitarian  space  and  protection  of  civilians  in  a  country  where  the  line  between  military 
and civilian intervention is very blurred, putting at risk the lives of humanitarian workers and 
the  projects  themselves.  The  overall  security  situation  in  Afghanistan  remains  volatile  and 
extremely  unpredictable.  Attacks  on  humanitarian  aid  workers  have  increased  over  the  last 
few  years.  Access  and  humanitarian  space  are  more  limited  than  ever  and  this  situation  is 
likely to persist. 

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

Close  co-ordination  on  LRRD  matters  is  taking  place  with  a  view  to  ensuring  that  their 
programmes are mutually compatible and a handover wherever possible as was the case with 
health  programmes  in  2004.  Regarding  assistance  to  refugees  in  Pakistan  and  Iran,  a  clear 
distinction  is  to  be  made  between  funding  for  strict  humanitarian  purposes  and  more 
developmental  actions.  In  Afghanistan,  assistance  has  remained  focused  on  the  pockets  of 
greatest  need.  In  the  food  sector,  a  comprehensive  LRRD  strategy  between  food  assistance 
and the Food Security Thematic Programming also continued in 2009. 

Pakistan 

Humanitarian needs 

Since August 2008, the conflict between the Pakistan military and various militant groups in 
the  North-West  Frontier  Province  (NWFP)  and  the  Federally  Administered  Tribal  Areas 
(FATA) has intensified significantly, leaving 168 000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) by 
the beginning of 2009. Following a broken ceasefire, the Taliban advanced further south from 
Swat in early April. This offensive and the Pakistani army’s counter-offensive unleashed an 
unprecedented level of mass displacement with two million more fleeing their homes in less 
than a month to take refuge in other parts of NWFP. The vast majority of IDPs (90%) stayed 
with host families and not in the established camps, putting extra pressure on an already very 
poor  population.  At  the  end  of  May  2009,  the  army  declared  that  it  had  taken  over  Swat 
District. Despite the heavy military presence, pockets of active conflict continue to affect the 
population  in  these  areas.  Nevertheless,  an  official  large-scale  return  operation  started  on 
13 July  2009,  with  strong  support  from  the  authorities.  Since  then,  according  to  official 
estimates,  1.66  million  people  have  returned  to  their  places  of  origin.  A  further  1.3  million 
remain displaced, bringing the total population movement acknowledged by the authorities to 
almost 3 million people. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

Further major military operations began in mid-October in South Waziristan (FATA), causing 
the  displacement  of  260 000  families  according  to  official  sources  (460 000  people  have 
sought official registration as IDPs). Military operations are also continuing in other areas of 
FATA, including Orakzai, Khyber and Bajaur, triggering further displacements. Populations 
in  need  include  the  internally  displaced  people,  the  returnees,  the  people  who  stayed  in  the 
conflict zones and the host families. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

After initially being involved mainly in response to the Afghan refugee crisis (assistance for 
Afghan  refugees  on  Pakistani  soil),  humanitarian  aid  has  become  increasingly  engaged  in 
responding to natural disasters, including disaster risk reduction under the standard DIPECHO 
programme  and  the  response  to  the  2005  earthquake  when  assistance  worth  almost 
 50 million  was  provided.  Nevertheless,  after  the  earthquake,  the  EU  progressively  scaled 
down  its  support  in  Pakistan,  except  for  its  assistance  to  Afghan  refugees,  as  access  to 
Pakistan’s Baluchistan area was not granted at the time of the floods and earthquake in 2007. 
After  the  initial  displacements  of  population  in  August  2008,  the  EU's  contribution  to 
combating the humanitarian crisis increased from €
 1.5 million, channelled through ICRC, in 
2008 to €
 70.5 million of humanitarian assistance to the population affected by the conflict in 
2009, following the displacement of almost three million civilians. The humanitarian situation 
is likely to remain critical in the months ahead. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

 70.5 million in relief assistance to respond to immediate 
In 2009, the Commission allocated €
and  basic  needs  of  the  population  affected  by  the  internal  conflict  (IDPs,  returnees,  people 
trapped in the conflict zone or host families). This included: (1) support for emergency food 
aid pipelines managed, amongst others, by WFP and serving an estimated 2.2 million people; 
(2) support for the ICRC’s protection activities and distribution of food and other essentials 
(NFIs) to 490 000  IDPs,  returnees and persons trapped in  the conflict zones; (3) support for 
provision of protection and NFIs by UNHCR to 800 000 IDPs; (4) provision of health care to 
more than 1 million IDPs by WHO and its partners; and (5) support for UNICEF to provide 
water,  sanitation  and  hygiene  to  96 000  IDPs.  Support  for  co-ordination  of  humanitarian 
assistance was channelled through UNOCHA. 

Working environment 

Throughout  the  year,  the  Commission,  along  with  various  other  players,  continued  to 
advocate the need to respect basic humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, 
in  particular  for  humanitarian  space  and  access  for  humanitarian  workers,  protection  of 
civilians,  voluntary  and  safe  return,  the  right  to  assistance  based  on  needs  rather  than 
officially  vetted  registration  status  and  freedom  of  movement  for  IDPs  from  Waziristan. 
Access to the areas of displacement from South Waziristan is not possible for expatriates and 
rather limited for national staff. The overall security situation in Pakistan remains volatile and 
extremely unpredictable. More than 700 civilians have been killed over the last three months 
in a wave of attacks across the country. Humanitarian aid workers face serious risks to their 
lives and have also paid a big price in the form of stress. Access and humanitarian space are 
more limited than ever. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

€
LRRD – possible exit strategy from the sector and/or country 

With little prospect of an early end to the conflict in Pakistan and major constraints such as 
security  and  access,  LRRD  efforts  are  focusing  on  coordinating  responses  to  the  continuing 
that  humanitarian 
needs.  The  Commission 
considerations  be  reflected  in  reconstruction  policies  and  programmes.  In  terms  of  disaster 
risk reduction, LRRD efforts will be maintained in a highly disaster-prone country. 

liaises  with  other  donors 

to  advocate 

Bangladesh 

Humanitarian needs 

Bangladesh,  the  world’s  most  densely  populated  country,  is  highly  vulnerable  to  natural 
disasters, in particular floods, cyclones and earthquakes. This vulnerability is exacerbated by 
climate  change.  Cyclone  Aila  hit  the  south-western  coast  of  the  country  on  25  May  2009, 
affecting over four million people and displacing over one million. 

The  protracted  crisis  affecting  the  unregistered  Rohingya  refugees  living  in  an  unofficial 
settlement in Leda was aggravated when some 25 000 newly displaced people, driven out of 
their villages, had to be added to those requiring assistance. This population lives in absolute 
destitution with no access to basic services and malnutrition rates also well above emergency 
thresholds due to severe food insecurity. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU contributed with €3 million when the country was hit by severe floods in 2004 and 
2006, providing food rations, safe drinking water and emergency items. In 2004, the EU also 
provided €0.8 million to support victims of comm unal violence in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. 
In 2007, the country was severely hit by two spells of monsoon and by cyclone Sidr. The EU 
allocated  €6.5  million  for  the  flood  victims  and  €25.5  million  for  the  cyclone  victims,  for 
integrated  relief  assistance,  shelter,  water/sanitation.  Support  for  unregistered  Rohingya 
started in 2007 with the relocation of 10 000 persons to a more appropriate site (€1.5 million), 
followed by emergency food aid in 2008 (€350 000). 

In 2008, the EU funded assistance in response to flooding in the south-western region (€1.5 
million) and to the food insecurity crisis caused by an invasion of rodents (€1.65 million). 

The total amount funded by the EU between 2005 and 2009, was €43.4 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

 9  million  was  allocated  to  the  victims  of  cyclone  Aila.  The  emergency  needs  of 
In  2009,  €
those still living on breached embankments will remain the top priority until people can return 
to  their  destroyed  homes.  Wherever  the  situation  permitted,  restoration  of  livelihoods  and 
reconstruction  of  shelters  was  initiated.  This  will  continue  next  year.  Furthermore,  ECHO 
 5 million) addressing the needs for shelter for 
implemented the last package of assistance (€
people affected by Sidr35. 

35 

The cyclone that hit the country in November 2007 

EN 

61 

   EN 

                                                 
Basic  humanitarian  assistance  was  extended  to  unregistered  Rohingya  refugees  settled  in 
Leda, despite major security problems and tensions with local communities (€1 million). The 
EU also contributed (€1 million) to support 25  500 un-registered Rohingya refugees, taking 
refuge  close  to  the  official  UNHCR  camp,  in  order  to  avoid  further  deterioration  of  the 
humanitarian situation created by the monsoon. Assistance focused on health care, therapeutic 
feeding, safe drinking water and sanitary conditions. 

Finally, the EU funded food assistance worth €2  million, to make up for crop destruction by 
rodents in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. 

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

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

In  the  case  of  cyclone  Aila,  close  co-ordination  is  being  ensured  with  the  Instrument  for 
Stability  and  the  EU  Delegation  to  link  the  EU’s  emergency  action  with  longer-term 
initiatives, particularly on shelter reconstruction (e.g. construction of cyclone-proof houses or 
new cyclone shelters). 

Active collaboration by the Commission helped to secure a site for relocating the Rohingya 
refugees  in  2007.  Close  co-ordination  is  ensured  supporting  two  official  camps  for 
documented Rohingya refugees. 

India 

Humanitarian needs 

The  conflict  between  Maoist  fighters  (Naxals)  and  security  forces  intensified  in  2009. 
Chhattisgarh, in particular its southernmost district, is one of the worst affected areas and the 
population  (mainly  tribal  people  and  scheduled  castes)  are  caught  between  the  conflicting 
parties. Some areas are totally inaccessible and the region generally acutely lacks basic social 
services,  as  it  is  practically  impossible  to  hire  doctors  or  teachers  to  work  in  such  a  risky 
environment.  Tens  of  thousands  are  displaced  as  a  consequence  of  the  fighting  and  this 
number is rising due to the recent escalation in hostilities. Several independent reports point to 
serious human rights violations, including use of child soldiers. 

Violence in Jammu and Kashmir remained a cause for concern in 2009. Access to some of the 
victims was impossible at times and remains restricted. 

Cyclone Aila hit West Bengal, in particular the Sunderbans area on 25 May 2009. Although 
the immediate needs of those worst hit were addressed, to a certain extent, by the authorities’ 
response, concerns remained about a long-term food gap, given that the standing crops were 
destroyed and the land was left saline. 

The 2009 monsoon season started late and brought below-average rainfall. Some places were 
therefore  affected  by  drought,  while  serious  flooding  was  occurring  in  others.  On  the  other 
hand,  food  reserves  are  very  high  and  should  be  enough  to  ensure  food  security  for  the 
population  in  general.  The  Commission  is,  nevertheless,  monitoring  the  situation,  paying 
particular attention to minorities and other marginalised groups. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU has been funding projects addressing the needs of people affected by the conflict in 
Jammu and Kashmir since 2005 and in Chhattisgarh too since 2007.  

India  is  also  prone  to  natural  disasters  and  the  EU  provided  humanitarian  assistance  to  the 
victims  of  such  disasters  in  that  country  over  the  last  five  years,  including  the  2004  South 
Asia tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and monsoon flooding in 2004, 2006, 2007 and 
2008. Assistance was also provided to the victims of the Mizoram rat plague in 2008 and of 
the Koshi River flooding in 2009. 

Over a five-year period, the Commission allocated a total budget of €34 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  the  aftermath  of  the  conflict  in  Kashmir,  approximately  30 000  people  received  psycho-
social  support  and  protection  including  children  in  orphanages  and  specialised  services  for 
people  living  with  disabilities.  In  Chhattisgarh,  over  35 000  people  benefited  from  curative 
and preventive basic health care services. 

The Commission allocated €2 million in humanitar ian aid for the victims of the Koshi River 
flood  in  Bihar,  including  for  emergency  shelter,  drinking  water  and  improved  sanitation, 
health and livelihood support. 

Assistance  to  the  tune  of  €3  million,  to  bridge   the  food  gap  for  the  victims  of  cyclone  Aila 
was approved towards the end of the year. These operations are currently being initiated. 

In  the  Sri  Lankan  refugee  camps  in  Tamil  Nadu,  the  EU  continued  to  finance  shelter, 
water/sanitation,  livelihood  and  protection  activities,  including  support  for  possible  returns 
following the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka. 

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

In  Jammu  and  Kashmir,  past  EU  support  for  non-formal  education  is  being  continued.  In 
Chhattisgarh  a  State  Partnership  Programme  has  been  signed  between  the  Commission  and 
the State authorities, aiming at equitable delivery of and access to quality health and education 
services,  accompanied  by  improved  forest-based  tribal  livelihoods,  with  the  aid  of 
governance, institutional reform and capacity-building at State and decentralised levels. This 
programme is expected to be a valuable vehicle for linking relief and rehabilitation, and will 
ultimately allow the Commission to exit from this crisis. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Co-ordination  is  facilitated  by  organising  regular  meetings  (India  team  meetings,  Country 
Strategy Paper discussions, etc.) backed up by ad hoc informal contacts. India is graduating 
out  of  aid  and  therefore  just  a  few  donors  remain  active.  In  general,  the  EU  is  the  only 
external donor operating in the humanitarian context in India. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

Nepal/Bhutan 

Humanitarian needs 

The conflict between Maoist rebels and the Royal Army cost 13 000 lives. Although it ended 
in  2006,  the  country  is  still  suffering  from  its  consequences,  marked  by  high  volatility  and 
frequent  outbreaks  of  violence.  The  conflict  isolated  populations  and  disrupted  trade  and 
agriculture;  it  destroyed  water  supply  systems  and  communications  infrastructure.  Health 
centres do not function properly and lack trained personnel, hygiene products and medicines 
as well as waste treatment equipment and systems. The Nepalese authorities are still not able 
to give support to communities due to the unstable political situation. 

Some 88 00036 Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin are victims of a forgotten crisis and have 
been stuck in camps since 1992, accepted neither by Nepal nor Bhutan and totally dependent 
on  external  aid.  In  the  absence  of  a  political  solution,  the  United  States  and  other  countries 
offered resettlement options and since 2008 more than 20 000 refugees have been resettled as 
a result. 

In  2009,  the  hilly  areas  in  the  mid-  and  far-west  suffered  the  worst  drought  of  the  last  40 
years. The drought, followed by heavy rains, destroyed over 70% of the crops in some districts, 
affecting 2.7 million people. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since 2005, the EU has provided a total of €34 million in respons e to the food-related needs 
of the Bhutanese refugees and the humanitarian needs of the victims of the armed conflict, the 
monsoon flooding in 2007 and 2008 and the drought in 2006. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

Primary  and  reproductive  healthcare  was  extended  to  100  000  people  and  32 250  people 
benefitted  from  water/sanitation  systems.  In  all,  250  000  people  gained  security  from  anti-
mine operations and food aid was distributed to over 90 000 Bhutanese refugees. The EU also 
financed disaster preparedness activities worth €2.6 million, benefiting over 240 000 people. 

Working environment 

Although  there  is  no  major  risk  to  humanitarian  staff,  most  operations  were  delayed  by 
blockades stemming from political instability. Access to hilly areas, the worst hit by drought 
and floods, is very difficult. Some villages can only be reached by helicopter. 

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

The EU humanitarian aid contribution for Bhutanese refugees is backed up by support from 
development  aid  for  UNHCR’s  camp  management.  The  resettlement  programme  brought 
renewed  hopes  of  a  workable  solution.  The  majority  of  refugees  are  expected  to  opt  for 
resettlement, but given the size of the caseload it is very likely to take close to five years to 
complete  the  process.  During  that  time,  political  efforts  will  be  sustained  to  lobby  for  a 
solution  for  those  neither  able  nor  willing  to  relocate,  including  a  return  to  Bhutan  and  the 

36 

Previously 108 000 refugees 

EN 

64 

   EN 

                                                 
possibility for others to settle legally in Nepal. Socio-economic development, with the support 
of  development  partners,  is  expected  to  allow  the  Commission  to  wind  down  its  operations 
linked to the conflict. 

Co-ordination of aid 

There  is  proficient  co-ordination  between  the  Commission  and  humanitarian  partners. 
DIPECHO  partners  have  joined  forces  to  establish  a  particularly  productive  platform,  now 
formally  accepted  as  a  valid  partner  in  all  official  initiatives  concerning  disaster  risk 
reduction. 

Sri Lanka 

Humanitarian needs 

The conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Nadu 
(LTTE), which had been continuing in the north of the country since 1983, ended on 19 May 
2009  when  the  President  formally  declared  victory  over  the  Tamil  Tiger  rebels.  During  the 
last months of the conflict almost 300 000 people, mostly ethnic Tamils, were trapped by the 
fighting  in  a  narrow  strip  of  land  in  Mullaitivu  with  little  or  no  access  to  humanitarian 
assistance. Severe violations of international humanitarian law were committed by both sides 
during  that  period  and  thousands  of  civilians  were  killed  and  wounded.  By  mid-May,  over 
280 000 people had fled the conflict zone and were being detained by the government in IDP 
camps in northern Sri Lanka. 

In October, the government began rapidly to release IDPs from the camps. By mid-December, 
over  170 000  people  had  returned  to  their  places  of  origin  in  the  north.  IDPs  have  been 
returning  to  areas  which  are  heavily  mined,  lack  basic  infrastructure  and  have  a  strong 
military presence. The majority of returnees live with host families and there are huge needs 
for  de-mining,  protection, 
recovery, 
temporary  shelters,  house 
water/sanitation and other essentials. 

livelihood 

repairs, 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since 2005 the EU has provided over €64 million of  humanitarian assistance to the population 
affected by the conflict and over €43  million in response to the tsunami. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  the  EU  provided  €14  million  in  emergenc y  relief  assistance  to  over  500 000  IDPs 
and  the  population  affected  by  the  conflict  in  Sri  Lanka  and  to  30 000  Sri  Lankan  refugees 
living in camps in Tamil Nadu, India. The focus has been on the population affected by the 
escalation in the conflict since 2006. 

This  has  included:  support  for  the  efforts  by  the  International  Committee  of  the  Red  Cross 
(ICRC)  to  bring  relief  and  protection  to  300 000  people  trapped  in  the  conflict  zone; 
emergency life-saving assistance to over 280 000 people detained in IDP camps; assistance to 
over  600 000  returnees,  IDPs  and  host  families  in  the  form  of  protection,  food  security, 
shelter,  other  essentials,  water/sanitation,  demining  and  co-ordination.  All  the  projects  have 
been implemented by ECHO partners, the UN, ICRC and INGOs. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

Working environment 

While security conditions for aid workers have improved since the end of the conflict in May 
2009,  the  government  of  Sri  Lanka  is  still  failing  to  respect  basic  humanitarian  principles. 
Government hostility to the aid community also hampers operations, causing lengthy delays 
in  obtaining  visas  and  authorisations.  At  the  end  of  2009,  ECHO  established  a  series  of 
benchmarks  for  future  humanitarian  funding,  including  complete  freedom  of  movement  for 
IDPs,  full  and  unhindered  access  for  humanitarian  agencies  and  donors,  voluntary,  safe  and 
dignified  return  and  access  for  protection  activities.  Some  progress  has  been  made  by  the 
government  towards  the  benchmarks,  such  as  the  release  of  over  170 000  IDPs  from  the 
camps. However, many difficulties remain and the Commission will continue to engage with 
the  government  to  emphasise  the  importance  of  complying  with  these  humanitarian 
benchmarks.  

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

In  terms  of  LRRD,  humanitarian  aid  programmes  will  be  linked  with  programmes  which 
complement  and  go  beyond  humanitarian  emergency  aid  by  concentrating  on  the  medium-
term needs of returnee IDPs and host communities in Sri Lanka. 

Other programmes in favour of war affected communities and contracted in 2009 amounted to 
€54.5 million, of which €6.5 million under the Instru ment for Stability, €36 million under the 
Development Cooperation Instrument and €12 m illion under the regional facility 'Assistance 
to Uprooted People'. 

2.6.2. 

South-East and East Asia 

South-East  and  East  Asia  is  one  of  the  most  disaster-prone  areas  in  the  world.  In  2009, 
numerous  countries  in  the  region  were,  once  again,  severely  affected  by  natural  disasters. 
Successive  tropical  storms  and  typhoons  caused  damage  in  the  Philippines,  affecting  more 
than  9  million  people.  In  September,  tropical  storm  Ketsana  devastated  Manila  and  the 
neighbouring areas, flooding  up to 80% of the  capital and displacing hundreds of thousands. 
Typhoon Parma caused extensive flooding and landslides in Northern Luzon. Vietnam, Laos 
and  Cambodia  were  also  badly  affected  by  typhoon  Ketsana  and  typhoon  Mirinae  in  early 
November, causing the most severe storm damage of the last 40 years. Indonesia was hit by 
two  major  earthquakes  in  2009.  On  2  September,  an  earthquake  of  magnitude  7  struck  the 
West Java province, affecting 700 000 people. On 30 September, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake 
struck West Sumatra (Padang), affecting  1.2 million people in 18  districts.  More than 1 100 
people were killed. 

In  Myanmar  (Burma),  the  immediate  relief  needs  after  the  devastating  cyclone  Nargis  were 
addressed  satisfactorily,  paving  the  way  for  long-term  recovery.  However,  the  humanitarian 
situation in the rest of the country continued to give cause for concern and clashes between 
ethnic groups and the Burmese army in the border region with China in mid-2009 triggered 
mass displacements. In 2009 the European Union tightened its sanctions against the country. 

On 28 December 2009, the Thai government deported approximately 4 000 Lao Hmong back 
to Laos after classifying them as illegal immigrants. The EU urged Laos to respect the rights 
of those who return and to allow humanitarian groups and diplomats free and open access to 
the returnees. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

In the Philippines, following the August 2008 armed upheaval between the government and 
the  main  armed  opposition  groups  —  the  Moro  National  Liberation  Front  and  the  Moro 
Islamic Liberation Front — the EU continue providing assistance for displaced populations in 
Mindanao. At the end of 2009, 300 000 people were still displaced. 

The  6th  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  for  South  East  Asia  was  successfully  implemented  in  2009 
and  the  effects  are  clearly  visible  when  compared  with  areas  that  have  received  no 
preparedness support. 

Myanmar (Burma) 

Humanitarian needs 

Since its independence in 1948, Burma/Myanmar’s history has been punctuated by civil wars 
with government forces fighting against militant ethnic groups. This protracted low-intensity 
conflict  coupled  recently  with  the  drive  to  harness  the  country’s  natural  resources,  has 
displaced  hundreds  of  thousands  to  other  parts  of  the  country  or  to  neighbouring  countries, 
particularly Bangladesh and Thailand. In 2009 the European Union tightened and extended its 
sanctions  against  the  country.  Consequently,  humanitarian  assistance  remains  an  important 
share  of  Commission's  interventions  in  the  country  which  continues  to  be  implemented 
through UN agencies and NGOs. 

Tensions between the government of Myanmar and the various ethnic groups living along the 
country’s  eastern  borders  increased  in  2009  with  armed  clashes  involving  ethnic  Karen  and 
Kokang  groups.  The  July  offensive  by  the  Burmese  army  and  its  ally  on  some  posts  of  the 
Karen  National  Liberation  Army  forced  some  4 000  ethnic  Karen  to  flee  to  Thailand. 
Currently  they  have  found  refuge  in  two  temporary  sites  outside  the  existing  camps.  Aid 
agencies and district authorities are providing assistance to them. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has observed massive human rights violations, 
notably  affecting  ethnic  groups.  Gulf  States  have  seriously  affected  the  country's  economy. 
Likewise,  Western  economic  sanctions  have  added  to  the  hardship  for  ordinary  people. 
Myanmar (Burma) is reported to have the highest number of child soldiers in the world. It is 
estimated  that  70 000  or  more  in  its  army  of  approximately  350 000  soldiers.  The  lack  of 
clean  water,  desperately  poor  health  environment  and  widespread  lack  of  hygiene  are  the 
main causes of the water-borne illnesses which account for 50% of morbidity among young 
children.  According  to  UNICEF,  diarrhoea  is  the  second  biggest  cause  of  mortality  among 
children under five, after malaria. Around 57% of the population have no access to sanitation 
facilities  and  40%  have  no  access  to  safe  drinking  water.  The  most  widespread  sources  of 
water  in  the  country  are  village  wells  and  ponds  which  lack  any  proper  protection  and  are 
therefore often a source of contamination. Access to basic health care is almost non-existent 
in many remote areas of the country. 

The immediate relief needs following the devastating cyclone Nargis which hit the Irrawaddy 
Delta in May 2008 have been addressed satisfactorily, paving the way for long-term recovery. 
Although there are a large number of new humanitarian agencies in the Irrawaddy Delta, they 
have not been given permission to extend their activities to remote areas inhabited by ethnic 
minorities. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

Despite the broad media coverage which the ‘Rohingya boat people’ received at the beginning 
of  the  year,  the  situation  in  Northern  Rakhine  State  has  been  slowly  worsening  as  border 
tensions with Bangladesh have been mounting. 

The economic impact of the devastation caused by cyclone Nargis had an adverse impact on 
the general humanitarian situation in Burma/Myanmar in 2009 too. The decrease in demand 
for  oil,  jade  and  teak,  particularly  on  the  Chinese  market,  and  the  consequences  of  the 
economic  crisis  on  demand  for  foreign  labour  in  richer  ASEAN37  countries  and  the  Gulf 
States have seriously affected the country’s economy. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

EU-funded  operations  in  Myanmar  (Burma)  over  the  last  five  years  have  focused  on  the 
ethnic  minority  areas  affected  by  the  low-intensity  conflict,  in  particular,  along  the  borders 
with  Thailand,  India  and  China.  Support  has  also  been  provided  to  the  stateless  Rohingya 
population in Northern Rakhine State and to the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand, which 
host up to 135 000 refugees. Since May 2008, emergency assistance totalling €39 million has 
been provided to the victims of cyclone Nargis. 

The  humanitarian  situation  of  vulnerable  populations  affected  by  the  conflict  in  Myanmar 
(Burma) and of Burmese refugees from that country along the Thai-Burmese border seems a 
"forgotten crisis". However, ECHO continues its support. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009  the  Commission's  activities  continued  to  focus  on  Northern  Rakhine  State  and  the 
ethnic areas along the border with China and Thailand (such as Shan, Kayah, Mon and Kayin 
States and the Tanintharyi Division) along with the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. To 
continue responding to the humanitarian needs, the Commission allocated €18.5 million under 
the 2009 Global Plan targeting mainly protection, food/nutrition, water/sanitation and health 
activities.  In  response  to  cyclone  Nargis,  a  decision  releasing  €22  million  was  adopted  in 
December 2008 and implemented in the course of 2009. 

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

At  the  end  of  2009,  the  Livelihood  and  Food  Security  Trust  Fund,  a  five-year  $100 million 
programme,  was  launched  by  the  EU  and  other  major  donors.  This  support  links  up 
particularly well with the phasing-out of EU-funded operations in the delta area affected by 
cyclone Nargis. Funding for the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand has also been provided 
by  AIDCO,  as  the  European  Commission  is  looking  for  solutions  offering  a  more  durable 
livelihood  for  the  refugees  with  the  aim  of  gradually  scaling  down  and  phasing  out  its 
operations. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The most important aspect if the activities supported by EU-funding are to be more efficient 
and  sustainable  is  close  collaboration  with  other  EU  instruments.  This  not  only  strengthens 
the  link  between  relief,  rehabilitation  and  development,  but  also,  together  with  joint  inter-
service advocacy vis-à-vis other stakeholders such as EU Member States, USAID or the Thai 

37 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

EN 

68 

   EN 

                                                 
Government, contributes to putting relevant issues on the international agenda and promoting 
durable  solutions.  Commission  staff  regularly  participates  in  inter-agency  co-ordination 
meetings and are actively engaged in donor task force meetings. 

Thailand 

Humanitarian needs 

Burmese refugees: The nine refugee camps along the Thai-Myanmar border are populated by 
predominantly  Karen  and  Karenni  refugees  from  Myanmar  (Burma).  The  resettlement 
programme  to  third  countries  which  started  in  2004  has  reduced  their  number  from  the 
original  total  of  150 000.  On  30  September  2009,  there  were  109 041  registered  refugees, 
whereas  TBBC38  reported  about  132 448  camp-dwellers  benefiting  from  the  organisation’s 
food  assistance,  despite  the  fact  that  more  than  54 000  have  been  resettled  (out  of  which 
14 039  left  in  the  first  nine  months  of  2009).  The  modest  decline  in  the  camp  population 
cannot be explained by demographic trends alone. According to a UNHCR source, free access 
to services, particularly food, has been the main push/pull factor for ‘new entries’. The hope 
of  resettlement  in  a  third  country,  mainly  the  United  States,  is  another  popular  reason  for 
young people to enter these camps. This means that genuine asylum-seekers mix with aspiring 
illegal migrants, thus complicating camp management, status determination and resettlement 
efforts.  In  February  2009,  UNHCR  started  pilot  screening  of  unregistered  camp-dwellers  in 
four  of  the  nine  camps.  The  majority  of  the  screened  people  are  expected  to  be  granted 
refugee status. Should this exercise prove successful, it could be extended to the other camps. 

After  several  decades  of  the  Burmese  refugee  camps,  a  different  type  of  response  and 
assistance are required than in the early years after the camps were opened. Donors agree that 
it  is  imperative  to  move  from  hand-outs  to  more  long-term  and  sustainable  solutions  which 
include livelihood alternatives. This transition is particularly important, because refugees have 
become totally dependent on aid after such a long time in camps. 

The recently finalised draft Five-year Strategic Plan produced by the Committee for the Co-
ordination  of  Services  to  Displaced  Persons  in  Thailand  (CCSDPT)  and  UNHCR  marks  a 
significant step forward in this process. It will provide a good basis for dialogue with the Thai 
government  on  finding  sustainable  solutions  for  the  refuges  by  providing  them  with  an 
alternative to increase their self-reliance. 

Lao Hmong: The Hmong, an ethnic minority group which has inhabited the northern region of 
Laos for centuries, were recruited as guerrilla fighters by the US military in its ‘secret war’ 
against  communist  forces  in  Laos  in  the  1960s.  When  the  communists  prevailed  in  1975, 
thousands  of  Hmong  fled  to  neighbouring  Thailand  and  sought  resettlement  abroad.  Since 
2006, a further 7 000 Hmong have sought refuge in Thailand and been regrouped in a closed 
camp  in  Petchabun  province.  Three  thousand  were  repatriated  to  Laos,  although  concerns 
were  raised  about  how  far  their  move  was  voluntary.  Another  group  of  432  Hmong  were 
recognised by UNHCR, but 158 of them were arrested and detained in Nong Khai detention 
centre in North-East Thailand. The USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia have offered 
resettlement, but the government of Laos insists that they have to return to Laos first. 

On 28 December 2009, some 5 000 Thai military personnel entered the Petchabun camp and 
started  repatriating  the  4 000  Hmong  who  had  been  classified  as  illegal  immigrants  by 

38 

Thailand Burma Border Consortium 

EN 

69 

   EN 

                                                 
Thailand. They were transported to Laos in buses. The second group of Hmong were deported 
on  29  December.  None  of  them  had  been  informed  of  their  deportation  and  concerns  were 
expressed  about  their  safety.  According  to  the  Lao  government,  the  4 371  returnees  will 
initially  be  placed  in  a  centre  80  km  east  of  Vientiane  and  then  housed  in  villages  in 
Bolikhamsai and  Vientiane provinces,  where each family will receive a house and a plot of 
land. 

On  28  December,  the  day  the  first  move  took  place,  the  Swedish  Presidency  issued  a 
statement  declaring  that  it  was  ‘deeply  dismayed’  at  the  deportation  and  warning  that  the 
move could violate refugee law. The EU urged Laos to respect the rights of those who return 
and to allow humanitarian groups and diplomats free and open access to them. In Laos, the 
EU  (France,  Germany  and  the  EU  Delegation),  together  with  the  US  and  Australian 
Ambassadors,  presented  a  demarche  on  30  December,  calling  for  immediate  access  to  the 
returnees  for  the  international  community,  particularly  to  the  group  from  Nong  Khai  who 
were  recognised  as  ‘persons  of  concern’.  The  Laos  Vice-Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
emphasised  that  the  government  considered  these  people  illegal  migrants  and  that,  after 
processing, they would be sent back to their original homes or resettled in new villages. The 
Commission  is  continuing  to  monitor  this  situation  closely  and  is  in  close  contact  with 
UNHCR and International Organisation for Migration. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Given the political stalemate in Myanmar (Burma), refugees living in Thailand have received 
extensive  support  from  the  EU  over  the  last  five  years  in  the  form  of  food,  health  and 
water/sanitation.  In  2009,  the  Commission  started  scaling  down  the  EU  contribution  to  the 
Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009, the EU continued to provide assistance to the Burmese refugees, with a total of €8.75 
million  under  the  decision  granting  Myanmar  (Burma)  €18.5  million.  This  is  just  slightly 
lower than the 2008 figure of €9.5 million. Provisio n of food  assistance and health services 
has stabilised the nutritional situation in the camps and prevented major outbreaks of disease. 

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

In 2009, the Commission started scaling down EU funding for Burmese refugees in Thailand 
as the humanitarian situation has been consolidated. After decades of these camps, a different 
type of response and assistance with more long-term livelihood options are required than in 
the  early  years  after  the  camps  were  opened.  The  Commission's  strategy  has  been  co-
ordinated with other EU instruments and other donors. It has become necessary to target the 
needs  of  the  most  vulnerable  refugee  groups  better.  At  the  same  time  the  European 
Commission  is  currently  looking  for  the  most  effective  way  to  accompany  early 
implementation of the five-year Strategic Plan of the CCSDPT and UNHCR. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

Co-ordination of aid 

EU's  financial  support  for  the  Burmese  refugees in  Thailand  has  been  scaled  down  in  close 
co-ordination with other EU instruments and donors. Regular meetings are held at field level. 
In November 2009, the Commission participated in a field visit by Heads of Mission to one of 
the refugee camps. 

Indonesia  

Humanitarian needs 

In  2009,  two  earthquakes  generated  enormous  humanitarian  needs  in  Indonesia.  On 
2 September,  an  earthquake  of  magnitude  7  struck  West  Java  province,  affecting  700 000 
people and destroying or damaging up to 142 000 houses. The area affected was so extensive 
that it took a long time to assess the unmet humanitarian needs, which were mostly for shelter, 
with a large number of people displaced in difficult conditions. 

On  30  September,  a  7.9  magnitude  earthquake  struck  West  Sumatra  (Padang),  affecting 
1.2 million  people  in  18  districts.  Over  1 100  people  were  killed.  The  disaster  destroyed  or 
damaged more than 180 000 houses. 

The responses to these two disasters were very different. The West Java earthquake attracted 
very  little  external  assistance,  after  the  President  declared  that  it  was  not  necessary.  By 
contrast,  the  West  Sumatra  earthquake  attracted  close  to  200  organisations  and  massive 
funding  (up  to  $50 million),  leading  to  overlapping  of  activities  and  compromising  the 
efficiency and efficacy of the response. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

This  period  was  marked  by  the  earthquake  and  tsunami  which  devastated  Aceh  and  the 
Northern  Sumatra  coasts  on  26  December  2004.  For  this  crisis  alone,  the  Commission 
disbursed close to €60 million on projects r unning from 26 December 2004 to 30 June 2007. 

Other smaller crises were addressed during the period 2005-2009, including displacement due 
to  ethnic  violence,  drought  and  malnutrition,  epidemics,  earthquakes,  smaller  tsunamis,  and 
the destructive earthquake that shook the city of Yogyakarta and the surrounding areas in May 
2006. In 2008, the Commission responded to malnutrition in the eastern part of the country 
with  projects  implemented  mainly  in  2009.  The  total  EU  humanitarian  contribution  to 
Indonesia, excluding the tsunami response, was close to €20 million. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

 1.5 million was 
In response to the West Java earthquake, an emergency decision releasing €
adopted to address needs for temporary shelter. After the West Sumatra earthquake, a primary 
emergency  decision  granting  €
 3  million  was  adopted  to  cover  needs  for  emergency  shelter, 
water/sanitation,  basic  necessities,  transport,  mapping  and  co-ordination.  Considering  the 
massive  funding  made  available  in  response  to  this  crisis,  the  Commission  has  decided  to 
allocate no more funding for the time being. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

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

Food  insecurity  is  not  going  to  be  addressed  in  Nusa  Tengara  Timur  (NTT)  as  part  of  a 
comprehensive LRRD approach, since the Commission Country Strategy for the period 2007-
2013 does not include food security as an area of activity. Hence, Indonesia was not selected 
as a beneficiary under the Food Facility. However, EU-funded projects are being co-ordinated 
with  the  interventions  supported  by  other  external  instruments  in  West  Timor  and  by  the 
Multi-Donor  Support  Facility  funded  by  the  Dutch  and  Danish  governments.  Nevertheless, 
the Commission will continue to advocate support under long-term instruments and by other 
donors  to  address  the  serious  food  insecurity  in  NTT.  As  far  as  the  response  to  the 
earthquakes is concerned, the Commission will continue to assess the situation and will act in 
accordance with its mandate should further needs be identified. 

Philippines 

Humanitarian needs 

Mindanao: Following the August 2008 armed upheaval between the Philippines government 
and  the  main  armed  opposition  groups  —  the  Moro  National  Liberation  Front  (MNLF)  and 
the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) — the EU had to continue providing assistance for 
the displaced population living in evacuation centres, makeshift shelters or with host families 
in Mindanao. At the end of 2009 about 300 000 people were still displaced. Living conditions 
in  evacuation  centres  and  displacement  sites  failed  to  meet  SPHERE39  standards  and  basic 
services were not provided.  

The humanitarian situation of the people affected by the conflict was aggravated by recurrent 
flooding. After some improvement during the second half of the year, the security situation in 
the conflict zone deteriorated after the election-related massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao 
on 23 November. 

The  recent  conflict  in  Mindanao  is  a  forgotten  crisis  which  has  attracted  no  international 
media  attention,  while  the  government  continues  to  downplay  the  severity  of  the  situation. 
Humanitarian agencies are also finding it difficult to raise funds to respond. 

Typhoons: Several tropical storms and typhoons caused heavy damage in the north and in the 
centre  of  the  country  at  the  end  of  September  and  in  October  2009,  affecting  more  than 
9 million  people.  Tropical  storm  Ketsana  devastated  the  national  capital  region  and 
neighbouring  areas,  flooding  up  to  80%  of  Manila  and  displacing  hundreds  of  thousands. 
Typhoon  Parma  caused  extensive  flooding  and  landslides  in  Northern  Luzon,  hitting 
agricultural production hard. Extensive humanitarian needs included shelter, water/sanitation, 
food, health, logistics, telecommunications and co-ordination. 

39 

SPHERE  project:  Humanitarian  Charter  and  Minimum  Standards 
http://www.sphereproject.org  

in  Disaster  Response 

EN 

72 

   EN 

                                                 
Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

EU humanitarian interventions in the Philippines over the last five years (€ 21.7 million) have 
focused on the response to displacement due to the violence affecting Mindanao and on the 
response to natural disasters.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  the  Commission  provided  €12  million  to 
needs  in  areas  affected  by  conflicts  (€3  m illion)  and  to  the  typhoon  season  (€9  million),  of 
which €2 million was allocated to the vi ctims of tropical storm Ketsana.  

respond  to  the  increasing  humanitarian 

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

There is a close cooperation with EU-funded conflict prevention projects in Mindanao. From 
2011  onwards,  specific  funding  will  target  the  people  displaced  by  the  2008  crisis,  which 
should allow the Commission to phase out its response to this crisis if the situation evolves 
favourably. 

In case of typhoons, the Commission will assess the situation in order to cover any persisting 
needs. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Co-ordination  is  facilitated  by  organising  regular  meetings,  both  at  headquarters  and  in  the 
country.  These are  backed up by ad  hoc informal contacts. Only a few donors are active in 
Mindanao. As for natural disasters, the EU-funded operation is being co-ordinated with other 
humanitarian players, including the UN country team. 

Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 

Humanitarian needs 

Vietnam,  one  of  the  world’s  most  disaster-prone  countries,  has  developed  good  coping 
mechanisms  over  the  years  to  prepare  for  and  cushion  the  impact  of  natural  hazards. 
Nonetheless, local capacity can be exhausted when disasters such as heavy rains and typhoons 
are more intense than normal. In Laos and Cambodia, the prevalence of general hazards and 
major  disasters  is  considered  medium  to  low  compared  with  other  Asian  countries,  but  the 
overall vulnerability of these countries can cause relatively high risks for communities when 
disasters strike. Food insecurity is an endemic problem, particularly in Laos where it has been 
aggravated lately by an extraordinary rodent outbreak causing widespread loss  of crops  and 
stocks, triggering a serious food shortage in seven Northern provinces early in 2009. 

Natural  disasters  are  increasing.  2009  was  yet  another  year  marked  by  repeated  episodes  of 
extensive  flooding  and  by  two  major  typhoons  —  Ketsana  (29  September)  and  Mirinae  (2-
3 November) — on a scale which overstretched the local capacity for relief and rehabilitation, 
causing  the  most  severe  storm  damage  for  the  last  40  years.  In  all,  14  central  and  southern 
provinces  suffered  from  the  combined  effects  of  typhoons  Ketsana  and  Mirinae.  After 
devastating Vietnam, typhoon Ketsana ravaged five southern provinces in Laos, amongst the 
most vulnerable and food-insecure in the country, and seven northern and central provinces of 
Cambodia. Tens of thousands of households, already exposed to food insecurity near the end 

EN 

73 

   EN 

of  a  lean  season,  had  their  food  stocks  and  basic  assets  decimated,  leaving  them  facing 
pressing food needs long ahead of the next rice harvest. In addition to food, the most urgent 
needs  generated  by  the  typhoons  were  for  shelter,  water/sanitation,  health  and  livelihood 
recovery. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

The EU responded to natural disasters in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Its contribution was 
limited to €1.41 million for flooding and typhoons in Vietnam over the period 2002-2006, but 
the increasing climate-related hazards prompted the Commission to take actions five times in 
the last three years: twice in response to typhoon Lekima in Vietnam (October 2007) with a 
total of €3 million, once in response to tropica l storm Kammuri in Vietnam and Laos (August 
2008), with a total of €1.5 million, and twice in  response to the 2009 typhoons in Vietnam, 
Laos and Cambodia, with a total of €9 million. In spring 2009, 
million to address the most urgent food needs generated by the rodent outbreak in Laos. 

the EU contributed with €1.5 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  the  immediate  aftermath  of  typhoon  Ketsana,  a  primary  emergency  decision  releasing 
 2 million  was  adopted  to  address  the  consequences  of  the  disaster,  with  the  objective  of 
providing immediate life-saving assistance to the victims. Five humanitarian operations were 
mounted in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia under this financing decision, bringing assistance to 
350 000 beneficiaries in the form of food aid, non-food relief items, shelter, water, sanitation, 
hygiene  and  emergency  medical  care  until  December  2009.  A  second  financing  decision 
granting  €
 7  million  was  taken  on  17  December  2009  with  the  objective  of  enabling  the 
affected populations in the three countries to restore livelihoods and coping capacity quickly, 
while  helping  families  and  children  to  return  to  their  normal  life.  Twelve  six-month 
humanitarian  operations  were  initiated  under  this  financing  decision,  aiming  to  assist 
approximately 1 million beneficiaries in the early recovery phase during the first half of 2010. 

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

Longer-term structural recovery is or will be organised by the central and local governments 
of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos supported by international development assistance. In these 
countries,  continuation  of  the  DIPECHO  programme  in  the  most  disaster-prone  areas,  as 
confirmed by the 7th DIPECHO Action Plan starting in 2010, is aiming to disseminate best 
practice on typhoon/flood preparedness and to consolidate adoption of such best practice by 
national authorities and incorporation into relevant legislation. 

Co-ordination of aid 

In  all  three  Mekong  countries,  co-ordination  is  ensured  by  exchanges  of  information  and 
regular participation in meetings at headquarters (such as on the Country Strategy Paper or in 
the Mid-Term Review process). At  field level, EU Delegations are  constantly informed and 
involved in the follow-up to humanitarian activities, in order to guarantee appropriate linkage 
to  development  aid  whenever  feasible  and  relevant.  As  far  as  other  donors  are  concerned, 
bilateral  contacts  (notably  with  USAID40,  AUSAID41  and  CIDA42)  are  maintained  and 

40 
41 
42 

US Agency for International Development 
The Australian government’s overseas aid programme. 
Canadian International Development Agency 

EN 

74 

   EN 

€
                                                 
information  is  exchanged  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  whenever  emergencies  occur  and  also,  fairly 
systematically, in the context of DIPECHO.  

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

Humanitarian needs 

Although  the  food  security  situation  remained  precarious  in  2009,  this  was  mainly  due  to 
structural  problems,  such  as  lack  of  modern  agricultural  know-how,  techniques  and 
equipment, distribution problems and vulnerability to external shocks. In November 2009, the 
Commission saw no evidence to support declaration of a food crisis in the country, although 
there  are  high  expectations  regarding  the  possible  findings  of  the  ongoing  MCIS  (multi-
cluster  integrated  survey)  led  by  UNICEF,  focusing  particularly  on  malnutrition  data  and 
updating the last national assessment undertaken in 2004. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Between  2005  and  2007,  the  Commission  allocated  €23.7  million  to  finance  health  and 
water/sanitation programmes. The Commission's humanitarian aid office was then closed and 
no further funding has been provided since 2008. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In 2009 the EU provided no humanitarian assistance to DPRK. 

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

After an 11-year presence, on 14 May 2008, the Commission officially closed its ECHO field 
office in Pyongyang. This decision was in line with the strategy for 2008 as the humanitarian 
situation in DPRK had consolidated over the preceding years. For the period 2007-2010, the 
Commission has allocated €35 million under it s Food Security Thematic Programme. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Although no funding decision was taken for DPRK in 2009, due to the very special political 
context,  the  Commission  continued  its  inter-service  dialogue  and  co-ordination  with  EU 
Member  States  on  the  humanitarian  situation.  This  largely  concerned  the  food  security 
situation in the country given the huge WFP Emergency Operation (EMOP) and the lessons 
shared on health and water/sanitation. 

Timor-Leste  

Humanitarian needs 

In 2009, Timor Leste saw the end of the displacement crisis unleashed by the civil unrest in 
2006. The return process was initiated in 2008 on the basis of the government’s strategy and 
continued until August 2009, when the last IDPs left Metinaro, the largest and last camp in 
use.  The  last  operations  funded  by  the  EU,  under  a  2008  funding  decision,  aimed  at 
addressing  the  remaining  needs  in  the  camps  and  accompanying  the  return  process  in  a 
sustainable way. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Since  the  country  became  independent  in  2002,  the  EU  has  provided  €
 13.8  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 programmes tackling the causes of malnutrition were put in place by 
the Commission. Since June 2006, following the outbreak of violence, the EU has provided 
assistance  totalling  €
 7.8  million  to  the  IDPs.  Since  2008,  EU-funded  operations  have 
gradually  shifted  from  relief  assistance  in  the  IDP  camps  to  a  more  comprehensive  strategy 
focusing on the return of IDPs. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

No  new  funding  was  granted  for  Timor  Leste  in  2009,  although  most  of  the  2008  projects 
continued into the first part of 2009. 

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

The  Commission  stepped  up  its  LRRD  strategy  at  the  end  of  its  humanitarian  operation  in 
Timor  Leste.  The  phase-out  in  mid-2009  coincided  with  implementation  of  the  action 
supported by the Instrument for Stability which started at the end of 2008. One component of 
the  Instrument  for  Stability  programme  aims  at  improving  social  and  economic  conditions 
within  communities  for  reintegration  of  internally  displaced  people.  Focus  is  on  IDP  return 
and  food  insecurity  from  various  funding  instruments  and  programmes  (the  Instrument  for 
Stability, the Food Security Thematic Programme, the Water Facility, the Rural Development 
Programme under the 9th and 10th EDF, etc). 

Co-ordination of aid 

EU-funded interventions are co-ordinated with other stakeholders present in the country, such 
as  Member  States  and  other  donors.  Regular  meetings  and  contacts  also  take  place  in 
Brussels. 

2.6.3.  Pacific 

The  Pacific  region  was  hit  by  numerous  localised  disasters  with  in  particular  the  tsunami 
which struck Samoa and Tonga in September 2009, which caused unusually severe damage, 
calling  for  EU  humanitarian  intervention.  Financial  support  was  also  given  after  a  cholera 
outbreak in Papua New Guinea. In 2009, the first Disaster Preparedness  Programme for the 
Pacific was launched by the Commission, targeting Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands 
and Vanuatu. 

Humanitarian needs 

The risks inherent in the exposure of vulnerable populations in the Pacific region are regularly 
demonstrated by successive disasters, some more serious than others. While the governments 
of the island states have made efforts, within their means, to prepare their populations better, 
when disasters strike external aid is frequently needed, as the response capacity of small states 
rapidly  becomes  overstretched.  The  dispersion  of  a  relatively  small  population  over  an 
enormous area means that the number of people affected by a disaster often remains low in 
comparison  with  other  regions.  Nevertheless,  the  logistical  challenges  of  helping  those  in 
need can render humanitarian aid operations rather costly. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

In  August  2009,  Papua  New  Guinea  was  struck  by  a  cholera  epidemic  which  quickly 
overwhelmed  the  country’s  health  system  and,  despite  support  from  international  agencies, 
could not be brought under control for a long time. 

An  earthquake  in  September  generated  a  tsunami  which  hit  Samoa  and  Tonga,  killing  138 
people and affecting 4 500. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

Given the remote location of the region (as observed from Europe) and the presence of very 
active  donors  in  the  South  Pacific,  i.e.  Australia  and  New  Zealand,  who  have  a  tradition  of 
responding  swiftly  to  disasters,  the  EU's  involvement  in  funding  humanitarian  assistance  is 
regular, but less frequent than in other parts of the world. Humanitarian aid funded by the EU 
over the last few years has included assistance to victims of a tsunami in the Solomon Islands 
(€
 200 000)  and  to 
 550 000),  to  populations  affected  by  cyclones  on  the  Cook  Islands  (€
vulnerable persons in Papua New Guinea affected by eruptions of volcanoes. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

The measures taken in response to the needs caused by the floods in the second half of 2008 
in Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands continued. The EU provided funding of 
€700 000. 

The  EU  contributed  to  replenishing  IFRC's  Disaster  Response  Emergency  Fund  which  was 
used  to  assist  victims  of  the  tsunami  in  Samoa.  The  EU  also  supported  the  response  to  the 
cholera  outbreak  in  Papua  New  Guinea  with  €650 000.  Finally,  €1.5  million  from  disaster 
preparedness budget line was used to launch a pilot programme to support community-based 
disaster preparedness action. 

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

So  far,  the  EU  has  not  been  involved  in  longer  humanitarian  assistance  programmes  in 
countries in the region. The scale  of  the disasters has normally been such that there was no 
need  for  particular  LRRD  hand-over  strategies.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  recently 
started  pilot  projects  for  community  based  disaster  preparedness  will  be  suitable  for 
continuation  and/or  scaling  up,  in  which  case  linkages  with  development  activities  would 
have to be identified. 

2.7. 

Latin America and the Caribbean 

Many  of  the  countries  in  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  (LAC)  region  are  recurrently 
affected  by  natural  disasters,  such  as  floods,  hurricanes,  droughts,  cold  waves,  landslides, 
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. The EU was called on to respond to an array of disasters 
on different scales in 2009 — floods and landslides unleashed by hurricane Ida in El Salvador 
and  Nicaragua,  droughts  in  Guatemala,  Paraguay  and  Bolivia,  floods  in  Peru  and  Paraguay, 
hurricanes in Cuba and a dengue epidemic in Guatemala. The disasters which affected only a 
limited  number  of  people  were  covered  by  a  specific  decision  on  small-scale  disasters.  The 
response to the dengue outbreak was funded under an epidemics decision adopted at the end 
of  2008  to  prepare  the  most  vulnerable  LAC  countries  better  for  epidemics  and  provide  an 
emergency response. In addition, the action in response to the natural disasters which affected 
Latin America and the Caribbean region in 2008 continued, notably for the hurricanes in Haiti 
and  Cuba,  tropical  depression  No  16  in  Honduras  and  Guatemala,  the  drought  in  Honduras 

EN 

77 

   EN 

and  Paraguay  and  the  cold  waves  in  Bolivia  and  Peru.  Apart  from  responses  to  natural 
disasters,  The  EU's  humanitarian  assistance  to  victims  of  Colombia’s  prolonged  internal 
conflict  continued  in  2009,  including  support  for  IDPs,  for  rural  populations  facing 
restrictions  on  movement  and  on  access  to  basic  goods  and  services  and  for  Colombians  in 
need of protection who fled to neighbouring countries. In Haiti, the EU took action to reduce 
malnutrition and mortality rates. 

In view of the recurrent nature of natural disasters and their humanitarian impact, the disaster 
preparedness  programme  (DIPECHO)  continued,  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  capacity  of 
communities  at  risk  to  prepare  for  and  protect  themselves  against  natural  disasters  better. 
DIPECHO  provided  a  continuous  programme,  enabling  different  organisations  to  become 
involved  in  disaster  risk  reduction  and  filling  a  gap  by  creating  a  platform  for  community-
focused disaster preparedness and a means to reach isolated and vulnerable communities. 

In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the Commission continued to work closely with 
other programmes and donors to make the transition to long-term development. 

In  2009,  humanitarian  aid  and  food  aid  in  Latin  America  and  the  Caribbean  region  were 
funded by adopting nine funding decisions releasing a total of €
 42 million, which was 5% of 
the total budget committed. 

The following countries/regions were covered in 2009: 

Country/region

Funding decisions adopted in 2009

HUM.AID

FOOD AID

DIPECHO

TOTAL

LATIN AMERICA 

13 800 000

 525 000

12 000 000

26 325 000

Central America
South America
Guatemala
Colombia
Peru 

1 000 000

 800 000
12 000 000

10 000 000

 525 000

2 000 000

1 000 000
10 000 000
1 325 000
12 000 000
2 000 000

CARIBBEAN

7 000 000

2 000 000

7 000 000

16 000 000

Regional Caribbean
Cuba
Haiti

2 000 000
5 000 000

2 000 000

7 000 000

7 000 000
2 000 000
7 000 000

TOTAL LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN

20 800 000

2 525 000

19 000 000

42 325 000

Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua) 

Humanitarian needs 

Central America is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world. More than 80% of the 
area is at high risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding, landslides and hurricanes. Every year, 
Central America is severely affected by tropical storms, heavy rains and floods, particularly 
during the hurricane season (July to November). 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
In  2009,  hurricane  Ida  and  related  floods  and  landslides  seriously  affected  El  Salvador  and 
Nicaragua.  El  Niño  led  to  drought  conditions  in  many  Central  American  countries,  but 
particularly affected Guatemala. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

From 2005 to 2009, a total of €
 21.29 million was allocated to Central America. This included 
the  response  to  hurricane  Stan  in  Guatemala  and  El  Salvador  and  to  hurricane  Felix  in 
Nicaragua.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

 1  million  was  adopted  to  assist  the  most 
In  2009,  an  emergency  decision  releasing  €
vulnerable  populations  in  El  Salvador  and  Nicaragua  affected  by  hurricane  Ida  and  related 
floods  and  landslides.  A  total  of  45  000  people  benefited  from  EU-funded  operations.  Five 
projects  were  financed,  covering  food  assistance,  emergency  rehabilitation  of  houses, 
water/sanitation, basic health services and mainstreaming disaster preparedness activities. 

 1.325  million  were  allocated  from  the 
In  response  to  the  drought  in  Guatemala,  €
humanitarian  and  food  aid  budget  lines  to  improve  the  nutritional  situation  of  the  most 
vulnerable  populations,  in  particular  children  under  five  suffering  from  acute  malnutrition. 
Distribution  of  food  aid,  food-for-work  activities,  nutritional  recovery  and  measures  to 
strengthen nutritional services and surveillance along with water/sanitation projects improved 
the  humanitarian  situation  of  the  most  vulnerable  populations  affected  by  drought  and 
addressed  pockets  of  acute  malnutrition.  Disaster  risk  reduction  was  mainstreamed  into  the 
response to make small-scale farmers’ households more resilient. 

The  drought  in  northern  Nicaragua  was  addressed  by  the  Small-scale  Disasters  Decision 
adopted  at  the  end  of  2008.  The  Commission  also  continued  actions  launched  in  2008  in 
response  to  the  drought  in  Honduras  (€
 1  million)  and  to  tropical  depression  No  16  in 
 1.17 million) as well as to implement the Sixth DIPECHO Action 
Honduras and Guatemala (€
Plan (€

 10 million) in Central America. 

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

Close  dialogue  continued  with  the  aim  of  bridging  the  gap  between  emergency  relief  and 
more  medium-  to  long-term  action,  including  the  Instrument  for  Stability,  the  Food  Facility 
and the Food Security Thematic Programme. 

Co-ordination of aid 

At  the  start  of  each  emergency  response,  a  dialogue  was  initiated  with  Member  States  and 
humanitarian aid agencies to share information about the action planned and avoid overlaps. 

South America (except Colombia) 

Humanitarian needs 

South America is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world, exposed to panoply of 
natural hazards due to its geography, geology and climate. El Niño and La Niña contribute to 
warming and cooling in the eastern and central Pacific and cause regular floods and droughts.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

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 there. The vulnerability of the people most at risk from natural 
disasters  has  continued  to  increase  over  the  last  few  decades,  as  climate  change  has  further 
aggravated the situation. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  

From 2005 to 2009, a total of €
 23.9 million was allocated to South America, in response to 
the earthquake in Peru, to floods in Bolivia and Ecuador, to cold waves in Peru and Bolivia 
and  to  drought  in  Paraguay.  In  2009,  action  in  South  America  (excluding  Colombia)  was 
funded under the 2008 Small-scale Disasters Decision. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  the  EU's  funding  for  the  humanitarian  response  was  mainly  provided  under  the 
Small-scale Disasters Decision adopted at the end of 2008 (€
 1 million). In this connection, an 
emergency  response  (food  assistance,  other  essentials,  water/sanitation  and  shelter)  was 
provided  to  droughts,  floods  and  landslides  in  Bolivia,  Peru  and  Paraguay,  combined  with 
mainstreaming disaster risk reduction. 

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

The Commission continued actively to explore avenues for LRRD with the EU Delegations in 
the region and with other EU instruments. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Dialogue  is  continuing  with  Member  States  and  humanitarian  aid  agencies  to  share 
information about the action planned and avoid overlaps. 

Colombia  (including  Colombians  in  need  of  international  protection  in 
Ecuador and Venezuela) 

Humanitarian needs 

For well over four decades, Colombia has been suffering from an internal conflict, involving 
different  protagonists  (government,  guerrilla  and  new  illegal  armed  groups,  many  of  whom 
are made up of former paramilitary groups). As a result, some 300 000 people are displaced 
every  year.  Altogether,  between  3.1  and  4.6  million  people  (depending  on  the  source)  have 
been displaced since 1985. In addition, UNHCR estimates that some 373 000 Colombians are 
refugees  or  in  a  refugee-like  situation.  Most  of  them  have  fled  the  conflict  to  neighbouring 
countries  (Ecuador  or  Venezuela).  Despite  a  sophisticated  protection  system  and  substantial 
allocations  by  the  Colombian  government,  there  are  significant  gaps  in  humanitarian 
assistance, particularly  during  the time immediately following displacement and  in the rural 
areas, where the population often has to face restrictions on movement and on access to basic 
goods  and  services  because  of  the  conflict.  Women,  children  and  Afro-Colombian  and 
indigenous  communities  are  particularly  vulnerable.  The  increasing  blurring  of  civil  and 
military lines, the resulting reduction of humanitarian space and the threat to the humanitarian 
principle  of  independence  are  causes  for  concern.  In  the  neighbouring  countries,  protection 
(notably  determination  of  refugee  status)  and  emergency  assistance  for  new  arrivals  are  the 

EN 

80 

   EN 

most pressing humanitarian issues to address. In addition, Colombia is vulnerable to natural 
disasters, particularly floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. National response capacity 
might not be sufficient in areas affected by conflicts.  

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  

From  2005  to  2009,  the  Commission  allocated  a  total  of  €35.5  milli on  to  improve  the 
humanitarian situation of the victims of the Colombian conflict, both in Colombia itself and in 
neighbouring countries (Ecuador, Venezuela and Panama). 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

 12  million  was  allocated  for  the  victims  of  the  conflict  (both  inside 
In  2009,  a  total  of  €
Colombia  and  in  neighbouring  countries).  In  2009,  some  80 000  internally  displaced  people 
received emergency food and other essentials during the first three months of displacement. In 
addition,  more  than  40 000  ‘new’  internally  displaced  people  (displaced  for  less  than  12 
months) and rural populations facing restrictions on movement and on access to basic goods 
and services received short-term assistance to improve their humanitarian situation, including 
access to primary health care, water/sanitation, improved shelter and psycho-social assistance. 
Protection  was  the  leitmotiv  of  all  EU-funded  humanitarian  operations  in  Colombia.  The 
Commission continued to concentrate on the more remote rural areas, where state institutions 
are  generally  not  present  or  government  assistance  is  insufficient.  Protection  of  children 
remained  a  priority.  Activities  in  this  area  included  integrating  IDP  children  in  accelerated 
learning  cycles  with  a  view  to  preparing  them  for  re-integration  into  the  formal  education 
system and, at the same time, helping to prevent their recruitment by illegal armed groups. EU 
assistance was intended to cover humanitarian emergency needs not sufficiently covered by 
the  aid  provided  by  the  Colombian  government.  However,  implementing  partners  were 
required  not  to  substitute  for  the  state,  but  actively  to  seek  to  involve  local  state  sectoral 
institutions with a view to handing over operations to them in the near future. 

The EU also financed projects to assist the victims of the Colombian conflict who had fled to 
the  neighbouring  countries  Ecuador  and  Venezuela.  More  than  60 000  Colombians  in  need 
benefited from international protection activities (notably determination of refugee status) and 
emergency aid (food assistance, primary health care, water/sanitation and shelter) provided by 
UNHCR with EU humanitarian support. 

Working environment 

In line with Colombia’s policy of ‘democratic security’, a presidential directive was issued in 
March  2009,  seeking  ‘alignment’  of  armed  forces  and  civilian  state  entities.  As  a  result,  an 
increasing  number  of  mixed  civil-military  brigades  have  been  organised,  blurring  civil  and 
military lines. In line with the humanitarian principle of independence, ECHO partners have 
refused to participate in these mixed brigades. However, there is a clear possibility of further 
shrinking of humanitarian space. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

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

Close  regular  contacts  are  maintained  with  the  EU  Delegation  to  seek  LRRD.  Since  the 
budget line for ‘uprooted people’ ended, links have been sought with other thematic budget 
lines,  the  Instrument  for  Stability  and  the  support  for  peace  and  stability  provided  under 
bilateral  cooperation.  Moreover,  ECHO’s  partners  were  asked  actively  to  seek  the 
involvement of state sectoral institutions in the aid operations with a view to paving the way 
for handover/exit in the near future. 

Co-ordination of aid 

The main co-ordination forum in Colombia is the Inter-Agency Standing Committee which — 
quite  uniquely  —  includes  not  only  UN  agencies  but  also  NGOs.  ECHO  participates  as  an 
observer in the IASC. Furthermore, dialogue with Member States is continuing. 

2.7.1.  Caribbean 

Cuba 

Humanitarian needs 

Cuba is prone to disasters, particularly to hurricanes. The country is still recovering from the 
2008  season,  when  three  hurricanes  hit  the  country  in  less  than  three  months  and  caused 
damage  of  some  $10  billion.  More  than  500 000  houses  and  over  169 000  hectares  of  crop 
land  were  damaged.  This  is  all  the  more  significant  because  Cuba  regularly  has  to  import 
some 80% of the food it needs. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years  

From  2005  to  2008,  no  funding  was  allocated  to  Cuba.  In  2009,  a  decision  was  taken  to 
provide  a  continuous  hurricane  response  (€
 2  million),  focusing  on  emergency  rehabilitation 
of shelter. 

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  response  to  the  two  hurricanes  which  struck  Cuba  at  the  end  of  August  and  in  early 
 2 million were allocated under a regional funding decision. In view of the 
September 2008, €
continuing serious humanitarian impact of these disasters, in early 2009 a follow-up funding 
decision was adopted. It focused on emergency rehabilitation of shelter, benefiting the most 
vulnerable populations affected. Great importance was attached to mainstreaming DRR in the 
response, in particular to making houses more hurricane-resistant. 

 540 000)  were 
In  addition,  for  the  first  time  since  2003,  two  DIPECHO  projects  (total:  €
started in Cuba. They are funded under the new — Seventh — DIPECHO Action Plan for the 
Caribbean. 

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

Regular  meetings  are  held  to  discuss  strategies.  The  foundations  for  linking  relief, 
rehabilitation and development were laid during a mission in November 2008. As a result, the 
Instrument for Stability, the Food Facility and the Food Security Thematic Programme budget 
line have taken over funding of basic agricultural recovery activities. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

Haiti 

Humanitarian needs 

After the country was seriously affected by three hurricanes and a tropical storm during the 
2008  hurricane  season,  Haiti  is  no  longer  a  forgotten  crisis.  It  remains,  however,  a  pilot 
country  for  the  new  multi-service,  inter-institutional  ‘fragile  situation’  initiative.  Under-5 
mortality  and  acute  malnutrition  are  high.  Pockets  of  acute  malnutrition  persist  in  several 
departments.  Most  people  have  no  access  to  clean  water,  sanitation  or  health  services.  The 
country  imports  over  50%  of  its  food  (over  80%  of  its  rice),  which  means  that  price  rises  hit 
household food security hard, with the risk of sparking riots (as was the case in 2008). Access 
to  proper  health  care  services  remains  a  challenge,  in  particular  as  far  as  maternal  health  is 
concerned. The country is also highly vulnerable to natural disasters. 

Humanitarian aid response over the last five years 

From  2005  to  2009,  a  total  of  €27.6  million  was  al located  in  response  to  different  natural 
disasters and crises in Haiti, including food assistance, distribution of other essentials, access 
to primary health care and safe water/sanitation.  

Humanitarian objectives and achievements in 2009 

In  2009,  a  Global  Plan  with  a  budget  of  €
 7  million  was  adopted  to  address  the  different 
humanitarian needs in a more comprehensive way. The Commission's strategy in Haiti is to 
reduce  malnutrition  and  mortality  by  means  of  multi-sectoral  humanitarian  aid,  at  the  same 
time  as  responding  to  disasters  and  undertaking  disaster  preparedness  operations.  Food 
assistance  is  part  of  the  multi-sectoral  strategy,  including  food  security  (agricultural  inputs 
and  livelihoods),  community  therapeutic  care  and  malnutrition  programmes.  In  2009,  the 
ECHO office in Haiti was re-opened after ten years and a Global Plan was adopted. With a 
 7 million, it is focusing on reducing malnutrition and mortality. It also allows 
total budget of €
a response to natural disasters and epidemics. As one example, a rapid response was provided 
to the diphtheria outbreak in October 2009. 

In  addition  to  the  funding  under  the  Global  Plan,  the  Commission  allocated  funds  to  the 
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ Disaster Relief Emergency 
 1 million 
Fund in September and October 2009, in response to floods and mudslides. Over €
was also allocated to three DIPECHO projects in Haiti, under the Seventh DIPECHO Action 
Plan for the Caribbean. Meanwhile, implementation of the funding decisions taken in 2008 in 
 8.7 
response  to  tropical  storm  Fay  and  hurricanes  Gustav,  Hanna  and  Ike  continued  (€
million). 

Working environment 

Haiti  remains  a  fragile  democracy,  with  crime  rates  high.  Security  conditions  are  therefore 
somewhat difficult. Violence linked to gangs and/or elections continues to affect some urban 
areas.  Consequently,  in  October  2009  the  mandate  of  MINUSTAH  (the  UN  peace-keeping 
force) was extended for one more year. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

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

There  is  an  in-country  dialogue  with  other  major  donors  to  identify  LRRD  opportunities. 
Synergies should be achieved via the Food Facility and Food Security Thematic Programme, 
but  more  donors  are  required  in  the  health  sector.  Clearly,  the  earthquakes  that  devastated 
Haiti in January 2010, after this report was drafted, have fundamentally altered the prospects. 

Co-ordination of aid 

Continuous dialogues are held with Member States to co-ordinate action. 

2.8. 

Disaster preparedness activities, including DIPECHO 

Disaster preparedness helps to save lives, speed up recovery and soften the impact of future 
hazards. Disaster preparedness proves that people are far from helpless but can face hazards 
with the appropriate local knowledge, practice and response mechanisms. 

EU's  main  contribution  to  the  global  disaster  risk  reduction  efforts  remains  the  DIPECHO 
programme which targets highly vulnerable communities living in seven of the most disaster-
prone  regions  in  the  world.  In  ECHO  terminology,  this  is  called  the  ‘community-based 
approach’. 

Since  launching  the  DIPECHO  programmes,  the  Commission  has  invested  more  than 

 180 million in the associated Action Plans. 

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES (+DIPECHO) 1998-2009

Region 

Funding
1998-2008

Funding 
2009

Funding
1998-2009

Southern Africa

Southern Caucasus

Central Asia

South Asia

South-East Asia

Central America

South America

Peru

Caribbean

Pacific

Other - Capacity-building

5 000 000

 735 000

2 000 000

22 375 000

5 735 000

2 000 000

22 375 000

19 200 000

10 000 000

29 200 000

31 680 000

32 480 000

31 680 000

32 480 000

23 740 000

10 000 000

33 740 000

2 000 000

2 000 000

16 975 000

7 000 000

23 975 000

1 500 000

1 500 000

 200 000

 200 000

Total DIPECHO programmes

151 450 000

33 435 000

184 885 000

Drought preparedness (on the HA budget)

40 000 000

10 000 000

50 000 000

Total disaster preparedness activities

191 450 000

43 435 000

234 885 000

EN 

84 

   EN 

€
 
DIPECHO in Southern Africa 

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

Following the Action Plan launched in 2008, a sum of €735 000 was mobilised to supplement 
the ongoing disaster preparedness action (DIPECHO) in Comoros, Madagascar, Malawi and 
Mozambique. Many of the projects will run into 2010. 

DIPECHO in South Caucasus 

The  South  Caucasus  region  is  prone  to  natural  disasters  such  as  earthquakes,  landslides, 
floods, flash floods, avalanches and debris flows. The risk of earthquakes is particularly high, 
as  shown  by  past  events  causing  numerous  casualties  (Spitak  in  Armenia  in  1988)  or 
extensive damage (Baku in 2000 and Tbilisi in 2002). 

On  the  basis  of  two  identification  missions  conducted  by  its  experts,  the  Commission 
allocated €
 2 million to the Disaster Risk Reduction/DIPECHO Action Plan in this region to 
support  implementation  of  existing  and  planned  national  disaster  risk  reduction  plans  and 
policies, including the Hyogo Framework for Action for 2005-2015. 

In  each  project  supported,  ECHO  will  pay  particular  attention  to  coordinating  and 
consolidating national platforms, the link between disaster risk reduction and climate change, 
project  sustainability,  the  multi-country  approach  and  greater  consideration  of  vulnerable 
population groups, such as women, the elderly and disabled people. 

This Action Plan, adopted by the Commission in November 2009, will be implemented from 
March 2010 to August 2011. 

DIPECHO in Central Asia 

Central  Asia  is  particularly  exposed  and  vulnerable  to  natural  disasters  such  as  landslides, 
avalanches,  floods,  earthquakes  and  drought  and  to  climate  change.  It  is  therefore  highly 
appropriate to invest in community-based disaster preparedness and response capacity. 

In  2009,  ECHO  proceeded  to  implement  the  5th  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  for  Central  Asia 
adopted in 2008. Its total budget of €
 7.325 million is financing thirty operations in the five 
Central Asian countries. 

The main activities include preparing emergency plans at the level of communities, training 
students  and  population  groups  in  disaster  preparedness  techniques,  improving  the  early-
warning systems, training and equipping search and rescue teams, building small mitigation 
works,  supporting  the  setting-up  of  national  and  regional  disaster  risk  reduction  platforms, 
strengthening  and  advocating  disaster  risk  reduction  amongst  national  authorities  and  other 

EN 

85 

   EN 

development  bodies  and  promoting  public-private  partnerships  in  disaster  risk  reduction 
operations. 

50% of the funding was allocated to operations by local communities and local authorities, 25% 
to national authorities, 5% to regional cooperation and 15% to the Red Crescent societies. Over 
two million people have benefited from the Action Plan. 

DIPECHO in South Asia 

South Asia is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to natural disasters (especially 
floods, landslides, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones and forest fires) and the growing 
concerns  about  the  impact  of  climate  change  are  of  particular  relevance  to  this  part  of  the 
world. It is a region where social and political structures, demographic pressures, the structure 
of  settlements,  agricultural  practices  and  economic  development  leave  the  population 
extremely vulnerable to natural disasters. Not only peoples’ lives but also their livelihoods are 
at  risk  each  time.  Some  populations  are  even  more  vulnerable  as  they  live  in  very  remote 
areas,  belong  to  minority  groups  and  are  forgotten  or  neglected  by  their  own  authorities. 
Recurring  disasters,  even  very  small-scale  ones,  have  a  greater  impact  each  time  on  these 
populations  already  suffering  from  extreme  poverty.  Recent  events  in  the  region,  from 
cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh at the end of 2007 to the floods in India and Nepal in 2008, have 
drawn further attention to the importance of prevention measures to reduce the impact of such 
natural disasters on the population, especially on the most vulnerable. 

The  Fifth  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  launched  in  2009  (€
 10 million)  is  focusing  on  the  most 
vulnerable local communities and institutions involved in risk reduction in Bangladesh, India 
and  Nepal.  Depending  on  the  security  situation  and  access  to  the  beneficiaries  at  their 
locations,  operations  might  be  envisaged  in  Afghanistan,  Pakistan  and  Sri  Lanka. 
Furthermore,  regional  programming  could  take  into  account  the  whole  of  South  Asia, 
including  Bhutan,  if  deemed  relevant  for  the  overall  coherence  of  the  proposed  project. 
Estimates suggest that approximately 3 million people will benefit directly from this Action 
Plan. 

DIPECHO in South America 

South America is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world, exposed to panoply of 
natural hazards due to its geography, geology and climate. El Niño and La Niña contribute to 
warming and cooling in the eastern and central Pacific and cause regular floods and droughts. 
The Andean region is particularly vulnerable to earthquakes — the last major one, causing a 
significant loss of human life and physical damage, occurred in Peru in August 2007 — and 
many volcanoes are still active there. The vulnerability of the people most at risk from natural 
disasters  has  continued  to  increase  over  the  last  few  decades,  as  climate  change  has  further 
aggravated the situation. 

Implementation  of  the  Sixth  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  started  in  2009  (€
 10 million)  in 
Argentina,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Chile,  Colombia,  Ecuador,  Paraguay,  Peru,  Uruguay  and 
Venezuela. The aid provided should assist approximately 1 million beneficiaries.  

A wider DRR action was launched as a pilot exercise, with the aim of enhancing preparedness 
and coping capacity for earthquakes and tsunamis in Peru (€

 2 million). 

EN 

86 

   EN 

DIPECHO in the Caribbean region 

The Caribbean region is prone to frequent natural disasters, especially hurricanes and floods. 
The region’s vulnerability is accentuated by high population density, fast demographic growth 
and widespread poverty. This leaves communities with less capacity for coping in the event of 
disasters. 

From  2005  to  2008,  a  total  of  €
 11.86  million  was  allocated  for  emergency  responses  to 
different natural disasters, including food assistance, distribution of other essentials, access to 
primary  health  care  and  safe  water/sanitation.  This  amount  includes,  in  particular,  the 
response to tropical storms and hurricanes, for instance to the three hurricanes and the tropical 
storm which hit the Caribbean hard in 2008. 

The emergency response to the hurricanes and tropical storms which struck the Caribbean in 
2008  continued.  Apart  from  a  new  DIPECHO  Action  Plan  (€5  million),  wider  DRR  action 
was  launched  as  a  pilot  exercise  to  strengthen  disaster  management  in  the  Caribbean  (€2 
million). 

DIPECHO in the Pacific region 

The  Pacific  region  ranks  among  the  most  disaster-prone  regions  in  the  world  in  terms  of 
recurrence,  severity  and  scope  of  hazards,  with  high  exposure  to  cyclones,  earthquakes, 
tsunamis, floods, tidal surges, landslides, flash floods, droughts, forest fires, volcano eruptions 
and epidemics. This is compounded by environmental degradation and climate change. 

According to a recent World Bank report43, between 1950 and 2004 extreme natural disasters 
accounted for 65% of the total economic impact of disasters on the region. Ten of the fifteen 
most extreme events reported over the last half-century occurred in the last fifteen years. The 
number of mortalities and people affected might appear rather low in comparison with usual 
disaster statistics, but the Pacific countries rank among the highest in terms of the number of 
casualties and people affected per 100 000 population44. 

In  2009,  the  first  Disaster  Preparedness  Programme  for  the  Pacific  (€1.5  million)  was 
launched  by  the  Commission,  targeting  Papua  New  Guinea,  the  Solomon  Islands  and 
Vanuatu. Approximately 600 000 persons will be targeted by this pilot programme to support 
community-based disaster preparedness action. 

Drought preparedness programme in the Horn of Africa  

In  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  its  first  (€
 10 million)  Regional  Drought  Decision.  The 
objective  was  to  allow  timely  and  relevant  humanitarian  responses  in  order  to  reduce  the 
impact of droughts on the main assets of rural population groups. To build on the success of 
this  approach,  the  Commission  stepped  it  up  with  an  additional  allocation  of  €30 million  in 
 10 million  in  2009,  with  the  aim  of  supporting  appropriate 
2008,  followed  by  a  further  €
preparedness and mitigation measures setting an example. 

43 

44 

Not  if  but  when:  Adapting  to  natural  hazards  in  the  Pacific  islands  region  —  a  policy  note’,  World 
Bank, 2006: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/1141_NaturalHazardspacific.pdf. 
Source:  Centre  for  Research  on  the  Epidemiology  of  Disasters  (CRED)  "International  Disaster 
Database", www.emdat.net 

EN 

87 

   EN 

                                                 
Activities will be kept in line with the drought cycle management approach, which promotes 
community-based  knowledge  in  drought  preparedness,  strengthening  local  resilience  and 
Early  Warning  Systems.  Up  to  12  million  pastoralists  and/or  agro-pastoralists  have  been 
targeted, directly and indirectly, by ECHO’s approach to regional drought preparedness. 

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

2.9. 

Case studies on the launching of humanitarian aid 

Pakistan: unprecedented internal displacement 

Context and key dates 

The  Federally  Administered  Tribal  Areas  (FATA),  North-West  Frontier  Province  (NWFP) 
and Baluchistan, along the border with Afghanistan, have become the scene of shifting areas 
of conflict, notably between the Pakistan military and various militant groups. Since August 
2008, the conflict has intensified sharply with a consequent escalation of humanitarian needs, 
including  168 000  civilian  internally  displaced  persons  (IDPs)  by  the  end  of  2008,  mainly 
from Bajaur and Mohmand. From January to April 2009, an additional 379 000 people were 
displaced in the region. 

Following  the  violation  of  the  16  February  2009  ceasefire45  by  the  Pakistani  Taliban,  the 
military launched an offensive in the Dir and Buner districts in NWFP followed, on 9 May, 
by others in Swat and Buner. This military offensive forced a mass, unprecedented population 
displacement  in  the  region  with  more  than  two  million  fleeing  their  homes  in  less  than  a 
month  to  take  refuge  in  other  parts  of  NWFP,  notably  in  Peshawar,  Mardan,  Swabi  and 
Noshwera. 

Given the scale of the disaster, the humanitarian community and the authorities mobilised to 
respond  to  the  most  urgent  needs  of  the  population  by  establishing  camps,  but  the  vast 
majority of the displaced people (90%) nevertheless chose to stay with host families, putting 
extra pressure on an already very poor and vulnerable population. 

On 20 May 2009, the government of Pakistan organised a donors’ conference in Islamabad 
inviting the international community to support the UN efforts in the relief phase, after which 
the government would take responsibility for the rehabilitation and reconstruction phases. On 
21 May 2009, the UN presented a revised Humanitarian Action Plan for Pakistan requesting 
almost $544 million by the end of 2009. 

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) twice extended its emergency appeal46 
and NGOs were heavily present on the ground. UNOCHA decided to increase its presence in 
view of the need for stronger protection of humanitarian principles. 

From 29 May to 5 June 2009, the Commission sent an assessment mission to Pakistan, after 
an emergency decision was adopted on 26 May. 

45 

46 

The  Malakand  Accord,  agreed  upon  after  two  years  of  fighting  on  16  February  2009,  included  a 
ceasefire in Swat (between the Taliban and the army) and imposition of Sharia law in the districts of 
Malakand, Swat, Shangla, Buner, Dir, Chitral and Kohistan. 
ICRC — 1st revision, 5 March 2009, and second revision, 4 June. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

                                                 
At  the  first  EU–Pakistan  summit,  held  in  Brussels  on  17  June,  the  European  Commission 
announced €72 million in humanitarian aid and a further €
 52 million in development aid to 
support the rehabilitation process. 

ECHO's response 

The Commission had been present in Pakistan for many years assisting the Afghan refugees 
and responding to emergencies such as the 2005 earthquake. However, the ECHO's office was 
closed when the first displacements of population took place from Bajaur in FATA, following 
military interventions in the area in 2008. 

Alerted  by  its  partners  about  the  situation,  the  Commission  decided  to  support  the  ICRC’s 
work, given its neutral mandate, under a €
 1.5 million funding decision. After monitoring and 
assessing the situation, it became clear that further support was necessary.  

Crisis in May 2009 

The  Commission  was  preparing  a  €
 5.5  million  decision  when  more  than  2  million  people 
were  displaced  from  Swat.  The  obvious  solution  was  to  change  the  decision  into  an 
emergency  decision.  Following  the  accelerated  procedure,  the  emergency  decision  was 
adopted on 26 May. 

Immediate ECHO assessment mission 

As mentioned earlier, an assessment mission was sent to Pakistan from 29 May to 5 June. A 
field visit by three Commission representatives to six official camps (housing almost 56% of 
the  total  camp  population),  one  school,  humanitarian  hubs  (for  registration,  food  and  NFI 
distribution to off-camp IDPs) and host families gave the mission a fair picture of the needs, 
the current level of response and the urgent need for support.  

Speaking directly with victims gave the team a clear understanding of the human dimension 
of  the  crisis.  People  were  still  in  shock  after  losing  their  relatives  and  fleeing  from  their 
homes. The situation for women was particularly dreadful: forced to leave their villages, often 
leaving  their  houses  for  the  first  time,  keeping  their  excessively  warm  clothes  for  cultural 
reasons, staying mostly under their shelters in temperatures of up to 48°C and limiting their 
drinking to avoid having to go out during the day. Fans and Purdah walls were installed very 
quickly to solve this situation but not applicable everywhere. 

The  plight  of  the  90%  of  the  IDPs  living  in  public  buildings  such  as  schools  was  no  better 
because  of  appalling  hygienic  conditions.  Host  families  were  horrifyingly  overcrowded,  as 
hosting  four  or  five  displaced  families  meant  having  over  30  people  in  a  single  household. 
The field visit was followed up by meetings with all relevant stakeholders from the UN, ICRC 
and  Pakistani  Red  Crescent  Society  to  NGOs  and  local  authorities  at  provincial  and  federal 
levels.  Other  donors  present  in  Islamabad,  including  the  EU  Member  States,  the  US  and 
Japan, etc., were given debriefings on the mission. Feedback was sent to Brussels every day. 

ECHO's funding response 

The decision to scale up EU support was therefore taken immediately and funds were made 
available very quickly. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

In  the  first  instance,  €20 million  were  allo cated.  The  €5.5  million  emergency  decision  was 
amended  to  produce  a  decision  releasing  €25.5  million,  which  was  adopted  on  2  July. 
Contracts were signed immediately to cover the needs from 1 May on. 

A further €45 million was requested from the  EU Budget's Emergency Aid Reserve. Taking 
into  account  the  urgency  of  the  situation,  all  of  the  EU  institutions  involved  agreed  very 
quickly  on  the  transfer  of  funds.  Another  funding  decision  was  immediately  prepared  for 
adoption. Once more, the willingness of all the institutions involved to proceed quickly was 
greatly appreciated and resulted in quick adoption (on 1 September 2009). 

Further assessment missions were sent from Kabul and Delhi in early July and late August. At 
the  beginning  of  September,  a  Commission  presence  was  established  by  basing  one  ECHO 
technical assistant in Islamabad.  

Advocacy for funding 

The  entire  crisis  was  under-funded  for  a  long  time  and  the  Commission  played  a  role  in 
advocating  for  a  more  generous  response  from  the  international  community  in  general  and 
from EU Member States in particular. 

Challenges  

The May 2009 displacements were followed by a premature return in July. Then in October, 
further military interventions in South Waziristan and Orakzai triggered fresh displacements, 
although on a more moderate scale. 

The security situation is also a vital concern, since the safety of humanitarian staff is at stake. 
Many (too many) humanitarian workers were killed in 2009. 

The Commission's other main concern is the loss of humanitarian space for the agencies due 
to the heavy involvement and tight control of the authorities. This raises problems, e.g.: 

•  the general challenge of operating in a principled way: the problem of independence in 
terms  of  needs  assessment  and  targeting  beneficiaries  on  the  basis  of  humanitarian 
principles; 

•  the problem of access to the beneficiaries in the areas affected by the conflict. 

These concerns were heightened following the displacements from South Waziristan (in 
October) because: 

•  only local NGOs were granted access to provide humanitarian assistance. So far, de facto, 

access has been denied to UN agencies and international NGOs; 

•  it seems that many IDPs who are not registered and that there are restrictions on freedom 

of movement for IDPs from Waziristan. 

Protection  of  civilians  is  another  major  worry:  in  many  cases  IDP  returns  appeared  to  be 
coerced  and  premature  at  a  time  of  recurrent  fighting  in  other  areas  (NWFP  and  FATA). 
Access to assistance remains hindered, both for female–headed households in that cultural 
environment and for the civilians who stayed behind during the conflict. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

The lack of recognition by the Pakistani authorities that there is indeed a conflict situation in 
Pakistan  and  that  there  are  humanitarian  needs  is  still  a  general  stumbling-block.  This  non-
recognition  of  an  armed  conflict  also  supports  the  non-recognition  of  the  need  to  apply 
relevant IHL rules. 

It  is  crucial  for  the  international  community  to  continue  insisting  on  application  of 
humanitarian principles. The call to engage with Pakistan on important global issues such as 
counterterrorism, trade and development is clear. However, it should under no circumstances 
endanger humanitarian space and principles.  

The humanitarian situation is likely to continue to deteriorate in the months and years ahead 
following  military  intervention  in  various  regions.  Nevertheless,  if  the  conditions  for 
implementing  projects  in  accordance  with  humanitarian  principles  are  not  present,  the 
Commission might have to review its strategy in Pakistan. 

Yemen:  a  forgotten  humanitarian  crisis  in  a  country  at  the  centre  of  the 
world’s attention 

Since the last week of 2009, following an aborted attempt by a terrorist trained in Yemen by 
Al-Qaida to destroy an American plane on Christmas Day, a significant level of interest has 
been shown in this country. However, little media attention has been paid to the humanitarian 
situation there. That is the paradox: a forgotten humanitarian crisis behind the headlines. 

Background: a forgotten but complex crisis 

Yemen  is  a  very  vulnerable  country.  It  is  the  poorest  state  in  the  Arab  world,  with  an 
estimated 35% of the population47 below the poverty line. It faces food insecurity, widespread 
water  scarcity  and  depletion  of  its  natural  resources,  including  oil.  In  recent  years  the 
government  has  been  confronted  with  an  intermittent  armed  conflict  in  Sa’ada  in  Northern 
Yemen,  a  growing  southern  separatist  movement,  clashes  with  the  tribal  groups  controlling 
the rural areas and a resurgence of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaida. 

Against  a  backdrop  of  poverty  and  political  instability,  the  humanitarian  challenges  facing 
Yemen are multiple, including: 

•  natural disasters such as flooding in the eastern governorate of Hadramout in October 2008 

or drought in Al Mahwit governorate; 

•  more  than  60 000  people  have  arrived  on  boats  from  the  Horn  of  Africa  so  far  this  year. 

The country was already hosting over 152 000 refugees, most of them Somali; and 

•  the current sixth war in Yemen’s Northern governorate of Sa’ada which is exacerbating the 
political  and  development  crises  in  the  country.  In  2009,  for  the  first  time,  the  Yemeni 
government  allowed  United  Nations  (UN)  agencies  to  launch  an  appeal  for  international 
aid in response to the conflict in Sa’ada. 

International  organisations  active  in  the  country  have  country  programmes  encompassing 
humanitarian,  recovery  and  development  aspects.  The  overall  level  of  humanitarian  funding 

47 

The total population of Yemen is estimated at 23 million, of whom 45% are under 15 years of age. The 
crude birth rate is 42.42 births per 1 000 population. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

                                                 
 24.6 million48. However, the extent of needs in the 
for Yemen in 2009 was in the range of €
country exceeds current operational capacity and requires a comprehensive approach similar 
to other complex emergencies. To meet this challenge, a Yemen Humanitarian Response Plan 
for 2010 was launched by OCHA in December 2009, requesting total funding of €
 117 million 
to cover humanitarian needs. 

implementing  capacity 

Nevertheless, 
is  growing 
dissatisfaction with the way the government manages international aid and open tension with 
the local population concerning distribution of aid. Movements of humanitarian personnel are 
restricted,  even  outside  the  war  zone  in  the  northern  part  of  the  country.  Guaranteeing 
humanitarian access is a precondition for any future increase in implementing capacity. 

insecurity.  There 

is  hampered  by 

The sixth war in Northern Yemen  

In mid-August the sixth round of war began between Huthis rebels and national forces in the 
governorate of Sa’ada. Fighting spread to the neighbouring governorate of Amran. This is the 
worst  fighting  since  the  conflict  began  in  2004.  The  armed  conflict  has  escalated  further, 
spilling  over  into  Saudi  Arabia,  and  humanitarian  workers  on  the  ground  are  becoming 
increasingly concerned about the plight of civilians. 

According to the UN, as many as 175 000 people have now been displaced by the conflict in 
the north of the country. For some, this is their second or third displacement. Access to Sa'ada 
and Al Jawf governorates remains very difficult. 

The situation is steadily worsening, as the coping mechanisms of the civilians caught in the 
fighting and their host families are becoming exhausted. Access has yet to be guaranteed for 
humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance and their stocks in Sa'ada are dwindling. 

On 2 September, OCHA launched a flash appeal for a total of €16 million including food aid, 
shelter, other essentials, camp management, water/sanitation and hygiene items. 

ECHO's strategy in the crisis in Northern Yemen 

The  main  objective  is  to  support  action  to  protect  and  assist  the  population  affected  by  the 
conflict. Since 2008, following the fifth round of fighting the EU has been supporting ICRC 
actions in Sa'ada in favour of IDPs and the host population. 

In March 2009, the Commission adopted a funding decision releasing €1 million. Actions was 
taken under this decision when the conflict flared up again, allowing an immediate response 
to the new flows of displaced people. 

In November €
 1 million was made available by an emergency decision to finance key aspects 
of  the  UN  flash  appeal  that  were  underfunded.  The  emergency  decision  targeted  three 
objectives: 

•  to  provide  emergency  shelter  and  basic  household  items  to  most  vulnerable  IDPs,  in 

particular in the IDP camps; 

•  to  reduce  morbidity  and  mortality  among  the  population  affected  by  the  conflict,  in 
particular  children  under-five,  with  the  aid  of  preventive  water/sanitation  and  hygiene 
(WASH) measures and by treating acute malnutrition; and 

48 

OCHA financing tracking system, data for 2008. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

                                                 
•  to  facilitate  co-ordination  of  humanitarian  action  in  Yemen.  While  international 
organisations are gearing up their humanitarian activities in Yemen, it is necessary to put 
in place a strong co-ordinated approach to ensure an adequate humanitarian response. The 
EU is the largest contributor in this sector. 

The emergency decision raised the total funding available in 2009 for the conflict in Northern 
Yemen to €

 2 million. 

West  Africa:  focus  on  the  2009  Meningitis  epidemic  in  Niger,  Chad  and 
Nigeria 

Meningitis  is  a  seasonal  disease  that  spreads  every  year  throughout  the  Sahel  in  a  belt  that 
spans  from  Senegal  to  Ethiopia.  In  2009,  a  massive  outbreak  severely  affected  Niger, 
Northern  Nigeria  and  South  West  Chad  with  many  thousands  of  victims,  mostly  children, 
adolescents and young adults. Over 50 000 people contracted meningitis from the start of the 
epidemic in February 2009. Almost 3 000 people died. It was the worst outbreak in at least 5 
years. 

The  Commission  responded  immediately  by  sending  experts  to  evaluate  the  humanitarian 
needs and making available €4,68 million through ad hoc and emergency decisions to respond 
to this large scale epidemic. 

The  rapid  vaccination  of  those  at  high  risk  was  vital.  The  campaign  was  put  into  action 
quickly  and  it  is  estimated  that  90%  of  targeted  population  was  vaccinated  in  time.  Public 
awareness  raising  in  the  most  affected  communities  played  a  key  role  in  this  massive 
mobilization.  

This vaccination campaign was unprecedented in its size and required the urgent mobilization 
of thousands of staff, doctors and nurses, as well as logisticians and cold chain specialists. A 
total of 8 million people between 2 and 30 years of age were immunized in Niger, Nigeria and 
Chad, between March and May 2009 making this the largest campaign ever.  

To reach the maximum number of people at risk, hundreds of emergency medical teams went 
door to door vaccinating people in the most remote villages. “We have come here today to get 
the vaccination. People visited our village to explain why it is important to come and get the 
shot. I am happy to be able to protect my family.” says Tayo, a young beneficiary. 

3. 

AID MANAGEMENT 

Humanitarian  aid  is  often  delivered  in  an  emergency  and/or  situations  where  access  to 
beneficiaries  is  difficult  due  to  logistical  or  security  constraints.  To  make  sure  that  the  best 
use  is  made  of  public  funds  under  these  circumstances,  the  Commission  pursues  an  active 
relationship with its stakeholders and has put in  place  various monitoring  and co-ordination 
mechanisms. Some of their key features are described below. 

3.1.  Ways and means of delivering aid 

The  EU  is  the  only  humanitarian  donor  to  have  a  worldwide  network  of  field  experts  who 
play a key role in assessing the humanitarian needs and monitoring the EU-funded operations. 
The aid itself is implemented by a limited number of humanitarian organisations, which have 

EN 

93 

   EN 

both the financial and operational capacity to manage emergency operations in often difficult 
circumstances. 

3.1.1.  Experts in the field 

The Commission manages its humanitarian activities from its headquarters in Brussels via a 
network of more than 40 field offices all over the world. 

In  order  to  meet  the  target  set  by  the  post-tsunami  action  plan  of  January  2005,  the 
Commission  has  consolidated  its  network  of  field  experts  with  the  aim  of  organising  multi-
sectoral  rapid  response  teams.  This  allows  it  to  dispatch  its  field  experts  and  programme 
assistants rapidly in response to new crises to carry out humanitarian needs assessments and 
help co-ordinate humanitarian activities in the field. 

By the end of 2009, more than 100 experts and 300 local staff were in place. New field offices 
had been opened in Port au Prince (Haiti) and Gaza and the one in Islamabad (Pakistan) had 
been re-opened. 

3.1.2.  Relations with partners 

The  Commission  does  not  intervene  directly  on  the  ground,  but  implements  its  mandate  by 
funding  about  200  partners  ranging  from  non-governmental  organisations,  United  Nations 
agencies,  other  international  organisations  such  as  the  International  Committee  of  the  Red 
Cross and the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies and 
specialised agencies of EU Member States. 

Having  a  diverse  range  of  partners  is  important  for  the  Commission  since  it  allows 
comprehensive coverage of an ever-growing list of needs in different parts of the world and in 
increasingly complex situations. Grants and contributions are decided on the basis of the best 
proposals covering the needs of the most vulnerable beneficiaries. 

Relations  between  ECHO  and  its  implementing  partners  are  governed  by  Framework 
Partnership  Agreements  (FPA),  which  define  the  roles  and  responsibilities  in  humanitarian 
operations  financed  by  the  European  Union.  The  FPAs  govern  relations  with  both  non-
governmental organisations (NGO) and international organisations (IO). 

In  the  case  of  United  Nations  agencies,  the  Financial  and  Administrative  Framework 
Agreement between the EC and UN (FAFA) sets out the general legal framework governing 
relations between them in the domain of humanitarian aid. 

Further 
http://EU.europa.eu/echo/about/actors/partners_en.htm.  

these  Agreements 

information  on 

is  available  on  ECHO’s  website  at: 

EN 

94 

   EN 

In 2009, the relative shares of funding for these three categories of partners were: 

IO: 14%

NGOs: 
47%

UN: 39%

However, the figures from 2007 on are not entirely comparable with those for previous years, 
due to the creation of the humanitarian food aid budget line under which a significant portion 
of food aid is implemented by a small number of UN and international organisations.  

In 2009, the relative shares of funding for food aid for the three categories of partners were: 
UN 59%, NGOs 37% and IO 4%. 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Funding by category of partners (2005-2009) 
[food aid included as of 2007]

%
2
5

%
3
5

%
7
4

%
7
4

%
4
4

%
2
4

%
6
4

%
9
3

%
7
3

%
4
3

%
2
1

%
1
1

%
1
1

%
0
1

%
4
1

NGO

UN

Int Org

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
3.2. 

Co-ordination of humanitarian funds 

Various  mechanisms  are  in  place  to  ensure  the  co-ordination  of  the  humanitarian  funds 
implemented by ECHO with those of other humanitarian actors involved in response. 

–  Co-ordination  with  Member  States 

is  ensured  by  regular  meetings  with 

their 
representatives in the Humanitarian Aid Committee (HAC) which, in accordance with the 
Humanitarian  Aid  Regulation,  gives  an  opinion  on  all  funding  decisions  exceeding 
 2 million49 before they are adopted by the Commission. In January 2009, in line with the 
European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, a dedicated working group in the Council was 
set  up  to  cover  humanitarian  and  food  aid  issues  —  the  ‘Council  Working  Group  on 
Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid’ (COHAFA); 

–  When  a  disaster  strikes  or  whilst  tracking  existing  humanitarian  operations,  Commission 
experts  also  take  the  opportunity  to  keep  up  to  date  with  the  funds  being  considered  or 
made available by other  humanitarian organisations, including other donors  and agencies 
in both the private and public sectors; 

–  The  Commission  organises  annual  meetings  with  its  major  partners,  in  particular  United 
Nations  organisations  and  international  organisations  (e.g.  the  Red  Cross),  to  co-ordinate 
strategies and funding (‘strategic dialogue’ (SD) meetings); 

–  Co-ordination  with  NGOs  is  ensured  via  a  dedicated  network  (VOICE)  and  an  annual 

conference with partners; and 

–  An IT application has been developed  to  collect  humanitarian  aid  contributions  from  EU 
Member States (called the ‘14-points application’). This database50, which is accessible to 
anyone51,  gives  details  of  the  global  EU  (EU  +  Member  States)  humanitarian  assistance 
provided  by  year  and  country.  The  system  is  linked  to  the  OCHA52  Financial  Tracking 
System (FTS). 

The core objective of the 14-points application is to cover all humanitarian aid contributions, 
whichever government department is responsible for them. The definition of what constitutes 
humanitarian aid — and therefore should be reported — is a difficult question and Member 
States have developed their own working definitions. 

49 
50 
51 
52 

€ 10 million for emergency action 
Available since 1 January 2003 
https://webgate.EU.europa.eu/hac  
United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Aid 

EN 

96 

   EN 

€
                                                 
In 2009, humanitarian aid contributions totalling €
points application, of which 59% were from Member States and 41% from EU funds. 

 2 248 million were reported in ECHO’s 14-

Repartition of aid between Member States and EU

MEMBER 
STATES
59%

ECHO
41%

EU
Humanitarian Aid
60%

EU 
Technical 
assistance
3%

EU 
 Food Aid
33%

EU 
Disaster 
Preparedness
4%

EU - Disaster Preparedness
EU - Humanitarian Aid
MEMBER STATES

EU - Food Aid
EU - Technical assistance

On  the  whole,  approximately  the  same  countries  benefited  from  humanitarian  aid  from  the 
Member States and from the EU. The two complex emergencies dating back to previous years 
— Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo — are the biggest recipients with more than 
one third of the total allocated to the top 10 beneficiaries. 

Looking at the top 10 recipients, 70% of the funding went to African countries in 2009, with 
the balance going to the occupied Palestinian territories, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  

.

i

o
M

250

200

150

100

50

0

Sudan 

DRC

OPT

Pakistan Somalia

Member States

EU

99

116

127

54

84

66

64

71

67

45

EU

Member States

Afgha-
nistan  

65

37

Ethiopia

Kenya

42

51

45

40

Zim-
babw e

50

25

Chad

23

34

Looking at the geographical breakdown of the total funding in 2009, as planned, the largest 
share  went  to  African  countries  (46.7%),  13%  to  Asia  and  10.3%  to  the  Mediterranean  and 
Middle  East  region.  The  21.5%  classified  as  ‘other’  stand  for  contributions  allocated  to 
unspecified countries, meaning mainly to UN agencies and other humanitarian aid activities. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
€
 
Repartition of aid by main regions

1.9%

1.1%

5.4%

10.3%

13.0%

Africa

other

Asia

46.7%

21.5%

Mediterranean & Middle East

Europe, Caucasus & Central Asia

Latin America

Caribbean & Pacific islands

3.3. 

Evaluations 

The Commission has an evaluation function which is responsible for evaluating the activities 
it funds, mostly using independent evaluators. The legal basis for this activity is set out under 
Article  18  of  the  Humanitarian  Aid  Regulation:  the  Commission  is  required  to  "regularly 
assess humanitarian aid operations financed by the Community in order to establish whether 
they have achieved their objectives and to produce guidelines for improving the effectiveness 
of  subsequent  operations."  Furthermore,  Article  27  (4)  of  the  Financial  Regulation  requires 
EU  Institutions  to  undertake  evaluations  in  line  with  the  guidance  provided  by  the 
Commission. 

Each  year,  an  indicative  Evaluation  Programme  is  established  after  consulting  the  EU 
Humanitarian  Aid  Committee.  This  programme  is  flexible  and  can  be  adapted  to  include 
evaluations  not  in  the  original  programme,  in  response  to  particular  events  or  changing 
circumstances. 

Evaluations  can  cover  not  only  reviews  of  operations  funded  by  the  EU,  but  also  thematic 
issues  and  partnerships.  The  aim  is  to  increase  the  level  of  co-ordination  within  the 
Commission and with EU Member States and other major donors. 

3.3.1.  The 2009 work programme 

The Commission continued to evaluate its major humanitarian aid programmes.  

In 2009, thirteen evaluations and reviews were finalised or launched:  

–  nine  evaluations  on  Food  Aid,  DIPECHO  Caribbean,  DIPECHO  Central  Asia,  the 
Regional Drought Decision [Horn of Africa], Burundi, Iraq, Nepal Sahrawi refugee camps 
and Sahel; 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
–  Three  reviews/studies  on  mapping  donor  co-ordination  at  field  level,  gender,  unit  cost 

approach.  

–  A  call  for  tenders  on  air  transport  was  also  launched  combining  elements  of  both 

evaluation and review.  

These evaluations and reviews provide valuable input for further sectoral policy development 
and increase the effectiveness of the EU’s humanitarian aid activities. 

3.3.2.  Results from some evaluations finalised in 2009 

Sahrawi refugee camps: The evaluation took place between April and May 2009, focusing 
on  the  funding  provided  under  the  2006-2008  decisions.  The  aim  was  to  advise  ECHO  on 
priorities,  make  specific  recommendations  for  improving  the  impact  of  its  humanitarian 
response and provide advice on its strategy for 2009 onwards. ECHO-implemented action has 
had a continuous positive impact on the direct beneficiaries. It has helped to support family 
and community life in difficult circumstances. The food received makes a significant impact 
on the Sahrawi diet, as all assessments have demonstrated that the refugees continue to rely 
on the commodities provided. This action makes a difference ensuring that the refugees' most 
basic  needs  for  food,  water/sanitation,  shelter  and  medicines  are  largely  covered.  The 
programme’s positive impact would be increased by a strategic policy to reduce the levels of 
vulnerability and security by means of more stable programmes and providing buffer stocks. 
Responses that protect and support food security should be further based on a sound analysis, 
in consultation with the beneficiary population. Responses in the form of shelter take account 
of  people’s  coping  strategies  and  strengths.  In  the  health  sector,  the  number  of  players 
involved undermines concerted action and efforts to avoid any negative impact. Joint action, 
for example in schools for repairs and water/sanitation, has had an additional impact. 

Burundi:  The  purpose  of  the  evaluation  was  to  assess  the  appropriateness  of  ECHO-
implemented actions in Burundi over the period 2006–2009, in order to establish whether the 
objectives  have  been  achieved,  but  focusing  mainly  on  its  LRRD  strategy.  EU  assistance 
complied  with  its  general  objectives  and  responded  to  major  humanitarian  needs  in  the 
country.  However,  the  evaluation  found  that  one  of  its  partners  had  continued  with  free 
distribution of food aid for too long, whereas food or cash for work would  have  been more 
appropriate  and  would  have  probably  led  to  better  results  (regaining  self-sufficiency).  The 
repatriation  and  reintegration  of  180 000  refugees  has  not  led  to  major  tension,  which  is 
considered  to  be  a  great  success.  Many  people  had  feared  that  such  a  massive  influx  of 
refugees could lead to new outbreaks of violence. The main reasons justifying the presence of 
ECHO  in  Burundi  are  to  follow  up  the  repatriation  and  reintegration  of  the  approximately 
40 000  refugees  still  remaining  in  the  camps  in  Tanzania  and  of  approximately  15 000 
refugees from 1972. At the moment, all these refugees are expected to be repatriated before 
the  end  of  the  year  (2009).  The  follow-up  of  the  reintegration  process  will  take  at  least  six 
months.  The  evaluation  recommended  that  the  Commission  maintain  a  presence  in  Burundi 
until at least the end of 2011. This will also allow for an alert for the elections in 2010, which 
some  fear  might  lead  to  new  violence.  The  integrated  approach  to  repatriation  and 
reintegration  should  continue  to  be  employed.  Together  with  other  stakeholders,  the 
Commission should also address the problem of the refugees from 1972 who have remained 
without access to land.  

EN 

99 

   EN 

DIPECHO  programme  in  the  Caribbean:  Since  1999,  ECHO  has  implemented  six 
DIPECHO Action Plans in the Caribbean, supporting 66 projects implemented by twenty one 
different NGOs, UN agencies, academic institutions and government bodies. The evaluation 
covering the last two Action Plans running between 2006 and 2009 concluded that they have 
had a significant impact on the lives of poor communities in vulnerable areas of the region. 
For  example,  the  four  hurricanes  that  hit  the  island  of  La  Gonave  during  August  and 
September  2008  were  reported  to  have  caused  six  deaths  in  target  communities,  compared 
with more than twenty-four during similar events in 2006. Action plans are relevant given the 
high-risk nature of the region and the focus on addressing needs of vulnerable people in the 
highest-risk communities. This was reinforced by the severe flooding which occurred during 
the  time  frames  of  the  action  plan,  affecting  all  the  communities  covered  by  the  project  in 
Haiti  and  the  Dominican  Republic.  DIPECHO  is,  therefore,  relevant  to  communities. 
Moreover,  DIPECHO  remains  relevant,  even  essential,  in  that  it  is  one  of  the  very  few 
funding sources for DRR initiatives in the region that targets the community level. 

Further  details  of  the  evaluations  carried  out  can  be  found  on  ECHO  website  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/evaluation/introduction_en.htm  

3.4. 

Control of use of funds 

3.4.1. 

Internal control 

Correct  implementation  of  EU-funded  operations  is  ensured  by  several  layers  of  checks  at 
various  stages  of  the  project  cycle  fro  humanitarian  operations.  The  main  aspects  of  the 
control strategy developed by the Commission, its supervision and monitoring procedures and 
the ex-ante and ex-post controls are described below including: 

•  Strict  selection  and  quality  control  mechanisms  for  partners  under  the  Framework 
Partnership  Agreement  (FPA)  signed  with  NGOs  and  International  organisations53  that 
define the financial credentials and expertise required of implementing partners, combined 
with  both  regular  and  ad  hoc  assessments  of  FPA  partners  in  order  to  ensure  that  these 
requirements  are  met  continuously.  Financial  management  and  control  requirements  for 
UN  bodies  are  defined  in  the  EU-UN  Financial  Administrative  Framework  Agreement 
(FAFA);  

•  Project  monitoring  by  a  network  of  field  experts  (technical  assistants)  worldwide.  These 
specialists  are  based  in  the  field  in  order  to  facilitate  operations  funded  by  the  EU, 
regardless  where,  and  maximise  their  impact.  They  closely  monitor  projects  and  write 
regular  reports.  In  order  to  enhance  the  rapid  reaction  capacity  and  monitoring  of 
operations,  the  number  of  field  experts  has  gradually  been  increased  in  recent  years. 
Currently about 100 field experts are based in the various field offices;  

•  Regular field visits to projects by geographical desks, auditors and management; 

53 

Mainly IFRC, ICRC and IOM 

EN 

100 

   EN 

                                                 
•  An obligation for the partners to provide reports after the end of the operations to justify 

their expenses; 

•  A  thorough  analysis  of  these  reports  and  checks  of  eligible  expenditure  by  both  the 
operational and financial desk officers. Various procedures, such as check-lists and double 
checking,  have  been  set  up  to  ensure  that  all  financial  transactions  are  in  line  with  the 
financial rules, comply with sound financial management and are recorded correctly in the 
accounting  system.  Expenditure  which  is  not  sufficiently  supported  in  final  reports  is 
disallowed and deducted from the final payment; 

•  Approximately  ten  evaluations  are  undertaken  on  average  each  year,  focusing  on  major 
country operations (i.e. operations receiving funding totalling about €50 million and which 
have not been evaluated in the last three years), partners and thematic issues. The results of 
these 
at 
found 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/evaluation/introduction_en.htm;  

evaluations 

ECHO's 

website 

can 

on 

be 

•  EU-funded  activities  implemented  by  external  (partners  and  contractors)  are  subject  to  a 
financial audit. The audit strategy is based on a two-track approach: audits are performed 
both at partners' headquarters on a cyclical basis for finalised projects and in the field for 
ongoing projects. 

In 2009, five members of ECHO's audit team and a budget of €2.5 million for contracts with 
external auditors were allocated to audits.  

In 2009, 53 audits were performed at headquarters; 47 field audits were finalised on projects 
under  way;  8  office  audits  were  carried  out  and  4  humanitarian  procurement  centres  were 
assessed. 

Audit  recommendations  are  a  valuable  channel  for  feed  back  for  improvements  to  partners’ 
reporting systems. Furthermore, audit findings on the eligibility of expenditures are analysed 
by Commission officials and appropriate follow-up action is taken, such as recovery of funds. 

•  ECHO  also  has  an  internal  audit  capability  (IAC),  which  provides  an  independent  and 
objective  opinion  on  the  quality  of  the  internal  control  systems  and  helps  the  Director-
General and management to control risks and monitor compliance. 

The checks listed above should not be seen in isolation. Each of them contributes to providing 
overall reasonable assurance on the legality and regularity of the transactions. 

3.4.2.  External control 

The  Commission's  operations  and  its  financial  management  in  the  field  of  humanitarian 
assistance  are  further  audited  by  the  Internal  Audit  Service  (IAS)  of  the  European 
Commission and the European Court of Auditors. 

The task of the Internal Audit Service is to audit the internal control systems that exist within 
the  European  Commission.  In  its  2008  annual  Internal  Audit  Report,  the  IAS  reported  on 
implementation of the FAFA. In 2009, the IAS also audited the financial management of food 
assistance and endorsed without reservation, the internal control systems audited. 

EN 

101 

   EN 

The  European  Court  of  Auditors  audits 
the  EU's  finances.  Its  observations  and 
recommendations  are  published  in  its  annual  report  and  in  special  reports  to  the  European 
Parliament and the European Council. 

For  the  2008  financial  year,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  concluded  that  key  internal 
controls  of  the  Commission  in  relation  to  humanitarian  aid  were  effective  except  for  the 
internal  audit  capability  which  had  only  just  been  set-up  that  year.  The  Court  nevertheless 
noted that 2008 was a transitional year for the IAC and that the full benefit of the new set-up 
was expected in 2009. 

All  Commission  departments  are  accountable  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council, 
notably  in  annual  reports  giving  details  of  their  activities.  Their  budget  management  is  also 
continuously audited by the Court of Auditors, which reports to Parliament and the Council. 
Every year, the Parliament and Council give their opinion on the discharge of past budgets. 

Finally,  the  specialised  committees  of  the  budget  authority  exercise  control  over  financial 
management  in  EU  bodies  and  organise  yearly  hearings  with  the  Commissioners  concerned 
before deciding on the discharge of the Commission. 

3.5. 

Co-operation with humanitarian aid's stakeholders 

As in previous years, the Commission maintained an active relationship in the humanitarian 
area with other EU institutions, Member States and international organisations and continued 
to promote 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  also  ensured  that  the  necessity  to  respect  the 
humanitarian  space  during  emergencies  was  duly  taken  into  account  in  the  European  and 
international debate. 

3.6. 

Visibility and communication 

The  broad  objective  of  the  Commission's  communication  work  on  humanitarian  issues  is  to 
boost  understanding,  both  in  Europe  and  in  countries  where  Commission-funded 
humanitarian  operations  are  implemented,  of  the  practical  contribution  made  by 
humanitarian  aid  to  the  EU's  commitment  to  solidarity  with  the  world's  most  vulnerable 
people.  The  high  profile  and  rapidly  moving  environment  of  humanitarian  aid  means  that 
media-oriented activities are central to the strategy. The EU is collectively the world's largest 
relief  donor,  with  the  Commission  managing  the  majority  of  EU  funding  in  this  area.  It, 
therefore,  plays  a  leadership  role  in  communicating  the  underlying  values  of  European 
humanitarian aid. EU citizens strongly support action at European level to help crisis victims. 
Humanitarian  aid  policy  therefore  offers  a  continuing  opportunity  for  the  Commission  to 
'connect'  positively  with  citizens.  Effective  communication  with  young  people,  who  are 
generally more receptive, could have longer-term humanitarian benefits.  

Printed publications were issued, including leaflets on protection of the humanitarian space, 
thematic leaflets entitled "From Relief to Development", ECHO Flight, "Humanitarian Aid at 
a Glance", a brochure for children, photo-albums, postcards and calendars. 

Audiovisual  items were produced such as reports and images featuring ECHO-implemented 
actions in crisis zones. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

Other communication products included press releases, eye-witness accounts published on the 
ECHO part of the Commission website, new country-specific web sections, an annual review 
and a range of other publications. 

Joint communications campaigns were carried out with major institutional partners such as (1) 
WFP, with the broadcast of a film on EU-financed WFP activities in Nepal; (2) UNHCR, with 
a cinema spot in Greece, Ireland and the Netherlands; (3) Save the Children, with a repeat of 
the  UK  festivals  campaign;  and  (4)  WHO/UNICEF/ACF,  with  a  joint  communication 
campaign on mid-upper arm circumference as a measurement of malnutrition following new 
WHO standards. 

Other  events  were  also  organised,  such  as  (1)  integrated  awareness-raising  campaigns  in 
Cyprus and Northern Italy; (2) profile-raising in the 2009 "Tour de France humanitaire"; (3) 
the  Brussels'  round  table  on  the  impact  of  climate  change  on  humanitarian  aid;  and  (4)  the 
ISDR global platform for disaster risk reduction in Geneva. 

3.7. 

Security and safety issues 

Humanitarian aid organisations operate in difficult environments, typified by unpredictability, 
volatility,  insecurity  and  problems  with  gaining  access  to  the  people  affected.  These 
conditions  combined  with  the  fact  that  operations  are  carried  out  by  third  parties  (ECHO's 
partners)  make  achievement  of  policy  objectives  a  challenging  task.  This  explains  why 
security is a high priority for the Commission. 

During  2009,  a  significant  number  of  violent  acts  were  committed,  directly  or  indirectly, 
against humanitarian aid workers. In particular, there has been an upward trend in the number 
of  incidents  involving  national/local  NGO  staff.  These  security  incidents  continued  to 
undermine the operational efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian partners. Fortunately, 
no  significant  security-related  incidents  involving  Commission  headquarters  or  field  staff 
were  recorded  despite  the  increasing  number  of  missions  to  hostile  environments  such  as 
Afghanistan, Colombia, Haiti or Sri Lanka and the new Commission deployments in high-risk 
countries  and  areas,  such  as  the  Gaza  Strip  and  Pakistan.  An  increase  in  the  number  of 
criminal  acts  against  Commission  staff  in  the  field  such  as  burglaries  and  break-ins  was, 
nevertheless, reported during 2009. 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  continued  its  efforts  to  improve  the  overall  security  of 
humanitarian aid personnel – be they Commission or partners' staff in the field – in order to 
adapt an increasingly volatile and insecure environment. The Commission has established its 
own  comprehensive  security  policy,  taking  into  account  the  specific  of  delivery  of 
humanitarian aid. 

To  respond  to  the  growing  security  threats,  the  Commission  set  up  a  security  team  for 
DG ECHO at the end of 2008. The overall purpose is to develop and implement the security 
policies  and  procedures  for  relevant  staff  at  headquarters  and  in  the  field,  within  the 
Commission's security framework. 

Cooperation and co-ordination with other Commission departments, other EU institutions and 
leading  stakeholders  are  also  essential  in  order  to  deliver  effective  security  solutions.  On 
security-related  issues,  relations  within  the  Commission  and  with  the  Security  office  of  the 

EN 

103 

   EN 

Council,  UNDSS54,  ICRC  and  NGOs'  security  set-ups  are  therefore  primarily  the 
responsibility of the Security team. 

Finally,  specific  security  plans  were  produced  during  the  year  for  all  ECHO  Offices  in  the 
field. The security coordinator provided advice and support on a wide range of issues such as 
protective  security  measures,  and  security  plans  for  field  offices  in  high-risk  areas.  A 
permanently  manned  security  system  ensured  non-stop  24/7/365  support  for  security  crises. 
The Commission also promoted its security arrangements in seminars and fora organised by 
international organisations and NGOs. 

3.8. 

Training 

The EU finances networks and training in the humanitarian field. 

One  example  is  NOHA,  the  first  network  of  universities  at  European  level  dealing  with 
development  of  education  on  humanitarian  action.  It  seeks  greater  professionalism  among 
humanitarian  workers  by  providing  a  solid  intellectual  grounding  and  developing  sound 
concepts  and  principles  that  would,  in  turn,  lead  to  "good  practice".  It  also  contributes  to 
greater awareness of humanitarian issues among the broader public and policy-makers. It has 
been a model for other quality networks. 

The  NOHA  Master’s  programme  is  an  inter-university,  multidisciplinary  postgraduate 
programme launched in 1993 that provides high-quality education and professional skills for 
personnel working or intending to work in the area of international humanitarian assistance. 
NOHA takes an interdisciplinary approach, linking theory, practice, participatory learning and 
case-based analyses. 

NOHA  was  developed  jointly  by  the  European  Commission  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Socrates/Erasmus programme. The NOHA Master’s programme is the first of its kind in the 
world, bringing together seven universities from all over Europe. 

The objectives pursued by this training are: 

–  to  pool  academic  resources  and  cultural  traditions  in  order  to  accommodate  diverse 

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

–  to provide the academic and professional profiles and skills for personnel working in the 

field of international humanitarian action; 

–  to train a team  of professionals  in  the field of  humanitarian  action  who  are  able  to  share 
their experience world-wide and harness Europe's potential for innovation and social and 
economic development; 

–  to contribute to the quality and visibility of higher education in Europe by implementing a 
well-defined joint Masters programme in seven universities which responds to an academic 
and  professional  profile  within  a  common  framework  of  comparable  and  compatible 
qualifications  in  terms  of  profile,  learning  outcomes,  skills,  workload  and  level 
(comparable level of intellectual academic endeavour); and 

–  to  become  a  world  reference  as  a  quality  education  and  training  system  in  the  field  of 
humanitarian  action  offering  a  programme  open  to  graduates  and  scholars  from  third 

54 

United Nations Department of Safety and Security 

EN 

104 

   EN 

                                                 
countries which allows mobility between the institutions in the NOHA network and leads 
to a joint Master's degree in humanitarian action. 

Administration  and  organisation  of  the  NOHA  programme  are  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
universities  participating.  Further 
is  available  at 
http://www.nohanet.org. 

information  on 

training 

this 

4. 

ANNEXES 

4.1. 

Introduction to financial tables 

ECHO implements the part of the EU's general annual budget that is allocated to humanitarian 
aid.  Over  the  last  five  years,  an  average  of  €793  million  per  year  has  been  committed  to 
humanitarian aid. 

Sources of funds for humanitarian assistance  

On the whole, the Commission has two sources of funding for humanitarian assistance: 

•  The  general  EU  budget.  Humanitarian  aid  falls  under  Title  23  of  the  budget,  which  is 

divided into four lines:  

–  the main one which covers humanitarian operations; 

–  a line which covers food aid activities from 1 January 2007; 

–  a line which covers operational support and disaster preparedness operations; and 

–  a line for support expenditure.  

•  The European Development Fund which is used for ACP countries.  

To be able to respond rapidly to specific aid requirements created by events which could not 
have  been  foreseen  when  the  budget  was  established,  the  Commission  may  also  call  on  an 
Emergency  Aid  Reserve  (Title  40).  To  mobilise  this  Emergency  Aid  Reserve,  a  trilateral 
agreement  between  the  Commission,  the  Council  and  Parliament  has  to  be  obtained.  In  the 
case of ACP countries, the Commission also draws on financial resources available under the 
European Development Fund (EDF), which has a provision for emergency and humanitarian 
aid. 

In recent years, the humanitarian assistance budget has systematically been topped up, either 
by  the  Emergency  Aid  Reserve  (EAR),  or  by  transfers  from  other  budget  lines  under  the 
'external aid' heading or, in the case of ACP countries, by using resources from the European 
Development Fund (B-envelope), ranging from €71 million in 2001 to €187 million in 2008. 

In practice, the Commission applies the same principles and guidelines to aid financed from 
the EDF and to aid from the general budget. It uses the Framework Partnership Agreement for 
operations funded from either source. 

EN 

105 

   EN 

4.2. 

Financial tables 

1. 

Budget and decisions for Humanitarian Aid 1993-2009 (in € '000) 

YEAR

Humanitarian 
Aid

Food
Aid

Reinforcements

Total

Em. Aid Res.

Other

BUDGET COMMISSION  (1)

EDF

TOTAL

BUDGET
(Com Appr.)

COMMITTED 
FUNDS

Implementation
rate

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

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

547,026

209,000

136,010

516,410

90,180

606,590

212,000

21,200

499,200

263,770

762,970

254,500

132,000

642,500

46,455

688,955

324,000

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

230,025

110,000

7,317

894,368

37,325

931,693

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

930,450

TOTAL 1993-2009

6,884,210

671,036

2,272,500

624,882

10,452,628

763,187

11,215,815

11,194,880

AVERAGE YEARS 1993-2009

AVERAGE LAST 5 YEARS

404,954

516,135

223,679

223,679

133,676

111,400

36,758

7,873

614,860

769,615

44,893

23,351

659,754

792,966

658,522

791,826

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%

99.9%

99.8%

99.8%

99.9%

(1) Total of chapter B7-21 (lines 210A,210,214,217,219) - As of 01.01.2004 (23.0104 & 23.0201, 23.0202 and 23.0203)
(2) Part of the emergency reserve was transferred to the budget line B7-210. The emergency reserve (line B7-910) was reduced 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 

106 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
2. 

Sources and use of funds 

The total committed under the 2009 budget for operational and support expenditure by the end 
of the year was €930 million . The commitments were subdivided into the following categories 
of expenditure: 

–  €921 million for operational expenditure. Funds for  humanitarian aid operations were drawn 

from four sources : 

•  €571 million from the main budget line for humanitarian aid (23.0201); 

•  €280 million from the budget line for food aid (23.0202); 

•  €33 million from the budget line fo r disaster preparedness (23.0203); 

•  €37 million from the 10th EDF (02.10.21.20); plus 

–  €9 million for support expenditure  (ex BA line – 23.0104). 

The  budget  for  administrative  expenditure,  relating  to  humanitarian  aid  policy  for  2009  was  
€20 million, which brings the total spent on human itarian assistance (administrative expenditure 
included)  in  2009  to  €950 million.  Out  of  the  total  funds  allocated  by  the  Commission  for 
humanitarian aid, 97% are used directly to fund humanitarian aid operations, the balance being 
used for support expenditure (1%) and administrative expenditure (2%). 

The sources and use of funds are illustrated below: 

Funding sources 

Categories of expenditure 

EDF
4%

Revenue
1%

Emer-
gency Aid 
Reserve
12%

Adm Budg
2%

Support 
Exp
1%

Admin. 
Exp
2%

Hum Aid 
81%

Operat. 
Exp
97%

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
 
3. 

Contracts finalised by ECHO in 2009 

Individual legal commitments are made on the basis of global commitments (funding decisions). 
They fall into four main categories: 

–  Grants or contributions for humanitarian aid operations – FPA55 or FAFA56 contracts; 

–  Grants for studies and training (including NOHA); 

–  Service contracts for audits, evaluation, information, communication, etc. 

–  Commitments for experts and imprest accounts where each individual commitment can cover 
several  underlying  commitments  (contracts  for  experts,  insurance,  various  expenditures  for 
the imprest account, etc.). 

In  2009,  1 088  individual  legal  commitments  were  signed57  adding  up  to  a  total  of  €844 
million. 

The table below shows the trend in contracts over the last 10 years. 

Number of finalised contracts 1998-2009

1214

1119

1086

1148

1134

1088

891

878

926

885

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

55 
56 
57 

Framework Partnership Agreement 
EC/UN Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement 
Commission's Budget: Operational and Support Expenditure + EDF resources 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4. 

Sectoral breakdown of activities 

The  sectoral  breakdown  is  based  on  the  main  area  of  activity  covered  by  each  grant  or 
contribution agreement signed by ECHO.  

The largest share of funding (38%) is for food and nutrition, mainly under the specific food aid 
budget  line  but  also  for  agreements  under  the  main  budget  line  which  have  a  substantial  food 
component.  

Health  and  medical  support  (16%)  and  water/sanitation  (15%)  are  the  other  main  areas  of 
activity. 

Coordination

3% Transport

2% Other
2%

Food, Nutrition, 
therapeutic or 
supp.feeding 
38%

Support to 
special 
operations
5%

Disaster 
preparedness
5%

Shelter
6%

Protection
8%

Water / 
Sanitation
15%

Health, 
Medical, 
Psycho support
16%

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

Geographical breakdown of funding decisions, 2003-2009 – Global overview 

Africa 

Chad  

Sudan  

Djibouti 

Eritrea 

Ethiopia 

Kenya 

Somalia 

Uganda 

Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

301,555,000 

247,716,500 

322,060,000 

422,760,000 

551,847,000 

506,410,000 

SUDAN & CHAD 

103,000,000 

59,000,000 

111,500,000 

140,950,000 

197,000,000 

149,600,000 

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

34,000,000 

115,600,000 

HORN of AFRICA 

48,088,000 

40,120,000 

64,050,000 

77,673,950 

167,897,000 

173,475,000 

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

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

24,673,950

1,400,000

4,000,000

39,700,000

23,500,000

43,797,000

25,500,000

30,000,000

3,000,000 

51,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

24,475,000 

10,000,000 

107,690,000 

98,750,000 

103,250,000 

139,900,000 

126,200,000 

115,035,000 

8,800,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

17,000,000

17,000,000

19,500,000

8,000,000

2,000,000

27,500,000

7,800,000

22,000,000 

2,000,000 

2,000,000 

2,000,000

38,000,000

500,000

5,000,000

110 

43,000,000

42,500,000

45,550,000

45,000,000 

5,380,833

1,500,000

2,800,000 

EN 

Regional Drought Decision 
Echo-Flight (1) 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AFRICA, INDIAN 
OCEAN 

Angola 

Cameroon 

Burundi (2) 

Central African Republic 

Congo-Brazzaville 

Congo (D. R.) 

Gabon 

Madagascar 

Malawi 

EN 

18,990,000

470,000

2,000,000

40,000,000

2,000,000

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Mozambique — Botswana 

2,000,000

7,000,000

Namibia 

Tanzania 

Zambia 

Zimbabwe 

Regional — .Southern Africa 

Regional — South-East Africa 

Regional — Great Lakes 

DIPECHO — South-East Africa 

Echo-Flight (1) 

1,000,000

14,900,000

2,000,000

15,000,000

2,000,000

13,500,000

3,500,000

15,000,000

1,750,000

12,000,000

2,000,000

30,200,000

5,819,167

16,050,000

2,200,000

12,000,000

1,000,000

530,000

500,000

7,000,000

7,500,000

350,000

25,000,000

3,500,000

5,000,000

8,000,000

1,500,000 

25,000,000 

5,500,000 

735,000 

8,500,000 

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

(2) The regional decisions in 2008 & 2009 for Burundi/Tanzania include the assistance to Burundese refugees in Tanzania and have been included under <Burundi>. 

WEST AFRICA  

25,300,000 

38,550,000 

41,650,000 

47,926,050 

39,100,000 

51,450,000 

Benin 

Burkina Faso 

Guinea  

Guinea Bissau 

Liberia — Ivory Coast — Nigeria 

25,300,000

Mali — Niger — Mauritania 

Senegal 

Regional — Sahel 

Regional — West Africa (including Epidemics) 

1,050,000

29,200,000

8,300,000

1,000,000

26,500,000

12,000,000

2,150,000

19,100,000

240,000

1,086,050

25,500,000

2,000,000

1,300,000

500,000

16,600,000

2,000,000

15,700,000

3,000,000

13,550,000 

1,900,000 

31,000,000 

5,000,000 

EN 

111 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Eastern Europe, Caucasus, 
Mediterranean, Middle East 

93,205,000 

87,587,000 

183,950,000 

124,897,118 

152,635,000 

121,775,000 

MEDITERRANEAN & MIDDLE EAST 

48,855,000 

48,887,000 

144,900,000 

99,090,000 

124,860,000 

109,475,000 

Algeria 

Iraq crisis 

Morocco 

Palestinian Territories 

Palestinian refugees (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) 

Yemen  

Western Sahara (Sahrawi) 

975,000

37,350,000

2,530,000

8,000,000

17,800,000

30,000,000

20,000,000 

34,000,000

2,576,000

3,000,000

9,311,000

84,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

10,300,000

990,000

10,900,000

10,000,000

73,260,000

9,500,000

2,100,000

10,000,000

66,000,000 

10,000,000 

2,500,000 

10,975,000 

EUROPE, CAUCASUS & CENTRAL ASIA 

44,350,000 

38,700,000 

39,050,000 

25,807,118 

27,775,000 

12,300,000 

Caucasus (Chechnya crisis) 

Georgia 

Moldova, Republic of  

Mongolia 

Tajikistan 

DIPECHO — Central Asia 

28,500,000

4,000,000

26,300,000

2,000,000

26,000,000

2,000,000

20,807,118

2,000,000

3,000,000

1,000,000

8,350,000

2,500,000

900,000

6,000,000

3,500,000

5,000,000

6,050,000

11,000,000

8,000,000

700,000

750,000

7,325,000

6,000,000 

4,000,000 

300,000 

2,000,000 

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

Asia, Latin America 

134,523,630 

267,445,370 

118,491,305 

157,365,678 

192,327,000 

231,325,000 

Tsunami 

169,630

122,830,370

SOUTH ASIA  

67,284,000 

84,000,000 

56,300,000 

87,555,000 

94,257,000 

157,500,000 

Afghanistan (Afghan conflict, including aid for 
victims in Iran & Pakistan) 
Pakistan 

35,160,000

20,000,000

22,500,000

27,000,000

34,800,000

37,000,000 

48,000,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

70,500,000 

Iran 

Bangladesh 

India 

Nepal — Bhutan 

Sri Lanka 

7,661,000

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

Regional (India, Nepal, Bangladesh) 

DIPECHO — South Asia 

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

20,501,000

5,990,000

7,966,000

19,000,000

4,500,000

13,000,000 

7,000,000 

6,000,000 

14,000,000 

10,000,000 

SOUTH EAST & EAST ASIA 

48,870,000 

38,415,000 

37,591,305 

29,745,695 

64,000,000 

45,500,000 

Burma — Myanmar — Thailand 

Cambodia 

China 

East Timor 

Indonesia 

Laos 

North Korea 

Philippines 

Vietnam 

Vietnam — Cambodia — Laos 

DIPECHO — South East Asia 

19,720,000

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

15,700,000

19,000,000

39,000,000

18,500,000 

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

4,500,000 

1,500,000 

6,500,000

12,000,000 

2,500,000

10,000,000

9,000,000 

EN 

113 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

LATIN AMERICA 

18,200,000 

22,200,000 

24,600,000 

40,064,983 

34,070,000 

28,325,000 

Bolivia 

Colombia 

Cuba 

Ecuador 

Guatemala 

Honduras 

Honduras — Guatemala 

Nicaragua 

Paraguay 

Peru 

Regional — Central America 

Regional — South America 

12,000,000

1,000,000

12,000,000

1,000,000

13,000,000

3,000,000

12,500,000

8,500,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

2,600,000

5,700,000

2,000,000

2,700,000

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

12,000,000 

2,000,000 

1,325,000 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

10,000,000 

DIPECHO — Andean Communities / Peru 

4,500,000

DIPECHO — South-East and Central America 

6,000,000

6,000,000

CARIBBEAN  

17,477,000 

11,096,500 

1,610,000 

15,760,000 

21,650,000 

14,000,000 

Bahamas 

Comoros 

Dominican Republic 

Grenada 

Haiti 

Jamaica 

St Vincent & Grenadines 

Suriname 

Regional — Caribbean 

DIPECHO — Caribbean 

480,000

1,600,000

2,250,000

11,197,000

1,200,000

750,000

1,100,000

250,000

250,000

160,000

4,500,000

16,000,000

7,000,000 

6,496,500

3,500,000

700,000

500,000

7,260,000

4,000,000

400,000

5,000,000

7,000,000 

EN 

114 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country/Region 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

PACIFIC 

Solomon Island 

Papua New Guinea 

Regional — Pacific 

DIPECHO — Pacific 

200,000 

200,000

550,000 

550,000

2,850,000 

650,000 

700,000 

1,500,000 

THEMATIC FUNDING / CAPACITY BUILDING 

19,430,000 

20,500,000 

19,500,000 

27,500,000 

2,534,000 

25,200,000 

Protection of refugees (UNHCR) 
Response co-ordination strengthening 
(OCHA) 
Protection of victims of armed conflicts (ICRC) 

Protection of children and women (UNICEF) 

Preparedness and response capacity to hum. 
crises (UNICEF) 
Humanitarian logistic capacities/Response 
(WFP) 
Emergency Shelter Cluster (UNHCR) 

Response to Natural Disasters (IFRC) 

Support Health Emergencies (WHO) 
Assessing Emergency Needs in food security 
(WFP) 

Food security response (FAO) 

DREF DECISION 

4,000,000

2,000,000

5,430,000

3,500,000

4,500,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

1,800,000

1,500,000

4,200,000

4,500,000

4,300,000

900,000

4,000,000

4,300,000

1,770,000 

4,800,000 

4,830,000 

4,500,000 

4,300,000 

3,500,000

4,500,000

2,534,000

980,000 

4,020,000 

2,000,000 

GRANTS AND SERVICES 

1,000,000 

1,400,000 

2,300,000 

4,500,000 

EN 

115 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
OTHER EXPENDITURE 

21,628,000 

29,250,000 

26,005,667 

34,607,038 

32,998,941 

41,239,710 

Experts 
Regional Imprest Accounts — Regional 
offices (3) 
Support Expenditure (audit, evaluation, 
information, etc) 

Use of re-assigned revenue 

13,500,000

18,750,000

14,350,000

20,500,000

19,670,000

19,600,000 

1,800,000

4,000,000

4,650,000

4,900,000

5,330,000

12,500,000 

6,328,000

6,500,000

6,188,894

8,900,262

7,812,327

8,575,485 

816,773

306,776

186,614

564,225 

(3) Until 2008, the budget for the Imprest accounts for a country/region was often part of the country funding decisions. As of 2009, all these budgets are consolidated in 1 funding decision. 

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION 2004-
2009 

570,341,630

652,498,870 

671,006,972  768,529,834

936,641,941 

930,449,710 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
6. 

Funding decisions for humanitarian aid in 2009 (by country/area in decision) 

Country/sub-region

Decisions in €

Country/sub-region

Decisions in €

Country/sub-region

Decisions in €

AFRICA, CARIBBEAN, PACIFIC

497,175,000

EASTERN EUROPE / CAUCASUS

10,300,000

LATIN AMERICA

Burundi  (+refugees in Tanzania)

Central African Republic

Chad

Congo 

22,000,000

Georgia

4,000,000

Colombia

2,000,000

Northern Caucasus (Chechnya crisis)

6,000,000

Cuba

34,000,000

Tajikistan

2,000,000

300,000

Guatemala

Regional Central America

Congo (Democratic Republic)

53,500,000

MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA

109,475,000

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Haiti

Kenya

Liberia

Madagascar

Niger

Nigeria

Papua New Guinea

Sahel

Somalia

Sudan

Uganda

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Regional West Africa

Regional Pacific

Regional Southern Africa

3,000,000 Western Sahara (Sahrawi)

10,975,000

DIPECHO

51,000,000

Iraq crisis

20,000,000

South America

7,000,000

Middle East (Palestinian population)

66,000,000

Southern Caucasus

40,000,000

Middle East (Lebanon)

12,000,000

Syria

2,800,000

Yemen

1,900,000

1,550,000

ASIA

650,000

Afghanistan

31,000,000

Bangladesh

45,000,000

India

115,600,000

Indonesia

24,475,000

Laos

6,000,000

South Asia

4,000,000

Southern Africa

2,500,000

Caribbean

Peru

193,000,000

Pacific

37,000,000

13,000,000

Capacity Building

7,000,000

Capacity building

4,500,000

1,500,000

Other funding

1,500,000

Myanmar (Burma)/Thailand

18,500,000

Technical assistance

Regional Drought Preparedness

10,000,000

Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia

25,000,000

Nepal

5,000,000

Pakistan

700,000

Philippines

5,500,000

Sri Lanka

6,000,000

Grants and Services

70,500,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

9,000,000

Total ECHO funding 2009

921,310,000

16,325,000

12,000,000

2,000,000

1,325,000

1,000,000

33,235,000

10,000,000

2,000,000

10,000,000

735,000

7,000,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

25,200,000

25,200,000

36,600,000

32,100,000

4,500,000

EN 

117 

EN 

 
  
 
7. 

ECHO's humanitarian assistance implementing partners 

7.1.  List of contracts for humanitarian aid operations 

Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

ACF - FRA 

ACH- ESP 

ACP 

ADRA - DK 

AGA KHAN 

AMI - FRA 

AMI - PRT 

ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

18,285,941.00 

ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE, (ESP) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

13,226,321.00 

ASAMBLEA DE COOPERACION POR LA PAZ, (E) 

ACSUR - MADRID 

Asociación para la Cooperación con el Sur “LAS SEGOVIAS” 

NGO 

SPAIN 

NGO 

SPAIN 

1,115,422.08 

350 000.00 

ACTED 

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

NGO 

FRANCE 

9,456,190.00 

ACTIONAID 

ACTIONAID 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

5,231,520.00 

ADRA - DEU 

Adventistische Entwicklungs- und Katastrophenhilfe e.V. 

NGO 

GERMANY 

2,661,815.61 

ADVENTIST DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF AGENCY - DENMARK 

NGO 

DENMARK 

500 000.00 

AGA KHAN FOUNDATION (United Kingdom) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1,256,602.00 

AIDE MEDICALE INTERNATIONALE, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

4,476,765.00 

FUNDAÇÃO DE ASSISTÊNCIA MÉDICA INTERNACIONAL, (PT) 

NGO 

PORTUGAL 

ASB - DEU 

ARBEITER-SAMARITER-BUND DEUTSCHLAND e.V. 

NGO 

GERMANY 

ASF-BELGIUM 

Aviation sans Frontières Belgique/Piloten zonder Grenzen België 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

AVSI 

ASSOCIAZIONE VOLONTARI PER IL SERVIZIO INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

1,858,284.39 

BIOFORCE 

Institut Bioforce Développement Rhône Alpes 

NGO 

FRANCE 

64,038.00 

CATHOLIC AGENCY FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

300 000.00 

COMITE D'AIDE MEDICALE 

NGO 

FRANCE 

814,881.00 

139,612.00 

261,090.00 

699,047.90 

2.19% 

1.58% 

0.13% 

0.04% 

1.13% 

0.63% 

0.32% 

0.06% 

0.15% 

0.54% 

0.02% 

0.03% 

0.08% 

0.22% 

0.01% 

0.04% 

0.10% 

CAFOD 

CAM 

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

CARE - AUT 

CARE ÖSTERREICH - VEREIN FÜR ENTWICKLUNGSZUSAMMENARBEIT UND 
HUMANITÄRE HILFE 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

8,271,561.16 

CARE - DEU 

CARE INTERNATIONAL DEUTSCHLAND E.V. (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

4,324,733.00 

CARE - FR 

CARE FRANCE, (FR) 

CARE NEDERLAND 
(FORMER DRA) 

Stichting CARE Nederland 

NGO 

FRANCE 

1,589,634.00 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

2,075 000.00 

CARE - UK 

CARE INTERNATIONAL UK 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

2,154,005.00 

CARITAS - AUT 

CARITAS AUSTRIA, (AUT) 

CARITAS - BEL 

CARITAS INTERNATIONAL 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

500 000.00 

300 000.00 

CARITAS - CZE 

CHARITA CESKA REPUBLIKA 

NGO 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

130 000.00 

CARITAS - DEU 

DEUTSCHER CARITASVERBAND e.V, (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

3,310,799.00 

CARITAS - FRA 

CARITAS FRANCE - SECOURS CATHOLIQUE, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

1,740 000.00 

CESVI 

CESVI 

NGO 

ITALY 

954,083.00 

CHRISTIAN AID - UK 

CHRISTIAN AID (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1,791,190.00 

CISP 

COMITATO INTERNAZIONALE PER LO SVILUPPO DEI POPOLI (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

961,415.58 

CONCERN UNIVERSAL 

CONCERN UNIVERSAL (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

359,689.00 

CONCERN WORLDWIDE 

CONCERN WORLDWIDE, (IRL) 

NGO 

IRELAND 

5,016,661.56 

COOPI 

CORDAID 

COSV - MILAN 

COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

8,202,705.00 

CATHOLIC ORGANISATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT AID (NLD) 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

5,512,845.00 

COMITATO DI COORDINAMENTO DELLE ORGANIZZAZIONI PER IL SERVIZIO 
VOLONTARIO (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

CRIC 

CENTRO REGIONALE D INTERVENTO PER LA COOPERAZIONE (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

1,041,200.00 

1,030 000.00 

CROIX-ROUGE - AUT 

OESTERREICHISCHES ROTES KREUZ (CROIX ROUGE), (AUT) 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

667,954.00 

0.99% 

0.52% 

0.19% 

0.25% 

0.26% 

0.06% 

0.04% 

0.02% 

0.40% 

0.21% 

0.11% 

0.21% 

0.12% 

0.04% 

0.60% 

0.98% 

0.66% 

0.12% 

0.12% 

0.08% 

EN 

119 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

CROIX-ROUGE - BEL 

BELGISCHE RODE KRUIS/CROIX ROUGE DE BELGIQUE, (BEL) 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

1,488,393.14 

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU 

DEUTSCHES ROTES KREUZ, (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

1,482,167.00 

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK 

DANSK RODE KORS, (DNK) 

NGO 

DENMARK 

2,219,749.00 

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP 

CRUZ ROJA ESPAÑOLA, (E) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

3,405,527.40 

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN 

SUOMEN PUNAINEN RISTI (CROIX ROUGE FINLANDAISE) 

NGO 

FINLAND 

1,689,406.00 

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 

CROIX-ROUGE FRANCAISE 

NGO 

FRANCE 

7,819,773.23 

CROIX-ROUGE - NLD 

HET NEDERLANDSE RODE KRUIS (NLD) 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

2,115,417.00 

CROIX-ROUGE - NOR 

NORGES RODE KORS (NORWEGIAN RED CROSS) 

NGO 

NORWAY 

411,998.00 

DAC AVIATION INTL 

DAC Aviation International Limited 

SUP 

CANADA 

8,500 000.00 

DANCHURCHAID - DNK 

FOLKEKIRKENS NODHJAELP, (FKN) 

NGO 

DENMARK 

4,790,534.50 

DIAKONIE 

DIAKONISCHES WERK der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

1,175 000.00 

DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU) 

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

NGO 

GERMANY 

450 000.00 

DRC 

ECHO 

EMDH 

FAO 

DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP 

NGO 

DENMARK 

8,894,498.00 

European Community Humanitarian Office 

EC 

32,893,029.01 

ENFANTS DU MONDE - DROITS DE L'HOMME 

NGO 

FRANCE 

236,691.00 

UNITED NATIONS - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

22,169,249.00 

FSD__573 

Fondation Suisse de Déminage (FSD) 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

368,247.00 

GCIDS 

GREEK COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY, (GRC) 

NGO 

GREECE 

400 000.00 

GERMAN AGRO ACTION 

DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE e.V. 

NGO 

GERMANY 

8,757,626.00 

GLOBAL NETWORK 

Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

135 000.00 

0.18% 

0.18% 

0.27% 

0.41% 

0.20% 

0.94% 

0.25% 

0.05% 

1.02% 

0.57% 

0.14% 

0.05% 

1.07% 

3.94% 

0.03% 

2.66% 

0.04% 

0.05% 

1.05% 

0.02% 

EN 

120 

EN 

 
  
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

GOAL 

GVC 

GOAL, (IRL) 

NGO 

IRELAND 

5,577,704.00 

GRUPPO DI VOLONTARIATO CIVILE (ITA) 

NGO 

ITALY 

1,650 000.00 

HALO TRUST 

THE HALO TRUST (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

500 000.00 

HANDICAP (BEL) 

HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL (BEL) 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

555,500.00 

HANDICAP (FR) 

HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

4,268,168.00 

HAP 

Humanitarian Accountability Partnership 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

100 000.00 

HEALTH UNLIMITED 

Health Limited (Trading as 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

217,050.00 

HELP 

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

NGO 

GERMANY 

5,967,594.01 

HELPAGE 
INTERNATIONAL - UK 

HELPAGE INTERNATIONAL (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

150 000.00 

HILFSWERK AUSTRIA 

HILFSWERK AUSTRIA 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

HOPE´87 

HOPE''87 - HUNDREDS OF ORIGINAL PROJECTS FOR EMPLOYMENT 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

150 000.00 

399,663.00 

ICCO 

ICMC 

Interkerkelijke Organisatie voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

5,500 000.00 

THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION (CHE) 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

1,060,292.00 

ICRC-CICR 

COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE (CICR) 

IFRC-FICR 

IMC UK 

INITIATIVE 
DEVELOPPEMENT 

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES SOCIETES DE LA CROIX-ROUGE ET DU 
CROISSANT ROUGE 

International Medical Corps UK 

INITIATIVE DEVELOPPEMENT 

IO 

IO 

SWITZERLAND 

82,155,065.00 

SWITZERLAND 

13,599,300.00 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

3,286,408.00 

NGO 

FRANCE 

330,915.00 

INTERMON 

INTERMON OXFAM, (E) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

2,930,327.00 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (INT) 

IO 

SWITZERLAND 

14,240,825.63 

International Rescue Committee UK 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

8,704,572.00 

0.67% 

0.20% 

0.06% 

0.07% 

0.51% 

0.01% 

0.03% 

0.71% 

0.02% 

0.02% 

0.05% 

0.66% 

0.13% 

9.84% 

1.63% 

0.39% 

0.04% 

0.35% 

1.71% 

1.04% 

IOM 

IRC - UK 

EN 

121 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

IRD 

Islamic Relief Humanitäre Organisation in Deutschland e.V. 

NGO 

GERMANY 

400 000.00 

ISLAMIC RELIEF 

ISLAMIC RELIEF WORLDWIDE 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

3,378,300.00 

MADERA-FR 

MISSION D'AIDE AU DEVELOPPEMENT DES ECONOMIES RURALES  

NGO 

FRANCE 

1,782,273.00 

MAF 

Mission Aviation Fellowship International 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

700,480.00 

MALTESER HILFSDIENST 

MALTESER HILFSDIENST e.V., (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

4,862,800.00 

MAP 

MAPACT 

MDM - ESP 

MDM - FRA 

MEDICAL AID FOR PALESTINIANS (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

250 000.00 

MapAction 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

21,436.00 

MEDICOS DEL MUNDO ESPAÑA 

NGO 

SPAIN 

249,978.45 

MEDECINS DU MONDE 

NGO 

FRANCE 

6,775,855.00 

MDM - GRC 

MEDECINS DU MONDE, (GRC) 

NGO 

GREECE 

640 000.00 

MEDAIR CH 

Medair 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

4,327,496.46 

MERCY CORPS 
SCOTLAND 

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

6,399,440.00 

MERLIN 

MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

12,759,320.00 

MISSION OST - DNK 

MISSION OST 

NGO 

DENMARK 

MOVIMIENTO POR LA PAZ, EL DESARME Y LA LIBERTAD, (E) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES BELGIQUE/ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN 
BELGIE(BEL) 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

5,900 000.00 

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES - SUISSE (CH) 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

4,631,800.00 

MEDICOS SIN FRONTERAS, (E) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

2,810,562.00 

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES (F) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

3,465,108.00 

ARTSEN ZONDER GRENZEN (NLD) 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

5,712 000.00 

676,649.00 

707 000.00 

0.05% 

0.40% 

0.21% 

0.08% 

0.58% 

0.03% 

0.00% 

0.03% 

0.81% 

0.08% 

0.52% 

0.77% 

1.53% 

0.08% 

0.08% 

0.71% 

0.55% 

0.34% 

0.42% 

0.68% 

MPDL 

MSF - BEL 

MSF - CHE 

MSF - ESP 

MSF - FRA 

MSF - NLD 

EN 

122 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

MUSLIMAID 

Muslim Aid 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1,550 000.00 

NOHA 

NETWORK ON HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE 

EDU 

SPAIN 

500 000.00 

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE 
COUNCIL 

OCHA 

OIKOS 

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NOR) 

NGO 

NORWAY 

9,387,108.00 

UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

12,726,460.00 

OIKOS - COOPERAÇÃO E DESENVOLVIMENTO 

NGO 

PORTUGAL 

300 000.00 

OXFAM - BEL 

OXFAM-Solidarite(it), (BEL) 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

2,710 000.00 

OXFAM - UK 

OXFAM (GB) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

27,781,746.00 

PA_05 

PAHO 

PRACTICAL ACTION 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

710,889.20 

UNITED NATIONS - PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

1,599,719.00 

PEOPLE IN NEED 

Clovek v tísni, o.p.s. 

NGO 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

1,094,488.00 

PIPA 

People in Peril Association 

PLAN GERMANY 

Plan International Deutschland e.V. 

NGO 

SLOVAKIA 

NGO 

GERMANY 

45 000.00 

300 000.00 

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK 

PLAN INTERNATIONAL (UK) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1,622,207.00 

PMU INTERLIFE 

PMU INTERLIFE/PINGST FFS 

NGO 

SWEDEN 

1,190 000.00 

PREMIERE URGENCE 

PREMIERE URGENCE, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

5,877,058.00 

PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-
FERRAND 

PTM 

REDR 

RI-UK 

PHARMACIENS SANS FRONTIERES COMITE INTERNATIONAL 

NGO 

FRANCE 

406,883.00 

FUNDACIÓN MUNDUBAT, (E) 

NGO 

SPAIN 

2,050 000.00 

RedR - Engineers for Disaster Relief 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

129,724.00 

Relief International-UK 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

897,956.00 

SAVE THE CHILDREN - 
NLD 

SAVE THE CHILDREN (NLD) 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

2,129,063.43 

0.19% 

0.06% 

1.12% 

1.52% 

0.04% 

0.32% 

3.33% 

0.09% 

0.19% 

0.13% 

0.01% 

0.04% 

0.19% 

0.14% 

0.70% 

0.05% 

0.25% 

0.02% 

0.11% 

0.26% 

EN 

123 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 

THE SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

18,336,176.00 

SCD-RB 

SI 

SIF-FR 

Red Barnet 

SOLIDARIDAD INTERNACIONAL, (E) 

SECOURS ISLAMIQUE FRANCE 

NGO 

DENMARK 

NGO 

SPAIN 

NGO 

FRANCE 

500 000.00 

550 000.00 

280,438.00 

SOLIDARITES 

SOLIDARITES, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

6,679,731.00 

SOS KINDERDORF INT. 

SOS-KINDERDORF INTERNATIONAL (AUT) 

STCH 

Fundación Save The Children 

NGO 

AUSTRIA 

NGO 

SPAIN 

963,125.00 

610 000.00 

TEARFUND - UK 

TEARFUND (GBR) 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

2,914,681.00 

TERRE DES HOMMES - 
CHE 
TERRE DES HOMMES 
(TDH) - ITA 

TERRE DES HOMMES-CHE 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

3,550,781.00 

FONDAZIONE TERRE DES HOMMES ITALIA ONLUS 

NGO 

ITALY 

832,408.00 

TRIANGLE 

TRIANGLE Génération Humanitaire, (FR) 

NGO 

FRANCE 

2,875 000.00 

TSF, FRANCE 

TELECOMS SANS FRONTIERES 

UCODEP__298 

Unity and Cooperation for Development of Peoples 

NGO 

FRANCE 

NGO 

ITALY 

265 000.00 

700 000.00 

UNDP-PNUD 

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

7,097,251.13 

UNESCO 

UNESCO 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

499,891.00 

UNFPA 

UNHCR 

UNICEF 

UNRWA 

UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

802,862.60 

UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES - BELGIUM 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

53,544 000.00 

UNICEF 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

39,564,412.00 

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

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

16,330 000.00 

VOICE ASBL 

VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS IN COOPERATION IN EMERGENCIES 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

135 000.00 

2.20% 

0.06% 

0.07% 

0.03% 

0.80% 

0.12% 

0.07% 

0.35% 

0.43% 

0.10% 

0.34% 

0.03% 

0.08% 

0.85% 

0.06% 

0.10% 

6.41% 

4.74% 

1.96% 

0.02% 

EN 

124 

EN 

 
  
Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's nationality 

Amount Contracts 

% on the total 
of operations 

VSF - BE 

VSF G 

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières- Belgique - Dierenartsen Zonder Grenzen - Belgie um 

NGO 

BELGIUM 

Tierärzte ohne Grenzen e.V. 

NGO 

GERMANY 

963,853.00 

2,144,690.00 

VSF-SUISSE 

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Suisse 

NGO 

SWITZERLAND 

530 000.00 

0.12% 

0.26% 

0.06% 

WFP-PAM 

WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

146,373,762.00 

17.53% 

WHO 

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION - ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL 

10,960,242.00 

WORLD VISION DEU 

WORLD VISION, (DEU) 

NGO 

GERMANY 

4,342,946.00 

WORLD VISION - UK 

WORLD VISION - UK 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

1 000 000.00 

ZOA 

ZOA-Vluchtelingenzorg 

NGO 

NETHERLANDS 

655 000.00 

1.31% 

0.52% 

0.12% 

0.08% 

TOTAL: 834,836,743 100.00% 

EN 

125 

EN 

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

Partner's short name 

Partner's long name 

WFP-PAM 

ICRC-CICR 

UNHCR 

UNICEF 

OXFAM - UK 

FAO 

WORLD FOOD PROGRAM 

COMITE INTERNATIONAL DE LA CROIX-ROUGE (CICR) 

UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES - BELGIUM 

UNICEF 

OXFAM (GB) 

UNITED NATIONS - FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION 

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK 

THE SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND (GBR) 

ACF - FRA 

UNRWA 

IOM 

IFRC-FICR 

ACH- ESP 

MERLIN 

OCHA 

WHO 

ACTED 

ACTION CONTRE LA FAIM, (FR) 

UN RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN NEAR EAST 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION (INT) 
FEDERATION INTERNAT. DES SOCIETES DE LA CROIX-ROUGE ET DU CROISSANT 
ROUGE
ACCION CONTRA EL HAMBRE, (ESP) 

MEDICAL EMERGENCY RELIEF INTERNATIONAL (GBR) 

UNITED NATIONS, OFFICE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS 

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION - ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE 

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

NORWEGIAN REF. COUNCIL  NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NOR) 

DRC 

DANSK FLYGTNINGEHJAELP 

GERMAN AGRO ACTION 

DEUTSCHE WELTHUNGERHILFE e.V. 

IRC - UK 

International Rescue Committee UK 

DAC AVIATION INTL 

CARE - AUT 

COOPI 

DAC Aviation International Limited 
CARE ÖSTERREICH-VEREIN FÜR ENTWICKLUNGSZUSAMMENARBEIT UND 
HUMANIT HILFE
COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE (ITA) 

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA 

CROIX-ROUGE FRANCAISE 

UNDP-PNUD 

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 

UN 

IO 

UN 

UN 

UN 

NGO 

NGO 

UN 

IO 

IO 

NGO 

NGO 

UN 

UN 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

SUP 

NGO 

NGO 

NGO 

UN 

Partner's 
category 

Partner's 
nationality 

Amount 
Contracts 

% total of 
operations 

Cumul % 

INTERNATIONAL 

146,373,762.00 

17.52% 

SWITZERLAND 

82,155,065.00 

INTERNATIONAL 

53,544 000.00 

INTERNATIONAL 

39,564,412.00 

NGO 

UNITED KINGDOM 

27,781,746.00 

9.84% 

6.41% 

4.74% 

3.33% 

2.65% 

2.20% 

2.19% 

1.95% 

1.70% 

1.63% 

1.58% 

1.53% 

1.52% 

1.31% 

1.13% 

1.12% 

1.06% 

1.05% 

1.04% 

1.02% 

0.99% 

0.98% 

0.94% 

17.52% 

27.36% 

33.77% 

38.50% 

41.83% 

44.48% 

46.68% 

48.87% 

50.82% 

52.53% 

54.16% 

55.74% 

57.27% 

58.79% 

60.10% 

61.23% 

62.36% 

63.42% 

64.47% 

65.51% 

66.53% 

67.52% 

68.50% 

69.44% 

INTERNATIONAL 

22,169,249.00 

UNITED KINGDOM 

18,336,176.00 

FRANCE 

18,285,941.00 

INTERNATIONAL 

16,330 000.00 

SWITZERLAND 

SWITZERLAND 

SPAIN 

14,240,825.63 

13,599,300.00 

13,226,321.00 

UNITED KINGDOM 

12,759,320.00 

INTERNATIONAL 

12,726,460.00 

INTERNATIONAL 

10,960,242.00 

FRANCE 

NORWAY 

DENMARK 

GERMANY 

9,456,190.00 

9,387,108.00 

8,894,498.00 

8,757,626.00 

UNITED KINGDOM 

8,704,572.00 

CANADA 

AUSTRIA 

ITALY 

FRANCE 

INTERNATIONAL 

8,500 000.00 

8,271,561.16 

8,202,705.00 

7,819,773.23 

TOTAL TOP 25 PARTNERS:

7,097,251.13 

0.85% 
70.29% 
587,144,104  70.29% 

EN 

126 

EN 

 
  
7.3.  Contracts by category and nationality of partners 

NGOs 

Nationality of partner 

TOTAL 

% ALL 

% NGOs 

UNITED KINGDOM 

102,538,391 

12.28% 

27.62% 

FRANCE 

GERMANY 

SPAIN 

NETHERLANDS 

DENMARK 

ITALY 

SWITZERLAND 

BELGIUM 

AUSTRIA 

IRELAND 

NORWAY 

FINLAND 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

SWEDEN 

GREECE 

PORTUGAL 

SLOVAKIA 

77,490,342 

9.28% 

20.87% 

40,441,261 

4.84% 

10.89% 

28,005,138 

3.35% 

7.54% 

23,699,325 

2.84% 

6.38% 

17,581,431 

2.11% 

4.74% 

17,230,096 

2.06% 

4.64% 

14,568,616 

1.75% 

3.92% 

12,751,794 

1.53% 

3.43% 

10,952,303 

1.31% 

2.95% 

10,594,366 

1.27% 

2.85% 

9,799,106 

1.17% 

2.64% 

1,689,406 

0.20% 

0.46% 

1,224,488 

0.15% 

0.33% 

1,190 000 

0.14% 

0.32% 

1,040 000 

0.12% 

0.28% 

439,612 

0.05% 

0.12% 

45 000 

0.01% 

0.01% 

SUBTOTAL NGOs 

371,280,675 

44.47% 

100.00% 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 

IOs 

UNITED NATIONS 

UN 

INTERNATIONAL COMPANY 

CANADA 

UNIVERSITIES 

NOHA 

ECHO - TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

EC - ECHO 

GRAND TOTAL 

109,995,191 

13.18% 

311,667,849 

37.33% 

8,500 000 

1.02% 

500 000 

0.06% 

32,893,029 

3.94% 

834,836,743 100.00% 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
7.4.  List  of  contracts  for  humanitarian  aid  operations  in  2009  –  by  beneficiary  country  and 
implementing partners 

AFGHANISTAN

35,270,296

CONCERN UNIVERSAL

ACF - FRA

ACTED

ACTIONAID

AGA KHAN

CARITAS - DEU

DRC

EMDH

1,739,814

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

3,430,557

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

1,800,175

IFRC-FICR

351,540

ISLAMIC RELIEF

632,332

MSF - NLD

1,503,040

MUSLIMAID

236,691

OXFAM - UK

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

860,000

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK

ICRC-CICR

IFRC-FICR

IRC - UK

MADERA-FR

MAF

MEDAIR CH

MISSION OST - DNK

6,100,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

406,300

SOLIDARITES

863,154

WFP-PAM

1,782,273

BELIZE

700,480

CROIX-ROUGE - NOR

1,413,496

BHUTAN

450,000

UNDP-PNUD

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

1,508,000

BOLIVIA

OCHA

PEOPLE IN NEED

RI-UK

SOLIDARITES

UNHCR

ALGERIA

MDM - GRC

MPDL

OXFAM - BEL

PTM

TRIANGLE

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

WHO

ARGENTINA

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN

UNDP-PNUD

AZERBAIJAN

DRC

UNHCR

BANGLADESH

ACF - FRA

ACTIONAID

CARE - UK

CHRISTIAN AID - UK

2,000,000

ACH- ESP

1,094,488

COOPI

347,956

FAO

1,600,000

OXFAM - UK

6,450,000

STCH

9,065,000

BURKINA FASO

640,000

ACF - FRA

157,000

CROIX-ROUGE - BEL

1,450,000

FAO

1,750,000

HELP

900,000

IFRC-FICR

100,000

INTERMON

3,825,000

MSF - FRA

243,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

623,000

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE

360,000

UNICEF

263,000

WFP-PAM

800,000

BURUNDI

300,000

AVSI

500,000

CARITAS - BEL

15,030,200

CARITAS - DEU

780,000

CORDAID

1,418,411

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU

500,000

FAO

300,000

GVC

359,689

950,000

1,000,000

373,000

1,882,000

600,000

1,550,000

1,457,100

310,000

1,150,000

400,000

2,000,000

411,998

411,998

486,355

486,355

1,895,000

370,000

595,000

150,000

420,000

360,000

9,287,021

1,002,380

988,565

399,875

2,744,908

570,000

260,000

700,000

950,000

974,531

327,000

369,762

12,900,000

250,000

300,000

1,400,000

200,000

200,000

1,500,000

750,000  

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
ICRC-CICR

IMC UK

SOLIDARITES

UNHCR

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

CAMBODIA

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

OXFAM - UK

CAPE VERDE

AMI - PRT

WHO

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

ACF - FRA

ICRC-CICR

MSF - FRA

MSF - NLD

OCHA

PREMIERE URGENCE

TRIANGLE

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

CHAD

ACF - FRA

ACTED

ASF-BELGIUM

CARE - FR

COOPI

FAO

HELP

ICRC-CICR

IMC UK

INTERMON

IRC - UK

MSF - FRA

OCHA

OXFAM - UK

PREMIERE URGENCE

SOLIDARITES

UNFPA

UNHCR

WFP-PAM

WHO

800,000

COLOMBIA

250,000

ACH- ESP

650,000

CISP

3,900,000

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP

700,000

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

2,000,000

CROIX-ROUGE - NLD

580,000

DIAKONIE

80,000

FAO

500,000

HELPAGE INTERNATIONAL - UK

283,862

HILFSWERK AUSTRIA

83,862

ICRC-CICR

200,000

MDM - FRA

4,724,308

MPDL

370,335

OCHA

500,000

OXFAM - UK

350,000

PAHO

400,000

PLAN GERMANY

200,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

600,000

SI

275,000

UNHCR

1,528,973

WFP-PAM

11,415,353

700,000

211,416

650,537

670,000

353,400

800,000

200,000

150,000

150,000

3,500,000

300,000

250,000

250,000

350,000

200,000

300,000

230,000

550,000

900,000

700,000

500,000

CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF

53,496,701

34,257,145

ACH- ESP

2,813,000

ACTED

1,252,260

AMI - FRA

699,048

AVSI

791,243

CARITAS - FRA

1,262,520

DAC AVIATION INTL

737,000

DIAKONIE

625,736

FAO

3,000,000

HANDICAP (BEL)

600,000

ICRC-CICR

1,387,316

IRC - UK

1,211,908

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

335,108

MEDAIR CH

500,000

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

612,178

MERLIN

1,000,000

MSF - BEL

1,025,600

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

504,228

OCHA

5,700,000

OXFAM - BEL

9,800,000

OXFAM - UK

400,000

PMU INTERLIFE

1,446,158

1,500,000

1,700,000

404,916

700,000

8,500,000

375,000

3,772,636

255,500

4,500,000

626,583

2,199,000

604,000

842,276

1,000,000

3,350,000

298,563

1,250,000

460,000

2,555,011

450,000  

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
PREMIERE URGENCE

1,807,058

OXFAM - UK

UNHCR

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

COTE D'IVOIRE

UNICEF

CUBA

ACSUR - MADRID

HANDICAP (BEL)

MPDL

OIKOS

OXFAM - BEL

PTM

STCH

UNDP-PNUD

2,000,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

3,900,000

WFP-PAM

9,000,000

WORLD VISION - UK

240,000

FIJI

240,000

UNICEF

2,540,000

GEORGIA

350,000

CARE - AUT

300,000

DRC

300,000

HALO TRUST

300,000

ICRC-CICR

450,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD

300,000

WFP-PAM

250,000

GUATEMALA

290,000

IFRC-FICR

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

1,795,932

PAHO

ACP

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP

INTERMON

365,422

GUINEA

454,990

ACH- ESP

413,011

UNICEF

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK

562,509

GUINEA-BISSAU

ECUADOR

2,110,000

MDM - ESP

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)

260,000

UNICEF

CRIC

INTERMON

UNDP-PNUD

UNHCR

EL SALVADOR

CARE - FR

IFRC-FICR

IOM

WFP-PAM

ERITREA

ICRC-CICR

ETHIOPIA

ACF - FRA

CARITAS - DEU

CORDAID

330,000

HAITI

320,000

ACF - FRA

400,000

ACTED

800,000

AMI - FRA

800,000

AVSI

200,000

CESVI

200,000

CHRISTIAN AID - UK

150,000

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU

250,000

FAO

1,000,000

INITIATIVE DEVELOPPEMENT

1,000,000

MDM - FRA

29,483,850

MSF - NLD

1,500,000

OXFAM - UK

450,000

PAHO

1,159,543

SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

450,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

GOAL

IFRC-FICR

IRC - UK

MDM - FRA

MERLIN

MSF - BEL

1,500,000

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE

2,000,000

WFP-PAM

900,000

INDIA

601,355

ACTIONAID

1,000,000

ADRA - DEU

1,000,000

AGA KHAN

2,074,307

1,848,645

14,000,000

1,000,000

250,000

250,000

4,500,000

505,000

250,000

500,000

1,000,000

245,000

2,000,000

270,000

120,000

150,000

475,000

300,000

175,000

494,978

249,978

245,000

13,357,920

1,680,782

1,502,259

530,000

261,497

434,271

779,707

184,167

983,750

330,915

825,000

750,000

802,424

49,719

424,063

499,116

926,250

2,394,000

7,128,336

991,719

705,460

395,062  

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
CARE - UK

CARITAS - DEU

CHRISTIAN AID - UK

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

HANDICAP  (FR)

ICRC-CICR

66,228

OXFAM - UK

263,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

211,483

UNICEF

197,984

VSF - BE

380,000

VSF G

205,700

VSF-SUISSE

936,500

WFP-PAM

1,000,000

LAOS

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

275,200

CARE - AUT

MSF - BEL

MSF - NLD

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

UNICEF

INDONESIA

ASB - DEU

250,000

HEALTH UNLIMITED

600,000

WFP-PAM

325,000

LEBANON

325,000

ACH- ESP

4,499,956

CARITAS - AUT

261,090

CARITAS - FRA

CROIX-ROUGE - NLD

864,405

CROIX-ROUGE - NLD

IOM

MAPACT

1,783,461

DRC

13,270

HANDICAP  (FR)

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

280,160

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

OCHA

OXFAM - UK

IRAN

UNHCR

IRAQ

ICRC-CICR

OCHA

UNHCR

UNICEF

JORDAN

CARE - AUT

167,570

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

1,130,000

PREMIERE URGENCE

1,000,000

UNRWA

1,000,000

LIBERIA

15,250,000

ACF - FRA

8,000,000

ICRC-CICR

600,000

IRC - UK

5,500,000

MDM - FRA

1,150,000

MERLIN

1,452,000

OXFAM - UK

985,000

PMU INTERLIFE

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

467,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

KENYA

ACH- ESP

CARE - DEU

CARE - UK

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

COOPI

CORDAID

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

FAO

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

ISLAMIC RELIEF

MSF - CHE

28,659,766

UNICEF

1,200,000

WFP-PAM

1,900,000

WHO

675,000

MADAGASCAR

500,000

CARE - FR

948,000

FAO

800,000

SIF-FR

695,057

UNICEF

800,000

WFP-PAM

2,625,000

MALI

600,000

ACH- ESP

1,000,000

CHRISTIAN AID - UK

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

1,100,000

CROIX-ROUGE - BEL

916,709

1,700,000

1,500,000

290,000

380,000

530,000

10,500,000

3,576,515

859,465

217,050

2,500,000

8,200,000

284,674

500,000

700,000

897,612

500,000

444,869

660,000

1,512,845

1,200,000

1,500,000

12,000,000

890,000

750,000

822,531

700,000

3,000,006

1,700,000

740,000

1,070,000

1,357,239

100,000

870,224

2,618,009

598,391

914,480

280,438

224,700

600,000

3,118,863

350,000

500,000

499,828  

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
MSF - BEL

OXFAM - UK

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

UNICEF

MAURITANIA

ACH- ESP

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

MOZAMBIQUE

INTERMON

OXFAM - UK

MYANMAR (BURMA)

ACF - FRA

ADRA - DEU

AMI - FRA

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

ICRC-CICR

IOM

IRC - UK

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

MDM - FRA

300,000

PA_05

300,000

UNFPA

669,035

UNICEF

500,000

WFP-PAM

2,367,000

NICARAGUA

950,000

ACH- ESP

750,000

ADRA - DEU

667,000

NIGER

462,766

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

210,000

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

252,766

MDM - FRA

26,963,008

MSF - BEL

4,945,510

MSF - CHE

943,800

MSF - ESP

801,765

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

497,000

UNICEF

810,000

NIGERIA

850,000

MSF - ESP

4,625,180

MSF - FRA

880,419

MSF - NLD

488,600

PAKISTAN

421,000

ACTED

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

1,213,477

ACTIONAID

MSF - CHE

MSF - NLD

OXFAM - UK

300,000

AGA KHAN

750,000

CARE - UK

654,888

CARITAS - DEU

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

1,382,470

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

SOLIDARITES

1,082,491

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA

432,408

FSD__573

UNDP-PNUD

UNHCR

WFP-PAM

NEPAL

ACTIONAID

ADRA - DEU

CARE - AUT

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK

HANDICAP  (FR)

ICRC-CICR

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

MERLIN

MISSION OST - DNK

OXFAM - UK

1,800,000

HANDICAP  (FR)

2,584,000

HOPE´87

1,500,000

ICMC

7,623,719

ICRC-CICR

320,531

IRC - UK

413,855

MDM - FRA

307,096

MERLIN

500,000

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

420,110

OCHA

513,000

OXFAM - UK

500,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

347,397

UNHCR

645,000

UNICEF

226,649

WFP-PAM

968,556

WHO

360,890

298,635

302,000

1,500,000

306,701

108,000

198,701

9,012,933

599,486

1,253,446

400,000

1,000,000

2,490,000

539,000

1,035,001

1,696,000

2,730,000

768,000

1,230,000

732,000

46,635,527

504,941

400,758

510,000

382,777

565,467

309,173

963,731

368,247

693,799

399,663

162,292

12,000,000

400,000

500,000

1,299,889

787,700

500,000

2,437,090

700,000

9,750,000

2,000,000

9,000,000

2,000,000  

EN 

132 

   EN 

 
PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, OCCUPIED

61,000,000

INTERMON

ACH- ESP

ACP

ACTED

CARE - AUT

CARE - DEU

CISP

COOPI

CRIC

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK

DIE JOHANNITER, (DEU)

GCIDS

GVC

HANDICAP  (FR)

ICRC-CICR

IMC UK

IRD

MAP

MDM - FRA

3,625,000

PERU

750,000

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)

1,050,000

COOPI

5,615,000

FAO

280,000

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

750,000

PA_05

1,700,000

UNDP-PNUD

700,000

PHILIPPINES

800,000

ACH- ESP

450,000

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)

400,000

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP

900,000

HANDICAP  (FR)

500,000

ICRC-CICR

4,500,000

IFRC-FICR

625,350

IOM

400,000

MAPACT

250,000

MSF - CHE

1,320,000

OCHA

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

2,400,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

MERLIN

800,000

TSF, FRANCE

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

700,000

WFP-PAM

OCHA

OXFAM - BEL

OXFAM - UK

PREMIERE URGENCE

RI-UK

SAVE THE CHILDREN - NLD

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

SCD-RB

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE

1,250,000

WHO

350,000

RUSSIA

3,700,000

ACF - FRA

1,270,000

DRC

200,000

FAO

1,460,000

HELP

350,000

ICRC-CICR

500,000

IMC UK

400,000

IRC - UK

TERRE DES HOMMES (TDH) - ITA

400,000

UNDP-PNUD

UCODEP__298

700,000

UNHCR

UNICEF

UNRWA

WFP-PAM

WHO

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

UNICEF

WHO

PARAGUAY

COOPI

1,030,000

SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

14,330,000

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN

6,300,000

SOMALIA

244,650

ACF - FRA

934,310

ADRA - DEU

450,000

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)

235,000

CESVI

249,310

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

1,018,706

COOPI

150,000

COSV - MILAN

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN

528,706

DRC

340,000

4,310,757

350,000

691,354

391,508

150,000

349,999

2,377,896

11,399,655

249,689

400,000

300,000

630,000

2,000,000

500,000

960,000

8,166

391,800

100,000

320,000

190,000

5,150,000

200,000

5,210,000

180,000

750,000

700,000

450,000

800,000

500,000

700,000

130,000

1,000,000

420,000

420,000

41,465,574

1,050,000

400,000

1,000,000

519,812

900,000

900,000

506,129

4,691,458  

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
FAO

ICRC-CICR

IRC - UK

ISLAMIC RELIEF

3,000,000

HANDICAP  (FR)

14,605,065

ICRC-CICR

700,000

IFRC-FICR

499,993

IMC UK

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

3,400,000

IOM

OCHA

OXFAM - UK

800,000

ISLAMIC RELIEF

500,000

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

1,099,992

MDM - FRA

SOLIDARITES

SOS KINDERDORF INT.

UNHCR

UNICEF

VSF G

SRI LANKA

ACTED

CARE - DEU

DRC

780,000

MEDAIR CH

963,125

MERLIN

2,150,000

MSF - CHE

2,000,000

MSF - NLD

1,000,000

OCHA

10,450,000

OXFAM - UK

216,173

PSF - FRA/CLERMONT-FERRAND

298,283

RI-UK

500,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

285,000

SOLIDARITES

ICRC-CICR

MSF - FRA

MSF - NLD

OXFAM - UK

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

UNHCR

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

ZOA

SUDAN

ACH- ESP

ADRA - DK

CAFOD

CAM

CARE - UK

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

COOPI

CORDAID

COSV - MILAN

CROIX-ROUGE - AUT

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU

DANCHURCHAID - DNK

DRC

FAO

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

GOAL

3,000,000

TEARFUND - UK

850,000

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE

450,000

TRIANGLE

745,544

UNDP-PNUD

200,000

UNHCR

900,000

UNICEF

350,000

VSF G

2,000,000

WFP-PAM

655,000

WHO

119,491,729

WORLD VISION DEU

2,342,800

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

500,000

FAO

300,000

ICMC

814,881

TERRE DES HOMMES - CHE

530,000

UNRWA

630,019

WFP-PAM

1,955,831

TAJIKISTAN

2,475,126

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

535,071

UNICEF

567,000

TANZANIA

548,000

CROIX-ROUGE - ESP

1,301,747

UNHCR

400,000

WFP-PAM

1,000,000

THAILAND

1,083,000

AMI - FRA

2,097,993

ICCO

550,000

10,000,000

300,000

600,000

5,325,699

396,307

400,000

720,000

1,610,000

4,499,116

450,000

1,430,000

2,738,890

1,400,000

406,883

350,000

1,380,066

500,000

2,914,681

500,000

1,700,000

1,350,000

2,600,000

6,878,500

764,690

48,100,000

2,253,058

2,292,372

4,148,000

1,000,000

898,000

750,000

500,000

1,000,000

300,000

150,000

150,000

7,600,000

2,000,000

4,600,000

1,000,000

8,750,000

1,445,000

5,500,000  

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
IRC - UK

550,000

CROIX-ROUGE - DNK

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

1,200,000

CROIX-ROUGE - FIN

SOLIDARITES

UGANDA

ACH- ESP

AVSI

55,000

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

21,158,979

GERMAN AGRO ACTION

1,300,000

GOAL

941,871

HELP

CONCERN WORLDWIDE

350,000

ICRC-CICR

FAO

GOAL

ICRC-CICR

IRC - UK

MEDAIR CH

MSF - ESP

OCHA

OXFAM - UK

UNHCR

UNICEF

VSF - BE

WFP-PAM

2,600,000

IMC UK

700,000

IOM

1,000,000

IRC - UK

700,000

MDM - FRA

700,000

MERCY CORPS SCOTLAND

800,000

MERLIN

450,000

MSF - ESP

2,418,255

OXFAM - UK

1,400,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

1,200,000

SOLIDARITES

673,853

UNICEF

4,475,000

WORLD VISION DEU

WORLD VISION DEU

1,450,000

UNSPECIFIED/NEUTRAL ZONE

VENEZUELA

CARITAS - FRA

UNHCR

VIETNAM

ACTIONAID

CROIX-ROUGE - DEU

CROIX-ROUGE - FRA

MALTESER HILFSDIENST

OXFAM - UK

PLAN INTERNATIONAL UK

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

YEMEN

ICRC-CICR

OCHA

UNHCR

UNICEF

ZAMBIA

IOM

MSF - ESP

UNHCR

ZIMBABWE

ACF - FRA

CARE - DEU

CORDAID

640,000

IFRC-FICR

340,000

OXFAM - UK

300,000

PAHO

5,793,109

UNESCO

299,926

UNICEF

550,000

GRANT FACILITY

2,265,000

AMI - PRT

300,000

BIOFORCE

578,485

CARE NEDERLAND (FORMER DRA)

749,698

CARITAS - CZE

1,050,000

CROIX-ROUGE - AUT

3,000,000

GLOBAL NETWORK

1,000,000

HAP

150,000

IFRC-FICR

1,250,000

MERLIN

600,000

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL

1,720,000

OXFAM - UK

1,000,000

PIPA

460,000

REDR

260,000

SAVE THE CHILDREN - UK

26,979,855

TSF, FRANCE

1,334,120

VOICE ASBL

1,846,450

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

878,176

ECHO FIELD

999,639

380,700

1,467,327

2,588,926

1,279,711

2,146,950

1,750,000

711,058

396,486

349,977

988,500

656,130

395,441

243,562

499,637

1,579,851

586,640

5,300,000

600,574

5,209,891

2,450,000

560,000

1,200,000

499,891

500,000

1,794,130

55,750

64,038

65,000

130,000

100,954

135,000

100,000

180,000

119,868

80,000

248,796

45,000

129,724

130,000

75,000

135,000

32,893,029

32,893,029  

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
CAPACITY BUILDING

25,200,000

DREF DECISION

FAO

IFRC-FICR

OCHA

UNICEF

WFP-PAM

WHO

4,020,000

IFRC-FICR

4,500,000

NOHA Network

1,770,000

NOHA Program

4,800,000

5,810,000

TOTAL CONTRACTS 2009

834,836,743

4,300,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

500,000

500,000

EN 

136 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

GLOSSARY 

Action contre la Faim 
African, Caribbean and Pacific States 
Association of South-east Asian Nations 
Australian government's overseas aid programme 
Acute watery diarrhoea 
Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration 
Committee for the Co-ordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand 
Central Emergency Response Fund 
Common Humanitarian Fund 
Canadian International Development Agency 
Council Working Group on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid 
UK Department for International Development 
Disaster Preparedness ECHO 
Disaster risk reduction 
Emergency Aid Reserve 
European Development Fund 
European Union 
Early warning systems 
The EC/UN Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement 
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 
Forgotten crises assessment 
Framework Partnership Agreement (between the Commission and its operating partners)
Financial Tracking System (OCHA) 
Good Humanitarian Donorship 
Global needs assessment 
Humanitarian Response Fund 
Internal Audit Capability 
Internal Audit Service 
Inter-Agency Standing Committee 
international committee of the red cross 
Internally displaced people 
International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies 
International Humanitarian Lam 
International non-governmental organisation 
International organisation 
Latin America and the Caribbean 
Linking relief, rehabilitation and development 
Multi cluster integrated survey 
Monitoring and Information Centre 

ACF 
ACP 
ASEAN 
AUSAID 
AWD 
BPRM 
CCSDPT 
CERF 
CHF 
CIDA 
COHAFA 
DFID 
DIPECHO 
DRR 
EAR 
EDF 
EU 
EWS 
FAFA 
FAO 
FCA 
FPA 
FTS 
GHD 
GNA 
HRF 
IAC 
IAS 
IASC 
ICRC 
IDP 
IFRC 
IHL 
INGO 
IO 
LAC 
LRRD 
MCIS 
MIC 
MINUSTAH  United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti 
MSF 
NGO 
OCHA 
OECD 
OFDA 
REACH 
SD 
SPHERE 
UN 

Médecins sans Frontières 
Non-governmental organisation 
UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Aid 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  
Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance 
Global Framework for Action, Renewed Effort Ending Child Hunger and Malnutrition 
Strategic dialogue 
SPHERE project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response 
United Nations 

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
UNAMID 
UNDSS 
UNHCR 
UNICEF 
UNISDR 
UNRWA 
USAID 
WASH 
WFP 
WHO 

UN African Union Mission in Darfur 
United Nations Department of Safety and Security 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
United Nations Children's Fund 
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 
UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in near East 
US Agency for International Development 
Water/sanitation and hygiene 
UN World Food Programme 
UN World Health Organisation 

EN 

138 

   EN