Type of Review: Annual Review Project Title: Date started: Date review undertaken:

acceptablepeasΑσφάλεια

30 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 6 μήνες)

49 εμφανίσεις


1


Type of Review: Annual Review


Project Title:


Support for (mainly Somali) Refugees in Kenya


Date

started
:

March 2012


Date review undertaken:

May 2013



Instructions to help complete

this template:


Before commencing the annual review you should have to hand:




the Business Case or earlier project documentation.



the
Log frame



the detailed guidance (How to Note)
-

Reviewing and Scoring Projects



the most recent annual review (where
appropriate) and other related monitoring reports



key data from ARIES, including the risk rating



the separate project scoring calculation sheet
(
pending access to ARIES
)


You should assess and rate the individual outputs using the following rating scale

and
description
.
ARIES and the separate project scoring calculation sheet will

calculate the overall
output score taking account of the weightings
a
nd

individual outputs scores:




Descript
ion

Scale

Outputs substantially
exceed
ed

expectation

A++

Outputs moderately
exceed
ed

expectation

A+

Outputs
met

expectation

A

Outputs moderately
did
not meet

expectation

B

Outputs substantially
did
not meet

expectation

C



Introduction and Context


What support
is

the UK provid
ing
?


The UK is providing GBP

36 million over three years for refugees in the Dadaab camps in Kenya to;




Treat acutely and moderately malnourished children



Improve access to primary healthcare



Improve essential sanitation and hygiene services



Enhance protection services for refugees



H
elp ensure that the UN effectively leads
and

coordinates the humanitarian response so that
aid is well planned and targeted

and ensure
the way

in which it is delivered is effective and
there is no waste




In 2012 GBP
9 million was allocated to UNHCR;




Hal
f of which
was
earmarked for key sector priorities in nutrition, health and sanitation


2



The remainder was provided as un
-
earmarked funding
to
enable UNHCR fill important gaps
elsewhere in their appeal especially for
a
range of protection activities


GBP

2.8 million was allocated to WFP;




Half of which
was
earmarked for

the

support
of
moderately acutel
y malnourished children,
under 5

and pregnant and lactating women



The remainder
was
provided to enable WFP to develop and roll out a biometrics system to
en
able better targeting and modalities for tracking food and to pilot other approaches including
the use of a voucher system for fresh food




What are the expected results?


The expected outcome
goal of the project is:



To save lives, relieve suffering,
and maintain dignity of refugees in Kenya


Expected results at the end of 2012 included:



Treatment of 9000 acutely malnourished children



Treatment of 19,000 moderately malnourished children



Nutritional support for over 26,000 pregnant and lactating women
and children under 2 years



Blanket supplementary feeding targeting 108,000 children under the age of 5



Better access to healthcare with more than 2 outpatient consultations per person per year



Over 278,325 refugees having access to adequate sanitation



100%

refugees settled and installed with access to all essential protection and security services


Wh
at is the context in which

UK support

is provided
?


For over 20 years, Kenya has hosted a growing number of refugees in camps established in Dadaab
and
Kakuma. Combined camp populations currently exceed 550,000. The majority of the refugees are
hosted in the Dadaab camps and are mostly Somalis’ fleeing protracted insecurity and recurrent
drought in Somalia.


The Dadaab refugee complex is managed and run

by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), coordinating
with the Government of Kenya

through its Department for Refugee Affairs (DRA)
,
and
other UN bodies
including the UN World Food Programme (WFP),
and
the International Organization for Migration
(IOM). Fifteen

NGO
s are providing services within Dadaab which consists of four separate camps;
Dagahaley, Hagadera, Ifo and Kambioos. By March 2013, there were 418,535 refugees (214,920
women and 204,245 men) registered in the Dadaab camps
.




DFID’s

main implementing partners in Dadaab are UNHCR and WFP who receive both earmarked and
un
-
earmarked funding. Sectors covered by DFID funding in Dadaab include nutrition, water
,

sanitatio
n,

hygiene,

and

health and protection. Key programme activities incl
ude the treatment of severe and
moderately acute malnutrition in
under
-
fives

and nutritional support to Pregnant and Lactating Women
(PLW) and under
-
twos
;

improved access to primary health care services, improved infrastructure to
ensure safe and clean wat
er
;

adequate and secure sanitation facilities, and improved access to all
essential protection and security services.





3

Section
A
: Detailed Output Scoring


Output 1:
Ensure access to life saving services in Dadaab refugee camps

Output 1
s
core

and performance description
:

A
-
Met expectations
:

One indicator met expectations,
one moderately did not

and the last moderately
exceeded expectations. On balance we therefore judge the output to have met expectation. In reality
,

indicators 1and 3 were

the most significant in terms of spend and impact
; and although indicator 2 did
not meet expectations it moderately
fell short of the target.


Indicator

Baseline (Dec 2011)

Target (December 2012)

Achieved (
only 1
is
DFID
attributable)

Output
Description

1.
No. of
refugees
assisted with
nutrition
interventions

11,200 MAM PLW +
<5

(not disaggregated)

and
12,870 SAM

>10 (not
disaggregated)

MAM coverage 90% =
19,000 <5s.

SAM coverage 90%
=9,000 <5s



MAM

coverage
79% (January
20
13) 21,606 <5

SAM

=
11,921

PLW

supported=
13,848

M
et
expectation

2.
No. of
refugees
treated
through
primary health
care
outpatient
services


by
patient
consultations

1.17 outpatient
consultations/person/year
= 1,488

consultations per
day

>2 outpatient
consultations/person/year
= >
2,500 consultations
per day

1.5 outpatient
consultations/per
person/year =
2,179
consultations per
day

Moderately
did not meet

expectations

3. Number of
refugees
provided with
adequate
sanitation

58.45% Dadaab
refugees covered with
access to
household/s
hared latrine
= 271,135

>60% coverage
=278,125

7
5
% coverage =
312,571

Moderately
exceeded
expectations


Progress
against

expected
results
:


Nutrition

Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM)
:

UNHCR

records suggest that over 11,921 children
suffering from SAM were reached through programmes
implemented by their partners.

Thi s
number
exceeded expect at i ons but

can be at t ri but ed t o t he f act t hat overal l rat es of SAM remai ned hi gher t han
proj ect ed over a prot ract ed peri od.

Act ual cover
age rat es f or SAM are
hard t o est i mat e gi ven t he
conf l at i on of f i gures

and
the
varying SAM rates between the
camps. However,
if t
he

October

2012

nutrition survey results are used
,

programme coverage would appear to be near 90%.




Treatment of moderate acute malnutrition in

children

<5, nutritional support to all Pregnant and
Lactating Women (PLW) and children <2 years.

W
FP figures have been used to analyse results under this component of the programme as the data
included in their reports allows systematic disaggregation by programme focus and area. Figures
suggest that over the reporting period;


4



A
pproximately 7,403 chil
dren

per month

under 5 who were moderately malnourished received
support under the MAM programme. This represented a
coverage

rate of between 48%

(in
October 2012
)

and

79% (January 2013).
Recovery
rates ranged from between 81.1% (October
2012) to 92.6%
(January 2013). Defaulter rates ranged from a high of 16.5% (October 2012)

to
3.2% (January 2013).
Death rates

have been at 0% during the entire reporting period.

R
ecovery, defaulter and death rates within the MAM programme were within SPHERE standards
(r
ecovery rate >75%, Default rate <15%, Death Rate <3%)

and d
efaulter rates have shown a marked
improvement since December 2012. However
,

coverage rates remain below SPHERE standards
(>90%). In response to this
,

there has been a concerted attempt by all ag
encies to improve outreach
and early case finding and referral
.

Ther e

has been a mar ked i mpr ovement si nce

t he l ow seen i n

Oct ober 2012 wi t h cover age est i mat e
d t o have r i sen by 31% over t he per i od Oct ober 2012


Januar y
2013
. Challenges to achieving highe
r coverage continue
due to

insecurity which impacts on outreach
and follow
-
up
activities.

However, on t he basi s of t hi s pr ogr ess on MAM cover age and t he f act t hat
t arget s have been met on SAM, we have assessed t hi s t arget as met
.

Heal t h

As
of Mar ch 2013
,

UNHCR r epor t ed an

aver age of 73 consul t at i ons per cl i ni ci an per day

( agai nst a
t arget of l ess t han 50)

wi t h t he mont hl y r at es var yi ng f r om bet ween 55 i n Oct ober 2012 and 90 i n
Febr uar y i n 2013
.
Whi l st t he t arget
number s of consul t at i ons per benef i ci ar y we
re

not reached,
health
status remained stable in terms of bot
h morbidity and mortality
during the reporting period.

Sanitation

During 2012 UNHCR supported the construction of an additional 12,265 latrines in the camps with
support from DFID

directly

attrib
utable to 3,453 of these. Currently
,

the average ratio of persons per
latrine is 1:12 with coverage varying significantly across the camps (1:4 in Ifo2 W and 1:15 in Ifo 2E)
.
These figures are within SPHERE standards of 1:20 but

as it stands the indicat
or

do
es

not reflect the
appropriate emphasis that is now being placed
on increasing coverage

of family/household rather than
communal latrines


coverage of which is still relatively low (at 46.2% in late 2012)

but is increasing
slowly.

Efforts to improve sanitation coverage have also included training on Participatory Hygiene and
Sanitation Transformation (PHAST)

Challenges on reporting and monitoring of this indicator due to the strict application of Sphere
standards
has not been
usefu
l in measuring progress to
wards

increased access to and the use of
household latrines
.

Recommendations:




Nutrition
:

There should be a greater focus on
MAM and SAM
programme effectiveness indicators

in the logframe
(e.g. SPHERE standards in
coverage/defaulter/recovery rates)



these are
available and routinely collected in the H
ealth Information
S
ystems

data
.
T
he
numbers
of
actual
bene
f
iciaries remains
important
in reporting,
but
will fl
uctuate depending on the prevailing

GAM rate

over which

targeted nutrition interventions will only have

limited impact/control
.

It is important that
there is continued focus on the raising and maintenance of programme coverage rates if MAM and
SAM levels are to be successfully further reduced
.



Sanitation:

There is a need to clearly establish

and define

how sanitation coverage will be
measured

and ensure that relevant
data
is then
systematically collected and
reported. SPHERE
standard indicators are increasingly less useful and con
fusing

in this regard

as t
here is an
incremental

move towards the promotion of family/household latrines and increa
sed refugee
community engagement
in sanitation
management.

Efforts

to engage the refugee community in
taking increasing ownership at household and communal level for i
mproved sanit
ation should
continue,

but
experience suggests that they require time to implement


particularly amongst
populations that have
previously
received direct
and heavily subsidised
service provision

i
n terms
of sanitation facilities.

Impact
Weighting (%):

60%

Revised since last Annual Review?
N


5


Risk: Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?
N




Output 2:
Maintain a safe and secure environment for Somali refugees

Output 2 score and performance description:



A
-

Met expectations
:
Of the

three indicators, two met expectations and one moderately did not
.
However, the gap for indicator four is minimal and its actual weighting (in terms of proportionate spend
for this output) is very low

with

indicator
five weighted

most heavily. On balan
ce we therefore judge
the output to have met expectation.

Indicator

Baseline (Dec
2011)

Target (December
2012)

Achieved (DFID
Contributing
)

Output
Description

4. % of refugees
registered

5.8% (35,271)
refugees pending
registration

100% new refugee
arrivals registered.


98%
of refugees
registered.2%
pending registration
300
-
500 new
arrival
awaiting
regist
ration

Moderately did not
m
e
et expectations.

5. % of refugees
settled and
installed
adequately in
refugee camps.

24% of refugees
(11,120)
not

settled
and adequately
installed

100% of refugees
settled and installed
(0 cases pending)

99.04% of refugees
adequately settled
(4000 awaiting
settlement in
Kambioos)

Met expectations

6. Number of
refugees
expressing wish
to voluntary
repatriate to be
supported

0 refugees
supported with
voluntary
repatriation

All refugees
expressing wish to
voluntarily
repatriate to be
supported

7.06% (31,267
refugees all in Ifo1)
expressed desire
for voluntary
repatriation once
peace and security
is restored. No
suppo
rt yet given

Met expectations


Progress against expected results:

DFID

is providing unearmarked funding to UNHCR

which contributes towards

this output
.

In addition to
this, DFID is also involved in lobbying UNHCR

and the Government of Kenya to ensure durable
solutions for the refugees.

Refugee registration

The registration of refugees do
es not fully fall within UNHCR’s mandate and is led by the Government
of Kenya through the Department of Refugee Affairs

(DRA)

in

Dadaab
.
T
he major challenge faced has
been the halt called during 2012 of
registration of
new arrivals at Dadaab by the Kenyan Government.
This has contributed to a delay in the proper settlement of new arrivals at the camps
with 300
-
500
families in Dad
aab still waiting registration (2% of the estimated new arrivals). UNHCR has been
involved in continuous dialogue with DRA on this issue at both Dadaab and national levels. During a
visit

by the review team

to Dadaab on 20 May 2013
,

DRA personnel stated t
hat they would be creating
a window for the registration of new arrivals of approximately two weeks
(also see below)
.



Refugee settlement in the camps

As of March 2013
,

4,000 refugees were formally awaiting settlement in the camps. The
official

6

gazetting of Kambioos camp in January 2013 by the Kenya Government

(as a component of the urban
refugee directive)

has created the possibility of this caseload being formally integrated

and UNHCR are
now in the process of finalising arrangements for the fo
rmal settlement of this caseload over the

coming few weeks (
despite their “informal” status it is important to
note that these individuals have
previously been
able to access all services being provided by
/supported by

UNHCR
)
.


Voluntary repatriation

Inf
ormation
from UNHCR indicates that interest in voluntary return amongst the refugees currently
remains
very
low and no significant return movements have been reported. However those refugees
that have expressed interest have indicated that a prerequisite
is adequate peace and security in
Somalia
.

It is recognised by most that the only feasible durable solution for
many

Dadaab resident
s remains
voluntary return to Somalia

at some point

in the future
. The Government of Kenya has initiated more
focused

and robust

discussions on return. UNHCR is participating in these discussions although
continues to point out that conditions for organ
ised voluntary repatriation

are not yet in place.



Recommendations:



On
-
going

participation in and engagement by UN
HCR in discussions with
the
Government of
Kenya

on voluntary return

are important not only in helping to

influence debate around voluntary
return but also as a mechanism for creating and maintaining space within an albeit constrained
policy and operating e
nvironment
.



Impact Weighting (%):

15%

Revised since last Annual Review?
N


Risk: Medium

Revised since last Annual Review?
N



Output 3:
Improve the impact of the response, through better leadership, coordination and
means of delivery

Output 3 score and performance description:
A+
+

Substantially
exceeded expectations

Of the four indicators, 3 substantially exceeded expectations and one moderately did not meet
expectations.

It is difficult to weight specific indicators for this output,

but we judge an average score is
reasonable.

Indicator

Baseline (Dec
2011)

Target (December
2012)

Achieved (DFID
Contributing
)

Output
Description

7. No. of
households with
increased
household food
consumption
score

57% of camp
population
measuring an
acceptable score of
>greater 35 (Sept
2011)

60% of camp
population
measuring an
acceptable FCS
>35


80% (Dada
ab) of
population measuring an
acceptable FCS >35


Substantially
exceeded
expectations

8. Reduction in
distribution cost
overheads

11.2 million US
D a
month spent on
G
eneral
F
ood
D
istribution


>2% savings = USD
250,000 a month

11.7% reduction (55,619
persons) as a result of

UNHCR’s
on
-
going

verification
with cost
savings for WFP of about
$1.5 million every month
at a one
-
off
-
cost of
Substantially
exceeded
expectations


7

approximately
$1.2
million

9
.
Systematic
improvements
made in the
manner in which
humanitarian aid
is delivered, held
accountable and
measured

UNHCR medium
term strategy for
refugees,
contingency
planning for
refugees yet to be
agre
ed, inter
-
age
ncy planning &
coord
ination

strengthened

UNHCR medium
term strategy for
refugees
elaborated,
contingency
planning
for
refugees
developed,
enhanced dialogue
between UNHCR
and WFP and more
frequent and
transparent
information sharing
with donors

and
NGOs


More effective dialogue
processes established
with partners at field and
national level


although
still scope for further
development and
strengt
hening

Moderately did
not me
et
expectations

10. Reduced
estimated
caseload of
illegitimate aid
recipients


5% (23,150
refugees) thought
to be illegitimate
beneficiaries

2.5% reduction from
verification exercise

11.7%

reduction

(55,619

persons
) as a result of
ongoing verification
exercise

with % expected
to rise further

Substantially
exceeded
expectations


Progress against expected results:

DFID is supporting the delivery of this output through extensive lobbying centrally from Nairobi, to
ensure the rights of the refugees are prot
ected. On contributing to this output,
t
he team spends

approximately
25
%of their time building and strengthening key relationships
amongst the

donor
community and
with the
Kenya

Government.

Food consumption Score
s

(FCS)

By
December 2012
,

WFP estimated that
a
FCS of >35
was
achieved by 80% of

households in
Dadaab.
This substantially surpasses the target of 60% by December 2012.
These rates compare
favourably with others seen within
long
-
term
Somali
refugee populations
elsewhere in the region
1
.
Given the lack of other sources of household income / food inpu
ts available for the maj
ority of the
refugees this is a

considerable achievement

in the Dadaab context
. It can be attributed to concerted
attempts to maintain a full G
eneral
F
ood
D
istribution (GFD)

and targeted nutrition interventions during
and following

the influx of new arrivals in 2011

by UNHCR/WFP and their donor and implementing
partners
.




Reduction in
distribution cost overheads


WFP’s biometric programme is currently being rigorou
sly tested in Kakuma and Dadaab.

This cautious
approach is warranted given the risks and strong vocal opposition from some groups. The system has
not yet gone live and savings may not be realised until the next annual review. However,
the indicator
has been surpassed by
UNHCR’s on
-
going

verification exercise in Dadaab
that
has reduced the GFD
caseload by 11.7% with cost savings for WFP of at least $1.5 million every month at a one
-
off
-
cost of
approximately $1.2 million.


The biometrics, rather than the verification exercise was planned as the activity to deliver against this



1

See The Contribution of Food Assistance to Durable Solutions in Protracted Refugee Situations: its impact and role (Ethiopia)

2011 UNHCR/WFP



8

indicator in the programme, but we judge that

it is

still legitimate to score the indicator as surpassed
(see also recommendations
).

Programme coordin
ation
, planning

and management

T
here

have been incremental improvements over the last year in the quality and extent of dialogue on
policy and operational issues related to the refugee programme
, but further progress is desirable
despite the complex policy

context
. UNHCR
has
sought to

rationalise the number of implementing
partners
.

Whilst necessary
,

this process creates a degree of uncertainty amongst implementing
partners.

The securi t y si t uat i on i n Dadaab al s
o remai ns precari ous and has obvi ous
i mpact
s

on t he
operat i ng envi ronment


i ncl udi ng

on

working relationships and coordination at field level.

However
,

despi t e t hese const rai nt s t here appears t o have been a concert ed at t empt by UNHCR t o st rengt hen
t he ext ent and qual i t y of di al ogue wi t h part ners
at f i el d and nat i onal l evel. The i nf ormal coordi nat i on
group on ref ugees (on whi ch DFI D Kenya i s seen as a key
member)

has al so pl ayed an i mport ant rol e

i n i mprovi ng i nf ormat i on exchange and f urt heri ng di al ogue on key i ssues.


DFI D
’ s provi si on of mul t i
-
ye
ar funding to UNHCR was said by programme staff to have had important
positive impacts in terms of their ability

at country level
to begin to plan ahead and

that it

has also
helped them in terms of the negotiation of overall levels of spending authority wi
th Geneva
-

which is of
particular importance at the beginning of the year. During the review we were also informed that
UNHCR is now moving towards the implementation of two year planning frameworks. In the
institutional context this represents a signif
icant shift
.

The provision of multi
-
year support from DFID
Kenya to this programme is directly underpinning and supportive of this shift

in thinking and planning
processes
.

C
hanges in programme planning and budgeting
have not so
far impacted on programmi
ng cycles

and
agreements

between UNHCR and

NGO partners
,

who continue to be bound by 12 month cycles
.

A

number of NGO partners interviewed during the review said that this means that levels of funding often
remain unclear

for several months into the subseq
uent year.

From their perspective
,

this creates a
number of problems including the carrying of a degree of risk on their part in terms of the continuation
of staff contracts and, to some extent,
sub
-
contractors

providing services such as construction and
maintenance works.

Reduced caseload of illegitimate aid recipients

T
he
on
-
going

verification ex
ercise in Dadaab has led to a substantial decrease in
estimated refugee
population
s
. As of March 2013
,

the overal
l population in Dadaab has been reduced by 11.7% (55,619)

and this percentage looks to be increasing
.
The reductions realised in the camp population have been
attributed to a number of factors including the spontaneous return /relocation of some refugees
(
including to Somalia and the screening out of the registration system of members of the host
community who fraudulently registered as refugees
)
. However
,

it is important to note that 2,000
persons have been transferred from Dadaab to Kakuma for resettl
eme
nt. .



The unexpected impact of the verification exercise has been a great
boost

to this output and was not
considered during the design phase. Other DFID refugee programmes working with
chronic

caseloads
should press UNHCR

to regular undertake such activities, if not already planned.



Impact Weighting (%):

25%

Revised since last Annual Review?
N


Risk: High

Revised since last Annual Review?
N





9

Section
B
:
Results

and

V
alue
f
or
M
oney
.


1.
Progress and results

1.1
Has

the log

frame bee
n updated since last review?
No

Potential updates to the log frame
in the light of this

review are included in a
(draft)
revised log frame
docume
nt
.

1.2
Overall

Output S
core

and Description
:


(A) Outputs met expectation

On
-
going major
security concerns

including kidnappings of NGO staff and reports of various explosive
devices going

off
in Dadaab prevented movement to the camps

by DFID personnel
. Some monitoring
missions were undertaken to the UNHCR compound in Dadaab, but majority of t
he p
rogramme
management
was
undertaken remotely from Nairobi
.

However
,
on
-
going dialogue with UNHCR and
WFP, with other donors and with UNHCR

s implementing and operational partners has enabled DFID

remain in close touch with developments related to the programme.


Quarterly reports have been submitted by WFP and UNHCR. UNHCR appears to have s
truggled in
some areas to maintain accuracy

on indicators related to health, nutrition and sanitation with a

number
of inconsistencies
in the figures contained within some of the reports submitted to DFID
. However
there has been a noticeable improvement in the quality of reports received over the year
and UNHCR
appear to be
responsive to requests for further in
formation and clarification.

1.
3

Direct feedback from beneficiaries

The review did not include any direct feedback from beneficiaries.

1.4


Summary of overall progress

Overall
,

this programme has achieved results, contributing
towards alleviating suffering and
maintaining the dignity of
r
efugees in Kenya
as illustrated in the table below.


Impact

Indicator

Baseline

(Dec 2011)

Target

(Dec 2012)

Achieved

Outcome
description

To save lives
alleviate
suffering and
maintain dignit
y

U5 Mortality
ra
tes

>2/10,000 day
(December
2011)

<2/10,000/day

0.12
/10,000/day

Substantially
exceeded
expectation

Outcome

Indicator

Baseline

(Dec 2011)

Target

(Dec 2012)

Achieved

Outcome
description

To address the
most urgent
and widespread
humanitarian
needs in
Dadaab

Rates of U5
malnutrition


>25% GAM

> 9% SAM


<20% GAM

<1% SAM


15.4% GAM

3.9% SAM

Moderately did
not meet
expectations

Crude Mortality
Rates

>1/10,000/day


<1/10,000/day

0.5/10,000/day

Substantially
exceeded
expectations


10

# of refugees
assisted
against
SPHERE
minimum
standar
d
s

463,000

100% of
Dadaab camp
population

100%
refugees
accessing
services
1

Moderately did
not meet

ex
pectations



1
.5

Key challenges

Securit
y

Security remains a key challenge for both the refugees and agencies working within Dadaab
. January
2013 saw the security situation become particularly difficult with a number of
explosive device
incidents
and the shooting of
a
K
enya
R
ed
C
ross
S
ociety

ambulance at Ifo 2. Since March 2013 (and following
the deployment of additional security personnel to the camps) the situation has improved but remains
precarious and unpredictable.


1.6.
Annual
Outcome

Assessment


Nutritional status



The annual nutrition survey for Dadaab was conducted in September/October 2012. The survey was
repeated in Daghaley camp in February 2013 due to concerns over the robustness of the data.
Results of the 2012 survey are highlighted below and compared with
the corresponding figures for
2011 (where these are available).



Hagadera

Ifo 2

Kambioos

Dagahaley

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

Global
Acute
Malnutrition
(%)

17.2

10.3

(8.0
-
13.0)

N/A

15.0

(12.3
-
18.0)

N/A

17.1

(14.4
-
20.3)

23.2

13.2

(10.2
-
16.9)

Severe
Acute
Malnutrition
(%)

4.6

3.2

(1.9
-
5.2)

N/A

5.1

(3.7
-
7.1)

N/A

6.4

(4.6
-
8.9)

8.2

2.5

(1.3
-
4.8)


There has been a marked improvement in
the
nutritional status
during the reporting period
with overall
GAM rates falling significantly
,

exceeding the established target of <20% by December 2012. However
SAM rates, whilst they have also reduced, remain at 3.9%, above the target of less than 1%. SAM
rates in Kambioos (6.4%) and Ifo (5.1%) are a cause of particular
on
-
going

concern.


It is also important to note that a considerable proportion of the burden of malnutrition both GAM and
SAM can be attributed to the situation in Kambioos where prevalence rates for GAM and SAM have
remained
highest. The decision by the Government to forma
lly gazette Kambioos

(a new camp)

should help with the process of the establishment of better
service delivery

at this location.
In the
absence of the occurrence of other shocks b
oth of these developments
should

result in
a further
positive impact on nutri
tional status over the coming months.


It is important to note that that the refugees received a full ration of 2,187Kcal per person per day
throughout the period and supplementary and therapeutic nutritional products and services were
available.

The slower than might be anticipated fall in SAM rates and the persistence of
high
GAM
rates serve to highlight the
on
-
going

fragility of the humanitarian situation, particularly for the more
recent arrivals

and
,
the h
igh dependence

level

on the GFD

(for the majority of the refugees)
to meet

11

household food security

and other basic
needs.


Crude mortality rates


Mortality rates have remained stable during the reporting period and substantially within SPHERE and
other standards.
D
espite the difficulti
es experienced with security

and changes in some of the
implementing and operating partners providing services,

evidence suggests

that it has been possible
to
maintain

adequate
access and quality of health services

and that interventions made in nutrition
and
sanitation have achieved their inten
ded impact
.


Number

of refugees assisted against SPHERE minimum standards



Though 100% of refugees in Dadaab are able to access services,
the
quality of those services due to
the excess numbers of refugees sharing limited/ overstretched facilities is
a rather in
accurate way of
measuring achievement

of this indicator in the Dadaab setting; and thus
has not been scored
as
me
e
t
ing

expectations
.



2. Costs and timescale

2.1 Is the project on
-
track a
gainst financial forecasts: Y
/N

Yes

2.2 Key cost drivers


Key cost drivers for the refugee camps continue to be the sourcing and distribution of adequate food
commodities through General Food Distribution ($12 million a month) and specialised nutrition
products by WFP in what remains an environment where the prec
ise projection of forward needs is
difficult and procurement processes can be lengthy. The UNHCR verification process and biometric
checks will start reducing costs, as does WFP’s Forward Purchasing Facility, but GFD is likely to
remain the biggest cost dr
iver.


For UNHCR, annual staffing costs of around $25
-
30 million appear to be a key cost driver with 40
international
s

out of 183 staff based in Dadaab. It is worth noting that they carry significant
responsibility for the maintenance and oversight of a
range of essential services in Dadaab to a
refugee
population of over 400,000 who remain almost entirely dependent on external assistance to
meet their basic needs. WFP’s total annual staff costs for 456 staff
(of which
38 international

staff)

was
$11.8 mi
llion.

2.3 Is

the project on
-
track against original timescale: Y
/N


Yes.
Mostly, but
the biometric

component of the

project and the piloting

of

Fresh Food Vouchers

(FFVs)

are

behind the schedule originally envisaged but both are due to be rolled out over the next few
months.



3
. Evidence and Evaluation

3.1

Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the pro
ject

Both UNHCR and WFP

proactively gather information on the overall situation and individual
programme components and interventions
by

themselves and through their network of implementing
and operating partners. Information gathered is used to attenuate responses to changes in the
situation. At camp level an elaborate information system is in place to gather and analyse data on key
indi
cators related to mortality, morbidity and service provision on a monthly basis. The security
situation has, at times, made the collection of some information more difficult (particularly data that
needs to be collected at community rather than facility l
evel) but in the main this appears to have been

12

managed
. During the year
,

efforts have been made, and are still
on
-
going
, to improve the accuracy of
data. For example
,

improvements have been made in the sampling met
hodology of nutrition surveys in
an att
empt

improve the accuracy of both overall and stratified results.



3.2 Where

an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?

Not applicable at this stage
.



4
. Risk

4.1

Output Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High

Overall


medium



Output 1 Medium:



Output 2: Medium



Output 3: High


4.2 Assessment of the risk level


The risk matrix developed during the compilation of the business case has been reviewed and
updated.

The over al l l evel s of r i sk r emai n l ar gel y unchanged. The secur i t y s
i t uat i on r emai ns a key
det er mi nant and has f l uct uat ed over t he l ast year


and i s l i kel y t o cont i nue t o do so

i n t
h
e

shor t
-
medi um t er m
.




4.3. Risk of funds not being used as intended


Dadaab is a complex working environment, but e
armarked DFID

funds are focused on less high risk
sectors which are

self
-
targeting (e.g. health and

nutrition) and DFID is currently avoiding the highest
risk sector (general food distributions). In addition to this
,

DFID is providing support to WFP to
implement roll
-
out of
a biometric system
to reduce risks and facilitate improved targeting


4.4. Climate and Environmental Risk


It has not been possible to measure the climate and environmental impact of the programme.
However
,

UNHCR

is actively involved in monitoring the environmental impacts on an
on
-
going

basis.

UNHCR has environmental guidelines in place that ensure environmental issues are integrated into
programming. The Multi
-
lateral Aid Review found that UNHCR’s global appro
ach to environmental
sustainability was strong.




5
.
Value for Money

5.1

Performance on VfM measures

The Business Case listed three measures for assessing VfM:



Achievement of log
-
frame targets



Achievement of recognised humanitarian standards



Output unit cost indicators

As clear in the previous sections, logframe targets and standards have been met close to expectations.
It is worth

noting that some partners have mentioned standards dropping in recent months
. F
or
example
,

water standards have
dropped
to emergency Sphere standards of 15

litres

of

water per day
from the higher refugee camp standard of 20

litres

of water

per person

per day
;
and there are issues

13

around what sanitation standards should be applied (see Section A)
.
MAM coverage rates
had dipped
in 2012 but were addressed
.


Assessing the cost of delivery of key outputs through unit cost indicators has been less successful
, due
to s
everal factors: the

Business Case

was not clear on the composition of most indicators; some
indicators were

not relevant for the programme; the alternative indicators UNHCR submitted were not
discussed in detail or agreed with DFID;
and
UNHCR has not asked implementing partners to report

on

output costs
.
Below
is
information

that was available

on V
f
M

and would be worthwhile to monitor

the
trends

in the coming year
.

Output

Unit

Unit cost


Composition and
Source

MAM treatment

Person/treated

Planned for 2012:
$160/child

Actual cost 2012:
$136/child; $99.37/mother


WFP Kenya:

Children get RUSF,

mothers
get vegetable oil and super
cereals.

SAM treatment

Person/treated

[to be inserted when
UNHCR provides figures]

Agree within 3 months with
UNHCR

Provision of primary health
care

Per consultation (1 a year)

$18.9

(planned for 2013)


UNHCR Kenya

Primary education

Per child
/

year

[to be inserted when LWF
provides figures]

Agree within 3 months with
LWF

Adequate sanitation

Per refugee/year

9$ (planned for 2013)

UNHCR (soap distribution,
new latrine construction,
solid waste mgmt and
hygiene promot
ion)

Safe and secure
environment

Per refugee/year

$12 (planned for 2013)

UNHCR (excluding nutrition,
health and sanitation)

VfM achievement
s

UNHCR
’s

on
-
going

verification exercise in Dadaab has reduced the GFD caseload by 11.7% with cost
savings for WFP

of at least $1.5 million every month at a one
-
off
-
cost of approximately $1.2 million.


UNHCR saved $1.18 million in procurement costs of green grams because of the ability to sign a two
year framework agreement with the supplier. UNHCR directly attribu
tes this cost saving to DFID’s
multi
-
year funding.


VfM chall
e
nges:

Some NGOs and ECHO expressed interest in setting a few marker indicators and collecting unit cost
data systematically over time. However, i
n order for unit cost of output measures to be useful for VfM
analysis, UNHCR would need to have a full picture of what funding flows go into outputs.
This data is
not currently available from UNHCR (
UNHCR resources channelled through
Implementing Partner
s
(IPs)

for the delivery of a number of key services seem to only represent up to 50% of what is actually
expended by IPs

and UNHCR complains NGOs are not being transparent over their other funding
sources)
.
It is therefore a

priority to support UNHCR to
obtain and share with all parties a full funding
picture of Dadaab. This would show the total costs of running Dadaab and
enable donors and partners
to recognise and discuss big picture cost drivers.


5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money



14

Thi
s programme is one of the first humanitarian programmes funded by DFID over a multi
-
year period.
In a relatively stable refugee camp situation where the minimum demands for food and non
-
food items
are predictable, the expected commercial improvement and V
fM gains were related to better planning
and procurement. WFP stressed in the meeting with the review team that the multi
-
year funding
enabled them to reduce lead times
for

nutrition
commodities
and therefore run operations without
breaks. These breaks t
end to be hugely disruptive
and contribute to defaulter rates in nutrition
programmes.
While
UNHCR was able to save over $1.2 million with their green grams and soap
procurement due to being able to place two year framework agreements with suppliers.


Ot
her p
ossible commercial improvements and VfM gains due to multi
-
year funding
however did not

trickle down to Implementing Partners due to UNHCR’s annual budgeting processes. According to
some NGOs, UNHCR funding
continues to
slow down lead times

resulting
in

pipeline break
s

and the
procurement of lower quality items
.


5.3 Role of project partners


UNHCR has been making efforts in the last year to improve coordination and forward planning with
IPs, agreeing specifications for non
-
food items and establishin
g an essential drugs list. They have
carried out a staffing review, cut 58 posts, found efficiencies by for example getting WFP to distribute
soap through GFD and consolidating the number of implementing partners in Dadaab. As mentioned
above, an import
ant step to working on VfM improvements would be for UNHCR to carry out a full cost
analysis of the camps with sector breakdowns. UNHCR’s role is critical to enable all partners to
improve the VfM of running the largest refugee camp in the world.


WFP’s

biometrics programme should recoup its start
-
up and running costs after two years based on a
3% reduction in beneficiary numbers. This should lead to net savings of more than $5 million a year.


All NGOs have provided anecdotal evidence of recent VfM

improvements such as local sourcing.
However, little is systematically recorded and shared.


Recommendation:




DFID Kenya should continue to support all these efforts and learn lessons on what benefits multi
-
year funding can and cannot achieve. This s
hould be shared with other country offices.

5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money :

Y
es



The project has made good progress against the logframe. While the output cost indicators from the
Business Case are not followed, there is evidence
on efficiency gains and commercial improvements.
Successful implementation of the biometrics programme will be the single biggest VfM gain.

Recommendations:



DFID Kenya should continue to monitor
UN
HCR’s output costs and ask questions on the
composition
and changes over time. DFID should also closely analyse
the
i
r
budgets, preferably
together with other donors (at least ECHO) to identify cost drivers. Staff costs in particular should
be looked

at
.



DFID Kenya should continue to strongly encourage

UN
HC
R to obtain a full cost picture of Dadaab
and share it with all partners and donors.



DFID Kenya together with ECHO should consider allocating a percentage of the new refugee
adviser’s

and an
economist’s

time to VfM. Through him, VfM

should then become a regular
discussion point in donor and partner meetings. If no extra resources can be allocated, at a
minimum
,

the existing humanitarian team should engage partners more in discussions about costs.



DFID Kenya should consider supportin
g operational studies on VfM issues with partners such as
K
enya
R
ed
C
ross
S
ociety

and WFP.


5.5
I
f not, what action will you take?

Not Applicable


15



6. Conditionality


6.1
Update on

specific conditions

No conditionality is linked to this programme.



7
. Conclusions and actions


Overall
programme
rationale
/
validity of the Theory of Change



It can be

clearly

demonstrated that DFID support has had important
impact on the humanitarian
situation
, in particular in helping to further reduce rates of acute
malnutrition

amongst children
under five

and in

helping to

avoid

excess mortality and morbidity

amongst the refugees
.



Whilst both

the biometrics system by WFP and the piloting of fresh food vouchers
are

yet to be
fully implemented,

this approach
offer
s

im
portant opportunities

to improve targeting of the most
vulnerable,
reduce distribution costs
,

and

in the med
ium
-
long
term
allow identification

of

viable

and cost effective

alternatives to
the provision of
food aid

in this type of context
.



On
-
going

support provided through the programme has helped to ensure that DFID remains
seen as an important and influential humanitarian donor

in Kenya
,

providing opportunities for
wider policy influence.

This is also of direct importance to
,

and supportive of
UK

involvement in
efforts to promote stability and recovery

in Somalia


especially as debates around the return of
refugees gathers momentum.






Funding channels

and effectiveness


The channelling of support through UNHCR and WFP

is appropriate:



The channelling of support through UNHCR and WFP is appropriate in the context of the
medium term support now being provided

in a situation which whilst still precarious, has
stabilised
. This approach helps to reinforce

UN leadership
, particularly that of
UNHCR.




As i
t helps to ensure that transaction costs are kept to a manageable level. DFID would find
it difficult to provide the administrative and technical support required to ensure that funding
through NGO
s was properly prioriti
sed,
effective

and adequately monitored


particularly
within the constraints provided by the security situation in Dadaab
.



However, as this review highlights, support provided by UNHCR to their implementing
partners currently only meets approximately

50% of the cost of delivering services

and

other
donors
continue to
provide bi
-
lateral funding to NGOs. This includes support provided by
ECHO over which DFID has
some
influence

prioritisation

and resource allocation.



Cost drivers in UNHCR’s and WFP’s

budgets need to be monitored by DFID to continue to
ensure VfM.


Multi
-
year programming





UNHCR country staff stated that the provision of multi
-
year funding commitments

helped
them in terms of the negotiation of overall levels of spending authority with Geneva
.



During the review

UNHCR personnel highlighted the fact
that UNHCR

globally

is now
moving towards the implementation of two year planning frameworks. In the institutional
context this represents a significant shift which should over time improve the ability of the
agency to more effectively carry out planning and programming for

protracted caseloads
such as the one in Dadaab. The provision of multi
-
year support from DFID Kenya to this
programme is directly underpinning and supportive of this shift in thinking and planning
processes.



T
he provision of multi
-
year funding from DFID a
nd wider
changes in programme planning
and budgeting have not so far impacted on programming cycles and agreements

with
implementing
partners who continue to be bound by 12 month cycles in terms of their
agreements with UNHCR and related resource allocatio
ns. Whilst recognising the practical
challenges imposed by the operating environment and global budget constraints
,

UNHCR

16

needs to be encouraged to begin to incrementally address these issues.




Earmarked funding



Earmarking of a proportion of the funds to UNHCR appears to have helped ensure that
lifesaving

sectors received focused support.



T
here was some debate about the extent to which donor ear
-
marking risked the
marginalisation in resource allocation terms of other important activities


including
refugee
protection. However
,

DFID provision of un
-
earmarked funding should help UNHCR to
avo
id
this.



The provision of earmarked funding to UNHCR has helped to ensure that reporting is more
regular and systematic. Whilst the intention should be to reduce levels of earmarking over
time
,

it is not apparent that UNHCR resource allocation, results tr
acking and reporting
systems are as yet sufficiently developed to provide confidence that the required levels

and
quality

of reporting would be maintained. There is therefore a strong argument for
maintaining the current level of earmarking during 2013 wi
th the proviso that UNHCR
understands (as it appears to) that it can approach DFID to discuss the re
-
allocation of
earmarked resources in the light of evolving priorities and funding levels.



The tight earmarking of support to WFP reflects wider concerns ab
out the risks of
DFID
involvement in support to GFD.

Earmarking of support to the biometrics programme helps
reduce any risk that this activity will not be sufficiently funded if there are growing pressures
on budgets in other areas of the programme


mos
t notably the food pipeline.




8
.
Review Process

The review process included the engagement of an independent consultant who, along with members
of DFID’s humanitarian team visited both Dadaab and Kakuma

(specifically to see the testing of the
biometrics system) and who held in depth interviews with UNHCR and WFP staff both at national and
field level. These inputs were supplemented by the

deployment
of
a VfM expert to help examine issues
related to the c
ost effectiveness and efficiency of the refugee programme building on existing work
undertaken by DFID Kenya over the last
two

year
s
.