Part III
Coordination Activities in the Field

Zimbabwe

 

 

  Requirements 2,321,906  
  Income from Voluntary Contributions 1,266,173  
  EXPENDITURE    
  Staff Costs 1,170,171  
  Consultant Fees and Travel 20,200  
  Travel 95,051  
  Operating Expenses 156,128  
  Contractual Services 800  
  Supplies, Materials, Furniture and Equipment 87,258  
  Fellowships, Grants and Contributions 6,769  
  Programme Support Costs 199,728  
  Total Expenditure (US$) 1,736,105  


Context

In 2006 the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe was characterized by a combination of acute humanitarian needs (lack of shelter, lack of access to potable water and sanitation facilities, food insecurity and cholera outbreaks) and more protracted chronic vulnerabilities (inadequate access to basic social services, insufficient agricultural inputs and disrupted livelihoods). Throughout the year, the humanitarian situation was negatively impacted by the worsening economic situation, characterized by hyperinflation (over 1,000 per cent in 2006), negative growth (estimated by the International Monetary Fund at –5 per cent in 2006) and a shortage of foreign exchange.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic directly affected about 20 percent of the population and continued to take a heavy toll on society as a whole, causing an average of 3,000 deaths per week and a concomitant rise in the number of orphans and vulnerable children (1.4 million in 2006). Credible reports also indicated that some mobile and vulnerable populations encountered increased exposure to sexual exploitation and abuse in their attempts to access basic services. Factors such as inadequate social protection mechanisms in new settlements and the severe decline in opportunities for livelihoods compounded the negative exposure of these affected populations. Against this background, an OCHA field office in Zimbabwe was established on 1 January 2006 to strengthen support to the HC, the IASC-CT, government, donors and the humanitarian community at large.

In 2006, Zimbabwe received two allocations of US$ 1 million from the CERF – both from the grant facility for under-funded crises. Based on the recommendations of the IASC-CT, the first allocation was channelled to underfunded projects in nutrition, shelter, child protection and cholera response. The second allocation was channelled to projects in health, water/sanitation, shelter and food. In all cases, the CERF grants helped fill critical gaps in the response which had grown over time due to the absence of other funding.

Objectives

Activities and Accomplishments

In 2006, OCHA supported the HC, the IASC-CT and the wider humanitarian community in strengthening coordination mechanisms and developing a common approach to strategic programming – ensuring more timely and effective response and improved information-sharing and contingency planning. OCHA ensured that the policy decisions of the IASC-CT were implemented on a consistent basis throughout 2006; coordination mechanisms established included a monthly IASC meeting, donor and bi-monthly NGO forums and technical group meetings.

In order to make coordination and information-sharing more efficient among the sectors, OCHA established a bi-monthly meeting for the chairs of the sectoral working groups. In collaboration with the humanitarian community, it facilitated the sharing of information through production of the monthly humanitarian situation report and the ‘Who Does What Where’ database.

OCHA advocated for and facilitated the development of a consolidated appeal with dual focus on humanitarian relief and transitional support. It supported the implementation of the 2006 CAP, and facilitated the CAP Mid-Year Review. OCHA also facilitated the development of the 2007 CAP, which served as the IASC-CT’s common analysis of the humanitarian situation and required response. OCHA set up an FTS for humanitarian contributions to CAP projects as well as those outside of the CAP.

OCHA collaborated with the government’s Civil Protection Unit (CPU) in strengthening emergency preparedness in disaster-prone areas around the country. It also worked closely with the CPU and humanitarian partners in organizing multisectoral field assessments and ensuring a coordinated and timely response following earthquakes, floods and storms.

Performance Evaluation