CHF Advisory Group - OCHANet

2 of 4adequately budget for their transportation costs.• The ability of UNOPS to implement its proposed project was discussed. The AB agreed to request UNOPS toclarify the specific activities to be undertaken to facilitate access by humanitarian organizations in the Maban areaas well as to confirm its adequate operational capacity in the field location to ensure the swift implementation ofthe project and ability to spend funds within the allotted time frame (8 months).• The Logistics Cluster highlighted the need to ensure that “double dipping” does not occur, that organizationsreceiving CHF funds for transportation of supplies should not go to the Logs Cluster for transport support as theLogistics Cluster is a provider of last resort and is not primary responsible for support to the refugee response.• The significant pressure on the Logs Cluster by the refugee operation was discussed by the AB. The HC agreedto have the Logistics Cluster/UNHCR to present to the next HCT an overview of the logistics challenges andways forward.Water and sanitation and hygiene (ARC, Oxfam, Solidarites)• Six projects were submitted and only three were recommended by the PRT. Only projects with evidence ofoperational capacity/presence/no overlapping of actors were recommended. Recommended projects address keypriority areas in camps of Yida, Yusuf Batil, Jamam, Gendrasa, and the host communities in areas prone todisease outbreaks.• One application was received by a National Non-Governmental Organisation (NNGO). However, since theorganization is not present on the ground the project could not be recommended.• It was noted that Solidarites was asked to scale up and increase its budget by $700,000. UNHCR noted thatSolidarites had confirmed its ability to scale up, Medair had also been approached and remained in stand-by tosupport the scale up as needed.• OCHA underlined the importance of ensuring greater engagement of NNGOs in the CHF. This is particularlyimportant in preparation for the CAP 2013.Action Points:• The AB agreed to the allocation. The CHF TS was tasked to contact UNOPS torequest clarification on activities to be implemented, its operational capacity andinform the AB accordingly.• Process Allocation Letters and Fund Transfer Request• OCHA was tasked to consult with DFID, ECHO and UNHCR to present optionson how best address the issue of transportation of supplies to refugee sites.• The AB requested that feedback be given to the NNGO as to why it was notrecommended.2. Funding update and a possible second standard allocationDiscussion/DecisionFollow-up:CHF TSCHF TSOCHAUNHCR• OCHA informed that there are $9.4 million in the CHF account. A contribution of $8.6 million from the Netherlandsis expected to be deposited this week.• Following the approval of the $10 million envelope for the refugee response and the UNFPA proposal approvedby email by the AB for a total amount of $450,100, and allocation fees for NGOs for a total amount of $487,000, apositive balance of $7.05 million is anticipated (with the approval of UNDP project the new balance is $6.1million).• The UK will advance its 2013 CHF contribution of 16 million GBP for the CHF 2012. Additional funds (amountTBC) are expected from Norway. This would enable a second standard allocation of an approximately $30million.Action Points:OCHA to propose time frames for a second round CHF allocation a soon as the CAP timeline is available.3. Recruitment of UNVs for the Monitoring and Reporting FrameworkDiscussion/Decision• The meeting of the Advisory Board held on 11 June agreed to use the CHF second round standard allocation tocover the costs of UNV Monitoring Specialists ($856,000) to be recruited by UNDP as well as the costs of theOCHA component of the CHF Technical Secretariat ($670,428).• The interview of the UNV has started with so far 3 out of the 8 UNVS identified. Ensuring the deployment of staffis urgent and OCHA proposed to the AB to use CHF reserve to enable the prompt recruitment of staff.• As far as the OCHA component of the CHF Technical Secretariat is concerned, OCHA noted that thedisbursement of funds is not as urgent as for the UNV. Furthermore, OCHA is seeking more guidance fromOCHA HQs on the issue of funding for CHF Managing Units. This topic will be subject of a separate discussionafter the Cost Plan of OCHA South Sudan is approved by HQ.