1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Refugee Multi-sector Sudan CHF 2012 1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Refugee Multi-sector Jan 18th , 2012

CHF Sector Priorities: The MS for Refugees was newly established in Sudan in the 2012 HWP. It exists in many other operations since the specific needs of refugees and asylum-seekers have been deemed to be better addressed, and coordinated, when part of a separate multi-sector. A Address basic and urgent needs of refugees, in particular vulnerable refugees, in sectors such as WASH, health and education B Establish Refugee Status Determination (RSD) procedures in Khartoum, Darfur and other locations with a presence of asylum-seekers C Reduce cases of human trafficking and kidnapping in Eastern Sudan of asylum-seekers and refugees and respond to the needs of identified victims

CHF Geographical priorities: A Eastern Sudan – with largest refugee population, and continual influx mainly from Eritrea B Khartoum – large urban population of asylum-seekers (A/S) and refugees C Darfur – route for A/S from West Africa, Chadian camp-based refugee population and security concerns for refugees in the region

Describe the sector strategy for addressing the priorities Coordination: the refugee MS was created to ensure closer and more specific coordination amongst partners on refugee-related issues, particularly since refugee access to services otherwise available to nationals is limited due to their legal status in Sudan, and restrictions on freedom of movement imposed on them by GOS policy Sector priorities should be seen in the context of UNHCR’s overall strategy to ensure protection for refugees and asylum-seekers, together with key partners. This includes advocacy on freedom of movement and access to work for refugees in Sudan, adherence to international legal standards such as non-refoulement, refugee status determination (RSD) for asylum-seekers resulting in documentation for all those recognised as refugees, and provision of basic assistance to refugees in both a camp setting (primarily East and Darfur) and urban areas. Trafficking issues have been identified as a key humanitarian issue also within this MS as most victims of trafficking are asylum-seekers and refugees. This also links in to IOM / UNHCR’s joint regional approach for addressing trafficking Capacity-building: a large part of the MS’ strategy includes capacity-building of national entities, specifically the Commissioner for Refugees D

What evidence supports your identified priority needs What evidence supports your identified priority needs? Include targeted beneficiary population 1) Address basic and urgent needs of refugees: 2000 new arrivals per month registered in Shagarab camp in Kassala state; estimated 30,000 undocumented asylum-seekers and refugees in Khartoum; increasing constraints and limitations with regard to refugee education, withdrawal of operational partner responsible for health care in Darfur. Total population targeted by 4 projects within this priority: 70,000 2) Establish screening and RSD procedures: lack of such procedures leads to refoulement of asylum-seekers. In 2011, over 400 individuals deported as per UNHCR information. Total population targeted by this project alone: 9,780 3) Reduce cases of trafficking and respond to needs of victims: undetermined numbers of trafficked individuals, reports of abductions, extortion, SEA, slavery. Need for capacity-building of local authorities and regional response since issue extends beyond Sudan. Total population targeted: 122,000 for awareness raising of risks; 219 government officials trained; needs of 120 identified victims of trafficking addressed.

Why is CHF funding critical right now to meet these sector priorities Why is CHF funding critical right now to meet these sector priorities? (i.e. Answer what would happen without funding for 6 months) A For projects addressing basic needs: lack of health facilities in refugee camps in Darfur and thus more sick refugees; lack of continuing primary education for refugee children; not as many vulnerable refugees to benefit from enhanced support so increase in poverty and vulnerability; lack of support to new arrivals in Eastern Sudan B For project addressing RSD and prevention of refoulement: deportations / refoulement will continue at 2011 rate (400 persons) with ensuing risks, undocumented refugees will continue to be subject to round-ups, arrest and detention and risk refoulement; access to employment in the absence of documentation will continue to be a problem C For project addressing trafficking: continued incidents of trafficking including abductions, slavery, SEA.

How were value for money and low indirect costs ensured? A Expectation that the new MS consolidates different interventions under one multi-sector and avoids fragmented interventions to address refugee needs, thus ensuring better value for money, and less risk of duplication B Staffing costs in this sector – as in the protection sector – constitute direct costs in many cases (RSD, court interventions, etc). Nevertheless the sector agreed to limit the staff costs requested under CHF and not to include regular UN staff costs. Efforts were also made to limit staffing costs within all projects C Limited numbers of partners submitted projects under the MS, however, UNHCR does work with a number of government and NGO partners as implementing partners (IPs) for the delivery of protection and assistance to refugees D Assistance provided to refugees with CHF funding meets minimum standards and existing baseline standards and indicators increase

Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals Total Recommended Sector Envelope: US $3 million Total requested amount/Total TRG-recommended amount: $3,003,918 Total projects: $13,240,625 (6 Projects ) Recommended UN/NGO/NNGO percentage: 25% NGO; 75% UN Total Recommended Sector Envelope versus historical trend or basis for envelope: N/A although previously $2.5 million allocated to UNHCR alone for refugee related projects Approach to determining project allocation amounts (NOT scoring methodology): all projects allocated $200,000 “start-up”, NGO project Khartoum fully funded; remaining amount allocated according to priorities / scoring Matrix review