DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal Response Review

Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Crisis Appeal:

Response Review

Child's painting in the offices of War Child, Gaza City

Final Report

Geoff Cordell and I’tedal Al Khateeb, Social Development Consulting UK

December 2014

Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Crisis Appeal: Response Review 2

List of abbreviations

AIDA Association of International Development Agencies AEI Ard el Insan (Gaza based NGO) ALC Artificial Limb Centre BRC British Red Cross CAFOD Catholic Agency for Overseas Development CFW Cash For Work CBO Community Based Organisation CFS Child Friendly Space CP Child Protection CRS Catholic Relief Services DAC Development Assistance Committee (of OECD) DEC Disasters Emergency Committee FAO (UN) Food and Agricultural Organisation FGD Focus Group Discussion FHH Female Headed Households GBP British Pounds GCMHP Gaza Community Mental Health Programme HHs Households HPG Humanitarian Policy Group (of the ODI) IASC Inter Agency Standing Committee ICRC International Committee for the Red Cross IDP Internally Displaced Person IMC International Medical Corps INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation. MoH Ministry of Health MoSA Ministry of Social Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPA Norwegian People’s Aid ODI Overseas Development Institute OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OCHA (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs oPt Occupied Palestinian Territory PARC Palestinian Agency for Relief and Development - since renamed as

the Palestinian Agricultural Development Association. PNGO Palestinian Non-Governmental Organisations Network PRCS Palestinian Red Crescent Society PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder SCI Save the Children International Tdh Terre des hommes, Lausanne TOR Terms of Reference TSCA Transitional Shelter Cash Assistance UN United Nations UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNERA American Near East Refugee Aid UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Association UXO Unexploded Ordinance WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation WSJ Wall Street Journal


Damage to Shejahiya Neighbourhood, East Gaza City and to greenhouses, Rafah, 8th Nov 2014

A nutritious meal and a medical check-up for kindergarten beneficiaries of Save the Children,

9th

November 2014.

Meeting with PARC farmers' group, 8 Nov 2014, Rafah and at a BRC / ICRC distribution point: 10

th November 2014.


Contents

Executive Summary 5 1. Acknowledgements 7 2. The scope of the review 7

3. Methodology 7 4. Limitations 7 5. Background 7

5.1. A chronic emergency beset by crisis and shock 8 5.2. Gaza today: a tipping point? 8

6. Main findings 9

6.1. A review of agencies’ response against DAC criteria 9 6.2. Specific areas of enquiry 13

6.2.1. Meeting psychosocial needs and measuring impact. 14 6.2.2. Working with internally displaced persons and host families 16 6.2.3. Cash programming and the management of risk 18

6.3. A review of progress so far, priority and unmet needs 23 6.4. The needs of the most vulnerable 24 6.5. Terrorist financing legislative requirements 25 6.6. Strengthening civil society through partnerships 25 6.7. Humanitarian assistance and advocacy for political change 26

7. Summary of findings 27 8. Recommendations 27 Annexure Annex 1: List of respondents met and data gathering activity in the field 29 Annex 2: Methodology 31


Executive Summary

This is a review of the response of the Disaster Emergency Committee’s (DEC) member agencies to the emergency in Gaza following the war of July and August 2014. The review was carried out in November 2014. It covers the first 3 months of a first phase 1 6 months response. This will be followed by up to 18 months of a second and final phase. One of the key purposes of the report is to inform the phase 2 plans. The review focuses on supporting members to improve their humanitarian response – it is not an audit and the DEC and its member agencies have separate processes to ensure aid is not diverted from its intended purpose. The appeal and the response are needs based, determined by the extent of the damage and suffering in Gaza and because of its high level of dependency on humanitarian assistance. Israel, by contrast, has the capacity to meet its needs without external assistance. Each member agency was met and field visits made in Gaza. Six further meetings were held there with non-DEC related agencies and individuals including representatives of the United Nations Relief and Works Association (UNRWA), the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organisation (PNGO) and the Ministry of Social Affairs (MoSA). Further meetings were held in Jerusalem and feedback meetings were held in Gaza and Ramallah. The full schedule of activities may be seen in Annex 1. Gaza is experiencing a long term complex emergency punctuated by irregular but reasonably predictable shocks, most notably an economic blockade of Gaza since 2007 and wars in 2008/9, again in 2012 and then most recently in July and August 2014. They have left a legacy of mortality and morbidity, post-traumatic stress, homelessness, impoverishment and widespread damage to infrastructure and fishing, to industry and to agricultural land and thus to livelihoods. The review finds considerable remaining needs across all sectors and that the member agencies’ work is highly relevant. DEC member agencies are making important contributions to a wider humanitarian response to the post war needs of Gaza. Findings from Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) confirm high levels of beneficiary need and appreciation for the value of the member agencies’ work. The review finds that there are advantages to member agencies that are delivering psychosocial support in working together – and with national NGOs, such as the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme – both on project design and on the development and use of monitoring tools. The long term nature of the crisis, and the difficulties of establishing evidence of impact in the short term, suggests the benefits of a strategy of subsuming interventions into long term programming wherever possible. With regard to cash programming, the distribution of food items (FIs) and non-food items (NFIs) was effective, regardless of the delivery mechanism. Direct delivery is favoured by some agencies as the preferred distribution method particularly in rural areas where it is felt that travelling to redeem a voucher posed an unacceptable risk to beneficiaries. Cash vouchers present as an effective, efficient and dignified mechanism in which to replenish food and NFIs in the majority of cases. The electronic cash vouchers system co-managed by the World Food Programme and Oxfam is innovative, worked well, and has attracted the participation of Age International and UNICEF. Its wider use would encourage inter agency collaboration while ensuring no duplication of coverage. Cash for work offers itself as an alternative to distribution, though each member agency will judge the suitability of the intervention against the circumstance of the beneficiary, market conditions and their own capacity. Each member agency was satisfied with its chosen form of delivery.


The review finds that the needs of women, girls and boys are understood and addressed, but that men’s needs require further attention. Disability is a criterion for priority beneficiary consideration in some aspects of member agencies’ work, and Save the Children targets women with a disability in its cash for work programme. Other interventions could be more disability aware. In general, older people are seen more as beneficiaries than rights holders. The strongest single message to DEC from a focus group discussion (FGD) with older people was that they wanted to be economically active. Age International is particularly well placed to advise its fellow member agencies on older persons’ inclusion strategies. International Medical Corps, Plan’s partner, which prioritises men in its psychosocial programming, is able to play the same role regarding men’s inclusion strategies. The review finds good examples of supportive partnerships that indicate a commitment to the strengthening of Palestinian institutions. Partnerships with the Palestinian Agency for Relief and Development (PARC) by three DEC member agencies strengthen its capacity without compromising its independence. It also allows member agencies to coordinate their technical inputs, management support and monitoring systems. Two member agencies have completed their three month scheduled activities while others’ work is on-going. The prepatory work, including damage and other needs assessments and beneficiary selection is completed and activities are underway. This was undertaken within a context of large scale infrastructural destruction and profound beneficiary loss, often both material and personal. In some cases, such as agricultural work, member agencies’ planning took place in conflict sensitive areas such as those in close proximity to the Israeli border (Access Restricted Areas). In two cases work was delayed because of member agencies’ contractual misunderstandings. This has now been resolved. It is anticipated that the majority of member agencies’ outcomes will be met within the scheduled time frames. Five key recommendations are made. 1. DEC member agencies delivering psychosocial activities share intervention

methodologies and collaborate on the development of impact measuring tools with other members and with specialist Palestinian NGOs.

2. Member agencies involved in distribution of food and non-food items consider the advantages of using the electronic cash voucher system co-managed by the World Food Programme and Oxfam.

3. A focus on winterisation support for those living in damaged accommodation, both for beneficiaries and also host families, and for a response to emergency shelter materials to support host family situations is recommended. Further, the review recommends shared lesson learning from two member agencies’ introduction of temporary shelter with a view to its replication where this fits organisational mandate.

4. The review recommends an increased focus on the inclusion of people with a disability, older persons and men into programming. Specifically, it is recommended that Age International share older person inclusion strategies with fellow member agencies and other interested parties. Second, it is recommended that International Medical Corps (Plan’s partner) shares men’s inclusion strategies with member agencies and with others.

5. Partnering of Gazan non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is recommended as a default strategy for the strengthening of civil society. Member agencies may also consider multiple partner funding of the same organisation in order to synergise their technical inputs, management supports and monitoring and evaluation requirements.

1. Acknowledgements The review team, Geoff Cordell and I’tedal Al Khateeb, are grateful to DEC for commissioning this review and to it and World Vision for their technical and logistical support before and during the mission. Thanks to the member agencies in Jerusalem and in Gaza for their hospitality and support to the team. To the non-DEC respondents who offered their time and external perspectives, we are indebted.

2. The scope of the review To review member agencies’ responses against the following DAC criteria: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability. Specific areas of enquiry:

What are agencies doing to meet the psychosocial needs of those affected and how do they intend to measure success, given the limited evidence base for such responses?

How are agencies meeting the demand for cash programming and managing the associated risks? What innovations or new systems have agencies developed to meet this need and monitor distributions?

What strategies are agencies employing in working with IDPs and host families in an environment where resources are scarce for rebuilding and space is restricted?

To provide an overview of the response so far; identify gaps, priority areas and unmet needs from both a sectoral and cross-cutting perspective in order to inform Phase 2 plans. Cross cutting themes should consider how agencies are addressing the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly children, older people and people with disabilities , as well as gender issues. The review should also address the context of working in this volatile and insecure environment and how agencies are working with authorities.

3. Methodology A review of member agencies’ and project related documents was supplemented by a desk top review of the main thematic needs being addressed and the context in which the work was being delivered. Participatory field work included interviews with key respondents and a number of Focus Group Discussions with beneficiary groups. More information on the methodology may be seen in Annex 2.

4. Limitations Ambitious TOR were made more challenging by a review team limited in size by proposed DEC team member agencies being unable to secure Gaza entry visas and by a member agency’s monitoring and evaluation team member being unavailable. A reduced team and a busy schedule meant that less than optimal time was spent with some member agencies.

5. Background From the 7th of July 2014 until the 20th August 2014 Gaza was subject to bombardment by Israel as a consequence of long-standing and simmering tensions between the Hamas-led Gaza authorities and Israel – particularly since the reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas that followed the Cairo talks in April 2014 – that found a catalyst for this latest round of violence in the abduction and murder of three Israeli students in June 2014. The DEC emergency


appeal and subsequent funding of relief and early response activities in the Gaza Strip was a response to the humanitarian consequences of this. 5.1. A chronic emergency beset by crisis and shock The situation in Gaza represents a longstanding and complex emergency – a major crisis that is the result of a political instability, conflict and violence. The emergency is essentially political in nature and erodes Gaza’s cultural, civil, political and economic stability. Additionally, Gaza suffers regular crises or shocks that contribute to death and morbidity, the destruction of infrastructure, increased food insecurity and the breakdown of livelihoods. It is constrained in its ability to respond by its political isolation, the economic blockade and a lack of institutional capacity and finance to react to these crises. 5.2. Gaza today: a tipping point? “There’s no log frame on earth that’s going to solve this crisis”: Respondent, 10th November 2014, Gaza City. It is important to consider the legacy of the war in order to appreciate the scale of the required response. In Gaza, Israel’s military offensive, ‘Protective Edge’ (July to August 2014), caused 2,254 deaths (Protection Cluster, 22 October 2014) of whom 538 were children (Protection Cluster, 22 October 2014). Fifty-four thousand children were made homeless (OCHA, 4 September 2014) and 3,106 children were injured (Protection Cluster, 1 September 2014), 1,500 children were orphaned (Protection Cluster, 1 September 2014) and 89 entire families were killed.1 The conflict led to the deaths of 66 Israeli Defence Force soldiers. Five Israeli civilians and one Thai civilian were killed by rocket fire from Gaza into Israel2. Rocket attacks also caused damage to Israeli civilian infrastructure, including factories, petrol stations, and homes. Israel's airstrikes and an almost three-week-long ground operation in the Gaza Strip caused major damage to Gaza’s infrastructure. UNRWA estimates that over 100,000 refugee and non-refugee homes were damaged or destroyed, affecting more than 600,000 people. This figure is much higher than preliminary Shelter Cluster estimates.3 Eight sewage and water treatment facilities were demolished.4 Approximately 741 acres of agricultural fields were severely damaged or razed during the conflict. Agriculture has been hampered by military campaigns and a buffer zone around the border where farmers can't work. The buffer zone contains 29% of the enclave's arable land.5 The war also took an enormous economic toll. More than 360 factories were destroyed or badly damaged. Almost 10% of Gaza's factories have been put out of action. Most other industrial plants halted production during the conflict, causing losses estimated at more than $70m.6 The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reports that 42,000 acres of croplands had sustained substantial direct damage and half of Gaza's poultry stock was lost due to direct hits or lack of care as access to farmlands along the border with Israel became impossible. More than 9% of the annual fishing catch was lost between 9 July and 10 August.7 Twenty-two schools were completely destroyed and 118 schools damaged. The

1 State of Palestine: Humanitarian Situation Report. UNICEF, 6th November 2014: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20State%20of%20Palestine%20Humanitarian%20SitRep%206Nov2014.pdf 2 BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28439404 3 UNRWA, Gaza Situation Report, 67, October 2014. http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-situation-report-67-30-october-2014 4 Wall Street Journal: http://graphics.wsj.com/gaza-surveying-destruction/ 5 Ibíd. 6 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/gaza-economic-cost-war-factories-destroyed 7 United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), August 2014: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/240924/icode/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_people


education sector was already overstretched prior to the crisis, suffering from a shortage of almost 200 schools, with classes running in double shifts.8 The war exacerbated an already parlous situation. Even before the latest war (Protective Edge, July to August 2014), the Gaza Strip’s local economy was, according to the United Nations (UN) Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), “in a state of total collapse, chiefly due to the accumulated impact of a seven-year blockade and two Israeli military operations in November 2012 (Operation Caste Lead) and December 2008” (Pillar of Defence).9 UNCTAD details how a deteriorating Palestinian economy has resulted in weak growth, forced dependence on the Israeli economy, mass unemployment, wider and deeper poverty, and greater food insecurity.10 UNCTAD concludes that any lasting recovery of the Gazan economy will be impossible without the lifting of the blockade. A 2012 UN report questioned whether Gaza would be a ‘liveable place’ by 2020.11

Sara Roy, an American academic, believes that the wounds of this last war could prove too severe to heal and that Gaza’s 1.8 million inhabitants have no hope of any immediate improvement of their situation (Roy, 2014).12 "The question remains: what should be rebuilt? Should only the destruction from 2014 be repaired, or do we also include the damage resulting from the military operations of 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006?”13 Gaza’s problems, she suggests, cannot be solved with additional infusions of cash, donor conferences, or reconstruction assistance as long as the political issues in the Gaza Strip are not addressed.14 Today’s mood in Gaza reflects this pessimism. “This time, it’s different” was a common refrain of respondents. Talk of emigrating is commonplace. Many respondents warned of a dark despair that, if unaddressed, could manifest itself in a greater societal conservatism and a negative shift in Gaza’s attitude to the west and its agencies, including the NGO community. Hundreds of Palestinians have already fled the Gaza Strip, smuggled through (the now closed) tunnels under the border to Egypt where they have boarded ships to cross the Mediterranean.15 This preparedness to flee the Gaza Strip is a new phenomenon, symbolic, it is thought, of a new sense of hopelessness. A consistent theme of respondents was that humanitarian assistance should be viewed within the context of a long standing and complex emergency that leaves little space for development.

6. Main Findings This section addresses the objectives of the TOR, commencing with a review of Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria for evaluating development assistance16 6.1. A review of agencies’ response against DAC criteria17

8 OCHA Sit Rep, 4 September 2014, http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf 9 UNCTAD, July 2014. http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/tdb61d3_en.pdf 10 Ibid 11 Gaza in 2020: A liveable place? UN 2012. http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/file/publications/gaza/Gaza%20in%202020.pdf 12 Sarah Roy on Gaza. Finklestein 2014: http://normanfinkelstein.com/2014/10/18/sara-roy-on-gaza-3/ 13 Sarah Roy on Gaza. Finklestein 2014: http://normanfinkelstein.com/2014/10/18/sara-roy-on-gaza-3/ 14 Ibid 15

New York Times, September 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/world/middleeast/fleeing-gaza-only-to-face-treachery-and-disaster-at-sea-.html?_r=0 16 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance. http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/file/publications/gaza/Gaza%20in%202020.pdf


The consultant was asked to review member agencies’ responses against DAC criteria of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency and Sustainability. To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid? The review finds each aspect of member agencies’ work to remain valid, both for the immediate and short terms. Below, a summary of outstanding needs is shown against the DEC-funded thematic interests of the member agencies as categorised in the TOR. Food and NFIs and Livelihoods: Around two thirds of the population of Gaza was receiving food assistance prior to the crisis, and food insecurity or vulnerability to food insecurity affected 72 percent of households. At least 40,000 people employed in the agricultural and fishery sector lost their income and livelihoods due to damage to agricultural lands; death/loss of animals, inability to access agricultural lands, particularly in the three-kilometre buffer zone, and loss of employment.18 Seventy one percent of the first tranche of DEC’s allocation funded food, NFIs and livelihoods (Source, TOR). Four DEC member agencies are addressing this issue; CAFOD / CRS and three others who, together, partner the Palestinian NGO, PARC – ActionAid, Care and Christian Aid. Activities include the distribution of food and non-food items, delivered through food parcels or by voucher. Three agencies focus predominantly on livelihoods, their work including cash for work in kindergartens and on agricultural land, the levelling of access roads and agricultural land, rehabilitation of greenhouses and the laying of irrigation pipes, the rehabilitation of poultry houses, provision of essential agricultural materials (including tools and seeds), the restoration of agro wells and unexploded ordinance (UXO) awareness. Education and training: The conflict caused considerable damage to schools and kindergartens, including 22 schools that are beyond repair. Twenty-nine UNRWA schools serve, temporarily, as Collective Centres for displaced people. This situation exacerbates the already burdened school system; many schools were running double shifts even prior to the recent conflict.19 Nine percent of DEC’s first tranche funding supports education and training. The planned supply of return to school kits by Terre des hommes (a partner of Plan) and Save the Children’s training of kindergarten teachers in the effective delivery of psychosocial support to kindergarten children continue to be relevant. Policy and protection: Protection needs are extensive, cover a range of sectors and are on-going. A needs assessment report20 from the protection cluster, 2014 to 2016, (pre ‘Protective Edge’) finds that protection concerns in the Gaza Strip include conflict-related violence; the imposition and methods of enforcement of the Access Restricted Areas; the blockade and restrictions on movement to and from the Gaza Strip, the psychosocial needs of children, casualties from unexploded ordinance, destruction and damage to property, displacement and homelessness, damage to livelihoods and difficulties in the delivery of vital services.

17 DAC criteria: http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/50584880.pdf 18 Gaza Needs Assessment, OCHA: September 2014. http://foodsecuritycluster.net/sites/default/files/Gaza%20MIRA_%20report_9September.pdf 19 UNICEF, September 2014: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_75879.html 20 http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/field_protection_clusters/Occupied_Palestinian/files/oPt_PC_Needs_Analysis_Framework_2014-2016_EN.pdf

http://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/_assets/files/field_protection_clusters/Occupied_Palestinian/files/oPt_PC_Needs_Analysis_Framework_2014-2016_EN.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/50584880.pdf


Seven percent of DEC’s first tranche allocation is used to fund policy and protection work. World Vision has activated child friendly spaces and Plan will do so through its partners War Child and International Medical Corps. Sharing lessons learnt from its own interventions, and perhaps the training of fellow member agencies on inclusion strategies will contribute to Age International’s intended outcome ‘that humanitarian actors and Ministries integrate the specific needs of older people in their own response activities’. The same role can be played by International Medical Corps regarding the inclusion of men. Health (including psychosocial support) and nutrition: The direct impact of the conflict led to the loss of life, disabilities, cessation of treatment for those with chronic illnesses and severe negative effect on the mental wellbeing of the population. Five percent of DEC’s first phase funding supports health and nutrition interventions. The British Red Cross / ICRC’s distribution of war wounded kits and body bags was apposite, while Save the Children’s provision of healthy snacks to children in 20 kindergartens and its partnering with Ard el Insan, Gaza’s leading nutrition focussed NGO, for nutritional assessment and referral, provides important nutritional services to vulnerable children. Additionally, its cash for work programme, wherein it employs women (some with a disability) to prepare the snacks, strengthens family economies, contributes to their psychosocial well-being and conveys important messages of disability and gender inclusion. External support from donors, the UN and NGOs supported the MoH in the response to the crisis and helped to alleviate the situation during the emergency and in the short term aftermath. However, according to health cluster’s ‘Gaza Strip Joint Health Sector Assessment Report’ there is a high likelihood that if funding is not secured beyond this initial period the recovery of the health sector will falter in the medium term.21 Shortages of drugs and medical supplies, limitations in tertiary care capacity, extreme fuel shortage and complicated referral mechanisms for the referral of severe cases abroad exacerbated the situation. ActionAid’s plan to equip 10 medical centres with vital medicines is thus apt. Psychosocial support: The intense psychosocial stress caused by violence has deeply affected children; 373,000 children have been identified as in need of psychosocial support. Death, injury and homelessness have created a population of orphans, children with disabilities and children in need of child protection services. Extensive child protection and welfare support are required to address the complex needs of children.22 Five DEC member agencies contribute to this end through the provision of psychosocial support. Less is known of the psychosocial needs of men, and there is little information on the impact on those with a disability, or on older persons. Men’s needs are the particular focus of the International Medical Corps (Plan). Age International, which published a needs assessment report with a special focus on older people in the Gaza Strip affected by 2012 conflict23, is soon to complete an updated needs assessment on the impact of the war on older persons. Lessons can be shared with fellow member agencies. Water / sanitation: There is a severe shortage of potable water at a time where there is increasing demand for it. Gaza’s water aquifer may become unusable by 2016.24 Poor

21 Gaza Strip Joint Health Sector Assessment Report. September 2014, Health Cluster. http://www.emro.who.int/images/stories/palestine/documents/Joint_Health_Sector_Assessment_Report_Gaza_Sept_2014-final.pdf?ua=1 22 Gaza Crisis Appeal, September 2014. UN. http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/gaza_crisis_appeal_9_september.pdf 23 http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Gaza%20Strip_needs%20assessment%20report_FV%20060712.pdf 24 Gaza in 2020. A liveable place? UN, August 2012.

http://www.emro.who.int/images/stories/palestine/documents/Joint_Health_Sector_Assessment_Report_Gaza_Sept_2014-final.pdf?ua=1


services were worsened during the war, due to electricity and fuel shortages and the inaccessibility of many installations. Despite improved access to these areas following the cessation of hostilities, services remain affected due to the damage sustained by some facilities, including the Gaza Power Plant. Approximately half a million people were directly affected by damage to water facilities, and one million were affected due to damage to the wastewater plant and wastewater pumping stations. Between 20 and 30 percent of water and sewage networks remain damaged.25 Four percent of the total DEC first phase funding contributes to this sector. In this first phase, DEC’s member agencies responded by providing hygiene kits (BRC / ICRC and World Vision) while Save the Children is providing desalination water filters to 20 kindergartens. Shelter: October 2014 estimates26 indicate that 29% of the housing stock has been affected overall and nearly 6% of the housing stock has been severely damaged or destroyed. Currently, more than 100,000 people remain displaced by the recent war, with an estimated 47,000 people living with host families and 57,000 people in collective centres. There are few families in Gaza that have not been affected in some manner; if not with damaged houses, then by challenges in accessing household items, food, adequate water and sanitation services. The 20,000 households with destroyed or severely damaged houses as a result of ‘Protective Edge’ will require interim solutions for years, in addition to support with reconstruction, given the current limitations on accessing the necessary building materials. The October 2014 Gaza Response update (shelter) may be read here27. Shelter represents 1% of the total planned use of the first tranche of DEC funds. Oxfam’s targeting of host families as priority beneficiaries and the British Red Cross / ICRC’s distribution of ‘house destruction relief kits’, are examples of member agencies’ contribution. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives? There is a clear relationship between the inputs and activities and the expected outcomes and the goal of the member agencies’ programmes. To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved? Two member agencies fully achieved their objectives within their three-month timeframes. Others’ work is on-going. The review finds that in the majority of cases, the member agencies’ objectives are likely to be achieved within the stipulated time frame (six months for the majority of the outcomes). There are two exceptions. First, the review finds that ‘improved psychosocial well-being of children and women and better coping mechanisms’ is an ambitious target for six months given the difficulty of measuring the relationship between inputs and outcomes in psychosocial well-being, particularly in the short term. Equally ambitious, we find, is that humanitarian actors and Ministries will integrate the specific needs of older people in their own (post war) response activities within six months. This is an entirely laudable aim, and sorely needed, but is likely to require a longer investment in awareness raising, advocacy, training and policy reform. That said, a good beginning may be made by advising fellow members on older persons’ inclusion strategies.

25Gaza, Initial Rapid Assessment, August 2014, UN. http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/gaza_mira_report_9september.pdf 26 Shelter Cluster Palestine. 11 October 2014. Norwegian Refugee Council. http://www.nrc.no/arch/img.aspx?file_id=9185716&ext=.pdf 27 Shelter Cluster Palestine; Gaza response update. 11 October 2014. http://www.nrc.no/arch/img.aspx?file_id=9185716&ext=.pdf

http://www.nrc.no/arch/img.aspx?file_id=9185716&ext=.pdf

http://www.nrc.no/arch/img.aspx?file_id=9185716&ext=.pdf


What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? With the agreement of DEC, one member agency has agreed to defer the start of its activities and another is awaiting registration with the authorities in Gaza. Two member agencies’ objectives have been met within their three-month timeframe. Two member agencies’ start dates were delayed because of contractual misunderstandings with DEC. These have now been resolved. The review finds that other member agencies are likely to meet their objectives despite occasional delays in the start of activities caused by the levels of post war destruction and population displacement. Were activities cost-efficient? It was not possible to measure this within the constraints of the review team and because in the majority of cases work is on-going. Were objectives achieved on time? Two member agencies completed their work within the agreed three month timeframe. Other member agencies’ work is on-going. Given that the majority of the outcomes are to be met within six months, the review finds it likely that the objectives will be achieved on time. We have earlier drawn attention to two exceptions. Findings a. The work of the member agencies is valid. b. As member agencies consider second tranche funding, the continuing need for food

and non-food items – and market reviews – should be updated in concert with the clusters. For those member agencies that assess a continuing role in this area, consideration may be given to cash for work programming rather than distribution, where this matches beneficiary capacity, and fits organisational remit and capacity.

c. Supply of desalination water filters to kindergartens provides potable water in a time of scarcity to a vulnerable group. Its wider application is something for other member agencies to consider – for example in CBOs and age and child friendly spaces.

d. Temporary shelter needs remain largely unaddressed. Repeat provision of hygiene kits is likely to be necessary, particular for host and IDP families.

e. Age International’s brief of increased inclusion of older men and women in member agencies’ projects by the end of the project lends itself to working closely with other DEC member agencies on this issue, certainly through sharing lessons learned and possibly through training on inclusion strategies. The same applies to International Medical Corps and men’s inclusion strategies.

f. Outcomes are likely to be achieved. 6.2. Specific areas of enquiry After consultation with the member agencies, the TOR identified three main areas of specific enquiry: 1. What are agencies doing to meet the psychosocial needs of those affected and how do

they intend to measure success, given the limited evidence base for such responses? 2. How are agencies meeting the demand for cash programming and managing the

associated risks? What innovations or new systems have agencies developed to meet this need and monitor distributions?


3. What strategies are agencies employing in working with IDPs and host families in an environment where resources are scarce for rebuilding and space is restricted?

6.2.1. What are agencies doing to meet the psychosocial needs of those affected and how do they intend to measure success, given the limited evidence base for such responses?

Five member agencies are contracted to deliver psychosocial support. One, World Vision, has begun, while others are soon to begin, including ActionAid, Age International, Plan, which has recently signed agreements with two agencies to delivery psychosocial interventions (War Child and International Medical Corps), and Save the Children. The review team visited World Vision and War Child Friendly Spaces (CFS). Focus Group Discussions were held with psychosocial workers and parents of child beneficiaries at World Vision, and with girls and boys attending War Child’s Child Friendly Space. A focus group discussion was also held with girls and boys of the Culture and Free Thought Association’s psychosocial project in Khan Younis, funded by Christian Aid. Findings were universally positive. Children spoke warmly of their experiences in the child friendly spaces, contrasting the varied and stimulating activities there – which include drawing, music, drama, art, computer literacy, reading development, story writing, poetry and photography – and the positive and enabling attitude of the NGO staff, with the uninspiring rote learning of school, often delivered in an intimidating atmosphere. Each group of children spoke of beatings and humiliation at school. They contrasted this with the culture of positive feedback in the child friendly spaces. Children were aware of household stress and expressed concerns for the safety of their parent, other family members, and friends. The review team also visited two non-DEC funded agencies, Mercy Corps and the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP)28 for an external perspective of needs and appropriate responses. Findings from the meeting with GCMHP are paraphrased below. ‘The mental health environment is framed by repeated war, an economic blockade, a lack of space and opportunity and high levels of unemployment. One normalises this environment in order to cope with it, but such coping strategies, or ‘resilience’ is to be understood as a defensive reaction to events over which one has little control. Research in Beit Lahiya (in the north of the Strip) found high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among children. It also found that the more educated and financially secure the family, the more it was able to defend itself through discussion, mutual support and care for its children. UNICEF estimates that 373,000 children require psychosocial support interventions, a figure that GCMHP does not contest. People died in ‘safe’ spaces, confounding the notion of personal control. This is the environment in which one must discuss psychosocial well-being and mental health issues. And in this context, donor expectations of a clear correlation between their activities and improved well-being in the short term are unrealistic.’ Findings

a. Feedback from children attending child friendly spaces was entirely positive. There is no doubt that children are offered a very positive experience.

28 http://www.gcmhp.net/en/


b. All DEC’s member agencies deliver or plan to deliver long term psychosocial support work through community based organisations (CBOs). This serves to improve the possibility of proven impact and validates and strengthens national capacity.

c. Each DEC member agency delivers or will deliver a psychosocial support ‘programme’ (rather than, for example, a series of unstructured activities that the beneficiary may or may not attend). The programme is structured through key stages, each of which has a set of activities designed to achieve agreed outcomes. Participants are expected to complete the programme in order to draw maximum benefit from it.

d. Psychological first aid has value if it follows the core actions of Contact and Engagement, Safety and Comfort, Stabilization, Information Gathering, Current Needs and Concerns, Practical Assistance, Connection with Social Supports, Information on Coping and Linkage with Collaborative Services. This is an approach taken by World Vision. 29

e. The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) is providing a ‘help for helpers’ service in the Artificial Limb Centre (ALC)30 designed to those who work in stressful situations help them recognise and deal with stress. All agencies may benefit from such an approach. Good practise guidelines are available.31

f. In the absence of a governing or regulatory body, member agencies work to professional standards such as those established by the World Health Organisation, the War Trauma Foundation and World Vision (for psychological first aid)32 and the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings.33

g. Member agencies are using a variety of monitoring tools, including:

o The use of questionnaires including questions related to psychosocial and social issues.

o The use of pre and post-activity questionnaires. o Questionnaires one year after having finished the programme to measure change

over time and the efficacy of the model of intervention, and comparison with a group that had not been part of the programme.

o Phoning a sample of care-givers to ask if there is an appreciable difference in their child’s health / behaviour.

h. Member agencies may consider lesson learning and the joint development of monitoring tools that are cognisant of the wide variety of social determinants of health34 that must be taken into account.

i. International Medical Corps prioritises men for its psychosocial interventions. Lesson learning, and sharing these lessons with others, including DEC’s member agencies, is recommended.

j. Member agencies may also consider heeding the call of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme for a stronger partnership with agencies delivering psychosocial work, particularly around the design, delivery and monitoring of activities.

29 World Health Organisation (WHO), 2011. Psychological first aid: Guide for field workers http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548205_eng.pdf?ua=1 30 Artificial Limb Centre, Gaza: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/2011/gaza-orthopedic-centre-icrc-2011.pdf 31 Managing stress in humanitarian workers: Guidelines for good practice, Antares Foundation, 2012: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/managing_stress_in_humanitarian_aid_workers_guidelines_for_good_practice.pdf 32 Ibid 33 Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), 2007: http://www.who.int/mental_health/emergencies/guidelines_iasc_mental_health_psychosocial_june_2007.pdf 34 http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/


6.2.2. What strategies are agencies employing in working with internally displaced persons (IDPs) and host families in an environment where resources are scarce for rebuilding and space is restricted?

Oxfam explicitly mentioned the targeting of host families in its proposal to DEC through the cash voucher system. The British Red Cross / ICRC distributed ‘house destruction relief kits’, which included tarpaulin and plastic sheets with adhesive tapes. That apart, member agencies are not addressing shelter needs through first phase DEC funding. Of the member agencies’ planned use of funds by sector, shelter represents only 1% of the total (source: TOR). A desk top review of the housing crisis in Gaza was carried out and a visit was made to a Collective Centre to discuss future housing options with IDPs sheltering there. Discussions were held with DEC’s member agencies and a meeting was held with the Deputy Minister of MoSA to discuss short term and long term housing issues. Time did not allow us to meet with the shelter cluster. Permanent housing: The Gaza Reconstruction mechanism It is estimated that Gaza needs almost $8bn (GB£5bn) in aid to rebuild after the 50-day war.35 A UN-sponsored agreement for the reconstruction of Gaza has begun but is facing criticism from senior international officials and NGOs, who say it will create a restrictive new monitoring regime for building materials that risks putting the UN in charge of a continuing Israeli blockade. The agreement seeks to enable the reconstruction of Gaza by agreeing to strict Israeli conditionality. The agreement would cede to Israel the right to approve, and potentially veto, major rebuilding projects, including their location. Those in favour take a pragmatic approach to political realities and hope that the agreement could help develop trust and be a step in the direction of ending the blockade whilst critics argue that the UN becomes complicit in its management and enforcement. An UNSCO fact sheet explains the modalities36 while a more critical review of the agreement may be read in the Guardian.37 Temporary housing A scheme to rehouse IDPs is to provide rental support through the Transitional Shelter Cash Assistance scheme (TSCA) which began on the 28th September. It offers financial incentives for families to move from Collective Centres into rented accommodation. The perceived advantages and disadvantages of the TSCA were discussed with two resident families in the Area Collective Centre based in Zaitun Elementary Boys’ School. Of 91 eligible families in the Collective Centre (total population of 2,845), eight families have taken advantage of the scheme and five more families said they will avail it. One family was actively looking for rented accommodation while the second was refusing to move. Perceived advantages were agreed reluctantly – the clear preference being for permanent homes – and included: the difficulties of living indefinitely in a Collective Centre that offered no privacy and no opportunity of living an ordered and structured life. The list of perceived disadvantages, agreed by both families, was considerably longer, and included: very few

35 The Guardian, Friday 3 October 2014 36 UNSCO Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism Fact Sheet http://www.unsco.org/Gaza%20Reconstruction%20Mechanism%20Fact%20Sheet%209%20October%202014.pdf 37 Guardian: 3rd October 2014: Gaza reconstruction plan ‘risks putting UN in charge of Israeli blockade’. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/03/gaza-reconstruction-plan-un-israel-blockade


suitable homes for rent; the need to relocate to new areas of Gaza and, with it, the associated problems of re-establishing one’s base; the fact that the Collective Centres offer a range of important services free (rent, services, water, medical treatment) that makes moving difficult and finally, the inability to pay the rent once the financial subsidy ends. Some must also take into account the refusal of landlords to rent to families whose homes had been ‘targeted’ rather than destroyed by collateral damage. Through other funding sources, Islamic Relief has provided cash assistance to some households whose homes were severely damaged – very similar to UNRWA’s TSCA scheme – designed to provide rental assistance and to buy furniture. However, it finds that needs outstrip its capacity to respond. Islamic Relief is therefore proposing temporary accommodation until permanent homes are rebuilt. Temporary shelter Two DEC member agencies, Islamic Relief and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), are planning to provide temporary accommodation in Gaza, though this is not being done with DEC funding. Islamic Relief is at the planning stage. It may use a self-help owner driven or funder-built approach. It proposes temporary structures made of wood on a steel framework made from locally available materials. It is developing a pilot of 20 homes and will lesson learn from its experience. The temporary structures will be placed near to families’ damaged homes, allowing them to leave Collective Centres and host families. Islamic Relief believes that there are few, if any alternative options, especially given that the rebuilding of Gaza is a long term project subject to many uncertainties and risks. The estimated cost of each structure is between US$ 7,000 and 8,000. CRS, CAFOD’s implementing partner, plans to do the same in rural areas in Khan Younis, in the south of the Strip. It will have established 40 units by December. Shelters will be established on beneficiaries’ own land – with their full support and encouragement – following a participative process with the affected community. Each unit will cost approximately US$ 5,000. They will be timber framed and will come in three different (family) sizes. Internal fittings will be the responsibility of the family. Both Islamic Relief’s and CRS’s shelters will meet Sphere standards. The review finds that an open dialogue with the Municipality and beneficiary groups and the active engagement and contribution of willing participants in the design and the location of the shelter itself are central to the likelihood of success of this intervention. The Deputy Minister MoSA, Dr Yousif K Ibrahim, regards temporary shelter in political terms, seeing its provision as a potential threat to the rights of Palestinian people for permanent shelter. Other respondents thought that temporary shelter was suitable in a rural location, particularly for farming communities that are familiar with living on their land. Findings from a review of Islamic Relief and CRS’s temporary shelter schemes should inform other DEC member agencies that may be considering a similar response. Findings Current interventions a. Oxfam targeted host families through its cash voucher system. b. The British Red Cross (ICRC) distributed ‘house destruction relief kits’, which included

tarpaulin and plastic sheets with adhesive tapes.


c. Two member agencies are either delivering or planning to deliver temporary shelters, though not with DEC funding.

Possible future strategies a. The winterisation of those living in damaged accommodation. b. Non-food items and hygiene kit distribution to beneficiaries in need and also to host

families. A gap analysis has been published by OCHA.38 c. Emergency shelter materials are needed to support host family situations to provide a

modicum of privacy in crowded conditions. Also, materials to support households living in damaged houses, so that they might seal off damaged rooms or create a warm, dry, ventilated room within a room using wooden framework, a tent or other solutions whilst ensuring safety within the building structure and limits.

d. Host family situations are often overcrowded and tensions can be expected. Hosted and host families will need to be tracked in order to respond for as long as hosting remains a necessity.39

e. Based on the lessons learned from the two member agencies’ introduction of temporary shelter, other agencies could consider this option should it fit their mandate.

6.2.3. How are agencies meeting the demands for cash programming and managing the associated risks? What innovations or new systems have agencies developed to meet the need and monitor distributions?

Of the 11 DEC member agencies responding in Gaza, six are running, or plan to run, a form of cash programming activity40 – ActionAid, Age International, CAFOD (through CRS) Christian Aid, Oxfam and Save the Children. Two other member agencies, BRC (through ICRC) and World Vision chose direct distribution. Of the six member agencies delivering or planning to deliver cash programming, three had begun (ActionAid, CAFOD/CRS and Save the Children). The reasons given by member agencies for direct distribution rather than using cash programming (vouchers, for example), were as follows: beneficiaries prefer it; our involvement in the market allows us to understand prices and price trends; we can buy goods wholesale and ensure a good price; we can ensure the quality of the goods delivered; we can better monitor this way – we know what we are buying, we know where it goes; we won’t do unconditional cash since we want and need to be accountable for its use; it is very important that we are seen to be accountable. The two member agencies’ review of their direct distribution is that:

It worked well, and they see no strong advantage in changing their processes.

Only a small amount of distributed goods was lost due to market place monetisation.

The relative lack of monetisation of goods in market places suggests continuing household need for many items.

Good planning includes: good beneficiary targeting, partnering long standing, trusted community based organisations (CBOs) as partners supplemented by monitoring that includes regular market assessments and home visits.

38 http://www.nrc.no/arch/img.aspx?file_id=9185716&ext=.pdf 39 The following links and contacts may be useful for DEC member agencies working in shelter in Gaza. Shelter Cluster Surge Coordinator Palestine: Steve Barker, [email protected] Shelter Cluster Coordinator Gaza: Iyad Abu Hamam, NRC, [email protected] www.sheltercluster.org and http://www.shelterpalestine.org 40 Comprising unconditional cash, conditional cash, cash vouchers or cash for work.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sheltercluster.org/


There are advantages to direct distribution in remote areas during times of tension; it is felt to be a preferred option to a voucher system that would require beneficiaries to expose themselves to risk when redeeming them. That said, the risk is borne instead by project staff.

Cash for work At the time of the review, CAFOD / CRS and Save the Children had begun cash for work programming.

CRS / CAFOD Cash for Work Records Data Gathering with CRS / CAFOD in Khan Younis

CAFOD / CRS gives priority to socio-economically vulnerable households including female headed households, households with disabled family members, and/or large families who suffered total destruction to their homes and are currently unemployed. Some of CRS’s cash for work beneficiaries are farmers, but they are not farmers who have been selected to benefit from the agricultural input vouchers and rehabilitation aspects of the project. In other words, there is no one who is benefitting both from cash for work and the farmer package of support. Unskilled workers are paid GB£10 per day and skilled workers GB£13.3. Save the Children works through two partners, the Najdah Association and the Jabalia Rehabilitation Society, to provide a range of services in 10 kindergartens per partner. In each, local women have been employed on a cash for work basis to prepare ‘morning healthy snacks’. In the Jabalia Rehabilitation Society 50% of beneficiaries are women with a hearing disability. Women are paid GB£12.7 per eight hour working day.

Save the Children funded cash for work activities


Employment has a number of benefits including: the supply of healthy snacks for children who otherwise would not have them; women find gainful employment, gain skills, and are able to contribute to the household economy; the discipline of a working environment offers structure to the day and a respite from domestic demands – there is thus an assumed implicit psychosocial benefit from this activity – and there is an important gender and disability dimension to the work, with women (some with a disability) demonstrating their economic value in the market place. The devastation and loss of assets has been such that both agencies assume beneficiaries will use their income on a range of recovery costs as well as food. Cash Vouchers Four agencies use, or intend to use, cash vouchers: ActionAid, Age International, CAFOD / CRS and Oxfam. Of this number, ActionAid and Oxfam have used them thus far. A review of the system being used or to be introduced finds a number of common features, including: a beneficiary selection system that works through local partners and which prioritises the most vulnerable, who are seen to include those who have lost their homes or whose homes are badly damaged (damage to the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen), female headed households, families with no income, families with one or more family members with a disability and large families (seven plus). The modalities also have common features, including:

Vouchers are printed with serial numbers and the beneficiary’s name, ID number and telephone number. Shops are invited to apply for involvement in the scheme via an open advertising process. Shops are then selected against criteria that includes: willing to participate in the voucher system, registration with the local authority, stocks an appropriate range of goods that are verified for quality and which are restocked quickly, willing to stock local produce in favour of imported goods, willing to host posters and other advertising materials, willing to be monitored by the member, able and willing to keep clear records and share a copy with the member, willing to be paid in arrears, once the bills of sale have been validated. A contract with the shopkeeper is then signed.

The beneficiary list is then shared with the shopkeeper who keeps a copy. A second list details what food and NFIs can be redeemed with the voucher. There may be brand choice within the item. Both lists are laminated. One member agency pays a deposit on proposed sales, but others either do not, or do not plan to. The review finds that both systems appear to be acceptable to the shopkeepers. The member agency checks the till roll against the bill of sale and verifies expenditure. A check is made of items bought in order to verify that no improper use has taken place. The shops are monitored by the member agencies’ team members. Bills are settled monthly in arrears.

The beneficiary should redeem the full value of the voucher at one time for the sake of administrative ease and in order not to ‘crowd out’ the shop for non-voucher shoppers.

ActionAid has used the cash voucher system twice, in August and September. The first round was for 1,000 NIS GB£167 and vouchers were printed in names of both male and female heads of household. The second round was also for GB£167 and the voucher was in the name of the female head of the household only. In the second round it was felt that the situation had somewhat stabilised and traditional gender roles re-established themselves. In this situation it was thought that women should be empowered by having sole authority over the voucher’s redemption value. The second voucher was split GB£100 for NFIs (including school uniform) and GB£67 for food.


A World Food Programme (WFP) and Oxfam value based cash voucher scheme runs in Gaza and is described below.

Value based vouchers – Cash Programming

World Food Programme (WFP) and Oxfam: Innovative Practice in the Gaza Strip

Project: Value based Vouchers (Cash Programming) using electronically topped up magnetic cards. The model was developed by World Food Programme (WFP) and has been improved by its Gaza office and Oxfam GB through their partnership since 2009. Terminals were designed by OFFTEC, Jordan41 (see photos below). The model has been used by WFP/Oxfam GB since 2009. In this DEC funded project, 2,500 households received weekly food vouchers for three months from August to October. The DEC funded project is now complete. During the emergency response the scalability of the modality was evident. From the regular voucher targeting 10,000 households the emergency voucher reached 50,000 households by September – 2,500 from this DEC grant worth GB£371,364. The scheme has worked well; it is reviewed annually by WFP and Oxfam through SWOT analysis. The voucher ran with no interruptions throughout the 2014 Gaza War. For the emergency, WFP and the Food Security Sector coordinated with MoSA for cross checks entitlement of the data base which is managed by WFP. It is a system that can be used to address the food and other needs of long term vulnerable communities such as those on the data base of MoSA – for example in scheduled payment programming, such as pension payments or hardship allowance payments the same modality could be used. In effect it is a debit card which is credited with an agreed financial value and which can be redeemed at a number of approved shops – those that meet agreed criteria. An electronic record is made of items purchased which enables close monitoring of its use by the trained cooperating partner staff. Records and reports are extracted electronically from the SAHTEIN website. This can be verified by physical inspection of the purchase roll. It can quickly be seen, for example, if a beneficiary is buying a particular type of goods, perhaps for resale on the market. It allows plotting the type of commodities that have been bought to assess the secondary effects on the economy. It has a built in monitoring and accountability component. Payments can fairly easily be stopped or increased. Oxfam GB does weekly market monitoring (snap shots of participating and non-participating shops as well as main markets), ensuring that there is a food supply, and that the wholesale and retail elements of the market are working (that the shops are supplied and that people can access the shops). Twenty-seven food items can be purchased from approved shops. Shops must be verified as suitable, meeting a number of criteria that includes cleanliness, cold chain, health, hygiene, etc. Shops are keen to be involved. There is a waiting list. Beneficiaries cannot buy meat or fresh food because of questions of safety and expense. To support different value chains and boost the local economy, shops are encouraged to buy local produce, when they may, perhaps, have earlier been inclined to buy imported goods. The value chain thus links the farmer with the retailer and the customer. There is an ad hoc group to develop possible local commodities that is planned to be formalised via an MoU between WFP and Oxfam for product development. There are no plans to extend this back to improving agricultural produce (goods yield, etc) since this is being done by others. However,

41 http://www.offtec.com/


the scheme does promote ‘buy local’, and supports producers through to customers and keeps money within the fragile Gazan economy. The popularity of the scheme has allowed Oxfam GB to influence market behaviour – e.g. flour is now sold in smaller sized bags so that more people can buy it. The scheme is being joined by UNICEF and Age International. WFP has a funding gap for the continuation of the cover of emergency needs. There will be a drop in coverage from 50,000 households to probably less than 10,000. Some of the people will be “returned” to UNRWA as they are refugees. Criteria for selection will be more stringent, closely related to the impact of conflict and extremely urgent need due to the reduced available funding. The scheme worked well. Pre-financing was a problem – in some cases Oxfam GB put its own money into it as a temporary advance. No other issues were found apart from one time an erroneous topping up was made. This was corrected by contacting the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries need to be cross checked to ensure there is no duplication. The system requires coordination through the Food Security sector and other clusters and line ministries and through coordination with other actors.

Voucher verification and Terminal, Oxfam field visit: 5 November 2014

Findings

a. The relative lack of monetising of distributed materials suggests a continuing high level of

need, well targeted beneficiaries and well-chosen goods. The situation can change quickly and regular review is required.

b. Member agencies were satisfied with their chosen distribution methods and saw little reason to change. Some agencies preferred direct delivery and believe this offers the direct control they need in an environment in which it is important to be able to demonstrate the use of money. Item selection involved beneficiary and member agency input.

c. Other member agencies believe the cash voucher system offers greater dignity to the beneficiary, increased choice of brand and the right to redeem the voucher at the most suitable time to the family. The system is regarded as being efficient and cost effective, sparing the member agency the logistical costs of warehousing, or of purchase, package and delivery. It also strengthens the market value chain by encouraging the purchase of local produce, thus keeping money within the Gazan economy. Through discussions with member agencies, beneficiaries and shopkeepers, the review finds that the system offers a number of advantages to NGOs and beneficiaries alike.

d. Risks are managed in a number of ways including:


o A voucher system links beneficiaries to particular shops for management and monitoring purposes. A contract with the shopkeeper agrees modalities of the scheme.

o The advertising and careful selection of participating shopkeepers against criteria including their registration with the Municipality, high stock levels and ability to restock. Member agencies also check that goods are not past their ‘sell by’ date and are not overpriced.

o The regular monitoring by project staff of the shopkeeper’s interaction with beneficiaries.

o The member agency checks the till roll against the bill of sale and verifies expenditure.

o Home visits are made to discuss the use of the cards and any issues that may require attention.

o The shops are monitored by the member agencies’ team members. Bills are settled monthly in arrears.

o Customers can complain using a telephone hotline (100). The member agency also provides a complaints box in each shop which is regularly reviewed.

o Oxfam makes monthly checks on the use of the SAHTEIN card. The shop based terminals are attached to the Jerusalem-based server which receives a copy of each receipt, offering external validation.

e. The review finds that the electronic value based voucher system run by the World Food Programme and Oxfam has all the advantages of the standard cash voucher system, while offering the added advantage of being able to share a data base with other member agencies and thus collaborate to ensure no overlap in beneficiary selection.

f. Whilst it is agreed that the setting up costs of the system would be a disincentive in short term emergencies, the long standing emergency in Gaza suits its introduction particularly well.

g. It is a system that can be used to address the food and other needs of long term vulnerable communities such as those on the data base of MoSA – for example in scheduled payment programming, such as pension payment or hardship allowance payments.

Additionally, and independently, the Ministry of the Interior makes its own checks on shops to ensure no profiteering.

6.3. To provide an overview of the response so far; identify gaps, priority areas and

unmet needs from both a sectoral and cross-cutting perspective in order to inform Phase 2 plans.

There is unmet need in all sectors across relief, early recovery and development. The partners’ work continues to be relevant. The results of focus group discussions reveal it to be appropriate and well received. Psychological first aid can be developed into longer term psychosocial ‘programmes’ of activities, such is the need. Regarding the distribution of food and non-food items, clusters can be contacted to assess the continuing need, though there is little evidence at this point of large scale monetisation of goods, which suggests a continuing need. The market requires monitoring as does households access to it; this involves an understanding of the level of asset loss, loss of savings, loss of livelihoods and unemployment. Cash for work may be considered as an alternative to distribution where beneficiary capacity allows and where this matches the member agencies’ areas of expertise.


Member agencies that distribute food and non-food items may consider discussing the use of the e-voucher system operated by the World Food Programme and Oxfam. Regarding shelter, member agencies can consider winterisation support for IDP and host families and those living in damaged accommodation. Non-food items can include hygiene kits. The shelter needs of host and hosted families require careful monitoring. Temporary shelter needs may be required for them to provide some level of privacy, and for those moving back into damaged accommodation. Desalination water filters may be considered by those working in settings such as age and child friendly spaces or kindergartens. The requirement of those with particular needs is addressed below. 6.4. The needs of the most vulnerable, particularly children, older people and

people with disabilities , as well as gender issues

Children’s needs appear to be well understood and well articulated. The needs of older people appear to be less well understood or catered for. A 2012 assessment by Help Age International finds that the main gaps for older people are: access to and, accessibility of, services resulting in an overall lack of inclusion of older people and their missing out on the delivery of services by multiple actors with a range of mandates. Older people account for up to the 8.9% of the total population of the occupied Palestinian territories and have a range of age related needs. Its research found that few of the actors delivering basic services employ mechanisms or approaches to ensure older people’s inclusion in service provision, or ensure their basic needs are met. As a result many older people are dependent on support provided by their family and community which is not always appropriate or adequate to meet their needs42. The review echoes these findings. Whilst agencies identified their vulnerability as a criterion for wider (family) beneficiary selection, few developed older person-specific interventions. Visits to an Age Friendly Space (with Age International’s partner El Wedad) and findings from a focus group discussion with older men there reveal frustration with their domestic arrangements – where they live in extended families – and their dependence on others. Two key findings were made. First, older people want to be involved in determining the services offered to them and, second, they want to be economically active. Age International has a livelihoods component that targets older people farmers and older people artisans to fix greenhouses. It stands ready to advise other member agencies needing support to include older people in livelihoods work. The same might be said about disability, though there are examples of good practice. Save the Children, for example, employs women with a hearing disability to prepare healthy snacks for kindergarten children as part of its cash for work programme. Other services, including psychosocial services for children, might give thought to the inclusion of children with a disability into their programmes. One recognises that the destruction of the built environment is such that wheelchair users, for example, are effectively housebound and will need assistance to attend services. Regarding gender issues, the review finds that the needs of women are better understood than the needs of men, particularly in the field of psychosocial interventions. The International Medical Corps (Plan) does focus on men, but it is the exception. Findings

42 http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Gaza%20Strip_needs%20assessment%20report_FV%20060712.pdf


a. The needs of women, girls and boys are understood and largely catered for, but men’s are less so. The psychosocial needs of men is an important element of gender mainstreaming and should be addressed.

b. Disability is a criterion for priority beneficiary consideration in some aspects of partners’ work, and one member agency targets women with a disability in its cash for work programme. However, some services are less disability aware.

c. In general, older people are understood more in terms of their vulnerability than as rights holders. Older persons expressed the desire and need to be economically active. Age International is ready to assist its fellow members with inclusion strategies.

6.5. Terrorist financing legislative requirements

DEC’s member agencies in Gaza must avoid contravening UK and EU terrorist financing regulations, which prohibits the direct or indirect provision of funds or economic resources to a group designated under these regulations. In Gaza this includes a variety of groups, including Hamas, the Islamic movement that controls the administration of the territory43. It is particularly difficult for Muslim NGOs.44 In the UK, ‘having reasonable cause to suspect’ that funds will contribute to terrorist activity is enough to attract criminal responsibility. 45 It is important to maintain a distinction between provision of funds and economic resources and contact: terrorist financing legislation does not prohibit contact with listed groups. Negotiating access and humanitarian space in Gaza requires and accommodation with the administration there. This Response Review was not an audit to ensure compliance with these legislative requirements as the DEC and its member agencies have separate processes in place to address these issues. However, the review team did not see in the course of its work any evidence to suggest that DEC member agency funds were being diverted. Regarding programming, member agencies liaise with UNRWA and OCHA and donor governments on issues of access and operational practice and have developed a technical working relationship with the Gaza administration on operational rather than political issues. For example, they cross-check beneficiary lists with MoSA but they do not talk to ministers. While there is contact (and thus coordination) at a technical level via the UN cluster system, there are no formal agreements and no funding of Ministries. Further, care is taken to ensure that the member agencies’ CBO partners are not politically affiliated. It is not yet clear if or how this relationship, and the demands made by the donors, will change as a consequence of the new unity government. 6.6. Strengthening Gazan civil society through partnership When asked what single message it wished the consultant to convey to DEC, PNGO, responded: “INGOs must have local partners. These partners must be real partners, not sub contracted delivery agents. Working without partners undermines Palestinian Civil Society. We want to be involved.”46

43 Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG), 2011: Counter-terrorism and humanitarian action Tensions, impact and ways forward. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7347.pdf 44 AID POLICY: Islamic agencies battle the odds in Gazahttp://www.irinnews.org/report/94750/aid-policy-islamic-agencies-battle-the-odds-in-gaza 45 Ibid 46 Meeting with PNGO member agencies in Gaza City, 8th November 2014.


This would appear to mirror trends in northern NGO partnerships models, which include:

Shifting away from being operational to working with southern partners

Developing systematic policies and a strategic focus

Moving from a project focus to a partner focus.47 This review finds these trends mirrored in the approach of the majority of DEC member agencies. An example is the funding and partnering of a national NGO, the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Society (PARC) by three DEC member agencies, ActionAid, CARE and Christian Aid. The possibility of power differentials implicit in a vertical funding relationship of donor / recipient is offset by the national partner’s lack of dependency on any one partner and by a horizontal partnership relationship that recognises and supports the partner’s expertise and empowers it to deliver in the field rather than subcontracting it to fulfil the international partner’s mandate. Monthly coordination meetings between PARC and the DEC member agencies are designed to develop a common approach to PARC’s capacity building. In the case of Christian Aid, there is no evidence that its lack of registration and office impedes in any way its ability to support and monitor the work of its partner. “Some INGOs came after the (2008/9) crisis and left soon after. They hired local staff, asked us if they could establish a referral mechanism and then left. This is not partnership. Others stay longer, become part of the community, hire local people, work within the local context, work the community, invest in and train their staff and seek partnerships with us. Such an approach is highly welcomed.” Dr Yasser M Abu-Jamal, Executive Director of GCMHP; 5th November 2014. Findings: a. The importance of INGOs partnering and developing the capacity of national partners as

part of a commitment to the development of Palestinian civil society is highlighted by respondents.

b. A long presence in the country and a commitment to working with national actors in an empowering relationship is particularly important in the context of Gaza, and this is the approach taken by many DEC member agencies.

c. Joint partner support for a single national NGO offers opportunities for institutional strengthening, a scaling up of outputs and the coordination of technical inputs, contract management and monitoring and evaluation requirements and mechanisms.

6.7. Humanitarian assistance and advocacy for political change

“Humanitarian aid alone, after all, cannot make up for the denial of rights and dignity. It doesn’t anywhere else in the world, and one should not expect it to do so in Gaza.” UNRWA’s Commissioner General, Pierre Krähenbühl.48 Respondents identify the emergency in Gaza as ‘manmade’, and believe that successfully linking relief to recovery and development is contingent upon an end to the blockade of Gaza. Though aware of the limited political influence of INGOs in this conflict, and of the dangers of a perceived partisan understanding of the causes of the current situation in Gaza – or of simply taking sides in a bitter conflict – it is a commonly held view that future humanitarian responses must adopt a dual strategy of humanitarian assistance and advocacy for an end to the blockade.

47 INTRAC, 2004: Autonomy or Dependence? North–South NGO Partnerships http://cercle.lu/download/partenariats/INTRAC1autonomy1or1dependence.pdf 48 UNRWA Situation Report 63, October 2014. http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/emergency-reports/gaza-situation-report-63


Advocacy for political change is not without risks. Advocacy to change the policies of governments in a conflict situation by agencies who are also operational in that context can be particularly challenging, as registration, visa and access and other approvals also need to be negotiated with these same authorities. In the oPt, as in other conflict situations around the world, DEC member agencies need to carefully balance their advocacy objectives with their programming requirements. A possible strategy is for sensitive advocacy messages to be delivered by organisations that are not operational in the context. Joint INGO advocacy work may also be useful if this can be done in a way that protects individual NGOs from being targeted while still achieving their advocacy objectives.

7. A summary of the key findings 1. Gaza is not suited to short term psychosocial interventions. Actors with a long term

presence may consider how to build it long term programming. The unregulated nature of the sector lends itself to coordination among actors, particularly with regard to lesson learning on programme design and monitoring impact.

2. The WFP and Oxfam model of e-voucher cash programming is effective, efficient and

innovative, has proven flexibly and adaptability and offers agencies the advantages of sharing a data base.

3. The work of the member agencies remains valid. Gaps include the provision of emergency shelter materials to host families to provide some privacy to their IDP guests. Households living in damaged houses need materials to help seal off damaged rooms or create a room within a room ensuring the safety of their home. Two member agencies’ provision of temporary shelter is innovative, its success worthy of review and possible replication by others involved in shelter.

4. The needs of girls, boys and women appear to be understood, particularly in

psychosocial programming, but men’s needs less so. Disability mainstreaming is, on the contrary, relatively uncommon, while older persons are seen in terms of their vulnerability and needs rather than in terms of their rights.

5. The long term nature of the emergency and the capacity of Palestinian NGOs suggest the benefits of a strategy of partnership with and capacity strengthening of civil society organisations. Further, joint partner support for a single national NGO offers opportunities for institutional strengthening, a scaling up of outputs and synergies around coordination of technical inputs, contract management and monitoring and evaluation requirements and processes.

8. Recommendations Five recommendations are made. 1. DEC member agencies delivering psychosocial activities share intervention

methodologies and collaborate on the development of impact measuring tools with other members and with specialist Palestinian NGOs.

2. Member agencies involved in distribution of food and non-food items consider the

advantages of using the electronic cash voucher system co-managed by the World Food Programme and Oxfam.


3. A focus onwinterisation support for those living in damaged accommodation, both for beneficiaries and also host families, and for a response to emergency shelter materials to support host family situations is recommended. Further, the review recommends shared lesson learning from two member agencies’ introduction of temporary shelter with a view to its replication where this fits organisational mandate.

4. The review recommends an increased focus on the inclusion of people with a disability,

older persons and men into programming. Specifically, it is recommended that Age International share older person inclusion strategies with fellow member agencies and other interested parties. Second, it is recommended that International Medical Corps (Plan) shares men’s inclusion strategies with member agencies and with others.

5. Partnering of Gazan non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is recommended as a default strategy for the strengthening of civil society. Member agencies may also consider multiple partner funding of the same organisation in order to synergise their technical inputs, management supports and monitoring and evaluation requirements.

Annex 1: List of respondents met and data gathering activity in the field

Respondents met

28th October

Christian Aid, British Red Cross, Save the Children, Age International, World Vision, Plan UK, CAFOD, CARE, ActionAid, Islamic Relief

Inaugural meeting in London to review the TOR, challenges, logistics, expectations and schedule of visits.

4th November

10.00 to 12.00 DEC members agencies ActionAid, CARE, Christian Aid, CRS (CAFOD’s partner), Helpage International, IMC (Plan’s partner), Oxfam GB, Save the Children, Tdh Lausanne (Plan’s Partner), War Child (Plan’s partner). World Vision,

A review of the TOR and an introduction to the review with discussion.

1.00 to 3.00 World Vision Review of project progress

3.00 to 5.00 Oxfam GB Review of project progress

7.00 to 8.30 Maria Ibragimova, International Medical Corps

Discussion on psychosocial approaches in emergencies.

5th November

12.00 Mercy Corps External (non-DEC) view on psychosocial work and cash programming.

2.00 Oxfam GB, field visits. Cash programming

6 PM. Dr Yasser Abu Jamar, General Director, Gaza Mental Health Programme.

Discussion on psychosocial approaches and mental health.

8.00. Meeting and discussion with Plan and their partners

Introductions and review of the schedule on 6th November.

6th November

9.00 Islamic Relief Discussion on programming: cash programming, psychosocial work, shelter.

11:00 AM Meeting with Dr. Yousef Ibrahim – Deputy of Ministry of Social Affairs’ Minister- Gaza

Discussion on the future of IDPs, longer term housing reconstruction and the roles of INGOs in Gaza.

1.00 to 2.00 PM, Meeting with Plan’s partner War Child. Psychosocial work with children.

Visit activities in the field. Discuss future planning

2.20 to 3.00 Tdh, partner of Plan. Child Protection project, with livelihood element

Visits CP centre; returning children to school

3.00 CFS, Beit Lahiya, War Child. Psychosocial activities

Psychosocial project.

4.00 to 6.00 Meeting in Gaza with Plan and its three partners, Tdh, War Child and International Medical Corps

Discussion on inclusion (gender and disability), shelter, partnership, future planning and accountability.

7.30 to 9.30. Dinner with Country Rep of Terre des hommes, Lausanne.

Review of Tdh’s partnership with Plan. Discussion on psychosocial approaches and sustainability.

7th November

9:00 AM Meeting with UNRWA Area Collective Centre Coordinator (temporary shelter)

Discussion on the work of the shelters/collective centres and housing needs of IDPs

11:00 Focus Group Discussion with two families living in the Collective Centre (temporary shelter)

Discussion on the housing needs and future options for IDP families.

8th November

9.30 Christian Aid Review of project. Planning, progress. To discuss accountability.

11.00 to 12.00 Meeting with PMRS and WAC, partners of Christian Aid in a meeting of PNGO

Discussion on the role of INGOs in the emergency and relations with national partners.

11.00 War Child partner Focus Group discussion with boys and girls


Respondents met

who attend PPS services

12.00 to 2.00 PM field visits. Field visit in Rafah where DEC work will be implemented.

3.00 FGD with farmer beneficiaries To discuss their needs, their role in the design of the project and expectations.

6.00 Meeting with Doctor Adnan, Director, Ard el Insan

An overview of the nutrition / health situation in the post war Gaza Strip.

9th November

Save the Children International 8:30 – 8:50: Visit Al Najdah Kitchen

50 women headed households working – livelihoods

9:00 – 9:25: Visit JRS kitchen 50 women – mostly with a disability – livelihoods

9:30 – 10:00: Visit Jawaher Visit kindergarten in Beit Lahiya to see work with children, including nutritional support.

10: 20 – 10:50: Visit Ghasan Kanfany Kindergarten at Jabalia El Baled

Visit kindergarten in Beit Lahiya to see work with children, including nutritional support.

11:00 – 12:00: Visit to Kindergarten, Qattan Centre.

Focus group at JRS hall at Jabalia Camp with kindergarten teachers, project enumerators and Qattan Centre. I’tedal

12.00 to 12.30. Field visits to World Vision project

Visits to kindergarten and land reclamation.

1.00 to 2.00 Lunch and discussion with SCI

Review of the visit; questions

3.00 World Vision Focus Group Discussion (I’tedal)

FGD with mixed children group to explore the benefits of PPS support.

10th November

8.30. ICRC, partner of British Red Cross

Discussion on project progress

10.00 Field visit ICRC Restoring water treatment plant

11.30 Field visit ICRC Land restoration, agriculture

12.30 Field visit ICRC Artificial Limb Centre

2.00 Meeting with ActionAid At Marna House. Discuss project progress, methodology, contextual and wider humanitarian issues in Gaza

4.00 CRS, partner with CAFOD Review project progress and discussions on the wider context and other work CRS is doing.

8.00 ActionAid I’tedal Field visit, I’tedal. Voucher beneficiary scheme plus visit to a voucher receiving supermarket

10.00 ActionAid I’tedal Case studies, I’tedal.

11th November.

9.00 Help Age Project review, discussion

11.00 Visit to Age Friendly Space Discussion on planned project.

11.30 Focus Group Discussion Discuss the perspectives of the elderly users: their needs, etc.

1.00 CARE Discussion of project plans Joined at 2.00 PM with team from PARC.

12th November

8.00 to 10.00 Feedback with Gaza based member agencies

Presentations of ‘impressions’ and discussion.

6.30 to 8.30 PM Dinner with Oxfam GB and WFP rep to discuss cash voucher system

13th November

10.00 to 12.00 AM, Ramallah, feedback with Jerusalem and West Bank member agencies.

Presentations of ‘impressions’ and discussion.

18th

November Meeting with DEC, London Summary feedback

Annex 2: Methodology A meeting was held in London on the 28th October to review the TOR and the proposed methodology. Data gathering tools were developed prior to departure and shared with all member agencies. The consultant developed a draft schedule which was finalised with the assistance of World Vision in Gaza. Forty-six meetings were held and field visits made over 10 days in Jerusalem in Gaza, including one introductory and review meeting in Jerusalem, and two feedback meetings, one in Gaza with field based team member agencies there and the second in Jerusalem. A number of individuals and agencies that do not receive DEC funding were interviewed in order to hear an impartial view of the situation and, in their opinion, the most appropriate responses to it. Key informant questionnaires were developed for project discussions with member agencies. Project specific questions were developed to better understand each member agencies’ work. Questions were developed for FGDs with five groups: i. boys and girls receiving psychosocial support from War Child, ii. boys and girls of the Culture and Free Thought psychosocial project in Khan Younis funded by Christian Aid, iii. psychosocial animators employed by Save the Children, iv. a mixed group of adults and chid beneficiaries of World Vision and v. a group of older men attending Age International’s Age Friendly Space (AFS). For two days the consultant worked alongside a Gazan co-consultant. Thereafter, the two worked separately in order to complete a very full schedule. Notes were taken at every meeting except those with children; in these cases notes were taken at the next suitable time. In some cases member agencies were contacted by email to follow up particular issues. Initial impressions were shared with the member agencies in Gaza on the 12th November and then in Ramallah on the 13th November. A presentation was made to members in London on the 26th November. A first draft was developed thereafter and shared with DEC and member agencies. Feedback from both was then factored into the final draft.

DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal Response Review

Documents

Transcript of DEC Gaza Crisis Appeal Response Review