1 / 11

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Nutrition Jan 18 th , 2012

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Nutrition Jan 18 th , 2012. CHF Sector priorities. Out-patient Therapeutic Programmes (OTP), integrated and with prevention activities for Pregnant and Lactating Women

meli
Télécharger la présentation

Sudan CHF 2012 1 st Round Sector Defense Sector: Nutrition Jan 18 th , 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sudan CHF 2012 1st Round Sector Defense Sector: Nutrition Jan 18th , 2012

  2. CHF Sector priorities • Out-patient Therapeutic Programmes (OTP), integrated and with prevention activities for Pregnant and Lactating Women • Most cost effective way to treat children with severe acute malnutrition • Integrated programmes within health facilities, as more sustainable and cost effective • Core pipeline for therapeutic feeding • Difficultto fund OTP nutrition programmes • Darfur and the East, transitional areas more likely to get bi-lateral donor funding

  3. CHF Geographical priorities • Areas with prevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) over emergency thresholds (15%). • Populations in current crisis which could trigger a nutrition crisis. • No access = no data but areas without access are probably the most at risk.

  4. Acute malnutrition by state (SHHS 2010)

  5. Sector strategy for addressing priorities • Core pipeline for therapeutic food • UNICEF managed • Cost effective in-terms of economies of scale • Total cost for core pipeline in 2011 15 million USD for treating 150,000 • Drugs added to core pipeline • Out-patient therapeutic programs • NGO/Government managed • Integrated into health services (cost saving and sustainable) • Need to expand coverage • Need further partners

  6. Evidence to supportidentified priority needs • Estimated number of children with SAM in Sudan 500,000 per year (16.4% GAM above emergency thresholds)(SHHS 2010) • Localized surveys confirm similar results (32 of total 48 localized surveys conducted in 2011 GAM was above 15%). • Increased coverage • 2008: 17,000 • 2010: 60,000 • 2011: estimated to be over 70,000 • Increased conflict and lack of access will affect markets and now three localities are predicted to be at emergency levels (IPC Level 4; FEWS NET Dec 2011).

  7. FMoA/FEWS NET

  8. WHY CHF Fundingis critical now • Therapeutic pipeline needs to be secured to ensure that there is no rupture in stock • Hunger season is predicted to start earlier and be deeper than last year so more children at risk (conflict, drought) • Urgent need to ensure as much capacity on the ground as possible to meet these increasing needs

  9. Value for money &low indirect costs • The most cost effective intervention chosen as priority intervention • Out patient Versus Inpatient • Comparisons of programs and costs • Number of children treated/cost • High cost programs were either not supported or asked to reduce budget

  10. Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals 1 • Total Recommended Sector Envelope: 5,933,918 USD • Total requested amount / Total TRG-recommended amount: • requested: 14,668,151 • recommended: 5,933,918 • Total projects: 21 projects submitted, 14 projects to receive funding • Recommended percentage: • 25% UN, • 69% INNGO, • 6% NNGO (all that applied)

  11. Summary of TRG-endorsed proposals 2 • Total Recommended Sector Envelope versus historical trend or basis for envelope: • 2011: 5,960,960, • 2010: 3,950,000 • 2009: 4,345,167 • 2008: 5,233,812 • Approach to determining project allocation amounts • Top programs funded, programs that were seen to be of high cost cut, and higher costed programs were reduced.

More Related