Business case and intervention summary:
emergency humanitarian response
Libya
February – December 2011
Business case and intervention summary: emergency humanitarian
response
Libya, February – December 2011.
Intervention summary
What support will the UK provide?
In Libya, the protection of civilians was a key concern. The UK, together with international
partners, was committed to supporting Libyan efforts to meet basic humanitarian needs and
save lives. Strong coordination amongst key humanitarian partners was critical to ensure a
timely and effective response, based on international humanitarian needs.
The UK’s humanitarian response to the crisis in Libya has saved lives, prevented suffering and
maintained the dignity of about 1.6 million civilians affected by the conflict.
What support the UK provided
The UK humanitarian response has focused on three priority areas:
a)
b)
c)
Protection of civilians - to protect those caught up in the conflict;
Assistance for survival - to deliver life-saving interventions and reduce suffering;
Effective international humanitarian coordination – especially through the UN.
Protection of civilians: We ensured civilians were protected from violence, abuse and
exploitation and supported awareness-raising on international humanitarian law and human
rights. The UK provided support to repatriate 12,700 people from the borders and evacuate
4,800 people from Misrata. Our support also helped to protect over a million people from
mines and unexploded ordinance.
Assistance for survival: We provided for immediate humanitarian needs (health, food, shelter,
water and sanitation) for Libyans and third country nationals (TCNs) through international
humanitarian agencies. UK support enabled 2,500 trauma related surgeries to be performed,
provided emergency health supplies for 30,000 people, food for 690,000, water purification for
7,000 people and emergency shelter for the vulnerable, including 2,110 tents and 7,700
blankets.
Effective International Coordination: We supported the leadership, coordination,
preparedness, response and forward planning of international humanitarian agencies. The
overall result was an effective UN led and coordinated humanitarian response, which provided
timely assistance based on humanitarian needs.
How support was provided
The UK has delivered humanitarian aid in a fast and flexible way, on the basis of needs, value
for money and focused on delivering results and impact.
The delivery of our support has been channelled in large part through multilateral humanitarian
partners, who are best placed to deliver aid quickly to respond to urgent needs. We built on
our knowledge of effective agencies and the results of the recent DFID Multilateral Aid
Review, which enabled Ministers to rapidly allocate support to effective agencies such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross and UN High Commission for Refugees.
The UK has provided humanitarian support in a range of ways including:




Technical Assistance: DFID humanitarian advisers on the Tunisian and Egyptian
borders, in Malta, Cairo and Libya itself and air operations advisors seconded to
UNHCR;
In kind support: We provided tents, blankets and flights directly to humanitarian
agencies dealing with those in need of shelter and repatriation at the borders;
Partner funding: We contributed to the UN emergency appeals, including funding for
IOM, UNHCR, ICRC, UNICEF, MAG, WHO and IMC;
Advocacy: We have called for free and unfettered humanitarian access to affected
populations and lobbied other donors to support humanitarian efforts in Libya.
Total funding
An allocation of £18.4 million for humanitarian assistance.
Period of funding:
February 2011 – December 2012.
Why is UK support required?
The uprising that began in February 2011 triggered a political and security crisis across Libya.
A timely response from the UK helped to prevent a logistical problem from developing into a
humanitarian emergency when large numbers of people fled over the borders. The UK
response was instrumental in galvanising action from the rest of the international community.
As the crisis unfolded, humanitarian needs emerged and the situation evolved from a border
problem to a focus on areas of conflict in Libya, which required a range of needs to be met.
The east of the country quickly regained a degree of normal life (though pockets of need
remained), but conditions in the west were difficult as fighting intensified and access was
restricted. In particular, urgent relief was required in the city of Misrata which had been under
siege by Qadhafi’s forces for several weeks. Other areas affected by conflict such as the
Nafusah Mountains, Tripoli and Sirte, also required humanitarian assistance.
From the onset, the UK took a leadership role in responding to the humanitarian situation
through its role in the UN and in leading the humanitarian response with the US, Australia and
the EU. The UK was one of the first to respond and support the ICRC and other specialised
agencies such as IMC, UNICEF and WHO. This included support for the provision of doctors,
medical supplies, medical equipment and food. The UK also directly provided 2,110 tents and
7,700 blankets to shelter Libyans driven out of their homes by the fighting, and supported IOM
to evacuate 4,800 vulnerable migrant workers and injured civilians from Misrata.
The UK focused on areas where it could add value, using our comparative advantage as a
fast, flexible donor and ensured that we supported interventions that offered a timely,
appropriate and high quality response. We worked to identify and meet gaps in the
humanitarian response that others were not able to address. We were well placed to do this
through our advisers on the ground, who assessed and monitored the humanitarian situation.
Post-conflict, DFID humanitarian activities continue to play an important role in supporting
early recovery efforts. Our support for demining will help protect over a million civilians from
death or injury from unexploded ordnance and will help thousands of people return safely to
their homes. The ICRC continues to work with the Libyan authorities in order to support
returnees to Sirte and Bani Walid, to address the protection needs of vulnerable minority
groups, and to address other residual humanitarian needs in areas including health and
shelter. WHO continues to work with DFID funds to provide medical teams and support. We
will facilitate a smooth transition from humanitarian aid to early recovery, by supporting local
Libyan authorities to provide services and phase out humanitarian assistance quickly.
What are the expected results?
The UK Government’s humanitarian response to the crisis in Libya has saved lives, prevented
suffering, and supported the dignity of civilians affected by the conflict. Overall, the range of
UK interventions has supported up to 1.6 million people. The results in the priority areas set
out in the Strategic Humanitarian Framework were:
(a) Protection of civilians
We ensured civilians were protected from violence, abuse and exploitation and supported
awareness-raising on international humanitarian law and human rights. The results were to
provide the vulnerable with life-saving emergency shelter (2,110 tents and 7,700 blankets), to
repatriate 12,700 third country nationals from the Tunisian border and evacuate 4,800 migrant
workers and injured civilians from Misrata. We also helped to protect over one million people
(including 450,000 children) from the dangers of mines and unexploded ordinance in Misrata,
Benghazi, Adjabiya, Brega, Ras Lanuf and the Western Mountains.
(b)
Assistance for Survival
We provided for immediate humanitarian needs (health, food, shelter, water and sanitation) for
Libyans and Third Country Nationals through support to ICRC, WHO, UNICEF, WHO, IMC
and UNHCR. The results on health include over 20,000 patients treated, over 2,500 surgical
operations and over 450 patients medically evacuated, the provision of emergency health
supplies for 30,000 people and early development support for 3,750 children. Food was
provided for 690,000 people and water distribution and purification for 7,000 people.
(c)
Effective International Coordination
The UK supported the leadership, coordination, preparedness, response and planning of
international humanitarian agencies, including through the in-country cluster system. The
overall result was an effective UN led and coordinated humanitarian response, which ensured
contingency plans were in place and provided timely assistance based on humanitarian need.
UK humanitarian assistance to the Libya Crisis 2011
One humanitarian
advisor to Ankara as
part of UK-Turkey-US
planning cell
26 February
DFID deploys humanitarian
advisers to Libyan borders
with Egpyt and Tunisia
8 April
DFID deploys humanitarian
adviser to Benghazi, Libya
ICRC - Food, medical support,
protection and other emergency
assistance
£5,000,000
Shelter - tents and blankets
£1,480,000
Repatriation of third country
nationals - in-kind donation of
flights £2,600,000
18 April
Support evacuation of 4,800
migrants and injured people
from Misrata port (IOM)
18 April
Medical staff, supplies
and evacuations in
Misrata and Nafusah
Mountains (IMC)
9 March
Medical and other essential
assistance to vulnerable
people at borders (ICRC)
Uprising begins mid-February
Medical supplies, staff and
coordination and emergency
food and non-food items
£1,030,000
2 April
Further tents and blankets
displaced people at borders and
in Libya (UNHCR)
2 and 18 March
Repatriation of 12,700
migrants from the borders
(IOM)
Mar
Humanitarian coordination and
deployment of humanitarian
teams £1,025,000
Repatriation and evacuation of
third country nationals by IOM
£6,000,000
for
4 March
3 Air Operations specialists
to facilitate repriations
(UNHCR)
Feb
UK Humanitarian Spend
7 April
Medical, food and other
emergency supplies to
Misrata (UNICEF)
1 March
Tents and blankets for
displaced people at borders
(IOM/UNHCR)
Jan
Total UK
humanitarian
support to the
Libya crisis
£18.4 million
Apr
May
Siege of Misrata
4 June
Clearance of explosive
remnants of war in Misrata,
Ajdabiya and other areas
(MAG)
Jun
Jul
Clearance of explosive remnants
of war £1,267,995
27 August
Medical, food, protection and
other help to western Libya
including Tripoli (ICRC)
Aug
Sep
15 Sept and 17 Oct
Further support to clearance of
September
DFID deploys humanitarian explosive remnants of war
eastern and western Libya,
team to Tripoli
including newly accessible areas
(MAG and UNMAS)
Oct
Nov
Dec
Emerging peace in eastern Libya
Thousands flee across Libya’s borders
Conflict focuses on Nafusah Mountains and Misrata, then Tripoli, Sirte and Bani Walid
Libya’s liberation
declared, interim
government in place
NTC forces take control of Tripoli and
other parts of western Libya – basic
services temporarily disrupted in Tripoli
Transitional
Government
Declared
Strategic case
A. Context and need for DFID intervention
The political context
The Libyan crisis began in February 2011 when Colonel Qadhafi’s regime responded to a
series of peaceful protests with military force. The United Nations Security Council passed
an initial resolution (UNSCR 1970) on 26 February 2011 which, amongst other things, froze
the assets of the Qadhafi regime and referred the actions of his government to the
International Criminal Court for investigation. On 17 March 2011 the Security Council
passed a further resolution (UNSCR 1973) which authorized member states to establish and
enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to use all necessary measures to protect civilians.
The need for humanitarian intervention
Humanitarian impact at Libya’s borders
In February 2011 large numbers of people including migrant workers began to leave the
country to escape the conflict, putting great pressure on Libya’s borders with Egypt and
Tunisia. Camps were established at the borders to shelter those fleeing the conflict and
many people were hosted by local families. By the end of February, over 147,000 people
had left Libya to neighbouring countries, including over 75,000 to Tunisia and 69,000 to
Egypt, and the flow of this exodus was continuing. OCHA reported that over 7,000 third
country nationals (TCNs) crossed the Libya-Tunisia border on 1 March 2011, and over
24,000 were waiting for onward transfer from the border.
Humanitarian impact within Libya
Sustained fighting in areas such as the Nafusah mountains and Misrata led to the deaths
and injuries of civilians, as well as combatants. Sieges of the city of Misrata and of towns in
the Nafusah mountains restricted the channels for delivery of food and medical supplies. In
areas such as the Nafusah mountains power and water supplies were also cut, as reported
in UN assessment missions in June and July 2011. Many medical and other key workers had
fled as a result of the conflict. Property, infrastructure and livestock were damaged.
In the wake of the conflict in Tripoli and the surrounding towns in August 2011, high numbers
of war-wounded put pressure on hospitals which were short of staff and supplies. The main
water supply to Tripoli and other parts of western Libya was cut for several weeks during the
fighting. In areas of conflict and areas under the control of the Qadhafi regime, access for
humanitarian actors was constrained. The conflict caused many people to be displaced
within Libya.
The fall of Tripoli in August 2011 led to a significantly improved security situation in most
parts of Libya, although there was a protracted battle for Sirte and Bani Walid which
continued until mid-October. Humanitarian agencies, including the UN, were able to operate
and lead their responses from Tripoli.
Ongoing challenges
The conflict has left significant contamination from explosive remnants of war and unsecured
munitions in many areas, as highlighted by the Joint Mine Action Coordination Team
(JMACT). There have been some reports of migrants and vulnerable groups (such as tribes
accused of supporting the Qadhafi regime) being subject to abuse and arbitrary detention.
Global response and burden-sharing
The UN led the coordination of humanitarian assistance to Libya. The UN released in March
2011 a three month Flash Appeal (including UN agencies and NGOs) for Libya for $160m
(£97.9m) which was revised in May up to $408 million. In September following the NTC
taking control of Tripoli, OCHA published a 30-day humanitarian action plan for Libya, which
was followed by a 90-day plan for UN/NGO support until the end of 2011. The ICRC also
made emergency appeals (total of 77 million Swiss francs by May).
Throughout the crisis, the top four humanitarian donors were the US, EU, Australia and UK
(providing a total of $234 million between them). Regional partners have provided significant
humanitarian donations. United Arab Emirates (9th largest donor), Turkey, Kuwait and Qatar
have made both in-kind and financial contributions and the Organisation of Islamic
Conference has contributed $5 million.
Rationale for international action
Providing food and clean water, medicines and shelter saves lives. Furthermore, a
population that has been fed, sheltered and kept free from sickness during a conflict is better
able to start work again when it comes to post-conflict recovery. As well as the humanitarian
imperative to provide assistance, UN resolutions on Libya authorised member states to use
all necessary measures to protect civilians.
UK’s Strategic Framework for Libya
DFID developed a ‘Strategic Humanitarian Framework’ for the Libya Crisis which set out the
approach and principles of the UK’s humanitarian response, consistent with the HERR. In
light of the needs emerging on the ground, the UK focussed on three main areas:
 Protection of civilians
 Assistance for survival
 Effective international humanitarian coordination
The following diagram “UK humanitarian assistance to the Libya Crisis 2011” depicts the
development of the conflict over time and the corresponding humanitarian assistance
provided by the UK.
UK humanitarian assistance to the Libya Crisis 2011
Support provided (dates announced) and context
Uprising begins midFebruary
Conflict in Nafusah Mountains and Misrata, and other areas of western Libya
18 April
Medical staff, supplies and
evacuations in Misrata and
Nafusah Mountains (IMC)
26 February
DFID deploys humanitarian
advisers to Libyan borders with
Egpyt and Tunisia
Thousands flee across
Libya's borders
1 March
Tents and blankets for displaced
people at borders
(IOM/UNHCR)
2 and 18 March
Repatriation of 12,700 migrants
from the borders (IOM)
4 March
3 Air Operations specialists to
facilitate repriations (UNHCR)
9 March
Medical and other essential
assistance to vulnerable people
at borders (ICRC)
Emerging peace in eastern Libya
8 April
DFID deploys humanitarian
adviser to Benghazi, Libya
4 June
Clearance of explosive remnants
of war in Misrata, Ajdabiya and
other areas (MAG)
2 April
Further tents and blankets for
displaced people at borders and in
Libya (UNHCR)
NTC forces take
control of Tripoli and
other parts of western
Libya - basic services
temporarily disrupted
in Tripoli
27 August
Medical, food, protection and
other help to western Libya
including Tripoli (ICRC)
Siege of Misrata
7 April
Medical, food and other
emergency supplies to Misrata
(UNICEF)
Emerging peace in most areas of
western Libya
15 Sept and 17 Oct
Further support to clearance of
explosive remnants of war eastern
and western Libya, including newly
accesible areas (MAG and UNMAS)
18 April
Support evacuation of 4,800
migrants and injured people from
Misrata port (IOM)
Libya's liberation
declared 23 Oct
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
B. Impact and outcome expected
The UK Government’s humanitarian response to the crisis in Libya has saved lives,
prevented suffering, and supported the dignity of civilians affected by the conflict. Overall,
the range of UK interventions has supported up to 1.6 million people through the three areas
of our Strategic Framework: protection of civilians, assistance for survival and effective
international humanitarian coordination.
Protection of civilians
The pressure of migrants on Libya’s borders with Egypt and Tunisia presented a logistical
problem which threatened to develop into a humanitarian emergency if swift action was not
taken. The UK was one of the first to respond, repatriating over 12,700 migrant workers and
providing tents and blankets for emergency shelter. This action helped prevent a wide scale
humanitarian crisis and led the way for other members of the international community to
assist with evacuations and repatriations.
Within Libya, the UK provided tents and blankets to give emergency shelter to people driven
out of their homes by ongoing fighting. Through the IOM we also helped evacuate 4,800
migrant workers and injured people from Misrata during a two month siege by Qadhafi’s
forces.
DFID humanitarian support continues to play an important role in protecting civilians and
supporting early recovery efforts. Funding to Mines Advisory Group (MAG) is enabling the
clearance of explosive remnants of war in different areas of Libya to protect up to one million
people from unexploded devices. Further support to UNMAS for de-mining activities will
enable them to expand emergency mine clearance work, including in the areas of Sirte and
Bani Walid, and will contribute to assisting thousands of people to return to their homes.
Assistance for survival
Meeting the emergency survival needs of those within Libya during the conflict was critical.
The UK supported the IMC to supply urgently needed medical supplies and medical
personnel to treat wounded and other patients in areas most affected by the fighting and
therefore least able to cope. The UK funded the WHO to provide medicines and training to
support the provision of medical care in Libya. We also supported UNICEF to bring vital
supplies into Misrata by ship, such as food, water and hygiene kits.
In support of both protection and assistance for survival, the UK provided humanitarian
support through the ICRC regional appeal, both at the outset of the crisis to meet immediate
humanitarian needs, and again in August to help to deal with the new challenges including
on health and further protection of civilians. Results expected from the ICRC’s overall appeal
include: treating 5,000 war-wounded patients; providing food and household items to
690,000 people, enabling access to water for 5,000 people and providing hygiene items for
84,000 people.
Effective international humanitarian coordination
The UK supported the leadership, coordination, preparedness, response and forward
planning of international humanitarian agencies. The outcome was an effective UN led and
coordinated humanitarian response, which ensured contingency plans were in place and
provided timely assistance based on humanitarian needs.
More specifically, DFID staff in London and deployment of DFID humanitarian teams in
Tunisia, Egypt and Libya helped to: promote effective contingency planning for possible
scenarios during the conflict, including movement of people across the Libyan borders;
facilitated the coordination of repatriations from the Tunisian border, through the secondment
of three air operations advisors; and promoted dialogue in key humanitarian agencies on
their staffing plans, including skills mix and staffing levels.
For a thematic breakdown of UK humanitarian assistance to the Libya crisis, please see Pie
Chart below.
For a full list of results by intervention, please see the Cost/Benefit/Value for Money
section within the Appraisal Case below.
UK humanitarian support to the Libya crisis
Humanitarian coordination and
deployment of humanitarian
teams £1,025,000
Repatriation and evacuation of
third country nationals by IOM
£6,000,000
Medical supplies, staff and
coordination and emergency
food and non-food items
£1,030,000
Total UK
humanitarian
support to the
Libya crisis
£18.4 million
ICRC - Food, medical support,
protection and other emergency
assistance
£5,000,000
Shelter - tents and blankets
£1,480,000
Repatriation of third country
nationals - in-kind donation of
flights £2,600,000
Clearance of explosive remnants
of war £1,267,995
Appraisal case
A. Proposal
DFID developed a ‘Strategic Humanitarian Framework’ for the Libya Crisis which set out the
approach and principles of the UK’s humanitarian response. The UK proposed to focus on three
main areas:
 Protection of civilians
 Assistance for survival
 Effective international humanitarian coordination
Counterfactual
Without the live-saving and protection interventions described above, the humanitarian impact on
the civilian population of Libya would have been much greater:
o Protection of civilians: Without repatriations from the borders and evacuations from
Misrata, the number of TCNs left without shelter, food and water would have been much
higher. Without repatriations from the borders, numbers in the camps would have built up
and a humanitarian crisis may have developed.
o Assistance for survival: Without providing emergency health support, morbidity rates from
the conflict would have been higher.
o Effective international humanitarian coordination: Without an effective early humanitarian
response, integrated with HMG’s wider political and economic actions, unrest in Libya and
on its borders could potentially have been worse and more destabilising for the region.
Full appraisal of each of the intervention options is included in Intervention Review Sheets.
The Theory of Change diagram overleaf shows the chain of causality from inputs (funding,
goods in kind, staff resources) to impacts on people affected (such as lives saved and people
protected from explosive remnants of war).
Theory of Change for Libya Humanitarian Response
Funding: An allocation of
£18.4 million.
Goods in Kind: to
humanitarian agencies
dealing with those in need
of shelter or repatriation
Inputs
Process
Outputs
Engagement with
international h’tarian
agencies in country and
at HQ level
Protection of Civilians
from violence, abuse
and exploitation,
ensuring basic human
rights are respected.
Assumptions
Outcomes
Impact
Both parties to the conflict
are willing to accept and
abide by IHL.
•Repatriations of migrant
workers from the borders.
•Support to evacuate nearly
5,000 civilians and migrant
workers from Misrata.
•Protection for over 1m people
from unexploded ordnance.
Technical Assistance:
deployment of humanitarian
experts on the Tunisian and
Egyptian borders, Cairo,
Benghazi and Tripoli.
Secondment of Air
Operations experts.
London Staff Time:
Team of between 4 and
10 humanitarian advisers,
information officers,
programme managers
and managerial staff.
Engagement with
other donors:
Regular telcons to
coordinate support
Assistance for Survival:
Providing for immediate
needs (health, water,
sanitation, shelter, food) for
Libyans and TCNs.
Effective International
Coordination:
Improved leadership,
coordination, preparedness
and response by
international agencies.
Access for humanitarian
agencies is possible.
Information on needs is
triangulated and
reasonable estimates of
need are made.
UN able to scale up and
gain access and permanent
presence in Libya.
Provision of life-saving shelter
to people at the borders.
Through support to the ICRC,
contributed to:
•Treating 5,000 warwounded;
•Reuniting families
•Providing food and
other items
to 690,000 people.
Through support to WHO,
UNICEF and IMC, saved lives
and eased suffering.
Promotion of contingency
planning at the Libyan borders.
Help to facilitate coordination
of repatriations from Tunisian
border, through secondment
air operations advisors.
Support to key humanitarian
agencies on their staffing plans.
Lives saved, suffering reduced and dignity maintained
of over 1.6 million people affected by the Libya crisis.
B. Strength of the evidence base
Evidence rating
Medium
Likely impact on climate change and environment
Risks and impacts (negatives)
Opportunities (positives)
There is an environmental
impact from conducting the
evacuation of Third Country
Nationals (TCN) by air.
However, this was the only
viable option.
More people could be moved much faster by air than any
other means, meaning also that logistical problems –
including any health, hygiene and sanitation issues
associated with build up of people - were avoided at
border areas. DFID also ensured that larger groups of
people from the same country were repatriated at the
same time, thus reducing the number of flights taken.
Risk of adverse environmental The Mines Advisory Group responsible for mines
impact from procedures used
clearance has a policy of minimising environmental
to clear unexploded remnants impact from clearance by ensuring that environmental
of war.
impacts are addressed in detailed clearance plans. The
Mines Advisory Group has stated that standards and
learning from other programmes on environmental
management will be used in Libya.
There are risks to human health, biodiversity and other
natural resources (e.g. soils/land) posed by the toxic
substances that are associated with explosive remnants
of war. Clearance of these remnants has a positive
environmental impact.
Risk that the activities of
DFID is working with all those agencies to ensure that
partner organisations (e.g.
there is adequate environmental awareness and a
UNICEF, ICRC, WHO, IMC
proportionate response to potential environment impacts
and UNHCR) have an adverse in humanitarian situations. All these partners have
environmental effect. For
climate and environment policies and procedures and
example, providing medical
have experience of applying these in humanitarian
and sanitation support can
situations. When the opportunity arises we will
have an effect on the
investigate how these climate/environment policies and
environment.
procedures were applied, with a view to identifying any
lessons learnt for the future.
Temporary camps and
UNHCR recognises the potential damage that camps
settlements can have an
and settlements can have on the environment, as well as
adverse effect on the
on the local economy and relations with host
environment.
communities. To this end, the refugee agency has
developed an overarching policy to deal with
environmental issues. Equally important, UNHCR
develops and supports a range of field projects that help
reduce or overcome some of the damage caused by
humanitarian operations. UNHCR also responds to new,
emerging threats such as climate change.
A full environment assessment is attached at Annex 2.
C and D. Costs, benefits and value for money assessment
Total
Costs £18.4m
Total
Benefits
Approximately 1.55 million direct and indirect beneficiaries of
repatriation and evacuation, food and medical assistance, shelter,
protection from explosive remnants of war and other emergency
assistance due to UK support.
Approximate average cost per person assisted/expected to be
assisted: £12.
Breakdown of costs, benefits and summary value for money assessment by humanitarian
intervention:
Partner
Costs
WHO
Total:
£400,000
Expected benefits/ beneficiaries
Support the deployment of external medical teams.
Approx.
cost per
beneficiary:
£33
Provide essential drugs, medical supplies and
equipment to help treat
 4,000 to 5,000 trauma patients
 2,000 chronically ill patients
 180-200 TB patients
 43 HIV patients
 5,000 to 6,000 pregnant women and new born
babies
Build the capacity of local health staff.
Help coordinate the overall emergency health
response for Libya.

Total beneficiaries expected: Approx. 12,233
WHO medical support value for money summary:
o Salaries provided are in line with the UN salary scale.
o Cost of capacity building activities are reasonable ($100 per person trained)
o Costs per unit of output are clear.
o The MAR assessment (see below) of WHO was variable. The MAR states that for
WHO “there is evidence that procurement is driven by value-for-money”.
o WHO is a well-placed agency to provide quality assured medicines, appropriate
training and supervision of medical staff due to their mandate of co-working with
the MoH.
o Overall, the cost of £33 per beneficiary represents good value for money.
ICRC
For full results expected see ICRC’s Budget
Extension Appeal dated 20 May 2011 for Libyan
Armed Conflict REX 2011/277. Examples of results
DFID has
for the whole appeal include the following. Actual
funded approx.
activities may change depending on needs
8% of ICRC’s
throughout the crisis:
Appeal for the
 By end of April, 89,195 persons/17,839
Libya
households had received a one-month food
Crisis.
ration.
 By the end of April, some 42,000 persons/8,400
Approx cost per
households had received essential household
beneficiary due
items.
to DFID funding:  By the end of April, some 84,000 persons had
approx/less than
received essential items, in particular hygiene
£31.
items.
 Provide up to 500,000 conflict-affected people
(100,000 households), including IDPs, their host
families and foreigners affected by the situation
and awaiting repatriation, with a single one-month
food ration (or for fewer people, repeated rations).
 Provide up to 390,000 conflict-affected people
(78,000 households), including IDPs, their host
families and foreigners affected by the situation
and awaiting repatriation, with essential
household items.
 Provide up to 280,000 foreigners along the
Libyan border with one-off kits of essential
household and hygiene items; support the
management of one kitchen in Choucha camp
(more than 375,000 hot meals served to some
187,000 people) until mid-April.
 At the Egyptian border, as from May, provide
regular breakfasts to a daily average of 1,100
people fleeing the situation in Libya and awaiting
their transfer, repatriation or resettlement; be
ready to provide bottled water, food items and
other emergency essential items to cover a
temporary shortfall in supply by other
organizations (new).
 In Libya, help up to 500,000 people access the
water they need.
 In Tunisia, build and maintain the water supply
and sanitation equipment at Choucha camp
(hosting up to 20,000 people) and help the local
water boards in towns along the border (Ben
Guerdane and Tataouine), hosting most of the
people arriving from Libya, to improve the water
supply and distribution network to the benefit of
some 100,000 people.
Total:
£5,000,000


In Libya, on the basis of needs, help health
facilities provide services, in particular those that
face an increased number of patients because of
the presence of IDPs and those isolated by the
armed conflict and therefore not receiving their
regular medical supplies.
In Tunisia, provide basic medical supplies and
consumables to health facilities providing
services to people fleeing the situation in Libya
and to Tunisians to help them cope with the
increased number of patients.
Total beneficiaries expected: Approx/over 2,000,000
Total beneficiaries attributable to DFID contribution
(~8%): Approx/over 160,000.

ICRC appeal value for money summary:
o The MAR gave the ICRC a very strong rating for their value for money. It has strong
systems for financial accountability and the ability to change the focus of project
activities to ensure that they are always appropriate to the context and needs based.
o ICRC does not present a detailed budget with its appeals and no procurement
specifics are given. DFID accepts this under its framework agreement with the ICRC.
o In Libya, the ICRC was one of the few agencies on the ground from the early stages
of the conflict. It had also strong links with the Libyan Red Crescent. These factors
put it in a unique position to identify and respond to humanitarian needs and to scale
up operations effectively.
o The cost per beneficiary of £33 is modest compared to the benefits and results.
Repatriations
and evacuations
(IOM), including
in-kind donation
of flights

Total:
£8,600,000


Total average
cost per
beneficiary:
£491
Repatriation of 12,700 TCNs from the Tunisian
border by air
Supported the evacuation of approximately 4,800
TCNs from Misrata (by sea).
Total expected beneficiaries:
17,500
Repatriations/evacuations value for money summary:
o Of the flights procured by DFID, flights to Egypt were at a cost of approximately £430
(US$700) per person, and flights to Bangladesh were approximately £960 (US$1,500)
per person. IOM costs were comparable to this, equating to US$1,000 per person
repatriated, based on an average cost of US$1,500 for a person repatriated to Asia
and US$900 for a person repatriated to Africa.
o This is a very high cost per capita for a humanitarian intervention. However, the cost
of supporting someone in a camp, combined with an estimated opportunity cost of lost
incomes, is at least US $580 per capita per month for the first month, with the cost
rising the longer the situation continues. Paying camp costs would still leave the
problem of getting people home eventually.
o IOM looked at options for repatriation by sea too and used the option which provided
best value for money in terms of cost, speed and effectiveness. Evacuations from
Misrata were conducted by sea.
o We considered the option of charging beneficiaries for flights. However, this would
have been administratively complex and could have contributed to law and order
issues in camps. There was also little evidence that most people in the camps were
able to get home unaided.
UNICEF
£130,000
Total approx.
cost per
beneficiary:
£2-4






High energy protein biscuits for 10,000 people
Emergency health kits including obstetric
equipment (for health centres) for 30,000 people
5,000 family hygiene kits for 10,000 people
700 water purification kits- enough for 7,000
people
2 midwifery kits to cover 100 deliveries (including
surgery)
75 early childhood development kits to benefit
3750 children.
Total expected beneficiaries: Approx 60,850

UNICEF supplies value for money summary:
o Because the cost of transporting these supplies into Misrata by boat was covered by
WFP, DFID funds only paid for the UNICEF supplies themselves and the Libyan Red
Crescent distributed items.
o As a result, this was an extremely low cost method of getting important supplies into
Misrata. The cost of the package is approximately £4 per person.
o The MAR highlighted that UNICEF provides good value for money.
UNHCR/ in-kind
donation of
shelter items
£1,480,000

Approx cost per
beneficiary:
£23-£86

2,110 tents (for approx 10,500 people) and 7,700
blankets delivered to coastal areas including
Tobruk and Misrata
38,000 blankets and 1,400 tents (for approx
7,000 people) delivered to the Tunisian border
camp
Total expected beneficiaries: up to 63,200.

UNHCR shelter value for money summary:
o The quickest way to provide immediate shelter for up to 2100 families in Eastern Libya
was to fly tents from DFID warehouses in Dubai . Tents cost approximately £70 per
head or £360 per family, at a ratio of 5 persons per family.
o The tents were specialist winterised tents which are necessary for North African
conditions at that time of year, and DFID is the only agency with a stockpile.
o There were no better ways of providing immediate and appropriate shelter quickly and
flexibly.
o Shelter items had been procured directly by DFID CHASE which ensures value for
money through its procurement processes.
IMC medical
support
£500,000


Approx cost per
beneficiary: £20
464 medical evacuations
Total of 20,976 consultations and 2,684
surgeries provided in Misrata and the Western
Mountains
Total expected beneficiaries: Up to approx 24,000.

IMC value for money summary:
o DFID scrutinised IMC’s budget carefully and the costs are appropriate and
proportional given the goods and services delivered and the intended impact.
o IMC was the first international organisation into Benghazi and has been extremely
active and successful in reaching populations where there were medical needs. At the
time that funds were committed, no other organisation was proposing these activities.
o IMC’s prior set up in Libya reduced the need for start up costs in this proposal, such
as staff, office space in Benghazi etc.
MAG UXO
clearance
£767,995

Up to 1,000,000 people (directly and indirectly)
made safer by clearance of unexploded ordnance
(UXO) and risk education
Approx. cost per
beneficiary
(direct and
Total expected direct and indirect beneficiaries: Up to
indirect):
1,000,000
£1

MAG UXO clearance value for money summary:
o DFID assessed the intervention would be at a cost of about £1.00 per person directly
or indirectly affected. Value for money considerations include not only lives and limbs
that can be saved but also ongoing economic benefit of usable land. For example, the
value of agricultural production from cleared land can be between $13,000 to over
$500,000 per square kilometre per year.
o MAG is a globally recognised agency with an excellent track record for mine/UXO
clearance with a clear expertise in awareness campaigns which provide essential
safety to local populations.
o The mobilisation and deployment of staff was expected to be swift as MAG had a well
established operational presence in Benghazi and was already working with the
National Transitional Council (NTC) and Joint Mine Action Coordination Team
(JMACT). Economies of scale have helped minimise costs contributing additional
value for money.
UNMAS UXO
clearance
£500,000

Approx cost per
beneficiary
(direct and
indirect):
£2



200,000 people (directly and indirectly) made
safer by UXO clearance and risk education
Reduction in the number of reported injuries and
deaths as a percentage of the baseline (produced
in May 2012) of 25%.
Mines risk education to 16,000 people
Support to coordination of UXO clearance
activities in Libya, including set up of a
countrywide clearance coordination unit to work
with NGOs and private sector companies.
Total expected beneficiaries (direct and indirect):
Approx. 216,000

UNMAS value for money summary:
o UNMAS engaged UNOPS to manage competitive procurement and tendering
processes for clearance work to ensure maximum value for money.
o Value for money considerations include not only lives and limbs that can be saved but
also the ongoing economic benefit of usable land. For example, the value of
agricultural production from cleared land can be between $13,000 to over $500,000
per square kilometre per year.
o UNMAS leads on coordinating explosive remnants of war (ERW) work in Libya
through the joint UN/NGO Joint Mine Action Coordination Team (JMACT) as well as
directing the implementation of some of this work.
o UNMAS will also work with local authorities to build up local capacity with a view to
handing over UXO clearance responsibility to a national body.
o Cost per beneficiary is higher than MAG because the UNMAS project includes start
up and coordination costs which will provide a foundation for further work and ensure
effective longer term mines clearance coordination and scale up. In view of these
wider benefits the intervention demonstrates good value for money.
Deployment of
humanitarian
teams
£920,000




DFID humanitarian teams were deployed to the
Tunisian and Egyptian borders and to Benghazi
and Tripoli as access allowed.
This enabled policy and programming decisions
taken by Ministers to be based on clear and
timely evidence of needs on the ground;
Humanitarian specialists were contracted through
DFID CHASE contracting procedures therefore
ensuring value for money.
The deployment of humanitarian teams provided
effective support across all UK humanitarian
interventions at a cost of 5% of the total
humanitarian spend, which represents good value
for money.
UNHCR Air
Operations
specialists
£105,000



Three air operations specialists for one month,
followed by two for a further month, assisted with
large scale air evacuation of third country
nationals from Libya and its borders.
Specialists were contracted through DFID
CHASE contracting procedures which ensure
value for money in procurement.
The cost of seconding the air operations
specialists was less than 2.5% of the UK
contribution to the repatriations and helped
ensure that this funding was used effectively.
NB: Value for money considerations include cost, speed/timeliness, and quality/effectiveness
of intervention. There may be overlap in numbers of beneficiaries but it is not possible to
determine whether this is the case given the nature of the crisis.
Processes for determining value for money
UK support for the Libya humanitarian response has been delivered using three
mechanisms:
1. Arrangements with multilateral humanitarian agencies (MoUs)
2. Arrangements with international NGOs (Accountable Grants)
3. Direct DFID CHASE procurement.
1. MoUs/contribution
arrangements with multilateral
agencies
2. Accountable grants
3. Direct DFID
procurement
WHO medical supplies, staff and
coordination
IMC UK - medical
assistance to Northern
Libya
In-kind donation of
flights for repatriation of
third country nationals
ICRC Libya Crisis: food, NFIs,
medical supplies, and assistance to
national societies
MAG clearance of
explosive remnants of
war
Provision of shelter
(tents and blankets)
UNICEF Emergency Supplies to
Misrata, Libya.
Deployment of
Humanitarian Teams
Repatriation and evacuation of third
country nationals through IOM
Secondments to UNHCR
Air Operations
UNHCR distribution of tents and
blankets
UNMAS clearance of explosive
remnants of war
1. Contributions to multilateral agencies
Five of the agencies to whom we are providing support (IOM, UNHCR, UNICEF, ICRC and
WHO) were extensively reviewed under the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR). The MAR
examined more than 40 multilaterals receiving funds from DFID against a set of criteria. The
MAR drew on a range of evidence including: survey data; other studies of effectiveness;
external evaluations; reporting by the multilaterals; visits by DFID staff; consultation with
developing country partners; and submissions to the review from UK civil society and the
organisations themselves. The MAR provides DFID with the evidence needed to take
decisions on how to deliver funding through multilaterals to make the greatest possible impact
on poverty.
o IOM – In Libya, the IOM was the best placed organisation to support the movement
of people affected by the conflict. Although the MAR rated the IOM as weak overall,
it also noted that it had largely good results on delivery against project targets. UK
support to IOM’s response to events in Libya was targeted specifically for
evacuations and repatriations, taking advantage of the IOM’s strength.
o UNHCR - the MAR highlighted the expertise that UNHCR has in providing assistance
to displaced persons, although experience in supporting air operations is more
limited. It needed additional air operations capacity urgently to support the scaling up
of evacuations from the Libyan borders, and DFID was able to provide this rapidly in
order to ensure that the large scale logistical challenge was met effectively.
o UNICEF - the MAR highlighted that UNICEF provided good value for money, that
UNICEF plays a unique role in addressing the issue of children in conflict, which
involves monitoring, reporting and responding. UNICEF is one of the few
organisations working on child protection, which is a rapidly expanding area of its
work.
o ICRC - the MAR gave the ICRC a very strong rating for their value for money. The
MAR said ICRC manages limited resources effectively and allocates aid according to
agreed schedules. Its built up reserves allow it to pre-fund operations before donor
funds have been made available. It has strong systems for financial accountability
and the ability to change the focus of project activities to ensure that they are always
appropriate to the context.
o WHO – The MAR assessment of the WHO was variable. WHO has systems in place
to review organisation effectiveness, and there is evidence that procurement is driven
by value for money. It also found that WHO works well with partner governments. We
are cognisant of these issues with WHO and have spent sometime extracting
assurances from them that they have these issues addressed for the Libya context.
As well as utilising the information provided by the MAR, we have ensured that
humanitarian agencies provide detailed budgetary information in their proposals and used this
to conduct value for money analysis as per DFID’s humanitarian funding guidelines. Value for
money and other information is included in Intervention Review Sheets for each intervention.
In addition, we have used the lessons learnt from previous crises to help inform funding
decisions.
2. Accountable grants
We work particularly closely with partners receiving funding through accountable grants to
scrutinise budgets and project plans to ensure that value for money considerations are being
effectively addressed.
3. Direct DFID procurement
Where goods and services have been procured directly by DFID, value for money is
obtained through the CHASE-OT contracting process and that of allied elements (eg Air
Service).
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the independent body responsible for the
scrutiny of UK aid has indicated its intentions to carry out a VfM assessment of emergency
response to crises such as Libya. ICAI is focused on delivery of VfM for the UK taxpayer and
maximising the impact and effectiveness of the UK aid budget. They have a remit to scrutinise
and evaluate all ODA spend.
Commercial case
Direct procurement
A. Procurement and commercial requirements for intervention
Direct procurement is through the CHASE-OT contract and other existing and competitively
tendered contracts (e.g. Air Services). £5.1 million will be spent on direct procurement.
B. How does the intervention use competition to drive commercial advantage for
DFID?
Given the need for time critical rapid intervention, organising a competitive procurement
process is not an option during a humanitarian response.
In order to ensure a rapid humanitarian response DFID has arranged service contracts with
partners, including Crown Agents and Air Partners. They were both selected through open
competition processes.
C. How do we expect the market place will respond?
There is a competitive market for these types of services and DFID ensures that our service
contracts and pre-qualifying arrangements offer value for money and are open to competition
when the contracts come up for renewal.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and
how will we measure and improve this?
Logistics can account for as much as 80% of the effort of humanitarian organisations during
relief operations. (HERR, page 37) DFID is commissioning a study into the main cost drivers
in order to establish a baseline and work on improving this.
E. What is the intended procurement process to support contract award?
Service contracts are in place with partners where direct procurement was used.
F. How will contract and supplier performance be managed?
The performance of partners is being managed through the existing service contracts where
direct procurement was used.
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
Indirect procurement will account for £13.3 million.
Choice of development partners for the Libya response
For further information on value for money provided for each agency (including Multilateral
Aid Review “MAR” results), please see section D of the appraisal case.
IOM – IOM has a clear role to support migration management and to help prevent this from
causing a humanitarian crisis. Although the MAR rated the IOM as weak overall, it also
noted that it had largely good results on delivery against project targets, which was key to its
work of coordinating repatriations of third country nationals from the Libyan border, and
evacuations from Misrata.
UNHCR – UNHCR has a clear mandate and experience of providing assistance to displaced
persons. UNHCR’s experience in supporting air operations was more limited. Given this
relative inexperience there is a compelling case for DFID to provide additional capacity
support which we did with the secondment of three air operations advisors.
ICRC - As set out above, the MAR gave the ICRC a ‘very strong’ rating for their value for
money. ICRC was well placed to deal with the issue of limited humanitarian access to areas
of Libya during the crisis, as it has experience of dealing with such challenges and also had
strong links with the Libyan Red Crescent, one of the few humanitarian agencies with an
established presence on the ground.
UNICEF –The UNICEF proposal to ship goods to Misrata was a specific proposal to meet
identified needs in a critical area of concern.
WHO – WHO was in a unique position in Libya because it had a positive relationship with the
authorities on both sides of the conflict, making it well placed to perform a coordination role
and to assess humanitarian needs, particularly in the health sector. For example, WHO
worked closely with the local authorities in Misrata when this city was under siege, and DFID
was able to provide specific support to WHO to meet identified needs.
IMC - IMC were already on the ground meeting critical medical needs in Libya. They had the
capacity and willingness to scale up.
MAG - MAG is a globally recognised agency with an excellent track record for mine/UXO
clearance and with a clear expertise in awareness campaigns which provide essential safety
to local populations.
UNMAS - UNMAS is located in the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
It is responsible for ensuring an effective, proactive and coordinated UN response to
landmines and explosive remnants of war through collaboration with 13 other UN
departments, agencies, funds and programmes, as well as other humanitarian agencies and
the private sector.
Funding arrangements in place for the Libya response
To formalise arrangements with partner governments and multilateral organisations DFID
normally signs a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) or an equivalent non-legally
binding formal exchange. With a number of multilaterals, DFID has signed a formal
exchange called a Framework Arrangement (“FA”).
For arrangements with “not for profit” (“NfP”) organisations, Accountable Grant (“AG”) letters
are drawn up. This is a funding mechanism used to fund specific, focussed, project activities
with NfP organisations, for example to non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”), civil
society organisations (“CSOs”) or universities. The AG includes coverage on Fraud &
Corruption, Security, Intellectual Property Rights and UKaid Branding, plus a record asset /
inventory management.
The following arrangements have been put in place for the Libya response:
IOM: Funding was through an MoU arrangement – allowing quick release of funding to
support the evacuation. We also provided in-kind support to IOM by chartering flights
through our contract with Air Partners.
UNHCR: We have a DFID/UNHCR Global Standby Arrangement. On this occasion, DFID
provided in-kind support (shelter items and secondment of three air operation specialists).
ICRC: DFID has a standard MoU developed with ICRC to allow quick release of funds
to replenish emergency funds ICRC has drawn down on.
UNICEF: Overarching Framework Arrangement is in place so it was possible to provide
funding quickly through a Contribution Arrangement.
WHO: MoU has been drawn up.
MAG and IMC: Accountable Grants were set up for NGOs and there was agreement for
funds to be provided in advance and to facilitate swift operations.
UNMAS: An MoU is being finalised with UNMAS.
B. Value for money through procurement
Please see section D in the appraisal case above.
Financial case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
Profiling:
Component
WHO 2022339-101
Deployment
202339-102
of
Budget (£)
400,000
hum
teams 920,000
UNHCR (shelter) 2022339–103
1,480,000
ICRC 202339-104
2,000,000
UNICEF 202339-105
130,000
UNHCR air operations 202339- 105,000
106
IOM 202339-107
8,600,000
IMC 202339-108
500,000
MAG 202339-109
182,216 +
585,779 (cost extension)
Deployments 202339-110
776,751
ICRC 202339-111
3,000,000
UNMAS 202339-112
500,000
Total
18.4 million
As this was a crisis response, it was not possible to predict ahead of time what needs on the
ground would be. Once commitments had been made, we were able to forecast well.
Forecasting was simplified by the fact that the nature of the response meant that most
payments were appropriately made in one tranche rather than a number of instalments.
B. Funding the proposal
DFID staff are funded by the admin budget, from existing budgets.
The funding for interventions comes from programme resources. There are two budget
centres associated with the funding, CHASE budget centre P0138 and Libya Humanitarian
P0362.
C. Payment of funds
For funding via multilateral organisations payment arrangements are set out clearly in
Framework Arrangements – for those agencies with whom no such prior agreement exists,
MoUs have been set up.
Accountable Grant arrangements have been agreed with the two NGOs we are funding
(MAG and IMC) including payment details. Since many NGOs do not hold large funding
reserves, DFID has secured HM Treasury approval to pay advances to NGOs for up to three
months. IMC and MAG provided letters of justification explaining why the advance payment
was necessary and these requests were approved.
D. Assessment of financial risk and fraud
For direct procurement, financial risk and fraud is dealt with in the CHASE-OT contracting
process and that of the allied elements (e.g. Air Service).
For contributions to partner organisations, DFID will rely on DFID programme staff analysis
of partner financial and narrative reporting as well as the monitoring, reporting and anti-fraud
policies and systems of trusted partners.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
Audit, accounting and monitoring arrangements have been clearly specified in each MOU
and Accountable Grant. We have requested mid term activities and finance reports and
maintain continuous dialogue with agencies and donors (at the Field and HQ level) to
monitor progress. Final reports are requested within three months of the project completion.
Where possible we have opted to provide funding in tranches and future payments are
conditional.
DFID requires partners to provide a copy of their certified Annual Audited Accounts (AAA)
and that they clearly show DFID funding as a distinct line of income.
Management case
A. Management arrangements for implementing the intervention
Management of the programme will be through DFID Libya Crisis Unit. This includes a range
of advisory and admin support. Primary stakeholders include the operational agencies (UN,
ICRC and NGOs), beneficiaries and other donors. Contacts with operational agencies will
inform DFID’s overall picture of the evolving response.
B. Risks and how these will be managed
Risk
Mitigation
Rating
Probability/Impact
1.
Humanitarian crisis
worsens.
Close liaison with humanitarian
agencies to ensure that sufficient
contingency plans are in place. DFID
ready to respond should more
support be needed.
High/Medium High
2.
Conflict worsens.
Constant monitoring to manage
impact as needs arise.
High/Medium High
3.
Lack of humanitarian
access in parts of Libya,
leaving protection needs
unmet.
High
High
4.
Outflow of refugees to
borders, particularly
Tunisia, sees host
countries close
borders/camps
overwhelmed.
International lobbying for
humanitarian access. DFID prepared
to support ICRC and other mandated
partners work to meet protection
needs.
Humanitarian diplomacy to keep
borders open and support to partners
to provide for camp capacity.
Humanitarian actors provide support
to areas in need where access
allows.
Medium/low
High
5.
Insufficient capacity of
organisations to scale up
quickly and with
appropriate staff.
Close liaison with humanitarian
agencies to ensure capacity and
appropriate contingency are in place.
Medium
High
C. Conditions that apply (for financial aid only)
Not applicable.
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
Measurement
At project set-up, a logframe is prepared for each arrangement which sets out the impact,
outcome, outputs and inputs expected for the project, showing targets, milestones and
baselines where available for each. The project is then designed in a way which allows
measurement of these indicators, for example numbers of medical consultations delivered, or
sites cleared of explosive remnants of war. In a humanitarian crisis situation it can be difficult
to gather accurate data on impact, so logframes are designed to capture the data that is
possible to measure.
Monitoring
Specific reporting requirements are covered in the: (i) MoUs with IOM, ICRC, UNHCR, WHO
and UNMAS; (ii) Contribution Arrangement with UNICEF; (iii) Accountable Grants with MAG
and IMC; and (iv) the service contracts in place with Crown Agents and Air Partners.
Reporting requirements include monthly/quarterly reporting of progress towards logframe
targets, quarterly/mid-term financial and progress reporting, and a final financial and progress
report within three months of the closure of the project. Reporting requirements are agreed in
line with DFID guidelines on humanitarian funding. DFID London-based staff are responsible
for monitoring reporting provided by partners.
Information from reports is complemented by situation reports from partner agencies, media
reports and frequent dialogue with funded partners. Where the security situation permits, our
field teams on the ground also monitor progress and liaise with project partners if any
concerns arise.
The DFID Senior Representative in Tripoli and the Libya Unit in London will retain oversight for
ongoing funded programmes (WHO, UNMAS, MAG and ICRC).
Evaluation
Following the receipt of a project’s final report, DFID staff complete a File Closing Note which
records and evaluates the success of the project against the results and impact expected and
assesses its value for money. In the year following the end of the project, we also check
project/partner audit reports.
Humanitarian assistance to Libya is in accordance with DFID corporate procedures and could
be subject to an Independent Commission for Aid Impact evaluation. At this point in time,
taking into account all relevant circumstances (including the amounts involved and the level of
scrutiny of humanitarian spend throughout) an evaluation visit to Libya is not planned but we
will keep this under review.
E. Logframe
Quest number of logframe for this intervention: 3327857
Annex 1: List of Abbreviations Used
DFID: UK Department for International Development
HERR: Humanitarian Emergency Response Review
HMG: Her Majesty’s Government
ICRC: International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP: Internally Displaced Person
IMC: International Medical Corps
IOM: International Organisation for Migration
JMACT: Joint Mine Action Coordination Team
MAG: Mines Action Group
MAR: Multilateral Aid Review
NTC: National Transitional Council
OCHA: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
TCN: Third Country National
UN: United Nations
UNHCR: UN Refugee Agency.
UNICEF: UN Children’s Fund
UNMAS: UN Mine Action Service
UNSCR: UN Security Council Resolution
UXO: Unexploded Ordnance
WHO: World Health Organisation
Annex 2: Full Environmental Assessment
The table below scores the DFID intervention for its climate/environment risks and impacts,
and opportunities.


the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or
Limited,
the likely impact on climate change and environment is categorised as A, high
potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk / opportunity;
C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Climate and Environment Assessment Scoring Table
Option
Evidence
Rating
1 Provide humanitarian Medium
assistance
Limited
2 Do not intervene
Climate
change
and environment
risks and impacts,
Category (A, B, C,
D)
C
Climate
change
and environment
opportunities,
Category (A, B, C,
D)
C
B
C
Option 1 scores C because our assistance was channelled through a series of multilateral
organisations and on reviewing their procedures these were found sufficient for the
humanitarian context this programme is working within. However, in time, there will be
need for a more thorough review of how these procedures are applied in such situations.
Some of the specific climate and environment issues identified include:
Climate/environment issues associated with assistance provided to address protection from
violence
The evacuation of Third Country Nationals (TCN) was conducted by air. This was the only
viable option as the emergency situation necessitated expediency. More people could be
moved much faster in this way than any other means, meaning also that logistical problems
– including any health, hygiene and sanitation issues associated with build up of people were avoided at border areas. DFID also ensured that larger groups of people from the
same country were repatriated at the same time, thus reducing the number of flights taken.
With regard to reducing the risks to people from explosive remnants of war, there are also
risks to human health, biodiversity and other natural resources (e.g. soils/land) posed by
the toxic substances that are associated with such remnants. The Mines Advisory Group
responsible for this work has a policy of minimising environmental impact from clearance by
ensuring that environmental impacts are addressed in detailed clearance plans. The Mines
Advisory Group has stated that standards and learning from other programmes on
environmental management will be used in Libya.
Climate/environment issues associated with assistance for survival
DFID has provided support through a series of our multilateral partners for immediate
humanitarian needs (UNICEF, ICRC, WHO, IMC and UNHCR). DFID, through its strategic
engagements with these agencies, is working with all agencies to ensure that there is
adequate environmental awareness and a proportionate response to potential environment
impacts in humanitarian situations. All these partners hold climate and environment
policies and procedures and have some experience of applying these in humanitarian
situations.
Activities funded under this programme,that have a bearing on climate/environment,
include providing essential drugs, medical supplies and equipment to strengthen health
care and emergency treatment facilities. Other environment impacts are associated with
provision of water supplies, which will be largely positive environmental impacts from a
human health perspective, but depending on means of installation and technologies
adopted can have some implications for the environment. We have to assume that these
policies and procedures were applied as appropriate by our multilateral partners in Libya.
However, when the opportunity arises it would be worth investigating how these
climate/environment policies and procedures were applied, with view to identifying any
lessons learnt for the future.
DFID Partner Environmental Policies
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) operates within the Framework for
Environmental Management in Assistance Programmes (FEMAP) which was approved in
December 2009 and provides detailed guidance on the environment and how to manage
environmental impacts. The Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) suggests that while there are
guidelines, the extent of implementation still remains unclear. DFID is working with ICRC
at an organisational level to understand how FEMAP is being applied, what environmental
issues arise from its interventions, and how they are being addressed. ICRC has made
a commitment to the Sphere standards (a set of internationally recognised Minimum
Standards for Disaster Response), to ensure appropriate levels of service to reduce the
environmental impact by displaced populations, and to minimise environmental health
outbreaks.
World Health Organisation (WHO): has published guidelines for safe disposal of
unwanted pharmaceuticals in and after emergencies. A number of methods for safe
disposal of pharmaceuticals are described, which involve minimal risks to public health and
the environment. Pharmaceuticals are ideally disposed of by high temperature (i.e. above
1,200ºC) incineration.
International Medical Corps (IMC): environmental aspects are taken into consideration at
each of IMC’s interventions. This is in particular with regards to provision of health services
– attention is paid in particular to cleanliness of the place, availability of running water,
access to toilets for male and female, respecting the protocols for dealing with body fluids,
disposables, used medical items and tools, as well as medical waste. In Misrata major
challenges are reported regarding sanitation and the availability of clean water. IMC
undertakes to provide as much support to environmental and sanitation requirements as is
possible in this environment.
UNICEF all programmes and projects have to complete an environmental impact
assessment (EIA).
UNHCR recognizes the potential damage that camps and settlements can have on the
environment, as well as on the local economy and relations with host communities. To this
end, the refugee agency has developed an overarching policy to deal with environmental
issues. Equally important, UNHCR develops and supports a range of field projects that help
reduce or overcome some of the damage caused by humanitarian operations. UNHCR also
responds to new, emerging threats such as climate change.