Interview with CERF donor expert

Kristina Koch, donor relations officer with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in New York, has been working on preparations for the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), a fund which will be launched in March and is set to transform the international response to disasters and crises. In an interview with IRIN, she said efforts were being made to ensure that the new money expected from donors would benefit the entire aid system. QUESTION: The new CERF has been described by its sponsors as a mechanism that will constitute a radical change in the way international emergencies are managed. What are its main characteristics in comparison to existing funds? ANSWER: The old CERF had US $50 million, but it was only a loan facility and relatively modest in size. A lot of the potential users, the UN agencies and IOM, were reluctant to take these loans, especially in cases of so-called neglected emergencies, because they were not sure if they were going to be able to pay it back. The new fund has a grant facility of $450 million to jump start operations that you don’t have to pay back. So you don’t have to worry whether you are going to be able to raise the money or not, you can just concentrate on getting the job done. Q: If a serious disaster such as the Tsunami in South East Asia were to happen today, how would the CERF make a difference for the people on the ground? A: The tsunami is probably the one example where we wouldn’t have needed the CERF, because 90 percent of our funding was raised within a few weeks. However, in the South Asia earthquake in Pakistan, where we issued a flash appeal for the victims within days, it took months to obtain a critical mass of funds for the relief operations. In these situations, the UN struggles to get the minimum level of funding to deploy their staff and to get the minimum humanitarian assistance out the door. Many NGO partners also depend on prompt funding to the UN. Basically, the way in which the CERF can make a difference is that we can be on the ground immediately, we can use the stockpiles that we have, not depending on whether or not a pledge is coming, or a transfer is actually made. So we will really be able to have the immediate response that the people deserve. Q: One third of the funds are meant to be used for so-called "under-funded emergencies". What is going to be the criteria by which a neglected crisis could qualify to receive funds from the CERF? A: We will do two allocations per year to under-funded emergencies (although there will be only one this year of approximately $70 million). In January we’ll take a look at the previous year’s funding results in the consolidated appeals, and choose the lowest one third of all the appeals as eligible for funding. Then we’ll sort out the various projects in the appeals and only the life-saving projects will be eligible. It is important to stress that [the CERF] is meant to cover the very minimum of life saving projects. It’s not going to solve the problem of neglected emergencies, but it’s going to make sure that the minimum humanitarian projects can be covered. The CERF is not a replacement for the existing consolidated appeals. [It] will inject the minimum level of equity to make up for the unevenness of the response. The current system is like a lottery. You can have the best appeal and the most worthy cause, but the donors may not be interested. Q: Is there a maximum for the funds that could be transferred to a crisis? A: The maximum for the rapid response is $30 million for any one crisis, and this amount needs to be used within three months. This time limit underscores that this is not a fundraising tool per se; it’s a jumpstart in the initial months. Q: The CERF has so far collected around $187 million from 13 Member States and the private sector. Is there any forecast on when it could be expected to reach the goal of $500 million? A: We hope to reach this amount by 2008 although we have to keep in mind that we’ll use some of it, so we will constantly need to replenish the fund. We have been very fortunate to have a $70 million pledge from the UK, who also catalyzed the idea of the CERF, and likewise very generous pledges from Sweden and Norway. But also one of the great stories about the CERF is that it was passed by the General Assembly for all victims of humanitarian emergencies no matter where they are. So it’s a fund by all for all. In that context it’s great to hear about the $24,000 from Estonia, which was actually the first donor to transfer money. Likewise we have small pledges from Croatia, Greece and Sri Lanka. In the future we hope that we see some other contributions from developing countries such as China and India, who are increasingly humanitarian partners and donors. Q: The CERF aims to make funding available within 72 hours after an emergency occurs. However, only UN agencies would initially have direct access to these funds. Some NGO’s have expressed their concerns about the fact that precious time could be wasted until this money is really allocated to organisations working in the field. What’s your view? A: We definitely understand the concerns of the NGOs and we are trying to figure out a way to make sure they get the money quickly. I should say that we understand that the NGOs are a critical part of the process of having a rapid response. They are often first on the ground [and] are nimble so if we cannot get the money quickly to them too, the CERF will fail. We are looking at this in two ways. One is, if the UN agencies can do a good job of passing on the funds quickly, then we don’t really have a problem because the implementing partner arrangements should [move] the money quickly. At the same time, there may be situations in which an NGO doesn’t necessarily want to be an implementing partner, so we are looking for creative solutions here. We have a commitment to NGOs to try to take care of their concerns and we’ll see how it goes as the CERF is used. We know that if the money isn’t going to the NGO’s quickly then the whole operation is compromised. Q: It has also been argued that the donations that will now be directed to the improved CERF could leave other appeals under-funded. Are there reasons for concern? A: In this sense the concern of the NGOs is also the concern of UN agencies. So far the commitments that we have to the CERF are primarily new money. In particular, the EU Member States have made a very strong commitment that this is "new budget". The EU countries have agreed to increase their Official Development Assistance budget as part of their commitments to implementing the Millennium Development Goals and that means humanitarian budgets will also go up. In the case of NGOs, they always prefer to have the money directly, but with the CERF we can also say that this is going to be a priority for the overall humanitarian system and they will have a part of the fund. We hope that this new money will benefit the entire system.