More money for CERF, but challenges remain

The high-level conference on the expanded United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) held in New York on 7 December was significant for two reasons: it was well attended, and the response was unprecedented, with 51 donors - including 16 new ones - pledging US $345 million for 2007.

Some donors were not yet able to confirm their contributions, while the United Kingdom, Sweden and Norway, promised multi-annual funds. It is expected that final pledges will be close to the US $500 million target, surpassing the 2006 total.

However delegates to the conference - some 100, including UN and nongovernmental organisations, observers and private sector representatives – raised operational challenges that need to be addressed to make the fund more effective.

The Norwegian State Secretary, Raymond Johansen, in a sober assessment said the CERF had so far been a success, but its structures and procedures were still new and vulnerable. Agencies needed quicker access to funds and simpler reporting requirements, more donors were needed and the fund had to demonstrate that it was achieving results by responding rapidly, saving lives and adding value, he explained.

According to Johansen, many NGOs felt "alienated from the CERF", and more dialogue was needed between the Secretariat and NGOs to improve cooperation.

Many aid experts agree that NGO engagement is critical if the CERF is to achieve long-term success. Currently, many NGOs cannot directly apply for funds but – for reasons of fiscal control - can only receive these funds via a UN agency.

However, Tom Arnold, Chief Executive of the Irish NGO, Concern, argued that trying to change UN General Assembly rules would be futile. "My view is that there is no point in getting too upset about something you can’t change. But a second-best solution needs to be found," he said.

Appointed to the CERF Advisory Board in 2006, he said NGO engagement had been discussed extensively in May and September. "What we haven’t pinned down is how this should be done. The question is: ‘are there other ways that UN agencies and NGOs can work together to ensure that the mechanism works?’" said Arnold.

One option was to explore possibilities that could emerge from the wider humanitarian reform agenda. For example, pilot humanitarian reform countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), "could provide opportunities to experiment and to see what works and what doesn’t," he added.

Difficulties

Some NGOs found it difficult to secure emergency funding in 2006, despite the creation of the CERF. Toby Porter, Emergencies Director for Save the Children UK, cited first phase emergency funds for sudden-onset situations.

"The acid test for me is, ‘Is this translating into better commitments for sudden onset and natural disasters on the ground?’ If not, then it needs to be rethought. I do not think that the CERF is speeding up responses to disasters. The indication is that we are getting a slower and smaller response for NGOs, he said.

Saying there was no advantage in UN agencies handling funds on behalf of NGOs, Porter said channelling donor funds through a UN agency led to potentially higher transaction costs and greater delays. And with a UN agency taking an administrative charge, there was a risk that NGO management fees could be reduced to a point where project implementation was unsustainable.

He was also concerned over the extent to which the CERF was a model for future donor strategy. While donors had accepted that direct funding to the Red Cross Movement was important, given its mandate and operational independence, Porter said the expectation appeared to be that the UN system could manage NGOs.

Some humanitarian experts would see this as a strong message of support for better leadership and coordinated action in the field, but others worry about possible loss of operational independence. This view is reinforced by the perception that NGOs are at an institutional disadvantage when it comes to securing funds controlled by UN agencies.

Porter cited the use of the pooled fund in the DRC – a similar concept to the CERF, but at country level - saying 85 percent of disbursements went to UN agencies, and only 15 percent to NGOs. Historically, NGOs have implemented about 60 percent of the official humanitarian aid budget. "It is significant that the trend of 60:40 becomes 85:15 when the UN is administering the funds," he said.

The view was shared by other humanitarian experts. In an environment where the UN was struggling to raise any more than two-thirds of its requirements – similar to past responses to the Consolidated Appeal process – there was a risk that the CERF be used to plug gaps in ongoing UN programmes, at the expense of NGO activities, they said.

"The CERF will be most effective if donors fully fund the inequity of humanitarian appeals – then there will be less pressure for the UN Coordinator to use the funds for core programmes," said Porter.

Children of a family displaced by the fighting, squatting in a rough shack in a field in north-central CAR.

Oxfam’s policy advisor in New York, Greg Puley, pointed out that after only nine months, it was premature to draw conclusions on the CERF as part of wider humanitarian reform initiatives. "It is too early to see what tangible impact it has had on the ground. I don’t think we have a very good insight yet," he said. Preliminary conclusions might emerge from an Oxfam study on the fund, due for release in March, he added.

Puley noted, however, that the response time needed to be speeded up because administrative delays literally "cost lives". The CERF had been "a bit of a leveller to under-funded crises", Puley said, but operational relationships with NGOs on the ground were central to its success. "The vast majority of agencies on the ground are NGOs – those partnerships are as important for UN agencies as for NGOs," he stated.

Kristina Koch, CERF programme officer at the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in New York, said engaging with NGOs was a major objective for 2007. "NGOs are essential partners and an important part of the humanitarian system’s ability to deliver its mandate," she said, citing plans to expand the UN country team to include NGOs. This was important because decision-making – on coordination and funding – was being decentralised to the country level.

Training will be conducted [for UN staff] in 2007 and this will provide opportunities for NGO partners to learn more about CERF procedures. At head office level, NGO representatives already regularly attend inter-agency CERF meetings.

OCHA, she added, was also exploring the use of creative funding mechanisms for emergency responses through NGO partners. In the DRC, a standby fund of US $4.9 million had been set up to enable NGOs, including Solidarités, Catholic Relief Services and the International Rescue Corps, to respond to sudden population displacements.

Next steps

Some UN agencies reported a dramatic impact with CERF funds. Brian Gorlick, senior policy advisor with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in New York said it had made a big difference to the agency’s ability to fulfil its objectives in emergency response and with regard to its protection mandate.

"It’s been great, stupendous, for us. It’s filled a need and we’ve been able to get the cash early on," he said. This year CERF funds enabled UNHCR to respond rapidly to spikes in violence in crises such as East Timor, Sri Lanka and Iraq.

Neglected crises, including that in the Central African Republic, also benefited. The officer-in-charge in Bangui, Gogo Hukportie said that although there was a delay in the transfer of funds, the CERF enabled his agency to provide protection activities for internally displaced persons, including direct assistance to victims of violence.

In Kenya, UNHCR received a first rapid response grant just as the influx of Somali refugees was reaching its peak, at over 1,000 persons daily. A second grant for the response to devastating floods in the Dadaab camps was approved in 24 hours, said Eddie Gedalof, the agency’s acting representative in-country.

"It arrived when refugees from Ifo camp were living in muddy sewage water… [and] enabled our staff on the ground to focus on the life-saving activities and on moving refugees to safety," he said.

The World Food Programme (WFP), which has received one third of the funds to date, shares a positive view of CERF performance. The Director of the Programme Management Division in Rome, Torben Due, said field operations had benefited greatly from the fund "despite initial growing pains in the efficiency of disbursements". The process, he added, had been "significantly streamlined in recent months" and WFP expects it to become more efficient.

However, reporting and audit requirements remained a concern and needed to be consistent with existing arrangements between UN agencies and donors. "Otherwise, the CERF becomes a more administratively burdensome means of mobilising funds, rather than the simpler and quicker method of financing humanitarian response for which it was intended," he said.

Maintaining a fund for any humanitarian agency, not just for UN agencies, would have been a better option, Porter said: "We should have been more ambitious with the reform business. Instead, we have settled for the best possible outcome for what the current system will allow." If the CERF does not deliver for NGOs, an alternative fund might have to be an option, he suggested.

But Arnold said that he was struck by the good judgement used in disbursements so far. "When you look at the countries that got money, they were the places where it was most needed. If the CERF can proceed on good political intelligence, then that is going to be a critical factor for its success," he said.

Since its launch on 9 March, the CERF has channelled US $230 million to 320 projects in sudden-onset or neglected crises in 30 countries. But other than an interim report, there has been no evaluation, let alone a forensic audit of the use of these funds – except for the anticipated Oxfam report.

OCHA’s Koch acknowledged there was "still a way to go" on the administrative side, but pointed out that the ethos of the CERF was not in dispute. "There remains broad agreement that there is a benefit in having a global emergency fund managed by a global organisation," she said.

Details about the CERF, including information on donors and disbursements by sector and agency, are availbale at http://ochaonline2.un.org/

Md/jm