UN CERF Annual Report 2012 January 2012 - December 2012 | Page 32

MANAGING CERF
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
OF THE UNDERFUNDED
EMERGENCIES WINDOW

CERF continues to be a flexible and predictable source

recommendations directly under its control. Eleven of the 19

of humanitarian funding that is both transparent and

recommendations have already been closed, and an additional

accountable. Key management milestones in 2012 included

five will be closed during the first half of 2013. The remaining

the continued implementation of the Management

three recommendations either reflect ongoing, longer-

Response Plan (MRP), following the five-year evaluation

term work that will be included in the CERF secretariat’s

of CERF, the independent evaluation of the UFE window,

regular work plan or are dependent on broader, system-wide

In an effort to continually review and improve its processes,

the country-level reviews conducted under CERF’s

initiatives, such as the efforts to improve monitoring at the

and based on a recommendation from CERF’s five-year

Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) and

country level under the Inter-Agency Standing Committee

evaluation, in 2012 the CERF secretariat commissioned

the continued efforts to improve field reporting.

Transformative Agenda.

an independent review of the UFE process to review

THE FIVE-YEAR EVALUATION
AND MANAGEMENT
RESPONSE PLAN

the current methodology used for country selection
Also as a result of this evaluation, and with adoption of General

and apportionment and to identify potential alternative

Assembly resolution 66/119 “Strengthening of the coordination

or improved methods. Two independent consultants

of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations”

conducted the review between May and September 2012.

on 8 December 2011, CERF’s loan element was reduced from
$50 million to $30 million in 2012. Accordingly, the United

Overall, the review concluded that the current processes

In 2011, the independent five-year evaluation mandated

Nations Controller transferred $46.4 million to the grant

behind the UFE window are fundamentally sound and

by the General Assembly provided Member States with a

window in January 2012. This amount included the accrued

that the current system — with two UFE rounds a year

comprehensive overview of CERF’s activities from 2006

interest from the CERF loan component and helped CERF

synchronized with the publication of the annual

to 2011. This included CERF’s ability to meet its objectives,

ensure this year’s record-high disbursement levels.

consolidated appeals, the Mid-Year Review and forward

its administration, the needs-assessment process and the

disbursement of funds — is the right one. Furthermore,

The evaluation highlighted CERF’s strengths and
weaknesses and provided 19 recommendations at the
policy and operational levels to improve its effectiveness.
Six recommendations were directed to the ERC, four to
the CERF secretariat, two each to the UN Controller,

The implementation of the follow-up actions outlined in the

the review found that the UFE country selection process is

MRP generated several initiatives that will directly benefit

allocation criteria.

based upon the best available assessments of humanitarian

CERF, including:

need and financial reporting, emphasizing, “The selection

Guidance on complementarity between CERF and
country-based pooled funds (Common Humanitarian
Funds and Emergency Response Funds).

donors and cluster lead agencies, and three to recipient

A review of CERF’s UFE window reaffirming its basic
logic and process.

UN agencies and IOM.

User-friendly, informative application and reporting formats.

The CERF secretariat developed the MRP to follow up

processes provide a solid model for evidence-based
funding allocation, worthy of consideration for adoption
by donors who operate from a global level analysis”.

beyond CERF’s control:
First, the UFE country selection process relies upon
financial data from the Financial Tracking Service (FTS),
which varies in frequency and quality. While the review
acknowledged that FTS data may be the best available for
the purpose, it also highlighted the importance of CERF’s
current practice of complementing the quantitative data
with qualitative discussions with multiple stakeholders.
The review commended the benefits of this multilayer
process, but also recommended that OCHA advocates for
and assists in developing the means to strengthen agency
reporting to FTS.
Second, the review called for increasing the transparency
and objectivity of the UFE process by including
International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs)
in the country selection process. In response, the CERF
secretariat has approached key INGO consortia regarding
this recommendation and will continue to work with them
to identify ways to incorporate INGOs in the process.
The study revealed strong, ongoing support for the
original intent and purpose of the UFE window. The
funding analysis provides additional evidence that CERF,
in conjunction with country-level pooled funding, has

Plans for a community of practice for humanitarian
financing practitioners