INTERVIEW-U.N. crisis fund aims for faster response
Source: AlertNet
Previous
| Next
Indonesian flood victims carry aid from the U.N. World Food Programme in East Jakarta, Feb. 13, 2007.
REUTERS/Dadang Tri
REUTERS/Dadang Tri
The U.N.'s global emergency fund - set up to get cash to disaster zones more quickly - marks its first year in business on Friday.
Aid experts have given the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) a mixed report card. In some cases, it has enabled a more rapid response to disasters and provided much-needed funding for "forgotten emergencies".
But in other cases, teething problems have led to delays in getting cash to relief agencies on the ground, and some of the world's richest donors have failed to contribute much money.
AlertNet's Megan Rowling spoke to Rudolf Muller, the head of the CERF secretariat, about what's working well and what needs to be fixed.
What are the CERF's successes?
The main achievement is that we got the fund up and running. We committed $376 million over the year to 361 projects in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. In a number of countries, we have been able to fill critical gaps, or...in some cases respond very quickly, such as recently in Mozambique [where floods have displaced around 170,000 people since the start of the year]. We have also had the possibility of contributing to humanitarian reform...The availability of money did bring people to the table, and make them coordinate and set priorities, and talk to each other. Has the fund performed as well as hoped?
The goals set out are much bigger and one is more ambitious than ultimately the result. Some people probably expected more. But on the other hand, looking at the different obstacles every mechanism like this has, I think the achievements were significant. But I wouldn't say there weren't a lot of challenges remaining. There is still a lot to do in terms of administrative procedures inside the United Nations...but also with our implementing partners. And this is the main criticism at this point in time - that there are too many hurdles, or too many things that need to be fine-tuned, clarified and improved. How would you respond to criticism from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that they can't access the CERF directly, and it's diverting money from them to U.N. agencies?
In terms of taking money away from them, I do not have statistics or any indication that that is actually the case. The CERF was always supposed to be additional money and that was the main point to which the donors committed themselves, so we obviously do not support anything that would be along the lines of taking money away from others. When it comes to direct access for NGOs, the CERF has been set up by the General Assembly and it is ultimately up to the assembly to change the way it is...I was told that a number of countries were pretty sceptical on this point and what I hear is that the chances of getting it through the General Assembly are actually bleak. But...we could look at many different ways of how to include NGOs better in the process, which might overcome the basic obstacle that they don't have direct access. Or at least to a certain degree [it would] make it much easier for them to get funding and bridge a certain period until the time is right to change the modalities of the fund. Has this issue caused delays in money getting to people in need?
I do admit that we know there have been delays in transferring the money from U.N. headquarters to the receiving [U.N.] agency and then from the agency onwards to the implementing partner [NGO]. We do not get involved in the administrative process between the direct receiving agency and the NGO. We are not going to impose anything in addition to that process, so they can maintain the standard process they have. So there should not be a delay in comparison with any other donor contribution. But maybe some have to get used to this overall process - having endorsement from New York and then getting it to the agency and then out to the implementing partner. And I am sure that caused initial delays and problems, and I very much hope that this is going to be sorted out. But the whole point of the CERF is that the money should get to people in need more quickly then before...
When it comes to rapid response, we can be very fast - and this has been proven in Mozambique and in the Jakarta floods. The U.N. controller's office has agreed that in sudden onset disasters we can start spending money on the day of the disaster, so that the proposals that are being submitted can be dated to that day. That has been a big achievement, which we brought in at the end of last year, and it's not that widely known. I think it could form a model that would make it easier [for NGOs]. There are some other mechanisms that have been used in the case of Somalia and elsewhere, where a pooled funding mechanism disbursed [cash] directly to NGOs that did also bridge that time gap. Do you think the amount of money the CERF gives to under-funded emergencies is enough to make a difference?
There is a debate over that - whether the window [allocation] for under-funded [emergencies] should be changed. But there are some differences of opinion among member states. It certainly merits a thorough review - when the overall CERF increases, whether the under-funded window should be reconsidered. We did make a difference in certain sectors. What we do is not just fund an overall appeal or country, but...certain sectors that are critically under-funded even within better-funded appeals, such as protection-related activities or HIV/AIDS programmes. The CERF is also non-political - the funds come un-earmarked - and we are looking at the actual needs. This year we are going to make a disbursement to North Korea. It will be $5 million ... We understand from the [U.N.] Resident Coordinator that there are very critical funding gaps. It is a very delicate case, but one where we are giving funds to an area that merits and deserves funding and where it may be very, very difficult to find other funding sources to cover those critical gaps.
The main achievement is that we got the fund up and running. We committed $376 million over the year to 361 projects in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. In a number of countries, we have been able to fill critical gaps, or...in some cases respond very quickly, such as recently in Mozambique [where floods have displaced around 170,000 people since the start of the year]. We have also had the possibility of contributing to humanitarian reform...The availability of money did bring people to the table, and make them coordinate and set priorities, and talk to each other. Has the fund performed as well as hoped?
The goals set out are much bigger and one is more ambitious than ultimately the result. Some people probably expected more. But on the other hand, looking at the different obstacles every mechanism like this has, I think the achievements were significant. But I wouldn't say there weren't a lot of challenges remaining. There is still a lot to do in terms of administrative procedures inside the United Nations...but also with our implementing partners. And this is the main criticism at this point in time - that there are too many hurdles, or too many things that need to be fine-tuned, clarified and improved. How would you respond to criticism from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that they can't access the CERF directly, and it's diverting money from them to U.N. agencies?
In terms of taking money away from them, I do not have statistics or any indication that that is actually the case. The CERF was always supposed to be additional money and that was the main point to which the donors committed themselves, so we obviously do not support anything that would be along the lines of taking money away from others. When it comes to direct access for NGOs, the CERF has been set up by the General Assembly and it is ultimately up to the assembly to change the way it is...I was told that a number of countries were pretty sceptical on this point and what I hear is that the chances of getting it through the General Assembly are actually bleak. But...we could look at many different ways of how to include NGOs better in the process, which might overcome the basic obstacle that they don't have direct access. Or at least to a certain degree [it would] make it much easier for them to get funding and bridge a certain period until the time is right to change the modalities of the fund. Has this issue caused delays in money getting to people in need?
I do admit that we know there have been delays in transferring the money from U.N. headquarters to the receiving [U.N.] agency and then from the agency onwards to the implementing partner [NGO]. We do not get involved in the administrative process between the direct receiving agency and the NGO. We are not going to impose anything in addition to that process, so they can maintain the standard process they have. So there should not be a delay in comparison with any other donor contribution. But maybe some have to get used to this overall process - having endorsement from New York and then getting it to the agency and then out to the implementing partner. And I am sure that caused initial delays and problems, and I very much hope that this is going to be sorted out. But the whole point of the CERF is that the money should get to people in need more quickly then before...
When it comes to rapid response, we can be very fast - and this has been proven in Mozambique and in the Jakarta floods. The U.N. controller's office has agreed that in sudden onset disasters we can start spending money on the day of the disaster, so that the proposals that are being submitted can be dated to that day. That has been a big achievement, which we brought in at the end of last year, and it's not that widely known. I think it could form a model that would make it easier [for NGOs]. There are some other mechanisms that have been used in the case of Somalia and elsewhere, where a pooled funding mechanism disbursed [cash] directly to NGOs that did also bridge that time gap. Do you think the amount of money the CERF gives to under-funded emergencies is enough to make a difference?
There is a debate over that - whether the window [allocation] for under-funded [emergencies] should be changed. But there are some differences of opinion among member states. It certainly merits a thorough review - when the overall CERF increases, whether the under-funded window should be reconsidered. We did make a difference in certain sectors. What we do is not just fund an overall appeal or country, but...certain sectors that are critically under-funded even within better-funded appeals, such as protection-related activities or HIV/AIDS programmes. The CERF is also non-political - the funds come un-earmarked - and we are looking at the actual needs. This year we are going to make a disbursement to North Korea. It will be $5 million ... We understand from the [U.N.] Resident Coordinator that there are very critical funding gaps. It is a very delicate case, but one where we are giving funds to an area that merits and deserves funding and where it may be very, very difficult to find other funding sources to cover those critical gaps.