Established in 2005 to jump-start the flow of aid to humanitarian emergencies and fill funding gaps that so often plague them, the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) has become a keystone of the global emergency response framework. In just over five years the $500 million annual Fund—$300 million available in rapid response grants, $150 million in underfunded emergency grants and $50 million in loans—has distributed $2 billion to crises in over 80 countries.
CERF’s proactive approach--raising funds prior to and in preparation for disasters--distinguishes it from other UN humanitarian actors like the World Food Program (WFP), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), all of which appeal for donations post-crisis, functioning in a reactive capacity.
Timeliness is another hallmark of the Fund, as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized at its 2006 launch: “Instead of waiting for money to trickle in, [CERF] will enable us to deploy staff, goods, and services immediately, when most lives are at stake.”
Yet while CERF’s proactive approach and emphasis on timeliness have greatly facilitated humanitarian efforts worldwide, some analysts warn of potentially perverse incentives from an overemphasis on rapid fund distribution.
The Fruits of Pre-crisis Preparation
Prior to the Fund’s establishment, humanitarian response efforts suffered at the expense of sporadic funding. The 2004 Indian tsunami, in particular, laid bare the sector’s systemic funding flaw as many aid agencies lacked either sufficient resources or a central source from which to obtain them in the earliest hours of the disaster when, as Mr. Ban noted, “most lives are at stake.”
The CERF--as a proactive relief actor having funds available to disperse at a moment’s notice--has been able to fill such funding gaps as they arise. And its centralized location in the UN system has further facilitated increased donor participation in humanitarian emergencies, as illustrated by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action’s (ALNAP) 2009 report, The State of the Humanitarian System: “the number of donors contributing to international humanitarian response efforts has increased by 40%, from an average of 67 per year to 94 per year in the past four years. As of 2008, 104 governments were reporting humanitarian contributions, many of these made possible for the first time by the CERF mechanism.”
Thus far in 2011, $84 million has been allocated to underfunded emergencies and $17 million in rapid response funds to four emergencies. The bulk of funds in the latter category have gone to jump-starting humanitarian missions responding to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing violence in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya.
Immediacy the Enemy of Timeliness
Timeliness, despite its central role in the CERF mechanism, is not the only concern for humanitarian workers and the populations they serve. As some scholars have observed, focusing too much on speedy delivery of funds can lead to negative outcomes. A 2006 evaluation for Oxfam titled, Real Time Evaluation Report – Lebanon Crisis Response, found that excessive focus on spending money early in humanitarian emergencies can result in a rush “to be seen to be doing something,” which may cause relief workers to lose sight of the needs-based nature of their missions. Similarly, a 2008 Report by the Collaborative for Development Action (CDA), exploring the views of those who receive humanitarian and development aid, found that a focus on speed prevents listening to and building respectful relationships with locals. And a 2007 report by the CDA in Sri Lanka found that too much emphasis on early response led to hasty decision-making and inappropriate interventions in the target community.
Since its inception in 2006, the $500 million Central Emergency Response Fund has done a great deal to fill funding gaps critical to humanitarian response efforts, in effect becoming a keystone of the global emergency response framework. However, the potential to overemphasize timely fund distribution, essentially confusing timeliness with immediacy, threatens to undermine the goals of an organization integral to the welfare of the humanitarian community. Timeliness should be interpreted and operationalized thoughtfully, without overshadowing other important humanitarian responsibilities. To do otherwise may leave the proactive organization susceptible to a crisis of its own.
a global affairs media network
UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund: Not So Fast
March 26, 2011
Established in 2005 to jump-start the flow of aid to humanitarian emergencies and fill funding gaps that so often plague them, the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) has become a keystone of the global emergency response framework. In just over five years the $500 million annual Fund—$300 million available in rapid response grants, $150 million in underfunded emergency grants and $50 million in loans—has distributed $2 billion to crises in over 80 countries.
CERF’s proactive approach--raising funds prior to and in preparation for disasters--distinguishes it from other UN humanitarian actors like the World Food Program (WFP), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), all of which appeal for donations post-crisis, functioning in a reactive capacity.
Timeliness is another hallmark of the Fund, as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon emphasized at its 2006 launch: “Instead of waiting for money to trickle in, [CERF] will enable us to deploy staff, goods, and services immediately, when most lives are at stake.”
Yet while CERF’s proactive approach and emphasis on timeliness have greatly facilitated humanitarian efforts worldwide, some analysts warn of potentially perverse incentives from an overemphasis on rapid fund distribution.
The Fruits of Pre-crisis Preparation
Prior to the Fund’s establishment, humanitarian response efforts suffered at the expense of sporadic funding. The 2004 Indian tsunami, in particular, laid bare the sector’s systemic funding flaw as many aid agencies lacked either sufficient resources or a central source from which to obtain them in the earliest hours of the disaster when, as Mr. Ban noted, “most lives are at stake.”
The CERF--as a proactive relief actor having funds available to disperse at a moment’s notice--has been able to fill such funding gaps as they arise. And its centralized location in the UN system has further facilitated increased donor participation in humanitarian emergencies, as illustrated by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action’s (ALNAP) 2009 report, The State of the Humanitarian System: “the number of donors contributing to international humanitarian response efforts has increased by 40%, from an average of 67 per year to 94 per year in the past four years. As of 2008, 104 governments were reporting humanitarian contributions, many of these made possible for the first time by the CERF mechanism.”
Thus far in 2011, $84 million has been allocated to underfunded emergencies and $17 million in rapid response funds to four emergencies. The bulk of funds in the latter category have gone to jump-starting humanitarian missions responding to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing violence in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya.
Immediacy the Enemy of Timeliness
Timeliness, despite its central role in the CERF mechanism, is not the only concern for humanitarian workers and the populations they serve. As some scholars have observed, focusing too much on speedy delivery of funds can lead to negative outcomes. A 2006 evaluation for Oxfam titled, Real Time Evaluation Report – Lebanon Crisis Response, found that excessive focus on spending money early in humanitarian emergencies can result in a rush “to be seen to be doing something,” which may cause relief workers to lose sight of the needs-based nature of their missions. Similarly, a 2008 Report by the Collaborative for Development Action (CDA), exploring the views of those who receive humanitarian and development aid, found that a focus on speed prevents listening to and building respectful relationships with locals. And a 2007 report by the CDA in Sri Lanka found that too much emphasis on early response led to hasty decision-making and inappropriate interventions in the target community.
Since its inception in 2006, the $500 million Central Emergency Response Fund has done a great deal to fill funding gaps critical to humanitarian response efforts, in effect becoming a keystone of the global emergency response framework. However, the potential to overemphasize timely fund distribution, essentially confusing timeliness with immediacy, threatens to undermine the goals of an organization integral to the welfare of the humanitarian community. Timeliness should be interpreted and operationalized thoughtfully, without overshadowing other important humanitarian responsibilities. To do otherwise may leave the proactive organization susceptible to a crisis of its own.
