in Zimbabwe - OCHANet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

implementing almost every aspect of it. This includes determining what supplies are needed for each school, obtaining tenders and identifying local suppliers (see timeline for GRANT 11‐IOM‐014 (RR) in Annex 1). UNICEF should have been the agency channelling the funding, as it leads the education network that identified the problem. However, it requested IOM to act as the funding channel due to administrative constraints. From UNICEF’s perspective, as long as a project follows established standards, it does not matter which agency channels CERF funds. However, NGOs felt that there had been a lack of support from IOM after an initial project meeting on 6 April 2011. This has meant that the implementing NGOs have not had an opportunity to come together to discuss issues and develop common training procedures. In IOM’s view, though, the education cluster, led by UNICEF, is the appropriate forum for discussing the intervention. The three partners are large international NGOs and key stakeholders in the cluster and so should be capable of organising the necessary coordination. IOM’s role, as a pass‐through for the funds, is focused on the significant oversight responsibilities of managing the grant, which includes undertaking joint field monitoring visits with each of the three partners. Table 1: 2011 CERF Funding Channelled through NGOs Agency/Sector Project Number CERF Grant NGO Total NGO % IOM/Nutrition & Food 14 11‐IOM‐005 $529,187 $260,686 49.3% IOM/Multi‐sector – IDPs & asylumseekers 11‐IOM‐006 $250,000 $22,735 9% IOM/Livelihoods 11‐IOM‐007 $300,000 $230,750 76.9% IOM/Education 11‐IOM‐014 $977,054 $108,200 11% UNFPA/Health 11‐FPA‐010 $897,231 $431,424 48% UNHCR/ Multi‐sector – Refugees & 11‐HCR‐004 $250,001 $24,900 9.9% asylum‐seekers 15 UNICEF/Nutrition & Food 11‐CEF‐008‐A $571,914 $465,171 81.3% UNICEF/WASH 11‐CEF‐008‐B $1,300,000 $1,170,000 90% UNICEF/WASH 11‐CEF‐028 $3,022,440 $0 0% WFP/Nutrition & Food 11‐WFP‐009 $897,221 $43,766 4.8% Recommendations 1. Under the HC/RC’s leadership, the humanitarian community should continue work that is already underway to develop ways to capture the full scale of recovery funding that complements humanitarian aid. 2. The CERF Secretariat should develop a policy to allow UN agencies and IOM to ‘pass‐through’ funding when a project is developed and implemented by NGOs. This should include rules on the project support and staffing costs that the pass‐through agency can claim. Section 2: Value Added of the CERF This section focuses on the extent to which the CERF has added value to humanitarian response in Zimbabwe. It addresses indicators 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the PAF. It shows that the CERF has added value for UN agencies in various ways. NGO implementers, though, identified challenges with funding restrictions and claiming indirect support costs, in particular. An overall challenge with CERF funding to Zimbabwe is the structural nature of the crisis, which does not fit easily with the CERF’s focus on life‐saving activities and immediate response. www.p2pt.org.uk Review of Value Added of CERF in Zimbabwe Page | 9
2.1 UN agency perspectives This section is based on responses from five UN agencies (UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP and WHO) and IOM. It highlights the various ways in which CERF funding has supported their humanitarian response. • By providing timely funding at times of acute emergency, particularly during the cholera outbreak in 2008‐09 and the measles outbreak in 2010. • By funding severely under‐funded sectors and enabling them to fill gaps. For example, the protection and multi‐sector Clusters that address the needs of IDPs, refugees and asylumseekers had received only 10% and 6% respectively of requested funding at the time of the midyear review. Both UFE rounds in 2011 funded these Clusters. CERF funding to the Nutrition Cluster in 2011 has enabled it to increase coverage of its Community Based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) activities. • By providing funding early on in the year with the first UFE round, particularly useful because donor funding has tended to arrive later in the year in Zimbabwe. UNICEF noted that the CERF’s $1.3 million grant to the WASH Cluster at the beginning of 2011 had been very timely. The funding information that UNICEF provided for table 7 in Annex 1 shows that a grant of $4.6 million from Japan in January 2011 was the only humanitarian funding it had received till it received grants from the CERF’s first UFE round. • By enabling agencies to leverage funding from other donors. CERF funding to UNICEF to address cholera enabled the agency to secure additional funding from ECHO and DFID. A UNICEF staff member argued that donors prefer co‐financing projects to ensure that risks are shared amongst donors. The CERF Secretariat’s willingness to support bold approaches and take the risk of being the first donor to a project is very helpful as this often triggers other funding. • By complementing other donor funding. The CERF Rapid Response grant to WHO and UNICEF to address the measles outbreak in 2010 complemented funding that the two agencies received from ECHO. • By providing flexible funding so that recipient agencies can respond to changing needs. Due to an increase in project beneficiaries, UNHCR has had to re‐programme funding from the first UFE round to provide food rather than emergency shelter and Non‐Food Items (NFIs). In addition, some UN interviewees, including the HC, felt that CERF funding increases the credibility of the UN system with the government because it is a resource that the agencies can draw on consistently to fill gaps and respond to urgent needs. Table 7 in Annex 1 puts CERF funding to Zimbabwe in context by comparing it to other humanitarian funding that the agencies had received as of 15 August 2011. This shows that CERF funding is very important for some agencies. It comprised 100 per cent of UNFPA’s humanitarian funding and almost 44 per cent of UNICEF’s humanitarian funding. 2.2 NGO perspectives While the NGOs interviewed for this review were largely positive about their role in implementing CERFfunded projects, they identified challenges related to certain funding restrictions 16 . They were unclear about whether these were due to CERF rules or to the internal rules of UN agencies and IOM. For 14 This project proposes to provide US$8,820 (1.67% of the total budget) through the Ministry of Health. 15 This project provided US$29,000 (11.6% of the total budget) to the Department for Social Welfare. 16 These are separate from the concerns identified by the NGOs and Humanitarian Reform project in 2009, which the NGOs shared with the head of the CERF Secretariat during his visit to Zimbabwe. www.p2pt.org.uk Review of Value Added of CERF in Zimbabwe Page | 10
Page 1 and 2: Independent Review of the Value Add
Page 3 and 4: SECTION 6: SUPPORT TO HUMANITARIAN
Page 5 and 6: agreements with partners and disbur
Page 7 and 8: Section 1: Introduction The CERF Se
Page 9 and 10: even though this may not be the cas
Page 11: 1.4 Zimbabwe Emergency Response Fun
Page 15 and 16: WFP indirect costs. Allows partners
Page 17 and 18: outlines what each Cluster requeste
Page 19 and 20: than usual to prepare proposals 22
Page 21 and 22: CERF’s first UFE allocation in 20
Page 23 and 24: 4.1 Timeliness of the CERF Secretar
Page 25 and 26: This section begins by covering the
Page 27 and 28: Section 6: Support to Humanitarian
Page 29 and 30: Annex 1: Supporting Evidence Sectio
Page 31 and 32: Section 3.1 Allocation process Tabl
Page 33 and 34: Section 4.1 Timeliness of the CERF
Page 35 and 36: Section 3.2 Timeliness of Onward Fu
Page 37 and 38: Proposal submitted: 17 Feb 11 Final
Page 39 and 40: UNICEF Grant 11‐CEF‐008B: Fundi
Page 41 and 42: International 8 June 2011 $23,796.6
Page 43 and 44: Project budget: US$2,000,000. Amoun
Page 45 and 46: 16 June 2011 $4,993.00 11 July 2011
Page 47 and 48: Section 3.3 No‐Cost Extensions (N
Page 49 and 50: Annex 2: Methodology This annex bri
Page 51 and 52: 23 Response capacity is strengthene
Page 53 and 54: 3. Key issues The critical overridi
Page 55: 7. Deliverables The main output wil

in Zimbabwe - OCHANet

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?