in Zimbabwe - OCHANet

Executive Summary
This review of CERF funding to Zimbabwe aims to assess the indicators of the CERF’s Performance and
Accountability Framework (PAF) and address additional key questions raised by the CERF Advisory
Group and Secretariat. The report is based on interviews with RC/HC, UN agencies, IOM, international and
national NGOs and government representatives in Harare in August 2011. It also draws on a document
review and funding information from the CERF Secretariat and agencies participating in the review.
Humanitarian Context in Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe experienced a severe crisis in 2008‐09 due to election‐related violence, a widespread cholera
outbreak, hyperinflation and severe food insecurity. Overall humanitarian needs have declined since
2009 though there are areas of acute need, for example, amongst displaced people, migrants and other
vulnerable groups. The situation is best described as a chronic crisis with indicators crossing emergency
thresholds due to structural causes (a breakdown in infrastructure and services) rather than a specific
cause such as a natural disaster or violent conflict. This means that the CERF, with its life‐saving focus,
does not always fit easily with the required responses although it has been able to address emergency
needs and fill gaps.
Due to the nature of the crisis and the lack of adequate development funding, the Zimbabwe CAP has
included some recovery programming since 2009. However, some donors and participating agencies do
not fully report funding for the recovery elements to the FTS and this makes it almost impossible to get
an accurate picture of the extent to which the CAP is funded. This is a challenge for allocations from the
CERF’s Under‐Funded Emergency (UFE) window but the CERF Secretariat, with OCHA Zimbabwe’s help,
used an estimate of the purely humanitarian requirements and funding as the basis of its decisions.
Value‐Added of the CERF
CERF funding has added value for UN agencies and IOM in several ways: by providing timely funding for
emergency response, by funding severely under‐funded sectors, by providing funding early on in the
year (through the first UFE allocation), by enabling agencies to leverage funding from other donors, by
complementing other donor funding, by providing flexible funding and by increasing the credibility of
the UN system with the government.
NGOs were largely positive about implementing CERF‐funded projects but they identified challenges
relating to funding restrictions, particularly indirect support costs. They were not always clear whether
the CERF or agencies had imposed these restrictions.
Inclusiveness and Transparency of Allocation Process
The CERF allocation process in Zimbabwe is more inclusive and transparent than in some other countries
since NGOs and the government are involved in allocation and donors are informed about CERF funding
through the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). The Inter‐Cluster Forum (ICF) is the main decisionmaking
body for UFE allocations. Two INGO co‐Cluster leads are supposed to be members but only one
tends to attend. Government Cluster leads/co‐leads are also ICF members but do not attend. So, the
Ministry of Regional Integration and International Cooperation (MORIIC), as the government
coordination lead, recently gained observer status. Since Rapid Response grants usually focus on a single
sector, they tend to be discussed within the relevant Cluster, with the ICF and HCT approving decisions.
Some interviewees (including MoRIIC) expressed concern that UN agencies make the real allocation
decisions, either at the ICF or within agencies themselves.
Timeliness of CERF Funding
The review found that the CERF Secretariat is generally quick to approve final proposals and disburse
funds. Timelines for projects funded in 2011 show that agencies may take one or two months to sign
www.p2pt.org.uk Review of Value Added of CERF in Zimbabwe Page | 1