CERF PROCESS IN ERITREA
HC Reflections for Advisory Board Meeting
Christine N. Umutoni
RC/HC
Geneva, 28 May 2015
Outline
Introduction
2. Experiences and challenges
3. CERF added value to humanitarian action
4. HC’s role
5. CERF decision making process
6. Challenges in strategic use of CERF
7. Prioritization of humanitarian activities
8. Complementarity: CERF & pooled funds
9. Suggestions to improve CERF visibility
1.
1. Introduction





US$ 34.2 million received since 2006 (US$ 10.1 m Rapid Response
Window & US$ 24.1 m Underfunded Emergencies Window).
Funded programmes mainly in nutrition, health, water, sanitation and
hygiene, and food security.
Recently: 2013, US$ 6.3 million allocated for nutrition, health and
livelihoods activities. Another US$ 2.5 million allocated mid-2014 to
support nutrition, health and food security interventions in five of the
six regions that make up the country.
All recent CERF interventions were closely aligned and coordinated
with the Strategic Partnership Cooperation Framework (2013-2016) –
the development framework, jointly developed with the Government
(US$188m).
Donor presence in Eritrea is limited.
2. Experiences & Challenges








CERF funds used to meet humanitarian needs in critical sectors: nutrition,
health, water, sanitation and hygiene, and food security.
Government gives low priority to humanitarian action since 2006.
UNCT integrates humanitarian priorities into development planning.
Limited humanitarian action possible. No publicity.
Humanitarian/basic services programmes implemented through line
ministries and departments based on a subtle approach.
Government policy: assessments & surveys have not taken place on a
regular basis for many years. (A WFP-led assessment to take place in June).
Lack of data has made it difficult to appropriately assess needs and plan
response. Proxy data has been used instead and needs have been
addressed in every feasible way.
The data paucity has made requests for CERF grants under the rapid
response window more difficult. Without sufficient data, it is difficult to
illustrate significant changes in the humanitarian situation.
3. CERF Added Value


Enables UN to assist the Government avert deterioration in nutrition
status of, in particular, children and mothers (pregnant and lactating).
With limited CERF resources in 2014 UN agencies supported the
Government to:
 address malnutrition through blanket supplementary feeding and
targeted water, sanitation and hygiene services benefitting over
20,000 children and mothers in the arid Red Sea regions;
 control and treat Schistosomiasis and Dengue Fever benefitting
9,000 children;
 improve safe delivery services in maternity waiting homes
reaching about 27,000 pregnant mothers;
 implement food security and livelihoods interventions benefitting
about 10,000 people in the pastoral areas in Northern and
Southern Red Sea regions.
4. HC’s Role

Oversees work of the UNCT and sectoral groups on response
planning, and coordination of the CERF process from grant request
to implementation of response activities and reporting of results.

Insists on good quality grant requests to hasten approval/fund
disbursement time and speed of response.

Monitoring operational context and progress of implementation to
address any bottlenecks and anticipate risks that may necessitate
decisions on reprogramming and no-cost extensions.
5. CERF Decision Making Process

Needs analysis and available data are the basis for decisions on CERF
prioritization.

Based on a consultative approach, these are objectively and fairly assessed
to inform well considered final decisions by the HC.

Use of an agreed prioritization system that allocates points based on a
weighting scale against which sector submissions are assessed allows for
intense debate and assessment of issues that can then be objectively
reflected on paper to facilitate a fair prioritization and allocation process.

Prioritization system is illustrated in detail under section ‘7. Prioritization of
Humanitarian Activities’.
6. Challenges in Strategic Use of CERF

Government discourages public appeals for aid.

Result: Limited humanitarian funding for Eritrea leaving the CERF as
one of the main sources in contrast to the ideal situation whereby it
should fill in gaps in regular humanitarian funding.

Monitoring of projects is hampered by restricted access to the field
(especially for international staff) and a Government coordination
modality that curtails independent/joint monitoring and evaluation of
projects.
7. Prioritization of Humanitarian Activities

Agencies naturally compete to get the best out of the allocated CERF
grants.
 To ensure that resources are prioritized for the most critical needs with
minimal to no disputes and time loss, a calibrated weighting of sectoral
submissions is used for a more objective prioritization process.
 The CERF prioritization strategy template is first completed by sectors.
 The sectors present and defend their submissions before a panel
appointed by the HC/UNCT.
 Sector submissions are assessed by a UNCT designated panel for
criticality of need and consequences of inaction, caseloads/targeted
beneficiaries, geographic coverage, capacity of agencies to deliver,
funding and other considerations.
 A weighting scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) is used to allocate points to
the sector submissions.
 The aggregate of points is used by the HC to make the final decision on
envelopes allocated to specific sectors/agencies.
…continued: Prioritization of Humanitarian Activities
ALLOCATION SHEET_CERF-UFE ROUND II 2014 PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA - 29 JULY 2014 (ERITREA ENVELOPE = US$2.5 MILLION)
2
POINTS SCORED (0 - Lowest to 5 - Highest)
UNDP
UNFPA
UNHCR
UNICEF
0
3
4
2
4
5
3
0
3
3
5
3
3
5
0
5
0
0
5
0
3
0
3
2.5
2
4
5
3
0
5
8
6
15
10
Rationale1, Consistency2, Significance1,
Realistic1
2
0
3
2
1
3
5
Previous record2, Spending rate2, Partner
capacity1
2
0
4
3
5
5
4
20
0
26
22.5
21
39
32
160.5
CRITERIA
POSITIVE INDICATORS
1. Beneficiary caseload
(Total points = 5)
2. Access to other services
(Total points = 5)
3. Reporitng timeliness (CERF 2013)
(Total points = 5)
4. Humanitarian context
(Total points = 5)
5. Humanitarian problems
(Total points = 15)* Exception: 0 =
Lowest to 15 = Highest.
Size realistic5, gender2, vulnerable2,
specificity1
6. Geographical coverage
(Total points = 5)
7. Implementation capacity
(Total points = 5)
FAO
UNAIDS
Yes0,Partial3,No5
24JulyDeadline (met5, not met 0)
Clarity1.5, Validity1.5, Strategy2
Clarity1.5, Validity1.5, Relevance2, Priority
Sectors10
TOTAL POINTS SCORED
RECOMMENDATIONS TO HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR & HUMANITARIAN COUNTRY TEAM
1. Meets CERF Criteria (No =
Life-saving not DRR. Indicate Yes/No
Yes
Yes
disqualify. Yes = go to 2.)
2. Funding cushion
(Same for all)
3. Funding attained
WORKING SUBTOTALS
WHO
Lack of funding
Proportion of points scored
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
311,526
-
404,984
350,467
327,103
607,477
498,442
2,500,000
4. ENVELOPE OVERALL (Total - cushion
& attained)
311,526
- 404,984
350,467
327,103
607,477
498,442
2,500,000
5. RCHC Discretionary Decision
(Rationalization)
300,000
450,000
350,000
300,000
650,000
450,000
2,500,000
8. Complementarity: CERF & Pooled Funds

There are no pooled funds in Eritrea. Additionally, the last CAP was
in 2006. Since then humanitarian operations have been integrated
within the regular development framework – currently the Strategic
Partnership Cooperation Framework (SPCF) 2013 – 2016.

The Government and the United Nations signed the Strategic
Partnership Cooperation Framework on 28 January 2013. It forms
the basis of UN work in the country.

The SPCF is US$188 million in indicative resources required over
four years, which is currently funded at 53% (US$100.4 million) of
which 9% is from the CERF.
9. Suggestions to Improve CERF Visibility



Regular graphic information such as the CERF snapshots (already
produced by OCHA Eritrea)
Human interest stories (more could be produced and disseminated)
Country specific donor reports
THANK YOU!
…for listening,
…and supporting Eritrea