Underfunded Emergencies 2015 Second Round
Overview of Decisions
20 July 2015
A Sound Humanitarian Investment
SUMMARY
The United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) Stephen O’Brien set aside some US $168.5
million for the Underfunded Emergencies (UFE) window of the Central Emergency Response Fund
(CERF) in 2015. Of the total available, $98.5 million was allocated in the first round and $70 million is set
aside for the second round.
Following a detailed analysis of global funding coverage and vulnerability indices, as well as consultations
at agency headquarters, the ERC decided to focus this allocation on the life-saving needs arising from
population movement and insecurity. This includes the Darfur crisis for Sudan and Chad; vulnerable
communities impacted by recurrent cycles of conflict and climatic shocks in the Horn of Africa (Somalia,
Ethiopia and Eritrea); protection concerns for neglected communities in Myanmar and Bangladesh; and to
address underfunding of humanitarian priorities in Afghanistan where conflict-related displacements
continue to rise despite the international military and civilian operations drawdown.
As Sudan’s Darfur crisis has entered its 12th year, the conflict has become more widespread and
unpredictable. Compounded by the rise in general criminality in the region, the humanitarian operating
environment has become even more challenging while life-saving needs remain in terms of basic
services, food security and protection response. Some 4.4 million people are in need of humanitarian
assistance and protection in Darfur, including more than 2.5 million internally displaced people and
another 382,480 who are refugees in neighboring Chad. Close to 450,000 people fled fighting in 2014
alone – the highest volume of displacement in a single year in Darfur since 2004. Due to the vulnerability
levels of both countries need to bring this forgotten crisis to the attention of the international community
once again $21 million was allocated to Sudan and Chad.
The countries in the Horn of Africa – Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea– are home to some of the most
vulnerable populations who are exposed to recurrent cycles of conflict and climatic shocks. Despite
recent security and political gains in Somalia, insecurity continues with highly destabilizing asymmetric
attacks by the Al Shabaab on government and international targets and clan-based conflicts exacerbating
humanitarian conditions. The potential closure of Dadaab camp in Kenya, increased inflow from Yemen
and cutting off of remittances are other worrying risks. In Ethiopia, the impact of very poor seasonal rains
is expected to increase the number of people in need of relief food from 2.9 to 3.9 million. An upcoming
El-Nino phenomenon could impact the country’s main harvest in November. Ethiopia also hosts the
largest refugee population in Africa and the ongoing influx from neighbouring countries is overstretching
limited resources to respond to domestic needs. Eritrea is impacted by recurrent drought and residual
effects of war perpetuating the vulnerability of more than 65 per cent of the population. With ongoing
conflict and widespread food insecurity across the Greater Horn, the region cannot afford a deteriorating
socio-economic situation in Eritrea.
Bangladesh and Myanmar face severe protection concerns related to neglected communities and
population movement. Populations along the border in both countries are living in dire conditions and
many of them are segregated from the general population. In Bangladesh, the crisis in the Cox’s Bazar is
at a standstill. In Myanmar, 130,000 people remain in camps while 1.2 million people in Rakhine State
have limited freedom of movement and access to basic services. These conditions continue to push
people to leave Bangladesh and Myanmar, engaging in risky boat departures that have increased the
number of deaths at sea. More than 25,000 people departed irregularly by sea in the first quarter of 2015,
more than double the number for the same period in 2014. In Myanmar, a further 100,000 people are
displaced in Kachin and Northern Shan States with ongoing hostilities, lack of a viable ceasefire and
major gaps in basic services.
As Afghanistan continues through a period of transition, the numbers of people displaced by conflict and
in need of basic services grows while international military and related civilian operations have drawdown
CERF is managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
in the country. This drawdown has further resulted in challenges mobilizing donor focus on Afghanistan,
Its vulnerability levels are high and humanitarian requirements are expected to increase by mid-year.
SELECTED COUNTRIES
Appeal Type
1
2
Sudan
HRP
Chad
HRP
Darfur sub-total
15,000,000
6,000,000
21,000,000
3
4
5
Eritrea
Non-HRP
Ethiopia
Non-HRP
Somalia
HRP
Horn of Africa sub-total
3,000,000
10,000,000
20,000,000
33,000,000
6
Country
Suggested
Allocation
#
Myanmar
HRP
Bangladesh
Non-HRP
Protection concerns in
Myanmar and Bangladesh
sub-total
Afghanistan
8 HRP
Afghanistan sub-total
7
5,000,000
3,000,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
8,000,000
TOTAL
70,000,000
HRP = Humanitarian Response Plan
DETAILS
1. Background
The CERF was established by General Assembly Resolution 60/124 of 15 December 2005 and is
managed by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator.
The general mandate of the CERF is to: 1) promote early action and response to reduce loss of life; 2)
enhance response to time-critical humanitarian requirements; and 3) strengthen core elements of
humanitarian response in underfunded crises.
To meet these objectives, the CERF has two grant windows: Rapid Response (RR) and Underfunded
Emergencies (UFE). Within an annual fundraising target of $450 million, two-thirds of the Fund is
earmarked for rapid response grants. The remaining one-third is set aside for underfunded emergencies
and allocated in two rounds per year (first round from January through March and second round from July
through September). In order to maximize the impact of the underfunded window, grants are allocated to
1
a limited number of countries per round.
In June 2015, the ERC agreed to set aside approximately $70 million for UFE 2015 second round. The
purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the process and decisions that lead to the country
selection and apportionment for the round.
2. Key Participants
1
Full details can be found in “UN OCHA Guidelines: CERF Underfunded Emergencies Window: Procedures and Criteria” available
on the CERF website (cerf.un.org).
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
The ERC manages the CERF on behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General and decides which
countries will receive allocations and how much to provide to each country.
The CERF secretariat, in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), leads the UFE
process, compiling and analyzing information, consulting with stakeholders and presenting
2
recommendations to the ERC.
The CERF Underfunded Working Group (UFWG) is composed of CERF focal points from the
headquarters representatives of United Nations agencies, funds and programs and the International
Organization of Migration. The UFWG provides guidance and comments during the CERF underfunded
3
process, including recommending countries without Humanitarian Response Plans (HRP) for allocations.
Various OCHA entities are consulted during the underfunded emergencies process, including the
Coordination and Response Division (CRD) and the Program Support Branch (PSB). OCHA regional and
country offices are consulted, as needed. While non-governmental organizations are not directly involved
in the country selection and apportionment process, they are key partners in the prioritization and
implementation phases in the field.
3. Steps for Initial Short-Listing of Countries
Appeals countries considered for second round selections were those with 2015 HRPs while non-HRP
countries were recommended by the UFWG.
Appeals excluded from consideration were countries with Flash Appeals that have been supported
through the Rapid Response (RR) window and/or where there is insufficient information at this time to
determine if they are chronically underfunded including Guatemala, Honduras, Nepal, Vanuatu while the
Yemen Flash Appeal and HRP are excluded given the fluid situation in country; countries that have
received substantial RR funds at the end of 2014 that are still being implemented in 2015: Central African
Republic, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan and South Sudan Regional Refugee Response Plan (Ethiopia, Kenya,
Sudan and Uganda); and countries with new RR applications: Ukraine.
In addition, as there were enough countries that are significantly underfunded, another layer of filter was
used to further streamline the selection. They are (a) not repeating those countries that received
allocations in the UFE 2015 First Round (Burundi, Colombia, DPRK, DRC, Rwanda, Syria, Syria RRP –
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey), (b) taking into consideration the amount and nature of recent
CERF Rapid Response allocations, and (c) excluding countries who’s strategic plans focus on transitional
and long-term objectives.
The below lists identify the 19 countries/appeals analyzed for consideration during this UFE round:
•
Countries with an HRP: 14 HRP countries were included for analysis, including: Afghanistan,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, occupied
Palestinian territory, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan. Further short-listing was then done on the basis
of below-average overall funding levels to date (below 26%). Countries with below-average
funding coverage when excluding the largest sector (food assistance, multi sector for refugees or
other) and NGO requirements were added to this short list (below 22%).
The UFWG initially proposed six countries, out of which they recommended five countries for the ERC’s
consideration.
•
2
3
Countries without an HRP: The five prioritized non-HRP countries recommended by the UFWG
CERF secretariat contacts are included in Annex 1
A list of actively participating UFWG members is included in Annex 1
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
include: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Haiti, and Pakistan. The average funding of these
countries was 27% and 19% when food assistance and NGO requirements were excluded.
4. Analysis
Financial: The CERF secretariat reviewed the funding coverage of the identified countries. Data on
countries with an HRP was retrieved from the Financial Tracking Service (FTS) as of 10 June 2015. For
countries without an HRP, UFWG agencies provided figures on 2015 humanitarian requirements and
funding received on 15 June 2015.
The CERF secretariat analyzed funding coverage for countries with an HRP while the UFWG proposed
for inclusion a prioritized list of countries without an appeal based on their analysis of humanitarian
funding, needs and gaps. CERF financial analysis further compared the funding levels among HRP and
non-HRP countries. Aside from standard funding against requirements for each countries overall
response, CERF analysis considered the NGO portion of the funding and the UN agency which received
the highest funding in each plan. The particular UN agency and NGO funding, further referred to as the
‘dominant factor,’ are excluded for statistical purposes to allow for a secondary presentation of UN
requirements and funding per country.
Vulnerability: The CERF secretariat then consolidated the lists and added vulnerability data, including
the ECHO Global Vulnerability and Crisis Assessment 2014, the 2015 Index for Risk Management
(INFORM) and FEWSNET Food Assistance Outlook Brief as of May 2015. The latest IASC Early
Warning – Early Action Report produced by the IASC Task Team on Preparedness and Resilience,
normally used as part of the vulnerability analysis of the UFE country selection, was not yet available at
the time the review was undertaken. In addition, consideration was given to each country on whether they
would have a 2016 HRP and funding requirement; and implementation capacity based on the number of
2014 and 2015 No Cost Extension/Reprogramming/Reallocation of Funds requests for earlier CERF
projects.
5. Apportionment
Between 2 June and 7 July 2015, the CERF secretariat consulted with the UFWG and relevant OCHA
entities to confirm humanitarian requirements and funding levels. Following a confirmation of current
requirements and funding for the overall humanitarian operation, the CERF secretariat carried out the
apportionment analysis. The apportionment calculation was based on 2015 humanitarian funding
shortfalls in the recommended countries.
For this round, the CERF secretariat ran the calculation with a total figure of eight countries and $70
million in available funds.
To ensure all recommended countries received allocations large enough to have a meaningful impact on
the humanitarian situation, all allocations were scaled with a formula where each received a minimum of
$2.2 million.
After the strict calculations, the CERF secretariat and ERC reviewed the amounts and adjusted taking
into consideration programmatic or strategic considerations, absorption and implementation capacity,
access constraints and potential rapid response submissions.
6. Decisions
On 1 July 2015, the ERC decided on the final country selection and allocation amounts for the eight
countries. The following is a brief summary of the decisions.
A. Recommended Countries
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
DARFUR CRISIS: Sudan and Chad
1. Sudan: The 2015 HRP requires $1 billion and while overall funding is above the general HPR average
and above the HRP-average with the dominant factor removed, funding to Darfur operations remain low.
Sudan received $43 million in RR/UFE support in 2014; and almost $2 million in RR funds in 2015. The
country has among the worst ECHO assessment levels; FEWSNET indicates the food security outlook is
at crisis level; and the INFORM rank is the fifth worst off country of 191.
2. Chad: The 2015 HRP requires $571 million and is above the general HRP average and below the HRP
average with the dominant factor removed. Chad received $22 million in CERF RR/UFE support in 2014;
and $3.5 million in RR funds in 2015 to address Nigerian refugees. The country has among the worst
ECHO assessment levels; FEWSNET indicates the food security outlook is at crisis level; and the
INFORM rank is among the worst of any country.
HORN OF AFRICA: Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea
3. Somalia: The 2015 HRP requires $852 million and is at the HRP average in funding while above the
HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Somalia received $21.5 million in CERF RR/UFE
support in 2014 but has not received CERF funds to date in 2015. The country has among the worst
ECHO assessment levels; FEWSNET indicates the food security outlook is at crisis level; and Somalia is
the worst country on the INFORM ranking at first of 191.
4. Ethiopia: The country was ranked fourth out of five countries recommended by the UN agency UFWG;
prioritized by IOM and UNHCR. The UN agencies report 2015 requirements of $459 million with funding
above the non-HRP average and below the non-HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Ethiopia
received $32.5 million in CERF RR/UFE support in 2014; and no funds to date in 2015. The country has
high vulnerability and medium crisis level according to the ECHO assessment; while FEWSNET indicates
crisis food security levels; and shows high risk on the INFORM ranking.
5. Eritrea: The country was ranked second out of five countries recommended by the UN agency UFWG;
prioritized by UNDP, UNICEF and WHO. The UN agencies report 2015 requirements of $29 million
funding was both below the general non-HRP average and non-HRP average with the dominant factor
removed. Eritrea received $2.5 million in CERF UFE support in 2014; and no funds to date in 2015. The
country is highly vulnerable according to the ECHO assessment.
PROTECTION CONCERNS RELATED TO NEGLECTED COMMUNITIES AND POPULATION
MOVEMENT: Bangladesh and Myanmar
6. Bangladesh: The country was ranked first out of five countries recommended by the UN agency
UFWG; prioritized by UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO. The UN agencies report 2015 requirements of
$29 million with funding above both the general non-HRP average and non-HRP average with the
dominant factor removed. Bangladesh last received a CERF allocation of $2 million through the UFE
window in 2013 to support the response in Cox’s Bazar district. ECHO assessment levels indicate high;
and shows high risk on the INFORM ranking.
7. Myanmar: The 2015 HRP requires $189 million and is below both the general HRP average funding
and HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Myanmar received $5.5 million in CERF UFE
support in 2014; and no funds to date in 2015. The country has among the worst ECHO assessment
levels; FEWSNET indicates the food security outlook is at crisis level; and the INFORM rank is among the
worst.
UNDERFUNDING TOWARD HUMANITARIAN PRIORITIES: Afghanistan
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
8. Afghanistan: The 2015 HRP requires $405 million and is above both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Afghanistan received $4 million in
CERF RR support in 2014; and no funds to date in 2015. The country has among the worst ECHO
assessment levels; FEWSNET indicates the food security outlook is stressed; and the INFORM rank is
among the worst
.
B. Countries Initially Considered but Then Excluded
a. HRP Countries
THE SAHEL
Several Sahel countries were considered but did not qualify for this underfunded round as it was
determined that their funding levels, while low, did not match the vulnerability of the eight countries
selected. Given a number of countries in that region have varying levels of food insecurity, those with
worsening food security indicators (at the emergency levels) could potentially approach CERF for Rapid
Response funds to address priority, time critical needs.
9. Burkina Faso: The 2015 HRP requires $99 million and is funded above both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Burkina Faso received $4 million in UFE
support in 2014; and no CERF funding to date in 2015. Burkina Faso currently ranks as having minimal
food security needs according to FEWSNET.
10. Cameroon: The 2015 HRP requires $264 million and is funded above both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Cameroon is implementing multiple
overlapping CERF allocations which began in September 2014 and end in October 2015 (combined $18
million in RR/UFE support in 2014 and $7 million in RR grants in 2015). Furthermore, there is no
FEWSNET food security risk data available for Cameroon.
11. Gambia: The 2015 HRP requires $23.7 million and is funded below both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Gambia received $2.5 million in UFE
support in 2014; and no CERF funding to date in 2015. There is no FEWSNET food security risk data
available.
12. Mali: The 2015 HRP requires $377 million and is funded above the HRP average and below the HRP
average with the dominant factor removed. Mali received $11.4 million in UFE support in 2014; and no
CERF funding to date in 2015. Mali’s food security outlook indicates minimal risks (FEWSNET).
13. Mauritania: The 2015 HRP requires $105 million and is funded below both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Mauritania received $2.5 million in UFE
support in 2014; and no CERF funding to date in 2015. Its food security is stressed according to
FEWSNET and should it drastically worsen the country team can approach CERF for RR funds to
address critical needs.
14. Niger: The 2015 HRP requires $376 million and is funded above both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Niger received nearly $13 million in
combined RR/UFE support in 2014; and $6.7 million from CERF RR to date in 2015. While food insecurity
risks are at crisis levels according to FEWSNET, the country team can approach CERF for RR funds to
address immediate needs.
15. Nigeria: The 2015 HRP requires $100 million and is funded above both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Nigeria received nearly $5 million in
combined RR/UFE support in 2014; and $10 million from CERF RR to date in 2015. FEWSNET indicates
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
that Nigeria’s risk of food insecurity is at crisis level; however Nigeria has the option to approach CERF
for RR funds to address emergency food security needs.
16. Senegal: The 2015 HRP requires $59 million and is funded below both the general HRP average
funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. Senegal received nearly $4.5 million in
UFE support in 2014; and no CERF funding to date in 2015. The risks of food insecurity are minimal
according to FEWSNET.
17. Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt): The 2015 HRP requires $705 million and is funded above
both the general HRP average funding and the HRP average with the dominant factor removed. oPt
received nearly $11 million in combined RR support in 2014; and no CERF funding to date in 2015. While
oPt has high vulnerability scores (ECHO, INFORM), it can also approach CERF for RR funds should
needs sharply rise with a clear trigger.
b. Non-SRP Countries
18. Haiti: The country was ranked third out of five countries recommended by the UN agency UFWG;
prioritized by FAO, IOM, and UNFPA. The UN agencies report 2015 requirements of $59 million with
funding below the general non-HRP average and above the non-HRP average with the dominant factor
removed. Haiti received $8.9 million in combined RR/UFE support in 2014. FEWSNET indicates food
security is stressed. The greatest needs are in cholera response (cases are up this year from 2014) and
food security (60% of the population lives in extreme poverty). If the number of cholera cases continues to
rise, the country team can approach CERF for RR funds to address time-critical needs ahead of the rainy
season.
19. Pakistan: The country was ranked fifth out of five countries recommended by the UN agency UFWG;
prioritized by UNHCR and WFP. The UN agencies report 2015 requirements of $415 million with funding
above both the general non-HRP average funding and the non-HRP average with the dominant factor
removed. Pakistan received $14.4 million in combined RR/UFE support in 2014. There are 1.6 million
IDPs in the KP and FATA regions with returns of 750,000 people expected. Pakistan also hosts
approximately two million Afghan refugees. There is no FEWSNET food security risk data available
7. Submissions
The ERC contacted the Resident Coordinator and/or Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC) in the eight
countries notifying them of the proposed allocation and requesting their confirmation to lead the interagency submission process. Following this confirmation, the CERF secretariat engaged with the
designated country team CERF focal points and RC/HC’s to provide guidance on the prioritization and
submission process.
RC/HCs are required to share the prioritization strategy for this underfunded allocation with the ERC by
31 July. The final deadlines for underfunded submissions are 21 August for all HRP and non-HRP
countries. The CERF secretariat will review submissions immediately upon receipt and RC/HCs and
Humanitarian Country Teams are encouraged to submit the packages at the earliest convenience. The
UFE 2015 second round will close on 30 September, after which time no new or revised proposals will be
accepted.
CERF secretariat, 20 July 2015
cerf.un.org | [email protected]
Annex 1: Contacts for Underfunded Process
CERF secretariat Programme Section
•
•
•
Ms. Vesna Vukovic, Head of Program Section, [email protected]
Ms. Jessica Bowers, Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Underfunded Emergencies Lead,
[email protected]
Mr. Samir Mahmoud, Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Underfunded Emergencies,
[email protected]
Participating CERF Underfunded Working Group Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FAO: Ms. Mirela Hasibra and Ms. Xiaojie Fan
IOM: Mr. Kevin Ritchie
UNDP: Ms. Taija Kontinen-Sharp and Ms. Rebecca Jovin
UNFPA: Ms. Maryline Py and Ms. Marina Skuric Prodanovic
UNICEF: Mr. Nixon Obia Achieng
UNHCR: Ms. Anna Buskens and Ms. Monika Brulhart
WFP: Ms. Marielyne Joseph
WHO: Ms. Helene Castel
cerf.un.org | [email protected]