EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster

EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster
THE CENTRAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster

What is CERF? GA Resolution 60/124
Humanitarian funding mechanism established by the UN General Assembly to enable more timely and reliable assistance Launched in March 2006 to upgrade the Central Emergency Revolving Fund Intended to complement existing humanitarian funding and coordination mechanisms such as the UN Consolidated Appeals In December 2005, the Central Emergency Response Fund was approved by the GA as an element in the overall humanitarian reform effort. A grant element was added to the existing Central Emergency Revolving Fund, a target of $450 million per year in voluntary contributions for the grant component. The fund was then launched in March 2006. CERF was created out of a need to provide a more reliable source of humanitarian financing. Its aim is to complement existing resources, such as the UN Consolidated Appeals, but serve to kick-start funding when it is most needed or to provide funding to fill a critical, underfunded gap in order to ensure continuation of core humanitarian activities. Contributions to the Fund are provided mostly by Member States, with some smaller contributions from private corporations and individuals. 2

What is a “pooled fund”? 1. Pooled funds are funding mechanisms that were established to improve the weaknesses in financing humanitarian operations. They aim at providing more adequate and predictable funding and thus improving the efficiency of humanitarian action. 2. Pooled funds are funding mechanisms whereby donors provide funding to a common pool instead of directly to recipient agencies. The pooled funding is then managed by the ERC (in case of CERF) and HC/RCs (in case of CHFs and ERFs). This funding is allocated through inclusive participatory processes to the most critical humanitarian needs.

Direct funding model vs. pooled funding model
Donor 1 Donor 2 Donor 3 Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 Pooled Fund Donor 1 Donor 2 Donor 3 Agency 1 Agency 2 Agency 3 $11.9 billion was channeled through direct funding model in This accounts for 92.8% of the entire 2012 global humanitarian funding. $920 million was allocated through pooled funding model in This accounts for 7.2% of the entire 2012 global humanitarian funding

Basic information on pooled funds
Afghanistan ERF Myanmar ERF Colombia ERF Indonesia ERF Zimbabwe ERF Ethiopia ERF Pakistan ERF Syria ERF Yemen ERF CAR ERF oPt ERF Haiti ERF DRC ERF South Sudan CHF Somalia CHF Kenya ERF DRC CHF Sudan CHF CERF $477 million $38 million $9.6 million $8.5 million $5.9 million $5.5 million $3 million $2 million $1.4 million $1.2 million $1.2 million $ 1.1 million $1.1 million $1.1 million $0.9 million $108 million $89 million $88 million $77 million This chart presents 2012 allocations from pooled funds as reported to FTS by CERF, CHFs and ERFs

Basic information on pooled funds
Central Emergency Response Fund Common Humanitarian Funds Emergency Response Funds Purpose: Provide rapid response funding in sudden onset situations and for underfunded emergencies Fund type: Global fund Management: ERC with support of the CERF Secretariat Recipients: UN Agencies (NGOs can become implementing partners) Size: 450 million a year Average allocation size: $914,000 Purpose: Provide core funding and funding for sudden emergencies Fund type: Country-based Management: HC/RC with support of OCHA field offices Recipients: NGOs and UN Agencies Size: Typically 10% of total country humanitarian funding Average allocation size: $526,000 Purpose: Provide funding for sudden emergencies Size: small funds for sudden needs Average allocation size: $308,000

CERF is an integral part of Humanitarian Reform
More timely and predictable humanitarian financing to ensure and enable a prompt response to new or rapidly deteriorating crises by providing emergency funds Reinforces the leadership role of the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator Utilizes the cluster approach for project vetting/prioritization It is useful to put the CERF into the context of the broader humanitarian reforms of 2005. After witnessing the slow and inadequate response to the crisis in Darfur in 2004 and the rapid, overwhelming generosity in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami, a set of humanitarian response reforms was put in place to improve the way the humanitarian community works. The four pillars of humanitarian reform were: Improving humanitarian financing - CERF was created to provide timely and predictable humanitarian financing and to ensure a prompt response to any new or rapidly deteriorating crises. Strengthening the leadership of the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator Utilizing the cluster approach, which clarified which agency is responsible for which activity. Partnership building – strengthening relationships among UN agencies, as well as with NGOs. Obviously the funding provided by the CERF is an important lever for supporting the other pillars. 7

Mandate of the CERF Promote early action and response to reduce loss of life Enhance response to time-critical requirements Strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in underfunded crisis CERF has three primary objectives: (may wish to provide an example of each) Promote early action to reduce loss of life (i.e. post-disaster) Enhance response to time-critical requirements (i.e. locust, disease) Strengthen the core elements of humanitarian response (i.e. under-supported, yet critical sector) 8

Key CERF Documents There are three key CERF documents.
The General Assembly Resolution establishing the CERF serves as the legal framework for the existence of the Fund – resolution A/RES/60/124 The Secretary-General’s Bulletin outlines the rules and regulations based on the GA Resolution and guides how we operate and manage the CERF Secretariat. Following the Two-year Evaluation in 2008, the original SGB was revised in April 2010. An Umbrella Letter of Understanding with each recipient has been in place since early It forms is the legal agreement for each project.

NGOs cannot apply directly for CERF funds
Who is eligible? United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies International Organization for Migration (IOM) UN Funds, Programmes and Agencies and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) are eligible to receive CERF funding. While NGOs cannot directly apply for CERF funds, they can receive funds from UN agencies as implementing partners and they should participate in the prioritization and selection process as part of the Humanitarian Country Team. I would mention that in certain cases, NGOs have implemented significant portions of CERF allocations. NGOs cannot apply directly for CERF funds 10

How to access funds? Rapid Response and Underfunded Windows
Application submission Life-saving criteria Grants are distributed through two windows: the rapid response window and underfunded window. According to the Fund’s mandate, two-thirds of allocations should be given through the rapid response window, while the remaining one-third goes through the underfunded emergencies window. Looking at , 67 per cent of allocations had been distributed through rapid response window and 33 per cent through the underfunded window. The rapid response window is intended to jump start life-saving activities following a sudden onset emergency or a rapid deterioration of an existing crisis, or to enhance response to time-critical requirements. So far, since inception, $1.8 billion has been allocated to emergencies in 84 countries and territories. Underfunded allocations are typically distributed in response to complex emergencies characterized by conflict and displacement. These grants are issued in two separate rounds during the year. The CERF disburses a majority of the underfunded resources in the first round at the beginning of the year to ensure that programmes can start as soon as possible and agencies can better plan for the year. Since inception, $900 million has been allocated to 41 countries and territories. For the rapid response window, eligible agencies coordinate at the country-level, typically through the Humanitarian Country Team, and make a joint request through the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator to the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC). Once the CERF Secretariat reviews the request and the ERC approves the grant, funds are disbursed. Ideally, we aim for this process to happen very quickly. From the time at which CERF receives a final grant application, it takes, on average twelve days to process the request, come to a funding decision and disburse the funds. The underfunded window is structured a bit differently. The ERC, the CERF Secretariat, OCHA colleagues, and agency counterparts carry out an analysis to identify the countries with the largest unmet humanitarian needs. The RC/HC then leads a prioritization process at the country level and specific project requests are submitted to the CERF Secretariat. All requests, regardless of the funding window, must meet CERF’s Life-saving Criteria. These criteria identify the activities that meet core humanitarian needs.

INTRODUCTION TO THE CERF
CERF Stakeholders

Top Ten Recipient Countries 2006-2012
Allocations by Country (only the top ten are listed in the table above) This slide shows our top ten recipients – who together have received just under 50% of all allocations $1.3 billion). The top five recipients, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, account for roughly 31% of all CERF allocations. The impetus for large amounts of CERF funding varies greatly among each of these countries. The successive waves of conflict and displacement in the DRC, drought in the Horn of Africa, displacement in Sudan, and refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya have all resulted in large CERF allocations. In many of these countries, CERF funds account for a relatively small amount of the total humanitarian aid in the country, but the speed and flexibility of CERF allocations allow agencies to apply the resources where they are needed most. CERF is used to close critical gaps and to jump start projects before other funding sources are made available. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region that receives the largest amount of CERF funding.

Donors have demonstrated their confidence in CERF
As I mentioned in the beginning, the General Assembly set the annual fundraising goal of CERF at $450 million. We surpassed this goal in 2008, and again in is more challenging as Spain has had to drastically reduce its funding for humanitarian activities, and the Canadian and Belgian contributions have been delayed due to national budget processes. However, we expect that more funding will come in before the end of the calendar year. The Fund has received incredibly broad support. The CERF has 126 Member State and Observer State contributors. Since 2006, CERF has received more than $6 million from private sector donors. I should note, however, that we are still highly dependent on a small set of donors. The top ten donors to the Fund typically account for approximately 90 per cent of all contributions 14

CERF Funding by Agencies 2006-2012
Allocations by Agency (only the top ten are listed in the table above) Although funding by agency does fluctuate a bit year by year, the relative share has remained quite consistent. The World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) typically receive the largest portion of CERF funding. So far in 2012, WFP has received 29 per cent of all allocations, slightly below their average, while UNICEF ranks second with 26 per cent of CERF funding, slightly above their average. The United Nations Refugee Committee (UNHCR), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), generally receive per cent of each year’s total allocations. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has received 5 per cent of allocations since 2006 and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) generally receive 2 to 3 per cent. While these agencies have received funding every year since 2006, agencies such as UNWomen, OHCHR, UN Habitat, and UNESCO have received allocations on occasion. Even though these agencies are generally not the first responders to emergency situations, they do play useful roles in some situations. And of course their projects need to meet the Life-saving Criteria. 15

CERF Funding by Sector 2006-2012
Allocations by Sector Funding by sector provides another perspective on how CERF funds are useful in recipient countries. Food and health remain the highest-funded sectors – about 45 per cent of all CERF funds since Agriculture, WASH, shelter, multi-sector (refugees) and nutrition each receive between 8 to 10 per cent We’ll discuss this in more detail tomorrow, but there have been some shifts in funding among sectors this year. INSERT NEW LANGUAGE BASED ON VA PPT. The sector receiving the largest amount of CERF funds is food aid. Its share of total funding has decreased slightly in recent years making up a little more than one quarter of CERF funds in 2012 (24%). In contrast, spending on health, nutrition and water and sanitation has risen somewhat. 16

CERF Funding by Window 2006-2012
Rapid Response 67% Underfunded First Round 21% Over the last five years, the CERF has received more than $ 2.8 million for life-saving emergency activities around the globe. While the amount may fluctuate slightly year to year, the CERF maintains the two-thirds/one-thirds split between the two windows. Underfunded Second Round 12%

Rapid Response Funding by Emergency Type (2012)
2012 Rapid Response Grants The four types of emergencies dominating rapid response funding in 2011 are conflict related displacement, climate-related emergencies, internal strife and disease outbreaks. These four types of emergencies received more than 90 per cent of total funding from the rapid response window. Emergencies affecting refugees and IDPs received about a quarter of CERF rapid response allocations this year ($107 million). Climate related emergencies, including drought, floods and hurricanes, account for about 20% ($91 million) More than $27 million was allocated to combat and prevent diseases thus far this year – about $15 million of which has gone to DRC and West Africa for cholera. This year about two-thirds of all rapid response funds have gone to Africa, slightly lower than usual. About 30% has gone to the Middle East, plus Afghanistan/Pakistan. This region has increased, largely due to the Syria crisis. Asia has received about $13 million and Latin America just $4 million, largely due to the lack of major tropic storms. NB _ Protracted is CAR and CDI

2012 Underfunded Grants FIRST UNDERFUNDED WINDOW
We always try to “frontload” the underfunded allocations – that is, give out most of the money at the beginning of the year so that agencies can get on with their work, and then give a second round of allocations at the mid-year. This year, we also wanted to avoid overlaps in the countries covered in the two rounds. FIRST UNDERFUNDED WINDOW Countries Approved US$ millions % of total allocated funds CAP Somalia 14.9 17.9 Chad 8 9.6 Kenya 5.9 7.1 CAR 4.9 6.0 Zimbabwe oPt 3.9 4.7 CAP total 42.9 51.2 Non- Ethiopia 10.9 13.1 DPRK Sri Lanka Burundi 4.8 Madagascar Djibouti 2.9 3.6 Myanmar Iran Columbia 3.5 Non-CAP total 40.8 48.9 TOTAL 100 13 Countries $104 million SECOND UNDERFUNDED WINDOW 8 Countries $55 million Country Approved US$ million 1 Colombia 3 2 Ethiopia 11 Nepal (Bhutanese refugees) 4 Niger 5.9 5 Pakistan 10 6 Philippines 3.4 7 South Sudan 11.4 8 Sri Lanka 9 Myanmar Zimbabwe TOTAL 59.5

Performance and Accountability Framework
Clarifies performance expectations and management accountabilities Flexible and straightforward while ensuring appropriate level of transparency and accountability In 2013, PAF reviews include the Sahel, DRC, Yemen, Pakistan. In 2012, major studies done because of 2011 drought, HoA. The Performance and Accountability Framework was finalized in It: clarifies accountability for CERF requests and CERF funds, maps tools for monitoring performance and accountability and defines key performance indicators for the CERF. The purpose of the PAF is to ensure that the flexibility and straightforward nature of the Fund is complemented by an appropriate level of transparency and accountability. The PAF makes use of a logic model approach as a means of clarifying accountability and performance expectations around a set of agreed CERF outputs, outcomes and impacts. The development of the PAF has helped to identify gaps in the information being collected, and to provide options for filling these gaps. We report according to the mechanisms established in the framework and use the annual RC/HC narrative reports, country level evaluations and reviews such as the FAO review of the CERF. As part of the PAF, we are undertaking independent country reviews to verify reporting and to establish the added value of the CERF. In 2012, independent consultants completed two regional reviews the Horn of Africa and West Africa) and a country review in the Philippines. We will discuss the Performance and Accountability Framework in more detail tomorrow.

CERF Five-year Evaluation
A major milestone 16 country-case studies and 6 field visits Implementation tracked through Management Response Matrix The five-year evaluation of the CERF was completed in July 2011 and marked a major milestone for the CERF. The evaluation was requested by the GA, carried out by an independent consultancy, and included 16 country-level case studies, with field visits to six CERF recipient countries. The evaluation found the CERF to be both a reliable and impartial source of funding, promoting early action and increasing the coverage of humanitarian response. In response to these recommendations, the CERF Secretariat worked with UN agencies and NGO partners to develop a Management Response Plan. The plan provides a clear set of follow-up actions for the CERF Secretariat in moving forward. We use the MRP to update you on our progress, and will go through it in detail tomorrow.

cerf@un.org Thank you. I hope that was a useful overview. Questions?
Cote d’Ivoire © Alexis Adele/IRIN 22

TRAINING 4 THE CERF GRANT COMPONENT DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP

THE CERF GRANT COMPONENT
Objectives by Grant Window Rapid Response Promote early action and response to reduce loss of life Enhance response to time-critical requirements Underfunded Emergencies Strengthen core elements of humanitarian response in underfunded crises Background: Based on General Assembly Resolution 46/182, a US$ 50 million loan element was established ST/SGB/2006/10 included the loan element as part of the CERF in its current structure. Purpose of the loan To strengthen humanitarian coordination efforts. Who is eligible? The United Nations, its funds, programmes and specialized agencies, OCHA, as well as the International Organization for Migration. How much can be borrowed? The ERC determines the amount to be advanced in each situation. Loans advanced to agencies: $53.2 million $41.3 million $30 million 24

Underfunded Emergencies
THE CERF GRANT COMPONENT Differences Rapid Response Underfunded Emergencies Allocations to new needs Process initiated by RC/HC, with the support of the HCT ERC’s decision-making based on best information available at time of application (i.e. needs assessments) Timeframe for implementation is six months Regular allocation to poorly funded emergencies: twice a year Process initiated at headquarters ERC selects countries and provides an amount (upon consultation with CERF, UN agency headquarters and OCHA) Selection of recipient countries based on analysis of funding and vulnerability data RC/HCs and HCTs then prioritize and submit projects for funding Timeframe for implementation is around 9 months FOR BACKGROUND INFO IF ASKED: Agency HQs Underfunded Working Group consists mainly of representatives from: IOM, FAO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNMAS , UNOPS, WFP, WHO A lead agency representing all agencies is chosen for every round. This upcoming round (Round 12), it will be IOM. Agencies choose themselves how involved / active they wish to be. However CERF does need active participation, particularly for the selection of non-CAP countries. The UFE Working group is the main external stakeholders consulted on a regular basis throughout the process: they represent all agencies. CERF Underfunded Working Group (several formal CERF meetings). Includes about 10 agencies, funds and programmes Other OCHA sections such as the country desk officers and the CAP section (with FTS) Stakeholders consulted on an ad-hoc basis: OCHA field staff (regional and country offices) HC/RCs

THE CERF GRANT COMPONENT
Exercise Case Grant window Philippines Typhoon 2012 DR Congo 2012 IDP Crisis Cote d’Ivoire 2012 Cholera Outbreak Turkey 2012 Syrian Refugee Crisis Algeria 2013 Sahrawi Refugee Operation Rapid Response Underfunded Emergencies FOR BACKGROUND INFO IF ASKED: Agency HQs Underfunded Working Group consists mainly of representatives from: IOM, FAO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNMAS , UNOPS, WFP, WHO A lead agency representing all agencies is chosen for every round. This upcoming round (Round 12), it will be IOM. Agencies choose themselves how involved / active they wish to be. However CERF does need active participation, particularly for the selection of non-CAP countries. The UFE Working group is the main external stakeholders consulted on a regular basis throughout the process: they represent all agencies. CERF Underfunded Working Group (several formal CERF meetings). Includes about 10 agencies, funds and programmes Other OCHA sections such as the country desk officers and the CAP section (with FTS) Stakeholders consulted on an ad-hoc basis: OCHA field staff (regional and country offices) HC/RCs

TRAINING 4 RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP

Maximum allocation per emergency
RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW Objectives Promote early action and response sudden onset emergencies or crises, both natural disasters and complex emergencies rapid deteriorations of existing complex emergencies Enhance response to time-critical requirements: respond to slow-onset natural disasters time critical funds to prevent escalation, reduce costs & impact Maximum allocation per emergency $30 million

Decision-Making Process
RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW Decision-Making Process 29

Selected projects should be: (a) based on needs assessments,
RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW Project Selection Criteria Selected projects should be: (a) based on needs assessments, (b) essential for the immediate humanitarian response (prioritized by the RC/HC and Humanitarian Country Team), (c) life-saving, as defined by the CERF criteria (LSC). Grant period: Funds must be expended and activities completed within 6 months of disbursement Please note the following changes in the revised SGB which impact on CERF grants: 1. The time frame for implementation of rapid response grants (i.e the obligation of funds AND full implementation) has increased from three months to six months. 2. The same criteria continue to apply to the rapid response window including the immediate life-saving nature of project activities and the intention that CERF should provide seed funding to kick start activities. CERF will not fund 100% of projects. 3. It is incumbent on each agency to plan their project and budgets in order to allow sufficient time to expense funds and complete all project activates within the six month period. This includes consideration for procurement times, recruitment periods and liquidation of commitments. Agencies will be expected to provide clear implementation plans and explain how and when project activities will be completed. 4. It is expected that, with the extension of the implementation period for Rapid Response grant to 6 months, no-cost extensions will no longer be as necessary as before. Along these lines, the CERF Secretariat is currently reviewing the conditions when no-cost extension could be granted in exceptional circumstances. In most cases, Agencies will be required to return any funds that remain unspent at the end of the six month period. 5. Project start dates will remain as the date of the disbursement of funds from the CERF to the recipient UN agency headquarters. An earlier start date could be specified on the CERF application and approved by the Emergency Relief Coordination (ERC) for Rapid Response grants, up to a maximum period of up to 6 weeks prior to the date of CERF disbursement, and not before the date of the onset of the emergency. In addition pre-financing will remain to be undertaken at the organisations own risk and there is no guarantee of CERF funding prior to formal approval by the ERC. Under-funded projects always start on the date of disbursement of funds via CERF. 6. Where recipient organisations need to redeploy CERF funds within an approved project, a formal request from the HC to the ERC and copied to the CERF Secretariat is required when the cumulative amount of funds redeployed surpasses 15% of the total approved direct project costs (i.e the subtotal before PSC) or when there is any increase in staff costs, and in any instance where the scope of the project is being changed. NEW !!

Flash Appeal and CERF Rapid Response
RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW Flash Appeal and CERF Rapid Response Within the context of a sudden humanitarian crisis, the RC/HC determines whether an inter-agency response is required. If yes, rapid needs assessments are undertaken and roles and responsibilities are assigned (including cluster/sector leads) RC/HC triggers a Flash Appeal and HCT/partners begin defining humanitarian needs, priority sectors, projects, etc. At the same time, RC/HC may make a CERF request to jump start planned operations. Based on a draft response strategy, RC/HC determines CERF funding priorities, collects project proposals and prepares package for the ERC and CERF Secretariat. The RC/HC immediately sends whichever is ready first. The projects proposed to the CERF must be included in the Flash Appeal. Project prioritization by the RC/HCs: based on core life-saving humanitarian projects using the CAP as a “project catalogue”, and checking project funding status on the Financial Tracking Service (FTS). This includes consideration for procurement times, recruitment periods and liquidation of commitments. Agencies will be expected to provide clear implementation plans and explain how and when project activities will be completed.

RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW New Umbrella LoU Old LoU Umbrella LoU
Implementation period 3 months 6 months Eligible costs Up to 3 months Up to 6 months Extensions Extensions usually granted if made within the implementing period Extensions will not be granted except in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances Project start date Disbursement date Disbursement date unless an earlier start date is specified Reprogramming Shift of 15% or more between budget lines or change in project scope Cumulative shift of 15% between budget categories or change in project scope (no increases in staff costs or PSC) I would like to kindly draw your attention to the following changes in the revised SGB which impact on CERF grants: 1. The time frame for implementation of rapid response grants (i.e the obligation of funds AND full implementation) has increased from three months to six months. 2. The same criteria continue to apply to the rapid response window including the immediate life-saving nature of project activities and the intention that CERF should provide seed funding to kick start activities. CERF will not fund 100% of projects. 3. It is incumbent on each agency to plan their project and budgets in order to allow sufficient time to expense funds and complete all project activates within the six month period. This includes consideration for procurement times, recruitment periods and liquidation of commitments. Agencies will be expected to provide clear implementation plans and explain how and when project activities will be completed. 4. It is expected that, with the extension of the implementation period for Rapid Response grant to 6 months, no-cost extensions will no longer be as necessary as before. Along these lines, the CERF Secretariat is currently reviewing the conditions when no-cost extension could be granted in exceptional circumstances. In most cases, Agencies will be required to return any funds that remain unspent at the end of the six month period. 5. Project start dates will remain as the date of the disbursement of funds from the CERF to the recipient UN agency headquarters. An earlier start date could be specified on the CERF application and approved by the Emergency Relief Coordination (ERC) for Rapid Response grants, up to a maximum period of up to 6 weeks prior to the date of CERF disbursement, and not before the date of the onset of the emergency. In addition pre-financing will remain to be undertaken at the organisations own risk and there is no guarantee of CERF funding prior to formal approval by the ERC. Under-funded projects always start on the date of disbursement of funds via CERF. 6. Where recipient organisations need to redeploy CERF funds within an approved project, a formal request from the HC to the ERC and copied to the CERF Secretariat is required when the cumulative amount of funds redeployed surpasses 15% of the total approved direct project costs (i.e the subtotal before PSC) or when there is any increase in staff costs, and in any instance where the scope of the project is being changed.

RAPID RESPONSE WINDOW Example Philippines 2011 Flooding
OCHA Philippines contacted CERF on behalf of HC in regard to potential submission in response to floods on 28 June. CERF Secretariat forwarded current application template and guidance. Telecom held with CERF Secretariat and OCHA Philippines on 30 June – to discuss submission and answer questions. Draft submission received on 8 July – CERF responded with comments on the same day; Official submission received on 13 July; two projects were fine; clarifications were requested by on the same day; 14 July a revised submission was received addressing all clarifications. FOR BACKGROUND INFO IF ASKED: Agency HQs Underfunded Working Group consists mainly of representatives from: IOM, FAO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNMAS , UNOPS, WFP, WHO A lead agency representing all agencies is chosen for every round. This upcoming round (Round 12), it will be IOM. Agencies choose themselves how involved / active they wish to be. However CERF does need active participation, particularly for the selection of non-CAP countries. The UFE Working group is the main external stakeholders consulted on a regular basis throughout the process: they represent all agencies. CERF Underfunded Working Group (several formal CERF meetings). Includes about 10 agencies, funds and programmes Other OCHA sections such as the country desk officers and the CAP section (with FTS) Stakeholders consulted on an ad-hoc basis: OCHA field staff (regional and country offices) HC/RCs

TRAINING 4 UNDERFUNDED EMERGENCIES WINDOW DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP

Objective: Promote equitable response to protracted crises
UNDERFUNDED EMERGENCIES WINDOW The Basics Objective: Promote equitable response to protracted crises Two rounds per year (January / February & July / August) Approximately 1/ 3 of grant element In 2012: Total allocated for UFE window was $158 million First round allocated $104.5 million for 13 countries – frontloading Second round allocated $54.5 million for 8 countries Highlighted in yellow – THIS is where we’re at right now.

2012 – Underfunded Rounds This year, CERF frontloaded nearly $104 million in the first Underfunded Round so that humanitarian partners in 13 underfunded crises could move ahead with implementing their 2012 activities. In August, I allocated a further $55 million in the second Round to strengthen operations in eight countries. We have circulated this information to you. To follow up on a recommendation from the Five-Year Evaluation, the CERF secretariat commissioned an independent consultant to review the underfunded emergency process. The findings indicate that the country-selection process for the Underfunded Window is sound and no major revisions are proposed. However, the report recommends exploring opportunities for engaging additional stakeholders in the country selection process and for improving communication within UN agencies. These recommendations are already being used to inform the first round of the 2013 allocations. 36

UNDERFUNDED EMERGENCIES WINDOW
Process 3 Phases: I – Country Selection (CERF Sec. with formal consultations with Agency HQs  final decision ERC) CAP-country selection: Financial data from FTS on CAP requirements and funding coverage (requirements and funding received: Underfunded or not?) Vulnerability data (ECHO Vulnerability Index; IASC Early warning Index; OCHA Global Focus Model) Non-CAP country selection: Underfunded Working Group comprosed of HQ reps from UN agencies and IOM recommend countries based on their internal analysis (discussion with field offices and fundraising departments, etc) UN agencies provide data on humanitarian requirements, funding and priorities as well as implementation capacity per recommended country) CERF Secretariat adds on vulnerability data (ECHO Vulnerability Index; IASC Early warning Index; OCHA Global Focus Model) KEEP IN MIND: Severity of crisis, underfundedness, implementation capacity of country teams II – Apportionment of funds to selected countries (CERF Sec. with Agency HQs  ERC) Simple mathematical formula: funding allocated is proportionate to gaps identified- comparing funding gaps and requirements across all countries. III – Submission of projects within scope of underfunded envelopes (RC/HC with HCTs  ERC) The RC/HC’s office is asked to share information on the prioritization process of project selection for CERF submission. CERF application template for UFE is the same as for the RR window. Other than with RR, a lack of details in the budgets will not be tolerated. NOTE: Consultations with the Underfunded Working Group and within OCHA as well as ultimately with the ERC take place throughout the process.

Timeline 1st 2013 UFE Round (tentative) November 2012 Launch of the process 1st agency HQs Consultation (UF Working Group) CERF completes CAP funding analysis based on FTS reporting Deadline for agency recommendations of 10 non-CAP countries Deadline funding and severity analysis for CAP and non-CAP countries followed by consultations Further consultations with UN agencies and IOM, within OCHA and with and RC/HCs to finalize country selection and apportionment Mid-January ERC announces selected countries and allocations 25 January RC/HC’s office to submit one-page prioritization strategy 15 February Deadline for CAP country application packages 22 February Deadline for Non-CAP country application packages by RC/HCs 31 March Closure of 1st 2013 UFE round December 2012 January 2013 Key dates for field involvement – once the country is selected - highlighted in yellow. February 2013 March 2013

Case Study Eritrea 2012 Underfunded Working Group (UFWG) members recommended Eritrea due to: The residual effects of the 2011 Horn of Africa drought resulting in chronic food insecurity. The ERC recommended an underfunded allocation of US$4 million and encouraged the Humanitarian Country Team to focus on the most immediate life-saving activities rather than chronic under-development issues. The Humanitarian Country Team in Eritrea had received a rapid response allocation to address the drought in 2011; however, limited funding by donors left some needs unmet. Due attention was required to ensure that underfunded and rapid response grants were well-coordinated. FOR BACKGROUND INFO IF ASKED: Agency HQs Underfunded Working Group consists mainly of representatives from: IOM, FAO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNMAS , UNOPS, WFP, WHO A lead agency representing all agencies is chosen for every round. This upcoming round (Round 12), it will be IOM. Agencies choose themselves how involved / active they wish to be. However CERF does need active participation, particularly for the selection of non-CAP countries. The UFE Working group is the main external stakeholders consulted on a regular basis throughout the process: they represent all agencies. CERF Underfunded Working Group (several formal CERF meetings). Includes about 10 agencies, funds and programmes Other OCHA sections such as the country desk officers and the CAP section (with FTS) Stakeholders consulted on an ad-hoc basis: OCHA field staff (regional and country offices) HC/RCs

Case Study Somalia 2012 An underfunded allocation was not recommended for Somalia in 2012 due to: The significant funding received by humanitarian agencies in Somalia in 2011, which covered 86% of the CAP requirements. Additionally, there were potentially large amounts of carry-over funding available in 2012. FOR BACKGROUND INFO IF ASKED: Agency HQs Underfunded Working Group consists mainly of representatives from: IOM, FAO, UNDP, UNDSS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNMAS , UNOPS, WFP, WHO A lead agency representing all agencies is chosen for every round. This upcoming round (Round 12), it will be IOM. Agencies choose themselves how involved / active they wish to be. However CERF does need active participation, particularly for the selection of non-CAP countries. The UFE Working group is the main external stakeholders consulted on a regular basis throughout the process: they represent all agencies. CERF Underfunded Working Group (several formal CERF meetings). Includes about 10 agencies, funds and programmes Other OCHA sections such as the country desk officers and the CAP section (with FTS) Stakeholders consulted on an ad-hoc basis: OCHA field staff (regional and country offices) HC/RCs

4 APPLICATION PROCEDURE TRAINING DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP
(FOR RAPID RESPONSE AND UNDERFUNDED EMERGENCIES) DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP

Template available at: (http://cerf.un.org).
CERF Application Procedure CERF Application Template Template available at: ( For countries with an appeal (CAP or Flash Appeal), it is expected that proposals submitted to the CERF complement activities prioritized in the appeal. The OCHA field or regional office supports the RC/HC in facilitating the application process. In all cases proposals should be sent as a package with a cover letter from the RC/HC to the ERC – with a copy to the CERF Secretariat

CERF Application Procedure
Composition of a CERF grant package Prepared by the Office of the RC/HC with the support of OCHA and the inputs of the Humanitarian Country Team, to be sent to the ERC Cover letter I. Applicant information II. Overall grant request Summary B) Humanitarian context and response C) Grant request justification D) Project allocation table Prepared by the agencies requesting funds III. Agency project proposal (narrative and budget)

Cover Letter (by the RC/RC) example BRIEFLY MENTION KEY COMPONENTS OF THE COVER LETTER FROM THE RC/HC TO THE ERC!

I. Applicant Information

II. Overall grant request - Summary

II. Overall grant request – Context & Justification

II. Overall grant request – Project allocation table

II. Overall grant request – Project allocation table example

III. Agency project proposals For each project that will be submitted for funding, the recipient agency must complete a Project Proposal sheet that should be about 2-3 pages long and include: Project summary table: CAP countries should provide the CAP project code for each project. The agency should designate ONE sector for the project. Please see the CERF Live-Saving Criteria for more information on eligible sectors and activities. The beneficiary number should include beneficiaries for the CERF-funded part of the project only. Beneficiaries should be disaggregated by sex and age, providing as much detail as possible. The implementing partner field should include only those partners that will receive CERF funding. Other partners should not be listed here, but can be mentioned in the project narrative. Summary of the project: 2-3 paragraphs describing how CERF funding will be used to support life-saving/core humanitarian activities and providing relevant assessment data. Project description focusing exclusively on the CERF component of the project: (a) Objective(s): The objective should be “SMART”: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. (b) Proposed Activities: List those project’s activities that will be covered by CERF funds. (c) Expected Outcomes: Explain the results you expect to have at the end of the CERF grant period, and no more than five indicators you will use to measure the extent to which those results have been achieved. Requesting agencies have to report on expected outcomes. (d) Implementation Plan: Explain planned mechanisms for implementation, including any planned grants to implementing partners, cooperation/coordination arrangements with other humanitarian actors, and the time frame for implementation. BUDGET The total project budget should reflect the overall cost of the project, including funding already received. The CERF will not cover 100% of total project costs. If more than one agency will implement a project, separate budgets must be completed for each agency. Note for countries with a CAP: It is expected that project proposals in countries with CAPs will be based on CAP project sheets. However, agencies should also provide information on the activities, outcomes, and implementation mechanisms for the CERF-funded part of the project.

III. Agency project proposals (2) For each project that will be submitted for funding, the recipient agency must complete a Project Proposal sheet that should be about 2-3 pages long and include: Project summary table: CAP countries should provide the CAP project code for each project. The agency should designate ONE sector for the project. Please see the CERF Live-Saving Criteria for more information on eligible sectors and activities. The beneficiary number should include beneficiaries for the CERF-funded part of the project only. Beneficiaries should be disaggregated by sex and age, providing as much detail as possible. The implementing partner field should include only those partners that will receive CERF funding. Other partners should not be listed here, but can be mentioned in the project narrative. Summary of the project: 2-3 paragraphs describing how CERF funding will be used to support life-saving/core humanitarian activities and providing relevant assessment data. Project description focusing exclusively on the CERF component of the project: (a) Objective(s): The objective should be “SMART”: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. (b) Proposed Activities: List those project’s activities that will be covered by CERF funds. (c) Expected Outcomes: Explain the results you expect to have at the end of the CERF grant period, and no more than five indicators you will use to measure the extent to which those results have been achieved. Requesting agencies have to report on expected outcomes. (d) Implementation Plan: Explain planned mechanisms for implementation, including any planned grants to implementing partners, cooperation/coordination arrangements with other humanitarian actors, and the time frame for implementation. BUDGET The total project budget should reflect the overall cost of the project, including funding already received. The CERF will not cover 100% of total project costs. If more than one agency will implement a project, separate budgets must be completed for each agency. Note for countries with a CAP: It is expected that project proposals in countries with CAPs will be based on CAP project sheets. However, agencies should also provide information on the activities, outcomes, and implementation mechanisms for the CERF-funded part of the project.

TRAINING 4 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS DAY ONE SESSION THANK YOU

TRAINING 5 THE CERF LIFE-SAVING CRITERIA DAY ONE SESSION WORKSHOP

1. Review process for revised life-saving criteria (January 2010)
THE CERF LIFE-SAVING CRITERIA Objectives of this session 1. Review process for revised life-saving criteria (January 2010) 2. Key definitions 3. Discuss possible life-saving activities according to CERF definitions 4. Practical exercises: review summary of submitted proposals and discuss if they should be recommended to the ERC At the beginning of each session I usually ask how many people in the room have been involved in CERF application processes. Then I ask how many of the them used the criteria (usually only a couple have). Good to remind them that they should be used for every application. The LSC are available on the CERF website. A copy of the LSC should be provided in the handouts.

THE CERF LIFE-SAVING CRITERIA
Revision The Two-Year Evaluation Independent Report (2008) recommended: Life-saving criteria should be placed in the context of core emergency needs Target the CERF more precisely so that the prioritization of needs becomes clearer. Ensure that CERF only funds activities arising out of humanitarian emergencies, both rapid and chronic. A certain degree of flexibility must be present in their application depending on the context In 2009: Consultations with global cluster leads, UN agencies, IOM and the CERF Advisory Group. 26 January 2010: The revised life-saving criteria were approved by the ERC The Life-Saving Criteria are at the heart of the CERF’s mandate. The current revised Life-Saving Criteria were finalized on 26 January 2010 after a lengthy consultation process with UN agencies and IOM. The revised LSC is better, they are not perfect but are a step forward, and attempt to balance the level of detail with need for flexibility Why a review was undertaken: The Two-year Evaluation found that the original Life-Saving Criteria have sometimes been interpreted without sufficient reference to the specific context. As a result, the evaluators stated, CERF funds have every so often been used to address longer-term needs stemming from under-development, rather than humanitarian issues. In November 2008, the Advisory Group recommended: 1) that the existing life-saving criteria should be placed in the context of core emergency needs to emphasize the principles articulated in the Secretary-General’s Bulletin, and 2) to target the CERF more precisely so that the prioritization of needs becomes clearer. This would help to ensure that CERF only funds activities arising out of humanitarian emergencies, both rapid and chronic. It is anticipated that the provision of clearer criteria and guidelines will make the application process at the field level much easier for agency and OCHA colleagues. Challenges Some agencies would like to broaden some aspects of the criteria rather than refine them. We need to balance carefully these views against the needs for clarity and predictability. And we have to do so while taking into account the CERF’s mandate, the viewpoints of the agencies, and the recommendations of the Two-year Evaluation, the Advisory Group and the other stakeholders of the CERF. Like the original Life-Saving Criteria, the revised version will keep a certain amount of flexibility to allow for exceptional or new situations. But, it is imperative that we continue to focus on reaching the most vulnerable through urgent, life-saving, core humanitarian interventions.

CERF Funding Criteria Projects must be for: life-saving activities core emergency humanitarian programmes defined as: Activities that within a short time span remedy, mitigate or avert direct loss of life, physical harm or threats to a population or major portion thereof. Also permissible are common humanitarian services that are necessary to enable life-saving activities (see Logistics and Support Services in LSC)

Examples by Sector SECTOR CRITERIA EXAMPLES Agriculture Activities that have a direct and immediate impact in protecting and restoring the livelihood of families affected by an emergency Provision of seeds, tools and fertilizer to restore food production capacity, survival of productive animals when primary source of livelihood, initial inputs for plague control Coordination and Support Services (Common Services) Activities that support the delivery of priority life-saving activities provided by UN agencies, NGOs and governments in emergency response Emergency telecommunications equipment, evacuation services, transport, Joint Logistics Centers, safety and security measures Education in Emergencies Interventions aiming at restoring educational and recreational activities for children and adolescents during an emergency School tents and other education material, emergency repair of primary education facilities, essential life-saving skills

Examples by Sector SECTOR CRITERIA EXAMPLES Food Aid Provision of minimum food requirements / basic food rations to people affected by emergencies General food distributions to fill gaps / pipeline breaks for the most vulnerable groups Health Activities that have an immediate impact on the health of population affected by an emergency Mass casualty management, Primary Health Care, SGBV response and psycho-social support, reproductive health emergency interventions, immunizations, outbreak control, HIV/AIDS emergency awareness, disease surveillance Nutrition Management of severe and moderately acute malnutrition Infant feeding in emergencies, micronutrient supplementation, therapeutic feeding centers

Examples by Sector SECTOR CRITERIA EXAMPLES Shelter and NFIs Immediate provision of temporary/ semi-temporary shelter and basic NFIs for victims of disaster. Provision and distribution of materials, construction / repair of emergency shelter, cash grants / cash for work on a case by case basis Protection / Human Rights / Rule of Law Activities aiming at providing physical, social and legal protection (access to basic rights) to individuals and families affected by emergencies or protracted displacement situations Establishment of IDP/refugee camps, profiling of IDP / refugee populations for registration, child protection, SGBV response, psychosocial counseling and Human Rights awareness. Assistance for relocation and creation of minimum conditions for return

Examples by Sector SECTOR CRITERIA EXAMPLES Water and Sanitation Provision of minimum requirements of water, sanitation and hygiene standards in emergency situations Provision of drinking water, emergency repair to wells/boreholes/pumps, water purification systems, sanitation systems, hygiene and sanitation supplies and awareness raising Mine action Activities that create immediate conditions of physical safety of populations affected by an emergency Emergency de-mining to allow humanitarian access, mine awareness and education

Cross-cutting activities Coordination. Under the RR window only, the CERF will fund one cluster coordinator where this is demonstrated need for support. This coordination person must be part of a larger agency project which has been prioritized by the RC/HC and HCT. Coordination will not be supported in a stand alone project. Multi-Agency Assessments The CERF will fund multi-agency needs assessments in new emergencies, only under the RR window. Must be supported by the RC/HC and the HCT. The CERF will not fund single agency/sector specific assessments. Remind them that this funding is ONLY available under the RR window. These costs WILL NOT be funded under UFE.

The CERF will not fund: Activities not immediately life saving (eg. disaster mitigation, early warning, prevention and preparedness, economic recovery, poverty reduction, and disarmament) Expenditures not covered by the CERF contributions: Recurring budget costs (office and maintenance costs, bank fees, etc.) Regular agency stockpiling Capacity building and training (funded only if related to direct implementation of emergency response)

Exercise In groups, discuss some paragraphs extracted from various CERF proposals submitted to the ERC. Please, determine whether or not they comply with the life-saving mandate of the CERF. Tick the appropriate box. YES, THIS FALLS WITHIN THE MANDATE OF THE CERF NO, IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CERF FUNDING MAYBE, DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT In plenary, share answers and discuss. Organize groups by peers and let 20 minutes to read and decide whether or not the extracts comply with the life-saving criteria. The facilitator will have ready a table in a flipchart, with the number of extracts and the different opinions: YES, NO, MAYBE. She/he will ask to the participants for their opinion, asking to some few ones to justify their decision. The facilitator will show the solution and explain why.

TRAINING 5 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS DAY ONE SESSION THANK YOU

6 CERF BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIRIMENTS TRAINING DAY ONE SESSION
WORKSHOP

Understand administrative process for the funding of a CERF project
CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Objective of this session Understand administrative process for the funding of a CERF project Understand administrative issues causing delay of project approval and funds disbursement Understand eligible and non-eligible costs Be able to review a CERF project budget

CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
The Administrative Structure CERF is a sub-account of the UN General Trust Fund, subject to the UN Financial Rules and Regulations, and all internal policies that govern trust funds UN Controller has oversight of the financial administration of the CERF CERF disbursements are actually advances which will not be reported to donors as expenditures until all projects financial reports are received from agencies

The Administrative Process Application arrives in CERF Project and budget reviewed by CERF Secretariat Project and budget approved by ERC Approval letter (requires counter-signature) and final project proposal sent to agency Agency returns counter-signed approval letter to CERF CERF sends funds disbursement package to OPPBA Funds disbursement by OPPBA (involving PPBD, Accounts Division, Treasury) 68

The Administrative Process Delay in any step in the process can cause delay in receipts of funds! Major finance-related delays by agencies: Slow response to budget comments; Delay in returning the counter-signed approval letter to CERF

Be mathematically sound Transparent (itemized, based on real costs)
CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Budgetary issues linked to programme Budgets must: Be mathematically sound Transparent (itemized, based on real costs) Show clear links to activities (consistent with the narrative) Justify amounts requested for each class 70

Budget template structure Direct Costs: Costs as a direct consequence of the operation or deriving directly from the requirements of the grant. A. Staff and Other Personnel Costs (staff, consultants, others) B. Supplies/Commodities/Materials C. Equipment D. Contractual Services E. Travel F. Transfers and Grants to Counterparts G. General Operating and Other Direct Costs Subtotal Direct Project Costs Indirect Programme Support Costs (PSC): General recurring costs of running an organisation, expenditures not included in other parts of the budget. CERF may consider eligible indirect costs up to 7% of the total of eligible direct costs. Total CERF Project Costs (direct costs & indirect PSC)

Cost breakdown Cost breakdown Unit Quantity Unit cost Total (USD) A. Staff and Other Personnel Costs (please itemize costs of staff, consultants and other personnel to be recruited directly by the agency for project implementation) B. Supplies, Commodities, Materials (please itemize costs of consumables to be purchased under the project, including associated transportation, freight, storage and distribution costs) C. Equipment (please itemize costs of non-consumables to be purchased under the project) D. Contractual Services (please list works and services to be contracted under the project) E. Travel (please itemize travel costs of staff, consultants and other personnel for project implementation) F. Transfers and Grants to Counterparts (please list transfers and sub-grants to project implementing partners) G. General Operating and Other Direct Costs (please include general operating expenses and other direct costs for project implementation) Subtotal Direct Project Costs Indirect Programme Support Costs (PSC) Total CERF Project Costs 72

Budgetary issues linked to programme A) Budget proposal shall be consistent with narrative project proposal B) Provide Cost breakdown (transparency, details) Budget shall specify the costs required to implement the activities, e.g. personnel, goods, equipment, travel, training, operational facilities. If not possible to describe quantity of inputs, the budget shall split costs by outputs/results, e.g. explain no. of people to be trained, no. of latrines to be constructed. To the extent possible, the budget shall indicate unit, quantity and cost per unit for each item.

Budgetary issues linked to programme C) Non-eligible expenditures Any expense beyond the implementation period deadline Government staff salaries Regular/recurrent agency operations (e.g. maintenance, reserve or stock supplies, capacity building or training) Purchase of cars, ambulances, boats, motorbikes Security cost (such as purchase of goods and services to ensure the security and protection of personnel in one agency), or costs associated with MOSS compliance Facilitation of coordination “General Operating Expenses” Hospitality cost

Budgetary issues linked to programme D) CERF normally doesn’t finance 100% of a project E) Annexes: For projects including large or complex acquisitions or contractual service arrangements, an annex should be attached indicating cost per item and quantity. Shall indicate total costs and reference to the annex in the main budget table. F) Rounding: The amounts (except for unit cost) shall be rounded to the nearest USD amount. G) Acronyms: Spell out all acronyms the first time. Providing a list of acronyms and abbreviations in an annex will be useful. H) Implementation Period: Budget shouldn’t exceed 6 months for Rapid Response Window, and normally around 9 months for Underfunded Window. I) Programme Support Cost (PSC): Maximum 7% of direct project costs.

Miscalculation of budget lines
CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS Most common budget problems Miscalculation of budget lines Financial requirements don’t match narrative project proposal Inclusion of non-eligible items Lack of necessary details, non-transparent / unclear cost descriptions Miscalculated Programme Support Costs (PSC) 76

Programme Support Costs Subtotal Direct Project Costs $ 500,000 Programme Support Costs (maximum 7%) $ 37,635 Total CERF Project Costs $ 537,635 This is 7% of the Total, but NOT 7% of Subtotal Direct Costs. PSC must not exceed 7% of the Subtotal. Subtotal Direct Project Costs $ 500,000 Programme Support Costs (maximum 7%) $ 35,000 Total CERF Project Costs $ 535,000 7% of $500,000 is $35,000 8 77

8 CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS EXERCISES 1 WARMING-UP
A BIT MORE CHALLENGING EXERCISES 8

Exercise 1- What is wrong with this budget? Cost breakdown Unit Qty Unit cost Total ($) A. Staff and Other Personnel Costs (please itemize costs of staff, consultants and other personnel to be recruited directly by the agency for project implementation) 50,000 B. Supplies, Commodities, Materials (please itemize costs of consumables to be purchased under the project, including associated transportation, freight, storage and distribution costs) Transport of food and water containers C. Equipment (please itemize costs of non-consumables to be purchased under the project) D. Contractual Services (please list works and services to be contracted under the project) E. Travel (please itemize travel costs of staff, consultants and other personnel for project implementation) F. Transfers and Grants to Counterparts (please list transfers and sub-grants to project implementing partners) G. General Operating and Other Direct Costs (please include general operating expenses and other direct costs for project implementation) Subtotal Direct Project Costs 200,000 Indirect Programme Support Costs (PSC) Total CERF Project Costs WRONG: (1) Shall provide more details for A and B; (2) The subtotal cost budget should reflect the sum of cost categories; (3) Normally agencies will charge PSC. Shall confirm whether this project indeed has 0% PSC. 79

Exercise 1- What is wrong with this budget? Cost breakdown Unit Qty Unit cost Total ($) A. Staff and Other Personnel Costs (please itemize costs of staff, consultants and other personnel to be recruited directly by the agency for project implementation) B. Supplies, Commodities, Materials (please itemize costs of consumables to be purchased under the project, including associated transportation, freight, storage and distribution costs) Food transport and storage costs (storage $150,000 for 3 months, handling $150,000 for 3 months; transport by sea $200,000) 500,000 Food (rice, corn, oil, high energy biscuits) 2,000,000 C. Equipment (please itemize costs of non-consumables to be purchased under the project) D. Contractual Services (please list works and services to be contracted under the project) E. Travel (please itemize travel costs of staff, consultants, other personnel for project implementation) F. Transfers and Grants to Counterparts (please list transfers and sub-grants to project implementing partners) CARE: food distribution to 50,000 beneficiaries G. General Operating and Other Direct Costs (please include general operating expenses and other direct costs for project implementation) Subtotal Direct Project Costs 3,000,000 Indirect Programme Support Costs (PSC) Total CERF Project Costs WRONG: (1) The supplies should be itemized. e.g. quantity and unit cost of food; (2) Normally agencies will charge PSC. Shall confirm whether this project indeed has 0% PSC. OK: The budget provides general cost breakdown for each implementing partner (in this case, one partner - CARE) with the number of beneficiaries 80

Exercise 1- What is wrong with this budget? Cost breakdown Unit Qty Unit cost Total ($) A. Staff and Other Personnel Costs (please itemize costs of staff, consultants and other personnel to be recruited directly by the agency for project implementation) B. Supplies, Commodities, Materials (please itemize costs of consumables to be purchased under the project, including associated transportation, freight, storage and distribution costs) Rice MT 1,000 1,000,000 laptop computers laptop 4 2,500 10,000 Storage & handling of food month 2 245,000 490,000 C. Equipment (please itemize costs of non-consumables to be purchased under the project) D. Contractual Services (please list works and services to be contracted under the project) E. Travel (please itemize travel costs of staff, consultants, other personnel for project implementation) F. Transfers and Grants to Counterparts (please list transfers and sub-grants to project implementing partners) G. General Operating and Other Direct Costs (please include general operating expenses and other direct costs for project implementation) Subtotal Direct Project Costs 1,500,000 Indirect Programme Support Costs (PSC) 105,000 Total CERF Project Costs 1,605,000 Correct budget 81

What will happen when we do not fix budget problems? Agency may not get all their proposed financial requirements Project held up within CERF Secretariat and/or UN Controller’s Office Funds can not be disbursed until all budget problems are resolved Audit issues Discrepancies in files will cause negative audit observations by internal (OIOS) and external (Board of Auditors) auditors for OCHA and/or Controller’s Office. 82

Funds are more rapidly disbursed when:
CERF BUDGET & ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS In summary… Funds are more rapidly disbursed when: Project proposal include transparent and accurate budgets Agency quickly clarify, correct or revise budgets as required Agency quickly return the counter-signed approval letter to CERF 83

TRAINING 8 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS DAY TWO SESSION THANK YOU

EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND Making a difference… faster"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback