Executive Summary
At the request of the CERF Advisory Group, the CERF Secretariat developed a draft Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) in 2009. The CERF Advisory Group supported the proposal to introduce annual independent reviews. It requested the CERF Secretariat to commission a pilot, with the results to be presented at its April 2010 meeting. After analysing CERF funding, the CERF Secretariat determined that Kenya was the most appropriate country for this. This is because it has been consistently one of the highest recipients of CERF funding and is the fourth largest recipient since the inception of the CERF.
This review aimed to assess individual indicators in the PAF and to test the PAF’s overall feasibility. The review demonstrated that it is perfectly feasible to use the draft PAF for country reviews and found that the indicators are a helpful way to structure the review. The report makes only a few recommendations related to specific indicators (see below). This suggests that it is worth continuing to use the PAF as the basis of independent country reviews. The indicators follow a logic model in the PAF but this report groups them into key themes.
This report is based on interviews with UN agencies, IOM, NGOs and government representatives in Nairobi and with the CERF Secretariat and UNICEF and WFP representatives in New York. It also draws on a document review and funding information from the CERF Secretariat, UN agencies and the FTS.
Value-Added of the CERF
The review found that the CERF has added value for UN agencies by providing funding early on in the year; filling funding gaps; enabling agencies to leverage funding from other donors; complementing other donor funds; and being flexible. However, NGOs face several constraints in delivering humanitarian assistance when they receive CERF funding channelled through UN agencies. These include: delays with funding agreements; funding in instalments; funding limits on programmes; limits on Indirect Support Costs (ISC); and limited flexibility. These are due to the standard internal procedures of UN agencies (many of which are not adapted to emergency situations) rather than CERF funding.