the global evaluation of emergency response funds (erfs)...17. double involvement, natural disaster...

The Global Evaluation of Emergency Response

Funds (ERFs)

Volume 3 Survey Data

March 2013

D r a f t F i n a l R e p o r t – V o l u m e I I I

A p p e n d i c e s

Appendix I External Survey Summary Report 1

Appendix II Internal Survey Summary Report 55


1

A p p e n d i x I E x t e r n a l S u r v e y S u m m a r y

R e p o r t

1.1 What country are you currently working in?

Response Chart Percentage Count

Afghanistan 6% 14

Burkina Faso 0% 1

Burma 3% 6

Canada 0% 1

Cape Verde 0% 1

Colombia 8% 18

Congo, Democratic Republic 6% 15

Ethiopia 10% 24

Haiti 7% 17

Indonesia 9% 22

Israel 1% 2

Italy 0% 1

Luxembourg 0% 1

Nicaragua 0% 1

Norway 1% 2

Pakistan 22% 51

Philippines 0% 1

Spain 0% 1

Switzerland 3% 8

Uganda 0% 1

United Arab Emirates 0% 1

United Kingdom 0% 1

United States 1% 3

Yemen 4% 10



Zimbabwe 3% 8

Occupied Palestinian Territory 9% 22

Total Responses 233

1.2 Are you:


Male 71% 165

Female 29% 69

Total Responses 234

1.3 How would you describe yourself?


National NGO Partner 26% 61

INGO Partner 34% 79

UN Agency Partner 19% 45

Donor 11% 25

Government 3% 8

Other, please specify: 7% 16

Total Responses 234

1.3 How would you describe yourself? (Other, please specify:)

# Response

1. Red Cross

2. International Organization

3. nationa NGO Patnr which is affilied with INGO

4. Cluster Coordinator

5. Cluster Coordinator


3

# Response

6. International NGO

7. INGO

8. Indonesia National Platform (Chairman)

9. Faith Based NGO

10. Church Based INGO

11. UNICEF

12. Red Cross Movement

13. IGO

14. Education Cluster Coordinator

15. Academic

16. NGO

1.4 For what type of emergency/ies have you had dealings with ERFs?


Natural disaster 77% 179

Armed conflict 40% 93


Total Responses 233

1.4 For what type of emergency/ies have you had dealings with ERFs? (Other, please specify:)

# Response

1. protracted political conflict with humanitarian implications

2. Man made disaster (occupation)

3. Floods

4. I don't have experience with ERF

5. Man made crisis


# Response

6. fragile context under prolonged occupation

7. cholera

8. and Internally Displaced People

9. Complex protracted humanitarian situation

10. nutrition

11. Human made disasters

12. none

13. Food security

14. Protracted political conflict

15. Revive livelihoods for displaced

16. Cholera Outbreak

17. double involvement, natural disaster y armed conflict

18. Long term occupation

19. Protracted emergency

20. none

21. None

22. choléra épidemic

23. post disaster Reconstruction

24. IDP's, humanitarian aid

25. Epidemics

26. and disaster risk Reductions

27. human rights

28. occupation

29. wash project outbreak cholera Epidemic

30. shelter non food items

31. Cholera response

32. Human made disaster


5

# Response

33. Cholera

34. underfunded protracted emergencies

35.

36. Emergency, Education, Food Security, Water and Sanitation

37. both

38. Relief, education etc

39. Emergency Communicable disease out break response

1.5 Describe the level of knowledge and understanding of the policies and procedures of the ERF.


Fully aware and understand them

47% 110

Aware of them but do not fully understand them

25% 59

Aware of them with basic understanding

25% 57

Not aware at all 3% 6

Total Responses 232

Do you have any other comments on ERFs that have not been addressed?


Yes 17% 1

No 83% 5

Total Responses 6


2.1 Can you please list the three (3) most important ERF strengths?

# Response

1. It is a mechanism where local NGOs can easily get funding in case of larger emergency (when ERF had a lot of funding e.g Floods 2010 in Pakistan) The funding was allocated as per cluster priority and standards e.g we got funding for NFI package, if we would have applied to any other donor they would not have provide that larger Winterization package but ERF approved that as it was in line with the cluster standards. ERF took quick decision on the funding and we find it very transparent as long as it is done through UNOCHA and Cluster, however, involving government more in the funding decision is making it less transparent and politicizing as well as somewhat wrong decision making. ERF team here in Pakistan remained very active and responsive to the queries

2. Rapid response, adapted to emergency situation, possibility to combine in kind donations to make it more efficient and focus budget on field activities

3. Coordination of donors, fund-raising, cooperation with, and capacity building for local NGOs

4. 1.Bridges gaps that are often encountered by INGOs, NGOs and even UN bodies thus enabling response possible.2. Relatively short time taken to get the funding ( Application submission-fund approval)3. The bureaucratic procedure is relatively lesser as compared to other funding mechanisms.

5. Timely response Simple application procedures Clear criteria

6. - Sufficient budget for the Early Recovery Support for shelter construction and rehabilitation in the earthquake affected areas in Dare Suf Payin district – Samangan Province Afghanistan

7. Allows for a quick source of funding for emergency response Allows Int. NGOs access to funds Allows for a complementary of activities between UN Agencies and NGOs in a coordinated manner

8. 1. Good funding tool to reposed to emergency cases

9. aa

10. Actually I don't have experiences with ERF process before

11. 1. pool funding tool for more than one donor. 2. responds to unforeseen emergencies. 3. Open for INGO's and Local NGO's to apply.

12. 1. provides a collective platform for humanitarian actors to organize and discuss collective action 2. flexibility of funding

13. Accessible to UN/INGOs/particularly NGOs Transparency of process with the involvement of clusters Speed of process during emergency, provided funding is available

14. Quick access to funds especially to bridge the funding gap Straightforward application process Good support from ERF team to complete application

15. Fast dispersal Flexible to needs in the context Good guidelines

16. * As addressed to be implemented by NGO, there are not funding competition with UN agencies.* Easy to write proposal.* Funding availability (theoretically immediate).


7

# Response

17. - rapid response-consultative process leading to priority setting- decentralized decision making

18. 1. Fast procedure 2. Needs and responses discussed within the country 3. An opportunity to particularly strengthen NGO-UN partnership

19. 1. Able to be accessed during 72 hours of disaster 2. Fast approval from UN OCHA 3. Clear and simple direction about expenditure

20. Area and issues focused; targeted population focused; aid items and its provision channels were focused

21. Flexible enough to address the dynamic needs in the nature of the disaster. Quick and simple process required, from proposal submission to project closing. It can be accessed also by local NGO partners under supports from International NGO

22. 1. Effective and Efficient as it responds to every emergency and every proposal. 2. Proposals are funded on the basis of coordination with sectorial clusters. 3. Builds the capacity of even smaller NGOs.

23. 1. Quick reply from ERF and feed back on proposals. 2. Support partner organizations in report formats 3. Encourage national organizations for funding.

24. Emergency and following sphere standards

25. Responsive Rapid Realistic

26. Coordination sharing information resource mobilization

27. A transparent source of funding for implementing partners. Provider of the last resort during prolonged emergencies suffering from donor fatigue. Strong monitoring and evaluation process followed by comprehensive audit to ensure proper implementation of projects.

28. - Should be able to respond rapidly to humanitarian needs- Accessible tool for national and international NGOs

29. Facility to respond to unexpected humanitarian needs, available to NGOs -

30. Grants to, particularly, national NGOs, available. Can be rapid response mechanism for immediate life-saving needs but needs to be speeded up.

31. (1) reduce the risk of humanitarian disaster(2) increase assets and to recover livelihoods skills run(3) improve cooperation between communities to reduce disaster risk

32. Clear criteria Adequate amount Simple procedures

33. N.B. Our experience is exclusively with HRF. 1. HRF is a quick instrument 2. HRF is flexible 3. HRF is transparent

34. ERF provides funds for mobilizing agency teams for responses and is very useful for agencies with limited internal funds for this purpose. The ERF also provides vital funding to jump-start new emergency activities and to get boots on the ground in order to build relationships with donors and partnerships with other UN agencies for follow-on funding and support


# Response

35. 1. ERF provides assistance (funding) in priority areas 2. ERF evaluation process is transparent, strong and quick 3. ERF has excellent links with humanitarian actors in agriculture sector through Agricultural Task Force. The task force is chaired by government of Ethiopia and FAO is secretariat and others humanitarian actors are members of the taskforce. This platform will give space for information sharing, updates on emergency responses (who is doing what and where), weather updates, success stories and lessons and also comments for proposal also given by this taskforce and it is working very well

36. Rapidity for the making available of funds Adapted mechanism for sudden crises response Lives saving

37. Good informal communication

38. 1. Life saving interventions 2. Very simple and easy process 3. Focusing on local organizations

39. Encourages donor coordination Use of clusters improves programme quality Humanitarian Coordinator has more scope for leadership

40. Easy access to funds for humanitarian response. OCHA staff support has been available and important in the whole process

41. 1) Ability to move rapidly; 2) Responsiveness of the fund to local conditions; 3) Inclusion of peer review in the approvals process.

42. 1) quite quick in dealing with applications from partners who apply for funding (apart from the actual money transfer)2) No cumbersome proposal and reporting requirements 3) I have good experience with communications with ERF staff

43. 1. Response to the loss inflicted by disasters; 2. Increase awareness in communities about disaster response and preparedness; 3. Sustainability of the projects, esp. in education

44. 1, We can get access the fund immediately 2. package system make the proposal is more simple 3. clear on the document guide of proposal, areas of support, reporting, financial arrangement

45. Strong Coordination. Monitoring Visits. Reporting Mechanism.

46. 1-Emergency shelter 2- wash 3-Nutrition

47. Child Protection, Health, Education

48. Accessible for smaller agencies and local partners. Cluster supported. Reactive to emergencies

49. 1. Relatively quick response 2. Covers all Type of life saving interventions 3. Being represented in the country facilitates the direct contacts with partners

50. - Accessibility - Line of decision making - Field level implication

51. Easy access, no deadline funds transfer immediately, Gap arrangements for funding.

52. 1. support small and medium disasters, especially the unnoticed ones. 2. supports local/national NGOs 3. quicker response


9

# Response

53. 1. Strengthening capacity 2. Helping the vulnerable people 3. Quick response

54. Immediate Support to people / NGOs /CBOs in case of emergencies. Facilitation / coordination support to humanitarian actors. Recognition by the governments

55. 1- Good relation with both local and international organizations and Involving of too many local NGOs .2- Despite the short time for the ERF existence in Yemen though they were able to cover too many areas .3- Good communication system with all partners and the good access to data.

56. Is able to respond quickly to emergencies. It has minimum conditions of applying for the funds. The funds are only for agreed emergencies in Zimbabwe

57. - ability to draw on a wide range of implementing partners – flexibility - adaptive

58. - empower the Cluster mechanism to implement the national sectorial strategy- Attract other donors around the table to follow the cluster global strategy- Is not necessary a last resort funding, but can be considered at the beginning of the response-

59. - Easy requirements- Fast Approval- Allow to attend fast emergency situations

60. Local knowledge, technical expertise, experienced

61. - quick response- strong coordination with other emergency donors- easy procedures to facilitate the immediate response

62. - In our case ERF/HRF funds interventions that most donors would not fund unilaterally. Open to NGOs, including national partners - Transparent process

63. 1. Provide rapid and flexible funding; 2. The majority of funding goes to NGOs; 3. ERF is able to finance local NGOs.

64. Response to remaining gaps of emergencies - A strong supporter of National NGOs - Available through the year for funding of emergency project

65. 1. Field work with communities. 2. Coordination between UN Agencies, International NGOs and Local NGOs. 3. Effective mechanism for rapid response to humanitarian emergencies.

66. _Quickness – Flexibility - Multi-donor fund

67. good to complement a project - very flexible - is coordinated by OCHA

68. Fast, flexible. Easy to administer

69. flexibility in funding not limited to only one sector, rather it is multi sectoral - can quickly fund proposals

70. Emergency support - Networking with local organizations - Appropriate size allocations for emergency

71. 1. Complementing the role of the RC/HC in the humanitarian field 2. Supposed to be flexible 3. Available for NGOs

72. Quick – Efficient - thorough


# Response

73. Support emergency operations - Sustain coordination structure for the response - Provide logistic support

74. 1) Is a fast tool. 2) Allows donor harmonization. 3) Responds to principles of good humanitarian donorship.

75. - Addresses critical humanitarian needs - Providing fund faster than other donors and it fill the gaps during emergency situation - It responds immediately to the situation, and the procedure for approving project doesn't take a lot of time.

76. Focus on support to local NGOs - Local coordination of humanitarian assistance - Flexible funding for humanitarian needs due to natural disasters

77. -

78. - Availability of staff on the field – Flexibility - an easy proposal writing process

79. Rapid access to funds (most of the time) - Flexibility in the implementation of funds

80. Flexibility and adaptability to needs on the ground - Funds managed under one single financial system - Coherence enforced by coordination of different stakeholders

81. 1 .professional approach. 2. Need based interventions 3. working with local partners/NGOs

82. 1. Understanding the prevailing situation 2. Well established application appraisal system 3. Encouraging wider stakeholders involvement

83. Effectiveness; appropriate; rapid response

84. Providing cash for work after a disaster is a very effective way to rebuild a shattered economy at the household level. Work projects bring people together who have been dislocated, and integrates residents with refugees. Work projects can be identified which have a direct impact on the effects of the disaster, and which rebuild markets (roads, flood control, soil stabilization)

85. Availability of funds for emergencies. Possibility of filling gaps in geographical areas that are distant and difficult to access. Strengthen NGO /INGO capacity to assistant victims.

86. a) The potential to disburse quickly much needed funding b) The attention towards NGOs (national and international) c) The potential for a dedicated system of monitoring and evaluation of the recipients of the funding

87. HRF OCHA Ethiopia pulls together experts to review and advise on the proposals, quickly. This is important for a fast, thoughtful, response, fully in consideration of expert information. The HRF OCHA team is readily available to discuss issues and concerns, an admirable trait in a donor.

88. The intervention can arrive faster to the beneficiaries than with other tools - Specialized tool - Help to strengthen coordination

89. - priorities are defined by the ERF not the donor;- support a coordinated approach;- rapid and flexible funding process;

90. Easy Access - Clear Terms - Transparent


11

# Response

91. - clearance - simple procedures, application + final reports, not so bureaucratic as others- efficient

92. - Target the most needed population – Flexibility - Coordination with others

93. - Promotion of early action; Response reducing losses; Enhance response.

94. 1- apolitical; funds are used without discrimination 2- Humanitarian (especially for natural disasters)

95. -

96. Needs-based Principled Coherence

97. 1. Access to quick funds for NGOs 2. Works like CERF for local and international NGOs 3. Fully decentralized

98. Facilitate dialogue and engagement with the government and other key stakeholders - Can be used for advocacy within and outside of Zimbabwe - Used as a framework for fundraising for emergencies in the country

99. Disponibility – Rapidity - Emergency response

100. Coordination - Prompt Response

101. Rapid – flexible - address humanitarian needs

102. 1. Quick & Timely support during Emergencies. 2. Transparent Project Review and Approval Process during the Emergencies. 3. Having Highly Skilled Fund Managers like ERF Manager in Pakistan.

103. 1. understand the precise and most urgent needs 2. Selection of right implementing partner 3. Monitoring & Evaluation of the project activities

104. 1. evacuated management 2. built temporary camp in the save area. 3. supply feed management and water sanitation.

105. Flexibility, flexibility, flexibility

106. -

107. Flexible, Fast, Targeted

108. 1. good coordination 2. Easy access to all levels of Management 3. Cooperative

109. Regular follow-up in proposal strengthening. Close coordination with IP. Quick response on queries

110. 1. clear application process 2. funds normally transferred quickly 3. good support from OCHA

111. 1) Funds accessible to national NGOs. 2) Useful to support sectors less attractive to donors. 3) Encourages dialogue among sector stakeholders, thus coordination

112. Availability, Time bound, Appropriate


# Response

113. Quick to access. Application processing time is good. Reporting timelines are also acceptable

114. 1. Transparent 2. Well Informed of the situation in emergency situation in Ethiopia. 3. Timely, responsive to urgent humanitarian needs

115. 1. Speed of response 2. Coordinated decision-making 3. Reduced overhead costs

116. high level of participation and involvement. Ability to act under difficult circumstances. Responsiveness

117. 1. The procedure is simple for local organization. 2. Based on actual need in the field during emergency. 3. It covers variety of activities, that complement each other and every organization has the same opportunity to access the funding.

118. Short delays in making funds available

119. 1. Quick response with approval of requested Funds during emergency 2. Flexible in addressing any type of emergency situation 3. Involving INGOs in the decision making body for the funds allocation

120. 1) Potentially quick source of funding. 2) 'Donor' is in-country and understands the issues. 3) Simply and easy application procedure

121. ERF Provides funds to potential local organizations. ERF staff provides full guidance for proposal development. Easy reporting system. There is no unnecessary documentation requirement.

122. 1. easy mechanism of response to emergency gaps. 2. Easy to complete the template of proposal. 3. Transparency in the selection of projects.

123. The funding window was opened at the right time. Proposals approval process was efficient. Timely transfer of funds ( first tranche)

124. 1. Supportive 2. Quick in response 3. Cooperative

125. 1- Easy application procedures. 2- fast response to emergency. 3- Specified reporting.

126. work for the best of people – will target as much as they can - Try to cover all areas including food, non-food items and rehabilitation.

127. -Rapid approval process-clear life-saving funding criteria-accessibility to INGOs and some UN agencies based on context

128. fast, efficient, simple

129. * Process of accessing funds is transparent.* Provides quicker support for emergency situations as compared to other Donors.* Coordination with other stakeholders (cluster) is emphasized.

130. 2.1.1 Helping disaster victims find livelihood asset and strategy to run an early recovery livelihoods 2.1.2 Fostering cooperation of stakeholders for the restoration of livelihoods of disaster victims 2.1.3 Fill the gap that has not been a concern of government and organizations, others.


13

# Response

131. The pool is there every year and it is large. OCHA HRF works closely with cluster leads. Willing to listen to context - change and adjust

132. 1. Straightforward application procedures. 2. Good administrative support from the ERF team in Yemen.

133. 1. Inclusiveness for all local NGOs 2. Partnership 3. Reorganization as ER situation

134. - Availability - Quick response - Donor coordination

135. 1 - ERF is rapid and flexible funding to urgent humanitarian needs to meet the short-term emergency needs of vulnerable communities, HIV AIDS & GBV interventions. 2 - It provides additional funding to bridge gaps for some critical activities on the CAP to meet emergency needs (HIV AIDS & GBV interventions. 3 - Facilitates coordination of emergency response

136. 1 - Targeting the marginalized areas and conflict-affected. 2 - If there is shortage of aid projects, the HRF compensation and supplemented it. 3 - Indirectly, HRF ensure sustainability of the project, helps the growth of local NGO's, and helps to reduce the unemployment rate.

137. 1) the fact that it is an available fund ready for immediate response

138. 1. Good Cooperation, good communication and relationship with local partners. 2. ERF understands local partner's need, warm welcome and accepts any partners' applications and gives full support to them. 3. wants to know the need of needy people.

139. Rapid response - Make up for underfunded emergencies - Flexibility

140. Fast, Transparent, Flexible

141. Rapidity, gap filling and focus on life saving

142. 1. Humanitarian answer to people affected by natural disasters 2. Support local governments to attend emergencies. 3. Team work with local NGO's in the affected areas.

143. Rapidly available funds. Effective vetting process of proposals. Flexibility.

144. Rapid – Flexible - Open to UN

145. rapid & flexible funding fund for small projects

146. 1. quick setup 2. quick disbursement 3. acts as a unforeseen "gap filler" for those emergency interventions which are not foreseen

147. - Quick at setting up cluster groups in emergency to create better coordination between agencies/organization during emergency periods - Providing broad range of funding opportunities in various sectors for all - Provide clear information on the website on guidelines

148. Quick disbursement of funds

149. 1) NGOs can take advantage of the funds

2)


# Response

150. - fairly rapid decisions- monitors activities- approachable at country level

151. 1. Meet import emergency needs 2. Provide excellent opportunities to PNNGOs to participate in responding to emergency and humanitarian situations 3. Give opportunities for building partnerships between PNNGOs & INGOs 4. Made funds available to NNGOs to address emergency priorities and cover different geographical areas which were not covered without the interventions of ERF

152. Flexibility - Gap-filling - Relatively quick

153. Fund is available in country, it is largely managed locally and is available for locally prioritized disaster response

154. 1. being coordinated by the local UN-OCHA Office 2. allowing all clusters to bid for the funds 3. producing periodic updates on work and impact of ERF interventions and circulating to stakeholders

155. Decision-making at field level meaning more timely and effective response - Ability of NGOs to access funds - More cost effective due to the direct involvment of implementing agency - NGO Field level fund raising

156. 1) Rapid disbursement of funds 2) Local review process - better understanding of context 3) Local management - better M&E, feedback process between recipient and OCHA

157. Funding basket for emergencies, available to INGOS, linked to the cluster system.

158. Proper due diligence - Properly informed to relevant stakeholders - Transparent process

159. Facilitating ERF application through the country offices - Maintaining capacity building for NGOs implementing partners

160. 1. Availability of funds within a short period of time to kick start the response to an emergency. 2. In principle, these funds are available and accessible to all NGOs and UN Agencies

161. - Quick Action- Life Saving Action- Customer oriented

162. 1)Multi-sector approach 2) Peer review process in place 3) Broad based

163. - easy and clear template- availability/accessible by various humanitarian stakeholders- officers of UNOCHA are accessible to be asked in time of clarity

164. 1. Provision of Funds for helping poor people in great need.

165. 1. Available in critical times 2. Easy to access provided projects are in line with need 3. Quick processing timeline

166. a. The design for the fund could be arranged to respond and fit with the results of need assessment. b. The procedure is quiet flexible to respond the dynamic on the ground during the implementation. c. The existing audit support is strengthening the promotion of transparency and accountability.

167. - reactivity (agreement signed in 2-4 weeks) - produce guideline for different sectors emergency intervention - ensure coordination of intervention as lead emergency donor


15

# Response

168. 1. A fast(er) source of response funding than most bilateral and other traditional channels. 2. Leveraging improvements in the authority and power of the clusters and the UN HC. 3. Galvanizing several streams of bilateral donor funding into one coordinated approach.

169. The principle of ERF is sound and most beneficial. Allows for start-up and good leverage for other funding.

170. 1. Community outreach access to all remote provinces of the country 2. Has a broad network among all provinces of the country 3. One Focal Point + 25 Community elder independant shura + 25 youth volunteers in each province throughout the country

171. when it is needed urgently it is safe and transparent in our Myanmar context international contributions

172. 1. Dedicated staff and quick fund release 2. Transparent decision making by the board 3. working guide lines

2.2 Can you please list three (3) ERF areas for improvements?

# Response

1. The decision should be taken bit more fast in a severe emergency, the funding availability should be continued (the reserve funds should be allocated within 2-3 days to ERF from UN). In smaller emergency chances to secure funding from ERF are very less for local NGOs due to influence of larger INGOs in the clusters and their networking, yet the same larger INGOs are implementing through the local NGOs. ERF should promote more local NGOs. The monitoring mechanism should be strengthened to see the real implementation/impact on ground. It is recommended to have dedicated team under ERF for Monitoring and support to partners who receive funding (1 staff member can monitor around 10 projects), while leaving it to others i.e on Cluster and Humanitarian affairs officers, UN agency representatives is sort of making responsibility of all (leading to responsibility of none). There should be partner's orientation at the start of the project regarding policies and procedures. There should be no discrimination among INGOs and NGOs while making funding decisions.

2. Adaptability to the context, new budget not suitable for various types of programmes (small envelope, need for co-funding), long turn-around time once project completed to finalize audit

3. The local NGOs claim that they need more capacity building to understand the system and to be able to "compete" for funds.

4. 1. The time it takes from submission of application to approval and disbursement of funding can still be brought down. 2. Allow local NGOs to get funding by producing relevant proposals by limiting the funding amount relatively small to avoid insecurity. 3. Clear cut guidelines on what kind of proposals have access to the funding is required.

5. Coordination ensured prior to funding decision


# Response

6. - Global coordination of UNOCHA for getting the formal authorization from the Provincial Authorities for all the NGOs to carry out the Emergency Response on time - Quick proposal process and approval, On-time fund transfer for implementing partner/s in emergency situation,

7. ERF Reports should be shared with all partners. ERF should also be available to National NGOs. Need for an increased sharing of information on ERF funding through the Clusters

8. 1. To shorten period of review, approval, signing MOU to maintain possibility of quick response to the emergencies. 2. To Increase flexibility in regards of requiring tax exemption for inputs and services purchased within HRF projects

9. Bb

10. Actually I don't have experience with ERF process before

11. 1. Although it is supposed to be very flexible, but in reality it is not flexible enough. 2. It gives too much emphasis on the role of Clusters but not all clusters have the same competency. 3. The issue of UN getting all money upfront does not apply for NGO's. This needs to be looked at one more time.

12. 1. Equal access opportunities to local and International NGOs (including as well translating the HERF templates to Arabic language, explaining and raising awareness of local NGOs, etc.)2. HERF should respect Humanitarian principles and remain needs-based. It must refrain from politicization of the tool and accommodating the donors’ constraints (for example being used for channeling funds to non-humanitarian activities because a donor government is unwilling to spend development funding in an area or on certain sensitive issues). 3. Consider the option for setting up a separate facility (multi-donor trust fund) that will bridge between the CAP/HERF and the development instruments in order (a) not to threaten/endanger the humanitarian space and (b) to help stretching the boundaries of the development space towards more risk-taking activities.

13. Resource mobilization strategy needs to be thought out. Capacity building for partners particularly NGOs on the proposal and reporting requirements of ERF which is quite detailed. Regular briefings/updates particularly with the high rotations of humanitarian staffing

14. Timely audit should be carried out. A framework to operationalize the humanitarian principles should be part of the project review process. Flexibility to utilize the funds based on on-the-ground realities/situation. Flexibility in donor visibility component

15. Interagency discussion about priorities and allocation amount between agencies - I have known these to change after drafting has begun

16. 1. Communication 2. Coordination 3.

17. * Bureaucratic procedures that increase the response time: delays in the contract signature; delays in the proposal revision by clusters; demands from OCHA Geneve.* ERF needs to be able to accept an expenditure date before the contact signature, as other humanitarian donors do (ECHO).* The on line system only allows to work a contract by NGO.

18. - more flexibility in funds management- decisions on allocation


17

# Response

19. 1. Strength in country leadership and technical skills needed for the national level secretariat and advisory board 2. wider distribution of guideline (mechanism etc.), including for managers in partner organization so they also understand RF

20. 1. Local NGO partners able to access during last major disaster

21. too many people involved in the review panel team; sometimes those members become the recipients; hard to monitor the success and failure of the projects those were implemented by the two caps holders of the review

22. ERF can be used for the disaster preparedness activity, i.e. Replenishing organization contingency stock after disaster response. Some particular and relevant cost of activity can be eligible even before MoU signing off, i.e. Rapid Assessment cost. Process of project budget transfer can be quickly conducted after the MoU signing off, this especially very needed when ERF partners are local NGO who are quite limited in its existing budget capacity

23. 1. Delayed funds release. 2. Admin costs of the administering agency are charged to the budget of the Partner organizations while they should be directly charged to ERF. 3. At regional level influence of OCHA staff members, for favoring certain organizations.

24. 1. Field humanitarian officers misconduct especially (Dr. Salman Safdar). 2. Delay in disbursement of final installment. 3. Delay in conducting project audit.

25. Food, Wash, Shelters and NFI's

26. slow process of fund raising - low capacity of local partners - huge problem and limited fund in Afghanistan in emergency work

27. Need to reduce time in processing the agreement. Has a very lethargic and bureaucratic system which causes delays in funds transfer to partners during emergencies. Needs to work closely with clusters for monitoring of the field projects along with keeping the cluster in the loop for all correspondence with the implementing partner.

28. - If OCHA wishes to act as a donor, one must have strong fund managers who understand humanitarian context, needs, and are able to see the projects. If (as in late 2011-2012 in Afghanistan), money is given away without stricter controls, the fund will lose credibility, and donors will have a reduced interest in topping it back up again. 2.) Although the system of review through the clusters makes sense on paper, the weakness (catastrophic shambles) that characterizes some of the clusters, in particular at the regional level makes this sub-optimal. As with point number 1, it is clear that to be a good humanitarian donor that is really doing the best possible job (i.e. trying to reach the level of ECHO), strict systems and good staff need to be put in place to ensure that humanitarian principles are adhered to, including the targeting of only real needs. In order to do this, ERF staff should also be able to monitor in the field. 3.) Legal and administrative side is very weak. The template MoU from OCHA to NGO partners has many omissions and unclear parts (e.g. use of exchange rates). Also, there are a number of contradictions between the MoU and the ERF guidelines (e.g. who pays for audit, and when does it take place. Also application of budget line flexibility unclear if it applied to budget category or budget line). Audits for ERF projects have been severely late, leaving NGOs with pending income from ERF.


# Response

29. 1. no indirect costs covered - making it impossible for national NGOs to use and to respond in non-operational areas. 2. unclear decision making processes

30. Needs to be a fast mechanism and final disbursement needs to be more efficient; Different treatment of NGOs and UN agencies applying with regard to administrative costs - Retaining funds for contingency use - pointless to reserve funds when there is a seriously under-funded complex emergency in place.

31. (1) drought-prone areas and landslides (2) volcano eruption-prone areas (3) areas prone to earthquakes and tsunamis

32. Time frame to receive the fund

33. 1. HRF should be able to work with local NGO's 2. The HRF fiscal year does not coincide with the seasonality of the natural disasters in Ethiopia, causing administrative (liquidity) problems

34. Quicker response on funding approvals and disbursement of funds would help

35. 1. Due to wide scale of emergency situations there are times where funding is limited and it is good if donors consider increasing funding 2. There is a good start of funding of interventions that saves livelihood in addition of saving lives but this has to be improved 3. Most emergency situations are funded in remote, and in non-accessible areas where infrastructures are poorly developed if any and the admin cost of intervention in such areas is very high, on the contrary, the admin cost of OCHA reduced from 10% to 7% - this has to be looked at it and improved

36. level of funds is too low for some crises

37. There seem to be a number of levels of informal approval that takes time

38. 1. Expedite/less time consuming in the process of fund transferring 2. Monitor the project activities within the implementation process 3. Large amount of funds needed to be allocated to ERF

39. Not rapid enough - 4 to 6 weeks from first proposal to funding. Does not fund sufficient admin costs to allow full cost recovery. Cost extensions not allowed so have to go through full process again

40. It is difficult to use the ERF platform

41. 1) Inability to cover administrative costs for actions in areas where there are few ongoing activities that can share that burden; 2) Over-reliance on hard data in funding decisions - where those data are either unavailable or very hard to get; 3) More frequent update of focus areas would be useful.

42. 1) It took a long time before actual funding was transferred, which held up the project implementation

43. 1. Although the security situations do not always allow for timely monitoring, somehow it has to be more frequent; 2. Coordination with district government agencies for timely support to the implementing partners as the project duration is rather brief; 3. Capacity building of implementing partners and government agencies;


19

# Response

44. 1. Board review and approval process from UN HQ 2. Contract agreement takes time 3. package system can be more flexible amount

45. ERF Staff should respond to the organizations on their proposals within due time. The Audit and last installment process is very slow.

46. 1-North east of Afghanistan 2-South of Afghanistan 3- North of Afghanistan

47. community ownership. Taking responsibility of Concern Department from the Government side. Short term projects

48. Timeline - Heavy reporting requirements for non UN-entities for relatively small grants - first come first serve basis, does not always guarantee best value for money

49. 1. Short project duration (6 months) 2. Financial guidelines needs to be revisited to be more accommodating to local contexts 3. will be good if it can avail funding for mitigation activities

50. - Speed of the final decision process- Incapacity to have a multi system of allocations linked to sudden emergencies.- Administrative matters too long versus quick response needed

51. remaining amount will take too much time. Audits firms need to be more transparent. Small national NGOs should be encouraged. Capacity building of small organizations.

52. 1. supportive to international NGOs who work with national NGOs 2. develop a regional or global initiative 3. contribute to preparedness projects as well; where funding is limited.

53. 1. Can access for DRR issue 2. More specific on health and psychosocial subject 3. DRR focusing on children and people with special needs

54. Reporting mechanisms, payment approvals, monitoring mechanisms

55. The financial procedures in terms of :1- The reserved amount from the project cost reaches %20 which is too high. 2- The delay in auditing the financial report for the projects which causes a delay in submitting the final report and in paying some financial commitments.

56. Increase resources to the fund - More flexibility is needed in selection - Need to visit areas after intervention for their independent assessment

57. - need to do more to resist the temptation to engage in recovery work - should get more transparent with NGO regarding funding policies/guidelines - expose donors more to the impact of ERF on the ground

58. - Long delay before funding delivery due to inadequate steps - lack of funding monitoring - Political aspects from OCHA to "make everybody happy" may lead to scatter the funding into too many partners and sectors

59. - Platform - Delay on final payment

60. Staff is inaccessible, responses to emails are slow, bureaucratic


# Response

61. - time and budget limits are too strict in certain emergencies - difficult dissemination and collection of emergency information where the clusters are just in the Capitals and not on the field levels - flexibility on type of intervention

62. - In the case of the oPt, there is no 'preparedness' window which means that the response is provided with serious delays - Heavy approval structure, especially when projects reach the board - Little oversight on how funds are allocated between clusters

63. 1. Documents in other languages, to simplify the candidatures;

64. The ERF proposal procedure should be fast and easier. ERF should also support mitigation projects in some areas. Fund should be available during emergencies

65. 1. Improve capacity on RBM. 2. Submit impacts. 3. Improve coordination with local authorities.

66. -Participation of local NGOS, requirements still too complicated for the participation of local NGOs-More flexibility to finance resilience activities. Pre-financing for some agencies

67. rapidity to approve and sign the contract to be really emergency response fund - sometimes long process that has to be validated by clusters, CPIA...

68. Less admin - Longer implementation window - More NGO oriented

69. 1. Bureaucracy coming from the always expanding guidelines 2. very slow final payment to NGO's 3. OCHA seems to be losing the 'spirit' of these funds, the focus is supposed to be on rapid and emergency but with the new guidelines they seem to be trying to make it a development project, very slow to begin to implement

70. Contact Speed in implementation - Field studies

71. 1. Speed of disbursements of funds wary, and tend to be slow 2. Ways for local NGOs to be supported directly or indirectly is limited 3. Relation of the ERF to the CAP

72. perhaps give more time for project completion, better monitoring and accountability mechanisms - not much seems to happen if an implementing partner is not able to fulfill all deliverables

73. 1) Improve prevention and institutional strengthening. 2) Improve the platform to focus it to results. 3) Expand its scope to situations of armed conflict, humanitarian crisis

74. - Health (physical, mental, and psychological) – Water - Agriculture

75. More donors must be convinced that ERF is an effective funding mechanism. Look into the need for a more user friendly application process. Consider the language barrier. Local NGOs report that they are constrained by having to use English instead of the local language

76. -

77. - Make the funds more rapidly available to partners for Emergency response - Avail the support cost to allow partners to better respond to an emergency (ERF usually avail only the program cost).

78. Need broader donor base - Faster disbursements


21

# Response

79. Increase of funds allocation

80. Slow response in cash transfers. Lack of definition on the activities to be considered under "humanitarian and emergency assistance" in Palestine. Common interlocution vis-a-vis Israeli authorities on behalf of the humanitarian community

81. 1. Timely response to Implementation Partners 2. ERF will establish their office at provincial level

82. 1. Delays in processing disbursements 2. Lack of frequent supportive supervision 3. Delays in feedback provision

83. Prepositioned capabilities in disaster-prone situations (e.g., Haiti). Standard procedures for verifying identities when key personal documents are lost. Celebrate successful projects with recognition from donor agencies.

84. Information and procedures are not up-dated in the web page and have not been fully informed to the humanitarian community. Slow process of disbursement of resources. Need to strengthen technical reviews and follow-up of projects.

85. a) The lack of transparency and the lack of clarity on the strategic decision making process, including at the level of the Advisory Board (if not a lack of strategic focus altogether, especially if funding available in the ERF is limited and the needs on the ground are relevant). b) The lengthy process in fund disbursement (especially the final tranches). c) The need for a better orientation for the local partners, over and above what cluster leads can provide

86. A slightly broader focus so that HRF/ERF projects could include information gathering during the emergency response: This process would encourage the development of recovery proposals (for other donors), and the end of cycles of emergency-response.

87. Rapidness of the intervention. Clearness of the rules for the approval of grants. Process can be excessively bureaucratic

88. Training of local partners working with community based NGOs

89. - information given by the officers related to financial procedures- more details in the financial items related to financial and economic reports - more training to the final auditors

90. - Acceleration of the final payment process - Acceleration of the Audit

91. - Has to take all the sector in consideration (particularly education that is a protection tool);- Should be more funded and systematic;- To be used to strengthen clusters (contingency stocks).

92. 1. the process may be somewhat delayed

93. -

94. Predictability. Transparency. Monitoring

95. 1. More awareness among the donors to enhance their participation and contributions


# Response

96. Making sure that the fund spreads and is used by local NGOs so that their capacities to respond to disasters and emergencies is improved. When budgetary provisions are made we need to make sure that at least 80 to 100 percent is fundraised

97. Emergency Preparedness Response

98. Monitoring, Technical Assistance during implementation

99. Rapidity, flexibility, transparency on evaluating humanitarian needs

100. 1. Ongoing Monitoring & Evaluation (Timely Ongoing Monitoring especially during Emergencies). 2. Unnecessary delays in the Final Disbursement after Project Completion.

101. 1. communicating the details of the fund allocations 2. communicating the details of areas

102. 1. humanitarian relocation of save area post disaster evacuated. 2. water sanitation knowledge and resource of water. 3. shelter/temporary camp should be comfortable and healthy.

103. pace of disbursement of funding

104. Coordination among UN actors. Communication to donors' community. Building NGO (local) preparedness capacity

105. 1. Delay in Release of fund although all requirements are fullfilled, due to late release of funds project plans are unnecessarily delayed, causing delay assistance to the beneficiaries. 2. after the implementation of project refund takes a lot of time causing accounts payables

106. Regular monitoring need to be improved. Orientation on operating policies need be given on time. Presentation on narrative and financial reporting be given.

107. 1. financial external audit takes too long 2. ceiling and time frame limited 3. budget for operational costs/office staff limited

108. 1) Speed to disburse money. 2) OCHA sometimes too present in selection process. 3) Process a bit heavy for sector leads

109. Small funds. Need for building on recovery. Rigidity

110. 1. regular updating of the guidelines and other new tools that are recently updated. 2.

111. 1. Visibility for donors 2. Reporting on Outcomes 3. Evidence of improved outcomes over other forms of financing

112. Simplifying the procedural side. Ensure more roles for national partners. Lowering the cost of the logistic and management

113. 1. Capacity transfer among the implementing organization that is accommodated by ERF. 2. It is better for ERF to give response first to the sector where no or less organization give attention. 3. To raise the maximum effect on local contribution, ERF prioritize also the project from communities.

114. Mechanism and transparency in the allocation of the funds


23

# Response

115. 1. Increase the funding limit in situations where more money is needed 2. More clarity on funding programs that promote resilience 3. Empower OCHA Country offices with more decision-making powers

116. 1) Proposals can take time to go through the vetting process 2) Small amounts 3) Short-term only

117. There is a need to speed up the release of 2nd installment after audit. Some ERF policy points were not mentioned in agreement like use of contingency cost needs pre-approval. This creates confusion during audit and local organizations suffer badly by deduction in last installment.

118. 1. the maximum amount of the project , may be 500.000 USD 2. the speed in the treatment of document 3. the duration of project between 3-6 months

119. The monitoring mechanism need to improve to great extent The second installment of funds was over delayed and the communication was not efficient Coordination among ERF partners needs to be in place in order to encourage the learning

120. 1. Orientation trainings for new partners regarding any new project

121. 1- fund limitation affect the interference impact. 2- Verification of data for monitoring and evaluation need more control. 3- Time limitation for implementation should more consider the circumstances.

122. source of information that can highly effect the activities long term plan and ware house availability before the emergency situation accountability, monitoring and evaluation

123. -proposal should be shorter and not necessarily include a log frame-larger sums of money made available to broader audience - not only INGOs and LNGOs-longer time frame for project implementation

124. evaluation of proposals, independent judgement, transparency

125. * The amount of support costs need to be increased because emergency projects are administratively expensive.* Clearly define an emergency.* Make the access to funds faster

126. Food security, economic and health

127. Direct response for Civil Society requests and proposals Quicker response

128. Have to engage local NGOs Make the format more user friendly When immediate need, for example water trucking - life saving activity - make sure it gets processed quickly Need a workshop to tell Heads of agency the process and have to go through the cluster to save wasting time - back and forth

129. 1. Limited funding ceilings. 2. Lengthy contractual procedures in some instances. 3. Better clarity and transparency on the criteria of selection of projects.

130. 1. Funds transfer 2. Coordination 3. Meeting with local NGOs

131. - Mechanism for disbursement- Funding- Link between ERF and national ERF


# Response

132. NIL

133. 1-Acceleration in giving approval for HRF projects, to ensure that they arrive late to aid target areas .2- There must be flexibility in the budget and not confined to a certain amount, because there are projects that need less than 25,000$, and there are projects that need more than this amount .3-Must establish emergency unit including local and international NGO's and government institute , has a budget from HRF, can implement emergency project at the same moment in which it occurs needs, for example: if there a demolition or displacement occur ,the unit can be played assistance on the same day without need to wait for several months to get the project

134. 1) In the Haitian experience the funds availability obliged to prioritize and consequently not to answer completely to the Cholera crisis. Being a contagious illness this caused more expenses in the following years.

135. 1. partner's project period should be long. In(2011), our project period was only 6 months. As the project period was short then we were struggling for giving report, doing internal monitoring and sending our external audit. 2. Need to support partner's capacity building. 3. Need to give evaluation of partner's project activities.

136. Predictability Volume of Information on mechanism for release

137. Include DRR,

138. 1. All process can be made locally/in country to simplify the procedure (OCHA with cluster consultation)2. Clusters associated to the decision (consultation)3. Sharing information about ERF in the country

139. 1. Monitoring to funds execution. 2. The funds may be able to be invested in shelters administration.

140. Make it possible and with a lighter process to request for smaller emergencies (under USD 50,000).More systematic field monitoring of projects by board members. Limit gap filling projects unless really urgent.

141. Complex mechanism Not Open to Non UN

142. slow distribution of funds in the past Limited Monitoring & evaluation Capacities

143. 1. budget horizons (limited at the most to 9 months)2. strategic use of the fund 3. better integration of its use with other funds

144. - Response/Communication time once requested amendments to budgets/projects are made - too much time delays causing overall delays in implementation of projects.- Communication with partner during but more importantly after completion of projects. I never knew who was the OCHA point of contact at the end of the project (seemed to be getting replaced every 2-4 months) and files were often lost, requiring me to have to resend documents/files to OCHA. OCHA never provided new contact names for the responsible of various files with their partners (non-UN at least).- Clearer funding mechanisms to be made available (with due dates) for on-going need project following the short-term projects during the emergency period.


25

# Response

145. Too often used for 'seed' money - but if additional funding is not found, the amounts allocated are too small Being used for underfunded crises, there is rarely any consensus as to who should get the money - often the money is split up into too many target sectors, thus not having a meaningful impact on any

146. - rules do not favor NGO involvement- rules changes at central level makes Fund inoperable and unfair- lack of funds

147. 1. Increase the ceiling of fund in the cases that needs more funds to achieve quality results 2. Make the process more easier , flexible and the process to respond shorter 3. Make funds available to respond to the emergency situations without going into the whole process which is relatively a long process

148. Allow for DRR initiatives pre-disaster Strengthen requirements for inclusion in programs especially high at-risk groups; people with disabilities etc. Consideration of technical assistance to government and possibly research and evaluations for funding in relation to DRR and emergencies. As these are needed and are often hard to fund.

149. Bureaucracy seems to be growing - with increasing 'management' from Geneva - to ensure impact this needs to be reversed with increased decentralization and devolution of responsibilities and reduced 'management' from Geneva. The fund can then be reviewed regularly in country to ensure high quality implementation

150. 1. increase the amounts made available 2. simplify the instructions/information sheet on the ERF

151. Monitoring by OCHA and partner UN agencies represented at the advisory board Field reporting

152. 1) Review process can still be made faster! 2) Higher budget ceiling

153. Timelines; don't link interventions to previous audits, need to streamline reviews. By the time the resources are available, the emergency has passed.

154. Access for grassroots organization not having capacity to write good proposals

155. - Expand the ceiling of funding - Enable UN agencies to be implementing partners- Increase the percentage of the Programme Support Cost for UN agencies or to accept their rules.

156. 1. Bureaucracy around decision making 2. Availability and accessibility by NGOs not always possible 3. No clarity on limits in comparison the magnitude of a disaster.

157. - Improvement of good coordination within ERF agencies & other NGOs in the country- Reserve some emergency funds for the relevant country in advance- Share its plan & policies with other relevant NGOs regularly

158. 1. Too many layers before finalization of proposal 2. Where English is not the common spoken language (as compared to official language), translation are needed 3. Lack of capacity of nationals (NGO/Gov.) in understanding procedures and forms etc.


# Response

159. - should not be limited only for "easy" disasters like natural phenomenon but also for violence conflicts induced disasters as it is quite frequent for Asia context - should not be limited only for relief response only (as in Indonesia context, relief is usually well contributed by the people and the public) but provide opportunity for other approach which strengthen the sustainability (capacity building, community empowerment etc.)- should be linked to other UN facilities which provide possibility for sustaining community facilitation after emergency relief response

160. 1. Timely response to emails and requests. MUCH shorter communication delays needed 2. Consistency in decisions that are made - not reversing these months later 3. Timely payment of funds - our final payment from ERF is over a year late.

161. 1. Funding size often does not match needs 2. Dis-aggregation of management is required for large countries with complex situations 3. Targeting multiple or single agencies is required in areas where security and access are difficult (if an agency is funded once in a given province, the same agency does not qualify for other areas)

162. a. The absence of the written standard on procurement (goods and human resources)b. The coordination of stakeholders (CSO, government).c. Capacity building for the CSO (partner) staff.

163. - needs retro activity in the use of funds: INGO still needs own funding to cover the first 2-4 weeks of intervention, before ERF grant can be effective.- tight budget on support costs, make it difficult to use an ERF fund as a stand alone especially in remote areas.

164. 1. Needs systems/guidelines to better support speed and flexibility, with authority for decision making at the country level. 2. Needs an overarching logframe and programme documentation either at country or global level, that all donors and users can buy into (instead of separate programme documentation for each donor).3. Sufficient resources allocated by OCHA or from the fund to undertake supportive activities including M and E, thematic evaluations, cost efficiency analysis etc.

165. Approval process needs to be much faster once the proposal is submitted. Overhead costs for INGOs need to be covered. 7% is not enough International experts full cost need to be covered.

166. 1. Winterization displacement especially IDPs 2. Flood disasters and flood victims 3. Conflict displacements on earlier response to them.

167. remove the 20% advanced take less time in paper process Bank transfer should be shorter days

168. 1. Short term funding 2. Consider funding for preparedness and mitigation 3. proposal template


27

3.1 The following statements are designed to assess ERF’s operational impact, effects and outcomes, meaning how it addresses critical unforeseen humanitarian needs in a timely and effective manner.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

ERFs have improved humanitarian response timeliness

5 (3%) 13 (7%) 40 (23%)

69 (40%)

41 (24%) 6 (3%) 174

ERFs have improved humanitarian response coverage

2 (1%) 10 (6%) 39 (22%)

81 (47%)

40 (23%) 2 (1%) 174

ERFs have improved humanitarian response flexibility

3 (2%) 11 (6%) 46 (26%)

71 (41%)

37 (21%) 6 (3%) 174

ERF funding has been directed to the highest priority areas

3 (2%) 9 (5%) 35 (20%)

71 (41%)

48 (28%) 8 (5%) 174

ERFs address evolving priority needs

3 (2%) 8 (5%) 48 (28%)

59 (34%)

51 (29%) 5 (3%) 174

ERFs enable rapid response to unforeseen needs

5 (3%) 25 (14%)

41 (23%)

65 (37%)

31 (18%) 8 (5%) 175

ERF funds do not overlap with other existing humanitarian mechanisms (e.g. CERF or MDTFs)

4 (2%) 12 (7%) 40 (23%)

51 (30%)

38 (22%) 27 (16%)

172

Evaluation and/or feedback are used to improve ERF’s identified shortcomings

7 (4%) 21 (12%)

47 (27%)

40 (23%)

26 (15%) 32 (18%)

173


1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

ERFs unearmarked funds allowed for better targeting

4 (2%) 15 (9%) 39 (23%)

53 (31%)

36 (21%) 25 (15%)

172

ERF funding contributed to filling gaps in the humanitarian response

3 (2%) 5 (3%) 29 (17%)

65 (38%)

67 (39%) 3 (2%) 172

3.2 Please indicate the value added of the ERF mechanism in the following aspects:

1-Very Low

2 3 4 5-Very High

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Improved overall humanitarian architecture

3 (2%) 10 (6%) 44 (25%)

73 (42%)

34 (20%)

9 (5%) 173

Strengthened Regional coordinator function

3 (2%) 24 (14%)

41 (24%)

42 (24%)

30 (17%)

33 (19%)

173

Strengthened Humanitarian coordinator function

3 (2%) 14 (8%) 45 (26%)

58 (34%)

42 (24%)

11 (6%) 173

Strengthened cluster cooperation

5 (3%) 17 (10%)

42 (24%)

58 (34%)

42 (24%)

9 (5%) 173

Development of effective partnerships between UN and non-UN humanitarian actors

3 (2%) 16 (9%) 33 (19%)

60 (35%)

55 (32%)

6 (3%) 173

Leveraged humanitarian financing

3 (2%) 11 (6%) 51 (29%)

52 (30%)

42 (24%)

14 (8%) 173


29

1-Very Low

2 3 4 5-Very High

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Complement to other funding streams

3 (2%) 9 (5%) 33 (19%)

68 (39%)

52 (30%)

8 (5%) 173

Size of ERFs envelopes

11 (6%)

27 (16%)

54 (31%)

33 (19%)

15 (9%) 32 (19%)

172

3.3 Do you have any additional comment on ERF operational impact, effects and outcomes of the ERF mechanism?

# Response

1. Except some delays in the approval process the fund has enabled actors to contain effects of emergencies.

2. 1. The Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian coordinators could be strengthened by using the platform created by the HRF, but have not made use of it so far, unfortunately. 2. Partnership between UN and NGOs, especially local NGOs, has suffered from a lack of fair access to those funds. 3. While the HRF helped leveraging humanitarian funds, its (mis-)use to cover for non-humanitarian needs is stretching the instrument and risking actually to endanger the humanitarian space if it becomes too politicized (by default of development funding taking more risks).

3. No

4. There is a need to open the window of time from 6 months to 12 months, at least in contexts of complex emergencies, in order to make more flexible the beneficiary targeting in such those contexts.

5. The ERF mechanism is very useful in the developing country like Myanmar where these problems are not listed for the whole process from preparation till implementation especially for emergency at the State level. FYI, there is a team without any specific funding. To my opinion, the EFR mechanism should be exercised on timely manner so it is important to advocate the role and existence of the ERF in the country so people are aware of that and will contact if necessary. Too many members of the review panel drag performance and efficiency of the ERF that act as challenge and take times to take an action in the fields. It is good to avoid the overlapping agenda with different agencies of the UN who have different agendas and themes however it is important to consider the capacity and capability of their actions. Based on my 12 years plus experience in this sector in Myanmar, the UN agencies talked more than they did but they did not want to admit that they couldn't and did not want to give space for smaller agencies such as INGO, local NGO and Local CBO who can do more and familiar with the area contexts.

6. ERF able to support the confidence of local NGO on delivering good project and its funds come from global standards and manage by UN.

7. No

8. See comments on previous questions.


# Response

9. In Zimbabwe WFP accessed ERF funding on more than one occasion and I personally question the validity of this - I do not feel that this is the purpose of ERF, to give even more funds to UN related organizations.

10. (1) ERF Encouraging other organizations and governmental organizations to work more timely(2) ERF increase community resilience to disasters

11. HRF's provision of information is excellent

12. no

13. The ERF has been an invaluable resource to our humanitarian actions in Ethiopia and, while I welcome clear global guidelines on its application, I would very much like to see it retain its critical positive features (as above) going forward.

14. the packaged system of 100,000 USD is quite enough amount but sometimes it is too small to cover the needs. Allowing us to access more than 1 packaged sometimes complicated for reporting, since each packaged has one report, financially and narrative wise

15. The Audit process is very slow, ERF should make sure to place their own Finance team in Pakistan to see overall financial matter, not from Geneva.

16. ERF has to be extended to disaster prone areas

17. That was surely a big contribution from ERF and still working for betterment of humanitarians but dont know the fully coverage

18. The effectives and transparency of the ERF depends on how well integrated the clusters are between INGO's , NGO's and UN agencies. Not every UN agency in every country is welcoming the presence of an NGO co-lead whereas this is essential to have a good understanding of the realities on the ground.

19. I notice that the cluster leads are taking the lion share of the ERF fund and contract the other actor (NGOs) in return. I think it will be good if the distributed according to the need as well as the soundness of the application.

20. - Need regular assessments - Need to be improved on the "lessons learnt" basis- In Food security matters, need to link allocation to the cropping season.

21. I think there is a need to include education cluster in the beginning. Need more funds.

22. should consider regional or global approaches with effective international NGOs who work with national NGOs

23. humanitarian aid is not only focusing on caritative response, but also strengthening capacity, community empowerment and resiliency. ERF impact is also expected to be mainstreamed also in gender balance and adjustment to vulnerable groups.

24. need to improve operational mechanisms like payment disbursements, monitoring of emergency operations

25. No thanks


31

# Response

26. It requires increased funding given the social and economic challenges faced by Zimbabwe exacerbated by erratic rains and absolute infrastructure in most urban areas that outlived is life span

27. none

28. N/A

29. Monitoring and evaluation need to be more effective. Unnecessary hurdles created in payment vis a vis the auditing process but bigger red flags went undetected.

30. Mechanism is relevant and necessary to address the humanitarian crisis in Colombia, but should improve the structure of RBM, eg baselines and results.

31. There is no lasting effect and there is no proper identification of the activities and indicators and poor communication with specialized organizations and the existence of corruption such as bribery

32. no

33. ERF has allowed the donor amornización, coordination with the local governments and with civil society organizations and international Colombian.

34. none

35. It has contributed to highlight areas that required attention and had been neglected by traditional emergency funding: especially protection of vulnerable communities in Area C in West Bank

36. no

37. I do believe that ERF funding is life-saving mechanism that is designed to address emergency response needs as quickly as possible. However, as we respond to emergency needs, whatever we do today should also avert risks in the future. Therefore, I would like to see ERF funding also supporting relief-to-development activities that reduce risks and enhance resiliency rather than just hit and run type of activities.

38. Establish funding and project implementation for regional impact of natural disasters in high-frequency zones. Example - plan for the effects of Sandy in Haiti's south, prepare for immediate response within days. Establish a permanent OCHA office in Haiti (Small staff, large warehouse).


# Response

39. a) In order to strengthen the humanitarian coordinator function, the ERF should be more robust and the role of the HC through the Advisory Board, more decisive and able to single out well-grounded and motivated priorities. b) Cluster cooperation may be strengthened, especially between central and provincial level if the ERF process is well organized and the time between the announcement of the call for proposal and the time when cluster have to submit the recommended proposals is a bit longer (the risk is to centralize too much in the interest of time)c) The size of the envelopes should be rethought, given the laborious call for proposal, screening, and recommendation process ongoing at cluster level. it is not economic to open an ERF call for all situations, all clusters, all partners if the amount is limited. Such a process can become unnecessary laborious, create expectations that the ERF cannot fulfill and eventually discourage actors to be part of the system, including cluster coordination. The smallest the funding mount, the higher the need for a strategic approach in the use of the ERF, by the HC and the Advisory Board, after consulting the clusters.

40. In oPT ERF should be able to tackle the very first moment for the big military crises that periodically affect the area

41. At least it allows local partners to be responsive to emergencies which occur at local level in a smaller magnitude.

42. no

43. No but I think that it should cover all the needs.

44. So far ERF is functioning well, but needs improvement for better performance.

45. ERF is splendid in that it facilitates sharing of knowledge and experiences amongst key stakeholders, the government, NGOs and UN

46. For operational impact, effects and outcomes, ERFs should also supporting the national coordination mechanism as DPC for the Government and PONT-SCH for the Civil Society and not only the Clusters. The availability of this fund when supporting those mechanisms will enable all the humanitarian response unit to find good leadership for the national counterparts and enable the coordination mechanisms system to reach the goal for emergency response. Also pledge must be continue that the ERFs will be accessible for national organization and that the civil Society(PONT-SCH) will always be part of the Review Board.

47. Monitoring and Evaluation has been very week in Pakistan

48. ERF operation should be important for post emergency response, impact of ERF operational should need for managing of emergency response and to decreased of disaster victim. ERF mechanism has been useful in phase of emergency response, with the ERF will be to quick decision for evacuated and to save of humanitarian victim.

49. nil


33

# Response

50. ERF more or less functioning in well better way and meet the overall objectives of the humanitarian response during any unforeseen situation and make its best efforts to respond to the prioritized emergency situation. The efforts in this context be flexibly acknowledge as because of its close coordination and cooperation with other actors responding to the situation. Overall, some of the areas need more improvement in term of orientation on policies, operating procedures, before commencement of any emergency operations.

51. NONE

52. As each organization has its own way in implementing the project, it is important to enhance the sharing of project implementation among the different organizations which work in the same sector to minimize the gaps of mechanism.

53. No

54. The ERF new guidelines will need to be reviewed further in a way to allow contextualization of some policy guidelines aligning to country specifics requirements.

55. This is a very effective mechanism of humanitarian response.

56. the ERF operational must take same importants emergency in this country

57. ERF secretariat needs to be established at provincial level or the nearest to the areas of response in order to facilitate the IPs.

58. There should be almost a quarterly meeting of partners in their respective regions or in ERF head office. Furthermore, ERF must should take initiative with partners to conduct Disaster Preparedness Trainings for reduction of losses during Natural and man-made disasters.

59. harmonize the humanitarian work

60. increase community resilience to disasters

61. see previous comments

62. NIL

63. The ERF mechanism is fair and I satisfied with it.

64. Lack of visibility of ERF envelope

65. There are very few, if none at all, incidents that really fit ERF requirements in the oPt. The tool has however been modified to make sure it works, just like the cluster system that has no real place in the oPt.

66. It is a bit hard to generalize the impact and function of different ERFs. I assume that whether a certain ERF functions well or not depends on the capability of Humanitarian Coordinator in the field.

67. As in all humanitarian finance instruments, the impact of ERF funding has to be seen in the overall funding in a given country.

68. Does not have a participatory approach


# Response

69. I agree on most of the previous statements.

70. The ERF is supported by Clusters/ Task Forces ... FAO is the Cluster Lead/ co-Chair to the DRM Agriculture Task Force. It receives no 'coordination' funding for the considerable work it does. Payments to Rome do not reach Addis - payments should be distributed therefore at the country level.

71. A useful mechanism to fall back on times of unforeseen emergencies.

72. Colombia should learn from other ERF processes globally. It is a heavy bureaucratic system that is neither timely nor transparent. Lessons learned from other OCHA coordinated programs should be incorporated in to Colombia processes.

73. No

74. The funding envelope needs to grow in a given context where natural as well as complex emergencies exist. However this might be hard with donors but objective advocacy is required with justified needs

75. We propose that the benefit of the whole approved grant could be maximized for the survivors and not to be sent back to the UN. We believe it will strengthen the good impacts of the fund.

76. The new guidelines for ERF's are widely perceived by the primary users of the Ethiopia ERF (NGOs) to be a threat to the current efficient management of the fund in that they provide for more stringent financial management regulations (such as removal of a $20,000 emergency contingency) and allocate more layers of approval and oversight to headquarters level. The actual impact of the new guidelines on the funds core functions of providing fast and flexible funding for emergency response is yet to be seen, but should be monitored closely in Ethiopia and elsewhere.

77. The size of the grant for ERF funding needs to be increased, plus faster processing time, and most of all adequate coverage of indirect costs and personal cost.

78. Yes, for sure according to my understanding if ERFs funding more focus on priorities through National Afghan NGOs instead of INGOs this will put a positive response and quick impacts on the spot.


35

4.1 The following statements are designed to capture the relative importance of ERFs in enhancing partnerships, in particular with the NGO community.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Partnerships with NGOs have increased as a result of the ERF mechanism

4 (2%) 17 (10%)

34 (20%)

53 (30%)

52 (30%) 14 (8%)

174

ERFs demonstrated an effective commitment to engaging in and promoting good partnerships

5 (3%) 23 (13%)

39 (23%)

55 (32%)

44 (25%) 7 (4%) 173

OCHA is seen as a good partner in the context of ERFs

3 (2%) 9 (5%) 35 (20%)

60 (35%)

56 (33%) 8 (5%) 171

4.2 Please identify any specific examples of enhanced partnerships as a result of ERF funding:

# Response

1. Joint assessments conducted to find out the effects of some man-made and natural emergencies are the results of these partnerships. The other example is the complimentary role played by partners to deal with emergencies of big magnitude.

2. .

3. lessens the NGO/INGO vs UN divide as far as competition for resources

4. Between our organization (FOCUS) and UNOCHA Greater dialogue with NGO partners working in the same area Partnerships at the field level i.e., with implementing partners and with District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs)

5. Humanitarian response to cholera in Haiti had a good mix of governmental and non-governmental partners working in a well-coordinated manner. The ERF and OCHA were instrumental in reaching this modus operandi

6. specific technical expertise from other staff within the agencies represented in the Board can contribute in the (technical review) with the other experts/specialists.

7. The ERF focuses on the specific agenda which helps the neediest people effectively. In our case, we utilized the humanitarian funding that included a basic development approach of building up social capital among and within the neediest people. Thus made a significant and positive result which remained within the targeted areas after the project period.


# Response

8. OCHA is the strategic and the right agency to manage the ERF. However, the good implementation and well accepted by the partner agencies also depends on the leadership performance and competence of OCHA staff in country level, especially to support and facilitate agencies to access and manage the ERF properly.

9. in District DG khan , the ERF mechanism helped in developing coordination and understanding even among the non UN funded organizations and the ERF funded organizations.

10. As a result of ERF funding, we got partnership with IOM.

11. involvement of national NGOs in implementing humanitarian work with international actors.

12. greater number of NGOs have been incorporated into the cluster's ambit, providing wider coverage and increased information sharing. This has resulted in an improved humanitarian response in an effective and coordinated manner.

13. (1) Formation of Community Disaster Preparedness(2) Formation of Disaster Risk Reduction Forum consisting of NGOs and Local Government

14. To avoid overlap of fund applications in an interventions NGOs before applying for funding will sit down together and assess the crisis and decide the better situated NGO or NGOs (in terms of operational areas, capacities, etc. to apply for funding. FAO in Ethiopia is playing great role in such coordination and this mechanism enhanced partnership,

15. Flooding in BAS Congo (Kisantu) Refugees from Angola

16. As a result of our livelihoods proposal ERF put us in contact with the Cluster lead from FAO and he was able to work quite closely with us to improve our intervention.

17. Due to ERF most of the organization comes to the platform of cluster system and it enables us to coordinate the activities with cluster

18. We work much more closely with WFP using ERF financed emergency nutrition work than we would have been able to do without.

19. ERF funding has contributed to the fact that our organisation was able to acquire more funding from other donors in the same field (shelter)

20. 1. Formation of Parent Teacher School Management Committees for better management of school affairs; 2. Coordination with district government agencies, although not very efficient at times, improved to a good extent; 3. Coordination between ERF implementing partners to avoid duplication of areas and activities;

21. through the availability of ERFs can be asses by local NGOs, more local NGOs engage with OCHA

22. No comments

23. providing shelters for most affected population

24. There is exemplary partnership especially with UNOCHA and staff of UNOCHA also build the capacity of organizations by working properly


37

# Response

25. It creates more dialogue within the cluster and certainly gives OCHA an increased interaction with the NGO's especially local NGO's. As per the ToR it strengthens the commitment to have NGO presence on peer / technical review groups and in cluster coordination

26. I think OCHA has good partnership with most if not all participating NGOs as well as donors. In Ethiopia OCHA do joint reviews for applications, joint field visits, joint evaluations...etc

27. - Too much matters are to be carried out by clusters in place of being followed/implemented by OCHA

28. Small NGOs need more funds, this will help OCHA to extend the partnership in more areas,

29. ERF accommodates with new idea based on community needs.

30. AWAZ was selected for UNDP funding after UNOCHA's ERF funding to AWAZ in 2010 Pakistan's floods

31. Most of the project that funded by the ERF are implemented in partnership by more than one local organizations .

32. Its inclusion of National Umbrella organizations to seat in its management board

33. - humanitarian donors able to engage more as a result of ERF coordination efforts.

34. NGOs partner especially National NGOs have been involved with Humanitarian activities and taking part in all Humanitarian activities, such as Humanitarian Meetings, Workshops, Training, Celebration of events, sharing of information, data and assessment reports with each other, etc

35. 1. To support partnerships in preparing proposals. 2. Information systems should be useful to build and monitor proposals.

36. For instance HRF representative took part in Wash Task Force to explain the activities that could be financed by the HRF in the WASH sector to the different NGOs

37. We get a field study project early recovery livelihoods for the displaced, but does not have any response

38. Partnerships with and capacity building of local NGOs is limited and should be strengthened through the ERFs

39. They have improved partnerships between Spanish NGODs.

40. -

41. don't know

42. ACF interventions in Gaza to face the consequences of the non-treatment of sewage pools and its inherent health risks have brought about a solid partnership with the Coastal Municipalities Water Utilities and have attracted donors attention

43. NO


# Response

44. OCHA attends emergency DRM Forums at national and Regional levels regularly and disseminates information and data widely for use by NGOs and encourages partners to submit applications targeting hotspot areas.

45. Good, but could be better; reimbursement for expenditures on a timely basis (long delays in Haiti after Earthquake); Pre-assessment of probable disaster zones based on previous experience (flooding somewhere in Haiti every year)Inter-agency coordination (emergency food distribution along with cash for work).

46. At local level complementarity between UN agencies and NGOs is achieved.

47. I will be more able to comment on the enhanced partnership after the current round of ERF proposals. However, in order to foster partnership: a) The transparency in decisions and clarity on the strategic use of the ERF is crucial, especially from the HC and the Advisory Board. When some clusters are excluded from an ERF allocation using not well-grounded motivations this can in fact be detrimental to good partnership, as it provoked disaffection and lack of trust in the humanitarian system and in the ERF. b) Timing in the disbursement process is critical to build trust in the system and consolidate partnership with NGOs on the ground, who may highly depend on these funding. c) The ERF monitoring and evaluation team led by the OCHA team needs to be well equipped with specialist skills; otherwise the risk is again a loss of confidence in the mechanisms by the NGOs recipients of the funds.

48. Reserving seats on the Board for National NGOs

49. none

50. The Convention EMF-DMA-0467-014 not only benefited from humanitarian kits to 7200 women, but generated valuable lessons in terms of strengthening community-based groups of region (eg. network of women, youth, Municipal Equipment reproductive Health), and supported strengthening inter-sectorial coordination mechanisms and institutional aid contemplated in the gender and the promotion of sexual and reproductive health

51. National NGO's should become the primary recipients of ERF resources, as international NGO's have usually their own resource mobilization instruments at home or internationally. UN agencies should not access resources at all from the ERF as they have access to the CERF, unless no other actor is better placed for delivering the expected outcomes.

52. Good coordination by OCHA for ERF funding disbursement and betterment of networking and partnership.

53. Local NGOs still face challenges in being integrated into the ERF processes because they are not at the coal face within the clusters, determination on who gets what and where starts at the cluster level. If the cluster leaders are not aware of your organization its unlikely to be funded through the ERF mechanism


39

# Response

54. ERF Funding has enhanced partnerships between OCHA and NGOs and NNGOs. The participation of PONT-SCH in the review board process has opened a door that haven't been present in Haiti since the ERF was operational. This participation is a clear message for a non exclusion of the national counterpart as NNGOs on the coordination mechanisms for funding support. The ERF mechanism will increase and promote a good partnership with NGOs if in the implementation process the INGOs is directed to proceed and have partnership with NNGOs(National NGOs) in this way the objectives of the funds will be sustainable.

55. INGOs are getting too much support from ERFs while local and national NGOs struggle to get support

56. Our project in 3 UCs of Swat

57. no applicable when the tsunami in Aceh very much lesson learn, all the institution as international NGO and Local NGO good coordination and cooperation each other.

58. Better coordination among UN actors

59. During the implementation of the ERF project Tehreek has developed a strong working relationship with the communities and these projects has also supported Tehreek in enhancing the relationship with the government line departments.

60. The electronic communication is very much appreciated while personal meetings need to be more improved to strengthen the NGO partnership while understanding each other in the context.

61. Strong Cluster engagement in the local ERF board

62. 1. encouraged joints assessments 2. encouraged government participation in all operations

63. In our experience, OCHA staff always take initiative in informing any new information about the funding, in implementation stage they also opened for discussing about any challenge in the field. In reporting, they also gave us the mentoring in composing the report to meet the guidelines.

64. Nothing to say

65. The Cluster meetings are held to discuss priority areas for funding, which enhances partnership. At the same time the involvement of NGOS, UN and Government officials on the Board displays high levels of partnership with other actors

66. The response of outbreak cholera in DRC , ERF funding managing by OCHA was improved partnerships between UN agency and same INGO , National NGO

67. The national level organizations were engaged in the response.

68. Diamer Poverty Alleviation Programme is the best example of ERF funding.

69. Defeating Tuta Absoluta and resistance of rainy storms effects on green houses at Gaza strip, these have enhanced the partnership between ESDC and OCHA and FAO as UN agencies and between ESDC and local NGOs and CBO's like cooperatives. Now ESDC is a leading Palestinian NGO in responding to emergency problems in Agriculture in both Gaza and West Bank (Occupied Palestinian Territories).


# Response

70. cluster meetings

71. Applications in consortiums encouraged.

72. 4.2.1 Formed line of disaster preparedness at the villages community level facilitated by stakeholders 4.2.2 Institutional forums established food security stakeholders in disaster prone villages

73. Specific to Ethiopia and relationship between Head of HRF funding OCHA and WASH cluster coordinator UNICEF - with reference to good Emergency Task Forces and attendance of OCHA as a funder. Trusting cluster to review proposals the ETF system

74. Sharing of experiences/approaches at cluster level and increasingly sharing of tools and undertaking of joint needs assessments.

75. UNAIDS country office established a new partnership with Youth organizations working on humanitarian field .

76. 1-Water distribution HRF project which implemented by ACF and RCSD ,there was a partnership between ACF ,RCSD ,West bank water department ,and join counsels services in Yatta and Ar-Ramadine clusters .This partnerships helps to growth the local governmental and non governmental institute ,and making building capacity for all these institute .

77. ERF has immediately responded our application which optioned for the vulnerable and most marginalized. ERF fund has really reached to the vulnerable people.

78. WHO/Unicef, difficult at the best of times

79. 1. UN Agency worked with Local NGO2.

80. On august 2010 Florencia Caquetá was affected by flooding. Due to the risks after flooding many families were highly vulnerable. With ERF's funds 72 families were attended in less than three months.

81. N/A

82. Better awareness of on-going programs, ensuring that organizations are aware of the point of contact and what each partnerships are implementing. Lack of public awareness of what is actually going on in the field - notably for small INGOs. Have specific country websites that show what's going where and by whom.

83. Can't think of any

84. 1. Enhanced partnership between ERF/OCHA and PNGO Net. 2. Enhanced partnership between NNGOs and ERF/OCHA

85. FAO is currently supporting two Consortia - one with 7 NGO partners and one with 5 NGO partners .... root and tubers and seeds. FAO is also currently supporting a third to be launched - flood response - for which it will not be an implementing partner

86. In the education sector, accessing ERF to respond to unforeseen emergencies has strengthened partnerships between communities, NGOs and UN-OCHA.


41

# Response

87. The recent ERF allocation for conflict victims in Pakistan

88. As ERF is accessible to local NGOs, it enables these NGOs to partner with bigger organizations - UN/ large INGO - in complimenting delivery of humanitarian assistance, especially in areas where international partners cannot directly operate. ERF boosts local NGOs' capacity to operate, as well as their presence/ status among humanitarian stakeholders.

89. Can't answer this question

90. - It happened several times that when an NGO was running a program in a specific area, but didn't have any fund for emergency relief where ERF partnership covered this gap.

91. - UNOCHA is more open to explore and identify possible follow up after 'relief partnership by inviting more national and local NGOs (are not exclusive only to INGOs)

92. 1. Funding gaps especially to those agencies that are strong in implementation but weak in resource mobilization are addressed. 2. National agencies are grateful to accessing badly needed funding hence grateful to ERF 3. ERF has led to effective coordination and addressing critical needs highlighted by partner organizations adding to enhanced partnership

93. We have routine forum for coordination and sharing the experiences among the areas, among the NGO, and among the cluster. NGOs could share their capacities to fill and complement other NGOs works.

94. The Ethiopia HRF relies almost entirely on the participation of NGOs in country for proposal review and broader functions. This has built a collective ownership of the fund that has guarded against the self-interest and competition of humanitarian agencies observed in pooled funding mechanisms elsewhere. More specific examples include the creation of the common CSB pipeline supported by the HRF, run by WFP and from which NGOs can draw down for programming.

95. Enabled my organization to quickly response to the needs, increase our humanitarian foot print in the country but most of all deliver much needed assistance in the most vulnerable area. Strengthened the partnership between my org and OCHA.

96. Check the Clusters' vendors or supplier in the relevant fields like an afghan national NGO is already supplier of yours clusters members should be directly register and invite in ERF all activities and involve in partnering in the relevant activities.

97. Coordination is better with other local partners.


5.1 Please rate the performance of ERFs regarding the effectiveness and transparency of ERFs processes and inputs.

1-Very Poor

2 3 4 5-Very Good

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Providing funding to address critical unforeseen humanitarian needs

5 (3%) 10 (6%) 35 (20%)

66 (38%)

51 (29%)

7 (4%) 174

Having the right balance between timeliness and quality control

8 (5%) 22 (13%)

55 (31%)

50 (29%)

31 (18%)

9 (5%) 175

Providing funding faster than other pooled funds

4 (2%) 25 (14%)

42 (24%)

52 (30%)

40 (23%)

11 (6%) 174

Managing funds transparently

7 (4%) 11 (6%) 35 (20%)

61 (35%)

54 (31%)

5 (3%) 173

Allocating funds transparently

10 (6%) 15 (9%) 36 (21%)

59 (34%)

48 (28%)

6 (3%) 174

Having the right level of resources at country level to manage ERFs

6 (3%) 20 (12%)

49 (28%)

47 (27%)

35 (20%)

16 (9%) 173


43

6.1 The following statements are designed to capture the complementarity, additionally, quality and appropriateness of funding and projects.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

There are effective procedures to ensure that recipient agencies have the capacity to implement a grant

6 (3%) 12 (7%) 47 (27%)

56 (32%)

39 (23%) 13 (8%) 173

Funded projects by ERF include a theory of change and a logical framework in their proposal

5 (3%) 15 (9%) 33 (19%)

63 (36%)

37 (21%) 20 (12%)

173

Project selection decisions are made in a participatory manner (including civil society)

6 (3%) 25 (14%)

31 (18%)

52 (30%)

43 (25%) 16 (9%) 173

ERF funded projects take into consideration needs of vulnerable groups

4 (2%) 6 (3%) 29 (17%)

60 (35%)

70 (40%) 4 (2%) 173

ERF funded projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues such as gender

4 (2%) 10 (6%) 34 (20%)

58 (34%)

58 (34%) 9 (5%) 173

ERF funded projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues such as age

6 (3%) 25 (15%)

45 (26%)

40 (23%)

38 (22%) 18 (10%)

172


6.2 Do you have any additional comments on ERF funding and project issues?

# Response

1. Lacks some clarity on what type of projects to fund and not to fund.

2. NO

3. No, we do not have access actually to the project documents.

4. No

5. I'd already discussed.

6. No

7. It is essential that ERF should continue its funding for national based organizations in rapid response.

8. no

9. The ERF board in Zimbabwe does have NGO representation but the meeting are held at very short notice and often changed making participation difficult. There is not formal report back to civil society on the process which is important to ensure accountability and participation.

10. ERF funding is used to provide additional food for the group - vulnerable groups who have not received special attention from the organization - other organizations and governments, namely: children aged under five years, pregnant women and the elderly

11. NO

12. Most of people involved with ERF and working for UNOCHA is not transparent and most have opened their own organization and they provides fund from ERF to that organization. Only 10% of the allocated funds are spent on the project and 90% goes to the pockets of the people.

13. No comments

14. NA

15. All is very nice

16. AS per section 3 the involvement of civil society depends per country and UNCT , some countries the co-leadership of the cluster by civil society (NGO's ) has been endorsed and accepted, whereas in others it is only slowly happening and with great reluctency. In the advisory board and the review board civil society is engaged, but not in every cluster

17. No

18. increase the speed of timeliness to access ERF funding

19. Project and reporting formats are confusing

20. No thanks

21. Need to build on experiences identified


45

# Response

22. none

23. ERF insists on consideration for issues such as age, gender, disability, vulnerable groups in proposals and reports but there's no such mechanism to ensure the practice is implemented on the ground.

24. My personal experience approaching ERF funds in two different countries, such as Occupied Palestinian Territory and Haiti, has shown to me that many things depends on the cluster coordinator presence, approach and capacity. Moreover where the cluster is just based in the capital, as per PaP in Haiti right now, the needs and the information coming from the stakeholders on the field are sometimes missed

25. It is necessary to implement a strategy to ensure a gender approach in all ERF proposals.

26. Again related with the participation of local NGOs. I think is important review the requirements to apply for them,

27. The project is dealing with only one network and coordination with the people and there is no communication with other local organizations and specifically the new

28. yes ERF projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues but the mechanism for holding partners accountable is very weak - a good grant writer can always include the language that ERF wants to hear but it's what happens on the ground that matters and this is where I think ERF is weak. No one is holding partners accountable.

29. We suggest strengthening the participation of public institutions and cross-cutting issues of gender and youth.

30. -

31. none

32. NO

33. UN agencies (OCHA, OIM) could establish working groups in disaster-prone countries/zones with long-established NGOs to forecast probable events and to speed the design and implementation of interventions. Field assessments of demands and resources could maintain a network of contacts with extant agencies for timely and accurate reporting of needs and to quickly plan effective responses.


# Response

34. a) In order to present effective procedures to ensure the recipient's capacity to implement a grant, cluster should be strengthened, particularly at provincial level to have good knowledge on the reality on the ground, of partners and on their past performance. ERF Secretariat shall provide evaluations from former ERF recipients to clusters. b) ERF includes a log-frame; more clarification needed on the "theory of change". c) The participatory manner in which the selection process is made depends a lot on the time left to the cluster to recommend. This cannot be a matter of few days, but at least of a week or slightly more. In this way, the technical review committee can really have all members present. d) Gender is very much at the forefront of the ERF process, but largely left to the "gender marker" evaluation, which sometimes ends up in a "formal" screening of the project (e.g. data segregation) more than in a substantial appraisal on how the project really takes gender into consideration and promotes gender. There is no explicit request to highlight gender balance in the staffing composition of the applicant, for instance. e) The ERF does not seem to take too much into consideration age and diversity. Only the protection cluster has so far demonstrated some attention to this approach (e.g. by dedicated activities in favor of older, persons with disabilities etc.), and to some extent the food security cluster (e.g. child-sensitive guidelines on Cash for Work). Yet the protection cluster was not always included in the ERF allocation (e.g. August 2012 ERF allocation in Pakistan).

35. ERF funding projects first priority should be to tackle the unforeseen emergency

36. Widen the definition of An Emergency so that initial recovery is easy.

37. no

38. No.

39. So far good performance

40. As stated before selection of projects for consideration by the ERF Board starts at the cluster level, I am not sure of the level of transparency at that level, there after selections of projects is done using agreed mechanism and system.

41. If a project is in line of the ERFs and submit to the cluster, the cluster should not consider his self as an auditor but a facilitator for all NGOs(INGOs and NNGOs).The number of the civil society representative in the participation of decisions manner should be balance from the number of the other member

42. no applicable

43. the final disbursement should be paid soon after the audit and final monitoring, so that the account payables will not occurred for a longer period of time.

44. While project designing, participatory approach is very much appreciated if given the chance and understand each other point of view to be set meet the target population and different components of the proposal.

45. other issues of importance such as disability need consideration

46. the ERF needs to look closer into project monitoring

47. I hope that ERF funding keep their existing policy.


47

# Response

48. No

49. The ERF funded projects will have and remain a good funding mechanism for the Emergency projects. OCHA need to scale up the in terms of increased funding to the ERF for addressing the increasing needs during emergency situation.

50. the template of the proposal is easy to complete

51. ERF team needs to engage the neutral members among the panel as it did during the floods 2010. This leaves little room for manipulation by the local staff to benefit their favorite organizations.

52. HRF Funded to improve food security disaster victims

53. The gender marker has to be supported prior to proposal submission by someone from OCHA ...who knows about gender and what is supposed t be the output

54. NIL

55. No

56. I cannot answer to any of the questions above.I guess that it all depends on individual fund. Furthermore, I have not seen any reports of the ERFs.

57. N/A

58. Not now

59. I agree on these statements especially the gender issue which is taken into consideration in all the approved projects

60. The local ERF Board has civil society representation.

61. No

62. pls see the response in the 1st page about improvement

63. No, most are addressed above.

64. We propose UN OCHA to deliver the better-stronger procedure to ensure the capacity of the recipient agency in implementing the grant.

65. With the implementation of the new global ERF guidelines in its infancy, it is a difficult time to be answering questions on such procedures as the impact of the new guidelines is not yet known.

66. The ERF funds in Yemen improved greatly over time. But in the beginning they were a mess. But improved over the year or so. The key issue is to have the right staff. When the staff was there things got done. But when OCHA staff got transferred things fell through the cracks.


# Response

67. As par my information I have seen more cases which are prepaid and readymade and already fixed with friends NGO in other words its all because corrupted atmosphere. It is just because of some corrupt people involve in ERF system but the ERF mechanism is a unique and an effective process in supporting the victims on time.

Please provide any other comments on ERFs that have not been addressed?

# Response

1. I think the questionnaire has addressed all the relevant issues.

2. The ERF information/manual/workshop should be take into consideration and shared with functional humanitarian NGOs and Actors in the area.

3. Overall a ERFs have made a difference within the Humanitarian response in Colombia.

4. There are some contradiction between strong emphases of addressing purely humanitarian needs by ERF and the strong demand by the application on elaborating on the long term developmental impact of the project

5. In general Sweden was instrumental in the establishment of ERF in oPt and continues to be a big supporter. ERF should be more flexible than it is now. OCHA & the HC should encourage donors to be more active in ERF's locally and the HC can play a more active role in promoting ERF. Conclusions of ERF global evaluations should be taken into consideration when adjusting global guidelines.

6. Monitoring and evaluation can be strengthened, sometimes it is not applied across the board

7. There is a gap in the planning for the ERF and its non predictability which should be addressed by inter-alia the UN HC.

8. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to participate in this survey as to share our experiences of the ERF mechanism.

9. I am sure the ERF is relevant to the Indonesia context. Thus ERF existence and the capacity should be maintained at least until the next 3 to 5 years. Though the government is increasingly better in taking leadership for responding emergency, but the gap are still there - because large country, large number of people and variety of disasters may occur at different categories - low to high categories.

10. In the end we endorse that ERF has limited funding it should be increased to cover more districts with more grant opportunities for local organizations, and avoid to give priority to INGOs.

11. ERF, while implementing through any partner, ERF cover all the gaps in the projected area

12. ERF has added a valuable services and relief services mechanism to both natural and man made disasters affected communities in Pakistan. It is requested that international humanitarian organizations/institutions should come forward to support ERF to cop the situation at national level in Pakistan. Learning and achievements from the initiatives should be replicated and consolidated to make them more effective and efficient.


49

# Response

13. No comment

14. ERF has not significantly provide capacity building for communities, NGOs and local government to continue a program of post disaster recovery and reconstruction

15. HRF has the right level of flexibility. OCHA should not try to standardize procedures, rules and regulations too much

16. NO

17. Most of UNOCHA staff involved in the ERF process have their own organizations that have no experience and recommend the proposal of that organizations and then they spent only 10% of the budget on the project activities because they are also responsible for monitoring and evaluation therefore they have no any fear. If someone have no his own organization they recommend those organization that gives 20% of the budget, and then they monitor the activities and gives clear report to ERF Secretariat.

18. I like working with ERF as they have good, decent staff 'on the ground'

19. No comments

20. NiL

21. Thank you very much for ERF and especially for the coverage of UNOCHA

22. Just to emphasize the importance of having financial guideline more acommodative as well as increasing the project duration to be 12 months to enable the actors to go for integrated emergency response.

23. Need to take into consideration pluri - annual projects to be funded by ERF

24. over all its a good opportunity.

25. ERF is an excellent instrument. It should be advanced to more countries and bring in more donors

26. measurement of specific marginal groups has not been addressed yet

27. ERFs are very effective in coordination with governments and help CSOs to build relationships

28. No more comments . thank you very much for putting your partners' opinions in consideration .

29. It is an important fund to support immediate needs whilst a much comprehensive proposal is developed. It bridges the gap between long-term funding and immediate response

30. none

31. Audits of Projects must respond quickly as the evaluation reports of audit results

32. ERF should be supported by Donors all over the year, and it should have fund available through the year for emergencies.


# Response

33. ERF is a relevant, useful and necessary strategy in a humanitarian context like Colombia. We believe it has had positive results. However, it should improve its RBM approach. OCHA should ensure that baselines are constructed, improving the reporting of results (outputs and outcomes)and shows the impacts. ERF should be a tool to help improve humanitarian coordination in Colombia that has some gaps.

34. I think the flexibility of the fund in order to support resilience activities, would be a really important step to improve the situation in these kind of countries like Ethiopia with chronic crisis. Even if the main objective of HRF is the humanitarian response, these kind of humanitarian flexible budget would be a perfect model in order to build resilience.

35. OCHA needs to realize that by having more and more guidelines with 26 annexes, they are losing the spirit of the ERF's. Of course there needs to be oversight and financial/legal oversight, but the pendulum has swung too far in the bureaucracy direction. Even the donors do not require such bureaucracy/oversight.

36. Poor communication The absence of justice in the evaluation of projects The lack of studies and identify community needs Not to deal with new organizations And there is a kind of monopoly for some organizations

37. The ERF has not been fully utiliced as a mechanism yet. There is great potential, but fund is to slow, and not strategic enough.

38. Overall ERF gets high marks but please work on monitoring and evaluations and holding partners accountable for cross-cutting issues.

39. no comments

40. We emphasize the relevance of joint missions conducted by the ERF. Suggest to improve the speed of response. Reduce the minimum of interventions.

41. -

42. none

43. Wish for a continuous dialogue with donors

44. The duality between the UN CAP and the ERF funding channels: Should ERF continue to be considered as one activity under the UN CAP or should it encompass all immediate humanitarian response proposals?

45. NO

46. I would like to see ERF strengthened in qualifies staff who can provide supportive and technical backup through regular field monitoring visits and provide feedback to reports and field visits.

47. The OCHA effort after the Haiti EQ was a very effective intervention. Many existing NGO's/INGO's have long-term field experience and can be effective on-site intervention. More preplanning is possible, and would streamline to intervention at times of need.

48. Nothing more to report.

49. Community based organizations need simpler forms of guidelines.


51

# Response

50. none

51. None.

52. There are significant discrepancies between ERFs in term of size, scope, purpose, management and procedures. The ERF should become more predictable regarding what can be expected from them through increased coherence and harmonized practice. Are ERF really used as emergency funding instruments and in an accelerated manner or are they just another source of funding to tap? Nothing prevents ERFs to be instruments of contingency planning and early action. Pre-screening of potential recipient organizations would allow to save precious time in the selection and decision-making process when immediate action is required. It is quite unfair that UN agencies have both access to CERF AND ERF, while NGOs do not have access to CERF. Significant buffer of funding is kept at the end of the fiscal year inside some ERF (Ethiopia for instance) while appeals were launched on behalf of people in need and resources granted by donors to the ERFs for meeting these needs. Should not ERF allocate all resources that were mobilized, at least before launching new appeals to donors?

53. Nothing specific

54. The ERF mechanism is good in dealing with emergencies, we hope that internal mechanisms will be developed where all partners, local and international NGOs will be aware of the back-room processes.

55. regarding the report on ERFs, the protection sector were an area that was not quite addressed, but many parameters can justify this gaps (Cholera priorities, less of funds).Also the national NGOs project were not considering for ERRF. We hope that our recommendation for the balance of participation for Civil society in the decisions making process will be effective for a good transparency and also related to the transition process engage actually in Haiti.

56. Proposal Approval process is quite systematic and well in time but during Implementation Ongoing Monitoring and Guidelines should be important part of the Project Cycle during Emergencies. Project Implementation Guidelines/Mechanisms should be the part of MOU which is previously only reflected in Proposal Writing Guidelines. After the successful implementation of the Project, Audit and Final Disbursement should be rapid also as NGOs are waiting for final disbursement for almost one and half year after the Projects Completion.

57. Great many ERF funds are very much required to meet the requirements in Pakistan as there is still is a dire need to provide basic facilities and a complete humanitarian assistance in almost all walks of life.

58. no applicable

59. Education is one of the forgotten sector during emergencies. It should be part of emergency portfolio. for e.g. it can be functional, such as life skills and prevention of GBV, DRR, etc

60. the final disbursement should be paid soon after the audit, so that the account payables will not occurred for a longer period of time


# Response

61. Given time for the proposal designing is very short which always make confusion and there is possibility of overlapping of many proposals with other small organizations and as a result quality is affected.

62. ERF is a good mechanism for responding to pop up emergencies

63. NONE

64. project implementation monitoring could be improved.

65. It is very difficult to answer many of the questions about how ERFs are managed, since this will inevitably vary in the 13 countries where they are used. It would be useful to have an annual summary report of all ERFs (not more than one page per country), showing funds received and disbursed, sectors benefiting and partners supported, and a brief assessment of impact on the situation in each country.

66. It is our first experience get funding from ERF mechanism. But it made much new improvement in our organization especially in financial procedure. Thanks to OCHA country staff that encourage us in implementing the project.

67. We do not have a strong experience with ERF.

68. ERF in Ethiopia has less focus on the Refugee caseload. It will be good for the ERF to give some special consideration for the Refugees who have huge needs in the camps even as much as it may not appear to be extremely of Emergency nature

69. this funding mechanism must take the priority to nutritional proposal

70. RDP has had really good experience with ERF funded projects. The support provided by Ms.Novera Ira was really good. The transparency of the process can be judged from the fact that we never ever meet the lady who was communicating with us and we knew no one at ERF country office. This was really encouraging in a scenario where it is thought that during the emergencies the funds are captured by having strong references at Donor agencies. We had a little issue in the release of final installment and the audit , but keeping in view the magnitude of work it was quite fine. The final suggestion is that there should be a provision at ERF to have partners already identified and signed MOUs with to respond during a possible emergency in future. This pre positioning of IPs will save lots of operational delays during a humanitarian situation.

71. The completion period must be inline with the area, weather conditions and type of project.

72. I recommend that ERFs fund and timeline to be more fit to emergency cases (case by case) and not to be fixed.

73. ERF Funding should be considered to strengthen community food system as part of disaster risk reduction and enhance community resilience for disasters

74. HRF need to look at the emergency cycle - mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. In Ethiopia OCHA HRF needs to look at mitigation as in DRR - related to Cholera and Drought- obviously there needs to be fund for response, but mitigation is cheaper that response related water trucking

75. UNOCHA should consider inclusiveness all the Local NGO in Humanitarian aids.


53

# Response

76. NIL

77. HRF must be work on needs and mobilize relief anticipated and not just wait until the a disaster or need occur.

78. In the future ERF should visit to each local partner's office in order to strengthen their capacity building. Thank you very very much.

79. RAS

80. Civil society and local governments thank the ERF support. The solutions handed over are according to sphere project.

81. N/A

82. ERF management at central level is not very straightforward

83. I believe that ERF should continue in the most deprived areas especially in area C and Gaza Strip due to the needs and the priorities also due to the great success of the interventions.

84. The adoption of a resilience-building lens would be useful. Also more inter-sectorial collaboration - peer review.... as some interventions in WASH may undermine livelihoods in for example pastoral areas. A resilience-building lens might help to reduce this problem ...

85. For the past few years in Zimbabwe the ERF has supported emergency humanitarian response especially on unforeseen emergencies.

86. NA

87. OCHA Colombia can vastly improve on its administration of ERF resources and the timeliness of response.

88. No additional comments

89. - I want ERF to be more and more active in the areas where the people are vulnerable and they are in high need.

90. please refer to response on the 1st page re improvement

91. I am very disappointed with the administrative delays there have been regarding the management of ERF in Pakistan. Sometimes there was no reply for months. When decisions were made in communication with UNOCHA staff on the ground these were undermined much later, after the decisions had been implemented, by edicts from Europe, who had failed to give timely input. funds are still owed by ERF to our INGO over a year after the end of the project.

92. It will be better for the survivors if the fund could also cover the capacity building for the survivors (including the capacity related with disaster risk reduction). We also appreciate the policy of UN OCHA to allow the partners to implement the SOP which exist in the organization while the UN OCHA doesn't have the necessary SOP.


# Response

93. The ERF Funding Mechanism is not well known with our country teams. In preparing this survey I checked with most of them on the issue. The main reason for this is a) the complexity of UN funding mechanisms in general with different instruments and procedures and b) the fact that if we acquire UN Funds it is often not transparent to us as to where the money comes from. (CERF or other...) We think more transparency and more streamlined funding mechanisms would be a great improvement.

94. More attention is required to the question of whether ERF's offer, and strive to achieve, value for money in humanitarian operations.

95. Need to have high quality OCHA staff on the ground from the very start and they need to be kept not transferred mid way. Good and competent OCHA colleagues result in effective utilization and implementation of ERF funds.

96. 1. Maintain a simple mechanism which will be in access of all those potential having NGOs who can transparently working for their communities, evaluate and strictly monitor the awarding grants or funding process to current NGOs as on which basis they are funding through ERFs. There are much but can be illustrating in details, it just a knock on a door where corruption is on the top in project awarding process because of some bad people not the whole system.

97. UNOCHA is helpful for assisting the Kachin conflict and assisting the advocacy work with the National authority and the armed groups in the ground.


55

A p p e n d i x I I I n t e r n a l S u r v e y S u m m a r y

R e p o r t

1.1 What country are you currently working in?


Afghanistan 3% 2

Belgium 2% 1

Colombia 3% 2

Congo, Democratic Republic 3% 2

Ethiopia 2% 1

Haiti 3% 2

Indonesia 3% 2

Kenya 2% 1

Mali 2% 1

Pakistan 7% 4

Switzerland 19% 11

Thailand 2% 1

United States 39% 23

Yemen 2% 1

Zimbabwe 3% 2

Occupied Palestinian Territory 5% 3

Total Responses 59

1.2 Are you


Male 53% 31

Female 47% 28

Total Responses 59


1.3 What is your current function?


HQ level personnel of OCHA (Geneva or New York City)

56% 33

Country or regional level personnel of OCHA

41% 24


Total Responses 59

1.3 What is your current function? (Other, please specify:)

# Response

1. BLO Deputy Head

1.4 How would you describe yourself?


I am a manager or supervisor 39% 23

I am a technical analyst / subject matter specialist

41% 24

I am an administrative / financial management specialist

7% 4


Total Responses 59

1.4 How would you describe yourself? (Other, please specify:)

# Response

1. Associate Humanitarian Affairs Officer

2. Finance Assistant

3. Humanitarian Affairs Officer

4. HR

5. ERF National Officer

6. HAO/Desk Officer


57

# Response

7. Administrative Assistant

8. HRF Assistant

1.5 For what type of emergency/ies have you had dealings with ERFs?


Natural disaster 83% 49

Armed conflict 61% 36


Total Responses 59

1.5 For what type of emergency/ies have you had dealings with ERFs? (Other, please specify:)

# Response

1. Drought, Floods, Cholera Outbreak

2. consequences of armed conflict and natural disaster coupled to weak development of infrastructures

3. experience from HQ perspective

4.

5. Complex emergency

6. None

7. both of the above

8. All types

9. Occupation

10. Political

11. unforeseen Humanitarian emergencies


1.6 Describe the level of knowledge and understanding of the policies and procedures of the ERF


Fully aware and understand them 64% 38

Aware of them but do not fully understand them

17% 10

Aware of them with basic understanding

17% 10

Not aware at all 2% 1

Total Responses 59

Do you have any other comments on ERFs that have not been addressed?


Yes 0% 0

No 100% 1

Total Responses 1

2.1 Can you please list the three (3) most important ERF strengths?

# Response

1. 1. In-country presence and local knowledge of the staff 2. Transparent and participatory decision-making and allocation process 3. NGOs, including national partners, have access to ERF funding

2. Speed Flexibility Appropriate response

3. 1. Fast Disbursements 2. Good Cash flow available 3. Good impact on affected populations

4. 123

5. - ERF funding process is simple as it involved only OCHA as MA and AA compare to CHF funding process which involved UNDP as MA and AA.- ERF funding are accessible et flexible resources for NGOs as stated in the global and country level guidelines.- ERF can be used for small emergencies rather than CHF. Therefore ERF allows to finance project for less than $250,000 while CHF can not go beyond $250.000.-

6. a. Open wider opportunity for national NGOs to access international funds, and contribute to their capacity building b. Flexible and relatively quick funds c. Complement other funding mechanism (CERF & Appeal)

7. - Quick response to urgent humanitarian needs- Availability of funds- Flexibility


59

# Response

8. 1. Flexibility: implementing partners can be UN and non-UN (national and international); activities can range from preparedness to early recovery (though the main focus is always emergency response); the duration and size of projects can vary; projects can start and end without being bound to fiscal years or funding rounds. 2. Proximity between funding decisions and humanitarian needs: under the leadership of the HC and with general support from OCHA Country Offices, decisions are more directly linked to the reality on the ground. 3. Enhanced humanitarian coordination system: particularly in non-CAP countries, ERFs strengthen existing coordination mechanisms (clusters or sector groups) and extend partnerships with the broader in-country humanitarian community.

9. Flexibility availability of funds quick response to identified needs

10. Availability of funds locally Knowledgeable project reviews Focus on NGOs

11. 1. Initiated life-saving humanitarian activities that reduced acute vulnerability and human suffering during and in the aftermath of man-made crises and natural disasters. 2. Filled critical gaps and enabled humanitarian partners to meet the short-term emergency needs of vulnerable communities. 3. Provided timely and flexible funding for relief activities after disaster to reduce acute vulnerabilities.

12. 1) Reinforces in country coordination structures 2) Empowers the HCT in setting and funding priority areas 3) Strengthens HC leadership and autonomy

13. * rapid allocation of funds to initiate emergency response* NGO access to pooled funding given they are unable to access CERF funds* field-based decision-making process

14. Quick response to new needs Relatively light procedures Accessibility to national NGOs

15. Support timely response to sudden-onset needs Pooled fund available to NGO partners Predictaility of response

16. quick funding; gap filling; NGO accessibility/support

17. Funding priorities decided at country level. Direct funding to NGOs. Useful tool to support leadership role of the Humanitarian Coordinator.

18. - Allows for rapid disbursal of funds- Funds local NGOs- Ensures funding is done in line with commonly agreed priorities and based on needs

19. Flexibility under the control of the local UN rapid

20. ERF strengthens the early response/action and support the humanitarian relieve.

21. Supposed to be fast Supports NGOs Flexible

22. 1. saving lives 2. provide rapid and flexible funding to in- country actors to address unforeseen humanitarian needs 2. to fill the gaps when Government aids still in the process, or Government response did not cover some affected area

23. - Pooled funds ready for disbursement on onset of emergency.-

24. Rapid Response to humanitarian situation Routed through Clusters Flexible funding mechanism


# Response

25. - Non-earmarking of resources makes it flexible.- It disburses funds faster than traditional funding mechanisms- All decisions are made at country level which makes funded interventions relevant.

26. Timely response to emergencies used as gap filling Very flexible as it is un-earmarked.

27. Flexibility, transparent and strengthen coordination

28. 1- easy to access for NGOs 2- in the field close to the implementers 3- Rapid , few layers of vetting

29. Focus on NGOs. Ability to leverage coordination. Flexibility.

30. 1. Fills important financing gap that traditional donors cannot cover in cases of unforeseen but small-scale disasters 2. Supports and empowers HC and HCT, thereby supporting coordinated humanitarian action. 3. Most funds go to NNGOs, contributing to local capacity building

31. Speed. Readiness. NGO support.

32. 1) Gap-filler; 2) funding to NGOs; 3) Often the only funding source for humanitarian response in-country

33. Selection by a panel led by the HC of projects to be funded. Coordination with humanitarian priorities as defined by UN Country Team.

34. 1. Provide available funds to respond fast to sudden emergencies in the onset of the crisis .2. To cover unexpected humanitarian needs caused by natural disasters and violence in a more timely manner. 3. Strengthening coordination mechanisms for response at regional level, encouraging CBO to provide humanitarian assistance with minimum standards.

35. Funding for projects that need urgent cash support Open to UN and national and international NGOs Advisory board that includes donors and NGOs

36. decisions are made at the country level where needs are known best builds and strengthens partnership readily available funding that can be coordinated by the HC for unforeseen events

37. Flexibility, inclusivity and prioritization.

38. - Disbursements can be channeled directly to international and national NGOs.- Fills gaps that other funding mechanisms cannot fill.

39. Funds are available in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and can also be made available after the initial aftermath and or for early recovery

40. - Allow small donors to put money into emergencies without needing to consider how to prioritize the allocation below country level- Give some teeth to HC-led coordination and prioritization efforts- In principle allow rapid response to changing needs

41. 1) To support rapid response needed at the onset of emergencies before mainstream responses come online 2)To strategically fill gaps in funding or within a cluster response plan. 3)High level of coordination through HRF and UN agencies, INGOs, NNGOs, clusters coordinators and OCHA field offices.


61

# Response

42. 1. ERF can be used as a coordination tool i.e. by strengthening the link between coordination priorities and funding decisions. 2. ERFs can be used to facilitate rapid response to disasters 3. ERFs can be used to fill critical gaps in humanitarian response.

43. Inclusive (accessible to NGO)Speed Decisions taken close to the point of delivery

44. (1) Timeliness(2) Flexibility(3) Partnerships

2.2 Can you please list three (3) ERF areas for improvements?

# Response

1. 1. Improve the complex application and selection process 2. Shorten and simplify the procedure of approving and transferring funds 3. Streamline audit process and fasten project closure

2. M&E Project close out speed Inability to hold funds for immediate deployment (The ERF was previously able to place funds strategically that could be deployed within hours in the case of sudden onset situations).

3. 1. Poor screening of NGOs at Field Level 2. Poor reporting by UN Agencies and NGOs. 3. Lack of coordination between the three main OCHA Sections: 1. FCS NY 2. ERF Finance GVA and 3. ERF Field.

4. 123

5. - ERF procedures are very heavy. It should be improved to really reflect the need to have an emergency humanitarian response within a week or less. There are too many stakeholders consulted or involved. This prevents to the need to response urgently when an emergency is declared. - The administrative and financial management of the ERF should relocated at country level, in addition to the programmatic side, to really expect having a dedicate, quick, and prompt humanitarian response to face emergencies.- Endorsement or approval of ERF projects and signature of agreement or MoU could be delegated to OCHA HoO rather than to HC to accelerate ERF capacity to response to emergencies.

6. a. Donor relations and fund raising b. Finance and administration process at ASB Geneva c. A more shorter/simpler proposal review process

7. - Analyze of audit report by Administrative and Finance office Geneva- Monitoring of projects: recruitment of M&E specialist (ERRF managers are often HAO without M&E capacities)- Review Board: to reduce the composition to a maximum of 5 members (3 external members and 2 OCHA staffs) aimed to be quick in taking decision

8. 1. Timeliness of administrative processes: preparation and approval of agreements between OCHA and implementing partners, as well as upfront and final disbursements, need to be quicker. 2. Management system: most of the management is done relying on manual processes. There is a need for a stand alone system and database capable of supporting the management of whole project cycle without loss or waste of data. This will also mitigate risks related to the poor management of ERFs. 3. Monitoring and reporting: better standards and tools are needed to ensure proper monitoring and quality of reporting at the country and global levels.


# Response

9. audit projects once they have ended; receive feedback from Geneva when sending a mail; monitoring projects

10. Rapidity: Funds are not approved not disbursed very rapidly. Multitude of actors involved to ensure accountable project review sometimes requires lengthy processes. Fundraising Monitoring

11. 1. Access obstacles to implementation and monitoring; the task of monitoring projects has in many instances become a heavy burden on OCHA country offices. 2. Delay in decision-making process and fund disbursement; the review of the project should take place closest to its implementation, and only one level of review could be the norm. 3. Low Capacity of local NGOs in proposal developing and reporting while have good implementation capacity considering the access to the remote and insecure areas.

12. * OCHA internal processes - too many OCHA offices deal with some aspect of ERFs. There are at least four different OCHA branches--each under a different branch director--involved in ERFs. When one branch needs something, they don't have authority over another branch to make it happen. For example, reporting back to donors. Donor Relations needs to report back to donors, but needs support from field office, CRD and Administrative Office to do so. * OCHA is bound to UN Secretariat financial rules and regulations thus requiring proposal budgets and reporting to follow these guidelines, some of which do not work for humanitarian situations or NGO and/or UN agency budgeting. This is also a problem with the CERF but at least the CERF only deals with this with UN agencies and not with NGOs.* OCHA needs to abide by internal guidelines on when to establish an ERF and not be swayed by donors and the potential funding. Syria ERF is a case in point. OCHA claimed exceptional circumstances when, in fact, it just looks like they caved to donors, politics and money.

13. Need faster processing to get money into hands of recipients More systematic monitoring

14. Build awareness and confidence of donors and partners in use of the fund. Ensure integrity of review and award procedures Ensure compliance with timelines from initiation to completion.

15. coherence across funds; speed of establishment; clarity of regulations

16. Public information strategic resource mobilization monitoring and reporting at all levels, and both narrative and financial

17. - Speed of disbursal of funds - Accountability- Ensuring funding goes to projects that are in line with priorities

18. no idea

19. some new ERF Guidelines are difficult to implement into practice best practice based on procedures clear instructions need to be given before implementation

20. Not aware of ERF details/mechanism.

21. Can be faster Decentralization Audits


63

# Response

22. 1. ERF need to improve to response in disaster education/preparedness, this time we have limitation to response on emergency situation only. 2. resources person --> training to improve/refresh/gain more knowledge (sharing knowledge) so HQ, CO could have the same picture. 3. share experience with other CO, which have advanced programme in ERF

23. - More Decentralization is required to make it more responsive.- Funds transfer should be in more than two installments.- There is discrepancy between MoU and the guidelines. Moreover, ERF has very rigid guidelines which should not be the case in emergency situation. Projects are initiated when emergency phase is over.- Too much dependency on clusters for project submission , review etc. but voersight lies only with ERF and cluster has no accountability.

24. ERF Global Guidelines Staff Capacity Building and focus on Cross Learning Decentralization of Administrative Control at Country Level

25. - Creation of systems to make partners accountable especially on return of unspent balances.- Training of staff so that they can ensure quality of implemented projects.- Inadequate staffing- OCHA should dedicate adequate staffing to run the ERFs effectively.

26. Quicken the fund disbursements Improve monitoring and evaluation Improve information dissemination particularly to national NGOs who have limited knowledge about ERF.

27. monitoring and prioritization of need

28. 1- Responsiveness - time between the needs assessment and disbursement of fund is very long. 2- Too much paperwork especially for amendments. 3- Cluster coordinators ( and not clusters themselves) have veto on the projects

29. Lack of administrative speed makes it a NON-emergency fund. Poor admin exposes OCHA to widespread criticism. Official project approval procedures are often skirted.

30. 1. Timeliness in disbursing funds at beginning and end of projects 2. Flexibility of financial and admin support systems 3. Risk management and sharing, specifically with regards to audits requirements.

31. Admin procedures. Life-saving criteria can be eased.

32. 1) Timeliness; 2) M&E; 3) quality of information

33. speed of processing of grant applications

34. 1. Administrative process for closure of the projects could be long. 2. Lack of financial capacity of CBO (Local NGO)might represent a constraint to access funds for humanitarian response for them. 3. The administrative assessments for NGO should be a periodically process, not only at the moment of project presentation.

35. Slow transfer of funds Lack of clarity of the use of an ERF in a protracted emergency or transition situation Overall impact monitoring because of disparate types of projects

36. faster disbursements to implementing partners, especially closure of projects monitoring audits

37. Timely transfer of funds Monitoring Accountability


# Response

38. - Speedier disbursements, including to vetted national NGOs.- independent auditing requirements should be relaxed.

39. More visibility, more stories on how they are used, maybe a fact sheet for ERFs

40. - We market as fast flexible and accountable, but we fall short on all three- We have been v unclear on cumulative overheads, need better transparency- Would be better for FCS and ASB to be co-located

41. 1)a lot of procedures are required for project time extension or amendment to the project which consume a lot of time and delay the response(The approval of cluster, review board, and HC is required for the mentioned amendments)2)The flexibility of HQ when they are dealing with different requests, specially when some comments will not make big difference but will affect on the delay of response. 3)More privileges should be given at the level of OCHA office.

42. 1. ERF does not have a financial framework to facilitate retroactive payment of funds incase funds have been used before an MoU is signed. 2. The ERF should explore the opportunity to increase its project implementation period (currently between 2 - 6 months) in order to facilitate response to chronic vulnerability in a longer term way. 3. Quality Monitoring and Reporting can be improved with reference to a global Monitoring Framework that is yet to be developed.

43. Consistency between different ERFs Administrative management Monitoring

44. (1) Timeliness(2) Consistency(3) Independent (from donor influences)


65

3.1 The following statements are designed to assess ERF’s operational impact, effects and outcomes, meaning how it addresses critical unforeseen humanitarian needs in a timely and effective manner.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

ERFs have improved OCHA’s humanitarian response timeliness

0 (0%) 2 (4%) 9 (19%) 17 (35%)

16 (33%) 4 (8%) 48

ERFs have improved OCHA’s humanitarian response coverage

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 11 (23%)

14 (29%)

20 (42%) 3 (6%) 48

ERFs have improved OCHA’s humanitarian response flexibility

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 5 (10%) 21 (44%)

19 (40%) 2 (4%) 48

ERF funding has been directed to the highest priority areas

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 19 (40%)

18 (38%) 4 (8%) 48

ERFs address evolving priority needs

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 9 (19%) 16 (34%)

18 (38%) 3 (6%) 47

ERFs enable rapid response to unforeseen needs

1 (2%) 4 (8%) 6 (12%) 15 (31%)

22 (46%) 0 (0%) 48

ERF funds do not overlap with other existing humanitarian mechanisms (e.g. CERF or MDTFs)

0 (0%) 3 (6%) 10 (21%)

12 (25%)

19 (40%) 4 (8%) 48

Learning from evaluation is used to improve ERF’s identified shortcomings

0 (0%) 3 (6%) 7 (15%) 10 (21%)

16 (33%) 12 (25%)

48


1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

ERFs unearmarked funds allowed for better targeting

0 (0%) 2 (4%) 7 (15%) 17 (35%)

19 (40%) 3 (6%) 48

ERF funding contributed to filling gaps in the overall humanitarian response

1 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 22 (47%)

19 (40%) 1 (2%) 47

3.2 Please indicate the value added of the ERF mechanism in the following aspects

1-Very Low

2 3 4 5-Very High

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Improved overall humanitarian architecture

1 (2%) 2 (4%) 6 (12%) 20 (42%)

16 (33%)

3 (6%) 48

Strengthened Regional coordinator function

3 (6%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 16 (33%)

5 (10%) 15 (31%)

48

Strengthened Humanitarian coordinator function

0 (0%) 2 (4%) 4 (8%) 21 (44%)

19 (40%)

2 (4%) 48

Improved Cluster cooperation

1 (2%) 2 (4%) 8 (17%) 15 (31%)

18 (38%)

4 (8%) 48

Development of effective partnerships between UN and non-UN humanitarian actors

1 (2%) 1 (2%) 7 (15%) 15 (31%)

18 (38%)

6 (12%) 48

Leveraged humanitarian financing

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (12%) 20 (42%)

19 (40%)

3 (6%) 48

Complement to other funding streams

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 8 (17%) 19 (40%)

18 (38%)

2 (4%) 48


67

1-Very Low

2 3 4 5-Very High

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Size of ERFs envelopes

1 (2%) 4 (8%) 9 (19%) 12 (25%)

9 (19%) 13 (27%)

48

3.3 Do you have any additional comment on ERF operational impact, effects and outcomes of the ERF mechanism?

# Response

1. The better an ERF is funded, the more added value comes with it. Improved coordination and cooperation only result out of a well-funded ERF, that serves as an incentive for clusters and partners and can actively involve in the overall humanitarian response. Smaller ERFs fulfill only few of the added value aspects, however, even a small ERF can be used to fill gaps and better target humanitarian response.

2. In DRC, we developed the country level guidelines for ERF taking into account the availability or other funding resources particularly CHF resources. Therefore, the DRC humanitarian funding context is very different compared to other ERF worldwide. The ERF has been tailored to be a additional funding window to the CHF and other existing humanitarian resources. This is why the ERF is reserved for small-scale emergencies compared to the CHF which is reserve for large-scale emergencies.

3. In regards to humanitarian need in Haiti and the level of funding (humanitarian and development), It would be better to keep a sufficient envelope to respond to emergencies (natural disasters, need of IDPs, food insecurity,...).

4. The question on the "Regional coordinator" is not clear. ERFs do not follow the logic of envelopes and the last question is thus not clear. I selected the "Do not know" option for these reasons. Otherwise, I would add that ERFs often enable reaching neglected communities/groups that may not attract a lot of attention because their needs stem from a small-scale emergencies that are usually overlooked.

5. ERFs should focus on NGOs and not on UN agencies as has been the case in some ERFs.

6. Many submitted projects are addressing chronic problems like poverty; application for shelter rehabilitation & construction is the most common while shelter construction is the most expensive response; and most applications are not supported by any joint assessment missions or evidences.

7. Whilst the potential is clear, realizing that potential requires a very constant focus.

8. The size of most ERFs has been very small and you wonder whether they can make the desired impact in this way. ERFs should be supported by a broader donor base, not only a few traditional donors, and outside the high-visibility emergencies. The costs of an effective ERF management needs to be broadly defined so that donors are aware that the funds cannot go below a certain size.

9. no

10. No


# Response

11. Needs to be decentralized to be more effective

12. Timeliness of the projects are in-dispensable for emergency response and ERF needs to improve on its time lines.- Payments should be more linked to the achievement of deliverables not only the audit report.

13. No.

14. ERF have also enhanced OCHA coordination function as coordination is very abstract and soft yet ERFs have brought in tangible outcomes.

15. I would like to highlight the importance of ERF to strengthen coordination and support alliances with humanitarian partner.

16. No.

17. The first three questions in section 3.1 are badly worded. ERFs do not improve the response of OCHA, but of the humanitarian system.

18. It is quite important to have an ERF that can provide further humanitarian funding to cover unexpected humanitarian needs in the most isolated regions of the country, entitle small NGOs and INGO to provide assistance in a rapid manner and with minimum humanitarian standards. The ERF is key to implement the core values of humanitarian reform at field level.

19. The ERF is an excellent tool in the oPt to encourage participation by NNGOs in humanitarian work.

20. ERFs are most effective when they are of a certain size, at least above $5 million

21. Unfortunately, currently the ERF process is not sufficiently rapid to response to the types of sudden onset emergencies in our context of DRC. Would be more useful for ERF to be further decentralized, giving more autonomy to the country-level offices to enable more rapid distribution of funds for emergencies.

22. - Should consider ERF for Sahel type crises where smaller donors really don't know where to prioritize their allocations


69

4.1 The following statements are designed to capture the relative importance of ERFs in enhancing partnerships, in particular with the NGO community.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Partnerships with NGOs have increased as a result of the ERF mechanism

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 12 (25%)

22 (46%) 7 (15%) 48

ERFs demonstrated an effective commitment to engaging in and promoting good partnerships

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 10 (21%)

12 (25%)

20 (42%) 5 (10%) 48

OCHA is seen as a good partner in the context of ERFs

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (21%)

18 (38%)

19 (40%) 1 (2%) 48

4.2 Please identify any specific examples of enhanced partnerships as a result of ERF funding

# Response

1. Eg. By linking livelihoods support to locations affected by chronic occurrence of acute malnutrition the ERF has fostered cooperation and coordination between the Agriculture and Nutrition Task forces.

2. With ERF, OCHA has been able to response to cholera outbreak in Equateur province by funding 4 small-scale projects through the ERF with the advocacy made by our OCHA colleagues of Equateur field office with the technical guidance of the national cholera task force (including UN agency, international NGO and national NGO). Of the 4 projects approved for funding, 3 are implemented by national NGO and 1 by an international NGO with oversight of the provincial cluster WASH.

3. The ERF in Pakistan allocated nearly 60% of the funds to national NGOs and involves representations from the national NGO in the Advisory Board and Review Board. ERF Pakistan is also conducting workshop for national NGOs to understand ERF process and teach them to prepare proposal, budget and report.

4. The wash cluster was very involved in monitoring activities of the sector(when ERRF has fund available yet).

5. When a project is submitted to ERF, the ERF Manager sends it to the relevant cluster for comments.


# Response

6. During the past three years, OCHA maintained partnership with 10 national and 11 international NGOs through support of 40 emergency projects with total allocated fund of 10.6 million USD.

7. I think that the ERF's ability to strengthen partnerships depends on the HC's approach.

8. Globally the amount of funding allocated to NGOs has increased substantively (almost 75% of total allocations in the last two years), with some ERFs exclusively funding NGOs. Various ERF Fund Managers conduct periodic workshops for ERF applicants, targeting NGOs.

9. none

10. N/A

11. Yes by ERF, the coordination really means something, and we have all system (clusters, NGOs, Government) in placed.

12. - Over a period of two years, ERF Pakistan has funded 144 projects to more than 100 NGOs/INGOs. This has resulted in development of long term progressive linkages with the NGOs facilitating coordination mechanism as well.

13. The level of partnership with ERF partners is at very initial stage due to the short timeline of project life. There is need to introduce the partnership principles and tracking tools to measure the level of commitment and mutual partnership.

14. - The ERF Advisory Board has representation form national and international NGOs as well as the UN. Also, the charter (guidelines) were reviewed a number of times to ensure equal partnership. Therefore the partners in Zimbabwe embrace the ERF as they are treated as equals with the UN agencies when it comes to accessing resources

15. Partnerships in selecting priority areas for funding with the participation of NGOs and UN agencies for a common good.

16. More cooperation between National and International NGOs is witnessed, National, international NGOs and UN agencies all feel that they have equal opportunity to use the fund. National NGOs in particular feels appreciated which increase its involvement and commencements in the cluster approach

17. Some key INGOs have came to the country without having immediate resources and ERF has allowed them to started up operations

18. N/A

19. 1. Health sector: Partnership between CBO COCOMACIA and WHO to provide humanitarian assistance to communities affected by floods in Chocó.

20. Vastly increased engagement by Palestinian NGOs in ERF applications and in humanitarian work.

21. ERF partnerships extend to national NGOs. They also promote National-International partnership as well as UN-NGO partnership.

22. During 2012, 9 projects out of 21 were implemented through a partnership between NNGOs and INGOs.


71

# Response

23. Enhanced partnerships noted with local and grassroots organizations that do not normally receive mainstream donor funding.


5.1 Please rate the performance of ERFs regarding the effectiveness and transparency of ERFs processes and inputs.

1-Very Poor

2 3 4 5-Very Good

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Providing funding to address critical unforeseen humanitarian needs

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (15%) 21 (46%)

17 (37%)

1 (2%) 46

Applying quality control mechanisms

2 (4%) 5 (11%) 16 (35%)

13 (28%)

7 (15%) 3 (7%) 46

Having the right balance between timeliness and quality control

2 (4%) 6 (13%) 22 (49%)

8 (18%) 4 (9%) 3 (7%) 45

Providing funding faster than other pooled funds

2 (4%) 6 (13%) 11 (24%)

11 (24%)

8 (18%) 7 (16%) 45

Managing funds transparently

1 (2%) 0 (0%) 7 (16%) 20 (44%)

14 (31%)

3 (7%) 45

Allocating funds transparently

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 6 (13%) 21 (47%)

16 (36%)

1 (2%) 45

Distributing funds transparently

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (20%) 19 (42%)

15 (33%)

2 (4%) 45

Liaising with donors

2 (4%) 4 (9%) 11 (24%)

11 (24%)

14 (31%)

3 (7%) 45

Engaging with headquarters stakeholders

1 (2%) 2 (5%) 11 (25%)

15 (34%)

10 (23%)

5 (11%) 44

Engaging with country level stakeholders

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 19 (42%)

15 (33%)

7 (16%) 45

Having the right level of resources at HQ level to manage ERFs adequately

2 (5%) 8 (18%) 13 (30%)

13 (30%)

3 (7%) 5 (11%) 44

Having the right level of resources at country level to manage ERFs adequately

5 (11%) 9 (20%) 13 (29%)

11 (24%)

4 (9%) 3 (7%) 45


73

1-Very Poor

2 3 4 5-Very Good

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Managing individual ERFs

2 (5%) 1 (2%) 10 (23%)

14 (32%)

7 (16%) 10 (23%)

44

Charging appropriate indirect programme support costs

2 (4%) 3 (7%) 13 (29%)

12 (27%)

6 (13%) 9 (20%) 45

5.2 In 2009, OCHA created a Funding and Coordination Section (FCS) to oversee funding mechanisms such as ERFs and to provide technical advice and support to OCHA at the country level in the development of policy and procedure relating to funding mechanisms. The following questions examine the role of FCS in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ERFs.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

The FCS is effective at overseeing ERFs

1 (2%) 3 (7%) 11 (24%)

16 (36%)

9 (20%) 5 (11%) 45

The FCS provides valuable technical advice and support at the country level in the development of ERF procedures

0 (0%) 4 (9%) 8 (18%) 18 (40%)

10 (22%) 5 (11%) 45

The FCS provides valuable technical advice and support at the country level in the development of ERF policies

0 (0%) 1 (2%) 9 (20%) 19 (42%)

11 (24%) 5 (11%) 45

Support from the Administrative Office (AO) is effective

3 (7%) 11 (24%)

8 (18%) 13 (29%)

5 (11%) 5 (11%) 45


1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

There are clear roles and responsibilities between the FCS and other administrative units within OCHA

5 (11%) 9 (20%) 4 (9%) 14 (31%)

7 (16%) 6 (13%) 45

There are clear roles and responsibilities between the FCS and Humanitarian coordinators

2 (4%) 6 (13%) 6 (13%) 8 (18%) 10 (22%) 13 (29%)

45

There are clear roles and responsibilities between the FCS and in-country ERF advisory boards

4 (9%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 10 (22%)

11 (24%) 11 (24%)

45

There are clear roles and responsibilities between the FCS and clusters

3 (7%) 6 (13%) 4 (9%) 9 (20%) 11 (24%) 12 (27%)

45

5.3 Please identify any areas of FCS’s strengths and weaknesses

# Response

1. Genuine efforts to understand and support Lack of field experience in FCS Balance not yet achieved between demands made and services provided

2. Not easy to identify an area of weakness within FCS. Instead, I have advice for FCS in the sense that FCS should be dedicated adequate and sufficient resources to undertake on regular basis field mission to visit ERF unit worldwide. This will help at enhancing the quality of the oversight from NY and better understand the support expected by ERF unit at country level.

3. FCS should have staff with strong experience in managing ERF in the field, so they know how to support the field. They should be a client orientation kind of unit that provide technical advice and support based on their expertise.

4. NA


75

# Response

5. Strength: dedicated team made of specialists with field experience Weakness: limited travel to the field

6. Improvements over the past year have been observed. Would suggest all FCS staff to temporarily manage funds locally to understand field realities and dealings/requests with various parts of HQs.

7. Strenghts: 1. ERF has a complete set of templates, procedures , and documents for projects appraisal, fund disbursement, progress monitoring and evaluation. 2. ERF Team conducted 16 sessions of training to I/NGOs to understand the ERF process and ready to give further orientation. The team comprises only one person since October 2011 but the fund administration is going normally. 3. National NGOs have recognized that ERF is impartial and Neutral funding mechanism. 4. It has broad based and participatory decision making structure starting from sub-office level and ending to the ASB in HQ level.

Weaknesses 1. There was no preemptive measure to coordinate ECHO & OFDA to keep them informed & establish an info exchange mechanism to avoid redundancy, overlap of funding and efforts in response to emergency needs. 2. Donors are briefed but not regularly to convince them about the ERF’s transparency and accountability of fund allocation mechanism that is essential for fund raising purpose. 3. Donors and clusters want to renew the advisory and review board members periodically that was not considered during 2010 and 2011. 4. Clusters as main body of coordination not involved in monitoring process and don't pay more attention to the ERF proposed projects during the appraisal.

8. As previously mentioned, the roles may be clear between FCS, AO, DRS, ERPS, CRD, etc. but the authority is not. Someone must have higher authority to ensure that everything comes together when needed. I have no clear suggestion who (or what branch or section) this should be.

9. FCS strength - expert staff able to advise field

10. The ongoing monitoring and evaluation of ERFs must move away from transactional / micro controls towards compliance with a minimum standards template that captures governance, programmatic, procedural and financial issues.

11. lack of clarity remaining as to actual, practical role of FCS vis a vis management of Funds

12. FCS has the right technical expertise at HQ level that can help both Fund managers in their management of ERFs at country level and advocate for strategic and policy issue with other OCHA sections and Organizations at HQ level. FCS has neglected some areas where ERFs need support, like public information and resource mobilization, due to other pressing priorities. FCS can only do so much to promote improved monitoring and reporting mechanisms for ERFs. This is a task for Fund Managers, Heads of OCHA Offices and the HC to promote with Clusters and particularly UN agencies.

13. none

14. N/A

15. We acknowledge that FCS are more responsive in the last 2 years (good progress).

16. I am satisfied with the support I receive from FCS.


# Response

17. There is need for support of country offices that is clear to follow.

18. 1- A good channel to the senior management at the global level 2- A good forum to have the big picture 1- Has no clear role when it comes to decision making ( FCS or HC should decided ?)2- Should be less involved in the reporting side

19. Serious problems with approval process have damaged OCHA's reputation locally.

20. Lack of clarity on division of responsibilities between FCS and ERF management teams in the field. Lack of clarity on fund-raising responsibilities.

21. Greater capacity required to speed up transfers.

22. Not being in the same place as AO weakens the role of FCS.

23. some times the technical advice of FCS is valid and support us, but some times it delays the process specially when this comment will not affect the main issues of HRF guidelines.


77

6.1 The following statements are designed to capture the complementarity, additionally, quality and appropriateness of funding and projects.

1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

There are effective procedures to ensure that recipient agencies have the capacity to implement a grant

1 (2%) 6 (13%) 6 (13%) 13 (29%)

11 (24%) 8 (18%) 45

Funded projects by ERF include a theory of change and a logical framework in their proposal

1 (2%) 5 (11%) 6 (13%) 12 (27%)

11 (24%) 10 (22%)

45

The ERF is consistent with the application of project selection criteria

1 (2%) 0 (0%) 9 (20%) 14 (31%)

13 (29%) 8 (18%) 45

Project selection decisions are made in a participatory manner (including civil society)

1 (2%) 0 (0%) 9 (20%) 12 (27%)

15 (33%) 8 (18%) 45

OCHA is effective in identifying risks (in implementation, financial, accountability, reputational) at project level

0 (0%) 8 (18%) 13 (29%)

6 (13%) 10 (22%) 8 (18%) 45

OCHA is effective in mitigating identified risks

0 (0%) 7 (16%) 15 (34%)

10 (23%)

6 (14%) 6 (14%) 44

ERF funded projects take into consideration needs of vulnerable groups

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (13%) 12 (27%)

22 (49%) 5 (11%) 45


1-

Strongly Disagree

2 3 4 5-

Strongly Agree

Do Not Know

Total Responses

ERF funded projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues such as gender

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (13%) 20 (44%)

13 (29%) 6 (13%) 45

ERF funded projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues such as age

1 (2%) 5 (11%) 8 (18%) 13 (30%)

9 (20%) 8 (18%) 44

ERF funded projects take into consideration cross-cutting issues such as environment

1 (2%) 9 (20%) 11 (24%)

7 (16%) 7 (16%) 10 (22%)

45

The ERF contributed to disaster preparedness with contingency planning

5 (11%) 10 (23%)

10 (23%)

7 (16%) 3 (7%) 9 (20%) 44

The ERF contributed to disaster preparedness with pre-positioning of supplies

6 (14%) 10 (23%)

7 (16%) 5 (11%) 2 (5%) 14 (32%)

44

The ERF contributed to enhancing national capacities regarding disaster risk management (DRM), preparedness and resilience

6 (13%) 5 (11%) 13 (29%)

5 (11%) 3 (7%) 13 (29%)

45


79

6.2 Do you have any additional comments on ERF funding and project issues?

# Response

1. None

2. ERRF Haiti has improved capacities of partners in taking into account gender issues in humanitarian response (projects) and gender markers. About 90 persons from UN agencies, Red cross movement, INGOs and national civil society have been trained. Due to lack of funds, the strategy of the years 2011 and 2012 focused on cholera response only in wash and health. No preparedness activities.

3. Preparedness and disaster risk reduction are not the focus of ERFs. In some countries the context is such that ERFs can be considered useful tools for preparedness funding. Indonesia, for example, is a prominent case where the Country Office is considering the establishment of a preparedness window. This will be a testing experience as OCHA moves forward in defining its role in preparedness and whether humanitarian response funds like the ERFs should also prioritize preparedness issues. In terms of DRM, the view is that humanitarian funding should not be used for such activities, which should be best supported by recovery and development funds.

4. No

5. ERFs should mainly fund live-saving activities, e.g. the most urgent actions needed after a sudden-onset emergency. Therefore, disaster preparedness and risk management projects have not been systematically funded. However, in some cases, the HCT and ERF Board might have considered that these type of projects should be covered by the ERF, as they were requiring funding urgently and so they were made a priority. ERFs should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to each situation in country.

6. none

7. N/A

8. The ERF is used for response but not for preparedness.

9. no

10. no

11. As ERFs are targeting urgent life-saving activities, I do not think that it has funded many preparedness or resilience projects.

12. ERFs contribute to capacity building.

13. There is no window for emergency preparedness at HRF response.


7.1 The following section lists ERF’s existing systems and tools used for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Please indicate how satisfied you are with these systems and tools.

1-Very

Unsatisfied 2 3 4

5-Very Satisfied

Do Not Know

Total Responses

Frequency of monitoring visits by ERF staff

2 (4%) 5 (11%)

13 (29%)

11 (24%)

3 (7%) 11 (24%)

45

Use of cluster coordination for monitoring of projects

0 (0%) 6 (13%)

14 (31%)

11 (24%)

2 (4%) 12 (27%)

45

Flexible pattern of project monitoring

2 (4%) 1 (2%) 14 (31%)

14 (31%)

3 (7%) 11 (24%)

45

Timeliness of audits at the project level

8 (18%) 9 (20%)

7 (16%)

7 (16%)

5 (11%) 9 (20%)

45

Project level evaluations

3 (7%) 6 (13%)

13 (29%)

8 (18%)

2 (4%) 13 (29%)

45

Country-level evaluations

4 (9%) 2 (4%) 12 (27%)

12 (27%)

2 (4%) 13 (29%)

45

Global ERF evaluations

0 (0%) 3 (7%) 11 (26%)

13 (31%)

5 (12%) 10 (24%)

42

Use of evaluation recommendations to improve projects

2 (4%) 0 (0%) 9 (20%)

14 (31%)

6 (13%) 14 (31%)

45

Relevance of information provided by M&E systems

2 (4%) 0 (0%) 11 (24%)

8 (18%)

5 (11%) 19 (42%)

45

Timeliness of information provided by M&E systems

2 (4%) 3 (7%) 9 (20%)

8 (18%)

5 (11%) 18 (40%)

45

Inclusion of evaluation as a selection criterion for future funding decisions

2 (4%) 6 (13%)

11 (24%)

6 (13%)

6 (13%) 14 (31%)

45

Impact/outcome reporting

2 (4%) 6 (13%)

9 (20%)

10 (22%)

6 (13%) 12 (27%)

45


81

7.2 What would be the current strengths and limitations with regard to monitoring and evaluation of ERFs?

# Response

1. Adequate experience and staff, established methods and templates, engagement with peers in monitors. Availability of office infrastructure (cars and drivers)constrains activities Short term projects in multiple locations combined with size of country render it impossible to visit all projects

2. It is totally absent in my view.

3. In addition to the weakness of staffing regarding DRC ERF, the country is so large as Europe. So, it is not easy to plan and organize monitoring and evaluation of ERF projects. In general, ERF needs more resources in terms of staffing to be able to ensure prompt and dedicate monitoring, follow-up and evaluation of all projects.

4. Due to security situation, ERF in Pakistan is not able to monitor all projects. There is no global standard template for report and monitoring framework.

5. All projects funded through ERRF Haiti have indicators which allow a easy monitoring of progress. The main problem related to M&E is that the ERF managers are not M&E specialist. Then it is critical to hire M&E specialist in huge funds.

6. There is a need for better guidelines, policies and systems, as well as for increased capacity to do monitoring in the field. This means that so far monitoring is done differently in each country (some are stronger than others), and in general evaluations and audits have found this weakness. I'd like to say that OCHA does not promote project level or country level evaluations, but rather global evaluations with case study countries. Some donors base their funding decisions (contribution to ERFs) based on the results of the global evaluations. Impact and outcome reporting relate to higher-level objectives and priorities. It is hard to say to what extent this is the level of monitoring that should be considered when it comes to ERFs, although it is relevant to assess to what extent ERFs contribute to the overall humanitarian response in country and at the global level (i.e. in relation to other funding mechanisms and planning frameworks such as CHAP/CAP, flash appeals, etc.)


# Response

7. 1. The ERF Unit of OCHA – Afghanistan conducted periodical project progress monitoring in the field in addition to the regular reports and follow up communication with implementing partners and OCHA sub offices. On top of the regular reporting on the progress of all projects, with the involvement of NGOs operating in project areas and the support from relevant government representatives, six projects, which is 40% of the total number of projects, are monitored and feedbacks have been provided. The ERF team is staffed with one national officer. In coordination with OCHA sub-offices and partners, the ERF conducts field visits. NGOs submit periodic project progress to the ERF team. The ERF team also reviewed and provided feedback on the interim and final narrative reports and financial statements. 2. Monitoring objectives adopted- Quantify progress made against the proposed implementation timelines;- Support to peer monitoring;- Constructive discussion and feedback on implementation progress;- And, sharing of lessons learned. 3. Methodology■ Meet with implementing partners’ staff and authorities at district, province and regional levels in addition to beneficiaries and elders when possible.■ Field visits to project sites.■ Cross-reference with other actors in the area. 4. Emergency Shelter/ NFI Cluster member agencies played an important role in peer group monitoring arrangements, providing comments and advise for project implementation. Projects delayed due to insecurity were verified by monitoring teams, allowing for no cost extensions to ensure their completion. Lastly, formal and an independent financial audit led by an audit firm were facilitated.

8. Any M&E system must be linked to overall systems (with CAP project monitoring or cluster monitoring, for example) and should not overlap with them. An integrated and standardized system would be best.

9. Need to have a more systematic approach

10. Approach has been too ad-hoc in practice and a more systematic approach based on prioritized needs but this needs to start with the CHAP and inform all humanitarian financing decisions, not just ERF.

11. ERFs have undergone a lot of evaluations and audits, so there is a lot of feedback and recommendations to follow. External evaluations at country level should be limited. Limited dedicated OCHA ERF staff capacity will affect field monitoring.

12. none

13. N/A

14. Funding... In our Country Office our Cost plan are tight (its been several time being asked for deduction, even though we are fully funded) this cause travel budget even very tight, so sometimes we ask cluster leads which have office in our project are to monitor, however we could not depent on other organizational staff since they also has their tasks. Perhaps we could use HRF funding for our travel cost, or if we may propose, Co with ERF/HRF project could have more budget in travel.

15. Monitoring and Reporting has been incorporated in ERF since Jan 2011 and it is still evolving. However, monitoring section in ERF Pakistan is now actively pursuing progress and performance conformity more effectively and monitoring reports are now available to assess the outcome an impact of the ERF projects. ERF secretariat should also be allowed to carry out end of project monitoring with support of external evaluators. ERF monitoring section should be allowed to engage in capacity assessment of NGOs to minimize the risks.


83

# Response

16. - Our office uses all humanitarian affairs officer to monitor implementation of projects. It ends up being cost effective for the organization but quality of reports depends on interest of the HAOs as some do not consider ERF to be part of their core responsibilities.

17. lack of time and human resources, mediocre monitoring system

18. M&E are done for most project , the increase donors trust. however, OCHA is M&E a project that was recommended by OCHA itself a conflict of interest might arise

19. Difficult to monitor projects with access constraints. Difficult to measure impact on certain projects with emergency nature.

20. 1. Lack of funds and guidelines to conduct an annual in-country evaluations. 2. Lack of time/capacity of clusters to support the funds allocations and project implementation. 3. An in-country strategic vision of the fund should be developed in liaison with CAP/CHF.

21. Not clear the role of OCHA in monitoring. Variance in definition.

22. 1. The monitoring conducted is still restricted to activity and output level. Greater effort needs to be put in place to monitor /evaluate the outcome level by comparing the objectives of a project, their results and the impact of the project. 2. Standard indicators are not systematically used during monitoring of projects.

Please provide any other comments on ERFs that have not been addressed?

# Response

1. Donors increasingly seek our attention to the need to make a real evaluation of the humanitarian response impact. Unfortunately, our resources do not allow us to do so. Maybe it would be necessary to think about the possible solutions that could help at starting this type of global evaluation on the impact of the humanitarian response.

2. The engagement of the HC is very critical in ERF. The HC needs to be educated on his/her role as the 'owner' of ERF. The HC role in ERF should be included as one of indicators in his/her performance evaluation.

3. In case of emergency, ERF is a important tool that OCHA has for response. It is better to improve the management at country and HQ levels and to promote activities aimed to mobilize necessary funds. The ERF gives to OCHA a supplementary power for coordination (because the office has money for project and either UN agencies or NGOs need to be funded).

4. The quality of some questions clearly denoted a lack of understanding of some aspects related to the management and operation of ERFs. This may lead to spurious results that should be considered in the analysis of results.

5. ERRF is not intended to respond outside the humanitarian scope including to chronic problems that are better addressed through more predictable funding channels. Nor is the ERRF intended to serve as the primary means of response, but rather as additional funding to initiate, accelerate, enhance or complement the overall emergency response.

6. Nil


# Response

7. Each ERF is a bit different due t local context and not all of the questions in this survey can be answered in the same way.

8. Donors should provide multi-year commitments in order to guarantee effective management of the ERFs and avoid large fluctuations between the years, even if it is clear that funding levels will vary depending on the humanitarian emergency context. However, if donors request OCHA to have an ERF in a certain country, this request should be tied to a multi-year (3) commitment.

9. none

10. N/A

11. A focus should be given on staff capacity building and job security as well

12. None

13. ERF have been useful in that they are un-earmarked and are normally used as gap fillers or at the onset of an emergency to avert loss of lives before bigger players get in to assist.

14. N/A

15. The criteria for opening an ERF needs to be clearer. As well as when to close one, the indicators lending to this decision.

16. The Kenya ERF is increasingly being recognized as a valuable funding tool that continues to attract donor support and confidence. There is however a need to further explore ERF funding for complete preparedness activities. The ERF has also enhanced coordination. The ERF and the cluster/sector approach are linked which offers a strategic approach to address humanitarian needs.