Final report
This review of CERF funding to Zimbabwe aims to assess the indicators of the CERF’s Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) and address additional key questions raised by the CERF Advisory Group and Secretariat. The report is based on interviews with RC/HC, UN agencies, IOM, international and national NGOs and government representatives in Harare in August 2011. It also draws on a document review and funding information from the CERF Secretariat and agencies participating in the review. Humanitarian Context in Zimbabwe Zimbabwe experienced a severe crisis in 2008-09 due to election-related violence, a widespread cholera outbreak, hyperinflation and severe food insecurity. Overall humanitarian needs have declined since 2009 though there are areas of acute need, for example, amongst displaced people, migrants and other vulnerable groups. The situation is best described as a chronic crisis with indicators crossing emergency thresholds due to structural causes (a breakdown in infrastructure and services) rather than a specific cause such as a natural disaster or violent conflict. This means that the CERF, with its life-saving focus, does not always fit easily with the required responses although it has been able to address emergency needs and fill gaps. Due to the nature of the crisis and the lack of adequate development funding, the Zimbabwe CAP has included some recovery programming since 2009. However, some donors and participating agencies do not fully report funding for the recovery elements to the FTS and this makes it almost impossible to get an accurate picture of the extent to which the CAP is funded. This is a challenge for allocations from the CERF’s Under-Funded Emergency (UFE) window but the CERF Secretariat, with OCHA Zimbabwe’s help, used an estimate of the purely humanitarian requirements and funding as the basis of its decisions. Value-Added of the CERF CERF funding has added value for UN agencies and IOM in several ways: by providing timely funding for emergency response, by funding severely under-funded sectors, by providing funding early on in the year (through the first UFE allocation), by enabling agencies to leverage funding from other donors, by complementing other donor funding, by providing flexible funding and by increasing the credibility of the UN system with the government. NGOs were largely positive about implementing CERF-funded projects but they identified challenges relating to funding restrictions, particularly indirect support costs. They were not always clear whether the CERF or agencies had imposed these restrictions.
Inclusiveness and Transparency of Allocation Process The CERF allocation process in Zimbabwe is more inclusive and transparent than in some other countries since NGOs and the government are involved in allocation and donors are informed about CERF funding through the Humanitarian Country Team (HCT). The Inter-Cluster Forum (ICF) is the main decision- making body for UFE allocations. Two INGO co-Cluster leads are supposed to be members but only one tends to attend. Government Cluster leads/co-leads are also ICF members but do not attend. So, the Ministry of Regional Integration and International Cooperation (MORIIC), as the government coordination lead, recently gained observer status. Since Rapid Response grants usually focus on a single sector, they tend to be discussed within the relevant Cluster, with the ICF and HCT approving decisions. Some interviewees (including MoRIIC) expressed concern that UN agencies make the real allocation decisions, either at the ICF or within agencies themselves.