Reviews under the PAF

In 2019, CERF commissioned two independent thematic reviews: The first of these, conducted by Tasneem Mowjee and Andrew Featherstone, examined CERF support to four priority underfunded areas identified by the ERC in early 2019, including: support for women and girls, including tackling gender-based violence, reproductive health and empowerment; programs targeting disabled people; education in protracted crises; and other aspects of protection. The second study, carried out by Glyn Taylor and Edward Rackley, reviewed CERF’s role in small-scale emergencies. 

CER Review

CERF Support to 
Four Underfunded Priority Areas (October 2020) 
                                      

CER Review

CERF’s Role in
Small-Scale Emergencie
s (December 2020)


In 2018, CERF commissioned three independent thematic reviews: The first of these, conducted by Jock Baker and Silvia Hidalgo, examined CERF’s added value to the 2017 hurricane response in Cuba and the Eastern Caribbean, including the potential of a CERF anticipatory approach for forecasted extreme weather events. The second study, carried out by Glyn Taylor, reviewed the fund’s added value to the humanitarian response in the DRC, including strategic questions around CERF’s role in supporting collective operational priorities, as well as CERF’s role in large-scale protracted emergencies more broadly. A third review, conducted by Silvia Hidalgo, looked at CERF’s response to the Venezuela regional refugee and migration crisis, with a focus on the regional allocation.    

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in Cuba and the Eastern Caribbean in 2017 

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value to the Humanitarian Response in DRC 

CER Review

CERF's Response to the Venezuela Regional Refugee and Migration Crisis

 

 


In 2017, CERF commissioned one independent thematic review: The review, conducted by Tasneem Mowjee, Jock Baker and Lydia Poole, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response to El Niño in the context of which CERF provided $119 million to El Niño-related activities in 19 countries in 2015/2016. The review also identified lessons for CERF's potential role in supporting early action more systematically, particularly in slow onset emergencies.

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Countries Affected by El Niño 

 

 


In 2015, CERF commissioned three independent reviews: The first of these, conducted by Glyn Taylor, examined CERF’s added value to the humanitarian response in Iraq. The second review, carried out by Glyn Taylor and Edward Rackley, looked at CERF’s added value to the humanitarian response in the Syria crisis covering Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. A third review, conducted by Jock Baker, assessed CERF’s added value to the South Sudan crisis covering South Sudan, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia.

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Iraq 

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the Syria Crisis

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the South Sudan Crisis 

 

 


In 2014, CERF commissioned four independent reviews: The first of these, conducted by Barnaby Willitts-King, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in the Democratic Republic of Korea. The second review, carried out by Jock Baker. looked at CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Myanmar.  A third review, conducted by Tasneem Mowjee, assessed CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Sudan.

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Democratic Republic of Korea 

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Myanmar

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Sudan

 

 

 


In 2013, CERF commissioned three independent reviews: The first of these, conducted by Maria Spaak, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in in the Sahel. The second review, carried out by Silvia Hildalgo, looked at CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  A third review, conducted by Andy Featherstone, assessed CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Pakistan. The fourth review, conducted by Tasneem Mowjee, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Yemen. 

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the Sahel 

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the Democratic Republic of Congo

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Pakistan

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Yemen


In 2012, CERF commissioned five independent reviews: The first of these, conducted by Glyn Talor and Barnaby Willitts-King, reviewed the value added of the CERF in the humanitarian response to the Horn of Africa drought. The second and third report, carried out by Barnaby Willitts-King, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Djibouti and Ethiopia. The fourth and fifth report, conducted by Glyn Taylor, assessed CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in Kenya and Somalia. The sixth, conducted by Maria Spaak, examined CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response to the Ivorian refugee crisis covering Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Ghana. The final review, by Tasneem Mowjee, assessed CERF’s added value in the humanitarian response in the Philippines.

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the Horn of Africa

   
CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Djibouti

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Ethiopia

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Kenya

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in the Democratic Republic of Somalia

CER Review

CERF's Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia and Ghana 

CER Review

CERF’s Added Value in the Humanitarian Response in Philippines


Independent reviews of the value added of CERF in Bolivia, Colombia, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, 2011

Following endorsement by the CERF Advisory Group of the draft Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) at its July 2010 meeting, the CERF secretariat finalized the PAF in August 2010. Amongst other things, the PAF foresees three to five country-level reviews of the value added of CERF per year to be conducted by independent evaluation experts.

In April 2011, the CERF Secretariat commissioned independent consultants Tasneem Mowjee and Glyn Taylor, to conduct country-level reviews of the CERF in Bolivia, Colombia, Ethiopia and Myanmar.

Field visits for the reviews in Bolivia, Colombia and Ethiopia took place in April and May. Due to the inability to obtain a visa, the fourth country was changed from Myanmar to Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe review took place in August.

Independent reviews of the value added of CERF in Chad, Mauritania and Sri Lanka, 2010

Following endorsement by the CERF Advisory Group of the draft Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) at its July 2010 meeting, the CERF Secretariat finalized the PAF in August 2010. Amongst other things, the PAF foresees three to five country-level reviews of the value added of the CERF per year to be conducted by independent evaluation experts.

The CERF secretariat commissioned John Watts, an independent consultant from the United Kingdom, to conduct country-level reviews of the CERF in Chad, Mauritania and Sri Lanka in October 2010. Reviews were to employ the methodology tested in the pilot study of the value added of the CERF in Kenya in early 2010.

Countries were chosen so as to reflect recipients of both large and small amounts of CERF funding, natural as well as man-made disaster and to avoid duplication with countries selected for the CERF five-year evaluation. The reviews largely focussed on activities in 2009 based on the 2009 annual report of the RC/HCs due in March 2010.

Independent review of the added value of CERF in Kenya, 2010

At the request of the CERF Advisory Group, the CERF secretariat developed a draft Performance and Accountability Framework (PAF) and commissioned an independent reviewer to evaluate the effectiveness of PAF in one country. After analysing CERF funding, the CERF secretariat selected Kenya for this review as humanitarian agencies in Kenya have been consistently one of the highest recipients of CERF funding.

This review aimed to assess individual indicators in the PAF and to test the PAF’s overall feasibility. The review demonstrated that it is perfectly feasible to use the draft PAF for country reviews and found that the indicators are a helpful way to structure the review. The review found that CERF has added value for UN agencies by providing funding early on in the year; filling funding gaps; enabling agencies to leverage funding from other donors; complementing other donor funds; and being flexible.

Additionally, the evaluation showed that the CERF secretariat has simplified both narrative and financial reporting formats. Lastly, it was indicated that while CERF has supported coordination among sector groups, it appears to be unrealistic to expect it to strengthen humanitarian response capacity due to the short-term nature of CERF funding.