The need for CERF

Toby Porter writing at Humanitarian Practice Network on the Frustrations of CERF argues that the UN central system is making it harder for NGO's to secure the necessary funding to respond quickly.

I have worked for both NGOs and the UN performing direct and indirect relief work however I find I am largely in disagreement with Toby with respect to the overall management of a central funding process. I can imagine however the need to steam-line it and make if more rapid however past indiscretions have dictated the need for a rigorous and accountable process to be implemented in the allocation of funds.

Why I believe so comes from the funding debacle that occurred following the Pacific Tsunami. I was with the UN managing a program in Aceh aiming to introduce a coordinate approach to the recovery. We had funds and were seeking to engage NGO partners. The NGOs had however more surplus funds through public appeals than they knew what to do with and in some respect, started to act outside of the governments strategies. There were other issues with that but we, as in the UN, had difficulties engaging partners and as one NGO said to me "we like the idea but we don't want your money and we want to do it our way".

I also have a strong view on the value of some humanitarian aid and the philosophy behind it. Little appears to be directed towards developing economic sustainability other than the application and provision of public assets in the main. Working for an NGO, we build a school or a clinic yet ignore the need for the Government Education or Health departments added demand to provision and to service the staffing within all their other constrains and added infrastructure requirements.

I believe there is a need for a common application of aid to a community when it is required that is inclusive and directive towards all agencies involved, UN, NGO and government alike that propels the communities and the local and national economies forward.

The UN has a mandate to assist governments to reach the ability to manage well all of those issues that crisis intervention entails. It is not normally the role of the UN to interfere in those process unless the government has shown the most callous disregard for the humanitarian aspects of its stewardship. Unfortunately I have seen too many, well intentioned yet misdirected NGO's in particular set themselves up as the arbiters of change no doubt supported by the specific interests of their donors.



Unfortunately, if there is no common strategy being applied much of the effort and funding is largely wasted. For all the aid funding applied to rebuild Kosovo for instance, 50% of the population remain unemployed, in Aceh with hundreds of millions being directed towards it, the unemployment figure is 40% and Iraq with the billions injected it has an unemployment figure around 60%. Each of these relief centers is not much better off other than the government or the communities have a few extra assets. The relief work comes and goes and without it being economically sustainable, then these places either remain basket cases waiting for the next crisis to occur or continue to rely upon a never-ending aid industry to service their shortages. It is the adage, to give a man a fish, you feed him for the day, to give him a fishing rod you allow him to feed himself forever.

In summary, what is needed is a the application of funds towards a general development strategy that will not only stimulate the economy, it will enable the communities the long term prospects of self recovery rather than the creation of a state of constant dependency.