United Nations Emergency Fund Criticized for Delays in Providing Aid

By Caroline Preston

A fund created by the United Nations to speed aid to disaster zones has drawn criticism from relief groups that say it takes too long to make grants and may hurt their ability to raise money.

The new effort, known as the U.N. Central Emergency Response Fund, or CERF, was set up two years ago to help U.N. agencies and charities respond to emergencies and long-neglected problems before the groups had collected any donations. The U.N. fund has won pledges and gifts totaling $1.1-billion, mostly from governments and organizations like the European Union, and in 2007 gave out about $350-million.

While charities have welcomed the idea of the fund, they say that bureaucracy and delays have reduced its impact.

“The time, energy, and bureaucracy surrounding accessing CERF funds makes it unappealing to staff on the ground,” said Caroline Loftus, Save the Children’s acting vice president of children in emergencies and crisis. “The fund is supposed to be rapid response, and yet it can take two months to access resources.”

Lengthy Application

Charity officials say that several factors prevent the fund from quickly releasing money.

First, money from the fund must be funneled through U.N. agencies such as the World Food Program before it can be allocated to relief groups. Also, charities must go through a lengthy application process after a disaster hits; no standing list exists to say what charities are eligible.

“If the U.N. organizations getting CERF money could prequalify some of their most frequent partners in humanitarian response, then all that homework and due diligence could take place before an emergency strikes,” said Randolph Martin, director of global emergency operations at Mercy Corps. “U.N. organizations that do primarily development work have put in place a mechanism for grant making that makes sense in the context of development, but not in the case of emergencies.”

Confusion surrounding how and when to apply for fund money, as well as the often burdensome process through which charities are required to report back to U.N. agencies, have posed further problems, charity officials said.

‘Definitely a Concern’

Relief workers are also worried that donors may be giving to the U.N. fund instead of making direct grants to their organizations.

“It’s definitely a concern,” said Rabih Torbay, International Medical Corps’s vice president for international operations. “CERF is one mechanism for emergency response, but it shouldn’t be the only one.” He adds: “In the case of an earthquake, the last thing you want is to wait for the British government to wire money to the U.N., and the U.N. to wire money to the CERF, and then the CERF to wire money to the NGO’s. You’ve wasted weeks in terms of emergency response.”

While governments and groups of countries have provided the vast majority of donations to the U.N. fund, a few private donors have also contributed. In December, for example, Western Union Foundation gave $100,000.

Nonprofit groups receive somewhere between 10 percent and 100 percent of the overall money from the fund for a particular crisis. In Iraq, for example, where the United Nations has a very limited presence, nongovernmental organizations may receive all of the money.

The United Nations, meanwhile, said it is committed to helping relief organizations gain access to money from the fund. The United Nations is now conducting an evaluation of the effort that will involve getting the views of nonprofit groups.

“NGO’s are key partners in humanitarian affairs and humanitarian response, and we are trying within the limitations that we have to work with NGO’s,” said Rudolf Müller, chief of the CERF secretariat. “People tend to expect wonders from a mechanism that is not yet two years old. We have done a relatively good job in terms of raising money and disbursing money to key emergencies, but what we still need to improve is the inclusion of key partners and stakeholders at all levels.”

More Money

Mr. Müller said that money is distributed first to U.N. agencies because they have longstanding relationships with relief groups, and existing processes by which organizations can apply for grants.

He also said the United Nations is trying to remind donors that the fund should translate into more money overall for humanitarian relief, not supplant giving to relief organizations. But statistics are hard to come by, Mr. Müller said.

“It’s always up to the donor to tell us if the money is additional money or not,” he said. “But we’re trying to educate donors that this should be additional money and shouldn’t have an impact on fund raising. We don’t want to harm our important NGO partners; we want to give them something in addition.”

Relief workers, meanwhile, said they are hopeful that the fund can be improved. They also said that the fund has shown some effectiveness in alleviating a problem that plagues the financing of aid work — the tendency of donors, particularly governments, to give based on their political interests or the level of media attention, rather than the scale of suffering.

“The CERF has worked to get resources to humanitarian crises based on the level of need rather than on political criteria,” said Mr. Martin, of Mercy Corps. “Places like the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have gotten resources because of CERF.”