WFPS USE OF POOLED FUNDS FOR HUMANITARIAN PREPAREDNESS

WFP’S USE OF POOLED FUNDS FOR HUMANITARIAN PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE (2009– 2013): A Strategic Evaluation Presentation to the IASC Task Team on Humanitarian Financing Geneva, 18 March 2015 This document is designed as support to the oral presentation and is not intended to be used separately

WFP Global Use of PFs Pooled fund contributions 2009– 2013 US$ millions

• 217 operations and 462 grants • EMOPS (4. 3%) • PRROs (4. 2%) • SOs (16. 2%)

Evaluation Issues • Contribution and added value to WFP’s emergency response • Complementarities among PFs and with other WFP instruments • Partnerships and coordination effects • Factors affecting WFP’s use of PFs

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Purpose • Pressure to expand the objectives of the use of PFs beyond ‘life saving’ • PFs are: – Limited and insufficient for primary objective – Adapted to funding immediate life-saving activities • Funding preparedness, resilience building and social assistance better met through complementary funding instruments

Utilization • In-kind food assistance – but a relatively modest proportion • Cash and nutrition activities • Common services (UNHAS operations, common logistics services and pipelines, and shared operational hubs) • … but not on-going operating costs of common services Contribution by PF type to type of WFP operation ERF EMOP CHF PRRO SO CERF 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Additionality The introduction of PFs has not been associated with a fall in multi-lateral funding Trends in all contributions to WFP from Top 12 CERF Donors 2002 – 2013 (USD millions) 1 800 1 600 1 400 1 200 Directed Multilateral 1 000 800 CERF 600 Undirected Multilateral 400 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Timeliness • CERF RR is widely perceived to support a timely response by WFP • Typically available faster than other directed multi-lateral contributions Period elapsed CERF (avg) All donors (avg) From crisis event to release of funds 55 days 81 days From release of EMOP to receipt of funds 5 days 37 days

Average Days between IR-EMOP Approval and Date for Exchange of First Contribution 180 140 er an a ion iss m m Co ds lan er th Ne d lan Ire y an rm Ge ay m rw do No ing d. K ite Un da na Ca ce an Fr a ia re str Ko Au of n c tio bli ra pu de Re Fe an ssi d lan Ru ro ali str Au n il az Br Th d RF CE pa Ja pe itz Sw 60 UN in a Sp Ita an ail 13 ly 11 62 59 55 A US 0 Eu 35 40 75 65 74 80 122 113 114 120 99 93 90 100 89 79 78 72 20 152 160

Timeliness Step Task Responsibility 1 Formulation of request to CERF Secretariat HC/HCT 2 Revision/ approval of CERF envelope CERF Secretariat 3 Allocation of CERF envelope amongst UN agencies CERF disburse the money to UN agencies on the basis of a Letter of Understanding (Lo. U) HC/HCT UN agencies transfer funds to their field offices UN Agencies 4 5 CERF Secretariat

Timeliness • Internal advances critical to WFP’s immediate ability to respond • Flexibility and predictability of PFs reinforcing use of Internal Advances – PFs (unlike many donors) permit revolvement of advances – L 3 protocols for CERF RR mobilization • PFs foundation for scale-up through directed multi-lateral contributions Avg. value of PF Grants and Internal Advances per Operation (US$ millions) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WCFF IRA CERF CHF ERF

Timeliness of Disbursement to Cooperating Partners • A significant lag is reported between funds becoming available and the contracting of CPs (CERF RR = 50 days, CERF UF = 71) • WFP systems not linked to use of individual grants • Not equivalent to delay in response • NGOs most concerned with delays in reimbursement of expenditure 13

Coordination • PFs reinforce coordination structures, but don’t solve the challenges of weak or absent systems • WFP increasingly engaging with coordinated strategy development and project appraisal • Not generally resulted in observable changes in WFP’s strategic or operational approach

Accountability • PF managers seeking accountability for PF grants • Transaction costs for WFP estimated at $5, 000 at CO levels and $3, 200 at HQ level • Potential increases associated with new reporting requirements • Impact?

RECOMMENDATIONS

General Recommendations • Maintain and strengthen the life-saving focus of PFs • Reduce earmarking • Improve the targeting of CERF UF grants • Maintain and increase the capacity to utilize PFs as collateral for the release of internal advances

General Recommendations • Enhance the contribution of PFs in supporting the operation of common services in emergencies • Consolidate fulfillment of WFP’s coordination responsibilities to improve support for effective use of PFs • Define strategic and operational responsibilities for using and reporting on PFs at all levels • Strengthen the quality, efficiency and utility of monitoring and reporting on the use of PFs