SYNTHESIS REPORT FINAL DRAFT - UNICEF · 9 5-YEAR EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND...
Transcript of SYNTHESIS REPORT FINAL DRAFT - UNICEF · 9 5-YEAR EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND...
5-YEAR EVALUATION OF THE CENTRAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND SYNTHESIS REPORT: FINAL DRAFT
An independent evaluation commissioned by OCHA
25 July 2011
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 1
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 2
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction 1.
2.
The Central Emergency Response Fund 3.
Added value 4.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 3
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
5.
6.
7.
8.
Operational management 9.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 4
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
10.
11.
12.
13.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 5
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Achievements 14.
15.
16.
17.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 6
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Accountability 18.
19.
20.
Factors of effectiveness 21.
22.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 7
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
23.
24.
Priority challenges 25.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 8
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Recommendations (summary)
26.
27.
28.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 9
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
29.
30.
31.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 10
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 10
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 13
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 14
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. 16
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 19
1. CONTEXT .............................................................................................................. 24
2. INPUTS AND PROCESS ....................................................................................... 38
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 11
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
3. OUTPUTS .............................................................................................................. 57
4. OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................... 75
5. EFFICIENCY .......................................................................................................... 83
6. EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................. 89
7. APPROPRIATENESS/RELEVANCE ..................................................................... 92
8. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 101
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 12
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
9. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 105
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 13
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
LIST OF TABLES
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 14
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
LIST OF FIGURES
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 15
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 16
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
ACRONYMS
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 17
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 18
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 19
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
INTRODUCTION
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 20
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
38.
•
• •
• •
39.
40.
41.
Methodology 42.
43.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 21
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 22
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
52.
53.
9
54.
55.
56.
57.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 23
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
58.
59.
Report structure 60.
61.
•
•
•
•
62.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 24
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
1. CONTEXT The CERF: key developments
CERF origins 63.
64.
Figure 1: Official humanitarian aid from 1990-2008
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 25
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
65.
66.
67.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 26
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
CERF upgraded 68.
69.
BOX 1: WHAT IS HUMANITARIAN ACTION?
B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 27
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
•
•
•
70.
71.
72.
73.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 28
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
74.
75.
Grant processes 76.
Figure 2: Support for the CERF compared with other UN appeals.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 29
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
BOX 2: RAPID RESPONSE GRANT PROCESS
B6.
B7.
B8.
B9.
B10.
B11.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 30
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
77.
B12.
B13.
B14.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 31
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
BOX 3: UNDERFUNDED EMERGENCY GRANT PROCESS
B15.
B16.
B17.
B18.
B19.
B20.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 32
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Loan window 78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
Figure 3: CERF loans by year since the revision of the CERF (Source: various reports from the Secretary General, and information from the CERF Secretariat).
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 33
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Table 1: Internal Loan Mechanisms for WFP. Sources (WFP, 2010b, 2011)
83.
84.
BOX 4. OUTSTANDING CERF LOANS BY 2011
Name of Mechanism Year of Set-up
Amount US$ mn
Capital Ratio19 Notes
Immediate Response Account 1994 70 1:1 US$70mn is target, balance at the end of
2010 wasUS$45.6mn
Working Capital Financing Facility 2005 557 1:6
Increased from US$ 180 mn at a 1:3 leverage in 2010, included USUS$150 mn for the Forward Purchase Facility
Forward Purchase Facility 2008 150 1:6 This is part of the Working Capital Facility
B21.
B22.
B23.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 34
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
85.
CERF grants 86.
87.
Table 2: Number of countries receiving CERF grants by year and window.
Grant Window 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Rapid Response 21 54 56 43 40 77 Underfunded 18 24 22 21 18 38 Both windows 32 58 58 51 48 79
88.
Table 3: Number of CERF grants by year and window.
Grant Window 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Rapid Response 134 283 381 279 283 1,360 Underfunded 139 182 142 174 187 824 Both windows 273 465 523 453 470 2,184
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 35
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
89.
Table 4: Amounts of CERF grants per year and window (millions of US$)
Grant Window 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Rapid Response ($mn) 149 253 303 228 310 1,243 Underfunded ($mn) 77 123 128 129 139 597 Both windows ($mn) 226 376 431 357 449 1,840
90.
Table 5: Average size of CERF grants per year and window (millions of US$)
Grant Window 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Rapid Response ($mn) 1.11 0.89 0.80 0.82 1.10 0.91 Underfunded ($mn) 0.55 0.68 0.90 0.74 0.74 0.72 Both windows ($mn) 0.83 0.81 0.82 0.79 0.96 0.84
91.
Figure 4: Cumulative distribution of CERF grants by size
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 36
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
92.
93.
Figure 6: WFP accounts for more than half of all funding for UN humanitarian appeals.
Figure 5: The top 7 recipients of CERF funding (2006 to 2010
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 37
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
Figure 7: Funding from the CERF compared with other appeal funding
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 38
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
2. INPUTS AND PROCESS
Inclusiveness
BOX 5. WHO IS INCLUDED IN CERF PROCESSES?
B24.
B25.
B26.
B27.
B28.
B29.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 39
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 40
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
104.
105.
106.
107.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 41
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
108.
109.
110.
111.
Figure 8: Responses to the survey question on the inclusiveness of the CERF process. The difference between (very or largely inclusive) and (somewhat and not inclusive) by category of respondents is notable at the 5% level. (ChiTest, Yates corrected p(two-tailed, df=2)< 0.05).
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 42
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Government engagement
112.
113.
114.
115.
Figure 9: Responses to the survey question on CERF inclusiveness by years of humanitarianexperience.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 43
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
116.
117.
118.
Prioritisation
119.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 44
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 45
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
125.
126.
127.
128.
Life-saving criteria
129.
130.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 46
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
131.
132.
133.
BOX 6. WHAT IS LIFE-SAVING?
B30.
B31.
B32.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 47
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
134.
135.
136.
Vulnerable groups
137.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 48
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
138.
139.
Figure 10: Number of projects by the level of attention to Gender, Vulnerability, and Cross Cutting issues.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 49
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
140.
141.
142.
Field management
143.
Figure 11: Value of CERF contributions by the level of project attention to Gender, Vulnerability, and Cross-Cutting issues.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 50
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 51
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
150.
151.
152.
Relative speed
153.
BOX 7. HOW HUMANITARIAN ACTORS FUND TIME-CRITICAL NEEDS
B33.
B34.
B35.
B36.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 52
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
154.
Reporting
155.
156.
B37.
B38.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 53
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
157.
158.
159.
160.
Accountability
161.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 54
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 55
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
168.
169.
170.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 56
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 57
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
3. OUTPUTS
Distribution
171.
172.
Figure 12: CERF funding by geography; darker colours indicate higher levels of CERF funding
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 58
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Figure 13: Countries ranked by overall size of CERF allocation for 2006-2010 inclusive.
CER
F 5-
yea
r eva
lua
tion
syn
the
sis re
po
rt
Pa
ge
59
173.
Fig
ure
14
: C
ERF
fun
din
g
pa
tte
rn b
y g
eo
gra
ph
y a
nd
yea
r 20
06-2
010.
D
ark
er
co
lou
rs in
dic
ate
hig
he
r le
vels
of f
un
din
g.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page
60
174.
175.
176.
Project components
177.
Figure 15: 22 countries have received CERF funding every year from 2006-2010.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 61
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
178.
Figure 17: Sectoral funding for Pakistan compared with elsewhere.
Figure 16: Sector distribution of CERF Funding
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 62
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 63
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Table 6: Percentage of proposals rejected by the CERF or withdrawn by agencies as a proportion of all proposals. Common services include coordination.
185.
186.
187.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 64
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
χ
Cross-cutting issues
188.
189.
190.
Timeliness
191.
ay
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 65
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
192.
193.
BOX 8: WHEN DOES A CERF APPLICATION BECOME FUNGIBLE?
194.
B39.
B40.
B41.
B42.
B43.
B44.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 66
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
195.
Table 7: Distribution of the number of projects by the time between the first and final proposal
196.
197.
Figure 18: Average durations for CERF proposal processing (in weeks).
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 67
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
198.
Figure 20: Percentage of CERF RR projects (by value) approved within a given time period from the final application.
199.
200.
201.
Figure 19: Proportion of CERF Rapid Response grants approved within a given time period from thefinal application.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 68
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
202.
203.
Figure 21: Epidemic curve and key CERF dates for the Dengue outbreak in Cape Verde.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 69
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 70
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
209.
210.
BOX 9: A QUARTER OF CERF MONEY TO NGOS - WHERE DOES THE REST GO?
B45.
B46.
B47.
B48.
B49.
B50.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 71
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
211.
212.
213.
Figure 22: The overall CERF timeline from first submission to forwarding of funds to implementing partners.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 72
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
214.
215.
216.
217.
Table 8: Average number of days elapsing between disbursement by the CERF and onward disbursement to implementing partners
Agency Average number of days to forward CERF funds to
NGO partner
Number of projects for which data was
reported
Projects for which data reported as a proportion of all projects for 2009-2010
UN Habitat 142 3 20% UNDP 142 2 6% OHCHR 135 1 25% UNAIDS 126 1 25% IOM 99 4 7%WHO 85 12 9% WFP 80 6 4% FAO 75 11 13%
Figure 23: Cumulative curve showing the time taken for UN agencies to forward CERF grant funding to NGO partners.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 73
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
UNFPA 72 8 11% UNICEF 71 51 20% UNHCR 45 10 11% UNIFEM 43 1 25%
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 74
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
223.
224.
225.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 75
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
4. OUTCOMES
Underfunded emergencies
226.
227.
Table 9: CERF Underfunded emergency grants contributions to CAP appeals (and subsidiary appeals in CAP countries), as percentage of overall appeal income for agencies eligible for CERF funding. The table understates the support as many of these countries also received rapid response funding. It also ignores countries covered by regional appeal (e.g. the West African appeal) rather than a national on.
Contribution of UFE Grants to CAP appeals (and other appeals in CAP countries) by year and country as % of all appeal funding for Agencies eligible for CERF funding Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Afghanistan 3.0% Burundi 2.6% 9.0% Central African Republic 12.9% 11.8% 0.1% 5.3% 7.4% Chad 4.3% 0.4% 2.9% 1.6% 5.0% Congo 8.4% 8.5% Congo, The Democratic Republic of the 14.5% 15.5% 9.8% 2.5% 7.5% Cote d'Ivoire 23.1% 29.4% 19.4% Guinea 12.5% Iraq 2.8% Kenya 1.7% 2.8% Liberia 5.7% 1.8% Palestinian territory, occupied 1.4% Somalia 0.5% 2.1% Sudan 0.7% Yemen 13.8% Zimbabwe 0.8% 2.2% 1.7% 5.0%
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 76
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
228.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 77
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
234.
Response capacity
235.
236.
237.
238.
Leverage role
239.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 78
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
240.
241.
242.
243.
Coverage
244.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 79
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
245.
246.
Early recovery
247.
248.
249.
250.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 80
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
251.
252.
253.
Humanitarian reform
254.
Figure 24: The humanitarian reform as a three-spoke wheel.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 81
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
255.
256.
257.
258.
259.
260.
261.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 82
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
262.
263.
264.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 83
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
5. EFFICIENCY
Transaction costs
265.
266.
267.
CERF Secretariat
268.
269.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 84
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
270.
271.
272.
273.
274.
Figure 25: Average level of support for the CERF compared with the average level of support for countryappeals from 2006-2010.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 85
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
275.
276.
Table 10: Notional end of year cash balances (ignoring interest and contributions for the next year).
277.
278.
279.
Notional Cash balances at year end Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Balance (US$ mn) 63.7 61.4 69.6 92.0 42.2
Figure 26: CERF cash flow 2005-2010. Income for interest and contributions for 2011 ignored.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 86
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
280.
281.
282.
283.
Evaluation implementation
284.
285.
286.
287.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 87
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
288.
289.
Advisory group
290.
291.
292.
293.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 88
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
294.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 89
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
6. EFFECTIVENESS
Coherence
295.
Transparency
296.
297.
Pooled funding
BOX 10. COUNTRY-LEVEL POOLED HUMANITARIAN FUNDING MECHANISMS
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 90
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Figure 27: Contributions to the main pooled funding mechanisms by year.
298.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 91
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
299.
Constraints
300.
301.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 92
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
7. APPROPRIATENESS/RELEVANCE
Donor diversity
302.
303.
Figure 28: States contributing to the CERF. Darker colours indicate higher contributions.
Figure 29: Funding for the CERF by the World Bank classification of state income level.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 93
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
304.
Table 11: The twelve most generous donors to the CERF in terms of US$ donated per head of population (Populations based on 2010 Human Development Report Data).
Country US$ Per Capita World Bank Income Class Luxembourg 55.46 High income: OECD Norway 51.19 High income: OECD Sweden 28.21 High income: OECD Liechtenstein 24.46 High income: nonOECD Ireland 22.76 High income: OECD Holy See 18.09 High income: nonOECD Netherlands 16.80 High income: OECD Monaco 14.46 High income: nonOECD Denmark 8.53 High income: OECD Finland 6.72 High income: OECD United Kingdom 5.79 High income: OECD Canada 4.96 High income: OECD
305.
306.
Figure 30: Funding for the CERF, based on Financial Tracking Service data.
Figure 31: Exchange rate variations against the US$ for the three main CERF contribution currencies.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 94
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
307.
308.
309.
Figure 32: Contributions to the CERF calculated as if the exchange rate from the last quarter of2007 had applied to all contribution years.
Figure 33: Imbalance in donor contributions to the CERF.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 95
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
310.
311.
312.
313.
Figure 34: UN Humanitarian appeals and the CERF (Source Financial Tracking Service)
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 96
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
Adaptation
319.
320.
Table 12: Agency use of CERF loan facility since its inception (Source CERF Secretariat study on loans).
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 97
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
321.
322.
323.
Figure 35: Perceptions of the effectiveness of the CERF as a rapid response mechanism.
324.
DraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraDraaDraraDrar ftffft fffttft ofofoof ooofoofoooff 22525252525525222222222 JulJulJulJulJulJulJulJulJ lJulJulJ lJuJuJJulyyyyyyyyy - ChaCCCCCC nnenneeeeeeeeeeeeeell Rl Rlllll Rl RRRRlllll eseseeseseeseeseeseeseeseeseeseeseeseseeeseeseseesearcarcarcarcarcarcarcaarcrcarcarcarcarca ca hhhhhhhhhhhh
Figure 36: Perceptions of the effectiveness of the CERF as a mechanism for underfunded emergencies.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 98
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
NGO engagement
330.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 99
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
331.
Figure 37: Views on whether the CERF should continue to be accessible to UN Agencies only.
332.
Table 13: Estimate of NGO funding with sub-grants from CERF grants to UN agencies.
Sector From project
analysis (2009-2010)
Estimated percentages
All CERF funding
US$bn‘06-‘10
Estimated CERF funding for NGOs
US$bn ‘06-’10 Food 5.2% 519.0 27.14 Health 37.0% 308.9 114.41 Water and sanitation 42.5% 168.9 71.79 Agriculture 12.9% 167.7 21.66 Shelter and NFI 50.2% 164.5 82.60Multi-sector 40.1% 140.9 56.46 Health – Nutrition 38.6% 131.1 50.55
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 100
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Sector From project
analysis (2009-2010)
Estimated percentages
All CERF funding
US$bn‘06-‘10
Estimated CERF funding for NGOs
US$bn ‘06-’10 Protection/H Rights 50.0% 63.3 31.63 CS – UNHAS 0.0% 60.3 - CS – Logistics 0.0% 48.8 - Education 31.1% 26.9 8.36 CS – Unspecified 0.0% 9.4 - Security 0.0% 8.3 - CS- Telecomms 0.0% 7.6 - Camp Management 12.5% 6.9 0.86 Recovery and Infrastr. 27.4% 4.3 1.19 Mine Action 27.4% 3.1 0.86 Overall estimate 25.4% 1,839.8 467.5
333.
334.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 101
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
8. CONCLUSIONS 335.
336.
337.
Input 338.
Outputs 339.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 102
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
340.
341.
Outcomes 342.
343.
344.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 103
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
Efficiency 345.
Effectiveness 346.
Appropriateness/relevance 347.
348.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 104
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
349.
350.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 105
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
9. RECOMMENDATIONS 351.
To the Emergency Relief Coordinator 352.
353.
354.
355.
356.
357.
To the CERF Secretariat 358.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 106
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
359.
•
•
360.
361.
To the UN Controller 362.
363.
To Donors 364.
CERF 5-year evaluation synthesis report Page 107
Draft of 25 July - Channel Research
365.
To Cluster Lead agencies 366.
367.
To UN agencies 368.
369.
370.