H.E. Mr. Per Örneus, Swedish Ambassador for Humanitarian Affairs

Statement by ambassador Per Örnéus at the CERF High-Level Conference commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) CERF 10 year

CERF is one of the true success stories of humanitarian reform.

Ten years ago there was a clear need for rapid-reaction-funding to be available at the discretion of the ERC – in order to respond to obvious dramatic needs – in this particular instance – the Darfour Crisis – The ERC at that time Jan Egeland said – “It is not dignified, nor practical that the UN ERC must be scrounging for funds among donors in order to set a coordinated response into action in any situation – particularly not when many lives are at stake”. So, the member states of the UN got together and handled the challenge. The tool – the modernized CERF -was set up and it has served the system well for 10 years – I dare say it has served the affected populations, and the implementing agencies – but I must admit, it has also served the donor partners well. Contributing to the CERF is a quick, effective and - may I say -costeffective - way of disbursing humanitarian aid money ensuring that it is spend in some of the places in the world with the greatest humanitarian needs. Far more than 100 member states have contributed to the CERF so far, even though some governments more than others, but that is beside the point.

The CERF has a clear value added to the humanitarian Eco-system! The CERF acts as a lubricant and an ignition mechanism in the UN response system, and it empowers OCHA and the ERC.

It gives the UN coordination system OCHA and the ERC relevance and power to act.

It brings donor partners together – it constitutes a tool for UN Member states to share responsibility.

Sweden is proud to be one of the strongest supporters of the CERF for all these years – and we will continue to be. To invest in CERF is key to Swedish humanitarian policy and practice.

At times during the years we have heard complaints about the fact that the CERF is not a fund through which CSOs can receive direct funding – that the CERF is an exclusive tool for the purpose of strengthened UN (and IOM) action.

But this was one of the aims from the very outset – to strengthen UN humanitarian response. CERF should keep targeting the UN and IOM. Expanding the focus to international and local NGOs would make the fund slower and more bureaucratic. The whole humanitarian community benefits from CERF allocations regardless of who is the main implementing agent.

Having said this, naturally, there is a concern regarding the need to increase direct funding to local CSOs – and this must be addressed – But to my mind – not through tinkering with a tool that functions fairly well and that has a clear role in the eco-system. We must have the wisdom to safe guard or to ring-fence a mechanism that works – and we must have the courage to develop new tools and mechanisms when needed.

We must have the strength to enlarge an important tool such as the CERF when this is needed and possible.

There is already today an excellent alternative for NGO allocations, and that is the CERF’s sister funds – Country-based Pooled Funds. That tool should- or even must- be developed further. The importance of optimizing the effectiveness of the entire humanitarian eco-system cannot be underestimated. The key is most likely to be found in developing better collaborative approaches to humanitarian interventions and engagement. All parts of the global system are important. Building local capacities – emancipating local communities and building strong partnerships must be the way forward. We must find tools and modalities for that. The CERF as such may not be the vehicle for this, but the mere fact that the member states and the UN managed to create the CERF and to make it work must function as an inspiration. We can – together – make things work. We must jointly increase our support to un-earmarked, flexible and rapid-non bureaucratic mechanisms. We have the power of transformation.

Ten years ago the CERF was created to meet a perceived or defined need – there was a void of reaction capacity in the UN- coordinating system – the ERC/ OCHA was lacking an important tool for rapid financial response and coordination – it was a question of / a matter of both saving lives and maintaining or creating a true relevance for the UN Coordination role.

The member states had the courage to create the modern CERF by a consensus-decision in the GA – this was an act of shouldering a united responsibility. Question is:

Do we have the same courage today?

Could we together increase the size of the CERF?