Contract holder: The KonTerra Group
Lead Consultant: Silvia Hidalgo (DAHLIA)
Team members: Dorian Laguardia (Methodology Expert), Martin Fisher (Evaluator), Cécile Collin (Evaluator), Nathan Horst (Researcher)
Evaluation of the Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs)
In collaboration with The KonTerra Group, a 5-member team has evaluated the Common Humanitarian Funds covering the period from January 2011 to September 2014.
Context and Aims of the Evaluation
The Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) is a country level pooled funding mechanism borne out of the 2005 Humanitarian Reform Agenda which focused on improving the international community’s ability to achieve more effective and timely humanitarian responses, with better prioritisation of resources, and more comprehensive, people-centred, needs-based relief and protection. One of the three key reform objectives focused on financing and specifically the need to ensure that funding for emergency response is needs-driven, timely, flexible and predictable. The CHF is one of various pooled funding mechanisms that emerged or were strengthened in the context of the Humanitarian Reform Agenda. CHFs are currently present in six countries with large protracted humanitarian operations. The geographic scope of the evaluation is global although five CHFs were covered in detail: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan; with comparisons where relevant and possible with the most recent CHF in Afghanistan.
The evaluation assessed the contribution of the CHF mechanism to the humanitarian response, and its role among the funding instruments. The contribution of CHFs to the collective results of the humanitarian community; to building resilience to future disasters; to the humanitarian reform process, including strengthening leadership, coordination structures, planning processes, and partnerships as well as strengthening the timeliness, coherence and quality of the humanitarian response. It looked into the effectiveness of monitoring, reporting, and evaluation systems in providing information on results, assisting in fund management, ensuring credibility, and influencing wider humanitarian action. The appropriateness of risk management practices was also analyzed.