Under Secretary-General Amos,

Excellencies, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

Humanitarian Partners:

Introduction

It is a great honour for me to be invited to speak today on
behalf of the operational agencies at this annual High Level
Conference convened for the United Nations Central Emergency
Response Fund (CERF) – this year on the CERF's 6th
Anniversary.

This unique funding facility has provided US $ 2.2 billion
dollars in predictable, timely financing to 17 agencies over the
past 6 years.  In 2011, CERF supported no fewer than 45
countries with a total of some $410 million dollars. Valerie Amos
is my favourite correspondent – because every month,
sometimes several weeks in succession, I receive news of additional
CERF funding!

The CERF has thus improved vastly the capabilities of
humanitarian agencies and partners to respond to crises.  In
doing so, the CERF is saving millions of
lives.   

On a parochial note, IOM alone has received some US $118 million
from the CERF.  This places IOM 6th among of the 17 agencies
receiving CERF funding – accounting for 5.2 percent of the
Fund.  In 2011 alone, IOM's CERF funding increased by 30
percent. 

In preparing my remarks for this distinguished gathering, I
thought it would be useful to draw on some of the lessons we have
learned in recent years, and to cite a few examples of IOM's work
made possible by the CERF in 2011.  

And what a year 2011 has been for humanitarian actors! All of us
are working in more places, on more complex issues, and under more
difficult conditions, than ever before --- grappling with a series
of complex emergencies, often simultaneously. 

For example, from the provision of (a) assistance to
displaced people in West Africa following post election
violence in Cote d'Ivoire; (b) to addressing wide-spread
persistent drought in the Horn of Africa; (c) to large-scale
population movements in South Sudan; (d) to mass flooding in
parts of Asia and Central America; all the while responding (e)
to the needs of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing violence
in Libya.  

Throughout, the CERF has been an indispensable partner – a
partner that has enabled, empowered and enriched our capacity to
get life-saving assistance to people in dire need -- when they need
it most – often within 24 to 48 hours following the request
of the Resident Coordinator.

Our hats are off to our unfailing and loyal Member States, who
despite their own budget stringencies, continue to find ways and
means to support this life-saving activity.

With these remarks as an introduction, I would like to make
three points and offer, in conclusion, three suggestions to improve
the CERF. 

My first point: the CERF saves
lives.  It's as simple as
that.   

I. CERF Saves Lives

Through its Rapid Response and Underfunded Emergency windows,
the CERF provides that quick, predictable infusion of financial
life-blood that enables humanitarian agencies to reach out
immediately to those in desperate need of help – not after
surveys have been conducted or policy papers drafted – but
right away, when lives hang in the balance. 

Allow me to illustrate this point in the simplest but, at the
same time, most explicit way by demonstrating the difference CERF
has made in three situations of acute distress. 

A. The Libya crisis

The crisis in Libya triggered the movement of more than a
million people across borders, representing the largest migration
crisis since the first Gulf War.  

In addition to migrants from Egypt, Tunisia and other
neighbouring countries who fled the conflict, nationals of more
than 120 countries -- mainly migrant workers and their families --
fled Libya to neighbouring countries; there they gathered in open
spaces, often traumatized by their experiences, and without
adequate assistance or services. 

The first three months of the crisis witnessed massive cross
border movements, reaching 7,000 arrivals a day in Tunisia and
2,500 arrivals a day in Niger. At its peak, the camps set-up at the
Tunisia border accommodated up to 20,000 foreign nationals.

CERF funding enabled the early establishment of five transit
centres on the country's borders that provided life-saving
assistance: shelter, food and access to health
facilities. 

Through these centres, WFP, ICRC, UNICEF, UNHCR, IOM, the
Nigerien Red Cross, WHO and MSF Spain attended to the needs of
thousands of migrants until they were ready and able to join
convoys for the onward journey home – 250,000 in all
returning to 54 countries—more than half to sub-Saharan
Africa – by means of 700 charter and commercial flights at a
cost of US $125 million.  

B. Stranded Migrants in Zimbabwe

A lower profile migration crisis, but with equally severe
consequences for those affected, is happening in Southern Africa.
The past 12-months have seen rising numbers of migrants stranded in
Zimbabwe, en route to South Africa, perhaps today the largest
migration route in Africa.  

Most of these migrants originate in the Great Lakes and Horn
regions.  They move south to escape drought or conflict. 
A treacherous journey by foot brings them to the remote
Mozambican-Zimbabwean north-western border, where they typically
arrive -- exhausted, dehydrated, and malnourished.

With funds from the CERF's Under-Funded Emergencies window, IOM
was able to establish a border reception facility; there, large
numbers of vulnerable persons, including women, children, and often
abused migrants are received.

Health examinations, food and sanitation facilities are provided
every month to more than 1,000 people who would otherwise have no
access to life-saving services in these remote regions.

C. Returnees to South Sudan

A third example comes from South Sudan, the world's newest
country; there the CERF has been a vital partner to IOM, providing
its single largest allocation in the amount of US $6.5
million.  This funding has made it possible for some 18,000
vulnerable Southern Sudanese to move from Khartoum and Kosti to
South Sudan following independence in July this year.  Since
2007, IOM has helped return and reintegrate more than 510,000 South
Sudanese from the North.  

CERF funding enables IOM to provide transport for the returnees
to help rescue them from squalid conditions in open areas in
Khartoum where they wait to go home.   The returnees
travel by train and barge – a two week journey to ports on
the Nile up to Juba.

The South Sudan case illustrates that the CERF should not, and
does not wish to be the sole responder to emergency.

It strikes me that any of the 16 other agencies that have
received CERF allocations during the past six years could no doubt
provide similarly relevant examples of work to reinforce the value
of the CERF.  In its short lifetime, the CERF has
proved to be a lifeline for hundreds of thousands who
suddenly found themselves without hope.    

II. CERF Catalyses Reform 

Turning to my second point, the CERF catalyses
reform.   

The United Nations General Assembly mandated an independent,
five-year evaluation of the CERF.  The assessment concluded
what many of us already intuitively knew: in brief, the evaluation
concluded that the CERF increases the predictability and coverage
of humanitarian funding for new emergencies. 

In doing so, the CERF contributes to the broader humanitarian
reform process and does so in two distinct ways: 

First, it contributes to our ability to respond rapidly.
Making a fast response even faster, the recent "Umbrella Letter of
Understanding" introduced this year has further streamlined the
disbursement of funds to recipient agencies.

Second, it plays a catalytic role in resource
mobilization.  Given the CERF's global reputation as a
respected facility and partner in humanitarian crises, it provides
a "stamp of approval" on emergencies, thereby signaling to donors
the seriousness of a crisis, and thereby legitimizing funding
appeals. CERF gives our actions credibility in the eyes of
donors. 

We know, however, that we cannot and should not rely completely
on the CERF for all of our humanitarian funding – the Fund is
meant to catalyze funding in emergencies. 

The recent five year evaluation reminds us that the CERF is best
used when it complements agencies' internal advance mechanisms and
is used to leverage additional funding.

IOM Emergency Response Fund

But even the quick infusion for which the CERF is renowned can
sometimes be too slow.  This was the case this year in
Libya.  I felt obliged to use US $10 million from a
non-emergency, administrative part of the IOM budget to get
operations started immediately.    

In this regard, IOM's Governing Council last week approved the
establishment of an internal IOM bridging, automatically
relenishable emergency response fund.

This fund will strengthen our internal response capacity and
complement CERF allocations by providing IOM with advance funds up
to $30 million per year, prior to the availability of donor
resources.  This will allow IOM to provide immediate
mitigation relief to the growing displacement consequences of
natural or man-made disasters.

Third, the recent Evaluation also highlights the need to
further strengthen accountability mechanisms. IOM, and I dare say
all of us, can do better in documenting the important results
achieved with CERF funding.

III. CERF Promotes Partnerships

My third and final point concerns the CERF's impact on
humanitarian partnerships – another key component of the
humanitarian reform process. 

The CERF has pushed all agencies to think how we might work
together to provide faster, more effective services to our
beneficiaries.  For example, the CERF has challenged us to
make better use of coordination tools such as the Cluster System,
and in-country allocation processes.  It has also encouraged
us to enter into joint operations, including with partners such as
NGOs, Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and other national
partners.  At risk of putting too fine a point on it, the CERF
is shaming us all into working together. 

A. Partnership in the Horn of Africa

In the Horn of Africa, with CERF assistance, IOM is working in
close partnership with several humanitarian partners, including
Kenya's Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation.  Together,
we have set-up mobile medical response teams that operate in
hard-to-reach communities in Turkana, an area in north-west Kenya
hard hit by the worst drought in 60 years. 

This assistance complements previous CERF-funded IOM activities
in 2009 and 2010 where IOM dispatched four teams on similar
missions to crisis-affected communities, benefitting more than
492,000 people.  

Likewise in Ethiopia, CERF funding through the under-funded
window has enabled a new IOM partnership with FAO and UNDP. 
The three agencies have joined forces to address acute water and
livelihoods needs of more than 500,000 vulnerable pastoralists,
displaced persons and other vulnerable, drought affected
communities.

Conclusion

The few project examples I have cited -- and there are many more
from all of our agencies -- are emblematic of CERF's importance
providing timely, targeted, humanitarian assistance that saves
lives and gives people that urgent, critical support to survive
crisis and to move on. In doing so, the CERF advances the reform
agenda and expands partnerships. 

The increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters and
conflicts combined with the effects of climate change,
environmental degradation, food and energy price volatility, rapid
population growth, urbanization – often without
industrialization – requires all of us – more than ever
– to provide a faster, more flexible and smarter humanitarian
response. Looking ahead, the CERF is -- and will remain -- an
important partner for our agencies in this endeavour.

In closing, I wish to express on behalf of all of the agencies,
our deep appreciation to donors and to our partners, in particular,
the CERF Secretariat at OCHA, for their excellent cooperation and
support, and the shared commitment to improving financing for
humanitarian interventions.  

We wish to thank in particular, the Emergency Relief
Coordinator, Ms. Valerie Amos, for her inspiring and indefatigable
leadership in supporting the humanitarian community's efforts; and
for her unwavering commitment to the humanitarian reform
agenda. 

For all of those donors who have committed to the CERF, we thank
you. Please be assured that your investment in the CERF, no matter
how large or small, does a tremendous amount of good and goes a
long way towards saving lives; catalysing reform; and promoting
partnerships. 

In its lifetime, CERF continues to be a lifeline for
those in need. For the future, the CERF needs to be faster, larger,
and its results better documented and publicized.