Skip to main content
British Red Cross homepage
Donate

IFRC-Disaster Response Emergency Fund Review

Review of the IFRC Disaster Response Emergency Fund’s contribution to the Localisation Global Commitments.

The British Red Cross, in coordination with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), commissioned a review of the IFRC-Disaster Response Emergency Fund (DREF) pooled funding mechanism (PDF).

This review examines the extent to which the IFRC-DREF enables National Societies to locally prepare and lead responses with 'as-direct-as-possible' funding. It also captures learnings from the National Societies' engagement with the IFRC-DREF to strengthen, empower, and position the IFRC to champion the IFRC-DREF internally and externally with key stakeholders.

The British Red Cross have also produced an accompanying policy brief, summarising the findings of the review and giving key takeaways.

Key findings

Enablers of locally led action:

  1. Direct and flexible funding: The IFRC delivers on its commitment to provide quality funding through the IFRC-DREF, with 82% of funding provided directly to National Societies, surpassing the Grand Bargain commitment of 25%. The fund offers unearmarked support with flexible implementation timelines.
  2. Overhead costs and capacity strengthening: IFRC-DREF allows National Societies to cover overhead costs (up to 40% of the total budget) while also providing unique operational and capacity strengthening support through national, regional and international technical staff and logistical aid via surge mechanisms.
  3. Support to underfunded crises and anticipatory action: The IFRC has made significant progress in using IFRC-DREF in under-supported and increasingly complex emergencies, such as disease outbreaks and civil unrest. The integration of the Anticipatory Pillar allows National Societies access to two funding mechanisms coordinated through one fund.
  4. Local leadership and decision making: Leadership capability among National Societies improves with increased DREF experience, enabling them to develop stronger organisational capacities to address due diligence and reporting requirements, which can enhance access to additional funding opportunities, beyond DREF.

Areas for improvement:

  1. Reporting and needs assessments: While IFRC-DREF offers streamlined reporting requirements, some National Societies face challenges in balancing rapid response with thorough needs assessments.
  2. Risk sharing and accountability: Financial reconciliation and long-standing queries on cost eligibility remain time-consuming and the main contributors to systemic late reporting by National Societies to the IFRC. The shared ownership of risk management with National Societies could be improved to enable them to better manage donor resources over time.
  3. Language and accessibility: there is currently no option for a National Society to upload an application to the platform in a national language. This, alongside further streamlining the application and approval processes could improve overall accessibility to the IFRC-DREF.
  4. Prioritisation and donor expectations: Differences between how a National Society conducts needs assessments and prioritises humanitarian needs and donor expectations have at times led to misaligned priorities.

Recommendations

Technical recommendations:

  1. Maintain the flexibility of the IFRC-DREF, focusing on National Societies' ability to prioritise emergency responses.
  2. Strengthen impact reporting, including engagement with communities to demonstrate IFRC's people-centred approach.
  3. Address systematic challenges related to the functionality of the IFRC-DREF in application appraisal and monitoring.
  4. Work with National Societies to improve needs analysis and strengthen the quality of reporting.
  5. Outline how the IFRC-DREF is enabling devolved decision-making and locally led response action to reflect localisation aims.

Policy take-aways:

  1. The IFRC-DREF is a crucial facilitator for locally led action, supporting both rapid humanitarian response and long-term capacity building.
  2. It is important to acknowledge the value of National Societies' needs assessments as reflective of local priorities, while viewing IFRC-DREF as a growth opportunity for organisational development.
  3. IFRC should prioritise strengthening systems and organisational capability of National Societies needing support to meet donor expectations.
  4. IFRC could consider strengthening decision-making systems based on comparative impact of its allocations and countries assisted, to reflect the resource-constrained environment.

Contact information

Do you have a question about this page or want to give us feedback? Visit our Contact Us page.