Preliminary Reflections on the IASC RTE of Darfur prepared for ALNAP, December 2004

1
Preliminary Reflections on the IASC RTE of
Darfurprepared for ALNAP, December 2004
2
(No Transcript)
3
What worked well

• Response to Jan Egelands initiative. IASC
  members commitment to participate came quickly
• Formation of core learning group (WFP, WHO,
  UNICEF, UNHCR, UNDP, OHCHR, UNIFEM, UNFPA, FAO,
  IOM, SCHR (CARE), OCHA). BUT, concept needs
  clearer definition and stronger anchorage with
  participating agencies
• Flexible approach. Fine-tuning, adapting to
  events on the ground, political realities etc.
  Taking time to adjust and to enhance team
  capacity based on first visit.
• Access to humanitarian actors. Despite emergency
  phase, quality time was provided to the team.
  BUT, not sufficient time with some key officials
  (traveling, tied up)

4
What worked well

• First visit revealed a number of areas of key
  concerns that applied to most agencies
  timeliness of response, early warning and
  contingency planning, protection, gender, SGBV,
  difficulties to field staff, lack of good
  political and contextual analysis etc.
• Already first RTE outcome the initial feed-back
  triggered a major review of humanitarian response
  capacity to study whether difficulties
  experienced in Darfur are systemic issues and
  need addressing BUT so far limited impact
• Use of a research assistant (OCHA ESU staff)
• Establishment and continued updating of a
  timeline
• Team dynamics mix of external and internal with
  external team leader being the lead

5
What worked well

• Low key approach to first visit brought
  eventually stronger field buy-in BUT more is
  needed
• Observation as a key method participation in
  regular programmed meeting were extremely
  illuminating
• First working paper tailored to reflect the
  challenges as encountered by humanitarian actors
  without finger-pointing nor backward looking.
  Degree of appreciation for the issues worked well
  with the field team. This led to acceptance of
  the team as part of the team there, an important
  step.

6
What worked not so well

• Too much time spent on the first mission to sell
  concept and value-added.
• Defensiveness of some actors in the field HQ
  buy-in did not necessarily mean field buy in.
  Perception that this was another HQ attempt to
  micro manage
• Huge task entire system. Little time to focus
  and need to resist temptation to focus too much
  on agency-specific details while not becoming too
  general.
• Convincing the field that earlier was better
  than later
• Significant resource implications. 3 staff of
  OCHA working on this. 2 initial consultants
  too little for such a big task.

7
What worked not so well

• Not enough time allocated to work in-between
  missions. Team had to stay abreast of
  developments and increase engagement with core
  learning group.
• Initial budget was not sufficient to accommodate
  the need for additional expertise and time
• No final workshop as planned after the first
  visit. This would have helped and could have led
  to better and more informed dialogue at an
  earlier stage.
• Initially agreed-to schedule was not respected by
  the field that set different priorities lowest
  in pecking order BUT adjusted schedule should
  work

8
Key Challenges

• Striking the right balance between providing
  value-added for the on-going operation and
  providing external evaluation feed-back
• Any reporting quickly is out of date. Keeping
  abreast of changes in between missions
• Getting better engagement by the agencies at HQ
  (core learning group) and at the field level
  (mini workshops)
• Avoid focusing on agency-specific details while
  not becoming too general
• Creating space for the evaluation
• Keeping the momentum and interest

9
What to do differently next time

• Undertake a low key preparatory visit ahead of
  first RTE visit. This could be the evaluation
  manager alone or jointly with the already
  identified team leader. Visit would help develop
  TOR and get buy-in
• Consider testing method of appreciative inquiry
  to reduce field resistance
• Ensure strong research capacity throughout
• Plan for more team working time in between phases
• Develop an evaluation website that provides all
  relevant background info plus reports
• Train national consultants to spend quality time
  in the field while international team is not
  present