Executive Summary
The current BUZA funded project will achieve its planned objectives. Objective indicators for
water, sanitation, food security and morbidity objectives will be met. Communities, using
their own criteria, are also satisfied with the progress made in their partnership with Tearfund.
Importantly, the project has supported local peace processes by actively serving all
communities. Implementation strategies were generally, effective, cost-effective and
appropriate to the local context and resources. The project also established good relations with
most of the communities where it worked. Notable success factors have been the efforts made
by the project to comply with Tearfund’s programming standards and principles (HAP-I) and
the agency’s ethical values.
Factors for the project’s success and constraints varied. A sectoral analysis highlighted core
operational, staff and design competencies:
•
Water and sanitation activities were appropriate, cost efficient technologies and relevant to
address current and long-term issues. The performance of water activities were
constrained by an uneven compliance with minimum standards. Sanitation activities need
stronger community engagements and to improve the rate of implementation to meet
targets and desired impact.
•
Health Promotion demonstrated very appropriate, cost-effective approaches. Despite
some excellent and very creative activities, they were agency driven and community
participation appeared to be influenced by expectations of benefits. In spite of good KAP
results, there were indications that the health promotion is not resulting in behaviour
changes.
•
The design of the community development activities is very relevant, and theoretically
sustainable. They are implemented by very capable staff. The design and implementation
faces many challenges. Control of community development funds and the pace of the
very heavy, process leading to activity implementation creates friction and a slow rate of
implementation.
•
Food Security activities demonstrated excellent implementation and provide services and
commodities relevant and valued by beneficiaries. The rapid pace of recovery in Garsilla
has diminished the relevance of many of the food security input, emergency responsebased activities. Other activities, not input based, require a long-term commitment by the
project if they were to realise their potential
The evaluation supports Tearfund’s planned withdrawal form Garsilla at the end of the current
project period. Communities appear to have stabilised from the period of acute crisis and are
entering advanced stages of recovery.
•
The programme is meeting its objectives and project targets.
•
Needs continue but are developmental in nature.
•
The programmatic priority should be to consolidate activities.
•
Tearfund has planned an exit in 2010.
•
Extending the project would necessitate developmental modalities and long-term time
frames.
The project will deliver on its current objectives. Coverage of sanitation facilities and access
to safe water is good. Diarrhoea prevalence is stable. Household crop production has
increased significantly, as has local crop production generally. The cumulative value of
current activities together with Tearfund’s activities from earlier phases of the programme will
leave a significant footprint in these communities. Meeting objectives is attributable to
motivated staff and capacity to implement quality programming in extreme conditions. As
well, the agency’s Christian values and broader principles is a very unique and important
element of the current programming success. Whether international staff or Sudanese,
Christian or Muslim, they all share a sincere conviction to serve communities affected by the
current crisis. It is a uniquely professional and principled working environment and one
which derives quality results on the ground.
Needs continue to exist in Garsilla but they are developmental in nature. It is difficult to mark
the point where in a chronic crisis a community moves from acute emergency to stabilisation
and then recovery. Site visits and discussions with beneficiaries suggest that the period of
stabilisation has passed and issues of advanced recovery are more relevant. Evidence of a
recovering rural economy was observed in homes, villages and markets. Emergency response
activities do not relate to these types of needs.
The programmatic priority for next year should be to consolidate the programme’s four year
investment in Garsilla. Current activities may be decreasingly relevant to the current context,
but still provide value to communities. No changes to activities or implementational strategies
were felt to be necessary. Years of investment in Garsilla have generated solid relations with
communities and have developed excellent internal finance, logistical and administrative
systems, that will enable quality programming to finish with the satisfaction of reaching their
objectives.
Consolidation priorities will vary according to the sector of activity. The most urgent project
requirement is that WATSAN should address basic quality issues on water points already
installed. These quality issues are non-negotiable and minimum standards must be met.
Health behaviours were felt to be unchanged even if knowledge had increased. Integration
between Health Promotion, WATSAN and Food Security messages is an opportunity for
greater impact without changing activities. Including the poor through modifications to seed
and tree interventions will provide more equity, without changing the intervention itself.
These modifications should not undermine a strong community targeting mechanisms which
are a core success factor. Continuing efforts to delivering project activities to all communities
can reduce frictions in Garsilla area.
Tearfund’s Garsilla strategy document has planned an exit in 2010. It recognises the need to
define a point at which the mandate of DMT ceases. Similarly, the North Sudan Programme
Capacities Review emphasised development vs. relief priorities in the Garsilla programme.
Several programme activities are deliberate attempts to bridge transition to recovery.
Concerns by staff about the vagaries of security conditions make them uncomfortable to
discuss exiting. It is true, that if there were to be a resumption of hostilities, the programmes
current investment in local capacity and operational presence is an excellent for of
preparedness and response potential. While threat of insecurity is real in Garsilla, that threat is
perceived to be less imminent than in Ed Daein, Beida or many other locations in Darfur. In
response Tearfund is going ahead with the planned exit at the end or the current project cycle
focusing on consolidating activities, handover and capacity building.