EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ECHO iv logframe states the principle objective for Tearfund Integrated
Emergency Nutrition, Water, Sanitation and Health Promotion Project as follows:
Reduce mortality and morbidity amongst displaced and host population in South
Darfur. That Goal statement is further elaborated as - to reduce vulnerability of
displaced and host population to malnutrition through selective feeding and improved
food production, and to disease through increased access to safe water supply,
sanitation and improved health and hygiene practices. The evaluators have borne that
principle objective goal and aims in mind throughout the period of the evaluation and
in every area of activity which they have analysed. The Terms of Reference as
prepared by Tearfund and further elaborated by the PD in Khartoum state the aim of
this assignment as follows: The aim of this assignment is assess the appropriateness,
relevance and impacts (both planned and unplanned) of the intervention from June
2007 – June 2008 with a focus on producing practical recommendations for
improving the effectiveness of ongoing operations of DMT programmes in North
Sudan: Ed Daein, South Darfur; and Wadi Salih, West Darfur.
In consideration of the activities indicated in the ECHO logframe the evaluators
consider that the Ed Daein can meet those within the allocated timeframes. The
evaluation document therefore considers in more detail the quality of the activities
and how Tearfund can improve efficiency and standards going forward over the next
time period.
The evaluators consider that the Tearfund activities have been considerate of
maximising the benefit to the most vulnerable beneficiaries even to the point of taking
positive initiatives to protect the IDPs from incursions and potential aggression from
the host communities. This is a creative approach from Tearfund and, although it is
well known from various humanitarian crisis throughout the world that host
communities can express their feelings of neglect by NGOs through aggression
against the DPs or IDPS, it is often ignored by the aid organisations.
Nevertheless the considerations of the evaluators are that where activity has taken
place amongst the host population this activity could be considered as rehabilitation
subsequent to a crisis rather than purely crisis relief/response in character. The
rehabilitation phase of any emergency requires greater consideration of sustainability
issues than a purely relief response. This document therefore gives considerable
attention to the relief development continuum and the methodologies employed for a
change in the prevailing circumstances of the programme. It should be well noted at
this stage however that the situation in Darfur is most definitely still a crisis response
and the prevailing political circumstance and instability does not currently
accommodate a development approach. The evaluators have given considerable time
and thought to the interventions made in the host community area and have concluded
that those interventions, whilst in essence rehabilitative, are absolutely essential to
maximise the potential for protection of facilities created for the IDP communities.
The NGOs including Tearfund have the complex task of maintaining a full blown
emergency capacity whilst intervening with rehabilitative interventions in certain
areas. Hence the oft used analogy in this report of ‘riding two horses’.
General recommendations
Although the programme is meeting its objectives, purpose and goals, this evaluation
was undertaken in a manner to identify any areas that could be improved upon
especially in consideration of future interventions and how to achieve them. The
following were identified where the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and
sustainability of the work could be improved. These recommendations are presented
below in priority order and in summary form only: reference is made to the
appropriate sections of the main text for the full discussion.
Sustainability
In order to maximise the sustainability of future interventions the programme must
change implementation methodology from that of a purely relief ideology,
methodology and quality to one which includes rehabilitation ideology which, being
characteristically more akin to developmental than relief, makes consideration of
sustainability through higher technical and engineering standards more significant.
Please note that the report is stating ‘to include’. The nature of the chronic complex
emergency precludes moving away from a crisis response and capacity since the
situation in North Sudan could/can become a full blown emergency at any time and
with at best short notice. The complexities of managing a chronic complex emergency
is well covered in the detailed recommendations sections of the report. Although the
intervention in North Sudan cannot, by virtue of the instability and volatility of
prevailing circumstances in North Sudan, move away from crisis response to a
development response it can, in order to enhance potential sustainability of
interventions, begin to consider some aspects of the intervention as preliminary
rehabilitation. The annex contains a detailed paper on the relief development
continuum which, although not fully applicable to the North Sudan intervention, may
provide some relevant input to the changing and complex nature of the programme.
Those recommendations will identify clearly the need for improved technical and
engineering standards, improved community participation components and in
dramatic increase in teaching and training of personnel at various levels of the
community.
The evaluators have included a section in the report body on management structures.
This section indicates some positive changes to programme management which
Tearfund might consider to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. In particular the
report looks at the change in the size of the programme and how the management
model might be revised to address capacity deficiencies.
On-going support
The evaluation considers the real need for continued support to IDPs and retaining the
capacity to respond to crisis which may happen at any time and without prior
warning. Such relief crisis intervention is ongoing and may decrease or increase in the
months and years ahead. The evaluation also considers the fact that increasingly there
are rehabilitation activities being built into the programme and in regard to this shift
in emphasis it is clearly documented that additional, or at least increased, educational
and learning and training support is required by beneficiaries. This of course requires
a ‘scaling up’ of Tearfund’s capacity both in professional standards of managers and
in terms of areas of expertise. The report highlights (on more than one occasion in
more than one sector) the need for ‘teachers and trainers’ and experts with the
professional expertise to provide the materials to support those experts
Future projects
The consideration of prerequisites for future projects is well documented in the report
under the recommendations sector. The reasoning for why these recommendations are
documented is contained in the annex where the change to rehabilitation is
highlighted and in the appendices on the relief development continuum.