Preliminary Reflections on the
IASC RTE of Darfur
prepared for ALNAP, December 2004
Year
Month
Darfur
2003
2004
2005
Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May
El Fasher attack
Planned
Teamleader (humanit. Evaluation expert)
Protection consultant
OCHA evaluation staff
NGO specialist
Actual
Teamleader
Protection consultant
OCHA eval staff
NGO specialist
2 national consultants (mainly for Darfur field work)
1 targeting specialilst (WFP)
possibly collab from UNICEF
Morris mission
Greater Darfur Initiative Reopening for HA SG Visit Rev. Appeal
Closure
HC speaks out
of Darfur
SC discusses Darfur
2005 Appeal
ERC commissions evaluation
Team selection
First visit
HQ & Donor capitals
2nd visit 3rd visit
capital workshop
IASC present.
Final report
Team Select.
First Visit
HQ & Donor capitals
2nd visit
3rd visit
Field workshops
IASC present.
IASC present.
Final report
What worked well …
Response to Jan Egeland’s 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)
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
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.
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.
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
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
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