Preliminary Reflections on the Preliminary Reflections on the IASC RTE of DarfurIASC RTE of Darfur

prepared for ALNAP, December 2004prepared for ALNAP, December 2004

Year 2003 2004 2005Month 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

Morris missionDarfur El Fasher attack Greater Darfur Initiative Reopening for HA SG Visit Rev. Appeal 2005 Appeal

Closure HC speaks outof Darfur SC discusses Darfur

Planned ERC commissions evaluationTeam selection

Teamleader (humanit. Evaluation expert) First visitProtection consultant HQ & Donor capitalsOCHA evaluation staff 2nd visit 3rd visit IASC present.NGO specialist capital workshop Final report

Actual Team Select.First Visit

Teamleader HQ & Donor capitalsProtection consultant 2nd visit 3rd visitOCHA eval staff Field workshops IASC present.NGO specialist IASC present.2 national consultants (mainly for Darfur field work) Final report1 targeting specialilst (WFP)possibly collab from UNICEF

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

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

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

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

What worked not so well …What worked not so well …

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

Key ChallengesKey ChallengesStriking the right balance between providing Striking the right balance between providing value-added for the on-going operation and value-added for the on-going operation and providing external evaluation feed-backproviding external evaluation feed-backAny reporting quickly is out of date. Keeping Any reporting quickly is out of date. Keeping abreast of changes in between missionsabreast of changes in between missionsGetting better engagement by the agencies – at Getting better engagement by the agencies – at HQ (core learning group) and at the field level HQ (core learning group) and at the field level (mini workshops)(mini workshops)Avoid focusing on agency-specific details while Avoid focusing on agency-specific details while not becoming too generalnot becoming too generalCreating space for the evaluationCreating space for the evaluationKeeping the momentum and interestKeeping the momentum and interest

What to do differently next timeWhat to do differently next timeUndertake a low key preparatory visit ahead of Undertake a low key preparatory visit ahead of first RTE visit. This could be the evaluation first RTE visit. This could be the evaluation manager alone or jointly with the already manager alone or jointly with the already identified team leader. Visit would help develop identified team leader. Visit would help develop TOR and get buy-inTOR and get buy-inConsider testing method of appreciative inquiry Consider testing method of appreciative inquiry to reduce field resistanceto reduce field resistanceEnsure strong research capacity throughoutEnsure strong research capacity throughoutPlan for more team working time in between Plan for more team working time in between phasesphasesDevelop an evaluation website that provides all Develop an evaluation website that provides all relevant background info plus reportsrelevant background info plus reportsTrain national consultants to spend quality time in Train national consultants to spend quality time in the field while international team is not presentthe field while international team is not present