Download PDF - ReliefWeb

More documents

Recommendations

Info

funding contributions to multilateral organisations, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Fig. 1.2 Evaluations in ERD by year of publication No. of Evaluations 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Responding to these new demands and pressures, the system has in the past decade instigated and witnessed a range of initiatives aimed at improving its own transparency and accountability. These include the development of codes of conduct, benchmarks and standards and the exploration of mechanisms for encouraging compliance with these codes and standards (see Box 1.1). Significantly, it was a system-wide evaluation of the international humanitarian response to the genocide in Rwanda (JEEAR, 1996) that provided a final impetus for some of these, including ALNAP. 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Box 1.1 Principal Accountability Initiatives in the Humanitarian System over the Last Decade 1994 Publication of the code of conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs in disaster relief. 1996 Publication of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda. Start of the Sphere Project by a coalition of European and US NGOs to develop minimum standards for five sectors of assistance which resulted in the publication of a final version of a Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response in 2000. Formation of People in Aid by a group of UK organisations to focus on issues in the management and support of aid personnel and which in 1997 produced the People in Aid Code of Best Practice. 1997 Formation of the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) to provide an interagency forum to discuss and link these initiatives and undertake complementary activities on learning and accountability issues. Group of UK organisations forms to develop the concept of a Humanitarian Ombudsman (renamed in 2000 as the Humanitarian Accountability Project) as recommended by the Rwanda evaluation – in 2001 this initiative was raised to an international action-research plane. 1.3 Evaluation: a Key Tool for Accountability and Learning The changes and pressures of the 1990s, combined with wider management changes, resulted in an unprecedented level of scrutiny of the system, both by outsiders, and from within. Bilateral donor organisations began to apply their new management approaches to their funding and therefore to those they funded, but these management strategies were
Page 1 and 2: ALNAP Annual Review Series 2001 Hum
Page 3 and 4: Foreword In April 2000 the full mem
Page 5 and 6: THE EVALUATIVE REPORTS DATABASE (ER
Page 7 and 8: 1.1.1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene
Page 9: US$ Millions 5000 4000 3000 2000 10
Page 13 and 14: Box 1.2 The Development of Evaluati
Page 15 and 16: Box 1.3 The Evaluative Reports Data
Page 17 and 18: The principal contextual difference
Page 19 and 20: inactions). However, the presence o
Page 21 and 22: The first two and their sub-heading
Page 23 and 24: About half of the evaluation report
Page 25 and 26: Box 2.1 Successful Impact? ‘Despi
Page 27 and 28: tarian assistance and political act
Page 29 and 30: here. One important area is the pot
Page 31 and 32: and coordination. Evaluation report
Page 33 and 34: Other examples of longer term strat
Page 35 and 36: development bureaucracies. Such pro
Page 37 and 38: humanitarian space hampered agencie
Page 39 and 40: Box 2.6 Flood Preparedness in China
Page 41 and 42: • Improved coordination, includin
Page 43 and 44: Box 2.7 Good Practice: Participatio
Page 45 and 46: Almost none of the reports note how
Page 47 and 48: Almost all reports are based on the
Page 49 and 50: geo-political context, relations wi
Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER 3 EVALUATIONS OF HUMANITARI
Page 53 and 54: humanitarian issues, is highly sele
Page 55 and 56: 3.2 The Kosovo Conflict: a Set of I
Page 57 and 58: mandate. For instance: ‘One reaso
Page 59 and 60: although higher marks for effort an
Page 61 and 62:
3.2.12 A crisis in assistance: assi
Page 63 and 64:
3.3 Agency Response Issues 3.3.1 In
Page 65 and 66:
The non-camped refugee population A
Page 67 and 68:
or slower emergency were followed (
Page 69 and 70:
eports), little provision is made e
Page 71 and 72:
While the need to focus seriously o
Page 73 and 74:
Codes of conduct and operating prin
Page 75 and 76:
3.4 Meta-evaluation: Kosovo Evaluat
Page 77 and 78:
However, little more than introduct
Page 79 and 80:
The final, M-4 layer, ought to guid
Page 81 and 82:
ights-based approach to relief migh
Page 83 and 84:
commissioning, designing and doing
Page 85 and 86:
‘While donor governments gave US$
Page 87 and 88:
accorded more careful consideration
Page 89 and 90:
4.2.6 Linking relief, rehabilitatio
Page 91 and 92:
ECHO evaluation (ECHO, 2000o) UNHCR
Page 93 and 94:
For the most part there is an accep
Page 95 and 96:
Kosovo and non-Kosovo reports were
Page 97 and 98:
agencies should ensure that suffici
Page 99 and 100:
a distinction between assessing whe
Page 101 and 102:
However, the OECD-DAC (1999) guidan
Page 103 and 104:
4.6 Concluding Remarks This Annual
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 2 1. Use has also been made
Page 107 and 108:
ACT ANNEX 2 ACRONYMS Action by Chur
Page 109 and 110:
WFP World Food Programme (UN) WHO W
Page 111 and 112:
Impartiality An approach to the pro
Page 113 and 114:
DANIDA (1999e) Evaluation of Danish
Page 115 and 116:
Focus: Rehabilitation, resettlement
Page 117 and 118:
Objective: Review whether project m
Page 119 and 120:
Comments: Covers Montenegro, Serbia
Page 121 and 122:
Objective: Assess the impact of act
Page 123 and 124:
ANNEX 5 REFERENCES FOR OTHER SOURCE
Page 125 and 126:
Le Billon, P. (2000) The Political
Page 127:
Valid International (1999) Disaster
show all

Download PDF - ReliefWeb

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?