German Humanitarian Aid Abroad - Channel Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

financing channels/implementing partners with respective comparative advantages and HA capacities that are relevant and appropriate for the implementation of HA projects. • German funded contributions earmarked to the operations of international organisations in Uganda are relatively small making their relevance and efficiency questionable. Efficiency • As far as possible, local purchase of food for food assistance, and local procurement of other products/nonfood items was applied. • Despite the fact that evaluating efficiency is difficult and efficiency aspects receive little attention in project reporting, available information suggests that some efficiency gains can be achieved if project durations are prolonged through the better use of start-up interventions and by adding a relatively low-cost follow-up phase. Impact • Although it is difficult to assess impacts and the potential rehabilitation of living conditions as compared to pre-crises level, some plausible links between project interventions and broader term goals and wider effects (impacts) can be claimed for German-funded HA, e.g., contributions to the improvement of livelihoods and a more dignified life as well as to self-help capacities and conditions for empowerment of communities. Whether or not target groups are less vulnerable to future crises depends on the degree of self sufficiency and resilience that can be reached through project interventions. Sustainability/connectedness • Implementing partners of Germanfunded HA increasingly use local capacities in project implementation, xvi especially local staff; partnerships with local organisations are still limited to some organisations; all implementing partners collaborate with local administrative and technical services, however, to a different degree. • Many projects form and use local committees and self-help capacities, and ensure the development of capacities necessary to create favourable conditions for longer-term results. LRRD issues (DETA – development) • Implementing partners have a good consciousness of LRRD issues and challenges, and developed their own strategies in order to face these challenges. However, funding sources for a follow-up of DETA projects that are accessible to NGOs are quite limited. Several representatives of implementing partners voiced a quite high degree of self-criticism with regard to the own organisation’s focus on and capacities for linking emergency relief with rehabilitation/recovery, and with development early enough. • Early gains and benefits of HA interventions and connectedness/sustainability are not (yet) ensured in a situation where (humanitarian) project related funding is phasing out and more programmatic and development oriented funding often does not reach the ground at scale. This implies a high risk of losing the peace dividend achieved so far. Coordination and complementarity • The picture related to the coordination of German-funded HA is quite patchy. Coordination is supported in principle, taken seriously and actively pursued by actors in Kampala and at field level. • While the HA cluster coordination is gradually phasing out, the links
etween the mostly UN-led cluster coordination system and the GoU led sector working groups are still weak making coordination, LRRD and appropriate connectedness difficult. • The limited capacities available at the German Embassy in Kampala for the coordination of German-funded HA demands for a pragmatic approach; interface management at field level in Uganda was ensured through the Head of Cooperation at the German Embassy who ensured the management and coordination of both the HA (AA and BMZ funded) and the development cooperation. At ministerial level in Berlin, the interface management between the two ministries followed the usual procedures of mutual information and consultation in the context of new projects. • Coordination capacity of implementing partners is not systematically promoted and budgeted for, leaving their engagement in overall coordination patchy. AA-BMZ interface management • AA and BMZ interface management at ministerial level in Berlin was and is ensured through the responsible desk officers in charge in the respective divisions and follows the usual approach of mutual information and consultation in the context of the decisions about new projects. The interface management between AA and BMZ funded HA at field level was and is ensured by one person in the Embassy who is in charge of a large portfolio. LRRD issues (emergency relief – DETA) • The German-funded HA in Uganda as a whole followed a clear LRRD approach with AA funded emergency relief through NGOs and IOs and some BMZ funded DETA projects. However, no evidence was found in Uganda that this phasing and ‘handing-over’ from emergency relief to rehabilitation/recovery/transitional aid of German funded HA was systematically and strategically planned, organised and managed by the two ministries. • So far there is no direct link between the DETA projects and the German bilateral development cooperation. However, there are limits to such linkages because of the strategic orientation within the priority areas with target groups and areas of intervention that to not necessarily concur with those of the DETA project. The possibilities and potentials of implementing partners of German funded HA to access and mobilise funding sources other than German donors in order to ensure a follow-up of DETA activities vary. Cross cutting issues • Some good practices on mainstreaming cross-cutting issues (human rights, gender, conflict/’Do-noharm and environment) exist in the context of the German-funded HA interventions. • Overall, cross-cutting issues have not yet been systematically integrated or mainstreamed in the management cycle of German-funded HA. Main recommendations Based on these findings and conclusions, the following main strategic and operational recommendations – some Uganda specific, others also related to German funded HA in general (as far as they can be derived from the Uganda case-study) – are made: xvii
Page 1: JOINT EVALUATION The German Humanit
Page 4 and 5: Acknowledgements The pilot case stu
Page 6 and 7: 4.3.2 Other efficiency consideratio
Page 8 and 9: Abbreviations and acronyms AA AA VN
Page 10 and 11: IDMC IDP(s) IFPRI IFRC INCAF InWEnt
Page 12 and 13: xii
Page 14 and 15: methods and instruments was used by
Page 18 and 19: Strategic recommendations (Uganda c
Page 20 and 21: oriented emergency and transitional
Page 22 and 23: • Debriefing Workshop: This works
Page 24 and 25: o 2007: Humanitarian assistance in
Page 26 and 27: 1.2.5 Challenges, limitations of th
Page 28 and 29: country's economy. Uganda’s consi
Page 30 and 31: years, these families might well be
Page 32 and 33: disarmament than to the development
Page 34 and 35: Good to very good pasture condition
Page 36 and 37: 3. The humanitarian response to the
Page 38 and 39: through core funding to OCHA’s op
Page 40 and 41: for emergency responses and the BMZ
Page 42 and 43: (DKH), HELP e.V., Malteser, Welthun
Page 44 and 45: Figure 2: Intervention logic of Ger
Page 46 and 47: sustainable manner, or support of r
Page 48 and 49: available in few large cities, serv
Page 50 and 51: In all of Northern Uganda, but nota
Page 52 and 53: examples of quantitative reporting
Page 54 and 55: can be considered as important pull
Page 56 and 57: to additional capacities if needs a
Page 58 and 59: GTZ: GTZ has the capacity, know-how
Page 60 and 61: exception to this is the animal hea
Page 62 and 63: 4.5 Sustainability/connectedness Bu
Page 64 and 65: are still operational. Many resourc
Page 66 and 67:
support in the water sector aims at
Page 68 and 69:
• Context analyses and needs asse
Page 70 and 71:
information sharing to joint planni
Page 72 and 73:
6.1 Strategic recommendations 6.1.1
Page 74 and 75:
• Actively search for potential p
Page 76 and 77:
Annex 1: Terms of Reference (ToR) -
Page 78 and 79:
primarily on the basis of reports a
Page 80 and 81:
• Were there any negative effects
Page 82 and 83:
analysis (including the role of oth
Page 84 and 85:
5. Evaluation products • Desk rep
Page 86 and 87:
Date Location Activity 25.06.2010 M
Page 88 and 89:
Key issues/ evaluation criteria Eva
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Key issues/ evaluation criteria 3.
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Annex 4: Maps DRK: Water supply, hy
Page 108 and 109:
Annex 5: Resource persons contacted
Page 110 and 111:
commissioned by GTZ /RUWAS, Kampala
Page 112 and 113:
1. Course of the field mission The
Page 114 and 115:
mailing list of the security briefi
Page 116 and 117:
Annex 7: Overview of project case s
Page 118 and 119:
field Date of beginning of interven
Page 120 and 121:
Praktiken sowie ihre Ernährungssic
Page 122 and 123:
Jinja), Jugendliche ohne Ausbildung
Page 124 and 125:
LRRD considerations Considerations
Page 126 and 127:
Objective(s) and intervention logic
Page 128 and 129:
Annex 8: Chronology of humanitarian
Page 130 and 131:
2005 and before 2006 2007 2008 2009
Page 132 and 133:
Humanitarian responses 2005 and bef
Page 134 and 135:
Table A9.2: Regional differences in
Page 136 and 137:
Table A10: IDP Population, June 201
Page 138 and 139:
Year Donor 2005 AA Implementing par
Page 140 and 141:
Year Donor 2007 BMZ Implementing pa
Page 142 and 143:
Year Donor Implementing partner/ fi
Page 144 and 145:
Annex 12: Additional portfolio in U
Page 146 and 147:
128
Page 148 and 149:
Goal Humanity Impact Impartiality I
Page 150 and 151:
132
Page 152 and 153:
FEWS NET (2010): Uganda Food Securi
show all

German Humanitarian Aid Abroad - Channel Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?