Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Response to Cyclone Nargis

a. Length and nature of experience of the interviewee in Myanmar, along with a description oftheir own role in the humanitarian response to cyclone Nargis.b. Identification of the key events or milestones relevant to the humanitarian response and abrief explanation of how they came about and what impact they had.c. Things that should have been done differently.d. Description and examples of beneficiary accountability systems that are in use or beingplanned by the agency.e. Coordination mechanisms they have been involved with, an assessment (including a ranking)of their usefulness and causal factors, recommendations for improvement.f. How the interviewee felt how this IA RTE could be most useful in moving forward.g. Any important questions not asked.3. Observation: Members of the team participated in nine cluster meetings and spent 8 daystraveling through different parts of Bogalay Township where they had an opportunity to observe theextent of the impact of the cyclone and the state of recovery of affected communities.4. Focus Group Discussions: A total of 17 focus group discussions were held in 10 villages inBogalay Township (see itinerary map in annex). The majority of these focus groups were separatedaccording to gender, except in two communities where FGD were held with separategroups/committees that had been set up at different times by UNDP and CARE to participate inmicrofinance and distribution activities respectively. The team also held discussions with villageauthorities and religious leaders. Given the time constraints, the team had the option for the fieldvisits of either making relatively short visits to each of the affected townships, or spending over aweek visiting one township. Acting on the advice of the in-country Advisory Group for the IA RTE,the team opted to spend eight days in one of the townships (Bogalay) to better understand howcommunities in less- and more-affected areas had been impacted by the cyclone and the status oftheir recovery. Following the field visit, two validation workshops of initial findings were held inYangon with NGOs, one for international NGOs in English and a second one for national NGOs inMyanmar language. These workshops, along with additional KII with agency staff and documentresearch helped in understanding the similarities and differences between Bogalay and other affectedtownships in the Delta.Usually in such time-limited activities, unless preparatory discussions have taken place withcommunities (preferably someone with whom there is a pre-existing trust relationship) evaluationteams often need to spend considerable time explaining the difference between a needs assessment(easily the most frequent reason for a visit by foreigners) and an evaluation – along with thedisheartening news that the evaluation team has nothing to offer in terms of assistance. In theMyanmar context, however, the IA RTE’s team’s work was aided considerably by the open andconstructive nature of the discussions with communities.During all 17 FGD with communities, without exception, it was enough to explain the objectives andapproach of the IA RTE and clarify that the team could offer nothing in the way of assistance.Moreover, even though this seemed to be the first time that communities visited by the IA RTE teamhad been split into male and female focus groups, but they willingly divided into groups with thedesired outcome, with both men and women entering directly into frank and informativeconversations.Due to time constraints, the IA RTE team was presented with the option of spending short periods ineach of the affected townships, or allocating time to look more in-depth within a single township.33