evaluation of general food distribution in northern uganda: gulu ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

which include access to land by IDPs. The rations are expecte d to cover the net food gap which the IDPs can notmeet through their own agricultural production.The food rations have been maintained since January 2006 when the food rations were reduced from 74% to60%, 50% and 40% for Non Extremely Vulnerable Indiv iduals (NEVIs) and to 98% for Extremely VulnerableIndividuals (EVIs) in Gulu and Amuru districts. For Kitgum district the food rations are 60% for NEVIs and 100%for EVIs. The food rations normally include cereals (maize or sorghum), pulses (beans or yell ow split peas) andvegetable oil enriched with Vitamin A.The last EFSA of April 2007 showed that the food security situation has improved slightly but not enough toreduce the food ration any further. Up to 70% of the households are moderate food inse cure while around 14%are severely food insecure, even when food aid is included. Therefore, there is still a food gap in most householdsresulting in a maximum of two meals per day.Project objectivesWithin the NRC Distribution core activity there are two project activities, Food Distribution (FFL project) and FoodSecurity and Livelihoods (FSL). While the FFL project provides food assistance to IDPs in the camps and transitsites on a monthly basis to cover the food net gap, the Food Security and Live lihoods provides support to IDPsagricultural production to enable them to sustain themselves and assist them in the transition phase when theymove to transit sites and eventually their homes of origin.The objectives of the two project activities are r espectively:Food for Life/FFL:- To contribute to household food security and maintain the minimum nutritional and dietary standard byproviding food assistance to people affected by displacement in camps in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgumdistricts.- To protect lives by providing humanitarian food assistance to IDPs to meet the assessed average netfood gap- To safeguard the fundamental right to food for targeted IDPs with special emphasis on women andchildren, EVIs, and the long -term effect of insufficient a ccess to food.Food Security and Livelihoods project:1. To enhance productive capacity and self -reliance of displaced households.In this context the Distribution core activity aims at developing a more comprehensive approach towards foodsecurity, and contributes to durable solutions for the affected population.B. Purpose and phase for the evaluation and intended useNRC’s Food for Life (FFL) project has been operating in Gulu and Kitgum districts since 1997 and untildate no evaluation has been carried out of the program activity. The main purpose of the evaluation is toprovide a systematic and objective assessment of the achievements and performance of the FFL projectover the last three years and identify lessons learned and recommendations fo r future project direction.Emphasis will be placed on evaluating NRC’s ability to provide assistance in a relevant, efficient, effectiveand coordinated manner, as well as coverage and an analysis of impact and connectedness.The intended use of the eval uation is two-fold:• The results of the evaluation will be used by the FFL program manager to re -direct, if necessary,the project design and implementation of the FFL project.• To consider lessons learned from FFL in Uganda in design and implementation of d istributionprojects in similar IDP contexts.C. Scope of work and methodEven though the FFL project has been carried out in Uganda for more than ten years, since 1997, thetimeframe for the evaluation will mainly be limited to the last three years . This coincides with the currentWFP Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) from April 2005 to March 2008. In April 2008 a newPRRO will begin, and the evaluation team will assess how the FFL project has been operating over thelast three years, str engths, weaknesses and lessons learned of the project will be evaluated, andrecommendations for the way forward for the following PRRO period will be given.The methodology will include:56
• Desk studies. As a general background, the evaluation team should s tudy relevant material in NRC,such as NRC policy paper, country information, the NRC country strategy for Uganda, the NRCdistribution policy, action plans, project applications, agreements, reports and correspondence.• Field visits. A two-week field mission to Uganda; Kampala and the three districts where the FFL projectis currently implemented; Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum. These visits should include meeting and interviewswith NRC staff, WFP staff in Kampala, Gulu and Kitgum, district authorities in Gulu an d Kitgum,beneficiaries, Food Management Committee members in the camps, donor representatives and otherstakeholders• Interviews with stakeholders . Interviews with NRC HQ staff (i.e. program coordinator, head of Africasection, Distribution advisor). Cons ultations in the field will be held with all relevant stakeholders: NRCstaff, FFL staff, WFP staff, local authorities, beneficiaries, donor representatives and other stakeholders.Evaluation principles:The evaluation will be guided by the following ethi cal rules/considerations:• Openness – of information given, to the highest possible degree to all involved parties, where there are notspecial considerations against this• Publicity/public access – to the results when there are not special consideration aga inst this• Broad participation – the interest parties should be involved when relevant/ /possible• Reliability and independence – the evaluation should be conducted so that findings and conclusions arecorrect and trustworthyD. Issues to be coveredThe evaluation team will assess the performance of the FFL project in Uganda by applying the following criteria,based on the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria and defined in NRC’s Evaluation Policy. The question under eachcriterion is meant to guide the eva luation team in focusing on key issues for NRC.Relevance/ Appropriateness• Is the current project design consistent with the humanitarian needs of NRC’s populations of concern,IDPs?• To what extent does the FFL project provide the right response to the ne eds of NRC’s population ofconcern, IDPs?• How have beneficiaries been engaged in the project development and implementation?• Are the objectives of the FFL project in line with NRC’s Distribution policy?• Has NRC the required capacity in terms of staffing, local knowledge and expertise in the country toconduct relevant and appropriate response?• What are the alternatives to the current design of the FFL project? Is the FFL project the best alternativein the current IDP context, and why?• Are there mechanisms in place to monitor whether the FFL project has adapted to changes in thecontext and needs?Efficiency• To what extent has the FFL project utilised its resources and time efficiently?• Could the results have been achieved with fewer inputs?• Were appropriate and adequate resources (material, human, financial) available, in the right place and atthe right time?EffectivenessThe envisaged outcome of the FFL project in Uganda is to contribute to household food security and maintain theminimum nutritional and dietary standard by providing food assistance to people affected by displacement incamps in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum districts. It works towards that goal through concrete objectives (see page 2 ofthis ToR).• Are objectives and activities sufficiently and clearly defined? Are they relevant to the context and theenvisaged outcome of the project?• Was the application of the criteria for selection of beneficiaries (i.e. EVIs) applied consistently?• Is there an internal monitoring mechanism and objectively verifiable indicators in place to assesswhether or not objectives are achieved? To what extent did the beneficiaries actually benefit from theFFL project?• How do the beneficiaries and others view the value, quality and quantity of the FFL project?• What knowledge, about the project objectives, does the national NRC FFL staff have?Coordination• To what extent has there been coordination with NRC; WFP and other relevant agencies/national/localauthorities?• Which parties were included in the FFL project an d in what manner? Why?57
Page 4 and 5:
List of Contents1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 6 and 7:
9.3 NRC’s Efforts Towards Connect
Page 8 and 9:
tools; however it ensures food secu
Page 10 and 11:
♦♦♦♦With the ration reducti
Page 12: 1.4 CoordinationNRC’s approach to
Page 15 and 16: NRC coincided the field phase of th
Page 17 and 18: Juba talks have been perceived as t
Page 19 and 20: Table 2: 2004 Global Food Aid Deliv
Page 21 and 22: 4 PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO FOOD - TH
Page 23 and 24: 5 PROJECT RELEVANCE & APPROPRIATENE
Page 25 and 26: 5.3 Lesson Learned♦♦♦‘Being
Page 27 and 28: schedules and working long hours to
Page 29 and 30: The complaints about the failed ver
Page 31 and 32: 7 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESSHaving asses
Page 33 and 34: most and mothers observed the nutri
Page 35 and 36: 7.1.7 Lesson Learned♦ Food aid ha
Page 37 and 38: By 2005 the profile of the crisis i
Page 39 and 40: Recent studies 95 on global food se
Page 41 and 42: From the 2007 EFSA 104 it transpire
Page 43 and 44: 7.3 Project Objective 3:To safeguar
Page 45 and 46: 7.3.4 A Future Strategy for EVIs?Se
Page 47 and 48: 8 COORDINATION8.1 A Co-ordinated Re
Page 49 and 50: some extent also GoU through distri
Page 51 and 52: 9 RELIEF AND RECOVERY - CONNECTEDNE
Page 53 and 54: expected of them. From their perspe
Page 55 and 56: 9.4 Lessons Learnt♦♦♦♦♦St
Page 57 and 58: dependency among the IDPs and unwil
Page 59 and 60: establish the food security situati
Page 61: ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for the
Page 65 and 66: F. Time frame and budget considerat
Page 67 and 68: Annex 2: Evaluation Programme - inc
Page 69 and 70: Annex 3: List of Documents Consulte
Page 71 and 72: Expert OpinionsMr. Joe OloyaMr. Gra
Page 73 and 74: Typical Menu:BREAKFAST:• Millet p
Page 75 and 76: NRC objectives andTOR objectivesTo
show all

evaluation of general food distribution in northern uganda: gulu ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?