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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Where NRC, WFP, district authorities and other stakeholders coherent in their understanding andimplementation of the FFL project?Coverage• Were the intervention criteria chosen appropriately at different stages of the project?Impact• Has the FFL project identified quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure the impacts of itsactivities? Are monitoring and analysis mechanisms in place?• What intended and unintended, positive and negative effects are produced by the FFL proj ect, both onthe population of concern and others who are affected?• Does the FFL project produce the most appropriate impact, given the situation and recourses available?• What can be done to avoid any negative impact or to enhance any positive impact?Connectedness• Have linkages between relief and recovery phases been established?• To what extent has national and local capacity been supported?• To what extent are the GoU and the districts able to ensure that the IDPs minimum nutritional needs arecovered after end of the FFL project?Cross cutting issues:• Gender – how has the FFL project adopted a gender sensitive approach?• Protection – how has the FFL project ensured that protection concerns have been incorporated andrights based approach adopted?Specific issues for consideration:Possible consequences if the FFL operation is scaled down too rapidlyDue to a relatively stable security period over the last year, the GoU, various international and nationalorganizations and donors are preparing a transitio n from emergency phase to recovery and development phase.This has its basis in the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP), launched by the GoU in October 2007.In this situation the pressure for IDPs to move to transit sites and their homes of orig in is increasing.Simultaneously there is a pressure for international organizations to reduce humanitarian assistance anddevelopment organizations to gradually take over.In accordance to this, there will be a reduction of IDPs receiving food rations i n 2009. The question is the rate ofwhich the reduction of food assistance or a scale down will take place. Monitoring of the food security situation forthe IDPs is a key factor, and climatic changes resulting in natural disasters i.e. in 2007 prolonged h eavy rain andfloods during the rainy season affected the harvest in August and September. WFP and NRC have includedcontingency planning for the worst case scenario in their strategy for the upcoming PRRO period (2008 -2010).Consequences of a rapid scale down need to be taken into account in an assessment of the remaining projectperiod.Conclusions and results from the evaluation should culminate in recommendations for the NRC FFLproject and gradual phase -out over the next 2 -3 year period (2008 – 2009/2010).E. Evaluation teamThe evaluation team will be composed of two persons. The team leader will lead the work of the team and beresponsible for completing the report. The team leader should have skills and proven background in evaluationsof humanitarian assistance projects in emergency/relief/recovery phases, preferably with food assistance andexperience with situation of forced displacement. The regional/national team member should have knowledge andexpertise in humanitarian assistance and goo d knowledge of the culture and conflict in the region. The teammembers should be gender aware.An Evaluation Steering Committee will be established, with the following members: Advisor for Evaluation, NRCHQ; Advisor for Distribution, NRC HQ; Programme Director, NRC CO, Uganda;, Project Manager, GFD/FFL,NRC CO, Uganda; and Program Coordinator for Uganda, NRC HQ. The evaluation manager is Advisor forEvaluation, NRC HQ,The main function of the Steering Committee will be to select the external evaluato rs, review preliminary findingsand recommendations and establish a dissemination and utilisation strategy. The main function of the EvaluationManager will be preparing the terms of reference (in close collaboration with the stakeholder and members of thesteering committee), administration and over all co -ordination, including monitoring progress.58
F. Time frame and budget considerationsThe whole process of evaluation will have a time frame of six weeks starting in April 2008 and ending in May 302008.thThe evaluation is scheduled to start its work early -April initiating field visits to Uganda no later than April 21 st .Theteam leader should alter the evaluations manager at NRC immediately if serious problems or delays areencountered. Approval of any significant changes to the evaluation time table will be referred to the SteeringCommittee.Total Budget frame USD 50,000. ( Fees for consultants USD 37,500 (not including VAT, travel expenses, DSAand printing og report).Expression of interest should be forwarded to Advisor for Evaluation, NRC HQ Kine Brox Brodtkorb not later thanMarch 24 th , 2008. The final decision on selected candidates for the evaluation will be taken by March 28th. Forfurther information please contact: Advisor for Evaluation, NR C HQ Kine Brox Brodtkorb: kine.brodtkorb@nrc.noG. ReportingAt the end of the field research, the evaluation team will hold a workshop with the NRC Uganda team, mainstakeholders (representatives from th e UN World Food Programme, the District Disaster ManagementCommittee) and other relevant staff of the NRC office identified by the Steering Committee to discuss thepreliminary findings of the evaluation exercise.A draft report should be submitted not l ater than May 20th. The completion date for the Final Evaluation report willbe May 30 th with the consultant having addressed NRC’s comments as appropriate. Difference of opinionbetween team members regarding conclusions/ recommendations should be reflect ed in the report.The size of the report should be approximately 40 pages (appendices not included), clearly written in English,using Arial 11 point.The evaluation report should consist of:• Executive summary and recommendations not more than 5 pages• Main text, to include index, context, NRC mandate, evaluation methodology, commentary andanalysis addressing evaluation purpose and outputs to include a section dedicated to the issueof particular lessons -learning focus, conclusion (not more than 35 pages )• Appendences, to include evaluation terms of reference, maps, sample framework andbibliography.•All material collected in the undertaking of the evaluation process should be lodged with the Evaluation managerprior to the termination of the contract.H. Follow upThe final evaluation report will make the basis for a management response and an action plan to follow up on therecommendations provided by the evaluation team. The final report and action plan will also be part of theplanning for p roject activities for the remaining period of the FFL project, and integrated as part of the NRCUganda Country Strategy to be revised in September 2008.For the follow up of the evaluation the Project Manager, GFD/FFL, NRC CO, Uganda is the main respo nsible withthe Distribution Advisor as the focal point at NRC HQ. A management response, responding to therecommendations, including an action plan should be prepared by the Project Manager, GFD/FFL, NRC CO,Uganda by June 16th, 2008. It is the responsib ility of the Programme Director, NRC CO, Uganda to ensure thatthe realisation of these plans are monitored and documented.The final evaluation report will be shared with all stakeholders of the FFL project, other Country Officeswhere distribution is pa rt of the core activities and donors. The final report will be shared with otherrelevant partners of NRC, and be available for all NRC staff via NRC’s intranet web pages.March 10 th, 2008---------------------------59
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 and 62: ANNEX 1: Terms of Reference for the
Page 63: • Desk studies. As a general back
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?