Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian ... - OCHANet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Area Finding Conclusion Recommendation Priority Level By whom By when Information Management and Monitoring 13 General 14 The information flow was massive but with limited strategic use. Only some clusters had their own reporting formats; as a result information was not consolidated. OCHA , together with NDMA, has been working on rolling out single reporting format since the onset of the disaster Indicators as specified in the PFRERRP are not used because they are overly complicated and baseline data is missing. Limited availability and reporting of sex and age disaggregated data. Ref. paragraphs 123, 124 and 128 In Pakistan the humanitarian community did not take stock of lessons learned from prior evaluations (i.e. GoP and IA RTE), including There was a need for a standardized reporting format with clearly defined targets and indicators. However, single reporting format was far too late (posted online Mid‐ January 2011) preventing strategic overview and action prioritization. Integrated information for monitoring results is still missing. Reporting against indicators as outlined in the PFRERRP is generally missing. A more systemic approach in this regard would help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the humanitarian system’s NDMA, with OCHA, should ensure the roll‐out of the newly developed Single Reporting Format in the current and future disasters. NDMA, with EAD and IASC representatives, define integrated results based monitoring framework for future emergencies (aligned with single reporting format) which includes: � measurable progress indicators � outcome indicators � level of expenditures � 4 W’s (who, what, where and when) To improve effectiveness of current and future responses, NDMA, with representatives from HCT and PHF and national NGO counterpart forums High Medium Medium National National National OCHA with NDMA NDMA with Line Departments. EAD, PND and IASC representatives NDMA, HCT and PHF March 15 th July 31 st April 15 th 14 | P age
Area Finding Conclusion Recommendation Priority Level By whom By when General 15 systematic follow up on previous recommendations. Ref. paragraphs 29, 44,45, 60, 68, and 120 response to future disasters. Ref. paragraph 66. Multi‐sector area based approaches are best suited for disasters of this size as sector based approaches soon spread thin. Geographic ‐ area based approaches allow for better coverage and are more adaptive to fast changing situations. must form a Working Group to: 1) track and follow‐up on the application of recommendations from recent evaluations and the extent to which they have been implemented and 2) draw management a response plan on recommendations from the Floods 2010 IA‐RTE RTE team follow‐up visit to check implementation process The international humanitarian system should implement geographic area based responses in future disasters of similar scale Medium Global, National and/or provincial tbd IASC (NDMA and HCT) tbd June 30 th 15 | P age
Page 1 and 2: Inter‐Agency Real Time Evaluation
Page 3 and 4: Annex 4.1 Group meetings with the a
Page 5 and 6: Conclusions and recommendations bas
Page 7 and 8: Area Finding Conclusion Recommendat
Page 13: Area Finding Conclusion Recommendat
Page 18 and 19: IA RTE of the humanitarian response
Page 52 and 53: 7.2 Monitoring IA RTE of the humani
Page 62 and 63: 9 ‐ Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Ref
Page 64 and 65:
4. METHODOLOGY IA RTE of the humani
Page 66 and 67:
The ‘IA RTE Framework’ as Diagr
Page 68 and 69:
Needs IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK D
Page 70 and 71:
Access, Principles, Advocacy IA RTE
Page 72 and 73:
M&E IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dim
Page 74 and 75:
IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dimensi
Page 76 and 77:
IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dimensi
Page 78 and 79:
� Have relevant, prioritized, inc
Page 80 and 81:
Action, HAP 2007 Standard in Humani
Page 82 and 83:
� Approves the final IA RTE repor
Page 84 and 85:
(details see row below) � Sindh:
Page 86 and 87:
words and a main text of no more th
Page 88 and 89:
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
Page 90 and 91:
Baltistan and Pakistan‐Administer
Page 92 and 93:
continues to impede returns. The ND
Page 94 and 95:
Surname, Forenames Org. ♂♀ Meth
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Summary of interviews by category o
Page 112 and 113:
21. Ashfar Ahmad Save the Children
Page 114 and 115:
19. Farrusch Mirza UNICEF 20. Hamad
Page 116 and 117:
13 . Dube Alfred WHO 14 . Masooma H
Page 118 and 119:
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Fareeha Ummar O
Page 120 and 121:
Annex 4.3: Field Work Itenerary Dat
Page 122 and 123:
Date Riccardo Polastro Nicolai Stee
Page 124 and 125:
Date Riccardo Polastro Nicolai Stee
Page 126 and 127:
Annex 5 Interview Guide IA‐RTE In
Page 128 and 129:
. With whom (military, government,
Page 130 and 131:
6‐ Did the needs assessments take
Page 132 and 133:
Millions 900,0 800,0 700,0 600,0 50
Page 134 and 135:
Annex 7: Cluster Output Review Tabl
Page 136 and 137:
Source: Logistics Cluster, Feb 2011
Page 138 and 139:
Pakistan Initial Floods Emergency R
Page 140:
Ms. Aatika Nagrah, a development pr
show all

Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian ... - OCHANet

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?