Save the Children
Ethiopian Drought Emergency Response
(April 1st 2011 to June 30th, 2012)
Final evaluation report
Giorgio V. Brandolini, team leader and food security expert
Raya Abagodu, evaluation and local development expert
Addis Ababa, September 12th, 2012
1
Contents
Tables in the text ............................................................................................................................................3
Table of the annexes ......................................................................................................................................3
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................4
2. Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................5
3. Background ................................................................................................................................................9
3.1 The 2011 drought and Somali refugees crisis ......................................................................................9
3.2 The Save the Children response to the drought ..................................................................................9
4. Evaluation questions & criteria ................................................................................................................11
5. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................11
6. Findings ....................................................................................................................................................13
6.1 The field projects output....................................................................................................................13
6.2 SWOT analysis by sector ....................................................................................................................15
6.3 Drought response analysis .................................................................................................................16
6.4 Cross cutting issues ............................................................................................................................27
6.5 Staff fielding .......................................................................................................................................28
6.6 Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning ........................................................................29
7. Conclusions and lessons learnt ................................................................................................................30
7.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................30
7.2 Lessons learnt.................................................................................................................................31
8. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................32
8.1 General recommendations ................................................................................................................32
8.2 Specific recommendations .................................................................................................................33
The Evaluation team thanks the staff of Save the Children USA, UK and Denmark whose collaboration
facilitated the visits to the camps of refugees and rural communities and whose precious insights
contributed to the understanding and systematization of the facts and topics dealt with in this report.
2
Tables in the text
1. Sectors of intervention of the SC partners by geographical area of intervention
2. Ethiopia SC response beneficiaries reached by sector (1/4/2011-28/6/2012)
Table of the annexes
Technical annexes
1. SC field activities by sector of intervention
2. Data mapping
3. Affected population and relief food requirements by region
4. Drought related needs assessments
5. Vulnerability Issues in the Refugee Camps of Dollo Ado
6. Regions and woredas of SC early drought and refugee response activities
7. SC long-term programmes are included in the response
8. SC UK and SC US Ethiopia’s response strategy
9. SC Ethiopian drought response programme outputs
10. Save the children Alliance emergency woredas at the end of 2011
11. Continuous improvement cycle
12. Beneficiaries focus groups
13. Field staff interviews
14. SWOT analysis
15. Evaluation methodology
16. Evaluation work plan and field survey
17. Evaluation questions
18. Flowchart of the SC Alliance response to the Ethiopia drought crisis
19. Specific conclusions
Administrative annexes
20. Itinerary
21. Bibliography
22. Acronyms
23. Contacts list
24. Terms of reference of the evaluation
3
1. Introduction
Save the Children (SC) Alliance has been active in Ethiopia in relief and development for over 30 years. A
task group updates the Ethiopia Emergency preparedness plan (EPP) annually. Its May 2010 update
identified 2.8 millionpeople at risk in case of drought. It also stressed that food shortage and food
insecurity are chronic features in many regions. Section 3.1 of the EPP affirms that:
Drought situations which used to occur once in a decade have now nearly become bi-yearly
phenomenon. Combined with extreme poverty, drought related food shortage is the main cause
behind the existence of widespread child malnutrition across the country. For instance in the past
three years, (2008, 2009 and 2010), the number of relief beneficiaries due to drought related
problems increased significantly (4.6, 6.2 and 5.2 million respectively). Since 2005, 7-8 million
Ethiopians suffer from annual chronic food shortage and have become Productive safety net
programme (PSNP) beneficiaries.
At the start of the 2011 drought, SC partners counted withan Emergency preparedness plan (EEP) for
mobilizing resources – including some emergency stocks. The plan sets an indicative target of 1.6 million
beneficiaries during emergencies.Drought response fundraising was channelled through five SC partners:
SC USA and Sweden worked with Somali refugees in the Dollo Ado camps, SC USA, Denmark, UK and
Norway with host and drought affected communities in Somali, Oromia SNNPR, Amhara and Afar
regions.Actions address emergency and food security needs of (a) Somali refugees in Dollo Ado camps
and Ethiopian villagers in host communities and (b) drought affected populations in the five regions.
As prescribed under Section 6.10 of the Rules and Principles for Save the Children Humanitarian response
under SCI Management(2011)anindependent Post-response Evaluation of interventions will be
undertake for programmes whose budget is over US$ 1 million.
The goals of this evaluation are:
(a) assess the extent to which the projects of emergency response met their objectives and the
technical strength of the programme,
(b) measure the extent to frame of which the response has been accountable to the affected
population (specifically looking at children and their care-givers),
(c) recommend improvements for longer-term strategies, focusing on programme and
management quality and accountability, and contribute to learning in a wider sense within the
agency.
The evaluators presented the results of the field survey at a workshop in Addis Ababa on August 3rd,
2012 to discuss the preliminary findings with the SCprojects staff. This report incorporates the
observations and feedback from the workshop participants and comments on the draft report submitted
on August 5th.
4
2. Executive summary
Save the Children’ Ethiopian drought emergency response
At the beginning of 2011 the extended La Niňa conditions resulted in an overall poor performance of the
rains in Eastern and Southern parts of Ethiopia and by mid 2011, thousands of Somali people affected by
the civil strife there crossed the border from Somalia into Ethiopia to settle in refugee camps. By July
2011, Save the Children Alliance released a drought response appeal, after the government officially
declared the crisis and asked for humanitarian assistance.
The overall goal of Save the Children’s emergency response was to provide emergency assistance,
alleviate suffering and minimize mortality for drought affected children. Loss of lives was contained but
pastoralist livelihoods suffered due to the high mortality of livestock and crops failure. Crisis modifiers of
existing programmes allowed early nutrition and food aid interventions. By end of June 2012, Save the
Children Alliance recorded 2,132,844 beneficiaries (45% children), well over the Response strategy initial
target (1,975,755 people) and the 20% of affected children threshold.
In Bokolmayo refugees camp Save the Children (SC) USA nutrition aid programmeshave contrinuted to a
much reduced the under-5 Global malnutrition rate. In Kobe and Hilaweyncamps, SChave established
and provided grade 1 and 2 children teaching programmes and facilities.Traumatized children were
identified and are presently cared foratEarly child care and development (ECCD) programmes within the
camps; unaccompanied children and separate minors were supported tojoin foster parents.The
playgrounds of Child friendly spaces are used by ECCD programmes to provide education and recreation
assistance to 3-6 old children.
Integration with local institutions and FGoE strategies in health and education facilitated the
identification and delivery of relief and livelihood recovery actions in the drought affected pastoralist
communities of Afar, Oromia and Somali regions. Local health facilities in communities of Afar and
Somali regions were strengthened and assisted in providing nutrition support to affected communities.
The increased of local skills was a major part of SC support in all the assisted communities in view of
enhancing local disaster risk management mechanisms.WASH and FSL projects contributed to
rehabilitate pastoralists livelihoods through improved access to potable water and livestock production.
Refugee camp authorities assured the convergence of SC actions with those of other agencies with
mutual benefits. Due to the magnitude of the crisis and limited resources, local authorities were less
effective in ensuring the convergence of humanitarian actions in target communities. Where sector
integration was possible (as in the case of nutrition and health and education and health) it achieved
mutual reinforcement impact (e.g., water availability has a direct impact on school enrollment rate).
5
Key conclusions










Across the crisis response, child protection and nutrition and assistance in refugees camps were
amongth the stronger performing interventions. SC expertise was stronger here due their centrality with
respect to its mandate and expertise and resources mobilization more intense.
WASH, Food Security and Livelihood actions to restores pastoralists’ livelihoods were performed less
well, due to limited time and intergration of projects to to match the evolving drought situation.
The SC Alliance intervention matched an urgent and extensive need of the children in the refugees
camps and communities affected by the crisis.
Complex coordination mechanisms resulted in some delays in the deployment of field interventions
addressing, resulting in the loss of livestock and revision of field projects to cope with the crisis evoluion.
ARRA and UNHCR through their presence and matrix planning system ensured the integration and
mutual strengthening of the impact of relief actions performed in the refugees camps. A less sructured
approach is in place in the pastoralists communities affected by the drought. The magnitude of the crisis
limited the capacity of SC partners to link Relief, rehabilitation and development in the assisted
pastoralists’ communities (spread of actions instead of convergence).
The Child friendly spaces and ECCD activities appeal to the children of the refugees camps and have a
positive impact on their development and socialization.
Psycho-social assistance to affected children in the refugee camps largely depends on the collaboration
with health facilities. While SC easily supports those with the lower level needs, health centers have
limited skills to assist more complex cases.
Nutrition programmes contributed to a reduced under-5 malnutrition rate in Bokolmayo camp (about
10%). Satisfactorily recovery is registered also in the assisted pastoralists communities.
Water trucking and facilities rehabilitation for pastoralists communities was delayed and in most cases
WASH assistance didn’t match the quantitative standards of humanitarian aid.
Improving water access in schools has a positive impact on the children enrolment rate.
Lessons learnt




Relevance
The GoE Disaster risk reduction strategy makes room for flexibility. SC partners were effective in
exploiting such opportunities (e.g., prepositioning resources, project modifiers, etc.) before the drought
crisis declaration. More difficult was to link rehabilitation to development in view of enhancing results
sustainability. Humanitarian agencies have to clarify such issues with the government.
It is difficult to identify some children’s needs (e.g., those culture related of small groups or linked to
cultural divides) on the base of quantitative data only. Needs assessments have to be integrated with
childrenrights situational analysis to discover hidden needs and propose innovative solutions.
A complex crisis is expected to be long enough to allow the fine tuning of actions and mobilization of
progressively more specialist resources. Staff rotation is a tool for shifting expertise from where it is
exists to where it is most needed. It has to be accompanied by mobilization of some external specialist
skills to promote innovation.
Response in water access, the issue that triggered the crisis, suffered from delays in the pastoralists
communities. A frank discussion with FGoE on this subject – and its water shed management implication
– is critical in addressing drought problems at their roots.
6











Effectiveness
After the first phases of an emergency response, new needs arise or are identified. Mobilization of
specialist skills in coping sensitive and hidden targets can benefit from alliance with organizations
external to the humanitarian field.
Field work and living conditions, especially in remote Afar and Somali region communities are harsh. A
part improving facilities in the camps, local stakeholders (CBOs, NGOs) have to be more extensively
involved in field actions contain costs, ensures targeting vulnerable groups, accessing to local knowledge
and continuity of achievements.
Efficiency
Field managers are the key players in ensuring a participatory approach. Enhancing their skills and
motivation multiplies the efficiency field work and counterparts collaboration. Capacity building on field
operations (lean logistics and storage management, participatory approach and continuous
improvement, conflict mitigation, etc.) is needed to improve efficiency.
The MEAL approach has to be based on local elaboration of M&E strategies, to ensure cultural sensitivity
(e.g., fixing qualitative indicators), to raise local participation and share information downstream.
Coverage, coherence and coordination
Rehabilitation actions have to prioritize communities assisted in the relief phase. This approach valorizes
beneficiaries awareness and response mechanisms built in the first phase of the response. It also
maximizes the usefulness of SC field infrastructure, logistics and introduction. Enlarging field reach
indeed, a part from physical resources, requires a buildup of huge field management skills to keep the
control of remote actions. Clustering actions around a pivot sector multiplies the cumulative impact.
SC partners have developed an effective needs assessment approach that can be extended to a wider
area by collaboration with local NGOs, if a geographical enlargement of the targets is sought.
CFS show the potential for children related activities in Ethiopia. Links with local organizations dealing
with minors can greatly enhance the local commitment to children and solidarity values – i.e., it
catalyzes the mobilization of local support and resources for relief interventions.
Impact and sustainability
Flagshipactions are those in the sectors of maximum SC expertise such as child protection and nutrition.
They can trigger local initiatives and commitment to solidarity and children welfare. These are also the
anchors for coordinating other activities and convergence of impact with other humanitarian aid players.
Design of rehabilitation actions has to be linked to local development strategies as much as possible.
Good will and encouragement by local authorities is not enough to ensure sustainability. Humanitarian
agencies have to clarify this challenge with the government.
Key recommendations
SC Alliance has to coordinate with other humanitarian agencies the discussion with national authorities
and donors the framing of a relief intervention approach facilitating project modifiers and early response
measures in critical areas of the emergency before the formal declaration of the crisis
Community livelihood rehabilitation initiatives designed under the urgency of relief have a limited
immediate impact on household welfare and often are not sustainable. Relief strategies have to
prioritize as much as possible child direct assistance.
Rehabilitation of livelihoods has to be prioritized to assist thepastoral communities that benefitted from
relief actions as much as possible in order to build skills there and maximize the sustainability of the
emergency interventions.
7












Assistance in the refugees camps has to be intensified in the sectors of greater SC expertise (child
protection, nutrition), by fine tuning targeting and addressing emerging and hidden needs.
The exit strategy of livelihood rehabilitation projects in communities has to be aligned to local
watershed management strategies / programmes, if they exist.
ECCD and psycho-social programs in refugees camps have to develop content customized to the
refugees needs as much as possible, consider their culture and traditions, as well as establish links and
exchange experiences with child development initiatives / education centers interested in child relief.
CFS / CCFC are contiguous to primary schools. Such facilities can be used for both targets (ECCD and
schools) for example by new sport and entertainment programmes.
The qualitative analysis of the household food balance has to become part of needs assessments in
order to identify the needs, preferences and patterns of food consumption on the basis of the family
composition, seasonal variation and nutritional status.
Actions to restore the environment surrounding the refugees camps (natural regeneration,
reforestation) and improve the energy efficiency of cooking (production / distribution of energy saving
stoves) have to be designedand coordinated with the host communities.
Water trucking can be associated with the local water carts in the final steps of water distribution, at
least in the Somali region.
Surveys of household livelihood can provide information useful to design positive actions – alternative to
school feeding - to enhance girls’ school attendance.
Capacity building of beneficiaries of WASH and FSL actions has to be strictly linked to local extension
strategies / programmes supporting pastoral communities or local NGOs initiatives.
Develop and implement a human resources strategy directed to enhancing the skills of field managers;
shift staff among different refugees camp location to avoid acquaintance and fatigue, improve field
officers’ performance and reduce the opportunities for abuses. Capacitate and appoint CFS
schoolmasters.
Elaborate a countrywide Performance monitoring planto ensure a reliable data tracing approach.
Elaborate the Output trackers on the basis of documented procedures for calculating the indicators
(data tracing, double counting criteria, etc.) and incorporate indicators for the actual beneficiaries.
Differentiate direct and indirect beneficiaries and include gender disaggregate indicators in all the
intervention sectors.
8
3. Background
3.1 The 2011 drought and Somali refugees crisis
At the beginning of 2011 the extended La Niňa conditions resulted in an overall poor performance of the
rains in Eastern and Southern Ethiopia. Monthly reports from Therapeutic feeding programmes (TFPs)
showed an increasing trend of malnourished children’s admission in the most affected woredas. Some
vulnerable communities dropped out of pastoralism and settled in urban areas seeking assistance. By
mid 2011, thousands of Somali people affected by the drought and civil strife crossed the border from
Somalia into Ethiopia to settle in refugee camps. SC presence in the country made possible the early
identification of targets and priority actions as well as early delivery of humanitarian assistance through
project modifiers of ongoing development actionsBy July 2011, after several months of drought, the
Ethiopian government (FGoE) officially declared the emergency affecting over 4.5 million people
Table 1. Affected population and relief food requirements by region
People
Food Requirement (MT)
Region
Targeted
Cereal
Supplementar Oil
Pulses
Total
beneficiaries
y food
Tigray
399,373
24,125
2,533
724
2,412
29,794
Afar
132,995
11,970
1,257
359
1,197
14,782
Amhara
420,045
32,790
3,443
984
3,279
40,495
Oromia
1,889,267 158,130
16,604
4,744 15,813 195,291
Somali
1,438,826 129,494
13,597
3,885 12,949
159,926
SNNPR
252,236
7,477
785
224
748
9,234
Benishangul
29,514
885
93
27
89
1,093
Gumuz
Dire Dawa
5,000
225
24
7
23
278
Grand total
4,567,256 365,096
38,335 10,953 36,510 450,893
Source: DRMFSS 2011 HRD
SC Alliance declared a Horn of Africa emergency which led to the elaboration of the response strategy
and appeal, coordination, fund raising and a surge in humanitarian aid actions. The SC Alliance response
strategy targeted at least 20% of the affected population and 25% of the affected children in the most
drought-impacted areas of Ethiopia and the refugee camps of Dollo Ado, i.e. 1,975,755 beneficiaries (see
Annex 7.2.3).Some field actions were delayed due to the complex coordination of the national response
by the FGoE. SC was working on early warning and early action since the beginning of late 2010 in
response to the drought. Loss of lives was contained but livelihoods suffered due to the high mortality of
livestock and crops failure. Drought response was fine tuned to match the field situation, conditioned by
erratic rains, as well as a new peak of the Somali refugees’ inflow at the beginning of 2012. Somali
refugees in the Dollo Ado camps reached 163,000 people by July of this year, with about 1,000 new
refugees being registered every week.
9
3.2 The Save the Children response to the drought
SC partners were aware of the coming drought since December 2010. Their teams planned for a
response well before the national declaration of emergency. Several response activities have therefore
focused on scaling up and consolidating pre-existing programmes, with the exception of Gode in Somali
region, where SC UK activities were set up as a result of the response. Crisis modifiers in existing
programmes allowed early, focused food distributions. The response strategy targeted the children,
pregnant & lactating women and the community through child protection, education, health and
nutition, and FSL and WASH(see Annexes 7.1.1 and 7.1.3).
After the release of the FGoE appeal for the drought, SC increased it’s fund raising efforts anad delivered
extensive relief resources in 6 sectors. SC USA emergency nutrition response has implemented
Community management of acute malnutrition (CMAM) interventions in SNNPR, Oromia and Somali
regions. SC UK intervened in Afar with WASH integrated with education, Nutrition with health and food
security / livelihood interventions. It performed emergency water trucking in Somali and Oromia region
communities, followed by the rehabilitation of water schemes (see Annex 7.2.8 map).In Dolo Ado ARRA
assigned to SC USA the lead role in Child protection including schools / CFSs food distribution, the
performance of nutrition assistance in Bokolmayo, Reception / pre-registration site and Transit centre,
as well as primary education in Melkadida, Kobe and Hilaweyn camps.
In November 2011 a team of 4 experts conducted the Real time evaluation of SC US / UK / Norway
coordinated emergency response program to assessits efficiency and appropriateness. This exercise was
followed by the elaboration of the Emergency drought response strategy 12/2011 – 12/2012 defining
the context and priorities for the continuation of field actions and exit strategy. Due to the persistent
drought, with a partially different spatial distribution, and continuing inflow of Somali refugees, this
Strategy prioritized a mix of emergency and rehabilitation actions in the 6 sectors.
Coordination with other humanitarian agencies resulted in somerefocusing of interventions, most
notably by dropping inpatients nutrition in the refugees camps and shifting from water trucking to water
schemes rehabilitation in the pastoralist communities. Livelihood rehabilitation concentrated in the
pastoralist communities and streamlined resources previously assigned to relief. By mid 2012, drought
affects some new target areas and the Somali conflictgoingon. SC nutrition actions have expanded to
new Oromia and SNNPR woredas and are expected to encompass the Northern woreda of Afar region.
The overall goal of Save the Children’s emergency response in Ethiopia is to provide emergency
assistance, alleviate suffering and minimize mortality for drought affected children in Ethiopia and
refugees fleeing from Somalia, through life-saving, quality interventions and disaster mitigation
strategies. Specifically the response design was aimed at:
a. preventing malnutrition related morbidity / mortality in children & pregnant / lactating
women;
b. preventint health status deterioration through improved access to water and improved
sanitation & hygiene practices;
c. improving access to food and protection of livelihood assets; and
10
d. establishing a protective and nurturing environment through community-based care and
support systems and educational opportunities for Somali children in refugee camps and host
community.
SC UK’s response to the crisis extended to the Northern and Eastern area of the Somali region (Jijiga,
Shinille, Gode and Afder zones), half of the Afar region (18 woredas), SNNPR (Hulbareg, Shashego
woredas). Resources made available from ongoing food distribution in Amhara and Afar regions and
other disaster risk reduction interventions in Somali and Afar regions contributed to the early relief of
affected communities (see Annex 7.2.4).
SC USA delivered emergency assistance in the Dollo Ado refugees camps (child protection, WASH and
nutrition, emergency in education) and in the Dollo Ado, Dollo Bay and Filtu, host communities of the
Somali region (nutrition and health), in four woredas of Oromia in collaboration with SC Denmark
(nutrition and livelihood) and in two woredas of SNNPR region.
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities were integrated throughout sectors by building community and
regional government resilience to future emergencies. Annex 7.1.1 presents these intervention by
sector, geographical area and SC partner and Annex 7.1.2 lists the sources of funds for these
interventions, including exchange of grants among SC partners.
4. Evaluation questions & criteria
The four Evaluation questions stated in the Terms of reference of the evaluation are:
- Was the Save the Children intervention effective in achieving its intended objectives?
- Was the programme implemented at appropriate scale and scope?
- Was the programme planning and implementation timely, efficient and costeffective?
- Was the programe implemented safely and securely?
At the beginning of the mission, to make sure an in-depth analysis during the field work, each of these
evaluation questions was expanded into a set of 20 questions and sub-questionscoveringthe 5 OECD /
DAC criteria, coverage, coherence and cohordination (see Annex 7.6.2).The Analysis of the intervention
(see Section 6) was aligned to suchquestions and completedby the Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats (SWOT) analysis by sectors and with reference to the geographical areas of intervention and
SC partner.Observations on environment, continuous improvement and visibility complete thisanalysis.
5. Methodology
This Final evaluation includes the following phases (see Annex 7.6: methodology and Annex 8.1:
itinerary):
Desk phase (4 days). The evaluators elaborated a work plan, held the kick-off briefing with SC USA
Disaster risk management (DRM) unit and Nutrition section, and with representatives of SC Denmark
and SC UK emergency units in charge, respectively, of the interventions in Oromia and Afar regions
Field phase (13 days) included the survey of:
 SC UK projects in Gulina (2 sites), Yallo (5 sites) and Chifra (2 sites) woredas of Afar region,
July 19th – 23rd, by the team leader,
11


SC Denmark projects in Oromia region, meeting the project unit in Yabello and field visit
of bush clearing and livestock supplementary feeding activities in Miyo and Moyale
woredas (2 kebele each), plus a visit of a slaughter destocking project, July 19 th – 23rd, by
the local expert,
Somali region, visiting the field office in Dollo Ado, 3 refugees camp (Hilaweyn,
Bokolmayo and Melkadida) and 3 kebele host communities (Dollo Bay, Suftu, Buramino
kebeles), from July 25th to 30th, by both evaluation experts.
In the course of the survey, the evaluators performed:
 1-2 focus groups 15 focus groups were performed, 6 in Afar, 4 in Oromia and 5 in the
Somali region (215 participants, 50% women, 3 only of women);
 structured interviews of 13 SC field staff interviews were performed, 2 in Afar, 3 in
Oromia and 10 in the Somali region;
 non structured interviews / briefings of 30 informed people in Addis Ababa and in the
field.
Synthesis phase (6 days plus home work). Once back in Addis Ababa (July 31 st to August 5th), the team
analyzed the feedback of the field survey and completed it with the information gathered from other
sources (documents, projects staff). The preliminary conclusions and recommendations were drafted on
the basis of these exercises and presented in a workshop held in Addis Ababa on August 3rd with the
concurrence of Save the children representatives. The team cross-checked, validated, and enriched the
preliminary findings by incorporating the feedback of the workshop discussion in the draft report
submitted at the end of the field mission.
Limitations.The field survey was constrained by time limits, e.g., 3 days were spent in Afar and Oromia
regions, with long transfer trips from site to site. Identification of places to be visited was agreed with
the SC project staff in Addis Ababa and fine tuned with the field offices, by sampling representative sites
covering the 6 sectors across the 3 regions and refugees camps. The evaluation coincided with school
vacations, a situation limiting the feasibility of structured focus group discussions with children. The
team didn’t include a child issues expert; so it chose to individually interrogate children in the project
sites.
Most project indicators reckon beneficiaries on the basis of the assistance delivered instead of its
effects. In short, these are indicators of activities and not of their results impact. No distinction is made
between direct and indirect beneficiaries, although the difference can be substantial only in the case of
the FSL and WASH rehabilitation actions. The MUAC screening and the health and school enrolment
statistics provided by ARRA/UNHCR constitute objective, external impact indicators for relief actions. For
the livelihood recovery interventions, field surveys of beneficiaries’ conditions and satisfaction were
performed at the end of the projects.
The amount of people, especially male adults, present in the communities and in a lesser way in the
refugees camps, is subject to fluctuations due to seasonal nomadic and drought/conflict induced
migrations. This situation complicatesthe execution of impact assessments. Recording household
members can be complicated by successive arrivals as, for instance, the refugeecamps have a top
number of hosts, refugees can prefer to reunite or substitute relatives without declaring their presence.
12
The high level of household-head women seems to reflect the initial situation of the refugees’ inflow
more than the present situation;itmakes difficult to estimate the fulfillment of beneficiaries needs.
6. Findings
6.1 The field projects output
Save the Children projects accomplished their stated goals:2,417,159 people were recorded as
beneficiaries of SC emergency projects between April 2011 and June 2012. Table 2 present their
composition by groups of age (children, adults) and by sector (see Annex 7.2.7 for the break down by
detailed activity indicators). Taking into consideration double counting of recipients, adjustment of data
results in the reckoning of 2,132,844 beneficiaries (45% children), well over the target 1,975,755 people
set in the drought response strategy (see Annex 7.2).
Somali region refugees camps (RC).
The Dollo Ado refugee camp population nearly tripled from 45,000 to 131,000 people in the second half
of 2011. Alarming levels of malnutrition were recorded in Bokolmayo refugee camp in the first half of
2011, when UNHCR stated over 40% malnourish under-5 children during nutrition screen of new arrivals.
Still in September 2011, a joint survey by UNHCR, WFP, MSF-S and ARRA reported a GAM rate of 23.9%
(SAM 6.6% and MAM 17.3) among children aged 6-59 months old, where about 50% recovery rates of
assisted children were also under standard.
By mid 2012 with the implementation of SC USA Community-based management of acute malnutrition
(CMAM), school feeding and blanket and targeted nutrition distributions, the under-5 GAM had
decreased to 12.3% (SAM 1.9, MAM 10.4%; UNHCR data), a value approaching SC target and the 10%
under-5 GAM physiological rate. About 80% of children receiving therapeutic feeding phased out
satisfactorily after 8 weeks of treatment. This result was achieved by a mix of converging nutrition
interventions (general food distributions, BSFP, school / ECCD feeding plus OTP and TSFP), capacity
building and awareness raising. It has to be checked if the possible fluctuation of the refugee camps
residents jeopardizes these achievements.
In the 4 assisted refugees camps, specific clusters of vulnerable children (unaccompanied and sepearted,
child headed households, etc.) were identified and are presently taken care of by ECCD programmes
and/or by foster parents. Other components of the refugees’ assistance present mottled results. For
instance children enrolled in Hilaweyn ECCD program are 1,558 or about one fourth of those eligible,
with a slight prevalence of boys. Although, some humanitarian workers fear that child disputes be
entangled to family and community feuds, the impact of these activities on the children’s morale and
development is very high. School enrolment in Hilaweyn Education in Emergencies (EiE) program records
a prevalence of boys over girls, confirming the persistence of the gender cultural divide in the refugees’
life.
13
Table 2. Ethiopia SC response beneficiaries reached by sector (1/4/2011-28/6/2012)
Sector
Protection
Health
Nutrition
Education
FSL
WASH
Total
Total after
adjusting
doublecounting
Beneficiary
age group
children
adults
total
children
adults
total
children
adults
total
children
adults
total
children
adults
total
children
adults
total
children
adults
Total
children
adults
SC UK
1,709
122
1,831
30,321
42,354
72,675
37,281
13,003
50,284
1,506
30
1,536
239,362
260,454
499,816
160,741
132,541
293,282
470,920
448,504
919,424
386,804
376,875
SC US
11,441
13,481
24,922
1,422
493
1,915
101,788
20,980
122,768
21,559
1,420
22,979
206,266
584,401
790,667
114,289
129,789
244,078
456,765
750,564
1,207,329
399,132
691,961
SC NR
43,320
0
43,320
17,250
14,482
31,732
0
0
0
38,700
22
38,722
3,343
6,667
10,010
47,970
77,980
125,950
150,583
99,151
249,734
140,633
96,767
SC SE
20,808
0
20,808
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,964
0
12,964
200
6,700
6,900
0
0
0
33,972
6,700
40,672
33,972
6,700
Target
Total beneficiaries
77,278
13,603
90,881
224,000
48,993
57,329
106,322
310,000
139,069
33,983
173,052
187,500
74,729
1,472
76,201
167,500
449,171
858,222
1,307,393
908,400
323,000
340,310
663,310
353,000
1,112,240
1,304,919
2,417,159
3,384,937
960,541
1,172,303
Total
763,679
1,091,093
237,400
40,672
2,132,844
14
2,986,788
Progress vs.
target (%)
41
34
92
45
144
188
71
71
Somali region host communities. Strengthening health facilities providing nutrition and health assistance
in Somali host communities has registered the improvement of nutrition aid delivery and other services
provided to mother and child. However theimpact on the enhancement of health workers and
community volunteers skills depends on the capacity of host institutions to provide work inputs and
supervision that can’t be assessed at this early stage. Local NGOs can play a greater role to contain costs.
Afar region communities. Relief and rehabilitation activities in the communities register mixed results. In
Bidu and Yallo woredas water system improvements in supported schools reduced dropouts, although
water consumption per pupil per day was under the humanitarian and national standards targets. SC UK
also performed food distributions to vulnerable people along national schemes such as JEOP. On the
other side WASH standards in community access to water are not fulfilled in most cases (in a visited
village 3-4 jerry cans for a 6 people family, i.e. about 10 liters per day/person). Also people ratio per
hand pump and communal latrine in Wollo woreda in Afar region are several folds those set in The
Sphere Standards. Chronic water shortage suggests that these results have to be assessed in a
watershed management / migration habits perspective, i.e. by recognizing the coping mechanisms of
pastoralists livelihoods to match environmental constraints. As the emergency response interventions
started several months after the declaration of the drought emergency (July 2011), the immediate needs
of the beneficiaries has not been met at the begining.
Oromia region communities. Activities assisting food security and pastoral livelihood recovery in Yavello
and Moyale woreda, such as destocking and bush clearing, register on the spot improvements in the
target communities. The context of these interventions – drought and grazing land conflicts –threatens
the sustainability of the projects achievements. The enabling conditions for sustainable livelihoods
recovery are structurally under threats. Targeted responses, when embedded in the frame of a
development strategy, have a limited temporal reach. In fact the little added value of the livestock
production obliges herders to exploit until depletion the biomass and seasonal water that are the basis
their economy and livelihood. This trend has long term negative impacts on soil fertility and availability
of grazing plants.
6.2 SWOT analysis by sector
The Strengths and limitations, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis synthesizes the evaluators
perception of field projects by sector (see tables in Annex 7.5).In the refugees camps different aid
agencies contributed to the coverage of different sectors. In this way most beneficiaries’ needswere
tackled with reinforcing benefits across sectors. As assistance to communities usually covered1-2
sectors, results can be jeopardized by the deterioration of other livelihood features. Child protection in
refugees camps and nutrition actions everywhere are those most appreciated by the survey
respondents. Malnutrition in Bokolmayo refugee camp has been decidedly decreased. Coherence with
SC mandate and a creative approach ensured the full deployment of SC expertise in the design and
implementation of these projects. Resources available matched the size of the assessed needs. On the
other side, the challenges and set of expertise needed to tackle WASH (cfr. the observations on the
fulfillment of international standards) and FSL needs in communities far exceed the available resources.
SC education and health projects filled in temporary gaps in the delivery of national services. They had a
more limited scope and available resources matched the challenge. Although high performing in
enrolling school children, SC effort was marginal in this sector and, specifically, it didn’t eliminate the
gender divide in school access (cfr. Annex 7.2.7).
15
The WASH and FSL projects tackled the central challenge of the crisis, i.e. water shortage and coping
mechanism in pastoral communities. The resolution of these problems has long term impact on allthe
interventionsectors. Although, ensuring water access is a problem much larger than the 2011 drought
and doesn’t end at the Ethiopian border. Its time extension is not predictable as it’s a facet of climate
change and the evolution of the pastoralist society.Drought challenges the environmental basis of the
pastoralist livelihood and triggers complex, multidimensional crses. WASH and FSL interventions
sustainability is directly linked tolocal development strategies. Local governance contribution to
watershed management and conflict mitigationare facets of this situation but out of the reach of NGOs
interventions. They have a greater impact precisely on WASH and FSL where community commitment to
environmental management and long term solutions are needed.Key findings of the SWOT analysis are:




strengths (skills, resources, positioning) vary across sectors with greater effectiveness and
impact in the child protection and nutrition sectors;
weaknesses are often related to the difficulty to design and mobilize a wide set of expertise
in a relief context and to realize the convergence of sector interventions towards the same
beneficiaries; such constraints are greater in WASH and FSL;
opportunities for improvement and expansion of the actions exist in all the sectors but are
more tangible in the areas of SC core expertise (child protection and nutrition), while;
threats are greater in the sectors (WASH, FSL) more strictly related to the water scarcity
environmental impact.
The child protection and nutrition actions can go on a standalone basis, the education and health are
much dependent on local contingencies (i.e., their association with other sectors interventions), while
the sustainability of WASH and FSL outcome depends on development programmes / coordination with
local authorities (cfr the reference on the watershed management approach). This process, self-evident
in the case of the pastoralist communities, is also true for the refugees camps. Once over the more
intense phase of the Somali afflux, refugees’ needs have moved to livelihood issues, e.g. capacity
building for the young and income generation for adults. As a response, ARRA and donors are asking for
vocational training projects. ARRA has also pointed out that the increase in the exploitation of firewood
for cooking is depleting of biomass of the grazing land surrounding the refugees camps.
6.3 Drought response analysis
Relevance and appropriateness
Q.1.1 Have we shown flexibility in adapting our interventions to changing needs?
SC partners adapted field actions to the evolution of the needs and priorities of the affected people. For
example, following the onset of rain in Oromia region and taking into consideration community
requests, SC USA/DKproject shifted from emergency slaughter destocking to livelihood recovery through
cash for work bush clearing. Following the discovery of fluoride in some wells drilled in the Afar region
communities, SC UK changed the water collection technology by creating school roof harvesting
systems. This new approach is only partially satisfactory as it can’t ensure water harvesting in the dry
season without external support (water trucking). Grade 1 and 2school curricula of refugee children
were adapted from the pre-conflict Somali one to facilitate school reintegration in case of return home.
The CFSs in the refugees camps were initially built as temporary structures latersubstituted later with
16
concrete buildings to stand the wind. Emerging needs were usually faced by adopting new technology
solutions. Developing/mobilizing human skills to match the new challenges was more difficult. For
instance, this shortage was critical in shifting from relief to recovery activities, with the consequences
shown above.USAID project modifier mechanisms allowedredirecting development resources to target
emergency needs in the early phase of the crisis. The execution of projects filling gaps in public services
(e.g. education and health) are aligned to the national strategies and requirements. In these cases there
was little flexibility for innovative solutions while SC expertise added value.
Q.1.2 Are SC’s activities appropriate to the culture and context as well as the different needs according to
age, gender, ethnicity and other social identities of the areas we are working in? How has the project or
programme adapted to meet those differing needs?
The projects were designed to answer to needs assessed by local staff aware of beneficiaries’ culture as
well as of the specific needs by age, gender or communities. Activities are relevant and appropriate to
the needs and priorities of the children in terms of culture, gender and age, although not customized to
the needs of all the vulnerable groups (some, as handicapped children, went unperceived). The design
of WASH and FSL projects in the 3 target regions was based on participatory surveys of the beneficiaries.
Acquaintance with pastoralist communities and collaboration with local authorities were conductive to
tackle local peculiarities. Education and health actions in Afar and Oromia communities were aligned to
public services requirements. The adaptation of the Somali curriculum in grade 1 and 2 of the refugee
camps schools is a positive example of cultural sensitiveness. Notwithstanding, both national and
international humanitarian standards fix beneficiaries’ needs irrespective of cultural specificities and
environmental constraints. In practice they are in many aspects too much standard and theoretical in
their technical prescriptions. The mobilization of volunteer beneficiaries and participation of their
committees in the field activities (child protection, education) facilitate projects customization to
cultural sensitivities. Although, there are few cases of creative interaction with beneficiaries to devise
innovative solutions, their contribution is most evident in identifying gaps in the interventions and
solving contingent problems. In the refugee camps, ECCD care takers have stimulated children interest
by promoting traditional dances. On the other side, stiffness is implicit in the adoption of national and
international humanitarian standards. Somali refugees are not satisfied with the central role of wheat
flour in food rations, as their diet privileges sorghum and pasta. Needs of some vulnerable groups were
not properly matched. For instance, project assisted boys / girls enrolment rate in schools and ECCD are
1.08 and 1.32 respectively (cfr. Annex 7.2.7). Handicapped children are not targeted neither at the
school level.
Q.1.3 How appropriate have the priorities been in terms of sectors and geographical coverage and
beneficiaries type based on the needs identified?
SC USA has concentrated efforts on the areas of its greatest expertise, child protection and nutrition, SC
UK on nutrition and WASH, SC DK on FSL. Focus on children’s needs has directed SC in all cases. Needs
assessments and coordination with local authorities guided the selection of the response sectors in the
communities. ARRA decided in the refugees camps the choice of the sectors assigned to each NGO, on
the basis of its expertise.With the stabilization of the refugees crisis a surge in interest for education in
vocational training is expected, that is the extension of SC services to encompass over-12
children.Interviewed refugees highly appreciate the child protection, nutrition and education actions.
The host families of the unaccompanied children and separate minors in the camps are concerned about
thedelays in food cards release and insufficient household assets (e.g., shelter space, dresses). In the
pastoralist communities (Afar, Oromia, Somali regions),local needs, national priorities (health,
17
education) and the fact, nutrition, WASH and FLS were privileged. Due to the partially different patterns
of 2012 drought,a build up of relief operations is ongoing in the Northern woreda of Afar region. As a
whole, the 2012 response strategy marks the shift from relief to recovery actions inpastoralist
communities. SC USA forecasts to hand over education and nutrition, expand in child protection and
vocational training (a test experience in ongoing) in the refugees camps.Fine tuning has been continuous
during field implementation and has been reinforced by extensions and continuation of the original
projects.
SC UK is especially strong in central project planning and direction of field activities. SC USA allows its
field offices in Somali region a greater independence in planning and field execution. SC DK limited
acquaintance in the assisted communities of Oromia region resulted in FSL projects with little
connectedness to local development programmes (sustainability issue).Remoteness and difficulty of
access to communities is a common limitation to many actions. Larger concentration of resources in the
refugees camps provides opportunities for greater impact.
The MEAL systemstimulates beneficiaries participation and collects theirfeed back to promote
accountability and, in the long term, trigger continuous improvement. Complaints collection
mechanisms are well established in the refugees camps and are enhanced by ARRA proximity to the
beneficiaries. Communities supervision commitees provide feedbacks in a less effective way due to
remoteness WD bases. The temporal limitations inthe implementation of relief actions can result in the
disruption of these mechanisms before they have achieved independence from SC
guidance.Beneficiaries contribute to fine tuning field activities and their inputs are taken into
consideration bySC decision makers, depending on the individual sensibility of the manager in charge.
Oftenthe deployment of further specialist skills is intended to take full advantage of such stimuli and
target the problems identified through the MEAL system (cfr. the observations on the child protection,
WASH and FSL activities customization).
Q.1.4 How may these needs change to reflect the dynamic context?
SC partners independently monitor projects and gather data at the different hierarchic levels (Output
trackers) to takedecisionsand fine tune the response to thechanging context. Mixed results were
achieved partly due to the lack of specific expertise and partly to the limitations imposed by the
adherence to the FGoEDisaster risk response strategy. The more striking case is the late release of the
national appeal that delayed humanitarian aiddelivery.Projects modifiers (e.g., JEOP projects) partially
filled this gap in the critical phase of the undeclared emergency. Focus groups held in Moyale and Dire
woredas of Oromia region confirm the communities’ shift ofinterest from water trucking to livelihood
interventionsdue tothe start of rains. SC USA/DK swiftly changed plans to fulfill such requests. The assets
of food insecure pastoralist households’ have been restored, allowing the households to fill the food
shortage gapby increasingdairylivestock production; although, thisactiondidn’t take into account
connectedness to long-term development to ensure sustainability in the supply and use of
supplementary animal feeding.
Effectiveness
Q.2.1 To what extent have the objectives of the response (as defined in the response strategy EPP and
donor documentation) been met? Did this happen in a timely manner?
Effectiveness in humanitarian action is measured in terms of reducing the loss of lives and the sufferings
of people. The more timely and targeted are the services delivered to the disaster victims, the higher is
18
the effectiveness. Notwithstanding flexibility mechanisms, the national coordination of the 2011
drought appeal resulted in delays with respect to the first signs of the coming crisis (end of 2010).
Pastoralists suffered huge losses of livestock and their sources of livelihoods were disrupted before the
start of the response.Thus some actions were reshapedto match the newchallenge of livelihood
recovery. In the refugees camps, a more efficient, decentralizedauthorization system (ARRA, UNHCR)
and resources pipeliningallowed tackling Somali refugees’ needs since their arrival. Modifiers
mechanisms were effective in ensuring early nutrition assistance in host communities, while more
complex interventions (namely WASH) suffered from the delays in national coordination and harsh
logistic in the field.SC beneficiaries are morethan planned in SC EPP document. As the crisis dimension
was greater and its duration longer than forecast initially, new projects were designed to assist
communities and refugees camps. In Bokolmayo refugees camp malnutrition rate decreased
substantially thus approaching SC target (10%). Morbidity and mortality rates also decreased, due to the
joint impact of SC and other NGOs interventions in converging sectors.
Q.2.2 To what extent is the response child focused?
Children were identified in the affected communities and their neeas targeted. Their care givers and
community assistance mechanisms were strengthened, in order to ensure actions sustainability. Projects
in the pastoralist communities addressed children’s needs directly (nutrition, health and education, and
partly WASH) and indirectly by relieving their household livelihoods (WASH, FSL). In refugees camps
children were always the direct beneficiaries or benefitted from the assistance to pregnant and lactating
women and the buildup of care takers skills (e.g., child protection awareness actions). Ancillary actions
as the establishment of Child protection committees and other community mobilization initiatives
enhanced the proper targeting and sustainability of the projects results. A further step in this direction
can be provided by enhancing the downstream accountability of the MEAL approach (see below).
Notwithstanding, there was no direct interrogation and assessment of children expectations in the
schools and ECCDs. The evaluation team identified some vulnerable groups of refugee children needing
specific assistance (see below andthe recommendations section) not yet cared of by the projects.
Q.2.3 How effective has the response been in promoting programme quality and accountability?
The needs assessments examined by the evaluators are well conceived and executed. Most project
project documents are state of the art (project cycle methodology), with the exceptionsoflivelihood
recovery actions sustainability.The projects enhanced recipients’ participation through stakeholders’
committees both in the refugees camps (e.g., child protection committees) and communities (e.g., water
committees).Teachers and CFSs supervisors, together with school committees, are the main entry point
for complaints on teaching issues in the refugees camps. Their skills are pivotal in identifying and
reporting emerging needs. As most of them are not professional teachers, their contribution in reporting
children needs is quite passive. Children’s diversity of interests was not appropriately recorded, as
revealed by the lack of consideration for girls’ viewpoint by the refugees camps protection committees.
The MEAL system channels beneficiaries’ feedback upstream to the project management. Asetback of
thepresent approach is the lack of systematic communication and downstream feedback to the
beneficiaries and local authorities, typified by the formulation of project reports in English.
Beneficiaries’ feedback, provided through direct complaints or field surveys data collection, feeds SC
decisionsmaking process. Fine tuning and redirection of activities is heavily dependent on the reliability
of data provided through the MEAL system as well as on the data analysis skills of project managers. The
higher levels of project performance were achieved in the areas of greater SC expertise and availability
19
of resources (child protection, nutrition in the refugees camps). Here effort is needed not only in
targeting the maximum number of vulnerable people but also in providinginnovative solutions (see the
CFSs potential for scaling up activities). Field work was not always up to expectations. In fact, the
greatest limit of volunteer labors is lack of expertise and skills. Due to the harshness of the environment,
fatigue and distress affects field staff performance. Specifically, the potential of child protection actions
(needs assessment, response customization, follow up) in fostering children morale and development
over immediate impact actions could have greater thanthe present achievements.
Q.2.4 In which ways does SC shares information, and seeks and acts on feedback from beneficiaries in its
regular implementation of the emergency response?
SC partners are aware of the evolution of beneficiary conditions through projects monitoringand
beneficiaries committees feed back as well as their participation to sector coordination meetings and
authorities referrals. Some actions were revised during the execution as they were no more in touch
with the crisis evolution. Numerous project adaptations were implemented, as already discussed. Their
limits are those highlighted above. The length of the delivery chain and extension of the intervention
make more difficult to achieve an even level of skills deployment and improvement as well as motivation
and performance mobilization of the field staff. This seems the main hurdle to information sharing
mechanism, together with the use of English in reporting.
The MEAL system is still in its initial stages and accountability and information sharing mechanisms have
to be enhanced. Customization of response depends very much on the creativity and commitment of the
personnel in direct contact with the beneficiaries. The enhancement of their responsiveness to children
needs is critical for the achievement of levels excellence in targeting and delivering humanitarian aid
both in communities as in refugees camps.Information sharing and feedback from beneficiaries were
facilitated through the regular consultations and meetings with theRefugee central Committee in the
camps. Good relations with local authorities facilitated the exchange of information.
Q.2.5 To what extent were HAP benchmarks implemented?
SC Alliance rules and standards match or are stricter than those of HAP. Field staff interviews reveal
shortages in training and awareness on HAP and other humanitarian standards. They are conscious of
the vision and mission of SC Alliance, of the challenge of working together with and for children, but
they are not always active bearers of these principles. Accountability actions, such as gathering
ofbeneficiaries complaints and staff suggestions were implemented but they still have a limited impact
on activities fine tuning, as the local culture privileges the role of community representatives over
individual complaints. Coordination meetings are the main source of reflection and innovation. Some
negative feedbacks have been noted during the field visits, such as some field staff fatigue in identifying
and dealing with customized needs of the beneficiaries in the camps. Thus, the implementation of HAP
benchmark is more related to the top management commitment and conception of the activities than to
a deliberate implementation by field staff. The buildup of MEAL approach should improve this situation
by involving SC personnel in a higher degree in decision making. Field managers’ skills and commitment
play a pivotal role in the effectiveness of this approach.
Q.2.6 To what extent do monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning (MEAL) processes produce
timely and objective information with regard to the contexts, outputs and performance of the
programme?
20
The hurdles and limits of to the implementation of the MEAL processes are analyzed in the section on
M&E. Indicators have a role especially in senior management decision making. E.g., data gathering
ishighly dependent on project staff(implementers) in gathering information. Data cross checking
mechanisms have are weak. Direct and indirect beneficiaries are not independently accounted for. The
Output trackers don’t report on actual beneficiariesbeing assited.. The sharing of information
throughout the organization is still in its early phases. A fully fledged strategy to address the MEAL
challenges including reporting (customized communication approach) is still lacking. For instance, field
staff speaks local languages. MEAL reporting is in English. In such situation the locals are ex ante
excluded from information.The deployment of the MEAL approach is typically challenged in conflict
areas such as Gode (Somali region): data gathering is a sensitive issue biased by the conflictive attitudes
of the informers. Where feasible, SC and local partners have performed joint monitoring and
supervisions with FGoE staffs, thus containing costs and risks.
Q.2.7 How is data produced by the MEAL system used in programme management?What are enabling /
disabling factors?
The MEAL system produces aggregate indicators that are studied at the higher level of the mission
management by sector specialists. Such exercises are not specific of the many different situations
encountered by the field staff. These are conscious of the underlying situations but not too much
sensitive or ready to perform its systematic analysis. Thus, these data are mostly useful for the senior
management at the strategylevel, field staff is not trained in using such data to fine tuneactivities. The
Output trackers are updated weekly. Indeed they don’t present the actual level of people assisted but
only its weekly accrual and cumulative values since the beginning of the drought response. Thus they are
not conductive to appreciate the actual level of effort of the intervention. Furthermore, in lack of a
detailed geographic presentation of communities, activities and beneficiaries, interpretation of
tabulated data is very much dependent on the reader’s acquaintance with the action of interest. This is a
further hurdle to communication and accountability.
Q.2.8 To what extent was implementation planned, designed and implemented and monitored on
international quality standards such as SPHERE?
The national standards are looser than those of The sphere project. In case of shortage of funds these
have further been curtailed in performing field actions. Nutrition, education and health care actions
fulfilled international (UNICEF) and national (Ministry of health) standards.Water access in assisted
communities of the Afar region is under international humanitarian aid standards. In Bokalmayo
refugees camp the nutrition response is achieving its targets also by overcoming standard in food
availability by child beneficiaries. Resources sharing mechanisms inside the beneficiaries households
have a further effect in reducing the fulfillment of humanitarian standards at the individual level. This
situation has to be put in its context: in the pastoralist society the survival unit is made of the clan and
the household. Individual exigencies are subordinated to the need of the group that controls the use of
his/her resources. Resident population’sseasonal fluctuations further complicate this picture. In view of
the size of the humanitarian crisis, SC response can assure the compliance of humanitarian standard in
controlled situations such as the refugees camps. In pastoralist communities nomadic migrations and
environmental constraints don’t allow a reliable enforcementof Humanitarian standards. For instance,
the compliance of international quality standard in water access in remote areas affected by drought
can’t be assured but in the frame of a wider perspective of recovery of the pastoralist livelihoods, i.e.
watershed management improvement.
21
Q.2.9 How successful have we been so far in implementing an integrated response? What have been the
key challenges faced?
Coupled projects such as associated nutrition and health or education and health interventions in the
same community positively fulfill the integration exigency. The same happens at a larger scale with the
refugees camps interventions, where the ARRA / UNHCR supervision ensures the completeness of the
humanitarian assistance over a wide spectrum of sectors (cfr. the matrix approach). SC partners have
addressed the paramount needs of the drought affected communities (e.g., malnourished children
access to food) without having the resources to undertake a transition to ensure sustainable livelihood.
In Afar and Oromia region, projects have been quite independent with little integration of efforts with
other agencies, due to the extensive area affected. Local participation (institutions, communities) and
collaboration with a few local NGOs such as APDA contributes to strengthen the local integration and to
ensure continuity. The key challenge is the connectedness of relief results with a sustainable
development perspective. The WASH and FSL programmes are aimed at this goal but, due to conception
and resources shortages, environmental and human threats can jeopardize their achievements.E.g. The
lack of integration of pasture and animal feeding with water conservation actions is a threat to the
sustainability of FSL interventions in Oromia. Security problems in Gode, Somali region, and conflicts on
access to pastoral resource in Moyale and Borona woredas constrain staff deployment in the field and
the sustainability of the results. This situation is further complicated by internal constraints such as
those related to the limited of skills of newly hired staff and extensive logistics (field access timeliness /
continuity) analyzed below.
Efficiency
Q.3.1 Has the response achieved the intended qualitative and quantitative outputs in the most cost
efficient manner?
SC interventions saved children’s lives and fulfilled their basic needs at home in all targeted sites
(communities and refugees camps). The projects provided services unavailable or also unforeseen at the
start of the crisis: e.g., the younger children enhanced their quality of life by joining recreational
activities in the refugees camps FCSs.Some of the response key interventions, such as those in the
refugees camps, water trucking, boreholes digging, and therapeutic nutrition, are very costly and this
limited the extension of the targets. On the other side, the projects have contained expenses by the
extensive mobilization of local staff and volunteers. A setback of this approach is the limited use of
specialist skills and hence the loss of opportunities to intensify the benefits for specific clusters of
children and other recipients.
For instance, supplementary livestock feeding has contributed to saving pastoral assets and making
available milk for children in Oromia region. However, it is difficult to substantiate the result since most
of the data collected by extension workers are limited to number of project beneficiaries (recipients of
animal feed supplements) and data showing input and output relationshipsare lacking (e.g., the
incremental milk yield achieved as a result of supplementary feed provided to lactating cows). Similarly,
there is a substantial lack of recorded data on restored rangeland areas and of estimates of potential
amount of feed/pasture produced from the rangelands cleared. Focus group participants were unable to
reach consensus on effectiveness as the project ended before the cleared rangelands started to
produce. Therefore, it is too early to make conclusion regarding the extent of livelihood reconstruction
and rehabilitation achieved through the bush clearing intervention.
22
The focus of the evaluation is on the output, while the use of inputsis more properly the object of an
audit. Thus, the evaluation team collected information (evidence of the projects results) fit to assess the
effectiveness more than the economic efficiency of the interventions. The key conclusion on efficiency is
closely linked to the appreciation of the timeliness of the response: lives were saved by swift
intervention, also through the projects modifiers, whilethe delay in execution resulted in livelihood
assets losses.Complex relief logistics raised intervention costs and discouraged field staff deployment,
accruing the time spent in sub-offices.
Q.3.2 Appropriate resources (human and financial) for intervention
From the reviews of documents and interviews, the human and financial resources appear to be
appropriate to implement the drought response in a flexible way by assisting the target refugees. They
were adequate to assist drought affected communities on a punctual basis, not in a holistic way (all the
crisis related needs of a pastoralist hamlet) and with respect to the geographical extension of the crisis.
In fact, logistics constraints in accessing the communities are symptoms of attainment of the
interventions limits. The target of assisting 20 of the people and 25% children affected by the drought
was achieved, in terms of delivered aid. A greater involvement of local NGOs is the obvious way to
overcome such hurdle.
Several constraints limited the timeliness of most interventions in the pastoralist communities, including
the complexity of national coordination and remoteness; in Gobe woreda (Somali region), Afar and
Oromia this situation was complicated by the little acquaintance with environment and communities
and the need to build up new teams and work relations. The massive deployment of local staff and
volunteers coped with the exigency of a fast answer to beneficiaries needs, but in terms of specialist
skills. The continuation of the interventions will require a higher involvement of specialist human
resources, in order to catch the opportunities to catalyze the enhancement of local staff’s skills and
catch opportunities to valorise lessons learnt to improve the level of the output and customize
responses to the needs of clusters of vulnerable people until now addressed in an undifferentiated way
Child protection, nutrition actions were adequately funded, with respect to their targets, especially in
the refugees camps – with some delays at the beginning -.Resources mobilized in the health and
education sectors were adequate and the limited scope of these interventions - designed in the public
services framework- limited the addressed needs. WASH and FSL were decidedly under target, with
respect to the magnitude of the crisis. Among the assisted communities, they mostly lacka proper
environmental and conflict mitigation framework ensuring connectedness with complementary actions
(essential in this respect the role of local NGOs) and sustainability (cfr. the observations on watershed
management).
Q.3.3 Balance between the level of need/number of beneficiaries and expenditure
Each project faced different requirements and constraints and mobilized a different amount of
resources to tackle individual needs. The level of satisfactionis quite variable (see the previous question
for the problems associated to the fulfilment of the humanitarian standards in WASH). Relief mobilized
larger resources than rehabilitation. The latter ones appear often as a token to develop and disseminate
best practices. A part someimmediate outputactions such as the set up of child protection awareness
and build up of health staff skills in nutrition are expected to produce benefits in the
communitiesdifficult to be quantified at this early stage. In the refugees camps, convergence of the
impact of different actions by several organizations is a further confounding factor go the identification
of the contribution of SC projects to lives saving. Thus the balance between beneficiaries and
23
expenditures is quite variable among interventions. As the more fulfilling actions were also those more
resources intensive, economic efficiency has not been aguiding criterion of the drought response.
The personnel cost is the key component in the delivery of humanitarian aid. Streamlining delivery of
goods and services in emergency situations creates a huge managerial, technical and administrative
work. Its allotment to different tasks can be a self defeating exercise. The project indicators don’t
differentiate direct and indirect beneficiaries (e.g., cash for work recipients from grazing land users of
the bush clearing projects). This is a further hurdle in assessing the expenditures efficiency.
Coverage
Q.4.1 Are we reaching the most vulnerable communities and individuals?
The nutrition projects prioritized a particularly vulnerable segment of the population: malnourished
children and pregnant and lactating women. The identification of needs in the refugeescamps was
performed under the supervision and along the patterns established by ARRA / UNHCR. SC USA was
assigned specific tasks and elaborated its response on the basis of the needs emerging from needs
assessments (such is the case of nutrition) and in the light of its own experience, with more creative
results in child protection. Targeting children has a long term impact on the pastoralists and refugees
livelihoods as well as of community /solidarity values. The commitment of the children caretakers is
evident in the beneficiaries’ participation to child protection committees and measures the success of SC
awareness raising actions. In fact child protection was very effective in relation to seconding
unaccompanied children and separated minors, although host families are not satisfied with the
accompanying measures. ECCD and education interventions were not able to completely overcome the
gender cultural divide (see above). Some of the most vulnerable sectors such as handicap bearers, or
children with dietary problems, were overlooked. Targeting of health (communities) and education (RC
and communities) actions is largely dependent on health and school facilities collaboration. SC plays a
minor role here. WASH and FSL actions targeted communities that had suffered heavy losses of livestock
and that needed immediate assistance. In Afar region, JEOP assisted people referred that food aid is
shared across the enlarged family network and that they have not clear which are the selection criteria.
The evaluators hypothesize that the local authorities balanced different exigencies across the region, to
provide a minimum to the largest amount of people as possible.
Targeting vulnerable groupsin other sectors (malnourished, unaccompanied, separate children)was
more objective (MUAC measure, supervisors referral). Less care was devoted to bridge the gender divide
and identify special needs of handicapped children, and the cultural diversity was addressed in a mixed
way (Somali school programs in the refugees camps). Studies of local culture and traditions and
partnerships with local NGOs could have identified other patterns to enhance nutrition (cfr. the
firewood issue), education and child protection (cultural sensitive training and recreation activities in
CFSs) and health. The adoption of local WASH (surface water storage) and FSL (in relation to grazing
burden on the rangeland) solutions could have enhanced sustainability of results.
Q.4.2 How well is the response targeting gender and the most vulnerable groups?
Nutrition, school feeding, WASH and child protection activities in CFSs reduced women’s workload.
Pregnant and lactating women nutrition projects directly relieved their physical conditions and
contributed to save the foetus and new born lives (decrease of new born mortality rate was recorded in
Bokolmayo refugees camp). Actions in other fields record a consistent number of women participating
to awareness raising events, stakeholders committees, but no definitive overcoming of the gender
cultural divide. For example, school feeding alone doesn’t eliminate the gender gap in school enrolment.
24
According to field staff and Programme outputs tables (cfr. Annex 7.2.7), boys enrolment is higher in
SCSs and schools, especially in communities (up to a 2:1 ratio in SC UK areas). Beneficiary boys’
prevalence is recorded also the health sectors, starting from consultations (1.25 ratio) while malnutrition
screening and unaccompanied children and separate minors assistance achieved quite exact sex
balance. The same can be said of the children with handicap (e.g., the blind and deaf ones) assisting to
schools classes but lacking the tools to learn as their schoolmates.Psychosocial assistance to traumatized
children is effective, especially in case of the three lower levels of trauma. Referral of the gravest cases
(level four) to health facilities is not always adequate as the specialist skills to treat them are limited in
the camps.
It has to be stressed that the involvement of communities in identifying the beneficiaries results in
acceptinglocal priorities in targeting vulnerable groups (community representatives have a saying on
who is worth to be assisted and balance social cohesion with other governance concerns). Collaboration
with local NGO is the obvious way in taking into account such bias.
Q.4.3 Are we responding in the most affected geographical areas?
The coverage of the projects is more intense in the most affected geographical areas, the dry rangeland
of Afar and Somali region. In fact, also the 2012 drought affects many of the target woredas and
communities. The wide extension of the drought stricken areas makes impossible to reach every one of
the affected villages. A wider geographical coverage would have increased in an unsustainable way the
cost of reaching all beneficiaries. It would have required a massive build up of field managers skills.
Q.4.4 How have we decided where to work?
The FGoE decides and supervises humanitarian agencies access toworeda and communities on the basis
of the crisis priorities and NGO field experience / resources.The participatory approach and coordination
with local authorities was essential in deciding where to intervene. Key selection criteria were the
number of affected people and the threat to human lives in a community. In most cases, SC partners are
carrying out humanitarian activities in the pastoral areas they are acquainted with. In the case of SC UK,
emergency response actions have expanded to cover the Gode zone in Somali region to fill the gap
created the by the withdrawal of other humanitarian aid agencies.ARRA through the matrix mechanism
allocates the different sectors and refugees camps to the more reliable humanitarian agencies. SC USA
was assigned tasks matching its central skills. Inter-agencies agreements facilitated the rationalization in
the use of resources (e.g., SC USA left inpatients child therapeutic feeding Bokolmayo camp to a health
sector NGO in view of concentrating on child protection and outpatient nutrition / education actions.
Coherence and coordination
Q.5.1 Which role has SC played in coordination of the humanitarian response or complementary role to
the response and the decision making process with the local (government partners) and international
community?
SC partners directly implemented the drought response with the collaboration of a few local NGOs in
some pastoralist communities. Public institutions (schools, health facilities, woreda technical bodies)
were often associated in the field actions. SC recurred to direct implementation also in refugee camps,
under the supervision of ARRA / UNHCR. SC USA and UK tackled the needs of populations in the areas
they had already been working in, but forGobe in Somali region. SC UK co-led the education cluster at
the national level and SC USA was in charge of child protection in the refugees camps. In the education
and health sectors SC role was limited to fill in gaps of public services. SCprovided inputs and capacities
25
to the health facilitiesin order to provide nutrition aid to the communities malnourished children. In the
refugees campsSC was more active, organizing / strengthening the nutrition centers too. WASH and FSL
projects were coordinated with local authorities. Due to the limited field projection of the latter ones, SC
partners were substantially autonomous from public bodies in field activities delivery. Coordination gaps
exist among institutions. National and local authorities have different agendas and respondedto the
drought with different solicitude. SC flexibleapproach avoided confrontations that would have opposed
it to national or local authorities.
Q.5.2 Are we using those relationships effectively?
Smooth coordination with local authorities achieved flexibility inreaching the beneficiaries both in the
refugees camps and pastoralist communities thus contributing to the intervention efficiency. Positive
results were achieved by streamlining theAlliance resources through the partner most rooted in a region
(SC USA or SC UK). SC flexibility partly counterbalanced the delay and inconveniences created by the
complexity of institutional coordination, as in the case of the redesign of the WASH and FSL projects
(Afar, Oromia regions). ARRA matrix approach aligned and integrated different humanitarian agencies’
contributions inthe refugee camps. Local authorities played a pivotal role signalling communities needs
and in harmonizing humanitarian agencies interventions. Promotion of beneficiaries’participation (e.g.,
through child protection and other beneficiaries’ committees) improved the effectiveness and
sustainability of the projects results. Awareness and capacity building of recipients (children’s parents,
communities authorities) smoothed the path to aid delivery. A greater contribution of local NGOs would
have been also useful in accessing local knowledge (cfr. the unexpected discovery of fluoride in the
water wells), identifying hidden and cultural constraintsand could have contained field deployment
costs.
Impact and sustainability
Q.6.1 Which elements of the response need to be improved to ensure high quality implementation of the
emergencies response into longer term strategies?
SC projects involved a high level of beneficiary participation and collaboration with local institutions.
These are key ingredients of the transition from relief to sustainable development. The recovery of food
security and livelihood by the beneficiary pastoralists is a big challenge for the response exit strategy.
The lessons learnt in performing relief activities provide clues to the capacity of self help of the assisted
communities.Projects side actions raised awareness andstrengthened disaster resilience skills in
different communities, although it is not yet clear if they be effective in absence of external assistance.
Livelihood rehabilitation actions are highly dependent on environment constraints, and drought is a
recurrent threat.As expected, SC is more effective in the sectors in which it own an higher expertise,
such as child protection and nutrition. There it provides its best practices and has to stimulate the
creativeness of its field staff and partners by exploiting the lessons learnt.
Q.6.2 How well are disaster risk reduction objectives and longer term recovery objectives considered in
the emergency response?
The 2011 drought appeal was primarily aimed at promptly saving lives and minimizing the suffering of
people affected by the crisis. Long term recovery objectives were not the major focus of interventions.
Moreover, SC partners’relief teams haveno adequate resources to design humanitarian emergency
actions integrated intodevelopment strategies (FSL in Oromia region for instance). Theselimitations are
the major threatto sustainability. Awareness raising, build up of local resources, beneficiaries
coordination have to become an integral part of a fully fledgedDisaster risk management (DRM)
26
approach to be really useful. They have to be the consequence of a thorough analysis of the disaster
cycle (preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation). Every phase of the drought cycle is to be
lined to the peculiarities of the local environment and human settlement. Humanitarian standards too
have to be customized to local conditions. In other words, a development approach aware of the natural
disasters risk has to be adopted by censing, enhancing and taking into account the self-help capacities of
the local communitiesand their environmental sustainability strategies. Refugee camps residents have to
be assisted in developing skills to manage income generating activities, in order to facilitate their future
reintegration in the original communities.
Q.6.3 Which identified wider effects of the program or impacts of the response – social, technical,
environmental - on the target communities and institution?
SC projects provided immediate relief to refugees and pastoralist communities. They endowed the
affected pastoralist communities with some infrastructures (water schemes, improved health and
education facilities), coping mechanisms (training on maintenance of the new endowmentsand, in a
lesser way, awareness on the environmental challenge of the drought crisis). Local ans village authorities
are expected to supervise / manage the assets provided by the projects. The commitment of the
international community to solve the Somali national crisis ensures the continuation of the refugees
camps assistance. Changes in the environment and the economy of the Dollo Ado region are difficult to
forecast, but exploitation of natural resources can endanger local communities’ livelihood. Some
technical solutions, as maintenance of deep boreholes, require meansoften unavailable in the remote
Afari, Oromi and Somali villages. In fact lack of local resources can result in an extended dependence on
humanitarian aid. This seems particularly true in the case of the WASH and FSL projectsin the
communities. In absence of watershed management and conflicts resolution mechanisms, the viability
of their achievements is doutbful. Pastoralist livelihoods are undergoing structural changes, due to
environmental and socio-economic changes. Until the reach of a new balance of humans and
environment and among communities, the recurrence of drought will maintain dependence onexternal
aid.
6.4 Cross cutting issues
Environment. The drought crisis complicated the interaction between pastoralists and their
environment. Access to renewable resources is under threat due to the recurrence of the drought and
increasing exigencies of the resident population. In the Dollo Ad the Somali refugees’ arrival has
enhanced this pressure on the rangeland biomass by doubling the human population. SC approach to
community livelihood tackled this challenge in a limited way. A more complex design and a greater scale
of intervention is needed to solve these problems, typically to ensure pastoralists / host communities
food security at the watershed level. In infrastructure construction a large recourse to cement and other
external materials was performed. Local construction technologies using poor materials were not
properly exploited. Technical choices (e.g., water source drilling) differfrom the local ones (surface water
gathering) and adherence to national standards (e.g., in schools constructions) increase the
environmental impact of the interventions. A more environmental friendly approach requires a previous
study of local solutions. Mixing the recourse to imported and local materials can maximize the
environmental benefits of both traditional and modern technology.A critical issue in the case of the
refugees camps is the increased consumption of firewood associated to food cooking: soil and water
erosion will follow. In the pastoralist communities of Afar region, the presence of fluoride in
groundwater suggested theopportunity to createschemes for small scale roof water collection in the
27
schools buildings. The proposed technology, due to the limited surface involved in water catching,
seems to be inadequate to fulfill not only drought but also dry seasons needs. With these sustainability
limitations, the WASH projects directly contribute to the improvement of the human environment and
prevention of epidemics diseases. Bush clearing projects in Oromia provided a relief to grazing land
degradation. Their viability is linked to collaborating with agricultural authorities in charge of watershed
management / governance of renewable resources.
Continuous improvement. The MEAL approach provides new tools for the systematic achievement of
continuous improvement of SC action in Ethiopia (see Annex 7.2.9 for aninterpretation model). Actions
undertaken to improve accountability and learning are still undertaken on the external stimulus of SC
Alliance. The design of M&E tools and accountability actions has stimulated SC personnel to improve its
efficiency. Notwithstanding a larger, locally generated design to achieve continuous improvement is
badly needed. The impulse provided by the adoption of external inputs / technologies is neither
adequate to match local peculiarities and cultural constraints nor to enhance local creativity and
motivation. Local staff and volunteer beneficiaries have been prompted to provide their inputs but little
systematization of their experiences has been done up to now.
Child protection committees have been created in the refugee camps and other self help groups have
been supported in the communities.They arepartners in accountability (in primis by representing
beneficiaries in complaining with ARRA on the loopholes in humanitarian aid delivery) and in stimulating
the continuous improvement of SC intervention. For instance, also experience gained in the Child
friendly spacesand Feeding centersprovides many lessons and inputs to retarget, intensify and redirect
the assistance to minors.The relief community has to reflect on how to valorize the WASH and FSL
projects output: the sustainability of their technical solutions has to be linked to development strategies
Visibility. Boards are posted in several SC assisted communities, ensuring visibility as villagers congregate
in these sites, although they seem the heritage of past development programmes. Boards are more
systematicallyused inthe refugees camps. The potential for local conflicts induces discretion in
advertising field presence of humanitarian organizations.Beneficiary people appreciation of SC actions
creates the opportunity for the documentation and dissemination of success stories.
6.5 Staff fielding
The deployment of an extensive workforce to cope with the drought crisis was made possible by
expanding the local workforce and mobilizing voluntary beneficiaries work. Stressful field conditions and
large distances exercised a huge pressure on the resilience of field personnel. Commitment to field
activities (especially timeliness) varied depending on managers’ activism and presence. SC field officers’
motivation and leaders’skills and commitment are notable. They ensured an high pace inaid delivery, as
beneficiaries openly recognize.Building staff skills, a central tenet of the response strategy, was not
always up to expectations. The MEAL approach postulates the capacity to generate content and
systematize lessons learnt locally, to improveSCglobalperformance. This is especially needd in presence
of cultural divides that influence field staff behavior and can be perceived too late bytop managers.
ARRA and local authorities favorably see the presence of expat staff in the field. Their short term
deployment can break cultural and psychological deadlocks. Exchange of specialist experience can
28
stimulate the creativity of local staff, a fundamental issue in dealing with children. For instance, sensitive
issues can be misrepresented by children tutors or escape the perception of supervisors in the CFS.
Opportunities to target vulnerable children depend very much on the enthusiasm of the humanitarian
workers.Care givers’ distress and poor inputs delivery can negatively impact on the psychology of the
pupils and their personality development. Fatigue of deployment in stressed conditions impacts on the
earnestness and readiness to act and face sudden challenges as well as to perform routine tasks. A high
level of presence of managers in the field is needed to ensure an even performance in an aggressive
environment. A passive attitude affects the compliance of both work performance and
humanitarianstandards. Refreshment, location shifting, exchange of experience contribute to contain
limited attentiveness to children psychology and passivity in the implementation. The drought response,
relaying on previous SC experience, didn’t forge a strategic approach to ensure the systematic fulfillment
of such work organization exigencies.
6.6 Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning
The MEAL approach was launched in August / September 2011. Since then all SC partners have
implemented and scaled up their own MEAL systems, recruiting and training new monitors, adopting the
same Output tracker format and cumulative indicators, as well as monitoring quality and accountability
mechanisms. In fact, the customization of these skills to the local context has been partly considered in
shaping the training methodology. Overall response indicators are based on SC Alliance requirements. In
fact, the MEAL approach to the drought response lacks a self-elaborated strategy or work plan (cfr. the
USAID stress on the adoption of project Performance monitoring plans). Full dependence on external
inputs doesn’t favor the build of local skills for achieving continuous improvement.
Most response indicators record the performance of activities instead of the achievement of results and
impact. This situation results in a limited understanding of the change effected by the projects on the
livelihood of the beneficiaries. Needs assessments and, typically, health centers statistics on morbidity,
mortality, and school enrolment data are adequate to measure the impact of relief actions. Due to their
relief context, projects dealing with livelihood assets and conditions (especially WASH and FSL actions in
the communities) couldn’t develop the baseline and ex-post survey of the household livelihood
conditions, essential in obviating to such shortages of the monitoring approach.
MEAL monitors depend on the feedback of project staff for data collection. They perform field survey of
a qualitative nature (sites inspections). Both in Afar region and in Dollo Ado refugees camps, they
forward project data to the sub-office MEAL officer that provides its inputs to the MEAL manager. This is
in charge of data entry and data check, as well as of aggregating data to establish the overall
beneficiaries’ indicators (the drought response score). In performing these activities he identifies double
counting, on the basis of a qualitative analysis of the targets, and executes the appropriate reduction in
beneficiaries counting. The lack of a work plan defining in a univocal and documented way the
procedure for data collection, data check and counting in feeding the Output trackers reduces the
reliability of this tool. In fact it is quite difficult to identify ex-post the reasons and ways in which the final
digits were calculated.
A further setback of this approach is the fact that the Output trackers present the weekly variation in the
number of beneficiaries (new entries) and the cumulative sum from the beginning of the crisis, April 1 st,
29
2011. A separate reckoning for beneficiaries presently under assistance (i.e., those that are being taken
care of) is not part of this process, although such data could provide useful information on the present
level of effort of the ongoing projects. Lack of differentiation between direct and indirect beneficiaries in
the output trackers is a further shortage of the data mapping approach, although most actions target
direct beneficiaries.
7. Conclusions and lessons learnt








7.1 Conclusions
The SC Alliance intervention matched an urgent and extensive need of the children and pastoralist
population affected by the 2011 drought and Somali crisis. The field presence of SC partners allowed an
early awareness of the relevance of the drought threat and identification of needs and targets of the
response.By end of June 2012, SC Alliance recorded 2,132,844 beneficiaries (45% children), well over the
Strategy set target (1,975,755 people) and the 20% of affected children target.
Complex national coordination mechanisms resulted in some delays in the organization of field
interventions addressing the crisis, resulting in the loss of livelihood resources in pastoralists’
communities. In fact, SC partners were able to provide some early assistance through the modifiers of
ongoing development projects.
All the interventions benefitted directly or indirectly children, although they are also addressed to their
care givers and in the case of the Food security and livelihood and WASH sectors they impact on the
pastoralists household as a whole.
The overall intervention strategy emphasized the linkage between the immediate relief of the affected
people with their livelihood. In such perspective SC partners established new field offices and built
infrastructures for the performance of activities whose benefits extend over the projects time span. The
magnitude of the crisis limited the capacity of SC partners to link Relief, rehabilitation and development
in the assisted pastoralists’ communities. In such respect, preference was given to extending coverage
over intensity of the interventions.
From 2000 to 2010 emergency assistance to Ethiopia included US$ 140.7 million (at 2009 constant
prices) of Disaster risk reduction (0.6% of ODA disbursed funds). SC partners 2011 drought response
activities building up local capacities foster the efficiency of relief intervention by enhancing local
resilience. It creates the conditions for beneficiaries communities self-help in the early phases of the
humanitarian crises and enhanced collaboration with relief operations in case of future interventions.
Logistics, staff deployment and procurement were particularly difficult due to the remoteness of many
affected communities. SC partners allocated resources to improve the skills and efficiency of field staff
as well as local institutions and beneficiary volunteers collaborating with the projects. SC partners
previous presence in the drought stricken areas facilitated the collaboration with the affected
communities and local authorities and resulted in the incorporation of capacity building of beneficiaries
and public services staff in the delivery of humanitarian and recovery services.
ARRA and UNHCR through their presence and matrix planning system ensure the integration and mutual
strengthening of the impact of relief actions performed in the refugees camps (cfr. the different food
distributions, the connection between child protection, nutrition and health). Local authorities put in
place a less structured and effective and approach in assisting the response in pastoralists communities.
The immense area affected by the crisis makes difficult mobilize resources for Linking relief,
rehabilitation and development (LRRD). Structural changes in the pastoralists’ livelihood overcome the
30
resources mobilized by humanitarian aid. Growing stress in water access is forecast due to overgrazing
and climate change impact.
Annex 7.8.1 presents specific conclusions clustered by sector.
7.2 Lessons learnt









Relevance
The GoE Disaster risk reduction strategy makes room for flexibility. SC partners were effective in
exploiting such opportunities (e.g., prepositioning resources, project modifiers, etc.) before the drought
crisis declaration. More difficult was to link rehabilitation to development in view of enhancing results
sustainability. Humanitarian agencies have to clarify such issues with the government.
It is difficult to identify some children’s needs (e.g., those culture related of small groups or linked to
cultural divides) on the base of quantitative data only. Needs assessments have to be integrated with
children rights situational analysis to discover hidden needs and propose innovative solutions.
A complex crisis is expected to be long enough to allow the fine tuning of actions and mobilization of
progressively more specialist resources. Staff rotation is a tool for shifting expertise from where it is
exists to where it is most needed. It has to be accompanied by mobilization of some external specialist
skills to promote innovation.
Response in water access, the issue that triggered the crisis, suffered from delays in the pastoralists
communities. A frank discussion with FGoE on this subject – and its water shed management implication
– is critical in addressing drought problems at their roots.
Effectiveness
After the first phases of an emergency response, new needs arise or are identified. Mobilization of
specialist skills in coping sensitive and hidden targets can benefit from alliance with organizations
external to the humanitarian field.
Field work and living conditions, especially in remote Afar and Somali region communities are harsh. A
part improving facilities in the camps, local stakeholders (CBOs, NGOs) have to be more extensively
involved in field actions contain costs, ensures targeting vulnerable groups, accessing to local knowledge
and continuity of achievements.
Efficiency
Field managers are the key players in ensuring a participatory approach. Enhancing their skills and
motivation multiplies the efficiency field work and counterparts collaboration. Capacity building on field
operations (lean logistics and storage management, participatory approach and continuous
improvement, conflict mitigation, etc.) is needed to improve efficiency.
The MEAL approach has to be based on local elaboration of M&E strategies, to ensure cultural sensitivity
(e.g., fixing qualitative indicators), to raise local participation and share information downstream.
Coverage, coherence and coordination
Rehabilitation actions have to prioritize communities assisted in the relief phase. This approach valorizes
beneficiaries awareness and response mechanisms built in the first phase of the response. It also
maximizes the usefulness of SC field infrastructure, logistics and introduction. Enlarging field reach
indeed, a part from physical resources, requires a buildup of huge field management skills to keep the
control of remote actions. Clustering actions around a pivot sector multiplies the cumulative impact.
31



SC partners have developed an effective needs assessment approach that can be extended to a wider
area by collaboration with local NGOs, if a geographical enlargement of the targets is sought.
CFS show the potential for children related activities in Ethiopia. Links with local organizations dealing
with minors can greatly enhance the local commitment to children and solidarity values – i.e., it
catalyzes the mobilization of local support and resources for relief interventions.
Impact and sustainability
Flagship actions are those in the sectors of maximum SC expertise such as child protection and nutrition.
They can trigger local initiatives and commitment to solidarity and children welfare. These are also the
anchors for coordinating other activities and convergence of impact with other humanitarian aid players.
Design of rehabilitation actions has to be linked to local development strategies as much as possible.
Good will and encouragement by local authorities is not enough to ensure sustainability. Humanitarian
agencies have to clarify this challenge with the government.
8. Recommendations
8.1 General recommendations








With the merger of SC partners, strategy planning (EPP) has to establish criteria for LRRD and integration
of crisis response and long term development programmes. The SC Alliance shift to a corporate
approach has to be complemented by the buildup of a separate MEAL strategy (see the specific
recommendations in the M&E section).
SC Alliance has to coordinate with other humanitarian agencies the discussion with national authorities
and donors about the framing of a relief intervention approach facilitating project modifiers and early
response measures in critical areas of the emergency (those with the direst consequences) before the
Ethiopian government declaration of the crisis, e.g., in the field of water trucking and therapeutic
feeding.
Livelihood recovery initiatives designed under the urgency of relief have a limited immediate impact on
household welfare and often are not sustainable. Their impact on children is also smaller due to cultural
bias. Investments to foster timely intervention mechanism are more coherent with emergency needs. In
the meanwhile relief strategies have to prioritize as much as possible child direct assistance.
SC partners field presence has to be exploited to achieve LRRD by prioritizing relief assisted pastoral
communities in re-establishing livelihood sources, in case of development programs, in order to
maximize the sustainability of the emergency interventions.
Handover of capacity to deliver humanitarian services to local institutions and communities has to be
matched by the continuation of an advisory role of SC partners in order to ensure a transparent
targeting of beneficiaries (cost – effectiveness) and continuous improvement of their performance.
Assistance in the refugees camps has to be intensified in the sectors of greater SC expertise (child
protection, nutrition), by fine tuning targeting and addressing emerging and hidden needs.
LRRD has to be intensified in assisted pastoral communities by stimulating the emergence and
partnership with Community based organizations / local NGOs.
Projects alignment to the watershed management approach typical of development programmes has to
be used in assessing project proposals aimed at the rehabilitation ofpastoralists livelihoods. Emergency
exit strategies have to be scored against such reference topic.
32
8.2 Specific recommendations










Child protection
ECCD programs in refugees camps have to develop content specific to the refugees exigencies, by
addressing their culture and traditions, by establish links and exchanging experiences with child related
initiatives / centers interested in supporting the relief operations; e.g., by deploying knowledgeable
people to assist local staff in developing new approaches to child care.
The same approach has to be used in dealing with psycho-social assistance and unaccompanied children
/ separate minors follow up, or targeted answer to the needs of special groups such as handicap bearers,
talented children, etc. Needs assessment of the youth population conditions, needs and interests has to
become the basis of the CFS / ECCD evolution strategy.
Lessons learnt and best practices have to be reflected in the development of contents and
documentation to train field staff and spread success stories across the refugees camps. A continuous
improvement approach (MEAL strategy) has to support the consolidation of the field activities.
CFS / CCFC are contiguous to primary schools. The strengthening of dual purpose facilities and services
has to be prioritized, for example by expanding sport and entertainment actions.
The building local institutions and pastoralists communities drought resilience capacities has to be
continued through rehabilitation and development projects in order to promote self help skills
(especially useful in the first phases of future humanitarian crises) and to facilitate the deployment of
humanitarian aid in case of external intervention. Woredas have to play a key role in preparedness
planning.
Health
A major SC Alliance commitment in this sector is not foreseen in the evolution of the drought crisis. Thus
actions supporting health facilities associated to nutrition programs, whereas FGoE priorities allow, have
toconcentrate on some limited target or support the primary health care practices ensuring
sustainability of the aid delivered until now. Specifically the following actions have to be prioritized:
 exchanging experiences with child health related initiatives / centers interested in supporting the
relief operations; e.g., by deploying knowledgeable pediatricians to assist health facility staff in
developing new approaches to child health care,
 capacity building of health workers in identifying and treating specific diet / nutrition related
syndromes (lack of mineral elements, vitamins, intolerance to food, etc.).
Nutrition and food aid
Knowledge on household composition and diet patterns can provide clues to rationalize some food
distributions. A mix of fixed and variable food items matching cultural preferences in school feeding can
limit such practices.
Nutrition programs can valorize the assets established through the CFS / CCFS, ECCD programs, schools
and child protection committees to provide dietary counseling to the refugees.
Training of traditional birth attendants in assisted communities can build skills on child nutrition
counseling, also referred to food needs in case of illnesses linked to nutrition status and specific diet /
nutrition related syndromes.
Food consumption is associated to firewood fetching. The establishment of human settlements of the
size of the refugees camps generates a cash-flow (benefitting both refugees and pastoralists) based on
the depletion of the surrounding area biomass, with negative impact on host communities livelihood
33
and soil fertility. Actions to restore vegetation (natural regeneration, reforestation) and improve the
energy efficiency of cooking (production / distribution of energy saving stoves) have to be undertaken
with the participation of host communities (gap identified in the UNHCR 2012. Bokolmayo camp
snapshot).










WASH
Water trucking can be associated or substituted in the final water delivery chainby an intensive use of
the traditional water carts during drought crises, at least in the Somali region. The disaster preparedness
and resilience strengthening of assisted communities have to address the exigencies and potentials of
these small scale water distribution operators in serving clusters of villages.
Surface water harvesting and storage in underground containers is practiced in the intervention areas.
The advantage of such technology relies in the broad areas dominated and consequently greater water
storage potential. These surface water harvestingtechniques can be used for both human consumption
water as well as to establish / rehabilitate livestock watering ponds.
Capacity building of beneficiaries of WASH and FSL actions has to be strictly linked to local extension
strategies / programmes supporting pastoral communities or local NGOs initiatives.
Education
The gender cultural divide – prevalence of school enrolled boys – is revealed as early as in the second
grade, probably due to girls’ involvement in homework. A slight prevalence of male is revealed also in
the ECCD programmes. Positive actions to increase girls’ school attendance – alternative to school
feeding - have to be devised, on the basis of the feedback of household livelihood surveys.
Vocational and technical education is becoming a priority in the refugees camps due to the prolongation
of the Somali crisis. In addressing such field, the following criteria have to be adopted:
 perform needs assessments of the potential for different professions, preferences of
beneficiaries, existence of local capacities to use in training,
 formulate curricula bv developing contentslocallyand customized to assessed needs,
 exchange experiences with vocational training centers / handcrafts interested in supporting the
relief operations; e.g., by deploying knowledgeable people to assist teachers in developing new
tools and capacity building approaches.
Food security and livelihood
Livelihood recovery projects based on a fast analysis of the environmental and economic challenges
produce unsustainable results FGoE has to be made aware of this challenge to sustainability.
Capacity building of beneficiaries of WASH and FSL actions has to be more linked to local extension
services strategies of assistance to the pastoral communities.
Connection with FGoE conflict mitigation strategies has to be incorporated in pastoral livelihood
interventions. Assessments of the reasons of conflict, reunions of discussion of representatives of
different communities, and the establishment of consultation mechanisms to smooth divergences are
essential to ensure sustainability of FSL interventions.
Restocking has to be promoted also in association with micro-saving schemes. It has to be assisted when
a watershed management strategy ensuring the adequate availability of water in the dry seasons exists.
Human resources
Shiftfield staff among different refugees camp location to avoid acquaintance and fatigue, improve
performance and reduce the opportunities of abuses. Capacitate and appoint CFS school masters.
34







Developingtraining materials incorporating local knowledge, lessons learnt has to be preferred to the
indiscriminate use of documentation generated elsewhere. Staff training sets have to be translated into
the local languages. This approach fosters continuous improvement and raise trainers and trainees
creativity.
Exchange of experiences, i.e., short term presence of external specialists has to be undertaken in order
to stimulate the elaboration of specific methdoologies and contents in the design and implementation of
field actions. Collaboration with external centers can provide volunteers and professionals eager to
discuss local exigencies and opportunities and transfer their knowledge to field staff.
Develop a human resources strategy directed to enhancing the skills of field managers.
Dollo Ado office premises can be endowed with an equipped gym room in order to provide
opportunities for physical exercise to long term external staff posted there.
Monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning
Countrywide or in alternative crisis response and project specific Performance monitoring plans have to
be elaborated, whereas justified by the size of the interventions, in order to ensure a reliable data
tracing approach. They include:
 field staff training requirements (see also the recommendation on local staff training),
 procedures for documenting independencein data collection and field monitors supervision,
 procedures for documentingtransparent data entry, check, processing and indicators elaboration
and reporting (data tracing),
 provisions for undertaking of ad hoc surveys of needs as well as of general and emerging issues,
 data sheets for all the interventions indicators,
 gender split indicators applied to all the intervention sectors.
The Output trackers have to be based on documented proceduresfor calculating the indicators (data
tracing), including double counting criteria and tracing, and incorporate indicators for the actual
beneficiaries. Direct and indirect beneficiaries have to be differentiated.
In perspective an integrated multi-location data entry and centralized processing and reporting tool to
manage country-wide projects data has to be developed. It has to be associated to the adoption of tools
for geographical mapping of interventions in communities (e.g., GIS processing and presentation).
35