DOCSLIB.ORG

South Sudan Early Recovery and Humanitarian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Sudan Early Recovery and Humanitarian SOUTH SUDAN EARLY RECOVERY AND HUMANITARIAN PROJECT (SSERHP) END EVALUATION REPORT January , 2014 DENNIS OCHIENG & BETTY KWEYU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Many people among them CARE staff and constituents have contributed to making this evaluation process a successful, smooth-running and rewarding process. Thanks go first of all to the Project Manager Sylvia Kaawe for her unswerving commitment to the evaluation process and tireless effort in ensuring a smooth workflow despite the unrest attributable to the growing tension and anxiety on the ground at the time Secondly, the evaluation team would like to appreciate the input of each and every CARE program staff in Panyagor sub office including but not limited to participation in interviews, coordination and logistics of this evaluation; in most instances beyond working hours and days. We appreciate the effort made by the County commissioner, Payam Administrators and Community members in attending meetings and interview sessions, with very short notices. Last but not least we acknowledge the input and dedication of all other CARE Staff based in Juba who facilitated the evaluation process; without their support the evaluation would not have been successful. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ IV DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS/CONCEPTS ...................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GOOD PRACTICES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 EXPECTED PROJECT RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 4 2 EVALUATION METHODS AND APPROACHES ......................................................................................... 5 3 EVALUATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 MAIN FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2.1 FINDINGS BASED ON EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................................. 7 OUTCOME 3: STRENGTHENED LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN, MEN AND YOUTH .......................................... 20 3.2.2 GENDER MAINSTREAMING .................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.3 FINDINGS BASED ON EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................... 24 3.2 RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS ........................................................................................................ 24 3.2.1 RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS TO THE BENEFICIARIES’ PRIORITY NEEDS. ..................................................... 24 3.2.2 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DONOR AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES. ............................................................. 26 3.3 EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.1 HUMANITARIAN ACCOUNTABILITY AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 26 3.4 EFFICIENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4.1 ACHIEVEMENTS IN LINE WITH RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 30 3.4.2 COST EFFICIENCY - TECHNICAL DESIGN AND QUALITY OF WORKS ................................................................... 33 3.4.3 EFFICIENCY IN IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ............................................................................................. 33 3.5 PROJECT COVERAGE............................................................................................................................ 34 3.6 SUSTAINABILITY OF SSHERP ................................................................................................................. 34 3.7 COORDINATION AND PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................................................................... 35 ii 3.7.1 COORDINATION ................................................................................................................................... 35 3.7.2 PARTNERSHIP WITH AUSAID ................................................................................................................. 35 3.7.3 PARTNERSHIP WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. 35 3.8 WHAT WORKED WELL (LESSONS LEARNT) ................................................................................................. 36 3.9 CHALLENGES FACED BY SSHERP ............................................................................................................ 36 4 CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 36 4.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS BASED OF GAPS OBSERVED ........................................................................................ 37 4.3 GOOD PRACTICES THAT COULD BE BUILT ON FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 38 APPENDIX 1: TOR ..................................................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX 2: TIMETABLE ........................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX 3 : EVALUATION TEAM PROFILES (TO BE ATTACHED SEPARATELY) ........................................ 10 APPENDIX 4: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ....................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX 5 : TIMELINE ...................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX 6 : EVALUATION MATERIAL (QUESTIONNAIRES ETC) – TO BE ATTACHED SEPARATELY ........... 11 APPENDIX 7 : COLLATED STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (TO BE INCLUDED AFTER GETTING FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS) ..................... 11 List of figures FIGURE 1; COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF DIARRHEA INCIDENCES ................................................................................................. 14 FIGURE 2: HYGIENE PROMOTION STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 3 FACTORS AFFECTING UTILIZATION AND OUTCOME ....................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 4 DECISION TO ATTEND HEALTH CLINIC ........................................................................................................................ 18 FIGURE 5 KNOWLEDGE OF DANGER SIGNS DURING PREGNANCY .................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 6 ORGANOGRAM ................................................................................................................................................... 28 iii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AUSAID The Australian Agency for International Development BH Bore Hole CO Country Office CHAST Children’s Hygiene and Sanitation Training CI CARE International DIP Detailed Implementation Plan EmONC Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care FFS Farmer Field Schools HAF Humanitarian Accountability Framework HH Household IGA Income Generating Activity IDP Internally Displaced Persons MOPI Ministry Of Physical Infrastructure MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization NGO Non-Governmental Organizations OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development O&M Operation & Maintenance P2P Project to Program PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation PHCU Primary Health Care Unit PHCC Primary Health Care Center RMU Regional Management Unit RoSS Republic of South Sudan RRC Relief and Rehabilitation Commission SPM Selection Planning and Management SSERHP South Sudan Emergency Response and Humanitarian Project SSP South Sudanese Pound TBA Traditional Birth Attendant
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Initial Rapid Needs Assessment on Flood Disaster in Twic East County, Jonglei State
    Coordinated Flood Disaster Assessment in the Former Twic East County Initial Rapid Needs Assessment On flood Disaster in Twic East County, Jonglei State July, 2019 Page 1 of 12 Coordinated Flood Disaster Assessment in the Former Twic East County Situation Overview Former Twic East County of Jonglei state composed of five Map Payams: Ajuong, Kongor, Lith, Nyuak, and Pakeer. According to the Fifth Population and Housing Census conducted in April 2008, Twic East County had a combined population of 8,5349 people, composed of 4,4039 males and 4,1310 female residents with 14326 Household (HHs) In the month of June 2019, there was a flooding in the former Twic East County which has affected all the five Payams. Nyuak, Kongor and Lith Payams were highly affected while Pakeer and Ajuong Payam were partly flooded. The flooding was caused by erratic and heavy rainfall which happened in the month of June 2019. For the last three years, there has been Twic East County heavy rainfall that causes flooding. The natural land scape of Twic East does not allow free water movement to downstream Affected population: 1547 HHS, total of 8722 people has and the water accumulation has increased in villages, especially been affected. Refer Annex 1 for in agricultural and grazing/pasture land. details. As rainy season is currently on its peak, flooding is expected to Displaced population: increase which might aggravate the situation before impact of Over 1000 HHS have been displaced.) the current flood is tackled and water level goes down. In addition, the rain condition in upper basin of Nile (from Central Key Priorities equatorial and Uganda) is expected to increase the river water Urgent seed vegetable seeds level and water level in swampy area (Sudd part of Twic East), supply for fresh food which will in turn causes breakage of primary dyke (which has production already some weak points) and add more crises in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Tables from the 5Th Sudan Population and Housing Census, 2008
    Southern Sudan Counts: Tables from the 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census, 2008 November 19, 2010 CENSU OR S,S F TA RE T T IS N T E IC C S N A N A 123 D D β U E S V A N L R ∑σ µ U E A H T T I O U N O S S S C C S E Southern Sudan Counts: Tables from the 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census, 2008 November 19, 2010 ii Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................. iv Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... x Foreword ....................................................................................................................... xiv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ xv Background and Mandate of the Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation (SSCCSE) ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 History of Census-taking in Southern Sudan....................................................................... 2 Questionnaire Content, Sampling and Methodology ............................................................ 2 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 2
    [Show full text]
  • South Sudan: Jonglei – “We Have Always Been at War”
    South Sudan: Jonglei – “We Have Always Been at War” Africa Report N°221 | 22 December 2014 International Crisis Group Headquarters Avenue Louise 149 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 502 90 38 Fax: +32 2 502 50 38 [email protected] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 II. Jonglei’s Conflicts Before the Civil War ........................................................................... 3 A. Perpetual Armed Rebellion ....................................................................................... 3 B. The Politics of Inter-Communal Conflict .................................................................. 4 1. The communal is political .................................................................................... 4 2. Mixed messages: Government response to intercommunal violence ................. 7 3. Ethnically-targeted civilian disarmament ........................................................... 8 C. Region over Ethnicity? Shifting Alliances between the Bahr el Ghazal Dinka, Greater Bor Dinka and Nuer ...................................................................................... 9 III. South Sudan’s Civil War in Jonglei .................................................................................. 12 A. Armed Factions in Jonglei ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Security Responses in Jonglei State in the Aftermath of Inter-Ethnic Violence
    Security responses in Jonglei State in the aftermath of inter-ethnic violence By Richard B. Rands and Dr. Matthew LeRiche Saferworld February 2012 1 Contents List of acronyms 1. Introduction and key findings 2. The current situation: inter-ethnic conflict in Jonglei 3. Security responses 4. Providing an effective response: the challenges facing the security forces in South Sudan 5. Support from UNMISS and other significant international actors 6. Conclusion List of Acronyms CID Criminal Intelligence Division CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CRPB Conflict Reduction and Peace Building GHQ General Headquarters GoRSS Government of the Republic of South Sudan ICG International Crisis Group MSF Medecins Sans Frontières MI Military Intelligence NISS National Intelligence and Security Service NSS National Security Service SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement SRSG Special Representative of the Secretary General SSP South Sudanese Pounds SSPS South Sudan Police Service SSR Security Sector Reform UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan UYMPDA Upper Nile Youth Mobilization for Peace and Development Agency Acknowledgements This paper was written by Richard B. Rands and Dr Matthew LeRiche. The authors would like to thank Jessica Hayes for her invaluable contribution as research assistant to this paper. The paper was reviewed and edited by Sara Skinner and Hesta Groenewald (Saferworld). Opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Saferworld. Saferworld is grateful for the funding provided to its South Sudan programme by the UK Department for International Development (DfID) through its South Sudan Peace Fund and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) through its Global Peace and Security Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonglei State, South Sudan Introduction Key Findings
    Situation Overview: Jonglei State, South Sudan January to March 2019 Introduction Map 1: REACH assessment coverage METHODOLOGY of Jonglei State, January 2019 To provide an overview of the situation in hard-to- Insecurity related to cattle raiding and inter- Map 3: REACH assessment coverage of Jonglei State, March 2019 reach areas of Jonglei State, REACH uses primary communal violence reported across various data from key informants who have recently arrived parts of Jonglei continued to impact the from, recently visited, or receive regular information ability to cultivate food and access basic Fangak Canal/Pigi from a settlement or “Area of Knowledge” (AoK). services, sustaining large-scale humanitarian Nyirol Information for this report was collected from key needs in Jonglei State, South Sudan. Ayod informants in Bor Protection of Civilians site, Bor By March 2019, approximately 5 months Town and Akobo Town in Jonglei State in January, since the harvest season, settlements February and March 2019. Akobo Duk Uror struggled to extend food rations to the In-depth interviews on humanitarian needs were Twic Pochalla same extent as reported in previous years. Map 2: REACH assessment coverage East conducted throughout the month using a structured of Jonglei State, February 2019 survey tool. After data collection was completed, To inform humanitarian actors working Bor South all data was aggregated at settlement level, and outside formal settlement sites, REACH has Pibor settlements were assigned the modal or most conducted assessments of hard-to-reach credible response. When no consensus could be areas in South Sudan since December found for a settlement, that settlement was not Assessed settlements 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Situation Overview: Jonglei State, South Sudan January-March 2018
    Situation Overview: Jonglei State, South Sudan January-March 2018 Introduction Map 1: REACH assessment coverage Map 3: REACH assessment coverage Bor Town, c) two FGDs for Ayod in Bor PoC. of Jonglei State, January 2018 of Jonglei State, March 2018 All this information is included in the data used Ongoing conflict in Jonglei continued for this Situation Overview. to negatively affect humanitarian needs among the population in the first quarter of This Situation Overview provides an update 2018. Clashes between armed groups and to key findings from the November 2017 1 pervasive insecurity, particularly in northern Situation Overview. The first section analyses Jonglei caused displacement among affected displacement and population movement in communities, negatively impacting the ability Jonglei during the first quarter of 2018, and the to meet their primary needs. second section evaluates access to food and basic services for both IDP and non-displaced REACH has been assessing the situation in Map 2: REACH assessment coverage communities. hard-to-reach areas in South Sudan since of Jonglei State, February 2018 December 2015, to inform the response Population Movement and of humanitarian actors working outside of Displacement formal settlement sites. This settlement data Levels of depopulation remained high but is collected across South Sudan on a monthly stable overall in most parts of Jonglei in the first basis. Between 2 January and 23 March, Assessed settlements quarter of 2018. The proportion of assessed REACH interviewed 1527 Key Informants Settement settlements in Jonglei reporting that half or (KIs) with knowledge of humanitarian needs Cover percentae o aeed ettement reative to the OCHA COD tota dataet more of the population had left remained in 710 settlements in 7 of the 11 counties in similar between December 2017 (45%) and Jonglei State.
    [Show full text]
  • UNICEF South Sudan Humanitarian Sitrep
    UNICEF SOUTH SUDAN SITUATION REPORT 30 April 2018 South Children collect water from a UNICEF-supported water Sudan treatment centre, one of six in Malakal town that provide safe Humanitarian drinking water to approx. Situation Report 18,000 people. Photographer: Sebastien Rich 31 MARCH – 30 APRIL 2018: SOUTH SUDAN SITREP #120 SITUATION IN NUMBERS Highlights 1.76 million • On 17 April, 248 children were released from SPLA-iO and former South Sudan National Liberation Movement (SSNLM) in Bakiwiri, Western Internally displaced persons (IDPs) (OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin, Equatoria State, bringing the total number children released from armed 30 April 2018) forces/groups in 2018 to 596, including 211 girls. 2.45 million • UNICEF with partners reached 103,207 people with curative consultations, South Sudanese refugees in including 51,351 children under five years, through health facilities, neighbouring countries community outreach and integrated rapid response mechanism (IRRM) (OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin, missions, bringing the cumulative total of children under five years reached 30 April 2018) to 176,395 in 2018. 6.3 million • Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV) campaigns were completed in five of South Sudan’s South Sudanese who are food insecure most stable states (Central, Eastern and Western Equatoria, Northern Bahr (February-April 2018 Projection, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification: The Republic el Ghazal and Lakes), during which 1,088,360 (84.3 per cent) of the targeted of South Sudan, 01 January 2018) 1,675,977
    [Show full text]
  • SITREP#109 24Feb 2017Final
    Republic of South Sudan Situation Report #109 on Cholera in South Sudan As at 23:59 Hours, 24 February 2017 Situation Update A total of 13 counties in 9 (28%) of 32 states countrywide have confirmed cholera outbreaks (Table 1; Figure 1.0). The most recent cases were confirmed in Yirol East, Eastern Lakes state on 22 February 2017. Suspect cholera cases have been reported in Malakal Town; Pajatriei Islands, Bor county; Panyagor, Twic East county; and Moldova Islands, Duk county (Table 4). During week 8 of 2017, a total of 4 samples from Yirol East and 2 samples from Mayendit tested positive for cholera (Table 3). Cumulatively, 185 (37.8 %) samples have tested positive for Vibrio Cholerae inaba in the National Public Health Laboratory as of 24 February 2017 (Table 3). Table 1: Summary of cholera cases reported in South Sudan as of 24 February 2017 New New Total cases Total Reporting New deaths Total facility Total cases admissions discharges currently community Total deaths Total cases Sites WK 8 deaths discharged WK 8 WK 8 admitted deaths Jubek – Juba - - - - 8 19 27 2,018 2,045 Jonglei-Duk - - - - 3 5 8 92 100 Jonglei-Bor - 15 - 7 1 3 4 51 62 Terekeka - - - - - 8 8 14 22 Eastern Lakes 12 5 - 5 2 8 10 478 493 - Awerial Eastern Lakes 1 5 - 1 5 12 17 176 194 - Yirol East Imatong - - - - - - 1 1 28 29 Pageri Western Bieh - - - - - 4 - 4 266 270 Fangak Northern Liech - - - - 3 7 2 9 1,144 1,156 Rubkona Southern - - - - 3 - 3 91 94 Liech - Leer Southern Liech - - - - - 17 4 21 435 456 Panyijiar Southern Liech - 2 2 - - - 5 5 214 219 Mayendit Central Upper 5 181 Nile - Pigi 3 2 3 5 173 Total 18 29 - 19 55 67 122 5,180 5,321 Highlights in week 8 of 2017: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Twic One Vision Campaign: Twic Community Association Inc. in The
    Twic One Vision Campaign: Twic Community Association Inc. in The United States 2019 Chairmanship Executive Summary One shared vision bring synergy, and in essence serve as a creative force for community transformation. Ideally, visioning is a vigorous ongoing process that reaches out to all members and wins hearts and minds. Empirically, when community members feel they are a part of the community vision. They are more likely to help actualize it. The organization’s mission and core values typically remain stable over time, and continuously help paints a picture of the future that clarifies its direction and further emphasize members’ understanding of why and how they should support the organization. The Twic East Community in the United States now Twic Community Association Inc. in the United States (TCA-USA) should start to paint a picture of what we are. What we value? What we want to be? Essentially, what is our vision? Because flawed vision coupled with leadership deficit, underpin disunity, and equally discourage members from believing in the mission, vision, value and goals of the organization. In addition, it energizes opposing ideas that breeds, or brace conflict, which successively impair members’ efforts to actualize goals geared toward community advancement. It is certain, TCA-USA has failed to achieve its mission and goals because of the incoherent vision paired with infirm leadership. For these reasons, the Twic One Vision (TOV) campaign assembled talented teams that will advanced TCA-USA’s strategic planning, mission, vision and value. The team has deep understanding of Twic as a community, and carry with it leadership abilities, and skills needed to bring stability and upgrade the vision.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Uror and Nyirol Counties, South Sudan
    Researching livelihoods and services affected by conflict Livelihoods, access to services and perceptions of governance: An analysis of Uror and Nyirol counties, South Sudan Report 3 Daniel Maxwell, Martina Santschi, Rachel Gordon, Philip Dau and Leben Moro April 2014 Written by Daniel Maxwell (Tufts University, Team Leader), Martina Santschi (swisspeace), Rachel Gordon (Tufts University), Philip Dau (National Bureau of Statistics and Leben Moro (University of Juba). SLRC reports present information, analysis and key policy recommendations on issues relating to livelihoods, basic services and social protection in conflict affected situations. This and other SLRC reports are available from www.securelivelihoods.org. Funded by DFID, Irish Aid and EC. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of SLRC, DFID, Irish Aid and EC. ©SLRC 2014. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from SLRC for their own publications. As copyright holder SLRC, requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7922 8249 F +44 (0)20 7922 0399 E [email protected] www.securelivelihoods.org About us The Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium (SLRC) is a six-year project funded by DFID, Irish Aid and EC. SLRC aims to bridge the gaps in knowledge about: ■ When it is appropriate to build secure livelihoods in conflict-affected situations (CAS) in addition to meeting immediate acute needs; ■ What building blocks (e.g. humanitarian assistance, social protection, agriculture and basic services) are required in different contexts; ■ Who can best deliver building blocks to secure livelihoods in different contexts; and ■ How key investments can be better and more predictably supported by effective financing mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Men Women Boys Girls Total
    Requesting Organization : Nile Hope Allocation Type : 1st Round Standard Allocation Primary Cluster Sub Cluster Percentage HEALTH 100.00 100 Project Title : Provision of emergency lifesaving and gender sensitive high impact health services for hard to reach, undeserved and conflict affected IDPs and vulnerable communities in Leer county of Southern Liech state; Fangak county in Fangak state and Uror county in Bieh state. Allocation Type Category : Frontline services OPS Details Project Code : SSD-17/H/103507 Fund Project Code : SSD-17/HSS10/SA1/H/NGO/5157 Cluster : Health Project Budget in US$ : 244,599.95 Planned project duration : 6 months Priority: Planned Start Date : 01/04/2017 Planned End Date : 30/09/2017 Actual Start Date: 01/04/2017 Actual End Date: 30/09/2017 Project Summary : Leer, Fangak and Uror counties are among the most conflict affected counties in the country. Following the Jan-Feb-2017 sporadic conflicts in Leer county community had moved to deep islands /swampy area. These locations are the perceived hard to reach and safe for civilians from possible attack by an armed force, a considerable proportion of Leer community had moved to East ward to Fangak County. Currently Fangak county is hosting a community from Leer and Mayandint counties and a population from Atar and kaldak areas who fled to Diel area of New Fangak following the recent attack in February-2017. In Uror county following the recent attack in Yuai payam, approximately 21,000 people had moved out of their home areas towards neighboring Nyirol and Akobo counties. Facility HMIS report from Walgak PHCC showed an increase in the number of general consultation and specifically the number of Kala azar cases who are seen in the facility has increased in the last two weeks’ time.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Root Causes Project in South Sudan Mid Term Review Report
    Addressing Root Causes Project in South Sudan Mid Term Review Report Submitted by Innovation for Impact Solutions to CARE South Sudan Consultants 1. Atem Dut de Kuek – Lead Consultant 2. Alumai Godfrey Jeff- Review Manager 3. Ayiik John Kuany – Fieldwork Coordinator 4. Andi Ronald Jimmy- Data Analyst June 11, 2019 1 | P a g e Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1. Background of the ARC project ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Objectives and scope of the midterm review ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Current context of the project locations ........................................................................................................... 10 2.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Timeline/process ............................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Data collection methodologies .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]