Evaluation Peru, Alliance Earthquake

EVALUATION PERU, ALLIANCE EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE JUNE – NOVEMBER 2001 FINAL REPORT Consultant – Michael Clulow Evaluation Team Members – Maritza Pinzón, Nelly Claux, Ana María Marquez, Raúl Luna, David Throp, Omar Delfín, Juan Pari, Jorge Mariscal, Agustín González January 2001 Contents Executive Summary 3 Notes on the evaluation 6 1. Analysis of achievement of objectives and impact on target population 9 2. Analysis of efficiency of intervention 23 3. Analysis of sustainability of results and impacts 28 4. Analysis of appropriateness of Alliance response 32 5. Analysis of Alliance Management 42 6. Recommendations 46 Appendices Appendix 1: Evaluation Timetable Appendix 2: Draft Evaluation Framework Appendix 3: Participants in Evaluation Meetings Appendix 4: Newspaper cuttings Appendix 5: Children’s drawings and other materials produced by beneficiaries during the evaluation Appendix 6: Photos NB: Appendices have not been translated. Appendices 4 to 6 are only included in the original English copy of the final report, submitted to Save the Children UK in London. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to the earthquake of June 23rd 2001 which caused widespread destruction in southern Peru, the three Alliance members with a presence in the country (UK, Canada and Sweden) have been working with five national counterparts in four geographical areas (Ayacucho, Arequipa, Moquegua and Tacna) to implement a relief and rehabilitation project which incorporates both conventional assistance (shelter, bedding, clothing, household equipment and rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure) and educational and training work to promote children’s rights and disaster prevention and preparedness. Although this project is yet to finish, with work on the latter areas due to continue into the second half of 2002, it was considered important to conduct an evaluation of the project at this time. The fact that the evaluation has been made of work in progress, albeit with many key components fully or nearly fully implemented, makes clear that it is not intended to be an evaluation of how effective the project has been with a view to reporting to donors and portioning out praise or blame. Rather, this is intended to be a contribution to a process of mutual learning by the members of the Alliance and their counterparts in the project on the basis of which the present project can be completed more effectively and future decisions can be taken on a more solid basis. Consistent with this orientation, the evaluation was conducted by a team of Save the Children staff from the various Alliance members involved and members of two counterpart organisations (Mallku and PREDES) with the consultant functioning principally as a coordinator, facilitator and reporter. There were some difficulties in putting together this team but the results were very positive and the author of this report is indebted to the other team members for their contributions and support. Although this is not intended principally as an impact evaluation, a significant proportion of the report is necessarily devoted to the consideration of the effectiveness of the components of the project which have been or are nearly completed and of the initial indications of impact of the other components. In this respect, it can be stated that the project has been largely successful. Most importantly, the overall objective of “ensuring adequate health of children in badly affected rural areas receiving little support” has been fulfilled through the provision of bedding, warm clothing and shelter in poor rural areas, often distant from the major towns and cities which received the lion’s share of aid from other organisations. Save the Children’s assistance contributed significantly to reducing the incidence and consequences of acute respiratory infections. As a doctor consulted during the evaluation put it: “there have been many cases of acute respiratory disease but the distribution of blankets avoided a crisis”. Children’s clothes distributed in all project areas and the establishment of good quality temporary housing modules, particularly in the Moquegua and Tacna departments, and of anti-seismic houses in Arequipa, will continue to contribute to this aim while the housing also helps fulfil the objective of contributing to the rapid reconstruction of rural communities. Rehabilitation of canals was carried out rather more slowly than might have been wished but has nevertheless ensured opportune sowing of major season food crops in most areas and will provide better production conditions than would have been possible otherwise both in this season and for some time to come. Specific work to promote children’s rights and disaster prevention only began in earnest in September so no firm judgements can be made on the effectiveness of the project in this respect but some positive progress is already clear. Early work with children has contributed to overcoming their fears, which were one of the major effects of the earthquake, while opportunities are being created for them to strengthen their participation in their communities 3 and make their voices heard. The increased openness of teachers and local authorities to new approaches have been and are being capitalised on with local authorities exploring the creation of a municipal office for the defence of children’s rights in Ayacucho, some new schools councils being created in Arequipa, teachers reproducing training on disaster prevention in Moquegua and creativity workshops and children’s rights days being held in schools in Tacna. Consideration of the “appropriateness” of the project in its many facets suggest that, on balance, it was an appropriate response to the emergency. This judgement is based not only on the results of the work to date but also on the coherence between the project and Alliance mission, vision and approaches and on the fit between various factors including: the populations attended and the patterns of need and attendance by other agencies; the priorities expressed by women, children and men and the project components; and the counterparts selected and their capacity to implement the project and integrate Save the Children priorities and approaches into their work. There have, of course, been limitations and problems affecting the project some of which should be highlighted. These include external factors such as: the difficulties of coordinating with other agencies, especially the national civil defence institute (INDECI); poor levels of community organisation in some areas; and the remoteness and isolation of several locations, especially the intervention area in Ayacucho and the main intervention area in Tacna. Internal factors which caused difficulties included: low budgets for counterpart personnel and transport; clashes of institutional culture generated by the counterparts lack of experience in emergency work; the small size of the project coordination team appointed at the beginning of August; some weaknesses in communication and reporting; the lack of a monitoring system; and the absence of guidelines on the promotion of active participation of children and the inclusion of women and girls and of people with disabilities. It should also be noted that fundraising for work on children’s rights and disaster prevention has been far more difficult than for other aspects of the project, underlining the gap between Save the Children’s vision of emergency work and that of the donor agencies. These limitations and problems have principally delayed rather than impeded positive impacts. In some cases, this is partly due to convenient circumstances, e.g. the timing of the earthquake meant that reductions in availability of irrigation water did not have immediate, major implications for subsistence crops. However, it is mostly down to the work of the counterparts, their institutional cultures and the support they received from the Save the Children team. In this sense, it is important to stress some of the positive aspects of the ways in which the various organisations worked. All counterparts established working relationships with local authorities and community leaders; all of them encouraged communal working by beneficiaries; several of them managed to integrate emergency work with their regular programmes; and at least two of them (Labor and Mallku) took a team approach to project implementation. The support of staff from various Alliance members’ offices in Peru and elsewhere was crucial during the first month after the earthquake and the support of PREDES, officially considered as an advisor but in practice the fifth counterpart, has been enormously helpful from Day One. Given the nature of this evaluation as a learning process, some emphasis has been placed on the development of recommendations, although they should perhaps be better understood as suggestions some of which can be directly acted on but most of which should be used to spark discussions that can lead to firm policy decisions. Some of the principal recommendations are: 4 In relation to the current project: • Decisions on the inclusion of counterparts in the new phase of work on children’s rights and disaster prevention must be taken soon. Consideration should be given to the limited resources available, the ability of the counterparts to dedicate staff to this work and the alternatives that may be available. • A workshop to exchange experiences and ideas between the counterparts would be useful, especially if held soon. • Mechanisms should be sought to promote children’s

Load more