Learning Support & Capacity Building Programme 30 Alfred Place, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka T1 : +94 (0)11 257 4182 T2 : +94 (0)11 493 8896 Fax:+94 (0)11 493 8897 E [email protected] W www.redr.org.uk

FIELD LEVEL LEARNING IN SRI LANKA CASE STUDY

2007

Learning Support & Capacity Building (LSCB) Programme in Sri Lanka

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 1 Introduction In response to the Tsunami (26 December 2004) which resulted in massive loss of life and property along the Sri Lankan coast line, RedR UK, in affiliation with the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies Sri Lanka (CHA) established a Learning Support and Capacity Building Programme (LSCB). Formal humanitarian training programmes and District (field level) Learning Support Offices (DLSO) form the backbone of the programme. The concept of providing resources and structured support for humanitarian learning was new to Sri Lanka. This case study considers the goals, roles, principles and approaches of the District Learning Support Offices (DLSO) operating in 4 districts in Sri Lanka against good practice field level learning. Interviews and an examination of literature about good practice field level humanitarian inform the case study. Background

Why a Learning Support and Capacity Building Programme in Sri Lanka?

Humanitarian agencies’ response to the tsunami disaster that struck Sri Lanka on 26 December 2004 causing the displacement of 500,000 people has featured inadequate, inconsistent and inappropriate humanitarian responses, with compromised quality in the delivery of services 1 . Government and NGOs remain inadequately prepared to respond to the rapidly changing needs of post­tsunami reconstruction and recovery activities.

One key factor has been the failure to build sufficient local capacity2 , a need which remains unanswered more than two years later. There is an urgent and continuing need to build capacity to meet the current demands for reconstruction and recovery and also prepare local communities, humanitarian and government agencies to respond to any future emergencies. This has been exacerbated by an underlying problem in the limited mechanisms for sharing lessons learned from past experiences. There is also limited knowledge or understanding of good practice within the humanitarian sector, including international standards and appropriate developmental approaches such as community participation. These have led to delays in the recovery support required by tsunami­affected populations.

In February 2005 RedR UK and CHA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to run a Learning Support and Capacity Building programme the overall aim of which is to improve the response capacity of Community based organisations (CBOs), Non­Government organisations (NGOs), International Non Government Organisations (INGOs) and government agencies to current post­tsunami reconstruction and community development needs and to prepare for potential future disasters in Sri Lanka. 3

How is learning supported?

A long term strategy of the LSCB Programme is to establish a locally managed learning service, which is able to provide appropriate, contextualised and affordable learning support in local languages. The learning service is to be accessible to all agencies in need, not just those who can afford it.

In 2005, the introduction by RedR /CHA of formal training programmes suited the traditional approach to learning within Sri Lanka. International and national content experts were contracted to design and deliver a range of relevant humanitarian capacity building programmes in English and local languages. These high calibre programmes capture INGO and NGO staff who are able to travel to the larger cities of Colombo and Kandy.

1 ‘Listening to those who lost’ – Survey and Analysis of Rebuilding and Relocation of Tsunami Affected Household in Sri Lanka, National Post, Tsunami Best Practices and Lessons Learnt Workshop, Colombo, June 2005. 2 Final Report – National Workshop on the Care and Maintenance of Transitional Shelter Sites, Colombo, October 2005 3 RedR UK – CHA MoU, February 2005­2008 DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 2 At the same time, RedR was aware of limited capacity at the local levels amongst NGOs and CBOs ­ grass roots organisations prevalent in the districts, with a responsibility for development and emergency relief. Many of these organisations do not have the financial capacity, time, and in some cases neither language skills nor educational background to attend sophisticated centralised courses.

“Lack of knowledge, understanding and empowerment are all factors which constrain people’s ability to take action that will mitigate their vulnerability. The programme therefore aims to support local NGOs and CBOs with access to information and learning support that will better enable them to represent and address the needs of their local communities in technical capacities such as emergency preparedness, reconstruction and sustainable livelihoods, but also in operational capacities such as security management, logistics and project management.” RedR UK Country Director, Sri Lanka

In 2006, a Learning Support Manager (LSM) and three District Learning Support Officers (DLSOs) were recruited. The DLSOs, all of whom are National staff and speak English and either Sinhala or Tamil, were placed in the south (Galle and Hambantota) and in the North (Jaffna). Each officer was co­located and worked closely with the CHA District Officer. After only two months operation, security concerns forced the evacuation of the Jaffna based officer. Further recruitment in 2007 resulted in 4 districts (2 in the south and 2 in the east) with a functioning service.

The form and function of the District Learning Support Offices’ services was driven by a mixture of pragmatism and ideology. Clearly it was not possible to replicate an expensive formal training programme in each District and the new recruits, while they had some training background, were not in a position to be able to deliver extensive humanitarian training.

“You have to go to them; you cannot be here (Colombo)” Interviewee

At the same time, there was a view held by RedR management that the DLSO programme should not be about training but rather support for local learning. The details of what those services might look like were not as clear, although some work had been done in determining some possible approaches to learning. 4 This early conceptual work signalled a development role for the DLSO which focussed on being a ‘broker’ of learning as opposed to a training co­ordinator.

Potential approaches to learning included: • Direct group learning including workshops, briefings and road shows • Self directed group learning including discussion forums, action learning sets and communities of practice • One­to­one learning including coaching, mentoring and buddying • Self managed learning including interactive learning CD, videos, publications/resources

The DLSO challenge was significant. Not only was there no evidence based models for effective field level learning in Sri Lanka, but the DLSO programme also had to operate in an environment where training was readily accepted as the dominant most credible paradigm for learning. A compounding factor was the need for district offices to demonstrate quantifiable outcomes (validity and efficiency) while working in a developmental way, which of necessity takes time before real impacts are evident.

A range of new and developmental roles for the DLSO evolved. These are shown below in Figure 1., and described below:

4 Linda Richardson, Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit for the LSCB programme, November 2005 DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 3 Figure 1 – Roles of the District Learning Support Officers

Training workshop design and delivery Learning Resource Facilitator Development • Communities of and practice Distribution • Action learning sets

DLSO Monitoring and Evaluation of Assess learning Learning outcomes Needs Information • Phase 1 Management • Phase 2 • Phase 3 • Trainers data Base • Experts data Base

Link agent • Agencies • CBOs • Government • NGOs /INGOs

• Training workshop design and delivery: Lead or co­facilitate the delivery of humanitarian training in local language. (for example, Sphere Standards for Disaster Response, Community based Disaster Risk Management, Community Participatory Approaches and Project Management) • Learning Facilitator: Establish local learning networks using formats such as communities of practice and action learning sets • Assess Learning Needs: Implement a 3 phase LNA process to establish credibility in the District and gain a broad understanding of local learning needs • Link agent: Link agencies and stakeholders together to achieve key learning outcomes • Information management: develop and share a data base of local training and other humanitarian expertise • Resource distribution and development: distribute RedR resources and develop local language resources with local communities in response to local needs • Overarching ­ monitoring and evaluation: establish a framework and process for monitoring and evaluating impacts of all learning support activities

These roles are dynamic and while it is expected that DLSOs will progress each component, each District may prioritise different role components in response to demographic, social and environmental factors.

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 4 FIELD LEVEL LEARNING

The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) 5 undertook a study of field level learning in 2003 and in February 2007, International Training and Research Centre (INTRAC) published a paper that looked at ‘Action Research into Supporting International NGOs to learn’ 6 . It explored the learning processes of development NGOs in the Netherlands. The ALNAP review of field level learning found that when staff within an organisation respond to a humanitarian emergency – be it a host government, a UN agency, an NGO or a Red Cross organisation – they embark on a process of learning. This process is rendered all the more intense by the combination of time pressures, nature of the practical challenges encountered, and fluidity of the context. In the process of responding they acquire large amounts of information, converting this to knowledge. This is combined with previously acquired knowledge and applied to the design, management and implementation of the current organisational response.

The review describes knowledge in terms of ‘explicit’ or the kind that we tend to get from reports, manuals and guidelines and ‘tacit’ a kind of informal knowledge which is largely gained through conversation with someone who has had experience with an issue of relevance to the learner. It highlights the importance of and preference for tacit knowledge gain by field level workers. If tacit knowledge gained through face­to­face sharing is especially valuable in faster moving contexts then this provides important pointers for the design of measures to support learning in such contexts.

The review yielded a wide range of insights into learning at the field level and how the process is perceived by agency personnel at the ‘sharp end’ of humanitarian operations. Some of the findings were:

• High rates of staff turnover significantly hamper knowledge transfer and learning within programmes.

• Learning from the affected population, national actors and national staff is limited; the knowledge that they hold is not adequately accessed by international agencies or their expatriate personnel.

• Field workers do not feel adequately valued or supported by many of the organisations they work for.

• The mechanisms for briefing, debriefing, handovers, end­of­project reporting and learning events are still poorly developed in many agencies, though in others progress is being made.

• Field workers prefer ‘on­the­job’ methods for learning such as coaching and mentoring rather than classroom based training events.

• Personnel at the field level have very specific needs both in terms of the knowledge and learning methods they require during an operation; many of their knowledge and learning needs are not being met by current approaches and mechanisms. Methods of knowledge sharing, learning and training that are able to respond to the specific operational requirements of field workers are favoured over those that impart knowledge, learning and training that are not focused upon their immediate needs.

• Mechanisms that agencies tend to regard as tools for learning and knowledge sharing, such as guidelines and manuals, in addition to the current mechanisms for gathering and transferring information, such as monitoring, reporting and surveys, are not rated as important sources for learning by field workers.

5 Action Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, Review of Field Level Learning (2003) 6 International Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Praxis Paper16. “We’re Too Much in ‘To Do’ Mode: Action Research into Supporting NGOs to Learn’ DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 5 • Field workers rely to a significant degree upon each other for accessing the learning and knowledge they require. Even where knowledge is available in documented form, field workers often find it preferable to access this through conversation with fellow field workers, because it saves time and enables them to assess the quality and operational credibility of the source, as well as interrogate the source in order to better understand the knowledge and information being conveyed.

• Managers play a critical role in determining whether sufficient space is created for field workers to learn and whether or not a culture is created in programmes and country offices that encourages and supports learning.

The INTRAC study adds to the understanding of good practice field level learning in a development setting. It makes the argument that for learning to be effective, individuals and agencies require an understanding of the processes of learning and asserts that self­ knowledge ­ understanding how you learn ­ is an essential first step in improving your own learning processes. At the same time, the way people commonly understand and promote ‘learning’ (giving information) inhibits them from reflecting on their experiences and thereby learning from them. Therefore supporting people and organizations to reflect on their own learning processes and capacity is central to assisting people and organizations to learn. It found that:

• There is little time for (or priority given to) reflection. This conclusion applies to project ­ related reflection, but even more so to wider organizational reflection. • There is a lack of capacity to design meetings in which reflection and learning ­ rather than exchange of information are encouraged. • The island culture of developing NGOs (every staff member has their own projects) means that people are not doing things, or learning together.

Key Messages What are the overall messages and ongoing challenges for agencies and the sector in the context of field level learning? ALNAP raises the need to differentiate between the agenda for individual agencies in terms of supporting their staff and orienting their culture more towards learning, and the agenda for the sector as a whole in terms of supporting cross­organisational and sector wide learning at the field level.

Key Message 1 Greater recognition and support should be given to field workers’ preference for specific information and knowledge directly related to their operational priorities, and for accessing such information and knowledge through conversation with other field workers. At agency level the high value attached by field workers on face­to­face exchanges of information and knowledge rather than documented sources, including in social settings, needs to be recognised in agency strategies for information dissemination, knowledge sharing and learning.

At the sectoral level Similar points need to be considered in relation to inter ­organisational learning, though account will need to be taken of the likelihood of inter­agency sensitivities and politics and the necessity to establish a degree of mutual trust among the participants.

Key Message 2 Stronger incentives are needed to encourage agencies to support and facilitate learning at field level and for more sharing of best practice in approaches.

Providing regular opportunities for teams to reflect on their action is much more an issue of prioritisation and commitment to learning within the team and the organisation ­ in other words, a matter of organisational culture.

Providing more encouragement for agencies to support and facilitate learning and opportunities for agencies to share their learning experiences and their approaches to supporting learning would be a powerful means for increasing the number of agencies following recognised good practice.

Key Message 3

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 6 The current ‘architecture’ of the humanitarian sector is not sufficiently supportive of knowledge sharing or cross­ organisational learning, and some reorientation and gap filling is required.

Inter­ agency coordination meetings are often the only time that representatives of many of the organisations participating in an operation actually come together. Most coordination meetings seek to maximise the amount of information shared in the shortest possible time and generally offer few if any opportunities for reflection or learning. The time­pressured context and limited levels of trust operating within many coordination meetings serves to limit their potential as mechanisms for field level learning.

DLSO and field level learning Insight into the goals, principles and approaches of the DLSO programme was gained through interviews with 3 of the current DLSOs, the Learning Support Manager and the RedR UK Country Director and written feedback from two former RedR consultant staff instrumental in the inception stage of the programme.

To assess their conceptual understandings of field level learning, interviewees were asked to identify 5 key principles (from a total of 19 options) that should underpin learning at the District level. The most common shared responses were: • Field level learning occurs mainly through shared experiences • People learn best when the topic is of immediate value • People should share responsibility for their own learning • Maximum learning from an experience occurs when a person takes time to reflect back on it, draw conclusions and derive principles for application to similar experiences in the future • The learning environment should be comfortable and relaxed

When asked to identify the 5 key principles that currently underpin learning in the districts the most common shared responses from the 19 options were:

• Responsibility for learning in an organization rests with management • People learn best when the topic is of immediate value • Field level learning occurs mainly through shared experiences • Training needs to focus more on process and less on the content • Participation in the learning process is active not passive

A comparison of these perceptions with the ALNAP and INTRAC research suggests some congruence around key principles that ideally underpin field level learning. A preference for tacit knowledge gain through shared conversations was endorsed with priority given by the interviewees for learning that occurs in an environment that invites and supports the sharing of experiences, reflection and action. The notion of a comfortable and relaxed (informal) environment was seen as particularly important in areas impacted by constant conflict and population displacement. Comment was made of the intensely stressful living situations for some learners from the north and east of the country. An effective learning environment needed to provide an antidote to the external world by being openly welcoming, informal and relaxed and where trusting relationships can be developed.

“There is no systematic life in Trincomalee. People are very stressed here. Training should be comfortable and relaxed” Interviewee

Meeting immediate learning needs was also stressed and is consistent with the literature. Any learning must be recognised as immediately relevant and able to be transferred to operational field work. The DLSOs undertake an extensive process of learning needs assessment at the district level in order to match identified needs with learning initiatives.

Interviewees stressed the importance of active learning and the learner taking some responsibility for his/her own learning.

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 7 Key differences are evident however between principles that should underpin field level learning and those currently operating in the Districts. Interviewees felt that despite evidence of greater participation, (particularly evident in all RedR programmes) most training / learning was characterized by didactic presentations by content experts to passive learners. The key principle held here is that people learn best through training. Most decisions about who attends training and what training is important, are made by management level in organizations. This may be regardless of the relevance of the content to immediate needs of the individual.

Respondents were also requested to identify 5 key strategies or approaches to learning (from a total of 21) that should be applied in good field level learning. The 5 most common responses were: • Co­ordination group meetings • Sharing best practice in groups with similar interests • Coaching and mentoring • Action learning sets • Providing opportunities for teams to reflect on their own actions

When asked to rate the most common approaches that are currently operating at the district level the key responses included • Formal training programmes • Guidelines and manuals • Co­ordination group meetings • Presentations by experts • Sharing best practice in groups with similar interests

These responses suggest that the interviewees shared some views consistent with the key messages from the ALNAP and INTRAC studies. They valued approaches that facilitate opportunities for teams or people with similar professional interests to share experiences, reflect on lessons learned and consider applications of learning in the future. Learning occurs best through ‘in –time’ experiential exchange with respected and trusted colleagues and peers around issues of immediate operational importance. Inter­agency coordination meetings were seen as particularly good opportunities to encourage exchange and learning.

In reality, despite optimistic signs of change in some districts, there remains a significant difference between the ideal and current approaches to support learning. Current practices are externally driven

“There is a strong sense that district actors are interested in and take what is offered – but have little confidence, experience, skill in recognizing how much more learning could be supported amongst themselves.” External consultant

Learning remains largely passive, within formal training programmes and supplemented by participant guidelines and manuals. DLSO participation in agency co­ordination meetings, typically involves promotion of the role of the DLSO and information collection about learning needs. There are limited opportunities available for exchange, reflection and sharing of lessons learned despite a belief in the value of these approaches.

The changing context Progress of the DLSO programme has been constrained by a number of logistical difficulties. These include a volatile environment and security concerns; administrative and recruitment delays. Nevertheless some encouraging progress has been made both in terms of process and impacts.

The Galle District in the south is the most established and although heavily impacted on by the Tsunami it faces none of the conflict and security issues of the North and East of the country.

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 8 The DLSO has gained good credibility with the local CBOs and NGOs as well as the Government Agent, and has demonstrated a willingness to be innovative and embrace a ‘broker of learning’ role. Following a formal Project Management training in the district, and at the request of some of the participants, the DLSO facilitated members of a local ‘Community Protection Network’ in more informal reflection and exchange about project management. Other participants from the same workshop subsequently collaborated with the DLSO to themselves conduct further targeted project management learning activities in local language with CBOs. This type of post work shop follow­up, with less formal exchanges around immediate shared needs, has captured a mood of ‘readiness’ for change.

The DLSO has been actively involved in translating RedR workshop documents into local Sinhala language with plans to produce simple local resources using local expertise to meet specific CBO information needs. There is a commitment to source local ‘expertise’ to lead discussion and learning in comfortable, informal and relaxed settings.

Preliminary impacts of the LSCB programme include raised awareness of, and interest in humanitarian learning. Enrolments at all RedR/CHA training courses are increasing at central and district level.

“There is increased interest now. We are getting known. We have doubled the applicants. We had to deliver 2 courses instead of one on Sphere standards in Batticaloa, because of the work that the DLSO has done” RedR UK Country Director in Sri Lanka

Through extensive time spent in the field, one DLSO in the East has established awareness of and credibility in the RedR/CHA work and developed a good understanding of local needs. He has also been a key link agent.

“We have a strong presence in the field. There is no other presence to work specifically with field level workers. I am connecting NGOs (in the District) to volunteers (CBOs)”

“I don’t spend as much time in the field now. Every day I get calls. Every day they are coming to me with new ideas” Interviewee

At Central agency level there is evidence of changed attitudes and behaviours. The value of learning is reflected in the amount of time being provided by managers for professional development

“Organisations are providing more time. Some are starting to talk of 10 days per year for learning. There has been a change in HR contracts allowing more time for reflection”

RedR UK Country Director in Sri Lanka Practice is also changing.

“Agencies are now looking to be compliant with international standards. This is a big step forward. It has taken a couple of years to get major agencies to address this. There is real understanding about standards and indicators” RedR UK Country Director Sri Lanka

The uniqueness of the programme has also been highlighted. No other agency has taken responsibility for cross agency humanitarian learning despite the need raised by tsunami evaluation reports. RedR/CHA is in a position to be able to facilitate learning amongst agencies from a neutral position.

“We are recognized as having a neutral position, linking people together. We can gather ‘in time’ information by linking to people at local level.” and

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 9 “There is understanding by the big agencies that as they withdraw there is a massive gap in middle manager capacities in the field. They fail to make decisions. This results in missed opportunities and a lack of sufficient rehabilitation and livelihood restoration coming out of the crisis” RedR UK Country Director in Sri Lanka

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 10 Looking ahead

There is genuine commitment and enthusiasm amongst RedR Management and DLSOs to continue the process of positive change, in the knowledge that this will be a long term and evolving process.

“There is a need for vigilance and patience with the process. We are ‘swimming against the current’ at the moment” Interviewee

“Capacity is a key issue­there needs to be sufficient quality district based training/facilitation capacity to implement and maintain a different approach” External consultant

Continued success for the DLSO program may be contingent on the following actions: • Maintaining momentum in an uncertain funding environment. Current funding for the LSCB programme in Sri Lanka is locked in until 2009 but efforts must then be made to ensure on going funding, especially for District level services. • Cementing improved working relationships with CHA at both District Office level and headquarters level in Colombo. It was felt that a combined meeting/workshop between CHA and RedR staff to clarify roles, responsibilities, relationships and common goals and opportunities would be beneficial. Demonstrated collaboration, co­operation and commitment would be welcomed from senior management to facilitate the implementation of the district programmes. • Working more intensively with managers of local NGOs to reorient thinking about field level learning, through the implementation of Phase 3 Learning Needs Assessment. Individual agencies will be assisted to not only identify learning needs, but also to consider current approaches to learning compared with how people learn in practice, with a view to changing the culture of the organization in relation to learning support.

“Sensitisation of NGO management and staff is needed ­ particularly to develop in­house facilitation/training capacity and the need/value of on­going reflection and support” External consultant

• Better aligning identified priority district learning needs with innovative local learning processes that facilitate constructive conversational sharing and reflection. This requires on going DLSO capacity building to reduce the focus on training co­ordination and increase knowledge, skills and critical appraisal of some of the diverse approaches to learning such as action learning sets, learning circles and communities of practice, coaching and mentoring.

“There should not be the expectation that the RedR Officer will train in all programmes in the local language” Interviewee

“We need to make sure the role is not just about training. We don’t see the other roles. If we see the other roles some of the learning needs can be addressed. We have a responsibility to understand all our roles” Interviewee

• Using Inter­ agency coordination meetings as prime opportunities for learning in addition to information exchange. These forums provide the potential for facilitated discussion and sharing at the completion of or during the meeting. • ‘Practicing what we preach’. Additional time was seen to be warranted for DLSO reflection of their own work and learning from each other about good practice field level learning in Sri Lanka. It was felt that specific reflection time could be built into regular DLSO meeting formats.

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 11 • Developing a performance measurement framework. The capacity to identify what constitutes success for each component of the DLSO work would they felt help them to better focus their work. • Developing a strategy and process to expand the DLSO programme to the rest of the Island and in particular the centre of the country and the conflict affected areas in the North and the North East where there are significant learning needs. • Looking at the possibility of training sub­ committees under the district CHA programmes so that other NGOs/reps take on some of the responsibilities ie for marketing, mobilization, organization etc. Establish a district training committee

Conclusion

A key goal of the RedR UK / CHA LSCB programme is to provide a comprehensive humanitarian learning support service, much of which is to be delivered at the district level. In undertaking this challenge RedR UK / CHA are committed to the design and delivery of good practice principles and approaches to field level learning. This is a significant challenge given the diversity and complexity of humanitarian learning needs, the dearth of skills and capabilities amongst the target groups and the dominant in­country learning paradigm of formal training programmes.

The findings from the interviews and an examination of district activities suggests that the DLSOs are aware at least at a conceptual level of the fundamental principles and strategies for good practice field level learning. The DLSO role(s) as a broker of learning continues to evolve in the context of individual district diversity, target group needs and individual Officer’s capacities.

Currently however, learning remains largely externally driven with international and national content experts delivering participatory and experiential formal training programmes. These approaches continue to be valid and important in the development of humanitarian knowledge and skills development in Sri Lanka. The Galle district is most advanced in terms of establishing a range of learning support mechanisms that focus on shared experiences and reflection.

The DLSO programme has the potential to move beyond the ‘training equals learning’ model and develop district based learning services in line with good practice field level learning. Each district has the potential to create a learning coalition to both encourage local ownership and responsibility for learning and develop a relevant district learning framework.

With adequate ongoing professional development in approaches such as communities of practice, learning circles, action learning sets, mentoring and coaching, DLSOs can continue to develop a facilitation toolkit to encourage and support tacit knowledge sharing through face­to­face conversations. Networks around shared interests are already beginning in some districts.

Most importantly as the field presence and credibility grows, the DLSO s have an opportunity to work with individual agency managers to develop organisational cultures that value and promote learning with a focus on team and organisational reflection of action. DLSOs are also well positioned to facilitate cross agency learning within inter­ agency co­ordination meetings through specific ‘learning/reflection’ agenda items or in post meeting times.

At a sectoral level RedR/CHA through its neutral status is well placed to facilitate cross agency sharing of lessons learned in order to ensure improved responses to future disasters. This is particularly urgent given the imminent departure of many international non­government organisations from Sri Lanka.

DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 12