Evaluation Department Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) Evaluation Report 1/2008 Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation P.O.Box 8034 Dep, NO-0030 Oslo Ruseløkkveien 26, Oslo, Norway Phone: +47 22 24 20 30 Fax: +47 22 24 20 31 Layout and Print: Lobo Media AS, Oslo ISBN: 978-82-7548-269-1 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) January 2008 John Cosgrave - Team Leader Turid Laegreid Marit Sørvald Emery Brusset Svein Jørgensen Nordic Consulting Group and Channel Research “Responsibility for the contents and presentation of findings and recommendations rest with the evaluation team. The views and opinions expressed in the report do not necessarily correspond with those of Norad”. 4 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) Preface 16 years after the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) was created, and eight years since the programme was last reviewed, a need was felt for a thorough look at how NOREPS has performed and what the challenges are today. Nordic Consulting Group in cooperation with the Belgian company Channel Research was commissioned to do the evaluation after an international tender process. The story of NOREPS is a fascinating one. It was created – in the words of the evaluators – as a number of quick fixes to help solve the systemic weaknesses of the international system to respond effectively to humanitarian crises. It never developed into a system itself, in spite of its name. The related parts of NOREPS work independently of each other. This has not prevented NOREPS from contributing to a more effective and coordinated humanitarian response, which is one of the main findings of the evaluation.While some components have been more useful than others, all have played a role in improving humanitarian aid. The quality of goods, services and personnel are generally valued to be high by clients, and the response is fast and efficient. There is, however, a question as to the cost-effectiveness of the deliveries, where the picture is mixed. It is worth noting that while the NORSTAFF programme is the largest programme in terms of funding within NOREPS and successful in compensating for the long and cumbersome recruitment procedures of the UN System, it is still not able to meet all deserving requests. One may ask whether there is no room for improvement in the procedures of the UN, or whether the recruitment through bilateral channels is the future for this mode of aid. The humanitarian context has changed over the last 15 years. While NOREPS has been a valuable part of the international humanitarian response system, it is in need of a more strategic approach to ensure that it continues to respond to needs and gaps. No radical changes are proposed, but a number of practical recommendations to make NOREPS more predictable, better integrated in the international relief system and more coherent with Norwegian policies are presented. We are looking forward to a broad discussion of the findings and recommendations of this report in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and by the other stakeholders. Asbjørn Eidhammer Director of Evaluation 5 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Meaning ACT Action by Churches Together ALNAP Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CERF Central Emergency Response Fund DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD) DCPEP Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (Norway) DEMA Danish Emergency Management Agency DHA Department for Humanitarian Affairs – replaced by OCHA DRC Danish Refugee Council or the Democratic Republic of the Congo ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (in Pakistan) FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) HA Humanitarian Action or Humanitarian Assistance HC Humanitarian Coordinator (of the UN system) IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies IHP International Humanitarian Partnership IN Innovation Norway ISO International Standards Organisation LTA Long Term Agreement MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs (of Norway, unless otherwise specified). NCA Norwegian Church Aid (a member of the ACT network) NDMA National Disaster Management Agency (in Pakistan) NGO Non Governmental Organisation NO Norway (ISO 2 letter code) Norad Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NORAFRIC A register of staff based in Africa who are seconded by NRC on behalf of the Norwegian MFA NORASIA A register of staff based in Asia who are seconded by NRC on behalf of the Norwegian MFA NORCROSS Norwegian Red Cross NOREPS Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System NORHOSP Norwegian Hospital (a series of modular field hospitals units most commonly used by the Red Cross) NORMIDEAST A register of staff based in the Middle East who are seconded by NRC on behalf of the Norwegian MFA NORSTAFF Norwegian or European-based Staff who are seconded by NRC on behalf of the Norwegian MFA NPA Norwegian Peoples Aid NRC Norwegian Refugee Council OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Action ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights RC Resident Coordinator (of the UN system) SCHR Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response SC-NO Save the Children, Norway Sida Swedish International Development Agency SRSA Swedish Rescue Services Agency SWEREPS Swedish Emergency Preparedness System Triplex Triple Exercise, the humanitarian exercise run every two years by IHP UNDRO United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation – replaced by DHA UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHRD United Nations Humanitarian Response Depot Unicef United Nations Children’s Fund WFP World Food Programme WHO World Health Organisation 6 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) Acknowledgements The team would like to acknowledge all of those who took the time to answer their many questions. As with any evaluation relying heavily on key informant interviews, the end result is partly a product of the insights offered by those informants in their responses to the questions. Special thanks also to the Norad evaluation department and to Innovation Norway for their support and for organising meetings. We also acknowledge the support from the Embassies in Islamabad and in Nairobi, and the Consulate in Juba. We particularly appreciated the hard work of Astri Endresen from the Norwegian Mission in Geneva who organised the most impressive and useful programme of interviews imaginable. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Norad’s statistical section in response to our queries about the reporting of Norwegian ODA in the OECD Tables 1 and 2. 7 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) 8 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) Contents Preface 5 Acknowledgements 7 1 Executive Summary 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Findings 11 1.3 Recommendations 13 2 Introduction 15 2.1 The purpose of the evaluation 15 2.2 The origin of NOREPS 15 2.3 What is NOREPS? 16 2.4 The Mandate and intervention logic of NOREPS 17 2.5 The changes in the international humanitarian context 18 2.6 Norwegian aid policy 20 2.7 How this report is structured 21 3 Methodology 22 3.1 Data collection 22 3.2 Controlling bias 25 3.3 Criteria 25 3.5 Strengths and weaknesses in the methodology 26 4 Management and organisation of NOREPS 27 4.1 Conclusions 29 5 NOREPS Goods 30 5.1 Relevance and appropriateness 31 5.2 Effectiveness 34 5.3 Efficiency 36 5.4 Sustainability and connectedness 38 5.5 Coherence 39 5.6 Impact 40 5.7 Conclusions 41 5.8 Recommendations 41 6 Norstaff 43 6.1 Relevance and appropriateness 44 6.2 Effectiveness 44 6.3 Efficiency 45 6.4 Sustainability and connectedness 45 6.5 Coherence 45 6.6 Coordination 46 6.7 Impact 46 6.8 Conclusions 46 6.9 Recommendation 46 7 Service Packages 48 7.1 Relevance and appropriateness 48 7.2 Effectiveness 49 7.3 Efficiency 50 7.4 Sustainability and connectedness 50 7.5 Coherence 50 9 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) 7.6 Coordination 51 7.7 Impact 51 7.8 Conclusions 51 7.9 Recommendations 52 8 Cross-cutting issues 53 8.1 Environment 53 8.2 Gender 53 8.3 Corruption 54 8.4 Conclusions 54 8.5 Recommendations 54 9 The future of NOREPS: Summary of conclusions and recommendations 55 9.1 The NOREPS mandate and logic 55 9.2 Continuing change in the external environment 56 9.3 Choices for the future 56 9.4 Conclusions 57 9.5 Recommendations 57 Appendix 1: Terms of Reference – Evaluation of NOREPS 60 Appendix 2: Evaluation team details 66 Appendix 3: Norwegian Policy on Humanitarian Assistance 67 Appendix 4: Corruption control in NOREPS 74 Appendix 5: Persons met 78 Appendix 6: Semi-structured question list 86 Appendix 7: Survey Questionnaire 89 Appendix 8: Bibliography 91 10 Evaluation of the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS) 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Background The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the contribution and value-added to humanitarian action by the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness System (NOREPS). The Norwegian Government set up NOREPS after the response to the Kurdish crisis in 1991 to improve the response capacity of the international humanitarian system through the provision of high quality goods and services. NOREPS is a public private partnership between the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DCPEP), the Norwegian Red Cross, major Norwegian NGOs and selected Norwegian suppliers of relief goods. Innovation Norway provides secretarial and administrative support. NOREPS consists of three main components or deliveries: • Goods from stockpiles or as in-kind donations. The NOREPS catalogue contains 75 different products for the relief market, from a total of 12 commercial suppliers.