Inter‐Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian Response to Pakistan’s 2010 Flood crisis Riccardo Polastro (team leader) Aatika Nagrah 1 | Page Nicolai Steen Farwa Zafar March 2011 Table of Content Table of Content .............................................................................................................................. 2 1 ‐ Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 2 ‐ Context ..................................................................................................................................... 17 3 ‐ Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.1 Structure of the report .................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 22 4 ‐ Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Timeliness of appeal and funding mobilisation ............................................................... 24 5 ‐ Assessments ............................................................................................................................. 28 6 ‐ Humanitarian Response ........................................................................................................... 33 6.1 Timeliness ........................................................................................................................ 33 6.2 Response Modes ............................................................................................................. 34 6.3 Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 35 6.4 Standards ......................................................................................................................... 39 6.5 Connectedness ................................................................................................................ 42 7 ‐ Clusters and Coordination ........................................................................................................ 46 7.1 Communication ............................................................................................................... 51 7.2 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 52 7.3 Cross‐Cutting ................................................................................................................... 53 8 ‐ General Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 55 9 ‐ Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 62 Annex 1: Terms of Reference ................................................................................................ 62 Annex 2: List of Accronyms ................................................................................................... 87 Annex 3: Timeline .................................................................................................................. 89 2 | Page Annex 4.1 Group meetings with the affected population ................................................... 109 Annex 4.2: List of Workshop Participants ........................................................................... 111 Annex 4.3: Field Work Itenerary .......................................................................................... 120 Annex 5 Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 126 Annex 6: Funding Overviews ............................................................................................... 131 Annex 7: Cluster Output Review Table ................................................................................ 134 Annex 8: List of References ................................................................................................. 137 Annex 9: BIOs Team Members ............................................................................................ 139 Cover photo: Three women during focus group discussion in an ‘flood affectees’ camp, new Sukkur, Sindh Province © Riccardo Polastro 2011. 3 | Page 1 ‐ Executive Summary Executive Summary: This is the report of the Real Time Evaluation of the International Humanitarian Community’s response to the 2010 Floods in Pakistan. The evaluation was commissioned by the Inter‐Agency Standing Committee (IASC), funded by OCHA and undertaken by a team of four evaluators between January and March 2011. The team visited Pakistan two times. The first mission took place in January to undertake an extended field visit in three of the worst affected Provinces to interview aid providers and aid recipients as well as to at federal level, observe patterns of the response and collect evidence (a teleconference was organised with representatives from Balochistan). An initial debriefing was held with the HCT to present preliminary findings. Within two weeks a draft report was shared. In mid‐February, during the second visit, three provincial and a national workshop were held with key stakeholders involved in the humanitarian response to the floods. Findings, conclusions and recommendations were initially presented by the team leader during the workshops. Then, stakeholders jointly validated and prioritized recommendations and defined the organization(s) responsible to implement them (by whom) and timelines (by when). The main changes in the formulations resulted from group discussions. This process contributed to boost the ownership of the evaluation recommendations and fostered real time learning among stakeholders engaged. Once workshops ended the Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator agreed that the HCT would draw an implementation plan of the recommendations outlined below. Following the second visit to Pakistan, headquarter debriefings were held in with IASC representatives Geneva and New York. As this participatory and utilization focused approach is new to Inter Agency Real Time Evaluations a lessons learned exercise on the process will be held in Geneva in mid April so that in can be integrated in future IA RTEs. 4 | Page Conclusions and recommendations based on the Provincial and National Workshops, February 2011 Area Finding Conclusion Recommendation Priority Level By whom By when The Floods Response was Funding for other non life‐ NDMA/HCT to draw a High National NDMA & HCT Continuously generally well funded, saving and early recovery reprioritized Pakistan Plan /Provincial with PDMAs with initial emergency activities was slower and according to different response plan’s life‐saving funding commitments geographical area needs activities more swiftly and were lower. and dynamics, involving better funded. Rapid the PDMAs, to respond funding (e.g. CERF) holistically to a ‘complex’ response mechanisms emergency and disasters. were essential to kick start the response Donors should provide High National Donors (GoP & March 31st however not all players flexible funding HCT) had them in place or commensurate to could access them. priorities outlined in joint With the floods, donors recovery and focused entirely on rehabilitation plans. PIFERP and the PHRP was taken out of the limelight. Currently in Pakistan the HCT, in consultation with High National/ HCT & GoP March 10th No contribution has been UN has two stand alone GoP and donors, should Provincial made to the PHRP since it appeals; the PHRP and define ways to ensure was revised in July 2010. PFRERRP ‐ with limited that funding for existing Ref. paragraph 22 and 23 funding. PFRERRP took emergency appeals is not PHRP out of the limelight. undermined by any new emergency appeal OCHA/Clusters need to Low Provincial Clusters/ OCHA Onwards as st build the capacity of with INGOs from April 1 1 implementing partners to ensure they can effectively access ERF. Funding 5 | Page Area Finding Conclusion Recommendation Priority Level By whom By when The UN is not always Effectiveness, efficiency HCT members will ensure High National HCT Ongoing and perceived by all as and accountability of that response is continuous accountable for how some UN agencies & monitored and results resources were spent. INGOs have been shared. Some UN agencies did not questioned by donors, manage to spend the GoP and implementing The UN must reduce High Global/ UN Agencies/ Ongoing large amounts of funding partners. transaction costs. National INGOs received. Some donors question the UN value for Broadly there is UN agencies and IPs High National UN agencies Ongoing money having high insufficient commitment produce results transaction costs, where to the aid effectiveness commensurate to the funding go through agenda. level of funding received multiple IPs for (i.e. through unit cost 2 implementation (multiple analysis). layers). Ref paragraph 28 Funding 6 | Page Area Finding Conclusion Recommendation Priority Level By whom By when There is a clear need to While few sectors have NDMA/PND/Line Medium National/ NDMA (clusters March 15th focus on getting updated clarity of early recovery Departments, with Provincial/