Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Drought Response in Ethiopia Final version, 22 November 2019 Evaluation Team: Dr. Julia Steets (GPPi, Team Leader) Ms. Claudia Meier (GPPi, Deputy Team Leader) Ms. Doe-e Berhanu Dr. Solomon Tsehay Ms. Amleset Haile Abreha Evaluation Management: Ms. Tijana Bojanic, Ms. Djoeke van Beest (OCHA) Ms. Maame Duah (FAO) Mr. Hicham Daoudi (UNFPA) Acknowledgments: The evaluation team wishes to express its heartfelt thanks to everyone who took the time to participate in interviews, respond to surveys, provide access to documents and data sets, and comment on draft reports. We are particularly grateful to those who helped facilitate evaluation missions and guided the evaluation process: the enumerators who travelled long distances to survey affected people, the OCHA Ethiopia team, the Evaluation Management Group and the Evaluation Managers, the in-country Advisory Group, and the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation Steering Group. Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Drought Response in Ethiopia | 1 Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................. 3 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background and Scope of the Evaluation .................................................................... 8 1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Implementation of the Evaluation .............................................................................. 11 1.4 Country Context ........................................................................................................ 11 2 Evaluation Findings ....................................................................... 15 2.1 Coordination: Was the Response Well Coordinated? ................................................. 15 2.2 Resource Mobilization and Timeliness: How Effective Were Efforts to Collectively Mobilize Resources and Enable a Timely Response? ................................................ 20 2.3 Relevance: Did Planning and Response Reflect the Needs and Priorities of Affected People? .................................................................................................................... 32 2.4 Effectiveness: Did the Response Achieve Its Intended Results? ................................ 43 2.5 Partnerships: Did the Response Adequately Involve and Build National Capacities? .. 66 3 Conclusions ................................................................................... 72 4 Recommendations ......................................................................... 76 Annex 1: Table Linking Evaluation Questions, Findings, and Recommendations ................... 80 Annex 2: Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 90 Annex 3: List of Interview Partners ....................................................................................... 91 Annex 4: Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 96 Annex 5: Evaluation Analysis ............................................................................................. 101 Annex 6: Aid Worker and Donor Survey .............................................................................. 108 Annex 7: Affected People Survey ....................................................................................... 114 Annex 8: Evaluation Instruments and Terms of Reference .................................................. 116 Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Drought Response in Ethiopia | 2 Figures Figure 1: Areas assessed in greater depth by the evaluation .................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Methods Overview .................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3: Humanitarian Coordination Structures in Ethiopia in 2017 ..................................................................... 15 Figure 4: Direct and Indirect EHF Funding to National NGOs Compared to Other Allocations ............................. 19 Figure 5: Yearly Financial Requirements and Incoming Funding .......................................................................... 20 Figure 6: EHF and CERF Funding Compared to Total Humanitarian Funding ...................................................... 21 Figure 7: Timeline ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 8: Survey Responses to: “How long after the drought started did you get the assistance?” ....................... 24 Figure 9: Call-Around Monitoring, 2016: “Has the most recent food to arrive in the woreda been distributed to people?” .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 10: Call-Around Monitoring, 2016: “When was the last TSF specialized food delivery to the woreda?” ..... 25 Figure 11: Drought Effects Reported by Affected People ...................................................................................... 26 Figure 12: Average Number of Children per Woreda Admitted for SAM Treatment .............................................. 27 Figure 13: Average Number of Children per Woreda Who Dropped Out of Primary School ................................. 27 Figure 14: Share of Population in Need of Assistance .......................................................................................... 32 Figure 15: Average Quality Scores of Seasonal Assessments in Tigray and the Somali Region (2015, 2017) ..... 33 Figure 16: Poverty Rates and Share of Population in Need of Assistance ............................................................ 34 Figure 17: Survey Results on Questions Related to Accountability to Affected People ......................................... 36 Figure 18: Woreda Prioritization, IPC Levels, and Rainfall Patterns (2016) .......................................................... 38 Figure 19: Woreda Prioritization and IPC Levels (Early 2017) .............................................................................. 39 Figure 20: Woreda Prioritization and IPC Levels (Mid-2017) ................................................................................. 39 Figure 21: Reported Coverage Rates of Needs in Woredas with Priority Levels 1, 2, and 3 ................................. 40 Figure 22: Annual Cluster Funding ........................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 23: Yearly Cluster Funding Levels Compared to Mid-Year Requirements ................................................. 42 Figure 24: Affected People Survey Responses to “How useful was the assistance to help you immediately?” .... 45 Figure 25: Affected People Survey Responses to “What would have happened if assistance was not provided?”45 Figure 26: Affected People Survey Responses to “Are you satisfied with the quality/quantity of the assistance provided?” ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Figure 27: Call-Around Monitoring, 2017: “What was included in the distribution?”............................................... 48 Figure 28: Call-Around Monitoring, 2016: “How many stabilization centres for the treatment of complicated cases of malnutrition are functional?” ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 29: Differences in Survey Responses from Different Regions on Most Positive Answer Option Compared to Average Response ........................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 30: Affected People’s Perceptions of Fairness and Impartiality .................................................................. 52 Figure 31: Affected People’s Survey Responses on Who (If Anybody) Was Left Out ........................................... 53 Figure 32: Percent of Households Receiving Humanitarian Food Assistance in 2017, by Livestock-Holding in Non-PSNP Areas Overall and PSNP Localities by Region ................................................................... 53 Figure 33: Differences in Survey Responses from Women on Most Positive Answer Option Compared to Average Response. ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 34: Differences in Survey Responses from People with Disabilities. .......................................................... 56 Figure 35: Differences in Survey Responses from Youth (18-29 years)………………………………………………57 Figure 36: Differences in Survey Responses from Elderly People (60 years and above)…………………………...57 Figure 37: Affected People’s Perceptions of Livelihoods and Resilience ............................................................. 58 Figure 38: Recommendations Made by Affected People ....................................................................................... 58 Figure 39: Water Trucking Needs in 2017 and 2018 ............................................................................................