Evaluation database

Evaluation report

2010 Pakistan: Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian Response to Pakistan's 2010 Flood crisis



Author: Ricardo Polastro; Aatika Nagrah; Nicolai Steen; Farwa Zafar

Executive summary

 

“With the aim to continuously improve transparency and use of evaluation, UNICEF Evaluation Office manages the "Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System". Within this system, an external independent company reviews and rates all evaluation reports. Please ensure that you check the quality of this evaluation report, whether it is “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Almost Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory” before using it. You will find the link to the quality rating below, labelled as ‘Part 2’ of the report.”

Background:

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.

Methodology:

  • This evaluation is the ninth Inter Agency‐Real Time evaluation (IA‐RTE) conducted for the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC)12 of the current series and the fourth IA‐RTE to be rolled out in Pakistan. An IA‐RTE is an evaluation that provides immediate feedback in a participatory way to those executing and managing the response. IA‐RTEs seek to unlock operational challenges and provide real time feed‐back for both immediate corrective action and more system‐wide institutional learning.
  • The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) managed and funded the evaluation on behalf of the IASC. The Terms of Reference (ToR), which define the objectives and tasks of the evaluation team, are presented as Annex I. Between January and February 2011, a team of four consultants working for DARA13, an independent organization specialized in humanitarian evaluation, conducted this RTE. It is the fourth IA‐RTE and the second in Pakistan that DARA carried out.
  • The evaluation commenced with a home based in‐depth documentation review. Upon arrival, the team travelled directly into the field, following the river Indus from Karachi to Peshawar visiting Sindh, Punjab and KPK Provinces to grasp operational response realities on the ground. Balochistan could not be visited due primarily to security constraints as well as time restrictions. Field visits were complemented by meetings with a range of stakeholders in Islamabad.
  • An initial feedback session was organized in both Multan (Punjab) and Peshawar (KPK) at the end of each of field visit, and an overall debriefing session was held at the Humanitarian Country Team HCT at the end of the field mission to present initial findings and conclusions.  Workshops will be carried out in Pakistan in mid February both at provincial and federal level to further validate the findings of the report and draw Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Reasonable and Time bound (SMART) recommendations and draw a process action plan.

Recommendations:

  • Funding for other non life‐saving and early recovery activities was slower and funding commitments were lower.
  • Currently in Pakistan the UN has two stand alone appeals; the PHRP and PFRERRP ‐ with limited funding. PFRERRP took PHRP out of the limelight.
  • HCT members will ensure that response is monitored and results shared.
  • The UN must reduce transaction costs.
  • UN agencies and IPs produce results commensurate to the level of funding received (i.e. through unit cost analysis).

Conclusion:

  • Funding for other non life‐saving and early recovery activities was slower and funding commitments were lower.
  • Currently in Pakistan the UN has two stand alone appeals; the PHRP and PFRERRP ‐ with limited funding. PFRERRP took PHRP out of the limelight.
  • Effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of some UN agencies & INGOs have been questioned by donors, GoP and implementing partners. Broadly there is insufficient commitment to the aid effectiveness agenda.

 



Full report in PDF

PDF files require Acrobat Reader.


 

 

Report information

New enhanced search