ACknowledge

AC's knowledge site

Aid organisation evaluation

Boxing Day 2004 tsunami review: Government, UN and NGOs' dismal housing effort in Aceh
Aid organisations blame land issuess, but other big reasons are revealed in AC's two years review for Engineers Australia magazine, December 2006 issue.

7 Dec 06 - Oxfam: More than 25,000 landless families still waiting in barracks 

4 Dec 06 - Reuters: Aceh survivors need an estimated 128,000 homes, but only 43,400 built so far

18 Sep 06: Survivor, not supply orientation leads NGOs' main lessons from big tsunami spend: Customer, not supply orientation: Aid organisations are still talking about it - what businesses leant in the 1970s; what goverments sold their businesses for in the '80s and 90's to make happen. Highlighting the NGO association ACFID's report on lessons learnt from the Tsunami, in seminar 4 Aug 06 attended by 21 ACFID-member NGOs.

12 Sep 06: Lazy giving does not work! Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation pushes NGOs, in a confidence boost for disillusioned donors: Microsoft-type best practice being introduced in the aid industry could force NGOs to be more accountable in the way they compete for and use funds.

TEC recommends media to be targeted to explain what makes an effective donor - the TEC report said: "The media should be targeted for such education, to improve the quality of reporting on disasters and funding for disasters."

Inevitable that donors will be put off by poor reconstruction record in Aceh - 6 Aug 06 - New York Times reviews TEC report.
DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction): TEC's points for aid community action with host governments - Tsunami Evauation Coalition makes action points about DRR principles, "previously advocated by rarely adequately funded or supported".
TEC July 2006 Executive Summary with top links added to drill-down to key paragraphs - From
July 2006 report of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, with Bill Clinton's forward, then the Executive Summary unedited, with source links at the bottom below Summary Recommendation.
TEC Report highlights from Agence France-Presse 13 Jul 06 - from a press report when Tsunami Evaluation Coalition issued the Synthesis Report.

Oxfam: More than 25,000 landless families still waiting in barracks

7 Dec 06: Oxfam warns on Aceh's homeless - Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6214666.stm

Over 25,000 poor and landless families in Aceh, Indonesia are missing out on the rebuilding programme and have yet to be re-housed nearly two years after the tsunami washed away their homes and destroyed their land, international aid agency Oxfam warned today.

Aceh is the largest reconstruction project in the developing world and a lot of work has been done already, thanks to the generous international response and prompt action by the Indonesian government. So far over a third of the 128,000 houses needed have been built.

But land rights are a major obstacle in re-housing the landless. Many landless people are still languishing in barracks: temporary buildings where many families live in cramped, often unhygienic conditions.

Today Oxfam issued a new report, "The Tsunami Two Years On: Land Rights in Aceh," and urged the Indonesian government to find a fair and just way of re-housing the landless.

"Aceh has made enormous strides towards recovering from the tsunami," said Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International. "But two years after the tsunami struck, the poorest Acehnese – squatters, renters and women – are still facing a crisis over when and where they will be resettled.

"The lack of a clear policy for landless people has led to a huge amount of uncertainty and delay. There's a risk these people will end up in the slums of the future, despite the huge amounts generously given after the tsunami."

Aceh, the northern province of the island of Sumatra, was the region worst affected by the tsunami of 26 Dec 2004. Around 169,000 people were killed, 600,000 made homeless and 141,000 houses destroyed.

Aceh is the largest reconstruction project in the developing world but Oxfam's new report highlights the difficulties that must be tackled:

- Most of the land titles in the province were destroyed or made illegible – 15 tonnes of records have been sent to Jakarta to be restored.

- Most people lost all their identification documents.

- Land was submerged – up to 15% of western Aceh's agricultural land could be permanently lost.

- There was a huge number of inheritance claims.

- The trees and paths which marked out plots of land were washed away.

"Rebuilding homes without knowing who owns the land could create problems in the future," said Hobbs. "But this can be a desperately difficult and slow process. Oxfam has been working with tens of villages in Aceh to help people decide how to reallocate land so everyone has somewhere to live."

Around 10,000 households who owned property before the tsunami now need resettling because their land became submerged or was ruined. The Indonesian government has bought 700 hectares of land for them but progress is slow – only 700 houses have been built and occupied.

Many poorer Acehnese rented their homes, or squatted on state-owned or private land. There are 15,000 households of renters and squatters who need new land to live on. They do not qualify for any new land or housing but are being given a cash grant. Oxfam fears this is not enough help for the people most in need. Given the slow pace of reconstruction their money will be eaten up by Aceh's high inflation before a new house is ready for them.

Together these groups form the bulk of those suffering in the barracks. Oxfam is calling for the Indonesian government to adopt and effectively implement a range of new policies which would offer more protection for the landless and renters and squatters.

The agency wants to see:

- A commitment by the Indonesian government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to find a long-term solution to the barracks problem.

- Better cooperation between the Indonesian government and NGOs in Aceh to create a range of options for renters and squatters.

- Where possible, a process of resettlement done on a village-by-village basis with the agreement of all members of the village.

- Rental agreements restored.

Contact

For more information, please contact:
Sean Kenny, +44 1865 472 359
Christelle Chapoy, +62 812 69 88 064

Notes to Editors

1. The damage to Aceh in the tsunami was estimated at over US$4.5bn (£2.3bn). A quarter of Aceh's population lost their jobs in the tsunami.

2. Over 150,000 hectares of agricultural land became unsuitable for growing crops after it was inundated with mud and salt water.

3. Oxfam has helped over 474,000 people. It has supplied over 40m liters of water and given jobs to over 100,000 people, built over 30 bridges and over 100km of roads. Up to Sept 2006 Oxfam had spent US$67m in Aceh and aims to spend US$104m over four years.

4. The Indonesian government is aiming to title 600,000 plots of land through the Reconstruction of Aceh's Land Administration System (RALAS) project. By mid-2006 RALAS had only issued 2,608 land certificates.

5. Up to November 2006, 48,000 houses had been built in Aceh. The target is 128,000.

6. There are 70,000 people living in around 150 barracks across Aceh.

 

Reuters reports only 43,400 houses built in total Aceh requirement of 128,000

Housing in Indonesia's Aceh needs 2007 resolution
04 Dec 2006 Source: Reuters
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/JAK266013.htm
By Jerry Norton

BANDA ACEH, Indonesia, Dec. 4 (Reuters) - Problems that keep thousands living in temporary shelters in Indonesia nearly two years after a tsunami wiped out their homes need to be resolved by the end of 2007, a top U.N. recovery official said on Monday.

Indonesia's Aceh province was hardest hit among areas in the region affected by the Dec. 26 Indian Ocean tsunami. The disaster left some 170,000 dead or missing in Aceh and displaced half a million people.

Of 128,000 permanent homes required for the displaced, only 43,400 have been built, according to U.N. figures. Aside from some 12,000 families still in barracks, thousands more are in transitional shelters or staying with other people.

"The housing issue, basic human shelter, has to be solved by the end of 2007," Eric Morris, U.N. recovery coordinator for Aceh, told Reuters in an interview.

"I think there are concerns that it may go over a bit, to 2008, but I think at this stage it's quite important ... let's try and make it by the end of 2007."

One barrier to getting people into permanent housing has been the difficulty in establishing land titles. The tsunami destroyed a large number of property records, and many people in Aceh, on Sumatra island's northern tip, lacked clear titles to start with.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, in his role as U.N. special tsunami envoy, stressed in a visit to Aceh on Saturday the need to "remove backlogs and speed up the land titling process, so that hundreds of thousands of Acehnese obtain the security of title that they so deserve."

Getting more people in permanent housing on their own land could help resolve other challenges of the recovery process like a lack of good jobs, Morris said.

By one estimate the tsunami wiped out 600,000 jobs, with fisheries, agriculture and small trade sectors among those most affected.

"I think that there's a relationship between provision of housing and land and creation of sustainable livelihoods. Once people have those assets they then move on to create new assets and to generate money," Morris said.

Ends

Survivor, not supply orientation leads NGOs' main lessons from big tsunami spend

Customer, not supply orientation: Aid organisations are still talking about it - what businesses leant in the 1970s; what goverments sold their businesses for in the '80s and 90's to make happen.

Highlighting the NGO association ACFID's report on lessons learnt from the Tsunami, in seminar 4 Aug 06 attended by 21 ACFID-member NGOs

 

AC’s 12 highlights – click these to see context from report in italics:

1. Attendance – 21 ACFID member NGOs discussed shelter projects, evaluation studies and projects on environment and on survivors by gender, disability, children.

2. A key objective – need to apply the lessons this time, not just learn/unlearn as before

3. Lesson learned about shelter – better to engage the community in building on site

4. How to turnaround survivor dissatisfaction

5. Lack of coordination between NGOs including in procurement/warehousing, common vouchers

6. Change to survivor instead of supply-oriented approach

7. To empower women in the aid-giving process

8. Coordination so survivors’ expectations aren’t raised unrealistically

9. About disappointing donor response to conflict disasters compared to tsunami disaster

10. Process-oriented people are needed once the situation moves to reconstruction

11. NGOs’ negative affects on crisis communities

12. About future meetings


1. Attendance – 21 ACFID member NGOs discussed shelter projects, evaluation studies and projects on environment and on survivors by gender, disability, children.

On Friday 4 August 2006 ACFID held a seminar in Sydney for its members to discuss common challenges and lessons learnt from their response to the humanitarian emergency caused by the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26th 2004. Thirty-nine participants from 21 member agencies, 2 non-member agencies and ACFID took part. The seminar comprised an introduction, three sessions, each followed by a plenary, and a final general discussion session drawing together the main themes, lessons and suggestions for action by the sector, followed by an evaluation of the day. The three sessions covered shelter projects, evaluation studies, and a range of projects with a focus on gender, disability, children and the environment.

 

II.         Introductory session

 

In preparing for the seminar presenters had been asked to be analytical and reflective. To put this agency analysis in context, this short session reflected on the enormous scale of the disaster and the response, and the difficulties/constraints encountered:

o          pre-existing vulnerabilities in affected communities e.g. poverty, gender inequalities, civil  war, etc.

o          sometimes confusing, bureaucratic, centralised policies, distrust or corruption

o          the enormous scale of the response from the international community; and,

o          what was achieved in relief operations, especially the prevention of epidemics.

 

Participants were asked to keep in mind throughout the day some of the key themes/findings outlined in the report of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) :

o          Coordination

o          Needs assessment: supply driven

o          Impact of the international response on local and national capacities

o          Provision of information to affected communities

o          Links amongst disaster preparedness relief-recovery-longer term   development efforts

o          Funding response

The current international appeals system delivers variable amounts of funding bearing little correlation with real needs on a global level .

 

There are two other areas of work in which ACFID is engaged  that relate to issues arising in the tsunami response. One is the constraint of human resources in the sector and the other is the ongoing work on defining and ensuring development effectiveness.

 

In recent years ACFID members have been increasingly faced with difficulties in recruiting and retaining quality program staff. To address these issues in a systematic way an ACFID Human Resources Task Group has recently formed. Human resource constraints within our members and the wider international community were apparent in the tsunami response.

 

Development/program effectiveness: the question still needs to be asked from whose perspective? As NGOs who have signed on to the NGO Effectiveness Framework one of our important areas of focus in our programs should be on empowerment of beneficiaries and local-national ownership.

 

2. A key objective – need to apply the lessons this time, not just learn/unlearn as before

Most importantly, we need to do something with the lessons, which we seem to learn/unlearn time and again. As Clinton notes in the forward to the TEC report:

Turning principles into practice.

 

 

III.       Session One: Shelter

 

All presenters noted that their agencies faced the challenge of trying to achieve a balance between the expectations of a number of stakeholders:

 

           Being responsive to beneficiary needs and encouraging a participatory approach to the reconstruction efforts

           Working together with foreign governments

           Meeting donor expectations

           Mobilising building materials and expertise of adequate quality across large geographical areas including remote locations   cost implications

           Meeting all requirements including technical and planning standards across different countries

 

3. Lesson learned about shelter – better to engage the community in building on site

 

Other key points: on site construction is almost always preferable. It is better to allow people to stay in their own communities and rebuild, than be off-site in temporary shelter, and dependent on aid. Lead by example – e.g. only accepting quality building materials and avoiding competition between agencies, which drives up prices. This is easier said than done.

Various models were used even within the one agency, e.g. community-driven contracting housing model and contractor-built participatory housing model. There is no one right model for a specific context and community. Obviously community consultation is paramount. There is a growing body of literature concerning the advantages and risks of different approaches .

 

An important dilemma is the development of new inequities between those whose houses were destroyed and those whose were not in the same communities.

 

There was a strong interest in ongoing dialogue amongst ACFID members and others working in the shelter sector.

 

 

IV.       Session Two: Evaluation studies

 

What is Accountability?

ACFID: involve beneficiary groups to the maximum extent possible in the design, implementation and evaluation of projects and programs

 

HAP-I Principles commit signatories to fully account for their actions (to all stakeholders), involve beneficiaries in the project cycle, establish mechanisms for complaint and redress, inform beneficiaries about, and work to, transparent standards (e.g. Sphere and the Code of Conduct), demonstrating compliance through monitoring and reporting.

 

4. How to turnaround survivor dissatisfaction

What are evaluations saying?

 

Fritz Institute: Beneficiary satisfaction with response is decreasing.

TEC: There is a need to develop an aid principle based on the right to seek, receive and impart information.

 

Oxfam’s experience:

o          These processes have been useful: use of notice boards, community meetings to discuss program and financial information, local media and complaints boxes

o          Cannot rely always on partners’ mechanisms to provide adequate information to beneficiaries and to hear complaints

o          In trying to mainstream “HAP-I” through a Program Quality Unit, there have been mixed results with implementers sometimes feeling there was yet another layer to deal with 

o          Dilemma of how to be accountable to the non-tsunami affected who may have become more marginalized by the relief effort  

 

Joint evaluations

 

5. Lack of coordination between NGOs including in procurement/warehousing, common vouchers

The main findings of a joint evaluation conducted by World Vision, Care, Oxfam and CRS included:

 

1.         Affirmed that improved coordination and outcomes for beneficiaries and donors expected if there were joint assessments at the outset of a response

2.         The lack of institutional knowledge and communication between key agencies

3.         Ensure that senior management takes responsibility for coordination and that it is not delegated to junior staff

4.         Recognise the value of locally engaged staff and the expertise they bring

5.         Look at outcomes and impacts rather than outputs

6.         Greater community participation/ownership leads to more effective outcomes - time trade-off

7.         Procurement and warehousing would benefit from better coordination

8.         Introducing vouchers can revitalise an economy

 

At the international level discussions are taking place through the IWG funded by Gates foundation on how best to conduct joint assessments.

 

 

The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC)

 

This coalition began in February 2005 to improve quality and accountability to both donors and beneficiaries, and to test a model for future evaluations of humanitarian responses. A key underlying question is how do we get our systems to function and deliver when so much money is raised?

 

6. Change to survivor instead of supply-oriented approach

TEC has made a number of recommendations. Those of most resonance to participants at this seminar were:

 

1.         The international humanitarian community needs to change from being suppliers of aid to facilitators of communities’ own relief and recovery priorities.

2.         Increase the linkages and coherence between different components of the disaster response system, i.e. joint assessments, effective co-ordination, better information sharing.

3.         International donors and agencies should treat recovery activities as development interventions rather than as extensions to relief operations.

4.         Aid agencies need to significantly increase their accountability and transparency to both aid recipients and the donor public.

5.         The international relief system should establish an accreditation system to distinguish between agencies that work to a professional standard in a particular sector from those that do not or have not done so.

6.         All actors need to make the current funding system more efficient, flexible, transparent and in line with principles of good donor-ship.

 

 

Clinton-NGO Impact Initiative is related to but separate from TEC. Papers are available for agencies interested in providing feed-back to this initiative via ACFID on issues raised in these papers. This needs to be done before October when Clinton leaves the role of UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery.

 

7. To empower women in the aid-giving process

 

V.         Session Three: Inclusion

 

Women, children and people with disabilities are often marginalized in development programs, and are perhaps even more vulnerable in emergency response situations. Women should be empowered not dis-empowered by processes used during relief and transitional phases, and there are usually protection issues to consider.

 

Disability is not just about physical disabilities, but also what is disabling - infrastructure and attitudes. People with disabilities are often excluded from community consultations and as a result, their special needs are not considered.

 

Apart from reunification with parents and protection, children have special needs such as safe play areas, education and health services. Agencies, which focus on women, disability and children, have approaches and tools which will be of assistance in ensuring inclusion by other agencies.

 

 

8. Coordination so survivors’ expectations aren’t raised unrealistically

 

VI.       What would we do differently? What do we take forward?

 

1.         Joint assessments by agencies

Even if it means a delay in doing assessments, the advantages in this type of coordination amongst NGOs are many:

a.         less false raising of expectations amongst affected communities

b.         reduction in territoriality by agencies

c.                     drawing on and building local and national capacity

d.         more efficient use of donor funds

This will require agencies to have agreed in principle on this in advance of an emergency and would be most effective if the teams were able to meet before deployment.

 

2.   Ensuring adequate effective information flows to affected communities

Beneficiaries have a right to information and need it if they are to be in genuine partnership with agencies, so that we empower not dis-empower local and national organisations and provide effective assistance.

 

3.  Managing the expectations of beneficiaries, of local staff, of volunteers and of donors at all stages of response and this will require ongoing implementation of effective communication strategies.

 

9. About disappointing donor response to conflict disasters compared to tsunami disaster

 

4.   Review our fund-raising/appeals systems in order not to exceed our own absorptive capacity and to spread funds more equitably globally to humanitarian emergencies, particularly as natural disasters raise more funds than conflict situations.

For consideration:

i.          Individual NGOs deciding at the out-set of an appeal what their cut-off point is for closing the appeal

ii.         Educating the public to understand that:

a. Funds are needed beyond the relief phase into longer-term  development phases for affected communities; and that

b. There may be marginalized people in proximity to disaster/ conflict affected communities and they may become more marginalized if development programs are not extended to them as well

iii. More agencies using tick boxes on donation forms so people can allow their funding to be used for other relief and development projects elsewhere if/when it is expected that excess funds will be raised for a particular emergency.

 

10. Process-oriented people are needed once the situation moves to reconstruction

 

5. The quality and mix of our human resources must be improved

This is an ongoing issue for the Australian NGO sector across the whole emergency-development continuum. As a generalisation, emergency personnel are more task orientated, while development personnel are more process orientated. We recognise that relief, moves into recovery, which moves into development, when we need expatriate personnel who are more process and participation-orientated. At the beginning of a response it is important to have in the team personnel with experience in long-term community development in order that transitions can be made.

 

Having the right personnel at each phase is an important component of accountability to both beneficiaries and donors. Hence accreditation of personnel could contribute to accountability. ACFID’s newly formed Human Resources Task Group is in the early stages of developing a concept paper on this topic for the sector. HAP-I is examining an international accreditation system and work has been done by European NGOs in the Bioforce project. All of these initiatives need to be considered in taking this issue forward. Several participants cautioned against going down the accreditation track. Some felt that peer reviews of personnel and agencies by in-country partners offered a useful alternative, which could ensure quality of personnel being engaged.

 

6. Encouraging the use of inclusive approaches by all agencies

From the very beginning of the response the special needs of children and people with disabilities need to be considered and women’s views and needs included in all aspects of planning. Agencies with expertise in inclusive approaches and tools can be drawn upon to mainstream inclusiveness.

 

11. NGOs’ negative affects on crisis communities

 

7.  Minimising the negative impacts of our presence

NGOs in collaboration with other international organisations could map out expected negative impacts of their involvement on communities and local land national organisations e.g. due to their lifestyle, the contribution of their projects to inflation, etc., monitor and take action to minimise these. A representative of FHF offered to develop a concept paper on this for review by ACFID’s Humanitarian Reference Group and by participants.

 

8. Drawing on the collective experience to use the most appropriate approach in specific contexts. For example, in shelter work there are a number of approaches the strengths and weaknesses of which have been well documented in the literature, and at this seminar. 

 

12. About future meetings

 

VII.      Feed-back from participants

 

At the end of the day participants were invited to provide feed-back. There was a high degree of satisfaction with the format and content of the day and desire for ongoing dialogue and cooperation to progress the issues summarised above. What was of interest to many and which did not come out sufficiently in discussions was what agencies have learnt about themselves and how if at all they have changed their processes as a result of this learning. Many also felt that in future such meetings Human Resource managers need to be encouraged to participate.

 

The secretariat noted that the intention had been to have presentations from human resource managers and communication and fund-raising areas but no papers had been received. Given that many of the issues to take forward involved these personnel, ACFID plans to hold another seminar for these personnel, addressing communication and fund-raising issues before the end of 2006.

Lazy giving does not work! Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation pushes NGOs, in a confidence boost for disillusioned donors - 12 Sep 06

Microsoft-type best practice being introduced in the aid industry could force NGOs to be more accountable in the way they compete for and use funds. A news report in the aid/development website Dev-zone.org gives this hope, summarising from an in-depth article in the latest issue of The Boston Review.

Highlights from the Boston Review article authored by Ford Foundation economics professor A V Banerjee:

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation are showing strong commitment to using empirical evidence to form their aid-use decisions.

Empirical evidence to date shows best value is in aid projects defined for objectives and readied for benchmark performance analysis, in a way approaching how corporations seeking equity finance lay out in share prospectus documents.

Prior-established objectives can avert the adverse outcomes that come when aid organisations think they can use donated monies in any way they see fit.

"Lazy giving does not work!"

The full report in The Boston Review

The news is important if disillusioned public donors in the developed nations are to regain confidence in NGOs' use of donated funds. Like the $379.9 million that ordinary Australians gave after the 2006 Boxing Day tsunamis.

The dent in confidence was most evident after the 27 May 2006 Yogyakarta (Java) earthquake which demolished more Indonesian dwellings than the 2004 tsunami. Donations failed to meet NGOs' hopes, yet the homes of about 2.7 million Indonesians were affected (source).

Alternative reference

Confidence was no doubt dented by reports like Xinhua's 12 July 2006 "Many Aceh tsunami survivors still living in tents" (link).

Australian in-depth analysis of the performance in aid delivery appears in the aid association ACFID report following its 4 Aug 06 seminar "The Tsunami: reflecting on our efforts" - doc download.

Use of donated aid for reconstruction in Aceh has proved particularly difficult. The May 2006 issue of "Engineers Australia" magazine gives some insight in "Difficulties with project delivery in Aceh" - viewable here.

Ends

Inevitable that donors will be put off by poor reconstruction record in Aceh - 6 Aug 06

Headline: From Aceh to New Orleans, the challenge of rebuilding

It is easier to provide blankets and water to disaster victims than to build them new homes; easier to relieve immediate suffering than to replace all that was lost. More than a year and a half after a powerful tsunami laid waste to Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and beyond, people are still waiting for permanent homes in the worst-hit areas.
 
As the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times reported recently, the aid groups Oxfam and Save the Children have both fired staff members working on their housing programs in Indonesia. Only 8,900 of a planned 20,000 temporary houses were completed and fewer than a quarter of the 120,000 needed homes have been built in the ruined Indonesian province of Aceh. In some cases aid groups built unlivable houses out of untreated wood that will have to be demolished.
 
It is inevitable that relief agencies will look less efficient when doing long-term reconstruction than during the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event, when rules, red tape and procedures are subordinated to the higher goal of human survival. After direct danger fades, building codes and labor laws may come into play. Shortages of building materials and labor often drive up costs and increase the temptation for graft and corruption. And officials need to balance the haste to build permanent housing with safety considerations, so victims are not left vulnerable to the next onslaught.
 
But none of this should be seen as an excuse for bad performance by aid groups and local governments. The unsatisfactory results of recent reconstruction efforts from Indonesia to Iraq to New Orleans will inevitably lead to some disillusion on the part of donors and taxpayers, unless people have faith that the things that went wrong can be fixed.
 
Supervision is always crucial. What we have learned recently is that someone needs to be checking up on progress or the lack of it as it takes place, not long after the fact. Simple checks made by outside investigators uncovered overlooked cases of blatant fraud involving relief money distributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and donors had a right to wonder why they were not made much sooner. In Iraq, auditors for the special inspector general discovered that many reconstruction contracts under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supervision resulted in little or no actual work being performed. For instance, only 20 of a planned 150 health clinics are now expected to be completed.
 
It is important to involve local people, both for their expertise and to jump-start the economy in the affected areas. But those are not necessarily the people who have the muscle and expertise to get in the front of the line. After Katrina, large, politically connected companies had an advantage in bidding for federal contracts, such as for the removal of tons of debris.
 
Coordination is essential, but efforts to harmonize aid groups after the tsunami fell short. A recent report on the recovery found a great deal of duplication, and evidence that some groups even worked at cross-purposes with one another, in one case building houses right on the same spot where another organization had planned to build a road.
 
It is an indication of how far relief organizations are from finding the best possible procedures that the effort in Indonesia actually compares favorably to the aftermath of other large-scale disasters. The pace of reconstruction there far outstrips the halting progress made in New Orleans as we near the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast.
 
 
It is easier to provide blankets and water to disaster victims than to build them new homes; easier to relieve immediate suffering than to replace all that was lost. More than a year and a half after a powerful tsunami laid waste to Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and beyond, people are still waiting for permanent homes in the worst-hit areas.
 
As the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times reported recently, the aid groups Oxfam and Save the Children have both fired staff members working on their housing programs in Indonesia. Only 8,900 of a planned 20,000 temporary houses were completed and fewer than a quarter of the 120,000 needed homes have been built in the ruined Indonesian province of Aceh. In some cases aid groups built unlivable houses out of untreated wood that will have to be demolished.
 
It is inevitable that relief agencies will look less efficient when doing long-term reconstruction than during the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event, when rules, red tape and procedures are subordinated to the higher goal of human survival. After direct danger fades, building codes and labor laws may come into play. Shortages of building materials and labor often drive up costs and increase the temptation for graft and corruption. And officials need to balance the haste to build permanent housing with safety considerations, so victims are not left vulnerable to the next onslaught.
 
But none of this should be seen as an excuse for bad performance by aid groups and local governments. The unsatisfactory results of recent reconstruction efforts from Indonesia to Iraq to New Orleans will inevitably lead to some disillusion on the part of donors and taxpayers, unless people have faith that the things that went wrong can be fixed.
 
Supervision is always crucial. What we have learned recently is that someone needs to be checking up on progress or the lack of it as it takes place, not long after the fact. Simple checks made by outside investigators uncovered overlooked cases of blatant fraud involving relief money distributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and donors had a right to wonder why they were not made much sooner. In Iraq, auditors for the special inspector general discovered that many reconstruction contracts under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supervision resulted in little or no actual work being performed. For instance, only 20 of a planned 150 health clinics are now expected to be completed.
 
It is important to involve local people, both for their expertise and to jump-start the economy in the affected areas. But those are not necessarily the people who have the muscle and expertise to get in the front of the line. After Katrina, large, politically connected companies had an advantage in bidding for federal contracts, such as for the removal of tons of debris.
 
Coordination is essential, but efforts to harmonize aid groups after the tsunami fell short. A recent report on the recovery found a great deal of duplication, and evidence that some groups even worked at cross-purposes with one another, in one case building houses right on the same spot where another organization had planned to build a road.
 
It is an indication of how far relief organizations are from finding the best possible procedures that the effort in Indonesia actually compares favorably to the aftermath of other large-scale disasters. The pace of reconstruction there far outstrips the halting progress made in New Orleans as we near the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast.
 
 
It is easier to provide blankets and water to disaster victims than to build them new homes; easier to relieve immediate suffering than to replace all that was lost. More than a year and a half after a powerful tsunami laid waste to Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and beyond, people are still waiting for permanent homes in the worst-hit areas.
 
As the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times reported recently, the aid groups Oxfam and Save the Children have both fired staff members working on their housing programs in Indonesia. Only 8,900 of a planned 20,000 temporary houses were completed and fewer than a quarter of the 120,000 needed homes have been built in the ruined Indonesian province of Aceh. In some cases aid groups built unlivable houses out of untreated wood that will have to be demolished.
 
It is inevitable that relief agencies will look less efficient when doing long-term reconstruction than during the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event, when rules, red tape and procedures are subordinated to the higher goal of human survival. After direct danger fades, building codes and labor laws may come into play. Shortages of building materials and labor often drive up costs and increase the temptation for graft and corruption. And officials need to balance the haste to build permanent housing with safety considerations, so victims are not left vulnerable to the next onslaught.
 
But none of this should be seen as an excuse for bad performance by aid groups and local governments. The unsatisfactory results of recent reconstruction efforts from Indonesia to Iraq to New Orleans will inevitably lead to some disillusion on the part of donors and taxpayers, unless people have faith that the things that went wrong can be fixed.
 
Supervision is always crucial. What we have learned recently is that someone needs to be checking up on progress or the lack of it as it takes place, not long after the fact. Simple checks made by outside investigators uncovered overlooked cases of blatant fraud involving relief money distributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and donors had a right to wonder why they were not made much sooner. In Iraq, auditors for the special inspector general discovered that many reconstruction contracts under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supervision resulted in little or no actual work being performed. For instance, only 20 of a planned 150 health clinics are now expected to be completed.
 
It is important to involve local people, both for their expertise and to jump-start the economy in the affected areas. But those are not necessarily the people who have the muscle and expertise to get in the front of the line. After Katrina, large, politically connected companies had an advantage in bidding for federal contracts, such as for the removal of tons of debris.
 
Coordination is essential, but efforts to harmonize aid groups after the tsunami fell short. A recent report on the recovery found a great deal of duplication, and evidence that some groups even worked at cross-purposes with one another, in one case building houses right on the same spot where another organization had planned to build a road.
 
It is an indication of how far relief organizations are from finding the best possible procedures that the effort in Indonesia actually compares favorably to the aftermath of other large-scale disasters. The pace of reconstruction there far outstrips the halting progress made in New Orleans as we near the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast.
 
 
It is easier to provide blankets and water to disaster victims than to build them new homes; easier to relieve immediate suffering than to replace all that was lost. More than a year and a half after a powerful tsunami laid waste to Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and beyond, people are still waiting for permanent homes in the worst-hit areas.
 
As the International Herald Tribune and The New York Times reported recently, the aid groups Oxfam and Save the Children have both fired staff members working on their housing programs in Indonesia. Only 8,900 of a planned 20,000 temporary houses were completed and fewer than a quarter of the 120,000 needed homes have been built in the ruined Indonesian province of Aceh. In some cases aid groups built unlivable houses out of untreated wood that will have to be demolished.
 
It is inevitable that relief agencies will look less efficient when doing long-term reconstruction than during the immediate aftermath of a catastrophic event, when rules, red tape and procedures are subordinated to the higher goal of human survival. After direct danger fades, building codes and labor laws may come into play. Shortages of building materials and labor often drive up costs and increase the temptation for graft and corruption. And officials need to balance the haste to build permanent housing with safety considerations, so victims are not left vulnerable to the next onslaught.
 
But none of this should be seen as an excuse for bad performance by aid groups and local governments. The unsatisfactory results of recent reconstruction efforts from Indonesia to Iraq to New Orleans will inevitably lead to some disillusion on the part of donors and taxpayers, unless people have faith that the things that went wrong can be fixed.
 
Supervision is always crucial. What we have learned recently is that someone needs to be checking up on progress or the lack of it as it takes place, not long after the fact. Simple checks made by outside investigators uncovered overlooked cases of blatant fraud involving relief money distributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and donors had a right to wonder why they were not made much sooner. In Iraq, auditors for the special inspector general discovered that many reconstruction contracts under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supervision resulted in little or no actual work being performed. For instance, only 20 of a planned 150 health clinics are now expected to be completed.
 
It is important to involve local people, both for their expertise and to jump-start the economy in the affected areas. But those are not necessarily the people who have the muscle and expertise to get in the front of the line. After Katrina, large, politically connected companies had an advantage in bidding for federal contracts, such as for the removal of tons of debris.
 
Coordination is essential, but efforts to harmonize aid groups after the tsunami fell short. A recent report on the recovery found a great deal of duplication, and evidence that some groups even worked at cross-purposes with one another, in one case building houses right on the same spot where another organization had planned to build a road.
 
It is an indication of how far relief organizations are from finding the best possible procedures that the effort in Indonesia actually compares favorably to the aftermath of other large-scale disasters. The pace of reconstruction there far outstrips the halting progress made in New Orleans as we near the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf Coast.

Source: The New York Times (6 Aug 06) via International Herald Trubune

TEC recommends media to be targeted to explain what makes an effective donor

The TEC has urged donors, meaning those overseeing aid donations, to fund mass communication and public educational initiatives on the themes of "good disaster response" and "how to be a principled and effective donor".

In Australia's case it's likely to be a challenge for the Australian aid organisations' association, Australian Council For International Development - ACFID.

TEC's Section 5.4.3 said donor, public and media education is necessary to improve understanding of and support for the lessons and recommendations learnt from the Tsunami Evaluation process.

Being an effective donor needs to be explained in the media both to individual members of the public and official donors, the TEC report said.

"The media should be targeted for such education, to improve the quality of reporting on disasters and funding for disasters.

"Public education should cover the serious implications of donors not meeting their own commitments to impartiality in global humanitarian funding."

DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction): TEC's points for aid community action with host governments

The International Federation of Red Cross and NGOs like Care International were among international agencies urged by TEC to join states in high-risk areas to  act on distaster risk reduction principles. This should reverse the pattern which TEC described about DRR as "long advocated but rarely adequately funded or supported".

The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) July 2006 Synthesis Report backed the assertion with key points in Section 5.2 "Accountability and support to affected people and authorities", sub section 5.2.4 "Support to host authorities":

• Donor governments and IFIs [international financial institutions] should consider allocating a set percentage of their relief budget to DRR: Funding should be long-term, predictable and aimed at the reduction of vulnerabilities in risk-prone regions. Options should be identified jointly with national and international actors (especially donors). Agencies should, for example, assist disaster-prone countries to access remote-sensing data as well as to develop the capacity to process these data. For example, DIPECHO, IFRC, CARE International, CRED, ISDR, OFDA, UNDP and others including IFIs such as the World Bank and regional investment banks.

 • States should also set targets for national funding of DRR: If appealing for disaster response funding, they should design appeals to include funding for long-term DRR strategies and not just short- or medium-term relief and recovery.

• Comprehensive, multi-year risk reduction programmes should be established in all risk-prone countries on a scale commensurate with the risks faced, be they natural disasters, conflict or other factors.

• The programmes should be based on hazard and vulnerability analysis and anchored within national development and social protection structures.

(The Hyogo, 2005 framework and related guidance should be applied as guidance in this respect.) These should link with local and community DRR initiatives.

Section 5.2 about accountability to host authorities led these points with the following narrative:

International agencies should map and support host authority capacities in a manner similar to that for mapping capacities of affected people. This should be conducted prior to any disaster event and updated during the response. This mapping should include all key official actors, nationally and sub-nationally, including military forces.

Multi-year support should be provided, both pre- and post-disaster, and integrated into relevant development programmes and with strategically placed counterpart institutions. This requires a long-term commitment and presence on the part of international agencies in high-risk countries. International agencies with a development mandate are best placed for providing such support.

International agencies should assist states in high-risk regions to establish or strengthen a national/sub-national institution to manage disaster preparedness and response and to enable cooperation between relevant government departments and between central and local government.


They should also be responsible for contingency planning, preparedness measures and liaison with all levels of the international community in disaster planning.

International support should include appropriate technical expertise,140 equipment and systems through capacity-building partnerships.
Support for joint national–international information services should include preparedness for the rapid deployment of initial assessments intended to provide a comprehensive overview of needs and resources and covering all affected areas and population groups.

This should lead to the establishment of a single set of jointly managed databases of all affected people and resources provided to assist them. Aims of the databases would be to match needs and resources, and to plan and track responses. (UNDP’s DAD might be a model from which experience could be drawn.)

This would require an agreed definition of ‘affected person’. While a widely accepted international definition would be ideal (for both specific disasters and in determining equitable disaster funding globally), at least national definitions should be developed and formalised through national legislation.

Beyond the initial days (at most weeks) of a disaster, donors should make funding for follow-on activities conditional on the application of such a comprehensive joint assessment. They should also fund pre-disaster preparation, including the establishment of regional rosters of experts.

Source report.

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition July 06 report

The Executive Summary of TEC's July 2006 Synthesis Report is given in full, with key paragraphs linked to make this top overview.
Click these links to see these overviewed paragraphs in the context of the report Executive Summary and
Bill Clinton's forward.

Foreword by the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery (Bill Clinton)

over 40 key aid agencies - including the United Nations, donor governments and non-government organisations - join hands to form the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC),

Local structures are already in place and more often than not the 'first responders' to a crisis. The way the international community goes about providing relief and recovery assistance must actively strengthen, not undermine, these local actors.

international and local actors need to forge solid partnerships between and among themselves, well in advance of their being tested in crisis.

TEC Synthesis Report [issued Jul 06]:

This report synthesises the five Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC) thematic evaluation reports,

The report has two main aims: to improve the quality of natural disaster response policy and practice, and to account to both donor and affected-country populations.

Over 227,000 people lost their lives and some 1.7 million were displaced. A massive media-fuelled, global response resulted, producing an estimated US$13.5bn in international aid.

Wider knowledge of the nature of tsunamis, an alert media, and/or systems for communicating warnings could have saved many lives, as would have disaster-resistant construction. It is notable that disaster risk reduction (DRR) and preparedness, though demonstrably cost-efficient and effective if correctly undertaken, receive only a small portion of international aid.

2 Constraints and achievements

Other constraints included: the ongoing armed conflicts in Sri Lanka and Indonesia; ill-advised, confusing and sometimes bureaucratic official policies and procedures; politicised and centralised decision making, including in beneficiary targeting; and concerns about corruption and distrust of local leaders

Shelter reconstruction, poverty alleviation, risk reduction and livelihood recovery are slow, highly complex undertakings that frequently involve factors outside the control (and competence) of international humanitarian relief agencies.

Constraints are also rooted within international agencies themselves, and include: the quantity and quality of international personnel; inappropriate programme methods and tools; and weak engagement in or management of coordination.

A fragmented approach was due in part to the proliferation of international agencies and their insistence on distinct programmes.

The TEC evaluation reports suggest that UN security rules and finance procedures may also have inhibited rapid deployment to remote areas. Slow, overlapping, poorly shared, and imprecise assessments were a constraint for donors in meeting their Good Humanitarian Donorship (GHD) commitment to fund ‘in proportion to needs and on the basis of needs assessments’.

Within a few months there was palpable evidence of recovery. In all countries, children were back in school quickly and health facilities and services were partly restored and, in some cases, much improved.

Good practices illustrate how local and national ownership of aid programmes can be supported through patient, discerning and context-sensitive approaches. These include: the judicious use of cash grants; participatory complaints and polling mechanisms; joint projects, capacity building and staff secondments between national and international agencies; respect for national reconstruction standards; training of agencies’ national staff; and detailed reporting to authorities.

3 Accountability, ownership and recovery

Overall, international relief personnel were less successful in their recovery and risk reduction activities than they were in the relief phase.

However, the pressure to spend money quickly and visibly worked against making the best use of local and national capacities.

The TEC LRRD Report (2006) notes: ‘A tragic combination of arrogance and ignorance has characterised how much of the aid community… misled people[.]’ (p83); ‘Poor information flow is undoubtedly the biggest source of dissatisfaction, anger and frustration among affected people’ (p73);

Other identified weaknesses include rarely coordinated or shared assessments; ‘supply-driven’, unsolicited and inappropriate aid; inappropriate housing designs and livelihoods solutions; poor understanding of the development role of income and tax generation; and stereotyping of options for women, small-farmers and small entrepreneurs.

Other problems identified in the TEC thematic evaluations and their sub-studies include: brushing aside or misleading authorities, communities and local organisations; inadequate support to host families; displacement of able local staff by poorly prepared internationals; dominance of English as the working language; ‘misrecognition’ of local capacities resulting in inefficient implementation; applying more demanding conditions to national and local ‘partners’ than those accepted by international agencies;

Recovery and support to preparedness are embedded in the objectives of humanitarian actors, for example, in the GHD principles, the Sphere standards and the Red Cross Code of Conduct

Re-building communities and livelihoods is more complex and takes longer than building houses or distributing goods

The concentration on distribution of assets, especially boats, demonstrated a failure to understand and support diversified and sustainable livelihoods and communities.

Affected people have frequently complained that NGOs deal only with village officials and that poorer people are marginalised. At best, the international response restored the ‘status quo ante’. At worst, it strengthened those who were better off and/or more articulate,

4 FUNDING

Most private funding went to a dozen of the main actors. NGOs and the Red Cross Movement often had more funding than did donor administrations or multilateral organisations.

Generous funding not only exceeded the absorption capacity of an overstretched humanitarian industry and deprived it of its customary excuse for built-in systemic shortcomings, but also led to the proliferation of new actors with insufficient experience (and therefore competence), as well as to established actors venturing into activities outside their normal area of expertise.

Some major donors by-passed UN mechanisms, such as the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team, by deploying their own assessments.

Most private funding appeared to be based on media reports. Nor was official funding based on systematic measurement of the relative effectiveness and efficiency of agencies and their programmes.

…the standards of financial reporting among UN agencies, the RC Movement, and international NGOs leave the humanitarian system vulnerable to criticism.

In the tsunami, total funding was over US$7,100 for every affected person which contrasts starkly, for example, with funding of only US$3 per head actually spent on someone affected by floods in Bangladesh in 2004.

There is an urgent need for external monitoring and control of donor accountability and performance. Self-regulation is clearly not working.

5 INTERNATIONAL RELIEF CAPACITY AND QUALITY

‘Poaching’ of staff from national or local organisations can have mixed results:

‘The engagement of international actors with local capacities was most effective and efficient when it was built on sustained partnerships with the local actors that existed before the disaster’ (TEC Capacities Report, 2006, p35).

Nonetheless, the TEC reports show numerous examples of poor coordination.

There is, however, little joint planning and training between the military and traditional humanitarian actors and field coordination between them remains weak.

Humanitarian agencies have much to learn from the successful approach adopted by the IFIs:

There is general agreement, for 23 Tsunami Evaluation Coalition: Synthesis Report example, that there were far too many agencies of all types in Indonesia and Sri Lanka, be they NGOs, bilateral, multilateral or RC Movement agencies.

Sphere or the GHD principles, suggest that the various quality initiatives are not having a sufficient impact. The quality delivered by a normal business is driven by its customers. The same model of quality control does not operate in the aid sector.

The biggest potential driver for quality should be feedback to the donor public on the quality of an agency’s operations.

A regulatory system is needed to oblige agencies to put the affected population at the centre of measures of agency effectiveness,

6 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations [including a system of accreditation and certification] are:

Foreword by the United Nations Secretary-General's
Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery
(Bill Clinton)

 

In the immediate weeks following the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster of 26 December 2004, many of us pledged that this operation would set new standards of accountability and transparency. We also pledged that out of the rubble of the Indian Ocean's coastlines, and the suffering of its inhabitants, we would 'build back better': placing coastal communities on a better development path; leaving survivors safer from future disasters; using the lessons learned today to ensure better responses in the future. A disaster of this scale and a response of such sweeping breadth and generosity deserve nothing less.

Therefore, I was greatly encouraged to see, in the early months of 2005,

over 40 key aid agencies - including the United Nations, donor governments and non-government organisations - join hands to form the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC),

an historic, collaborative process to evaluate key elements of the relief and recovery effort. The TEC represents an extraordinary effort at reflection, self-criticism and transparency. The studies it has sponsored, and this Synthesis Report, provide an invaluable, independent account of how the tsunami response has proceeded so far.

As reflected in the pages that follow, our efforts to respond to the tsunami have placed in sharp relief both strengths and weaknesses in the way we organize ourselves when faced with such massive challenges. Indeed, the report includes both praise and uncomfortable reading, but the honesty of the analysis does us all a great service.

This report and the companion thematic studies identify important lessons and an agenda for reform that deserve careful analysis and an appropriate response. They help us to see how we can and must do better in responding to ongoing and future disaster relief and recovery challenges.

To my mind, the overriding messages of this report are three-fold:

First, we must do better at utilizing and working alongside local structures. With nothing but good intentions, the international community descends into crisis situations in enormous numbers and its activities too often leave the very communities we are there to help on the sidelines.

Local structures are already in place and more often than not the 'first responders' to a crisis. The way the international community goes about providing relief and recovery assistance must actively strengthen, not