Union’s humanitarian · 2019-12-23 · complicated by an absence of development actors and government services. 5. Achievements DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting

Landell Mills International December 2019

Evaluation of the European

Unionrsquos humanitarian

assistance in the Central

Africa region including

humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

Part A ndash Central Africa Region

Executive Summary

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

2019

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa

region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations

Directorate E ndash General Affairs

Unit E2 ndash Programming Control and Reporting

Contact echo-evaleceuropaeu

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region

including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018

Evaluation of the European

Unionrsquos humanitarian

assistance in the Central

Africa region including

humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

Part A ndash Central Africa Region

Executive Summary

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

5

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the

authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information

contained therein

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)

Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019

ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5

DOI 102795986777

copy European Union 2019

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number ()

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone

boxes or hotels may charge you)

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

6

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central

Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018

Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination

Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale

with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)

Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)

Date December 2019

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

7

Executive Summary

This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in

Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work

of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was

conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity

across different crises during 2014-2018

Objectives and scope

The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and

objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about

current strategies while identifying areas for improvement

The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic

(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions

refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding

(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented

by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by

DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels

While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA

it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated

Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-

reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad

Methodology

At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions

tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define

lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements

In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions

and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs

would lead to results

The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and

quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant

interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-

funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation

including donors implementers and beneficiaries

The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian

interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence

about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within

the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable

enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

8

Context and EU interventions

The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos

country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including

the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition

crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos

country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel

belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted

Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to

three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the

Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region

CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance

estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018

country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million

people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were

outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made

to develop regional refugee response plans

During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each

year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the

region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-

made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters

A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct

activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors

Main findings

The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented

below

1 Relevance

EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most

vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed

on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs

assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and

situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least

in their design

The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and

beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were

not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable

and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking

2 Appropriateness

DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In

practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG

ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were

made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs

allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications

in response to changing events

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

9

However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs

or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies

clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively

address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and

emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did

not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual

improvement

3 Needs assessment

DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all

three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs

assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG

ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged

implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO

also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some

promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved

responses

4 Alignment

DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian

principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG

ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO

acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For

example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing

flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed

consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded

actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced

some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with

EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was

complicated by an absence of development actors and government services

5 Achievements

DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and

2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency

responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded

humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a

majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable

contributions in each country

These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG

ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic

direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight

of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner

relationships were key assets

However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in

the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were

actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian

needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in

Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent

epidemics and natural disasters

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

10

Achievements in the Central African Republic

In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR

consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their

high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people

directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case

study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall

humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as

key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in

CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-

2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing

humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting

recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund

DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results

remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to

strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several

concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting

requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to

a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination

Achievements in Cameroon

In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO

portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG

ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to

achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular

those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way

for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity

planning and building capacity for resilience

However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of

refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted

needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period

The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to

strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was

achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos

support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors

Achievements in Chad

In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to

address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security

and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and

contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field

presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements

included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the

Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO

made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship

with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG

DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN

Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in

meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite

some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

11

remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with

the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable

populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive

potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the

evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning

6 Advocacy

DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted

advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times

of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position

which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO

advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges

across the countries

7 Cost-effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable

exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the

assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding

to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by

making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions

about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example

when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were

disappointing

In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider

portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national

responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements

such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded

repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome

selection processes

8 Funding

EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-

2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year

fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases

to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the

second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth

of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the

share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018

However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations

in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and

unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition

the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly

by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among

CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon

Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was

proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country

9 Humanitarian coordination

DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018

It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

12

and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated

around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a

few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations

Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was

perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both

national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different

ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to

strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised

Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian

coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over

the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and

Chad

10 Donor coordination

DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-

2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors

and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed

leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational

coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek

to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination

mechanisms were absent

11 EU added value

DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the

humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO

offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based

knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a

strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member

states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together

were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG

ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system

12 Sustainability

DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-

funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and

demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience

However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important

questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly

planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the

three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to

promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking

13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)

The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be

adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG

ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised

efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise

At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG

DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and

risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

13

priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs

vulnerability or fragility in CA

Conclusions

Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis

of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018

Key strengths

A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018

The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening

humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions

implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship

activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding

remained relatively strong and consistent over the period

Challenges

The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing

the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important

challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors

inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to

reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some

confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed

that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and

posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA

Recommendations

Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these

recommendations

1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos

humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention

logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA

2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025

ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion

beneficiary consultation and resilience

3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025

reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs

assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination

4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between

humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how

HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs

reduced

Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in

the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination

2014-2018

14

5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025

reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address

specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection

reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)

6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian

interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions

in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters

15

Cata

logue n

um

ber

KR-0

4-1

9-7

42-E

N-N