Did the Rwandan Evaluation Change anything?
A report by the Joint Evaluation Follow-up Monitoring and Facilitation Network (JEFF)
The speed of onset and scale of the Great Lakes emergency which unfolded in April 1994 leading to genocide and internal displacement in Rwanda and massive refugee displacements to Zaire and Tanzania presented one of the greatest challenges the humanitarian aid community has ever had to face. Recognising the unprecedented nature of this emergency and the humanitarian response, governments were eager to learn as many lessons as possible from the events of 1994 and 1995. A Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda was therefore undertaken and funded by numerous governments. The final report was launched in March 1996. This multi-donor funded evaluation of an emergency and subsequent response was the largest of its type ever under-taken. The evaluation had four components and was published in four separate studies;
- an account of the history of the Great Lakes Region - study 1
- a study of the genocide in Rwanda - study 2
- an evaluation of the humanitarian response to the emergency in Zaire, Tanzania and Rwanda - study 3
- an evaluation of the rehabilitation initiatives in the region - study 4
The main findings of the four studies were
summarised in a synthesis report which contained no less than 64 recommendations
These recommendations varied enormously in range. For example, there
were specific recommendations aimed at ensuring; more effective prevention
and suppression of genocide, more effective conflict early warning systems,
and greater accountability of humanitarian agencies. A number of the recommendations
in the synthesis report were influenced by certain findings in study
3 regarding the provision of food and nutrition support to refugee and
IDPs . The food and nutrition section of study 3 singled out;
- inappropriate ration planning,
- inequity of food distribution systems and
- inefficient selective feeding programmes as the main problems in this sector of intervention.
These difficulties were then related to
a set of underlying factors including:
- failure of agency institutional memory,
- poor co-operation and co-ordination between relief agencies,
- lack of consensus between agencies over programme design, and
- shortage of suitably qualified technical staff on the ground.
The recommendations in the synthesis report
which were most directly related to problems in the food and nutrition
sector were those on:
- strengthening co-ordination amongst agencies,
- improving humanitarian agency performance,
- introducing accreditation systems for humanitarian agencies and
- obtaining agreement on optimal food distribution systems at agency level.
A Joint Evaluation Follow-up Monitoring and Facilitation Network (JEFF) was formed in May 1996. This network was set up to follow up progress arising out of the evaluation recommendations. JEFF recently finalised a report which reviewed the follow-up and impact of the Rwandan evaluation fifteen months after its publication.
This in itself is unusual as evaluations so often are left to gather dust on shelves of commissioning agencies. The JEFF report makes fascinating reading and while taking pains to acknowledge that progress and implementation of recommendations made in the Rwandan evaluation cannot be fully attributed to the evaluation, holds that there are grounds for attributing many initiative at least partly to the joint evaluation.
The JEFF report estimates that at least two thirds of the recommendations have had at least some positive outcome (see table below) but also expresses concern that 11% of recommendations have not been formally discussed or raised by those agencies to whom the recommendations are directed. Most of these unaddressed recommendations are to do with 'Fostering Policy Coherence in the UN Security Council Secretariat and General Assembly and Early Suppression of Genocide'.
|Category||No. of Recommendations||Proportion of Total Recommendations|
|A||Not formally discussed/raised by recommendation addresses||7||11%|
|B||Formally discussed by recommendation addresses||4||6%|
|C||Formally discussed but no resolutions or action||11||17%|
|D||Formally discussed and resolution reached or action taken||24||37%|
Copies of the multi-donor evaluation of the Great Lakes Emergency and the JEFF report can be obtained from Helen Awan, ODI, London, Fax 44 8698 5610, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
More like this
Responding to the crisis in Congo-Zaire: Emergency feeding of Rwandan refugees, May-July 1997 We asked Alex de Waal of Africa Rights to comment on Susanne Jaspars' article. He...
Summary of the ACC/SCN Refugee chapter by Jane Wallace The quarterly 'Reports on the Nutrition Situation of Refugees and Displaced Populations' (RNIS) are compiled and...
Author:Susanne Jaspars, is an independent Consultant in Nutrition. This article was based on her experiences while working for CARE UK as a Food Policy Consultant. The...
Published Lancet letters Two recent letters to the LANCET draw attention to two separate situations in which emergency food may have been used to promote longer term political...
The upsurge of violence in Eastern Zaire towards the end of 1996 led to an influx of Zairian refugees into the Kigoma area of Tanzania. On arrival, the Zairian refugees were...
Name International Emergency and Refugee Health Branch (IERHB), CDC Address 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, Georgia...
Address 169 Booterstown Avenue, Blackrock, Co. Dublin Formed 1973 Telephone 353-1-288 5385 Director Justin Kilcullen Fax 353-1-288 3577 Overseas staff 15 expats / 150...
Summary of report1 Devastation in Sri Lanka post tsunami The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami killed over 227,000 people with 1.7 million displaced. A massive...
Summary of published research1 The aid community has reacted to many crises in the Great Lakes region with a multitude of interventions aimed explicitly at improving the food...
To the editor of ENN Field Exchange: We find Mr. Gettier's letter concerning our article, "Sales of food aid as sign of distress, not excess" (Field Exchange Issue 4),...
FEX: Letter asking for guidance on BMS for orphans in Rwanda, by Ros O'Loughlin (and response by ENN)
Dear Field Exchange, I read with great interest the articles on infant feeding in the first issue of Field Exchange. I was at the time working in a centre for unaccompanied...
FEX: Lessons learned from evaluations of the impact of WFP programmes on moderate acute malnutrition in the Sahel
View this article as a pdf By Jonas Heirman, Mica Jenkins and Jennifer Rosenzweig Jonas Heirman leads impact evaluation activities for the World Food Programme (WFP). Jonas...
FEX: Issue 24 Editorial
All the field articles in this issue come from either AAH or ACF staff. Two pieces deal with programmes targeted at the severely malnourished. Thierry Muriele writes about the...
by Jean Long, Ros O'Loughlin, Annalies Borrel Jean Long and Ros O'Loughlin worked for Concern in Kisingani (DRC) in the fall of 1997, establishing the programme described...
FEX: Issue 04 Editorial
Dear Readers Welcome to another issue of Field Exchange. Before we comment on the articles we have for you in this issue, we would like to share some of the feedback we...
Summary of Published Review Field Exchange 10 highlighted a study underway by the Humanitarian Policy Group and Nutrition Works on the principles and practice for food...
Tens of thousands of Rwandan refugees were believed to have died from dysentery in the Goma camps in 1994/95. Above Goma, Eastern Zaire Summary of published paper1 Acute...
Summary of report1 A review of over 50 formal evaluation reports was conducted by a Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Working party on Aid Evaluation (Organisation for...
FEX: From Kigali to Istanbul the long way round – personal reflections on 20-years of humanitarian accountability
By Andy Featherstone Andy Featherstone is an independent consultant with over 20-years of experience in strategic and operational management of international programme, policy...
FEX: Issue 16 Editorial
Failure to learn lessons from past experience is a recurring theme in this issue of Field Exchange. Alain Mourey, the long-serving headquarters nutritionist from ICRC, laments...
Reference this page
Did the Rwandan Evaluation Change anything?. Field Exchange 4, June 1998. p28. www.ennonline.net/fex/4/anything