Subject Description
This report is an independent evaluation of the processes and results of SDC’s Emergency Relief approach and activities worldwide primarily in terms of lives saved and suffering alleviated. The period covered major emergency situations in 2009 and 2010. The evaluation considers in particular the Emergency Relief (Immediate Response, Survival Assistance and Early Recovery). It does not cover the reconstruction although it addresses the linkage between emergency relief and the reconstruction. The scope is multisectorial, including all emergency instruments of SDC. However, in some countries, the evaluation was limited to one type of relief (food assistance in Sudan and Search and Rescue in Sumatra).
Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation is based on four case studies (Gaza, Sumatra, Sudan and Haiti); reviewed 415 documents, visited Haiti and Gaza/oPt and interviewed 211 responders or managers (111 completed a one-page questionnaire). In addition, 131 beneficiaries were consulted in Gaza and Haiti. Interviewees included 58 SDC managers at HQ and field level, 65 NGOs / Red Cross partners, 64 from UN agencies as well as donors and local authorities. Written material included 107 general documents, 109 on Gaza crisis, 64 on Haiti earthquake, 82 on Sumatra earthquake and 52 on the food assistance in Sudan.
Major findings and conclusions
SDC has five instruments to implement its Humanitarian Aid (HA): The Swiss Rescue (SR), targeting victims trapped under the rubble; the Rapid Response Teams (RRTs); the financial contributions to NGOs or multilateral partners; the bilateral material assistance and food supplies; and the secondments of experts from the Swiss Humanitarian Aid Unit (SHA). The mix of instruments is very good and their implementation appropriate and effective in the two countries visited: Haiti after the earthquake and Gaza after the conflict. The response was rapid and timely and satisfaction of beneficiaries was very high.
The adaptability of the emergency response to context would need some attention. The existing mechanisms are better adapted to sudden massive disasters threatening lives than to surges in conflicts where advocacy and expression of solidarity are the prime objectives.
There are increasingly fewer opportunities to save lives through the deployment of the SR. The decision NOT to send SR to Haiti and to shift resources towards other forms of assistance (medical care, water, shelters) is credited for saving many more lives. In Sumatra, the HA impact was due to activities other than search and rescue. This trend of declining effectiveness of SR in terms of lives saved is likely to increase in the future.
The strengthening of local partners (NGOs, Red Cross and UN) is a major success of SDC response. However, it did not include local government coordinating mechanisms which were unwillingly marginalized by the international community in its response to the earthquake in Haiti. Support to multilateral organizations is appreciated for its lack of conditions and constraints. That flexibility reduces the impact and influence on improving the performance of those large partners. The impact is not measurable and is likely to be modest. Secondments to UN agencies is generally prompt, appropriate and of good professional quality. Its effectiveness is mainly at technical or operational level. The duration of the secondments is an additional asset.
Priorities for Change and lessons learned
SR is losing its operational uniqueness and leadership. Search and Rescue is now being mainstreamed − a positive achievement, to the credit of SR. The role, place and resources of the SR should be reviewed. This instrument must be recalibrated. SDC should identify new innovative areas to regain its global leadership as pioneer. Several alternatives are proposed for consideration in the health sector (from an institutionalization of a medical capacity including support to local medical volunteers and a strong nursing component), information management (including the general inventory of donated pharmaceuticals) and Clusters coordination.
Multilateral support should be maintained but with more specificity permitting closer monitoring of its impact. It should address areas in need of institutional change or improvement in the international system and already identified by SDC (for instance greater use of cash donations and earlier support to national government partners). The range of partners should be broader to include regional organizations and adapted better to the type of crisis.
Recommendations and Senior Management Decisions
The SDC Core Learning Partnership generated the recommendations for the evaluation. Senior Management took a number of decisions for an improved SDC engagement in Emergency Relief activities in the future. These are grouped under the following headlines:
