Transcript External Evaluation of the Inter

External Evaluation of the Inter-Agency
Secretariat of the International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
Ian Christoplos
Alexandra Galperin
Yasemin Aysan
Purpose of the evaluation
• “To assess the effectiveness of the ISDR
Secretariat in meeting its functions and
responsibilities in line with its initial
mandates, how these have evolved and
present recommendations for the future
role of the ISDR in light of the study’s
findings, other pertinent proposals, and the
Hyogo Framework for Action”
Purpose of the evaluation
• Assess the outcomes of the Secretariat’s
work in “raising political will and public
commitment”
– Effectiveness
– Stakeholder relations
– Added value and relevance
• A key issue became that of Secretariat
prioritisation amid grand expectations
Purpose of the evaluation
• Requests were raised during the
evaluation for precise recommendations
for the future, especially regarding
governance
• Confusion and strong distrust appeared in
some discussions due to the various other
UN DRR-related reviews recently
performed or underway
Methodology
• Emphasise view from the partners and
network members
• Avoid undue focus on ‘the usual suspects’
• 152 Semi structured interviews
• 49 Questionnaire responses
• Review of documents and website
• Qualitative methods to capture outcomes
and the breadth of different types of
stakeholders
Findings: The scale of the challenge
facing the Secretariat and the Strategy
• Strong stakeholder support for a Secretariat that
is an ‘honest broker’ within the UN system and
that works to promote inter-agency
collaboration/focus on DRR
• Secretariat effective in maintaining and building
on the momentum of the IDNDR with some
impact on key decision-makers
• Conflation between the Secretariat’s role and
that of the DRR community in implementing the
ISDR has blurred the Secretariat’s profile and
has raised unrealistic expectations
Findings: The scale of the challenge
facing the Secretariat and the Strategy
• Difficulties exist in communicating with
mainstream development and
humanitarian actors
– Despite exhaustive efforts, weakness in
influencing policy-formation processes in
mainstream development forums
– Links with humanitarian policy forums largely
undeveloped
Findings: The scale of the challenge
facing the Secretariat and the Strategy
• Difficulties in maintaining strategic plans
• Widespread concerns (within and outside
Secretariat) about gap-filling, donor-driven
programming and its impact on focus
• Differing interpretations of the cause of
this problem
Findings: Policy and advocacy
• Very energetic efforts, but need to reconsider
what constitutes a compelling argument vis-à-vis
development/humanitarian target groups
• Need to find a more effective balance among 3
areas: technical knowledge of DRR, policy
analysis and communication efforts
• Some lack of clarity in advocacy roles between
Secretariat and national DRR advocates
• Weak engagement in IFI led policy forums limits
impact
Findings: Information and
communication
• Living with Risk and ISDR Informs very much
appreciated and used
• Broad range of views on the impact, relevance
and added value of other publication efforts
– Unclear link to communication strategies, target group
analysis and Secretariat niche/added value
• Communications strengthened for WCDR, but
still not given appropriate level of attention to
achieve mandated outcomes
Findings: Information and
communication
• Unclear definitions of ‘clearinghouse’
• Unclear ambition levels for information
efforts
• Speculation on target groups
• Website much improved, but significant
weaknesses still exist
Findings: Institutional relevance
• Strong support for regional offices among
targeted countries
• Field-level contacts needed as a ‘reality
check’ and to build stakeholder confidence
• Tendencies toward raising unrealistic
hopes/expectations for aid funding
• Blurring of operational versus ’honest
broker’ roles
Findings: Institutional relevance
National Platforms
• Generally highly appreciated and potential
for further development
• Justified ‘flexibility’ in NP modalities
• Unclear ambition level for Geneva support
• Some concerns raised about inter-UN role
confusion, but not a problem where
regional offices have intervened
Findings: Management, finance
and governance
• The Secretariat’s multiple accountabilities
create uncertainties about ‘whose
secretariat’ it is intended to be
• There are significant concerns (especially
among several donors) regarding
governance and management
• Concerns also expressed regarding
recruitment
Findings: Management, finance
and governance
• Greater clarity in both management and
governance are a prerequisite to
continued support for the Secretariat
• Lack of multi-year donor commitments and
support from the UN regular budget are
part of this problem
• Improved management means reform in
recruitment, planning and budgeting
Conclusions
• The UN needs an independent honest
broker in DRR to demonstrate that DRR
advocates in member states are not alone
• Clearer focus can ensure realistic planning
and avoid inappropriately raised ambitions
• Stronger efforts are needed to ensure
programmatic and financial continuity
Recommendation: A secretariat for DRR is
needed, but with revised structure and focus
• The Secretariat should not grow, but shift some
resources to the regional offices
• Fundraising strategies should emphasise
stability
– The Secretariat’s continuation should be contingent
on the availability of at least four multiyear funding
commitments of at least USD 500,000
• The USG should propose that at least two
Secretariat positions be funded from the UN
regular budget
• The USG should present significantly reformed
governance structures for the Secretariat
Recommendation: The Secretariat should
clearly define a realistic range of strategic
tasks and priorities
• The Secretariat’s leadership should take a
consistent stance on priorities, even if this
requires saying no to ‘pet projects’
• The ISDR Support Group and the USG should
work actively with the Secretariat to develop an
appropriate three year strategic plan and step in
to ‘defend’ the Secretariat if pressures should
arise to deviate from this plan
• The Secretariat should take forceful steps to
present a narrower, more comprehensible image
Recommendation: Clearly define a realistic
range of strategic tasks and priorities
Specifically
• Focus on one or two annual forward-looking strategic
themes/messages of pressing significance for DRR
• Give priority to presentations with an innovative and
evidence-based message, using well-known and
respected professionals from member states, other
organisations and respected DRR advocates
• Limit publications to periodically updated editions of
Living with Risk and regionally produced ISDR Informs
• Mandated ‘clearinghouse’ functions should be redefined
as being limited to providing access to UN DRR
materials with links to other sites with more extensive
DRR collections, and structured support to networking
Recommendation: Prioritise policy analysis
& communication/ information support
• The regional offices and policy cluster in Geneva
should link relevant expertise to those who need
it through a more structured and focused
networking approach
• The Secretariat should learn from partners’ in
choosing appropriate indicators for
implementation of the HFA
• Advocacy should be supported by the
Secretariat, but should be led by DRR advocates
at national and regional levels and within higher
levels of the UN itself
Recommendation: Prioritise policy analysis
& communication/ information support
• Efforts to influence mainstream development policy
processes should be reviewed to identify compelling,
appropriate and realistic entry points (MoF, IFI)
• The Secretariat should strictly limit its operational
activities and be cautious about raising national
stakeholders’ expectations for receiving assistance
• National platforms and other informal partnerships
should be strongly supported, but within a pragmatic
assessment of what can be achieved
• A consensus must be found with other UN agencies on a
coherent and joined-up perspective on the concept of
platforms and partnership at national levels
Recommendation: Restructuring focused on
policy analysis and communication/
information
• Three clusters: administration/finance, policy analysis
and information/communication, plus the Director’s office
• The administration/finance cluster should ensure that
plans and budgets are clearly formulated and accurately
reflect financial commitments, and that transparent meritbased recruitment procedures are applied
• The policy cluster should find an optimum balance
between working within the UN system (coordinating and
promoting a coherent UN approach to DRR), and
beyond the UN system (linking the UN DRR agenda to
the broader efforts to achieve the goals of the ISDR)
Recommendation: Restructuring focused on
policy analysis and communication/
information
• The information/communication cluster should
create a forceful communications strategy that
will impact on wider political will for DRR
• This requires rethinking how it should provide
information services to ensure viable, quality
services that provide unique added value
• Stringent guidelines should be developed for the
regional offices that reflect defined added value
and assurances that the Secretariat does not
take on the tasks of member states
Recommendation: Reform of governance
and review of higher management roles
• It should be recognised that the IATF/DR is not
currently a governance structure for the Secretariat
• A strong steering/advisory committee should be
established consisting of three major donors, UNDP,
OCHA and revolving representation from all regions,
two other ITAF/DR members and one IFI
• The USG should represent the ISDR as a Strategy
within the UN leadership and the ECOSOC, with the
ASG’s support in these tasks, in restructuring efforts
and for management vis-à-vis the Secretariat