Discussion Points for DREF Operations_Lessons Learnt Exercise

Prévia do material em texto

Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF)
	Discussion points for DREF operations Lessons Learnt exercise
 
Purpose: during the DREF process it is highly recommended to conduct a lessons learnt workshop as an exercise to reflect back on the operation and define what went well and what not. While DREF operations are short in the timeframe, also really focused for the type of response, therefore it is not possible to find longer term conclusions. At the same time while looking at the lessons learnt and main feedback from several operations, there are common topics in the majority of the operations that are more linked to capacities in the National Societies or the general operating context etc. Until now there has not been any systematic approach on registering these lessons learnt, so it would help in informed decision making and further development. The current document aims at suggesting a methodology for lessons learnt facilitators to support and facilitate discussions in a systematic way and it could lead to collecting the learning as already linked to the PER process.
Methodology: The current guide does not aim at changing the general lessons learnt methodology. The Lessons Learnt Workshop (LLW) is a methodology for the NS and Partners to analyse the relevance, effectiveness, impact, and timeliness of a DREF operation. The LLW is a self-learning and evaluation process for a NS on its response conducted. There is no standardised format for how to conduct the LLW; thus, it is recommended that the workshop makes use of a methodology that the participants are familiar and comfortable with. Therefore, this document supports the overall methodology, but with few suggestions for discussion points that facilitate the possible linkages with longer term approaches, such as the PER process. The annex is listing several of these discussion points categorised per the PER topics. 
Audience: this document is aimed to be used by organisers of the LLW, either IFRC or NS staff. The general idea is to facilitate the linkages between the lessons learnt form response operations and the strengthening of the National Societies Preparedness for Effective Response. So, to ensure that the outcomes of the operation are taken and contribute to longer term programming and informed decision making. 
· The discussion points of the LLW in this guide are structured around the Preparedness for Effective Response (PER) mechanism, therefore NS can utilise the findings from DREF operations as vital information when as part of broader PER processes.
How to link it with the longer-term approach, what is the PER approach?
The Preparedness for Effective Response (PER) is a RCRC approach for effective NS disaster and crisis response preparedness applied through a cyclical process of measuring, analysing and developing a plan of action to improve the NS response mechanism. The PER mechanism[footnoteRef:2] offers a solid structure of 37 components in 5 areas that comprise what needs to be working effectively for a NS to deliver services in an emergency/crisis. The mechanism can be used to guide the discussions during the LLW to meet the below objectives [2: Website https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/what-we-do/disaster-and-crisis-management/disaster-preparedness/national-society/ ] 
Discussion points to achieve the objectives
When carrying out LLWs, organisers can take into account the discussion points mentioned below to ensure that the discussion covers most of the National Society´s response mechanism.
The discussion points have been categorised based on the five areas of the PER mechanism and worded as questions to ease their use. When conducting LLW, organisers can choose from the discussion points that are most relevant, based on the specificity of the response operation. It is important to bear in mind that the more comprehensive (i.e. breadth of areas covered) the discussion is, the more the NS will benefit from this learning experience. Use of the same mechanism in operational reviews has resulted in deeper understanding of operational constraints, and a more systematic process to improve the NS operational timeliness, relevance and effectiveness.
· Policies, Strategies and Standards
· Were the NS roles and responsibilities with public authorities clear for the areas on interventions? Were they linked to the auxiliary role and mandate of the NS?
· Were there any existing Disaster Management policies and strategies that supported/impacted the DREF operation Are most staff aware of the policies and acting in accordance?
· Were there any mechanisms in place to ensure the affected populations are involved in all stages of the response to ensure appropriate assistance that meet their needs (CEA)?
· Were there success or challenges in quality and accountability standards, for e.g. sphere, protection, gender & diversity, environmental sustainability?
· Were there operational challenges related to exemptions entitlements or coordination with national legislation?
· Analysis and Planning
· Was there any pre-existing analysis of context and risk of the affected areas that were available and used to plan an effective response? Was any of this information from the community level?
· Did the NS have existing response and/or contingency plans that outlined the response strategy? Were there any recommendations to develop one based on the operation?
· Did the NS encounter any reputational and or financial risks during the operation? Was there a risk management function and mitigation strategy in place?
· Did the NS have SOPs in place for the delivery of emergency services? Are they known by those involved in the response? Were the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the operation clear?
· How effectively was the EPoA developed (who was involved, timelines, alignment with authorities, etc.)? Did the plan adapt to changing needs/context if needed? Why or why not?
· Was the budget and activities sufficient to meet need? Why or what should have been done differently?
· Operational Capacity
· For every emergency service delivered:
· Were there any challenges or lessons learnt related to the technical difficulties to deliver the service?
· Was the service provided relevant to the affected population?
· Is there an evidence of an impact to a provided service?
· Were the existing NS resources (HR, equipment) sufficient to cover immediate needs?
· Were there any Early Actions taken by the NS for this particular response?
· Was the Emergency Needs Assessment (standardised templates, data collection procedures, assessment of capacities, veracity of the information) efficient? Did it collect specific vulnerability information (sex, age, others) to inform planning?
· Did the NS select/target the affected persons based on the needs and vulnerability criteria defined? Was this cross-checked with other agencies? Was it communicated to the communities?
· Did the NS use an Emergency Response Management tool (Emergency Operations Centre, Incident Command System or others)? If so, was it efficient? Did it support adequate tracking of information, and was it used in decision-making?
· Was the NS able to manage information (collect, analyse and disseminate) for effective use, resulting in appropriate decision-making?
· Did NS encounter any procedural challenges on decision making to engage in a DREF request? If so, what are the recommendations for a better and faster decision-making the next time?
· Were there any challenges related to overall regional and/or international support and IFRC response mechanisms (i.e. Surge, sit reps, bilateral assistance)?
· Coordination
· How effective was coordination with Movement partners, local and national authorities, community responders, external agencies peer NS and others? Specifically: 
· What coordination mechanisms were put in place with the relevant stakeholders? How frequently?
· What value did that coordination have?
· What risks or issues were there?
· Support services
· Did the NS have safety and securityprocedures in place to ensure that staff and volunteers could conduct the response operation? Were there any security incidents and how were they managed? Were staff and volunteers covered by appropriate insurance? 
· Did the NS have systems and procedures in place to monitor and report on the operations progress? Were there any challenges and/or recommendations on operational planning, monitoring and reporting?
· Were special procedures in place to allow for delivery of services in the response; and were staff and volunteers aware and followed appropriately? 
· Were finance and admin procedures for transferring money timely? Was an internal NS funds available for immediate action, that could be reimbursed by DREF? How effective was the overall management of logistics, specifically: supply chain; procurement; fleet and transportation; warehouse and stock? Was pre-positioned stock utilised?
· Were there any challenges related to the communication technologies (Internet, wireless network, mobile phones, radios and others) and overall internal communications during response?
· Was it possible to recruit, train, onboard, supervise, support and retain adequate staff and volunteers to support the operation? Was visibility adequate? What mechanisms were in place to ensure staff/volunteers were clear on their role? Will volunteers be able to be utilised in future responses? Are staff and volunteers reflective of the affected population?
· What external communication was done during the emergency? What key messages were shared with the public? Is there tracking of positive/negative media, and appropriate responses?
· Is there a system to track donations? Is there a criterion of acceptable in-kind donations? Were there additional resources that were able to be mobilised? Was there adequate communication regarding changes in the operation?