TRAINING - WORK SHOP IN GAZA AND WEST BANK Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Multi-scenario Planning & Quality Management MISSION REPORT François Grünewald Véronique de Geoffroy 20 – 22 February 2007: Gaza, PNGO-office 26 – 28 February 2007: Ramallah, PMRS-office 2 Thanks and acknowledgments The two training sessions took place in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank in an internal calm, after a difficult period. The Mecca Agreement (signed between Fatah and Hamas on 8 February 2007) ended months of internal Palestinian fighting (escalated in January 2007 during the first mission) en led during the end of February 2007 to intense and complex negotiations between the different Palestinian political parties. In the mean while, also during our mission the Israeli army intensified its military incursions, again bringing more suffering in different parts of the West Bank, especially in the city of Nablus. Despite all these difficulties and challenges, some of them affecting the families and colleagues of the training participants, the two sessions went on very well. The two hosting institutions (PNGO in Gaza and PMRS in Ramallah) did their utmost to ensure that every thing could go smoothly. They should find here all our gratitude. We wish to thank again all the participating Oxfam-partners. Our gratitude goes especially out to the participating staff in the training-workshop. The importance of their interventions during the training-workshop contributed to its success and lessons learnt for future work to be done.1 In the Gaza Strip: Ma’an, PARC, UAWC, PHG, PNGO, PMRS and UHWC In the West Bank: PARC, UAWC, PMRS, PHG and UHWC The logistical support by Evelyn and Nour were greatly effective. Both should find here expression of our thanks. The full involvement of the OXFAM family (OQ, ON, OGB and OSB), with not only the country staff but also the presence of humanitarian staff from HQ (especially from OXFAM Novib and OXFAM Solidarity Belgium), showed that the themes covered by the training - workshop and the whole process of strengthening the capacities of their Palestinian partners is not taken lightly by the OXFAM family. It made the training even more rewarding for the trainers. 1 In Annex 2 you can find a list of all participants (for Gaza and West Bank) and their contact details. 3 Table of acronyms CBO CPA ECHO PMRS PARC UHWC HWC ICRC IFAD IHL IT LRRD NGO oPT PA PHG PNGO PRCS PWA TIM UAWC UNWRA UNGA WB WFP WHO Ma’an Community Based Organisations Conflict and Peace Analysis General Directorate of Humanitarian Aid, European Commission Palestinian Medical Relief Society Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees Union of Health Work Committees (Gaza Strip) Health Work Committees (West Bank) International Committee of the Red Cross International Fund for Agricultural Development International Humanitarian Law Information Technology Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development Non Governmental Organisation occupied Palestinian Territories Palestinian Authority Palestinian Hydrology Group Palestinian NGO Network Palestinian Red Crescent Society Palestinian Water Authority Temporary International Mechanism Union of Agricultural Work Committees United Nations Works and Relief Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East UN General Assembly World Bank World Food Programme World Health Organisation Ma’an Development Center 4 Table of content Thanks and acknowledgments___________________________________________________________________ 2 Table of content ______________________________________________________________________________ 4 1. 2. INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________ 5 THE TRAINING SESSIONS __________________________________________________ 6 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Gaza (20-22 February 2007)_____________________________________________________ 6 Ramallah (26-28 February 2007)_________________________________________________ 7 The training themes ___________________________________________________________ 8 2.3.1. Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD); _______________________________________ 8 2.3.2. Multi-scenario planning __________________________________________________________________ 9 2.3.3. Quality management for humanitarian assistance _____________________________________________ 10 2.4. 2.5. The training material _________________________________________________________ 11 Issues arising from the debates _________________________________________________ 11 3. 4. EVALUATION OF THE TRAINING SESSIONS ________________________________ 12 RECOMMENDATIONS_____________________________________________________ 15 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. Practical recommendations to improve the training itself _____________________________________ 15 Longer term recommendations and perspectives ____________________________________________ 15 Next steps __________________________________________________________________________ 16 Annex N°1 : Synopsis of the training sessions ____________________________________________ 17 ANNEX N°2: Participants attendance list: ________________________________________ 21 ANNEX N°3: Short presentation of the subjects covered _______________________________ 23 5 1. INTRODUCTION The two training sessions presented in this report are the result of a long process which was initiated in spring 2006 when a team of Groupe URD was carrying out an evaluation in Israel/Palestinian Occupied Territories, and met staff from OXFAM Solidarity Belgium and OXFAM Novib. Objective of the mission (extract from the ToR) Oxfam aims with the LRRD-project to analyze gaps in capacity of Oxfam and local partners in oPT to operate in a context of a complex emergency. We are looking for better ways to built future capacities: integrating long-term vulnerabilities in emergency programs and address immediate needs (short-term) in development programs. In Oxfam’s and its partners programme in oPT, linking up relief, rehabilitation and development in a comprehensive way is a challenge we want to take up. The thematic for the training slowly evolved from a strict focus on LRRD to a more encompassing approach to the tools and process that help to plan and deliver quality operations in a context as turbulent and unpredictable as in the oPT. Training objectives: ensure that participants access tools and methods that help them to: Work better in the difficult and turbulent environment in the oPT; Are better able to ensure quality of their programmes in this environment; Are better equipped to defend their programmes and projects in front of international partners and donors. The mission during which the training sessions were organised was preceded by a first visit to the oPT (Gaza and West Bank) in January 2007 in order to get a more up-to-date comprehension of the situation and of the challenges confronting the National NGOs (Oxfam-partners). The evolution of the training content presented above was confirmed during this early mission (see the specific mission report). The TOR of the whole exercise were attached in the annex of the first mission report. 6 2. THE TRAINING SESSIONS 2.1. Participants: Palestinian NGO network (PNGO) Union of Health Work Committees (UHWC) Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (PMRS) Ma’an Development Center OXFAM GB OXFAM Novib OXFAM Québec OXFAM Solidarity Belgium Gaza (20-22 February 2007) The training session was organised in the large conference room of PNGO who ensured smoothly the logistics of the session. The trainees had also access to two smaller rooms for the break-away group exercises. The training was organised around an alternation of “lecture type” presentations, break away groups, plenary session debates. We had to modify the original schedule to take into account the needs of women participants who had to take care of their children in the complex situation prevailing in Gaza. The training was reorganised in a non-stop program (from 8.30 to 14.30, with two breaks) and the lunch at 14h30. The number of participants (up to 27) was high and they were coming from 7 different Palestinian partners of the OXFAM family, covering mainly three sectors (primary health care, food security and wat/san). During the training session, the political situation remained quite as people were both waiting for the news on Prime Minister Haniya’s consultation meetings with the different political parties on the creation of a National Unity Government. The security situation was relatively relaxed and definitely less tense than during the January mission. 7 2.2. Ramallah (26-28 February 2007) Participants: Health Worker Committees (HWC) Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (PMRS) OXFAM GB OXFAM Novib OXFAM Québec OXFAM Solidarity Belgium In Ramallah, the training session was organised in the large conference room of Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS), one of the OXFAM partner. This large room could shelter two small groups during the break-away group exercises, while the last group could work in the large hall in the location of the “cafeteria” of PMRS. PMRS staff also provided very efficiently the required logistical support to the sessions. Some of the lessons learnt from the Gaza session were immediately injected in the Ramallah session. During the session, the deterioration of the situation in Nablus was very much in the mind of the trainees, as some of them were from Nablus or had their relatives or colleagues over there. Military operations in the West Bank had multiplied over the last few days and raised a lot of concerns. The number of trainees was a bit smaller and thus more manageable. 8 2.3. The training themes The training was build up on three themes which appeared extremely relevant to the complicated and fast changing situation prevailing in Palestine. To do that • LRRD in its various forms • Multi-scenario and contingency planning • Introduction to quality assurance At the beginning of each of the training sessions, a short moment was allocated to record the expectations of the participants. They are presented below, as they emerged during the sessions: Participant’s expectations: Better understanding of terminology, history of LRRD concept How to deal with situation between emergency/rehabilitation/development Transition period: how to manage and to overcome constraints How to avoid that emergency makes it impossible to think development - or reverse Steps from emergency to development How to sustain development issues in such context - identify tools Collection of data to support planning Alternative planning, Linking Emergency & dev in planning/design Triggers of change: How to get out of the chronic circle M&E as tools to support planning, Needs assessment/ ‘rolling assessment’ Managing quality in turbulence and uncertainty Multi-sector coordination and learning processes How do we go for success in turbulence? Feed back on evaluation of the quality Gender issue in quality 2.3.1. Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD); The debate on linking relief, rehabilitation and development is now a relatively old one, from the continuum theory to the contiguum approach partly aimed at easing the approach with the donors. The links between emergency and development also has its reverse side: Linking development and relief: this covers all the disaster preparedness activities aiming at improving the response to the next crisis. But this LRRD-debate takes very specific aspects in the context of the oPT. Indeed, after the difficult period of the First Intifada, the Oslo Agreement brought about some hopes, although many already then believed that by not addressing the core issues (right of return, East-Jerusalem, water, borders and settlements), it was bound to fail. However Oslo was seen as the chance to switch from a relief-based system to the development agenda. 9 From Oslo to the beginning of the Second Intifada, the Palestinian Authorities had some of the attribute of a State in the building, and many projects and programmes aiming at accompanying the Palestinians towards development were undertaken. The Second Intifada, as an outcome of cumulating Palestinian frustrations, resulted into a new wave of dramatic degradations of both the political situation and humanitarian conditions. The Israeli construction of the Wall and the intensified Israeli occupation regime ended up disturbing trade and economy, further depriving the Palestinian of access to their land, water, crops and their access to basic services. Three set of issues were at stake for the daily life: - the attempt to keep at least a basis economy functioning; - the needs to keep access to essential services, despite the Wall, the disruption of the freedom of movements and other impacts of the Israeli control system; - and the imperative to deal with the many emergencies resulting from Israeli military interventions and the need for developing and maintaining a capacity to deal with them (Disaster Preparedness) In dealing with all these issues, the dialogue between the trainees and the trainers and between the trainees themselves brought about a series of crucial points: - Humanitarian principles versus Solidarity - Free assistance versus programmes requiring a participation (in cash or in kind) from the population - Time perspective - Type of engagement with the affected populations - Targeting individuals or targeting groups - Universal standards or contextual references for the response - Sector specific or area based multi-sector approaches The key concept linking in an operational manner emergency, rehabilitation, development and disaster preparedness is the concept of resilience, or the capacity to resist and absorb shocks. Experience shows that strengthening resilience at different levels could be not only a process to be more able to deal with reversible situations of transition, but also a way to get out of a sterile debate about “what is emergency and what is development”, especially in a context such as Palestine. The programmatic strategy should thus to build on: • Resilient institutions (able to adjust with changing donor policies) • Resilient civil societies (able to keep their strong internal values and cohesion) • Resilient projects(able to continue to function despite closure) • Resilient communities (able to continue to keep their strength and social cohesiveness) • Resilient families (able to survive despite difficulties) • Resilient individuals (able to cope with dramas and daily difficulties) 2.3.2. Multi-scenario planning Multi-scenario planning was first borne in the big business and among large companies which, confronted with a very complex and unpredictable environment, had to find a way to orient their strategies at both the corporate and the operational levels. As much as Schell or Total, agencies working in complex and turbulent situations need planning/programming tools appropriate to working in these contexts. In the oPT, International and National NGOs (and probably UN, Red Cross and donors as well) are very much in this situation where both long term perspective (pro-activity) and short term reactivity are required. 10 Multi-scenario planning is one of the tools that has been develop for this endeavour. It can be used at the institutional long term strategic planning as well as in more restricted scale at the project level. Although multi-scenario planning is not a crystal ball or does not provide a miracle recipe and might at time even create a bit of confusion, it is a very useful tool for exploring the unpredictable. In addition, engaging in this exercise has specific impact on institutions: – It enables to be more comprehensive in risk assessment; – It supports the building of a creative of team spirit; – It increases levels of alertness, proactive political astuteness, readiness and reactivity. 2.3.3. Quality management for humanitarian assistance The Quality COMPAS is the first quality assurance method specifically designed for the quality management of humanitarian projects. The main innovation proposed by the Quality COMPAS is a shift from quality control (e.g. post evaluation and verification of compliance to standards) to quality assurance (prevention by the management of critical points during the project cycle). It is built around a unique comprehensive quality reference system, called the COMPAS Rose. Affected populations and their environment are at the heart of this quality reference system. It is composed of twelve criteria that define the quality of a humanitarian project, which take into account and go beyond the OECD/DAC criteria2. For example, it includes notions such as ‘the project respects the population’, ‘the project is flexible’, ‘the organisation uses lessons learnt from experience’, etc. The continuous improvement of Quality and the concept of ‘quality by the question’, which are principles on which the Quality COMPAS is based, seems to be relevant for the humanitarian sector. This means that there is a need to contextualise each humanitarian project regarding the specific characteristics of the population, their needs and their capacities, the institutional mandate, etc. What might be good somewhere here might be ineffective, if not dangerous, somewhere else. Annex 3 presents key information pertaining to the Quality COMPAS and the Dynamic COMPAS. 2 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Cooperation Directorate. www.oecd.org/dac See other quality and accountability initiatives for the humanitarian sector at http://www.alnap.org/quality.html 11 2.4. The training material Different materials were handed out to the participants comprising: A virtual library on the diverse aspects of the LRRD concept (academic research on the subject, planning tools, disaster preparedness and prevention, specific documents related to LRRD in health, food security, education, wat/san, etc.); The power point presentations used for the training as well as most of the pictures taken during the sessions, were also included in this CD; A full Quality COMPAS set comprising the COMPAS Operational Manual with its CDRom, the COMPAS Board; On a more selective basis, the Dynamic COMPAS tutorial and the Dynamic COMPAS software. - At the end of the sessions, the participants received a certificate of attendance. 2.5. Issues arising from the debates This training session was quite participative and thus enables people to exchange and debate on the topics at stake, speaking about their own experiences and their current practice. Here are the main issues arising from the debate: First of all, complexity appears as the main characteristic of the Palestinian context and one of the biggest challenges for humanitarian/development programming. The ‘one size fits all’ approach doesn’t work: context specificities such as uncertainty and local constraints must be taken into account. In such situation of long term ongoing occupation, where access to and control of resources is the main constraint, is it possible to really do “development”? This is where the concept of resilience can revitalise the LRRD debate. Supporting individuals, families, communities, NGOs, etc. to better cope with shocks can represent a meeting point for different approaches from relief to development and the concept of resilience can help to overcome conceptual divides between relief and development work. One difficulty still remaining in the LRRD debate and very vivid in this context of the oPT is how to combine field presence and field programmes responding to needs on the one hand, and political lobby addressing the root causes of these needs on the other one, and at the same time, respecting humanitarian principles. While nobody doubts the importance of the principles of humanity and impartiality, much more contentious is the whole debate around the principle of neutrality. The two first ones are related to the moral issues related to “assisting those who suffer according to their needs. Neutrality would imply not taking side and, ideally, not moving into the political debate where one has to position itself in front of a drama. How to deal with this principle, how to demonstrate “solidarity” and “engagement”? In such debate, reference to International Law and more specifically to International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Convention) can help to advocate without being accused of partiality/political engagement and thus, of non respecting humanitarian principles. 12 The role of the donors and of their formatted budget lines came regularly up during the discussions; to better deal with uncertainty, we need to be more flexible - and donors too-, to put in place LRRD concept, we have to change our mind and ways of working - but donors too! At the end of the day, the challenge of working towards quality for the Palestinian people should be a question of shared responsibility between donors and actors; The exercise of multi-scenario planning is not an easy one. People in most instances have difficulty to shift from traditional mono-scenario planning to multi-scenario planning within a framework of strategic planning. It underlines the key role of context analysis and context specific multi-scenario planning to complement “mission and vision based” strategic planning. In such exercise, the team dynamic among the participants is crucial. At the end of the training session, the Quality COMPAS presentation was well appreciated. This method includes both LRRD concept and multi-scenario planning and put them together in a quality method that aims to help field teams to work in difficult, uncertain and turbulent environment; taking into account all the thoughts coming from LRRD (to avoid or prevent negative impact, including dependency: preparing future development through economical viability: etc.) and pushing toward more flexibility through anticipation and preparedness. 3. EVALUATION OF THE TRAINING SESSIONS To underline the coherence between the tools presented during the training and the routine practice of Groupe URD, the Quality COMPAS rose has been utilised as the evaluation reference system for the training sessions. A COMPAS Rose was distributed to all participants in each session, with each axes being graduated from 0 to 6. The following diagram and table show the statistical treatment of the evaluative judgments of all the participants. Ramallah Gaza D: the training aims for positive impact beyond the session itself 6,0 I: the training organization has the necessary E: the training is consistent with the agency's resource and expertise mandate and principles 5,0 4,0 J: the training organization has the appropriate management capacities 3,0 2,0 1,0 B: the training session achieves its objectives 0,0 F: the training respects the trainees A: the training responds to demonstrated needs K: the training team makes optimal use of resources G: the training is flexible L: the trainers uses lessons drawn from experience H: the training is integrated in an optimal manner in its institutional environment C: the training removes or reduces the risk of negative impacts From 6: highest degree of satisfaction To 1: Lowest degree of satisfaction 13 RAMALLAH 5,2 4,8 5,0 5,3 5,2 5,8 4,9 4,9 5,6 5,1 4,8 5,3 GAZA 5,2 4,8 4,9 5,4 5,7 5,8 5,5 5,0 5,7 5,2 5,6 5,1 A B C D E F G H I J K L 5,1 A B C D E F G H I J K L 5,3 A&B: training topics are relevant but the training session should be longer to really achieve the expected outputs/objectives! The effectiveness of the training session suffered from the lack of time (rating B: 4,8) to cover properly all the interesting and relevant topics (rating A: 5,2). Here are some of the comments made by the participants: It was useful, thank you again- The training course exceeded my expectations. Thank you very much! I believe my organization and I will benefit enormously from the tools provided. Referring to the response to participants’ needs: on day 1 we were asked about our needs and expectations. On day 3, we compared the achieved expectations. Politics is one of the important issues in LRRD, not included…Topics are big, need more time - Need to allow more time - The time is insufficient for this course, we need more time - The time for the course mainly the quality management was short and it needs longer time - The training length is short comparing to the training topics - More sessions are needed in the future to know more about the tool - Time of course is limited - Needs more time in order to go more on specific issues - I believe that the Quality issue training needs more time for going in more details - To achieve the objectives of the training… Compass needs time!!! It’s a complex tool- The training was very interesting, makes the group think about different and crucial issues related to development and relief and emergency situation - Thank you: the provision of new tools will be very useful and helpful. - I think it was very useful for me to help me in proposal writing, and expend my thoughts. - The subject was very necessary, thanks for OXFAM and URD! C&D: There should be positive impacts in longer term if…People use lessons learned from this training and/or if further training is provided. A follow up is scheduled to take place in April/May with Bettina and Evelyn. Comments from the participants Referring the longer term impact of this training session, we need more time to judge. We suggest to organize another session for 2, 3 days on this issue as it is important. I think this training needs more time for practice, but having the material and the CD, one can apply it to the organization’s context. - There should be a second phase training and a follow up. - Referring to the impact of the training session: depending on the follow up and/or institutionalization of the new tools. But still, a lot of inspiration and learning points. - Referring to the removal of potential negative impact: in principle yes but it should emphasize practice. We need more time and more training after ‘digestion’.- Would like a second phase training focused on the use of the Compass.- In the future, could be possible to organize training of trainers - but this would be in a longer term. 14 E, F, G & H: an highly respectful training (5,8/6), improvement can be made in terms of integration with others actors/initiatives… Most of the time, comments were positive. Some ways for improvements were also clearly underlined. We will have to link with other training, such as Sphere and Code of Conduct. - We might involve others actors, to take their points of view. - In OXFAM, we are trying to work on LRRD and searching tools such as Quality COMPAS, linking it with Sphere and Code of Conduct. - Referring the integration in the institutional context: we should have conceived more time for follow up, but phase 1 was a good step toward that. Referring to practise during the 3 days: I feel that after each presentation, we missed a comment or a view from the tutor team. Personally, I think they should make some comments or advice on the work done by the groups. Referring to the integration in the institutional context: Good to refer explicitly to ECHO and Logframe. Would be nice to include also reference to Code of Conduct + Sphere for ‘humanitarian actors’. I, J, K & L: An appreciated use of experiences coming from all over the world… and an high rating of trainers’ expertise (I: 5,7/6) The trainers have a wide experience all over the world- the cases studies are coming from daily work - Referring to the use of lessons drawn from experience: from worldwide! Good but would have been good to use even more experiences/examples from the first mission, maybe also on existing approaches to quality in crisis situation. - There were new and modern ways to present the training. - It was nice to hear stories from different parts of the world. - Referring to the use of lessons drawn from experience: thus giving a possibility of thinking beyond our own context. Specific comments for Gaza training session: About the training hall: You should pay attention on how the participants have to sit straightforward to the tutors. I am afraid that the way we set makes us less concentrate and loses attention somehow. 27 participants, maximum size, may be too many people! The room was not suitable; we should change for next training. As part of the discussions, during the feed back sessions between the OXFAMs and the trainers some very relevant points were also raised. - Language constrains (nor trainers nor trainees were native speaking English) - We missed in the LRRD the role of the State - The observed resistance of groups to enter into the multi-scenario planning as an indication of the reluctance to deal with the unknown and to accept the lack of control over the future - The issue of the compatibility of the COMPAS with other OXFAM accepted tools such as SPHERE - There is a big demand for an Arabic version of the COMPAS Board 15 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1. Practical recommendations to improve the training itself Some of the recommendations address mainly logistical issues while others are more contentoriented. . Location: Some participants would like to see the training taking place outside their “besieged territory” while others, specially women, indicated that a choice outside the areas where they can take care of their children would immediately exclude them from attending the training. It is probable that the choice of remaining in the area is to be maintained for the next steps, if any. Accommodations: Excellent in Ramallah, less appropriate in Gaza, especially for large groups. The choice is either to run the training sessions with smaller groups, or to find another site (this is by no way a criticism of our host in Gaza, PNGO, which went its utmost to ensure the best conditions. It is just related to the size and shape of their meeting room…). Make the training less lecture and more active: Although each half day was a mix of plenary and break away sessions, the training sessions were perceived as “too static”, too much of a “conference format”. The training team will have to rethink the process in order to overcome this perception. 4.2. Longer term recommendations and perspectives There is a sizeable demand for more training in these subjects, especially in quality assurance and quality management. From the discussions with the partner-NGOs during and at the end of the trainings, and during the debriefing with the OXFAM teams, a few options have been explored, among others, to see what could be the different options: Minimal option targeting the individual level: - Additional training session specifically for NGO and staff who want to be able to use the Quality COMPAS on their own at the project level. (5 days/sessions) + - Conferences for the larger humanitarian audience + - Participation to a community of practitioners Intermediate option targeting the project level: - Minimal option + - Training of Trainers + - Pilot use of Quality COMPAS in one project to learn lessons from this experience and share them more broadly (= additional training session + coaching + communication); More developed option targeting the institutional level - Intermediate option + - Specific coaching for agencies wishing to go some step further and include quality assurance at the project and, potentially, at the institutional level + - A hot line for a certain period to guide and support. 16 4.3. Next steps The process agreed upon to prepare and organise the next phases is the following: During the next couple of weeks, the partner-NGOs and the OXFAMs will have time to digest all the information they received during the training sessions. Some of them are already trying to see how to use it in their day-to-day work; In May, a joint mission of OXFAM Solidarity-Belgium and OXFAM Novib will extract the key lessons learnt from this initial period; During this period, Groupe URD will respond to any questions from OXFAM and their partners and will supply addition material if required. Then, OXFAMs and Groupe URD will re-discuss what could be the next appropriate steps to take. - Annex N°1 : Synopsis of the training sessions Gaza training session Sessions Day 1 9.30-10.30 Objectives For everybody to know everybody Acquire an understanding of the objectives and processes of the training session First rapid theoretical coverage of the issues tackled Activity Welcome, tour de table Presentation of Groupe URD Review of the agenda of the training session Coffee/tea break Introduction to the topics - brain storming (RRD) - clarification of terminology - identification of issues and challenges - debate Lunch break Break away group exercise - LRRD in Health - LRRD in wat/san - LRRD in economic security Remarks 10.30-10.45 10.45-13.00 30 mn 30 mn 40 mn 35 mn Output of the group exercises: - Extract the 3 main difficulties in the LRRD (both ways) - Identify 3 existing innovative solutions you have heard of Exercise: 50 mn Plenary debriefing : 30 Conclusion: 40 mn Continuum, contiguum, DPP, etc. Break away group 13.00-14.00 14.00-16.00 Getting deeper into the LRRD issues in the Palestinian context More in-depth theoretical presentation of LRRD issues and their relevance to the Palestinian context and debates Day 2 8.30-10.00 10.00-10.15 10.15-12.00 To acquire tools for planning in turbulent situations To be ready to defend flexibility in front of donors Coffee/tea break To see it practically Introduction to multi-scenario planning First part to the practical exercises: identifying drivers and “drivers surface” Debriefing Second step exercise - identification of scenario - planning for different options (main plan, contingency plans) Plenary Break away group Plenary 18 12.00-12.30 12.30-14.30 Debriefing of exercise Lunch break Introduction to quality in humanitarian action Why? + A little bit of history Group exercise: how would the “ideal project’ looks like? Definition of Quality in general and Presentation of the quality reference system of the Quality COMPAS Day 3 8.30-10.00 For people to understand the concepts and the opportunities offered by the COMPAS: a tool for planning and managing projects in turbulence: Practical session to become acquainted with the COMPAS What to do with Quality definition? Description of Quality COMPAS: How to measure Quality? How to assure Quality? Get inside the Quality COMPAS : Detailed Presentation with focus on: - LRRD, - Scenario planning - Flexibility - Quality assurance Find you own way through it : practice in break away group Exercise: Introduction to quality for humanitarian action Intro : 15 mn Slide fromTutorial Exercise : 30 mn Debriefing: 30 mn Slide 1-4 Power Point Quality 30 mn 90 mn 10.00-10.15 10.15-11.30 11.30-12.00 12.00-14.30 15.00-16.00 Coffee/tea break Become acquainted with the COMPAS For people to access tools which facilitate the creation of quality oriented institutional memory. Lunch break 60 mn 45 mn 30 mn Learning from participants how they perceived the sessions and what are the strong and weak points. This evaluation segment should also help to identify possible course of events from there onwards Debriefing Knowledge management to support quality : the Dynamic COMPAS Participatory evaluation of the training session Using the Quality COMPAS 120 mn 19 Ramallah training session: Sessions Day 1 9.00-9.30 Objectives For everybody to know everybody Acquire an understanding of the objectives and processes of the training session Inventory of issues and perceptions Activity Welcome, tour de table Presentation of Groupe URD Review of the agenda of the training session Introduction to the topics - brain storming (RRD) - Clarifications Coffee/tea break - clarification of terminology - identification of issues and challenges - debate - Introduction to the group exercise Lunch break Break away group exercise - LRRD in Health - LRRD in wat/san - LRRD in economic security More in-depth theoretical presentation of LRRD issues and their relevance to the Palestinian context and debates Introduction to multi-scenario planning First part to the practical exercises Debriefing Remarks 9.30-10.30 10.30-10.45 10.45-12.30 First rapid theoretical coverage of the issues tackled 30 mn 30 mn 40 mn 10 mn Output of the group exercises: Exercise: 50 mn Plenary debriefing : 30 Conclusion: 40 mn. 12.30-14.00 14.00-16.00 Getting deeper into the LRRD issues in the Palestinian context Day 2 9.00-10.30 10.30-10.45 10.45-12.30 To acquire tools for planning in turbulent situations To be ready to defend flexibility in front of donors Coffee/tea break To see it practically Break away group Plenary 12.30-13.30 13.30-16.00 Introduction to quality for humanitarian action Second step exercise - identification of scenario - planning for different options (main plan, contingency plans) Debriefing of exercise Lunch break Introduction to quality in humanitarian action Why? + A little bit of history Break away group Plenary Intro : 15 mn Slide fromTutorial 20 Group exercise: how would the “ideal project’ looks like? Definition of Quality in general Presentation of the quality reference system of the Quality COMPAS Day 3 9.00-10.30 For people to understand the concepts and the opportunities offered by the COMPAS: a tool for planning and managing projects in turbulence: Practical session to become acquainted with the COMPAS Coffee/tea break Become acquainted with the COMPAS For people to access tools which facilitate the creation of quality oriented institutional memory. Lunch break Knowledge management to support quality : the Dynamic COMPAS Learning from participants how they perceived the sessions and what are the strong and weak points. This evaluation segment should also help to identify possible course of events from there onwards Participatory evaluation of the training session Using the Quality COMPAS 120 mn Exercise : 30 mn Debriefing: 30 mn Slide 1-4 Power Point Quality 30 mn What to do with Quality definition? Description of Quality 90 mn COMPAS: How to measure Quality? How to assure Quality? Get inside the Quality COMPAS : Detailed Presentation 10.30-10.45 10.45-12.30 Find you own way through it : practice in break away group 60 mn 45 mn 30 mn 12.30-13.30 13.30-15.30 15.30-16.30 ANNEX N°2: Participants attendance list: Gaza: Name Bettina Huber Usama Mukhallalati Afaf Abu Ghali Mervat Hussona May Abed Abu Mughiseeb Bassam Zaqout Jamal Al-Hawajri Jehan Al-Aklouk Elisabeth Anctil Sheila Narrainen Aed Yaghi Amjad Shawa Evelyn Lernout Elena Qleibo Nahed Abu Daya Basheer AlAnkah Fadi Al-Hindi Organization Oxfam Novib PARC PARC PARC PMRS PMRS UHWC UHWC Oxfam Québec Oxfam Québec, based ICPH PMRS PNGO Oxfam Solidarity Belgium Oxfam GB PHG UAWC Ma’an Development Center Oxfam GB PHG UAWC URD URD Phone 0546-50.83.62 0599-48.18.44 0599-68.83.55 08-280.50.40 08-283.59.90 08-283.59.90 08-282.42.72 08-282.42.72 02-656.89.32 02-656.89.32 08-283.59.90/1 08-284.75.18 0547-39.57.03 0599-76.44.76 08-288.66.86 0599-18.33.24 0599-22.23.52 e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Yasser Nassar Bashar Ashour Mohammad El Bakri Véronique de Geoffroy François Grünewald 0599-58.72.10 0599-58.72.10 0599-86.09.84 0033-47528.29.35 0033-47528.29.35 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 22 Ramallah: Name Ahmad Allan Sami Dawoud Mohammad Iskafi Sameh Jarallah Tala Dawani Aida Ayesh Daniel Diaz Walid Qawasmi Mohammad Sawafta Iskandar Majlaton Wafa Abu Zaid Ashraf Taha Sophie Englebienne Tilleke Kiewied Rahmeh Mansour Kamal Zeineh Wajeeh Al-Halaiqh Evelyn Lernout Mai Mani Elisabeth Anctil Véronique de Geoffroy François Grünewald Organization PHG PHG PMRS PMRS UAWC PMRS Oxfam Québec, based at YWCA Oxfam GB Oxfam GB Oxfam GB PARC PARC Oxfam Solidarity Belgium Oxfam Novib Oxfam Québec, based at Bisan HWC UAWC Oxfam Solidarity Belgium HWC Oxfam Québec URD URD Phone 09/237.40.57 05126.96.36.199 02-296.99.70 02-296.99.70 02-298.03.16 02-298.99.88 02-298.44.44 02-656.62.34 02-656.62.35 02-656.62.34 02-296.38.40 02-295.26.50 0032-2501.67.30 0031-7034.21.959 0599-37.89.13 02-240.75.18/9 02-222.74.47 0547-39.57.03 0599-39.56.35 02-656.89.32 0033-47528.29.35 0033-47528.29.35 e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com l firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com 23 ANNEX N°3: Short presentation of the subjects covered Multi-scenario planning Multi-scenario planning is a tool which has been elaborated and developed by large companies involved in high fluctuant sectors such as oil extraction and trade. It starts from on assumption: in a growingly instable and unpredictable world we better be ready on time and thus be able to adjust quickly to changes. It is based on a multi-phases exercise: Detailed situation analysis in order to identify “stakeholders, drivers/motivations” and their inter-relations; Scenario elaboration: (best case scenario, worse case scenario, unexpected scenario, etc.). The key question here is “what if ….?” Identification of sentinel indicators to indicate in which scenario one is, and when it might move from one to the other if situation changes; Identification of the course of events in each case. Then, a debate could take place of which one is the most likely, which one is the less likely and what are the intermediate situations. The ideas is that by going through this exercise completely, one would be more abreast with the situations and their likely and less likely evolutions and more able to adjust. Indeed, the reality is often none of the predicted scenarios, but a mix or a totally different one. The very fact that the multi-scenario planning exercise has taken place before ahead is often inducing a much better and quicker reflexion on how to deal with the changes. But the results of this exercise can also be share proactively with donors so that they would know in advance how we appraise a situation, its possible evolutions, and what we should or want to do in these different cases. 24 Quality assurance with the Quality COMPAS: The COMPAS Method is a Quality Assurance method designed specifically for humanitarian aid. It can be used for two purposes – project management and project evaluation – and its overall objective is to continuously improve the quality of services provided to crisis-affected populations. Adopting a quality assurance approach for project management and project evaluation also aims to strengthen NGO credibility and build public confidence, in the eyes of beneficiaries, institutional donors and the general public alike. It is not enough for NGOs simply to declare that they are “responsible” and “accountable”: they must prove it. The Quality COMPAS helps NGOs to lay the foundations for public confidence, by consolidating institutional responsibility and accountability. The Quality COMPAS’s quality reference framework is the Compass Rose (presented below). This allows us to produce in-depth evaluations, based on a systemic approach which focuses on programme results and programme cycle management. Possible risks and problems can therefore be identified and preventative action taken. The compass rose, composed of twelve criteria that define the quality of a humanitarian project, is centred on crisis-affected populations and their context. At the four cardinal points, impact and results criteria focus on affected populations and their environment. To meet these four criteria, there are eight structure and process criteria, which focus on the project and the aid agency. NB: The DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, accountability, sustainability) are part of the Quality Compas. 25 THE DYNAMIC COMPAS The Dynamic COMPAS is a software based on the Quality COMPAS which will make operational and user-friendly the Quality COMPAS method. It will have 2 level of use: the project one and the institutional one. 1. 1st level of use: project level The use of the Dynamic COMPAS allows the creation, in real time, of project memory Step by step, it will make possible the recording of key elements of the project. User Save the answer of the key-question - this will support Quality management and traceability - attach files - N.B. some question may be not relevant. There is mo obligation to respond to all the key questions! Flexibility in the use of the tool… User Save the decision regarding project strategy e.g. project objective, targeted needs, etc. (and all the other decision of the column A…you remember?) degree of involvement of the population, planned process for improving the project - record information collected during project implementation, e.g. Monitoring n°1, follow up of activities… This will enables the monitoring of project quality, comparing intervention logic with observed reality during the implementation of the project, using the quality indicators related to the 12 quality criteria… Finally, this will support the reporting, given that all the information needed will be at the disposal of the user when doing the report. To this end, a functionality of extracting information from the project memory, such as the COMPAS Board, will be available. It will be possible to extract and print information on excel sheet or word document. 2. 2nd level of use: institutional level The various users of the Dynamic COMPAS allow the creation of institutional memory. User will copy the project information in the central database; Step by step, project after project, the various project memory will build an institutional memory in a database. This will support better communication between field and Head Quarters. This institutional memory will enables users to consult information recorded by others before taking a decision. SO, TO SUMMARIZE This software will allow the creation step by step of project and institutional memories. This will support Quality management at project level and institutional level; This will make monitoring easier and allow better reporting This will constitute a basis for learning lessons and evaluation.