Interim Research Report Now Available!

Bryony Norman – Project Coordinator So. Inevitably, things have taken slightly longer than planned! Living and working in Afghanistan helps you to quickly get used to changes and adjustments to your plans and schedules. I have long been talking about a trip to Kandahar, and I am sad to announce that said trip has had to be postponed for a second time. This time, it was not so much security that was an issue, but rather visa restrictions which would make travelling around in Afghanistan, particularly in a region such as Kandahar, a little tricky. I will have to reschedule the trip for early next year, but aim to at least get that one visit in before the close of the project, and of course I’ll be visiting as standard (and as security and logistics permit) in the remainder of my time here with Tearfund in Afghanistan. Likewise, the time taken to review and finalise the Interim Research Report has taken slightly longer than initially hoped and anticipated. A draft of the report was shared with all of the project stakeholders and an opportunity for feedback and comments was provided. I am happy to announce that the final draft of this report is now available (click here). The report aims to provide an overview of the project as a whole, and to highlight the initial outcomes of the research. It identifies the different concerns and issues that are feared or have been experienced with relation to project monitoring for remotely managed projects in insecure locations. As highlighted in my previous blog, a total of 35 individual concerns and issues were raised. Many of these were highlighted by only one or two project stakeholders. Those that were highlighted several times (by a minimum of six individual project stakeholders) became the focus of the research report. Each of the concerns and/or issues are written about in detail, and an indication of the next steps for each is highlighted. As I have made clear in my previous blogs, this research phase is just one of a two-part focus for the project. Alongside finalising the interim research report, I have begun to undertake research and follow-up discussions with individual project stakeholders in order to brainstorm potential good practice in order to address the issues highlighted (particularly the eleven key issues that were raised by six or more project stakeholders). One conclusion that has become more and more apparent through my research is this. Remote management is not an option that humanitarian and development organisations are considering. It is not something new that is yet to be implemented. It is something that is currently in place within many humanitarian and development organisational approaches to programming; and it is on the increase. With an escalation in insecurity in many countries in which humanitarians are responding, remote management has become an increasingly popular response to ensuring programme delivery in insecure areas. People are doing it. This is indisputable. It is likewise indisputable that organisations are going to continue this practice. In the words of one INGO Deputy Country Director, currently implementing a remote management approach in all of the provinces in which they operate in Afghanistan:“Our remote management policy was not designed to be temporary. It is a permanent policy, reflective of the volatile security situation that is experienced in these provinces and which is unlikely to change for the next five years”. The research report that I have now posted on this website highlights the several and critical issues and concerns related to remote management; it is by no means a programmatic approach that is without problems. However, in view that it is increasingly utilised by humanitarian and development organisations as a response to deteriorating security in project locations, it is essential that humanitarians battle with the issues highlighted and develop good practice that can be utilised in order to improve the quality of programming in remotely managed project locations, and the rigour of project monitoring. It is this that is the aim of the next and final stage of this project: the brainstorming of good practice to address the issues already highlighted in relation to project monitoring and beneficiary accountability (and therefore programme quality). As I say, I have been reviewing existing publications as well as existing programme approaches to monitoring and beneficiary accountability. I am also in the process of re-interviewing selected project stakeholders (particularly those that were able to demonstrate existing good practice that can be used to be developed further in response to some of the issues raised by project stakeholders). I will keep you abreast of the good practice that is being discussed and developed. I would of course welcome your views, recommendations, examples of good practice etc. in the mean time. Feel free to post these in response to this blog. I’d love for this blog to become more of an interactive discussion, and so would value your input and feedback (on the content of the interim research report; on comments made in the blog; on plans for the next and final stage of the project etc. etc.). You will also remember, if you are a reader of my previous blogs, that a baseline assessment of Tearfund’s monitoring and beneficiary accountability practices in Kandahar (a remotely managed project location for Tearfund in Afghanistan) was undertaken by an external consultant, Colleen Souness. Colleen’s report is also now available for your review, as well as Tearfund’s management response action plan which is being utilised in order to take forward her recommendations. Having an external assessment undertaken of Tearfund’s approach to monitoring and accountability in Kandahar has proved highly useful. It has reinforced existing thoughts and recommendations held by Tearfund’s own staff, as well as highlighting areas for improvement and better practice that can be taken forward in the coming months. I would thoroughly recommend humanitarians to themselves facilitate the undertaking of such an objective assessment of project monitoring and beneficiary accountability practices, and would be happy to share the terms of reference developed for this with anyone that is interested. Do have a read of the attached documents – they make for an interesting overview of the work that has been completed as part of this project to date. I look forward to taking the project through to completion in the next two months and will be in touch in due course with further updates! Thanks for reading Until next time, Bryony