union’s humanitarian · 2019-12-23 · complicated by an absence of development actors and...
TRANSCRIPT
Landell Mills International December 2019
Evaluation of the European
Unionrsquos humanitarian
assistance in the Central
Africa region including
humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Part A ndash Central Africa Region
Executive Summary
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa
region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
Directorate E ndash General Affairs
Unit E2 ndash Programming Control and Reporting
Contact echo-evaleceuropaeu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region
including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation of the European
Unionrsquos humanitarian
assistance in the Central
Africa region including
humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Part A ndash Central Africa Region
Executive Summary
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
5
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019
ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5
DOI 102795986777
copy European Union 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number ()
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone
boxes or hotels may charge you)
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa
region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
Directorate E ndash General Affairs
Unit E2 ndash Programming Control and Reporting
Contact echo-evaleceuropaeu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region
including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation of the European
Unionrsquos humanitarian
assistance in the Central
Africa region including
humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Part A ndash Central Africa Region
Executive Summary
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
5
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019
ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5
DOI 102795986777
copy European Union 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number ()
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone
boxes or hotels may charge you)
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa
region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
Directorate E ndash General Affairs
Unit E2 ndash Programming Control and Reporting
Contact echo-evaleceuropaeu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region
including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation of the European
Unionrsquos humanitarian
assistance in the Central
Africa region including
humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Part A ndash Central Africa Region
Executive Summary
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
5
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019
ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5
DOI 102795986777
copy European Union 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number ()
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone
boxes or hotels may charge you)
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central Africa region
including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation of the European
Unionrsquos humanitarian
assistance in the Central
Africa region including
humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
Part A ndash Central Africa Region
Executive Summary
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
5
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019
ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5
DOI 102795986777
copy European Union 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number ()
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone
boxes or hotels may charge you)
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
5
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the
authors and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (httpwwweuropaeu)
Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union 2019
ISBN 978-92-76-13245-5
DOI 102795986777
copy European Union 2019
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number ()
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
() The information given is free as are most calls (though some operators phone
boxes or hotels may charge you)
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
6
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in the Central
Africa region including humanitarian coordination 2014-2018
Evaluation Team Andrew Lawday (Team Leader) Glyn Taylor (Humanitarian Coordination
Review) Sharon Truelove Julian Murray Herma Majoor Patrick Reymond Simon Hale
with support from Imogen Mullett (Project Manager) Jacob Lindenbauer (Junior Expert)
Guylaine Nouwoue (Junior Expert) and Ellie McGovern (Research Assistant)
Date December 2019
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
7
Executive Summary
This is an independent evaluation of the European Union (EU)rsquos humanitarian interventions in
Central Africa (CA) during 2014-2018 It provides a retrospective assessment to inform future work
of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) It was
conducted in combination with a global review of DG ECHOrsquos humanitarian coordination activity
across different crises during 2014-2018
Objectives and scope
The purpose of this evaluation is twofold (i) to provide accountability through an independent and
objective assessment of the performance of EU interventions and (ii) to support learning about
current strategies while identifying areas for improvement
The object of the evaluation is EU humanitarian interventions in CA in the Central African Republic
(CAR) Cameroon and Chad from January 2014 to December 2018 EU humanitarian interventions
refer to (i) EU humanitarian funding including worldwide decisions and ad hoc emergency funding
(ii) DG ECHO strategy as defined in Humanitarian Implementation Plans (HIPs) and implemented
by DG ECHO and partners (iii) EU-funded actions as designed implemented and managed by
DG ECHO partners and (iv) results achieved at different levels
While the analysis focuses primarily on EU humanitarian interventions at the regional level of CA
it also provides an assessment at the country level where humanitarian responses are coordinated
Case studies developed in the evaluation focus on humanitarian coordination in CAR refugee self-
reliance in Cameroon and the lsquoHumanitarian-Development Nexusrsquo (HDN) in Chad
Methodology
At inception phase the Evaluation Team (ET) developed a framework with evaluation questions
tailored to the specific interests of DG ECHO users Judgement criteria were developed to define
lsquowhat good looks likersquo for each question and indicators were established to measure achievements
In addition the ET constructed an intervention logic to elucidate how EU humanitarian interventions
and DG ECHO activities were expected to work in CA and a process model for how EU inputs
would lead to results
The ET then used mixed methods for data collection and analysis involving qualitative and
quantitative techniques data analysis document review stakeholder survey key informant
interviews (KIIs) case studies and user workshops The ET also used a purposive sample of EU-
funded actions (58317) for analysis and a structured sample of stakeholders for consultation
including donors implementers and beneficiaries
The main limitations faced by the ET were a lack of clear objectives established for EU humanitarian
interventions a lack of monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) systems to provide evidence
about the interventions and the wide-ranging scope and complexity of interventions covered within
the evaluation In general sufficient evidence was generated to reach credible findings and reliable
enough conclusions to support accountability and learning objectives
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
8
Context and EU interventions
The CA region suffered 11 humanitarian crises between 2014 and 2018 These included CARrsquos
country-wide conflict and protection crisis Cameroonrsquos complex and multi-layered crisis (including
the CAR refugee influx in the East the Lake Chad crisis in the Far North the food and nutrition
crisis in the North and the lsquoAnglophone crisisrsquo in the Northwest and Southwest) and Chadrsquos
country-wide food nutrition and refugee crisis (including the food and nutrition crisis in the Sahel
belt the Lake Chad crisis in the West the CAR refugee crisis in the South and the protracted
Darfur Sudanese refugee crisis in the East) These multiple crises could be largely attributed to
three lsquodriversrsquo CARrsquos conflict and protection crisis Boko Haram-related violence in Nigeria and the
Lake Chad region and structural food insecurity in the Sahel region
CArsquos humanitarian crises left large numbers of people in need of humanitarian assistance
estimated at 7 million people in 2015 and increasing to 102 million by 2018 In CA 2014-2018
country-based humanitarian response strategies undertook to assist an average of 54 million
people each year only 62 of people in need of aid Each year country-wide strategies were
outlined in Humanitarian Response Plans (HRPs) and in 2015 and 2016 efforts were also made
to develop regional refugee response plans
During 2014-2018 EU humanitarian funding to CA amounted to a total of EUR 4999 million Each
year DG ECHO developed strategies in HIPs (in 2014 for each country and in 2015-2018 for the
region) which aimed to address both acute and protracted needs of populations affected by human-
made crisescomplex emergencies food and nutrition crises and epidemics and natural disasters
A total of 317 EU-funded actions were implemented by DG ECHO partners including 825 distinct
activities and results across multiple humanitarian sectors
Main findings
The main findings and assessments in response to each evaluation question are presented
below
1 Relevance
EU-funded actions in CA 2014-2018 were consistently relevant to the needs of the most
vulnerable populations in specific crises and situations The actions were invariably designed
on the basis of needs assessments they were usually informed by further needs
assessments during implementation and they were largely adaptable to changing needs and
situations Actions mostly considered gender and age and consulted beneficiaries at least
in their design
The relevance of actions was somewhat limited by questions about specific needs and
beneficiary consultation Wider definitions of vulnerability (eg people with disabilities) were
not systematically considered the quality of beneficiary consultation was often questionable
and effective feedback mechanisms were often lacking
2 Appropriateness
DG ECHO strategies were highly appropriate for meeting acute needs in CA 2014-2018 In
practice they were developed through iterative processes at the country level involving DG
ECHO and its partners allowing maximum flexibility to tailor strategies to needs Efforts were
made to tailor the HIPs to specific situations in each country but increasingly the HIPs
allowed flexibility to address evolving needs in practice and included multiple modifications
in response to changing events
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
9
However DG ECHO strategies were not very appropriate for addressing protracted needs
or reducing them over time The yearly HIPs offered little in terms of prioritised strategies
clear strategic direction or multi-year planning and funding that could comprehensively
address protracted humanitarian situations needs and risks Frequent modifications and
emergency top-ups increased flexibility for meeting emergency needs as they arose but did
not necessarily constitute lsquoadaptive managementrsquo in terms of learning and continual
improvement
3 Needs assessment
DG ECHO did very well to consistently promote joint and impartial needs assessments In all
three countries it supported the harmonisation of needs assessments and joint needs
assessments which worked to reduce the proliferation of uncoordinated assessments DG
ECHO consistently funded the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) to prepare Humanitarian Needs Overviews (HNOs) encouraged
implementing partners to participate and actively participated in the process itself DG ECHO
also made efforts to promote improved needs assessment quality These efforts led to some
promising outcomes including strengthened assessment capacities and improved
responses
4 Alignment
DG ECHOrsquos response in CA 2014-2018 was consistently well aligned with humanitarian
principles and EU policy priorities Stakeholders in each country were convinced that DG
ECHOrsquos strategy was aligned with humanitarian principles It is also clear that DG ECHO
acted to uphold fundamental humanitarian principles in a number of important ways For
example it served lsquohumanityrsquo by tailoring its response to specific situations and allowing
flexibility to address evolving needs Both HIP priorities and operational priorities showed
consistency with EU humanitarian policy priorities and DG ECHO ensured that EU-funded
actions were aligned with its strategy In practice however DG ECHOrsquos strategy also faced
some risks related to humanitarian principles and some practical challenges in aligning with
EU thematic policy priorities for example refugee self-reliance in east Cameroon was
complicated by an absence of development actors and government services
5 Achievements
DG ECHO made a very strong contribution to meeting acute needs in CA between 2014 and
2018 Across the region DG ECHO invested in supporting multi-sector emergency
responses with a strong emphasis on food security and nutrition Additionally EU-funded
humanitarian actions delivered most of their intended results and collectively lsquoreachedrsquo a
majority of people in need each year contributed to EU objectives and made notable
contributions in each country
These achievements depended on a chain of activities involving the EU as a whole DG
ECHO implementing partners (IPs) and beneficiaries with DG ECHO providing strategic
direction selecting projects and allocating funding and maintaining monitoring and oversight
of implementation DG ECHOrsquos technical capacities flexible emergency funding and partner
relationships were key assets
However DG ECHO contributed little to reducing chronic humanitarian needs and risks in
the region and there was little or no evidence that humanitarian needs and risks were
actually reduced This reflected larger challenges in addressing protracted humanitarian
needs and involving development actors In addition DG ECHO invested very little in
Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness (DRREP) activities to prevent
epidemics and natural disasters
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
10
Achievements in the Central African Republic
In CAR DG ECHO did an excellent job in meeting acute needs Their portfolio in CAR
consistently delivered results across its actions and activities which were recognised for their
high quality The portfolio was perceived to meet acute needs of conflict-affected people
directly as well as indirectly through support to the wider humanitarian response The case
study also showed how DG ECHO worked with UN OCHA to strengthen the overall
humanitarian response DG ECHOrsquos project selection and technical expertise were seen as
key factors of success In general terms DG ECHO was perceived to provide leadership in
CARrsquos emergency phase 2013-2016 and to strengthen coordination and coherence in 2016-
2018 DG ECHO was also deemed essential to achieving the EUrsquos goals of bringing
humanitarian assistance peace and stability to CAR in 2013-2016 and to supporting
recovery and development from 2016 through close cooperation with the Becirckou Trust Fund
DG ECHO was less successful in meeting protracted needs in CAR where wider results
remained modest and needs increased slightly over the period DG ECHO also did little to
strengthen preparedness and reduce humanitarian risks In addition partners raised several
concerns about the efficiency of DG ECHOs project selection process and heavy reporting
requirements and it was suggested that DG ECHO funding allocations risked contributing to
a fragmentation of the emergency response without greater strategic coordination
Achievements in Cameroon
In Cameroon DG ECHO did a very good job of addressing acute needs The DG ECHO
portfolio consistently delivered results and was perceived to meet acute needs thanks to DG
ECHOrsquos oversight capacities and the know-how of its IPs The portfolio was perceived to
achieve significant results in meeting the basic needs of affected populations in particular
those of refugee and host community populations DG ECHO also helped to pave the way
for achieving the EUs development objectives by investing in self-sufficiency activity
planning and building capacity for resilience
However the DG ECHO portfolio risked falling below standards in addressing the needs of
refugees as needs became protracted It was also perceived to struggle to meet protracted
needs in the country more broadly where humanitarian needs and risks grew over the period
The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with the French Red Cross (FRC) to
strengthen self-sufficiency for CAR refugees in eastern Cameroon although little was
achieved beyond the duration of the project This highlighted the limitations of DG ECHOrsquos
support to self-sufficiency activities without greater involvement of development actors
Achievements in Chad
In Chad DG ECHO did a very good job of meeting acute needs and made good efforts to
address protracted needs The portfolio consistently delivered results across its food security
and emergency response activities and was widely perceived to meet acute needs and
contribute to addressing severe food insecurity DG ECHOs project selection expertise field
presence and leadership were considered key factors of success Significant achievements
included DG ECHOrsquos scaling-up of the nutrition response from 2014 the rapid launch of the
Lake Chad response with IPs and the response to the cholera outbreak in 2017 DG ECHO
made multiple contributions to EU goals and most importantly through its close relationship
with the EUrsquos Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG
DEVCO) and the development of a shared vision on resilience and HDN
Along with the wider response however DG ECHO was again perceived to do less well in
meeting protracted needs and also in addressing risks of disaster and epidemics Despite
some perceived small-scale successes in resilience activities contributing to resilience
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
11
remained challenging for DG ECHO The case study showed how DG ECHO worked with
the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2016-2017 to strengthen resilience for vulnerable
populations in the Sahel belt although some targeting required prioritising lsquoproductive
potentialrsquo instead of humanitarian needs and there was little evidence yet at the time of the
evaluation of HDN collaboration with DG DEVCO beyond initial planning
6 Advocacy
DG ECHOrsquos advocacy was reasonably successful in CA 2014-2018 DG ECHO promoted
advocacy on various issues and some signs of success were reported particularly at times
of emergency and acute needs DG ECHO often enjoyed a very strong advocacy position
which could be further enhanced through links with the EU delegation Yet DG ECHO
advocacy was not always structured or strategic and a mixed picture of success emerges
across the countries
7 Cost-effectiveness
The cost-effectiveness of DG ECHOrsquos portfolio in CA 2014-2018 was adequate with notable
exceptions Without a DG ECHO framework for managing cost-effectiveness the
assessment of cost-effectiveness depended on case studies One case study shows funding
to UN OCHA could contribute to increasing the efficiency of a humanitarian response by
making critical investments in coordination The other case studies raise important questions
about the cost-effectiveness of some self-sufficiency and resilience actions for example
when they were not followed up by coordinated development actions or their results were
disappointing
In a region where delivery costs were relatively high the efficiency of DG ECHOrsquos wider
portfolio was also affected by DG ECHOrsquos limited investment in local and national
responders use of cash and voucher assistance (CVA) and flexible funding arrangements
such as multi-year funding Although many recurring EU-funded actions were funded
repeatedly year-on-year they remained subject to single-year funding and burdensome
selection processes
8 Funding
EU humanitarian funding was sufficient to meet some of the most acute needs in CA 2014-
2018 EU funding for CA was allocated on the basis of global needs assessments each year
fluctuating and generally increasing with needs and was considered sufficient in some cases
to meet the most urgent needs in an emergency Relative to other donors the EU was the
second largest funder of humanitarian responses over the period representing almost a fifth
of all funding allocated Compared to the global EU average and funding for other crises the
share of EU funding to CA was relatively high during 2014-2018
However EU funding was not obviously proportionate to needs or appropriate to situations
in each country Humanitarian responses remained consistently underfunded in CA and
unable to meet the needs of people targeted let alone the total people in need In addition
the proportion of EU funding compared to people in need of assistance varied significantly
by country and by year and the amount and share of EU funding varied considerably among
CA countries with Chad receiving more than double that of CAR and triple that of Cameroon
Moreover stakeholders in all countries were doubtful that DG ECHO funding was
proportionate to needs particularly chronic needs that affected each country
9 Humanitarian coordination
DG ECHO did a very good job of strengthening humanitarian coordination in CA 2014-2018
It provided relatively strong and consistent funding to coordination actions across the region
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
12
and in each country and played a role in filling coordination gaps DG ECHO allocated
around three-fifths of its coordination funding to UN OCHA providing smaller amounts to a
few other actors (ie the International Organization for Migration the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization) and was
perceived to have consistently supported UN OCHArsquos role with funding and advocacy at both
national and decentralised levels EU-funded coordination actions contributed in different
ways to strengthening the humanitarian response while DG ECHOrsquos contribution to
strengthening responses through its support to coordination was widely recognised
Nonetheless frequent gaps and fluctuations remained in overall funding to humanitarian
coordination efforts in CA 2014-2018 with considerable variance between countries and over
the years Coordination in Cameroon was less well funded on average than in CAR and
Chad
10 Donor coordination
DG ECHO was very successful at coordinating its response with other donors in CA 2014-
2018 DG ECHO made consistent efforts to coordinate activities with humanitarian donors
and increasingly with development donors Its efforts often extended to providing informed
leadership and advice to donors These efforts helped to reduce duplication but operational
coordination also remained a wider challenge in each country and DG ECHO did not seek
to fill outstanding structural gaps or bring together other donors where donor coordination
mechanisms were absent
11 EU added value
DG ECHO provided clear added value for EU member states in CA 2014-2018 Beyond the
humanitarian donorship capacities of any individual member state in each country DG ECHO
offered a sustained presence a highly effective portfolio of actions unique field-based
knowledge of needs situation and context applied field-based technical expertise and a
strong and principled advocacy voice within each humanitarian response Still EU member
states continued to implement their own portfolios across the region which taken together
were as large as DG ECHOrsquos Member States also invested relatively little through DG
ECHOrsquos External Assigned Revenue (ExAR) contribution system
12 Sustainability
DG ECHO was inconsistent in achieving sustainable results in CA 2014-2018 Most EU-
funded humanitarian actions met DG ECHO expectations for increasing resilience and
demonstrated a widespread wide-ranging and growing interest in increasing resilience
However these strong efforts were not always found to be appropriate and raised important
questions about the nature of DG ECHOs humanitarian focus limited funding and yearly
planning and funding systems Most importantly EU-funded humanitarian actions across the
three countries did not consistently establish exit strategies and wider EU strategies to
promote the sustainability of humanitarian actions were most often lacking
13 Humanitarian-Development Nexus (HDN)
The success of DG ECHO measures to coordinate the EUrsquos HDN actions cannot be
adequately assessed in CA 2014-2018 On the positive side there is evidence that DG
ECHO consistently took measures to coordinate EU HDN activities making well-recognised
efforts in all three countries and taking a lead role in coordinating Chadrsquos HDN pilot exercise
At the same time the division of roles and responsibilities between DG ECHO and DG
DEVCO was often unclear shared targets and monitoring frameworks were lacking and
risks were highlighted about diverting resources from acute needs and humanitarian
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
13
priorities No evidence was yet available that measures taken had resulted in reduced needs
vulnerability or fragility in CA
Conclusions
Drawing on the main findings in the evaluation the ET drew the following conclusions from analysis
of humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
Key strengths
A number of key strengths can be highlighted in EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018
The overall contribution to addressing acute needs contributions made to strengthening
humanitarian responses in each country and the delivery of intended results through actions
implemented by partners were all important In addition DG ECHOrsquos country-based donorship
activities were a strength indeed a lsquocomparative advantagersquo and EU humanitarian funding
remained relatively strong and consistent over the period
Challenges
The most significant challenge to EU humanitarian interventions in CA 2014-2018 was addressing
the chronic or protracted needs which remained prevalent across the region The other important
challenges identified were increasing resilience and empowering local and national actors
inefficiencies in DG ECHO donorship processes and the absence of comprehensive strategies to
reduce humanitarian needs in the region In addition to this stakeholder divergence and some
confusion over DG ECHOrsquos intervention logic and specific pathways for achieving results showed
that DG ECHOrsquos strategy could benefit from greater clarity Finally MEL systems were limited and
posed a challenge to managing humanitarian interventions in CA
Recommendations
Based on these conclusions and consultations with DG ECHO the ET proposes these
recommendations
1 DG ECHO should develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing CArsquos
humanitarian challenges in 2020-2025 including an updated EU humanitarian intervention
logic aimed at meeting and reducing humanitarian needs in CA
2 DG ECHO should reinforce its role as a quality humanitarian donor in CA 2020-2025
ensuring its projects systemically meet required standards particularly for inclusion
beneficiary consultation and resilience
3 DG ECHO should commit to supporting humanitarian coordination in CA 2020-2025
reinforcing country-based coordinated humanitarian responses particularly through needs
assessments UN OCHArsquos primary role and donor coordination
4 DG ECHO should explore humanitarian opportunities arising from collaborations between
humanitarian development and peacebuilding actors in CA 2020-2025 learning about how
HDN approaches can generate improved humanitarian outcomes in terms of needs
reduced
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
Evaluation of the European Unionrsquos humanitarian assistance in
the Central Africa region including humanitarian coordination
2014-2018
14
5 DG ECHO should ensure its donorship processes are streamlined in CA 2020-2025
reviewing its donorship processes in line with Grand Bargain commitments and to address
specific issues raised by stakeholders in this evaluation concerning project selection
reporting and contracting (see Finding 5)
6 DG ECHO should develop more effective MEL systems to guide EU humanitarian
interventions in CA 2020-2025 providing information about DG ECHOrsquos portfolio of actions
in each country including aggregated reporting on results and other important matters
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N
15
Cata
logue n
um
ber
KR-0
4-1
9-7
42-E
N-N