MandE NEWS > Documents >NGOs, M&E and natural disaster mitigation
MandE NEWS > Documents >NGOs,
M&E and natural disaster mitigation
NGOs, M&E and natural disaster mitigation
John Twigg
Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London
January 2001
This note is intended to draw attention to findings of a recent research project on NGO activities in natural disaster mitigation and preparedness.
The project was carried out by an independent research team, funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) and managed by the British Red Cross. It comprised a study of the work of relief and development NGOs based in the UK and working in developing countries; studies of local NGO activities in four developing countries (Bangladesh, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Zimbabwe); and a survey of the literature on NGOs and disaster mitigation and preparedness (which fed mainly into the UK study).
The research findings are based principally on semi-structured interviews with a range of staff in a sample of NGOs (more than 200 staff in 62 NGOs), and on internal documents, supplemented where appropriate by published material.
The UK study – based on 75 projects run or funded by 22 relief and development NGOs – presented some indicative findings about monitoring and evaluation (M&E) aspects of the NGOs’ work. It found very few long-term impact evaluations of projects: most evaluations were carried out too early to judge impact. Most M&E concentrated on performance of activities. NGOs were comfortable with indicators of output (especially quantitative indicators) but shied away from indicators of impact and seemed unsure how to apply them. In many cases, owing to the limited documentation that NGO staff were able to provide to researchers, there was not enough evidence to judge the quality of M&E, which is a cause for concern in itself.
M&E of disaster mitigation initiatives is difficult anyway, because of what one NGO worker called its ‘preventive logic’: conventional M&E methods help one to understand something that has taken place as the result of an intervention, but in successful disaster mitigation the result is that something – the disaster – does not take place.
The researchers also found that although it is a commonplace in project planning that risks should be spelt out, the projects studied paid relatively little attention to the hazard risks that might affect them. Even where there was recognition of hazard risks, this did not mean that the project had taken steps to protect against them.
The issue of accountability scarcely featured in the mitigation and preparedness projects studied, in contrast to the relatively high levels of interest in this subject in development and humanitarian aid circles.
The Zimbabwe case study also commented that monitoring and evaluation systems for food security or other disaster mitigation initiatives generally appeared weak.
The findings on which this note is based are in:
These and the project’s other research reports are available on its website http://www.redcross.org.uk - click on Our Work, then on International Activities, and finally on NGO Natural Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness Project). The views contained in all the reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the organisations managing and funding the project (the British Red Cross Society and Department for International Development, respectively).
Future work
The findings have highlighted the need for more work in this area. The Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, in collaboration with the Intermediate Technology Development Group and independent researchers, is now preparing a research project that will look at indicators of the impact of disaster mitigation initiatives.
Posted 22/02/2001
Return to MandE NEWS