This will be familiar to all of us – The highlighting is mine! Re point no 7 … there was always a similar problem in Goma and Gulu in trying to get someone important to attend a seminar, workshop or opening ceremony. In the early years of this decade the district education officer in Gulu could have spent all day every day in NGO and UN workshops; in Goma an appropriate market in significant officials developed.
At least they were honest (unlike in the attached where actually there are no definite facts at all, but it didn't prevent the writer from writing at length!)
I think no 9 means that the whole village would turn up and insist on having its say, like in Swiss democracy.
Interestingly the visa question in no. 1 should not have applied. There have never been any restrictions in S Sudan, only in the north. (However they may mean some restriction imposed by the US itself).
And just to round off, I toss in a quote I found in a report somewhere:
'Despite being the district with the greatest number of NGOs and interventions in the last year, the situation has continued to get worse. '
Barry
Targeting in Complex Emergencies:
South Sudan Country Case Study
Daniel Maxwell and John Burns
May 2008
Feinstein International Center MAY 2008
Limitations to the study
Several difficulties were encountered with the field research, which serve to limit the extent to which the findings of this case study can be presented as verified by adequate triangulation, or can be broadly generalized. These are outlined below. But it should be emphasized that the findings of the study should be accepted as tentative findings, because of the constraints encountered.
1. The trip to Sudan had to be postponed because of visa restrictions on US citizens.
Though rescheduled within a few weeks, this caused significant upheaval in that it meant three of the senior WFP staff who had intended to be part of the study team could not, in the end, participate.
2. The team member from Rome who is responsible for the fifth study objective (the cost of targeting) was unable to join the team. He handed responsibility for that part of the study
over to a senior VAM officer in Southern Sudan, who at the last minute was also not able to join the team. The team collected some of the information requested, but this objective is
clearly not well integrated into the report.
3. One important member of the team drawn from WFP Southern Sudan staff had to leave the team suddenly when his father passed away. This was of course unavoidable, but left
one of the research teams without a translator or local informant, and resulted in the loss of several days of valuable team time.
4. Translation was provided by WFP, but this relied on staff who were not trained translators, and were often not neutral interpreters. In some circumstances, this caused
significant problems and some data had was dropped. It was not possible to hire translators.
5. The selection of sites for the team to visit was constrained by security and logistical considerations. One of the sites selected had little capacity to support (or even engage with)
an external research team, and in some ways, offered little in terms of contrast to situations
already researched. One site had to be cancelled after the research began because of
deteriorating security, but was replaced with other sites where useful information was
gathered.. Sites selected by WFP included two Dinka areas, and one are in Equatoria, so the
sample was not representative of all of Southern Sudan. Evidence from other areas was
drawn upon to the extent possible.
6. It often took quite some amount of discussion with community groups before they became convinced that the visit of the research team had nothing to do with an assessment and would not result in changes to food aid allocations. This no doubt colored the focus group discussions—particularly the first part of them. Data were treated accordingly.
7. Juba is overloaded with external consultants, experts, and advisors, all of whom are trying to see the same limited set of senior policy makers within the GOSS. This restricted access to important informants, and meant a lot of time was devoted to trying to set up appointments or waiting for appointments.
8. None of the old PDM reports mentioned were available from WFP. Some respondents indicated they were in archives in Rumbek or Lokichoggio. Those drawn on for the study
were from the personal files of current and former staff, and are not a "representative"
sample, although there is no known systematic bias to these reports either. The main point about reports from an earlier era is their very existence, compared to a paucity of such
reports currently.
9. As noted above, it was often impossible to restrict group size or participation to the originally intended respondents
No comments:
Post a Comment