Skip to main content

We found 6

Showing 1 - 6

Pathways to Localisation: locally led humanitarian response (Myanmar)

This Myanmar-language paper presents a synthesis of the four national frameworks into one global localisation framework relevant for humanitarian practitioners, policy-makers and decision-makers. It outlines: The notable differences between the four national localisation frameworks, and reflect the diverse contexts specific to the very different operating environments and humanitarian crises in Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria and South Sudan. A number of priority actions and areas common across the four frameworks, many of which link closely to existing localisation commitments, frameworks, and indicators which are referenced. The key areas included in all four national localisation frameworks, along with objectives, priority actions, and potential indicators.

Accelerating localisation research summary - Myanmar-language version

Recommendations for practices that strengthen the leadership of national and local actors in partnership-based humanitarian action in Myanmar. Read the English-language version here

Christian Aid response to the Rohingya pledging conference

Humanitarian policy statement: Christian Aid's response to the UN-backed donor pledging conference for the Rohingya crisis, held on 23 October 2017.

Central America governance programming – video methods

This note summarises the approach used to make two short videos contrasting the work of Christian Aid funded governance programmes, one in Guatemala and the other in El Salvador. It sets out the challenges, learning and insights from the process from the perspective of the producers of the videos – and makes recommendations for how to approach similar projects in the future. Related resources Video: Guatemala Video: El Salvador

LPRR: action learning research

In order for productive learning to occur within the context of this project, monitoring practices must be robust and go beyond collecting data against indicators. This is especially important within a resilience context, as the pre-emptive baseline measurement that is usually used for measuring progress/success is not desirable here. Instead, an ‘outcome harvesting’ approach is more practical, as it does not measure progress towards predetermined outcomes or objectives, but rather collects evidence of what has been achieved, and works backward to determine whether and how the project or intervention contributed to the change. Within the LPRR project there is a need for rigorous evaluation, which balances accountability and learning. Given the ever-evolving evidence base of ‘what works under what conditions’ coupled with the need to demonstrate quality, impactful programming in both upwards and downwards accountability, these types of robust evaluations are essential. In order to ensure learning and accountability are achieved through evaluations, they must be well-planned and budgeted for. This is where the role of the learning strand comes in; by recognising that learning is essential at the outset, it enables it to be included within the design of the project.