Accueil > Designing relief projects in conflict and disaster settings

OBGP 2040 - Designing Relief Projects in Conflict and Disaster Settings

Type d'enseignement : Seminar

Semester : Spring 2018-2019

Number of hours : 28

Language of tuition : English

Pre-requisite

None.

Course Description

The course will start with an introduction to the humanitarian system and interventions, as well as the environment in which relief projects are designed and implemented. Students are therefore not expected to have previous knowledge of the aid world. The course will then move on to the describing and explaining the successive steps of project cycle management: needs assessment, response analysis, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The course will be divided between lectures and workshops to guide students to develop and submit their own humanitarian project proposal in groups. The classic tools used in the aid sector will be introduced step by step during lectures, and will be applied during workshops to a specific relief project that students will progressively design in groups. Students will be assigned to work in groups at the start of the course to design a relief project throughout the semester and submit their project proposal at the end of the course (using real world templates). Students will present and defend their project proposal to a jury at the end of the course, simulating the situation of an NGO negotiating with a donor.

Teachers

  • JUILLARD, Helene (Consultante Humanitaire)
  • SCHNEIDER, Anne-Charlotte (Responsable des Urgences humanitaires)

Pedagogical format

Array

Course validation

Written: Final project proposal as a group mark, 60% of the final mark

Oral: Group Workshop presentations during Session 3: 10% of the final mark (average of the two class presentations)
Individual mark during the final defence of the project: 20% of the final mark
Individual mark of the overall participation during the semester: 10% of the final mark

– 1 per group for the mid-term class presentation during Session 3 (10% of the final grade)
– 1 individual mark on the class participation and active learning (10% of the final grade)
– 1 individual mark on the basis of the group final defence (20% of the global grade)

Workload

This course requires extensive group work outside of the class.

Required reading

  • 1. Stoddard, Abby, Adele Harmer, Katherine Haver, Glyn Taylor, and Paul Harvey. “The State of the Humanitarian System Report 2015.” London: ALNAP, 2015. http://www.alnap.org/resource/21036.aspx.
  • 2. Barnett, Michael, and Thomas G. Weiss. “Humanitarianism: A Brief History of the Present.” In Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics, 1–48. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, 2008.
  • 3. Gasper, Des. “Logical Frameworks: Problems and Potentials.” Available at: Goal-Oriented Monitoring and Evaluation/Participatory M&E: Http://www. Petersigsgaard. dk/PDFfiler/gasper_logical_framework _problems. Pdf, 2000.; http://www.ecode.es/marco_logico/pdf/10.pdf .

Additional required reading

  • 1. The Sphere Project, Humanitarian charter and Minimum standards in Humanitarian Response, ed. 2018.
  • 2. Borton, John. Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda: Study III Main Findings and Recommendations, June 1996. http://www.odihpn.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=2132.
  • 3. Hallam, Alistair, and Francesca Bonino. “Using Evaluation for a Change: Insights from Humanitarian Practitioners.” ALNAP, 2013. http://www.alnap.org/using-evaluation
  • 4. Duffield, Mark. “Risk-Management and the Fortified Aid Compound: Everyday Life in Post-Interventionary Society.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 4, no. 4 (2010): 453–474.
  • 5. Humanitarian Outcomes. Aid Worker Security Report 2017. https://aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/AWSR2017.pdf
  • 6. Smith, Peter. “A Comment on the Limitations of the Logical Framework Method, in Reply to Gasper, and to Bell.” Public Administration and Development 20, no. 5 (December 2000): 439–41.
  • 7. Bakewell, Oliver, and Anne Garbutt. “The Use and Abuse of the Logical Framework Approach.” Stockholm: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), 2005. http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/LFA%20Review%20final.doc .
  • 8. Donini, Antonio Ed., “The golden fleece”, manipulation and independence in humanitarian action, Kumarian Press, December 2012
  • 9. Magone, Claire, Michael Neuman, and Fabrice Weissman. Humanitarian Negotiations Revealed: The MSF Experience. Hurst & Co, 2011.
  • 10. UNHCR, Handbook for Emergencies, third edition, 2007.
  • 11. Knox Clarke, Paul, and James Darcy. Insufficient Evidence? The Quality and Use of Evidence in Humanitarian Action. ALNAP Study. London: ALNAP/ODI, 2014. http://www.alnap.org/ourwork/evidence.
  • 12. Development Initiatives. “Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2017.” London: Development Initiatives, 2017. http://devinit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GHA-Report-2017-Full-report.pdf