1 Contents Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Interim evaluation rationale/motivation .......................................................................................... 8 1.2 Periperi U background and evaluation history ................................................................................. 8 1.2.1 Brief background ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.2.2 Evaluation history and report outline ..........................................................................................10 2. Approach Adopted and Methods Used ............................................................................................10 2.1 Rationale and overview for methods applied .................................................................................10 2.1.1Focus areas and monitoring indicators .........................................................................................10 2.1.2 Accessibility of data and information gathering for improved project implementation ............11 2.2 Data gathering, consolidation and analysis ....................................................................................11 3. Institutional Embedding: Progress and Challenges ..........................................................................12 3.1 The importance of institutional embedding – growing staff numbers ...........................................12 3.2 Differential patterns in programme funding ..................................................................................13 4. Short Courses and outreach: Growing demand for customised training .........................................15 4.1 Short course training .......................................................................................................................15 4.2 Outreach activities ..........................................................................................................................17 5. Growing Disaster Risk-Related Academic Programmes and Research .............................................19 5.1 A commitment to expand academic programmes .........................................................................19 5.2 Growing student enrolment ...........................................................................................................21 5.3 Contextually relevant disaster risk research ...................................................................................23 5.3.1 A widening reach of academic and other research .....................................................................23 5.3.2 Increasing publications ................................................................................................................25 6. Strategic engagement/mobilisation. ................................................................................................27 6.1 Why strategic engagement/mobilisation?......................................................................................27 6.2 Scope and scale of strategic engagement ......................................................................................27 6.3 Strategic emergence of Periperi U as ‘virtual centre’.....................................................................30 7. Critical Reflections on Achievements and Constraints .....................................................................32 7.1 Achievements, changes in Periperi U scope, scale and character ..................................................32 7.2 Enabling and constraining factors .........................................................................................33 7.2.1 Identified enabling factors for Periperi U ....................................................................................33 7.2.2 Identified constraining factors for Periperi U ..............................................................................33 2 7.3 Secretariat challenges .....................................................................................................................34 8. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................35 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................36 Annex A: Required Indicators for USAID Grant No. USAID Grant Number AID-OFDA-G-11-00215 .....36 Annex B 39 3 Table of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Organogram showing Periperi U structure..............................................................................8 Figure 2: Core and Adjunct staff, and total staff per partner ...............................................................13 Figure 3: Sources of funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff ......................................14 Figure 4: Proportion funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff per partner ..................15 Figure 5: Frequency of commissioned and non-commissioned short courses: 2010-2014 .................17 Figure 6: Profile of partners for outreach projects by Periperi U partner ............................................18 Figure 7: Profile of partners for Periperi U outreach projects ..............................................................18 Figure 8: Total undergraduates enrolled per year................................................................................22 Figure 9: Total undergraduates newly enrolled: Univ. of Ghana and Bahir Dar Univ. .........................23 Figure 10: Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 .......................................................................................24 Figure 11: Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 .......................................................................................25 Figure 12: Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 ..............................................................................26 Figure 13: Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 ..............................................................................26 Figure 14: Type of representative roles for the consortium ................................................................. 28 Figure 15: Type of representative roles for the consortium per partner .............................................29 Figure 16: Scale of engagement for consortium members ..................................................................29 Figure 17: Consortium representation by year: 2010-2014 ................................................................. 30 Figure 18: No. of representative engagements, by partner and year: 2010-2014 ...............................30 Table 1: Table of Periperi U partners ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Proporotion of Core and Adjunct staff per partner ................................................................12 Table 3: Proporotion of external and internal adjunct staff per partner .............................................12 Table 4: Sources of funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff .......................................14 Table 5: No. of times commissioned and regular short courses were run along with gender of participants: 2010-2014 ........................................................................................................................16 Table 6: Periperi U academic modules ................................................................................................. 20 Table 7: Periperi U academic Programmes ...........................................................................................20 Table 8: Annual Student enroll by partner per year .............................................................................21 Table 9: Gender proportions of undergraduate courses at Univ. of Ghana and Bahir Dar Univ..........22 Table 10: Themes of academic research...............................................................................................23 Table 11: Publications by partner .........................................................................................................25 Table 12: Role of partner per strategic engagement ............................................................................28 Table 13: Engagements and representation by partners .....................................................................31 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms ABU Ahmadu Bello University AfRP African Regional Platform AWGDRR African Working Group on Disaster Risk Reduction BA Bachelor of Arts BDU Bahir Dar University BSc Bachelor of Science CBO Community Based Organisation DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States GBU Gaston Berger University HEI Higher Education Institution ICOE International Centre of Excellence MDRM Masters in Disaster Risk Management MPH Masters of Public Health MPhil Master of Philosophy MSc Master of Science NGO Nongovernmental Organisation No. Number OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Periperi U Partners Enhancing Resilience of People Exposed to Risks – Universities PhD Doctor of Philosophy RADAR Research Alliance for Disaster and Risk Reduction RIASCO Regional Interagency Steering Committee SADC Southern Africa Development Community STIR Sustainable Training Initiatives in Resilience SU Stellenbosch University Tanà University of Antananarivo UDM Technical University of Mozambique UG University of Ghana UGB University of Gaston Berger UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Univ. University UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs USAID United States Agency for International Development USTHB University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene 5 Executive Summary In accordance with its contractual obligations under USAID Grant Number AID-OFDA-G-11-00215, the Research Alliance for Disaster and Risk Reduction (RADAR), as secretariat for the Periperi U initiative, is required to facilitate an interim/mid-term evaluation of the current project. This is viewed as crucial for both adjusting implementation of the current project and informing the summative evaluation process. As the summative evaluation was intended to be comprehensive and externally implemented, the interim evaluation was conceptualised in the original proposal as an internal process, co-facilitated collegially by the consortium’s members and secretariat. The Periperi U initiative represents the first instance where USAID directly approved an Africa-based higher education institution to implement a multi-million dollar award without a US-based intermediary. The partnership also signalled a significant departure from established approaches to disaster risk-related capacity building. In many African countries, these have historically by-passed African institutions of higher learning and have typically been led by international organisations and humanitarian agencies. These innovations have stimulated considerable interest both within Africa and beyond, and underlined the need for robust, independent evaluation processes for the consortium. This internal interim evaluation report reflects a compliance element for the third phase of the Periperi U initiative, articulated in the current USAID award. It was undertaken in 2014, following a systematic data gathering process for quantitative information on short courses, academic programmes, research outputs, outreach projects and strategic engagement. This was complemented by the development of a qualitative information gathering form that was distributed to all partners in August 2014. This probed partners’ perceptions of achievements, as well as their reflective assessments of enabling and constraining factors that had affected implementation. The Periperi U secretariat at RADAR/SU compiled all reports, analysed the data and drafted the report. Increasing staff committed to disaster risk teaching and research Evaluation findings indicate significant growth in university engagement in the field. Current university and external staffing is reportedly 168 (up from 71 in 2010/11), involving 117 university staff alone (compared with 41 in 2010/11). 42% of all university staff receives full salary support from core sources, while around 26% depend totally on USAID resources. However, within the partnership, there is marked diversity, with Moi University and UG fully funding staff from university sources. This contrasts markedly with the status of the SU and Tanà programmes, where 75% of salaries for core staff depend on USAID financial support. These findings have implications both for the sustainability of the programmes established and for day-to-day operational effectiveness under the current grant. This especially applies to the salary implications of disrupted funding flows across the partnership, that have potential to affect up to 68 university staff in eight of the consortium’s partners, and their related implementation activities. Short course training and community outreach A crucial element of the current Periperi U initiative is to strengthen local capacity to understand and manage contextually relevant disaster risks. From 2011-2014 (June), consortium members conducted 58 separate short courses, reaching 1,468 people. Partners offered local training in a wide variety of topics, including; earthquake resistant design of structures: a course for architects (USTHB), fire safety preparedness (Moi), managing flood risk in relation to food production (GBU), gestion des risques de catastrophes : résilience et développement communautaire (Tanà) and urban risks in Maputo (UDM). While short courses for professionals and practitioners reflect one form of applied disaster risk management capacity building, innovative outreach activities are complementary interventions for 6 strengthening capacities in at-risk communities. Since 2011, Periperi U partners have been involved in approximately 30 outreach activities, with UG, Moi, UDM and SU each undertaking at least 1-2 such projects annually. Approximately 41% of all outreach activities are undertaken collaboratively with local government officials. This underlines a shared commitment to socially responsive engagement in highly vulnerable communities and a willingness to work closely with local partners on ‘real-world’ risk problems. Upward progress in under-graduate and post-graduate courses The USAID award requires all Periperi U partners to introduce, expand and sustain ‘robust, credit￾bearing academic programmes related to disaster risk’. Altogether, eleven undergraduate and postgraduate academic programmes are currently offered across the consortium, including three new post-graduate programmes launched in 2013-2014 in Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. A further three academic courses are pending in Algeria, Kenya and South Africa, with expectations that these will launch in 2015. The suite of programmes is wide-ranging, with some courses broadly aligned with sustainable development (eg at BDU and SU), others explicitly nested within applied disciplines, such as engineering, public health and education (USTHB, Makerere, UDM) and some firmly anchored conceptually in the disaster risk domain (Ardhi, GBU, Tana). While UG has not implemented a dedicated disaster risk post-graduate programme, it has since 2011, introduced disaster risk-related modules that are integrated within an existing cross–disciplinary MPhil programme. Respectively, 398 under- and 478 post-graduate students commenced studies in Periperi U-related programmes from 2011-2014, with partners, including BDU, Ardhi, UG and UDM noting significant growth in student numbers. It is noteworthy that there is high post-graduate student enrolment in Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mozambique, countries that are recognised as disaster-prone, with elevated levels of protracted vulnerability. It is also particularly significant that Tanà has been able to sustain impressive student numbers in the absence of USAID funding for the entire reporting period (eg to June 2014). Postgraduate student numbers are projected to increase markedly across the partnership from 2015, as four more programmes launch from 2014 (Makerere, Moi, USTHB and SU). As with the post-graduate student profile, women remain a clear minority in the under-graduate courses, representing fewer than 30% of students enrolled. A diversity of research outputs A crucial emphasis for Periperi U Phase III is to generate research to strengthen Africa’s disaster risk knowledge base for the purposes of informing local/national policy development. All partners tackled this through academic and socially responsive strategies. For instance, a scan of 219 Periperi U student theses indicated that almost half of the research themes were clustered into topics related to risk identification and assessment, disaster risk management, food security and agriculture. This differentiation is fully consistent with many African countries’ disaster risk concerns. From 2010-2014, Periperi U partners also produced 94 publications, with 67 of these published in peer reviewed journals. As with the distribution of thesis topics, the main publication themes were risk identification and assessment, followed by disaster risk management and health/health facilities. These efforts complemented commissioned research, such as the study of ‘Humanitarian Trends in southern Africa: Challenges and Opportunities’1 , by the Regional Interagency Steering Committee, which then served as a crucial input in UNOCHA’s subsequent study on global humanitarian trends. Strategic engagement as core activity 1 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=35618 7 Strategic engagement/mobilisation at national, continental and global scales has been a central component of Periperi U Phase III activities. It expanded dramatically in Phase III, reflected quantitatively in increased engagement across all geographic scales, and qualitatively in the stature of the engagement, including international and continental expectations of the consortium. The participation of Periperi U partners as presenters at many of these events suggests a growing credibility of Africa-based academics as valued resource people in scientific and multi-stakeholder policy processes – at all geographic scales. In addition, Periperi U’s identity has transformed dramatically – from that of a loose network of relatively unknown African universities in the disaster risk domain to a recognised International Centre of Excellence in Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. Findings on the sustainability of Periperi U activities are less clear, as at institutional level, there is great diversity in the funding models applied across the consortium. Even in those institutions with high levels of core university funding, short course training, local outreach initiatives and exchange visits remain highly dependent on the current USAID award. Moreover, although several partners reported coming under pressure to accommodate the increased interest and demand for their services and activities, they have been unable to increase staffing numbers. Enabling and constraining factors in implementation Several key supportive factors were identified that contributed to effective implementation. These included enabling internal institutional arrangements as well as consortium architecture/approach and Periperi U’s inclusive approach to collaboration. The rising global profile of the disaster risk domain was also viewed as an enabling factor. In contrast, constraining factors identified by partners repeatedly underlined institutional/capacity obstacles and implementation disruptions due to irregular and infrequent funding flows. The SU-based secretariat has come under increasing strain to work at pace across five operational scales. It is clear that the demands of a vibrant 168 person enterprise that is active across multiple geographic scales have overstretched the current capacity of its secretariat - whose structure and resourcing (planned in 2010) did not anticipate the rapid increase in scale, complexity and international visibility of the initiative. In the past three years, the secretariat at SU has facilitated flights, visas and accommodation for more than 100 Periperi U travellers, simultaneously managing financial transfers to partners – for an initiative that operates in 11 currencies. In the past year, it has faced difficulties in providing regular financial transfers to partners, resulting in temporary dip in expenditure, compared with the originally projected ‘burn-rate’. This interim internal evaluation of Periperi U activities indicates a highly effective model of strategic disaster risk-related capacity building that, through a dynamic partnership of committed colleagues, has catalysed change at multiple scales. Quantitatively, the initiative has already surpassed the target numbers anticipated in the 2011 agreement. However, the stretch into continental and global arenas of engagement now presents new structural, sustainability and capacity challenges that were not entirely foreseen in the planning of Phase III. As Periperi U moves forward with planning for its engagement at Sendai and beyond, it looks to the summative evaluation and its findings for guidance on how to address these challenges. 8 1. Introduction 1.1 Interim evaluation rationale/motivation In accordance with its contractual obligations under USAID Grant Number AID-OFDA-G-11-00215, the Research Alliance for Disaster and Risk Reduction (RADAR), as secretariat for the Periperi U initiative, is required to facilitate an interim/mid-term evaluation of the current project. This is viewed as crucial for both adjusting implementation of the current project and informing the summative evaluation process. As the summative evaluation was intended to be comprehensive and externally implemented, the interim evaluation was conceptualised in the original proposal as an internal process, co-facilitated collegially by the consortium’s members and secretariat. 1.2 Periperi U background and evaluation history 1.2.1 Brief background PERIPERI U emerged in 2006 as an Africa- initiated effort to strengthen disaster risk-related human capacities in Africa, beginning in five academic institutions in Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa and Tanzania. This early partnership resulted in a series of locally relevant risk reduction short courses and academic modules, covering a broad portfolio of risk-related themes, from seismic vulnerability to community risk assessment. From 2008-2014, the partnership continued to purposefully grow to include eleven universities in a continent-wide consortium focusing on disaster risk-related education, training and community outreach, research and strategic engagement (see Figure 1 and associated table below for a list of university partners). Figure 1: Organogram showing Periperi U structure 9 Table 1: Table of Periperi U partners University name Centre/ department name Country BDU Bahir Dar University DRMSD Dept. of Disaster Risk Management & Sustainable Development Ethiopia USTHB University of Science and Technology – Houari Boumediene LBE Built Environment Research Laboratory Algeria Ardhi Ardhi University DMTC Disaster Management Training Centre Tanzania Makerere Makerere University SPH School Public Health Uganda Tanà University of Tanà CERED Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Economiques pour le Développement Madagascar UG University of Ghana GDRD Dept. of Geography and Resource Development Ghana UGB University of Gaston Berger AGRI UFR de Sciences Agronomiques, d’Aquaculture et de Technologies Alimentaires Senegal UDM Technical University of Mozambique UDRM Unit of Disaster Risk Management Mozambique Moi Moi University SPH School Public Health Kenya ABU Ahmadu Bello University CDRMD Centre for Disaster Risk Management and Development Nigeria SUN University of Stellenbosch RADAR Research Alliance for Disaster and Risk Reduction South Africa Now in the third phase of project funding, the consortium includes universities in Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda, supported by a Secretariat based at Stellenbosch University, the Research Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction (RADAR) Centre. Each institution has a unique specialization and focus, with areas of interest spanning among others seismology studies, public health, urban planning and conservation agriculture for semi-arid lands. In this context, Periperi U promotes and informs local solutions to complex disaster risk problems related to climate variability, rapid population growth, environmental and natural resource degradation, economic underdevelopment and rapid urbanization and the globalisation of risk. It supports institutional development through short course training, postgraduate education, research and advocacy to strengthen strategic human capacity in risk-prone African countries, including the disaster risk-related capabilities of Africa’s next generation of professionals and academics. Simultaneously, the consortium offers an institutional vehicle for advancing understanding of Africa’s complex risk profile within the continent and beyond, thus contributing to global scholarship on contemporary disaster risks. The goal of Periperi U is to reduce disaster risks in selected African countries through improved national and local disaster risk management, by enhancing strategic human capacity to integrate risk reduction into critical developmental sectors and programmes. Specifically in this third phase, Periperi U’s main objective has been to specifically “embed sustainable ‘multi-tasking’ capabilities in disaster risk and vulnerability reduction capacity building, in ten selected institutions of higher 10 learning, consistent with global disaster reduction priorities reflected in the Hyogo Framework of Action”. Materially, the partnership was tasked to reach a minimum of ‘2000 practitioners and students from formal academic programmes and short courses/training programmes’. 1.2.2 Evaluation history and report outline The Periperi U initiative represents the first instance where USAID directly approved an Africa-based higher education institution to implement a multi-million dollar award without a US-based intermediary. The partnership also signalled a significant departure from established approaches to disaster risk-related capacity building. In many African countries, these have historically by-passed African institutions of higher learning and have typically been led by international organisations and humanitarian agencies. These innovations have stimulated considerable interest both within Africa and beyond, and underlined the need for robust, independent evaluation processes for the consortium. During Phase II (from 2008-2011), this resulted in the commissioning of a detailed summative evaluation conducted in 2010-2011, whose findings informed planning for and implementation of the current phase.2 This interim evaluation report reflects a compliance element for the third phase of the Periperi U initiative, articulated in the current USAID award. Although the interim evaluation was originally planned for the second half of 2013, Periperi U’s size and complexity created challenges for conceptualising a uniform evaluation methodology, delaying the process until 2014. The report also draws heavily on the quarterly and annual monitoring reports submitted by RADAR/SU to USAID as a required component of the current award. The report is organised in eight sections. Section 2 describes the mixed-methods approach adopted, while Sections 3-6 explore the identified focus areas of the initiative. Section 7 continues by critically reflecting on strengths, constraints and limitations identified by Periperi U partners, while Section 8 offers concluding comments. 2. Approach Adopted and Methods Used 2.1 Rationale and overview for methods applied The rationale underpinning the approach and methods used for the interim evaluation was informed by four considerations. These included the intent to investigate progress related to the project goal and objectives defined under focus areas and indicators specified in the original award. Other considerations included the availability and accessibility of monitoring data and the need to gather information that would simultaneously improve project implementation and inform the summative evaluation. 2.1.1 Focus areas and monitoring indicators The five focus areas specified in the current award are:  The institutional development/expansion of active teaching and training, research and policy advocacy capacity in Africa on context-specific disaster risk and vulnerability reduction, with particular emphasis on urban and hydro-meteorological risks.  The establishment and/or enhancement of sustainable capacity for each university unit/programme to provide at least one-two short courses annually in disaster risk management, community based disaster risk management, food/livelihood security. 2 http://riskreductionafrica.org/en/rra-ddr-per/ppu-consultative-meetings 11  The establishment and/or development within each unit/programme of either undergraduate and/or graduate modules related to reducing/managing the risk and vulnerability profile of the country concerned.  The generation of applied research outputs by each unit/programme related to the risks and vulnerabilities of the country concerned that increase local understanding and improve the management of those risks.  Mobilisation of the consortium to advance disaster risk reduction through its strategic engagement at national/sub-national, continental and international scales with governmental, nongovernmental, international and scientific stake-holders. Seventeen separate monitoring indicators are documented in the current award to measure progress towards the project objectives and goal, largely clustered within the five focus areas. These are further differentiated by the two sub-sectors described in the project. For instance, under the sub-sector Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management, indicator 6 requires documentation on the ‘number of academic outputs, i.e. published articles and conference papers’. Similarly, under the sub-sector Hydrometeorological hazards, indicator 2 requires ‘documentation on the number of research projects undertaken on local hydrometeorological risks or disasters’. These focus areas and monitoring indicators informed the quantitative data gathering templates that were designed and circulated across the consortium. 2.1.2 Accessibility of data and information gathering for improved project implementation As no additional financial resources were dedicated for the internal evaluation, the methodology sought to leverage information from existing quarterly and annual reports, complemented by a focus group discussions conducted by each partner. Additionally, as the evaluation sought to probe operational areas that could be improved during 2014-2015, SU records were reviewed on funding transfers to partners as well as international flights taken for exchange visits, meeting attendance and other collaborations. 2.2 Data gathering, consolidation and analysis The process for gathering quantitative data (on short courses, academic programmes, research outputs, outreach projects and strategic engagement) began in early 2014, with RADAR’s knowledge manager designing Excel data collection templates. These were pilot-tested by three partners (Ardhi, Bahir Dar and Tanà), and further adjusted. In April 2014, a structured session was convened in Accra with all partners to discuss the interim evaluation, and in July 2014, templates were circulated to all Periperi U institutions for completion. In August-September, partners submitted completed Excel templates to the Periperi U secretariat. The data were compared with information provided in quarterly and annual reports, then compiled and cleaned by RADAR staff and returned to partners for verification and correction before final analysis in Excel and Access. The quantitative data gathering exercise was complemented by the development of a qualitative information gathering form that was distributed to all partners in August 2014 (see Annex A). This probed partners’ perceptions of achievements, and provided a reflective assessment of enabling and constraining factors that had affected implementation. It also gathered detailed information on staffing and associated funding sources within all institutions and sought guidance on possible issues that might be probed further in the summative evaluation. Seven partners completed this process, involving 44 staff members from the institutions concerned. 12 3. Institutional Embedding: Progress and Challenges 3.1 The importance of institutional embedding – growing staff numbers An explicit focus of the current award is the institutional embedding of applied disaster risk scholarship among the partner institutions, indicated both by growing staffing numbers involved in disaster risk-related teaching and research as well as increased financial sustainability and commitment of staffing support through core university funding. The 2010-11 evaluation reported a total of 41 core academic staff involved in Periperi U teaching/research, with a further 30 external faculty members drawn from other HEIs, government and the private sector. These Figures pale when compared with Periperi U’s current complement – estimated in August 2014 at 168 people. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the current staffing distribution, with an estimated 117 university personnel now involved in consortium activities (almost trebling from 41 in 2010-11) with a further 51 drawn from external organisations. The high staffing numbers for BDU and UDM particularly reflect the large concurrent BSc/BSc Hons and MSc disaster risk-related academic programmes being undertaken by these institutions. In the case of UDM, both Table 3 and Figure 2 underline the role that external teaching and research staff play in augmenting constrained in-house human resource capacity. Table 2: Number. of Core and Adjunct staff per partner Partners Core staff Adjunct staff Total staff USTHB 6 8 14 BDU 12 13 25 Moi 5 1 6 Ghana 6 6 12 Antananarivo 9 3 12 GBU 6 4 10 Stellenbosch 7 11 18 Ardhi 6 7 13 Makerere 3 13 16 UDM 22 20 42 Total: 82 86 168 Table 3: Number of external and internal adjunct staff per partner Partners External Adjunct Staff Internal Adjunct Staff Total USTHB 5 3 8 BDU 5 8 13 Moi Univ. 0 1 1 UG 6 0 6 13 Partners External Adjunct Staff Internal Adjunct Staff Total Tanà 3 0 3 GBU 4 0 4 Stellenbosch 6 5 10 Ardhi Univ. 0 7 7 Makerere 2 11 13 UDM 20 0 20 Total 51 35 86 Figure 2: Core and Adjunct staff, and total staff per partner 3.2 Differential patterns in programme funding A key indicator of university commitment to sustainable funding of the new disaster risk-related programmes is signalled by core budget commitments for staff salaries. Table 4 indicates that 42% of all university-based staff across the partnership receives full salary support from core sources (49 of 117 staff), while around 26% depend totally on USAID resources. However, within the partnership, there is marked diversity. For instance, Moi University and UG fully fund staff from university sources. This experience contrasts markedly with the status of the SU and Tanà programmes, where 75% of salaries for core staff depend on USAID financial support (see Figure 4). These findings have implications both for the sustainability of the programmes established and for day-to-day operational effectiveness under the current grant. This especially applies to the salary implications of disrupted funding flows across the partnership, that have potential to affect up to 68 university staff in eight of the consortium’s partners, and their related implementation activities. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Core and Adjunct staff, and total staff per partner Core staff Adjunct staff Total staff 14 Table 4: Sources of funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff Institution Full USAID Funding Partial Funding (USAID/Univ.) Full Univ. funding Total USTHB 0 9 0 9 BDU 5 0 15 20 Moi 0 0 6 6 Ghana 0 0 6 6 Antananarivo 6 1 2 9 GBU 0 6 0 6 Stellenbosch 9 2 1 12 Ardhi 0 6 7 13 Makerere 3 0 11 14 UDM 7 14 1 22 Total 30 38 49 117 Figure 3: Sources of funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff 26% 32% 42% Periperi U Partner Staff Salary Sources Full Funding from USAID Partial Funding (USAID and University/ external) Full funding from University/ External source 15 Figure 4: Proportion funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff per partner 4. Short Courses and outreach: Growing demand for customised training 4.1 Short course training A crucial element of the current Periperi U initiative is to strengthen local capacity to understand and manage contextually relevant disaster risks. To complement their formal academic work, Periperi U partners are also tasked to offer robust and relevant short courses that will strengthen local disaster risk practitioner capabilities. From 2011-2014 (June), consortium members conducted 58 separate short courses, reaching 1,468 people (see Table 5). Partners offered local training in a wide variety of topics, including; earthquake resistant design of structures: a course for architects (USTHB), fire safety preparedness (Moi), managing flood risk in relation to food production (GBU), gestion des risques de catastrophes : résilience et développement communautaire (Tanà) and urban risks in Maputo (UDM). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 USTHB BDU Moi Ghana Antananarivo GBU Stellenbosch Ardhi Makerere UDM Proportion funding for University (core and internal adjunct) staff per partner Full Funding from USAID Partial Funding (USAID and University/ external) Full funding from University/ External source 16 Table 5: No. of times commissioned and regular short courses were run along with gender of participants: 2010-2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total No of courses Male Female No of courses Male Female No of courses Male Female No of courses Male Female No of courses Male Female Algeria 0 0 0 1 13 7 3 73 50 4 91 68 8 177 125 Ethiopia 1 28 7 4 138 29 1 27 1 0 0 0 6 193 37 Ghana 2 30 17 2 32 15 2 23 16 0 0 0 6 85 48 Kenya 0 0 0 2 28 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 24 Madagascar 3 68 21 1 14 6 1 14 6 1 15 10 6 111 43 Mozambique 1 12 39 1 21 6 2 23 15 0 0 0 4 56 60 Senegal 0 0 0 1 15 10 0 0 0 4 60 40 5 75 50 South Africa 2 14 6 3 39 15 3 31 14 2 15 9 10 99 44 Tanzania 0 0 0 3 47 3 70 1 24 14 7 141 14 Uganda 1 11 9 1 6 7 2 12 13 0 0 0 4 29 29 Total 10 163 99 19 353 119 17 273 115 12 205 141 58 994 474 17 While the delivery of 58 short courses in three years is an encouraging output, partners signalled very specific concerns related to this focus area. First, despite high levels of expressed demand, many government officials, as well as local ngo and CBO employees, have insufficient funding to cover short course fees - so that attendance at Periperi U short courses depends heavily on full/partial USAID cross-funding. This makes short course implementation highly vulnerable to variability in funding flows, with the risk of delayed or cancelled short courses and knock-on consequences for partner credibility with local stake-holders. A second concern relates to the skewed gender participation in courses offered, with men’s attendance well exceeding that of women (although the gap seems to be closing). A positive development however, is (from 2012) the emergence of scope for commissioned short courses – often by government and nongovernmental clients. This indicates an important area for further development and future income generation. Figure 5: Frequency of commissioned and non-commissioned short courses: 2010-2014 4.2 Outreach activities While short courses for professionals and practitioners reflect one form of applied disaster risk management capacity building, innovative outreach activities are complementary interventions for strengthening capacities in at-risk communities. Since 2011, Periperi U partners have been involved in approximately 30 outreach activities, with UG, Moi, UDM and SU each undertaking at least 1-2 such projects annually. In one example, RADAR/SU undertook a primary school hazard awareness building project in cooperation with the district disaster management centre. This initiative, which also involved a photographic competition of local hazards, reached 160 senior primary school children in a disadvantaged rural area. In another example, GBU, in conjunction with several agro￾chemical companies, conducted training sessions for local farmers and crop producers to reduce their infection risk due to pesticide exposure. Similarly, the Moi University team, in collaboration with ACCESS Kenya, helped initiate a Jigger treatment programme in Webuye and Kakamega Counties, which has successfully treated over 6,000 jigger infected people. UG has also undertaken numerous outreach activities, including short courses and engagement with local communities such as Sabon Zongo to increase awareness and preparation to reduce vulnerability to flood, fire and environmental health hazards. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 No. of shortcourses Year Frequency of commissioned and non￾commissioned short courses: 2010-2014 Regular Commissioned 18 Across the consortium, partners have carried out similar projects with local government, as well as ngos and other partners. Figures 6 and 7 below indicate that approximately 41% of all outreach activities are undertaken collaboratively with local government officials. This underlines a shared commitment to socially responsive engagement in highly vulnerable communities and a willingness to work closely with local partners on ‘real-world’ risk problems. As with short course provision, Periperi U community outreach activities are particularly sensitive to disruptions in external funding flows, with planned outreach processes stalled or cancelled due to funding delays. Figure 6: Profile of partners for outreach projects by Periperi U partner Figure 7: Profile of partners for Periperi U outreach projects 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Profile of partners for outreach projects by Periperi U partner Private Sector NGO National Government Local Government International INGO Academic 31% 6% 10% 41% 6% 3% 3% Profile of partners for Periperi U outreach projects Academic INGO International Local Government National Government NGO Private Sector 19 5. Growing Disaster Risk-Related Academic Programmes and Research 5.1 A commitment to expand academic programmes The USAID award requires all Periperi U partners to introduce expand and sustain ‘robust, credit￾bearing academic programmes related to disaster risk’. Tables 6 and 7 respectively list new modules introduced in Phase III along with the current and planned port-folio of undergraduate and post￾graduate programmes implemented by Periperi U partners. The shaded rows signal those academic programmes introduced during the current Phase as well as those planned, but still pending approval. Altogether, eleven undergraduate and postgraduate academic programmes are currently offered across the consortium, including three new post-graduate programmes launched in 2013-2014 in Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. A further three academic courses are pending in Algeria, Kenya and South Africa, with expectations that these will launch in 2015. The suite of programmes is wide-ranging, with some courses broadly aligned with sustainable development (eg at BDU and SU), others explicitly nested within applied disciplines, such as engineering, public health and education (USTHB, Makerere, UDM) and some firmly anchored conceptually in the disaster risk domain (Ardhi, GBU, Tana). While UG has not implemented a dedicated disaster risk post-graduate programme, it has since 2011, introduced disaster risk-related modules that are integrated within an existing cross –disciplinary MPhil programme. It is clear that the introduction of new academic programmes is not undertaken lightly within the partner institutions, requiring highly skilled, tenacious institutional consultation and navigation. This seems to be most applicable in programmes with clearly defined (and possibly more rigid) professional identities and which are already carrying heavy student case-loads (eg at USTHB, Makerere and Moi Universities). In the case of USTHB (with an engineering disciplinary foundation), despite initiative to introduce the new academic programme in 2008, its launch is only anticipated in 2015, seven years later. Similarly, Makerere’s introduction of its MPH in Disaster Management in 2014 reflects five years of vigorous institutional advocacy. 20 Table 6: Periperi U academic modules Country Type Subtype Module name Date Component Initiate Approve Launch Hydro￾meteorology Disaster Preparedness Ghana Masters MPhil Concepts and Methods in Advanced Integrated DRR 2009 2011 2011 Yes Yes Ghana Masters MPhil Applied Integrated Disaster Risk Reduction in Urban Ghana 2009 2011 2011 Yes Yes Madagascar Honours BSc Introduction to Disaster Economics 2011 2011 2012 Yes No South Africa Honours BA/BSc Disaster Risk Studies I, SU 2011 2011 2012 Yes Yes Table 7: Periperi U academic Programmes Country Type Subtype Programme name Date Component Initiate Approved Launch Hydro￾meteorology Disaster Preparedness Algeria Masters MDRM Disaster Risk Management - University of Mostaganem 2008 2009 2009 Yes Yes Algeria Masters MDRM Disaster Risk Management – USTHB 2008 Pending Pending Yes Yes Ethiopia Honours BSc Disaster Risk Management & Sustainable Development 2003 2005 2005 Yes Yes Ethiopia Masters MSc Disaster Risk Management & Sustainable Development 2005 2006 2007 Yes Yes Kenya Masters MSc Disaster Risk Management 2011 Pending Pending No Yes Madagascar Masters MSc Multidisciplinary Disaster and Risk Management 2008 2009 2010 Yes No Mozambique Masters MSc Technical Education, Development & Disaster Management 2013 2012 2013 Yes Yes Mozambique Honours BSc Environmental Engineering and Disaster Management 2008 2009 2009 Yes Yes Senegal Masters MSc Prevention and DRR related to Food Security in West Africa 2013 2014 2014 Yes Yes South Africa Masters MPhil Disaster Risk Science & Development, SU 2011 Pending Pending Yes Yes Tanzania Masters MSc Disaster Risk Management (MDRM) 2007 2009 2009 Yes Yes Tanzania Masters MSc Disaster Risk Management 2007 2009 2010 Yes Yes Tanzania Masters MSc Disaster Risk Management & Engineering 2007 2009 2010 Yes Yes Uganda Masters MPH Disaster Management 2009 2013 2014 No No 21 5.2 Growing student enrolment Table 8 and Figure 8 show students enrolled (those who started studying) in disaster risk-related postgraduate programmes across the partnership, with 478 commencing studies between 2011 and 2014. Table 8: Annual student enrolled by partner per year Country Start date Males Females Year total Total Algeria 2011 5 1 6 2012 4 2 6 12 Ethiopia 2011 10 1 11 122 2012 16 4 20 2013 45 3 48 2014 41 2 43 Ghana 2011 10 3 13 45 2012 11 4 16 2013 11 5 16 Madagascar 2011 28 12 40 2013 27 13 40 80 Mozambique 2011 5 6 11 103 2012 9 17 26 2013 37 29 66 Senegal 2013 20 10 30 30 South Africa 2012 13 6 19 46 2013 10 6 16 2014 4 7 11 Tanzania 2011 3 3 6 41 2012 3 6 9 2013 15 11 26 Total 326 151 478 22 Figure 8: Total postgraduates enrolled per year Several of the partners, including BDU, Ardhi, UG and UDM have seen significant growth in student numbers over the last three years, with UG noting that student demand was ‘soaring’ in this field. It is noteworthy that there is high post-graduate student enrolment in Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mozambique, countries that are recognised as disaster-prone, with elevated levels of protracted vulnerability. It is also particularly significant that Tanà has been able to sustain impressive student numbers in the absence of USAID funding for the entire reporting period (e.g. to June 2014). Postgraduate student numbers are projected to increase markedly across the partnership from 2015, as four more programmes launch from 2014 (Makerere, Moi, USTHB and SU). In addition to postgraduate programmes, three partners offer undergraduate teaching, which also has considerable reach. As examples, BDU and UG offer disaster risk-related undergraduate teaching, that, from 2011-2013, enrolled 398 students (see Table 9 and Figure 9). While BDU offers a dedicated Disaster Risk Management undergraduate degree, UG provides two modules as an integral part of its Bachelor’s programme. As with the post-graduate student profile, women remain a clear minority in the under-graduate courses, representing fewer than 30% of students enrolled. Table 9: Gender proportions of undergraduate courses at Univ. of Ghana and Bahir Dar Univ. Country Start year Males enrolled Females enrolled Year total Country total Ethiopia 2011 33 5 38 160 2012 61 20 81 2013 26 15 41 Ghana 2011 50 20 70 238 2012 58 22 80 2013 60 28 88 Total 288 110 398 0 50 100 150 200 250 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Students enrolled Total postgraduates enrolled 23 Figure 9: Total undergraduates newly enrolled: Univ. of Ghana and Bahir Dar Univ. 5.3 Contextually relevant disaster risk research 5.3.1 A widening reach of academic and other research A crucial emphasis for Periperi U Phase III is to generate research to strengthen Africa’s disaster risk knowledge base for the purposes of informing local/national policy development. All partners have tackled this through academic and socially responsive strategies. For instance, in a scan of 219 student thesis titles (mainly master’s degrees) across the partnership, a wide range of disaster risk￾related research topics were identified. These were clustered into 13 major categories shown in Table 10 and Figure 10 below. Ten theses were also clustered under ‘other’ themes. Almost half of all student research themes were clustered into topics related to risk identification and assessment, disaster risk management, food security and agriculture. This differentiation is fully consistent with many African countries’ disaster risk concerns. The wide range of topics however, challenges widely held beliefs about the homogeneity of Africa’s risk profile. Postgraduate thesis outputs not only contribute valuable insights on local disaster risks. They also contribute to strengthening strategic human capacity in the countries concerned – by building graduate capabilities in independent research, analysis and written communication. Table 10: Themes of academic research Theme Count Risk identification and assessment 41 Disaster risk management 37 Food security and agriculture 29 Vulnerable populations 14 Environment 13 Climate change 12 Health and health facilities 11 Urban risk and planning 9 Gender 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2010 2011 2012 2013 Students enrolled Year Total undergraduates newly enrolled: Univ. of Ghana and Bahir Dar Univ. 24 Theme Count Social impacts and resilience 8 Water 7 Structural safety 6 Information management 5 Other 10 Recovery 4 Critical infrastructure 2 Capacity development 1 Civil society 1 Early warning 1 Economics of DRR 1 Figure 10: Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 As two monitoring indicators for the award require classifying masters and PhD theses according to Disaster Preparedness and Hydro-meteorological Hazard categories Figure 11 illustrates this differentiation. Although compliance with this indicator shows that 59% of all theses had a distinct ‘disaster preparedness, mitigation and management’ thrust, the differentiation is very coarse, compared to the more detailed clustering in the previous Table and Figure, and adds limited insight. 19% 18% 7% 14% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 5% Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 Risk identification and assessment Disaster risk management Food security and agriculture Vulnerable populations Environment Climate change Health and health facilities Urban risk and planning Gender Social impacts and resilience Water Structural safety Information management Other 25 Figure 11: Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 5.3.2 Increasing publications The current award explicitly underlined the importance of disseminating research findings, calling for the generation of a ‘minimum of 40 articles over four years’). Table 11 shows that from 2010-2014, Periperi U partners produced 94 publications, with 67 of these published in peer reviewed journals. As with the distribution of thesis topics, the main publication themes were risk identification and assessment, followed by disaster risk management and health/health facilities (Figure 12). Similarly, the differentiation of publication topics by Disaster preparedness and Hydrometeorological hazards indicates that partners are publishing across a wide range of risk-related subjects, of which climate risk is only one category. Table 11: Publications by partner Country Publication Type No. of Publications Algeria Journal article 9 Ghana Book 2 Book chapter 2 Journal article 12 Kenya Journal article 15 Newsletter 1 Madagascar Book chapter 1 Journal article 2 UN report 1 Mozambique Booklet 8 UN report 1 Senegal Book chapter 1 Conference proceedings 1 South Africa Book 2 Book chapter 3 Journal article 2 UN report 1 Tanzania Book chapter 1 39% 59% Overall thesis themes: 2010-2014 Hydrometeorological Disaster preparedness 26 Country Publication Type No. of Publications Journal article 6 Online web document 1 Uganda Congress 1 Journal article 21 Total 94 Figure 12: Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 Figure 13: Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 Not all research undertaken was published in books or journals. Commissioned research was also reflected in reports, such as ‘Humanitarian Trends in southern Africa: Challenges and Opportunities’ 28% 19% 19% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 9% Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 Risk identification & assessment Disaster risk management Health & health facilities Capacity development Urban risk & planning Gender 26% 74% Overall publication themes: 2010-2014 Hydrometeorological Disaster preparedness 27 3 , commissioned by the Regional Interagency Steering Committee, which then served as a crucial input in UNOCHA’s subsequent study on global humanitarian trends. Similarly, Makerere University conducted a national ‘DRM Capacity assessment for Uganda. The findings ‘from this assessment were used to strengthen capacity for disaster and climate risk management nationally’. Ardhi University also conducted numerous commissioned research projects for local and national governmental bodies which then informed new disaster management policies and legislation at municipal and national scales. Through several research projects and initiatives, GBU increased the level of awareness and preparedness in the Senegal River valley by reducing the vulnerability of farmers involved in crop production under irrigated conditions. This was accomplished through links with farmers associations, women and youth organization at a district level. 6. Strategic engagement/mobilisation. 6.1 Why strategic engagement/mobilisation? Strategic engagement/mobilisation at national, continental and global scales has been a central component of Periperi U Phase III activities. It was purposefully designed to enable a tighter interface between consortium members, policy makers and practitioners for the joint production of disaster risk knowledge. It was also intended to facilitate the generation of appropriately skilled human capital, through the design of relevant and appropriate curricula. And, at continental and global scales, purposive mobilisation of Periperi U sought to promote the role of (especially southern) higher education institutions as key partners in disaster risk-related capacity building and research. This aspect of Periperi U work has expanded dramatically in Phase III, reflected quantitatively in increased engagement across all geographic scales, and qualitatively in the stature of the engagement, including international and continental expectations of the consortium. 6.2 Scope and scale of strategic engagement Four main areas of strategic engagement for consortium members have emerged since 2011. These include:  Invited participation by academic staff and students in national, submational, regional, continental and global disaster risk-related conferences and platforms.  Requested engagement of the consortium as host or facilitator of continental and global consultative processes (science, technology or education) that are disaster risk-related.  Invited participation on advisory committees across all scales.  Invited engagement as a ‘virtual centre’ of global excellence. Between 2010 and 2014, partners reported 202 strategic engagements, with 92 (46%) of these in roles of presenter (Table 12 and Figures 14 and 15). Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 14 below, 50% of strategic interactions took place at international scale. However, even at national and subnational levels, consortium partners were active strategically. For instance, BDU worked closely with UN affiliated organisations and Ethiopian government agencies, to co-convene International Disaster Risk awareness day in October 2013.The participation of Periperi U partners as presenters at many 3 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=35618 28 of these events suggests a growing credibility of Africa-based academics as valued resource people in scientific and multi-stakeholder policy processes – at all geographic scales. Unfortunately, Tanà’s suspension from USAID funding from 2012-14 severely constrained its ability to host or participate in many exchange visits or conferences – despite Madagascar’s significant risk profile. Table 12: Role of partner per strategic engagement Host Committee Member Presenter Discussant Resource Person Attendee Organiser Total USTHB 1 22 1 2 26 BDU 1 13 1 3 3 21 U.G. 1 5 2 2 3 13 Moi 6 7 8 21 Tanà 2 3 1 4 5 15 UDM 3 4 9 16 GBU 8 2 7 17 SU 6 15 11 1 33 Ardhi 3 3 2 12 20 Makerere 13 7 20 Total 16 1 92 16 6 67 4 202 Figure 14: Type of representative roles for the consortium 8% 0% 46% 8% 3% 33% 2% Type of representative roles for the consortium Host Committee Member Presenter Discussant Resource Person Attendee Organiser 29 Figure 15: Type of representative roles for the consortium per partner Figure 16: Scale of engagement for consortium members Increasing patterns of Periperi U participation in Phase III are portrayed in figure 17 and confirm a trajectory of increased strategic engagement since 2010, accelerating markedly from 2012 on. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Type of representative roles for the consortium per partner Host Committee Member Presenter Discussant Resource Person Attendee Organiser 9% 50% 9% 10% 1% 21% Scale of engagement for consortium members Continental International Local National Provincial Regional 30 Figure 17: Consortium representation by year: 2010-2014 Figure 18: No. of representative engagements, by partner and year: 2010-2014 6.3 Strategic emergence of Periperi U as ‘virtual centre’ During Phase III, Periperi U’s identity has transformed dramatically – from that of a loose network of relatively unknown African universities in the disaster risk domain to a recognised International Centre of Excellence in Integrated Research on Disaster Risk. The trajectory of this change reflects a central commitment to constructive engagement with a diversity of stake-holders, with the key developments chronicled below. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Consortium representation Consortium representation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 No. of representative engagements, by partner and year: 2010-2014 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 31 Table 13: Engagements and representation by partners Date and Process/Event Nature of engagement and representation Inclusion in African Regional Platform on DRR (AWGDRR) Nairobi, Zanzibar, Pretoria 2011-2012: Periperi U was invited to attend first meeting on DRR (in Kenya), where the Moi representative formally proposed the consortium represent higher education institutions permanently in the AWGDRR. This was accepted. Subsequent Periperi U (SU) representation in Zanzibar (2012) then Pretoria (2013), BDU to represent the consortium in Arusha in 2014. Global Platform on DRR Geneva May 2013 Periperi U participated in the global Scientific and Technical Networks Session and convened a dedicated session after the Global Platform on the role of higher education in advancing DRR – attended by 60 people. This raised the global visibility of the consortium (17 Periperi U participants attended) Sustainable Training Initiatives in Resilience (STIR) meeting – Stellenbosch September 2013 UNISDR’s Global Education and Training Institute (in Incheon, Korea) requested RADAR to co-host a consultation on capacity building for DRM – attended by UNISDR and other representatives plus Periperi U partners. This demonstrated to UN partners of HEI the many subtle benefits of greater engagement with southern HEIs. Regional Preparatory meetings in advance of African Regional Platform: Abuja, Gaborone, Nairobi Sept-Oct 2013: Periperi U members were invited presenters/facilitators at three preparatory UN/AU processes implemented in collaboration with the Regional Economic Commissions prior to the African Regional Platform. UG and GBU attended the ECOWAS event in Abuja, UDM represented Periperi U in Gaborone (SADC) and both BDU and Moi participated in the overarching AU consultation in Nairobi. Global Assessment of Risk UN Open Thinkers Consultation on DRM Accra April, 2014 UNISDR and UNDP contacted the Periperi U secretariat for possible engagement on the debate around the future of DRM. This resulted in Periperi U, through the UG co-convening the consultation in Accra, attended by UN representatives, USAID and others. It provided a vehicle for African perspectives to be systematically incorporated into the global GAR process. Scientific, Technical and Academic Communities Session at the 5th AfRP Abuja UNISDR Africa requested Periperi U to convene a dedicated STAC session in advance of the Africa Regional Platform event convened in Abuja. The session was attended by 60 people, with key elements of the STAC statement underlining the role of HEIs in advancing DRR being incorporated into the final ministerial statement. 32 Date and Process/Event Nature of engagement and representation May, 2014 IRDR Conference and Science Committee meeting. Beijing June, 2014 Periperi U was invited by the former head of IRDR (who had attended the STIR meeting in September 2013) to submit an application for international centre of excellence status. This was prepared in May and submitted. Three Periperi U partners attended the conference, with the secretariat representative finalising the submission. As a result, Periperi U is now a recognised IRDR ICoE, focused on risk education and learning. This rapid progression in international recognition represents huge accomplishments for the consortium, but also profiles new and escalating demands for the secretariat. These include responding to rising expectations from outside the partnership, along with complex logistics and related requirements in support of travel of consortium staff members and other collaborating partners. 7. Critical Reflections on Achievements and Constraints 7.1 Achievements, changes in Periperi U scope, scale and character A review of quantitative Phase III accomplishments to 30 June 2014 indicates that the partnership has already (after three years) reached the intended target of 2,000 direct beneficiaries described in the award (1,468 short course attendees, plus 876 under- and post-graduate students). Disaster risk￾related academic programmes are increasingly being implemented and research outputs are rising. There is also clear evidence of purposive strategic engagement from local to global scales, and unambiguous signals that higher education institutions are increasingly viewed as crucial partners in advancing disaster risk reduction. However, there is less clarity on the sustainability of Periperi U activities, as at institutional level, there is great diversity in the funding models applied across the consortium. Even in those institutions with high levels of core university funding, short course training, local outreach initiatives and exchange visits remain highly dependent on the current USAID award. Moreover, several partners reported coming under pressure to accommodate the increased interest and demand for their services and activities - while they may have expanded their scale of external engagement, they have not (been able to) increased the number of staff. It is also difficult to assess the inherent quality of both short course and formal teaching and learning programmes, as these are materially expressed in graduate career pathing and professional decision-making. Despite these hesitations, there is a marked increase in the scale and reach of the partnership’s activities – both at institutional and consortium levels. The majority of partners hold a positive view about the increased interest and scale of their engagements and activities with external actors both for raising awareness and visibility, as well as producing new and constructive research outputs. 33 7.2 Enabling and constraining factors 7.2.1 Identified enabling factors for Periperi U Partners identified several clusters of factors that have enabled their participation in Periperi U, specifically: Enabling internal institutional arrangements • The enabling role of a strong and supportive relationship between the operating unit/centre and central university that minimised bureaucracy and provided a diverse range of institutional resources and staff skills (including, sound financial management). • Access to highly skilled, interdisciplinary, well-motivated and supportive staff/team members within the partner’s unit which produce high quality and professional outputs, and which have... • ...built a positive reputation which in turn has increased interest and demand for the partners’ services and outputs. Consortium architecture and Periperi U’s inclusive approach to collaboration • Institutional support from the secretariat was viewed as crucial to the running of the consortium and the individual partners’ activities. • Institutional support from within Periperi U and good relations among partners were also valued. Enabling relations among partners have helped to share knowledge and experience, thus assisting with individual partner capacity and research development and the growth of Periperi U as a whole. • The value of large cooperative and supportive networks between partners and other local and international stakeholders was underlined - especially enhancing the awareness, visibility and interest of each university centre’s activities, as well as contributing to new research opportunities and learning/teaching experiences for students and staff. • Periperi U’s approach of promoting inclusive and integrative engagements with external actors such as local communities, government institutions and others was also underlined as creating an environment for increased engagement and research opportunities, positively enhancing Periperi U’s and its individual partners’ profiles. Changing profile of the global disaster risk domain • Increased profile of disaster risks has increased attention and demand for disaster awareness at national and academic level. • Shifting international policy and research to take disaster risk and resilience issues more seriously, especially with global focus on finding solutions to developmental challenges as well as mitigating the impacts and effects of climatic variability and change in developing countries. 7.2.2 Identified constraining factors for Periperi U In the design stages of Phase III in 2010, the secretariat identified six critical assumptions that were thought to underpin the initiative’s success. They included the existence of favourable institutional environments in each of the participating universities, including financial management capabilities and flexibility to accommodate new programmes. A second assumption was that unexpected demands, crises or downturns in expected resource flows would not occur, diverting skilled personnel from the programme. Constraining factors identified by partners in the course of the interim evaluation repeatedly underlined these two issues (internal institutional/capacity obstacles and implementation disruptions due to irregular and infrequent funding flows), specifically: Internal institutional/capacity obstacles 34 • Capacity constraints which included limited finances and staff to implement all desired activities and outputs. • Bureaucratic challenges, lack of financial support and mismanagement, and limited integration of partners into university departments or the management of academic programmes has prevented partners from expanding their units, their staff base, academic programmes and becoming more sustainable financially. • Constraining and tedious university bureaucracies have also negatively affecting the staff motivation and in some instances, delayed the development and launch of new postgraduate programmes by more than five years. • A disproportionate focus on macro environment activities and research at the expense of addressing local issues within communities in form of extension and outreach services was also recognised by some partners. Funding issues – especially irregular and infrequent funding flows • The irregular and late arrival of USAID funding has inhibited many partners from planning and implementing planned activities and services (such as short courses and research collaborations). It has also hampered their ability to expand research and training activities, as well as their capacity and skills. Long waiting periods between funding requests and transfers have also reduced staff morale and motivation. • Several partners noted that the dependence on USAID funding (as their sole or main income source) is a major constraining factor due to the absence of cross-funding to bridge delays in Periperi U funding transfers. 7.3 Secretariat challenges During Phase III, the SU-based secretariat has come under increasing strain to work at pace across five operational scales. The pressure to meet escalating strategic engagement demands at continental and global scales – combined with growing local research, teaching and outreach expectations has been matched with only modest staff expansion. The secretariat is now increasingly contacted by international, bilateral, nongovernmental and other organisations to explore collaboration opportunities. This important aspect of secretariat support now calls for greater external communications/liaison capability than was originally foreseen. It is also clear that the demands of a vibrant 168 person enterprise that is active across multiple geographic scales have overstretched the current capacity of its secretariat - whose structure and resourcing (planned in 2010) did not anticipate the rapid increase in scale, complexity and international visibility of the initiative. In the past three years, the secretariat at SU has facilitated flights, visas and accommodation for more than 100 Periperi U travellers, simultaneously managing financial transfers to partners – for an initiative that operates in 11 currencies. Figure 19 illustrates the current reach and responsibilities of the consortium, in relation to available secretariat capacity (which is simultaneously tasked to carry out its own academic, research and outreach activities). 35 Figure 19: Current reach and extent of Periperi U in relation to secretariat staffing In the past year, the Secretariat has faced difficulties in ensuring regular financial transfers to partners, resulting in temporary dip in expenditure, compared with the originally projected ‘burn￾rate’. The Secretariat acknowledges that this shortcoming has adversely affected planned short courses, outreach and other partner activities. However, in recent months, it has taken vigorous action to address this constraint. The Secretariat expects continued improvement in this aspect of programme management with the employment (from November 2014) of additional dedicated financial management staff within RADAR. 8. Conclusion This interim internal evaluation of Periperi U activities indicates a highly effective model of strategic disaster risk-related capacity building that, through a dynamic partnership of committed colleagues, has catalysed change at multiple scales. Quantitatively, the initiative has already surpassed the target numbers anticipated in the 2011 agreement. However, the stretch into continental and global arenas of engagement now presents new structural, sustainability and capacity challenges that were not entirely foreseen in the planning of Phase III. As Periperi U moves forward with planning for its engagement at Sendai and beyond, it looks to the summative evaluation and its findings for guidance on how to address these challenges. 36 Annexes Annex A: Required Indicators for USAID Grant No. USAID Grant Number AID-OFDA-G-11- 00215 Sector Name: Natural and Technological Risks Objective: Embed sustainable ‘multi-tasking’ capabilities in disaster risk and vulnerability reduction capacity building in ten selected institutions of higher learning in Africa from 2011-2015, consistent with global disaster reduction priorities reflected in the Hyogo Framework of Action. Dollar Amount Requested: $4,906,876 Number of Beneficiaries Targeted: Direct beneficiaries: A minimum of 2 000 practitioners and students over four years who would benefit from the formal academic programs and short courses/training programmes to be generated by the project. Indirect beneficiaries: This number is difficult to estimate given the range of individuals and organizations anticipated to participate in capacity building and capacity development activities. Number of IDP Beneficiaries Targeted: n/a2 Geographic Area(s): Cities and countries identified:, Accra (Ghana), Algiers (Algeria), Antananarivo (Madagascar), Bahir Dar (Ethiopia), Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania), Eldoret (Kenya), Kampala (Uganda), Maputo (Mozambique), Stellenbosch (South Africa), St. Louis (Senegal). Keyword(s) Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Building / Training Information Systems / Geographic Information Systems Youth Sub-sector Name: Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management. Indicator 1: Number of short courses and training events offered per institution and number of participants trained. 37 Indicator 2: Number of formally accredited curricula on disaster risk and vulnerability reduction offered by partner institutions and number of students enrolled and/or graduates. Indicator 3: Number of institutions making use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), telematic teaching facilities and electronic library access. Indicator 4: Evidence of participation in intergovernmental relations (IGR) structures with respect to risk reduction planning and policy development. Indicator 5: Development of standardized program evaluation and monitoring processes to gauge retention and application of disaster preparedness, mitigation and management knowledge after training. Indicator 6: Number of academic outputs i.e. published articles and conference papers. Indicator 7: Number of people trained in disaster preparedness, mitigation and management (short courses and academic programs). Indicator 8: Number and percent of beneficiaries retaining disaster preparedness, mitigation and management knowledge two months after training. Indicator 9: Number of hazard risk reduction plans, policies or curriculum developed. Indicator 10: Number of disaster-risk related masters and PhD theses produced Sub-sector Name: Hydro-meteorological Hazards Indicator 1: Number of national participants who receive training related to drought and/or management of severe weather events. Indicator 2: Number of research projects undertaken on local hydro-meteorological risks or disasters. 38 Indicator 3: Number of commissioned studies on hydro-meteorological risks by local, national and international partners. Indicator 4: Development of standardized program evaluation and monitoring processes to gauge retention and application of disaster preparedness, mitigation and management knowledge after training. Indicator 5: Number of people who will benefit from proposed hydro-meteorological activities. Indicator 6: Number of hydro-meteorological policies/procedures modified as a result of the activities to increase preparedness for hydro-meteorological events. Indicator 7: Number and percent of people trained in related hydro-meteorological activities retaining knowledge two months after training. 39 Annex B Interim (self) evaluation for Periperi U partners August 2014 1. Overview The current phase of the Periperi U programme sought to achieve the following goal: “[To] reduce disaster risks in selected African countries through improved national and local disaster risk management due to enhanced strategic human capacity to integrate risk reduction into critical developmental sectors and programmes”. Its overarching objective seeks to “build sustainable ‘multi-tasking’ capabilities in disaster risk and vulnerability reduction capacity building in ten selected institutions of higher learning in Africa from 2008 to 2011, consistent with global disaster reduction priorities reflected in the Hyogo Framework of Action.” In this context, the project was framed around five ‘focus areas”, specifically: 1. The institutional development/expansion of active teaching and training, research and policy advocacy capacity in Africa on context-specific disaster risk and vulnerability reduction, with particular emphasis on urban and hydro-meteorological risks. 2. The establishment and/or enhancement of sustainable capacity for each university unit/programme to provide at least one-two short courses annually in disaster risk management, community based disaster risk management, food/livelihood security. 3. The establishment and/or development within each unit/programme of either undergraduate and/or graduate modules related to reducing/managing the risk and vulnerability profile of the country concerned. 4. The generation of applied research outputs by each unit/programme related to the risks and vulnerabilities of the country concerned that increase local understanding and improve the management of those risks. 5. Mobilisation of the consortium to advance disaster risk reduction through its strategic engagement at national/sub-national, continental and international scales with governmental, nongovernmental, international and scientific stake-holders. To ensure compliance with provisions of their USAID award, the Periperi U partnership is required to undertake an interim evaluation of activities prior to the summative evaluation. This self evaluation seeks to explore progress towards the overarching aim and objectives of the project and to identify important issues to be probed in the summative evaluation. Specifically, it seeks to:  Compare actual outputs achieved against those projected in the original project description;  Determine progress in relation to indicators identified in the original project description;  Reflectively assess progress to-date to determine enabling and constraining factors that have affected implementation (including effectiveness and efficiency);  Identify issues that might be probed in greater depth in the summative evaluation. 40 2. Proposed methodology/approach The proposed approach combines both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data from monitoring reports will be consolidated and compiled across the partnership. Qualitative data will be gathered from each partner through the completion of a standardised focus group discussion guideline (for each partner ‘team’) which will be compiled by the secretariat. The secretariat will compile all quantitative and qualitative data in a draft report which will be circulated by 25 August for comment by all partners and finalised by the first week of September 2014. 3. Required partner submissions These include completed: - Excel spreadsheets (almost all submitted) - Form A to compare actual outputs with those planned (see below). - Form B current staffing and associated faculty (see below). - Form C on partner focus group reflections (see below). 41 Form A: Comparison of actual with planned outputs Project year one (2011-2012) activities If done, explain or list If not, explain reason Project-wide support and direction (Focus area 1,5) Generation of consolidated five-year work-plan Generation of detailed one-year consolidated workplan Formalisation of implementing agreements and funding transfer Continued development of website Generation of annual report Strategic engagement with international agencies/organisations Individual institutional activities (Focus areas 2,3,4,5) Development of new short course Short course implementation Exchange visits/conference attendance Continued academic program development Launch of new academic programs Continued academic program implementation Research-generated outputs Strategic engagement with external, local and international agencies/organisations Launch of PhD Programs Project year two (2012-2013) activities If done, explain or list If not, explain reason Project-Wide Support and Direction (Focus Area 1,5) Generation of detailed one-year consolidated workplan Maintenance of website Generation of annual report Strategic engagement with international agencies/organisations 42 Individual Institutional Activities (Focus Areas 2,3,4,5) Short course implementation Exchange visits/conference attendance Continued academic program development Launch of new academic programs Research outputs Strategic engagement with external, local and international agencies/organisations Continued academic programme implementation Project year three (2013-2014) activities If done, explain or list If not, explain reason Project-wide support and direction (Focus area 1,5) Generation of detailed one-year consolidated workplan Maintenance of website Generation of mid-term report Mid-term evaluation Strategic engagement with international agencies/organisations Individual institutional activities (Focus areas 2,3,4,5) Short course implementation Exchange visits or conference attendance Continued academic programme implementation Research outputs Strategic engagement with external, local and international agencies/organisations Launch of PhD Programs Project year four (2014-2015) activities If done, explain or list If not, explain reason Project-wide support and direction (Focus Area 1,5) Generation of detailed one-year consolidated workplan Maintenance of website 43 Generation of annual report Strategic engagement with international agencies/organisations Completion of external evaluation process Completion of final audit process Generation of final report Possibly final meeting in Madagascar or Stellenbosch Individual institutional activities (Focus areas 2,3,4,5) Short course implementation Exchange visits or conference attendance Continued academic programme implementation Research outputs Launch of PhD Programs Attendance of HFA Meeting Annex I: Proposed Time-Frame for Project Implementation Institution 1 July 2011 – 30 June 2013 1 July 2013 – 30 June 2015 RADAR Dev / implementation of 3-4 short courses Re-launch of disaster Risk Studies p/grad progs Inputs into u/grad progs Minimum 2-3 commissioned disaster research reports 3-4 student research papers submitted for publication 1-2 conference papers PhD grads incorporated into academic staff Commence externally-funded internship progs Commence school outreach prog (service learning for students) Implementation of existing s/courses + dev at least 1 new s/course Expansion of Disaster Risk Studies p/grad progs Continued inputs into u/grad progs Minimum 2-3 commissioned disaster research reports p.a. 3-4 student research papers submitted for publication 1-2 conference papers Continuation/expansion of internship progs Embed school outreach prog (service learning for students) 45 Form B: Current staffing and associated faculty Periperi U faculty/university staff Name Gender Position & unit/department Highest qualification Disciplinary focus Source of position funding (/) USAID University Other/multiple sources (please state) Adjunct faculty/collaborating staff from outside Name Gender Position & company/org Highest qualification Disciplinary focus Contribution to teaching or research Any other staff please specify/adjust Table accordingly Name Gender Position & company/org Highest qualification Disciplinary focus Contribution to teaching or research 46 Form C: Individual partner focus group reflections University name: Stellenbosch University Date(s): 07/08/14 Start (s): 9h50 Number of participants4 : 5 End time(s): Facilitator: Vimbai Chasi Rapporteur(s): Robyn Pharoah Focus group discussion guidance note The purpose of this aspect of the self-evaluation is to provide scope for partners to reflectively explore their work and progress achieved. The questions posed below aim to open up discussion around the changing nature of our work as well as the enabling and constraining factors we have faced. Here are some pointers for taking the discussion forward. 1. We anticipate that the discussion should take around 2-3 hours, and should involve team members who have worked on Periperi U activities since 2008 (and especially since 2011). Both academic and administrative staff should be included. 2. Although there is no need for an external facilitator, a colleague with good understanding of the programme should facilitate the discussions. 3. Although we have ‘boxed-in’ the questions, this space is indicative only and should be adjusted according to the content you’d like to include. 4. Could we suggest that prior to the focus group discussion, you have available your various outputs (e.g. short course and academic programme achievements, research accomplishments, involvement in local/national/international processes)? We are aware that this is a large and complex project, in which it is easy to overlook important outcomes. 5. The Periperi U secretariat will compile the input from all partners and incorporate this with other monitoring information already provided. 6. For clarification of any of the questions below, please contact: Ailsa Holloway (ailsaholloway@sun.ac.za) or Vimbai Chasi (vchasi@sun.ac.za) Thank you for taking the time to complete this! It is much appreciated. 4 Please list names of all those who participated in the focus group discussion in the table at the end of this form 47 1. Focus on scope, scale and character of your Periperi U-related activities since 2010 1.1 Has the scope, scale or nature of your work changed (if at all)? 1.2 How has scope, scale or nature of your work changed? 1.3 Why do you think this has happened? 1.4 What have been the Positive / Negative implications for your team (including profile/visibility, demands, staffing, skills, etc.)? 2. Focus on enabling factors for your programme 2.1 What do you view as the factors that have been most enabling for your disaster risk￾related work (e.g. can be individual effort, skills, institutional support, technical assistance, high profile events, political support etc.)? 2.2 Which have been the most crucial specifically in advancing: 2.2.1 The overall Periperi programme (both for you and at consortium levels) Why? 2.2.2 Work in specific focus areas (e.g. institutional development or new academic programmes) Why? 3. Focus on disabling/constraining factors for your programme 3.1 What do you view as the factors that have most constrained your disaster risk-related work (e.g. can be institutional, financial, skill-related, discipline-related etc.)? 3.2 Which factors have been the most disabling for: 48 3.2.1 The overall Periperi programme (both for you and at consortium levels) Why? What have been the implications, if any? 3.2.2 Specific focus areas (e.g. institutional development or new academic programmes) Why? What have been the implications, if any? 4. Focus on perceived impacts and changes 4.1 Can you identify specific instances/examples where your programme has directly advanced disaster risk management policy or practice? 4.2 .1 If so, describe the connections to your Periperi U programme and how your programme activities effected the changes (e.g. the causal pathway). 4.2. Can you identify specific instances where your programme has contributed to reduced vulnerability and/or disaster losses/hardship on the ground? 4.2.1 If so, describe the connections to your Periperi U programme and how your programme activities contributed to the changes 5. Focus on the future 5.1 If you could change one thing related to your Periperi U programme between now and November 2015, what would it be? Why? 49 5.2 If you could change one thing related to the overall Periperi U initiative between now and November 2015, what would it be? Why? 5.3 What do you view as the most crucial factor for the continuing advancement of your programme after November 2015? Why? 6. Any other comments or thoughts? Focus group discussion participant list Name Position Periperi U programme role