EVALUATION OF THE RAPID 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT PROJECT 
A REPORT PREPARED FOR CARE 
USA 
David Stone, Livelihood and Environmental Security (LIVES) 
Advisory Group, 1272 Genolier, Switzerland 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The author of this report is grateful to CARE USA for the opportunity to undertake this 
evaluation. Particular thanks to Jock Baker, CARE USA, for steering this work in a very careful 
and appropriate manner: your wisdom and support are very much appreciated. Special thanks 
also to Charles Kelly who helped guide the author to pertinent reports and provided much 
additional information, without which this evaluation would have been a far more difficult 
undertaking. Paul Thompson kindly supplied reference materials and much additional insight to 
the training element of this project, while Colin Reynolds kindly assisted with technical aspects 
of the process. At CARE Atlanta, Lisa Smith helped greatly with administrative and logistical 
arrangements and my thanks for that. Finally, many thanks to all those who responded to 
questionnaires or phone calls: your insights to this project have been most useful, as selected 
comments in this report highlight. 
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
BACKGROUND 
CARE USA and the London-based Benfield Hazard Research Centre have been pursuing the 
development and application of a Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (REA) tool for use in 
emergency and disaster situations. The results of the REA are expected to be used in relief 
operations assessment and planning. This should result in a discernible improvement in how 
relief operations identify and deal with environmental issues which, if it succeeds, would serve as 
an important indicator of the project’s success. 
The first phase of the project began in August 2001 with initial funding from the joint 
programme of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the UN Office for the Co￾ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Additional funding was secured from USAID’s 
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs, and CARE International. This first phase was set to end in February 2004. 
A range of activities has been undertaken and outputs produced in accordance with the project 
description. Now, at the end of the project period, CARE USA has requested an evaluation of the 
REA process. This has been conducted by an independent consultant who has had no formal 
links with the REA process and who has had no recent contact with the project or experience 
with the outputs. 
The purpose of the evaluation was to: 
1. document actual outcomes against performance measurement criteria stated in the relevant 
project and sub-project documents; 
2. assess the effectiveness of the REA process as a “best practice” tool in disaster 
management; 
3. consolidate and summarise perceptions of project participants and interested parties about 
the REA methodology and training materials, and 
4. identify successes – matched against preset indicators – and improvements in the project 
implementation process. 
The evaluation was carried out on a part time basis from 17 January to 10 March 2004. In all, 15 
days were allocated for this evaluation. Work was to have been undertaken on the basis of a desk 
study: no field authentication was required. 
KEY FINDINGS 
The following achievements can be highlighted: 
• development of comprehensive Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in 
Disasters, and an associated Quick Guide to the same process; 
• field tests organised and conducted in Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Indonesia; 
• Participant’s Handbook and Trainer’s Guide produced as standard training materials; 
• pilot training events conducted in Norway, Central America and India: among those trained 
has been a small group of CARE staff who could possibly now undertake additional training; 
• REA concepts integrated into Sphere and (proposed for) the latest revision of OFDA’s Field 
Operations Guide; 
iv
• mainstreaming of REA guidelines and principles into ongoing training programmes. 
Introductory modules on REA are now routinely included in OFDA’s standard assessment 
training and UNEP/OCHA’s emergency management training; 
• localisation of REA – CARE Ethiopia is developing local versions of the training modules 
for partners; REA principles have also been integrated into university curricula for 
environmental students in Honduras; 
• a web site (http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/disaster_studies/rea/rea_index.htm) which 
contains key REA resources – from this project as well as related themes and issues; and 
• development and submission of a proposal to donors for a second phase to this project. 
While the evaluation recognises the many positive outcomes of this phase of activities, it also 
sheds light on a number of specific issues which urgently need to be addressed. Key among these 
is the logic and methodology applied in the REA process, as described in the Guidelines – the 
core of the whole project and process – the presentation of these materials, and the need to create 
ownership for this process which might help ensure that recommendations from REAs are 
translated into action. 
LESSONS LEARNED 
Specific lessons can be drawn from the reports from field tests, training events and, to a lesser 
extent, feedback from contacts made during the course of this evaluation. These are summarised 
below – with particular reference given to the application of the REA Guidelines, management of 
the project thus far and the use of end results – and expanded upon in Section 3 of this report. 
Preparing to Use the REA Guidelines 
• Good preparation is essential for all field tests and training events. 
• The REA Guidelines proved easier to use if adapted to the country/local conditions. 
• Language and language skills needed particular attention. 
• Lack of information on ways to address environmental issues hampered the decision￾making process and may flaw recommendations. 
• An independent (REA-based) collection of data at the community level is not necessary if 
other disaster impact assessments are conducted. 
• The assessment process can serve a double role in terms of assessment and education. 
• Sensitivity needs to be shown to gender-related issues throughout the whole process. 
Applying the REA Guidelines 
• Use of the Guidelines can help identify critical environmental issues. 
• Information collected and issues identified during the assessment provided useful input 
into formulating relief project proposals, but are not the only inputs required. 
• The REA Guidelines can produce useable results without extensive training or support. 
• A REA assessment can take a considerable amount of time for a tool intended to be used 
in an emergency. 
• But, it is not an overtly expensive undertaking. 
• Conducting a REA at different organisational levels – Head Office, Field Office, 
community – can help harmonise views as to disaster impacts and response needs and 
priorities. 
• Validation of assessment results is important and can provide additional insight into 
environmental and emergency conditions. 
v
• The Guidelines-based assessment process is more difficult to accomplish for multi-sector 
and geographically diverse assistance operations than for a geographically limited and 
highly focused activity. 
Managing the Process 
• Local institutional responsibility is required for the REA process to be managed and 
results used. 
• Participation in the REA process will detract staff from other disaster response activities. 
• Sharing lessons and experiences is an important part of this process. 
Applying the Results 
• Translating the issues identified into action can be difficult where an assistance 
programme is already well established. 
• Further guidance is needed in the Guidelines on how to use the assessment results.
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The main recommendations drawn from this evaluation are shown below and expanded in the 
main text and Section 5. 
Recommendation 1. Strengthen the Institutional Structure and Commitment behind this Project. 
Recommendation 2. Enhance the Technical Integrity of the REA Process. 
Recommendation 3. Enhance the Quality of the Project’s Outputs to Encourage Use and 
Application. 
Recommendation 4. Identify and/or Allocate Resources to Encourage and Enable Follow-up to 
Past and Future REA Field Tests. 
Recommendation 5. Continue to Establish Key Partnerships and Focus Resources on Getting 
these Agencies to Use or Customise the REA for their Own Benefits.
Recommendation 6. Produce a Short, Sharp Training Module on the REA. 
Recommendation 7. Focus Attention on Training Potential REA Leaders and Other Trainers. 
Recommendation 8. Revitalise or Abandon the Advisory Group. 
Recommendation 9: Improve the Visibility and Outreach of the REA Process. 
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III 
1. INTRODUCTION 1 
1.1 The Context: People, the Environment and Disasters 1 
1.2 A Need for Assessments? 1 
1.3 Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment 2 
1.3.1 Background to this REA Project 2 
1.3.2 Goal of Project 3 
1.3.3 Implementation Arrangements 4 
2. EVALUATION OF THE RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT 6 
2.1 Purpose 6 
2.2 Approach Taken and Methodology 6 
3. MAIN FINDINGS I: PROCESS AND OUTPUTS 8 
3.1 The REA Process and Guidelines 8 
3.1.1 The REA Process 8 
3.1.2 The REA Guidelines 9 
3.2 Field Tests 11 
3.2.1 Comparison of Main Findings from the Three Field Tests 12 
3.3 Lessons Learned 16 
3.3.1 Preparing to Use the REA Guidelines 17 
3.3.2 Applying the REA Guidelines 18 
3.3.3 Managing the Process 19 
3.3.4 Applying the Results 19 
3.4 Training Materials 19 
3.4.1 Background 19 
3.4.2 Training Guides 20 
3.4.3 Training Workshops 21 
4. MAIN FINDINGS II: MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING 23 
4.1 Administrative Aspects 23 
4.2 Donors and Funding Support 24 
4.3 The REA Advisory Group 24 
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSTIONS 26 
5.1 Introduction 26 
5.2 Has This Project Achieved its Objectives? 27 
5.3 What Could Be Improved? 29 
5.3.1. Some Technical Needs 29 
5.3.2. Some Content/Presentation Needs 29 
5.4 Recommendations 30 
5.5 Suggested Next Steps 32 
vii
ANNEXES 
ANNEX I REA Chronology 34 
ANNEX II Sample Questionnaire Used in This Evaluation 37 
ANNEX III Terms of Reference 38 
ANNEX IV People Contacted in the Evaluation 42
ANNEX V Materials Consulted 43 
1
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 THE CONTEXT: PEOPLE, THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISASTERS 
Experience shows that the environment is often marginalised during relief operations – those 
responding to humanitarian needs, as well as natural disasters. This has clear impacts, most of 
which are either not recognised or overlooked at the time. Meeting short-term needs can, 
however, result in longer and protracted involvement of international and national agencies and is 
invariably more complex and expensive to sort out. Environmental rehabilitation, for example, 
following the hosting of people displaced by a crisis can be costly and time consuming but much 
of the damage can be avoided or lessened if certain actions are taken early enough in the 
response. 
Several reasons can be identified as to why environmental issues are not systematically included 
in disaster response. Priority is quite naturally given to securing the basic needs of affected 
people. The links between the environment and human well-being, however, are often not fully 
realised and a failure to see the wider picture – as water, sanitation, shelter and food security 
needs are addressed, all of which have direct links with the environment – can have serious and 
lasting repercussions for people and the environment. 
Environmental issues are also often viewed as being the domain of specialists and thus too 
complicated for the “average” relief worker. In reality, these are not complex issues: common 
sense together with a little training in or exposure to some of the most critical issues that might 
need attention are often all that is required. 
1.2 A NEED FOR ASSESSMENTS? 
But why go to the bother of assessing environmental issues when more pressing needs might be 
apparent? Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are becoming mandatory in more and more 
countries, for an increasing number of activities. While once the focus of primarily construction 
and large-scale development activities, attention is increasingly being given to almost any activity 
that has the potential of affecting the environment, albeit to very different standards, and for 
different purposes. The growing need to tackle this requirement head-on has meant than many 
organisations and donors have developed specific EIAs for their own purposes. 
At the same time, however, it must be recognised that a “standard” EIA is largely inappropriate 
for an emergency situation. An EIA’s validity rests in the comprehensive collection and weighing 
of data and options. This deliberative process is incompatible with the often chaotic and difficult 
operating conditions encountered in a disaster. Short-cutting the EIA process risks creating an 
assessment that misses or misrepresents critical considerations. This can lead to focusing on less 
important environmental problems, and may even result in more harm than if the assessment was 
not done at all. 
Thus, there is a clear need – and often obligation – to carry out some form of impact assessment 
even in an emergency situation. While the need for an assessment is becoming increasingly 
appreciated, a number of issues remain, including uncertainty as to: 
• how to do it? 
• whom to involve? 
• when to do it? 
• how to finance it? and 
2
• what to do with the results? 
Clearly a response to these concerns in any emergency/relief setting/operation should take the 
following into consideration: 
• it should provide decision-makers in such operations with an analysis and decision-making 
framework based primarily on saving lives and reducing damage; 
• it must clearly identify the relevance and implications – direct and indirect – of 
environmental issues to these objectives; 
• it must be dynamic and responsive, providing real-time operations input on environment￾related factors; 
• it should be applicable over a wide range of agro-ecological, geographic and socio-economic 
situations; and 
• above all else perhaps, it must be simple and straightforward, imposing the least additional 
workload on people engaged with the relief operation. 
An important step towards addressing this gap has come from the patient development of a Rapid 
Environmental Impact Assessment (REA) tool by CARE USA and the Benfield Hazard Research 
Centre (BHRC), UK. Designed with these, and other, concerns in mind, the REA’s point of 
departure was to produce a simple guide to identifying what are or what might emerge to be some 
of the main environmental concerns during a given, and changing, situation, as relief operations 
are planned, unfold and implemented. It looks at the short- and longer term needs of 
communities, as well the physical environment. Information is generated from various sources 
using a range of tried and tested tools, and is pulled together in a set of standard appraisal forms. 
Used systematically, its potential is enormous and the outputs can clearly overshadow any doubts 
or concerns as to why time and resources should be spent dealing with this issue. 
1.3 RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
1.3.1 Background to this REA project 
The idea for this project grew from a concern – by the current REA Lead Researcher, Charles 
Kelly – in West Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s that locusts and grasshoppers would 
devastate food crops, leading to famine and a consequent need for large-scale food aid. Standard 
environmental impact assessment procedures were waived – possibly as they were seen as being 
cumbersome, expensive, time consuming and required expert guidance and involvement – given 
the need for urgent action to avoid a disaster. This, however, proved to be an inappropriate, 
expensive and environmentally damaging option as substantial amounts of pesticides were 
required year after year. A simple lesson learned was that considering environmental issues at the 
beginning of the anti-grasshopper campaign would have made for a better overall campaign with 
less negative environmental impacts. 
The notion of incorporating environmental issues into disaster operations was first considered in 
relation to population displacements, by the REA Lead Researcher and other individuals and 
institutions. At the time, consideration was being given to possible modification of standard EIA 
procedures to fit disaster conditions, but this was proving too laborious to be manageable in field 
situations. There followed various presentations of ideas/concepts at conferences, discussions 
with potentially interested agencies, and continued background work, culminating in the 
incorporation of an REA project in the BHRC’s programme (a complete chronology of the 
process is given in Annex 1). 
3
Discussions were held with a number of potential partners and donors: it was felt that a partner 
with experience in either training or disaster operations was important to ensure that the 
development of the REA was not simply an academic exercise. Such interest was expressed by 
CARE USA which, at the time, was starting to give more attention to the links between the 
environment and disasters. Funding from UNEP/OCHA allowed practical work to begin. 
Following extensive discussion and a field visit to Orissa, India – the latter to collect first hand 
input on environment-disaster linkages and how to better visualise how an REA process might 
feasibly be accomplished in a disaster setting – a draft REA process1
 was completed in January 
2002. From the initial focus on disaster survivor impacts on the environment, the scope and 
breadth of the REA had expanded considerably. Additions included a section to: 
• frame the disaster (the “Context Statement”) which also served to focus attention on special 
environmental considerations (e.g. environmental concerns from before the disaster); 
• address the potential environmental impacts of disaster events; and 
• consider the potential negative consequences of relief assistance. 
Procedurally, each section was designed to use a simple rating table/check list approach to 
identify and prioritise the issues covered in each topical section of the process. Once issues had 
been identified and prioritised in each section of the assessment process, they were consolidated 
and further ranked to generate a prioritised list of issues requiring immediate action. This process 
(further details of which are given in Section 1.3.4) has remained basically the same during the 
evolution of the REA and the Guidelines. 
Throughout this whole process, it is important to note that the main driving force has been the 
Lead Researcher, with some support and input from what can only be described as a “limited 
number” of individuals. This perhaps has implications for the future use, application and further 
development of the REA and is discussed further in Section 4.1. 
1.3.2 Goal of Project 
The intention of this project was to develop an assessment tool for use in emergencies and 
disasters, based on the following three elements: 
• a review of current conditions at a disaster to identify victim needs not being met and which 
can result in negative environmental impacts; 
• an evaluation of disaster-related factors that can have a direct and immediate impact on the 
environment; and 
• an evaluation of the potential negative impacts of external assistance. 
The goal of this project, as stated in the Project Summary document was to “reduce disaster 
impact by improving the comprehensiveness of disaster response efforts by including the 
consideration of environmental impacts in needs assessments, planning and relief operations”. 
This was to be achieved through work towards two objectives: 
Objective 1: Establish a rapid environmental impact assessment process for disaster situations. 
This was to be accomplished by: 
• transforming an existing REA concept to a formal methodology, through consultations 
and a comprehensive review of literature and experiences; 
 
1
 Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters
4
• testing the REA procedures during actual response operations to at least three different 
types of disasters in different locations; 
• integrating the REA process and outputs into disaster management procedures; 
• establishing an advisory group of disaster management and environmental professionals; 
and 
• assessing the methodology, procedures, process and test applications of the REA. 
The expected output from this work was a formal process for completing an environmental 
impact assessment during disasters, clearly documented with appropriate guidelines, tables and 
matrices. 
Objective 2: Assure the adoption of the REA and environmental considerations in disaster 
response as best practices by international organisations and non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs). 
This was to be accomplished through two related actions: 
a) Developing a training syllabus and course material for the REA, which would involve: 
• drafting course work and a training plan for teaching the REA. The course would be 
designed as a stand alone unit, as a module in other training programmes and as a self￾study course; 
• undertaking an external review of the syllabus/draft course book (which was to have 
included the advisory group) and test presentation of the final draft materials in two 
training courses; and 
• publication of the training and background materials (including access through the World 
Wide Web). 
b) Training those involved in responding to disasters in how to conduct a REA by: 
• conducting two ‘test’ training events to solicit critical comments on the training materials 
and REA process; and 
• conducting a formal training on REA for non-governmental organisations. 
Anticipated outputs from this were: 
• a training course and manual for environmental impact assessment during disasters; 
• general access to this material through hard and electronic media and a standard 
Facilitator and Participants’ manuals; and 
• a cadre of training disaster management personnel able to carry out the REA and train 
others in this process. 
1.3.3 Implementation Arrangements 
From the outset, the project has been managed by the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, 
University College London, primarily through facilities (including administrative assistance), 
provided to the Lead Researcher. Collaboration with CARE USA was initially ensured through 
the Senior Environmental Adviser (Mario Pareja) until this post was closed in March 2002. Since 
then, CARE, through its Emergency and Humanitarian Assistance Unit, has continued to oversee 
the completion of this phase of work, while the BHRC provided a part-time Consultant (Mario 
Pareja) to assist with further development of the REA tool, field testing and training. 
Development of the training materials and the actual test training events was contracted to 
InterWorks, USA. 
5
The initial time required for this project was estimated at 22 months. The first phase began in 
August 2001 with initial funding from UNEP/OCHA. Additional funding was secured from 
USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the Royal Norwegian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs, and CARE International (see Section 4.2). The current phase of development and 
funding is scheduled to end 29 February 2004. 
Throughout the process, informal links have been established with other relief agencies, many 
UN agencies and environmental NGOs. 
As part of the management process, an Advisory Group was set up at the beginning of the project: 
members were expected to “provide a check and balance to developments and provide technical 
advice regarding the development of the REA”. Starting with four members, at the time this 
evaluation was carried out, five additional people had joined the Group. Members were invited on 
an ad hoc, personal choice basis, the resulting Board representing a considerable body of 
knowledge and expertise, from many different angles and a broad geographical representation. 
Among these members was one representative from CARE and three from agencies partially 
funding the initiative – UNEP/OCHA and OFDA/USAID. 
1.3.4 REA Development Process 
The REA process is described in a 109 page document entitled “Guidelines for Rapid 
Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters”. This has gone through many revisions with 
input provided from a number of individuals and institutions. The Guidelines have now been 
tested in three situations – Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Indonesia, with practical on-site community 
application being carried out in the two latter countries – used in the preparation and delivery of 
training sessions (Norway, India and Guatemala), and the preparation of training materials. A 
series of PowerPoint presentations have also been developed around these materials. 
During these activities, feedback was continuously being provided to the further refinement and 
elaboration of the REA Guidelines. The most common changes noted were in relation to: 
• wording and the language used in the assessment forms and training materials; 
• introduction of and subsequent refinement to the community level assessment; and 
• identification of the relevance and usefulness of the green procurement processes. 
Various other presentations of the Guidelines have been made in the past two years, feedback 
from which has also been considered in the revision of the REA Guidelines. 
In January 2004, a Quick Guide to Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters (pp40) 
was produced, mainly in response to comments on the bulk of the REA Guidelines. 
6
2. EVALUATION OF THE RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT 
2.1 PURPOSE 
With funding from USAID/OFDA, this evaluation was requested by CARE USA to undertake the 
following: 
• document actual outcomes against performance measurement criteria stated in the relevant 
project and sub-project documents; 
• assess the effectiveness of the REA process as a “best practice” tool in disaster management; 
• consolidate and summarise perceptions of project participants and interested parties about the 
REA methodology and training materials, and 
• identify successes and improvements in the project implementation process. 
Findings from this evaluation are expected to influence the future direction of the REA tool – its 
structure, content and application – if a second phase of this project finds support. 
2.2 APPROACH TAKEN AND METHODOLOGY 
The evaluation was carried out on a part time basis from 17 January to 10 March 2004. In all, 15 
days were allocated for this evaluation. Three methods were applied in the evaluation, in keeping 
with the Terms of Reference (Annex III): 
• a review of project documents available on the project web site2
 in addition to others 
provided by CARE, the BHRC, InterWorks and the Lead Researcher in particular. These 
documents included background information on the project, the project proposal to donors, 
reports on the REA field tests and training events, and training materials; 
• feedback via specific questionnaires from individuals who had participated in some stage of 
the REA development; and 
• direct contact – meetings or phone calls – with selected individuals who again had direct links 
with the development or implementation of the REA during this period. For both of the latter 
points, a list of contact names and phone and/or e-mail addresses was provided by CARE and 
BHRC. 
The evaluation was therefore primarily desk-based using materials accessed from the project’s 
web site or requested from one of the individuals or agencies working on this initiative. Review 
of the contact list suggested five broad categories of people identified according to their broad 
experience with the project. These categories were those involved primarily in: 
• project design and implementation; 
• training; 
• trainees; 
• Advisory Group members; and 
• other contacts who had been involved with the project. 
While the majority of such cases were straightforward – someone had participated only as a 
trainee or was on the Advisory Group, for example – several people (at least on paper) fulfilled 
 
2 www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/disaster_studies/rea/rea_index.htm 
7
several roles. For the latter, the evaluator’s own judgement was used as to which group the person 
was placed, and which questionnaire s/he was sent. 
Simple questionnaires, each having around 12 questions, were then sent to a total of 77 
individuals (Annex II). A separate questionnaire in Spanish was prepared and sent to all trainees 
from the Antigua workshop. The same gesture should have been made for the participants in the 
Kalimantan (Indonesian) field test but it was not until late in the course of the evaluation that the 
difficulties experienced with language and interpretation of some of the REA elements became 
apparent, by which time this was too late to take appropriate action. A response was requested 
from those contacted within two weeks. One reminder note was sent. 
Of the 86 people contacted in total, 20 written responses were received, while 7 direct interviews 
were carried out (31 per cent overall return rate). Selected quotes from this process are used in the 
following report to highlight particular opinions or general comments/ impressions on the project. 
For the sake of anonymity, however, such quotes have deliberately not been attributed to a 
particular person or persons. 
Apart from the poor response to the questionnaires – which is to some degree expected, 
particularly in this case where it was later learned that language was a major obstacle to both field 
tests and training events – this approach is thought to have worked well. A clearer orientation 
through the project would, however, have been useful at the outset of the consultancy, in 
particular direct access to the most significant materials relevant to this evaluation. Time was lost 
in retracing steps as later drafts of key documents emerged on a different web site. This was 
compounded by the actual volume of paper to be analysed, much of which was later found be 
relevant to the evaluation. 
A draft final report was circulated for comment to 25 individuals on 27 February. By the 
requested cut off date, just three replies had been received so a decision was taken by CARE USA 
to extend the deadline by another week, to 9 March. Contacts were duly notified, but this action 
only resulted in two additional sets of comments being received. 
Difficulties were also encountered with accessing and downloading information from the main 
web site, cited above, a point which should be kept in mind if this is to serve as one of the main 
means of dissemination of the REA tool and training materials. 
Had more time been available it would have been expedient to have somehow reached a larger 
number of people with direct experience of a field test or training event – or even to have 
participated as an evaluator at one of these. Nonetheless, it is felt that the following account and 
recommendations captures the broad essence of peoples’ opinions and experiences with relevant 
aspects of this project. 
8
3. MAIN FINDINGS I: PROCESS AND OUTPUTS 
3.1 THE REA PROCESS AND GUIDELINES 
3.1.1 The REA Process 
The basic output from this project has been a tool to conduct a rapid environmental assessment 
through a determined process, as described in the REA Guidelines (Section 3.1.2). While the 
remit of this Evaluation was not to investigate the technical rigour, integrity or the ease of 
applying the REA process, it was unavoidable that some degree of investigation had to be carried 
out in order to understand the working within the process and links between the various activities 
such as training (manuals and events) and field tests. Further comments from one reviewer 
provided more substantial detail on this aspect, which is included in this particular section. 
A clear interest exists at the individual and institutional levels in using the REA as a tool. Those 
who have been exposed to the tool have, in general, appreciated it for the needs and information it 
revealed. With few exceptions, however, it is doubtful whether any of those trained in its use 
could at this stage undertake or lead a rapid environmental assessment on their own, without 
qualified external assistance. This relates to one of four main points on the REA as a tool – its 
complexity. Many people contacted during this evaluation referred to the “complex” and/or 
“obtuse” nature of the process – comments with which this evaluation fully concurs. Multiple 
readings of the guidelines are necessary to get a clear understanding of the mechanical steps 
associated with the approach and, even then, it would probably not be clear to a first time user 
how s/he might proceed. The risk is therefore that people will not be eager to carry out an 
environmental assessment or that, if they do, it will not be carried out correctly. 
A second, and fundamental, critique applies to the integrity of the current REA tool. From a 
design basis, the approach lacks conceptual clarity. This is compounded by the use of a series of 
rating scales and rating forms as the main means of qualitative data collection and the subsequent 
processing of these data – some of which may not be mathematically correct. Many of the 
questions posed are also multi-faceted which could elicit differing answers depending on the 
respondent’s interpretation. This only adds to possible errors in the data collection process, 
overlaying a possibly flawed design. 
A third point of concern addresses the concept that the REA is a rapid undertaking. From the 
experience of three field tests, however, it is clearly demanding on a few people’s presence and 
input, while also requiring consultation with a much broader group of people. While situations 
differ considerably, it must be assumed that a tool requiring low level input from personnel 
involved in relief operations will be more appreciated and thus perhaps more widely used that one 
which places clear time demands on these individuals. 
A final point relates to the seemingly independent nature of the REA tool at present. Given the 
difficulties experienced in implementing the recommendations stemming from the field tests (see 
Section 3.2), it might be appropriate to also try and integrate this REA with other assessment 
tools, so that environmental issues are treated as cross-cutting or interlinked requirements rather 
than being seen as stand alone concerns. Reference is made to this later in the report through 
awareness raising and institutionalisation of the REA process as well as the development of a 
specific small REA training module for inclusion in the training programmes of other agencies. 
9
While the REA concept appears to be well appreciated, there appears therefore a need for some 
backtracking and consolidation of the current tool before other activities are advanced. Technical 
input or guidance to the actual concept and structure of the REA process appears to have been 
limited thus far, but this is the time to try and improve the integrity and rigour of this tool as well 
as the Guidelines which describe its application (see below). 
3.1.2 The REA Guidelines 
The REA Guidelines have undergone repeated and extensive revision since first elaborated in 
2002 (see Section 1.3.1 for a quick overview and Annex I for a detailed chronology). The 
Guidelines actually outline the path to follow when preparing for and conducting the REA (as 
referred to in Section 3.1.1) but are treated as a separate issue here as some of the issues need to 
be addressed on their own. In reality though, both are of course inextricably linked. 
Funding from UNEP/OCHA for the period August-December 2001 (later extended to the end of 
January 2002) enabled a first draft of the Guidelines to be completed. Funds were also obtained 
from the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through CARE Norway, specifically for 
one training workshop. No time line was attached to the latter: this component of the project was 
to have been completed by December 2002. Additional funds were later secured from OFDA for 
an 18-month period to enable some field testing, the development of training materials and two 
training workshops to be carried out. 
With the exception of funds of course, donor input to the project thus far has been relatively low, 
the exception perhaps being OFDA which provided quite detailed feedback to the original 
proposal, requesting certain changes be made to the REA tool and Guideline. Table 1 shows how 
concerns expressed by OFDA in April 2002 have seemingly been taken into account. 
Table 1. Concerns Expressed to CARE USA by OFDA (Letter to the Senior Adviser, EHAU 
on 9 April 2002) 
ISSUES TO ADDRESS RESPONSE TAKEN 
1. “The indicators listed are all process 
indicators. Please add several appropriate 
impact indicators that will help track the 
success of the programme. For example: the 
number of environmental problems 
identified in a given assessment that are 
addressed by the humanitarian community 
as a result of the REA. An additional 
monitoring/ evaluation component may be 
necessary to determine such impact.” 
Two specific indicators were elaborated (see 
Table 3) but proved to be difficult to meet. 
2. “…what is the protocol for follow-up 
once problems have been identified? How 
will REA findings be communicated to the 
rest of the humanitarian community? How 
will the findings be linked to specific sector 
programmes?” 
During the three field tests, attempts were 
made to integrate at least some of the key 
recommendations into existing projects/ 
programmes or new project proposals. This has 
not been entirely successful but relates more to 
an institutional issue than being any fault of 
the REA process per se. 
10
ISSUES TO ADDRESS RESPONSE TAKEN 
(contd) CARE Ethiopia is developing local versions of 
the training modules for partners; REA 
principles have also been integrated into 
university curricula for environmental students 
in Honduras. 
All outputs from the process to date have been 
made freely available on a dedicated web site 
at the BHRC. 
3. “…While OFDA recognises that the 
questions [in the assessment sheets] need to 
be somewhat general, the units for “Range” 
in Rating Form Number One, for example 
“high” and “low” and “short” and “long” 
need to be quantified for the assessor. 
Otherwise results cannot be compared over 
time, or even from assessment to 
assessment with the same tester. ….. The 
forms should be designed to be readily 
understood on their own, and without 
having to refer constantly to the 
guidelines.” 
The scales and rating forms have been a source 
of much debate, part of which is still ongoing. 
Experience from the field tests and training 
workshops show this to be an area where much 
explanation and discussion is needed: the 
Trainer’s Guide, for example, encourages 
those preparing to lead the REA process to “be 
ready to discuss the metrics you shall use…”, 
“be ready to define Small, Medium and 
Large..”, etc. Many improvements have, 
however, been made to the rating forms in line 
with feedback from participants: details of 
these are not given here but can be viewed in 
the original reports. 
The Guidelines, in a section on “A Note on 
Rating Metrics” suggests that “the rating 
methods or scales can be changed to reflect 
local preferences"” which is probably 
preferable, but it is questioned as to whether 
REA leaders will have the experience 
necessary to complete this correctly. A second, 
remaining, concern relates to differences in 
opinion or interpretation if a second group 
conducts a later REA, since they might have 
different viewpoints or experience. This 
concern is pointed out in the Guidelines and is 
perhaps unavoidable. 
4. “OFDA suggests that the guidelines 
associated with the assessment, once 
finalised, be transformed at some point into 
field guide format for easier transport and 
use.” 
A Quick Guide to Rapid Environmental 
Impact Assessment in Disasters (40 pages) was 
produced in January 2004. It is intended 
mainly for people who have already undergone 
some formal training in the REA workshops or 
who have participated in a field test. It is not 
intended for use by a generalist without 
training or experience in environmental 
matters or disaster response/management. 
The OFDA and UNEP/OCHA were also on the Advisory Group (see Section 4.3) and provided 
input to the early reformulation of the REA Guidelines. Much of the change to the Guidelines, in 
11
fact, has come as a result of direct input from a few Advisory Group members, and especially 
following direct experience and additional feedback from field tests and training workshops. 
3.2 FIELD TESTS
The REA Guidelines were tested in three different countries during 2002 and 2003 (Box 1), each 
taking place over a period of approximately one month. In each case, the national CARE office 
served as the focal point, with some CARE staff being involved in the process. 
Conditions in the three countries varied, but all signs indicate that the operating environment in 
which the REA was undertaken was suitable for testing this process and its evolving outputs. 
These conditions included: 
1. In Afghanistan: 
• a country emerging from 23 years of warfare and experiencing continued security 
problems, was experiencing its fifth year of drought, which was contributing to severe 
water problems and poor food security and health conditions; 
• local and external sources of standardised environmental conditions were limited; 
• communications – local and international – were poor and haphazard; 
• CARE was operating five major programmes, so time pressure existed; and 
• pressure existed to develop or initiate new projects with minimal design input and lead 
time. 
2. In Ethiopia: 
• the Awash-based test site lacked the institutional capacity for support or implementation 
which was present at other CARE-assisted projects in Ethiopia; 
• the general situation changed mid-way through the REA process as senior and disaster 
management staff began to focus on a rapid degradation in food security in east and west 
Hararghe; and 
• the lack of water for public consumption emerged as a serious problem in some areas. 
3. In Indonesia: 
• prevailing conditions related to problems caused by annual forest fires, haze and, in some 
parts of the province, drought and flooding; 
Box 1. Field Tests Undertaken 
Afghanistan 14 February – 16 March 2002: an assessment was carried out with 10 CARE 
staff completing the REA on the basis of information available within this group, 
supplemented by the limited information otherwise available. No practical field activities were 
undertaken. 
Ethiopia 14 August – 13 September 2002: this test involved the CARE country office in 
Addis Ababa, the CARE project office in Awash and four communities in Fentale and Awash 
Fentale districts, Oromiya and Afar regions. 
Indonesia 8 January – 1 February 2003: 5 CARE and 3 NGO (Yayasan Cakrawala Indonesia) 
staff were involved in the initial group assessment in Central Kalimantan, with the 
involvement of 12 communities. 
12
• CARE was in the process of opening a new office to support two new projects, both 
intended to address the consequences of recent disasters (fire and conflict) and significant 
hazards (fire and haze). Information from the REA was intended to feed into project 
implementation plans and options for future programmes; 
• CARE staff were unfamiliar with the test environment; 
• none of the participants had extensive experience in emergency operations: all CARE 
team members had other duties and several had to handle non-related tasks as well as 
participate in the REA; 
• only the Team Leader was fluent in English; and 
• access to senior management and officials was generally possible. 
That such conditions and differences existed at the time of field testing is important since this 
exposes the REA tool and its users to a range of valid conditions and circumstances, giving 
further credibility to the outcomes of each field test assignment and the process overall. 
A final point which should be noted was that there was no in-house CARE environmental advisor 
or officer responsible for this concern in any of the three countries. As can be seen, however, the 
conditions in each situation varied but the above shows that the REA was being tested in many of 
the conditions likely to be experienced in emergencies and disasters. 
The test process was generally similar in all three situations – but particularly in the case of 
Ethiopia and Indonesia as only limited field visits were made in Afghanistan – with some minor 
adjustments occurring as experience was gained. The last test in Indonesia comprised of eight 
stages, summarised as follows: 
1. discussions at CARE Head Office level on the purpose of the test; 
2. preparation for field test and discussion with team leader; 
3. group assessment with CARE, counterpart personnel, local NGOs and government 
representatives; 
4. preparation for community assessment; 
5. test application of community questionnaires, followed by data collection: 
6. data analysis; 
7. presentation of findings and discussions; and 
8. preparation and review of field test report. 
Rather than being discrete steps, it appears, again increasingly as experience was gained, that 
these stages flowed more seamlessly from one to another. 
3.2.1 Comparison of Main Findings from the Three Field Tests 
Before starting, each field test set a series of questions linked to the test results in an attempt to 
identify difficulties, identify positive outcomes and generally revise the REA Guidelines as 
needed. Although some additional questions were asked in the second and third tests, enough 
similarities exist to allow some observations to be drawn, as presented below. These comments 
are based on feedback expressed in the reports from the field tests and may be subject to some 
degree of misinterpretation as these comments have been compiled and condensed by a third 
party. However, information obtained directly from feedback invited through this evaluation will, 
in general, have helped balance any such misinterpretations. 
13
1. Are the Guidelines sufficiently detailed to accurately identify critical environmental 
issues during a disaster operation? 
Results show that the large numbers of environmental issues were identified through the group 
assessment process – sometimes so many it seemed like a shopping list: 15 in Afghanistan, 34 
related to drought alone in Ethiopia, and 19 in Indonesia. 
The clear omission of the Koli Hashnat Xan wetland south of Kabul – an area of high social and 
environmental value which could be impacted by CARE activities – from the first test assignment 
suggests that more care might be needed at this fundamental stage of the assessment. This is 
supported by the tendency that group assessments may focus on less than critical issues, 
especially noticeable in Ethiopia. One way around this might be to revisit this issue throughout 
the REA process. 
Distinctions have also emerged regarding issues identified in the group and community 
assessments, the latter generally appearing more complete. This point may, however, relate to the 
amount of information available to the respective participants as this might have been an obstacle 
to group assessment participants. In this respect, it is not the Guidelines which are “at fault”, but 
identifying or accessing suitable information. It might, however, be helpful if the Guidelines were 
to include a list of what type of information is typically likely to be the most useful and cite some 
possible sources for this? 
Many changes have taken place to the basic REA Guidelines since they were first circulated and 
overall it would appear as though the level of detail in the Guidelines is adequate – perhaps too 
much at times. Many people spoken to during this evaluation commented favourably on the 
aspect of revisions, as viewpoints, opinions and concerns were largely – and efficiently – taken 
into account. The latest text (Version 4.2, December 2003) includes many additional refinements. 
This, together with the new 40-page “Quick Guide” address many of the concerns raised in later 
tests. 
2. Is the Guidelines document an appropriate assessment tool for the time compressed, 
information limited, high workload demand environment found in disaster 
situations? 
It is unlikely that the Guidelines will find application in a disaster situation unless there is 
someone skilled in their use or, as a minimum, if someone who has attended a training event and 
is knowledgeable about part of the technique and its application, is available to drive the process. 
At present though, there is too much detail required which, in turn, takes time and commitment. 
All three tests exceeded the amount of time estimated for initial preparation: initially it was 
thought that two hours preparation and two hours consolidation would be sufficient. Observations 
showed that the time required ranged from half a day to as much as two days, depending on how 
well participants had prepared for the task, and the prior availability of materials in an appropriate 
language. 
While conditions will obviously vary from one situation to another, following the instructions in 
the Guidelines takes time and the process cannot be rushed. The third field test in Indonesia, for 
example, required 14 days of field work for completion, although 10 days were dedicated to 
collecting community input. While this test experienced particular difficulties with language and 
the level of prior preparation, these constraints must be borne in mind as it is not feasible to have 
the Guidelines adapted to every possible situation or culture. Experience in managing the whole 
process is therefore clearly indispensable as summarised in the following comments from one 
14
field test: “The REA tools and Guidelines may lead into lots of details and complex issues, if the 
participants are prepared to deal with them and so desire. It is a matter of deciding where to draw 
the line, when to stop”. 
The Guidelines seemed to work well in the group settings. Having to discuss formerly unfamiliar 
terms within the group or community also served to help people reach a better level of 
understanding of the purpose of the activity, but this was at the expense of time. 
Accessing relevant information did not seem to hinder the process of using the Guidelines, but the 
point previously made concerning identification of potential environmental issues which might be 
impacted by relief operations needs to kept in mind. This process is, however, aided by having 
the combination of an “internal” group assessment and experiences from the community 
somehow feeding into the process. 
Two major limitations which should therefore be borne in mind are the time required and 
management of the process, the latter which should include follow-up on findings and 
recommendations. This issue is well summarised in the observations of one of the two consultants 
overseeing this test, with the comment that the REA may “face two different extreme situations”. 
With a rapid onset disaster the REA should be completed within at least four days. In this 
situation, a strong REA manager will be needed to head the assessment, someone who can 
manage a process in the context of a disaster, who has a good command of English and the local 
language(s), a certain level of understanding of the local conditions and familiarity with the REA 
process. The other extreme is that of a slow onset or protracted disaster in which a more 
participatory REA can be implemented over a longer period of time – 5-10 days. A REA leader in 
this scenario could be a local mid-level staff with skills in participatory rural appraisal (or similar 
social techniques) and with certain minimum management skills for processes and personnel. 
Similar concerns were voiced by others: “…the REA itself is too time consuming which limits its 
usefulness during an emergency because it means that when the REA results are presented to 
programmers (after two weeks), most proposals are written and submitted. …no time is left to 
make use of the recommendations while they are easily outdated due to often rapid changes 
during emergencies”. 
 
While the Guidelines may contain good information and guidance, much will clearly depend on 
the REA leader and his/her ability to organise the group and steer it on the right path. For this 
reason, some improvements are therefore seen to be still necessary to the existing materials and 
approaches (see Section 5). 
3. Were the Guidelines outputs integrated into relief and recovery planning and 
operations and did they have any discernible or perceived positive impact on 
disaster assistance operations? 
It has proven difficult to determine whether the action items identified through the three field 
tests have been addressed, e.g. through inclusion in or revision of normal planning and 
operations, or the results used. In Afghanistan, no specific changes were made to programmes, 
projects or activities, but Senior CARE Afghanistan staff indicated that some assessment findings 
would have an impact on current or future projects – generally to make them more 
environmentally appropriate and sustainable. In Ethiopia the findings were used to design a relief 
project proposal but this has never been submitted for funding, while in Indonesia, changes had 
been anticipated in the composition and approach of two new CARE projects, but this likewise 
did not take place. 
15
The level of interest expressed by other agencies contacted during the field tests has been 
generally positive. Many have indicated their desire to use the REA Guidelines as a tool for 
screening and ongoing activities. To date, however, there has been no indication that any such 
agency has tried to use the Guideline. 
A fundamental question to ask at this stage of the process relates to the future application of this 
REA tool, particularly why should an individual or agency use it? Similar type assessments or 
evaluations are carried out on occasion as a face-saving strategy: there is never any intention to 
use the results, but it is deemed sufficient to have followed the process. As one of the consultants 
guiding the Indonesian field test observes “in order for the REA to be consistently used, the 
system (NGO structures, donors, etc) has to provide some rewards for the staff that use it”. There 
is little benefit in individuals going though this process if their organisation does nothing with the 
outputs. 
Certain elements of the REA Guidelines have already been incorporated into the Sphere 
Handbook, OFDA’s standard assessment training and UNEP/OCHA’s emergency management 
training, which is already a milestone achievement for this project. A welcomed next step, 
however, would be that CARE and other relief agencies and humanitarian agencies make it a 
policy requirement that a REA is routinely conducted in all operations. Feedback from CARE 
USA suggests that this is unlikely given the decentralised nature of the organisation and the fact 
that this tool will have more relevance and appeal to some but not all offices. Several respondents 
made comments to the effect that they would see their “country office benefiting from this 
initiative when we have more staff familiarised and skilled in how to carry out the assessment, 
and including it into our regular assessment toolkit”. An appropriate strategy might thus be to 
make offices aware of this tool and its potential and to continue to update them on developments 
and achievements through, perhaps, a simple project newsletter, if there is a second phase of 
work. 
4. Could the Guidelines be used by local staff who do not have extensive environmental 
or disaster management backgrounds? 
The greatest difficulty encountered with the Guidelines by inexperienced local staff relates to 
language. Certain unfamiliar terms needed explanation, posing not only linguistic but conceptual 
challenges. In addition, non-English speaking participants experienced particular difficulties in 
following discussions (similar observation were naturally noted regarding training materials in 
other situations, see below). 
More careful guidance would appear necessary in this respect if the Guidelines are intended to be 
used as a stand alone tool, i.e. where no experience exists or external assistance cannot be 
provided. A much higher level of support to participants must be expected where language 
difficulties are likely to occur. 
Feedback from workshop trainees indicated that a few would feel confident in participating in an 
REA application as a co-leader, as long as an experienced assistant was on hand. For the 
Guidelines to find broader use by local staff who lack environmental or disaster management 
exposure, however, it is essential that much clearer guidance is provided on certain issues and 
that the manual(s) are made more user friendly. Among the recommended changes (see also 
Section 5) would be: 
• clearer introductions to some of the issues; 
• a more user friendly glossary of main terms and concepts; 
16
• clearer guidance on how to prepare for a REA (perhaps similar to that in the training 
materials); 
• more helpful tips on group organisation and management (which currently features as Annex 
I in the Guidelines); 
• guidance on how to adapt the rating scales (or similar) to local needs; 
• guidance on formulating or adapting appropriate case study scenarios; 
• help with formulating raw assessment results into clear actions and objectives; and 
• guidance on how to apply and institutionalise the outputs. 
A concern with providing any additional information is clearly that of bulk and the extra reading 
this will require. One way to perhaps address this would be to repackage the Guidelines into a 
small number of “User Guides” each one having a different, but mutually supporting, purpose, 
e.g. “Background Information to REA”, “Steps to Follow when Conducting a REA” and 
“Reference Material and Technical Details”. Such a collection, while possibly adding to the 
overall bulk of paper would streamline documentation and allow intending users to refer to 
specific themes or steps and not the whole bulky document. These handbooks would naturally be 
linked with the training materials. 
5. Could the Guidelines be used at the community level? 
As with the previous question, language, again, is one of the first barriers to overcome in enabling 
the Guidelines to work at the community level. In Ethiopia and Indonesia, the community 
questionnaire needed to be translated but it emerged that in so doing the clarification provided by 
participants helped overall understanding of the issues and questions, as well as the purpose of the 
REA. This was, however, at the expense of time. 
Two other points of particular interest should be noted. First, the personal assessment made by 
the consultants managing the REA in Indonesia was that the community assessment went far 
smoother than the group assessment work, possibly on account of language difficulties 
experienced among the latter, but also perhaps because the community work was more 
straightforward through the use of a questionnaire. At the same time, however, it is important to 
note that USAID and CARE management involved in the Indonesia test indicated a strong 
inclination to not conduct community level REA assessments in future, but to collect information 
for use in the REA process through other disaster impact tools. If this is to be adopted in future, 
then it is important that the comment made under Question 1 above regarding the different quality 
of information emerging from the group and community assessment be taken into account. 
3.3 LESSONS LEARNED 
Each of the three field tests contains a set of lessons learned from that particular experience. An 
attempt to synthesise these into a small number of topics is presented below to demonstrate some 
of the – mainly positive – benefits that an organisation might expect from applying this tool. It 
should also be noted, however, that each of these tests carried specific recommendations on how 
to improve various aspects of the REA process and Guidelines, particularly in relation to 
terminology used, the rating schemes, prioritisation of issues, and the need for standard 
formatting. With a few exceptions, these are not described in the following as, to the extent where 
it can be determined, they have already been taken into account in the latest version of the REA 
Guidelines. 
17
3.3.1 Preparing to Use the REA Guidelines 
Good preparation is essential for all field tests and training events. This ranges from pre￾event logistics (per diem and venue arrangements) to translation and provision of documents, and 
agreed co-ordination by the event leaders. Event leaders must themselves be fully versant with 
the materials/modules they are responsible for delivering. The REA Guidelines should be read 
and understood by all those undertaking a rapid environmental impact assessment. 
The REA Guidelines prove easier to use if adapted to the country/local conditions: There is a 
clear benefit to having the Guidelines at least partly adapted to country/local/situation specifics as 
participants in the process instantly feel more comfortable with the examples being discussed. 
Undertaking this, however, needs to be balanced against other needs and time constraints as it 
would be impossible to prepare such generic materials for use in all situations. Where such 
modifications are made, however, awareness should be raised of their existence so that they might 
find wider application. 
Language and language skills need particular attention: Clear communications are a 
prerequisite for a good and lasting understanding of the REA process. Having all relevant 
materials available in the local language(s), as well as competent facilitators/presenters is 
essential. Otherwise, time will be lost in the group sessions with translating or explaining terms, 
phrases or approaches. 
Lack of information on ways to address environmental issues hamper the decision making 
process and may flaw recommendations: reliable information may not always be at hand in an 
emergency. Common problems might include: poor communications, scarcity of reference 
materials on environmental issues, and difficulties in identifying appropriate experts on 
environmental issues in that particular context. 
An independent (REA-based) collection of data at the community level may not be 
necessary if other disaster impact assessments have already been conducted: data on 
environmental issues might have been compiled in the course of other disaster assessments, e.g. 
water and sanitation, nutrition or food security. If so, there should be no need to repeat the 
exercise but to simply access and assess the information. Input from the community level is, 
however, essential as this can be more informative and practical than the views and needs 
identified by people not as familiar with the local situation. The REA Team must therefore, at an 
early stage, decide whether they will devote time to this directly or try to glean information from 
other sources, accepting perhaps that the latter decision may not produce the breadth and scope of 
input from the community level questionnaire. 
The assessment process can serve a double role in terms of assessment and education: 
discussions during the formal assessment sessions and follow-up exchanges can help raise 
questions about the environment which have not previously been considered. New ways might 
then be found to address existing and new environmental concerns. 
Sensitivity needs to be shown to gender-related issues throughout the whole process: 
although groups are expected to include representation for both women and men, attention can 
easily focus more on one than the other. REA facilitators in particular should take note and ensure 
that particular gender focused activities are considered at the appropriate time and in the correct 
manner. This prevents the need to draw up a specific checklist of gender-specific environmental 
issues which is unlikely to find widespread application across cultures and social systems. 
18
3.3.2 Applying the REA Guidelines 
Use of the Guidelines can help identify critical environmental issues: field tests in 
Afghanistan identified 15 critical environmental issues, most of which related directly to CARE’s 
ongoing project/programme activities in the country. Results from Ethiopia identified significant 
environmental issues which could be addressed through relief and development activities. 
Although some of these issues were already known, application of the REA enabled users to 
identify and agree on ways to address these. 
Information collected and issues identified during the assessment provide useful input into 
formulating relief project proposals, but are not the only inputs required: health, nutrition, 
shelter, water and sanitation needs must also be taken into account when considering the possible 
and most appropriate responses in disaster situations. Exclusion of one could lead to unnecessary 
impacts in others. A mechanism should be established early on how links can be assured between 
the various sectors. 
The REA Guidelines can produce useable results without extensive training or support: the 
Central Kalimantan field test, for example, was led and conducted by persons with little 
environmental or disaster management experience, who received minimal training or support. 
According to CARE Indonesia, the assessment provided useful input into ongoing project 
planning and management. For best results, however, it would be preferred if at least one person 
who has previously carried out a REA, or has had training experience in this, was also present. 
A REA assessment can take a considerable amount of time for a tool intended to be used in 
an emergency: few situations are likely to be the same but experience shows that the time needed 
to complete the assessment will depend on the size and complexity of the programme and 
disasters/crises involved. Completion of a REA will take at least eight working days – unless 
completed concurrently with other assessments – excluding initial data collection, travel and 
logistical arrangements. 
But it is not an overtly expensive undertaking: best estimates from the REA field tests in 
Indonesia suggest that the REA can be competed for less than US$8,000. Costs will increase if an 
international expert/consultant is required. 
Conducting a REA at different organisational levels – Head Office, Field Office, community 
– can help harmonise views as to disaster impacts and response needs and priorities: 
focusing on different levels links community participation with decision-making on relief and 
rehabilitation issues, and allows community input to the selection of ways to respond to the 
disaster. 
Validation of assessment results is important and can provide additional insight into 
environmental and emergency conditions: the views expressed by group members may not be 
the same as those of communities. Any such disagreement, when discussed with the relevant 
parties can help overall understanding of the process, lead to a better appreciation of the outcome 
of the assessment and increase buy-in to the next steps. 
The Guidelines-based assessment process is more difficult to accomplish for multi-sector 
and geographically diverse assistance operations than for a geographically limited and 
highly focused activity: it may be better to address projects/programmes individually after an 
19
initial assessment meeting and use group meetings to validate issues and propose actions from a 
broader perspective than each project/programme. 
3.3.3 Managing the Process 
Local institutional responsibility is required for the REA process to be managed and results 
used: a position dedicated to at least part time environmental assessment and monitoring would 
have a positive impact on disaster responses. Development projects, for example, if routinely 
screened for environmental impact, are likely to be more appropriate and contribute to people’s 
livelihoods. At present this is done on a hit-or-miss basis. Effective follow-up to 
recommendations is also difficult to assure if no focal point is made available. 
Participation in the REA process will detract staff from other disaster response activities: 
individuals participating in the assessment phases will need to invest around eight hours of their 
time in the process. An alternative – having a consultant carry out the assessment – might provide 
more comprehensive results but the buy-in is unlikely to be as strong and the individual staff time 
still required to work with the consultant would likely equal or exceed the time spent in group 
sessions and follow-up. 
Sharing lessons and experiences is an important part of this process: many useful lessons and 
experiences have emerged from the development of this REA. Other agencies have started to 
express interest in using this for their own purposed of relief planning but, as far as is known, this 
has not yet been adopted. There are, however, clear benefits from other agencies using this tool. 
3.3.4 Applying the Results 
Translating the issues identified into action can be difficult where an assistance programme 
is already well established: the ideal use of the REA process is in the relief phase of a disaster 
and with activities being implemented without an established framework or management 
infrastructure. Making changes to existing structures to address environmental issues can be 
difficult because of a natural resistance to change the “established” way of doing things and/or a 
lack of capacity or funding to make the changes. 
Further guidance is needed in the Guidelines on how to use the assessment results: results 
from the assessments fall into two categories – issues which can be addressed by direct action 
(e.g. environmental degradation) or conceptual issues such as environmental resilience or 
sustainable resource use. Linking actions to the conceptual issues was found to be difficult: more 
guidance and consideration needs to be given to how these issues can be addressed in more 
practical terms. 
3.4 TRAINING MATERIALS 
3.4.1 Background 
The task of formulating a training syllabus and course development for the REA was assigned to 
InterWorks, Madison, USA. Three tasks were identified to: 
• develop a training syllabus and course material for the REA (see Section 3.4.2); 
• hold three training sessions on how to conduct an REA (see Section 3.4.3); and 
20
• develop a eLearning module.3
In the brief to undertake this work, it is stated that “The trainee level of knowledge at the start of 
a training course is expected to include a good understanding of development and a general 
awareness of environmental issues. Trainees are expected to have only a minimal knowledge of 
disaster management concepts and procedures and no specific technical knowledge in 
environmental management or relief assistance skills areas”. 
Two products were prepared, based primarily on the REA Guidelines – a Trainer’s Guide and a 
Participant’s Workbook. 
3.4.2 Training Guides 
The 100-page Trainer’s Guide is presented in a clear manner with a simple structure and 
presentation. Three different workshop formats can be designed on the basis of the contents, 
depending on the training needs assessment of the audience or the objectives of the training event. 
These range from a three-day agenda for individuals with little or no experience in disaster 
management, environmental management and/or disaster assessment, to a 1.5-day workshop for 
those only interested in the organisational level methodology. 
A number of useful practical tips are presented up front for REA Leaders – those who will be 
responsible for applying the REA Guidelines – much of which appears to be based on feedback 
from training sessions, given the level of detail. Individual sessions are clearly designed and well 
organised to guide prospective trainers through the various steps. An adequate number of case 
studies are included, of varying situations, although Leaders are invited to prepare their own 
examples based on the local situation. 
The Participant’s Handbook is likewise well developed, with a clear open format. Some 
independent comments on how this might be improved are to: 
• provide an introduction, with details of who at CARE/BHRC might be contacted for further 
information or assistance; 
• introduce the REA process diagram or, if layout permits, have this on a fold-out sheet so that 
participant’s have constant access to this as a navigation tool for the whole process; 
• redevelop and greatly simplify the “Key Terms” which has abundant technical terms and 
jargon: even some native English speakers will have difficulty with this as it stands; and 
• provide expanded and perhaps clearer case studies, if possible, on some key criteria that 
participants, or potential trainers, might use when elaborating local scenarios. 
In general, it would appear that those who have seen and used the training materials have been 
very satisfied with them. Two major concerns remain, however, as to whether these will now be 
used outside of the training workshops and whether those who have already participated in the 
training events will put their new found experience to practical application. 
Feedback from people who have seen and used the training materials has been quite positive. One 
observer notes that “it is a very well thought out and documented approach… I do feel that it will 
be a good guide, but will need adaptation in accordance with local sensitivities of the place of 
application”. This point was raised by several people and cannot be over emphasised. Future 
 
3
 This aspect was not examined as the module was undergoing final development and testing at the time of 
this evaluation. 
21
revisions of the training materials should, perhaps, consider how guidance might be provided for 
this purpose? 
3.4.3 Training Workshops
Three training workshops were staged in relation to this project, two (Norway and India) of which 
had a national focus, while the Antiguan event drew participants from the Central American 
region4
. The timing of these events was as follows: 
• Oslo, Norway 8-10 April 2003 – chosen at the request of the Ministry to train Norwegian 
NGOs that would be operational in developing countries; 
• Antigua, Guatemala 23-25 April 2003 – selected as a venue on account of CARE 
preparing a Disaster Preparation Plan, which offered a good opportunity for a regional 
training event; and 
• Bhubaneswar, India 12-14 November 2003 – a practical example of where there had been 
a recent disaster. 
While the approaches to each workshop differed slightly and were presented by different people, 
the purpose remained more or less consistent – at the end of the workshop, participants were 
expected to be able to: 
• describe the purpose and rationale of the REA; 
• describe how disasters and the environment are interconnected; 
• be able to implement all four modules of an REA in an emergency situation; and 
• be able to make recommendations on disaster response programming that takes the REA 
results into consideration. 
From the workshop reports it appears that at two of the events the lack of timely co-ordination 
and communication led to confusion, especially regarding the participants and their language 
proficiencies, as well as to misunderstandings, delay and duplication of efforts regarding the 
translations. Improvements would appear necessary regarding administration, planning and co￾ordination of these events in future. 
Comparison of the evaluation scores from participants at the three training events show that their 
appreciation of the sessions was generally high: from 3.5-4.5 in Norway, 4-4.4 in Guatemala and 
3.9-4.4 in India (range was 1 low to 5 high). The sessions on “Unmet Basic Needs” and 
“Participant’s Experiences” were the most highly appreciated in Norway, with less enthusiasm 
been shown for “Green Procurement”. Similar observations were that “Environmental Threats of 
Disasters” and “REA implementation issues” were the most appreciated in Guatemala, and that 
on “Community Level Assessment” the least. In India, sessions on “Disaster Management 
Context” and “REA Implementation Issues” both got the lowest scores, while at the opposite end 
of the scale, high appreciation was shown for “REA Conceptual Framework”, “Unmet Basic 
Needs” and “ Green Review and Relief Procurement”. 
In terms of relevance of the sessions to the individual’s work, apart from the welcome and 
objectives, on average those participating in the Norway workshop found “Participant’s 
Experiences” to be the least relevant and the “REA Implementation Issues” the most. IN contrast, 
participants at the India workshop found the session on “REA Implementation Issues” to be the 
least relevant, and “The Environment-Disaster Connection” to be the most useful. Similar 
 
4
 An additional half-day training was organised on 12 December 2003 in conjunction with a regional 
disaster preparedness training workshop organised by the Lutheran World Federation at Konark (Orissa), 
India. 
22
reflections from Guatemala showed that the “Context Statement” and “Unmet Basic Needs” 
sessions were most appreciated, and “Participant Experience” again the least. 
Different evaluation forms were used in the different events which unfortunately limits analysis 
of the workshops to some extent. In Norway, however, two participants rated the workshop as 
“Excellent”, with a further seven opting for the “Very Good” choice. In Guatemala, two 
participants again rated the workshop as “Excellent”, nine as “Very Good” and four as “Good”. 
When asked “If I feel adequately prepared to conduct an REA”, the average score was 4.1 (range 
is 1 Strongly Disagree to 5 Strongly Agree). Interestingly though the two lowest scores were 3.9 
and 3.8 to questions “The programme was relevant to my job” and “The programme met my 
individual needs”, respectively. 
Of the small number of trainees responding to questionnaires, most expressed doubt as to whether 
they would able to use the tool – “I would not be ready to use the tool in a situation where it 
might be useful due to my general lack of experience in environment/emergencies”. Some, 
however, expressed more confidence in what they observed and would be ready and confident to 
try and use the tool if they had some additional expertise on standby, perhaps as a co-facilitator. 
Common feedback from the training workshops was that materials did not reach them before the 
workshop so there was a great deal to absorb at the events. This was compounded by the language 
and comprehension issues already touched upon. A number of respondents, however, 
complemented the training teams on their approach and input which appears to have made up for 
at least some of the seemingly poor preparation. 
The use of case studies was singled out as being a particularly useful and helpful feature of the 
training, which probably merits more attention being given to these in the manuals (some are 
quite sketchy in detail) and courses, again perhaps with a slant also on how national/local REA 
Leaders might go about designing those of local interest and relevance. ` 
The ideal balance would seem to be workshops like that in India, where three days of theory are 
then put into practise, giving people a chance to apply some of their learning and enabling further 
informal exchange with the trainers. A number of the trainees from this workshop in particular 
highlighted the relevance of Module 3 of the REA process – consolidation and analysis – as they 
found it “very helpful in prioritising the issues and actions required in a disaster situation in such 
a short period of time”. Another pertinent comment was that the experience helped project staff 
“think through issues that otherwise they might not have done, in terms of how to focus an 
emergency intervention through the lens of longer term environmental impacts”. 
23
4. MAIN FINDINGS II: MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING 
4.1 ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS 
Day-to-day administration for this project has been mainly handled by the BHRC, which was 
responsible for hiring the Lead Researcher and additional expertise for field tests and training. 
Funds from the OFDA were transferred from CARE USA to the BHRC for this purpose. 
Overall management of the project appears to have gone quite smoothly, despite the involvement 
of two “overseeing” institutions, three sources of funding and contractual links to other partners, 
e.g. InterWorks. Some comments received, however, were that specific tasks would possibly have 
worked better had they been specifically assigned to an individual or group. This relates in 
particular with training and it is strongly recommended that a focal point is nominated/hired to 
undertake this responsibility in any subsequent phases. 
Since the departure of the Senior Environmental Adviser from CARE USA, CARE’s role in the 
process has been one mainly of management. The Senior Adviser of CARE’s Emergency and 
Humanitarian Unit, however, participated in the last training event in India in November 2003. 
As with the training comment mentioned above, there is also a clear need for either CARE and/or 
the BHRC to appoint someone responsible for taking this project and its outputs further forward, 
including follow-up to the outcomes of past and future REAs. 
Appreciative comments were expressed by those close to the whole development process in terms 
of the flexibility they were permitted to take different approaches towards developing the REA 
tool. It was, by all accounts, despite some teething troubles regarding institutional administrative 
issues, a “very positive, open experience”. This aspect of management has certainly helped 
deliver a product that corresponds more to user needs than it might otherwise have done. While 
not meshing together terribly well with the rest of he REA process at present, the addition of the 
module on green procurement is seen as having a valid purpose but was not foreseen at the outset, 
being added only following demand. Another positive outcome of this flexible attitude was the 
inclusion of more of a community focus in the assessment process than had been seen from the 
outset. Similar commendation should be given for the open, transparent nature of the web site, to 
which draft reports were often posted, as well as each of the field test and workshop reports. 
Many organisations or partnerships would not have been prepared to do this. 
Throughout the whole process, however, one must note that the driving force has been the Lead 
Researcher, with some support and assistance from partner organisations. This is unlikely to 
prove sustainable in the longer term and a strong argument is made for this activity to now be 
institutionalised – not in regards of ownership per se but in terms of finding a home for this 
product from where conscious and consistent efforts will be made to translate it further from a 
paper document to a series of practical and much needed tools. In the Evaluation’s view, this is 
the critical time for institutions to commit themselves fully to this project by: 
• acknowledging the value and appropriateness of this tool; 
• revising the REA in accordance with concerns expressed in Section 3.1; 
• revising training materials to match the new product; 
• securing additional funds to enable a successful roll-out of the tool; 
• integrating the main messages and processes into existing institutional policies and 
guidelines; 
• raising awareness of what this tool offers and encouraging partnerships to further spread the 
use of this tool; and 
24
• continuing to support and monitor its implementation. 
4.2 DONORS AND FUNDING SUPPORT 
It should be remembered that although reference is made to the “REA Project”, this in fact 
consisted of several distinct phases, as funding was obtained from different donors. This aspect 
may on occasion have been disruptive but overall it has been on schedule. 
A review of the financial aspect of this project was not specified for this evaluation, so little 
attention has been given to this. Table 2, however, presents the funding background for the 
project. 
Comments from those spoken to though on the issue of project management were favourable in 
terms of the manner in which funds were spent and, to a higher degree even, to the value of the 
output from this process. 
Table 2. Overview of Project Timeframe and Funding Situation 
Funding Source Activity Timeframe Amount (US$) 
UNEP/OCHA Initial REA development August-December 
2002; extended to 
end-January 2003 
25,000 
Royal Norwegian 
Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs 
REA field tests (Afghanistan 
and Ethiopia) and training 
(Norway) 
December 2001 – 
December 2002 
49,490 
OFDA/USAID REA field test (Indonesia) 
training (Norway, Guatemala 
and India) 
July 2002 – 
February 2004 
206,305 
CARE USA REA development and co￾ordination 
 (staff time) 
Total 280,795 
4.3 THE REA ADVISORY GROUP 
Most people contacted through this review confirmed the value of having an Advisory Group in 
theory, but those with direct experience of it admit that it did not fulfil its role, as was intended. 
One response to the evaluation questionnaire perhaps sums this up: “The 'Advisory' board was… 
not well handled. There was never a face-to-face meeting to discuss the tool, we do not know 
each other, and we never had a chance to directly speak to those who used the tool. There was no 
direct two-way communication of any kind – not even a telephone call”. 
As stated in the Project Summary, the Advisory Board was to have been involved in the external 
review of the training syllabus. This, however, did not take place and there has been only minimal 
input to this aspect of the project outside of the training events. 
Likewise, feedback on the initial REA was received from only 3-4 members – chiefly those 
closely engaged in the process from the funding or management side, but there has been little 
input since this time. As far as can be deduced, members were not officially requested to play an 
25
active role in the REA process. There was, apparently, an initial Terms of Reference, although 
there is some confusion surrounding this document. Responsibility does not lie on the individual 
members alone, however, as it appears as though the role of the board was never made clear 
which has added some confusion and probably did not generate much interest among the 
members more remotely involved in this work, i.e. those outside of the donor agencies. 
The Lead Researcher had face-to-face meetings with some of the Group members. In addition, 12 
communications were sent from the Lead Researcher to the Group from 13 October 2001 to 1 
February 2004, informing them of updates (including a follow-up to all training sessions), events 
and inviting feedback on any of these developments. The last note even mentioned this current 
evaluation with notification that they might be contacted. Response, however, was sporadic and 
limited. This is unfortunate and perhaps could have been overcome through either convening 
some Group meeting, a teleconference call or an invitation to Group members to participate in 
specific training events or field tests. Consideration should therefore be given as to the future role 
and structure of this Group. 
26
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 
5.1 INTRODUCTION 
What has been described on several occasions as being a “small project” has, notwithstanding this 
notion, created a noticeable impact. Our awareness of how an environmental assessment might be 
conducted during an emergency or disaster has been considerably heightened, and the resources 
and other means needed to carry this out carefully recorded. Appreciation of this can be traced 
from community members, through a broad range of NGOs (including environmental and relief 
organisations) to some of the main UN agencies, and selected governments and donors. This in 
itself has been quite an achievement. 
Equally important, however, is the product, or more correctly the products, which have evolved 
and emerged from this process. The structure behind the current REA process has been modified 
many times following individual opinion or practical experience from direct field testing as well 
as feedback from a number of training events. While the process itself may appear to be time and 
labour intensive, the fact that a particular element or approach is now included in the process may 
be because it was requested or has been found worthwhile, perhaps even essential, to have it 
there. On the one hand, the combined approach of the development process, field testing, training 
and feedback has shaped the outputs, but serious concern has also emerged as to whether some of 
the underlying principles of the process are in fact adequate. 
This issue needs to be addressed as a priority, unless the institutions promoting its use – primarily 
CARE – are willing to accept this tool in its present state as a “Quick and Dirty” REA and not the 
ultimate Rolls Royce version that some may see as being essential. As stated in Section 1.2 “the 
REA’s point of departure was to produce a simple guide to identifying what are or what might 
emerge to be some of the main environmental concerns during a given, and changing, situation, 
as relief operations are planned, unfold and implemented.” The current REA tool/Guidelines is 
certainly not simple but limited experience from field tests suggests that it can work if resources 
are made available. 
A few observations may assist future guidance: 
• first, this REA is not intended to be a once-off exercise, nor it is expected to obviate the need 
for a full EIA should this be seen necessary. 
• expectations from the use of this tool are, it appears, sometimes too high and there is a need 
to revisit some of the basics before advancing further; 
• there has, perhaps, been too much readiness to adapt the process/Guidelines to individual 
comment, which might explain the disjointed impression one gets when reading the materials, 
and which might also explain some of the current design weaknesses. 
While a decision clearly needs to be taken in relation to the future of the present REA tool, it is 
perhaps meanwhile worthwhile to ask “Does this tool bring added value to relief and disaster 
assessments? This question was posed to most people contacted during this evaluation, and drew 
almost unanimous support. People like it as “it brings [to the fore] issues very often neglected in 
crisis situations”, one said, while other comments were that it “highlights the participation of 
communities”, “complements other disaster assessment tools”, “can make a significant 
contribution to having the environment considered in disaster response”, “gives importance to a 
critical area often ignored”, and that “with [this tool] CARE can advocate for the inclusion of 
environmental issues in the implementation of relief aid”. Thus, people on the working or 
receiving end have appreciated its worth, but may not necessarily be aware that they were 
27
possibly drawing false assumptions from the observations on account of the tool’s current 
analytical structure. 
It is clear that additional work is required on the basic process and the Guidelines before any 
additional application or promotion is undertaken. While the time or resources required for 
carrying out a REA may not necessarily change as a result of the suggestions provided below, the 
applicability of the process might. In particular, more people might be interested in testing the 
approach for themselves or, more likely, would feel more confident to try and do so. This should 
remain one of the ultimate goals if this project continues. 
Once these concerns have been resolved, focus should shift to translating the final outputs into 
some key languages, refining the training materials, and designing and enabling successful roll￾out of the REA tool, primarily through additional specialist training and the training of trainers. 
Added consideration must also, however, be given to ways to try and encourage/ensure that the 
findings of REAs are taken into account and that they are seen to have a positive impact. That this 
has not happened as smoothly as one would like to have seen, should not be strictly seen as any 
fault with the REA tool or process, but rather highlights the need for institutional commitment 
and perhaps additional resources to support this process. 
5.2 HAS THIS PROJECT ACHIEVED ITS OBJECIVES? 
Looking at some issues in more detail, eight specific indicators, addressing both the process and 
output, were selected from the outset to measure performance in the OFDA-funded activities. 
These actually form a useful means of summarising the achievements of this project and are 
shown in Table 3, together with additional comments on the extent to which each has been 
accomplished. 
Table 3. Progress Achieved with Regards Specified Project Indicators 
Indicator Comments Degree to which the 
Indicator has been 
Met 
Completion of the REA 
revision following the field 
test. 
The REA has been consistently revised 
after each field test and training event. To 
say it was “complete”, however, would be 
inaccurate as the REA process continues 
to undergo some change with additional 
input from reviewers. 
Full (but additional 
requirements have 
been identified). 
Publication of the REA, 
with hard and soft copies 
available. 
The REA is available on a web site 
dedicated to this project. Work is 
continuing to improve access to and the 
clarity of this site. It is not certain whether 
a printed version of the Guidelines will, or 
was ever meant to, be effected. If funds 
are available, however, then this should be 
carried out and copies widely distributed 
– once revisions have been made to the 
existing Guidelines. 
Considerable, but in 
the present context 
this is probably 
adequate. 
28
Table 3 contd 
Indicator Comments Degree to which the 
Indicator has been 
Met 
Completion of one field test 
funded under this project 
(of three total). 
The Indonesian field test was successfully 
carried out with eight CARE and local 
NGO staff forming he core assessment 
team. 
Full. 
Training materials 
produced: syllabus, 
facilitator and participant 
manuals. 
Trainer’s Guide and Participant’s Manual 
produced. 
Full. 
Completion of two test 
training courses and one 
final training course. 
Three training workshops were organised, 
enabling further testing of the training 
materials 
Full. 
Training of relief assistance 
cadres in REA procedures. 
From among the 59 people who attended 
the training workshops, a small number of 
these (including those responsible for 
developing training the current materials 
as well as those for other relief and 
humanitarian organisations) are 
“routinely” engaged in relief operations so 
have benefited from this experience. 
Several instances of where this experience 
has been put into practise have been cited 
above. 
Partial – as no figure 
was specified for 
this. 
The number of priority 
issues identified in the test 
assessment which are 
addressed through changes 
to relief or rehabilitation 
activities within 30 days of 
completing the assessment. 
A number of “general” priority issues 
were identified in each field test. 
Feedback, however, suggests that none of 
these have been addressed. 
None. 
The number of priority 
environmental issues 
identified in the assessment 
which are resolved within 
30 days of completion of 
the assessment. 
Among the priority environmental issues 
addressed, moves were made to integrate 
these into project design/redesign. From 
what information can be gathered, 
however, none has reached the level of 
having resources assigned to dealing with 
them, thus none have been resolved. 
None. 
Table 3 shows that the majority of the indicators framed at the outset have been met. Many, in 
fact, many have even been surpassed, e.g. through the unintended production of a separate Quick 
Guide to REA which is aimed primarily at those who have undergone training, or might 
otherwise be familiar with REA/EIA approaches and principles. 
The least successful aspect of implementation relates to the poor level to which the 
recommendations from the assessments have been picked up. This is again not a particular 
problem with this project’s outputs but clearly opens up a new area which will need further 
thought, resources and, above all else, institutional commitment if it is to be fulfilled. A highly 
29
relevant comment was made in this context by one respondent who particularly appreciated the 
Green Procurement section of the REA but noted that: “it is hard to convince the finance 
personnel about the cost-effectiveness of the green products. But it is not impossible”. By 
extension, one could also pose the question “What is the purpose of conducting an REA if the 
commitment or resources to act on recommendations are not there?” 
5.3 WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED? 
There is always room for improvement in even in the best projects, but if one need emerges from 
this evaluation it is in relation to the REA tool and accompanying Guidelines. The history, time 
and effort which has been invested in this product is well recognised. However, the current tool 
needs some basic attention while the Guidelines document suffers from a series of features which 
unfortunately detract from its appearance, readability and ease of comprehension, all of which 
work against it being a widely read document and thus becoming a broadly applied tool. 
Needed improvements falls into two categories: technical structure and content/presentation. The 
following comments are offered with a view to helping improve this worthwhile tool. 
5.3.1 Some Technical Needs
Although this particular aspect was not part of the Terms of Reference, four particular comments 
are made as these clearly relate to the structure, use and application of this tool. These are: 
• a need to revisit the design criteria, in particular the type of information that may be or is 
required, as well as certain design analytical requirements and data collection methodologies; 
• the rating scales and forms, which need to be revisited as these can be subject to much 
misinterpretation and misrepresentation, as well as being difficult to apply in certain 
instances; 
• additional guidance on consolidating observations and recommendations with particular 
emphasis on translating these into action; and 
• further guidance needs to be given that would help assure consistency between an initial and 
subsequent REAs which, although involving the same location, might be carried out by 
entirely different teams. 
5.3.2 Some Content/Presentation Needs
The need to get into the actual body of the REA has been addressed through the very recent 
provision of a Quick Guide which, as it points out in the Introduction, is intended for “those with 
a basic understanding of the REA process either through reviewing the Guidelines or from 
participating in training on the REA”. It is still questionable, however, as to whether this 
document alone is sufficient for someone to fully organise and carry out a REA: this should be 
tested before too long. A comment from one respondent captures this: “The main challenge I 
foresee with the tool is that it is very bulky and not user-friendly and as a result it has not been 
used to analyse the situation in our areas of emergency operation nor support emergency project 
design”. 
Specific suggestions made are that: 
• the Guidelines need a thorough edit and redesign; 
• the Guidelines could be re-organised to improve clarity and logic/flow; 
• the Guidelines are repetitive: much of the background and introductory material is repeated 
again in the modules; 
30
• the use of terms is often not consistent, e.g. “Section” in the Modules and “Steps” in the REA 
diagram. Likewise, standard titles are required for modules and corresponding annexes, cf 
Module 1 and Annex B and Module 2 and Annex D; 
• there is too much cross referencing – causing the reader’s mind to jump around – and use of 
bold as a supposed visual aid; 
• a clearer step-wise guide to each module would be useful; 
• Module 4 should be enlarged and made more relevant and responsive; 
• Section 3 is perhaps the most important part of the whole process, assuming that the 
assessment has been planned and carried out to a high level of quality, but needs clearer 
instructions on how to amalgamate and prioritise; and 
• changes are needed to the Annexes: Annex C should be Annex I, references should be placed 
at the end; Annex J should be earlier; and Annex F and Annex G should either be dropped or 
kept in a reference companion volume (see below); and 
• it would be helpful if the Guidelines (or perhaps the proposed User Guide) included a list of 
what type of information is likely to be the most useful and the possible sources of this? 
The need to get into the actual body of the REA has in part been addressed through the provision 
of a Quick Guide which, as it points out in the Introduction, is intended for “those with a basic 
understanding of the REA process either through reviewing the Guidelines or from participating 
in training on the REA”. It is still questionable, however, as to whether this document alone is 
sufficient for someone to fully organise and carry out a REA: this should be tested before too 
long. A comment from one respondent captures this: “The main challenge I foresee with the tool 
is that it is very bulky and not user-friendly and as a result it has not been used to analyse the 
situation in our areas of emergency operation nor support emergency project design”. 
It is suggested that serious consideration be given to repackaging the REA Guidelines once 
agreement has been reached regarding its structure. A suitable structure could be a series of three 
handbooks arranged as follows: 
• “Background Information to REA”– an introduction to the REA process, what it is, what it 
can do and what resources are required to carry it out; 
• “Steps to Follow when Conducting a REA” – clearly describing suggested steps to guide a 
reader through the REA process. This would also outline the first steps to take when 
considering a training event, including how to set up a training workshop; and 
• “Reference Material and Technical Details”– a technical handbook containing annexes from 
the current Guidelines and any additional information which may need occasional 
referencing. 
Once a user has read through parts I and II, future reference should be mainly in relation to Part II 
only, with occasional consultation with Part III. 
Other suggestions for improvements to the management, training and practical application of the 
REA tool have been indicated elsewhere in the previous sections and will not be repeated here. 
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 
The following recommendations are made on the basis of the Evaluator’s observations during the 
course of this evaluation, but are largely shaped on the comments and concerns raised by people 
contacted during this short exercise. 
31
Recommendation 1. Strengthen the Institutional Structure and Commitment behind this 
Project. To make proper use of the materials thus far developed will require a significant shift in 
gear, and the lead agencies in this initiative CARE and/or the BHRC must be willing to commit to 
supporting continuation of this work, to the extent of institutionalising the REA process in their 
respective agencies work. Much of the “salesmanship” of this process has been at the individual 
level but further development of the REA, and in particular the uptake of its recommendations, 
will only be possible if this institutional commitment is made. This is therefore the critical time 
for institutions to commit themselves fully to this project by: 
• acknowledging the value and appropriateness of this tool; 
• securing additional funds to enable a successful roll-out of the tool; 
• integrating its main messages into existing institutional policies and guidelines; 
• raising awareness of what this tool offers and encouraging partnerships to further spread the 
use of this tool; and 
• continuing to support and monitor its implementation. 
Recommendation 2. Enhance the Technical Integrity of the REA Process. Before any other 
work is carried out it is essential that differences of opinion and concerns over some of the 
methodological and analytical approaches be sorted out. A small, active, working group should be 
established for a short period of time to overhaul the current process where needs have been 
identified. 
Recommendation 3. Enhance the Quality of the Project’s Outputs to Encourage Use and 
Application. It is strongly recommended that the manuals and guidelines produced thus far are 
revised and repackaged, following which they should be translated (or reworked in the case of the 
Spanish text) and disseminated – even if they are still evolving. The following in particular 
should be noted: 
• following the above-mentioned technical revision, the Guidelines should receive a thorough 
edit for structure, content and language, with practical steps to follow more clearly described; 
• present the information as a three-part guide to conducting an REA: Part I – “Background 
Information to REA”, Part II – “Steps to Follow when Conducting a REA” and Part III – 
“Reference Material and Technical Details”; 
• all outputs should have a common format and appearance; and 
• if resources allow, development of a computer-based “How to Conduct a REA” for ease of 
data capture. 
Once materials have been repackaged, an official launch of the process should be organised to 
raise awareness of its existence. 
Recommendation 4. Identify and/or Allocate Resources to Encourage and Enable Follow-up 
to Past and Future REA Field Tests. Unless practical uptake of the REA’s recommendations 
happens, there will be little reason to continue with the development and dissemination of this 
tool. Leading by example, CARE, in particular, should identify how it might enable locally 
recognised priorities to be integrated into ongoing projects and programmes. Many people are 
convinced of the outputs of the REA assessments but not enough attention has been given to 
ensure that they are implemented and monitored. As this is the fundamental purpose of engaging 
in an REA process, it seems important that some of these findings are 
Recommendation 5. Continue to Establish Key Partnerships and Focus Resources on 
Getting these Agencies to Use or Customise the REA for their Own Benefits. Attention 
should concentrate on getting the tool used with a select number of agencies outside CARE, as 
32
well as within. The examples started by UNEP/OCHA, OFDA and others in integrating REA 
approaches into their own assessment and training systems should be highlighted and built upon. 
Recommendation 6. Produce a Short, Sharp Training Module on the REA. The current 
training materials, while comprehensive, are seemingly too large and detailed for quick and easy 
uptake by institutions. If a short, single stand alone module was available, this might encourage 
use of the tool by other agencies in their respective training programmes, including environmental 
tools in their emergency assessments rather than dealing with it as an add on. 
 
Recommendation 7. Focus Attention on Training Potential REA Leaders and Other 
Trainers. Priority attention should be given to training individuals who are currently in a position 
to use and apply the benefits from the REA process – from within CARE and BHRC as well as 
other agencies. This will ensure a broad dissemination of qualified persons experienced in the use 
of the tool. Future training sessions should, as a rule, be split into a theoretical and practical 
session, for enhanced appreciation of the REA tool. 
Recommendation 8. Revitalise or Abandon the Advisory Group. Should the REA project 
continue into a second phase, it is advisable that the role of the Advisory Group be revisited by 
CARE and the BHRC, in particular. Although it will add further demands to peoples’ time, if this 
group were to become more active in guiding and supporting implementation and application of 
the REA in various situations, or in assisting with contacts, it would assist the core team 
considerably and allow them to concentrate more on delivering the products. Much depends on 
whether the “management” considers it necessary to continue with a form of oversight body 
given that the subsequent phase, as planned, focuses mainly on roll-out through training. 
Recommendation 9: Improve the Visibility and Outreach of the REA Process. The current 
web site should be overhauled and made clearer, with easier access and a title that is easily 
remembered. Relevant documents should be clustered, e.g. Guidelines, Training Materials, Field 
Tests, Resources, etc., with one paragraph of text describing the contents of each cluster. If 
resources exist, a central e-centre could be established to handle enquiries about the REA process 
and to improve inter-agency communications, responding perhaps to simple enquiries itself and 
directing more complicated issues to the relevant experts. Consideration should also be given to 
developing a small REA newsletter which be primarily web-based. 
5.5 SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS 
A large number of issues have been identified as “next steps” for this initiative. As one 
respondent stated “There is a long way to go in getting it [the tool] into the hands of others, but a 
high level of interest has been shown. The work, though, clearly starts here”. 
Many of the following have been suggested by more than one respondent to questionnaires or 
discussions. For convenience, they are listed as simple bullet points. Attention should, however, 
be given to these especially in the (re-)design of any Phase II proposal. 
Project Management 
• Identify an owner for this project for the purpose of focal responsibility and contact. 
• REA should become part of the institutional policy of the owner agency/agencies. 
• Integrate this REA into other kinds of assessment. 
• Disseminate this tool and training materials to partners. Governments, academia, donor and 
other groups should be engaged and prepared to help launch REAs in certain targeted 
33
vulnerable regions. This would provide a good platform and, if the process proves itself 
positively, would facilitate and encourage institutionalisation. 
• Disseminate the REA tool to potential donors and advocate for their use of REA elements in 
proposal requirements 
Training 
• Identify and appoint a focal point for training. 
• Develop a training strategy with a double purpose of raising awareness among decision 
makers of the importance of the environment in disaster response, and train staff of NGOs 
and international organisations in their use. 
• Train trainers. 
• Translate training materials. 
34
ANNEX I REA CHRONOLOGY 
This information was kindly provided by Charles Kelly, REA Lead Researcher, and is extracted 
from the (unseen) project Final Report. 
July 1996 – Presentation of Disaster and Environmental Change: The Impact of Population 
Displacement and Options for Mitigation, at the Pan Pacific Hazards 96 Conference, Vancouver, 
Canada. 
March 1999 – Presentation of Disasters and Environmental Impact: A Framework for Rapid 
Assessment and Planning by Response Personnel, at Green Cross Conference, London, United 
Kingdom. 
Mid 1999 to early 2001 – Discussions between C. Kelly, Debbie Williams and John Twigg of 
Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University College London and RedR on development of a 
methodology for rapid environmental impact assessment and training program. 
Early 2001 – Development of basic REA project proposal with input from Mario Pareja of 
CARE US and presentations to UNEP/OCHA, USAID/OFDA. 
June 2001 – Presentation on the REA to CARE Norge. 
August 2001 to January 2002 – Funding from UNEP/OCHA for development of the REA 
methodology. This work included discussions with Mario Pareja of CARE, and contacts with 
NGOs, Donors and I.O.s in the US and Europe. See Acknowledgements of the Guidelines for a 
list of organisations contacted. 
September 2001 – Presentations on the REA to environmental NGOs in Washington and to 
CARE International in Brussels. 
October 2001 – Field trip to Orissa India to discuss disaster-environment linkages, practical 
emergencies with environmental impacts in disasters and local needs and limits to assessment 
procedures. 
October 2001 – Presentation on Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment: Framework for Best 
Practice in Emergency Response, at Sharing Experiences on Environmental Management in 
Refugee Situations: A Practitioner=s Workshop, Geneva, 22-25 October 2001, hosted by 
UNHCR, Paper posted www.benfieldhrc.org under Disaster Management. 
December 2001 – Funding from CARE Norge for field testing and training on the REA. 
January 2002 – Completion of Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in 
Disasters (version 1). 
February-March 2002 – Field test of the Guidelines in Afghanistan, hosted by CARE 
Afghanistan, followed by changes to the Guidelines document. 
June 2002 – Presentation of Assessing Environmental Impacts During Natural Disaster: the 
Development of a Rapid Environmental Assessment Methodology, The International Association 
35
for Impact Assessment Meeting, The Hague (later published in the Journal of Environmental 
Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 4, No. 4 ,December 2002.) 
August-September 2002 – Field test of Guidelines in Ethiopia, including community assessment, 
hosted by CARE Ethiopia, followed by changes to the Guidelines, and inclusion of section 
specifically on community assessment. 
January-February 2003 – Field test of the Guidelines in Indonesia hosted by CARE Indonesia. 
Field test included organisational level assessment and nine day community level assessment. 
(Kelly and Pareja participated in this field test.) 
February-March 2003 – Redrafting of the Guidelines to reflect input from field tests, giving equal 
weight to organisational and community assessment procedures and results. Redrafted document 
circulated for comment and provided to InterWorks as basis for their work on a training module. 
February-April 2003 – Development of a REA training module by InterWorks. 
April 2003 – Tests of REA training module in Oslo, Norway and Antigua, Guatemala. 
Participants in Oslo were largely not persons who were involved in field operations. One 
environmental impact assessment trainer and a disaster preparedness project manager from 
Madagascar also participated in the Oslo training. Training led by Paul Thompson (InterWorks) 
with Becky Myton of CARE Honduras attended as co-trainer. 
Participants in Antigua were drawn from each Central American country and included a mixture 
of NGO, I.O., and government personnel. This training was conducted in Spanish. Training led 
by Charles Dufresne of InterWorks with Mario Pareja and Becky Myton attended as co-trainers. 
June 2003 - February 2004 – Development of an eLearning module on the REA by InterWorks. 
June 2003 – Presentation on Gender, Disaster, and the Environment: Experiences from the Rapid 
Environmental Impact Assessment Project, at the International Emergency Management Society 
meeting, Provence, France. 
June 2003 – Presentation of Disasters Management and Environmental Impact Assessment: Gaps 
and Linkages at The International Association for Impact Assessment Meeting, Marakesh, 
Morocco. 
Mid-2003 – REA Guidelines used as the basis for a course on environmental impact assessment 
presented by Becky Myton in Honduras. 
September 2003 – Incorporation of Environment as cross-cutting issue in Sphere Standards and 
inclusion of the REA as a reference in the Shelter section of the Humanitarian Charter and 
Minimum Standards in Disaster Response Handbook., 
September 2003 – Presentation on the REA project made to I.O.s and NGOs based in Geneva. 
The presentation was hosted by UNEP/OCHA. 
Late 2003 – CARE Ethiopia begins field staff training on the REA, adapted to conditions in 
Ethiopia. 
36
October 2003 – Presentation on the REA project to government, I.O. and NGOs based in Kobe 
Japan, hosted by Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution. 
October 2003 – Presentation of Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Mega City Disasters: 
Issues and New Tools, at the International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban Safety of 
Mega Cities in Asia, Tokyo, Japan (paper posted to symposium web site and distributed in 
proceedings CD). 
November 2003 – Final presentation of REA training module at Bhubaneshwar Orissa) India in 
co-operation with Sphere India. Participants can be NGO, I.O. and government sectors. Training 
included 3 days of classroom instruction on the REA and 3 days of practical use, including a 
community assessment exercise. Training led by Paul Thompson of Inter-works with Samuel 
Tadesse of CARE Ethiopia attended as co-trainer and Jock Baker as observer. 
November 2003 – Project review and Phase II design discussions involving CARE US, CARE 
Ethiopia, InterWorks and Benfield Hazard Research Centre following the Orissa training. 
December 2003 – Half day training on the REA provided to LWF staff participating in a week￾long workshop on community level disaster preparedness, Konark, India. 
January 2004 – Development of a REA Quick Guide based on work originally done by 
InterWorks. 
37
ANNEX II SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THIS 
EVALUATION 
We may choose to lift some quotes directly from this response form to illustrate 
particular opinions or expressions. Such quotes will not be attributed to your 
name. However, if you prefer to not even have your comments reflected, please 
indicate this below. Thank you. 
Please return your completed questionnaire to: David Stone, CARE Consultant, either by 
fax (00 41 22 366 3818) or e-mail (davidstone@vtxnet.ch). 
1. What has been your involvement in the development and trialling of the REA? 
2. Have you had previous experience of REAs? Please describe. 
3. What was your overall impression of the CARE REA as a tool? 
4. What are your impressions of the REA Guidelines (Version 4.2)? Did/do you find them 
easy to use? Is there any aspect you would like to see changed? 
5. What training have you been given in using the REA and/or Guideline? 
6. What are your opinions on the training materials that accompany the REA Guideline? 
7. Did you find the outcome(s) of the training or field experiences useful? Do they respond 
to your expectations/needs? 
8. Do you believe that this REA process brings added value to relief and disaster 
assessments? If so, how? If not, what would you like to see changed? 
9. What do you see as the next steps for this initiative? 
10. Did you find the outcome useful? Does it respond to your expectations/needs? 
11. Have you been able to apply some or all of the recommendations? If so, how? If not, why 
not (what were/are the main constraints)? 
12. Any other comments you would like to make? 
THANK YOU!
38
ANNEX III TERMS OF REFERENCE 
Terms of Reference (ver. December 9, 2003) 
Evaluation of the Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment Project 
Introduction 
The Rapid Environmental Assessment is a collaborative effort started in 2001 involving CARE 
International, the Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, and InterWorks, with financial support 
from USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the UN Environmental 
Programme (UNEP), the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the 
Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and CARE International. 
The REA methodology equips emergency managers with a rapid means for identifying threats to 
the environment due either to the effects of the disaster event itself or unintended impacts from 
the resulting relief operation. Applicable to natural, technological or complex political disasters, 
the REA is a tool to identify, define, characterise and prioritise potential environmental impacts in 
disaster situations by means of a simple qualitative assessment process using brief concise 
descriptions, rating tables and check lists to identify and rank environmental issues and promote 
appropriate interventions. With an awareness of such environmental threats, humanitarian aid 
workers and disaster affected communities should be better able (1) to avoid environmental 
damage, (2) incorporate best practices into their programming to better protect the environment, 
and (3) improve the overall effectiveness of relief and recovery efforts. The REA methodology 
and associated training module was developed and refined through a range of assessments and 
trainings conducted in Asia, Africa and Central America. 
This consultancy is planned for to take place during three weeks in January 2004. The 
evaluation will be primarily desk-based, relying on document review and telephone interviews 
with key informants. 
Additional project-related documents are available at: 
www.benfieldhrc.org/DMU/DMUSetup/Projects/rea.htm 
Objectives 
The project has completed the initial development of the REA and related training materials and 
requires an evaluation to: 
1. Document actual outcomes against performance measurement criteria stated in the 
relevant project and sub-project documents; 
2. Assess the effectiveness of the REA process as a “best practice” tool in disaster 
management; 
3. Consolidate and summarise perceptions of project participants and interested parties 
about the REA methodology and training materials, and, 
4. Identify successes and improvements in the project implementation process. 
This evaluation is being funded by USAID/OFDA. The evaluation will need to measure and 
report on the performance of the project against the performance indicators established with 
OFDA. However, to the degree possible, evaluation should cover project activities from 
39
inception (mid-2001) and the evaluation report will be shared with UNEP/OCHA and RNMFA at 
the review stage. In most cases, the OFDA-agreed indicators are applicable to the whole of the 
activities under the project. 
Evaluation Criteria 
The grant proposal to OFDA set out a number of performance indicators and measurements. 
These are set out below and form the basis for the evaluation of the project. 
III. Project Goal and Objectives 
B. Indicators 
The indicators to be used to measure project performance focus on process and output, and 
include: 
• Completion of the REA revision following the field test. 
• Publication of the REA, with hard and soft copies available. 
• Completion of one field test funded under this project (of three total). 
• Training materials produced: syllabus, facilitator and participant manuals. 
• Completion of two test training courses and one final training course. 
• Training of relief assistance cadres in REA procedures. 
• The number of priority issues identified in the test assessment which are addressed through 
changes to relief or rehabilitation activities within 30 days of completing the assessment. 
• The number of priority environmental issues identified in the assessment which are resolved 
within 30 days of completion of the assessment. 
The results of the REA will be used in relief operations assessment and planning during and after 
the three field tests and by relief cadres who participate in the training. This should result in a 
discernible improvement in how relief operations identify and deal with environmental issues and 
serve as an indicator of project success. 
VI. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 
B. Performance Measurement 
As indicated under in Section III B, the project indicators focus on process, outcome and impact 
items. Following the indicators mentioned in Section III B, the proposed performance 
measurements for the project are as follows: 
1. Reporting: quarterly and final reports. 
2. One REA revision. 
3. Up to seven consultations of the Advisory Board. 
4. One field test. 
5. One set of REA training materials, including a course syllabus book, and manuals for 
facilitators and participants. The training materials will include a training module for use as a 
stand alone unit or as part of another training program, and self-study course work. 
6. REA training development: Two test trainings and one final training provided: 20 relief 
cadres during each training session. 
7. A 90 per cent pass rate for the relief cadre participating in the final training. 
8. One web site with the REA training materials and other project-generated documents posted 
40
and available to any user. 
9. Number of disaster relief operations in which REA procedures are used for assessment and 
planning following the field testing and training activities. 
10. At least 70% of the priority environmental issues identified will be resolved or addressed by 
changes to projects or activities, during the 30 day period after the assessment. 
In addition, those involved in the REA tests (including victims where possible) and in trainings 
will be questioned whether use of the REA has made disaster assessments and relief operations 
more effective and efficient than would be the case without the REA. This qualitative impact 
assessment will be done at the end of the REA field tests, among trainees at the end of the 
training and as follow-up to the trainings and as part of the final evaluation. The project expects 
that 60% of REA users to find that the REA has improved relief operations and the provision of 
assistance to disaster victims. The results of this survey will be documented and presented as a 
lessons learned study. 
In addition, the evaluation will: 
1. Consider the effectiveness of the REA process as a best practice tool in disaster 
management. Specifically, are the REA Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact 
Assessment in Disasters and associated training materials useful to field personnel in 
defining environmental issues and linkages in disasters. 
2. Consider the effectiveness of REA training materials based on feedback from trainees. 
3. Document successes of the project and highlight how the implementation of the project 
could have been improved. The review of project implementation should include 
administrative arrangements and procedures. 
Evaluation Methods and Procedures 
The evaluation will be conducted using two methods: 
1. The review of project documents available at the project web site, from CARE, Benfield 
Hazard Research Centre, InterWorks and from third parties. These documents include the 
OFDA project proposal, reports on the three REA field tests and three trainings, background 
information on the project and additional reports and feedback received from field test and 
training participants. 
2. Phone, email or other contact with project staff, field test and training participants and other 
parties. CARE and BHRC will provide the evaluator with a list of contact names and phone 
and/or email addresses. 
It is not expected that formal quantitative surveys can be conducted as part of the evaluation with 
a significant part of the input coming from qualitative input based on questionnaires and 
interviews. 
The evaluator must be aware that many individuals involved in the REA project are actively 
involved in disaster relief and recovery operations, requiring an appropriate approach. 
Evaluator Profile & Selection Process 
Preference will be given to candidates with previous experience in evaluating post-disaster 
humanitarian assistance programmes, familiarity with the international NGO sector, and who are 
41
able to demonstrate a knowledge of environmental issues faced during and after disasters. 
Selection of the evaluator through a consultative process involving project and sub-project 
managers. 
Outputs and Schedule 
The evaluator will provide to CARE a maximum of 20-30 page report (excluding annexes) that 
should include a concise Executive Summary of no more than 3 pages. The report should describe 
the background to the study, methodology of the evaluation, schedule of activities, results, 
summary of recommendations, and persons interviewed (in an annex). The use of tables and 
charts to summarise the evaluation results are encouraged, but elaborate graphics and formatting 
are not necessary. Annexes to the report should include relevant additional data and information 
collected during the evaluation that substantiates or expands on the evaluation results. Following 
distribution of the final report, a review will take place involving key internal and external 
stakeholders to identify specific actions to be taken in respect to: 
a) Finalisation of the Phase II REA proposal; 
b) Revision of the REA methodology and/or training modules; and 
c) Other relevant actions. 
A total of 15 person days are allocated to the evaluation. The evaluator should provide a draft 
report to CARE, sub-project managers (BHRC & InterWorks) and possibly other stakeholders for 
comment prior to the completion of the work time allocated for the evaluation. Comments will be 
provided within 10 working days of the draft submission and the evaluator will be responsible for 
making appropriate revisions prior to producing a final report. CARE is responsible for ensuring 
that the final report is of acceptable quality but otherwise editorial authority resides with the 
evaluator. CARE does however retain the right to attach a note, as an annex, of its own views. 
42
ANNEX IV PEOPLE CONTACTED IN THIS EVALUATION 
The following people were contacted: Charles Dufresne, Paul Thompson, Charles Nelly, John 
Twigg, Jock Baker, Patricia Charlebois, Guillaume Aguettant, Debbie Williams, Mario Pareja, 
Marion Pratt, Harlan Hale, Sigrid Nagoda, Suparman Warman, Dereje Adugna, S. N. Mishra, 
Amar Vaid, Samuel Tedesse, Holly Solberg, Johan Kieft, Becky Myton, Paul Barrer, Rally 
Austin, Vivek Sharma, Rigoberto Giron, N. M. Prusty, Neville Pradhan, K.G. Mathaikutty, Alhaji 
Jeng, Campbell Day, Olav Myrholt, Helle Floisand, Jenny Myton, Knut Ragnar Johannessen, 
Moira Eknes, Paul Borsboom, Scott Solberg, Ginna Rakotoarimanana, Thale Kermit, Eirik￾Jarl.trondsen, Siddhant Das, Sibaprasad Mishra, Satyanarayan Jena, Rachna Singh, Prafulla K. 
Rath, Madhusmit Padhi, J. K. Mohanty, Inakhi Patra, Clark Efaw, C. Ashok Kumar, Binod C. 
Sabat, Bheda Anjana Rajesh, Steinar Sundvoll, Moira Eknes, Paul Ugarte, Wilmer Dan Teni Pop, 
Carlos R. Montes, Denis Pena Solano, Estaban Salavador Casado, Francisca Orellana, Henry 
Leonel Aldana, Juan Jose Sinay Garcia, Juan Manuel Giron, Luis Gonzalez, Magdelena Cortez, 
Maria Edna Vidaurre, Mario Flores, Miguel Omar Montoya, Oscar Juarez, Rene Molina, Roberto 
Peralta, Rohana Lalith Weragoda, Jennie Ownes, Julio Galvez Tan, Walter Knausenberger, 
Anshu Sharma, George Sammy, Franklin McDonald, Gaspard Bikwemu, Lousie Sperling, 
Ahuma Adodoadji, Howard Bell, Nancy Gelman, Alice Doyle, Graham Saunders, Colin 
Reynolds and Weston A. Fisher. 
Our thanks again to all those for participated in this evaluation. 
43
ANNEX V MATERIALS CONSULTED 
General 
BHRC and CARE. No Date. Project Summary. 4pp 
CARE USA. January 2002. REA Phase II Project Proposal. 
Kelly, C. 2001. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment: A Framework for Best Practice in 
Emergency Response. Paper presented at an international workshop on Practising and Promoting 
Sound Environmental Management in Refugee/Returnee operations, UNHCR, Geneva. 
Kelly, C. October 2003. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Mega City Disasters: Issues 
and New Tools. Paper presented at the International Symposium on New Technologies for Urban 
Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Tokyo, Japan. 
REA Manuals 
CARE. December 2003. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. 
109pp. 
CARE. December 2003. Quick Guide: Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. 40pp. 
CARE. December 2003. Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters: Participant’s 
Handbook. 102pp. 
CARE. December 2003. Trainer’s Guide for the Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in 
Disasters Workshop. 100pp. 
Training Workshop and Field Test Reports 
Thompson, P. April 2003. REA Training Workshop Report, Norway. 21pp. 
Dufresne, C. May 2003. REA Training Workshop Report, Guatemala. 19pp. 
Thompson, P. November 2003. REA Training Workshop Report, India. 16pp. 
Kelly, C. April 2002. Afghanistan Field Test Report. 89pp. 
Kelly, C. and Tadesse, S. September 2002. Ethiopia Field Test Report. 127pp. 
Kelly, C. and Pareja, M. February 2003. Indonesia Field Test Report. 73pp. 
 
PowerPoint presentations prepared by InterWorks.