Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Humanitarian Response
New Delhi, India 12th-19th February, 2012
Supported & organized by:
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 2 of 53
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
Sphere India, a National Coalition of Humanitarian Agencies in India, in collaboration with Oxfam India, Concern Worldwide, CASA, Plan India, EFICOR, PCI India and Lutheran World Relief organized eight days residential Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response at New Delhi, India on 12th-19th February, 2012. The TOT was attended by 23 participants including from from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and different states of India. The training received high level of acclaim and appreciation by the participants. The report narrates the background, key purpose, specific objectives, training – activities, session observations, feedbacks and evaluations of the TOT.
Dates: 12-19 February, 2012
Duration: 8 days (residential)
Venue: Hotel Atrium, New Delhi (India)
No. of Participants: 23
Facilitators: Mr. Vikrant Mahajan Prof. Kartikeya Misra Mr. Mayank Joshi Ms. Chandrani Bandyopadhyay Mr. N. M. Prusty
TOT Coordinator: Mr. Raman Kumar
Report compilation: Mr. Vikrant Mahajan Mr. Raman Kumar
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 3 of 53
Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5
2. Background ............................................................................................................... 7
3. Training process ........................................................................................................ 8
4. Session observations: ............................................................................................... 14
4.1 Day 1: Introduction to the Course, Expectations (Vik, KM, CB): ..................................... 14
4.2 Day 2: ......................................................................................................................... 16
4.5.1 Flip tips (KM) .................................................................................................................................. 16
4.5.2 What is Sphere (CB) ....................................................................................................................... 16
4.5.3 The Humanitarian Charter (Vik)..................................................................................................... 17
4.5.4 Protection Principles (Vik) ............................................................................................................. 17
4.5.5 The Project Cycle, Core Standards and Cross Cutting Issues (MJ, CB) .......................................... 18
4.3 Day 3: ......................................................................................................................... 18
4.5.1 Power point tips (MJ) ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.5.2 Using technical standards and indicators (Vik) ............................................................................. 18
4.5.3 Code of Conduct (MJ) ..................................................................................................................... 19
4.5.4 Introduction to other Global Quality and Accountability Initiatives (Vik, Ashish) ...................... 19
4.4 Day 4: ......................................................................................................................... 20
4.5.1 Cross cultural tips (Vik) .................................................................................................................. 20
4.5.2 Adult learning principles (KM, MJ) ................................................................................................ 21
4.5.3 Assessing Learning Needs, Planning Trainings (KM) ..................................................................... 21
4.5.4 Designing trainings (KM, MJ) ......................................................................................................... 21
4.5.5 Training methodologies (MJ, CB) ................................................................................................... 21
4.5 Day 5: ......................................................................................................................... 22
4.5.1 Managing Nerves (Vik) ................................................................................................................... 22
4.5.2 Constructive feedback and evaluation (KM, Vik) .......................................................................... 23
4.5.3 Training tips, dialouge, question-answer: Quality Circle (MJ, KM) .............................................. 23
4.5.4 Introduction to participants led sessions ...................................................................................... 23
5. Training evaluation ................................................................................................. 24
5.1 Summary of participants’ daily feedbacks ............................................................. 24
5.2 Summary of Facilitator’s daily and end of training review process......................... 25
5.3 Summary of participant’s evaluation at the end of the training ............................. 26
5.3.1 Which part of the workshop was most useful for you? ................................................................ 27
5.3.2 What improvements/changes would you suggest for another workshop? ................................. 27
5.3.3 How will you use the Sphere handbook in your work? ................................................................ 28
5.3.4 Any other comment/suggestion .................................................................................................... 28
5.3.5 Structure and content of the TOT .................................................................................................. 29
6. Summary of key recommendations for future TOTs: ................................................. 31
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 4 of 53
a. To Sphere Project and other trainers: .............................................................................. 31
b. To the Organizing Committee .......................................................................................... 31
7. Annexes ................................................................................................................... 33
a. List of participants .......................................................................................................... 33
b. TOT schedule .................................................................................................................. 37
c. Learning monitoring index .............................................................................................. 39
d. Confidence meter ........................................................................................................... 40
e. Discussions in Quality Circle: ........................................................................................... 42
f. Revised training schedule (Participants led sessions):....................................................... 44
g. Session Designs and reports of participants’ led sessions ................................................. 45
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 5 of 53
1. Executive Summary
This report presents an overview of the background, key purpose, specific objectives, training -
activities, session observations, feedbacks and evaluations of the Sphere Training of Trainers (ToT)
program conducted in New Delhi, India from the 12th February to 19th February, 2012.
The training was facilitated by a team of resource persons, all from India. The lead facilitator was the
Chief Operating Officer of Sphere India (Sphere India steers the inter-agency coordination and
Sphere processes in India). One of the co-facilitators was from the Administrative Training Institute
of State Govt. of Rajasthan (primarily contributed in soft skills and adult learning sessions) and one
was from the National Institute of Disaster Management, Govt. of India (primarily contributed in
Sphere sessions, she is also a Sphere TOT trained). One more resource person was from Project
Concern International and had prior experience of Sphere TOTs.
The TOT was attended by 23 training participants (3 Females and 20 Males) out of which 6 came
from Sphere India member agencies (EFICOR-2, CASA-1, Plan India-3), 6 from other humanitarian
agencies in India (WSPA-2, Compassion India-1, NCDHR-1, IDF-1, MSF-1), 2 from South Asia (PCI-
Bangladesh, CHA-Sri Lanka), 6 from State Inter-Agency Groups (Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Orissa,
Tamil Nadu, Bihar-2), and 3 were from from Sphere India secretariat. There were 3 more participants
(2 females and 1 male) who attended the training but since they did not meet the above criteria,
they were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere Training instead of TOT. (They had
limited knowledge knowledge of Sphere handbook and no experience of training).
The participants profile varied from senior management to middle and field level staff. The
participants also had different levels of understanding on Sphere and training processes. The
participants comprised of mixed profiles and had minimum understanding of Sphere and the adult
learning processes. There has been considerable learning obtained along the process which was
claimed by the participants as indicated in the learning records and participant reactions, as well as
by the facilitator team.
This TOT was the first one conducted using the latest edition of Sphere handbook (2011) in India.
The new training materials for Sphere introduction, Protection and humanitarian charter were used
by facilitator team as inspiration to design their specific sessions. The TOT manual for Sphere
Handbook – 2004 was introduced to participants for their inspiration, however, the focus was on
developing capacities in participants to design their own training sessions using different Sphere
resources. In few of the sessions, the facilitators modified the delivery, methodology and strategy to
meet participants’ expectations and needs.
The participants led sessions were useful in developing a curriculum for 2-day Sphere training in
field. The session designs are compiled as a sample in annexure. The participants felt that more time
could be given for the preparation of such exercise.
The participants’ feedbacks were highly encouraging and it was recorded in the feedbacks that the
participants found the Sphere handbook 2011 edition very comprehensive and useful in their work.
Few of the participants also shared that although they were aware of the handbook but they have
realized the strength of this handbook only in this training and that, now they feel more comfortable
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 6 of 53
in not only using the handbook but also in its application in their organization in their respective
roles. It was recorded during the discussions and quality circles that most of the participants had
been using the handbook in one or other ways in their work particularly in assessments, relief
package selection, in implementing their project (core standards), coordination etc. Most of the
participants were eager to transfer the knowledge they have gained during the TOT to their
colleagues in their organization, their partners, and in communities.
The daily feedbacks by the participants and the daily review by facilitator’s on the training process
have helped to make improvement for the next-day training. The final training evaluation confirmed
the perception that the majority of the participants rated high on the achievement of the training
objectives and the relevance of the training to their work. The training was evaluated using the
standard evaluation form and the outcomes are captured in the report. The evaluation results may
be adopted for future Sphere trainings as it helps the facilitators to improve with more objective
assessments.
At the end of the training sessions, there are some specific recommendations and observations
forwarded by the facilitators and the participants for different external stakeholders which can be
considered for insertion in the future trainings. In general, the training was deemed by the
participants as a high learning event.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 7 of 53
2. Background
India being a country of diverse geographical features and also with diversity in the people faces a
large number of disasters. The nature of hazards and vulnerabilities of the people are very diverse
and required lot of contextualization for effective solutions. Largely it’s the poor and the
marginalized communities, the women, children and other vulnerable groups who get affected the
worst, as their socio-economic vulnerability are further exposed by disasters, making them victims of
circumstances.
The recent experience in disaster situations in India viz. Kosi Floods in Bihar, Cyclone Aila – West
Bengal, Leh flash floods, Sikkim Earthquake, floods in different states have opened up the need for
multi-pronged approach and strategies to build resilience among the communities and to work in
collaboration to reduce disaster risk among the communities. The varying capacities of
organizations/agencies responding to recent disasters in India, especially on needs assessments,
prioritization, response management and targeting, have given enormous opportunity to work
towards improving the overall response mechanism towards disasters through extensive capacity
building efforts at various levels.
The Sphere handbook has become one of the most widely recognized tools for improving
humanitarian planning and response. Since the publication of the 2004 handbook, there have been a
number of technical advances, new cross-cutting issues have evolved, and the humanitarian
environment has changed with the launch of the Humanitarian Reform process and the Cluster
approach. On 14th April 2011, the 2011 edition of Sphere handbook was launched, with protection
principles, updated humanitarian charter, qualitative and quantitative indicators, key actions,
guidance notes and enhanced linkages between sectors. The handbook has been most widely used
by the agencies and professionals involved in humanitarian interventions across the globe. Trainings
on Sphere process and the handbook have been the most effective way to manifold the reach of the
handbook to number of agencies and professionals.
In view of growing interest from Sphere India member agencies on the new edition of the Sphere
handbook, Sphere India TCBP sub-committee felt the need of organizing Sphere TOT to meet the
need. The need was also high as there had been no TOT organized in the last few years in India.
Sphere India along with Oxfam India, Concern Worldwide, CASA, Plan India, EFICOR, PCI India and
Lutheran World Relief have come together to host a training of trainers on the newly developed
SHPERE 2011 to assist in developing capacity of humanitarian practitioners to build capability, to
share their knowledge, promote good practice and raise awareness about the importance of
appropriate humanitarian delivery.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 8 of 53
3. Training process
The training process has been very elaborate to follow the necessary steps for preparation,
implementation and evaluation. The details of the process are illustrated below:
a) Organizing Committee for the TOT
Sphere India Training and Capacity Building Programme (TCBP) sub-committee comprising of CRS,
UNDP, UNFPA, NIDM, IIPA, VASUDEVA, IFRC, Plan India and EFICOR decided to have an organizing
committee for the TOT. The Organizing committee was formed of TCBP sub-committee members
and OXFAM, LWR, Concern Worldwide and CASA. The key role of the organizing committee was to
oversee the planning, preparations, participants’ selection, and course material and to ensure
overall quality of the program.
The organizing committee discussed electronically and telephonically on the planning and
preparations of the TOT and had a meeting on 23rd January, 2012 to review the preparations,
participants, trainers, course materials etc.
b) Terms of reference
The terms of reference for the TOT were developed in consultation with the Organizing Committee.
c) General purpose of training
The general purpose of the TOT was to strengthen facilitation knowledge and skills in delivering the
Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian response training.
The objective of this training was not to thoroughly study the content of The Sphere Project or its
Handbook, since participants were expected to have prior knowledge, use of and/or practical
experience in utilization of the Sphere Guidelines prior to the start of the course.
d) Specific objectives
By the end of the training of trainers, training partners will be able to:
Apply the Sphere Handbook as a tool for disaster response
Define the links between the Humanitarian Charter and humanitarian action
Describe the structure and content of the Sphere Handbook
State the principles of adult learning and apply them to designing and running a Sphere
learning event
Define content, and write aims and objectives for Sphere training workshops
Demonstrate a range of training and facilitation skills
Prepare for running a Sphere learning event in the field or for your organization
Devise tools and techniques for assessing learning needs and for evaluating training.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 9 of 53
e) Participants
The SPHERE 2011 ToT was expected to host between 25-26 people from the below groups:
Sphere India member agencies 10 participants
Participants from South-Asian countries 6 participants *
Seats for other countries 4 participants *
Sphere India and State IAGs internal participants 5-6 participants
The total number of participants was 23 out of which 6 came from Sphere India member agencies
(EFICOR-2, CASA-1, Plan India-3), 6 from other humanitarian agencies in India (WSPA-2, Compassion
India-1, NCDHR-1, IDF-1, MSF-1), 2 from South Asia (PCI-Bangladesh, CHA-Sri Lanka), 6 from State
Inter-Agency Groups (Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Bihar-2), and 3 were from from
Sphere India secretariat.
The following criteria were considered for participants’ selection, the participants were expected to:
Has attended the Basic Training on the Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum
Standards in Humanitarian response;
Has experience in the use of the Minimum Standards in Humanitarian response.
Has been commissioned by their institution/organization;
Willing to prepare some background material prior to training
Available for the complete duration of the training.
Has a plan to utilize the lessons learnt from the ToT early after the training has finished.
Able and willing to provide recommendations for the improved design of advanced capacity
building activities both within and externally of their organizations.
Preparations: Prior to attending the ToT, all participants were expected to review the
handbook "the Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Humanitarian response" 2011 Edition, Prepare a basic draft training plan, and provide some
facilitation materials.
There were 3 more participants who attended the training but since they did not meet the above
criteria, they were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere Training instead of TOT. (They
had limited knowledge knowledge of Sphere handbook and no experience of training).
f) Facilitation team
The TOT was facilitated by the following team:
Mr. Vikrant Mahajan – Lead Facilitator, [email protected], +91 9818666831
Mr. Mayank Joshi – Co-facilitator, [email protected], +91 9825046643
Ms. Chandrani Bandyopadhyay – Co-facilitator, [email protected], +91 9811767403
Prof. Kartikeya Misra – Co-facilitator, [email protected], +91 9414238197
The Organizing Committee has provided inputs for identification of the facilitation team.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 10 of 53
g) Training Design preparations
The facilitator team initially engaged online through emails, and via telephone to review participant
profile, organize learning need assessment of the participants, participant group and expectation
analysis and decide on the strategic training approach, Training Design, Schedule, methodologies,
specific session designs, training materials and logistical arrangements.
h) Participant Group Analysis and Learning assessment
There were 23 participants, 3 Females and 20 Males. The participant group had a rich experience of
working in disaster management in India (Indian participants, except one). The participants from Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh had rich experience of humanitarian work and added a lot of value in the
group. More than 70 % of the participants had experience of delivering trainings and had some
understanding of training processes. The participants profile varied from senior management to
middle and field level staff. The participants also had different levels of understanding on Sphere and
training processes.
To sum up, the participants comprised of mixed profiles and had minimum understanding of Sphere
and the adult learning processes. However, the facilitators had a wide range of adult learning
methodologies especially to engage participants in the field level trainings.
The list of participants is attached as Annex 1.
i) Strategic Training Approach
Looking at the participant group analysis and the findings from learning need assessment and
participant expectation analysis, the training team decided to follow a flexible approach to the
delivery of the specific sessions. They tweaked the session designs for few sessions to meet
participants’ expectations and to accommodate the variety in the participants’ profile. Some of the
session specific decisions were consulted with the participant groups.
The strategic approach was focused towards building the facilitation and platform skills in the
participants and later, test and improve on these skills during the participants led sessions on the
Sphere handbook. More emphasis was given on adult learning approach and engaging the
participants in the learning environment through variety of participatory approaches. The primary
focus was to develop both the facilitation skills necessary and the adult and organizational learning
approach required for successful implementation with all participants.
The new modules of the Sphere handbook 2011 edition (Humanitarian Charter, Protection Principles
and Core Standards) along with the document of significant changes in the new edition of the
handbook were given to each participant. The 2004 training package module was also provided to
them as reference for designing their sessions, and adopting / contextualizing the tools and
methodologies for their use.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 11 of 53
j) Final Training Design and Training Schedule
The training is designed to operate for 7 full days and 1 half day, which includes 4 (four) parts:
Part 1: Sphere Training
1.1 Introduction to Sphere Training
1.2 Introduction to Sphere 2011
1.3 Project Cycle, Core Standards and Cross cutting issues
1.4 Using technical standards, key actions and indicators
1.5 The Humanitarian Charter
1.6 The Protection Principles
1.7 Code of Conduct
1.8 The Sphere Project Mainstreaming in India
Part 2: Adult Learning
2.1 Adult Learning Principles
2.2 Assessing Learning Needs
2.3 Designing a Learning Events
2.4 Skills and methods for facilitators and trainers
2.5 Learning Review
2.6 Managing nerve
2.7 Power point tips
2.8 Training tips
Part 3: Mini/maxi-facilitation (Participant led sessions for practicing Knowledge and skills
acquired)
3.1 Mini-facilitation: This was done on the first day of the training in which participants
introduced each other in a buddy pair and then made a brief presentation of 5 minutes on
topic of their choice (selected from options of Disaster Management topics or Training
related topics). The presentations were video-recorded and the clips were provided to the
participants for review and reference. They also had options to consult the facilitators on
their videos and seek individual feedbacks.
3.2 Maxi-facilitations: The participants were provided opportunity to lead sessions and practice
the learning they have got in the TOT. The participants designed a 2 day training on Sphere
and they delivered on the sessions. The 2 day participants led training design included:
o Assessment
o Technical Standard – WASH
o Technical standard – Food & Nutrition
o Technical Standard – Shelter, Settlement & NFI
o Technical Standard – Health Action
o Convergence and Coordination
o Monitoring and Evaluation
o Simulation
The revised training schedule in attached in annexure (e)
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 12 of 53
Part 4: Other Global Quality and Accountability Initiatives
4.1 Introduction to HAP
4.2 Introduction to INEE
4.3 Introduction to LEGS
4.4 Introduction to ALNAP, SEEP etc.
k) Training Methodology
This training used variety of adult learning participatory methods such as:
1) Micro-facilitation/teaching
2) Self-Study
3) Interactive presentations
4) Discussion groups
5) Games/outdoor activities
6) Fish Bowl
7) Bus stop
8) Brainstorming
9) Reflection
10) Consensus building
11) Group work
12) Case study
13) Plenary dialogue/discussion/debate
14) Sharing (expectation, experiences)
15) Question & answer, Quiz
16) Peer coaching
17) Role play
l) Learning aids used:
1) White Board
2) Flip Charts
3) PowerPoint
4) Video presentations
5) Handouts
6) Gallery
7) Meta clips
8) Post It
9) Visual aids
m) Training Materials
Informed by the participant group analysis and decisions on training approach, the new training
materials for Sphere introduction, Protection and humanitarian charter were used by facilitator
team as inspiration to design their specific sessions. The TOT manual for Sphere Handbook – 2004
was introduced to participants for their inspiration, however, the focus was on developing capacities
in participants to design their own training sessions using different Sphere resources. For better
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 13 of 53
understanding and quick references, additional handouts for both Sphere and Adult learning
resources were planned for the participants.
Besides, number of materials was provided in soft copy to participants for their future reference and
use. Soft copies of INEE booklet, HAP booklet, LEGS etc. were also provided to them.
n) Participants’ evaluation and feedback
The participant-led sessions were evaluated by the peer group and the training team. The
constructive feedback as individuals and groups were given to the participants by the peer group
and the training team. An analysis of the participant led sessions was developed for the organizing
committee for their future reference. The analysis may also be used to inform the processes for
revision of Sphere Project Training Policy.
o) Accreditation
The accreditation was provided to those participants that attended and were proactively engaged in
the complete duration of the course. There were 3 participants who attended the training but since
they did not meet the training criteria, they were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere
Training instead of TOT.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 14 of 53
4. Session observations: 4.1 Day 1: Introduction to the Course, Expectations (Vik, KM,
CB):
The session started with an outdoor exercise of ball and pipe in
which participants were divided into two groups and they were
given 1 ball to each group and cut pipes to each participant. The
aim was to put the ball in a bowl which was put in the middle of
the two groups. There were conditions that the ball should not
touch the ground, should not roll back, should not touch any body
part etc.
The covered the general purpose and specific objectives of the
training, training schedule, methodologies etc. The participants
agreed on norms for the training (through fish bowl method).
Following are the agreed norms for the training:
Do’s Don’t’s
Respect to all participants.
Listen to all participants.
Use phone calls only during breaks.
Give equal opportunity to all.
Decisions by consensus
Parking lot for un-resolved issues/out of session topics.
Punctuality
Time management
Relevance to agenda
Participatory approach
Do not use laptops during sessions.
Avoid cross talking or making sub-groups.
The participants agreed on training management by participants groups and the followiing were the
designated groups for each day of training:
TRAINING MANAGEMENT TEAMS
Day Team name Team members Day 2 Fortuners Kamal, David, Snehil Day 3 Tushar, Pramod, Satish Day 4 GRR Green, Raman, Raju Day 5 The Disciplinarian Jaya, Mari, Bibhas Day 6 Seaguls Ashish, Neha, Paras Day 7 Harmony Baleshwor, Manu, Hansen Day 8 The R'th Raj, Harsh
Learning from the game:
Few people had experience so they thought that the assignment is very easy. But this was not so.
Coordination and implementation was difficult.
Ideas were generated but not shared and if shared, they were not heard.
Creating rules and assigning roles helped in doing the task.
Figure 1: Participants during the ice-breaking exercise
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 15 of 53
PARTICIPANTS’ EXPECTATIONS: The participants were also asked to share their expectations from the training, which are as below:
Sphere related:
Articulation of Sphere Vocabulary and Humanitarian Charter
Application of Sphere for Disaster Response and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
Forming more Sphere Trainers so as to take “Sphere” to a wider Group
Come to know how limited resources could be used to meet minimum standards for disaster affected people
Sphere Handbook as a tool for disaster response
Get to know the structure and content of Sphere Handbook & how to use it
Lessons learnt and experiences from training partners
How to materialize Sphere standards, in our organization/work
How the Protection issues are being considered in ER
How to contextualize indicators
Training related
How to use the handbook for training of response team or capacity building of CSOs
To be a good trainer
Promoting the humanitarian charter & minimum standards among the Govt. Sector, District/local coordinators
To learn post training evaluation/follow up with the participants/ organizations
To learn Scientific and Proper Training Needs Analysis
Improved presentation/ knowledge transfer skills
Others
Learning New things
More knowledge from the experiences of others
All the facilities going on right way or proper manners
To achieve at least 70% of the training objectives perfectly
Improve my communication skills in a way people find interesting and engaging
Confidence to take up any random query
How we can do advocacy with government level
Well participation for improvement
It will produce an intensive collaboration for a long term basis with right process
To learn mechanism of making government delivery system sensitive
To be able to know the persons/agencies in state with whom collaboration may be done to take the Sphere training forward
MINI-PRESENTATIONS:
The participants were given post-its on which “Tom” and “Jerry” were written. They had to identify
their buddy pairs and introduce each other to the rest of the group. Subsequently, they had to make
their 5 minutes presentation on the topic of their choice. This whole session was vedio-recorded and
later, the videos were given to all participants for review and self-reflection.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 16 of 53
4.2 Day 2:
The facilitator introduced the matrix of confidence meter and daily learning index to the participants
and asked them to self-rank themselves on the ranking of 1-10 in which 1 represents the lowest and
10 the highest. This was to be done everyday so that the participants can rank themselves
progressively and know the progress in their learning and confidence.
The learning index and the confidence meter matrix are attached as annexure (c) and (d).
4.5.1 Flip tips (KM)
The facilitator gave tips on using flip charts as a training aid. He explained the benefits and
limitations of flip charts in comparison to LCD projector (PowerPoint). Selection of pen colour also
plays very important role in the effectiveness of using flip charts. The below two principle should be
kept in consideration while using flip charts:
KISS: Keep It Short and Simple This applies for use of sentences on flip chart. The sentences should be short, prefereably bullet points.
KILL: Keep It Lerge and Legible This applies for use of fonts on the flip chart. The fonts should be large and preferebly in capital letters.
4.5.2 What is Sphere (CB)
Few of the participants had used Sphere
handbook in their work earlier but most of the
participants did not know about the changes in
the Sphere handbook 2011 edition and majority
had little understadiing of the contents of the
handbook and using the technical standards. The
facilitator used variety of methodlogies to
introduce them to the Sphere process and the
handbook. The new video of the Sphere was
shown to the participants to make them
understand the rationale and development of the
Sphere handbook.
The new presentation on 2011 edition was introduced to the participants and it helped them to
understand the Sphere process and the structure of the handbook. The participants were asked to
refer to various sections in the handbook which made them undestand the structure and how to find
any specific topic in the handbook.
The session was received well by the participants and they shared that now they are able to use the
handbook when required. They were also able to appreciate the importance of the process and
minimum standards in disaster response.
Figure 2: Ms. Chandrani leading the session on What is Sphere
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 17 of 53
4.5.3 The Humanitarian Charter (Vik)
The facilitator introduced the participants about
The Humanitarian Charter and the changes in the
chapter in the revised handbook. The facilitator
used PowerPoint and took reflections from the
participants on the whiteboard. The use of
examples, sharing from different situations
helped the participants understand the
importance of the humanitarian charter and its
significance in the handbook.
The facilitator asked the participant groups to
read the humanitarian charter and explain this to
other groups. The facilitator added to the discussion where required.
The session was felt quite useful by the participants and they reflected that the humanitarian charter
is very important for any humanitarian action.
4.5.4 Protection Principles (Vik)
The facilitator started the session with an exercise
in which all participants were assigned roles of
some stakeholders (NGO, INGO, Media person,
Policeman, military personnel, PLWHA, Old aged
person, 60 year old blind dalit women, 5 year old
girl, adolescent girl, local contractor, pregnant
woman, widow, orphan etc.). They stood in a
single line and were given different situations on
which they had too react as per their feeling of
being protected (how protected they feel in a
given situation). This exercise was perceived well
and helped the participants to understand that
protection needs are not only for the most vulnerables but it may be required to other sections of
the community as well in different degrees.
Further, the facilitator shared the participatns with the protection principles with help of a
PowerPoint. The participants appreciated the session and shared their understading on protection
principles in different scenarios.
Figure 3: Mr. Vikrant interacting with participants during session on Humanitarian Charter
Figure 4: Participants during an exercise to understand protection and its relation & meaning to various stakeholders
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 18 of 53
4.5.5 The Project Cycle, Core Standards and Cross Cutting Issues (MJ, CB)
The facilitator asked participants experiences on
project cycle and captured them in the session to
reflect on the project cycle and various phases.
He linked it to various core standards and cross
cutting issues and used the experiences of the
participants to correlate them. The facilitator
asked the participants to read the cross cutting
issues in their groups and make a flip chart
presentation and explain it to other groups.
The session helped the participants to interlink
the core standards and cross cutting issues with
the project cycle.
4.3 Day 3:
4.5.1 Power point tips (MJ)
The facilitator showed a video on powerpoint mistakes that few presenters happen to do while
making powerpoint presentations. The video was quite helpful to explain the basic points of using
powerpoint in a funny way.
There was another video shown by the facilitator which again helped participants to understand the
do’s and don’t’s in a powerpoint presentation. These tips were quite useful and were appreciated by
the particiapnts.
4.5.2 Using technical standards and indicators (Vik)
The facilitator used a table top exercise to make
the participants understand minimum standards,
key actions, key indicators and guidance notes;
and also how to use them. The facilitator gave 1
sentence (all words mingled) to each group and
asked them to find out the sentence in the
handbook and indetify whether it is a minimum
standard, a key action, or a key indicator. Futher
the groups had to go through that particular
sentence, and explain that to other groups in a
logical flow (minimum standard, key action, key
Figure 5: Mr. Mayank facilitating discussions on project cycle and its relation to core standards
Figure 6: Participants in a table-top exercise on Sphere handbook
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 19 of 53
indicator and then guidnace note). The presentations were done in bus stop method.
The facilitator explained all the participants about the use of technical standards and the indicators
with the presentations made by each group. He also shared the participants on “How to use the
standards” from page number 7 in the English version of the handbook. The session was well
appreciated by the participants and majority of them expressed that now they feel more confident
in using the handbook.
4.5.3 Code of Conduct (MJ)
The facilitator made the participants to go
through the code of conduct principles in Sphere
handbook and present it to the rest of the groups.
The facilitator added to the discussions with his
experience and understanding from different
scenarios. The IFRC video on Code fo Conduct was
used to build deeper understanding of the
principles. The discussions among the participants
on the topics of code of conduct helped the whole
group to learn and understand the importance of
code of conduct.
A handout on staff code of conduct and mini Case
studies to illustrate the cases were also used to link code of conduct principles to practical situations
in the field.
The session was appreciated by the participants however, they shared if more time could have been
given to this important session and discussions.
4.5.4 Introduction to other Global Quality and Accountability Initiatives (Vik, Ashish)
The facilitator started the session with a role play.
He asked two participants (volunteers) to do a
role play on how few agencies may behav with
disaster victims in disaster situations. This was
focused on how resources convert into power in a
disaster situation. Further, discussions were built
on the role play to make the participants
understand the important of code of cunduct for
agencies as well as humanitarian aid-workers.
The facilitators shared the participants about
other global quality and accountability initiatives
including Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), Livestock Emergency Guidelines and
Figure 7: Participants going through the Code of Conduct in Sphere handbook and having discussions on the same to build further understanding
Figure 8: A role play done by 2 participants to represent how resources covnert into power during emergencies
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 20 of 53
Standards (LEGS), Inter-Agency Network for
Education in Emergencies (INEE), Active Learning
Network for Accountability and Performance
(ALNAP).
One of the participants was from World Society
for Protection of Animals (Dr. Ashish) and he
shared a presentation on LEGS to rest of the
group.
The facilitator used a debate among the
participants on the importance of education
during emergencies and further built on the understanding of the participants on the subject with
experiences and views of other participants.
The session was perceived well and participants shared that more involvement of participants could
be done in sessions.
4.4 Day 4:
4.5.1 Cross cultural tips (Vik)
The facilitator shared about various aspects of cross-cultural issues in different set of people,
enviornment and situations. The understanding of non-verbal communication and body language is
very important when we deal with people of different cultures.
Cross cultural communication is about dealing with people from other cultures in a way that
minimises misunderstandings and maximises your
potential to create strong cross cultural relationships.
This session was highly appreciated by the participants
and they shared that this has helped them in
understading behaviour and communications in
different scenarios and with different people.
FEW TIPS ON CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION:
Even when English is the common language in a cross cultural situation, this does not mean you should speak at normal speed. Slow down, speak clearly and ensure your pronunciation is intelligible.
Effective cross cultural communication is in essence about being comfortable. Giving encouragement to those with weak English gives them confidence, support and a trust in you.
In many cultures business is taken very seriously. Professionalism and protocol are constantly observed. Many cultures will not appreciate the use of humour and jokes in the business context. When using humour think whether it will be understood in the other culture.
Many cultures have certain etiquette when communicating. It is always a good idea to undertake some cross cultural awareness training or at least do some research on the target culture.
Non-verbal communication in India In Indian context, sometimes the non-verbal communication is very different from western countries. One motion that is hard to decipher is the movement of the head to denote ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Some Indians shake their head from side to side when they mean ‘yes’ while some others move it up and down to say ‘yes’ and sideways to say ‘no’. And then there is a third head movement that is hard to describe. It is between a nod and a shake, and involves moving the head in a kind of a semi-circular motion. It means ‘yes’ too but can baffle someone who is not aware of its existence. Another sometimes perplexing practice is plain silence, which could be used to mean either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Often keen observation of the body language is necessary to throw light on a person’s true reactions.
Figure 9: Dr. Ashish (WSPA) sharing about LEGS to the group
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 21 of 53
4.5.2 Adult learning principles (KM, MJ)
The facilitator started with discussion on difference between education and training and then shared
them about differnet ways of learning. He also shared about different styles of learning. He shared
about the principles of adult learning and discussed with them on differences between child learning
and adult learning styles. The participants were shared about the Kolb’s exeriential learning cycle.
The Kolb’s learning style inventory was practiced by all participants to understand their own leanring
behaviour and needs. the facilitator shared handbouts to the participants on learning styles. The
session was perceived well by the participants.
4.5.3 Assessing Learning Needs, Planning Trainings (KM)
The facilitator started from the learning of the previous session and introduced the participants that
different people may have differnet learning styles and so different learning needs. The participants
were shared about different levels of training needs analysis and the facilitator shared that a training
intervention is required in case the TNA reflects on some gaps in attitude, skills and knowledge of
the assesses. The participants were also shared about the various steps in a TNA exercise.
The facilitator added to it with the theory of confort zone and shared that challenging situations also
make an individual learn a lot in some cases.
4.5.4 Designing trainings (KM, MJ)
The facilitator shared the participants about how to design a training on the identified need through
a TNA and how to set learning objectives. He shared about the various steps of a learning event and
other requirements for designing a training.
The facilitator also shared that the key learning messages in a particular training could be divided
into three sections. One of this is the “must know” part which the participants must know during the
course of the session itself. The other is “should know” which the participants may pick up during
the session as the facilitator shares about the topic and the discussions proceed. The third one is
“could know” which a participant may know by refering to the documents provided of the links,
reference sources etc. This was perceived well by most of the participants.
4.5.5 Training methodologies (MJ, CB)
The facilitators shared the participants that there may be different methodologies to deliver any
particular content. The facilitator shared that given the principles of adult learning, training methods
play an important role in transferring knowledge and skills and changing attitudes. Appropriate
training methods cut across knowledge, thinking, doing, and feeling. Different training methods may
include Demonstration with return demonstration, Talk or presentation, Role-play, Buzz group, Case
study, Group discussion, Plenary discussion, Field visit, Brainstorming, Drama etc.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 22 of 53
Selecting an appropriate training method depends on variety of factors including what are the
learning objectives, content of session, participants profile (how many participant, their
characteristics, learning style), whether the trainer is comfortable with the method, time availability,
cost associated, space and equipment required etc.
The participants were engaged in a game “win as much as you can” to understand experiential
learning method. The session was well received by the participants.
4.5 Day 5:
4.5.1 Managing Nerves (Vik)
The facilitator started the session with asking the participants about what difficult situations they
have felt during delivering trainings. Some of the points were as below:
Sl. No. Difficult situation How to deal with
1. Time management Transfer the control to the participants groups.
Form training management team
Set norms in the beginning of the training
2. Informed /dessent participants Having informed participants may be a strength. They can be used as a good resource to solve most of the participants questions.
3. Diverse group Have content which is suitable for a basic level participant as well as can create challenge for an experienced participant.
(handbout on group dynamics was distributed by the facilitator)
4. Differnet expectations Divide the key learning messages in “must know”, “should know” and “could know”
5. Trainer not knowing the content A facilitator may not always the master of the content/subject. His/her role is largely to create the environment in which learning may happen. He/she has to link the learner to the content by using variety of methods, environment etc.
6. Trainers rapport with participants Meet individuals during breaks and evening
Take feedbacks and improve
7. Space management Improve various sitting / space usage
Reach to participants and groups, interact with them
8. Contextualization of the content Thinking of a trainer should not start from the contents, rather it should begin with the identified objectives and aim to deliver the key learning message through any suitable method and tools.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 23 of 53
4.5.2 Constructive feedback and evaluation (KM, Vik)
The facilitator shared tips on constructive feedbacks and how to give and receive feedbacks. the
facilitator shared that feedback is one of the most effective ways of learning more about our self. It
has been said that the last thing we learn about ourselves is the effect we have on others. The
facilitator engaged the participants in practicing it by giving and receiving feedback in peer group.
The need and significance of evaluation was discussed and a handout was shared illustrating four
levels of evaluation. Different methods of the immediate evaluation as being used in this training
were discussed.
4.5.3 Training tips, dialouge, question-answer: Quality Circle (MJ, KM)
The facilitators opened the floor for question-answer and dialouge between the participants and the
trainers. It was done through a process of quality circle and participants were engaged very actively
in the process. The key questions and discussions annexed in annexure (g).
4.5.4 Introduction to participants led sessions
The participants were provided opportunity to lead sessions and practice the learning they have got
in the TOT. The participants designed a 2 day training on Sphere and they delivered on the sessions.
The 2 day participants led training design included:
Assessment
Technical Standard – WASH
Technical standard – Food & Nutrition
Technical Standard – Shelter, Settlement & NFI
Technical Standard – Health Action
Convergence and Coordination
Monitoring and Evaluation
Simulation
The facilitators familiarized the participants with the existing and revised modules of Sphere ToT and
how to use them in designing trainings and sessions on Sphere. The norms for the participant led
sessions to put the learning into practice was shared again with the participants.
The participants were formed in groups of 3 people each and every group had 90 minutes time for
their topic. They had to make presentations (20 minutes each person) and then a slot of discussion
and feedbacks by peer group and facilitators was kept for 30 minuts for each group.
The evaluation was based on:
Individual performance in the presentation
Team performance (of session)
Performance of entire group (2 days training)
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 24 of 53
5. Training evaluation
All the participants have expressed the interest to use the training process forward to strengthen
their programs and take Sphere work forward in their respective organizations. During the
preparation time it was decided to evaluate the training at different levels to demonstrate different
evaluation methodologies and the complete evaluation process to the participants.
Accordingly, the daily participant feedback and facilitation team reviews were conducted every day.
The reaction level evaluation of the training was performed after the training. The indicators of
Sphere institutionalisation at the agency level were also shared for agency level evaluations on
mainstreaming Sphere.
From both the anecdotal feedback and the participant feedbacks collected at the end of every day
and post training evaluation by the participants, organising committee and training team, the Delhi
TOT seems to have met the training objectives and in many cases surpassed expectations. The
summary of learning from participant daily feedback and facilitation team review process and the
post training participant evaluation is discussed below:
5.1 Summary of participants’ daily feedbacks
The daily feedbacks were collected from participants through a range of methodologies proved very
useful to progressively improve the quality of training delivery. The feedbacks were incorporated in
the forthcoming sessions to the extent possible and others were recorded for reporting and better
planning of future TOTs. Below are some of the points recorded from the daily feedbacks of the
participants:
Training could have been better if more trainers were involved. It could have benefited the
participants with diversity of thoughts, experience, background etc.
Community dinner had helped participants to form a team. The facilitators’ friendly and open
behavior made us easy and the environment became more conducive and friendly.
Lead trainer (Vik) tried to accommodate all (or most) of the suggestions given by the participants
in his sessions and PPTs. It was good and important.
Logistics was perfect (food, hotel, accommodation etc.)
8 days are very long and it was not easy, but the training was wonderful and we learnt a lot.
Tips on using PowerPoint and flip chart could have come later (instead of coming in the first 2
days) because as a participant, I observed whether the trainer is following them or not.
Lot of emphasis was given on learning process.
Groups were not shuffled and this limited the learning from other people and groups.
Training coordinator (Raman) very well managed all things simultaneously. He always had
positive response to everyone whoever approached him for anything.
Using local language could have been avoided as there were foreign participants as well.
The session on constructive feedback was very helpful. On the whole the tips learned in the ToT
are very good.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 25 of 53
Participants were happy because all participants got chance to lead sessions.
Many participants shared that lots of things were new to them and it was quite useful for them
to be part of this learning process.
Comfort zone concept was good. It was being realized that many of the participants experienced
it.
Links to real life experiences are very useful.
Many new things especially the use of boards, tools in training session, evaluation & feedback
well explained.
Methodology was more interactive.
The participant’s interest in learning was very high and immediate reactions were demonstrating
quick learning.
The matrix for daily learning index and confidence meter were very useful.
Flexibility in schedule to meet participant expectations was good; however the time
management could have been better.
Schedule was very tight. It may be little relaxed.
More time could have been given at the beginning of the training to orientate participants with
course materials and the existing sphere modules.
5.2 Summary of Facilitator’s daily and end of training review process
The facilitator team and the organising committee overall felt very happy with the outcome of the
training, the achievement of the training objectives and the expectations. The spirit of the learning
group was positive and a strong commitment was evident in their forward plans to implement
Sphere within their organisations and as inter agency efforts.
Overall the facilitation was very effective and there was a lot of learning noted by each facilitator for
future trainings. Some of the observations were:
The participants profile was very dialectic. It could have been more uniform with majority at
least at desired level of understanding of Sphere. The participant selection criteria for the TOT
should be adhered to.
Daily facilitator planning and de-briefing strengthened the process.
There could be better coordination in the training team.
In some cases the session preparations could have been better.
The lead trainer shall examine the readiness and preparedness of the trainers for their sessions
well in advance to avoid changes and last minute anxieties.
It would be better if facilitators’ session plans were available to share before the Course starts.
A proper time for preparation should be allocated.
Follow-up of training needs to be done with the participants and respective organizations.
Good facilitation and 1 half-day break kept energy levels high and reduced need for energizers.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 26 of 53
5.3 Summary of participant’s evaluation at the end of the training
The summary of consolidated feedback collected through the standard evaluation form of Sphere
ToT and the evaluation form designed by the organising committee is given below.
Achievement of workshop aims and objectives
Relevance of content to your work
Impact on the way you work
Pace and balance of the workshop
Quality of the learning materials and aids
Facilitation and presentation of the training
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 27 of 53
Quality of pre-training information
Quality of the venue and accommodation
5.3.1 Which part of the workshop was most useful for you?
Almost 39% of the participants shared that the Sphere training was very helpful in enriching their
understanding on Sphere handbook, humanitarian charter, standards and their inter-linkages.
Approx. 30% of the participants shared that the contents of adult learning were very helpful and
helped them in enhanciing their training skills. More than 26% of them liked the participants led
sessions and shared that it helped them in building their confidence. Tips on using flip charts,
powerpoint, managing nerves and cross cultural tips were also liked by many participants. Sessions
on code of conduct, protection principles, humanitarian laws were also mentioned by few
participants. The experiential learning during the training was also shared as useful part of the
training by few participants.
5.3.2 What improvements/changes would you suggest for another workshop?
Pre-training information can be given much in advance. Some more pre-training materials could
be given for better preparations.
More inter-sectoral sessions could be planned.
More tools and methodologies in the training so that they can be practiced at later stages by the
participants.
More time for preparation of participants led sessions – 2
More number of facilitators/resource persons having diversified experience – 3
Slightly loose schedule, it was very hectic.
Correlating theories with humanitarian actions
Time management according to schedule – 2
Better content and delivery (there is always room for improvement)
International experts could be brought in the training
Consider the time spent on daily basis
Consideration of the limitation of language
More participatory style is suggested
Prior intimation to agencies so that desired participants could be allowed to participate.
More number of learning handouts
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
NA
Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 28 of 53
There is need to inform well in advance.
The resource persons have to be changed according to the contents.
The sitting style, arrangements has to be changed everyday to make more comfortable and
meaningful.
Classes should begin at 9:00 AM.
Incorporating trainees’ experiences (Like LEGS sharing by WSPA person) should be more.
Incorporate more case studies
It’s only regarding pace of workshop/training. If we are learning, there is need to be very careful.
Some messages might not be communicated properly due to extra pace.
5.3.3 How will you use the Sphere handbook in your work?
Designing project, in planning new proposals (2)
Training of staff, In conducting trainings specially in disaster programs (4)
At least minimum standards are met during the time of disaster response, In disaster
management and relief work, On collective process towards disaster response, in relief
distribution (4)
Using core standards, protection and cross cutting issues in field.
To prepare a group of cadres for trainings in community level
Internalizing the Sphere in different domains
It could be used in planning, implementation and monitoring
I will utilize Sphere standards in my work such as project implementation, format, assessment,
trainings etc.
Effort would be to familiarize Sphere handbook among the stakeholders and adherence of
minimum standards
Have to discuss with Director as we have our own tools
It’s directly connected to look forward to weave the concepts into practice.
First of all I would like to train my co-workers and colleagues. Then once disaster will occur, we
will try 100% use of the handbook and its practical use.
I will aware the community about the standards
Sphere handbook is dedicated primarily for disaster response, but to me, everything is relevant
to other sectors.
Key actions could be emphasized with local context.
5.3.4 Any other comment/suggestion
We could bring people from various other facets of field
The team formation process for the participants led sessions should start early after 2-3 days of
the workshop.
Well done Sphere India Team !!!
It was beautifully organized and managed programme
Inauguration of training could be done by senior person, stakeholder
Totally a fantastic and useful training
TOT is my first experience so I do not have any idea
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 29 of 53
This workshop needs to be organized with Government level for easy adoption and
implementation.
A dedicated Hindi TOT should be organized.
Please give more emphasis to context rather than training methods.
Good people and good training
Learning should be practiced in a live project/ environment
5.3.5 Structure and content of the TOT
Sl. No.
Topics
Recommendation for the next/future Sphere ToT
Maintain
Revise/ improve
Replace with
1. Introduction to Sphere Training of Trainers 20 3 0
2. Introduction to Sphere 20 2 More time
3. The Humanitarian Charter 19 4 0
4. Protection Principles 18 5 0
5. The Project Cycle, Core Standards and Cross Cutting Issues 14 9 0
6. Using Technical Standards and Indicators
12 10 More time and more practice required
7. Code of Conduct 17 5 Details required.
8.
Introduction to companion standards and other quality + accountability initiatives 16 6
Documents could be given during session
9. Adult Learning Principles 12 10 More time required.
10. Assessing Learning Needs
16 6 Methodology can be changed.
11. Designing and Planning Trainings
15 7 Methodology can be changed.
12. Training Methods 16 7 0
13. Constructive Feedback and Evaluation
17 5 More details required.
14. Flipchart Tips
18 4 Demonstration was required.
15. Managing Nerves 17 5 Practice required.
16. PowerPoint Tips
15 7 More practice and examples
17. Cross cultural Tips 12 10 More examples
18. Training Tips Dialogue, Questions and Answer 16 7 0
19.
Design of Training and Process of Session Designs for participant led sessions 17 6 0
20. Participants led sessions 15 8 0
21.
Sphere Mainstreaming and Institutionalization in India and South Asia 15 8 0
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 30 of 53
22. Forward Action Plans
15 7 Written action planning required.
23. Personal/group consultation with facilitators 18 5 0
24. Social Evening and break for Surajkund Fair 20 2 Could be better
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 31 of 53
6. Summary of key recommendations for future TOTs: a. To Sphere Project and other trainers:
There should be a new training manual for 2011 edition handbook. This may also include
case stories, field stories and examples from the practitioners who have used the handbook
in their work.
There are many humanitarian professionals who have enough experience and understanding
on Sphere process and handbook to be part of the TOT training team. The Sphere Project
training policy may be modified to involve these professionals as trainers in the TOT training
team.
All TOT graduates may not be accreditated as Sphere trainers. They may require further
exposure and handholding from senior trainers in delivery of Sphere trainings. The training
team may give ranking/ recommendations on the TOT graduates on their training skills,
performance etc. The Sphere Project training policy may acknowledge this point.
The training team should analyse the participants profile much in advance and prepare the
training structure accordingly. If required, the training structure may be changed to
accommodate the participants expectations and their varied learning needs. However, the
emphasis should be given to get the right profile of participants for the TOT.
The IFRC Video on agency code of conduct and mini case studies on staff code of conduct
were used and worked well. Recommended for future trainings.
TOT process and structure worked well. It can be used as it is for future trainings.
The general perception of Sphere in Asian context (validated from India, South Asia,
Indonesia and Philippines experience) is that it is about numbers (indicators) and standards
(quantitative indicators are perceived as standards). More materials may be developed to
build the understanding on what is Sphere, the complete Sphere framework and how the
framework works.
b. To the Organizing Committee
Participant selection criteria shall be strictly adhered to. If not possible it makes sense to
organise and two day Sphere orientation training before TOT.
A participant profile and status quo report should be sent out to the training team at least
two week prior to the training.
Lead trainer shall assess the level of preparedness of other trainers.
Facilitators sessions plans and presentations shall be prepared well in advance, assessed and
agreed by the training team. This can happen before training team preparatory meeting and
there should be an opportunity to critique each other’s session plans using conference or
skype calls for discussion.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 32 of 53
The facilitation team size of 3 is ok if all trainers are experienced with ToT. In case of
inexperienced/not confident trainers, additional trainer shall be planned. Optional guest
trainers may be involved for specific sessions.
In case there are senior trained professionals among the team and there is a window to
involve them with the training, this shall be explored.
Training schedule shall not exceed 8 hours of training time in a day. Adequate breaks and
participant’s own time shall be there to maintain participant energy levels especially during
last days of training.
Participant’s views and feedbacks shall be respected, discussed, agreed or disagreed with
proper reasoning; otherwise it may disengage the participant from learning process and may
also be distracting for other participants.
Logistics: The venue is ideal for training workshops of small groups of 20-30 people.
Recommended for future trainings. The support team was excellent.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 33 of 53
7. Annexes a. List of participants
Sl. No.
Picture Name Phone E-mail Organizatio
n
1.
Mr. Green Thomas
9971688007 [email protected] EFICOR
2.
Mr. Pramod Pal
8051304224 [email protected] EFICOR
3.
Mr. Satish Kumar Singh
09430744160, 08092489741
[email protected], [email protected]
CASA, Bihar (LWR)
4.
Mr. Rajan Gautam
9304377259 [email protected] IDF, Bihar (LWR)
5.
Mr. Tushar Kanti Das
9771413500 [email protected] Plan-International (India chapter)
6.
Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma
8800594021 [email protected]
Plan India
7.
Mr. Hansen Thambi Prem
9810169117 [email protected]
WSPA
8.
Dr. Ashish Sutar
9958595345 [email protected] WSPA
9.
Ms. Snehil Rathore
8756398845 [email protected] IAG Uttarakhand
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 34 of 53
10.
Ms. Rupali Kar
9437011940 [email protected] IAG Orissa
11.
Mr. Paras Nath Sidh
9929830310 [email protected], [email protected]
IAG Rajasthan
12.
Mr. Seemanchal
9439324170 [email protected], [email protected]
NCDHR
13.
Md. Mostafa Kamal
:8801711002436
[email protected]; [email protected]
Project Concern International (PCI), Bangladesh
14.
Mr. Simionpillai Mariyadas
: + 94 77 3064552
[email protected] Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies
15.
Dr. Raju SMG
9650213203 [email protected] Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), New Delhi
16.
Mr. Bibhas Chatterjee
09415339761, 09307021497
[email protected], [email protected]
Gram Niyojan Kendra (GNK), Plan India
17.
Mr. Solomon David George
9748899507 [email protected] Compassion East India
18.
Mr. Mari Rajan
9489081852 [email protected] IAG Tamil Nadu: People’s Action for Development (PAD)
19.
Mr. Kumar Vishnupad Manu
9430595716 [email protected], [email protected]
Bihar Inter Agency Group
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 35 of 53
20.
Mr. Kameshwar Kamati
9472192010 [email protected], [email protected]
Gyanodaya and IAG, Madhubani
21.
Mr. Raman Kumar
9910082661 [email protected], [email protected]
Sphere India
22.
Mr. Baleshwor Singh
8826655629 [email protected]
Sphere India
23.
Ms. Jaya Jha 98115-16095 [email protected] Sphere India
24.
Ms. Neha Siwatch **
9811709254 [email protected] Sphere India
25.
Ms. Noushaba Nas PP **
9967814481 [email protected] TISS
26.
Mr. Gaurav Upadhyay **
9967797122 [email protected]
TISS
** Three participants (Ms. Neha Siwatch, Ms. Noushaba Nas PP and Mr. Gaurav Upadhyay) were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere Training instead of TOT as they did not meet required criteria for the TOT (They had limited knowledge knowledge of Sphere handbook and no experience of training).
Training team 27.
Mr. Vikrant Mahajan
9818666831 [email protected] Sphere India
28.
Prof. Kartikeya Misra
094142-38197
[email protected] HCM Rajasthan State Institute of Public Administration
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 36 of 53
29.
Mr. Mayank Joshi
9825046643 [email protected] PCI India
30.
Ms. Chandrani Bandhyopadhyay
9811767403 [email protected] National Institute of Disaster Management
31.
Mr. N. M. Prusty
9811310841 [email protected] Sphere India
SPHERE INDIA ADMIN STAFF
1.
Ms. Romita Anand
9873628227 [email protected] Admin Officer
2.
Mr. Suraj Bahadur
9891006414 [email protected] Logistics Assistant
3.
Ms. Nitu Singh
9911439088 [email protected] Admin Assistant
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 37 of 53
b. TOT schedule
Place & Dates: Hotel Atrium, New Delhi, 12th February – 19th February, 2012
Day 1, Sun
12 Feb, 2012
Day 2, Mon
13 Feb, 2012
Day 3, Tues
14 Feb, 2012
Day 4, Wed
15 Feb, 2012
Day 5, Thu
16 Feb, 2012
Day 6, Fri 17 Feb, 2012
Day 7, Sat
18 Feb, 2012
Day 8, Sun
19 Feb, 2012
08:30
Participant arrival, Registration
Review (KM) Flip Tips
Review (MJ) PowerPoint tips
Review (Vik) Cross cultural tips
Review (KM) Managing nerves
Review Review Review
09:00
Block 2 Introduction to Sphere (Vik)
Block 6
Using technical standards and indicators (Vik, MJ)
Block 10
Assessing learning needs, Planning trainings (KM, MJ)
Block 14
Training tips Dialogue, question-answer (MJ, KM)
Participant-led Session 1
Participant-led Session 6
Individual time with trainers, interactions, ques-ans etc. as required (not
compulso
ry)
10:30
Break Break Break Break Break Break Break
11:00
Block 3 The Humanitarian Charter
(Vik, NMP)
Block 7 Code of Conduct (MJ, Vik)
Block 11 Designing trainings (KM, Vik)
Block 15 Introduction to participant-led session (Vik, MJ, KM)
Participant-led Session 2
Participant-led Session 7
Departures
12:30
Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
13:30
Block 4
Protection Principles (Vik, NMP)
Block 8 Introduction to
other global Q&A initiatives (Vik, Ashish)
Block 12 Training methods (CB, MJ)
Break
Participant-led Session 3
Participant-led Session 8
15:00
Break Break Break Break Break
15:30
Block 1 Introduction to the course, participants video introductions, expectations (Vik, KM, CB)
Block 5 The project cycle, core standards and cross cutting issues (CB, MJ)
Block 9 Adult learning principles (MJ, KM)
Block 13 Constructive Feedback & Evaluation (KM, Vik)
Participant-led Session 4
Q&A initiatives in context of South Asia and India (Panel: NIDM, NDMA, Prusty)
17:00
Break Break Break Break Break
17: Continue Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Plenary Participa Action
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 38 of 53
30 d… of the day of the day of the day discussion-1 (if required for preparations)
nt-led Session 5
Plans & Recommendation; Evaluation & valedictory (all trainers)
18:30
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
20:00
Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner
Blocks relating to Sphere training Blocks relating to adult learning Blocks relating to participant practice
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 39 of 53
c. Learning monitoring index
Sl. No. Name of Participant Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
1. Green 4 6 6 6 7 8 8.5 2. Pramod 5 6 7 7 7.5 7 8 3. Satish 5 5.5 5.5 6 6 7 8 4. Rajan 3.5 4 4.5 5 6 7.5 5. Tushar 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 8 8.5 6. Harsh 5 5 5.5 5.8 6 7 7.3 7. Hansen 4 5 6 7 8 8.5 8.5 8. Ashish 6 6.5 7 7.3 7.5 8 8.5 9. Snehil 3 4 5 5 5.5 6 7 10. Rupali 5 6.5 6.5 7 7.5 8 11. Paras 5 5.5 6 6.2 6.5 6 7 12. Seemanchal 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 7 13. Kamal 5 5 5.5 6 6 6.5 7 14. Mariyadas 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 15. Raju 5 6 7 7 8 8 8.5 16. Bibhas 1 3 4 5 5 5 6 17. Solomon 4 5 6 7 7.5 8 8 18. Mari Rajan 2 6 5 4.5 6 7 8 19. Manu 4 5 6 8 8 8 8 20. Kameshwar 6 6 7 6 6.5 7 8 21. Raman 6 8 8 8 9 9 9 22. Baleshwor 3.5 4.5 5 6 6.5 7 7.5 23. Jaya 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 24. Neha 3 5 6 7 7.5 7.5 8
The color codes depict the grading of the participants where lowest value (1) is marked with red,
highest value (10) is marked with green and the rest are the shades with yellow as per the values.
The below graph shows the average learning index of the group on each successive day of the
training.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 40 of 53
d. Confidence meter
Sl. No. Name of Participant Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
1. Green 6 5 6.5 6.5 7 8 8.5 2. Pramod 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 3. Satish 4 5 5 5.5 5.5 6.5 8 4. Rajan 3.5 4 5 5.5 6 8.5 5. Tushar 5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 6. Harsh 4 6 6 6.2 6.7 7.8 8 7. Hansen 5 5 6 7 8 8 8 8. Ashish 6.5 7 7.5 7.8 8 8 8 9. Snehil 4 3 4 5 5.5 6 8 10. Rupali 7 8 8 8 8 8 11. Paras 5 6 6 6 6.5 7 8 12. Seemanchal 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 13. Kamal 5 5.5 5.5 6 6 6 7 14. Mariyadas 6 6 7 7 7 9 9 15. Raju 5 5.5 7 7 8 8 8.5 16. Bibhas 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 17. Solomon 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 18. Mari Rajan 1 4 6 5 6 8 8.5 19. Manu 2 3 5 6 6 7 8 20. Kameshwar 6 6 6 6 6.5 7 7.5 21. Raman 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 22. Baleshwor 3.5 4 5 6 7 7 7.5 23. Jaya 4 5 5.5 4.5 5 5.5 6 24. Neha 5 6 7 7 8 8 8
4.4
5.3 6.0
6.3 6.8
7.3 7.9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Val
ue
Day
Average Learning Index of Participants
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 41 of 53
The color codes depict the grading of the participants where lowest value (1) is marked with red,
highest value (10) is marked with green and the rest are the shades with yellow as per the values.
The below graph shows the average confidence meter of the group on each successive day of the
training.
4.5 5.1
5.9 6.3 6.8
7.3 8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Val
ue
Day
Average Confidence Meter of Participants
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 42 of 53
e. Discussions in Quality Circle:
SUCCESS STORIES/ LEARNING IN IMPLEMENTATION OF SPHERE STANDARDS IN DISASTER
SITUATIONS:
1. India – Bihar (Kosi floods, 2008): As a volunteer working with Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai, Mr. Raju had conducted survey of 80 households using the assessment checklist from
the Sphere handbook. Later in another flood in Bihar, they derived questions from the checklist
for assessment.
2. Sri Lanka: Many NGOs try to use the Sphere handbook and standards but it has not been much
successful. However, there is increasing awareness among NGOs about the handbook.
3. CASA: India – Bihar (Kosi floods, 2008): CASA used Sphere standards in their response
programme.
4. Sphere India: in all recent disasters, assessments were done on a common format and they were
shared among different stakeholders in a coordination group. The response plans were based on
the needs emerged from the collation of assessments.
5. India – Orissa floods, 2011: The Orissa State Inter-Agency Group coordinated for the
assessments and response in the affected districts. They shared information with the Orissa
State Disaster Management Authority and maintained close coordination with them. IAG Orissa
shared that their assessments are not owned by the Govt. but they are more interested in
knowing what the civil societies are doing.
6. GNK Plan (Plan India): responded in non-food items but initially did not know that the materials
are based on Sphere standards. Later they learnt about Sphere handbook and the standards.
7. WSPA: They received very useful information about livestock from Sphere India during Leh flash
floods. This was helpful in planning their actions.
8. Leh flash floods: The GO-NGO collaboration platform was very helpful in coordination and
information sharing. Later, they came up with lessons learnt which covered the challenges, and
learning from the collaboration process.
9. Gujarat: Most NGOs do not know about Sphere standards and they respond immediately in case
a disaster with whatever resource they have and whatever they can do.
10. EFICOR: They have used Sphere standards in providing food during disaster response in Tsunami,
Orissa super cyclone, cyclone Thane, and many other small scale disasters like fire etc. EFICOR
also has their own set of minimum standards which they follow.
11. Sphere India: Core standards of the handbook are being used largely by all agencies in India and
the states (through state inter-agency groups). However, in terms of technical standards, many
times it depends on agency’s mandate. Like, CASA, EFICOR etc. target a particular population
and do their response accordingly. Agency’s reports reflect that the planning is done based on
technical standards. It is observed that technical standards are followed and in few places they
are appropriated and contextualized. Sphere India is planning to work towards developing
agency specific response standards and collate the learning.
12. Sphere India and IAGs: IAG Orissa is a consortium of INGOs in Orissa whereas, IAG Bihar
welcomes all agencies. Another model is IAG West Bengal which has Govt. also as a part of it. All
IAGs have their own independent structure. Sphere India shared that IAG Orissa needs to be
more principle based and be more inclusive and open.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 43 of 53
13. Govt. of India is bringing National Guidelines on Minimum Standards in Disaster Response which
is developed in consultative process. Sphere India has been extensively involved in the process
of development of these guidelines and around 90% of Sphere thinking has gone into this. The
assessment checklists and formats have also been inserted into this.
14. Bihar Inter-Agency Group: They are going to organize a workshop soon in which they are going
to link the Sphere standards and Bihar State relief code. The recommendations shall be shared
to the Govt.
15. Cyclone Thane, Tamil Nadu: IAG conducted assessments of the affected areas. They did
advocacy with the govt. and INR 4000/- was provided by the Govt. to each family initially and
later, INR 1500 Crore rupees have been sanctioned by the the Govt. for the affected areas.
MEASURES/MECHANISMS TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER AGENCIES ARE COMPLYING WITH THE
STANDARDS
1. Sri Lanka: They have cluster approach in the country and they monitor the compliance.
2. So far agencies have not been sharing their reports to all but this could be very important
learning process for all.
3. Sphere India is working on developing India Disaster Report 2011 and had sent questionnaire to
number of IAGs and agencies who responded in different disasters in 2011. However, very few
of them have responded to the questionnaire. However, IAGs have been very active platform in
the states and have built strong binding among the members. Information sharing among all,
joint assessments, sharing of individual assessments have been actively done. However, joint
monitoring has not been done so far, and agencies monitoring/evaluation reports have also
been not shared among all.
4. Bangladesh: They don’t have IAGs but ECB (Emergency Capacity Building) which is a small
network. Their activities are largely similar to the core standards of Sphere handbook. In recent
floods, they collected assessments from partners and all of the 19 reports were quite different
from each other and it was very difficult for them to collate them. They seek advice and
suggestions from India experience of coordination.
Other key discussion points were as below:
How to use the information collected on the entry level behavior of participants? How to make
sub-groups in the participants?
Does the Sphere handbook have guidelines for IEC development?
o No. the handbook does not have guidelines for IEC development. It talks about
humanitarian charter, core standards and 4 technical chapters. IAGs and Sphere India
are processes. Materials like IEC, tools etc. are developed in consultation with members
in the coordination process.
How do we monitor that the recommendations shared by civil societies to Govt. are followed by
the Govt.:
o There are several experiences on this. One experience was from fisher folk community
where NGO had identified the need of appropriate method for drying fishes and their
storage. After successful intervention in 10 villages by the NGO, now, it has been
incorporated in the Govt. programs and is now sustainable.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 44 of 53
f. Revised training schedule (Participants led sessions):
Day 1, Tue
14 Feb, 2012 Day 2, Wed
15 Feb, 2012 Day 3, Thu
16 Feb, 2012 Day 4, Fri
17 Feb, 2012 Day 5, Sat
18 Feb, 2012
08:30
Participant arrival, Registration
Review Review Review Review
09:00
Block 2 Introduction to Sphere (Vik)
Block 6 Using technical standards and indicators (Vik, MJ)
Block 9: Assessment
(Seemanchal,
Satish, Tushar)
Block 13: Convergence and Coordination (Rupali, Vibash and Pramod)
10:30 Break Break Break Break
11:00
Block 3 The Humanitarian Charter (Vik, NMP)
Block 7 Code of Conduct (MJ, Vik)
Block 10: Technical Standard-WASH (Baleshwor, Mari D and Hansen)
Block 14: Monitoring & Evaluation (Manu, Rajan and Solomon)
12:30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
13:30
Block 4 Protection Principles (Vik, NMP)
Block 8 Introduction to other global Q&A initiatives (Vik, Ashish)
Block 11: Technical Standard-Food and Nutrition (Neha, Paras and Ashish)
Block 12: Simulation (Snehil, Jaya and Harsh)
15:00 Break Break Break Break
15:30
Block 1 Introduction to the course, participants video introductions, expectations (Vik, KM, CB)
Block 5 The project cycle, core standards and cross cutting issues (CB, MJ)
BREAK
Block 11: Technical Standard-Shelter, Settlement and NFI (Raman, Kameshwor and Green)
Q&A initiatives in context of South Asia and India (Panel: NIDM, NDMA, Prusty)
17:00 Break Break Break
17:30 Continued… Evaluation of the day
Block 12: Technical Standards: Health Action (Raju, Kamal. Mari R)
Action Plans & Recommendation; Evaluation & valedictory (all trainers)
18:30 Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
Break Group/Individual time with trainers
20:00 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner
Participants’ led sessions
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 45 of 53
g. Session Designs and reports of participants’ led sessions
1) ASSESSMENT:
Session design:
Sl. No. Content Time Method Medium Trainer 1) Introduction to
Assessment 10 minutes Lecture PPT Mr. Simanchal
2) Sphere Core Standard
20 Minutes Lecture & Discussion
PPT Mr. Satish
3) Linkages of Assessments
20 Minutes Lecture, Discussion, Simulation
PPT, Mr. Tushar
4) key messages & winding up
10 minutes Discussion PPT
Learning objectives: At the end of session participants will be able to know
The importance of assessment in humanitarian response
Factors influencing assessment in humanitarian response
Linkages with technical standards
Key learning messages:
Assessment is conducted to determine the nature of emergency and who needs support.
Remember, all disasters are not emergencies.
Assessments are always followed by analysis and are prerequisite for programme planning
CVA, PRA are different tools used during assessment.
Monitoring is a continuous form of assessment.
2) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN WATER SUPPLY, SANITATION AND HYGIENE PROMOTION:
Session Objectives: At the end of this session participants will be able to:
Explain the importance of WASH in Disaster Response
Describe the structure of WASH in the Sphere Handbook
Describe the use of Minimum Standards, Key Actions, Key Indicators and Guidance Notes
for disaster response
Key Messages:
The Importance of WASH in Disaster is to promote: good hygiene practices, provision of
safe drinking water, the reduction of environmental health risk, and the conditions that
allow people to live with good health, dignity, comfort and security.
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 46 of 53
Seven Sections of WASH- WHWEVSD: WASH, Hygiene Promotion, Water Supply, Excreta
Disposal, Vector Control, Solid Waste Management and Drainage
Use of WASH standards in disaster situation
3) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN FOOD AND NUTRITION:
Session objectives:
Introduction of food security and nutrition and links with sphere process
food security and nutrition assessment
Infant and Young Child Feeding and Micronutrient Deficiency
Food security
The group worked with presentations and involved participants in discussions to understand the
subject.
4) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN SHELTER, SETTLEMENT AND NON-FOOD ITEMS
Day 4: Block 11:
Technical Standard – Shelter, Settlement and Non-Food Items
Duration 90 minutes (15:30-17:00 PM) Theme Minimum standards in Shelter, Settlement and Non-Food Items Facilitator Mr. Raman, Mr. Kameshwar and Mr. Green
Aim and learning objectives of session
By the end of this session, the participants would be able to: 1. List the legal instruments behind right to shelter 2. Compare various options in shelter response 3. List the basic standards, key actions and indicators in shelter response 4. List the basic standards, key actions and indicators in NFI interventions
Key learning messages
Below are the key learning messages against each objectives:
Sl. No.
Objectives Key learning messages
1. List the legal instruments behind right to shelter
The Right to Adequate Housing (Article 11 (1))
International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1954); Article 21.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); Article 25.
IASC Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disasters 2006: Protecting Persons Affected by Natural Disasters
2. Compare various
options in shelter response
There are various options of shelter response; it is not necessarily a tent or camp like structure. o Return to their dwellings o Repair of houses, support of
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 47 of 53
materials, tools etc. o Hosting within communities (with
neighbours, relatives) o Rental support may be given to
families who get hosted with families in community. Relief agencies need to facilitate the process.
o Temporary communal settlements (self settled unplanned camps)
o Planned and managed camps o Information or advice on how to
access grants, materials or other forms of shelter support from Govt. schemes and NGOs relief programs.
3. List the basic
standards, key actions and indicators in shelter response
Minimum usable surface area of 45 square meters for each person including household plots should be provided. o Includes roads and footpaths,
external household cooking areas or communal cooking areas, educational facilities and recreational areas, sanitation, firebreaks, administration, water storage, distribution areas, markets, storage and limited kitchen gardens for individual households.
All affected individuals have an initial minimum covered floor area of 3.5m2 per person.
Cultural practices, safety and privacy of occupants in a shelter should be considered.
Participatory design Local building practices and resources
should be used. Govt. building codes for disaster
resilient houses should be followed. Negative impact on environmental
must be reduced. 4. List the basic
standards, key actions and indicators in NFI interventions
Relief packages should be contextualized, need based and accepted by the community.
Coordination and linkages with the WASH and Food chapters should be done in NFI response.
Time Topic (linked to
learning objectives) Methods
Teaching aids,
resources Tools Facilitator
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 48 of 53
– e.g. flipcharts,
pens etc 5 minutes
Introducing the session with learning objectives
Sharing Slide with LCD projector
Raman
15 minutes
Legal background for importance of shelter response
The facilitator will ask the participants whether shelter is a need. He/she will ask from the participants whether shelter constitutes important component in life, and if it is associated with right to life. Then he/she will ask about if they know of any legal backgrounds for shelter or housing for an individual and for the various vulnerable groups. Group readings: 5 different set of reading will be provided to each participant group for reading and reflection. The participants would share about the given information to rest of the groups. Trainer will conclude with sharing that housing is a right and is obligatory for state and humanitarian agencies to respond in shelter. And also that various vulnerable groups also have the rights
Flip chart, marker
Group reading materials on rights of different groups and vulnerable groups in shelter and housing.
Kameshwar
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 49 of 53
to receive shelter response.
25 minutes
Various options in shelter response And Important considerations in shelter response (based on Sphere minimum standards)
The facilitator will ask the participants if they have experience of shelter response in any emergencies. List the types of shelter responses on the flip chart. Ask them if they know of any other options for shelter. Ask them about what the objective of shelter program is and how we can achieve it. Think in your groups for 2 minutes and quickly give 3 options for shelter response. Share them the various options. (pg. 249-254) Shelter & Settlement Std 1-2
Facilitator asks them on any known indicator on space for shelter. Responses are collected on flip chart and discussion done if required. Sharing of standards. Facilitator asks them on 3.5 sq meter tarpaulin. Gives them chart paper to make tent of similar area
PowerPoint and Flip chart, markers PowerPoint and flip chart
Raman
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 50 of 53
(experimentation). Quick calculation on surface area.
20 minutes
Important considerations in Non-Food Items interventions
The facilitator gives chart paper cuttings to the participants groups and asks them to write the list of non-food items that they would like to provide in a disaster situation. Facilitator related the lists of participants groups to the relevant sections in the Sphere handbook. The facilitator explains the participants about the method of identification of food grade plastic with live demonstration.
Flip chart, chart paper, marker, water bottle
Green
5 minutes
Summing up and key learning points
Raman, Green, Kameshwar
20 minutes
Questions, feedbacks
5) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN HEALTH ACTIONS
Session Topic: Health Action
Team Members: Raju, Kamal and Marirajan
Session Objective: Describe the Impact and Structures of Health Assistance in Disaster
Key Learning Points
• to explain the importance of Health Action in Disaster
• to understand the linkages of HA in Core standard, Humanitarian Charter and Cross-Cutting
Issues
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 51 of 53
• to understand the priorities of Health Services in Disaster Response
Methods applied: Lecture, simulation
Tools used: Video, flip chart, group work, discussion, bus stop
6) CONVERGENCE AND COORDINATION:
Session plan and design:
Component Details Time
22 minutes (20%) Responsibility
Theory Session
Introduction 5 mins Bibhas
Concepts in Coordination 7 mins Rupali
Stakeholders 7 mins Pramod
Conclusion 3 mins Rupali
Skill Session Activity, Practice on thematic aspects
38 mins Bibhas/Rupali/ Pramod
Open House Q &A Session 10 mins -
Peer /Facilitator feedback 20 mins -
Methods: Lecture, Games
Tools: Ppt, Flip book, Meta clips, whiteboard, case study
Session Objectives:
Participants would be able to link the sphere standards with coordination framework
Enabling objective: At the end of the session, participants would be able to
List out the stakeholders
Define their respective roles
for coordination & collaboration in regional DRR initiatives and emergencies
Key learning:
Overarching Theme
Complex nature of collaboration/Coordination
Use of Coordination Tool
References:
Sphere Training Manuals
Sphere Handbook
Cross Sector Convergence – A new view of Global Development
IAG Odisha Resources
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 52 of 53
Gram Unnayan Resources
Acknowledgement: Our sincere thanks to Vikrant Mahajan and the Facilitation Team
7) MONITORING AND EVALUATION:
Session Objectives: By the end of this session, participants would be able to:
Describe the importance of monitoring and evaluation in disaster programmes
Develop a monitoring tool.
Describe the application of monitoring tools in their work.
Session plan:
Topic Time Method Facilitator Introduction of session & objectives
04 min. Sharing on power point K V Manu
Importance of monitoring and evaluation in disaster programmes
16 min. Sharing on power point, White board & GD
K V Manu
Develop a monitoring tool 20 min. Group Exercise Rajan Gautam Implementation of monitoring tool 20 min. Group Exercise S David George Summing up and key messages 05 min. Sharing on power point S David George Questions and Feedbacks 25 min. By Peer group &
Mentor
Key learning points:
Definition of Monitoring & Evaluation
Differences and Similarity between Monitoring & Evaluation
Develop Monitoring Tools
Relating to Sphere Hand Book
Demonstrate the implementation of monitoring tool
8) SIMULATION:
This session was focused on experiential learning through the exercise of a simulation of disaster
situation. The participants were given roles and they played their roles in the given disaster
situation. The facilitator group controlled the situation by giving tips, news, and information at
regular intervals. The simulation began with the following information:
• On 18/02/2012, 1:27 PM ISD an earthquake of magnitude7.1 and depth 19.7km with its
epicenter in the densely populated state of Digaara with a population of 30 lakhs. GDACS
estimates the likelihood for need of international humanitarian intervention to be high
(Red alert).
Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
12-19 February, 2012 New Delhi, India
Page 53 of 53
• The districts reporting causalities and damages are Sonpur and Nahan.
Demographic Profile District:
District Distance from Capital(Desu) Total Population
Sonpur 300 kms 3.5 lakh
Nahan 1100kms 2 lakh
Day 1: (10 minutes)
Situation: No Communication lines
Organize and Start Planning
Day 3: (10 minutes)
Situation: Communication Lines Restored.
Aftershocks continued
Funding announced by Donor Agency X of USD 5 million. Preference to be given to joint
proposal
Day 7: (10 minutes)
Media repeatedly highlighting plight of affected population in District Nahan
Day 10: (10 minutes)
Casualties increasing abruptly in Sonpur 200 people including children diagnosed with Food
poisoning in a camp in Sonpur
Take appropriate measures
At the end of the simulation exercise, participants’ experiences & reflections were collected by the
facilitator team and debriefing was done to capture the learning points.