Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in

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


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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.

mailto:[email protected]






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.



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)



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



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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)



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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


WSPA

8.

Dr. Ashish Sutar

9958595345 [email protected] WSPA

9.

Ms. Snehil Rathore

8756398845 [email protected] IAG Uttarakhand













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


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


Bihar Inter Agency Group










Page 35 of 53

20.

Mr. Kameshwar Kamati


Gyanodaya and IAG, Madhubani

21.

Mr. Raman Kumar


Sphere India

22.

Mr. Baleshwor Singh


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 **


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


28.

Prof. Kartikeya Misra

094142-38197

[email protected] HCM Rajasthan State Institute of Public Administration












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


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









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


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)



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



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)


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



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







20:00

Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner

Blocks relating to Sphere training Blocks relating to adult learning Blocks relating to participant practice



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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





20:00 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner

Participants’ led sessions



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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).



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.