EVALUATION REPORT ON DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMME DAN CHURCH AID, SOUTH ASIA October 2012
Report prepared by: Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre 3rd Floor, 216-A/13, Gautam Nagar, Opp. Gulmohar Park,New Delhi- 110049, India Tel: 91-11-41026642, Cell:+91-9811310841/9899592306
DCA Report on DRR Programme
Table of Contents Page No(s)
Abbreviations ------4-5 Prime Message for Communication------6 Executive Summary------7-11
1. Chapter I: Introduction:------12-14 Prologue DCA & DRR: Background and Context o DCA: Focus and Commitments o DCA: Commitments in South Asian Region (SAR) o Overview: Regional DRR Programme: Bangladesh, Nepal and India o Context of the Programme o Geographical Focus of Programme o Key Strategic Approach o Disaster Risk Reduction
2. Chapter II: The Programme: Regional/ Country Context------15-20 Asian Region South Asian Region Physical Setting Socio-Economic Setting Right Holders :The Most Affected Groups in SAR Current Trends: Approach of National Governments Disaster Overview Country Risk Profile o Bangladesh . Hazard & Risk Profile o India . Hazard & Risk Profile o Nepal . Hazard & Risk Profile
3. Chapter III: Purpose and Evaluation Objectives, Scope ------21 Purpose and Evaluation Objective o Overall Objective o Specific Objectives Purpose and Evaluation Objective Scope of Evaluation
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 2
4. Chapter IV: Key Issues, Identification of Criterion for Assessment, Key Questions, Limitations, Partnerships, End Term Evaluation Team ------22-25 Key Issues Identification of Criterion for Assessment Key Questions Partnerships Limitations End term Evaluation Team
5. Chapter V: Findings and Conclusions ------26-31 Summary of findings Impact at right holders level Effectiveness: Relevance Sustainability Programme Management DCA and Partners
6. Chapter VI: Lessons Learnt ------32
7. Chapter VII: Conclusions and Way Forward ------33
Appendix A------34-35
Appendix B------36-39
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 3
Abbreviations
AZEECON Asian Zone Emergency and Environment Cooperation Network BCPR; Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery CBDP Community Based Disaster Preparedness Programs CASA Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action CCA; Climate Change Adaptation CDDMASS; Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDMP; Comprehensive Disaster Management Program DCA; Dan Church Aid DDMA District Disaster Management Authority DMTF; Disaster Management Task Force DRM; Disaster Risk Management DRR; Disaster Risk Reduction DSK Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (Bangladesh) EU European Union FAYA; Forum for Awareness and Youth Activity GDP; Gross Domestic Product HAP; Humanitarian Accountability Project HFA; Hyogo Framework of Action IAG Inter Agency Group IAY Indira Awas Yojana ICDS Integrated Child Development Scheme IDF Integrated Development Foundation IRDC Indreni Rural Development Centre (Nepal) IFRC; International Federation for Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies IGSSS Indo Global Social Service Society INGO International Non-Government Organisation LWF; Lutheran World Federation LWSI Lutheran World Service India LWSIT; Lutheran World Service India Trust NDMA; National Disaster Management Authority NGO Non-Government Organisation PDS Public Distribution System, RBDRR; Rights Based Disaster Risk Reduction RDRS; A Bangladesh NGO SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SAR; South Asian Region SHG; Self Help Groups SLS Sustainable Livelihood Security Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 4
SOP Standard Operating Procedures UDMC; Union Disaster Management Committee UN United Nations UNCTN; United Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations VDMC; Village Disaster Management Committee VTF; Village Task Force
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 5
Prime Message for Communication: Evaluation of DCA DRR Programme
Historically, Asia Pacific region has been at the vortex of disasters more than any other part of the world. The South Asian region, home to some of the world’s most densely populated countries like Bangladesh and India face a more fragile situation aggravated by the proportionately higher percentage of their populace living below the poverty line. Nepal, located astride the Himalayan Ranges has reflects similar irony. DCA’s program covers adjacent areas of all three countries in an endeavor to execute DRR, adopting the right based approach.
The Overall Objective of the DRR program is to enhance resilience and reduce vulnerabilities of the marginalized at-risk communities in all three countries. Impact, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Programme Relevance and Context are the four key issues addressed through DCA programme and which calls for evaluation. The evaluation has been carried out by technical team at the Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services (CDDMASS), New Delhi with Mr. N.M. Prusty, Director, CDDMASS as a principal consultant.
CDDMASS approached the issue by identification of criterion for assessment to include significant risk reduction of vulnerable groups, reduction in discrimination now prevalent in project area, policy advocacy and improved institutional capacity of DCA and partners.
DCA DRR program has significantly impacted preparedness to natural disasters at community and household levels. The understanding of rights and entitlements by marginalized communities has also developed thus steering focus away from just passive relief to actively addressing causes and risks and local level duty-bearers responsibility. There is great evidence of the enhanced ability of the poor to influence public system. The programme intervention helped in establishing stakeholder linkages between various communities based institutions, government agencies concerned and other stakeholders.
Mainstreaming of DRR in development Program has been attempted well by most partner organizations under programme with varying degree of success. Alignment with livelihood strategies was distinctly visible. However, there is a need for integration of DRR Program to with livelihood strategies. Similarly, the integration of DRR to Climate Change Adaptation is an important area to be focused on.
The program needs to be continued with an increased focus and impact to ensure the gains made and practices put in place on risk reduction and resilience and that it becomes routine to the lives of these people living at the periphery. Greater information sharing by partners will assist in improving program implementation. DCA should continue to engage national governments and regional networks to ensure DRR gets more focus and resources for higher impact. Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 6
Executive Summary
There is adequate historical evidence to suggest that over the decades the Asia-Pacific Region has suffered the largest number of disasters and, as a corollary to it, greater looses in terms of human life and economic setbacks. The trend can be expected to remain ascendant should the entire spectrum of DRR measures not be holistically applied.
DCA Programme Focus and Commitments;
DCA has been pursuing humanitarian initiatives through its programmes in various countries in the South Asian Region. The interventions have addressed the areas of DRR, Climate Change Adaptation, Food Security, Livelihood Security etc. With the Rights Based Approach serving as the pivot, DCA has attempted to reach the most vulnerable marginalised communities, by adopting a regional approach to DRR. This programme in India, Bangladesh and Nepal, has focused on reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing the capacity of the most vulnerable communities, making affected communities aware of their rightful entitlements and access those entitlements through various forms of advocacy initiatives.
Programme Area: Hazard-Risk Profile and Socio- Economic Setting
This DCA programme focuses on three countries: Nepal - Terai region (far-west and western Nepal); India - coastal belt of Orissa, the Bramhaputra Basin in Assam, Sunderbans in West Bengal, Northern parts of Bihar; Bangladesh - southern part (Bay of Bengal region) and northeast and north-western Bangladesh.
Among the programme countries, Bangladesh has faced most incidences of hydro- meteorological hazards. The country is vulnerable to natural hazards such as cyclones, floods, droughts and tidal surges which affect almost the entire country every year. India is susceptible to earthquakes, floods, droughts, cyclones and landslides. It also experiences substantial losses due to extreme temperatures and epidemics. Nepal lies in one of the most highly active seismic belt of the world and also bears the brunt of floods, landslides, droughts, earthquakes and wind storms.
Most of the people affected by these natural and manmade disasters come from most vulnerable marginalised groups. Despite ‘development programs & projects’ for these vulnerable groups, their comparative status has weakened and, as a consequence, they have higher levels of risks and vulnerabilities.
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood of the people of rural area in this region. It is highly exposed to weather related events. Thus there exists the inextricable link between Livelihood security and weather induced disasters. Sustainable Livelihood Security (SLS), Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) have become issues paramount for the safety and security of the poor, vulnerable and marginalized in this region,
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 7
yet there remain enormous challenges in successfully embedding all these three elements and applying in a manner that brings in sustainable behaviour change among communities.
Objectives of DCA Program
The Overall Objective of the program is enhanced resilience and reduced vulnerabilities of the marginalized at-risk communities, from natural and manmade disasters and thereby reduction in environmental, human, economic and social losses. The program also endeavors to significantly address vulnerabilities of marginalized groups, prevalent discrimination based on gender, caste, religion and social exclusion. The program entails direct action projects for risk reduction compounded with strong policy advocacy work at state and national level.
Key Issues for evaluation
Impact, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Programme Relevance and Context are the four key issues addressed through DCA programme and calls for evaluation. These key issues ensure transfer of benefits of developmental programmes to community, ownership of the programme and addressing the actual needs of the community.
This evaluation has been carried out at the Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services (CDDMASS), New Delhi with Mr. N.M. Prusty, Director, CDDMASS as the principal consultant for the evaluation. The CDDMASS deployed four other experts besides Mr. Prusty for this assignment. The details of scope of engagement are at Appendix B.
Criterion for Assessment
The criterion identified by CDDMASS for assessment of DCA program includes (i)Significant reduction of risks and vulnerabilities of the marginalized and deprived groups of right holders, (ii) Significant reduction in all kinds of discrimination based on gender, caste and religion, and social exclusion of right holders within the context of disaster risk reduction and response, (iii) DCA, partners and allies promoted and influenced policy advocacy and strengthened cooperation at regional level on the agenda of DRD and effective humanitarian response, (iv) Improved institutional capacity of DCA and program partners to holistically address the issues of DRR and Climate Change at the regional level.
CDDMASS Observations and Findings
The Program was implemented through various types of partner agencies both local and national besides having informal relationship with many others including networks and coalitions.
The program has significantly impacted preparedness to natural disasters at community and household levels. VDMCs and DMTFs have been instrumental in supporting community Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 8
during different phases of disasters. These community level groupings are being ably supported by existing as well as new community institutions such as SHGs. Some very interesting attempts are being made to ensure sustainability of these community groupings; community believes that sustainability can be ensured by patronization coming from the community institutions like SHGs. The cluster enteritis of the SHGs have been attempting linkage with the grass root governance mechanisms like the Gram Panchayat, Upazilla as well as Zilla Panchayats and through such linkage are able to network with the Sub divisional as well as District level government system. Networking with District, State and National level humanitarian coalitions like IAG and Sphere networks indicate some healthy trends. The understanding of rights and entitlements by marginalized communities has also developed thus steering focus away from just passive relief to actively addressing causes and risks and local level duty-bearers responsibility. There is evidence of the enhanced ability of the poor to influence public system.
The programme intervention helped in establishing stakeholder linkages between various community based institutions such as VDMC, DMTF, SHG, Farmer’s Club, Youth Club, etc. Governments, in different countries covered by the program have Disaster Management Act, SOPs, Relief Codes, Early Warning Capabilities etc, however, mainstreaming of DRR through developmental programs requires to be pursued further through more vigorous advocacy, while maintaining strong relationships with local and national government offices.
Mainstreaming of DRR in development Program has been attempted well by most partner organizations with varying degree of success. Alignment with livelihood strategies was distinctly visible. Accessing Food from the Public Distribution System (PDS), Nutrition support from Integrated Women & Child Development Program (ICDS) and Shelter support from the Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) are the other important areas of alignment were also noticed. Evaluators did not observe any efforts towards aligning community efforts with the Public Health, Water and Sanitation Programs of the government.
The programme has also been able to influence policy issues at national level within countries on Disaster Management through collective engagement with national and state authorities.
Women participation is excellent and they are today the proponents in villages who champion the cause. There is enough presence of women as leaders in committees and task forces who take decisions in a participatory model.
Post severe disaster, food insecurity is very high and it pushes families back to poverty levels experienced by them up to 5-10 years back. It implies that livelihood plans are not in place. The river basin areas are very fertile and proper planning can enhance production and reduce food risks.
DCA’s Program management through its partners reflects adequate monitoring by DCA. Sharing of information between the partners remains inadequate. Further, while staffing of partner agencies at the managerial levels is efficient, the field staffs are not adequately skilled. DCA’s partners’ approaches still need an effort to adopt Rights Based Approach while ensuring service delivery to community.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 9
Some partners raised the issue of fund constraints. The level of intensity of programming has been one important observation by the evaluators, therefore it is recommended that Program consolidation and intensification should be a priority need for DCA. This can be approached by strategically focusing on most vulnerable communities in most risk prone geographic areas combined with an approach for accessing leveraged resource from other stakeholders and the government.
Accountability and transparency measures are well implemented at project level and have been of help in enhancing community ownership.
There is a need for integration of DRR Program with livelihood strategies. Similarly, the integration of DRR to Climate Change Adaptation is an important area to be focused on. Community awareness towards the emerging climate variability and its’ impact on peoples’ lives and livelihood need greater attention from DCA Program. Many Key Stakeholders including government are beginning to focus on this area therefore it will be desirable that DCA Program also takes this in to consideration for strategizing its future Program.
Lessons Learnt and the Way Forward
The strengths of the programme that need to be sustained as it progresses further include importance of community institutions, role of networking in disaster preparedness, value addition through alignment with government programmes and policies, socio-economic and political challenges, importance of community preparedness in mitigating disaster impact etc.
There is a need to perceive that vested interests in project areas will consider the rights based approach and consequent empowerment as a threat to community institutions that serve their own purposes. Political leaders may also want to influence community leadership and cause a shift in the solidarity and support of the community to such programmes. Anticipation and strong liaison with government agencies will remain imperative.
Competent staffing in remote areas will continue to pose a challenge. Improved compensation and better training will hold the key.
The advocacy efforts should lay greater focus on integration of DRR programme with other relevant programmes like food security and livelihood and climate change adaptation etc. A proper benefit monitoring system should be in place from proper execution of programme and also to ensure its replication and scaling up.
The possibility of the targeted population becoming overtly dependent on program resources needs be kept in check. DCA would have to undertake steps to ensure flow of resources at the partner level from multiple agencies including the government. The implementing partners should gradually be oriented towards resource leveraging not merely stay dependant on DCA resource.
Strengthening of community institutions in terms of governance, leadership, operational management, networking, Program focus and sustainability are another important need for attention by DCA. Partnering with Strategic and Knowledge Partners (besides implementation partners) is another recommendation the evaluators have suggested to Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 10
DCA. The areas for such partnership could be Livelihood Technology, Organic Food Production and Horticulture, Community Forestry, SAR Training, Psychosocial care, Food Rights, Community Institutional governance, Market access, Microfinance and Micro insurance etc. This will enhance the scope for Programme quality improvement.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 11
Chapter I: Introduction
Prologue
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person Article 3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – December 10, 1948
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is an area of critical significance. In formulating responses for mitigation, it is important to ensure respect for human rights, both in the strategic framework and operational methodology. The relevance of strengthening capacities is fully perceived by the DCA and is reflected in its commitments across the globe.
DCA & DRR: Background and Context DCA and its partners, through community based disaster preparedness programs (CBDP), have been working towards reducing the vulnerabilities of the community to future disasters. In the light of HFA, having been adopted by UN members countries in 2005, DRR is defined as the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development. DCA, through its many successful community-based DRR initiatives in South Asia since 2001, has passed on enormous benefits for the communities concerned. This program intends to address identified flaws and limitations of the previous approach in future DCA regional DRR programming for the countries of India, Nepal and Bangladesh.
DCA: Commitments in South Asia Region
DCA has been supporting relief and development projects of its partners in India, Nepal and Bangladesh for the past three decades. The overall objective is to contribute to the improvement of quality of life among the poorest and most marginalized groups in with a special focus on women and children within these groups, by increasing their capacity and possibilities to obtain their right to live a life of dignity. The Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) program is regional in nature and covers the above mentioned three countries having regular disasters, both natural and human-made.
Overview: Regional DRR Program: Bangladesh, Nepal and India
The Regional DRR programme is key programme of DCA given the high vulnerability of the three countries, India, Nepal and Bangladesh to multiple hazards. Further, natural hazards do not follow political boundaries and hence response needs to address the affected zone rather than be limited by state borders. The neighbouring countries may not necessarily have same capacities to deal with disasters, despite same level of vulnerabilities. DCA has very much followed regional approach to DRR, which has also been recommended by various forums including Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA). DRR programme follows the rights based approach, targets the most marginalised right holders and does advocacy with the most relevant duty bearers.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 12
Context of the Programme
In the South Asian countries of India, Nepal and Bangladesh, for a number of years DCA supported community based projects focused on emergency preparedness and reducing communities’ vulnerability to disasters. In 2008, in line with the recently approved Humanitarian Programme Policy, DCA and partners developed a comprehensive Disaster Risk Reduction programme strategy to address vulnerabilities in areas prone to water induced disasters, based on a regional approach covering the three countries.
DRR requires comprehensive multi-hazard risk and capacity assessments through hazard monitoring, risk identification and analysis, disaster preparedness and response capabilities, including early warning capacity. Local governments have little to no knowledge of changes in national policy and / or lack the instruments and capacity to enforce them. In many countries of south Asian region there is lack of sustained public awareness, particularly on low frequency disasters, and expanding awareness in high-risk areas that experience recurrent disasters. There is also lack of coordination and information sharing between stakeholders addressing DRR. 80 percent of the geographical area of India, Nepal and Bangladesh (the operational area of DCA, Delhi) are prone to regular disasters, both natural and man-made.
These common, recurring challenges call for:
• Strengthening of DRR and capacities at all levels, regional, country level, sub-national and community level. • Increased use of scientific tools and results of DRR related research for decision-making. • Strengthening of partnerships.
Geographical Focus of Programme
Nepal: Terai region of Nepal (Far-West and Western Nepal)
India: Coastal belt of Orissa, the Bramhaputra basin in Assam, Sunderbans in West Bengal, Northern parts of Bihar
Bangladesh: Southern part of Bangladesh (Bay of Bengal region) and Northeast and Northwestern Bangladesh
Key Strategic Approach
o Direct interventions at community level to build capacity and reduce disaster related risks with preparedness and mitigation plans so that vulnerable families are able to save their lives and livelihoods. o Policy advocacy on integrated DRR approach in developmental initiatives through increased cooperation and sharing among key stakeholders, policy makers/ governments/allies so that duty bearers become accountable to right holders in providing quality response and mitigation endeavours.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 13
o Capacity building of DCA/partners on DRR, Response and Climate Change to respond timely and effectively to disasters, to ensure strengthened institutional mechanisms/ hubs prepared and be able to respond effectively.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 14
Chapter II: The Program: Regional/ Country Context
Asia–Pacific region is more prone to disasters than the rest of the world. Natural disasters have disproportionate impacts on human development in the region. According to the report, people in this region are four to five times more susceptible to natural calamities as compared to Africa, and 25 times more vulnerable as compared to Europe*. At the 4th Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction – 2010, at Incheon, Republic of Korea, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s message stressed the need to include disaster risk in national development policies and strategies on climate change. The strengthening or capacitating the community remains incomplete without proper awareness of their rights and the ways and means to attain them. This ultimately leads to long-term Disaster Risk Reduction. Advocacy at all levels is the key to achieve this level.
* Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2010 – prepared by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
South Asian Region
South Asia Region (SAR) nations have a history of devastating earthquakes, floods, landslides, droughts and cyclones that have caused trauma and destruction leading to human and economic losses. The physiographic settings and the climatic characteristics of the region are favorable to high incidence of both geological and hydro-metrological hazards. The area has recorded numerous disasters with the SAARC’s Disaster Management Center’s South Asia Disaster Report 2010 reflects 3551 people injured due to natural disasters with 771 lives lost. This region is also assessed to be more prone to hazards of climate change. Though south Asians have contributed far lesser to climate change they are at an increasingly more acute vulnerable state.
Physical Setting
The Himalayan Mountains form the predominant physical feature spreading across many of the SAR countries. This physiographic formation also has a great influence on the climate of the region. There are major rivers originating from this mountain range, mostly fed by the glaciers. The major rivers include the Ganges that runs across northern India and into Bangladesh, the Indus River, which flows through India and Pakistan and the Brahmaputra River that flows through India and further on into Bangladesh. Climatically, the region is heavily influenced by monsoonal phenomena. There is a wide variation in the weather conditions such as temperature, rainfall, humidity within SAR with equatorial and tropical characteristics in the southern region. The variation in rainfall in the region contributes to hydro-meteorological hazards like flood and drought.
Socio-Economic Setting
Even though SAR has some of the world’s most populous mega urban cities, the majority of the people still live in rural areas. As per World Bank classification, most countries in the region are in the low or lower middle income category. Like any other part of the world, in SAR also natural hazards hurt the poor the most, both in terms of life and livelihood. Rain fed agriculture is the basic model in pursuance. Under the circumstances, even a change in patterns of rainfall can lead to devastating problems. The region has also a huge population Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 15
in urban slums that are bereft of minimal facilities. With rising aspirations and inadequate legitimate means of their fulfillments, a debilitating law and order problem looms across the horizon.
Rights- Holders: The Most Affected Groups in South Asia The groups most affected by disasters in South Asia are children, women, elders, infirm and the disabled, cutting across all socio-economic categories. The socially marginalized sections consist primarily of Dalits, tribal groups and the minorities, to include religious, ethnic and political. Historical discrimination, policies and politics of exclusion, have led to their relative limited participation and influence in the decision making and policy formulation at various levels of governance and social architecture.
One significant aspect that needs mentioning is that the number of persons and families whose lives are severely affected by minor hazards/ disasters is significantly on the rise in all three countries. More than 90% of those severely affected by minor events come from these vulnerable groups. This reinforces the fact that though there are many ‘development programs & projects’ for these vulnerable groups, their comparative status has weakened and, as a consequence, they have higher levels of risks and vulnerabilities and, given the pre-dominant socio-cultural and political system, there is an increasing trend of denial of their rights and entitlements. Proactively, the DCA DRR program, while identifying key areas of vulnerabilities, provided a thrust to enhancing community resilience comprehensively.
Current Trends: Approach of National Governments
There are many departments/agencies, both government and non-governmental, who work on basic rights and development issues of various vulnerable groups. There are, however, very few groups that work either exclusively or with a special focus on reducing the risks and vulnerabilities of these groups and very little strategic planning is undertaken/ observed for increased inclusiveness of these vulnerable groups in planning, preparedness and mitigation activities.
Disaster Overview
The hazard wise list of disasters that affect each country in SAR is presented in the disaster matrix:
Country Hazards Earthquake Flood Drought Landslide Cyclone Volcano Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Pakistan Maldives Nepal Sri Lanka Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 16
Country Risk Profile
Bangladesh
Bangladesh is a riverine country that straddles the Tropic of Cancer. The country is bounded by the Himalayas in the north and a funnel shaped coastal area to the south, boarded by the Bay of Bengal; essentially a low lying, long, marshy coastline. Most of the length of its eastern and western borders is shared with India. The geographic characteristics of bordering the Bay of Bengal also influence the climatic conditions and the prevalence of natural hazards in the country. Bangladesh has a tropical monsoon climate characterized by heavy seasonal rainfall, high temperatures, and high humidity.
Hazard & Risk Profile
Bangladesh is vulnerable to natural hazards such as cyclones, floods, droughts and tidal surges which affect almost the entire country every year. There are higher incidences of hydro metrological hazards than geological. The cyclones and floods have greater annual average of recurrence. The country is also exposed to occasional earthquakes. On an average Bangladesh is struck by major cyclones on16 occasions per decade. Floods recur almost every year causing loss of human life, damage to property and communication systems. Earthquakes do not occur frequently in Bangladesh; however, the region occupies the most active tectonic boundary zone between the Indian Plate and Myanmar Plate that stretches up to Sumatra via Andaman-Nicobar zone of severe seismicity. Bangladesh has a history of large number of deaths due to natural hazards. It is also the world’s most densely populated country. Apart from large number of deaths, the economic losses are indicators of the harshness of natural hazards in the country.
Country Level Information (2006) Geographical Area 144,000 Sq Km Population 155,463,091 Population Density (Per Sq Km) 1080 Urban Population (% of total 23.9 population) Agriculture Land (% of total area) 69.2 Forest land (% of total area) 6.0 Human Development Index 0.547 GDP $ 61.9 billion Agricultural GDP (%) 19.6 Industry GDP (%) 27.9 Service GDP (%) 52.5
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 17
Disaster Risk Statistics (1967-2006) Disaster Type Number of Casualties/yr Average total Disasters/yr affected population/yr Earthquake 0.20 1 33 Flood 1.80 1018 7,339,990 Drought 0.10 0.5 625,050 Landslide 0.00 0 0 Cyclone 2.50 11,729 1,101,669 Cyclone – 55%; Flood – 39%; Earthquake – 4%; Drought – 2%
India
India is the largest country both in terms of size and population in SAR. The country also has great diversity in terms of physiography, cultures, climate and socio-economic conditions prevalent in various parts of the country. This diversity and the vast size of the country also serve to rank the country higher in terms of reported number of disasters and risks of natural hazards. The topography of India is varied, ranging from arid deserts in the west, alpine tundra and glaciers in the north, and humid tropical regions in the southwest supporting rainforests. To the east and north east are the Eastern Himalayas, Northeast Hills (Patkai- Naga Hills and Lushai Hills), the Brahmaputra and Barak Valley Plains. The pace of urbanization and growth in the country enhances the vulnerabilities and risks of hazards, both natural and man-made.
Country level Information (2006) Geographical Area 3,287,260 sq km Population 1,109,811,147 Population Density (person per sq 338 km) Urban population (% of total 28 population) Agriculture land (% of total area) 60.6 Forest land (% of total area) 20.6 Human Development Index 0.619 GDP $ 911 billion Agricultural GDP (%) 18.2 Industry GDP (%) 29.5 Service GDP (%) 52.3
Hazard and Risk Profile
India is pronouncedly more susceptible to natural hazards, particularly earthquakes, floods, droughts, cyclones and landslides. The country also experiences substantial losses due to extreme temperatures and epidemics. Floods are common natural hazards that recur almost annually in many parts of India and more than once in certain regions. Heavy rains also Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 18
cause flash floods in urban cities and population concentrations in hilly regions impacting life and precipitating economic hardship.
The oscillatory movement of Inter Tropical Convergence Zone and the pressure differences development in peninsular India, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea lead to cyclonic conditions. In 2004, a tsunami resulting from an earthquake in the Indian Ocean, struck the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and east coast of India causing an estimated 10,000 deaths. The probability of economic losses exceeding $ 11 billion in one year is about 0.5 percent; about 1.2 percent of the country’s GDP. The probability of annual losses exceeding $ 5 billion is about 5 percent.
Nepal
Nepal, located between India and China is a landlocked mountainous nation in the Himalayan ranges with the world’s highest peak Everest. The climate varies from tropical to subtropical and has a good influence of monsoon activities in the Indian subcontinent. The economic and livelihood activities in the region are also dependant on the climate and terrain conditions. Due to the terrain characteristics, human settlements are disparate and poorly connected. The rivers flowing through the rugged terrain system cannot be used for navigation. The economic underdevelopment could be attributed to terrain, lack of resources, landlocked topography, lack of modern institutions, weak infrastructure, and lack of policies conducive to development.
Country level Information (2006) Geographical Area 147,180 sq km Population 27,641,362 Population Density (person 188 per sq km) Urban population (% of total 21.1 population) Agriculture land (% of total 29.5 area) Forest land (% of total area) 24.7 Human Development Index 0.534 GDP $ 8.94 billion Agricultural GDP (%) 34.6 Industry GDP (%) 17.2 Service GDP (%) 48.2
Hazard and Risk Profile
Nepal is very vulnerable to floods, landslides, droughts, earthquakes and wind storms. Frequent floods and droughts undermine the agricultural productivities of hundreds of thousands of poor farmers. Seismically, Nepal lies in one of the most highly active seismic belts of the world that extends from Java, Myanmar, the Himalayas, Iran to Turkey. Historically, Nepalese people have experienced destructive earthquakes. Nepal is ranked as
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 19
the 11th most at-risk country to earthquakes, the 13th to floods and one of the twenty most multi-hazard prone countries (BCPR, 2004; World Bank (2005b); UNCTN, 2007). Almost the entire country is in high seismic risk zone and a strong earthquake in the Kathmandu valley would cause an estimated death of 40,000 people and injury to 90,000 or more (UNCTN, 2007). Natural hazards tend to lead to more deaths in Nepal than in most South Asian countries. It is reported that 0.4 percent of total people affected by natural hazards in Nepal die; a figure four times higher than the average for South Asia (IFRC, 2004; UNCTN, 2007).
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 20
Chapter III: Purpose and Evaluation Objectives and Scope
Purpose and Evaluation Objectives
The DCA program was aimed at enhancing the capacity of marginalized vulnerable communities from natural and man-made disasters with a rights based approach to the issues concerned. In order to achieve its objectives, the program focused on reducing vulnerabilities and also reduction of all kinds of discrimination based on gender, caste and religion, and social exclusion of right holders within the context of disaster risk reduction and response. This could be achieved to great extent by policy advocacy and strengthening cooperation at regional level. The program also focused on improved institutional capacity of DCA and program partners to holistically address the issues of DRR and climate change within countries and at the regional level.
For detailed Evaluation Objectives and Scope refer Appendix - A.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 21
Chapter IV: Key Issues, Identification of Criterion for Evaluation , Key Questions, Limitations, Partnerships, End Term Evaluation Team
Key Issues
The DCA program was evaluated on four key issues to be addressed – Impact, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Programme Relevance and Context. For detailed analysis of key Issues and relate questionnaire, refer Appendix B.
Identification of Criterion for Assessment by Evaluation Team
The program was conducted to achieve the overall objective of reducing the vulnerabilities and enhancing the capacity of the affected marginalized community. In order to achieve this goal the program revolved around some immediate objective and related indicators. Immediate objectives included – (i) Significant reduction of risks and vulnerabilities of the marginalized and deprived groups of right holders, (ii) Significant reduction in all kinds of discrimination based on gender, caste and religion, and social exclusion of right holders within the context of disaster risk reduction and response, (iii) DCA, partners and allies promoted and influenced policy advocacy and strengthened cooperation at regional level on the agenda of DRD and effective humanitarian response, (iv) Improved institutional capacity of DCA and program partners to holistically address the issues of DRR and Climate Change at the regional level.
For detailed analysis of Identification of Criterion for Assessment refer Appendix B.
Key Questions
Impact at Right Holders’ Level - Key questions were aimed at getting information on impact of the programme at right holders’ level by understanding the significant changes in their lives in terms of reduced vulnerabilities and enhanced capacities.
Effectiveness and Relevance - Effectiveness of the programme was determined by achievement of programme objectives in terms of addressing the needs of the community. Policy interventions, advocacy and addressing cross-cutting issues were important points to be considered.
Sustainability - Sustainability of the program ensures its continuity and less or no dependence on external agencies. It can be addressed by ensuring right kind of mechanisms and their understanding among the stakeholders.
Programme management (DCA and partners) - This helps in reviewing the program strategy and understand the challenges and strengths of the program and partners. Meeting the identified needs helps in determining the success of the program management.
For detailed questionnaire, refer Appendix B.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 22
Limitations
The evaluation has been a blend of evaluators’ direct observation and analysis of secondary information like midterm evaluation reports, periodical project progress reports etc. In some cases evaluators’ interaction was only limited to a few leaders in the partner organisations. The field visits and meetings with communities were also limited. The constraints provided adequate insight to limit the evaluation to capturing a fairly reliable perception only. It was inadequate to draw comprehensive impressions and understanding of the impact of the project at multiple levels and nature of control the right holders are able to exercise over their lives and livelihood. It would be desirable to go for a comprehensive survey to capture both quantitative as well as qualitative data that should be compared with the project base line which will help in analysing the nature and level of impact. It will certainly need appropriate budgetary support and extended evaluation time with a blend of expertise in terms of field survey, data analysis and ability to understand and analyze field realities with policy and programme frame work.
Partnerships and its strengths
Evaluators experienced inadequacy in terms of time and opportunities for interacting with partner organizations. The dearth of such interaction was felt at the leadership and field levels and also in reviewing fieldwork. Notwithstanding such constraints, wherever such meetings/visits were feasible, gains were made in arriving at sustainable evaluations and greater insight into programme management.
It was also interesting to observe that the leaders of all most all partners that the evaluators visited had expressed their organisational commitment towards programme convergence, strong partnership, and net working so as to contribute to a leveraged impact at the right holder’s level. Most Partner organisations have other donor funded programs and they have attempted to align those with the DCA funded programme as a deliberate policy, though a few reasoned it as a necessity arising out of limited funding from DCA under this programme. DCA has entered into partnership with various types of organisations both local and national besides having informal relationship with many others including networks and coalitions. There were some partners who had demonstrated strength in networking and advocacy.
In India, meeting with CASA leadership team was very insightful. The commitment of the organization was all the more perceptible when project areas were visited in Assam. The field leadership was in high spirits and their motivational levels were tangible; an asset for programme implementation.
Meeting with the regional program team of IGSSS gave glimpses of networking and coordination they undertake with the objective of strengthening the collaborative process; an important aspect of humanitarian programs. The team’s expectations with the quantum of
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 23
resources allocated under the project, seemed to have not been met. As a result, they felt they were unable to pursue several essential activities.
The field visit in Odisha gave an opportunity to the evaluators to interact with not only the field teams but also the regional leadership team of LWSI Trust. There were clear evidence of intense community engagement, women empowerment, community level skill development, networking and focus on strengthening community institutions. The evaluator’s assessment of commitment and vision of community organizations was high enough for him to recommend it to be captured as a singular best practice that can be shared with other humanitarian organizations. The evaluator appraised IAG Odisha, in his discussions and the proposal was accepted readily. It is hoped the documentation work would have commenced and the benefits will be shared for strengthening fieldwork in other areas.
In Bihar, partnership with IDF appeared to be quite significant and strategic in its effects on policy advocacy on DRR and linkage with Nepal counterparts. Its strengths in terms of community mobilization and networking certainly provide an appropriate vehicle for carrying forward DCA’s program vision for the future.
In Nepal, evaluator also had similar experiences as in India. Interaction was feasible with four partners at both leadership levels as well as field level. FAYA is an organization that holds out the promise of being able to attract funding from several donors thus creating an opportunity for convergence.
LWF has considerable presence in Nepal. DCA supported programme did not appear to be a significant part of the LWF’s program portfolio, although they take up issues at national level. In the case of IDRC, the evaluator’s observation was that resource allocation was a major constraint for pursuing some of the intended activities with the desired intensity.
In Bangladesh, both DSK and RDRS have significant presence and contribution to DRR and humanitarian programme goal and have very strong models on risk reduction in flood and cyclone prone areas with interventions that focus on climate change adaptation. Engagement at national level on policy advocacy on DRR is also acknowledged.
There were efforts by the project through a series of reflection workshops to allow the partners to learn from each other. Probably some efforts could have been made to allow cross visits among the partners so as to be able to see on ground the best practices that would have built confidence and conviction. There were some interesting efforts made to partner with knowledge institutions like Krishi Vigyan Kendra but it was mostly in an informal manner. Had there been a strategy to go for Knowledge Partners in a more formal and defined manner the evaluators feel that the community level impact would have been much greater. Such Strategic Knowledge Partners could be in the areas of Livelihood Technology, Organic Food Production and Horticulture, Community Forestry, SAR Training, Psychosocial
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 24
care, Food Rights, Community Institutional Governance, Market access, Microfinance and Micro insurance etc.
Evaluators felt that the project had an opportunity to leverage knowledge, funding as well as management practices through strategic partnerships. It was also felt that had there been a scope the project could have benefitted significantly by developing linkages with government initiatives in the areas of food, agriculture and horticulture, disaster management, women and child development, SHGs and PRIs, forest, environment etc.
End term Evaluation Team
This evaluation has been carried out at the Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services (CDDMASS), New Delhi with Mr N.M. Prusty, Director, CDDMASS as a principal consultant for the evaluation. The CDDMASS deployed four experts besides Mr. N.M. Prusty for this assignment. These experts are drawn from the Expert Pool of CDDMASS primarily taking into account their expertise in DRR, understanding about Nutrition and Food security as well as their regional / language familiarity. The experts have substantial experience and expertise in Project Management and Evaluation. The names of the experts involved in this assignment are as following:
N.M. Prusty Sushant Verma Parimal Bardhan C. Balaji Singh Anuj Tiwari
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 25
Chapter V: Findings and Conclusions
Key Findings from evaluation
A. The preparedness for disaster at household level has improved, apparently made possible through the awareness and training programs for community leaders and members. The trained task force members have been able to spread the lessons to the household level, though a lot more needs to be done as yet.
The culture of disaster preparedness at household level has been inculcated with women being very much sensitized. As a result, they store dry food stuff to include flattened rice, puffed rice, rice, molasses, potable water and household materials such as candle, match box, etc., as reserves at the family level.
The impact of program is reaffirmed by the assessment that the women folk would be able to manage the first few days and nurture the morale of the family members in the event of heavy floods when aid from local authorities or aid agencies is difficult to come by. People are inculcating a culture of preparedness. In Bangladesh, the houses are flood resilient with safe drinking water and sanitation facilities and food stock. The people have an understanding of early warning dissemination.
B. Community level preparedness for disaster displays steep improvement in the targeted communities because of program intervention. The Disaster Management Task Force (DMTF) and Village Disaster Management Committee (VDMC) are collectively working to support the people in respective communities during different phases of disasters.
There are several examples of community level preparedness for disasters being taken up by respective communities with the help of their VDMC and DMTF. Each community has developed its contingency plan after undertaking an analysis of existing risks, vulnerabilities and possible opportunities in the village itself. They refer to the relevant documents before the occurrence of disasters. Further, the trained VDMC and DMTF members of all the Task Forces are agile to the disaster situation and inform people in time regarding precautionary measures. With the help of their emergency fund, village fund or Self Help Group (SHG) fund, most of the community organizations and groups retain some food and non-food items at community level to support if disaster strikes.
Communities are better prepared now particularly with early warning systems in place, especially for slow onset floods and cyclones. In 2012 during slow onset of floods in northwest of Bangladesh, the Village Task Forces (VTF) have successfully managed the dissemination of flood warning.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 26
C. The level of understanding among the vulnerable communities with respect to their entitlements can be rated somewhere between medium to high from community to community after the program intervention. Most communities were at low levels of understanding before the program intervention.
D. Sustained emphasis has been given on mainstreaming DRR in development program. In all targeted communities, DRR is being mainstreamed by taking up programs such as grain bank, seed bank, livestock vaccination and insurance, need for crop insurance, raised plinth of houses wherever being built, incorporating DRR features in construction works, raised embankment of river and ponds, etc.
As far as the government and local authority programs are concerned, there are examples of DRR being mainstreamed with developmental programs but it is in bits and pieces, and not in a holistic manner. Though it is most essential to have such programs, for tangible progress a different level of discussion is required. The issue was highlighted during IAG meeting and other state level platform meetings. Similarly, the elected representatives of PRI have very limited knowledge on mainstreaming DRR with development programming as they absolutely lack information and have very low understanding on the issue.
E. Stakeholder linkages are built at community level by developing organic links between various community based institutions such as VDMC, DMTF, SHG, Farmer’s Club, Youth Club, etc. Apex body at gram panchayat or block level. These in turn lead to larger local level networks such as SHG Federation and Mahasangha. Similarly, linkages with ICDS Center, education dept., health dept. etc., at the community level are also functional.
There are linkages at block level for block level coordination involving NGOs and Govt. to discuss disaster issues, preparedness and risk reduction measures. Similarly, efforts are being pursued to be a part of district level networks with other NGOs and as part of district level disaster management association. Internationally, LWSIT also shares information and good practices of DRR with its counterparts in Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Myanmar and Indonesia through AZEECON (Asian Zone Emergency and Environment Cooperation Network) where DCA is also partnering.
In Bangladesh, there are linkages developed at community, union, upazila and national level stakeholders. At community level, linkages include Government and non government service providing agencies and community institutions, union level Union Disaster Management Centre (UDMC), FDMC and VDMC, upazila and district level offices, different NGOs and government DMCs, partnership with department of agriculture extension, zilla parishad, organizations like CARE, Practical Action etc. At the national level comprehensive disaster management program (CDMP) and DCA is Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 27
in place. There is a strategic partnership with CDMP/Govt. and DCA at the national level.
F. Though provision for District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) is enshrined in Disaster Management Act, the said authority was hardly functional earlier. Protracted and repetitive discussions with district authorities have led to such bodies being activated during the project period. Odisha Relief Code is being revised during the project cycle for which contributions have been made by INGO/NGOs including LWSIT/DCA.
In Bangladesh, The Disaster Management Act is a national level joint effort by all the stakeholders working in the sector. Disaster Management Policy, updated SOP flood early warning dissemination guidelines have received renewed attention of the concerned organizations.
G. It is assessed that a stand-alone project like DRR would hardly be able to auger adequate positive changes in the lives of marginalized communities. Sustainability of such program is also debatable without integrating with food and livelihood security. Without food and livelihood security, notwithstanding sustained efforts, people are not receptive enough to be educated only on disaster preparedness or risk reduction components. LWSIT has the experience to integrate the program in coastal Odisha and recorded better results post integration. This integration could be possible through identifying risks and vulnerabilities in respective communities (including families at household level) and assess the food and livelihood need among them.
DRR project jointly funded by EU & DCA in Northern parts of Bangladesh is linked to food and livelihood security. The activities related to food security includes cash for work, climatic adaptive options like flood tolerant rice, sweet gourd cultivation, mug bean cultivation, setting up rice bank in every working village, caretaker honorarium etc.
H. As per HFA, which advocates ‘promotion of food security as an important factor in ensuring the resilience of communities to hazards, particularly in areas prone to droughts, floods, cyclones and other hazards that can weaken agriculture-based livelihoods’, it is urgent and imperative to adhere to such guidelines to ensure sustainability of the program.
I. There are several strategies for climate change being developed by Govt. of India. Targets to achieve have also been set for various missions. While all the missions are pertinent for a country like India, partners have tried to integrate such programs with ongoing DRR programs. In addition, adaptation measures to climate change are being pursued during program implementation. The examples are: large scale tree
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 28
plantation, land development, protection of coastal eco-system, introducing saline and flood tolerant varieties of crops, use of energy saving/ efficient lights (CFL), lifestyle changes, water conservation practices, SRI practice in agriculture, promoting forest protection groups etc.
The experiences from the field are being shared with govt. dept. on different occasions while advocacy for good practices are also stressed and are being made integral by the govt. in its programming.
DRR project activities in Bangladesh are in line with Climate Change Adaptation strategy of the Government of Bangladesh and include such initiatives like hazard tolerant rice, few adaptation options (Sweet gourd, appaealkul/ baukul, mug bean) and climatic mitigation i.e., tree plantation, solar panel distribution etc.
Impact at Right Holders’ Level
A. The rights-based approach has been relatively successful in challenging mindsets and perceptions among right-holders targeted, steering focus away from passive relief alone to actively addressing causes and risks and local level duty-bearers responsibility. B. The program has impacted a lot at community level in terms of knowledge and practices for preparedness and risk reduction to water induced disasters in areas prone to floods and cyclones. C. Capacity building programs on preparedness and mitigation elements has been very satisfactory as observed by its impact, however, a more rigorous follow-up is essential to ensure that the knowledge gained is transformed into habitual practices of the targeted populace. D. Disaster Management task forces are vibrant and active in the role of first responders to disasters. There are adequate trained members in task forces. However, most task forces depended heavily on a single leader inspiring their effort. Efforts have to be made to reach out to the entire community. E. Village institutions like VDMCs have been organised and strengthened. Their efficacy, in terms of response capability, is mixed. At some locales it’s robust, while at others further training is required. F. Preparedness measures at household level like dry food ration, emergency kit, reduced risks to families and raising plinths of houses to protect from displacements and inundation are key good practices initiated in certain places and strengthened at others by program strategies. G. Community level emergency fund have been created in project villages. These funds have been used to meet exigencies and dealing with initial necessities for first response.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 29
Effectiveness and Relevance
A. Program strategies on building resilience at household level have fetched adequate dividends. Efforts at community level have well defined strategies for creating the linkages required for disaster mitigation. The efforts need to be sustained in the next phase of the program. B. Projects under the program have followed a participatory approach and their vulnerability analysis is both inclusive of and respecting of the diversity of various social and ethnic groups based on caste, creed, disability, age, etc. C. Women participation has been excellent and they are today the proponents in villages who champion the cause. There is enough presence of women as leaders in committees and task forces who take decisions in a participatory model. Few women have also been successfully elected to local self-government elections. D. On strategies to reduce food insecurity during disaster and all round the year, vegetable growing in homestead garden is popular for meeting domestic consumption requirements. The beneficiaries are mostly share croppers and hence have started to plant flood or disaster resilient or tolerant paddy. However, post severe disaster, food insecurity is very high and it pushes families back to poverty levels experienced by them up to 5-10 years back. It implies that livelihood plans are not in place for income generation, although the program has key platforms like SHGs and few farmer groups too. It’s important to note that the river basin areas are very fertile and proper planning can enhance production and reduce food risks. SHGs in Orissa are doing well and they have been strengthened through DRR intervention. Some SHG members are part of VDC, DMTF. However, the process of integrating SHGs and sustainability requires concerted thrust. E. Capacity building efforts of the DCA have been very significant in ensuring program outcomes. Training and follow-up on community based disaster preparedness, need assessment, climate risk management, finance and procurement, humanitarian accountability partnerships, along with learning and sharing at regional level partner’s platform are key strategies pursued by DCA to ensure program quality. F. Rights based approach to program has yielded good results, however, partners approaches still need an effort to move from services to community that requires resources to ensuring rights to communities. G. Accountability and transparency measures are well implemented at project level and have been of help in enhancing community ownership.
Sustainability
A. Efforts have been made to link these community institutions with other stakeholders including government/program; however the area needs more focus in next phase of program. If this is not done, retention and sustainability of DRR efforts post program/project period at community level will be at stake.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 30
B. Community institutions (VDMC/ task forces and Women SHGs) need to have more awareness about entitlements and linkages with duty bearers in relation to potential schemes and support from government. C. Efficiencies achieved in networking and liaison at different levels: Block, District and State, as also working with inter-agency groups, are mixed. At some places it’s very evident, but at others functionaries are not even aware of DRR program. The other challenge in the area is being posed by a few partners who continue to work in isolation and not in coordination with DRR program. D. There is a need to strengthen State and District Disaster Management Authorities through strong advocacy at all levels including National level where DCA has a strong presence in India through Sphere and its relationship with NDMA. E. Linkages with all stakeholders are not very strong and visible at various places. However, engagement of stakeholders is very much required and strategies have to be made for the same. F. The capacity building of the program has included subjects addressing the thematic program focus (DRR & Climate Change Adaptation (CCA), and also issues and skills that have a broader relevance (gender and inclusion, HAP, finance management), damage and needs assessments, procurement etc.
Programme Management (DCA and Partners)
A. DCA efforts in guiding program and monitoring have been good. The same has been reflected by all partners. B. Coordination and sharing among DCA partners needs to be strengthened. Few partners in Nepal have highlighted funds as constraints. C. Managers at partner level are the key leaders of program and have great knowledge and skills. However, the same does not percolate to field staff. Field teams need to be capacitated with program ideas and strategies and results to be achieved, rather than just routinely undertaking activities. D. Program is very thinly spread. Had resources been concentrated in limited areas, the impact could have been more visible. However, with vulnerable locations and issues to be addressed by partners being large the resources have had to be spread wider. The answer lies in either increasing the resources or prioritizing the areas to be addressed.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 31
Chapter VI: Lessons Learnt
The key lessons learnt as observed through this evaluation exercise are the following.
Resilience building at the community level is possible through community engagement and education processes. Community institutions are the vehicles for sustainability for the disaster risk reduction efforts. Partnership and networking is key to demonstrate leveraged impact at the right holder’s level. Programme convergence is a necessity to bring in efficiency and effectiveness in programming for DCA (at partner level it is already happening in a limited manner). Aligning with government programs and structure is seen by the partners as a value added opportunity for them. The partners perceive that if handled well and relationships reflect mutual respect, the issue of access to entitlements by the right holders will become a reality faster. The vulnerable and marginalized segments of the society being the prime target of this programme the process of empowerment is clearly visible. They are better equipped to negotiate their rights and entitlements with the government and other stakeholders. The vested interests within the society will see the empowerment process as a serious threat and will attempt to destabilise the community institutions, spread misinformation to the government agencies and other stakeholders. Efforts must be made to neutralise such efforts. The process will attract the attention of the political elements and efforts will be made to influence the community leaders to get aligned with them that would result in dilution of solidarity among the community. Efforts must be made to neutralize this while remaining neutral to the political objectives/ideologies. Attracting competent staff and retaining them to work in the backward areas will continue to pose a challenge to project implementation. Improved compensation and better training could be a tool to deal with such challenges.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 32
Chapter VII: Conclusion and the Way Forward
In conclusion, the evaluators convey satisfaction over the implementation of the DRR Programme of DCA. In spite of several limitations the programme’s effectiveness is most tangible. It has certainly inspired the community, brought in greater levels of consciousness in stakeholders, duty bearers, govt’s and national and international agencies involved in the project. The project staffs at partners have also inculcated a sense of purpose and display the commitment and pride required to bring change in the attitudes and perceptions of the segment of the populace and stakeholders that they have been assigned to work with.
There is a high degree of optimism among the partner organisations and the field staffs that a programme of this nature will be there for a longer period so as to help establish sustainable system and practices. DCA needs to address it in a positive manner. Convergence and alignment having been demonstrated on ground (though in a limited manner) it is desirable that DCA adopts it systematically while strategising for the future.
Consolidating the gains from this programme is important hence evaluators will like to recommend more focussed and intensive programming. Such programmes have an inherent problem of the target community becoming dependent on the programme resource; therefore DCA should strategize while programming that will allow flowing of leveraged resource from multiple sources at multiple levels (donor level convergence, partner level convergence, programme level convergence, theme level convergence and activity level convergence). The advocacy tools and lessons learnt from the Right to Food Programme must be harnessed well to benefit disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation through livelihood security at the community level. The process of implementation of the new programme will need to be tracked well; the benefits monitored scientifically, learning disseminated periodically, good practices displayed and demonstrated, replicated and scale up piloted.
**********************************
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 33
Appendix – A
Evaluation Objectives and Scope
Overall Objective
Enhanced resilience and reduced vulnerabilities of the marginalized at-risk communities, from natural and manmade disasters and thereby reduction in environmental, human, economic and social losses.
Specific Objectives
Significant reduction of risks and vulnerabilities of the marginalized and deprived groups of right holders. Significant reduction in all kinds of discrimination based on gender, caste and religion, and social exclusion of right holders within the context of disaster risk reduction and response. DCA, partners and allies promoted and influenced policy advocacy and strengthened cooperation at regional level on the agenda of Disaster Risk Reduction and effective humanitarian response. Improved institutional capacity of DCA and program partners to holistically address the issues of DRR and climate change within countries and at the regional level. Improved program implementation through consolidation of lessons learnt in various projects.
Purpose and Evaluation Objectives
This program evaluation is focused on the assessment of impact of DRR program activities for the right holders. The evaluation focuses on impact of the program in the lives of disaster affected communities. The evaluation will take stock of the right holders/community perspective on program impact and what they foresee as next level of change.
The evaluation objective is to focus on learning aspects and will contribute to the design of the new program phase for 2013-2017.
Scope of Evaluation
The evaluation will cover the entire geographic scope of the program in India, Nepal and Bangladesh, where program activities have been implemented in the program period 2008- 2012; the evaluation team will engage with nine partners and cover crosscutting activities which are not in the form of typical projects.
The evaluation consultant will visit the projects and communities that have not been subject to external project evaluation and also external evaluations and reports already undertaken. It implies that the program evaluation relies heavily on information from program and project
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 34
monitoring. Project reviews and evaluations, monitoring reports and perhaps self assessments carried out over the evaluation are essential sources of information.
Partners interviews will be carried out with both program and management staff. Partners selected for office interviews will be selected based on open and transparent criteria developed by the consultant/DCA.
The evaluation also focuses on impact of the program for the right holders in order and to capture the changes in the lives of disaster affected communities that can be attributed to the program. The evaluation brings in right holders/ community perspective on program impact and what they foresee as next level of change.
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 35
Appendix – B
Key Issues for Evaluation, Identification of Criterion for Assessment and Key Questions
Key Issues for Evaluation
Issues Key Questions Impact What has been the impact of the programme at right holders’ level (outcomes)? What are the most significant changes in the lives of the right holders, their relation to the duty bearers, or the practice of the duty bearers that can be attributed to the programme? What are the institutional measures taken by right holders to reduce risks and be able to cope and respond effectively to disasters? Have the right holders had scope of interface with duty bearers and access to rights and entitlements in disasters? How has the programme influenced changes in relevant policies, practices, ideas and beliefs that affect the right holders? How has the programme been able to ensure community resilience to an extent of at-risk communities through preparedness and mitigation measures? Did the programme approach enhance impact and focus of DCAs work as envisioned when the transition from project approach was initiated? In what way? Could the same impact have been achieved through project approach? Effectiveness To what extent were the programme objectives and results achieved at outcome (and if verifiable, at impact level?) Why and why not? Are there any unintended results of the programme? To what extent were the activities implemented according to relevant DCA policy, especially related to RBA and gender? To what extent did the cross cutting activities, particularly the capacity building efforts achieve their objectives? Why and Why not? Sustainability Are the benefits from the programme, especially at rights holders’ level likely to sustain and continue after the programme? Why and why not? Are the community institutions established in villages capable to take ahead the programme ambitions and objectives? What are institutional mechanisms in place at right holder’s level to sustain the initiatives under the programme? Programme To what extent was the programme strategy relevant to the need Relevance and identified? Especially related to the structural causes of rights violations in Context the given context? Was the context analysis informing the programme strategy relevant and appropriate? Is it still? What are the areas of changes in the context that needs to be captured in determining the future direction for the next programme phase? To what extent should right holders' livelihoods be considered in order to enhance sustainability of disaster risk reduction interventions? Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 36
What the opportunities and challenges in the context that should be considered when designing a new programme phase?
Identification of Criterion for Assessment by Evaluation Team
Development Objective of the Program: Enhanced resilience and reduced vulnerabilities of the marginalized at-risk communities, from natural and human made disasters and thereby reduction in environmental, human, economic and social losses by the year 2011.
Immediate Indicators Objectives 1. Significant 1: Marginalized at-risk communities especially women, children, reduction of risks elderly, people with disabilities are enabled and empowered to and vulnerabilities of participate in hazard specific mitigation and disaster preparedness the marginalized activities and deprived groups 2: States and civil society organizations have undertaken joint of rights holders. initiatives on risk reduction 3: Community institutions are equipped with knowledge and skills for disaster response, prevention and have developed mitigation plans and activities 2: Significant 1: Favorable policy environment on service delivery of government reduction in all kinds ensuring inclusion of the discriminated right holders. of discrimination 2: Reduced discrimination as a result of focused targeting of based on gender, marginalised groups and involving whole community in addressing caste and religion, root causes for inequality and social exclusion 3: Increased access to rights and entitlements by discriminated of right holders vulnerable groups in the event of a disaster. within the context of disaster risk reduction and response. 3: DCA, partners 1: DCA and its partners have multi-stakeholder engagement to and allies promoted optimize the opportunities under International treaties, protocols and and influenced policies on risk reduction. policy advocacy and 2: DCA and partners have capacitated advocacy portfolio through strengthened improved cross-learning, sharing of knowledge, expertise, research cooperation at findings and best practices, etc. regional level on the 3: Infrastructural development programs of governments in the agenda of Disaster disaster prone pockets have an integrated DRR approach. Achieved risk reduction and through multi- stakeholder engagement effective humanitarian response 4: Improved 1: Regional platform promoting cross learning, best practices, institutional capacity complementarities and taking up regional issues of lobbying and of DCA and advocacy. program partners to 2: Partners have capacity to address the macro causes of disaster holistically address risks and vulnerabilities
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 37
the issues of 3: Enhanced knowledge of DCA and partners to work on the issue of Disaster Risk climate change. Reduction and 4: Enhanced capacity of partners to coordinate with regional and Climate Change at international networks and stakeholders on the issue of disaster risk the regional level. reduction and climate change. 5: Documented best practices and learning of indigenous coping mechanisms of vulnerable communities
Key Questions
Impact at Right Holders’ Level
Key Questions:
What has been the impact of the program at right holders’ level (outcomes)? What are the most significant changes in the lives of the right holders, their relation to the duty bearers, or the practice(s) of the duty bearers that can be attributed to the programme? What are the institutional measures taken by right holders to reduce risks and be able to cope and respond effectively to disasters? Have the right holders had scope of interface with duty bearers and access to rights and entitlements in disasters? How has the program influenced changes in relevant policies, practices, ideas and beliefs that affect the right holders? How has the program been able to ensure community resilience to an extent of at- risk communities through preparedness and mitigation measures?
Effectiveness and Relevance
Key Questions:
To what extent were the program objectives and results achieved at outcome (and if verifiable at impact level?) Why and why not? Are there any unintended results of the programme? To what extent were the activities implemented according to relevant DCA policy, especially related to RBA and gender? To what extent did the cross cutting activities, particularly the capacity building efforts achieve their objectives? Why and Why not? What are the areas of changes in the context that needs to be captured in determining the future direction for the next programme phase? To what extent should right holders' livelihoods be considered in order to enhance sustainability of disaster risk reduction interventions? What are the opportunities and challenges in the context that should be considered when designing a new programme phase?
Sustainability Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 38
Key questions:
Are the benefits from the programme, especially at right holders’ level likely to sustain and continue after the programme? Why and why not? Are the community institutions established in villages capable to take ahead the programme and its objectives? What are institutional mechanisms in place at right holders’ level to sustain the initiatives under the programme?
Programme Management (DCA and Partners)
It assists in reviewing the program strategy and understanding the challenges and strengths of the program and partners. Meeting the identified needs helps in determining the success of the program management.
Key Questions:
To what extent was the program strategy relevant to the need identified? Especially related to the structural causes of rights violations in the given context? Was the context analysis informing the program strategy relevant and appropriate? Is it still? What are the areas of changes in the context that needs to be captured in determining the future direction for the next program phase? To what extent should right holders’ livelihoods be considered in order to enhance sustainability of disaster risk reduction interventions? What are the opportunities and challenges in the context that should be considered when designing a new program phase?
Center for Development and Disaster Management Support Services CDDMASS-A Strategy Centre P a g e | 39