DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster Preparedness evaluation

1
DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster Preparedness
evaluation

• Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan
• June July 2006

2
Timing

• 1st 29th June Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
  Kyrgyzstan
• 30th June debriefing with ECHO
• 1st July Workshop with DIPECHO partners
• 2nd 4th July Almaty
• 1st August submission of draft report
• Mid August comments / feedback on report
• End August presentation of final report to ECHO

3
Locations visited

• Tajikistan
• Dushanbe, GBAO, Khatlon, Varzob, Vahdat, Yavan,
  Rasht valley, Sughd, Khojent
• Uzbekistan
• Tashkent, Ferghana, Namangan, Andijan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Bishkek, Osh, Jalalabad, Issyk-KulKyrgyzstan
• Kazakhstan
• Almaty

4
Methodology

• Briefing from ECHO office in Dushanbe
• Presentations by Organisations combined with
  meetings (2 way dialogue)
• Visits of communities, mitigation sites, schools,
  training facilities, disaster committees, first
  aid and emergency response teams
• Meetings with Ministries of Emergency Situations,
  (where possible)
• Meetings with other Organisations involved in
  disaster reduction, other Donor Organisations,
  ISDR, World bank implementation contractors

5
What are the objectives of each DIPECHO partner?
How do these objectives fit together?

• The objectives of each partner vary, some look at
  Disaster Preparedness as cross cutting and LRRD
  issues of long term development programmes.
  Others see DP as a stand alone topic within the
  Disaster Management cycle. However all
  Organisations appear to
• use a community based approach, bottom up
  planning,
• to raise awareness of the potential for disasters
  and the actions to take to minimise the level of
  disaster impact on a targeted population and its
  livelihoods.
• Some Organisations are focused on preparedness to
  respond where others while doing this are trying
  to reduce the impact on manageable disasters.
• In some but not all cases mitigation projects are
  being implemented and supported, being carried
  out by the communities themselves wherever
  possible.

6
What has been achieved during the period 2003
until now of each partner?

• This is one of the questions which needs
  analysis, arrive at conclusions before giving
  details and recommendations

7
What is the level of effectiveness of each
partner based on the 8 criteria?

• Relevance
• Coverage
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Impact
• Sustainability
• Results achieved
• Accountability

8
What is the level of relevance of DG Echo's
strategic orientation and intervention logic?

• Will take analysis, conclusions to be completed
  before this question can be answered. However,
  what is your opinion?
• What do you and your Organisation think about DG
  Echo's Strategic Orientation and Intervention
  Logic?
• 20 minutes group work

9

• Duration of DIPECHO projects (max. 15 months) vs
  need to commit to longer term development and
  measure impact
• Need to integrate more local authorities when
  targeting communities
• Focus on communities vs building institutional
  capacities at policy and national levels
• Progressive hand over to local actors not
  systematic
• Specific approaches towards specific groups (eg
  gender)?
• Environmental impact, climate change
• Other EC services?
• Include response to small scale frequent
  disasters?

10
What is the exit strategy, or, strategy for
improving effectiveness of future operations?

• The exit strategy has to be that local
  communities are able to take adapted measures in
  coordination with local and national authorities
  as far as disaster prevention, preparedness and
  preparedness to respond are concerned.
• The basis of sustainability depends on a number
  of factors
• Building capacity and awareness of local
  populations to minimise the effects of disasters
  and to respond adequately
• Project proposals for mitigation activities based
  on community priorities and local/regional
  development and strategic plans.
• Economic means to implement project proposals

11
What are the lessons learnt and the results
achieved?

• Some Organisations have learnt lessons during the
  3 year period of DIPECHO support and have adapted
  their ways of working.
• There seems to be limited lessons learnt which
  have passed from one Organisation to another in a
  systematic way. There have been some cross
  organisational visits to see what others are
  doing and what is working well but this seems to
  not be approached in a systematic way.
• There are cases that we have seen of an
  individual looking to learn from another
  Organisation but this seems to be personal
  initiative as opposed to being systematic
• There will be a recommendation on how to
  strengthen the transfer of lessons learnt and
  help to develop best practices in the full report.

12
Has DIPECHO successfully disseminated its best
practices in Central Asia?

• No, there seems not to be a systematic approach
  to the promotion of DIP Echos best practices.

13
What are the programme results at community level?

• Too numerous to mention all at this time but some
  of the most obvious are
• Strengthening of communities in decision making
  and the planning process to get things done for
  themselves
• Promoting community participation in mitigation
  projects and therefore strengthening
  sustainability
• In some cases these mitigation projects have had
  positive effects on land use, the environment,
  health, household economics, household structural
  stability and safety
• Community awareness of the potential for
  disasters, particularly amongst womens groups
  and school children
• Awareness of actions to take in the event of a
  disaster including how to help others after the
  event

14
What are the conclusions and recommendations of
DIP ECHO's action plan for Central Asia?Do they
have a stand alone effect and is the support
given relevant and proportionate?

• To be completed in the report after analysis,
  conclusions are formed as the basis for
  recommendations

15
Should there be an expansion of capacity or
geographical locations within the region?

• Difficulty to work in some countries but needs
  exist there.
• Continuing to improve relationship and work in
  those countries are important issues to consider.
• Relationship building and cross border programmes
  into Afghanistan, could be considered depending
  on safe access and cross border agreements on
  objectives

16
What is the level of coherence and
complementarities with risk reduction
co-ordination with regards other actions funded
by other EC instruments and donors

• This varies from location to location and some
  Ministries complain of overlap and a lack of
  co-ordination. However co-ordination should come
  from those Ministries with
• Overall long term plan of what they want to see
  accomplished in their countries broken down to
  annual activities
• Allocation of those prioritised activities to
  interested donors and Organisations dependant on
  mandate, geographical factors, funding and
  interest levels
• Strong co-ordination of systems, procedures and
  ways of working particularly with printed visual
  aids
• Emphasis on community involvement in planning and
  training to enhance sustainability

17
How do the partners monitor and control the
delivery of expected outcomes with their partners
to the beneficiary communities?

• A whole range of methodologies have been
  witnessed including
• Workshops and seminars with partners to explain
  preferred ways of working
• Direct involvement in community meetings
• Field visits to directly monitor and discuss with
  communities
• Financial management and control including
  financial audit
• Programme audit to review results achieved
• Work alongside partners enhancing co-operation

18
Outline a coherent and viable risk reduction plan
for the region

• This will be covered in the report, but, this is
  a question for you,
• What are the most important elements that you and
  your Organisation would want to see in a regional
  risk reduction plan?
• 20 minutes group work

19

• Countries should develop their own individual /
  regional plans, with external facilitation if
  needed
• Common approach to include best practices,
  lessons learned, monitoring, indicators
• Emphasise regional networking, linkeages with
  international organisations and platforms
• Encourage regional contingency planning, risk and
  hazard mapping, environmental policies,
  legislation
• Media, public campaigns

20
Additional

• Those were the questions from the Terms of
  Reference however the report will cover much more
  including
• Planning and continuity
• Funding gaps and commitments
• Co-ordination and effectiveness
• Effective use of lessons learnt and their
  inclusion in programme/project methodologies,
  systems and procedures
• Bi-products of the Disaster preparedness and
  mitigation work