Emergency Response to South Asia Floods-Nepal Project

Evaluation Report

Submitted to

Actionaid Nepal

Lazimpat, Kathmandu

Submitted by

Dhruba Gautam

Independent Researcher and Consultant

PO Box 19532, Kathmandu, Nepal

Phone: 98510-95808

Acknowledgements

This evaluation report has been possible because of the support of so many people personally and professionally. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all persons who contributed to this evaluation in many different ways: by sharing their experience, thoughts and opinions about the project, and by contributing time, advice and hospitality.

First, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that is being done by the multitude of active teams and committees organized under the project. Next, my particular thanks go to all project staff and people involved from partner NGOs that's excellently prepared the evaluation process and also arranged my field visit on the field sites. Their dedication, input and willingness to share about critical issues were extremely valuable.

I am grateful to Mr Shyam Sundar Jnavaly, Senior Theme leader of EDM of AAN for his feedback and suggestion in the methodology as well as coordination of the whole evaluation. Similarly, the PSOs of Western and Eastern Resource Centre’s assistance and support have been critical to undertake evaluation activities. I am indebted to DMC members of all project districts for their patience; co-operation and good understanding without their support it would not have been possible to complete this evaluation. I was encouraged when people accepted my presence, answered my queries passionately and made me internalize the practical difficulties of the people and area. Therefore, I remain obliged to them.

Last but not least, my thanks go to all senior personnel from AAN who entrusted me with the task of conducting this evaluation.

Thanks.

Dhruba Gautam

Kathmandu

May 2008

Acronyms

AANActionaid Nepal

BEE Group Bheri Environment Excellence Group

CBDPCommunity Based Disaster Preparedness

CBOCommunity Based organization

CDP Community Development Program

CFUGCommunity Forest Users Group

DAODistrict Administrative Office

DDCDistrict Development Committee

DEODistrict Education Office

DJKYCDalit Jana Kalyan Yuba Club

DLADistrict Line Agency

DMCDisaster Management Committee

DPDisaster Preparedness

DPHODistrict Public Health Office

DRRDisaster Risk Reduction

DWIDPDepartment of Water Induced Disaster Prevention

FAYA Nepal Forum for Awareness and Youth Activities

FGDFocus Group Discussion

GOGovernment Organization

KIIkey Informant Interview

M&EMonitoring and Evaluation

NGONon-governmental Organizations

NRCSNepal Red Cross Society

PVAParticipatory Vulnerability Analysis

RHERI Rara Human and Environmental Resource Development Initiative

S/CSaving and Credit

SCDF Saraswati Community Development Forum

SHPSub-health Post

SMCSchool Management Committee (SMC)

SODEP Social Development Path Nepal

SSISemi-structured Interview (SSI)

VDCVillage Development committee

WEGWomen Empowerment Group

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

This evaluation of 'Emergency Response to South Asia Floods-Nepal Project' was implemented by Actionaid Nepal (AAN) with the grant support from Austcare. The evaluation was commissioned from last week of April to mid of May 2008. The project aims to ensure the right to human security in emergency through addressing the immediate needs of flood affected people and sustain the right to life with dignity of poor and vulnerable people through support of flood affected people of 7 districts (Kailali, Bardiya, Banke, Dhanusha, Mahottri, Siraha, and Saptari) of Nepal with relief to improve their socio-economic condition. The key objectives of the evaluation were toanalyze overall project results on achievement, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability; key success and constraints; and lesson learnt as well as to make recommendations for the future.

The evaluation methods involved different interactive, analytical tools and interview techniques found appropriate to accomplish evaluation objectives. Coordination meeting with Non-government Organisation (NGO) staff and project team members, review of secondary information and programme reports, field visits with checklist for different groups, focus group discussions, semi structured interviews and individual narrative interviews were key methodological tools.

2. Findings

2.1 Achievements of key result

The evaluation found that project had made significant progress in targeting, putting needy families first in distribution process, managing food and nutritional materials as per the people's choice. Similarly, through the proper management of regular and winter clothes, affected people could manage cold and people's choices were due respected in this regard. Families were also benefited from health awareness campaigns, health care and medical services. Hence, the response of food and non-food items, shelter and medical and health-care to people affected by flood contributed to early recovery of these families.

The project undertook different livelihood activities as per the local need with group approach. As the process approach was very effective, even small supports were praiseworthy to recover the livelihood of target families. For the first time, it was shared that the livelihood supports reached to the unreached groups/families. The varieties of livelihood initiatives were instrumental to recover and enhance their livelihood.

It was also found that vulnerable houses were selected and need based supports were provided to repair and maintenance of houses. Schools, the common shelters, were improved in five districts. Co-financing was ensured for the maintenance of these schools. These initiatives at the ground confirmed that the project has contributed to disaster risk reduction (DRR) to build resilience and enhance the capacities of communities to plan for and mitigate the risk and impacts of humanitarian emergencies.

  • All these facts supported that the project activities were orientated towards fulfilling objectives. With the fulfilment of objectives, the project purpose 'support flood affected people of 7 districts of Nepal with relief to improve their socio economic condition' and goal 'ensure the right to human security in emergency through addressing the immediate needs of flood victims and sustain the right to life with dignity of poor and vulnerable people' were also fulfilled.

3. Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability

  • There were several evidences like community focused program; reaching the services to the unreached; and correlation between AAN mandate, national plan and the project demonstrated that the project was relevant to the needs and constraints of the flood affected communities.
  • The fulfilment of work plan-achievement, the level of social mobilization and community empowerment and flexibility in implementation confirmed the effectiveness of the project.
  • The input-output relation, the extent of resource sharing in construction activities, the cost-efficient approach, increasing participation of women, operational capacity of the partner and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practice in place illustrated that the project was able to accomplish the project activities in efficient way.
  • The increase social harmony, attention of other stakeholders for transparency and accountability, poor and vulnerable were organized and they were able to claim rights, recover economic empowerment and reduce in human sufferings. These were listed as some of the preliminary impacts of the project.
  • Involvement of long-term partners of AAN for continuous guidance, the active role of civil societies and government organizations (GOs), and relief response linked with development issues were some evidences of the sustainability of the project. The level of capacity building of the local people and livelihood supports in the focus of the program also contributed the project to be more sustainable. It is expected that there will be notable benefits for the community in the future.

4. Successes and constraints

  • The project had brought some of the key success such as: Disaster preparedness (DP) initiatives were started at local level; right holders realized their rights, enhanced understanding of people on DRR, and building mutual trust and transparency among stakeholders. Similarly, adoption of transparent procurement policy, decentralization of project authority and work, good organizational culture and management style, functional coordination/linkages among the stakeholders and visibility in all activities were other key success of the project.
  • There were the some constraints that were taken as hindering factors for the progress of the project. Political unrest and ongoing agitation in the Terai, poor provision of transportation and logistic support in the proposal, inadequate understanding of the partners in community based disaster preparedness (CBDP), DRR issues, limited resource for higher needs were some notable constraints of the project.

5. Lessons Learned

  • There were some of the lessons from this project. Capacity analysis of partners and orientation is required in the beginning, while it is necessary to link humanitarian support with long term development work. It was learnt that sustainable livelihood approach is important to ensure sustainability. Similarly, it was leant that coordination among agencies for capacity building is essential, indigenous technology and knowledge is obligatory to cope from flood, and community should be given the central space. With practical examples, it was learnt that the role of community based organizations (CBOs) and clubs in families' selection is imperative.

6. Recommendations

The project has brought about some significant changes in the quality of life of flood affected families to reduce their vulnerability to flood by increasing the capacity in responding effectively to flood. There is sufficient flexibility with regard to implementation of the planned activities to adjust to the specific field situation. However, there are still some areas where further works can be done, which are as follows:

  • There is a need to build the preparedness capacities of communities through life-saving preparedness skills e.g. first-aid, community contingency planning, early warning systems, etc. Mainstreaming DRR in long-term vision, policy-making and multi-stakeholder co-ordination is essential to tackle recurrent disasters.
  • Apart from basic services of food, non-food and health care facilities, large-scale investment is required for community-based preparedness infrastructure assets viz. flood shelters, raised homesteads, boats, increased plinth level of houses and raised hand pump and toilets to build resilience of local communities and district government.
  • There is necessity to provide training to NGO partners, activists, volunteers and local level government officials on participatory vulnerability analysis (PVA), role of DP, need and damage assessment, DRR, sphere standard and relief management though right based perspectives. Simple orientation on climate change adaptation is also required to inform the causes and basic preparedness in advance.
  • It is suggested that a separate logistic person is required for effective response and pre monsoon coordination meeting at district level can support timely and quality response. There is a need to establish separate disaster management cell in each district administration office. The uniformity in the distribution of relief materials is another key aspect to follow.
  • Before initiating livelihood interventions at local level, it is required to make quick feasibility study to know requirement of essential inputs like irrigation, technical know-how, markets etc to reap more income.
  • There is a need to promote flood resistant crops. Flood friendly agricultural practices are important to reduce the probable risk. Community insurance system is also recommended to be piloted in some places and scaled up later.
  • Due to flood related troubles, majority of the people along the river bank were found living with fear and trauma. The poor social networks, weak social insurance and solidarity during monsoon make them cheerlessness. To overcome fear and trauma, it is suggested to organise psycho-social trainings to the flood affected people.

In zest, the evaluation found that project as this are essential to respect the rights of the disaster affected people. But there are certain gaps where a joint action from government and nongovernmental agencies need to fill.

Table of Content

Acknowledgements 2

Acronyms 3

Executive Summary 4

1. Preamble 8

1.1 Introduction of the project 8

1.2 Project's Goal, Purpose, Objectives and Outputs 8

1.2.1 Goal 8

1.2.2 Purpose 8

1.2.3 Objectives 8

1.2.4 Project Outputs 9

1.3 Objectives of the evaluation 9

1.4 Evaluation methodology 9

2. Evaluation Findings 10

2.1 Fulfilments of goal, purpose, objectives and outputs 10

3. Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability 20

3.1 Relevance 20

3.2 Effectiveness 21

3.3 Efficiency 21

3.4 Impact 22

3.5 Sustainability 23

4. Project success and constraints 24

4.1 Successes 24

4.2 Constraints 25

5. Lessons Learned 26

6. Recommendations 28

Annexes 30

Annex-1: List of KIIs (staff of partner NGOs)30

Annex-2: Benefited HHs and population by caste and age group by districts 31

Evaluation Report

Emergency Response to South Asia Floods-Nepal Project

1. Preamble

1.1 Introduction of the project

UN has referred that about fifty million people in South Asia are currently living with risks of worst floods. Millions of people are displaced every year and they are suffering from the effects of displacements including lack of food security, safe shelter and ensured income. Water borne diseases including diarrhoea as well as fear of Maleria are all contributing to create major health concerns during the time of floods. The plight of poor people, especially women and children, at this mid-way point to the monsoon season is increasingly desperate.

To address these crucial problems, 'Emergency Response to South Asia Floods-Nepal Project' was implemented by AAN with the grant support from Austcare. The duration of the project was for six months beginning from September 1, 2007 with total budget of Australian $ 149,800.The project was designed to provide relief to over 1,000 families from the seven flood affected districts viz. Siraha, Saptari, Dhanusa, Mahottari, Banke, Bardia and Kailali. The project covered critical flood affected clusters of 26 Village Development Committee (VDCs) and one Municipality(refer table 1). In each district, AAN coordinated and collaborated with its partner NGO to carry out project activities in an effective way.The main target groups were flood-affected poor, especially women and children, freed-kamaiya, dalit, Mushahar, Muslim and other minority ethnic groups and families.

1.2Project's Goal, Purpose, Objectives and Outputs

The goal, purpose, objectives and outputs of the project were as follows:

1.2.1 Goal

Ensure the right to human security in emergency through addressing the immediate needs of flood victims and sustain the right to life with dignity of poor and vulnerable people.

1.2.2 Purpose

Support flood affected people of 7 districts of Nepal with relief to improve their socio-economic condition.

1.2.3 Objectives

The project aimed to pledge following objectives ensuring poor and marginalised communities receive relief support from the project, particularly in the following area.

  • Provide food and nutritiontothe flood affected people, especially children and women including pregnant and lactating mothers, people living with HIV and AIDS (PLWHA), and elderly people who are left out in the general relief package (800 families).
  • Manage non-food items mostly regular and winter clothes to women, children and elderly people (800 families).
  • Repair community shelter building (i.e. school buildings) and house to ensure basic living standards (and dignity for women) and to protect from ensuing winter (400 families) through immediate repair, provision of basic furniture and cleaning up schools (5 schools).
  • Make available health care and medical services through mobile health clinics/ camps (1000 flood affected families).
  • Improve livelihood of the people through cash support for livestock or agro-inputs destroyed by flooding (500 families).

1.2.4 Project Outputs

The project had its three main outputs which are given below:

  • Response: Undertaken early recovery activities including the supply of food and non-food items, shelter and medical and health-care to people affected by natural disaster, mostly flood.
  • Recovery and livelihood development: Supported longer term development efforts focusing on sustainable livelihoods in communities affected by disaster and conflict.
  • Disaster Risk Reduction: Built resilience and enhanced the capacities of communities to plan for and mitigate against the risk and impacts of humanitarian emergencies.

1.3 Objectives of the evaluation

The evaluation of the aforementioned project which AAN commissioned had the following main objectives

  • Assess whether project objectives and outputs have been achieved
  • Find out the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the project
  • Identify the key success and constraints of the project, and
  • Find the key lessons learned and make recommendations for the future

1.4Evaluation methodology

The following were the main methodological approach used to carry out the evaluation and the methodology represented a combination of different interactive, analytical tools and interview techniques found appropriate to accomplish the tasks within the given time frame:

  • Literature review: The project documents (proposal, progress reports)were studied to get familiarized with the goal, purpose, objective, outputsof the project.
  • Instruments design: Checklist was used in retrieving information from the focus group discussion (FGD) and key-informant interview (KII) with different stakeholders both at local and district level.
  • Meeting with partner NGOs staff: Sharing the methodology with project staff in a meeting helped in planning the number and location of the FGDs and KIIs. Overall data on the implementation status of the project was also obtained (please refer annex-1 for list of staff as KII).
  • Semi Structured Interviews (SSI): Teachers, ex-VDC representatives, social elites, mother groups, local NGOs and CBOs representatives provided key information and shared their reflections about the project work and benefits as well as gaps.
  • Focus group discussion: FGDs conducted with disaster management committee (DMC) members helped to identify and present the impressions, expectations and lessons. Factual statements of the project stakeholders were recorded to justify the analysis.
  • Consultative meetings with direct beneficiaries: Meetings were organized with women, dalits/indigenous people and children separately. These meetings helped in understanding about the project and benefits achieved. Transects walks were also organised to familiarize with the area and the people that were mostly affected from the flood. The evaluation discussions were carried out in six districts except Saptari.
  • Exit meeting with project staff: After the completion of the fieldwork in respective district, exit meetings were organisedand collected information was validated. These meetings were helpful to amplify and enrich information.
  • Analysis and reporting: A careful analysis planning was prepared to ensure right information is presented at right place to give meaning the importance of evaluation. All information recorded from different sources contributed in analyzing the complete findings and in making recommendations.

2. Evaluation Findings