Version 3.9 06/03/2012

1

Final Version 20th January 2013

Version 3.9 06/03/2012

ECHO eSF

Initial Proposal Template

CARE Nederland


e -Single Form Contents

Click on the link to go directly to the corresponding section

1. General Information

2. Needs Assessment

3. Humanitarian Organisations in the Area of Intervention

4. Operational Framework

4.3.1 Log Frame

4.3.2 More detailed information per result

4.3.2.1 Specific Objective

4.3.2.2 Result 1 -More Detailed Information

4.3.2.3 Result 2 -More Detailed Information

4.3.2.4 Result 3 -More Detailed Information

4.3.2.5 Result 4 -More Detailed Information

4.3.3 Other Costs

5. Transition (LRRD) and Cross Cutting Issues

6. Field Coordination

7. Implementing Partners

8. Security and Contingency Plans

9. Communication Visibility & Information Activities

10. Human Resources

11. Financial Overview

12. Administrative Information

13. Conclusions and humanitarian organisation's comments

30

Final Version: 20th January 2013

Version 3.9 06/03/2012

1  General Information*

1.1 Name of Organisation *

Stichting CARE NEDERLAND

1.2 Title of the Action* Max 300

Strengthening preparedness and response capacities of vulnerable peri-urban neighborhoods and organized structures of the Canton of Guayaquil, Ecuador

1.3 Area of Intervention *

World Area: * Africa America Europe Asia Oceania
Country: * Max 300 ECUADOR
Region* Max 300 South America

1.4 Start Date of the Action*

Date: * / 1 mayo 2013
If the Action has already started explain the reason that justifies this situation (urgent Action or other reason) * Max 3800
Enter text here

1.5 Duration of the action in months *

Months / 18 / Days

1.6 Start date for eligibility of expenditure

Is the start date for the eligibility of the expenditure equal to the date of submission of the original proposal? *

Yes No
If Yes, explain expenses charged to the budget between date of submission of the initial proposal and start date of the action* Max 3800
While the project activities are scheduled to start on May 1, 2013, in April the preparatory work will be done, such as hiring staff, reviewing and signing agreements with partners and stakeholders, organizing offices, among other tasks, as noted in the project timeline attached as an annex.
If No, enter the start date for the eligibility of the expenditure and explain above *
1st April 2013

1.7 Requested funding modalities for this agreement *

Unless specified in the relevant ECHO Funding Decision, ECHO considers 100%. However, we need to justify request for 100% funding, e.g. Urgency of the Action or absence of any other funding possibilities

100% financing Co-financing Multi-donor action
In case of 100% financing: justify the request * Max 1000
Enter text here

1.8 Urgent Action*

Yes No
If Yes *
ECHO primary emergency decision
ECHO emergency decision
Urgent action in the framework of another ECHO decision
In case of urgent action in the framework of another ECHO decision, please justify: * Max 400
Enter text here

2  Needs Assessment *

2.1 Date(s) of assessment; methodology and sources of information used; organisation / person(s) responsible for the assessment * Max 3800

The initial assessment was done from December 10, 2012 and January 11, 2013, in the Canton of Guayaquil (Guayas Province). This geographic zone was selected by CARE because of its strategic interest in working in urban areas and in the lower part of the Guayas River basin, since in other projects in previous years, the organization had worked in another rural cantons of the Guayas Province. This strategic interest is motivated above all by the organization’s desire and initiative to increase its presence and activities in marginal urban areas where exposure to natural and socio-natural threats, like floods, earthquakes or landslides are exacerbated by factors like high population density and structural causes like poverty, which over the past 20 years has helped to accelerate economic migration from the countryside to the city, as people seek better opportunities, and has increased the pressure on land, goods and services in urban and peri-urban cores. This strategic priority of working in marginal urban areas coincides fully with the orientations of the reference document “Ecuador, References for Risk Management 2013-2014”, prepared in late 2012 as a mandatory resource for working in DRR in Ecuador.
In mid-2012, CARE and the Municipal Government of Guayaquil made initial contacts to define the framework of collaboration and to agree, among other areas of work, on the process of identifying and formulating this DIPECHO proposal, which was written between December 2012 and January 2013.
The diagnostic assessment employed various techniques and sources of information, such as a literature and document review (“Ecuador, References for Risk Management 2013-2014,” the Strategic Plans of Bastion Popular and Nueva Prosperina, maps of areas affected by landslides in both neighborhoods, and previous studies on risks in certain vulnerable areas); interviews with key people and institutions (the National Risk Management Secretariat, the Provincial Risk Management Department of Guayas, the Risk Management Department of the Ministry of Education, the Risk Management and Cooperation Office of the Municipal Government of Guayaquil, the Director and President of the Municipal Public Safety Corporation of Guayaquil, the Director of Plan Ecuador in Guayas, among others); visits to high risk areas in the pre-selected neighborhoods (Cerro El Jordan and Nueva Prosperina) and focus groups with neighborhood leaders and organizations (two groups, with the participation of approximately 40 people in each); and two planning workshops held with decision-makers, technicians and officials of the Municipal Government of Guayaquil (18 December 2012 and 09 January 2013.
CARE was responsible for leading and coordinating the assessment process, together with the Municipality of Guayaquil, through its Risk Management and Cooperation Office, and an external consultant specializing in DRR and familiar with the strategic framework of the DIPECHO Program who supported and facilitated the process. The staff members of CARE Ecuador who directly participated included the National Director (Fernando Unda), the DRR coordinator and technical personnel from the current DIPECHO project in progress (Pedro Carrasco, Roberto Brito and Manuel Espinoza), and CARE’s development officer (Paulina Montenegro). From the Municipal Government of Guayaquil, the Director of Risk Management and Cooperation (Juan Ramirez) participated, along with the head of cooperation (Monica Menendez), a representative of the risk management area of the Physical Planning and Infrastructure Department (Bolivar Sandoval), the Social Action and Education Department (Luis Torres), and finally an external expert consultant in DRR (Ignacio Cristobal).

2.2 Problem statement and stakeholder analysis * Max 3800

In the marginal urban neighborhoods and areas of the Canton of Guayaquil, one crucial problem is the significant losses, both material and in terms of human lives, caused by floods and landslides as a result of the intense rainfall during the winter (rainy) season, and these communities’ physical exposure to other threats that are less frequent but of considerable magnitude, such as earthquakes, given the fact that Guayaquil and its surroundings is considered to be a medium-high seismic risk area. This hazardous situation is the result of three elements: a multi-threat context which has historically affected Guayaquil Canton, primarily of geological and hydro-meteorological origin, especially floods and landslides given their frequency and earthquakes due to their magnitude (1); the existence, particularly in marginal urban neighborhoods, of various factors of vulnerability – environmental, physical, organizational, political-institutional, educational-cultural and socio-economic (2) and the limited installed capacity which prohibits local institutions from monitoring threats or providing an autonomous, timely and efficient response that is coordinated from the neighborhood level up through existing municipal authorities and structures (3).
With regard to earthquakes, there are historical records of how these have affected the city of Guayaquil with varying intensity. The earthquakes of 1942 and 1980 stand out, the latter measuring 6.1 on the Richter scale, leaving in its wake 10 dead, more than 100 wounded and severe damage to vital roads, infrastructure and buildings in the city. There has been an increase in landslides in recent years, specifically on hillsides and slopes of marginal urban areas, the primary causes of which are weather patterns, the intense rainfalls and accumulation of humidity, and human activity, through deforestation, inappropriate land use, the filtration of wastewater and leaks in the water supply grid. Flooding is quite frequent during the rainy season, from January to April, most often caused by the obstruction of waterways, water being dammed up by construction works, and the overflow of artificial and natural waterways combined with the traditional flooding in lower areas caused by the overflow of the Guayas River.
The main factors of vulnerability, are: environmental vulnerability related to deforestation and inappropriate land use, which causes accelerated erosion processes; physical vulnerability related to the location of housing and other buildings along natural rainwater drainage paths and the filling up of those paths, construction along hillsides and slopes and anti-technical earth movements; organizational vulnerability, primarily in terms of the lack of neighborhood risk management committees and monitoring and early warning systems, and the absence of coordinated response protocols at the neighborhood and municipal levels; educational-cultural vulnerability, defined as the lack of awareness of threats and vulnerability which leads to a very low perception of risk on the part of the population; political-institutional vulnerability, related to limited “know-how,” planning instruments and processes that do not allow for the incorporation of risk management as a cross-cutting element; and socio-economic vulnerability associated with poverty and high rates of rural-urban migration, which accelerates urban population growth and leads to overcrowding and social pressure on goods and services like health care, education, land, housing, and others.
The analysis of key stakeholders revealed three levels of influence within the project the national level, the provincial/municipal level, the local/neighborhood level,.
Please find full details in Annex_02

2.3 Summarise findings of the assessment (include full report in annex, if relevant) and link these to the Action* Max 3800

The main findings from the initial assessment process are the following:
-  The residents of marginal neighborhoods have a low perception of risk, due to a lack of awareness of the threats and factors of vulnerability, which they themselves cause in many cases because they are unaware of the consequences of their actions.
-  There is a predominance of low-quality construction and housing that does not meet construction standards or codes. These homes and buildings are located in high-risk areas, such as steep hills and slopes, on top of natural rainwater and runoff drainage paths, under high-voltage wires, etc.
-  Lack of neighborhood organization around reducing risks, or instruments such as radios, sirens, rain meters or others to use to monitor threats and organize response efforts in the event of a disaster.
-  The absence of early warning, communication and coordination mechanisms between the neighborhood and municipal level, which would allow for a coordinated and complementary response.
-  There are no studies or updated information about the levels of risk in vulnerable marginal urban areas (i.e. hillsides, construction, risk maps, etc.) which would help municipal authorities to make informed decisions based on technical grounds regarding the legalization of lots and prohibiting construction in high risk areas.
-  There is a high degree of insecurity and uncertainty on the part of many residents, who still do not have legal title to their lots, and who are afraid that they will not obtain those titles because they are in high risk areas.
-  Basic services and infrastructure works (water, sewer, drains, etc.) are installed and repaired without proper information or technical studies based on the analysis of risks, and in some cases are done with anti-technical and inappropriate earth movement. (i.e. water pipelines that are damaged by landslides and then rebuilt in the exact same place)
-  In some areas, there is insufficient garbage and solid waste management, which creates greater risks (Cerro el Jordan), and waterways, hillsides, slopes etc. are poorly maintained and protected.
-  Limited knowledge of risk management methodologies, and DRR is not included in the planning or intervention processes of the municipality.
-  There are no past or present strategies, programs or projects which have addressed the issue of DRR in a comprehensive and sustained manner over time, linking the municipality with the local/neighborhood level.
-  There is a need to strengthen communication and integrate the work of the Incident Command System, with the participation and involvement of all relevant public and private stakeholders.
The main findings of the assessment listed above are related to a lack of capacities, associated with some factors of vulnerability. Therefore, the projects’ strategy has been designed based on a specific objective of building these capacities, and four results, each of which is specially targeted to a specific factor of vulnerability, as we will see below.
More detailed information on the initial assessment process is available in:
Annex 01_Assessment Report_CARE_ECU (Section 2)

* The tables (if necessary) must be annexed. Tables with additional information * Max 3800

Please find a detailed stakeholders analysis in the below annex:
Annex 02_Stakeholders Analysis Matrix_CARE_ECU (Section 2)

3  Humanitarian Organisation in the Area of Intervention*

3.1 Humanitarian Organisation's presence in the area of intervention: brief overview of strategy and current or recent activities in the country * Max 3800

CARE International has a Humanitarian Mandate, aligned with a wide range of quality and accountability standards and strategies, applicable to all country offices, including the use of Sphere, Humanitarian Accountability Partnership, as well as internal Codes of Conduct for personnel, protection and prevention of exploitation. CARE´s Emergency Group (CEG) has produced an on-line CARE Emergency Toolkit accessible to Emergency Teams in all countries where CARE intervenes. This very useful material for emergency responders and planners includes policy and management framework, programming guidelines, management guidelines and operational guidelines (A handbook for field teams is well underway. Besides, CARE Academy has on-line and face-to face training courses addressed to strengthen Emergency Teams in country offices.
CARE International has identified DRR as one of its priorities within the organization’s mandate regarding humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and development. Within CARE International, CARE Nederland is the centre of expertise in the field of DRR. At field level, CARE International has implemented specific DRR programmes worldwide, amongst others in partnership with ECHO.
Besides explicit DRR programming, CARE International has mainstreamed DRR considerations in a wide range of projects and programmes, in all the realms of emergency response, rehabilitation and sustainable development. In a number of regions risk mapping exercises have been conducted, further facilitating inter-regional learning and dissemination of best practices and processes.
CARE International has been present in Ecuador for more than 50 years; the first CARE programs in this country were responses to emergency situations. CARE Ecuador with the advice and leadership of CARE Nederland seeks to incorporate the variable of risk management and climate change adaptation, since this is the primary threat identified in the most conservative scenarios for the country. CARE’s programming has evolved with the passage of time, but its strategic goal continues to be reducing poverty world-wide.
Since November 2007 , and in close coordination with the regional management unit and the regional representation of the CI Emergency group the CARE Ecuador Emergency Response Team has made significant progress in terms of its capacity for disaster risk reduction. Currently, CARE Ecuador has: - An updated Emergency Preparedness Plan; - A Manual of Emergency Response Protocols and Procedures for CARE Ecuador;
ACTIVITIES:

In Ecuador, CARE has engaged in several disaster preparedness projects, jointly with other partners. COOPI in consortium with CARE Ecuador executed the emergency project "Support to rural and suburban communities damaged by the floods in the five Provinces of the Coastal Area" in the Provinces of Esmeraldas, Manabí, Guayas, Los Ríos and El Oro (2002). CARE Ecuador and CARE Peru agreed to take advantage of the opportunity to develop disaster prevention and risk reduction work in the border area within the framework of the third and fourth DIPECHO calls, and were awarded funding for bi-national projects: FOCADES project (May 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005) and DECABI project (March 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007) whose overall objective was to reduce disaster risk (flooding) in two neighbouring municipalities and two provinces located on the border region of Ecuador and Peru.

CARE, in partnership with KNH Ecuador, executed the SINCHIRUNA Project: “Strengthening disaster preparedness and response capacities in the provinces of Chimborazo and Cañar, with an emphasis on the indigenous population,” in coordination with the National Risk Management Secretariat (May 2009 – Nov 2010).

3.2 Actions currently on-going and funding requests submitted to other donors (including other EC services) in the same area of intervention – indicate how overlap and double funding would be avoided * Max 3800