DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,
June – July 2006
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
Dushanbe, GBAO, Khatlon, Varzob, Vahdat, Yavan,
Rasht valley, Sughd, Khojent
Tashkent, Ferghana, Namangan, Andijan
Bishkek, Osh, Jalalabad, Issyk-KulKyrgyzstan
Briefing from ECHO office in Dushanbe
Presentations by Organisations combined with meetings (2
Visits of communities, mitigation sites, schools, training
facilities, disaster committees, first aid and emergency
Meetings with Ministries of Emergency Situations, (where
Meetings with other Organisations involved in disaster
reduction, other Donor Organisations, ISDR, World bank
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
In some but not all cases mitigation projects are being implemented and
supported, being carried out by the communities themselves wherever
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
What is the level of effectiveness of each
partner based on the 8 criteria?
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
What do you and your Organisation think about DG
Echo's Strategic Orientation and Intervention Logic?
20 minutes group work
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
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?
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
What are the lessons learnt and the
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.
Has DIPECHO successfully disseminated its
best practices in Central Asia?
No, there seems not to be a systematic approach to the
promotion of DIP Echo’s best practices.
What are the programme results at
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 women’s groups and school children
Awareness of actions to take in the event of a disaster including
how to help others after the event
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
Should there be an expansion of capacity or
geographical locations within the region?
Difficulty to work in some countries – but needs exist
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
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
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
Workshops and seminars with partners to explain preferred ways of
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
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
20 minutes group work
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
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