Document Sample
DIPECHO_Evaluation_REACT_ENG_119811_137291 Powered By Docstoc
					DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster
   Preparedness evaluation

  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
                   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
   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
   Meetings with other Organisations involved in disaster
    reduction, other Donor Organisations, ISDR, World bank
    implementation contractors
 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?
        Relevance
        Coverage
        Efficiency
        Effectiveness
        Impact
        Sustainability
        Results achieved
        Accountability
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
             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.
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
                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 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
        reduction plan?
            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

Shared By: