DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SCHOOLS

Document Sample
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SCHOOLS Powered By Docstoc
					            DISASTER RISK REDUCTION THROUGH SCHOOLS
                     PROPOSAL TO DFID FROM ACTIONAID INTERNATIONAL

Section I: Basic Data Sheet / Summary
Name and address of applicant: Louise McLean, International Emergencies and Conflict Team,
ActionAid International, Hamlyn House, Macdonald Road, London, N19 5PG

Name of project: Disaster Risk Reduction Through Schools

Name of partner(s):
International: Institute for Development Studies (research on model / dissemination), PAMOJA
(methodology design), ISDR (strategic support)
Country level (including community, district and national level): Nepal: Lumanti, BEE Group,
Education Network, National Society for Earthquake Technology, Disaster Preparedness Network,
Centre for Policy Research and Consultancy; Malawi: Local Government structures (Village
Development Committees; Area Civil Protection Committees; District Civil Protection Committee;
Education Ministry), The Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education; Haiti: Regional
Coordination of South East Organisations (CROSE); Education Network for All (REPT); Kenya: Elimu
Yetu Coalition; Womankind Kenya; Ghana: Community Development Initiative (CODI), District
Education for all Teams, Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition (GNECC), Northern Network
on Education (NNED); Bangladesh: Solidarity, Esho Desh Gari, South Asia Partnership, Campaign
for Popular Education (CAMPE) India: Rural Volunteers Centre, Sadhana, KERATAM, Association for
Rural Development, National Alliance for Right to Education and State Education Departments.

Project Summary:
         The Goal of the project is to reduce people’s vulnerability to natural disasters by contributing
towards the implementation of the Hyogo framework. The purpose is to make schools in high-risk
disaster areas safer, enabling them to act as a locus for disaster risk reduction, institutionalizing
implementation of the Hyogo Framework within education systems. The project will work in 7
countries, in selected districts at high-risk of diverse natural disasters. The main local outputs will
include schools in high-risk disaster areas that are safer and communities that are organized around
schools for disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. More widely, an effective methodology
will be developed that can be replicated in other schools, influencing national level policy and practice
in ways that can be easily replicated in other countries and other sectors. A distinctive approach,
adapting participatory vulnerability analysis for use in schools will be a defining feature of the project,
helping to build the awareness and analysis of children, parents, teachers, district officials and agency
staff around disaster risk reduction.
         The project implementation will be at three levels – Local (up to District), National and
International. At local level in high-risk disaster districts innovative work will be done in specific
schools (and surrounding communities), undertaking participatory analysis (PVA) with children,
teachers, parents and the wider community. Awareness-raising will be done within schools and wider
communities to build preparedness, enable local tracking of trends and support capital investments
and other actions to make schools safe. At district level, district-wide action plans will be developed
and supported around disaster risk reduction through schools. Nationally policy implications will be
drawn out by broad coalitions / networks to promote national level reforms - and work will be done to
train and sensitise around the Hyogo Framework. The experiences will be rigorously documented and
shared internationally with all key stakeholders.
         The primary beneficiaries will be in 56 schools in the selected districts in the 7 countries, with
over 15,000 pupils (and their parents) and over 300 teachers (and school management committee
members / directors). The communities immediately surrounding these schools will also be primary
stakeholders (at least 80,000 community members). There will also be significant benefits to over 3
million people in the wider districts - where specific actions will be taken benefiting all schools and
therefore all communities. The secondary stakeholders will be those national and international
agencies involved in education or disaster preparedness.

Project cost: Total cost and amount sought from DFID is £2,809,704 (which is 100% of the budget)

Project duration: The total length of the project will be 5 years, starting in October 2005 and finishing
in October 2010. Each country will have a core implementation period over 3 years.
Section II: Project Rationale
Core Issues and Approach
The central focus of this project is on reducing risks and vulnerabilities to crises (in line with DFID’s
Humanitarian Assistance priorities) through innovative work in the education sector. The 2005 Hyogo
Framework for Action seeks to ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority
through using both national platforms and community participation. It refers to the inclusion of disaster
risk reduction in education, but there are few examples of how to do this effectively in practice within
the education sector at both local and national levels.

Media images capture the immediate effects of the constant cycle of floods and droughts, of
hurricanes and earthquakes, of volcanic eruptions or pest attacks but tend to ignore the larger, less
visible effects on people’s health and livelihoods, and the social disruption which are now
acknowledged to create permanent poverty traps and act as a drag on economic development.
Climate change could add to existing disaster burdens by causing extreme climatic events to become
more frequent and intense in the coming years - as well as producing new risks. The impact of
disasters is profound on everyone, but is felt most deeply by poor people who are often least able to
prepare and least able to recover. In some countries, early warning systems help some sectors of the
population but everyone should have the opportunity to reduce the risk of disasters and to mitigate the
effects. If this is not achieved, then the present impact of disasters on food security, basic livelihoods
and human security may become even more severe in the future.

The biggest challenge is to be pro-active. It is hard to universalise and institutionalise preparedness
for disasters when, though often recurrent, disasters may only occur occasionally. Linking to schools
presents a unique opportunity – as even in the poorest countries, schools are the most omnipresent
institutions of the State. By working with schools, each new generation can be made better prepared.
Schools play a critical role during and after disasters in many contexts. They are often havens for
whole communities during disasters; a part of people’s coping strategies. But few schools are well
prepared to play this role. This project will help schools prepare so that they will be safe havens and
be able to re-open more quickly after a disaster. This can be crucial as the functioning of a school has
a powerful normalizing and stabilizing effect, both on children and on wider communities. The project
will build understanding among teachers of how to identify and deal with distress and trauma caused
by disasters. This project will also enable schools to make changes to the fabric of the school, to
make it physically safer.

This project will also increase the level of awareness of risk in schools, building knowledge among
teachers, parents and children. Information on hazards, mitigation measures, nutrition and
preparedness plans will be shared, both in the classroom and out. Use of participatory approaches
will allow information to be locally appropriate. The project will expand the role that schools play in
helping communities assess and adapt to climate change, tracking trends and balancing the
knowledge of elders with new evidence.
          .
The overall framing of this project is provided by the Hyogo Framework for Action. ActionAid
International will work in partnership with schools, educational institutions and networks as well as
governments and international agencies in order to implement risk reduction activities in line with
Hyogo, through schools. The project will be implemented in seven countries: Nepal, Bangladesh,
India, Kenya, Malawi, Ghana and Haiti.

Our Experience
ActionAid International has a reputation for working on development, education and emergencies in
Asia, Africa and the Americas. ActionAid has more than 10 years experience specifically in
emergencies, with a strategic focus on disaster reduction. We were actively involved in the whole
Kobe process, running a parallel session at the conference on people-centred governance. We are
committed to building pressure in each country for governments to implement the Hyogo Framework.
We are members of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction. We have spent 5 years
                                                                 1
developing a methodology for participatory vulnerability analysis .

ActionAid has 30 years of experience working with schools across Africa, Asia and Latin America,
promoting innovations in school-community relationships, making curricula more relevant, training
teachers with new approaches and developing teaching-learning materials. In recent years ActionAid

1
  Participatory Vulnerability Analysis (PVA) is a systematic process that involves communities and other stakeholders in an in-
depth analysis of their vulnerability, and at the same time empowers or motivates them to take appropriate actions.

                                                                                                                                  2
has also played a leading role in building national civil society coalitions on education in many
countries. The coalitions channel innovative work from grassroots practice into national level reforms
in education policy and practice. They have a potential to play a key role in promoting innovative
responses to disaster risk reduction in all schools and in establishing the Hyogo Framework at a
national level (acting as an example to other sectors). The links between our education and
emergencies work are strong. ActionAid has managed large multi-country projects successfully, for
example the Commonwealth Education Fund (£10m) set up by the UK Treasury and DFID.

Most resources will be going to the local partners reflecting their pivotal role in developing innovative
work in schools and communities that will be the base of this project in the seven countries. Most
national and international partners will play a strategic support role, drawing on their own core funds
to supplement the relatively small share of funding requested here – as this work connects to their
core missions. The range of countries has been weighted to Africa and Asia because these two
continents carry the highest exposure to natural disasters in terms of lives lost and impact on poverty.
Haiti has been added to ensure that experience generated by the project can be of wider relevance to
small island developing states (SIDS) which account for nearly a quarter of the world’s nations and
suffer from specific vulnerabilities.

Bangladesh: ActionAid has been working in Bangladesh since 1983 and education and emergency
response activities have been strong areas of thematic foci. For this project partners are:
Local partners: (a). Solidarity – Education Campaign partner of ActionAid Bangladesh. They formed a
district level alliance articulating citizen’s demand for quality education. (b). Esho Desh Gari –
Experienced disaster preparedness organisation and Working with School Management Committees
to strengthen school governance. (c) South Asia Partnership (SAP) – ActionAid partner since 2000.
SAP has extensive experience of working on disaster preparedness and have supplementary
education material developed and piloted.
National Partner: Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE) – formed in 1990: a network of over 400
mainstream NGOs involved in policy and campaigning work on quality education for all.

Nepal: AA Nepal has long-term commitment and existing partners at national and local levels in
education and emergencies work. It is a co-founder of the Disaster Preparedness Network.
Local Partners: (a). LUMANTI – Has been an ActionAid partner in Kathmandu Valley since 1998. Its
focus is on education for urban poor and squatters’ children. It has disaster preparedness projects
e.g. relating to water drainage in slums and disaster friendly housing construction for displaced
people. (b). BEE Group – Working with over 250 child clubs to communicate peace messages within
schools and communities, especially in Banke district.
National Partners: (a). Education Network (EdNet) work on national education policies; (b) National
Society for Earthquake Technologies (NSET), who participated in the Kobe conference, work on
awareness initiatives on disaster management, particularly earthquake safety; (c) Disaster
Preparedness Network (DPnet) – a network of 30 organisations working on community based disaster
preparedness, with knowledge-building and policy influencing roles; (d) Centre for Policy Research
and Consultancy (CPReC) – has strong documentation and information dissemination experiences.

India: ActionAid India has responded to major disasters such as the Latur and Gujarat earthquakes,
the Orissa super-cyclone and the Tsunami in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Andaman Islands.
Local partners: Assam State: (a) Rural Volunteers Centre – an ActionAid partner for 4 years working
on issues related to community based disaster preparedness. They will work with local community
based organisations including Gram Vikas Manch & Lotus Progressive Centre both of whom have
been working with AA since the floods in 2004. Andhra Pradesh State: (b) Sadhana (c) KERATAM
(d) Association for Rural Development - all work on the rights of fisherfolk and education.
National partners: National Alliance for Right to Education (NAFRE); the newly established National
Disaster Management Authority (and State-level counterparts) and State education departments.

Ghana: ActionAid has worked in Ghana for a long time in thematic areas such as education, food
rights, institutional capacity building and peace-building.
Local Partner: Community Development Initiative (CODI) – has partnered with AA Ghana for over six
years. It works in the areas of peace education in schools, HIV/AIDS, Livelihood enhancement and
gender. They are experienced in using participatory vulnerability analysis.
National Partner: Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition (GNECC) – campaigning for quality
education. At a regional level, AA Ghana will also work with Northern Network on Education (NNED).

Kenya: ActionAid has 30 years experience in education and hosts the Commonwealth Education
Fund and other major programmes. It also works on drought preparedness and emergency response.

                                                                                                         3
Local partner: Womankind Kenya (WOKIKE) – Working on pastoral livelihoods, women and girl child’s
rights, drought preparedness and education activities.
National partner: Elimu Yetu Coalition (EYC) – Formed in 1999 by the assembly of civil society and
professional groupings. It has a membership of 120 organisations and works towards achievement of
Education for All (EFA), with active concern for marginalized groups such as pastoralists.

Malawi: ActionAid Malawi has 20 years experience of education, livelihoods and emergency work.
Local partner: (a) Community level partners include pupils, teachers, parents, school management
committees and village development committees; (b). At district level the main partners will be
government departments, especially the District Education Office and the District Civil Protection
Committee – a structure that coordinates disaster preparedness, response and monitoring.
National Level: Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE) – Is a coalition of 58
members with a strong track record of linking local and national work.

Haiti: ActionAid Haiti works on education support, emergency response and policy advocacy.
Local Partners: Regional Coordination of South East Organisations (CROSE), a partner since 2003, is
a social movement working in all 3 communes of the South East Department, comprised of
community based organisations and cooperatives. It works on education, capacity-building for
member organisations, emergency response and rehabilitation (especially in flood hit areas).
National partner: Education For All Network (REPT) – A national coalition of teachers’ organisations,
NGOs and Union with a good reputation for advocacy and campaigning work.

The project will draw from lessons learned through the diverse work of these partners and
ActionAid’s own direct work. There are some specific experiences we will seek to replicate or adapt,
such as the experience of the disaster safety nets campaign in the Makwanpur area in Nepal, drought
mitigation work in Orissa and drought preparedness activities in Northern Kenya. One major lesson
that we are drawing on is that schools can act as focal points for wider change within communities –
places from which new ideas can be disseminated, through children, through parents and through
teachers. Changes within the microcosm of schools can have significant impacts on wider society –
and these impacts can be highly sustainable given the universality of school provision and the
continuity inherent in the education system.

Section III: Project Methodology
The Goal of the project is to reduce people’s vulnerability to natural disasters by contributing towards
the implementation of the Hyogo Framework.

The purpose is to make schools in high-risk disaster areas safer, enabling them to act as a locus for
disaster risk reduction, institutionalizing implementation of the Hyogo Framework within education
systems.

The main local outputs will include schools in high-risk disaster areas that are safer and communities
that are organized around schools for disaster prevention, preparedness and mitigation. More widely,
an effective methodology will be developed that can be replicated in other schools, influencing
national level policy and practice in ways that can be easily replicated in other countries and other
sectors. A distinctive approach, adapting participatory vulnerability analysis for use in schools will be a
defining feature of the project, helping to build the awareness and analysis of children, parents,
teachers, district officials and agency staff around disaster risk reduction. The project implementation
will be at three (four) levels – Local (up to District), National and International. These levels have
different areas of programmatic activity:
• Local: In each country particular districts have been identified that are at high risk of recurrent
natural disasters. Within these districts, particular schools have been identified where intensive work
will be done with children, teachers, parents and the wider community using participatory vulnerability
analysis (PVA) and other approaches for analysis of trends, awareness raising, attitudinal change and
tracking in respect of risk reduction and preparedness, climate change and environment focused
activities. There will be specific capacity building work with Parent-Teacher Associations and School
Management Committees. Various approaches will be used to link the school and the wider
community, including child-to-child and child-to-parent methodologies to communicate what to do in
emergencies and how to reduce risks. Support will be provided for community mobilization and
advocacy as needed to enable the community to be safer and better prepared (including addressing
safety for children not in school). All this work will be rigorously documented – both in respect of
processes and outcomes, with a particular use of case studies. Some capital investments will be
supported within the selected schools. This investment will enable schools to make changes to the

                                                                                                         4
fabric of the school to make it physically safer or able to play a more active normalizing function
during and after disasters. Changes will be limited to things that can be affordably replicated by
governments. If major changes are required the project will help schools raise adequate funding.
• District: Building on the foundation of intensive work in particular schools, further work will be
done with relevant agencies at district level with a view to influencing all schools in the district. This
will start with PVA at district level. Learning will be consolidated and shared across schools to define
best practice. Courses will be developed for wider in-service training of teachers within the district and
disaster risk action plans will be developed to help all local schools reduce risks, raise awareness and
deal with the consequences of disasters. Follow up workshops will be held with local government,
education officials and leaders to define wider changes to policy and practice. Resource materials will
be developed and distributed.
• National: Networking and advocacy work will be undertaken to change national education
policies and practices based on consolidated learning from the local work. This may include
developing new teaching-learning materials and other information materials / resources; reviewing
and reforming the curriculum to insert disaster risk reduction in relevant places and popularizing the
methodologies and processes used at local levels. This work will be led particularly by national
education coalitions bringing together different agencies from across civil society so that, together
with governments, they can draw out policy implications and issues for national level reform (e.g. from
school-building policies to curriculum issues / training). There will also be some wider work on training
and sensitizing based on the Hyogo Framework and the local projects. Links will be made between
the national education coalitions and national platforms taking forward the Hyogo Framework.
• International: PVA will be adapted for work on disaster risk reduction in schools and core
resource materials will be developed at the start of the project. Learning will be drawn out and
compiled from the seven different countries in order to influence programme design and policies
internationally – both in the education sector and in other sectors. Two conferences will be organized
(in Africa and Asia) to share learning from the project. Active engagement with help from ISDR and
IDS (and through ActionAid’s membership on the Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction) will
seek to inform and influence the policies and practices of relevant UN agencies, inter-governmental
bodies and international NGOs. Because much natural disaster risk reduction can be seen as
adaptation to climate change, the project will pay particular attention to linking knowledge and
practitioner level expertise with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whilst most of these core activities will be shared across countries there will of course be some
considerable diversity in different countries. Some may emphasise children and teacher tracking
weather patterns and building up local data over time on climate variability and change. Some will
focus on preparedness whilst others also consider post-disaster recovery. There will be differences
that arise owing to the different context and/or disasters faced – for example drought in the selected
district of Kenya, plagues of pests in Ghana, floods in Malawi and Haiti, earthquakes in Bangladesh,
landslides in Nepal, coastal erosion in India. Many of the selected districts are prone to several types
of disasters, adding to the complexity. One of the strengths of the project is allowing communities
through PVA to order and voice their own sense of priorities among the list of vulnerabilities.

Whilst all the projects will share a core basic model there will also be considerable diversity in
approach or emphasis arising from the existing experiences and competencies of the partners
involved in each district / country. For example, in Nepal, children’s clubs in schools will be a key
means for introducing disaster risk reduction – and reaching the youth in communities is seen as key.
In Bangladesh there are plans to develop a specific code of conduct around education delivery in the
context of disasters. In India, “emergency response teams” will be formed and trained to help schools
recognise, respond and recover from a disaster. A particular focus will be placed on psycho-social
counselling in schools with training modules developed for teachers, children and community
members. In Malawi there is particular interest in how schools can help communities protect their
basic livelihoods in the context of disasters. Haiti sees important roles for schools to be involved in
budget tracking work in the context of disasters. Meanwhile Kenya is committed to working on
disaster preparedness with a child-rights perspective and Ghana will seek to directly link the Ghana
Fire Service and National Disaster Management Organisation into schools.

The nature of the capital investment supported will also vary enormously based on the type of
disaster being faced and the solutions identified by the children, parents and teachers as most
practical and replicable in each location. The precise works cannot be defined in advance as they will
emerge from PVA processes but the range of ideas identified in different countries include:
constructing water pans or rain catchment structures including guttering or water tanks; digging
drainage ditches around schools; establishing school gardens for drought-resistant crops; putting in


                                                                                                           5
solid shutters on windows; fitting alarms, emergency bells, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms; crop
diversification; seed storage systems, investing in computers / internet to link to meteorological news;
building extra latrines (for use if schools take on shelter roles); investing in comprehensive first aid
kits; developing earthquake-safe zones; repairing roofs; tree planting to limit flooding / landslides;
creating seasonal nurseries for pre-school children.

The key is that all of these will be identified by local people on the basis of systematic local analysis
and discussion (involving children, parents, teachers) and all will be implemented with very modest
budgets (so they can be replicable). Where larger structural change is required the focus will be on
helping people identify possible funding sources to do the work - and in the meantime influencing the
design of future schools so that key measures can be fitted as standard.

Stakeholders
The first level of primary stakeholders of this project will be in 56 schools in the selected districts in
the 7 countries, with over 15,000 pupils (and their parents) and over 300 teachers (and school
management committee members / directors). The communities immediately surrounding these
schools will also be primary stakeholders (at least 80,000 community members). The districts were all
selected as ones which are prone to recurrent disasters of one or more type (balanced to ensure a
range of disasters faced across the different districts / countries). A second criteria for selection of
districts involved the presence of committed partner organizations with experience of doing similar
work (if not this sort of intervention directly). The specific schools were chosen in conjunction with
district authorities and partner organizations, with some initial discussions having taken place with
head-teachers. The project is designed to systematically involve all these primary stakeholders in a
participatory process to design and develop suitable strategies to reduce risks and mitigate the effects
of disasters. These primary stakeholders will be involved at all stages of project implementation.

Beyond these specific schools and communities a second level of primary stakeholders in the project
can be identified in the wider districts - where specific actions will be taken benefiting all schools and
therefore all communities. This level of benefit will reach three or four million people. There will be
some active level of involvement in district level processes and with children and teachers in all
schools though somewhat less intensively than in the 56 specific schools.

The secondary stakeholders will be those national and international agencies involved in the work.
Clearly particular impacts will be felt in the relevant government agencies, UN bodies, donor agencies
and non-governmental organisations concerned with education or disaster preparedness in the 7
countries. There will be some extension of this impact beyond the 7 countries through the regional
conferences and international publications.

The sustainability of this project is inherent in the approach taken. We will establish a cost-effective
model for schools to deal with disaster-risk reduction. The locally developed approaches in the
targeted schools will be mainstreamed at district level and then core insights will inform national level
policy and practice. Up until now governments lack clear and cost effective examples of how to
address disaster risk reduction through education systems. This project will establish means for doing
so – in ways adapted to different contexts and cultures. The diverse locations of the projects should
help to build ownership in different sub-regions and regions where disasters of one kind or another
are currently prevalent (e.g. in East, West and Southern Africa as well as South Asia and the
Caribbean). Sustainability will come from embedding awareness in mainstream education processes
– so that disaster risk reduction is located where appropriate in the national curriculum, is integrated
into teacher training colleges or text book development, influences national policies on school building
regulations or school calendars, and informs new guidelines for school management.

In the particular schools and communities the sustainability of the project will lie in the raised
awareness and changed behaviour, in new early warning or early response systems, in low cost new
infrastructure that increases safety, in the collective knowledge that the school has shared with the
community. With climate change, new risks and new disasters may appear, but if schools are helping
to track local changes and trends they can be in the forefront of helping to prepare for additional
burdens and for the unexpected. The partner organizations and government agencies involved in this
project will also have accumulated knowledge and skills that will endure beyond the funding period
and can be replicated elsewhere.




                                                                                                            6
Section IV: Project Management and Implementation
The management and implementation of the project will involve the following range of functions:
International: 1. Overall Project Manager based in one of the implementing countries. His/her
responsibilities will include: management of the project; oversight; monitoring; international policy
work; lesson learning and management of international partnership relationships. 2. Advisory
Team: Including Head of Education, The Head of Emergencies and Conflict Team, Partnership
Development Coordinator and Farhana Yamin (from Institute of Development Studies - IDS) –
drawing on others as needed. 3. Part-time Finance Coordinator, likely to be based with the Project
Manager. His/her role would involve; finalising quarterly budgets with country programmes, monitoring
spend versus budget, co-ordinating the internal auditors, meeting any external audit requirements and
compiling the financial reports for claims (liaising with local Heads of Finance).

National: 1. A national Project Coordinator (or equivalent post) in each ActionAid country
programme to cover management, coordination, policy, finance and learning. 2. The ActionAid
Country Director - will have overall oversight responsibility. 3. A national ActionAid Advisory
Team – in-country contacts/leads in Education, Emergencies, Finance and Partnership will be part of
the advisory and support team to the project – linking to all relevant partners below. 4. National
partners (as listed by country in section II) – a clear role in linking local work to national work and
taking forward the national activities (as listed in section III).

Local / District: 1. Local partners (as listed by country in section II) – taking forward activities at
local and district level (as outlined in section III).

The intention is to link in each country to all relevant government ministries and departments (such as
education, environment, disaster management), appropriate inter-agency networks (e.g. UK based
NGO Disaster Reduction Group), United Nations’ agencies and any other organisations as suitable.
An initial mapping has identified agencies presently responsible for taking forward the Hyogo
Framework in each country and these will be important reference points for the whole project.

The overall project timeframe is five years from October 2005. The actual implementation period per
country programme is a 3-year period. However, in each country there is also a short start-
up/preparation period and a short ending/exit period. This is as outlined in the chart below.

  Country         Activity                2005      2006         2007     2008     2009          2010
  International   Pre-Phase               Oct -
                  (recruitment etc), p    Dec
  International   Design W/shop for                 January
                  PVA/Educ. process
  Bangladesh      Project period                    March                            Feb
                                                    2006                           2009.
  Malawi          Project period                    March
                                                    2006                           Feb.2009
  Ghana           Project period                    Oct.2006
                                                                                   Sept.2009
  Haiti           Project period                    Oct. 2006                        Sept
                                                                                   2009.
  Nepal           Project period                      Oct.                           Sept.
                                                    2006                           2009
  Kenya           Project period                                 March                           Feb
                                                                 2007                            2010.
  India           Project period                                 March                           Feb
                                                                 2007                            2010.
                  Final evaluation /                                                             To
                  policy work etc                                                                Sept
                                                                                                 2010

Section V: Project Monitoring, Learning, and Dissemination
There will be constant monitoring and reporting processes at local, national and international levels
with monthly, quarterly and annual activity implementation and progress reports. Annually there will be
review and reflection processes using participatory methods to involve the primary stakeholders of the

                                                                                                          7
project (as listed in section III). A peer review exercise is planned in the first implementing countries
after the first year, with other countries participating in order to learn directly and apply learning as
they develop their own programmes. Peer reviews will also be used in other countries to share
learning across countries and help resolve problems that arise. The very fact that the project is being
implemented in seven different countries, covering a range of disaster prone contexts, will provide an
insightful basis for learning from varied environments to integrate elsewhere. A special review (with
external support) will be conducted in the eventuality of a significant disaster occurring within one of
the selected districts within the timescale of the project.

Independent research on the experiences of this project will be conducted in collaboration with IDS
and will be coordinated by Farhana Yamin (IDS). This will focus on the effectiveness of the
approaches and model used, contextualizing these in relation to other models and helping to refine
the model. IDS will also help with connections to wider debates on climate related mitigation and
adaptation, and in advising on disseminating of this work to wider audiences of policy makers and
practitioners. An end of the project evaluation will also be conducted and coordinated by ActionAid
International’s Johannesburg and London offices. The findings from all the countries will be compiled
and published.

The project quarterly and annual report per country will be given to DFID. This will include financial
and narrative activity updates. Regular consultative meetings will also be held with DFID as and when
the need arises. An electronic newsletter / project briefing paper will be published on a six-monthly
basis with key information from the project, case studies, interviews with primary stakeholders and
insights from different countries. This will be very widely distributed and will be posted on the
ActionAid web-site. Key staff from the project will seek to input into relevant national and international
workshops and processes where this project may be of interest and importance.

One of the key publications will be a Practitioners Guide, which will pull together key insights from the
project to share with people in other countries who wish to replicate the approach. This will map out
practical steps for adapting PVA and other methods to disaster risk reduction in schools. It will be very
different to the policy oriented research findings which would be of interest to a more select audience.

Two regional conferences will also be held – one in Africa and one in Asia – for policy makers and
practitioners interested in learning from these projects, with a view to influencing other countries within
each region and relevant regional and international bodies. We anticipate that all these mechanisms
will facilitate a huge multiplier effect so that what happens intensely in 56 schools and communities,
and in considerable depth in numerous districts, will be felt far beyond these immediate locations and
may influence policy and practice in all countries committed to taking forward the Hyogo Framework.
Indeed, we hope that the insights from addressing disaster risk reduction through schools may also
inspire others to take forward initiatives in other sectors.

Section VI: Risks
Risks                               Probability   Consequences                    Actions to mitigate or minimise
Significant disaster occurs         Medium        Preparedness / risk             Re-schedule timing / study
early on in one of the districts.                 reduction not in place so       the disaster and the impact
                                                  value cannot be measured.       in schools
Participatory processes identify    Medium        Frustration generated if the    Help link people to other
solutions that need capital that                  project cannot respond to       funding sources / urge
exceeds available resources                       the demand at all               modest actions in interim
Participatory processes identify    Medium        Frustration that the PVA        Clarify that project focuses
non-natural hazard related                        process has pre-determined      on risks relating to natural
vulnerabilities as high priority                  choices and intervention        hazards and ensure full
and/or do not prioritize school-                  outcomes                        transparency of project
based activities as solutions                                                     parameters
Local projects not seen to be       Medium        Disillusionment. Project        Ensure interventions are
replicable in other districts or                  stuck at micro-level. Wider     cost-effective / encourage
even within districts                             impact limited                  diversity. Draw out policy
                                                                                  implications.
National level policy and           Medium        Policy work loses touch with    Ensure strong local-national
advocacy work gets divorced                       reality / recommendations       links and use local people
from local work                                   will be driven by ideology or   as key advocates in national
                                                  self-interest not learning.     processes.



                                                                                                             8