Koshi River floods, Nepal
Inter Agency Monitoring Visit for Shelter and NFI Items
Sunsari, 23rd Jan 2009
An inter agency monitoring visit for Shelter and Non Food Items (NFIs) was organised by the Shelter
Cluster group on 23rd Jan 2009. The group visited two IDPs camps in Sunsari, Lauki Devkota Camp
(Rotary Shelter Box 1) and Lauki Custom camp. Participating agencies included DDRC, UN HABITAT,
Habitat for Humanity, IOM/CCCM, UN OCHA, NRCS UNICEF/WASH and World Vision International.
Of the 7,584 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from the Koshi floods, 40 IDP families were
interviewed. These results and analysis outlined provide simply a snap-shot of views. They are not
representative of the views of the majority.
The purpose and expected outcomes are outlined in the attached ToR (Annex I.)
The Objectives, as outlined within the ToR:
• To examine the impact of current shelter and NFIs distributions to the IDP camps.
• To track the delivery process of selected shelter and NFIs from inception to final
distribution in two IDPs camps.
• To use the learning obtained from the monitoring visit to improve preparedness for future
• To develop the cooperation and operational practice among implementing agencies.
The teams visited 2 camps, viz. Lauki Devkota (Rotary Shelter Box 1) and Lauki Custom Camp. The
criteria for camp selection considered:
I. Structure formal camps, as categorized by IOM/CCCM.
II. Accessibility, close to the highway.
III. Variation, two different kinds of camps, one is expensive shelter tent donated by Rotary
International whilst the other was supplied with heavy duty tarpaulin and bamboo poles, donated
The 40 IDPs households were randomly selected in the 2 camps, 20 IDP households from each camp
were asked to participate in the interviews. A questionnaire was developed (see Annex II.) with a total
of 10 questions, divided into 3 sections. These were
a) Overall Assessment and Delivery of products (among implementing agencies)
b) Deliveries (at beneficiary level)
c) Recovery (at beneficiary level)
The questionnaire was designed as such to cross check information provided by the implementing
partner and beneficiary. A total of 5 sub groups from the participating agencies were selected, each
group interviewing 4 IDPs in the two camps. Questions were translated into Nepali and Maithali. The
information collected was entered into a excel spread sheet (see Annex III. attached) and analysed.
The following NFIs and shelter items were monitored: Plastic Sheet (heavy duty and light duty), blanket,
sleeping mat, kitchen set and shawl.
From this analysis, the following results, conclusions and recommendations are outlined.
Section a - Overall Assessment and Delivery of products (among implementing agencies)
From the results provided, the implementing agencies interviewed all of them indicated the initial needs
assessment was conducted within a week of the onset of floods. The deliveries of humanitarian
assistance were provided by 80% of agencies within 2 weeks of the initial assessments being
undertaken. Of agencies interviewed, 80% were positive with the Emergency Shelter Cluster
Section b Deliveries (at beneficiary level)
Of the IDPs interviewed, 72.5% indicated that needs assessments were undertaken within one week,
15% within 2 weeks, 5% within 3 weeks and 7.5% after 4 weeks. Of the IDPs interviewed, 100%
indicated the receipt of Shelter/NFIs from different agencies. Plastic sheets (heavy duty and light duty)
and blankets from NRCS, sleeping mats from World Vision International and kitchen sets from Marwadi
Sewa Samiti, Rotary International and Save the Children, and warm shawls from UNFPA/WDO &
Of the total IDPs interviewed, 52.5% indicated of the items distributed (those monitored in the
questionnaire) were insufficient to meet their immediate household emergency needs. With 27.5%
indicating the number of sleeping mats, kitchen set and blankets as inadequate.
Section c Recovery (at beneficiary level)
Of the IDPs interviewed, 55% mentioned they were aware of the government and inter agency return
package. Yet 80% indicated they were unaware of the NRCS /home toolkit included in that return
package. When asked to outline a % of funds they intended to allocate from the government grant for
repairs/rehabilitation of their homes, 57.5% indicated they would not invest any amount in home
construction or repairs. However, 25% indicated they would invest up to a maximum of 30% of the
grant, with 17.5% indicating an investment of 50% of the grant.
Based on the results from the questionnaire specific to the performance of the implementing
I. The reaction of agencies to mobilise rapid assessment teams and deliver essential items
II. The role of the ESC was satisfactory in facilitating the shelter and NFIs appeals, pledges
Based on the feedback from IDPs
I. All the IDPs received their required quotas of the shelter materials and NFIs monitored.
II. There was inconsistency in the numbers of some items provided. For example for kitchen
sets. One implementing agency Marwadi Sewa Samiti provided 8 pieces, whilst Save the
Children provided 15 pieces and NRCS provided 14 pieces.
I. Of the IDPs interviewed, 55% were aware of Government and Inter agency return package. Yet
only 20% of this same group were aware of the NRCS tool kit included in the return package.
II. More than half (58%) of the IDPs interviewed do not intend to any of the 50,000 NRs
Government grant for the reconstruction of their houses. Reasons may include:
- the government allocation is insufficient baring in mind other needs such as ,food, clothes,
education health, livelihoods.
- the extent of damage to their homes and estimated cost of repairs is negligible.
- there is a lack of clarity in government and humanitarian agencies return package. For
instance are IDPs expecting more funds being made available for house
The response of the humanitarian agencies to assess the needs of the Koshi affected was prompt, as
was the delivery of essential NFIs and shelter items. There are question over the amounts provided to
meet their overall needs of IDPs who are now in their 6 month of living in camps. Moreover some
deliveries were delayed for months.
The public information is weak in adequately informing IDPs of the recovery package. Surprisingly there
is a major reluctance by interviewed in IDPs to invest in the repair and reconstruction of their homes.
The standardisation of items being provided is lacking both in quality and quantity of items. This
warrants lobbying and to be institutionalised for in future interventions. For example, Rotary club
provided 642 IDPs with tents worth 15,000 NRs, whilst the remaining IDPs received two plastic sheets
heavy duty and a bamboo frame /poles from NRCS.
I. The government and implementing agencies agree on a standardisation of items provided. With a
set package of shelter and NFIs institutionalised. This is based on varying family sizes and
climatic locations (terai, mid hills, mountain areas)
II. Improvements in better planning the camp design to reduce risks. To include sufficient spacing
between tents to avoid the spread of fires. Whenever possible Sphere standards need to be
enforced and maintained.
III. An improved public information system. Suggested improvements include, public notices boards,
hands out of leaflets (in local language), better use of local fm community radio.
IV. More comprehensive monitoring visits to all the IDP camps to monitor the distribution of NFIs and
V. A baseline survey to document the extent of damage of returnee’s homes in the green zone. The
survey would also provide an estimate repair costs for each Household.
VI. Improved coordination among the Government, shelter cluster team, IOM/ CCCM,
UNICEF/WASH and other implementing agencies in preparation of the recovery phase.