Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 ‐ 2013) Specific Contract No ECHO/ADM/BUD/2013/01205                                                                   implementing Framework Contract No ECHO/A3/FRA/2012/04‐Lot 1 

Directorate‐General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection 

Executive Summary 

22 September 2014 

The opinions expressed in this document represent the views of the authors, which are not necessarily shared by the European Commission.

 

This page is intentionally blank

  

3

Executive summary 

The European Union (EU) has been supporting disaster risk reduction (DRR) around the globe through a dedicated ECHO Programme for Disaster Preparedness (DIPECHO) since 1996. In 2003, Central Asia became the sixth DIPECHO region to be targeted by the Programme and in 2009, geographical coverage of the Programme was expanded to the South Caucasus region. Meanwhile, building on the success of DIPECHO, DG ECHO launched a specific DRR programme in the Horn of Africa (HoA) in 2006 focusing on drought risk reduction. While DG ECHO’s overall approach to DRR and the nature of the activities funded is similar across the two regions, they differ in terms of context. In the HoA, DG ECHO focuses on drought, a slow onset hazard and the single most important disaster risk facing the region. In Central Asia and South Caucasus (CAC), DG ECHO interventions deal with a range of small scale, rapid onset hazards that often go unnoticed at a national level, but have serious impacts at the local level. The joint evaluation thus, examines DG ECHO’s approach and activities in two different contexts and by doing so, provides the opportunity for cross-learning between the two regions and a broader evidence base for policy making.

Objectives and scope of the evaluation 

This evaluation is both summative and formative in nature. It assesses the coherence, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of DG ECHO’s DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC over the period 2009 to 2013; and provides a series of recommendations for improving the future orientation of DG ECHO’s approach to DRR.

During the period covered by the evaluation, DG ECHO invested almost 70 million euros in DRR in the two regions, with three-quarters of this investment going to the HoA. Funded activities included both community managed DRR (CMDRR) projects as well as broader actions aimed at advocacy, institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming.

The evaluation is based on extensive: desk research; stakeholder interviews with Commission officials and DG ECHO partners; and six country missions (covering Kenya/ Uganda, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia) where a broad range of stakeholders (including beneficiaries) were interviewed and sixteen projects sites were visited. To conclude the data collection and validation process, four debriefing workshops were held in Kenya, Ethiopia, Tajikistan and Georgia with key stakeholders at the end of each country mission.

Key findings and conclusions of the evaluation 

Coherence and complementarity with international/ EU frameworks for DRR and national strategies 

DRR is a core element of DG ECHO's mandate as per Council Regulation (EC) no. 1257/96 on Humanitarian Aid. As such, the objectives of the Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) in the HoA and the DIPECHO programme in CAC are coherent with the EU legal base. DG ECHO’s DRR approach and interventions are also largely aligned with the main priorities articulated in:

the 2009 EU DRR Strategy and its implementation plan;

the 2012 Resilience Communication;

the Hyogo Framework for Action; and

regional/ national DRR plans and strategies where these exist.

  

4

In line with the policy objectives set out in the high level documents mentioned overleaf, DG ECHO-funded actions have contributed to DRR awareness raising and capacity building at all levels (and particularly at a local level) in the two regions. The above strategies also call for an integrated approach to addressing DRR1 and underlying risk factors (such as climate change, natural resource exploitation, urban development, environmental degradation, etc). The integration of DRR into issues that constitute underlying risk factors has been (indirectly) supported by DIPECHO through efforts aimed at mainstreaming DRR within development policy and programming, rather than by directly funding integrated projects in CAC. In the HoA, given the strong and concerted push towards mainstreaming of DRR within the resilience agenda, the recent trend has been to fund integrated DRR projects, while stand-alone DRR projects are only funded in specific countries and contexts.

Relevance: continuing need for ECHO funding

In both regions (HoA as well as CAC),, there is arguably a continuing role for DG ECHO financed DRR, not only as a stand-alone activity, but also as one that is integrated into development planning (which is increasingly seen as the way forward). However, DRR needs and capacities vary across countries. For example, the DRR agenda and institutional set-up is more advanced in some countries than in others (e.g. Kenya and Ethiopia), and some countries do not necessarily require external financing for DRR (e.g. Kazakhstan).

Relevance: addressing the needs of the ‘most vulnerable’  

In both regions (HoA as well as CAC), DG ECHO-funded actions have targeted the communities/ villages that are the most exposed to droughts / disasters, yet it is not possible to determine whether the participating communities/ villages were the ‘most vulnerable’. This is because the vulnerability analyses carried out by partners are usually only performed on a limited basis and do not fully characterise the vulnerabilities of proposed participating communities.

Cross‐cutting issues

In CAC, ‘Climate Change Adaptation’ (CCA) and ‘Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development’ (LRRD) were found to be inadequately addressed as ‘cross-cutting issues’, both at a programme level and a project level. It should however, be noted, that CCA was never intended to be addressed as a cross cutting issue in CAC. Partners were encouraged to incorporate CCA elements, “where feasible”, in the project design and during implementation.

In the HoA on the other hand, LRRD has provided the overarching framework for DG ECHO's DRR interventions and a concerted effort has been made to link humanitarian and development assistance in the region. DG ECHO’s DRR interventions have also applied CCA principles into practice by helping communities to better cope with the impact of drought (and thus, adjust/ adapt to one of the main effects of climate change in the region).

As regards the cross-cutting issues of gender, age and disability2:

In the HoA, DG ECHO partners could arguably have done more to address the specific needs of women by designing specific DRR actions for women rather than merely ensuring women’s inclusion in projects. The needs of children and the elderly were relatively less well addressed; however, in the later phases of the DRRAP, DG ECHO encouraged partners such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Save the Children, Oxfam and HelpAge to address these needs. Disabled persons were not addressed at all during the period covered by the evaluation (2009 – 2013).

In CAC, projects were seen to have made special efforts to reach out to and engage women and children in DRR activities. However, only a handful of the projects considered the special needs of the elderly and disabled.

1 The integration of DRR into issues that constitute underlying risk factors can be (indirectly) supported through efforts aimed at mainstreaming DRR within development policy and programming. More directly, DG ECHO could fund integrated DRR projects i.e. projects integrating DRR with climate change adaptation, natural resource management, environmental management, livelihood support, water purification, and erosion control, etc. 2 It is noted that the new single-form introduced in 2014 includes a ‘gender age marker’ to assess the extent to which the funded action is integrating gender and age considerations.

  

5

In both regions, given the focus on community-based DRR, community networks (where these exist), community level stakeholders and members were typically involved in project design and implementation. Communities consulted during fieldwork expressed satisfaction and appreciation with their involvement in DG ECHO-funded actions.

EU Added Value 

The key dimensions of this added value - as evidenced by this evaluation (in both regions) - are as follows:

DG ECHO funded DRR activities that would not have otherwise been implemented (or in the best case, would have been implemented at a much smaller scale);

DG ECHO is widely recognised as a front-runner in promoting DRR in the two regions;

running a dedicated funding programme for DRR;

adopting a combination of a top-down (advocacy and institutional linkages) and bottom-up approach (community based) to DRR. DG ECHO’s focus on communities as central actors in DRR is unique;

local presence through DG ECHO field offices and their role in facilitating coordination and cooperation between partners and creating a linked-up community of DRR players; and

an innovative regional approach encompassing cross border and multi-country projects.

Choice of partnerships 

The choice of partnerships was found to be appropriate in the HoA and CAC, building upon the comparative strengths of the organisations involved. In the HoA however, some DRRAP partners were funded over successive phases despite weaknesses in project design and issues with past performance.

The choice of local implementing partners has also generally been appropriate, although the evaluation indicates that there is scope for DG ECHO partners to involve local NGOs to a greater extent in the design and implementation of their DRR actions with a view to long-term local capacity building, sustainability and paving the way for successful ‘handovers’.

Partners’ capacity and commitment 

Partners are committed to achieving the objectives of DG ECHO-funded DRR actions. However, the start-up of projects is often rather slow (often due to delays in national authorities’ decision-making processes and approvals) and their exit strategies are often weak. There is often an implicit expectation of continued funding from DG ECHO under new funding cycles.

Substitution effect 

Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that DG ECHO was competing with or substituting the activity of other humanitarian and development actors in the period covered by this evaluation. DG ECHO-funded actions were filling a critical gap in activity that is essentially the responsibility of national/ local authorities, but which they were unable to fulfil due to lack of resources, capacity and know-how.

Learning and innovation over successive phases 

Where partners have received funding for “regional projects”3 under multiple cycles, they have revised their approaches in order to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. However, country-specific projects, in the HoA have tended to change or expand the number of communities covered over successive phases. Although innovative approaches have been developed and applied through DG ECHO funding – particularly at a community level, partners have not necessarily demonstrated significant fresh innovation over successive phases, nor have they demonstrated how lessons learned from previous phases have been addressed. In contrast, in CAC considerable efforts have been undertaken to generate lesson-learning guidance and inventories of best practices, but they are not

3 “Regional Projects” are those which are implemented throughout the whole region covered by a funding decision (e.g. the HoA), and which typically have a focus on technical support, coordination and advocacy.

  

6

systematically promoted to potential ‘recommendation domains’ and are instead taken up in an ad-hoc way by partners, across regions and between funding cycles.

Effectiveness 

DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have demonstrably enabled local communities and institutions to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to natural disasters, thereby increasing resilience and reducing vulnerabilities. Some of the ‘softer’ effects of DG ECHO funded interventions include:

increasing beneficiary communities’ awareness, knowledge and understanding of disaster risks and mitigation measures; and

triggering behavioural changes, such as improved sanitary practice and the diversification of livelihoods (in the HoA) and empowering communities to respond rapidly in the case of emergencies, through simulations, evacuation plans, etc (in CAC).

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that DG ECHO-funded actions have directly contributed to protecting lives, assets and livelihoods - although these impacts are typically not documented. Finally, DG ECHO-funded actions have also contributed to reinforcing sub-national/ local response capacities by investing in Early Warning Systems (EWS), providing training to local authority officials, establishing and developing Local Disaster Management Committees (LDMCs) and linking these with local authorities, organising simulations, etc.

While DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have delivered both tangible and intangible benefits, it is impossible to determine the cumulative impact of DRRAP / DIPECHO with current monitoring and evaluation systems. Most notably, there are no tools in place for partners to systematically capture information on losses avoided as a result of DG ECHO-funded actions in case of a disaster.

Replication, scaling‐up and mainstreaming 

As regards the mainstreaming of DRR, significant progress has been made in the HoA (although the level of progress varies between countries). Moreover, although DRR has been mainstreamed in policy documents,4 national and local authorities are still dependent upon external sources of funding for DRR activities, particularly community-based DRR.

In CAC, the main successes have been in the mainstreaming of DRR within the education sector. Beyond education, there are still considerable challenges facing DIPECHO in integrating DRR in other relevant sectors (health, agriculture, environment, etc) and overall development planning and programming.

There is some replication and scaling-up of activity under DRRAP and DIPECHO, however a massive scale-up only appears to have taken place in Kazakhstan. Further, there has been no “spontaneous” (community-led) replication / scaling up. In other countries, replication and scaling-up of DG ECHO funded DRR actions is not as extensive as it could be.

Sustainability 

Some of the activities implemented through the DRRAP/ DIPECHO show evidence of continuation, even after DG ECHO funding has ended. This has been the case:

where DG ECHO partners have secured additional funding from other donors to continue / scale-up the action;

where the action has been mainstreamed into the regional / national / local agenda or relevant sectoral policies; and

when DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have led to changes in knowledge, awareness and/ or behaviour (although changes in knowledge and behaviour will need to be reinforced).

It however, remains a challenge to sustain the initial benefits of community based actions such as replenishing stockpiles, maintaining mitigation measures, providing ‘refresher training’ and ensuring

4 See for example, Sector Plan for Drought Risk Management and Ending Drought Emergencies; Second Medium Term Plan 2013 – 2017 (Kenya); National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management (Uganda); Parliamentary Forum on Disaster Risk Reduction Strategic Plans (Uganda); and the 2013 National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management (Ethiopia).

  

7

that the various DRR community groups established by projects ‘keep going’, despite community out-migration and membership turnover.

Cost‐effectiveness 

A consolidated picture of the aggregate outputs and results achieved at programme level cannot be obtained due to weak reporting systems and the absence of standardised monitoring indicators. Consequently, it is not possible to determine if the ‘same results’ could have been achieved with less funding. The relevance, effectiveness and added value of ECHO funding have however, been demonstrated. Moreover, wider evidence on the costs and benefits of DRR consistently shows that (i) there are high economic and social returns from DRR actions—both from DRR projects on their own or when integrated with development projects and that (ii) DRR investment brings greater benefits than costs5.

On balance, it can therefore be concluded that, the money was spent wisely, although the efficiency of DG ECHO funding has been constrained by limited: replication, scaling-up and mainstreaming of funded DRR actions.

Strategic recommendations 

This evaluation highlights important considerations about the future direction of DG ECHO’s strategy and approach to DRR in the HoA and CAC. A number of strategic recommendations have been made to support enhanced policy impacts and maximise the added value in the future. These are set out below.

Recommendation 1: DG ECHO’s DRR funding should be targeted towards the countries and beneficiaries that are most in need

The evaluation reinforces the need to focus DRR funding on countries facing a high level of risk for disasters, while lacking the financial and technical capacity to reduce their own levels of risk. Specifically, within CAC, this calls for a more selective approach to country coverage going forward.

The entry criterion for DG ECHO funding should be countries where DRR gaps are the greatest in relation to domestic capacity and needs. The achievement of the specified objectives for the country concerned should be the point of exit. This calls for a clear specification of country level DRR objectives – see also Recommendations 8 and 9.

Furthermore, within the target countries, funding should be directed to:

specific DRR sub-sectors, areas (rural and/ or urban) and communities that are most in need; and

the DRR investments that are most needed (but which can be effectively funded by DG ECHO given its comparative advantages and funding/ political constraints).

In this context, DG ECHO should examine how to account for new communities at risk, such as urban communities and pastoral drop-outs in the HoA.

Scope of ‘DRR’ in the HoA 

Recommendation 2: DG ECHO should consider widening the scope of its ‘DRR’ activities in the HoA from ‘drought risk reduction’ to ‘disaster risk reduction’

The HoA is prone to many hazards such as droughts (slow-onset), floods, landslides, lightening (all of which are rapid-onset hazards), diseases and epidemics (e.g. Ebola, malaria, etc). Although drought remains the single most important risk facing the region, significant progress has been made in recent years in mainstreaming drought risk reduction within the resilience agenda, where it quite naturally fits. A number of donors are now active in this ‘space’, leaving fewer gaps to be filled with DG ECHO funding. Some of the other hazards might however, be less well addressed by national/ local

5 For a summary of the literature, see Shyam, K.C., 2013. Cost benefit studies on disaster risk reduction in developing countries. East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Disaster Risk Management (DRM) knowledge notes working paper series ; no. 27. Washington DC: World Bank.

  

8

authorities and donors alike. DG ECHO should therefore, consider widening the scope of its programming activities from ‘drought risk reduction’ to ‘disaster risk reduction’ in the HoA.

Overall approach to DRR 

Stand‐alone versus integrated DRR approaches 

Recommendation 3: Alongside stand-alone DRR projects, DG ECHO should direct more support to (integrated) projects addressing underlying risk factors in CAC

DG ECHO should consider directing more support to projects addressing underlying risk factors and DRR in an integrated manner, while remaining cognisant of the implications of such an approach in terms of the concomitant desirability of reduced support for stand-alone DRR projects in the region.

The long-term nature of interventions aimed at addressing underlying risk would however, need to be reconciled with the short term funding cycles of DIPECHO and budgetary constraints. This could be achieved by:

increasing support for the ‘repeat funding’ of projects which, over two or more funding cycles, take on the successive phases of the work required to tackle the longer-term nature of dealing with risk factors; and

requiring greater levels of co-financing from alternative sources (see also Recommendation 15).

Recommendation 4: Following on from Recommendations 1 and 2, DG ECHO should continue to support both standalone as well as integrated DRR projects in the HoA

DG ECHO should continue to follow a ‘blended’ approach to DRR that includes financing for both stand-alone as well as integrated DRR projects depending on the country context and the risks being addressed.

Geographic approach to funding decisions (regional versus country specific programming) 

Recommendation 5: DG ECHO should maintain a regional approach to funding decisions in HoA and CAC

This evaluation demonstrates the strong added value of adopting a regional approach to DRR. A regional approach allows DG ECHO to fund regional and multi-country/ cross-border projects (which is widely regarded as a key element of DG ECHO’s unique added value), facilitating cooperation and collaboration across partners and national/ local authorities and promoting efficiencies through the exchange of material, good practices and lessons learned. A regional approach also gives DG ECHO the flexibility to deal with country level variations in the absorption of DRR funding. Given that the evaluation found no evidence to suggest a shift in approach, DG ECHO should continue to follow a regional approach to its funding decisions in the HoA and CAC.

A ‘top down’ versus ‘bottom‐up’ approach 

Recommendation 6: DG ECHO should continue to adopt a combination of ‘top- down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches to DRR, considering that the two approaches are highly complementary and mutually reinforcing (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

This evaluation demonstrates the added value and benefits of supporting policy advocacy and institutional linkages in conjunction with community or sector based DRR projects, although arguably there is scope to further enhance the linkages between the two. For instance, community-based or sector-specific DRR projects should provide the ‘ammunition’ to advocate for DRR, e.g. real life stories, evidence and data on risks, costs and benefits, etc. This is already the case in the HoA.

Engagement with UN Agencies 

Recommendation 7: DG ECHO should adopt a more strategic approach to its engagement with the United Nation (UN) Agencies (this recommendation only applies to CAC)

UN agencies have a long-term in-country presence and often have remits that strongly relate to DIPECHO’s mandate: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/ United Nations

  

9

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) in wide terms for DRR globally; UNICEF for education; and the World Health Organisation (WHO) for health. These bodies have evident and considerable potential to take on or support strategic leadership in specific DRR sub-sectors, and this is not properly addressed by their inclusion as competitors for DG ECHO funding, alongside international NGOs such as Oxfam or CARE, for example. A more strategic approach to working with UN partners is warranted, for example through joint DRR needs assessment, priority setting or even coordinated funding of DRR activities.

Improved accountability, monitoring and reporting 

Recommendation 8: DG ECHO should precisely define the objectives of each Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

The HIP objectives should be ‘SMART’, providing a clear idea of what each funding decision is expected to achieve and by when. There should be a clear hierarchy of objectives including:

global objectives (corresponding to impact indicators);

specific objectives (which correspond to result and outcome based indicators); and

operational objectives (which correspond to output indicators).

To the extent possible, objectives should be specified in quantitative terms and for each country of operation.

Better ex-ante specification of objectives would allow for improved (ex-post) measurement of impact. Evidence on the benefits of DRR is critical for persuading other donors and national authorities to replicate and scale-up DG ECHO-funded activity.

Recommendation 9: HIPs should be accompanied by a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

Related to the above recommendation, HIPs should be implemented in concert with a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework that systematically covers the activities and results achieved across the portfolio of funded projects, and that generates information both for internal project management, as well as for evaluating progress at programme level. This would include enhanced attention to risks and assumptions, both at project and programme levels.

The M&E system should be based on a core set of standardised indicators6 to enable inter-project comparison and aggregation across the portfolio. Partners could still be allowed the flexibility to use some project-specific indicators.

Recommendation 10: DG ECHO should better demonstrate the impact of its DRR funding (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

To persuade others (to replicate or scale-up), both DG ECHO and partners, should place more emphasis on collating, presenting evidence on return on investment and where feasible, generate quantified estimate costs and benefits of their activity, e.g. actual/ expected reduction in disaster losses as a result of the funded action.

Building local capacity 

Recommendation 11: DG ECHO should provide capacity building support to local NGOs to ensure long term capacity and sustainability of DRR (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

On the basis that DG ECHO has decided against any amendments to the Financial Regulation (to allow it to directly fund NGOs), a separate evaluation on the subject offers practical steps that DG ECHO can take in the short to medium term to support local NGO capacity building7. For example,

6 The monitoring indicators contained in ECHO’s 2013 thematic paper on DRR could be used as the basis for developing a more complete set of indicators that are relevant across all DRR programmes. 7 Germax (2013) Evaluation of the potential effectiveness and efficiency gains of working directly with local NGOs in the humanitarian interventions of the Commission.

  

10

DG ECHO could incentivise its partners to more systematically involve local NGOs in their projects; DG ECHO could also directly engage in dialogue with key local NGOs to inform the design of HIP and discussions on good practice and lessons learned, etc. Such an investment would help build the capacity of local NGOs to continue DRR activities ‘kick-started’ with ECHO funding over the longer term.

Operational recommendations  

Recommendation 12: Partners should be required to undertake a more comprehensive assessment of vulnerability (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

In their needs assessment, partners should be asked to not only provide an assessment of disaster risks and vulnerabilities, but also the underlying risk factors and root causes of vulnerability.

Vulnerability assessments underpinning the selection of target beneficiaries should also be improved. Partners should be asked to provide the following information:

Which socio-economic groups have been identified as the ‘most vulnerable’ in the targeted geographical area, sector or other ambit?

Why are these specific groups especially vulnerable? What causes and risk factors make these groups more vulnerable than others groups in the same community or in relation to other related communities?

Recommendation 13: DG ECHO should support the systematic ‘harvesting’ of lessons learned and good practices developed (this recommendation only applies to CAC)

DG ECHO should develop materials that capture lessons learned and generate reflections with partners at the end of each funding cycle, via a process involving the review of project documents, and regional and inter-regional workshops; and then implement a process whereby these lessons and measures are delivered to partners and properly accounted for, by successful applicants in next funding cycle.

The identification of good practices has mainly focused on community based DRR activities. DG ECHO and partners should be encouraged to document and share good practice in policy advocacy.

DG ECHO could also support national authorities in generating assessments, at the end of each funding cycle, of the implications of the completed projects for national DRR programming. An example could be the preparation of one or a series of presentations to national DRR official platforms, where these exist. This could include proposals for how government DRR and sectoral ministries could be enabled to take up findings and apply these in their programming, including determining key gaps and developing proposals and applying to international bodies for DRR funding.

DG ECHO should advocate for DEVCO resilience programmes to actively incorporate learning from its DRR investments and the establishment of processes to capture lessons learned. This could include more detailed attention to DRR issues during DEVCO country programming and within frameworks such as national or regional environmental profiles, taking advantage of DG ECHO guidance and best practices materials. This would ensure that priority sector programmes designed within country assistance strategies would account for opportunities to tackle DRR either as a cross-cutting issue or via a specific set of measures.

Recommendation 14: DG ECHO should coordinate donor-mapping exercises for each region on a regular basis to support focussed advocacy efforts (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

To support successful advocacy, DG ECHO should commission regular donor mapping exercises which identify the main donors active in each country of interest, their programming cycles, funding priorities and financial envelopes.

Recommendation 15: DG ECHO should encourage projects to mobilise co-financing from domestic public or private sources or other donors (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

This recommendation is self-explanatory.

  

11

Recommendation 16: Multi-country projects should be required to establish and demonstrate links between activities in different countries through for example, cross-border learning or knowledge exchange activities, joint activities such as simulations and trainings, etc (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

This recommendation is self-explanatory.

Recommendation 17: Projects should receive funding over multiple cycles only if they show improvement, differentiation in approach or innovation over successive cycles (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

Projects receiving funding over multiple funding cycles should be underpinned by a justification based on:

support by DG ECHO of decisions by national authorities to pre-qualify and authorise DG ECHO’s portfolio of winning projects, to avoid delays in starting-up due to slow authorisation of these;

clear additionally of actions;

lessons learned from previous cycles taken up via strategic assessment and uptake actions; and

innovation in approach.

Recommendation 18: DG ECHO partners should be required to better articulate their plans to promote the sustainability of funded outputs and outcomes, including risks to sustainability and mitigating measures (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

This recommendation is self-explanatory.