DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF

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

A Report by ICF International

22 September 2014

25 June 2014

The opinions expressed in this document represent

the views of the authors, which are not necessarily

shared by the European Commission.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/gallery/2009/oct/13/?picture=354204752

https://www.ifrc.org/fr/nouvelles/nouvelles/common/central-asia-on-the-road-to-effective-regional-disaster-response/

http://www.theguardian.com/society/gallery/2009/oct/13/?picture=354204756

This page is intentionally blank

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013) Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

A report submitted by ICF Consulting Services

Date: 22 September 2014

Charu Wilkinson Lead Managing Consultant +44 (0)782 794 6021 [email protected]

ICF Consulting Services Limited Watling House 33 Cannon Street London EC4M 5SB

T +44 (0)20 3096 4800 F +44 (0)20 3368 6960

www.icfi.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.icfi.com/


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

Document Control

Document Title Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013)

Prepared by Charu Wilkinson, Laura Robson and Martine Sobey

Contributing technical & thematic specialists

Volker Hüls and Erik Toft (Horn of Africa); Torsten Mark Kowal (Central Asia and

Caucasus)

Checked by Robin Bloch

Date 22 September 2014

This report is the copyright of the Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection,

European Commission. It has been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to

Directorate General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. The contents of this report may not be

reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any other organisation or person without the specific

prior written permission of Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.

ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information

supplied by the client and/or third parties in the course of this project. ICF is however, unable to

warrant either the accuracy or completeness of client and/or third party information. ICF does not

accept responsibility for any legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or

indirectly as a result of the use by ICF of inaccurate or incomplete client and/or third party information

in the course of this project or its inclusion in project outcomes.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

Contents

Abstracti

List of abbreviations and acronyms ...........................................................................................ii

Executive summary...................................................................................................................vii

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Evaluation context and scope ...........................................................................................1 1.2 Evaluation Approach and Methodology .............................................................................5 1.3 This Report .....................................................................................................................9

2 DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Caucasus ...10 2.1 The context for DRR: hazard risk and vulnerability ........................................................... 10 2.2 Overview of DG ECHO funded DRR intervention in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and

South Caucasus ............................................................................................................ 14

3 Evaluation Findings and Conclusions.........................................................................21 3.1 Coherence and complementarity .................................................................................... 21 3.2 Cross-cutting issues....................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 40 3.4 Internal coherence ......................................................................................................... 51 3.5 EU added value ............................................................................................................. 54 3.6 Delivery mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 56 3.7 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 63 3.8 Cost-effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 78 3.9 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................ 83 3.10 The multi-partner (consortia) and the multi-country approaches ........................................ 88 3.11 Unintended / unexpected effects ..................................................................................... 91

4 Recommendations .....................................................................................................93 4.1 Strategic recommendations ............................................................................................ 93 4.2 Operational recommendations ........................................................................................ 96


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

i

Abstract

This evaluation report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the joint evaluation

of ECHO’s disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities in the Horn of Africa (HoA) and Central Asia and

South Caucasus (CAC). The conclusions from this evaluation primarily apply to these two regions. But

they are also of broader relevance for DG ECHO’s DRR interventions in other regions. The aim of this

evaluation is to provide an objective assessment that can serve as a basis for internal reflection and

debate within the Commission about its overall approach to DRR and post-2015 DRR strategy.

In the HoA, ECHO focuses on building communities’ resilience and national / regional institutional

capacity to address drought, a slow onset hazard and the single most important disaster risk facing

the region. In CAC, ECHO interventions aim at preparing communities and authorities to deal with a

range of small scale, rapid onset hazards that often go unnoticed at a national level, but have serious

impacts at a local level. The joint evaluation thus, examines similar activities in two rather different

contexts. By doing so, it provides the opportunity for cross-learning between the two regions and a

broader evidence base for policy making. Over the period covered by this evaluation (2009 – 2013),

DG ECHO has invested nearly 70 million euros in DRR actions in the two regions. Funded activities

have included both community based DRR (CBDRR) projects as well as broader actions aimed at

advocacy, institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming.

The evaluation concludes that ECHO funded projects have, inter alia, made a demonstrable

contribution to (i) reducing vulnerability, limiting damage and saving lives at a community level; and (ii)

advancing the DRR agenda at a national level through advocacy, institutional capacity building and by

raising awareness among decision-makers of the need to integrate DRR into longer term development

policies in all countries covered by the evaluation. Through regional programming, ECHO has brought

together DRR stakeholders and partners, thus facilitating a joined-up approach to DRR, and sharing of

knowledge, tools and materials. On the less positive side, this evaluation finds that the replication and

scaling up of community projects is not as extensive as it could be; the linkages between DRR and

development planning and programming have not been fully established in most countries; and the

sustainability of outputs and outcomes beyond ECHO funding cycles continues to be an issue. The

evaluation provides a series of strategic and operational recommendations to address these issues

and to guide ECHO’s future approach to DRR.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

ii

List of abbreviations and acronyms

AAME Adult African Male Equivalent

ACCRA Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance

ACF Action Contre Faim (Action Against Hunger) (NGO)

ACH-ES Accion Contra Hambre (Action Against Hunger)- Spain (NGO)

ACTED Agence d'Aide a la Cooperation Technique et au Developpement (Aid Agency for Technical

Cooperation and Development) (NGO)

ADB Asian Development Bank

APFS Agro-Pastoral Field Schools

ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

ASP Arid Lands Support Programme

ASPU Armenia State Pedagogical University

AYWA Armenian Young Women’s Association

BRACED Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters

C&D Cooperation and Development (NGO)

CAC Central Asia and (South) Caucasus

CAHW Community Animal Health Workers

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

CCA Climate Change Adaption

CC Children’s Clubs

CDRR Community Disaster Risk Reduction

CENN Caucasus Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation

CERT Community Emergency Response Teams

CHIP Climate High-Level Investment Programme

CIA Central Intelligence Agency (US government)

CIDA Canadian International Development Agency

CIFA Community Initiative Facilitation and Assistance (Kenya and Ethiopia)

CMDRR Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction

CoBRA Community Based Resilience Analysis

CoES Committee of Emergency Situations

COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale (NGO)

CORDAID Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid (NGO)

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSP Country Strategy Paper

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency

DCA Danchurch Aid (NGO)

DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area

DLCI Dryland Learning and Capacity Building Initiative (formerly REGLAP)


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

iii

DDMO Drought Disaster Management Office (Kenya)

DEVCO EuropeAid - Development and Co-Operation Office of the European Commission

DFID Department for International Development

DG DEVCO Directorate-General Development and Cooperation

DG Directorate-General

DG ECHO Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

DIP Disaster Preparedness

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO

DMI Disaster Management Initiative

DMO Drought Management Officer

DP Drought Preparedness

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRS District of Republican Subordination (Region of Tajikistan)

DRRAP Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan

EAC East African Community

EC European Commission

EDF European Development Fund

EEDP Energy, Environment and Development Programme

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

E-LEAP Learning, Evaluation and Advocacy Programme

EMD Emergency Management Department

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

ERRA Electronic Regional Risk Atlas

ET Ethiopia

EU European Union

EU-DEL European Union Delegation

EWS Early Warning System

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FSTP Food Security Thematic Programme

GAM Global Acute Malnutrition

GBAO Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (region of Tajikistan)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEL Georgian Lari (currency)

GIS Global Information System

GNA Global Needs Assessment

HCS Hararghe Catholic Secretariat

HF Humanitarian Funding

HFA Hyogo Framework for Action


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

iv

HIP Humanitarian Implementation Plan

HoA Horn of Africa

HQ Head Quarters

HVCA Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

IGA Income Generating Activity

IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IO International Organisation

IOM International Organisation for Migration

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change

IRC International Rescue Committee

IRF Internal Risk Facility

ISG Inter-Service Group

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KALIP Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (an EU funded programme in Uganda)

KE Kenya

LDMC Local Disaster Management Committees

LDS Livestock Disease Surveillance

LR Livelihood Recovery

LRRD Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development

MC Mercy Corps (NGO)

MI Management Information

MIP Multi-annual Indicative Programme

MLVI Multidimensional Livelihood Vulnerability Index

MOE Ministry of Education

MoES Ministry of Emergency Situations

MoH Ministry of Health and Social Protection

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSDSP Mountain Societies Development Support Programme

NDCF National Drought Contingency Fund

NDMA National Drought Management Authority (Kenya)

NDRMs National Disaster Risk Management Strategy

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NIP National Indicative Programme

NRI National Resources Institute (University of Greenwich)

NRM Natural Resource Management

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)

ODI Overseas Development Institute


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

v

OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

PACIDA Pastoralist Community Initiative and Development Assistance (Kenya)

PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment

PFS Pastoral field school

PILLAR Preparedness improves Livelihoods and Resilience

PPRD Programme for Prevention, Preparedness and Response

RAIN Revitalising Agricultural and pastoral Incomes and New markets

RAU Resilience Analysis Unit

RC Red Crescent Society

RDD Regional Drought Decision (DG ECHO)

RDMI Regional Drought Management Institutions

REGLAP Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme

RISPA Regional Livestock Initiative In Support Of Vulnerable Pastoralists

RITT Republican In-service Teacher Training Institute

RSO Regional Support Office (DG ECHO)

SCUK Save the Children United Kingdom

SCUS Save the Children United States of America

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SHARE Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience

SILC Savings and Internal Lending Community

SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound

SOM Somalia

SODIS Solar Disinfection

SSD Support for Sustainable Development (NGO)

STC Support to Communities

SUN Scaling Up Nutrition

SWD Staff Working Document

TA Technical Assistant

TLU Tropical Livestock Unit

ToR Terms of Reference

TOT Training of Trainers

UG Uganda

UN OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Act ivities

UN United Nations

UN WFP United Nations World Food Programme

UNDP DDC United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre

UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund

UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

UPFDRR Ugandan Parliamentary Forum on Disaster Risk Reduction


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

vi

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USD US Dollars

VICOBA Village Community Banks (Kenya)

VSF Veterinaires Sans Frontieres (Vets Without Borders) (NGO)

WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

vii

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.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

viii

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 t hrough 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).

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.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

ix

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.

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 (ECHO Field) 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

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.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

x

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

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;

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).


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

xi

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

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.

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.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

xii

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

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 promot ing 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


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

xiii

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

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.

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.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

xiv

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,

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.

7 Germax (2013) Evaluation of the potential effectiveness and efficiency gains of working directly with local NGOs

in the humanitarian interventions of the Commission.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

xv

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.

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 17: Projects should receive funding over multiple cycles only if they show

improvement, differentiation in approach or innovation over successive cycles (this


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)



(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

1

1 Introduction

This document constitutes the Final Report for the Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk

Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009-

2013). The evaluation was launched by the Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil

Protection (DG ECHO) in December 2013. The work was undertaken by ICF with specialist

inputs from experts in the fields of international development, humanitarian assistance and

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).

The Final Report details the work undertaken and provides a synthesis of the evidence

collected within the framework of this evaluation; it sets out the findings and conclusions

emerging from this evidence; and provides a series of recommendations to inform the future

orientations of ECHO’s approach to DRR in the two regions.

1.1 Evaluation context and scope

The EU has been supporting DRR around the globe through a dedicated ECHO Programme

for Disaster Preparedness (DIPECHO) for almost two decades now. DIPECHO was

launched in 1996 and is currently implemented in eight disaster prone regions including

Central Asia and South Caucasus8 (CAC) – Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Regions targeted by DIPECHO and the major risks they face

Source: European Commission website (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/what/humanitarian-aid/risk-reduction). Last

updated 20/05/2014

8 DIPECHO has been funding DRR projects in Central Asia since 2003. In 2010, the programme coverage

expanded to the South Caucasus region.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/what/humanitarian-aid/risk-reduction


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

2

DIPECHO supports both community based DRR projects as well as broader actions aimed

at advocacy, institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming - Figure 1.2 provides an

overview of the types of DRR actions supported by ECHO.

Figure 1.2 DRR actions supported by DG ECHO

Building on the success of DIPECHO, ECHO launched a specific DRR programme in the

Horn of Africa (HoA) in 2006 focusing on drought risk reduction. While DIPECHO and the

drought risk reduction programme are similar in terms of overall approach to DRR and the

nature of operations, there are important differences between the two:

The scale of the intervention: the HoA accounts for a major share of ECHO’s DRR

funding. For example in 2012, the global annual financial envelope for DIPECHO

was 35 million euros (spread across eight regions)9, whereas 20 million euros was

allocated to drought risk reduction in the HoA alone.

The context for intervention: while DIPECHO interventions aim at preparing

communities and authorities to deal with rapid onset disasters, DG ECHO’s DRR

actions in the HoA address slow onset hazards such as droughts in some of the

world’s poorest countries.

9 C(2012) 6970 final – Global financial decision. [online] Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/worldwide_01000_mod2_en.pdf

Institutional linkages and advocacy e.g. supporting multi-stakeholder dialogue, facilitating coordination and information exchange between key DRR actors, technical and institutional capacity building etc.

Local disaster management components e.g. early warning systems, local hazard and vulnerability mapping, local capacity building and training (e.g. creating local disaster management committees, organising simulations and evacuation exercises etc.)

Small scale infrastructure (community level) e.g. structural mitigation measures such as drainage and irrigation works, reforestation/ plantation; reinforcement of infrastructure such as roads and bridges; building evacuation shelters etc.

Information, education and communication e.g. awareness and media campaigns, promoting formal (through schools and universities) and informal DRR education

Stock-building of emergency and relief items e.g. pre-positioning of stocks and/or equipment, upgrading of storage facilities; provision of basic equipment such as rescue kits and first aid kits

Livelihood and economics assets protection e.g. promoting resilient farming practices and inputs, reforesting and repaiting of water catchments, elaborating plans for livelihood protection and recovery etc.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/worldwide_01000_mod2_en.pdf


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

3

HoA context: the recurrent and protracted natures of droughts in the HoA and the

resultant humanitarian crises have created frequent demands for humanitarian aid,

thus justifying the volume of ECHO funding for this region. Given the protracted

nature of droughts and the vicious cycle of socioeconomic effects that they set off,

one of the main focuses of ECHO’s DRR actions in this region has been to promote

the mainstreaming of DRR within the wider resilience building and development

agenda through advocacy measures.

CAC Context: the relatively recent emergence of CAC countries from central

command socio-economic systems, the complexity of small-scale, localised and

rapid-onset hazards, the paucity of donor support for DRR and the size and

proximity of this region to Europe, have been decisive factors in determining the

evolution of DIPECHO in this region.

This evaluation assesses the relevance (including coherence and EU added value),

effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of ECHO’s DRR interventions in the HoA and

CAC over the period 2009 to 2013. During this period, ECHO invested almost 70 million

euros in DRR in the two regions, with three-quarters of this investment going to the HoA.

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the specific funding decisions that fall within the scope of

the present evaluation (the evaluation focussed on the funding decisions highlighted in bold

as per ECHO’s guidance) and Figure 1.3 overleaf shows the countries covered by these

decisions.

Table 1.1 Scope of the evaluation

Region Funding Decision Financial

Envelope

Number of projects

(actions) funded

Horn of Africa

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2008/01000* EUR 30M 19

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2009/01000 EUR 10M 15

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2010/01000 EUR 20M 26

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2012/91000 (2012 DRAAP)** EUR 20M 21

Sub-total EUR 80M 81

S. Caucasus ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/06000 (DIPECHO I) EUR 2M 3

C. Asia ECHO/DIP/BUD/2010/02000 (DIPECHO VI) EUR 7M 8

S. Caucasus & C. Asia

ECHO/DIP/BUD/2012/0100 (DIPECHO II and VII respectively)

EUR 8M 16

Sub-total EUR 17M 27

*was partly covered by the 2009 evaluation. **The total financial envelope for the 2012 Humanitarian

Implementation Plan (HIP) was EUR 86.5 million of which EUR 20 million was allocated to the Drought Risk

Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) for the Horn of Africa

The present evaluation builds on the previous evaluations of ECHO’s DRR interventions in

these regions and is particularly timely given the ongoing discussions and debates on the

post-2015 DRR framework10

. It is expected that a successor to the Hyogo Framework for

Action (HFA) will be launched in 2015 alongside new Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs)11

and a new international climate change agreement12

. This presents a unique

opportunity for the international community and national governments to address sustainable

development, DRR and climate change in a coherent manner. The evaluation will hopefully

10

Further information on the post-2015 DRR framework can be found on UNIDSR’s website. [online] Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015 11

Further information can be found on the UN website. [online] Available at: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 12

[online] Available at: http://www.un.org/climatechange/towards-a-climate-agreement/

http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300

http://www.un.org/climatechange/towards-a-climate-agreement/


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

4

feed into any internal reflections at the European Commission on its own approach to these

issues post-2015.

Figure 1.3 Regions and countries covered by the evaluation13,14

High vulnerability Medium vulnerability Low vulnerability

13 ECHO Global Vulnerability Assessment. Average values for the years 2009-2013. 14 It should be noted that w hile the Horn of Africa encompasses Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, DG ECHO’s actions in this region also covered Uganda and (in 2008 only) Sudan. The 2008 DRRAP Funding Decision (ECHO/-

HFR/BUD/2008/01000) covered Southern / Eastern Sudan, although no projects w ere f inally implemented there.

Horn of Africa

Central Asia and South Caucasus


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

5

1.2 Evaluation Approach and Methodology

A variety of methods were used to compile the evidence base for the evaluation and provide

the basis for triangulation of results. Table 1.2 critically assesses the methods used and the

validity of the data collected as part of this evaluation. Overall, the combination of methods

used provides a robust evidence base for the evaluation.

By comparing, contrasting and combining findings from two different regions and contexts,

the present evaluation offers unique insights on the core evaluative issues (such as

effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, etc). At the same time, budget and time constraints

inevitably imposed certain limitations on the level of detail that the evaluation could cover in

each of the 16 evaluation questions for each of the regions. This overall limitation should be

noted.

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013) - Final Report

6

Table 1.2 Overview of Research Methods used for the Evaluation

Research Method Scope Caveats/ Limitations

Desk research:

document and

data review

international, EU and national strategies and policy documents on DRR;

academic and grey literature on DRR and related concepts , e.g. resilience,

climate change adaptation, and LRRD; data and statistics on hazard risks ;

programme documentation, e.g. funding decisions, good practice and

lessons learned documents, presentations, etc; and project documentation, e.g. single-forms, fiche-ops, interim reports, final

reports, and evaluation reports.

Given the large number of projects (81) and associated volume of documentation, a two-step approach was adopted for the HoA:

a broad-brush review of all project documentation; and

in-depth review of select projects.

For CAC, geo-spatial analysis was carried out. Maps were produced for each

country showing (a) geographical coverage of DIPECHO funded projects and (b) the most dominant hazard risk and historic disaster events (due to budgetary

constraints, it was not feasible to map all hazards). The purpose of this exercise

was to determine if projects covered the areas most at risk. The results of this exercise are presented in Annex 11.

Desk research was only provided as part of the evidence base for the

evaluation; it was necessary to update, cross -check and complement

the information collected from secondary sources through primary

research.

Stakeholder

interviews

12 scoping interviews (face to face) were conducted with DG ECHO officials

(both HQ and field based) as well as relevant desk officers at DG DEVCO 14 telephone interviews were conducted with DG ECHO partners

Annex 1 provides a list of interviews conducted during the desk phase

While interviews were useful for understanding context, they typically

generated opinions/ and individuals’ perspectives, rather than facts.

Field work: HoA Fieldwork covered three out of the seven countries15

covered by DRAAP during

the period 2009-2013 (Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda). While the evaluation team

did not visit Somalia, the Ethiopian field trip included a visit to a cross -border

project with Somaliland. Country selection was based on the consideration of the

following factors: together, these countries accounted for 93 per cent (38 out of 41) of all

country-specific projects. These countries were also covered by cross-border

and regional projects (see Annex 3);

The main constraints were those imposed by the time and budget

available for the fieldwork. DRRAP projects are geographically

dispersed across the region as well as within countries. Logistics was

therefore, an important consideration in planning the fieldwork. It also

meant that a random sampling of projects was not feasible, therefore a

purposive sampling approach was used instead.

15

Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia (Somaliland), Uganda and Sudan (NB: the latter was only covered in the 2008 decision) .


7


the largest single country for DRR programme expenditure was Ethiopia: A

total of 20 country-specific projects (49 per cent) and 83 per cent (20 out of 24) of all cross-border projects (see Annex 3); and

they represented different contexts for DRR intervention.

A purposive sampling approach was used to select project sites (rather than a

random sample) on a representative basis to include a mix of projects in each

country comprising a mix of: regional, cross-country and country-specific projects; the most successful projects as well as those that had been less successful

(identified on the basis of desk research);

geographic location (in particular, level of isolation); large and small budgets;

sectors and sub-sectors; and

different implementing partners.

Fieldwork took place over the following dates :

Kenya/ Uganda – 16 Mar to 6 Apr 2014; and Ethiopia – 23 Mar to 10 Apr 2014.

During the fieldwork, the team met and interviewed 69 stakeholders in three

countries. Additionally, a number of group meetings with beneficiaries were also organised at project sties. Overall, the team visited 21 project sites . Annex 2

provides further detail on the sampling approach and sites visited.

Debriefing workshops were organised in Kenya (Nairobi) and Ethiopia (Addis

Ababa) towards the end of the fieldwork to subject early findings to critical review

and challenge.

Field work: CAC Fieldwork covered four out of eight countries (namely, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,

Armenia and Georgia). Given the limited budget and timeline for the evaluation,

Tajikistan was selected for a field visit for two reasons: its long history of

DIPECHO activities and high disaster risk and vulnerability. Select parts of

Kazakhstan were also included as part of the fieldwork to provide additional

context and for liaising with the DG ECHO field office based in Almaty. Within

Southern Caucasus, Armenia and Georgia were selected as these two countries

collectively account for the majority of DIPECHO’s activities in the Caucasus

region. Besides, most of ECHO partners are based in these two countries and

As above


8


ECHO field office is located in Tbilisi (Georgia).

Again a purposive sampling approach was used to select project sites for field

visits. Locations for on-site visits were selected on the basis of accessibility,

relevance, multi-country coverage, range of partners and logistical aspects.

During the fieldwork, the team interviewed more than 200 stakeholders and

beneficiaries (92 in Central Asia and 120 in the Caucasus region). The team

visited six project sites (four in Central Asia and two in Caucasus). Annex 2

provides details of the sites visited and stakeholders interviewed.

The fieldwork took place from 03 Apr to 30 Apr 2014. Debriefing workshops were

organised in Tajikistan (Dushanbe) and Georgia (Tbilisi) towards the end of the

country fieldwork.

Online survey An online survey (using the EU Survey Tool) was developed – as a

methodological experiment - to gather data from implementing partners. A link was sent to all ECHO partners who had used local implementing partners

requesting them to collect responses from their implementing partner. An MS-

WORD format of the questionnaire was attached to encourage responses from those with limited access to the Internet. Nine responses were received in total,

with seven of these being submitted via email.

The response rate was rather low. Only implementing partners that had

participated in projects under the 2012 HIP responded. To supplement

the findings, the evaluation team interviewed a further nine

implementing partners in the field.

This method of data collection is challenging in an environment where

access to the Internet can be sporadic. The email questionnaire worked

better than the online questionnaire.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

9

1.3 This Report

The remainder of the document is structured as follows:

Section 2 provides an overview of DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the HoA and CAC;

Section 3 provides a synthesis of the evidence collected and analysed in response to

each evaluation question; and

Section 4 sets out the recommendations emerging from this evaluation.

The main report is supplemented by a Technical Annex which contains the detailed evidence

base for the evaluation and is structured as follows:

Annex 1: Stakeholder interviews conducted during the desk phase;

Annex 2: Scope of the fieldwork;

Annex 3: List of projects funded in the HoA;

Annex 4: List of projects funded in CAC;

Annex 5: Coherence of DRRAP/ DIPECHO with the 2009 DRR Strategy;

Annex 6: Overview of key concepts;

Annex 7: Mapping of DEVCO’s funding priorities in the HoA and CAC;

Annex 8: Overview of PPRD East;

Annex 9: Donor mapping (HoA);

Annex 10: Intervention logic of DG ECHO funded DRR actions;

Annex 11: Mapping of dominant hazards and project sites (CAC);

Annex 12: A dissemination strategy for the present evaluation;

Annex 13: Compliance with the Terms of Reference; and

Annex 14: Terms of Reference.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

10

2 DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Caucasus

The present evaluation focuses on DG ECHO’s DRR activity in two regions: the Horn of

Africa (HoA) and Central Asia and South Caucasus (CAC). This section provides an

overview of the hazard risks facing these regions, their vulnerability to hazards and DG

ECHO’s activity aimed reducing these risks and vulnerabilities, by way of background and

context for the evaluation.

2.1 The context for DRR: hazard risk and vulnerability

2.1.1 Horn of Africa

The HoA is vulnerable to a number of different natural and man-made hazards. In the last 30

years, the population of the HoA has more than doubled and this has affected the

demographic dynamics and placed further pressure on increasingly scarce natural

resources.16

Other causes of humanitarian crises in the region include conflict (including

inter-clan violence and political disputes), displacement of populations, competition over

scarce resources such as pastures, water and fertile lands (which in turn causes conflicts

between pastoralist communities – e.g. along the Kenya/Ethiopian border), and rapid onset

natural disasters (e.g. flooding or storms). The area is also affected by frequent epidemic

outbreaks such as acute watery diarrhoea, malaria, meningitis, measles and Ebola

haemorrhagic fever (i.e. Uganda) as well as diseases affecting livestock.17

Over the last three decades, natural disasters have affected over 125 million people in the

region and killed almost 330,000 people (see Table 2.1). As the table below shows, drought

is the main disaster affecting the region (based on the number of people affected).

Table 2.1 Key statistics on disasters in the Horn of Africa (1980-2010)

Country Population

2013 (1983) Main disaster risks*

Historical data on disasters (all natural disasters)

No. of events18 No. of

mortalities No. of people

affected

Djibouti 872,932

(393,443)

Droughts (66.5%)

Flood (33.2%) 19 323 1,484,872

Eritrea 6,333,135

(2,656,189) Droughts (99.6%) 7 3 5,622,688

Ethiopia 94,100,756

(38,259,330)

Droughts (95.7%)

Flood (3.9%) 86 313,486 57,382,354

Kenya 44,353,691

(18,241,424)

Droughts (81%) Epidemics (14%)

Floods (5%)

79 6,066 48,004,436

Somalia 10,495,583 Droughts (73%) 66 9,604 9,161,430

16

Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) website. [online] Available at: http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/drrap/about/about-drrap/en/ 17

HIP Horn of Africa 2013. 18

Note that some of these may have been cross -border events affecting more than one HoA country at a time.

http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/drrap/about/about-drrap/en/


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

11

Country Population

2013 (1983) Main disaster risks*


No. of events18 No. of

mortalities No. of people

affected

(6,199,671) Floods (25%)

Epidemics (1%) /

Earthquakes (1%)

Uganda 37,578,876

(13,738,114)

Droughts (76.6%)

Flood (19.4%)

Epidemic (2.4%)

61 2,280 4,938,644

Total 193,734,973

(79,488,171) 318 329,482 125,109,552

*Based on percentage of reported people affected by disaster type

Sources [online] Availab le at: http://www.preventionweb.net/ and

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL

Drought is defined as two consecutive rain failures19

and is a common occurrence in arid and

semi-arid lands (ASALs) such as those characterising the HoA. The main impacts of

droughts occur through two channels: water shortages leading to disease and mortality

among humans and animals; and loss of agricultural output and livestock resulting in food

insecurity and loss of livelihoods. Droughts set off a vicious cycle of socio-economic impacts

(poor nutrition, loss of livelihood, erosion of assets, indebtedness, poverty , etc), thus,

increasing the vulnerability of affected persons to another drought as well as other shocks.

The increasing frequency of droughts also prevents communities from recovering and

rehabilitating, further eroding their coping capacities. For these reasons, the agro-

pastoralists who characterise the ASALs of the HoA are particularly vulnerable to droughts.

In 2010 and 2011, consecutive rain failures in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti caused

a severe drought which led to a major humanitarian crisis in the region. At the peak of the

drought (around August 2011), 13 million people were in need of emergency assistance.20

Even today, millions of people in the HoA continue to suffer chronic food insecurity and

vulnerability.21

Around 9 million people remain in need of humanitarian assistance, including

2.7 million food insecure people in Ethiopia, 1.3 million in Kenya and 3 million in Somalia, in

the arid and semi- arid areas affected by the 2011 drought as well as areas that have not

received sufficient rains.22

In Somalia, food insecurity is exacerbated by ongoing conflict in

the country.

2.1.2 Central Asia and South Caucasus

CAC countries have a long history of devastating disasters that have caused economic and

human losses across the region. During the 20-year period (1988 to 2007), the reported 129

disasters have affected at least 14 million people in the region and caused thousands of

deaths. See Table 2.2 below.

19

Consultation with ECHO Field (RSO Nairobi), April 2014. 20

[online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/hoa_drought_factsheet.pdf 21

ICAI (2012), DFID’s Humanitarian Emergency Response in the Horn of Africa, Report 14, September 2012 22

ECHO factsheet on Horn of Africa. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/hoa_en.pdf

http://www.preventionweb.net/


http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/hoa_drought_factsheet.pdf


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

12

Table 2.2 Key statistics on disasters in Central Asia and South Caucasus (1980-2010)

Country Population 2013

Top 3 disaster risks*


No. of

events

No. of

mortalities

No. of people affected

Period covered

Kazakhstan 17,037,508

Ext. Temp (80.1%)

Flood (13.8%) Earthquake (4.9%)

16 228 748,879 1980 - 2010

Kyrgyzstan 5,719,500

Droughts (89.2%)

Earthquake (6.9%)

Mass mov. Wet (3%)

23 422 2,243,077 1980 - 2010

Tajikistan 8,207,834 Droughts (56.5%) Ext. temp (29.8%)

Flood (11.3%)

51 2,163 6,719,808 1980 - 2010

Turkmenistan 5,240,072 Flood (100%) 2 11 420 1980 - 2010

Uzbekistan 30,241,100 Droughts (92%)

Earthquake (7.7%) 6 74 652,048 1980 - 2010

Armenia 2,976,566

Droughts (93.1%)

Earthquake (4.7%) Flood (2.2%)

5 5** 319,144** 1980 - 2010

Azerbaijan 9,416,598 Flood (72.1%)

Earthquake (27.9%) 12 63 2,552,774 1980 - 2010

Georgia 4,476,900 Droughts (95.2%)

Earthquake (4.1%) 14 24 731,102 1980 - 2010

*Based on percentage of reported people affected by disaster type Sources [online] Availab le at: http://www.preventionweb.net/ and http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL ** The above figures sourced from EM-DAT do not appear to include the impact of the Spitak earthquake (1988) in which 25,000 people died, more than 20,000 were injured and 515,000 were left homeless. Source [online] Availab le at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/30427_armenianationalsurveyseismicprotect.pdf

The CAC region is highly exposed to rapid-onset disasters such as earthquakes and

localised hydro-meteorological hazards. The latter category includes storms/intense rainfall and resultant floods; heatwaves and droughts; as well as extreme temperatures. Apart from earthquakes, other geological hazards include mudflows, landslides, floods, droughts and

avalanches.

These complex and overlapping hazards typify the disaster risk profiles of many

communities, due to their close proximity to a series of natural fault lines, extreme weather

conditions and the region’s highly-varied topography characterised by mountain ranges and

glaciers, desert zones and large areas of treeless/grassy steppes. There are many large

river systems such as the Amu Daria and Syr Daria with considerable flood plains, and major

water bodies such as the Caspian and Aral seas and the Issy-Kul, Balkhash and Sarez

lakes.

Earthquakes are the most dangerous hazard facing the region, causing destruction to human

life, buildings and infrastructure alike, while also triggering secondary events such as

landslides, mudslides and avalanches. Historical evidence shows that landslides, mudslides

and debris flows caused many casualties during the earthquakes in Armenia (1988 Spitak),

Azerbaijan (2000 Baku), Kazakhstan (1887, 1889, and 1911 Almaty), Kyrgyzstan (1992

Jalal-Abad), Tajikistan (1949 Khait, 1989 Gissar), Turkmenistan (1948 Ashgabat) and

Uzbekistan (1966 Tashkent).

Table 2.3 provides an overview of the most prominent and significant hazard risks facing the

CAC countries.

http://www.preventionweb.net/



(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

13

Table 2.3 CAC: Hazard risks by country

Country Earthquakes Droughts Floods Landslides

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Georgia

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Dominant risk Significant risk

Based on information drawn from: Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk Management Initiative

(2011) Risk Assessment for Central Asia and Caucasus, Desk Study Review

More than 30 per cent of the region’s population lives below the poverty line, making it highly

vulnerable to the adverse consequences of disasters. Moreover, two-thirds of the region’s

population is concentrated in the mountainous southern quarter, which is highly prone to all

kinds of hazards due to its diverse geography and extreme weather conditions23

.

A range of environmental problems affect specific areas within the region, where many

watersheds are suffering from soil erosion and poor land use such as deforestation and

pasture degradation due to overgrazing; while large dams, polluting industries such as

mining, abandoned industrial plants from the Soviet era and radioactive wastes dumps,

further exacerbate current challenges to environmental management.

Major urban areas are disproportionately vulnerable to disasters due to higher population

densities and general lack of integration of DRR measures in urban planning24

- see Box 1.

Box 1 CAC regions: specific vulnerabilities of urban settlements

Tashkent, Baku, Almaty, Tbilisi, Bishkek, Yerevan, Dushanbe, Ashgabat and Astana are the most populated cities in CAC and all are undergoing intense economic activity. With the exception of Tbilisi and Yerevan, all are experiencing high population growth. These cities, with the exception of Astana, are highly vulnerable to earthquakes and all nine are potentially vulnerable to floods. In a simple risk assessment, taking into account the cities’ hazard zonation and populations, earthquakes emerge as by far the major risk, while the hazard levels of floods and landslides are rather less significant, though this varies, of course, by local zone. Tashkent, Baku and Almaty form the group with the highest risk, followed by Tbilisi, Bishkek and Yerevan, which face about half the risk of the former group. The single key factor affecting hazard exposure and vulnerability is rapid population growth, particularly of high-density settlements concentrated within the cities. These risks are exacerbated by the hazards generated through the legacy of poor quality (and often deteriorating) stocks of buildings (in the educational, health, industrial and residential subsectors), which appear to require significant investment for retrofitting against earthquake risk: specifically - for example - many old schools and hospitals. As well, industrial plants abandoned after the collapse of the USSR are scattered throughout the region. Furthermore, urban planning systems and institutions are often weak, providing little in the way of structured spatial planning; and urban development is often characterised by limited regulation and control of new buildings and infrastructural investment decisions.

23

Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk Management Initiative (2011) Risk Assessment for Central Asia and Caucasus, Desk Study Review. 24

DIPECHO CAC Action Plan 2012.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

14

Overall, the CAC countries region is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, although the level

of exposure to hazard risk, coping capacities and the degree of preparedness (and

consequently, the level of vulnerability) varies from country to country. According to OCHA

Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia (ROCCA)25

:

’Countries in the region can be loosely divided into two categories:

middle-income countries that are prone to natural disasters and have a medium

response capacity (inadequate capacity to respond to a major disaster affecting

more than one province); and

low-income countries that need international assistance or are at high risk of

needing it.

While most countries in the region have established independent national disaster

management authorities at ministerial level, others have assigned this task to branches

within the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior or even the Prime Minister’s Office. In

Central Asia, the emergency ministries are being transformed from military to civil protection

models. As such they are being given more importance within government structures.

Most countries within the region are moving towards implementing the Hyogo Framework for

Action 2005-2015. However, budgets and human resource capacity are limited, and

methodologies and concepts are outdated. Information is often restricted, which hampers

cooperation with non-state actors. Domestic legislation needs to be adapted to facilitate

international humanitarian assistance. Finally, there is at times a certain reluctance to

formally request international assistance among some governments that lack capacity to

respond to domestic emergencies. ’

2.2 Overview of DG ECHO funded DRR intervention in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Caucasus

2.2.1 DRR in Horn of Africa

ECHO has been engaged in drought preparedness initiatives across the region since 2006,

with a total budget of 90 million euros provided under five different Regional Drought

Decisions (RDDs) – also known as the Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan or the DRRAP.

As shown in Table 2.5, ECHO has funded drought-risk reduction activities in the region

continuously over this period (2006 to 2013).

Table 2.4 Overview of DRRAP funding cycles in the HoA, 2006 - 2013

DRRAP cycle Period covered ECHO Funding € # Projects

DRRAP I 2006-07 10,000,000 17

DRRAP II 2008-09 30,000,000 19

DRRAP III 2009-10 10,000,000 15

DRRAP IV 2010-11 20,000,000 26

DRRAP V 2012-13 20,000,000 21

Totals 90,000,000 98

Based on data provided by DG ECHO

The main focus of the DRRAP has been to support vulnerable local communities affected by

the impact of recurrent drought cycles and promoting appropriate early responses to future

droughts.

25

OCHA ROCCA Regional Strategy 2012-2013.

[online] Available at: http://www.unocha.org/ochain/2012-13/rocca

http://www.unocha.org/ochain/2012-13/rocca


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

15

2.2.1.2 Key elements of DG ECHO’s strategy and approach guiding its intervention in the region

The DRRAP in the HoA was structured into three types of projects: country-specific projects,

cross-border projects (targeting neighbouring national borderland areas) and regional

projects (working across all participating HoA countries). The country-specific and cross-

border projects focussed on a variety of activities, generally with a focus on community -

based activities and working with local authorities, although many (especially from 2010

onwards) also included good practices dissemination and advocacy components. Some

country-based projects (for example, see projects 2010/011026, 2010/011025, and 011023

in Annex 3) focussed on data-collection and technical studies. The regional projects

focussed on providing technical support (to other ECHO partners and to authorities and

institutions), engaging in advocacy for DRR and coordination and were implemented by UN

agencies, IFRC and REGLAP (a consortium of NGOs led by Oxfam). FAO was the first

organisation to be assigned the role of coordinating and providing technical assistance to

other DRRAP partners, although as other regional projects were funded, these partners

(particularly REGLAP and UN-ISDR) also took on more of a coordinating role. The objective

of the regional projects was also to improve the exchange of good practice and to collate and

disseminate lessons learned and good practices and feed this information up to national

government / ministries and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. media, teachers, local NGOs,

local authorities).

The 2008, 2009 and 2010 funding decisions split the budget available between ‘downstream’

community based DRR projects (84 per cent) and ‘upstream’ projects focussed on advocacy

and institutional linkages (11 per cent). The remaining 5 per cent was allocated to a 3 million

euros ‘reserve’ in 2008.26

Figure 2.2 illustrates this organisational approach.

Figure 2.1 The organisational structure of the DRRAP27

26

See Section 6 (amount of decision and distribution by specific objectives ) of the 2008 Financing Decision (ECHO/-HF/BUD/2008/01000). It is unclear why this contingency was not set aside in later decisions. 27

Based on a PowerPoint presentation developed by FAO and shared with the evaluation team from Benoit Collins (former DRRAP lead in the HoA RSO).


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

16

2.2.1.3 Evolution of the DRRAP from DRR to Resilience

ECHO’s intervention in the region has gradually evolved over time. The main features of this

evolution have been:

■ evolution in the thematic focus of the programme from assets and livelihoods protection

to DRR to resilience;

■ increased coordination with DEVCO;

■ shift in focus from pastoral communities to other groups (such as pastoral ‘dropouts’);

■ increasing emphasis on a consortium approach to funding; and

■ increasing emphasis on advocacy for DRR.

When it was first conceived in 2006, DRRAP had the main purpose of reducing the time

taken to respond to drought. This developed in phase II (2008) into a focus on asset

protection and (pastoral) livelihoods, with activities including destocking, veterinary services,

etc. From 2009 (phase III) onwards, there was a shift in focus from livelihoods protection

towards projects targeting basic services (health, WaSH, etc) for wider communities. Phase

IV sought to consolidate lessons from the previous phases and also to increase the

complementarity of DRRAP with other EU funded interventions in drought-affected

communities such as the DEVCO-funded Kenyan Rural Development (KRDP) and Karamoja

Livelihoods (KALIP) programmes.28

A key turning point in ECHO’s approach was the 2011 drought, which triggered a shift in

focus towards the resilience agenda jointly with DEVCO. A strategic objective of the 2012

HIP for the HoA was to ‘strengthen local resilience through Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

activities’ and that same year, ECHO together with DEVCO, created the SHARE initiative29

(alongside the 2012 HIP) with a financial envelope of more than 270 million euros, which has

the aim of boosting resilience in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Somalia. In 2012, in addition

to the 20 million euros available for DRR actions through the HIP, a further 22 million euros

was made available through SHARE to be managed jointly by ECHO and DEVCO to build

resilience to food insecurity and malnutrition in the HoA (mainly Kenya and Somalia)30

to

prevent the repetition of large-scale disasters deriving from drought.31

The 2012 HIP

therefore, only made available funding for country-specific actions in Ethiopia (although the

odd project was also funded in Djibouti and Uganda) as well as funding new regional actions

(projects 2012/91000, 2012/91015 in Annex 3).

DRR has been increasingly mainstreamed into the resilience agenda in recent years. For

example, a number of ECHO funded projects (that were funded under the 2012 HIP) focus

on resilience and include DRR components. The year 2012 can be regarded as a transitional

year as during that year, both stand-alone DRR projects as well integrated DRR projects (i.e.

projects focusing on resilience, but including DRR components) were funded. This new

approach seeks to achieve better coordination and linkages between humanitarian and

development actors, more efficient spending and greater sustainability of actions.

In Ethiopia, ECHO is now working closely together with the EU delegation to implement the

resilience agenda. The EU delegation to Ethiopia was consulted on the 2014 HIP and

participates in weekly management meetings with the Ethiopia Field Office of ECHO. EU-

DEL Ethiopia and ECHO are now jointly programming their interventions on resilience in

Ethiopia and have developed joint log-frames for development and humanitarian

interventions.32

Indeed, ECHO partners were encouraged in responding to the 2013 HIP to

identify possible linkages between humanitarian interventions with existing or planned, long-

28

Interview with former DRRAP lead in the HoA RSO. 29

'Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience' (SHARE). [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/resilience_en.pdf 30

The projects funded through SHARE fall outside the scope of this evaluation. 31

2012 HIP for Horn of Africa. 32

Information collected through case study field trip to Ethiopia, April 2014.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/resilience_en.pdf


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

17

term interventions and to design projects corresponding to a multi-year vision (of a minimum

of three years).33

This ‘multiphase’ approach of the DRRAP funding, whereby the same

partners receive funding over a number of years to develop their project, has allowed the

DRRAP to fund projects targeting not only the most vulnerable, but also authorities and

those able to develop DRR policies and practices at national and local level, as well

information multipliers such as the media, local CSOs and public servants.

The target beneficiaries of ECHO’s interventions have also evolved over time in response to

changing trends – particularly in the aftermath of the 2011 drought. ECHO has commonly

funded projects targeting agro-pastoral communities specifically, in support of their

livelihoods; however, as there have been indications that the most vulnerable groups of

people may be those who have lost their cattle in previous disasters (see Section 3.4.1),

ECHO has somewhat shifted the focus.

Although the structural approach to funding country-specific, cross-border and regional

projects remained the same throughout the DRRAP, the number of regional projects funded

gradually increased throughout, to reflect the increasing importance placed on advocacy for

DRR. The 2011 drought catalysed national and regional authorities to act and – with the

support of ECHO - national heads of state of the affected countries in the region came

together to show a strong political commitment to ‘End Drought Emergencies ’ (Nairobi

Declaration of IGAD, 2011). ECHO was also strategic in its project selection, gradually

selecting projects (e.g. 2010/01017, 2010/011024, and 2012/91000 in Annex 3) which would

fill gaps in knowledge or technical capacity for DRR in the region.

Throughout the DRRAP, ECHO sought to optimise the coordination of the funded actions. It

did this partly by assigning FAO (and later REGLAP and UN-ISDR) to coordinate partners,

by encouraging and facilitating cross-partner meetings and working groups and by directing

some partners to work as consortia (see Section 3.10). From 2009 onwards, the four ECHO

partners (Care, Cordaid, Coopi and VSF-DE) working in the cross-border area of Ethiopia

and Kenya were encouraged to better coordinate their targeting of communities and project

activities to improve efficiencies and the complementarity of approach.34

Towards the end of

the 2012 HIP, ECHO partners in Ethiopia were also reorganised into geographic ‘clusters’

around specific woredas or districts (see Box 2) where ECHO had been repeatedly reacting

in emergency response – i.e. where droughts and nutrition related emergencies were

recurrently emerging (where other major internationally backed programmes were not

operating).35

This approach was formalised in the 2013 HIP, but most of the projects funded

were a follow-on from DRRAP projects.

Box 2 Geographical clusters of woredas in Ethiopia

Country specific funding for Ethiopia was allocated to different NGO consortia implementing projects

in seven geographical clusters representing seven different arid regions of the country:

■ Wag Himra zone in North East Amhara,

■ Western Central Afar,

■ South-East Borena,

■ Bale Mountains in Oromiya,

■ Liben zone in the South Somali region,

■ Wolayta, and

■ North Somali region, Siti zone (no projects funded there from 2013).

33

2013 HIP for Horn of Africa, Operational Guidance for Funding Proposals in Ethiopia in 2013.

34 External Final Joint Evaluation - Echo Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) [2012-2013],

Kenya/Ethiopia Cross Border Projects . 35

2013 HIP for the Horn of Africa, Operational Guidance for Funding Proposals in Ethiopia in 2013.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

18

The 2011 drought also prompted ECHO to place a greater emphasis on mainstreaming DRR

in its general approach to humanitarian aid i.e. ensuring that emergency response actions

take DRR considerations into account.

2.2.2 DIPECHO in Central Asia and South Caucasus

Central Asia became the sixth DIPECHO region to be targeted by the programme after

Central America, Andean Community, Caribbean, South Asia and South East Asia in 2003.

The programme initially covered operations in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan,

however it was extended in 2007 to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Seven DIPECHO Action

Plans have been implemented in the region since 2003. In total, 79 projects have been

funded in Central Asia for 33 million euros over a decade (2003 - 2013).

In 2009, the programme expanded to South Caucasus. Two DIPECHO funding cycles have

been implemented in the South Caucasus region between 2009 and 2013. Under these, DG

ECHO has invested 5 million euros in 8 projects – see Table 2.6.

Table 2.5 Overview of DIPECHO funding cycles in CAC, 2003 - 2013

Region DIPECHO cycle Period covered ECHO Funding € # Projects

Central Asia DIPECHO I 2003-04 3,000,000 9

DIPECHO II 2005-06 2,516,451 8

DIPECHO III 2006-07 3,419,661 12

DIPECHO IV 2007-08 5,699,405 16

DIPECHO V 2008-09 6,700,000 15

DIPECHO VI 2010-11 6,860,000 8

DIPECHO VII* 2012-13 5,000,000 11

sub-total 33,195,517 79

South Caucasus

DIPECHO I 2009-10 2,000,000 3

DIPECHO II* 2012-13 2,999,965 5

sub-total 4,999,965 8

Totals 38,195,482 87

*common funding decision. Table b ased on data provided by DG ECHO

The principal objective of DIPECHO programmes in CAC has been ‘to reduce the

vulnerability and improve the coping capacities of populations living in areas most affected

by recurrent natural disasters’36

.

The following key developments and trends can be observed over the different DIPECHO

cycles in CAC:

Common funding decision for CAC: In 2012, a common funding decision was

introduced for CAC to ensure a more even distribution of funding across the two

regions. Since the two regions share common (institutional) legacies and face similar

risks, it was felt that a common funding decision would also promote a more

coherent approach to DIPECHO across the wider region. Furthermore, to improve

linkages and collaboration within and across the two regions, ECHO’s regional office

in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) was relocated to Almaty (Kazakhstan) in 2013 and the

Tbilisi antenna linked to the Almaty office.

Closer collaboration with UN agencies in Central Asia : Since the fourth funding

cycle, UN agencies have played a key role in the implementation of DIPECHO in

Central Asia – see Table 2.7. In South Caucasus, where only two DIPECHO funding

36

As per the Funding Decisions.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

19

cycles have been implemented until 2013, ECHO and UNICEF have worked closely

over both cycles to promote the mainstreaming of DRR in the education sector.

Table 2.6 Involvement of UN agencies as partners in DIPECHO in Central Asia (2003 – 2013)

DIPECHO Funding Cycle Total

across cycles

I II III IV V VI VII

UNDP

2 2 1 1 6

UNDP (with Red Crescent)

1 1

UNICEF

1 1 1 1 4

UNISDR

1 1

2

UN WHO

1 1

1 3

UN OCHA*

1 1

Projects implemented by UN agencies 0 0 0 5 5 2 5 17

Total No. of projects implemented 9 8 12 16 15 8 11 79

Projects implemented by UN agencies 0% 0% 0% 31% 33% 25% 45% 22%

*Regional project covering both Central Asia and Southern Caucasus. Table based on data provided by DG

ECHO

Increasing involvement of national, sub-national and local authorities: although

ECHO can only directly fund the NGOs with whom it has signed Framework

Partnership Agreements (FPAs), national/ sub-national/local authorities are being

increasingly involved as local implementing partners in projects to facilitate national/

sub-national/local capacity building and the development of DRR governance

structures in countries of operation.

Greater emphasis on multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects: as can

be seen from Table 2.8, multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects have

gained prominence in Central Asia in recent years, representing the majority of the

funded projects under DIPECHO VI and VII. In South Caucasus, which is relatively

‘new’ to DIPECHO, funded projects typically tend to be multi-country or regional in

nature; only one country-specific project was funded during 2009 – 2013.

Table 2.7 Share of country-specific, multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects over different DIPECHO cycles in Central Asia (2003 – 2013)

As % of total Total No. of funded

projects

Country specific Multi-country /

cross-border Regional

DIPECHO I 89% 11% 0% 9

DIPECHO II 75% 25% 0% 8

DIPECHO III 83% 17% 0% 12

DIPECHO IV 81% 13% 6% 16

DIPECHO V 53% 33% 13% 15

DIPECHO VI 38% 50% 13% 8

DIPECHO VII 45% 36% 18% 11

Table based on data provided by DG ECHO

Increasing focus on ‘upstream’ policy advocacy: even though DIPECHO’s main

focus is community based DRR actions, ECHO is increasingly funding ‘upstream’

policy advocacy work, with the intention of facilitating the mainstreaming, scaling-up

and wider replication of DRR projects.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

20

Reinforced focus on encouraging partners to coordinate, collaborate and to

avoid overlaps: at a regional level, partnerships between DRR actors are being

reinforced and cooperation on DRR policies and pract ices is being encouraged37

.

Greater attention is being given to the coordination and consistency of ECHO’s

actions with other donors' interventions, in particular major interventions by EU

Member States and international organisations (e.g. UN, World Bank) in the field of

humanitarian aid and, where relevant, development aid.

37

See HIP 2012 and 2104.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

21

3 Evaluation Findings and Conclusions

This section presents a synthesis of the evidence collected in response to each evaluation

question. The findings and conclusions have been organised around the core evaluation

issues raised in the Terms of Reference - and, within these, the specific evaluation questions

set by ECHO (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Mapping of evaluation questions to evaluation issues

Evaluation Issue Evaluation Question

(External) Coherence and

complementarity

EQ1 – coherence/complementarity with other policies / programmes

Cross-cutting issues EQ2 – coverage of cross-cutting issues

Relevance and utility EQ3 – addressing the needs of the most vulnerable

Internal coherence EQ4 – internal coherence of the intervention logics

EU added value EQ5 – EU added value

Delivery mechanisms EQ6 – organisational structures and partner selection

EQ12 – local implementing partners’ capacity and commitment

EQ13 – ECHO partners’ responsiveness to changing trends (especially for

multi-annual projects)

EQ14 – the multi-partner (consortia) and the multi-country approaches

Effectiveness – improving

resilience

EQ7 – improving resilience

EQ8 – mainstreaming, replication and scaling up

EQ11– reinforcing sub-national response capacities

Lessons learned and

good practice identified

EQ9 – lessons learned, critical success factors, good practices

Consistency EQ10 – unintended or unexpected effects and risks

Economy and efficiency EQ15 – sufficiency of the budget and the efficiency with which it has been

spent

Sustainability EQ16 – sustainability of impact

3.1 Coherence and complementarity

EQ1. To what extent are the DG ECHO-funded DRR interventions that are the subject of this

evaluation coherent with, and/or complementary to:

1. Their Legal Base;

2. The 2009 EU DRR Strategy and its implementation plan;

3. The 2012 Resilience Communication;

4. The Hyogo Framework for Action;

5. Other EU policies and programmes; and

6. Programmes and policies in the regions of intervention?

In order to answer this evaluation question, it is first useful to understand the objectives of

the ECHO-funded DRR interventions that are the subject of this evaluation. Table 3.2 sets

out the stated objectives of these interventions as per the Funding Decisions . Although there

are some differences in the way objectives are formulated across regions, the overriding

objectives of DG ECHO-funded DRR interventions are essentially the same across the

regions i.e. to reduce vulnerability and to build the resilience of populations at risk .


22

Table 3.2 The Stated objectives of ECHO’s funding decisions covering the HoA and CAC (2009 - 2013)

Funding Decision

HoA funding decisions CAC funding decisions

General Objectives Specific Objectives38

General Objectives Specific Objectives

2009

To save lives, alleviate human suffering

and pave the way for longer-term

development actions by reducing

vulnerability and by strengthening

the capacity to respond to recurrent

droughts in the affected areas of the

Greater Horn of Africa countries.

1. To contribute to alleviating the

impact of the current drought and frequent drought cycles on

targeted vulnerable local

communities. 2. To coordinate partners'

operations and increase

advocacy on drought risk reduction in the drought affected

areas of the Greater Horn of Africa.

To reduce the vulnerability and

increase the coping capacities of South Caucasus populations living in

areas most affected by recurrent

natural hazards (Article 1 of Funding Decision

ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/06000 covering

Caucasus)

To increase resilience and reduce

the vulnerability of local communities and

institutions through support to

strategies that enable them to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to

natural disasters

(Article 1 of Funding Decision ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/06000 covering

Caucasus)

2010

To provide the necessary assistance

to vulnerable populations living in

areas most affected by recurrent

droughts in the Greater Horn of Africa

1. To improve the humanitarian

situation and increase the

coping capacities of populations vulnerable to recurrent drought

hazards and their effects through

the provision of multi-sectoral assistance.

2. To improve the conditions for

delivering humanitarian assistance, notably through increased

awareness and advocacy efforts

on appropriate drought management and the provision of

the necessary technical support to

partners' operations.

To reduce the vulnerability and

increase the coping capacities of

Central Asia populations living in areas most affected by recurrent natural

disasters.

(Article 1 of Funding Decision

ECHO/DIP/BUD/2010/02000 covering

Central Asia)

To increase resilience and reduce

the vulnerability of local communities

and institutions through support to strategies that enable them to better

prepare for, mitigate and respond to

natural disasters.

(Article 1 of Funding Decision

ECHO/DIP/BUD/2010/02000 covering Central Asia)

2012

Local resilience is strengthened

through Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

activities preparing targeted vulnerable

and at risk communities to better cope

with drought and other natural

1. Increasing community

preparedness for natural disasters

2. Piloting DRR innovative approaches

3. Dissemination and replication of

To reduce the vulnerability of the

populations in Central Asia and South Caucasus living in areas most prone to

and affected by natural disasters, by

focusing on Disaster Risk Reduction

Not specified

38

Referred to as pillars in the 2012 funding decision.


23

Funding Decision

HoA funding decisions CAC funding decisions

General Objectives Specific Objectives38

General Objectives Specific Objectives

disasters. DRR best practices and lessons

learned 4. Advocacy for stronger

engagement of development

stakeholders in disaster risk reduction

5. Provision of technical support to

implementing partners of DRR pilot actions

(DRR) and increasing the awareness,

preparedness and response capacities at community, national and

regional levels.

(Section I of ECHO/WWD/BUD/2012/01000)

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South

Caucasus (2009 - 2013) - Final Report

24

3.1.2 Coherence and complementarity with ECHO’s legal base

DRR is a core element of DG ECHO's mandate. Indeed, ECHO´s legal base39

states in

its Article 1 and 2 that: ‘Community's humanitarian aid […] shall also comprise

operations to prepare for risks or prevent disasters or comparable exceptional

circumstances’ and that ‘The principal objectives of the humanitarian aid operations […]

shall be […] to ensure preparedness for risks of natural disasters […] and use a suitable

rapid early-warning and intervention system. ’

The specific objectives of the Regional Drought Decisions and the DIPECHO

programme - are thus in line with ECHO’s legal base. Moreover, the activities of ECHO

funded actions40

can be linked to these objectives, as shown in subsequent sections of

this Report (specifically Section 3.7).

3.1.3 Coherence and complementarity with the 2009 DRR Strategy

The above-stated objectives of the Regional Drought Decisions and DIPECHO

programme are also coherent with the overall approach and principles outlined in the

2009 DRR Strategy41

. Table 3.3 provides a high level assessment of the extent to which

ECHO funded DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC over the period 2009 – 2013

were aligned with and contributed to the priority actions of the 2009 DRR Strategy.

Detailed analysis with supporting evidence can be found in Annex 5. It should be noted

that the assessment (‘+++’ = High; ‘++’ = Medium; ‘+’= Low ) presented in Table 3.3 is

relative and there is an element of subjectivity involved, as the judgement between

‘high’ and ‘medium’ or ‘medium’ and ‘low’ is not always clear cut. Despite these

limitations, the table serves its purpose of providing a high level overview of the HFA

priorities and specific areas of intervention that were more or less supported by ECHO

funding over the period 2009 – 2013 in the two regions covered by this evaluation.

Needless to say, given ECHO’s mandate and budget constraints, it would be unrealistic

to expect ECHO to cover all HFA priorities in all regions and countries. The focus of

ECHO’s interventions in a particular region/ country is generally context specific and

needs driven. However, any obvious gaps are noted in the assessment below:

ECHO funded actions in both the HoA and CAC were highly aligned with the

objective of ‘strengthening disaster preparedness for effective response at all

levels’. In both regions, ECHO funded several community based DRR projects

aimed at enhancing preparedness through activities such as community

disaster preparedness plans, stockpiling of equipment and supplies, capacity

building, drills and exercises, early warning systems, structural mitigation

projects, etc.

ECHO also funded several awareness-raising campaigns and actions to

promote the inclusion of DRR in education and training in line with the strategic

objective of ‘using knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of

safety and resilience at all levels’. In South Caucasus, DIPECHO has been

particularly successful in supporting the mainstreaming of DRR in the education

sector (further discussed in Section 3.7.2).

39

Council Regulation (EC) no. 1257/96 on Humanitarian Aid. 40

Annexes 3 and 4 provide an overview of the projects funded by ECHO over the period covered by this evaluation in the HoA and CAC, respectively. 41

[online] Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:38474d44-d8fd-4a5b-8590-fec8d043d581.0004.03/DOC_1&format=PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:38474d44-d8fd-4a5b-8590-fec8d043d581.0004.03/DOC_1&format=PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:38474d44-d8fd-4a5b-8590-fec8d043d581.0004.03/DOC_1&format=PDF



25

ECHO-funded capacity building actions (such as support for DRR platforms,

creation and development of DRR tools, training, etc) have also contributed to

the strategic objective of strengthening the institutional basis for DRR

implementation in all recipient countries . Through sustained advocacy efforts,

ECHO funding has been instrumental in putting DRR on the national policy

agenda in many of the countries covered by the evaluation. There are however,

limits to what ECHO can achieve in this area, given its mandate. Although

national/ local authorities are being increasingly involved as local implementing

partners in ECHO funded projects in both regions, international humanitarian

principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) prevent ECHO from working

directly with political entities, such as national authorities and governments.

Given these constraints, ECHO cannot directly influence high level policy

making (but can only exercise indirect influence via advocacy efforts) or provide

funding to government bodies for implementing DRR projects . Furthermore in

CAC, the links between DRR and development planning and programming

have not been fully established. Although a key plank of ECHO’s strategy is to

develop partnerships with development actors, this has been challenging in

practice for many reasons. For instance, development actors have their own

priorities and multi-annual plans and short term DIPECHO cycles are not

aligned with their long term plans. Moreover, DEVCO programmes in the region

have limited scope for integrating DRR – see Section 3.1.6. In the HoA, there

has been an increased coordination between ECHO and DEVCO at HQ level

on DRR and resilience in recent years, evidenced by joint communications on

these themes and joint programming (SHARE ) in spite of the fact that the

difference in planning cycles (1-2 years vs 5 years) can make this challenging.

At the field level, there is now a high level of coordination between the ECHO

field office and the EU Delegation in Ethiopia, but this has not been formalised

in Kenya and Uganda. One positive development in Kenya is that ECHO and

DEVCO now participate together in Kenya’s ASAL monthly donor platform set

up by the Kenyan national government to develop DRR policy and

programming.

The objective of ‘reducing underlying risk factors ’ was not addressed as

effectively in the two regions. For example, ECHO funding decisions in these

regions did not ‘explicitly and harmoniously link DRR and adaptation objectives ’;

although ECHO has funded several integrated projects addressing DRR and

multiple issues (e.g. DRR / climate adaptation42

/ food security) through the

SHARE initiative43

in the HoA since 2012. Integrated programmes or projects

have however, not yet been implemented in the CAC region.

42

Climate change adaptation (CCA) is ‘the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’

42 (see

Annex 6 for a clarification of different inter-related concepts such as CCA, DRR, resilience). 43

In the spring of 2012 the European Commission announced the SHARE initiative ( ‘Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience‘) to support recovery from the (2011) drought and to strengthen the population's resistance to similar crises. The first phase was implemented over 2012-2013, with a budget of more than € 250 million. It covered drought-affected areas of Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti. Its second phase (2014-2020) will cover the larger region of the Greater Horn of Africa. This initiative has been spec ifically designed to improve disaster preparedness and better link humanitarian aid and development cooperation. For more information, [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/hoa_01000_en.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/EU_building_resi lience_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/hoa_01000_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/EU_building_resilience_en.pdf



26

Table 3.3 Coherence of DG ECHO funded DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC with the priority areas for intervention set out in the 2009 DRR Strategy (Level of

coherence: ‘+++’ = High; ‘++’ = Medium; ‘+’= Low)

Priorities Specific areas of intervention HoA CAC

Ensure that DRR is a

national and

local priority with a strong

institutional

basis for

implementation

Promote the inclusion of DRR on the agenda of high-level political meetings and make it a part of regular political dialogue with developing

countries

++ ++

Support the integration of DRR into developing countries' development policies and planning, including relevant sectoral policies, climate

change adaptation strategies and crosscutting issues

++ +

Better integrate DRR into EU policies, support strategies, programmes and projects

++ +

Support the development and implementation of national policy, legal

and institutional frameworks for DRR, including national and regional platforms

++ ++

Ensure closer coordination of support for DRR in developing countries to help implement this strategy

++ +

Support the UN/ISDR as the coordinating body for the implementation of

the Hyogo Framework

+++ +++

Identify,

assess, and

monitor disaster risks –

and enhance

early warning

Support expanded research (scientific, technological and socio-

economic) and statistical capacity in developing countries

++ ++

Promote the establishment of multi-hazard national risk assessment and the sharing of risk information and knowledge

+ ++

Promote joint post damage and needs

assessment (PDNA) with the WB and the UN in support of a nationally led assessment to enhance country resilience to crises

n/a n/a

Support participatory community risk assessment and link it to national and regional assessments

+++ +++

Promote the exchange of best practice, ideas and experience both

between developing countries and between developing and developed countries

+ +

Support the development or strengthening of EW systems, including

people-centred EW, and related capacity building

++ +++

Use

knowledge,

innovation, and education to

build a culture

of safety and resilience at all

levels

Support awareness-raising campaigns and programmes + ++

Support the inclusion of DRR in education and training ++ +++

Help make DRR information more easily available, particularly to people

in high-risk areas

+++ +++

Support the development or up-scaling of community-based disaster risk management programmes, including the use of market based insurance

mechanisms

+ +

Reduce the underlying risk

factors

Support the integration of DRR into issues that constitute an underlying risk factor for disaster

+++ +

Seek ways to more explicitly and harmoniously link DRR and climate

change adaptation objectives

+ +

Support integrated programmes or projects addressing DRR and

multiple issues identified as compound risk factors (e.g. DRR / climate

adaptation / food security)

++ +



27

Priorities Specific areas of intervention HoA CAC

Explore how innovative funding can be mobilised for the benefit of both

DRR and adaptation

+ n/a

Strengthen

disaster

preparedness for effective

response at all

levels

Support community-based preparedness programmes +++ +++

Support the development of preparedness and contingency plans that are informed by the latest risk assessments

+++ +++

Promote the integration of DRR into disaster response and recovery

processes

+ +++

Promote risk sharing and transfer mechanisms ++ n/a

3.1.4 Coherence and complementarity with the 2012 Resilience Strategy

Although the Commission Communication on resilience was published in 2012, in the

HoA the international donor community had already - in response to the 2011 drought -

begun to shift towards a resilience framework for implementing aid.

The purpose of the 2012 Communication was to use the lessons from past experiences

to improve the effectiveness of the EU's support aimed at reducing vulnerability in

disaster-prone developing countries by including resilience as a central aim. It also

aimed to contribute to the international debate on enhancing food security and

resilience in a wider sense, notably in the context of the G8, G20, the Committee on

World Food Security, the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) initiative, Rio Conventions’

negotiations and the Global Alliance for the Horn of Africa.

The Communication stressed the importance of embedding resilience as a long-term

effort into national policies and planning. It also emphasises the cost -effectiveness of

investing in resilience (costs saved in terms of money spent) and states that the

Commission will systematically include resilience as an element in its humanitarian

implementation plans (HIPs) and strive for joint programming with development so as to

ensure that short-term actions lay the groundwork for medium and long-term

interventions. The Communication identified three key components to be integrated in

future EU resilience approach, namely: anticipating crises by assessing risks; focusing

on prevention and preparedness; and enhancing crisis response.

The Communication also identified 10 steps to increase resilience in food insecure and

disaster prone countries, namely: (i) implement bottom-up approaches; (ii) be based on

sound methodologies for risk and vulnerability assessments; (iii) focus on addressing

the underlying causes of crises; (iv) ensure maximum complementarity between

resilience-related actions in its humanitarian and development assistance; (v) introduce

flexibility into the programme design to allow quick and timely action; (vi) addresses

security aspects; (vii) share and exchange lessons with its partners in order to multiply

and scale-up successful approaches; (viii) introduce innovative approaches to risk

management; (ix) create platforms at country level for ensuring the timely exchange of

information and the coordination of short, medium and long term humanitarian and

development actions; and (x) promote resilience in international fora.

Following the Resilience Communication, the Resilience Action Plan, adopted in June

201344

, provides the framework for continuation and scaling up of EU efforts for

resilience at different levels and includes concrete country/region strategies and specific

cases. It sets out three priority areas for EU action:

44

SWD(2013) 227 final dated 19.6.2013 - Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries 2013-2020.



28

Support for the development and implementation of national resilience

approaches integrated in National Development Plans . In this context, DRR

approaches will pay specific attention to: i) targeted actions; ii) better

understanding risks for enhanced early warning systems and improved decision

making; iii) integrated approaches to DRR and climate change adaptation; iv)

promoting DRR in recovery activities in the aftermath of a disaster; addressing

underlying risk and vulnerability factors; and v) increasing attention to small-

scale disasters; awareness raising and capacity building for local authorities

and communities; community-based risk reduction.

Innovation, learning and advocacy. New approaches to building resilience

based on a better understanding of what works and what does not and why :

and strong monitoring and evaluation systems.

Methodologies and tools to support resilience. The development of relevant

tools and guidance to assist EU actors in implementing the EU’s resilience

related commitments, e.g. guidance on how to conduct joint risk assessments

and strategic planning using commonly agreed and harmonised methodologies

that are country-led.

Table 3.4 provides an assessment of the extent to which ECHO funded interventions in the HoA

and CAC (although funded prior to the publication of the 2013 Action Plan) were coherent with

the DRR approaches highlighted in the Resilience Action Plan.


29

Table 3.4 Coherence of DG ECHO funded DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC with the DRR approaches highlighted in the 2013 Resilience Action Plan45

Column heading? Findings from HoA Findings from CAC

Targeted actions By design, the DRRAP supports DRR specific actions By design, DIPECHO supports DRR specific actions

Better understanding risks for enhanced early

warning systems and improved decision

making; vulnerability factors

A number of funded projects have contributed to better

understanding of the risks facing local communities and national-

level risk and vulnerability factors through: collation of community indicators of drought risk,

collection of other EW indicators of drought, and

research to understand risks, needs and resources at the national level.

A number of funded projects have contributed to better

understanding of the risks facing local communities and national-

level risk and vulnerability factors through: risk assessments,

development of datasets and mapping tools that enhance the

understanding of these issues, and knowledge sharing and dissemination actions.

Integrated approaches to DRR and climate

change adaptation (CCA)

ECHO did not explicitly link DRRAP objectives to those of CCA.

However, many of the DRRAP projects had objectives which align with those of CCA (i.e. to help communities adapt their behaviours,

practices and surroundings to mitigate the impacts of natural

hazards).

Although the funding decisions encourage partners to integrate

climate change adaptation into their actions, very few actually do so. Of the 16 projects funded under the 2012 Decision, only 5

projects explicitly considered climate change adaptation as a

cross- cutting issue in the design of their actions. This finding should however, be interpreted in context. As stated in the funding

decisions, climate change is not the main focus of DIPECHO.

On the other hand, several DIPECHO VII projects have contributed to CCA objectives (even though CCA was not the goal being

pursued by these projects), e.g. solar disinfection (SODIS)

technologies and structural mitigation activities .

Promoting DRR in recovery activities in the

aftermath of a disaster; addressing underlying risk

The DRRAP addressed many underlying risks, such as access to

water, natural resource management, conflict, etc. Promoting DRR in recovery activities was not a focus of the DRRAP.

A few examples can be found of projects addressing natural

resource management (e.g. 91002, 91004, 91011) and watershed management (e.g. 91003).

Increasing attention to small-scale disasters;

awareness raising and capacity building for local authorities and communities;

community-based risk reduction

In the funding decisions, a relatively large share of DRRAP funding

(~ 80 per cent) was allocated to community-based risk reduction (including capacity-building for local authorities and communities).

The DRRAP not only brought attention to large scale droughts, but

also to smaller-scale disasters such as animal epidemics, human epidemics and conflicts.

Although there have been occurrences of large scale disasters,

CAC is mainly affected by localised, small scale disasters which often go unnoticed by other actors. DIPECHO has played a key

role in drawing attention to these disasters.

Awareness raising, capacity building and community based DRR are strongly supported by DIPECHO.

45

SWD(2013) 227 final dated 19.6.2013 - Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries 2013-2020.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

30

3.1.5 Coherence with the Hyogo Framework for Action

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) provided the basis for drawing up the EU’s 2009

DRR Strategy. As such, the priority areas for intervention laid out in the 2009 DRR Strategy

are fully in line with the priorities of the HFA. Both DRRAP and DIPECHO are designed to

contribute to the implementation of the HFA. Table 3.5 maps the extent to which DRRAP and

DIPECHO supported actions (during 2009 – 2013) contributed to Hyogo priorities. The

mapping presented below is based on a relative scale and should be interpreted as such.

Table 3.5 Coherence of DG ECHO funded DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC with the DRR

approaches highlighted in the Hyogo Framework for Action

Priority Key activities DRRAP DIPECHO

Ensure that DRR is a national and a

local priority with a

strong institutional basis for

implementation

DRR institutional mechanisms (national platforms)

Mainstreaming of DRR in development policies and planning,

sector wise and multi-sector

Legislation to support DRR

Decentralisation of responsibilities and resources

Assessment of human resources and capacities

Foster political commitment

Community participation

Identify, assess and monitor disaster

risks and enhance

early warning

Risk assessments and maps, multi-risk: elaboration and dissemination

Indicators on DRR and vulnerability

Data and statistical loss information

Early warning: people centred; information systems

Scientific and technological development; data sharing, space-based earth observation, climate modelling and forecasting

Regional and emerging risks

Use knowledge, innovation and

education to build a

culture of safety and resilience at all

levels

Information management and exchange

Education and training

Research, e.g. risk assessment methodologies

Public awareness through engagement of media

Reduce the

underlying risk factors

Environmental and natural resource management

Social and economic development practices, e.g. promoting food security, integrating DRR into the health sector, protection

of critical public facilities , etc

Land-use planning and other technical measures, e.g. integration of DRR into land use policy and planning

Strengthen disaster

preparedness for effective response at

all levels

Strengthen policy, technical and institutional capacities in

regional, national and local disaster management

Promote and support dialogue, exchange of information and

coordination

Strengthen and when necessary, develop coordinated regional

approaches, and create or upgrade regional policies

Prepare or review and periodically update disaster preparedness and contingency plans and policies at all levels,


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

31

Priority Key activities DRRAP DIPECHO

with a particular focus on the most vulnerable areas and groups

Promote regular disaster preparedness exercises, including evacuation drills

Promote the establishment of emergency funds

Develop specific mechanisms to engage the active participation

and ownership of relevant stakeholders, including communities

Key

Activity supported to a large extent

Activity supported to some extent

Activity supported to a limited extent

Activity not supported

3.1.6 Other EU policies and programmes

3.1.6.1 Findings from the HoA

At HQ level, ECHO and DEVCO have increased coordination on DRR and resilience in

recent years, as evidenced by joint communications on these themes, joint programming

(the SHARE initiative) and coordinated approaches to resilience in Ethiopia. ECHO and

DEVCO also co-chair an Inter-service group (ISG) in charge of coordinating the 2013

Resilience Action Plan (which convenes on a quarterly basis), although interviews with ISG-

members based in Brussels have suggested that the group still has some way to go to

enable the joint planning of resilience activities within the work streams of the member DGs.

At field level, coordination between ECHO field office (ECHO Field) and the EU Delegation

has been formalised in Ethiopia (as mentioned in Section 2.2). Up to Phase IV, there was

also some coordination between ECHO the field office and the EU Delegation to Uganda, to

the extent that DEVCO funded FAO to implement agro-pastoral field schools (APFS) initially

piloted through DRRAP. However, the EU Delegation to Uganda now has less opportunity to

plan and coordinate with ECHO since the Ugandan ECHO field office closed in 2011. In

Kenya, ECHO and DEVCO have recently started participating in Kenya’s ASAL donor

platform set up by the Kenyan national government which meets on a monthly basis to

support the national government in developing DRR policy and programming. However,

management and decision-making on the SHARE initiative remains fairly separate, partly

due to the differences in their funding approach (DEVCO works directly with governments,

whereas ECHO works through NGOs, UN agencies and intergovernmental organisations).

Annex 7 provides an overview of DEVCO’s funding priorities in the countries covered by the

evaluation. DEVCO has prioritised its funding on food security and rural development in the

HoA (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda) which offers opportunities for complementarity

with DG ECHO’s support to rural communities affected by food insecurity. In Djibouti, the

focus of DEVCO’s funding is on water / sanitation and energy and on support to the

decentralisation process (including capacity-building of civil society). In Ethiopia and Uganda

(and less so in Kenya), ECHO and DEVCO have tried to create synergies in their work.

However, in Djibouti and Eritrea there is little evidence of coordination between ECHO and

DEVCO.

3.1.6.2 Findings from CAC

DEVCO is funding some DRR projects in the South Caucasus through the Prevention,

Preparedness and Response to Natural and Man-made Disasters Programme (PPRD

East46

). The programme covers the period 2011 to 2014 with a financial envelope of 6 million

46

Countries covered: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

32

euros. The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to the development of partner

countries’ civil protection capacities for prevention, preparedness and response as well as to

bring them closer to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and to improve their bilateral and

regional cooperation (Annex 8 provides further detail on the PPRD East programme). PPRD-

East is thus, highly complementary to DIPECHO.

In CAC, DRR is yet to be embedded within DEVCO’s country -level multi-annual indicative

programmes (MIPs). One of the main reasons for this is that DEVCO interventions in CAC

countries are not particularly relevant for integrating DRR (see Annex 7). DEVCO

programmes in CAC countries tend to focus on the following priorities :

democratic structures and good governance;

trade and investment, regulatory alignment and reform;

good governance and economic reform; and

judicial reform.

There are however, some ‘hooks’ for DRR in DEVCO’s plans, e.g. infrastructure

development (Armenia), and rural and local development schemes (Tajikistan and

Uzbekistan). A more consistent approach is warranted from DIPECHO towards DEVCO’s

programming, through more sustained interventions by DIPECHO to identify, highlight and

then to develop opportunities for synergies for the integrated treatment of DRR within

programming and then implementation, usually under the argument that DRR must be

included as a cross-cutting issue, but possibly also as a justification for work in a particular

development sub-sector, such as for example in Tajikistan where the new EU strategy

envisages large components of support for the rehabilitation of irrigation, food security,

watershed management and rural development.

3.1.7 Coherence with other policies and programmes in the region

3.1.7.1 Findings from the HoA

DRRAP has ensured complementarity with national programmes / policies in the HoA by

responding to gaps in current national capabilities – see Table 3.6. ECHO has coordinated

its activities with national / regional authorities through UN agencies, thus avoiding any

overlaps.

Table 3.6 Mapping of DRAAP actions against national DRR actions in select HoA countries and

regionally (including gaps in national and local capacity)

Country / region

Focus of DRRAP actions Focus of national DRR actions Gaps in national and/or local DRR policy / practice

Ethiopia ■ Community EWS

■ Animal health ■ Support for livelihoods in

communities

■ Resilience-building in communities

■ Technical support to GoE

institutions

■ National EWS

■ District-level disaster risk profiling and contingency

planning

■ Productive Safety Net Programme

■ Institutional and

technical capacity to implement DRM at

woreda (district) level

due to high staff turnover rates and

funding constraints

■ Availability of funding to implement DRM at

woreda (district) level

Kenya ■ Participatory community

DRR ■ Livelihood support

■ Capacity-building of local

authorities ■ Conflict-sensitive DRR

■ National EWS

■ National Drought Contingency Fund

■ Hunger Safety Net

Programme ■ County-level development

planning

■ Capacity and funding to

implement and manage DRR at regional level


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

33

Country / region

Focus of DRRAP actions Focus of national DRR actions Gaps in national and/or local DRR policy / practice

Uganda ■ Mapping and studies (e.g.

water-points)

■ Animal health ■ Human health

■ Community DRR

■ Technical support to national authorities

■ Advocacy to governments

■ Conflict sensitive DRR

■ National EWS (includes

animal health data)

■ District Disaster Management Committees

(not functional)

■ Parliamentary Forum on DRR

■ Funding for district

DMCs

■ Sustainability / autonomy of the EWS

■ Technical capacity to

implement DRR at national / district level

Regionally ■ Technical support for EWS and other DRR mechanisms

■ Communication activities

■ Coordination activities ■ Advocacy to national

governments on DRR (incl.

hosting meetings)

(Inter-Governmental Authority on Development - IGAD):

■ Advocating for DRR to

national governments ■ Convening meetings

between national leaders to

promote joint responses / approaches where

necessary

■ Encouraging international donors to develop DRR

projects

■ Helping CSOs to respond to the calls for proposals

(East African Community - EAC)

■ As above for IGAD, then ■ Strategy (e.g. Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management

Strategy for 2012-2016)47

■ EAC DRR fund

■ Research and information

exchange ■ Contingency planning

■ Technical support ■ Harmonisation of

national approaches

■ Cross-border agreements

3.1.7.2 Findings from CAC

In CAC, funding decisions emphasise that projects should contribute to regional and national

DRR/ DRM strategies and plans where these exist or are in development. However, as

acknowledged in the funding decisions, national policies and legislation tend to focus on

rescue and relief activities, as – most countries still lack comprehensive and functional

national disaster management plans and collaborative institutional arrangements, in

particular to cover the LRRD agenda. There is no region-wide policy or strategy, despite

efforts to develop a regional disaster response capacity under the Central Asian Disaster

Risk Reduction Centre initiative.

Project documentation refers to national policies and strategies, where these are available.

However, national DRR/DRM policies are not publicly available documents in many CAC

countries (Table 3.7), which makes it difficult to assess coherence and complementarity

between DIPECHO and national strategies.

47

[online] Available at: http://www.eac.int/environment/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=169&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=106

http://www.eac.int/environment/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=169&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=106

http://www.eac.int/environment/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=169&tmpl=component&format=raw&Itemid=106


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

34

Table 3.7 Overview of national DRR/ DRM policies, strategies or plans

Armenia There is a national DRR strategy and 2012-2015 action plan (adopted by the Government Decree 07.03.2012) – not publicly available

Azerbaijan No specific national DRR policy

Georgia Draft law on civil safety developed by EMD

National Response Plan (2008) – to be updated in line with new law

DRR components not clearly defined in the current legislation, nor in the draft law on civil safety

No comprehensive national DRR policy, strategy and plan of action

DRR considerations in the Regional Development Strategy (2010-2017)

Kazakhstan The Natural Disaster Preparedness Plan is the main working document. It focuses

on preparedness and response. According to Kazakh counterparts, the National

DRR Strategy is being discussed at the moment and should be adopted in the near future

Kyrgyzstan Under the DIPECHO-funded regional project ‘Enhancing Disaster Risk Reduction

Capacities in Central Asia’ (executed in 2010-11), UNDP Kyrgyzstan established a National Platform for DRR

48 and Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy 2020 – not

publicly available.

Tajikistan National disaster risk management strategy (2010-2015). NDRMS identifies five broad components to improve disaster risk management in Tajikistan for the period

of 2010-2015:

Component 1: institutional mandates and legal, Component 2: disaster risk assessment,

Component 3: disaster risk management and achievement of sustainable

development, Component 4: disaster preparedness and response, and

Component 5: knowledge management: education, training and public

awareness.

Under each of these components an action plan identifies a range of activities.

Turkmenistan National DRR/ DRM strategy is marked as ’classified documents’ and thus not available for third parties

Uzbekistan State program for forecast and prevention of emergency situations dated 2007 which lists specific programmes under three strands:

prevention of natural emergencies,

prevention of manmade emergencies, and educating population and executives to act properly in emergency

situations.

3.1.8 Conclusions

DRR is a core element of ECHO's mandate as per Council Regulation (EC) no. 1257/96 on

Humanitarian Aid. As such, the objectives of the Regional Drought Decisions and DIPECHO

programme are in line with the legal base.

ECHO funded DRR interventions are also largely aligned with the main priorities articulated

in:

the 2009 EU DRR Strategy and its implementation plan;

the 2012 Resilience Communication; and

48

[online] Available at: http://npdrr.kg/national-platform-of-the-kyrgyz-republic-for-disas/35-kyrgyz-national-platform-for-disaster-risk-reduction.html

http://npdrr.kg/national-platform-of-the-kyrgyz-republic-for-disas/35-kyrgyz-national-platform-for-disaster-risk-reduction.html

http://npdrr.kg/national-platform-of-the-kyrgyz-republic-for-disas/35-kyrgyz-national-platform-for-disaster-risk-reduction.html


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

35

the Hyogo Framework for Action.

In line with the policy objectives set out in the above high level documents, both DRRAP and

DIPECHO have contributed to DRR awareness raising and capacity building at all levels –

particularly, at a local level. The above strategies also call for an integrated approach to DRR

and underlying risk factors. 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 i.e. projects integrating DRR with CCA, natural resource management,

environmental management, poverty reduction, protection of critical facilities, financial and

economic tools to ensure a safety net in case of disasters, livelihood support, water

purification, and erosion control, etc. These minor mis-alignments are justified given the

constraints that ECHO works with, namely, a relatively small budget, short funding cycles,

and the principle of not working directly with governments.

In the HoA, integrated projects have already been funded through the SHARE initiative in

2012. The recent trend towards joint priority-setting on DRR between ECHO and DEVCO in

the HoA is positive, and while this has not resulted in clear and/or continuous coordination

on the ground in all countries (e.g. Kenya and Uganda), the joint agenda in Ethiopia may

bear fruit in the future to define how the two Commission services should work together to

complement their work on DRR in the region.

3.2 Cross-cutting issues

EQ2. To what extent have the following cross -cutting issues been taken into account in the design and implementation of DRR strategies and activities?

a. climate change adaptation;

b. Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD);

c. children, the elderly, and disabled people;

d. gender, in particular women's involvement, consultation and participation in projects; and

e. involvement of local and regional community networks in the implementation of projects.

3.2.1 Key Findings from Horn of Africa

Strategic level

Two of the above cross-cutting issues were key features of DRRAP’s funding decisions over

the period 2009 - 2013:

■ LRRD: DRRAP was designed to reduce the need for emergency response/relief to

drought by addressing the root causes of drought and to better prepare affected

communities to cope with it. The 2008 and 2009 funding decisions stated that DRRAP

actions should ‘pave the way for longer-term development actions ’ while the 2012 HIP

sought to ‘strengthen local resilience’. In this respect, the programme could be said to be

linking relief to recovery and development. Indeed, the approach taken to tackling

drought is highly coherent with the principles of LRRD.49

■ Involvement of community networks: a major focus of the DRRAP, particularly from

2010 onwards was to involve communities in DRR. From 2010 this approach was

commonly referred to as Community Managed DRR (CMDRR).

From 2010 onwards, the DRRAP funding decision explicitly took into account the needs of

specific groups of people (children, elderly, disabled, women). The 2008 and 2009 funding

decisions did not explicitly require grant applicants to address specific groups such as

49

For a definition and description of LRRD see Annex 6.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

36

children, the elderly, disabled persons and women in project design, but the 2010 funding

decision encouraged grant applicants to focus on women and children ‘left behind’ during

drought by migrating male members of their families. The 2012 funding decision also

encouraged partners to involve children, the elderly, the disabled, and minority and

marginalised groups in their actions.

While the 2008 to 2012 funding decisions recognise climate change as a key driver behind

the increasing frequency and intensity of dry spells in the region, none of the funding

decisions explicitly linked DRRAP objectives to CCA objectives. Nonetheless, there is a high

degree of overlap between the activities commonly implemented as part of climate change

adaptation, disaster-risk reduction and resilience-building (see Annex 6). Further, the

objectives of each are mutually reinforcing – particularly in the context of drought, which is a

climatic phenomenon.

Projects (operational) level

In the implementation of DRRAP activities (i.e. at project level), some cross-cutting issues

(e.g. LRRD, inclusion of local communities) have been more systematically addressed than

others (e.g. disabilities, elderly, children).

Climate change adaptation (CCA) is ‘the adjustment in natural or human systems in

response to actual or expected climate stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or

exploits beneficial opportunities’ (see Annex 6). In trying to adapt community (and national)

practices, including management of natural resources, to better cope with the impact of

drought, DRRAP can be seen as a tool for CCA. ECHO partners and the East African

Community (EAC) Climate Change Policy both emphasise DRR as a tool for CCA.

A detailed review of 39 projects was undertaken as part of this evaluation. Among other

things, the review examined the extent to which these projects addressed CCA issues in

their design and implementation. The evaluation found that 33 out of 39 projects made an

explicit reference to CCA in project design (Single Form) and 28 out of 39 were judged to be

implementing actions relevant to CCA.

A number of DRRAP activities were also highlighted by wider humanitarian circles as being

good practice examples of LRRD.50

DRRAP interventions implemented LRRD in the

following ways:

■ supporting resilience-building projects (e.g. income-generation, livelihood support) whilst

reserving a contingency (a crisis modifier) for emergency response or the scaling up of

activity in case of a drought;

■ creating working relationships between humanitarian and development actors to

harmonise the approaches to DRR;

■ linking DRRAP-funded humanitarian actions to ongoing development programmes51

;

■ encouraging national authorities to take DRR into consideration in national development

planning;

■ combining relief and recovery activities (e.g. animal vaccinations, water trucking [in

2009], cash for work) with longer term ‘resilience’ activities (e.g. institutional building,

capacity-building, education); and

■ addressing the root causes of vulnerability to drought, such as lack of access to basic

services (water, medicine / health services, animal health services), behavioural issues

(hygiene, NRM), poverty / financial insecurity, education, and lack of accurate data on

future disasters.

50

VOICE - CONCORD position paper (2012) Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD): Towards a more joined up approach enhancing resilience and impact. 51

E.g., the 2010 Oxfam project on Participatory Community Disaster Risk Reduction in Turkana and Wajir – project reference 01007, which linked directly to the DMI.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

37

Most project designs describe how the projects would include women amongst their target

beneficiaries, e.g. by ensuring they are represented on committees52

. However, only a few of

the DRRAP projects specifically targeted women, e.g. by creating female-only resource user

groups (e.g. 2012/91058), by establishing women-only income-generation opportunities (e.g.

2010/01001, 2010/01009), by targeting aid at women-headed households (2010/01022) and

by providing gender-targeted and gender-relevant training (e.g. in household hygiene)

(2010/01016). This is not a criticism of the programme, as research into gender-sensitive

DRR programming – published through the DRRAP-funded REGLAP project – suggests that

while women should be involved as potential ‘agents of change’ in DRR activities, this does

not necessarily require women-only targeting.

REGLAP has published studies on the gender-specific impacts of drought which suggest

that strategies for addressing drought should pay better attention to the role that women play

in societies and how this might be changing.53

Women are amongst the most vulnerable to

drought in their communities because they have more limited access to assets than men

during drought (men tend to look after livestock) and may also have a greater number of

arduous tasks to perform (women tend to be responsible for water and wood collection).

ECHO partners have reflected this gender-specific vulnerability in their needs assessments,

and projects implemented at community-level have ensured that both men and women were

represented in community activities (e.g. by including a ‘quota’ of women in CDMCs, WUCs,

etc). Box 3 provides some examples of the results of activities addressing women’s DRR

needs.

Box 3 Examples of DRRAP activities specifically targeting women

One ECHO project specifically engaged with women (representing 60 per cent of the work

force in the target communities) to secure their participation in cash for work activities

(rehabilitation of ponds, hay-making, hide and skin preservation and honey production) and

by training women-only groups in business development, household resilience was

automatically improved (as women used their money to buy food and household items). A

total of 25,312 women benefitted from these activities.54

By creating opportunities for hay-

making and pasture closer to the village, the project also reduced the burden on women to

walk long distances for water and hay and to look after sick and lactating livestock.

During the field trip to Ethiopia, the evaluation team spoke to women in women-only

SACCOs/VICOBAs and women in CMDRRs and there was some evidence that women in

such committees or lending groups were empowered. This corroborates the findings of the

recent evaluation of the four Kenya-Ethiopia cross-border projects.55

These committees

also generated and strengthened support networks between attending women.

Children were also identified as amongst the most vulnerable to drought , particularly

because they are the most affected by malnutrition. Over the period evaluated, 11 of the 81

projects (14 per cent) specifically targeted children, usually by introducing a DRR component

into local school curricula or by setting up DRR youth groups. The general belief among

ECHO partners interviewed was that community based DRR activities automatically benefit

children, by improving the resilience of households. For example, income-generation

activities can have a positive impact on children, as this provides households with the means

52

84% or 11 out of a sample of 13. 53

Flintan, F (2011) ‘The importance of gender in drought and DRR’ in Disaster risk reduction in the drylands of the Horn of Africa, Edition 2, December 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/REGLAP%20magazine.pdf 54

See Final Report of 2010/01001. 55

Acacia Consultants (2013) External Final Joint Evaluation of DRRAP Kenya-Ethiopia cross-border projects 2012-2013, 24

th October 2013.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/REGLAP%20magazine.pdf


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

38

to send their children to school. At least 23 per cent of all projects included some element of

income-generation: either cash for work (6 projects) or livelihood diversification (13 projects).

In phase V of the DRRAP (2012), four DRRAP projects (2008/01003, 2012/ 91034,

2012/91060, 2012/91027) introduced DRR modules into school curricula in target

communities. The evaluation team met with one school group based in Kacheri, Karamoja

(Uganda). Children reported that through their learning they had been able to encourage

behaviour change in the home (e.g. sufficient re-heating of meat, increased variety of diet,

storage of – as opposed to selling - food). Save the Children in 2012 also collected Early

Warning indicators in schools and UN-ISDR targeted teachers as part of its project to

mainstream DRR.

3.2.2 Key Findings from CAC

Both the 2009 Funding Decision for South Caucasus and the 2010 Funding Decision for

Central Asia state that DIPECHO will support the integration of CCA into DRR operations by

increasing the understanding of climate change issues by beneficiaries and promoting the

implementation of CCA actions. The 2012 HIP for CAC states that ‘climate change cannot be

the sole focus of DIPECHO interventions; however DRR measures can integrate climate

change adaptation and environment protection components where relevant, and always in a

natural disaster context’. This limitation of scope (i.e. climate change should not be tackled

by proposed projects as a standalone topic), was highlighted as problematic by partners at

the two debriefing workshops organised as part of this evaluation. Partners also expressed a

need for more clarity on the treatment of CCA within DIPECHO.

All funding decisions that fall within the scope of this evaluation also highlight the following

cross-cutting issues as focus areas of intervention: involvement of women, children, and

vulnerable groups such as the disabled and ethnic minorities; and environmental protection.

The funding decisions or accompanying guidance notes do not however, elaborate on how

these cross-cutting issues should be integrated in project design and implementation.

In practice, not all cross-cutting issues are systematically addressed by projects. An in-depth

analysis of project documentation reveals that:

Only 5 out of 16 projects funded under the 2012 Decision addressed CCA as a

cross- cutting issue. This was done through the provision of training or organising

awareness raising activities on the topic. What does not yet seem clear to partners,

is the diversity and depth of potential approaches to adaptation, such as community -

based adaptation, ecosystem-based adaptation and the incorporation of indigenous

and traditional knowledge, which can greatly enrich and complement existing

methods of DRR.

A number of projects have made special efforts to reach out to and engage women

and children in their DRR activities, e.g. an Oxfam project (91011), inter alia,

organised focus group discussions in each target community in Armenia to identify

gender and youth needs in DRR. These findings were used to develop the Training

of Trainers (TOT) curriculum. A Save the Children project (91005) made special

efforts to ensure that women and girls were represented on Community Emergency

Response Teams (CERT) and Children's Clubs (CC), created with the help of the

project. As part of the same project, training on ‘child protection during emergencies’

and ‘child friendly spaces’ was delivered to 1,775 women from Women's Groups

from the Jilikul district in Tajikistan. Oxfam first established Women Disaster

Preparedness Groups (WDPGs) in early 2008 and has continued to establish these

groups in the successive DIPECHO cycles. The purpose of the WDPGs is to build

the capacity of women on disaster awareness issues so they can disseminate this

knowledge to the wider community.

The education sector and child-focussed DRR interventions were a core element of

six projects. These projects were specifically designed to improve the knowledge

and disaster coping capacity of children through various means, such as formal and

informal education measures, the creation of youth clubs, peer to peer learning,


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

39

organisation of theatre performances and puppet shows, competitions, simulations

in schools, etc. One such project (91012) targeted kindergarten students and special

needs children. This particular project – implemented by Save the Children -

successfully advocated for the rights and needs of children in kindergartens in

Georgia and those with disabilities in Armenia to ensure the inclusion of both groups

in national DRR policies and local procedures. The project team produced bespoke

inclusive DRR educational resources for children with and without special needs.

The education material included interactive and innovative materials (game book,

teacher guide, calendar for correct and wrong behaviour, posters and an audio CD)

developed by the project officer with prior experience of working with children with

learning difficulties. A Braille version of DRR educational material was also

developed, published and provided to schools for children with vision impairments.

Only three examples could be found of projects where special attention was given to

the needs of the elderly. One such project was delivered by ACTED (91003), which

among other things, delivered age awareness training to target communities to

foster an understanding of the plight of the infirm and elderly in the event of a natural

disaster.

A vast majority of the projects which were community-based involved local

community members and organisations.

Although LRRD is not explicitly mentioned as a cross-cutting issue in the CAC

funding decisions, any feasible exit strategy at programme/ project level would de

facto be addressing the issue of LRRD (the most effective ‘exit route’ for DRR is to

integrate it within development programming). A detailed review of project

documentation and interviews however, suggests that the concept of LRRD is not

very well understood among most partners (as also evidenced by weak exit

strategies – see Section 3.7.4 on sustainability). Overall, the links between ECHO

funded DRR projects, and development planning and programming are weak.

3.2.3 Conclusions

In the HoA, the cross-cutting issues of LRRD and the involvement of communities are

adequately addressed. Gender issues are also well reflected in project design, although

during the implementation phase, 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. The needs of children and the elderly – were even

less well addressed and those of disabled persons were not addressed at all.

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. This can partly be explained by the nature of

projects supported: 6 projects (out of 16) were specifically designed for children (including

children with special needs); while a handful of projects targeted stakeholders and

institutions. Considering that these projects were designed for specific target groups, it is

understandable that these projects did not take into account the needs of elderly, for

instance. The cross-cutting issues of climate change adaptation and LRRD were not

adequately addressed either at a strategic level (i.e. in the funding decisions) or at a project

level in CAC. By design, CCA was not meant to be systematically addressed as a cross-

cutting issue under DIPECHO. Rather, partners were encouraged to incorporate CCA

elements in project design and implementation where feasible. It has been more challenging

to link humanitarian/ DRR issues with development planning and programming in CAC for

reasons previously explained (the misalignment between DIPECHO cycles and the long term

plans of development actors, lack of sufficient ‘hooks’ for DRR within DEVCO’s programmes,

the low priority attached to DRR by national authorities and donors alike, etc).

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


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

40

design and implementation. Communities consulted during fieldwork expressed satisfaction

and appreciation with their involvement in projects.

The evaluation notes that the 2013 HIP for the HoA56

does not make an explicit reference to

cross-cutting issues, while the 2014 HIP for CAC57

highlights ‘gender, children, elderly,

ethnic minorities, marginalised social groups, and the disabled’ as cross-cutting issues.

It is also 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.

3.3 Relevance

EQ3. To what extent have DG ECHO-funded DRR interventions addressed the needs of the most vulnerable communities in the areas most exposed to frequent natural hazards? Is there evidence of

(continuing) need for DG ECHO funding for DRR in the regions concerned? Is DG ECHO’s approach

to DRR relevant and appropriate in the regions concerned?

3.3.1 Key Findings from the HoA

Addressing the needs of the most vulnerable

The funding decisions covered by this evaluation targeted ‘vulnerable populations’ exposed

to drought – identified as people living is ASALs and in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 funding

decisions, these were specified as agro-pastoralist and pastoralist communities (see Table

3.8). The 2012 HIP does not specify any particular socio-economic groups as target

beneficiaries.58

Table 3.8 Target areas and communities

Funding Decision Target Areas Target Groups

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2008/01000 Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,

Somalia, Sudan and Uganda

Nomadic and semi nomadic

pastoralists and agro-pastoralists

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2009/01000

Djibouti (whole territory); Eritrea (whole

territory); Ethiopia (Southern and

Eastern); Kenya (Northern); Somalia

(whole territory); Uganda (Karamoja)

As above

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2010/01000 As above

As above, plus non-nomadic

groups and a particular focus on

women and children left behind

ECHO/-HF/BUD/2012/91000

(2012 DRAAP)

Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia,

Uganda (Karamoja)

Does not specify any particular

socio-economic group, but states

projects should prioritise the

elderly, the disabled, minority and

marginalised groups

ECHO’s funding decisions provide a contextual picture of vulnerability in the target

geographic regions, citing and drawing upon a comprehensive range of sources of

information: (i) tools such as the Global Vulnerability and Crisis Assessment Tool; (ii)

indicators such as TLU (Tropical Livestock Unit) / AAME (Adult African Male Equivalent)

ratio; GAM (global acute malnutrition) rates; food insecurity levels; mortality rates , etc (iii)

56

Financing decision ECHO/-HF/BUD/2013/91000. 57

Financing decision ECHO/WWD/ BUD/2014/01000. 58

In 2012, DG ECHO changed from the use of Financial Decisions to Humanitarian Implementation plans (HIPs), a funding decision with a different format which did not require target beneficiaries to be made explicit, but rather refers to ‘potential beneficiaries’.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

41

external literature and studies; (iv) results and findings from DRRAP projects ; and iv)

qualitative information from ECHO Field’s own observations on the ground.

The funding decisions typically provide a country level overview of the humanitarian context,

needs and risks and indicate for each country covered by the Decision, the specific areas

and socio-economic groups that are most exposed to hazards. Data on hazard risks and

wider literature confirms that the geographic areas targeted by the DRRAP are the most

vulnerable to drought in the region (e.g. Karamoja in Uganda, North and East Kenya, and

Eastern and Southern Ethiopia). They are also often the most politically and economically

marginalised within their countries,59

which means that there is little or no access to basic

services (e.g. health services, money-lending institutions) and little or no investment in

infrastructure (e.g. maintenance of water sources, accessible roads). Pastoralists and agro-

pastoralists dominate the ASALs of the HoA60

and have been typically considered to be

vulnerable because droughts affect their livelihoods (leads to animal disease, crop-yield

failure and loss of livestock). These groups have also been considered vulnerable as a result

of economic policies,61

and general changes to the patterns of pastoralism and agro-

pastoralism in (some parts of) the region62

. Migration, a traditional mechanism for coping

with drought, has been impeded by the creation of national parks and political boundaries.63

Increasingly, studies64

have suggested that the groups most vulnerable to drought are non-

pastoralists or former pastoralists (‘drop-outs’) who have lost assets (land, livestock) and

who are struggling to survive on unsustainable livelihoods, such as charcoal burning. For

example, an analysis of changes in wealth and livelihood strategies in the ASAL zones of

Ethiopia that ECHO Field shared with the evaluation team suggested that ex-pastoralists and

diversified pastoralists are currently amongst the most vulnerable and dependent on food aid

and social protection, whereas pastoralists are drought resilient and ‘cashing in’ on

increased meat demand.65

However, evidence is lacking on a sufficiently wide scale to

effectively document / analyse the relationship between livelihoods and vulnerability in the

HoA, which makes it challenging to conclusively identify the ‘most vulnerable’ in the region.

ECHO funding decisions have consistently targeted agro-pastoralist and pastoralist

communities,66

but ECHO has also recognised the needs and vulnerabilities of other groups,

including pastoral ‘drop-outs’, which from 2008 were recognised as a group at greater risk of

malnutrition due to a ‘chronic dependency on outside assistance’.67

From 2010 onwards,

ECHO made it explicit that the programme should cover non-nomadic groups of pastoralists

with a particular focus on women and children left behind in semi-permanent settlements

59

Mosley (2012) Translating Famine Early Warning into Early Action: An East Africa Case Study, Chatham House, Energy, Environment and Development Programme (EEDP)/Africa Programme Paper: 2012/04 – the paper refers specifically to North and North East Kenya and South and East Ethiopia. 60

It is estimated that there are 30 million (agro)-pastoralists in Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and parts of Tanzania inclusive (Morton, J. (2008) ‘DFID’s Current and Potential Engagement with Pastoralism: A Scoping Study’, Greenwich: NRI). The population of Kenya, according to the CIA World Factbook was 45 million in July 2014. 61

E.g. bans on the trade and export of cattle in Djibouti in 2008 – see 2008 Financial Decision. 62

Movement away from pastoralism is reportedly less common in Uganda than in Kenya (DCA interview Feb 2014). 63

2006 Funding Decision and Coopi Final report 2012. 64

E.g. Future Agricultures (2012) ‘Pastoralism in the Horn of Africa: Diverse livelihood pathways’; Save the Children, IFRC, Norwegian Red Cross & Oxfam (2013) Changes in the Arid Lands - The expanding rangeland: Regional synthesis report and case studies from Kenya, Ethiopia and Somaliland, 31 Dec 2013. 65

Food Security and Nutritional Working Group (2013) Changing Livelihoods and Risks in the Arid Lands –PowerPoint Presentation. 66

The 2012 HIP, whilst not explicitly targeting (agro-)pastoralists, lists activities targeting such communities as eligible activities and identifies them as affected populations / potential beneficiaries in the assessment of humanitarian need. See Section 2 of the 2012 HIP for the Horn of Africa. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/HIPs/HoA.pdf 67

Funding Decision 2008.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/HIPs/HoA.pdf


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

42

with poor access to food and water, while male members of their community migrate to herd

livestock further afield during the dry periods. In 2012, also in keeping with ECHO’s focus on

children, the elderly and women as ‘cross-cutting issues’, the HIP stated that it would

prioritise the elderly, the disabled, minority and marginalised groups.

Arguably, by targeting – or making mention of – specific socioeconomic groups, ECHO has

risked excluding other vulnerable groups (e.g. the so-called pastoral dropouts or non-

pastoralists, particularly those relying on less sustainable livelihoods such as charcoal

burning and casual labour). It has also made it challenging to monitor and measure the

extent to which vulnerable groups have been supported, as none of the funding decisions

which framed the DRRAP have made explicit the criteria on which ‘vulnerability’ was

assessed. The contextual information required assessment and a description of target

beneficiaries only implied the parameters on which vulnerability was analysed. As a result, it

is unclear exactly how ECHO partners could then identify the most vulnerable communities

when selecting between communities on the ground.

While ECHO has commissioned several studies to look at vulnerability, none of these

studies examine ‘relative vulnerability’ at a community level in each target country. DRRAP

partner, Save the Children, conducted a localised study into vulnerability, its consequences

and its drivers, which was published in the REGLAP journal,68

but this was funded through a

different donor programme.69

A review of Single Forms shows that ECHO partners have used a range of approaches and

criteria to identify vulnerable areas and communities in their needs assessments.

Approaches used include field assessments, end beneficiary consultations,

mappings (e.g. of pastoral migrations, grazing and watering grounds, etc), drought

hazard and food security assessments, use of studies and reports, and the partner’s

own experience of being in the region for many years. Some lead partners (e.g.

IFRC, Cordaid, DCA [in Ethiopia only]) also involved their local implementing

partners when carrying out a needs assessment.

Criteria include intensity of the hazard and resource-availability,70

livelihood types71

and willingness / capacity of the community to participate in the intervention72

.

All ECHO partners presented robust evidence in their project design that the targeted

communities experienced major exposure to drought and its impacts. Visits to 21

communities benefitting from DRRAP actions confirmed that the communities selected were

located in rural areas, susceptible to drought and often with unreliable or poor quality water

sources and typically exposed also to other hazards such as inter-group conflict (over

resources or as a result of inter-ethnic rivalries). It was only in Ethiopia where the evaluation

team visited one location (Errer woreda in the Shinille zone) where access to resources did

not appear as pronounced in other regions, and thus the intervention did not seem as

relevant.

68

See Ruiz-Bascaran (2013) ‘Surveying pastoral dropouts in the Somali Region of Ethiopia and the implications for DRR programming’. 69

Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the RAIN (Revitalising Agricultural and pastoral Incomes and New markets) project. 70

Oxfam’s 2009 project in Kenya (Northern Kenya Drought Preparedness Project) targeted ’Strategically important water-points ‘ and Coopi’s 2009 cross-border project (Enhanced Drought Preparedness Adaptive Strategies in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia) targeted ’strategic livestock concentration areas’. 71

Many projects which sought to prevent / reduce livestock disease, particularly in 2008 and 2009 targeted pastoralists / agro-pastoralists, as did those which included Pastoral Field Schools as an activity. 72

For example, German Agro Action interviewed members of communities in drought prone areas to identify those who would be most committed, with a view to enhancing sustainability of the project in implementing its ‘Consolidation of Drought Preparedness & Resilience in Vulnerable Poor Pastoral and Agro Pastoral Areas’ in Kajiado District , Rift Valley Province, Kenya – project reference 01013 (2009).


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

43

Yet, at a more granular level, when selecting beneficiary communities and individuals, there

is inconsistency in the extent to which ECHO partners provide clear indicators and

judgement criteria for their selection of ‘most vulnerable’ or other target groups. This

makes it challenging to assess whether the communities selected were the most in need.

As previously indicated in Section 2, a relatively large proportion of DRRAP-funded

projects were community based. These community based DRR projects sometimes

targeted specific groups identified to be highly vulnerable, including pastoral drop-outs (e.g.

Care UK,73

Save the Children in Ethiopia74

, Caritas,75

Oxfam,76

HelpAge77

), but several of

these projects covered the entire community (as opposed to specific households or groups

within the community). One of the ECHO partners interviewed argued that the activities

implemented (e.g. WaSH infrastructure, DRR capacity-building) benefitted all members of

the community including the most vulnerable, but the evidence for this is not very clear.

Another ECHO partner interviewed implied that their project was aimed at preventing

vulnerability by targeting those who had not yet reached ‘crisis-point’: ‘Pastoral drop-outs

occur in stages: you don’t suddenly go from 100 cows to 0. First you become an agro-

pastoralist, then drop-out altogether. Giving seeds/seedlings to beneficiaries helps to keep

them in the loop. As such we have indirectly had an impact on drop-outs’.

It should however, be noted that many of the DRRAP projects were aimed at advocacy

and institution/ capacity building and as such, targeted ‘multipliers’ – e.g. government,

institutions, CSOs, teachers, health practitioners, etc who have the capacity to reach a wider

number of beneficiaries in the future (e.g. by investing in DRR, by raising awareness on

DRR, or by improving community resilience).78

Other approaches to reaching the most vulnerable have been followed by other donors (see

Annex 9 which provides a mapping of donors active in the HoA). Indeed, one ECHO partner

noted that – in Kenya – the most vulnerable persons are not necessarily supported by

ECHO, they are covered by food aid / social safety net programmes.79

Continuing need for DG ECHO funding for DRR in the HoA

The issue of continuing need for ECHO funding in the HoA was examined at two levels:

firstly, beneficiary perspectives were collected to ascertain if the ECHO-funded DRR

actions were addressing their needs; and

secondly, a country level assessment was carried out to determine if there were any

un-met needs or gaps that could be supported by ECHO in future.

Beneficiary perspectives

Generally beneficiaries consulted during field visits confirmed that ECHO funded

interventions were relevant to their specific needs and that they were satisfied with the

project outputs. They also confirmed that they wanted more of the same (e.g. refresher

training) if further funds were to be made available, rather than something different. Some

ECHO partners have managed to secure funding from other donors to continue their actions

73

Regional Resilience Enhancement Against Drought (RREAD) Programm e. 74

Preparedness Improves Livelihoods And Resilience (PILLAR). 75

Drought Preparedness and Emergency Response Operation in Eastern Ethiopia . 76

Ethiopia Somaliland Cross Border Community Based Drought Risk Management Project. 77

E-LEAP (Learning, Evaluation and Advocacy Programme) for the inclusion and active participation of vulnerable groups through. 78

In 2009 and 2010, the IFRC regional project targeted communities who were not only vulnerable to drought and (in 2009 especially) poor, but also those who were exposed to new possibilities for linking to local power structures, due to an influx of foreign investment. 79

Interview with Daphne Callies, La Nina Consortium lead – note that La Nina is not part of the DRRAP but has been included under the framework of this evaluation.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

44

and in some cases the actions implemented have been replicated or scaled up elsewhere

(see Section 3.8).

Country level assessment

The mid-term review of the HFA made it clear that national governments bear the primary

responsibility for reducing disaster risk, supported where required by the international

community. Countries in the HoA face high levels of drought risk, while lacking the financial

(and technical) capacity to reduce their own levels of risk. ECHO has therefore, been funding

DRR in the region since 2006 (at a time when no other donors were funding DRR in the

region) and more recently, other donors have also started supporting DRR in the HoA

(Annex 9). Much has been achieved in these countries - with ECHO and donor support - in

advancing the DRR agenda and architecture in recent years and particularly since the 2011

drought, which drew worldwide attention to the plight of these countries. Countries like

Kenya and Ethiopia have made significant progress in institutionalisation of DRR at national

and sub-national levels, although in Djibouti, Somalia and Uganda institutionalisation of DRR

still has some way to go (see Section 3.7.2 on mainstreaming). Weaknesses remain even in

countries that have made progress. Sub-national/ local-level financing/ capacity,

transparency and accountability, and the integration of non-government finance all need

significant improvement. For example, district-level DRR institutions are being given greater

autonomy in Ethiopia and Kenya and these should, in theory, support communities in raising

awareness on DRR and funding resilience-building projects. Yet, these institutions still

require funding and capacity-building support (see Table 3.6 in Section 3.1.7).

Moreover, HoA countries are likely to remain reliant on international assistance given their

low/ lower-middle income and high risk profile (Table 3.9). Although the examples of

Indonesia and Philippines (which can be classified as lower-middle income and high-risk)

suggest that ‘national financing of DRR is not about the availability of funding but rather

about the priority attached to the need to fund.’ 80

The discussion above and the evaluative

evidence presented previously in Table 3.6 shows that critical gaps remain in national/ local

DRR capacity in HoA countries that can only be filled with support from the international

community – at least in the short term. This suggests a continued role for ECHO in funding

DRR in the region. In fact, recent analysis suggests that many of these countries - Kenya,

Ethiopia and Uganda – receive disproportionately low levels of financial assistance from the

international community for DRR81

despite the substantial risk of disasters (caused by

droughts, but also other hazards as indicated in Section 2.1.1) and low financial capacity.

Table 3.9 Risk and financial capacity to invest in DRR: HoA

Capacity Risk

Country

Income level - 2014 Government revenue (as % GDP)

- 2012

Government revenue per

capita ($) 2011*

% of population affected by droughts, floods,

extreme temperatures

2009

Djibouti Lower-middle 34% 6.8%

Eri trea Low-income 17% 51.89 7.3%

Ethiopia Low-income 16% 19.90 3.3%

Kenya Low-income 24% 177.76 6.5%

80

Kellett, J. and Caravani, A. (2013) Financing Disaster Risk Reduction: A 20 Year Story of International Aid. London: ODI. 81

Ibid.


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

45

Capacity Risk

Country


- 2012

Government revenue per

capita ($) 2011*

% of population affected by droughts, floods,

extreme temperatures

2009

Somalia Low-income N/A 4.6%

Uganda Low-income 16% 31.78 0.9%

Sources: Income groups are taken from World Bank classifications, IMF statistics for Government

revenue as % of GDP; World Bank for % of population affected by droughts, floods, extreme

temperatures82

; *Kellett, J. and Caravani, A. (2013) Financing Disaster Risk Reduction: A 20 Year

Story of International Aid. London: ODI.


Addressing the needs of the most vulnerable

The funding decisions for CAC provide an analysis of the most disaster prone areas in each

of the countries covered by DIPECHO. However, funding decisions neither identify the most

vulnerable communities within these areas, nor provide a definition or metrics of vulnerability

– Table 3.10.

A review of project documentation and findings from the fieldwork suggest that partners have

used a variety of top-down approaches to identify disaster prone areas (e.g. national DRR

strategies, datasets on hazard risks and occurrences83

, research and reports produced by

other actors including DG ECHO) and bottom-up, participatory approaches to identify

potential target communities or villages within these areas, e.g. Knowledge-Attitude-

Practices (KAP) surveys, observations, needs assessments, prior experience, stakeholder

and community consultations, etc.

Once potential target communities have been identified, partners typically apply the following

criteria (to varying degrees of detail and sophistication) to make the final selection (see

Figure 3.1):

communities with limited coping capacities;

socio-economic vulnerability of the population (projects use different sources and

metrics for vulnerability analysis);

geographic remoteness;

openness to DRR and willingness of the community to collaborate and take

ownership of program;

communities less supported by other NGOs and DRR stakeholders ;

commitment of local and regional authorities to support the action; and

capacities of the implementing partners in selected areas, presence of local branch,

staff and volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise.

Projects typically cover the entire community. Where activities focus on specific groups,

beneficiaries (households) are not necessarily selected on the basis of comparative or

82

Annual average percentage of the population that is affected by natural disasters classified as either droughts, floods, or extreme temperature events. Average percentage of population affected is calculated by dividing the sum of total affected for the period stated by the sum of the annual population figures for the period stated. 83

E.g. the risk atlas produced by the Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN) for Georgia. [online] Available at: http://drm.cenn.org/index.php/en/hazards -and-risks

http://drm.cenn.org/index.php/en/hazards-and-risks


(2009 - 2013) - Final Report

46

absolute vulnerability. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the process of selection of target

communities and beneficiaries is not fully transparent and overly influenced by stakeholder

opinions rather than factual evidence84

.

Efforts have been made to develop common models for vulnerability assessment to assess

risks and to rank communities in rural areas. The work done by Oxfam Georgia under

DIPECHO II, was major step forward, where their ‘Common Tools for Vulnerability Analysis -

CTVA’ (see Box 4) have now been taken up by national actors85

and by other partners, such

as by ACF in their DIPECHO-funded work in Abkhazia and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti. A

Common Tools Work ing Group was established by Oxfam with the involvement of

governmental agencies and civil society actors. It is now envisaged that data collected by

various government agencies and civil society organisations will be available on a website

and a training package will be developed so that regions can be compared in terms of their

level of vulnerability. Awareness and interest in CTVA was expressed by stakeholders in the

debriefing workshop in Dushanbe.

84

Based on an assessment of Single Forms and evaluative evidence, e.g. Murtaza, N. (2013) Supporting Community Resilience to Natural Disasters in Abkhazia and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti, Georgia, 2012-2013. 85

See Georgia’s Report on progress towards HFA implementation. [online] Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/28745_geo_NationalHFAprogress_2011-13.pdf

http://www.preventionweb.net/files/28745_geo_NationalHFAprogress_2011-13.pdf

47

Table 3.10 Overview of hazard identification and vulnerability assessments undertaken in CAC funding decisions (2009 – 2013)

Country Area km² Population86

Hazard identification Assessment of hazard risk Vulnerability assessment

Most vulnerable areas Communities

Georgia 69,700 4.7 million Earthquake

Landslides

Flash floods

Avalanches

86% of the country highly exposed to

earthquakes

Mountainous areas most prone to

landslides, mud flows and avalanches:

Upper Svanetia region,

Upper Racha Lechkhum region,

Kvemo-Svaneti region,

Adjara autonomous republic, and

Samchkhe-Javakheti region.

Poor populations

(women, children,

minorities)

Armenia 29,740 3.2 million Earthquakes

Floods

Landslides

Mudflows

Avalanches

45% of the Armenian territory is prone to

natural disasters, with an annual risk of

economic losses caused by natural

disasters estimated at EUR 15 billion

(CENN, 2008)

Most disaster prone regions87

:

Gegharkunik region,

Yayotsdzor region,

Shirak region, and

Aragtotan region.

Not identified

Azerbaijan 86,600 8.2 million Droughts

Earthquakes

Floods and

flash floods

Landslides

Strong winds

Over 60% of the country is highly prone

to earthquakes

9% of the territory where 500,000 people

(6% of the population) are living are

exposed to landslides

Sheki-Zagatala region

Along the Kura and Aral Rivers

Shamakhian region

Not identified

Kazakhstan 2,699,700 15.9 million Earthquakes

Floods

Economic loss potential from hazards: 3-

5%

Almaty City

Southern Kazakhstan

?

86

Based on 2012 Funding Decision, version dated 16 November 2011.

87 Since 2005, 80% of the natural disasters have occurred in these regions.

48

Country Area km² Population86

Hazard identification Assessment of hazard risk Vulnerability assessment

Most vulnerable areas Communities

Kyrgyzstan 191,800 5.3 million Earthquakes

Landslides

Floods

Economic loss potential from hazards: ~

20% of GDP

Osh

Jalal-Abad

Batken

Bishkek

Tajikistan 139,960 6.9 million Floods

Earthquakes

Landslides

Economic loss potential from hazards: ~

70 % of GDP

District of Republican Subordination

(DRS) including Dushanbe, Sughd,

Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast

(GBAO), and Khatlon

?

Turkmenistan 469,930 5.1 million Earthquakes

Floods

Ashqabad and Turkmenbashi cities and

provinces, Lebab, Balkan, Dashauz,

Ahal, and Mary

?

Uzbekistan 425,400 27.8 million Earthquakes

Droughts

Economic loss potential from hazards: 3-

5%

Andijan, Ferghana, Kashkadarya,

Khorezm, Karakalpakstan, Namangan,

Navoi, Syrdarya, Tashkent, with links

maintained to other previously targeted

provinces such as Bukhara,

Samarkand, and Surkhandarya

?

Based on an analysis of the three funding decisions that fall within the scope of this evaluation (listed in Table 1.1)

49

Figure 3.2 Approach to selection beneficiaries for community based DRR

Box 4 Overview of ‘PCVA’ and ‘CVTA’

Oxfam’s Community Tools for Vulnerability Assessment (CTVA) approach covers the following topics: information on the village population and vulnerable groups (e.g. disabled households) , village accessibility throughout the year, public/social Infrastructure, environmental conditions, risk zones and number of families living there, drinking water infrastructure, economic condition, and disaster response capacity (equipment, organisation etc).

Scores are assigned to each village based on the situation using multiple questions under each section and a final overall village vulnerability score is worked out. This is a fairly comprehensive approach covering most of the important dimensions of vulnerability. ACF’s Participatory Capacity Vulnerability Assessment (PCVA) approach covers the following dimensions for each village:

general information about village, accessibility of the village to main towns, resources: physical and socio-economic, village mapping showing hazard source and resource locations, institutional mapping of agencies that work in the village, seasonal calendar of income activities and disasters, historical timeline of disasters, problem tree, and solution tree.

While the CTVA utilises a closed-ended questions approach, the PCVA adopts a more open-ended qualitative approach.

Source: Murtaza, N. (2013) Supporting Community Resilience to Natural Disasters in Abkhazia and Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti,

Georgia, 2012-2013.

50

Continuing need for DG ECHO funding for DRR in CAC Beneficiary and partner perspectives

Beneficiaries and partners have expressed a demand for continued ECHO funding, given

that in most CAC countries:

Communities remain vulnerable to complex hazards (hydro-meteorological,

geological and combined) which are being altered under the ongoing impacts of

climate change.

DRR is not yet a real national priority, although there are some exceptions. Half the

countries in the region do not have a DRR strategy in place (Azerbaijan, Georgia,

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), and where these exist, they are not underpinned by a

targeted commitment to spend or earmarked financial envelopes. Coordinated and

coherent national financing of DRR is lacking in all countries.

Local governments do not have the resources or the capacities to invest in DRR,

suggesting that partners will likely remain reliant on outside donors. The legacy of

Soviet command societies and civil conflicts makes decentralisation difficult, and the

development of competent, sustainable and well-resourced DRR institutions within

municipal governments, remains rare.

However, partners have, with exceptions, done little systematic advocacy directed towards

other potential donors aimed at diversifying the donor field and increased their attention to

and funding for DRR - although ECHO argues that donors have shown little interest in

funding DRR in the region so far. There are considerable opportunities for DIPECHO, for

example alongside national platforms (where these exist), to analyse the issue of how

partners can identify and advocate for more diversified funding streams, for example from

climate adaptation international funding.

Country level assessment

When undertaking the fieldwork, the evaluators also noted gaps and needs, e.g. DRR needs

in urban contexts, gaps in national/ local government competencies and tools in hazard

mapping and geographical information systems, both for DRR and land use management.

The range of risks and financing needs however, is very different across CAC countries as

shown in Table 3.11. Of the countries covered by DIPECHO, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and

Armenia are perhaps the most in need of ECHO support.

Table 3.11 Risk and financial capacity to invest in DRR: HoA

Capacity Risk

Country


- 2012

UNISDR Mortality Risk Index- 2009

% of population affected by

droughts, floods, extreme

temperatures 2009

Kazakhstan Upper-middle 27% 5 0.2%

Kyrgyzstan Lower-middle 34% 6 2.1%

Tajikistan Low-income 25% 6 5.4%

Turkmenistan Upper-middle 21% 5 0%

Uzbekistan Lower-middle 41% 8 0.1%

Armenia Lower-middle 22% 7 0.5%

Azerbaijan Upper-middle 40% 5 1.1%

Georgia Lower-middle 29% 5 0.8%

51

Sources: Income groups are taken from World Bank classifications, IMF statistics for Government

revenue as % of GDP; World Bank for % of population affected by droughts, floods, extreme

temperatures.

Notes: The Mortality Risk Index shows which populations are most and least at risk from earthquakes,

floods, tropical cyclones and landslides. The main limitation of this index is the lack of information on

droughts.

1 2 3 4 5

Negligible Very low Low Medium Low Medium

6 7 8 9 10

Medium high High Very high Major Extreme

3.3.3 Conclusions

In the HoA, it is clear the DRRAP projects have targeted communities most exposed to

drought, yet they have not always targeted the most vulnerable. In some cases, the rationale

for targeting less vulnerable groups is logical and relevant, but in other cases the logic is

unclear, not least because the criteria for community selection are not specified. The

inconsistency between projects in the clarity and relevance of beneficiary selection is driven

in part by the lack of guidance from ECHO in its funding decisions/ HIPs.

Similarly in CAC, DIPECHO projects have generally targeted communities located in the

areas most exposed to natural hazards. However, in the absence of comprehensive and

comparable vulnerability assessments, it is not possible to determine whether participating

communities/ villages were the ‘most vulnerable’. While some initial work is promising, such

as CTVAs in Georgia, across CAC countries there is a paucity of comparative assessments

of vulnerability (at a community level) or even national DRR datasets and strategies.

It is widely accepted that the main responsibility for DRR financing lies with the national

governments, supported where required by the international community. In such a context,

ECHO’s approach to DRR has been to ‘get things off the ground’ and to ‘exit’ once this has

been achieved. However, while ECHO partners do appreciate that ECHO cannot be an

eternal source of funding, in many countries they are stymied in obtaining diversified funding,

due to the lack of international donor support for DRR and/or lack of national/ local financial

capacity. In both regions, there is arguably a continuing role for 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, Ethiopia), while some countries do not

necessarily require external financing for DRR (e.g. Kazakhstan). This calls for a more

selective approach going forward.

3.4 Internal coherence

EQ4. Do the actions have clearly specified impact pathways (causal chain or logical framework) for each of their principal activities and outputs? Are the assumptions and risks underpinning the

intervention logics realistic and reasonable? In particular: what other actions (outside ECHO) need to

happen for the planned impacts to be achieved? Have those actions been directly addressed in the programme design (for example through assessment of the assumptions and risks associated with

reliance on policies, capacities and actions of national institutions [public and private], partnerships,

or through work on the policy environment)?

ECHO partners are required to:

provide an intervention logic for their project in the Single Forms setting out:

o the principal objective of their action,

o specific objectives,

52

o results,

o activities contributing to the results,

o objectively verifiable indicators, and

o sources of verification.

identify the underlying pre-conditions, risks and assumptions; and

subsequently, develop appropriate contingency plans88

for addressing the identified

risks.

ECHO assesses the above elements as part of the selection process and at the interim/ final

reporting stages; and records its observations in the fiche-ops.

The log-frame format used by ECHO in the Single Forms is the standard format used by

donors. However, as the same activity can contribute to multiple results, it leads to

fragmentation and repetition in the monitoring and reporting of progress against activities

and results. The objectively verifiable indicators are non-standardised across projects,

making it hard to carry out a comparison of similar activities between projects or to obtain a

global picture of the outputs and results delivered at a programme level. Although ECHO’s

thematic paper89

sets out a series of indicators for monitoring the outputs and results of DRR

actions, these have not been introduced in ECHO’s funding decisions.


Aside from the above general remarks, the specific observations of the evaluators with

respect to projects funded in the HoA are as follows:

Interventions are underpinned by clearly specified intervention logics. There is

generally a logical link between project activities and results. In cases where

partners have designed illogical or poor quality intervention logics, ECHO has

provided close support to help them improve this.90

The monitoring indicators are not always ‘Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant

and Timebound’.

Although the fiche-ops show that DG ECHO is often satisfied by the risks identified,

the evaluation team observed that partners tend to identify only a few main risks /

pre-conditions and very few elaborate their contingency plans in sufficient detail.

Interviews with ECHO partners and observations in the field have shown that the

main risks which have affected the achievement of project objectives in the region

have been security in the region (restricting or preventing access to project sites),

elections in Kenya in 2013 (which affected the way in which some activities could be

implemented), while the main pre-conditions have been engagement with national

and (particularly) local authorities and institutions, the capacity of local institutions

who may be involved in some aspects of project delivery and/or local implementing

partners, engagement of the local community and administrative delays (either with

national/local authorities approving projects and/or between ECHO and the partner).

These were not adequately addressed in the project design. Good practice in doing

so is demonstrated by Care UK who in their 2012 Single Form identify individual risk

events, rating the probability of their occurrence, the potential impact, the person

responsible for managing the risk (who could be an actor external to the project, e.g.

a national authority), the method for identifying whether the risk has occurred and

the contingency plan.

88

See Section 8.1 of the Single Forms. 89

DG ECHO (2013) Disaster Risk Reduction: Increasing resilience by reducing disaster risk in humanitarian action. 90

E.g. in the case of the 2010 FAO project in Djibouti (01024).

53

ECHO’s monitoring of the projects as documented in the fiche-ops shows that

ECHO provides support and feedback to partners to help them improve risk

assessment. For example, in 2012, following the 2011 drought which affected the

implementation of DRRAP projects, ECHO (in its fiche-ops) encouraged partners to

identify drought as a key risk and provide a mitigation strategy. Yet in consideration

of the implementation challenges faced by the partners, there is scope for

improvement.

ECHO partners do not adequately evidence their progress achieving results. Indeed,

ECHO often requests additional evidence of achieved results in its final monitoring of

the project.

The lack of quantification of targets and use of inconsistent units in reporting

beneficiaries (e.g. number of villages, number of households, number of individuals)

makes it difficult to obtain an aggregate picture on programme outputs and results .

3.4.2 Key Findings from South Caucasus and Central Asia

The log frames developed by partners in CAC were found to be clear and logical in most

cases. In a few isolated cases, there was an inconsistency between the indicators and the

target values. For example, in one case, the target value for the following indicator: % of

population perceiving that they are in a disaster-prone area and prepared to react

adequately was specified in terms of the number of communities. In the case of one project,

the target values were not even specified.

The Single Forms tend to provide a rather superficial description of pre-conditions for

successful implementation. To quote some examples directly from the Single Forms:

‘Politically and socially stable environment ’

‘No major natural disasters will hamper the start or ongoing implementation of the project.

Relationship with the target communities remains strong’

‘Funds are transferred in time. No major fluctuation in exchange rate’

‘Facultative for Letter of Intent unless specified in HIP’

Partners typically highlighted the following (ex-ante) risks affecting project delivery:

occurrence of disasters or security issues preventing access to beneficiary

communities or project activities being implemented;

commitment and engagement of relevant stakeholders, including government

authorities and participating communities, due to hierarchical systems and, for

example, the difficulties these cause for agile and decentralised operations ; and

political situations such as electoral cycles causing the loss of key staff due to

repeated civil service restructurings.

However, contingency measures set out in project documentation do not always address the

identified risks.

At a practical level, despite some hurdles (e.g. delays in securing ministry approval for

project activities, extreme weather conditions) and delays, projects generally managed to

complete their activities within the DIPECHO funding cycle. While partners are keenly aware

of the restraints under which DIPECHO operates, during the fieldwork, CAC partners

collectively and strongly advocated for an extension of the project cycle beyond the current

18 month period, towards possibly a 20-month total project length, with a start-up month late

in the winter season (say March 20XX to November 20XX+2). This was seen as vital in order

to cover at least two summer periods, with the example benefit that this would allow partners

to engage with natural resources management issues.

54

3.4.3 Conclusions

They key conclusions arising from the above findings are as follows:

ECHO funded interventions are generally underpinned by clear intervention logics

showing the linkages between outputs and results;

the lack of common indicators across DRAAP/ DIPECHO however, makes it hard to

compare or aggregate outputs and results across projects;

risk assessment and contingency planning is relatively weak among partners and

can be improved; and

ECHO partners in the HoA do not adequately evidence their progress on results.

3.5 EU added value

EQ5 What has been shown to be the EU added value of the DRR actions examined (i.e. the added

value of EU intervention, compared to leaving the initiative to other actors)?


The main elements of added value of ECHO’s approach to DRR in the HoA were found to

be:

Dedicated and sustained DRR funding: Stakeholders consulted unanimously stated that

ECHO began funding DRR in the HoA at a time when no other donor was funding such

actions. By providing dedicated and sustained funding, ECHO gave participating partners the

freedom to experiment with and pilot promising methods in drought risk reduction, generating

greater understanding of drought-risk reduction in the region and promoting the

mainstreaming of DRR into development.

ECHO has been a front-runner in promoting DRR in the region: it is only recently that

other donors like DfID and USAID have begun to fund DRR and resilience in the region (see

Annex 9). Through the DRRAP, ECHO has created a linked-up community of DRR

stakeholders and practitioners within which partners are encouraged to exchange

information on innovation and good practices and this has generated a greater

understanding of drought risk reduction in the region. By encouraging greater NGO

coordination, ECHO also helped avoid duplication of effort. ECHO nurtured new alliances

between the UN and NGOs. As stated by one regional partner, ‘The DRRAP allowed the UN

and NGOs to come together as one voice’.

Cross-border approach: other donors are often constrained by organisational structures

and operational procedures to working bilaterally with specific countries. ECHO’s cross-

border approach to DRR is ‘unique’ in the region. Cross-border working can be highly

challenging – particularly from a management perspective (both for the donor and the

partner) and also generates numerous implementation challenges (higher costs due to

differences in currency, administrative burden and coordination effort). However, there is

evidence of the positive impacts of this approach – e.g. the MoUs on ‘Cross-Border Animal

Health Coordination’ between Kenya and Uganda and the ‘cross-border peace accords’

between local administrators in Northern Kenya and Southern Ethiopia. IGAD has recently

begun to use donor funding to work cross-border.

Focus on community-level actions / the ‘most vulnerable’: unlike other donors and

Commission services, ECHO prioritises actions that target communities and is highly

sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable (although these are not always explicitly

defined – See Section 3.4). It has funded interventions in communities which are not

supported by national safety nets and in this respect, ECHO has filled a gap in services,

even though the number of communities that could be reached was limited by the size of the

programme budget. The added value of this approach is reflected by the fact that DfID has

55

now started to ‘take over’ some of ECHO’s community-based projects (as part of their

BRACED programme),91

and local authorities in Kenya at least should theoretically also take

over responsibility for community capacity-building. In theory, by funding preparedness

projects in communities, ECHO also expects that its partners will be in a strong position to

monitor early warning signs of onset disaster, to report these indications back to DG ECHO

and to respond rapidly to drought should it occur. However, this aspect has not worked so

well (see Section 3.8).


The key findings from CAC are as follows:

DIPECHO has delivered tangible results that are visible to beneficiary communities

and valued by them: although difficult to quantify, there is substantial anecdotal evidence

across the current portfolio of DIPECHO projects to suggest that response teams, mitigation

measures (e.g., mudflow clearance, embankments, avalanche protection walls, drainage

canals), contingency plans, etc created by ECHO funding, are currently saving lives and

preventing property damage during disasters – see Section 3.8.

Financial added value: DIPECHO is recognised as a key donor in the field of DRR and for

the high quality of funded projects. Stakeholder interviews suggest that many of the projects

in CAC would not have been implemented at all or would have been implemented at a

reduced scale in the absence of ECHO funding as there are limited alternative sources of

DRR funding. There are only a handful of donors supporting DRR in the region, and none

actually run a dedicated DRR programme, such as DIPECHO. Besides, authorities both at

national and at local levels in many CAC countries lack the resources, capacity and know-

how to support community- based DRR (there are some exceptions such as Kazakhstan,

which has the resources and in recent years has also shown policy interest in DRR; while

some countries have the resources, but have not attached priority to DRR, e.g. Azerbaijan).

A unique blend of top-down and bottom-up approach to DRR: ECHO is seen as a

‘frontline’ donor supporting community based DRR (at a grass root level) alongside advocacy

and institutional linkages at higher levels (local, sub-national and national level), thus tackling

the issue from two angles. This has been particularly evident in the Central Asian countries

where UNICEF and UNDP have been funded in earlier funding cycles to engage strategically

with DRR as a national issue (UNDP) and for the education sector (UNICEF92

).

Local presence and high visibility: through its field offices, ECHO regularly brings together

‘DIPECHO partners’ at the national and regional levels to stimulate inter-agency

collaboration and cross-fertilisation, thus providing a forum for strategic cooperation and

sharing of knowledge and material (good practices, DRR educational material, etc). A local

presence also allows ECHO to closely monitor developments in the region as well as the

implementation of the programme. Partners interviewed in the context of this evaluation

spontaneously mentioned the local presence and accessibility of ECHO field staff as a key

element of its added value. During fieldwork, national ministries also positively commented

on the role of DIPECHO in promoting ‘multi-stakeholder involvement’ in DRR.

The cross-border and multi-country approach is also quite unique to ECHO and one that

adds value by promoting the exchange of knowledge and cooperation between countries.

3.5.3 Conclusions

The key dimensions of this added value as evidenced by this evaluation are as follows:

funding DRR activities that would otherwise have not been implemented (or

implemented at a much smaller scale);

91

[online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/building-resilience-and-adaptation-to-climate-extremes-and-disasters-programme 92

See [online] Available at: http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/DRR_Good_Practices_and_New_Appraoches.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/building-resilience-and-adaptation-to-climate-extremes-and-disasters-programme

https://www.gov.uk/international-development-funding/building-resilience-and-adaptation-to-climate-extremes-and-disasters-programme

http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/DRR_Good_Practices_and_New_Appraoches.pdf

56

running a dedicated funding programme for DRR;

the combination of a top-down (advocacy and institutional linkages) and bottom-up

approach (community based) to DRR. ECHO’s focus on communities as central

actors in DRR is unique;

local presence through ECHO field offices and their role in facilitating coordination

and cooperation between partners and creating a linked-up community of DRR

players; and

support for cross-border and regional interventions.

3.6 Delivery mechanisms

3.6.1 Organisational structures and partner selection

EQ6. Are the actions’ organisational structure and choice of partnerships (still) appropriate to achieve

their aims? Have appropriate incentives been built in for partners? Do the funded actions build on the

comparative advantages of the ECHO partners? Do the ECHO partners compete with or substitute activities that other development agencies could do more appropriately or efficiently?

3.6.1.1 Key Findings from the HoA

Over the period 2009 to 2013, ECHO has worked with the following partners to deliver DRR

actions in the HoA (Table 3.12).

Table 3.12 ECHO partners funded through DRRAP 2009-2013

Regional partners Cross-border and country-specific project partners

FAO, International Federation of Red Cross

and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Oxfam

UK (when leading REGLAP), UN-ISDR, UNDP, UNICEF

ACF-FRA, ACH-ES, Care International, Caritas

Germany, Christian Aid UK, COOPI, CORDAID,

Red Cross Denmark, Danchurchaid, Farm Africa, German Agro-Action, HelpAge International,

International Rescue Committee (IRC), MedAir UK,

OCHA, Oxfam UK, Save the Children UK, UNICEF, VSF Belgium, VSF Germany, VSF Switzerland

ECHO works exclusively with IOs and NGOs with whom it has signed Framework

Partnership Agreements. In accordance with the international humanitarian principles of

impartiality, neutrality and independence, ECHO does not work directly with national

governments nor with for-profit organisations. Donors consulted for this evaluation consider

that this limits ECHO’s capacity to support emerging national structures (e.g. the

NDMA in Kenya), and therefore see this as a disadvantage of ECHO’s approach to

partnership selection. However, the DRRAP has had some success in influencing national

and regional policies and structures (see Section 3.8) by working with UN agencies (e.g.

FAO, UN-ISDR, UNICEF) and Red Cross societies. For example, the decision to fund IFRC

was driven by the fact that Red Cross societies play a major role in disaster response in the

HoA as auxiliaries to national governments, thus by strengthening Red Cross societies’ DRR

capacity in these countries ECHO was helping integrate DRR into national disaster

management.

During the period under evaluation, ECHO did not duplicate the work of development

donors. Nonetheless, some EU officials consulted did express a concern that ECHO

‘stretched its mandate’ [into the remit of development actors] with the multi-phase approach

followed and its focus on resilience. At the same time, ECHO partners commented that the

18 month funding cycles can have a limiting effect on the achievement of longer-term

impacts (e.g. capacity-building in communities, which needs to be reinforced over a

continuous period). According to them, development actors who fund over longer periods are

better placed to fund resilience-building projects for this reason. However as stated in

Section 3.5.1, ECHO was funding DRR activities precisely because other donors and

development actors were not doing so until recently. In this respect ECHO ‘filled a gap’. The

57

integration of DRR in development policy and planning including relevant sector policies and

strategies is the ultimate goal of ECHO funded DRR actions. Until that goal is achieved,

ECHO has a clear added value in supporting DRR either in the form of stand-alone DRR

projects or through integrated projects.

Specific incentives for the partners to engage with ECHO-funded DRR in the HoA have

included the opportunity to work across borders (a possibility not usually offered by other

donors) and the opportunity to become involved in the community of DRR practitioners who

have collectively advanced understanding and technical knowledge of the subject .

Overall ECHO’s approach to partner selection was logical as most of the partners had a

history of working in the geographical area and some, had specific methodological expertise

(e.g. Cordaid which has expertise in CMDRR) or sectoral expertise (e.g. Oxfam in WaSH).

DRRAP partners are amongst some of the key humanitarian actors working in DRR (UN

[through UN-ISDR], Oxfam) and drought (ACF, Save the Children) and therefore, bring

specific expertise and reputation to the programme. In this respect, the funded actions built

upon the comparative advantages of the ECHO partners.

However, an analysis of project documentation also suggests that partner selection was not

always clearly justified. A review of the ficheops show that some of the partners were not

very effective in engaging beneficiary communities and/or local authorities and some did not

select appropriate methods for achieving their objectives. Similarly, the evaluation team

observed during its field trips that most ECHO partners had in the latter phases of the

DRRAP utilised community-participatory methods for implementing DRR (i.e. using a

CMDRR approach), but with mixed success. This underlines the need for careful matching of

community needs, action and partner skills. In two of the 2010 ficheops, ECHO itself

expressed concerns with either the performance and/or relevance of some partners’ actions,

yet in the following phase the same partner was still funded without a strong rationale as to

why. Further, where projects were multi-phase, the partners did not always demonstrate the

effectiveness of the previous activities and therefore, the justification for their continuation in

the Single Forms.

At least 28 of the 62 projects funded during 2009-2013 (i.e. 45 per cent) involved local

implementing organisations. Local organisations reported a good relationship overall with

ECHO partners. All had been selected either because of their technical expertise in DRR

and/or because of their links to the local community / authorities. ECHO partners have mixed

opinions about working with local organisations: for some, this has worked extremely well

and the local organisations have provided local contextual knowledge, as well as a stable

‘anchor’ to the project site to enable project continuation, even between funding phases; but

for others (e.g. 2012/91034), the limited capacity of the local organisation has increased the

administrative burden of the project.

3.6.1.2 Key Findings from CAC

Over the period 2009-2013, ECHO has worked with the following partners to deliver DRR

actions in CAC:

■ Acted,

■ ACH-Spain,

■ Aga Khan,

■ Save the Children,

■ Mission East – Denmark,

■ Oxfam,

■ Red Cross (Dutch and Danish),

■ Welthungerhilfe (formerly, German Agro Action),

■ UN Agencies (UNDP, UNICEF, OCHA, WHO), and

■ Intergovernmental Organisations such as IOM.

Twelve out of 16 projects funded under the 2012 Decision involved local implementing

partners. The number of implementing partners has ranged from 1 to 10. Implementing

partners have included national Red Cross/ Red Crescent societies; national authorities (e.g.

Ministry of Emergency Situations, Ministry of Education) and to a lesser extent, local NGOs

58

(e.g. CENN, Single Mothers Association of Tekeli, Black Sea Eco-Academy etc). There is

limited choice of local NGOs in most CAC countries which explains their relatively limited

involvement in the programme. Having said that, there are some local NGOs which could be

involved to a greater degree in the programme given their local DRR knowledge and

expertise. The ineligibility of local NGOs to receive funding from ECHO and their limited

involvement in the programme remains an obstacle to developing long-term local capacity.

For example in Georgia, the Black Sea Eco-Academy had clearly played a pivotal role in

delivering the Oxfam Adjara Mountains project93

, but does not qualify by itself to apply for

funding.

Notwithstanding this, the choice of partnerships was found to be logical overall, reflecting the

comparative strengths of partners. For example, organisations such as Save the Children

and UNICEF have developed DRR interventions targeting children, in line with their areas of

expertise. Partners have demonstrated relevant DRR expertise and where necessary, they

have involved implementing partners to complement their in-house capacity and expertise as

well as to provide local contextual knowledge. To give a few examples:

ACTED involved HelpAge as an implementing partner to carry out age awareness

training of Village Disaster Preparedness Committees and Rescue Teams;

in Georgia, Save the Children worked alongside ABS Germany as local partner, who

are specialists in disaster risk communication for children; and

Oxfam worked with the Black Sea Eco Academy (BSEA) in Georgia given their local

knowledge of social and environmental issues and with the Rural Communities

Development Agency (RCDA) who have special expertise in innovative technologies

and the management of natural resources.

The UN Agencies have tended to involve national authorities in their projects to secure their

buy-in, to enhance their capacity and to promote the mainstreaming of DRR. For example,

WHO involved the Ministry of Health, the Committee of Emergency Situations and Civil

Protection and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in its project aimed at improving mass casualty

management in Tajikistan (91006). Similarly, UNICEF has involved the Ministry of Education

as an implementing partner in its projects aimed at delivering pilot DRR activities in schools,

and integrating DRR in national school curricula, in several countries.

One of the main incentives for partners to get involved with DIPECHO (aside from it being

the only regular and major source of DRR funding) is the good reputation of the programme

in the region. It is widely acknowledged by all stakeholder groups such as international

agencies, national/ local authorities, local communities , etc, that DIPECHO funds good

quality projects – thus, involvement in DIPECHO is seen as a ‘quality stamp’ by partners.

Other incentives for partners to seek DIPECHO funding include the support offered by

ECHO field offices and flexibility in approach; funding is allocated to projects on the basis of

the needs and merits of a proposal as opposed to other criteria such as geography.

No evidence was found of ECHO partners competing with or substituting for activities that

other development agencies could have funded more appropriately. There are virtually no

countries or areas where a multiplicity of agencies operate in similar areas of DRR, thus

indicating a reduced risk of overlap or substitution.

It can of course be argued that DRR is the responsibility of national and sub-national/ local

authorities. But as the latter have yet to fully mainstream DRR into national / local

development policies and relevant sectoral polices are not supporting community based

DRR to the extent necessary (by investing in EWS, appropriate structural mitigation

measures or awareness raising and preparedness, etc), there is little or no risk of

competition or substitution; ECHO is rather filling a gap.

93

[online] Available at: http://www.governance.bsnn.org/pdf/GE1.pdf and “Life In Danger” video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7huCyfVKg08

http://www.governance.bsnn.org/pdf/GE1.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7huCyfVKg08

59

3.6.1.3 Conclusions

In line with its mandate, ECHO directly funds IOs and NGOs with whom it has signed a FPA.

ECHO partners typically involve national Red Cross/ Red Crescent societies, national

authorities and to a lesser extent, local NGOs as local implementing partners to supplement

their own capacity and expertise and to benefit from their local knowledge and links.

The choice of partnerships was found to be appropriate in CAC and the HoA, building upon

the comparative strengths of the organisations involved. In the HoA however, some DRRAP

partners have under-performed through multiple phases suggesting a need for DG ECHO to

place more emphasis on past-performance and the combination of organisational skills /

capacity and the project methodology proposed when selecting partners to implement their

actions. Moreover in the HoA, ECHO partners have had mixed (and not always positive)

experiences of working with local NGOs, mainly due to issues with skills and capacity.

Capacity-building of local civil society has however, not been a focus of the DRRAP, which

may have been a lost opportunity, as was suggested in the recent evaluation of DIPECHO

activities in Indonesia; this may have created a possibility that such organisations would take

over the ECHO activities in the absence of international organisations.

Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that ECHO was competing with or substituting the

activity of other development actors in the period covered by this evaluation. ECHO

interventions 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.

3.6.2 Local implementing partners’ capacity and commitment

EQ12. To what extent do the DG ECHO partners and their local implementing partners have the

capacity to integrate the DRR's approach in their overall strategy from response to rehabilitation and development? How committed are the partners and their staff to implement the ECHO-funded

actions in the regions concerned?


Overall evidence suggests that ECHO partners are highly committed to achieving the

objectives of the ECHO-funded actions. As described in Section 3.7.1, the DRRAP

succeeded in bringing together and developing a community of IOs and NGOs working on –

and exchanging good practices on – DRR.

Furthermore, most of the partners have a DRR strategy and implement DRR projects in

other parts of the world (e.g. COOPI, CORDAID) which suggests that they are committed to

DRR activities beyond ECHO's short term funding cycle. Experience gained in the HoA

region has, in turn, informed their wider DRR policy and strategy and vice versa.

Most of the ECHO partners have had a presence in the HoA for many years and plan to

continue working there. Some have had some success in tapping into other sources of

funding, but others have expressed difficulty in finding alternative sources of support.

Interviews with partners suggested there is an implicit expectation of continued funding from

ECHO under new funding cycles.

Overall, the evaluation team observed that ECHO partners do not have well-defined exit

strategies in place. This affects their capacity to integrate the DRRAP actions and outcomes

into future development activities. This is further discussed in Section 3.7.4 on sustainability.


The above findings also apply to CAC.

Additionally, when organising and conducting the fieldwork, the evaluators noted the high

levels of commitment to DIPECHO demonstrated by all partners through for example, their

interactions with beneficiary communities, their willingness to contribute to the evaluation

process, etc. The commitment of partners is also evident from project documentation and

independent evaluations of projects.

60

3.6.2.3 Conclusions

ECHO partners are highly committed to the achieving the objectives of the ECHO-funded

actions.

However, exit strategies i.e. by integrating DRR into local development plans, for example

are weak. This issue is further discussed in Section 3.7.4.

3.6.3 Evolution of projects over different funding cycles

EQ13. Considering that the project activities of partners in many cases have been carried over from

one funding cycle to the next, to what extent have the partners been revising their approaches – being innovative – to improve effectiveness and efficiency?


Out of the 81 projects implemented over the evaluated period, 57 were multi-phase projects

corresponding to 16 discrete projects: 11 being implemented over the 4 evaluated phases.94

Of the 16 discrete projects, 4 (REGLAP, and those of FAO, UN-ISDR and IFRC) were

regional, with the remainder being community-based.

All four regional projects showed an evolution in their programming:

REGLAP started by focusing on communications and awareness-raising, gradually

implementing more research and creating a DRR community of practice and ending

by providing technical support on monitoring and evaluation and evidence-based

policy support.

In a similar fashion, the UN-ISDR’s intervention evolved from assessing progress on

the implementation of HFA with awareness-raising and advocacy elements to

developing tools (a disaster loss database) and analysis to support governments in

implementing DRR.

There was no change in the FAO project from 2008 - 2009 and 2009-2010, but from

2010 HIP onwards, FAO began to share coordination, advocacy and technical

assistance roles with REGLAP and UN-ISDR, FAO also introduced some new

activities (e.g. training to ECHO partners and learning visits), yet the progression

from one set of activities to the next is less obvious – i.e. it is not clear how learning

from previous years was used to improve following phases of the project.

IFRC also demonstrated evolution in its intervention both in terms of target regions

and countries adding health in 2010 and overall objectives.

Most of the multi-annual projects changed or expanded the number of communities they

worked with over the four-year period. In the case of some projects (the multi-phase projects

by Care, Coopi, Caritas, Save the Children) this was also to ensure complementarity

between projects. Where partners remained in the same communities this was to

consolidate impacts (e.g. providing refresher training, introducing new tools for DRR, etc) or

to create linkages between the community outputs and local authorities. Where projects did

attempt to expand the number of communities reached, this did not always work (see Box 5

below).

Box 5 Scaling up community actions in Ethiopia

94

These were Care UK, Coopi, Cordaid and VSF-Germany (previously VSF-Belgium) in the Ethiopia-Kenya cross-border region; Caritas Germany, Save the Children (PILLAR) and Danchurchaid in Ethiopia; Oxfam cross -border in Ethiopia and Somaliland; Danchurchaid in the Kenya-Uganda cross-border region; and FAO and Oxfam (REGLAP) at the regional level. IFRC implemented their regional project in three phases of the DRRAP (2009, 2010, 2012), as did Oxfam in Kenya and German Agro Action, also in Kenya, 2008, 2009 and 2010. ACH -ES and UN-ISDR implemented multi-phase projects funded in 2010 and 2012.

61

The evaluation team visited a multi-phase project in the Bale Zone in Ethiopia. In Phase 4, a new

district was included to scale-up lessons learned from previous phases. The ECHO partner (and its

local implementation partner), however, did not have sufficient resources to maintain operations in

the ‘old’ district (which had been the focus of efforts over Phases 1-3) so all efforts were focussed on

the new district. It appears that the exit from the first district was too quick and jeopardised the

progress that had been achieved. Furthermore, as the new district activities started six months late

there was limited time for implementation. For example, the excavation of a pond was delayed,

therefore it was not ready in time for the start of the wet season. This affected the quality of delivery

and sustainability of actions. As reported by one ECHO partner, ‘Expanding to a new district in

principle was a good idea. But a stepped-approach is required. Phase 1 is about developing

software, e.g. awareness-raising, education, planning – you have to pay attention to that and it can ’t

be rushed. You need to focus on the rehabilitation of existing resources. Then, in Phase 2, you have

a clear understanding of the problem and can prioritise. Ninety five per cent of the beneficiaries are

illiterate and the tribes have very traditional structures in place. As such, you need time to implement

change.’

Between the 2010 and 2012 phases there was a six month break imposed by DG ECHO to

learn lessons from the previous phase, but this did not happen between previous phases.

The Single Forms do not make clear exactly how the project applicants have taken into

account lessons from previous years and this does not appear to have been carefully

monitored in the fichops either.


In Central Asia, most ECHO partners (19 out of 24) have received funding over multiple

cycles – as indicated in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Partners receiving funding under DIPECHO cycles I to VII in Central Asia

I II III IV V VI VII Total

ACTED

6

Aga Khan / FOCUS 7

CARE

4

Caritas

2

Christian Aid

3

German Agro Action95

6

Handicap International

1

HILFSWERK Austria

4

International Office for Migration

5

Mercy Corps

3

Merlin

3

Mission East

4

NL Red Cross

6

Oxfam UK

4

Save the Children

3

OCHA

1

WHO

1

UNDP

4

UNICEF

4

WHO

2

World Vision International (Germany)

1


95

Name recently changed to Welthungerhilfe.

62

The study examined the approaches of partners who have received funding over four or

more cycles in recent years. The main findings of this exercise are reported in Table 3.14. It

shows that the approach of the partners has generally evolved over successive cycles – they

have typically scaled-up their activity over time (often moving across borders) or shifted the

activity focus or covered different beneficiary groups. These innovations are however, not

systematically documented. It is also surprising to note that ECHO does not ask applicants

to explain how their proposed action might be different from any previously funded

DIPECHO activity in the Single Forms.

Table 3.14 Key changes and innovations in approach observed over multiple cycles by select

projects in Central Asia

Partner Key changes and innovations in approach observed over multiple cycles

ACTED – received

funding under all

cycles except for II

Under DIPECHO I and III, ACTED delivered Community Based DRR projects in

Khatlon Province (Tajikistan), but targeted different communities in the two cycles

Under DIPECHO IV, the country coverage was different (Kyrgyzstan)

Shift from country-specific projects to multi-country/ cross-border projects under

DIPECHO VI and VII (under DIPECHO V, the same project activities were

independently implemented in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan)

Greater focus on mainstreaming under DIPECHO VII. ACTED collaborated with

Oxfam and UNDP to integrate village disaster preparedness plans into the jamoat

level (third-level administrative division in Tajikistan, similar to communes or

municipalities), and then into the hukumat level (district level)

Aga Khan / FOCUS –

received funding in all

cycles

Coverage of different communities in the GBAO region (Tajikistan) over successive

cycles

Shift from country-specific projects to multi-country/ cross-border projects (across

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) under DIPECHO VII

FOCUS plans to introduce a new concept of an ‘enhanced CERT’, where active

CERT members would be trained in search and rescue. The aim is to develop the

skills of selected CERTs towards an intermediate search and rescue capability level

Welthungerhilfe

(formerly, German

Agro Action) –

received funding

under all cycles

except for VI

Increasing efforts to link community based activities to the regional and national levels

A more integrated approach to DRR, natural resource management and climate

change adaptation can be seen under DIPECHO VII

NL Red Cross -

received funding

under all cycles

except for VII

The geographic scope of projects has expanded from country-specific (DIPECHO I) to

multi-country/ cross-border (DIPECHO II to IV) to regional (DIPECHO V and VI)

Oxfam (received

funding under

DIPECHO III, IV, VI,

VII)

Projects funded in all four cycles have focussed on the Khatlon district (Tajikistan)

Expansion in geographic scope and beneficiary coverage: these successive projects

have provided refresher training to past beneficiaries and additionally covered new

communities

Scale of projects has significantly expanded over time – near doubling of ECHO

funding over the four cycles

Greater involvement of government partners to build their capacities, structures and

tools toward the mainstreaming of DRR

63

Partner Key changes and innovations in approach observed over multiple cycles

Projects have both components: advocacy and community based DRR

A more integrated approach to DRR, CCA , livelihoods and WASH

UNDP (received

funding under

DIPECHO IV to VII)

They facilitated the establishment of the National Platform for DRR with DIPECHO V

and VI financing. They are now focusing on the capacity building of the platform,

which includes 16 Ministries

Established in 2003, the DRMP programme is structured in 3 phases. The programme

is currently in its third phase. The programme focuses on policy support and rural

community DRM and has been designed to be consistent with the Hyogo Framework

UNICEF Increasing focus on ‘upstream’ policy work

In South Caucasus, three out of five projects funded under DIPECHO II represented a

continuation of project activity from the previous cycle (DIPECHO I). In all cases, there was

either a shift in thematic or geographic focus of activity to avoid duplication. However, in one

case (91014) there was some overlap: ‘refresher training’ was provided to beneficiaries

already covered in the first cycle (alongside ‘new’ beneficiaries).

Partners built upon the results and lessons learned in the previous cycle, several examples

were found of innovation in their approach to DRR over successive cycles , though this is

difficult to evidence given that documents such as final reports do not cover this issue in

explicit terms.

3.6.3.3 Conclusions

Multi-phased regional projects in the HoA have revised their approaches over successive

cycles in order to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. However, country-specific

projects have simply tended to change or expand the number of communities covered over

successive phases. They have not demonstrated any real innovation: nor have they

demonstrated how any lessons learned from previous phases have been addressed.

In CAC, many of the partners have secured DIPECHO funding for similar activities over

multiple cycles. Partners have typically scaled-up their activity over successive DIPECHO

cycles, often moving across borders, or focussed on different themes or communities. In a

few cases, refresher training was provided to past beneficiaries. Overall, partners have

demonstrated a change in approach and it appears that learning of lessons has been

widespread even though not well documented. However, the evidence does not allow any

conclusions to be drawn with respect to improving efficiency and effectiveness.

3.7 Effectiveness

3.7.1 Improving resilience

EQ7. To what extent have the DG ECHO-funded actions contributed to improving the resilience of

the populations that face disaster risk, or is it likely to contribute in the future to the improvement of

resilience?

ECHO defines resilience as ‘the ability of an individual, a household, a community, a country

or a region to withstand, to adapt, and to quick ly recover from stresses and shocks ’.96

There

are no commonly agreed dimensions or indicators that ‘operationalise’ this concept of

resilience (see Annex 6). Consequently, baseline data on the resilience of populations in the

96

European Commission (2012) The EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises - COM(2012) 586 final.

64

countries and communities are also not available, which makes it difficult to measure

changes in resilience, as evidence by the challenges faced by the COBRA project to develop

a methodology and tools to measure the impact of resilience intervention. Moreover, in some

of the countries, particularly in the HoA, there are multiple actors involved, which makes it

impossible to isolate the impact of DRAAP vis-à-vis other interventions; therefore, attribution

is also problematic alongside measurement. For these reasons, the answer provided below

is essentially based on qualitative evidence and seeks to assess the contribution of ECHO-

funded DRR actions in improving the resilience of affected populations.


Most of the projects funded had the objective of improving the resilience of the communities

that they directly target.97

They sought to do this in the following ways:

helping communities and local authorities monitor the onset of drought , e.g.

establishment of Early Warning Systems in order to better prepare for drought;

developing protocols for rapid response in cases of drought, e.g. through the

development of Community Action Plans and contingency plans;

improving management and maintenance of natural resources (e.g. water) and

assets (e.g. livestock) so that communities are better able to adapt to drought; and

creating contingencies to allow communities to better cope with disaster (e.g.

savings in village banks in Kenya and Ethiopia).

The 2011 drought provided some basis for determining if beneficiaries previously targeted

through DRAAP were more resilient to the drought (or not) as compared to non-

beneficiaries. As outlined in Box 6, the evidence is conflicting as to whether or not the

DRRAP mitigated the impact of the drought in those communities it was supporting.

Box 6 ECHO and DRRAP partners’ response to the 2011 drought

Some stakeholders consulted during the field phase argue that during the 2011 drought, previously

supported communities coped better than those that had not benefitted from the DRRAP. Further, a

review of the response to the 2011 drought states that ECHO, DfID and USAID met in the early

stages of the drought’s onset (in December 2010) to coordinate their initial response and provided

funding for NGOs to undertake crisis-response / relief activities.98

DfID Kenya also report that when

the 2011 drought hit, ECHO was able to amend its existing operations quickly, whereas DfID took

four months to negotiate changes in its programm ing. DfID now works much faster (learning from

ECHO’s approach) and put in place agreements to enable rapid response. 99

By contrast, interviews with ECHO Field report that during the 2011 drought, ECHO partners with

agreed projects in affected areas did not react early enough to the drought, and instead – maintained

the status quo with their project work. Nonetheless, ECHO learned from this experience and – as a result – has started to encourage ECHO partners to build contingency into their DRR project budgets

to enable a shift of funds from preparedness activities to crisis -response / relief in reaction to sudden

needs from their existing funding. This approach has also been recommended in the literature.100

This method is currently being pursued through the La Nina consortium.

For the communities the evaluation team visited in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda,

participation in DRRAP activities had (i) ‘opened their eyes’ to the ways they could better

prepare for and cope with drought; and (ii) empowered them to act. A diversity of results and

outcomes were observed across/ reported by the communities visited:

97

See mapping of project objectives. 98

Save the Children & Oxfam (2012) Joint Agency Briefing Paper: A Dangerous Delay - The cost of late response to early warnings in the 2011 drought in the Horn of Africa’, 18 January 2012. 99

Interview with Chris Porter of DfID Kenya. 100

See, for example: Save the Children & Oxfam (2012) and Chatham House (2012) ‘Translating Early Warning into Early Action: Response by Donors and Implementing Agencies ’ – Workshop Summary, 11-12 April 2012.

65

Increased knowledge – e.g. water conservation, pasture management, fodder

production and storage, improved animal husbandry, how to vaccinate animals, how

to maintain hygienic living conditions.

Behavioural change – e.g. improved sanitary practice (observed in Kenya),

diversification of livelihoods.

Tangible impacts – e.g. improved access to drugs for animals; improved access to

water sources (observed in some communities in Kenya); those who used certified /

treated seeds reportedly had better crops than those who did not; asset creation

(e.g. VICOBA loans) and protection (e.g. through cereal banking, improved animal

health); and livelihood diversification.

Improved relations with neighbouring communities (as a result of DRRAP-funded

study visits).

Greater engagement with local / national authorities (in some cases, but not all) –

e.g. one community in the Somali region are using the contingency plan developed

in the CMDRR committee as a basis for requesting funding from the local

government and others.

Most of these outcomes arguably made the communities concerned more resilient to drought

– e.g. by improving general health in the community (through improved hygiene, access to

water, etc). Since there is no agreed way of measuring the resilience of a community and

since the communities visited had not experienced a drought since participating in the

DRRAP activities, it is impossible to ‘prove’ that the communities were more resilien t;

however, to the extent that they demonstrated a greater number of coping mechanisms and

apparent progress in their overall development after having participated in the DRRAP, the

evaluators feel confident in asserting that these activities have helped to increase resilience.


In CAC, DIPECHO has contributed to improving the resilience of at -risk populations in the

following ways:

Increase in awareness, knowledge and understanding of disaster risks which enables

communities to better prepare for and respond to disasters. The changes in awareness and

knowledge levels are systematically measured by projects through baseline and endline

surveys.

Box 7 Raising awareness, knowledge and understanding of disaster risks

Save the Children organised trainings on inclusive DRR for 1664 teachers, caregivers and administrative staff in 100 institutions across Georgia. Pre-test analysis revealed that the average knowledge rate before the training was very low, at 12.6 per cent. After the training the average increase rate per institution was around 85 per cent. In two months 826 teachers in the kindergartens were asked to undergo the same test again which showed that teachers and caregivers had retained more than 90 per cent of the acquired knowledge (project 91012). A research team from the Armenia State Pedagogical University (ASPU) carried out pre-testing on DRR awareness in the target schools in February 2013, before the training and school -based interventions began. Post-testing in September 2013 revealed a 70-80 per cent increase in student knowledge and skills on disaster preparedness and risk reduction (as part of UNICEF project 91015 on Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction amongst Vulnerable Communities and Institutions in the South Caucasus). During the earthquake of July 2012 in Zakatala (Azerbaijan), one of the schools which was selected as a pilot during the previous phase of the project, reported that they were able to evacuate premises within 1.5 minutes as a result of the numerous drills and training they received as part of a DIPECHO 1 project in 2010-11 (91015).

Many DIPECHO actions have proven to be effective in limiting damage and potentially,

saving lives at a community level. Although the testing of community resilience through real

66

disasters is infrequent, examples can be found of DIPECHO projects that have had a

positive local impact in terms of making communities safer, e.g. early warning systems have

triggered evacuations, trained intervention teams have provided rapid relief, structural

mitigation measures have avoided or reduced losses, etc.

Box 8 Making communities safer

During an unexpected snow storm in Adjara in December 2013, 61 kindergartens were able to safely evacuate 8,900 children– thanks to the early warning systems installed and evaluation procedures

put in place by Save the Children with DIPECHO support (project 91012).

Each year mudslides and landslides used to damage the property and affect the livelihoods (livestock and crops) of 500 households living next to a landslide prone slope in Syrymbet village.

Following tree planting on the landslide prone slope, the community was able to avoid such losses in

2013 winter (project 91018).

3.7.1.3 Conclusions

ECHO-funded actions have enabled local communities and institutions to better prepare for,

mitigate and respond to natural disasters, thereby increasing resilience and reducing

vulnerabilities. Specifically, ECHO funded actions have contributed to improving the

resilience of participating communities by:

increasing their awareness, knowledge understanding of risks and how to manage

them;

triggering behavioural change;

empowering communities to take rapid response through simulations, EWS,

evacuation maps, etc; and

protecting their assets and livelihood through the installation of small scale structural

mitigation measures.

3.7.2 Mainstreaming, replication and scaling up

EQ8. To what extent have the DG ECHO-funded interventions contributed to a reinforcement of DRR

and mainstreaming into the national and local governments’ long -term development policies and

practices in the beneficiary countries, and increased funding for DRR-related programmes (systemic

impact)? Specifically, how have the interventions stimulated replication and scaling up of projects,

and promoted advocacy? What could be done further (enabling factors, tools, mechanism, change in

strategy, etc) to increase the opportunities for replicating and scaling up successful projects at

country/regional level, and integrate their results into DRR national policy/strategies as well as

development planning/ programming?

DRRAP/ DIPECHO resources are relatively modest in comparison to a country or region’s

DRR needs. A key element of the DRRAP/ DIPECHO strategy is therefore, to pilot and

demonstrate successful models of community based DRR that can be replicated elsewhere

by vulnerable communities, national or sub-national authorities, other EU funding

instruments or other donors. All DRRAP/ DIPECHO projects therefore, have a demonstrative

purpose.


The DRRAP funding was designed to fund small-scale ‘pilot’ interventions with a view to test

and demonstrate their effectiveness, so that the intervention could be ‘replicated’ and ‘scaled

up’ by other actors (e.g. national/local government or other donors). Through its regional

partners and in particular through the REGLAP project, ECHO has encouraged its partners

to record and disseminate good practices and open up debate on the methods applied

through the DRRAP. The examples of replication observed in the field and reported in

project documentation suggest that some DRRAP methods / approaches (e.g. CMDRR)

67

have been identified as good practices and have gained sufficient momentum to be

replicated in different situations by other NGOs or donors and/or in different geographic

locations. However, the replication of practices by different communities – i.e. the dispersion

of DRR practices amongst the affected communities – has been limited; the evaluation team

has not encountered evidence of ‘spontaneous’ replication of DRRAP practices established

in one community by another community.

Box 9 Examples of replication / scaling up in the Horn of Africa

Replication

The following replications have taken place in the Horn of Africa:

■ Adoption of practices developed under DRRAP by non-DRRAP partners (e.g. DRR

activities implemented by Solidarités in N. Kenya with DfID funding using VSF-G

methodology developed under DRRAP).

■ Adoption of DRRAP practices by national / local authorities and/or other donors (e.g.

FAO, with EU-Del funding in Uganda, was able to continue and to scale-up its APFS

activities also in Uganda and in Kenya, local authorities in Marsabit have utili sed

community participatory methodologies initiated by ECHO partners under the DRRAP).

■ Replication within DRAAP. Some ECHO partners have expanded the number of

communities in which their interventions were implemented (e.g.2012/91033,

2012/91042, 2012/91034).

Scaling up

The following examples of scaling-up have been found:

■ Actions piloted under DRRAP (e.g. APFS) have been taken forward by other donors on

a wider scale.

■ Community-level action plans (developed through DRRAP funding) have been used to

develop county-level plans (in Kenya). This results from ongoing movement towards

bottom-up planning and devolution in Kenya, as well as through the contribution of

DRRAP.

■ Local-level advocacy work (which had resulted in local agreements) was developed /

‘scaled up’ to an international level (e.g. the scaling up of local veterinary agreements

support by DCA with DRRAP money to develop a MoU between the Department of

Animal Health and Entomology in Uganda and the Department of Veterinary Services

in Kenya by FAO with support from EU-Del Uganda).

In order to encourage the replication / scaling up of DRR practices that have demonstrated

effectiveness, the DRRAP has specifically funded projects that have advocated for the

mainstreaming of DRR into the interventions of development donors and into national and

local development policies and practices. Table 3.15 overleaf outlines the main findings of

the evaluation as regards the extent to which DRR has been mainstreamed in the the HoA. It

shows that during the period covered by the DRRAP, the EU’s DEVCO, other international

donors and regional and national authorities have made advances in mainstreaming DRR

into their development interventions / policies. To some extent at least , this has been due to

the DRRAP – e.g. when DRRAP-funded actions have specifically focussed on supporting

regional and national governments and/or when other donors / national governments have

replicated DRRAP methods.

68

Table 3.15 Mainstreaming of DRR in HoA

Level Examples of potential mainstreaming activities State of play: HoA

DG ECHO’s policy and programmes

Treat DRR as an integral part of DG ECHO’s humanitarian assistance.

Integration of DRR in the resilience agenda (cf. 2013, 2014 HIPs). In 2012, HIP partners applying for non-DRR funding were required to assess exposure to drought and drought risk in their needs assessments.

Unclear to what extent DRR is being mainstreamed into other humanitarian assistance areas in practice (not a focus of the research conducted for this evaluation).

DEVCO’s policy and programmes

Consider and address disaster risk in country strategies and relevant sectoral budget support programmes (e.g. health, education, infrastructure, water and sanitation, social policy, etc).

Provision of technical assistance to strengthen disaster risk management in cases where weaknesses in existing practices could jeopardise the success of the policies and programmes supported.

Working with recipient governments to encourage them to integrate DRR considerations in national policies.

Supporting safety net and livelihood programmes that mainstream DRR.

In Kenya, provides technical assistance to the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) and to IGAD to help it develop DRR policies.

Working closely with national governments to support standalone DRR activities, as well as participating in national and regional fora with government and other donors to promote DRR (e.g. IGAD, CPP working groups).

National development

Establishment of DRR policies and systems, e.g. national DRR strategy, EWS, etc.

Integrate DRR considerations into relevant sector strategies.

Incorporate DRR in national development plans – DRR ‘proofing’ of national strategies and plans.

Integrate DRR into infrastructure development and planning, e.g. Disaster Impact Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in all major projects, e.g. building of schools, hospitals, roads, etc.

In Kenya yes – both at national and county level, DRR is mainstreamed in all of these ways.

101 DG ECHO has supported this process. DG ECHO still plays a DRR

advocacy role by participating in national fora to support the DRR agenda / policy-making – e.g. on the Ending Drought Emergencies in Kenya (EDE) policy.

102

In Uganda DRR is ‘mainstreamed’ to the extent that it has established DRR strategies

103 and systems that take an integrated cross -sectoral approach. These

systems are still supported by international donors (previously also by DG ECHO) and often implemented by NGOs. Indeed, Uganda is not currently in a position to take DRR forward without donor support. It is unclear whether Uganda does DRR ‘proofing’ of national strategies / plans, but this seems feasible in the future if the Ugandan Parliamentary Forum on DRR (UPFDRR) is successful as an oversight body and if awaiting draft legislation on DRR is passed. We have no info on whether

101

E.g. development plans in the 23 drought-affected counties involve ministries from different sectors (education, transport and infrastructure, health, etc) + DRR ’proofing’. 102

Sector Plan for Drought Risk Management And Ending Drought Emergencies, Second Medium Term Plan 2013 – 2017. 103

E.g. the National Policy for Disaster Preparedness And Management, published September 2010. [online] Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/21032_ugandanationalpolicyfordisasterprep.pdf

69


DRR is integrated into infrastructure development.

In Ethiopia, there is now a national DRM policy104

which aims to move away from disaster response and food aid, to the building of community resilience and reduction of vulnerabilities. DRR has been integrated into the national school curriculum. The country’s five year development plan integrates DRR. However, there are capacity issues in mainstreaming DRR at the local level.

Local level Incorporate DRR in local development plans and land

planning.

In Kenya this is systematically happening and still being supported by DG ECHO (through La Nina) in relation to local government capacity-building. Other international donors are funding projects resulting from development plans.

In Uganda systems have been designed and institutions established (in theory) to allow this to happen, but due to lack of financing and (perhaps) political will, DRR is not being sufficiently incorporated into local development planning.

In Ethiopia, a lack of financing and institutional capacity is preventing DRR from being sufficiently integrated into local development planning.

IFIs like

World Bank,

ADB

Provide technical assistance grants to support national capacity-building efforts for disaster reduction.

Include comprehensive assessments of DRR in country assessments and country assistance strategies.

Use of conditionality to promote DRR, e.g. introduce the requirement of undertaking a Disaster Impact Assessment for infrastructure projects.

Incorporate disaster impact assessments into project appraisal.

Lending for large scale DRR projects, e.g. retrofitting of buildings.

Direct funding of DRR.

DRR does not appear to be addressed by AFDB.

The World Bank supports DRR through its Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction

(GFDDR). Ethiopia is one of the GFDRR Focus Countries. The World Bank also provides direct support to Arid Lands (with the EU) and renewed engagement on IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative process with explicit reference to DRM (Component Four - Pastoral Risk Management). The World Bank

programme, Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Project (RPLRP)105

aims to improve EWS for livestock disease outbreaks and contingency planning, but there is no explicit mention of DRR in the programme documentation or any evidence that conditionality is introduced in procurement.

104

The National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management adopted in 2013. See also page 10. [online] Available at: http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/DRRAP%20Reflection_FINAL%20DRAFT_1%20May_2014.pdf 105

[online] Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/projects/procurement/noticeoverview?id=OP00028419&lang=en

http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/DRRAP%20Reflection_FINAL%20DRAFT_1%20May_2014.pdf

http://www.worldbank.org/projects/procurement/noticeoverview?id=OP00028419&lang=en

70


Donors like

DFID, SDC,

etc

As above

Provide grants for stand-alone DRR projects.

Capacity-building efforts are being supported by international donors in Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia.

DRR considerations are taken into account in country assessments.

Some grants for stand-alone DRR projects are provided, but other donors often mainstream DRR objectives and activities into resilience, nutrition, food security and/or WaSH policies / programmes.

ECHO has supported the mainstreaming of DRR by other donors by (i) raising awareness / advocating for DRR (the DRRAP had a catalytic effect); (ii) disseminating information on (good) practices that were taken up by other donors); and (iii) systematically coordinating with other donors working in this area (e.g. ECHO-DfID-USAID working group in Kenya).

Donor coordination has not been consistent and is often dependent on the efforts of individuals.

71


Mainstreaming of DRR into development policies and planning, including relevant sectoral policies

In CAC, UNICEF and DIPECHO have played a key role in the mainstreaming of DRR within

the education sector – Box 10. However, the mainstreaming of DRR in other sectors and

overall development programming is yet to be achieved. As indicated in Table 3.7, only half

of the countries in the region have a national DRR strategy. And most of these are not

underpinned by an earmarked financial envelope for DRR or a targeted commitment to

spend.

Box 10 Mainstreaming of DRR within the education sector

With support from DIPECHO, partners (mainly UNICEF, but also Save the Children and Oxfam)

have advanced the mainstreaming of DRR in education in CAC countries

The newly drafted 12-year education standards in Kazakhstan include children's disaster-

preparedness competencies. The current discussions in Kazakhstan are related to the approach to

curriculum development: whether to have DRR as a separate subject or mainstreamed in a number of different subjects.

In Tajikistan, life skills, including DRR, have been integrated into the National Education Standards;

the framework for the new curriculum is currently being developed by the Government.

In Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan, DRR is now part of the formal education curriculum. As a result,

governments are investing more on DRR in education, and this trend is expected to increase over

the next few years.

In South Caucasus, mainstreaming of DRR into national education policies, strategies and plans, has

been reached with different scales in all three countries .

Formal school curriculum in Azerbaijan has been revised by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and now includes specific DRR components. The new curriculum has been en dorsed and it was

implemented in September 2013. While the MOE has integrated DRR into standards and teacher

training, further technical assistance is needed to apply DRR effectively across the education system.

In Armenia: DRR has been mainstreamed into the curriculum of pedagogical universities and into

key strategic documents, such as the Action Plan for Patriotic Education for 2014 -2019 and the School External and Internal Assessment Procedures and Methodologies. The Action Plan focuses

on specific requirements for schools, including: the provision of disaster-preparedness equipment

and supplies; training on disaster preparedness and first aid; safety regulations, drills and activities; as well as a nationwide school contest on DRR.

In Georgia: DRR has been institutionalised as part of the National Teacher Professional

Development Centre's (TPDC) Scheme and is now offered as an official part of the training programmes provided by TPDC to teachers free of charge. Even though DRR is now a formal part of

the national curriculum, there is no specific budget allocation for its roll -out and implementation. In

addition, the current public-school financing model does not envisage the provision of funds for specific school disaster preparedness activities, including the procurement of basic school safety

equipment.

Replication and scaling-up

The initiatives of DIPECHO have been replicated on a very limited scale by local authorities/

communities, donors and stakeholders; a massive scale-up only appears to have taken

place in Kazakhstan. In other CAC countries, the most notable examples include replication

and sharing of teaching and learning materials; replication of community emergency

response teams by non-beneficiary communities; and DIPECHO awareness raising activities

have fuelled interest in DRR among neighbouring villages – see Box 11.

72

Box 11 Replication under DIPECHO

In Kazakhstan, the Ministry of Emergency Situations and the Ministry of Education are providing

significant funding to UNDP and UNICEF to take forward the activities established by DIPECHO.

A project ‘Strengthening National Capacities for Risk Assessment, Prevention and Response to

Disasters’ has secured the Kazakhstan Government’s contribution of USD 900,746. This project will integrate and build upon the activities and results of DIPECHO VII project (91008) activities and take

forward the lessons learned on community-based DRR to the national level.

Save the Children helped Community Emergency Response Teams CERTs) in targeted villages and MOES/CoES staff to select neighbouring communities for the replication of simulation exercises.

These neighbouring villages were invited to observe the simulation exercises in project -targeted

villages. At the end, 15 simulation exercises were replicated in 15 neighbouring villages in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, where more than 2000 people took part in the simulation exercises. The simulations

were based on scenarios developed by community members and facilitated by DIPECHO

established CERT members. The district MOES/CoES and local authorities provided their full support in organising and conducting the simulation exercises in non-targeted villages. These

simulations help to improve the community emergency response and preparedness capacities, as

well as mitigate the disaster risk. Meanwhile, the CERTs members from DIPECHO targeted communities had a chance to practice their skills and knowledge and share their experiences with

their neighbours, thus scaling up the results. .

The teaching and learning materials developed by UNICEF with DIPECHO support are being widely used by other partners in the region.

Replication of a puppet show theatre by other schools in Kulyab Zone and the implementation of

simulation evacuation practices carried out by Oxfam under DIPECHO VI in Danghara District by Kulyab Zone CoES (Tajikistan).

The lack of massive replication and scaling up by national/ local authorities or other donors

(including DEVCO) is due to several factors:

national/ local authorities lack the financial resources and capacity to replicate/

scale-up DIPECHO interventions;

conflicting national and local priorities and relatively, low priority attached to DRR;

institutional constraints and past legacies such as centralised decision making; ‘civil

protection and response’ mentality; the lack of understanding by ministries and

government organisations about their diverse roles in DRR;

frequent staff changes at ministries undermining and diminishing efforts in advocacy

and awareness raising;

governments withholding information that is essential in disaster management, such

as maps, statistics, and databases;

the return on investment made under DIPECHO is not known. In the absence of this

information, it can be difficult to persuade national / local authorities or donors to

invest in DRR purely on the basis of theoretical arguments or qualitative evidence;

non-alignment between donor and DIPECHO funding cycles. The former being

longer-term (5 to 7 years) than the latter (18 months); and

in sub-sectors such as natural resources management and rural energy security,

DRR/NRM and even climate adaptation/mitigation practices appear to exist, but they

are not yet ‘packaged-up’ for replication in other similar contexts.

73

Demonstration effect

DIPECHO projects have also had a notable ‘demonstration effect’, which is helping partners

and communities ‘unlock’ DRR funding from domestic sources – see Box 12.

Box 12 Catalytic effect of DIPECHO

In Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Emergency Situations has committed 2 million USD for the

construction of an Earthquake Risk Mitigation Complex comprising an earthquake museum, movie

hall and earthquake simulation facility. Although the project is behind schedule, with support from DIPECHO VII, UNDP has acquired the earthquake simulation facility.

An Oxfam project has been successful in securing funding and support from the local government in

Tajikistan (91004). Local authorities actively participated in planning and conducting public awareness campaigns on disaster preparedness and contributed 20-30 per cent towards the cost of

conducting 10 simulation exercises.

The CoES provided their contribution in establishing the Centre for Community Based Disaster Preparedness Education in Kulyab, through the allocation of land, legalisation of the centre through

registration, as well as providing labour for works not covered by the contractor.

The local authorities of the Khatlon Districts contributed to the establ ishment of seven stockpile locations in Shurabad, Khovaling, Muminabad, Vose , Baljuvan , Kurgan Tube and Kulyab and three

reception centres in Shurabad and one in the Muminabad Districts of Khatlon. While the Government

committed and allocated warehousing and staff to the project, the local authorities also made the official budgetary allocation to replenish the stockpiles for the upcoming year.

A Save the Children project (91005) was successful in securing an investment of 5,480 euros from

the local government and 7,414 euros from communities in Kyrgyzstan and 37,481 euros from local government and communities in Tajikistan for mitigation projects.

In Georgia, as a result of advocacy work undertaken at the municipal level by an Oxfam project

(91011) with support from DIPECHO, 60 per cent of village development funds on average (up to 10,000 GEL/approximately 4,350 euros per village) in all communities of the three municipalities of

Keda, Shuakhevi and Khulo were dedicated to DRR (these funds were used mostly for mitigation

projects, the replication of the common tools for vulnerability analysis and the development of village contingency plans in non-targeted villages).

In Armenia, local authorities made a financial contribution to the establishment of the continuing

education resource centres as well as the small scale mitigation projects, using the community budgets.

Twenty four small scale mitigation projects across South Caucasus received a financial and/or in

kind contribution from communities and local authorities- on average of 34per cent in Georgia, 25 per cent in Azerbaijan and 26 per cent in Armenia.

As part of the same project, a small scale mitigation measure initiated by Oxfam in Azerbaijan (the

reconstruction of the only road connecting Qarali to the main road), a businessman living in the village supported community members in rebuilding 1 km of road connecting the school to a new

housing area.

3.7.2.3 Conclusions

Overall, notable progress has been made in the HoA over the last decade to mainstream

DRR - although the level of progress varies between countries. Some of the specific

examples of mainstreaming could be at least partially attributed to the work that ECHO has

done to build up a culture of drought risk reduction and promote its mainstreaming into

development policies.

Although DRR has been mainstreamed in policy documents, national and local authorities

are still dependent upon external sources of funding for DRR activities, particularly

community based DRR. This suggests a continued need and demand for ECHO funding for

DRR in the region (although the needs will vary by country).

74

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 support for DRR actions in both the HoA and CAC, from international donors as well

as from national and local authorities – this is a positive outcome and one which can be

attributed, at least in part, to ECHO’s role in advocating for DRR. ECHO was one of the first

humanitarian actors to run a DRR focussed programme in these regions; it placed DRR on

the national agendas as well as on the agendas of the international donor community active

in the region. In this respect, DG ECHO funding – although small – acted as a catalyst.

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. In other countries,

replication of DG ECHO funded DRR projects is not as extensive as it could be.

3.7.3 Reinforcing sub-national response capacities

EQ11. To what extent have the ECHO-funded actions contributed to reinforcing sub-national

response capacities, including the preparation and awareness of local communities?


Drought affects communities by harming their livelihoods (destroying crops and livestock),

affecting water quality/ availability and causing food shortages (sometimes leading to

famine). In the HoA the traditionally pastoral communities have adapted to drought and

developed practices (migration, food rationing, selling cattle) to cope with the above effects

of droughts. Over the last few decades however, it has been more difficult to activate these

traditional mechanisms, as the populations in the HoA have grown and national and regional

policies have created obstacles.106

Humanitarian emergency responses to drought usually

include measures such as water trucking, food aid, restocking of livestock and livelihood

support. Communities can facilitate their response by monitoring drought warning

information and feeding this back to the authorities. They can also mitigate some of the

effects of drought and enable themselves to cope independently for longer by preparing for

drought – e.g. reserving pasture, rationing food and water, slaughtering livestock vulnerable

to disease, saving money or generating additional income to buy food if the drought persists.

ECHO partners and beneficiaries maintain that beneficiary communities’ response capacity

has been improved, e.g. through extended/increased access to water, reserved rangeland,

increased household assets and improved destocking practices.

The DRRAP contributed to reinforcing sub-national response capacities in a number of

ways:

by supporting local EWS and linking this to wider district or national level EWS;

by raising awareness for DRR and helping communities to develop their own

contingency plans so that they can have greater ownership over the drought response;

and

by establishing income-generation and savings systems – e.g. VICOBAs as a form of

‘social safety net’ when drought hits.

Each of these three points is discussed in turn below. Most communities are, however, still

dependent upon outside support (either from international donors/organisations or – where

106

E.g. In 2008, bans on the trade and export of cattle were introduced in Djibouti – see the 2008 Financial Decision. The creation of national parks and political boundaries have made migration between different grazing areas increasingly difficult (e.g. in Karamoja, Uganda) – see also the 2006 Funding Decision and Coopi Final report 2012.

75

available – national mechanisms) to respond to drought. While ECHO has supported

regional, national and local authorities responsible for drought response, project

documentation and our observations in the field (in Uganda and Kenya)107

suggest that

communities feel more comfortable requesting support from international organisations than

from local / national authorities, whom they sometimes mistrust or are not aware of.

For community drought response to be effective, it needs to happen as early into the drought

as possible, which is why early warning systems can reinforce response capacities. At least

31 projects included activities to develop or strengthen community EWSs. In Ethiopia, a

number of community EWSs were observed by the evaluation team to be still functional even

after the DRRAP had finished. EW data was still being regularly collected by communities

and had been linked to woreda authorities. At the time of the visit, one community at the

Somaliland border had gathered early warning data indicating a potential locust attack and

responded by informing their cross-border neighbours. The collection of early warning data

in a format the pastoralists understand (e.g. using pictures) has also led to improved

understanding of vulnerabilities and potential shocks at the community level. However,

EWSs are only useful when they trigger response and often government contingency funds

are limited or unavailable.

At least 51 DRRAP projects established or strengthened community disaster management

committees and/or trained community members in DRR. The CDMCs consulted at project

sites in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda demonstrated increased awareness and understanding

of the risks of drought and knowledge of the ways to respond when drought arrives (e.g. by

destocking livestock, reserving pasture, etc) as a result of their participation in DRRAP

actions. Other community members also demonstrated DRR knowledge resulting from their

contact with CDMCs. The CDMCs in most cases had the role of disseminating knowledge on

DRR to the rest of the community, but in most cases appeared to function mainly as

community development committees and to a smaller extent , as disaster management

committees.

Box 13 Contingency plans: purposes and application

Community contingency plans enable a community to plan their disaster response. During

the 2010/2011 drought, 34 communities which had developed contingency plans through

one cross-border project (2010/01009) were able to use the plans to attract aid from

government, international humanitarian organisations, as well as the private sector and

business.108

In some communities, VICOBAs have also increased sub-national response capacity – e.g.

in Dasanach the VICOBA set up by VSF Germany is used primarily to bulk -buy food so that

villagers have to walk long distances to the nearest market less frequent ly.109

Members of

VICOBAs visited during the evaluation team’s field trip to Kenya also reported that they

would use the VICOBA during crises to buy food or medicine. In Ethiopia however, it was

unclear how these groups improved community resilience to drought.


DIPECHO actions have contributed to the reinforcement of sub-national capacities through

the following channels:

107

In Ethiopia, a mistrust of authorities was not observed; however, one community visited reported that it informed the ECHO partner working in the area of an oncoming locust attack, who then informed the local authority, suggesting that – at least in some communities – the NGO is still the first port of call. 108

See Oxfam (2013) Impact Evaluation Report on the Ethiopia- Somaliland Cross-Border Community-Managed Drought Resilience Project, September 2013. 109

VSF Germany – Final Report of the project ‘Improved Cross-border Community Response to Drought Phase 4 (ICRD4)’.

76

Increasing local awareness of hazards and establishing appropriate preparedness

measures (evacuation routes, team of volunteers, stockpiles, equipment,

identification and establishment of safe havens, organising simulations , etc).

Building local capacity and tools, e.g.:

o capacity building of district and municipal authorities, e.g. through the

provision of training on Disaster Mitigation Planning and Hazard

Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (HVCA) of CoES staff;

o developing local disaster response plans and linking these with district level

response plans;

o developing EWS. For example, FOCUS has established 53 wireless

CODAMs as EWS and communications linking CoES, FOCUS and

communities;

o developing the capacity of Village Disaster Management Groups and linking

these to local authorities and CoEs staff;

o organising joint MoES/ LDMCs/ local government simulations;

o integrating DRR measures into local level development plans; and

o provision of equipment and training to Civil Protection Rescue Teams.

3.7.3.3 Conclusions

ECHO-funded actions have contributed to reinforcing sub-national response capacities

through several channels, e.g. investing in EWS, providing training to local authority officials,

establishing and developing CDMCs and linking these with local authorities, organising

simulations, etc.

3.7.4 Sustainability

EQ16. To what extent have the project activities and results had (or likely to have in future) lasting effects after hand-over? In particular, the evaluator is expected to assess to what extent the

supported actions and strategies at local, regional and national level are sustainable in the Horn of

Africa Region.


Sustainability of the regional actions

The regional projects have had a major role in multiplying the effects of the DRRAP by

consolidating and communicating the lessons of the programme to a wider audience. For

example, DfID Uganda used information produced through REGLAP to inform their

programming. The research and documentation into DRR produced through DRRAP (e.g.

published on disasterriskreduction.net and through REGLAP) have been well -used by a

range of actors and it is likely that they will continue to be used as reference documents.

REGLAP has recently registered as the Dryland Learning and Capacity Building Initiative

(DLCI) for improved policy and practice in the HoA.110

It has not yet secured funding for

continued publications, but continues to function as a resource and information organisation

for other NGOs, CSOs and authorities working on DRR.

By supporting the IFRC, which is one of the main disaster responders in the HoA (an

auxiliary to national institutions in disaster preparedness and response), DG ECHO has also

supported an action with sustainable effect. The evaluation team’s visit to communities

supported by the IFRC action confirmed that those who had been trained by the Ugandan

110

See [online] Available at: http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/dlci

http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/dlci

77

Red Cross had increased their technical capacity to respond to drought and to train others in

the future.

The UN agencies (UNISDR, UNICEF, FAO) have also worked closely with national and

regional authorities to ensure that DRR practices are integrated into development policies. At

national / regional level, work is ongoing to ensure the sustainability of the DRRAP’s

activities and outputs. Donors, national authorities and IGAD have taken over / continued

many of the activities started under the DRRAP. However, for the activities and results to be

sustainable in the long-term, continued support to national and regional authorities is

required, but it should not necessarily be ECHO providing this support.

Sustainability of the cross-border actions

The key cross-border achievements have included:

improved animal health (cross-border cooperation on vaccinations and monitoring of

animal health);

peace-building (better cross-border cooperation); and

improved sharing of natural resources.

Local governments and communities visited report that cross-border coordination will

continue, and – for some projects111

- the sustainability of the cross-border programme has

been increased through working closely with both the Kenyan and Ethiopian governments.

By contrast, other officials underlined the need for continued international support to address

the root causes of the conflicts (i.e. to improve access to resources) and to possibly also

maintain the good work done in cross-border relations (e.g. through continued learning,

additional exchange trips / inter-community meetings, etc).

Sustainability of the community-focussed actions

Some of the localised impacts resulting from the DRRAP are sustainable: local communities

demonstrated behaviour change, increased knowledge and awareness of risk. However,

changes in knowledge and behaviour need to be periodically reinforced through repeat

interventions until the changes are cemented.

At a local level, small scale structural mitigation measures are unlikely to be maintained

without continued funding and it seems that the educational / awareness-raising work at

community level has not reached a ‘critical mass’ to have a continued impact without

external funding – e.g. DRR is not part of the national curricula in Kenya (it is in Ethiopia);

community DRR may be sustainable if the devolved development planning process

proceeds as planned.

Exit strategies and sustainability

The evaluation team found that many ECHO partners did not have sufficiently well -defined

exit strategies to ensure sustainability (see also Section 3.5.1). Where exit strategies were

set out in Single Forms, in practice they were not successfully executed to ensure the

successful ‘hand-over’ of activities. The 2012 DRRAP stipulated that any follow-up of

projects from the previous decisions will be considered if the proposal includes a justified

consolidation and an exit strategy with a clear timeline. Phase IV of the DRRAP was

intended to achieve consolidation of past achievements, best practices identified and

lessons learned along the way. Evidence suggests, however, that this was not fully

achieved. The concept of an exit strategy, an inherent element of the DG ECHO pilot

approach, appears to be poorly understood and not taken seriously by ECHO Partners112

.

111

Cordaid’s project. 112

Oxfam evaluation (2011) cross-border evaluation.

78


As noted in earlier sections, the impact on beneficiary awareness is outlasting the duration of

the projects. DRR capacities and tools (community risk assessments, DRR planning,

emergency response teams, etc) developed at community, school and local levels will likely

persist, but will require refreshment and ongoing support.

Community co-sponsorship of mitigation projects improves ownership and subsequently

encourages maintenance, presenting a great likelihood of sustainability. The concept of co-

investment, between public and private entities, and communities , would be a good way

forward. However, this is not possible for every community due to budget constraints or, at

times, lack of will.

The mainstreaming of DRR in school curricula will have a lasting impact , particularly in

countries like Kazakhstan where national ownership and commitment is high. In other

countries (e.g. Georgia), there are risks to sustainability , e.g. DRR has been mainstreamed,

but the government has not allocated significant any funds to DRR in teacher training.

Similar to the HoA, while exit strategies exist ‘on paper’, they do not always result in a

successful ‘hand-over’ of activities in practice.

3.7.4.3 Conclusions

Some of the activities implemented through the DRRAP/ DIPECHO show evidence of

continuation even after ECHO funding has ended:

where 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 they have led to changes in knowledge, awareness and/ or behaviour

(although changes in knowledge and behaviour will need to be reinforced).

The challenges for ECHO and other actors in DRR will be to sustain the initial benefits of

community based actions such as replenishing stockpiles, maintaining mitigation measures

and providing refresher training and ensuring various groups established by projects ‘keep

going’ despite migration and staff turnover.

3.8 Cost-effectiveness

EQ15. Is the size of the budget allocated by ECHO to the regions appropriate and proportionate to the actions they are set out to achieve? Is it sufficient to reach a critical mass of impacts? Could the

same results have been achieved with less funding?


Critical mass and adequacy of ECHO funding

At the regional and national level, the DRRAP has generated interest from authorities and

from other donors. On this basis, the evaluation team consider that the investment of the

DRRAP into creating institutional linkages and advocacy (through the regional, cross-border

and country-based actions) was worthwhile and that it made a significant contribution to the

hopefully continuing success of DRR in the HoA. Whilst the funding of DRR at community-

level has also created positive localised impacts, it is evident that community-based activities

have not been sufficient to create a ‘critical mass’ of impacts ; communities are still

dependent upon international donor funding when a drought arrives (see Section 3.8.3), and

there has been limited replication of activity in unassisted communities.

79

Whilst the DRRAP funding was probably too little to achieve ‘critical mass’ in the HoA (even

accounting for wider replication and scaling-up),113

it was enough to reach the objectives it

set out to achieve (piloting good practices, testing their effectiveness, disseminating lessons

learned with a view to improving practices and putting DRR on the agenda of other actors).

Yet, the evaluation team has noted a number of ‘inefficiencies’ which have to some extent

hampered the extent to which these objectives could be fully achieved.

There is little evidence to demonstrate that lessons learned from previous phases of the

projects were taken into account in later funding phases (see Section 3.5). Whilst most

partners did evaluate the different phases of their projects, this does not appear to have

been a requirement and the Single Forms do not require partners to explain how they

plan to build upon the lessons learned from any previously funded DRRAP interventions.

The former RSO coordinator of the DRRAP has reported that it was a ‘very difficult /time

consuming process to make partners understand the need to actually document findings,

lessons learned, products so that conditions for change could be created … [there was]

too much focus on activities and not enough on how to use the outputs and outcomes for

an evidence based advocacy’.114

Projects have been funded despite weaknesses in design and issues with past track

record. Indeed, in its monitoring of projects, ECHO has identified various problems in

project design and past partner performance, but nevertheless decided to fund follow-up

phases to these projects, as part of its long term strategy for capacity building.

The results of individual DRRAP projects and funding decisions have not been clearly

documented, consolidated and reported. Results are reported in various documents

published by ECHO partners, but these are presented in a promotional fashion and the

actual impacts are not always clear. It would increase the transparency of ECHO’s DRR

actions in the HoA if results were reported in a consistent manner by ECHO partners.

Cost effectiveness (Could the same results have been achieved with less funding?)

The return on investment of the DRRAP actions is difficult to calculate due to the lack of

clear and consistent information on the results and impacts. Final reporting by ECHO

partners tends to list only the activities completed and the outputs delivered, but rarely the

results of these outputs (e.g. changes in knowledge or behaviour, improved access to

resources, etc). This information is provided where ECHO partners have evaluated their

projects, but the evaluation reports are only available after a considerable time lag. Further,

the lack of standardised core indicators and units for reporting on results renders it

challenging to make comparisons between projects: e.g. some projects report on the number

of households reached, whereas others report on individuals and others report on

communities reached. The evaluation team also believe that it would be much easier to

assess outputs and results if these were presented in a separate section of the final report,

e.g. as a table rather than in a narrative following each item of the intervention logic – see

Table 3.16 following.

Table 3.16 Illustrative format for summarising the outputs and results of ECHO funded DRR interventions

Objectively verifiable indicators Target value Actual achievement

Sub-sector 1: local disaster management

Outputs Number of local disaster management

teams established/ trained or equipped

113

Although it would be challenging for any international donor to establish such widespread capacity, particularly through short-term funding. 114

Responses to the ques tionnaire informing the ‘Reflections on the ECHO’s regional drought preparedness decision 2006-2013’, shared with the evaluation team by the current DRR TA in the HoA RSO.

80

Objectively verifiable indicators Target value Actual achievement

Number of EWS established

Number of beneficiaries trained

Results % of beneficiaries demonstrating changes

in knowledge

% of beneficiaries demonstrating changes

in behaviour

% of beneficiaries demonstrating awareness of EWS

Sub-sector 2: Small scale infrastructure and services

Outputs Number of structural mitigation measures constructed or enhanced

Results Co-investment mobilised from local sources

Table 3.17 provides an overview of the nature and scale of outputs delivered by funded

projects in the HoA. The Table does not provide an exhaustive account of all outputs

delivered, but rather an illustration of the most common types of outputs delivered for a

sample115

of 39 out of the 62 DRRAP projects funded from 2009-2012 (data not available in

electronic form for 2008).

Table 3.17 Outputs delivered over 2009-2013, HoA

Indicator Number reported

Total number of beneficiaries 4,537,180

No. of persons accessing potable water 234,591

No. of livestock supported (i.e. accessing clean water / vaccinated / etc) 2,480,283

Hectares of grazing land extended / improved (hectares) 45,035

CAHWs trained / supported 512

Local disaster management / response teams established / supported / trained 316

No. disaster preparedness plans created / upgraded 259

Individuals receiving DRR training 105,075

Schools covered by DRR activities 80

No. structural mitigation projects 1,362

Community EWS established 54

Beneficiaries reached through communication activities 11,447

Policies proposals developed through DRAAP 11

Cooperation agreements facilitated 7

Based on an analysis of project final reports

115

The sample includes six country-specific projects (Caritas, HelpAge and Save the Children in Ethiopia, Oxfam in Kenya, VSF-Suisse and ACH-ES in Uganda); cross-border projects (Coopi,Cordaid and VSF-DE at the ET-KE borderland, and DCA at the borderland of KE-UG); and five regional projects (FAO, IFRC, REGLAP, UNDP, UN-ISDR).

81

The evaluation team noted several shortcomings with the current approach to the monitoring

and reporting of outputs and results:

There were inconsistencies between projects in how outputs were reported: some final

reports presented information on outputs under the description of activities, which means

that data had to be manually counted which may lead to some inaccuracies.

Some indicators were presented or repeated/duplicated in different parts of the report

creating a risk of double-counting outputs in our analysis.

Outputs were not always explicitly counted, although they were referred to (e.g. there

was mention of water points being built, but without any indication of the number) which

creates the possibility that some outputs are missing in the analysis above .

Some activities do not lend themselves to quantification.

There is variation in the quality of the information provided in reports.

– In some reports the objectivity of the figures as been questioned during the review

process (i.e. in the ficheops). Not all queries posed by DG ECHO in the ficheops

were answered in the final report and this may limit the extent to which data in the

table can be generalised to the DRRAP as a whole.

– Some projects reported on percentage change indicators without providing the actual

number / baseline, which means the indicators could not be always be traced back to

raw data.


Critical mass and adequacy of ECHO funding

The goals set out in the funding decisions are rather vague and at the same time, they are

not quantified which makes it difficult to answer the first part of the question. DG ECHO

actions aim ‘to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability of local communities and

institutions through support to strategies that enable them to better prepare for, mitigate and

respond to natural disasters’. However, the funding decisions do not specify the target

number of local communities and institutions; nor do they specify what ‘success’ would look

like (i.e. what metrics will be used to assess changes in resilience or vulnerability). Moreover,

as with the HoA, it is difficult to get a consolidated view of programme achievements given

that:

Output indicators (referred to as objectively verifiable indicators in the log frames)

used by projects are non-standardised and reporting against these is fragmented. It

is thus not possible to aggregate these across the programme.

Expected/ actual outcomes and impacts are not systematically defined or measured

by projects through independent evaluations.

As regards the second part of the question i.e. whether ECHO funding is sufficient for

reaching a ‘critical mass’ of impacts, the answer depends on the timeframe over which

ECHO wants to achieve critical mass. Given the baseline positions of these countries,

change cannot be achieved in one or two years. At the same time, ‘throwing more money at

the problem’ is not always the best solution. ECHO’s own experience in some countries

shows that when it comes to DRR, behavioural, mind-set and institutional change takes time,

but can be achieved with relatively modest amounts of funding.

One issue in the pursuit of critical mass, that needs to be addressed, is the special role of

the UN and other international agencies, many of which have a long-term in-country

presence and often have remits that relate strongly to DIPECHO’s mandate: UNDP in wide

terms for DRR nationally and locally; UNICEF for education; and WHO in 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 DIPECHO funding, alongside for example, actors such as Oxfam or CARE. A

82

more strategic approach to DIPECHO working with UN partners is warranted, for example,

especially given how UNICEF is shifting ‘upstream’ towards a role dedicated to institutional

and national policy development, having found in the Tajikistan case, the costs of applying

for and managing DIPECHO projects to be rather too high.

Cost effectiveness (Could the same results have been achieved with less funding?)

According to the 2009 evaluation116

, ECHO traditionally assesses the cost effectiveness of

its projects by dividing the projects costs by the estimated number of direct beneficiaries

(e.g. the number of people trained, the approximate number of people reached by

awareness campaigns, etc); and costs of up to 10 euros/person as acceptable. A total

number of ~623,000 direct beneficiaries (less than 1 per cent of the total population of the

region) were reached by 15 DIPECHO projects (funded under 2012 Decision)117

at an

investment of ~ 10 million euros which equates to a per beneficiary cost of 17 euros. This is

higher than the ECHO benchmark. However, as the 2009 evaluation points out, cost per

beneficiary is a rather crude and imprecise measure of cost-effectiveness. For example, it

makes structural mitigation projects look prohibitively expensive compared to relatively

‘cheaper’ options, e.g. conducting DRR awareness and training programmes.

Another way to determine cost-effectiveness would be to compare the costs and benefits of

DG ECHO’s intervention. While the cost of DIPECHO are known, it is almost impossible to

get a sense of benefits as projects are not required to report on outcomes. Moreover, it is not

feasible for programme evaluations as they are currently designed to calculate the return on

investment of DIPECHO, as such an exercise would entail significant data collection

activities on the nature and scale of benefits of all or at least a representative sample of

projects. This would require ECHO to allocate more time and resources to ex-post

evaluations, than is presently the case.

The evaluation team tried to consolidate the information provided by projects in their final

reports to get a sense of what the ~10 million euros have been spent on – see Table 3.18. It

should be noted that Table 3.18 does not provide an exhaustive account of all outputs

delivered, but rather an illustration of the types of outputs delivered.

Table 3.18 Outputs delivered over 2009-2013, CAC


No. of beneficiaries reached 623,344

No. of individuals receiving health and hygiene training 7400

Local Disaster Management Committees (LDMC) established 156

No. of EWS 194

No. of hazards/vulnerability/risk assessments conducted 835

No. of School Disaster Management Teams established 121

No. of school disaster preparedness plans 30

No. of schools and education facilities retro-fitted 9

No. of schools receiving DRR training 99

No. of simulations conducted 124

No. of theatre performances organised 34

No. of structural risk mitigation projects 74

116

Evaluation of the DIPECHO IVth and Vth Action Plans In Central Asia, March – June 2009. 117

The analysis excludes the UNDP project on Strengthening Earthquake Risk Mitigation Capacities in Uzbekistan as it is behind schedule and the direct beneficiaries are government authorities.

83


Village Disaster Preparedness Plans (VDPPs) created or updated 132

No. of earthquake simulators purchased 1

Based on an analysis of project final reports

There is a wide body of existing literature that can be quoted to demonstrate the cost-

effectiveness of DRR more generally, but evidence (both factual and anecdotal) from

DIPECHO itself is lacking. Only one partner was able to provide a concrete ex ample of

‘return on investment’ – see Box 14.

Box 14 Return on DRR investment

FOCUS created an avalanche mitigation project with funding from DIPECHO which involved the

construction of terracing and a protection wall. The efficiency was calculated by comparing the

property value of homes protected from avalanches (300,000 euros) to the cost of the mitigation project (10,000 euros) delivering a return on investment of 1:30.

3.8.3 Conclusions

A consolidated picture of the aggregate outputs and results achieved at a programme level

cannot be obtained due to weak reporting systems and in the absence of standardised

monitoring indicators. Consequently, it is not possible to determine if the ‘same results’ could

have been achieved with less funding. On the basis of previous findings on the relevance,

effectiveness and added value of ECHO funding and given the wider evidence on the costs

and benefits of DRR demonstrating the high economic and social returns of DRR actions118

it

can however, be concluded that the money was spent wisely .

Likewise, it cannot be definitively concluded whether the funding was sufficient for reaching a

critical mass of impacts or if the same results could have been achieved with less funding.

What can be said is that a critical mass of impacts through community based DRR actions

was not reached over the period covered by this evaluation (2009 – 2013) due to limited

replication, scaling-up and mainstreaming.

3.9 Lessons learned

EQ9. What are the main lessons learned in terms of good/bad processes/mechanisms having

allowed taking over/scaling-up by governments and other donors, impact on national policies,

increase in national/external investment in DRR, etc? What has worked or not in the DRR approach/actions and what were the major critical success factors influencing the achievement of

these actions? What good practices of intervention in the field of disaster preparedness at the level

of communities have been established? What coordination mechanisms and exchange of information and experience have developed among key stakeholders in the field of disaster preparedness? How

can the identification and documentation of good practices be further improved?

118

For a summary of literature, see KC, Shyam. 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.

84


Lessons learned

There is a need for ECHO to ensure that the selection of projects is appropriate for the

goals it sets out to achieve / for the target beneficiaries. While some ECHO partners

have succeeded in empowering communities, raising their awareness about disasters, etc , in

other communities this has not worked so well. Some of the ficheops (for projects funded

under the 2012 HIP) question partners’ capacity to implement the CMDRR approach119

and

the evaluation team’s field visits uncovered evidence of some actions implemented being

inappropriate for the target communities. Box 15 outlines one such example of mismatching

of activity and the community in Uganda.

Box 15 Pastoral drop-outs and CMDRR

In the Moroto District of Uganda, the evaluation team visited one community, which was observably

vulnerable. The community had lost much of its livestock and was subsisting primarily on charcoal -

burning and casual labour, being situated close to the town of Moroto. Children in the community

were suffering from malnutrition, there were high levels of aid dependency and evidence of

substance abuse. This vulnerability appeared to have been driven by a lack of coping mechanisms in

place to either prevent, prepare for or cope with (the impacts of) drought and/or conflict.

The community had benefitted from an environmental development project (a re-forestation project)

and had participated in various sessions to build their awareness of DRR and capacity to manage

disaster-risk. The action did not appear to have influenced the communities’ understanding of

drought preparedness or made them more resilient. In this case, it appears that the community

lacked the necessary baseline capacity to manage their own DRR in-community, and would have

rather benefitted from a much more targeted action (e.g. income generation or livelihood

diversification actions).

The DRRAP was not fully effective in allowing ECHO to respond to drought

emergencies. Interviews with ECHO Field suggest that during the 2011 drought, ECHO

partners with approved projects in areas affected by the 2011 drought did not react early

enough to the drought, and - instead – maintained the status quo with their project work

instead of accelerating the project timetable and adapting activity to respond to the unfolding

crisis. Nonetheless, ECHO learned from this experience and – as a result – has started to

encourage ECHO partners to build contingency into their DRR project budgets to enable a

shift in funds from preparedness activities to crisis-response / relief in reaction to sudden

needs. This approach has also been recommended in the literature.120

This method is

currently being implemented through the La Nina consortium.

Water maintenance projects. A number of DRRAP projects included components to

improve access to water. For example, Red Cross Uganda trained Water User Committees

(WUCs) in bore-hole maintenance. While WUCs demonstrated a good understanding of how

to maintain and protect bore-holes, this has not prevented the bore-holes from falling into

disrepair (10 out of 12 of the bore-holes in a community visited by the evaluation team were

broken). This suggests that more could be done to raise awareness within the entire

community about how to properly use and care for the bore-holes to prevent them from

breaking so frequently. Further, these actions have not managed to resolve the issue of cost -

recovery for repairs and having sufficient cash for repair work. This means that while many

119

In the 2012 Final ficheops for two of the cross -border ET-KE projects, DG ECHO HQ questions the appropriateness of the CMDRR approach, observing a “lack of buy-in” from the local community. The evaluation team observed in the field that CMDRR had mixed success. In some communities it appears to have worked very well. This may also be an issue of partner capacity. 120

See, for example: Save the Children & Oxfam (2012) and Chatham House (2012) ‘Translating Early Warning into Early Action: Response by Donors and Implementing Agencies ’ – Workshop Summary, 11-12 April 2012

85

DRRAP partners have – logically – included water components in their projects, this has not

been a sustainable investment. In Ethiopia, it was observed that water produced through

DRRAP-funded structures was mostly not potable, and Aquatabs were not always available.

For example, in one project money was given to the community to organise contractors to

build a berkard. The berkard had water in it (from the previous rainy season), but it was

green from algae growth. However, the CMDRR committee members stated that the water

was clean. Some of the iron sheets had been replaced by wire mesh, supposedly to ensure

air circulation as the water would otherwise go stale; however, as the berkard was not closed

at the ends, there seemed to be plenty of room for air circulation without the wire mesh,

which increased the risk of bird droppings which contaminated the water.

Critical success factors

The following non-exhaustive list of critical success factors have been identified by the

evaluation team:

Knowledge management (e.g. FAO-managed disasterriskreduction.net; UN-ISDR

disinventar website and the REGLAP publications): Country-level and regional

knowledge management systems have proven to be useful for authorities and donors

alike. The information has clearly been used to inform policy (see e.g. the recent

UPFDRR Strategy document). REGLAP has been effective at this, and has at the same

time ‘pushed’ a lot of knowledge down to the community level – e.g. the evaluation team

met local implementing organisations that had both contributed to and made use of

articles published by REGLAP. Disaster loss databases which have been set up in the

region in Kenya and in Ethiopia under the DRRAP are also crucial to communities or

implementing partners because they provide information and knowledge about previous

disasters. Further, by focusing on knowledge generation and dissemination, the DRRAP

established the principle of good practices documentation in DRR in the HoA.

Coordination with existing national institutions and mechanisms: The evaluation

team observed that the IFRC action to develop Red Cross ‘surge capacity’ to respond to

drought during crisis showed evidence of sustainability, because it utilised community -

based volunteers. However, the team observed that this was largely due to the strong

institutional standing of the Red Cross in Uganda (as in Kenya) and so it is clear that

while this approach works for the Red Cross, it could not necessarily be replicated by

others.

Good practice

The following practices implemented through the DRRAP can be considered good practices:

CMDRR: The evaluation team observed that the CMDRR tool is an effective tool for

‘opening the eyes’ of communities to the linkages between hazards and vulnerability and

empowering them to identify strategies to mitigate the impacts of these hazards. In most

of the communities visited, CMDRR had increased community knowledge, empowered

communities to improve their own resilience and in some cases had also resulted in

behaviour change (e.g. in the ways that communities prepare for drought and build

resilience to it). An indicator of the usefulness of CMDRR as a planning tool is evidenced

by the fact that the community development and contingency plans have been taken up

by local authorities in Kenya to inform their County Development Plans. The use of

CMDRR needs to match the capacities of the target community as discussed in Section

6.4.1.121

121

ECHO partners consulted in this field phase have also demonstrated that the CMDRR process requires a number of years’ investment - to allow for the review and updating of contingency and development plans and to reinforce CMDRR practices within the community – for it to be fully effective. Such long-term investment was possible for those DRRAP projects implemented over multiple phases, but may have been another driver for the failure of the CMDRR process in those communities where it was only implemented in one phase.

86

VICOBA / Village Loans and Savings (VLS): These function primarily to generate

income for communities by allowing them to access markets (using loans) which they

then pay back with interest once they have earned a profit from their market interaction.

The evaluation team found evidence that in a couple of communities, VICOBA were also

structured to support interest-free loans to particularly vulnerable people. In both of these

ways, the VICOBA can increase community resilience. The evaluation team see

potential for VICOBA in specific country contexts to contribute to the sustainability of the

CMDRR process if communities were to use them as a disaster contingency fund /

emergency response fund and/or for specific disaster-preparedness activities (such as

cereal-banking, planting drought-hardy plants or purchasing drought-hardy livestock).

Exchange visits: These appeared to be an effective tool for addressing cross-border

and cross-community conflict. Communities in Karamoja reported that as a result of such

visits they have better relations with (some) neighbouring communities122

and in North

Horr, as a result of cross-border peace workshops organised between elders and local

administrators in Ethiopia and Kenya, peace agreements have been signed between the

Gabra (KE), Daschnet (KE) and Amar (ET).

Agro-pastoral field schools (APFS): These have had a notable take-up by other

donors, particularly in Karamoja (e.g. SDC in Ethiopia and Kenya and EU-DEL in

Uganda) and have been supported by government. Communities visited who had

participated in APFS demonstrated a greater understanding of the ‘science’ behind agro-

pastoralism and were empowered to experiment and test innovative techniques that

could lead to improved farming / animal-rearing. However, experimenting takes a while

and needs monitoring and for this reason APFS usually require long-term investment to

be effective. In view of this, a positive outcome of the DRRAP is that DEVCO is now

funding APFS in Uganda.


The lessons learned and good practices are already well documented in the case of

DIPECHO,123

some of which were reinforced by the information collected during the

fieldwork.

Identifying and targeting the ‘most vulnerable’

Tools for assessing vulnerability: Oxfam’s CTVA approach is recognised as good practice in

the region and has been widely adopted by other partners, including ACF, Georgian Red

Cross, and UNDP. An external evaluation of ACF’s DIPECHO funded project activities in

Georgia 124

provides a number of useful suggestions for enhancing the CTVA approach,

demonstrating partners’ commitment to learning and continuous improvement.

DRR in urban contexts: DIPECHO projects in CAC have traditionally focussed on vulnerable

communities living in rural and/or remote, isolated areas. However, as described in Section

2.2, urban areas in the region are also highly vulnerable to hazards. At the 2013 lessons

learned workshop in Almaty, both ECHO and the partners recognised this gap in the

geographic coverage of DIPECHO. Building upon the lessons learned workshop, the 2014

HIP for CAC explicitly provides support for DRR in urban settings.

122

Nonetheless, cattle raids continue between this village and neighbouring ones. The community also reported that the growth of arable farming has also helped inter-community relations. The increasing use of agriculture to supplement their food sources has reduced the reliance on livestock and made communities more settled. As a consequence, smaller herds are more manageable and compete less over limited grazing land. 123

DIPECHO Study: Lessons Learned for an Improved Strategy and Approach, March 2013 and DIPECHO VII in Central Asia and DIPECHO II in Southern Caucasus Lessons Learned Exercise Workshop - Almaty, Kazakhstan, 18-20 September 2013. 124

Murtaza, N. (2013) Supporting Community Resilience to Natural Disasters in Abkhazia and Samegrelo -Zemo Svaneti, Georgia, 2012-2013.

87

Replication and scaling up of community projects is not as extensive as it could be

Capturing and demonstrating the benefits of DRR: to persuade others to replicate and scale-

up or to integrate DRR into longer term development policies, ECHO and partners should

place more emphasis on documenting and demonstrating the impacts of DRR. There is a

need to develop and promote the theory and application of ‘disaster economics’.

Stronger complementarity and link between community-based or sector-specific DRR work

and policy advocacy work : 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.

Building partnerships and coalitions for advocacy: joined-up, coordinated and focussed

advocacy efforts are likely to be more effective and efficient than a ‘scatter gun’ approach.

Partners should work together for common advocacy goals and make full use of existing

platforms and fora for this purpose. For example, one of the partners interviewed suggested

that in Tajikistan, the Donor Coordination Council could be used as a plat form for advocacy

aimed at donors.

Donor mapping: targeted advocacy efforts should be underpinned by a good understanding

of the donors active in the region, their programming cycles and priorities.

Factors contributing to project success

Ownership built through involvement of communities and relevant authorities in the entire

project cycle.

Quality and commitment of partners. Projects are more successful if they: are delivered by

partners with a significant presence in the country/region/community; have the ability to work

with communities and local government; are involved in both development and DRR; and are

learning organisations that are committed to DRR activities beyond ECHO's short term

funding cycle.

Risk informed project design. Basing project design on participatory community-based risk

assessment supporting the optimal use of local knowledge, but also complementing it with

external scientific knowledge.

Sustainability of community based DRR projects

The following factors contribute to the sustainability of community based DRR projects:

Simple, easy-to-maintain, low-cost activities are more likely to be maintained by

communities in comparison to complex interventions. For example, ECHO partner

ACTED explained that it involves local builders and uses locally sourced

construction material to build structural mitigation measures, so that these can be

maintained even after DIPECHO funding has ended.

The involvement of local implementing partners builds long-term local capacity for

DRR.

Supporting linkages between community based DRR with government institutions ,

e.g. linking community emergency response teams with district response teams .

Community co-sponsorship of mitigation works improves ownership and

subsequently encourages maintenance. However, this is not possible for every

community due to the lack of money or, at times, a lack of will and deficient ‘power

analysis’ in the project design.

Finding local ‘champions’ to promote DRR.

Operational lessons

The 18 month implementation timeframe is considered to be too short to work

effectively, when partner proposals are subject not only to DIPECHO evaluation, but

88

also frequently-onerous national authority checking and approvals processes, which

can reduce this time effectively down to just 14 – 16 months.

While the constraints on any increase in the cycle are well recognised by partners, a

contradiction is noted by partners in that a short effective project duration, does

make it especially hard to work in zones where access is impeded over long winter

periods and the summer/autumn part of the cycle is the only opportunity to deliver

results, such as physical mitigation measures and measures involving forestry,

agriculture and livestock. Furthermore, there is a contradiction between the short

effective cycle and addressing the underlying causes of vulnerabilities.

The gap between DIPECHO funding cycles results in institutional loss of memory

and loss of momentum, with considerable opportunities for DIPECHO to support

more strategic approaches to applying lessons and practices and building up

collaborations early on in each funding cycle, once the portfolio of successful

applicants is clearly established.

Documenting and exploiting the lessons learned and good practices developed

While a number of examples of lessons learned and good practices have been highlighted

above, ECHO and its partners are not systematically: ‘harvesting’ the key lessons and DRR

good/best practices (both at field and policy levels) achieved so far; systematising these

findings; determining audiences for the dissemination of findings; and delivering specific

targeted manuals and other guidance in ways designed to meet the communication needs of

potential users across other parts of these countries, across DRR subsectors and to other

regions. There is a clear need to better articulate the somewhat-haphazard lesson learning

activities of DIPECHO, with the clearly-defined needs of user groups, which would lead then

to adequate programming of replication, scaling-up and mainstreaming activities.

One point to be made is the opportunity to gather lessons annually, along the lines of the

Sept. 2013 Almaty workshop, but not only deliver these at the end of the project cycle, but

also at the beginning of the next cycle, once winners of projects are known, to enable the

targeting of lessons to the clear needs of current partners, and to establish direct

collaborations and agreements on how to deliver on these early-on in the actual project

implementation phase.

It should also be noted that a dedicated website for DIPECHO lesson learning materials for

the CAC region, would be very useful, as it would provide a ‘space’ for sharing findings, even

if these are provisional. For example, the Almaty Sept 2103 report is not yet posted online.

3.10 The multi-partner (consortia) and the multi-country approaches

EQ14. What has been the partners’ experience of working in consortia as well as with a multi -country approach?


Consortia approach

There have been four kinds of ‘consortia’ functioning within the DRRAP:

official consortia of ECHO partners working together to implement an action – e.g. the

consortium of REGLAP, the DCA-ACTED-C&D consortium working cross-border in

Uganda and Kenya and (under the Resilience envelope) the La Nina project;

unofficial consortia between partners, as encouraged by DG ECHO – e.g. of the four

cross-border projects in the Kenya-Ethiopia frontier;

a consortium-like system behind the DRRAP whereby UN agencies (FAO, UNDP, UN-

ISDR) were tasked to provide technical and coordination support to other ECHO

partners; and

89

the consortia established within projects where partnerships created local NGOs and/or

local offices of international NGOs for implementation.

ECHO partners working in consortia have found the approach to be useful as it has allowed

them to pool expertise. The DCA consortium continues to work together in Karamoja even

now that ECHO funding has finished. DfID - inspired by ECHO’s approach - has also

recently started to use a consortium approach for funding through its Arid Lands Support

Programme (ASP) Internal Risk Facility (IRF). Yet consortium-work can also be challenging.

ECHO requires only one lead partner to sign its contract, so in order to mitigate the risk for

this partner (e.g. liability for project failure), effective project management structures need to

be put in place.

In Ethiopia, the new ‘cluster’ approach introduced by ECHO in 2012 (see Section 2.2.1.3 for

an explanation of this approach) has forced partners to coordinate and conduct joint

planning. A number of donors commented that this new approach has led to improved donor

coordination, particularly as partners are now required to submit proposals as consortiums to

provide a multi-sectoral package for a geographical cluster. This joint planning to arrive at a

common log frame is seen by many donors as particularly important, as demonstrated by the

following comment from an ECHO partner:

‘The new cluster approach is an improvement. It represents a concerted approach to share

expertise across NGOs. It should help to minimise overlaps of act ivities and identify where

you can have a good entry point and how to build synergies. It should improve resource

utilisation, and having a common objective and a common log frame should help to build

resilience.’

Coordination between ECHO partners funded under the DRRAP has overall been quite

effective. Some projects were also highly interlinked – e.g. the Save the Children 2010

project produced information on nutrition that fed into ACTED’s EWS (implemented through

the DCA project) and from 2010 onwards ECHO partners were encouraged to feed

information to regional (coordinating) DRRAP partners, e.g. by sending articles to REGLAP

for publication. ECHO partners were encouraged to consult each other about the project

design to ensure complementarity in the targeting of beneficiary communities. It has also

facilitated joint-working between UNDP and UN-ISDR on the implementation of HFA in the

region. The evaluators observed that the ECHO partners based in Nairobi who attend the

briefing and debriefing meetings know each other and each other’s programmes well and a

few staff have worked in more than one organisation funded through DRRAP. In Ethiopia,

ECHO DRRAP partners also meet regularly at the national level and also at the regional

level, e.g. Oromia and Somali quarterly Technical Coordination Meetings and during

monitoring visits and in Uganda, the coordination of ECHO partners was led by FAO from

Kampala and Moroto.

Regional partners emphasise that the DRRAP provided an opportunity to nurture new

alliances between the UN and NGOs. However, non-regional ECHO partners have not

always recognised the added value of the regional partners’ internal coordinating role. ECHO

partners based in Uganda and Ethiopia reported that FAO did not provide sufficient support

to them. One ECHO partner based in Uganda held the view that FAO scheduled meetings

without due planning ‘to meet their project quota for activities ’ and felt that FAO could have

done more to distribute technical knowledge and new studies, and been more proactive in

providing technical guidance. The coordinating role of FAO may also have been hindered by

the fact that UN agencies are structured mainly at country level and the country and regional

offices are not internally coordinated. This point was argued at the meeting of DRRAP

regional partners in Nairobi in April 2014.

In spite of this, and also due to the collaborative efforts of the non-regional DRRAP partners,

the programme appears to have been successful in generating a community of practice

amongst humanitarian organisations working on DRR. Given the need for greater

coordination on drought – between humanitarian organisations, international donors,

national and regional authorities and CSOs – this regional approach was appropriate.

90

Partnerships between local NGOs and ECHO partners have worked well on the whole. Many

of these are well established and even existed prior to the DRRAP. All implementing

partners reported positively on their relationship, commenting only that coordination could

have been further improved through more regular meetings and/or greater involvement in

coordination with other ECHO partners. It appears that ECHO partners have largely involved

local partners in the whole project cycle from design to implementation. They have been

selected on the basis of different criteria, including their links with the local community, years

of experience in the region, and technical expertise. This has been most effective when each

partner has had a distinct role. Some challenges have arisen, particularly when local

partners do not have access to the same resources and expertise (e.g. in monitoring and

evaluation) as local branches of international NGOs.

Multi-country (cross-border) approach

ECHO partners experienced some challenges in cross-border working, such as increased

costs (e.g. in travel, in currency exchange) and increased bureaucratic obligations. They also

underlined that they required more time to engage authorities on both sides of the border.

However, there was a clear logic for launching cross-border drought preparedness

projects given that drought and its ensuing problems (e.g. animal and human disease)

heavily affect the borderland areas of the HoA and considering that the agro-pastoral

populations living in these areas rely on resources (water, pasture) on both sides of the

borders to maintain their livelihoods and health during times of drought.

The evaluation team observed positive outcomes in the field: establishment of regular

dialogue between cross-border communities, increased trust between previously conflicted

communities and national authorities and improved communication between authorities

across borders. The cross-border actions have also resulted in a bilateral agreement

between Kenya and Uganda on animal health125

and stakeholders report that in specific

locations there is increased access to resources (water, pasture). Both ECHO partners and

end beneficiaries view the cross-border approach positively.

In contrast, ECHO has expressed a concern that the cross-border projects did not do

anything different from country-based projects, commenting that some of the projects

were delivered almost as two separate country-based projects and that in its 2013 and 2014

HIPs it does not fund cross-border projects. The evaluation team also observed in interviews

with the project leads of two separate cross-border projects that the interviewee did not have

a clear overview of the full project. Staff in other cross-border projects, however,

demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the entire project.

Overall, the benefits of the cross-border approach (cross-border cooperation, sharing of

resources, awareness-raising about the nature of drought and how to address it) appear to

have out-weighed the disadvantages.

3.10.2 Key Findings from South Caucasus and Central Asia

The consortium approach has not yet been applied in CAC, although partners expressed an

interest in it during interviews.

Under the 2012 Decision, DIPECHO funded seven country-specific projects; five multi-

country projects and four regional projects – Table 3.19 shows the focus of these projects.

The funding of multi-country/ regional projects is seen as a key dimension of the added value

of ECHO’s approach as such an approach yields economies of scale, promotes

collaboration, cross-learning and cross-application of tools and practices. However, the

evidence demonstrates that there is scope to more systematically ‘exploit’ the cross -border

125

Memorandum of Understanding on Cross-Border Animal Health Coordination signed between the Department of Veterinary Services – Kenya and the Department of Animal Health and Entomology – Uganda on 24

th April

2013.

91

dimension of such projects by promoting stronger links between the activities being carried

out in different countries.

Table 3.19 Focus of multi-country and regional projects in CAC (2012 Funding Decision)

Multi-country projects Regional projects

2 out of 5 multi-country projects delivered similar

interventions in multiple countries, but

incorporated specific cross-border activities, e.g. sharing of experiences and learning

Creation of cross-border working groups aimed at fostering cooperation and collaboration to

identify and address cross-border risks, e.g.

cross-border disaster simulation drills, etc

(although in one case, cross-border activities

could not be implemented due to political

developments and in the other case, inter-

communal violence caused some delays)

3 out of 5 projects delivered similar activities in

multiple countries without any specific cross-

border dimension or linkages between activities in different countries

A UNICEF project aimed at mainstreaming DRR

in education in Central Asia (covering 4

countries)

A UNICEF project aimed at mainstreaming DRR

in education in Caucasus

An OCHA project aimed at increasing

awareness, preparedness and the response capacities of humanitarian partners,

including authorities, at local, national and

regional levels in Central Asia and Caucasus (covering 8 countries)

An Oxfam project supporting community resilience in the South Caucasus

3.10.3 Conclusions

Despite some challenges, the consortium approach in the HoA has proven to be useful as it

has allowed partners to achieve greater scale by pooling expertise and resources. Other

donors have shown an interest and are also adopting such approaches. In Ethiopia, the new

cluster approach introduced by ECHO in 2012 is widely acknowledged to have led to

improved donor coordination.

The multi-country approach has had clear added value in terms of yielding economies of

scale, promoting collaboration, cross-learning and addressing cross-border risks.

3.11 Unintended / unexpected effects

EQ10. Are there any apparent unintended or unexpected effects and risks from the actions (spill-

overs; institutional changes in partners, both positive and negative; effects on nutrition; effects on the environment; or effects on gender relations or other social relations)?

Overall, the evaluation found limited evidence of unintended or unexpected effects. This is

not surprising given that DRRAP/ DIPECHO are now established programmes with a clear

intervention logic.


Two spill-over effects from DRRAP projects were identified by the evaluation team:

Some ECHO partners note the positive impact of their DRR activities on peace-building

in the local area, particularly where the projects have developed symbiotic processes

(e.g. the interdependence between agro-pastoralists and pastoralists which resulted from

COOPI’s fodder production project in the Kenya / Ethiopia cross-border region – 2012-

91036) or entailed visits between villages focusing on the exchange of good practice

(e.g. as through Danchurchaid’s cross-border project in West Pokot / Karamoja, or the

early warning a community in Ethiopia had received from Somaliland [due to linkages

established through a DRRAP project] of an upcoming locust swarm – the information

92

was relayed to the implementing partner who in turn ensured a meeting was held with

the relevant Ethiopian authorities).

Improving access to water and pasture is resulting in some places in pastoral

sedentarisation. This was not an intentional outcome. Interviewees seemed happy to

have swapped the pastoral way of life for a settled life with better access to (animal and

human) health services and education for their children. However, there are potentially

negative outcomes from sedentarisation including land degradation, loss of culture and

traditional land management practices. ECHO partners present at the field based

debriefing workshop after the evaluation team’s Ethiopia field trip in April 2014 suggested

that environmental, social and economic impact assessments should always be

performed to understand the broader impacts of interventions.


The breaks between the DIPECHO funding cause loss of staff, which, while negatively

affecting the momentum of project implementation, also result in staff turnover and

institutional loss of memory. At the same time, successive cycles of DIPECHO funding have

had the unintended consequence of creating grant dependency on ECHO (this was also the

case to a lesser extent in the HoA126

). ECHO partners usually co-finance their actions

through their own funds, but it would be perhaps more conducive to sustainability to

incentivise partners to secure co-financing from other donors, communities (even in-kind)

and/or private donors. In the 2012 funding round, only 7 out of 16 projects secured co-

funding from other donors with the total volume amounting to just over a million euros

(however, a vast majority of the total co-funding mobilised by ECHO partners [70 per cent]

relates to a single project: co-funding was secured by OCHA from the US Government,

Russia and its own budget to undertake a regional DRR project).

Table 3.20 Funding sources for DIPECHO in CAC: 2012 Funding Decision

Source of Funding Amount of funding As % of total

ECHO funding 7,990,801 € 77%

Own funds 1,262,662 € 12%

Other donors 1,097,196 € 11%

Total 10,350,659 € 100%


126126

E.g. Cordaid has reported that it has found it challenging to identify follow-on funding now that DRRAP has ended, because its approach was so interlinked into the DRRAP (Cordaid was one of the first partners to be funded and the DRRAP was partly developed around their existing actions in the reg ion).

93

4 Recommendations

4.1 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 c overage

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.

4.1.1 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 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.

4.1.2 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.

94

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 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

95

example through joint DRR needs assessment, priority setting or even coordinated funding

of DRR activities.

4.1.3 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 object ives

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 indicators127

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.

4.1.4 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

127

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.

96

capacity building128

. For example, 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.

4.2 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.

128

Germax (2013) Evaluation of the potential effectiveness and efficiency gains of working directly with local NGOs in the humanitarian interventions of the Commission.

97

Recommendation 14: DG ECHO should coordinate donor-mapping exercises for each

region on a regular basis to support focussed advocacy efforts (this recommendation


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



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)


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)


Documents

DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF