Study of the Participatory Vulnerability and ... - Care Nepalcarenepal.org/Care-CSP/report/_LDRMP Study Report FINAL.pdf · 6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP ... country and CARE

Study Report on Local Disaster Risk Management Plan

and Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment

of Community Support Program (CSP)-II

Submitted to: CARE Nepal Lalitpur

March, 2014

Studied and Presented by: Laxmi Narayan Parajli 1151 Thirbam Sadak, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu, Nepal Phone 4416716 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

2

Table of Contents

Table of Pictures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

ACRONYMS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

1. Background -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

2. Study Methodology --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

3. Analysis and Findings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 3.1 Strengths ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 3.1 Areas of improvement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

4. Lessons Learnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

5. Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

NARRATIVE REPORT ------------------------------------------------------------ Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. Preliminary information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

2. Context ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

3. Rationale of the Study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

4. Objective of the Study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

5. Methodology of the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 5.1 Desk Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 5.2 Field Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 5.4 In-depth Discussion with Key Informants --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

6. Analysis and findings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 6.1 Major hazards, PVCA findings and risk profile --------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 6.3 Strengths and major DRR initiations of the programme -------------------------------------------------------- 22 6.3.1 Peoples' engagement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 6.3.2 People and stakeholders' ownership --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.3.3 Strengthened the government policy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.3.4 Ensured institutional basis for implementation ------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.3.5 Increased awareness, capacity and preparedness ---------------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.3.6 Purposively organized people to response disaster -------------------------------------------------------------- 23 6.3.7 Planned and systematic efforts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 6.3.8 Wider geographical coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24 6.4 Gaps in PVCA and LDRMP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 6.4.1 Insufficient integration to development ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24 6.4.2 Insufficient and uncertain budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 6.4.3 Small scale activities for large scale hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 6.4.4 Poor linkage with annual and periodic plans ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 6.4.5 DIA not focused ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25 6.5 Lessons learnt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 6.6 Recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 6.6.1 Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach ------------------------------------------ 26 6.6.2 Community Based Disaster risk Management Guideline ------------------------------------------------------- 26

3

6.7 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

Logical framework ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31

Annexes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 Annex-I: Sites visited in the Program Districts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32 ANNEXES-II QUESTIONNAIRES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 ANNEXES- III: Information Collection Format ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 ANNEXES- IV: Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA ------------------------------------------------------- 40 ANNEXES- V: TOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42

4

Table of Pictures

Picture 1: Hazard and Resource Map, Amarpur, Panchthar ......................................................... 15 Picture 2: Cause Effect Analysis of Landslide in Hangdewa VDC, Taplejung ............................ 15 Picture 3:Kit Handover to the Community .................................................................................... 17 Picture 4: Hazard and resource map preparation at Basantpur VDC ............................................ 18 Picture 5: Earthquake Resistant Technology in construction ........................................................ 18 Picture 6: Construction of Safe Shelter ......................................................................................... 19

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PVCA and Local Disaster Risk Management Plans are the foundations for mainstreaming DRR into development. These actions have recently initiated in the country and CARE Nepal is contributing significantly from non-government side in this regard. Review of the actions made in this context and recommend actions for improvement is an opportunity to any DRR expert working in Nepal. I extend sincere appreciation to Mr. Santosh Sharma, DRR Coordinator of CARE – Nepal for entrusting the assignment. I’m also thankful to Mr. Nilkantha Pandey DRR Specialist for guiding the study from the beginning. I would like to thank Mr. Shyam Krishna Mandal, Mr. Drona Koirala, and Mr. Anup Gautam Team Leader, CSP and Mr. Rohit Yadav and Rishi Ram Bhattarai DRR Specialist of CSP for providing all types of logistics supports and feedback. It’s my pleasure to mention here other officials of CARE – Nepal for their feedback, suggestions and accompanying to the field. I would like to appreciate the community people, school teachers, Users Committee for sharing their precious time, knowledge and hospitality during the field visit. Support rendered by Prof. Dr. Madan Koirala and Ms. Sunita GC is highly appreciated. Laxmi Narayan Parajuli Kathmandu

6

ACRONYMS

CBDRMC Community Based Disaster Risk Management Committee

CBDRMP Community Based Disaster Risk Management Plan

CSP Community Support Program

DDC District Development Committee

DFID Department for International Development

DIA Disaster Impact Assessment

HFA Hyogo Framework of Actions

LDRMC Local Disaster Risk Management Committee

LDRMP Local Disaster Risk Management Plan

LSAR Light Search and Recue

MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development

NSDRM National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

PVCA Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Analysis

VCA Vulnerability Capacity Analysis

VDC Village Development Committee

VDP Village Development Plan

WCF Ward Citizen Forum

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Background Considering the recurrent events of disasters and growing risk of climate extremities, Government of Nepal (GoN) endorsed Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP), in November 2011. The plan aims to strengthen the disaster preparedness and reduce the disaster risk with ultimate objective of mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and ultimately contribute to develop disaster resilient communities. CARE Nepal with the financial support of DFID, facilitated to develop LDRMPs and CDRMPs across its working areas through Community Support Programme (CSP)-II based on the LDRMP Guideline. This report presents the synopsis of the findings of PVCA and LDRMP carried by CSP in different levels of its objectives. Additionally, this report explores the areas of improvement and its effectiveness of Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach. This report also presents recommendations for the improvements in LDRMP guideline itself.

2. Study Methodology The study is based on the primary and secondary sources of information. Similarly, both qualitative and qualitative information was used to identify the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability and lessons learnt from the project as envision by National Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline (GoN/NPC 2013). Some major steps carried during the study include: desk review, field study, focus group discussion and In-depth Discussion with Key Informants.

3. Analysis and Findings 3.1 Strengths An analysis was made based on the information available from review of the LDRMP, PVCA reports, on-site field visit and interaction with the LDRMC and CBDRMC members in program districts. The LDRMPs and PVCAs carried throughout the project area generated direct and active participation of local people, local bodies especially VDCs and other stakeholders. Local people involved in entire planning process. Similarly, strong ownership of local people and wide range of stakeholders in PVCA and LDRMPs were observed. As expected by LDRMP guideline, PVCAs have identified the vulnerable households, ranked the hazards based on the vulnerability, and analyzed the local capacity to

8

response to disaster. Thus, the intervention has supported to strengthen the government policy and strategy. The LDRMPs have been endorsed by ward citizen forums and respective VDC councils which has ensured institutional basis for the program implementation. Local authorities have allocated some the budget for the plan. As ensuring institutional basis for implementation is one of the HFA priorities of actions, these interventions have promoted the HFA recommended actions as well. Continued engagement of local people in variety of capacity development trainings (search and rescue, first aid, early warning), awareness raising and engagement in exercises of PVCAs and planning process of LDRMP have contributed collectively to increase awareness and capacity at local level. LDRMCs and CBDRMCs organize regular meeting. Increased awareness has fostered preparedness activities at local level. Project has supported emergency rescue kits to trained persons. Local people initiated establishment of seed banks and emergency fund as preparedness measures. People have used indigenous technologies in river training works across different working areas. Specialized social structures have been developed in working communities which has led to the actions, interactions and reactions (response) to cope the disaster. The examples are task force, planning sub-committee, LDRMC, CDRMC. These structures are purposively organized and spontaneously mobilized in the community level, hence, are much effective to response disaster. LDRMPs have been able to pinpoint the major hazards, vulnerable households, potential level of impacts in respective VDCs. Recognized PRA tools have been used to analyze the vulnerability and assess the potential risks. Thus, the project was a planned and systematic intervention towards the DRR initiatives.

3.1 Areas of improvement Study revealed that the intervention was a good initiation of the project. Despite several strengths of the project, there are some of the areas for improvement. Integration of DRR concepts in mainstream development process and result appeared poor. The project could not be able to make the Annual Village Development Plans (AVDPs) of VDC disaster resilient. As the AVDPs are core development activities and unless these could be made disaster-resilient, only isolated plans will not be sufficient to mainstream DRR. Disasters are still treated as events rather than considering them as outcome of cumulative failures of development intervention. In the absence of provision of Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA), instead of saving people and property, development is causing burden during emergency. Both of LDRMP guideline and CBDRM approach followed by the project could not see the need of DIA to make development actions sustainable.

9

Funding for the LDRMPs is uncertain and insufficient with respect to the magnitude and complexity of the local disaster events. Meantime, it appears difficult to effectively resist the hazards by the micro and small scale activities as planed in LDRMP.

Though the project had covered 25 districts of Nepal across different development and ecological region, project has to be extended in more district as the entire country is vulnerable to different hazards.

4. Lessons Learnt The project intervention is specified for short term. However, developing disaster resilient community is a long-term work. Project needs to address this need as well. On one hand project areas are widely dispersed and on the other hand almost no linkage of activities with surrounding geographic areas is realized. It has also realized that project interventions need to be focused covering relevant ecological area such as upstream areas and downstream areas of same watershed area. Besides, it is also realized that PVCA of whole VDC is essential so that Disaster Management Plan of the VDC could be more effective to mainstream the DRR in the development process.

5. Conclusion Project intervention initiated significant actions and has played important role in preparing the target communities against the disaster risk. Transfer of knowledge and skills on disaster preparedness has paved foundation for community based disaster risk reduction. Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) should be established and made mandatory before starting any development activities to ensure sustainability of the development efforts.

10

1. Preliminary information Project Name Community Support Programme (CSP)-II Task Study of PVCA and LDRMPs carried in programme VDCs and

of development of synopsis/study report Task carried by Laxmi Narayan Parajuli, DRR consultant Task provided by CARE Nepal

2. Context Community Support Program (CSP) II was implemented from April 2010 in 238 communities of 119 Village Development Committee (VDC) and 1 municipality of 25 Districts of Nepal with support from of DFID through CARE Nepal. The program adopted Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Approach while implementing its activities. Community level planning was made with participation of Local Disaster Risk Management Committee members and other stakeholders. Program carried out Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (PVCA) in each of the working VDCs using variety of PVCA tools. Based on PVCA analysis; risk profile of the working areas have been identified. In order to assess the effectiveness of the PVCAs and LDRMPs, CARE Nepal sought independent consultant to carry out the study. This report is the output of the study.

3. Rationale of the Study Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries of the world in terms of disaster risk. Nepal is placed in 20th place in the global hazard map while the country is ranked 30th in terms of water-induced hazards such as landslides and floods. In seismic vulnerability ranking, Kathmandu valley is placed in the first place (NSDRM, 2009). Increased events of disasters in the world have raised severe questions regarding the sustainability of the development efforts. In this context, NSDRM has taken a long-term vision to establish Nepal as a Disaster-resilient country. LDRMP is such commitment of government that aims to integrate DRR into development at local level. Thus, LDRMP is an important tool that helps to address the growing challenge of disaster risk. PVCA and LDRMPs are the major thrusts of the LDRMP guideline. In this context, the wider support that the programme has made in developing PVCA and LDRMP is highly relevant towards the effective implementation of disaster risk. Therefore, rationale of the study is to suggest corrective measures for increasing the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the intervention.

4. Objective of the Study Overall objective of the study is to review the findings of PVCA and LDRMP and prepare a synopsis report with areas of improvement and its effectiveness in the target communities.

11

The specific objectives are: • Access the major hazards, VCA findings and risk situation or risk profile in the

working area • Prepare a synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP • Recommend areas of improvements and effectiveness of Community Based

Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach in reducing disaster risk of vulnerable communities and LDRMP guideline itself

• Find out the gapes or/and improvement area of LDRMP and recommend appropriately with evidence, fact and figure including its implementation and ownership by VDC and municipality.

5. Methodology of the study Methodology of this study comprises two fold activities viz. desk study and field study. Desk study includes the study of relevant literature, documents and all community reports such as PVCA reports and LDRMPs. As the program coverage is relatively large, information collection/field study was made in representative samples. Following the purposive and systematic simple random sampling procedures, 10 percent sample areas were selected from LDRMP and PVCA areas (ANNEX II). In this regard, representation of geographical areas, ethnic /population diversity and commonality of hazards were also taken into account. Information of collected from the field was validated during field study. Thus, the quality of the community reports was scrutinized through the field study. Field study generated information from the primary as well as secondary source. Similarly, both qualitative and quantitative information was collected and used to assess the situation. Ultimately, the overall methodology is targeted to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy and sustainability of the PVCA and LDRMPs facilitated by the programme based on LDRMP guideline. The methods and procedures used for the study comply the Terms of Reference (ToR) provided to the consultant. Major steps followed during the study are as follows:

5.1 Desk Study Desk study assessed first impression of the overall performance of program especially in context of participatory vulnerability and capacity assessment of the working communities and development of Local Disaster Risk Management Plan as guided by LDRMP Guideline. Prior to field visit - in this regard - the program relevant documents were acquired from the Regional Programme Offices. The Program document including the LDRMP plans and PVCA reports of the study area were reviewed. Side by side, LDRMP Guideline

12

prepared by Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) was also studied to find out whether prepared LDRMPs comply the guideline. After the preliminary review of the documents a set of questionnaires (Annex-III) and templates for collecting the information were developed aiming to systematize the field study and ensure the quality of field verification. The templates were shared with the program officials and addressed the program special needs and concerns.

5.2 Field Study Field study was well designed and targeted for data collection and validation of information collected from desk study. The study was conducted from January 8 to 19 January 2014. The detail field plan is attached in Annex-II. Field study included on-site observation as guided in LDRMP/CBDRMP. Field study followed the field observation, interaction with different levels of stakeholders ranging from community, VDC to district level. Sites of the field visit area is presented in annex-I.

5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Focus Group Discussion was another major tool used for assessing the effectiveness of PVCA and LDRMPs. FGDs were conducted with LDRMC and CBDRMC and other beneficiaries. Both male and female members attended during the discussions. A total of 9 FGDs were conducted in three districts namely Pyuthan, Kailali and Udayapur representing from East, Mid Western and Far Western Region of the country. Participants of presented their views over different perspectives disaster risk, vulnerability and adaptation such as the process of planning . Meanwhile, practices of planning processes were compared with the processes as specified by the LDRMP Guideline. The strength, weakness, opportunity, threats of LDRMPs were also discussed. Additionally, the trends and causes of stress, differential vulnerability and adaptive behavior in context of disaster and disaster risk were discussed. LDRMC and CBDRMC members opined their views regarding the effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy and sustainability of results PVCA exercises and LDRMPs during the discussion. The FGDs were conducted separately on LDRMP, PVCA and School Contingency Plans based on sample. Sample distribution summary is presented in table-2.

13

Table-1: Sample Distribution of FGD in Different Groups

District No. of Focus Group Discussions

LDRMP (LDRMC)

PVCA (CBDRMC)

School Contingency Plan (SMC) Total

Pyuthan 1 1 1 3 Kailali 2 1 1 4 Udayapur 1 1 - 2 Total 4 3 2 9

5.4 In-depth Interview with Key Informants In-depth interview were made with purposively selected key informants including Program staff, LDRMC members and CBDRMC members, representatives and community leaders from each of the selected VDCs. In-depth interviews were conducted using semi structured interview guidelines (Annex II). The questionnaires are focused on process and findings of vulnerability capacity assessment. The process helped to understand the community perspective over the PVCA exercises and identify the level of community understanding on phenomenon of disaster and level of preparedness caused by PVCA and LDRMP exercises carried out in the respective VDCs. At meantime, in-depth interview helped to identify the community level disaster risk reduction measures adopted by the community after the preparation of Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP). The discussion also helped to verify the findings of the desk study.

6. Analysis and findings 6.1 Major hazards, PVCA findings and risk profile Major hazards of the working areas have been identified by using different PRA tools under the Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Analysis (PVCA) carried out. PRA tools used in this process includes, disaster timeline, matrix ranking, seasonal calendar, transect walk, proportional piling, hazard and capacity analysis. Matrix ranking is one of the most appropriate tools for identifying major hazards. Matrix ranking tool has ranked the major hazards in different levels based on their magnitude, severity and frequency. Some examples of the matrix ranking made by the PVCA presented in table below:

Table-2: Sample of Major Hazards by District VDC, Rank of Hazards as identified by PVCA District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eastern Region Basantpur, Tehrathum Landslide

Wild animal Hail storm

Storm, Flood Earthquake Drought Drought -

Amarpur, Panchthar

Landslide Fire Earthquake Epidemic, Storm Hail storm Flood - -

Jogidaha, Udayapur

flood Fire Snake bite Storm Epidemic Drought Earthquake Wild Animal

14

VDC, Rank of Hazards as identified by PVCA District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Chhintang, Dhankuta

Landslide Fire, Wild animal

Earthquake, Epidemic - - - - -

Bigutar, Okhaldhunga Wild

Animal Landslide Storm Epidemic Cold Wave Fire Earthquake - Manakamana, Gorkha Landslide

Wild animal Lightening Fire Epidemic Drought Storm Hailstorm

Mid Westen Region Lekhparajul, Surkhet

Landslide Fire Storm Epidemic Flood Wild animal - - Saree, Pyuthan Drought

Flood, Landslide Fire Earthquake Epidemic Wild animal Storm Lightening

Salleri, Dailekh

Drought Hailstorm Wild Animal Fire Flood, Storm

Taksera, Rukum

Landslide Flood Fire Storm Wild animal Snowfall Lightening Earthquake Narku, Dolpa

flood, Landslide Fire Epidemic Storm Lightening hailstorm Drought

Thehe, Humla flood, Landslide Fire Hailstorm Snowfall Lightening Epidemic Wild Animal

Khalanga, Jajarkot Landslide,

Flood Fire Epidemic Storm Drought hailstorm Lightening Kumalgaun, Kalikot flood,

landslide Fire Hail storm Storm Snowfall Lightening Epidemic Rowa, Mugu Landslide,

Flood Fire Epidemic Hailstorm Storm Snowfall Lightening Far Western Region

Pawera, Kailali

Flood Cold wave Fire

Storm, Epidemic Wild animal Earthquake

Moribagar, Bajhang Flood Landslide Wild animal Drought Earthquake Hailstorm Mushegadh, Achham Landslide

Wild animal Epidemic Storm Fire

Dhuligada, Darchula

Landslide Wild animal Strom Flood Fire Epidemic Earthquake Lightening

Gangkhet, Dadeldhura,

Landslide Storm Wild animal Fire Flood Epidemic Earthquake Source: LDRMP of respective VDC

15

PVCA results presented that different hazards are in different ranks in different VDCs/districts. However, landslide was found top ranked hazard in most of the VDCs/districts. In general, forest fire and flood appeared to be the second rank hazards threatening community life and property. Wild animal appears to be another important hazard causing damage and loss of agriculture and people's life. Meantime, earthquake, epidemic and storm appeared to the third category of hazards. Other hazards were

found to be drought, snowfall and lightening. The geography of the location seemed to have played important role in bearing the magnitude, frequency and severity of hazards. In the Terai, flood is ranked first whereas in hilly area landslide stands in first position. In the mountain region, snowfall and hailstorm are also in the priority. Identification of vulnerability was another dimension of PVCA. Some indirect measures were used to identify the vulnerability. One of the major measures to identify vulnerability was well-being ranking. It has identified the level of economic vulnerability. Vulnerability is the gap between ideal and unsafe condition of the elements at risk. Vulnerability is always contextual. It differs with time, space, individuals, and characteristics and based on other factors as well. In view of above definition, summary of the different types of vulnerability of the target area are identified as below:

Picture 2: Cause Effect Analysis of Landslide in Hangdewa VDC, Taplejung

Picture 1: Hazard and Resource Map, Amarpur, Panchthar

16

Vulnerability in target communities Type of vulnerability Summary of Vulnerability Situation

Physical vulnerability

Physical vulnerability is relatively high across target area. Settlements are located in hazard prone locations. For example, people are living in slopy and fragile ground in hilly and mountainous districts such as Accham, Bajhag, Darchula, Baitadi, and Okhaldhunga. Similarly, people are living in flood plains in Kailali.

Social vulnerability

Social vulnerability found little bit complex. In terms of social support mechanism vulnerability is relatively less as elderly people, children are protected by families. In terms of family size, level of vulnerability is diversified as size of family is diversified. There are significant number of single women and families they are heading is more vulnerable. Gender differences is higher in western hilly districts such difference has also caused higher level of vulnerability across those communities.

Cultural an attitudinal vulnerability

There is both positive aspects and areas of improvement in the case of cultural and attitudinal vulnerability. Traditional practices such as Chhaupadi and untouchability have kept at more risk to women and dalits of the community especially in the western hilly districts. Lack of toilets was also widely observed those areas. Practice of open toilet has increased vulnerability of epidemics across the region. Besides, expectation of support was also observed as other type of vulnerability. Some practices such as keeping dry foods for rainy season, house plinth raising has increased the adaptive capacity. Growing awareness from the project intervention has contributed to reduce cultural and attitudinal vulnerably.

Educational vulnerability

Educational vulnerability has gradually reduced. Traditionally there was a huge gap of information regarding the risk scenario. Now the People have been more aware disaster and risk factors. People now believe that human cause is dominant in disaster. LDRMC, CBDRMC and early warning like task forces have been formed across target areas. These structures have also contributed to reduce educational vulnerability.

Institutional vulnerability

Institutional vulnerability is gradually reduced. Local government bodies such as VDC and DDCs have started to develop DRM plan at their level. DRR is recognized as cross cutting issues by all the horizontal and vertical stakeholders working in the field of DRR.

Political vulnerability

Political vulnerability is also gradually decreased. Disaster affected people are organized in different groups and have access to District Natural Disaster Relief Committee and other decision making bodies.

17

Type of vulnerability Summary of Vulnerability Situation

Economic vulnerability

Economic vulnerability is observed high. Wellbeing ranking helped to assess of economic vulnerability of target communities. Majority of the households were categorized into very poor and poor groups.

Structural and technical vulnerability

Slight improvement has been observed in reduction of structural and technical vulnerability. Community schools have been used earthquake resistant technology to resist seismic vulnerability. However, in the case of private housings the housing structures neither in the hilly areas nor in the plain areas are designed to withstand the local hazards. The roads are frequently damaged and swept away by flood and landslide during rainy season which creates isolation during emergency. The bridges in several areas are old and weak. Structural vulnerability varies across communities.

Environmental vulnerability

Growing environmental deterioration has led the communities towards environmental vulnerability. Especially the deforestation in hilly areas has induced flood and drought across the region. Thousands of hectares of agricultural land in hilly and terai region have been degraded each year across the target areas. Flood and drought is emerged as dominant hazards across the regions.

PVCA shows that people participation in the planning process was commendable. They engaged people directly and actively in entire process of planning. Simultaneously, engagement of people in practice of variety of PRA tools helped to internalize the importance of DRR related issues and develop a culture of safety. For example, timeline was a tool used during PVCA exercises. This tool has helped local people to identify most frequent disasters in their community. Cause and effects of different hazards were

also identified by participatory process during PVCA exercise. It helped to identify the problems and take appropriate measures to reduce the disaster risk. Identification of vulnerable population is another important output of PVCA exercise. The exercises were conducted in 238 communities. It also disintegrated data of local population on several aspects such as age, caste/ethnicity,

Picture 3: Kit Handover to the Community

18

disability and well-being. Such disintegration helped to sketch the risk profile of the respective community. A total of 119 LDRMP and 238 CBDRMP and school contingency plans were prepared in the project period. The plans thus were impressive to deal the disaster in community level. Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)s have endorsed the plan in the communities. VDC councils also endorsed the LDRMP and CBDRMP. VDCs and WCFs expressed their strong commitments to support for implementation of the plans. Commitments of District level authority was moderately below than the communities. VDRMPs are prepared based on the LDRMP Guideline issued by the government (MoFALD). LDRMC members and other key stakeholders were also involved in the planning process. Therefore, PVCA exercise and planning has immensely contributed to strengthen the knowledge and skills of local stakeholders in conducting PVCA and developing LDRMP. Since the project contributed to implement and strengthen government guideline, the interventions are expected to be sustainable, as reported by the interviewees during the field study. Disaster is generally a function of hazard and vulnerability divided by the community preparedness. Major hazards are identified using different tools and activities are also

identified. Three fold of activities identified as pre-disaster period, disaster period and post disaster period. At the same time, hazard specific activities are also designed in the LDRMP. Activities related to mitigation and adaptation measures for landslide, flood, earthquake, fire, epidemics and other hazards have been planned throughout the working areas addressing the local

Picture 4: Hazard and resource map preparation at Basantpur VDC

Picture 5: Earthquake Resistant Technology in construction

19

hazards. Thus, it has been realized that systematic interventions on disaster preparedness, response and recovery have been initiated and made accordingly. These all interventions were built up in the foundation of the government policy (LDRMP Guideline). Therefore, it shall have been continued in the future as well. Awareness, capacity development and preparedness were the common focus of

LDRMPs across the working areas. Various types of Task Force were formed in the community. The local people were trained for the specific services like first aid, early warning, search and rescue. It has been traced out that conventional construction practices were being replaced by the earthquake resistant construction practices in the school construction. The model is

being gradually spread the message in the communities to build the disaster resistant construction in their localities. It also helped to increase the awareness of local people and inspire them to adopt such a technology. Increased events of disasters and awareness activities from the development projects have encouraged people to take variety of actions on preparedness and mitigation. Community emergency fund, plantation, stockpiling of dry foods and controlled grazing are some of the examples.

Tree plantation was observed during the field visit. Use of local plants in the embankment of the river helped to mitigate the flood risk of nearby settlements. Such plantation accommodated with bioengineering technology seemed as good examples of river training works. Several such actions were carried in initiation of community which promoted local technology and ultimately reduced the disaster

risk.

Picture 6: Construction of Safe Shelter

Picture 7: Embankment protection by vegetation, Kailali

20

0 50

100 150 200 250

No. of Plans and Committees on DRR

Indigenous measures taken in DRR • Stocking of dry foods such

as dried vegetables, Satu (flour of fried maize)

• House plinth raising to protect house from flood

• Plantation along river banks to protect agricultural lands

• Small canals for water diversion to control erosion

• Wire, net, drum, firing to protect crop from wild animal

• Meeting and interaction in DRR issues

• Grazing control in the forest area

Communities have established the emergency fund and grain bank to cope the disaster in the program working areas. During the interaction with VDC secretary, VDC also allocated certain amount budget for the emergency, which helped to sustain those initiations in VDC level. The CSP also handed

over the disaster kits to the VDC with a view to strengthen the community for dealing the situation. Ninety-nine percentage of the interviewees agreed that the process adopted in PVCA ranks the all the local hazards in systematic way. They also opined that analysis procedures were simple to analyze the disaster situation in communities. All of the LDRMC/ CBDRMC members expressed that the tools used for identifying the local resources were simple and easy to practice at local level.

6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP A total of 119 Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMPs), 238 Community Based Disaster Risk Management Plans (CBDRMPs) and school contingency plans have been prepared across the working areas. Similarly, 238 Community Based Disaster Risk Management Committees have been formed. Task forces formed in each community on First Aid, Search and Rescue and Early Warning to carry out specialized tasks during emergency. LDRMP developed based on the PVCA results and LDRMP Guideline.

Picture 8: Landslide Protection work, Pyuthan

21

Identified recurrent hazards in different seasons. Landslide, flood, drought, storm, fire, epidemic found to be most recurrent hazard.

Seasonal Calender

Identified major disasters in community in recent histroy specially within 30-50 years. Landslide, earthquake, flood, epidemic found to be the major event.

Timeline


Seasonal Calender

Located major hazards, resources and location of at risk elements in social map so that task force and LDRMC members received clear idea for response.

Hazard & Resource

Map


Seasonal Calender

Categorized households of the community into different levels of vulenraviblity, i.e. High, Medium and Low. This tool eased to focus support to most vulnerable households.

Matrix Ranking

Explored the causes and impacts of major hazards of the community and identified measures to be taken.

Hazard Analysis

Identified the responsibilities, capacities and gaps of key agencies such as VDC, LDRMC, CDRMC, task force, local governent bodies

cacacity Assessment

LDRMPs were endorsed by respective VDC councils. Communities have established the emergency fund to response emergency situation. Disaster resistant construction technology and practice has been adopted in construction work and people have been encouraged to adopt and disseminate the technology as well. Local technologies were adopted and practices in river training and embankment protection work. Risk profile of the community was also identified using some common PRA tools and assessment methods. Important PRA tools and method used during the PVCA are as follows:

Major PRA tool and methods used in PVCA

Local Disaster Risk Management Plans were developed with the engagement of wide range of stakeholders of local level such as VDC official, LDRMC members, task force members, representatives of local government agencies, political parties, local Red Cross, social workers, youth and teachers. LDRMPs were prepared as a guiding document to understand local hazards and address the challenges raised by the hazard and vulnerability. LDRMPs are structured into three parts namely, introduction, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment and Disaster Risk Management Plan. The VCA part includes results of different PRA tools used and risk assessment method while the Disaster Risk Management Part includes specific activities for pre-disaster, during disaster and post disaster phase.

22

LDRMP planning process includes series of actions that comply the provisions of the LDRMP Guideline ranging from VDC selection by District Natural Disaster Committee to approval of LDRMP by respective VDC council. The LDRMP processes are presented in chart below.

Common LDRMP Planning Process followed in working areas

6.3 Strengths and major DRR initiations of the programme PVCA and LDRMP planning followed some structured and important tools that ultimately strengthened effectiveness of the programme. These are categorically briefed below:

6.3.1 Increased local peoples' engagement One of the major parts of the planning is engagement of people which was found high throughout the planning process. It was observed during the interaction in local level that entire community was involved in the planning process. Local people become more

23

concerned about safety of their respective communities. High level of engagement of the people in series of project activities contributed to increase f awareness in the local people on disaster issues. This is the one of the outcome of the program. During the focus group discussion, people shared their action and learning spontaneously which indicates better understanding of people on DRR issues and increased level of awareness.

6.3.2 Increased local people and stakeholders' ownership Wide range of stakeholders participated in the program activities. The plan has addressed the recurrent problems faced by local people. Therefore, both local people and stakeholders feel the ownership for their plan.

6.3.3 Strengthened the government policy The intervention has contributed to strengthen government policy. Both in VDC and Community, Local Disaster Risk Management Committee and Community Based Disaster Risk Management Committees were formed respectively. Besides, different taskforce were formed in the communities as part of the disaster preparedness.

6.3.4 Ensured institutional basis for implementation LDRMPs have been approved by respective VDC councils. Priority No. 1 action of Hyogo Framework of Action Plan (2005-2015) is "Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation". Thus the project interventions comply the priorities of HFA by creating institutional basis for implementation viz. legal basis for fund generation and implementation of LDRMPs. The local authorities have started allocating budget as per endorsed plan.

6.3.5 Increased awareness, capacity and preparedness LDRMCs and CBDRMCs organize regular meetings. As part of building disaster resilient community, the program organized various training, support and capacity development activities at local levels. The trained and skilled human resource shared their learning in the committee as well as in their respective communities. Project also supported kits to the trained individual so that local capacity is strengthened to cope the emergency. VDC initiated to establish the emergency fund in VDC level and communities also established the emergency fund and grain bank in their respective area. Project supported to develop safe shelters. Additionally, people have identified safe areas as well. The constructed shelter was adopted disaster resilient technology. In other hand, community people have also been involved in the plantation of tree and protection of forest area in their localities (HFA Priority Action 3 and 5). With increasing realization, VDCs have also established emergency fund. Communities established the emergency fund and grain bank. These all activities have led the project towards sustainability of its intervention.

6.3.6 Purposively organized people to response disaster People - in community level - have been organized purposively into different task force such as first aid, early warning and search and rescue. The task force organizes the simulation exercise in the community for refreshing the knowledge. Community and

24

VDC level risk management committees have also been formed. Besides, planning sub-committees have also been formed. This all new structure is dedicated to watch the local hazards, vulnerability and taking possible measures. Such actions stirred the communities to identify and analyze causes and impacts of different hazards. This all will lead to develop a culture of safety in the remote areas of the country.

6.3.7 Planned and systematic efforts DRR preparedness interventions have been initiated in a planned and systematic way. Appropriate procedures have been taken in selection of VDC. Disaster survivors, women, elderly people, ethnic people and wide range of stakeholders have involved in the planning process. LDRMPs have been developed on the basis of PVCA results and LDRMP Guideline. Thus the LDRMPs have been able to scrutinize the local hazards and vulnerabilities. Based on the analysis results, appropriate measures are being taken through LDRMP, CBDRMP and school contingency plans. The plans were endorsed by ward citizen forum and VDC council. This all have developed strong institutional basis for the plan.

6.3.8 Wider geographical coverage Wider geographical coverage is also the strength of intervention. A total of 119 Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMPs), 238 Community Based Disaster Risk Management Plans (CBDRMPs) and School Contingency Plans (SCP) have been prepared across different district, zones and development regions of the country. Replication effects among the wider coverage beneficiaries would contribute make the more people safer.

6.4 Gaps in PVCA and LDRMP Disaster is not dealt in holistic approach in Nepal. The rescue and relief activities are still regarded as major efforts in overall disaster management cycle. The focus is gradually shifting towards preparedness. Increment in preparedness activities are steps towards building disaster resilient communities. Still, disaster is dealt as an event. The main challenge is that integrating disaster into mainstream development requires high level of clarity in the understanding of concepts and technicalities of development and disaster. It is still lacking in community and society. Prevailing condition is that there is no specific person, agency dedicated to DRR. Practice of PVCA and provision of LDRMP has been initiated across the country. It itself is a good initiation. Despite several strengths of the PVCA and LDRMPs, there is space for improvement. These gaps are as follows:

6.4.1 Insufficient integration to development LDRMPs are based on the PVCA and it has eased to examine the potential magnitude and severity of the hazards. Activities are designed for three phases of disasters. However, integration of DRR concepts into mainstream development is not sufficient.

25

As DRR is a cross cutting issue, it needs to integrate across all levels and areas. There is risk that the practice is made as rituals rather than taking integrated actions at all levels to integrate DRR into development. VDCs are developing Village Development Plans (VDPs) and LDRMPs separately and there is poor linkage among these two plans and other local sectoral plans.

6.4.2 Insufficient and uncertain budget LDRMPs have insufficient and uncertain budget. Both annually allocated fund and emergency response fund are found nominal. It is difficult to pave strong foundation for disaster preparedness in the background of insufficient and uncertain budget.

6.4.3 Small scale activities for large scale hazards Magnitude and scale of disaster are usually high. Activities are designed mostly in micro and small scale. Because of diversified topography and climate, inter-regional activities become important. Activities are not coordinated even within single watershed areas. Coverage of a small part of geography in large landscape can be negligible for replication effects.

6.4.4 Poor linkage with annual and periodic plans Each VDC is obliged to prepare annual and periodic Village Development Plans (VDP) according to the Local Self Governance Act. In this context, each VDCs have been preparing VDPs. Now VDCs have stated to develop LDRMPs as well. Actually there would to be a explicit and interwoven linkage between the plans. If DRR is fully mainstreamed, VDP can/should incorporate all the LDRMP.

6.4.5 Disaster Impact Assessment not focused LDRMPs could not have thought towards the necessity of Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) before initiating any development activities. It would help to promote sustainable activities.

6.5 Lessons learnt Field observation, interaction with the Community Based Disaster Risk Management Committee and Local Disaster Risk Management Committee and review of documents has inculcated understanding and lessons. One of the lessons is that plan should be categorized as immediate, medium and long term plans. The prevailing administrative structure is not sufficient for the mainstreaming disaster in development activities. Three types of task force exist in the working area namely first aid, search and rescue and early warning. In this condition, other task forces such as shelter, food, water and sanitation, protection are also needed as well. It realized that formation of task force in all of these areas as guided by SPHERE Guideline would be effective to address the emergency.

26

It is learnt from the interaction with all stakeholders that PVCA and LDRMP is needed in all wards of each VDC. It is also required to capacitate the local people in community level to build Disaster Resilient Community. Cooperation among areas such as upstream and downstream areas seemed important. DIA seemed to be an important tool to trim the unsustainable development activities. Knowledge enhancement at all levels appeared as another necessity for the integration of DRR into development.

6.6 Recommendation Prevailing administrative structure is not sufficient to manage the whole tasks of disaster management cycle. There are no specified people or agencies dedicated to work on DRR. Therefore, new administrative structure is essential to effective deal for the disaster. Based upon the key findings and lessons learnt recommendations are proposed in following two categories firstly, regarding the CBDRM approach and secondly, regarding the LDRMP Guideline.

6.6.1 Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach • Have PVCA of all communities of VDC. • Develop PVCA as mandatory preliminary work of annual plan of local bodies. • Strengthen and enhance knowledge and skills on PVCA among relevant among

CBDRMC members, LDRMC members and other stakeholders. Increase effective and result oriented capacity building activities

• Give focus on integration of DRR into mainstream development • Increase coordination among stakeholders and increase the working area

coverage • Update the LDRMP and CBDRMP each year.

6.6.2 Community Based Disaster risk Management Guideline • Have provision of dedicated focal person in district level • Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) should be carried out in development activities • Expand program in all wards of VDC • Need technical support in VDC level planning process which help to integrate with

development activities

6.7 Conclusion Peoples' participation and ownership of the stakeholders found commendable. The program has initiated systematic intervention towards making disaster-resilient community. It realized that integrated approach is necessary for effective dealing of disasters. Before starting the development activities, Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) approach need to apply by local authority which helps to reduce the potential damage and loss.

27

Local administrative structures for DRR in district and VDC level are provisioned by National Disaster Risk Management Strategy. Since actions are not taken as guided by NSDRM, programme has scope to lobby and advocacy for separate administrative structure. Such structure can ensure dedicated person and agency to work on DRR. It will help to develop sustainable approach for dealing with disaster issues. Local disaster risk management plan and community level disaster risk management plan was prepared only in project areas. So other communities of same VDC are being deprived from the facility. It is suggested that the program should be launched in whole VDC at a time, which will have tangible changes in VDC planning process and ownership of the LDRMP and CBDRMP as well.

28

Logical framework

Log Frame of CSP Output level

Narrative Summary

Verifiable Indicators Target Result Means of

Verification Impressions

Output 4: Increased climate and natural shocks resilience of vulnerable communities including women and girls

4.1 VCA conducted and CBDRMC formed

• 119 PVCA • 238 committee

• 119 PVCA Prepared 100%)

• 238 committee formed 100%)

• PVCA Report

• Minutes of Meetings

• Community willingness and interest continued to participate in DRR activities

• Local Authority

allocate the budget for DDR according to the plan

• Establishment of

emergency fund and grain bank in community level

4.2 Disaster Preparedness Plan (VDRMP, Community and school contingency plan in place

• 119 VDRMP • 238 community

and school contingency plan

• 119 VDRMP Prepared (100%)

• 238 community and school contingency plan prepared (100%)

• VDRMP and CBDRMP and school contingency plan VDC council/ community level meeting Minutes

4.3 Community volunteers trained (First Aid, Early Warning,

• 2,975 Volunteers

• 4,087 Volunteers (Task force members) available (136%)

• Roaster of Volunteers


29

Light Search & Rescue) to respond to disasters

4.4 Local and district

actors, community people, teachers and students aware on flagship 4, HFA & VDRMP guideline, DRR preparedness and response

• 19,182 local and district level actors

• 39,092 community people

• 3,410 teachers • 5,683 students Total target-67,367

• 7,646 local and district level actors,

• 19,529 community people

• 1,666 teachers • 28,271 students

aware • Total progress-

57,112 (85%)


• List of participants

4.5 program staff trained on DRR, CBDRM and Seismic design

• 130 program staff received training

• 100% program staff received training

• List of Participants

30

Log Frame of CSP Outcome level

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Target Result Means of

Verification Impressions

Outcome : Improved access by poor and excluded people, including women and girls, to community based development opportunities and enhanced preparation to cope against disaster

6 VDCs, schools and communities better understand their risks and they are putting their knowledge into practices to mitigate risk.

• 119 VDCs • 238 communities • 238 schools

• 100% • LDRMP Report

• PVCA Report • School

Contingency Plan


• Trained man power in communities

• Communities initiate the DRR activities like River training work, bio engineering and earthquake resistant construction

• Establishment of emergency fund and grain bank in community level

7 Identified targeted communities and institutions have demonstrated capacity and are equipped to respond to any natural disasters

• 119 VDCs • 238 ommunities • 238 schools

• 100% • Roaster of Volunteers


• Emergency kit at available at communities

31

References

1. LDRMP and PVCA Report of 119 of 25 Districts

2. Local Disaster Risk Management Guideline (LDRM), 2012, Ministry of Federal

Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD), Nepal

3. Nepal Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009, Ministry of Home Affairs

4. SPHERE standard, 2011

32

Annexes

Annex-I: Sites visited in the Program Districts Districts Date Meeting with Palce Banke January 8, 2014 Mr. Rishi Ram Bhattarai, CARE Nepal, Nepalgunj Pyuthan January 9, 2014 Mr. Krishna Prasad Gyawali, CDO.

January 9, 2014 Mr. Khagendra Bist, CARE Nepal, January 9, 2014 Mr. Shasi Bahadur Bista, Sr. Divisional

Engineer, Irrigation

Mr. Damodar Sharma, Secretary NRCS

January 9, 2014 Mr. Bhagwan Aryal, LDO, Pyuthan January 10, 2014

Community Base Disaster Risk Management Committee Visit, Damre, Gabeh.

January 10, 2014

Gabeh, Secondary School, Gabeh

January 10, 2014

Local Disaster Risk Management Committee (LDRMC), Damre.

Kailali January 12, 2014

CBDRMC meeting, Badki Paliya, Pawera VDC

January 12, 2014

CBDRMC meeting, Mohanpur, Ratanpur VDC

January 13, 2014

LDRMC meeting, Pawera VDC

January 13, 2014

LDRMC meeting, Ratanpur VDC

33

ANNEXES-II QUESTIONNAIRES

;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ;DalGw n]vfhf]vf kmf/d

cGtjftf{ lng]sf] gfd ldlt

;a]{If0f g+

;"rgfbftfsf] JolQmut ljj/0f

GffdM lnË pd]/

7]ufgf M lhNnf uflj;÷g=kf= j8f g+

k]zf M s[lif Jofkf/ hflu/ lzIff cGo

!_ ;+s6fled'vtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng k|lqmof s:tf] nfUof]

s_ /fd|f] v_ g/fd|f]

@_ s] o;af6 k|sf]ksf] cj:yf yfxf kfpg ;lsG5<

s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g

#_ s] of] lalw af6 cfˆgf] >f]t pknAwtf tyf kx'r yfxf kfpg ;lsG5 <

s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g

$_ s] o;lalwaf6 Ifltsf] laa/0f k|fKt ug{ ;lsG5 <

s[kof pQ/x? gk9\g' xf]nf ;"rgfbftfnfO{ cfkm} pQ/ lbg pTk|]l/t ug'{ xf];, lbPsf] pQ/ ldNg] pQ/x?df lrGx -√_ nufpb} hfg] pQ/ gePsf] v08df 5'§} ;+u}sf] sf]7fdf n]Vg' xf]nf .

34


%_ s] of] lalwaf6 k|sf]ksf] :tl/s/0f ug{ ;lsG5 <


^_ s] o;af6 k|sf]ksf] ljZn]if0f ug{ ;lsG5 <


&_ s] :yflgo >f]t / ;fwgn] k|sf]ksf] ;fdgf ug{ ;lsG5 <


*_ s] o; lalwaf6 :yflgo ;+kGgtfsf] :tl/s/0f ug{ ;lsG5 <


(_ s] ;fd'bflos tyf kfl/jfl/s ;+s6f;Ggtf kQf nufpg ;lsg] /x]5 <


!)_ s] o; lalwaf6 lhlasf]kfh{g laZn]if0f ;lsg] /x]5 <


!!_ s] hnjfo" kl/jt{gn] ljkb\nfO{ ;xof]u u/]sf] /x]5 <

s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g

!@_ ;d:ofsf] d"nsf/0f kQf nufpg] lalw s:tf] nfUof] <

s_ /fd|f] v_ g/fd|f]

!# _nlIft ;d'bfo;Fusf] 5nkmnn] s] kmfObf x'g] /x]5 <-Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

s_ ;d'bfo g} ;lqmo x'g]

v_ of]hgfdf ckgTj x'g]

u_ ;a}sf] ;xeflutf x'g]

3_ Go"gLs/0f / k"j{tof/Ldf nfUg]

35

!$_ ;d'bfodf ljkb\sf] hf]lvd sd ug{sf nflu s] s:tf sfo{x? ;+rfng ul/Psf

5g\ <

!= $=

@= %=

#= ^=

!%_ ;d'bfodf ljkb\ ePdf ;fdgf ug]{ pkfox? s] s] 5g\ ?

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

!^_ ljkb\ Go"gLs/0fsf] nflu s:tf k|of; ePsf 5g\ ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

s_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf ePsf 5g\

v_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ePsf 5g\

u_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt u7g ePsf 5g\

!&_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ubf{ s:tf] r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] lyof] ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

!*_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng sf] ;'emfjnfO{ Aoaxf/df nfu' ug{ s:tf]

r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] 5 ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

36

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

!(_+ :yfgLo lgsfox?;Fu LDRMP sfof{Gjog ug{nfO{ ul/Psf ;dGjo, ;DjGw /

k|of;x? s] s] xf]nfg\ atfpgf];\

s_=========================================

v_ ========================================

u_ ===============================================

3_ =====================================================

cGo s]lx ;'emfj ePdf

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===================================================================================================================

===================================================================================================================

===================================================================================================================

==========================================

37

:yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf;DalGw n]vfhf]vf kmf/d

cGtjftf{sf/sf] gfd ldlt

;a]{If0f g+

;"rgfbftfsf] JolQmut ljj/0f

Gffd lnË pd]/

7]ufgf lhNnf uflj;÷g=kf= j8f g+

k]zf lzIff

!_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt cfjZos 5 <


@_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\ ;'/Iff ;DaGwL k"jf{Eof; ul/G5 <


#_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\sf] a]nf p4f/ug]{ ;fdfu|Lsf] Joj:yf 5


$_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\k/]sf]a]nfdf p4f/ ug]{ :jo+;]js 5g\ <


%_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ug{ ;lsG5 <


^_ s] ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgfsf] cfjZostf / dxTj af/] yfx 5 <

s_ 5 v_5}g

s[kof pQ/x? gk9\g' xf]nf ;"rgfbftfnfO{ cfkm} pQ/ lbg pTk|]l/t ug'{ xf];, lbPsf] pQ/ ldNg] pQ/x?df lrGx -√_ nufpb} hfg] pQ/ gePsf] v08df 5'§} ;+u}sf] sf]7fdf n]Vg' xf]nf .

38

&_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ kfbf{ To;sf] l;df af/]

yfx x'G5 <

s_ x'G5 v_ x'b}g

*_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ ;+s6f;Gg6f tyf Ifdtfsf ljZn]if0f ug{ ;lsG5 <


(_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\sf] :tl/s/0f / klxrfg ug{ ;lsG5 <


!)_ s] cfˆgf] uf= la= ; sf] hf]lvd klxrfg ljZn]if0f :yfgLo :t/df ug{ ;lsG5 <


!!_ s] cfˆgf] uf= la= ;df ePsf >f]t / IfdtfnfO{ k|of]u ug{ lhDd]jf/L afF8kmfF6 ug{

;lsG5 <


!@+ ljkb\sf] hf]lvd sd ug{sf nflu ljkb\ k"j{, ljkb\sf] ;dodf Pa+ ljkb\ kZrft s]

s:tf sfo{x? ;+rfng ug{' kg]{ /x]5g\ <

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

!#_ uf= la= ;df ljkb\ Go"gLs/0fsf] nflu s:tf k|of; ePsf 5g\ ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/

lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

s_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf ePsf 5g\

v_ ;+s6fled'vtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ePsf 5g\

u_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt u7g ePsf 5g\

39

!$_ :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ubf{ s:tf] r'gf}tL ;fdgf

ug{' k/]sf] lyof] ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

!%_ :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgfnfO{ Aoaxf/df nfu' ug{ s:tf]

r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] 5 ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _

!= %=

@= ^=

#= &=

$= *

cGo s]lx ;'emfj ePdf

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===================================================================================================================

===================================================================================================================

===================================================================================================================

===================================================================================================================

=======================================================

40

ANNEXES- III: Information Collection Format

Format for collecting the information on LDRMP/PVCA

ANNEXES- IV: Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA

S. NO

Description Objectives of the

LDRMP preparation

Tools/methodologies used for Planning

Process

Challenge Faced during

preparing period/Time

Gap/ short fall in

preparing process

Lesson learnt during plan preparation

Strengths/ Good aspect

of process/Plan

Improvement

Needed to

preparing process (if any)

LDRM

Section 1

41

Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA

S. NO

Description Major Hazards

Cause of Vulnerability

Existing Capacities

Gaps in Existing

Capacities

Existing Coping

Practices

Remarks

42

ANNEXES- V: TOR

Terms of Reference

for developing synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP Background

Community Support Program II is being implemented in the community from 2010

April to led service delivery in the community. It has been extended for the period of

April 2012 to March 2014.

The extension phase has a new focus of integrating disaster resilience into regular

CSP activities on Improving disaster resilient basic service infrastructure and its

increased access by communities, including women and girls; Strengthened capacity

of poor and excluded communities, including women and girls to lead social action to

claim their rights thereby generating sustained income; Local government

(DDC/VDC) planning, monitoring and accountability processes improved, informed

by CSP good practices and Increased climate and natural shocks resilience of

vulnerable communities, including women and girls.

Rationale

As Nepal lies in disaster prone area hazards like Flood, landslide, earthquake etc

have negative effect in community. So it is necessary to increase the capacity of the

community to manage such situation and prepare them to response their recurrent

hazard. With this objective CSP is implementing community based disaster risk

management approach in order to make community resilient toward their

vulnerability and hazard. Series of interventions of CBDRM approach are being

implemented in 238 communities of 118 VDCs and 1 municipality of 25 District in

Nepal. Each community is gone through the PVCA exercise and their vulnerability

and capacity were identified. Based on that, disaster risk reduction measures were

identified and community action plan prepared. Similarly with the involvement of

43

LDRMC, Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP) is prepared with assessing

risk profile of whole VDC.

LDRMP was developed and endorsed by GOVN in 2011. 119 LDRMPs have been

developed so far with the support of CSP following this guideline. Time has come to

see the effectiveness of guidelines itself for policy feedback and to see the status of

developed LDRMPs.

Objective

The major objective of the consulting service is to review the findings of PVCA and

LDRMP and prepare a synopsis of it with areas of improvement and its effectiveness

in community.

The specific objective are

• Access the major hazards, VCA findings and risk situation or risk profile of

the working area

• Prepare a synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP

• Recommendations for the improvement area and effectiveness of

Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach in

reducing disaster risk of vulnerable community and LDRMP guideline itself

• Find out the gapes or/and improvement area of LDRMP and recommend

appropriately with evidence, fact and figure including its implementation and

ownership by VDC

Methodology Study should be carried out in following approach

Desk study: Consultant has to review PVCA reports and LDRMP prepared and based on that

he/she have to develop a standard information collection format. CSP will provide all

required information as per the format.

Field study: Consultant has to visit at least 3 project sites and interact with community about its

process and application and effectiveness. Consultant will also consult with relevant

44

staff (individual or meeting) regarding PVCA, LDRMPs, strengths and weaknesses/

limitation of LDRMP and to identify areas for revisions. Make interaction with

LDRMCs, Planning committee CBDRMCs, taskforce groups, DDRC

Reporting: Based on all findings and observations, consultant has to prepare a synopsis of

PVCA and LDRMP with improvement areas and level of its efficiency. Prepare list of

gaps on the process on PVCA and LDRMP preparation and indicate the positive

change of CSP towards DRR

Time frame Desk study and format preparation : 5 days

Field visits : 12 Days

Information collection and analysis : 10 days

Report development : 3 days

Responsibilities of CARE Nepal CARE Nepal will support by providing ToR, other required information and arrange

other logistic support. Specifically, CARE Nepal will be responsible for the following:

• Preparation of ToR, allow access to relevant materials and documents (PVCA

reports, LDRMPs, Narrative report and data report

• Provide suggestions/comments in draft format and reports.

• Manage community and district stakeholders meeting

• Manage accommodation, per diem, transportation and other logistics to the

facilitator as per CARE Nepal's rules and regulation.

Responsibilities of consultant

• Develop and share proposal and approach of study

• Prepare study questionnaire as per annex-1 and work schedule

• Analysis of PVCA and LDRMP and identify the gaps on the process and

strengthens/initiation on DRR. Highlight major DRR initiations as a

documentation made by CSP.

• Prepare synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP

45

• Recommend, base on the analysis and evidence, revision of specific section,

process, tools and methodologies of LDRMP guidelines with rational.

• Share the draft report to CSP for comments and incorporate the feedbacks in

the final report

• The final report should be 25 – 30 pages excluding annexes.

Logistic arrangements CARE Nepal will provide consultancy fee Besides, CARE Nepal will reimburse travel

cost (air/ground), and lodge charge as per CARE's policy on actual basis. The

consultants should submit original bills and invoice for reimbursement.

Charging Instructions All these costs will be charged in an activity ID of 12, account code of 510100 and

sub output of 6.2

Terms of payments 5% of the contract amount will be paid in an advance within 1 week of signing of

contract and rest 75% will be provided within 1 month of submission of work

completion report.

Contact persons

• Santosh Sharma, DRR coordinator

• Drona Koirala, Anup Gautam and Shyam Krishna Mandal, Team Leader

• Rohit Yadav, Rishi Ram Bhattarai and Nilkantha Pandey, DRR Specialist

• Tara Chaudhary, Admin and logistic assistant Dhangadi, Phone office KTM

01- 5522800 for Santosh Sharma

• Dhankuta 026 - 520472 for Drona Koirala and Rohit Yadav

• Nepalgunj 081- 525609 for Anup Gautam and Rishi Ram Bhattarai

• Dhangadi 091-523434 for Shyam Krishna Mandal and Nilkantha Pandey

Documents

Study of the Participatory Vulnerability and ... - Care Nepalcarenepal.org/Care-CSP/report/_LDRMP Study Report FINAL.pdf · 6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP ... country and CARE