DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster Preparedness evaluation

1. DIPECHO Central Asia Disaster Preparedness evaluation Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan June – July 2006

2. Timing • 1st – 29th June: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan • 30th June: debriefing with ECHO • 1st July: Workshop with DIPECHO partners • 2nd – 4th July: Almaty • 1st August: submission of draft report • Mid August: comments / feedback on report • End August: presentation of final report to ECHO

3. Locations visited • Tajikistan • Dushanbe, GBAO, Khatlon, Varzob, Vahdat, Yavan, Rasht valley, Sughd, Khojent • Uzbekistan • Tashkent, Ferghana, Namangan, Andijan • Kyrgyzstan • Bishkek, Osh, Jalalabad, Issyk-KulKyrgyzstan • Kazakhstan • Almaty

4. Methodology • Briefing from ECHO office in Dushanbe • Presentations by Organisations combined with meetings (2 way dialogue) • Visits of communities, mitigation sites, schools, training facilities, disaster committees, first aid and emergency response teams • Meetings with Ministries of Emergency Situations, (where possible) • Meetings with other Organisations involved in disaster reduction, other Donor Organisations, ISDR, World bank implementation contractors

5. What are the objectives of each DIPECHO partner? How do these objectives fit together? • The objectives of each partner vary, some look at Disaster Preparedness as cross cutting and LRRD issues of long term development programmes. Others see DP as a stand alone topic within the Disaster Management cycle. However all Organisations appear to: • use a community based approach, bottom up planning, • to raise awareness of the potential for disasters and the actions to take to minimise the level of disaster impact on a targeted population and its livelihoods. • Some Organisations are focused on preparedness to respond where others while doing this are trying to reduce the impact on manageable disasters. • In some but not all cases mitigation projects are being implemented and supported, being carried out by the communities themselves wherever possible.

6. What has been achieved during the period 2003 until now of each partner? • This is one of the questions which needs analysis, arrive at conclusions before giving details and recommendations

7. What is the level of effectiveness of each partner based on the 8 criteria? • Relevance • Coverage • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Impact • Sustainability • Results achieved • Accountability

8. What is the level of relevance of DG Echo's strategic orientation and intervention logic? • Will take analysis, conclusions to be completed before this question can be answered. However, what is your opinion? • What do you and your Organisation think about DG Echo's Strategic Orientation and Intervention Logic? • 20 minutes group work

9. Duration of DIPECHO projects (max. 15 months) vs need to commit to longer term development and measure impact • Need to integrate more local authorities when targeting communities • Focus on communities vs building institutional capacities at policy and national levels • Progressive hand over to local actors not systematic • Specific approaches towards specific groups (eg gender)? • Environmental impact, climate change • Other EC services? • Include response to small scale frequent disasters?

10. What is the exit strategy, or, strategy for improving effectiveness of future operations? • The exit strategy has to be that local communities are able to take adapted measures in coordination with local and national authorities as far as disaster prevention, preparedness and preparedness to respond are concerned. • The basis of sustainability depends on a number of factors: • Building capacity and awareness of local populations to minimise the effects of disasters and to respond adequately • Project proposals for mitigation activities based on community priorities and local/regional development and strategic plans. • Economic means to implement project proposals

11. What are the lessons learnt and the results achieved? • Some Organisations have learnt lessons during the 3 year period of DIPECHO support and have adapted their ways of working. • There seems to be limited lessons learnt which have passed from one Organisation to another in a systematic way. There have been some cross organisational visits to see what others are doing and what is working well but this seems to not be approached in a systematic way. • There are cases that we have seen of an individual looking to learn from another Organisation but this seems to be personal initiative as opposed to being systematic • There will be a recommendation on how to strengthen the transfer of lessons learnt and help to develop best practices in the full report.

12. Has DIPECHO successfully disseminated its best practices in Central Asia? • No, there seems not to be a systematic approach to the promotion of DIP Echo’s best practices.

13. What are the programme results at community level? • Too numerous to mention all at this time but some of the most obvious are: • Strengthening of communities in decision making and the planning process to get things done for themselves • Promoting community participation in mitigation projects and therefore strengthening sustainability • In some cases these mitigation projects have had positive effects on land use, the environment, health, household economics, household structural stability and safety • Community awareness of the potential for disasters, particularly amongst women’s groups and school children • Awareness of actions to take in the event of a disaster including how to help others after the event

14. What are the conclusions and recommendations of DIP ECHO's action plan for Central Asia?Do they have a stand alone effect and is the support given relevant and proportionate? • To be completed in the report after analysis, conclusions are formed as the basis for recommendations

15. Should there be an expansion of capacity or geographical locations within the region? • Difficulty to work in some countries – but needs exist there. • Continuing to improve relationship and work in those countries are important issues to consider. • Relationship building and cross border programmes into Afghanistan, could be considered depending on safe access and cross border agreements on objectives

16. What is the level of coherence and complementarities with risk reduction co-ordination with regards other actions funded by other EC instruments and donors • This varies from location to location and some Ministries complain of overlap and a lack of co-ordination. However co-ordination should come from those Ministries with: • Overall long term plan of what they want to see accomplished in their countries broken down to annual activities • Allocation of those prioritised activities to interested donors and Organisations dependant on mandate, geographical factors, funding and interest levels • Strong co-ordination of systems, procedures and ways of working particularly with printed visual aids • Emphasis on community involvement in planning and training to enhance sustainability

17. How do the partners monitor and control the delivery of expected outcomes with their partners to the beneficiary communities? • A whole range of methodologies have been witnessed including: • Workshops and seminars with partners to explain preferred ways of working • Direct involvement in community meetings • Field visits to directly monitor and discuss with communities • Financial management and control including financial audit • Programme audit to review results achieved • Work alongside partners enhancing co-operation

18. Outline a coherent and viable risk reduction plan for the region • This will be covered in the report, but, this is a question for you, • What are the most important elements that you and your Organisation would want to see in a regional risk reduction plan? • 20 minutes group work

19. Countries should develop their own individual / regional plans, with external facilitation if needed • Common approach to include best practices, lessons learned, monitoring, indicators • Emphasise regional networking, linkeages with international organisations and platforms • Encourage regional contingency planning, risk and hazard mapping, environmental policies, legislation • Media, public campaigns

20. Additional • Those were the questions from the Terms of Reference however the report will cover much more including: • Planning and continuity • Funding gaps and commitments • Co-ordination and effectiveness • Effective use of lessons learnt and their inclusion in programme/project methodologies, systems and procedures • Bi-products of the Disaster preparedness and mitigation work