Speaking points dipecho meeting nepal 2010 draft 3

SPEAKING POINTS – DIPECHO PARTNERS MEETING – NEPAL 2010

ANALYSIS OF CONTEXT AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

The activities of DG ECHO in the field of Disaster Preparedness are “to ensure preparedness for risks of

natural disasters or comparable circumstances and use a suitable rapid early-warning and intervention

system”. The DIPECHO program was set up in this context to improve the capacities of communities at

risk to better prepare and protect themselves against natural hazards.

While Nepal has seen significant developments in terms of disaster risk management legal framework

and policy, the long lasting political deadlock has, and will, hamper translation of policies into effective

measures. In addition, the last 2 national 3-years plans (national planning commission) have significantly

reduced the disaster risk management focus compared to the previous 5-years plan, going from “natural

& man made created disaster management” to “irrigation and water induced disasters prevention”. The

short to medium term perspective do give great room for political instability, which should in turn

hamper the capacity of DP & DRR stakeholders to effectively support national efforts.

Humanitarian and development funding trends in Nepal focus greatly on response to emergencies and

direct support to national development strategies, leaving intermediate sectors under financed,

including DP & DRR. This situation can be explained by a variety of reasons but the predominant one

might be the lack of “demonstrated” adequate links between needs and resources. More coherence

between people’s needs and actions taken should be promoted through the diverse forum where

DIPECHO expertise is relevant by advocating for a shift in funding from response to preparedness and

mitigation.

Evolutions observed in the legal framework (National & International)

Over the last years, important changes have occurred in terms of legal framework for DP & DRR in

Nepal. Some of these changes have been influenced to some extent by DIPECHO partners while others

are the result of the international trends. This evolution has implications at all levels of interaction in the

Nepalese context but these implications remain quite unknown and probably changing / unstable. The

legal framework needs to be assessed in order to i) measure the progresses, ii) identify remaining gaps,

iii) adapt to these new rules and constraints, iiii) focus on remaining gaps.

DIPECHO funded actions should make clear reference to and contribute to achieving international

agreements (e.g. Hyogo Framework for Action) as well as national strategies and policies. In addition,

whenever possible, based on the expertise available, DIPECHO actions should “feed” national debates

and “works in progress”.

DIPECHO: STATUS OF PLAY

DRR is a part of DG ECHO's mandate. The policy framework for DG ECHO's mandate in DRR is outlined in

4 key documents namely ECHO’s Mandate: Article 2f of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/96 of

1996; EU Consensus on Humanitarian Aid – 2007; EU Strategy for supporting DRR in Developing

Countries - 2009 and ECHO policy framework on DRR (draft). Until 2-3 years ago ECHO DRR activities

were more or less synonym with DIPECHO, but now the focus of DG ECHO's DRR support include:

disaster preparedness (DIPECHO and DRR targeted projects), mainstreaming DP/DRR in all of ECHO’s

interventions, advocacy towards other services of the commissions, donors, and stakeholders (LRRD)

and additional funding lines (thematic funding, ad hoc decisions).

Focus of DIPECHO was highlighted: natural disasters, implementation of pilot projects with

demonstrative purposes and clear exit strategies, replication and scaling up projects, participation in

larger DRR initiatives and local response capacities. Objectives of DIPECHO in short are to reinforce the

resilience and response capacity of communities and DM authorities, integrating DDR in humanitarian

response, and intensify capacity building, advocacy and coordination.

DIPECHO was created in 1996 and has since 1998 channeled more than EUR 186 million to DRR projects

worldwide. DIPECHO covers at present 9 regions. In South Asia DIPCHO is working with 27 partners in 5

countries (38 districts, 730,000 direct beneficiaries. Since the first Action Plan for South Asia both budget

and number of partners have increased significantly.

LOGIC OF ECHO INTERVENTION IN DP/DRR SECTOR

The overriding objective of DIPECHO interventions is “to reduce the vulnerability populations living in

areas most affected by natural disasters” - increasing the awareness and the response capacities of

communities, as well as local authorities, to potential and frequent natural disasters and to reduce the

effects of these disasters on the most vulnerable.

The program aims therefore to do this primarily by:

Targeting the most vulnerable communities and categories of population using bottom-up

participatory methods and relevant local materials/resources that can be easily replicated. Specific

attention will be given to gender, children and the disabled in line with DG ECHO’s strategy on the

most vulnerable populations.

Fostering appropriate and sustainable preparedness activities that are coordinated with local,

national and international institutions and that can be easily replicated in other parts of the region

and beyond. Small-scale mitigation and prevention activities are encouraged and should

complement the projects if they have a demonstrative purpose and a proven impact while being

replicable within financial reach by local communities and authorities. This should be supported by

advocacy and adequate promotional activities ensuring access of communities and organizations to

relevant technical sources and support in view of effective replication.

Focusing on the areas most exposed to frequent natural hazards and with less coping capacities.

Special attention could be given to the remoteness and difficulty of access of the proposed areas or

the so called forgotten areas.

Regional and multi-national approaches should be considered where advantages compared to

single national approaches are demonstrated on the basis on in-depth needs assessments and

adequate expertise in concerned countries. Unless similar activities addressing similar situations &

related needs would be implemented in the targeted countries, regional approaches would better

fit projects aiming at addressing national level issues rather than community level ones.

Reinforcing local response capacities by building stocks of emergency and relief items when

adequate local management capacity is proven and accountability ensured. In that regard, the

Nepal Red Cross Society shall be considered as the privileged interlocutor while capacity building

aspects should also be addressed at district and sub-district levels.

Reinforcing and sustaining national capacities through advocacy and capacity building on the basis

of the past achievements recorded in the field. In that perspective, coordination with non-DIPECHO

national initiatives should be promoted in order to extend the impact of DIPECHO partners’

experiences and expertise. Supporting district level efforts in line with national policies through the

DDMC1 should also be considered in the perspective of fostering local response capacities,

effectiveness and accountability.

1 DDMC: District Disaster Management Committee.

Multi-hazards approach is strongly recommended to ensure a more comprehensive response and

impact. However, this does not prevent sector focused projects aiming at developing a single but

well defined activity at country level.

Mainstreaming DP & DRR by DIPECHO partners into their other programming, further to the sole

DIPECHO projects, is strongly expected as a multiplier effect. Indeed, an effective mainstreaming of

DP & DRR by ECHO partners should be an outcome of the regular implementation of DIPECHO

projects and should be adequately developed in the relevant sections of the Single Form.

PRIORITIES IN TERMS OF REGIONS, HAZARDS FOR DIPECHO (Updated from partners’ meeting 2010)

The priorities below have been established for the 5th action plan. However, there is need for validation

and refining of the proposed. In particular, fatalities and other sorts of quantified impacts recorded per

type of hazard, region, season… would greatly improve the validity of these priorities. In addition,

disaggregated figures from a gender perspective would provide a more qualitative analysis, both in

terms of prioritization and design of responses. Available and relevant disaster scenarios may be

relevant to support priorities identified.

Hazard priorities

Floods (increased frequency) & subsequent epidemics (60% of lives losses)

Landslides & avalanches (increased frequency)

Earthquakes (not only KTM valley) & subsequent fires

Cold & Hot waves

GLOF (emerging – Is the impact measured?)

Need for multi-hazard approach

Other: Droughts (is DIPECHO a relevant tool to tackle drought related issues?)

Geographical targeting priorities

High prevalence of multi hazards.

High human / livelihoods losses (actual or potential).

Areas where integrated approaches are possible (multi hazard focus).

Areas where previous efforts have been effective (or insufficiently effective) & possibility or

need for follow up to scale up or reinforce.

Neglected and/or remote and/or forgotten areas (from DP/DRR & humanitarian &

development perspectives).

Low socio-economic development (Low DAG index / low HDI index / prevalence of female

headed HHs / prevalence of excluded groups…).

Hazard geographical prevalence

Earthquake: KTM valley and Pokhara first, but not only!

Floods: All Terai regions

Epidemics: Mid & Far West regions, all flood prone areas

Landslides: Mountains & Hills

Avalanches: Mountains & Hills

Fire: Mountains, East & West Terai

Cold & hot waves: Districts bordering India

Drought: Districts bordering India, Mid & Far West Hills, Mountains

GLOF: Mountains & related river basins

SECTOR PRIORITIES FOR DIPECHO INTERVENTIONS

The items listed hereafter are not strictly the DIPECHO priorities but rather sectors and specific focuses

where significant evolution or absence of significant evolution requires taking stock of the current

situation and discuss implications for further progress in the frame of DIPECHO projects.

Local disaster management components, targeting local actors in disaster prone areas:

Early warning systems: Significant efforts and progress have been made in this sector,

including a draft national EWS strategy to be hopefully soon adopted by the parliament, a

reinforced DHM2 (increased coverage, skills and means), proven effective community based

set up… Although improvements can always been made, further replication and expansion of

such initiatives and expertise should be considered by DIPECHO partners in flood prone areas.

Sharing expertise within DIPECHO partners should be seek through planning partnership at

the project design phase to ensure adequate planning and operational coherence. The

Department of Hydrology & Meteorology being the only stakeholder in that sector having a

dedicated network (monitoring stations, analysis / forecasting tools, communication

network…) and an official mandate, it should be systematically involved and consulted from

the initial stage. However, other local stakeholders could be involved where available and

relevant.

2 DHM: Department of Hydrology & Meteorology.

WHAT HAS EVOLVED IN EWS AND HOW COULD IT BE SCALED UP?

Synthesis from partners’ inputs: Evolution:

Tests made in different types of river basins proved being efficient: The system works.

EWS training guidelines and strategy have been drafted: The formal framework is developing.

Scaling up:

EWS should become “multi-hazard” by involving landslides in future. Through a “joint activity” or a more direct partnership between some partners?

Should / could be health (epidemics) integrated in a wider EWS? This seems incompatible with DHM being the coordinating agency. Are there alternatives or would we create a too heavy tool?

Adoption and implementation of the strategy is essential for scaling up with a strong government involvement.

Should DIPECHO continue covering the needs in CBEWS across Nepal or rather support the GoN through DHM in extending the coverage of the network? Does DHM have the capacity to grow adequately and timely?

DIPECHO can continue extending the coverage of needs, to some extent, while further empowering DHM for a softer transition and piloting the incorporation of landslides in the system.

EWS must keep focused on inclusiveness, as it is in a developing phase, to ensure that it will remain inclusive once fully led by GoN / DHM.

Linking the EWS services to other sectors and longer term programs would be supported by ECHO to the extent that it does not change dramatically the DIPECHO approach.

Capacity-building of local actors: This sector should be considered under i) District & Sub-

district level and ii) National level, according to the mandate and expertise of the partner,

while both approaches are important in the Nepalese context. Capacity building could also be

talked at both levels when it comes to strengthening capacities of actors such as NRCS in a

given aspect (e.g. disability inclusiveness…). However, capacity building approaches should

always be associated to concrete and objectively verifiable outcomes having a demonstrated

impact on national or local capacities.

Capacity building of local DIPECHO partners: While DIPECHO partners implement projects in

partnership with local NGOs or NRCS local chapters, a particular attention should be given to

building capacities of the field team at the inception of and along the action. Specific training

plans should be core activities of the proposed actions in order to i) ensure achieving the

action’s objectives and ii) increase local expertise availability. This should also be seen as a

multiplier tool in view of sustaining and replicating activities implemented through DIPECHO

funded actions.

Trainings: In line with the above, trainings should be promoted not only at community level

but also within diverse departments and institution. Partners should pay great attention to the

quality of the trainings while ensuring an appropriate coordination of such efforts, in

particulars when it comes to improving national standards, or assimilated as such.

HOW TO ENSURE ADEQUATE EXPERTISE IN-COUNTRY?

SHOULD WE RETHINK CAPACITY BUILDING APPROACHES?

Synthesis from partners’ inputs: HOW TO ENSURE ADEQUATE DP/DRR EXPERTISE IN-COUNTRY?

Academic sector should be involved in field activities so that field experience and research can be incorporated into curriculums.

INGOs should support strong and effective DP/DRR mainstreaming in local partners’ portfolio. But they should do it in their portfolio first, which will in turn benefit to local partners.

DIPECHO should have a greater focus on relevant local government staff capacity building through trainings and effective involvement in programs.

INGOs must promote the institutional capitalization of expertise within their local partners.

SHOULD WE RETHINK CAPACITY BUILDING APPROACHES?

INGOs must “invest” in capacity building, including through local internships. Focus should not be only on Kathmandu academic sector and should promote gender balance.

Private sector, in particular construction companies, can be made aware of improved techniques and their benefits.

DP/DRR is and will be growing in Nepal. DIPECHO can’t keep on having “individual” approaches but must participate to a wider and coordinated approach.

Strong or growing local civil society networks exit in the field. Building their capacity will allow them to influence a wider part of the population in the long run while advocating at local government level.

Capacity building should be a permanent focus at every stage of the project, from the conception to the evaluation.

Quality trainings could be approached as a “joint activity”.

Institutional linkages and advocacy, targeting institutions involved in disaster

management/disaster risk reduction, in particular at regional, national and sub-national levels:

Advocacy: Under the DIPECHO 5th action plan, a number of successful advocacy initiatives

have been undertaken by DIPECHO partners and translated into a significant influence on

policy making (e.g. DRR tool kit, EWS national strategy…). Pursuing such efforts appears to be

increasingly important while Nepal is in the course of developing its strategic and legal

framework for Disaster Risk Management. In that regard, partnership with international and

national organizations having a relevant mandate should be developed in order to increase

the impact of advocacy on the basis of the practical achievements recorded by DIPECHO

initiatives at grassroots and district levels.

While it is recognized that communities themselves remain the first responders in times of

disasters, large scale preparedness and response capacity will not be achieved unless national

capacities are being built and sustained in line with an adequate strategy and legal framework.

For that reason, advocacy should not be considered of minor importance and field work

should be used to “feed” advocacy.

Involving relevant national stakeholders, such as NRCS, in advocacy efforts should also be seen

as a potential multiplier effect as well as a way to sustain the actions initiated through

DIPECHO.

HOW TO ENSURE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THROUGH ADVOCACY?

Synthesis from partners’ inputs:

Advocacy initiatives must be coordinated and in line with other stakeholders’ initiatives, in particular when they can provide access to policy making level.

The translation of policies and strategies into concrete field capacities and actions should be the focus.

The greater involvement of media and civil society networks can play a key role in increasing the pressure on central and local government for more effective and accountable planning and action.

Facilitation of coordination: There is an increasing number of official, informal, Ad Hoc,

national or local coordination forums and mechanisms while fluid and systematic information

sharing is not always ensured, to the detriment of all stakeholders. DIPECHO partners should

ensure that all coordination forums relevant to their activities are identified in the relevant

sections of the Single Form and that efforts will be made to share and use the information

available. This aspect should be particularly important in the frame of regional and national

level projects (including consortiums).

SHOULD A DP / DRR DEDICATED COORDINATION FORUM BE ESTABLISED?


Coordination platforms do exist in Nepal but are fragmented (sector approaches through clusters) or insufficiently active / efficient (national platform). In all cases the stakeholders involved are not fully representative of the sum of expertise and resources existing in country. The current level and type of coordination does not allow having the “big picture” of this sector in Nepal or discussing broad “technical” approaches.

The government should be encouraged to have a leading role in coordination but the current political context and instability limit the effectiveness of this approach, although it should not be abandoned.

Civil society must be involved as well and encouraged to play the “watch dog” role in GoN led forum.

The priority, further to the coordination mechanism itself, is an effective sharing of key information on resources available, needs identified and actions implemented, involving all stakeholders, including donors.

Opinions are divergent regarding the need for a specific and regular DP/DRR dedicated coordination forum. However, at least, ad hoc dedicated coordination meetings could be called by the UN in the framework of the DRR consortium.

Institutional strengthening: Nepal has seen its DP & DRR institutional environment evolving

significantly over last years. However, this does not translate yet into well coordinated

operational capacities at all levels from central government to communities. While local

initiatives tend to expend, in particular through contingency planning, much remains to do in

order to transform strategies and intentions into practical capacities. Dedicated and trained

human resources remain scarce and dedicated material resources even more, thus hindering

preparedness response effectiveness in times of disasters.

HOW COULD DIPECHO STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITIES?


The support & coaching provided by INGOs, including DIPECHO partners, to DDRCs under the umbrella of OCHA appears to be effective and fruitful. It should be extended in time and scope while involving better the local civil society.

Strengthening institutional capacities should also include supporting district authorities in effectively implementing their plans and strategies in the field.

DIPECHO partners should contemplate opportunities of developing strong links with the academic & research sector for a long term impact.

DIPECHO projects should be linked with other partners’ longer term / development

projects for an effective mainstreaming, including in capacity building of local stakeholders.

DIPECHO projects may support a coordinated and UN led approach to develop GoN capacities by bringing in field expertise.

National initiatives: Large scale, nation-wide and long term multi-sector initiatives involving a

wide panel of actors and reflecting the national strategy, such as the DRR consortium - 5

Flagships, should not be avoided whenever effective linkage is possible within the DIPECHO

specific timeframe and mandate. Such linkages have to be carefully thought in order to ensure

that related activities will have a demonstrated impact within the project lifespan.

HOW COULD DIPECHO WORK ALONGSIDE SUCH INITIATIVES?


While national / large scale initiatives sometimes face difficulties to be implemented at grassroots level, DIPECHO projects could be supportive in a mutually beneficial approach. This is only possible if considered from the initial stage of the projects.

The key added value of DIPECHO in that frame is its proximity to the communities and district authorities, while national initiatives may be adequate for a large scale replication of the models developed in the field.

Coordination would allow DIPECHO feeding such initiatives through sharing of experiences and practical achievements in the field.

Information, Education, Communication, targeting direct and indirect beneficiaries:

Awareness raising among the general public: Large scale public awareness has scaled up

during the 5th DIPECHO action plan, in particular through the radio components. Based on

demonstrated impact of such activities, efforts should be pursued whenever relevant and

effective, preferably through joint initiatives.

Education: Whenever possible actions should target schools as a mean to multiply the impact

of activities conducted at community level. Such approaches must be well inserted into a

coherent strategy.

HOW CAN DIPECHO INFLUENCE THE EDUCATION SECTOR POLICY?


DRR awareness raising among young children is key to a sustainable impact of DRR activities implemented today.

Because most DIPECHO projects do have a “school” component, a certain expertise has been acquired, which makes DIPECHO partners relevant advisers to integrate DP / DRR in school curriculum and implement trainings among teachers.

Education should be influenced at top level in order to ensure that a non fragmented approach could be developed and institutionalized in a sustainable way.

DIPECHO projects shall be used to pilot implementation at district level, possibly by adapting mechanisms used in e.g. mine awareness (cascade trainings allowing one focal person in each school…).

This approach is complementary to structural retrofitting of schools and is relatively low cost.

Schools are often used as safe shelter in times of floods and this creates tensed situations, becoming a national issue. Such situations can be managed in order to avoid disrupting classes provided that adequate provisions are made beforehand.

Small scale infrastructure and services at community level:

Infrastructure support: Such approaches should be envisaged when needed to ensure the

effectiveness and sustainability of other components of the action. It should not be seen as a

way to cover gaps identified among local stakeholders, local government bodies,

independently from the core objectives of the action.

Structural mitigation works: Much has been done over successive DIPECHO projects, among

others. Mitigation works implemented should be replicable at an affordable cost, by local

actors. Besides, DIPECHO partners have the obligation to promote and facilitate this

replication through diverse ways including, but not limited to, local exposure visits,

dissemination of easy to use guidelines, development and advertisement of local expertise

and capacities, dissemination of technical impact study reports among local stakeholders

(district authorities, VDC secretaries, local NGOs and networks…). Indeed, developing

replicable systems ends up being meaningless if replication does not occur, thus proposals

should details plans to foster effective replication.

Non-structural mitigation activities: Similar comments would apply to non-structural

mitigation.

HOW TO MAKE MITIGATION A DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY?


DIPECHO partners must advocate at regional and district level for an increasing resources allocation and investment into mitigation structures / measures with the active involvement of the civil society, DMCs and networks such as NN-CDMC (formerly NDAC). Such advocacy effort s should be linked to other initiatives, such as district preparedness plans.

Ensuring mitigation to become an actual priority as district level requires linking with UN agencies for advocating effectively at central level.

Adequate technical documentation and related support must be provided to district authorities to guide informed strategies and implementation.

While promoting mitigation measures to be developed by district authorities and communities, DIPECHO projects should ensure that it is not translating into moving the problems to other communities and should keep on highlighting the need for adequate community mobilization and involvement at all stages of the initiatives.

Stock-building of emergency and relief items:

Targeting the reinforcement of the response capacity of local actors and institutions in disaster-

prone areas in view of contributing to ensure an adequate response to natural disaster by

strengthening the timely response capacity following a natural disaster. As for “infrastructure

support”, stock building can’t be envisaged in a “one off” way. Indeed, stock building should be

complementing capacity building / strengthening of local responders. Heavy equipment, although

generally relevant in terms of preparedness, can’t be eligible under DIPECHO funds.

Feasibility & technical studies:

Whenever required due to the technical specificity of an action, partners should plan conducting

proper feasibility or technical studies that will allow refining the needs assessment’s findings

before implementation of the activities in the field. This should be considered more particularly

when the partner does not have all the technical expertise available in house.

Cross-cutting focus to be strengthened or clarified (List open to discussion)

Disability Inclusiveness

Through DIPECHO V, disability inclusiveness has seen great developments with Handicap

International spreading expertise among other DIPECHO partners as well as the civil society.

Building on these first steps, DIPECHO partners will be expected to increase their focus on this

issue, incorporating disability inclusiveness from the very conceptual stage of their intended

Actions. Linking and partnering with relevant civil society local stakeholders should be considered

as an essential sustainability factor, while shared approaches between DIPECHO partners should

not be neglected.

Synthesis of inputs from partners’ meeting:

Persons with disability are of the most vulnerable groups; because of the discrimination and stigma attached to the disability but also because they also face, as other members of the community, gender, caste and age issues. for example, women with disabilities are more vulnerable to GBV.

WHO records for Nepal shows that 10% of the Nepali population has a disability; if we count that a family is composed of 5 members, that means that 50% of the Nepali population are concerned about the warning, life-saving and the rescue of persons with disabilities.

The needs of the most vulnerable segments of the communities should be addressed under all components of the project cycle without discrimination.

Inclusiveness means accountability, impartiality and efficiency

Early Warning Systems will only be effective if the systems ensure warning is made accessible to everyone in the community.

The legal framework for inclusion of persons with disabilities in DRR is set in a long line of conventions, strategies and declarations (UNCRPD, NSDRM, Dhulikhel declaration, etc)– thus projects has to have an inclusive approach - inclusion it is not a choice, but a must. Several of the HFA priorities highlight inclusiveness

There are Examples from DIPECHO partners working in Nepal that we can build on: : Action Aid – accessible water points; Danish RC- stockpiling of assistive devices; Care- Disability-inclusive awareness ; Oxfam- inclusive mock drills, evacuation plans, IEC materials; Mercy Corps- inclusive search and rescue and evacuation; Mission-East- promoting the inclusion of gender, caste and disability issues into the Monsoon disaster preparedness plans; Practical Action – distribution of assistive devices for participation into preparedness activities. Also UNDP, NSET have been working on combining disaster safety and accessibility.

Gender Inclusiveness & Gender Based Violence

Gender related issues are traditionally considered under mainstreaming and most DIPECHO

partners do focus, to some extent, on these issues. However, given the important prevalence of

gender related abuses of all sorts in Nepal, it is deemed necessary to go further to the sole

“mainstreaming”. Indeed, while diverse projects across Nepal focus on gender, the specific issues

of gender inclusiveness and gender based violence in natural disaster situations remain relatively

unexplored in Nepal. Thus there is great room for productive partnerships between DIPECHO

partners and gender focused stakeholders (including women’s organizations), whether local,

national or international. In addition, the current ECHO funded UNFPA’s capacity building project

on gender based violence should allow greater support to DIPECHO partners by the time Actions

are initiated.

Gender related components of the proposed actions should not remain general or vague. To the

contrary, effectiveness of the actions in that regard should be demonstrated through specific

(SMART) indicators in the logical framework.


Gender based violence (GBV) is defined as any act that is perpetrated against a person's will

Men and women's experiences should be included for all aspects of planning and implementation

Selected approaches should ensure that men and women are equally involved. It is not enough just to ensure that women are represented in the various committees, they should have equal say and possibilities for expressing their views and bring their special needs forward.

Reasons for addressing SGBV

Vulnerability increases violence

SGBV is life threatening

Negative consequences at all levels

Effective response to SGBV prevent further violence

How to address mainstreaming and GBV

Ensure meaningful participation of women in programming and decision making.

Raise awareness and build capacity (of teams and local stakeholders).

Obtain gender disaggregated data (to build clear indicators for LFA and M&E).

Ensure context analysis of specific vulnerabilities.

Ensure multi-sector (health, protection, response, legal framework) SGBV response and prevention.

A large panel of key tools & guidelines are available (to be requested to UNFPA or ECHO).

A number of local & international NGOs have a strong field presence / expertise and are willing to share it: DIPECHO partners should use it!

Disadvantaged Groups

“Disadvantaged groups” is a very wide and vague concept. However it aims at highlighting the fact

that all, in a given community, may not be benefiting in the same way, or to the same extent, of an

action implemented for all. A number of factors can explain this fact, depending on the context of

implementation, including gender, cast, religion, physical status, age, political affiliation… However,

great attention must be given to equal involvement of all community members in projects to

guaranty equal access to benefits of the projects once disasters occur.

A group of people can be disadvantaged in many different manners, including with regard to

participation to a humanitarian project. Discrimination is a field reality, possibly including DIPECHO

projects. DIPECHO partners must ensure that this does not happen by questioning this potential

reality from the earliest stage of their programming, i.e. from the needs assessment, and keep on

being vigilant along the project lifespan, sensitizing teams and stakeholders through coaching.

Global Campaigns

To the extent possible, DIPECHO individual projects need to be designed incorporating priorities

given by Global Campaigns.

“Schools safety”

Global objective:

Promote disaster reduction education in School curricula.

To promote school safety by encouraging the application of construction standards that

can withstand any kind of natural hazard.

Nepal’s achievements:

Since 1998, NSET’s School EQ Safety Program in 44 schools (SESP – seismic retrofitting of

schools; training teachers, students & parents; training local masons on EQ resistant

technologies).

Diverse small scale / pilot projects or activities implemented by diverse NGOs (retrofitting,

training & awareness, mock drills…), but not implemented strategically.

Models, technical designs, expertise are available but not used to a significant extent.

What more?

Challenges & weaknesses:

National strategy for school safety missing?

Pilots have not been replicated. By who and how should it happen?

School curriculum not DRR inclusive. How to tackle it?

Should DIPECHO have a systematic approach on school safety? How?


Curriculum mapping needed

DRR is already incorporated in curriculum for class 6-10 by DOE (Department of Education) but Class 1-5 is not yet reached (what is the reality in the field??)

Teachers training for SS need to be upgraded (done by whom??)

No standard school safety strategy exists

Coordination with other school safety actors (UNESCO, NSBT, UNDP, SCN, CWF, UMN, AAN……) needed

DRR as extracurricular activity should be addressed (isn’t it better within the curriculum?)

School preparedness plans should be developed and mock drills organized (at which level??)

Advocacy for and implementation of national strategy for school safety

Replicate pilots projects implemented by other organizations (i.e. NSET’s / MC/NRCS/AA) (multi- hazard approach) (by whom??)

Promote advocacy on inclusive DRR curriculum

DIPECHO should have a systematic approach on school safety (drills, trainings, awareness campaigns, mobilization of child clubs (i.e. Junior Red Cross Circles)

(Low cost) non- structural mitigation as pilot/ model of good practice (How can it be replicated at a larger scale, further to DIPECHO projects)

Projects should be linked to the global campaigns right from the design/proposal stage to the evaluation (what are the support resources existing??)

Identification of gaps and possible contributions

Explore indicators to measure the linkages and contributions

“Hospitals safety”

Global objective:

Protect the lives of patients and health workers by ensuring the structural resilience of

health facilities;

Ensure health facilities and health services are able to function in the aftermath of

emergencies and disasters, when they are most needed;

Improve the risk reduction capacity of health workers and institutions, including

emergency management.


NSET conducted an assessment of the structural & non-structural vulnerability of 14 major

hospitals in Nepal (2000-3).

“Guidelines for seismic vulnerability assessments of hospitals” & “Non-structural

vulnerability assessment of hospitals in Nepal” available (NSET, WHO, MoHP).

One DIPECHO project (AA / HI / NSET) tackled the issues of non-structural retrofitting and

hospital contingency planning. What’s next: report dissemination, advocacy…?

What more?


Coordination mechanism for hospital safety & contingency planning?

Mass casualty management strategy?

Lack of a holistic approach and coordination of efforts?


Every hospitals in districts and regional level should have contingency plans (diverse pilots have been done / guidelines existing??)

Training on mass casualties management for hospital staffs (based on the above)

Mass casualty management strategy and guidelines for district and regional hospitals should be developed (what already exists??)

Hospital facilities retrofitting (By whom? DIPECHO cannot handle it alone!)

Advocate for coordination among hospitals for emergency situations (to be clarified!)

Education- Awareness- Training (of whom by whom??)

Projects should be linked to the global campaigns right from the design/proposal stage to the evaluation (what are the support resources existing??)



“Safer cities”

Global objective:

The overall goal of the campaign is to achieve resilient, sustainable urban communities,

with a growing number of local governments that are taking actions to reduce the risks to

disasters.

A longer term objective following the campaign is to empower local governments with

stronger national policies to invest in risk reduction at local level, as part of urban and

regional development plans.


Kathmandu city part of “My city is getting ready” regional campaign (June 2010 - Delhi).

Pilots and “good practices” exist but are not compiled & disseminated.

NSET & DIPECHO: Some level of involvement, but what’s next?

What more?


Authority delegated to local bodies to manage urban disaster preparedness but no

strategy or guidelines available.

How to scale up / replicate pilot initiatives?

Lack of technical expertise available.

Lack of empowerment of legally binding technical standards.


Safe exit and concentration / IDPs camps (component included in Flagships)

Pilots and good practices should be shared with authorities (How? Focusing on which interlocutors?)

Dissemination of information on safer cities (to which interlocutors?)

Advocate for the implementation of building codes (to which interlocutors?)

Projects should be linked to the global campaigns right from the design/proposal stage to the

evaluation (what are the support resources existing?)



Climate Change Adaptation

This increasingly important focus needs to be carefully considered. Indeed, it can hardly be

considered as a sector of intervention unless specific impact(s) induced by climate change could be

clearly and technically demonstrated and quantified. However, when refining/revisiting DP & DRR

strategies in the light of evolving natural disasters’ impact, climate change adaption is somehow

automatically taken on board.

HOW CAN CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES BECOME CORE ISSUES IN DIPECHO?


Cross-cutting sectors must be considered by DIPECHO partners as central from the initial stages of any project and thus be given adequate “space” in needs assessments and activities, ensuring that relevant indicators are developed and verified.

To make this actually implemented, local implementing partner must be given adequate skills through training and coaching.

Local civil society must be deeply involved and be given the chance to increase their means as well as human and material resources to the extent possible.

Linking with other initiatives / projects implemented by specialized agencies should be promoted.

DIPECHO partners should commit to achieve this to the same extent than they commit to achieve “technical” objectives, by including specific indicators and activities in their proposals.

Required resources must be requested to ECHO on the basis of clear objectives and verifiable achievements.

REPLICABILITY/SCALING UP

Over successive DIPECHO action plans implemented through numerous individual projects, effective

methodologies and concepts have been developed, demonstrated and improved. While this process

should be pursued as the grassroots basis of larger expertise, DIPECHO should not be limited to that sole

approach. Indeed, large scale replication calls for distinct and complementary approaches that include,

but not limit to, partnering with local authorities at all levels, from VDC to national.

Previous initiatives such as district/regional/national preparedness workshops and VDC/district

emergency funds have proven significant impact, among others, in promoting awareness of populations

and authorities while making the latter more accountable to increasing expectations from the people.

Such trends shall be supported and reinforced as a first step toward effective scaling up of DP & DRR.

DOES “REPLICATION” NEED A STRATEGY? THEN, WHICH ONE?


Replication of models developed is among the core objectives of DIPECHO. However there is need for clarifying what is a replicable model and how could replication effectively happen.

Depending on the local needs and resources, an objective evaluation of the potential for replication of models should be made, taking into account technical aspects and cost-benefit ratio as well as affordability by local stakeholders.

Replication will not happen unless benefits are proven through well documented piloting reports. Technical guidelines and coaching to local stakeholders by DIPECHO partners are also key to district and VDC authorities to buy the models and mobilize resources.

Use of communities’ common sense and adaptation to specific contexts must be promoted rather than a “blanket coverage” approach.

Promoting replication is based on expertise sharing and advocacy, thus linking with UN agencies and civil society.

SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability implies distinct efforts at the various levels of intervention. One should not limit

sustainability to the sole buying in of targeted population groups while leaving aside other aspects.

Indeed, there are increasingly room and need for sustaining complementary efforts at other levels and

other scales through coordination, capacity building, advocacy to donors and authorities, partnerships

between stakeholders…

Empowerment of local authorities at VDC and district levels combined with improved skills and

increased funds available appears to be an essential step toward a sustainable disaster risk management

in Nepal.

LINKING RELIEF REHABILITATION & DEVELOPMENT

DIPECHO partners are strongly encouraged to link the proposed actions with other initiatives funded by

other donors, in particular other funding instruments of the European Commission (e.g. AIDCO), EU

Member States (DFID…) or other donors. Whenever possible, expertise developed through DIPECHO

funds should be used in the frame of longer term actions and, to the extent possible, incorporated at

proposal stage, where expected multiplier effects should be mentioned.

IS THERE ROOM FOR DIPECHO TO FEED A “LRRD” APPROACH?


DIPECHO partners need to explore potential links between DP/DRR and longer term initiatives focusing on livelihoods, health… Partners are encouraged to do so primarily in the frame of their own portfolio.

LRRD approaches could also be developed through linking with non-ECHO funded long term projects, such as those (to be) planned in the frame of the Flagships and similar initiatives.

EXIT STRATEGY

ECHO considers the DIPECHO partners as the first focus in terms of exit strategy. Indeed, further to field

actions, policies… DIPECHO intends to support capacity building and mainstreaming within DIPECHO

partners so that DP & DRR would be increasingly central to their entire operational programming.

In addition, “exit strategy’ does not call for the end of DIPECHO but rather for a coherent evolution over

time and projects. Indeed, DIPECHO funded initiatives cannot limit indefinitely to pilot projects and

community focus as it would not allow covering the immense needs at country level. Thus, an exit

strategy should be seen as the natural progressive handover of expertise and responsibilities to the large

panel of national stakeholders, including government and civil society structures. International

stakeholders should indeed work toward being increasingly unnecessary.

OTHER SPECIFIC MODALITIES

Consortium

Consortium of several NGOs within DIPECHO is strongly supported by ECHO. It should be considered

when the specific expertise of 2 or more NGOs is required to achieve a given objective and none of

each NGO has all relevant expertise. Consortia are also relevant when partners intend to implement

similar activities and would benefit from a more coordinated approach. Caution should be taken

regarding all practical, financial, administrative modalities in the frame of a consortium.

Regional & Multi-national Approaches

Regional approaches should be considered where there is an obvious comparative advantage to

national approaches. Partners should carefully consider coherence of situations, needs, expertise

and legal frameworks in the diverse countries targeted through a same project.

Exposure Visits

Exposure visits should be considered where there is a relevant and significant impact expected as

well as decent expectations in terms of replication and/or multiplier effect. All these should be

clearly demonstrated, shared among partners and reported.

Use of media (as a tool for awareness raising and visibility/communication)

The use of media has demonstrated its potential multiple purposes in multiple contexts. However,

previous experiences, although positive, have shown great room for increased professionalism and

improved efficiency, particularly in the frame of regional approaches. Alternative ways of planning,

designing and implementing such use of media should be considered. In all cases, greater

interaction with ECHO regional information officer will be required in future initiatives.