EVALUATION OF THE DG ECHO'S ACTION IN NEPAL Aguaconsult ...

EVALUATION OF THE DG ECHO'S

ACTION IN NEPAL

Aguaconsult Ltd.

Main Report

17 May 2010

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANTS

Barnaby Willitts-King

Team Leader and Humanitarian Expert

Leslie Morris-Iveson

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Expert

Kedar Babu Dhungana

Disaster Risk Reduction Expert

Contract No. ECHO/ADM/BUD/2009/01207

This report has been financed by and produced at the request of the European Commission

The views expressed in the report however express the opinions only of the consultants

Total cost of the evaluation – 0.01% of the budget evaluated

Evaluation of DG ECHO’s Action in NepalMain Report

Aguaconsult

17 May 2010

Title EVALUATION OF DG ECHO’S ACTION IN NEPAL

MAIN REPORT

Client Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) –Evaluation Sector

Client contractNo

DG ECHO Contract No. ECHO/ADM/BUD/2009/01207

Aguaconsultcontract No.

5380/09/NPL

Contact andcorrespondence

Aguaconsult Ltd., The Old Fire Station, Brook Street,Wivenhoe, Essex, CO7 9DP, UK

TEL: +44 (0)1206.823329 FAX: +44 (0)1206.828010

e-mail: [email protected]

web: www.aguaconsult.co.uk

Authors Barnaby Willitts-King, Leslie Morris-Iveson and Kedar BabuDhungana

Researchers

Amendmentrecord

Version: Final Date: 17 May 2010

Report

Reference Willitts-King, B., Morris-Iveson, L., and Dhungana, K. (2010)

Task Manager Chris Porter

QualityAssurance

Harold Lockwood


Aguaconsult

17 May 2010

Evaluation of ECHO Action in Nepal 2006-09

Executive summary ...........................................................................................................1

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION .................71.1 DG ECHO in Nepal ............................................................................... 71.2 Humanitarian and development context in Nepal ................................. 81.3 Purpose and objectives of the evaluation .............................................. 91.4 Methodology.......................................................................................... 9

2 OPERATIONAL FINDINGS – DG ECHO-FUNDED PROJECTS...................102.1 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ............................................................ 102.2 Health................................................................................................... 132.3 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) .......................................................... 152.4 Food Security....................................................................................... 182.5 Cross-cutting issues: Implementation, efficiency and partner choice 192.6 Cross-cutting issues: Gender, children, HIV and the environment. .... 202.7 Cross-cutting issues: Linkages between Relief and Development ...... 20

3 STRATEGIC FINDINGS........................................................................................213.1 Relevance and appropriateness............................................................ 213.2 Coverage of strategy............................................................................ 233.3 Effectiveness and impact of DG ECHO action ................................... 243.4 Efficiency of strategy........................................................................... 243.3 Complementarity, Coordination and Coherence ................................. 253.4 Sustainability and Linkages between Relief and Development .......... 26

4 FUTURE TRENDS AND EXTERNALITIES ......................................................274.1 Politics and conflict ............................................................................. 274.2 National planning and priorities .......................................................... 284.3 Development partners and funding streams ........................................ 294.4 Humanitarian actors............................................................................. 294.5 European Commission......................................................................... 29

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................305.1 OPERATIONAL: Global Plan/Response............................................ 305.2 OPERATIONAL: Disaster Risk Reduction/ DIPECHO..................... 325.3 STRATEGY: Global Plan/Response................................................... 345.4 STRATEGY: Disaster Risk Reduction/DIPECHO............................. 365.5 ECHO PRESENCE AND ROLE: General ......................................... 375.6 COORDINATION: General............................................................ 39385.7 SUSTAINABILITY AND LRRD: General .................................... 4039Annex A: Technical Appraisal of NGOs/IOs (confidential)................................ 41Annex B: Summary table of results (confidential) .............................................. 41Annex C: Terms of Reference for the Evaluation Team...................................... 42Annex D: List of Persons Interviewed and Sites Visited ..................................... 49Annex E: Map: projects financed by DG ECHO/ visited during the evaluation . 52Annex F: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................... 53Annex G: Summary of good practice observed during field visits ...................... 55Annex H: List of key reference documents consulted ......................................... 57


Aguaconsult

17 May 2010

Page 1

Executive summary

Introduction

1. DG ECHO presence in Nepal in recent years has been principally focused onassisting populations affected by two forgotten emergencies: the ten year civil war andassistance to the Bhutanese refugees living in camps in the east of Nepal. In addition,DG ECHO has supported disaster preparedness and risk reduction through fiveconsecutive DIPECHO Action Plans in order to reduce the impact of those living underthe threat of constant and significant natural disasters in Nepal, including floods andlandslides. DG ECHO opened an office in Kathmandu in late 2005 in response to theescalation of the conflict. See table 1 for DG ECHO funding to Nepal 2006-09.

Table 1: DG ECHO funding to Nepal 2006-2009/ EUR millions

Year Conflict Bhutaneserefugees

Other DIPECHO Total

2006 3 2 2.8 (drought) 7.8

2007 4.5 1.5 2 (floods) 2.4 10.4

2008 4.5 2.5 2.4 (floods) 9.4

2009 3.6 1.5 0.9 (naturaldisaster/contingency)

3 9

TOTAL 15.6 7.5 8.1 5.4 36.6

Purpose and Methodology

2. The overall purpose of this evaluation is to “assess the appropriateness ofECHO’s actions, in accordance with DG ECHO’s mandate, in order to establishwhether they have achieved their objectives and to produce recommendations forimproving the effectiveness of future operations in Nepal.”

3. It was agreed that the evaluation would focus on strategic issues, as well as theimplications relating to a phase-down of current DG ECHO operations in Nepal. Water,Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Health and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) wereexamined as operational aspects of the evaluation, along with food security at astrategic level and LRRD as a cross-cutting issue. The team visited a range ofrepresentative projects in the Terai (southern plain belt), hills and mountain regions ofNepal in the sectors of coverage, including those that were completed in previousGlobal/Action Plans. A total of nine projects were visited in the districts, with six ofthese being DIPECHO supported projects. The itinerary aimed for a balance of sectors,partners and geographical locations, as far as was possible with the constraints of travelto remote areas, strikes and the time available.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 2

Main Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

4. DG ECHO's action in Nepal from 2006-09 was mainly well targeted,appropriate and had a positive impact on the lives of Nepalis. The overall strategy ofDG ECHO action was appropriate and consistent with DG ECHO global objectives.(see paragraphs 79 t0 87)

5. Sectoral approaches were generally appropriate, effective and efficient inWASH, health and DRR, but the move towards more development activities createsincreasing challenges for partners working with DG ECHO funding timescales.DIPECHO activities and support to the Bhutanese refugee population were appropriatethroughout the period 2006-09. (see paragraphs 15 to 63)

6. During 2006 and 2007, DG ECHO action under the Global Plan wasappropriate in delivering basic services to 200,000 Nepalis without access to health andwater and sanitation. The civil war, which caused the deaths of 13,000 Nepalis, and itsaftermath significantly hindered the ability of government services to reach out beyonddistrict headquarters. (see paragraphs 80 to 83)

7. In 2008 and 2009, the Global Plan continued to support up to 200,000 Nepalisbut did not explicitly reflect the changing context of increasing access, slowimprovements in development funding and increasing outreach of government services– although this was still limited in remote areas. An ad hoc and non-consultativeprocess for the extension of the Global Plan to 2009/10 meant there was little scope tore-orient the strategy and bring tighter geographical and sectoral focus for more impactand efficiency of monitoring. (see paragraphs 84 to 85)

8. Coordination and policy engagement by DG ECHO has been weak with otherCommission services and other donors. While there some very good examples ofpartners coordinating with the Government of Nepal, for instance through DIPECHOpartners’ influence on the national DRR platform, there are areas where DG ECHOcoordination could be improved. This has reduced the potential for DG ECHO to havea wider influence in particular by bringing its field experience into national leveldialogue. Coordination with the EC (now EU) Delegation has in particular been weak.(see paragraphs 100 to104)

9. Sustainability: Substitution of basic services on twelve-month timescales usinghumanitarian approaches is inherently unsustainable. However, there has been gooduse of local partners and social mobilisation to increase ownership and sustainability.DIPECHO sustainability has been undermined by the short timescale meaning there isnot enough time for capacity building. (see paragraphs 105 to108)

10. Significant opportunities have been missed to link relief, rehabilitation anddevelopment within the EC on a strategic level. There are several examples where DGECHO partners have received follow-on funding to enable a more sustainable elementof project outputs; however this has been ad hoc and based on the initiative of thepartner. The current EU Delegation Country Strategy Paper (CSP) is very weak onlinking relief and development, with a focus on budget support in sectors that aredifficult to link with DG ECHO. There are few, if any, examples of either DG ECHO


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 3

or the Delegation working jointly in planning, designing or handing overcomplementary interventions. (see paragraphs 103-105)

11. Significant needs and gaps remain as a result of slow political progress,marginalisation of remote areas, few humanitarian donors and underlying structuralchallenges. DG ECHO should therefore continue its Nepal programme, maintain aninternational presence in-country and develop a strategic three-year vision for atransitional period towards phasing out. This strategy should shift its emphasis awayfrom the legacy of conflict towards chronic vulnerability and advocate for and respondto critical gaps in remote areas beyond the reach of current development activities.Adopting such a strategy would also form a basis for addressing LRRD, through whichadvocacy towards more development oriented donors (such as ADB, World Bank andDFID) could be undertaken in order to further sustain individual project outputs (seeparagraph 158)

12. The main conclusions and corresponding recommendations and lessons learnedat strategic level are summarised in the following table (numbers correspond to thecomplete set of conclusions and recommendations in the main report):

MAIN CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS LESSONSLEARNED

Conclusion Recommendation Lesson Learned

OPERATIONAL: Global Pan/ Response1. There is lack of evidencethat project selection hasadequately taken intoaccount comprehensivecountrywide needsassessments, resulting inactivities being too broadlytargeted. (see paragraph 122)

1a: Partners and DG ECHO shouldstart a process of analysing availablecountry data in order to determinepriority areas for future Health andWASH project interventions. (seeparagraph 123)1b: Future project selection by DGECHO should focus on the mostvulnerable areas in a countrywidecontext taking a multi-hazardapproach. (see paragraph 124)

2. Project approaches bysome partners are moredevelopment oriented andpartners are followingdisparate standards. (seeparagraph 125)

2a: DG ECHO has an important roleto play in streamlining sectorapproaches in remote, conflict-affected areas, suffering from chronicvulnerability. (see paragraph 126)2b: DG ECHO partners shouldidentify best practices from remoteand conflict affected areas and workwith each other and Government toagree sector wide standards in ruralhealth and WASH sectors. (seeparagraph 127)

·Implementingmodified Community-Led Total Sanitationapproach for sanitationis locally appropriate,accepted and fits inwith nationalstrategies.

OPERATIONAL: Disaster Risk Reduction/ DIPECHO5. Links between DIPECHOfunded projects and the

5a: DIPECHO should be scaled upand the community-based approach

·DIPECHO hasdeveloped a significant


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 4

national context are positive,but there are furtheropportunities to strengthenadvocacy informed by thecommunity-based successesof Action Plans I-V. (seeparagraph 136)

that is its strength should becomplemented through betterlinkages to and support for nationalcapacity building initiatives. Thisneeds to be done pragmaticallywithin the limits of Action Plantimescales. Partners should developa vision that extends beyond eachsingle Action Plan. There is strongpotential for DG ECHO to lobby theEU Delegation to get involved in theFlagship Consortium on DRR. (seeparagraphs 137 to 140)

body of knowledgeand experience over 5Action Plans.

7. Remote mountainous areashave different risk andvulnerability profilescompared to the Terai,implying a differentDIPECHO approach. (seeparagraph 147)

7a: In remote and mountainous areasDIPECHO and partners shouldexplore integrating basicservices/infrastructure (such as water& sanitation facilities and hygieneawareness) as a complement togeneral DRR and preparednessawareness activities. (see paragraphs148 to150)

·Mountain areas arechallenging to work inbut contain significantlevels of vulnerability.

9. DIPECHO projects havebeen designed with phase outin mind. However, certainelements of sustainabilitycould usefully bestrengthened. (see paragraph153)

9b: A more comprehensiveevaluation of user and maintenancefunds in DIPECHO is needed todetermine effectiveness in the longterm. (see paragraph 155)

STRATEGY: Global Plan/ Response10a. The strategy for 2006-07 was appropriate andconsistent with DG ECHOglobal strategy, but thechanging circumstances of2008-09 were not reflected ina revised strategy. (seeparagraph 157)

10c. The sectoral spreadreduced the potential impactof the strategy and did notreflect the changing donorenvironment. (see paragraph161)

10d. Funding levels haveallowed DG ECHO to have acoherent impact in meetingacute humanitarian needs.(see paragraph 165)

10a: In a still uncertain environment,where chronic needs are likely toremain for several years buthumanitarian donors are scarce, DGECHO should remain in Nepal anddevelop a three-year strategic visionand phase-down strategy. (seeparagraph 158)

10c: DG ECHO should focus onsectors in remote and/or conflict-affected areas where progress isessential but government capacityand delivery through currentapproaches are unsatisfactory. (seeparagraph 162)

10c: DG ECHO should retain aresponse capacity due to the highprevalence of disasters. (seeparagraph 166)

·Ad hoc extensions ofthe global planundermined thestrategic impact ofinterventions.·Spreading relativelysmall funding acrossmultiple sectors islikely to lead to lessimpact and be harderto monitor (similarlyfor geographicalspread).·Working in remoteareas is expensive butimportant.·Big agencies find ithard to set up inremote areassuggesting the need forpartnerships withstrong local partners


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 5

and smaller nicheINGOs.·Working with localpartners has beeneffective where theinternational partnerhas paid close toattention to thecapacity and areas forstrengthening of thelocal partner.

STRATEGY: Disaster Risk Reduction/ DIPECHO11: DIPECHO has generatedconsiderable experience ofcommunity-based DRRapproaches but there hasbeen little DRR activityoutside the DIPECHOprogramming. In the contextof a changed strategyfocusing on vulnerability,this is a missed opportunity.(see paragraph 167)

11a: DG ECHO should further workto mainstream DIPECHO approachesinto all its action and take a DRRapproach to all its action. (seeparagraphs 168 to 169)

STAFFING AND PRESENCE: General12. Staffing and DG ECHO’spresence was appropriate forthe conflict years and futurescenarios argue for keeping aDG ECHO presence. DGECHO has been a fast,flexible, consistent, hands-on, responsive donor relyingmainly on the TA’s presencein Nepal. (see paragraph171)

12: DG ECHO should retain anoffice in Nepal, ideally staffed by aninternational TA. (see paragraph 172)

·DG ECHO TA fieldpresence addssignificant quality tofunding decisions,monitoring andstrategy development.

COORDINATION: General13. Coordination and policyengagement has been weakwith other Commissionservices, other donors andthe Government of Nepal.(see paragraph 175)

13a: DG ECHO should position itselfas a coordinator and policyinfluencer. DG ECHO needs toleverage the influence of its fieldpresence by coordinating with otherdonors and influencing policy in itsareas of expertise. (see paragraph178)13b: DG ECHO should be betterlinked to the EU Delegation throughco-location, day-to-day liaison andinvolvement in revising CountryStrategy Paper, including throughdesignation of Delegation focalpoints on key areas such as DRR.

Too narrow a focus onsimply programmingDG ECHO fundslimits the amount thatDG ECHO canleverage changeamong other donors.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 6

(see paragraph 179)

SUSTAINABILITY AND LRRD: General14a. Substitution of basicservices on twelve-monthtimescales usinghumanitarian approaches isinnately unsustainable. (seeparagraph 181)

14b. Significantopportunities have beenmissed to link relief anddevelopment within the EC.(see paragraph 183)

14a: ECHO should encouragepartners to develop longer-termstrategies and show how DGECHO’s shorter-term supportcontributes to this. (see paragraph182)14b: DG ECHO should identify areasto operationalise LRRD and ensuremore involvement in strategicdiscussions with Delegation indevelopment of next CountryStrategy Paper and specific sectors.(see paragraph 184)

DG ECHO and DGAIDCO’s differentapproaches toprogramming presentmajor challenges tomaking LRRDoperational.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 7

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

1.1 DG ECHO in Nepal

1 DG ECHO presence in Nepal in recent years has been principally focused onassisting populations affected by two forgotten emergencies: the ten year civil warwhich had consequences throughout the country; and assistance to the remainingBhutanese refugees living in camps in the east of Nepal. In addition, DG ECHO hassupported disaster preparedness and risk reduction through five consecutive DIPECHOAction Plans in order to reduce the impact of those living under the threat of constantand significant natural disasters in Nepal, including floods and landslides. DG ECHOopened an office in Kathmandu in late 2005 in response to the escalation of theconflict.

2 In the period of 2006 until the present, DG ECHO has provided support in thegeneral areas of: food aid to Bhutanese refugees; health; water, sanitation and hygiene;protection; and community preparedness for disasters. Since 2002 until the current 18-month 2009 Global Plan (which will end in September 2010), DG ECHO has employeda similar strategy, though with a slightly reduced budget for assistance of victims ofconflict, and increase in budget to cover aid for natural disasters in the most recentGlobal Plan. Through the Global Plans, DG ECHO has targeted its support topopulations living in remote, rural areas, which are often mountainous and notaccessible by road transport, thus reaching vulnerable populations. See table 1 for DGECHO’s funding profile.

Table 1: DG ECHO funding to Nepal 2006-2009/million Euros

Year Conflict Bhutaneserefugees

Other DIPECHO Total

2006 3 2 2.8 (drought) 7.8

2007 4.5 1.5 2 (floods) 2.4 10.4

2008 4.5 2.5 2.4 (floods) 9.4

2009 3.6 1.5 0.9 (naturaldisaster/contingency)

3 9

TOTAL 15.6 7.5 8.1 5.4 36.6

3. DG ECHO also supported the Koshi Flood response, beginning in August 2008after the embankment of the Koshi River was breached leading to the displacement ofapproximately 70,000 people. The response covered the major sectors includingWASH, Shelter, Food, Health and Non-Food Relief Items (NFRIs), with supporttotalling €1,389,360.

4. Additionally, DG ECHO support has been provided for disaster risk reductionthrough DIPECHO. Nepal has benefited from continued piloting of community-basedpreparedness measures, through DIPECHO Action Plans I-V. A total of €2,588,463 has


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 8

been provided to partners in Nepal in the current regional Action Plan V.

1.2 Humanitarian and development context in Nepal

5. Nepal is currently undergoing a fragile period of transition after the civil war thattook place between 1996-2006, in which 13,000 people were killed and manythousands injured or displaced. The Nepali political situation changed markedly overthe period under review. In late 2006 the Maoist insurgents signed a ComprehensivePeace Agreement (CPA) with the multi-party government, bringing the civil war to anend.

6. Since the CPA was signed, largely peaceful elections took place in April 2008 tothe interim Constituent Assembly, and the monarchy was abolished. Politics is howeverstill fragile and contested, and the peace process is incomplete. The May 2010 deadlinefor drafting the new constitution appears unlikely to be met, under the continuing cloudof disagreement relating to the demobilisation and integration of former Maoistsoldiers. These factors are likely to further raise tensions between political, ethnic andcaste groups vying for greater influence in the new political settlement. Many areas ofthe country are already suffering from low-level conflict and criminality and theinfluence of armed groups in addition to frequent political demonstrations/strikes(bandhs).

7. Nepal is also highly prone to natural hazards including floods, droughts,landslides, epidemic disease, extreme weather events and earthquakes. The countryranks second out of 96 countries in the World Bank Hotspots for high mortality riskNepal’s hill and mountain districts generally have very poor road access and limitedlivelihood opportunities. State provision of basic services is limited in remote areas andamong marginalised communities (e.g. Dalits – low caste).

8. It is the general opinion of the humanitarian and development community inNepal that despite there having been some progress since the end of the conflict, thecapacity of the government to provide essential services to the chronically vulnerable inmost parts of Nepal is still very limited. Chronic vulnerability is a result of poverty(Nepal has the lowest GDP per capita in South Asia – US$470 in 2007/08), lack ofinvestment in infrastructure, low education levels, and low levels of governmentservice provision (Nepal’s Human Development Index places it 144 out of 177countries – and wide variations exist between Kathmandu and remote rural areas).1

9. These complex and chronic structural issues have manifested themselves invarious humanitarian events. For instance, extreme drought in 2008/09 has led toserious food insecurity and a resulting need for humanitarian food aid among 600,000people. Weak health structures and poor access to water and sanitation as well asdrought and monsoon, led to an outbreak of acute watery diarrhoeal (AWD) disease in2009, with over 330 diarrhoea-related deaths and over 50,000 people treated in 17districts in the Mid and Far Western Regions.2

1 Nepal Human Development Report 2009, ADB Critical Development Constraints, Nepal Needs Analysis Framework2 UNICEF, September 2009


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 9

10. It is generally accepted among various actors and stakeholders that with thecontinued degradation and general lack of access to services, there is a risk of thecountry returning to conflict and needs must begin to be met in order to ensure asuccessful transition to lasting peace.

1.3 Purpose and objectives of the evaluation

11. The overall purpose of this evaluation is to “assess the appropriateness of DGECHO’s actions, in accordance with DG ECHO’s mandate, in order to establishwhether they have achieved their objectives and to produce recommendations forimproving the effectiveness of future operations in Nepal.”

12. At the initial briefing with DG ECHO in Brussels, it was agreed that theevaluation would focus on strategic issues, as well as looking into implicationsrelating to a phase-down of current DG ECHO operations in Nepal, a decision beingtaken in light of the conclusion of the conflict period. The operational aspect of theevaluation would target effectiveness, impact and sustainability of response of DGECHO’s actions in Nepal and a review of partners implementing projects in the keysectors of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), health and disaster risk reduction(DRR). DRR issues would be explored on a best practice approach, looking into areasneeding further refinement, and practices for replication. Food security issues inremote, mountainous areas would also be explored due to their significance in Nepal.Linking relief, rehabilitation to development (LRRD) would be explored as a cross-cutting issue.

1.4 Methodology

13. The team visited DG ECHO Headquarters in Brussels for an initial briefing. InNepal, the team visited a range of representative projects in the Terai (southern plainbelt), hills and mountainous regions of Nepal in the sectors of coverage, and were ableto visit projects that were completed in previous Global/Action Plans. A total of nineprojects were visited in the districts, with six of these being DIPECHO supportedprojects. The itinerary aimed for a balance of sectors, partners and geographicallocations, as far as was possible with constraints of travel to remote areas, strikes andthe time available. The team was grateful for the support of the DG ECHO office inKathmandu, DG ECHO partners and others, including OCHA and WFP for logistics.

14. The team also reviewed relevant project documentation including ficheops andproject proposals, in the sectors of coverage, met with funding partners andimplementing partners at the national and field level, as well as with other relevantstakeholders including the EU Delegation, donors, UN agencies and governmentrepresentatives. A final debriefing in the field was held at the end of the mission.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 10

2 OPERATIONAL FINDINGS – DG ECHO-FUNDED PROJECTS

2.1 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene

15. Two DG ECHO supported projects in the WASH sector were viewed. Firstly, theOxfam GB project (partially completed) which targets 9,697 people with provision ofdrinking water, sanitation and hygiene promotion in thirteen Village DevelopmentCommittees (VDCs) in the districts of Dailekh and Surkhet in Nepal’s mid-westernregion. Secondly, the team visited the completed Mission East project site targeting atotal of 9,199 beneficiaries (of which 4,122 people received water systems, sanitationand hygiene awareness) carried out in nine VDCs in the remote mountainous districtsof Humla and Mugu. A number of other ficheops were reviewed for context andcomparison.

16. In both areas visited, diarrhoeal disease is the greatest cause of mortality, withfrequent outbreaks of AWD. This is consistent with data available which states thatdiarrhoea is a major cause of child morbidity and mortality, with nearly 28,000childhood deaths occurring each year in Nepal.3 Vulnerability is compounded by yearlydrought and/or flash flooding conditions where lack of access to primary andalternative water sources forcing populations to access unsafe water sources. Publichealth is further compounded by poor sanitation conditions and limited hygieneknowledge.

17. General support provided by DG ECHO-supported partners include: theprovision of household latrines and community water supply in selected areas in themid and far west, community sanitation units in central region, and rehabilitation offlood-affected water sources and hygiene awareness, using participatory approaches.

18. The two projects were very similar in approach, and target remote and conflictaffected areas in Nepal, which also suffer from a chronic lack of both government andnon-government capacity in this sector. In the remote mountainous area thedevelopment index is markedly poor, with severe food insecurity and lack of access tolivelihoods resulting in chronic poverty. Projects visited were both inaccessible byroad, and located many hours or days of walking from the nearest road access.Communities were all conflict-affected, and one village had a water system that wasdamaged and no longer functional as a result of the conflict. However, most villagesvisited were previously using unimproved sources, and having to walk long distancesto access these sources.

19. Projects are being implemented under difficult conditions. Partners areincorporating innovative means of implementing infrastructure (including toilets, watersystems) in areas where there is no road access, as well as incorporating a strong socialmobilisation approach, within a relatively short twelve month timeframe. However, thishas created issues with cost and scope of implementation (for instance one partner hadreduced the scope of projects due to increased costs for helicoptering in supplies).

3 The State of South Asia’s Children, UNICEF, 2005, www.unicef.org/rosa/SOSAC05.pdf


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 11

20. Appropriateness: Despite obvious needs for WASH intervention in these areasand the good targeting according to the Global Plan, there is no evidence of anycountrywide needs assessments and prioritising according to region. Needs werepresented by partners to DG ECHO, and appear to be accepted based on criteria withinthe Global Plan. As such a wide net has been cast, due to the majority of the countrybeing affected by the conflict in some way, and many areas are defined as beingremote, with national assessments constrained by geography. DG ECHO was thereforerelying on partners’ ability to conduct strong assessments, which were done at districtor sub-district level, and translate this analysis to district and VDC level. For projectsreviewed by the evaluation team, such assessment and analysis was found to bereasonable.

21. Both projects viewed were found to be relevant and appropriate in terms oftechnical design and options implemented, as well in the sense that it followedguidance from the Global Plan for the relevant year. However, projects were found tobe more development than relief-oriented as the target communities are not livingunder conditions of displacement. Some partners were found to be following differentstandards (i.e. Sphere vs. national standards), which arose because the context requiresa development approach, despite the fact that DG ECHO advocated for humanitarianstandards in the WASH projects viewed.

22. The appropriateness of interventions depended largely on the partners’ ability togenerate locally identified solutions during a participatory design process, particularlyin conflict-affected remote areas. In the WASH projects, this also depended on thepartner preference for promotion of locally accepted, low-technology solutions thatwere cost effective, and a good understanding of socio-cultural aspects and economicconstraints faced by communities (e.g. the challenges faced by low caste/Dalitcommunities in accessing government services). This was also effectivelydemonstrated through the in-depth assessment and project design process and theflexibility for projects to recommend different solutions according to the communitycontext.

23. Effectiveness and Efficiency: In the remote areas, piped water systems werebased on a spring catchment and protection, and rely on gravity intakes to connect toreservoir tanks, from where a number of tap-stands are linked. A strong element ofcommunity-based maintenance and protection was implemented. Some elements ofDRR were implemented, such as mapping of alternative water sources, in the event ofcurrent sources drying up.

24. The Oxfam project had a total cost per beneficiary of EUR 51.34, which ispredicted as the project is mid-implementation, and aims to reach 9,697 people withprovision of drinking water and sanitation in 13 Village Development Committees(VDCs). The project appeared to be on track to meet targets.

25. Sanitation options were implemented through a community-led basic sanitationapproach (CLBS), which is a demand-driven approach where community memberswere able to define problems and needs following a participatory hygiene promotionprocess. Implementation was found to be effective in generating demand for sanitationand an appropriate solution that will be easily sustained by beneficiaries due to


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 12

substantial contributions of the community in provision of materials and labour.

26. Coordination: Activities were well coordinated at district level, with allappropriate stakeholders and activities fed in directly into coverage data under theDistrict Development Committee (DDC). However, there is no evidence of activitieslinking to national level approaches. The success of this type of model is alsoimportant in WASH and health sectors, where DG ECHO partners should disseminatetheir best practices in community based approaches in remote areas at the nationallevel.

27. Sustainability is a major factor in WASH projects, particularly with the types ofwater schemes implemented. Partners were found to have made reasonable efforts toensure that both hardware and software elements of the project would be sustained, inthe absence of government or other external support, especially for remote, ruralsystems. These interventions included forming user groups, training of maintenanceworkers and setting up a users’ maintenance fund with a managing committee. Despitethese considerable efforts, there remain major issues for long term functioning ofsystems due to the lack of integration within overall sector institutions. This wasespecially true for major repairs and long term water quality surveillance, as well assupply chain issues due to a lack of spare parts within reasonable reach of the projectarea. Many examples of disused community water supply systems needingrehabilitation in neighbouring communities were viewed by the evaluation team, whichdemonstrates this critical gap in operations and maintenance in the rural sector inNepal.

28. Women’s participation, particularly in the Oxfam project, was found to besignificant (at least 50% of user committee members were women). Involvement ofwomen in maintenance operations will add to the sustainability of the project, as highlevels of male economic migration was found in most areas.

29. Impact: Due to the introduction of improved access to water and sanitation in apackage of hygiene promotion, in villages which previously had very poor accessprojects will have a positive impact on health indicators of vulnerable populations. Inthe completed Mission East project in Humla, the post-project KAP surveydemonstrated that the percentage of people having diarrhoea per month reduced from31% to 9%. A notable difference was observed between project communities andthose neighbouring villages outside of project interventions in terms of poorer hygienepractices such as widespread open defecation.

30. Despite this having a high impact in the targeted communities themselves, in thewider context of poor access to WASH amongst vulnerable populations in Nepal, thisis just a drop in the ocean. In rural Nepal access to a safe water supply is estimated at81% of the population4. Water Aid research considers this to be a vast overestimate andcalculates that a more realistic coverage figure is 42%5, with the least covered districtsfound in the mid and far Western regions. Similarly access to latrines in rural areas isofficially estimated at 41%6 but Water Aid research gives an alternative estimate of

4 Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001, National Census, Kathmandu, Nepal5 The Water and Sanitation Millennium Development Goals in Nepal, Water Aid Nepal, 20046 Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001, National Census, Kathmandu, Nepal


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 13

19%7. At district level, projects were welcomed by Local Government, particularly as acontribution towards achieving the national targets to declare communities “OpenDefecation Free” by 2015; however it was clear that massive gaps in coverage stillexist after project implementation with further significant resources needed to increaseaccess.

2.2 Health

31. One project in the health sector was visited, the Handicap International projectfor Access to Physical Rehabilitation Services for Disabled People affected by theConflict in Nepal. This was implemented in the mid and far western region of Nepalsupporting three rehabilitation centres. A number of other ficheops were also reviewed.

32. Needs: As with the case of the WASH, the health sector in Nepal is characterisedby a chronic lack of capacity and under-servicing, particularly in remote, rural areas.Health sector services are decentralised, but while structures exist, widespread needsare not met. Health posts are either under-staffed or not staffed at all and districthospitals lack medicines and equipment. Communities in remote areas still often relyon traditional faith healers (Dhami Jhakris).

33. Approach: DG ECHO’s support to date in health sector has been in the areas ofreproductive health, rehabilitation and surgery in conflict affected areas and throughsupport of health education and awareness activities in remote rural areas. Support toprimary health care was provided, particularly in the mountainous areas, with areferrals process and through direct support in mobile ‘health camps’ as well as throughmobile outreach. The objective, during the initial stages of the conflict, was servicedelivery as substitution for absent government health service provision. However, acapacity building element also took place as health workers were being trained.Nutrition support was also provided through implementation of Community-basedManagement of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) approach.

34. Appropriateness: Targeting, for specialised surgery and rehabilitation projectsneeded as a result of the conflict, was well coordinated at national and district level.However, such targeting is inevitably challenging given the perceived “unlimitedneeds” among the conflict-affected remote areas for preventative and curative healthservices, due to under-servicing. Partners have been able to generate proposals basedon existing locations of coverage and the local partners with whom they are currentlyworking, rather than looking more broadly and undertaking comprehensive sectoranalysis of needs and response strategies.

35. Partners carried out very good assessments at district level using relevantavailable data and involving local and regional health authorities and institutions.Participation of the Regional Health Directorate (RHD), District Health Office (DHO)and local workers led to a good deal of relevance in designing projects. In general theareas targeted were vulnerable Due to structural capacity and resources issues and pooraccess, government is not addressing preventative and curative services, leading to high

7 The Water and Sanitation Millennium Development Goals in Nepal, Water Aid Nepal, 2004


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 14

degree of communicable diseases and maternal and child health related diseases.

36. The evaluation team found that projects were consistent with DG ECHO’s GlobalStrategy. DG ECHO’s approach has been relevant and targeted areas in the sector thatwere a direct result of the conflict (i.e. rehabilitation centres), initially through thesubstitution approach as government was not able to provide during the conflict period,and then through capacity building and working more closely with government.Approaches were generally field-driven, which led to projects being designed to meethealth needs using locally appropriate methods.

37. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Approaches in rural areas also appear to beeffective and designed to meet the needs of the population, and are well coordinatedwithin existing health systems. In the area of surgery and rehabilitation, sector activitieshave contributed to improved health status of those affected by the conflict through theprovision of orthopaedic surgery and the necessary therapy to return to productive life.For example, in Kanchanpur District alone, 930 persons with physical disabilitiesreceived new devices and over 2,802 persons with physical disabilities accessedrehabilitation therapy.

38. Coordination: Projects were well coordinated with other Health actors at thedistrict level with the District Health Office (DHO) and with the Chief District Officer(CDO). Handicap International’s involvement of government staff in patient screeningand selection was a particularly important factor in strengthening this coordination.

39. Sustainability remains a challenge where populations become dependent on DGECHO project services and government still lacks capacity to take responsibility forcontinuation of these services. However, in the Handicap International project, thepartner had placed a strong emphasis on addressing long term capacity at all levelsincluding: improving managerial, financial planning (including a fund raising strategy),and technical capacity. Sustainability was pursued through making appropriate links atthe district government; by ensuring the centre is provided with support from theannual local government fund; by developing a fundraising strategy; and at the nationallevel through advocating for the instigation of the National Association of ServiceProviders in Rehabilitation (NASPIR), which was created in December 2009.

40. Several partners have made significant efforts to ensure that outputs from DGECHO funded health projects were able to continue through follow-on funding, eitherthrough the Delegation funding stream (for example Handicap International), orthrough other sources. For Handicap International, this was essential due to thechallenges in implementing subsidised user fees in a context of economicmarginalisation in project communities.

41. Impact: 930 persons received new assistive devices; 2802 persons accessedrehabilitation therapy, and 9,322 received physiotherapy. Without DG ECHO thesepeople would not have accessed specialist services. Although we were unable toaccess detailed follow up data on cases, there is a strong likelihood that this support hasenabled them to lead more productive and pain free lives; and reduced the risk offurther injury due to inappropriate care. The development of well run and activerehabilitation centres will continue to address this need in the future.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 15

42. However, the impact of DG ECHO’s more recent assistance in capacity buildingand provision of primary and curative health care on a wider scale is more difficult toassess. Needs are likely to continue after project completion and government structuresare still weak. While assistance has led to impressive results for target communities,through providing rehabilitation and assistive devices to people who would not haveotherwise received them, massive gaps remain countrywide. There is a need to addressissues of improved access, infrastructure and human capacity on a very large scale.

2.3 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

43. Five DIPECHO V Action Plan projects were viewed including: Oxfam GB(implementing in Saptari District), Action Aid (Sunsari), Mercy Corps (Kailali), Care(Kailali), and Mission East (Humla and Mugu). One Care supported DIPECHO IVAction Plan community was viewed in Kailali. All projects visited focused oncommunity-based disaster preparedness measures, the formation of capacity building ofcommunity disaster management committees (CDMCs), community level mitigationand local disaster management components.

44. Appropriateness: The projects were well targeted and largely contributed toreducing vulnerability of populations living in areas most affected by natural disaster.The majority of the projects visited were in the Terai, located among plains oftributaries, in areas where frequent flooding occurs. Locations were selected throughcarrying out vulnerability and capacity assessments (VCAs), consulting with nationaland district level government counterparts and coordinating between other stakeholdersinvolved in DRR implementation. The DIPECHO project area visited in themountainous region of Humla experiences far less disaster risk, and was characterisedby infrequent landslide events. However populations were found to be very vulnerableas communities were completely self-dependent and cut off from external services.

45. Projects demonstrated bottom-up approaches through strong empowerment ofCDMCs, and building awareness on understanding disaster risk in communities andhow risk could be managed. Projects were well designed and planned, and based on acomprehensive assessment and project design process. There is much evidence that abest practices format has been followed, with cross-sharing of lessons betweenDIPECHO partners and from own partners’ experiences from previous Action Plans.

46. There is a major emphasis on search and rescue and early warning, which isbeneficial to reduce immediate loss of life. However, few agencies are incorporatingawareness on public health risks in flood situation, which would further contribute tothe resilience for communities and have a beneficial effect even before a disaster.

47. The introduction of DIPECHO activities in activities in remote, mountainousareas was found to have additional challenges, mainly due to the complete lack ofaccess to basic services and different risk profiles than in the Terai. Additionally,hazards were perceived by the community to be less important than more pressingdevelopment and humanitarian challenges (such as access to water). While it was foundthat these projects are targeting highly vulnerable populations who ware completely cutoff from any assistance in the case of a disaster, the communities are not necessarily the


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 16

most disaster prone in Nepal.

48. The Department for Water Induced Disaster Prevention has released nationallevel information, which identifies 50 out of 75 districts as being vulnerable to disaster,with 80% (which include 1850 villages) being exposed to a medium to highvulnerability therefore warranting intensified and prioritised support8. The governmentrecognises that community level DRM implemented through NGOs working with andenhancing capacities of Village and District Development Committees will be neededto address gaps in implementation.

49. Effectiveness: There is a range of small scale mitigation interventions beingused with varied effectiveness. In some cases plans appear to be somewhat fragmentedin approach and not based on adequate risk mapping and technical knowledge ofpartners, but more based on demands from the community. However, bio-engineeringmethods (such as bamboo anti-erosion measures for river banks used by Mercy Corps)appear to be a good community-based initiative creating tangible positive effect;linkages with livelihoods; and potentially long term change in deforestation practices.

50. Some more standardisation of approaches based on best practices would ensuregreater effectiveness and appropriateness. For example, Information, Education andCommunication (IEC) materials in villages (particularly billboards) were found to be ofvarying quality in different partners, although evaluators note that DIPECHO partnersare in the process of harmonising materials, to the extent possible, while incorporatingthe disability component.

51. The effectiveness of the fund generation and micro-credit savings approach usinggrain banks is unclear, as some communities appear to be using them for a wide rangeof purposes (i.e. as general social security net) and not solely to support communityDRR initiatives.

52. Coordination was found to be very strong in the case of DIPECHO partners,through regular meetings, and more particularly the sharing of experiences, which ledto a strengthening of cohesiveness and complementarity of activities.

53. DIPECHO partners are at the forefront of good practice in community-basedDRR initiatives in Nepal. They are coordinating effectively together and influencingnational level policy. For example, a DRR toolkit was produced for Parliamentariansregarding DRR approaches with information on relevant country data and strategiesand the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). Partners also contributed to the draftingof a National Early Warning Strategy (NEWS) with the Department of Hydrology andMeteorology.

54. Almost all project activities were directly linked to government disastermanagement approaches and the newly endorsed National Strategy on Disaster RiskManagement (NSDRM) priorities. However, there is no current direct link betweenDIPECHO and the government as DIPECHO does not support any projects throughgovernment mechanisms.

8 Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal: Flagship Programmes. 2009.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 17

55. The NSDRM that was implemented through ECHO funds to UNDP is now beingpromoted by agencies and is bringing focus to the range of DRR activities in Nepal andhas given DRR activities priority at the national level.

56. A Disaster Risk Reduction Consortium of international agencies has beenformed, and is now promoting a “Flagship Initiative” which supports the nationalgovernment in developing long term strategies and action plans.9 DIPECHO partnershave been identified as stakeholders under the “Integrated Community Based DRM”Flagship area. However, DIPECHO partners recognise a need for a defined channel toundertake direct advocacy with the relevant Ministries.

57. Sustainability: All projects were designed with long term sustainability andphase out in mind. Projects with demonstrated DRR mitigation and livelihoodslinkages are most likely to have success in sustainability. For example the introductionof community-based plantation bio-engineering approaches, where nurseries will alsogenerate income through sale of species.

58. In these communities sustainability is undermined due to male migration to India.Often CDMC members migrate for most of the year, leaving committees unable tofunction. Partners would mitigate against this through appointing new members andre-training in follow up activities in subsequent Action Plans. However, CDMCsshould be empowered to take decisions to replace members, and follow up trainingshould be taking place within institutionalised structures. The future success andsustainability of projects will be determined by how partners continue to deal with thisissue directly and not as an unforeseen consequence. The CDMCs that had strongwomen’s involvement, where women are appointed as chairperson or secretary, aremore likely to function in the long term. For instance, a Tharu (lower castemarginalised) community visited in Kailali district, on the border with India, hadelected a woman as chairperson of CDMC, with many CDMC members also women.

59. Links between CDMCs and district level governance were successfully formedby the projects. For example, CDMCs were made aware of central government budgetsavailable at VDC level (village development committee, formed of several wards orvillages). CDMCs were then able to influence local government to use funds fornecessary disaster preparedness activities identified by the CDMC. In Kailalai District,some of the 2009 VDC budget funded riverbank protection work - this is after seeingthe positive results from the previous year’s DIPECHO project.

60. With some partners, follow-up activities in VDCs of previous DIPECHO projectswere shown, allowing communities to benefit from evolving best practices. This is alsoimportant because migration is a particularly major challenge for long termsustainability.

61. Impact: Wide-ranging impacts of DIPECHO action was reported by district-

9 A consortium of Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies(IFRC), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction(UNISDR), United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), World Bank in support of theGovernment of Nepal’s National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (www.un.org.np/DisasterPreparedness)


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 18

level government officials and communities themselves including: deaths not occurringduring flooding due to effective search and rescue operations; change in attitudes withregards to deforestation and activities that reduce soil erosion; and enhancedcommunity cohesion due to introduction of CDMCs and community decision making.

62. There is evidence that DIPECHO is contributing to more than just DRR, such aspotentially strengthening livelihoods (i.e. through bio-engineering approaches andcommunity nurseries being developed) and good governance in districts where there isno representative government (i.e. CDMCs advocate for support funds from localgovernment) as well as contributing to women’s empowerment. For instance, theassistant CDO in Kanchanpur stated that local government has made DRR a majorpriority in the district due to the demonstrated effectiveness of DIPECHO projects fromprevious Action Plans, and they are now using government resources to supportcommunities in DRR.

63. Support to development of the NSDRM has led to sector efficiency and to ahigher level of understanding of disaster risk and preparedness amongst institutionalbodies in Nepal.

2.4 Food Security

64. Nepal’s food security situation is alarming. According to the latest WFP NepalFood Security Bulletin, one in six Nepalis is food insecure, and market food pricesremain high after international price spikes in 2008. The worst affected districts andsub-districts in Nepal’s mid and far west hills and mountains have hunger indicators ona par with conflict zones such as Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia.10

However DG ECHO has only supported WFP’s programme for Bhutanese refugeesand one-off food responses to emerging acute needs such as during the Koshi floods of2008, rather than contributing to WFP’s PRRO for Nepal.

65. Appropriateness: The evaluation finds this sectoral strategy appropriate andconcurs entirely with the recommendations of the recent DG ECHO mission to Nepalon food security.11 While acknowledging the serious food insecurity in Nepal, and theneed to monitor evolving needs, the mission report refers to DG ECHO’s comparativeadvantage not being to address food needs resulting from chronic structural foodinsecurity:

‘As stated in the Humanitarian Food Assistance Communication, "the EC will not usehumanitarian food assistance to address chronic food insecurity, except: where non-intervention poses immediate or imminent humanitarian risk of significant scale andseverity; where other more appropriate actors are either unable or unwilling to act,and cannot be persuaded to act; and where, in spite of its comparative disadvantages,positive impact can be expected within the time limitations of its intervention. In suchcases, the EC will only engage humanitarian food assistance on the basis of dialogue,coordination and advocacy with potential development players, where they exist, and

10 WFP Nepal 2009: A sub-regional hunger index for Nepal, www.un.org.np11 Nepal: Humanitarian Food Assistance Assessment Mission (7-13 December 2009), Abigail Masefield RFC, MissionReport 28 December 2009


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 19

with a clear and realistic exit-strategy defined".’12

66. The evaluation also endorses the mission recommendation that DG ECHO should:‘seek to play an increasingly proactive role in Food Facility and other national fora fordonor dialogue on food security. DG ECHO should play a proactive role in theevolution and enhancement of this instrument as it evolves and potentially expands withnew funding given that its objective is to ensure a productive safety net that respondsrapidly to the immediate needs of food insecure. DG ECHO should also seek to informthe development of the EU Delegation understanding of food insecurity more generallyas well as the recently established Technical Donor Meetings on Food Security inNepal’.

67. DG ECHO has the technical expertise and field knowledge to complement thepredominantly developmental approaches to food security that other donors willpursue, but which will not be complete without being linked to a humanitariandimension to deal with acute needs.

2.5 Cross-cutting issues: Implementation, efficiency and partner choice

68. Direct implementing partners of DG ECHO were international NGOs with goodtechnical capacity and expertise. In cases where these partners brought internationalstandards and methods to projects and the local partners brought good knowledge ofthe local context and conditions was found to be an effective and complementarypartnership.

69. In the areas of WASH and health, the partners selected had organisationalexpertise in both development and humanitarian approaches, as well as in DRR. This isfitting in the case of Nepal, where varied approaches are required in order to meetneeds in a post conflict situation, which often incorporates aspects of development, andthe need to target vulnerable populations in politically unstable environments.

70. Projects varied in terms of direct management. In Nepal, many project managersare based centrally in Kathmandu with scheduled visits to the districts to monitor andsupervise projects. This represents a challenge in the oversight, and reliance on localpartners’ managerial capacity. The projects where INGO managers were based in thefield (permanently or for longer periods) showed a marked increase in project qualityand ability to contextualise inputs.

71. A number of partners voiced concerns that the advice of DG ECHO staff,including technical staff from the Regional Support Office, was largely based onpersonality and given in an ad-hoc way. Partners recognised that in some cases suchadvice was beneficial to the outcome of projects, but that the means of deliverydemonstrated a lack of strategy in particular technical areas. For instance, in oneproject the promotion of a particular intervention by the technical advisor was suitablefor a displaced persons camp setting and not in the stable community setting of theproject area. In this case, the technical option being recommended adversely risked theappropriateness of choice of technology and thus the potential sustainability of the

12 Idem, quoting ECHO Staff Working Paper December 2009: ECHO’s Position on Chronic Food Insecurity


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 20

project. While many partners felt the Technical Advisors offered useful expertopinions, it was also generally felt that in some situations the regional view did notadequately take into account the nuanced development-humanitarian approachesnecessary in remote, conflict-affected areas.

2.6 Cross-cutting issues: Gender, children, HIV and the environment.

72. Women’s participation was found to be strong in projects across all sectors.Evidence of women’s involvement was found in all aspects of the project cycleincluding at design stage, with strong representation in committees, and often inmaintenance groups. The issue of male migration to India for long periods was found tobe a reality in all projects visited, and as such it was found that partners designedprojects with this in mind. The partners with specific women’s groups, for instance theparticipatory learning committees (PLC) promoted by Oxfam where women discussedcertain aspects of the project while improving literacy skills, was an effective means ofempowerment.

73. A particular success was seen in projects which targeted poor communities,consisting of lower caste and vulnerable groups, and which promoted their activeparticipation. Several of the local NGOs specialised in raising the profile of thesemarginalised castes.

74. Several of projects also showed very good examples of children’s participation.The projects which had demonstrated examples with children’s groups, showed agreater deal of success in social mobilisation aspects. For example, ‘child to adult’learning was found to be effective means of raising awareness, where many parentswere not able to be involved in other project activities. In DIPECHO projects, childrepresentatives of groups were found to be especially receptive to messages about long-term environmental conservation, and were keen to advocate against deforestation anderosion in their communities.

75. Several areas where projects were visited also face growing levels of HIVinfection rates, tied to the trend of male migration to India. However in these areaspartners were not able to effectively discuss how this issue should be incorporated intoprojects, showing possible areas for future engagement.

2.7 Cross-cutting issues: Linkages between Relief and Development

76. Linkages between relief and development were seen as being ad hoc, with littleevidence of cross-sharing of information strategically. In some cases, DG ECHO hadadvocated for partners to develop links with long term funding, however this was oftenthe initiative of the partner and not due to DG ECHO’s interventions. While someNGOs are able to find follow up donors, strategic links could have been taken furtherand there was no evidence that projects were funded according to an overall strategy.

77. In the WASH and health sector, many of the remaining issues relating tosustainability could have been resolved through linking the project systematically to


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 21

development approaches. The inability of projects to address longer-termdevelopmental issues (i.e. water quality testing, or long term managerial functioning ofrehabilitation centres) within the timeframe of DG ECHO-funded projects beingimplemented, could be overcome by encouraging the project to make such links fromthe outset. Opportunities were missed to institutionalise follow-up in communities, withenhanced development approaches. There is no clear evidence of exit strategy for DGECHO particularly given that DG ECHO funded projects are seen as important inbridging the transition from the conflict-specific to national programmes.

78. However, in the case of Koshi flood response, there is evidence of outputs fromthe humanitarian phase directly complementing redevelopment plans. For instance,hygiene awareness and sanitation activities in the IDP camp setting led to demand forsanitation among beneficiaries and subsequent advocacy to the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB) to include a sanitation component in their WASH rehabilitation project inorder to sustain the impacts experienced during the humanitarian phase.

3 STRATEGIC FINDINGS

3.1 Relevance and appropriateness

79. Overall, the DG ECHO action from 2006-2009 was assessed as relevant to thehumanitarian needs in the country over the period and consistent with global andregional DG ECHO/DIPECHO strategy. The three pronged strategy was appropriate: i)addressing the impacts on civilians of the conflict between the state and the Maoistguerrillas; ii) supporting the Bhutanese refugee population; and iii) reducing disasterrisks through DIPECHO. Natural disaster response was also part of DG ECHO’saction, in particular to the Koshi floods in eastern Nepal in August 2008.

RESPONSE/GLOBAL PLAN SPECIFIC

80. Conflict: DG ECHO supported 170,000 to 200,000 people per year over theperiod under review with its protection, WASH and health activities, initially whenaccess was difficult due to the conflict and then to address the remaining consequencesof the conflict. Total expenditure on this objective over the period was EUR15.6m.

81. The response was appropriate for the period 2006-07 when the conflict was stillongoing, and in the immediate aftermath of the Comprehensive Peace Agreementsigned in November 2006. 13,000 people were killed during the conflict and anestimated 70-80,000 displaced. Livelihoods and infrastructure were destroyed, mobilitywas severely hampered, and government services such as health could only operate indistrict headquarters. The conflict did not have a high profile internationally and couldbe categorised as a forgotten crisis.

82. The choice of sectors by DG ECHO was appropriate during the conflict as healthand WASH indicators were poor: as of 2008, 13% of all children nationwide wereacutely malnourished, and 55-85% of drinking water sources were microbiologically


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 22

contaminated, with 71% of water points not functioning.13 Protection was of significantconcern due to human rights abuses carried out by both sides during the conflict.14 DGECHO supported important ‘niche’ sectors including reproductive health and assistanceto victims of improvised explosive devices.

83. The geographical focus for 2006-07 was also appropriate, supporting districtsworst affected by the conflict in the mid and far West of the country, and those mostvulnerable to natural disasters through DIPECHO, mainly focusing on flood risks in theTerai plains.

84. While appropriate in 2006-07, the DG ECHO strategy was not revised for 2008-09 despite the changing conditions in which access improved, development activitiesfunded by more donors increased and government capacity increased to an extent.15

DG ECHO activities themselves were not inappropriate, responding to clearhumanitarian needs. But DG ECHO strategy as a whole could have addressed theopportunities of working more closely to support government and looking particularlyat sustainability, alongside the changing donor environment where a more focusedsectoral and geographical strategy could have had greater impact.

85. However, it is clear that targeting remote areas continued to be appropriate sincegovernment services have tended not to reach remote areas or marginalisedcommunities. There is also a declining trend of government presence in remote sub-districts.16 The issue is that the legacy of conflict is now less of a determinant tohumanitarian needs in Nepal than underlying chronic vulnerability and weak statecapacity.17

86. Bhutanese refugees: 107,000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in Nepalsince leaving their country in the early 1990s; they are accommodated in sevenUNHCR-run camps in eastern Nepal. DG ECHO supports their food needs as a majorcontributor to the WFP Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation, contributingEUR7.5m over the period 2006-09. This appropriately complements support providedby RELEX/DG AIDCO from the Aid to Uprooted Peoples budget line to UNHCR fortheir care and maintenance. Supporting the Bhutanese refugees has been appropriate interms of the low profile of this population making it a forgotten crisis internationally.

87. Natural disaster response and preparedness: Ad hoc emergency decisionswere taken each year in response to annual flooding/landslides or droughts. A total ofEUR 8.1m was spent or set aside as contingency for such events during 2006-2009.The Global Plan 2009 included a new objective to provide assistance for immediatepreparation and response to disasters. This is an appropriate objective given theprevalence and impact of natural disasters in Nepal: for example 70,000 families across

13 Nepal Needs Analysis Framework, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, September 200814 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, www.ohchr.org, reports to UN General Assembly and HumanRights Commission 2005-200715 Government of Nepal Foreign Aid Policy, discussion paper presented at Nepal Development Forum 2009,http://www.mof.gov.np/ndf2009/pdf/paper/Foreign_Aid_Policy_Eng.pdf16 Nepal: Presence of Village Development Committee (VDC) Secretaries - Comparative Result of 2008 and 2009Survey, OCHA Nepal, January 2010, www.un.org.np. VDCs are sub-district administrative units; as an indicator of governmentpresence, the map shows that VDC Secretaries are less present in their VDCs in 2009 than they were in 2008, particularly inhill/mountain districts17 Interview with OCHA, UN Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 23

more than half of Nepal’s districts were affected by floods and landslides in 20071819.However, the budgeted amount is fairly low given that previous years have consistentlyseen ad hoc DG ECHO expenditure on natural disasters of at least EUR2m. Emergencydecisions are a flexible mechanism for response, but do not permit the inclusion ofpreparedness activity, or the development of a strategy for response to seasonallypredictable disasters such as floods and landslides.

DIPECHO SPECIFIC

88. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR): DIPECHO Action Plan 4 for South Asiacommenced in 2007, running till late 2008/early 2009 (EUR2.4m). Action Plan 5commenced in mid-2009 (EUR3m). DRR has been effective at community level (seeSection 2), but has not scaled up to widen impact as much as it could have given thecapacity available among partners developed through several consecutive Action Plans.

3.2 Coverage of strategy

89. DG ECHO was a major donor to Nepal’s humanitarian needs over the periodevaluated. Of the US$421m contributed to Nepal over the period 2006-2009, ECHOwas the second largest institutional humanitarian donor after the USA, contributing15% of the total as reported to the UN Financial tracking system (see table 2).20

Table 2: Top five humanitarian donors to Nepal 2006-2009Donor Commitment/contribution (US$) % of total reportedUSA 82.5m 20ECHO 49.0m 15UK 23.9m 6Germany 19.6m 5UN Central EmergencyResponse Fund (CERF)

19.6m 5

90. While DG ECHO was an important donor to identified needs through the Inter-Agency Appeal, the degree to which the international community as a whole was ableto identify and meet needs during the conflict years was limited by the problems ofaccess and implementation capacity.

91. As with DG ECHO’s overall strategy, the balance of coverage should haveshifted over 2008-09 more from those affected by conflict to those affected by theconsequences of chronic vulnerability, and reducing the risks they face from disasters.

92. Targeting was generally appropriate and on the basis of need, including specificvulnerable groups such as women, marginalised communities, people with disabilitiesand children. However the important criterion of remoteness was not always possible to

18 Needs Assessment Framework, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, September 200819 Government of Nepal, National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management 2009, www.drrgon.gov.np/en/pdf/NSDRM.pdf20 Data from www.reliefweb.int/fts. Data for Nepal 2006-2009 downloaded 8 Mar 2010. This data includes DIPECHOAction Plan 3 from 2005 ECHO budgets. FTS data for ECHO was $64.9m, but this has been adjusted to $49m (equivalent to EUR36.6m). Differences probably due to mistakes in categorisation/ reporting year, and mis-coding by the UN Financial TrackingService


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 24

apply given the concomitant logistics challenges of reaching remote areas, lack ofpartner presence, and the need to agree project locations with district authorities, whichdid not always prioritise the most remote districts. It is a major challenge for DGECHO to re-double its efforts to encourage partners to reach the most remote areasaway from roads, and where communities are marginalised. Partners depend on privateair freight, transport by fixed wing aeroplane or helicopter, which is limited in capacity,costly and unreliable. This has major implications for both the ability to plan projects,and to support staff working in difficult areas through regular leave journeys.

3.3 Effectiveness and impact of DG ECHO action

93. DG ECHO action was assessed as generally effective in contributing towardsmeeting planned objectives in a timely way across the different strands of theprogramme. The evaluation attributes this to good partner selection and monitoring,strongly underpinned by close and flexible field partnerships between the DG ECHOTechnical Advisor and implementing partners. Examples include useful technicalbackstopping in general from the Delhi Regional Support Office (e.g. to Merlin healthproject in Rolpa district), with some exceptions (see section 2.5).

94. It is premature to judge the overall impact of DG ECHO actions, but theevaluation identified many specific cases of impact and effectiveness. For example theKoshi flood response in August 2008 demonstrated the positive impact of DIPECHOAction Plan 4 training of DG ECHO’s implementing partner in Saptari, which allowedit to lead the search and rescue activities in neighbouring Sunsari district.21 Anotherexample is from the 2008 Global Plan Mission East drinking water supply and latrineconstruction projects in Humla district, which were reported by beneficiaries to havereduced travel time to collect water and led to fewer diarrhoea cases due to betterhygiene.

95. The evaluation judges that the relative impact of DG ECHO reduced in 2008-09compared to the increased potential for programming as a result of improving accessand a functioning government. A more focused sectoral and geographical strategycould have had greater impact, particularly by having more national level impact onpolicy.

3.4 Efficiency of strategy

96. Supporting remote areas is by its nature expensive as the transport of materialsand staff is costly once road transport cannot be used – whether due to helicopter ormule or porter costs. There is really no alternative to this until road access improves.Smaller international NGOs such as Mission East appear to be able to developstrategies to work in remote areas more flexibly than larger INGOs, which are more,constrained by nationally determined policies on security and office setup.

97. DG ECHO partners have increasingly worked through Nepali implementing

21 The Koshi floods affected an area not normally subject to seasonal flooding, due to the breaching of a protectiveembankment


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 25

partners, which has generally been cost effective and efficient. Key to success has beencareful partner selection and analysis of strengths and weaknesses and areas forsupport. Oxfam, for example, has a standardised partner appraisal process. Thechallenge has been to incorporate a capacity building element to the partnership over12 or 15 month project timeframes. However the evaluation team observed numerousexamples of where this had been achieved, even more when the DG ECHO partner hada continued engagement in the community after the end of the DG ECHO funding.

98. The departure of international NGOs over the period since 2007 (see Section 5)has created challenges as DG ECHO has found it harder to find reliable partners toimplement its programme.

DIPECHO

99. The requirement to have expatriate project managers was raised by a number ofDIPECHO partners. The evaluation team’s understanding from the DIPECHO TA inDelhi is that this is not a rigid requirement, but based on regional experience thatinternational project managers are able to bring a broader perspective than nationalstaff whose background tends to have a narrower disaster management focus. Howeverthe team’s observation is that some of the national staff who have worked on more thanone DIPECHO Action Plan had a thorough grasp of DRR and could have fulfilled mostof the functions of the expatriate project manager, with some support for advocacy,fundraising and reporting. One option would be to have an expatriate resource sharedamong DIPECHO partners to undertake such roles in an advisory capacity wherenecessary or to work in a ‘coordinator’ or Secretariat capacity with all DIPECHOpartners; alternatively parts of this role could be taken on by a TA with sufficientcapacity. It would be essential to undertake this cautiously on a case-by-case basisgiven the risks experienced in many contexts of increased national responsibility.

100. Reducing the period between DIPECHO Action Plans has increased efficiency asproject staff is easier to retain, and offices do not have be closed and re-opened.However this gap could be reduced further – particularly given that the majority ofDIPECHO partners have been supported by DIPECHO over several project cycles.

3.3 Complementarity, Coordination and Coherence

101. Despite being an explicit reason for opening a DG ECHO office in 2005,22

coordination with other donors was insufficient, including with the EC (now EU)Delegation. In part this has been due to the lack of humanitarian donors based in Nepal,but opportunities have been missed to use DG ECHO’s on-the-ground knowledge toinfluence other donors and inform their strategies.

102. DG ECHO has had a separate office outside the EU Delegation premises since itopened in Nepal in 2005. This may have served to highlight the independence of theEC’s humanitarian action during the conflict years, but it has also made effective

22 ECHO Global Plan 2006


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 26

coordination between DG ECHO and other Commission services more challenging.DG ECHO was not involved early enough in developing the EC Country StrategyPaper nor in the recent mid-term review. The Delegation had not involved ECHO atcritical stages, especially during inception and planning and asked for comments at alate stage rather in designing and building the strategy and explicitly finding ways tolink DG ECHO and the Delegation’s programming. Without good engagement at thisstage and without the Delegation being able to involve ECHO in their own planning,operational coordination is much more challenging during the period of the CountryStrategy. The level of staffing of the EC Delegation has also limited the level ofengagement it can sustain with external partners including DG ECHO.

103. DG ECHO has also not engaged with the Government of Nepal at national levelnor explicitly been involved in sectoral discussions. This was an appropriate position totake during the conflict years when DG ECHO’s independent humanitarian action wasa comparative advantage. However since the establishment of the multi-partygovernment and the progress on the peace process, technical engagement on specificsectors would have been beneficial for framing DG ECHO sector strategy in thenational context. DG ECHO could also have used its influence and experience as amajor donor to contribute towards government policy.

104. This would be of particular importance in the emerging national DRRarchitecture and strategy, which DG ECHO funded through DIPECHO/UNDP inAction Plan 4. This is currently the object of discussions in Nepal in particular underthe banner of the Flagship Consortium. However as mentioned above, DIPECHO andthe EU Delegation are to date not aligned with this important initiative.

105. DG ECHO was involved in supporting the drafting of the Food Facility strategyin Nepal which is a DG AIDCO programme, but has not been able to participate indiscussions initiated in 2009/2010 on a more coherent strategy among donors andGovernment of Nepal on food security. This was in spite of DG ECHO’s clearexpertise on understanding the food security risk factors and designing appropriatehumanitarian responses to complement longer term interventions. This situation wasthe result of AIDCO not having solicited DG ECHO’s involvement at an early stage.

3.4 Sustainability and Linkages between Relief and Development

106. Twelve month Global Plan funding cycles have become increasingly challengingfor partners as projects have become more developmental in character, with closerworking with local authorities. Partners have successfully overcome this constraint bydeveloping longer term visions built on an informal understanding that DG ECHOwould continue support over multiple funding cycles. However for each of the GlobalPlans 2008 and 2009 there was a perception that they would be the last Global Plan andfuture funding was unlikely. This has led to a shorter term planning horizon forpartners dependent on DG ECHO funding.

107. DG ECHO has not managed to find consistent opportunities to link relief anddevelopment in the field for a number of reasons. Firstly, the EC Delegation works indifferent priority sectors so there is little prospect of the DG ECHO projects


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 27

transitioning to other EC services (current CSP priorities are education, energy andeconomy). Secondly, DG AIDCO processes focus on Calls for Proposals (CFPs) inparticular sectors, rather than the detailed discussion that goes on between DG ECHOand its partners to refine strategy and implementation. CFPs reduce the scope forcareful coordination between DG ECHO and DG AIDCO in specific geographicalareas and sectors, but more could have been done in designing CFPs, which explicitlyrequire coordination with DG ECHO projects.

108. Humla district is an instructive case study with DG ECHO, DIPECHO andAIDCO funding through one partner (Mission East). Superficially this is an example ofLRRD since the partner has been able to transfer its experience from the DG ECHO-funded WASH project to the DG AIDCO-funded WASH project, and link both to theDIPECHO project to reduce community-level disaster risk. However there wasminimal coordination between DG ECHO and the other Commission services in Nepalto link the projects in terms of learning lessons, designing relevant strategies andseeking active synergies.

109. Thirdly, opportunities to hand over projects to other donors have not beenexplored, given that they are judged too premature to hand over to government withoutcontinued assistance. This is clearly a challenge where donors are moving towardsbilateral and national programming rather than support through NGOs but DFID, forexample, is a major donor and there may be opportunities to work more closely withthem.

4 FUTURE TRENDS AND EXTERNALITIES

4.1 Politics and conflict

110. Nepal remains in a precarious state. The political process remains deadlockedwith risks of a return to conflict at worst, or at best paralysis of public services anddisruption due to political protests. As one senior UN commentator predicted, ‘it willget worse before it gets better’. In March 2010, Kathmandu suffered daily scheduledpower cuts of twelve hours a day and most houses received mains water once a week atmost, a legacy of poor planning and underinvestment. In poorer parts of the countrythere are other challenges relating to political and ethnic conflict, growing criminalityand crumbling infrastructure.

111. In 2010 there are significant humanitarian needs remaining in Nepal. Theseinclude the Bhutanese refugee population in the East of the country who dependentirely on external assistance, and the chronic humanitarian needs in the mid and farWest of the country. Food security is the greatest humanitarian need in these districts,but health and WASH needs are also significant. Humanitarian risk is significant acrossthe country in terms of vulnerability to natural hazards (including an ‘overdue’catastrophic earthquake in the Kathmandu valley), and the possible return to large scaleor pockets of conflict and displacement. Localised pockets of acute need persist and arelikely to continue in terms of epidemic disease outbreaks, small local disasters, ethnicand caste-based displacement and acute food insecurity.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 28

112. The conflict in the western parts of the country certainly paused development, butthe crisis pre-dates the conflict and is generally agreed to be structural in nature relatedto under-development. Nepalis have needed development rather than costlyhumanitarian action for decades. There is a spectrum of opinion on how best to addressthe chronic crisis in Nepal’s mid and far West. Essentially the problem is one ofdevelopment, which is now beginning to occur through the large scale injection ofdonor funds, but the more remote areas remain beyond the reach of such programming,and gaps are likely to remain for many years. Humanitarian actors see gaps in basicservice delivery at a micro-level that indicate a need for humanitarian response, whiledevelopment actors see progress at a macro-level in the systems and processes throughwhich Government can deliver services to the people of Nepal.

113. DG ECHO is currently supporting primarily development activities usinghumanitarian tools, in part filling gaps due to the limited outreach of governmentservices to remote areas and marginalised communities, where humanitarian indicatorsare poor. And in part due to the slow progress being made by internationaldevelopment actors working primarily through bilateral or sector approaches. The scaleof need far exceeds the capacity of the humanitarian system to respond, and it isultimately development delivered by the government that will fill these gaps. Whileaccess was difficult during the conflict years up to 2007, this is no longer theconstraint. During the conflict years Government could not extend its reach beyonddistrict headquarters and NGOs filled the gap. The challenge is how and when to phaseout that support while Government services are strengthened and extend their reachacross the country.

4.2 National planning and priorities

114. Despite the slow progress on the political process, there have been some smallgains in terms of government capacity. National budgets have allocated funds toappropriate projects and ministries are developing stronger systems. Howevergovernment capacity remains low due to an inefficient bureaucracy hamstrung bypolitical stasis. In 2009 the expenditure rate of key development budgets was far belowtarget.

115. National priorities as laid out in the Government of Nepal’s interim three yearplan 2007/08-2010/11 focus on increasing public expenditure for employmentgeneration, peace building, economic revitalisation, and support to marginalised groupsand the poor.

116. There has been a strong move away from characterising the necessary responseas humanitarian, and the 2010 Inter-agency Consolidated Transition Appeal for Nepalwas only approved by the Government in a much reduced form in March 2010, limitedto the sectors of food security, refugees and disaster preparedness. There has beenincreasing hostility towards international NGOs by the Government of Nepal.

117. On a more positive note, the Government is pushing forward with DRRlegislation, which is expected to be made law in 2010, and is pursuing with someenergy the initiatives to implement a DRR approach.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 29

4.3 Development partners and funding streams

118. Development assistance has increased rapidly since the CPA was signed in 2006(see table 3) and anecdotally even more so following the April 2008 completion ofConstituent Assembly elections, which paved the way for an elected interimgovernment. Donor confidence has increased in Nepal’s ability to absorb donor fundsand bilateral/budget support has become a preferred modality. Sector wide approachesare being developed in water, health and education.

Table 3: DAC Overseas Development Assistance to Nepal 2006-08Year 2006 2007 2008ODA/US$m 511 602 716

119. The path is certainly not unproblematic though. For example, the UK’s DFID hasrecently extended its conflict-era Community Support Programme targeting remote andconflict-affected districts in western Nepal due to the slow delivery of progress underthe government’s Local Governance and Community Development Programme(LGCDP) which is meant to support government capacity to deliver services.

120. In DRR, apart from DIPECHO there are few major donors. USAID/OFDA isfunding a small number of initiatives including school earthquake safety as part of theKathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project, which runs through 2010.DFID is exploring funding options but does not yet fund significantly nor have a clearmainstreaming of DRR in its other programmes.

4.4 Humanitarian actors

121. There are clear trends across many international organisations to scale downhumanitarian activity. OCHA is planning a managed phase out over the next two years,moving initially into the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator’s office. ICRC has scaleddown its activities from 30 to 40 expatriates at the height of the conflict to around tennow. OFDA now runs its programmes from its regional office in Bangkok (althoughthis is more to do with relocating the regional office which had been in Kathmandu).Many humanitarian NGOs have pulled out or are planning to, particularly the moreexpatriate-heavy, emergency-focused actors such as MSF and ACF although Concernwill also leave in 2010 – citing both funding problems and headquarter prioritisation.

4.5 European Commission

122. In January 2010, the EC Delegation was upgraded to a full EU Delegation.Further staffing increases are expected and greater independence from the New Delhidelegation. The Head of Delegation is keen to ensure a ‘seamless’ link between DGECHO and other EC activities, including through co-location.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 30

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 OPERATIONAL: Global Plan/Response

123. Conclusion 1: While comprehensive needs assessments were undertaken atdistrict and local level using various sources of good quality data, there is a lack ofevidence that defining project intervention areas has taken into accountcountrywide needs assessment data. This has resulted in activities being toobroadly targeted.

124. Recommendation 1a: Partners and DG ECHO should start a process ofanalysing available country data to assess level of conflict affectedness in order todetermine priority areas where humanitarian inputs are needed in the health and WASHsectors, and addressing residual conflict issues in remote areas. Although datacoverage is not exhaustive, more analysis could be made of available data includingcommunicable disease risk assessments for flooding, and WASH accessibility andmortality data. The Epidemiology and Disease Control Division of the Ministry ofHealth and Population has available analysis of past epidemics categorised by location.

125. Recommendation 1b: Targeting approaches should also utilise expanded hazardprofiles, for example including drought and flash floods into vulnerability and riskprofiles with the aim of targeting the most vulnerable areas, which are prone to AWDoutbreaks in a countrywide context.

126. Conclusion 2: Some implementation approaches are more developmentoriented and partners are following disparate standards. There is a need torationalise and standardise approaches in remote and conflict-affected areas.Advice from DG ECHO has sometimes not fully taken into account this complexcontext.

127. Recommendation 2a: DG ECHO should work to strengthen sector approachesin remote, conflict-affected areas, which suffer from chronic vulnerability, drought andflash floods (i.e. areas where frequent AWD outbreaks occur), where elements of ahumanitarian approach are needed.

128. Recommendation 2b: DG ECHO partners should coordinate with other similarprojects, identify lessons learned and best practices, and work with government toidentify appropriate technical approaches and standards in rural health and WASHsector as a means of enhancing coverage in conflict affected areas. In the WASHsector, there is an opportunity to influence the SWAp under the disaster theme, in orderto mainstream approaches and influence standards within the cluster.

129. Recommendation 2c: DG ECHO (regional support office and Brussels) shouldensure that advice is consistent and coherent with the situation on the ground, wheredevelopment approaches may be more appropriate and sustainable than approachesbased on humanitarian approaches/ indicators (e.g. Sphere).

130. Conclusion 3: Some partners have demonstrated good approaches to


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 31

integrating DRR in DG ECHO projects (e.g. through location of WASHinfrastructure and including awareness messages in health interventions onavoiding spread of disease following a disaster)

131. Recommendation 3a: These good practices should be compiled and providedas strategic guidance to future partners as it would improve resilience and directlyaddress vulnerability. In future projects, opportunities to improve water and sanitationcoverage in communities where the greatest risk is natural hazards, through a DRRapproach would contribute to vulnerability reduction and enhance resilience ofcommunities against impact of natural hazards such as floods and drought.

132. Recommendation 3b: A DRR approach would assist to reduce vulnerability inremote areas where diarrhoeal disease outbreak is greatest cause of mortality. Somepotential options could include mapping and developing high capacity water resourcesin drought areas; provision of appropriate sanitation (i.e. raised communal units inflooding situations) and hygiene promotion with specialised messages on floodawareness.

133. Conclusion 4: The weakness of Government capacity at district level is amajor challenge for partners seeking long-term solutions and a major restrictionon project level LRRD. This is a serious threat to project sustainability when thereneeds to be long-term support to the continued functioning of systems. Lack ofLRRD has also led to a situation where DG ECHO continues to funddevelopment-oriented projects in the absence of other donor support.

134. Recommendation 4a: DG ECHO should develop a stronger, institutionalisedlink with the Delegation and influence their longer term development projects (followon projects) to enhance the effectiveness of EU implementation and ensure continuityof project outputs. DG ECHO should also recognise that there are certain maintenanceelements that will be beyond community’s capacity to manage, and which are beyondcapacity of district or local government to deal with (e.g. major repairs of waterschemes, long term support in rural O&M sector). DG ECHO and partners should workwith long-term donors such as ADB and World Bank in order to adequately plan tosupport these areas. This could involve either a hand over of records to donors and/ordistrict water supply offices for inclusion in potential longer term support projects, or toadvocate to such donors to undertake capacity building in the rural O&M sector.

135. Recommendation 4b: Needs assessments should focus on mapping existingcapacity for service provision and long-term requirements at district level. Capacityissues should therefore inform the choice of technical solutions and approaches chosen.Household level approaches (e.g. household water treatment, provision of water filters)may be appropriate and complement the favoured hardware approach where districtlevel capacity is weakest and in the most remote areas.

136. Recommendation 4c: Future partner prioritisation by DG ECHO should focuson those organisations which can show how DG ECHO support is integrated into theirlonger term development initiatives, including strengthening the capacity of districtgovernment (or sub-national government as defined under the forthcoming newConstitution). Livelihoods support in the same project areas would also assist


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 32

communities to better capture resources made available and maintain interventions.

5.2 OPERATIONAL: Disaster Risk Reduction/ DIPECHO

137. Conclusion 5: Links between DIPECHO and the national context arepositive, but there are further opportunities to strengthen high-level advocacyinformed by the community-based successes of Action Plans I-V. Momentumgained from DIPECHO partners’ input into national strategies and initiativesneed to be maintained in order to continue promotion of community based DRRin national context.

138. Recommendation 5a: DIPECHO should be scaled up and the community-basedapproach which is its strength be complemented through better linkages to, and supportfor national capacity building initiatives. This needs to be done pragmatically withinthe limits of Action Plan timescales with partners developing a vision that extendsbeyond each single Action Plan. There is strong potential for DG ECHO to lobby theEU Delegation to get involved in the Flagship Consortium on DRR. Links with theDelegation would enable intervention and advocacy for community based DRMapproaches to take place at a higher level.

139. Recommendation 5b: In future Action plans, the model of community levelDRR (based on past best practice) should continue. DIPECHO and partners shouldutilise the data released by the Department for Water Induced Disaster Prevention toaid the prioritisation of project locations.

140. Recommendation 5c: In future DIPECHO Action Plans partners should have aninstitutionalised link to national disaster coordination and DRR policies, and link withother agencies undertaking community-based DRR including UN, through the FlagshipConsortium. An overall strategy, with planned outputs and outcomes, should bedirectly linked to Nepal’s contribution to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA).

141. Recommendation 5d: The example of DIPECHO partners’ good coordinationand replication of best practices, and working together to develop and influencenational standards could be used as a good model for DIPECHO projects in othercountries.

142. Recommendation 5e: DIPECHO where possible should continue to work withsame partners, as their experience through working in several Action Plans is nowvaluable, but should not exclude the possibility of working with other partners in areasof high vulnerability.

143. Conclusion 6: Some of the village-level flood mitigation approaches havebeen implemented on an ad hoc basis and following a limited technical assessment,which has potentially reduced overall effectiveness.

144. Recommendation 6a: DIPECHO and partners should investigate the mitigationapproaches being implemented with the aim to better evaluate their effectiveness. Bio-engineering methods appear to be more effective as well as more easily sustained and


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 33

understood at VDC level, particularly in comparison to the small-scale structural workssuch as the gabion works and spurs. This should be taken into account whenconsidering project budgets and what can be achieved.

145. Recommendation 6b: In areas of high flood risk, DG ECHO partners shouldexplore mapping planned mitigation activities against known risks. This could includea catchment level feasibility study and storm water risk mapping which could input intoa riverbank management plan, identifying areas where some mitigation is needed (i.e.vegetation re-growth along banks targeting erosion). This would allow for small scalestructural interventions to be better targeted, and community based bio-engineeringapproaches and anti-erosion and deforestation policies could be promoted.

146. Recommendation 6c: Partners should focus on resilience of households andcommunities as the most effective approach, such as including assistance to make smallimprovements to household or community asset flood proofing. An example of thismight include promoting household or community sand filters or use of communitymaintenance funds to pre-position household chlorination alongside awarenessmessages.

147. Recommendation 6d: DIPECHO partners should explore whether supportingcommunity level drainage plans and works to improve village level storm watermanagement could be an effective mitigation activity. Development of plans andmobilisation of communities with simple materials to maintain drainage might be aneffective approach in certain communities, and add a “tangible impact” and effectiveempowerment at community level.

148. Conclusion 7: DIPECHO Action Plans I-IV have focused on flood risk in theTerai, and have not looked at risk of outbreak which often occur as a result ofdrought and floods in the hill region. Remote mountainous areas have differentrisk and vulnerability profiles in comparison to the Terai, implying a differentDIPECHO approach where DRR is integrated with basic services.

149. Recommendation 7a: DG ECHO should encourage the integration of basicservices and infrastructure such as water and sanitation facilities and health andhygiene awareness to complement awareness activities and allow for greatereffectiveness of DRR interventions in remote, mountainous areas.

150. Recommendation 7b: DIPECHO should not fund stand-alone initiatives butrather projects within either a larger programme or projects linked to government orother key actors of development in the country. This creates an opportunity for cross-coordination with the EU Delegation, as development objectives in these areas arestronger. In remote areas where underlying development issues such as education,WASH, health and nutrition, and livelihood are a high priority, partners should beencouraged to link their efforts more explicitly to poverty reduction.

151. Recommendation 7c: DIPECHO should continue to expand into mountain areasand consider a multi-risk profile approach. The focus on the Terai has necessitated anemphasis on flooding, however expansion of DIPECHO into other areas would lookinto expanded risk profiles, including drought, which deprives communities of safe


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 34

water access and increases likelihood of outbreaks. In mountainous regions, landslidehazard mapping through satellite imagery would determine vulnerable areas likely tobe affected by landslides.

152. Conclusion 8: For most DIPECHO partners, the focus has been onimmediate actions (i.e. early warning systems, search and rescue), which misses anopportunity to influence behaviours, which would reduce disease incidence, whichare exacerbated during flooding events.

153. Recommendation 8a: Partners should strengthen emphasis on public health toinclude health and hygiene components in community awareness and mobilisationactivities. This would include specialised messages which address risk of diarrhoealdisease and spread of vector transmitted disease for flooding situations.

154. Conclusion 9: DIPECHO projects have been designed with phase out inmind. However, certain elements of sustainability could usefully be strengthened.

155. Recommendation 9a: Partners should follow-up in communities to ensure thatcommunity disaster management committees (CDMCs) continue to function followingproject phase out and are institutionalised at district level. Partner guidance to villagesregarding low-cost approaches to community level mitigation would also assist insustainability and re-emphasise need to target maintenance funds to promote DRRwork.

156. Recommendation 9b: A more comprehensive evaluation of user andmaintenance funds in DIPECHO is needed to determine effectiveness in the long term,and whether they contribute to DRR. An evaluation particularly in this area, tied tolivelihoods and micro-credit would assist in determining what areas are most successfulfor replication.

157. Recommendation 9c: There should be a strategy on giving legal identity to theCDMCs by enabling them to be registered at respective district authority (or theirsuccessors under new Constitution). The committees and their activities will be mostsustainable where they are or will be made multipurpose in character, or graduallyconverted into community based organisations (CBOs) which are recognised by districtgovernment.

5.3 STRATEGY: Global Plan/Response

158. Conclusion 10a: The strategy for 2006-07 was appropriate and consistentwith DG ECHO global strategy, but the changing circumstances of 2008-09 werenot reflected in a revised strategy. For the first half of the review period, uncertaintyover the peace process was at its height and a multi-sector approach to meeting conflictneeds was relevant for DG ECHO since access was a challenge. However, theconsolidation of peace and increase in development activity in 2008-09 were notrecognised in any strategy revision in which the impact of the conflict was harder toseparate from underlying underdevelopment.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 35

159. Recommendation 10a: In a still uncertain environment, where chronic needs arelikely to remain for several years but humanitarian donors are scarce, DG ECHOshould remain in Nepal and develop a three-year strategic vision and phase-downstrategy. This should be responsive to the growing capacity of the state but alsoacknowledge the continuing needs, risks and vulnerability. The scale of needs justifiessimilar levels of funding as are currently in place, but there is a need to keep thebalance shifting towards DRR rather than response. DG ECHO’s future strategyshould therefore be framed in the context of continuing humanitarian need due to theslow pace of development, risks of a return to conflict, and a broad multi-hazardunderstanding of disaster risk reduction in which reducing vulnerability of remote andmarginalised communities is a good investment against future disasters. The EC as awhole needs a joined-up strategy to do this effectively.

160. Conclusion 10b: There is an important role for DG ECHO to be a donorvoice on humanitarian issues and risk; to monitor and respond to the most acuteneeds in most remote or worst affected communities; and contribute tostabilisation and conflict prevention through ‘urgent development’ in areas whereother donors and partners do not operate. This will generate field evidence todiscuss with development donors and GoN. Closer collaboration with the EUDelegation may also increase the likelihood that DG ECHO experiences are listened toand heard.

161. Recommendation 10b: Advocacy by DG ECHO should be a core component ofthis strategy. This should include advocacy regarding the need for development donors(including through the EC’s Instrument for Stability) to address the silent emergency inremote mountainous regions and in specific sectoral areas defined underrecommendation 10c.

162. Conclusion 10c: The sectoral spread reduced the potential impact and did notreflect the changing donor environment. The geographical focus was appropriate butnow risks being too widely spread given the challenges of getting to remote areas andthe limited number of partners who work in such places. DG ECHO funding during theconflict years had significant impact due to the difficulties of access in meeting themost acute needs of remote communities but its relative impact reduced in 2008-09 asdevelopment donors scaled up but DG ECHO did not change its strategy.

163. Recommendation 10c: DG ECHO should focus on sectors in remote and/or,conflict-affected areas where progress is essential but government capacity anddelivery through current approaches are unsatisfactory. The evaluators note thatcontributing to enhanced capacity and sector strengthening is not achievable for DGECHO as a short-term donor; however there are chronic humanitarian needs that existoutside of the refugee crisis. In addition to the ongoing support to DIPECHO and theBhutanese refugees, DG ECHO’s future role should complement the Delegation’sprogramme in areas such as:

Food security (at policy and advocacy level), WASH provision in highly vulnerable remote, conflict affected communities

(see recommendations 1a, 1b, 3b)


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 36

Specialised residual gaps which need to be covered to address the legacy ofconflict (e.g. Rehabilitation and surgery in conflict affected areas and advocacywith other donors to support projects addressing uterine prolapse – based on DGECHO experience with ADRA and UNFPA)

164. As an example, in the WASH sector DG ECHO could: Work with partners to define highly vulnerable and remote areas which would

benefit from a DRR approach (e.g. drought or flood prone and at risk offrequent outbreaks) and fund specific WASH projects with the aim of reducingvulnerability;

Encourage the WASH cluster to focus on chronic issues (e.g. frequent AWDoutbreaks), ensure effective approaches in remote and conflict-affected areas,advocate for DRR approaches in the sector, and input into SWAp approachesunder the disaster theme;

Engage with the EU delegation on advocacy and donor coordination in theirWASH projects;

Put principles of LRRD into practice by developing joint strategies andprogrammes between ECHO and the EU Delegation. DG ECHO should not aimto cover every humanitarian need, but do enough to develop best practice andshow replicability to other institutional donors.

165. As an example, in the food security sector (and as recommended by the ECHOFood Security advisor), ECHO could contribute its expertise to the donor/Governmentdebate on food security strategy, bringing an important humanitarian voice to a debatedominated by long term development actors.

166. Conclusion 10d: Funding levels have allowed DG ECHO to have an impacton meeting acute humanitarian needs, particularly those affected by conflict,DIPECHO and the Bhutanese refugees. However, twelve month funding cycleshave become increasingly inappropriate for projects which have become moredevelopment-oriented and which include capacity building of government servicesin addition to service delivery.

167. Recommendation 10d: DG ECHO needs to retain an in-country capacity due tothe high prevalence of disasters and continue to address the silent emergency ofNepal’s remote areas. This entails maintaining a good knowledge of partners andbuilding their response capacity. DG ECHO should develop a strategy to supportresponse capacity/preparedness, particularly given the predictability of seasonaldisasters. This should build on experience with the Nepal Red Cross and other localimplementing partners. DG ECHO should also continue to encourage partners todesign packages to attract staff to work in remote areas, and to discuss with WFP thepossibility of funding air passenger and cargo transport to facilitate access to hard-to-reach areas

5.4 STRATEGY: Disaster Risk Reduction/DIPECHO

168. Conclusion 11: DIPECHO has generated considerable experience of community-based DRR approaches and should continue to act as key implementer and advocate in


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 37

this area. However, there has been little in the way of substantial DRR activity outsidethe DIPECHO programming. In the context of a changed strategy focusing onvulnerability, this is a missed opportunity for a more integrated approach.

169. Recommendation 11a: DG ECHO should further work to mainstreamDIPECHO or DRR approaches into all its action. More emphasis on DRR in sectoralprojects in targeted highly vulnerable areas would improve the quality of emergencyresponse to AWD outbreaks, to drought and to flooding response. It would alsoenhance adaptive and coping strategies of local communities who face more frequentdisasters, while also providing basic services such as water and sanitation in areas thatoften do not receive outside support. For example, in the mountainous areas frequentlyaffected by floods, drought and AWD outbreaks, combining disaster awarenessactivities with basic service provision within a DRR approach would more effectivelycontribute to saving lives.

170. Recommendation 11b DIPECHO should refine its strategy through a review ofpartner approaches to integrating DRR in sectoral projects in Nepal’s vulnerableremote areas. This review should be used to guide future responses and in advocacywith other donors over appropriate approaches.

171. Recommendation 11c: DIPECHO should continue to monitor the need tointegrate climate change adaptation approaches into strategies and community levelprogramming, particularly in remote mountainous areas where occurrence of glaciallake outburst flood (GLOF) events is potentially increasing due to various factors,including climate change. Information from the DIPECHO funded UNDP regionalproject should continue to feed into this analysis.

5.5 ECHO PRESENCE AND ROLE: General

172. Conclusion 12: Staffing and DG ECHO’s presence were appropriate for theconflict years and future scenarios argue for keeping a presence. DG ECHO hasbeen a fast, flexible, consistent, hands-on and responsive donor relying mainly onthe TA’s presence in Nepal. The TA played a very effective role in partner selection,monitoring and support, but could have had a bigger impact through externalcoordination and policy engagement. The Delhi Regional Support Office also played animportant technical and gap-filling role. Future scenarios suggest that a DG ECHOpresence will be important to increase coordination with the Delegation, shift towards amainstreamed DRR approach incorporating chronic vulnerability, maintain programmequality, and respond to likely future scenarios of needs increasing due to conflict and/ornatural disasters (see Table 4).


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 38

Table 4: Future humanitarian scenarios and implications for ECHO presenceScenario Features of scenario Recommended DG ECHO

presenceBest case – progress onpolitics, no major crisis

Rapid increase in governmentdeliveryNo conflictRemote areas graduallyreachedContinuing natural disastersbut increasing governmentresponse capacity

Phase down to nationalProgramme Officer managingoffice phase out in 2-3 yearsShift towards DRR andmaintain response capacity

Medium case – some progress Slow progress on delivery ofgovernment servicesRecurring natural disastersSome low level conflictShift to chronic vulnerabilitylens

Maintain current profile withinternational TA, phase downafter 2-3 yearsShift towards more DRR butmaintain focused programmeof humanitarian response

Worst case – reversal ofprogress

Return to conflictMajor natural disaster

Scale up humanitarianprogramme to reach hard toaccess areas

173. Recommendation 12a: DG ECHO should retain an office in Nepal, ideallystaffed by an international TA. For the current programme size, a TA position isjustified if it includes a greater role in policy coordination and engagement with the EUDelegation and other donors. Support from the regional office should continue, forsectoral advice and direct support for emergency response as necessary. A nationalProgramme Officer would be sufficient to manage a smaller programme of DIPECHOand the Bhutanese refugees with support from the Delhi RSO. While there has beensome progress with the Bhutanese camps, including increasing resettlement to thirdcountries, a comprehensive solution is still out of reach. Although lower in cost, anational Programme Officer is a less preferable option since a scaled down ECHOpresence would not have the capacity to programme more than this, and would not besuited to advocacy within the EU Delegation or with other donors.

174. Whatever the form of DG ECHO’s future presence in Nepal, it should now be co-located and work more closely with the EU Delegation.

175. Scaling down the office now would be premature given the level of humanitarianneed, risk and vulnerability due to poverty, natural hazards and the fragility of thepeace process. The evaluation team considers the low cost but second best option ofmaintaining a presence with a national Programme Officer reasonable, considering theremaining humanitarian needs in country. Monitoring from Delhi would also be morechallenging given the remoteness of project areas and thus the time required for sitevisits. If DG ECHO does unfortunately close, it has a responsibility to phase out/downin a gradual and transparent manner so that partners can plan accordingly and LRRD isaddressed through an extensive consultation with other donors based on existinghumanitarian needs.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 39

5.6 COORDINATION: General

176. Conclusion 13: Coordination and policy engagement has been weak withother Commission services, other donors and the Government of Nepal. This hasreduced the potential for DG ECHO to have a wider influence in particular by bringingits field experience into national level discussion. Coordination with the EC (now EU)Delegation has in particular been unsatisfactory. This is in part due to capacityconstraints and process differences.

177. There has been some complementarity with national strategies through ECHOpartners but this is limited by the Government of Nepal’s reluctance to depend onNGOs to deliver services and the recent Humanitarian Transition Appeal for Nepal2010 is only for refugees, food security and disaster preparedness. DG ECHO has notprioritised engaging with Government in any sectors.

178. DIPECHO in particular could improve strategic coordination with otherinitiatives or donors (e.g. national Flagship initiative). DIPECHO also needs to bebetter linked in to the overall ECHO strategy for Nepal.

179. Recommendation 13a: DG ECHO should position itself as a coordinator andpolicy influencer. DG ECHO needs to leverage the influence of its field presence bycoordinating with other donors and influencing policy in its areas of expertise. Thisshould be achieved through engaging directly on existing humanitarian issues (seerecommendation 10b) and advocacy for strengthened DRR approaches. ECHO couldgreatly contribute to discussions within the local Inter-Agency Standing Committee(IASC) and USAID-led food security group.

180. Recommendation 13b: DG ECHO should be better linked to the EU Delegationincluding through being involved in the revision of the CSP and specific Delegationfocal points on areas of common interest including DRR. DG ECHO should beinvolved at earlier stage in strategic discussions with the Delegation and the drafting ofthe CSP. As Nepal enters a development phase, DG ECHO can support theDelegation’s ambitions to be a more influential player by combining its fieldknowledge with the Delegation’s comparative advantage in bilateral relations andmembership of the Utstein donor group. Specific sectors where DG ECHO could workmore closely with the Delegation are disaster risk reduction and food security.

181. Recommendation 13c: DG ECHO, through the representation of the Delegation,should engage more directly with Government of Nepal during this fragile transitionalperiod specifically on the issue of DRR approaches. DG ECHO could seek assistancefrom the Delegation to initiate high level advocacy in areas defined by DIPECHOpartners as being necessary to further community based DRR, as well as inclusion ofDRR in longer term projects. On DRR approaches and DIPECHO, there are nine keyMinistries interfacing with this issue, however ECHO should engage with Ministry ofHome Affairs and UNDP. ECHO and its partners should also be engaged with sectoralclusters (e.g. WASH cluster) to influence overall sector priorities.23

23By engage, the evaluation team means the way in which ECHO could seek to influence UNDP and Government approaches

through a technical dialogue on DRR without necessarily financing them. ECHO has a potentially important role as a facilitator in


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 40

5.7 SUSTAINABILITY AND LRRD: General

182. Conclusion 14a: Substitution of basic services on twelve-month timescalesusing humanitarian approaches is innately unsustainable. But there has been gooduse of local partners and social mobilisation to increase ownership and sustainability.DIPECHO sustainability has been undermined by the short project timescale, meaningcapacity building in areas that would enhance sustainability of inputs at the communitylevel is in some cases not possible.

183. Recommendation 14a: ECHO should interact with partners with the view todevelop longer-term strategies and show how ECHO’s shorter-term support contributesto this. This would overcome the limitations of DG ECHO and DIPECHO fundingtimescales operating in the transitional context of Nepal. In the WASH sector, forexample, this could be done by partners extending beyond one year to multi-year planseither through ECHO or other donors which integrate longer term issues such assupporting the rural O&M sector.

184. Conclusion 14b: Significant opportunities have been missed to link relief anddevelopment within the EC and other development donors. The current CSP is veryweak on linking relief and development and there are few, if any, examples of DGECHO working with the Delegation to hand over activities or design complementaryinterventions. The challenge is that there are few, if any, other donors to take over DGECHO projects since most donors are moving away from NGO support; but equally theprojects are not in the right condition to be handed over to the government.

185. Recommendation 14b: DG ECHO should work with the Delegation to putLRRD principles into practice, including through greater involvement in strategicdiscussions with Delegation. The clearest areas of common interest between DG ECHOand the Delegation are food security and disaster risk reduction. While the next majoropportunity will be in the development of the next Country Strategy Paper, there areopportunities to work more closely before that, for example by developing jointprojects outside the CSP (e.g. on DRR).

the sector based on its in-depth experience through DIPECHO.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 41

Annex A: Technical Appraisal of NGOs/IOs (confidential)

Annex B: Summary table of results (confidential)


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 42

Annex C: Terms of Reference for the Evaluation Team

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HUMANITARIAN AID – ECHOECHO 01 – Evaluation Sector

A N N E X ITERMS OF REFERENCE

FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE DG ECHO'S ACTION II NEPALC O N T R A C T N ° : E C H O / A D M / B U D / 2 0 0 X / 0 1 2 x x

NAME OF CONSULTANT (S):FIRM:Mandate and legal basis

1. Article 7, Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 1257/96 concerning humanitarian aid and Article 27 of the Council Regulation (EC,Euratom) 1605/2002 laying down the rules for the establishment and implementation of the general budget of the EuropeanCommunities provide for regular evaluations (please see text in Annex of the Terms of Reference).Background/Introduction

1. According to estimates the Maoist insurgency resulted in the deaths of over 13 000 people between 1996 and 2006.Provision of basic health, sanitation and educational services is poor and was at times disrupted altogether in some of the districtsconcerned. It is estimated that almost 70 000 displaced people have still not rejoined their communities of origin.

1. In November 2006 a peace agreement was signed between the government and the Maoistsbut, in spite of socio-political progress, the situation is still very volatile. Violence andhuman rights abuses are still being reported on a weekly basis. Long- suppressed conflictsare flaring up as the political situation evolves. They result in frequent traffic blockadesalong the strategic southern highway and in many, occasionally violent demonstrations.

2. Nepal is also facing another humanitarian crisis as some 108 000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in camps intwo eastern districts of Nepal since the 1990s. These refugees do not have the right to work or to own land in Nepal andtherefore rely entirely on external assistance for their survival. Since 2008 almost 20 000 refugees have been allowed to settle inother countries, most of them opting for the United States. However, many refugees would prefer, among other things, to goback to Bhutan or stay in Nepal with a work permit. In any event, without a political solution, it will take several years at thecurrent rate of progress for all the refugees to be resettled.

2. Moreover, Nepal is one of the countries in Asia most prone to natural disasters and DGECHO will continue to provide aid for the vulnerable peoples affected.

3. For 2009/2010 DG ECHO's strategy will be similar to the one it has employed since 2002, though with a slightlyreduced budget for assistance to victims of the conflict and the introduction of a budget component to cover aid for naturaldisasters.

4. Under this Global Plan, nearly 400 000 people will improve their difficult living conditions through better protection andbetter access to food, health, water and sanitation services.Main humanitarian needsProtection

5. Thousands of people were displaced during the ten years the conflict lasted. The figures vary enormously depending onthe source (50 000 – 70 000, according to the IDP1 Working Group's estimates in2007).

1 (Internally Displaced Persons - IDPs)

Another challenge will be the re-integration of ex-Maoist fighters into the post-conflict society. Asignificant number will not be able to return to their place of origin, as they might be perceived as a threator victimised. Many of those affected are children (3 000 children have been officially registered in thecantonments by UNMJN2) and their re-integration will pose additional difficulties, in particular for girls.

There have been too few initiatives so far to remove abandoned explosives and in 2007 37 incidents werereported with 13 people dead and 77 injured. The presence of abandoned and unexploded ordnances makes Nepalese civiliansmore vulnerable to explosions during the peace process as their freedom to move around increases.

Bhutanese refugees also need protection notably because there are disagreements between them about thebest way to proceed in the future: some would prefer to return to Bhutan, while others have already settled in third countries and yetothers would rather stay in Nepal. It should be noted that the non-food element of the assistance to and protection of Bhutaneserefugees is funded by a budget heading managed by another Commission department3.Health and nutrition

Theoretically, health posts are linked to district hospitals, the highest-calibre medical institutions in the district, but inreality, the system often does not work. The district hospitals also control the Village Development Committee (VDC) health centres,which act as the basic healthcare infrastructure. Furthermore, the national referral hospital is in Kathmandu and there arefive regional hospitals with a theoretical capacity of 200 beds. However, regional hospitals in the Mid-West of the country are notfulfilling their function and are acting as district hospitals only. Moreover, most are poorly maintained and understaffed.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 43

Similar weaknesses are found in health centres, posts and sub-posts: lack of qualified and/or trained personnel,lack of medicine, dilapidated buildings. Pharmaceutical supplies are often exhausted during the first few months of the year, afterwhich only diagnostic activities can take place. Non-respect of vaccination protocols, especially those relating to the cold chain,limits the positive effects of immunisation campaigns. Access to care for those living in remote Maoist-controlled areas is still limitedboth by political (Maoist) interference and by lack of transport infrastructure.

Other serious problems facing the healthcare system include the disproportionate concentration of medicalfacilities and personnel in urban areas and a strong aversion among doctors in particular to postings to rural areas, where livingconditions are not up to urban standards. There are about 5 000 medical doctors in Nepal, most of whom work inKathmandu.

9.The scant medical data available reveal worrying trends, especially regarding children.The WHO's 2007 Nepal Country Profile contains some alarming figures.

Malnutrition remains a very serious concern, in particular in the hills, where over 30% of the estimated population live andwhere the transport infrastructure is virtually non-existent. To cope with food insecurity, men from the hill areas traditionallymigrate on a seasonal basis to find employment in the lowlands of India.Water and sanitation

10.2 United Nations Mission in Nepal3 DG AIDCO

17. Assessments by international partners show that access to drinking water and sanitation for local communities is a toppriority. Most community drinking water systems constructed during the 1980s and 1990s are no longer inoperation. During the conflict the authorities were unable to service the local communities owing to budgetrestrictions and security constraints. Some water supply schemes were destroyed as part of military operations.Consequently, people have difficulty in gaining access to drinking water and have no option other than to use rivers orirrigation channels. These are often polluted given the very poor awareness of hygiene and virtually no access tolatrines, with the result that large numbers suffer from diarrhoea and other water-borne diseases, which in turnexacerbate their malnutrition status. Drinking-water supply constraints are such that fetching water daily can takehours, allowing less time for other domestic tasks (including child care) and agricultural work.

Bhutanese refugees17. Nepal is also facing another humanitarian crisis as some 108 000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in camps intwo eastern districts of Nepal since the 1990s. These refugees do not have the right to work or to own land in Nepal and thereforerely entirely on external assistance for their survival. In 2008 around 7 000 refugees were allowed to settle in other countries,most of them opting for the United States. In 2009 16 000 refugees should be resettled in other countries. However, manyrefugees would prefer, among other things, to go back to Bhutan or stay in Nepal with a work permit. In any event, without apolitical solution, it will take several years at the current rate of progress for all the refugees to be resettled.Natural disasters18. Nepal is very prone to all kinds of natural disasters: earthquakes, floods, landslides and even bursting of natural damsformed by glacial lakes. Some major catastrophes are relatively well known, such as the bursting of the Koshi river dam on 18August 2008 that brought serious flooding to Nepal and India. However there are many other smaller disasters less well known thatnonetheless worsen an already difficult humanitarian situation. Nepal is indeed considered one of the most at-risk countries inthe world in terms of natural hazards. An average of two lives is lost due to disasters every day. Nepal is ranked the 11th mostat-risk country in vulnerability to earthquakes, and 30th with respect to floods. The impact of long-term global trends, suchas climate change, will exacerbate recurrent floods, landslides, drought, melting glaciers and other natural disasters.Food assistance19. Except for Bhutanese refugees, DG ECHO does not finance food assistance projects in Nepal. However, there is aserious food security situation in the Far and Mid West hilly districts of Nepal. The lack of food is caused by the most severedrought the region has faced for 40 years. It has been exacerbated by the global food crisis, the financial crisis and the unstablepolitical situation in Nepal where blockades and lack of fuel have further deteriorated access. So far, DG ECHO has not financedthese needs that affect more than 2,000,000 people (according to WFP) as this was already addressed by the Food Facility dedicatedto Nepal. However as the Food Facility targets only 7 districts, 5 of which are in the Terai region, DG ECHO might consider anintervention in the future.Disaster Preparedness

Nepal is a country prone to natural disasters: drought, floods, landslides, earthquake and GLOFS (Glacier LakeOutburst Floods). Moreover the risk is also aggravated by the climate change that significantly affects Nepal. On a positive note, theNepali authorities are aware of the need to better prepare their country to natural hazards and are very receptive to DRR4

projects.DG ECHO Strategy21. This strategy is integrated into 2009 Global Plan that last for 18 months, ending in September 2010, and in theFifth DIPECHO Action Plan.22. DG ECHO focuses on the remote rural areas, which are often mountainous and difficult to access, often sufferingmore from a lack of assistance.23. It is hoped that, as the peace process progresses, DG ECHO will be able to plan a gradual withdrawal from thecountry, in coordination with DG RELEX and DG AIDCO.

As for the Bhutanese refugees, DG ECHO's gradual withdrawal will take place only once a comprehensivesolution has been adopted and the camps dismantled. DG ECHO has been working with DG RELEX and DG AIDCO to find such a

solution by harnessing the current democratic process in Nepal and Bhutan and bytaking up third countries' offers to host a significant number of refugees.24. DG ECHO's principal objective is to provide assistance and protection to the most vulnerable populationsaffected by the conflict and natural disasters in Nepal.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 44

27. The specific objectives are:(1) to provide food aid for the Bhutanese refugees (€ 1,500,000);

(2) to provide assistance and protection to the most vulnerable populations affected by the consequences ofthe conflict in Nepal (€ 3,600,000);(3) to provide ass istance for immediate preparat ion and response to disasters (€ 450,000);

(1) to prepare populations to natural disasters (DIPECHO - € 2,588,463).28. Immediate disaster preparedness activities such as evacuation strategies of the population in case of floodingmay also be implemented.29. In view of the instability of the situation in Nepal and the marked vulnerability of the country to natural disasters, a reserve (€450,000) has been created for specific objectives (2) and (3).

Justification and timing of the evaluation4 Disaster Risk Reduction

30. Three years after the end of the conflict, DG ECHO is progressively phasing out its relief assistance from Nepal andwould like to assess the appropriateness of this decision and, if this is the case, the best strategy for this.

31. On the other hand, DG ECHO is likely to increase its Disaster Preparedness assistance to most vulnerable populations.Purpose, objective and scope

Purpose and objectives30. Lesson learning and accountability in view of improving performance are the main purposes of the evaluation. The

specific purpose of the evaluation is to assess the appropriateness of DG ECHO's actions, in accordance with DGECHO's mandate, in order to establish whether they have achieved their objectives and to producerecommendations for improving the effectiveness of future operations in Nepal.

31. The scope of the evaluation will cover the implementation of DG ECHO funded actions between 2006 and 2009.Furthermore it will focus on the following components of the overall action: health, water and sanitation sectors,DIPECHO and LRRD.

32. The key users of the evaluation report include inter alia DG ECHO staff at HQ, regional and field level, the implementingpartners, other stakeholders with an interest in the evaluation findings and other humanitarian donors and agencies.

33. The main objective of this evaluation is to have an independent structured evaluation of the results of the action inNepal in line with DG ECHO legal basis 1257/96. In accordance with OECD/DAC evaluation criteria, wheneverfeasible/applicable to the specific humanitarian situation, the evaluation will analyze therelevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of this action. Theevaluation should also refer to the Maastricht criteria (3Cs - complementarity, coordination and coherence), cross-cuttingissues and the objective of LRRD (Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development). Specifically relevant criteria for thisevaluation should be identified at the briefing phase in Brussels.

34. The evaluation should contain conclusions and recommendations at both strategic and operational levels.Evaluation questions

35. The evaluation will be based on a set of key questions. These questions are intended to give a more precise andaccessible form to the evaluation criteria and to articulate the key issues, thus optimising the focus and utility of theevaluation.30. The evaluation questions will be further discussed and validated at the briefing phase (other questions may be addedat that stage).

The evaluation will address, among others, the following questions:

To what extent has DG ECHO assistance, both overall and by sector and for each phase of the crisis, beenappropriate?

To what extent has DG ECHO aid in the health, water and sanitation sectors and DIPECHO contributed towardsgenerating better living conditions and reduced vulnerability?

Is DG ECHO the best donor for financing Disaster Preparedness projects with an institutional capacity buildingcomponent?

To what extent is DIPECHO an appropriate funding instrument for working with UN agencies?

Are there solutions to improve the access to remote populations in the hilly districts?

Is it justified to keep a DG ECHO office in Kathmandu after 2010?

To what extent is DG ECHO assistance coordinated and complementary with that of other donors?

To what extent is it possible to improve the LRRD in the context of a phase out strategy?Tasks to be accomplished40. The consultants shall accomplish the following tasks as a basis for their report:

carry out interviews of national representatives, officials (including EC Delegation), DG ECHO partners,representatives of Member States based in Nepal, other donors, UN and beneficiaries;

carry out an analysis of related evaluation reports, DG ECHO, DG AIDCO, EC Delegation and of other donors fundedprojects documents;

assess the current coordination mechanisms between DG ECHO, other services of the Commission (at field andheadquarters level) and other humanitarian and development actors;

to highlight obstacles and problems encountered by stakeholders during implementation;

to identify which, if any, other sectors of intervention could have been addressed by DG ECHO;

to evaluate the complementarity and synergy of DG ECHO's strategy with national strategies.Methodology outputs and schedule


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 45

Briefing in Brussels and documentation study41. The briefing will take place at DG ECHO headquarters with the relevant DG ECHO staff during which further documentsavailable for the mission and necessary clarifications will be provided by the requesting service and other services of theCommission. The consultants will carry out a documentation study to examine and analyse available documents to allowcareful planning of the activities/visits to be undertaken in the field (the documentation study is considered to be an on-going effort throughout the evaluation and should start before the briefing, i.e. upon signature of the contract).41. The briefing will deal with the finalisation of the itinerary and schedule, the planning of the reports and the consolidation

of the Twits of Reference (that shall be considered indicative throughout the evaluation, i.e. whenever necessary theconsulting firm shall endeavour to accommodate DG ECHO's requests that may arise during the evaluation such as traveladjustments, etc.)42. At the end (on the last day) of the briefing phase an inception note of maximum 2 pages based on the briefing,reviews and interviews conducted will be produced. This inception note should demonstrate the consultants' clearunderstanding of the Teens of Reference and of the deliverables required and contain detailed proposals in teens of workprocesses, as well as a clear description of the scope and methodology of the evaluation. The inception note must be submittedby the consultants to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector and shall be formally approved by the Evaluation Sector.

Field phase42. Following the formal approval of the inception note, the consultants shall undertake field visits to evaluate relevant

projects and to discuss with relevant stakeholders. The list of projects to be visited will be established jointly by DG ECHOEvaluation Sector, the responsible desk and the consultants. The consultants must work in co-operation with the relevantEU Delegation, DG ECHO experts, DG ECHO partners, local authorities, international organisations and other donors.43. If, during the course of the field phase, any significant change from the agreed methodology or scheduled work plan is

considered necessary, this should be explained to and agreed with DG ECHO Evaluation Sector, in consultation with theresponsible desk.44. The NGOs/IOs evaluated during the field phase should have received the results of the technical appreciation (see

Annexes 4 and 5 of the call for tender) before the evaluators leave the field. The consultants are required to share their findingswith the NGOs/IOs evaluated to allow them to comment upon these findings. The evaluators may adapt the follnat of thetechnical appreciation in consultation with the operational desk and technical assistant concerned. The purpose of thedocument is to promote dialogue, mutual learning and ownership and to build capacity of DG ECHO's partners.47. At the end of each field trip the team leader should ensure that a summary record (`aide memoire) ofmaximum 5 pages is drawn up and transmitted to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector. It should cover the main findings,conclusions and preliminary recommendations of the mission.

48. A final workshop in the field, with the participation of the EU Delegation, DG ECHO representatives and partners, shallbe organised before leaving.

Report drafting phase and debriefing in Brussels49. The first draft report (maximum 30 pages) in accordance with the format given in point 5 of the annex of the Terms ofReference shall be submitted by electronic transmission to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector not later than 15 calendar days afterthe consultants' return from the field.50. A debriefing will be organised in Brussels after the submission of the first draft report. The consultants shall make aPowerPoint presentation to DG ECHO management and key staff of main findings, conclusions and recommendations of theevaluation. The starting date for this debriefing will be decided by DG ECHO Evaluation Sector in agreement with the consultingfinn and the relevant desk(s).51. Prior to the meeting, DG ECHO Evaluation Sector will have provided consolidated written comments on the first draftreport to the consultants within 10 calendar days from the receipt of the draft report.52. On the basis of the results of the debriefing and taking into due account the comments received before and during themeeting, a draft final report (maximum 30 pages) will be submitted to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector not later than 10 calendar daysafter the debriefing. DG ECHO Evaluation Sector should mark its agreement within 10 calendar days or request furtheramendments.

Final report53. On the basis of the comments made by the DG ECHO, the consultants shall make appropriate amendments andsubmit the final report (maximum 30 pages) within 10 calendar days. If consultants reject any of the comments they shallexplain and substantiate the reasons why they do so in writing.54. The evaluation will result in the drawing up of a single report with annexes. The report shall strictly reflect thestructure outlined in the Annex of the ToR under point 5.55. While correcting the report and its annexes, the consultants will always highlight changes (using track changes)and modifications introduced as resulting from the debriefing and the comments received from DG ECHO Evaluation Sector.

Dissemination and follow-up56. The evaluation report is an extremely important working tool for DG ECHO. The evaluation report is the primary output ofthe consultants and once finalised the executive summary and/or the entire final report will be placed in the public domain onthe Internet. The report is to promote accountability and learning. Its use is intended for DG ECHO's operational and policypersonnel, Humanitarian beneficiaries, EU Member States and citizens, other donors and humanitarian actors. Wheneverapplicable, the executive summary and/or the final report shall be translated into relevant languages for dissemination purposes.Following the approval of the final report, DG ECHO Evaluation Sector will proceed to the dissemination of the results(conclusions and recommendations) of the evaluation. Therefore, whenever applicable the consultants shall provide adissemination plan.Management and supervision of the evaluation

57. DG ECHO Evaluation Sector bears the responsibility for the management and the monitoring of the evaluation, inconsultation with the responsible desk. DG ECHO Evaluation Sector, and in particular the internal manager assigned to theevaluation, should therefore always be kept informed and consulted by the consultants and copied on all correspondence with


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 46

other DG ECHO staff.57. The DG ECHO Evaluation manager is the contact person for the consulting team and shall assist the team during theirmission in tasks such as providing documents and facilitating contacts. The travel and accommodation arrangements, theorganisation of meetings and facilitating the obtainment of visas remain the sole responsibility of the consulting company.Evaluation team58. This evaluation will be carried out by a team of 2 experts (this is an indicative number) with experience both in thehumanitarian field and in the evaluation of humanitarian aid. These experts must agree to work in high-risk areas. Solidexperience in relevant fields of work to the evaluation and in the geographic areas where the evaluation takes place is alsorequired. It is therefore recommended that the team should include national consultants whenever possible.

58. Proficiency in English is obligatory. Knowledge of local language(s) would be an advantage.The consultants' profiles should include knowledge and experience in:1.Health2. Wat/san3.Disaster Preparedness4.Humanitarian and Development issues

59. Guidelines for the evaluation team are provided in point 4 of the annex of the Terms of Reference.Timetable

60. The tasks under this evaluation will be undertaken in a period of working days that will be proposed by the consultingfirm, ending no later than end of February with the acceptance of the final report.

The evaluation starts at the actual signature of the contract and by no means any contact and/or expense may occur before it.The largest part of relevant documents will be provided after the signature of the contract and before the briefing phase.65. The following is an indicative schedule:

Dates Evaluation Phases and Stages Meetings Notes and Reports

Mid-October Call for TenderNovember Starting Stage (signature of contract)

November/December

Start Documentation Phase Briefingphase

Briefing Inception note

December Field Phase Workshop 'Aide m6moire'

End January Report writing phase Debriefing Draft report

February Draft final report FinalReport

End February Dissemination

ANNEXGuidelines for the consultants

1. Regulatory basisThe Regulatory basis for the evaluation of the aid provided by DG ECHO is established in Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 1257/96

concerning humanitarian aid, which states "the Commission shall regularly assess humanitarian aid operations financed by theCommunity in order to establish whether they have achieved their objectives and to produce guidelines for improving theeffectiveness of subsequent operations".Furthermore, Article 7 states:"When determining a non-governmental organisation's suitability for Community funding, account shall be taken of the

following factors:a) its administrative and financial management capacities;b) its technical and logistical capacity in relation to the planned operation;c) its experience in the field of humanitarian aid;d) the results of previous operations carried out by the organisation concerned, and in particular those financed by theCommunity;e) its readiness to take part, if need be, in the coordination system set up for a

humanitarian operation,j) its ability and readiness to work with humanitarian agencies and the basic communities

in the third countries concerned;

its impartiality in the implementation of humanitarian aid;

where appropriate, its previous experience in the third country involved in the humanitarian operationconcerned."Article 27 of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 laying down the rules for the establishment and implementation ofthe general budget of the European Communities states that : "In order to improve decision-making, institutions shall undertakeboth ex ante and ex post evaluations in line with guidance provided by the Commission. Such evaluations shall be applied to allprogrammes and activities which entail significant spending and evaluation results disseminated to spending, legislative andbudgetary authorities".

Terms of ReferenceThe Terms of Reference set out the scope of the evaluator's mission, the issues to be considered and the evaluationtimetable. They allow those commissioning the evaluation and/or the review to express their needs (guidance function) whileproviding the consultant(s) with a clear idea of what is expected from them (control function).2. Scope of the evaluation and topics of studyIn addition to the initial information contained in the ToR, the first briefing session in Brussels provides everyone involvedin the evaluation (DG ECHO requesting service and particularly the responsible desk, DG ECHO Evaluation Sector, the consultants


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 47

and other Commission services) with the opportunity to discuss the contents of the ToR and to establish priorities for the evaluation.This meeting should also allow the consultants to clarify any doubts they might have about the scope of their mission. Anyimportant remark or comment on the content of the ToR at this stage will be considered an integral part of these and will beset out by the team leader in the inception note that must be submitted to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector at the end of thebriefing session, and before the team's departure to other locations in Europe and elsewhere.During the process of the evaluation the consultants must try to follow all the items listed in the Terms of Reference. Theirtreatment, the importance given to them and their coverage in the final reports will depend, however, on the consultants' ownopinion as a result of the information found, both, during the documentation phase and in the field. Any decision not to cover oneor more of the main task assignments described in the ToR will have to be justified in the text of the reports, if inappropriatelyjustified DG ECHO may choose to not accept the final report.4. The evaluation teamEach team member is jointly responsible for the final accomplishment of the tasks; however, the separate elements of worknecessary for the accomplishment of the tasks may be allocated between the consultants. The members of the team must work inclose co-ordination.A team leader shall be named who shall have the added responsibility of the overall coordination of the tasks to becompleted, of the elaboration of Executive Summary and of the final coherence of the report and other works both in terms ofcontent and presentation.If possible/advisable, at least one of the team members shall be a woman.The consultants are required to carry out their work in accordance with international standards of good practice in approachand method. All conclusions must be substantiated with adequate data.In the conduct of their work the consultants should use a multi-method approach and triangulate between differentsources of information. These information sources should include i.e. non-beneficiaries, primary stakeholders (specificallyhumanitarian beneficiaries, members of the host communities), local government (or equivalent such as group/tribal leaders),international agency staff, partners (both expatriate and local employees of partners), DG ECHO experts, EU Delegation and mainactors - other donors and humanitarian agencies, etc.In order to substantiate evaluation findings the numbers, sex, ethnicity etc of primary stakeholders should be noted, as well asways in which confidentiality and dignity have been assured in the interview process. In this consultation, the evaluation team isencouraged to use participatory techniques.In carrying out their work, the consultants should be vigilant as to any non-respect of international humanitarian law andprinciples, standards and conventions, UN protocols, Red Cross codes, and declarations, such as the Madrid declaration. Theconsultants should report any non-respect of such matters by DG ECHO-financed entities to DG ECHO in a duly substantiatedform.During the contract, consultants shall refrain from any conduct that would adversely reflect on the European Commission orDG ECHO and shall not engage in any activity that is incompatible with the discharge of their duties. Consultantsare required to exercise the utmost discretion in all matters during their mission.The consultants' individual profiles should have a mixture of institutional and NGO experience. In the event that onemember of the team proposed has an exclusive background with NGOs then this should be counter-balanced with the profiles ofthe other team members.5. The reportBy commissioning an independent evaluation and/or review DG ECHO expects to obtain an objective, critical, readable andtransparent analysis of its policy. This analysis should contain policy recommendations on future courses of action. Above all, thereport should be a document that can function as a learning tool. Therefore, while writing it, the consultants shouldalways bear in mind why the report is done, for whom, and how the results will be used.Furthermore, the report is a working tool of value to DG ECHO only as long as it is feasible and pragmatic (keeping in mind DGECHO's mandate constraints) and it clearly reflects the consultant's independent view. DG ECHO's concern is to respect thisindependence.The evaluation methods should be clearly outlined in the report and their appropriateness, focus and users should be explained pointingout strengths and weaknesses of the methods. The report should briefly outline the nature (e.g. external or mixed) and make up of theteam (e.g. sectoral expertise, local knowledge, gender balance) and its appropriateness for the evaluation. It should also briefly outlinethe evaluators' biases and/or constraints that might have affected the evaluation and how these have been counteracted (pastexperiences, background, etc.).The report shall be written in a straightforward manner in English with an Executive Summary at the beginning of thedocument. Final editing shall be provided by the consulting flint. The report should be in the font Time Roman 12, have single linespacing and be fully justified. Paragraphs must be sequentially numbered.The final report should contain:

An Executive Summary of maximum 5 pages.

The main report.

Technical annexes, including individual appraisals of NGOs/IOs & a summary table of results (confidential).

O t h e r a n n e x e s a s n e c e s s a r y . This report format should be strictly adhered to:Cover page (a template is provided at the end of this annex)

– title of the evaluation report;

– date of the evaluation;

– name of the consultant(s) and the company;

– cost of the report in € and as a percentage of the budget evaluated;

– the contract number


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 48

– indication that "the report has been financed by and produced at the request of the EuropeanCommission. The comments contained herein reflect the opinions of the consultant only",

Table of contentsExecutive Summary

A tightly-drafted, to-the-point and free-standing Executive Summary is an essential element. It should be short, nomore than 5 pages. It should focus on the key purpose or issues of the evaluation, outline the main points of theanalysis, and contain a matrix made of three columns clearly indicating the main conclusions, lessons learned andspecific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in themain text. EU Member States receive each Executive Summary, which is also published on DG ECHO website. Theconsultant should take this into account when drafting this part of the report.

Main body of the reportThe report should have separate sections for the evaluation work in each of the regions visited. The main body of thereport shall elaborate the points listed in the Executive Summary. It would include references to the methodology used for theevaluation and the context of the Global/Intervention Plan. In particular, it should clearly demonstrate how eachrecommendation relates to the fmdings and conclusions. Conclusions should be fully substantiated. For the evaluationof global/intervention plans these conclusions should refer to the main evaluation criteria and cross-cutting issuesidentified by the consultants. Recommendations should be prioritised, directed at specific users and where appropriateinclude an indicative timeframe. Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is,they should take into careful account the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of theGlobal/Intervention Plan, and of the resources available to implement it both locally and at the Commission level.

Annexes of the report:

– Annex A: Technical appraisals of NGOs/IOs (confidential);

– Annex B: Summary table of results (confidential);

– Annex C: Terms of Reference;

– Annex D: List of persons interviewed and sites visited;

– Annex E: Map of the areas covered by the operations financed under the action;

– Annex F: Abbreviations and Acronyms.All confidential information shall be presented in a separate annex. The consultants are to be particularly aware that any risk of libelis to be avoided. Where necessary the name of any partner that is criticised should be replaced with an anonymous title.Each report shall be drawn up in five paper copies and transmitted to DG ECHO - To the attention of DG ECHO01/Evaluation sector, AN88 03/01, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. An electronic copy of the report (CD-ROM, Word 7.0 format or amore recent version) including all its annexes must be submitted to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector, together with the hard copies.The final report should be sent by email to DG ECHO Evaluation Sector in three separate documents in PDF format eachcontaining: the executive summary, the report without its annexes and the report with its annexes.


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 49

Annex D: List of Persons Interviewed and Sites Visited

BrusselsMaria Palacios Valdecantos Evaluation SectorSandro Cerrato Policy Coordinator, Operation support policies, Disaster

PreparednessBernard Boigelot Desk Officer for Nepal and Bhutan (ECHO A.4)Rensje Teerink Deputy Head of Unit – India, Nepal and Bhutan

KathamdnduLuc Verna Technical Assistant, Head of Office for Nepal, ECHOMarco Lenzi Health and Nutrition Sector Expert, Regional Support Office , ECHORichard F. Ragan WFP RepresentativeSiemon Hollema Food Security Monitoring and Analysis UnitDr. Alexander SPACHIS Ambassador, Head of Delegation, EU to NepalGiap DANG Cooperation Coordinator, EU to NepalEnora MARENNE Programme Manager Cooperation Section, EU to NepalMarion MICHAUD Programme Manager, EU Food FacilityPiush KAYASTHA Technical Assistant to EC DelegationWendy Cue Head of OCHAGeorge Murray Disaster Readiness and Response Adviser, OCHARam Prasad Luitel Emergency Preparedness Advisor, OCHATim Holt Risk Management OfficeFlorent Milesi Country Director, Handicap InternationalPhillip Miller Country Representative, Concern WorldwideManju Karmacharya UNFPASathya Doraiswamy UNFPAJosh DeWald Country Director, Representative, Mercy CorpsNetra Bhatta Team Leader, ADRAUpendra M Shrestha Fundraiser and Communication Manager, PRACTICAL ACTIONRajendra Shakya UNICEFAlessandra Radaelli Mission EastLaxmi Sharma Project Officer, Asian Development BankWilliam M. Patterson, Ph.D. Director, General Development Office, USAIDSantosh Gyawali Computer Management Specialist, USAIDWayne Gum Country Director, OxfamSten Van Leuffel DiPECHO Project Manager, OxfamBishnu Kharel Humanitarian Program Coordinator, OxfamSimon Lucas Climate Change & Inclusive Growth Adviser DFID NepalPhilip Smith Senior Programme Manager, DFID NepalRobert Piper UN Resident Representative and Humanitarian CoordinatorShyam Sundar Gnavaly Senior Theme Leader, Human Security Emergency and Disaster

Action Aid NepalUlla Dons Project Manager, Mercy CorpsChristophe Belperron Project Manager, Mission EastDevnarayan Bej Practical ActionGehendra Gurung Practical ActionP.V. Khrisnan Project Manager, Action AidSantosh Sharma CARE NepalGhulam Modyuddin Sherani Disaster Management Programme Manager, UNDPDeepak K.C. Project Support Officer, Regional Climate Risk Reduction Project in

Himalaya, UNDPMs Hyo-Jung Kim WHO Nepal OfficePatrick Vial Head of Delegation, ICRC NepalMaxime Piasecki Country Representative, Merlin


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 50

Field Visit – Sunsari and Saptari District (Eastern Nepal)11 CDMC Members CDMC Musaari, Inaruwa, SunsariManmaya Niraula Social Mobiliser, Inaruwa, SunsariSuliya Chaudhari Kansamadan CDMC Member Inaruwa, SunsariRita Chaudhari Kansamadan CDMC Member Inaruwa, SunsariYas Prasad Subba Under Privileged Children Association (UPCA), SunsariShivahari Khatiwada UPCA, SunsariBheshraj Pokhrel Activist, UPCA, SunsariBalkumari B.K. UPCA, SunsariRamesh Mandal UPCA, SunsariSivahari Khatiwada UPCA, SunsariRahish Miya President, Narsingh-4 CDMC, SunsariIslam Miya Treasurer Narsingh-4 CDMC, Sunsari,12 CDMC members CDMC Narsingh, Sunsari21 CDMC members CDMC Babiya-8, SunsariAnup G Phaiju Practical ActionRam Prasad Thapaliya Chief District Officer, SunsariPrem Prasad Bhattarai Local Development Officer, SunsariRam Prasad Ghimire Chief District Officer, SaptariHom Bahadur Khadka Assistant Chief District Officer, SaptariDinesh Singh OxfamE.L.P. Yadav Water Supply and Sanitation District Office, SaptariRamawatar Mandal District Public Health Officer, SaptariDevnath Yadav Civil Society Member, SaptariShyam Kishor Singh District Urban Development and Building Construction DivisionOffice, SaptariPhanindra Kumar Shah Rural Reconstruction NepalChiranjiwi Shah UNFPA, SaptariGovinda Kumar Chhetri UNICEF, SaptariDeepak Kumar Jha Sabal Nepal, SaptariDeo Narayan Yadav Koshi Victim Society, SaptariDr. Kashi Nath Shah District Livestock Officer, SaptariAnil Kumar Yadav KVS SaptariJyotish Kumar Yadav Project Coordinator, KVS SaptariArbind Kherwar KVS SaptariUsha Shainchury KVS SaptariKrishna Yadav KVS SaptariTej Narayan Yadav KVS Public Health Staff SaptariNitu Yadav KVS Public Health Staff SaptariLekhnath Kharel Project Coordinator, KVS Saptari

Field Visit – Western NepalKanchanpur DistrictRaju Palanchoke Deputy Project Coordinator, Handicap InternationalAshok Bikram Jairu Executive Director, NNSWA KanchanpurDinesh Chataut Physiotherapist, NNSWA KanchanpurShailesh Kumar Srivastava Prosthetist and Orthotist, NNSWA KanchanpurKailali DistrictGokarna Sharma Local Development Officer, KailaliMrs Haripriya Bam Women Development Officer, KailaliDilipkumar Sharma Superintendent of Police, APFMadan Tamang Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nepal PoliceBishnuprakash Paudel Secretary NGO Federation, KailaliShanta Upadhyay CAREUttam Joshi Vice President, NRCS Kailali District ChapterSitaram Joshi Secretary, NRCS Kailali District ChapterKeshav Bhatta Program Coordinator, Kailali Disaster Risk Reduction ProgramRajesh Shreevastav Program Manager, DiPECHO - V CARE


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 51

Bal Bahadur Siladhar President, Conscious Society for Social Development (CSSD)Shreelal Pokhrel District Program Officer, CSSDKrim Chaudhary Field Officer, CSSDDurga Budha CSSDBhim B.K. CSSDKhadga Singh Ayer First Aid Trainer, NRCSIndradevi Chaudhari President DRRC Bhagatpur32 Community People DRRC KailaliSurkhet DistrictPankaj Singh Project Manager, ECHO WATSAN OxfamChandralal Acharya President, Environment Development Society (EDS) SurkhetJagat KC Programme Coordinator, EDS SurkhetBhupendra Jaisi Sub Engineer, EDS SurkhetKalpana Dhamala Social Mobiliser EDS SurkhetYagya Prasad Bhattarai Local Development Officer Surkhet29 community people Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation User Group, Mehelkuna,31 community people Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation User Group, BharyangHumla DistrictVera Technical Coordinator, Handicap InternationalNabin Lamichhane Deputy Project Coordinator, DRR, Mission EastHari Prasad Laudari Programme Officer, KIRDARC HumlaUmesh Adhikari DRR Officer, KIRDARC HumlaBudha Bhandari Social Mobiliser, KIRDARC HumlaAja Bahadur Shahi Social Mobiliser, KIRDARC, HumlaRuplal Ratuch Social Mobiliser, KIRDARC, Humla53 community people CBDM Committee, Fadera, Shreenagar, Humla27 community people Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation User Group, Tallo Kalke47 community people CBDM Committee, Lauthi village, Kalika Humla


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 52

Annex E: Map: projects financed by DG ECHO/ visited during the evaluation

Mission East [DIPECHO]

ActionAid [DIPECHO]

Handicap Int. [GP]

Oxfam [DIPECHO]

OXFAM [GP]

Oxfam [EMERGENCY]

Mercy Corps [DIPECHO]

CARE [DIPECHO]


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 53

Annex F: List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAN: Action Aid NepalADB: Asian Development BankAP: Action PlanAPF: Armed police ForceAWD: Acute Watery DiarrhoeaCAP: Consolidated Appeals ProcessCBO: Community Based OrganisationCFP: Call for ProposalsCLBS: Community Led Basic SanitationCDMC: Community Disaster Management CommitteeCDRC: Central Disaster Relief CommitteeCLTS: Community Led Total SanitationCPA: Comprehensive Peace AgreementCDO: Chief District OfficerCSSD: Conscious Society for Social DevelopmentDDC: District Development CommitteeDDRC: District Disaster Relief CommitteeDFID: Department For International Development (UK Government)DG: Director GeneralDG AIDCO: Directorate-General EuropeAid Co-operation OfficeDG Relex: Directorate-General for the External RelationsDIPECHO: ECHO Disaster Preparedness ProgramDM: Disaster ManagementDRR: Disaster Risk ReductionDRRC: Disaster Risk Reduction CommitteeECHO: European Commission Humanitarian OfficeEDF: European Development FundEDS: Environment Development SocietyEU: European UnionEWS: Early Warning SystemGoN: Government of NepalHFA: Hyogo Framework for ActionHI: Handicap InternationalIASC: Inter Agency Standing CommitteeIEC: Information, Education, CommunicationINGO: International Non-Government OrganisationISDR: International Strategy on Disaster ReductionKDRRP: Kailali Disaster Risk Reduction ProgramKIRDARC: Karnali Integrated Rural Development And Research CentreKVS: Koshi Victims' SocietyLDO: Local Development OfficerLDMG: Local Disaster Management GroupLNGO: Local Non-Governmental OrganisationLRRD: Linking Relief Rehabilitation and DevelopmentNGO: Non-Governmental Organisation


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 54

NNSWA: Nepal National Social Welfare AssociationNRCS: Nepal Red Cross SocietyNSDRM: National Strategy on Disaster Risk ReductionOCHA: Office for Coordination and Humanitarian AffairsOFDA: Office of Foreign Disaster AssistancePVCA: Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity AssessmentPLWD: People Living With DisabilityRCRC: Red Cross Red CrescentRSO: Regional Support OfficeSWAP: Sector Wide ApproachTA: Technical AssistantUNDP: United Nations Development ProgrammeUNICEF: United Nations Children FundUPCA: Under Privileged Children's SocietyVCA: Vulnerability and Capacity AssessmentVDMC: Village Disaster Management CommitteeVDC: Village Development CommitteeWASH: Water Sanitation and HygieneWFP: World Food ProgrammeWHO: World Health Organization


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 55

Annex G: Summary of good practice observed during field visits

Description Stakeholders Success FactorsDisasterRiskReduction

Local drama and radio used todisseminate disaster awarenessmessages; grain storage bagsdistributed with messages.

ActionAid Multiple methods ofinformation dissemination toreach wider community

Integrating public healthpromotion in flood awarenessactivities

Oxfam Information on diarrhoeal risksdue to flooding is targeted atwomen. Influencing positivebehaviour outside of DRR incommunities with poorsanitation

Use of facilitated classes“Strengthening Women’sLeadership in DisadvantagedCommunities” (SWOLID) topromote flood awareness, hygienepromotion and literacy

Oxfam Women’s literacytraining/empowerment effectivein raising awareness andsupporting the development ofstrengthened disasterpreparedness plans, as well aspromoting women’s positiveinvolvement in communities;household level messages onpublic health effective onsafeguarding health

Vulnerability mapping withlocally appropriate risk indicatorsto prioritise communities toimplement community based riskreduction measures

Mission East Potentially effective as a tool indispersed areas to determinerisk profiles

Implementing disastermanagement committees inschools

Mercy Corps Widens reach of disasterawareness messages throughchild to adult learning;enhances sustainability throughawareness of school-children

Extensive awareness of anti-deforestation and other practicesthat cause soil erosion alongriverbanks at all levels (localgovernment, community, schools)

Mercy Corps Community understands someof the cases of flooding andenhances demand for bio-engineering mitigationactivities

Early warning systemimplemented includingcommunity monitoring systems,using telephone networks andlinking communities along riverbasin to share information

Mercy Corps/Practical Action

Using local and simpletechnologies (making use ofexisting resources), simple toreplicate and expand alongriverbank; allows for moreholistic view of flooding events

Use of bio-engineeringapproaches along riverbanks, forinstance construction of dykesusing bamboo and durable plantspecies to stabilise banks andslope angling techniques

Mercy Corps/Practical Action

Using local resources and low-cost, community-based labour,with strong possibilities of localreplication. Also potentiallyleading to income generationthrough seedlings sale atnurseries

Linking community and districtdisaster management plans andadvocating district government toprepare district disaster

Care Making appropriate links toinstitutionalise disastermanagement plans throughbottom-up approaches


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 56

management plans based oncommunity experiences andinputsCommunity disaster evacuationcentre with raised tubewell andtoilet facilities

Care Served as a community centreduring non-disaster time forclasses and meetings, providedminimum level WASHfacilities during flooding event

Community vulnerabilitymapping within community atcentral location

Care Awareness raising andreinforcing of areas for furtherdisaster mitigation activities

DIPECHO partners poolingresources for joint activities suchas media and awareness activities(including documentary)

All DIPECHOpartners

Best practices across partnersand DRR messages promotedcollectively

The needs of the disabledintegrated through HandicapInternational screening and inputto DIPECHO projects

All DIPECHOpartners/HandicapInternational

Inclusion of the needs of thedisabled in DRR strengthened;building capacity of localimplementing partners in cross-cutting inclusion outside ofDIPECHO programming;community sensitisation ondisability issues strengthened

WASH Use of modified community-ledtotal sanitation (CLTS) approachwith strong householdcontribution

Oxfam andMission East

Strong sustainabilitycomponent, easily replicableand with a locally acceptedsanitation design

Use of facilitated participatoryclasses with literacy component todiscuss water and sanitation issuesin community

Oxfam Leads to strongerempowerment in communitiesand added benefits beyondWASH component

Strong community input on sitingof tap stands and projectcomponents. Strong emphasis ontraining maintenance workers,Drinking Water and SanitationUser Committees (DWSUCs)development to determineoperational strategies of watersystems with minimum 50%women’s involvement

Oxfam Interventions at different levelsand strong involvement ofcommunity at all stages ofproject design strengthenssustainability in remote areas

Health Assisting in transport from remotevillages to rehabilitation centreand provision of hostel at centrefor disabled patients to stayduring rehabilitation

HandicapInternational

Inclusive way to enablemarginalised families to attendcentres for treatment

Cost recovery for rehabilitationprosthetic devices/services usingadjusted subsidy system (withincome banding) where subsidy isdetermined according to incomegroup and price of device

HandicapInternational

Use of innovative pro-poorsubsidy scheme to enhancesustainability of rehabilitationcentre


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 57

Annex H: List of key reference documents consulted

Aguaconsult. “A Note from the Director-General of DG ECHO: DG ECHO’s Waterand Sanitation Policy Statement”. Commissioned by DG ECHO. 2005www.europa.eu.int/comm/echo/index_eu.htm

Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Labour Organization (ILO) andDepartment for International Development (DFID). “Nepal: Critical DevelopmentConstraints”. 2009.

Bhatt, Mihir and Aysan, Yaesmin. “Evaluation of the DIPECHO Action Plans in SouthAsia”. November 2008.

Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission tothe Council and the European Parliament. “EU Strategy for Supporting Disaster RiskReduction in Developing Countries”. Brussels, 2009.

Commission of the European Communities. “Linking Relief and Rehabilitation toDevelopment – An Assessment”. April 2001.

Commission of the European Communities. “DG ECHO – Operational Strategy2010”. October 2009.

DG ECHO Global Plans 2006-2009.

DG ECHO. “Commission Decision on the financing of humanitarian action on thegeneral budget of the European Community in South Asia (Fifth DIPECHO ActionPlan)”. ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/02000

DG ECHO. “Supporting Document to the Commission Decision on the Approval andFinancing of a 2009 Global Plan for the most Vulnerable Populations Affected by theConsequences of the Conflicts and Natural Disasters in Nepal”. Submitted toHumanitarian Aid Committee. 2009.

Gautam, Dhruba Raj for Mercy Corps. “Community-Based Disaster Risk ReductionGood Practice: Kailali Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives”. April 2009.

Gelfand, Jan and Partl, Diane. “Evaluation of DIPECHO Action Plans for theCaribbean”. April 2009.

De Klerk, Ton (Team Leader). “Evaluation of DG ECHO’s Actions in Burundi”.October 2009.

Lakeman, John “Meta-analysis of DIPECHO Evaluations (2000-2009) – DraftReport”. November 2009.

Masefield, Abigail. “Nepal: Humanitarian Food Assistance Assessment Mission


Aguaconsult

17May 2010

Page 58

Report”. December 2009.

National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal – Final Draft. March 2008.

Thapa, Man B, National Programme Manager, Disaster Management Programme,UNDP. “Linking Disaster to Development: The Case for Community Led DisasterManagement in Nepal”. August 2002.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA).Nepal Needs Analysis Framework – Key Findings Inter-Agency Standing Committee(IASC) Nepal. September 2008

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA).“Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP): Nepal 2010 Humanitarian Transition Appeal”.March 2010.

The Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium. Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal: FlagshipProgrammes (Draft under consultation). 9 October 2009

UNICEF, The State of South Asia’s Children, 2005,www.unicef.org/rosa/SOSAC05.pdf

WaterAid. “Nepal Country Information”.http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/nepal2010.pdf

Date post:	26-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EVALUATION OF THE DG ECHO'S ACTION IN NEPAL Aguaconsult ...

Documents