community based disaster risk management project,...

Community Based Disaster Risk

Management Project, Bangladesh

ECHO / DIP / BUD 72005 / 04017

Final Evaluation Report

Jerome Casals Evaluation Consultant

July 2007

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation ii July 2007

Acknowledgements

The consultant wishes to thank the numerous individuals and organizations that gave their full cooperation in the conduct of the evaluation. The Oxfam GB Bangladesh CBDRM Office and in particular, Ms. Tanja Berretta the DIPECHO Project Manager, for her comprehensive effort in presenting a detailed overview of the evolution of the project and for organizing excellent logistical support. Special thanks to Mr. Monir Chowdury, Md. Habibur Rahman and Mr. Shofiul Alam for the professionalism and objectivity they displayed in their translation and overall support given during the course of the assessment. To the officers and staff of Oxfam’s local partners RBSP, AKK, SHARP, FIVDB and BDPC for organizing punctual community meetings and making time available from their busy schedules. Finally, I would like to thank all the villagers who made themselves available and actively participated in the village meetings and discussions.

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation iii July 2007

Table of Contents ________________________________________________ Executive Summary 1. Introduction …………….………………………………………………….………….…………..…... 1

1.1 Background Information 1.2 Development of the Project 1.3 Objectives of the CBDRM Project

2. Objectives and Methodology of the Evaluation ………………….………….……..…….. 3

2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation 2.2 Evaluation Methodology 2.3 Constraints and Limitations

3. Findings and Discussion ...………….…………………………………..…………………….….. 5

3.1 Results and Impact 3.1.1 Flood Preparedness 3.1.2 Earthquake Preparedness

3.2 CBDRM Model 3.3 Good Practices and Lessons Learned 3.4 Program Management

4. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 5. Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………….. 20 Annexes

Annex A Evaluation Terms of Reference Annex B Evaluation Work Schedule Annex C List of People Interviewed

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation iv July 2007

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations _____________________________________ AKK Amra Kaj Kory BDPC Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre CBDRMP Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project CDMP Comprehensive Disaster Management Plan DFID Department for International Development DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office DP Disaster Preparedness DM Disaster Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction FIVDB Friends in Village Development Bangladesh FPA Framework Partnership Agreement HP Humanitarian Programme IEC Information, Education and Communication INGO International Non Government Organization LRRD Linking Relief and Rehabilitation to Development PVCA Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment RPDS Rural People Development Songstha RBP River Basin Program SOD Standing Orders for Disasters SHARP Socio Health and Rehabilitation Program VDPC Village Disaster Preparedness Committees VDRP Village Disaster Reduction Plans

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation v July 2007

Executive Summary ________________________________________________ In March of 2006 Oxfam GB Bangladesh began implementation of a “Community Based Disaster Risk Management” (CBDRM) project funded by DIPECHO. The project represents Oxfam GB’s third cycle of funding from DIPECHO. The experience gained by Oxfam GB Bangladesh in the implementation of two previous DIPECHO-funded projects formed the basis of the launching of the current CBDRM project under the Third DIPECHO Action Plan for South Asia. The aim of the CBDRM project is to organise, train, equip and “link” communities exposed to flood and earthquake related risks so that they can better cope with these emergencies. The project was implemented through five local NGO partners of Oxfam. The flood preparedness component of the project was implemented in 56 char1 communities in the flood-prone districts of Manikganj, Siraganj, Faridpur and Rajbari while the earthquake preparedness component was implemented in 16 wards or communities living in the earthquake-prone cities of Dhaka and Sylhet. The project took 16 months to implement including a one month no-cost extension. The budget for the entire operation was EUR 299,936 of which DIPECHO provided EUR 254,945. The focus of the evaluation is to assess the achievement of program results and impact, identify good practices and lessons learned, provide strategic recommendations to improve the CBDRM model, and assess the appropriateness of project management. Given the limited time available for the conduct of this evaluation, however, a greater focus was given on assessing whether program objectives and results have been achieved. Three flood-prone communities and two wards in the cities of Shylet and Dhaka were chosen for site visits, one community for each of the local NGO partners of Oxfam GB. The evaluation finds sufficient indicators to show, at least in the communities visited, that the awareness and response capacities of communities to flood and earthquake risks have increased and that implementation of the project has had an initial positive impact at the communities. The launching of effective awareness campaigns, the organization of community disaster preparedness committees, the implementation of small demonstration mitigation works and “linkages” established between beneficiary communities and several service providers have, in relevant cases, contributed to making this happen. The most evident impact the project has attained is a heightened level of disaster risk awareness and preparedness among project beneficiaries, stakeholders and civil society groups in both flood and earthquake prone communities. The organization of community disaster response committees was largely successful in the flood-prone char areas where social and organizational capacities of communities were developed for the first time. A reduction in the adverse effects of disasters can be expected as a result of the implementation of the mitigation works (e.g., raised homesteads and tube wells, cluster

1 An active river floodplain which may appear or disappear depending on the influence of strong river currents during the monsoon season

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation vi July 2007

housing, community flood shelters, earthquake emergency kits, etc…) but the impact of this will be small in relation to the needs of the total population at risk. Oxfam’s local partners have demonstrated good project management skills including the use of the PRA tools in PVCA, facilitating community formulation of VDRPs and implementation of small scale mitigation works. Most of the CBDRM project methodologies and tools (i.e., PVCA process, vulnerability identification, project management, participatory assessment, etc…) have already been proven to be useful and effective and can already be used in other areas and by local partner or other NGOs. Despite the generally effective implementation of the CBDRM project, it is unlikely that the project initiatives can be sustained over the long-term. Building capacities of communities will take time and without continued guidance and facilitation, including some level of financial support, it is unlikely that project initiatives can be sustained. Oxfam therefore cannot rely solely on DIPECHO funding to initiate community based approaches towards disaster reduction and should seek alternative sources of long term funding and/or form linkages with programs of other funding institutions. There are a number of key modifications that are recommended to enhance the sustainability and replicability of Oxfam’s CBDRM approach and while a number of more specific operational recommendations for enhancing program implementation are enumerated in the report, the main recommendations are as follows:

Current efforts to define and document Oxfam CBDRM guidelines and procedures (i.e., CBDRM model bulding) envisioned under the current project should be as detailed and comprehensive as possible covering experiences in all previous community based disaster reduction funded projects.

Limit area coverage towards creating a critical mass of “model” communities within

Unions, to better focus activities, increase cost efficiency, demonstrate impact and enhance potential for replication through up-scaling.

Linkages to service providers and local government units should be more purposive

and explicit. The ultimate objective is the eventual integration of community action plans into official local government development plans. This should be included as an integral step in the CBDRM process.

Identify specific milestones and indicators that suggest the level of progress a

community is achieving towards disaster resiliency. This can form the basis for the formulation of an appropriate community exit strategy.

Include livelihood interventions in the Oxfam CBDRM strategy using the wealth of

experience gained in other Oxfam projects and programs, particularly the RBP. This can be expected to result in more substantial and sustained vulnerability reduction.

Oxfam GB CBDRM Project Evaluation 1 July 2007

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Information Bangladesh is one of the world’s least developed countries with a Human Development Index (HDI) ranking of 137 out of 177 countries. It is home to an estimated 143 million people and is one of the worlds’ most densely populated countries. The bulk of the population (almost 80%) lives in the rural areas where 65% of the country’s labor force is engaged primarily in farming and food production. Although significant inroads have been made to eradicate poverty, from 59% in 1991-92 to 50% in 2002 and around 36% in 20052, some 49.6% of the country’s population are still living on less than US$1 a day (GOB/UNDP 2005). The World Bank’s natural disaster hot spot study estimates that 83% of the country’s population is at risk from natural disasters, the second highest in South Asia. Much of the country experiences flooding every year during the monsoon and tropical cyclone season. River flooding regularly affects more than 20% of the country and up to two thirds during years of extreme floods, hampering economic development and causing great suffering to its poorest people. The floods of 1988, 1998 and 2004 were particularly catastrophic, resulting in large-scale destruction and loss of lives. The last great flood of 2004 claimed 747 lives and caused damages estimated at US$ 2.2 billion. Aside from flooding, the country is also vulnerable to cyclones, effects of climate change (including drought), and earthquakes. The earthquake fault line between the Indian and Indo-Australian plates runs along the eastern border of the country. The northern third of the country is classified as a very active seismic zone, while the middle third is classified moderate. Widespread rural immigration to urban centers such as Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet has increased urban population exposure and risk to earthquakes tremendously. The population in the slums of Dhaka, for example, has swelled from 1.5 million to 3.4 million people during the last decade. Four major earthquakes causing significant loss of lives and property occurred in the country during the period 1897 to 1950.

Oxfam GB is one of the oldest INGO’s in the country. It’s involvement in Bangladesh started in 1971 with the provision of assistance to refugees stemming from the country’s war for independence. From 1975 and onwards, the Oxfam office in the country began working with local non-government organizations as partners in the rebuilding of lives devastated by war. Currently, Oxfam’s main programs in the country include: Gender Equality, Indigenous people’s Capacity Building, Livelihoods, Humanitarian and River Basin Programs. In disaster risk management, Oxfam’s approach aims to help poor communities, particularly women, to better prepare for and cope with disasters. This includes prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation work, irrespective of all hazards, all risks, all sectors and all terrains. Disaster risk management also involves improving Oxfam's, and its partners' organisational readiness to respond quickly and effectively to a humanitarian crisis in the region.

2 Oxfam CBDRM Guidelines, July 2007


1.2 Development of the CBDRM Project The United Nations proclamation of the “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction” in 1990, the “Yokohama World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction” in 1994, the IDNDR successor “International Strategy for Disaster Reduction” in 2000 and more recently the “Hyogo World Conference on Disaster Reduction” in 2005, have ushered a major shift in the understanding and practice of disaster management around the world. While disaster response capacities are still regarded as vital, there is now global recognition and acceptance of the concept of risk reduction or disaster risk reduction. Oxfam GB, one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world, has responded with a similar strategic shift in its global, regional and country approach to disaster management. In Bangladesh, Oxfam GB has formulated its own DP/DRR strategy based on the “Oxfam GB South Asia Regional Planning Process 2007-2010 - Bangladesh Country Vision” and eight years of experience in carrying out disaster reduction in the country, primarily through its Humanitarian and River Basin Programs. In March 2007, the Oxfam GB Bangladesh created a Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) department to coordinate and manage all DRR activities and projects. A program manager for DRR has been appointed and is in charge of both the Humanitarian and River Basin Programs. The origins of the current CBDRM project can be traced to the implementation of two other DIPECHO-funded projects. This first project with DIPECHO was implemented in the context of a larger Oxfam GB regional River Basin Program (RBP) implemented in the three countries of India, Nepal and Bangladesh. The RBP was first launched in 1999 with the aim of assisting 40,000 households in 350 villages to live with floods including minimizing disruption to their livelihoods. In 2003, Oxfam implemented a “Community Based Disaster Risk Management Program” outside of the RBP area. The Humanitarian Programme implemented the project that targeted highly vulnerable char communities. The experience gained by Oxfam GB Bangladesh in the implementation of the two previous DIPECHO-funded programs formed the basis of the launching of the current “Community Based Disaster Risk Management Program” under the Third DIPECHO Action Plan for South Asia. The project is implemented with five partner NGOs, namely the Amra Kaj Kory (AKK), Rural People Development Sonja (RPDS) and Socio Health and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) for flood preparedness; and with the Friends in Village Development Bangladesh (FIVDB) and the Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Center (BDPC) for earthquake preparedness. Flood preparedness is implemented in 56 char communities living in the flood-prone districts of Manikganj, Siraganj, Faridpur and Rajbari and is expected to benefit 67,320 individuals. The earthquake preparedness component is implemented in 16 wards or communities living in the earthquake cities of Dhaka and Sylhet and is expected to benefit some 30,720 individuals. The total population that is expected to benefit from the CBDRM project is 98,040 individuals. The project is expected to be completed within 15 months with a total intended budget for the entire operation of EURO 299,936 of which DIPECHO provided EUR 254,945.


1.3 Objectives of the CBDRM Project Principal Objective To increase the awareness and response capacities of local communities to potential and frequent natural disasters and reduce the affect of these disasters on the most vulnerable Specific Objectives of the Project To organise, train, equip and link communities exposed to flood related risks and communities exposed to earthquake related risks so that they can better cope with these emergencies.

Expected Results of the Project 1. Two thousand eight hundred (2,800) families (emphasis on women headed

households and families with high dependency ratio, children, elderly persons and socially excluded groups) of 56 communities living in 4 Districts are organised and will have implemented their own plan of risk management actions and refused to accept avoidable risks.

2. Three (3)) partner organisations have adapted and replicated the risk management

model, evolved in River Basin Programme (RBP) and tested in a DIPECHO 2003 funded CBDMP where communities take the lead to assess their vulnerability gaps and plan for risk reduction and management by linking with available services by end Feb 2007.

3. Sixteen (16) communities of Dhaka and Sylhet cities are better equipped to cope

with earthquakes and will have formulated and commenced implementation of their contingency plans by end April 2007.

4. Earthquake awareness of a larger proportion (at least 50,000 individuals) of the

urban community is raised by end of project period 2. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION 2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation This evaluation study is conducted to assess the effectiveness of the Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) project and take stock of how the project benefits are reaching vulnerable communities. The scope of work is outlined in the Evaluation TOR (Annex A) which states the objectives of the evaluation as follows: 1. Reviewing the level of impact achieved by the project in terms of sustainability and

effectiveness against project results and OVIs


2. Identifying best practices and lessons learnt, and developing strategic recommendations aimed at improving the model in the relevant areas.

3. Reviewing the project management’s compliance with FPA Guidelines and the project

management appropriateness. 2.2 Methodology The evaluation began with a review of key project documents upon arrival of the evaluation consultant in Dhaka. Among the key documents reviewed are the DIPECHO preliminary final report, monitoring reports, various Oxfam documents and several other supporting documents. This was followed by a project briefing by the CBDRM Project Manager and the development of evaluation methodology and interview guides. Interviews were also conducted with Oxfam GB staff that had previous and/or current knowledge of the project. Field visits commenced on the 8th of July and was completed by 17 July 2007. Three flood-prone communities in the districts of Manikgonj, Faridpur and Sirajgonj and two wards in the cities of Shylet and Dhaka were chosen for site visits, one community for each of the local NGO partners of Oxfam GB. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the field officers of the project team, senior management members of the partner NGOs and the field facilitators assigned in the communities visited. At the village level, focus group discussions were held with the VDPCs and WDPCs using the outputs they produced under the PVCA exercises, followed by visits to the small scale community mitigation works implemented, and random interviews with villagers. The evaluation itinerary is enclosed as Annex B while the full list of people interviewed as Annex C. Data and information gathered through the different levels of implementers and stakeholders were triangulated with each other and with available project documents and used as basis for analysis and discussion. A de-briefing was conducted towards the end of the mission with senior management staff of Oxfam GB to discuss the main findings and conclusions of the mission. 2.3 Constraints and Limitations

The time given for evaluating the project was only fourteen (14) days inclusive of the time necessary to travel to and from the selected target villages and report writing. This prohibited a more in-depth investigation and analysis of the project.

Since only a limited number of villages were visited (i.e., 3 out of 56 flood-prone

villages and 2 out of 16 earthquake-prone wards), findings of the study cannot be used to make definite conclusions about the entire beneficiary population. Nevertheless, the study is sufficient to point out project strengths, areas of improvement, potential impact and issues that will need further investigation.


Qualitative information gathering techniques were extensively used and it should be noted that this involves perception, opinion and feelings of the respondents. Hence, data and information obtained and appearing in the report should be taken with this limitation in mind.

The study can only make a limited assessment of the impact of the disaster

mitigation measures implemented as these had just been completed at the time this evaluation was undertaken.

Translation, whether verbal or written, is always a difficult and time consuming

process, especially since some English words and concepts do not have exact equivalents in the Bangla language.

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Discussion of the evaluation findings flows from the three objectives of the evaluation outlined in the terms of reference, namely: program results and impact, identification of good practices and lessons learned, strategic recommendations to improve the CBDRM model, and appropriateness of project management including compliance to the Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA). Given the time available for the conduct of this evaluation, however, a greater focus was given on assessing whether program objectives and results identified in the program log frame have been achieved. 3.1 Program Results and Impact There are four intended results that the CBDRM project sought to achieve and these relate to the two distinct components of the project namely; flood preparedness and earthquake preparedness. This section discusses the extent to which these key expected results and the desired impact have been achieved. While it is not possible to conclusively determine the impact of the project at this stage when the project has just ended, it is possible to provide some indication on whether these can be expected to occur based on the achievement or non-achievement of the project’s intended results. 3.1.1 Flood Preparedness

Two thousand eight hundred (2,800) families (emphasis on women headed households and families with high dependency ratio, children, elderly persons and socially excluded groups) of 56 communities living in 4 Districts are organised and will have implemented their own plan of risk management actions and refused to accept avoidable risks.

Three (3)) partner organisations have adapted and replicated the risk management

model, evolved in River Basin Programme (RBP) and tested in a DIPECHO 2003 funded CBDMP where communities take the lead to assess their vulnerability gaps and plan for risk reduction and management by linking with available services by end Feb 2007.


Awareness Campaign The evaluation finds very strong indications that there has been a significant increase in the level of awareness to the risks associated with floods. The use of theater or drama groups to convey flood preparedness messages in the communities is a key factor that has led to the project’s attainment of this heightened community awareness. The actual performance of one of these community drama groups during one of the community visits demonstrated the drawing power and audience reach of this activity. Community members from all corners of the char attended the unannounced performance that was witnessed by an audience that spanned across different age groups and social classes. Success of this creative approach can be attributed, in part, to the absence of these forms of entertainment events in char communities. One of the primary differences between the previous funded DIPECHO project and the current project lies in the selection of flood-prone communities. Oxfam’s experience in the implementation of the previous DIPECHO funded project led to the hypothesis that selection of “responsive” communities would greatly facilitate the implementation of a community based project. The conduct of awareness activities was done in large numbers of communities and was used, in part, to determine the most responsive or receptive communities or villages. The three partner NGOs, however, did not appear to have a common set of standard criteria on what constitutes a “responsive” community but the in-depth knowledge of the partners of local conditions (being locally based themselves) enabled them to discern which communities were receptive. This evaluation cannot prove or disprove the validity of this strategy because it would require a comparison between the old and new communities that was not undertaken and which is outside the scope of this study. While the prevailing opinion among project partners is that the implementation of the just concluded project was far better than the previous DIPECHO funded project, this cannot be attributed solely to the selection of target communities. The valuable experience gained by the NGO partners from previous implementation, for example, would have played a big factor in terms of increasing the effectiveness of their project implementation skills. Beneficiary Identification In all communities visited under the evaluation, the actual beneficiaries were found to be amongst the poorest and most vulnerable to natural disasters. Oxfam and its partners should be credited for taking a more direct, and more difficult, approach of targeting and ensuring project benefits accrue to the “most vulnerable” segments of the village population. This has led to the identification and selection of the intended or targeted beneficiaries (i.e., landless community members, women headed households, families with high dependency ratio, etc…). This was not easily accomplished as all three Oxfam partners involved in the flood preparedness component of the project identified the difficulty of identifying “the most vulnerable among the most vulnerable” as one of the biggest challenges they faced in the project’s implementation. In char communities there is very little difference in socio-economic conditions of households and this has made the selection process difficult.


Working with the “most vulnerable among the most vulnerable” can be expected to pose its own unique difficulties in all future activities. Their active participation in project activities would be difficult to sustain because this would mean loss of daily subsistence income on their part. In addition, the probable inability to provide any form of counterpart contribution to mitigation activities and works and their relatively low capacities may prove to be formidable obstacles. It is important that Oxfam document its successes and difficulties in working with these most vulnerable groups as it represents a body of knowledge that will be of importance to future operations and for other organizations attempting to take a similar approach and strategy of working with the poorest members of the community. Community Organizing A total of 56 Village Disaster Preparedness Committees (VDPC) were organized under the project to lead community efforts in preparing for and coping with the adverse effects of flooding. A field visit to three of the communities reveals that significant benefits have been obtained from the mere organization of these committees. In all of these communities, the villagers reported that the project has provided them with their first opportunity to be involved in a collective effort to implement projects that benefited not only themselves but also the entire village. In the course of doing the project, they came to understand the value of collective action. All three OXFAM partners reported high villager participation rates in the activities conducted under the project. Villagers reported experiencing a sense of accomplishment and a new found ability to initiate changes towards the improvement of their lives. As a result, all of the VDPCs expressed greater confidence on their ability to do similar activities and projects in the future “…this is the first time we have done anything like this…and we intend to continue doing this because it we can see the benefits”. In two of the villages visited, some of the activities enumerated in their VDRPs were already being undertaken. The benefits from the organizing work done by Oxfam partners in char communities visited under the evaluation can be summarized as follows: ▫ Increased willingness of individuals to work for a common purpose. More specifically,

potential continued use of collective action to solve community problems. ▫ Creation of potential change agents in the person of the VDPC members who have

become de facto community leaders in the absence of formal organizational structures in the communities

▫ Increased awareness to individual and community disaster preparedness measures ▫ Inculcation of positive attitude in villagers towards their abilities to initiate changes

toward the improvement of their lives. Increases in the organizational and attitudinal capacities of communities is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Nevertheless, it is significant and important. Given the situation and conditions in the char communities, a multiplier effect can also be possible as villagers eventually begin to use these community structures to address other developmental concerns and issues they face. This will depend, however, on Oxfam and its local partners providing continued technical, financial and motivational support.


Planning and Mitigation The use of PRAs tools and methodologies in the conduct of PVCAs offered community members the opportunity to consolidate community knowledge and resources to formulate VDRPs. Examination of the community disaster reduction plans showed a good mix of structural and non-structural preparedness and mitigation activities and projects which is indicative of a well conducted PVCA. It was observed, however, that the DR plans across communities appear to be the same. While this is may be due to similarities in conditions and needs of the communities, the compilation of potential mitigation works gained from the experiences of other NGOs and Oxfam country offices can provide wider variety of appropriate mitigation solutions. Actual reduction in the adverse effects of floods can be expected as a result of the implementation of the small scale mitigation works (i.e., raised homesteads, raised tube wells, cluster housing and community flood shelters) with the community flood shelters providing the most benefit. The construction of these shelters involved, on the average, some 200 community members including womenfolk who received wages that would have stimulated the local economy. In addition, the flood shelters provide opportunities for future income generation from the planting of vegetables and fish farming. Given their inexperience in managing collective livelihood activities, however, there will be a strong need for the partner NGOs to support and closely monitor the implementation of these mitigation works. While the mitigation works were viewed by the community as being relevant and appropriate to their needs, the mitigation works “selected” by the communities were actually pre-determined by Oxfam and its partners based on experiences in the previous CBDRM project. In the long run this practice will have the tendency to dilute community ownership of the projects. In addition, there appears to have been very little community counterpart (whether in cash or in kind) in the implementation of the various mitigation works. This likewise dilutes community ownership of the mitigation works. It is essential that community members who benefit from a project provide counterpart contributions to that project. Counterpart contributions do not have to be pegged at fixed amounts given the dire economic condition of community members. Such contributions can be made according to their economic condition. The absolute amount of the contribution does not matter as much as the beneficiary knowing that they have participated and “paid” for the mitigation works and therefore deserve and own the mitigation works that is benefiting them. Beneficiaries were generally satisfied with the quality of the mitigation works implemented, although in the visit to Iman Matobberer Para village, it was observed that at least 3 of the raised tube wells were no longer functioning. This brings to question whether the mitigation works were appropriately constructed. Without necessarily sacrificing the participatory process that went into the planning and implementation of these mitigation works, procedures whereby the technical and engineering soundness of the mitigation works is reviewed, should be devised with partners.


Overall, the combined effect of all these mitigation works is very small in relation to the need of the total population. This is understandable since implementation of the CBDRM project was never intended to fully address the effects of flooding in a community. Significant impact can only be achieved if these demonstration mitigation works are replicated. The long term objective and strategy of any Oxfam CBDRM project should therefore be more purposively directed towards replication at both program (strategic) and project (operational) levels. Even mitigation activities and works should, to the extent possible, be designed with replication in mind. In the raising of homesteads, for example, a more sustainable and replication-friendly approach would be to introduce a community driven system or process so that more households can benefit even after the project has ended. Is it possible, for example, if community members whose homesteads have been raised through the project be asked (as counterpart) to provide labor for the raising of the homes of other members of the community, and for this process to continue? The design of an appropriate system for community based replication is the bigger challenge and objective, more than the actual raising of a fixed number of homesteads. There were also other activities undertaken and observed that can likewise be expected to lead to a reduction in the adverse effects of disaster events in the targeted communities, they include the following: ▫ Actual replication of mitigation projects initiated under the project (i.e., raising of

homesteads by other relatively better off members of the village) ▫ Continued DR activities of VDRPs after the project ended (including conduct of

monthly meetings, actual DR projects, dissemination of preparedness and sanitary hygiene practices, etc…)

▫ With assistance of OXFAM partners, actual and continued efforts to link with service providers (e.g., health and livestock related services)

▫ Preparedness and response plans including provision of small emergency stores by Oxfam and its partners for the coming wet season.

Despite the accomplishments enumerated, however, it remains uncertain if the momentum created by the CBDRM project can be sustained over the long-term. The overwhelming sentiment of stakeholders (OXFAM project staff, its local partners, community and key stakeholders) is that communities have not yet acquired sufficient experience and do not possess the resources needed to continue the CBDRM initiatives made under the project. As one of the VDPC member aptly puts it “... we need further support for us to implement our planned activities, if not financial support at least provide us some guidance and technical support”. Without continued facilitation and some financial support it is unlikely that project initiatives can be sustained in most of the communities.

To a large extent, this will depend on the ability and willingness of Oxfam’s partners to continue supporting the communities. For the bigger and more stable NGO partners this has been possible by including of some of the communities into some of their regular development programs. For the smaller NGO partners, this will not be possible.


Replication of Risk Management Model For the local NGO partners to further adopt and replicate the CBDRM approach or model of Oxfam they must first be convinced that the approach is valid and effective. In other words, it must first be demonstrated. All of the partners have issues relating to the sustainability of the CBDRM. The fact that some of them have linked a number of communities to their own programs is a good indication of their confidence and commitment to see the CBDRM approach work. The finalization of Oxfam’s CBDRM guidelines and procedures envisioned under this project (i.e., CBDRM model building) will be useful for Oxfam partners in any future effort to adapt and replicate the CBDRM strategy. A more comprehensive discussion of the recommendations for the CBDRM model is presented in the Section 3.2 of this report. Web-based Information Dissemination The impact of the web-based information exchange component of the project cannot be assessed as this has yet to be made fully functional. While it is not difficult to see why there would be initial interest in website, its continued use depends on its being usefulness to the Oxfam partners and other DRR stakeholders in the country. The designation of the Humanitarian Program to manage and maintain the website and the initial participation of other DIPECHO partners is a good step towards this direction. 3.1.2 Earthquake Preparedness

Earthquake awareness of a larger proportion (at least 50,000 individuals) of the urban community is raised by end of project period

Sixteen (16) communities of Dhaka and Sylhet cities are better equipped to cope

with earthquakes and will have formulated and commenced implementation of their contingency plans by end April 2007.

Awareness Campaign The information, education and awareness campaign launched under the earthquake preparedness component of the project was effective and impressive. An extensive array of activities (e.g., conduct of simulation or “mock” earthquake drills, school and community based campaigns, building code workshops, continued advocacy, etc…) was undertaken using an equally wide variety of communications media (e.g., posters, brochures, pamphlets, flipcharts, radio and televisions broadcasts, etc…). In Sylhet City3, the key factors observed to have contributed to the effective public awareness campaign is the successful mobilization and participation of various service providers and civil society groups (i.e., fire service, civil defence, police, local power company, local government officials, private sector, mass media, schools and community associations and volunteer groups from the Red Crescent youth, medical students, boys and girls clubs, etc…) by the local partner FIVB, together with the Oxfam project officer. 3 Although the project also implemented similar activities in Dhaka, much of the time available for the field visit was spent in Sylhet City where comprehensive interviews and discussions with stakeholders and civil society groups were held.


Of the activities undertaken, the conduct of community-wide earthquake simulation or “mock” drills has been the most effective in heightening the awareness of communities towards the risks of earthquake and taking actual steps in preparing for an earthquake event. The participation of a large number of a community’s population (estimated at 1,000 on the average) in these exercises together with high visibility during and after the conduct (through press coverage) of the exercise enabled a significant audience reach within the targeted communities. This was confirmed in interviews and discussions with several stakeholder groups in Sylhet and by one WDPC member in particular who summarized the effectiveness of the mock drills when he said “…residents were resistant at first but after some activities …and especially after the conduct of the mock drills they became more receptive”. In the interviews conducted with various civil society groups, it was evident that their mindset was already geared towards preparedness and response for the occurrence of an earthquake. This change in perspective is aptly reflected by their enthusiasm to participate in any future continuation or expansion of the project. The management of Sylhet Cable System, for example, continues to broadcast earthquake preparedness messages without remuneration. “We are doing this out of a sense of responsibility to the community…” says the company’s managing director. This makes for an interesting case because it highlights the potential benefits of further involvement of the business community. The conduct of school-based awareness campaigns is also seen as a sustainable and cost effective instrument of mindset change. The enlistment of the support of teachers and informal community leaders in Dhaka, for example, can be expected to lead to a continued awareness of school children over several years. In Sylhet, however, it was the local partner who conducted the school awareness sessions and mock drills and although a large number of these were conducted (reportedly benefiting some 320 students), it would have been more sustainable if teachers were trained, provided with session modules and materials (e.g., flipcharts, audio-visual equipment, videos, etc…) so that they could provide continuous earthquake preparedness sessions in their respective schools for several years to come. Given the variety of media used, it is difficult to make any definitive conclusion on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the different types of communication medium used (i.e., posters, pamphlets, billboards, etc…). In the future, Oxfam should consider the use of KAP (i.e., knowledge, attitude, practice) surveys to better capture the perception of residents towards earthquake risks. The use of KAP surveys before a project can enhance the development of specific messages to specific targeted audiences. The targeting of specific community groups with more focused information and awareness messages also makes for a more efficient use of resources. On the other hand, a similar survey conducted at the end of awareness campaigns can provide quantitative measures and feedback on the effectiveness of different media types used and of the entire awareness campaign as a whole. Currently there are a number of very positive developments on earthquake preparedness and reduction in the country. On the national level, earthquake risk


awareness levels have increased and remains high, a revised Building Code that requires addressing earthquake risks has been passed, and the drafts for an Earthquake Response Plan and a SOD on earthquakes have already been prepared and are awaiting approval. Oxfam GB through its key partner in earthquake risk reduction, the BDPC, has been in the forefront of advocacy efforts for many years now. The current and the immediately preceding DIPECHO-funded projects have significantly contributed to Oxfam and BDPC’s continued advocacy and awareness raising initiatives. Community Organizing Sixteen (16) Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees (WDPCs) were organized as planned under the project. Members of the three WDPCs organized under the project were visited and were found to be highly sensitized to the risk of earthquake, are aware of what to do in order to mitigate the potential effects and have taken preparedness measures in their own households. The extent of their motivation and commitment can be summarized in the words of one of the WDPC members of Ward 5 when he said “…at first I was only concerned about myself … but later I realized that other members of the community need to be helped as well.” Local authorities, like the Ward Commissioner of Ward 5, have likewise been sensitized and emphasized the need to coordinate with more civil society groups in order to save lives. While the WDPCs are organized for the purpose of leading earthquake preparedness efforts in the community, the sustainability of these committees is unlikely if their focus remains on earthquake risk alone. This concern on sustainability of the committees organized was voiced by the Oxfam project officer, its partner NGO in Syleth, and by some WDPC members themselves. For a more sustainable WDPC it is advisable for these committees to eventually be able to address multiple hazards. In this way they remain relevant to the community because they address all its disaster preparedness needs, including preparedness for earthquake. This should include, for example, preparedness for the occurrence of fire in the community that also happens to have a high probability of occurring after an earthquake. Contingency Plans and Mitigation Earthquake preparedness plans at the household level are well understood and disseminated. The provision of earthquake household emergency kits is useful and important to a household but is not sustainable as a project intervention. The presence of earthquake emergency kits in households, however, is a very good indicator of the level of a household’s awareness and sensitization towards earthquake preparedness. The activities undertaken to prepare for and mitigate the adverse effects of an earthquake are numerous and have been well received by stakeholders. The enthusiasm displayed by various service providers is a good indication that communities are now better prepared. In Syleth, these activities, together with the awareness campaigns forms a solid foundation for any future development and implementation of more comprehensive earthquake impact reduction activities and measures.


While the project was able to establish clear linkages with local government agencies and “service providers” in a number of communities, the official participation of the highest disaster response agency in the city, the District Disaster Management Committee (DDMC) through the District Commissioner is imperative for the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive contingency plan. Involvement of local government officials at ward and district levels was reportedly greater at the initial stages of the project’s implementation but this was eventually constrained by prevailing political conditions4. 3.2 Recommendations for the CBDRM Model While the CBDRM, as designed and implemented under the current project, has generally been effective it cannot achieve the desired impact within the 15 month timeframe. Building capacities of communities, particularly those that have been organized for the first time, will take time. Even the best performing communities will require further guidance and support. This is the overwhelming sentiment of all project stakeholders and local NGO partners. Oxfam therefore cannot rely solely on DIPECHO funding in undertaking a full scale community based approach to disaster reduction. Ideally, longer term funding should be tapped and, at the least, shorter term funding should be augmented with funds from other internal or external sources. Some of Oxfam’s local partners, both large (e.g., FVIDB) and small (e.g., RPDS), either have not allocated or do not have the resources to retain project staff beyond the DIPECHO funding period, hence, most of the communities organized under the project will not receive further support and it is unlikely that they can be sustained in the long run. Oxfam itself should be able to maintain its capability to provide technical support to its partners and communities when necessary. Designation and development of a CBDRM specialist/s within the organization to ensure that Oxfam maintains, and further improves, its level of expertise and that it is capable of transferring this to others within the organization or to external organizations is strongly advised. To this end, the finalization of current efforts to document Oxfam’s approach to CBDRM (i.e., CBDRM guidelines and procedures) becomes imperative. A critical mass of experiences and learning has been accumulated from three rounds of DIPECHO funding that enables Oxfam to more clearly define its own concept and approach to CBDRM. This is not to say that Oxfam doesn’t have a CBDRM approach or strategy, only to emphasize that the current model building (i.e., formulation of CBDRM guidelines and procedures) initiative is very timely and is the most appropriate means to capture these experiences because it leads to the incorporation of the good practices and lessons learned directly into the design of Oxfam’s CBDRM. It is also prudent to be reminded that this has to be an Oxfam model (i.e., one that fits into the larger organizational DRR strategy) and that further improvements and modifications will need to be continuously made in the future.

4 The country is currently under emergency rule so most local officials are reportedly too preoccupied with the political situation that they have de-prioritized involvement in the project


There are a number of key modifications identified that can be made to enhance the replication potential and sustainability of Oxfam’s current CBDRM model or strategy, and they are identified as follows: Area Selection A community based approach is based on a strategy of demonstration and replication. Significant impact can only be achieved when CBDRM activities are replicated. Hence, Oxfam should consider the selection of communities within specific politically-defined geographical areas (i.e., Union5 level at the least). This will result in greater operational efficiency (less costs), better demonstration of impact and better potential for replication through up-scaling (e.g., replication in other communities within a Union and, if successful, replication by another Union). This is also more practical and realistic given a scenario of limited available funding. Establishing Linkages While the current CBDRM procedure includes the creation and facilitation of linkages between communities and service providers and it is to the credit of Oxfam’s partners that support to some of the communities are still being provided even after funding for the project has ended, it would be better if these linkages are emphasized as an integral phase of the CBDRM model (i.e., reflected as a specific separate step in the CBDRM guidelines and procedures) in order to enhance sustainability. In addition, sustainability and long-term reduction in vulnerabilities can be enhanced if community disaster reduction activities and plans are integrated or incorporated into official local government development plans. This will serve as the critical link and convergence point between community level interventions and national or sub-national disaster management policy reforms and programs (e.g., CDMP and DFID programs), if and when they materialize. CBDRM Timeframe If 15 months is insufficient time for a CBDRM to be sustainable, how much time is required? Oxfam’s CBDRM strategy should include the identification of specific milestones or indicators that suggests the level of progress a community is achieving towards disaster resiliency (i.e., the end goal of the CBDRM program). Identification of these will prove useful in the formulation of an appropriate community exit strategy and the timing of such an exit from a community. Capacity Building While most of the necessary knowledge and skills needed to implement the project (e.g., community organizing, facilitation, PVCA, risk reduction planning, project management, etc…), have been effectively transferred to local partners, future disaster risk reduction initiatives will have to come from within the community itself, hence capacity building for community organizations formed should be provided. When these 5 The smallest official local government administrative unit consisting of several communities or villages


key CBDRM skills can be further transferred to the community level, the CBDRM process can be sustained. Oxfam should also consider making the current CBDP Guidelines and Procedures Manual (already in draft version) into separate but complimentary set of “how-to” guidebooks that provide and illustrate the step-by-step process involved in undertaking the CBDRM process (i.e., how to make community resource maps, how to assess vulnerabilities, , how to make a VDRP, menu of disaster mitigation measures, etc…). This can prove invaluable at the field level (and even within Oxfam itself) where the turnover of staff is high and new recruits will not necessarily have previous experience in community based disaster reduction and even if with experience, not likely in a manner consistent with the Oxfam CBDRM approach. Enhancing Ownership Ownership is one of the more common indicators associated with sustainability and can still be enhanced in the CBDRM project implemented. While there is no question that the project has been very well received by the communities visited, it is imperative that communities develop a deep sense of ownership over project activities and mitigation works. Ownership of the project needs to be enhanced by allowing communities to determine among themselves what mitigation activities and projects to implement and by ensuring that beneficiaries’ provide counterpart contributions. Livelihoods One of the most effective means for reducing community vulnerability is the strengthening of livelihoods against disaster events and the provision of equipment and assets that can be used in both disaster reduction and income generation. Oxfam has a wealth of specific and concrete experience in this area from the RBP which can and should be incorporated in its CBDRM approach and strategy. 3.3 Good Practices and Lessons Learned This section of the report attempts to highlight appropriate and effective strategies, approaches, methodologies and processes observed in the course of the evaluation visit. It should be noted that since the evaluation was conducted within a relatively short period of time and only in a small number of communities, not all pertinent lessons and good practice could be captured. At best, the observations enumerated here can only serve to highlight and compliment efforts already undertaken to capture experiences gained from the implementation of the project. There is nothing here that Oxfam and its partners, given a more systematic method of capturing lessons and good practice, cannot do better by themselves. Having emphasized this, the following are the observed good practices and lessons learned gained from the evaluation visit: 1. Use of creative “non-conventional” channels and mediums of communication is a key

factor that led to the project’s attainment of heightened community awareness. The


conduct of community theatre or drama plays and earthquake mock drills have successfully communicated key messages on flood and earthquake preparedness across a wide range of people across age groups and social classes.

2. The successful identification and mobilization of stakeholders and civil society groups

including the use of school-based awareness campaigns has led to a successful and potentially sustainable launching of an earthquake awareness campaign. School-based earthquake awareness activities are not only effective but are also cost efficient.

3. Effective mobilization and organizing of targeted communities is a critical initial step

for the motivation and empowerment of a community. There are different mobilizing and organizing strategies depending on the situation and conditions of the community and, as can be seen from the earthquake component, on whether they are in rural or urban areas.

4. The use of PRA tools and methodologies in the conduct of Participatory Vulnerability

and Capacity Assessments (PVCAs) successfully stimulated the active participation of beneficiaries. The PVCA were well received by villagers and facilitated the formulation of flood preparedness activities and plans.

5. The outputs from the use of PVCA exercises is an effective tool for a community-led

assessment and forms a good foundation for a process of community participatory evaluation.

6. Some of the key factors present in the most active communities of the project were

observed to include: identification and recruitment of appropriate community leaders (e.g., former NGO volunteers, local officials - women’s representative to the Union, and respected informal leaders of the community); presence of responsive local government officials (e.g., Union Chairperson, Ward Commissioner); and the presence of a capable and well experienced field facilitator.

7. Capacity building and empowerment of communities is extremely difficult, if not

impossible to achieve, in a very short time. The creation of effective community structures requires more time than the current project cycle. Therefore the objectives of the CBDRM project cannot be attained by using DIPECHO funding alone, especially if the gaps between funding cycles is not addressed.

8. The CBDRM project can best be implemented in the context of Oxfam’s larger

institutional disaster risk reduction program and in the case of partner NGOs within their regular development programs.

9. Working directly with both communities and local government structures is

appropriate for more formal linkages to be created. Oxfam’s partner NGOs, because of their extensive knowledge and established networks at the local levels, are well placed to undertake CBDRM work.


10. To a large extent, the effectiveness of project implementation is related to the experience and skills of the local NGO partners. Partners with existing rural development programs are in a better position to ensure that CBDRM project initiatives are continued.

11. Funding gaps in the implementation of CBRM initiatives has led to the loss of

experienced staff from local partners as well as Oxfam itself. This highlights the need to maintain experienced staff. Generally, when the person moves on so does the learning. Documentation of lessons learned, especially if not directly linked to revisions to program plans and strategies, does not necessarily lead to the retention of valuable experiences.

12. In the development of OXFAM DRR guidelines and procedures (i.e., CBDRM Model),

the selection of a critical mass of communities within a politically defined geographical unit (i.e., Union) will better maximize the prospects for up-scaling and replication.

3.4 Project Management and FPA Compliance Implementation of the project was generally well executed despite a three month delay in the recruitment of project staff that necessitated a one month no-cost extension. During this time, Oxfam fielded a temporary team from personnel of its Humanitarian Programme enabling the project to be only slightly delayed (in terms of implementing activities). Eventually all the targeted activities and inputs were delivered by Oxfam. Outputs produced were satisfactory and those from the activities relating to awareness raising, community and stakeholder mobilizing and organizing were commendable. The good performance of recruited project staff and the high quality of project partners are two key factors identified that contributed to the overall effective implementation of the project. It is reasonable to assume that the experience gained from the implementation of the project has also enhanced capacities of both Oxfam and its project partners. Increased capacities of the NGO partners in community based disaster risk reduction in addition to exisitng expertise in disaster relief and response makes the potential to see good examples of LRRD practice possible in the near future. While the project was generally well executed, implementation of the project could have been even better if some of the more experienced and competent staff from previous project implementations were used. There is a need for the local partners, and Oxfam itself, to ensure its capability to provide community based disaster reduction expertise on a more sustained basis. Most of the project staff (from both Oxfam and its partners) that implemented the current project, for example, are not expected to be retained after the completion of project activities. This means still another new set of staff will be recruited, if and when, a similar CBDRM project will be implemented in the future. While this obviously is not entirely within the control of the organization and is also largely dependent on other external factors, it should nevertheless be borne in mind that documentation of lessons learned cannot substitute for the retention of experienced staff.


While this evaluation cannot ascertain compliance to the financial and accounting procedures of DIPECHO, a cursory examination of financial reports show that actual project expenditures was implemented according to budget. There were no significant variances between actual and budgeted expenses and project overhead costs have been kept well within allowable levels. In some cases, Oxfam’s NGO partners have linked beneficiary communities with their existing programs further contributing to a more efficient and effective implementation of the project. There was a great variety of visibility activities undertaken under the project but these consisted mainly of displaying the DIPECHO logo on all tangible project outputs (e.g., stickers, course materials and IEC dissemination brochures, posters, signboards, T-shirts, caps, etc). As a result, a great majority of stakeholders were aware of DIPECHO as the source of funding. 4. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation finds sufficient indicators to show, at least in the communities visited, that the awareness and response capacities of communities to flood and earthquake risks have increased and that implementation of the project has had a positive impact at the communities. The launching of effective awareness campaigns, the organization of community disaster preparedness committees and the implementation of small demonstration mitigation works have, in varying degrees, contributed to this accomplishment. The most evident impact the project has attained is a heightened level of risk awareness and disaster preparedness among project beneficiaries, stakeholders and civil society groups in both the flood and earthquake prone communities. The awareness and IEC campaigns conducted under the project have largely been effective. The successful mobilization of all key stakeholders and the use of creative “non-conventional” channels and mediums of communication (e.g., community theatre or drama groups and conduct of community-wide earthquake simulation or mock drills) are the key factors that led to the project’s attainment of heightened community awareness. The mobilization of community residents and the organization of community disaster response committees has been largely successful in the char communities and less so in earthquake-prone areas. In the context of char communities, the organization of community disaster committees has resulted in the creation of significant social and organizational capacities characterized by an increased willingness of individuals to work for a common purpose and the Creation of potential change agents in the person of the VDPC members who have become de facto community leaders in the absence of formal organizational structures in the communities. The urban setting of earthquake communities and their mobilization towards the single objective of earthquake preparedness has posed challenges in the continued activities of the WDPCs. A reduction in the adverse effects of disasters can be expected as a result of the implementation of small scale mitigation projects; however, these projects will only have a relatively small impact in relation to the total needs of the population at risk. A


significant impact can only be achieved if communities are provided the opportunity to implement fully their disaster reduction plans, the project is replicated in other communities or is up-scaled to cover larger areas. Oxfam’s local partners have demonstrated good project management skills including the use of the PRA tools in PVCA, facilitating community formulation of VDRPs and implementation of small scale mitigation projects. Most of the CBDRM project methodologies and tools (i.e., PVCA process, vulnerability identification, project management, participatory assessment, etc…) have already been proven to be useful and effective and can already be used in other areas and by local partner or other NGOs. Even if implementation of the CBDRM project has generally been effective, however, it is unlikely the momentum created by the CBDRM project can be sustained over the long-term. Building capacities of communities will take time and without continued guidance and facilitation including some financial support it is unlikely that project initiatives can be sustained. Oxfam therefore cannot rely solely on DIPECHO funding to initiate community based approaches towards disaster reduction and should seek alternative sources of long term funding and/or form linkages with programs of other funding institutions. Sustainability of the just concluded project will, to a large extent, depend on the ability and willingness of OXFAM partners to continue providing the support and linking communities with service providers and local official government structures. Sustainability can also be greatly enhanced, if and when, NGO partners integrate the communities into their longer term development programs. The larger NGO partners are obviously in a better position to provide this support but the smaller NGO partners will not have sufficient resources to support the communities. Most staff hired under the project, for example, are not expected to be retained resulting to a loss of institutional experience and learning. There is an obvious need for Oxfam partners (and Oxfam itself) to maintain its capability to provide technical support to the communities and their organizations as documentation of lessons learned can never substitute for the retention of experienced staff. In any case, it will take some time before Oxfam partners will be able to (or be willing to) incorporate the concept and practice of CBDRM into their organizational and program goals and objectives. The finalization of OXFAM guilines and procedures envisioned under this project (i.e., CBDRM model) can help facilitate this process. There are a number of key modifications that can be done to enhance the sustainability and replicability of Oxfam’s CBDRM approach and these should already be captured by the planned current efforts at more clearly defining and documenting CBDRM guidelines and procedures should capture these. The key areas for improvement are related to the coverage of a CBDRM project, its timeframe, establishing formal linkages with local government units, and incorporation of livelihoods. Finally, while most of the necessary knowledge and skills needed to implement the project have been effectively transferred to local partners, future disaster risk reduction


initiatives will have to come from within the community itself, hence further capacity building for communities organized will be required. Ownership of the CBDRM project by communities needs to be enhanced by allowing communities greater authority to determine among themselves what mitigation activities and projects to implement and by ensuring that beneficiaries provide counterpart contributions. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Recommendations

Current efforts to define and document Oxfam CBDRM guidelines and procedures (i.e., CBDRM model bulding) envisioned under the current project should be as detailed and comprehensive as possible covering experiences in all previous community based disaster reduction funded projects

Limit area coverage towards creating critical mass of “model” communities within

Unions, to better focus activities, increase cost efficiency, demonstrate impact and enhance potential for replication through up-scaling.

Linkages to local government units and service providers should be more purposive

and explicit. The ultimate objective is the eventual integration of community action plans into official local government development plans. This should be included as an integral step in the CBDRM process.

Identify specific milestones and indicators that suggest the level of progress a

community is achieving towards disaster resiliency. This can form the basis for the formulation of an appropriate community exit strategy.

Include livelihood interventions in the Oxfam CBDRM strategy using the wealth of

experience gained in other Oxfam projects and programs, particularly the RBP. This can be expected to result in more substantial and sustained vulnerability reduction.

Operational Recommendations The more specific operational recommendations on project implementation, based on insights and findings during the field visits, are summarized as follows:

To be truly community-based it is necessary that the knowledge and skills in disaster reduction should be more purposively transferred to as many community stakeholders as possible including the local authorities. This will help lead to a common understanding and approach towards disaster reduction.

Conduct KAP surveys as an essential component of awareness and IEC campaigns

Community disaster preparedness committees, particularly WDPCs, should be

organized such that they are eventually able to address multiple hazards. This will increase their relevance to the community and enhance their sustainability.


Develop list of mitigation options from best practices of other OXFAM country offices

as well from other NGOs and NGO networks to enable local partners and communities to make a better informed decision.

Conduct a second round of capacity building activities for communities (e.g.,

organizational, project management, etc…) and local partners (e.g. advocacy, orientation on local governance systems, etc…) prior to phasing out.

Follow up stages of CBDRM projects should seek to devolve as much responsibility in

decision making and as possible to the community members themselves.

Modify the current CBDRM Guidelines Manual (already in draft version) into separate but complimentary set of “how-to” guidebooks that provide and illustrate the step-by-step process involved in undertaking the CBDRM processes (i.e., how to conduct PVCA, how to assess vulnerabilities, how to make a VDRP, etc…).


Annex A _______________________________________________________________________

Terms of Reference - Project Evaluation

“Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project - Bangladesh”

Implemented by Oxfam GB with the financial assistance of the European Commission under the Third DIPECHO Action Plan for South Asia

Oxfam Great Britain (Oxfam GB) is an independent British organisation, registered as a charity, affiliated to Oxfam International, with partners, volunteers, supporters, and staff of many nationalities.

Oxfam GB (OGB) uses a range of approaches to achieve change and improve

peoples’ lives, including saving lives through emergency response; longer-term development programmes; and campaigning to achieve lasting change. Oxfam’s goal is a world where everybody is secure, skilled, equal, safe, healthy, and heard. OGB works with people in nine regions in over 70 countries around the world

OGB 's involvement in Bangladesh began with assisting refugees during the 1971

war for Bangladesh's independence. The following programmes are currently running: Disaster Risk Reduction (including Humanitarian and River Basin programmes), Gender, Indigenous people, Livelihoods and River basin.

The project “Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project - Bangladesh”

is part of the OGB Humanitarian programme (or is it DRR?). Much of Bangladesh floods every year during the monsoon season and is regularly battered by devastating tropical cyclones. Oxfam's Humanitarian Programme aims to respond effectively to all humanitarian emergencies in the country. To achieve this, Oxfam works closely with the Government and other agencies to deliver an effective response during a humanitarian crisis. A lot of its work focuses on preparing communities in Bangladesh to handle such disasters.

The project is funded by DIPECHO, the disaster preparedness programme of the European Commission’s humanitarian aid department (ECHO). Since 1992, the Commission has funded relief to millions of victims of natural and man-made disasters outside the European Union. Aid is channeled impartially to the affected populations, regardless of their race, ethnic group, religion, gender, age, nationality or political affiliation. In the area of humanitarian aid, the Commission works with 200 operational partners, including specialised United Nation agencies, the Red Cross/Crescent movement and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The Commission also funds disaster preparedness and mitigation projects in regions prone to natural catastrophes. Launched in 1996, DIPECHO is a multi-hazard focused operation with particular emphasis on floods and earthquake disaster


preparedness. DIPECHO addresses disaster preparedness in a regional framework, targeting vulnerable communities living in the main disaster-prone areas of the developing world. As it is very difficult to prevent or influence natural hazards, the programme concentrates on reducing the vulnerability of the population. The Commission advocates that disaster preparedness, prevention and mitigation should become integral to development policy. Successful DIPECHO projects with a demonstrative character or multiplier effect are an essential part of this advocacy.

1. Background

The relationship with DIPECHO, aimed at reducing floods induced vulnerability of Char communities, started in 2002 with the “River Basin Programme” and continued with the “Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project”, implemented through the country Humanitarian Programme in 2003/2004.

The current “Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project - Bangladesh”

(CBDRMP) started on the 1st March 2006 for a period of 16 months. 5 local partners are involved in implementing the project.

Experience gathered through the implementation of the above-mentioned two programmes clearly suggests a different targeting mechanism. This is where communities will be chosen for livelihood security and disaster preparedness activities by taking into consideration their willingness to change which will empower them to the extent they would like to in dealing with disasters.

Whilst this new targeting system tried out in Oxfam’s DIPECHO 2003 project,

proved to be effective in terms of creating some degree of sustainability and improved programme quality, concerns were raised, by the different stakeholders, about the top-down design approach of disaster risk management programmes across the country. According to the community groups, sustainability can only be ensured if they can design and implement their own risk reduction activities. This system of community based risk reduction needs to be a continuous process where plans can be adapted as nature of hazards and related risks changes with time. They wanted to establish a system where Government and non-Government service providing organisations would be accountable to the collective voice of community based organisations (CBOs).

OGB in an attempt to understand this phenomenon is suggesting a remedial risk reduction model where communities will be empowered and capacitated to manage hazard induced risks by themselves, by acting as catalysts organising, training, equipping and linking them as appropriate. Through the current CBDRMP project, OGB wishes to adapt a well-established risk reduction model and defining threshold of acceptable risk by risk - impact analysis method. Overall Objective: to increase the awareness and response capacities of local communities to potential and frequent natural disasters and reduce the affect of these disasters on the most vulnerable


Specific Objective: To organise, train, equip and link communities exposed to floods related risks and communities exposed to earthquake related risks, so that they can better cope with these emergencies

The project is adopting the targeting system (tested in DIPECHO 2003 project)

where in one area OGB partner will no longer assume that every vulnerable community can be immediately supported to develop floods preparedness. The communities that demonstrate most commitments are selected to act as change leaders to eventually motivate other communities. The message sent out is that their collective behaviour can affect the extent to which they are affected, physically and economically by floods.

The hypothesis is that the risk reduction model (community-based and owned)

coupled with the targeting system will produce even better results and sustainability.

The steps that are being followed during the current project are as follows: Step 1: Establish the context. Step 2: Selection of the area. Step 3: Rapport building with communities and local stakeholders. Step 4: Community Risk - Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (CRVCA). Step 5: Community Risk Reduction Action Plan (CRRAP). Step 6: Respond to the threat environment. Step 7: Evaluation of the project. 2. Purpose of Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of Community Based Disaster Risk Management Project and take stock of how the project benefits are reaching vulnerable communities. 3. Objectives 1) Reviewing the level of impact achieved by the project in terms of sustainability and

effectiveness against project results and OVIs; 2) Identifying good practices and lessons learnt, and developing strategic

recommendations aimed at improving the model in the relevant areas. 3) Reviewing the project management’s compliance with FPA Guidelines and the

project management appropriateness (ref. Objectives - point # 2). Particular emphasis in achieving the Objectives above will be given to:

assess communities and partner Organisations’ level of ownership and receptiveness of activities;

assess communities and partner Organisations’ level of ownership and receptiveness of the model;

assess if changes into practice are evidence of change into beneficiaries’ beliefs/attitudes;

assess level of involvement/ownership of Government bodies, local service providers and other relevant stakeholders as well as level of coordination ensured in project areas.

Key stakeholders to carry out the evaluation will be ECHO, OGB, 5 project partner Organisations, Village/Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees and other project beneficiaries, Government officials, local service providers.


4. Specific Tasks

1. In consultation with OGB project team members and partner Organisations, to develop the methodology - including setting specific evaluation’s indicators as per required in addition to the ones of Operation’s Logframe - and to prepare the evaluation work plan - including project sites’ selection.

2. To collect and review all relevant project documents, including working documents.

3. To meet with ECHO representatives, OGB and partners project staff. 4. To meet with Government officials, NGOs and other stakeholders working in the

project areas. 5. To visit the selected project sites, to meet with beneficiaries, to assess the

effectiveness and sustainability of intervention against expected results and OVIs, with particular attention to intervention on Village/Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees, involvement of local authorities and gender mainstreaming.

6. To review and identify best practices and lessons learnt on project management and implementation.

7. To prepare report as per section # 5 below. 8. To share main findings in a feedback session with OGB project staff, project

partner Organisations and other stakeholders involved. 5. Output

A detailed report spelling out all above mentioned tasks and recommendations for future projects. Findings of the evaluation, including best practices and lessons learnt as well as recommendations, will be shared with all project partner Organizations and other stakeholders involved.

6. Timeframe 1. Draft Report will be submitted by 20th July 2007 2. Comments from Oxfam GB by 25th July 2007 3. Final Draft Report to be submitted by 31st July 2007.

7. Composition of evaluation team An external expert will carry out the evaluation with the support of OGB DIPECHO team members and Oxfam partners’ staff.

The team will ensure a reasonable gender balance and act by ensuring gender sensitivity.


Annex C LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ________________________________________________ OXFAM GB Bangladesh

1. Mr. Farid Hasan Ahmed - DRR Program Manager 2. Ms. Kabita Bose - Humanitarian Program Officer 3. Ms. Tanja Berretta - DIPECHO Project Manager 4. Md. Habibur Rahman - Project Officer, Flood 5. Mr. Monir Chowdhury - Project Officer, Flood 6. Mr. Shofiul Alam - Project Officer, Earthquake

Rural People Development Songstha (RPDS)

7. Md. Salah Uddin - Executive Director 8. Mr. Abdul Hossain - Field Facilitator 9. Mr. Khabir Ahmed - Field Facilitator 10. Mr. Shalid Lellah - Field Facilitator 11. Mr. Sangida Akter - Field Facilitator

Amra Kaj Kory (AKK)

12. Mr. M.A. Jalil - Executive Director 13. B.M. Alauddin - Program Director 14. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Shil - Project Manager, CBDRMP 15. Ms. Halima Akter - Asst Project Manager, CBDRMP 16. S.M. Kuddlus Molla - Project Coordinator 17. Ms. Okhil Chandra Bairoagi - Field Facilitator 18. Mr. Md. Billal Hossain - Field Facilitator 19. Mr. Hasina Akter - Field Facilitator 20. Md. Yousuf Ali - Field Facilitator 21. Mr. Romkumol Raj - Field Facilitator 22. S.M. Kaium - Field Facilitator

Socio Health and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP)

23. Md. Showkat Ali - Executive Director 24. Mr. Grolum Kiberia - Project Manager 25. Mr. Nirmal Kr. Sarkar - Finance Manager 26. Mr. Rafiaul Islem - Field Facilitator 27. Mr. Altabi Assime - Field Facilitator 28. Mr. Hafizur Rahman - Field Facilitator

Friends in Village Development Bangladesh (FIVDB)

29. Md. Delower Hossain - Program Manager, CBDRM 30. Mr. Ziaur Rahman Shiper, - Coordinator, Special Program 31. Mr. Shamik Shahid Jahan - Associate Director 32. Mr. Mintu Acharjee - Field Facilitator, CBDRM 33. Mr Nazmul Islam - Field Facilitator, CBDRM


Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Center (BDPC)

34. Mr. Moloy Chaki, - Coordinator, BDPC, Dhaka 35. Mr. Kamran Jacob - Program Manager, CDDRM

Local Government Officials

36. Mr. Walid Hossain - Nirbahi Upzilla Administrator 37. Mr. Abdul Kader - Union Chairman 38. Md. Azizul Haq Manik - Ward Commissioner of Sylhet City Corporation

Fire Service and Civil Defense, Sylhet

39. Md. Zahid Hossain Bhuyan - Deputy Assistant Director 40. Mr. Dinumoni Sharma - Senior Station Officer

Village Disaster Preparedness Committee (VDPC) 10 members of Iman Matobberer Para VDPCs 6 members of Moyez Matobberer Para VDPC 8 members of Selimpur Harihardia VDPC Ward Disaster Preparedness Committee

21 members of Ward 5 WDPC, Kalbakhali, Sylhet 8 members of Ward 81 WDPC, Dhaka Civil Society Groups in Sylhet

Md. Muhibur Sakur, Managing Director of Sylhet Cable System Mr. Ylayes Miya, Head Master of Syed Hatem Ali high school of Sylhet 10 members of Shandhani, Ragib Rebeya Medical College Hospital, Sylhet Unit 10 members of the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society, Sylhet unit

Community Residents Random interviews with some Villagers

Annex B ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OGB Bangladesh - CBDRMP External evaluation

Mr. Casals’ mission draft work plan

Time Frame

Task Start date

End date

Days Location

Arrival of Jerome to Dhaka 07/07/2007 Dhaka (Marino Guest House confirmed)

- Finalize the appropriate evaluation design and evaluation methodology. - Review/evaluation of all background materials related to the project. - Discussion/interviews in OGB office.

08/07/2007 09/07/2007 2 Dhaka

- Leave Dhaka to Manikgonj District by car. - Discussion with OGB Partner Staff (RPDS) and field visit. - Meeting beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders (2 Village Disaster Preparedness Committees), visit Risk Reduction Plans’ activities. - Travel to Faridpur District for overnight staying.

10/07/2007 10/07/2007 1 Manikgonj District

- Faridpur District. Discussion with OGB Partner Staff (AKK) and field visit. - Meeting beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders (2 VDPCs), visit Risk Reduction Plans’ activities.

11/07/2007 11/07/2007 1 Faridpur District

- To Sirajgonj District. Meet OGB Partner SHARP and relevant stakeholders (ie. UNO, UP Chairman). - Debrief of the report to Partners and other stakeholders.

12/07/2007 12/07/2007 1 Sirajgonj District

- Back to Dhaka in the morning. 13/07/2007 14/07/2007 2 Dhaka

- Based on the stakeholders feedbacks start working on draft report following EC/DIPECHO reporting guidelines as well as on consultation with OGB Partners where necessary. - Leave Dhaka to Sylhet by plane. - Discussion with OGB Partner Staff (FIVDB) and field visit. - Meeting beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders (Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees, Fire Brigade and Civil Defence, Power Development Board etc), visit Risk Reduction Plans’ activities. - Carry out debrief with Partner and relevant stakeholders. - Back to Dhaka by airplane.

15/07/2007 16/07/2007 2 Sylhet

- Discussion with OGB Partner Staff (BDPC) and field visit. - Meeting beneficiaries and relevant stakeholders in Dhaka (WDPCs etc), visit Risk Reduction Plans’ activities. - Debrief of the report to Partner and other stakeholders.

17/07/2007 17/07/2007 1 Dhaka

- Evaluation debrief to DIPECHO team and other Senior OGB staff on the overall findings, highlighting key issues and recommendation. Collection of feedbacks.

18/07/2007 18/07/2007 ½ Dhaka

- Based on the feedbacks, develop draft report. - Compile lessons learnt, good practices as required by other DIPECHO partners into one common document.

18/07/2007 20/07/2007 2 & ½ Dhaka

- Submission of draft report. - Jerome Leaves for the Philippines.

21/07/2007 1 Dhaka-Philippines

Total of man-days 14 Contingency days: 1

community based disaster risk management project,...

Documents