The overall objectives of the evaluation were to assess how well disaster resilience has been integrated into DFID funded programmes that have been piloting this over the last year in order to track progress at an early point, understand the effect of this at community level, and provide lessons for future programming. The definition of “Resilience” is adopted from DFID – “…the ability of countries, communities and households to manage change, by maintaining or transforming living standards in the face of shocks or stresses - such as earthquakes, drought or violent conflict – without compromising their long-term prospects.” In the context of the range of work assessed in this evaluation (community infrastructure and “software” such as awareness raising and training initiatives), the team sought to assess resilience work addressing a range of hazards, past and present threats and as far as possible, potential emergent ones. The work of three experienced implementing partner agencies was assessed: CARE –Nepal and Rural Reconstruction Nepal working together in the Community Support Programme (CSP), and the Emergency Response and DRR (ERDRR) programme of the Rural Access Programme.
CSP partners work in 44 Districts, and the RAP-ERDRR programme in 4 Eastern Districts affected by the 2011 earthquake. This evaluation had the opportunity to assess three kinds of intervention. Type 1) was the more in-depth resilience work of CSP in focus VDCs and Wards, carried out with the newly established CBDRMCCs and where there was most emphasis on resilience software, Type 2) other CSP community infrastructure work where resilience was built in but there was much lighter emphasis on software interventions, and Type 3) the shorter term work of RRN and RAP (additional to these agencies’ core work) that was specifically aimed at communities recovering from the September 2011 earthquake. CSP has completed the first year of their two-year focused resilience work in their selected VDCs and Wards, and RAP-ERDRR is phasing out of its Eastern work.
The evaluation team focused on collecting evidence against OECD DAC criteria. The process began with desk study and key informant interviews with Kathmandu stakeholders, and then undertook field work in two Eastern and three Western Districts. Progress on software was assessed mainly through focus groups, and a community perceptions survey, and technical assessments of building quality were carried out on site.