Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: UK Support to Build Earthquake Resilience in Nepal
What support will the UK provide?
How much funding does the UK expect to provide?
This business case sets out UK support to increase Nepal’s resilience to earthquakes and other natural
disasters at a cost of £17.5 million over four years (2011-2015).
A further phase of UK support will focus on the safety of hospitals. This may include an additional
allocation of UK funding, subject to approval by UK Ministers.
Why is UK support required?
What need are we trying to address?
Vulnerability of the population of Nepal to earthquakes.
What will we do to tackle this problem?
The UK, and the international community, is committed to doing all that it can to avert another Haiti in
Nepal. Building Nepal’s resilience to a major earthquake is central to UKAid’s new four-year
operational plan in Nepal.
UK support will build resilience in Nepal by strengthening national systems for disaster risk
management and response, increasing community-based earthquake readiness and improving
preparedness for a national and international emergency response.
Alongside UK programmatic support, a cross-Whitehall UK response plan has been established to set
out how the UK Government, particularly DFID, MOD and FCO, would work together to ensure
maximum UK input to an international response.
Who will be implementing the support we provide?
UK support will be implemented by the United Nations Development Programme, the British Red
Cross, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), MSB (Swedish Civil Contingencies
Agency) and INGOs including Oxfam, Practical Action, Action Aid and Save The Children.
The UK is a partner in the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium, a major initiative led by Government of
Nepal (GoN) and supported by UN agencies, the Red Cross, the World Bank, the Asia Development
Bank and other donors. The Consortium has identified a set of priority areas for intervention under five
flagship areas.
What are the expected results?
What will change as a result of our support?
The Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium is a major international effort to support the Government of
Nepal’s priority areas on disaster risk, and to support the development of Nepal’s national resilience
strategy. By building effective partnerships with likeminded partners in four of the key flagship
programme areas, the UK will improve the capacity of Nepal’s disaster management systems to
respond to a major earthquake and other natural disasters, ensure a faster and more effective
response and recovery, and protect development gains. The UK will leverage this investment further by
embedding a focus on building disaster resilience across the DFID Nepal programme in response to
Lord Ashdown’s 2011 UK humanitarian review.
The UK’s support is based on three assumptions, its “theory of change”:
1. Strengthening national legislation on land use planning and building codes, and improving
enforcement, will lead to changed behaviours, better building standards and reduced risk.
2. Increasing awareness and provision of information to communities and individuals about what
to do in an earthquake, how to prepare for disasters and how to reduce risk will lead to changed
behaviours and build resilience.
3. Building the capacity and number of first responders trained in first aid and search and rescue,
and linked to national systems for disaster response, will increase the number of survivors
rescued from collapsed buildings.
What are the planned outputs attributable to UK support?
The UK will mainstream a resilience focus in the DFID Nepal programme. UK support will deliver the
following results:

Strengthened national resilience through policy/institutional support for national disaster risk
management and response planning, including:
o Improvement in seismic risk management capacity and training for 600 Government
workers at central and district levels;
o Improved building code compliance and risk sensitive land use planning in 5
municipalities in the Kathmandu Valley;
o Early recovery activities in 6 districts in Eastern Nepal affected by the Sikkim
Earthquake (September 2011), building back better at least 162 schools/health posts
and training for 600 masons in seismic retrofitting techniques.

Community resilience built through community-based earthquake and disaster preparedness,
including:
o building the resilience of 4 million women and girls, men and boys to earthquakes and
other disasters through community-based disaster resilience initiatives in major urban
centres of Nepal (including Kathmandu, Pokhara and urban areas in the Far West);
o reaching 5 million people through public information and awareness raising;
o create 110 community-based disaster management organisations in urban
municipalities and equipped with disaster resilience plans.

Improved preparedness for emergency response, including:
o Strengthened capacity of “First Responders”, and 4,000 volunteers trained in search
and rescue and first aid (including 2,500 Nepal Red Cross volunteers);
o Support to the development of a national Urban Search and Rescue Capacity in Nepal
including the Nepal Armed Police Force and Nepal Army;
o Support to ICRC to deliver critical first aid and major incident management training to 28
hospitals in 19 districts;
o Enhanced Emergency Operation Centre Network comprised of national hub, 5 regional
and 30 district centres;
o Pre-positioning of emergency water equipment in 2 key open spaces agreed as
potential IDP camps in Kathmandu Valley.
DFID will also provide technical assistance to develop a master plan to improve structural and nonstructural hospital resilience in Nepal. This will identify hospital resilience projects for potential funding
by DFID or other donors as part of a further phase of support.
How will we determine whether the expected results have been achieved?
DFID support will be channelled through key partners (UNDP, ICRC, MSB, British Red Cross and
INGOs) under the framework of the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium. Ongoing programme
management by programme partners and oversight by DFID will ensure delivery against a detailed
logframe and key milestones. Operational research and impact evaluation will be conducted by
independent humanitarian/DRR researchers and evaluation experts.
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
Nepal’s exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards
Nepal is a landlocked country lying between India and China. It is highly prone to natural hazards
including earthquakes, intense monsoon rains, drought, communicable disease outbreaks and
wildfires. A combination of climate change1, rapid urbanisation and mountainous terrain makes Nepal
highly vulnerable to such hazards. More people are killed by natural disasters in Nepal than any other
country in Asia2 with more than 4,000 fatalities in the last ten years due to disasters, which also caused
economic losses of $5.34bn3.
The inevitable, if unpredictable, occurrence of a major earthquake is considered the most deadly
threat, due to the likely massive loss of life and infrastructure. The seismic record suggests an
earthquake of 8+ Richter (intensity MMI X) every 75 years4. The last major destructive earthquake in
Nepal registered 8.3 in 1934. A recent study5 by UNDP ranks Nepal as the 11th most vulnerable
country to earthquake risk. A second study ranks Kathmandu as carrying the highest earthquake risk of
any city in a similarly active seismic zone6.
The Kathmandu valley, the most densely populated area of Nepal is at the highest risk in terms of
impact on people. A ‘worst case’ amongst likely scenarios is an earthquake with an epicentre
approximately 200 miles west of Kathmandu. Such an earthquake, measuring 8+ on the Richter scale
at its epicenter, is likely to generate catastrophic shaking in the Kathmandu valley, as well as severe
damage in other urban centres in the Terai. Recent estimates7, based on a low population estimate of
3 million in the Kathmandu Valley, predict that a major earthquake (8+ Richter) is likely to:
1
cause 100,000 deaths
leave 300,000 people injured (including 200,000 people requiring hospital care)
leave over 1,500,000 people homeless
lead to the total destruction of 60% of all buildings
cause severe damage to 80% of hospital infrastructure
OECD, 2003. Development and Climate change in Nepal: Focus on Water Resources and Hydropower.
Source: UN/BCPR 2004.
3
Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Preparedness Network, Documentation Center, 2010
4 The last major destructive earthquake in Nepal registered 8.3 in 1934. Experts predict that Nepal will experience two
earthquakes of 5 to 8 magnitude every 40 years, and one registering 8+ (MMI X) every 75 years.
5
Source: UN/BCPR 2004.
6
Source: GeoHazards International 2008
7
“Nepal High Level Symposium on Disaster Risk Reduction – Statistics and Scenarios”
2
-
cause secondary landslides leaving roads in and out of the Valley impassable for 30 days
or more
damage 95% of water supply pipes
set back development gains.
All of these estimates are for the Kathmandu Valley alone. A major earthquake will undoubtedly cause
major devastation in other areas, both rural and urban. Population estimates for the Kathmandu Valley
range from 3 million to 5.5 million and estimates of damage and loss are very possibly low. Some
believe that Nepal could ultimately suffer greater devastation and loss of life than Haiti in the aftermath
of its earthquake in January 2010 (with an eventual death toll of approximately 326,000).
Annex 1 sets out the likely dimensions of a catastrophic earthquake in Nepal and the UK response.
An earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter Scale affected the eastern region of Nepal, as well as the
capital of Kathmandu, on 18 September 2011. According to the National Seismological Centre, the
epicentre was east of the Nepal-India border of Taplejung and the India State of Sikkim. The
Government of Nepal’s (GoN) Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and the National Emergency
Operations Centre coordinated the response to the earthquake. A total of 18 districts were affected by
the earthquake, which caused 7 fatalities, 72 people severely injured and hospitalised. 6,300
houses/buildings completely destroyed, 8,300 partially damaged and more than 14,600 families with
38,000 people unable to return to their homes8. Up to 60% of schools and health posts in some
districts have been severely damaged9.
Nepal ranks 157th out of 187 countries in the Human Development Index10. High population density,
ongoing urban growth, poor construction standards and non-enforcement of building codes make
urban populations in Nepal extremely vulnerable to disasters, and it is widely acknowledged that
disasters have the highest effect on poor people. Impacts will be particularly felt by the 10 million
already vulnerable people in rural Nepal11, many of them women headed households12 and excluded
groups. Natural disasters can also increase the risk of conflict by increasing tension, ethnic stress
through unequal access to assistance, enforced relocation, sexual and gender based violence, unsafe
or involuntary return or resettlement and issues of loss of documentation and property compensation.
Social inequality and gender relations are important determinants of the way disasters affect various
segments of population. A study on gender, poverty and vulnerability conducted in Nepal13 suggests
that social groups such as Dalits, elderly, women, and children are more adversely affected by
disasters. Women suffer disproportionately during disasters in comparison to men as they work more
inside the home and are therefore more at risk of being killed, trapped or injured when buildings
collapse. The incidence of mortality and injury caused by disasters is higher in case of women.
Unhealthy living conditions inside makeshift shelters, lack of sanitation, and absence of access to
health care in transit / temporary shelters increase women’s vulnerability. Among women too, pregnant
women, women who have recently given birth, elderly women and menstruating women are more
vulnerable. Other vulnerable groups in disasters include the elderly, those with disabilities and
traditionally excluded communities.
Inadequate community awareness and preparedness and limited community-based disaster resilience
in Nepal has led to destruction and loss of life which could have been mitigated. Public awareness of
what to do in a disaster in Nepal is low, as is the perception of risk within the population or knowledge
8
IFRC, Disaster Relief Emergency Fund data 21 Oct 2011
Department for Urban Building Construction, GoN, November 2011
10 Human Development Index 2011
11
MoE. 2010. NAPA draft document
12
54% of rural households in Nepal have at least one member of the household working abroad, 97% of theses migrants are
male leading to the feminisation of rural Nepal.
Passage To India - Migration As A Coping Strategy In Times Of Crisis In Nepal, WFP 2009
13
UNDP in Nepal, 2010
9
of actions they can take to increase their personal, household or community resilience to the hazards
they face, particularly how they may prepare for an earthquake or act in the immediate aftermath of
one. This is compounded by fatalistic attitudes. A study in 2010 in the Kathmandu valley carried out by
Action Aid highlighted very poor knowledge of hazards, threats and what to do to prepare. 84% of
people thought that Kathmandu was not vulnerable in terms of disasters and only 12% of people felt
government was capable of providing fast, sufficient and efficient help.
Policy context and the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium
In Nepal, a number of disaster resilience strategies and structures share policy and operational
space14. Earthquake risk mitigation, planning and response all fall under the GoN’s draft National
Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (NSDRM), which has yet to be endorsed by Parliament. The
NDRSM was approved by Cabinet in October 2009. The Bill enacting the Strategy was approved by
the Cabinet in January 2011 and has moved to Parliament for enactment, where it still remains 11
months later (November 2011). The bill contains proposals for a single government entity (a “National
Disaster Management Agency” or NDMA) that can lead on disaster management, coordinating with
other GoN ministries.
In recent weeks (November 2011), good progress has taken place on the Integration and Rehabilitation
of ex combatants which could pave the way for greater political stability, completion of the constitution,
national elections and enactment of the Disaster Management Act. However, large issues of
governance remain unresolved, including the type of Government, electoral system and the type of
federalism to be adopted. All these uncertainties will play out in the coming year. The type of federal
structure established will also impact on institutional structures at VDC level.
Currently, the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee (CNDRC), chaired by the Home Minister, is
the focal point for formulating and implementing disaster response policy, and for coordinating disaster
relief assistance through the District Disaster Relief Committees. In the event of a disaster the CNDRC
would meet immediately to assess the situation and, if necessary, officially request international
assistance. The National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC) - based at MOHA headquarters at
Singha Durbar in Kathmandu - will be the focal point for operational coordination of all humanitarian
assistance, linking with an expanding network of regional and district EOCs.
Although MoHA plays a coordinating role, other Ministries are also engaged. But GoN lacks a national
framework and a clearly established lead agency for disaster management. This latter issue has
recently gained traction, and the Office of the Prime Minister is currently considering options as a focal
point (including creation of an NDMA).
The GoN’s priorities from the NSDRM have been brought together within a ‘Nepal Risk Reduction
Consortium’ (NRRC). The NRRC is co-ordinated by the office of the UN Resident and Humanitarian
Coordinator (UNRC/HC) and has representation from MoHA, UN agencies, the Red Cross, donors and
the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank (ADB). The NRRC covers a range of disaster risks to
Nepal and beyond the specific earthquake hazard. It serves, however, as a useful framework for
looking at activities that have been considered for the specific earthquake threat, as well as broader
risk reduction. Based on detailed consultation, the Consortium has identified five Flagship Areas, to be
taken forward even while the NSDRM awaits approval. The five Flagship areas are:
Flagship 1: School and hospital safety (lead agency ADB/WHO)
Flagship 2: Emergency preparedness and response capacity (UNOCHA)
Flagship 3: Flood management in the Koshi river basin (World Bank)
Flagship 4: Integrated community based disaster risk reduction/management (IFRC)
Flagship 5: Policy/Institutional support for DRM (UNDP)
14
These include NAPA, (the National Adaptation Plan), the Disaster Preparedness Net, Association of International NGOs,
Disaster Management network and the National Platform for DRR
The NRRC is a ‘framework’ to coordinate inputs and activities under priority areas agreed by the GoN.
It is also a platform for generating the resources required. Its identification of key areas is not a
comprehensive assessment of risks, and it is acknowledged that the Consortium as currently
configured will not respond to all needs. But, whilst the entire spectrum of risk reduction requires
investment, the ‘Flagship’ areas have been agreed by Government of Nepal, donor partners and other
Consortium members as the most urgent priorities.
Flagship 3 looks specifically at the management of risk related to flooding in Nepal’s largest river basin.
This flagship has not been considered for support by DFID for two reasons: it is not specifically related
to the earthquake threat, and it has been targeted by the World Bank for major support.
At DFID Nepal’s request, a CHASE team consisting of a humanitarian expert and a DRR expert
conducted an assessment visit in early 2011 and concluded that a number of options for potential DFID
bilateral programming support existed in support of the NRRC’s five Flagship Programmes 15. The
CHASE mission (report at Annex 2) also concluded that the NRRC lacked capacity, and would benefit
from technical and financial resourcing from DFID to bolster delivery and promote further resource
inputs from multilaterals and donors.
For DFID’s investment in earthquake preparedness to be effective, it must contribute to a well thought
through plan. Given the need for DFID to put support into place swiftly, feasible options in supporting
increased earthquake preparedness and preparedness for response can be framed by the options
available through the NRRC and the Flagship Programmes. It is important to note that areas such as
public health, food security, water and sanitation issues, logistics and civilian protection are missing
and will need to be further considered by DFID both in design and as part of operational research and
evaluation of impact. DFID announced its decision to join the NRRC in February 201116 and it is
important that an initial intervention contain elements that build on this momentum by being supportive
of the Consortium.
Consortium members and other key players
UNDP is a potential partner in Nepal for disaster preparedness activities. It scored well in the
Multilateral Aid Review in terms of both value for money and their role in meeting international
objectives. While UNDP is not a specialised humanitarian agency, it is noted as having a ‘unique
legitimacy with partner governments’ and being critical to the delivery of both development and as
having a part to play in achieving humanitarian objectives. In Nepal, UNDP lacks resources, and only
part of UNDP’s plans have been financed centrally through UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and
Recovery. Crucially, in Nepal UNDP will be hosting the UN Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UNOCHA) who will lead on humanitarian co-ordination.
The International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) scores strongly as a critical humanitarian actor in
recognition of its unique scale and reach. Its contribution to the MDGs through its work in disaster
preparedness is also noted. Perhaps the biggest asset is the support and co-operation that can be
invoked from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). ICRC (although not an NRRC
partner) is unique – it is a purely humanitarian agency which works in some of the most difficult conflict
environments in the world providing protection and assistance. ICRC’s ability to deliver under difficult,
and often dangerous circumstances, makes them a strong candidate for increased funding. The MAR
results concluded that ICRC was one of a small set of organisations that offers DFID very good value
for money with strong alignment with UK development objectives.
The World Bank and ADB are the largest infrastructure donors in country, with the ADB alone providing
approximately $200m per year in this area. These infrastructure projects follow national
15
Rob Holden and Rowshan Hannan, CHASE visit to Nepal 17th-21st January 2011
Sue Wardell, Director of Security and Humanitarian, in a speech to High-level Symposium on DRR, Kathmandu, 8th February
2011.
16
guidelines/codes for land use and building, even though these are generally recognised as insufficient.
A number of INGOs have longstanding DRR programming in Nepal (such as Oxfam, ActionAid, Save
the Children, Care and Practical Action). However very few have focussed on the earthquake threat.
DFID should encourage capacity development amongst INGOs and NGOs in earthquake
preparedness specifically, and as part of existing multi-hazard approaches to disaster resilience. In
recent months, INGOs have increasingly been talking of resilience. Given the new resilience focus in
DFID, this presents an opportunity to harmonise our strategic thinking with INGO partners to increase
the impact of a potential intervention.
The US Embassy in country has developed a strong operational partnership with US Military Pacific
Command (PACOM). PACOM has been tasked to explore how the US would initiate a major
humanitarian response following a catastrophic earthquake. In 2011, PACOM have held a series of
consultations with the Nepalese military and other key stakeholders. It is likely that their main effort will
focus on the restoration of critical infrastructure (airports, roads, bridges) and access to clean water. It
is essential that these plans are integrated with those of the UN system, in particular the logistics
cluster. The UK military is engaged in these discussions as part of an HMG wide response to an
earthquake in Nepal being coordinated by DFID.
Government of India and Government of China are other key players in Nepal. However, it is difficult to
gauge exactly what either country would be willing to do in a large-scale emergency. Given the
significant resources that both countries could bring to a response, as well as land and air access that
they could provide to the international humanitarian community, greater and more concerted
engagement with India and China at a high level is crucial. Plans do need to consider, however, that a
major earthquake in Nepal would probably have a significant affect on northern India which could divert
attention away from support for neighbouring Nepal.
Feasibility of a DFID Intervention
Earthquake Preparedness is a new area of engagement for DFID in Nepal, although some limited
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) projects have been supported in recent years. Globally, DFID has not
significantly engaged in earthquake preparedness in the past but has often mopped up in the
aftermath, supporting post-earthquake response and recovery in Haiti, Pakistan, China, Indonesia and
elsewhere17. The Humanitarian and Emergency Response Review (see section below) recommends
that the UK should focus more (additional, not instead of) resources on preparedness and this has now
been accepted by DFID. In particular the concepts of anticipation and resilience will focus on the need
to ‘make humanitarian response preparedness and resilience part of the core programme’ in countries
with a high level of natural hazard risk. Whilst DFID, and CHASE in particular, will continue to respond
generously it will also look to focus additional resources on the proactive building and financing of
stronger disaster management systems.
DFID Nepal’s Operational Plan 2011-15 sets out its objective to increase resilience to climate change
and natural shocks. DFID Nepal will support activities to combat climate change through its climate
adaptation programme,18 thereby building resilience to natural disasters. The earthquake resilience
intervention is complimentary and, by (i) strengthening the institutional architecture for disaster
resilience and (ii) supporting a multi-hazard approach to risk reduction in vulnerable communities, this
intervention will also contribute to increased resilience to climate variability and change.
DFID is therefore ideally placed to use its funding and its role in the NRRC to build effective
partnerships with likeminded partners to improve Nepal’s disaster resilience and protect development
gains.
17
In both Indonesia and Pakistan, DFID engaged in DRR activities only in the aftermath of the devastating events of 2004 and
2005, at a cost to date of £126m for reconstruction in Pakistan and £45m in Indonesia.
18
Nepal Climate Change Support Programme approved in December 2010.
The threat of a major earthquake in Nepal is not new. What is new is the impetus resulting from
reassessment of the implications of recent earthquakes over the past few years (Haiti, New Zealand,
Japan, Turkey). The Sikkim Earthquake in September 2011 served to remind Nepal of its vulnerability,
and has widely been described as “a wake-up call for Nepal”. The US has been pushing for greater
focus on earthquake preparedness for some time and the NRRC has benefited from the US’s push to
bring international attention to this issue. High-level meetings in early 2011 in Kathmandu and in
Washington DC (and with the DFID Minister of State as chief guest) have brought further attention to
the issue.
UK Ministers firmly believe that the UK – given our long history in Nepal - is morally obliged to do what
it can to reduce risks to the population due to earthquakes.
In the event of a disaster, a comprehensive well planned and well funded humanitarian response will
be essential. It is however equally important to anticipate what DFID can do now to reduce the effect of
a natural disaster when it occurs. This is a challenge for our development and disaster resilience
interventions. The effective strengthening of disaster risk management at all levels would result in
improved national response to smaller scale disasters as well as major catastrophes e.g the annual
impact of floods, droughts and landslides. This includes those which would not trigger an international
response and through which communities may otherwise have to cope unaided.
While response to rapid onset natural disasters is, in most cases, a CHASE lead, disaster
preparedness and risk reduction is better undertaken by the DFID country programmes informed as
necessary by CHASE expertise. Done correctly the two elements, preparedness and response, will
complement one another. The CHASE assessment visit in early 2011 concluded that DFID Nepal
should provide bilateral support to increase Resilience and that DFID should be a key player in the
NRRC.
The development of a specific HMG earthquake contingency plan19 for Nepal further reinforces the
complementarity between DFID Nepal’s preparedness efforts and HMG’s broad role in response. This
plan is the first detailed cross-Whitehall plan, prepared in advance, to respond to a major humanitarian
disaster. It is a new departure in inter-departmental scenario-planning and cooperation for a
humanitarian response potentially drawing on UK military assets.
Links to other DFID policy initiatives
2011 has seen famine in parts of the Horn of Africa and multiple earthquakes, tsunamis and other
natural disasters globally. The World Bank expects the frequency and intensity of disasters to continue
to increase over the coming decades. A paper published in the Lancet in November 2011 highlights
that, in the past decade, earthquakes have caused almost 60% of all disaster-related mortality - more
than 780,000 deaths20.
In June 2011, the UK Government Response to the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review
(HERR) presented disaster resilience as ‘a new and vital component [of our] humanitarian and
development work.’21 Building on this, the UK Government’s Humanitarian Policy, Saving lives,
preventing suffering and building resilience, puts resilience at the centre of our approach to addressing
disasters, both natural and man-made. DFID has committed to embed resilience-building in all DFID
country programmes by 2015, integrate resilience into our work on climate change and conflict prevention and
improve the coherence of our development and humanitarian work. DFID is currently working to define the
UK’s resilience approach and Nepal is a priority country for implementation of the new approach.
This intervention will support DFID’s high-level preferences as set out in the DFID Business Plan 201119
Nepal Earthquake HMG Emergency Response Plan, Sept 2011 (DFID, FCO, MOD)
Medical complications associated with earthquakes, Bartels & Van Rooyen, Lancet, November 2011
21
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/hum-emer-resp-rev-uk-gvmt-resp.pdf?epslanguage=en
20
2015 by ensuring that the basic needs of people whose lives have been ruined by disaster (whether
natural or conflict-driven) are met, and ensure that emergency relief aid is targeted at those areas
where threat to life is most severe, extent and depth of suffering greatest, and response capacities of
communities and authorities most limited. The intervention also contributes to combating climate
change by supporting a multi-hazard approach to risk reduction in vulnerable communities and to
increase resilience to climate variability and change.
Disasters increase gender inequality, making bad situations worse for women. DFID’s response to the
HERR review considers how gender sensitivity can be increased in DFID’s approaches to humanitarian
and disaster response. This business case will consider how DFID’s intervention to improve
earthquake Resilience in Nepal will increase effectiveness through the full and balanced participation of
women, men, girls and boys. Consideration will also be given to how social inclusion issues,
particularly pertinent in the complex and conflict-ridden Nepali context, can be embedded into DRR and
response programmes: thereby protecting the poorest and most marginalised sections of society when
they are at their most vulnerable.
The proposed intervention would also have strong links with work underway in DFID China on SouthSouth Co-operation on Community based Disaster Management in Disaster Prone Areas. This aims to
strengthen regional south-south cooperation in Asia in community based disaster resilience, with China
as the facilitator. DFID Nepal is in discussions with DFID China to facilitate stronger links between
Government of Nepal and Chinese expertise and experience in earthquake preparedness and building
design.
The intervention is also relevant to DFID’s Global Grant to the BBC World Service Trust which aims to
enhances the availability of information and improve communities' resilience to humanitarian crises and
institutional preparedness to respond to crises, including in Nepal. DFID Nepal is working closely with
BBC World Service Trust in Nepal to ensure their engagement on media/communications
preparedness and public awareness as part of the NRRC’s work plan.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
The proposed package of interventions is intended to build resilience and reduce the vulnerability of
communities in Nepal to a major earthquake. Under the broad heading of disaster resilience, the
impact is that: Nepal reduces risk and builds resilience to earthquakes and other disasters.
The outcome is: Increased preparedness and improved capacity of disaster management
systems builds resilience to minimise the impact of major earthquakes in Nepal.
Despite the dearth of hard evidence to underpin results delivered from earthquake preparedness
programmes, experience from broader DRR programmes in countries like Bangladesh and China22
suggests that investing in the right kind of disaster resilience can reduce the overall impact of disasters.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that properly prioritised actions to address earthquake risks in
Nepal will have developmental benefits, as well as providing good vfm.
There is also good evidence that disasters reinforce, perpetuate and increase gender inequality,
making bad situations worse for women.23 A number of case studies, with potential for replication in
Nepal, point to the importance of mainstreaming gender issues in DRR24 and there is also evidence
from DFID’s own experience that empowerment of women in DRR projects contributes to increasing
community resilience to disasters25.
22
Source: Tearfund/Oxfam America, 2010, Cost Benefit Analysis for Community Based Climate and Disaster Risk
Management: Synthesis Report.
23
Source: UNISDR/UNDP/IUCN, 2009, Making Disaster Risk Reduction Gender-Sensitive: Policy and Practical Guidelines.
24
Source: UNISDR, 2007, Gender Perspective: Working together for Disaster Risk Reduction.
25
DFID, 2006, Sustainable Use of Groundwater in Northeast Brazil.
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
Options to be considered
Four options/components have been identified, based broadly on the Consortium’s Flagship areas
(as per CHASE Scoping Mission recommendations at Annex 2) but with enhancements to include
perceived gaps in the programming (including on public health, water and sanitation issues and
logistics). These are:
Option 1: Build national resilience through policy/institutional support for national
disaster risk management and response planning
Option 2: Build community resilience through community-based earthquake and
disaster preparedness
Option 3: Protecting health services, including making hospitals earthquake-resilient
Option 4: Improved preparedness for emergency response
These options/components are not intended to be exclusive, and broad interdependencies can be
identified across all of them. Appraisal has tested the potential for each option to deliver results and
value for money, and has identified the optimal mix of intervention choices for DFID to invest in. Each
option/component is outlined below.
“Do Nothing” Counterfactual:
High population density, ongoing urban growth, poor construction standards and non-enforcement of
building codes make urban populations in Nepal extremely vulnerable, and it is widely acknowledged
that disasters have the highest affect on poor people.
As set out in the strategic case above, if no new intervention occurred, and based on a low
population estimate of 3 million in the Kathmandu Valley, the prediction is that a major earthquake
(8+ Richter) is likely to cause at least 100,000 deaths, leave 300,000 people injured and lead to the
total destruction of 60% of all buildings and cause severe damage to 80% of hospital infrastructure.
A long and ill-organised recovery to such an event could result in prolonged macro-economic
impacts, with long-term impact on growth, which in turn would undermine development.
Development spend would suffer from budgetary contractions, and the ability of GoN to implement
development programmes (including those funded by DFID) could be compromised. The
international community, including DFID, would incur high costs for humanitarian response.
Although the NRRC initiative has galvanised donor engagement, DFID is one of few donors to
commit significant funds. UK support will represent a significant percentage of support to each of the
four flagship areas. No other donors are engaged in hospital safety. Without UK support,
improvements to disaster resilience in Nepal will be piecemeal and on a small scale.
Option 1: Build national resilience through policy/institutional support for national disaster
risk management and response planning
What it will consist of
Under this component, UK support would build national resilience by strengthening the institutional
and legislative aspects of disaster risk management to support the enactment of the NSDRM and
build the capacity of MoHA, other ministries, and local government. This is arguably the bedrock of a
DFID intervention in DRR. Without investing in strengthened legislative systems, such as a fledgling
NDMA and building codes, it is clear that DFID’s investments in other areas, including strengthening
hospital infrastructure (option 3 below), will not be sustainable.
The Kathmandu Valley is the most concentrated urban area in Nepal, where both most people live
and most economic activity occurs. It is also where the earthquake risk is greatest. Through
legislative system strengthening, building code enforcement and risk sensitive land use planning, UK
support will contribute to changes in municipal response systems and planning processes to ensure
that Kathmandu starts to reduce, rather than continue to increase, its earthquake risk.
Outside of Kathmandu, rapid early recovery support to eastern districts in Nepal affected by the
Sikkim Earthquake will provide reduce the possibility of a potential humanitarian crisis (38,000 people
have been displaced by damaged homes with winter approaching26) and allow scaling up of training,
retrofitting designs and public information messages to support the wider NRRC workplan.
How it will work
Under this component, DFID will provide support to UNDP as lead on NRRC’s Flagship on
Policy/Institutional support for Disaster Management (Flagship 5). The UK will fund elements of
UNDP’s Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Programme which is already approved by GoN.
DFID support would cover 7 key areas:
i. Improved seismic risk management capacity and building code compliance in at least 5
municipalities in the Kathmandu Valley: This will provide targeted support to municipalities who
are responsible for day-to-day enforcement of the National Building Code, focusing on the
Kathmandu Valley. It will provide technical support to the GoN to enhance the policy framework for
National Building Code where gaps exist and tackle corruption in the construction sector. It will
support key government departments, such as the Department of Urban Development and Building
Construction (DUDBC) and the Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee to further enhance
the skills and capacity of local and national GoN officials responsible for NBC enforcement and
actively increase anti-corruption programming. This will be complemented by work to strengthen
public-private partnerships to incentivize good building practices, and support outreach activities to
create greater consumer demand for safe buildings. Activities such as media mobilization and
awareness-raising will particularly also aim to reach and sensitise women and marginalized groups
on how National Building Code is relevant to their own lives and safety.
ii. Risk sensitive land use planning in all five municipalities of the Kathmandu Valley: DFID
support will enable UNDP to mainstream DRR in urban development in the context of both new, often
high-rise, developments and re-development of existing urban neighbourhoods. Many of these are at
high risk, house the poor and the underprivileged, and have no prospect to attract private
investments. The risk sensitive land use plan will provide a framework for development and land use
allocations in the city and establish regulatory controls for the location and design of future schools,
hospitals and other critical facilities, thus ensuring long term sustainability.
iii. Key technical professionals and decision makers trained on risk sensitive land use
planning: This will support more comprehensive disaster risk management training in the National
Administrative Staff College, APF Training Centre, the Institute of Engineering, the Centre for
Disaster Studies and Kathmandu University.
iv. Private sector engaged in improving disaster risk management: Currently in Nepal there are
few incentives for private sector engagement in disaster risk resilient behaviours. There are no selfregulatory mechanisms and little market for safe products or services. Given its significant risk profile,
engaging with the private sector will be key to making development in Nepal risk resilient. This
26
IFRC Disaster Relief Emergency Fund reporting, 21 October 2011
initiative will focus on outreach to the construction industry, ICT/telecommunications industry and the
banking/ insurance industry. UNDP will work with GoN to develop an enabling environment and
regulating private sector involvement in disaster resilience activities. This might take the form of
taxes, penalties, tax breaks, subsidies, grants or educational opportunities. Direct partnerships
between the Government and private sector in areas such as the development of risk sharing
financial instruments like insurance, or through effective monitoring and quality control of building
materials and processes can create win-win situations for businesses, the government and
consumers. DFID support will enable partnerships with private sector organisations like NCELL
(mobile telecoms). As the HERR sets out, DFID is keen to support innovative approaches to disaster
risk management.
v. Early recovery plan for the Kathmandu Valley based on a major earthquake scenario: Work
will embed lessons learned from the 18th September earthquake as well as from earthquakes in Haiti,
New Zealand and Japan. This will ensure pre-planning in Nepal on questions such as how rubble
would be removed, how land ownership issues will be handled in the recovery phase, or how key
economic sectors such as transportation, banking and business can be restored.
vi. Early recovery activities in Eastern Nepal in the aftermath of the Sikkim Earthquake: this will
provide early recovery support to 100 priority schools in districts affected by the September 2011
earthquake working with Save The Children (SCF) to provide engineering and retrofitting training to
local and district government and undertake community-based DRR activities to enable communities,
including vulnerable households, to increase resilience.
vii. Support to Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium Coordination: Recognising the opportunities
offered by the NRRC, DFID has already deployed a humanitarian specialist as Secretariat
Coordinator. This was recommended by CHASE in January 2011. DFID will continue to support this
post for 2 years to support the Consortium’s work through coordination, representation, advocacy,
strategic planning, resource mobilization, information management, donor liaison and coordination,
and Government liaison. The Secretariat is hosted by the UNDP Comprehensive Disaster Risk
Management Programme although it reports to the RC/HC.
DFID support to UNDP as outlined above will complement a second UNDP programme strand aimed
at developing the EOC network as outlined under option 4 below.
Option 2: Build community resilience through community-based earthquake and disaster
preparedness
What it will consist of
As the Strategic Case sets out above, in the event of a major earthquake in Nepal, it is the people
themselves who are inevitably the very first to respond to those in need in the event of a disaster. In
addition to the earthquake threat, the Nepali population face a multitude of additional disaster
hazards encountered on a more regular basis – these include water shortages, fire, flash flooding,
epidemics, storm damage, landslides, etc.
Therefore mechanisms need to be established to train and maintain a cadre of community “first
responders” with skills in first aid and search and rescue. Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction
(CBDRR) interventions will include contingency planning, simulation exercises, training of community
groups, education programmes targeting schools, small-scale infrastructural strengthening, prepositioning of tools and establishment of early warning systems.
Under this component, DFID will build the resilience of vulnerable people to respond to earthquakes
and other disasters through community-based resilience initiatives in major urban centres of Nepal.
DFID’s focus will be on the Kathmandu Valley, Pokhara and urban centres in the Far West. By
mainstreaming DRR across DFID Nepal’s community-based programmes, DFID will cost-effectively
reach large numbers of people in Nepal.
How it will work
This component will be delivered in a number of ways: through support to the Red Cross in the
Kathmandu Valley, through support to build the capacity of INGOs in urban centres outside of
Kathmandu and through mainstreaming DRR across DFID’s existing community programmes.
i. Support to Red Cross: DFID will provide funding through the British Red Cross to the Nepal Red
Cross Society (NRCS) who will work, in partnership with the British Red Cross, with 66 of the 100
wards in the Kathmandu Valley. NRCS are already active in urban CBDRR and DFID’s support will
enable them to operate at a scale that will reach a critical mass of the population. No other national
organisation in Nepal has the community presence or reach, and NRCS plays a vital and credible
role within the overall disaster management framework of the Government of Nepal.
NRCS will train a cadre of 2,500 community first responders in 66 vulnerable communities (wards) in
Kathmandu Valley with skills in first aid and search and rescue. Local plans for increasing
awareness, preparedness and response capacities within each community will be drawn up and
implemented. NRCS will focus on transferring skills to women, men and children in the community for
protecting themselves from risk, and also the skills for responding in the event of a disaster.
Simultaneously with this community-level risk reduction work, the general population of the Valley will
be targeted with a mass communication campaign – potentially reaching 4m people - to raise
awareness of the risks they face and risk reduction actions they can easily take to increase their
resilience and that of their families. A mixture of mass media and more interpersonal outreach
methods will be identified, designed to reach as many people as possible, including targeted
outreach for those normally “hard-to-reach” through normal channels.
DFID support to British Red Cross as outlined above will complement a second British Red Cross
programme strand aimed at developing the institutional capacity of the Nepal Red Cross as outlined
under option 4 below.
ii. Support to build the capacity of INGOs working on building resilience to earthquakes: To
ensure INGO capacity-building outside of the Red Cross system, DFID will provide support over 2
years to Practical Action/Action Aid working in the Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan area and Oxfam,
working in two Terai Municipalities in the Far Western Region of Nepal: Dhangadhi (Kailali district),
Mahendranagar (Kanchanpur district) and 4 Wards (communities) in these Municipalities. These
INGOs have been selected on the basis of their existing work in Nepal and experience in delivering
CBDRR in urban environments.
iii. Mainstreaming DRR in existing DFID programmes: DFID’s Rural Access Programme (RAP) is
working to construct 365 km roads and rural infrastructure to improve the access of poor people in
seven remote hill districts in Nepal. Three of the districts in which RAP operates (Bhojpur, Khotang
and Terhathum) were particularly affected by the Sikkim Earthquake in September. DFID will use
RAP’s existing implementation modalities to reinstate earthquake-affected public utilities and to build
disaster resilience in communities affected in these districts.
A separate business case will set out how DRR will me mainstream in DFID’s Community Support
Programme (CSP). CSP works in 44 districts and in 500 VDCs and is implemented by Care Nepal
and Rural Reconstruction Nepal, both well-regarded actors in DRR. By ramping up CBDRR activities,
DFID will mainstream DRR across 44 districts, working with 200 VDCs and 600 vulnerable
communities.
Option 3: Protecting health services, including making hospitals earthquake-resilient
What it will consist of
DFID support under this option will build the resilience of health services in Nepal. This support will
address hospital safety under the NRRC’s flagship 1 programme.
Hospitals play a vital role in disaster preparedness and response. But hospital infrastructure in Nepal
is in extremely poor condition and the majority of hospitals will collapse in an earthquake. Surveys27
in 2002 and 2003 identified that 80% of assessed hospitals in Nepal were in the ‘poor performance’
category for newly constructed buildings, and the remaining 20% deemed at high risk of lifethreatening collapse.
Equally important to a standing hospital building is ensuring the functionality of the health facility. This
includes having health workers who are trained to deal with the high number of medical cases that
need specific interventions in a disaster situation, an infrastructure that can cater to these needs,
including suitable supplies of fuel, water and electricity, having the right equipment and supplies in
place, and having a network of hospitals which all tie in to the overall incident command and control
structure of a mass casualty management system.
The NRRC has prioritised hospitals, along with schools, in acknowledgment of the poor state of
public infrastructure in Nepal28. This Flagship is coordinated by ADB with WHO designated as the
responsible agency for the hospital safety component. As yet, no donor has looked at the highly
complex area of hospital safety. ADB have asked DFID to consider taking on hospital safety as a
donor member of the Health SWaP in Nepal. The UN is also keen for a donor to be involved given
limited WHO capacity.
The poor state of Nepal’s hospitals, and the lack of planning for mass casualty management within
hospitals, represents a key risk to the UK’s investments in the Health sector in Nepal.
A mission in June 2011 by an earthquake structural engineer (report at Annex 3) has confirmed that
hospital infrastructure in Nepal is in very poor condition and that a programme of retrofitting and
reconstruction could increase the resilience of key medical facilities after an earthquake and save
lives.
The expert recommended that a follow up survey to the 2003 work be carried out to provide an
overall framework for improving seismic resilience of health facilities. This will be complicated by
many factors including the extensive private sector network, the complex nature of hospital
development and management whereby many Ministries have a role, the overall low levels of
expertise within the country in working with multi-storey buildings and with retrofitting buildings of
more than three storeys, and need for coordination with other programmes.
How it will work
A DFID intervention would create a “resilient/model hospital project” or projects to:
 retrofit or construct a new earthquake-resilient hospital, for which DFID would fund major
structural reconstruction and/or retrofitting programme to ensure the facility’s resilience to
high intensity earthquakes.
 enhance emergency health and rehabilitation response readiness. This means ensure
functionality of key services following an earthquake through training of health professionals
in triage and emergency room trauma training, ensuring an infrastructure that can cope,
including suitable supplies of fuel, water and electricity, having the right equipment and
supplies in place, and networking hospitals to an overall incident command and control
‘Structural Assessment of Hospitals and Health Institutions of Kathmandu Valley’ and ‘Non Structural Vulnerability
Assessment of Hospitals in Nepal’.
28
That the majority of schools and hospitals are private further complicates the issue.
27


structure of a mass casualty management system.
provide opportunities for local capacity building (construction, health services and for
communities).
demonstrate a process for tackling the issue, and to act as a catalyst for accelerated action by
GoN and donors.
To identify the potential DFID project, DFID will support WHO and GoN by funding a seismic
vulnerability assessment of major hospitals in Nepal in order to identify an initial set of priority
hospitals for retrofitting/reconstruction.
Option 4: Improved preparedness for emergency response
What it will consist of
Specific elements for DFID support under this component will include the building of formal national
Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) capacity, the enhancement of the national Government
Emergency Operation Centre network, the strengthening of the emergency preparedness and
response capacity of the Nepal Red Cross Society, support to Emergency Health and support to
open spaces identified as potential IDP sites. Detailed programme design would ensure that support
to the Government’s EOC network and support to the Nepal Red Cross would be complementary.
How it will work
i. Urban Search and Rescue Capacity: To conduct effective search and rescue following a major
earthquake in Nepal, local capacity needs to be supplemented at a minimum by formal USAR
capacity, trained and equipped.
INSARAG, the UN led, international search and rescue advisory group have identified the need to
develop two ‘medium’ USAR teams within the Nepal Army/Armed Police Force, trained and
equipped. Such capacity would also strengthen links between Nepal and INSARAG and strengthen
institutional preparedness for coordinating international search and rescue teams in the event of any
major disaster. Training facilities and trainers developed for the medium teams could also be used to
organise exercises and training for ‘light’ teams in districts. The development of national standards
would also be beneficial for the future coordination of national USAR resources. An INSARAG
mission visited Nepal in May 2011 and made recommendations to GoN (Report at Annex 4).
A DFID intervention to support formal USAR capacity will be run through a consortium under the
management of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). The consortium will be likely to
include USAID, the Swedish Govt (SIDA) and work with technical support from INSARAG. This
mirrors similar approaches used in Pakistan and Tajikistan and would build upon the accumulated
knowledge of MSB and INSARAG and lessons learned from these exercises.
In late November 2011, GoN announced plans to integrate ex combatants into a new disaster
response force of up to 4 battalions in the Nepal Army, including 2 battalions (1350 personnel) in the
Kathmandu Valley. This provides a major opportunity for the UK to support the development of local
first response capacity, including search and rescue and emergency medical response.
ii. Strengthened Institutional Capacity of the Nepal Red Cross: DFID would provide support to
strengthen the institutional capacity and readiness of the Nepal Red Cross Society to respond to
earthquake and other disasters. This potential intervention recognises the unique role of the Nepal
Red Cross Society in disaster management. Activities would include recruitments drives to increase
the number of potential first responders, revision and testing of NRCS contingency plans and
strengthening of logistics and warehousing including pre-positioning of non-food relief items and
retrofitting of emergency warehouses. This project component forms part of a bigger intervention
proposed by the Nepal Red Cross in partnership with the British Red Cross described above under
option 2.
iii. Strengthened national network of Government of Nepal Emergency Operations Centres
(EOCs): DFID will provide support to UNDP to enhance the EOC network, providing 5 regional and
30 district centres and funding enhanced disaster risk management planning around the EOC
network, including an earthquake response plan for Kathmandu Valley and simulation exercises. This
project would be one strand of a broader intervention through UNDP. Broader project objectives are
covered below under option 1.
iv. Support to establish WASH facilities in key open spaces/potential IDP camps in
Kathmandu Valley: Water provision is acknowledged to be a large gap in the Consortium’s plans.
Following a disaster, access to potable water will be a priority. Sanitation is an even greater problem.
A fourth area of intervention under option 4 will be to ensure potable water and sanitation facilities for
up to 100,000 people at 2 potential sites for internally displaced people in the Kathmandu valley. This
will be delivered through DFID support to Oxfam and will include earthquake resistant deep tube
wells, water treatment plants, water bladders and pre-positioning of piping and sanitation kits. This
intervention will also consider capacity-building of adjacent communities in whose midst the camp will
be established. These activities will be scaled up once the open spaces identified by IOM as potential
IDP sites are confirmed by GoN and given protected status.
v. Support to Emergency Health: In order to provide immediate support to enhance emergency
health and rehabilitation response readiness, DFID will fund ongoing ICRC programming in Nepal.
This will include training of trainers in emergency first aid in 28 hospitals in 19 districts, prepositioning of medical supplies in 6 hospitals. Emergency Room Trauma training, and support to
Nepal Red Cross Action Teams in 10 districts outside Kathmandu.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option
In the table below the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited
Option
1
2
3
4
Evidence rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for each
feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk / opportunity; C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D,
core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Option
1
2
3
4
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
C. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option?
Option 1: Build national resilience through policy/institutional support for national disaster
risk management and response planning
Incremental Costs
DFID would provide £3.3 million to UNDP over 4 years (equivalent to approximately $4.9m). The total
budget for all activities under Flagship 5 is $13.8 million over 5 years. Therefore DFID support is
representing approximately 35% of the total budget allocated to this Flagship area.
Incremental Benefits
The benefits of the proposed interventions under Option 1 would include:
 Better planning and response to earthquakes and other disasters, resulting in avoided loss of
life and injuries, evacuation of assets, faster relief and recovery leading to faster economic
recovery, a decreased reliance on external sources of aid, reduced disruption of services, and
greater national confidence to handle emergencies effectively.
 Buildings built to better standards and in more appropriate locations, leading to decreased
costs to rebuild buildings, avoided loss of life/injuries due to unsafe buildings, reduced
damage of critical infrastructure and reduced disruption of services, as well as greater sense
of security from living in safe locations.
 Opportunities to ensure gender and social sensitization of Government of Nepal’s disaster
management planning.
 Opportunities to improve climate change response and deliver aspects of GoN’s National
Adaptation Plan of Action.
Clearly, other agencies are acting in this area, and DFID support is part of a wider UNDP initiative.
Therefore the incremental benefits of the DFID funded work will be a proportion of the whole. Given
that DFID funding is equivalent to approximately 35% of the total budget for this Flagship area, it
could equally be assumed that DFID funding will realize a similar proportion of the total benefits of
the UNDP initiative.
It is not possible to quantify the benefits associated with activities undertaken in Option 1 in a cost
benefit framework due to data constraints. However, it is possible to draw some conclusions on the
potential value for money of these interventions, and to ensure that benefits are maximized.
Appraisal also merits a specific comment on the inclusion of measures to engage the private sector
in disaster resilience. Engaging the private sector in disaster resilience initiatives will encourage
innovation, accelerate change and potentially improve value for money. It also brings in another
finance pool, and hence active involvement by the private sector could result in more action on
disaster resilience taking place in a shorter time frame. Engagement with the
ICT/telecommunications industry in particular can play a key role in coordination and communication
in emergencies. And it also delivers a multitude of benefits in non-disaster times, many of which are
quantifiable (for instance the ability of farmers to get better prices at market by accessing prices
using mobile phones or access to mobile phone technology to vulnerable groups through
mechanisms such as social transfers and safety nets.). Appraisal also finds, however, that
encouraging private sector involvement could, if not carefully managed, lead to the exclusion of
women and other vulnerable groups from assets, resources and mechanisms that could help reduce
their risk to disasters. Such groups will have less finance and education/knowledge with which to
access private sector innovations such as mobile phone emergency text messaging and other
technology aids. It is vital that the ability to reduce individual and household risk to disaster is made
available to all, and not just those who can afford or demand it.
Better planning and response to earthquakes and other disasters:
While a faster and more effective response will clearly bring gains through reductions in lives lost and
injuries, and faster economic recovery, we do not know the extent to which these gains will be
realized, nor do we have the data to directly quantify them. However, it is estimated that the
humanitarian response alone for an 8.0+ magnitude earthquake in the Kathmandu Valley would
require a budget between $1.5 and $3 billion. The total budget for all activities under Flagship 5 is
$13.8m, which is less than 1% of the total estimated humanitarian cost, and will be a far smaller
percentage of the total recovery and reconstruction budget. We can therefore reasonably assume
that, if we think our prioritised activities will result in a reduced relief cost by 1%, then there is an
economic justification for the activities.
These activities will likely result in lives saved. While DFID does not place a value on life for moral
reasons, at a minimum the loss of these family members can bring significant economic hardship to a
family. The economic input of each life saved is almost always one of the most significant factors in
an economic appraisal and therefore cannot be ignored, even if only included in qualitative terms. As
an example, the World Bank analysis of earthquake preparedness uses a value of a statistical life of
$250,000 for the developing world.
Buildings built to better standards and in more appropriate locations:
Most earthquake deaths are related to building collapse or damage. And fragile construction,
alongside higher-risk land use practices, account for much higher death rates in similar-sized
earthquakes close to population centres in the developing as opposed to the developed world.29
Evidence suggests that these two activities – improved building code and better land use planning should be undertaken in conjunction, and that monitoring and enforcement are essential for these
measures to be effective.30 Nonetheless, subject to these limitations, historical evidence suggests
that strong buildings that are appropriately sited can significantly reduce loss of assets and deaths in
an earthquake, suggesting that monetisable benefits will be high.
It is not possible to quantify these activities in the context of Nepal, because we do not know how
many buildings will be built to these standards, and indeed whether continued political instability will
result in successful and consistent implementation of these measures. In the case of revising building
codes, incremental costs will include the cost of revising code, as well as the additional cost required
to build to a new standard. For houses that are no longer sited in risky areas, there is no incremental
cost for building (the house would cost the same in either location), though land is likely to be more
expensive in less risky areas, and eventually supply will outstrip demand, driving prices higher. The
proposal for this area of work does target zones where new build is greatest, and this should help
push up economies of scale.
The benefits of stronger buildings are the avoided costs of having to rebuild those buildings, at full
cost, in an earthquake, as well as the avoidance of lives lost. However, with a return frequency of 75
years, it is difficult to ascertain whether the benefits would outstrip the costs.
A World Bank study31 found that these measures are typically cost effective, and that even in areas
of moderate risk, low cost building and siting practices to reduce the risk of disaster damage may be
justified on both social and financial grounds
The NRRC is supporting MoHA in its lead role on disaster risk management. An ongoing institutional
risk has been the low capacity of the MoHA on disaster management. However, the close working
relationship between NRRC and MoHA has provided openings to strengthen the capacity of the
ministry, particularly through UNDP and OCHA.
The Department of Urban Development and Building Construction (DUDBC), which is part of the
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works (MPPW) is responsible for implementation of national
building codes. A small DRM unit has been recently established under the joint secretary. DUDBC
has 25 divisional offices to look after 75 districts throughout the country. On average, there is one
divisional chief and 2 engineers in each divisional office (one looks after urban development and
another looks after building construction including DRM). DFID assesses there to be some high
levels of expertise in earthquake resistant construction in the DUDBC and also outside government,
in organisations like NSET and private sector consultants. However, expertise is limited to a few
individuals and there are insufficient people to provide the expertise needed. Actions towards building
the capacities of MoHA, other national ministries and Local Government will have wider benefits in
Kenny, C (2009). “Why Do People Die in Earthquakes?: The Costs, Benefits and Institutions of Disaster Risk Reduction in
Developing Countries.” The World Bank, Sustainable Development Network.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
29
terms of these governance structures being equipped to better execute all aspects of their duties,
including those related to social development and inclusion, poverty reduction and gender equity.
Capacity-building initiatives should be seen to specifically include raising awareness regarding and
appropriate training in gender equity and social inclusion issues.
Although Nepal’s legal framework requires municipalities to enforce the building code, compliance
varies considerably. Within the Kathmandu valley, municipalities can be roughly groups into three
categories:
1) New and emerging new municipalities where little or no code enforcement is currently taking place
and local by-laws do not yet require adherence to building code. UNDP’s programme will aim to
achieve the initial introduction of building code with an emphasis on the basic requirements for
compliance.
2) Small municipalities with well established building permit systems and by –laws, but where
building code compliance is not part of this process. Such municipalities can benefit from applying
the Mandatory Rules of Thumb (MRT) guidelines which are also part of the National Building Code.
3) Larger municipalities such as Kathmandu and Lalitpur where building code is included in the
building permit process, but enforcement is weak. These municipalities also face an additional
challenge that MRT guidelines are not sufficient to cover more complex engineered structures being
developed in the capital. Further, they do not have sufficient skilled manpower to check structural
analysis of emerging new building typologies, particularly the class 1 buildings of international state
of art category. UNDP’s programme aim here will be to achieve strict code implementation for all
level of building construction.
Mitigating corruption risk is a central component in working with municipalities to improve adherence
to building code. The programme will include segments on promoting best practice and avoiding
corruption in training courses, and will support anti-corruption activities. A more stringent system in
implementing building code, as well as system of checks and balances between different
Government and independent bodies (for example engineering council, municipal government and
key oversight ministries) can help increase transparency and oversight in the construction sector and
help tackle corruption. Efforts to increase transparency during the implementation of GoN projects,
and links to key global initiatives such as 'CoST' initiative (construction sector transparency
initiative) can also help Nepal to improve systems. Nepal is not currently a CoST country, but if
selected as a priority country for global roll out of the pilot initiatives, there is particular scope for
cooperation. The programme will use this as an opportunity to pilot the CoST initiative in Nepal,
working with DFID's other infrastructure programmes and the WB and ADB as other consortium
members who are major infrastructure investors in Nepal.
Gender and social sensitization of Government disaster management planning.
Option 1 offers opportunities to consider social transfers/safety nets which would help put in place the
mechanisms to identify, document, track and therefore support the poorest and most excluded
sections of society. If such a system where in place then it could be utilised, adapted and expanded
in times of disaster as part of broader DRM planning and response systems; providing a means of
ensuring the most vulnerable groups/individuals in the aftermath can access resources and services
quickly and easily. Use of social transfers would particularly benefit those in remote geographical
areas, where the transport of cash would be logistically easier than transporting food and other more
‘traditional’ humanitarian supplies. Targeting of beneficiaries would need to be through a transparent
process and be gender-sensitive, in that within Nepali households women are often not given any
access to or control over finance.
The delay to the NSDRM strategy’s endorsement could be used as an opportunity to assess the level
of consideration of gender equity and social inclusion issues in the document, and resultantly to
advocate for any recommended changes prior to being passed by Parliament. For instance, a multi-
stakeholder decentralised approach is proposed, but it needs to be determined as to whether this
actually plans towards genuine inclusion of the most poor and socially marginalised groups in
planning, implementation and monitoring of DRM activities. Working towards the formulation of an
NDMA affords the opportunity to ensure appropriate female and socially excluded group
representation in such a national level body, thus helping all planning and action by such an agency
have a more gender and socially appropriate ‘lens’.
In providing support and enforcement to Building Codes, this will directly benefit the most poor and
vulnerable groups and individuals who tend to live in the poorest standards of housing, particularly in
urban areas. The focus on the newest and least developed municipalities, where the highest
numbers of urban poor and vulnerable groups live, will further enhance these positive outcomes.
Given the fact that many of the urban poor live in informal settlements, or in poorly constructed
housing, the project will apply an additional component to promote awareness and technical advice
to residents of informal settlements, drawing on international experience and good practice.
Delivering climate change and environmental benefits:
To date the main focus of Nepal’s DRR activities have been on climatic risks. This programme will
help reinforce the institutional structures and capacity already set up to deal with these risks.
Consequently the programme will increase Nepalese authorities and communities resilience to
existing climatic risks, risks that are predicted to increase in future due to climate change. This is
especially true for the community based DRR work which will include components on both climatic
and earthquake risks.
Based on the evidence presented above, the activities are ranked low, moderate or high for their
potential value for money.
Activity
Value for Money
Building codes and High
land use planning
(activities 1i, 1ii, 1iii)
Justification
VFM is deemed to be high. Training will help to provide
the institutional support and knowledge transfer to
ensure that building codes and land use planning are
implemented effectively.
Engagement
of Moderate to High
private sector (1iv)
Partnerships with the private sector can foster
innovation and speed up implementation. Potential for
high value for money.
The earthquake early recovery plan is deemed
“moderate” value for money, only because it is specific
to earthquakes alone and therefore may not realize
benefits for many years to come. However, the early
recovery activities are offer high VFM.
Activities that facilitate coordination and strengthening
of institutional frameworks, particularly within the
context of multiple hazards, are typically low cost and
can play a critical role in ensuring that resources are
spent as effectively as possible.
Early Recovery (1v Moderate to High
and 1vi)
Support to NRRC High
(1vii)
Interlinkages with Other Options
This option will support the activities proposed under all three of the other options proposed, with
particularly strong linkages with options 3 and 4:
 Support for the NRRC and early recovery activities through SCF will help ensure effective
coordination between the different NGOs involved in community-based initiatives that might
be undertaken under Option 2.
 Support to strengthened building codes and land use planning will complement DFID support
to build the physical resilience of hospitals outlined in Option 3.
 Option 1 complements a second UNDP programme strand under Option 4 aimed at
developing the EOC network, working with national, regional and district government and civil
society to enhance disaster preparedness and response capacity in hazard prone areas.
Option 2: Build community resilience through community-based earthquake and disaster
preparedness
Incremental Costs
DFID would provide £3.65m (equivalent to approximately $5.2m) in total to support Community-based
Disaster Risk Management, allocated as follows:
 £1.6 million to British Red Cross over 4 years
 £800,000 for mainstreaming resilience in RAP programme over 1 year
 £250,000 to Oxfam over 2 years for work in the Far West
 £1 million to Practical Action/Action Aid for work in Pokhara over 2 years
 £2.5 million through CSP (note that this allocation will be separate business case but
included here for appraisal purposes)
The total budget for all activities under Flagship 4 is $30 million over 5 years. Therefore DFID support
is representing approximately 17% (30% with the inclusion of CSP) of the total budget allocated to this
Flagship area.
INGOs have been identified who will be able to enhance or expand existing DRR programming and
therefore develop their capacity to provide support to increase Nepal’s earthquake resilience. DFID will
seek to encourage the development of INGO consortia in future phases to reduce transaction costs
and monitoring, and to improve lesson learning. Oxfam, Practical Action and Action Aid are all
Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) partners and have been assessed by DFID to ensure that
they can demonstrate value for money in their day to day operations.
Incremental Benefits
The benefits from this option can be wide ranging, depending on the suite of measures that is
implemented, and this will be decided through community-based engagement, and will differ across
communities. Community based disaster risk management activities can range from evacuation
planning and first aid training, to improved water and sanitation, to more structural measures such as
the building of embankments or shelters. Many of these activities bring broader developmental and
climate adaptation benefits outside of disaster times, and are applicable across multiple hazards.
Benefits can include avoided loss of life, protection of house and assets, protection of livestock,
improved farming yields, income generating opportunities, decreased illness associated with water
borne diseases, and decreased time spent gathering water.
This option will lead to climate-smart DRR approaches, contributing to DFID Nepal’s climate resilience
targets, by incorporating multi-hazard risk assessments that build resilience to geo-physical hazards as
well as other climatic hazards over the longer term. These approaches consider the underlying drivers
of vulnerability, particularly social, political, economic, and environmental as well as those root causes
attributable to climate change.
A Cost Benefit Analysis of one component of the NCRS DRR programming was undertaken in 2008 32,
and its findings can be used as an indicative measure of value for money of community based work in
this particular context (these findings should be applied to other activities with caution, as they are
specific to certain interventions, and are context specific). The programme of work covered a wide
range of measures for flood preparedness and resilience building, and the quantification focused on
activities around physical protection, income generation loans, protection of water sources and first aid
training. The study found that the programme returned an average of 18 Rupees of benefit for every
Rupee spent. It is important to note that this programme related to disaster resilience in the context of
Cabot Venton, C, Venton, P. and Sayce, C. (2008). “Cost Benefit Analysis of a Nepal Red Cross
Society Disaster Risk Reduction Programme.” British Red Cross, UK.
32
flooding, which occurred every year, and hence benefits were reaped every year.
The proposals are multi-hazard, but with specific components to ensure that communities are enabled
to be first responders. This should increase the value for money of these interventions by ensuring that
benefits are gained year on year rather than in a specific hazard context. In particular, the BRC/NRCS,
CSP and RAP work stand out as having characteristics that could enhance value for money as follows:
 The Red Cross has a very wide presence in Nepal, and works through volunteers. It hence has
the potential capacity to mobilize a large response at low cost. In addition to NRCS training first
responders, each community will train its own cadre of first responders, which could provide a
model for disseminating skills at very low cost.
 RAP (and CSP) aim to integrate or mainstream DRR into already existing programmes. Both
programmes specifically focus on high risk/vulnerable communities, have extensive areas of
coverage, established systems and structures in place, trained and relevant human resources,
and take a multi-hazard approach. Because RAP already exists, the systems and structures are
already in place, and overheads are therefore relatively low. As a result of all of these factors,
the marginal cost per unit of benefit can be minimized.
Option 2 provides an opportunity for DFID to deliver innovative approaches for urban CBDRR which
could have global benefits. Whilst undertaking community-based earthquake and broader disaster
preparedness activities has already been acknowledged to be a challenge in the urban environment,
this option does provide an opportunity to develop new and innovative approaches and tools which
address the urgent need to engage with urban social groups on DRR and other policy/development
issues. Both the Nepali Red Cross and BRC are already active and experienced in urban CBDRR, and
therefore are in a strong position to build on existing and design new approaches and tools in this area,
including working with, and ensuring that first responders include, women and particularly hard-toreach groups.
Based on the evidence presented above, the activities are ranked low, moderate or high for their
potential value for money.
Activity
Community-based
DRR
Value
Money
High
for Justification
Community based support has the potential to bring
significant value for money, which will be enhanced by the
fact that the activities are multi-hazard.
In particular, mainstreaming in RAP (and CSP) has the
potential for very low cost per unit of benefit.
Interlinkages with Other Options
Option 2 is interlinked with each of the other options, but in particular has a potential direct relationship
with Option 4 (around potential IDP sites).
It is recommended that support to CSP is approved via a separate extension business case which is
currently being prepared by DFID Nepal. An allocation of £2.5 million from the DFID Nepal allocation
should be earmarked.
Option 3: Protecting health services, including making hospitals earthquake-resilient
Appraisal concludes that a further business case will be required to determine the impacts of a major
structural reconstruction or retrofit of a hospital, along with enhanced emergency health and
rehabilitation response resilience. This business case will need to determine the relative impacts of
DFID funding a major re-build in one hospital as opposed to several smaller retrofitting projects.
Further appraisal will need to weigh up relative benefits in terms of potential lives saved and the extent
to which each project will serve to build local capacity. It is recommended that DFID Nepal should
seek at least £10m additional funds from central contingency for this purpose.
DFID has made and is planning additional substantial investments in the health sector in Nepal, and
therefore protection of critical infrastructure will be essential to ensure that DFID’s other investments
are not compromised and can deliver value for money.
The “resilient/model hospital project” would require technical support and heavy DFID engagement at
every stage of the retrofitting/construction process. It would also need to be aligned with the Health
SWAp.
Incremental Costs
DFID would provide £1m (equivalent to approximately $1.5 allocated as follows:
 £0.4m for seismic vulnerability surveys.
 £0.6m for additional infrastructure advisory expertise over 2 years.
Incremental Benefits
Preparatory work to update GoN’s assessment of seismic vulnerability of hospitals will identify potential
DFID project(s) and support WHO and NRRC to attract other donors to support hospital infrastructure
development.
A major structural reconstruction or retrofit of a hospital, along with enhanced emergency health and
rehabilitation response resilience, would clearly bring about a wide range of benefits, including:
 Reduced deaths of nurses/doctors in collapsed hospitals;
 Avoided cost of training replacements for those nurses/doctors;
 Reduced deaths of patients;
 Avoided cost of rebuilding hospital, buying all new hospital equipment;
 Avoided loss of life and injuries in the event of an earthquake or other major catastrophe
through improved coordination and care, as well as more effective care in other times.
DFID Nepal should develop an accompanying plan to address emergency health readiness to
compliment the structural design programme. Immediate support to ICRC is recommended and DFID
should also continue discussions with DIPECHO33 to assess the potential of a recently-started project
to enhance emergency health and rehabilitation.
Hospitals are arguably amongst the important pieces of infrastructure in a major earthquake scenario.
Earthquakes inflict assorted traumas and create "a large, unmet need for complex surgical and medical
care"34. The DFID Policy Paper on Disaster Risk Reduction35 notes specifically that following the
Pakistan earthquake of 2005:
‘the failure of critical infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, had a particularly devastating
impact, both directly in mortality caused by buildings collapsing, and indirectly, due to the resultant
absence of critical facilities.’
A serious lack of investment in critical infrastructure is recognised as a recurrent issue in disaster prone
countries, one which adds significant risk36. Lessons from the Haiti earthquake of 2010 also highlight
the need to ensure hospital resilience. 60% of hospitals in the vicinity of Port au Prince were severely
33
This consortium is DIPECHO-funded and headed by WHO, and includes Merlin, Oxfam (UK) and Handicap International,
international NGOs with significant experience in Nepal and in these technical areas.
34
Medical complications associated with earthquakes, Bartels & Van Rooyen, Lancet, November 2011
Reducing the Risk of Disasters – Helping to Achieve Sustainable Poverty Reduction in a Vulnerable World: DFID policy
paper (March 2006), p7
36
‘Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters – The Economics of Effective Prevention’; The World Bank and The United Nations
2010.
35
damaged or destroyed, including the only national teaching hospital and the only tertiary (reference)
hospital37. Water supplies at partially functioning facilities were very badly affected. This in addition to
the instant loss of 200 staff at the Ministry of Heath, whose building suffered complete collapse.
Interlinkages with Other Options
This option is linked to option 1 in that it will demonstrate a process for the proper implementation of
building standards to develop resilient hospital structures. There are also linkages with Option 2, as
enhanced emergency health readiness could be tied in with community based initiatives, particularly
around first aid, and strengthening local health capacities.
Option 4: Improved preparedness for emergency response
Incremental Costs
DFID would provide £8.1m (equivalent to approximately $12.2m) allocated as follows:
 £1.3 million to UNDP over 4 years
 £2.5 million to British Red Cross over 4 years
 £2 million for MSB to support USAR consortia over 4 years.
 £1.1 million to Oxfam for WASH facilities over 2 years
 £1.2 million to ICRC over 2 years.
The total budget for all activities under Flagship 2 is $28 million over 5 years. Therefore DFID support
is representing approximately 40% of the total budget allocated to this Flagship area.
Incremental Benefits
The benefits of activities 4i, 4ii and 4iii are very similar, and the three activities are linked. They would
all contribute to enhanced response capacity, which would result in:
 Avoided loss of life/injuries;
 Reduced relief expense associated with external search and rescue teams; and
 Reduced dependency on international intervention.
Search and Rescue (SAR) is currently being provided by the three security agencies, namely Nepal
Police (NP); Armed Police Force (APF) and Nepal Army (NA), none of which have SAR as a primary
mandate. The agencies lack institutional capacity, training and equipment to respond effectively as part
of an integrated SAR system. The three agencies assume the role of SAR as a secondary or tertiary
responsibility in an ad-hoc manner. The window of opportunity to save people trapped under collapsed
structures is normally up to three or four days after a structural collapse incident. At the same time we
know that international USAR teams rarely become operational on the ground before 48-72 hours after
a disaster has struck. National teams, if appropriately trained and equipped, can start functioning on
site within hours from the onset of a disaster. Nationally trained and equipped USAR teams would
therefore have the potential to make an important difference in rescuing lives otherwise lost in a major
earthquake in Nepal.
Activity 4iv uses community based disaster risk management but with a key focus on WASH and prepositioning of supplies specifically for two IDP camps and approximately 14 surrounding wards.
Therefore the benefits associated with this component could include those above, as well as additional
benefits from improved sanitation and associated public health outcomes (for example, reduced
incidence of waterborne diseases such as diarrhoea). It is also important to note that lack of water
supply is considered a key threat in an earthquake in Nepal, and is essential to sustain life in the
immediate term, and therefore this intervention could have important impacts on avoided loss of life.
Oxfam is internationally known for its expertise in WASH and can draw on much experience from its
‘Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC): Response to the Humanitarian Crisis in Haiti following Earthquake of January 12 th
- 6 month report’ (August 2010)
37
headquarters.
Activity 4v contributes to emergency health provision, support to Red Cross outside of Kathmandu
Valley and is politically appropriate given the new relationship that DFID is seeking to develop with
high performing disaster relief agencies like ICRC.
As with Option 1, DFID funds represent a percentage of an overall project that would seek to support
these activities, and as such the incremental benefits of DFID activities can be estimated to be in a
similar proportion (i.e. 40%). This is a significant contribution, but aligned with the UK’s efforts to be a
key player in the response. As with Option 1, the activities included in Option 4 will primarily contribute
to a more effective and efficient relief response in the event of an earthquake, and in particular have
the potential for value for money because the measures are largely soft resilience measures, and
because they can bring benefits not only in the case of earthquakes, but also in the case of other
disasters, and indeed even in everyday life (for example through strengthened emergency services).
Further, all of the activities are designed to bring benefits outside of an earthquake, which will
strengthen the economic case. For example:

The USAR approach will ensure that any USAR capacity developed should benefit the day-today emergency responders. Standard Operating Procedures would be developed as part of this
component that specify USAR teams that use emergency responders rather than having a
USAR stand by team. It is seen as one component of a National Strategy for Disaster Risk
Management, and synergies will be drawn between the USAR initiative and other efforts
underway.

While the NRCS activity is specific to an earthquake scenario, the response roles and
strengthening will be applicable to a wider range of disaster scenarios. In particular, the NRCS
proposal offers some innovations in procurement, such as arrangement of call off contracts for
local procurement of goods in the event of an emergency (and hence only pre-positioning the
minimum stocks required).
It is not possible to conduct distinct economic appraisals for these activities. Clearly the benefits could
include reduced relief spend due to a more effective and efficient response, reduction in loss of life and
injuries, and economic gains through a faster return to business as normal. However, it is not possible
to determine the extent to which these interventions will result in direct, quantifiable benefit.
However, as with Option 1, we can use the total cost of a humanitarian response in the Kathmandu
Valley as a proxy. It is estimated that the relief response for an 8.0+ magnitude earthquake in the
Kathmandu Valley would require a budget between $1.5 and $3 billion. The total budget under this
Flagship area is $28m, which is less than 2% of the total estimated humanitarian cost, never mind the
recovery cost. We can therefore reasonably assume that, if we think our prioritised activities will result
in a reduced relief cost of 2%, then there is an economic justification for the activities.
Further to this, these activities will likely result in lives saved; while DFID does not place a value on life
for moral reasons, at a minimum the loss of these family members can bring significant economic
hardship to a family. The economic input of each life saved is almost always one of the most significant
factors in an economic appraisal and therefore cannot be ignored, even if only included in qualitative
terms.
In the case of Activity 4iv, WASH facilities typically return a high value for money, due to the cost of
illness associated with diarrhoea and other water borne diseases that are so prevalent, and which can
now be reduced. This will be particularly true in an IDP camp where crowding can exacerbate
transmission of water borne diseases. Because this infrastructure is integrated with CBDRM in existing
wards near to the potential IDP camps, it has the potential to deliver benefits year on year, and
therefore benefits can be maximized, strengthening the case for value for money.
Based on the evidence presented above, the activities are ranked low, moderate or high for their
potential value for money.
Activity
Improved
Preparedness
Emergency
Response
Value
Money
High
for
for Justification
Building capacity for emergency response can deliver
benefits across a range of disasters, as well as in
everyday life, and represents a small percentage of the
estimated humanitarian cost for a major emergency.
The programme will potentially alleviate conflict in the event of a major disaster, as it will ensure that
GoN can respond more effectively and improve the legitimacy of the state. It is proposed that a conflict
audit be undertaken as part of the inception phase to identify possible additional entry points to
mitigate conflict risks.
Appraisal highlights a number of social issues to consider under Option 4. ‘First Responders’ and
Community Volunteers must be ensured to have a general level of awareness of potential gender and
social exclusion issues requiring consideration in an emergency context (e.g. emergency maternal
healthcare options). Ensuring adequate representation of women and socially excluded groups through
planned recruitment should be a key goal. Women are particularly at risk in disaster-induced migration,
transit and IDP camps due to, for example: poor sanitation in tents (where women spend much higher
amounts of time than men); absence of access to healthcare (particularly maternal healthcare), and
the increased risk of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) particularly when travelling to water
points. Menstruating and also elderly women are particular groups at risk also. Activities under this
option therefore must be planned with these issues in mind, for instance ensuring that water is
provided from safe and accessible (and possibly supervised/monitored) points, ideally within the camp
itself.
Interlinkages with Other Options
Activity 4ii forms part of a bigger intervention proposed by the Nepal Red Cross in partnership with the
British Red Cross described above under Option 2. Activities 4i and 4iii are very closely linked with
activities under Option 1, as part of the same UNDP body of work. Activity 4v is closely aligned with
resilience of hospitals under Option 3, and support to Red Cross under option 2 and 4ii.
These activities have the potential to deliver significant value for money, given that they can deliver
benefits across a range of hazards in a highly disaster prone country. Further, they are costed at a
very small percentage of the overall estimated cost of humanitarian response, and therefore are highly
likely to demonstrate good value for money. Similarly, those activities that complement other activities
within this programme could realize economies of scale and/or be critical to the success of other
activities, thus leading to greater value for money. For example, it is recommended that capacity
building of the NRCS is undertaken alongside Option 2, and similarly there are many overlaps between
Options 1 and 4, that could realize operational efficiencies because they are part of the same UNDP
programme.
Activity 4iv – WASH at IDP camps and surrounding communities, integrates CBDRM with emergency
preparedness, with the potential to deliver benefits year on year in existing communities, while
simultaneously building preparedness in those areas in the case of a major event. This integration is
critical. If the proposed activity focused on strengthening preparedness at potential IDP camps alone,
there would be a very real risk that expensive structural measures such as water infrastructure would
not be used in their lifetime, seriously compromising the investment value.
Conclusion of Options Appraisal
It is recommended that DFID’s intervention draws on options 1, 2 and 4. Strengthening disaster
risk management policy, scaling up community-based disaster resilience activities and improving
preparedness should be implemented together.
On option 3, this appraisal recommends that further feasibility work should take place on
hospital safety given the need to further scope out the dimensions of a DFID intervention and that a
separate business case should be developed for a “resilient/model hospital” project or
projects. Additional funds of at least £10 million should be sought from central contingency once the
dimensions of the project are known.
DFID has made and is planning additional substantial investments in the health sector in Nepal, and
therefore protection of critical infrastructure will be essential to ensure that DFID’s other investments
are not compromised and can deliver value for money. No other donor is looking at hospital safety
and DFID leadership on this issue will be crucial. The recommendation from the business case, and
the experts who contributed, is that DFID must investment in hospital safety.
Theory of Change
Stronger legislation and
early recovery drives
behavioural change
NatIonal
Early recovery activities in
districts in E Nepal
affected by 2011 Sikkim
earthquake
Identify priority
hospitals for
retrofitting and plan
for increasing
resilience of hospital
services
Support to likely ‘first
response’
organisations (inc
APF/NA/
Red Cross)
Communities
Support NGOs to
scale up community
level disaster risk
reduction work
DFID resilient hospital
project results in seismic
resistant infrastructure
and builds local capacity.
First Aid/SAR training and
equipment is high quality
and sustainable.
NGO support, training and
equipment is high quality
and sustainable.
Attitudes to DRM
and building
standards change,
resulting in better
buildings and
reducing risk
Other donors follow
DFID’s effort and GoN
prioritise retrofitting.
Focus on resilient
emergency health
services within hospitals
Increased cadre of first
responders trained.
Regularly tested through
simulations. USAR
capacity built. Prepositioning of vital
equipment.
Awareness results in
knowledge acquisition
and behavioural change
Individual
Support GoN/NGO
campaigns to raise
awareness about
earthquake threat and
how to prepare.
Awareness targets
individuals most
vulnerable to earthquakes.
Increased
readiness for mass
medical
emergency
Capacity of first
responders built
and sustained.
Behavioural
change sufficient
to ensure actions
to increase
personal and
community
resilience
Increased resIlIence to earthquakes
Support to GoN to
build seismic risk
management systems
and legislation
Better land use planning
and stronger enforcement
of building code.
The threat of an earthquake in Nepal is not new. What is new is the “window of opportunity” that
exists in Nepal to build resilience to the earthquake threat. This arises firstly from the impetus
resulting from reassessment of the implications of recent earthquakes, including Haiti, New Zealand,
Japan, Turkey and the Sikkim earthquake in September 2011 (which caused loss of life and some
damage in Nepal). Secondly, impetus has grown from the NRRC approach including strong
leadership from the UN, US and the Minister of State’s own close personal engagement to bring
international attention to this issue. Thirdly, there is an opportunity for the UK to act in response to
the HERR and the UK’s central impetus on building resilience in countries like Nepal.
Any intervention in Nepal will need to respond to political instability. As a key donor in the UN-led
NRRC, DFID will ensure broad support for disaster resilience across GoN and political parties. By
building effective partnerships with likeminded partners in four of the key Flagship Programme areas
under the NRRC, DFID will maximise its resources – and its influence - to increase preparedness
and improve the capacity of Nepal’s disaster management systems to respond to a major earthquake
in Nepal.
The theory of change for this intervention is threefold:
1. Strengthening national legislation on land use planning and building codes, and improving
enforcement, will lead to changed behaviours, better building standards and reduced risk.
2. Increasing awareness and provision of information to communities and individuals about what
to do in an earthquake, how to prepare and how to reduce risk will lead to changed
behaviours and build resilience.
3. Building the capacity and number of first responders trained in first aid and search and
rescue, and linked to national systems for disaster response, will increase the number of
survivors rescued from collapsed buildings.
Building national resilience (option 1) is essential. DFID support here will provide the bedrock for
other investments in disaster preparedness. Better land use planning and stronger enforcement of
building codes, along with support to develop risk-sensitive land use plans, will drive behavioural
change to reduce risk. This focus on better disaster risk management planning will be highlighted
through early recovery activities in districts affected by the Sikkim Earthquake. “Building back better”
in the East, and a push to training a cadre of engineers, government officials, masons and
community committees, will positively influence policy change and early recovery planning for a
future and more deadly earthquake affecting the Kathmandu Valley.
Following an earthquake, local communities will make up the largest number of ‘first responders’.
Building community resilience and community-based response capacity is therefore vitally important.
Under option 2, DFID will support integrated community-based earthquake preparedness for
emergency response in key urban centres. By raising awareness, and providing practical support to
NGOs and communities to prepare, DFID will increase NGO capacity, increase the cadre of first
responders trained and equipped, as well as ensuring that awareness results in knowledge
acquisition and behavioural change in communities that increases personal and household
resilience.
The health sector plays a vital role in disaster preparedness and response. DFID will, through
protecting health services and making hospitals earthquake-resilient under option 3, help mitigate
the worst effects of a major earthquake risk by improving the likelihood that key hospitals would
continue to function. DFID’s support to a “resilient hospital project” approach will also build the case
for strengthened land use planning and building code enforcement supported under option 1.
Through its leadership on the hospital safety issue DFID will put pressure donors and the Banks to
engage.
Analysis shows that immediate access by international responders following a catastrophic event in
Nepal will be hampered by the physical geography of Nepal. Roads will be blocked and airports
inoperable. Building the capacity of “first responders”, first aid and search and rescue (option 4) in
advance of an earthquake will be critical. Complementing the community-based resilience activities
in key districts, including the Kathmandu Valley, under option 2, DFID will reduce vulnerability to the
earthquake threat, and to other disasters, and improve the capacity of targeted communities, and
local first responders, to act. DFID will also build national response capacity to ensure that GoN will
be able to lead the response more effectively, coordinating through EOCs at regional and district
level and more effectively dovetailing GoN’s response efforts with the international response.
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
There are complex issues with regard to calculating vfm values relating to disaster preparedness.
Many of the benefits from DRR measures are related to the direct and indirect losses that will not
ensue should the related hazard event occur over the life of the project, rather than streams of
positive benefits that will take place, as would be the case for other investments. This makes
measurement difficult. To assess vfm of the proposed interventions, we refer to the following:
1. Evidence to date of likely avoided costs
The benefits of any earthquake preparedness interventions can be thought of in terms of avoided
loss – for example, improved building standards will avoid the cost of reconstructing buildings in the
aftermath. The DFID interventions proposed here are part of wider programmes of work, and for
many of the interventions proposed it is very hard to estimate how much loss can be avoided with
certainty. However, the figures presented below provide a good idea of the magnitude of expected
loss, as compared with the costs described later that are required to mitigate some of this loss. It is
also important to note that these losses will directly impact on existing and planned DFID investment
in related sectors in Nepal, and hence any investment to reduce these impacts will also contribute to
protecting the value of monies already invested for development gains.
The National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (NSDRM), 2008, presents the
following table with direct losses due to earthquakes between 1970-2003. The data on the total value
of direct losses is divided by the number of years, to arrive at a figure of 290m NPR, equivalent to
approximately $4m average yearly loss due to earthquakes. It is worth noting that this is purely
related to buildings destroyed/damaged and livestock death, and does not include any value
associated with deaths, injuries or other losses (such as inability to attend education or work).
Table 1: Direct Losses due to Earthquakes (1970-2003)
Item
Number
Total number of events:
22
Death
876
Injury
6,840
Affected
4,539
Buildings Destroyed
33,706
Buildings Damaged
55,234
Livestock death
2,215
Total loss at present value (NPR)
Average loss per year due to earthquake
Value of direct losses
(NPR)
8,200,838,000
1,309,606,450
11,075,000
9,566,605,507
289,897,136
Source: National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (NSDRM), 2008
A report written for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011 came up with
similar figures. The study used the DesInventar database for Nepal (1971 to 2007) to determine the
historical cost of disasters. Earthquakes represented a total cost of $418m over the time period,
equivalent to approximately $11.6m average annual losses.
Table 2: Cost of Disasters in Nepal
Category
No of Events
Landslides
1,173
Hydro-meteorological
3,207
Other events
2,837
Earthquakes
23
All events
7,240
Cost (USD million)
173
1,506
10
418
2,109
Source: ERN-AL, 2011. “Probabilistic modelling of disaster risk at global level: Development of a methodology and implementation of case
studies. Phase 1A: Colombia, Mexico, Nepal.” Background Paper prepared for the 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction. Prepared by the Consortium Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales – América Latina. Geneva, Switzerland: UNISDR.
The same report then used probabilistic risk modelling to estimate the potential annual losses
associated with earthquakes in Nepal. Historic data is often not recorded on a systematic basis, and
there is a call for more rigorous probabilistic risk modelling that takes into account the full range of
possible impacts going forward. The study built up a portfolio of data on the expected probability of
earthquakes of different magnitude, and the total value of assets at risk to those events. They found
that Expected Annual Loss (EAL)38 for seismic risk in Nepal, is $1,493m for physical losses alone,
a figure that is far higher than those elaborated from historical databases.
There is no clear evidence that disaster preparedness is cost effective, but a strong consensus that it
can be. A recent World Bank Report, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters The Economic of
Effective Prevention, 2010 judges that prevention is often possible and cost effective, but warns that
it depends on what the money is spent on. An earlier World Bank working paper by Charles Kenny39
suggests that a range of public disaster resilience activities are likely to “carry particularly high
returns and make a significant, cost-effective difference in the poorest communities”.
In contrast, responses to natural disasters can be very expensive and inefficient. In providing
responses to recent major seismic events (ie. those involving more than 10,000 deaths) the
international community has funded a humanitarian response (in US dollars per fatality) ranging
between $4,383 (China earthquake 2008) and $27,643 (Indian ocean tsunami 2004) per fatality. The
other two events, Haiti in 2010, and South Asia earthquake in 2005 saw spends of $15,774 and
$15,893 respectively40. Given these figures it is likely that the response to a major earthquake
affecting the Kathmandu Valley that causes between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths would cost
between $1.5bn and $3bn.
2. Wider development benefits of interventions
While the overall aim of DFID’s intervention is to support earthquake preparedness, a number of
interventions in this business case will deliver broader benefits for DFID in the areas of disaster
resilience (ie. disaster resilience beyond solely earthquakes), health objectives and capacity building
of government and NGOs.
In order for the impact of DFID’s contribution to be maximised, DFID must ensure that there is
potential for its interventions to be replicated or scaled up. For example, potential DFID support to
structural retrofitting of a hospital as part of a demonstration project should be used to demonstrate a
construction process and ensure adherence to technical standards that other donors can replicate.
Community-based earthquake preparedness approaches will also need to demonstrate a set of
minimum standards that can be replicated by others.
38
The EAL is calculated as the sum of the product between the expected losses for a specific event and the frequency of
occurrence of that event over the period of one year and for all stochastic events considered. In probabilistic terms, the EAL is
the mathematical expectation of annual loss.
39
Why Do People Die in Earthquakes? The Costs, Benefits and Institutions of Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing
Countries, Charles Kenny, World Bank, 2009
40
Ref needed.
3. Reduced macroeconomic impact
The macroeconomic impact of an earthquake could be great. The 1988 earthquake in Nepal was
medium in scale (6.6 Richter, Epicentral intensity of shaking VIII MMI), and was estimated to result in
a loss of 5 billion NPR (approximately $69m) as per the official estimates (Informal estimates put
these figures much higher), equivalent to over 6% of GDP. This was more than the annual GDP
growth rate, and it is estimated that a major event could result in losses more than ten times higher.41
Experiences in other earthquakes around the world have demonstrated that GDP is actually very
resilient to these events – it will often drop in the first quarter or two, but will rebound quite quickly (for
example, GDP in Japan after the Kobe earthquake expanded by 0.9%, and New Zealand’s GDP
expanded by 0.8%). This is largely attributed to the high levels of financial input following a disaster,
as well as the extensive need for reconstruction, which in fact stimulate the economy. GDP is a
measure of goods and service flow through an economy, and in the case of disaster, the types of
goods and services shift rather than decrease. However, what these statistics mask is the drag on
development that comes as a result of disaster, as monies are spent on rebuilding rather than
furthering existing development. Furthermore, other macroeconomic indicators can experience
declines, such as increases in the public deficit and worsening of trade balances.
On a more localized scale, a review of earthquake impacts from the previous 30 years found that
recovery is key to household economics. Livelihood restoration for affected communities is often
overlooked and plays a key role in helping households recover their economic status.42Clearly
greater preparedness could have a significant impact on the economy, by facilitating a faster return to
business as usual, and by minimizing the draw on government budgets for early recovery and relief.
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
The comparison between the four options or components of the programme has been based on both
qualitative and quantitative assessment. The qualitative assessment was carried out during the
design phase by experts in DFID and externally and included institutional, social and environmental
assessments to evaluate which approach provided the best overall value for money in terms of
economic returns, institutional, distributional and environmental benefits and sustainability.
41
National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management in Nepal (NSDRM), 2008
ALNAP, ProVention Consortium, 2008. “Responding to Earthquakes 2008: Learning from earthquake relief and recovery
operations.”
42
Commercial Case
Direct procurement
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention
The intervention will be implemented by UNDP, British Red Cross, ICRC and MSB under MoU
arrangements and by Oxfam, Practical Action/Action Aid through Accountable Grants – i.e. Indirect
Procurement. There are 2 elements of direct procurement:
1. procurement of humanitarian expert to provide coordination to the NRRC (already in place as
part of programme design).
2. support to the development of a survey of hospital infrastructure will be directly contracted by
DFID.
B. How does the intervention design use competition to drive commercial advantage
for DFID?
1. procurement has been through Crown Agents and is managed by CHASE on the basis of
cost, specialist skills and the ability to deliver immediately.
2. this piece of work will be procured through a competitive bidding process for local and
international construction consultants. This work will improve local contractor capacity/quality
and will be good for the market in the longer term.
C. How do we expect the market place will respond to this opportunity?
1. limited to DFID existing partners.
2. similar ToR to recent feasibility study for new DFID building as it specialist works contractors
via UK Government Procurement Service.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and
how will we measure and improve this?
1. ongoing management via CHASE. Crown Agents contract to be reviewed in March 2012.
2. These providers are regionally based and more cost effective than UK firms. Well known by
DFID and provide a good product. The contract will require international firms to work with
local construction consultants to develop capacity/quality.
E. What is the intended Procurement Process to support contract award?
1. calldown
2. limited tendering competition.
F. How will contract & supplier performance be managed through the life of the
intervention?
1. ongoing management via CHASE. Crown Agents contract to be reviewed in March 2012.
2. short term input managed by DFID Nepal with infrastructure support from UK.
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
The organisations best placed to carry out this work are UNDP, British Red Cross and international
NGOs. The intervention will be implemented by UNDP, British Red Cross, ICRC and MSB under
MoU arrangements and by Oxfam, Practical Action/Action Aid through Accountable Grants – i.e.
Indirect Procurement.
Project activities and locations will be based on the proposals submitted by the INGOs. Therefore
Accountable Grants are the appropriate funding modality.
B. Value for money through procurement
British Red Cross, Oxfam, Practical Action and Action Aid are all Programme Partnership
Arrangement (PPA) partners. As such, they have already provided evidence to show how they
ensured value for money in their day to day operations and have been assessed by DFID to ensure
that they go to some lengths to ensure procurement procedures follow best practice around
authorisation levels, full tenders and preferred supplier lists.
While UNDP is not a specialised humanitarian agency it is noted as having a ‘unique legitimacy with
partner governments’ and being critical to the delivery of both development and as having a part to
play in achieving humanitarian objectives. In Nepal, UNDP lacks resources, and only part of UNDP’s
plans have been financed centrally through UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery.
Crucially, in Nepal UNDP will be hosting the UN Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(UNOCHA) who will lead on humanitarian co-ordination.
ICRC’s procurement is part centralised and part decentralised to the country level. Some items are
procured using the procurement systems specified by HQ, others are procured locally. However HQ
has direct oversight over local procurement and enforces very tight guidelines checks and control.
HQ conducts regular reviews of local procurement to ensure that field offices concern themselves
with regard to cost. ICRC uses its own independent procurement and transport management system
for operations, which it frequently makes available to National Societies for no charge. ICRC
frequently assists National Societies in strengthening procurement management. DFID MAR country
reviews found demonstrated evidence of attention to cost control. ICRC is looking to wind-down its
operations in Nepal and has shown admirable concern for duplication with other donors.
INGOs have been selected on their strong track record in DRR and relevant in-country expertise.
DFID received unsolicited proposals from a number of INGOs following a consultation workshop with
INGOs on DFID’s DRR priorities in September 2011. These proposals were assessed by DFID
humanitarian and DRR specialists.
All procurement will be the responsibility of the partners identified earlier in the document. DFID will
not carry out any direct procurement. All of the international NGOs have extensive experience of
implementing emergency and DRR interventions in a range of countries. DFID is satisfied with the
procurement arrangements being put in place by the NGO partners.
Financial Case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
DFID will contribute up to £16 million for the first phase covered by this business case and an
an additional £10 million in phase two (which will include an additional call on contingency) when the
dimensions of a hospital infrastructure project have been worked through. This conforms to the
priorities in DFID’s current Operational Plan.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
The programme is 70% programme (CDEL) and 30% programme (RDEL) funded.
C. How will funds be paid out?
Component
POLICY
COMMUNITY
RESILIENCE
HOSPITALS
PREPAREDNESS
FOR RESPONSE
Partner
UNDP (inc SCF)
Length
of
support
(years)
4 yrs
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
TOTAL
(M)
0.05
1.25
UN Secondment to NRRC
2 yrs
0.1
0.4
1
1
3.3
RED CROSS (component 2)
4 yrs
0.03
0.25
RAP
1 yr
0.1
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.58
OXFAM (component 2)
2 yrs
0.1
0.1
0.25
Prac Ac/Action Aid
2 yrs
0.5
0.5
1
HOSPITALS Infrastructure
Surveys
Infrastructure Adviser costs
1 yr
0.4
3 yrs
0.25
0.3
0.3
0.85
Search and Rescue (MSB)
UNDP (component 4)
4 yrs
4 yrs
0.2
0
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.3
2
1.3
RED CROSS (component 4)
ICRC
4 yrs
2 yrs
0.05
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.75
1
2.5
1.3
Oxfam (WASH)
2 yrs
0.05
0.5
0.55
Monitoring and Evaluation
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.65
TOTAL
1.38
6.55
5.2
4.4
17.53
0.05
0.4
1.1
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
Low. UNDP, ICRC, MSB and British Red Cross are trusted DFID partners.
Oxfam, Practical Action and Action Aid are all Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) partners.
As such, they have already provided evidence to show how they ensured value for money in their
day to day operations and have been assessed by DFID. DFID will look to INGO headquarters for
oversight of financial systems (particularly given that INGO management costs include this).
However, to ensure that fiduciary risk at local partner level is managed, the Resilience Programme
Manager will also undertake spot-checks and ‘snap audits’.
Corruption in the construction sector is a concern, but not a direct risk to DFID funding. UNDP will
support anti-corruption programmes in key institutions to avoid corruption negatively impacting on the
programme.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
Accounting and Audit
All programme implementing agencies will maintain and provide accounts of all their expenditure.
Funding to NGOs will be through Accountable Grant. Normal rules on accounting and audit will apply
for all such agreements
Monitoring Strategy
Responsibility for programme output monitoring, reporting against the logframe, financial
management and workforce diversity will lie with the implementing agency for each component. This
will include ensuring that all government and non-government implementing agencies have effective
monitoring systems in place, and the necessary support and capacity to implement them.
Prior to DFID agreements with each agency, a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan based on the
attached logframe will be drawn up. Independent and stakeholder monitoring and evaluation of
implementation around a clear results framework as well as gender responsive fund management will
be important. Spot-checks and ‘snap audits’ and RMO and DFID field visits will ensure that fiduciary
risk at local partner level is managed.
The Programme Manager will monitor delivery and coordinate an Implementation Group with
representatives from UNDP, Red Cross, ICRC, MSB, Oxfam, Practical Action/Action Aid, Save The
Children and NRRC will meet quarterly to ensure coordination and that synergies across programme
strands are harnessed.
The DFID-funded NRRC Coordinator will help support monitor delivery and mitigate risk through the
NRRC’s oversight of flagship area delivery and the NRRC results framework. Should and
Infrastructure Adviser be appointed, the postholder will have a role in monitoring UNDP outputs and
ensuring synergies with work on hospital infrastructure.
It is envisaged that DFID Nepal may commission evaluation into how UK funds are building resilience
in Nepal. This may feed into broader evaluations by DFID on its new approach to building resilience.
DFID will encourage, and consider funding to, NRRC or IFRC to evaluate approaches to communitybased DRR to encourage lesson learning and INGO capacity-building.
An impact evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the project, so a baseline study will need to
take place at the inception phase.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
This programme will be managed by Team Leader, CC/DRR in DFID Nepal.
The Programme will require a total of 3.85 FTEs to deliver it. This includes:
- 0.2 A2 Team Leader
- 1 FTE B1 Programme Manager
- 0.3 A2 SAIC DRR adviser
- 0.2 Social Development Adviser
- 1 FTE secondment to the NRRC for 2 years to support coordination
- 1 FTE Infrastructure Adviser will be required on a 3-year contract to manage the resilient hospital
project.
- 0.1 Regional Resilience Adviser and 0.05 London-based CHASE inputs
Influencing work will also involve the DHoO and Head of Office.
The SAIC DRR adviser will act as coordinator for the various strands of activity with support from the
B2 Programme Manager.
An Implementation Group with representatives from UNDP, Red Cross, ICRC, Oxfam, Practical
Action/Action Aid and Save The Children, MSB and NRRC will meet quarterly to ensure coordination
and that synergies across programme strands are harnessed. DFID will encourage partners to work
collectively and will look for opportunities to move to consortia arrangements with INGO partners
after 2 years. An example of this will be in utilising existing DFID support to the BBC World Service
Trust in Nepal to work with partners to ensure a coherent awareness/public information strategy is
shared by all.
Given the serious issue of gender inequality and social exclusion in Nepal permeating all levels and
areas of society, it is proposed that dedicated social development support is provided to the
programme throughout (0.2 SDA). This would provide support in terms of for example mainstreaming
gender and social inclusion considerations into proposed policies and planning processes, and
support the development of innovative and truly inclusive approaches to CBDRR in an urban context.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
The primary area of uncertainty is the probability of an earthquake occurring. An earthquake of
magnitude 8+ is estimated to have a return period of 75 years. While it is often stated that Nepal is
long overdue an earthquake, we do not know when this will occur. This area of uncertainty is
addressed throughout this business case by ensuring that all areas of investment are relevant to a
range of disasters.
Annex 5 sets out a detailed risk matrix for each component. The main risks to the programme are:
Risk 1: Government of Nepal does not demonstrate adequate commitment at senior level or commit
adequate resources to disaster risk management. [H probability; H impact], after mitigation [L
probability; M impact].
Risk 2: UN coordination/leadership not effective. [M probability; M impact], after mitigation [L
probability; M impact].
Risk 3: Resistance by local officials and communities to engage with projects [L probability; H
impact], after mitigation [L probability; L impact].
Risk 4: Corruption negatively impacts on implementation of aspects of the programme [M probability;
M impact], after mitigation [L probability; L impact].
Risk 5: Major catastrophic event [M probability; H impact], after mitigation [M probability; M impact].
Impact
Low
Medium
High
Probability
1
Medium
Low
High
3, 4
Risk number: (1) before mitigation; (1) after mitigation (bold)
2, 4, 5
5
1, 2
3
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
There is no conditionality attached to this programme.
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
Responsibility for programme output monitoring, reporting against the logframe, financial
management and workforce diversity will lie with each of the implementing partners. This will include
ensuring that all implementing agencies have effective monitoring systems in place, and the
necessary support and capacity to implement them.
Prior to DFID agreements with each implementing partner, a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan
based on the attached logframe will be drawn up. Independent and stakeholder monitoring and
evaluation of implementation around a clear results framework will be important. These plans will
include ensuring mechanisms for knowledge transfer to other DFID or NRRC partners (eg. British
Red Cross on working in urban areas).
The Resilience Programme Manager will be responsible for monitoring of the overarching logframe
and for ensuring output monitoring contributes to monitoring at NRRC Flagship level. It is anticipated
that DFID will feed into Flagship results monitoring and a programme of cross-visits between
implementers will ensure peer review and lesson learning across implementing agencies.
DFID will institute a regular coordination mechanism to ensure coordination between all partners and
that synergies across programme strands are harnessed. The Resilience Programme Manager will
coordinate an Implementation Group with representatives from UNDP, Red Cross, ICRC, MSB,
Oxfam, Practical Action/Action Aid (and including Save The Children who will be contracted by
UNDP). The Implementation Group will meet quarterly and will feed into relevant NRRC Flagship
Advisory Committee convened by the lead NRRC partners. Additionally, the DFID-funded NRRC
Coordinator will help monitor delivery and mitigate risk through the NRRC’s oversight of flagship area
delivery and the NRRC results framework.
It is envisaged that DFID Nepal will commission evaluation into how UK support is building disaster
resilience in Nepal, assessing impact and ensuring sustainability. This may feed into broader
evaluations by DFID on its new approach to building resilience. DFID will encourage, and consider
funding to, NRRC or IFRC to evaluate approaches to community-based DRR to encourage lesson
learning and INGO capacity-building.
Logframe
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 329529.
List of Annexes to the Business Case
Annex 1: Likely dimensions of a catastrophic earthquake in Nepal and the UK response
Annex 2: CHASE Scoping Mission, January 2011
Annex 3: Infrastructure specialist report, June 2011
Annex 4: INSARAG Report on Search and Rescue, May 2011
Annex 5: Detailed Risk Matrix for UK Support to Build Earthquake Resilience in Nepal