External Evaluation of The Vietnam Red Cross Society and The
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies Response to Typhoon Damrey (storm no.7) who
made landfall in Vietnam 27 September 2005
Typhoon Damrey
(storm no. 7)
27/9/2005
Richard Cewers, email: richard_cewers@hotmail.com
Independent Evaluator and Team Leader
Vu Thi Phuong
Team Member from the Vietnam Red Cross Society
August- September 2006
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CBDM
CCFCS
CFCS
DMC/CCFSC
DMWG
DP
DPC
IFRC
INGO
NGO
UNDP
VNRC
PC
PCP
DCP
CPC
IO
CRS
RC
Community based Disaster Management
Central Committee for Flood and Storm Control
Local Committed for Flood and Storm Control (Province or District
or Commune levels)
Disaster Management Center of CCFSC
Disaster Management Working Group
Disaster Preparedness
Disaster Preparedness Center
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (the Federation)
International non governmental organisation
Non governmental organisation
United Nations Development Programme
Vietnam Red Cross Society
Peoples Committee
Province Peoples Committee
District Peoples Committee
Commune Peoples Committee
International Organisation
Catholic Relief Services
Red Cross
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................4
1.10
Purpose ....................................................................................................................5
1.12
Methodology .............................................................................................................5
1.16
Constraints ...............................................................................................................5
Summary and recommendations..........................................................................................6
2.12
Recommendations....................................................................................................8
Findings ..................................................................................................................................9
3.3
Disaster Preparedness .............................................................................................9
4.1
Emergency Relief ...................................................................................................10
4.4
4.10
5.1
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.2
Rice ........................................................................................................ 10
Household kits ........................................................................................ 11
Livelihoods..............................................................................................................11
Fish sauce production............................................................................. 12
Pig husbandry (2 piglets) ........................................................................ 12
Shelter ....................................................................................................................15
Houses ................................................................................................... 15
7.1
Needs assessment and beneficiary selection.........................................................16
8.1
Monitoring ...............................................................................................................18
9.1
Coordination ...........................................................................................................19
10.1
Post traumatic stress ..............................................................................................20
Red Cross institutional level ...............................................................................................20
11.1
Visibility...................................................................................................................20
11.4
Capacity and independence ...................................................................................21
Annexes
1. Terms of Reference
2. List of meetings
3. Table of beneficiary respondents
4. Logical Framework
3
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
On 27 September 2005, Typhoon Damrey (storm no. 7) slammed into
Vietnam, lashing coastal provinces extending from Quang Ninh into Da
Nang. The next day, heavy rains and wind triggered mudslides and flooding
in the northern provinces of Yen Bai, Lao Cai and Phu Tho.
A total of 68 people were killed and 22 were injured in the northern and
central regions affected by the typhoon. Sea water penetrated inland by 3-4
km in coastal provinces after a sea-dyke gave way. The following flash
floods destroyed at least 1,194 houses and damaged another 11,576. The
estimated USD 209 million lost in property poses a tremendous setback to
Vietnam’s agricultural sector as subsistence farmers from typhoon affected
areas face greatest obstacles in recovering from the typhoon. Thousands of
people were unable to protect their sole source of income for the coming
months from being brutally swept away by typhoon Damrey’s raging winds
and rains. Many houses were under salt water and most of cattle and
household facilities were washed away or destroyed. In total, some
100,000 houses in the affected areas have either been severely damaged
or destroyed while their boats were washed away during the typhoon1.
There was no water supply, electricity or food for several days, as per
findings from a joint rapid needs assessment in three provinces in the
coastal area: Than Hoa,
Ninh Binh and Nam Dinh
reporting some 200,000
people facing food
shortages. Of equal
concern is the damage to
wells caused by salt water
which has made drinking
water unavailable in most
areas. The affected
provinces are home to
some 22 million people,
including 11 indigenous
minority groups, the
majority of which live below
Picture 1
the poverty level. Natural
Livelihoods – pig husbandry beneficiary in
disasters pose a constant
Yen Bai province
threat to the country’s work
in reducing poverty.
Although efforts are being made by the government and international
organizations to introduce poverty reduction projects in these vulnerable
areas, large-scale and sudden-onset natural disasters such as floods or
typhoons can undermine any progress made through these projects.
Vietnam is one of the most disaster prone countries in the world. Because
of its geographic position and topography, Vietnam suffers from almost all
types of disasters, among which water related disasters induced by
typhoons and floods are the most frequent and severe2.
1
IFRC Emergency Appeal No. 05EA019, 5 October 2005.
External evaluation of Vietnam Red Cross Society disaster management programme, with particular
reference to the projects supported by AusAID and DIPHECO, International Institute for Disaster Risk
Management October 2004.
2
4
1.5
1.6
1.7
•
•
1.8
•
1.9
•
The International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(IFRC) released CHF 200,000 from its Disaster Response Emergency
Fund (DREF) to support the response of the Viet Nam Red Cross (VNRC)
and, on 5 October 2005, an emergency appeal was launched (Appeal no.
05EA019) to support some 25,000 people for one year. The Appeal target
was CHF 813,678 (USD 628,813 or EUR 522,597) and the Appeal
coverage was 105%.
The Objectives of the appeal are listed below:
Emergency Relief
Objective 1: 25,000 affected people have been supported with 15 kg of
rice per month over two months to meet their immediate primary needs.
Objective 2: 3,100 affected families have received household kits. Each kit
contains 2 blankets, 1 mosquito net, 1 cooking set, 1 40-litres container, 1
water collection bowl and 3 bars of soap.
Shelter
Objective: 200 affected families, whose houses collapsed, have been
supported to reconstruct typhoon resistant houses, with adequate water
and sanitation facilities.
Livelihood
Objective: Support 1,600 household with re-establishing a source of
livelihood.
1.10
Purpose
1.11 As stated in the IFRC Emergency Appeal no. 05EA019 an external review
will be conducted at the end of the operation. The purpose of the evaluation
is to assess how the VNRC and IFRC has responded to the needs of the
people left most affected and vulnerable after Typhoon Damrey made
landfall in Vietnam 27 September 2005, as outlined in the objectives and
activities planned in the Emergency Appeal (see log frame in annex 4).
The aim of the evaluation is to support organisational learning and
performance in the VNRC/IFRC and accountability to stakeholders.
1.12
Methodology
1.13 The evaluation team collected and reviewed available background material
including appeals, operational updates and evaluations. The team had
consultations with relevant stakeholders like CCFSC, DMC, UNDP, Oxfam,
Care and Catholic Relief Service.
1.14 A field visits were carried out between 15/8 to 28/8 2006, to five of the
most affected provinces in the coastal and mountainous regions of Thanh
Hoa, Ninh Binh, Nam Dinh, Phu Tho and Yen Bai. Meetings and interviews
was carried out with VNRC and Peoples Committee at provincial, district
and commune levels, as well as CCFSC and CFSC at province and district
level. Interviews and group interviews was carried out with beneficiaries to
the programme represented by age, gender and ethnic minority.
Beneficiaries was both pre-selected and selected randomly on the spot
when possible.
1.15 The composition of the evaluation team: the team leader, independent
consultant Richard Cewers (Sweden), team member Vu Thi Phuong from
VNRC HQ and interpreter.
1.16
Constraints
1.17 The team faced some difficulties to obtain reliable quality information from
informants which has complicated the work of the evaluation team and to
some extent influenced the accuracy of the findings. There are also
5
contradicting information between VNRC, beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries, especially regarding the outcome of the livelihoods
component of the appeal and the process to select beneficiaries for
livelihoods and housing. There is also one occasion where beneficiaries
have been told in advance how to respond to the evaluators’ questions. For
the livelihoods component there are a tendency to communicate results
that are better compared to the actual results. Inaccurate information on
programme development and outcome does note facilitate organizational
learning and is obstacle to improvement of on going and future
programmes. The need to translate information to the team leader has
hampered the efficiency of the team. Due to time constraints the team has
only visited beneficiaries accessible by car. During the field visit the
evaluation team faced limited access to documents of interest because
documents have been stored at individual members home or the key to
access document files has been with an individual not present at the time.
Some documents have been in transfer between the different levels in the
organization and not accessible.
Summary and recommendations
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
The overall impression of the operation is very positive, and the findings
and recommendations of the evaluation team that are focused on areas of
improvement, shall be seen in this context.
Vietnam and VNRC has demonstrated excellent performance in disaster
preparedness, emergency relief and early warning in response to typhoon
Damrey.
In this operation the VNRC has focused on both emergency reliefs as well
as on rehabilitation and long-term recovery. The inclusion of long term
recovery as livelihoods and housing in the VNRC response is very positive,
as the capacity for long term recovery in Vietnam often has been slow due
to lack of cooperation, coordination and adequate funding. This has been
particularly critical for poor households that often loose all their little
property due to disaster, and have no or limited access to disaster
rehabilitation and recovery funds to resume their lives and their production
activities3.
Thanks to early warning and good preparedness nearly 600.000 people
was evacuated from their homes before typhoon Damrey made landfall in
Vietnam on 27 September 2005. The VNRC participated in evacuation
activities together with the army and police. Vulnerable communities were
relocated to safer areas, families were asked to host evacuees. VNRC also
worked together with community members to reinforce shelters and
strengthen sea dykes. There were no fatalities in the coastal provinces but
in the mountainous provinces a total of 68 people died in the storm due to
flash floods and landslides.
In the emergency phase the chapters distributed instant noodles and 120
million VND in cash to selected beneficiaries. Overall in the whole relief
operation, VNRC distributed 935 metric tonnes of rice, 5,050 household
kits, 11,223 boxes of cakes, 2,100 cans of milk powder, 700 blankets and
100 boxes of instant noodle and clothes to a total of 59,825 people in
34,888 affected families. Resources was mobilized from VNRC own funds,
the IFRC appeal and externally. Beneficiary respondents received instant
3
External evaluation of Vietnam Red Cross Society disaster management programme, with particular
reference to the projects supported by AusAID and DIPHECO, International Institute for Disaster Risk
Management October 2004.
6
noodles from VNRC during and after evacuation as well as cash
contributions. VNRC released cash and relief items within hours after of the
emergency.
2.6 The VNRC mangrove DP– programme that started 1994 have to date
planted 18,434 hectares of mangroves in eight provinces along a 110kilometer stretch of coastline. The mangroves have been exceptionally
effective in providing coastal protection where they have reached
appropriate height and density. In Hai Phong Province, Kien Thuy District,
Dai Hop Commune, 4 meter waves was reduced by the mangroves to
harmless ½ meter waves4. And in Thanh Hoa province the village of Da Loc
would have disappeared in the typhoon without mangrove protection5.
Government respondents are very pleased with the mangrove re-plantation
programme along the coast.
2.7 All activities in the Appeal
have been carried out except
for the livelihood component
that will be completed in
September 2006. The VNRC
disaster response to the
typhoon was timely and
relevant, although the
distribution of rice supported
by the IFRC was rather late
and started one month after
the onset of the typhoon.
The evaluators consider that
the beneficiaries would have
benefited from receiving the
Picture 2
rice sooner after the
typhoon, although most of
Shelter - House beneficiary in Than Hoa,
the beneficiary respondents
Hau Loc, Da Loc
received rice from VNRC
and other sources a few days after the typhoon.
2.8 Landslides and destroyed roads made some areas in the mountainous
provinces isolated for up to two weeks from external support.
2.9 For livelihoods support in the appeal pig husbandry and fish sauce
production was selected. The livelihoods programme has encountered
some difficulties as some of the piglets delivered became sick and died.
Several beneficiaries had sold their pigs for less money than the initial
VNRC investment of 1, 7 million VND. The programme needs to be
thoroughly evaluated before the VNRC starts a new livelihoods programme
again. The housing and livelihoods part of the appeal was implemented
rather late.
2.10 The evaluators note that Information from different respondents varies
regarding the beneficiary selection process at hamlet level. The evaluators
note that there are beneficiary lists but no documentation on the selection
process.
2.11 During the Damrey operation the VNRC also responded to the needs of
people struck by typhoon Kai-Tak that caused flooding in the central parts
of Vietnam
4
Final Evaluation of VNRC Mangrove and Disaster Preparedness in the Red River Delta and Northern
Coastal Vietnam (1994-2005), Sanny R. Jegillos, December 2005.
5
The VNRC Thanh Hoa Chapter informs the evaluation team.
7
2.12
Recommendations
2.13 Targeting of the most vulnerable - The evaluators note that the targeting
of the most vulnerable can be improved and recommend a stricter
implementation of the beneficiary selection guidelines already in place. The
evaluators suggest a more frequent monitoring of beneficiary selection
combined with a follow up of the beneficiaries selected after the operation
is completed, to verify if the selected beneficiaries actually comply with
beneficiary selection criteria. This issue is closely linked to the number of
VNRC staff and volunteers.
2.14 Monitoring - The monitoring reports are often of a descriptive character
and the evaluators recommend that more analysis and recommendations
are added to the monitoring reports, to support management level decision
making. When management level takes action based on the
recommendations in the monitoring reports, the monitoring reports are
ideally complemented with a management response report, to complete the
documentation of the monitoring and programme managing cycle. This will
strengthen institutional memory and facilitated learning.
2.15 Quality of information – The evaluators recommend that the concept of
learning is included in staff and volunteer training to foster a learning
environment in the organization. In order to take decisions on program
management or to gain learning for future programmes, it is important to
have correct information, in order not to do the same mistake again or
being able to identify and repeat the success of a programm. The
evaluators encountered some problems in collecting correct quality
information on the outcome and developments of the livelihoods
programme.
2.16 Livelihoods - Before attempting to give livelihoods support again the
evaluators recommend that the pig husbandry livelihood component should
be thoroughly evaluated by evaluators with veterinary and pig breeding
competence. The evaluators own conclusion and recommendation is to use
a local kind of pig who the beneficiaries are used to raise6; to buy pigs
locally to avoid long transport and a change of climate for the pig; to use a
local kind of foodstuff for the pig, that the beneficiaries are used to handle
and to have a cooperation agreement between the VNRC and the hamlet
veterinarian to share information on pig developments. Cash contributions
to let the beneficiaries themselves choose a healthy and strong pig might
be another option to assure better heath status of the pigs.
2.17 Coordination - The evaluators recommend VNRC to increase its
participation in the Disaster Management Working Group (DMWG).
2.18 Needs assessment - Government and INGOs respondents are very
positive to VNRC and would like to see VNRC as the lead organization in
humanitarian needs assessment. The evaluators recommend that VNRC
takes a lead role in humanitarian needs assessment.
2.19 DP-training – Government respondents and INGOs are very positive to
VNRC DP-training, but INGOs and UNDP are concerned that the DPtraining are losing some of its initiative and needs to be sustained and
developed, and used more to train VNRC staff and volunteers. The
evaluators recommend VNRC to maintain and develop the good quality and
reputation of the DP- training.
6
Review meeting for the Damrey typhoon response operation, Hanoi 18 September 2006. The
Chairman of Thanh Hoa RC Chapter informs that procurement of local pigs was not an option because
there was no possibility for different quotations, and VNRC HQ and IFRC requested quotations from
three different companies. Although there were communes who bought local pigs themselves with
consent from the district and the pigs developed ok.
8
2.20 Post traumatic stress - The overall impact of emergency relief can
improve if it is complemented with some sort of psychological support to
people who suffer from trauma after a disaster. The evaluators recommend
VNRC to complement their staff and volunteer DP- training with information
on how to approach and support people suffering from post traumatic
stress.
2.21 Visibility - The evaluators note that visibility is low at implementing level
and the opportunity to increase knowledge of VNRC among beneficiaries
and at hamlet and commune level can improve. The evaluators believe that
increased visibility, knowledge and understanding of the VNRC role and
mandate are fundamental to attract more members, volunteers and donors
to the organization.
2.22 Capacity and Independence – The evaluators note that VNRC is
strongest at headquarter level and becomes gradually weaker down to the
implementing level at commune and hamlet levels. At district and commune
level staff often has two roles and the same person work for both VNRC
and PC. At commune level there can be mixed roles or only CPC staff. This
is problematic both concerning workload and the independence of VNRC,
as the same person has two functions and loyalties. VNRC often use
volunteers or staff from mass-organizations to implement their activities.
The evaluators note that despite limited human resources VNRC support is
delivered to beneficiaries by the use of staff and volunteers from VNRC,
mass-organizations and government. The evaluators are concerned that
the use of staff and volunteers from mass-organization and government
compromise the independence and impartiality7 of the VNRC.
2.23 New type of disaster new approach – The scope of flash floods and
mudslides was not expected in the mountainous regions. Destroyed roads
made some parts inaccessible for several weeks and disrupted telephone
communication. Communication systems in general can also be improved.
For example in Yen Bai, Tram Tau commune there is no telephone in the
CPC office, only at the post office. The evaluators recommend an overview
of the communication system and consideration of a local emergency stock
in the areas most exposed to landslides.
Findings
3.1
3.2
3.3
The overall impression of the operation is very positive, and the findings
and recommendations of the evaluation team that are focused on areas of
improvement, shall be seen in this context.
The findings below are arranged after the objectives in the emergency
appeal and issues relevant to the operation like disaster preparedness,
needs assessment, beneficiary selection, coordination, monitoring, post
traumatic stress, visibility, capacity and independence.
Disaster Preparedness
3.4 Synergetic effects of all actors DP in Vietnam such as early warning, public
awareness, disaster planning, dykes, mangroves, evacuation and relief
have considerably reduced the loss of lives and property during and after
the typhoon.
7
Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NonGovernmental Organisations (NGO’s) in Disaster Relief.
9
3.5
3.6
The VNRC mangrove DP –programme that started 1994, have to date
planted 18,434 hectares of mangroves in eight provinces along a 110kilometer stretch of coastline. The mangroves have been exceptionally
effective in providing coastal protection where they have reached
appropriate height and density. In Hai Phong Province, Kien Thuy District,
Dai Hop Commune, 4 meter waves was reduced by the mangroves to
harmless ½ meter waves8. And in Thanh Hoa province the village of Da Loc
would have disappeared in the typhoon without mangrove protection9.
Government respondents are very pleased with the mangrove re-plantation
programme along the coast.
In 2004, as part of the Federation’s annual programming, community-based
early warning systems were installed in districts in two of the worst-affected
provinces Thanh Hoa and Ninh Binh. Communities were provided with
items such as megaphones, disaster preparedness easels for teachers,
disaster preparedness books for children and community-based disaster
response management materials for commune staff for training activities.
4.1
Emergency Relief
4.2 VNRC headquarter and chapters provided first aid and primary health care
to the victims during and after the storm. The chapters also distributed
instant noodles and 120 million VND in cash to selected beneficiaries.
Overall in the whole relief operation, VNRC distributed 935 metric tonnes of
rice, 5,050 household kits, 11,223 boxes of cakes, 2,100 cans of milk
powder, 700 blankets and 100 boxes of instant noodle and clothes to a total
of 59,825 people in 34,888 affected families. Resources was mobilized
from VNRC own funds, IFRC appeal and externally.
4.3 Beneficiary respondents received instant noodles from VNRC during and
after evacuation as well as cash contributions. VNRC released cash and
relief items within hours after of the emergency
4.4
Rice
4.5 Objective: 25,000 affected people have been supported with 15 kg of rice
per month over two months to meet their immediate primary needs.
4.6 Rice was procured through a bidding process and resulted in a price lower
than the price in the budget. Rice was procured according to the Federation
standards. Rice quality was checked by the Viet Nam Company for Control
of Good Quality (VINACONTROL) before delivery for distribution. 750mt of
rice was distributed during November and December 2005, plus some
additional rice (125mt) to and additional 4167 beneficiaries in February
2006 from funds left over from the first procurement.
4.7 Lists of distributions were posted many days before distribution occurred
and each recipient received a beneficiary card. VNRC volunteers in
cooperation with local authorities carried out the relief distribution10.
4.8 According to beneficiary respondents the quality of rice was good. Rice
distribution was delayed by the onset of typhoon Kai-Tak at the end of
October 2005, and some beneficiaries in Yen Bai who arrived at the
distribution points had to return another day to receive rice. The first
distribution of IFRC rice started in November, over one moth after the
typhoon. The evaluators consider that the beneficiaries would have
benefited from receiving the rice sooner after the typhoon, although most of
8
Final Evaluation of VNRC Mangrove and Disaster Preparedness in the Red River Delta and Northern
Coastal Vietnam (1994-2005), Sanny R. Jegillos, December 2005.
9
The VNRC Thanh Hoa Chapter informs the evaluation team.
10
IFRC Operations Update no. 4, Vietnam: Typhoon Damrey
10
4.9
the beneficiary respondents received rice from VNRC and other sources a
few days after the typhoon.
The evaluators note that rice was distributed depending on the number of
family members and that the criteria for how much rice that were received
per family member varied between different locations. According to a
VNRC monitoring report rice received by one beneficiary had to be
distributed to all people in the hamlet. The evaluators are concerned about
how the SPHERE11 standards were applied in the rice distribution.
4.10
Household kits
4.11 Objective: 3,100 affected families have received household kits. Each kit
contains 2 blankets, 1 mosquito net, 1 cooking set, 1 40-litres container, 1
water collection bowl and 3 bars of soap.
4.12 3,100 household kits were distributed from the appeal and an additional
1950 household kits from the VNRC. In total 5050 household kits were
distributed to affected families. The VNRC emergency stock of household
kits was restocked in March 200612.
4.13 Soap was missing in all household kits of the beneficiary respondents
visited by the evaluators.
4.14 Beneficiary respondents find the household kits relevant, useful and of
good quality. The items were still
in use by the beneficiaries
visited. One policy family hade
the unused cooking set on
display as a “souvenir from the
government”.
4.15 One beneficiary on the
beneficiary list in Nam Dinh
Province, Hai Hau District, Hai
Hoa commune, had not received
a household kit, but had
received two household kits from
another organization
(Samaritan’s Purse) (picture 10).
Picture 3
4.16 In Phu Tho, Bang Gia the
Emergency Relief – Household kit
evaluators find that the content
of one household kit were dived
between several families.
5.1
Livelihoods
5.2 Objective: Support 1,600 household with re-establishing a source of
livelihood. (Pig husbandry and fish sauce production)
5.3 1000 livelihoods were distributed between March- April 2006 and an
additional distribution of 695 livelihoods will be completed in September
2006.13 A total of 1695 livelihoods will be distributed.
5.4 The type of livelihoods was chosen through beneficiary consultations, but
the evaluators note that there is no needs assessment report with compiled
data for decision making at VNRC HQ. Type of livelihood selected was pig
husbandry and fish sauce production. Two pair of piglets was distributed to
11
Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Relief, The Sphere project 2004, ISBN
92-9139-097-6
12
Emergency appeal report for the 7th storm (Damrey) in 2005, VNRC 9/14/2006.
13
Bilateral support from Spanish Red Cross included in the IFRC appeal. Due to change in exchange
rate 95 livelihoods were added to the initial 600 livelihoods
11
the beneficiaries selected for pig husbandry. The beneficiaries selected for
fish sauce production was provided with a pre-fabricated substance so they
did not have to start the fish sauce production from the beginning as the
process takes several moths, and could benefit from the livelihood option
faster.
5.5
Fish sauce production
5.6 Three beneficiaries were initially selected for fish sauce production as
livelihood, and after that an additional 178 beneficiaries were supported by
the Spanish Red Cross for
fish sauce production in
Thanh Hoa province.
5.7 The beneficiary for fish
sauce visited by the
evaluation team was
positive to the support as
the previous production was
destroyed by the typhoon.
The beneficiary had sold the
first production and started
a new production cycle. The
first production was ready
after 15 days and sold for
Picture 4
800,000 VND, of which
600,000 VND was
Livelihoods - fish sauce beneficiary in
reinvested in new
Thanh Hoa
production of fish sauce and
200,000 VND were profit.
5.8
Pig husbandry (2 piglets)
5.9 Beneficiary respondents are in general positive to pig husbandry as type of
livelihood, a majority also have former experience of pig husbandry. An
alternative to pig husbandry
proposed by some beneficiary
respondents is a calf (cow). The
motivation was that it is easier
to breed, do not require
foodstuff and does not get sick
as often as pigs. The evaluators
note that this alternative is
several times more expensive
than piglets.
5.10 The livelihood programme has
encountered some difficulties
where distributed piglets
Picture 5
became sick and some piglets
even died. According to the
Livelihoods - pig husbandry. Two
Spanish Red Cross over 100 of
piglets provided per beneficiary
the piglets they have distributed
so far has died. All the piglets died within the warranty period of 15 days
and will be compensated for. Piglets that died within 15 days after delivery
will be compensated with new piglets from the company who delivered the
piglets.
12
5.11 The evaluators note that one beneficiary in Thanh Hoa, Da Loc commune
received housing support from VNRC and livelihoods support from Spanish
RC. Another beneficiary in Nam Dinh, Hai Hau commune received housing
support from another organization and livelihoods support from VNRC.
5.12 Only in Thanh Hoa beneficiary respondents claim they were compensated
150.000VND for pigs that died after 10 days of delivery and the commune
paid for veterinary services. But according to other beneficiary and nonbeneficiary respondents there were no compensation. Beneficiary
respondents were compensated with a new pig when their pig died within a
period of ten days after delivery. According to one beneficiary the new pig
they received as compensation became sick and died one month later, and
there was no compensation, although the beneficiary received 150.000VND
for foodstuff that was not delivered as the pig was not raised. In other
provinces there was no compensation if pigs died after the warranty period
of ten days.
5.13 The evaluators note that the amount of foodstuff received to feed the
piglets varies within and between different provinces.
5.14 The monitoring book for the pigs’ development was kept with the
beneficiaries or at the
commune or was missing.
In Phu Tho the book was
kept at the commune.
The evaluators are
concerned that the follow
up of the livelihoods
component will be difficult
and inaccurate as some
monitoring books are
missing and others are
not filled in. There is an
example where the
information in the book
does not correspond to
the reality, i.e. in Thanh
Picture 6
Hoa it was noted in the
Monitoring book for piglets’ development.
monitoring book that the
Weight when sold 144 kg according to the
pigs’ weight was 144 kg
monitoring book, but 100 kg according to the
when sold, but the
beneficiary.
beneficiary claim that the
weight was only 100 kg
(picture 6).
5.15 In Phu Tho, Vo Tranh commune the evaluators note that the weight of the
piglets received by the beneficiaries varied substantially. The weight of two
piglets varied between 30 to 60 kg. Despite long transport of piglets from
Hung Yen province only a few piglets died compared to piglets delivered in
Thanh Hoa province. This might be explained by differences in climate;
quality of drinking water and beneficiaries experience in pig husbandry14.
Pigs delivered to Phu Tho came directly from the suppliers own pigs. But in
Thanh Hoa who ordered a great number of pigs, the supplier also had to
buy pigs externally, which could have influenced the quality and type of pig
delivered to the beneficiaries.
14
Review meeting for the Damrey typhoon response operation, Hanoi 18 September 2006. The
Chairman of Thanh Hoa RC Chapter informs that beneficiaries in Hung Loc district did not have
experience of pig husbandry and that the environment was not suitable for pig husbandry.
13
5.16 Although beneficiaries visited by the evaluators had sold their pigs, bought
new piglets and started the process of breeding again, the result varied.
Several beneficiaries had sold their pigs for less money than the initial
VNRC investment of 1, 7 million VND. Yet other beneficiaries had pigs that
grew very slow, or had to sell sick pigs in advance because they were
afraid the pigs would die.
5.17 Negative impact – The evaluators encountered two cases of negative
impact in the livelihoods programme, regarding beneficiary respondents
who already had 4 pigs and received 2 new pigs from VNRC. The new pigs
received were sick and infected the beneficiary’s other 4 pigs. All the pigs
were treated by the hamlet veterinarian but all 6 pigs died. One of the
beneficiaries claims to have lost 1,370,000 VND in the process, the value of
the beneficiary’s 4 pigs and veterinary cost. The beneficiary considers
refusing livelihoods support in the future and propose that the beneficiaries
receive cash contribution so they can choose a healthy and strong pig to
buy, and to use a traditional breeding method. In this case the evaluators
also noted that persons who already have pigs receive additional pigs from
VNRC.
5.18 Possible causes to the high percentage of sick or dead piglets noted by the
evaluators are long transportation of piglets between provider and
beneficiary distribution point; hot weather, stress inflicted by new
environment and climate; new type of foodstuff provided with the piglets
that beneficiaries are unfamiliar to use and mix; different type of pig then
the local pig that beneficiaries are used to raise (pigs provided are F1 type)
; beneficiary lack of knowledge in pig husbandry (this is less likely as most
beneficiary respondents has experience in pig husbandry); new techniques
in raising this new type of pig and outbreak of mouth and foot disease.
Respondents notice that the sick pigs hade symptoms like coiffing, fever,
diarrhea, constipation, and “read ears”.
5.19 The Spanish Red Cross Society is supporting livelihoods in Thanh Hoa
bilaterally as part of the appeal. The delivery of piglets was delayed
because of outbreak of mouth and foot disease, vaccination of piglets and
change of Chairman in Thanh Hoa Chapter. Despite information sharing on
difficulties of the previous delivery of piglets supported by the IFRC, similar
problems were once again encountered during the additional delivery of
piglets supported by the Spanish Red Cross. The evaluators recommend
enhanced monitoring and information sharing in order to manage on-going
programmes. There is also a risk that fears of losing support if a
programme is not successful, can have influenced openness in information
sharing as well as temporary organizational constraints due to the change
of chairman in the Thanh Hoa Chapter.
5.20 In total among the 35 beneficiaries (70 piglets) visited by the evaluation
team there were 9 dead pigs and 32 sick pigs. All dead pigs were found in
the coastal provinces.
5.21 Before attempting to give livelihoods support again the evaluators
recommend that the pig husbandry livelihood component should be
thoroughly evaluated by persons with veterinary and pig husbandry skills.
The evaluators own conclusion and recommendation is that there shall be a
cooperation agreement between the VNRC and the hamlet veterinarian to
share information on pig developments. The VNRC shall also attend the
monthly meetings where hamlet veterinarians meet and share information
on the situation in the commune. Furthermore, to use a local kind of pig
who the beneficiaries are used to raise. And to buy pigs locally to avoid
long transport and a change in climate for the pig. Cash contribution can be
an alternative where the beneficiary buy their own pigs and can ensure that
14
the pigs are healthy and strong. And finally to use a local kind of foodstuff
for the pig, that the beneficiaries are used to handle.
6.1
6.2
Shelter
Houses
6.3 Objective: 200 affected families, whose houses collapsed, have been
supported to reconstruct typhoon resistant houses, with adequate water
and sanitation facilities.
6.4 Houses constructed between March – June
6.5 Different design of houses dependent on geographical location.
6.6 Housing support from VNRC 14, 5 million VND per beneficiary (+ others
contributions). In some provinces there were additional support from the
government to build houses and in others provinces there were no
additional support.
6.7 Most respondents received cash (distributed two times) to build their
houses, while others received material or a combination of cash and
material.
6.8 Many beneficiary respondents
were able to loan money from
relatives and the bank. In Phu
Tho for example housing
beneficiaries did not receive
any additional government
funding, but beneficiary
respondents were able to raise
funds of their own ranging from 7 –
26 million VND. One beneficiary
family with seven members were able
to raise 26 million VND, of which 11
million came from relatives, 7 million
VND from selling buffalos and 9
Picture 2
million VND from the state bank, in
Red Cross and Red
order to build a house of 39 square
Crescent
meters. In Vo Tranh commune a
emblem/marking on
family with seven members were able
beneficiaries’ house
to raise 30 million VND, of which 10
million VND came from relatives, 16
million VND from selling buffaloes and 4 million VND from selling bamboo,
According to IFRC operational update no. 4. Although it is positive that
beneficiary are able to contribute to the housing support, the evaluators do
not consider anyone who can raise 26 - 30 million VND to belong to the
most vulnerable and consequently not considered as a beneficiary for
VNRC support. In Phu Tho, Vo Tranh commune beneficiaries are aware
that they can build a small house for 14.5 million VND, but they do not want
a small house, as they see a house as a once in a lifetime investment.
6.9 The evaluators are concerned that beneficiaries take big loans between 710 million VND from the bank to build bigger houses. Many beneficiaries
have no experience of loans and are exposed to the risk of not being able
to pay the interest rates and other cost for their bank loans. Beneficiaries
also borrowed money with interest rate from people in the hamlet.
6.10 One beneficiary respondent had double support with both a house (IFRC)
and piglets from Spanish RC. Yet another beneficiary had housing support
from another organization and livelihood support from VNRC.
15
6.11 In Thanh Hoa Province, Da Loc commune the evaluators note that toilets
and water tank were missing and the beneficiary respondents had not been
instructed to construct toilet and water tank, it was not included in the
master plan provided for the houses. Beneficiaries living outside the seadyke had to move on the inside of the sea-dyke to receive housing support,
only beneficiaries with land to build a house on can receive support.
6.12 In Yen Bai, Tram Tau commune the toilets were missing and the
beneficiaries explain that they use their neighbors’ toilet.
6.13 One beneficiary was offended by the large Red Cross emblem/marking the
beneficiary was requested to have on the house. The evaluators note that
the Red Cross emblem/marking was very big and visible in this location
compared with other locations where the Red Cross emblem/marking was
more discrete in the form of a steel plate on the wall (picture 7). In Yen Bai
province minority group beneficiaries was not required to have RC marking
on their houses as agreed with the IFRC.
6.14 The houses constructed are supposed to be typhoon-resistant. In the
coastal provinces the houses are solid and most of the beneficiary
respondents think that their houses will withstand another typhoon as
strong as Damrey, although some think that the roof might come off. In the
mountainous provinces houses are mainly built by wood and beneficiary
respondent think that their roof will come off in another typhoon as strong
as Damrey. Only some of the respondents received hygiene and sanitation
training as outlined in the appeal.
7.1
Needs assessment and beneficiary selection
7.2 A rapid joint needs assessment was carried out on 28- 29 September 2005
to three of the most affected provinces of Thanh Hoa, Ninh Binh and Nam
Dinh. The team was comprised of members from UNDP, UNICEF, OXFAMGB, CCFSC and the ministry for foreign affairs. Priority areas for assistance
in the emergency response and recovery were identified based on the
findings.
7.3 A “Damrey Appeal-Board” was set up at the VNRC headquarters to
coordinate between VNRC and the IFRC staff in Hanoi. General guidelines
and allocation of relief based on need were sent to relevant RC chapters to
support them to effectively carry out needs assessment and organize the
relief distributions. Based on the needs, and support from the Federation
international appeal, VNRC HQ allocated relief items to the provincial Red
Cross chapters. Relief operation guidelines were sent governing the
selection of beneficiaries and organization of distributions. Beneficiaries
were to be selected by villagers and certified by VNRC staff and members.
7.4 The main criteria for beneficiary selection were:
a) Poor households whose homes were destroyed by typhoon
Damrey;
b) Households who lost household items
c) Households badly affected by typhoon Damrey, rendering them
without sufficient labour.
d) Affected household yet to receive any support from other sources.
7.5
7.6
Priority has been given to households with disabled members, with children
up to five years of age, headed by women, with breastfeeding and pregnant
women, or who lost members to the typhoon.
A meeting on “implementation of housing and livelihoods operation” was
held in February 2006 by VNRC headquarters in Hanoi, with participants
from provincial chapters. Briefing on compliance with IFRC standards,
VNRC Head quarter procedures and criteria on how to select beneficiaries
16
7.7
7.8
7.9
and suppliers was shared. VNRC Chapters were provided with a
Livelihoods/Housing Needs Assessment Questionnaire and a house design
sample that has been used by Danish RC for their housing project was also
shared. In the meeting options for livelihood support was chosen to be pig
husbandry and optional fish sauce production. It was decided that support
for livelihood and housing are VND 1,700,000 and VND 14,500,000
respectively.
RC chapters provided training to assessment teams. RC and local
communities carried out assessment of beneficiaries. The selection of
beneficiaries shall involve local people, authorities and the beneficiaries
themselves. Minutes of selection meetings shall be taken. List of
beneficiaries shall be posted on commune bulletins board. Each housing
beneficiary dossier shall have four photos: the beneficiary’s temporary
shelter, ground-breaking ceremony, under construction process and
completion. The photos taken with the house beneficiary.
The evaluator note that Information from different respondents varies
regarding the beneficiary selection process at hamlet level. Respondents
from CPC, VNRC,
beneficiaries and non
beneficiaries describe
two different processes
for beneficiary selection.
First, a participatory
beneficiary selection
process where all
people in the hamlet
participate and
beneficiaries are
selected by voting.
Secondly, a beneficiary
selection process where
Picture 8
hamlet leaders select
beneficiaries without
Beneficiary selection – the home of a
participation from the
beneficiary for livelihoods - most
people in the hamlet,
vulnerable?
and beneficiary
respondents were only
informed at a commune meeting that they had been selected as
beneficiaries. Some non-beneficiary respondents did not know that a
selection process had taken place in the hamlet or that some people in the
hamlet had received livelihood support.
In Ninh Binh the PCP decided and selected districts and communes for
support. The districts and communes selected by PCP received almost the
same amount of support. The evaluators are concerned that the selection is
focused on giving the same amount of support to districts and communes
and not on the needs of the most vulnerable.
7.10 In Than Hoa some people were selected as beneficiaries because
they had relatives working for the CPC, according to people in the
hamlet.
7.11 The evaluators note that there are beneficiary lists but no documentation on
the selection process. Although beneficiary selection can be more
participatory and transparent all the beneficiaries visited by the evaluators
had been affected by typhoon Damrey and many of the beneficiaries
encountered by the evaluators are women headed households, families
17
with children under 5 years of age, families with handicapped family
members, ethnic minorities and/or very poor households.
7.12 The evaluators note that there are big differences in size of the houses
constructed with VNRC support. Some beneficiaries have been able to
raise considerable amount of money by themselves, up to 30 million VND.
This is more
Thanh the total
cost for other
beneficiary’s
houses. The
evaluators find
that some
beneficiaries
have the
capacity to fund
Picture 9
the construction
of their own
The evaluators note a big difference between a
houses and can
beneficiary house (left) and neighboring house
not be
(right) in Phu Tho province.
considered as
most vulnerable
and legitimate beneficiaries for VNRC support. In Phu Tho province the
evaluators note a big difference between a beneficiary house and
neighboring houses (picture 9).
7.13 The evaluators note that the targeting of the most vulnerable can be
improved and recommend a stricter implementation of the beneficiary
selection guidelines already in place. The evaluators suggest a more
frequent monitoring of beneficiary selection combined with a follow up of
the beneficiaries selected after the operation is completed, to see if the
selected beneficiaries actually comply with beneficiary selection criteria.
7.14 Respondents in CCFSC, DPC, CPC and DMWG are very positive to VNRC
and would like to see VNRC as the lead organization in humanitarian needs
assessment. The evaluators recommend that VNRC takes a lead role in
humanitarian needs assessment.
8.1
Monitoring
8.2 As part of the DM activities three relief and Sphere standards training
courses were carried out in November 2005 for the VNRC headquarters
monitoring staff.
8.3 Monitoring of the operation has been carried out from both VNRC and
IFRC. The monitoring reports are often of a descriptive character and the
evaluators recommend that more analysis and recommendations are
added to the monitoring reports, to support management level decision
making. When management level takes action based on the
recommendations in the monitoring reports, the monitoring reports are
ideally complemented with a management response report, to complete the
documentation of the monitoring and programme managing cycle. This will
strengthen institutional memory and facilitated learning.
18
8.4
8.5
8.6
9.1
15
During monitoring in Nam Dinh province it was discovered that beneficiary
selection and livelihoods distribution were in favor for relatives and friends
in one of the hamlets15. The VNRC Chapter intervened and the hamlet had
to stop their implementation, and make a
new and proper beneficiary selection,
based on the VNRC guideline criteria.
Another example from the province is
beneficiaries of livelihoods that did not
follow the guidelines for raising the
piglets they received. The commune
responded and instructed the
beneficiaries to follow the guidelines for
pig raising they had received.
The evaluators see this as a good
Picture 10
example of monitoring and management
One VNRC beneficiary
response to ensure coherent programme
did not receive a
implementation and accountability to
household kit, but
beneficiaries and donors. Unfortunately
received a kit from
no documentation on the above was
another organization
found by the evaluators. The evaluators
are concerned that there are lost opportunities of organizational learning for
the VNRC, as part of the experience from programme implementation are
not documented, analyzed and used to see if future disaster response
operations can be improved.
Coordination
9.2 The VNRC participated in a rapid joint needs assessment that was carried
out on 28- 29 September 2005 to three of the provinces most affected by
the typhoon. Priority areas for assistance in emergency response and
recovery were identified based on the findings. A “Damrey Appeal-Board”
was set up at the VNRC headquarters to coordinate between VNRC and
the IFRC staff in Hanoi (see under heading: Needs assessment and
beneficiary selection).
9.3 At district and commune levels management boards and receiving units
were established to manage and coordinate support to the communities
and hamlets after typhoon Damrey. The VNRC was represented in many of
these boards as well as in CFSC to mobilize funds and distribute relief.
9.4 VNRC is member of the national level Central Committee for Flood and
Storm Control (CCFSC) and the Fatherland Front. The main role of VNRC
in CCFSC is to be relief distributor and to mobilize resources, according to
CCFSC and CFSC respondents.
9.5 The evaluators note that in Nam Dinh the PPC did not know about the
VNRC activities in connection to the typhoon but claimed they coordinated
with VNRC. In Than Hoa VNRC was not a member of the CCFSC
according to the CCFSC.
9.6 Respondents of The Disaster Management Center (DMC) of CCFSC would
like VNRC to take a lead role in needs-assessment in Vietnam and conduct
Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM) training for poor coastal
and mountainous communities. As mountainous areas are at risk of being
isolated after a disaster, better DP is needed in the form of stock of
medicine and other relief items in addition to early warning for flush floods.
DMC also requests closer sharing of information on VNRC activities.
The VNRC Provincial Chapter in Namh Dinh informs the evaluation team.
19
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.1
VNRC and IFRC are members of the Disaster Management Working Group
(DMWG), an informal network of civil society organizations that meet
regularly to share information about disaster management with the view of
greater cooperation and coordination. Members of DMWG participated in a
Joint Rapid Needs Assessments after typhoon Damrey and also made a
mapping exercise over the value, amount, type and geographic location of
the members support.
Respondents of the DMWG express concern over the decreased
participation of the VNRC in the DMWG that seems to be directly related to
the change of leadership in VNRC. The respondents view the VNRC as a
key actor and partner in DM and want more contact and collaboration with
VNRC.
The DMWG members consulted are very positive to the VNRC DP-training
but are concerned that the DP-training are losing some of its initiative and
needs to be sustained and developed. Members also express that they
want closer cooperation with VNRC and share more experiences on field
level. Respondents from INGOs are very pleased with VNRC training
courses and have use VNRC for training in CBDM and mangrove replantation training.
Post traumatic stress
10.2 By losing relatives, livestock, property or houses in the typhoon beneficiary
respondents has complained over high levels of stress and anxiety after the
typhoon. This is an emotional health issue for people that have experienced
a disaster, which cause unusual and unwanted stress in those attempting
to reconstruct their lives.
10.3 One beneficiary gave an example of stress induced by double
vulnerabilities. First they lost the house and all property in the typhoon.
Secondly, they received a household-kit from VNRC, but the kit got stolen
as there was no proper place to live or store belongings.
10.4 The evaluators note that the overall impact of emergency relief could be
improved if it is complemented with some sort of psychological support to
people who suffer from trauma after a disaster. The evaluators recommend
VNRC to complement their staff and volunteer training with information on
how to approach and support people suffering from post traumatic stress.
Red Cross institutional level
11.1
Visibility
11.2 During the relief phases of the operation the VNRC activities were widely
broadcasted by mass media, such as the Voice of Viet Nam, Viet Nam
Television and newspapers. This has enhanced VNRC’s visibility and
reputation.
11.3 Beneficiary respondent knowledge of VNRC increased slightly after the
Damrey operation. Some beneficiaries could describe VNRC as an
organization to help poor people. Other beneficiaries did not know what the
VNRC was and did not recognize the VNRC or IFRC emblem (beneficiary
to both rice and livelihood) and others said the support came from the
Fatherland Front, government or a Danish organization. Many beneficiary
respondents had noticed the VNRC flag at distribution points and the use of
VNRC uniform or hat, although at some distribution points no VNRC
uniforms was used. The evaluators note that visibility is low at
20
implementing level and the opportunity to increase knowledge of VNRC
among beneficiaries and at hamlet and commune level can improve. The
evaluators believe that increased visibility, knowledge and understanding of
the VNRC role and mandate are fundamental to attract more members,
volunteers and donors to the organization.
11.4
Capacity and independence
11.5 Although VNRC and its local chapters have achieved exemplary
improvement in their human recourses since 200016, the evaluators note
that VNRC is strongest at headquarter level and becomes gradually weaker
down to the implementing level at commune and hamlet levels. At district
and commune level staff often has two roles and the same person work for
both VNRC and PC. At commune level there can be mixed roles or only
CPC staff. This is problematic both concerning workload and the
independence of VNRC, as the same person has two functions and
loyalties.
11.6 Just from last year 2005, VNRC staff at commune level started to receive
some economic support from the government. The support varies between
different provinces. In Binh Duong the VNRC staff in the commune receives
500.000 VND per month but in Phu Tho and Yen Bai they only receive
between 50.000 to 100.000 VND per month.
11.7 In one commune visited by the evaluation team there was no VNRC staff
and no VNRC volunteers. VNRC often use volunteers or staff from massorganizations to implement their activities. The evaluators note that despite
limited human resources VNRC support is delivered to beneficiaries by the
use of staff and volunteers from VNRC, mass-organizations and
government. The evaluators are concerned that the use of staff and
volunteers from mass-organization and government compromise the
independence and impartiality17 of the VNRC.
16
External evaluation of Vietnam Red Cross Society disaster management programme, with particular
reference to the projects supported by AusAID and DIPHECO, International Institute for Disaster Risk
Management October 2004.
17
Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NonGovernmental Organisations (NGO’s) in Disaster Relief.
21
Annexes
1. Terms of Reference
2. List of meetings
3. Table of Beneficiary respondents
4. Logical Framework
22