Type of Review: Annual Review
Project Title: UK Support to Build Earthquake Resilience in Nepal
Date started: 02/02/2013
Date review undertaken:
Instructions to help complete this template:
Before commencing the annual review you should have to hand:






the Business Case or earlier project documentation.
the Logframe
the detailed guidance (How to Note)- Reviewing and Scoring Projects
the most recent annual review (where appropriate) and other related monitoring reports
key data from ARIES, including the risk rating
the separate project scoring calculation sheet (pending access to ARIES)
You should assess and rate the individual outputs using the following rating scale and
description. ARIES and the separate project scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall
output score taking account of the weightings and individual outputs scores:
Description
Outputs substantially exceeded expectation
Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Outputs met expectation
Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
Scale
A++
A+
A
B
C
Introduction and Context
What support is the UK providing?
How much funding does the UK expect to provide?
Ministers approved £17.5m of funding for a four year (2011 – 2015) earthquake resilience programme
in November 2011. The programme was subsequently approved by the Government of Nepal in
August 2012.
An additional component of UK support is planned, focussing on hospital safety. This may include an
1
additional allocation of UK funding during the current programme cycle, subject to approval by UK
Ministers.
What are the expected results?
What will change as a result of our support?
The UK’s support will strengthen Government of Nepal’s disaster risk management policy, scale up
community-based disaster resilience activities and improve preparedness for a national and international
emergency response in the event of a major earthquake. DFID is closely coordinating with other parallel
donor efforts as part of the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC). The NRRC is a major initiative
led by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) and supported by UN agencies, the Red Cross, the World
Bank, the Asia Development Bank and other donors.
The UK will leverage this investment further by embedding a focus on building disaster resilience across
the DFID Nepal programme, consistent with the recommendations of the 2011 Humanitarian Emergency
Response Review, thereby protecting UK development investments.
UK 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.
The intended impacts are: (1) the increased resilience of four million Nepalis to the earthquake threat in
Nepal; and (2) improved disaster management planning within the Government of Nepal at national and
district levels.
The intended outcomes are: (1) the scaling up of community based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) in
Nepal and (2) measurable improvements in seismic risk management capacity.
More specifically, UK support is intended to deliver the following results:

Strengthened national resilience through policy/institutional support for national disaster risk
management and response planning, including:
o Improved building code compliance and risk sensitive land use planning in five
municipalities in the Kathmandu Valley;
o Increased level of engagement by the private sector in improving disaster risk
management.

Strengthened community resilience through community-based earthquake and disaster
preparedness, including:
o The establishment of 110 socially inclusive community based disaster risk management
organisations (CBDRMOs), with demonstrated capacity and resources to respond to
natural disasters;
o Reaching five million people through public information and awareness raising;
o Increased capacity of key staff in organisations supported by DFID, ensuring a rapid,
appropriate and effective response to a major earthquake or other disaster.

Improved preparedness for emergency response, including:
o Enhanced Emergency Operation Centre Network comprised of national hub, five regional
2
o
o
o
o

and 30 district centres, supported by a cadre of at least 1,000 skilled government staff;
Strengthened capacity of “First Responders”, including 4,000 volunteers trained in search
and rescue and first aid;
Support to the development of a national Urban Search and Rescue Capacity in Nepal
including the Nepal Armed Police Force and Nepal Army;
Support to ICRC to deliver critical first aid and major incident management training to 30
hospitals in 19 districts;
Pre-positioning of emergency water equipment in 2 key open spaces agreed as potential
IDP camps in Kathmandu Valley.
Support recovery from recent natural disasters, including:
o Reconstruction and repairs/retrofitting to 131 school blocks in eastern Nepal damaged
during 2011 earthquake.
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 a number of partners (UNDP, ICRC, British Red Cross, Oxfam
and an INGO consortium comprising Practical Action and Action Aid and INGOs) under the framework of
the NRRC. 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.
What is the context in which UK support is provided?
Nepal is highly prone to multiple natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods, landslides, droughts,
fires, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) and avalanches. According to surveys Nepal is 4th most
vulnerable to climate change in the world1. It has also been ranked as the 7th most at-risk country to
earthquakes2, with Kathmandu itself classified as the world’s most at-risk city3.
The reasons for Nepal’s high vulnerability to natural hazards are manifold. They result from a range of
social, economic, political, environmental and physical factors, including: low and inequitable levels of
human developmenti, rapid and un-planned urban growth, poor construction standards, the lack of
enforcement of building codes, climate change, political instability and mountainous terrain.
The inevitable, if unpredictable, occurrence of a major earthquake is considered the deadliest threat,
due to the likely massive loss of life and infrastructure. Earthquakes of various magnitudes occur
almost every year and historical records suggest that Nepal can expect one earthquake of magnitude
8+ on the Richter Scale every eighty years and two earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 – 8 on the Richter
scale every 40 yearsii. The last earthquake measuring 8+ on the Richter scale occurred in 1934.
The Kathmandu valley, the most densely populated area of the country, is at the highest risk of
earthquake, in terms of people likely to be affected. A number of loss estimation exercises have been
conducted for the Kathmandu valley. Data produced by the National Society for Earthquake
Technology – Nepal (NSET) indicates that a major earthquake could result in:
1
Maplecroft 2011
Maplecroft Natural Hazards Risk Atlas 2012, seismic risk index. Available at:
http://maplecroft.com/themes/nh/atlas/index/seismic_risk/2012/
3 GeoHazards International (2001): Global Earthquake Safety Initiative (GESI)
2
3




100,000 deaths, 300,000 injuries and 1.5 million people made homeless
Severe damages to up to 60% of all buildings in the Kathmandu Valley, including 80% of
hospital infrastructure
Severe damage to 95% of water pipes and 50% of other water infrastructure
Secondary landslides, leaving roads in and out of the Kathmandu valley impassable for
30 days or more.
Rural areas bear the brunt of landslides and floods, which are concentrated during the monsoon
season, i.e. between June and September. An average of 300 people die in floods and landslides each
year, with annual economic damages exceeding US$10 millioniii.
Nepal has been buffeted by conflict and political instability over the past two decades and the capacity
of the government to manage disaster risk remains weak. Whilst government efforts are predominantly
relief and response oriented, recent years have seen move towards a more strategic approach to
disaster risk management. A National Relief Calamity Act was adopted in 1982 and Nepal signed the
Hyogo Framework for Action in 2005. A draft National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management
(NSDRM), which serves as a national framework for DRM strategy and priority actions, was prepared
in 2009 but has yet to be endorsed.
In 2009, the Government of Nepal’s (GoN) priorities from the NSDRM were brought together within the
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 has identified five Flagship Areas, to be
taken forward while the NSDRM awaits approval. These are identified below, alongside details of
ministry leads and coordinators.
Flagship
1. School and hospital safety
Coordinator(s)
ADB/World Health Organization
2. Emergency preparedness and
response capacity
3. Flood management in the Koshi
river basin
4. Integrated community based
disaster
risk
reduction/management
5. Policy/Institutional support for
Disaster Risk Management
UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
World Bank
Government of Nepal Lead
Ministries of Education and Health
and Population
Ministry of Home Affairs
Ministry of Irrigation
International Federation of the Red
Cross
Ministry of Federal Affairs and
Local Development
UNDP
Ministry of Home Affairs
The evolution of the political situation since this Business Case was designed is not conducive to
effective programme delivery, much of which is heavily reliant on government partners (at local and
national levels). Parliament was dissolved in mid-2012 and has yet to be reconstituted; consequently, it
is unlikely that the NSDRM will be approved any time soon. However, MoHA is seeking to increase its
own internal capacity for disaster risk management and reduction; there are signs that a new division
may be created within the ministry soon.
In the meantime, urbanisation continues apace, only adding to the urgency of establishing effective
policy for disaster management in Nepal.
Section A: Detailed Output Scoring
4
Output 1: Strengthened national resilience through policy/institutional support for national
disaster risk management and response planning
Output 1 score and performance description: B, outputs moderately did not meet expectations
5
Progress against expected results:
This output involves delivery on two tracks – nationally, through the establishment or strengthening of
effective policy and institutions, and locally, with public and private service providers (primarily
municipalities and the DUDBC and construction companies). Delivery is being led by UNDP, through
their Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management Programme (CDRMP) under NRRC Flagship 5,
alongside a consortium of Practical Action and Action Aid (PA/AA) in Pokhara,and BRC in Kathmandu.
Output 1.1: Measurable improvement in building code compliance in Nepal
Target, end 2012: Five urban municipalities have tailored building code implementation “road maps”
meeting environmental standards
Progress to date: A national strategy for national building code (NBC) compliance has been drafted
and endorsed by the Government of Nepal. Guidelines and action plans have also been developed to
support the roll-out of this strategy in five urban municipalities in the Kathmandu Valley and in Pokhara
municipality. These have yet to be approved at municipal level. UNDP are managing this project in
Kathmandu and a consortium of Practical Action and Action Aid (PA/AA) in Pokhara. Partners are
working with the support of the relevant municipal authorities and the Department of Urban
Development and Building Construction (DUDBC).
Municipal and private sector capacity to support the implementation of building code compliance is also
being strengthened. To date, UNDP have trained 60 municipal engineers in earthquake resistance
construction technology. They are also developing retrofitting guidelines and a video-tool kit on building
code compliance. The toolkit will be broadcast through national television networks, and will also be
provided in future to prospective owner-builders in DVD form. PA/AA have trained 182 masons in
Pokhara and BRC trained 60 masons in Kathmandu. UNDP have also supported the development of
certified training courses for designers, engineers and masons, in consultation with Tribuvhan and
Purvanchai universities.
Effective implementation of building code compliance depends on robust enforcement measures,
which have yet to be enacted.
Summary: progress is slightly behind schedule.
Output 1.2: Increased level of engagement by private sector in improving disaster risk management
Target, end 2012: Plan with at least one mobile phone company to re-establish mobile network in case
of major seismic event
Progress to date: Progress towards this target has been slow due to a lack of capacity within the
delivery partner (UNDP) for private sector development activities. NCELL, a private sector
telecommunications company, with the largest market share of mobile phone users in Nepal, has
designated a disaster planning focal point, and has begun major investments to make the current
network more seismic resilient and to establish a back-up network.
UNDP has also started consultations with Nepal Rastra Bank to including building code compliance in
the mortgage application process.
Summary: progress is considerably off-track.
Output 1.3: Risk sensitive land use plan developed and integrated into municipal by-laws and key
development processes in target urban areas
Target, end 2012: Participatory process to review risk maps and develop risk sensitive land use plan
completed in four municipalities
6
Progress to date: Existing plans for Risk Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP) in the Kathmandu
municipality have been validated through a multi-stakeholder review process. Building on this, a study
on urban growth trends within Kathmandu has been initiated, to provide necessary data to urban
planners on different growth scenarios. This work is now being extended to the remaining four
municipalities in the Kathmandu Valley.
Work on integrating RSLUP into local by-laws has also been initiated. Kathmandu and Lalitpur
Municipalities have initiated a project to improve their building permit process through digitization and
automation. The new system is intended to increase accountability and accuracy and provide essential
data for town planning and potentially insurance or mortgage approval decision making processes,
thus contributing to building code compliance.
Summary: off-track.
Recommendations:
The current political stasis creates a challenging environment for delivery across the programme. This
is particularly the case for activities under output 1, where there is a heavy reliance on government
partners. DFID will work with partners across the NRRC to push for the enactment of measures to
enforce building code compliance. This poses a significant risk to programme delivery.
DFID Nepal will explore options for using the Political Champions Group on Disaster Resilience, which
is co-chaired by the UK Secretary of State for International Development, to stimulate greater private
sector engagement.
More broadly, to ensure effective delivery under output 1, there is a need for more systematic
coordination and information sharing between Flagship 5 and other NRRC Flagships, as the former
provides the bedrock on which much other Flagships function. Flagship 5 is considering a strengthened
oversight and coordination function, through the establishment of a dedicated advisory committee.
DFID supports these plans, provided that they are accompanied by a realistic work-plan. DFID will
complement this with a mechanism for coordination amongst the partners we are supporting, as
outlined in the Business Case.
Beyond this, there is a need for improved strategic leadership within and across NRRC flagships. DFID
is planning a review of its support to the NRRC during the second quarter of 2013, in coordination with
other partners. The findings of this review will guide our future engagement and decision making.
DFID and UNDP will continue to work closely with NRRC to ensure broad support for disaster
resilience across GoN and political parties.
A review of log-frame outputs is also recommended, to ensure that indicators accurately capture
interventions and monitor progress towards delivery targets. Some targets may also need to be
updated and / or further clarified, on the basis of baseline surveys and data which has been collected
since the Business Case was approved. This exercise will be replicated across other outputs.
Impact Weighting (%): 40%
Revised since last Annual Review? Yes. Impact weightings were not included in the original logframe for the business case.
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
7
Output 2: Strengthened community resilience through community-based earthquake and
disaster preparedness
Output 2 score and performance description: A, outputs met expectations
Progress against expected results:
DFID is supporting a number of partners to build community resilience to earthquakes and other
natural hazards, under the umbrella of Flagship 4 of the NRRC. This includes the British Red Cross
(BRC) / Nepal Red Cross Society and Oxfam in the Kathmandu valley, UNDP (through a school
reconstruction and retrofitting programme being implemented by Save the Children) in Ilam and
Taplejung in Western Nepal and PA/AA in Pokhara.
Output 2.1: Number of vulnerable communities (both urban wards and Village Development
Committees) increasing their resilience to earthquake and other disasters through community-based
strategies
Target 1, end 2012: Target urban municipalities and VDCs develop plans for community-based
disaster risk management organisations (CBRMOs), with 50 socially inclusive CBDRMOs created or
refreshed and developing preparedness plans to improve capacities.
Progress to date: Through this output, DFID plans to support the establishment of 110 socially
inclusive Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) or CBDRMOs by 2015, each with regularly tested
DRR plans and with capacity and equipment to respond to natural disasters4.
To date, 134 community committees / organisations have been set up, and all are working to develop
DRR plans. However, progress across the portfolio has been mixed, with UNDP / Save the Children
and PA/AA surpassing their milestone targets and the BRC some way behind schedule.
UNDP / Save have established 80 community DMCs in Ilam and Taplejung districts, compared to 70
planned by 2015. First aid and light search and rescue (LSAR) training and equipment have been
provided to CDMC members and DRR materials distributed to schools in these locations. All 16 village
development committees (VDCs) covered by the project have established and endorsed disaster risk
management plans, with resources allocated to support implementation.
PA / AA have established 50 disaster management committees, the planned target by 2015. This
includes 38 at community level and 12 at school level.
The BRC – DFID’s main partner under this outcome - plans to establish 66 CDMCs in the Kathmandu
valley over the lifetime of the project (an increase from 40 in the original proposal) but by end-2012 had
failed to establish any such structures. This was, due to delays in government approval of CDMC
formation guidelines, and the fact that community DRR structures established through a previous BRC
project in the Kathmandu valley were no longer functional. BRC worked with ministry, municipal and
community representatives to draft CDMC formation guidelines, which were formally approved by the
Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development in February 2013; as of mid-March 22 of the 66
CDMCs had been established. It is anticipated that progress will now accelerate.
Oxfam have established four disaster management committees at ward level, in the four most
vulnerable wards of Dhangadhi and Bhimdatta in the Western Terai.
Target 2, end 2012: Resilience being mainstreamed in DFID Nepal programmes (RAP and CSP)
4
DMCs / CBDRMOs comprise representatives of existing community based organisations and members of the local
community.
8
Progress to date: No precise targets were determined in the log-frame but a number of activities have
been completed in the RAP and CSP programmes during the reporting period. 747 small scale
infrastructure projects (schools, bridges, health points etc.) and 186 CBDRMCs have also been formed
under the CSP. Through the RAP, 49 per cent of retrofitting work on 31 schools had been completed
by the end of 2012.
Summary: over-achievement of targets, but mixed performance across the portfolio. Functionality of
CDMCs was not assessed.
Output 2.2: Increased understanding and performance of staff in key roles within DFID-supported
organisations including Nepal Red Cross, INGOs and local partners demonstrates strengthened
capacity of those organisations to provide a rapid, appropriate and effective response to a major
earthquake or other disaster event.
Target, end 2012: Training of people (within DFID supported organisations) with key roles in response
Progress to date: BRC is the main delivery partner for this output. During the reporting period, a
number of training activities were organised to support capacity development within the Nepal Red
Crescent Society. Four, six day disaster response trainings were held for 93 NRCS volunteers,
focussed on knowledge of disaster relief and response methodologies. Representatives of the
Kathmandu District Chapter of the NRCS also received “training of trainers” training, to build their
knowledge of training methodologies, presentation and facilitation skills.
Summary: good delivery but as no targets were defined in the BC or project log-frames, it is difficult to
assess whether progress in on track.
Output 2.3: Extent of increased awareness about risks and knowledge of risk reduction actions
amongst identified hard-to-reach groups of vulnerable women and men, girls and boys
Target, end 2012: Stakeholder analysis mapping and identification of communities, organisations,
health facilities and schools completed. Students, teachers, community members and local authorities
involved in awareness and risk reduction activities.
Progress to date: Baseline surveys were conducted by DFID-supported institutions to better
understand the knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) of targeted communities with regard to
disaster risk, as well as the nature of the risks and vulnerabilities faced. These were used by partners
in the inception phases of their projects, to identify project locations and inform prioritization of
activities. Some baseline surveys (e.g. BRC) had yet to be completed at the end of the reporting period
due to late project start up.
Summary: good progress.
Recommendations:
DFID is supporting a number of organisations to conduct similar activities under this output, across a
fairly wide geographic area. Opportunities for sharing information, best practice and learning and
ensuring common standards need to be better exploited. CBDRR work falls under NRRC Flagship 4,
which enjoys a wide membership and has a detailed work-plan, alongside a dedicated, full time
coordinator, funded by DFID. Despite notable successes in raising awareness and establishing
minimum standards for CBDRR interventions in Nepal, the Flagship 4 co-ordinator lacks authority to
ensure systematic reporting or information and knowledge sharing. DFID should exert its own pressure
to push for closer collaboration between partners working through this flagship, for example, through
regular meetings and pushing for sharing of non-confidential data and analysis.
It is also important to establish better linkages between DFID funded partners working on CBDRR and
other parts of the resilience portfolio. This includes between BRC’s work in the health sector and the
planned hospital retrofitting work, as well as CBDRR activities under this programme and the CSP.
Work has started on this but more systematic approaches (e.g. through regular coordination meetings
9
with partners) are needed. An initial area of focus for these meetings will be the sustainability of the
CBDRR mechanisms being funded.
DFID is designing the next phase of its support to the Nepal Climate Change Support Programme. This
offers considerable scope to ensure closer alignment of climate change adaptation and DRR work, in
particular at local level, where community plans for climate adaptation include a strong component of
protection against hydro-meteorological hazards. DFID needs to explore opportunities for exploiting
these linkages.
The BRC is the largest partner under this output and delays in their delivery give some cause for
concern. DFID and the BRC have instituted more regular (monthly) monitoring, to track delivery against
targets.
As under output 1, a systematic review of log-frame indicators is planned to ensure that targets are
appropriate and measurable. In addition, a mid-term evaluation of progress to date in embedding
resilience in the CSP is due to take place in mid-2013. This will inform the process of embedding
resilience in other DFID funded programmes.
Log-frame targets will likely be revised upwards, on the basis of assessments carried out in the
inception phase of the project. We may also merge output 2.2 with output 3.2 (see below) given the
overlap between these two indicators.
Impact Weighting (%): 25%
Revised since last Annual Review? Yes. Impact weightings were not included in the original logframe for the business case.
Risk: Low
Revised since last Annual Review? No
Output 3: Improved preparedness for emergency response
Output 3 score and performance description: B, outputs moderately did not meet expectations.
Progress against expected results
A number of interventions are covered under this output, reflecting the need for a diversified approach
to build preparedness to respond to a major emergency at national and community levels.
Preparedness work is channelled through NRRC Flagships 4 and 5, coordinated by UNOCHA and
UNDP respectively.
Output 3.1: Number of Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs) equipped and key stakeholders trained
and ready to respond to a potential major earthquake scenario
Target, end 2012: Five regional and 30 district EOCs established in high risk areas and staff trained.
Progress to date: Progress towards delivery of this output, which forms part of UNDP’s CDRMP, has
been slower than anticipated. As with activities under output 1, this is largely due to reliance on
government mechanisms and the absence of an extant legal framework for disaster risk management
in Nepal. A process is underway to establish five regional, five municipal and 10 district Emergency
Operations Centres (EOCs), building on the model used under an earlier DFID-funded project, and
reflecting a reduced delivery target.
10
Summary: off track.
Output 3.2: number of first responders trained in medical first response and urban search and rescue
(USAR)
Target, end 2012: Central USAR training institution and rubble field established. Key Nepal Police,
Armed Police Force and Nepal Army personnel to be trained in USAR and medical response identified;
150 personnel trained.
Progress to date: Efforts to establish a Central USAR training institution have stalled, due to
unanswered questions over governance (i.e. whether the USAR institution should be housed within the
Nepal Army, Armed Police Force or Nepal Police). In an effort to move this agenda forward UNDP
commissioned an assessment of USAR capacity in August 2012, but the resulting report, has yet to
gain any traction.
Some progress has been made on light search and rescue and medical first response. UNDP has
supported the training of 100 EOC staff, 25 APF staff, 35 first responders and 75 DRM focal points on
response and 120 first responders on light search and rescue. The BRC has also provided first aid
training of trainers training to 48 volunteers and basic first aid training to 73 volunteers and 792 first
responders but were unable to provide training on search and rescue. ICRC has trained 285 volunteers
and 168 Armed Police Force officers in first aid.
Summary: good delivery on first aid but as no targets were defined in the BC or project log-frames, it is
difficult to assess whether progress in on track. USAR work is off-track.
Output 3.3: Number of Emergency health trainings delivered to hospital and key national response
organisations
Target, end 2012: Emergency first aid training of trainers delivered in 19 districts. Two ER trauma
courses delivered.
Progress to date: ICRC provided training in 19 districts to NRCS volunteers and APF officers. Three
emergency room trauma courses were delivered.
Summary: good progress
Recommendations:
The planned DFID review of the NRRC should consider how to effectively manage and scale up
emergency preparedness work, given the limited capacity of the national and international
humanitarian system in Nepal and the planned closure of the UNOCHA office at the end of 2013.
We will also consider opportunities for using the recently signed partnership between DFID-China and
UNDP (to improve knowledge management of disaster reduction and post-disaster recovery in Asia) to
support the development of USAR capacity.
Impact Weighting (%): 20%
Revised since last Annual Review? Yes. Impact weightings were not included in the original logframe for the business case.
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
11
Output 4: Strengthened resilience of key hospitals, protecting vital health services
Output 4 score and performance description: B, outputs moderately did not meet expectations.
Progress against expected results
Structural surveys are being commissioned under this output, through Turner and Townsend, with a
view to identifying priority hospitals for retrofitting which, if feasible, will be taken forward through a
separate Business Case.
Output 4.1: Number of hospitals structurally surveyed and with resilience plans in place
Target, end 2012: structural surveys completed in 40 hospitals and resilience plans in place
Progress to date: by March 2013, rapid vulnerability assessments (RVAs) had been completed in 45
large (i.e. 50-bed plus) hospitals across Nepal, with a further 15 due for completion by end-April 2013.
On the basis of the results of these surveys, 20 hospitals will be selected for seismic structural surveys,
which will run during the remainder of 2013. Tenders have already been issued for fast track surveys
on six priority hospitals and the tender evaluation process is due to be completed shortly.
Whilst considerable progress has been made, activities are running behind schedule and over budget.
There are a number of reasons for this, including:
 inability of surveyors to gain access to hospitals due to delays by Ministry of Health and
Population in issuing permission letters.
 increased number of buildings requiring RVAs within hospital compounds. The original
programme was developed on the assumption that 60 key hospital buildings would need to be
assessed. Due to the layout of the buildings, more than 200 buildings have been assessed to
date.
 extended tender evaluation process, due to the need for additional clarifications from bidders.
 revised location of the 60 selected hospitals and, more specifically, an increase in the number
outside the Kathmandu Valley, which implies increased travel costs.
 costs involved in managing the second phase surveys, which was not fully accounted for in the
original terms of reference.
Summary: slightly off-track
Output 4.2: DFID resilient hospital project(s) identified and costed
Target 2: feasibility study for 10 reconstruction/ retrofitting project completed.
Progress to date: Feasibility studies will not be carried out until after the seismic surveys have been
completed. However, plans are in place to produce a final shortlist of 10 hospitals which will be taken
forward for full detailed design and retrofitting works.
Summary: off track
Recommendations:
DFID will work through the Flagship 1 advisory committee, which is coordinated by WHO, to address
delays under this output, which do not give major concern at this stage. It will also seek closer
coordination between Turner and Townsend and its local partners, on the one hand, and the DUDBC
and MoHP, on the other, in an effort to build local ownership of the hospital retrofitting process.
It is essential that this intervention is part of a wider health sector DRR programme, involving support
for primary health points, trauma care and dead body management, alongside non-structural survey
work. DFID is working with a range of partners, led by WHO, to coordinate this work.
12
Impact Weighting (%): 15%
Revised since last Annual Review? Yes. Impact weightings were not included in the original logframe for the business case.
Risk: Medium
Revised since last Annual Review? No
If the project involves more than 4 Outputs please copy the box above and
paste below.
Section B: Results and Value for Money.
1. Progress and results
1.1 Has the logframe been updated since last review?
No. However, a systematic review of the document and supporting partner log-frames will be initiated
based on this first annual review and in light of baseline surveys conducted since the Business Case
was approved. The review will also seek to reframe output indicators and statements to better measure
progress towards targets.
1.2 Overall Output Score and Description: B, outputs moderately did not meet expectation.
1.3 Direct feedback from beneficiaries
No direct feedback from participants was collected as part of this review.
1.4 Summary of overall progress
Overall, progress during the first year of this Business Case has been slower than anticipated, with a
number of partners yet to gain full operational traction. Lack of progress stems partly from delays in the
GoN approving the programme portfolio, and partly due to challenges partners have experienced in
working with the GoN and the pace with which partners have been able to recruit and deploy
experienced personnel. It is also a function of the incipient nature of many of the interventions and the
fact that milestone targets identified in the log frame were, in many cases, indicative, and to be
reviewed on the basis of baseline data.
Constituting more than half the £17.5 million earthquake resilience portfolio, the UNDP and BRC
programmes serve as the central pillars. These two partners have encountered some of the greatest
delays. Progress in realising UNDP-led Flagship 5 activities has been compromised by the reliance on
GoN partners at both central and local levels, as well as the political stasis which impedes the passing
13
of a National Disaster Act. With its focus on policy/institutional support, Flagship 5, perhaps more than
others NRRC work streams, requires a high degree of inter-ministry cooperation5. Lack of government
acceptance and support also affected the delivery of CBDRR interventions managed by the BRC.
As noted above, there is also a need to refresh milestones and deliverables, on the basis of data and
research emanating from assessments, and to amend some indicators to ensure that these provide a
better mechanism for tracking delivery and progress towards targets. This exercise will take place
during the 2nd quarter of 2013, in consultation with all DFID partners.
1.5 Key challenges
A number of challenges to programme delivery have been identified in preceding sections. These are
summarized below:

The political environment, and the lack of a functioning government, presents considerable
challenges to programme delivery. This manifests itself in a number of ways. It has greatest
direct impact on policy and institutional support being delivered by UNDP (outputs 1.1, 1.3 and
3.1), and has been felt indirectly by partners working at community level, who have often
struggled to build ownership of activities with municipalities, in part due to the lack of national
government guidelines and policy on DRR planning and institutions at community level.

The unfavourable political environment is compounded by the lack of clarity of government
leadership on DRR and a general lack of capacity within individual line ministries.

The lack of empowered leadership within NRRC flagships and the NRRC secretariat itself has
also hampered progress. Most flagships and the NRRC secretariat lack detailed work plans or
the authority to ensure systematic coordination between delivery partners.

Due to the indicative nature of many output indicators within the DFID portfolio, it has proved
difficult to track progress and identify bottlenecks to programme delivery. Resilience is a
relatively new area of work for DFID. Outcome and impact indicators are not always readily
quantifiable, with an often limited evidence base to refer to.

Lack of progress on preparedness work (output 3.2 and more generally activities under
Flagship 2) and the planned departure of OCHA at the end of 2013 leaves a major gap, which
will be explored through the planned NRRC review. Within Flagship 2, progress on USAR has
been delayed by legal restrictions on DFID providing direct funding to military institutions.

The programme is inherently complex, including a range of activities over a wide geographic
spread. Effective delivery requires that these multiple moving parts work in unison, which is
often beyond the scope of individual partners.

Earthquake resilience requires an effective regional response, given the likely impact of any
earthquake on Indian states bordering Nepal. DFID has recently signed a strategic partnership
with China on DRR and has a functioning office in India, but linkages need to be better
exploited.
5
As with other flagship Coordinating Agencies UNDP represents the membership of flagship 5. Unlike other flagships however,
it is difficult to distinguish between UNDP and flagship 5. Flagship 5 appears to represent UNDP’s disaster management
programme in its entirety
14
1.6 Annual Outcome Assessment
No studies have been conducted during the reporting period to assess progress towards outcomes.
Outcome milestones for the end of 2012, currently replicate some of the output indicators in the logframe and will need to be refined as part of the log-frame update which is planned.
2. Costs and timescale
2.1 Is the project on-track against financial forecasts: Yes
The project is on track against financial forecasts, with the exception of activities under output 3
(preparedness), where funding for Urban Search and Rescue has yet to be programmed.
2.2 Key cost drivers –
During the first year of the project, some costs have been higher than anticipated. These relate to:


the cost of structural assessments of hospitals, due to changes in the location of selected
hospitals which resulted in higher transportation costs; and
the cost of UNDP’s school retrofitting and repair programme and an increase in the number of
schools needing retrofitting as opposed to renovation, where costs are lower.
2.3 Is the project on-track against original timescale: Y
3. Evidence and Evaluation
3.1 Assess any changes in evidence and implications for the project
We are not aware of any changes in evidence. The assumptions made in the Theory of Change, i.e.
the need for a three track approach to (1) strengthen national legislation, (2) increase awareness at
community level and (3) build the capacity of first responders trained in first aid and search and rescue,
still hold.
3.2 Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made?
A light touch assessment of the NRRC is planned for the second half of 2013. This will review progress
to date by the various NRRC flagships and identify priority focus areas for the coming three – five
years. Results of this assessment will inform DFID’s future programming, both in terms of support for
the NRRC secretariat and coordination of the various work-streams and funding priorities.
A review of progress to date in embedding resilience within the CSP is also planned, for June 2013. It
15
will assess how well disaster resilience has been integrated into the programme to date, examine
impacts at community level and the capacity of implementing partners to conduct this work and provide
lessons for future programming.
4. Risk
4.1 Output Risk Rating: Medium
4.2 Assessment of the risk level
The main risks to the programme identified in the Business Case are summarized below:
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].
No new risks have been identified through this review and no changes to the overall categorizations
above are recommended.
4.3 Risk of funds not being used as intended
All implementing partners follow a good financial management system. Internal and external audits are
carried as normal practices of the agreement. All the payments are based on reimbursement and there
is no payment made in advance of need so far.
The risk of funds being misused is low. UNDP, ICRC and the British Red Cross are all trusted DFID
partners. The 2011 Multi-lateral Aid Review (MAR) judged UNDP as having “a clear and transparent
resource allocation system”, whilst ICRC’s financial management was judged to be “structurally sound,
well adapted to work in fragile contexts”.
Other partners – Oxfam, Practical Action and Action Aid – are Programme Partnership Arrangement
(PPA) partners and have therefore provided evidence to show how they ensure value for money in
their operations.
4.4 Climate and Environment Risk
The likely impact of the programme on climate change was assessed to be low and manageable, with
potential opportunities high.
The earthquake resilience intervention is complimentary to DFID Nepal’s work on climate change
adaptation. By strengthening the institutional architecture for disaster resilience and supporting a multi-
16
hazard approach to risk reduction in vulnerable communities, this intervention is also contributing to
increased resilience to climate variability and change. Lessons learned during the first year of the
programme will feed into the design of the 2nd phase of the National Climate Change Support
Programme, which is now under development.
5. Value for Money
5.1 Performance on VfM measures
The value for money assessment in the Business Case recognized the complexities with regard to
calculating metrics for preparedness and disaster risk reduction. Recent research commissioned by
DFID6 has provided evidence to suggest that early response and resilience building measures
represent “good value for money” and “should be the overwhelming priority response to disasters”. The
research also recognizes the importance of community participation, private sector support and holistic
programming, which are three of the pillars of the DFID Nepal approach. At the same time, it is
acknowledged that more work needs to be done to understand “the relative VFM of different
interventions, particularly quantifying benefits over the longer term”.
In particular in Nepal, there is a need for additional research to quantify the value for money and cost
benefits of different disaster management activities. This could include estimates of: the parameters
and costs involved in delivering disaster management/resilience activities; the value and benefit of
engaging one institutional partner over another, and gauge investment in disaster
management/resilience activities as a proportion of the larger development spend
5.2 Commercial Improvement and Value for Money
All implementing agencies have been maintaining and providing accounts of all their expenditures.
Normal rules on accounting and audit are applicable for all the arrangements. All Implementing
partners have robust procurement procedures and are adhering to them.
5.3 Role of project partners
Partners are responsible for preparing design and cost estimates according to technical norms, which
are designed to ensure value for money. Partners are responsible for monitoring progress during
implementation, for conducting internal, external and independent audits and for ensuring proper use of
resources.
5.4 Does the project still represent Value for Money : Y/N Y
5.5 If not, what action will you take? N
6. Conditionality
6.1 Update on specific conditions
Venton et al (2012), “The Economics of Early Response and Disaster Resilience – Lessons from Kenya and
Ethiopia”
6
17
No conditionality applied.
7. Conclusions and actions
Delivery has been somewhat slower than anticipated during the first year of the earthquake resilience
programme. This has been mainly as a result of factors beyond the control of DFID and partners,
including delays in receiving the necessary approvals from the Government of Nepal and the lack of
requisite capacity, institutions and policy.
Despite this, we assess that the programme remains on track to deliver by 2015. With initial
assessments and planning now complete, there is a need to consolidate data and rationalize activities,
to ensure that learning and information is shared between partners and that relevant programmatic
linkages are being developed. DFID has an important role to play in this, complementing the work of
the NRRC and its flagships.
A number of specific action points have been identified through this review, as follows:
1. We will consider a light touch review of our support to the NRRC during the second half of 2013, in
coordination with other partners. The findings of this review, which will focus on the performance of the
flagships to date and identify priority areas for the next three to five years, will guide our future
engagement and decision making.
2. We will work with UNDP and government partners to better understand what is feasible in terms of
enforcing compliance with building codes.
3. We will push the BRC – our biggest partner on CBDRR - to deepen its engagement in the
Kathmandu valley and coordinate more systematically with others working in this sector.
4. Identify potential partners and projects for Urban Search and Rescue.
5. Develop a Business Case on hospital retrofitting which clearly assesses the cost benefit and returns
from any investment in this sector.
6. Undertake a systematic review of log-frame outputs, at the level of the Business Case and
contributing projects, to ensure that indicators accurately capture interventions and constitute an
effective tool to monitor progress towards delivery targets.
We also recognize that the regional impacts and dynamics of a major earthquake affecting the
Kathmandu valley need to be better factored into our planning and influencing work. Further, we need
to consider how to maintain the profile of DRR within Nepal given the potential leadership gap which
has arisen with the recent departure of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator / Resident Coordinator, who
played a leading role in this area. We will explore a number of potential options, including through the
head of the DFID office and the incoming British Ambassador.
8. Review Process
Desk review by DFID Nepal Disaster Resilience Adviser and interim Disaster Resilience Adviser,
based on evidence collected from partner progress reports and interviews conducted in
Kathmandu.
18
i
Nepal is amongst the poorest countries in the world, ranking 157 th out of 187 in the Human Development Index
National Society for Earthquake Technology - Nepal (NSET):
http://www.nset.org.np/nset/html/publication/pdfFiles/Manual_degbldg.pdf
ii
iii
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal Disaster Report 2009.
19