DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction
in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central
Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013)
Specific Contract No ECHO/ADM/BUD/2013/01205 implementing Framework Contract No
ECHO/A3/FRA/2012/04-Lot 1
Directorate-General HumanitarianAid and Civil Protection
A Report by ICF International
22 September 2014
25 June 2014 The opinions expressed in this documentrepresent
the views of the authors,which are not necessarily
shared by the European Commission.

This page is intentionally blank

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus
(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in
the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia
and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013)
Directorate-General HumanitarianAid and Civil Protection
A report submitted by ICF Consulting Services
Date: 22 September 2014
Charu Wilkinson
Lead ManagingConsultant
+44 (0)782 794 6021
charu.wilkinson@icfi.com
ICF ConsultingServicesLimited
WatlingHouse
33 CannonStreet
London
EC4M 5SB
T +44 (0)20 3096 4800
F +44 (0)20 3368 6960
www.icfi.com

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
Document Control
Document Title Joint Evaluation of DroughtRisk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO
Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013)
Prepared by Charu Wilkinson,Laura Robson and Martine Sobey
Contributing technical &
thematic specialists
Volker Hüls and Erik Toft (Horn of Africa); Torsten Mark Kowal (Central Asia and
Caucasus)
Checked by Robin Bloch
Date 22 September 2014
This report is the copyright of the Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection,
European Commission. It has been prepared by ICF Consulting Services Ltd under contract to
Directorate General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection. The contents of this report may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any other organisation or person without the specific
prior written permission of Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.
ICF has used reasonable skill and care in checking the accuracy and completeness of information
supplied by the client and/or third parties in the course of this project. ICF is however, unable to
warrant either the accuracy or completeness of client and/or third party information. ICF does not
accept responsibility for any legal, commercial or other consequences that may arise directly or
indirectly as a result of the use by ICF of inaccurate or incomplete client and/or third party information
in the course of this project or its inclusion in project outcomes.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
Contents
Abstracti
List of abbreviations and acronyms...........................................................................................ii
Executive summary...................................................................................................................vii
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Evaluation context and scope ...........................................................................................1
1.2 Evaluation Approach and Methodology .............................................................................5
1.3 This Report .....................................................................................................................9
2 DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Caucasus ...10
2.1 The context for DRR: hazard risk and vulnerability ...........................................................10
2.2 Overview of DG ECHO funded DRR intervention in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and
South Caucasus ............................................................................................................14
3 Evaluation Findings and Conclusions.........................................................................21
3.1 Coherence and complementarity ....................................................................................21
3.2 Cross-cutting issues.......................................................................................................35
3.3 Relevance.....................................................................................................................40
3.4 Internal coherence .........................................................................................................51
3.5 EU added value .............................................................................................................54
3.6 Delivery mechanisms .....................................................................................................56
3.7 Effectiveness.................................................................................................................63
3.8 Cost-effectiveness .........................................................................................................78
3.9 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................83
3.10 The multi-partner (consortia) and the multi-country approaches ........................................88
3.11 Unintended / unexpected effects .....................................................................................91
4 Recommendations .....................................................................................................93
4.1 Strategic recommendations ............................................................................................93
4.2 Operational recommendations ........................................................................................96

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
i
Abstract
This evaluation report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the joint evaluation
of ECHO’s disaster risk reduction (DRR) activities in the Horn of Africa (HoA) and Central Asia and
South Caucasus (CAC). The conclusions from this evaluation primarily apply to these two regions. But
they are also of broader relevance for DG ECHO’s DRR interventions in other regions. The aim of this
evaluation is to provide an objective assessment that can serve as a basis for internal reflection and
debate within the Commission about its overall approach to DRR and post-2015 DRR strategy.
In the HoA, ECHO focuses on building communities’ resilience and national / regional institutional
capacity to address drought, a slow onset hazard and the single most important disaster risk facing
the region. In CAC, ECHO interventions aim at preparing communities and authorities to deal with a
range of small scale, rapid onset hazards that often go unnoticed at a national level, but have serious
impacts at a local level. The joint evaluation thus, examines similar activities in two rather different
contexts. By doing so, it provides the opportunity for cross-learning between the two regions and a
broader evidence base for policy making. Over the period covered by this evaluation (2009 – 2013),
DG ECHO has invested nearly 70 million euros in DRR actions in the two regions. Funded activities
have included both community based DRR (CBDRR) projects as well as broader actions aimed at
advocacy, institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming.
The evaluation concludes that ECHO funded projects have, inter alia, made a demonstrable
contribution to (i) reducing vulnerability, limiting damage and saving lives at a community level; and (ii)
advancing the DRR agenda at a national level through advocacy, institutional capacity building and by
raising awareness among decision-makers of the need to integrate DRR into longer term development
policies in all countries covered by the evaluation. Through regional programming, ECHO has brought
together DRR stakeholders and partners, thus facilitating a joined-up approach to DRR, and sharing of
knowledge, tools and materials. On the less positive side, this evaluation finds that the replication and
scaling up of community projects is not as extensive as it could be; the linkages between DRR and
development planning and programming have not been fully established in most countries; and the
sustainability of outputs and outcomes beyond ECHO funding cycles continues to be an issue. The
evaluation provides a series of strategic and operational recommendations to address these issues
and to guide ECHO’s future approach to DRR.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
ii
List of abbreviations and acronyms
AAME Adult African Male Equivalent
ACCRA Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance
ACF Action Contre Faim (Action Against Hunger) (NGO)
ACH-ES Accion Contra Hambre (Action Against Hunger)- Spain (NGO)
ACTED Agence d'Aide a la Cooperation Technique et au Developpement (Aid Agency for Technical
Cooperation and Development) (NGO)
ADB Asian Development Bank
APFS Agro-Pastoral Field Schools
ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
ASP Arid Lands Support Programme
ASPU Armenia State Pedagogical University
AYWA Armenian Young Women’s Association
BRACED Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters
C&D Cooperation and Development (NGO)
CAC Central Asia and (South) Caucasus
CAHW Community Animal Health Workers
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CCA Climate Change Adaption
CC Children’s Clubs
CDRR Community Disaster Risk Reduction
CENN Caucasus Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation
CERT Community Emergency Response Teams
CHIP Climate High-Level Investment Programme
CIA Central Intelligence Agency (US government)
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CIFA Community Initiative Facilitation and Assistance (Kenya and Ethiopia)
CMDRR Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction
CoBRA Community Based Resilience Analysis
CoES Committee of Emergency Situations
COOPI Cooperazione Internazionale (NGO)
CORDAID Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid (NGO)
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DCA Danchurch Aid (NGO)
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area
DLCI Dryland Learning and Capacity Building Initiative (formerly REGLAP)

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
iii
DDMO Drought Disaster Management Office (Kenya)
DEVCO EuropeAid - Development and Co-Operation Office of the European Commission
DFID Department for International Development
DG DEVCO Directorate-General Development and Cooperation
DG Directorate-General
DG ECHO Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
DIP Disaster Preparedness
DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO
DMI Disaster Management Initiative
DMO Drought Management Officer
DP Drought Preparedness
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DRS District of Republican Subordination (Region of Tajikistan)
DRRAP Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan
EAC East African Community
EC European Commission
EDF European Development Fund
EEDP Energy, Environment and Development Programme
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
E-LEAP Learning, Evaluation and Advocacy Programme
EMD Emergency Management Department
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy
ERRA Electronic Regional Risk Atlas
ET Ethiopia
EU European Union
EU-DEL European Union Delegation
EWS Early Warning System
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FSTP Food Security Thematic Programme
GAM Global Acute Malnutrition
GBAO Gorno Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (region of Tajikistan)
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEL Georgian Lari (currency)
GIS Global Information System
GNA Global Needs Assessment
HCS Hararghe Catholic Secretariat
HF Humanitarian Funding
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
iv
HIP Humanitarian Implementation Plan
HoA Horn of Africa
HQ Head Quarters
HVCA Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IGA Income Generating Activity
IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development
IIED International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentIO International Organisation
IOM International Organisation for Migration
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change
IRC International Rescue Committee
IRF Internal Risk Facility
ISG Inter-Service Group
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KALIP Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (an EU funded programme in Uganda)
KE Kenya
LDMC Local Disaster Management Committees
LDS Livestock Disease Surveillance
LR Livelihood Recovery
LRRD Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development
MC Mercy Corps (NGO)
MI Management Information
MIP Multi-annual Indicative Programme
MLVI Multidimensional Livelihood Vulnerability Index
MOE Ministry of Education
MoES Ministry of Emergency Situations
MoH Ministry of Health and Social Protection
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSDSP Mountain Societies Development Support Programme
NDCF National Drought Contingency Fund
NDMA National Drought Management Authority (Kenya)
NDRMs National Disaster Risk Management Strategy
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIP National Indicative Programme
NRI National Resources Institute (University of Greenwich)
NRM Natural Resource Management
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN)
ODI Overseas Development Institute

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
v
OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
PACIDA Pastoralist Community Initiative and Development Assistance (Kenya)
PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
PFS Pastoral field school
PILLAR Preparedness improves Livelihoods and Resilience
PPRD Programme for Prevention, Preparedness and Response
RAIN Revitalising Agricultural and pastoral Incomes and New markets
RAU Resilience Analysis Unit
RC Red Crescent Society
RDD Regional Drought Decision (DG ECHO)
RDMI Regional Drought Management Institutions
REGLAP Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme
RISPA Regional Livestock Initiative In Support Of Vulnerable Pastoralists
RITT Republican In-service Teacher Training Institute
RSO Regional Support Office (DG ECHO)
SCUK Save the Children United Kingdom
SCUS Save the Children United States of America
SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SHARE Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience
SILC Savings and Internal Lending Community
SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound
SOM Somalia
SODIS Solar Disinfection
SSD Support for Sustainable Development (NGO)
STC Support to Communities
SUN Scaling Up Nutrition
SWD Staff Working Document
TA Technical Assistant
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
ToR Terms of Reference
TOT Training of Trainers
UG Uganda
UN OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Activities
UN United Nations
UN WFP United Nations World Food Programme
UNDP DDC United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction
UPFDRR Ugandan Parliamentary Forum on Disaster Risk Reduction

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
vi
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USD US Dollars
VICOBA Village Community Banks (Kenya)
VSF Veterinaires Sans Frontieres (Vets Without Borders) (NGO)
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organisation
WTO World Trade Organisation

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
vii
Executive summary
The European Union (EU) has been supporting disaster risk reduction (DRR) around the globe
through a dedicated ECHO Programme for Disaster Preparedness (DIPECHO) since 1996. In 2003,
Central Asia became the sixth DIPECHO region to be targeted by the Programme and in 2009,
geographical coverage of the Programme was expanded to the South Caucasus region. Meanwhile,
building on the success of DIPECHO, DG ECHO launched a specific DRR programme in the Horn of
Africa (HoA) in 2006 focusing on drought risk reduction. While DG ECHO’s overall approach to DRR
and the nature of the activities funded is similar across the two regions, they differ in terms of context.
In the HoA, DG ECHO focuses on drought, a slow onset hazard and the single most important
disaster risk facing the region. In Central Asia and South Caucasus (CAC), DG ECHO interventions
deal with a range of small scale, rapid onset hazards that often go unnoticed at a national level, but
have serious impacts at the local level. The joint evaluation thus, examines DG ECHO’s approach and
activities in two different contexts and by doing so, provides the opportunity for cross-learning between
the two regions and a broader evidence base for policy making.
Objectives andscope of the evaluation
This evaluation is both summative and formative in nature. It assesses the coherence, relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of DG ECHO’s DRR interventions in the HoA and CAC over
the period 2009 to 2013; and provides a series of recommendations for improving the future
orientation of DG ECHO’s approach to DRR.
During the period covered by the evaluation, DG ECHO invested almost 70 million euros in DRR in the
two regions, with three-quarters of this investment going to the HoA. Funded activities included both
community managed DRR (CMDRR) projects as well as broader actions aimed at advocacy,
institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming.
The evaluation is based on extensive: desk research; stakeholder interviews with Commission officials
and DG ECHO partners; and six country missions (covering Kenya/ Uganda, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia) where a broad range of stakeholders (including beneficiaries) were
interviewed and sixteen projects sites were visited. To conclude the data collection and validation
process, four debriefing workshops were held in Kenya, Ethiopia, Tajikistan and Georgia with key
stakeholders at the end of each country mission.
Key findings and conclusions of the evaluation
Coherence andcomplementaritywithinternational/EUframeworksforDRR and national strategies
DRR is a core element of DG ECHO's mandate as per Council Regulation (EC) no. 1257/96 on
Humanitarian Aid. As such, the objectives of the Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) in the
HoA and the DIPECHO programme in CAC are coherent with the EU legal base. DG ECHO’s DRR
approach and interventions are also largely aligned with the main priorities articulated in:
 the 2009 EU DRR Strategy and its implementation plan;
 the 2012 Resilience Communication;
 the Hyogo Framework for Action; and
 regional/ national DRR plans and strategies where these exist.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
viii
In line with the policy objectives set out in the high level documents mentioned overleaf, DG ECHO-
funded actions have contributed to DRR awareness raising and capacity building at all levels (and
particularly at a local level) in the two regions. The above strategies also call for an integrated
approach to addressing DRR
1
and underlying risk factors (such as climate change, natural resource
exploitation, urban development, environmental degradation, etc). The integration of DRR into issues
that constitute underlying risk factors has been (indirectly) supported by DIPECHO through efforts
aimed at mainstreaming DRR within development policy and programming, rather than by directly
funding integrated projects in CAC. In the HoA, given the strong and concerted push towards
mainstreaming of DRR within the resilience agenda, the recent trend has been to fund integrated DRR
projects, while stand-alone DRR projects are only funded in specific countries and contexts.
Relevance:continuingneedforECHOfunding
In both regions (HoA as well as CAC), there is arguably a continuing role for DG ECHO financed DRR,
not only as a stand-alone activity, but also as one that is integrated into development planning (which
is increasingly seen as the way forward). However, DRR needs and capacities vary across countries.
For example, the DRR agenda and institutional set-up is more advanced in some countries than in
others (e.g. Kenya and Ethiopia), and some countries do not necessarily require external financing for
DRR (e.g. Kazakhstan).
Relevance: addressing the needs of the ‘most vulnerable’
In both regions (HoA as well as CAC), DG ECHO-funded actions have targeted the communities/
villages that are the most exposed to droughts / disasters, yet it is not possible to determine whether
the participating communities/ villages were the ‘most vulnerable’. This is because the vulnerability
analyses carried out by partners are usually only performed on a limited basis and do not fully
characterise the vulnerabilities of proposed participating communities.
Cross-cuttingissues
In CAC, ‘Climate Change Adaptation’ (CCA) and ‘Linking Relief Rehabilitation and Development’
(LRRD) were found to be inadequately addressed as ‘cross-cutting issues’, both at a programme level
and a project level. It should however, be noted, that CCA was never intended to be addressed as a
cross cutting issue in CAC. Partners were encouraged to incorporate CCA elements – ‘where
feasible’- in the project design and during implementation.
In the HoA on the other hand, LRRD has provided the overarching framework for DG ECHO's DRR
interventions and a concerted effort has been made to link humanitarian and development assistance
in the region. DG ECHO’s DRR interventions have also applied CCA principles into practice by helping
communities to better cope with the impact of drought (and thus, adjust/ adapt to one of the main
effects of climate change in the region).
As regards the cross-cutting issues of gender, age and disability
2
:
 In the HoA, DG ECHO partners could arguably have done more to address the specific needs
of women by designing specific DRR actions for women rather than merely ensuring women’s
inclusion in projects. The needs of children and the elderly were relatively less well addressed;
however, in the later phases of the DRRAP, DG ECHO encouraged partners such as the
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies (IFRC), Save the Children, Oxfam and HelpAge to address these needs.
Disabled persons were not addressed at all during the period covered by the evaluation
(2009 – 2013).
1
The integration of DRR into issues thatconstitute underlying risk factors can be (indirectly) supported through
efforts aimed atmainstreaming DRR within developmentpolicyand programming.More directly, DG ECHO could
fund integrated DRR projects i.e. projects integrating DRR with climate change adaptation,natural resource
management,environmental management,livelihood support,water purification,and erosion control,etc.
2
It is noted that the new single-form introduced in 2014 includes a ‘gender age marker’ to assess the extent to
which the funded action is integrating gender and age considerations.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
ix
 In CAC, projects were seen to have made special efforts to reach out to and engage women
and children in DRR activities. However, only a handful of the projects considered the special
needs of the elderly and disabled.
In both regions, given the focus on community-based DRR, community networks (where these exist),
community level stakeholders and members were typically involved in project design and
implementation. Communities consulted during fieldwork expressed satisfaction and appreciation with
their involvement in DG ECHO-funded actions.
EU AddedValue
The key dimensions of this added value - as evidenced by this evaluation (in both regions) - are as
follows:
 DG ECHO funded DRR activities that would not have otherwise been implemented (or in the
best case, would have been implemented at a much smaller scale);
 DG ECHO is widely recognised as a front-runner in promoting DRR in the two regions;
 running a dedicated funding programme for DRR;
 adopting a combination of a top-down (advocacy and institutional linkages) and bottom-up
approach (community based) to DRR. DG ECHO’s focus on communities as central actors in
DRR is unique;
 local presence through DG ECHO field offices (ECHO Field) and their role in facilitating
coordination and cooperation between partners and creating a linked-up community of DRR
players; and
 an innovative regional approach encompassing cross border and multi-country projects.
Choice of partnerships
The choice of partnerships was found to be appropriate in the HoA and CAC, building upon the
comparative strengths of the organisations involved. In the HoA however, some DRRAP partners were
funded over successive phases despite weaknesses in project design and issues with past
performance.
The choice of local implementing partners has also generally been appropriate, although the
evaluation indicates that there is scope for DG ECHO partners to involve local NGOs to a greater
extent in the design and implementation of their DRR actions with a view to long-term local capacity
building, sustainability and paving the way for successful ‘handovers’.
Partners’capacityand commitment
Partners are committed to achieving the objectives of DG ECHO-funded DRR actions. However, the
start-up of projects is often rather slow (often due to delays in national authorities’ decision-making
processes and approvals) and their exit strategies are often weak. There is often an implicit
expectation of continued funding from DG ECHO under new funding cycles.
Substitutioneffect
Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that DG ECHO was competing with or substituting the activity
of other humanitarian and development actors in the period covered by this evaluation. DG ECHO-
funded actions were filling a critical gap in activity that is essentially the responsibility of national/ local
authorities, but which they were unable to fulfil due to lack of resources, capacity and know-how.
Learningandinnovationoversuccessive phases
Where partners have received funding for “regional projects”
3
under multiple cycles, they have revised
their approaches in order to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. However, country-specific
projects, in the HoA have tended to change or expand the number of communities covered over
3
“Regional Projects” are those which are implemented throughoutthe whole region covered by a funding decision
(e.g. the HoA), and which typically have a focus on technical support,coordination and advocacy.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
x
successive phases. Although innovative approaches have been developed and applied through DG
ECHO funding – particularly at a community level, partners have not necessarily demonstrated
significant fresh innovation over successive phases, nor have they demonstrated how lessons learned
from previous phases have been addressed. In contrast, in CAC considerable efforts have been
undertaken to generate lesson-learning guidance and inventories of best practices, but they are not
systematically promoted to potential ‘recommendation domains’ and are instead taken up in an ad-hoc
way by partners, across regions and between funding cycles.
Effectiveness
DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have demonstrably enabled local communities and institutions to
better prepare for, mitigate and respond to natural disasters, thereby increasing resilience and
reducing vulnerabilities. Some of the ‘softer’ effects of DG ECHO funded interventions include:
 increasing beneficiary communities’ awareness, knowledge and understanding of disaster
risks and mitigation measures; and
 triggering behavioural changes, such as improved sanitary practice and the diversification of
livelihoods (in the HoA) and empowering communities to respond rapidly in the case of
emergencies, through simulations, evacuation plans, etc (in CAC).
Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that DG ECHO-funded actions have directly contributed to
protecting lives, assets and livelihoods - although these impacts are typically not documented. Finally,
DG ECHO-funded actions have also contributed to reinforcing sub-national/ local response capacities
by investing in Early Warning Systems (EWS), providing training to local authority officials,
establishing and developing Local Disaster Management Committees (LDMCs) and linking these with
local authorities, organising simulations, etc.
While DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have delivered both tangible and intangible benefits, it is
impossible to determine the cumulative impact of DRRAP / DIPECHO with current monitoring and
evaluation systems. Most notably, there are no tools in place for partners to systematically capture
information on losses avoided as a result of DG ECHO-funded actions in case of a disaster.
Replication, scaling-up and mainstreaming
As regards the mainstreaming of DRR, significant progress has been made in the HoA (although the
level of progress varies between countries). Moreover, although DRR has been mainstreamed in
policy documents,
4
national and local authorities are still dependent upon external sources of funding
for DRR activities, particularly community-based DRR.
In CAC, the main successes have been in the mainstreaming of DRR within the education sector.
Beyond education, there are still considerable challenges facing DIPECHO in integrating DRR in other
relevant sectors (health, agriculture, environment, etc) and overall development planning and
programming.
There is some replication and scaling-up of activity under DRRAP and DIPECHO, however a massive
scale-up only appears to have taken place in Kazakhstan. Further, there has been no “spontaneous”
(community-led) replication / scaling up. In other countries, replication and scaling-up of DG ECHO
funded DRR actions is not as extensive as it could be.
Sustainability
Some of the activities implemented through the DRRAP/ DIPECHO show evidence of continuation,
even after DG ECHO funding has ended. This has been the case:
 where DG ECHO partners have secured additional funding from other donors to continue /
scale-up the action;
4
See for example,Sector Plan for DroughtRisk Management and Ending DroughtEmergencies;Second Medium
Term Plan 2013 – 2017 (Kenya); National Policyfor Disaster Preparedness and Management (Uganda);
ParliamentaryForum on Disaster Risk Reduction Strategic Plans (Uganda);and the 2013 National Policy and
Strategy on Disaster Risk Management(Ethiopia).

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
xi
 where the action has been mainstreamed into the regional / national / local agenda or relevant
sectoral policies; and
 when DG ECHO-funded DRR actions have led to changes in knowledge, awareness and/ or
behaviour (although changes in knowledge and behaviour will need to be reinforced).
It however, remains a challenge to sustain the initial benefits of community based actions such as
replenishing stockpiles, maintaining mitigation measures, providing ‘refresher training’ and ensuring
that the various DRR community groups established by projects ‘keep going’, despite community out-
migration and membership turnover.
Cost-effectiveness
A consolidated picture of the aggregate outputs and results achieved at programme level cannot be
obtained due to weak reporting systems and the absence of standardised monitoring indicators.
Consequently, it is not possible to determine if the ‘same results’ could have been achieved with less
funding. The relevance, effectiveness and added value of ECHO funding have however, been
demonstrated. Moreover, wider evidence on the costs and benefits of DRR consistently shows that (i)
there are high economic and social returns from DRR actions—both from DRR projects on their own
or when integrated with development projects and that (ii) DRR investment brings greater benefits
than costs
5
.
On balance, it can therefore be concluded that, the money was spent wisely, although the efficiency of
DG ECHO funding has been constrained by limited: replication, scaling-up and mainstreaming of
funded DRR actions.
Strategic recommendations
This evaluation highlights important considerations about the future direction of DG ECHO’s strategy
and approach to DRR in the HoA and CAC. A number of strategic recommendations have been made
to support enhanced policy impacts and maximise the added value in the future. These are set out
below.
Recommendation 1: DG ECHO’s DRR funding should be targeted towards the countries and
beneficiaries that are most in need
The evaluation reinforces the need to focus DRR funding on countries facing a high level of risk for
disasters, while lacking the financial and technical capacity to reduce their own levels of risk.
Specifically, within CAC, this calls for a more selective approach to country coverage going forward.
The entry criterion for DG ECHO funding should be countries where DRR gaps are the greatest in
relation to domestic capacity and needs. The achievement of the specified objectives for the country
concerned should be the point of exit. This calls for a clear specification of country level DRR
objectives – see also Recommendations 8 and 9.
Furthermore, within the target countries, funding should be directed to:
 specific DRR sub-sectors, areas (rural and/ or urban) and communities that are most in need;
and
 the DRR investments that are most needed (but which can be effectively funded by DG ECHO
given its comparative advantages and funding/ political constraints).
In this context, DG ECHO should examine how to account for new communities at risk, such as urban
communities and pastoral drop-outs in the HoA.
5
For a summary of the literature, see Shyam, K.C., 2013. Cost benefit studies on disaster risk reduction in
developing countries.EastAsia and the Pacific (EAP) Disaster Risk Management(DRM) knowledge notes
working paper series ;no. 27. Washington DC:World Bank.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
xii
Scope of ‘DRR’ in the HoA
Recommendation 2: DG ECHO should consider widening the scope of its ‘DRR’ activities in the
HoA from ‘drought risk reduction’ to ‘disaster risk reduction’
The HoA is prone to many hazards such as droughts (slow-onset), floods, landslides, lightening (all of
which are rapid-onset hazards), diseases and epidemics (e.g. Ebola, malaria, etc). Although drought
remains the single most important risk facing the region, significant progress has been made in recent
years in mainstreaming drought risk reduction within the resilience agenda, where it quite naturally fits.
A number of donors are now active in this ‘space’, leaving fewer gaps to be filled with DG ECHO
funding. Some of the other hazards might however, be less well addressed by national/ local
authorities and donors alike. DG ECHO should therefore, consider widening the scope of its
programming activities from ‘drought risk reduction’ to ‘disaster risk reduction’ in the HoA.
Overall approach to DRR
Stand-aloneversusintegrated DRR approaches
Recommendation 3: Alongside stand-alone DRR projects, DG ECHO should direct more
support to (integrated) projects addressing underlying risk factors in CAC
DG ECHO should consider directing more support to projects addressing underlying risk factors and
DRR in an integrated manner, while remaining cognisant of the implications of such an approach in
terms of the concomitant desirability of reduced support for stand-alone DRR projects in the region.
The long-term nature of interventions aimed at addressing underlying risk would however, need to be
reconciled with the short term funding cycles of DIPECHO and budgetary constraints. This could be
achieved by:
 increasing support for the ‘repeat funding’ of projects which, over two or more funding cycles,
take on the successive phases of the work required to tackle the longer-term nature of dealing
with risk factors; and
 requiring greater levels of co-financing from alternative sources (see also Recommendation
15).
Recommendation 4: Following on from Recommendations 1 and 2, DG ECHO should continue
to support both standalone as well as integrated DRR projects in the HoA
DG ECHO should continue to follow a ‘blended’ approach to DRR that includes financing for both
stand-alone as well as integrated DRR projects depending on the country context and the risks being
addressed.
Geographicapproachto fundingdecisions(regional versuscountryspecificprogramming)
Recommendation 5: DG ECHO should maintain a regional approach to funding decisions in
HoA and CAC
This evaluation demonstrates the strong added value of adopting a regional approach to DRR. A
regional approach allows DG ECHO to fund regional and multi-country/ cross-border projects (which is
widely regarded as a key element of DG ECHO’s unique added value), facilitating cooperation and
collaboration across partners and national/ local authorities and promoting efficiencies through the
exchange of material, good practices and lessons learned. A regional approach also gives DG ECHO
the flexibility to deal with country level variations in the absorption of DRR funding. Given that the
evaluation found no evidence to suggest a shift in approach, DG ECHO should continue to follow a
regional approach to its funding decisions in the HoA and CAC.
A ‘top down’versus ‘bottom-up’approach
Recommendation 6: DG ECHO should continue to adopt a combination of ‘top- down’ and
‘bottom-up’ approaches to DRR, considering that the two approaches are highly
complementary and mutually reinforcing (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as
CAC)
This evaluation demonstrates the added value and benefits of supporting policy advocacy and
institutional linkages in conjunction with community or sector based DRR projects, although arguably

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
xiii
there is scope to further enhance the linkages between the two. For instance, community-based or
sector-specific DRR projects should provide the ‘ammunition’ to advocate for DRR, e.g. real life
stories, evidence and data on risks, costs and benefits, etc. This is already the case in the HoA.
Engagementwith UN Agencies
Recommendation 7: DG ECHO should adopt a more strategic approach to its engagement with
the United Nation (UN) Agencies (this recommendation only applies to CAC)
UN agencies have a long-term in-country presence and often have remits that strongly relate to
DIPECHO’s mandate: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/ United Nations
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) in wide terms for DRR globally; UNICEF for
education; and the World Health Organisation (WHO) for health. These bodies have evident and
considerable potential to take on or support strategic leadership in specific DRR sub-sectors, and this
is not properly addressed by their inclusion as competitors for DG ECHO funding, alongside
international NGOs such as Oxfam or CARE, for example. A more strategic approach to working with
UN partners is warranted, for example through joint DRR needs assessment, priority setting or even
coordinated funding of DRR activities.
Improved accountability, monitoring and reporting
Recommendation 8: DG ECHO should precisely define the objectives of each Humanitarian
Implementation Plan (HIP) (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)
The HIP objectives should be ‘SMART’, providing a clear idea of what each funding decision is
expected to achieve and by when. There should be a clear hierarchy of objectives including:
 global objectives (corresponding to impact indicators);
 specific objectives (which correspond to result and outcome based indicators); and
 operational objectives (which correspond to output indicators).
To the extent possible, objectives should be specified in quantitative terms and for each country of
operation.
Better ex-ante specification of objectives would allow for improved (ex-post) measurement of impact.
Evidence on the benefits of DRR is critical for persuading other donors and national authorities to
replicate and scale-up DG ECHO-funded activity.
Recommendation 9: HIPs should be accompanied by a comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation framework (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)
Related to the above recommendation, HIPs should be implemented in concert with a monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) framework that systematically covers the activities and results achieved across the
portfolio of funded projects, and that generates information both for internal project management, as
well as for evaluating progress at programme level. This would include enhanced attention to risks and
assumptions, both at project and programme levels.
The M&E system should be based on a core set of standardised indicators
6
to enable inter-project
comparison and aggregation across the portfolio. Partners could still be allowed the flexibility to use
some project-specific indicators.
Recommendation 10: DG ECHO should better demonstrate the impact of its DRR funding (this
recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)
To persuade others (to replicate or scale-up), both DG ECHO and partners, should place more
emphasis on collating, presenting evidence on return on investment and where feasible, generate
quantified estimate costs and benefits of their activity, e.g. actual/ expected reduction in disaster
losses as a result of the funded action.
6
The monitoring indicators contained in ECHO’s 2013 thematic paper on DRR could be used as the basis for
developing a more complete setof indicators thatare relevant across all DRR programmes.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
xiv
Building local capacity
Recommendation 11: DG ECHO should provide capacity building support to local NGOs to
ensure long term capacity and sustainability of DRR (this recommendation applies to the HoA
as well as CAC)
On the basis that DG ECHO has decided against any amendments to the Financial Regulation (to
allow it to directly fund NGOs), a separate evaluation on the subject offers practical steps that DG
ECHO can take in the short to medium term to support local NGO capacity building
7
. For example,
DG ECHO could incentivise its partners to more systematically involve local NGOs in their projects;
DG ECHO could also directly engage in dialogue with key local NGOs to inform the design of HIP and
discussions on good practice and lessons learned, etc. Such an investment would help build the
capacity of local NGOs to continue DRR activities ‘kick-started’ with ECHO funding over the longer
term.
Operational recommendations
Recommendation 12: Partners should be required to undertake a more comprehensive
assessment of vulnerability (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)
In their needs assessment, partners should be asked to not only provide an assessment of disaster
risks and vulnerabilities, but also the underlying risk factors and root causes of vulnerability.
Vulnerability assessments underpinning the selection of target beneficiaries should also be improved.
Partners should be asked to provide the following information:
 Which socio-economic groups have been identified as the ‘most vulnerable’ in the targeted
geographical area, sector or other ambit?
 Why are these specific groups especially vulnerable? What causes and risk factors make
these groups more vulnerable than others groups in the same community or in relation to
other related communities?
Recommendation 13: DG ECHO should support the systematic ‘harvesting’ of lessons learned
and good practices developed (this recommendation only applies to CAC)
DG ECHO should develop materials that capture lessons learned and generate reflections with
partners at the end of each funding cycle, via a process involving the review of project documents, and
regional and inter-regional workshops; and then implement a process whereby these lessons and
measures are delivered to partners and properly accounted for, by successful applicants in next
funding cycle.
The identification of good practices has mainly focused on community based DRR activities. DG
ECHO and partners should be encouraged to document and share good practice in policy advocacy.
DG ECHO could also support national authorities in generating assessments, at the end of each
funding cycle, of the implications of the completed projects for national DRR programming. An
example could be the preparation of one or a series of presentations to national DRR official
platforms, where these exist. This could include proposals for how government DRR and sectoral
ministries could be enabled to take up findings and apply these in their programming, including
determining key gaps and developing proposals and applying to international bodies for DRR funding.
DG ECHO should advocate for DEVCO resilience programmes to actively incorporate learning from its
DRR investments and the establishment of processes to capture lessons learned. This could include
more detailed attention to DRR issues during DEVCO country programming and within frameworks
such as national or regional environmental profiles, taking advantage of DG ECHO guidance and best
practices materials. This would ensure that priority sector programmes designed within country
assistance strategies would account for opportunities to tackle DRR either as a cross-cutting issue or
via a specific set of measures.
7
Germax (2013) Evaluation of the potential effectiveness and efficiency gains ofworking directly with local NGOs
in the humanitarian interventions ofthe Commission.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
xv
Recommendation 14: DG ECHO should coordinate donor-mapping exercises for each region
on a regular basis to support focussed advocacy efforts (this recommendation applies to the
HoA as well as CAC)
To support successful advocacy, DG ECHO should commission regular donor mapping exercises
which identify the main donors active in each country of interest, their programming cycles, funding
priorities and financial envelopes.
Recommendation 15: DG ECHO should encourage projects to mobilise co-financing from
domestic public or private sources or other donors (this recommendation applies to the HoA
as well as CAC)
This recommendation is self-explanatory.
Recommendation 16: Multi-country projects should be required to establish and demonstrate
links between activities in different countries through for example, cross-border learning or
knowledge exchange activities, joint activities such as simulations and trainings, etc (this
Recommendation 17: Projects should receive funding over multiple cycles only if they show
improvement, differentiation in approach or innovation over successive cycles (this
Projects receiving funding over multiple funding cycles should be underpinned by a justification based
on:
 support by DG ECHO of decisions by national authorities to pre-qualify and authorise DG
ECHO’s portfolio of winning projects, to avoid delays in starting-up due to slow authorisation
of these;
 clear additionally of actions;
 lessons learned from previous cycles taken up via strategic assessment and uptake actions;
and
 innovation in approach.
Recommendation 18: DG ECHO partners should be required to better articulate their plans to
promote the sustainability of funded outputs and outcomes, including risks to sustainability
and mitigating measures (this recommendation applies to the HoA as well as CAC)

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
1
1 Introduction
This document constitutes the Final Report for the Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk
Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009-
2013). The evaluation was launched by the Directorate-General Humanitarian Aid and Civil
Protection (DG ECHO) in December 2013. The work was undertaken by ICF with specialist
inputs from experts in the fields of international development, humanitarian assistance and
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR).
The Final Report details the work undertaken and provides a synthesis of the evidence
collected within the framework of this evaluation; it sets out the findings and conclusions
emerging from this evidence; and provides a series of recommendations to inform the future
orientations of ECHO’s approach to DRR in the two regions.
1.1 Evaluation context and scope
The EU has been supporting DRR around the globe through a dedicated ECHO Programme
for Disaster Preparedness (DIPECHO) for almost two decades now. DIPECHO was
launched in 1996 and is currently implemented in eight disaster prone regions including
Central Asia and South Caucasus
8
(CAC) – Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Regions targeted by DIPECHO and the major risks they face
Source: European Commission website (http://ec.europa.eu/echo/en/what/humanitarian-aid/risk-reduction). Last
updated 20/05/2014
8
DIPECHO has been funding DRR projects in Central Asia since 2003.In 2010,the programme coverage
expanded to the South Caucasus region.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
2
DIPECHO supports both community based DRR projects as well as broader actions aimed
at advocacy, institutional capacity building and DRR mainstreaming - Figure 1.2 provides an
overview of the types of DRR actions supported by ECHO.
Figure 1.2 DRR actions supported by DG ECHO
Building on the success of DIPECHO, ECHO launched a specific DRR programme in the
Horn of Africa (HoA) in 2006 focusing on drought risk reduction. While DIPECHO and the
drought risk reduction programme are similar in terms of overall approach to DRR and the
nature of operations, there are important differences between the two:
 The scale of the intervention: the HoA accounts for a major share of ECHO’s DRR
funding. For example in 2012, the global annual financial envelope for DIPECHO
was 35 million euros (spread across eight regions)
9
, whereas 20 million euros was
allocated to drought risk reduction in the HoA alone.
 The context for intervention: while DIPECHO interventions aim at preparing
communities and authorities to deal with rapid onset disasters, DG ECHO’s DRR
actions in the HoA address slow onset hazards such as droughts in some of the
world’s poorest countries.
9
C(2012) 6970 final – Global financial decision.[online]Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/funding/decisions/2012/worldwide_01000_mod2_en.pdf
Institutional linkages andadvocacy
e.g.supporting multi-stakeholderdialogue,facilitating coordination
andinformationexchangebetweenkey DRRactors,technical and
institutionalcapacity building etc.
Local disaster managementcomponents
e.g.early warning systems,localhazard and vulnerability mapping,
local capacitybuildingandtraining(e.g.creatinglocal disaster
managementcommittees,organising simulationsand evacuation
exercises etc.)
Small scale infrastructure (community level)
e.g.structuralmitigation measuressuch as drainageand irrigation
works,reforestation/plantation;reinforcementof infrastructuresuch
as roadsand bridges;building evacuation sheltersetc.
Information, educationand communication
e.g.awarenessandmediacampaigns,promoting formal(through
schoolsand universities) and informalDRR education
Stock-building of emergency andrelief items
e.g.pre-positioningof stocksand/orequipment,upgrading of storage
facilities; provision of basic equipmentsuch asrescue kits and firstaid
kits
Livelihood and economics assets protection
e.g.promotingresilient farmingpracticesandinputs,reforestingand
repaiting of water catchments,elaborating plansforlivelihood
protectionandrecovery etc.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
3
 HoA context: the recurrent and protracted natures of droughts in the HoA and the
resultant humanitarian crises have created frequent demands for humanitarian aid,
thus justifying the volume of ECHO funding for this region. Given the protracted
nature of droughts and the vicious cycle of socioeconomic effects that they set off,
one of the main focuses of ECHO’s DRR actions in this region has been to promote
the mainstreaming of DRR within the wider resilience building and development
agenda through advocacy measures.
 CAC Context: the relatively recent emergence of CAC countries from central
command socio-economic systems, the complexity of small-scale, localised and
rapid-onset hazards, the paucity of donor support for DRR and the size and
proximity of this region to Europe, have been decisive factors in determining the
evolution of DIPECHO in this region.
This evaluation assesses the relevance (including coherence and EU added value),
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of ECHO’s DRR interventions in the HoA and
CAC over the period 2009 to 2013. During this period, ECHO invested almost 70 million
euros in DRR in the two regions, with three-quarters of this investment going to the HoA.
Table 1.1 provides an overview of the specific funding decisions that fall within the scope of
the present evaluation (the evaluation focussed on the funding decisions highlighted in bold
as per ECHO’s guidance) and Figure 1.3 overleaf shows the countries covered by these
decisions.
Table 1.1 Scope of the evaluation
Region Funding Decision
Financial
Envelope
Number of projects
(actions) funded
Horn of Africa
ECHO/-HF/BUD/2008/01000* EUR 30M 19
ECHO/-HF/BUD/2009/01000 EUR 10M 15
ECHO/-HF/BUD/2010/01000 EUR 20M 26
ECHO/-HF/BUD/2012/91000 (2012 DRAAP)** EUR 20M 21
Sub-total EUR 80M 81
S. Caucasus ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/06000 (DIPECHOI) EUR 2M 3
C. Asia ECHO/DIP/BUD/2010/02000 (DIPECHOVI) EUR 7M 8
S. Caucasus
& C. Asia
ECHO/DIP/BUD/2012/0100 (DIPECHO II and
VII respectively)
EUR 8M 16
Sub-total EUR 17M 27
*was partly covered by the 2009 evaluation. **The total financial envelope for the 2012 Humanitarian
Implementation Plan (HIP) was EUR 86.5 million of which EUR 20 million was allocated to the Drought Risk
Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) for the Horn of Africa
The present evaluation builds on the previous evaluations of ECHO’s DRR interventions in
these regions and is particularly timely given the ongoing discussions and debates on the
post-2015 DRR framework
10
. It is expected that a successor to the Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA) will be launched in 2015 alongside new Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs)
11
and a new international climate change agreement
12
. This presents a unique
opportunity for the international community and national governments to address sustainable
development, DRR and climate change in a coherent manner. The evaluation will hopefully
10
Further information on the post-2015 DRR framework can be found on UNIDSR’s website.[online]Available at:
http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/hfa-post2015
11
Further information can be found on the UN website.[online]Available at:
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
12
[online]Available at: http://www.un.org/climatechange/towards-a-climate-agreement/

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
4
feed into any internal reflections at the European Commission on its own approach to these
issues post-2015.
Figure 1.3 Regions and countries covered by the evaluation
13,14
High vulnerability Medium vulnerability Low vulnerability
13
ECHO Global Vulnerability Assessment. Averagevalues for the years 2009-2013.
14
It should be noted that w hile the Horn of Africa encompasses Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia, DG ECHO’s
actions in this region also covered Uganda and (in 2008 only) Sudan. The 2008 DRRAP Funding Decision (ECHO/-
HFR/BUD/2008/01000) covered Southern / Eastern Sudan, although no projects w ere finally implemented there.
Horn ofAfrica

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
5
1.2 Evaluation Approach and Methodology
A variety of methods were used to compile the evidence base for the evaluation and provide
the basis for triangulation of results. Table 1.2 critically assesses the methods used and the
validity of the data collected as part of this evaluation. Overall, the combination of methods
used provides a robust evidence base for the evaluation.
By comparing, contrasting and combining findings from two different regions and contexts,
the present evaluation offers unique insights on the core evaluative issues (such as
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, etc). At the same time, budget and time constraints
inevitably imposed certain limitations on the level of detail that the evaluation could cover in
each of the 16 evaluation questions for each of the regions. This overall limitation should be
noted.

Joint Evaluation of Drought Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa and DIPECHO Central Asia and South Caucasus (2009 - 2013) - Final Report
6
Table 1.2 Overview of Research Methods used for the Evaluation
Research Method Scope Caveats/ Limitations
Desk research:
documentand
data review
 international,EU and national strategies and policydocuments on DRR;
 academic and grey literature on DRR and related concepts,e.g. resilience,
climate change adaptation,and LRRD;
 data and statistics on hazard risks;
 programme documentation,e.g. funding decisions,good practice and
lessons learned documents,presentations,etc;and
 projectdocumentation,e.g.single-forms,fiche-ops,interim reports,final
reports,and evaluation reports.
Given the large number ofprojects (81) and associated volume of
documentation,a two-step approach was adopted for the HoA:
 a broad-brush review ofall projectdocumentation; and
 in-depth review of selectprojects.
For CAC, geo-spatial analysis was carried out.Maps were produced for each
country showing (a) geographical coverage of DIPECHO funded projects and (b)
the mostdominanthazard risk and historic disaster events (due to budgetary
constraints,itwas not feasible to map all hazards). The purpose ofthis exercise
was to determine ifprojects covered the areas mostatrisk.The results ofthis
exercise are presented in Annex 11.
Desk research was onlyprovided as part of the evidence base for the
evaluation;it was necessaryto update,cross-check and complement
the information collected from secondarysources through primary
research.
Stakeholder
interviews
 12 scoping interviews (face to face) were conducted with DG ECHO officials
(both HQ and field based) as well as relevantdesk officers at DG DEVCO
 14 telephone interviews were conducted with DG ECHO partners
Annex 1 provides a listof interviews conducted during the desk phase
While interviews were useful for understanding context,they typically
generated opinions/and individuals’ perspectives,rather than facts.
Field work: HoA Fieldwork covered three out of the seven countries
15
covered by DRAAP during
the period 2009-2013 (Ethiopia,Kenya and Uganda).While the evaluation team
did not visit Somalia,the Ethiopian field trip included a visit to a cross -border
projectwith Somaliland.Countryselection was based on the consideration ofthe
following factors:
 together, these countries accounted for 93 per cent (38 out of 41) of all
country-specific projects.These countries were also covered by cross-border
and regional projects (see Annex 3);
The main constraints were those imposed bythe time and budget
available for the fieldwork. DRRAP projects are geographically
dispersed across the region as well as within countries.Logistics was
therefore, an importantconsideration in planning the fieldwork.It also
meantthat a random sampling ofprojects was notfeasible,therefore a
purposive sampling approach was used instead.
15
Djibouti,Eritrea, Ethiopia,Kenya, Somalia (Somaliland),Uganda and Sudan (NB:the latter was only covered in the 2008 decision).

7
 the largestsingle countryfor DRR programme expenditure was Ethiopia:A
total of 20 country-specific projects (49 per cent) and 83 per cent (20 out of
24) of all cross-border projects (see Annex 3); and
 they represented differentcontexts for DRR intervention.
A purposive sampling approach was used to selectprojectsites (rather than a
random sample) on a representative basis to include a mixof projects in each
country comprising a mixof:
 regional,cross-countryand country-specific projects;
 the mostsuccessful projects as well as those thathad been less successful
(identified on the basis ofdesk research);
 geographic location (in particular,level of isolation);
 large and small budgets;
 sectors and sub-sectors;and
 different implementing partners.
Fieldwork took place over the following dates:
 Kenya/ Uganda – 16 Mar to 6 Apr 2014; and
 Ethiopia – 23 Mar to 10 Apr 2014.
During the fieldwork,the team metand interviewed 69 stakeholders in three
countries.Additionally,a number of group meetings with beneficiaries were also
organised at projectsties.Overall, the team visited 21 projectsites.Annex 2
provides further detail on the sampling approach and sites visited.
Debriefing workshops were organised in Kenya (Nairobi) and Ethiopia (Addis
Ababa) towards the end of the fieldwork to subjectearly findings to critical review
and challenge.
Field work: CAC Fieldwork covered four out of eight countries (namely,Kazakhstan,Tajikistan,
Armenia and Georgia). Given the limited budgetand timeline for the evaluation,
Tajikistan was selected for a field visit for two reasons: its long historyof
DIPECHO activities and high disaster risk and vulnerability.Selectparts of
Kazakhstan were also included as partof the fieldwork to provide additional
context and for liaising with the DG ECHO field office based in Almaty. Within
Southern Caucasus,Armenia and Georgia were selected as these two countries
collectively account for the majority of DIPECHO’s activities in the Caucasus
region.Besides,mostofECHO partners are based in these two countries and
As above

8
ECHO field office is located in Tbilisi (Georgia).
Again a purposive sampling approach was used to selectprojectsites for field
visits.Locations for on-site visits were selected on the basis of accessibility,
relevance, multi-countrycoverage, range of partners and logistical aspects.
During the fieldwork,the team interviewed more than 200 stakeholders and
beneficiaries (92 in Central Asia and 120 in the Caucasus region).The team
visited six project sites (four in Central Asia and two in Caucasus).Annex 2
provides details ofthe sites visited and stakeholders interviewed.
The fieldwork took place from 03 Apr to 30 Apr 2014. Debriefing workshops were
organised in Tajikistan (Dushanbe) and Georgia (Tbilisi) towards the end ofthe
country fieldwork.
Online survey An online survey (using the EU Survey Tool) was developed – as a
methodological experiment - to gather data from implementing partners.A link
was sentto all ECHO partners who had used local implementing partners
requesting them to collect responses from their implementing partner.An MS-
WORD format of the questionnaire was attached to encourage responses from
those with limited access to the Internet. Nine responses were received in total,
with seven of these being submitted via email.
The response rate was rather low.Only implementing partners thathad
participated in projects under the 2012 HIP responded.To supplement
the findings,the evaluation team interviewed a further nine
implementing partners in the field.
This method of data collection is challenging in an environmentwhere
access to the Internet can be sporadic.The email questionnaire worked
better than the online questionnaire.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
9
1.3 This Report
The remainder of the document is structured as follows:
 Section 2 provides an overview of DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the HoA and CAC;
 Section 3 provides a synthesis of the evidence collected and analysed in response to
each evaluation question; and
 Section 4 sets out the recommendations emerging from this evaluation.
The main report is supplemented by a Technical Annex which contains the detailed evidence
base for the evaluation and is structured as follows:
 Annex 1: Stakeholder interviews conducted during the desk phase;
 Annex 2: Scope of the fieldwork;
 Annex 3: List of projects funded in the HoA;
 Annex 4: List of projects funded in CAC;
 Annex 5: Coherence of DRRAP/ DIPECHO with the 2009 DRR Strategy;
 Annex 6: Overview of key concepts;
 Annex 7: Mapping of DEVCO’s funding priorities in the HoA and CAC;
 Annex 8: Overview of PPRD East;
 Annex 9: Donor mapping (HoA);
 Annex 10: Intervention logic of DG ECHO funded DRR actions;
 Annex 11: Mapping of dominant hazards and project sites (CAC);
 Annex 12: A dissemination strategy for the present evaluation;
 Annex 13: Compliance with the Terms of Reference; and
 Annex 14: Terms of Reference.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
10
2 DG ECHO’s DRR activity in the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and
South Caucasus
The present evaluation focuses on DG ECHO’s DRR activity in two regions: the Horn of
Africa (HoA) and Central Asia and South Caucasus (CAC). This section provides an
overview of the hazard risks facing these regions, their vulnerability to hazards and DG
ECHO’s activity aimed reducing these risks and vulnerabilities, by way of background and
context for the evaluation.
2.1 The context for DRR: hazard risk and vulnerability
2.1.1 Horn ofAfrica
The HoA is vulnerable to a number of different natural and man-made hazards. In the last 30
years, the population of the HoA has more than doubled and this has affected the
demographic dynamics and placed further pressure on increasingly scarce natural
resources.
16
Other causes of humanitarian crises in the region include conflict (including
inter-clan violence and political disputes), displacement of populations, competition over
scarce resources such as pastures, water and fertile lands (which in turn causes conflicts
between pastoralist communities – e.g. along the Kenya/Ethiopian border), and rapid onset
natural disasters (e.g. flooding or storms). The area is also affected by frequent epidemic
outbreaks such as acute watery diarrhoea, malaria, meningitis, measles and Ebola
haemorrhagic fever (i.e. Uganda) as well as diseases affecting livestock.
17
Over the last three decades, natural disasters have affected over 125 million people in the
region and killed almost 330,000 people (see Table 2.1). As the table below shows, drought
is the main disaster affecting the region (based on the number of people affected).
Table 2.1 Key statistics on disasters in the Horn of Africa (1980-2010)
Country
Population
2013 (1983)
Main disaster risks*
Historical data on disasters (all natural disasters)
No. of events
18 No. of
mortalities
No. of people
affected
Djibouti
872,932
(393,443)
Droughts (66.5%)
Flood (33.2%)
19 323 1,484,872
Eritrea
6,333,135
(2,656,189)
Droughts (99.6%) 7 3 5,622,688
Ethiopia
94,100,756
(38,259,330)
Droughts (95.7%)
Flood (3.9%)
86 313,486 57,382,354
Kenya
44,353,691
(18,241,424)
Droughts (81%)
Epidemics (14%)
Floods (5%)
79 6,066 48,004,436
Somalia 10,495,583 Droughts (73%) 66 9,604 9,161,430
16
DroughtRisk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) website.[online]Available at:
http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/drrap/about/about-drrap/en/
17
HIP Horn of Africa 2013.
18
Note that some ofthese may have been cross-border events affecting more than one HoA country at a time.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
11
Country
Population
2013 (1983)
Main disaster risks*
No. of events
18 No. of
mortalities
No. of people
affected
(6,199,671) Floods (25%)
Epidemics (1%) /
Earthquakes (1%)
Uganda
37,578,876
(13,738,114)
Droughts (76.6%)
Flood (19.4%)
Epidemic (2.4%)
61 2,280 4,938,644
Total
193,734,973
(79,488,171)
318 329,482 125,109,552
*Based on percentage ofreported people affected by disaster type
Sources [online]Available at:http://www.preventionweb.net/ and
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
Drought is defined as two consecutive rain failures
19
and is a common occurrence in arid and
semi-arid lands (ASALs) such as those characterising the HoA. The main impacts of
droughts occur through two channels: water shortages leading to disease and mortality
among humans and animals; and loss of agricultural output and livestock resulting in food
insecurity and loss of livelihoods. Droughts set off a vicious cycle of socio-economic impacts
(poor nutrition, loss of livelihood, erosion of assets, indebtedness, poverty, etc), thus,
increasing the vulnerability of affected persons to another drought as well as other shocks.
The increasing frequency of droughts also prevents communities from recovering and
rehabilitating, further eroding their coping capacities. For these reasons, the agro-
pastoralists who characterise the ASALs of the HoA are particularly vulnerable to droughts.
In 2010 and 2011, consecutive rain failures in Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti caused
a severe drought which led to a major humanitarian crisis in the region. At the peak of the
drought (around August 2011), 13 million people were in need of emergency assistance.
20
Even today, millions of people in the HoA continue to suffer chronic food insecurity and
vulnerability.
21
Around 9 million people remain in need of humanitarian assistance, including
2.7 million food insecure people in Ethiopia, 1.3 million in Kenya and 3 million in Somalia, in
the arid and semi- arid areas affected by the 2011 drought as well as areas that have not
received sufficient rains.
22
In Somalia, food insecurity is exacerbated by ongoing conflict in
the country.
2.1.2 Central Asia and South Caucasus
CAC countries have a long history of devastating disasters that have caused economic and
human losses across the region. During the 20-year period (1988 to 2007), the reported 129
disasters have affected at least 14 million people in the region and caused thousands of
deaths. See Table 2.2 below.
19
Consultation with ECHOField (RSO Nairobi),April 2014.
20
[online]Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/hoa_drought_factsheet.pdf
21
ICAI (2012),DFID’s Humanitarian EmergencyResponse in the Horn of Africa, Report 14, September 2012
22
ECHO factsheeton Horn of Africa. [online]Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/hoa_en.pdf

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
12
Table 2.2 Key statistics on disasters in Central Asia and South Caucasus (1980-2010)
Country
Population
2013
Top 3 disaster risks*
No. of
events
No. of
mortalities
No. of
people
affected
Period covered
Kazakhstan 17,037,508
Ext. Temp (80.1%)
Flood (13.8%)
Earthquake (4.9%)
16 228 748,879 1980 - 2010
Kyrgyzstan 5,719,500
Droughts (89.2%)
Earthquake (6.9%)
Mass mov. Wet (3%)
23 422 2,243,077 1980 - 2010
Tajikistan 8,207,834
Droughts (56.5%)
Ext. temp (29.8%)
Flood (11.3%)
51 2,163 6,719,808 1980 - 2010
Turkmenistan 5,240,072 Flood (100%) 2 11 420 1980 - 2010
Uzbekistan 30,241,100
Droughts (92%)
Earthquake (7.7%)
6 74 652,048 1980 - 2010
Armenia 2,976,566
Droughts (93.1%)
Earthquake (4.7%)
Flood (2.2%)
5 5** 319,144** 1980 - 2010
Azerbaijan 9,416,598
Flood (72.1%)
Earthquake (27.9%)
12 63 2,552,774 1980 - 2010
Georgia 4,476,900
Droughts (95.2%)
Earthquake (4.1%)
14 24 731,102 1980 - 2010
*Based on percentage of reported people affected by disaster type
Sources [online] Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/ and
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
** The above figures sourced from EM-DAT do not appear to include the impact of the Spitak earthquake (1988)
in which 25,000 people died, more than 20,000 were injured and 515,000 were left homeless. Source [online]
Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/30427_armenianationalsurveyseismicprotect.pdf
The CAC region is highly exposed to rapid-onset disasters such as earthquakes and
localised hydro-meteorological hazards. The latter category includes storms/intense rainfall
and resultant floods; heatwaves and droughts; as well as extreme temperatures. Apart from
earthquakes, other geological hazards include mudflows, landslides, floods, droughts and
avalanches.
These complex and overlapping hazards typify the disaster risk profiles of many
communities, due to their close proximity to a series of natural fault lines, extreme weather
conditions and the region’s highly-varied topography characterised by mountain ranges and
glaciers, desert zones and large areas of treeless/grassy steppes. There are many large
river systems such as the Amu Daria and Syr Daria with considerable flood plains, and major
water bodies such as the Caspian and Aral seas and the Issy-Kul, Balkhash and Sarez
lakes.
Earthquakes are the most dangerous hazard facing the region, causing destruction to human
life, buildings and infrastructure alike, while also triggering secondary events such as
landslides, mudslides and avalanches. Historical evidence shows that landslides, mudslides
and debris flows caused many casualties during the earthquakes in Armenia (1988 Spitak),
Azerbaijan (2000 Baku), Kazakhstan (1887, 1889, and 1911 Almaty), Kyrgyzstan (1992
Jalal-Abad), Tajikistan (1949 Khait, 1989 Gissar), Turkmenistan (1948 Ashgabat) and
Uzbekistan (1966 Tashkent).
Table 2.3 provides an overview of the most prominent and significant hazard risks facing the
CAC countries.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
13
Table 2.3 CAC: Hazard risks by country
Country Earthquakes Droughts Floods Landslides
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Dominantrisk Significantrisk
Based on information drawn from: Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk Management Initiative
(2011) Risk Assessment for Central Asia and Caucasus, Desk Study Review
More than 30 per cent of the region’s population lives below the poverty line, making it highly
vulnerable to the adverse consequences of disasters. Moreover, two-thirds of the region’s
population is concentrated in the mountainous southern quarter, which is highly prone to all
kinds of hazards due to its diverse geography and extreme weather conditions
23
.
A range of environmental problems affect specific areas within the region, where many
watersheds are suffering from soil erosion and poor land use such as deforestation and
pasture degradation due to overgrazing; while large dams, polluting industries such as
mining, abandoned industrial plants from the Soviet era and radioactive wastes dumps,
further exacerbate current challenges to environmental management.
Major urban areas are disproportionately vulnerable to disasters due to higher population
densities and general lack of integration of DRR measures in urban planning
24
- see Box 1.
Box 1 CAC regions:specific vulnerabilities of urbansettlements
Tashkent, Baku, Almaty, Tbilisi, Bishkek, Yerevan, Dushanbe, Ashgabat and Astana are the
most populated cities in CAC and all are undergoing intense economic activity. With the
exception of Tbilisi and Yerevan, all are experiencing high population growth. These cities, with
the exception of Astana, are highly vulnerable to earthquakes and all nine are potentially
vulnerable to floods. In a simple risk assessment, taking into account the cities’ hazard zonation
and populations, earthquakes emerge as by far the major risk, while the hazard levels of floods
and landslides are rather less significant, though this varies, of course, by local zone. Tashkent,
Baku and Almaty form the group with the highest risk, followed by Tbilisi, Bishkek and Yerevan,
which face about half the risk of the former group. The single key factor affecting hazard
exposure and vulnerability is rapid population growth, particularly of high-density settlements
concentrated within the cities. These risks are exacerbated by the hazards generated through
the legacy of poor quality (and often deteriorating) stocks of buildings (in the educational,
health, industrial and residential subsectors), which appear to require significant investment for
retrofitting against earthquake risk: specifically - for example - many old schools and hospitals.
As well, industrial plants abandoned after the collapse of the USSR are scattered throughout
the region. Furthermore, urban planning systems and institutions are often weak, providing little
in the way of structured spatial planning; and urban development is often characterised by
limited regulation and control of new buildings and infrastructural investment decisions.
23
Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk ManagementInitiative (2011) Risk Assessmentfor Central Asia and
Caucasus,Desk Study Review.
24
DIPECHO CAC Action Plan 2012.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
14
Overall, the CAC countries region is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, although the level
of exposure to hazard risk, coping capacities and the degree of preparedness (and
consequently, the level of vulnerability) varies from country to country. According to OCHA
Regional Office for Caucasus and Central Asia (ROCCA)
25
:
’Countries in the region can be loosely divided into two categories:
 middle-income countries that are prone to natural disasters and have a medium
response capacity (inadequate capacity to respond to a major disaster affecting
more than one province); and
 low-income countries that need international assistance or are at high risk of
needing it.
While most countries in the region have established independent national disaster
management authorities at ministerial level, others have assigned this task to branches
within the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior or even the Prime Minister’s Office. In
Central Asia, the emergency ministries are being transformed from military to civil protection
models. As such they are being given more importance within government structures.
Most countries within the region are moving towards implementing the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005-2015. However, budgets and human resource capacity are limited, and
methodologies and concepts are outdated. Information is often restricted, which hampers
cooperation with non-state actors. Domestic legislation needs to be adapted to facilitate
international humanitarian assistance. Finally, there is at times a certain reluctance to
formally request international assistance among some governments that lack capacity to
respond to domestic emergencies.’
2.2 Overview of DG ECHO funded DRR intervention in the Horn of Africa,
2.2.1 DRR in Horn of Africa
ECHO has been engaged in drought preparedness initiatives across the region since 2006,
with a total budget of 90 million euros provided under five different Regional Drought
Decisions (RDDs) – also known as the Drought Risk Reduction Action Plan or the DRRAP.
As shown in Table 2.5, ECHO has funded drought-risk reduction activities in the region
continuously over this period (2006 to 2013).
Table 2.4 Overview of DRRAP funding cycles in the HoA, 2006 - 2013
DRRAP cycle Period covered ECHO Funding € # Projects
DRRAPI 2006-07 10,000,000 17
DRRAPII 2008-09 30,000,000 19
DRRAPIII 2009-10 10,000,000 15
DRRAPIV 2010-11 20,000,000 26
DRRAPV 2012-13 20,000,000 21
Totals 90,000,000 98
Based on data provided by DG ECHO
The main focus of the DRRAP has been to support vulnerable local communities affected by
the impact of recurrent drought cycles and promoting appropriate early responses to future
droughts.
25
OCHA ROCCA Regional Strategy 2012-2013.
[online]Available at: http://www.unocha.org/ochain/2012-13/rocca

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
15
2.2.1.2 Key elements of DG ECHO’s strategy andapproachguidingitsinterventionin the region
The DRRAP in the HoA was structured into three types of projects: country-specific projects,
cross-border projects (targeting neighbouring national borderland areas) and regional
projects (working across all participating HoA countries). The country-specific and cross-
border projects focussed on a variety of activities, generally with a focus on community-
based activities and working with local authorities, although many (especially from 2010
onwards) also included good practices dissemination and advocacy components. Some
country-based projects (for example, see projects 2010/011026, 2010/011025, and 011023
in Annex 3) focussed on data-collection and technical studies. The regional projects
focussed on providing technical support (to other ECHO partners and to authorities and
institutions), engaging in advocacy for DRR and coordination and were implemented by UN
agencies, IFRC and REGLAP (a consortium of NGOs led by Oxfam). FAO was the first
organisation to be assigned the role of coordinating and providing technical assistance to
other DRRAP partners, although as other regional projects were funded, these partners
(particularly REGLAP and UN-ISDR) also took on more of a coordinating role. The objective
of the regional projects was also to improve the exchange of good practice and to collate and
disseminate lessons learned and good practices and feed this information up to national
government / ministries and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. media, teachers, local NGOs,
local authorities).
The 2008, 2009 and 2010 funding decisions split the budget available between ‘downstream’
community based DRR projects (84 per cent) and ‘upstream’ projects focussed on advocacy
and institutional linkages (11 per cent). The remaining 5 per cent was allocated to a 3 million
euros ‘reserve’ in 2008.
26
Figure 2.2 illustrates this organisational approach.
Figure 2.1 The organisational structure of the DRRAP
27
26
See Section 6 (amountof decision and distribution byspecific objectives ) of the 2008 Financing Decision
(ECHO/-HF/BUD/2008/01000).It is unclear why this contingencywas not setaside in later decisions.
27
Based on a PowerPointpresentation developed byFAO and shared with the evaluation team from Benoit
Collins (former DRRAP lead in the HoA RSO).

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
16
2.2.1.3 Evolutionofthe DRRAP from DRR to Resilience
ECHO’s intervention in the region has gradually evolved over time. The main features of this
evolution have been:
■ evolution in the thematic focus of the programme from assets and livelihoods protection
to DRR to resilience;
■ increased coordination with DEVCO;
■ shift in focus from pastoral communities to other groups (such as pastoral ‘dropouts’);
■ increasing emphasis on a consortium approach to funding; and
■ increasing emphasis on advocacy for DRR.
When it was first conceived in 2006, DRRAP had the main purpose of reducing the time
taken to respond to drought. This developed in phase II (2008) into a focus on asset
protection and (pastoral) livelihoods, with activities including destocking, veterinary services,
etc. From 2009 (phase III) onwards, there was a shift in focus from livelihoods protection
towards projects targeting basic services (health, WaSH, etc) for wider communities. Phase
IV sought to consolidate lessons from the previous phases and also to increase the
complementarity of DRRAP with other EU funded interventions in drought-affected
communities such as the DEVCO-funded Kenyan Rural Development (KRDP) and Karamoja
Livelihoods (KALIP) programmes.
28
A key turning point in ECHO’s approach was the 2011 drought, which triggered a shift in
focus towards the resilience agenda jointly with DEVCO. A strategic objective of the 2012
HIP for the HoA was to ‘strengthen local resilience through Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
activities’ and that same year, ECHO together with DEVCO, created the SHARE initiative
29
(alongside the 2012 HIP) with a financial envelope of more than 270 million euros, which has
the aim of boosting resilience in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Somalia. In 2012, in addition
to the 20 million euros available for DRR actions through the HIP, a further 22 million euros
was made available through SHARE to be managed jointly by ECHO and DEVCO to build
resilience to food insecurity and malnutrition in the HoA (mainly Kenya and Somalia)
30
to
prevent the repetition of large-scale disasters deriving from drought.
31
The 2012 HIP
therefore, only made available funding for country-specific actions in Ethiopia (although the
odd project was also funded in Djibouti and Uganda) as well as funding new regional actions
(projects 2012/91000, 2012/91015 in Annex 3).
DRR has been increasingly mainstreamed into the resilience agenda in recent years. For
example, a number of ECHO funded projects (that were funded under the 2012 HIP) focus
on resilience and include DRR components. The year 2012 can be regarded as a transitional
year as during that year, both stand-alone DRR projects as well integrated DRR projects (i.e.
projects focusing on resilience, but including DRR components) were funded. This new
approach seeks to achieve better coordination and linkages between humanitarian and
development actors, more efficient spending and greater sustainability of actions.
In Ethiopia, ECHO is now working closely together with the EU delegation to implement the
resilience agenda. The EU delegation to Ethiopia was consulted on the 2014 HIP and
participates in weekly management meetings with the Ethiopia Field Office of ECHO. EU-
DEL Ethiopia and ECHO are now jointly programming their interventions on resilience in
Ethiopia and have developed joint log-frames for development and humanitarian
interventions.
32
Indeed, ECHO partners were encouraged in responding to the 2013 HIP to
identify possible linkages between humanitarian interventions with existing or planned, long-
28
Interview with former DRRAP lead in the HoA RSO.
29
'Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience'(SHARE). [online]Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/resilience_en.pdf
30
The projects funded through SHARE fall outside the scope of this evaluation.
31
2012 HIP for Horn of Africa.
32
Information collected through case studyfield trip to Ethiopia,April 2014.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
17
term interventions and to design projects corresponding to a multi-year vision (of a minimum
of three years).
33
This ‘multiphase’ approach of the DRRAP funding, whereby the same
partners receive funding over a number of years to develop their project, has allowed the
DRRAP to fund projects targeting not only the most vulnerable, but also authorities and
those able to develop DRR policies and practices at national and local level, as well
information multipliers such as the media, local CSOs and public servants.
The target beneficiaries of ECHO’s interventions have also evolved over time in response to
changing trends – particularly in the aftermath of the 2011 drought. ECHO has commonly
funded projects targeting agro-pastoral communities specifically, in support of their
livelihoods; however, as there have been indications that the most vulnerable groups of
people may be those who have lost their cattle in previous disasters (see Section 3.4.1),
ECHO has somewhat shifted the focus.
Although the structural approach to funding country-specific, cross-border and regional
projects remained the same throughout the DRRAP, the number of regional projects funded
gradually increased throughout, to reflect the increasing importance placed on advocacy for
DRR. The 2011 drought catalysed national and regional authorities to act and – with the
support of ECHO - national heads of state of the affected countries in the region came
together to show a strong political commitment to ‘End Drought Emergencies’ (Nairobi
Declaration of IGAD, 2011). ECHO was also strategic in its project selection, gradually
selecting projects (e.g. 2010/01017, 2010/011024, and 2012/91000 in Annex 3) which would
fill gaps in knowledge or technical capacity for DRR in the region.
Throughout the DRRAP, ECHO sought to optimise the coordination of the funded actions. It
did this partly by assigning FAO (and later REGLAP and UN-ISDR) to coordinate partners,
by encouraging and facilitating cross-partner meetings and working groups and by directing
some partners to work as consortia (see Section 3.10). From 2009 onwards, the four ECHO
partners (Care, Cordaid, Coopi and VSF-DE) working in the cross-border area of Ethiopia
and Kenya were encouraged to better coordinate their targeting of communities and project
activities to improve efficiencies and the complementarity of approach.
34
Towards the end of
the 2012 HIP, ECHO partners in Ethiopia were also reorganised into geographic ‘clusters’
around specific woredas or districts (see Box 2) where ECHO had been repeatedly reacting
in emergency response – i.e. where droughts and nutrition related emergencies were
recurrently emerging (where other major internationally backed programmes were not
operating).
35
This approach was formalised in the 2013 HIP, but most of the projects funded
were a follow-on from DRRAP projects.
Box 2 Geographical clusters of woredas inEthiopia
Country specific funding for Ethiopia was allocated to different NGO consortia implementing projects
in seven geographical clusters representing seven different arid regions of the country:
■ Wag Himra zone in North EastAmhara,
■ Western Central Afar,
■ South-EastBorena,
■ Bale Mountains in Oromiya,
■ Liben zone in the South Somali region,
■ Wolayta, and
■ North Somali region, Siti zone (no projects funded there from 2013).
33
2013 HIP for Horn of Africa, Operational Guidance for Funding Proposals in Ethiopia in 2013.
34
External Final Joint Evaluation - Echo DroughtRisk Reduction Action Plan (DRRAP) [2012-2013],
Kenya/Ethiopia Cross Border Projects.
35
2013 HIP for the Horn of Africa, Operational Guidance for Funding Proposals in Ethiopia in 2013.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
18
The 2011 drought also prompted ECHO to place a greater emphasis on mainstreaming DRR
in its general approach to humanitarian aid i.e. ensuring that emergency response actions
take DRR considerations into account.
2.2.2 DIPECHO in Central Asia and South Caucasus
Central Asia became the sixth DIPECHO region to be targeted by the programme after
Central America, Andean Community, Caribbean, South Asia and South East Asia in 2003.
The programme initially covered operations in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan,
however it was extended in 2007 to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Seven DIPECHO Action
Plans have been implemented in the region since 2003. In total, 79 projects have been
funded in Central Asia for 33 million euros over a decade (2003 - 2013).
In 2009, the programme expanded to South Caucasus. Two DIPECHO funding cycles have
been implemented in the South Caucasus region between 2009 and 2013. Under these, DG
ECHO has invested 5 million euros in 8 projects – see Table 2.6.
Table 2.5 Overview of DIPECHO funding cycles in CAC, 2003 - 2013
Region DIPECHO cycle Period covered ECHO Funding € # Projects
Central Asia DIPECHOI 2003-04 3,000,000 9
DIPECHOII 2005-06 2,516,451 8
DIPECHOIII 2006-07 3,419,661 12
DIPECHOIV 2007-08 5,699,405 16
DIPECHOV 2008-09 6,700,000 15
DIPECHOVI 2010-11 6,860,000 8
DIPECHOVII* 2012-13 5,000,000 11
sub-total 33,195,517 79
South
Caucasus
DIPECHOI 2009-10 2,000,000 3
DIPECHOII* 2012-13 2,999,965 5
sub-total 4,999,965 8
Totals 38,195,482 87
*common funding decision. Table based on data provided by DG ECHO
The principal objective of DIPECHO programmes in CAC has been ‘to reduce the
vulnerability and improve the coping capacities of populations living in areas most affected
by recurrent natural disasters’
36
.
The following key developments and trends can be observed over the different DIPECHO
cycles in CAC:
 Common funding decision for CAC: In 2012, a common funding decision was
introduced for CAC to ensure a more even distribution of funding across the two
regions. Since the two regions share common (institutional) legacies and face similar
risks, it was felt that a common funding decision would also promote a more
coherent approach to DIPECHO across the wider region. Furthermore, to improve
linkages and collaboration within and across the two regions, ECHO’s regional office
in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) was relocated to Almaty (Kazakhstan) in 2013 and the
Tbilisi antenna linked to the Almaty office.
 Closer collaboration with UN agencies in Central Asia: Since the fourth funding
cycle, UN agencies have played a key role in the implementation of DIPECHO in
Central Asia – see Table 2.7. In South Caucasus, where only two DIPECHO funding
36
As per the Funding Decisions.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
19
cycles have been implemented until 2013, ECHO and UNICEF have worked closely
over both cycles to promote the mainstreaming of DRR in the education sector.
Table 2.6 Involvement of UN agencies as partners in DIPECHO in Central Asia (2003 – 2013)
DIPECHO Funding Cycle Total
across
cyclesI II III IV V VI VII
UNDP 2 2 1 1 6
UNDP (with Red Crescent) 1 1
UNICEF 1 1 1 1 4
UNISDR 1 1 2
UN WHO 1 1 1 3
UN OCHA* 1 1
Projects implemented byUN agencies 0 0 0 5 5 2 5 17
Total No. of projects implemented 9 8 12 16 15 8 11 79
Projects implemented byUN agencies 0% 0% 0% 31% 33% 25% 45% 22%
*Regional project covering both Central Asia and Southern Caucasus. Table based on data provided by DG
ECHO
 Increasing involvement of national, sub-national and local authorities: although
ECHO can only directly fund the NGOs with whom it has signed Framework
Partnership Agreements (FPAs), national/ sub-national/local authorities are being
increasingly involved as local implementing partners in projects to facilitate national/
sub-national/local capacity building and the development of DRR governance
structures in countries of operation.
 Greater emphasis on multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects: as can
be seen from Table 2.8, multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects have
gained prominence in Central Asia in recent years, representing the majority of the
funded projects under DIPECHO VI and VII. In South Caucasus, which is relatively
‘new’ to DIPECHO, funded projects typically tend to be multi-country or regional in
nature; only one country-specific project was funded during 2009 – 2013.
Table 2.7 Share of country-specific, multi-country/ cross-border and regional projects over
different DIPECHO cycles in Central Asia (2003 – 2013)
As % of total
Total No. of funded
projectsCountry specific
Multi-country /
cross-border
Regional
DIPECHO I 89% 11% 0% 9
DIPECHO II 75% 25% 0% 8
DIPECHO III 83% 17% 0% 12
DIPECHO IV 81% 13% 6% 16
DIPECHO V 53% 33% 13% 15
DIPECHO VI 38% 50% 13% 8
DIPECHO VII 45% 36% 18% 11
Table based on data provided by DG ECHO
 Increasing focus on ‘upstream’ policy advocacy: even though DIPECHO’s main
focus is community based DRR actions, ECHO is increasingly funding ‘upstream’
policy advocacy work, with the intention of facilitating the mainstreaming, scaling-up
and wider replication of DRR projects.

(2009 - 2013) - Final Report
20
 Reinforced focus on encouraging partners to coordinate, collaborate and to
avoid overlaps: at a regional level, partnerships between DRR actors are being
reinforced and cooperation on DRR policies and practices is being encouraged
37
.
Greater attention is being given to the coordination and consistency of ECHO’s
actions with other donors' interventions, in particular major interventions by EU
Member States and international organisations (e.g. UN, World Bank) in the field of
humanitarian aid and, where relevant, development aid.
37
See HIP 2012 and 2104.

DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF

DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF

Similar to DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF (20)

More from Torsten Kowal

More from Torsten Kowal (12)

DRR_Hoa_Cac_Final_Report_EN.PDF