Study Report on

Local Disaster Risk Management Plan

and
Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment
of
Community Support Program (CSP)-II

Submitted to:
CARE Nepal Lalitpur

Studied and Presented by:

Laxmi Narayan Parajli
March, 2014 1151 Thirbam Sadak, Maharajgunj,
Kathmandu, Nepal
Phone 4416716
Email: shelternepal@gmail.com
 Table of Contents
Table of Pictures ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
ACRONYMS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
1. Background -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
2. Study Methodology --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
3. Analysis and Findings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
3.1 Strengths ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
3.1 Areas of improvement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
4. Lessons Learnt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
5. Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
NARRATIVE REPORT------------------------------------------------------------ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Preliminary information ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
2. Context ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3. Rationale of the Study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
4. Objective of the Study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
5. Methodology of the study----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
5.1 Desk Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
5.2 Field Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
5.4 In-depth Discussion with Key Informants --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
6. Analysis and findings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
6.1 Major hazards, PVCA findings and risk profile --------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
6.3 Strengths and major DRR initiations of the programme -------------------------------------------------------- 22
6.3.1 Peoples' engagement ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
6.3.2 People and stakeholders' ownership --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
6.3.3 Strengthened the government policy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
6.3.4 Ensured institutional basis for implementation ------------------------------------------------------------------- 23
6.3.5 Increased awareness, capacity and preparedness---------------------------------------------------------------- 23
6.3.6 Purposively organized people to response disaster -------------------------------------------------------------- 23
6.3.7 Planned and systematic efforts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
6.3.8 Wider geographical coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 24
6.4 Gaps in PVCA and LDRMP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
6.4.1 Insufficient integration to development ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
6.4.2 Insufficient and uncertain budget ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
6.4.3 Small scale activities for large scale hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
6.4.4 Poor linkage with annual and periodic plans ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
6.4.5 DIA not focused ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25
6.5 Lessons learnt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25
6.6 Recommendation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
6.6.1 Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach ------------------------------------------ 26
6.6.2 Community Based Disaster risk Management Guideline ------------------------------------------------------- 26

2
 6.7 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

Logical framework------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31
Annexes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
Annex-I: Sites visited in the Program Districts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 32
ANNEXES-II QUESTIONNAIRES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
ANNEXES- III: Information Collection Format ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40
ANNEXES- IV: Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA ------------------------------------------------------- 40
ANNEXES- V: TOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42

3
 Table of Pictures
Picture 1: Hazard and Resource Map, Amarpur, Panchthar......................................................... 15
Picture 2: Cause Effect Analysis of Landslide in Hangdewa VDC, Taplejung ............................ 15
Picture 3:Kit Handover to the Community.................................................................................... 17
Picture 4: Hazard and resource map preparation at Basantpur VDC ............................................ 18
Picture 5: Earthquake Resistant Technology in construction ........................................................ 18
Picture 6: Construction of Safe Shelter ......................................................................................... 19

4
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
PVCA and Local Disaster Risk Management Plans are the foundations for
mainstreaming DRR into development. These actions have recently initiated in the
country and CARE Nepal is contributing significantly from non-government side in this
regard. Review of the actions made in this context and recommend actions for
improvement is an opportunity to any DRR expert working in Nepal. I extend sincere
appreciation to Mr. Santosh Sharma, DRR Coordinator of CARE Nepal for entrusting
the assignment. Im also thankful to Mr. Nilkantha Pandey DRR Specialist for guiding
the study from the beginning.

I would like to thank Mr. Shyam Krishna Mandal, Mr. Drona Koirala, and Mr. Anup
Gautam Team Leader, CSP and Mr. Rohit Yadav and Rishi Ram Bhattarai DRR
Specialist of CSP for providing all types of logistics supports and feedback. Its my
pleasure to mention here other officials of CARE Nepal for their feedback,
suggestions and accompanying to the field.

I would like to appreciate the community people, school teachers, Users Committee for
sharing their precious time, knowledge and hospitality during the field visit.

Support rendered by Prof. Dr. Madan Koirala and Ms. Sunita GC is highly appreciated.

Laxmi Narayan Parajuli

Kathmandu

5
 ACRONYMS

CBDRMC Community Based Disaster Risk Management Committee

CBDRMP Community Based Disaster Risk Management Plan
CSP Community Support Program
DDC District Development Committee
DFID Department for International Development
DIA Disaster Impact Assessment
HFA Hyogo Framework of Actions
LDRMC Local Disaster Risk Management Committee
LDRMP Local Disaster Risk Management Plan
LSAR Light Search and Recue
MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
NSDRM National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction
PVCA Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Analysis
VCA Vulnerability Capacity Analysis
VDC Village Development Committee
VDP Village Development Plan
WCF Ward Citizen Forum

6
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Background
Considering the recurrent events of disasters and growing risk of climate extremities,
Government of Nepal (GoN) endorsed Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP),
in November 2011. The plan aims to strengthen the disaster preparedness and reduce
the disaster risk with ultimate objective of mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction
(DRR) and ultimately contribute to develop disaster resilient communities.

CARE Nepal with the financial support of DFID, facilitated to develop LDRMPs and
CDRMPs across its working areas through Community Support Programme (CSP)-II
based on the LDRMP Guideline. This report presents the synopsis of the findings of
PVCA and LDRMP carried by CSP in different levels of its objectives. Additionally, this
report explores the areas of improvement and its effectiveness of Community Based
Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach. This report also presents
recommendations for the improvements in LDRMP guideline itself.

2. Study Methodology
The study is based on the primary and secondary sources of information. Similarly, both
qualitative and qualitative information was used to identify the effectiveness, efficiency,
relevance, sustainability and lessons learnt from the project as envision by National
Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline (GoN/NPC 2013). Some major steps carried during
the study include: desk review, field study, focus group discussion and In-depth
Discussion with Key Informants.

3. Analysis and Findings

3.1 Strengths
An analysis was made based on the information available from review of the LDRMP,
PVCA reports, on-site field visit and interaction with the LDRMC and CBDRMC
members in program districts.

The LDRMPs and PVCAs carried throughout the project area generated direct and
active participation of local people, local bodies especially VDCs and other
stakeholders. Local people involved in entire planning process. Similarly, strong
ownership of local people and wide range of stakeholders in PVCA and LDRMPs were
observed.

As expected by LDRMP guideline, PVCAs have identified the vulnerable households,

ranked the hazards based on the vulnerability, and analyzed the local capacity to

7
response to disaster. Thus, the intervention has supported to strengthen the
government policy and strategy.

The LDRMPs have been endorsed by ward citizen forums and respective VDC councils
which has ensured institutional basis for the program implementation. Local authorities
have allocated some the budget for the plan. As ensuring institutional basis for
implementation is one of the HFA priorities of actions, these interventions have
promoted the HFA recommended actions as well.

Continued engagement of local people in variety of capacity development trainings

(search and rescue, first aid, early warning), awareness raising and engagement in
exercises of PVCAs and planning process of LDRMP have contributed collectively to
increase awareness and capacity at local level. LDRMCs and CBDRMCs organize
regular meeting. Increased awareness has fostered preparedness activities at local
level. Project has supported emergency rescue kits to trained persons. Local people
initiated establishment of seed banks and emergency fund as preparedness measures.
People have used indigenous technologies in river training works across different
working areas.

Specialized social structures have been developed in working communities which has
led to the actions, interactions and reactions (response) to cope the disaster. The
examples are task force, planning sub-committee, LDRMC, CDRMC. These structures
are purposively organized and spontaneously mobilized in the community level, hence,
are much effective to response disaster.

LDRMPs have been able to pinpoint the major hazards, vulnerable households,
potential level of impacts in respective VDCs. Recognized PRA tools have been used to
analyze the vulnerability and assess the potential risks. Thus, the project was a planned
and systematic intervention towards the DRR initiatives.

3.1 Areas of improvement

Study revealed that the intervention was a good initiation of the project. Despite several
strengths of the project, there are some of the areas for improvement. Integration of
DRR concepts in mainstream development process and result appeared poor. The
project could not be able to make the Annual Village Development Plans (AVDPs) of
VDC disaster resilient. As the AVDPs are core development activities and unless these
could be made disaster-resilient, only isolated plans will not be sufficient to mainstream
DRR. Disasters are still treated as events rather than considering them as outcome of
cumulative failures of development intervention.

In the absence of provision of Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA), instead of saving

people and property, development is causing burden during emergency. Both of
LDRMP guideline and CBDRM approach followed by the project could not see the need
of DIA to make development actions sustainable.
8
Funding for the LDRMPs is uncertain and insufficient with respect to the magnitude and
complexity of the local disaster events. Meantime, it appears difficult to effectively resist
the hazards by the micro and small scale activities as planed in LDRMP.

Though the project had covered 25 districts of Nepal across different development and
ecological region, project has to be extended in more district as the entire country is
vulnerable to different hazards.

4. Lessons Learnt
The project intervention is specified for short term. However, developing disaster
resilient community is a long-term work. Project needs to address this need as well. On
one hand project areas are widely dispersed and on the other hand almost no linkage of
activities with surrounding geographic areas is realized. It has also realized that project
interventions need to be focused covering relevant ecological area such as upstream
areas and downstream areas of same watershed area. Besides, it is also realized that
PVCA of whole VDC is essential so that Disaster Management Plan of the VDC could
be more effective to mainstream the DRR in the development process.

5. Conclusion
Project intervention initiated significant actions and has played important role in
preparing the target communities against the disaster risk. Transfer of knowledge and
skills on disaster preparedness has paved foundation for community based disaster risk
reduction. Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) should be established and made
mandatory before starting any development activities to ensure sustainability of the
development efforts.

9
1. Preliminary information
Project Name Community Support Programme (CSP)-II
Task Study of PVCA and LDRMPs carried in programme VDCs and
of development of synopsis/study report
Task carried by Laxmi Narayan Parajuli, DRR consultant
Task provided by CARE Nepal

2. Context
Community Support Program (CSP) II was implemented from April 2010 in 238
communities of 119 Village Development Committee (VDC) and 1 municipality of 25
Districts of Nepal with support from of DFID through CARE Nepal. The program
adopted Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Approach while implementing
its activities. Community level planning was made with participation of Local Disaster
Risk Management Committee members and other stakeholders. Program carried out
Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (PVCA) in each of the working VDCs
using variety of PVCA tools. Based on PVCA analysis; risk profile of the working areas
have been identified.

In order to assess the effectiveness of the PVCAs and LDRMPs, CARE Nepal sought
independent consultant to carry out the study. This report is the output of the study.

3. Rationale of the Study

Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries of the world in terms of disaster risk.
Nepal is placed in 20th place in the global hazard map while the country is ranked 30th in
terms of water-induced hazards such as landslides and floods. In seismic vulnerability
ranking, Kathmandu valley is placed in the first place (NSDRM, 2009). Increased events
of disasters in the world have raised severe questions regarding the sustainability of the
development efforts. In this context, NSDRM has taken a long-term vision to establish
Nepal as a Disaster-resilient country. LDRMP is such commitment of government that
aims to integrate DRR into development at local level. Thus, LDRMP is an important
tool that helps to address the growing challenge of disaster risk. PVCA and LDRMPs
are the major thrusts of the LDRMP guideline. In this context, the wider support that the
programme has made in developing PVCA and LDRMP is highly relevant towards the
effective implementation of disaster risk. Therefore, rationale of the study is to suggest
corrective measures for increasing the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the
intervention.

4. Objective of the Study

Overall objective of the study is to review the findings of PVCA and LDRMP and
prepare a synopsis report with areas of improvement and its effectiveness in the target
communities.
10
The specific objectives are:
Access the major hazards, VCA findings and risk situation or risk profile in the
working area
Prepare a synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP
Recommend areas of improvements and effectiveness of Community Based
Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) approach in reducing disaster risk of
vulnerable communities and LDRMP guideline itself
Find out the gapes or/and improvement area of LDRMP and recommend
appropriately with evidence, fact and figure including its implementation and
ownership by VDC and municipality.

5. Methodology of the study

Methodology of this study comprises two fold activities viz. desk study and field study.
Desk study includes the study of relevant literature, documents and all community
reports such as PVCA reports and LDRMPs.

As the program coverage is relatively large, information collection/field study was made
in representative samples. Following the purposive and systematic simple random
sampling procedures, 10 percent sample areas were selected from LDRMP and PVCA
areas (ANNEX II). In this regard, representation of geographical areas, ethnic
/population diversity and commonality of hazards were also taken into account.

Information of collected from the field was validated during field study. Thus, the quality
of the community reports was scrutinized through the field study. Field study generated
information from the primary as well as secondary source. Similarly, both qualitative and
quantitative information was collected and used to assess the situation. Ultimately, the
overall methodology is targeted to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy and
sustainability of the PVCA and LDRMPs facilitated by the programme based on LDRMP
guideline. The methods and procedures used for the study comply the Terms of
Reference (ToR) provided to the consultant. Major steps followed during the study are
as follows:

5.1 Desk Study

Desk study assessed first impression of the overall performance of program especially
in context of participatory vulnerability and capacity assessment of the working
communities and development of Local Disaster Risk Management Plan as guided by
LDRMP Guideline.

Prior to field visit - in this regard - the program relevant documents were acquired from
the Regional Programme Offices. The Program document including the LDRMP plans
and PVCA reports of the study area were reviewed. Side by side, LDRMP Guideline

11
prepared by Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD) was also
studied to find out whether prepared LDRMPs comply the guideline.

After the preliminary review of the documents a set of questionnaires (Annex-III) and
templates for collecting the information were developed aiming to systematize the field
study and ensure the quality of field verification. The templates were shared with the
program officials and addressed the program special needs and concerns.

5.2 Field Study

Field study was well designed and targeted for data collection and validation of
information collected from desk study. The study was conducted from January 8 to 19
January 2014. The detail field plan is attached in Annex-II.

Field study included on-site observation as guided in LDRMP/CBDRMP. Field study

followed the field observation, interaction with different levels of stakeholders ranging
from community, VDC to district level. Sites of the field visit area is presented in annex-
I.

5.3 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Focus Group Discussion was another major tool used for assessing the effectiveness of
PVCA and LDRMPs. FGDs were
conducted with LDRMC and CBDRMC
and other beneficiaries. Both male and
female members attended during the
discussions. A total of 9 FGDs were
conducted in three districts namely
Pyuthan, Kailali and Udayapur
representing from East, Mid Western and
Far Western Region of the country.
Participants of presented their views over
different perspectives disaster risk,
vulnerability and adaptation such as the
process of planning . Meanwhile, practices of planning processes were compared with
the processes as specified by the LDRMP Guideline. The strength, weakness,
opportunity, threats of LDRMPs were also discussed. Additionally, the trends and
causes of stress, differential vulnerability and adaptive behavior in context of disaster
and disaster risk were discussed. LDRMC and CBDRMC members opined their views
regarding the effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy and sustainability of results PVCA
exercises and LDRMPs during the discussion.

The FGDs were conducted separately on LDRMP, PVCA and School Contingency
Plans based on sample. Sample distribution summary is presented in table-2.

12
Table-1: Sample Distribution of FGD in Different Groups
No. of Focus Group Discussions
District LDRMP PVCA School Contingency Plan
Total
(LDRMC) (CBDRMC) (SMC)
Pyuthan 1 1 1 3
Kailali 2 1 1 4
Udayapur 1 1 - 2
Total 4 3 2 9
5.4 In-depth Interview with Key Informants
In-depth interview were made with purposively selected key informants including
Program staff, LDRMC members and CBDRMC members, representatives and
community leaders from each of the selected VDCs. In-depth interviews were
conducted using semi structured interview guidelines (Annex II). The questionnaires are
focused on process and findings of vulnerability capacity assessment. The process
helped to understand the community perspective over the PVCA exercises and identify
the level of community understanding on phenomenon of disaster and level of
preparedness caused by PVCA and LDRMP exercises carried out in the respective
VDCs. At meantime, in-depth interview helped to identify the community level disaster
risk reduction measures adopted by the community after the preparation of Local
Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP). The discussion also helped to verify the
findings of the desk study.

6. Analysis and findings

6.1 Major hazards, PVCA findings and risk profile
Major hazards of the working areas have been identified by using different PRA tools
under the Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Analysis (PVCA) carried out. PRA tools
used in this process includes, disaster timeline, matrix ranking, seasonal calendar,
transect walk, proportional piling, hazard and capacity analysis.

Matrix ranking is one of the most appropriate tools for identifying major hazards. Matrix
ranking tool has ranked the major hazards in different levels based on their magnitude,
severity and frequency. Some examples of the matrix ranking made by the PVCA
presented in table below:

Table-2: Sample of Major Hazards by District

VDC, Rank of Hazards as identified by PVCA
District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Eastern Region
Basantpur,
Tehrathum Wild Storm,
Landslide animal Hail storm Flood Earthquake Drought Drought -
Amarpur,
Panchthar Epidemic,
Landslide Fire Earthquake Storm Hail storm Flood - -
Jogidaha,
Udayapur
flood Fire Snake bite Storm Epidemic Drought Earthquake Wild Animal

13
VDC, Rank of Hazards as identified by PVCA
District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Chhintang,
Dhankuta Fire, Wild Earthquake,
Landslide animal Epidemic - - - - -
Bigutar,
Okhaldhunga Wild
Animal Landslide Storm Epidemic Cold Wave Fire Earthquake -
Manakamana,
Gorkha Wild
Landslide animal Lightening Fire Epidemic Drought Storm Hailstorm
Mid Westen Region
Lekhparajul,
Surkhet
Landslide Fire Storm Epidemic Flood Wild animal - -
Saree, Flood,
Pyuthan Drought Landslide Fire Earthquake Epidemic Wild animal Storm Lightening
Salleri,
Dailekh Flood,
Drought Hailstorm Wild Animal Fire Storm
Taksera,
Rukum
Landslide Flood Fire Storm Wild animal Snowfall Lightening Earthquake
Narku, Dolpa
flood,
Landslide Fire Epidemic Storm Lightening hailstorm Drought
Thehe, Humla
flood,
Landslide Fire Hailstorm Snowfall Lightening Epidemic Wild Animal
Khalanga,
Jajarkot Landslide,
Flood Fire Epidemic Storm Drought hailstorm Lightening
Kumalgaun,
Kalikot flood,
landslide Fire Hail storm Storm Snowfall Lightening Epidemic
Rowa,
Mugu Landslide,
Flood Fire Epidemic Hailstorm Storm Snowfall Lightening
Far Western Region
Pawera,
Kailali Cold Storm,
Flood wave Fire Epidemic Wild animal Earthquake
Moribagar,
Bajhang
Flood Landslide Wild animal Drought Earthquake Hailstorm
Mushegadh,
Achham Wild
Landslide animal Epidemic Storm Fire
Dhuligada,
Darchula Wild
Landslide animal Strom Flood Fire Epidemic Earthquake Lightening
Gangkhet,
Dadeldhura,
Landslide Storm Wild animal Fire Flood Epidemic Earthquake
Source: LDRMP of respective VDC

14
 PVCA results presented that
different hazards are in
different ranks in different
VDCs/districts.

However, landslide was

found top ranked hazard in
most of the VDCs/districts. In
general, forest fire and flood
appeared to be the second
rank hazards threatening
community life and property.

Wild animal appears to be

another important hazard
causing damage and loss of
agriculture and people's life.
Meantime, earthquake,
epidemic and storm appeared
to the third category of
Picture 1: Hazard and Resource Map, Amarpur, Panchthar
hazards. Other hazards were
found to be drought, snowfall and lightening. The geography of the location seemed to
have played important role in bearing the
magnitude, frequency and severity of hazards. In
the Terai, flood is ranked first whereas in hilly
area landslide stands in first position. In the
mountain region, snowfall and hailstorm are also
in the priority.

Identification of vulnerability was another

dimension of PVCA. Some indirect measures
were used to identify the vulnerability. One of the
major measures to identify vulnerability was well- Picture 2: Cause Effect Analysis of Landslide in
Hangdewa VDC, Taplejung
being ranking. It has identified the level of
economic vulnerability.

Vulnerability is the gap between ideal and unsafe

condition of the elements at risk. Vulnerability is
always contextual. It differs with time, space,
individuals, and characteristics and based on
other factors as well. In view of above definition,
summary of the different types of vulnerability of the target area are identified as below:

15
 Vulnerability in target communities
Type of
Summary of Vulnerability Situation
vulnerability
Physical Physical vulnerability is relatively high across target area.
vulnerability Settlements are located in hazard prone locations. For example,
people are living in slopy and fragile ground in hilly and mountainous
districts such as Accham, Bajhag, Darchula, Baitadi, and
Okhaldhunga. Similarly, people are living in flood plains in Kailali.
Social Social vulnerability found little bit complex. In terms of social support
vulnerability mechanism vulnerability is relatively less as elderly people, children
are protected by families. In terms of family size, level of
vulnerability is diversified as size of family is diversified. There are
significant number of single women and families they are heading is
more vulnerable. Gender differences is higher in western hilly
districts such difference has also caused higher level of vulnerability
across those communities.
Cultural an There is both positive aspects and areas of improvement in the case
attitudinal of cultural and attitudinal vulnerability. Traditional practices such as
vulnerability Chhaupadi and untouchability have kept at more risk to women and
dalits of the community especially in the western hilly districts. Lack
of toilets was also widely observed those areas. Practice of open
toilet has increased vulnerability of epidemics across the region.
Besides, expectation of support was also observed as other type of
vulnerability.

Some practices such as keeping dry foods for rainy season, house
plinth raising has increased the adaptive capacity. Growing
awareness from the project intervention has contributed to reduce
cultural and attitudinal vulnerably.
Educational Educational vulnerability has gradually reduced. Traditionally there
vulnerability was a huge gap of information regarding the risk scenario. Now the
People have been more aware disaster and risk factors. People now
believe that human cause is dominant in disaster. LDRMC,
CBDRMC and early warning like task forces have been formed
across target areas. These structures have also contributed to
reduce educational vulnerability.
Institutional Institutional vulnerability is gradually reduced. Local government
vulnerability bodies such as VDC and DDCs have started to develop DRM plan at
their level. DRR is recognized as cross cutting issues by all the
horizontal and vertical stakeholders working in the field of DRR.
Political Political vulnerability is also gradually decreased. Disaster affected
vulnerability people are organized in different groups and have access to District
Natural Disaster Relief Committee and other decision making bodies.
16
 Type of
Summary of Vulnerability Situation
vulnerability
Economic Economic vulnerability is observed high. Wellbeing ranking helped
vulnerability to assess of economic vulnerability of target communities. Majority of
the households were categorized into very poor and poor groups.
Structural and Slight improvement has been observed in reduction of structural and
technical technical vulnerability. Community schools have been used
vulnerability earthquake resistant technology to resist seismic vulnerability.
However, in the case of private housings the housing structures
neither in the hilly areas nor in the plain areas are designed to
withstand the local hazards.

The roads are frequently damaged and swept away by flood and
landslide during rainy season which creates isolation during
emergency. The bridges in several areas are old and weak.
Structural vulnerability varies across communities.
Environmental Growing environmental deterioration has led the communities
vulnerability towards environmental vulnerability. Especially the deforestation in
hilly areas has induced flood and drought across the region.
Thousands of hectares of agricultural land in hilly and terai region
have been degraded each year across the target areas. Flood and
drought is emerged as dominant hazards across the regions.

PVCA shows that people participation in the planning process was commendable. They
engaged people directly and actively in entire process of planning. Simultaneously,
engagement of people in practice of variety of PRA tools helped to internalize the
importance of DRR related issues and develop a culture of safety. For example, timeline
was a tool used during PVCA exercises. This tool has helped local people to identify
most frequent disasters in their community. Cause and effects of different hazards were
also identified by participatory
process during PVCA exercise.
It helped to identify the problems
and take appropriate measures
to reduce the disaster risk.

Identification of vulnerable
population is another important
output of PVCA exercise. The
exercises were conducted in
238 communities. It also
disintegrated data of local
Picture 3: Kit Handover to the Community population on several aspects
such as age, caste/ethnicity,
17
disability and well-being. Such disintegration helped to sketch the risk profile of the
respective community.

A total of 119 LDRMP and 238 CBDRMP and school contingency plans were prepared
in the project period. The
plans thus were impressive to
deal the disaster in community
level. Ward Citizen Forum
(WCF)s have endorsed the
plan in the communities. VDC
councils also endorsed the
LDRMP and CBDRMP. VDCs
and WCFs expressed their
strong commitments to
support for implementation of
the plans. Commitments of
District level authority was Picture 4: Hazard and resource map preparation at Basantpur VDC

moderately below than the

communities. VDRMPs are prepared based on the LDRMP Guideline issued by the
government (MoFALD). LDRMC members and other key stakeholders were also
involved in the planning process. Therefore, PVCA exercise and planning has
immensely contributed to strengthen the knowledge and skills of local stakeholders in
conducting PVCA and developing LDRMP. Since the project contributed to implement
and strengthen government guideline, the interventions are expected to be sustainable,
as reported by the interviewees during the field study.

Disaster is generally a function of hazard and vulnerability divided by the community

preparedness. Major hazards are identified using different tools and activities are also
identified. Three fold of
activities identified as pre-
disaster period, disaster
period and post disaster
period. At the same time,
hazard specific activities are
also designed in the
LDRMP. Activities related to
mitigation and adaptation
measures for landslide,
flood, earthquake, fire,
epidemics and other hazards
have been planned
Picture 5: Earthquake Resistant Technology in construction throughout the working
areas addressing the local
18
hazards. Thus, it has been realized that systematic interventions on disaster
preparedness, response and recovery have been initiated and made accordingly. These
all interventions were built up in the foundation of the government policy (LDRMP
Guideline). Therefore, it shall have been continued in the future as well.

Awareness, capacity development and preparedness were the common focus of

LDRMPs across the working
areas. Various types of Task
Force were formed in the
community. The local people
were trained for the specific
services like first aid, early
warning, search and rescue. It
has been traced out that
conventional construction
practices were being replaced by
the earthquake resistant
Picture 6: Construction of Safe Shelter construction practices in the
school construction. The model is
being gradually spread the message in the communities to build the disaster resistant
construction in their localities. It also helped to increase the awareness of local people
and inspire them to adopt such a technology.

Increased events of disasters and awareness activities from the development projects
have encouraged people to take variety of actions on preparedness and mitigation.
Community emergency fund, plantation, stockpiling of dry foods and controlled grazing
are some of the examples.

Tree plantation was observed

during the field visit. Use of local
plants in the embankment of the
river helped to mitigate the flood
risk of nearby settlements. Such
plantation accommodated with
bioengineering technology seemed
as good examples of river training
works. Several such actions were
carried in initiation of community
Picture 7: Embankment protection by vegetation, Kailali which promoted local technology
and ultimately reduced the disaster
risk.

19
Communities have established the emergency fund
Indigenous measures taken
and grain bank to cope the disaster in the program
in DRR
working areas. During the interaction with VDC
Stocking of dry foods such
secretary, VDC also allocated certain amount
as dried vegetables, Satu
budget for the emergency, which helped to sustain
(flour of fried maize)
those initiations in VDC level. The CSP also handed
House plinth raising to
protect house from flood
Plantation along river
banks to protect
agricultural lands
Small canals for water
diversion to control erosion
Wire, net, drum, firing to
protect crop from wild
animal
Picture 8: Landslide Protection work, Pyuthan Meeting and interaction in
DRR issues
Grazing control in the
over the disaster kits to the VDC with a view to
forest area
strengthen the community for dealing the situation.

Ninety-nine percentage of the interviewees agreed that the process adopted in PVCA
ranks the all the local hazards in systematic way. They also opined that analysis
procedures were simple to analyze the disaster situation in communities. All of the
LDRMC/ CBDRMC members expressed that the tools used for identifying the local
resources were simple and easy to practice at local level.

6.2 Synopsis of the PVCA and LDRMP

A total of 119 Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMPs), 238 Community Based
Disaster Risk Management
Plans (CBDRMPs) and school No. of Plans and Committees
contingency plans have been
on DRR
prepared across the working
areas. Similarly, 238 250
200
Community Based Disaster 150
Risk Management Committees 100
50
have been formed. Task forces
0
formed in each community on
First Aid, Search and Rescue
and Early Warning to carry out
specialized tasks during
emergency. LDRMP developed based on the PVCA results and LDRMP Guideline.

20
LDRMPs were endorsed by respective VDC councils. Communities have established
the emergency fund to response emergency situation. Disaster resistant construction
technology and practice has been adopted in construction work and people have been
encouraged to adopt and disseminate the technology as well. Local technologies were
adopted and practices in river training and embankment protection work.

Risk profile of the community was also identified using some common PRA tools and
assessment methods. Important PRA tools and method used during the PVCA are as
follows:
Major PRA tool and methods used in PVCA

Timeline Seasonal Hazard &

Calender Resource
Identified major Map
disasters in Identified Located major
community in recurrent hazards hazards,
recent histroy in different resources and
specially within seasons. location of at risk
30-50 years. Landslide, flood, elements in social
Landslide, drought, storm, map so that task
earthquake, flood, fire, epidemic force and LDRMC
epidemic found to found to be most members received
be the major recurrent hazard. clear idea for
event. response.

Matrix Hazard
Seasonal
Ranking cacacity
Analysis
Calender
Assessment
Categorized
households of the Explored
Identifiedthe
causes and Identified the
community into recurrent hazards
different levels of impacts of major
in different responsibilities,
hazards capacities and
vulenraviblity, i.e. seasons.of the
High, Medium and community and gaps of key
Landslide, flood,
Low. This tool eased identified
drought, storm, agencies such as
to focus support to measures to be VDC, LDRMC,
fire, epidemic
most vulnerable taken. CDRMC, task
households. found to be most
recurrent hazard. force, local
governent bodies

Local Disaster Risk Management Plans were developed with the engagement of wide
range of stakeholders of local level such as VDC official, LDRMC members, task force
members, representatives of local government agencies, political parties, local Red
Cross, social workers, youth and teachers.

LDRMPs were prepared as a guiding document to understand local hazards and

address the challenges raised by the hazard and vulnerability. LDRMPs are structured
into three parts namely, introduction, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment and
Disaster Risk Management Plan. The VCA part includes results of different PRA tools
used and risk assessment method while the Disaster Risk Management Part includes
specific activities for pre-disaster, during disaster and post disaster phase.
21
LDRMP planning process includes series of actions that comply the provisions of the
LDRMP Guideline ranging from VDC selection by District Natural Disaster Committee to
approval of LDRMP by respective VDC council. The LDRMP processes are presented
in chart below.

Common LDRMP Planning Process

followed in working areas

6.3 Strengths and major DRR initiations of the programme

PVCA and LDRMP planning followed some structured and important tools that
ultimately strengthened effectiveness of the programme. These are categorically briefed
below:

6.3.1 Increased local peoples' engagement

One of the major parts of the planning is engagement of people which was found high
throughout the planning process. It was observed during the interaction in local level
that entire community was involved in the planning process. Local people become more

22
concerned about safety of their respective communities. High level of engagement of
the people in series of project activities contributed to increase f awareness in the local
people on disaster issues. This is the one of the outcome of the program. During the
focus group discussion, people shared their action and learning spontaneously which
indicates better understanding of people on DRR issues and increased level of
awareness.

6.3.2 Increased local people and stakeholders' ownership

Wide range of stakeholders participated in the program activities. The plan has
addressed the recurrent problems faced by local people. Therefore, both local people
and stakeholders feel the ownership for their plan.

6.3.3 Strengthened the government policy

The intervention has contributed to strengthen government policy. Both in VDC and
Community, Local Disaster Risk Management Committee and Community Based
Disaster Risk Management Committees were formed respectively. Besides, different
taskforce were formed in the communities as part of the disaster preparedness.

6.3.4 Ensured institutional basis for implementation

LDRMPs have been approved by respective VDC councils. Priority No. 1 action of
Hyogo Framework of Action Plan (2005-2015) is "Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a
national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation". Thus
the project interventions comply the priorities of HFA by creating institutional basis for
implementation viz. legal basis for fund generation and implementation of LDRMPs. The
local authorities have started allocating budget as per endorsed plan.

6.3.5 Increased awareness, capacity and preparedness

LDRMCs and CBDRMCs organize regular meetings. As part of building disaster
resilient community, the program organized various training, support and capacity
development activities at local levels. The trained and skilled human resource shared
their learning in the committee as well as in their respective communities. Project also
supported kits to the trained individual so that local capacity is strengthened to cope the
emergency. VDC initiated to establish the emergency fund in VDC level and
communities also established the emergency fund and grain bank in their respective
area. Project supported to develop safe shelters. Additionally, people have identified
safe areas as well. The constructed shelter was adopted disaster resilient technology. In
other hand, community people have also been involved in the plantation of tree and
protection of forest area in their localities (HFA Priority Action 3 and 5). With increasing
realization, VDCs have also established emergency fund. Communities established the
emergency fund and grain bank. These all activities have led the project towards
sustainability of its intervention.

6.3.6 Purposively organized people to response disaster

People - in community level - have been organized purposively into different task force
such as first aid, early warning and search and rescue. The task force organizes the
simulation exercise in the community for refreshing the knowledge. Community and
23
VDC level risk management committees have also been formed. Besides, planning sub-
committees have also been formed. This all new structure is dedicated to watch the
local hazards, vulnerability and taking possible measures. Such actions stirred the
communities to identify and analyze causes and impacts of different hazards. This all
will lead to develop a culture of safety in the remote areas of the country.

6.3.7 Planned and systematic efforts

DRR preparedness interventions have been initiated in a planned and systematic way.
Appropriate procedures have been taken in selection of VDC. Disaster survivors,
women, elderly people, ethnic people and wide range of stakeholders have involved in
the planning process. LDRMPs have been developed on the basis of PVCA results and
LDRMP Guideline. Thus the LDRMPs have been able to scrutinize the local hazards
and vulnerabilities. Based on the analysis results, appropriate measures are being
taken through LDRMP, CBDRMP and school contingency plans. The plans were
endorsed by ward citizen forum and VDC council. This all have developed strong
institutional basis for the plan.

6.3.8 Wider geographical coverage

Wider geographical coverage is also the strength of intervention. A total of 119 Local
Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMPs), 238 Community Based Disaster Risk
Management Plans (CBDRMPs) and School Contingency Plans (SCP) have been
prepared across different district, zones and development regions of the country.
Replication effects among the wider coverage beneficiaries would contribute make the
more people safer.

6.4 Gaps in PVCA and LDRMP

Disaster is not dealt in holistic approach in Nepal. The rescue and relief activities are
still regarded as major efforts in overall disaster management cycle. The focus is
gradually shifting towards preparedness. Increment in preparedness activities are steps
towards building disaster resilient communities.

Still, disaster is dealt as an event. The main challenge is that integrating disaster into
mainstream development requires high level of clarity in the understanding of concepts
and technicalities of development and disaster. It is still lacking in community and
society. Prevailing condition is that there is no specific person, agency dedicated to
DRR.

Practice of PVCA and provision of LDRMP has been initiated across the country. It itself
is a good initiation. Despite several strengths of the PVCA and LDRMPs, there is space
for improvement. These gaps are as follows:

6.4.1 Insufficient integration to development

LDRMPs are based on the PVCA and it has eased to examine the potential magnitude
and severity of the hazards. Activities are designed for three phases of disasters.
However, integration of DRR concepts into mainstream development is not sufficient.
24
As DRR is a cross cutting issue, it needs to integrate across all levels and areas. There
is risk that the practice is made as rituals rather than taking integrated actions at all
levels to integrate DRR into development. VDCs are developing Village Development
Plans (VDPs) and LDRMPs separately and there is poor linkage among these two plans
and other local sectoral plans.

6.4.2 Insufficient and uncertain budget

LDRMPs have insufficient and uncertain budget. Both annually allocated fund and
emergency response fund are found nominal. It is difficult to pave strong foundation for
disaster preparedness in the background of insufficient and uncertain budget.

6.4.3 Small scale activities for large scale hazards

Magnitude and scale of disaster are usually high. Activities are designed mostly in micro
and small scale. Because of diversified topography and climate, inter-regional activities
become important. Activities are not coordinated even within single watershed areas.
Coverage of a small part of geography in large landscape can be negligible for
replication effects.

6.4.4 Poor linkage with annual and periodic plans

Each VDC is obliged to prepare annual and periodic Village Development Plans (VDP)
according to the Local Self Governance Act. In this context, each VDCs have been
preparing VDPs. Now VDCs have stated to develop LDRMPs as well. Actually there
would to be a explicit and interwoven linkage between the plans. If DRR is fully
mainstreamed, VDP can/should incorporate all the LDRMP.

6.4.5 Disaster Impact Assessment not focused

LDRMPs could not have thought towards the necessity of Disaster Impact Assessment
(DIA) before initiating any development activities. It would help to promote sustainable
activities.

6.5 Lessons learnt

Field observation, interaction with the Community Based Disaster Risk Management
Committee and Local Disaster Risk Management Committee and review of documents
has inculcated understanding and lessons.

One of the lessons is that plan should be categorized as immediate, medium and long
term plans. The prevailing administrative structure is not sufficient for the mainstreaming
disaster in development activities.

Three types of task force exist in the working area namely first aid, search and rescue
and early warning. In this condition, other task forces such as shelter, food, water and
sanitation, protection are also needed as well. It realized that formation of task force in
all of these areas as guided by SPHERE Guideline would be effective to address the
emergency.

25
It is learnt from the interaction with all stakeholders that PVCA and LDRMP is needed in
all wards of each VDC. It is also required to capacitate the local people in community
level to build Disaster Resilient Community. Cooperation among areas such as
upstream and downstream areas seemed important. DIA seemed to be an important
tool to trim the unsustainable development activities. Knowledge enhancement at all
levels appeared as another necessity for the integration of DRR into development.

6.6 Recommendation
Prevailing administrative structure is not sufficient to manage the whole tasks of disaster
management cycle. There are no specified people or agencies dedicated to work on
DRR. Therefore, new administrative structure is essential to effective deal for the
disaster.

Based upon the key findings and lessons learnt recommendations are proposed in
following two categories firstly, regarding the CBDRM approach and secondly,
regarding the LDRMP Guideline.

6.6.1 Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach

Have PVCA of all communities of VDC.
Develop PVCA as mandatory preliminary work of annual plan of local bodies.
Strengthen and enhance knowledge and skills on PVCA among relevant among
CBDRMC members, LDRMC members and other stakeholders. Increase effective
and result oriented capacity building activities
Give focus on integration of DRR into mainstream development
Increase coordination among stakeholders and increase the working area
coverage
Update the LDRMP and CBDRMP each year.

6.6.2 Community Based Disaster risk Management Guideline

Have provision of dedicated focal person in district level
Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) should be carried out in development activities
Expand program in all wards of VDC
Need technical support in VDC level planning process which help to integrate with
development activities

6.7 Conclusion

Peoples' participation and ownership of the stakeholders found commendable. The

program has initiated systematic intervention towards making disaster-resilient
community.

It realized that integrated approach is necessary for effective dealing of disasters.

Before starting the development activities, Disaster Impact Assessment (DIA) approach
need to apply by local authority which helps to reduce the potential damage and loss.

26
Local administrative structures for DRR in district and VDC level are provisioned by
National Disaster Risk Management Strategy. Since actions are not taken as guided by
NSDRM, programme has scope to lobby and advocacy for separate administrative
structure. Such structure can ensure dedicated person and agency to work on DRR. It
will help to develop sustainable approach for dealing with disaster issues.

Local disaster risk management plan and community level disaster risk management
plan was prepared only in project areas. So other communities of same VDC are being
deprived from the facility. It is suggested that the program should be launched in whole
VDC at a time, which will have tangible changes in VDC planning process and
ownership of the LDRMP and CBDRMP as well.

27
 Logical framework
Log Frame of CSP
Output level
Narrative Verifiable Means of
Target Result Impressions
Summary Indicators Verification
Output 4: 4.1 VCA conducted 119 PVCA 119 PVCA PVCA Community
Increased climate and CBDRMC 238 committee Prepared 100%) Report willingness and
and natural shocks formed 238 committee Minutes of interest continued
resilience of formed 100%) Meetings to participate in
vulnerable DRR activities
communities 4.2 Disaster 119 VDRMP 119 VDRMP VDRMP and
including women Preparedness 238 community Prepared (100%) CBDRMP Local Authority
and girls Plan (VDRMP, and school 238 community and school allocate the
Community and contingency and school contingency budget for DDR
school plan contingency plan plan according to the
contingency plan prepared (100%) VDC plan
in place council/
community Establishment of
level emergency fund
meeting and grain bank in
Minutes community level
4.3 Community 2,975 4,087 Volunteers Roaster of
volunteers Volunteers (Task force Volunteers
trained (First Aid, members) Minutes of
Early Warning, available (136%) Meetings

28
 Light Search &
Rescue) to
respond to
disasters

4.4 Local and district 19,182 local 7,646 local and Minutes of
actors, community and district district level Meetings
people, teachers level actors actors, List of
and students 39,092 19,529 community participants
aware on flagship community people
4, HFA & VDRMP people 1,666 teachers
guideline, DRR 3,410 teachers 28,271 students
preparedness and 5,683 students aware
response Total target- Total progress-
67,367 57,112 (85%)

4.5 program staff 130 program 100% program List of

trained on DRR, staff received staff received Participants
CBDRM and Seismic training training
design

29
 Log Frame of CSP
Outcome level

Narrative Summary Verifiable Indicators Target Result Means of Impressions

Verification
Outcome : 6 VDCs, schools and 119 VDCs 100% LDRMP Trained man
Improved access by communities better 238 communities Report power in
poor and excluded understand their risks 238 schools PVCA Report communities
people, including and they are putting School
women and girls, to their knowledge into Contingency
community based practices to mitigate Plan
development risk. Minutes of
opportunities and Communities
Meetings
enhanced preparation initiate the DRR
to cope against 7 Identified targeted 119 VDCs 100% Roaster of
activities like River
disaster communities and 238 ommunities Volunteers training work, bio
institutions have 238 schools Minutes of engineering and
demonstrated Meetings earthquake
capacity and are Emergency kit resistant
equipped to respond at available at construction
to any natural communities
disasters
Establishment of
emergency fund
and grain bank in
community level

30
 References
1. LDRMP and PVCA Report of 119 of 25 Districts
2. Local Disaster Risk Management Guideline (LDRM), 2012, Ministry of Federal
Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD), Nepal
3. Nepal Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009, Ministry of Home Affairs
4. SPHERE standard, 2011

31
 Annexes
Annex-I: Sites visited in the Program Districts
Districts Date Meeting with Palce
Banke January 8, 2014 Mr. Rishi Ram Bhattarai, CARE Nepal, Nepalgunj
Pyuthan January 9, 2014 Mr. Krishna Prasad Gyawali, CDO.
January 9, 2014 Mr. Khagendra Bist, CARE Nepal,
January 9, 2014 Mr. Shasi Bahadur Bista, Sr. Divisional
Engineer, Irrigation
Mr. Damodar Sharma, Secretary
NRCS
January 9, 2014 Mr. Bhagwan Aryal, LDO, Pyuthan
January 10, Community Base Disaster Risk
2014 Management Committee Visit, Damre,
Gabeh.
January 10, Gabeh, Secondary School, Gabeh
2014
January 10, Local Disaster Risk Management
2014 Committee (LDRMC), Damre.
Kailali January 12, CBDRMC meeting, Badki Paliya,
2014 Pawera VDC
January 12, CBDRMC meeting, Mohanpur,
2014 Ratanpur VDC
January 13, LDRMC meeting, Pawera VDC
2014
January 13, LDRMC meeting, Ratanpur VDC
2014

32
ANNEXES-II QUESTIONNAIRES

;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ;DalGw n]vfhf]vf kmf/d

cGtjftf{ lng]sf] gfd ldlt

;a]{If0f g+

;"rgfbftfsf] JolQmut ljj/0f

GffdM ln pd]/
7]ufgf M lhNnf uflj;g=kf= j8f g+
k]zf M s[lif Jofkf/ hflu/ lzIff cGo

s[kof pQ/x? gk9\g' xf]nf ;"rgfbftfnfO{ cfkm} pQ/ lbg pTk|]l/t ug'{ xf];, lbPsf] pQ/ ldNg] pQ/x?df lrGx -_ nufpb}
hfg] pQ/ gePsf] v08df 5'} ;+u}sf] sf]7fdf n]Vg' xf]nf .

!_ ;+s6fled'vtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng k|lqmof s:tf] nfUof]

s_ /fd|f] v_ g/fd|f]

@_ s] o;af6 k|sf]ksf] cj:yf yfxf kfpg ;lsG5<

s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g

#_ s] of] lalw af6 cfgf] >f]t pknAwtf tyf kx'r yfxf kfpg ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g

$_ s] o;lalwaf6 Ifltsf] laa/0f k|fKt ug{ ;lsG5 <

33
 s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
%_ s] of] lalwaf6 k|sf]ksf] :tl/s/0f ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g

^_ s] o;af6 k|sf]ksf] ljZn]if0f ug{ ;lsG5 <

s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g

&_ s] :yflgo >f]t / ;fwgn] k|sf]ksf] ;fdgf ug{ ;lsG5 <

s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
*_ s] o; lalwaf6 :yflgo ;+kGgtfsf] :tl/s/0f ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
(_ s] ;fd'bflos tyf kfl/jfl/s ;+s6f;Ggtf kQf nufpg ;lsg] /x]5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!)_ s] o; lalwaf6 lhlasf]kfh{g laZn]if0f ;lsg] /x]5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!!_ s] hnjfo" kl/jt{gn] ljkb\nfO{ ;xof]u u/]sf] /x]5 <
s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!@_ ;d:ofsf] d"nsf/0f kQf nufpg] lalw s:tf] nfUof] <
s_ /fd|f] v_ g/fd|f]

!# _nlIft ;d'bfo;Fusf] 5nkmnn] s] kmfObf x'g] /x]5 <-Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
s_ ;d'bfo g} ;lqmo x'g]
v_ of]hgfdf ckgTj x'g]
u_ ;a}sf] ;xeflutf x'g]
3_ Go"gLs/0f / k"j{tof/Ldf nfUg]
34
!$_ ;d'bfodf ljkb\sf] hf]lvd sd ug{sf nflu s] s:tf sfo{x? ;+rfng ul/Psf
5g\ <
!= $=
@= %=
#= ^=

!%_ ;d'bfodf ljkb\ ePdf ;fdgf ug]{ pkfox? s] s] 5g\ ?

!= %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *

!^_ ljkb\ Go"gLs/0fsf] nflu s:tf k|of; ePsf 5g\ ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
s_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf ePsf 5g\
v_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ePsf 5g\
u_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt u7g ePsf 5g\

!&_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ubf{ s:tf] r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] lyof] ? -
Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
!= %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *
!*_ ;+s6f;Ggtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng sf] ;'emfjnfO{ Aoaxf/df nfu' ug{ s:tf]
r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] 5 ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
35
 != %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *

!(_+ :yfgLo lgsfox?;Fu LDRMP sfof{Gjog ug{nfO{ ul/Psf ;dGjo, ;DjGw /

k|of;x? s] s] xf]nfg\ atfpgf];\
s_=========================================
v_ ========================================
u_ ===============================================
3_ =====================================================
cGo s]lx ;'emfj ePdf
+===================================================================================================================
===================================================================================================================
===================================================================================================================
==========================================

36
 :yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf;DalGw n]vfhf]vf kmf/d

cGtjftf{sf/sf] gfd ldlt

;a]{If0f g+

;"rgfbftfsf] JolQmut ljj/0f

Gffd ln pd]/
7]ufgf lhNnf uflj;g=kf= j8f g+
k]zf lzIff
s[kof pQ/x? gk9\g' xf]nf ;"rgfbftfnfO{ cfkm} pQ/ lbg pTk|]l/t ug'{ xf];, lbPsf] pQ/ ldNg] pQ/x?df lrGx -_ nufpb}
hfg] pQ/ gePsf] v08df 5'} ;+u}sf] sf]7fdf n]Vg' xf]nf .

!_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt cfjZos 5 <

s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g
@_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\ ;'/Iff ;DaGwL k"jf{Eof; ul/G5 <
s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g
#_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\sf] a]nf p4f/ug]{ ;fdfu|Lsf] Joj:yf 5
s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g
$_ s] ;d'bfodf ljkb\k/]sf]a]nfdf p4f/ ug]{ :jo+;]js 5g\ <
s_ 5 v_5}g u_ yfxf 5}g

%_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
^_ s] ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgfsf] cfjZostf / dxTj af/] yfx 5 <
s_ 5 v_5}g

37
&_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ kfbf{ To;sf] l;df af/]
yfx x'G5 <
s_ x'G5 v_ x'b}g
*_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ ;+s6f;Gg6f tyf Ifdtfsf ljZn]if0f ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
(_ s] :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\sf] :tl/s/0f / klxrfg ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!)_ s] cfgf] uf= la= ; sf] hf]lvd klxrfg ljZn]if0f :yfgLo :t/df ug{ ;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!!_ s] cfgf] uf= la= ;df ePsf >f]t / IfdtfnfO{ k|of]u ug{ lhDd]jf/L afF8kmfF6 ug{
;lsG5 <
s_ ;lsG5 v_ ;lsb}g u_ yfxf 5}g
!@+ ljkb\sf] hf]lvd sd ug{sf nflu ljkb\ k"j{, ljkb\sf] ;dodf Pa+ ljkb\ kZrft s]
s:tf sfo{x? ;+rfng ug{' kg]{ /x]5g\ <
!= %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *

!#_ uf= la= ;df ljkb\ Go"gLs/0fsf] nflu s:tf k|of; ePsf 5g\ ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/
lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
s_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ hf]lvd Joj:yfkg of]hgf ePsf 5g\
v_ ;+s6fled'vtf tyf Ifdtf cf+sng ePsf 5g\
u_ :yfgLo ljkb\\ Joj:yfkg ;ldlt u7g ePsf 5g\

38
!$_ :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ubf{ s:tf] r'gf}tL ;fdgf
ug{' k/]sf] lyof] ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
!= %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *
!%_ :yfgLo :t/df ljkb\ hf]lvd Aoj:yfkg of]hgfnfO{ Aoaxf/df nfu' ug{ s:tf]
r'gf}tL ;fdgf ug{' k/]sf] 5 ? -Ps eGbf j9L pQ/ lbg ;Sg]5g\ _
!= %=
@= ^=
#= &=
$= *

cGo s]lx ;'emfj ePdf

+===================================================================================================================
===================================================================================================================
===================================================================================================================
===================================================================================================================
=======================================================

39
ANNEXES- III: Information Collection Format
Format for collecting the information on LDRMP/PVCA

S. Description Objectives Tools/methodologies Challenge Gap/ short Lesson learnt Strengths/ Improve
NO of the used for Planning Faced during fall in during plan Good aspect ment
LDRMP Process preparing preparing preparation of Needed
preparation period/Time process process/Plan to
preparin
g process
(if any)
LDRM
Section 1

ANNEXES- IV: Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA

40
 Format for collecting Summary of LDRMP/PVCA

S. Description Major Cause of Existing Gaps in Existing Remarks

NO Hazards Vulnerability Capacities Existing Coping
Capacities Practices

41
ANNEXES- V: TOR

Terms of Reference
for developing synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP

Background

Community Support Program II is being implemented in the community from 2010

April to led service delivery in the community. It has been extended for the period of
April 2012 to March 2014.

The extension phase has a new focus of integrating disaster resilience into regular
CSP activities on Improving disaster resilient basic service infrastructure and its
increased access by communities, including women and girls; Strengthened capacity
of poor and excluded communities, including women and girls to lead social action to
claim their rights thereby generating sustained income; Local government
(DDC/VDC) planning, monitoring and accountability processes improved, informed
by CSP good practices and Increased climate and natural shocks resilience of
vulnerable communities, including women and girls.

Rationale

As Nepal lies in disaster prone area hazards like Flood, landslide, earthquake etc
have negative effect in community. So it is necessary to increase the capacity of the
community to manage such situation and prepare them to response their recurrent
hazard. With this objective CSP is implementing community based disaster risk
management approach in order to make community resilient toward their
vulnerability and hazard. Series of interventions of CBDRM approach are being
implemented in 238 communities of 118 VDCs and 1 municipality of 25 District in
Nepal. Each community is gone through the PVCA exercise and their vulnerability
and capacity were identified. Based on that, disaster risk reduction measures were
identified and community action plan prepared. Similarly with the involvement of

42
LDRMC, Local Disaster Risk Management Plan (LDRMP) is prepared with assessing
risk profile of whole VDC.

LDRMP was developed and endorsed by GOVN in 2011. 119 LDRMPs have been
developed so far with the support of CSP following this guideline. Time has come to
see the effectiveness of guidelines itself for policy feedback and to see the status of
developed LDRMPs.

Objective

The major objective of the consulting service is to review the findings of PVCA and
LDRMP and prepare a synopsis of it with areas of improvement and its effectiveness
in community.
The specific objective are
Access the major hazards, VCA findings and risk situation or risk profile of
the working area
Prepare a synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP
Recommendations for the improvement area and effectiveness of
Community Based Disaster risk Management (CBDRM) approach in
reducing disaster risk of vulnerable community and LDRMP guideline itself
Find out the gapes or/and improvement area of LDRMP and recommend
appropriately with evidence, fact and figure including its implementation and
ownership by VDC

Methodology
Study should be carried out in following approach
Desk study:
Consultant has to review PVCA reports and LDRMP prepared and based on that
he/she have to develop a standard information collection format. CSP will provide all
required information as per the format.
Field study:
Consultant has to visit at least 3 project sites and interact with community about its
process and application and effectiveness. Consultant will also consult with relevant

43
staff (individual or meeting) regarding PVCA, LDRMPs, strengths and weaknesses/
limitation of LDRMP and to identify areas for revisions. Make interaction with
LDRMCs, Planning committee CBDRMCs, taskforce groups, DDRC
Reporting:
Based on all findings and observations, consultant has to prepare a synopsis of
PVCA and LDRMP with improvement areas and level of its efficiency. Prepare list of
gaps on the process on PVCA and LDRMP preparation and indicate the positive
change of CSP towards DRR

Time frame
Desk study and format preparation : 5 days
Field visits : 12 Days
Information collection and analysis : 10 days
Report development : 3 days

Responsibilities of CARE Nepal

CARE Nepal will support by providing ToR, other required information and arrange
other logistic support. Specifically, CARE Nepal will be responsible for the following:
Preparation of ToR, allow access to relevant materials and documents (PVCA
reports, LDRMPs, Narrative report and data report
Provide suggestions/comments in draft format and reports.
Manage community and district stakeholders meeting
Manage accommodation, per diem, transportation and other logistics to the
facilitator as per CARE Nepal's rules and regulation.

Responsibilities of consultant
Develop and share proposal and approach of study
Prepare study questionnaire as per annex-1 and work schedule
Analysis of PVCA and LDRMP and identify the gaps on the process and
strengthens/initiation on DRR. Highlight major DRR initiations as a
documentation made by CSP.
Prepare synopsis of PVCA and LDRMP

44
 Recommend, base on the analysis and evidence, revision of specific section,
process, tools and methodologies of LDRMP guidelines with rational.
Share the draft report to CSP for comments and incorporate the feedbacks in
the final report
The final report should be 25 30 pages excluding annexes.

Logistic arrangements
CARE Nepal will provide consultancy fee Besides, CARE Nepal will reimburse travel
cost (air/ground), and lodge charge as per CARE's policy on actual basis. The
consultants should submit original bills and invoice for reimbursement.

Charging Instructions
All these costs will be charged in an activity ID of 12, account code of 510100 and
sub output of 6.2

Terms of payments
5% of the contract amount will be paid in an advance within 1 week of signing of
contract and rest 75% will be provided within 1 month of submission of work
completion report.

Contact persons
Santosh Sharma, DRR coordinator
Drona Koirala, Anup Gautam and Shyam Krishna Mandal, Team Leader
Rohit Yadav, Rishi Ram Bhattarai and Nilkantha Pandey, DRR Specialist
Tara Chaudhary, Admin and logistic assistant Dhangadi, Phone office KTM
01- 5522800 for Santosh Sharma
Dhankuta 026 - 520472 for Drona Koirala and Rohit Yadav
Nepalgunj 081- 525609 for Anup Gautam and Rishi Ram Bhattarai
Dhangadi 091-523434 for Shyam Krishna Mandal and Nilkantha Pandey

45