Final Technical and Financial Report:

Regional Initiative in Support of vulnerable Pastoralists and

Agro-pastoralists in the Horn of Africa- RISPA

(OSRO/RAF/011/EC)

January 2014

Report submitted by:

P. O. Box 66873-00800

Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: (254 20) 2370039/43

Fax: (254 20) 2370044

Email: admin@iirr.org

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary. ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowldgements.............................................................................................................................................. v

Section 1: Background and Project Justification ........................................................................................... 1

Section 2: Methodology. .................................................................................................................................. 2

Section 3: Project Key Processes. .................................................................................................................... 3

Section 4: Experiences and Lessons Learnt. .................................................................................................. 9

Section 5: Recommendations. ........................................................................................................................ 11

Section 6: Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Annex 1: A Guide for Desk Review of Development and Contingency Plans. ..................................... 14

Annex 2. A Guide for Community Engagement During Community Visits ......................................... 17

Annex 3. Community Institution Review Guide. ....................................................................................... 20

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The final technical and financial report covers activities undertaken during the implementation

period of from July to December 2013.

The report is structured in five sections.

Section one: Provides the background and justification of the project.

Section two: Provides the methodologies used during project implementation process. It also

highlights tools and instruments used in data collection.

Section Three: Enumerates the process, flow and sequence of activities along project

implementation timeline. The sequence of activities began with collection and review of

development and contingency plans generated through the PDRA process by various FAO partners

across the six clusters. This was followed by community visits as part of validation exercise for

PDRA reports and community consultations to improve inclusiveness. Three-day district

stakeholders’ workshops were conducted in each cluster to review, refine and update development

and contingency plans and to give community representatives the chance to flag their community

priorities for inclusion into district development and contingency plans. This activity was followed

by three-day cross border districts workshops for sharing, validation and consolidation of

contingency plans into one cluster plan. Two-day workshops were conducted across all clusters for

cross border communities where areas of planning and capacity needs earlier identified during

community visits formed training themes. It also provided an opportunity for communities to share

experiences in the implementation of DRR activities in their respective communities.

The last activity of the project was a two-day workshop organized by FAO under IGAD where

political leaders from pastoralist districts were enlightened on various collaborative ventures that can

be undertaken to improve living standards of communities living in the ASALs of Kenya, and

equally important was also the cross border issue affecting the cross border counties of the ASALs.

IIRR made presentations during this workshop where the project was introduced, including its aim

and objectives, processes, experiences, lessons learnt and recommendation. A summary of areas of

investments for Cross border counties was also prepared, for FAO, for circulation in ASAL

Counties.

Section Four: Highlights the experience and lessons learnt during project implementation.

During the project implementation, a number of experiences and lessons were identified and learnt

respectively and recommendations drawn. Experiences ranged from community facilitation,

development of community, development and contingency plans, funding mechanisms and funding

levels, quality of development and contingency plans, coordination mechanism, and gender parity

issues.

iv

Section five: In this section, a raft of recommendations is provided that will guide improvement of

DRR in general and community participation in particular. The recommendations range from

community empowerment; coordination of DRR initiatives at community, local, national and

regional levels; policy directions for improving DRR and domesticating HFA1 good practices; and

anchored future DRR initiatives on HFA2 and Rio + 20 recommendations on sustainable

development and improving resilience.

v

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS

Our special gratitude goes to all project staff, participants, organizations and partners in all the six

clusters for their exemplary contribution to the project. We particularly acknowledge the role of

IIRR-Ethiopia team for the successful implementation of project activities in Hammer/Dessanach,

Gabra and Borena clusters; IIRR-Uganda IIRR team for their dedication to project activities in

Pokot Kenya/Pokot Uganda and Turkana/Karamoja clusters; Mohammud Duale of RACIDA and

his team for braving the conflict in Mandera Triangle and implementing activities in the volatile

environment; and Adan Ibrahim of CIFA for taking lead role in implementing project activities in

the Borana/Gabra cluster.

We also acknowledge Government agencies/departments for their support and active participation

during the District stakeholder workshops on review and updating of development and contingency

plans. We also appreciate the community members for their valuable contributions during

community visits, and community representatives for playing an active role in lifting community

priorities into district development and contingency plans.

Last but not least, we acknowledge FAO partner Agencies (ACTED, VSF BELGIUM, CARE

ETHIOPIA, ECHO, COOPI, VSF GERMENAY, CIFA and RACIDA) for sharing PDRA Plans

with the Review Teams and participating in the review, and updating of District stakeholder

Development and contingency plans and organizing communities for inter community cross-border

meetings; and to all that have not been mentioned, we forever remain grateful.

1

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

Unpredictable climatic change is causing adverse economic effects globally. A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lists these effects as: falling crop yields; reduced access to water; deterioration and collapse of livelihood ecosystems; and the growing incidences of vector-borne diseases. Therefore, the number of people vulnerable to poverty as a result of climate change is likely to increase; with cases of migration, disease and loss of lives and livelihoods. Climate change amplifies the inequalities between different strata of the community, especially women and men. Women’s historical subordination and exclusion, limited and denied access to resources and limited power in decision-making exacerbates their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. For example, resource shortages will lead to increased migration of men and women causing them increased burden and work. Additionally, the changes in types of crops and livestock production, affect division of labor between women and men, with the impacts directly weighing on women’s economic wellbeing. Governments’ capacities to cope with climate change-related disasters remain generally limited in Africa, with countries tied to disaster appeals and call for external assistance to help meet the food deficits. Kenya, Somalia (including Somaliland) and Ethiopia have been endemically facing food shortages in the last five years, with over 10 Million people under external food aid support. Drought has become a chronic feature of the world’s arid and semi-arid regions. Pastoralists in the greater Horn of Africa used to expect a minor drought every three to five years and a major drought five to ten years, but this trend has changed in the last decade to frequency of less than two years. Minor droughts are now coming almost every other year, and major droughts every two to three years. The droughts are now more frequent and the land mass available to support rural livelihoods is fast shrinking below the economic utilization level. This has led to an escalation of conflicts among erstwhile harmonious communities as they struggle for limited water and pasture. Among the pastoralists, inter tribal and inter clan raids have become endemic, worse with the proliferation of small arms in the region. As the drought events occur with more frequency, people have no time to recover before another drought hits. This has resulted in increased poverty and chronic food insecurity – with households year after year finding it hard or impossible to get the food they need. It is difficult during drought crisis to distinguish between people suffering from chronic and transitory (acute) food insecurity. In the recent past, IIRR implemented, successfully, a FAO-funded project to improve emergency response among pastoralists and Agro-pastoralists in the Arid and Semi Arid Lands of Kenya. The project aimed at building capacity of county steering groups (CSGs) in managing emergencies in a more timely, effective and efficient manner through TOT trainings and mentorship, where 10 teams were assembled, trained and dispatched across 27 districts in Arid and Semi Arid Lands of Kenya.

2

SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY

In reference to the terms of reference provided in the letter of agreement between the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction( IIRR), the development of evidence-based recommendations was done through a participatory action research (PAR), and in fulfillment of such requirements, IIRR ensured the process of reviewing and updating community development and contingency plans was consultative and inclusive through a wider stakeholder participation.

To ensure that the process was interactive, consultative and inclusive, IIRR teams enhanced already existing good working relations with FAO partners, Governments and communities. In Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia FAO country offices were instrumental in supporting IIRR teams during the process of accessing, reviewing and updating community, development and contingency plans, most noticeably in Uganda and Ethiopia. For Borana/Gabra cluster, IIRR collaborated with CIFA who have a long working relationship with IIRR in the field of CMDRR.

3

SECTION 3: PROJECT KEY PROCESSES

3.1. Reviews

The desk reviews focused on the review of the PDRA reports (participatory Disaster Risk

Assessment) process adopted by the partners in identification of hazards affecting communities;

assessing vulnerabilities, and capacities of the community members to determine risk levels. The

team reviewed the recommendations made by the communities and the disaster risk reduction

measures generated to build community resilience to hazard events. Critical during the assessment

was establishing quality and implementation phases of DRR measures guided by the community

development and contingency plans that were developed by communities guided by the

implementing partners.

Under the food security thematic program, ACTED had formed Community Disaster Management

Committees (CDMC) and Pastoral Field Schools PFS/Agro-Pastoral Field Schools, while VSF-

Belgium formed Pastoral Field Schools and Village Community Banks VICOBA. The implementing

partners worked through and also guided community members organized in these structures to

generate community Disaster Management Plans (CDMP) and contingency plans. This was meant

for their communities following a Participatory Disaster Risk Reduction PDRA process, to develop

community plans to guide implementation of planed activities.

ACTED, a FAO partner for Pokot Kenya/Pokot Uganda Cluster, provided IIRR team with the following disaster management and contingency plans for review: Four plans for Kodic, Sincholol, Nasal and Kupolio communities of North Pokot county in Kenya; seven community disaster management and contingency plans for Achorichori, Kamatur, Lokatapan, Tokora, Kalokwameri, Katabuk and Natirai communities of Pokot Uganda that are found in Amudat and Nakapiripirit districts in Uganda.

VSF-Belgium, the Lead FAO implementing partner for Turkana/Karamoja cluster provided IIRR Uganda team with nine community development and contingency plans; three plans for Orum, Lokiriama, and Ata’ Lokamusion communities of Loima district in Turkana County; three community development and contingency plans for communities in Moroto district (Nakilor, Loyaraboth, and Nakwanga); and three plans for communities in Kaabong District (Locherep, Loyoro and Risae) for review.

In Borana/Gabra cluster across Kenya Ethiopia border, CIFA, a local NGO with long time partnering experience with IIRR, provided community development and contingency plans for Bori, Bokola and Dambi for review.

In Gare/Somali cluster, RACIDA, a local NGO with operations in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, provided development and contingency plans for Salah, Didin, and Girissa communities for review.

IIRR Ethiopia country Office had in place established and functional DRR Community managed activities in both Hammer/Dessanach/Gabra cluster- that covers south Omo Woredas of Hammer and Dessanach, and the Kenya North Horr district that is home to Dessanach and Gabra pastoralists. Similarly, the IIRR Ethiopia office provided PDRA reposts of Borena cluster (Dillo

4

Woreda) for reviews. Interview schedules were developed to guide focus group discussions since IIRR Was not required to develop new participatory disaster risk assessments reports but review existing PDRA reports generated by FAO partners.

3.2. Community visits.

Community visits were meant to act as validation for the reports generated through participatory

disaster risk assessment (PDRA). During community visits, community consultation was conducted

in all the six clusters covering four countries (Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia).

The aim of community consultation was to provide communities with opportunities to give

feedback and get their views on the role of community managed disaster risk reduction approach in

enhancing capacities of communities to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from the

impacts of hazards on vulnerabilities. It also acted as the mechanism for community inclusiveness in

the review of community managed disaster risk reduction. Community consultation entailed focus

group discussions with DRR committees who play a pivotal role in managing disaster risk reduction

activities at community levels and also to review the role of this community/traditional structures in

managing disaster risk reduction initiatives and steering communities towards resilience. During

community visits, disaster risk reduction activities/initiatives were also assessed to determine their

quality and stage of implementations.

Community consultation meeting in progress.

5

3.3. District Stakeholder workshops

District stakeholders’ workshops were conducted in all the six clusters (Pokot Kenya/Pokot

Uganda, Turkana/Karamojong, Hammer/Dessanach Gabra, Borena, Borana/Gabra and

Gare/Somali or the Mandera Triangle cluster) with the main objective of ensuring wider stakeholder

participation in the review, refinement and updating of district contingency plans.

A three-day workshop was conducted in each of the six clusters and participants drawn from

Government line ministries, NGOs, CBOs and community representatives.

Existing contingency plans were reviewed, refined and updated to reflect prevailing situation in each

of the clusters with community representatives flagging their priority areas into district contingency

plans and enriching the process of inclusiveness in the preparation and implementation of

contingency plans. The workshop also acted as a joint planning process for the district stakeholders

who otherwise would be producing separate contingency plans for various Government

departments. Although a number of organizations had contingency plans, community priorities were

never considered due to lack of participation of community representatives in such forums.

Multi-agency and multi-disciplinary approach to the review, refinement and updating of contingency

plans, not only improved the quality of the plans but also enhanced inclusivity and participation.

Participants follow workshop proceedings during a District workshop to review and update contingency plans.

6

3.4. Cross-Border Districts Workshops

Cross-border districts workshops were meant to provide cross-border actors to develop common

cross-border contingency plans, which take into consideration cross-border issues such as grazing,

water, peace and security, and cross-border trade. Participants were drawn from stakeholders from

cross-border districts (Government line ministries, political leaders, religious leaders, NGOs, CBOs

and CSOs.

During cross-border District workshops, cross-border districts first presented their respective

districts contingency plans then followed by identification of common cross-border issues among

participating districts.

Secondly, common cross-border issues were harmonized and a cluster contingency plan prepared,

validated and endorsed. Thirdly, in establishing cross-border working groups for networking and

coordination of cross-border activities, members of these groups were drawn from stakeholders

from cross-border districts and were coordinated by district/county/woreda administrators.

Cross-border district workshops were conducted in all the six clusters. The cross-border

communities had to agree on which district to be the host with a clear understanding that cross-

border working groups will be alternating their meetings between cross-border districts.

Cross Border contingency planning for Pokot Kenya/Pokot Uganda group photo – Nakapiriprit Uganda

7

3.5. Cross-border community Meetings

Cross-border community meetings are not just ordinary meetings in the sense that they are training

sessions meant to enhance capacities of cross-border communities to prepare development and

contingency plans and link to local, national and international plans. During the first community

visits, community capacity needs gaps were identified and training tailored towards bridging such

gaps organized. Cross-border community meetings/trainings provided cross-border communities

with an opportunity to share experiences on the implementation of CMDRR activities, make friends

and build networks based on mutual friendship and kinship, which can be used to strengthen

relationships and to foster peaceful coexistence among cross-border communities. Cross-border

community meetings were organized in a way that cross-border host communities will choose a

training venue and then invite adjacent cross-border communities for training facilitated by IIRR

and its partners.

During community meetings, various communities gathered for a two-day training which included

ideas on various issues of common interests. Also, communities were able to use cross-cultural

diversity to cultivate friendship and explore areas of common collaboration.

During the two-day meetings, cross border communities were able to share their development and

contingency plans and learn more on the operations of the DRR centres. DRR centres in some of

the clusters provided meeting venues for the two-day meetings.

Cross-border community meeting in progress in Salah/Rhamu, Mandera County, Kenya.

8

3.6. Presentation of key process, experiences, lessons learnt and recommendation to IGAD

As part of fulfilling the terms of reference contained in the Letter of Agreement signed between

UNFAO– REAO Office and the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), FAO

organized a two-day workshop for political leaders from Arid and Semi Arid Counties of Kenya and

among the agenda was cross-border issues to be presented by IIRR.

Presentation to the county Governors, senators and members of parliament of Arid and Semi Arid

Lands covered the following areas:

1. Project Aim.

• Development of Consolidated cross-border community plans that will inform

planning, programming and investment processes.

2. The process.

• Desk review of community development and contingency plans developed through

the PDRA Process.

• Establish quality and implementation phase of DRR measures (development and

contingency plans) through desk reviews and sample community visits.

• Conduct districts stakeholders’ workshops on review and updating of community

plans and mainstreaming key issues from community plans into district plans

(community representatives flag their priorities for planning purposes).

• Conduct cross-border districts workshops to share and validate generated plans.

• Consolidate cross-border plans for further sharing and dissemination in other forums.

• Validation (discussions, feedback) and endorsement of the plans by local authorities

across borders and national authorities.

• Establish the effectiveness of community organizations in DRR (Disaster Risk

Reduction) measures implementation and resource mobilization mechanism, taking

stock of community institutions and their roles in navigating communities towards

resilience.

• Review the community participatory monitoring, evaluation and learning processes

with the aim of further strengthening them.

• Documentation of and advocacy of key processes, experiences, lessons learnt and

recommendations through policy briefs shared with Governments, IGAD and

partners for their consideration.

3: Project Outcomes

• Cross-border community development and contingency plans were prepared.

• Improved quality of Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA) development

and contingency plans.

• Generated community development and contingency plans reviewed and updated.

9

• Consideration and inclusion of community development and contingency plans in

the mainstream County Government planning, programming and investment

processes.

• Community institutions capacity on planning, action, participatory monitoring,

evaluation and learning strengthened.

• Improved inclusiveness of community planning processes and outputs through

documentation shared with Government and other stakeholders.

10

SECTION 4: EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNT

• Drought, conflict, animal and human disease are the main hazards across the six clusters.

• Cross-border project provided an opportunity to compare and contrast disaster risk reduction

initiatives across the six clusters.

• Community managed disaster risk reduction as an approach to disaster risk reduction had been

embraced with some having fully functional DRR centres, courtesy of local non-governmental

organizations.

• Quality of development and contingency plans vary across the clusters and formats vary

according to the agencies that developed them.

• There are community managed disaster risk reduction committees in all communities that had

development and contingency plans but their functionality and effectiveness vary across the

clusters with some fully engaged and others operating on ad-hoc basis.

• Implementation of development and contingency plans are at various stages with some

completed, others ongoing and others stalled due to unavailability of funding and others

stalled after organizations that introduced them exited from the area.

• There is no linkage between development and contingency plans generated from community

and those generated from district/county/woreda levels except for Ethiopia where

development and contingency plans generated from pastoralist association (PAs) are linked

with Woreda plans.

• There is no clear funding for development and contingency plans activities rendering such

plans as wish lists.

• Communities have used their time tested experiences, knowledge and skills to prepare for,

respond to and recover from effects of hazards. This ranged from water grazing management,

herd splitting, curling and migration during long dry spells.

• In Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia there are institutions with mandates of managing disasters

operating at national, county, woreda levels but with very little interaction with communities

except when a disaster strikes. This restricts their activities to disaster response rather than

disaster prevention and preparedness, which is the philosophy behind Community Managed

Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR).

• Gender disparity is an issue in most DRR Committees as participation of women is still

superficial.

• Community visits across the six clusters provided valuable lessons on how community

initiatives have contributed to reducing vulnerability to the impacts of disasters.

• District stakeholder’s workshops on review, refinement and updating contingency plans

provided an opportunity for wider stakeholder participation and a change for community

representatives to articulate their concerns and get their areas of priority incorporated into

District/County/woreda plans.

11

• District cross-border workshops were of great importance in bringing together stakeholders

from cross-border counties to plan on common areas of interests and foster harmonious

working relations with each other.

• Inter-community training was crucial in enhancing communities’ capacities in planning

processes. It also provided cross-border communities with bonding sessions and helped in

defusing tensions and mistrusts among communities that have been hostile to each other for

many years such as Gabra/Dessanach/Hammer, Turkana/Karamojong, Degodia/Gare.

• Cross-border stakeholders’ workshop brought together leaders and decision-makers from

cross-border districts to deliberate on areas of interests, paramount being peace and security

and peaceful coexistence among cross-border communities.

• Cross-border workshops provided the platform for Government, NGOs and community

service organizations to read from the same page on DRR issues.

• Insecurity in North Eastern and Eastern Kenya clusters (Degodia/Gare and Gabra/Borana)

hindered smooth implementation of project activities due to hostilities among cross-border

communities, sometimes resulting in violent conflicts.

.

12

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS.

• More funding and time is needed to implement future cross-border projects, and more

stakeholders need to be brought on board with FAO taking the lead and IGAD assuming

the coordination role due to its regional mandate.

• This initiative needs to be taken further to cover all districts that were never covered by the

project. Of great importance are the clusters which were left out such as Turkana/Toposa,

Turkana/Dongiro and Turkana/Merrile. These clusters are crucial in fostering peace and

security along the Omo Delta communities that are constantly fighting over water and

grazing resources.

• There are still capacity gaps among various stakeholders including communities , NGOs and Government ministries in developing quality development and contingency plans , this capacity gaps needs to be addressed in follow-up projects

• Communities are affected mostly by disasters. Therefore, the priorities and challenges of Communities need to be identified, and ideas and feelings need to be communicated with Them so that trust and confidence can be established.

• There is still a strong feeling that addressing underlying causes of communities’ vulnerability

to impacts and effects of hazards should be enhanced.

• The integration of DRR, Climate Change Adaptation, social protection and poverty reduction initiatives and programmes at all levels of government should be accelerated.

• DRR has not been engendered and women are left behind in many disaster situations, hence the need to engender DRR in pastoralists and agro-pastoralist communities.

• Women and children need to have access to the resource base for DRR education and Remedies. Women need to be empowered to build resilience; e.g. if women had equal rights of land tenure, agricultural production would increase substantially.

• Local authorities do not have the capacity to carry out DRR effectively. Decentralization of the activities at national level is still a huge challenge; actions should be kept practical at the local level more support is required to strengthen capacity at local level

• Accountability and transparency need to be increased in implementing DRR through allocation of responsibility and resources to the local and community level.

• Focus on people need to be increased, through more direct participation of communities in the policy framework for DRR.

• Youth engagement needs to be enhanced in environmental protection and climate change adaptation through relevant information, knowledge and economic empowerment, and access to disaggregated age and engendered data should be promoted.

• Youth need to be fully engaged in discussions on DRR and forthcoming HFA2 in 2015 as they are not only the future but represent the majority of society in many parts in Africa (in the future, the majority of the population of urban areas in Africa will be below 25 years of age).

• DRR needs to be fully recognized as a development issue; so far, no money for DRR comes from development funding.

13

• While early warning is being focused on, early action is not being prioritized because development and humanitarian actions are not linked; they need to be bridged to achieve resilience.

• Humanitarian and development approaches and investment in addressing the underlying causes of disasters need to be balanced. DRR can only be built upon if we have a predictable risk environment plan, and integrate prevention and recovery.

• There is strong evidence that natural disasters can increase the risk of conflict and that conditions of conflict can increase the vulnerability to natural disasters, hence, the occurrence of both undermines resilience.

SECTION 6: CONCLUSION

The project was successful in meeting its objectives by reviewing, refining and updating community

development and contingency plans (6 consolidated cluster contingency plans); enhancing

community capacity to plan, prepare development and contingency plans; enhancing skills of

community traditional institutions to navigate communities toward resilience; linking community

plans to districts, county and national plans; improving coordination mechanism between various

centres of planning and; providing opportunity for cross-border communities and decision makers

to have joint planning on cross-border issues such as water and grazing management, peace and

security and cross-border trade.

14

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: A guide for Desk Review of Development and Contingency plans

1. Introduction.

It is important to take into account the dynamics of the context of each community, inter-communities and

district/county cross-border and try to bring it to the fore in light of planning process. Others include the

dynamics in changing livelihoods, cross-border policy and legal arrangements. In order to address these

dynamics, it is important for the cluster team to engage in consultative forums at all levels in order to develop

a clear roadmap in addressing these dynamics. The partners will thus be facilitated to understand and identify

key institutions that are critical in planning process including those traditional ones. The teams should be able

to flag out unique features of each of the clusters mentioned below in their respective cases.

� Pokot Kenya/Pokot Uganda cluster led by ACTED � Turkana/Karamoja cluster led by VSF-Belgium � Dassenach/Hamer and Gabbra cluster led by VSF-Germany � Borana/Gabra cluster led by CORDAID and IIRR � Borana cluster led by IIRR � Garreh/Somali cluster led by VSF-Suisse and COOPI

Lead partners will be instrumental in the mobilization of the focus groups for the assignment, especially the

stakeholders’ forums and local communities’ institutions. The key institutions that will be instrumental in

facilitating access to secondary data through the key informant include: The District Disaster Management

Committee members for the case of Uganda arrangement; District steering Groups for Kenya; and the Task

Force for Ethiopia. At local (PAs) level, functional community institutions will form the focus of community

discussions.

Focus

Target and focus areas for the community action and contingency plans will be selected in each of the

communities (Sub-location for Kenyan context, parish for Uganda context and Kebele for Ethiopian context)

to the districts, counties and regions across the borders, facilitated by the partners. Refined plans from the

community will be shared across the neighboring districts/counties/regions. These plans will be shared and

refined and uploaded into the mainstream of district and cross-border planning systems. The thematic areas

will be climate change, drought impact and preparedness and, community social support systems. Gender will

be mainstreamed in all the thematic areas. The main approach for delivering this will be through participatory

workshops, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), key informants targeting district/counties/region officials and

other stakeholders. The approach for this consultative process will entail the undertaking of the following

activities:

2.0 Participatory disaster risk assessments (PDRAs) desk reviews

The checklist should therefore be able to provide guidance in a sequential way for the facilitators to approach

each and every output and deliver the expected result. From the desk review the checklist should be grounded

15

on the following thematic areas: Review on PDRA process concentrating on hazard, vulnerability, and

capacity (HVC) and being able to determine the risk level and identifying the elements at risk; and quality of

DRR measures (Development and Contingency plans) developed by communities

It is critical for the facilitators to take a quick scan of the generated community development and contingency

plans by grounding it on the four CMDRR minimums.

2.1 PDRA - Hazard, Vulnerability, capacity (HVC) assessments used to inform the disaster risks and most at

risk elements identified forming the focus target interventions groups. The PDRA process should be

aligned to the following issues:

a) How is the general information of the report (consider demographic information: is the information

exhaustive?).

b) Are there community socio/resource maps?

c) What of the seasonal calendar and historical timelines?

d) Was hazard identification and raking done sufficiently?

e) Was vulnerability assessment done in a systematic way? What are the exposed elements?

f) Was capacity assessment been done properly? What are the coping capacities in exposed elements?

g) Were Capacity gaps properly identified? What are the emerging capacity gaps identified in addressing

hazard prevention, mitigation, individual survivability, and community readiness/support system?

h) Were strategies developed to fill in the gaps focusing on hazard prevention, mitigation, individual

survivability and community readiness?

i) Were community action plans developed based on identified and prioritized strategies?

j) Were community members able to identify their most risk group and develop risk reduction strategies

focusing on enabling these groups’ capacities to cope?

k) Were the facilitators able to focus on prioritized strategies on what feeds into development plan and what

goes into contingency plan?

l) Were contingency plans developed based on risk mitigation?

m) Was community stakeholder analysis carried out? Who are the community’s development partners?

n) Which are some of the functional community institutions/organizations that are mandated to spearhead

implementation of DRR measures?

o) Do community development and contingency plans identify all participating agencies?

p) Do community development and contingency plans spell out clearly roles and responsibilities among

various actors?

q) How often are community development and contingency plans updated? Are these plans up to date?

16

3. Establish quality and implementation phase of DRR measures (Development and contingency

plans) through desk reviews and sampled community visits (focus group discussions)

DRR Measures entail: identification and prioritization of risk reduction strategies (focusing on prevention,

mitigation, individual survivability, and community readiness) and being able to develop a clear risk reduction

(preparedness plan) and mitigation (contingency) plan.

The facilitators should be able to guide a participatory process where all inclusiveness is the drive. Emphasize

on a representative community sample (considering gender, geographical representation, age brackets and

livelihoods, among other parameters). While engaging in FGDs, it is important to focus on the following

among other issues:

a) Are community representatives aware of the existence of community development and contingency

plans?

b) Were they involved during the development and implementation of community development and

contingency plans?

c) Do community members appreciate and embrace local participation in the development and

implementation of community development and contingency plans?

d) What was the role of community representatives during planning, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation of community development and contingency plans?

e) Do community development and contingency plans reflect community priorities?

f) Do community development and contingency plans reflect current scenarios?

g) Do community development and contingency plans allow for flexibility during implementation?

h) What is the nature of community based disaster management committees? Their structure, composition,

roles and responsibilities during the planning, implementation and evaluation of community development

and contingency plans.

i) Who is funding the development and implementation of community development and contingency

plans?

j) What has been community’s contribution towards risk reduction measures (in cash or in kind).

k) Implementation phase of DRR measures needs to come out clearly from the community discussions.

l) What are some of the common challenges communities face while implementing the DRR measures and

how they are addressing these challenges?

m) Stakeholders analysis is important to determine who are the communities development partners and

mapping out

17

4. Community organizations

Clear evaluation of community institutions, both traditional and formal committees, is critical for realization

of planned risk reduction measures. The desk review should be able to flag out the key role played by

community organization in facilitating the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of disaster

risk reduction measures. Intra-community organization needs to be undertaken through SWOT analysis (refer

to traditional and formal institutions checklist).

5. Participatory monitoring, evaluation and learning

Below are some of the key aspects to consider under the participatory monitoring: a) Did community members participate in developing DRR measures monitoring indicators?

b) Were they able to institute strict measures to ensure implementation of their strategies?

c) Whose decision counts in community DRR measures implementation (is it all inclusive)?

d) How often do community organizations provide feedback to the larger community on the

progress of activities?

e) What are some of the challenges encountered in the process of projects implementation and how

were these challenges addressed?

f) Is there evidence of value for money in the DRR measures in development and contingency

plan?

g) What percentage of development and contingency plans activities have been implemented? What

is the fate of UN implemented activities?

h) What are the good practices communities can showcase for better future planning?

i) What are some of the lessons learnt by communities through their risk reduction efforts?

18

ANNEX 2. A guide for community engagement during community visits

1.1 Community consultation process

For facilitators to be able to conduct community consultation workshops, it is important to bear in mind that

the process is not conducting a fresh PDRA but somehow trying to carry out re-planning session with the

community representatives in order to review and update the PDRA and DRR measures done earlier with

other development partners. Community engagement may involve two critical aspects, one being the focus

group discussions to quickly get background information and a broader context of the community socio-

economic dynamics. The next is to have community representatives come together and develop an elaborate

PDRA and DRR measures review and update process through a workshop sessions.

1.2 Community review and contact process

Develop a clear communication either written or verbal to the local leadership to cement relationships. The

lead partner agencies should be able to facilitate this process by communicating a very clear mission statement

to the contact communities. Local leaders can be asked to organize brief community focus group discussions

(FGDs) for the facilitators to appraise themselves with intra and inter community dynamics from the wider

community perspective. Among the key thematic areas the facilitator can concentrate on include:

a) Do the community members know and acknowledge developed plans (development and

contingency). Probe the process ownership.

b) Do communities appreciate the need for all inclusiveness process while engaging their development

process? Who participated in development and contingency plan development?

c) Did all community strata get a chance to participate (gender, age brackets-elderly, youth)?

d) Development process ownership and empowerment. Do communities appreciate their role in

development process? Was the process externally driven?

e) Who is responsible for the plans’ implementation?

f) Do the community members know the phase of developed plans’ implementation?

g) What activities were implemented and what challenges constrained implementation of the others?

h) Determine access, control and decision-making process at the community level.

i) Local governance. Who makes decisions at the community level?

j) How were the priorities in the development and contingency plans agreed? Was there consensus

across all strata?

k) Structures and institutions. How do various community institutions function in facilitating

development process within the community?

l) What is the community’s mechanism for resolving intra/inter community conflicts?

m) How do communities mobilize resources for development process?

n) How are these institutions held accountable to the community?

1.3 Community workshops representatives’ identification process For these sessions to be fruitful, community representatives for the workshop should be identified through a participatory process where all inclusiveness is the drive. Depending on the community and other issues like the livelihoods, community representatives for the consultation workshops are expected to be between 15 and 25 at most. The key issues to be taken into account while identifying community representatives for consultation workshops include:

a) Previous participation in PDRA and DRR planning process.

19

b) Geographical representation of the available villages or community units.

c) Gender representations.

d) Intra community institutions representation.

e) Community leadership.

f) Incorporate literate community members for ease of communication.

1.4 Organizing community workshops and process outputs

After the community consultation sessions, the facilitators need to be well prepared for community

workshops scheduled for 3 days. The basic considerations include:

a) Workshop venue should be ideal to accommodate the community representatives’ Vis a Vis the

available logistical arrangement. Consider the mothers who may be accompanied by young children,

give attention where necessary.

b) Arrange and avail all the necessary equipments (cameras, LCD, power cables) and stationeries.

c) Take quick stock of the communication language for effective communication, and provide

translation where necessary.

d) Consider sessions timing by consulting the participant on the starting, breaking and ending time for

the purposes of active participation. Adjust your program accordingly to suite their demand where

possible.

e) Make sessions as interactive as possible for active participation by all community representatives.

f) Orient the community members by reviewing and updating developed plans. Facilitate an enabling

environment for active participation by all.

g) Use relevant PRA tools that include among others (socio/resource maps, historical timelines,

seasonal calendar, proportional pilling).

h) Segment the sessions to start with the reviewing of the PDRA (hazard, vulnerability, and capacity

assessments) and being able to identify the most at risk groups.

i) Facilitate the community members to identify and prioritize the risk reduction measures for long

term preparedness measures (DRR plan) and mitigation measures (Contingency plan).

j) Stakeholder analysis is a critical element. Use Venn diagram 1 for intra community institutions

relationships determination. Use of Venn 2 will also enable you to establish the relationship

community and their development supporters enjoy in their areas. Synthesis the stakeholder analysis

process to enable community members appreciates the need to strengthen relationships within the

community and outside.

k) It is good to end and start sessions with recap of the deliberation for the day to enrich the process.

l) Validation of developed development and contingency plans by the larger community representatives

group should be facilitated after the whole workshop process is completed.

1.5 Documentation of proceedings and validation process

Provide documentation and review of all sessions during mobilization and workshop process for ease of

reference. Documentation should also be participatory. Involve literate community members in

documentation of the proceedings while in groups. The reporters can use their local language to capture the

proceedings for ease of communicating to the rest of the community members. Community secretary should

remain with the copy of the proceedings, developed development and contingency plans.

20

ANNEX 3. Community institution review guide

Review the role and capacity of the existing traditional/community institutions and enhance their

capacity in preparation and management of development and contingency plans.

The facilitator should take time to establish the existence and capacity of the traditional and conventional

community institutions. This can be achieved during the community interaction session (FGD) as well as

during the community representatives’ workshop.

Mapping the functional and non functional community institutions, both traditional and conventional

(council of elders, peace committees, school committees, development committees, chief council, among

others). Venn diagram can still be engaged to establish the relationship these institutions enjoy within the

community. Strong institutions and weak ones will be identified easily. SWOT analysis can easily be used to

quickly understand the dynamics in play among these institutions. The facilitator should focus on the

following areas in trying to understand these institutions among others:

a) What is the average number per institution? Composition of these committees and representation

(consider geographical representation, gender,).

b) What are their roles in the community in spearheading development, peace and co-existence,

governance?

c) What are the emerging gaps in terms of their capacities that require to be strengthened?

d) Establish their leadership styles and management of community development process. How is

transparency and accountability?

e) How are these institutions established at the community level? Interrogate community participation

in their identification and selection.

f) If these committees are elective, how often do they hold elections and what is the process?

g) Mobilization and handling of community resources. What are the roles of these committees in

community resources? Are they accountable to the community?

h) What are the available dispute settling/arbitration mechanisms?

i) How do these institutions perceive and accommodate their most at risk groups?

j) Participation in community development process

k) Relationship with local leadership

l) Do these institutions practice basic documentation and record keeping? Is the community aware on

the records available?

m) How often do these institutions conduct meetings involving the larger community?

n) What are some of the recommendations to strengthen the capacities of these institutions?

o) Finally, what is the role of this community institution in navigating communities towards creating

resilience?