Building Resilience to Tsunamis in the Indian Ocean Final Evaluation Mission August - September 2009 Summary of findings and recommendations "The views expressed herein are those of the experts and therefore not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission".

Evaluation Dates Briefing21 August Fieldwork: August Maldives, India Sri Lanka, Indonesia De-briefing2 September Draft report4 September Final report30 September (as planned)

Methodology Evaluation Criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability of the Project in building resilience to disasters Achievement Indicators: from the logical framework for the overall Project Information Sources: background documents, progress reports from the ISDR and partners, supporting data from the ISDR and partners, interviews, field visits +Positive, participatory approach to identify lessons learned

Itinerary Outline DateTeam Leader Maldives and India Team Member Sri Lanka and Indonesia Saturday 22 nd TravelBangkok Sunday 23 rd Maldives, MaléTravel Monday 24 th TravelColombo Tuesday 25 th New DelhiHambantota Wednesday 26 th New Delhi, TravelTravel, Jakarta Thursday 27 th Orissa, PuriJakarta Friday 28 th Orissa KendraparaPadang Saturday 29 th Return to Bangkok

Summary of Main Findings 1 ‘Building Resilience to Tsunamis in the Indian Ocean’ should be considered a success as a programme of activities in support of the HFA priorities. The Project has helped fill gaps in knowledge related to tsunamis and other natural disasters, and in the national and local programmes for building resilience to disasters.

Summary of Main Findings 2 Levels of awareness of the importance of disaster risk reduction (DRR) have been raised. Practical lessons have been learned that should be shared as widely as possible within the region, and particularly in coastal zones. Some examples, subject to verification, are:

Summary of Main Findings 3 −Setting up a National Platform in Indonesia. −Sarvodaya’s community activities in Hambantota and Nuwara- Eliya districts, Sri Lanka. −The training materials and training courses developed by UNEP and the Coastal Conservation Department (CCD) in Sri Lanka −The urban community level activities by Kogami in Padang, Indonesia. −The ‘bio-shields’ and links with livelihood activities developed on the Shaviyani Atoll in the Maldives, and in Tamil Nadu. −Systems and procedures set up by OSDMA in Orissa, including their competition for the best community-level disaster management plan and their ISO 9000 audit of their own systems and procedures.

Summary of Main Findings 4 Activities have been closely related to the HFA objectives adopted by national organisations, and should therefore be considered sustainable with good prospects for replication and scaling up. The impact of the programme could have been greater if it had been designed as a more focused project based on the principles of the logical framework approach.

Recommendations The report includes recommendations to consolidate and systematically document the Project’s outstanding achievements and to take follow-up actions to replicate the most valuable activities that the Project has supported:

Recommendations 1 The ISDR Project managers should plan an exercise to be held during the stakeholders’ meeting in September to identify and list the Project’s most valuable and effective activities, experiences and practices, including specific sites where these activities, experiences and practices have taken place and specific individual officers who have been involved.

Recommendations 2 Based on the list, a clear plan should be drawn up to have the concerned government organisations from each country understand these cases, and to advise them on how they may be replicated and scaled up.

Recommendations 3 ISDR is recommended to undertake an analysis of the remaining gaps and weaknesses in disaster preparedness in the target countries. Based on this analysis the ISDR should assist in preparing proposals to national governments and international donors, based on the practices, experiences and activities identified within this Project.

Recommendations 4 The ISDR is recommended to work on further refining the HFA-based indicators used to assess DRR capacity in a practical, operational manner, particularly at the community level. ISDR is recommended to explore ways by which they might work with the Tsunami Trust Fund to build on and replicate the Project’s achievements.

Recommendations 5 Senior officers from the EC and ISDR are recommended to engage in direct discussions on the nature of the future partnership between their respective institutions, based on the experiences of this Project.

Recommendations 6 The EC Delegations are recommended to take a more active role in the technical preparation, monitoring and on-going evaluation of projects under their responsibility, including occasional site visits, to ensure that project design principles are followed correctly, that they reflect a distinctive EU orientation and content, and committed funds are used to the greatest effect.

Recommendations 7 The EC is recommended to adopt a more nuanced approach in its visibility guidelines, particularly at the level of the local communities. More attention should be given to developing and maintaining distinctly EU themes and orientations to the substance of projects. As possible examples:

Recommendations 8 −a strong emphasis on logical framework analysis and M&E principles and methods; −support for civil society organisations involved in disaster risk reduction activities; −mainstreaming DRR concerns within the health and education sectors, with which the EC is closely associated; −support for governance issues as they apply with respect to DRR; −the linkages between DRR and action on climate change

Recommendations 9 In its future activities within the disaster risk reduction (DRR) field the EC should promote a multi-hazard approach instead of being tsunami-specific. The EC is recommended to systematically incorporate DRR activities within its general development interventions to promote disaster resilient livelihoods, poverty reduction, economic growth and public infrastructure development. The EC is recommended to require that partners should follow transparent processes and document the rationale for partner invitation and selection. DIPECHO procedures may serve as a model.

Final Report 1. Introduction and background to the mission 2. Overview of the Project 3. Methods used in the evaluation 4. Main Findings Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Impact Sustainability 5. Cross cutting issues 6. Conclusions and recommendations Draft submitted 4th September, final planned by 30th September