Effectiveness Review: Community-based Disaster Risk Management and Livelihoods Programme, Pakistan

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 12 | Pages: 2

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Related documents
Pakistan’s Community-based Disaster Risk Management and Livelihoods Programme sought to reduce loss of life, and asset and promote livelihood resilience in times of extreme natural disasters such as flooding. These full and summary reports document the findings of a quasi-experimental impact evaluation carried out in December 2011 on the work carried out under this programme by two of Oxfam’s partner organisations in Muzaffargarh and Rajanpur districts of Pakistan’s Punjab Province.
  Pakistan’s Community-based Disaster Risk Management and Livelihoods Programme was randomly selected for an Effectiveness Review under the adaptation and risk reduction (ARR) thematic area. The review focused on the work carried out by two of Oxfam’s partner organisations  – the Doaba Foundation and the Help Foundation – in Muzaffargarh and Rajanpur districts of Pakistan’s Punjab Province. Over 21,700 people residing in 60 villages in these two districts are being reached through the programme. These people are exceptionally vulnerable to extreme ooding events, given that they reside directly on the oodplains of the Indus and Chenab rivers. And the overall aim of the programme is to reduce their vulnerability, particularly by reducing loss of life and assets and promoting livelihood resilience in times of extreme ooding. The project’s main interventions targeted at the grassroots level include: Community-based Disaster Risk Management: Pakistan 2011/12 EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW SAMPLE 2011/12: BANGLADESH   BOLIVIA COLOMBIA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ENGLAND ETHIOPIA GEORGIA GUATEMALA HAITI HONDURAS INDONESIA KENYA LIBERIA MALI NICARAGUA NIGER PALESTINE PAKISTAN PHILIPPINES SOMALIA SOUTH AFRICA UGANDA PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS REVIEWS ‘enhancing effectiveness through evidence-based learning’   ã Disaster risk reduction training (including rst aid and search and rescue) and village disaster management planning. ã Construction of raised emergency shelters, culverts, water harvesting ponds, and “ood friendly” pit latrines. ã Livelihood, agriculture, and animal husbandry training. ã Distribution of goats and hand pumps to exceptionally vulnerable households.   Source OCHA  Figure 1: Location of Sites for Effectiveness Review in Punjab  Evaluation Method To assess the effectiveness of the programme on reducing risk and promoting adaptive capacity, a quasi-experimental impact evaluation design was implemented. This involved administering surveys to representative samples of 341 households residing in 57 villages targeted by the programme and 400 other households residing in 63 similar villages in adjacent areas that were not. Propensity score matching and multivariable regression were subsequently used in the statistical analysis of the data to reduce bias in the comparisons made between the two groups. Two key areas of interest were investigated through this process: the extent the supported and unsupported households a) possess characteristics that are assumed important for successfully coping with and recovering from extreme ooding events, as well as adapting to emerging climatic trends and uncertainty; and b) were affected by the extreme oods that hit Pakistan in July to September 2010. The Oxfam Pakistan team has already shared and discussed the results with the two implementing partners. There are also plans to share the ndings and lessons with other stakeholders throughout Pakistan, including the National Disaster Risk Reduction Forum. Efforts will further be undertaken, under the direction of Oxfam’s Global Research Team, to carry out in-depth qualitative research to unpack the key factors that made the programme such a success. While the ndings of the effectiveness review are very positive overall, efforts will, nevertheless, be made to strengthen future disaster risk reduction programming by directing more attention to climate change adaptation and livelihood  A number of large and positive differences were identied between the intervention and comparison households. Overall, the intervention households scored more positively on most of the ‘resilience’ characteristics. There is also strong evidence that they experienced less asset loss during the 2010 oods. One particularly noteworthy nding is that the supported households were actually poorer in terms of asset ownership before the programme began but were found to be better off at the time of the assessment exercise. The respondents from the supported villages were also found to be more aware of their villages’ disaster management plans and had participated more in disaster preparedness meetings. There is no indication, however, that the programme positively affected livelihood diversication and motivation among the supported households to pursue alternative livelihood strategies. Nevertheless, there is very strong evidence that the programme generated positive changes in terms of reducing ood-related risk. Full versions of this report are available on Oxfam’s Policy and Practice website : http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/For more information, please contact Oxfam’s Programme Performance and Accountability Team  - ppat@oxfam.org.uk Rating key : - Evidence supporting large impact; - Evidence supporting more modest impact; - Evidence of large impact, but only for specic sub-groups/measures; -  Evidence of modest impact, but only for specic sub-groups/measures; - No evidence of impact ResultsGoing forward   OutcomeRatingCommentary Outcome 1 – OGB global  ARR outcome indicator Strong evidence that the programme affected the majority of the ‘resilience’ characteristics in all four dimensions assessed.Outcome 2 – Increased advanced warning before onset of extreme ooding Households in the intervention villages received, on average, about two days of advance warning, against an average of one day for households in the comparison sites.Outcome 3 – Reduced loss of assets in times of extreme ooding Households in the intervention villages reported losing less livestock, grain, and equipment/tools than households in the comparison villages.Outcome 4 –Ability to meet household needs in times of extreme ooding Intervention households were poorer in 2008 than the comparison households but are now relatively richer and reported being in a better position to meet basic needs. Photo credit: Caroline Gluck/Oxfam
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks