Disclaimer: these are working notes taken during the field visit. They are provided here to give a sense of the conversation that took place in the field, and to put evidence in context. The notes have not been edited to be a final product. They might contain some inaccuracies and glitches. Information, findings will be further revised by checking reports, by crosschecking additional evidence and in additional exchanges with key evaluation stakeholders
SAHAYATRI and SAHAS (Oxfam Partners) and Prayash and Focus Nepal (CARE Partners) started by presenting their programs
Sahas (Care partner). It is a national NGO that worked with a main focus on food security and social mobilization. They have been working with CARE since May, on distributions, shelter, GBV, WASH… They tried to target the people most in need of assistance. For the selection of beneficiaries, they have been coordinating in the cluster meeting. And in the VDC, they participate to VDC level meeting. They have been working with local women leader, in coordination with them. They have been using government information. And they have staff in the community to have interaction with stakeholders, in particular on women issues.
Soahayatri Nepal is a woman organization working on women and GBW. After the quake they gave support to pregnant and lactating women. They established female friendly spaces where to support these women. There were gender based violence in the community. So they focused on counselling and reproductive health. In partnership with CARE Nepal they advocate the DDRC to give priority to women in need. Immediately after the earthquake they gave support to the victims, especially these injured, and provided food for one month. IN partnership with CARE Nepal we did 16 days of activism. 50 women carried one different programmes in the VDCs. They disseminated messages. They also worked in CWF to decrease discrimination of the women and increasing their participation in the community for “equal wages for equal work”. They have been working for the improvement of the livelihood of women and jointly work on health and sanitation. They also di GBV case management and providing safe houses and legal support for such cases. The support women until they get legal justice.
Prayash had been working here for 14 years. They are a partner of Oxfam. They share a video with us about their cask for work and one about cash distribution (As shared from local television). They they highlight the process: consultation meetings at the VDC level. Based on that beneficiaries are selected. Groups for CFW have been formed, and project chosen based on the community proposals. Tools are provided to the team to work, as needed. Team supervisor receive a certificate and t-shirt (in the pic they are mostly men!) They also engaged in cash distribution. They also show their media coverage in the video.
Action Nepal: they are also a Oxfam partner. It was established in the 80s with expertise on livelihoods and wash. Their goal is to improve food security. The focus activities have been CFW – where people “participate” in schemes to improve infrastructure. Petty traders support. The beneficiaries have been selected based on some set criterias, some of which are shown in the presentation. Beneficiaries are divided in groups of around 20 people. Some people also receive compassionate grant (single women, lactating women, old people, pregnant women). The petty trader is for the people affected by quake in need to restart their business. Some criteria are shown in the presentation. On livestock support: lot of livestock was lost in the quake, and they have criteria to give it back to some needy people.
Higlights of the presentation include: CFW scheme “gender inclusion is 83%”. They have complaint and feedback mechanisms. They have a log and a hotline number. Outputs and achievements are also shown in the presentation.
Did the partners knew before? They never meet together all together. But they meet amongst partners of the same organization. Care partner discussed on how to reduce duplication. The two partner have different expertise. (gender and livelihood). When Soahayatri partner conducted GBV training they participated in it. In the training they presented the 4 messages of GVB. The mobilizers are now better aware of GBV and better capable to share the messages.
Soahayatri got some technical support on the selection of agricultural seeds and how to use thm.
Oxfam partner: they have been working for criteria development. They have been sitting together to discuss for beneficiary selection. They have been trained together in advocacy training. They also conducted the 16 days campaign of GBV. They run also activities for gender based violence.
Both parners worked on the 16 days campaign. Did they coordinate at all together? In one of the VDCs were they were both active. In the programme there was some coordination with Oxfam. At the protection cluster they coordinated, but not across organizations. This is a lesson learning for the future, says the programme manager. The district manager of Oxfam mention that they have some lesson learning meeting with partners. CARE also has some review meeting.
Which partner had emergency experience?
Sahas had experience of disaster response in flood and landslide. Other partners did not have much experience.
What is it that you wish you had known before?
- We did not have a separate / unity or department. And we should have a small budget to mobilize the community.
- We did not have sufficient equipment to do the immediate response. Only few people had stretchers. Here only 2 ambulances was available.
- We felt the need for rescue team with equipment
- We also should have had a roster.
- We had no emergency fund for the organization.
- Cash for work and other support we are thinking to do could have happened at the same time. So for example, the trader support could have happened before. Because these two support are exclusive of each other we should have given people the choice
- People had contributed their own money for first response.
- We learnt that it was easier to work in communities were we have been working before
- To work in new communities it is useful to mobilize youth. In relief work many youth had contributed a lot: they are connected abroad to friend and relatives. And they helped a lot, for example in distribution (e.g. helping to pack, take the good safely).
- Importance to coordinate with the DDRC. Without consensus from the local community implementation is hard. There are some players in the community to have support from. Political leaders, VDC secretary, WCF people.
- The WCF was not always much active, sometimes it was a formal body. It become more active after the earthquake.
- Data was not accurate and the WCF was trying to influence us with their relatives, connection…
- Oxfam conducted a training to WCF coordinator and other stakeholders (e.g. peace building committee, political parties leaders). The training helped us to get consensus. Consensus was created on how to select the projects and work together, and helped for the long term planning. And the WMC was then created to monitor the project.
- Soahayatri have a difference experience on Coordination. During the emergency, women children and old people had lot of vulnerability, but DDRC would not know how to prioritiz Even if there were distribution it was not ensured that the vulnerable people would get the material. There was only a woman representative in the DDRC meeting. And other than that insignificant representation. When they were carrying meeting at VDC level there was no single representative. Now this is the same
Data: you mentioned that it is not reliable. Is the situation improved? What did you do to improve the situation?
- Oxfam partners had a cross verification. And did not rely on data from govt without verifying it.
- On CFW HH owners who were registered were mostly male in the south.
- We give the data to the VDC secretary with the data of the beneficiaries that we collected after the verification in our own site. We give it in printed format. In the VDC there is no use of electronic material. We do not know if they are using it or not.
- To collect the real beneficiary selection we used primary data by the VDC. They got a e-version of the database to the VDC. Then out of that we checked and we gave back the file with the correction.
- When we gave the list to the VDC there were some duplicated HH.