Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Introduction - Statement about Mid-term review ............................................................................... 6

2.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Purpose of the Assignment .......................................................................................................... 6

2.3. Specific Objectives of Assignment ................................................................................................ 6

2.4. Research Methodology................................................................................................................. 6

2.4.1. Approaches ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.4.2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.5. Limitations to the MTR ............................................................................................................... 11

2.6. Structure of the report ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. Project Description and Background .................................................................................................. 12

3.1. The Context ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2. Project Beneficiaries ................................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Project Specific Objectives ......................................................................................................... 13

3.4. Project Expected Outputs ........................................................................................................... 13

3.5. Anticipated Coverage ................................................................................................................. 14

3.6. Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 14

3.7. Project Thematic Areas / Focus .................................................................................................. 14

3.7.1. DRR ...................................................................................................................................... 14

3.7.2. Livelihood ............................................................................................................................ 14

3.7.3. Food Security ....................................................................................................................... 15

3.8. Project Implementation Arrangements ..................................................................................... 15

4. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 16

4.1. Project Strategic Arrangements ................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1. Project Design / CBDRM Model ........................................................................................... 16

4.1.2. Project Agreements both with WFP and SDC ...................................................................... 16

4.2. Progress Review – Planned vs Achieved..................................................................................... 16

4.2.1. Participants .......................................................................................................................... 16

4.2.2. Cash Disbursement – Socio-Economic Impacts ................................................................... 16

4.2.3. Capacity Building – (Livelihood + DRR) Soft component ..................................................... 17

4.2.4. Community Infrastructure – (Structural) Hard Component ................................................ 18

4.3. Project Implementation and Adoptive Management ................................................................ 18

4.3.1. Management Arrangements ............................................................................................... 18

4.3.2. Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 18

4.3.3. Coordination with I/NGOs and Networking ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3.4. Baseline................................................................................................................................ 19

4.3.5. Community Mobilization Strategy ....................................................................................... 21

4.3.6. HUJRA Internal Monitoring.................................................................................................. 22

4.3.7. Third Party Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 23

4.3.8. Team – capacity and training .............................................................................................. 23

4.3.9. Financial plan – budget allocation VS expenditure ............................................................. 23

4.4. Sustainability .............................................................................................................................. 23

4.5. Internal Review Workshop ......................................................................................................... 24

4.6. External Review Workshop–Suggestions ................................................................................... 24

4.7. Field Visits ................................................................................................................................... 25

4.7.1. Focus Group Discussions & IDIs (interviews) .............................................................................. 26

5. Issues – Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 27

6. Good Practices – Lessons Learnt – Success stories ............................................................................ 28

7. Case Study .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Trust and Hope ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Women inclusion and participation ....................................................................................................... 29

CPI Tool-Kit and Superstitions ................................................................................................................ 29

Livelihood ............................................................................................................................................... 30

8. Conclusion and recommendations ..................................................................................................... 31

9. Annexure ............................................................................................................................................ 32

Acronyms and Abbreviations

FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

WFP World Food Programme

TWG Technical Working Group

FLA Field Level Agreement

FDMA FATA Disaster Management Authority

CBDRM Community Based Disaster Risk Management

VDMC Village Disaster Management Committee

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HUJRA Holistic Understanding for Justified Research and Action

IWM Integrated Watershed Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

MTR Mid Term Review

IDI In-depth Interviews

CFT Cash for Training

CPI Community Physical Infrastructure

DR

DG Director General

PMU Project Management Unit

DOP Directorate of Projects

CBO Community Based Organization

CO Community Organization

CFA Cash for Assets

MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning

RCC Reinforced Cement Concreted

PCC Plain Cement Concrete

1. Executive Summary

Mid-term review is one of the key milestones of the project designed to address livelihood needs

intended to support family incomes for nutrition and mitigation of disaster risks via direct trainings

and capacity building through provision of equipment for creating resilient communities alongside

structural constructions of physical infrastructure to avoid losses caused by natural disasters in

Bajaur and Mohmand areas of FATA.

The project is designed after a successful model implemented in Chail Valley of Kalam-Swat area

under the funding of SDC. It has been replicated to cover a large area and disaster affected

population of FATA. The project is being implemented under a unique model of direct intervention

of SDC-WFP through its implementing partner HUJRA to be monitored by a third party and advised

by a technical working group (TWG) of some 07 government departments of FATA.

This unique model of CBDRM has been reviewed during this review exercise at a half way of its

implementation. The review process was initiated with an extensive review of available literature

which included the contracts (FLAs), baseline survey for selection of villages, annual report,

implementation plan of the project and other available documents. The literature review was also

seconded from available documents of Chail Valley project, the project manual and other supporting

documents both online and offline.

The literature review process provided a way-forward for designing tools to verify different aspects

of planning, progress, transparency, challenges, and achievements of the project. Almost every

aspect of the project was clearly understood by the review team and then discussed it with field

teams, beneficiaries and stakeholders. Extensive field visits to both Mohmand and Bajaur to review

on-ground progress in selected Tehsils were made by review team and lengthy discussions were

made with beneficiaries and project teams.

The internal and external review process was carried out with project team, government

departments and higher authorities of both FDMA and the Directorate of Projects (FATA) were held

in Peshawar. This exercise was organized in a participatory manner within clearly demarcated

sessions for each important portion of the project. Each session included open discussion, group

works, presentations and questions / answers. Women team members participated in both the

internal and external review process, however, for ensuring a version of female beneficiaries, some

24 interviews and 02 focus group discussions were conducted in both Bajaur and Mohmand target

areas.

Notes were recorded from all the exercises, audio recording was made of all the sessions, pictures of

schemes, field discussions and other important events were shot, on the basis of which, this report

has been developed.

The research process provided a detailed picture of the whole intervention as planned and what

have been achieved. The project has been successful its main objectives by developing resilience

among target people through hard-core structures development and extensive training, sensitization

and mobilization to keep safe during disasters. The project as the same time injected cash through

different activities which not only fueled the local economy but also led to food security among the

poor and marginalized groups of society. The research team found some missing measures as per

planned project, which are recommended for future course of action.

Project Strategy

The CBDRM model was a tested model of Chaill Valley. FGDs, Review Workshops and KIIs revealed the project

adopted strategy is very much instrumental in achieving the results (89% FGDs & KIIs agreed).

Progress VS Outputs

Formation of Disaster Risk Management Committees : Satisfactory

VDMCs formed in all the intervention villages 80% villages. However, the process and structure could

have room for improvement through series of standard dialogues in the process, capacity building

measures and inclusive approaches.

Hazard Risk Assessment in the Selected Villages: Moderately Satisfactory

The survey report on village ranking on the basis of exposer to risk was available. The VDMPs was

developed in 60 villages1.

Cash Based Activities/Conditional Cash Assistance: Highly Satisfactory

The total target for the year was 15,000 participants and the project achieved participants till

December 31, 2016 was 17,527 participants where the project has 2,527 participants overly achieved.

Capacity building of committees: Moderately Satisfactory

The VDMCs in the intervention villages were trained on DRR. A need for full pledged CBDRM,

leadership management and document is observed.

Project Implementation and adaptive management

Management Arrangements: Satisfactory

The project teams are according to the project documents.

Baseline Survey: Moderately Satisfactory

The baseline survey has been conducted. However, the villages ranking on the basis of exposer to risk

and generic criteria could be some questions of concerns in it.

Community Mobilization: Satisfactory

VDMCs formed in the intervention villages but needs proper capacity building programs for the

VDMCs.

Coordination: Highly Satisfactory

The project has well-coordinated structure of Technical Working Groups nominated by Political

Administration. Inter and intra project coordination is very effective.

Monitoring: Satisfactory

Tow field monitors regularly report to independent MEAL unit at head office of HUJRA.

Budget VS Expenditure: Moderately Satisfactory

The spending of direct cost is 33.31% which shall be at least 49.97% at this stage of the project.

Sustainability

Exit Strategy: Satisfactory

The project has a plan in place where activities are linked with the relevant departments. The VDMCs

needs to stand on its feet beyond the project tenure.

1 Detailed Implementation Plan

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

2. Introduction - Statement about Mid-term review

2.1. Overview

The project titled as ‘Livelihoods and Disaster Risk Reduction Initiatives for Strengthening the

Resilience of Disaster-affected Communities of Bajaur and Mohmand Agencies, FATA’ is a two years

long intervention. As part of the project plan, the midterm review is intended to inform the project

stakeholders on the status of the project and essential adjustments.

The Midterm review is planned to take place from 17th April, 2017 till 28th April, 2017. This report

outlines the entire midterm review. The key focus of the MTR was the emphasis on the analysis of

qualitative data on key aspects of the project where the feedback and consultation was sought from

the project beneficiaries, Government Authorities and project staff to observe the on-ground

situation, project process in practice, field challenges, opinions and benefits to the community.

2.2. Purpose of the Assignment

Overall goal of the Midterm Review is to assess the project status, indicate gaps and recommend the

corrective course of actions.

2.3. Specific Objectives of Assignment

To review the current status of the project and project implementation, and determine the

project activities are aligned with expected goals with proper adoption of CBDRM and IWM

models.

To identify loopholes, gaps and constraints in implementation and suggest improvements

required.

To determine the coordination mechanism established for project is actively working and

providing required support to the project. Suggest improvement measures required for the

project coordination. What is the level of stakeholders’ involvement and participation?

Assess Internal and external monitoring systems are working, providing timely feedback and

suggestions for improvement.

To record lessons learnt, best practices and suggest way forward for quality implementation

2.4. Research Methodology

The MTR certainly includes a number of literature reviews, but meeting with the people and seeing

what/how is happening, is more important. A certain number of field visits paid at selected sites. The

number and distance of the sites visited are often determined by the time and the budget allocated

to MTR.

The MTR consultants visited the office from which the project is managed, both the head office and

the field office(s). It should also visit the actual sites of implementation and meet directly with

beneficiaries of the project.

2.4.1. Approaches

The following approaches provide the guiding principles for the MTR; ‘the untold story of the field’

[discussed in detailed in the relevant portion], inter-disciplinary experience and exposure of IPs. The

level of beneficiaries’ satisfaction determines the quality of work done.

The whole Mid-Term Review (MTR) is processed on the basis of methodology – designed before and

developed during the process of review.

The enquiry for the report is ethnographic where the data in hand cross-checked by visiting the field

and understanding the context through interaction, witnessing the assets and personal observations.

The case studies in the report is based on the case-study model of Lincoln and Guba’s 1985 where

the four components of the study is pursued including; the problem, the context the issues and the

‘lessons learned’. For the aforementioned case study enquiry sources including; interviews,

observations, documentations and other audio sources are consulted.

2.4.2. Methodology

Literature Review

All the relevant documents have been reviewed including; Baseline, Implementation Plan, Project

Agreements (FLA) both with WFP and SDC, Revised Villages list, Mobilization, Coordination,

Approach to DRR, Infrastructure both livelihood and DRR, Chail Valley project reports, Monitoring

Mechanism, Financial plan, Team – capacity and training, Work plan etc.

FGDs & IDIs

Briefing and debriefing conducted through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and In-depth Interviews

(IDIs).

[With male Implementing Team four FGDs in Mohmand [Ghalanai, 2 in Baran Khel tehsil Pindiali,

Darawo tehsil Ambar], four in Bajaur [khar, Ziarat Koroona, Dairakai, Mathorr tehsil Salazai]; Female:

2 FGDs and twelve interviews – each in Mohmand and Bajaur]

The FGDs and IDIs – designed on the basis of implementation plan and FLA – were intended to

assess overall understanding of ‘project implementation team’ along with the obstacles, constraints

faced by; actions and measures taken by them during implementation. The MTR included the

feelings and emotions of the project implementation team during implementation and interaction

with locals. The immediate or instinctive measures – often – taken by the project team are basis on

level of involvement/engagement of their conscious and subconscious in the project.

The fact-findings process also devised to gauge the level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries. As

mentioned above that the level of beneficiaries’ satisfaction determines the quality of work done so

far. For this purpose the beneficiaries have been engaged in discussions and informal interaction

with individual.

The Questionnaire was intended to assess level of awareness, mobilization and engagement among

female beneficiaries. The IDIs & FGDs with female beneficiaries to bring forth their understanding of

the project they are part of. Besides, it was designed to grasp the relevance of different activities

under the project in hand.

In the questionnaire was classified into four broader portions including, Awareness, Mobilization,

Engagement [implementation] – [DRR (Disaster Risk Reduction) & Livelihood] and Monitoring.

In the awareness portion, questions were asked about HUJRA and the project to measure the level

of understanding of the beneficiaries of the project. While about four questions were specifically

asked about the project team and their interaction with them – that what were their fears and

feelings of prospects after interacting with project team. These questions were asked to gage the

level and pattern of mobilization in the local context by the HUJRA project team. The engagement

and implementation portion was divided into two parts i.e. DRR and Livelihood. In this part

questions were asked about all the schemes, activities, trainings, tool kits and their relevance in the

local context. The quality schemes and efficiency of the project team have been discussed. In the

next portion of the questionnaire monitoring system has brought under discussion. The beneficiaries

have been interviewed that who came to them – how frequent – other than the project team during

their engagement in various activities under the project.

Site Visits

These visits include the witnessing the quality of structural activities and the relevance of the non-

structural engagements. Besides visiting sites of the work ‘informal interactions’ with community

have also been done to investigate the relevance of the work and to have critical view regarding the

whole process including, village selection, approaching, community mobilization and community

engagement.

Mohmand

After FGD in HUJRA office in Ghalanai, Mohmand various schemes and were visited in the Pindialai

and Anbar tehsils. During the visit to different schemes the consultants met with beneficiaries and

other locals of the areas. FGDs and IDIs had been conducted with the beneficiaries and other locals

regarding the activities under the project. Both benefits and relevance of the project had been

discussed. Every segment and activity of the project had been brought forth for discussion to

examine the utility and relevance in the local context.

Bajaur

All most the same process had been repeated for Bajaur as done in Mohmand, where one FGD in

HUJRA office in Khar, Bajaur has conducted the project team. Various schemes were visited by the

consultants in Salarzai tehsil. The beneficiaries and other locals have been approached to discuss the

activities under the project. The pattern of the interaction with beneficiaries and the locals remained

FGDs and IDIs. The rationale behind interviewing people other than beneficiaries was to get the

‘third-angle’ of the project.

Review Sessions / Workshops

There is a concept in research which says that the untold story of the interactions of implementation

team and beneficiaries from the field is equally important as the documentation and other records

during implementing the project. Besides, the feeling and emotions of the implementation team

during implementing the project considered to be a value addition in the review process. The

aforementioned principle leads us to give equal value to experience and exposure of the team in in

the field, in the review. Therefore, in the internal review [two days] conducted – consisted of three

segments each. The three activities in the first day were; discussions, group work and presentations,

with the project implementation team.

Besides, expert opinion and administrative prospects and limitations, the IPs have inter-disciplinary

experience and exposure had been considered valuable to be included in the process. In this respect,

in the second day all the other implementing partners (IPs) along with the implementing team the

same process had repeated.

Internal Review Workshop with Project Staff, TWG (Line Departments), HUJRA and

Donor Agency

Internal review brought together both project implementation teams in the field and project

management in the head office where they discussed progress, issues, challenges. They were also

asked to identify room for improvement.

Themes of the sessions have been designed prior the sessions. Guiding documents were project

document; FLA, Implementation plan, agreements with donors, baseline survey, annual report.

The sessions were classified into three segments including open discussion; group work and

presentations after the groups.

The discussions intended to create debate regarding all the aspects of the project in detail where

field team brought forth the issues and challenges while the management in the head office

responded. Along with all kinds of sensitivities, the inter-regional [area to area & village to village]

dynamics came under discussion to address the issues.

Participants

In the first day the project implementing team along with HUJRA management, in the head office,

participated in the discussion. Both the teams of Bajaur and Mohmand were present in the session.

While in the second day of the consultative meetings all the government officials were invited to

discuss the project in hands. They together with project team and project management enlightened

the consultants about the activities under the project.

No of Participants

(Mohmand Team)

No of Participants

(Bajaur Team)

HUJRA

Management

WF/SDC TWG

Members

Total

11 11 5 3 20 50

Venue

The two days sessions were conducted in Royal Palace Guest house, University Town Peshawar. The

rationale behind conducting the consultative sessions in a neutral place was to get un-influenced

version of the project understanding of the team.

Process of Review

Two sessions were conducted in the first day with theme as; session one “Selection of Villages and

Beneficiaries”, session two “Implementation Methodology”, session three “Capacity Building”. Main

discussion points for the first day sessions were; indicators for baseline, villages list, beneficiaries’

selection, process and designed specifications for community mobilization, structural and non-

structural activities, manuals for trainings, relevance of trainers, and impact of trainings.

There were two themes on the second day i.e. “Community Physical Infrastructure development

under DRR Component” and “Livelihood Trainings and Activities”. While the main points of

discussion were; CPI, Skilled & Unskilled Labor Assessment, CFT Assessment, DRR Schemes

Identification, Feasibilities, BOQs/Design, Implemented Schemes, Natural resources & watershed

management, tool kits for DR, CPI for CFW activities, livelihood activities, orchards trainings and

implementation, forestry land use planning.

External Review Workshop with Key Stakeholders, HUJRA and Donor Agency

Management

In the third day of the consultative meeting all the stake holders along with project team,

management and beneficiaries were brought together share views regarding the project. The donors

discussed their vision of the project, while the rest of the implementing partners mentioned their

understanding of the project. The rationale for each activity was brought forth by the HUJRA

management & leadership in session.

Two presentations took place; one – by the HUJRA management to mentioned project ‘design’ and

highlight the so far progress in the designed program under the project; two – by the consultants to

enlighten the participants by share their understanding of the project and activities under it.

Speakers:

Mr. Muhammad Salim HUJRA – Opening Remarks

ABD Forest Officer Mohmand

Mr. Imran Agriculture Officer Bajaur

Mr. Salman Ahmad Representative of SDC

Mr. Khalid Rasool WFP

ABCD DG – FDMA

Mr. Naimatullah WFP – Closing Remarks

Event was hosted by Dr. Ashraf Ali (Executive Director Zcomms) and a seasoned journalist.

Case studies

Beneficiaries were invited to share their understanding of the activities. They also shared specific

benefits and overall advantage of the project.

No of Persons in Audience Total Number of Speakers Media Persons Total

45 10 5 60

Literature Review – Desk Review

i. Baseline Survey Report

ii. Project Agreements (FLA) both with WFP and SDC

iii. Community Mobilization Strategy

iv. Monthly Reports

v. Field Record

vi. Project Annual Report

vii. Detail Implementation Plan

viii. Burn-rate Variance Analysis

2.5. Limitations to the MTR

As a small scale MTR, smaller sample for the FGDs and IDIs were used. In Addition, review

workshops were conducted to grasp the project status, feedback, recommendations, opinions,

practices, gaps and qualitative / quantitative progress towards set targets and outputs. The target

areas covered in the MTR were the same target areas of the project i.e., Bajaur and Mohmand.

Reaching out to women beneficiaries was a limitation during field research. The consultant team had

to rely on sending questionnaires for filling out at homes by the project female staff. Due to local

norms and traditions, recording of voices and meeting with women was possible in neither Bajaur

nor Mohmand.

Chapter 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND CONTEXT

3. Project Description and Background

3.1. The Context

Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) has faced a wave of extremist militancy during last one

and a half decade where the writ of state was challenged by miscreants of different militant

organizations. A number of military operations were launched to clear the area of these militants

and restore peace and stability. Hundreds of thousands of people from FATA were displaced from

their homes and took refuge in the down-districts and towns in temporary camps or with some

hosting families.

Different research and media reports reveal that FATA has been one of the most under-developed

areas of Pakistan with low indicators of human development. Literacy rate is low, health indicators

are poor, communication infrastructure is weak and outdated, local economy does not provide

enough opportunities to employ its youth and women are living in even worse condition. This

situation created desperation among local people, capitalizing on which, the militants and other

anti-state elements turn FATA into a breeding ground for their terrorist activities.

The man-made disasters are not the only threats, there is a history of natural disasters in FATA as

well. Earthquakes, flash/ riverine floods, avalanches, extensive rains and other associated disasters

have been a regular feature to endanger the lives of local people. Vulnerability dynamics in Bajaur

and Mohmand are mountainous topography, poorly constructed mud and stone houses, poor socio

economic conditions and lack of capacities at local and institutional level. No early warning system is

in place in either Bajaur or Mohmand neither at community nor at institutional level2.

To cater the basics and challenging needs of individuals under the given fragile and complex

situation and the successful completion of the PRRO-200867 by December 2015, WFP in

collaboration with SDC launched a new project titled as “Livelihoods and Disaster Risk Reduction

Initiatives for Strengthening the Resilience of Disaster-affected Communities of BAJAUR and

Mohmand Agencies, FATA” while adapting the modalities to the specific local context of the target

agencies. The project focused on mainstreaming the DRR component in the livelihoods support

interventions under the WFP’s new three year operations (PRRO 2016-2017) which began in January

2016. The project is currently being implemented and is expected to last until 2018. All project

activities are implemented in close partnership with FATA PMU, through WFP’s cooperating partner

HUJRA. This cash-based livelihood support project with an integrated DRR component also benefits

from the technical support from SDC and the Government’s line departments. Under this program,

activities have been designed to protect the local population and their productive assets from

impending disasters.

2 Project Baseline Survey Report (Bajaur and Mohmand Agency – 2015)

3.2. Project Beneficiaries

The project has adopted a pragmatic approach to benefit the direct and indirect beneficiaries. The

project direct beneficiaries include the participants in the structural and non-structural schemes

while indirectly benefits the inhabitants of the target villages particularly and general public

generally. The project has taken on a tested process for the identification and selection of

participants. There is an approved criterion for the identification and selection of activities

participants. The target community is involved in to scrutinize and certify the beneficiaries as per

criteria. The documentation reveals the process of beneficiaries’ identification and registration as

per agreed targeting criteria in the target areas of intervention. HUJRA developed beneficiary

engagement plans based on the scope of work identified in each selected village. Cash assistance to

beneficiaries is being provided through a cash-based transfers (CBT) program in collaboration with a

financial service provider. WFP’s support mainly targets the extremely vulnerable and unskilled

community members while SDC provides cash assistance for skilled participants engaged in

structural and non-structural activities3.

Communities are particularly encouraged to contribute in the form of providing local materials such

as stones, sand etc., the local knowledge & expertise and get involved in the operation and

management (O&M) of the constructed schemes. Project participants are generally engaged in three

rounds of implementation (15 days of work in each round) and are entitled to receive PKR 6,000 per

round. On an average, each participant received a conditional cash assistance of PKR 18,000 in

addition to other material and capacity building support provided by SDC. The communities were

found engaged in awareness raising through cash for training with main focus on enhancing their

understanding about disasters and various coping mechanisms. The communities also got skill-based

trainings for income generation purposes (especially women)4.

3.3. Project Specific Objectives

To address short term and long term food insecurity of the extremely vulnerable communities in

the selected geographical locations through cash based livelihoods interventions.

To mitigate the impacts of disasters in the areas highly prone to natural disasters by better

preparedness and resilience building through structural and non-structural measures5.

3.4. Project Expected Outputs

The project documents6 revealed the following expected outputs:

Formation of Disaster Risk Reduction/Management Committees.

Hazard Risk Assessment in the Selected Areas.

Cash based livelihoods / CBDRM activities to support approximately 5,500 to 7,500 households

through conditional cash transfers in three implementation cycle.

Capacity building of committees.

3 Project Field Level Agreements (FLA) between HUJRA-WFP and HUJRA-SDC

4 Project documents, Annual report, interviews and discussion at field level

5 FLA NO. PRRO/200867/Peshawar/HUJRA/2016/11621

6 FLA NO. PRRO/200867/Peshawar/HUJRA/2016/11621

Capacity building of government counterparts.

Activation of disaster management system at local level.

3.5. Anticipated Coverage

The two year Programme coverage will be concentrated in 100 villages of Bajaur and Mohmand

Agencies in tehsils Mamund and Salarzai of Bajaur and Ambar, Pandiali and Safi in Mohmand

Agencies6.

3.6. Activities

The project perform the following activities7 to produce the desired results:

Implementation of CBDRM (Chail Valley) Model.

Community and stakeholders’ trainings, sensitization and awareness on realization, prevention,

mitigation and coping mechanism for disasters.

Capacity building of target communities including trainings and simulation exercise.

Provision of Work, First Aid and Search & Rescue tool kits

Construction and rehabilitation of DRR structures like flood protection walls, check dams etc.

Integrated Watershed Management activities like community plantation and water ponds

rehabilitation/construction, kitchen gardening as well as nurseries and orchard raising

Capacity building of teachers and students on school safety for effective and timely emergency

response.

Link target communities with concerned departments.

3.7. Project Thematic Areas / Focus

The project intervention is mainly distributed in three thematic areas i.e. Disaster Risk Reduction

(DRR), Livelihood opportunities for local beneficiaries and Food Security. These areas are overlapped

in different ways and difficult to drawing clear demarcation line. The project activities contributed in

one way or another to one or more of these thematic areas.

3.7.1. DRR

Project documents expose that the purpose of this component is to promote a resilient culture

whereby community is incapacitated to cope with disaster situation, have the ability to recover from

disaster and to mitigate the disaster affects through preparedness and preventions. This resilience

and sustainable community capacity building is worked out through direct trainings, awareness

raising, simulation exercises and provision of tools to community. The communities are mobilized

and organized to form Village Disaster Management Committee with trainings on its sub-groups

formation for different disaster response responsibilities (discussed in detail later on).

3.7.2. Livelihood

This component is understood as to promote and enhance the community livelihood opportunities

and food security through Cash for Work and Cash for Training initiatives. Under this thematic area,

7 Interview from the Project Manager as well as project records

efforts are made to produce livelihoods opportunities for the target communities like nursery

raising, cash payment for activities participation etc.

3.7.3. Food Security

Food security of the target communities is improved by the project through different direct and

indirect means. The provision of cash increases purchasing power and enlarges choices with target

communities leading to food security. Some activities like kitchen gardening directly lead improving

food security and nutritional requirements.

3.8. Project Implementation Arrangements

The project is directly submitted by HUJRA as a cooperating partner of WFP and SDC having WFP as

lead agency. Other stakeholders directly involved are the PMU-DOP of FATA Secretariat, Third Party

Monitoring and Third Party Bank for Cash disbursement. Government counterparts include

concerned line departments and Political Administration.

The project management staff is location in the head office of HUJRA in Peshawar and project

implementation teams deployed in the field offices in Bajaur and Mohmand Agencies. The project

management staff includes Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager, Senior Engineer and

Database Officer. The project implementation team includes Agency Project Coordinator, DRR

Officer, Social Mobilizers, Field Engineers, Master Trainer, Field Monitors, Cash Card Distributers and

Crowed Controllers.

The notified departments by the political administration are actively involved in the planning,

review, supervision, consultation and monitoring of the project activities.

Chapter 3

FINDINGS, CHALLENGES, GOOD PRACTICES AND CASE STUDY

4. Findings

4.1. Project Strategic Arrangements

4.1.1. Project Design / CBDRM Model

The project is mainly based on replication of Chail valley project of the same nature; funded by Swiss

Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) in collaboration with Malteser International. The

project manual for that project is one of the key documents which drive the implementation style of

this project.

The Chail Valley model solely focused on the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management. Livelihoods

integrated Disaster Risk Reduction approach was adopted in the CBDRM model. WFP work norms

shall be applied in the model which most of the time do not fit well in the design of activities.

4.1.2. Project Agreements both with WFP and SDC

HUJRA has singed separate agreements with both the SDC and WFP. The project proposal submitted

by HURA and made part of the FLAs is same while the nature and scope of both the agreements are

different from each other. WFP focuses on relief and recovery (livelihoods) activities under its main

objective of food security to marginalized communities while SDC focuses on DRR in two main areas

i.e. capacity building through trainings and structural mitigation measures for disasters.

4.2. Progress Review – Planned vs Achieved

4.2.1. Participants

The progress on the participants’ involvement was found highly satisfactory. The documents review

depicts the project has reached the participants above the target in terms of the participants of both

hard and soft component of the project. The FLA signed with WFP was till March 31, 2017 in which

the target was 7,500 families and the project achieved participants till December 31, 2016 was 8,037

families where the project has 537 participants overly achieved. This situation on one hand appears

to be the result of concentrated efforts of the project team and management of producing the

tangible outputs, however, this scenario wasn’t found balanced in the overall project.

Target Achieved

7,500 families till March 31, 2017 8,037

4.2.2. Cash Disbursement – Socio-Economic Impacts

Each participant is paid @ 6,000 / cycle on has participation in the project activities. In monitory

terms the project has disbursed rupees 105,162,000 (105.162 Million) to participants in Bajaur and

Mohmand Agency. The injection of this huge amount money may have resulted in bringing positive

changes in different ways in the target areas.

On the socio-economic and nutritional improvement aspect of the cash distribution; most of the

respondents to FGDs and interviews at field level agreed that the amount they receive have

improved their nutrition and living standards. Many examples were found telling us that after cash-

distribution process, many of them have been taking vehicles full of food items to their homes. Some

respondents themselves took batteries and fans with solar panels, a woman beneficiary helped her

husband open a shop at local village level. All these instances portray a good deal of socio-economic

impact of the amounts distributed at village level.

4.2.3. Capacity Building – (Livelihood + DRR) Soft component

The progress on this component was found moderately satisfactory. The project record shows the

selected activities under the Soft Component / Capacity Building (non-structural activities) are

CBDRM/DRR Trainings, Trainings on Kitchen Gardening, Training on Nursery Raising, DRM Trainings

to Government Officials, DRM Trainings to School Teachers / students and Awareness Raising

The CBDRM/DRR trainings delivered to the target communities in the target villages totaled 86 (28

Male, 58 Female) against the target of 100. Further discussion on the subject matter communicated

some gaps in terms of process, quality and delivery methods. The project couldn’t flourish in female

partnership in all the target villages while the progress in CBDRM trainings was found above the

male chunk of the project.

In the year 2016, 84 trainings on Kitchen Gardening and Modern Farming Techniques were provided

to 2,331 participants in the target areas of Bajaur and Mohmand Agencies. The FGDs with the female

participants of the activities derived positive impacts on the target community. Conversely, the

trainings were delivered by the project team not specialized in the field.

After reviewing the project reports, the SBDRM trainings targeted 10 schools and 20 teachers. These

trainings were conducted in schools nominated by the Agency Education Department. Such like

trainings proved to be very useful in creating awareness among the school children regarding

disasters and minimizing loses of lives of the most vulnerable (children) during earth quack.

Discussions indicated the selection of schools by the will of the education department; hence, some

schools were selected outside of the selected villages. Against the target of 4 for 2 years, 2

simulation/mock drills were conducted in the target schools.

Covering the topic of training to Government Officials on DRM, 4 trainings to 39 participants were

imparted. The cognizance in producing desired results could have provoked / initiated the

institutional attention to the disaster risk management resulting in durable solution to the problem

in hand.

Master Trainers were selected from the community for Training of Trainers with the purpose to

involve them in the onward delivery of trainings to the target audience. The training in First Aid topic

concluded in arranging 2 trainings for 9 Master Trainers. The evaluation and impact side of these

trainings could have been not captured in black and white.

The project participated in the Disaster Management Exhibition 2016 organized by the Center for

Disaster Preparedness and Management (CDPM), University of Peshawar. Studies on DRM derived

the compulsion of community involvement in disaster preparation, mitigation and response. These

points were further seconded by the practitioners as a lesson learnt where the role of the target

community couldn’t be neglected in the disaster management. IEC materials for mass awareness

was also printed and disseminated by the project.

4.2.4. Community Infrastructure – (Structural) Hard Component

The achievements on the hard component of the project were noted encouraging. The project

constructed 39 Gully Plugging (3,427 participants), 5 Water Ponds (273 Participants), 122 Protection

Walls (8,094 participants), 5 Plantation schemes (156 participants), 1 Box Culvert (35 participants)

and 21 Kitchen Gardening Plots (680 participants). The project couldn’t establish the mechanism for

capturing the results (even immediate) of these schemes. The following visible impacts were

produced by the project under review till December 31, 2017:

19,931 Kanal land protected through protection walls (Bajaur 18,988 Kanal & Mohmand 943

Kanal);

5592 Kanal land reclaimed through construction of flood protection walls (Bajaur 4,003

kanal & Mohmand 1,589 Kanal);

8887 Houses protected through mitigation measures (Bajaur 7,885 Houses & Mohmand

1,002 Houses);

8,400 No. of Livestock benefited by rehabilitation and construction of water ponds (Bajaur

800 & Mohmand 7600);

40 kanal Land irrigated through water pond (Mohmand) and

607,000 Rupees saved from buying and selling vegetables (Bajaur: PKR 360,000 & Mohmand

PKR 247,000)

The target of the project was the distribution of 100 DRM Toolkits in the target communities. The

target was not only the distribution of DRM toolkits but the capacity building of the target

community on the utilization of these kits. The project distributed only 50 DRM units in the selection

villages in the year 2016 achieving the target of the first year. Mere delivery of CBDRM trainings to

the target community could risk the production of desired results in entirety.

4.3. Project Implementation and Adoptive Management

4.3.1. Management Arrangements

The project team deployed at the management and field level was assessed to judge the

effectiveness of implementation. The project current management arrangements (staff) with

arrangements laid down in the project document. The project staff has been found according to the

budget. The hierarchy of the project supports effective implementation. Some areas that need focus

for improvement come out from the discussion with the team include:

- Employee turnover – leading to interrupt the smooth qualitative implementation.

- Staff feels overburden – the staff consume more hours in the field against the standard hours.

- The material support is insufficient (vehicle) – 3 vehicles in the field for covering multiple

activities spread in a vast area.

4.3.2. Coordination

The project is having a very good coordination model with government authorities. The project team

conducts regular meetings with political administration in both the target agencies. A special

implementation model is adapted in which a technical working group (TWG) is especially placed to

oversee the implementation with the help of specialized persons from government authorities and

line departments. The technical working group is a unique idea which includes members from the

following departments at agency level;

Directorate of Projects – FATA Secretariat Peshawar

FATA Disaster Management Authority

Political Administration of each target agency

Agriculture

Forestry

Irrigation

Education

Civil Defense

World Food Programme (WFP)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

HUJRA

Members of TWG meet once a month and decide the scope of work in consultation. The main ToRs

of TWG include planning, monitoring and progress review of implementation at agency level.

The TWG needs to be empowered to own the project and its outcomes and further scale up these

achievements with innovative development projects and initiatives. The following few points were

discussed in meetings and discussion during the review process with members of the TWG in both

the agencies.

Regular meetings of TWG should take place – with debate on different planning, monitoring and

achievements of the project

TWG should own the achievements and build further on these achievements

TWG should also certify the achievements after measurement and properly take-over completed

schemes from HUJRA team

Capacity of TWG should be built for smooth implementation of project activities

TWG should adapt itself to include other DRR related activities at agency level under its umbrella

as well

The political agent office may nominate a focal person for supervising activities of TWG and

playing the role of secretariat for hosting development and DRR projects either by government

or non-government actors.

4.3.3. Baseline

In order to investigate the local hazards, vulnerabilities and risks coupling with the counter measures

and coping options a baseline survey was conducted earlier from the start of the project. The survey

results reveal that the natural hazards, like flash floods, water scarcity (drought) and land erosion

are most likely events for both Bajaur and Mohmand. This survey was able to identify a list of villages

in two tehsils in each Agency. This list comprised some 100 villages’ identification on the following

criteria;

Selection criteria for the selection of target tehsils and villages8

a) Selection will be made on the findings of the baseline assessment and also with the consultation

of relevant line departments.

b) The selection supported by the monsoon contingency plan of FDMA 2013.

c) Villages situated in clusters for effective and impact oriented coverage

d) Villages selected on the basis of consultation with communities and eliciting their willingness to

partners for their development

e) Having a high ranking for natural disasters in light of the historical disasters frequency and

intensity

f) Villages which were inflicted with high level damages due to displacement and subsequent

return.

g) Villages which are accessible and security wise safe

h) Villages which are situated along the disasters prone areas/sites such as steep slopes and

riverine belts.

i) Villages and Tehsils which were worst affected by the natural disasters such as floods (Flash

Floods, riverine floods, with high erosion threatened slopes and areas.

j) Villages which have suffered high level damages in the form of productive assets such as

agriculture, forest and agro forestry plantation

k) Villages Which are climatically vulnerable to thunderstorms, hailstorms, landslides and cloud

bursts.

l) Villages which have low socio economic situation /conditions such as livelihood sources,

migration, dependency on fragile, marginalized.

The baseline report is a comprehensive document and describes almost all the indicators

with specific reference to types and intensity of different natural and human-made disasters

and possible hazards endangering lives and properties of local people. However, the

criterion for the process has been too general. Records of past disasters, data and

documents prepared under political administration have been made as one of the main

tools under the criteria for selection of target villages and scope for project activities.

Recording of disasters related damages under government and non-government authorities

has been under question and widely criticized from time to time by independent sources.

The baseline report does not rank target villages under some specifically designed indicators. The list

of villages only includes a general list of 100 villages in both the agencies but it does not prioritize

them on the basis of criteria (may be on the basis of need, vulnerability or poverty of local

population). The final list of some 100 villages is though approved by the political administration but

all these villages have not been included in project activities till mid-term of the project.

8 Project baseline report conducted before the launch of project.

The project document describes generic criteria for all kind of activities and selection of village. It

says that project activities (mitigation measures) shall be selected as per the WFP work norms which

do not provide sufficient activities and selection details according to the nature of CBDRM model.

4.3.4. Community Mobilization Strategy

The project is based on participatory implementation approach where communities are empowered

to shoulder the responsibility of project implementation themselves and get organized and trained

to sustain the impacts of project activities. The mobilization method applied in Chail valley is based

on visits to target villages by project staff, conduct Broad-Base Community Meeting (BBCM) and

therein organize the community into village disaster management committee (VDMC). The project

team then works with VDMC to identify schemes and skilled and unskilled labor or participants for

project activities both from male and female population of the target villages for project activities,

upon completion of which cash is distributed to them.

The mobilizations of target communities were having gaps in following the standard procedure in

the project under review. The standard as derived from different sources9 state a detailed

community mobilization procedure where individuals from community are mobilized, activists are

identified, corner meetings are held, proportionate representation is observed from all sects living in

the village, after a long process of convincing, a larger gathering is invited to meet and discuss details

of getting organized. This detailed discussion includes development of certain terms of reference

and domain to be adapted as a constitution by the large gatherings of target community. The

constitution making process also includes discussion on creation of executive body and its specific

ToRs under which the village organization will function. The process of election under democratic

principles is held and finally a community based organization is established. During the whole

process; persons coming from a donor funded organization only plays the role of a catalyst and does

not influence the process in any way. The CBO/CO is them incapacitated to hold meetings, record

minutes, identify action points and start participatory planning and project implementation cycle.

During this process, the CBO/CO leads implementation of different activities; it becomes their

responsibility to nominate persons of sub-committees for carrying out different development or

disaster management activities at community level.

Documents under review revealed the structure of VDMC comprising of an Executive Body having

(Chairman, General Secretary, Finance Sec and Press Sec) and General Body with no limit of

membership10 with specialized 1) First Aid Team, 2) Early Warning Team, 3) Search and Rescue Team

and 4) Safe Evacuation Team. The general body and four mentioned sub-teams are trained in

different skills pertaining to their different job description in the target village11.

The structure of VDMC is not properly developed under a consultative process with community. It

has been developed and implemented by the project team as planned and implemented in the Chail

Valley project documents. This is very much required to keep homogeneity and consistency at all

9 Community mobilization approaches studied from Orangi Pilot Project, National Commission for Human Development,

National Rural Support Programs and Ross 1954. 10

Annex 10.7 Committee / VDMC 11

Community mobilization and VDMC structure as defined in project documents

VDMC levels but taking four persons in the VDMC seems inappropriate, where these four persons’

executive body does not have anything to do with the four teams operating in case of disasters.

Action Point: A thorough review of the VDMC structure and making it more democratic and inclusive

is proposed.

Field observation and detailed focus group discussions (FGDs) reveal a mixed picture of community

mobilization achieved at village level. Some of the VDMCs were active and found in shape with a fair

level of mobilization to cope up the situations emerging in case of disasters but some of the VDMCs

were found weak and not properly mobilized. In some cases, the committee did not even know

about the place where they kept the DRR and first aid tool-kits, let alone using it properly in cases of

emergencies after disasters.

The project has planned 60 (30 in Bajaur & 30 in Mohmand) Broad Based Community Meetings for

the year ended 2016 with a total target of 100 BBCMs for forming 100 VDMCs. The project has

conducted 42 of these meetings which could have resulted in forming 42 VDMCs. Single meeting for

forming VDMC could be due to having less time for holding multiple meetings before forming

VDMCs due to lack of time resulted from achieving the monthly target of community participants by

WFP.

4.3.5. HUJRA Internal Monitoring

Independent Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning unit (MEAL) – 01 field monitor at each agency.

HUJRA is enjoying services of a fully functional independent monitoring, evaluation and learning

(MEAL) unit based at HUJRA head office with a monitoring officer at each agency office for

monitoring implementation of the project under review. The monitoring officer visits different

activities taking place on ground and verifies its different aspects. The monitoring officer also gives

reports of verified and completed schemes after visits. The technical members of HUJRA team also

measure progress in the light of designed models and scope of work for different engineering,

forestry, irrigation, livelihood, kitchen gardening and capacity building trainings12.

Data is collected from field after completing a monthly cycle for “CFT and CFA” activities under

different activities are completed. A database is maintained at head office with details of focus on

unskilled participants in different CFT and CFA activities. This is the main and centralized tool for

collection of data enabling MEAL unit to analyze and observe performance at one go. The nature and

scope of work under the project cannot be defined very clearly given the facts;

1. Field team decides the scope of work after visiting a village and identifying the need for DRR

activities both soft and hard components.

2. The scope of work is subsequently dependent upon the availability of participants or unskilled

labor for carrying out CFT and CFA.

Action Points: all the activities taking place under project may be made quantifiable, enabling easy

measurement of progress by creating a monitoring checklist or tool for field level monitoring

officers.

12 Interviews and FGDs with project teams

4.3.6. Third Party Monitoring

Kurram Welfare Home, a Peshawar based local organization is hired by WFP as 3rd party monitoring

organization to monitor all the activities of the project. Their field teams regularly visit project

implementation activities on random basis. They verify the persons engaged as beneficiaries for CFA

and CFT and also verify the project assets and achievements. They are present at distribution of cash

sites and verify target beneficiaries. Discussions at field level revealed that this monitoring is taken

very seriously and people understand their existence as important factor for transparency and

accountability as well. However, the research team of this review could not meet any of these

representatives or field monitors.

4.3.7. Team – capacity and training

The capacity of the project team was built through trainings internally or externally in different times

and in different relevant topics. Exposure visit for the project team were organized in the

commencing stage of the project. Project team was provided with trainings in DRR, CBDRM and IWM

either internally or externally as well as orientation on the project. Besides these trainings, a need

was felt during the discussion with the project team to arrange more trainings in different skill sets

like community mobilization, monitoring and livelihood etc. These trainings will enhance the

capacity of the project team to better achieve the results while on the other hand a motivation for

the project staff.

4.3.8. Financial plan – budget allocation VS expenditure

The spending of direct cost is 33.31% which shall be at least 49.97% at this stage of the project. This

scenario indicates either the activities were over ambitiously budgeted or the project has

underperformed in terms of quality and target achievements13. Furthermore, low level of spending

on the project activities communicates compromise on the quality of conducting the activities, for

example CBDRM trainings and mock drills were conducted in the field without utilizing the relevant

budget head. The project is required to undertake in depth activities resourcing till the end of the

project.

4.4. Sustainability

There are different aspects which were required to be incorporated in the initial project design to

sustain the impacts of this project for a longer rung. Some of the gaps identified have been discussed

in detail in different sections of the report. The consultants identified that stronger coordination and

adaptation of project hard structures b government departments will make sure that these will be

kept care of in future as well. Stronger community mobilization will also make sure that target

beneficiaries will shoulder the responsibility.

Capacity building government departments (TWG) and involvement of other development partners

and local organization will help a lot in disaster risk reduction activities. Local hospitals, doctors,

Municipal Corporation of Khar and Ghalanai, and other associated organization will have a long

lasting impact on the safety during disasters.

13 Project budget and expenditure statement

4.5. Internal Review Workshop

The internal review interaction with the field staff gave an extensive insight of the procedure and

mechanism of the project. The consultants intended to highlight [particularly] the difficulties in

intervention and implementing the work plan in the field.

During the internal review workshops the field staff revealed that inconsistency in action plan

often affected the overall productivity of the field staff.

The delayed release of payment, sometime, ends up in distrust between HUJRA field staff and

the working groups, though the delay happens due to incomplete documentation.

The field staff shared that they have received threating letters from unknown people. The

security issues in the field may increase the sphere of limitation of field staff.

After extensive discussion with the field staff of HUJRA, it has been revealed that there is no

standard mechanism has been followed for selecting villages for intervention. The field staff has

been asked to provide any documented procedure but they were lacking any.

The representatives of the line departments share their good experiences in respect to

coordination. They told that the HUJRA team in the field is very responsive and thorough in their

coordination. During the review, the representatives of the line departments were aware of the

whole process in detail which has taken as indicator for the good coordination in field.

Tool kits remained an essential part in the overall intervention in the field. Tool kits were

provided in great manner and timely.

The participants in the internal review workshops shared a detailed account of the soft activities

in field. All the segments in the soft activities were imparted. These segments were included first

aid training, mock drills, DRR, CBDRM etc.

The role and position of engineers was important in the hard activities. They were needed to be

properly supervised for exact implementation of the designed structure. During the review

sessions it has been revealed that the work of engineers was supervised thoroughly.

About the skilled and unskilled labors, the field staff mentioned that though skilled labor was

available but the daily wages specified under the project budget was less than that of the

market. That’s why it was difficulty to convince them to work in that wages. Therefore, the field

staff mentioned that they were happy to engage unskilled labor.

4.6. External Review Workshop–Suggestions

In the external review workshop, policy level suggestions came forth for the project implementation.

The role of HUJRA in implementing the project was highlighted by the speakers. Besides, the

speakers mentioned achievements of short term and long terms goals by the project in various

dimensions. For community resilience, FDMA appreciated the role of these kinds of projects. Few of

the suggestions are as follow;

The already coordination mechanism is satisfactory but this can further be improved among

DoP, FDMA, PMU, Line departments, donors and implementing partners.

Keeping in view the importance of the program, it has been suggested that university students

and fresh graduates should be trained under the supervision of HUJRA. The research methods

and skills of university students can be utilized too to explore further areas for intervention – for

government and NGOs as well. Furthermore, the involvement of academia in any way could

surely add value to the project.

While expressing his views on the project, SDC representative said that SDC is satisfied from the

implementation of the project by HUJRA. SDC also vowed for further intervention in the field of

disaster risk reduction and community resilience.

4.7. Field Visits

There was an extensive field visit paid by the consultants to understand the whole process of the

project from office to field. Many aspects of the project have been come on surface during the field

visit. These are mentioned below in quantifiable form. Many dimensions of the project have been

discussed in the portion of review sessions. In this part of the report, the remaining aspects will be

discussed.

The ultimate end of the activities under the project is to empower and [directly] aware

people/community, but the influence of the local Malakaan/Khanaan [the influential] has been

observed hurdling direct approach of the project team to the people. The role and existence of

these influential people is inevitable without proper strategizing the intervention. The project

goals can be achieved in more effective way if these influential people could be bypassed.

Though the Malak of a village was not entertained as a beneficiary of project activities directly

but indirectly his role in selection of schemes and even unskilled labor was observed decisive.

There is another aspect of the influential persons’ phenomenon i.e. some local unskilled laborers

were observed under immense influence of the Malakaan.

During FDGs and other interaction in the field it has been revealed that the guidelines and SOPs

which could be necessary for providing models and standards for some of the activities have

been found missing with the project team. Any scheme and activity needs established standards

and models against which that can be measured and passed. But for the actualization of the

‘schemes’ no proper models were present with the field staff for some of the activities. Besides,

deficiency has been noticed to develop and implement standardized – approved design for

structural activities like check dams. The project could benefit from the relevant departments in

the TWG in finalizing the specifications and designs of schemes.

As mentioned in the review sessions, the participants of the field visit said that monitoring

system was satisfactory – both by HUJRA and by the third party but the available checklist

and/or tool for monitoring was not sufficient to monitor the project at all levels. In such situation

where there is not established tool for at all levels monitoring exists in consistency in the system

of monitoring is inevitable. Therefore, reliable monitoring framework should be devised covering

input, output and process monitoring.

Probing on various levels highlighted that tool kits were distributed during the intervention but

proper utility of these (emergency) kits were not satisfactory. In most of the cases, the

influential were keeping those work tool kits – where the rest of the community members were

deprived of the use after the completion of the activity.

As mentioned earlier, empowerment of the common folk should be the ultimate goal of any

developmental intervention. Infrastructure and [even] other soft activities should consciously be

considered as MEAN to the END. Where the ‘end’ should be aforementioned people’s

empowerment. In this context women participation should be increased further. Women could

not be reached directly for proper – purposeful – mobilization. It is understood that reaching

women directly in tribal society of Mohmand and Bajaur is difficult but it is not impossible.

Besides, women are facing difficulties in visiting cash-distribution centers. Although, delay in

cash distribution was noticed as an issue but the distribution of it found transparent for both

female and male.

In the post completion of schemes, the maintenance measures were found insufficient for

sustainability of the project. The government authority could play a role in this regard. Only then

purpose of the project can be achieved.

During the field visit VDMC were mostly found unsatisfactorily mobilized and poorly organized,

even the executive committee and sub-team were not found in effective coordination. This can

be related to resilience of the community. Resilience of the community could not be witnessed

satisfactory. For community resilience proper mobilization of the VDMC is important as well as

CBDRM Trainings could further enhance their skills and play a role in the organization.

4.7.1. Focus Group Discussions & IDIs (interviews)

As given in the methodology portion that it is an ethnographic method of understanding the process

of the project. Therefore all information collected from interview and discussions have been cross

checked during visit of sites of intervention and also during with interaction with the local

community those who were engaged in soft and hard activities.

In this part of the report that information are going to be presented which were share by the

participants of interviews and focus ground discussions during the field visit. It is not only about the

information rather this portion includes the behavioral presentation of the participants of IDIs &

FGDs.

It has been shared by the participants that the local community members were aware of the fact

that the activities under the project were for the wellbeing of people. That’s was the reason –

the participants of IDIs & FGDs told – that the local people participated [consciously] in the

overall program of the project. They were aware of the economic prospects by the project in the

area. They told that they believe that livelihood program can be proved as a reasonable source

of income for the beneficiaries.

The participants of IDIs & FGDs were of the view that beneficiaries were satisfied with the

mobilization mechanism of the project team in the field. They also mentioned that locals did not

feel insecure while mobilization and interaction with the project team. When the same

mobilization was observed during visit of the sites it has been found missing.

At some point some of the participants of the whole process were aware of rationale behind the

activities while many other cases they were not fully aware of the rationale. The impression

came forth during the field enquiry that translating the rationale to the local beneficiaries was

lacking because of the low capacity of the project team – in this specific matter. The foresaid

issue was found more intense with respect to training – they participants of the training were

not fully aware of the purpose and goals of training, although in some cases the participants

could properly remember date and time of these training.

5. Issues – Challenges

FATA is a unique situation where security has not been ideal during last one decade or more.

Therefore, working in two agencies of FATA brings security challenges with it. The militants

through do not control the area anymore but it was found that the military operations and the

subsequent military control of target area has a deep impact on implementation. Daylight is the

safe working time and the team was not allowed to stay any longer even if it has effects on

project activities.

The governance structure under political administration in FATA (FCR) is very much centralized

and it requires a great deal of effort for non-government organizations to keep along with the

administration. It has been tackled well with the political administrations in both the agencies

for this project but it is a challenge to keep all the stakeholders along including FATA Secretariat

and FDMA as well.

Community Mobilization – Organization and Capacity Building is a long-term process and it

requires a great deal of effort for target communities to evolve and adapt to the situation

desirable for project implementation. The project under review is early recovery interventions

designed both to assist target population through cash distribution for supporting their basic

needs like food and at the same time create resilient communities to cope with disasters

occurring in their area from time to time. There is not much time available for proper

community mobilization, organization and capacity building process.

Finding both skilled and unskilled labor for project activities is yet another challenge. The labor

of both the target agencies go to down-districts and towns for finding jobs, which sometimes

create scarcity of laborers in villages for planned activities. Most of the beneficiaries complained

about the amount being paid to skilled or unskilled labor, that it is not as per market price.

Especially the amount paid to skilled laborers was not enough to find good skilled labor.

Working with women is an issue in both the target agencies. Field teams appraised about some

threats they had received in Bajaur after which they had to stop activities temporarily. Female

team members in both the agencies were found very well trained and used to local

environment, however, it is still a problem to find local female staff for working with a non-

government organization. Payment to women beneficiaries was an issue in Bajaur when a local

cleric declared it Haram for women to visit an outside station and collect their cash.

Sometimes the local Malak or Chief of a village does not agree to implement project activities in

his village. Despite the fact that scope of work and availability of local labor is no issue in those

villages. One malak of village Dagai (in Bajaur) refused to project activities in his village due to

PCC structures while he is seeking NGOs with RCC structure to erect in his village.

Structural and non-structural activities (schemes) were selected against the participants target

not in response to the prioritized needs – no holistic village wise plan available showing from

where to start and where to finish.

The project is lacking the exit strategy and sustainability plan in hand – could put the

achievements of project result in jeopardy: the resilient community.

A big challenge is to respect the WFP work norm while aligning it with the CBDRM approach as

well as combining relief and preparedness.

6. Good Practices – Lessons Learnt – Success stories

The project is a unique and first of its kind intervention in FATA. It has brought special working

methods with it and being implemented with the help of a local project team each in Mohmand and

Bajaur. Some of its unique features and good practices are discussed as under;

Multi-donor funding i.e. SDC and WFP have joined hands to implement a successful project. This

joint venture will set examples for working collaboration for many other organization having

resources and expertise in different sectors to join hands for a common cause.

The Technical Working Group (TWG) is yet another good model for implementation at local

level. Most of the line departments along-with the office of Political Agent and FATA Secretariat

are looking after and advising the project to plan, implement and monitor the project

implementation.

The baseline survey and approved selected villages’ list is also a special feature. Firstly, the

project teams have visited all the villages, they have identified their different needs and then

they have proposed implementation targets for themselves. Secondly, umbrella of the political

administration in FATA in the form of an approved villages’ list makes the work of project teams

easier.

Women participation in livelihood activities in a big number could be counted as a big success

story at FATA level, given the fact that traditionally, they are not allowed to take part in such like

activities. Hundreds of women have shown up for participating in different livelihood trainings

and then practically developing their kitchen gardens which not only entitled them to receive

PKR 6000/ but also fulfil their family needs and sometimes sell some vegetables in local markets.

Chapter 3

CASE STUDIES

7. Case Study

Trust and Hope

Like other areas of Pakistan, Bajaur is also facing severe shortage of light for meeting basic needs

including lighting, water pumping and running fans in extreme summer season. Recently, people of

rural areas in Bajaur have been turning to Solar Energy. Almost every household in the area have

their own small solar system fetching energy for basic needs. Aziz ul Haq, a resident of village

Derakai in Tehsil Salarzai said that he was unable to install his own solar system at home due to

severe poverty. When I heard HUJRA is initiating project in our village, I rushed to join it. When I got

acceptance as skilled labor in check-dams project, I borrowed solar penal and other accessories

(small solar system) from nearby shop. During my work for cash entitlement with HUJRA, I not only

got training and awareness on many important issues related to disaster risks, first aid but also got

cash PKR 6000- as well after my 15 days unskilled labor for the project. I paid the debt upon receipt

of my cash. I am very thankful to HUJRA as now my kids can sleep well in front of solar fan – it’s a

real life-change for me.

Women inclusion and participation

Women are facing with different types of challenges in our society ranging from discrimination to

literacy, health and economic empowerment. Men are

responsible bread-winners in every family where despite a huge

contribution; women do not claim it with any cash in hand. This

socially constructed myth is challenged by a lady, Subhanya,

village Derakai, Salarzi. She participated in kitchen-gardening

activity of HUJRA. From HUJRA, she got Rs 18000 in cash along

with training in kitchen-gardening. As the area is rural and

bazaars are situated at a distance, therefore, she realized the

need for a small shop in her village and took initiative for

establishing one. Now she is running that shop and the family

gets an adequate amount from the shop, which contributes in

her household economy. With this initiative, her decision is

acknowledged and encouraged. She is included in decision-

making and is exemplary for other women around her.

CPI Tool-Kit and Superstitions

Non-government organizations have been building trust among local communities through

mobilization and regular participation. In a far flung village of Pandialai, HUJRA was able to provide

basic trainings and tool-kits for general collective services in community. The toolkit received in this

village by VDMC is being used digging graves for the deceased. On one such occasion, the son of a

deceased person refused to let VDMC use the donor-funded tool-kit for digging grave, taking a stand

that this may be “Haram”. Elders of the village and members of VDMC mobilized the aggrieved

family to make them understand that there is nothing as “Haram” (forbidden) and is only a

perception far from reality. The family agreed and let VDMC work with the tool-kit.

Livelihood

Women could better contribute in small entrepreneurship and could better contribute in her

livelihood. But they are not provided decision making

opportunities and participation. They could better understand

what requires for her livelihood and household sustainability.

This is proved by Shinkot BiBi in Village Azami, tehseel Salarzai.

She participated in HUJRA’s kitchen-gardening activity, where,

beside her experience, she got 18000 PKR in cash. HUJRA also

provided seeds and gardening tools. She invested that cash in

buying sheep for her and sowed seeds. She sold the surplus

production in village which very well contributed in her house-

hold economy. She is thankful to HUJRA as through the milk of

the sheep and sowing vegitables she feed her children and saved

reasonable amount of buying dry milk from bazaar.

Chapter 4

CONCLUSION

&

RECOMMENDATIONS

8. Conclusion and recommendations

The mobilization strategy shall be revised including the structure of the committee, procedure

and capacity building efforts. The structure should be like village organization with which the

disaster response teams shall be linked up. The procedure shall ensure formation of village

organization in a democratic manner in a series of dialogues. After the formation of village

organization, trainings shall be imparted to the VO building the skills in community leadership

and management.

There should be a robust monitoring mechanism of the project with clear indicators to timely

communicate the gaps, issues, adjustments and compliance.

Participants’ selection criteria: should include the exclusion criteria as well to clearly draw lines

between the selection and rejection of beneficiary.

The project has multidimensional effort for the community uplift by spending impressive

amount of money in the targeted areas. The socio-economic implications as result of injection of

money should be studied though in-depth research.

The project has been lacking uniformity in design of the community infrastructure schemes dully

approved by the local relevant government authorities to maximize the benefits.

There should be a village wise comprehensive PLAN covering the project tenure, having a clear

road-map with milestones towards the intended outcomes.

The project needs to formulate pragmatic exact strategy which should ensure sustainability

which is the strong indicator of success of the project

The work norms developed by WFP should be revised to make it compatible with the project

requirements in a context.

9. Annexure

9.1. Attendance sheets

9.2. Questionnaire

9.3. List of documents reviewed

- Baseline

- Implementation Plan

- Project Agreements (FLA) both with WFP and SDC

- Revised Villages list

- Mobilization Brochure

- Coordination Mechanism

- Approach to DRR, infrastructure both livelihood and DRR

- Chail Valley project reports

- Monitoring Mechanism

- Burn Rate Variance Analysis

- Project Work / implementation plan

- Field Office / Activities Records

9.4. Links to sources

- www.hujra.org

9.5. Rating Scale

Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project is expected to achieve or exceed all its end-of-project targets,

without major shortcomings. The progress towards the Target/objective/outcome can be presented

as “good practice”.

Satisfactory (S): The project is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets, with only minor

shortcomings.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project is expected to achieve most of its end-of-project targets

but with significant shortcomings.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project is expected to achieve its end-of-project targets with

major shortcomings.

Unsatisfactory (U): The project is expected not to achieve most of its end-of-project targets.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project has failed to achieve its midterm targets, and is not expected

to achieve any of its end-of-project targets.

9.6. Committee / VDMC

9.1. Pictures