Village Capacity and Vulnerability Assessment Project on Disaster Management
(Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Description
The project is aimed at capacity building in disaster emergency response at district and village levels. It has applied a participation approach in planning and implementation. This included the identification of problems, SWOT analyses, implementation, and monitoring.
Since 2012, after the Ketsana typhoon hit the southern provinces of Lao PDR, CARE International in Xekong Province has initiatives that address disaster reduction which are funded through various sources. The project is aimed at capacity building in disaster emergency response at district and village levels. DarkCheung district, one of the poorest districts of Xekong province, has established a Disaster Management Unit in five villages. The project was supported by Luxembourg’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Debeco, through the European Union. Most of the projects were relatively small and short duration, with approximately 2-3 years of project implementation. In 2017, Care International has also followed up existing activities with support from Debeco which are implemented in the three districts of Kaleum, DarkCheung, and Lamam, covering 16 villages. The aspects of the work that are relevant to the district office of agriculture include Disaster Vulnerability Assessment and Village Capacity Building. The main objectives of the project are to increase capacity in disaster management within local communities; increase food security, gender equality promotion in cooperation with local authorities, and increase awareness about disaster prevention. In principle, the project applied a participatory approach in planning and implementation. This included the identification of problems, SWOT analyses, implementation, and monitoring. The village and district authorities, as well as farmers, have been actively involved in project activities. It should be noted that the district authorities played an active role in community development. However, challenges remain, as Care International in Xekong province developed only short term projects, and this may affect outcomes and continuity of objectives in the future.
Location
Location: Kaluem, Darkchueng and Lamam district, Sekong Province, Lao People's Democratic Republic
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2014
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
1. Strengthen capacity on disaster management at local levels;
2. Increase food security;
3. Promote gender equality amongst the local authorities; and
4. Increase awareness on disaster prevention.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Good cooperation and participation in implementation of activities amongst the villagers
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Better coordination and understanding of district officials and village people.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Unsafe birth, gender and other issues are sensitive and need careful approach and understanding.
Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? |
Specify stakeholders |
Describe roles of stakeholders |
local land users/ local communities |
Villagers or head of household participating in activities |
Implementation, labour and material contribution as project needed |
community-based organizations |
Village authorities |
Provide socio-economic information, encourage villagers to participate in the project |
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
CARE International staff in Xekong Province |
|
NGO |
CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children, French Redcross |
|
local government |
Provincial, district coordinators and technical staffs |
Facilitate the coordination and strengthening local authorities and communities |
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
The village, district, provincial authorities, and project staff to identify and assess disaster vulnerability and ranking in communities.
planning
The village, district, provincial authorities, and project staff involved in problem analysis and identified solutions, conducted site visits in the project location with participating households. Develop action plan, organize meeting to discuss and approve project activities.
implementation
The village, district and provincial authorities in collaboration with project staff provided training and implemented project activities together with farmers in target villages. In case of significant activity such as infrastructure development, the project staff will assist in the implementation.
monitoring/ evaluation
All concerned stakeholders were involved in project monitoring in each phase.
None
Allow each stakeholders summarize project implementation outcomes, and discuss issues and identify solutions for future actions.
Author: Pasalath KHOUNSY
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology
Decisions were taken by
-
land users alone (self-initiative)
-
mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
-
all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
-
mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
-
SLM specialists alone
-
politicians/ leaders
Decisions were made based on
-
evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
-
research findings
-
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
The following activities or services have been part of the approach
-
Capacity building/ training
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
General knowledge on disaster prevention, disaster preparedness and emergency response, forest and environmental protection
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
In addition, there were monitoring missions from village, district and provincial authorities. In case of an emergency situation, coordination was through mobile phones.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
There were monitoring teams representing the village and district, and a village notice board.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
The CARE -Xekong M&E team collaborated with the through use of village notice boards in the village and district.
Financing and external material support
Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
-
< 2,000
-
2,000-10,000
-
10,000-100,000
-
100,000-1,000,000
-
> 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Multiple funding sources including Debego for humanitarian aid, European Union (EU), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
-
Financial/ material support provided to land users
-
Subsidies for specific inputs
-
Credit
-
Other incentives or instruments
partly financed
fully financed
Labour by land users was
-
voluntary
-
food-for-work
-
paid in cash
-
rewarded with other material support
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
The project has strengthened local communities to work together from planning, implementing, and monitoring approaches.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
The project has assisted the disabled groups, divorced women with many children, households with lack of productive labours who were all prioritized as project beneficiaries.
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
The project has increased awareness on women’s rights.
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
The project activities are linked to food security.
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
After the Ketsana typhoon, the project has supported the repair of 3 – 4 gravity fed water supply systems in 16 villages.
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
The project has suggested the use of solar voltage power systems in areas without connection to main power grids in 10 villages in Kaleum and DarkCheung district
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
-
increased production
-
increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
-
reduced land degradation
-
reduced risk of disasters
-
reduced workload
-
payments/ subsidies
-
rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
-
prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
-
affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
-
environmental consciousness
-
customs and beliefs, morals
-
enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
-
aesthetic improvement
-
conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
The district and village authorities have some basic understanding about disaster responses.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
-
Strengthening capacity of village, district and provincial authorities (Committees for Disaster Prevention and Control) particularly after Ketsana typhoon.
-
Communities gain knowledge and are able to identify problem and develop action plans on disaster management.
-
The project has implemented activities that provided benefits to the public such as: disaster warning, rainwater storage, precipitation station.
-
Supported high frequency radio system instead of mobile phones.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Disaster management is an important aspect that needs to be implemented in all regions.
-
Local communities and other stakeholders were actively participated in the project.
-
The project helped to identify key problems and strengthen capacity to ensure regular and continuous monitoring of activities although it had only one-year lifespan. The project adopted M&E framework from similar projects in order to effectively monitoring this project.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
The disaster management projects had short term lifespan but there were considerable needs and expectations from communities, and the lack of sufficient funding.
-
The MOU signing process for disaster related projects took long time between the government and NGOs which caused delayed in project implementation.
The need to have better coordination on the review and approve the MOU document between the two parties.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
The GOL has yet identified vulnerable areas to certain disasters and there are still a lack of funding allocation to meeting the needs.
The need to identify appropriate vulnerable areas including high vulnerability, warning areas and among others.
-
Most projects were managed by non-profit organizations and typically have short-term lifespan and limited staff.
The need to develop long-term planning with multi-funding organizations.
References
Editors
-
Bounthanom Bouahom
-
viengsavanh phimphachanhvongsod
-
kang phanvongsa
Reviewer
-
Nicole Harari
-
William Critchley
-
Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: June 28, 2018
Last update: June 20, 2023
Resource persons
-
Phounsy Phasaveng (phounsy.phasaveng@careint.org) - Project manager
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) - Lao People's Democratic Republic
Project
- Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)