AHP DisASTER READY Â
Fiji country plan December 2017
AHP: Australian Humanitarian Partnership
AHPSU: Australian Humanitarian Partnership Support Unit
AQC: Aid Quality Check
CAN DO: Church Agencies Network Disaster Operations
CBDRM: community-based disaster risk management
CHS: Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability
CSO: civil society organisation
DFAT: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
DO: District Office
DPO: disabled peopleâ€™s organisation
DRM: disaster risk management
DRR: disaster risk reduction
EOC: Emergency Operations Centre
FCOSS: Fiji Council of Social Services
FDPF: Fiji Disabled Peoples Federation
HFH: Habitat for Humanity
HRS: DFAT Humanitarian Preparedness and Response Section
INGO: international non-governmental organisation
LGBTQI: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning and intersex
NDMA: National Disaster Management Act
NDMO: National Disaster Management Office
NGO: non-governmental organisation
OCHA: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OFDA: Office for US Disaster Assistance
PA: Provincial Administrator
PCDF: Partners for Community Development Fiji
PCPP: Pacific Cash Preparedness Partnership
PDF: Pacific Disability Forum
PEARL: Pacific Emergency and Response Logistics
PNG: Papua New Guinea
PPF: Performance and Partnership Fund
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
WFP: World Food Programme
Disaster READY is a component of the Australian Humanitarian Partnerships (AHP) Program funded by the Australian Government and implemented by Australian NGOs and their local partners. The purpose of Disaster READY is to:
Strengthen local humanitarian capability and preparedness in the Pacific and Timor-Leste so that communities are better able to respond to and recover from rapid- and slow-onset disasters.
The $42.5m program will run from 2018 to 2022 and initially focuses on five countries: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Timor-Leste. This country plan sets out the strategic context, objectives, governance, monitoring and evaluation, and resources for the AHP Disaster READY program in Fiji. It has been developed jointly by the implementing AHP NGOs and the AHP Support Unit (AHPSU) in consultation with DFAT Post. This document should be read together with the overarching framework document for AHP Disaster READY and the NGO Activity Plans. The overarching framework provides the rationale for the program and outlines the funding mechanisms within the program. The NGO Activity Plans explain the specific outcomes and activities each NGO will deliver in this country and how these will contribute to the outcomes in this country plan. AHP Disaster READY will be implemented in Fiji by Plan, CAN DO, Habitat for Humanity (HFH), Live & Learn, and Save the Children and their local partners noted below:
|CAN DO||CAN DO partners and Pacific Disability Forum (PDF); Ministry of Women and Social Welfare; Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development; National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ National Disaster Management Office (NDMO)|
|CARE (Live & Learn)||National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; Divisional Commissionerâ€™s Office – West; Provincial Administrators (PAs)/District Officers (DOs)/ Area Councillors|
|Plan||Partners for Community Development Fiji (PCDF); Empower; Ministry of Women and Social Welfare; Save the Children Fiji; PDF; Fiji Disabled Peoples Federation (FDPF); AVI Fiji; Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development; National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO|
|Save the Children||National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; WFP; UNICEF; Oxfam; Fiji Ministry of Education, Heritage and Arts; National Logistics Cluster|
|World Vision (Habitat for Humanity)Â||HFH Fiji; WFP; CBM Australia (CBM); Regional Shelter Cluster; National Shelter Cluster; National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; Fiji Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Environment, Infrastructure & Transport|
Five regional Disaster READY activities will also operate from Fiji, and are explained in the Who/What/Where table.
An AHP Disaster READY Country Committee has been established as the coordination and decision-making mechanism for AHP partners in Fiji. The committee consists of a representative from each AHP consortium implementing in that country and a representative from a national Disabled Peopleâ€™s Organisation (DPO). ADRA (CAN DO) is the Coordinating Lead NGO for the Fiji Country Committee in 2018. The estimated Year 1 budget for Fiji is comprised of a total NGO activity budget of AUD1,121,582 plus a shared services budget of AUD105,695 for a total of AUD1,227,228. Â
Resilience to climate change and disaster preparedness are priorities for Fiji, an archipelago of more than 300 islands. The population of approximately 900,000 people are exposed to a range of hazards, including tropical cyclones (resulting in high winds, storm surges, and heavy rains), storms, floods, drought, earthquakes and tsunamis. Fijiâ€™s National Climate Change Policy 2012 notes that climate change is expected to bring about an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events and threats to marine ecosystems (such as coral bleaching, beach erosion, ocean acidification) and terrestrial ecosystems (such as soil erosion, salt water intrusions in low lying coastal areas, reduced soil fertility, and increased pests and diseases). Fiji is expected to incur, on average, annual losses of $110 million due to earthquakes and cyclones. The Government of Fiji recognises the importance of integrated climate change and disaster risk reduction (DRR) and preparedness, as most recently articulated in the National Development Plan. Fijiâ€™s NDMO plays a key role in DRR and preparedness. Further information on the natural disaster hazards and risks, and the government disaster risk management policies and priorities are included in Annex 4.
As the regional hub for the Pacific, Fiji is host to a number of international, regional (and national) organisations focused on disaster and climate risk. These include United Nations agencies, non-government and civil society organisations working at various levels from national and sub-national government to community. Bilateral partners such as Australia, European Union, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, and USA provide support in the areas of climate change and disaster management according to national policy priorities. International NGOs are an important development and humanitarian partner in Fiji, particularly at the community level. Australia is Fijiâ€™s largest bilateral donor. The DFAT Aid Investment Plan for Fiji is designed to support inclusive economic growth to reduce poverty, and is organised under two strategic objectives:
All programs need to focus on the disadvantaged and marginalised: the rural poor, women, and people living with disabilities. Given Fiji’s vulnerability to natural disasters, Australia integrates climate change and DRR considerations into all development investments. Australia will provide an estimated $16.8 million in bilateral climate change support to Fiji from 2015-16 to 2016-17. Australia committed $35 million to the response and recovery from TC Winston, of that, $20 million was committed to recovery and reconstruction efforts with a focus on education, health and markets. Australia supported Fijiâ€™s COP23 secretariat and related regional consultations ($6 million 2016â€‘2017).Â A new bilateral support facility is developing a disaster risk reduction contingency fund, which, in addition to responding to disasters, will support a range of resilience building activities. Australiaâ€™s regional climate change programs benefiting Fiji total over $50 million (2015-16 to 2017-18). New Zealandâ€™s aid program in Fiji also focuses on disaster management, while USAID/OFDA is investing in disaster risk management (DRM) in Fiji through programs with the Fiji Red Cross. UNDPâ€™s Pacific Risk Resilience Program operates in Fiji with a focus on piloting community DRR initiatives and supporting the cluster system. The World Bank is leading dialogue with the Fiji Government around social protection systems, which links to the use of cash during emergencies. A summary of donor/NGO DRR activity (3W exercise) in Fiji is available in Annex 6.
A number of lessons have been identified from previous disasters. These include: Communities are vital first responders: Empowered and resourced communities are vital first responders to disasters. Traditional structures encapsulate local knowledge and practices in preparing and responding to disasters. Diverse information and communication systems support response efforts: Inclusive and effective inter-operable communication systems play a key role in the dissemination of disaster information and awareness, data collection and data analysis. Strong coordination between national, sub-national and local levels is paramount: All parties have a role to play in supporting and strengthening the coordination throughout all phases of the disaster management cycle (including during preparedness, response and recovery). Climate resilience: NGOs engaged in community based climate change adaptation projects in Fiji recognise that access to quality climate information products and services tailored for specific contexts and uses enables NGOs to support community vulnerability assessments and climate adaptive disaster preparedness. Gender equality and social inclusion must be a focus: Greater understanding and support for gender equality, protection and meaningful inclusion â€“ particularly of marginalized groups â€“ promotes better disaster preparedness, response and recovery.
The purpose of Disaster READY is to:
Strengthen local humanitarian capability and preparedness in the Pacific and Timor-Leste so that communities are better able to respond to and recover from rapid- and slow-onset disasters.
The program objectives and core outcomes and indicators are outlined in the table below.
Indicators All NGOs must report on Indicator a. (the number of individuals who directly benefit from AHP activities) and also Indicator n. (the number and percentage of AHP NGOs who have preparedness and response plans that explicitly prioritise social inclusion and gender). At least some NGOs in each country must also report on the indicators in bold. NGOs are also encouraged to report on other indicators in the table where relevant. The selected indicators are largely quantitative (making the results easier to aggregate and report); will show a measurable change over the life of the program; and are feasible for the NGOs to monitor. NGOs will also monitor other quantitative and qualitative indicators that relate to their specific activities. This additional information will be analysed by the AHPSU on an annual basis to identify themes, trends, and interesting cases of note. Definitions National NGOs includes local NGOs (national, regional and community-based), and national offices of international NGOs (including national offices of AHP NGOs). People with disabilities is used with recognition that this is not a homogenous group of people, and that gender, age, type of disability and other socioeconomic factors shape individual experience and capacities.
|Overarching indicator required for all objectives|
|a. Number of individuals who directly benefit from AHP activities (by sex, age, ability, age, urban/rural)|
|1. Communities are better prepared for rapid- and slow-onset disasters||1.1 Communities understand likely hazards and risks and have knowledge, skills and resources to manage these
|b. Number and percentage of communities which have disaster plans to reduce risks and respond to disaster (by new or updated plan)
c. Number and percentage of communities which have tested their response plan in the last 12 months
d. Number and percentage of communities that have implemented action plans to reduce risks
|1.2 Community disaster mechanisms are prepared for and respond to rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|1.3 Communities understand and seek support from sub-national government planning and budget processes and other funding sources to prepare for and respond to disasters||e. Number of communities seeking financial support for disaster plans from government|
|1.4 Women, men, people with disabilities and children demand, access, understand and act on early warning information for rapid- and slow-onset disasters||f. Number and percentage of communities who are receiving and acting on early warning information for rapid- and slow-onset disasters
g. Examples of early warnings being accessible (considering geographic reach, diversity of methods, e.g. radio, print, SMS, etc., and clarity of message)
|2. The rights and needs of women, people with disabilities, youth and children are being met in disaster preparedness and response at all levels||2.1 Increased representation and capacity of women, people with disabilities, youth and children in disaster committees and planning processes, particularly at community and sub-national levels||h. Number and percentage of community disaster plans that are inclusive of women, youth, children and people with disabilities
i. Number and percentage of disaster assessment tools mandated by national committees that include questions on gender, disability and children
j. Number of disaster committees that have women represented, and the percentage of members that are women (by national or sub-national level)
k. Number of people with disabilities on national and sub-national disaster committees
|2.2 Humanitarian operating practices, procedures, policies, laws and tools from community to national level incorporate and are responsive to rights and needs of women, people with disabilities, youth and childrenÂ||l. Examples of inclusive humanitarian practices by government during a response|
|2.3 All community members, including men and boys, faith leaders and other community leaders, and government staff address the barriers that prevent women, people with disabilities, youth and children from having their rights and needs met in disaster preparedness and response||m. Examples of men and boys, faith leaders and other community leaders, and government staff addressing barriers to inclusion in disaster preparedness and response|
|2.4 AHP NGOs apply more inclusive approaches in their internal and external preparedness and response planning||n. Number and percentage of AHP NGOs who have preparedness and response plans that explicitly prioritise social inclusion and gender
|3. Government, NGOs, the private sector and communities coordinate more effectively for inclusive disaster preparedness and response||3.1 National and sub-national disaster committees are functioning
|o. Number and percentage of national and sub-national disaster committees that meet regularly and engage actively with the community
p. Examples of sub-national disaster committees which have improved disaster preparedness practices (e.g. they have mapped evacuation assets or risk profiles for communities)
|3.2 Sub-national governments are better able to respond to community needs during rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|3.3 Evacuation centres, including schools, churches and other community facilities, are safe and accessible for women, people with disabilities and children||q. Number and percentage of evacuation centres that are inclusive of people with disabilities
|3.4 Improved two-way communications between communities and government for preparedness, early warnings, disaster impact and response||r. Examples of improved communication between communities and government (e.g. community assessments have informed government-led responses)
|3.5 Cash transfer and logistics preparedness processes developed through regional platforms are adapted to and operational in some countries||s. To be developed by NGOs working on cash systems
|4. National NGOs and faith-based organisations have more influence and capacity in the country humanitarian system
|4.1 Local NGOs and faith-based organisations are better represented in national and sub-national disaster coordination mechanisms
|t. Number of CSOs and churches represented on national disaster clusters or coordination committees
|4.2 National NGOs and faith-based organisations have improved organizational capacity for disaster preparedness and response, including policies, processes, equipment and distribution systems
|u. Number of national NGOs and churches that have improved operational or financial policies or practices that align with humanitarian standards|
|4.3 National NGOs have greater influence with respect to INGOs and the country humanitarian system||v. Examples of increased influence by national INGO offices relative to their headquarters during a disaster response|
|5. AHP NGOs work effectively together and with other relevant stakeholders||5.1 AHP NGOs are well coordinated and engaging with government, Red Cross, womenâ€™s and other NGOs, and donors||w. Level of satisfaction of key government partners and the Red Cross with AHP coordination
|5.2 AHP NGOs are using shared services to champion inclusive approaches and demonstrate and share impact
|See Indicator n.|
|5.3 AHP NGOs are using good practices from humanitarian programs to mainstream disaster preparedness and risk reduction into other work||x. Examples of where AHP NGOs have integrated DRR into their other work|
AHP NGOs undertake implementation directly and also through local partners including NGOs and churches. In Fiji the AHP leads, implementing local partners and locations for implementation are:
|Local implementing partners||PCDF; Empower; Ministry of Women and Social Welfare; Save the Children Fiji; PDF; FDPF; AVI Fiji; Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO|
In Year 1 Plan will work in eight communities in Ra province: Nalalawa, Rokovuaka and Nausori in Nalawa district; and Toki, Tobu, Dama, Savulotu and Bucalevu in Nakoilava district. Plan will also operate in up to 12 districts (yet to be finalised) with DOs and Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS) to strengthen the District Emergency Operations Centres (EOC). Mandate from NDMO and Commissioners Office (and DOs/PAs office).
|Key activities||Strengthen coordination between national/sub-national government, CSOs and communities; inclusive CBDRM; psychosocial first aid and child protection technical training; training guide and awareness program for NDMO|
|Local implementing partners||CAN DO partners and PDF; Ministry of Women and Social Welfare; Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development; National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO|
|Key activities||Volunteer training; volunteer motivation program; mapping training and mapping churches and member properties; CAN DO working policies and procedures; leadership training; identification of warehousing in strategic locations; procurement of appropriate and relevant stocks; women actively participating in the DRM cycle; research into psychosocial support programs to bridge with humanitarian sector; development and roll-out of psychosocial support program|
|CARE (Live & Learn)|
|Local implementing partners||National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; Divisional Commissionerâ€™s Office – West; PAs/DOs/Area Councillors|
|Key activities||Scoping exercise with NDMO and Commissioner Western Divisionâ€™s Office to develop work plan; strengthening of lead agencyâ€™s capacity for improved operational or financial policies or practices that align with humanitarian standards including development of humanitarian tools and manual; training emergency teams; annual preparedness exercise|
|World Vision (Habitat for Humanity)*|
|Local implementing partners||HFH Fiji; WFP; CBM; Regional Shelter Cluster; National Shelter Cluster; National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; Fiji Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Environment, Infrastructure & Transport|
|Locations||Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands. Shelter Catalogue will be delivered and used by local government offices and disaster responders as a tool to respond with. Locations are dependent on location of disaster and can be used by government and/or the shelter cluster. HFH Fiji is comfortable with and has the capacity of working at any given location throughout Fiji including maritime areas.|
|Key activities||Development of a shelter catalogue identifying best practices for shelter in response, early recovery and reconstruction (emergency shelter kits to transitional shelter); peer review by regional and national shelter clusters and government stakeholders; ensuring disability inclusion in shelter design; catalogue to assist in faster shelter solutions for impacted communities.
Construction of temporary and new shelters in affected areas, repair of homes in affected areas, construction and improvement of water and sanitation systems.
|World Vision (Field Ready)*|
|Local implementing partners||Implementing partners TBC, including local manufacturers, suppliers and local NGOs, UN, etc.|
|Key activities||Field Ready will be an intermediary between humanitarian aid agencies and local private sector actors to meet local supply chain needs with local capabilities. Field Ready will introduce innovations in local manufacturing to enable quick responses to humanitarian needs.Â The activity will use and build local skills and establish partnerships for the local production of aid items.|
|Save the Children (PEARL)*|
|Local implementing partners||National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; WFP; UNICEF; Oxfam; Fiji Ministry of Education, Heritage and Arts; National Logistics Cluster|
|Locations||Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands|
|Key activities||PEARL is a formally accredited course for people who work (or want to work) within humanitarian organisations. It will provide participants an understanding and operational practice of the fundamental principles and activities of humanitarian supply chain operations. The course addresses the core operational aspects of procurement, transport, warehousing, inventory and distribution.Â|
|Save the Children, Oxfam (Pacific Cash Preparedness Partnership)*|
|Local implementing partners||National Disaster Management and Meteorological Service â€“ NDMO; WFP; UNICEF; Oxfam; Fiji Ministry of Education, Heritage and Arts; National Logistics Cluster|
|Key activities||The Pacific Cash Preparedness Partnership (PCPP) will improve country-level cash preparedness to enable faster, more efficient and effective emergency cash transfer programming at scale in Pacific Island Countries. The PCPP will strengthen cash preparedness in the region which will be fit for purpose for specific country contexts while feeding into learning and preparedness actions which will include capacity building, policy development and other initiatives on a regional level through the Pacific Regional Cash Working Group (PRCWG) based in Fiji.|
|Oxfam, Plan, World Vision (Support to the Pacific Disability Forum Regional Capacity Building Program)*|
|Local implementing partners||Pacific Disability Forum|
|Locations||Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu|
|Key activities||The program aims to build the capacity of the PDF, the peak representative of Disabled Peopleâ€™s Organisations (DPOs) in the Pacific based in Fiji. PDF will support national level DPOs to engage meaningfully and strategically in DiDRR and preparedness for response efforts in the Pacific â€“ including those being implemented under the AHP â€“Â in line with the priorities identified in PDFâ€™s â€˜Disability Inclusive Preparedness for Responseâ€™ Strategy|
*Denotes regional activities, represented here in the Fiji country plan as the activities are based out of Fiji. Annex 7 includes a summary of regional activities and budgets.
AHP Fiji partners intervention areas
The AHP Disaster READY Country Committee (known as the working group during the design phase) is the coordination and decision-making mechanism for AHP partners. The Disaster READY Country Committee consists of a representative from each AHP consortium implementing in Fiji or implementing a regional activity based out of Fiji as well as a representative from FDPF.
Coordination between the AHP NGOs, and between them and other stakeholders, is critical to improving disaster preparedness and response. Coordination allows for greater geographic coverage, supports consistency, and prevents duplication. Collaboration through joint design and implementation allows NGOs to pool resources and expertise and to have greater influence on the humanitarian system. The following section outlines how AHP Disaster READY supports coordination and collaboration.
The Country Committee is supported by a Coordinating Lead NGO elected from and by the NGOs implementing AHP Disaster READY in the country. This coordination function is supported with funding of up to a maximum of $30,000 per year (pro-rated for the final six months) from shared services. The terms of reference for the Coordinating Lead NGO are in the Shared Services Annex.
The Country Committee may invite other organisations to attend committee meetings to support broader coordinating efforts.
Formalised coordination with the Government of Fiji, other donors and NGOs, and the Red Cross is through the humanitarian clusters at national level, and with district commissioners and provincial DRM focal points at sub-national level. In practice, the Provincial Administration/Ministry of iTaukei Affairs is the entry point to working with communities. AHP NGOs are active in some clusters. For example, HFH is co-chair of the logistics cluster.
The Pacific Regional Humanitarian cluster system is based in Fiji, and some AHP partners are active in the regional logistics cluster and the cash preparedness platform.
AHP partners are active in the Fiji Cluster platform in the following sectoral clusters:
The Fiji Council of Social Services is formally mandated by the National Disaster Management Act (NDMA) as the NGO coordinator during disasters only. The NDMA is currently under review and AHP partners are considering how to contribute to this process.
DFAT Post is a key partner and stakeholder for the Country Committee. DFAT Post provides advice and guidance to the Country Committee and to DFAT Humanitarian Division about the implementation of AHP in the country and about the continued relevance of the country plan and activity plans to bilateral priorities. Active engagement by the Post is necessary to ensure AHP is well linked to other bilateral and regional investments, particularly in disaster risk reduction and climate change resilience. The role of the DFAT Post is to:
The purpose of the Country Committee is to improve disaster preparedness and response by:
During the design stage (until the end of 2017), the main functions of the Country Committee are to:
During the implementation stage (February 2018â€“June 2022) the functions of the Country Committee are to:
The Country Committee should meet at least quarterly during the implementation stage. Meetings will be convened by the Coordinating Lead NGO, which will also record and circulate minutes of the meetings, including to the AHPSU. The AHPSU will also hold a brief monthly update teleconference with the Coordinating Lead NGO. Decisions of the Country Committee will be by consensus. Where consensus cannot be reached the members will vote, with one vote per AHP consortium and one vote for FDPF. Where a dispute cannot be resolved in the Country Committee, the issue should be escalated by the Coordinating Lead NGO to the AHPSU and then to the DFAT representative on the Steering Committee.
The Country Committee will aim for gender balance and representation by nationals (see Annex 12 of Overarching Framework for data).
The Country Committee membership in Fiji includes:
Coordinating Lead NGO from Janâ€“Dec 2018Â
|Ana Alburqueque, ADRA Fiji Program Director
Daniel Taufaga, ADRA Fiji Emergency Coordinator
|Live & Learn (CARE)||Doris Susau|
|Save the Children||Iris Low McKenzie|
|Habitat Fiji (World Vision)||Masi Latianara|
|Fiji Disabled Persons FederationÂ||Lanieta Tuimabu
Shared services provide financial support for improved coordination between AHP NGOs and improved practice on gender equality, disability inclusion and child protection in humanitarian preparedness and response. It can also be used to support joint M&E initiatives by the AHP NGOs.
The AHP Fiji Country Committee has identified the following themes as part of the shared services:
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is an important aspect of the Disaster READY program. M&E of program performance and changes in the context will be critical to supporting the program to understand and demonstrate where there have been successes, and to adapt or move away from areas that are underperforming.
There are several purposes for the Disaster READY M&E system. These are to support:
Country-level M&E will be led by the Coordinating Lead NGO for each Country Committee, with assistance from the AHPSU.
Further information is included in the M&E Annex. This includes a summary of:
Indicative funding for each NGO for Year 1 is in the table below.
|Funding Allocation by In-Country Lead NGO, by year (AUD)|
|NGO||Yr 1 2018||Yr 2 2019||Yr 3 2020||Yr 4 2021||Yr 5 2022|
|Save the Children|
|Plan â€“ PCDF||$273,845|
|Live & Learn (Care)||$156,000|
|Total Activity Plan||$1,014,679|
|Shared Services Budget||$105,695|
*World Vision includes HFH + support to PDF + Field Ready activities
Annex 1: Outcome Area and Indicator by NGO Annex 2: Country Plan Risk Matrix Annex 3: Shared Services Proposal Annex 4: Strategic Context Annex 5: M&E System Annex 6: Summary of DRR work implemented in country (3Ws) Annex 7: Summary of Regional Activities and Budgets
|The following table shows the outcomes and indicator each NGO will contribute to through their activity plans. All NGOs must contribute to Indicator a:
|Objective 1: Communities are better prepared for rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|1.1||Communities understand likely hazards and risks and have knowledge, skills and resources to manage these|
|1.2||Community disaster mechanisms are prepared for and responding to rapid- and slow-onset disaster|
|1.3||Communities understand and seek support from sub-national government planning and budget processes and other funding sources to prepare for and respond to disasters|
|1.4||Women, men, people with disabilities, and children demand, access, understand and act on early warning information for rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|b||Number and percentage of communities which have disaster plans to reduce risks and respond to disaster (by new or updated plan)|
|c||Number and percentage of communities which have tested their response plan in the last 12 months|
|d||Number and percentage of communities that have implemented action plans to reduce risks|
|e||Number of communities seeking financial support for disaster plans from government|
|f||Number and percentage of communities which are receiving and acting on early warning information for rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|g||Examples of early warnings being accessible (considering geographic reach, diversity of methods â€“ e.g. radio, print, SMS, etc. â€“ and clarity of message)|
|Objective 2: The rights and needs of women, people with disabilities, youth and children are being met in disaster preparedness and response at all levels|
|2.1||Increased representation and capacity of women, people with disabilities, youth, LGBTQI people, and children in disaster committees and planning processes, particularly at community and sub-national levels|
|2.2||Humanitarian operating practices, procedures, policies, laws and tools from community to national level incorporate and are responsive to rights and needs of women, people with disabilities, youth and childrenÂ|
|2.3||All community members, including men and boys, faith leaders and other community leaders and government staff address the barriers that prevent women, people with disabilities, youth and children from having their rights and needs met in disaster preparedness and response|
|2.4||AHP NGOs apply more inclusive approaches in their own preparedness and response planning|
|h||Number of community disaster plans that are inclusive of women, youth, children, LGBTQI and people with disabilities|
|i||Number and percentage of disaster assessment tools mandated by national committees that include questions on gender, LGBTQI, disability and children|
|j||Number of disaster committees that have women represented, and the percentage of members that are women (by national or sub-national level)|
|k||Number of people with disabilities on national and subnational disaster committees|
|l||Examples of inclusive humanitarian practices by government during a response.|
|m||Examples of men and boys, faith leaders and other community leaders and government staff addressing barriers to inclusion in disaster preparedness and response|
|n||Number (and %) of AHP NGOs who have preparedness and response plans that explicitly prioritise social inclusion and gender|
|Objective 3: Government, NGOs, the private sector and communities coordinate more effectively for inclusive disaster preparedness and response|
|3.1||National and sub-national disaster committees are functioning|
|3.2||Sub-national governments are better able to respond to community needs during rapid- and slow-onset disasters|
|3.3||Evacuation centres, including schools, churches and other community facilities, are safe and accessible for women, people with disabilities and children|
|3.4||Improved two-way communications between communities and government for preparedness, early warnings, disaster impact and response|
|3.5||Cash transfer and logistics preparedness processes developed through regional platforms are adapted to and operational in some countries|
|n||Number and % of AHP NGOs who have preparedness and response plans that explicitly prioritise social inclusion and gender|
|o||Number and % of national and sub-national disaster committees that meet regularly and engage actively with the community|
|p||Examples of sub-national disaster committees which have improved disaster preparedness practices (e.g. that they have mapped evacuation assets or risk profiles for communities)|
|q||Number of evacuation centres that are inclusive of people with disabilities|
|r||Examples of improved communication between communities and government (e.g. community assessments have informed government-led responses)|
|s||Cash â€“ to be developed by NGOs working on cash systems|
|Objective 4: National NGOs and churches have more influence and capacity in the country humanitarian system|
|4.1||Local NGOs and faith-based organisations are better represented in national and sub-national disaster coordination mechanisms|
|4.2||National NGOs and faith-based organisations have improved organizational capacity for disaster preparedness and response including policies, processes, equipment and distribution systems|
|4.3||National NGOs have greater influence with respect to INGOs and the country humanitarian system|
|t||Number of CSOs and churches represented on national disaster clusters or coordination committees|
|u||Number of national NGOs and churches that have improved operational or financial policies or practices that align with humanitarian standards|
|v||Examples of increased influence by national INGO offices relative to their headquarters during a disaster response|
|Objective 5. AHP NGOs work effectively together and with other relevant stakeholders (e.g. Red Cross, other NGOs, donors and government)|
|5.1||AHP NGOs are well coordinated and engaging with government, Red Cross, womenâ€™s and other NGOs|
|5.2||AHP NGOs are using shared services to champion inclusive approaches and demonstrate and share impact|
|5.3||AHP NGOs are using good practices from humanitarian programs to mainstream disaster preparedness and risk reduction into other work|
|w||Level of satisfaction of key government partners and the Red Cross with AHP coordination|
|x||Examples of where AHP NGOs have integrated DRR into their other work|
The risks should be reviewed by the Country Committee and the register updated annually during the annual review and planning process.
|User Notes:||Ã˜ Please provide country-level risks that all NGOs will face working in Fiji. This will include: country operating environment; political and government context; cultural issues; partnership between AHP NGOs; coordination with other stakeholders|
|Ã˜ Please add rows as required|
|Ã˜ Risks and treatments should be reviewed by the Country Committee and updated on an annual basis|
|High Risks||Proposed treatment|
|Medium Risks||Proposed treatment|
|2. Elections will delay activities; the necessity of re-establishing relationships with key government officials||Plan activities and implement them before and after the elections.|
|3. Communication breakdown||Establish a clear communication system among all partners, open communication and willingness to share information. Terms of Reference of AHP Fiji Country Committee in place.|
|4. Theological understanding of sensitive issues, i.e. DRR, gender, women leadership, etc.||Theology of compassion, leadership and service must be part of the implementation framework.|
|5. Limited coordination and relations with Fiji Government during non-crisis and crisis times||The Country Committee will communicate and coordinate closely with the NDMO throughout the design and implementation of the program. The Australian High Commission will likewise communicate regularly with the NDMO.|
|6. Limited coordination with FCOSS and main stakeholders||A possible way forward is for the Country Committee to coordinate closely with FCOSS and stakeholders. Frequent individual meetings to inform and coordinate actions.|
The Country Committee should agree on a Coordinating Lead NGO to serve a minimum term of 12 months. The Coordinating Lead NGO will provide leadership for the AHP Country Committee and also provide coordinating services to enable the group to function effectively. The Country Director (or equivalent) for the Coordinating Lead NGO should take the leadership role and can delegate functions to other staff. Shared services funding for coordination ($30,000/yr) can be used flexibly. For example, the funding could contribute to the Country Director position and be used to contribute to another existing position, or to recruit an additional resource, and/or fund travel by Country Committee members (in PNG). The Coordinating Lead NGO in Fiji is ADRA Fiji (CAN DO) from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018.Â The coordinator is Ana Alburqueque, ADRA Fiji Program Director. The secondary coordinator is Daniel Taufaga, ADRA Fiji Emergency Coordinator. The Coordinating Lead NGO will:
The AHP Fiji Country Committee Coordinator will facilitate the Country Committee, a platform where AHP partners, government and key stakeholders will meet to discuss the implementation of Disaster READY country-strategic activities. This Country Committee will benefit from sharing lessons learned by all members involved in similar activities. The Country Committee will also receive technical advice from focused shared services such as gender, child protection and disability. The Country Committee will also benefit from sharing its experiences with other stakeholders, thus creating strong synergies which will help in harmonization.
|$30,000 contribution to:||Ana Alburqueque, ADRA Fiji Program Director – CAN DO Fiji
Daniel Taufaga, ADRA Fiji Emergency Coordinator – CAN DO Fiji
|Positions:||Ana Alburqueque, ADRA Fiji Program Director – CAN DO Fiji
Daniel Taufaga, ADRA Fiji Emergency Coordinator – CAN DO Fiji
|Number of days:||25%|
|Location of positions:||Suva|
For Year 1 (Febâ€“Dec 2018)
|ThemeÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â||Activities||Rationale for this activity||When this will occur|
|Child Protection||Capacity building support for AHP Partners on:
1. Child Protection in Emergencies and
2. Child Participation
|The activity supports AHP partners to integrate a child-centred approach to DRR and humanitarian response.Â
As some of the activities and indicators in the AHP Country Plan include working with children, the workshop will provide a guide on how to meaningfully and ethically engage with children.
|Child safeguarding audit of AHP partners to strengthen child protection policies, procedures and safer programming.Â This will be one-on-one support, coaching and mentoring.||To support AHP partners with safer programming as this intersects with child-centred and child-focused programming and is concerned with ensuring that our program work is safe for children. Partners will have different needs based on the organisational capacity, policies and procedures and their AHP activities. Therefore, 27 hours are allocated to each partner to support with technical assistance.||Spread across the 12 months
|Gender||Joint gender and inclusion context analysis. Review of gender and inclusion dimensions of national and partner policies/practices/ The gender assessment will review the extent of womenâ€™s meaningful participation, decision-making, and leadership in humanitarian action, and identify challenges, lesson learned and good practices from previous disasters and response in Fiji. Findings will be shared and discussed with AHP Country Committee members and stakeholders.||To ensure AHP partners and program are informed by a substantive contextual analysis of gender and protection in humanitarian action in Fiji, and are guided by lessons learned and good practices also.||Q1 2018|
|Technical support to individual agencies or consortia.
|AHP partners are implementing different types of activities and have indicated different needs and priorities related to gender. The provision of one-to-one technical support will enable AHP partners to strengthen the focus on gender in a way that meets theses differing needs.||Q2, 3 and 4 Â 2018|
|Review of AHP partner approaches, challenges, and lessons learned to date in relation to gender and protection.||To provide AHP partners with an early gender health check and guide more substantive discussions and planning about gender during the country review.||Q 3 (before October in country review)|
|Disability||Establishing and supporting a dedicated disability-inclusive preparedness for response staff role within FDPF||FDPF staff member will be responsible for engaging across all Disaster READY activities in Fiji, including delivering training, managing relationships, providing advice, participating in coordination/planning processes||January 2018|
|Resourcing the implementation of foundational capacity-building activities for FDPF in preparedness for response||This support is to help FDPF learn more about DRR so they can then help agencies in disability-inclusive DRR||April 2018|
|Covering accessibility costs (reasonable accommodations) to support DPO participation in cross-cutting Disaster READY activities, events, coordination processes||This support will enable people with disabilities to participate in various DRR consultations and to provide requisite access support.Â||April 2018|
|M&E and Knowledge Management||Learning process and knowledge management||To provide AHP partners with M&E support and standard tools, and to facilitate the learning process.||2018|
What are the specific outcomes you expect to achieve in Year 1 for each of the activities? That is, what are the specific changes in products, practices, or policies?
|Activities||Expected Outcomes in Year 1
(i.e. what will success look like, and how will you know if youâ€™ve achieved it?)
|1. Child Protection: Responsible Save the Children Fiji|
|1.1 Training for partners on:
a. Child protection in emergencies
b. Meaningful and ethical participation of children
|1. AHP partners integrate best practice child-centred DRR/climate change adaptation into AHP activities;
2. Child-centred approaches are embedded in DRR/climate change adaptation planning and response planning by AHP partners including community development planning;
3. Children participate in DRR planning either in school or in their communities
|1.2 Child safeguarding mentoring and coaching||1. The child protection policies of AHP partners will be supported to be DFAT compliant.
2. Safer organisations and safer programming by AHP Partners intersects with child safeguarding and includes child-focused programming.
|2. Gender: Responsible CARE Fiji|
|2.1 Joint gender and inclusion context analysis
|AHP partners, implementing agencies and key stakeholders will have acquired understanding of the gender and protection dimension of DRR, disaster preparedness and response in Fiji. Coupled with technical support in Activity 2, programs will have begun to integrate critical contextualised knowledge, lessons learned and good practices.|
|2.2 Technical support to integrate gender for partners and implementing agencies.||Changes to products, practices and policies will vary but initial feedback indicates that this is likely to include gender-responsive evacuation centre guidelines for churches as well as the integration of gender and protection into partnersâ€™ policies, standard operating procedures, and emergency preparedness and response plans. If required, explicit alignment of AHP programs with relevant national and partnersâ€™ gender policies and strategies may also be supported under this activity.|
|2.3 Summary assessment of progress to date related to the integration of gender in AHP programming||The assessment will detail key changes related to the integration of gender in policies, practices, and product that have occurred in AHP programming.|
|3. Disability: Responsible FDPF|
|3.1 Establishing and supporting institutional strengthening for disability-inclusive preparedness within FDPF||FDPF will be well resourced, coordinated and mobilized to lead and oversee the success of disability-inclusive Disaster READY in Fiji with technical support provided.
|3.2 Resourcing of capacity building and covering of accessibility costs for FDPF members||FDPF will be able to develop a core group of people with disabilities in Fiji who will be more informed on DRR processes. They will act as agents for change who will assist agencies in disability-inclusive DRR.|
|M&E: Responsible Plan|
|4.1 Standardized tools and shared best practices||To develop standardized tools and shared best practices, lesson learned and complaint/feedback mechanics. Joint M&E visits are included.|
Resilience to climate change and disaster preparedness is a priority for Fiji, an archipelago of more than 300 islands. The population of approximately 900,000 people are exposed to a range of hazards, including tropical cyclones (resulting in high winds, storm surges, and heavy rains), storms, floods, drought, earthquakes and tsunamis. Fijiâ€™s National Climate Change Policy 2012 notes that climate change is expected to bring about more intense and severe extreme events such as cyclones and threats to marine ecosystems (such as coral bleaching, beach erosion, ocean acidification) and terrestrial ecosystems (such as soil erosion, salt water intrusions in low lying coastal areas, reduced soil fertility, and increased pests and diseases). Fiji is expected to incur, on average, annual losses of $110 million due to earthquakes and cyclones. Recent Tropical Cyclones (TC) Thomas (2010), Evan (2012) and Winston (2016) caused catastrophic losses, with TC Winston â€“ the strongest cyclone recorded in the southern hemisphere â€“ affecting two-thirds of Fijiâ€™s population and causing an estimated $1.6 billion in damage. Flooding and associated landslides caused by tropical depressions occur frequently (2009, 2012, 2017), resulting in significant loss and damage to infrastructure and crops.Â Fiji is also highly influenced by El NiÃ±o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and La NiÃ±a events. The 2015â€“16 El NiÃ±o brought severe drought and water shortages to parts of Fiji. Forest clearing and intensive agriculture compound the risks of flooding and landslides on Fijiâ€™s steeply sloping terrain. In rural areas, landslides destroy crops and livelihoods, roads and other infrastructure. The multiple hazards affecting Fiji at times hit in succession, creating a range of inherent vulnerabilities and severely reducing peopleâ€™s capacity to cope and recover. Adding to these vulnerabilities, many people live in coastal and low-lying areas, including in remote locations. Successive floods, cyclones and associated damage, coupled with the impacts of climate change, have necessitated relocation of communities in some instances.Â Urban drift has led to unplanned settlements which are often large and in peri-urban areas.Â Approximately 140,000 people live in over 200 informal settlements with many lacking basic amenities such as piped water, sewerage and electricity. The majority of urban communities and infrastructure are exposed to storm surges and coastal flooding, predicted to worsen in future. Key economic sectors including tourism (fastest growing), agriculture (70% of the workforce) and fisheries are weather dependent and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change at both cash and subsistence levels. For example, in coastal communities, 90% of households derive their first or second income from fisheries while vulnerable habitats â€“ reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds â€“ yield 65% of the total catch. The narrow agriculture and service-based economy arguably lacks resilience to external shocks, such as price falls in the sugar industry, which employs close to 25% of the workforce. Coastal zones are also under pressure. Coastal erosion is reportedly increasing. Natural coastal defenses have been weakened by shoreline development and clearing of mangroves, exposing coasts, especially the southern coasts, to wave action and storms, which are predicted to worsen. Numerous low-lying communities and atolls are at risk as sea levels rise and storms strengthen. The 2017 Asia-Pacific Disaster Report of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific identifies that natural disasters hit poor people harder because they live in vulnerable overexposed areas, have lower-quality assets, and in rural areas are more dependent on vulnerable agriculture and ecosystems; thus, they have less ability to cope and recover. The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction notes that natural, technological or man-made hazards can have different short-term or long-term impacts on various groups within society. A personâ€™s gender, age, physical abilities, ethnicity and sexuality can lead to increased vulnerability and a higher risk of death or injury, longer recovery times or greater risk of mental or physical trauma. Participation and inclusion of vulnerable groups in DRM planning and implementation can help to mitigate this. The 2015 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Fiji 121 out of 136 countries in terms of the Global Gender Gap Index, which measures gender disparity across four broad areas including economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival.
Globally, relevant frameworks exist to guide climate change investments, DRR, resilience building and DRM. These include the Sustainable Development Agenda 2015â€“2030, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015â€“2030, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2015, the Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action (S.A.M.O.A) Pathway 2014, the Addis Ababa Accord 2015 and Agenda for Humanity 2016. The Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific 2017â€“2030 provides the single integrated regional framework on climate change and DRM to guide implementation of voluntary international commitments in the Pacific. The Pacific Regional Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2012â€“2015) and Revised Pacific Platform for Action, along with Fijiâ€™s National Gender Policy, provide guidance on the integration of gender equality, while the Pacific Disability Framework provides guidance on disability inclusion. Fijiâ€™s 20-year and 5-year National Development Plan was released in November 2017. It notes the importance of building the resilience of local communities and infrastructure to threats of climate change and natural disasters. Specific policy commitments include disaster- and climate-resilient building standards, housing, electricity systems, inter-island transport and evacuation centres;Â disaster insurance schemes; disaster planning, early warning, interagency coordination and improved response capacities especially in urban areas; post-trauma counselling; identification and mapping of communities that are most vulnerable to disasters; improved health system preparedness; vulnerability assessments for all communities; climate and disaster resilience plans; and partnering with CSOs to build capacity at divisional and community level on resilience to climate change and disasters.
Fiji is also committed to stewardship of climate change issues at both regional and global levels; and successfully provided the presidency for COP23 in 2017. The severity of the damage caused by disasters, and the varied ability of communities to cope, has ensured increased focus by the Fiji Government and partners on national DRM and preparedness. In November 2017, the Fiji Government launched the countryâ€™s first Climate Vulnerability Assessment designed to inform climate-smart development planning and investments. The analysis identifies threats that could jeopardize Fijiâ€™s development needs and opportunities as well as the interventions that could minimise these threats. Fiji is currently undergoing policy and institutional reforms that include developing and updating legislation and policies. The National Disaster Management Act is being reviewed and a new National Humanitarian Policy has been developed. A National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy is currently in draft. Fiji has drafted strategic plans for climate change, and there is increasing priority for tackling climate change in the national development agenda, with a shift from a focus on adaptation only to a combination of adaptation and mitigation. The implementation of the National Humanitarian Policy and associated legislation/policies will require significant resources from the Fiji Government and its partners to operationalise. For example, it is likely to include development and reinforcement of national and sub-national coordination mechanisms and guidelines as well as review of national community training standards and procedures. The National Humanitarian Policy is designed to align with social welfare policies, including policies on gender, disability, vulnerability, child protection, discrimination, and poverty alleviation. Access to disaster and climate change information remains a challenge. The DFAT Pacific climate change Interim Support Unit found that communities required better access to climate information services so that they could make better informed decisions in preparedness and recovery/reconstruction, otherwise there was a risk of maladaptation and unpreparedness. Partnerships with meteorological services, including links with Australian and New Zealand Pacific climate information programs, could help provide access to this information. It is important to partner with emerging climate information brokers in the Pacific (e.g. meteorological services, the University of the South Pacific, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, CSIRO, agribusiness and extension services) to help provide information in forms that work for communities in their various contexts.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is an important aspect of the Disaster READY program. M&E of program performance and changes in the context will be critical to enable the program to understand and demonstrate where there have been successes, and to adapt or move away from areas that are underperforming.
There are several purposes of the Disaster READY M&E system. These are to support:
A number of principles will guide the implementation of the NGOsâ€™ M&E for Disaster READY. These include the commitment to:
The following high-level evaluation questions guide the M&E system. These are aligned to the quality criteria in the Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS), the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria, and DFATâ€™s Aid Quality Check (AQC) report. The alignment between the CHS quality criteria and the sub-questions is included in the footnote. The evaluation questions provide the framework for the NGOsâ€™ annual review and reporting, the annual review by Country Committees, and an independent evaluation in Year 4. An annual small-scale evaluation will also provide data to inform the assessment against the evaluation questions relating to effectiveness and inclusion. The particular methods that will provide information for each of the sub-questions are outlined in Table 3 and described in the text below.
Table 1 Evaluation Questions for Disaster READY
|Evaluation Question||Evaluation sub-questions|
|1. Are we achieving the outcomes we expected at this point in time?||1.1. To what extent has local humanitarian capability in the Pacific and Timor-Leste been strengthened so that communities are better able to manage and respond to rapid- and slow-onset disasters? (E.g. what progress has been made towards the program objectives and outcomes?)
|2. Have Disaster READY processes and outcomes been inclusive?||2.1. How equitable has the participation of women and people with disabilities been in program activities (e.g. in the Country Committees and in NGO activities)?
2.2. What benefits or changes have women and girls experienced from the program?
2.3. What benefits or changes have people with disabilities experienced from the program?
2.4. To what extent are children and youth involved in and benefiting from the program?
2.5. Are the necessary policy, systems and processes in place to protect children?
|3. Is Disaster READY making appropriate use of Australiaâ€™s and our partnersâ€™ time and resources to achieve outcomes?||3.1. What evidence is there that the program is making appropriate use of time and resources to achieve outcomes?
3.2. Do predicted budgets compare well to actual expenditure?
3.3. What has been the value-add of the AHP NGO headquarters and the AHPSU?
3.4. Has the coordination between NGOs in-country been worth the effort (greater reach, impact, reduced burden on other stakeholders, duplication avoided, etc.)?
3.5. Have shared services been worth the effort?
|4. Is this still the right thing to do?||4.1. Have changes to the economic, social or political context affected the relevance of the program?
4.2. Are the programâ€™s activities and approach the most appropriate way to achieve its outcomes?
4.3. To what extent has DFAT Post been engaged in the program (e.g. Post awareness of and support for Disaster READY)
4.4. Are the program results, engagement with and from Post, and NGO coordination sufficient to continue funding the activities in each country?
|5. Will the benefits of Disaster READY last?||5.1. To what extent is the program using local systems and processes and strengthening the capacity of local institutions?
5.2. Are climate change and disaster risks associated with the program identified and effectively managed?
5.3. What evidence is there that benefits are being sustained?
Defining effectiveness and inclusion in more detail â€“ Core Outcomes and Indicators
As noted earlier, Disaster READY has been designed around a core set of outcomes and indicators. This common framework will enable shared analysis, learning, and communication across partners in each country and for the program as a whole. The outcomes and indicators will provide information on effectiveness and inclusion in particular.
The indicators are primarily quantitative to facilitate analysis and reporting. The NGOs are also expected to provide additional quantitative and qualitative data on the results of their activities. These will also be analysed on an annual basis by the AHPSU to identify trends, themes or cases of note.
There are three levels of enquiry and analysis for Disaster READY. These include:
Disaster READY has been deliberately designed around a core set of outcomes and indicators. These apply at all levels: overarching program, country, and NGO sub-programs. This will enable the program partners (with assistance from the AHPSU) to tell a collective story about the programâ€™s results.
Lead responsibility Assessment of the progress and results of Disaster READY is the responsibility of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will meet quarterly in 2018 and six-monthly in following years. The AHPSU will assist the Steering Committee in this function by coordinating the M&E and reporting for the overarching Disaster READY program. On an annual basis, the AHPSU will collate the results against the core outcomes at a country and program level and assess progress towards Disaster READY objectives. This will inform DFATâ€™s assessment of NGOs and the programâ€™s performance (see Quality Assurance below for more on DFATâ€™s assessment). It will also enable program partners to tell a collective story about the results achieved. Each year, the AHPSU will review and update this M&E framework as required. As part of this review, the AHPSU will facilitate stakeholders to review and update the theory of change if necessary.
Where the data will come from The NGOsâ€™ M&E will provide the bulk of the information used to assess and report on the progress against Disaster READY objectives. On an annual basis, the NGOs will, individually and collectively as a Country Committee, review and report on progress (including results from shared services, the NGO multi-year funds, and any activities implemented under the PPF). The AHPSU will also facilitate a regional learning forum in 2019. This will involve a representative from each NGO consortium in each of the five countries, DFAT and the PDF. The purpose of the forum is to review progress towards the program objectives and to identify successes, areas for improvement, and opportunities for coordination. NGOs are expected to send one representative from each of their countries of implementation and the AHP NGO; the cost of this will be funded from their project budget. Venue hire, catering, the workshop facilitator, and travel for the PDF representative will be funded from the AHPSU management budget. An annual small-scale evaluation will be conducted. This evaluation could be on a thematic topic (e.g. disability inclusion or gender equality) or it could be used opportunistically to evaluate the response to a moderate or significant disaster in one of the five priority countries to assess the impact of the preparedness work. Country Committees in a country which has experienced a disaster will also be encouraged to reflect on the extent to which their preparedness work had contributed to a more inclusive and effective response as well as what improvements may be needed. The focus and terms of reference for the annual evaluation will be identified by the Steering Committee. The evaluations will be funded from the AHPSU management budget. The budget for these evaluations is modest: two evaluations will be desk-based, while the other two will have a small budget for some field assessment. On an annual basis, the Steering Committee will review the effectiveness of the management approaches, including engagement by DFAT Posts, efficiency, and the value-add of the Steering Committee, Country Committees and the AHPSU. Periodic monitoring of program implementation will also be undertaken by either DFAT Humanitarian Preparedness and Response Section (HRS) or DFAT Post. Monitoring by DFAT HRS will be combined with other visits to the priority countries to ensure efficient use of resources. A simple monitoring tool will be developed by the AHPSU to guide the focus of data collection.Â Â In Year 4 of the program (2021), DFAT will commission an independent evaluation of the overarching Disaster READY program. This assessment will inform the design of phase two of the program (2022â€“2027). The Terms of Reference will be developed and the evaluation team members will be selected in consultation with the Steering Committee. An independent evaluator will lead the review. Using the evaluation questions as the framework, the evaluation will assess whether the progress towards the objectives was adequate, the value of the program design, and the effectiveness of the programâ€™s management by DFAT, the Steering Committee and the AHPSU. To ensure consistency and complementarity, the Team Leader will also be contracted prior to the evaluation to review the NGO evaluation designs which they will be required to conduct in Year 4 of the program. Data storage and analysis The AHPSU will develop a suitable platform where data can be stored and readily accessible to DFAT and NGO partners. This will likely be a simple web-based system to which NGOs will upload their results on an annual basis. This system will be developed by July 2018 and piloted prior to its use in October 2018 (at which time the NGOs will provide their annual reports). Reporting The AHPSU will provide an annual consolidated report to DFAT (and other stakeholders) to inform DFATâ€™s annual quality check process. This will be structured against the key evaluation questions. The annual report will be compiled in February. It will be informed by the NGOsâ€™ annual review of progress against their designs (provided in October and updated in mid-February). A range of additional communication products will be produced, as discussed under the communications section in the design.
Country-level M&E will be led by the coordinating lead NGO for each Country Committee, with assistance from the AHPSU.
Where the data will come from?
The bulk of the data on the programâ€™s performance will be collected by the NGOs through their M&E systems. Each NGO is required to collect data (including a baseline) for the outcomes and indicators in the country plan which are relevant to their designs.
The NGOs will be required to identify common approaches and definitions for these indicators so that there is, as much as possible, consistency and comparability across the NGOs reporting against the same indicators. These approaches and definitions should be reviewed and finalized by the NGOs during the first quarter of 2018.
In some countries, committees might choose to use shared services, funding from the NGOâ€™s multi-year budgets, or resources from the PPF to conduct additional joint M&E activities. This information would then also support the Country Committee to review progress against the country plan.
Joint review and learning processes
At an annual Country Review, Learning and Planning Forum, Country Committees will review the progress against the Disaster READY outcomes and also assess the outcomes achieved through shared services. Country Committees will assess whether progress has been as expected and is adequate, lessons for sharing, and areas for improvement.
|What||Country Review, Learning and Planning Forum|
|When||September/October, annually (2 days)|
|What||Â· NGOs present on highlights and lessons
Â· Collective review of successes and areas for improvement against the country outcomes and indicators
Â· Review results of shared services (e.g. review NGO progress to improve consideration of gender, disability, and child protection)
Â· Plan the following yearâ€™s shared services submission
Â· Review country-level risks
Â· Identify opportunities for improved coordination
|Who||All country partners, DPO + DFAT Post + AHPSU (+ AHP NGOs where appropriate)
The Country Committee might involve other stakeholders for part of the workshop (e.g. the NDMO, Office of Womenâ€™s Affairs or others as relevant)
|Resourcing||NGOs are expected to cover the cost of their involvement in the country review event from their project budget (NB: not from the 5% of the budget allocated to M&E in country). The AHPSU will cover costs associated with the event, including facilitation, venue hire and catering.|
Reporting and communications On an annual basis, the AHPSU will work with the Coordinating Lead NGO in each country to write an annual report. This report will synthesise the NGOsâ€™ annual reports to provide a collective story of the programâ€™s progress in relation to the outcomes in the country plan. The report will also summarise the outcomes of the shared services funding (the Lead Coordinator will provide a brief report on the activities and results of shared services on 31 October, together with a proposal for the following yearâ€™s funding). This report will be shared with DFAT, the DPO, NDMO and other local stakeholders. The AHPSU will also assist the Country Committee to identify and develop additional communication products to showcase and share the lessons and achievements of the program in-country and more widely as appropriate. DFAT review of shared services On an annual basis, Country Committees will provide a proposal for the following yearâ€™s social inclusion work to be funded through shared services. DFAT HRS will review and provide feedback on these proposals (considering the report on progress provided by the Lead Coordinator described above) and seek feedback from DFAT Posts and relevant thematic areas as required.
As noted earlier, the NGOs’ M&E will provide the bulk of the information used to assess and report on the progress against Disaster READY objectives. All NGOs have been required to align their designs to Disaster READY objectives and outcomes and to identify which of the common Disaster READY indicators they will monitor and report on. The NGOs will also monitor other quantitative and qualitative indicators as needed to assess their results against Disaster READY outcomes. The NGOs will review and report on progress (including results from shared services, the NGO multi-year funds, and any activities implemented under the PPF) on an annual basis. They will do so individually and collectively as a Country Committee. Based on this analysis, the NGOs will develop their activity proposals for the following year. As described further in the section on Quality Assurance below, DFAT will review the NGOsâ€™ annual reports to assess their performance and to inform the approval of the NGOsâ€™ proposals for the following year. The NGOs are also required to conduct an evaluation in Year 4 of the program (2021). The results of this assessment will inform an independent evaluation of Disaster READY which will be commissioned by DFAT (see the section on program-level M&E above). NGOs will be encouraged to use their evaluation as an opportunity to facilitate a systematic internal review with their partners. However, it is recommended that the NGOs also involve at least one independent consultant to help meet accountability requirements and to bring a fresh perspective to their work. To ensure consistency, the NGO evaluation designs will be reviewed by the Team Leader chosen to conduct the DFAT independent evaluation. The NGOs should also consider conducting joint evaluations in each country to support shared learning and efficiency. A localised approach â€“ strengthening partnersâ€™ M&E AHP NGOs have been encouraged to primarily use their local partners’ existing systems for information management; however, they need to ensure that these systems meet a series of quality requirements that were outlined in the design guidelines. In summary, these requirements include:
NGOs were also required to identify the existing strengths and weaknesses in their partners’ M&E systems and identify how this capacity would be built through the project. Five per cent of the total AHP NGO budget was required to be spent in-country to support and strengthen local partnersâ€™ M&E.
There will be several quality assurance mechanisms used within Disaster READY. These include:
A summary of the major milestones relating to M&E are outlined in Table 2 below. Key planning milestones are included in italics. Table 2 M&E and reporting milestones
|M&E and reporting milestone||Date|
|Country Review, Learning and Planning Forums (2 days)
Year 1 includes review of NGOsâ€™ M&E systems (+1 day)
|Sep / Oct|
|NGOs submit annual reports (incl. bridge funding) (Year 1 = Jan/Febâ€“30 Sept)
Country Lead Coordinator submits brief shared services report
Proposals for NGO multi-year funds due
Shared services proposals due
|NGOs provide brief quantitative update on additional highlight results to inform DFATâ€™s Annual Quality Check (e.g. 2 pages max)||Mid-Feb|
|AHPSU compiles country annual reports and overarching program report||End of Feb|
Additional milestones in Year 1 only include:
|Country Committees define indicators â€“ with AHPSU assistance||By 30 March|
|NGOs submit updated M&E plan to the AHPSU||30 April|
Additional milestones also include the regional learning forum to be held in 2019.
A summary of the data sources for each evaluation sub-question is included in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Data sources for each evaluation sub-question
|Evaluation sub-questions||Data sources|
|EFFECTIVENESS – Are we achieving the outcomes we expected at this point in time?|
|1.1 To what extent has local humanitarian capability in the Pacific and Timor-Leste been strengthened so that communities are better able to manage and respond to rapid- and slow-onset disasters? (E.g. what progress has been made towards program objectives and outcomes?)||NGO annual report
|INCLUSION – Have Disaster READY processes and outcomes been inclusive?|
|2.1 How equitable has the participation of women and people with disabilities been in program activities?||NGO annual reports
|2.2 To what extent is the program making a difference to gender equality and empowering women and girls?|
|2.3 Are people with disabilities benefiting equally from the program?|
|2.4 Are the necessary policy, systems and processes in place to protect children?||NGO annual reports
Shared services report
|EFFICIENCY – Is Disaster READY making appropriate use of Australiaâ€™s and our partnersâ€™ time and resources to achieve outcomes?|
|3.1 What evidence is there that the program is making appropriate use of time and resources to achieve outcomes?||NGO annual reports
Annual review by Steering Committee
|3.2 Do predicted budgets compare well to actual expenditure?||DFAT/AHPSU assessment|
|3.3 What has been the value-add of the AHP NGO headquarters and the AHPSU?||NGO annual reports
|3.4 Has the coordination between NGOs in-country been worth the effort?||Country Committee annual reports
|3.5 Have shared services been worth the effort?||Country Committee annual reports
|RELEVANCE – Is this still the right thing to do?|
|4.1 Have changes to the economic, social or political context affected the relevance of the program?||NGO annual reports|
|4.2 Are the programâ€™s activities and approach the most appropriate way to achieve its outcomes?||NGO annual reports|
|4.3 To what extent has DFAT Post been engaged in the program (e.g. Post awareness of and support for Disaster READY)?||Steering Committee (DFAT and AHP NGOs informed by Post and Country Committees)|
|4.4 Are the program results, engagement with and from Post, and NGO coordination sufficient to continue funding the activities in each country?||DFAT assessment of NGO annual reports and feedback from Post|
|SUSTAINABILITY – Will the benefits of Disaster READY last?|
|5.1 To what extent is the program using local systems and processes and strengthening the capacity of local institutions?||NGO annual reports
Possibly annual evaluation
|5.2 Are climate change and disaster risks associated with the program identified and effectively managed?||NGO annual reports
|5.3 What evidence is there that benefits are being sustained?||NGO annual reports
|Funding Body||Lead Implementer||Partner organisations||Title||Start Date||End Date||Information||Sector||Sub Sector||Level||Countries||Budget|
|DFAT||UNDP||Live & Learn||Pacific Risk Resilience Programme (PRRP)||2012||2018||The PRRP is a multi-year initiative (2012â€“2018) working in four countries: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu â€“ countries that experience economic losses as a result of disasters on an annual basis. The programme is being implemented by UNDP and Live & Learn as the international NGO partner. So far the program has helped to integrate risk into national budgeting and planning processes in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Equally; it has helped national and sub-national government organisations work closely in Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu, and carry out a climate public expenditure and institutional review (CPEIR) in Fiji and Vanuatu.||Limiting Impacts||Risk Governance||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Save the Children Australia||WFP, OCHA, Plan, Oxfam||Pacific Cash Operational Preparedness||An investment in cash preparedness in the region which is context specific and feeds into learning, capacity building and other initiatives at the regional level.||Limiting Impacts||Cash||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Save the Children Australia||NDMO, MoH, private sector, UN agencies, medical institutions, INGOs, nurses, doctors, paramedics and media||Pacific Health Preparedness and Response Platform||Participatory research will be undertaken to map good practices regarding health preparedness and response in emergency settings in the Pacific.||Preparedness||Health||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT – AHP||World Vision Australia||HFHA, HFH-Fiji||Fiji Shelter||2017||2018||Developed in tandem with a clear identification of the Fijian supply chain, community access to safe, easy-to-supply shelter solutions will be improved. This will be achieved through pre-agreed, endorsed and available shelter interventions and designs prepared and ready for use||Preparedness||Early Recovery||National||Fiji||<$500K|
|DFAT||CARE||Live & Learn, tourism and private sector||Emergency preparedness planning and enhance delivery systems: CAN DO||Updating Emergency Preparedness Plans in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Tonga, as well as supporting the maintenance and rollout of Live & Learnâ€™s Pacific Emergency Response Manual. Hold annual Pacific Regional Emergency Preparedness Planning workshop in Fiji in October 2017. Working with private sector partners and social enterprises that are part of CARE and L&Lâ€™s Pacific network||Preparedness||CBDRM||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||Networks, identified roles and functions for disaster response and coordination||Establish or link with existing coordinating mechanisms representing the church partners in country and champion good leadership.Â Â Build ownership and endorsement for collaboration from senior church leadership and hierarchy.||Preparedness||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||Theology of DRM||Consult and develop a strategy to create a Pacific-wide â€˜theology of DRMâ€™Â||Limiting Impacts||Risk Governance||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||Country priorities and strategies are aligned in CAN DO Road Map||2017||2018||CAN DO is routinely coordinating humanitarian and DRM work.Â CAN DO Pacific partners are sharing and learning from each otherâ€™s strategies and designs.||Preparedness||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||Contingency planning and GIS community and infrastructure mapping in conjunction with NDMO and other community humanitarian stakeholders||2017||2018||CAN DO church partners are working together to develop country-level inclusive disaster management and contingency planning.Â CAN DO church partners are undertaking participatory capacity assessments to understand institutional needs.Â Strengthen baselines and use GIS mapping to inform better decision-making (church infrastructure, evacuation centres, prepositioned stock and demographics)||Preparedness||Risk Governance||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||DFAT Posts, WFP, OCHA, Pacific Island Forum||Established links with NDMOs and other key stakeholders in the PacificÂ Â||2017||2018||CAN DO church partners have established links with the NDMO. CAN DO church partners have relationships and unified representation with DFAT (post), WFP & OCHA clusters, Pacific Island Forum and key other stakeholders including research institutes.Â Â||Limiting Impacts||Risk Governance||Regional||Fiji|
|DFAT||Caritas CAN DO||Fiji Met Service,Â PCDF (Fiji), TCDT (Tonga)||Supporting national level coordination and preparedness||2017||2018||Consortium and Pacific partner NGOs will continue working with national governments and NDMOs as a key partner in strengthening emergency preparedness and response capacity.||Preparedness||Regional||Fiji|
|WMO||Gov of Fiji||Enhancing EWSs to build greater resilience to hydro and meteorological hazards in Pacific SIDS||2017||2018||Project preparation in 5 countries. Activities include stocktaking of EWSs in the country and the broader region, consultations to engage stakeholders and garner country ownership, and feasibility studies to ensure the proposed investments are socially, technically, economically and environmentally sound, among others.||Preparedness||EWS||National||Timor- Leste||$700,000|
|USAID/OFDA||WFP||Supporting WFP emergency capacity & preparedness||2016||2017||WFP is working with national and regional relief actors to improve assessment, coordination, equipment stocking, technical advisory services, and training capacity.||Preparedness||Logistics||Regional||Fiji||$0.66 M|
|DFAT – AHP||Save the Children||WFP, OCHA, Plan, Oxfam||Pacific Cash Operational Preparedness||2017||2018||Investment in cash preparedness in the region which is fit for purpose for specific country contexts, while at the same time feeding into learning, capacity building and other initiatives at a regional level||Preparedness||Cash||National||Fiji||<$500k|
|DFAT – AHP||Plan International Australia (PIA)||PCDF (Fiji)||Community Resilience Building||2017||2018||Community-based resilience building activities will be undertaken across four countries – Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Kiribati||Preparedness||CBDRM||Community||Fiji||<$500K|
|DFAT – AHP||Plan International Australia (PIA)||Local Government – DMOs||Strengthening sub-national DRM capacity||2017||2018||The program will work with local authorities, disaster management offices, CSOs, service providers and NGOs in three countries (Fiji, Solomon Islands, PNG) to increase knowledge and education on national disaster management operating procedures and frameworks||Limiting Impacts||Risk Governance||Sub-national||Fiji|
|DFAT – AHP||Plan International Australia (PIA)||Fiji Met Service,Â Â PCDF (Fiji)||Supporting national-level coordination and preparedness;||2017||2018||Consortium and Pacific partner NGOs willÂ work with the national governments and NDMOs as a key partner in strengthening emergency preparedness and response capacity.||Preparedness||Risk Governance||National||Fiji||<$500K|
|DFAT – AHP||Caritas CAN DO||Contingency planning and GIS community and infrastructure mapping||2017||2018||Church partners working together to develop country-level inclusive disaster management and contingency planning. Strengthen baselines and use GIS mapping to inform better decision-making (church infrastructure, evacuation centres, prepositioned stock, demographics)||Preparedness||CBDRM||Community||Fiji||<$500K|
|DFAT||Gov of Fiji||UNICEF, Save the Children, UNFPA, IPPF, CARE/L&L, HFH-Fiji, WFP||Tropical Cyclone Winston Response & Recovery||2016||2018||Support relief, reconstruction and longer-term recovery from TC Winston, including building resilience to future extreme weather events||Reconstruction / Rehabilitation||Education; Health; Disability; Early Recovery||National||Fiji||$35 M|
|DFAT||Coffey International Development||Fiji Community Development Facility||2015||2017||Small grants through CSOs to strengthen their capacity to deliver social and economic benefits to communities, primarily in WASH but including a large component of environment, climate change and disaster response (close to 30% of total disbursements and including $1.35M in relief funding post TC Winston).||Limiting Impacts||WASH||National||Fiji||$1.54 M (Climate change contribution)|
|USAID/OFDA||IFRC||Fiji Red Cross||Building resilient communities in disaster-prone areas||2016||2017||Collaborating with the Fiji Red Cross Society to build disaster management capacity and working with communities to facilitate assessment and EWS trainings to reduce disaster risk.||Preparedness||CBDRM||National||Fiji||$1.7 M|
|DFAT – ANCP||Australian Foundation for the Peoples of Asia and the Pacific||PCDF||Food Security and Rural Water Management Project (Fiji)||2015||2016||PCDF and AFAP will conduct an evaluation on the ANCP 2014â€“2015 supported Food Security and Rural Water Management Project (Fiji).||Limiting Impacts||Livelihoods||Community||Fiji||$25,000.60|
|DFAT – ANCP||Caritas Australia (CA)||Caritas Australia||Protection program||2015||2016||The program is focussed on protection for vulnerable groups including protection for survivors of gender-based violence, children, and people living with disabilities. The program will work on conflict resolution as well as provide legal, counselling and livelihoods support.||Limiting Impacts||Livelihoods||Community||Fiji||$664,466.00|
|DFAT – ANCP||Australian Red Cross||Fiji Red Cross||Fiji Community-Based Health||2015||2016||Fiji Red Cross has worked with ARC on this program since 2012. The program targets non-communicable diseases, diarrhoea, dengue, skin diseases, TB and leptospirosis, and trains volunteers to help develop and implement health plans in their communities||Preparedness||Health||Community||Fiji||$80,405.00|
|DFAT/Communities for Communities (C4C)||HFHA||HFH-Fiji||Viti Levu Resilience||2016||2017||Building transitional shelters and training community members on BBB construction in TC Winston-affected communities across northern Viti Levu||Limiting Impacts||Shelter/CBDRM/Disability||National||Fiji||< $500K|
|DFAT/Communities for Communities (C4C)||HFHA||HFH-Fiji||Tavuya Community Development Project||2017||2019||This project aims to increase the disaster resilience of 54 families in Tavuya village in the Rewa Delta through increasingÂ community awareness and skills to prepare their houses and community infrastructure for disasters.||Limiting Impacts||Shelter/CBDRM/Disability/WASH||National||Fiji||< $500K|
|HFHA/ChildFund Australia||HFH-Fiji||HFHA||Participatory Approaches to Safe Shelter Awareness (PASSA)||2015||2016||Training HFH-Fiji staff and community members on the use of the PASSA tool||Prevention||Shelter/CBDRM||National||Fiji||< $500K|
|DFAT- ANCP ChildFund Australia||ChildFund Australia||Fiji Government, Department of Social Welfare||Fijian Social Work Training Project â€“ Phase 1 (PC01-002)||2017||2018||This is an innovative collaboration between the Fiji Government and ChildFund whereby an intensive, technical training program will help improve staff knowledge and capacity and establish strong internal structures for comprehensive child protection work within the Department of Social Welfare.||Preparedness||CPiE||National and Sub-national||Fiji|
Most Disaster READY activities are country specific. There are five regional activities being implemented across a number of the five focus countries of the program.Â These activities help create a bridge from the regional humanitarian system and regional organisations to community, sub-national and country-level activities. The table below provides an overview of these five activities.Â
|AHP Lead Agencies||Description||Indicative Budget Yr 1 (AUD)||Countries of Implementation|
|1. Support to the Pacific Disability Forum (PDF) Regional Capacity Building Program|
|Oxfam, Plan, World Vision: CBM||The program aims to build the capacity of PDF, the peak representative of DPOs in the Pacific based in Fiji. PDF will support national level DPOs to engage meaningfully and strategically in DiDRR and preparedness for response efforts in the Pacific â€“ including those being implemented under the AHP â€“Â in line with the priorities identified in PDFâ€™s â€˜Disability Inclusive Preparedness for Responseâ€™ Strategy.||Oxfam: $34,000
|Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu|
|2. Made in the Pacific: Field Ready|
|World Vision: Field Ready||Field Ready will be an intermediary between humanitarian aid agencies and local private sector actors to meet local supply chain needs with local capabilities. Field Ready will introduce innovations in local manufacturing to enable quick responses to humanitarian needs.Â The activity will use and build local skills and establish partnerships for the local production of aid items.||$225,000.00||Fiji, Vanuatu|
|3. Pacific Emergency and Response Logistics (PEARL)|
|Save the Children||PEARL is a formally accredited course for people who work (or want to work) within humanitarian organisations. It will provide participants an understanding and operational practice of the fundamental principles and activities of humanitarian supply chain operations. The course addresses the core operational aspects of procurement, transport, warehousing, inventory and distribution.Â||Approx. $220,000||Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands|
|4. Pacific Cash Preparedness Partnership (PCPP)|
|Save the Children
|The PCPP will improve country-level cash preparedness to enable faster, more efficient and effective emergency cash transfer programming at scale in Pacific Island Countries. The PCPP will strengthen cash preparedness in the region which is fit for purpose for specific country contexts as well as feeding into learning, preparedness actions including capacity building, policy development and other initiatives on a regional level through the Pacific Regional Cash Working Group (PRCWG) based in Fiji.||TBC
Save approx. $175,000
|Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands|
|5. Pacific Shelter Catalogue and Guidelines: Cataloguing Best Practice Shelter Processes for Pacific Disaster Responses: HFH|
|World Vision and Oxfam: Habitat for Humanity||A project that will identify and collate a Regional Shelter Cluster-endorsed catalogue of existing and new best-practice shelter solutions. The catalogue will be adapted for use by shelter agencies and the national shelter cluster during a disaster response in Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. This will include the identification and documentation of country-specific supply chains.||WV: $24,000
|Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands|
|Quarterly Disaster READY Steering Committee Meetings|
|In-Country learning and planning workshops
Timor-Leste â€“ PNG â€“ Solomon Islands â€“ Fiji – Vanuatu
|NGO Annual Progress Report and Workplan; Shared Services proposals due October 31
Reporting will build on the learning and planning workshops
|Workplans and Shared Services proposals reviewed by DFAT (Desk-Post) and AHPSU to approve following year tranche|
|AHPSU produce Program Update for DFAT by 30 November
Key outcomes achieved at country and overall program level; key lessons learnt; links with the broader DFAT agenda
|AHPSU administer grants agreements for following year|
|AHP NGOs submit a quantitative Annual Results Summary by 28/29 February
|AHP NGOs submit Annual Financial Acquittal for Activity Plans by 28/29 February
|Country-level reports submitted by country committees (with AHPSU assistance) by 28/29 February
|AHPSU submits Annual Consolidated Results Summary pulling from the NGO submissions by mid-March
|DFAT drafts and completes Aid Quality Checks and Partner Performance Assessment|
|Performance & Partnership Fund (PPF) proposal development and submission|
|PPF grants announced. 2019 and 2020|
Program Cycle Diagram
 Government of Fiji, National Climate Change Policy, 2012â€“16
 Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Imitative, Fiji Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance, May 2015
 Fiji Ministry of Economy: 20-year and 5-year National Development Plan, November 2017 http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Govt–Publications/National-Development-Plan.aspx
 The intention of this indicator is to monitor the geographic and population reach of the program. The percentage is calculated based on the total number of â€˜communitiesâ€™ in that country. The term â€˜communitiesâ€™ refers to the relevant unit of disaster planning and needs to be defined in each country plan and used consistently by the NGOs (e.g. village, ward, suco, or school).
 Where possible, NGOs should also record whether communities or local organisations received financial support for disaster plans from government as this would be a highly significant result.
 Fiji to also include LGBTQI people in this and the following two indicators.
 In PNG, these are ward- and provincial-level planning processes rather than a specific disaster committee.
 Examples must be tangible with evidence.
 This includes potential support through the DFAT Pacific climate change support unit.
 The intention of this indicator is to monitor the geographic and population reach of the program. The percentage is calculated based on the total number of â€˜communitiesâ€™ in that country. The term â€˜communitiesâ€™ refers to the relevant unit of disaster planning and needs to be defined in each country plan and used consistently by the NGOs (e.g. village, or ward, suco, or school).
 Examples must be tangible with evidence
 Government of Fiji, National Climate Change Policy, 2012â€“16
 Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Imitative, Fiji Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance, May 2015
 Government of Fiji, Post Disaster Needs Assessment, May 2016
 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Pacific El NiÃ±o Overview, April 2016
 Asian Development Bank Fiji Country Strategy, 2014â€“18
 Fiji Ministry of Economy,: 20-year and 5-year National Development Plan, 2017 http://www.fiji.gov.fj/Govt–Publications/National-Development-Plan.aspx
 Including adherence to technical standards such as The Sphere Handbook and the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response.
 Also including the OECD DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation 2010.
 The alignment between the CHS criteria and the sub-questions includes: Criterion 1 (sub-question 1.1, 1.2), Criterion 2 (2.1), Criterion 3 (2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1), Criterion 6 (4.4), Criterion 9 (4.1, 4.3).
 This section includes sub-questions relating to gender equality and disability from the AQC and child protection from the Humanitarian AQC.
 Drawn from the Humanitarian AQC template (2017).
 As noted earlier, the Team Leader will also review the evaluation methodologies of the NGOsâ€™ Year 4 evaluations to ensure complementarity and coordination of approaches and information.
 A key lesson from AusAIDâ€™s Australian Partnerships with African Communities Program (APAC) program was to have a close connection between the design and assessment standards in the NGOsâ€™ evaluations and any DFAT-commissioned independent evaluation.
 Resources have been provided through the designs to support this. In particular, AHP NGOs have been required to allocate at least 5% of their total budget to be spent on M&E implemented by partners in country. Additional resources can be allocated by the AHP NGO for M&E managed from Australia.
 NB: This might be a facilitated one-on-one with each agency prior to the shared country review event. The focus would be on gender and disability in the first year and following years to also include child protection. The AHPSU MEL Manager and Disability Inclusion technical advisor are developing a rubric by which to assess disability inclusion. This early draft will be discussed and further developed with the NGOs and then used on an annual basis as a guided self-assessment by the NGOs.
 NB: These were developed through extensive consultation in each of the five countries.