USAID/OFDA Prepare II Program
BASELINE REPORT
Submission Date: December 21, 2018
Number: 72OFDA18GR00052
Activity Start Date and End Date: April 19, 2018 – July 18, 2020
AOR: Malgorzata Nowakowski
OFDA/LAC Regional Advisor: Phil Gelman
Submitted by: Corey Michaud
Miyamoto International, Inc.
1440 G St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: +1 240-481-4004
Email: cmichaud@miyamotointernational.com
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA).
Acknowledgement
This document was prepared for USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) as part of contract No. 
72OFDA18GR00052 – Development of a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Preparing to Reduce 
the Social and Economic Impact of Earthquakes (PREPARE II) program.
The USAID/OFDA PREPARE II program has been made possible thanks to the support and generosity of the 
American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office of 
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). Miyamoto International, Inc. administers and executes the resources of 
USAID and manages the implementation of the program in conjunction with the governments of Colombia,
Costa Rica, El Salvador and Mexico. 
The goal of the program is to strengthen risk management policy and practice of national and municipal 
Disaster Risk Reduction/Management (DRR/DRM) institutions for a reduction in internally displaced people 
(IDPs), lives lost, less people injured and less economic disruption in the selected PREPARE cities: Pasto, 
Colombia; San José, Costa Rica; San Salvador, El Salvador and Guadalajara/Zapopan, Mexico. 
This report is the result of a multi-stakeholder engagement and consultation process which involved 
authorities from the national and municipal level governments, academic institutions, and private sector 
partners. 
We hereby acknowledge the contributions of, and thank the agencies, institutions and partners, for their 
valuable time, guidance and support.
© 2018 Miyamoto International, Inc. All rights reserved. This report or any part thereof must 
not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of Miyamoto International, Inc.
DISCLAIMER: This publication is made possible by the support of the American People 
through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The opinions, 
findings and conclusions stated herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 
the views of USAID or the United States Government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................5
2. METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................6
Field Work ................................................................................................................................... 6
Study Limitations......................................................................................................................... 6
3. FIELD WORK...............................................................................................................................................7
San Salvador, El Salvador ............................................................................................................ 7
Zapopan, Mexico....................................................................................................................... 12
4. PREPARE II PERFORMANCE BASELINE DATA INDICATORS AND TARGETS 
(SAN SALVADOR AND ZAPOPAN)...................................................................................................... 15
ANNEX A ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
ANNEX B........................................................................................................................................................ 29
ACRONYMS
AMSS Área Metropolitana de San Salvador
ASIA Asociación Salvadoreña de Ingenieros y Arquitectos 
CENAPRED Centro Nacional de Prevención de Desastres 
CATBRU Comité Técnico Asesor de Búsqueda y Rescate Urbano
CTSDB Colegio Técnico Salesiano Don Bosco
CASALCO Cámara Salvadoreña de la Construcción 
DGPC Dirección General de Protección Civil
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction 
FOSALUD Fondo Solidario para la Salud
GoES Government of El Salvador
GOM Government of Mexico
IEGG Instituto de Información Estadística y Geográfica
OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OPAMSS Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador
MOP Ministerio de Obras Publicas
MARN Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
PC Protección Civil
RDA Rapid Damage Assessment
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAR Urban Search and Rescue
UAG Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara
UTEG Universidad Tecnológica de Guadalajara
VMVDU Vice Ministro de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano
1. INTRODUCTION 
The original PREPARE Program, Preparing Rescue and Emergency Personnel to Ameliorate the 
Response to Earthquakes, started on November 1, 2015 (AID-OFDA-A-15-00035) with funding 
from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through its Office of 
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). Miyamoto International partnered with government and 
private-sector institutions to implement activities to strengthen earthquake preparedness and 
response capacity in San José, Costa Rica and Pasto, Colombia over an initial period of 18 
months. 
In 2017, the program expanded to San Salvador, El Salvador and Zapopan, Mexico and, in 2018, 
USAID/OFDA and Miyamoto signed a new grant agreement (72OFDA18GR00052) for PREPARE 
II, whose name had by then evolved to Preparing to Lessen the Social and Economic Impact of 
Earthquakes to better capture the broader scope of the program.
The goal of PREPARE II is to strengthen and institutionalize the risk management and response 
capacity of public disaster authorities and private-sector partners in earthquake-prone and 
highly vulnerable urban settings. PREPARE I and II support OFDA’s mandate to save lives, 
alleviate suffering and reduce the social and economic impact of disasters, especially among
the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population. 
The purpose of this performance data baseline study and report is (a) to assess the baseline 
capacity of institutions and individuals charged with overseeing earthquake preparedness and 
response, and (b) to generate a monitoring and evaluation plan to evaluate technical and 
PREPARE II capacity building assistance activities in San Salvador, El Salvador and Zapopan, 
Mexico.
The qualitative study was designed based on a review of program and USAID/OFDA documents
and discussions with PREPARE II personnel. The field portion of the baseline study was 
undertaken between October 29 and November 8, 2018, with the first week in San Salvador 
and the second week in Zapopan. Key Informant Interview (KII) and Group Interview protocols 
were developed and finalized based on consultations with PREPARE personnel in Washington 
DC, San Salvador and Zapopan. The consultant conducted 28 KIIs and three Group Interviews 
and reviewed numerous supporting documents over five weeks.
2. METHODOLOGY
The baseline study was designed to address the following thematic areas:
1. Seismic Risk
2. Rapid Damage Assessments (RDA)
3. Debris Management
4. Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)
A set of evaluation questions guided the methodological design of the baseline data collection 
instruments. The same evaluation questions will form the basis for the end-line survey to be 
implemented during program close-out. The pre-post design will enable the measurement of 
changes in standard and custom indicators between the baseline and final evaluation, though it 
will not be possible to determine attribution or causation.
A mix of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to assess baseline capacity and 
conditions related to seismic risk. Methods and tools consisted of Key Informant Interviews,
semi-structured group interviews (focus groups) and desk review of secondary sources. Data 
was triangulated as much as possible to optimize validity, reliability and completeness.
Field Work
Miyamoto personnel arranged interviews and focus groups prior to the consultant’s arrival to 
each country. In San Salvador, a total of 13 organizations and 18 individuals participated in the 
study. In Zapopan, 12 organizations and 27 individuals participated. Field work took place over 
two weeks. In most instances, the PREPARE II Program Manager (PM) introduced the consultant 
to study participants, explaining the purpose of the meeting as well as program objectives, 
expected outcomes and how baseline recommendations will inform planning and 
implementation.
Study Limitations
Most of the information collected was self-reported, which has several limitations including the 
possibility of exaggeration or omission of information, inaccurate recollection of experiences or 
events, social-desirability bias or memory shortcomings. Aware of these shortcomings, the 
consultant triangulated the information to the degree possible via documents provided by local 
PREPARE II offices, stakeholders and via internet research.
Another limitation was the inability to meet with Civil Protection in San Salvador. 
3. FIELD WORK
San Salvador, El Salvador
Despite recent progress by the Government of El Salvador (GoES) in assessing and addressing 
seismic risk, there remain significant gaps in seismic hazard and vulnerability data as well as 
institutional capacity to prepare for and respond to an earthquake event. For example, building 
codes and contingency plans must be updated and consistently enforced. Seismically resilient 
construction materials and techniques must be more broadly promoted and applied within the 
construction sector. Moreover, lessons learned from past earthquakes must inform ongoing 
development and land-use planning.
Since the 2001 earthquakes, there have 
been notable advances in construction 
regulations and municipal ordinances 
prohibiting construction in high-risk zones, 
but these regulations have not been 
widely enforced. High-risk areas 
throughout San Salvador have been
repeatedly re-developed even after 
seismic events. In the Las Colinas 
neighborhood, for example, new urban 
developments have emerged despite 
suffering extensive structural damages 
during the 2001 earthquakes.
1 Similarly, in 
downtown San Salvador, people have opened businesses on the ground floors of buildings 
previously deemed unsafe. 
A recurring theme among respondents during the study was the need to update building codes. 
Current building codes were last updated in 2003. Construction with steel, for example, has 
increased in recent decades, yet there is no national construction code that regulates steel￾based construction. Moreover, there is no public or private institution formally assigned to 
monitor and implement findings and recommendations generated from structural assessments. 
According to the Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), once the code is 
updated, the government must also enact legislation to support and enforce adherence to the 
code. Through the Reglamento para la Seguridad de la Construccion Estructural, GoES 
delineates minimum standards for the design, implementation and supervision of construction 
works. Its objective is to ensure structural integrity and resilience during an earthquake. These 
 
1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alNEHUpnCmM
“Homes and buildings have been 
erected in the same location in areas 
where nothing should be built. It is 
like knowledge gained has been 
frozen in time, because there is no 
investment in good building practices 
using the knowledge gained from past 
experiences.”
- Universidad del El Salvador
rules are rarely enforced due to resource and capacity deficits, as well as political corruption 
and institutional bureaucracy.
In terms of public-sector DRR policy and planning 
efforts, Civil Protection, through its national 
emergency commission, oversees eight national￾level technical commissions: Health, Security, 
Infrastructure and Basic Services, Shelters, 
Logistics, Emergency Services, Technology and 
Science, and International Humanitarian 
Assistance. Risk Atlases2
from MARN are available 
to the public, though they need to be updated 
and made more easily accessible. MARN also 
produces daily and monthly seismic incident reports on their website and publishes annual risk 
and vulnerability reports. There remains a critical need for seismic microzonation data for 
updating building codes.
In terms of public financing for activities to reduce seismic risk and strengthen response 
capacity, the Fondo para La Prevencion de Desastres (FOPROMID)3
, a public entity, provides 
emergency funds for all disasters, and el Fondo para el Desarrollo Economico de los Municipios 
de El Salvador (FODES) empowers GoES to transfer 7% of the national budget to municipalities 
annually.
Rapid Damage Assessment – Though there have been several efforts since 2001 to develop and 
streamline an RDA tool at the operational level, none have been incorporated into the national 
emergency response plan or collectively applied during a response operation. There is no
comprehensive RDA plan. The tools that do exist need to be complemented with operational 
protocols and user guides, both of which are currently in the initial stages of development by 
GoES and would benefit from PREPARE II support. Importantly, GoES has not yet assigned a 
lead agency to assess structural damages after a disaster.
 
2https://elsalvador.travel/es/nuestros-eventos/
3http://www.transparenciafiscal.gob.sv/downloads/pdf/DC4739_6_Instructivo_No_7011_Normas_especficas_para_el_manejo_del_FOPROMID
.pdf
“The written norms exist, but there 
is no authority for monitoring and 
enforcing compliance.”
- Association of San Salvador
Municipalities (OPAMSS)
Respondents also noted that there is 
no master communications plan for 
first responders. Firefighters, the Red 
Cross and the Green Cross each have a
communication plan but there is not a 
single, overarching communications 
framework or strategy that is 
uniformly applied during a disaster 
response situation. 
Debris Management – Respondents 
from MOP, MARN and PREPARE II 
stated that currently there are no 
policies, norms or standards 
specifically related to debris 
management after an earthquake. A 
legislative proposal currently pending approval on integrated waste management could 
eventually inform policies to address the management of construction-related debris. Although 
the proposal falls short on how to address the management of construction debris from 
collapsed buildings, it nonetheless represents a potential opportunity for PREPARE II to support 
GoES policy development in a critical area.
Urban Search and Rescue – Respondents note that since the 2001 earthquakes, San Salvador 
has made advances in preparing for and responding to earthquakes. Risk maps have been 
developed, regular evacuation drills take place in schools and public buildings, a National
Earthquake Contingency Plan4 has been developed, army barracks have been stocked with 
 
4 http://proteccioncivil.gob.sv/plan-nacional-de-terremotos/
“A geological map can determine layers and 
terrain characteristics. A geological engineer 
map can determine the mechanical properties of 
the terrain, and both can help to generate 
different seismic scenarios. A seismic map can 
establish possible scenarios. After every seismic 
event, it is very important to recalculate the 
information based on what was observed, so 
both maps need to be up-to-date to serve their 
purpose.”
- Universidad de El Salvador
“In Chirilagua we were disorganized…during the first two days there was no coordination 
at all – everyone was doing their own thing. For example, the Red Cross, Green Cross and 
firefighters were collecting information using different forms, as there was no standard 
form to capture building damage data. We need one standard form for homes and 
another standard form for larger buildings. The data on these forms is utilized for 
reconstruction and to distribute construction materials and to assign people to shelters.” 
- Ministerio de Obras Publicas
water and non-perishable food, the fire 
department conducts regular building 
inspections and many buildings post evacuation
routes. Another positive outcome of the 
enhanced DRR focus since 2001 has been the 
creation of a USAR group comprising 108 
members. Currently the group is seeking GoES 
accreditation with capacity building support 
from USAID/OFDA through provision of training 
and equipment.
Despite these advances many gaps remain in 
first response capacity. For example, there is no 
master communication plan for USAR
members, leading to inadequate coordination during emergencies. Moreover, the perception of
most respondents was that coordination is too centralized and at times serves as an
impediment to rapid and effective response. Frequent turnover of key government posts 
complicates matters. Response times for completing damage and needs assessments must be 
improved and there is need for enhanced coordination and logistical support from Civil 
Protection and other government institutions. 
First responders emphasized that there is a great need for training on search and rescue 
techniques in collapsed structures, particularly instruction on tools and techniques for safe 
shoring. USAR respondents also stated there is urgent need for a firefighting academy and 
earthquake preparedness center serving the greater San Salvador Metropolitan Area. San 
Salvador would also benefit from professionalization of its fire department and the 
development of a career path for firefighters.
“Individuals who have been trained 
and are committed to participate in 
these activities have to look for a 
new job once a new government is 
elected to office.”
- Fire Department, San Salvador
“Training in new technologies is needed; people are getting old and they are retiring and 
training plans need to be long-term and repetitive, and the training needs to include new 
technologies and training in the use of new equipment because equipment gets old pretty 
fast.”
- Fire Department, San Salvador 
Most respondents stated that there is little “seismic conscience” of the general population of 
San Salvador. Evacuation drills are facilitated for schools,5 hospitals and public and private 
buildings, but little is done to educate the population at large about earthquake preparedness. 
One exception is the series of public service announcements titled “Aprendamos a 
Protegernos” produced by MARN and available on its website.6
 
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwokJgKVjZ4
6 http://www.marn.gob.sv/aprendamos-a-protegernos-terremotos
“There is no formal, planned and consistent training. We have had some training and a 
Japanese consultant provided helped us put together a Guide to Earthquakes and 
Tsunamis. We have been given some forms and some workshops, but I must say that we 
never evaluated the quality of the workshop, nor do we follow up to see if knowledge has 
been retained.”
- OPAMSS, San Salvador
Zapopan, Mexico
Seismic Risk – High-risk zones in Zapopan are densely populated and, in many cases, 
overdeveloped. While there are established norms for land-use and development planning in 
Zapopan, enforcement of these norms is inadequate. Seismic risk atlases such as the 
Zonificación Sísmica de la Zona Metropolitana (microzonation maps) are not updated regularly. 
Building codes must also be updated to address the evolution of modern construction materials 
and techniques. Quality seismic-risk data is crucial to development of a legislative framework 
and public policy to strengthen earthquake preparedness and response capacity.
The National Center for the Prevention of 
Disasters (CENAPRED) has relatively little data
on seismic vulnerability for Zapopan.
Respondents echoed the need for expanded 
vulnerability assessments, such as the building 
surveys conducted by trained local engineers 
with PREPARE II support in late 2018. The 
University of Guadalajara cited the need for
new seismic monitoring technologies, including 
high-precision geodesic GPSs, seismographs and accelerographs for high-rise buildings in the 
city center, as well as training in their use. Municipal authorities expressed the urgent need to 
incorporate vulnerability data into their land-use and development planning.7 Similarly, USAR 
and other first responders underscored the need for data-driven seismic scenario planning to 
strengthen preparedness and response capacity. 
A common sentiment among respondents was that the general population has little awareness 
or understanding of seismic risk and is not prepared for a major earthquake. The municipality 
has implemented campaigns to heighten public awareness of seismic risk (encouraging families 
to prepare go-bags with emergency items, for example) but with modest impact. Respondents 
from Civil Protection noted the need to strengthen public participation in national and 
municipal-level risk-reduction efforts for broader impact.
 
7 https://www.gob.mx/cenapred
“We need to know where to shoot 
the marbles.” 
- Instituto de Información Estadística y 
Geográfica (IEGG), Zapopan
Rapid Damage Assessment - While the municipality has emergency response plans and 
coordination protocols, a uniformly applied methodology or tool for conducting RDAs does not 
exist. USAR and other first responders also lack basic training in how to assess damaged or 
collapsed structures. 
Debris Management - There are no norms, 
guidelines or plans to manage debris from 
structural collapsed. Three debris deposit sites 
have been preliminarily identified but have not 
been incorporated into municipal risk atlases
and there has been no effort to map and 
catalogue debris management resources. Some 
respondents stated that there are insufficient 
landfills to accommodate the amount of debris
that would be generated by a large earthquake, 
citing the need for a debris management 
strategy with a focus on collection and disposal.
Furthermore, existing legislation and norms related to building demolitions are lacking or 
inadequate and must be addressed in the context of a large-scale earthquake.
Urban Search and Rescue – Zapopan USAR is currently working toward national level 
accreditation by the Government of Mexico (GoM) despite existing resource and capacity gaps. 
Civil Protection expressed concern that the current composition of USAR teams in Zapopan was 
not adequate in terms of size or capacity to effectively respond to a major earthquake. 
Respondents also cited the need to standardize search and rescue procedures, particularly 
around structural damage assessments. As with USAR teams in San Salvador, training in 
collapsed structures was deemed crucial by almost all respondents.
Civil Protection noted the need for earthquake 
scenario planning so that USAR teams can 
better anticipate and prepare for the probable 
impact of a large earthquake. There is also 
recognition that emergency response agencies 
need to establish closer ties to the technical
community in order to better understand and 
incorporate seismic risk data into emergency 
preparedness and response plans. 
There is, nonetheless, a solid foundation and 
organizational culture on which to further 
strengthen USAR capacity in Zapopan. For 
“Proteccion Civil is prepared, but the 
population at large is not; earthquake 
consciousness is mostly on first 
responders.”
- Instituto de Información Estadística y 
Geográfica (IEGG), Zapopan, Guadalajara 
“A world apart. Before, it was 
romanticism, love, vocation and 
learning by doing. Now, there is more 
technical training, technical support 
and planning. Today, we have the 
same love, but now we are also 
methodical and professional.” 
- Civil Protection 
example, joint mobilization and coordination exercises have substantially enhanced 
collaboration among first responders. Staff from the Red Cross, Fire Department and Civil 
Protection have trained together extensively, including in OFDA-sponsored courses related to 
Incident Command Systems (known locally as SCI) and Risk Management Administrative 
Systems (BAGER). A strengthened Incident Command System has enabled USAR member 
institutions to act in a coordinated fashion in small-scale emergencies. Moreover, municipal 
authorities are fully engaged in emergency planning as well as knowledge sharing through its 
webpage.
4. PREPARE II PERFORMANCE BASELINE DATA INDICATORS AND TARGETS 
(SAN SALVADOR AND ZAPOPAN)
No. Indicator Detailed Definition Unit of 
Measure Data Sources Frequency of 
Collection Responsible Target Achieved
1.1
Number of hazard 
risk-reduction plans, 
strategies, policies, 
disaster, 
preparedness and 
contingency plans 
developed and in 
place
"Hazard risk-reduction plans, 
strategies, policies, disaster 
preparedness and contingency 
plans" refers to a broad range of 
documented policies, plans, 
strategies, tools and procedures 
related to preparedness for and 
response to earthquakes and related 
hazards, an individual policy, plan, 
strategy, tool or procedure (or 
significant component or element 
thereof) included once a stakeholder 
responsible for either its adoption or 
implementation begins the process 
of drafting a new (or modifying an 
existing) policy, plan, strategy, tool 
or procedure, after the project has 
provided technical assistance or 
facilitated discussion on that 
subject.
Number National and 
municipal 
level partners
Quarterly Miyamoto
Program
Manager
6
No. Indicator Detailed Definition Unit of 
Measure Data Sources Frequency of 
Collection Responsible Target Achieved
1.2
Number of people 
participating in 
discussions regarding 
national risk￾reduction 
"People participating in discussions” 
includes all individuals attending 
meetings, conferences and other 
events supported by the project, 
which do not fall within the above 
definition of training. In other 
words, the focus is not on sharing 
technical information or skills, but 
rather on discussion or debate about 
new or existing risk-reduction 
strategies. “National risk-reduction 
strategies” refers to all measures 
(plans, policies, strategies, tools and 
procedures) related to preparedness 
for and response to earthquakes and 
other natural hazards in the targeted 
countries, including measures at 
municipal level. Representatives of 
the implementer and USAID are not 
counted. Individuals who participate 
in more than one event will be 
counted only once.
Number Meeting 
records
Quarterly Miyamoto 
Program
Manager
80
No. Indicator Detailed Definition Unit of 
Measure Data Sources Frequency of 
Collection Responsible Target Achieved
1.3
Number of 
communities and 
stakeholders 
involved in the 
development of 
plans, policies, and 
strategies
“Stakeholders involved in 
development of plans, policies and 
strategies” are defined as all entities 
that have sent a participant to at 
least one project-supported activity, 
where plans, policies, strategies, 
tools and procedures related to 
preparedness for and response to 
earthquakes and other natural 
hazards were discussed. The entities 
represented can be governmental 
(national, municipal or other level), 
academic (such as universities), 
commercial (businesses or 
corporations), professional (such as 
associations of engineers), or from 
first responders (such as the Red 
Cross). Stakeholders that participate 
in more than one activity will be 
counted only once.
Number Project 
records of 
meetings and 
trainings 
Quarterly Miyamoto
Program 
Manager
10
1.4
National and local 
risk assessment, 
hazards data and 
vulnerability 
information is 
available within 
targeted areas (Y/N)
“Available” means that stakeholders 
working in the areas of risk
assessment and management are 
aware of and able to access that 
information. The project aims to 
enhance quality and quantity of 
available information related to 
national and local risk assessments, 
hazards data and vulnerability. 
Assessments (new or updated) and 
other information products 
generated by the project will be 
listed under this indicator.
Y/N Project 
reports, 
assessments
and other 
documents 
Annually Miyamoto 
Program
Manager
Y
No. Indicator Detailed Definition Unit of 
Measure Data Sources Frequency of 
Collection Responsible Target Achieved
2.1
Number of people 
trained in disaster 
preparedness, 
mitigation and 
management 
disaggregated by sex
“People trained in disaster 
preparedness, mitigation and 
management” refers to all 
individuals attending activities 
where sharing of technical 
information and/or skills with 
participants is a significant element 
(including formal and informal 
training activities and other events 
that include one or more 
presentations of technical 
information), organized with project 
support, provided that the technical 
subject matter is related to disaster 
preparedness, mitigation and 
management. Representatives of 
the implementer and USAID are not 
counted. Individuals who participate 
in more than one activity will be 
counted only once. 
Number Project 
Training 
records
Quarterly Miyamoto
Program
Manager
60
2.2
Number of trainings
conducted
“Trainings” refers to all activities 
organized with project support, 
where sharing of technical 
information and/or skills with 
participants is a significant element, 
including formal and informal 
training activities and other events 
that include one or more 
presentations of technical 
information. These are the same 
activities for which participants are 
counted for Indicator 3.1. 
Number Program 
records
Quarterly Miyamoto 
Country 
Program
Manager
6
No. Indicator Detailed Definition Unit of 
Measure Data Sources Frequency of 
Collection Responsible Target Achieved
3.1
National and 
municipal risk 
management and 
response plans 
incorporating
program best 
practices, strategies 
and tools
National and municipal risk 
management and response plans 
incorporating program best 
practices, strategies and tools.
Number Program 
reports
Quarterly Miyamoto 
Program
Manager
3
3.2
Public-private 
partnerships 
formalized through 
MOU, commitment 
letter or similar 
agreement 
mechanism.
Public-private partnerships 
formalized through MOU, 
commitment letter or similar 
agreement mechanism.
Number Program 
reports
Quarterly Miyamoto 
Program
Manager
3
ANNEX A
PREPARE II – Baseline – Group Interview Protocol
Ficha Tecnica
Country El Salvador
Date 10.29.2018
Time 9:00 – 11:00AM
Institution Comité Asesor Técnico USAR (CATBRU)
Sector Publico Privado
Location Ministerio de Gobernación
Participant (s) name (s) 
and function
Name Function/Role
Salvador Garcia President 
Mayor David Carpio Team Leader USAR
Interviewer & Interview 
Method
Carlos Torres – Group interview 
Comments Complete attendance list with detail contact information and 
signatures – attached.
INTRODUCTION
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as someone who has a great deal to share about
earthquake risk management and response capacity.
The primary goal of PREPARE II is to strengthen and institutionalize the risk management and response capacity of public disaster 
authorities and private-sector partners in earthquake-prone and highly vulnerable urban settings. In San Salvador (and Guadalajara) 
PREPARE II activities under the Capacity Building and Training Sector will be designed to strengthen the institutional capacities, 
resources and systems of government and private-sector partners for implementation of scalable RDA and DM systems, strategies 
and tools. 
PURPOSE
The focus of this interview is on assessing the baseline conditions, so we can generate a monitoring and evaluation plan for technical 
and capacity building assistance here in San Salvador.
TIME
We have planned this interview to last no longer than ___ hour. During this time, we have several questions that I would like to cover. 
INTERVIEWEE BACKGROUND QUESTION
Please tell me about CATBRU; purpose, 
functions, history 
PREGUNTAS – LINEA DE BASE
# DIMENSION/PREGUNTAS 
EVALUATIVAS
Comentarios
Manejo de riesgos de catástrofes y 
capacidad de respuesta del sector 
público y privado
1 ¿Cuáles han sido los avances para 
mejorar la recuperación y respuesta ante 
un desastre?
Capacitación
2 ¿Qué entrenamientos se han llevado a 
cabo a nivel nacional o municipal para 
promover mejores políticas y planes 
para la recuperación de desastres?
3 ¿Cuáles han sido esos entrenamientos?
4 ¿Cuáles instituciones u organizaciones 
están participando e invirtiendo en estas 
actividades?
5 ¿Cuáles son los obstáculos para atraer 
más instituciones a participar en estas 
actividades?
Apoyo económico
6 ¿Existe presupuesto para estas 
actividades? 
7 ¿Es el presupuesto adecuado para 
lograr los resultados esperados?
Coordinación
8 ¿Ha habido coordinación entre los 
diferentes organismos de recuperación 
de desastres? 
9 ¿Como ha sido la coordinación entre las 
diferentes actividades de recuperación 
de desastres? 
10 ¿Cuál ha sido el papel del sector público 
y privado en la función de coordinación? 
11 ¿Como ha sido esa coordinación?
12 ¿Puedes dar ejemplos de coordinación?
13 ¿Cuáles han sido los problemas de 
coordinación?
14 Hasta este momento, ¿Ha sido 
Miyamoto International efectivo en 
encontrar colaboración y apoyo en los 
sectores público y privado?
Resultados
15 ¿Qué actividades apoyadas por OFDA 
están generando resultados? Puedes 
dar ejemplos.
16 ¿Qué medidas se deben implementar 
para asegurar que los resultados son 
sostenibles?
17 En su totalidad, ¿esas actividades han 
contribuido a fortalecer la preparación y 
capacidad de respuesta a un terremoto? 
18 ¿Hay datos? ¿Qué datos se necesitan? 
19 ¿Como se podrían medir los resultados 
y las relaciones en el futuro inmediato? 
20 ¿Existen algunos ejercicios de 
evaluación que puedan demostrarlo?
OTHER TOPICS DISCUSSED, IF ANY
POST INTERVIEW COMMENTS OR LEADS
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED, IF ANY
ANNEX B
PREPARE II – Baseline KII
Ficha Técnica
Country El Salvador
Date 10.30.2018
Time 02:00-3:00PM
Institution Alcaldía de San Salvador 
Location Alcaldía
Sector Publico Privado
Participant (s) name (s) 
and function
Name Function/Role
Alexander Zamora - Jefe de Protección Civil 
Municipal
Interviewer & Interview 
Methodology
Carlos Torres – Single Key Informant Interview 
Comments Complete attendance list with detail contact information and 
signatures – attached.
INTRODUCTION
You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as someone who has a great deal to share about 
earthquake risk management and response capacity.
The primary goal of PREPARE II is to strengthen and institutionalize the risk management and response capacity of public disaster 
authorities and private-sector partners in earthquake-prone and highly vulnerable urban settings. In San Salvador (and Guadalajara) 
PREPARE II activities under the Capacity Building and Training Sector will be designed to strengthen the institutional capacities, 
resources and systems of government and private-sector partners for implementation of scalable RDA and DM systems, strategies 
and tools. 
PURPOSE
The focus of this interview is on assessing the baseline conditions, so we can generate a monitoring and evaluation plan for technical 
and capacity building assistance here in San Salvador.
TIME
We have planned this interview to last no longer than ___ hour. During this time, we have several questions that I would like to cover. 
# DIMENSION/PREGUNTAS 
EVALUATIVAS
Comentarios
Manejo de riesgos de catástrofes y 
capacidad de respuesta del sector 
público y privado
1 ¿Cuáles han sido los avances para 
mejorar la recuperación y respuesta ante 
un desastre?
Capacitación
2 ¿Qué entrenamientos se han llevado a 
cabo a nivel nacional o municipal para 
promover mejores políticas y planes 
para la recuperación de desastres?
3 ¿Cuáles han sido esos entrenamientos?
4 ¿Cuáles instituciones u organizaciones 
están participando e invirtiendo en estas 
actividades?
5 ¿Cuáles son los obstáculos para atraer 
más instituciones a participar en estas 
actividades?
Apoyo económico
6 ¿Existe presupuesto para estas 
actividades? 
7 ¿Es el presupuesto adecuado para 
lograr los resultados esperados?
Coordinación
8 ¿Ha habido coordinación entre los 
diferentes organismos de recuperación 
de desastres? 
9 ¿Como ha sido la coordinación entre las 
diferentes actividades de recuperación 
de desastres? 
10 ¿Cuál ha sido el papel del sector público 
y privado en la función de coordinación? 
11 ¿Como ha sido esa coordinación?
12 ¿Puedes dar ejemplos de coordinación?
13 ¿Cuáles han sido los problemas de 
coordinación?
14 Hasta este momento, ¿Ha sido 
Miyamoto International efectivo en 
encontrar colaboración y apoyo en los 
sectores público y privado?
Resultados
15 ¿Qué actividades apoyadas por OFDA 
están generando resultados? Puedes 
dar ejemplos.
16 ¿Qué medidas se deben implementar 
para asegurar que los resultados son 
sostenibles?
17 En su totalidad, ¿esas actividades han 
contribuido a fortalecer la preparación y 
capacidad de respuesta a un terremoto? 
18 ¿Hay datos? ¿Qué datos se necesitan? 
19 ¿Como se podrían medir los resultados 
y las relaciones en el futuro inmediato? 
20 ¿Existen algunos ejercicios de 
evaluación que puedan demostrarlo?
OTHER TOPICS DISCUSSED, IF ANY
POST INTERVIEW COMMENTS OR LEADS
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED, IF ANY