Revised
Evaluation Report
For The
STRENGTHENING EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY
(SERA)
PROJECT IN ETHIOPIA
Prepared for:
USAID –ETHIOPIA
And
Govt. of Ethiopia, DPPC
By
Shubh Kumar-Range and Teferi Bekele
November 12, 2001
2
Abstract
Ethiopia has experienced recurring drought, famine and other disasters such as
epidemics, and massive population displacement. Over time, the problem of chronic
vulnerability of the population has increased, as has dependence on food aid to deal with
relief needs for large numbers of people facing severe food insecurity. Since the mid￾1990’s, the Govt. of Ethiopia has made a policy decision to invest development resources
in disaster prevention and preparedness.
Project Scope and Objectives
In support of this effort in 1996, USAID signed a Limited Scope Grant Agreement with
DPPC to strengthen the early warning system and enhance its efforts to better detect food
shortages. In 1997, a Project Grant Agreement between the Government of Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia through DPPC and the United States of America was
signed for the Strengthening Emergency Response Abilities Project (SERA), with the
primary objective of developing vulnerability profiles so that effective planning and
implementation of food security strategies could address the root causes of disaster
vulnerability.
Under the SERA project, an agreement was made for the four-year project with a budget
of $3,700,000. The duration of the project was intended to be – from September 1997 –
September 2001. There were three main elements of the SERA project – as laid out in
the original project document of 1997. These were to: a) support the DPPC’s efforts to
prepare vulnerability profiles in chronically vulnerable areas of the country; b) the
development of response packages; c) conduct vulnerability studies/research (i.e. analysis
of the root causes of vulnerability); and d) USAID Management Support.
Past and other ongoing efforts on vulnerability in Ethiopia have tended to focus mainly
on early warning and effectively reaching vulnerable population groups in emergencies.
In contrast the focus of SERA was on disaster mitigation, and on effectively linking
disaster relief with reducing chronic vulnerability through more effective disaster
response and development.
Implementation
For implementing the project, DPPC engaged in a series of visits and consultations with
Regions. In light of the decentralization initiatives ongoing in Ethiopia, and their
relevance for building disaster mitigation, these consultations were instrumental in
preparing the Revised Project Document by Federal DPPC in November 1998.
This project represents the challenges of carrying out an innovative capacity building
effort aimed at bridging the disaster relief and development divide. The effort was
housed in DPPC – an organization known for its work in disaster response around the
3
country. An ambitious effort was launched with the SERA project that was aimed at
providing:
1) An integrated, multi-sector approach using existing data and generate new
information to develop useful Vulnerability Profiles and research on root causes of
disaster vulnerability;
2) Generate a bottom up, participatory and decentralized effort that is run mainly by the
Regions;
3) Capacity building through involvement of existing manpower in participating
institutions.
Scope of this Evaluation
The Objectives of this technical evaluation were to:
1. Review and assess the progress of the project against targets and objectives set
forth in the project agreement.
2. Assess problems faced in achieving results and make recommendations on how to
improve project performance and implementation strategies in the future.
3. Based on the evaluation, make recommendations for completion of the original
objectives, as well as critical follow-on activities in-line with deliverables as set
out in the 1997 project agreement, over the period October 1, 2001 through
September 30, 2003.
The evaluation team reviewed project documents and met with project staff and
stakeholders at Federal, Regional, Zonal and Wereda levels in each of the four regions in
which the project is being carried out. This was done during a 3-week period in August
2001. An assessment of progress made and results was made from the perspectives of
both efficiency with which the work was conducted, and the effectiveness of its outputs.
Based on the objectives, the evaluation report considers in detail the following key
outputs – institutionalization of SERA, capacity building, vulnerability profile
development, research on root causes of disaster vulnerbility and development of
response packages.
Key Results and Observations
This is a complex project in many ways. First, it has aimed at creating capacity to
transition the formerly relief oriented DPPC towards disaster mitigation, and therefore to
bridge the disaster-development divide. Second it undertook an ambitious and
comprehensive data collection task at the wereda level – in many cases where little of no
information was formerly available. Third, the concept of disaster risk and vulnerability
is a complex, multifaceted one, and the project aimed to get a broad based consensus on
the meaning and approaches to analysing it. And fourthly, project began with a well
intentioned attempt to decentralize to regions the main task – the development of VPs –
something that was not envisaged in the original project document.
4
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the low observed level of output to
date, as compared with what had been anticipated or planned at the outset. These include
a combination of management and technical issues that have been discussed in the
sections relating to the five main outputs – Institutionalization of disaster mitigation work
in DPPC structure, Vulnerability Profiles development, capacity building, indepth
research, and Response Packages.
The SERA VP development component has been confronted with start-up difficulties and
delays that have had an impact on the timely achievement of results. In general, the
activities planned by SERA for this component are progressing, but are significantly
behind schedule. Given the methodological difficulties encountered in making
aggregation and comparisons among the collected data and completing vulnerability
analysis or research on root causes of vulnerability, it is uncertain if concrete results
leading to recommendations and response packages can be completed by September
2001. As explained above, it is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that without having a
clear analytical link with the goals and conceptual basis the VP process has been stymied.
Expected results on Vulnerability Profiles, Research on Root Causes of Vulnerability,
and Response Packages have not been achieved. The overall perception over time of the
importance of bridging emergency response and development by developing effective
disaster mitigation effort has grown over time, creating a greater demand for SERA
results for mainstream planning and food security efforts. Lack of visible results has
generated some impatience with its progress. This is understandable, given the urgency
and need to respond to the chronic and acute vulnerability faced by large populations.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the next phase of this work for the period of October 2001 to
September 2003 are based on the continuing rationale for, and much greater explicit
recognition for disaster mitigation in Ethiopia, including in the present USAID-Ethiopia’s
Strategic Objective. A high level of urgency should be given to producing quality
outputs, especially the Vulnerability Profiles. Other elements such -- as the root causes
research and response packages have floundered and also need to be reoriented somewhat
so that progress on these important objectives can be made. Suggestions are also made
for institutional integration, strengthening and capacity building in light of other related
initiatives that are gaining momentum – such as the regional strategies for food security.
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Ethiopia has experienced recurring drought, famine and other disasters such as
epidemics, and massive population displacement. Over time, the problem of chronic
vulnerability of the population has increased, as has dependence on food aid to deal with
relief needs for large numbers of people facing severe food insecurity.
Since the mid-1990’s, the Govt. of Ethiopia has made a policy decision to invest
development resources in disaster prevention and preparedness. In 1995, the Relief and
Rehabilitation Commission was converted into the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Commission (DPPC). One of the primary functions of the new DPPC was - “to
formulate strategies for future disaster prevention, undertake studies on causes of
disasters, and set up systems for advance warning”. Even more significantly, the
country’s National Policy on Disaster Prevention and Management (NPDPM), launched
in October 1993 aims to strengthen development efforts in disaster prone areas by
ensuring that “disaster prevention programmes shall be given due emphasis in all spheres
of development endeavours”. The SERA project – to be supported by USAID and the
Govt. of Ethiopia, and implemented by DPPC – was an outcome of this new policy
emphasis.
The NPDPM and other policies and programs, which aimed at promoting food security
and tackling disaster, require accurate and timely information on the incidence
prevalence, nature and causes of disaster if they have to be effective. Such information is
critically important for both national and regional or local decision-makers to formulate
and implement effective plans and programs and to target beneficiaries, in a way they can
address the root causes of vulnerability, and enhance the food security strategy.
In order to discharge its new responsibility of disaster prevention and preparedness,
Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission (DPPC) made an appeal to donors for
capacity building in 1996. In addition to this, a National Workshop on “Vulnerability in
Ethiopia: From Disaster to Development was held from June 23 – 25, 1997. This was
intended to help strengthen and enhance DPPC efforts in identifying contributors to
disaster vulnerability, to better protect the population from food insecurities, and to
channel emergency food aid and other assistance towards building resiliency and disaster
mitigation.
In support of this effort in 1996, USAID signed a Limited Scope Grant Agreement with
DPPC, with two purposes in mind. One was to strengthen the early warning system and
enhance its efforts to better detect food shortages and the second reason was to develop
vulnerability profiles so that effective planning and implementation of food security
strategies could address the root causes of vulnerability. Following the Ghion Workshop,
a Project Grant Agreement between the Government of Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia through DPPC and the United States of America was signed for Strengthening
emergency Response Abilities Project (SERA) on September 1997. This support was
part of USAID’s Special Program Objective to Enhance Food Security in target areas of
6
Ethiopia (FY 1996-2001). Since then, the emphasis on strengthening the relief to
development continuum has grown both within Govt. of Ethiopia, and for USAID, and
disaster mitigation is now an integral part of the present USAID Integrated Strategic Plan
for Ethiopia (FY 2001-2006).
Under the SERA project, an agreement was made for the four-year project with a budget
of $3,700,000. The duration of the project was intended to be – from September 1997 –
September 2001. There were three main elements of the SERA project – as laid out in
the original project document of 1997.
1) Support the DPPC’s efforts to prepare vulnerability profiles in chronically vulnerable
areas of the country and the development of response packages; Developing a
Vulnerability Profile (VP) for each of (up to) 16 zones. This activity will involve the
preparation of vulnerability guidelines, mapping patterns of vulnerability, analysis of
root causes and variables of vulnerability, and aggregation and dissemination of
information collected. After VPs are completed, Response Packages (RP) will be
developed – these are regional and zonal level contingency plans that detail
appropriate interventions for particular disasters, populations and localities.
2) Conduct vulnerability studies/research (i.e. analysis of the root causes of
vulnerability); Special studies, pilots and research to identify more effective ways of
using food resources to target vulnerable populations and reduce the use of severe
coping mechanisms – with the expectation that relief efforts are linked to
development. A number of key issues for this research were identified for possible
work to better understand the root causes of vulnerability –
- Root causes of ecological degradation;
- indicators of vulnerability, epidemics and coping strategies;
- population pressure, carrying capacity of land and off-farm employment;
- analysis of drought forecasting capability; and
- targeting vulnerable populations.
An objective of special studies would be to improve the ability of Title II food aid
programming to enhance food security in vulnerable areas.
3) USAID Management Support: to be administered by USAID to achieve results in its
Special Program Objective.
7
1. PROJECT RATIONALE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Development of the Project Idea
The foundation for the SERA Project was laid at a workshop on “Vulnerability in
Ethiopia: From Disaster to Development” which was held at Ghion Hotel, Addis Ababa
in June 23 – 25, 1997 (DPPC/PPPD, 1997). At the workshop the participants made
recommendations related to Vulnerability profiles, In-depth research agendas and disaster
response systems. One of the main recommendations was the need for development of
vulnerability profiles that could identify the areas and population groups that are
vulnerable to particular hazards/risks, and the reasons for such vulnerability. It was noted
that previous efforts had been made with regard to vulnerability assessment in Ethiopia,
including some vulnerability profiles of the drought prone areas and the establishment of
the Early Warning System, which was accompanied by a variety of assessments and
disaster monitoring. The previous vulnerability assessments and profiles included1:
i) Vulnerability Profiles prepared in the 1980s in Wello (Hareide, 1988) and Hararghe
(Humphreys, 1989);
ii) The Profile of 5 Awrajas in Tigray, Amhara and SNNPR regions (Shawel-Consult
International, 1993);
iii) The EWS North Wello Survey (DPPC/EWS 1997).
Vulnerability assessments have also regularly been made by WFP’s VAM and FEWS
early warning system. In addition, NGOs in collaboration with DPPC, had also
undertaken vulnerability assessments. These included, among others, the extensive
SCF/UK Food Economy Study (Holt and Lawrence, 1993; Boudreau, 1998) and
Nutritional Surveillance efforts (1993-1998), the CARE Food Information System
(CARE, 1993), the CRS Growth Surveillance System (GSS), and the six USAID/NGO
partners’ Food Security and Nutritional Baseline Survey (CRS, 1997).
This information had been used to supplement the country’s Early Warning System
(EWS) which was started in 1961. This EWS effort focused mainly on the assessment of
the relevant disaster signals in different parts of the country particularly on transitory
food insecurity, and was primarily geared to locating where additional food aid should be
targeted. The main assessments have included the pre-harvest and post harvest
assessments in the crop dependent areas, pastoral areas assessment and climate/disaster
monitoring. However, the existing information, which is generated by EWS and from
small-scale studies, is inadequate for identifying specific characteristics of at-risk
populations, causes of vulnerability, or needs, options and opportunities for undertaking
prevention measures. Because of these limitations, DPPC and Regional Disaster
Prevention and Preparedness Bureaus lacked sufficient information on vulnerability to
 
1 These reports are included in the Annotated Bibliography on Vulnerability Assessment produced for the
Ghion Workshop of 1997.
8
famine and other disasters to plan prevention and mitigation efforts, and to assist other
sectors in addressing these needs.
In summary, the previous studies and profiles were found to be limited in their scope to
address the interrelated vulnerability factors. Moreover, they tended to focus more on
transitory food insecurity, without addressing the processes of vulnerability. This was
therefore, the justification for the SERA project. It was hoped that the development of
the vulnerability profiles of the drought prone areas and an in-depth research on
vulnerability to disasters in general, would help to understand the root causes of various
disasters, to devise response packages and to target vulnerable groups/areas for disaster
prevention and preparedness.
1.2 Further Development and Revision of Project Concept
The 1998 Revised Project Document
Based on a series of visits and consultations at Regions, a Revised Project Document was
prepared by Federal DPPC in November 1998 and discussed in a one-day Discussion
Forum with Regional DPPC offices to finalize its contents.
This revised document expands the original project concept into more concrete
operational guidelines, and administrative procedures for implementation of this
complex, multi-level program of work all the way from Wereda, to Federal levels. In
particular, a division of responsibility between the Federal and Regional levels for
different aspects appeared to have been sought. Substantively, it also identified 3 major
products for SERA, though in a slightly different configuration from the original project
document. The 3 outputs that were identified in the 1998 Revised Project Document
were:
1) Relevant and useful Vulnerability Profiles – Regions with the support of F/DPPC
“will develop vulnerability profiles by zones and Weredas” for selected disaster prone
areas of the country. This document identifies a total of 18 zones and 80 Waredas as
the most vulnerable, and therefore the intended targets of this project.
2) Applied research and in-depth studies on root causes of vulnerability – “DPPC
through its policy, plan and program department has laid the groundwork to
coordinate vulnerability research by lead agencies at federal level”. The five broad
areas identified in the Ghion Workshop, and adopted in both the 1997 and 1998
project documents were:
-Root causes of ecological degradation
-Indicators of vulnerability, epidemics and coping strategies
-Population pressure, carrying capacity of land and off farm employment
-Analysis of drought forecasting capability
-Targeting vulnerable groups
9
3) Strengthened response packages – or response mechanisms and development
interventions through incorporation of the results of vulnerability profiles and
research results. In addition this document identifies “Bottom – up Response
Packages” will be tried out in selected areas.
The original project document of 1997 elaborated on the content of Vulnerability
Profiles, and proposed a series of well defined outputs such as – guidelines for
vulnerability profiles, vulnerability factor analysis (to assist in predicting increased risk in
areas), historical hazard maps, mapping patterns of vulnerability, analysis of root causes
and patterns of vulnerability, and response packages or contingency plans for vulnerable
areas. No such detail on content of VPs is given in the Revised Project Document of
1998.
1.3 Approach for meeting project activities
The 1998 Revised Project Document identified three major elements of the overall
approach that was to be used:
4) An integrated, multi-sector approach using existing data
5) A bottom up, participatory and decentralized effort
6) Capacity building through involvement of existing manpower in participating
institutions.
1.4 Project Scope and Implementation Process
Beneficiaries: Regions, zones and Weredas, and “all the most vulnerable communities in
the targeted areas.” The project is stated to cover four regional states and their most
highly vulnerable zones. The target zones identified were:
Tigray (Southern, Eastern and Central zones)
Amhara (Wag Hamra, South Wello, North Wello, North Gonder, South Gonder zones )
Oromia (Eastern Hararge, Western Hararge, Borena, Bale and Arsi zones)
SNNPR (North Omo, South Omo, Kembata, Alaba and Timbaro, Hadiya zones)
All Weredas in these zones were to be targeted for development of Vulnerability Profiles.
Phasing: During the pilot phase – the first field operational year, two zones per Region
would be selected for capacity building and “field testing of primary data collection and
analysis in limited areas” prior to expansion to all sites. This pilot phase was intended to
be implemented in 1999.
Activities at Different Levels: The 1998 project document includes a detailed set of
activities at each of Federal, Regional, Zonal and Wereda levels.
10
At the central level, Federal DPPC and SERA staff responsibilities were to provide
technical guidance and support for the major products, as well as administrative and
organizational support to regions. In addition, the in-depth research component was
identified as a Federal role … “DPPC through its policy, plan and program department
has laid the groundwork to coordinate vulnerability research by lead agencies at federal
level.” (Revised Project Document, 1998).
The main Regional responsibilities identified in the 1998 document were: to provide
comments and suggestions to the Federal initiatives; to participate in the various
workshops organized for methodological or other trainings by Federal DPPC and SERA;
to set up, support and manage the Regional implementation units and interdepartmental
coordinating committees at all levels; and to compile Vulnerability Profiles for Weredas,
zones and Weredas.
At Zonal level, setting up, supporting and managing implementatation units and
coordinating committees, compiling and analysing Wereda vulnerability information to
be collected, and its dissemination.
At the Wereda level activities included – review of disaster experiences and data
collection from secondary and primary sources.
1.5 Pilot Phase and Expansion to Scale
During the first year of the operational project, an initial set of 8 target zones (2 from
each of the four regions participating in the project) and 16 Weredas were planned to be
covered for the VP development. After that, during the second and third years of
operation, the project was to have expanded to approximately 18 zones/special weredas
and 80 weredas – a five fold increase in the volume of work. It was expected that the
pilot phase would receive a major investment in capacity building, and it would be
relatively easy to expand from that foundation.
2.6 Institutional Arrangements for Project management
At the Federal Level, SERA project is housed in the Policy, Planning and Programming
Department (PPPD) of DPPC. Staff include SERA National Coordinator and other
SERA staff, DPPC supporting staff from its PPPD and staff from Birhan Constultancy.
Together they constitute the Federal VIMU, which is headed by the Director of PPPD.
Vulnerability Information Management Units (VIMU) were to be set up at Regional and
zonal levels in the implementing agencies – initially expected to be the DPPB or DPPDs.
Within the VIMUs it was anticipated that SERA and assigned agency staff would
together take on all aspects of project implementation. VIMU members would be a
combination of SERA project staff and staff of implementing agencies, and would be
headed by the Regional or Zonal heads of the implementing agency.
11
Vulnerability Assessment Group (VAG) at National level and Vulnerability Working
Groups (VWG) at Regional and zonal levels were intended to provide technical oversight
and assistance for project implementation. VAG and VWG members would be drawn
from a variety of related sectors such as MEDAC, Agriculture, Environment Protection,
Health, as well as from donor agencies, NGOs and universities with substantive expertise
and interest in the subject matter. Regular meetings of these technical groups were
expected to provide ongoing technical input and support for implementing the SERA
project.
Within DPPC, an integration of this work with that of the Early Warning Department was
foreseen. Between sectors, a close cooperation between this work by DPPC and
MEDAC was to be encouraged.
At the Wereda level, the Wereda Council was to oversee project implementation. The
project staff would head and comprise the Data Collection Group (DCG). This would be
supported by a VWG whose members would be drawn from Wereda sectoral offices and
who would assist in data collection and other project support.
3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
3.1 Terms of Reference
The Objectives of this technical evaluation were to:
4. Review and assess the progress of the project against targets and objectives set
forth in the project agreement.
5. Assess problems faced in achieving results and make recommendations on how to
improve project performance and implementation strategies in the future.
6. Based on the evaluation, make recommendations for completion of the original
objectives, as well as critical follow-on activities in-line with deliverables as set
out in the 1997 project agreement, over the period October 1, 2001 through
September 30, 2003.
3.2 Overall Approach and Issues Addressed
The original project document signed in September 1997 was for a four year project, with
a completion date of September 2001. However progress has been significantly delayed
due to the complexities of implementation of this multi-level and multi-purpose project,
as well as the growing importance of decentralization, need for Regional ownership and
capacity building. Added to this were substantial technical and coordinating problems,
and as a result, the work is still in its pilot phase at this time. As a consequence of this
delay in project execution, though the timing of this evaluation coincides with a
12
completion or ex-post evaluation, it is intended to serve the purpose of a mid-term
evaluation, ie., to provide insights for improved project performance in future. The
evaluation was therefore designed to:
1) measure progress towards meeting objectives,
2) analyse the factors that helped or hindered this achievement, and
3) to assist in supporting performance of implementing agencies.
For each of the major outputs expected for the project, information was sought on:
-progress towards objectives,
-efficiency of the management and implementation process;
-effectiveness of product delivery – quality, value, utilization and impacts
-constraints
-recommendations
In order to be consistent with accepted evaluation procedures, the focus was on
transparency, accountability and performance through analysis of all available data using
a variety of sources, and incorporating knowledge, perspectives and values of all
stakeholders.
6.3 Work Plan and Methods
Project Briefing:
Detailed briefing provided by Federal VIMU staff, and USAID-Ethiopia FHA Office.
Additional details and information provided by Project Coordinator.
File Project Review:
Reviewed all project outputs and progress reports, as well as technical and
methodological material prepared for project implementation.
Preparation of Workplan:
An evaluation workplan was prepared which included:
1) An overview of the project giving a summary of project background, context, and
goals
2) Evaluation mandate, including reasons for the evaluation, its scope and focus, and a
clarification of objectives
3) Evaluation matrix, including a review of project rationale, its most critical
deliverables, progress on critical deliverables, changing policy context for disaster
mitigation
4) Methodology, including sources of data/information and procedures
5) Schedule of activities
6) Report outline
13
Development of Instruments:
Interview checklists were developed for SERA/VIMU staff, and another for stakeholders.
Checklist for SERA/VIMU staff at Federal, Regions, Zones and Weredas:
- Progress: methods, outputs, results
- Input by stakeholders on technical aspects of methods used, and project
implementation
- Institutional integration and sustainability
- Utilization of outputs/results to date
- Future planned outputs, dissemination, applications
- Constraints and needs
Checklist for Stakeholders at Federal, Regions, Zones and Weredas:
- Input in SERA process, methods
- Expectations, awareness of outputs, uses – actual and planned
- Issues, concerns and recommendations for completion of Pilot Phase, utilization of
results and for Expansion Phase
Data Collection:
Sources of data were all available and pertinent project documents, and stakeholder
interviews. Interviews were conducted with key SERA personnel at Federal and
Regional level (in all four project Regions), Zonal level (from all eight zones covered by
project) and Wereda level (where available2
). Interviews were also conducted with
VIMU staff from host institutions, including the head of VIMU units at Federal, all four
regions, and selected zones in each of the four regions. Finally VAG (at federal) and
VWG members at Regional, zonal and wereda levels were interviewed.
Data Analysis and Report Writing:
An initial draft report is planned for September 21, which will be reviewed by USAID￾Ethiopia and DPPC at Federal and Regional levels. Comments provided will be
incorporated by the Evaluation team, and a final report presented to USAID-Ethiopia and
DPPC.
4 RESULTS, CONSTRAINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR KEY
PROJECT DELIVERABLES
 
2
 Wereda level SERA staff were no longer present since the completion of data collection activities at
Wereda level.
14
4.1 Institutionalization
4.1.1 Regional Ownership
Based on the June, 1997 Ghion Workshop recommendations and September 1997 project
grant agreement with USAID, DPPC/F carried out consultations with Regional
authorities on the desirability, concepts and approach for project implementation. Given
the decentralization process underway in the country, it was determined that Regional
ownership of activities was an essential element for the success of the effort. Similarly,
at the Regional level, the process of involvement of Zonal and Wareda governments and
departments was undertaken. This initial process took about one year, and the Revised
Project Document was finalized in November 1998, following its endorsement and
acceptance by the Regions, and respective zones and Weredas. Following the
endorsement of the project by regional DPPC/B/Ds, DPPC/F/SERA proceeded with
facilitating the selection of focal point institutions at the Regional, zonal and Wareda
levels.
4.1.2 Regional integration in implementing mechanisms
In order to generate the multi-sectoral stake-holder participation in development and
application of the vulnerability profiles, it was sought to involve the active participation
of professional experts from different disciplines. To this effect, the project has
established a couple of mechanisms to co-ordinate different government and non￾government organizations. These are:
1) Vulnerability Information and Management Unit (VIMU) – this is the operational and
implementing arm, and is primarily composed of SERA employees, supplemented
occasionally by hosting institution staff.
2) Vulnerability Working Group (VWG) – this is intended to be the technical support
and consultative ad-hoc group to be convened by the hosting institution to provide
ongoing substantive input for project implementation.
Both VIMU and VWG were expected to operate in some form at regional, zonal and
wereda levels. In the National guidelines prepared at the Federal DPPC methods of
establishing VIMU and VWG at all level and the roles and responsibilities of the
participating individuals and organizations are defined. Based on this, all project regions
have established the VIMU and VWG.
At the Federal level, DPPC acts as executing agency and has housed the SERA project.
At the Federal level, a VAG had been formed earlier to support the country’s early
warning activities, and its role of providing technical support was extended to cover this
activity as well. Its composition which included Govt. departments, international
agencies and NGOs, was intended to facilitate efforts of inter-sectoral coordination,
provision of technical assistance, to assist the implementation process and to provide the
necessary guidance for implementers, etc.
At the regional and zonal levels VWGs compose of experts drawn from collaborating
bureaus and line departments, were established to ensure the participation of various
15
sectors in VP development. The members of the VWG are technical experts who work
on the technical aspects of the VP. In addition, VIMUs have been established in each of
the project executing bureaus or offices of the regions and zones to coordinate and
organize various activities and to monitor the project progress.
There is some variation in the institutional set-up of SERA by region.
In the SNNPR, the SERA regional project office is housed in the Disaster Prevention
and Preparedness Office (DPPO) and in the Bureau of Planning and Economic
Development (BoPED) at the zonal level (as there are no DPPO suboffices at zonal levels
in this region). At the regional and zonal levels VWGs composed of experts drawn from
collaborating bureaus, regional VIMU in the DPPO and zonal VIMUs in the respective
department of PED have also been established.
In the Tigray Region the SERA project office is housed in the Food Security Desk of
the Regional Council. As at the regional level, the zonal VIMU and wereda DCG are also
housed in the Food Security offices. The regional and zonal VWGs, composed of experts
drawn from collaborating bureaus are established. This region has established an
additional Technical Task Force to help overcome weaknesses in the effectiveness of the
VWG mechanism (discussed later). Individuals in the task force are drawn from a
combination of Regional NGO, University, private sector, and government departments,
and are all contributing substantively in the technical analysis of Vulnerability Profiles.
Both in Amhara and Oromiya Regions, regional and zonal SERA project offices are
housed in the respective Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission/Bureaus. In
both regions VIMUs and VWGs are accordingly established at regional and zonal levels.
The Wereda VWGs comprised of experts from Wereda sectoral offices (agricultural,
health, education, NGOs if any, etc) were formed in all the target weredas. In all
Weredas DCGs were formed through drawing experts from focal point offices and
headed by Wereda technical coordinators. DCGs have participated in the collection of
secondary data and supervision of the primary data collection in the respective Wereda.
4.1.3 Administering Regional SERA
There is a complex division of responsibility for administering Regional activities, with
the Federal SERA and DPPC offices not only involved in procurement of equipment etc.
for regions, but also in financial resource allocation between the regions. It was found
that though there is a clear division of responsibilities and activities between federal and
regional administering institutions, no such division of the budget is made. As a result
Regions have no assigned budget, but have to make quarterly activity and budget
requests, with no assurance of what will be forthcoming.
An important objective has been to fully integrate SERA in DPPC procedures for all
management functions. As a result existing rules and procedures in effect are being used
for all procurement and recruitment needs. Given the decentralized nature of this project,
an over reliance on a centralized model of financial and administrative management, may
16
have been contradictory to the objectives of regional ownership, and not fully supported
the efficiency and effectiveness of project outcomes.
4.1.4 Efficiency and Effectiveness
There is a high level of regional ownership and acceptance of the SERA concept and
functions.
In all the targeted regions, members of regional and zonal VIMUs are meeting regularly
to accomplish the objectives of the project. The Zonal VIMUs have participated in the
collection of both primary and secondary data, as well as in data processing and analysis.
Regional VWGs members at all levels have assisted SERA in the collection of both
secondary and primary data for the Pilot Phase weredas. Though there have been
relatively better co-operation and co-ordination among the respective VIMUs and VWG
members particularly during the training and data collection activities, this was not
sustained in the next stage of the VP development activities. The Regional and zonal
VWGs have not had any regular meetings and practically not been functional, since the
completion of the data collection.
During the discussions with the evaluation team nearly all of the VWG members
interviewed expressed dissatisfaction with regard to co-operation and co-ordination
process. Discussion, for example, revealed that in all regions, the project has not been
able to organize any formal meetings for VWG members for the last 18 months and as
result participation of the VWG members in the development of the VPs has been
inadequate since the completion of data collection. Problems were also cited with staff
turnover in participating institutions, and hence the absence of continuity and therefore
building of ownership. Work pressures, and SERA participation being seen as taking on
an extra workload, ie. Not part of job description or key responsibilities was often a
hinderance in ensuring the substantive inter-sectoral input and participation envisaged for
the VWG. At the same time, some members interviewed by the Evaluation Team
emphasized the need for an attitudinal shift and an increase in confidence and feeling of
ownership when talking about vulnerability assessment.
In order to fill the gap created as a result of the weakness of the official SERA technical
support mechanisms, an additional group has been informally estabalished in Tigray.
Here, a Regional Steering Committee provides technical expertise from academic circles
like the University of Mekele, Relief Society of Tigray (REST) a local NGO, etc. have
participated. The regional steering committee in Tigray making division of tasks among
members depending on their specialization and capacity has shown improved
performance in the effort to develop analytical model for the already collected
vulnerability assessment data.
As a basis for promoting active participation of the VWGs in the whole process of the
project implementation, SERA should have focussed on awareness creation to build up
the required conceptual understanding of Vulnerability, and the substantive links to the
17
intersectoral development agendas of its members. Instead the focus has been overly on
data collection needs, and as a result turning VWG into an arm of the SERA VIMU
functions. Effectiveness of VIMUs have been hurt by staff turnover both in SERA, and
in hosting institutions at regional and zonal level. This has become a problem at the stage
of data analysis.
The decision made to house SERA offices in the DPPC/Bs at federal, regional and Zonal
levels (except in Tigray and zonal level of SNNPR), is likely to have been a correct
decision, both from the perspective of administrative convenience and the potential for
capacity building on issues of vulnerability. However, shortage of adequate technical
personnel of the required qualification in regional DPPC/B/D as well as generally a
poorly linked institutional experience with developmental sectors, has placed them at a
disadvantage. The Amhara DPPC, may be the only exception to this, and has both the
ability and commitment to integrate its functions with mainstream development efforts.
The relative strength of this office puts it in a better position to develop the products, and
integrate them in both the early warning/relief oriented work, as well as in food security
and overall planning processes. In Tigray, the mainstreaming of this project with the
high profile Food Security Desk activities, offers a good opportunity for both
sustainability and effectiveness of providing an input into the planning processes.
However, the DPPB and early warning links here have weakened. In SNNPR, though the
DPPD office has a low profile, and the capacity here is comparatively weak, there is a lot
of interest in this work in the Regional and Zonal councils. This could provide new
opportunities for utilization of results, including in cooperation with the new food
security strategy work underway. In Oromia, time limitations and staff unavailability
limited the opportunity for the evaluators to interview stakeholders and VWG members.
However, given the large number of highly disaster prone weredas and zones in this
region, we feel that the inability to fully address the needs here is a major gap in this
report.
In terms of the effectiveness and sustainability of SERA efforts, the capacity and
development integration of the hosting institution is clearly an important factor. In
Tigray, for example, SERA staff and their results are strategically positioned to assist at
the development efforts of the regions Food Security Desks at all levels as part of their
daily routine. Because of this integration, the Tigray experience of housing SERA in the
Food Security Desks also adds a strong element of accountability – given the high profile
nature of their responsibilities. This particular area of sustainability will become
increasingly important for SERA, as the project support could terminate sometime in
future. If the purpose of strengthening the connection between relief and development is
to be met, and DPPC’s ability to address disaster mitigation improved, a serious
reconsideration is needed on the most effective locations and institutional arrangements
for SERA capacity building so that an integration of relief and development can best be
made.
The project organizational structure prepared for regions seems complicated and didn’t
show the existing conditions of the regions and clear line of responsibilities of each
organizational unit. According to the Organo gram distributed during workshop
18
(19/03/1998) each unit has only a technical responsibility with out any clear
accountability to each other. Most of the members of the VWGs interviewed are aware of
the importance of the VP information and feel the responsibilities indicated in the
guideline is within their mandate, but are skeptical to fully participate in the project for
the following reasons;
q Since the responsibility of implementing the project and terms of financial flows, the
established VIMUs, the monitoring of technical, administrative and financial
activities and etc. lies wholly on the RDPPC/Bs.
q Though for the most part, there was a lot of support for the role of DPPC to help to
link up relief and development work, a few of the VWG members interviewed did not
see the role of DPPC/Bs as the appropriate institution to coordinate such project and
program. It is possible that the gradual shift of SERA activities from a disaster
vulnerability focus to a general poverty/food insecurity analysis, has contributed to
this view. This perception may also be reinforced by their past experiences, and
current technical expertise and programming involvement of DPPC/Bs.
SERA as an institutional strengthening project, must find ways to enable its partners to
take action to eliminate or counteract the negative impact of factors such as high staff
turnover on training progress and sustainability of outputs.
Successful coordination and partnership building is one of the main challenges faced by
DPPC/SERA in developing the VPs. Some improved cooperation by VWG members has
been observed during the early stage of data collection, but this didn’t extend to the next
stage of the VPs development. Ex-post it is not possible to fully understand all the causes
for this – however it appears that the input by this group in the process of development of
Vulnerability profiles or in their application was not fully considered or perceived to be
necessary/desirable. Several VWG members interviewed in the Regions, and VAG
members interviewed at Federal level expressed disappointment at not being involved
and continuously informed of the plans and progress of SERA.
VIMUS are expected to function as a permanent organ RDPPC/B or PED to continuously
prepare VPs even after the termination of the SERA project. However there is no clearly
defined and established strategies as to how this is possible. There is also lack of clarity
at the time of this Evaluation, on the final content of VP and their applications in
responding to disaster vulnerability needs. The already existing Early Warning
Department in the federal DPPC and Units in the RDPPC/B are working independently
from the VIMU. Making a substantive connection between the work of SERA and the
EW Units would be good start for DPPC to provide a solid justification for the value of
SERA continuation. The ability of SERA outputs to make a contribution to other sectors,
and NGO efforts in disaster prone areas is another indicator of success.
Very little attempt appears to have been made to use expertise from Ethiopian academic
circles to provide technical input, except in the case of Tigray where the observed
limitations of VWG input have been supplemented by a small expert group drawn from a
combination of sources (inlcuding, University, NGO, Govt. departments). A high
19
reliance on the VAG and VWG as a sole mechanism for technical input is expected to
have contributed to a weak technical accountability system in the project. This may also
have limited the ability of SERA to utilize VWGs as a stakeholder forum in the process
of developing vulnerability profiles.
4.1.4 Constraints and Recommendations
The main constraints were:
v Unavailability of regional budgets and cumbersome reporting procedures via Federal
DPPC have constrained the ability of regions to budget, plan and implement
activities. Some improvements have been put in place recently, but they do not
appear to be enough.
v Cumbersome financial reporting mechanisms in which federal DPPC procedures
impede a timely and predictable funds release process from USAID.
v Difficulties in getting a timely reporting of expenses from Regional SERA offices
v Insufficient flexibility in SERA staff recruitment procedures to be able to provide
incentives for retaining staff
v Variable ability of regional institutions, especially DPPC to fully integrate SERA into
their structures and activities, and to allocate permanent staff to VIMUs
v Overemphasis on VWGs as a data collection arm for SERA, and insufficient
utilization as stakeholder and users of VPs
The main recommendations for future activities are:
v Establish regional budgets to match workplans for decentralized capacity building
initiatives such as SERA. This will provide a more flexible and empowering context
for regional teams. This will however, also require attention to supporting
management capacity at regional level (where needed), to enable to enable sound
financial reporting and related management systems and practices.
v Establish clearly the appropriate institutional capacity building needs for Disaster risk
reduction research (eg. Vulnerability Profile and associated research) and its
application for both development planning and emergency response. In the case of
SERA, the emerging decentralization in the country during the project start up period
led to the appropriate judgement to build a decentralized project. Since then, the
overall development planning context at Regions, including the Food Security
Strategy work has become much better established. This creates a whole new set of
opportunities for disaster mitigation work, that were not available at the start of
SERA in 1997. At the same time the involvement of DPPC and its Regional bureaus
should also be considered important – to link work on disaster mitigation with its
Early Warning and disaster response.
v An effort should be made to build on the institutional capacity building carried out in
SERA.
v The experience in SERA of the problems with intersectoral advisory committees to
either provide technical support and guidance (VAG, VWG) or carry out the actual
activities (VIMU) has shown that such adhoc approaches do not provide do not
provide adequate institutional commitment or input for sound functioning. A more
20
realistic approach should be taken, given the heavy work commitments of other
bureaus. Several options should be considered, and if possible the ability to draw on
input on an as needed basis may be considered, with a budget explicitly available for
this function.
4.2 Vulnerability Profiles
4.2.1 National Guidelines for Vulnerability Profile Development
The concept of vulnerability is not a straightforward and vulnerability assessment is a
complex process that involves multi-levels and multidimensional factors. Given the
complex nature of vulnerability profile development, limited experience in Regions and
lack of trained manpower, the preparation of the National Guidelines for Vulnerability
Profile Development by Federal DPPC/SERA was an important first step for effective
implementation of the project. In line with this understanding, the national guidelines for
VP development were prepared to provide overall guidance and consistency in the
process of data collection, analysis and VP development at all levels
A National Guidelines for Vulnerability Profile Development were prepared by Federal
DPPC/SERA and presented to Regional representatives and other professionals in August
1999 in a training workshop. Prior to that, in May 1999, a technical review was carried
out by presenting the draft guidelines to the VAG at Federal level. Extensive feedback
was received, and has been reviewed by this evaluation team.
The draft guideline was then distributed to regions for their comments. After
consolidating and incorporating all the comments that came from regions and various
stakeholders, a national workshop was held to finalize the guideline3.
 In the national
workshop, regions, donors, NGOs, VAG members and pertinent organizations
participated and made their final comments. After the workshop, the Federal DPPC
produced the final version of the guideline and distributed to all users, particularly to
regions. The national guideline has been used by Federal DPPC/SERA project team,
Regional DPPBs/C and VIMU members as an operational guide at each level for the
development of VP in the pilot phase.
The main purpose of these guidelines is to assist the process of data collection for
development of vulnerability profile. The guideline includes a list of detailed indicators
and methods of data collection to provide a fairly uniform and consistent instruments and
information for vulnerability profile development. Following these guidelines, the project
has attempted to collect and analyse the following types of information: Secondary data
collection (SDC) at wereda, zonal and regional levels; wereda level key informant
 
3 Though this may have been the intent, we were informed in regions that there was very little time for them
to provide feedback. Many believed that they would have an opportunity at the National Workshop to
discuss it, but found it to be more of a training oriented forum, with the content of Guidelines not subjected
to any serious discussion of any reservations they may have had.
21
interviews; wereda level focus group discussions; wereda level representative household
surveys (HHS); and wereda level representative women and children individual surveys.
4.2.2 Implementation of Vulnerability Profile Development
Data collection instruments were developed and pre tested in one Wereda, having three
different Argo ecological agro ecological zones (i.e. Kolla, Woyna Dega, and Dega) in
north Shewa. The purpose of pre testing using AEZ was to be able to incorporate varying
conditions in the three major agroecological zones into which areas of Ethiopia are
usually categorized. Based on the pre test finding and comments provided from regions,
concerned line departments & NGOs, modifications were made on the data collection
instruments – with some variations by region made in the local level adaptations made
later.
The main phase of data collection was January to March 2000. Altogether, primary data
was collected from 93 sampled Peasant Associations (PAs) of the sixteen target Weredas
in which 9,794 household were interviewed. In addition to the household survey data,
information was also gathered from key informants and community leaders as part of
primary data collection. Accordingly, a total of 1,317 key informants were involved in
the in-depth interviews in all peasant association.
Existing records and other quantitative sources of information and maps were used as
main secondary data sources. Secondary data tabulation sheets were used to solicit
wereda and zonal officials for existing information. In the majority of cases, much of this
information is not compiled for statistical purposes, and therefore information availability
was patchy. Information that was available, was reported of poor quality and /or and not
available for longer time series to use for purposes of VP development. The project
should have realized these problems associated with secondary data and decided to use
shorter time series instead. Accordingly, many of the indicators of the secondary data
were found quite unreliable for purposes of vulnerability trend analysis, and the original
list of indicators was reduced to 66.
4.2.3 Outputs
A large amount of information is now available from the 16 pilot weredas from a number
of sources. This information can provide a variety of useful background and baseline
information on the Weredas. In many cases, this may be the only source of
representative Wereda level information on living conditions available. As a result, it is
likely to be a useful resource for many different users.
There is however, a great deal of uncertainty as to how this voluminous information can
be most usefully compiled for general use, let alone for the purpose of developing useful
Vulnerability Profiles. Upto the time of this evaluation, a great deal of tabulations have
been accomplished from the various information sources, and indicators. However, there
is so far no integration of different information sources, to answer the key questions
posed as part of the conceptual basis of Vulnerability Profile development.
22
4.2.4 Conceptual and Analytical Framework for Vulnerability Profile developed
by SERA
The evaluation of SERA finds that the project leaders attempted to create a broad based
understanding of the concepts of vulnerability. This is reflected in the National
Guidelines. This is a commendable effort, and is a valuable component of capacity
building. There was however, a need early on, to establish a more concrete analytical
approach that would be used. Instead, it is the understanding of the evaluation team, that
it was expected that each Regional Team would take the general conceptual ideas
presented and translate them into specific analytical methodologies, geared to the
disciplinary background and interests of the Regional Teams. The assumption that the
Regional Teams would be able to take the general principles and apply the broad based
data collection into concrete may have been implicit in the overall approach taken. This
was to some extent implied by the input given to us by the SERA coordinator.
Vulnerability analysis can be done in many different ways. Many of the methods used
are data intensive (eg. CART) or are suitable only for early warning type of responses
(GIEWS and Food Economy approachs). It is however indisputable that vulnerability
assessments must be methodologically sound and context specific. Therefore it should be
considered important to decide which is the best and most suited approach for Ethiopia.
A broad based understanding is useful for this, but the application of this knowledge for
delivering a useful set of results is equally important. This latter effort needs to be
sharpened considerably.
It appears that a consensus-based approach has been used for creating the foundations on
which Vulnerability Profile development has been undertaken by SERA – ie., relying on
a broad base of disciplinary and technical expertise to contribute. While this is
commendable, such an approach is unlikely to yield a clear and focused result.
Collecting a broad base of data and information – to allow various disciplinary
approaches to be taken -- appears to have been an objective that resulted from this
approach to methodology development, and the lack of a clearly defined analytical
approach.. However, none of the experts who were consulted in the development of the
long list of indicators were involved in the data processing, analysis or discussion of the
application of Vulnerability Profiles. As a result, regional teams were on their own, with
some input from Federal SERA (this was often usually late – eg. Data entry training
about 4 months after completion of data collection, and data integration and analysis
training a year after completion of data collection). This is another example of a
disconnect between the ideas and their application in the SERA project, which have
contributed to the observed results.
Past vulnerability profiling work in Ethiopia has typically focussed on early warning and
improving ability to respond to crises. The orientation of SERA was different – it
addresses the issue of chronic vulnerability to disasters, and to making the link with
development processes. The link of this effort therefore, with both the Early warning
work in Ethiopia as well as with the development planning and food policy would have
23
been desirable. The conceptualization of vulnerability to be able to make these
connections may be considered in future.
There is another crucial aspect of vulnerability that should be incorporated – what are the
key elements that need to be monitored over time? What links can be made with the
ongoing Early Warning data efforts, and what supplementary data needs have to be
considered once SERA is completed? Even getting to these questions will need that a
clearly identified approach for assessing vulnerability and hazard risk. There is a range
of quantitative and qualitative methods that can be used, and an appropriate choice is
required. It is likely that qualitative approaches are better suited to enabling greater
weight to the participatory elements of vulnerability assessment, and also to reduce data
collection and management. The right balance for meeting the specific needs in Ethiopia,
in a practical and doable way is required.
It is our ex-post assessment that establishing a clear link between the needs of the
Vulnerability Profiles with data collection and analytical framework from the outset
would have been useful. It is necessary to link the broad based vulnerability concepts
and the clear set of questions that were identified early on in the SERA project to the
actual data needs and its analysis. In the National Guidelines, we find a disconnect
between the questions posed for Vulnerability analysis (who, where, when, why, how and
what is the nature of hazards, risks and coping strategies), and the conceptual framework
which identifies ‘Causes of Chronic Vulnerability’. The Causes of Vulnerability are then
translated into ‘Indicators’ in the six content areas identified. Is vulnerability to all
hazards equally distributed? Or does risk to different hazards vary within the population.
This lack of clarity has spilled over into the Vulnerability Profiles – in which the entire
description of the areas is presented in terms of Indicators of Vulnerability. The reader is
unsure from one section to the next what is the interpretation in terms of the Vulnerability
of the population. There is no guidance on how this large set of indicators (causes?) of
vulnerability, are to be used answer the seven key questions posed. How is vulnerability
and risk to different hazards to be assessed? It is our recommendation that a clear link
between the objectives of Vulnerability Profiles with data needs and an analytical
approach from the outset would have facilitated the data collection, analysis and
reporting of Vulnerability. The material, for example, that was presented in the March
2001 SERA workshop on data analysis, is a reflection of an ex-post look at what to do
with data that has been collected. This is a dizzying array of vast amounts of information
that is at best linked to some broad concepts, with no ideas on interpretation or analysis.
Where is the information leading to? How will it be used?
We have a long list of indicators:
· Demographic indicators – 23 in all at least
· Sociocultural indicators – 23 approx.
· Indicators of coping strategies – 11
· Physical and climatic indicators – 24
· Land use and holding indicators – 6
· Indicators of Agricultural production, pests and diseases – 26
· Income, employment and wealth – 8
24
· Food security – 12
· Social and related services – 24
· Agricultural and related programs – 18
· Risk reduction institutions – 7
· Human health and nutrition – 25 approx.
· Women’s and children’s nutrition – 5 approx.
· Disaster History – 8 approx.
Many of these were obtained from more than one data source. It was therefore
surprising to find that Vulnerability Profiles chapters were written not by data source and
not by topic. The type of information that was available in the approx. eight
Vulnerability Profiles that were ready in partial form at the time of this evaluation – can
be considered to be useful more for purposes of Data Documentation purposes, rather
than for analytical purposes. In using this approach, great deal of work still remains for
completing the analysis – ie. First converting the different data sources into one cohesive
discussion of various ‘indicators’ and then to translate the information into the key
questions posed at the outset – who, where, etc.
4.2.5 Assessment of Methods, Quality and Relevance of Data
Issues:
· Methods of data collection and cleaning
A great deal of effort has been made by SERA to develop the large set of data
collection tools, pretest, train data collectors, supervise and check data, etc. Not only
is the list of ‘indicators’ large and comprehensive, but a variety of data sources have
been used for many of them – eg. Both primary and secondary sources of data were
collected for most indicator types, and typically the same indicator was covered in the
three main primary data sources – questionnaires, key informant interviews, and
community group discussions. There is no question that a more focussed effort
would be much more cost-effective.
The large amounts of information, also required a large data entry and cleaning effort.
It is not clear why there was an approx. 6 month delay from the time the data
collection was started, to when the data entry was commenced for the
household/womens/children survey information. It is possible that the teams were
fully engaged in data collection – and that a parallel data entry would place an
additional strain on the staff. There may also have been other constraints, such as the
availability of computers. Data entry can be facilitated with use of precoded
questionnaires (coding information can typically be obtained from pretests), however
given the decentralized and multi-focal set up for data entry could have created some
complexity in setting up relatively uniform set of codes.
Some data cleaning was conducted as part of criteria for acceptable ranges that was
set up in data entry formats. It is not clear if any additional data cleaning was
25
conducted. Queries to this effect, to the regional staff engaged in data analysis,
suggested that no additional data cleaning was done. Information was also not
available on how ‘missing data’ problems were handled, and what percentage of
cases were dropped from analysis.
Variable computations are inevitably required for conducting analysis. We were
informed that this function was supported by Birhan Consultants. Local teams were
relatively unaware of the formulas used for these computations, or additional data
cleaning etc., that may have been conducted/required for the new computed variables.
For example, the computed nutritional status variables usually require additioanal
range/rule tests to delete outliers with Z scores outside the plausible range. It is not
clear if such tests and associated data cleaning was conducted.
· Data compilation and documentation
This is a function that is usually delayed for after completing the data analysis and
reporting. The extent to which the information is well documented, determines the
usefulness of the data beyond the immediate analysis and reporting purposes. Others
who may be interested in utilizing the data for programming or related analysis, as
well as new staff joining SERA would require a well documented set of variable
definitions. The quality of the analysis conducted with the data, and its reporting, is
influenced by the thoroughness with which this is done.
Data documentation is a time consuming task, and more so for large data sets such as
SERA. It would include data files and associated variable listings and definitions
from the questionnaires, their various modules, and all the computed variables. It is
the view of the evaluators that additional attention will need to be given to this
activity. Without this, future value, usefulness and application of the data collected
will be limited.
· Data Quality, and the tradeoff between quantity and quality
There is inevitably a tradeoff between quantity and quality of any data collection
exercise. This is why a well defined set of objectives, questions and analysis framework
needs to be laid out prior to undertaking any data collection. The more focused the data
collection activity is, the better the data quality is likely to be – given the resources
available.
In the case of the SERA data collection activity, there was a long list of indicators for
vulnerability identified in the ‘National Guidelines’ and collected during the data
collection phase of the project. Also, a variety of data sources were also to be used for
these instruments: viz secondary data, household/women/child surveys, key informant
intereviews and focus group interviews. The evaluators did not find a clear rationale for
linking either the long list of indicators or the various data sources to the key questions
that were posed for Vulnerability profies: viz who, where, when, why, what, how etc.
26
It is our assessment, that too much information may have been collected as result of lack
of a clear analytical framework, and this is likely to have contributed to poorer quality of
data than was possible, ceteris paribus.
· Quality for what? Question of suitability for analysis, and relevance of data
An evaluation of ‘data quality’ is very much linked to the way in which it is to be used.
For example, qualitative data can be used for building narrative and ‘qualitative’ analysis.
Such analysis is useful for understanding complex interrelationships that may not be
possible in quantitative modeling types of analysis. It is generally recommended that
qualitative analysis be used to understand the complexities, and once these are relatively
well understood, that modeling be used to test specific hypotheses that might be relevant
to explaining the relative importance of different causal factors.
It is our assessment that the data quality, in terms of the information collected is well
suited to documenting the local variety of local situations, and undertaking a qualitative
analysis (ie. Descriptive analysis and narratives based on key informant and focus group
interviews). It is unlikely to be suitable for quantitative modeling of causalities of
vulnerability for two reasons:
a) An analytical framework was prepared prior to the data collection, and as a result
their may be missing variables required may not have been collected;
b) data collection was not focussed to the necessary variables alone, and therefore
data quality may have been compromised. For example, the ‘noise’ factor in key
variables, eg., nutritional status of children, if it is large due to inadequate time
given to accurate documentation of age of child. This is a common problem in
large scale surveys – and can be discerned by ‘age clumping’ or a bulge of
children at ages – 12, 24, 36, 48 months. This type of result can lead to a
combination of bias in averages such as those used in descriptive analysis (a little
less likely, since some mothers/families may average the age upwards and others
may average it downward – though the downward bias is expected to occur more
often) and more importantly, adds a big factor of ‘errors in measurement’ which
can be detrimental to quantitative analysis, especially if the variable is used as a
dependent variable. The evaluators found evidence of this kind of ‘age
clumping’ for children in the anthropometric data of SERA.
c) Level of awareness of data quality issues. There was great deal of effort made in
data collection to ensure data quality – and this is very commendable. The hard
work that went into this by SERA is very creditable. However, given the large
volume of information collected, it is very natural to expect that the level of
attention given to each and every element of the data was variable. The
evaluators did not have enough time to go into each and every facet of data
collected, but selected a few key aspects to assess this. Child nutritional status
was one variable checked, since it seems there is an interest to use it in VP as a
key indicator of vulnerability. Staff at the zonal and Regional level seemed to be
unaware of problems of age assessment of children, and the impression was that if
an effort was made to ask the mother – that was adequate to get an accurate age.
While that is correct to a large extent, the fact that it is essential to get the month
27
and year of birth to accurately obtain an accurate age in months for the child does
not seem to have been recognized. An accurate age in months is necessary to
avoid the biases in nutritional status assessment. If the child is 15 months old,
and the mother reports the age as 2 years – it gets converted into the data as 12
months. The result is an upward bias in the nutritional status – in terms of Z￾scores or % of median. When this occurs consistently, the result is the kind of age
clumping seen in SERA data that was checked for this.
In view of the above, the evaluators suggest that while the information is well suited to
qualitative analysis of vulnerability factors and conditions, caution needs to be exercised
in setting up modeling quantitative causal analysis with the SERA data.
4.2.4. Efficiency and Effectiveness
The detailed indicators, methods of data collection and assessment instruments in the
guideline were comprehensive and found useful not only to current efforts of the
vulnerability profile development but other similar development endeavor in the regions.
Primary data collection instruments were found to be very useful. In fact some of the
hand tabulated HH and RRA indicators and instruments fore example have already
started to assist in:
· Conducting assessment of vulnerable groups and establish beneficiary database in the
region.
· Building the assessment and identification capacity, reviewing of existing food
security related projects and guiding appropriate adjustment and interventions.
The indicators selected are however, far more than required to measuring vulnerability.
Collection of data for so many indicators, besides creating unnecessary burden in the data
collection and management, makes it difficult to integrate information from so many
sources. A clear link of each indicator and data source to the conceptual framework and
key questions to be answered should be clearly identified, so that the data collection and
analysis for vulnerability profiles meets its desired objectives.
The Progress of Wereda vulnerability profile development has been slowed by a
combination of huge data analysis demands, technical expertise of regional staff, and
inability of Federal SERA to meet all the varying technical backstopping needs of the
regions. For most of the 16 Vulnerability Profiles started in the Pilot Phase, only the
Chapters 1-7 were written. These chapters are organized to present the results by each
data source, and integration to address key questions (Chapter 8) and Conclusions
(Chapter 9) are still remaining. These are planned to be finalized by the end of
September 2001. We believe that lack of a clear and operationally simple analytical
approach to guide data collection and analysis of the factors associated with vulnerability
to disaster, is an important reason why the VPs are still incomplete.
In the guideline extensive lists of indicators of vulnerability and different statistical tools
for data analysis are provided but there is no a guide to analyze the vulnerability factors.
In other words, there is insufficient foundation provided to connect the data and its
28
analysis to the overarching purpose and goal of disaster mitigation by understanding
vulnerability and its sources.
Even though Vulnerability Profiles have not been developed as planned, it is important to
recognize that, given the dearth of any Wereda level information in the drought prone
areas where SERA is working, this compilation of baseline information is still an
invaluable contribution that has been made. It needs to be built upon, and not
discontinued summarily. Even with simple descriptive tabulations, this information can
provide a basis for designing interventions (albeit with additional made-to-order PRA or
other data gathering to guide project formulation). However, there are no concrete
examples of such use so far, since results have not yet been disseminated or shared
informally with many program implementing groups.
4.2.3 Constraints and Recommendations
The main constraints were:
v National Guidelines overemphasized an extensive list of indicators and data
collection from multiple sources but gave inadequate attention to the core concepts
and analytical frameworks to be applied in their analysis
v Overemphasis on data collection and over collection of data
v Insufficient analytical basis for data analysis, so that the data could be efficiently used
for addressing key requirements of VPs
v Insufficient conceptualization on the content of VPs to meet their application needs
and use by stakeholders
v Data quality may not be suitable for complex multivariate models
v Technical support and backstopping available not adequate to meet varying regional
needs
The main recommendations are:
v Key requirements and content of Vulnerability Profile development should be
identified clearly, ie. Which questions have to be addressed? How will this be done,
ie., what is the analytical approach best suited to local needs and conditions? Who is
the target audience also needs to be clarified – there is a danger that a one size fits all
effort may not be of much use to anyone.
v The data that has been collected may be the biggest asset and contribution of SERA.
Its compilation and documentation to be usable for purposes of development planning
and program design needs to be explored.
v It is likely, however, that each has different types of requirements for data and types
of analysis. To make VPs useful, the best approach may be a qualitative, narrative
one, in which a combination of clear and interesting tabular information is
interspersed with the rich KI and CGD material. This could be supplemented with
detailed tabular appendices.
v Vulnerability Profiles at wereda level are important to demonstrate the specifics of
the local conditions and their disaster risks and vulnerabilities of different population
groups. This should be an important bottom-up contribution to the top down and
29
secondary data oriented national and regional planning exercises. This work would
add a rich contextual basis –and at the same time highlighting the variability in local
conditions and needs for disaster mitigation – and ultimately for sound development.
We recommend that this effort should therefore, be supported in future.
v Future work on disaster mitigation should give greater attention to the needs for this
type of work to bridge effectively the needs of both development planners and
emergency response. This is a very tricky business from both a substantive and
institutional perspective. Good disaster mitigation work is very important to
incorporate into development planning. From a substantive perspective, disaster risk
is a function of many factors in addition to income based poverty – and this will give
development planners a broader context upon which to build their work. For
example, sound environmental management, improving social and organizational
structures may contribute to reducing disaster risk of vulnerable groups – in addition
to improvements in income. From an institutional perspective, there is typically a
disconnect between disaster response and development planning agencies. To the
extent that disaster mitigation work is being developed within disaster response
oriented institutions such as DPPC, the challenge to fully incorporate this work into
development is huge. If the locus shifts entirely away towards development, there is
a danger that the disaster-risk and vulnerability-to-disasters ways of thinking, and link
with emergency response would get lost. This broader context can easily get
sidelined in the more narrowly poverty or food security driven focus of development
thinking, thereby ignoring key disaster risk elements such as sound environmental
management, and building local institutions and capacity to obtain information,
resources and respond to adverse ecological circumstances. This is an institutional
challenge worldwide – and given the much greater level of appreciation for disaster
risk reduction needs in Ethiopia – it is possible that such an interface could effectively
be ‘engineered’ here.
4.3 Capacity Building
4.3.1 Various levels of capacity building undertaken
There are several training and capacity building aspects that have been identified and
carried out by this project:
1) For creating an awareness on the need, objectives and activities of the project, various
orientation and motivation workshops were conducted at all levels starting from the
federal to the wereda level. An orientation workshop to make the project operational
in the four-target regions and the regions was organized, and they in turn, held
workshop in the operational zones and weredas. The purpose of this workshop was to
explain the objective of the project and to generate stakeholder interest in
participating in the organization and management of the project. These workshops
were instrumental in generating a generally high level of interest in, as well as
expectation from the project.
2) Training of trainers on data collection was conducted at federal level. This was
followed by regional and zonal level training’s. The purpose of this TOT was to
30
develop skills in data collection and HH survey/RRA at the federal (55 trainees),
regional (11-15/region) and zone (72/zone) levels in - in total over 650 trainees. The
training’s consisted of theoretical discussions on how to complete the questionnaire
as well as practical interview of household head, eligible women anthropometric
measurements of children 6 to 36 months old and measurements of MUAC of women
in the reproductive age. In this survey, three groups of people were trained: the
household enumerators, the supervisors of the household enumerators and the Rapid
Rural Appraisal (RRA) team. Trainees were a combination of SERA staff, and VIMU
and VWG members from Regions and Zones.
3) Training of field data collectors at Wareda level on household surveys, Key informant
interviews, FGDs, women and children’s nutritional surveys, and secondary
information availability. The personnel involved were from different sectors, and
other Wareda level workers that were hired as data collectors on a short term basis by
SERA.
4) Training of computer data entry and processing techniques at Zonal level (primarily
SERA staff)
5) Capacity building for Vulnerability Profile related data analysis and report
preparation to Zonal and Regional level VIMU staff (primarily SERA staff)
A series of training activities were designed to improve data management, integration,
and analysis capacity of the regions. The data management and analysis training
workshops was conducted by the SERA Project, in collaboration with Birhan Research
and Development Consultant. In this training 9 participants from each of the four regions
representing mainly the DPPB and regional SERA project offices have participated as per
the following :
- developing skill in primary data management and analysis by training 6 federal and
14 regional staff ;
- Developing skills on data integration and summary for VP development by training
14 regional and zonal staff for 4 days.
In addition to the basic computer training, GIS and SPSS training programs were also
conducted for federal, regional and zonal focal office staff. In general the efforts made
for capacity building has assisted regional project offices to undertake the project
activities and to collaborate with other line departments.
4.3.2 Efficiency and Effectiveness
In terms of effectiveness of the training and capacity building efforts, there was diverse
feedback received from federal, regional, zonal and wereda staff who were interviewed.
Regarding the various capacity building components. Regarding the relatively basic
training’s given at the regional level, many interviewee opinions during the evaluation
mission, attest to an increased and improved skill in data collection, assessment and
survey methods at all levels. The wereda and zonal officials in particular, reported that
the training has helped them with basic survey skills that are useful in the conduct of their
jobs. They also valued the basic computer training, with data entry and management
31
skills training. Feedback was mixed for the higher tier of skills training provided –
especially on analytical methodologies related to VP development. Opinions provided by
regional, and zonal SERA staff, and VWG members however, revealed that the training’s
given at the federal level on higher tier skills tended to be too theoretical and its design
didn’t take in to account the capacity and actual needs of the respective regions.4
Turnover also tended to be higher for the more skilled staff.
The evaluation has reviewed the background documents and content of the major
national level workshops that were oriented to Vulnerability analysis – such as the
August 1999 workshop on ‘National Guidelines’ and in March 2001 on ‘Vulnerability
data management and analysis’. These efforts are commendable in their broad approach
to imparting a variety of key concepts and methodologies. This kind of knowledge is
necessary for building an understanding of the complexities involved. This is clearly a
valuable contribution to human capacity building. In attempting to understand the
responses to this effort from the Regional SERA teams’ perspective, it appears that there
may not have been adequate consultation between federal and regional teams as to the
specific requirements as a follow up to federal workshops. However, it is difficult for us
to fully understand actual events that may have contributed to such a discontinuity
between federal SERA and regional SERA expectations and satisfaction with the level of
training provided. It is likely that not while there was great emphasis on providing a
broad based understanding, not enough attention may have been given early on to setting
up the specific analytical frameworks. Both the Tigray and Amhara regional teams
expressed their dissatisfaction at this, and their frustration at not having sufficient
technical input for this at any time.
The project’s institutional strengthening mandate has been interpreted as working
primarily with government - the DPPC system in particular. This approach, open and
participatory in nature, and closely integrated with government goals and objectives, has
earned SERA staff the trust and respect of its host institutions. It may also have helped
DPPC and other regional hosts of SERA project to incorporate elements of disaster
prevention into their work.
SERA input into DPPC plan development, an essential element of institutional
strengthening in the broadest sense, has been promoted. The DPPC/F, DPPC-Amhara,
and FSD-Tigray have all seconded their own staff to the project, which it a testament to
its perceived value, and also a promising step for future capacity building. Given the level
of confidence and the close working relationship between SERA and DPPC, the
Evaluation Team sees the opportunity for significant future input in the planning and
research areas.
 
4
 Some typical observations were: “Though there has been much technical support from the Federal
DPPC, the support particularly in the area of data analysis and integration has been inadequate” and “These
training’s given both at regional and federal level has been useful but, there design didn’t take our capacity
and actual needs in to account.”
32
4.3.3 Constraints and Recommendations
The main constraints were:
v Substantial delays in organizing key capacity building oriented workshops, such as
the data entry and data analysis workshops.
v Inadequate attention to level of analytical capacity in regional teams
v Insufficient flexibility to address varying regional needs
v Inability to retain trained workforce
The main recommendations are:
v Extend duration of methodological training workshops, and make them more
participatory, need oriented and demand driven.
v An ongoing process in which the learning is not only of key concepts and principles
but oriented to tasks at hand in an ongoing way is highly desirable.
v Establish a foundation level of core team capabilities required for basic VP
development
v Tailor recruitment and training activities to enable attaining the level of core
capabilities
v Expand capacity building of permanent govt. staff and their involvement in SERA
v A sharing of inter-regional experiences should also be considered as part of capacity
building
4.4 Research on Root Causes of Vulnerability
4.4.1 Background on identification of SERA’s research component
One of the SERA project objectives is to undertake in-depth vulnerability research in
identifying root causes of vulnerability and find out ways to tackle them as prevention
and preparedness policy. In this regard, the following 17 research areas categorized into
five programs were identified in the Ghion Workshop in 1997 have served as a basis for
selecting the research topics to be undertaken under this project. (see the 1997 Ghion
workshop proceeding). These are:
· Evaluation vulnerability profile policies, (3 topics, 1 is considered)
· Impact evaluation of the program/project, (3 topics)
· Analysis of the root cause of vulnerability, (4 topics, 4 are considered)
· Population response to vulnerability, (3 topics) and
· Institutional and human resource capacity buildings (4 topics)
Out of these 17 research areas the following five research topics were selected as
priorities to be financed by USAID in the 1997 Project document.
1. Analysis of drought forecasting capability in Ethiopia
2. Root causes of ecological degradation
3. Indicators of vulnerability of, epidemics and copping strategies
33
4. Population Pressure and Carrying Capacity of land and off-farm employment
5. Targeting indicators of the most chronically vulnerable groups
4.4.2 Definition of goals and concept of component
In the 1997 project document identified this component as one that would be
collaboratively undertaken by DPPC and USAID, and would be oriented to identifying
“more efficient and effective approaches to using food resources to target vulnerable
populations…” At this point it was clearly linked to use of food aid and to identify ways
of using it to promote development through relief measures.
In the 1998 Revised Project document, this activity was slightly reformulated in its goals
and concept. It is possible that this reformulation was based on the feedback received
from regions. In this document, the Research component is seen as a way to link
Vulnerability Profiles to Response Packages. One of the key objectives was stated as
follows: “strengthen response mechanisms and development interventions through
incorporation of the results of vulnerability profiles and research results”. This
perception is also reflected in the National Guidelines, and in the understanding of
regional SERA staff interviewed.
It is however, not clear at any point, how this connection between the research outputs
and VPs would be made to develop the Response Packages.
4.4.3 The approach – a federal orientation
Though the concept and goals of this component shifted between the 1997 and 1998
documents, the original federal orientation of the work remained. In the later document it
was stated that “vulnerability research will be coordinated at the federal level by SERA
staff in close coordination with PPPD (office of DPPC.) It will involve different
government research institutions, or non-govt. organizations, and the Regions in actual
research”.
Regions have been consulted with regard to selection and prioritization of these research
topics from the 17 research areas identified in the 1997 workshop. Accordingly regions
have been able to reflect their prioritized research topics that need to be addressed as a
priority under the project through letters written to the DPPC. The evaluation team was
informed that the regional expressions of priority were incorporated into the final choices
made on research topics.
Federal DPPC/SERA have developed 4 TORs for:
- Vulnerability to major types of flood in Ethiopia: prevention and preparedness
- Interrelationships between population pressure, carrying capacity of land and off/non￾farm employment
- Vulnerability to epidemics in the context of drought, disaster prevention and
preparedness
- Analysis of drought forecasting capabilities in Ethiopia
34
In addition, a fifth topic – “Targeting indicators of the most chronically vulnerable
groups” was covered through a buy-in of ongoing work being done in Ethiopia by an
international NGO.
4.4.4 Progress made
While three of the research topics for which TORs were developed, are among the above
5 prioritized areas, a new inclusion (Flood Vulnerability in Ethiopia) was not foreseen in
the initial project agreement. Of the four TORs, only for two research topics (i.e. NMSA
and ENHRI) have the technical proposals have been reviewed and accepted by federal
agencies, and only one started implementation (Indicators of vulnerability, epidemics and
copping strategies).
The implementation of this component has been slow, and there is considerable
uncertainty of its relation to VPs and responsiveness to regional and wereda level
response packages development.
? Root causes of ecological degradation
The objective of this research topic was to assess, analyze and prioritize the root causes
of ecological degradation and their role in vulnerability to different disasters. Though
this topic has been identified by all regions as the most high priority area for research
study, particularly from the standpoint of developing response mechanisms for reducing
vulnerability to disasters, and was also indicated as priority research area in project
document, SERA has not included this work so far.
It is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that ecological factors are key contributors to
vulnerability to disasters. Understanding them, and responding to them, however
requires a localized approach that can not be generalized beyond many local contexts.
For this reason, this component in particular, needs to be included in a solid way at the
wereda level. An option that needs to be considered is using the rich qualitative
information from KI and CGD in the SERA effort to develop this research topic. Doing
this in a localized way will also help development oriented NGO programs to incorporate
this key element in their efforts.
? Drought Forecasting Capability in Ethiopia
The general objective of the study on” Drought Forecasting Capability in Ethiopia” is to
assess and identify the root causes of vulnerability to drought in the socio-economic
system of the country and develop preventive and preparedness strategies and measures.
TOR for this research topic was prepared and after reviewing the technical proposal
submitted from NMSA, implementation agreement was signed between the DPPC and
NMSA in May 2000. However, for some of the following administrative problems and
constraints the study has not yet been started. Some of the problems associated with this
are:
35
· Delays in the approval of payment arrangement and permission from the Civil
Service Commission, which took about 8 months after the request.
· Uncertainty of the Lead Agency (NMSA) of its mandate and capacity to carry out
the research on vulnerability to flood, and required top management involvement.
Attention is needed on how this research topic would contribute to responses to
mitigate disaster risk from drought. From a Federal level perspective, it would provide
a type of ‘early warning’ of impending problems. However localized responses may be
most appropriate, eg., in expanding seed banks and other protective local mechanisms.
It was not clear to the Evaluation Team, in the limited time available, to what extent
this function is already being covered by other ongoing activities, eg., FEWS, and
therefore not required. This should be examined. If it is found that this activity would
simply be duplication of existing work, it should not be moved to implementation.
Instead, ways of linking existing ‘early warning’ type efforts to local response
mechanisms could be considered.
? Vulnerability to Major Types of Flood in Ethiopia,
The objective of this study is to assess types of flooding and identify major flood prone
areas in the country and propose prevention and preparedness strategies in short and long
run. The study was envisaged to be implemented by Ministry of Water Resources. No
action has been taken on this by them so far.
Floods tend to be localized events in most years, and are often exacerbated by the same
ecological degradation factors such as deforestation and soil erosion, that also exacerbate
droughts. However, communities affected by these events are often different than those
impacted regularly by drought.
Ecological degradation of the types mentioned above, not only trigger floods and increase
the intensity of droughts, but also hinder development efforts such as providing irrigation
facililties because of excessive silting problems.
It is important for these connections to be made in work undertaken on flood disasters. It
may be easy to overlook their importance since these are often localized problems, that
may appear to be dwarfed by the larger drought issues. The connections between these,
and the opportunity to link disparate communities to engage in mutually supportive
activities is a newly emerging one showing great promise, internationally. This is an idea
that could be explored in developing this research theme in Ethiopia.
? Population Pressure and Carrying Capacity
The general objective of this study was focused on studying the interrelationship between
rural population pressure, carrying capacity of the land and off/non-farm employment
36
opportunities in the selected weredas exposed to high vulnerability to food security. This
study topic, was envisaged to be undertaken by Addis Ababa University (IDR/DTRC),
Though TOR for both of the above two-research topics was prepared by the SERA
project, technical proposal has not been received from those agencies expected to
participate in the study. One of the major problems with regard to this is that since
government institutions are preoccupied with their regular duties they could not give
priority for such tasks, as it is secondary duty/responsibility to them.
Population pressure and carrying capacity is also an issue that is closely related to the
ecological conditions, as well as to other conditions such as demographics, off farm
opportunities, level of investment in agriculture and rural infrastructure. As a distinct
research topic, it may however, be hard to undertake in all its complexities. Unless this is
redefined, it is not clear if a useful research could emerge from this topic, both in and of
itself, and in a way to provide a contribution to response measures.
? Targeting indicators of the most chronically vulnerable groups
This study was dropped by the DPPC taking into account the National Food Aid
Targeting Guidelines issued earlier by the DPPC developed would meet the objective of
the study. This guideline was developed on the basis of previous targeting study entitled
Targeting of Food Aid in Ethiopia by the SCF-UK and consists of procedure to be
undertaken in the process of targeting relief food aid for disaster affected population.
? Vulnerability to Epidemics: Prevention and Preparedness
The general objective of this research topic was to study the main causes and risk factors
of vulnerability to major epidemics in drought prone and other areas, identify its health
consequences, and recommend feasible prevention and preparedness models and
strategies. An agreement for the implementation of this study was signed between DPPC
and EHNRI in August 2000. Due to some administrative and financial arrangement for
the project the project started operation only in January 2001. The study is being
implemented by EHNRI and expected to be completed in the end of the year 2001. This
is the only element of the “root causes” research component of SERA that has been
effectively commissioned so far. The implementation Status of Vulnerability to
Epidemics is given in Annex 3.
4.3.2 Constraints and Recommendations
The main constraints were:
v Though the research component is expected to tie in with the VPs to help in
developing the Response Packages, it is not clear in the design of these studies
precisely how this connection would be made
v Little progress in implementation of this component may have jeopardized any
conceptualization of Response Packages by regional teams
37
v Lack of regional consultation and input in TOR development process, or in the
implementation of research (eg. Vulnerability to epidemics work did not consult with
regional teams, or consider overlapping its sites with SERA sites for VP
development).
The main recommendations are:
v Rethink this component to identify its key goals and required outputs
v Given the delays in starting this work, an abridged program of work should be
envisaged, one that is clearly linked to the needs of the VPs and developing useful
Response Packages
4.5 Response Packages
4.5.1 Concept and Goals
 In general terms, the idea of Response Packages emanated from the 1997 Ghion
Workshop. It was generally agreed by all the stakeholders at this Workshop, that better
understanding of the root causes of the vulnerability to disaster was required to enable
appropriate response interventions at different levels. In the original project document,
the VP and research were seen as a connected set of activities that would contribute to
Response Packages. The RPs were envisaged as “regional and zonal contingency plans
that detail appropriate interventions for particular disasters, populations and localities”,
and would be based on VPs. Thus, in the original formulation, these appear to have been
thought of as a set of local projects on the shelf-5
 that could be utilized by NGOs or by
the Govt. in case of a disaster. Availability of such potential project ideas that are suited
to local needs are one way to enable disaster response measures to better address longer
term development needs.
The thinking about Response Packages had changed in the 1998 Revised project
document. Here, two types of RPs are envisaged – one that would combine results of
VPs and vulnerability research to develop RPs, and the second type of “bottom-up
planning of response packages in some Weredas and zones”.
In the 1998 Revised Project Document, the VP and Research components were separated,
and the Response Package idea, though still included became somewhat unclear. It was
envisaged that these two separate components – one carried out at local wereda level and
the other at the Federal level, would somehow be combined to develop responses (or
response packages). How this would actually take place, was not clear. This issue was
also not addressed in the National Guidelines for VPs, or since then in any of the
documents reviewed by the Evaluation Team.
There is no explicit basis for the assumption that once all the VPs and Research is done,
that RPs would emerge, or would be facilitated. This assumption, however, appears to
have been accepted, despite little attention given to interfacing VPs and Research, or
 
5 This concept resembles the Employment Guarantee Schemes in drought prone areas, such as in
Maharashtra, India. When there is a disaster event, or risk of one, these project ideas are put into action.
38
explicitly considering how the two would be combined, or who would develop Response
Packages. For example, the site selection for the Vulnerability to Epidemics work now
being carried out did not consider need for any interface with VP work and weredas
where it is being carried out. We are left with the perception that it is expected that
‘others’, eg., NGOs, planning depts, or sectoral units would somehow be able to utilize
the information, once it is all available. This may not be a very sound proposition.
While information/research is useful, especially when it has a practical and applied focus,
unless the response/application of the information is explicitly incorporated in the
formulation of the activity, it is not likely to be successful. In the case of the SERA
project, the response function is explicitly part of the project deliverable, unlike other
research, and therefore this should have been considered explicitly.
It is worth mentioning that an additional, and interesting approach to RP formulation was
introduced in the 1998 Revised Project Document. Although it was introduced as a pilot
effort, to be tried out only in a few weredas, it opened an opportunity to develop RPs with
local community participation. This option also does not seem to have been picked up in
SERA implementation – which given its full attention to the data collection and
processing effort. Given the involvement of local leaders and communities in the data
gathering which included discussions on disaster risk, vulnerability and causes – there
was (and still is) a good opportunity to build on these exchanges. This could best be
accomplished in cooperation with local NGOs, utilizing information that has been
collected, and re-engaging with the communities to create investment and development
options. Working in this way with local NGOs and communities could offer a good
outreach opportunity for achieving local level benefits from the SERA effort.
In the interviews conducted by the evaluation team at regional, zonal and wereda levels,
it was very evident that the promise of response packages was a major factor in the
enthusiasm with which stakeholder participation at all levels in the project had been
forthcoming. Therefore, it is the view of the Evaluation Team, that during the
completion of the pilot phase of SERA, this component be given priority.
4.5.2 Progress made
So far, there is nothing undertaken with regard to the development of the response
packages. As explained above, this is partly a result of the way in which the Revised
Project Document of 1998 was formulated which states that completed VPs and indepth
research would contribute to formulating RPs. Since neither VPs nor the research
component has produced its outputs so far, the RPs are also not available.
Independently of SERA project outputs of VPs or indepth research, to the extent that the
data collected may have been used by NGOs working in these weredas as background
information for their program development, there may already have been an application
of the work that has been done by SERA. This is based on information received by the
Evaluation Team, but no independent verification of this was possible. Therefore, no
39
specific suggestions on the relative usefulness, or how it could be improved can be made
in this report.
In Tigray, some tools developed by SERA have been applied to develop Response
Packages in areas (other than SERA pilot weredas) for food security improvement. It is
suggested that the experience from the Tigray food security effort be disseminated to all
SERA teams to inform them on how information can be used for local level
program/project planning. Given the limited attention to this deliverable in SERA project
implementation to date, it would be useful to consider concrete information sharing
between regional teams and federal SERA on their outreach experiences and approaches
that could be fostered in completing the Pilot Phase of the project.
4.5.3 Constraints and Recommendations
The main constraints were:
v There is no uniform or agreed operational guide on how and who would be
responsible for developing such RPs.
v Unavailability of Vulnerability Profiles or Research outcomes that can provide the a
basis for response packages, planning or program support for targeting vulnerable
populations and identifying interventions at the different levels.
v Insufficient VWG or other stakeholder involvement and consultation after the data
collection phase for identifying possible applications by different groups of the
information and analysis.
The main recommendations are:
v This component should receive high priority attention for the completion of the pilot
phase. It is unlikely that the RP concept of the combination of VP and indepth
research as contributing to RPs will materialize in the foreseeable future. Therefore
alternative approaches should be considered, including implementing the “bottom up”
planning response approach in cooperation with implementing agencies.
v Given the high level of expectations that have been generated for developing response
packages, especially at the wereda and zonal levels, it is important that a clearly
visible effort should be made to generate some outputs in this regard. A great deal of
involvement and input from local leaders and officials has contributed to SERA, and
this should not become one more example of broken promises made by development
agencies who seek cooperation by local communities.
v Stakeholder consultations using selected VP information could be used to facilitate
wereda level bottom-up response packages.
4.6 Overall Efficiency
One of the strengths of the SERA intervention is the participatory and cooperative
approach adopted, which is certainly appropriate for capacity building and is praised at
all levels of government. SERA has also demonstrated efficiency in fairly good quality
data collection, data entry and cleaning. The data was processed using SPSS for widow’s
40
software and other compatible packages. But the lack of integration of activities within
and outside of the project’s control has resulted in modest to low efficiency in the use of
this equipment.
This is a complex project in many ways. First, it has aimed at creating capacity to
transition the formerly relief oriented DPPC towards disaster mitigation, and therefore to
bridge the disaster-development divide. Second it undertook an ambitious and
comprehensive data collection task at the wereda level – in many cases where little of no
information was formerly available. Third, the concept of disaster risk and vulnerability
is a complex, multifaceted one, and the project aimed to get a broad based consensus on
the meaning and approaches to analysing it. And fourthly, project began with a well
intentioned attempt to decentralize to regions the main task – the development of VPs –
something that was not envisaged in the original project document.
A lot of progress has been made in the four years since the project was initially launched.
This includes comprehensive regional level discussions with stakeholders to engage their
participation, and which subsequently produced the Revised Project Document of 1998.
Further to that was setting us the implementing arrangements at federal, regional, zonal
and wereda levels - that included staff not only hired by SERA but also staff of host
institutions and input in various capacities by numerous stakeholder organizations. A
large and rich data collection effort in 16 pilot weredas has been carried out. A large
number of trainings have been carried out for staff at all levels, and data analysis and
write up of VPs is underway.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to the low observed level of output to
date, as compared with what had been anticipated or planned at the outset. These include
a combination of management and technical issues that have been discussed in the
sections relating to the five main outputs – Institutionalization of disaster mitigation work
in DPPC structure, Vulnerability Profiles development, capacity building, indepth
research, and Response Packages.
 4.7 Overall Effectiveness
The SERA VP development component has been confronted with start-up difficulties and
delays that have had an impact on the timely achievement of results. In general, the
activities planned by SERA for this component are progressing, but are significantly
behind schedule. Given the methodological difficulties encountered in making
aggregation and comparisons among the collected data and completing vulnerability
analysis or research on root causes of vulnerability, it is uncertain if concrete results
leading to recommendations and response packages can be completed by September
2001. As explained above, it is the opinion of the Evaluation Team that without having a
clear analytical link with the goals and conceptual basis the VP process has been stymied.
However the information that has been collected is a valuable resource, and based on the
work done so far, an effort is needed on how to best present it to users so as to achieve a
41
favorable outcome and impact. The National Guidelines have been fully utilized for
Vulnerability Profile development by Federal and Regional SERA teams for
implementing this plan of work. This has involved development and standardized use of
the 5 main data collection instruments in all 16 pilot weredas, an efficient data collection
system for a total of about 9,900 households.
Expected results on Vulnerability Profiles, Research on Root Causes of Vulnerability,
and Response Packages have not been achieved. The overall perception over time of the
importance of bridging emergency response and development by developing effective
disaster mitigation effort has grown over time, creating a greater demand for SERA
results for mainstream planning and food security efforts. Lack of visible results has
generated some impatience with its progress. This is understandable, given the urgency
and need to respond to the chronic and acute vulnerability faced by large populations.
5. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Continuing Rationale
5.1.1 DPPC and USAID Priorities
The SERA project represented the important priority for DPPC to build capacity for
addressing long term development needs as part of its relief efforts, so as to reduce
vulnerability to disasters. This shift in emphasis requires a gradual accumulation of
expertise and information, as well as an ability to engage substantively with various
sectoral activities. Similarly, USAID-Ethiopia has placed disaster mitigation as one of its
strategic objectives for the new 5-year project cycle. It is clear that since the origin of
SERA, the importance of its goals and objectives are perhaps even stronger now than
ever.
5.1.2 Delays in the face of high expectations
A major inducement for the participation of weredas, zones and regions in the largely
research oriented SERA project, was the promise of results and information that would
provide the basis for making sustainable improvements in their vulnerability to recurring
disasters. It is important that the project be able to fulfill on this promise.
5.1.3 Other Initiatives that have increased relevance of SERA outputs
Many developments in Ethiopia have increased the relevance of SERA. Among these
are:
- the progress of decentralization, and increased need for local information and expertise
to address regional priorities;
- the growing institutional support for food security as a central element of development
programs. This increases the need for SERA information and analysis;
- the strengthening of regional planning departments, offers potential partners for SERA
to be able to utilize a multisectoral forum for the outreach and application of results.
42
5.1.4 Other Initiatives that could replace/interface with SERA
At the same time, the rapid pace of new initiatives could also easily overtake SERA, and
make it a redundant exercise. Efforts are underway, eg. In Tigray and Amhara to
strengthen their regional planning data bases – by radically improving secondary data
quality and reporting mechanisms, including using GIS techniques. Also, donors such as
the World Bank, EC and others supporting the food security strategy work in regions, are
considering developing a wereda level information base. These developments make it
important for SERA efforts to be an efficient and streamlined one, that can deliver useful
products to its stakeholders. The potential for being able to interface with these new
efforts can improve the reach and usefulness of SERA investments.
5.2 Urgency of Producing Quality Outputs for Pilot Phase
5.2.1 Vulnerability Profiles
There are several sub-outputs of the Vulnerability Profile development – national
guidelines, useful baseline information for Weredas, and outputs that allow resource
allocation at different levels.
Wrap up of the present scope of work should focus on:
a) producing a usable information base that includes data compilation and
documentation;
b) b) Vulnerability Profiles that are provide a clear picture of the baseline situation in
the weredas. Given the absence of clear analytical frameworks, it is considered
feasible that any sound causal modeling type of analysis will be possible with the
data available. Therefore fuller use should be made of clearly presented descriptive
tables and narratives based on the Key Informant Interviews and Community Group
Discussions;
c) c) Statistical tables that document baseline conditions, by, for example agro
ecological zone and/or other sub wereda classifiers – which could be used for
program planning and monitoring conditions in the future.
5.2.2 Response Packages
Given the lack of progress so far in VP and Root Causes Research, as well lack of clarity
on how and if they would contribute to the envisaged Response Packages, priority should
be given to “bottom up response packages” in the wrap up to this phase of the work. A
priority at Wareda level, would bring some results to the communities and their leaders
who have been supporting this work.
Other options involving stakeholder consultations at different levels could also be
explored. In any case, more attention is needed for this component.
43
5.3 Follow up to present SERA Project for 2001-2003
5.3.1 Redefining Federal role
Redefining the federal role in SERA will be useful in light of the need for
decentralization and regional ownership for generating value and relevance. By
focussing on strengthened technical support, ability to respond to varying regional needs
in providing inputs, including capacity building, a better working relationship can be
established that would produce superior results. Oversight and monitoring progress
should also be part of the federal responsibilities.
5.3.2 Expanding Regional responsibility
In particular, strengthening the ability of regions to manage the SERA project will be
useful. Regional budgets and workplans that can be monitored would help in
smoothening the administration, reduce additional layers of management, and also
increase a sense of responsibility in the regions for producing results. This increasingly
is the model being followed by projects in Ethiopia in which regional level need based
responses are required, eg. The food security strategy work currently being developed by
EU. If needed, attention can also be given to strengthening institutional capacity in
regions to administer and report on finances and also to implement procurement and
recruitment needs. Such an approach could also be tied to a higher level of explicit
institutional commitment for providing a part of the staffing needs. Given the widespread
acceptance of the disaster mitigation focus by now, the likelihood of its acceptance is also
high. Such institutional commitment should also be balanced with the need/ability to
effectively make a substantive link with a combination of disaster response/early warning
efforts on the one hand, and with development oriented efforts such as food security on
the other. Better integration would also help with the staff turnover issues that have been
faced by the regional SERA teams, and dissatisfaction with the temporary terms of
employment currently available under DPPC regulations.
5.3.3 Establishing a more focused concept, methodology and data needs
In the follow up to the present SERA project, there is a need to revisit the National
Guidelines to establish a more focused concept and analytical methodology for
Vulnerability Profile development so as to more effectively utilize the available data to
develop vulnerability profiles. Additional data collection in expansion phase weredas
should not be started until the pilot phase activities are satisfactorily completed, and the
lessons learnt can be integrated into future work.
5.3.4 Addressing the issue of Institutional Sustainability
There is a variable level of SERA integration into host institutions in different Regions.
Though DPPC/Bs in Regions are primarily the SERA impelementers, in some cases other
departments, eg., the Food Security Desk in Tigray, and Planning department at zonal
level in SNNPR are involved. Such variation is certainly appropriate given the local
situations. However, irrespective of the precise location, the issue of sustainability and
44
the commitment to integrate day to day functions into departmental responsibilities is
necessary if there is to be institutional commitment to enlarging disaster mitigation work
in DPPC or other Govt. agencies. The location of this work and its formulation also has
to consider the tricky but important link with both early warning and disaster response
elements managed by DPPC and mainstream development efforts such as food security
oriented strategies and schemes.
45
PROJECT RELATED DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
BACKGROUND REPORTS
1. Workshop on “Vulnerability in Ethiopia: From Disaster to Development” Papers
presented in the Seminars and Final Report, June 1997. Addis Ababa
2. Transitional Govt. of Ethiopia (TGE), Directives for Disaster Prevention and
Management, October 993
3. Transitional Govt. of Ethiopia (TGE), National Policy on Disaster Prevention and
Management, October 1993
4. USAID-Ethiopia, Integrated Strategic Plan, FY 2001-2006
5. National Food Aid Guidelines, DPPC, Addis Ababa, November 2000
6. Poverty Situation in Ethiopia. Welfare Monitoring Unit, MEDAC, March 1999,
Addis Ababa
7. Vulnerability Mapping and Geographical Targeting: An exploratory methodology
applied to Ethiopia, Patrick Webb et al, IFPRI, Jan 1994, Washington DC
SERA DOCUMENTS
1. National Guidelines for Vulnerability Profile Development, DPPC/SERA, 2nd Draft,
Sep. 16, 1999
2. National Guidelines for Vulnerability Profile Development, DPPC/SERA, Secondary
Data Tabulation Sheets, Revised, August 24, 2000
3. Proceedings of Workshop on National Guidelines for VP Development,
DPPC/SERA, Addis Ababa, August 23, 1999
4. Guiding Principles for Coordination and Standardization for Vulnerability Profile
chapter analysis and write up. DPPC/SERA Project, Revised, July 23, 2001
5. Technical Review on Draft National Guidelines on Vulnerability Profile
Development of the SERA Project. By VAG Meeting at DPPC, May 27, 1999
6. Federal VAG – Comments on the National Guidelines for VP Development by WFP
(John McHarris), EU Food Security Unit (Mihret Bizneh), MEDAC (Debebe
Habtewold), Ministry of Agriculture (Mathewos Hunde), Save the Children, UK
(Cassandra Chapman)
7. TOT Manual for Household Survey, SERA/DPPC
8. TOT Manual for Selected RRA and Qualitative Methods, SERA/DPPC, August, 1999
9. Vulnerability Profile Development. Papers presented at SERA Data Analysis
Training, DPPC, March 26-31, 2001
10. Workshop Report from the Data Analysis training of March 2001, Birhan
Consultancy, June 2001. Addis Ababa
11. Terms of Reference for Indepth Research, DPPC/SERA
a) Vulnerability to major types of flood in Ethiopia – Prevention and Preparedness
(Revised Draft) June 6, 2000
b) Interrelationshipa between population pressure, carrying capacity of land and off
farm employment (Revised) November 2000
46
c) Analysis of Drought forecasting capacity in Ethiopia. February 2000
d) Vulnerability to Epidemics in the context of Drought, Disaster prevention and
preparedness. Revised draft. Feb 2000
12. Women’s Survey Questionnaire, SNNPR/SERA Project
13. Household Survey Questionnaire, SNNPR/SERA Project
14. Proposal for Expansion and Extension of SERA Project, SERA/DPPC, Dec. 2000.
15. A Draft Proposal for the Training of Primary Data Collection Instruments and
Procedures, SERA/DPPC, Dec 1999
16. Anthropometry – Short Note for SERA Training, January 2000, Awassa (Amharic
version)
17. Guidelines for Data Collectors for Vulnerability Assessment Sample Survey, Dec
2000 (Amharic version)
18. Coded value labels and Defined variables, Household Questionnaire, SNNPR
19. Results Report to USAID for USFY 2000, DPPC/SERA Project, (Oct 1999-Sep
2000)
20. Annual Report to USAID, Important Achievements and Problems/Concerns,
DPPC/SERA for USFY 2000
21. A Performance update for USAID/FHA, SERA, Dec 1998
22. Six Month Progress Report for SERA Project, Mar-Aug 1998
23. SERA Project Monthly Reports, March 1998 to July 2001
24. Draft Vulnerability Profiles available to Evaluation Team
a) SNNPR, Hadiya Zone, Badowacho Wereda (Chapters 1-7)
b) SNNPR, Wolayta Zone, Humbo Wereda (Chapters 1-9)
c) Oromiya, E. Hararge, Gurawa Wereda (Chapters, 1,4,5,7,8)
d) SNNPR, Lemu Wereda, Chapter 7
e) Amhara, Tach Gayint Wereda,
f) Tigray, Saese Wereda (Chapters 1-5, 8)
g) Tigray, Pheferom Wereda (Chapters 1-7)
h) Oromiya, Dera Wereda (Chapter 1-7)
25. Tables produced from Household Survey Data, Sasie Wereda, June 2001
26. Tables produced from Household Survey Data, SNNRP, SERA Project, June 2001
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
1. Development in Disaster Prone Places: Studies in Vulnerability by James
Lewis. Intermediate Technology Publications, 1999.
2. Famine Early Warning and Response – The Missing Link by Margaret
Buchanan-Smith and Susanna Davies. Intermediate Technology Publications,
1995.
3. ‘Getting the Scale Right: A comparison of analytical methods for Vulnerability
Assessment and Household-level targeting’ by Linda Stephen and Thomas
Downing. Disasters Vol 25 (2) 113-135, 2001.
4. ‘Targeting the Vulnerable: A review of the necessity and feasibility of targeting
vulnerable households’ by Susanne Jaspers and Jeremy Shoham. Disasters Vol
23(4) 359-372, 1999.
47
5. Identifying the Food Insecure: The application of mixed method approaches
in India by Kimberly Chung, Lawrence Haddad, J. Ramakrishna and Frank
Riely. IFPRI 1997.
6. Living with Drought: Drought mitigation for sustainable livelihoods by
Astrid von Kotze. Intermediate Technology Publications, 1999.
7. Rural Vulnerability to Famine in Ethiopia by Mesfin Wolde-Mariam.
Intermediate Technololgy Publications, 1986.
48
PERSONS MET
ANNEX 1
Project Documents (1997, 1998)
ANNEX 2
Field Trip Report of Evaluation Mission
49
ANNEX 3
Root Causes of Vulnerability – Implementation Status of Vulnerability to
Epidemics component
? Vulnerability to Epidemics: Prevention and Preparedness
The general objective of this research topic was to study the main causes and risk factors
of vulnerability to major epidemics in drought-prone areas, identify its health
consequences, and recommend feasible prevention and preparedness models and
strategies. An agreement for the implementation of this study was signed between DPPC
and EHNRI in August 2000, however, due to some administrative and financial
arrangement for the project the project started operation only in January 2001. The study
is being implemented by EHNRI and expected to be completed in the end of the year
2001, i.e. at least one year behind. The implementation Status of Vulnerability to
Epidemics follows.
3. Implementation Status of Vulnerability to Epidemics:
The general objective is to study the main causes and risk factors of high vulnerability to
major epidemics in drought-prone areas and its health consequences, and to recommend
feasible prevention and preparedness models and strategies. An agreement for the
implementation of this study was signed in August 2000, and however due to some
administrative and financial arrangement for the study was started in January 2001. The
implementation of this study is underway by EHNRI, which would be complete in by the
end of this year 2001. The project cost Birr 954,000 and the fund released in February
2001.The major objective in this study includes:
Specific objectives
1. To assess the occurrence and incidence of the most common and devastating types of
epidemic and communicable diseases before, during the after periods of significant
drought.
2. To analyze the causes and risk factors in vulnerability to epidemics in drought-prone
areas, including their geographic distribution and high-risk population groups.
3. To assess the public health impact of these epidemic diseases on health status
(including morality/morbidity, disability and malnutrition) in drought-related
epidemics.
50
4. To assess the existing capacity of public health and disease surveillance systems in
drought-prone areas, and recommend the most effective and feasible preventive
health and nutrition measures to reduce vulnerability to drought-related epidemics.
5. To assess the current local response capacity and recommend a model and strategies
for effective preparedness, response and rehabilitation mechanisms when drought￾related epidemic occurs.
Methods employed to the study
1. Collection of secondary and available data for epidemiological analysis
2. Collection of retrospective and cross-sectional primary data in drought-prone areas
3. Undertake case studies in different agro-ecological zones and in current drought￾affected areas, including laboratory and anthropometric components
4. Dissemination of findings at national and regional levels
5. Recommendations for interventions
The study has completed the 1st round data collection in 20 woredas all over the country
and two-quarter progress reports have been submitted. The 1
st round data collection was
arranged in four directions (Northeast, Northwest, Southwest and Southeast) by four
groups to achieve the following four major activities:
1. Secondary data collection from 53 sites
2. Retrospective data collection from 18 weredas
3. General case studies in 6 weredas
4. Specific case studies in 6 weredas
In general the planned activities in the 1
st round field trip in the four directions were
successfully completed except for secondary data collection which still needs some
follow up to get the necessary information from distributed sites.
Accordingly the following achievements have been performed:
a) Secondary data information has been collected from 14 woredas, 12 zones and 2
regions.
b) Retrospective data has been collected through conducting:
· 85 Focus group discussion
· Key informants interview for 728 individuals
· House Hold Data collected from 7200 sample HH
· Nutritional qualitative information collected from 720 samples
c) General case study: Different samples have been taken from over 3000 individuals in
six weredas
d) Specific case studies: the following specific case studies have been undertaken
· Samples have been taken from patient for different diseases
· Anthropmetric measurements
51
· Samples from mothers and children’s for hemoglobin
· Water samples
· Information from traditional healers and clients
· Medical plants collected
· Saliva samples collected for measles
Summary tables for the activities of the 1st round data collection
A. Secondary data collection
Region Status Zone Status Wereda Status
Status Complete
d
Follow up Complete
d
Follow
up
Tigray Follow up 4
Afar region Follow up 2
Amhara Follow up 4 4 4
Oromia region Follow up 3 2 5
Somalia Completed 2
SNNPR Completed 2 1 5
Addis Ababa Follow up 1 5 2
12 16 14 2
B. Retrospective primary data collection completed
Region Status Focus Group
Discussion
( FGD)
Key
Informants
Household
Tigray 8 90 800
Afar region 5 29 400
Amhara 18 170 1,200
Oromia region 19 139 1,200
SNNPR 20 160 1,200
Somalia 5 40 400
Addis Ababa 10 100 800
85 728 7,200
C. General and Specific Case Studies from six selected case study werdas.
Sr. I. General Case Study II. Specific Case Study
No Samples No of
persons
Sr.
No. Samples No. of
Persons
1. Stool 1. Diarrhea
a) SAF pres, (parasites) 3,211 a) SAF pres, (parasites) 135
52
b) Cary Blair trans.(Bact.) 2,346 b) Cary Blair
trans.(Bact.)
134
c) Direct microscopy 3,206 2. TB: Septum 64
2. Malaria :Blood film 2,194 3. Water sample 39
3. Measles Typhus: Serum 3,042 4. Blood: RF 56
5. ARI-Ames Trans. Med 29
6. Blood :hemoglobin 1,056
7. Anthropometric
measurement
1,056
Table Financial Report
Sr.
No
Birr
1. Total cost of the project- 1,000,000.00
2. Cash transferred to date to EHNRI 700,000.00
3. Expenditure to date by EHNRI 591,925.94
4. Remaining balance at EHNRI 108,074.06
5. Total remaining project balance 408,074.06
6. Required cost to complete the remaining work by
EHNRI
501,330.00
7. Difference to be asked as supplementary 93,256.00
Major constrains encountered
The major constrains faced under this the research study of Vulnerability to Epidemics
include:
1. Rainfall started early around May: The first round data collection was planned in May
and June 2001. This year the rain unusually starred early in May in most of parts of
the country. There was a problem to reach the selected PAs with all the laboratory
equipment during the general case study. Some groups have to use donkeys and
assistance from the villages to carry the laboratory equipment.
2. Shortage of funds the budget allocated for the this project is said to be inadequate to
cover all the four planned components ( secondary data collection, retrospective,
general and specific case studies)
3. In availability of information as planned from surveillance reports and outpatient
records on monthly basis for the last ten years
4. Inadequate cases for the different planned disease at time field visits
5. In accessibility to some of the PAs from which the retrospective and the general case
studies planned to be collected from the three Pas that include the three agro￾ecological zones
Measures suggested and recommendations
53
· Ask USAID through DPPC for supplementary fund of about Birr 93,350 to
complete the VEPP project successfully
· Proposal to screen HIV/AIDS: One of the successes story under this project is an
adequate blood/serum sample collection from over 3000 persons from six selected
case study werdas. This was over 100% achievement since the planned samples
were only 2400 individuals. These samples are collected from the rural community
of different direction where the magnitude of the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is
unknown. Further screening of these samples for HIV/AIDS will clearly show the
status of this diseases in the rural community for better planning and intervention
for policy makers. We suggest preparing additional and separate proposal for this
activity.
Remaining Activities
The major activity remaining to be undertaken are divided in five phases
? Phase I –July- August 2001:
· Undertake specific case studies focused only on typhus.
· Creation of a database for the retrospective data, the general study and about 9
specific database for the seven diseases, nutrition and TM
· Analysis of the biological sample collected from the general and from the specific
case studies.
· Other activities like request for the final installment, literature review in different
disciplines can start at this phase.
? Phase II- September- November 2001
a) Field activity focused on malaria Parasitology and entomology.
b) The majority of the biological sample laboratory examination results will be entered
in a computer and analysis of the data base from retrospective, general case and
specific case except malaria would be completed
? Phase III- December 2001 : The major activity will be to finalize all data entry
and analytical process, produce tables and graphs for the draft report.
? Phase IV- January 2002 : Produce draft report
? Phase V- February 2002: Prepare the workshop to disseminate the result