1 February Nepal Red Cross Society-DRR-CBA By Krishna Kumar K.C. DRR Project Coordinator

1 February Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) came into being1963 The Government of Nepal Acceded Geneva Convention 1964 Recognized by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 1964 Affiliated to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) 1964

1 February District Chapters75 Sub-chapters1,201 Junior Red Cross Circles4,006 Youth Red Cross Circles482 Total Membership1,100,646

1 February Promotion of the RC Fundamental Principles and Humanitarian Values Disaster Management- Disaster Response - rescue & relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction, assistance to the victims of conflict, tracing, emergency first aid Disaster Preparedness - CBDP, community/school based DRR, warehouse management, logistics & network development, HR development Health and Care in the Community Organizational Development

1 February NRCS CBDP/DRR Initiatives NRCS has been engaged formally in Community Based Disaster Preparedness Program since Coverage so far more than 700 communities/schools in more than 45 districts. The DRR II BRCS / DFID - supported and Federation coordinated DRR II program designed in and supported the Hyogo framework for Action (HFA) and had drawn on NRCS lessons learned. Approximately 9,000 people in 15 vulnerable communities selected as a result of VCA in the disaster prone districts of Ilam, Panchthar and Saptari were benefited from DRR II NRCS DRR II program was examined through the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) with the support of BRCS.

1 February Cost Benefit Analysis on NRCS DRR Program BRCS-Why CBA? Contribution to the efforts of the Movement in adopting and promoting the Disaster Risk Reduction approach To improve the measuring of impact -- to better capture monetary terms. CBA could advance the case for scaling up risk reduction activity and validate the investment benefits.

1 February NRCS –Why CBA? Useful as another tool for strengthening M&E for measuring impact. Results are useful to help motivate and mobilise communities. Useful for understanding more about DRR benefits and to influence future interventions. Cost Benefit Analysis on NRCS DRR Program

1 February To produce analytical evidence of the micro- level benefits (versus the costs) of Community based DRR For the NRCS,BRCS and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to learn about and to develop skills around the CBA methodology Cost Benefit Analysis on NRCS DRR Program

1 February CBA work investigated the impacts of the program undertaken in Ilam, Nepal The CBA work evaluated the following components: Structural activities-(mitigation works such as building gabion boxes, construction of flood containing walls and evacuation shelters). Indigenous practices were also promoted at local level. Non-structural activities-(Such as emergency (revolving) funds, first aid training, drafting of disaster preparedness plan, public awareness campaigns) Livelihood activities- Income generation (IG) activities such as buying and rearing livestock for sale in the market, and generated significant amounts of income for a number of families.

1 February Process of Cost Benefit Analysis Field work and data collection and verification Meeting and discussion with NRCS management and DM team and other relevant stakeholders The field work was used to gather data on The risks faced by communities, The impacts of natural hazards on the communities, The affect of the NRCS DRR program in reducing the impact of these risks.

1 February Field work aimed to gather more detailed data to construct two scenarios: What is the impact of hazards on the community without the DRR Program? What is the impact of hazards on the community with the DRR program? Data was collected through-Meeting with NRCS DM team, District Chapters, field staff and community volunteers, Field visit and stakeholders meetings. Process of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February The findings from the cost benefit analysis demonstrated that the program generated a cost to benefit ratio of 1:15 on conservative assumptions. The impacts of the hazards and the DRR program, as described by the community, are out lined below in relation to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis Natural Without DRR: Land eroded by Flooding, soil eroded by poor farming practices. With DRR: Land protected, and some land reclaimed (through re-generation from gabion boxes)

Some examples of NRCS DRR initiatives

1 February Physical Without DRR: Houses swept away in big floods, displaced households move to neighbors in the short term, drinking wells submerged and water contaminated resulting in diarrhea, restricted/no access to village. Fires/elephant attacks destroy houses and contents Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February With DRR: Houses may still be swept away in big flood, but mitigation works have halted gradual erosion, protecting houses from average floods. However, impacts may be diverted to the other side of river/downstream. Evacuation shelters provide temporary shelter, with stored relief items. Wells protected from contamination. Provision of rickshaw improves access. Houses still destroyed by fires/elephants attacks, but emergency fund (cash and grain) provides security for those affected. Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February Social Without DRR : There was not strong coordination with local authorities and no strong unity within the community. Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February With DRR: Improved coordination and stronger community voice, communities liaise with local authorities and other organizations for development activities, women empowered and helping other womens groups to form, greater sense of security through emergency funds. Findings of Cost Benefit Analysis

1 February Strengths of CBA Validation of intervention: Found to be a useful tool to measure tangible and concrete impact which validates strategies and investment. Aids fundraising and policy making: Analysis found to be persuasive fundraising tool and for influencing policy.

Some examples of NRCS DRR initiatives

1 February Limitations and weakness of CBA Timing: Difficult to be undertaken until after implementation and therefore difficult to use for decision making during implementation. Impacts measured: Dominated by hard direct or tangible measures as opposed to soft indirect or behavioural change / capacity building measures. Findings may be skewed in importance if used in isolation.

1 February Conclusions CBA provides a key tool to aid decision-making by allowing robust analysis of the costs and benefits of different interventions. CBA can be strongly influential to make the case and advocate for DRR interventions to improve human wellbeing. The findings from the cost benefit analysis demonstrate that the program generates a cost to benefit ratio of 1:15.

1 February