1. SDRMSI PAD as approved November 2019.pdf

Strengthening Disaster Risk Management Systems and Institutions

PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT

COVER PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Project Purpose

II. Context

III. Relation to the Mission’s CDCS

A. CDCS Results Framework

B. SDRM-SI Results Framework

C. Relation to other DOs

IV. Project Description

A. Systems-Based Theory of Change

B. Programming Principles

C. Geographic Targeting

D. Project Outcomes

V. Other Leveraged Resources

VI. Summary of Conclusions from Analyses

VII. Project Management and Implementation Plan

VIII. Project LME Plan

IX. Project Financial Plan

I. PROJECT PURPOSE

The purpose of the Strengthening Disaster Risk Management Systems and Institutions (SDRM-SI) Project is to strengthen the capacity of Ethiopia’s institutions and communities to effectively manage disaster risks. The SDRM-

SI Project, henceforth referred to as ‘the project’, is a collaborative mission-wide effort led by the Disaster Risk

Management (DRM) Team in the Assets and Livelihoods in Transition (ALT) Office. The ultimate goal is to reduce humanitarian assistance needs, malnutrition, and preventable child deaths.

The project aligns with the USAID/Ethiopia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS 2019-2024). It supports Development Objective (DO1) 1 Disaster Risk Management Strengthened, and Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1

Communities empowered to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks, and IR 1.2 Institutional risk management capacity strengthened. The project will also support and align with the USAID Journey to Self-Reliance framework, the USAID/Ethiopia Global Food Security Strategy and the Government of Ethiopia’s reform agenda. It strives to incorporate agency priorities on redefining our relationships with partner governments, incentivizing commitment and strengthening capacity to reduce reliance on foreign assistance. It also leverages other development partners to further facilitate and incentivize commitment through improved coordination and alignment, limiting redundancies and overlap in our programming.

USAID has invested in strengthening the capacity of Ethiopia’s institutional and community systems to effectively manage shocks over many years, with some proven successes and many lessons learned. This project seeks to transform these highly strategic targeted investments with a more systematic approach to strengthen the system as a whole, reduce the impact of shocks and contribute to Ethiopia’s self-reliance.

II. CONTEXT

Problem Statement. Ethiopia faces frequent and severe shocks, but government and community capacity to manage and respond to these shocks is limited. Critical investments are needed to strengthen disaster risk management systems and capacity at all levels to enhance preparedness and reduce humanitarian needs.

Vulnerability to shocks

Ethiopia faces a wide range of natural and man-made shocks, including drought, flooding, conflict and disease outbreaks. These shocks undermine the country’s Journey to Self-Reliance and constrain Government of Ethiopia’s

(GoE) ability to execute its reform agenda. The number of people impacted by disasters peaked at 10 million in 2015-

2018, in addition to the 8 million chronically food insecure supported by the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), requiring $1.5 billion in humanitarian assistance every year, including up to $500 million a year from USAID.

The 2019 humanitarian response plan (HRP) identified 8.86 million people in need and a funding requirement of

$1.314 billion in humanitarian assistance, of which USAID has contributed over $350 million to date, more than half the total committed amount. The 2019 humanitarian needs overview (HNO) identifies 8.86 million in acute humanitarian need as a result of drought, 3.32 million as a result of conflict, and 3.51 million as a result of disease outbreaks. The Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) estimates of internal displacement peaked at over 3 million in 2019.

In July 2019, 51.5% of Ethiopia’s 981 woredas were classified as hotspot woredas in the prioritization exercise for emergency relief beneficiaries. 250 were classified as priority one, 137 as priority two and 118 as priority three.

While the criteria has changed annually for this classification system, the results nonetheless highlight that a great number of woreda are still in need of humanitarian assistance and that the numbers do not appear to be declining.

Source: ENCU

In Ethiopia disasters do not affect people equally. Women are particularly vulnerable to the impact of shocks, being constrained by norms and role expectations that limit their mobility and access to and control over resources rendering them more vulnerable to the impact of disasters. Pre-existing discriminatory practices are often exacerbated and domestic and sexual violence against women often increases due to disaster-induced stress.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is particularly prevalent in the case of conflict shocks, where violence 1 against women is used to intimidate, punish or coerce. Along with women, the protection cluster categorizes children, people with disabilities and the elderly in the “most vulnerable” category. 4.89 million of the 8.86

1 Eric Neumayer and Thomas Plumpo(2007),the Gendered Nature of Natural Disasters, the Impacts of Catastrophic

Events on the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy, 1981-2002, Annals of the Association of Americans Geographers.

USAID/Ethiopia DRM Project gender analysis by Anne T.Sweetser, 2019.

million people in humanitarian need in Ethiopia are children, and 2019 saw a spike in unaccompanied and separated children in Ethiopia, with estimates almost double those of 2018.

Climate shocks. Ethiopia is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate-driven disasters. Drought and flooding are recurrent shocks, with an average of 1.5 million people are affected by drought every year. In

2015/16, the number of people affected by drought peaked at 12.8 million, and sustained dryness following the drought has hampered drought recovery resulting in people in need (PIN) figures remaining high in the years since.

The highest impact of drought is in eastern and northern, with IPC Phase 3 (Crisis) the norm across much of Somali region, eastern Oromia, the lowlands of Bale, Guji, Borena and northern Afar. The frequency and magnitude of climate-driven disasters is expected to increase over time, which when combined with projected demographic and economic changes, will increase the impacts of droughts and floods. In 2019, over 300,000 people were estimated to be impacted by floods and more than 8 million by drought.2

Conflict shocks. Conflict has emerged as a risk to development gains in recent years. The opening of political space has given Ethiopians a voice to express historical grievances and has heightened nationalist claims. Ethnic and political violence has erupted throughout the country, particularly along regional borders, driving mass population movements and exacerbating the already high levels of humanitarian need. Political upheaval juxtaposes the potential for liberalization driven by political reform with the destabilization of a long-standing political order. The restructuring of security forces poses a significant risk to stability, in some places the rule of law has either broken down or the forces of state order have themselves become predatory. There has been an escalation of significant insecurity in the countryside, resulting in over 3 million internally displaced, with over 2 million reported returned

(some voluntarily and some forced) to or near their area of origin. Efforts by political actors to redefine ethnic composition of borders and attacks on minority populations to legitimate control over cities and strategic areas or resources contribute to violence, as do attempts to create facts on the ground ahead of elections and constitutional reform. These efforts are incentivized by an ethno-federal constitution that creates a political imperative to link claims to territory and resources to ethnic dominance. Further polarizing of the narrative threatens an escalation of violence that could derail reform. Despite the opening of political space, GOE continues to use coercive capacities of the state to address insecurity, declaring states of emergency and deploying the ENDF. Conflict is unpredictable, with over 80 ethnic groups and dozens of local dynamics, institutions and threats that have the potential to escalate, including the future of the EPDRF, unemployment, urbanization and elections.3

Health shocks. Health outbreaks occur frequently across Ethiopia with potentially disastrous impacts at household, community and systems levels. As of September 2019, health outbreaks included 8,201 suspected measles cases, 1,180 suspected and 44 confirmed cholera cases. The 2019 HNO identified 3.51 million people in need of assistance in areas affected by disease outbreaks, with 36 percent of the caseload in Oromia, 26 percent in Somali and 20 percent in SNNP. Morbidity from infectious diseases is compounded by lack of access to safe water and sanitation, coupled with poor hygiene practices. The impact of communicable diseases is further compounded when combined with other ongoing problems, such as malnutrition, food

2 GFDRR Ethiopia Country Profile. OCHA HNO 2019. El Nino Evaluation.

3 Ethiopia Conflict Assessment. Desk Review - Revised Draft. September 2019. Terrence Lyons. Democracy

International.

insecurity, conflict or displacement. The health system does not have the capacity to manage health shocks. While recent efforts to restructure and strengthen the Public Health Emergency Management (PHEM) structure in the

Ethiopian Public Health Institute will improve functionality, gaps remain in communication and coordination gaps between PHEM and the Ministry of Health. Resources like health commodities and emergency health workers are frequently not deployed in a timely manner; there is often a lack of prioritization or focus; and there is inadequate knowledge to objectively account for the impact of shocks. As a result, outbreaks develop into emergencies, further contributing to a cycle wherein shocks limit the health systems development gains and negatively impact health outcomes.

Interrelatedness of shocks. The 2019 HNO identified 58 woredas with a convergence of humanitarian needs resulting from overlapping shocks that contribute to the complexity of the disaster risk landscape in Ethiopia.

Consecutive droughts contribute to competition over resources, which in some parts of the country has led to conflict, hampering the drought response and complicating recovery efforts. Disease outbreaks become more likely when people are displaced. The myriad relationships between shocks can be causal or amplifying, or both. Drought risk cannot be looked at in a vacuum, just as conflict dynamics cannot be fully understood without taking into account persistent climate shocks.

Ethiopia’s Disaster Risk Management Policy Framework

The National DRM Policy and DRM Strategic Program and Investment Framework (SPIF) mandate the establishment of a multi-hazard and multi-agency system, where assigned lead ministries are responsible for early warning, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery to specific hazards. DRM capacity of the line ministries is crucial for improving risk-informed and risk-sensitive operations of these agencies. The DRM mainstreaming guidelines advocate for DRM mainstreaming to the sectoral policies, development programs, and budget of all government entities, including line ministries and sub-national administrative units. This includes the establishment of a DRM directorate and building human resource capacity in each ministry to manage respective disasters.

However, operationalization of the policy has been hampered by capacity limitations and high staff turnover across the DRM system, compounded by lack of harmonized roles and responsibilities at federal, regional and woreda levels, leading to fragmentation or duplication of effort. Government systems used to respond, manage and recover from shocks are also weak, even without the additional pressure of recurrent crises. Strengthening government and community systems to effectively manage shocks is crucial for saving lives, safeguarding livelihoods, building resilience and protecting development gains.

The health sector has made strides in putting in place dedicated structures and resources for disaster response. Public

Health Emergency Management (PHEM) is a semi-autonomous wing of the federal Ministry of Health, and is mandated to forecast, identify and respond, coordinating with other sector offices. Emergency operations centers

(EOCs) exist at both the federal and regional level, albeit constrained in their effectiveness by their current level of functionality.

It should also be noted that despite the particular risks that women face and limited efforts to include gender in the policy framework, both the National DRM Policy and SPIF are absent details of how women and other vulnerable people will be given attention before, during, and after crises to minimize loss of life and promote greater resilience.

Disaster risk management (DRM) capacity needs to be strengthened to address Ethiopia’s risk exposure and reduce the associated humanitarian needs.

III. RELATION TO THE MISSION’S CDCS

A. CDCS Results Framework

The SDRM-SI Project aligns with the USAID/Ethiopia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS 2019-

2024). It directly supports Development Objective (DO) 1 Disaster Risk Management Strengthened, and Intermediate

Result (IR) 1.1 Communities empowered to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks, and IR 1.2 Institutional risk management capacity strengthened. It contributes to IR 1.3 Emergency response provided more effectively, which is the focus of the Effective Emergency Response (EER) Project. It also connects with Strategic Principle 1: Improved citizen empowerment and household and community resilience and well-being, and Strategic Principle 2: More effective and accountable systems and institutions at all levels.

A simplified explanation of the relationship between the SDRM-SI Project and the EER Project is that the SDRM-

SI Project strengthens the systems and capacities that the EER Project will eventually rely upon. The two projects have been designed in close collaboration and a joint systems based theory of change was developed recognizing the interlinkages.

B. SDRM-SI Project Results Framework

The SDRM-SI Project Results Framework includes the three sub-IRs under IR 1.1 of the CDCS, and the five sub-IRs under IR 1.2. USAID is one of many actors working to strengthen disaster risk management in Ethiopia. The SDRM-

SI systems-based approach recognizes that this project is just one part of a larger system made up of GOE, development partners and non-state actors who will contribute to progress towards project purpose and the results laid out in the results framework.

IR 1.1 Communities empowered to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks.

Sub IR 1.1.1 Community systems for risk identification and preparedness strengthened.

Sub IR 1.1.2 Access to and utilization of early warning information improved.

Sub IR 1.1.3 Capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response enhanced.

IR 1.2 Institutional risk management capacity strengthened.

Sub IR 1.2.1 Early warning systems strengthened for early action.

Sub IR 1.2.2 Coordination mechanisms strengthened.

Sub-IR 1.2.3 Resource mobilization, management and leadership capacity enhanced.

Sub IR 1.2.4 Information management and analytical capacity for evidence based decision making improved.

Sub IR 1.2.5 Emergency logistics systems strengthened.

C. Linkages to Other DOs

DO1 provides an important role in enabling the success of other DOs. Left unmanaged, shocks will continue to undermine Ethiopia’s progress across all of the DOs. Investing in disaster risk management will support progress towards all DOs in the CDCS.

DO2 Resilience of vulnerable populations to key shocks increased. Strengthened disaster risk management is a critical foundation for meaningful progress towards resilience, and increased household resilience contributes to strengthen disaster risk management, particularly where economic growth leads to increased household income that provides households with avenues for early action that can reduce the impact of shocks. Both the Lowlands Resilience Project and the Highlands Reliance Project will combine their approaches to economic growth with empowerment of communities to mobilize, mitigate and act on shocks. The activities under these projects build on progress and learning from previously disparate activities, working with communities to both improve their resilience and plan for shocks while mobilizing to mitigate the inevitable shocks they face. The SDRM-SI project’s support to strengthen the early warning system is a necessary condition for the scalability of the safety net envisaged under DO2.

DO3 Private sector-led economic growth promoted. Strengthened disaster risk management will contribute to an enabling environment for private sector led economic growth. UNISDR estimates that disasters cost the global economy $2.9 billion of direct economic losses in the period 2018-2017.4

DO4 Sustained improvement in essential service delivery outcomes focused on women and girls. This DO supports system strengthening for improved service delivery in the health, education, WASH, and nutrition sectors.

Strengthened disaster risk management will underpin the ability of service delivery institutions to withstand and respond to shocks, contribute to shock responsiveness and ultimately support sustained improvement in essential service delivery outcomes. While the impact of shocks on essential service delivery in Ethiopia is under investigated, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is significant. The learning agenda for DO1 will seek to investigate the impact of shocks on the health, education, nutrition, and WASH sectors.

SpO Citizen responsive governance enhanced. Strengthened disaster risk management will enable government to more effectively engage with citizens and communities to predict, prevent, respond to, and mitigate the impacts of key shocks and stresses that affect them. The SDRM-SI project will utilize approaches to strengthening DRM systems that are inclusive and build trust and confidence between government institutions and the people they serve and that empower citizens and communities to participate in DRM systems.

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Systems-Based Theory of Change

The SDRM-SI Project takes a systems lens approach, aiming to affect broader positive change beyond a predefined set of outputs. The systems-based theory of change (SBTOC) considers the larger system within which the project operates, striving to understand the constellation of actors and institutions relevant to achieving meaningful and lasting results, their inter-relations and the incentives that guide them. The project logic model depicting the theory of change can be found in Annex 1.

The development hypothesis of DO1 posits that:

IF communities and citizens are empowered to mobilize and act, institutional risk management capacity is strengthened, and emergency response is more effective, so that sufficient resources are

4 UNISDR economic cost of disasters report 2018. Goldman Sachs 2019 report.

mobilized and utilized effectively, logistics and commodity management capacity is in place, and evidence-based decision making is supported, THEN disaster risk management will be strengthened, the GOE will better manage crises, the impact of shocks will be reduced and Ethiopia’s self-reliance will grow.

Building from this development hypothesis, the theory of change for this project starts from the assumption that if

Ethiopia’s communities and institutions have robust disaster risk management systems in place, and they have the capacity to leverage these systems, then they will be able to effectively manage disaster risks and the impact of shocks will be reduced.

While the intellectual framework of the theory of change outlined below separates communities and institutions for simplicity of presentation, the SDRM-SI project recognizes that Ethiopia’s disaster risk management system will only be strengthened if GOE and communities better manage crises together. This will only happen if communities participate in institutional structures and institutions are accountable to communities. Therefore accountability and inclusive governance are key design principles.

Community-level SBTOC

IF communities have strengthened systems for risk identification and preparedness, their access to and utilization of early warning information is improved, and their capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response is enhanced, THEN communities will be empowered to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks and community disaster risk management will be strengthened.

Risk identification and preparedness. If DRM committees are functioning, inclusive, equitable and participatory, so that communities are empowered and equipped to develop and update hazard and risk plans that inform preparedness, and preparedness is prioritized and resourced, then community systems for risk identification and preparedness will be strengthened.

Early warning information. If effective early warning systems are in place and functioning, community engagement is inclusive, participatory and equitable, GOE supports community-level efforts and linkages between communities, woredas, regional and federal administrations are strengthened, then communities’ access to and use of early warning information will be improved.

Contingency planning, mitigation and local response. If local capacity to mitigate and manage risk is increased, community disaster planning and action is improved and community conflict mitigation mechanisms is strengthened, assuming that plans are used, skills are leveraged and communities are empowered to mobilize, then community capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response will be enhanced.

Institutional SBTOC

IF GoE has strengthened institutional disaster risk management and emergency response systems, and GoE has strengthened institutional disaster risk management capacity that is applied through strengthened staffing and administrative structures, assuming that GoE leverages disaster risk management and emergency response systems and data driven decision making to better manage crises, THEN institutional disaster risk management will be strengthened.

The SDRM-SI project targets systems and capacities critical to the functioning of the disaster risk management system where USAID has a comparative advantage and/or an operational need for engagement. At the institutional level the systems identified in consultation with government, development partners and internal stakeholders are early warning, coordination and emergency logistics.

Early warning: If climate, conflict and health early warning systems are strengthened to improve the accuracy, timeliness, relevance and accessibility of early warning data, GOE and partners utilize this early warning data to inform early action response decisions, and establish an integrated information and response system that combines information from separate early warning systems into a single GOE multi-hazard multi-sector multi-agency system, then early warning systems will be strengthened. If clear decision making frameworks are in place, capacity for decision making is increased, and sufficient resources are available to take early action, assuming systems are sustainably built, adaptable and integrated, political will and commitment exists, decision making is depoliticized, communications infrastructure and coordination mechanisms function, then early warning will translate into early action.

The ability of the system to act upon early warning information depends in part on coordination and logistic systems being in place.

Coordination: If GOE receives targeted technical assistance to strengthen its ability to coordinate across line ministries, partners and all levels of government, regions, zones and woredas, and between different levels of government and communities, clear decision making frameworks are in place, information management and resource management are strengthened, and GOE mechanisms are utilized by all stakeholders to coordinate response to shocks, then GOE coordination mechanisms will be strengthened.

Emergency Logistics: If GOE receives targeted technical assistance and investment to strengthen emergency logistic systems for food, health and nutrition, functioning logistics systems are put in place, used and resourced, and GOE uses emergency logistics systems to deliver response to disasters and starts to link emergency logistics to shock responsive government systems, then emergency logistics systems will be strengthened.

To enable GOE to leverage these systems, the project aims to address capacity limitations in analytic capacity and information management, and resource mobilization, management and leadership capacity.

If analytic and information management capacity is enhanced, resource mobilization, management and leadership capacity improved and DRM staffing capabilities strengthened, so that GOE can make evidence-based decisions, allocate resources based on need and manage coordination effectively, then staffing capabilities and administrative structures will be enhanced and disaster risk management will be strengthened.

Analytic capacity and information management: If technical assistance is provided to expand GOE capacity to use and apply analytic tools, and investments are made in information management systems, then analytic capacity and information management will be enhanced, GOE will have a better understanding of the impact of shocks, and an evidence base will be available to support decision making and action.

Resource mobilization, management and leadership: If GOE establishes and/or strengthens DRM directorates, responsive organisational structures and expertise across line ministries and at all levels of government, puts in place disaster risk mitigation, preparedness and response plans across sectors and regions, includes DRM in national sectoral development plans, and establishes and funds contingency funds for DRM in annual budgets, so that capacities and mechanisms for financial preparation, planning and structuring and management of DRM will be improved, then resource mobilization, management and leadership capacity will be improved.

If disaster risk management is professionalized and human resource capacity for DRM is strengthened across government, then GOE staff capabilities will be strengthened.

If systems, staffing capabilities and administrative structures are strengthened, assuming that systems are leveraged and staffing is appropriately applied, then institutional disaster risk management capacity will be strengthened and

GoE will better manage crises.

Critical Assumptions and Risks

The SDRM-SI project assumes that GOE has the political will to acknowledge and respond to disasters, and that there is a commitment to build preparedness and become more self-reliant in managing disaster risk, including by engaging and empowering communities to participate in DRM. It also assumes that in the case of a crisis there will be efforts on the part of all stakeholders to ensure equitable targeting and delivery, regardless of ethnicity, gender and political affiliation, and that there is a commitment on the part of GOE to build these systems preemptively. It assumes that Ethiopia’s population will continue to grow at approximately the current rate, leading to a greater number of people at risk. It also assumes that recurrent climate, conflict and health related shocks will continue to occur.

Critical risks to the SDRM-SI project include a significant increase in political instability and significant deterioration in regional stability in the Horn of Africa. Lack of commitment from GOE line ministries to mainstream and build disaster risk management capacity in their institutions, and lack of commitment from central ministries to prioritize and budget for disaster risk management are also risks. A further risk is that fault lines between federal and regional governments or trust deficits between government and communities broaden and create gaps in roles, responsibilities, and cooperation, hampering the ability of GOE to respond to shocks. A final critical risk is the reduction or elimination of other development partner funding.

B. Programming Principles

The SDRM-SI projects envisages a unified set of investments in DRM that will bring together both USAID and other development partner efforts in a drive towards the same goal of strengthening disaster risk management and reducing humanitarian assistance needs. The design of the project is guided by the principles of systems strengthening, local ownership, community-led development, good governance and accountability, conflict sensitivity, shock responsiveness and learning.

Systems Strengthening. USAID has invested in strengthening the capacity of Ethiopia’s institutional and community systems to effectively manage shocks over many years, with some proven successes and a lot of lessons learned. This project seeks to transform and scale these targeted investments with a more systematic approach to strengthen the system as a whole. The systems strengthening approach looks at the whole system, acknowledging its interconnected composite parts and identifying strategic leverage points. The vision is of a unified set of disaster risk management investments driving towards the same purpose, and coordinated with other development partners. The systems strengthening approach targets the root causes rather than the symptoms, contributing to the sustainability of interventions. It is led by government and relies on the collective impact of other actors, including government, communities and other donors.

Local Ownership. The SDRM-SI project is designed to strengthen the disaster risk management systems and capacities of Ethiopia’s communities and institutions. The systems and capacities strengthened at both the institution and community levels will only be replicated and sustained if they are owned by the government at all levels. Regional state governments are the operational wing of GOE. The policies and guidelines developed at the federal level cannot be implemented without ownership and buy-in of the regional governments. Recognizing that local ownership is critical to the sustainability of any capacity building effort, the project has been crafted in close consultation with

GOE at both federal and regional level, and under GOE leadership. It builds on GOE’s policy framework, with the intent to co-design interventions in close partnership with GOE and encouraging them to engage communities. Just as important as government ownership, the principle of local ownership holds true at the community level, and the

SDRM-SI project aims to secure community ownership of interventions so that they too can be replicated and sustained.

Community-Led Development. To secure local ownership and build the capacity of the community as a system, the SDRM-SI project community-level interventions are guided by the principle of community-led development.

Interventions will work together with communities to create and achieve locally owned vision and goals. They will listen to local views, harness local assets, increase local leadership and empower 5 customary institutions and indigenous systems . There will be an emphasis on addressing root causes, making a concerted effort towards sustained change beyond the life of the project.

5 For example, Afar pastoral early warning indicators include animal behavior and movement, insect behavior and direction of moon and stars.

Good Governance and Accountability. Governance and accountability are core principles in the design of the

SDRM-SI project. The World Bank defines governance as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development. The SDRM-SI project approaches governance both from the top down and bottom up. From the supply side, will strengthen the institutions responsible for administering disaster risk management resources and support them in building community participation processes into DRM. From the demand side, it will help build the capacity and confidence of community structures and systems to engage with government institutions charged with addressing DRM, and help build mutual trust. The institutional and community interventions meet at the accountability interface, and together will contribute to better governance of the system as a whole.

Conflict Sensitivity. The SDRM-SI project has been designed with a conflict sensitivity lens. This means that time has been taken to understand the context and apply that understanding to the project design. Conflict sensitivity will be applied throughout activity design and implementation, with attention being paid to understanding how conflict could affect the interventions and how interventions could affect conflict both positively and negatively. The project will impact both capacity and legitimacy as the two components of fragility, which is understood as a condition that emanates from the relationship between state and society. Applying a fragility lens to activity designs will enable the project to identify opportunities falling within its parameters to counter those characteristics of fragility most closely associated with risk of instability, such as exclusion dynamics, institutional fragmentation and lack of social cohesion, and challenges related to resource mobilization and equitable access to resources.

Shock Responsiveness. The SDRM-SI project assumes that shocks will happen. While shocks themselves are inevitable, their impact can be mitigated by strengthening disaster risk management and reducing underlying vulnerabilities. The new CDCS shifts the way the mission responds to shocks from one that is reactive to being more proactive. The SDRM-SI project will support efforts to anticipate risks, reduce vulnerabilities and plan for response and recover. Activities will be designed with flexibility and and plans to adapt. Contracts and grants will be structured with flexible statements of work and/or program descriptions, along with high enough ceilings to take on extra funding for early response in the event of shocks.

Learning. The SDRM-SI project represents a shift in the way the mission thinks about disasters, and as such a strong learning component is at its core. A utilization focused learning agenda has been developed and will be regularly revisited and refined throughout implementation. Programming will be designed with a view to understanding whether investing in disaster risk management makes a difference for development outcomes and to enhance our understanding of how to operate in the humanitarian development nexus. Combining community and institution-level theories of change will support our understanding of how community based interventions feed into policy and systems interventions and vice-versa.

C. Geographic Targeting

USAID will coordinate geographic targeting closely with other development partners, building on the concerted effort to abide by division of labor principles under the PSNP. Activities will be designed as a coordinated suite of interventions, tailored to fill the gaps in different regions, in an effort to contribute to a comprehensive disaster risk management system rather than focusing on part of the problem and leaving other critical elements unaddressed.

The SDRM-SI Project institutional interventions will target all levels of government, strengthening disaster risk management from the federal level to regions, zones and woredas. Federal-level interventions will have national coverage. Regional and local government interventions will be layered and sequenced with the community level interventions. The intent is that by the end of the project implementation period some level of capacity will have been strengthened in all regions.

The community interventions will principally target areas of high vulnerability. The project geography will largely be defined by the PARA geography and the PSNP DFSA geographies. As highlighted in the Lowlands Resilience

Project, the sequencing, layering and integration of these activities will be a critical element of resilience programming, of which DRM is a core component.

As the below map illustrates, all regions of Ethiopia are impacted by shocks. As of July 2019 Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Somali regions had all experienced severe erratic rain since the beginning of the year. Woredas in Afar, Amhara, Gambella, Oromia, Somali, SNNP and Tigray were affected by floods. Cholera outbreaks were confirmed in Addis

Ababa, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Somali. Conflict impacted nearly all regions, and IDP/returnees and refugees are present in all states.

Source: UNOCHA, IOM, UNDSS

While shocks impact all regions, there are significant regional differences that result in distinct vulnerabilities. The political, cultural and economic dynamics differ across regions, and capacity both of local government and communities varies greatly. Risk profiles and ability to absorb risks vary within and between regions, impacted by resource potential, mobility, social structures and power dynamics.

D. Project Outcomes

The SDRM-SI Project outcomes align with the CDCS results framework. The project aims to empower communities to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks, and to strengthen institutional risk management capacity. Linking community and systems interventions will contribute to the sustainability of our interventions. Communities and institutions have their nexus at the accountability interface, and community capacity heavily relies on functioning systems that are participatory, transparent and accountable. As with the theory of change, the project outcomes are broadly categorized into community-level and institution-level outcomes, with the understanding that the two are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. At both levels, interventions will be designed to strengthen systems, improve coordination and develop capacity.

IR 1.1 Communities empowered to mobilize, mitigate and respond to shocks.

The SDRM-SI project will strengthen the disaster risk management capacity of communities by strengthening community systems for risk identification and preparedness (sub IR 1.1.1), improving access to and utilization of early warning data (sub IR 1.1.2), and enhancing capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response

(sub IR 1.1.3). The anticipated outcome at the IR 1.1 level is that communities will be empowered to mobilize mitigate and respond to shocks. They will be better equipped to adapt, more resilient to the impacts of shocks and will have the resources and skills to mount a local response and request assistance from GOE when required.

Sub IR 1.1.1 Community systems for risk identification and preparedness strengthened.

GOE’s decentralized model of disaster risk management relies on communities and community systems. Despite ongoing efforts, capacity at local levels for risk identification and preparedness remains weak and distrust between communities and higher level institutions is high. Need to strengthen without undermining local knowledge.

The SDRM-SI project will work with communities to build awareness of disaster risk and preparedness. Through interventions to improve awareness of disaster risk and preparedness at the community level, including training for community leaders, diversification of coping mechanisms and participatory hazard and risk plans, the SDRM-SI project will support target communities to improve preparedness for response to disasters, increase local capacity to prevent risk and reduce vulnerability to shocks and stressors.

Interventions will support community adaptation action plans that contribute to woreda disaster risk plans (WDRP) where appropriate. Participatory and inclusive approaches will be employed to ensure woreda disaster risk profiles, mitigation and adaptation plans are relevant to current situations and communities are familiarized and engaged in their development. Recognizing the unique challenges that women face in disaster contexts, the project will also facilitate participatory gender sensitive climate vulnerability and capacity assessments, and support women’s leadership so their specific needs are identified and addressed.

Interventions will encourage women’s participation in community level platforms and support gender inclusive community systems for risk identification. Work to update woreda disaster risk profiling will be done in close collaboration with GOE and other donors including the EU-RESET program and the World Bank, to ensure complementarity of programming and value for money.

As communities identify leadership and continue to train on and disseminate disaster risk management information, DRM committees function and women participate, woreda risk profiles (or their equivalent) inform preparedness and communities participate in decision making, communities will own improved risk identification and awareness systems that will be solidified through successful use case and the establishment of a sustainable support system.

The emphasis throughout will be on empowering community and local government actors to lead risk management action planning and processes, and take ownership of management and financing roles and responsibilities for DRM actions. This will be complemented by interventions to build household and community resilience capacities, including community-level analysis, planning and action. Building on the tools and approached honed under PRIME, REAP/REVIVE and HEA, the SDRM-SI project will empower formal and informal governance institutions to lead key DRM processes and take them to scale, including rangeland monitoring systems for grassland and water resources.

The expected outcome is that community systems for risk identification and preparedness will be strengthened. DRM committees will be functioning, inclusive, equitable and participatory. Communities will be empowered and equipped to develop and update hazard and risk plans that will inform preparedness, which will be prioritized and resourced.

Community engagement throughout will also improve trust between communities and DRM institutions.

Sub IR 1.1.2 Access to and utilization of early warning information improved.

Communities have limited access to or skills to appropriately utilize early warning information. There is a profusion of different early warning systems in Ethiopia, and communities are often disconnected from the systems they are expected to act upon. Local knowledge is not frequently incorporated into the formal systems, undermining existing community capacity.

The SDRM-SI project will facilitate the development and adoption of improved early warning systems, with a focus on harmonizing systems and on the connection between local and centralized efforts. Interventions will include training to strengthen local early warning systems, support participatory scenario planning and biannual NMA and local government forums. Interventions under this sub-IR will directly complement interventions under sub IR 1.2.1.

Efforts will be made to mix modern early warning information with traditional systems to ensure uptake and action.

As communities start to use early warning system information and the network/reach of information systems is expanded through local communication norms that contribute to community involvement in DRM, the information linkages are improved between communities, woreda, regional and federal government so that information reaches communities and community information reaches government, and communities are empowered to participate in decision making, community access to and use of early warning information will be improved.

Recognizing that women are frequently excluded from community level dissemination of early warning information, there will be a particular focus on women’s access to and utilization of early warning data.

Interventions will promote the use of technology, including but not limited to GIS, ecosystem modelling, D-RISK, ARC-D and AfriScout, to support improved analysis, access to information and informed decision making. This will include strengthening linkages between the National Meteorological Agency (NMA), regional governments and communities, leveraging the World Bank’s Agricultural Observatory.

The expected outcome is that community access to and use of early warning information will be improved. In order for this to happen, effective early warning systems will be in place and functioning, community engagement will be inclusive, participatory and equitable, GOE will support community-level efforts, and linkages between communities, woredas, regional and federal administrations will be strengthened such that early warning information reaches communities and community information reaches government.

Sub IR 1.1.3 Capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response enhanced.

As with risk identification and preparedness, GOE’s decentralized model of disaster risk management relies on communities. Yet, capacity for planning, mitigation and local response is low.

The SDRM-SI project will strengthen community capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response by working with communities to establish and facilitate the operation of multi-stakeholder forums, build awareness of DRM and strengthen customary institutions. As communities develop the capacity to prepare contingency and mitigation plans, interventions will support their use and empower communities to mobilize mitigation efforts and respond to shocks. To ensure that planning and adaptation strategies are shared and coordinated, interventions will strengthen communication mechanisms between different administrative levels of government.

Equitable, inclusive and participatory community engagement, along with GOE support for community-level efforts will be critical for sustainability. Community buy-in and commitment to use new skills will be augmented by timeliness of response, and improvement of communication and feedback loops between communities and GOE systems will enable communities to hold GOE systems accountable to their needs.

Conflict interventions will strengthen community mitigation mechanisms and support formal and informal governance institutions to manage and resolve community disputes peacefully. This will include building the capacity of regional government staff, civil society and key influential figures to facilitate intra- and inter community dialogues through the training of local peace committees, traditional leaders, female peace agents and woreda officials. To promote social inclusion and address some of the root causes of conflict, interventions will support communities to jointly develop natural resource agreements and design and implement peace dividend projects to foster positive inter-community interactions. They will support communities to leverage conflict mitigation skills to reduce incidents of violence, incorporating Do No Harm and conflict sensitivity training throughout.

The expected outcome at the sub-IR level is that community capacity for contingency planning, mitigation and local response will be enhanced. In order for this to happen, local capacity to mitigate and manage risk will be increased, community disaster planning and action will be improved, community conflict mitigation mechanisms will be strengthened, plans will be used and skills leveraged, and communities will be empowered.

IR 1.2 Institutional risk management capacity strengthened.

As outlined in the theory of change, this project will strengthen both critical DRM systems and the institutional capacities to leverage them. At the IR level, the outcome we expect to see is that the disaster risk management capacity of NDRMC, targeted central and line ministries, and regional and woreda government offices to coordinate, react to and mitigate the negative impacts of shocks and stresses will be improved .

Sub IR 1.2.1 Early warning systems strengthened for early action.

The SDRM-SI project will strengthen climate, conflict and health early warning systems to address data gaps and organize early warning data in a consistent format to allow easy access, analysis and national comparaisons.

It will strengthen the accuracy and timeliness of early warning, incorporating remote sensing technology and invest in communication and information management structures to facilitate the flow of information between stakeholders at all levels of the system and improve the relevance and accessibility of early warning data. The use of technology to automate where possible and provide open access will contribute to the depoliticization of decision making and accountability both on the part of communities and GOE.

Systems strengthening efforts will be undertaken with a view to building sustainable systems that can be owned and run by government, adapted over time, and integrated to combine information from separate EWS into a single GOE multi-hazard, multi- sector multi-agency information and response system.

The SDRM-SI project also aims to address some of the political economy challenges associated with translating early warning into early action. Technical assistance and policy engagement will support the utilization of GOE’s early warning systems by all stakeholders. Building acceptance of GOE led response using GOE systems and commitment to the use of GOE early warning systems by stakeholders external to government will contribute to accountability.

Interventions will target…