Nepal earthquake mid-term review
A mid-term review of Christian Aid's response to the Nepal earthquakes of 2015. Compiled by an independent assessor, this report includes key findings, recommendations, background and methodology. The management response and annexes can be found at the end of this document.
This is an internal document, being shared for the benefit of others working on this response and to highlight key learnings and recommendations.
The earthquakes of April and May 2015 had a devastating impact on the people of Nepal. According to the Nepal Government Ministry of Home Affairs, there were 8,891 fatalities, 22,302 injured, 604,930 homes destroyed, and a further 288,856 homes partially damaged. The national economy was affected with erosion of the asset base of the people; houses, farm produce, livestock, latrines, drinking water sources, irrigation canals, access roads, health/education facilities, etc.
In this context, a multi-sectoral needs assessment (MSNA) was conducted by Christian Aid (CAID) in four heavily damaged districts (Gorkha, Dhading, Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk) immediately after the earthquake. The MSNA followed the United Nations for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) guidelines and identified five priority sectors requiring the most support:
- Livelihood and Food security,
- Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
- Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
CAID responded to the aftermath of the earthquake through relief and recovery. The relief phase focused on providing immediate life-saving support; temporary shelters, safe drinking water, hygiene kits, temporary latrines, food basket for one-month period, and targeted trainings such as masonry and carpenters. In the recovery phase, CAID continued support to all four major sectors with the aim of strengthening the resilience of communities and institutions from the impact of natural disasters.
Activities included housing support, prototype housing, winterisation kits, toilet support, school shelter, community and school water rehabilitation, cash grants, livelihood support such as goat, seeds, and rain water harvesting distribution were conducted.
The evaluation used a range of qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection. Qualitative data were collected through focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), in-depth interviews (IDI), case stories and observations of communities. Qualitative data collection questions were categorised by sector, and in line with the CHS commitments. Quantitative data were collected and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The analysis was mostly descriptive in nature, with percentages, mean and frequencies.
Download the report above to read the full analysis and findings.