Aller au contenu principal

IOM CERF supported response in Sri Lanka for landslide-affected communities in Kegalle District - April 2017

Sri Lanka
Date de publication
Voir l'original


IOM has a long history of responding to natural disasters and conflict in Sri Lanka. Given past experience, the mission devised the CERF programme response to the landslide affected communities in Sabaragamuwa Province to ensure a combination of emergency shelter and non food items (NFIs), as well as transitional shelter for families that could not return to their homes due to either home destruction or high risk designation by the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL).

IOM Colombo requested an evaluation of the programme from the IOM Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (IOM ROAP) to:

  • Provide an end-of-programme performance evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the response in relation to CERF criteria, GoSL response priorities and IOM’s Humanitarian Policy;

  • To the extent possible, provide an impact level assessment of the response, going beyond the direct CERF supported interventions, with particular focus on shelter and settlement issues related to landslide land and housing allocations;

  • To assess gaps and additional needs to support long-term durable solutions in line with IOM’s Progressive Resolution of Displacement Situations (PRDS) policy guidance.

  • To document best practices and lessons learned particularly in the context of landslides

The evaluation was conducted by an IOM Regional Thematic Specialist, Andrew Lind, in December 2016. Although the project covered two districts within Sabaragamuwa Province - Kegalle and Rathnapura – the evaluation focused on the Kegalle district response which was the most comprehensive, including emergency shelter and NFI commodities distributions, and transitional shelter implementation on newly allocated land sites. In Rathnapura, per Government Agent (GA) priorities, IOM provided only basic Emergency non food items and shelter kits.


The evaluation involved a mixed method of data gathering using a semi-structured interview focus that was modified depending on the key informants but guided by Matrix 1 and 2 in Annex A: Structured Findings. Annex B includes a detailed itinerary and meeting schedule.

In total, the IOM ROAP evaluator attended 26 meetings with different key informants from the Government and non-Government partners. The evaluation further involved direct observation in three divisions in Kegalle District at two camps and six transitional shelter sites. In most of the camps and shelter sites, structured interviews and discussions were held with local government authorities and project beneficiaries. Interviews with project beneficiaries focused primarily on satisfaction with IOM support and beneficiary concerns surrounding shelter, settlements, livelihoods and durable solutions in the post-landslide response as the primary target group were those affected by the landslide (including those who had lost homes and family members) as well as those in GoSL-designated high risk areas that are required to move to new locations.