1. law, govt and politics
2. government

GOVERNANCE FOR DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
‘HOW TO’ GUIDE
UNDP
Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery
June 2007
Conference Draft
Table of Contents
List of Boxes....................................................................................................................ii
List of Annexes ............................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... iv
1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Background..................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Entry points for UNDP Governance for Disaster Risk Management
programmes ................................................................................................... 3
1.3
Links with other programmes/projects and the Millennium Development
Goals.............................................................................................................. 4
1.4
Key issues and lessons learnt in GDRM.......................................................... 4
2.
Methodology and steps to design and implement a GDRM programme.................. 6
2.1
Key principals of initiating and running a GDRM programme........................... 6
2.1.1
Pursuing core objectives of GDRM.......................................................... 6
a. Fostering political commitment and strengthening policy and strategy
development for risk reduction (see country case in Annex VI)................ 7
b. Strengthening the institutional frameworks through inter-ministerial
and inter-sector coordination/ cooperation (see Annex VII)...................... 8
c. Fostering vertical linkages and the participation of communities
(see Annex VIII)..................................................................................... 10
d. Raising political commitment through public education and advocacy
(Annex IX) ............................................................................................. 10
e. Strengthening the legal and regulatory framework and building
accountability for risk reduction (Annex X)............................................. 11
f. Building a sustainable financial base for DRM (see Annex X)................ 12
2.1.2
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Approaches to strengthening and building GDRM capacities ................ 13
Participatory approaches ....................................................................... 13
Knowledge services and learning .......................................................... 14
Incentive systems.................................................................................. 14
Leadership development ....................................................................... 14
Mutual accountability mechanisms ........................................................ 15
Multi-stakeholder engagement............................................................... 15
Institutional reform and change management........................................ 15
2.2
Preparing for, justifying, and defining a GDRM programme........................... 16
2.2.1
Selecting implementing partners............................................................ 16
2.2.2
Preparing for and justifying the need for a GDRM initiative.................... 17
2.2.3
Defining the programme and aligning it with the Country Programme.... 19
2.2.4
Communication and building a supportive network ................................ 20
2.3
3.
Monitoring and evaluating GDRM programme .............................................. 21
Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 22
i
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
List of Boxes
Box 1:
Governance for DRM in a shell……………...………………………………..2
Box 2:
Assisting governments to coordinate and steer support to Disaster risk
Management ...………………..…………………………………………..……3
Box 3:
UNDP’s TRAC 1.1.3 - Seed funding for GDRM ..………………...……….16
ii
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
List of Annexes
Annex I:
Establishing a preliminary overview of existing risk
…………………...25
Annex II:
Major Areas to check in GDRM Capacity
Assessments
…………………...28
UNDP’s 10 default principles for capacity
development
…………………...33
Annex IV:
Relevance of DRM for other sectors
…………………...35
Annex V:
Working in partnership
…………………...39
Annex VI:
Illustrative Cases: Fostering political commitment
and strengthening policy and strategy development
for risk reduction
…………………...42
Illustrative Cases: Strengthening the institutional
framework through inter-ministerial and inter-sector
coordination/ cooperation
…………………...45
Illustrative Cases: Fostering vertical linkages and
the participation of communities
…………………...48
Illustrative Cases: Raising political commitment
through public education and advocacy
…………………...51
Analysis of existing DRM or DRM-relevant
legislation
…………………...53
Illustrative Cases: Building a sustainable financial
resource base for DRM
…………………...54
Annex III:
Annex VII:
Annex VIII:
Annex IX:
Annex X:
Annex XI:
iii
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Acronyms
BCPR
UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery
CBO
Community Based Organization
CCA
UN Common Country Assessment
CO
UNDP Country Office
CP
UNDP Country Programme
CSO
Civil Society Organization
DIPECHO
Disaster Preparedness programme of the European Community Humanitarian
Aid Office (ECHO)
DRM
Disaster Risk Management
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations
GDRM
Governance for Disaster Risk Management
HFA
Hyogo Framework for Action
IFI
International Financial Institution
IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
ISDR
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
LLRM
Local Level Risk Management
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
PLA
Participatory Learning Assessment
RBM
Results Based Management
TRAC 1.1.3
UNDP “Target for Resource Assignment from the Core” budget line
UN
United Nations
UNDAF
United Nations Development Assistance Framework
iv
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
WHO
World Health Organization
v
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
1. Introduction
1.1
Background
The 1990s experienced an increase in the scale and destructiveness of disasters, some
such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998 wiped out decades of development efforts. This
contributed to an international paradigm shift from a mainly reactive to a more proactive
approach to the management of disasters. This was underpinned by a new focus on
anticipating and mitigating future risks. In recognition of their primary responsibility to
protect people within their territory, governments stepped up their efforts as testified by
the adoption of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) by more than 150 countries in
2005. At the core of the HFA lies a commitment to the integration of risk reduction as an
essential component of national development policies and programmes. This reflects the
growing conviction amongst many stakeholders that risk reduction is critical to
sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs).
It is increasingly acknowledged that the management of disaster risk requires completing
a focus on the physical environment with important social and political aspects. As part
of this, analysis of recent major disasters has focused upon linkages between
governance and disaster risk management practices.1 Good governance is not only an
important ‘pre-requisite’ of sustainable disaster risk management but disaster risk
management constitutes a core responsibility and capacity of ‘good’ government
practices in disaster prone countries. Disaster risk management (DRM) needs to link up
with processes that aim to deepen the equity, accountability, efficiency and
responsiveness of governance institutions in relation to the needs of vulnerable
communities. With its institutional expertise in governance and capacity building, and as
a trusted partner and advisor of governments, UNDP has a comparative advantage to
advance sustainable risk management systems and practices.
UNDP has been supporting national governments to strengthen their disaster risk
management capacities for decades. Some 50 countries as well as regional
mechanisms and organizations have benefited from such support. UNDP’s role was
further institutionalized in 1997, when the 52nd session of the United Nations General
Assembly tasked the organization to act as the operational focal point for disaster
mitigation, prevention and preparedness.2 UNDP’s role in DRM, particularly in support of
action at the national level, was reiterated in the 2006 Secretary-General’s High-level
Panel Report ‘Delivering as One’.3 Based upon the Hyogo Framework for Action, UNDP
engages in programmes and projects that are designed to establish or strengthen
national governance systems for sustainable risk management through technical
1
Compare for instance Cooper/ Block (2006) on lack of coordination between local, state and federal levels, after
Hurricane Katrina; or Guelkan (2005) on the systemic difficulties to integrate mitigation into recovery after the Marmara
earthquakes in Turkey.
2
nd
52 Session of the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/52/12)
3
“Delivering as One: Report of the Secretary’s General High Level Panel,” United Nations, New York 2006.
www.un.org/events/panel/resources/pdfs/HLP-SWC-FinalReport.pdf
1
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
assistance and capacity building support. These ‘Governance for Disaster Risk
Management’ (GDRM) programmes are the subject of this guide.4
The current ‘How-to-Guide’ is based upon lessons and good practices that were
identified during a global review conducted by UNDP in 2005 of the accumulative
experience gained from 10 years of supporting GDRM initiatives.5 It also draws upon
more recent experience, discussions and international strategies, in particular the Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005-2015. The guide is intended to provide UNDP programming
staff and national implementing partners with practical suggestions and orientation on
how to design and implement GDRM programmes and projects. Whilst the guide has
been designed for UNDP, it is anticipated that it will also be useful for other stakeholders
working in this important area.
Box 1: Governance for DRM in a nutshell
UNDP defines governance as the “exercise of economic, political and administrative
authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes
and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise
their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences” (UNDP,
Governance for the Future, 2006). Disaster Risk Management is the systematic process
of using administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and capacities to
implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and communities to
lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and technological
disasters (UNDP, Reducing Disaster Risk, 2004). DRM is a core function of government
aimed at increasing the safety and security of citizens.
Institutional and legal systems (organizational structures, mechanisms and processes,
strategies, policies, laws and regulations, resources and procedures at all levels of
administration) form the basis of a country’s governance framework. GDRM projects
needs to integrate, build upon and ultimately strengthen these systems where they relate
to DRM while pursuing key characteristics of good governance. According to UNDP,
these are:
• participation of citizens;
• institutions of accountability;
• impartial mechanisms to enforce the rule of law;
• multiple and transparent flows of information;
• processes and mechanisms that increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
services;
• increased capacity of stakeholders in multiple sectors and at all levels;
• partnerships and a long-term human development; and
• pro-poor and gender equality orientation.
4
Further to the recommendations of the ‘Global Review: UNDP Support to Institutional and Legislative Systems for
Disaster Risk Management,’ this guide refers when possible to GDRM ‘programmes’ rather than ‘projects’ to strengthen
the move towards long-term programme approach, while keeping projects as a operational unit.
5
‘A Global Review: UNDP Support to Institutional and Legislative Systems for Disaster Risk Management,’ UNDP 2005 .
2
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
The Hyogo Framework for Action (2005), and in particular its first goal “Ensure that
disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority” provides an important frame of
reference for GDRM programmes. More specifically GDRM seeks to achieve the
following objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.2
Elevate DRM as a policy priority and “mainstream” it into development
Generate political commitment to DRM;
Promote DRM as a multi-sector responsibility;
Strengthen DRM at all levels of administration and appropriate vertical linkages;
Enforce the implementation of DRM priorities and principles;
Assign accountability for disaster losses and impacts;
Allocate necessary resources for DRM; and
Facilitate participation from civil society and the private sector.
Entry points for UNDP Governance for Disaster Risk
Management programmes
Any GDRM programme should be underpinned by sustained engagement with
government. However, opportunities to initiate GDRM programmes are dependent upon
funding availability, which is often highest after disasters. As part of recovery packages,
bilateral and multilateral donors often provide financial and technical support to partner
governments to upgrade their DRM capacities. Projects that deal with specific risk
management functions, such as Early Warning, are often favored over the development
of holistic policies and programmes, strategies, legislation, as well as institutional
mechanisms and administrative capacities to manage risks. These are areas where
UNDP can make a difference drawing on its expertise in key development areas such as
democratic governance, while making use of its considerable experience in risk
management. Furthermore UNDP can play a key role in assisting governments to steer
and harmonize the various multi-lateral and bilateral agencies interested in
strengthening DRM capacities.
Box 2: Assisting governments to coordinate and steer support to Disaster Risk
Management
In the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami, UNDP played a major role in assisting the
Disaster Management Centre of the Government of Sri Lanka to develop a long term
Disaster Risk Management Roadmap or Funding Framework covering the period 20052015. The Roadmap identified core DRM programmes and projects, anchored in
different sectors such as agriculture, education and environment. Projects were
clustered around major DRM themes including Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment, Multi Hazard Early Warning Systems and Community based Disaster Risk
Management. Various stakeholders, ministries and departments actively participated in
the process.
3
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
1.3
Links with other programmes/projects and the Millennium
Development Goals
The establishment or strengthening of DRM is not a narrowly ‘technical’ task that can be
left to scientists and emergency managers. Instead it requires the creation of political
interest and the design of incentives for multiple stakeholders to engage. This also
applies equally to government and UNDP’s own country offices and programmes. DRM
programmes have much to gain from joining forces with other UNDP flagship projects, in
particular under governance and decentralization, poverty reduction and environment
programmes. Taking this approach has positive spin offs both for DRM activities as well
as for other programming areas. The sustainability of these programmes and projects
will be enhanced, especially in countries where poor communities that ought to benefit
from development cooperation, face substantial risks from natural disasters.
A mutually supportive relationship between risk management and development planning
or programming also needs to be pursued for the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals. Development planning which factors in risk management can
increase the capacity of people to protect their lives, livelihoods and assets. Conversely,
failure to factor in disaster risk can inadvertently increase them and undermine efforts to
achieve the MDGs in highly disaster prone countries.6 Making sure that risk reduction
objectives are built into development planning is primarily a national responsibility with
development frameworks such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers being an
important vehicle towards this. It is also important that the UN and UNDP identify an
appropriate space and role for risk reduction in their own planning processes and
frameworks such as the Common Country Assessments (CCAs), UN Development
Assistance Framework (UNDAFs) and UNDP’s Country Programmes (CPs). In support
of this UNDP and UN-ISDR have developed guidelines for the integration of DRR into
the CCA-UNDAF.7
1.4
Key issues and lessons learnt in GDRM
The 2004-2005 Global Analysis of UNDP’s support to national GDRM initiatives
identified the following key lessons:
Long-term engagement
Appropriate policies, institutional systems, legislation and regulatory frameworks for
DRM are not created overnight. In the case of Colombia, where UNDP has played a key
role in supporting the government to strengthen GDRM, it took roughly two decades to
arrive at significant levels of performance and capacity.8 This involved continued
lobbying and advisory support including at the highest level of government. Once it was
generated, political commitment was pro-actively maintained despite a succession of
changing governments. This eventually led to the creation of a system that, despite
6
See UNDP, Development at Risk, 2004 pp. 20-25
Guidelines for Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into CCA/UNDAF, UN/ISDR and UNDP, October 2006. Available at
www.unisdr.org/cca-undaf.
8
See UNDP, Global Analysis, 2004, Box 2
7
4
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
certain fluctuations, is regarded as one of the few examples of facilitating the
‘mainstreaming’ of risk reduction into development.
Width and depth of engagement
Disaster Risk Management is a multi-dimensional and multi-sector responsibility that
requires well defined contributions from civil society and the private sector. In addition, it
needs to build vertical linkages between local, regional and national levels. UNDP has
been most successful in its GDRM initiatives, when it found a way to engage with a wide
cross-section of stakeholders, while simultaneously strengthening communication and
cooperation between them. In Albania this was achieved through a consultative multihazard risk assessment that involved contributions from more than 16 government and
research organizations. It was followed by an equally process-oriented planning exercise
that brought civil society institutions and key municipalities on board.
Avoiding a one size fits all approach
As with all development and governance work GDRM requires carefully tailored
approaches. These need to reflect first and foremost national realities including
capacities and existing institutional frameworks.
Bridging the gap between formal and informal, national and local systems
Many countries face challenges in the formulation and implementation of appropriate
government policies and legislation. Concurrently, in many countries informal structures
persist outside the legal norm.9 The result is that risks are often constructed outside the
control of governments. This calls for alternative strategies to help define and promote
appropriate risk management institutions and mechanisms to harmonize social and
economic requirements. While Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and NonGovernmental Organizations (NGOs) have been working on these issues for decades,
there is currently a communication gap between their sometimes small and often
scattered initiatives and the institutions of intermediate and national government. UNDP
can play a key role in supporting communication between local level initiatives and
higher levels of government by assisting to identify key lessons that can inform and
thereby increase the relevance of policy-making, planning and the resource allocation of
governments. A good example of such efforts is the recent systematization of local level
risk management processes undertaken by UNDP and DIPECHO in the Andean
region.10
Public awareness and sustainability
Sustainability of GDRM can be greatly enhanced if risk management becomes a subject
of public discourse and if citizens start to see themselves entitled to a minimum level of
environmental and personal safety, as well as recognizing the role they play in
contributing to the creation and monitoring of safer conditions. A common and
comprehensive framework - provided the government is fully on board and ‘owns’ it allows for the eventual creation of well-defined and realistic accountability mechanisms,
while providing the basis for coordinated and systematic advocacy and public awareness
campaigns. These principles were underlined in Mozambique where the UNDAF ‘rights9
See ibid, 2004, section 3.2; and De Soto, 1989. De Soto presents compelling evidence that these extralegal systems,
while born out of necessity, create undesirable effects for society at large. Increased risk is one of them.
10
UNDP, Local Risk Management in the Andean Region, 2006
5
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
based’ context ingrained risk reduction objectives in a comprehensive long-term strategy
that sought to promote the right to personal security, long, healthy and sustainable lives,
protection and participation.
Establishing a sustainable financing base
As DRM tends to fall between the cracks of emergency relief and long-term development
funding there are relatively few donors that have specific budget-lines for GDRM
programmes. Often funding originates from emergency budgets with typically short
timelines for implementation. In order to sustain DRM programmes over a longer period,
it is therefore imperative to develop a long-term fund-raising strategy, based on diversify
funding sources and good relationships with a variety of donors and funding agencies.
Another fundraising strategy is to package DRM components as part of governance,
poverty reduction or environment programmes and projects. Underpinning any external
financing strategy is the importance of engaging with government to identify existing and
future national budgetary allocation. Throughout any GDRM activity, ways need to be
sought to increasingly mobilize national resources for GDRM. This should be the
ultimate goal – not only reflecting the degree of ownership and support a programme
enjoys within the government – but in the long term resulting in sustainability of the
programme’s outputs.
2.
Methodology and steps to design and implement a GDRM
programme11
2.1
Key principals of initiating and running a GDRM
programme
The initiation phase should result in a detailed budget and activity schedule that
determines how the programme or project will be operated and how progress towards
deliverables will be monitored during implementation. Section 2.1.1 deals with ‘best
practice’ for the achievement of the core objectives of GDRM initiatives and is targeted
at both implementing partners and UNDP programming staff. While it focuses upon
implementation, it highlights strategies that will also help to fine-tune a programme
during implementation. Section 2.1.2 summarizes approaches to capacity building that
are relevant for GDRM programmes.
2.1.1 Pursuing core objectives of GDRM
The following illustrates key interventions, mechanisms and steps that have been found
to facilitate the implementation of UNDP’s GRDM programmes in reaching their key
objectives. These findings are relevant to all international organizations seeking to
engage in this area at the national level. The following recommendations are intended
for government counterparts/implementing partners and for UNDP staff. Country cases
for each of the following points may be found in the Annexes VI to XI for further
11
The steps are based upon the concepts and terminology employed in UNDP’s Result Based Management (RBM). See
RBM User-Guide http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/rmoverview/
6
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
consultation. The cases illustrate both achievements and challenges and originate from
UNDP’s 2004-2006 global review of its GDRM initiatives.
a. Fostering political commitment and strengthening policy and strategy
development for risk reduction (see country case in Annex VI)
Gaining effective and long term political commitment for DRM is often challenging.
Investments in DRM often appear to be ‘lost’ because they are “spent today to reduce
the consequences of an unknown, but probably occurring, future event.”12 The benefit of
such investments is particularly hard to see in poorer countries where it is difficult to
meet immediate basic needs including water, health, education and employment. GDRM
initiatives therefore need to make a strong evidence-based argument to policymakers
that justifies expenditures in DRM on the basis that they will significantly reduce
predictable damages and losses in the future. The following interventions and steps are
core to raising commitment and fostering policy change.
Implementing partners and government:
• Ensure that DRM strategies and policies are based on sound hazard,
vulnerability and ultimately risk assessments. A detailed quantitative and
qualitative understanding of risk, the underlying causal factors and the probability
of occurrence and predicted consequence of losses is critical to identify priorities
and plan adequate risk management measures.
• Involve key stakeholders to agree on the (a) purpose; (b) expected outputs; and
(c) follow-up process before starting a risk assessment. Risk assessments do not
constitute an end by themselves but need to be followed up by policy/strategy
development, planning and/or programming.
• Incorporate risk assessments into national development assessment and plans.
Causal relationships between development choices and their impact on the
accumulation or reduction of risks need to be established to give development
planners a useful framework for decision-making.
• Present the result of the risk assessment in a format that is accessible to nonspecialists such as politicians and ensure that the significance of risk assessment
results be discussed widely, involving representatives of civil society and the
private sector. This includes identification of broadly agreed priorities for risk
management. Depending upon the context, parliaments, regional assemblies,
civil society councils and/or public hearings may provide useful fora.
• Elaborate a communication strategy for the results and recommendations of risk
assessments that identifies the target groups, core contents and expected results
of briefings, hearings and consultations as well as the possible use of mass
media (see also section d. on public awareness and advocacy).
• Help to attract senior, well respected individuals to provide leadership and overall
legitimacy to assessment, policy-making and planning processes.
• Ensure technical committee(s) working on assessments, policies and plans are
connected with an inter-ministerial or inter-agency body that: (a) oversees these
processes; and (b) has governmental authority to adopt results.
12
Inter American Development Bank (IADB), 2003, p.iii
7
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
•
•
•
•
•
Create relevant sector committees (for example Health and Water Management)
in order to: (a) bring in specific knowledge and expertise for the production of
relevant outputs such as sector plans and guidelines; and (b) to foster ownership,
learning and cooperation around specific themes.
Try to promote the involvement of the legislative branch through engaging with
bi-partisan parliamentary committees in the drafting of “white papers” on risk
management and resulting national action plans to increase legitimacy and
commitment beyond the executive to the policy and law-making process.
Ensure that DRM strategies and plans identify the capacities and resources
needed for implementation. This specifically refers to the translation of national
strategies into sub-national, sector-specific and – eventually – community level
action plans.
Help to formulate procedures that ensure that DRM assessments and planning
exercises do not remain one off exercises but are undertaken in regular intervals.
Make sure the results of risk assessments inform recovery and reconstruction
policies and procedures.
UNDP and programming staff:
• Use the assessment and drafting process of the United Nations Development
Assistance Framework (UNDAF) as a platform to mainstream DRM into the
programmes of the entire UN Country Team. This is particular relevant for
medium and high risk countries where disaster risk assessments should be
routinely included in the Common Country Assessment (CCA). Annex V contains
examples of integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into other sectors with specific
reference to MDG targets
• Use Lessons Learnt from the UN-process to build experience and skill in DRM
mainstreaming – including through practical ways of integrating DRM into various
sectors.
b. Strengthening the institutional frameworks through inter-ministerial and intersector coordination/ cooperation (see Annex VII)
In many countries, DRM systems originate from disaster response agencies that were
based upon hierarchic ‘command and control’ structures.13 The challenge is to assist
these often inward-looking and closed systems to open up and make more use of
existing resources in government, civil society and the private sector. A recent review of
transformation of DRM systems in Latin America14 found three basic approaches to
creating ‘integrated’ DRM systems: (a) promoting mitigation functions are added on to an
existing preparedness/ response agency; (b) creating a new agency that deals
exclusively with mitigation; or (c) developing a supporting ‘network’ of partner agencies
whereby several different organizations share responsibilities in the DRM system. There
is no blueprint and each option has its strengths and weaknesses dependent upon a
range of factors including administrative traditions, the strength of the private and civil
spheres and the nature of risk. The following steps and interventions are critical to raise
inter-organizational and multi-sector coordination/ cooperation.
13
See IADB, 2003, p. 13. UNDP’s 2004 Global Analysis identified similar patterns (see section 3.1.3 in the Global
Analysis)
14
See IADB, ibid.
8
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Implementing partners and government:
• Map roles and responsibilities and take stock of agencies and organizations that
are already involved in DRM activities.15 These can be ‘invisible’. For instance
agencies in charge of the road network, railway operators and providers of
utilities are likely to protect their investments against the impact of disasters even
though they may not conceptualize this activity as ‘DRM’.
• Add DRM as a responsibility to existing permanent multi-sector/multi-agency
coordination committees for example environment, security and poverty
reduction or breathe ‘new life’ into dormant institutions. This will generally be
more effective and sustainable than establishing new parallel committees.16
• Define clear and shared objectives as well as procedures for committees.
Establishing or convening committees is not an end in itself and should wait until
there is something for them to do (i.e. a risk assessment to be overseen or a
strategy to be elaborated).
• Use risk assessments, policy/strategy formulation and planning exercises as
opportunities to engage multiple organizations and stakeholders in the definition
of: (a) DRM priorities; (b) specific roles and responsibilities; and (c) an
appropriate framework for the coordination and integration of sector- and agencyspecific DRM mechanisms.
• Make sure that new DRM policies explicitly acknowledge the multi-sector and
multi-organizational nature of DRM.
• Include civil society and private sector representatives in DRM committees.
Where there are legal restrictions to such participation invite these
representatives for the discussion of specific topics and/or as ‘observers’.
• Make sure policy coordination in the inter-ministerial committee is backed up by
appropriate mechanisms for implementation. This requires a Secretariat (often
the DRM lead agency) and – upon occasion and with clear purpose – the
establishment of working groups.
UNDP and programming staff:
• Act as a broker for partnership agreements between government and civil society
or private sector on specific areas of cooperation.
• Advise to put – especially in countries where DRM is a relatively “new” priority –
inter-ministerial DRM committees under the direct leadership and supervision of
the highest executive power. The experience from many countries has shown
that this facilitates the effectiveness of policy-coordination (UNDP senior level).
• Cooperate and establish a close dialogue with the ISDR regarding their work on
National Platforms, particularly on the purpose and composition of these
platforms as well as interaction with existing government institutions in order to
ensure a complementary and productive role. In supporting this process it is
important to ensure that any new institutional arrangements are based on the
wider GDRM principles.
15
16
Such information may be available from the initial capacity assessment (see section 2.2.2)
See also UNDP, Capacity Development, April 2006, p.11
9
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
c. Fostering vertical linkages and the participation of communities (see Annex
VIII)
It is a common concern amongst development practitioners that a focus on national
systems and institutions ignores local needs and realities. Moreover, the goal of DRM is
to ultimately reduce the vulnerability of communities vis-à-vis hazards. Many
organizations and in particular NGOs and CBOs have been working on DRM at the
‘grassroots’ level for decades and have accumulated significant experience. However,
many of these projects have remained relatively small-scale, scattered and dependent
upon external resources. UNDP can assist communities (and organizations that
represent their interests) in identifying and feeding back lessons learnt and best
practices into the overall DRM process and thereby helping to define government
strategies, policies and guidelines that are sensitive to their needs. There is also strong
evidence that the strengthening of DRM at the intermediate, sub-national government
level and in bigger municipalities can be particularly effective and often survives the
political changes which can affect national level institutions (see the case of Bogotá, La
Paz and Medellin in Annex VIII).17
d. Raising political commitment through public education and advocacy (Annex
IX)
Strengthening public education and awareness ensures that the public is aware of key
disaster risks, government policies and actions and coping mechanisms and is better
able to contribute to national processes. Advocacy is a more narrowly targeted activity
which “persuades, requests and demands solutions, often very specific ones. Advocacy
is very focused on one message, one goal and the actualization of that goal.”18 Public
education and advocacy can bring GDRM into the realm of public debate (for example
on results of a risk assessment) which: (a) provides incentives for politicians to engage
more actively in the subject; and (b) may make it ultimately more acceptable to spend
tax money on risk management objectives.
Implementing partners and government:
• Clearly define goals, target groups, selection of media and national partners,
timing, articulation of relevant content, expected results, and monitoring
mechanisms of public information and advocacy campaigns.
• Sensitize the media through networking and workshops with regard to their role
and responsibilities in DRM; particularly with regard to Early Warning and Public
Awareness and Information.
• Include local governments in public awareness campaigns and make sure that
they are given the information, knowledge and skills to carry out their mandate
and pursue DRM activities within their territory.
UNDP and programming staff:
• Link DRM to the MDGs, which offers opportunities to join up with the wider MDG
advocacy efforts of the UNDP country office. Depending upon context, focus on
establishing causal linkages with priority concerns of a MDG campaigns such as
17
This issue is dealt with in much more detail in the global project on Local Level Risk Management. See UNDP/ BCPR
Reducing Disaster Risk: Local Level Risk Management Approach, Draft 2006.
18
See UNDP’s Advocacy Toolkit from the “Blue Book”, 2006
10
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
poverty and vulnerability or the linkages between environmental issues and
vulnerability. UNDP’s “Blue Book, A hands on approach to advocating for the
MDGs,” provides an exemplary guide to the design and communication of
appropriate messages and overall communication campaigns.
e. Strengthening the legal and regulatory framework and building accountability
for risk reduction (Annex X)
The need to strengthen the legal framework for DRM may originate from two main
scenarios: (a) an absence of a relevant DRM legal framework; or (b) the ineffectiveness
of the current legal framework. It is important to realize that laws by themselves mean
very little, they are a means towards the implementation of policies. They provide
incentives or disincentives to engage in or avoid certain desired or undesired actions.
They also depend upon and in turn frame institutional relationships between agencies
and the distribution of mandates and roles in the implementation of policies including the
roles of the wider citizenry.19 ‘Good’ - that is to say effective - laws consider the feasibility
and effects of their enforcement in relation to the institutional landscape and society at
large. There is ample evidence of DRM legislation that is technically excellent but
practically unenforceable.20 Building codes for instance are often not implemented
because of a lack of: (a) technical capacity; and (b) political will of concerned officials to
monitor. If it is practically unfeasible to enforce DRM legislation it will also be close to
impossible to assign accountability for DRM action. This supports the need for inclusive,
consultative processes of discussion and drafting of key DRM legislation.
Implementing partners and government:
• Clearly identify or define the underlying policy (or policies) that DRM legislation
should support. Legislation without a clear policy reference is likely to be sketchy
and unsustainable.
• Collect and analyze existing legislation that is relevant for DRM. This may include
legislation on environment, social assistance, and physical development (see
Annex X). Identify the key gaps and needs that revised or new legislation should
address.
• Identify the extent to which extra-legal norms and procedures compete with
‘official’ legislation (especially in countries with large informal sector). Are there
important areas where these extra-legal norms are in contradiction to or
undermine DRM legislation? Can “new” legislation reconcile these competing
interests?
• Identify existing procedures for the drafting and adoption of laws. Estimate
realistic time-lines and schedules from drafting to adoption. Be cautious with
“shortcuts”. Executive decrees are easily revoked or ignored by the next
government.
• Make sure the drafting of legislation is based upon: (a) sound technical inputs
including by legal experts; and (b) proper consultations with key stakeholders.
This includes local governments and communities particularly in contexts with
large informal sector.
19
20
For an overview of the role of legislation in DRM see Britton, Neil, March 2006
See Guelkan 2005; also UNDP Global Analysis, section 3.1.1.2
11
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
•
•
•
•
•
Involve the legislative branch and ensure that laws are discussed in
parliamentary sessions (if existing). Raise interest by supporting the formation of
(bi-partisan) parliamentary committees.
Clarify resource requirements for the enactment of legislation and make policymakers aware of these, so legislation is coupled with the allocation of appropriate
resources.
Make sure adopted laws are followed up by enabling by-laws and guidelines for
implementation. These may further specify centers of responsibilities and
accountability mechanisms.
Facilitate familiarization of key officials, the private sector and the wider public
with laws, their rationale and guidelines for their implementation. To start with
ensure publication in government gazettes or similar.
Initiate public-private partnerships to facilitate enforcement of relevant legislation
(for example structural codes; and industrial safety standards). Cooperate with
professional associations such as those related to construction and insurance.
f. Building a sustainable financial base for DRM (see Annex XI)
DRM is constitutes an investment in the future which may not appeal to politicians who
are usually preoccupied with immediate concerns and shorter planning timeframes. The
main objectives of the DRM assessment and planning exercise are to: (a) help decisionmakers to evaluate risks in terms of their likelihood and consequences (including their
impact on the national budget in case of a major calamity); (b) to determine what levels
of risks are ‘acceptable’ and what are ‘unacceptable’;21 and (c) to prioritize DRM action
in light of available resources. In other words a good DRM assessment and planning
exercise will help to identify realistic, cost-efficient and sustainable activities. To the
extent possible, existing resources and agencies such as health services, the
construction sector, local governments and community organizations should be
mobilized, reinforced and enabled to perform DRM tasks. While this approach helps to
lower costs additional financial resources will still be required. Depending upon
institutional arrangements DRM-funding requirements need to be incorporated as a
specific item in the national budget and/or in the budgets of various organizations.
Implementing partners and government:
• Make sure that DRM plans are specific and realistic in terms of prioritization, the
costing of individual action-items and budgets. This requires consultations with
Ministries of Finance or comparable institutions that manage the national
budgeting process. Donors may be willing to contribute but exclusive
dependence upon donor resources should be avoided.
• Support the development of financial planning and budgeting tools that consider
DRM requirements. This can be particularly effective at the local government
level. Tap into appropriate technical resources and expertise through cooperation
with the Banks and other specialized agencies.
21
The level of risk that is acceptable to an individual or group. For instance a 200 year return flood with a relatively low
probability but possibly high impact requires policy-makers to evaluate the costs associated with the risk (in terms of loss
of lives, livelihoods, assets etc.) against the costs and benefits of acting upon it while considering the interests and risk
perception of their constituencies. There is invariably an element of subjectivity attached to the term of “risk acceptance”
however risk assessments can provide hard data needed to establish a more objective framework for the decision -making
process (see also Smith, 1996 pp.59).
12
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
•
•
•
Investigate the feasibility of setting up a national DRM fund especially in the light
of eventual government responsibilities to act as the “insurer of last resort” in
post disaster reconstruction. In poorer countries failure to plan for this obligation
poses a risk to overall growth as resources are diverted from development to
reconstruction.
Investigate the feasibility of cost-sharing and risk transfer mechanisms with
private business and civil society (for example, disaster funds and reserves,
micro-credit schemes and disaster insurance).
Document success stories of investing in DRM and disseminate amongst
decision-makers. Ultimately only the continued raising and “maintenance” of
awareness amongst the population and its representatives will ensure that DRM
stays on the political agenda and remains a spending priority for the government.
UNDP and programming staff:
• Agree upon clearly identified government contributions (financial, material and
staffing) to DRM programmes and projects. This should build in a successive
increase of such contributions and/or take-over of programme and project
components.
2.1.2 Approaches to strengthening and building GDRM capacities
All of the core components and objectives of GDRM programmes require certain skills
and aptitudes but also provide opportunities for building such capacities during
implementation. These include cross-cutting capacities such as the ability to: analyze a
situation, formulate policy and strategy; management and leadership skills; or multistakeholder communication and facilitation skills. Other skills and areas of expertise are
more technical and can be related to:
•
•
•
Risk identification (risk and impact assessment, information management
systems and early warning mechanisms);
Risk management applications (physical and technical measures, environmental
resource management, land-use planning, construction standards, risk transfer
such as insurance schemes and/or social policies); and
Preparedness and emergency management (contingency and counter-disaster
planning; search and rescue; needs and damage assessments; emergency
logistics and distribution among others).
In order to be effective GDRM programmes need to use a mix of appropriate capacity
development strategies from the following suggested menu.22
a. Participatory approaches
These include participatory assessments, learning and planning activities.
Participatory approaches, which include the involvement of key partners and – ideally their lead role in the design, implementation and monitoring of programme goals,
objectives and activities are key to build sustainable and meaningful capacities. There
22
See UNDP Capacity Development, April 2006, p.23
13
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
are no ‘blue prints’ for effective Disaster Risk Management and the experience and
expertise of national stakedolders need to be fully brought on board to build ownership.
This includes the need to consult the experience and priority needs of local stakeholders
and vulnerable communities.
b. Knowledge services and learning
These include large group training events; technical and tertiary education; on-the job
skills transfer; exchange programmes/internships; awareness raising; and practical
exercises and simulations.
Training has been the default intervention in capacity building for many years.
Experience has shown that training builds individual and – to some degree –
organizational capacities but does not necessarily address the enabling environment,
which ultimately decides whether new skills and knowledge can or will be applied. It is
more sustainable when training courses are part of a wider institutional commitment to
the improvement of the qualification and performance of staff through systematic
curricula establishment and certified courses that are linked to mentoring, job appraisal
reviews and leadership development. This includes commitment of national institutions
to enhance knowledge and skills at the local level. However, such efforts will be most
effective if they are linked to a general commitment to performance management in the
public sector (see below section g. on institutional reform) and are not just confined to
DRM.
Classroom training needs to be complemented by practical learning opportunities such
as exercises and simulations, on the job training with an external expert, and/or
mentoring by a more experienced staff member. Field and study visits and participatory
learning assessments (PLA) are less hierarchic methods that are useful to address both
attitudinal and subject-oriented learning needs. Finally, mutual and peer learning can be
enhanced through (electronic) networks, internships and workshops. In general, a
learning needs assessment that considers the institutional context within which learning
occurs should precede interventions in this field.
c. Incentive systems23
These include salary supplements, non monetary benefits (status, professional
recognition, training and additional qualifications), pay and compensation.
Such interventions need to be handled with care not to undermine the existing incentive
system and create imbalances that are unsustainable. Extensive consultations and
transparency are important to help avoid conflict and negative consequences.
d. Leadership development
These include one-on-one coaching; mentoring and management skills development.
This type of support can be particularly effective but will be confined to a small group of
key counterparts. Similar limitations as to training apply to this strategy even though it
will normally support individuals that have more control over how things are managed.
23
See UNDP Public Administration Reform, pp.6 for some interesting details on this topic.
14
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
e. Mutual accountability mechanisms
These include peer and partner reviews; monitoring and evaluation processes; watchdog
groups; and operational reviews.
Since many GDRM initiatives will require working together with multiple stakeholders,
peer and partner reviews will be a suitable mechanism to build multiple accountability,
while improving the quality of outputs. Sector-specific DRM plans and policies for
instance can be reviewed across sectors or local government plans can be reviewed by
peer local governments. The same is true for vertical accountability, where communities
and local governments can be included in the review of national policies and plans.
Disaster operations provide opportunities to jointly check the effectiveness of
coordination and cooperation against reality. Monitoring and evaluation of the
programme/annual work plans also provide platforms for mutual accountability. Civil
society organizations such as NGOs, CBOs and citizens’ associations are able to act as
‘watchdogs’ of GDRM, particularly at the local level. UNDP can act as a broker between
civil society groups and the government.
f. Multi-stakeholder engagement
These include process facilitation and integrated planning and problems analysis (as in
risk assessment and DRM planning exercises); institutional twinning, partnership
agreements; e-networks and communities; community dialogue processes and spaces;
simulations and exercises.
Programmes can become a facilitation space for cooperation and to broker partnerships
across a variety of stakeholders, thus increasing trust and ‘social capital’ of key players
from government, civil society and private business. Institutional twinning can be used to
match agencies that have actively started to address DRM with agencies that need to
catch up on a specific approach or practice. National level officers can be seconded to
local level projects to help solve problems (and learn about these problems). Multistakeholder processes include ‘South-South’ exchanges which should be based upon
clear, specific and measurable outputs to achieve best results. Specialized UN- and
other qualified agencies can be mobilized to provide specific support to technical
capacity development in key sectors (this includes FAO for agriculture; WHO for health;
and UNEP for environment).
g. Institutional reform and change management
This includes results-based management; performance management systems;
functional reviews and decentralization or devolution of central government mandates.
Such processes cannot be initiated by GDRM programmes since they require a critical
involvement of agencies and outreach to be effective. But they represent excellent
opportunities to improved GDRM practices in a wider enabling environment. GDRM
programming staff thus need to identify possible institutional change processes
(particularly when they are part of UNDP’s country portfolio) that a GDRM can hook up
with and support. Particularly relevant are public administration reform processes
including decentralization to lower levels and devolution of tasks to the private sector
15
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
and civil society, which provide an enabling basis for the engagement with and
accountability to multiple stakeholders.
2.2
Preparing for, justifying, and defining a GDRM programme
Experience from GDRM initiatives around the world suggests that the initial negotiation
and planning phase holds the key for the quality, effectiveness and sustainability of later
programmes. It is during the planning phase that the foundation for a shared vision of
needs, mutual roles and responsibilities and expected outcomes can be laid between
key stakeholders and that further demand for and interest in GDRM can be generated.
Proper planning and consultation takes time and it is therefore often wise to allocate
resources to a project initiation plan in order to focus on participatory design rather than
delivery.
Box 3: UNDP’s TRAC 1.1.3 - Seed funding for GDRM
The TRAC 1.1.3 (Target for Resource Assignment from the Core) budget-line was
created to address rapidly the “special development needs of countries in crisis or
countries vulnerable to crisis.” Implementation should not exceed 12 months duration.
TRAC 1.1.3 has played an important role in jump-starting DRM projects in various
countries. However to continue the processes beyond TRAC 1.1.3 complementary
funding sources need to be identified to turn DRM projects into long-term capacitybuilding programs.
2.2.1 Selecting implementing partners
UNDP projects are managed by one entity (often a government entity or UNDP itself)
that may enter into agreements with other organizations to deliver project outputs. These
organizations need to be identified on the basis of an assessment of their technical,
financial, managerial and administrative capacities. 24 However these business-oriented
selection criteria should be complemented by an analysis of the strategic, capacitybuilding value of involving a particular agency in the delivery of a particular DRM output.
It is important to examine to what degree the active involvement of an agency
contributes to the overall sustainability and effectiveness of a programme or a project. Or
what is the ‘return on investment’ in terms of building national DRM capacity and
ownership by outsourcing an output to a specific organization? It is equally important to
analyze the costs and risks of outsourcing a component to a particular agency.
The capacity assessment and key stakeholder analysis (Annex II and III) will already
have provided crucial information on the role, attitude towards and interest of
stakeholders in the overall programme. In a third step (see Annex VI), planners need to
identify the capacity building potential of each output and the matching stakeholders who
have: (a) a keen interest in the generation of a particular output; (b) who are in a position
to generate the output; and (c) who will have a key role in DRM in the future to ensure
the output is sustained. Agencies who match all three criteria need to get involved in
24
Compare UNDP’s User guides on Programming for Results http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/rmoverview/
16
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
programme implementation. Participatory assessment and consultative planning
processes will ensure that such decisions will be backed by the government.
Not every agency that becomes involved in project implementation needs to become a
‘formal’ implementing partner with a contractual responsibility to deliver outputs. In a
well-designed programme, several organizations will contribute without financial
compensation because the benefits of participation, for example, strengthening of their
mandate and visibility. In these cases a partnership agreement that simply spells out
common objectives and joint activities will often be enough to provide a framework for
cooperation. Annex VII contains an overview of working in partnership with civil society,
the private sector, the UN family and regional agencies.
Certain key tasks are very time consuming, not part of the regular activity of an
organization and require additional resources and incentives to be undertaken in a timely
and effective manner. The costs can be so high to an individual agency that it simply
does not make sense to burden them with a particular task/output. In many cases
however it is crucial to get a particular stakeholder involved in implementation/output
delivery to ensure ownership and sustainability. For instance risk assessments should
ideally (i.e. provided there is minimum capacity and access to relevant data) be
undertaken by national agencies that have the official mandate to monitor and assess
hazards/risks rather than by a private entity whose engagement in the subject will be
limited to the duration of the contract (and whose authority can always be questioned
leading to questionable legitimacy of data). In such cases it is better to ascertain
sufficient capacity in the national lead agency through third party support/the
involvement of private sector contractors that remain however ‘invisible’ (see example in
Annex VII).
2.2.2 Preparing for and justifying the need for a GDRM initiative
Justification of a GDRM programme requires the assessment of the disaster risks in a
given country and an understanding of governance capacities to manage these risks. In
an ideal setting, disaster risks will be known and understood before engaging in a
GDRM programme. In many cases however the national capacity to monitor and
analyze hazards and vulnerabilities will be in an embryonic state and one of the key
capacities that GDRM programmes need to strengthen. In the justification phase, it will
therefore be crucial to bridge this information gap and build a preliminary picture of risks
that can then be tested and refined during the implementation phase. Such a preliminary
risk assessment will also reveal the real needs and ‘burning issues’ that the programme
will tackle (risk from a specific hazard and/or a particular dimension of vulnerability,
geographical focus and so forth). The gender dimension of vulnerability is one particular
aspect that need to be identified in the risk assessments.25 It is important that the
analysis is undertaken in cooperation with government counterparts and other key
stakeholders to ensure; (a) that their current perceptions of disaster risk are considered;
and (b) their ownership in the outcome of the preliminary risk analysis. Annex I provides
an overview of major components and steps to be taken in a preliminary analysis of risks
for programming purposes.
25
See UNDP, Gender Equality, 2002 and Annex I
17
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Another important step in the justification stage is the assessment of current governance
capacities in relation to risk management priorities that have been identified in the
preliminary analysis. Whereas the risk assessment will produce insights into and a
consensus of what needs to be done, the capacity assessment will help to determine
how this can be achieved (which inescapably has some repercussions on the content of
a programme or project). UNDP defines capacities as “the ability of individuals,
institutions, and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve
objectives in a sustainable manner.”26 Gender related access to decision-making on
DRM issues and participation in relevant organizations deserves specific attention.
UNDP’s standard capacity assessment framework is useful to conceptualize the three
dimensions of capacities: points of entry; core issues; and technical/ functional
capacities.
Figure 1. UNDP’s Capacity Assessment Framework
Capacities reside on three different levels – enabling environment, organizational and
individual. Most commonly GDRM programmes are initiated at the organizational level
The government requests support for the building or strengthening of a single nationallevel agency that is expected to take the lead on DRM-related issues. Yet in order to
ensure the multi-sector and multi-organizational relevance of GDRM as a cross-cutting
task, it is crucial that the capacity assessment looks at the broader system, the overall
26
UNDP Capacity Assessment, July 2006, p.5
18
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
policies, rules and codes, norms and administrative practices that govern the distribution
and allocation of mandates, functions and resources.
It is also important to assess the existence of sufficiently numbered, resourced, skilled
and experienced individuals at all levels of administration. This is an issue in many
developing countries where the turnover of staff can be rapid and significant. The best
DRM strategies and plans are bound to fail if local capacities are weak or under-utilized
and under–resourced.27 Capacity assessments therefore need to consult a wide range of
key stakeholders and have to produce a base-line and indicators that allows monitoring
the development of DRM capacity throughout the programme’s life-cycle. Stakeholders
may include not only relevant government agencies and regional or local government
entities but also civil society actors (selected NGOs, citizens’ interest groups, research
institutions, women’s organizations, associations of municipalities and communities) and
the private sector (insurance firms, professional associations of engineers/ architects/
doctors and so forth). Depending upon the context, relevant international, multi-lateral
and bilateral agencies and donors should also be contacted during the process.
The capacity assessment will show the mechanisms for coordination, participation and
cooperation, which already exist between key stakeholders in relation to specific DRM
objectives, and how these can be strengthened to achieve results not only at the
organizational but at the institutional and systems level. This will often require the
widening of participation in the programme from a discrete government agency to other
sectors and the involvement of civil society and private sector entities. It will also be
important to strike a balance between interventions that address capacities at the
enabling environment, at the organizational and the individual level. In the past, onedimensional projects that have focused only on the DRM lead agency (such as civil
protection agencies) have often failed to bring about lasting change. The capacity
assessment consequently has a crucial role to play to inform the government and UNDP
who and/or what agencies should participate in the programme and in what role (‘agent’
or ‘participant’; see also 2.2.1) to generate the desired results.
Annex II provides a broad overview of areas (adapted from the Hyogo Framework for
Action) that are relevant to assess GDRM capacities. UNDP’s 2006 Capacity
Assessment Practice Note and Capacity Assessment User’s Guide provide further
information on how to design the assessment process.
2.2.3 Defining the programme and aligning it with the Country
Programme
The findings from the preliminary risk and capacity assessments need to be widely
discussed in planning workshops that should build consensus amongst key stakeholders
on the key implementation strategies, objectives and actions of the programme.28 It is
important to develop specific benchmarks for each programme component and progress
indicators of capacity building. UNDP’s 10 default principles for capacity development
(Annex III) 29 provide examples for benchmarks that can be adapted to individual
27
See UNDP Global Analysis, section 3.1.2.1
See UNDP Capacity Development, April 2006 p.14
29
See ibid, p.8
28
19
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
programmes and projects. Section 2.2.2 elaborates on capacity building strategies in the
context of GDRM.
GDRM programmes (just as any other development programme) should seek to build
upon existing capacities to ensure sustainability. UNDP should therefore play a mainly
facilitating and brokering role during programme planning workshops raising the interest
and commitment of potential partners (from various government sectors, civil society and
private sector) in contributing to the programme. Programme design that takes place
behind closed doors, involving only a small group of individuals, sends a discouraging
message to other interested stakeholders and may from the beginning obstruct core
objectives of the programme that require the commitment and participation of a wider set
of sectors and organizations. External sharing and consultation, however, needs to be
balanced by internal discussions and proper justification and definition of the programme
within the context of UNDP’s Country Programme. In addition, a clear case needs to be
made that the initiative not only responds to country needs but is realistic for UNDP to
deliver clear and obtainable results.
GDRM initiatives, as any other programme or project, need to be fully integrated into and
aligned with the UNDP Country Programme. This requires a careful analysis of UNDP’s
programme and project portfolio and the identification of outcomes that GDRM
contributes to. This step needs to be followed by an analysis of related outputs pursued
by other service lines and possible linkages. As an illustration of this point Annex V
outlines risk reducing actions in the practice areas of democratic governance,
environment and energy. Depending upon the context, the nature of risks, and the
country programme, GDRM may for instance be linked with a decentralization initiative,
ensuring that risks can be dealt with at the local level. In addition, disaster impact
analysis may provide important data for the monitoring of poverty (and vice versa).
Similarly, work on effective water governance may require the mainstreaming of risk
reduction measures into watershed management. Costs of specific DRM project items
and activities need to be incorporated into the budget lines.
2.2.4 Communication and building a supportive network
Programme outlines should be fed back to senior politicians and decision-makers in the
government to further increase their commitment to the programme and its change
objectives. It is also wise to present and discuss programme outlines with interested
donors, International Financial Institutions and other key agencies that are funding or
working on DRM-related issues (for example World Bank, International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, DIPECHO, bilateral donors). The potential
added value of this type of approach includes: (a) increased harmonization across DRM
initiatives and avoidance of the government being pulled in different directions; (b)
diversified resource base; and (c) enhance sustainability of the initiative. To sustain
GDRM programmes over a sufficient timescale to ensure that results are achieve, it is
important to identify: (a) local and international sources of funding; (b) knowledge of the
format of proposals, financing and reporting requirements of various donors; and (c) a
scheduled, continuous fundraising plan that can be managed within the context of the
programme.
20
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
2.3
Monitoring and evaluating GDRM programme
UNDP’s new User Guide on Programming for Results and Implementation Toolkit, lists
the regulations and core instruments that apply to reporting, monitoring, evaluation and
accountability/ oversight of programmes and projects.30 Formal evaluations at the end of
programming cycles should be complemented by: (a) yearly reviews involving to inform
the design of the next Annual Working Plan; and (b) mid-term reviews. Scheduled
reviews need to answer the following questions: is the programme yielding the expected
results? Is the programme being run as planned? Is there a need to redesign, modify or
cancel the programme?
In addition GDRM programmes have an opportunity to review their effectiveness and
progress achieved so far by including the review of disaster operations and disaster
impact into their arsenal of monitoring and evaluation tools. Disasters are often seen as
a disruption of GDRM programmes since they interrupt the routine of programme and
project implementation and delay the delivery of outputs. However it should not come as
a surprise in risk-prone countries that disasters strike and these should rather be seen
as opportunities to improve programme strategies and implementation mechanisms and
methods. This requires the existence of an agreed ‘plan B’ detailing what kinds of
services and interventions the programme will provide in case disaster strikes. In
addition to important brokering and facilitation functions (vis-à-vis the UN Country Team
in support of the Resident Coordinator; assistance with needs assessment and appeal
requirements), it can be agreed to:
•
•
•
•
30
Perform a real time assessment of the effectiveness of preparedness and
response functions/ the effectiveness of an agreed contingency plan etc.
Facilitate a post-disaster operational review with key stakeholders identifying
lessons learnt and agency requirements for improved performance.
Assess and document disaster impact and consequences for: a) base-line for
future assessments; b) identification of specific objectives and indicators for
DRM; c) measure the success of DRM interventions.
Initiate an advocacy campaign based upon lessons learnt from disasters.
RBM User Guide, Toolkit on the UNDP Intra-Net
21
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
3.
Bibliography
ADPC, “Community Based Disaster Risk Management. Field Practitioners’ Handbook”,
Bangkok, 2004
Albanian Red Cross with UNDP, “Local vulnerability and Capacity Assessment. Study
Report”, Tirana, 2004
Blaike, Piers et al., “At Risk. Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters’,
London and New York, 1997
Britton, Neil R., Getting the Foundation right: in pursuit of effective disaster legislation for
the Philippines, Manila, (paper presented at the 2nd Asian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering), 2006
Britton, Neil, National Planning and Response: National Systems, in: Rodriguez et al
(Eds.), “Handbook of Disaster Research”, Springer, New York, 2006
Buckle, Philip et al. “Assessing Resilience and Vulnerabilities: Principles, Strategies and
Action. Guidelines”, 2001
Carter, Nick “Disaster Management. A Disaster Manager’s Handbook”, 1991
Cooper, Christopher and Block, Robert, “Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland
Security”, New York, 2006
De Soto, Hernando, “The other path”, New York, 1989
DFID, “Disaster Risk Reduction: a development concern”, December 2004
Guelkan, Polat, An analysis of risk mitigation considerations in regional reconstruction in
Turkey: the missing link, in: “Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”,
pp.525-540, Springer, New York, 2005
IADB, Freeman et al., “Disaster Risk Management – National Systems for the
Comprehensive Management of Disaster Risk and Financial Strategies for Natural
Disaster Reconstruction”, Washington, 2003
IFRC, Walter, Jonathan (Ed.), World Disasters Report “Focus on Reducing Risk”,
Kumarian Press, Bloomfield/ London, 2002
ISDR, “Living with Risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives”, Vols. I and II,
New York and Geneva, 2004
ISDR, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015; Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters, 2005
22
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Lavell, A., “Local Risk Management, Ideas and notions relating to concept and practice.
Regional Program for Risk Management in Central America, CEPREDENAC”, Report for
UNDP, 2003
Maskrey, Andrew, “Disaster Mitigation. A community based approach”, Oxford, 1989
Philippines National Red Cross, “Preparing for Disaster. A Community Based Approach”,
Thailand, 2002
Smith, Keith “Environmental Hazards. Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster”, 3rd
edition, London/ New York, 2001
UNDP, “Guidelines for Community Vulnerability Analysis”, South Pacific Disaster
Reduction Program, 1998
UNDP/ BCPR, Gender Approaches in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations, 2003
UNDP/ BCPR & ISDR secretariat, Global Analysis Report (Draft), UNDP’s support to
Institutional and Legal Systems for Disaster Risk Management, 2004
UNDP “Reducing Disaster Risk. A challenge for development”, New York, 2004
UNDP/BCPR, Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into CCA and UNDAF, Draft
Guidance Note, January 2006
UNDP/ BCPR, “Reducing Disaster Risk: The Local Level Risk Management Approach”,
Draft, 2006
UNDP/ BCPR, “Lessons learned and Approaches to Managing and Reducing Disaster
Risk at the Local Level”, Draft, July 2006
UNDP, UNDP and Civil Society Organizations: A policy note on engagement (undated)
UNDP, Public Administration Reform Practice Note (undated)
UNDP’s engagement in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, Policy Note, August 2002
UNDP, Gender Equality Practice Note, 2002
UNDP, Decentralized Governance for Development. A combined practice note on
decentralization, local governance and urban/ rural development, April 2004
UNDP, Blue Book. A hands-on approach to advocating for the MDGs, 2004
UNDP, Capacity Development Practice Note, April 2006
UNDP, Capacity Assessment User’s Guide, July 2006
23
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
UN-OHRLLS/UNDP, Welch, Gita and others, “Governance for the Future: Democracy
and Development in the least developed countries, New York, 2006
UNDP Results Based Management User-Guide:
http://content.undp.org/go/userguide/results/rmoverview/
Zilbert, L. Wilches-Chaux, G. et al “Local Risk Management and Disaster Preparedness
in the Andean Region. Lessons learned and systematization of best practices”, for
UNDP 2005
24
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX I: Establishing a preliminary overview of existing risk
NOTE: The following presents guidance and major steps towards a preliminary overview
of risks for programming purposes only. This is only intended to provide a cursory
indication and should be no means be seen as an alternative to a comprehensive risk
assessment which should be at the heart of government policy making. Any results
based on the analysis outline here should be treated as preliminary evidence and
assumptions and do not replace the need for a fully fledged risk analysis particularly
with regard to gathering data for prospective risk management.
1. Collection of information / overview
In the following three basic types of information are listed on hazards, vulnerability and
elements-at-risk that allow some analysis of existing risk levels. The three basic
categories are further broken down into:
a) What information is needed (on hazards, vulnerability and elements-at-risk)
b) Format of information i.e. how information should be presented
c) Sources of information
1.1. Main hazards:
Information needed: their frequency, magnitude, (historical) impact, geographical
distribution, timing (seasonality and duration).
Formats: Hazard maps (if existing), (historical) data on events (hard copies/ electronic if
available), assessments, plans (sections on hazards) and reports.
Sources of information: seismological observatory, and other relevant scientific
institutes (including hydrological, geophysical); relevant line Ministries (Health,
Agriculture, Water and Environment), Utility providers (including electricity and
communications), Disaster Management Office or Civil Defense; UN-agencies, Red
Cross/Red Crescent, key NGOs, regional administrations and communities (field visits).
1.2 Elements-at-risk:
“Elements at risk” is a collective term for people, physical assets and livelihoods that
could be hurt or damaged if exposed to a hazard event.
Information needed: There is need to gather demographic data (i.e. geographic
distribution of population). Even when this is not fully accurate or up to date this helps to
understand at least physical exposure of the population to hazards.
If feasible: Information on livelihoods and inter-action with risk (including rural and urban
livelihoods, mixed patterns and seasonal migration)
If feasible: Data on key assets and infrastructure such as roads, communication-lines,
water supply systems, schools and hospitals/ dispensaries.
25
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Formats: Reports, statistics, tables, maps, records on previous disasters (social and
economic impact).
Sources of Information: Statistical offices, civil status office(s), Geographical Centre,
Ministry of Local Administration, other Line Ministries (including Public Works, Transport,
Communication), and communities (field visits).
1.3 Vulnerability:
Information needed: Establish an overview of social, economic and physical
vulnerability to the degree possible. This includes attitudes towards and perceptions of
risks and the way that gender-specific roles, activities, access to resources and decisionmaking may affect vulnerability.
Formats: Reports, Assessments, Surveys (on poverty and livelihoods, gender, situation
of minorities, migration, particular environmental challenges such as water shortages).
Sources of information: Social science institutes, Ministry of Social Affairs and NGOs,
UN agencies, communities (field visits)
2. Sources of information on hazards and risks on the web
2.1 Hazards/ historical information
•
•
•
•
EM-DAT http://www.em-dat.net
OCHA/ Relief Web http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc100?OpenForm
UNEP Global Resource Information Database http://www.grid.unep.ch/preview
National sources
2.2 Risk Assessments and Indexes (macro level)
UNDP and UNEP-GRID (Global Resource Information Database) – Disaster Risk
Index (DRI) Analysis Tool measures the relative vulnerability of countries in three natural
hazards – earthquake, tropical cyclone and flood, and identifies development factors that
contribute to risk. It shows in quantitative terms of how the effects and impacts of
disasters can be either reduced or exacerbated by policy choices.
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/english/wedo/rrt/dri.htm
See UNDP’s Report on “Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development”
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/english/publications/rdr.htm
Technical Note on the DRI –
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/publications/rdr/english/technicalannex.pdf
Natural Disaster Hotspots Columbia University and the World Bank (under the
umbrella of the ProVention Consortium). The project assessed the global risks of two
disaster-related outcomes – mortality and economic losses. The project estimated risk
levels by combining hazard exposure with historical vulnerability for two indicators of
elements at risk – gridded population and GDP per unit area for six major natural
26
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
hazards: earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, floods, drought,
http://www.geohotsptsqa.wordlbank.org.hotspot/hotspots/disaster.jsp
and
cyclones.
DesInventar is an inventory system that registers data on characteristics and effects of
disasters, a methodology put together by the Social Studies Network for Disaster
Prevention in Latin America (La RED). http://www.desinventar.org/desinventar.html
IDBA- IDEA Program of Indicators of Disaster Risk Management. In the framework
of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), technical cooperation on “Information
and Indicators Program for Disaster Risk Management”, the Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Manizales (the Instituto de Estudios Ambientales, IDEA) is carrying out
component II: “Disaster Risk and Management Indicators Program” ATN/JF-7907-RG.
This ‘Indicators Program’ is developing a sophisticated assessment methodology that
will measure key elements of countries' vulnerability to natural hazard events and the
performance of different risk management policies and tools. http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co/
IFRC VCA guidelines and toolbox
http://www.ifrc.org/what/disasters/dp/planning/vca.asp
ProVention Tools: An excellent and very comprehensive compilation of risk
assessment manuals, tools and reports (including community risk assessments and food
security assessment tools) can be found on the website of the ProVention Secretariat.
http://www.proventionconsortium.org/?pageid=17
27
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX II: MAJOR AREAS TO CHECK IN DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
ASSESSMENTS 31
Thematic areas/ Components
Tentative Capacity Indicators
Characteristics
To be adapted to concrete situation
Thematic areas 1: NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS (GOVERNANCE)
Policy and planning
•
•
Risk reduction as a policy priority
Risk reduction incorporated into post-disaster
reconstruction
Integration of risk reduction in development planning
and sectoral policies (poverty reduction strategy papers,
social protection, climate change adaptation, natural
resource management, health, education, etc)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laws, acts and regulations
Codes, and standards
Compliance and enforcement
Responsibility and accountability
•
•
•
•
Resource mobilization and allocation: financial
(innovative and alternative funding, reserves, taxes,
incentives), human, technical and material
•
Legal and regulatory framework
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National risk reduction strategy
Disaster reduction in Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers, in National MDG action
plans and reports
Disaster reduction in National Adaptation
Plan of Action (for LDCs countries)
Follow up on World Summit for Sustainable
Development Implementation Plan
Comprehensive body of law
Codes and standards exist and updated
Existence of systems to encourage
compliance and ensure enforcement
Existence of watchdog groups
Evidence of budgetary allocation (national;
across sectors; at sub-national and local
levels)
Incentive systems
Existence of reserves (financial and
material)
Staffing allocation to risk reduction functions
Qualification and competence of relevant
staff
31
Adapted from HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION 2005-2015 and initial FRAMEWORK from 2003 Online Discussion. Please note this is a very broad overview and needs to be
adapted and focused depending upon the situation in each particular country with particular consideration of prevailing risks. In UNDP, risk and capacity assessments are done
sequentially i.e. first identification of risks, then identification of current capacities to reduce risks. Most of the tentative capacity indicators listed here refer to organizational capacity
and the enabling environment.
28
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Thematic areas/ Components
Organizational structures
Tentative Capacity Indicators
Characteristics
•
•
•
•
Implementing and coordinating bodies
Intra and inter-ministerial, multidisciplinary &
multisectoral mechanisms (national platforms)
Local institutions and resources for decentralized
implementation
Civil society, NGOs, private sector and community
participation
To be adapted to concrete situation
•
•
•
•
Existence of an administrative structure/
mechanism to coordinate and implement
disaster reduction
Sectoral risk reduction programmes in line
ministries
Mandate for implementation at sub-national
levels
Consultation, and role for civil society,
NGOs, private sector and the communities
Thematic areas 2: RISK IDENTIFICATION
•
Statistical analysis of disaster occurrence and impact
Hazard analysis: characteristics, impacts, historical and
spatial distribution, multi-hazard assessments and
monitoring including of emerging hazards
Vulnerability and capacity assessment: social, economic,
physical and environmental, political, cultural factors
Risk monitoring capabilities, risk maps and risk scenarios
• Hazards recorded and mapped
• Vulnerability and capacity indicators
developed and systematically mapped and
recorded
• Risk scenarios developed and used
• Systematic assessment of disaster risks in
development programming
Impact assessments
•
•
•
Loss analysis
Linkages with environmental impact assessment
Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness assessment
• Systematic impact and loss analysis after
disasters
• Incorporation of cost-benefit analysis of risk
reduction into planning and budgeting
procedures at all levels
People-centred Early Warning
Systems
•
•
•
•
•
•
Monitoring and forecasting
Risk scenarios
Public awareness
Warning and dissemination
Simulations and drils
Response to warning
• Integration into government-policy and
decision making processes
• Timeliness of warnings
• Dissemination channels and participation at
local level
• Effectiveness of response to warnings
(population and authorities)
Risk assessment
•
•
•
29
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Thematic areas/ Components
Characteristics
Tentative Capacity Indicators
To be adapted to concrete situation
Thematic areas 3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Information and dissemination programmes and
channels
Public and private information systems (including
disaster, hazard and risk databases & websites)
Networks for disaster risk management (scientific,
technical and applied information, traditional/indigenous
knowledge)
• Documentation and databases on disasters,
hazards and capacities
• Professionals and public networks (public
has access to critical information)
• Dissemination and use of
traditional/indigenous knowledge and
practice
• Information centres and networks
•
Inclusion of disaster reduction at all levels of education
(curricula, educational material, infrastructure), training
of trainers programmes
Exchange programs, coaching and mentoring
Vocational training
Dissemination and use of traditional/indigenous
knowledge.
Community training programmes
• School curricula and educational materials
integrate information on disasters and
disaster reduction
• Evidence of systematic capacity
strengthening programmes for key actors
• Specialised courses and institutions targeting
specific sectors/ functions
• Trained staff
• Community based training
Public awareness
•
•
Public awareness policy, programmes and material
Media involvement in communicating risk
• Coverage of disaster reduction related
activities by media
• Accessible to public, public debate and
awareness (e.g. verified through surveys)
• Visibility of Disaster Reduction Day
Research
•
Research programmes and institutions for risk
reduction
Evaluations and feedback
National, regional and international cooperation in
research, science and technology development.
• Existence of a link between science and
policy (evidence-based policy)
• Indicators, standards and methodologies
established for risk identification
• Regional and international exchange
Information management and
communication
•
•
•
Education and training
•
•
•
•
•
•
30
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Thematic areas/ Components
Tentative Capacity Indicators
Characteristics
To be adapted to concrete situation
Thematic areas 4: RISK MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS/ INSTRUMENTS
Environmental and natural
resource management
Social and economic development
practices
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical and technical measures
•
•
•
•
Interface between environmental management and risk
reduction practices, in particular in natural resource
management and climate change adaptation (e.g.
coastal zone, wetland and watershed management,
integrated water resource management, reforestation,
agricultural practices, ecosystem conservation)
Social protection and safety nets
Financial instruments (involvement of financial sector in
disaster reduction: insurance/reinsurance, risk
spreading instruments for public infrastructure and
private assets such as calamity funds and catastrophe
bonds, micro-credit, -insurance and finance, revolving
community funds, social funds)
Sustainable livelihood strategies
Gender empowerment and community empowerment
initiatives
Incorporation into post-disaster and post-conflict
recovery and rehabilitation processes and policies
Food security strategies
Integration of disaster risk reduction into health sector
•
Rural development planning; Soil conservation and
hazard resistant agricultural practices
Land use applications, urban and regional development
schemes
Mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction considerations
in major infrastructure projects
Structural interventions (hazard resistant construction
and infrastructure, retrofitting of existing structures,
drought, flood and landslide control techniques)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use of wetland or forestry management to
reduce flood risk
Trends in deforestation rate
Disaster risk reduction integrated into
environmental impact assessments
Access to social protection and safety nets
as well as micro-finance services for
disaster risk reduction
Use of safety nets and social protection
programmes in recovery process
% of people/ assets insured
Rehabilitation and recovery practices
incorporate risk reduction
Construction reduced/zoning plans enforced
in floodplains and other mapped hazardprone areas
Compliance of public and private buildings
with codes and standards.
Public buildings (health facilities, schools,
lifelines, etc) at high risk retrofitted
Regular maintenance of hazard control
structures
31
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Thematic areas/ Components
Characteristics
Tentative Capacity Indicators
To be adapted to concrete situation
Thematic areas 5: PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contingency plans (logistics, infrastructure)
National and local preparedness plans
Effective communication and coordination systems
Training programmes
Rehearsal and practice of plans
Emergency funds and reserves where appropriate
• Testing and updating of emergency
response networks and plans(national/local,
private/public)
• Coverage of community training and
community based preparedness
• Emergency funds and stocks
32
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX III: TEN DEFAULT PRINCIPLES OF CAPACITY
DEVELOPMENT (CD)
33
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
34
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX IV: RELEVANCE OF DRM FOR OTHER SECTORS 32
Sector
Disaster Risk Reduction Action Area
UNCT
Possible focal
Agency
Income Poverty (MDG 1 Target 1)
Halve the Number of People Whose Income is Below 1 USD a Day by 2015
Agriculture
Forestry and
Fisheries
To provide for hazard-resistant cropping and livestock
strategies – including contingency cropping patterns to
match with the impact of the hazard – closely linked to
meteorological monitoring and forecasting
Ø Increased agricultural research is critical for improving
seed varieties, cropping systems, pest control gene
banks, protection of bio-diversity and more effective
water
management
to
increase
agricultural
productivity, thus reducing hunger, but should provide
special focus on ensuring hazard resistance and
adaptability to climatic changes and emerging disaster
risks.
Ø Actions related to local early warning systems and
impact forecast systems on agriculture.
Ø Increased farmers, herders and fisher folk capacities
to deal with disasters as well as increased capacities
of
supporting
institutions
(farmers’
groups,
cooperatives, government decentralised extension
systems).
FAO
UNDP
WFP
WMO
Livelihoods
&
Employment
Ø Improved access to credit should also include access
to credit for disaster proofing livelihoods (like water
and soil conservation measures) at subsidised
interest and through micro insurance to cover hydrometeorological extreme events.
Ø Diversified income opportunities to the disaster
vulnerable, to insulate against disaster losses (e.g.
home-based crafts as risk reducing strategy to
safeguard against droughts or floods). Livelihoods
diversification is complex and strategies can include
enterprise development.
Ø Measures to reduce the proportion of the labour force
employed in the informal sectors, within economic
sectors that rely primarily on natural resources and
that are particularly exposed to disasters caused by
vulnerability to natural hazards.
ILO
UNDP
FAO
WFP
Urban
Planning
Ø While providing security of tenure can improve labour
market participation and access to credit markets,
care has to be ensured to enforce and apply land use
UNDP
UN-Habitat
32
Taken from: UNDP, Guidelines for Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into CCA and UNDAF, 2006
35
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Slum
Improvement
by-laws that are consistent with hazard risk mapping;
landslide-prone slopes and flood-prone river banks
should be ecologically conserved while providing a
hazard-safe alternative and accessible livelihood
areas to slum dwellers.
Hunger (MDG 1 Target 2)
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the Proportion of People Who Suffer from Hunger
Agriculture
Ø Increasing
agricultural
productivity
through
investments in soil health, water management,
extension services and research increases food
availability for subsistence farmers, but needs special
focus on mitigating the impact of hydrometeorological fluctuations through multiple cropping,
water conservation and biological control measures,
with contingency cropping strategies linked to
weather.
FAO
UNDP
UNESCO
Primary Education (MDG 2 Target 3)
Ensure That, by 2015, Children Everywhere, Boys and Girls Alike, Will Be Able to Complete
a Full Course of Primary Schooling
Education
Ø Increasing access to improved primary and secondary
schools as well as adult literacy programmes through
provision of infrastructure, should be made disaster
proof by ensuring that school infrastructure is of
hazard resistant standards, e.g. in seismic zones or
on tropical coastal zones affected by cyclones,
lightening strikes etc.
Ø Inclusion of learning material on risk awareness,
preparedness and preventive measures in school
curricula.
UNICEF
UNESCO
WFP
Water & Sanitation (MDG 7 Target 10)
Halve, by 2015, the Proportion of People Without Sustainable Access to Safe Drinking Water
Water &
Sanitation
Ø Support the maintenance of water and sanitation
infrastructure and services in conjunction with
behaviour change programmes to improve household
hygiene, but at the same time ensure sustainability of
water sources, e.g. through measures to promote
recharging of water tables, integrated and
participatory watershed management.
Ø Hydrological monitoring systems can help protect
aquifers and freshwater ecosystems from excessive
withdrawals.
UNICEF
WMO
FAO
36
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Maternal Mortality (MDG 5 Target 6) & HIV/AIDS (MDG 6 Target 7)
Health
Ø While strengthening health systems is critical to
achieving this MDG, it is essential to ensure that
health infrastructure particularly at local level (e.g.
primary health centres, rural hospitals) are in
conformity with building standards to be resistant to
local seismic, flood cyclone and other hazard risks.
Ø Capacities of health facilities are enhanced and staff
trained to cope with likely disaster impacts.
Ø Family planning access reduces total fertility rates to
levels desired by people, thus mitigating population
pressures on the environment.
Disaster Risk Reducing Actions in Cross-Cutting Areas
WHO
UNDP
UNFPA
UNCT
possible
focal Agency
Reverse Loss of Environmental Resources (MDG 7 Target 9)
Ø Improve management of natural resources through market
mechanisms, strengthened regulation and enforcement and
investments in the management of critical ecosystems, including
disaster risk assessments and mapping to ensure measures to counter
environmental losses.
Ø Protection of ecosystems (including mangroves; forest cover from
forest fires, forest/vegetation cover and reduction of soil loss/land
degradation in critical watersheds and arid zones) to strengthen
disaster resilience and reduce losses.
Ø Access to modern cooking fuels reduces demand for biomass cooking
fuels, thus reducing pressure on marginal lands and forests.
UNEP
UNDP
FAO
UNESCO
Gender Equality (MDG 3 Target 4)
Ø Land rights allow women to increase agricultural production, reducing
vulnerability of women-headed households to disaster risk.
Ø Improved women’s participation in decision-making processes
(including by making them aware of disaster risks, preparedness
measures) will reinforce traditional coping measures of women and
increase disaster resilience of communities.
UNFPA
Governance
Ø Supporting the development, enactment or modification of legislation to
support disaster risk management.
Ø Participating in the establishment of the national disaster reduction
strategy on a sound legislative basis, that is fully integrated into and
consistent with other national laws and regulations.
Ø Ensuring that the legislative framework is a clear statement of the
citizen’s rights to security and protection from hazards.
UNDP
ILO
UN-Habitat
FAO
37
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Ø Supporting widespread consultation about proposed legal reforms as
well as broader ownership of change.
Ø Support the strengthening of linkages and collaboration between
legislators and implementing authorities.
Ø Ensure that there are clear definitions of roles and responsibilities in
the enforcement of legislation.
Ø Ensure that there are mechanisms in place for compliance with laws
and regulations.
Ø Supporting the creation of national mechanisms such as national
systems and platforms.
Ø Decentralisation: Strengthen awareness of roles and responsibilities
among all stakeholders and ensure that the skills and capacities
needed to carry out assigned functions are in place.
Ø Ensure decentralised local governance systems for disaster risk
reduction are integrated with other levels initiatives adequately
resourced and decentralised responsibilities clearly identified and
allocated.
Ø Promote the involvement and strengthening of existent local
institutions (local governments, NGOs, CBOs) rather than supporting
the creation of new ones.
38
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX V: Working in partnership - Selected Examples
World Bank and Regional Banks
The Banks are key counterparts of the Ministries of Finance and provide considerable
inputs into development planning and budgeting processes particularly in relation to the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). The Banks also have a key role as the main
lenders for recovery and reconstruction after major disasters. Furthermore, the WB and
regional banks may fund DRM projects and initiatives. They are important partners for
the ‘mainstreaming’ of DRM into development. With the creation of the Global Facility for
Disaster Reduction and Recovery, a financial instrument to support the ISDR system’s
implementation of the Hyogo Framework, the World Bank has reemphasized its
commitment to the subject.
UN family
By incorporating DRM into the country assessment and planning processes (Common
Country Assessment and United Nations Development Assistance Framework),
Resident Coordinators and the UN Country Teams support national efforts to reduce
vulnerability. The Resident Coordinator has the role to encourage and coordinate
contributions from the various UN agencies to the Disaster Risk Management agenda, in
order to ensure that various sectors are targeted appropriately. This may involve the
WHO working on issues related to emergency health and safer hospitals, UNICEF
working on the integration of risk reduction into school curricula, WFP working on food
security etc.
Beyond the overall country strategies, individual GDRM programmes and projects
should seek closer cooperation with UN agencies and their national counterparts on
technical areas such as Early Warning. UN agencies usually have a wealth of data (for
instance socio-economic, health and environmental data) and may already be active in
projects that are relevant to the strengthening of risk reduction activities. It is particularly
important to seek the cooperation of selected UN agencies in assessments and disaster
and risk reduction planning exercises (see also Annexes VII and VIII, the case studies
from Mozambique and Nepal for examples of successful cooperation).
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
The ISDR aims at building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased
awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an integral component of
sustainable development, with the goal of reducing human, social, economic and
environmental losses due to natural hazards and related technological and
environmental disasters.
As mentioned above, ISDR and the World Bank have formed a new partnership, the
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, which aims to support global and
regional processes to enable leveraging country resources for ex-ante investment in
prevention, mitigation and preparedness activities, particularly in low and middle-income
countries. Among others, it will provide technical assistance to assist low and middle
income countries to mainstream disaster risk reduction in strategic planning, particularly
the Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs) and various sectoral development policies.
GDRM initiatives should cooperate and establish a close dialogue with the ISDR
regarding their work on National Platforms, particularly on the purpose and composition
39
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
of these platforms as well as interaction with existing government institutions in order to
ensure a complementary and productive role for the platforms. In supporting this process
it is important to ensure that any related institutional arrangements are based on the
wider GDRM principles.
Regional organizations
Various regions have formed specific Disaster Risk Management agencies or units for
the exchange of knowledge and information and mutual assistance in such areas as
hazard research, policy development, planning, risk management applications, early
warning and preparedness. Regional organizations can bring in additional technical
expertise and experience as needed and facilitate South-South exchange. Mobilizing
interest and support from the region can be an important tool to strengthen relevant
capacities but also to increase the visibility of national DRM efforts and agencies. An
overview of regional organizations active in DRM can be found on UN ISDR’s web-site:
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/basic_docs/LwR2004/Annex_2_Directory.pdf
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)
CSOs include NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent network, academic
establishments, media, professional associations and others. UNDP engages with CSOs
that share its values and objectives33. In the context of GDRM and LLRM projects CSOs
have proven vital partners in pursuing all major objectives of GDRM projects. In India
and Albania (to name just two examples) Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have
been important partners in conducting risk and vulnerability assessments (particularly at
the local level) and have participated in the formulation of DRM policies and plans. On a
more strategic level UNDP brokered partnerships between the government and NGOs in
Vietnam, India and Albania that helped to clarify mutual roles and responsibilities in
DRM and made sure that resources are used more effectively. CSOs also have a huge
role to play in raising the profile of DRM and thus increasing political commitment and in
acting as advocates of the poor and vulnerable. CSOs are also often involved in training
activities and in raising the awareness of at-risk populations. The obvious role of the
media in this context cannot be underestimated. Professional associations can often be
drawn into work on legislation, codes and guidelines both in terms of strictly technical
contributions and the dissemination of approved codes and “best practices” such as
improved local building practices etc.
As may be clear from the above CSOs cannot only help to produce outputs of GDRM
projects in an executing role. They are part of a longer term partnership strategy
whereby UNDP can create the space to ensure that a variety of “policy voices and
choices” from vulnerable communities and their representatives is made available to
decision-makers34 that creates avenues of communication and increases the
effectiveness and relevance of policies. Obviously this space will vary from country to
country depending upon the strengths of CSOs and the reputation they enjoy in the eyes
of the government.
33
34
See UNDP’s Policy Note on Engagement with CSO’s.
See ibid., p.8
40
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Private Sector
The role of the private sector in disaster risk management in developing countries has so
far been most prominent in post disaster relief and recovery however there is growing
interest in the potential of involving private business in so-called “risk transfer” solutions.
Micro-insurance whereby low-income households are protected against specific hazards
may both be good development and a viable business product for insurance companies.
While the concept and practice of micro-insurance is still evolving a dialogue on risk
reduction with the private sector should be pursued in each country. This can be a joint
exploration of how disaster reduction and private sector interests can be reconciled
against the background of a corporate social responsibility agenda. Such discussions
may lead to support for public education campaigns and other initiatives of GDRM
projects for which there are already precedents in several countries (Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, Turkey etc.). UNDP engages the private sector in partnership projects in support
of the Millennium Development Goals so there is a growing body of experience and best
practice one can refer to (please see http://www.undp.org/partners/business/UNDP
privatesector.shtml). See also relevant information on the Global Compact partnership
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
41
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX VI: Fostering political commitment and strengthening
policy and strategy development for risk reduction: Illustrative
Cases
Case 1: Kingdom of Nepal: Capacity Building Potential of Sectoral Working
Groups
Government attention to the management of disaster risks from natural hazards in Nepal
has been affected by the development of the political tension and conflict since 1996.
Before 1996 concerted efforts were undertaken to develop a “National Comprehensive
Plan for Disaster Management” supported by a National Calamity Act (revised in 1992).
In 1994 (following the 1993 Terai flood disaster), three sectoral working groups on
health, food and agriculture and logistics were solidified under UNDP coordination to
enhance cooperation between His Majesty’s Government, line departments, UN Disaster
Management Team (UNDMT) and NGOs. The sectoral groups had the following goals:
•
•
•
Assisting in assessment, and analyzing and interpreting assessment data in order to
formulate an appropriate intervention
Assisting the development of a well resourced and realistic National Disaster
Management Plan that benefits from sectoral expertise and interests to enhance
commitment and accountability.
Establishing a channel of communication between the government and the
international community for providing technical and financial support following a
disaster.
With the growing emphasis on conflict-related issues, the groups became less active
in the early 2000’s. To date, the health sector plan has been completed and approved. In
2000 the health working group became a legal entity under the Ministry of Health. UNDP
was working to reinvigorate the logistics and food and agriculture groups with the
assistance of two UN Volunteers. Despite weak support from the highest levels of
government, considerable interest existed on the part of ministry staff and assistance
organizations.
Sectoral working group manuals and guidelines have been under development for
several years and have required regular updating in the process. The manuals have not
yet been sanctioned by government. Accomplishments among the sectoral groups are
agreements on new damage and needs assessment formats. The Food and Agriculture
Working Group has planned and implemented a central/district training program on risk
reduction for crops and livestock.
Despite the fluctuations and difficulties caused by the insurgency, the sectoral group
processes are long-term capacity development tools; they encourage action through
peer pressure and provide an applied ‘training’ experience by developing planning,
consensus building and coordination skills. The development of the manuals represents
a learning experience itself on disaster risk reduction. These practices should ultimately
translate into more coordinated risk reduction activities at all levels to support citizens at
risk.
42
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Case 2: Caribbean - Instituting Natural Hazard Impact Assessments as a
component of Environmental Impact Assessments
The Caribbean region through a variety of initiatives and efforts has been steadily
moving towards embracing comprehensive disaster risk management as vital to
sustainable development. Based on the need to enhance mechanisms and procedures
in place to better integrate risk reduction into development planning, efforts have been
initiated to routinely assess natural hazard risks as part of the development planning and
approval process in much the same way that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)
have become standard practice in most countries today.
Toward this end, the Caribbean Development Bank's Disaster Mitigation Facility for
the Caribbean (CDB/DMFC) in collaboration with the Adaptation to Climate Change
Project has produced a draft Natural Hazard Impact Assessment (NHIA) Guide and
Sourcebook for the Caribbean. The document contains an analysis of whether EIA
regulations and procedures are in place in each country and recommends measures and
actions to be taken to improve the EIA process and begin conducting National Hazard
Impact Assessments. The CDB/DMFC has also supported the training of forty-five
environmental specialists from throughout the region in integrating National Hazard
Impact Assessments into the EIA process. The draft NHIA Guide and Sourcebook was
also presented to the group. The CDB/DMFC has plans to replicate this training at the
national level and begin lobbying for governments to put in place the necessary legal
and policy frameworks to adopt this new approach. The CDB/DMFC also plans to
introduce the NHIA process to national and sub regional banks and encourage them to
incorporate it into their guidelines for loans etc.
Although the NHIA process is only in the early stages of development, it holds
tremendous promise for playing an extremely pivotal role in helping to facilitate the
integration of disaster risk management into development planning.
43
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Case 3: Barbados - Inclusion of Disaster Risk Management as a component of the
Barbados Sustainable Development Policy
The Government of Barbados recently completed development of a National Sustainable
Development Policy. The country embarked on the policy development process in 1997
as part of its commitment to the Rio Declaration and the Small Island Developing States
Plan of Action. A National Commission on Sustainable Development comprising
members from government, civil society and the private sector spearheaded the effort.
Numerous national consultations were held with representatives from government,
NGOs, CBOs and labor, youth and women organizations in order to capture wide
stakeholder input into the process. The Policy document represents recognition by the
Government of Barbados of the need for a holistic integrated approach to development.
It will also be instrumental in strengthening connections between the existing Physical
Development, National Economic, and National Strategic Plans.
The document includes disaster risk management as one of the key areas of the
National Sustainable Development Action Plan35. This represents a significant
achievement given efforts being made at the regional and national levels to encourage
and facilitate the incorporation of disaster risk reduction into development planning. The
policy helps to demonstrate the critical linkages between disaster risk management and
sustainable development as well as its relevance and connection to many other areas of
development such as environmental management. Framing disaster risk management
in the context of development will help to greatly enhance national attention and
resources being devoted to the area.
Adoption and dissemination of the Sustainable Development Policy has coincided with
heightened efforts being made by the Central Emergency Relief Organization to address
comprehensive disaster risk management and elevate it as key policy priority. Efforts
included sensitization of high-level decision-makers and the general public to the
importance of adopting a comprehensive disaster risk management approach in
addressing disaster risks.
Despite these achievements Barbados has a long way to go with respect to
implementing the Sustainable Development Policy. Although disaster risk management
issues are acknowledged in the document, it clearly is not yet an active priority area of
focus in the day-to-day decision-making, management and operational aspects of key
sectors and institutions. The necessary institutional arrangements, legal framework and
education efforts must now be put in place to facilitate this change.
35
Though arguably DRM could have been treated in greater depth.
44
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX VII: Strengthening the institutional frameworks through interministerial and inter-sector coordination/ cooperation
Illustrative Cases
Case 1: The Colombian case: Multi sector involvement and network system
The present DRM setup in Colombia is the result of Law number 46, of October 1988
which created the National System for Disaster Prevention and Response. This law was
regulated by Decree number 919, 1989. The law created a multi-sectoral,
multidisciplinary, decentralized system considering both risk reduction and disaster
response. The System was innovative in Latin America and anticipated changes in
legislation in other countries. Due to this it has been used and considered as a model for
change in many countries of the region (the cases of Nicaragua and Bolivia are two clear
examples of a hybrid version of the Colombian system in place in Latin America today).,
The bases for the Colombian system have been taken up as relevant principles: multisectoral, multi-disciplinary, decentralized, socially inclusive and participatory, and based
on the subsidiarity principle and the notion of social and individual responsibility for risk.
The law assigns maximum authority to the so-called National Committee headed by the
President of the Republic and with representations from all the major Ministries (those
more identified with disaster response and preparedness and those identified with
sectoral and territorial development processes and risk management goals related to
prevention or mitigation), the National Department of Planning, Civil Defence and the
Red Cross and private sector members. The Committee is responsible for major policy
and planning decisions. The System is coordinated by a General Directorate that is
currently located at the Ministry of the Interior.
Functionally, the System operates via a:
(a.) National Technical Committee which is made up of National Advisory Commissions
on such topics as micro-river basins, environmental health, education, development
planning and environment, volcanic and seismic risk, forest fires, health, hazard maps
etc., and National Services, such as the Hydro-meteorological early warning network,
the vulcanological observatories and the national seismologic network. These
Commissions and Services are made up of representations of different relevant
institutions and are responsible for policy implementation in their respective areas. The
private sector is represented in relevant committees.
(b.) A National Operations Committee presided by the head of Civil Defence and
charged with disaster response operations and activities (search and rescue,
communications, food distribution, geographical information systems etc.). The
Emergency Operations Centre is under the control of this Committee.
The System operates on a decentralized basis through regional (Departmental) - and
local (municipal) - committees that have technical, operational and educational
commissions, thus replicating the national structure. Departmental governors and
mayors head these two types of committee.
Finance for the national Directorate since 2001 comes directly from the Ministry of
Interior’s budget. Previously, the Directorate had a direct budgetary allocation from
central government. A National Calamity Fund exists, created in 1984, prior to the
National System, and following the Popoyan earthquake disaster. This fund receives
finance each year for response and prevention activities and is not accumulative.
45
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Case 2: Mozambique: Multi-sectoral Contingency Planning Process
The Emergency Contingency Plan is a yearly multi-sectoral and multi-level plan carried
out in a participatory and consultative manner. The process begins at the regional level
with a meeting of the Southern African Regional Climate Outlook Forum. The Forum
consists of all the national Meteorological Services in the Southern African Development
Community, and is coordinated by the Drought Monitoring Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe.
The Forum gathers in one of the National Capitals in SADC at the beginning of the
agricultural year in August/ September to reach a consensus on the climate outlook for
the region for the coming season.
In Mozambique, the Early Warning Working Group coordinated by the National Institute
for Disaster Management through the Technical Council for Disaster Management, is
responsible for monitoring and assessing the risk of floods, droughts, cyclones and other
natural disasters. The early warning group is a multi-sectoral group made up of the
National Meteorological Institute which monitors climatic changes, representing the
meteorology sector, the National Water Directorate which monitors water levels of the
main rivers, representing the water sector, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development which conducts crop assessment and Ministry of Health which monitors
epidemics and other health and nutrition conditions.
Early warning information is gathered from the communities, districts and provinces with
relevant UN Agencies and NGOs providing technical support. The climate outlook and
the information collected through the early warning systems is processed by INGC
through the Technical Council for Disaster Management for the preparation of the
National Contingency Plan beginning October each year. Relevant United Nation
Agencies, such as UNICEF and WFP and NGOs are involved in the contingency
planning process through the National Institute for Disaster Management. The same
information is channeled simultaneously to different sectors, and affected districts and
provinces, which then prepare their own sectoral plan to enable the technical working
groups at these levels to prepare their contingency plans. The National Contingency
Plan is thus a multi-sectoral and multi-level planning process and involves two-way
communications.
The United Nations Agencies are coordinated through the United Nations Disaster
Management Technical Working Group chaired by WFP. The UN technical Working
Group is responsible for preparing the UN Emergency Contingency Plan, based on the
National Contingency Plan. International NGOs also participate in the preparation of the
UN Contingency Plan.
Mozambique’s experience with annual contingency planning has become a model in the
SADC region. A number of countries have sent delegations to learn from this
experience.
46
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Case 3: Barbados, St. Lucia and Jamaica - Private Sector and Civil Society
Participation in National Disaster Risk Management
Barbados, St. Lucia and Jamaica all have primarily centralized disaster management
systems, which are spearheaded by a government body. In Barbados and St. Lucia the
national Disaster Management Organizational structure includes several standing
/national committees each with a specific disaster management related function. It is
through these various Committees that the national Disaster Management
Organization/Office networks with private sector and civil society entities.
Representatives from the private sector and various NGOs, CBOs, service clubs and
church groups often participate on these Committees in particular organizations which
play a key role in helping to coordinate and implement disaster relief and preparedness
activities such as the Red Cross. In the case of St. Lucia, private sector representatives
chair several of the national Committees.
In general, collaboration with private sector and civil society in all three countries is
primarily focused on disaster relief and preparedness. In some cases, the National
Disaster Office partners with NGOs to provide training for communities in disaster
management. The NGOs in the Caribbean for the most part lack the capacity to
undertake spearheading risk assessment and management programs.
In all three countries the private sector is mainly involved at the level of donating goods
as part of the relief efforts following disaster events. A few companies also provide
minimal funding for public education and outreach programs. In Jamaica and St. Lucia,
the National Disaster Offices also assist companies with contingency planning. Beyond
these dimensions, the private sector linkage with the national disaster management
efforts is weak. Although the National Disaster Offices would welcome greater
involvement of this group, but change is slow in coming.
Case 4: Albania: Partnership Agreements with Civil Society
In Albania, UNDP facilitated the establishment of partnership agreements between the
government and Albanian Red Cross at national and provincial levels, which brought
together these two entities in a more organized and systematic way and led to a better
understanding and appreciation of mutual roles and responsibilities. Following the
provisions in the partnership agreements, the Albanian Red Cross contributed to various
elements of UNDP’s DRM project including the development of a training curriculum/
manuals, public education activities and local/ national disaster planning activities. The
Albanian Red Cross also undertook a nationwide assessment of vulnerabilities and
capacities for UNDP. All of these activities were agreed and consulted with the
government and local and national governments worked alongside ARC representatives.
47
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX VIII: Fostering vertical linkages and the participation of
communities
Illustrative Cases
Case 1: India - Institutionalizing the Community Based Approach
The Government of India is committed to a Community-Based Disaster Preparedness
Approach (CBDP), and promotes it under the GoI-UNDP Disaster Risk Management
Programme in 169 districts in 17 states by institutionalizing the process within the
Government system, with local authorities playing a key role. The CBDP is comprised of
Village Disaster Management Committees (VDMC) and Village-level Disaster
Management teams (DMT) which are formed to coordinate response during crisis.
Relevant training is provided to them. Preparation of CBDP is done through a
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) facilitated by NGOs/CSOs active in the community.
In order to ensure that the DRM becomes an integral part of the Government’s
development agenda and to ensure sustainability and institutionalization, DM plans are
approved by the Development Committee at the district level, and the district
government recognizes the DMC and DMT as an integral part of disaster preparedness
and mitigation.
See: UNDP/Government of India: “Local Level Risk Management: Indian Experience”
http://www.undp.org.in/dmweb/publications/LLRM.pdf
Case 2: Albania - Feeding local risk assessments into national plan development
In Albania, UNDP tasked the Albanian Red Cross in 2003 to carry out a participatory
local vulnerability and capacity assessment. The assessment was undertaken in a crosssection of urban and rural settlements exposed to a variety of natural hazards, which
had been already assessed in a quantitative national risk assessment. Results were
summarized in a 35 page report that contained recommendations to national and local
government, the Albanian Red Cross and communities. The vulnerability and capacity
assessment recommended above all the decentralization of important DRM functions to
provincial governments and the creation of a stronger ‘first line of defense’ at the district
level. The need to recognize the role of local Civil Society Organizations was particularly
empathized in this context. The report drew the attention of central government to
important social and economic issues such as rural-urban migration, informal
settlements and the urgency to rehabilitate the drainage and irrigation network in regions
that had started to be affected by previously unknown levels of seasonal flooding. This
issue was subsequently dealt with in more detail in the national plan (2005) which
facilitated investment in the drainage and irrigation network.
48
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Case 3: Bogotá, Medellin and La Paz: Offices for Risk Management and Disaster
Response in Large Cities
Bogotá and Medellín, the two largest cities in Colombia, and La Paz - the capital of
Bolivia, all have established and institutionalized Risk Management and Disaster
Response Systems and coordinating offices. All three systems have had direct or
indirect support from UNDP in their establishment or consolidation. In principle these
local systems are considered a component of the national systems, both of which call for
and are constructed around the notion of decentralized risk and disaster reduction
activities. In both countries, the development of local or sub-regional systems was
facilitated and promoted by existing legislation and practice that strongly supports
decentralization, popular election of mayors and local governments and popular
participation in decision making, as well as promoting territorial and environmental
planning and land use requirements and ordinances.
The Bogotá and Medellín municipal systems have now been successfully in operation
for over 14 years, whilst the La Paz city, and a parallel system in the surrounding
Department of La Paz, have only been operating for the last two years. Despite these
time differences, the three systems have a number of facets that help explain the
success in their establishment and that could contribute to their real or potential
sustainability. The following factors also relate to the strengthening of governance.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The three systems have been strongly promoted and supported by the elected
mayors and this support, despite its necessary ups and downs, has been
permanent over time. In the case of Medellin the system has grown under the
influence of 7 different elected local governments.
Activities promoted by the systems have been based on a high level of scientific
and technical knowledge of hazards and risk.
Risk reduction planning and activities have been promoted in the framework of
local development policy and planning. Local development and land use plans
have given an important position to risk reduction aspects.
All three local governments make annual regular budgetary assignments for risk
management and disaster response and these are consistently complimented
by contributions from international agencies and other financiers.
Popular and private sector participation are important features of the systems.
The La Paz development plan elaborated in 2001 involved a thousand local
consultation meetings and following the 2002 flooding in the city was
dimensioned with risk aspects for the first time. Medellín has over 150
Neighborhood Emergency Committees in action. And, Bogotá is at present
establishing a local risk management program based on local participation.
Participation is an important aspect in explaining appropriation and sustainability
of the systems.
Although not as yet fully developed the city systems may benefit from the
development of more institutional risk management systems that would permit a
more strategic intermediate level planning mechanism that places the city in its
regional development and risk context.
These systems have had clear benefits for the local population. Amongst these,
the eradication of much of the small scale land-slides in Medellin, flood and
earthquake preparedness and school and hospital retrofitting in Bogotá and
49
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
•
flood control and river basin management in La Paz. In all three cities popular
support for the risk management and response systems is evident.
In 2004, all three systems could be seen as immunized from changes in national
systems as such, and it was evident that their own organizational and financial
bases allow them to overcome potential problems and vulnerabilities at this
level.
Case 4: Republic of Vanuatu: Disaster Planning - the challenge to strengthen local
capacity to create a functioning “system”
As a relatively new nation, Vanuatu has expressed desire in the past to develop its DRM
capacity and has legalized a National Disaster Management Act of 2000. The Act, in
combination with the National Disaster Management Plan of 2001, sets out guidelines
for capacity development for the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) and six
provinces. According to the National Disaster Plan, provinces are responsible for various
activities including hazard and risk assessments, the integration of risk reduction into
provincial development plans, the identification of disaster mitigation projects, public
awareness activities, the establishment of a provincial Disaster Coordination Center and
initial response before calling upon wider support from regional or national levels.
According to the Act, each provincial council and the municipal council (if existing) within
that province is to form a Provincial Disaster Committee and prepare a “Provincial
Disaster Plan” which is consistent with the “National Disaster Plan” in the prevention of,
preparation for, response to and recovery from disasters in that province. The NDMO is
to oversee the development of these plans.
However, reality does not match the visions for organizational structure and plans that
are described in the Act and the Plan. The NDMO is mainly active during response and
lacks the management capacity and funds for longer term and comprehensive DRM
coordination. Most activities at the provincial level occur when disaster is declared and
during immediate recovery. Responsibility for response has largely fallen on the Red
Cross and NGOs.
Although the provinces have plans and structures for response, provincial roles are not
always supported at the central level. A separate disaster committee is to be formed at
the provincial level to communicate with the NDMO but this is not always done,
necessitating extra work from the provincial administrations. The National Disaster Plan
is under review. Operational support plans for every hazard and to address specific
hazards faced by each island do not widely exist and where they do they are not
generally known by the communities they are supposed to protect. The government
currently does not provide sufficient resources to strengthen the NDMO and the
provincial networks. Thus, communities lack the support they need to reduce risks
while their normal levels of self sufficiency are being eroded by increasing urbanization
and changing risk patterns.
50
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX IX: Raising political commitment through public
education and advocacy
Illustrative Cases
Case 1: Public awareness and education strategies in DRM
Participatory, Local Risk Assessments can be empowering awareness-raising tools both
by involving people in the process and by discussing and feeding back results to them.
In Palestine this was done by the Palestinian Red Crescent through focus group
discussions, public hearings and meetings in 1999.
In the Katmandu Valley in Nepal the National Society for Earthquake Technology
(NSET) raised seismic risk awareness by focusing upon critical and visible community
structures i.e. schools and hospitals. Vulnerability assessments and reinforcement of
these structures were followed up by emergency planning in schools, regular “duck and
cover” drills and the integration of earthquake risk reduction into school curricula. In
addition simple, illustrated publications have been disseminated.
When disasters are seasonal (e.g. flood and mudslides, windstorms) the pre-season is
the best time to emphasize certain public awareness messages on warning
mechanisms, possible evacuations, coping mechanisms etc. Such campaigns are run in
many countries including the Caribbean, Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Case 2: Educating the local government in Kyrgyzstan
Despite serious budgetary problems the Ministry of Environment and Emergencies
(MEE) in Kyrgyzstan revived attempts in 2003 to educate local governments on DRM
and disseminate implications of the national law. The MEE has also produced a
brochure to support these training efforts that contains a useful summary of local
government responsibilities and interpretation of existing relevant legislation36 in the form
of an ‘instruction’ issued by the Ministry. The brochure contains:
• a glossary of DRM terminology
• the type of risks and their geographical distribution in Kyrgyz provinces and
districts,
• a definition/ classification of different scales of emergencies (from local to
international),
• major public awareness and information messages sorted by hazard
• recommendations for preparedness and mitigation measures to be taken by
local governments sorted by hazards
• relevant legislation and interpretation of its contents.
While neither training nor this brochure will automatically solve the problem of
constrained resources at the local level the longer-term approach of raising fundamental
51
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
awareness of DRM with local governments and providing them with materials that can
serve as a very basic handbook is commendable (even if what the Ministry considers
very basic may in fact still be a little too sophisticated for the very local level). The
Ministry has started to run this training in a limited number of particularly disaster-prone
provinces and districts. It will be necessary to assess the impact of training through
proper monitoring and evaluation practices in order to continuously improve quality and
effectiveness.
52
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX X: Analysis of existing DRM or DRM-relevant legislation
•
What DRM-relevant legislation exists? Is it a coherent whole or are there
contradictions?
•
What is the ‘hierarchy’ of existing legislation in the country such as constitution,
core laws, by-laws and implementing procedures?
•
Does the constitution mention safety or protection of citizens as a fundamental
right? Can this or another relevant article be built upon for DRM legislation?
•
Do local governments have law-making authority on DRM related issues? Which
specifically?
•
How have laws been prepared and adopted? Are they based upon proper
technical and political consultations or have they been passed during
“extraordinary situations” bypassing normal procedures?
•
To whom does the law assign specific mandates and duties? Are there gaps in
comparison with the existing or desired institutional arrangements? Is there
sufficient capacity to undertake these duties?
•
Does the law stipulate the participation of Civil Society and private sector in
DRM? If yes what is the record?
•
What is the overall record on enforcement of these laws? What have been major
impediments to their enforcement? (compare against general situation with
regard to the ‘rule of law’ and the extent of informality)
•
How does the existing legislation compare against DRM policies and priority
objectives? Are there important gaps?
53
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
ANNEX XI: Building a sustainable financial resource base for
DRM
Illustrative Case
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Financial Resources for Disaster Risk Management
Vietnam has created a system of relevant policies and instruments that steers the
generation and disbursement of financial resources for all components of DRM.
Although there is no special administrative expediting office to immediately allocate
funds in Vietnam, the system is fairly strong in delivering resources on short notice.
Sources of funding include State budget Funds, Flood and Storm Prevention and Control
Funds; Social assistance resources, social contingency provisions, international
organizational and other external aid; sources of credit; financial security sources; and
other government sources and budget-lines. The following provides an overview.
State Budget Sources
According to the 2002 State Budget Law, there is a provision of 2% to 5% of the total
budget for the prevention, control and mitigation of natural disasters and fire disasters as
well as for key defense, security and emergency missions.
In accordance with the Ordinance on Flood and Storm Prevention and Control (No
27/200/Pl-UBTVQH10) of 2000, the available financial resources for flood and storm
prevention and control include:
1. Annual state budget allocations;
2. Flood and Storm Prevention and Control Fund, as contributed by people in
accordance to Government regulations;
3. Emergency assistances from foreign and domestic organizations and individuals
The Flood and Storm Prevention and Control Funds
These financial resources are built up by annual compulsory contributions from
organizations and individuals resided in specific disaster prone localities, with
contribution amounts regulated by the Government. This is in accordance with Decree
No 50/CP of May, 1997.
In addition, the Government also runs a National Reserve Fund, and encourages subnational provinces to establish local reserve funds for disaster prevention and control.
Sub-national Flood and Storm Prevention and Control Funds are allocated as per the
below norms:
•
60% of available funds allocated to the Flood and Storm Prevention and Control
Funds of the centrally managed province and cities
•
40% of available funds allocated to the Flood and Storm Prevention and Control
Funds of provincially managed districts, towns, and townlets.
54
Governance for DRM: How To Guide
CONFERENCE DRAFT
JUNE 2007
Social assistance sources
Social assistance sources comprise humanitarian assistance from foreign and domestic
individuals and organizations including: (i) donation from foreign and domestic
individuals and organizations; (ii) grants and refundable aids from foreign governments
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In case of a disaster, the affected
provinces establish an emergency relief fund raising committee.
Credit sources
The rural credit system in Vietnam is divided into 3 sectors: the formal credit sector,
including the Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, the Social Policy Bank,
People’s Credit Funds under the supervision of the State Bank and Private Joint Stock
Banks, the semi-formal credit sector that operates with the participation of mass
organizations and NGOs and last but not least the informal credit sector including
voluntary credit schemes. In case of natural disasters all the above three credit sources
are used for mitigation and recovery activities benefiting people in the affected areas
55