10th consultative group - gfdrr...4 / 10th meeting of the consultative group annex a: summary of...

Agenda and Background Documents

Global Facility for Disaster

Reduction and Recovery

May 9, 2011 / Geneva, Switzerland

10th Meeting of theConsultative Group

Table of Contents

Preliminary Agenda ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

ANNEX A: Summary of Discussions – 9th Consultative Group Meeting ................................................................... 4

ANNEX B: Results Framework Findings ............................................................................................................................. 11

ANNEX C: Options Paper for GFDRR Civil Society Partnership ................................................................................ 17

ANNEX D: GFDRR Resource Management & Mobilization .......................................................................................... 21

2 / 10th Meeting of the Consultative Group

GFDRR 10th Consultative Meeting

Geneva, Switzerland – Monday May 9, 2011

Centre de Conférences de Varembé (CCV), Salle/Room A

9-11 Rue de Varembé, Geneva, Switzerland

Preliminary Agenda13:30 – 14:00 Coffee

14.00 – 14:15

Welcoming Remarks

• Ms.ZoubidaAllaoua(ActingCGChair),Director, Finance Economics & Urban Department, Sustainable Development Network, the World Bank

• Mr.AlanMarch(CGCo-Chair),Assistant Director General, Humanitarian and Peacebuilding Branch, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

• Ms.MargaretaWahlström,Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction, UN/ISDR

14:15 – 14:25 Introduction Statements by New Partners and Members

14:25 – 14:40

Adoption of Agenda and Minutes of 9th CG Meeting [Annex A]

The GFDRR Secretariat will report on the actions taken on key decisions from the 9th CG meeting.

Session moderated by:

• Ms.ZoubidaAllaoua

Presented by:

• Mr.SarojKumarJha, GFDRR Program Manager

14:40 – 15:40

Evidence of GFDRR Impact in Priority Countries based on Results Framework [Annex B]

The Secretariat will update the CG on the status of priority country DRR and CCA programs and present the findings of the GFDRR Results Framework, which was endorsed at the 9th CG.



Presented by:

• Mr.MichelMatera,GFDRR Track II Team Leader

• Mr.AyazParvez,GFDRR Results Management Specialist15:40 – 15:50 Coffee

Agenda / 3

Preliminary Agenda

15:50 – 16:30

Evidence of GFDRR Impact in Priority Countries based on Results Framework

- Looking Ahead - [Annex B]

Based on the findings of the Results Framework, this session will discuss the needs for more effective oversight of the results management system. The session will also consider whether the current GFDRR-specific model can be further refined and replicated into a more generic, pre-programmed “Global DRM Results Model”.


• Mr.AlanMarch

Presented by:

• Mr.SarojKumarJha

• Mr.AyazParvez,GFDRR Results Management Specialist

16:30 – 17:10

Options for strengthened GFDRR Engagement with Civil Society [Annex C]

This session will discuss options for strengthened GFDRR civil society engagement throughout GFDRR’s operations.



Presented by:

• Mr.RobertReid,GFDRR Partnership and Strategy Officer

17:10 – 17:50

Strategic Discussion on Resource Mobilization for GFDRR Operations

[Annex D]

This session will take stock of current status of GFDRR funding and discuss how to mobilize additional resources for GFDRR’s operations.


• Mr.AlanMarch

Presented by:

• Mr.SarojKumarJha17:50 – 18:00 Closing Remarks18:00 – 19:00 Reception hosted by Australia

Events ContactRobert Reid, Strategy and Partnerships Officer, GFDRR

Phone: +1 202- 473-7194

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Annex A: Summary of Discussions9th Consultative Group Meeting

Washington D.C., USA, October 6th – 7th, 2010

The 9th meeting of the Consultative Group (CG) of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) was held on October 6th – 7th, 2010 in Washington, DC, United States of America (USA). The meeting was chaired by Ms. Inger Andersen, Vice President, Sustainable Development Network, World

Bank, and co-chaired by Mr. Hiroki Owaki, Deputy Director-General, International Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan.

Opening the meeting Ms. Inger Andersen highlighted how the growing GFDRR partnership is an expression of the global demand to find collective solutions to reduce disaster risks and respond to challenges more rapidly. Mr. Hiroki Owaki highlighted the need to make further efforts to allow GFDRR to play a more effective role in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action.

As the host of the event, Mr. Dirk Dijkerman, Assistant Administrator, USAID, welcomed the participants, expressed pleasure at USA being a new member and referred to the next two days of the CG meeting as an opportunity to get to the heart of the issues of DRR programming and policy and to learn from the network. Ms.MargaretaWahlström,Special Representative of the Secretary-General for DRR, UNISDR, also made an opening statement, expressing pleasure that the partnership is pushing the DRR agenda forward rapidly and strengthening partnerships among key stakeholders.

Also attending the meeting were representatives of Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Den-mark, Egypt, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Haiti, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (UK), United Nations Devel-opment Program (UNDP), UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), United States of America, Vietnam, Yemen, and the World Bank. The meeting was hosted by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

A summary of key decisions taken for the GFDRR Secretariat to follow-up on are also summarized in the Chair’s and Co-Chair’s closing statement attached along-side with the list of participants (Annex I).

Reducing Vulnerability to Natural Hazards

http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/9cg_agenda

ANNEX A: Summary of Discussions – 9th Consultative Group Meeting / 5

KeydecisionsandActionPoints

The Economics of Effective Prevention Report - Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters

1. Ms. Marianne Fay (World Bank), Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, explained that while the study on the economics of DRR could not come up with one figure to ‘sell’ the idea of preven-tion, it provides common sense recommendations and is an instrument that can be used to convince key decision-makers to support prevention efforts.

2. Mr. Apurva Sanghi (GFDRR) presented the study on the economics of disaster risk reduction , “Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters: the Economics of Effective Prevention” which is a joint World Bank-United Nations study funded by GFDRR donors intended to influence the broader thinking related to disaster risks and disaster occurrence, raise awareness of the potential to reduce disaster costs, and provide guid-ance on the implementation of disaster risk reduction interventions. This study has since been launched and can be accessed here.

3. A dissemination strategy for the Economics of Effective Prevention Report (Natural Hazards, UnNatural Disasters) will be shared with CG members in anticipation of implementation at the country and regional levels once finalized in the coming weeks.

4. Key messages from the Economics of Effective Prevention Report will be used for national policy dialogues to leverage significant policy level changes in national development agendas.

GFDRR Priority Country Perspective

5. Priority country presentations illustrated the impact of GFDRR actions at the country level, and confirmed the progress made in elevating the DRR agenda, thanks to stronger economic evidence, strengthened policy dialogue and enhanced national capacities.

6. While increasing the pace of country program implementation, GFDRR will foster stronger interaction amongst all multilateral and bilateral development partners on the ground for enhanced donor coordination and comprehensive investment in disaster risk reduction.

Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development Cooperation

7. GFDRR has established a solid base to advance DRR mainstreaming in development policies and pro-grams.

8. GFDRR will continue to develop the paper on mainstreaming practices for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into development cooperation for publication in early 2011.

9. Moving ahead, GFDRR will adopt concrete measures with the UN, the EC and other counterparts to as-sist our developing country partners more proactively to integrate DRR into their development cooperation programs.

http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/sites/gfdrr.org/files/2.EDRR_Presentation.pdf

http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/NHUD-home


10. In partnership with the World Bank Climate Change team, GFDRR is in the process of developing web-based country climate change adaptation profiles for its 31 priority countries, to enhance the CCA and DRR linkages in national programs.

11. GFDRR will come up with PDNA guidance notes that link post-disaster reconstruction planning with cli-mate change measures.

Increasing harmonization and collaboration amongst key development partners

12. GFDRR will ensure that the GFDRR DRM experts being hired in the 31 priority countries will take action to promote in-country donor coordination, which is already included as part of the ToR.

13. GFDRR will explore avenues to increase coordination with civil society.

Post-Disaster Needs Assessments as a tool for longer term disaster-resilient development

14. GFDRR will use the lessons learned from past PDNAs and recovery programs to propose concrete ac-tions to enhance partnerships with UN and other stakeholders along a harmonized PDNA framework.

15. GFDRR will work on the mechanisms to establish rosters of pre-identified, qualified and trained PDNA experts, and to intensify capacity development in PDNA, specifically at country level but also within regional and international organizations and agencies.

16. Another priority action will be to establish strategic and operational linkages between the reconstruction process and the larger developmental planning. In this context, GFDRR is planning to organize the first World Reconstruction Conference in cooperation with the ISDR Global Platform in May 2011.

17. The objective is to spearhead a dedicated global initiative for sharing lessons to increase the effectiveness of reconstruction and recovery interventions. The analytical work carried out in preparation of the confer-ence and its findings will build a strong basis for a World Reconstruction Report.

GFDRR Results-based Disaster Risk Reduction

18. CG adopted GFDRR’s Results Framework and a plan to operationalize the results-based approach in GFDRR operations.

19. Some CG members made suggestions for further improvements, including the choice of a baseline, which the Secretariat will take into account, and will continue bilateral discussions with CG members during the operationalization of the new results framework.

20. A monitoring report will be submitted at the end of Q1 2011 and an evaluation report on program out-comes during Q2 (May 2011) will be presented to the CG.


GFDRR’s financial status: Donor Pledges, Contributions and Resource commitments

21. While roughly 35% of funding has already been mobilized for Track II and Track III programs, more funds are needed to fill the gap.

22. GFDRR will continue to scale up its resource mobilization to meet the funding gap. Fast Start Climate Change Funding is one source of funding that may be used to fill the funding gap, and the new pledge from Luxembourg, from its fast-start commitment is a first step in this direction.

23. To make the case to leverage further climate change funding, the GFDRR Secretariat should support CG donors to justify this approach to their respective ministries.

24. In terms of contingency plans, if the funding gap persists, GFDRR may need to consider pushing ahead those country programs where good progress is being made, while additional financing for the remaining country programs is secured.

Other follow-up action points from CG side-events:

Knowledge and Innovation Agenda

25. GFDRR will further strengthen production of relevant knowledge for DRM program excellence, knowledge generation through research, physical products such as handbooks and best practice guidance notes, new technical tools, and evidence based project reporting.

26. GFDRR will increase its effort to provide a global platform for continuous exchange and interoperability through its GFDRR Knowledge Portal in order to make global DRM KM more accessible through a well understood taxonomy, facilitate on-line access through fewer entry points and simplified metadata and repository systems, and share and maintain knowledge through a minimum of formal procedures and stan-dardized Knowledge Product templates and formats.

27. GFDRR will promote innovative risk assessment approaches like development of demand-driven multi-sectoral applications and tools focusing on decision-making for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). This will create a framework for technical interoperability in support of ongoing risk assessment projects.

28. An action plan with concrete recommendations to grow the knowledge agenda will be prepared. A follow up session on the knowledge agenda will be convened in the next six months.

Forum of International Financial Institutions

29. GFDRR will scale up its collaboration and harmonization efforts with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) on DRR for lasting and tangible results at the global, regional and country levels. GFDRR will create an online portal which will facilitate ongoing exchange of information between IFIs.

30. As follow-up to the IFI Roundtable in Kyoto in May, GFDRR is coordinating efforts to prepare a joint IFI publi-cation that outlines activities of each Multilateral Development Bank in the area of disaster risk management.


Closing

31. GFDRR partners’ presence and active engagement in GFDRR Forum is a ringing endorsement of the real added value that this partnership brings.

32. Mr. Hiroki Owaki of Japan, as the out-going Co-Chair, thanked the CG for the dedication in support of the GFDRR mechanism.

33. Australia was nominated as the new GFDRR Co-Chair and Mr. Chris Tinning, Assistant Director-Gener-al, Development Partnerships Branch, AusAID, thanked Japan, as the outgoing Co-Chair and outlined the key issues Australia as the new Co-Chair would like to take up in the coming 12 months: (1) Define new and effective ways of increasing the level of investment and political commitment for DRR; (2) Pursue the increased integration of DRR and CCA into development programs; (3) Improve stakeholder coordination at the international level; (4) Finalization and implementation of the RF; (5) Securing additional resources to support GFDRR delivery of the work program in 2012; and (6) Ensuring that GFDRR meets its gender dimensions as outlined in the Partnership Strategy.

34. Ms. Zoubida Allaoua, Director, Finance, Economics and Urban Development Department, World Bank (Acting Chair) made a closing statement and emphasized that the World Bank is honored to host the Global Facility and will continue to play an active role in this partnership.


Annex I. List of Pariticpants GFDRR 9th CG Meeting, October 6th-7th, 2010, Washington, DC

COUNTRY REPRESENTED BY TITLE

Consultative Group Partners

Australia Mr. Chris Tinning Assistant Director-General, Development Partnerships Branch, AusAID

Ms. Shireen Sandhu Director, Humanitarian Policy Section, AusAID

Ms. Lisa Staruszkiewicz Manager, Disaster Risk Reduction, AusAID

Bangladesh Dr. Muhammad Abdur Razzaque Minister, Ministry of Food and Disaster Management

Brazil Mr. Elter Nehemias Santos Barbosa Secretary, Coordination of International Actions for Fight Against Hunger, Ministry of External Relations

Canada Mr. Jason Hollmonn Counselor/Advisor, Canadian Executive Director Office, IADB

China Ms. Fu Jing Advisor to the Executive Director, Office of the China Ex-ecutive Director, World Bank

Colombia Dr. Ana Maria Loboguerrero Expert, National Planning Department

Denmark Mr. Martin Enghoff Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Dr. Michael Andersen Head of Section, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Egypt Prof. Magued Ibrahim Osman Chairman, Information & Decision Support Center, Egyp-tian Cabinet

European Commission Mr. Denis Salor Head of unit, EC

Mr. Antonio Pedro Santos de Oliveira Programme Manager, EC

Mr. Bernardo Sala Policy Officer, EU DG Development

Finland Ms. Hanna-Leena Korteniemi First Secretary, Embassy of Finland

Mr. Pekka Vahvanen Counselor, Embassy of Finland

France Mr. Jean-Francois Bonnet Responsible du pole eaux, sols et pollutions, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Germany Mrs. Kerstin Faehrmann Head of Division, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Haiti Mr. Jean Yves Robert Director General, Ministry of Planning

Mrs. Jean-Baptiste Marie Alta Director, Ministry of Planning

Ms. Surena Vaval Yolene Coordinator, Ministry of Planning

Ireland Mr. Laurence Simms First Secretary (Economic), Embassy of Ireland

Italy Min. Stefano Taliani De Marchio Head of the Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Rocco Benito Mandolla Emergency Desk Coordinator, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Japan Mr. Hiroki Owaki Deputy Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Masahiro Ito Deputy Director for Disaster Preparedness, Cabinet of-fice of Japan

Mr. Mio Maeda Senior Coordinator, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Luxembourg Mr. Alex Riechert Sécretaire de Légation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Malawi Mrs. Lillian Ng'oma Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Disaster Management Affairs


COUNTRY REPRESENTED BY TITLE

Mexico Dr. Manuel Osorio Lobato Head, Ministry of Finance

Netherlands Mr. Joris Jurriens Senior Policy Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Norway Mr. Oddvar Kjekstad Advisor, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

Mr. Arman Aardal Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Portugal Mr. Francisco Saraiva First Secretary - Head of the Consular Section, Embassy of Portugal

Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdullah Mohammed Al-Shoaibi Environmental Permits Manager, Presidency of Meteorol-ogy and Environment

South Africa Ms. Nadira Bayat Counselor, Embassy of South Africa

South Korea Mr. Seungho Kim Deputy Ambassador, Embassy of South Korea

Spain Mr. Javier Benosa Head of DRR Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Jose Maria Fuentes Rodriguez Head of Multilateral Institutions Department

Sweden Mr. Per Byman Team Director, Sida

Mr. Patrick Mathias Kratt Deputy Director, Sida

United Kingdom Mr. Tim Nicholas Waites Humanitarian and Disaster Risk Reduction Adviser, DFID

United States of America Dr. Dirk Dijerkman Assistant Administrator, USAID

Dr. Ayse Sezin Tokar Senior Hydro-meteorological Hazard Advisor, USAID

Mr. Andrew Kent Program Operations Specialist, USAID

Vietnam H.E. Hoc Xuan Dao Vice Minister, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment

Mr. Dam Thanh Nguyen Specialist, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Yemen Ms. Fatima Asrar Head of Congressional and Economic Affairs, Embassy of the Republic of Yemen

Organizations

GFDRR Mr. Saroj Kumar Jha Manager, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Re-covery

IFRC Mr. Matthias Schmale Under Secretary General, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

UNDP Mr. Maxx Dilley Chief, Disaster Reduction and Recovery Team, UNDP BCPR

UNISDR Ms. Margareta Wahlstrom Special Representative of the Secretary-General for DRR

Mr. Marc Gordon Head of Donors and Partnership Unit

Mr. John Alexander Harding Head of Economic Policy Unit

World Bank Ms. Inger Andersen Vice President, Sustainable Development Network

Zoubida Allaoua Director, Finance, Economics and Urban Development Department

/ 11

Annex B: Extract of GFDRR Results Evaluation (2006-2010) Developmental impact evaluation for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) has hitherto remained relatively un-chartered territory and conventional analysis techniques and data limitations pose significant challenges to-wards meaningful and quantitative results analyses. To meet these challenges, GFDRR’s Central Results Team (CRT) has developed innovative operationalization techniques and a Results Model, particularly for measuring DRM mainstreaming performance.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1. This extract provides an overview of the broad findings and recommendations of GFDRR’s detailed evalu-ation of its DRM results over the 2006-2010 period. A more detailed Executive Summary Report is appended.

2. GFDRR is currently implementing the Results Framework (RF) over a 6-12 month time horizon since its en-dorsement by GFDRR’s Consultative Group (CG) in October 2010. GFDRR has made significant strides towards the operationalization of key DRM mainstreaming indicators included in its RF. The team has created standard business processes for results measurement that have enabled a rapid operationalization of the majority of the Track II indicators and a proportion of key indicators from Tracks I and III.

3. The GFDRR Results Model makes optimum use of the ‘Contribution/Partnership based approach’ for measuring results for its multi-donor, multi-recipient DRM program with a strong focus on measuring both ‘GF-DRR Contributions’ and ‘Country Performance’ towards the mainstreaming of DRR in its priority countries. All mainstreaming results are currently assessed against the HFA priority of “ensuring that disaster reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation”.

4. GFDRR’s CRT has set up an in-house results management mechanism to ensure that the evaluations carried out are objective, transparent, and arbitrate the subjective aspects of the evaluation process. This en-tailed the setting up of a Rules Setting Committee (RSC) consisting of both internal and external subject matter experts to provide independent oversight of the results measurement processes and performance crite-ria. The first meeting of the RSC, chaired by an external expert, took place on April 14, 2011 and was attended by representatives from all 3 GFDRR Tracks and the GFDRR Program Manager.

5. Parameters for assessment of country DRM performance are based on: (a) Country self-reported HFA scores (on a level of 1-5) for corresponding (selected) indicators and by setting a threshold of 4, signifying ‘substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources’ (b) DRR budget-



ary allocation in the National Development Budget during the 2006-2010 period, and (c) integration of DRR into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and Country Assistance / Partnership Strategies (CASs/CPSs) during the same period.

6. The analysis of GFDRR contribution is based on a quantitative assessment of: (a) GFDRR efforts towards the integration of DRR into country PRSPs and CASs; (b) strategic relevance and financial efficiency of DRR mainstreaming projects in GFDRR’s Track II and III portfolios, and; (c) strategic relevance and financial effi-ciency of DRM projects with mainstreaming contributions in the World Bank lending portfolio.

7. Target Setting for Results: Target setting for this results evaluation is premised on the longer-term strategic goals envisioned under the GFDRR Partnership Strategy (2009-2012) and beyond for a period of 10 years since program inception in 2006. This is in consonance with the generally accepted fact that DRM, being an evolving and relatively new area of developmental activity, would only take root and show real impact in the longer term.

KEYEVALUATIONFINDINGS

Track I – The Global and Regional Cooperation Program

8. GFDRR has ensured significant growth and diversification of its partnership, financing base and governance structure, as advised by the CG. Over the 2007-10 period:

a. the total number of formal CG members increased 5 fold to a total of 26.

b. the number of its developed country partners has risen from 5 to 21

c. the number of developing country partners has increased from none to 15

d. the number of partners from international organizations has increased from 2 to 6

e. FY2010 saw the first de-veloping country, Brazil, to become a GFDRR donor.

9. This broadening and strengthening of the GFDRR partnership is one of the intermediate indicators that supports Track I’s overall mission to enhance donor co-ordination and aid effective-ness on DRR, in support of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action.

ANNEX B: Results Framework Findings / 13

Track II – The Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming Program

10. There has been an increase in the number of priority countries with a budget for DRR initiatives, with 66 % of GFDRR priority countries reporting having an annual budget for DRR in 2010 compared to 34 % in 2006.

11. It appears that GFDRR has satisfactorily achieved the mainstreaming targets envis-aged by it for the program period 2006–2010. GFDRR’s results-based analysis reveals that GF-DRR has satisfactorily contributed towards the DRR mainstreaming objective of ‘ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation’ in 84% of the number of priority countries it had targeted (using a linear tar-get) to achieve such impact by the year 2010–11. The corresponding result for the same indicator us-ing a differential target stands at 140%.

12. The analysis also reveals that 39% of GFDRR’s priority countries have made significant prog-ress towards the DRR mainstreaming objective of ‘ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation’. This is manifested in the increase in the percentage of priority countries with substantial DRR mainstreaming from 6% in 2006 to the current value of 39%.

13. As shown in the chart above, while GFDRR has made significant progress on certain fronts such as the institutionalization of risk assessment tools in its priority countries, it is evident that more emphasis needs to be placed towards advancing other initia-tives such as safe schools and hospitals and disaster risk financing initiatives.

a. Risk Assessments: 68 % of priority countries now meeting the performance criteria set for this indicator, compared to 13 % in 2006. GFDRR contribution has been important in 55 % of prior-ity countries.

b. Early Warning Systems: 84 % of priority coun-tries now have made investments in strengthen-ing their early warning systems, up from 26 % in 2006. 45 % of priority countries have these sys-tems supported by GFDRR.

c. Disaster Risk Financing and Insurance: GFDRR has introduced or leveraged innovative

GFDRR Performance on Program Outcome Indicators vs. 2010 Targets

GFDRR Contribution vs. GFDRR Mid-Program Linear Target (FY 2010)

% of GFDRR Priority Countries where

GFDRR hascontributed

satisfactorily tooverall DRM

Mainstreaming, 84%% of GFDRR Priority Countries

that institutionalize safer school and

hospital designs and operations: 6%

% of PriorityCountries which have adopted innovative risk

financing frameworks: 45%

% of PriorityCountries which have invested in strengthening

their early warning and emergency preparedness

capacities: 90%

% of GFDRR Priority Countries that have institutionalized and utilized disaster risk

assessments for improved DRR:

110%

HFA priority of “ensuring that disaster reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation”

GFDRR Contribution Toward Priority Countries5. PCs where GFDRR

Contribution Led to DRR Integration into PRSPs

% of Priority Countries where GFDRR has Contributed

Significantly Towards OverallDRR Mainstreaming

6. PCs where GFDRRContribution Led to DRR

Integration into CASs

7. PCs in GFDRR Portfolio Delivering/Starting to Deliver Intermediate Outcomes towards DRR Mainstreaming

26%

42%45%

30%

HFA priority of “ensuring that disaster reduction is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation”

GFDRR Performance for Priority Countries3. Increase in Number of PCs that have Integrated DRR into

their PRSPs (2006–2009)

9. PCs that Self-Report with UN-ISDR as having made

‘Substantial Achievements’ toward mainstreaming

4. Increase in Number of PCs that have Integrated DRR into their

CASs (2006–2009)

32%

58% 52%


GFDRR Contribution Toward CCA Mainstreaming

GFDRR Contribution Toward CCA Mainstreaming

5. PCs where GFDRR Contribution Led to CCA Integration into PRSPs

7. PCs in GFDRR Portfoli with Projects that areDelivering/Beginning

to Deliver towards CCA Mainstreaming

6. PCs where GFDRR Contribution Led to CCA Integration into CAAs

13%

26% 29%

20

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

57

1615

15

10

5

0

Number of Disaster-hit Countries that Requested GFDRR Assistance

work and/or knowledge products in 16 priority countries (52 %), while it has been able to introduce innova-tive risk financing strategies in 3 priority countries (10 %) since 2006.

d. Urban Development Planning: 35 % of priority countries have integrated DRM into their urban develop-ment planning. GFDRR has significantly contributed in 3 of these priority countries (10% of total), while it also supported 6 countries (19%) in conducting Urban Risk Assessments.

e. Safe Schools and Hospitals: Only 1 priority country (Nepal) has institutionalized safe schools programs with GFDRR support.

14. According to early estimates (that are still be-ing finalized), the GFDRR portfolio is beginning to deliver CCA/CRM mainstreaming results in around 26% of its priority countries. A preliminary analysis, essentially reflecting work in progress, on the results on GFDRR’s performance on CCA mainstream-ing shows that GFDRR has played a significant role in mainstreaming CCA into both PRSPs and CASs with a substantial achievement level in 13% and 29% of priority countries respectively. Overall, a correspond-ing 42% and 39% of priority countries have integrated CCA into their PRSPs and CASs respectively.

Track III – Sustainable Recovery Program / Standby Recovery Financing Facility (SRFF)

15. GFDRR has assisted post-disaster recovery in 43 disaster events over FY08-11, with the number of GFDRR disaster responses per year having increased at least 3 times.

16. In low-income disaster-hit countries (with more than 5000 people affected per disaster), GFDRR assistance has grown from around 10 % to 36 % - which marks a threefold increase over FY08-11. However, GFDRR post-disaster as-sistance is not limited to low income countries. For example, GFDRR has provided rapid post-disaster assistance to countries such as Jamaica, China, Fiji, El Salvador, Indonesia, Philippines, Saudi Ara-bia, South Africa, Albania, Barbados, Guatemala and Brazil.

17. Since FY08, GFDRR has provided timely and targeted trainings across the globe in the use of post-disaster damage, loss and needs assessments. Since FY 2007, almost 2,500 indi-

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

14%

12%

181614

1210

8

64

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

% of Post-Disaster Countries where Trainings and Workshops wereConducted to Improve In-Country Recovery Capacities

n 4%

n % of post-disaster countries where trainings and workshops were conductedTotal number of trainings

n 6%

n 8%

n 13%

20

14

9

6

0

16

ANNEX B: Results Framework Findings / 15

viduals have been trained in 45 separate trainings, out of which 19 trainings (42%) have been in post-disaster countries. FY 2010 saw the largest number of individuals being trained in-person, with over 1000 individuals gaining increased expertise in post-disaster recovery. Furthermore, 37 online courses have trained over 2200 individuals in the broader DRM community since February 2010.

THE WAY FORWARD & SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR CG REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT

The Way Forward on GFDRR Results Management

18. GFDRR is in the process of establishing mechanisms for improved data gathering and indepen-dent validation of results on the ground. Besides improvement of the RBMS to capture project-level results information, an independent M&E agent is being engaged for project-level corroboration of results and operationalization of country-level DRM results frameworks.

19. GFDRR’s Results Monitoring System can be used as a decision support tool for the CG to progres-sively review and determine: (a) the selection of priority countries; (b) areas for deepening GFDRR’s portfolio in selected countries, and; (c) possibilities of GFDRR disengagement in specific countries.

Recommendations on GFDRR Portfolio Management – based on Preliminary Results Analysis

20. GFDRR, with support from its donors and wide range of partners, needs to significantly scale-up its investments and efforts towards institutionalization of disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation in both countries of relative success and those in which GFDRR contributions are not currently rated as signifi-cant.

21. GFDRR needs to increase evidence-based country dialogue to elevate DRR and climate adapta-tion agenda in PRSPs and other national development plans as around 40% of GFDRR’s priority countries have not sufficiently mainstreamed DRR in their PRSPs. Even in the 39% of priority countries that have made significant progress towards overall DRR mainstreaming, only about half have sufficiently main-streamed DRR in their PRSPs.

22. GFDRR to deepen cooperation with sectoral ministries to support implementation of the 5 priori-ties of the HFA as around 60% of GFDRR’s priority countries have not been able to achieve adequate levels of overall DRR mainstreaming and need to take action on multiple fronts. This not only includes heightened ef-forts towards DRR mainstreaming in national development plans, but also the implementation of other sector-level DRM agendas in consonance with HFA priorities.

Proposals for CG Consideration

23. Improved Results Governance Structure: GFDRR’s Results Management Council (RMC) should play a more proactive role towards the quality assurance and oversight of GFDRR’s results operationalization pro-cess. This may require: (a) restructuring of the RMC membership to bring in global M&E experts, rep-


resentatives of donors and civil society organizations as members of the RMC, and; (b) functional streamlining of RMC for strategically guiding the results measurement process, and independently validating GFDRR results.

24. Operationalization of Country Results Frameworks: The planned replication of GFDRR’s results frame-work and model in its priority countries is likely to pave the way for integrated and multi-stakeholder DRM Results Frameworks at the country level. CG endorsement and facilitation of this process shall significantly enhance the likelihood of the adoption of such uniform and integrated DRM results frameworks at the country level. If endorsed by the CG, a critical next step would be for GFDRR to arrange results dissemination and experience sharing events for CG Members.

25. Towards a Global DRM Results Model: The GFDRR Results Model can provide an innovative way forward and a quantification methodology to be considered for adoption by GFDRR partners and donors. The current GFDRR-specific model can be further refined and replicated into a more generic, pre-programmed ‘Global DRM Results Model’. The biggest value-addition of such a model is that it would be able to quantify DRM mainstreaming progress and impacts across all countries, using multiple international standards such as the HFA and climate adaptation standards.

/ 17

Annex C: Options Paper for GFDRR Civil Society Partnership

Context:

1. GFDRR is committed to building on its existing collaborative efforts with civil society in the delivery of the 2009–12 Partnership Strategy1, and guided by the Partnership Charter and the GFDRR Consultative Group (CG). The GFDRR Results Framework also includes an Outcome Indicator on the need to enhance and strengthen GFDRR partnerships with civil society. Recognizing civil society as a valuable resource and the need to utilize their expertise ensuring vital local and community level engagement and insights in DRR, GFDRR maintains the need to support and facilitate policy dialogue between government and civil society.

2. This options paper presents possible areas for GFDRR to strengthen its engagement with civil so-ciety. The aim is to generate focused topics for discussion at the 10th CG meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The objective of this discussion is to provide inputs for the development of a future GFDRR civil society strategy.

3. Through its country-driven Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) approach, GFDRR is leveraging national policy shifts to create an enabling environment for DRR in develop-ing countries. What is needed is to ensure that this country-level DRR framework is translated into local-level policy, action and results, which community-based organisations can play a major role in delivering. In addi-tion to this it is crucial that policy dialogue, at international, national and local levels, encourages strong multi-stakeholder participation, where civil society can promote transparency and accountability, as well as ensure that policies and frameworks are people-centred and grounded by local-level realities. Through its inclusive partnership structure and links to World Bank financing and implementation mechanisms, GFDRR can further facilitate civil society DRR engagement.

Ongoing Activities:

4. GFDRR recognizes the importance of engaging with civil society throughout all 3 business lines: through global dialogue and advocacy (Track I), in the implementation of DRR Country Programs (Track II) and in carrying out Post Disaster Needs Assessments (Track III). Key elements of GFDRR’s engagement with civil society to date include:

1 The 2009-12 Strategy includes a commitment to ‘broaden partnership constituency’ (para.10)



5. Participation and Accountability: International Federation for Red Cross/Red Crescent (IFRC) is invited to participate as regular observers in CG meetings. In addition, the Results Management Council (RMC) has civil society representation, thus allowing for transparency and accountability to its members and stakeholders. GFDRR has also supported UNISDR through Track I to engage civil society organizations in policy dialogue through national multi-stakeholder platforms and at a global level, through the Community Practitioners Plat-form.

6. South-SouthKnowledgeExchange: GFDRR’s South-South Cooperation Program fosters knowledge ex-change amongst developing country governments, research institutions, regional organizations and civil soci-ety to facilitate the implementation of effective disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation solutions to vulnerable developing countries. The program recognizes CSO’s as a valuable resource and utilizes their expertise ensuring vital local and community level engagement. Recent grants included an award to a network of grassroots CSOs in India, Guatemala and Honduras, facilitating the role of women’s leadership in commu-nity based DRR planning and local level resilience work.

7. Global Network of CSOs for DRR & ‘The Views from the Frontline Report’: GFDRR has contributed funding to the Global Network, which is leading a participatory monitoring process to independently assess progress towards the implementation of DRR at the community level. Known as ‘Views from the Frontline’, this ambitious public survey is intended to stimulate constructive debate and cooperation between state and non-state actors. The results of this report, due to be presented at the Global Platform for Disaster Reduction in May 2011, will provide useful information in assessing the impacts of our actions in building resilience and implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action at the community level.

8. Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) and Sustainable Recovery: During the government-led pro-cess of the PDNA and recovery planning, CSO participation in many cases has enhanced policy dialogue and ownership of build back better agenda at the local level. Civil society engagement has also enabled far greater community participation in post-disaster assessment, through crowd-sourcing techniques, such as in the case in the immediate after-math of the earthquake in Haiti of January 2010.

9. Volunteer Technology Communities: GFDRR Labs partners with civil society to bridge the gap between DRR practitioners with technology experts to create Public-Private-People-Partnerships (PPPPs) and deploy new innovative tools in both ex-ante and ex-post DRR. It supports Volunteer Technology Communities (VTCs) such as: the Random Hacks of Kindness initiative2, the Crisis Commons and Civil Society 2.0.3

Looking ahead:

10. In order to realize the potential of its open and inclusive partnership structure, GFDRR proposes to systematize its work with civil society to promote and facilitate people-centred DRR policy dialogue and to foster local-level DRR partnership, action, and innovation. Working in close coordination with World Bank regions and sectors, this approach could also provide the necessary stimulus to leverage further DRR investments in community action from other instruments and mechanisms such as Community Driven Develop-ment Programmes, Social Funds, micro-financing and contingency fund transfers. GFDRR is proposing the following options for increased Civil Society partnerships:

2 For more information on RHOK go to: http://www.rhok.org3 For more information on Volunteer Technology Communities go to: http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/volunteer-technology-communities-

open-development

http://www.rhok.org

http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/volunteer-technology-communities-open-development

http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/volunteer-technology-communities-open-development

ANNEX C: Options Paper for GFDRR Civil Society Partnership / 19

11. Enhancing consultation with civil society organizations for greater accountability and effective-ness. GFDRR will build upon its engagement with civil society in the GFDRR partnership, through key inter-national civil society actors that can bring local level insights and experiences up to the international policy- and strategy-making level. This would also increase the accountability of GFDRR governance. 3 main options are foreseen in this regard:

a) Regular Civil Society Policy Forums in the context of GFDRR Annual Meetings, in collaboration with UNIS-DR and the Community Practitioners’ Platform on Resilience. The policy forum could report to the Consul-tative Group with recommendations for CG consideration and/or,

b) A rotating civil society representative CG member and/or,

c) Increase the number of civil society representative observers.

12. Leveraging the power and reach of civil society organizations in national policy dialogue and local service delivery. GFDRR’s programmatic approach provides a unique opportunity to develop a comprehen-sive capacity development action plan, with the government and other relevant in-country stakeholders. In this context GFDRR will support stronger civil society engagement in a number of possible ways:

a) GFDRR will work to broker a stronger role for civil society during the implementation and future design of these country programs.

b) GFDRR proposes to leverage the power and reach of civil society and community based organizations, including Volunteer Technology Communities (VTCs), to support community-level action and deploy new, innovative solutions for disaster risk management practices and initiatives, in both ex-ante and ex-post engagements.

c) Capacity development and South-South knowledge exchange: by partnering with key DRR knowledge centres, including research institutions and universities, GFDRR will support training activities in DRR practices throughout developing countries, providing the training and development needs of local commu-nities. GFDRR will also continue to promote greater South-South knowledge exchange, with strong CSO engagement wherever possible.

d) Mainstreaming DRR into World Bank civil society activities: The World Bank has a number of programmes already established that support civil society and community based organisations, to which GFDRR will provide cross-support for better integration of DRR. For example, channeling targeted timely support to Community Driven Development programmes and other World Bank investments in livelihoods support programmes could enhance the extent to which DRR is addressed during project design and implementa-tion.

13. Civil society participation in sustainable recovery after disasters: As part of the government-led PDNA and recovery process GFDRR will promote civil society participation along the following lines:

a) Promoting and facilitating increased participation of CSOs in the government-led PDNA and recovery planning process and assisting in PDNA training for civil society and community-based organizations.

b) Support civil society engagement in post-disaster social impact monitoring exercises.


Challenges:

14. GFDRR maintains the need for government ownership in the design and implementation of National Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation Programmes as well as ex-post sustainable recovery, which is the core focus of GFDRR’s work programme. GFDRR will continue to pursue active civil society engagement in all of its priority countries and will act as a broker in order to promote strong policy dialogue between govern-ment and civil society at a national and local level. By maintaining government ownership, the greatest impact can be achieved, and the resulting enabling environments will provide the necessary space for civil society to engage in policy dialogue and support local DRR operations.

15. Funding for civil society engagement. GFDRR Consultative Group may wish to consider scaling up its partnership with civil society, either through the Track II 20% flexible window or the creation of a dedicated financing mechanism to harness civil society potential in DRR.

Measuring progress and impact:

16. Based on the set of options which are chosen from the above menu, it is proposed to develop a specific sub-set of results-based indicators to measure GFDRR progress in civil society engagement.

/ 21

Annex D: GFDRR Resource Management & Mobilization

The GFDRR Consultative Group in 2009 agreed to a country-led programmatic approach in 31 priority countries. In addition GFDRR’s Standby Recovery Financing Facility has been increasingly called upon by countries to support Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNAs). Enhanced activity is also taking place in support of climate change adaptation as delivering tangible climate risk management solutions becomes an increasingly urgent prior-ity for developing countries. GFDRR’s business model is already delivering on the Cancun Adaptation Framework and GFDRR is strengthening its climate risk management portfolio to facilitate climate-smart disaster risk reduction and recovery.

GFDRR’s current financing situation is as follows:

GFDRR’s budget outlay for Tracks II & III between 2010 and 2012 is US$ 293M.

Towards this overall budget US$ 101M has been pledged.

This leaves a total financing gap of US$ 192M.

Given the existing budget gap, GFDRR has re-prioritized country programs to match the resources available. In order for the GFDRR Secretariat to scale-up its operations and achieve the anticipated results of the program up to 2012, GFDRR requires more predictable financing going forward. GFDRR requests the CG to consider opportunities to support GFDRR operations from humanitarian, development and climate change adaptation budget lines to meet these concrete funding needs.

Track I: Financed through the World Bank’s Development Grant Facility (DGF), Track I supports global and regional advocacy, partnerships and knowledge management for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction, in partnership with UNISDR. DGF has financed Track I with US$ 5M annually since FY 2007. In FY 2011 this budget was reduced down to US$ 4.25M due to new World Bank policy to phase-out of longer term DGF engagements. The final year of DGF funding is anticipated in FY 2013, therefore a future funding gap for Track I engagements is anticipated.

Track II: GFDRR’s fiscal envelope for 2010-2012, endorsed by the Consultative Group in 2009, was budgeted at US$ 248M for Country Programs of the 31 priority and donor earmarked countries, and a 20% allocation to flexible grant making to support knowledge management and global and regional initiatives. As of January 1, 2011, donor pledges to GFDRR Track II to implement the envisaged Country Programs amounted to US$ 85M (of which US$ 75M has been contributed), leaving a financing gap of US$ 163M.



Track III: The Standby Recovery Financing Facility has been increasingly called upon by countries to support PDNAs and planning for DRR late recovery. An estimated US$ 45M for 2010-2012 is required to meet projected Track III business needs, of which US$ 16M has already been pledged.

ACP-EU Single Donor Trust Fund (SDTF): Of the ACP-EU EUR 60M funding, EUR 5M goes into the MDTF, with the US$ 55M going into a separate SDTF to support 3 windows of financing, similar to the 3 Tracks. For the SDTF, all Africa Caribbean and Pacific countries and regional organizations are eligible, so although some funding will go to priority countries, it is not possible to predict at this stage.

Contributions by Donor & Track (as of March 31, 2011)(Expressed in $ million)

Donor Track I Track II Track III Total

Australia 14.3 3.0 17.3 Brazil 1.6 1.6 Canada 3.1 3.1 Denmark 10.6 2.0 12.5 EC 75.5 2.8 78.3 France 1.4 1.4 Germany 13.9 13.9 Ireland 0.4 0.3 0.7 Italy 7.9 0.6 8.5 Japan 12.0 12.0 Korea 1.0 1.0 Luxembourg 6.1 1.3 7.5 Netherlands 6.6 6.6 Norway 5.4 6.7 12.1 Spain 12.2 12.2 Sweden 19.6 6.6 26.2 Switzerland 2.3 1.5 3.8 UK 13.4 13.4 USA 3.0 3.0 World Bank 24.3 24.3 Total 24.3 208.7 26.4 259.3

Results Evaluation – Executive Summary Report / 23

GFDRR Financing Gap

GFDRR 2010-2012 Budget Plan

Global & Regional

Partnerships Country ProgramsDRR in

Recovery Total

(expressed in $ million) Track I Track II (MDTF)

Track II (SDTF)

ACP/EU (SDTF)

Track III Track 1, 2, 3

Budget Envelop 15 170 78 — 45 308

Pledged 15 75 10 68** 16 184

Contributions* 9 68 7 — 14 98

Resource Committed*** 9 58 7 — 11 86

Financing Gap (2 minus 1) excluded ACP/EU

0 (95) (68) — (29) (192)

Annual Donor Contributions

*with Administration Agreement** base on currency exchange rate of 1.24 dollar to one Euro*** Resource committed included central fees and TF program management costNote: Track II (SDTF) covers 11 donor earmarked countries

(Expressed in $ million)

Donor 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Total

Australia 3 2 4 3 3 3 17

Brazil 0 2 2

Canada 2 2 3

Denmark 3 3 2 1 1 1 13

EC 0 2 26 25 25 78

France 1 0 0 1

Germany 9 3 1 1 14

Ireland 0 0 1

Italy 1 3 1 1 1 9

Japan 6 6 12

Korea 1 1

Luxembourg 3 0 1 2 1 7

Netherlands 2 2 2 7

Norway 3 1 3 3 3 12

Spain 3 3 3 3 12

Sweden 8 0 5 9 4 26

Switzerland 1 0 1 1 1 4

UK 2 4 3 1 4 0 13

USA 1 1 1 3

World Bank 5 5 5 5 4 24

Total 8 40 26 35 72 45 32 259

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433, USA

Telephone: 202-458-0268E-mail: [email protected]: 202-522-3227

Special thanks and appreciation are extended to the partners who support GFDRR’s work to protect livelihood and improve lives: ACP Secretariat, Arab Academy for Science,Technology and Maritime Transport, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Haiti, India, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Nations Development Programme, United States, UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Vietnam, The World Bank, and Yemen.

AUSTRALIA BANGLADeSh BeLGIUM BRAZIL CANADA ChINA COLOMBIA DeNMARK eGYPT FINLAND FRANCe GeRMANY

INDIAhAITI IReLAND ITALY JAPAN LUXeMBOURG MALAwI MeXICO The NeTheRLANDS New ZeALAND NORwAY PORTUGAL

SAUDI ARABIA SeNeGAL SOUTh AFRICA SOUTh KOReA SPAIN SweDeN SwITZeRLAND TURKeY UNITeD KINGDOM UNITeD STATeS VIeTNAM YeMeN