harmonisation of the comprehensive disaster management...

Harmonisation of the Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-

2030)

Prepared by: Ms. Saudia Rahat Prepared for: UNISDR Date: December 2016

2

Contents

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) ..................................... 4

1.2 The Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool ..................................... 7

2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Harmonisation ........................................................................................................................................ 12

4. Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 120

4.1 Convergence and Gaps ............................................................................................................ 120

4.2 Terminologies ............................................................................................................................. 124

Source: Author .......................................................................................................................................... 127

4.3 General Observations............................................................................................................... 127

5. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 130

5.1 Including indicators from the SM and Global tools into the CDM Audit .............. 130

5.2 Including indicators from the Sendai Global Targets and Indicators into the CDM Strategy PMF ............................................................................................................................................ 132

5.3 Other Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 132

6. References ............................................................................................................................................. 136

Appendix I – Summary of Priority for Action................................................................................... 138

Appendix II – Stakeholder Feedback and Comments ................................................................... 140

3

List of Tables Table 1: Excerpt of Sendai Monitor Indicators ......................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Logical flow and relationship between the various elements of the CDM audit ........... 8 Table 3: Coverage of other tools by the CDM Audit .............................................................................. 8 Table 4: Key for the degree of convergence between the indicators ................................................ 11 Table 5: Mapping with the Mitigation Component of CDM Audit .................................................. 13 Table 6: Mapping with the Preparedness Component of the CDM Audit ...................................... 41 Table 7: Mapping with Response Component of CDM Audit ........................................................... 86 Table 8: Mapping with Recovery Component of CDM Audit ........................................................ 114 Table 9: % coverage of the Global Targets and Indicators by the CDM Audit ......................... 120 Table 10: % coverage of the Sendai Monitor by the CDM Audit .................................................. 122 Table 11: Questions in the SM tool that are linked to the CDM Audit ........................................ 123 Table 12: Terminologies used in the CDM audit, Sendai Global Targets and the Sendai

Monitor ............................................................................................................................................................ 124 Table 13: Discrepancies in standard, indicator and questions ......................................................... 128

4

1. Background

1.1 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR)

“The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was adopted by UN Member

States on 18 March 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

in Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. The Sendai Framework is the first major agreement

of the post-2015 development agenda, with seven targets and four priorities for action”

(PreventionWeb, n.d.a:1). It commits to build on the progress made by its predecessor - the

Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), as well as previous instruments such as the

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (1999), The Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World

(1994) and the International Framework of Action for the International Decade for Natural

Disaster Reduction (1989) (UNISDR, 2015a:3). The SFDRR also aims to incorporate the

learning and lessons gained from the implementation of these international DRR frameworks,

and as such, according to UNISDR (2015a), the SFDRR incorporates new elements, such as:

(i) Stronger emphasis on disaster risk that requires an integrated and anticipatory

approach, which is strongly reflected in the outcome level statements (Priority for

Action 1, 2 and 3) and goal level

(ii) Promoting DRR as a cross cutting theme and not a standalone sector, hence the

need for an integrated approach as noted at (i),

(iii) Establishing global targets to support the achievement of the four (4) priority for

action (PA) (See summary of the PAs in Appendix I),

(iv) Adopting national strategies and plans to advance the framework

(v) Calling for greater roles and responsibilities at the local levels to advance DRR

(vi) Recognizing the importance of planning for preservation of cultural heritages and

work place from hazards

(vii) Strengthening of monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the priority

areas and the global targets through the Open Working Group (OWG) mechanism

and Inter Agency Expert Group (IAEG) on indicators and terminology relating to

DRR. This group has proposed indicators to measure the achievement of the global

targets as well as indicators to track national level implementation of the SFDRR.

The latter is referred to as the ‘Sendai Monitor’.

1.1.1 The Global Target and Indicators

5

The global targets and indicators are still officially draft, but with work initiated since 2014

(before the adoption of the SFDRR), they are near to final and therefore utilized for this analysis.

There are seven (7) global targets proposed for the SFDRR, which as at 24th March 20161,

include:

Global Target A: Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to

lower average per 100,000 global mortality between 2020-2030 compared to 2005-2015

Global Target B: Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030,

aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between 2020-2030 compared to

2005-2015

Global Target C: Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross

domestic product (GDP) by 2030.

Global Target D: Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and

disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including

through developing their resilience by 2030.

Global Target E: Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local

disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020

Global Target F: Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing

countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions

for implementation of this framework by 2030

Global Target G: Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard

early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by

2030.

There are approximately 120 indicators to measure these seven (7) global targets including

alternative indicators and the sub-indicators for indexes.

1.1.2 The Sendai Monitor

1 Based on negotiations during the Second Session of the Open-ended Inter-governmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology relating to Disaster Risk Reduction held in Geneva, Switzerland from 10-11 February 2016

6

The Sendai Monitor (SM) is considered the national monitoring tool and is also a draft tool that

is close to finalization. It currently outlines core indicators in the form of questions and for

majority of the core indicators; there are sub-questions that support measurement of a focus

area. Some core indicators also have process level indicators. Overall, countries are required to

report on the core indicators, which is the first question (see underlined in the Table 1 below).

There are a total of 141 core indicators covering 26 focus areas that all countries are required

to report on. Collectively, these indicators will allow countries to track the extent to which they

have advanced implementation of the Sendai priorities for action.

Table 1: Excerpt of Sendai Monitor Indicators

Focus Suggested indicators

(Underlined: suggested core indicators that all countries

are expected to report)

(Italic: Global indicators to monitor global target)

Sendai

Priority

for

Action

(PA)

1.Disaster

loss and

impact

A1: Loss Assessment: Does the country have a nationally

authorized loss and damage assessment

guideline/methodology? (Y/N)

If Yes, is it based on an international standard (such as DALA

and PDNA)? (Y/N). If yes, specify the standard.

PA1 (d)

2. Risk

Identification

and socio

economic

analysis

A12: Social vulnerability assessment: Are local governments

required to regularly monitor the location and conditions of

vulnerable households and communities? (Y/N)

If Yes, is gender analysis included in the assessment? (Y/N)

Process: % of local governments that have a mechanism to

monitor vulnerable households and communities at

municipality level

PA1 (b)

7

1.2 The Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool

The Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool, hereafter called the CDM audit,

was developed by the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) and was

intended to replace the Disaster Management Audit that CDEMA had used in the past for

assessing CDM capacity at national and regional levels (Baastel, 2011). The CDM Audit is

designed to enable the CDEMA Coordinating Unit to assess the capacities of its Participating

States (PS) and regional specialized agencies working to advance disaster risk management,

including the CDEMA CU itself, to advance all phases of the disaster management cycle.

“The logic behind the development of the [CDM audit] was to compartmentalise and detail at

every step; i.e. for each Phase [of Disaster Management], a number of Components were

developed, for each Component, a number of Key Elements were laid out, and for each Key

Element various Sub-elements were found. Then, for each Sub-element, a regional Standard was

discussed and agreed upon, as was every set of indicators linked to each Sub-element that would

then inform the development of questions to be integrated into the Questionnaires” (Baastel,

2011:7). See Table 2 below.

Another key goal guiding the development of the CDM Audit was to reduce the reporting burden

on CDEMA PS by collecting and storing information that are relevant to national, regional and

international reporting needs. Therefore, at the time of the development of the CDM Audit, the

Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) Monitor was in existence and a mapping of its indicators

to the CDM Audit was undertaken. Reports indicate that the CDM Audit converged with 90%

of the indicators in the HFA (Baastel, 2011). Linkages with other regional and international

DRR-related instruments are depicted in Table 3 below. Linkages with these frameworks allow

the CDM audit to support M&E functions. In fact, if the CDM audit is applied over time across

CDEMA PS (longitudinal data) it can provide data to establish baselines, observe trends and

monitor progress.

To be able to satisfy all these functions, it comes as no surprise that the CDM audit is an

enormous tool, containing approximately 457 indicators (Baastel, 2011) to allow tracking of

the achievement of standards. However, this is only the base tool; data collection, is based on

questionnaires developed for each indicator. Each indicator has approximately1-2 questions,

which means that the CDM audit questionnaire contains an average of 685 questions.

8

Table 2: Logical flow and relationship between the various elements of the CDM audit

Phase Components Key

Elements

Sub-

elements

Standards Indicators

Mitigation Risk

Identification

Hazard

Assessment...

Hazard

Knowledge...

R-

Designated

and

recognized

Regional

focal

points for

up-to-date

knowledge

on all

priority

hazards to

include

both in and

out of

region

research

results.

(Centres of

Excellence

– CoE)...

-Existence of

designated regional

focal points for hazard

knowledge (to include

earthquakes,

volcanoes, hurricanes

(wind storms),

tsunamis, drought,

invasive foreign

animal and plant

disease, and

pandemics).

- Existence of agreed

to certification by

CDEMA for

designation of CoE

-# of CoEs and/or

other regional

institutions generating

CDM and hazard

knowledge (including

in research

programmes and

projects)....

Source: Baastel, 2011:8

Table 3: Coverage of other tools by the CDM Audit

Tool Coverage

(approx.)

HFA Monitor 90%

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Framework for the CDM

Strategy 2007-2012

99%

PAHO’s DRR Self-Assessment Tool 90%

CDEMA Disaster Management Audit 95%

9

Tool Coverage

(approx.)

OECS Benchmark Tool (B-Tool) 60%

Source: adapted from Baastel, 2011:12

10

2. Methodology

Given that there is a new global commitment period for advancing disaster risk reduction, a

mapping exercise of the linkages between the CDM Audit and the Sendai Global Target and the

Sendai Monitor is needed. The overall goal of this consultancy is to support the harmonization

of the global and Caribbean disaster risk reduction frameworks. The specific objectives of this

consultancy are to:

1. Identify common indicators between the CDM Audit Tool and the Sendai Monitor and

Global Targets

2. Identify recommendations for managing differences in measurement type or terminology

of indicators in the CDM Audit Tool for better harmonisation with the Sendai Global

Targets and Indicators

3. Identify recommendations for inclusion of Sendai Global Targets and Indicators at i)

the output level based on the CDM Audit Tool that is specifically for country level

monitoring and ii) the outcome level based on the existing CDM PMF

To achieve these objectives, qualitative content analysis was utilized to identify common

indicators between the Sendai Monitor, the Global Targets and Indicators and the CDM audit

tool. Similar indicators were grouped and special attention was paid to the terminologies and

units of measurements that are the focus of these indicators. Any variances identified in

terminologies or units of measurements were noted, investigated and recommendations for

adjustments to the CDM audit were proposed. A colour coding, as detailed in Table 4, was

assigned to signal the degree of convergence between the indicators. This coding scheme is only

applied to those indicators that express some level of similarities but takes into account the

variation in measurement type and terminologies. For instance: an indicator coded as ‘weak’

(colour = yellow) is similar to the CDM audit indicator in terms of the overall focus but might

be using different units of measurement. On the other hand, an indicator coded as ‘strong’

(colour = red) is closely aligned to the CDM audit indicator in terms of unit of measurement

and variables to be measured.

11

Table 4: Key for the degree of convergence between the indicators

Degree of

convergence:

Strong Moderate Weak

Little to no adjustment

to the CDM audit

indicator is required.

Any small

recommendation

provided is useful but

not critical/urgent

Some adjustments to the

CDM audit indicator are

required. The

recommended

adjustment should be

moderately considered

Key adjustments to the

CDM audit indicator

are required. The

recommended

adjustment should be

strongly considered

Increase in the importance or seriousness of considering recommendations

provided

Source: Author

The mapping also provides the basis for identifying gaps between the CDM audit and the Sendai

global targets and SM. Depending on the extent of the gaps identified, recommendations for the

inclusion of appropriate indicators from the Sendai Monitor and the Global targets into the CDM

Audit (output level) and the CDM Strategy PMF (outcome level) will also be provided (See

Section 5).

Findings were shared at the ‘Regional Consultation Workshop on Harmonisation of the 2014-

2024 Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Strategy and Monitoring and Reporting

System with the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’on 22nd November,

2016 for verification and feedback. See Appendix II for the compiled comments and an

indication of how comments were treated in this report.

12

3. Harmonisation

This section of the report identifies common indicators between the CDM audit and the Sendai

Monitor and Global Targets. This information is depicted in Tables 5-8 below and

recommendations are included in the last column for managing differences in measurement type

or terminology of indicators to strengthen harmonization. It should be noted that a numbering

system was assigned to the CDM audit to allow for easier referencing.

Table 5: Mapping with the Mitigation Component of CDM Audit

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment

Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2

Global Targets and Indicators Sendai Monitor Comments and Recommendations3

1. Hazard Knowledge

M1. R- Designated and recognized Regional focal points for up-to-date knowledge on all priority hazards to include both in and out of region research results. (Centres of Excellence – CoE)

M1.1. Existence of designated regional focal points for hazard knowledge (to include earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes (wind storms), tsunamis, drought, invasive foreign animal and plant disease, and pandemics).

M1.2. Existence of agreed certification by CDEMA for designation of CoE

M1.3. # of CoEs and/or other regional institutions generating CDM and hazard knowledge (including in research programmes and projects).

M1.4. Evidence that regional CoE generate hazard knowledge and acquire up-to-date hazard knowledge generated out of region that is considered useful

M2. Recognized national Hazard Catalogue

M2.1. Existence of a record of historical hazard events

G-9 Number of countries that have disaster loss databases publicly accessible

A2: Disaster Loss Database

A2 is concerned with tracking both small-scale and large-scale events. G-9 is primarily concerned with accessibility of information and the focus is disaster loss. The CDM PMF is also concerned with small and medium scale events.

2 This part denotes where indicators developed for the New CDM Audit Tool (2011) are linked to indicators (or questions) in other Frameworks or Tools such as the Sendai Monitor and The Global Targets and Indicators. 3 Comments are specific to the unit of measurements, terminologies and scope of the indicators mapped. Recommendations are provided to enhance linkages and compatibility across the indicators.

14


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


Recommendation: M2.1 can be reframed as: Existence of records of small, medium and large scale historical and current events that is publicly accessible. Note: records should include data on the hazard, loss and damages, date of impact.

M3. Recognized national repository for Hazard Knowledge

M3.1. Existence of a national system of capturing current events

G-9 Number of countries that have disaster loss databases publicly accessible

A2: Disaster Loss Database

Same comment as above. Recommendation: M3.1 can be combined with M2.1. See recommendation to revise M2.1 to also include M3.1. Based on this and discussions at the stakeholder consultation, M3.1 should be deleted from the CDM audit tool.

2. Availability in terms of usefulness

M4. Up-to-date and available hazard information in user-friendly form for the regional, national and local levels.

M4.1. Evidence that hazard information is useful for national and community level CDM planning.

See comments at M5.4. If the recommendation is approved, then M4.1 can be removed from the CDM audit.

M4.2. Evidence that key sectors4 lead agencies consider hazard/disaster knowledge resources (databases/maps/systems/assessment tools) useful for CDM planning and decision-making.

4 Throughout the document, key sectors include health, tourism, education, agriculture, civil society, environmental planning etc. and it is expected that other sectors will be added, in time.

15


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


M4.3. Evidence that hazard assessments consider the influence of human activities. E.g. change in land-use on the impact of hazards

M4.4. Relevant information on disasters is available and accessible at all levels (regional, national and local), to all stakeholders (through networks, development of information sharing systems, websites etc)

G-5 Number / percentage of countries that have [multi-hazard national risk assessment /risk information with results in an accessible, [understandable and usable] format for stakeholders and people.

Both of these indicators are concerned with ‘relevant information on disasters’ being available and accessible. M4.4 should be able to adequately capture the information required to report on G-5.

3. Hazard Mapping

M5. GIS based hazard mapping is produced at the appropriate scales and resolutions for use at the local and national levels.

M5.1. # of countries whose data management analysis and information dissemination software have GIS capability for mapping and modelling

A15: Open data platform

A15 includes a question on whether the platform makes use of GIS. Therefore countries completing M5.1 of the CDM audit will be supplying information to answer this question of A15 in the SM.

M5.2. Status of national studies related to the priority hazards (Planned, in progress, completed and made public)

A7: Risk Assessments

A8: multi- hazard risk profile

A11: Risk and hazard maps

A7, A8 and A11 all include a question pertaining to targeted hazards and includes a list of hazards. Recommendation: M5.2 can be restated as # of national studies (by type, status and hazard) Type = (i) risk assessments, (ii) multi-hazard risk profile and (iii) local level risk and hazard maps

16


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


Status = planned, in progress, completed, continuous and made public Hazard = (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c) wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) heavy snow, (g)volcano, (h )drought, (i) forest fire, (j) epidemic, (k) others (specify) This level of disaggregation would provid the requisite information for A7, A8 and A11 and also offer more useful information pertaining to ‘national DRR studies’.

M5.3. # of countries that have identified their priority hazards to be considered in their CDM planning.

M5.4. Evidence that hazard mapping is produced at the appropriate scale to permit their use for development planning and development control



M5.4. unit of measurement is ‘evidence’ that maps are produced at the appropriate scales to be utilized. A8 and A11 all include a question with a list of ways the hazard information can be utilized in development planning. Recommendation: M5.4 can be restructured to be better aligned with the SM indicators, as follows – evidence that hazard maps are

17


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


produced at the appropriate scale to permit their use for development planning (by type). Type of development planning = (a) national DRR strategy, (b) local DRR strategy, (c) spatial & land use planning, (d) building design criteria, (e) structural design of infrastructure, (f) national contingency plan, (g) local contingency plan, (h) DRR plan monitoring and enforcement, (i) economic planning, (j) environment policy, (k) others (specify)”

M5.5. Evidence that local communities, NGOs and other stakeholders participate in the preparation, revision, publication and distribution of hazard maps.

M5.6. Evidence that hazard mapping is considered useful at local and national levels and for key sector users.

The information for local and national levels will be addressed at M5.4. If the recommendation for treatment of M5.4 is accepted then this CDM audit indicator can be adjusted to only capture use by key sectors. The SM does not have indicators related to tracking use of hazard information at the sector level.

18


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


M5.7. Evidence that the products of hazard mapping exercises are centrally stored and accessible to all stakeholders

G-10 -Number of countries that have open data policies and mechanisms to make hazard and risk data accessible and available to all users



A15: Open data platform

M5.7 is focused on products of hazard mapping exercises that is accessible. G-10 is focused on the accessibility of hazard and risk data in the context of policies and mechanisms. A8 and A11 both include a question on whether data is in an accessible, understandable and usable format. Recommendation: M5.7 can be split into 2 indicators: M5.7a: evidence that policies or mechanisms are in place to centrally store data on hazards and risks. M5.7b: evidence that mechanisms (databases etc) contain information on hazards and risks are accessible by the public

M5.8. Existence of methodologies or tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis

The stakeholder consultation questioned the utility of this indicator since it advocates for the development of national methodologies and tools for risk assessments and cost benefit analysis, which exist already. The

19


Sub-elements

Standard Indicators

Linkages2


bigger and more relevant issue is whether the outputs of risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis are used.

4. Hazard Modelling (for all key hazards)

M6. Centres of Excellence with capabilities for hazard modelling

M6.1. Existence of (and use of) regional hazard modelling tools.

M6.2. # of hazards modelled on a regional basis and per country.

M6.3. Types of hazard modelling tools used by countries (flood, wind, tsunami, pest & disease, draught, earthquakes, volcanoes).

M6.4. % of overall NDO budget allocated to modelling tools and activities

M6.5. Evidence that responsibility for hazard modelling has been assigned to a trained national entity

M6.6. Evidence that the modelling tools are integrated or linked and based on the most effective technology and techniques

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages

Global Targets and Indicators Sendai Monitor Comments and Recommendations

5. Physical M7. National CI is identified, GIS mapped and its

M7.1. Existence of a Methodology to conduct Vulnerability Assessments for CI –Critical Infrastructure.

20


Sub-elements


Linkages


vulnerability to priority hazards determined.

M7.2. Evidence that National and Sector vulnerabilities (including for CI, physical assets and airports, seaports and other transport facilities) have been identified and mapped

6. Social M8. National and community profiles and vulnerability assessments are available and updated.

M8.1. # of development policies, plans and programmes developed and implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk.

This indicator is similar to M19.1.

M8.2. # of countries that conduct community profiles.

G-6 – Percentage / Number of local governments that have multi-hazard risk assessment / risk information, with results in an accessible, [understandable and usable] format for stakeholders and people.

A10: Local level risk assessments

A11: Risk and hazard maps.

G-6 is measuring %/# of local governments. A10 and A11 are measuring % of local governments that develop risk assessments and hazard maps, respectively. M8.2 is measuring # of countries. There may also be conflict in terminologies: communities versus local government. Recommendation: noting that local and community can be considered synonyms in some discussions; for DRR it can imply different governance, territorial and social levels (Lavell, 2008). Table 12 contains more information on these terminologies. To promote harmonization, M8.2 should be: % of communities (and/or local

21


Sub-elements


Linkages


governments) with risk profiles that are accessible to all stakeholders.

M8.3. # of countries that base their national development planning on completed HVAs (including identified and evaluated activities likely to increase disaster risks in communities) and CDM/DM/RM plans

E-11 - Number of countries that mainstream DRR into national development planning

B4: Disaster risk reduction and economic development planning

B11: DRR in local development plan

E77 (C69): Rural development planning

B4, B11 and E77 examine whether disaster/climate risks are accounted for in economic, local and rural development plans/planning, respectively. E77 unit of measurement is % of rural municipalities B11 is % of local governments B4 is # of countries Recommendations: M8.3 can be restated as two indicators – M8.3a: # of countries that base their national development plans/planning (economic, social) on disaster risk information (from HVAs, risk assessments etc.) M8.3b: % of local governments (rural and urban municipalities) that base their development plans/planning on on disaster risk information (from HVAs, risk assessments etc.)

M8.4. Frequency of revision of HVAs

7. Economic M9. CDM is integrated in the national macro-economic framework.

M9.1. Evidence that key sector vulnerability assessments are available and updated

Risk assessment includes as a component, vulnerability assessments (UNISDR, 2015b);

22


Sub-elements


Linkages


A9: Sector level risk assessments

therefore collecting data on M9.1 will provide only some of the data for A9. More details on these terminologies are in Table 12. A9 also requires data on the specific sectors. Recommendation: M9.1 to be restated as evidence that key sector vulnerability and risk assessments are available and updated. A listing of the following sectors should also be included to maintain congruency with the SM and the CDM PMF: (a) agriculture, (b) health, (c) energy, (d) water, (e) ecosystem management, (f) housing, (g) public finance, (h) tourism (i) education (j) civil society (k) Finance/Economic Development (l) Physical and Environmental Planning (m) others (specify).

M9.2. # of countries that conducted studies on potential economic losses to the national economy due to events caused by natural hazards (including losses to the Tourism, agricultural and financial sectors)

A7: Risk assessments

A7 includes a question on whether expected economic loss will be assessed including from various sectors. The sectors listed for M9.1 above is also recommended to be included for M9.2 for purposes of standardization..

23


Sub-elements


Linkages


8. Environmental

M10a. Areas Vulnerable to priority hazards are identified and mapped. M10b. Environmental Monitoring Mechanism established for vulnerable areas.

M10.1. # of countries which mandated EIAs that incorporate HVAs and impact of disaster risk to be included in land use planning

E72 (C66): Environment

Impact Assessment (EIA): Is disaster risk issue integrated into environment impact assessment?

M10.2. Evidence that disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans (including land use plans and building codes), natural resource and human settlements management

E26 (C6): Drainage

infrastructure

E27 (C7): Water management

E37 (C54): Land-use regulation policy and planning (including urban planning)

E39 (C55): Building codes

E41 (C56): Building permits

E67 (C65): Ecosystem planning

E68 (C27): Sustainable forest management planning

E69 (C28): Sustainable costal area management planning

10 SM indicators are linked to this CDM audit indicator. Each of the 10 SM indicators is pitched at the policy and planning levels. Recommendation: to strengthen linkages with these SM indicators it would be important for M10.2 to disaggregate information by the following types of policies and plans - drainage infrastructure, water management, land-use, building codes, building permits, ecosystem planning, sustainable forest management, sustainable coastal area management, environmental restoration, ecosystem protection area

24


Sub-elements


Linkages


E70 (C29): Environmental restoration/conservation/enhancement

E71 (C64): Ecosystem protection area

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Risk Assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages


9. National, Communities and Local CI

M11. Regional standards (and tool/ methodology) for Structural VA is available and applied at the national level.

M11.1. # of countries that have conducted a national HVA (and # that used the CDB NHIA)

This key element of the CDM audit should be related to risk assessments and not HVA (as reflected in the indicators). Further, HVA is already addressed above. Majority of the Sendai indicators (global and national levels) utilize the term ‘risk assessment’ which could be due to the fact that by definition, risk assessments include vulnerability assessment (in addition to hazard assessments). Therefore

M11.2. Existence of a HVA methodology/tool for key sectors

M11.3. % of key sector facilities having conducted an HVA

25

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Risk Assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages


many of these CDM indicators only provide partial information for the Sendai indicators.

M11.4. Existence of a methodology to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, especially infrastructure.

M11.5. # of countries that have a standardized and community level HVA process and resources using local knowledge.

M11.6. # and % of communities that have conducted HVA (including Red Cross HVA)

A10: Local level risk assessments

Notable is that the Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) methodology coined by the Red Cross, is more holistic in its

approach. “VCA is a method of

investigation into the risks that people face in their locality, their vulnerability to those risks and their capacity to cope with and recover from disasters” (IFRC, 2007:6). Therefore data on communities that have reported to conduct the Red Cross VCA can be utilized for A10.

26

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Land use planning

Sub-elements


Linkages


10. National standards

M12. National Physical Development Plans integrates vulnerable areas.

M12.1. # of countries with nationally mandated land use planning

M12.2. # of countries with nationally mandated land use planning influenced by the CDM/DM/RM plans

E-10 – Number of countries that have spatial and land use planning mechanisms for DRR.

E37 (C54): Land-use regulation policy and planning (including urban planning)

Strong alignment across these three indicators. M12.2 uses of the term ‘mandated’ which signals policy and laws and therefore it can supply information for E37 (C54).

M12.3. # of countries where land use planning is done at the national level and at the municipal level (as relevant5.)

E37 (C54): Land-use

regulation policy and planning (including urban planning)

E37 (C54) includes a process sub-indicator “% of local governments that have land-use plans that conform to national land use regulation and consider disaster risk at municipality level”. M12.3 can provide partial information for E37(C54). Recommendation: for full alignment, M12.3 can be rephrased as # of countries where land use planning is done at the national level and at the municipal level (as relevant) and conforms to guiding policies.

M13. The national process for land use planning clearly

M13.1. % of mandated communities/local authorities that have a land use plan and or map.

5 This hence refers to the lowest level of government in the country.

27


Sub-elements


Linkages


11. Application and enforcement

defines roles and responsibilities.

M13.2. # of countries with a standardized process for land use planning and enforcement, including defined roles and responsibilities.

M13.3. # of countries which apply and enforce mandated EIAs, VA and HIA in development planning approval process

M13.4. % of countries with indigenous populations that include indigenous zones and issues in land use planning.

12. Zoning M14. Zoning regulations that address Hazard information are applied and enforced.

M14.1 # of countries where planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements (including enforcement of building codes, Investment in drainage infrastructure in flood prone areas, Slope stabilisation in landslide prone areas, Training of masons on safe construction technology, and Provision of safe land for low income households and communities).

E36 (C15): Settlement

upgrading: Does the country have a policy to upgrade informal settlements, including through the provision of basic and risk-reducing infrastructure, mason training, the application of improved technologies and materials


E41 (C56): Building permits: Does the country have a policy in place to take disaster risk into account in the granting of building permits (with respect to siting and building safety)

The entire suite of SM indicators’ unit of measurement is # of countries. Recommendation: the information be disaggregated to suit the data requirements of the SM. Therefore M14.1 can be stated as - # of countries where planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction (by elements) The elements are: Upgrade informal settlements Provision of basic and risk-

reducing infrastructure Mason training Use of improved technologies

and materials Building codes consider disaster

risks

28


Sub-elements


Linkages


E44 (C53): Public sector housing

E45 (C57): Inclusive urban development

E46 (C58): Architect License

Building permits consider disaster risks in the approval process

Design and siting of public housing considers disaster risk

Laws or policies in place that facilitate access to safe land

and risk reducing infrastructure for low-income households

House contractors (engineers and architect) licensing is tied to their qualification in safe building design

M14.2. Status of countries’ zoning regulations. (Planned, in progress, completed)

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Building codes

Sub-elements


Linkages


13. Regional Standard

M15. Regional Building Standards (RBS) are updated and available.

M15.1. # of countries with updated building codes based on the RBS E39 (C55): Building

codes: Does the country have building codes that consider disaster risks?

Comment: The RBS is intended to include DRR considerations given the vulnerabilities of the Caribbean

M15.2. Existence of a completed RBS

29


Sub-elements


Linkages


14. National standards (with emphasis on CI)

M16a. Governments are legally bound by their National building codes. requirements. M16b. Building Codes incorporate hazard impact considerations

M16.1. Evidence that national building codes are legislated

M16.2. Evidence that building codes incorporate hazard impact assessments


E39 is also concerned with the hazards covered by the building codes. Recommendation: M16.2 can be restated as evidence that building codes incorporate impact/risk assessments of multiple hazards. Hazards include: (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c) wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) heavy snow, (g) other (specify)

M16.3. # of countries where Sector CI requirements are factored in the development of their building codes.

M16.4. % of CI (by sector) conforming to existing building codes.

15. Application and enforcement (especially for CI but across all sectors)

M17. All levels of government apply and enforce the provisions of national building codes.

M17.1. Evidence that legislated building codes are enforced for national CI and housing.

B16: Enforcement

B16 explicitly defines enforcement of laws and regulations as evident by sanctions and inspections Recommendation: M17.1 can be restated as evidence (including sanctions, inspections) that legislated building codes are enforced for national CI and housing.

M17.2. Evidence that resources of the regulatory agencies are sufficient for the enforcement of building codes

30


Sub-elements


Linkages


M17.3. # countries with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the monitoring and enforcement of building codes

M17.4. # countries with technical inspections resources to monitor and enforce the application of building codes.

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Safety standards

Sub-elements


Linkages


16. Regional Safety Standards

M18. Regional Safety Standards are available and updated for appropriate sectors.

M18.1. # of countries that have adopted and implemented the PAHO Safe Hospital Program

D-12 – Percentage of health facilities developed under the safe hospital program

M18.1 unit is # of countries D-12 unit is % of health facilities Recommendation: M18.1 can be reframed as % of health facilities that have adopted and implemented a Safe Hospital Program (PAHO or other international recognized standard).

M18.2. Existence of designated regional focal points for the development of safety standards (by sector).

17. National Safety Standards

M19. National Safety Standards are available and updated for appropriate sectors.

M19.1. Evidence that national social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk

M19.2. # of countries with clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the monitoring and enforcement of safety standards.

31

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Safety standards

Sub-elements


Linkages


M19.3. # of countries with safety standards for key sectors. E43 (C59): Work place

resilience

E82 (C35): School assessment and retrofitting

E87 (C37): Health facility assessment and retrofitting

These 3 SM indicators are respectively assessing the % of office and factory; public and private schools and health care facilities satisfying structural safety standards established in policies and/or plans. M19.3 has a different unit of measurement. Recommendation: M19.3 can be restated as % of structures in key sectors designed/retrofitted to meet structural safety standards. Sectors include - businesses (offices and factories), school, health care, agriculture, energy, water. If this change is accepted, this indicator would have to move to the component below on structural mitigation, with a new key element called safety standards.

M19.4. # of countries with a focal point for the development of safety standards for key sectors’ establishments.

18. Application and Enforcement

M20. All levels of governments enforce national Safety Standards.

M20.1. # of countries with a mechanism and resources to monitor the application of safety standards.

M20.2. # of countries applying and enforcing key sector and transportation CI safety standards.

32

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Incentives

Sub-elements


Linkages

Global Targets and Indicators

Sendai Monitor Comments on Terminologies

19. Incentive mechanisms

M21. Regional and national incentive mechanisms to promote mitigation are applied.

M21.1. # of preparedness and mitigation initiatives promoted by national stakeholders in key sectors.

M21.2. # of regional incentive programmes aimed at promoting mitigation by sector.

M21.3. # of countries that have incentive programmes to promote mitigation by the key sectors and for the general population (for individuals and businesses).

E21 (D35): Incentives for

risk sensitive recovery and reconstruction

E38 (C16): Facilitating relocation

E40 (C17): Facilitating housings/buildings retrofitting

E43 (C59): Work place resilience

E70 (C29): Environmental restoration/conservation/enhancement

E76 (C33): Productive asset protection

All SM indicators that are mapped explicitly make mention of the promotion of incentives schemes such as subsidies, tax exemptions to reduce risks and build resilience. Recommendation: M21.3 indicator and associated questions in the audit tool should list the following elements that incentive programs should/can target: home/business/workplace/factory retrofitting, relocation to safer areas, environmental restoration/protection, agriculture (livestock, seedlings, tools, working animals) protection, cultural heritage protection.

33

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Incentives

Sub-elements


Linkages


Sendai Monitor Comments on Terminologies

E93 (C39): Cultural heritage protection

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: New facilities

Sub-elements


Linkages


Sendai Monitor Comments and Recommendations

20. Planning process

M22. New construction, particularly CI is designed according to land use planning guidelines and built to code.

M22.1. Evidence that building permits for CI are issued on the basis of inclusion of land use planning and building code requirements at the design stage

Comment (CDM Audit): Need for a new CDM audit indicator similar to M24.1 but specific to new CI facilities. If this is done, the SM indicators E83 (C60): Safe school construction and E88 (C62): Safe health facility construction would be strongly aligned to this new indicator.

M22.2. # of CI (old and new) planned (by country and sector) and % that include land use planning and building codes requirements in the design.

21. Maintenance

M23. Approval of new CI facilities construction is

M23.1. # of countries that mandate a specified minimum maintenance budget for new CI.

34

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: New facilities

Sub-elements


Linkages



dependent on adequate maintenance provisions.

M23.2. Level of key sector facilities’ yearly investment (in % ) for maintenance provisions

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: Old facilities

Sub-elements


Linkages



22. Retrofitting (coverage of CI)

M24. Existing CI is retrofitted to building codes.

M24.1. Existence of a policy/programme/or planning process to make older CI facilities more resilient (by country and sector)

D-9- Number of states with resilience programmes or strategies for health and education facilities.

E-4 – Number of countries that adopt and implement critical infrastructure protection plan

E22 (C3): Critical infrastructure protection (plan or strategy)

E24 (C4): Infrastructure maintenance: Does the country have life cycle asset management policy or plans for infrastructures (including maintenance and replacement)?

E25 (C5): Roads and transport (policy to strengthen and protect)

E26 (C6): Drainage infrastructure (policy to improve

The unit of measurement for M24.1 (by country) meets the requirement for all the global and SM indicators listed (# of countries). Given that the CDM audit indicator is intended to be disaggregated by sector, the full scope of the SM and global indicators can be captured, once they exist in a country. Recommendation: to ensure that the elements covered by the SM indicators are reported on, M24.1 indicator and associated questions in the audit tool can list the following elements that should be promoting resilience building through

35


Sub-elements


Linkages



waste water and drainage considering climate change)

E27 (C7): Water management (policy to improve water management in high risk areas)

E28 (C8): Government building (policy to strengthen to withstand disasters)

E82 (C35): School assessment and retrofitting

E87 (C37): Health facility assessment and retrofitting

policy/plans/programs : CI protection policy, life cycle management for infrastructures, roads and transport CI, drainage CI, water management, government building, schools, health and other facilities.

M24.2. # of countries with earmarked funding for evaluating structural and non-structural vulnerability of Sector CI facilities and for retrofitting

M24.3. Evidence of Sector participation in the resiliency improvement programme

D-6 – [Number / Percentage] of education or health facilities [removed from risk areas / retrofitted.]

M24.3 is focused on evidence of participation whilst the global indicators are more explicit as to whether facilities have been made more safe/resilient.

36


Sub-elements


Linkages



D-11 – Percentage of education facilities developed under the safe school program

D-12 – Percentage of health facilities developed under the safe hospital program

Recommendation: M24.3 can be restated as #/% of old CI facilities (by type) Type= businesses, school, health care, agriculture, energy, water) benefitting from resiliency improvement programmes, including relocation.

M24.4. # and type of CI facilities identified for safety/ resiliency improvements

Recommendation: there is no linkaged with global or national indicators related to the SFDRR. However, inkeeping with M24.3 and the classifications for ‘type’ and to promote standardization in the CDM audit tool, M24.4 can be restated as # and type (businesses, school, health care, agriculture, energy, water ) of CI facilities identified for safety/ resiliency improvements

23. Maintenance

M25. Adequate maintenance programmes support retrofitted CI.

M25.1. # of countries that mandate a specified minimum maintenance budget for existing (older) CI.

M25.2. # of countries using mitigation measures to protect CI and environmental sensitive areas.

Comment (CDM Audit): this is a broad indicator. Mitigation measures can include incentives, standards,

37


Sub-elements


Linkages



policies, plans etc. – these are all individually covered by the audit tool.

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Financial Measures

Sub-elements


Linkages



24. Public Sector

M26. Public sector assets are insured.

M26.1. Evidence of a region wide mechanism for insuring public sector structures

C-10 – Financial transfer and access to insurance

B18: Regional Cooperation (including for risk pooling or insurance)

E52 (C23): Risk transfer (via intergovernmental risk pools, insurance, reinsurance or catastrophe bonds)

M26.2. Existence of catastrophe bonds and or pools for risk transfer C-10 – Financial

transfer and access to insurance

E54 (C25): Catastrophe insurance

E55 (C26): Micro-finance

E52 (C23): Risk transfer

38


Sub-elements


Linkages



M26.3. # of countries that self-insure their public sector structures E29 (C9): Insurance for

infrastructure

M26.3 should not be placed in this component ‘risk transfer’ as it is a ‘risk retention’ mechanism in risk financing. Recommendations: this component of the CDM audit should be changed from ‘risk transfer’ to risk financing, thereby covering both risk retention and risk transfer mechanisms. See Table 12 for details on these terminologies. Further, there is need for a new indicator “# of countries with risk retention options for financing losses”. If this is accepted, the following SM indicators will be linked to this indicator: E50 (C21): Contingency fund E53 (C24): Contingency Credit E56 (D19): Compensation E51 (C22): Annual budget allocation for contingency

M26.4. # of countries that insure their public sector structures through private policies.

C-10 – Financial transfer and access to insurance

E29 (C9): Insurance for infrastructure

39


Sub-elements


Linkages



25. Private Sector

M27. Issuance of Business licenses is contingent on private insurances.

M27.1. # of countries with a national policy linking issuance and renewal of business licenses with insurance coverage.

M27.2. # of countries where crop insurance is available for farmers. E54 (C25): Catastrophe

insurance

E54 (C25) includes catastrophe insurance related to agriculture/crops

M27.3. % of large and medium hotels with adequate hazard insurance.

M27.4. # of countries where hazard specific insurance is available for individuals (including for mortgages).

M27.5. # of countries where acquisition of insurance for residential properties compulsory by law

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Incentive Measures

Sub-elements Standards Indicators

Linkages



26. Private sector

M28. Loan and insurance are defined by mitigation measures undertaken for

M28.1. # of countries where the insurance sector links premium rates to mitigation measures undertaken by businesses and home owners (including adherence to building code requirements).

40

MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Incentive Measures

Sub-elements Standards Indicators

Linkages



upgrades and constructions.

27. Public sector

M29. Regional programmes link government loan rates to the level of insurance coverage.

M29.1. # of regional lending institutions that link their loan rates and repayment to national hazard mitigation policies and programmes.

41

Table 6: Mapping with the Preparedness Component of the CDM Audit

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Legislative framework

Sub-elements


Linkages



28. National Legislation mandating CDM responsibilities

P1. A National CDM Legislation exists (including legislation on National Emergency).

P1.1. # of countries with drafted/enacted disaster legislation which supports CDM (including mitigation) policies, plans and programmes

B1: DRR legislation

P1.2. Evidence that the National CDM Legislation is adapted to the CDEMA CDM Model Legislation

P1.3. National policy and legal framework for CDM (including HVA) exists inclusive of (decentralised) responsibilities and capacities at all levels

B1: DRR legislation

B1 includes a question on responsibilities across all levels (public, private agencies, local government etc).

P1.4. # countries with disaster legislation that provides for succession of key government officials

P1.5. # of countries with an oversight mechanism for CDM with membership at ministerial level

B8: Parliamentarians

B8 inquires as to whether parliamentarians’ association/committee dedicated to support the implementation of DRR. Parliamentarians include ministerial level representatives.

P1.6. Evidence that climate change issues and adaptation are addressed in disaster legislation

P1.7. Existence of national disaster legislation that establishes a CDM framework committee (DMC)

B12 places emphasis on local government coordination

42


Sub-elements


Linkages



B12: Multi stakeholder coordination

mechancisms for DRR, which is established by law. Recommendation: P1.7 can be restated as “existence of national disaster legislation that establishes DRM committees at various administrative levels (local, national, sectoral).

P1.8. Evidence that the roles and responsibilities of countries’ NEOC members are clearly defined and supported by legislation

P1.9. # of countries with legislation that supports and defines the declaration of a State of Emergency

E16 (D11): A state of emergency

E16 specifically measures whether legal regulation is available to declare a state of emergency

P1.10. # of countries with a common meaning for “State of Emergency”

E16 does not make mention of definition/meaning of ‘state of emergency’

P1.11. # of countries with legislation that supports and defines the declaration of a disaster/disaster area

P1.12. # of countries with a common meaning for “declaration of a disaster/disaster area”

29. Sectoral Legislation

P2. Sector related legislation congruent with

P2.1. # of countries with key sectors related legislation that addresses CDM

43


Sub-elements


Linkages



mandating CDM responsibilities

the CDM Disaster Legislation

P2.2. Existence of key sector legislation that is congruent with disaster legislation.

B1: DRR legislation

B1 includes a question as to whether the sectoral law is required to comply with national DRR law Recommendation: P2.2 can be restated as existence of DRR law/legal framework that requires sectoral laws to comply with the national DRR law/legal framework.

30. Mandated National CDM Framework

P3. National CDM Framework is in place and functional.

P3.1. # of countries with a clearly defined overall CDM Framework comprising of structures, clear responsibilities and procedures for preparedness and response, mitigation and recovery

Comment (CDM audit): What is the CDM Framework? No official definition found in the UNISDR definition of DRR terminologies. How is the CDM framework different from having the legal, policy, strategy, planning and institutional arrangements in place? These are all covered individually in the preparedness component of the CDM audit. The CDM audit should reference/utilize internationally recognized DRR terminologies.

P3.2. # /types of emergency services and utilities represented in the National Disaster System

P3.3. # /types of NGOs represented in the National Disaster System

44


Sub-elements


Linkages



P3.4. Participation in (membership of) the NDO and frequency of meetings

P3.5. Participation in (membership of) the national DMC and frequency of meetings

P3.6. # of countries with legislation that mandates specific organization(s) or agency(ies) as lead and as support for national disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery coordination.

31. Emergency regulations

P4. Countries have drafted emergency regulations to be implemented in the event of a Declaration of a National Emergency

P4.1. # of countries with identified and/or drafted emergency regulations that may potentially be required in the event of a National Emergency and process for its rapid enactment

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Policy framework

Sub-elements


Linkages



32. National CDM National DM Policy

P5. National CDM policy exists.

P5.1. Existence of a National CDM/DM/DRM Policy (by country) Note: neither the Sendai global indicator nor the SM indicators include specific indicators on having DRR policies in place; although, it is

45


Sub-elements


Linkages



Level of implementation

alluded to in several instances in the SM, e.g. A4 and A5.

P5.2. Quality of existing national CDM/DM/DRM Policies (High, medium, low6)

P5.3. Evidence that the national CDM/DM/RM policies contain implementation strategies.

P5.4. Frequency of revision of the CDM/DM/RM policies

P5.5. Evidence that the following CDM related policies have been adopted by countries: -Disaster Management Policy -Disaster Mitigation -Shelter Policy -Recovery Policy -Relief Policy -School Mitigation Policy -Emergency Housing Assistance Policy -Donations Policy

P5.6. Existence of national disaster management policy that is congruent with disaster legislation, has key sectors related provisions (including their representation on the DMC), and provides the related Ministers with sufficient authority/power to lead the sector in CDM

6 High: addresses all 4 criteria: a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change Medium: addresses 2-3 of the 4 following criteria: : a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change Low: addresses 0-1 of the 4 following criteria: : a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change

46


Sub-elements


Linkages



33. Sector-specific CDM policies

P6. Sectors have specific policies congruent with the national CDM Policy.

P6.1. Evidence that CDM is integrated into key national sectors policies

.

P6.2. # of countries whose key sectors lead agencies integrate CDM principles into sector policies, strategies and plans

P6.3. Existence of key sector DMC Committees (DMC sub-committee for the HS) with clearly defined responsibilities

E-5 - Number of countries with cross-sectoral bodies/forums, with clear roles and responsibilities identified across state institutions, civil society, private sector and international actors, in the implementation and review of DRR measures


(P6.3) DMC committees ≡ (E-5) bodies/forums B7 explicitly aims to track sector coordination and roles and responsibilities. P6.3 will provide data in useful format for use by E-5 and B7.

P6.4. Participation of key sectors’ in DM Committees and level of frequency of meetings


B7 includes a question to track # of meeting held annually.

47

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Strategic framework

Sub-elements


Linkages



34. Regional CDM Strategy or Framework

P7. A Regional Strategy Framework to guide CDM implementation.

P7.1. Existence of a Regional CDM Strategy and Framework

P7.2. Quality of regional CDM strategy (High, medium, low7)

P7.3. Evidence that the regional key sectors’ Strategies/frameworks integrate CDM principles

35. National CDM Strategy

P8. Country Strategies and Work Plans detailing their priorities to enhance CDM.

P8.1. # of countries where national (sustainable) development plans/strategies incorporate CDM, climate change and poverty reduction issues

E-3 – Number of countries that [integrate / integrated] [climate and disaster risk / climate change / adaptation] into [development planning / development plan].

E-11 - Number of countries that mainstream DRR into national development planning

B4: Disaster risk reduction and economic development planning

B4 explicitly explores whether DRR and CC are integrated into development planning.

P8.2. Status of development of the National CDM Strategy, CWP and/or programme (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P8.3. Evidence that National CDM strategy, CWP and/or programme are based on hazard mapping, and vulnerability and risk assessments

B2 explicitly mentions whether the national DRR strategy/plans are

7 High: addresses all 4 criteria: a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change Medium: addresses 2-3 of the 4 following criteria: : a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change Low: addresses 0-1 of the 4 following criteria: : a) address all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) include all hazards; and d) address gender and climate change

48


Sub-elements


Linkages



E-1 - Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments.

B2: National DRR strategy and plan

based on ‘risk assessments’ and ‘targeted hazards’. P8.3 will provide data in a usable format for E-1 and B2.

P8.4. Evidence that National CDM strategy, CWP and/or programme are community specific and multi-hazard in context

B2: National DRR strategy and plan

B2 explicitly mentions targeted hazards and use of traditional, indigenous and local knowledge and practices.

P8.5. # of countries with Strategies, CWPs or programmes that are congruent with the Regional CDM Strategy and Framework.

E-1 - Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Note: the DRR strategies need to be based on risk information and assessments.

Recommendation: CDM audit should also measure congruence with the SFDRR since most PS are signatories and there is an effort to strengthen harmonization between regional and international instruments. P8.5 can be restated as # of countries with Strategies, CWPs or programmes that are congruent with the Regional CDM Strategy and Framework and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

49


Sub-elements


Linkages



P8.6. Frequency of revision of the CWPs

P8.7. # of countries using an M,E&R process for CDM implementation (including a PMF).

E-7 - Number of countries and local governments conducting (independent) periodic outcome reviews of the implementation of national and local DRR strategies

F-12 - Number of countries having participated in a voluntary and mutual review of progress in implementing respective national DRR strategies]

B13: National reviews

B14: Local reviews

B13 and B14 are focused on ‘mechanisms’ to periodically assess and report on progress made in implementing national and local DRR strategies, respectively. It can be assumed that these mechanisms will include M&E methodologies. The unit of measurements across all the indicators are compatible.

P8.8. % of overall NDO budget allocated for monitoring and evaluation

P8.9. Quality of reporting produced by NDOs on CDM Strategy and National level CDM programming (High, medium, low8)

P8.10. # of countries which have a CDM reporting mechanism.

8 High: addresses all 4 criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change Medium: addresses 2-3 of the 4 following criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change Low: addresses 0-1 of the 4 following criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change

50


Sub-elements


Linkages



P8.11. # of countries with key sectors whose sector work plans integrate CDM and hazard information

P8.12. Evidence that key sectors’ strategies or frameworks are congruent with the Regional CDM Strategy and Framework.

E-8 - Number of countries that adopt and implement sector specific DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Recommendation: see comment at P8.5. Therefore, P8.12 can be restated as evidence that key sectors’ strategies or frameworks are congruent with the Regional CDM Strategy and Framework and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

P8.13. # of countries where key sectors have CDM strategies or frameworks.

E-4 ter. - Number of sector/hazard specific DRR strategy/plan developed in a country

B3: Sectoral DRR strategy and plan

P8.13 unit of measurement is # of countries. E-4 ter unit of measurement is # of sector/hazard DRR strategies. Similarly, B3 includes a question to list the sectoral plans established. Recommendation: P18.13 can be restated as # of sectors with DRM strategies that cover multiple hazards. Hazards include: (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c) wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) drought (g) other (specify) These list of harzards were noted in the recommendation at M16.2 and is

51


Sub-elements


Linkages



included here for purposes of standardisation.

P8.14. Evidence that the key sectors’ CDM strategies or frameworks are congruent with national strategies, and/or plans

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Planning framework

Sub-elements


Linkages



36. Regional CDM/DM Plans

P9. Comprehensive set of regional plans and a Health Support Plan exist.

P9.1. Status of a regional model and guide for mainstreaming gender in disaster management planning (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P9.2. Status of the Regional Disaster Coordination Plan with Annexes for multi-hazards (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P9.3. Status of the Regional Key Sectors’ Disaster Support Plans (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P9.4. Status of the Regional Model National Disaster Management Plan (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P9.5. Status of the Sub-Regions’ Standard Operating Procedures

52


Sub-elements


Linkages



(Completed, in progress, Planned)

P9.6. Status of the regional logistics plan (Completed, in progress, Planned)

37. National DM Plans

P10. Comprehensive set of national Disaster Management (and/or Response) Plans exist.

P10.1. # countries with an approved National Disaster (and/or Response) Management Plan(s)

G-4 – Percentage / Number of [local] [and national] governments having preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan [tested on regular basis] [and standard operating procedures].

E8 (D4): Training and drills

G-4 is tracking national as well as local governments and there is also emphasis on the testing of the plans. E8 (D4) is focused mainly on the testing and updating of national plans to enhance response capacities. Recommendation: P10.1 can be restated as # of countries with approved disaster management plans and procedures (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plans, SOPs). Table 12 contains more details on these different types of plans.

P10.2. # of countries where the responsibility for planning National Disaster (and/or Response) Management has been assigned to a national entity

P10.3. Frequency of updating of the National Disaster (and/or Response) Management Plan(s) and hazard specific plans

G-4 – Percentage / Number of [local] [and national] governments having


E8 (D4) includes a question as to whether lessons from drills are incorporated into contingency plans.

53


Sub-elements


Linkages



preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan [tested on regular basis] [and standard operating procedures].

Recommendation: P10.3 can be restated as frequency of updating of approved disaster management plans and procedures (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan, SOPs) based on drills/exercises and disaster events. This change will make the CDM audit indicator all encompassing of the various types of DM-related plans that exist that should be tested and updated regularly.

P10.4. Frequency of exercising of the approved National Disaster (and/or Response) Management Plan(s) and hazard specific plans

G-4 – Percentage / Number of [local] [and national] governments having preparedness plan (including EWS response and evacuation components) or evacuation plan [tested on regular basis] [and standard operating procedures].


Comment (CDM audit): This indicator is no longer required based on the changes at P10.1 and P10.3

54


Sub-elements


Linkages



P10.5. Level of comprehensiveness of National Disaster (and/or Response) Management Plan(s). (very comprehensive, comprehensive, somewhat comprehensive9)

P10.6. Evidence that key sectoral plans are congruent with national disaster plans

P10.7. Evidence that disaster preparedness /contingency plans are used to organise the response phase.

P10.8. Evidence that disaster preparedness /contingency plans are in place at all administrative levels

National (ministries and Departments)

Municipal (as relevant10)

E5 (D1): National contingency plans

E6 (D2): Contingency plans at local level

E7 (D3): Contingency plans at sector

E5 to E7 is targeting all administrative levels E6 (D2) and E7 (D3) both emphasize whether there is a requirement by law to have contingency plans at the local and sector levels, respectively. Recommendation: the data to be collected by P10.8 will be in a usable format to compute E5-E7. However, P10.8 can be restated as Evidence that disaster preparedness /contingency plans are in place (at national, local and sector levels) and

9 Very Comprehensive: addresses all 4 criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change Comprehensive: addresses 2-3 of the 4 following criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change Somewhat Comprehensive: addresses 0-1 of the 4 following criteria: a) addresses all four phases; b) all four sectors; c) includes all hazards; and d) addresses gender and climate change 10 This hence refers to the lowest level of government in the country.

55


Sub-elements


Linkages



this is a requirement (in law or policy).

38. Local Governance Plans

P11. Local/community emergency and disaster management plans exist.

P11.1. # of countries with a Model Local Level (community) Disaster and/or Response Plan and development methodology

P11.2. # of countries where communities have an established Emergency and CDM Committees (DMC) and a designated Local Disaster Coordinator.

P11.3. # of countries where communities have key sectors represented at the local Emergency or Disaster Committee

P11.4. # of countries with communities that have an Emergency/Disaster and/or Response Plan (or basic disaster plan) based on a HVA.

P11.5. Level of participation of local community in CDM initiatives (e.g. HVAs, simulations, training...)

E9 (D5): Local level trainings and drills

E9 (D5) is investigating the % of local governments regularly exercising drills and trainings. Therefore, P11.5 and E9(D5) have different unit of measurements - the former is qualitative and the latter is quantitative. Level of participation is hard to measure and given the scope and size of the CDM audit the metric measures would be easier to measure and aggregate across states.

56


Sub-elements


Linkages



Recommendation: P11.5 can be restated as % of local governments/communities that participate in DM activities (by type: HVAs, simulations/drills, training).

P11.6. Evidence of technical assistance provided by the NDO to communities for the development of Emergency/Disaster Response planning.

P11.7. # of countries where community participation and decentralization are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to local (municipal, as relevant11) levels

E2 (C2): Local financial capacities

The CDM audit also includes delegation of authority, which is not a requirement of E2(C2). Fortunately; the CDM audit data collection tool includes separate questions as it relates to delegation of authority and financial resources. Hence the information collected by the CDM audit can be used by E2 (C2)

39. Sector-specific CDM plans or supporting plans

P12. Disaster Support Plans for key sectors exist.

P12.1. Participation of key sectors in development of National Key Sectors’ Disaster Plan (or National Disaster Key Sectors’ Support Plan)

P12.2. Evidence that National Health Disaster Plan (or National Disaster Health Support Plan) is based on national hazard and HS risk assessments.


57


Sub-elements


Linkages



P12.3. Evidence that National Key Sectors’ Disaster Plan (or National Disaster Key Sectors’ Support Plan) has been coordinated with and endorsed by NDO and DMC, subject to exercises/tests/ simulations, and modified based on lessons learned

P12.4. Status of the National Pandemic/Influenza Preparedness Plan (Completed, in progress, Planned)

% of HS sectors' facilities with established pandemic protocols

P12.5. Evidence that National Pandemic/Influenza Preparedness Plan is based on and has been coordinated with NDO and endorsed by PAHO/WHO guidance, involved all HS (including private sector/NGOs),

P12.6. Status of key sectors annexes (or support plans) to other hazard specific national disaster plans (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P12.7. Status of key Sectors’ Support Plans to the National Disaster Plan and extent to which they are based on HVA and coordinated with the NDO (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P12.8. # of countries where key sectors have developed a Model Emergency/Disaster Plan for their installations.

40. Institution/facility level DM or EM plans

P13. Institutions/facilities have DM/EM plans that are congruent with national and community DM/EM Plans.

P13.1. % of key sectors installations that have developed Emergency/Disaster Plans and extent to which they are based on site specific HVA and integrated with the community emergency/disaster response plan.

58


Sub-elements


Linkages



41. Community level planning

P14. Community development planning takes into account CDM.

P14.1. # of countries with an active and on-going multi-hazard community preparedness programme

P14.2. Extent to which Communities (or municipalities, as relevant12) integrate key sectors installations’ needs in their development planning (and/or Emergency/Disaster Plan).

42. Mutual Aid/MOUs

P15. Mutual aid agreements exist between countries and between communities in the same country

P15.1. # of countries with Disaster Management Mutual Aid MOUs with adjacent countries and all countries in the same Sub-Region.

F-11 alt. Number of countries that have regional cooperation to support DRR

B19: Trans-boundary Cooperation Does the county participate in formal cooperation arrangements and protocols with neighbouring countries to address trans-boundary risks?

The unit of measurement between these indicators are compatible. B19 includes a list of activities for addressing transboundary risks – (a) hazard monitoring, (b) risk assessment, (c) early warning systems, (d) information sharing, (e) risk pooling or insurance as contingency finance, (f) disaster response, (g) evacuation, (h) general DRR strategy, (i) others (specify). Recommendation: P15.1 can include the list of activities noted in the Sendai Monitor to qualify the scope of the ‘mutual aid MOUs’.

P15.2. % of Communities (or municipal, as relevant13) with Disaster Management Mutual Aid MOUs with adjacent Communities.

E15 (D10): Horizontal

cooperation:

E15 (D10) is focused on ‘legal or formal mechanisms’ whilst P15.2 is

12 This hence refers to the lowest level of government in the country. 13 This hence refers to the lowest level of government in the country.

59


Sub-elements


Linkages



Does the country have a legal or formal mechanism in place that facilitates local governments to draw on the capacities and resources of other local governments during emergencies?

explicit as to what the legal or formal mechanism should be – mutual aid MOUs.

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Education & Information; Key Element: Education

Sub-elements


Linkages



43. CDM material introduced at different school levels.

P16. CDM related material is available for use in schools

P16.1. Status of the regional CDM education policy (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P16.2. # of countries which include CDM related issues and materials in school curriculum

Comment (CDM Audit): This CDM audit indicator is broad and incorporates the scope of P16.3 and P16.4. This indicator can be considered for removal from the CDM audit.

P16.3. # of countries that include CDM related issues and materials in school curricula at the primary and secondary level.

Both A20 and P16.3 indicators aim to track whether CDM is incorporated

60


Sub-elements


Linkages



A20: Mandatory Education into primary and secondary schools’ curricula.

P16.4. # of countries that include CDM related issues and materials in post secondary educational establishments curricula.

A21: Professional Education

A21 is seeking to track the number of undergraduate or post-graduate programmes on DRR. P16.4 unit of measurement is # of countries. Note: There is better alignment in the unit of measurement between A21 and P17.2 below.

P16.5. Evidence that CDM is included in the training curricula for practitioners in key sectors in the education curricula for professionals in key sectors

P16.6. Status of the regional strategy to build a culture of safety (Completed, in progress, Planned)

44. CDM specific materials/courses/ curriculum

P17. CDM Centres of Excellence for Education consistently deliver formal CDM related education at the certificate and academic degree levels.

P17.1. # of CDM CoEs delivering formal CDM educational programming

P17.2. #/types of formal CDM programmes offered in the region

A21: Professional Education

P17.2 is concerned with #/types of formal CDM programmes related to education at the certificate and academic degree levels. Hence, it is more aligned to A21 since they will have the same unit of measurement.

P17.3. #/types of certificates and academic degrees issued

61


Sub-elements


Linkages



P17.4. # of countries with an active and on-going education program which supports all key elements of CDM

45. Professional CDM Certification

P18. CDM Centres of Excellence for Training able to provide CDM related courses and professional certification

P18.1. Types of professional CDM certification provided by CDM CoEs

P18.2. Types of professional CDM certification provided by other institutions.

P18.3. Types of CDM professional certification needed but not being provided in country/in the region.

P18.4. # of regionally standardized CDM training courses (including educational material)

P18.5. # of countries using standardized CDM training courses (including educational material)

P18.6. # of countries that incorporate risk reduction, including building codes, better building and safety in their trades training programmes.

62

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Education & Information; Key Element: Public Awareness

Sub-elements


Linkages



46. Public Information

P19. National comprehensive public information programmes addressing the priority hazards are consistently delivered.

P19.1. # of countries with a countrywide public awareness strategy including outreach to urban and rural communities.

A22: Awareness raising

These two indicators match well since A22 is also concerned with assessing whether a national strategy is in place to advance DRR public education and awareness.

P19.2. # of countries that implement a tourism public awareness programme

P19.3. # of countries which have a disaster public information programme for schools

P19.4. Evidence that the level of awareness of the general public is being measured and forms the basis of the public awareness programme

P19.5. Evidence of health disaster information disseminated to the public

P19.6. # and type of mass media means utilized for public awareness programming


A22 includes a question as to what type of media is used to disseminate information. This information can be provided by P19.6.

P19.7. # of countries with programmes to co-opt media into CDM.

P19.8. # of countries that conduct annual national level CDM related awareness campaigns (and broken down by which hazard the campaigns addressed, e.g. hurricanes or others)

G-14 – Number of programmes to enhance awareness,

P19.8 and G-14 have different units of measurement. Recommendation: P19.8 can be restated as # of annual multi-hazard

63

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Education & Information; Key Element: Public Awareness

Sub-elements


Linkages



disaster risk information and risk assessment

awareness campaigns (by type of hazards)

P19.9. Evidence that gender issues are factored into the public awareness programme


A22 is concerned with whether the strategy includes gender considerations. This information can be provided by P19.9

P19.10. Status of a Regional Tourism Post Event Public Information Strategy/ Programme targeting tourism source countries (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P19.11. # of countries with clearly defined systems and procedures for post event public information.

P19.12. Evidence of complying with current PAHO/WHO pandemic guidelines (for advisory/information dissemination).

P19.13. Evidence of protocols for control and coordination of health-related public information

P19.14. Evidence of availability of health information for dissemination in shelters

P19.15. Evidence that gender and vulnerable groups are adequately addressed in public information materials


A22 is concerned with whether the strategy is considerate of gender and vulnerable groups (the aged, children, disabled, poor). This information can be provided by P19.15

64

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Education & Information; Key Element: CDM Knowledge and Experience management

Sub-elements


Linkages



47. Collection and Storage

P20. A regional network of CDM knowledge collection and repository linking the Centres of Excellences, NDOs and CDEMA CU.

P20.1. Evidence of a regional network of information collection and storage accessible to key stakeholders and in particular to NDOs.

48. Sharing/ Dissemination

P21. An accessible and free CDM information-sharing network with dissemination capabilities.

P21.1. Evidence of web-based information sharing network where stakeholders are notified of new materials and can freely access them.

49. Succession planning

P22. Succession planning for managers considers training as well as knowledge transfer.

P22.1. Status of CDEMA CU’s indoctrination programme for new employees that seeks to transfer knowledge related to CDM, Project and programme management and Result Based Management (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P22.2. # of countries where the NDO has an indoctrination programme for new employees that seeks to transfer knowledge related to CDM, Project and programme management and Result Based Management.

P22.3. # of countries with a process to collect and analyzing views from staff departing positions related to CDM responsibilities

65

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Training & exercises; Key Element: Formal and informal training CDM Training Courses

Sub-elements


Linkages



50. Public Sector

P23. National capability to provide CDM related training to public sector employees involved in the CDM System

P23.1. Evidence that disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans (with gender sensitivities) are used for regular training drills and rehearsals to test and develop disaster response programmes

P23.2. Status of the regional CDM training strategy (Completed, in progress, Planned)

P23.3. # of countries with a CDM training Strategy/programme

A23: Capacity building for government official

A23 is concerned with whether there is a dedicated plan or policy to strengthen the DRR capacity of public officials at both national and local levels.

P23.4. Evidence of staff training courses for all levels including for local response agencies related to: Human Resource Development; Financial & Project Management; Advocacy & Negotiations; and, Core Disaster Management (taking into account needs for further training)

P23.5. % of CDEMA CU staff managing projects and programmes qualified in project management, CDM and RBM

P23.6. # of persons trained in relevant subject matter for CDM implementation at national and sectoral levels (including Monitoring and Evaluation)

A23: Capacity building for government official

A23 contains a process level indicator regarding the number of training courses. Recommendation: P23.6 can be restated as three sub-indivators: P23.6 a # of training courses offered and

66

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Training & exercises; Key Element: Formal and informal training CDM Training Courses

Sub-elements


Linkages



P23.6 b # of persons trained per course for advancing CDM implementation at national and sectoral levels (including Monitoring and Evaluation) P23.c effectiveness of training

51. Private Sector

P24. National capability to provide CDM related training to members of the private sector involved in the CDM System.

P24.1. # of countries where the NDO has a programme to train key sectors including the private sector involved with CDM.

A24: Capacity building for civil and private sector

A24 is concerned with whether there is a dedicated plan or policy to strengthen the DRR capacity of civil and private sector.

P24.2. # of countries where NDO has a programme to provide training to NGO, CBO and FBO staff as well as community members involved in CDM.

A24: Capacity building for civil and private sector

The ‘civil’ sector for A24 includes NGO, CBOs and community members.

67

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Training & exercises; Key Element: Community Resiliency enhancement

Sub-elements


Linkages



52. Training of officials

P25. National CDM training programme exists for local/community leaders.

P25.1. # of countries with CDM familiarization and training programmes for senior national elected and appointed government officials, for elected and appointed local/community government officials and for members of the Chamber of Commerce and other associations.

53. Planning P26. National programme available to assist communities with CDM planning.

P26.1. # of countries where the NDO has a programme and resources to assist communities/local government with CDM.

P26.2. # of countries with a programme aimed at making communities more resilient to disasters.

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Training & exercises; Key Element: Exercises

Sub-elements


Linkages



54. Regional P27. Regional level simulation exercises held annually.

P27.1. Evidence of a Regional/sub-regional programmes for regional level exercises.

P27.2. # and types of regional/sub-regional level exercises conducted

P27.3. Level of participation in regional/sub-regional level exercises

55. Sub-regional

P28. A sub-regional exercise held.

P28.1. Frequency of sub-regional exercises

68


Sub-elements


Linkages



56. National P29. Annual national exercise conducted.

P29.1. # of countries that exercise their national response plans for all hazards annually and type of exercise(s) conducted

P29.2. # of countries where key sectors actively participates in national simulation exercises

P29.3. #/ types of exercises/simulations conducted for the National Health Disaster Plan (or National Disaster Health Support Plan)

P29.4. #/ types of exercises/simulations conducted for the National Pandemic/Influenza Preparedness Plan

57. Local/ Community

P30. Annual simulations exercise held.

P30.1. # of countries with communities that conduct annual simulation exercises of their disaster plan

E9 (D5): Local level trainings and drills

E9 (D5) is concerned with drills related to disaster response, including evacuation and there are process indicators that measure % of local governments. Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be included to make this indicator all encompassing. Hence, P30.1 can be restated as # of local governments or communities that conduct annual simulation exercises of their DM-related plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness

69


Sub-elements


Linkages



plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan SOPs).

P30.2. % of key sector facilities (schools, hospitals, mid and large hotels, etc.) that exercised their emergency/disaster plan in the last year.

E85 (D25): School preparedness

E90 (D29): Health facility preparedness

E85 (D25) is the % of public and private schools undertaking regular drills in accordance with the contingency plans. E90 (D29) is the % of public and private hospitals undertaking regular drills in accordance with the contingency plans. The unit of measurement between P30.2 and E85 and E90 are the same. Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be included to make this indicator all encompassing and for standardization. Hence, P30.2 can be restated as % of key sector facilities (schools, hospitals, mid and large hotels, etc.) that exercise their DM-related plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan SOPs).

70


Sub-elements


Linkages



See Table 12 for more information on these types of plans.

P30.3. Evidence that the simulations exercise address different hazards in an alternative manner

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Warning and Alerts; Key Element: Detection

Sub-elements


Linkages



58. Hazard specific detecting mechanisms/ technology

P31. A Regional all hazard monitoring network exists.

P31.1. Existence of a regional tsunami EWS.

P31.2. Existence of a regional strong motion detection system

P31.3. Existence of a regional volcano monitoring system

P31.4. Evidence of a regional pandemic monitoring mechanism

P31.5. Evidence of a regional foreign animal and plant disease monitoring mechanism

P31.6. # of countries whose EWS have a forecasting capability or access to a regional forecasting capability related to hydrometeorological hazards in particular tropical storms and hurricanes

G-2 – Number of countries that have [coordinated] multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system

A6: Hazard monitoring

P31.6 is specific to the priority hazards in the Caribbean, whilst G-2 and A6 are not specific with regards to the hazard. However, P31.6 should provide useful information to

71

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Warning and Alerts; Key Element: Detection

Sub-elements


Linkages



report on G-2, particularly in the Caribbean context.

P31.7. # of countries whose EWS have a national warning system for events caused by hydrometeorological hazards in particular tropical storms and hurricanes

G-1 - Number of countries that have [coordinated] multi-hazard early warning system.

E18 (D13): Early warning

P31.7 should provide useful information to report on G-1, particularly in the Caribbean context.

P31.8. Evidence that systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate data on key hazards and vulnerabilities in the region

A6: Hazard monitoring

P31.8 is pitched at the regional level, which means CDEMA and/or specialized regional institutions will provide information. More than likely the hazard monitoring systems will provide information to all CDEMA PS. A6 requires a listing of all the hazards monitored. Recommendation: the CDM audit tool questionnaire should include the following questions: (i) types of hazards monitored by the regional monitoring system(s) and (ii) CDEMA countries covered by each hazard monitoring system.

72

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Warning and Alerts; Key Element: EWS

Sub-elements


Linkages



59. Technologies/ systems for alerting

P32a. Countries have alert technologies mechanisms to warn the general population of impeding events. P32b. -National Early warning and Public notification system are in place.

P32.1. % of population covered by the alert/warning systems (by system)

G-3 – [Number / percentage] of people who are covered by [and have access to] multi-hazard early warning system [per 100,000]

P32.2. # of countries with communities that have alert systems linked to their national EWS

P32.3. Types of warning systems in place

E18 (D13): Early warning

E18 (D13) is also interested is tracking early warning related to a list of specific hazards. Recommendation: P32.3 can be restated as # of warning systems in place (by hazard: (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c) wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) heavy snow, (g)volcano, (h )drought, (i) forest fire, (j) epidemic, (k) others (specify))

P32.4. Level of the population’s recognition of the warning systems.

P32.5. Level of NDO confidence in national EWS

P33.1. # of countries with marked Tsunami evacuation routes

73

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Warning and Alerts; Key Element: EWS

Sub-elements


Linkages



60. Safe area designation

P33. Countries have evacuation routes and safe location identified for priority hazards.

P33.2. % of beaches marked with Tsunami information and evacuation routes

P33.3. # of countries that have marked emergency response routes.

P33.4. # of countries that marked routes to hurricane shelters.

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Warning and Alerts; Key Element: Emergency communications

Sub-elements


Linkages



61. Technologies/ systems Protocols

P34. Countries have resilient and redundant emergency communications.

P34.1. # of countries with robust and redundant emergency communications systems that provide immediate warning, mass notification and inter-operability (including regionally and internationally)

P34.2. Types of communication networks available to the NEOC

P34.3. Types of communication networks available at the local level to provide immediate warning

74

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Finance and Administration; Key Element: Resource Management

Sub-elements


Linkages



62. Material resources

P35. A regional standard for a minimum % (TBD) of governments’ annual budget for their National Disaster Office

P35.1. Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement CDM plans (and/or CWPs) and activities at all administrative levels

E-9 – Number of countries that have national financing mechanisms for DRR

E1 (C1): Budget

E2 (C2): Local financial capacities

E1 (C1) is focused on existence of dedicated budget for DRR. But E1 (C1) is also concerned with DRR budget available as a proportion of the total national budget, and its % breakdown by sub-categories. E2 (C2) is focused on budget available for local governments for DRR activities. Recommendation: P35.1 should be reframed to track the actual amount of budget assigned. This would be easier to track than ‘adequate resources available’. The amount of funding allocated should also be recorded by the sub-categories outlined in the SM indicator. Therefore P35.1 can be restated as % of national budget assigned to DRR needs (at national and local levels) and its composition by category (Prevention of new risk generation, existing risk reduction, preparedness, response/recovery and reconstruction/rehabilitation).

75


Sub-elements


Linkages



P35.2. Annual operating budget of the NDO (in $ and as % of government operating budget)

P35.3. % of annual operating budget allocated to hazard proofing sectoral development investments (e.g Transport, agriculture, infrastructure) and to stand alone DRR investments (e.g. DRR institutions, risk assessments, early warning systems, …)

E-6 - Number of countries accounting for future risk in public and private balance sheets, setting financial targets to inform investment strategies for reducing risk and enhancing future prosperity

P35.3 can provide data to confirm the # of countries accounting for future risk (E-6)

P35.4. # of countries where key sectors’ ministries have a budget earmarked for the CDM coordinator/office

P35.5. % of the key sectors’ ministries operating budgets earmarked for the CDM coordinator/office

P35.6. Total value of countries’ investment in CDM in the previous fiscal year and % breakdown in terms of nationally provided funding and donor/partner provided funding.

F-7 alt. - Amount of resources given to support developing countries’ implementation of national DRR strategies by programmes of entities of the UN system and other relevant stakeholders

F-15 - Annual percentage of cooperation

E1 (C1): Budget

P35.6 can provide information in part or in full for the following 5 global indicators and 1 national indicator related to the SFDRR. The ‘% breakdown by donor/partner investment’ will provide data for F-7 alt and part of F-15. For F-15, the aspect concerned with “received by developing countries” will be verified. The comparison with economic losses registered can be easily

76


Sub-elements


Linkages



financing for DRR provided by developed countries and received by developing countries compared with the economic losses registered in developing countries

F-6 - Net ODA for disaster risk reduction, [total and to LDCs] as a percentage of total ODA

F-17 - Proportion of cooperation funds for DRR provided by developing countries and registered in the annual budgets of developing countries

F-19 - Financial or other resources provided for capacity building to developing countries to strengthen the implementation of their national strategies for DRR.

done if global indicator C-1 is incorporated into the CDM audit tool, as recommended (See section 5). It should be noted that data on total global ODA and its break down by sectors such as DRR is tracked by agencies such as the OECD. In this regard, the CDM audit indicator provides data (value/% of donor/partner investment) for verification of F-6, F-17 and F-19 at the country level (CDEMA PS) for global aggregation. This CDM audit indicator is also a useful source of information to verify data required for E1 (C1)

P35.7. Total amount of sponsor CDM funding and % of direct funding to country as compared to donor/partner funding routed through CDEMA.

77


Sub-elements


Linkages



P35.8. Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.

E51 (C22): Annual budget allocation for contingency

E51 (C22) is tracking whether policies are in place to set aside budget for contingency needs. There is also a process indicator to measure % of annual budget set aside for contingency needs. The P35.8 is tracking mechanisms in place. Recommendation: P35.8. can be restated as financial reserves (% of annual budget) and contingency mechanisms (policies, formal agreements, MOUs etc.) are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.

63. Human resources and Management capacity of resources

P36. Countries NDOs meet the minimum regional standard for human resources and management capacity.

P36.1. Status of the Regional Study addressing the minimum human resource requirements for CDEMA PS NDOs (Completed, in progress, planned)

P36.2. # of countries with a full time NDC and a National Disaster Office (NDO)

B6: Institutional framework

B6 inquires whether the country has a dedicated institutional framework (office, agency, system) for implementing the Sendai Framework. Recommendation: the CDM indicator should be reframed as follows:

78


Sub-elements


Linkages



1. Full time status of the NDC can be removed since it is captured in the indicator below (P36.3)

2. Responsibility for implementing the (i) national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai framework, should be included

Therefore P36.2. will be # of countries with a National Disaster Office (NDO) with responsibiity for implementing the (i) national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai framework,

P36.3. Status of the NDC (full time or part time)

P36.4. Person to whom the NDC reports to in government.

P36.5. Number of staff assigned to the NDO in the following positions (# and full or part time)

Executive/Management

Operations

Planning

Mitigation

Public Information and Education

Admin. and Support (Finance)

Logistics

79


Sub-elements


Linkages



Radio Operation

P36.6. Degree to which CDM training addresses staff ability to perform functions (high, adequate low14)

64. Adequately resourced sectoral programmes

P37. Key sectors have budgetary allocation for CDM.

P37.1. # of countries where key sectors’ ministries have appointed a CDM coordinator/manager.

P37.2. Level of satisfaction with key sectors disaster-related staff resources.

P37.3. Existence of funded CDM programmes in key sectors and level of implementation

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Finance and Administration; Key Element: Programme Management

Sub-elements


Linkages



65. Regional P38. CDEMA CU has technical and managerial

P38.1. # staff employed at CDEMA CU and their area and level of technical competence

14 High: Adequate (70%-69%) numbers of staff trained in their functions and capable of meeting all routine and emergency demands. Adequate: Some staff (60%-70%) trained in their functions but some requiring additional training and a source of augmentation available to make up some of the staff shortages during emergencies. Capable of meeting routine demands but rely on augmentation for emergencies. Low: Insufficient staff trained (less than 60%) to meet all routine and emergency demands and challenges of trained staff in meeting routine and emergency demands.

80


Sub-elements


Linkages



staff at all levels to implement CDM.

P38.2. Evidence of gender equality in CDEMA CU hiring practices

P38.3. % of staff turnover on a yearly basis in CDEMA CU

P38.4. Level of CDEMA CU’s ability to meet PS and regional CDM needs (given its level and quality of human resources), including for response, from CDEMA CU perspective and from an NDC perspective (High, Adequate, low15)

P38.5. # of donor/partner CDM projects by donor/partner F-11 - Number of

international and regional multi-stakeholder partnerships established to build [individual, institutional and societal capacity for disaster risk reduction / DRR] capacity in developing countries and the economic value of such partnerships

F-11 alt. Number of countries that have regional cooperation to support DRR

P38.5 can provide data for both the F-11 and its alternate indicator. It provides data more applicable for F-11 since the unit of measurement is the same - # of partnerships. It is assumed that “CDM projects” should include components on capacity building for DRR since this is a serious limitation across Caribbean states. The economic value of the partnerships can be informed by P35.6. In terms of F-11 alternate indicator, the data provided from this CDM audit indicator can serve as

15 High: Adequate number of well technically qualified staff to meet the great majority of PS requirements. Adequate: Meet most PS requirements. Challenged by some shortages in technically qualified staff and unable to meet all of the PS requirements Low: Meet only some (or few) of PS requirements due to staff shortages and/or lack of sufficiently technically qualified staff.

81


Sub-elements


Linkages



verification information that the CDEMA PS benefit from regional cooperation that support DRR

P38.6. #/% of CDM projects that directly meet the region’s need and priorities (CDM Framework)

F-5 – [Level of support provided / Number of projects and programmes funded] by international organizations in line with paragraph 48 of the Sendai Framework.

Paragraph 48 of the SFDRR speaks to the development and the strengthening of national capacities by international organisations through clear and focused programmes that support the priorities of States in a balanced, well-coordinated and sustainable manner, within the respective mandates of the int’l org. P38.6 will provide some of the information for F-5. Details regarding “balanced, well-coordinated and sustainable manner” will not be captured. Gauging these parameters can become a complex and complicated evaluation exercise so it is not recommended that these elements be included in the CDM audit tool since it is already a large and complex tool.

82


Sub-elements


Linkages



66. National P39. NDOs have technical and managerial staff at all levels to implement CDM

P39.1. # nationally funded and donor/partner CDM projects and managed by NDO staff

67. Sector P40. Sectors have sufficient qualified Project Managers with CDM and RBM training to implement the Sector CDM Work Plans’ programmes and projects.

P40.1. # of staff in key sectors’ agencies qualified to manage CDM projects and to implement sector CDM work plans or programmes

P40.2. # of staff in key sectors’ agencies qualified in RBM

P40.3. # of CDM projects managed by key sectors’ agencies

P40.4. #/type of training in key sectors to implement CDM Work Plans’ programmes and projects

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Finance and Administration; Key Element: Information Management/ICT

Sub-elements


Linkages



68. Regional Level

P41. Regional ICT Platform which facilitates interconnectivity exists.

P41.1. Existence of a region-wide GIS capable ICT platform

P41.2. Level of ICT interoperability between CDEMA and PS (High, Adequate, low16)

16 High: Framework is based on standard international protocols for information exchange. Adequate: Framework considered compatible with transfer capability which is automated. File transfers seldom require manipulation Low: Different frameworks used with some data transfer capability. Manual data transfers often required. File transfers require manipulation to be compatible.

83

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Finance and Administration; Key Element: Information Management/ICT

Sub-elements


Linkages



69. National Level

P42. National ICT Platform which facilitates inter operability exists.

P42.1. # of countries using data management analysis and information dissemination software that meets the NDO’s CDM needs for administration and operations

P42.2. Evidence that key sectors utilize common GIS based software for data sharing at national level

P42.3. Existence of GIS in support of DRR

P42.4. Capability of GIS to link with other ICT platforms at the national and regional level.

PREPAREDNESS; COMPONENT: Community resilience; Key Element: Concept of Community Resilience

Sub-elements


Linkages



70. National level

P43. Countries integrate community/local level CDM as a key component of the national system.

P43.1. #PS which adapted HFA Priority Outcome 4 and have integrated DRM at community level into their national system

71. Community level Organization

P44. All communities have a CDM Committee to implement the community resilience programme.

P44.1. # of countries where communities have a well-defined comprehensive community resilience programme.

E-2 – Percentage of local governments that adopt and

B10: Local DRR strategy and plan

B10 includes a question as to whether local governments are required to establish local DRR strategies and plans.

84


Sub-elements


Linkages



implement local DRR strategies in line with the [Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 / national disaster risk reduction strategy].

E-2 has a different unit of measurement - % of local governments. Recall the comment at M8.2 regarding conflict in terminologies (community vs local level). Recommendation: P44.1. can be restated as % of communities (municipalities, local governments or equivalent) that have a well-defined comprehensive community resilience programme that support the achievement of (i) the national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai framework. This revised P44.1 would still provide data that is compatible for B10

P44.2. # of standardized regional tools to assist local level mitigation, preparedness and response planning used by communities

P44.3. Evidence of participation of NGOs, FBOs and key sectors in community resilience programmes.

P44.4. Status of methodology for the transformation of hazard, risk and climate change adaptation knowledge into effective disaster risk reduction activities at the community level

85


Sub-elements


Linkages



72. Capabilities P45. NDOs provide technical assistance and resource to the community/local CDM committee.

P45.1. # of countries wherein NDOs provide committees with suitable information and tools for HVA and CDM related training at the local

level. (Question already asked above!)

86

Table 7: Mapping with Response Component of CDM Audit

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Mobilization

Sub-elements


Linkages


Sendai Monitor Comments and Recommentations

73. NEOC (CC structure)

R1. Countries have resilient functional NEOCs , in terms of location, equipment, and organizational structures.

R1.1. # of countries with NEOCs that define a system for effective inter-agency coordination

R1.2. # of countries with a dedicated resilient NEOC and a ‘convertible’ ‘alternate’ NEOC

E11 (D6): Emergency operations centre (information management)

Comment (CDM audit): R1.2 makes mention of a ‘convertible’ and ‘alternate’ NEOC. Is there need for both? Recommendation: R1.2 be maintained at # of countries with a dedicated and resilient NEOC to keep the indicator simple. Queries as to whether there is a ‘convertible’ ‘alternate’ NEOC can be addressed in the CDM audit tool (questionnaire).

R1.3. Adequacy of NEOC in terms of space separate areas and equipment resources

R1.4. Time required to mobilize and activate the NEOC

R1.5. # of countries where the NEOC accommodates all key sectors.

R1.6. # of countries where the NEOC has well defined and understood SOPs that have been reviewed and tested periodically

R1.7. # of countries where the NEOC has dedicated operational areas for the media and a Public Information Plan

87


Sub-elements


Linkages



R1.8. # of countries where the Public Information Plan has been reviewed and tested periodically.

R1.9. # of countries where the Emergency Communications Plan has been reviewed and tested periodically

R1.10. # and types of communication networks available at the NEOC

R1.11. Types of communication strategies defined for NEOC operations.

R1.12. # of countries which NEOC systems provide for interoperability level of redundancy in emergency communications system

R1.13. # of countries with Continuity of Government Plans (Ministry BCP) for major events

E14 (D9): Government Business Continuity planning

These two indicators are a perfect fit.

R1.14. % of communities/local governments that have an EOC

R1.15. # of key sectors that have an EOC

R1.16. # of key sectors that have developed Model Emergency Response Plans for their stakeholders

74. Evacuation R2. National evacuation plans exist for populations at risk as well as for repatriation of visitors.

R2.1. # of countries with tourist volunteer and mandatory repatriation plans for pre and post event situations

R2.2. # of countries with a legal basis for their mandatory evacuation procedures.

88


Sub-elements


Linkages



75. Regional support plan activation

R3. Procedure according to regional plan.

R3.1. Existence of a Regional Response Plan that incorporates Regional Security Service (RSS), Caricom Disaster Relief Unit (CDRU), Eastern Caribbean Donor Group (ECDG) and other regional support systems

R3.2. Existence of a Sub-Regional Support Plan

R3.3. Existence of defined criteria and procedures for the activation of the Regional or Sub-regional Plans

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Damage Assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages



76. Rapid Initial Assessment System

R4. Countries have a rapid Initial Damage Assessment System (process and resources) to aid in early response decision-making.

R4.1. # of countries with a system, methodology and trained human resources able to provide initial damage assessment (with gender sensitivities) to enable early decision making by the NEOC

A1: Loss Assessment

A1 focuses on damage assessment methodology only. R4.1 is wider but will be able to provide usable data for A1.

R4.2. Evidence that initial damage assessment processes are timely

R4.3. # of countries with an initial damage assessment process that is GIS based.

R4.4. # of countries with robust links to communities/local level for early reporting on scope of damages.

89

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Damage Assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages



R4.5. # of countries with accessibility to air reconnaissance for initial damage assessment.

R4.6. # of countries with studies predicting potential damages for various scenarios as a baseline for comparison of reality with prediction to facilitate early decision making.

77. Comprehensive Assessments System

R5. Countries have a comprehensive Damage Assessment System (process and resources) to facilitate needs identification as well as rehabilitation and reconstruction priorities.

R5.1. # of countries with a comprehensive damage assessment process and plan.

R5.2. # of countries with a catalogue of earmarked resources for comprehensive damage assessments (ICT, transportation, human resources, etc.)

R5.3. Evidence that available resources for the conduct of comprehensive damage assessment for the various potential hazard scenarios are adequate.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Operational Information Management

Sub-elements


Linkages



78. Communication Systems

R6. Countries have resilient and redundant emergency communication systems to

R6.1. Evidence that procedures are in place to exchange relevant information during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event reviews

A4: Post-disaster review

Does the country have a policy or strategy to carry out post-

R6.1 is wider than A4, but it can collect information on whether guidelines/methodologies are in place for post-event reviews.

90


Sub-elements


Linkages



support response operations.

disaster evaluations using an agreed methodology/ guideline to review disaster causality, occurrence and response/recovery based on evidence

R6.2. Evidence of resilience and compatibility of the NEOC’s communication links to the Emergency Management Services (police, fire etc.)

R6.3. Evidence of resilience and compatibility of the NEOC’s communication links to the community/local level EOCs and to the key sectors (Ministries) that have established EOCs

R6.4. Evidence of resilience and compatibility of the NEOC’s communication links to other CDEMA PS, the Sub Region focal point and CDEMA CU

R6.5. Evidence of resilience and compatibility of key sectors communication links to CI installations (such as hospitals, key health facilities, large and medium size hotels, public and private schools, ports and airports).

R6.6. Evidence of resilience and compatibility of the community/local level EOC’s communication links to first responders, local NGOs, FBOs and CBOs and CI installations in their jurisdiction.

91


Sub-elements


Linkages



79. Data management

R7. Response operations are supported by national data management systems and procedures to facilitate accountability.

R7.1. # of countries with a system and protocols to capture all information related to the response at all levels (regional, national and municipal as relevant17) from all stakeholders .

R7.2. # of countries with a data management tool to assist in collecting and collating response related information for audit trail purposes .

R7.3. Types of inventories, databases and lists developed .

R7.4. Existence of methodology(ies) used for compiling and up-dating inventories, databases and lists. .

R7.5. # of countries with provisions to safeguard vital records .

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Emergency Public Information

Sub-elements


Linkages



80. Public information

R8. Clear national guidelines detailing authorities and

R8.1. Status of development of CDEMA’s protocols/guidelines for out-of-region public information coordination (completed, in progress, planned).


92

responsibilities for dissemination of public information, internally and externally.

R8.2. # of countries that adhere to the out-of-region public information guidelines

R8.3. Status of development of key sectors protocols/ guidelines for out-of-region public information coordination (completed, in progress, planned).

R8.4. # of countries where key sectors adhere to the out-of-region public information guidelines

R8.5. # of countries with clear national guidelines detailing authorities and responsibilities for dissemination of public information

R8.6. Evidence that the key sectors adhere to the national guidelines for public information

81. Dealing with Media

R9. National Protocols are in place for managing relationships with media partners during response.

R9.1. # of countries with a programme to integrate the media in disaster response

A16: Media involvement:

Does the country have legislation or an official mechanism that requires national and local media accurately and responsibly represent/ analyze DRR information in public domain

A16 recognizes a role for media beyond response. This is important for advancing the wider DRR programme. Recommendations: R9.1 can be restated as # of countries that have legally or through official mechanisms, assigned roles and responsibilities to the media to accurately and responsibly represent/ analyze DRR information in public domain. If this revised R9.1 indicator is accepted it would need to be moved into the mitigation section of the CDM audit.

R9.2. # of countries with disaster plans calling for an operational role for selected media.

93

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Needs assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages



82. Established Process for identification of external assistance

R10. A regional coordination plan exists to facilitate coordination of requests from the affected country.

R10.1. Evidence of a regional system to manage the request for and transportation of intra-inter-regional disaster assistance to affected country(ies)

E62 (D15): Regional trade

E62(D15) specifically asks whether the country has agreements in place within its territories and with its neighbouring countries that allows for the free or easier flow of goods and services during and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. There is different emphasis for R10.1 – it is concerned with a regional system. Recommendation: R10.1. can be restated as Evidence of a regional system/agreements/formal mechanism to manage the request for and transportation of intra-inter-regional disaster assistance to affected country(ies)

R10.2. Evidence that key sectors are integrated in the regional system for disaster assistance.

R10.3. Evidence that NGOs are integrated in the regional system for disaster assistance.

R10.4. Evidence of accepted protocols for establishing external assistance delivery priorities when more than one country is affected by an event.

94

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Needs assessment

Sub-elements


Linkages



83. Mechanism for prioritization of needs (includes collection and analysis of information)

R11. Countries have an established mechanism to identify, request and prioritize external assistance.

R11.1. # of countries that use different planning systems and studies for early estimations of resources availability and potential additional resource requirements.

R11.2. # of countries with a system for early estimation of priority additional needs and a process for its continual refinement as the response phase progresses

84. Linkage system or process with local NGOs in requests for external assistance (National/ regional)

R12. The regional protocols and national mechanism address the coordination of national and international NGO support.

R12.1. Evidence of regional protocols to coordinate inter and intra- regional NGOs emergency assistance with that of national NGOs

R12.2. Evidence of national protocols to coordinate national NGOs emergency assistance with that of local NGOs

R12.3. # of countries with established protocols to integrate the OCHA’s UNDAC support team in the needs assessment process.

85. Donation Policy

R13. A regional donation policy and mechanism is in place to support affected countries.

R13.1. Evidence of a regional mechanism to receive, sort and forward to the affected country foreign donated goods as emergency assistance

R13.2. Evidence of a national donation policy and/or plan that establishes clear guidelines for emergency donations that are well understood by donors including NGOs, FBOs and CBOs

95

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Rescue

Sub-elements


Linkages



86. Emergency services

R14. Countries have adequate emergency services capacity for their post event rescue capabilities.

R14.1. # of full time emergency services human resources18 and ratio per population (‘000s)

R14.2. # of part time emergency services human resources and ratio per population (‘000s)

R14.3. # of volunteer/ auxiliary emergency services human resources per population (‘000s)

R14.4. # of countries where the emergency services maintain radio communications with the NEOC and EOCs during major events.

87. SAR R15. Countries have a programme to train, equip and maintain LSAR teams.

R15.1. # of countries with trained and equipped LSAR and MSAR teams.

R15.2. # , size and composition of LSAR Teams

R15.3. # of countries where the LSAR teams (and or MSAR) are self-sufficient and have the ability to deploy to another CDEMA PS

88. Process to access Regional SAR resources

R16. A regional team exists for deployment for affected areas.

R16.1. # and level of development of regional MSAR in terms of equipment and training.

R16.2. Evidence of a CDEMA CU point of contact capable of coordinating the dispatch of the regional MSAR team(s) as well as the deployable national LSAR teams to the affected country.

R16.3. Existence of protocols permitting non-national members of SAR to perform their duties in the affected country.

18 Emergency services human resources include fire-fighters, constables and military forces.

96


Sub-elements


Linkages



R16.4. Existence of protocols and system to address costs and liabilities related to the use of non-national SAR resources.

89. Process to access International SAR resources

R17. Regional protocols for the reception of the international USAR Teams is in place.

R17.1. Evidence of a regional system to manage the request for, reception of and support to international USAR teams.

R17.2. Status of CDEMA’s protocols for the reception of and support to OCHA’s OSSOC support team (completed, in progress, planned).

R17.3. # of countries with established protocols to integrate the OCHA’s OSSOC support team.

R17.4. # of times and locations where the OSSOC support team exercised in the region.

R17.5. Evidence of protocols between CDEMA CU and PS detailing process and responsibilities for accessing and managing international USAR teams.

90. Volunteers R18. Countries maintain a Registered Volunteer programme to include registered and spontaneous volunteers.

R18.1. # of countries with a well defined volunteer19 organization for disaster response.

R18.2. # of countries with policies related to volunteers health coverage/insurance/ compensation.

B9: Voluntary sector Does the country have a law, or formal mechanism to support voluntary sector (e.g. non-profit

B9 examines incentives in a different format to promote volunteerism. Recommendation:R18.2 can be restated as # of countries with policies related mechanisms or incentives to encourage the growth of the volunteer sector (e.g. health

19 The volunteer concept here includes registered and/or spontaneous volunteers.

97


Sub-elements


Linkages



groups) for example by giving tax exemption status? (Y/N)

coverage/insurance/ compensation/tax ememption status)

R18.3. # and types of volunteers

B9: Voluntary sector

B9 includes process indicators that measure the number of NPO/NGO dedicated for DRR and the number of DRR volunteer Recommendation: R18.3. can be restated as # and types of volunteers. Type includes NGO (national or international) and individuals (registered or not registered. These sub-classifications can be included in the questions related to this indicator in the CDM audit data collection tool.

R18.4. # of countries with community programmes for disaster response

R18.5. # of countries that factor volunteers in their response plan.

98

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Medical

Sub-elements


Linkages



91. Hospitals, clinics capacity (including beds, nurses, doctors)

R19. National Medical Facilities are equipped to handle national health related emergencies.

R19.1. #, % and type of HS facilities (broken down by facilities found in areas of different levels of risk)

R19.2. #/% of HS facilities built to national building codes and standards

R19.3. #/% of HS facilities with emergency power and water supplies

R19.4. # and type of HS professional and ratio per population (‘000s)

R19.5. # of countries with updated inventory of medical and health care capacity in terms of beds and types of medical care.

R19.6. #/% of HS facilities with patient surge capacity for emergencies

R19.7. % of HS facilitates (by type) that have an ERPs

E90 (D29): Health facility preparedness E90 (D29) speaks specifically to % of public and private health facilities with contingency and Business Continuity Plans (BCP).

The units of measurement are the same with R19.7. However, the SM places emphasis on contingency and business continuity planning and CDM audit utilizes the term “emergency response plan”. It is known that emergency response is sometimes used for disaster management (DM) (UNISDR, 2007). and DM is the management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and

99


Sub-elements


Linkages



recovery (IFRC, n.d.b). See Table 12 for more details on these terminologies. It can be considered that the ERP will cover elements of contingency and BCPs that make up preparedness and response strategies. Recommendation: ERP as a specific type of plan is not promoted in the UNISDR for instance in the Terminology of DRR (2007). In keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be included to make this indicator all encompassing. Hence, R19.7 can be restated as % of HS facilitates (by type: public or private) that have a multi-hazard contingency plan(by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan SOPs, business continuity).

R19.8. % of HS facilities that have an ERP and tested annually

E90 (D29): Health facility preparedness

E90 (D29) contains a question related to regular drills of plans. Comments at R19.7 apply here.

100


Sub-elements


Linkages



Recommendation: R19.8 can be restated as % of HS facilitates (by type: public or private) that exercise their multi-hazard contingency plans annually (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan SOPs, business continuity).

R19.9. # of countries with psychological services and post-traumatic care for victims and emergency responders

92. Training R20. A continuous training programme in CDM for HS is developed and maintained.

R20.1. Evidence of a regional CDM training programme for HS disaster coordinators, medical staff and health care providers.

R20.2. # of countries where the HS disaster coordinator is CDM trained as per the regional, national programme

E91 (D30): Health worker training

E 91 (D30) is concerned with a policy in place to ensure health workers are trained for emergencies. There is also a sub-indicator to measure the # of health workers trained. This information is more detailed than what is collected by the CDM audit. Recommendation: R20.2 should include a sub-indicator on the # of health disaster coordinators trained

R20.3. # of countries where medical staff and health care providers have access to a CDM training programme

E91 (D30): Health worker training

Same comment as above Recommendation: R20.3 should include a sub-indicator: # of medical

101


Sub-elements


Linkages



staff and health care providers trained

93. Medical services and health care supplies

R21. Countries have adequate inventory of available medical supplies and supporting distribution mechanism.

R21.1. # of countries with updated inventory of medical and health care supplies

R21.2. Existence of central control of medical supplies stockpiles

R21.3. Existence of mechanism/system for redistribution of supplies

94. Ambulance R22. Countries have ambulance surge capacity.

R22.1. # of ambulances and ratio per population (‘000s)

R22.2. Evidence that ambulance services have surge capacity

R22.3. Ratio of public/private ambulance services

95. Mechanism to know status of HS CI

R23. National protocol to enable foreign medical personnel to work in support of an emergency

R23.1. # of countries where the HS has a mechanism to rapidly determine the availability of services after a major event.

R23.2. Evidence of regional protocols temporarily permitting foreign medical staff to work in country following a major event.

96. Protocols for mutual medical assistance

R24a. Regional Mutual Aid protocols for medical assistance in emergencies. R24b. National Mutual Aid protocols for medical assistance in emergencies.

R24.1. Evidence of a regional mechanism to provide affected countries with additional medical and health care personnel.

R25.1. # of countries with mass casualty plans

102


Sub-elements


Linkages



97. Mortuary services and mass casualty events (including identification, notification, religious consideration)

R25. National Mass Casualty/ Fatality Plans are in place for mass casualty events.

R25.2. # of countries where the mass casualty plans takes into account mortuary requirements and provisions for foreign casualties are clearly specified.

R25.3. Existence of regional protocols for the augmentation of mortuary and forensic resources to affected countries.

98. Laboratory support

R26. Regional medical laboratory network

R26.1. # of countries that are members of the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre (CAREC)

R26.2. Evidence of a regional mechanism to supplement affected countries with laboratory support

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Life support-

Sub-elements


Linkages



99. Shelter, food and water (short and mid-

R27. Countries have clearly designated responsible organizations for the

R27.1. # of countries with a shelter plan

R27.2. Evidence that shelters provide short and midterm shelter, food and water, medical and health care supplies after events.

103


Sub-elements


Linkages



term accommodations)

provision of short and mid-term shelter and life support amenities.

R27.3 Existence of training for shelter management

R27.4. Evidence that shelters are safe from the impacts of earthquakes, volcanic, landslide, flood, hurricane wind, and storm surge hazards

E12(D7): Shelter and stockpile

E12 (D7) includes a question as to whether shelter location and structural strengths consider disaster risk. This is implicit in R27.4. Recommendation: R27.4b can have a sub-indicator to be more explicit as: Evidence that shelters location consider the risks posed by hazards (earthquakes, volcanic, landslide, flood, hurricane wind, and storm surge)

R27.5. # of countries with a mechanism and a plan to provide short and mid temporary shelter for events other than hurricanes.

R27.6. Evidence that shelter and temporary accommodation management policies and procedures address counselling needs (by country)

R27.7. Evidence that shelter management policies and procedures address women’s protection (by country)

R27.8. # of countries with a programme promoting individual and family self-sufficiency for up to 72 hours after a major event.

R27.9. # of countries with established emergency protocols with food wholesalers.

E74 (C31): Food security

E74 (C31) includes a question as to whether contingency arrangements

104


Sub-elements


Linkages



to purchase food or controlling food exports in the case of food crisis

R27.10. # of countries with emergency water purification and/or treatment capability for temporary accommodation areas.

R27.11. # of countries with emergency waste treatment capabilities for temporary accommodation areas.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Transportation

Sub-elements


Linkages



100. Air R28a. National Transportation Plans exist for Air, Land and Sea. R28b. Regional Transportation Plan exists.

R28.1. # of countries with airports that have plans for post disaster operations


E14 (D9) includes a question as to whether airports are considered in business continuity plans. Recommendation: R28.1. can be restated as # of countries with airports that have plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan, SOPs, business continuity) for post disaster operations.

105


Sub-elements


Linkages



R28.2. Evidence that post disaster airport operation plans including handling large-scale visitors’ repatriation needs

R28.3. # of countries that have evaluated the survivability potential of the airports for the different priority hazard scenarios

R28.4. Level of confidence that the airport(s) post disaster operations will meet the country’s need for delivery of external assistance (by hazard) and evacuation

101. Land R28.5. # of countries with designated and marked emergency priority routes including priority road clearance and traffic control plans

R28.6. # of countries with communities at risk of being isolated due to their road network accessibility

102. Sea R28.7. # of countries with ports that have plans for post disaster operations


E14 (D9) includes a question as to whether ports are considered in business continuity plans Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation at R28.1, this CDM audit indicator (R28.7) can be restated as # of countries with ports that have plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan, SOPs, business continuity) for post disaster operations.

106


Sub-elements


Linkages



R28.8. # of countries that have evaluated the survivability potential of their ports for the different priority hazard scenarios

R28.9. Evidence that the port(s) post disaster operations will meet the country’s need for delivery of external assistance (by hazard)

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Logistics systems

Sub-elements


Linkages



103. EMS Supplies warehousing

R29. Countries have a logistics management system including warehousing capabilities and distribution of essential supplies and equipment.

R29.1. Existence of regional guidelines and protocols for redistribution of stockpiled emergency equipment and supplies among CDEMA PS.

R29.2. Existence of inventory of equipment and supplies that the NDO holds

R29.3. # of countries with established emergency protocols to redistribute medical and health care supplies

107

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Finance

Sub-elements


Linkages



104. National R30. Countries have access to emergency funding to support response operations and a mechanism to manage emergency aid funding.

R30.1. # of countries with a mechanism and protocols to enable the government to provide timely additional financial resources to departments/agencies for disaster response

E51 (C22): Annual budget allocation for contingency: Does the country have a policy to set aside certain % of the budget for emergency?

These 2 indicators are compatible as mechanisms and protocols noted in R30.1 can include policies. Recommendation: R30.1 can be restated as # of countries with a mechanism and protocols (including policies) to enable the government to provide timely additional financial resources to departments/agencies for disaster response

R30.2. # of countries with a mechanism and protocols to receive and manage foreign donor financial and in-kind contributions for emergency response operations.

E95 (D33): International cooperation: Does the country have formal procedure to receive and coordinate bilateral and multilateral donor aid, through grants and loans, in case of disaster?

R30.3. #/ types of regional funds available to CDEMA PS to assist with disaster response

104. International

R31. A mechanism for raising funds and the timely accessing of international emergency response funding are in place.

Comment: there are no indicators to measure this standard. None of the global or national indicators related to the SFDRR address the

108

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Finance

Sub-elements


Linkages



requirements of R31. Therefore no indicators are recommended.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Procurement

Sub-elements


Linkages



105. National inventory

R32. Countries have inventories of critical emergency supplies providers (wholesalers and distributors)

R32.1. Evidence of methodology used for compiling the regional database

R32.2. Existence of a regional database of wholesalers and distributors of key equipment and supplies for emergencies.

R32.3. # of countries with an inventory of national wholesalers and distributors of key equipment and supplies for emergencies.

106. Procurement Policy

R33. Countries have a procurement policy for critical supplies in emergencies

R33.1 # of countries with a mechanism to replace normal government procurement procedures with an accelerated and delegated process for emergencies

109

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Immediate Rehabilitation; Key Element: Restoration of life lines

Sub-elements


Linkages



107. Water R34. National plans exist to support restoration of critical live lime systems. All critical life line systems have contingency plans in place.

R34.1. # of countries with a mechanism and process to determine priority restoration of power, water services, waste services, communication services and transport services (including airports and seaports).

108. Fuels R34.2. # of countries with a mechanism and process to determine priority for fuel distribution.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Immediate Rehabilitation; Key Element: Return to normalcy (initial)

Sub-elements


Linkages



109. Social Services

R35. National rehab plans are in place to support the reestablishment of critical services.

R35.1. # of countries with a mechanism and process for re-establishing the provision of social services

R35.2. # of countries with a mechanism and process for providing social services to displaced people and people in temporary accommodations.

E79 (C34): Social protection scheme

E79 (C34) covers social protection for affected individuals. There is no explicit mention of displaced or relocated individuals. Recommendation: R35.2. can be restated as # of countries with a mechanism/process/policy for providing social services (housing needs, recovering household losses,

110

access to education and health care) to people affected by hazard events. If this recommendation is accepted, then the following indicators from the Sendai Monitor would also be linked to this revised indicator: E47(D23)Temporary housing E80 (C71): Cash transfers for vulnerable households E86 (D26): Continued schooling E92 (D32): Continued health service provision

110. Schools R35.3. # of countries with a mechanism and process for re-opening schools or opening new temporary school facilities.

111. Clinics R35.4. # of countries with a mechanism and process for re-opening public and private clinics

112. Religious centres

R35.5. # of countries with a programme to assist re-opening of religious centres

113. Temporary emergency employment

R35.6. # of countries with programmes aimed at providing people left un-employed with temporary employment to assist in the rehabilitation.

111

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: Gradual transfer to recovery responsibilities

Sub-elements


Linkages



114. Handover procedures (transition plan)

R36. Countries have a process to transit from response operations to recovery with clearly designated organizational responsibilities that is adjustable to prevailing circumstances.

R36.1. # of countries with a clear process and organizational and management structures enabling the concurrent conduct of response activities and initial recovery activities.

R36.2. # of countries where the DMC oversees both response and recovery activities.

R36.3. # of countries where there are two distinct organizations each respectively responsible for response and recovery20.

R36.4. # of countries where there are organizations responsible for response and recovery and a process for sharing information and protocols for handing over responsibilities.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: After action analysis

Sub-elements


Linkages



115. Information (de-briefing)

R37. Protocols are in place for the preparation and

R37.1. # of countries where the NEOC21 has a process to collect and store information relating to response operations22

R37.2. # of countries where the NEOC has a debriefing process.

20 This indicator allows for measurement of countries where there are two vs. one organization managing response and recovery 21 In some countries, the DMC sub-committee(s) takes care of this task. 22 Through this indicator, the idea is to determine if there is a mechanism to monitor and evaluate in real time response operations to gather lessons learnt.

112


Sub-elements


Linkages



analysis of After Action Reports.

R37.3. # of countries where the key sectors have a process to collect and store information relating to response operations

R37.4. # of countries with a process and mechanism to collect feedback from municipal disaster committees

116. Analysis R37.5. # of countries that conduct post event analysis of response operations.


A4 is more concerned with whether there is a guideline/methodology to undertake post-disaster review. However, R37.5 can provide additional information (the count of countries that actually execute the post event analysis) for this SM indicator. Having methodologies/ guidelines in place does not guarantee application/use.

R37.6. # of countries that revise response plans and procedures on the basis of lessons observed from post event analysis of response operations.


A4 includes a question as to whether government is required to use the results of reviews (of disaster causality, occurrence and response/recovery based on evidence) to inform risk-sensitive reconstruction or change in DRR policy (including “build back better”). R37.6 only focuses on the review of response operations and the revision of response plans and procedures.

113


Sub-elements


Linkages



Recommendation: R37.6 can be restated as # of countries that revise response plans/reconstruction processes/mitigation strategies, DRR policies/strategies/legislation/procedures on the basis of lessons learned from the review of disaster causality, occurrence and response/recovery based on evidence

R37.7. # of post event analyses and % as compared to events experienced

117. Reporting R37.8. # of countries with a process and mechanism to produce after action reports use for the revisions of plans and procedures.

R37.9. # of after actions reports produced in the past five years

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: Resource restoration

Sub-elements


Linkages



118. Personnel R38. Systems are in place for the evaluation of

R38.1. # of countries with a process to recognize and evaluate NDO staff performance during events

114

performance and the replenishment of resources.

R38.2. # of countries with a process to develop a training plan based on NDO staff performance during event.

R38.3. # of countries with a process and mechanism to account and replace expanded supplies and materials

R38.4. # of countries with a process and mechanism to account for all expenditures and finalization of finances.

R38.5. Type of methodology used to update the inventories

Table 8: Mapping with Recovery Component of CDM Audit

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Reconstruction and repair of damaged infrastructure; Key Element: Early Recovery and Reconstruction

Sub-elements

Regional Standard Indicators

Linkages



119. Policy and Plan for early recovery and reconstruction

R39. Countries are prepared for worst case scenario23 in debris removal, dead body disposal and environmental

R39.1. Existence of a Policy and/or Plan for debris removal and disposal with assigned responsibilities, as part of the broader Country Recovery Plan

R39.2. Quality of Policy and/or Plan for debris removal and disposal with assigned responsibilities, as part of the broader Country Recovery Plan (High, medium, low24)

23 If 60% or more of the countries and/or region’s infrastructure and economic activities are affected. Please see glossary manual for more information. 24 High: The Policy and/or Plan outlines and describes all 3 criteria: a) priorities for restoration of utilities; b) an alternative hierarchy of responsibilities for debris removal and disposal of bodies; C) an alternative hierarchy personnel/officials in case of death or accident of initially assigned personnel/officials

115

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Reconstruction and repair of damaged infrastructure; Key Element: Early Recovery and Reconstruction

Sub-elements

Regional Standard Indicators

Linkages



considerations are addressed.

R39.3. Frequency of revision, rehearsal and tests of the recovery plan

R39.4. Evidence of planning and testing for worst case scenarios in debris removal

R39.5. Evidence of environmental considerations incorporated into the debris removal and disposal Policy and/or Plan

120. Responsibility

R39.6. # of trained personnel at the local and national levels in debris removal and disposal in worst case and best case scenarios

Medium: The Policy and/or Plan outlines and describes 2 of the 3 criteria: a) priorities for restoration of utilities; b) an alternative hierarchy of responsibilities for debris removal and disposal of bodies; c) an alternative hierarchy personnel/officials in case of death or accident of initially assigned personnel/officials Low: The Policy and/or Plan outlines and describes 1 of the 3 criteria: a) priorities for restoration of utilities; b) an alternative hierarchy of responsibilities for debris removal and disposal of bodies; c) an alternative hierarchy personnel/officials in case of death or accident of initially assigned personnel/officials

116

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Reconstruction and repair of damaged infrastructure; Key Element: Priority setting for reconstruction

Sub-elements


Linkages



121. Policy for reconstruction considering priority setting for reconstruction of CI (including hospitals, schools, government offices, roads, bridges, and communication systems, etc) and housing stock

R40. Countries have a mechanism for prioritizing reconstruction of CI.

R40.1. Existence of a reconstruction policy (or plan) E19 (D33): Recovery and

reconstruction policy

R40.2. Quality of a reconstruction policy (or plan) (High, medium, low25)

R40.3. Existence of a budgetary allocation for rehabilitation and/or reconstruction

E1 (C1): Budget

E1 (C1) is keen to track the % breakdown of budget by phases of the DM cycle. R40.3 can provide information to contribute to one component of E1(C1). .

R40.4. Evidence that mitigation considerations are included in sector based reconstruction interventions.

R40.5. Evidence that priority setting for reconstruction of CI and housing stock was followed in the reconstruction process in each country

25 High: The reconstruction policy (or plan) prioritises all CI (including hospitals, schools, government offices, roads, bridges, and communication systems, etc) and housing stock reconstruction is fully based on social, economic and environmental factors. Medium: The reconstruction policy (or plan) prioritises most CI (including hospitals, schools, government offices, roads, bridges, and communication systems, etc) and housing stock reconstruction is based to some extent on social, economic and environmental factors. Low: The reconstruction policy (or plan) prioritises only some (or no) CI (including hospitals, schools, government offices, roads, bridges, and communication systems, etc) and housing stock reconstruction is not based on social, economic and environmental factors.

117

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Macroeconomic and Budget management (stabilization and protection of social expenditures); Key Element: International/bilateral financial instruments, external assistance, foreign aid

Sub-elements


Linkages



122. Grants R41. A regional mechanism for regional and international funding assistance for recovery of that promotes incorporation of mitigation and consideration of poverty reduction, environmental and social issues. An additional regional standard (for Loans only) is: Countries have clearly defined financial instruments/ mechanisms to ensure accountable management of foreign financial assistance.

R41.1. Existence of a regional mechanism that prioritizes areas and/or groups in need of a particular type of financial assistance

R41.2. Existence of a national mechanism that prioritizes areas and/or groups in need of a particular type of financial assistance

R41.3. Type of financial instrument/ that is at the disposal of each country.

R41.4. Type of financial mechanism that is in use in each country to ensure accountable and adequate management of foreign loans

123. Loans R41.5. Quantity and type of foreign aid (Official Development Assistance, conditional funding, etc) available to each country for recovery and reconstruction

124. Other Financial Mechanisms

R42. National financial mechanism for early recovery & reconstruction

R42.1. Other types of financial instrument/ that are at the disposal of each country.

R42.2. Types of financial mechanism that are in use in each country to ensure accountable and adequate management of other types of financial mechanism

118

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Revitalization for affected sectors (exports, tourism and agriculture); Key Element: Business Continuity Planning

Sub-elements


Linkages



125. Continuity of Government (established procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of disaster)

R43. Countries have Continuity of Government Plans.

R43.1. Quality of Contingency Continuity of Government Plan in each country (High, medium, low26)

R43.2. Evidence that the Continuity of Government Plans have been followed in the recovery phase, when needed

126. Business Continuity

R44. Countries have Model Business Continuity Plans for the key sectors that are applied.

R44.1. Existence of a sector-specific (key sectors) Business Continuity Plan in each country

E14 (D9): Government

Business Continuity planning

E64 (D16): Business continuity planning.

BCP is used to help institutions to return to normal operations as soon as possible after disaster impacts. E14 (D9) is targeting public sector E64 (D16) is targeting private sector

26 High: The Contingency Continuity of Government Plan addresses all 3 criteria: a) executive orders are planned that designate certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary office holders are killed (line of succession); b) organization of alternative transport and communication facilities; and c) simulation of implementation of the Contingency Continuity of Government Plan are conducted. Medium: The Contingency Continuity of Government Plan addresses 2 of the 3 criteria: a) executive orders are planned that designate certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary office holders are killed (line of succession); b) organization of alternative transport and communication facilities; and c) simulation of implementation of the Contingency Continuity of Government Plan are conducted. Low: The Contingency Continuity of Government Plan only addresses the executive orders that designate certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary office holders are killed (line of succession).

119

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Revitalization for affected sectors (exports, tourism and agriculture); Key Element: Business Continuity Planning

Sub-elements


Linkages



E84 (D24): BCP in education

E89 (D28):Health Sector BCP

E84 (D24) is targeting education sector E89 (D28) is targeting health sector Recommendation: R44.1 can be restated as existence of a sector-specific Business Continuity Plan (by key sectors: public, private, education, health, agriculture, tourism, energy, physical planning,

finance and water).

R44.2. Evidence that the key sector Business Continuity Plans have been followed in the recovery phase, when needed and according to a model BCP

4. Analysis

The mapping of the Sendai global indicators and the Sendai Monitor to the CDM audit indicators

was an extensive exercise given the expansiveness of the CDM audit. This section highlights

the extent of linkages between the CDM audit and Sendai global and national indicators.

Terminologies used by indicators featured in these three instruments were closely inspected

during the detailed mapping exercise detailed in Tables 5-8. Clarification and explanation of

these terminologies is also provided in this section. Finally, key observations noted by the

Consultant during the mapping exercise are flagged, albeit some may fall outside of the scope

of this consultancy.

4.1 Convergence and Gaps

The percentage coverage of the SFDRR tools (global indicator and SM) by the CDM audit is

depicted in Tables 9-10 below. Table 9 indicates that approximately 30% of the Global

Indicators have linkages with the CDM audit (linkages can vary between weak to strong).

More specifically, the CDM audit can collect useful data for approximately 30% of the global

indicators. However, specific recommendations are provided throughout Tables 5-8 that can

strengthen the usefulness and relevance of the information collected by the CDM audit for use

by countries when reporting to the global targets and indicators set for the SFDRR. This is

primarily so for linkages classified as weak or moderate. These recommendations primarily

promote disaggregation of information collected by the indicators by administrative levels

(local, national), sectors and/or various types of DM-related plans. If stakeholders endorse all

these recommendations; then the 30% of indicators that are mapped to the CDM audit would be

considered as having strong linkages.

Table 9: % coverage of the Global Targets and Indicators by the CDM Audit

Global

Target

# of

Global

Indicators

Linkages

w/

CDM

Audit

%

coverage

A-Disaster Mortality 4 0 0%

B-Affected People 14 0 0%

C-Economic Loss 12 1 8%

D-Damage to critical infra and basic services 28 4 14%

E-national and local DRR strategies 21 13 62%

F-International Cooperation 24 9 38%

G-EWS and DRR information 17 9 53%

SUM 120 36 30%

121

Table 9 also illustrates the number of CDM audit indicators mapped across the seven Global

Targets (Targets A-G). Notable is that there is 0-14% coverage of global targets A, B, C and

D by the CDM audit. Collectively, these global targets track disaster loss, which is no surprise

since the global targets need to track impact level progress that is being made. That is, the

ultimate goal of all DRR programs is to save lives and reduce loss and damages. This is

corroborated by the fact that the long term goal of the SFDRR is “the substantial reduction of

disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social,

cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries” and for

the CARICOM Comprehensive Disaster Management Strategy (CDMS) it is “safer, more

resilient and sustainable CDEMA Participating States through CDM” (CDEMA, 2014:12).

Further, the impact level indicator for the CDM Strategy is: % variation in the average value of

‘damage and losses’ after small and medium events. On the contrary, the current design of the

CDM audit is to capture process/output and outcome level indicators that relate to critical

elements for operationalizing the various phases of the DM cycle. Therefore this departure in

focus (impact level versus outcome and output levels) is the key reason why there are limited

linkages between the CDM audit and the first four global targets.

This raises a critical question for reflection: should the CDM audit track the effects of

disasters/events?

Arguments for:

Recalling that the CDM audit sets standards to be met at the community, national,

sectoral and regional levels (particularly in the Caribbean context). Theoretically, to

adequately test the importance of having these standards in place, the CDM audit can

include a set of indicators that measure the effects of hazard events on countries;

whereby a select few of the indicators related to the global targets A-D can be utilized.

As the CDM audit is applied over time, the trends in the implementation or satisfaction

of the standards and the documented losses and effects of hazards can be measured and

compared simultaneously. Further, including selected indicators related to global targets

A, B, C and D would increase the level of harmonization between the global indicators

and the CDM audit.

Arguments against:

The CDM audit is already a massive tool that includes over 450 indicators and is

fulfilling several functions: standard setting, capability assessment, monitoring benefits

and harmonized reporting. Including selected indicators related to global targets A, B, C

and D would increase the volume of the CDM audit making it even less user-friendly.

Further, key elements of these global targets and indicators have already been

incorporated into the CDM Strategy 2014-2024 Monitor and data would therefore be

collected on these parameters. This information can be compared with the findings from

122

the administration of the CDM audit in CDEMA PS to benefit from the comments raised

at ‘arguments for’. Also, the UNECLAC through national and regional teams will be

collecting information post events (small, medium or large). Having multiple sources of

this information means that the CDM audit does not need to prioritize the collection of

this data. But what is important is that the analysis of the information from the

application of the CDM audit per PS should take these information into consideration,

particularly in the explanation of findings.

Table 10: % coverage of the Sendai Monitor by the CDM Audit

Sendai Framework Linkages

w/

CDM Audit

%

coverage

Priority for

Action

(PA)

Sendai Monitor Focus # of

National

Indicators

PA 1:

Understanding

Risk

Disaster Loss and Impact 5 3 60%

Risk identification and socio-

econ analysis

9 7 78%

Data and information

management

3 1 33%

DRR research and development 2 0 0%

DRR education, awareness and

capacity building

5 5 100%

Sub-total 24 16 67%

PA 2:

Strengthening

Governance

anage s

Policy and leg framework 5 4 80%

Institutional arrangements 4 4 100%

Local level implementation 3 3 100%

Accountability and liability 5 3 60%

Global and regional cooperation 5 2 40%

Sub-total 22 16 73%

PA3 & PA 4:

Investing in

DRR &

Enhancing

Preparedness,

Response and

Recovery

DRR in public finance 2 2 100%

Investment planning 2 2 100%

DRM organisation 17 13 76%

Public works and infra 12 7 58%

Telecom sector 1 0 0%

Energy sector 1 0 0%

Housing and urban dev sector 12 10 83%

Economy and finance sector 19 8 42%

environment (forestry) sector 7 6 86%

Agriculture and rural dev sector 5 3 60%

123

Social welfare sector 3 1 33%

Education sector 5 3 60%

Health sector 6 4 67%

Cultural sector 1 1 100%

Tourism 1 0 0%

Foreign affairs 1 1 100%

Sub-total 95 61 64%

Overall 141 93 66%

Source: Author

Table 10 illustrates that there are more linkages between the SM and CDM audit than the Global

indicators and the CDM audit. Approximately 66% of the SM indicators have linkages with

the CDM audit. This is understandable since they are both (SM and CDM audit) tracking DRR

related outputs/processes and outcomes at the national level. It is also important to note that in

many instances, several of the CDM audit indicators can provide useful information to several

questions in the SM. An example is depicted in the table below (Table 11), where the questions

in the SM that can be fulfilled by the CDM audit are highlighted in grey.

Table 11: Questions in the SM tool that are linked to the CDM Audit

Focus Sendai Monitor

Suggested Indicators

CDM Audit

2. Risk

Identification

and socio

economic

analysis

A7: Risk assessments: Is the government legally or by national

policy required to carry out risk assessments according to agreed

guidelines in relevant sectors, including lifeline infrastructure and

facilities (power, water and transport networks, hospitals etc.)? (Y/N)

If Yes, it is based on probabilistic methodology? (Y/N)

If Yes, list the targeted hazards.

If Yes, list the sectors.

If yes, which aspect of expected loss will be assessed? Select one or

more from the following: (a) housing, (b) infrastructure, (c)

economy, (d) population, (e) agriculture, (f) environment, (g) other

(specify)

If yes, are these assessments required to take into account potential

sequential impacts? (Y/N)

If Yes, are these assessments required to take into account climate

change scenarios? (Y/N)

If Yes, does the assessment take into consideration traditional,

indigenous and local knowledge and practices? (Y/N)

If Yes, does the assessment engage following stakeholder in

assessment process (Y/N)? If Yes, select one or more from the

Existence of

methodology

– M5.8

Targeted

hazards –

M5.2

Economic

losses

assessed –

M9.2

124

following: (a) disaster management or DRR department, (b) sectoral

ministries, (c) local government, (d) private sector, (e) NGO and

civil sector, (f) gender organization, (g) scientific organization, (h)

the citizens, (i) others (specify)

Source: Author

Table 10 also illustrates that there are good linkages between all the Priority for Actions and the

CDM audit. As stated above, there are specific recommendations included in Tables 5-8 to

strengthen the usefulness and relevance of the data collected by the CDM audit for use by

countries when preparing their national reports for the SFDRR. A closer look at the various

focus areas within these Pas reveals that in some instances there are 100% linkages (DRR

education and awareness, institutional arrangements, investment planning etc.). However, there

are a few focus areas where there are 0% linkages: DRR research and development, telecom

sector, energy sector and tourism sector. These are priority areas for the Caribbean and there are

many sector specific regional tools that were developed to collect information on these sectors,

which would be the reason why the CDM audit did not have extensive indicators and the basis

for linkages.

4.2 Terminologies

A key factor considered in strengthening the harmonization of these three instruments was the

terminologies used in the indicators. The terminologies that were closely examined are detailed

in Table 12, which helped the consultant to provide the appropriate recommendations listed in

the last column of Tables 5-8.

Table 12: Terminologies used in the CDM audit, Sendai Global Targets and the Sendai

Monitor

Reference Definition of Terminologies and Conclusions

CDM Audit Indicator:

M8.2. # of countries that

conduct community

profiles.

Global Target Indicator: G-6

– Percentage / Number of

local governments that

have multi-hazard risk

Terminologies of interest: community level vs local level.

The Sendai Framework refers to Local Government as “Form of

public administration at the lowest tier of administration within a

given state, which generally acts within powers delegated to them by

legislation or directives of the higher level of government”

(UNISDR, 2015b: 111)

Lavell (2008) suggests that there are differences in terms of the

territory and social levels at which these terms are applied to.

125

assessment / risk

information, with results in

an accessible,

[understandable and usable]

format for stakeholders and

people.

Specifically, “there has been a tendency to associate the local level

with municipalities, districts, parishes, or other similar political-

administrative denominations […] local always refers to something

that is more extensive than a community and smaller than a region or

zone. But, no matter what the final spatial delimitation used, the role

of local government in local management is always important and for

that reason we can accept this level as being definitive of one

relevant concept of “local”(Lavell, 2008: 15)


M9.1. Evidence that key

sector vulnerability

assessments are available

and updated

SM Indicator: A9: Sector

level risk assessments

Terminologies of interest: vulnerability assessment vs risk

assessment.

Note: The term risk assessment is favored by the Sendai instruments.

There is little mention of vulnerability assessment, except for

indicator A12 Social Vulnerability Assessment

The CDM audit on the other hand favors the use of Hazard

Vulnerability Assessment (HVA). Albeit there is a key element

related to Risk Assessment, majority of the indicators make mention

of HVA.

Risk assessment: An approach to determine the nature and extent of

risk by 125peration potential hazards and evaluating existing

conditions of vulnerability that together could potentially harm

exposed people, property, services, livelihoods and the environment

on which they depend. (UNISDR, 2015b:111). This signals that

vulnerability assessments are a component of risk assessments. However, assessment methodologies such as Vulnerability and

Capacity Assessment (VCA) coined by the Red Cross, appears to be

more holistic in its approach. VCA is a method of investigation into

the risks that people face in their locality, their vulnerability to those

risks and their capacity to cope with and recover from disasters

(IFRC, 2007a:6). According to the IFRC (n.d.a) , the aims of VCA

are to:

i. assess risks and hazards facing communities and the

capacities they have for dealing with them;

ii. involve communities, local authorities and humanitarian and

development organizations in the assessment from the outset;

iii. draw up action plans to prepare for and respond to the

identified risks;

iv. identify risk-reduction activities to prevent or lessen the

effects of expected hazards, risks and vulnerabilities.

In this instance, VCA yields the same type of information to inform

planning as risk assessments.


M26.3. # of countries that

self-insure their public

sector structures

Terminologies of interest: risk retention vs risk transfer

Firstly, both risk retention and risk transfer comprises mechanisms

that support risk financing during disasters. Risk transfer

mechanisms aim to transmit the risks to an outside party, which is

126

most times private sector entities; example insurance, catastrophe

pools, catastrophe bonds etc. The financing of risks and losses is said

to be “retained” if the funding source for payment of the losses

originates from and remains within the organization until the loss is

actually paid. Examples include self-insurance, payment of losses

from the current operating budget, use of a funded reserve

(contingency fund, relief fund etc.)


P10.1. # countries with an

approved National Disaster

(and/or Response)

Management Plan(s)

Global Target Indicator: G-4

– Percentage / Number of

[local] [and national]

governments having

preparedness plan (including

EWS response and

evacuation components) or

evacuation plan [tested on

regular basis] [and standard

operating procedures].


R19.7. % of HS facilitates

(by type) that have an

Emergency Response

Plans (ERPs)

These indicators (and several others) make mention of several types

of DM plans.

Terminologies of interest: disaster response plan, evacuation plan,

preparedness plan, Standard Operating Procedures, contingency

plans, emergency management, disaster management, business

continuity plan etc. Notable is that these are all elements of a

Disaster Response Plan except for a BCP

Emergency management – The organization and management of

resources and responsibilities for addressing all aspects of

emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and initial recovery

steps.

Comment: A crisis or emergency is a threatening condition that

requires urgent action. Effective emergency action can avoid the

escalation of an event into a disaster. Emergency management

involves plans and institutional arrangements to engage and guide the

efforts of government, non-government, voluntary and private

agencies in comprehensive and coordinated ways to respond to the

entire spectrum of emergency needs. The expression “disaster

management” is sometimes used instead of emergency

management (UNISDR, 2007:1). Disaster Management can be

defined as the organization and management of resources and

responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of

emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and recovery in

order to lessen the impact of disasters (IFRC, n.d.b:1).

Business Continuity Plan – are put in place to help institutions to

return to normal operations as soon as possible after disaster impacts.

It is strategic in nature.

The following definitions are provided by UNISDR (2015b):

Preparedness plan: Plan that establishes arrangements in advance to

enable timely, effective and appropriate responses to specific

potential events or emerging situations that might threaten society

or the environment.

Contingency planning: A management process that analyses

emerging disaster risks and establishes arrangements in advance to

enable timely, effective and appropriate responses. (Proposed

updated Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, August 2015)

Evacuation plan: Plan that establishes arrangements in advance to

enable people and if possible assets to move temporarily to safer

places before, during or after the occurrence of a hazardous event.

127

The following definitions have been provided by the IFRC (2007b):

Disaster response plan – Disaster response planning involves

identifying, strengthening and organizing resources and capacities so

as to reach a level of preparedness for timely and effective response

to a potential disaster. This includes: determining roles and

responsibilities; developing policies and procedures; and identifying

and developing generic tools for response (e.g. the use of National

Disaster Response Teams (NDRT), information management, etc.).

Disaster response planning is preliminary in nature, based on

educated assumptions of risks and hazards, and does not address

specific disaster scenarios – as is the case for contingency plans.

Contingency plans – These are based on specific events or known

risks at local, national, regional or even global levels (e.g.

earthquakes, floods or disease outbreaks), and establish operational

procedures for response, based on anticipated resource requirements

and capacity.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) – These are a set of

standard procedures that “127perationalize” the disaster response

and/or contingency plans. In other words, SOPs specify the way in

which individuals or units will carry out their functions under the

plan (e.g. alerting and mobilizing NDRT, deploying assessment

teams and carrying out the assessment process). The SOPs set out

what should be done, how it should be done, who is responsible for

implementing what, and specifies available resources

Source: Author

4.3 General Observations

The mapping exercise also revealed other interesting observations across these three

instruments. Whilst some of the following comments are not within the scope of the

Consultant’s TOR, they are included to stimulate additional discussions that can support

harmonization of these three instruments.

The Sendai Monitor

The Sendai Monitor uses a blend of indicators. Some include process level indicators

that are written as results based management indicators – they are neutral and meet the

SMART27 criteria. However, the main indicator that is indicated to be the core indicator

that all countries are required to report on is essentially a question.

Many core indicators (based on the questions) are only promoting key activities at the

policy and regulatory levels. Since the SFDRR will last until 2030, it is important to

27 Specific, Measurable, Achievable/Attainable, Realistic/Relevant, Timebound

128

continually measure the status of implementation of the principles and guidelines

enshrined in these documents.

Shelter management is scantly promoted, particularly at the policy and training levels.

The CDM Audit

The CDM audit utilizes RBM indicators throughout the documents. However, the standards,

indicators and the questions listed in the questionnaire are not always consistent or congruent

based on a preliminary review. See an example in the table below.

Table 13: Discrepancies in standard, indicator and questions

Standard Indicator Question

M9. CDM is integrated

in the national macro-

economic framework.

M9.1. Evidence that key

sector vulnerability

assessments are available

and updated

Have any national studies been

conducted on potential economic losses

to the national economy due to events

caused by natural hazards?

Source: Author

The Global Targets

Contrary to the SM, the global indicators are results-based and more in-keeping with the

formatting for RBM methodologies. However, a close look at the indicators highlight that global

indicator F-20: ‘Number of [developing / developed] countries fostering an enabling

environment domestically, [to reduce the barriers for technology transfer to developing

countries], including through the implementation of national disaster risk reduction strategies

and enhanced mobilization of domestic resources’ is very wide and vague. Enabling

environment is all-encompassing and based on literature reviewed, it does not appear in the

definition of terminologies to support the interpretation and roll out of the global indicators.

Therefore this indicator can be interpreted many ways and data collected at the national level

(to support the global monitoring) might not be comparableaggregated since they will vary from

country to country. Its vagueness also hinders the establishment of linkages to the CDM audit.

This can also affect other regions of the world aiming to advance similar harmonization efforts

Another notable observation is that the CDM audit includes standards and indicators applicable

to regional specialized institutions working towards implementing DRM in the Caribbean.

However, the suite of SFDRR global and national indicators is primarily directed towards

measuring local, national and sectoral activities. The SFDRR global and national instruments

do include some indicators to measure donor’s cooperation to advance the SFDRR. It is

recognized that the SFDRR will maintain the regional platforms mechanism for DRR, as

established under the HFA. “Regional platforms are multi-stakeholder forums that reflect the

129

commitment of governments to improve coordination and implementation of disaster risk

reduction activities while linking to international and national efforts” (PreventionWeb,

n.d.b:1). There are several key regional agencies that report to this platform – South Asian

Association for Regional Cooperation SAARC, Applied Geoscience and Technology Division of

the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC/SOPAC), Comité Andino para la Prevención y

Atención de Desastres (CAPRADE), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN),

CDEMA, Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América

Central (CEPREDENAC), Organization of American States (OAS). There is a global indicator:

F-4 - Progress in using the regional platforms for [exchanging experiences and / exchange of

best practices, technology and capacity building in] enhancing South-South cooperation for the

implementation of the Sendai Framework. There is the national indicator: B20: Global and

Regional Platform for DRR: Does your country participate in the latest Global and regional

platform for DRR?

Finally, the global indicators and SM do not include indicators on DRM/DRR policies to be

established at the national levels; however, it is alluded to in several instances e.g. A5 and A4

(Sendai Monitor). These tools place more emphasis on stand-alone DRR strategies and plans.

Policy-related instruments such as recovery and reconstruction policy, displacement policy,

road and transport policy etc. are included. The CDM audit includes indicators on having

national DRR policies, including sector specific DRR policies, to be in place.

130

5. Recommendations

This section is a critical component of this paper as it aims to concretize key next steps for

strengthening harmonization across the three tools. Recommendations are set out in response to

the following key questions:

a. How should the CDM Audit indicators be modified to address those terminologies/units of

measurements that have discrepancies with the Sendai Global Indicators and the Sendai

Monitor? – this is addressed in full in the last columns of Tables 5-8

b. Is there need to include any indicators from the Sendai Monitor and the Global indicators

within the CDM Audit to enhance harmonization?

c. Is there need to include any indicators from the Sendai global targets and indicators within

the CDM Strategy PMF, in view of the linkages established with the CDM Audit?

d. Other recommendations based on the general observations

5.1 Including indicators from the SM and Global tools into the CDM Audit

1. If the arguments for are supported by stakeholders as it related to the CDM audit tracking

the effects of hazards, then the following specific global indicators that can be

considered for inclusion in the CDM audit:

A-1: Number of [deaths / deceased] and [missing [persons] / presumed dead] due to

hazardous events per 100,000

B-1: Number of affected people [by hazardous event / due to hazardous events] per

100,000

B-3: Number of people who left their [places of residence / home][and places where

they are] due to hazardous events

B-4: Number of people whose [houses / dwellings or homes] were damaged due to

hazardous events

C-1: Direct economic loss due to hazardous events [in relation to global gross

domestic product.] (This indicator should be computed based on indicators C-2 to

C-7 and GDP figures

D-1: Damage to critical infrastructure due to hazardous events. (This index should

be computed based on indicators D-2, D-3 and D-4 (road).)

2. It is further recommended that efforts be made to disaggregate data by age, sex and

disability, particularly for the final indicators adopted as they relate to global targets A

and B. Reason being is that both the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable

Development Goals call for an inclusive approach based on data disaggregated by

sex, age and disability (UNISDR, 2015b). However, the Informal Working Group on

131

Targets and Indicators had concluded that the decision on disaggregation should be a

national responsibility (UNISDR, 2015b). Therefore CDEMA PS should have input into

this final decision. But the merits of including disaggregated information are well

known: more useful data will be available to design programs to target the profile of the

most vulnerable and have more impactful programs.

3. In light of the gaps noted between the SM and the CDM Audit, the following key

recommendations can be considered:

Indicators of focus areas having no linkages to

the CDM audit

Recommendation for the CDM audit

A18: Research agenda: Does the national science

and technology agenda include research fields to

strengthen technical and scientific capacity to

capitalize on and consolidate existing knowledge

and to develop and apply methodologies and models

to assess disaster risks, vulnerabilities and exposure

to all hazards that the country face?

A19: Science-policy interface: Is there a formal

mechanism (e.g. DRR platform) to improve dialogue

and cooperation among scientific and technological

communities (e.g. Expert Committee on Risk

Information), other relevant stakeholders and policy

makers in order to facilitate a science-policy

interface for effective public and private decision

making in DRR? (Y/N

A19 can be included in the CDM audit since

there the science-policy interface is missing.

There are indicators more along the line of

education and awareness. .

E34 (C11): IT infrastructure: Does the national

government have a comprehensive policy in place to

protect its IT infrastructure and built in redundancy

for data and computing hubs in case of

emergencies? (Y/N)

The CDM audit has indicators related to

government contingency plans, critical

infrastructure protection planning and business

continuity plans that have a sector focus. IT

infrastructure can be included as a sector to

collect the data required for E34 (C11).

E35 (C13): Energy infrastructure: Does the national

government have a comprehensive policy in place to

protect its energy infrastructure and built in

redundancy in case of emergencies? (Y/N)

The CDM audit has indicators related to

government contingency plans, critical

infrastructure protection planning and business

continuity plans that have a sector focus. Energy

infrastructure can be included as a sector to

collect the data required for E35 (C13).

E94 (C41): Tourism preparedness: Does the country

have formal protocol to mobilize cooperation from

tourism association to reduce disaster risk and

prepare for emergency?

This can be included in the CDM audit since the

tourism sector is such a large and important

sector for the island states.

132

Source: Author

Note: in Tables 5-8 there are also recommendations for SM indicators that should be

incorporated into some of the existing indicators to enhance harmonization.

5.2 Including indicators from the Sendai Global Targets and Indicators into the CDM Strategy PMF

A mapping of the CDM Strategy Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) and the CDM

audit was undertaken by the UNISDR in collaboration with the CDEMA CU. The findings of

this analysis are as follows “It was noted that coverage of Global Targets C, D and E in the

CDM PFM is very good. Ten of the 24 indicators of the CDM PMF are related to Global Target

E, highlighting the heavy focus on institutional arrangements to support implementation of the

CDM Strategy […] There was agreement that Global Targets A and B were not directly reflected

in the CDM PMF although they could be implied in the text of the Regional Goal ‘Safer, more

resilient and sustainable CDEMA Participating States through Comprehensive Disaster

Management” (Cooke, 2016).

These trends are very similar with what emerged from the mapping exercise between the global

indicators and the CDM audit: Table 9 shows that there are linkages between the CDM audit

and global targets C, D, E, F and G; there were no linkages with global targets A and B; global

target E also has the strongest linkages with the CDM audit tool.

CDEMA stakeholders have agreed to adapt global indicators A-1 and B-1 into the CDM PMF

is fully supported. This is also among the recommendations for the revision of the CDM audit,

pending further discussion and agreement by stakeholders. What should be flagged is the

importance of disaggregating information by age, sex and disability for the indicators related to

A-1 and B-1 that have been adapted and incorporated into the CDM PMF. However, there is no

recommendation to include any additional global indicators in the CDM PMF.

5.3 Other Recommendations The following recommendations are provided in light of the general observations that were

noted in section 4.3 above. These recommendations are outside of the scope of the Consultant’s

TOR, however, they are included for the same reasons noted for the general observations at

section 4.3: to stimulate additional discussions that can support harmonization of these three

instruments.

133

The Global Targets

1. Global indicator F-20 should be revisited to explicitly include the parameters to measure

enabling environment. It can also be split into several indicators since it is currently a

complex indicator

2. It might be useful for the SFDRR global instrument to include indicators that measure

the capacities of the regional institutions, level of support they provide to member

countries to address preparedness, response, mitigation, recovery needs, amount of

funding they mobilize to support DRR efforts in countries that are not channel through

the government budget etc. This will increase accountability of the work of these

regional institutions in advancing the SFDRR, particularly through their regional

frameworks and planning mechanisms. To achieve this, the SFDRR global and national

instruments can benefit from the regional level indicators featured in the CDM audit.

3. Given that policy is the foundation for establishing principles and direction for decision-

making, it is important that a standalone DRR policy be advocated for at the international

level (global indicators and SM)

The Sendai Monitor

4. The SM should include ideally results-based indicators that are neutral and clearly

indicate the unit of measurement and the variable to be measured. This will be important

for countries to better harmonize their national M&E frameworks/instruments with the

international strategy.

5. There is also need for indicators (questions) in the SM that assess whether the policy

and regulatory frameworks that are being advocated for the core indicators, are also

being implemented or enforced and updated to reflect emerging best practices.

6. The SM can seek guidance from the CDM audit, particularly in strengthening

monitoring of shelter management.

The CDM Audit

7. The CDEMA CU needs to re-examine the CDM audit questionnaire to ensure they are

consistent. The revision of some of the indicators based on the recommendations

134

provided in Tables 5-8 of this report would ultimately call for a relook at the

questionnaires. This will provide an opportunity to review all questions in the CDM

audit. Further, lessons learned from the administration of the CDM audit in the field can

also be incorporated during this process. Efforts can also be made to include some of the

follow-up questions in the SM for those core indicators that have been mapped to the

CDM audit.

8. There is need for a glossary with the terminologies used in the CDM audit.

9. There is also need for a list of acronyms.

10. The CDM audit should ideally be an online tool to allow countries to manage their data

entry and be able to manipulate reporting and analysis to support their national reporting

needs, as required

11. The CDM Audit urgently needs to be marketed among the PS and CDM partners so that

the size of the tool could be better appreciated and supported (including financially by

CDM partners).

12. The CDM Strategy PMF needs to be mapped to the CDM audit to see those indicators

that can support monitoring of the regional strategy. This will strengthen the ability of

the CDM audit to support regional reporting requirements.

13. The CDM audit should be embraced as a timeless tool. The CDM Strategy and the

SFDRR are time-bound. This means that mapping the SFDRR to the CDM audit should

not be interpreted as the other indicators are not important or urgent. These ‘additional’

indicators should be seen as the value-added of the CDM audit since it can allow the

Caribbean to keep track of those areas that can go unchecked, but have implications for

the overall DRR programs. If there are any considerations to trim the CDM audit tool,

the following should be noted before a final decision is made:

a. The components of the CDM audit that are mapped to instruments such as the

SFDRR and CDM Strategy can be considered as the ‘living components’ of the

tool. The ‘other’ sections not mapped should remain as core components of the

CDM audit tool. Administration of the tool, if online, should decipher those

questions that are linked to national, regional and or international reporting

requirements. This way, countries can select the scope of the information they

would like to populate and there should be the option to populate the entire tool,

should the country desire to do so. The key message is that the scope of benefits

135

of the CDM audit tool to be leveraged should be the decision of the PS. Countries

should also be motivated to be the driver of the process.

b. In keeping with the tone that countries should be the driver of the process; efforts

should be made to provide options for countries to adequately lead and

coordinate the CDM audit process. For insantce, envelopes of fundings can be

established to support data collection, analysis and report writing. This of course

would require financial support from CDM partners, which strengthens the

argument for the need to better market and promote the CDM audit tool.

136

6. References Allan Lavell (2008)

Relationships between Local and Community Disaster Risk Management & Poverty

Reduction: A Preliminary Exploration. A Contribution to the 2009 ISDR Global Assessment

Report on Disaster Risk Reduction

Baastel (2011) Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool – GUIDE

CDEMA (2014).

Regional CDM Strategy and Results Framework (2014-2024). Summary Report

Alexcia Cooke (2016)

Mapping of Linkages between the Global Targets and Indicators and the Comprehensive

Disaster Management Performance Monitoring Framework

IFRCS (n.d.a)

Vulnerability and capacity assessment

http://www.ifrc.org/vca

IFRC (n.d.b)

About Disaster Management

http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disaster-management/

IFRC (2007a)

How to do a VCA A practical step-by-step guide for Red Cross Red Crescent staff and

volunteers

IFRC (2007b)

Disaster response and contingency planning guide

http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/disaster-response-en.pdf

Prevention Web (n.d.a)

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030

http://www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sendai-framework/

PreventionWeb (n.d.b)

Regional Platforms & DRR Strategies

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/regional/?pid:23&pil:1

UNISDR (n.d)

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework

http://www.ifrc.org/vca

http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-disaster-management/

http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/disaster-response-en.pdf

http://www.preventionweb.net/drr-framework/sendai-framework/

http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework

137

UNISDR 2007

Terminology on DRR

https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-b

UNISDR (2015a)

Reading the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030

Geneva, Switzerland

UNISDR (2015b)

Indicators to Monitor Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

2015-2030: A Technical Review

https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-b

Appendix I – Summary of Priority for Action

Priority 1:

Understanding Risk

Priority 2. Strengthening disaster

risk governance to manage

disaster risk

Priority 3. Investing in

disaster risk reduction for

resilience

Priority 4.

Enhancing disaster

preparedness for

effective response

and to “Build Back

Better” in recovery,

rehabilitation and

reconstruction

Disaster risk

management should

be based on an

understanding of

disaster risk in all its

dimensions of

vulnerability,

capacity, exposure of

persons and assets,

hazard characteristics

and the environment.

This calls for a focus

on:

regular

assessments

including

baselines;

management of

information;

development of

disaster risk

services and

transformation of

data and

scientific

information into

usable

information for

decision;

making free

availability and

accessibility of

data and

information;

investments in

research and the

development of

methodology and

models for

disaster risk

assessment and

National Level

DRM should be mainstreamed

across all sectors to foster a multi-

hazard and multi-sector

understanding of disaster risk. This

calls for an enhancement of

coordination through national and

local platforms, which should be

endowed by law with the necessary

powers to ensure a coordinated

approach. There is also the need for

definition of roles and

responsibilities as well as

incentives/ empowerment to ensure

and facilitate active participation by

all including the local level.

Establish or strengthen the

institutional framework at national

and local levels, including

compliance mechanisms; perhaps

through designated offices for

DRM

Adoption of national and local

disaster risk reduction strategies

and plans and public reporting on

their implementation

Institutionalization of debates

within relevant executive and

legislative institutions. The public

nature of such debates would allow

for public scrutiny and transparency

Regional and International Level

importance of the existing

regional and sub-regional

strategies , plans and coordinating

platforms for information sharing,

Dependent on strong

coordination and coherence

in the development and

implementation of sector

policies and programs as

well as the implementation

of international instruments

such as those concerning

sustainable development,

climate change and

variability, and financing

The test of effective

mainstreaming of disaster

risk reduction will be carried

out

Risk-informed investments

should be made by both the

public and the private

sectors, and that disaster risk

reduction considerations and

measures be integrated in

financial and fiscal

instruments.

build critical infrastructures

“better from the start” which

includes the strengthening

and enforcement of building

codes and building above

code; culture of maintenance

for services and

infrastructures; protection of

cultural and collecting

institutions, such as

museums and foundations,

as well as sites of

historical, cultural heritage

and religious interest;

resilience of work places;

the adoption of non-

The growth of

disaster risk means

there is a need to

strengthen disaster

preparedness for

response, take action

in anticipation of

events (early

warning systems),

and ensure

capacities are in

place for effective

response and

recovery at all

levels. The recovery,

rehabilitation and

reconstruction phase

is a critical

opportunity to build

back better,

including through

integrating disaster

risk reduction into

development

measures.

139

having formal

and informal

education and

awareness

avenues so that

knowledge can

be used for

prevention,

mitigation,

preparedness and

response.

monitoring of progress and

planning

collaboration across mechanisms

and institutions in the

implementation of relevant

international instruments

structural measures;

resilience of health systems.

Natural resource and

ecosystem management, as

well as land use and planning

in urban and rural areas

continue to be a key area of

action

Strengthened understanding

of disaster risk management

throughout the supply chain

as well as specific

considerations on tourism

industry

Source: adapted from UNISDR, n.d and UNISDR, 2015 **Accountability and transparency are areas strongly advocated in the SFDRR and transcend the 4 priority area

140

Appendix II – Stakeholder Feedback and Comments

HARMONISATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER MANAGEMENT

(CDM) AUDIT TOOL WITH THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK

REDUCTION (2015-2030)

Stakeholder Feedback and Comments

Radisson Hotel, Aquatic Gap, Barbados

22 November 2016,

General comments:

Post presentation only one comment was received – the CDEMA CU was encouraged to better

highlight and market the utility of the CDM audit so that countries are aware of the full

spectrum of benefits. It was further noted that with more awareness of the benefits that the

CDM audit would justify the size of the tool.

Comments from working groups:

See Table below for the combined comments from the 4 working groups.

CDM

Indicators

Comments on the Recommendations

Status of stakeholder

recommendations

MITIGATION

M.2.1 Specify scope of the indicator, what exactly the database

should include (date, area, loss and damage, etc.)

Changes incorporated into the

recommendation for M2.1

M.3.1 Specify scope of the indicator, what exactly the database

should include (date, area, loss and damage, etc.);

database of current hazards may register information such

as a drought unfolding at the moment (maybe started 6

months ago but still ongoing) + specify information to be

included.

Comments from the plenary: The Executive Director of

CDEMA indicated that there should not be a need for a

separate database that tracks past and current hazards.

M3.1 is incorporated into the

recommended change for M2.1.

M5.1 Include transparency – be made public This is noted but not reflected in the

recommended change for M5.1.

Reason being, M5.1 was matched

with A15 (open data platform) on

the basis of utilizing a GIS platform.

The point related to transparency is

addressed at indicator M5.7, which

is matched again to A15 on the basis

of transparency and accessibility to

information. See below.

M5.2 Add “Number” and status of assessments / studies (for

each) disaggregated by type (include in status: continuous)

Number is already part of the

recommended change to this

indicator. The ‘continuous’ status

was included.

141

CDM

Indicators



recommendations

M5.7 Suggestion: divide indicator into 2 indicators, one

capturing storage and maintenance and another one to

capture public access (which could be aligned with A.15)

Accepted and included in the final

report.

M5.8 Is it really useful? The emphasis should be on the product

rather the methodology; if the product exists (see M.5.2),

not so relevant to check if methodology/tool is in place

Accepted and included in the final

report.

M8.2 Add the word “risk”; community “risk” profile Noted. The term risk is actually

already included in the

recommended change to indicator

M8.2

PREPAREDNESS

P1.3 Agree Noted

P1.5 Agree Noted

P1.7 Change ‘DRR’ to ‘DRM’ Accepted and included in the final

report.

P2.2 Second option accepted Accepted and reflected in the final

report.

P8.5 Agree Noted

P8.12 Agree Noted

P8.13 Agree but explicitly note ‘drought’ as a hazard Accepted and reflected in the final

report.

P10.1 Modify the language- ‘# of countries with approved

national DM Plans, procedures and sub-plans’

This is accepted but it should be

noted that linkage with the E9(D5)

Sendai Monitor indicator is lost.

P10.3 Modify- frequency of updating of approved national DM

Plans, procedures and sub-plans

Accepted and reflected in the final

report.

P10.4 Modify to include ‘procedures and sub-plans’ Noted, but this indicator is no

longer required based on the

changes at P10.1 and P10.3

P11.5 Modify- # of local government/communities that

participate in CBDRM activities

# would not align this indicator to

the data needs for the SFDRR. % is

the desirable unit of measurement.

P16.4 Was discussed but no consensus reached- some attention

is needed

Noted.

P19.8 Modify- ‘# of annual multi-hazard awareness

campaigns…’


report.

P23.6 Include new indicator(s) that focus(es) on the impact of

the training (is the learning being applied, has capacity

increased, ROI)


report.

P30.1 Modify- change focus to ‘# of communities’ Accepted and reflected in the final

report.

RESPONSE

R9.1 Agreed Noted

R10.1 Agreed. Regional trade is a broader term Noted

R18.2 Support the alternate recommendation: R18.2 can be

restated as # of countries with policies related

mechanisms or incentives to encourage the growth of the

volunteer sector (e.g. health coverage/insurance/

compensation/tax exemption status


report.

142

CDM

Indicators



recommendations

R18.3 Only one indicator should be measured. when you

measure type of volunteers you are already measuring the

quantity. Underline indication if NGO is international or

national. Individuals can be spontaneous or registered/not

registered.


report.

R19.7 R.19.7 Agreed. Replace DRM plan for multi hazard

contingency plan.


report.

R19.8 Agreed. Recommendation takes out the time frame for

testing DRM related plans (should be replaced by multi

hazard contingency plan.


report.

R20.2 Agreed Noted

R20.3 Agreed Noted

R27.4 R.27.4 Don’t agree. This recommendation should be an

additional indicator. First evidence that shelters location

consider the risk posted by hazards.


report.

R28.1 Agreed. Especially that in countries airport are not owned

by the government

Noted

R28.7 R.28.7 Agreed on the first recommendation. Don’t agree

on the second, should be a separated indicator. One has

global mechanism of operating. Information has to be

disaggregated if not could Be lost.


report.

R30.1 Agreed Noted

R35.2 Agreed Noted

R37.6 Agreed Noted

RECOVERY

R40.3 Not sure how you will have a % of budget for recovery

unless there is a contingency fund or you measure the

amount the premium for CCRIF for example. The

working of R40.3 is clearer.


report.

R44.1 Include physical planning, finance and water as key

sectors.

Comments from the plenary: The Executive Director of

CDEMA indicated that including ‘public’ would

eliminate the need to identify all the sectors.

harmonisation of the comprehensive disaster management...

Documents