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

Transcription

1 Harmonisation of the Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction ( ) Prepared by: Ms. Saudia Rahat Prepared for: UNISDR Date: December 2016

2 Contents 1. Background The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) The Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool Methodology Harmonisation Analysis Convergence and Gaps Terminologies Source: Author General Observations Recommendations Including indicators from the SM and Global tools into the CDM Audit Including indicators from the Sendai into the CDM Strategy PMF Other Recommendations References Appendix I Summary of Priority for Action Appendix II Stakeholder Feedback and Comments

3 List of Tables Table 1: Excerpt of... 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 Table 5: Mapping with the Mitigation Component of CDM Audit Table 6: Mapping with the Preparedness Component of the CDM Audit Table 7: Mapping with Response Component of CDM Audit Table 8: Mapping with Recovery Component of CDM Audit Table 9: % coverage of the by the CDM Audit Table 10: % coverage of the by the CDM Audit Table 11: Questions in the SM tool that are linked to the CDM Audit Table 12: Terminologies used in the CDM audit, Sendai the Sendai Monitor Table 13: Discrepancies in standard, indicator and questions

4 1. Background 1.1 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 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 ( ), 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 The Global Target and 4

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 24 th March , include: Global Target A: Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality between compared to Global Target B: Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 between compared to Global Target C: Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 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 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 There are approximately 120 indicators to measure these seven (7) global targets including alternative indicators and the sub-indicators for indexes The 1 Based on negotiations during the Second Session of the Open-ended Inter-governmental Expert Working Group on and Terminology relating to Disaster Risk Reduction held in Geneva, Switzerland from February

6 The (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 Focus 1.Disaster loss and impact 2. Risk Identification and socio economic analysis Suggested indicators (Underlined: suggested core indicators that all countries are expected to report) (Italic: Global indicators to monitor global target) 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. 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 Sendai Priority for Action (PA) PA1 (d) PA1 (b) 6

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. 7

8 Table 2: Logical flow and relationship between the various elements of the CDM audit Phase Components Key Elements Mitigation Risk Identification Hazard Assessment... Subelements Hazard Knowledge... Source: Baastel, 2011:8 Standards 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)... Tool Table 3: Coverage of other tools by the CDM Audit HFA Monitor 90% Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Framework for the CDM Strategy Coverage (approx.) 99% PAHO s DRR Self-Assessment Tool 90% CDEMA Disaster Management Audit 95% 8

9 Tool OECS Benchmark Tool (B-Tool) 60% Source: adapted from Baastel, 2011:12 Coverage (approx.) 9

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 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 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 3. Identify recommendations for inclusion of Sendai 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, the 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. 10

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 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 Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Strategy and Monitoring and Reporting System with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction on 22 nd November, 2016 for verification and feedback. See Appendix II for the compiled comments and an indication of how comments were treated in this report. 11

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. 12

13 Table 5: Mapping with the Mitigation Component of CDM Audit MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 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) M2. Recognized national Hazard Catalogue 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 M2.1. Existence of a record of historical hazard events 3 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 and The Global Targets and. 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 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 2. Availability in terms of usefulness M3. Recognized national repository for Hazard Knowledge M4. Up-to-date and available hazard information in user-friendly form for the regional, national and local levels. M3.1. Existence of a national system of capturing current events M4.1. Evidence that hazard information is useful for national and community level CDM planning. M4.2. Evidence that key sectors 4 lead agencies consider hazard/disaster knowledge resources (databases/maps/systems/assessment tools) useful for CDM planning and decision-making. 3 G-9 Number of countries that have disaster loss databases publicly accessible A2: Disaster Loss Database 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. 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. See comments at M5.4. If the recommendation is approved, then M4.1 can be removed from the CDM audit. 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. 14

15 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 3. Hazard Mapping M5. GIS based hazard mapping is produced at the appropriate scales and resolutions for use at the local and national levels. 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) M5.1. # of countries whose data management analysis and information dissemination software have GIS capability for mapping and modelling M5.2. Status of national studies related to the priority hazards (Planned, in progress, completed and made public) 3 G-5 Number / percentage of countries that have [multihazard national risk assessment /risk information with results in an accessible, [understandable and usable] format for stakeholders and people. A15: Open data platform A7: Risk Assessments A8: multi- hazard risk profile A11: Risk and hazard maps 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. 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. 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 15

16 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 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 3 A8: multi- hazard risk profile A11: Risk and hazard maps 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. M5.4. 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 16

17 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 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. 3 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) 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. 17

18 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 M5.7. Evidence that the products of hazard mapping exercises are centrally stored and accessible to all stakeholders 3 G-10 -Number of countries that have open data policies and mechanisms to make hazard and risk data accessible and available to all users A8: multi- hazard risk profile A11: Risk and hazard maps 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. M5.8. Existence of methodologies or tools for multi-risk assessments and cost benefit analysis M5.7b: evidence that mechanisms (databases etc) contain information on hazards and risks are accessible by the public 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 18

19 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Hazard Assessment Sub-elements Standard Linkages 2 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 3 bigger and more relevant issue is whether the outputs of risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis are used. MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment 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. 19

20 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment vulnerability to priority hazards determined. 6. Social M8. National and community profiles and vulnerability assessments are available and updated. 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 M8.1. # of development policies, plans and programmes developed and implemented to reduce the vulnerability of populations most at risk. 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. This indicator is similar to M19.1. 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 20

21 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment 7. Economic M9. CDM is integrated in the national macroeconomic framework. 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 M8.4. Frequency of revision of HVAs M9.1. Evidence that key sector vulnerability assessments are available and updated 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 governments) with risk profiles that are accessible to all stakeholders. 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.) Risk assessment includes as a component, vulnerability assessments (UNISDR, 2015b); 21

22 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment 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) A9: Sector level risk assessments A7: 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). 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.. 22

23 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment 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 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 E72 (C66): Environment Impact Assessment (EIA): Is disaster risk issue integrated into environment impact assessment? E26 (C6): Drainage infrastructure E27 (C7): Water management E37 (C54): Land-use regulation policy and planning (including urban planning) codes E39 (C55): Building 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 23

24 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Vulnerability Assessment E70 (C29): Environmental restoration/conservation/enhan cement E71 (C64): Ecosystem protection area MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Risk Assessment 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) M11.2. Existence of a HVA methodology/tool for key sectors M11.3. % of key sector facilities having conducted an HVA 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 24

25 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Identification; Key Element: Risk Assessment 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. 25

26 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Land use planning 10. National standards M12. National Physical Development Plans integrates vulnerable areas. M13. The national process for land use planning clearly 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 M12.3. # of countries where land use planning is done at the national level and at the municipal level (as relevant 5.) M13.1. % of mandated communities/local authorities that have a land use plan and or map. 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) 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). E37 (C54) includes a process subindicator % 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. 5 This hence refers to the lowest level of government in the country. 26

27 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Land use planning 11. Application and enforcement defines roles and responsibilities. 12. Zoning M14. Zoning regulations that address Hazard information are applied and enforced. 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. 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 codes E39 (C55): Building 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 riskreducing infrastructure Mason training Use of improved technologies and materials Building codes consider disaster risks 27

28 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Land use planning M14.2. Status of countries zoning regulations. (Planned, in progress, completed) 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 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Building codes 13. Regional Standard M15. Regional Building Standards (RBS) are updated and available. M15.1. # of countries with updated building codes based on the RBS M15.2. Existence of a completed 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 28

29 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Building codes 14. National standards (with emphasis on CI) 15. Application and enforcement (especially for CI but across all sectors) M16a. Governments are legally bound by their National building codes. requirements. M16b. Building Codes incorporate hazard impact considerations M17. All levels of government apply and enforce the provisions of national building codes. M16.1. Evidence that national building codes are legislated M16.2. Evidence that building codes incorporate hazard impact assessments 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. M17.1. Evidence 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 E39 (C55): Building codes B16: Enforcement 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) 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. 29

30 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Building codes 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 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 M18.2. Existence of designated regional focal points for the development of safety standards (by sector). 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). 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. 30

31 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Safety standards 18. Application and Enforcement M20. All levels of governments enforce national Safety Standards. M19.3. # of countries with safety standards for key sectors. M19.4. # of countries with a focal point for the development of safety standards for key sectors establishments. 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. 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. 31

32 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Incentives 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/enhanc ement E76 (C33): Productive asset protection Comments on Terminologies 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. 32

33 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Non-structural Mitigation; Key Element: Incentives Comments on Terminologies E93 (C39): Cultural heritage protection MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: New facilities 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. 33

34 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: New facilities 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 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 34

35 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: Old 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.] 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. M24.3 is focused on evidence of participation whilst the global indicators are more explicit as to whether facilities have been made more safe/resilient. 35

36 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: Old facilities 23. Maintenance M25. Adequate maintenance programmes support retrofitted CI. M24.4. # and type of CI facilities identified for safety/ resiliency improvements 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. 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. 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 Comment (CDM Audit): this is a broad indicator. Mitigation measures can include incentives, standards, 36

37 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Structural Mitigation; Key Element: Old facilities policies, plans etc. these are all individually covered by the audit tool. MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Financial Measures 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 37

38 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Financial Measures M26.3. # of countries that self-insure their public sector structures 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 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 38

39 MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Financial Measures 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. 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 E54 (C25): Catastrophe insurance E54 (C25) includes catastrophe insurance related to agriculture/crops MITIGATION; COMPONENT: Risk Transfer; Key Element: Incentive Measures 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). 39