Integrating disaster risk reduction into the CCA and UNDAF - A guide for UN Country Teams (UNDG - 2011)

8/6/2019 Integrating disaster risk reduction into the CCA and UNDAF - A guide for UN Country Teams (UNDG - 2011)

1/80

INTEGRATINGDISASTER RISK REDUCTIONINTO THE CCA AND UNDAF

A Guide or UN Country Teams


2/80


3/80

INTEGRATINGDISASTER RISK REDUCTIONINTO THE CCA AND UNDAF

A Guide or UN Country Teams


4/80

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams i

Foreword

This guidance note is intended to support those United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs) embarking on,or reviewing, their Common Country Assessment (CCA) and United Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF) in countries where disaster risk constitutes an important challenge to nationaldevelopment and poverty reduction. Because o the close relationship between disaster and climate changethe guidance note is also anticipated to be o use when considering climate change adaptation.

The purpose o this document is to provide step by step advice on how to integrate disaster risk reduction(DRR) into the process o CCA/UNDAF preparation, ormulation, and monitoring and evaluation. Thisguidance note is intended to complement and provide additionality to the United Nations DevelopmentGroups (UNDG) Guidelines or UN Country Teams on Preparing a CCA and UNDAF . The document can also

be use ul to the wider development community by providing help ul insights on integrating DRR into broaderdevelopment analysis, strategic planning and programming.

The Secretary-Generals 1997 re orm agenda sought to make the United Nations (UN) an e ective institutionor the new challenges and developments o the 21st century and to articulate a coherent vision andstrategy or a uni ed approach towards common development goals at country level. To this end the CCAand UNDAF were adopted as strategic planning tools so that the UN system could better support nationaldevelopment e orts within the context o the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Disasters caused by vulnerability to natural hazards exert an enormous toll on development. They posesigni cant threats to poverty alleviation and the achievement o the MDGs and this challenge is likely to beexacerbated as the impacts o climate change are increasingly elt.

In many countries, the process o development itsel has a huge impact, both positive and negative, ondisaster risk. Countries that ace similar patterns o natural hazards o ten experience widely di ering impactswhen events o similar scale occur. This varying impact depends in large part on the kind o developmentchoices they have made. The solution to this challenge is to make a concerted e ort towards integratingDRR interventions into broader development approaches. An important step towards this is or the UNCT tointegrate DRR as part o the CCA/UNDAF.


5/80

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams ii

Acknowledgements

In response to the decision o the UN Secretary-Generals Policy Committee to urther mainstream disasterrisk reduction and the Hyogo Framework or Action into UN system policies and practices, the UNDG and theInternational Strategy or Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR) set up a joint task team in 2008.

The task-team was co-chaired by the United Nations Environment Programme (Zehra Aydin) and the UnitedNations Development Programme (Judith Karl). The key output o the task-team is the present guidance noteor UN Country Teams. The dra ting process was led by UNEP (Glenn Dolcemascolo) and UNDP (FenellaFrost). The document bene ted greatly rom inputs and guidance rom the ollowing agencies: FAO, ILO,ITU, OCHA, UNAIDS, UNESCO, UN-HABITAT, UNICEF, UNIDO, UNIFEM, UNISDR, WFP, WHO and WMO.Particular thanks are due to the ollowing UN Country Teams that provided a critical reality check by

commenting on an earlier dra t version: Armenia, Fiji, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Mozambique, Pakistan, Panamaand the Philippines.

Editorial Note

This guidance note will be regularly updated to respond to new developments and refect eedback rompractitioners. The latest version is available or download on the UNDG website: www.undg.org/drr .

We welcome your comments on the use ulness o the guidelines and suggestions or improvement to thisguidance. Please send to: [email protected].


6/80

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams iii

Summary

In 2009 the UNDG revised its Guidelines or UN Country Teams on Preparing a CCA and UNDAF (herea ter re erred toas CCA/UNDAF Guidelines). The CCA/UNDAF Guidelines highlight the importance o DRR as a cross-cutting theme. Thepresent guidance note is or UNCTs engaged in the CCA/UNDAF process in countries where disaster risk is considered asigni cant challenge to national development and poverty reduction. Its purpose is to provide step by step advice, includinglinks to resources, on how to integrate DRR into the process o CCA/UNDAF preparation, ormulation, and monitoringand evaluation. The guidance note complements, and should be read in conjunction with, the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines . Itmay also be o use to the wider development community when undertaking comprehensive development assessment,planning, programme management, and monitoring and evaluation.

This note provides substantive guidance and examples o how to integrate DRR into the CCA/UNDAF process. It recognisesthat there is no one blue-print or success ul integration o DRR into development. Each UNCT needs to tailor its programmesto the speci c needs o the country involved, and the priorities and capacities o the national government and its population.

The document ocuses on disasters caused by vulnerability to natural hazards rather than those related to confict or civilunrest. Because o the close relationship between climate change and disaster risk and the act that DRR is an essentialelement o climate change adaptation, the guidance note will also be help ul to UNCTs wishing to address climate changeimpacts in their analysis and uture plans. It will also be use ul or UNCTs dealing with related risks, like ood insecurity andtechnological risk.

The guidance note identi es critical steps or integrating DRR into the analytical and strategic planning process and will helpUNCTs to:

Analyse disaster risk including the root causes o disasters and why and how they are likely to a ect sectors,assets and communities. This should include assessment o hazards, elements exposed to those hazards (i.e.sectors, assets and communities) and the actors that infuence vulnerability o those elements. In particular thedocument highlights the need to consider how the trends and patterns o hazards and vulnerability are likely to bea ected by climate variability and change .

Review how disaster risk interacts with development examine the two-way relationship between disasters anddevelopment looking at how critical sectors o development are likely to be a ected by disasters and, conversely,how disaster risk can be exacerbated or reduced by development actions.

Examine national capacities and risk reduction options examine existing capacities o relevant actors at alllevels to better protect lives, livelihoods and assets.

Identi y priorities or intervention based on identi ed needs, government priorities, the UNCT comparativeadvantage and planned activities o other development partners.

Agree on the most appropriate areas or UNCT support review the value added o resident and non-resident UNagencies in DRR. This involves e ective prioritisation o short, medium and long term deliverables.

Include DRR as an integral part o the UNDAF monitoring and evaluation process.

This guidance note is structured as ollows:

Introduction provides an overview o the relationship between disasters and development and outlines the keyinternational commitments to DRR.

Part 1 describes how DRR relates to the CCA/UNDAF key principles or engagement. Part 2 explains how DRR can be e ectively captured in strategic country level analysis or development planning

(including in the CCA, i one is undertaken). Part 3 explains how DRR can be incorporated into the preparation o the UNDAF, including refection on whether DRR

should be considered as a cross-cutting area, a separate pillar or a combination o the two. Part 4 provides an indication o e ective monitoring and evaluation o DRR e orts.

The document also considers how DRR relates to the inter-related principles o human rights, gender equality, environmentalsustainability and capacity development. A number o Annexes are included. These are substantive, providing help uladditional advice and practical examples.


7/80

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams iv

Contents

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Editorial Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Why do Disasters Matter to the UNCT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7What is Disaster Risk Reduction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9The Link with Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Part 1: UN Cooperation at Country Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.1 Elements o Per ormance, Principles or Engagement and DRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2 Critical Elements or the UNCT to Incorporate DRR into the CCA/UNDAF Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Part 2: Country Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.1 Purpose and Expected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2 Getting It Done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142.3 DRR as an Element o High-Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.3.1 Human Rights Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.3.2 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.3.3 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202.3.4 Capacity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Part 3: Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223.2 Expected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.3 Getting It Done and Identi ying DRR Priorities and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.3.1 Integrating DRR as a Cross-Cutting Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233.3.2 DRR as an UNDAF Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3.3 Identi ying DRR Action and Outputs within the UNDAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Part 4: Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264.2 Expected Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264.3 Getting It Done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274.4 DRR-Related M&E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.4.1 M&E or DRR in the UNDAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284.4.2 National Level Requirements or Monitoring the HFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Annex 1. Glossary o Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Annex 2. Critical Areas o DRR as Identi ed in the HFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Annex 3. Examples o UNDAFs Which Include DRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Annex 4. In-Country Analysis: Checklist or Identi ying Existing DRR In ormation and Related Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Annex 5. Identi ying Relevant Stakeholders Across the DRR Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Annex 6. Assessing Disaster Risk and Capacities : Key In ormation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53Annex 7. Examples o How Disasters A ect Di erent Sectors/Areas o Development and How DRRcan Contribute to Development E orts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Annex 8. Example o a DRR Sensit ive UNDAF Results Matr ix: Georgia UNDAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Annex 9. How DRR can be Integrated into Areas o Development: Indicative Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Annex 10. Integrating DRR into MDG based UNDAFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Annex 11. The UNCT role in Enabling DRR Institutional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Annex 12. MDGs and Indicators Sensitive to DRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75


8/80

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams v

CBO Community Based OrganizationCCA Common Country AssessmentCP Country ProgrammeCSO Civil Society OrganizationDMT Disaster Management TeamDRR Disaster Risk Reduction

GDP Gross Domestic ProductHFA Hyogo Framework or Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience o Nations and

Communities to DisastersHRBA Human Rights Based ApproachICT In ormation and Communication TechnologiesIDP Internally Displaced PersonIMF International Monetary FundIOM International Organization or MigrationIPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate ChangeISDR International Strategy or Disaster Reduction

LDC Least Developed CountryM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMDG Millennium Development GoalNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationODA O cial Development AssistanceRBM Results-Based ManagementSIDS Small Island Developing StatesSWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and ThreatsUNCT United Nations Country TeamUNDAF United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUNDG United Nations Development GroupUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSD United States Dollars

List o Acronyms

The ollowing abbreviations relate to those used in the main text and in the annexes. This list does notinclude the acronyms o United Nations agencies, which are listed at: www.un.org


9/80

Introduction

This section provides an overview o the relationship between disasters and development as well as outlining the key commitments made by the international community to DRR. It also shows the utility o this document to those UNCTs addressing climate change adaptation.

Disasters occur when vulnerable communitiesare a ected by a hazard or shock. While there aremany kinds o hazards that can lead to disaster,

this document deals with disasters resultingrom natural hazards. These include hydro-meteorological hazards (including wind-storms,foods and droughts) and geological hazards(including earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis andvolcanic eruptions). This guidance may also be ouse to UNCTs looking at other risks or shocks wherea risk management approach can provide a use ulbasis or action, including technological disasters(such as industrial incidents), ood insecurity-relatedshocks and climate change-related impacts.

Why do Disasters Matter to the UNCT?Nearly 1.2 million people have lost their lives innatural hazard-related disasters over the past twodecades. Associated economic losses are estimatedto total approximately 70 billion USD per year, withpoor countries bearing the bulk o the losses. In2004 alone, disasters killed nearly 245,000 people;while in 2005 economic damages worth 215 billionUSD were recorded 1.

Disaster risk is increasingly global in character.Factors such as climate change and globalisationmean that actions in one region may have an impacton disaster risk in another, and vice versa. This iscompounded by growing vulnerability resultingrom unplanned urbanisation, under-development

and competition or scarce resources and points toa uture where disasters will increasingly threatenthe worlds economy and population. The UNUnder-Secretary-General or Humanitarian A airsreports that 9 out o every 10 disasters are nowclimate-related. Climate change has the potentialto exacerbate disaster risk; not only because o theexpected increase in requency and intensity oextreme climate events but also due to its e ect onthe drivers o vulnerabilityincluding ood insecurity,

loss o ecosystem services and new patterns omigration. The 2008 ood price crisis is an exampleo how the cumulative e ects o multiple shocks(including natural hazards) can have dramatic impacton the most vulnerable. Equally, in many countries,disasters and conficts co-exist, having a mutuallyrein orcing impact resulting in increased levels oinsecurity.

Whilst mortality and economic loss are intensivelyconcentrated in a ew large-scale catastrophes,extensively distributed small-scale disasters areresponsible or increased losses in livelihood assets.As a result, even i a countrys overall levels ogrowth remain positive, disasters can underminee orts towards poverty reduction, by speci callya ecting the most vulnerable segments o society.There is clear evidence that the impacts o disasterare borne disproportionately by women, children andthe poor 2.

There is a strong correlation between disastersand development. Development plays an importantrole in decreasing or increasing disaster risk.Inappropriate development can increase levels ovulnerability to disaster risk and, in turn, disasterscan negatively a ect poor countries development 3.The Kashmir earthquake, or example, where

Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF: A Guide or UN Country Teams 1


10/80


many schools collapsed causing high loss o li e,demonstrated the consequences o ailing toaddress disaster risk in the construction o essentialin rastructure. The earthquake caused an estimated5 billion USD in damage to Pakistan, roughlyequivalent to the total development assistance to thecountry or the preceding three years. Furthermore,large-scale disasters divert investments away romkey development sectors, towards recovery andreconstruction e orts 4.

These challenges become progressively moresigni cant as we move toward 2015, the deadlineby when the MDG targets are to be met. It is nowlargely recognised that the world as a whole, andsome regions in particular, are unlikely to achievecertain targets. In a number o countries disasterscontribute to this challenge 5 . Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States(SIDS) are especially disaster-prone and vulnerable.

As a result, there is growing recognition that whilst

early warning systems, emergency response andhumanitarian e orts are important, there is anurgent need to reduce underlying vulnerabilities andother risk actors. This can only be achieved throughintegrating DRR into ongoing development plansand interventions. Supporting national capacity toreduce risk should be at the heart o any such e ort,and this includes supporting local community e ortsto build their own capacity to withstand existing andpotential disaster risk.

The main international ramework guiding work andmeasuring progress on DRR is the internationallynegotiated Hyogo Framework or Action 2005-2015:Building the Resilience o Nations and Communities to Disasters (re erred herea ter as HFA). This

ramework was adopted by 168 countries in 2005,and subsequently endorsed by the UN GeneralAssembly. It provides an overview o the mainelements required or DRR at all levels. The HFAspeci cally calls upon international organizationsand UNCTs to integrate disaster risk reductionconsiderations into development assistancerameworks, such as the Common CountryAssessments, the United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Frameworks and poverty reductionstrategies.

International support or the integration o DRR intosustainable development rameworks is also notedin a number o other international agreements , including:

The UN Millennium Declaration and Road Map Towards the Implementation o the United Nations Millennium Declaration whichemphasised the need to intensi y our collectivee orts to reduce the number and e ects o

natural and man-made disasters. The Fi ty-Ninth Session (2004) o the General

Assembly [Resolution 59/233] which prioritisedthe mainstreaming o DRR into countryprogrammes and action plans.

The Johannesburg Programme o Implementation o the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development which identi ed theimportance o integrating DRR into development.

The Bali Action Plan 2008 which explicitly linkedclimate change, DRR and development.

In recognition o the importance o this agenda theSecretary-Generals Policy Committee made speci cdecisions on DRR and climate change adaptation in2007. These included:


11/80


to highlight the importance o raising greaterpolitical attention/advocacy, led by theSecretary-General, to the bene ts o DRR andthe consequences o not investing in it;

to commit the UN to enhance links andsynergies between DRR and climate change;and

to promote better mainstreaming o DRR and theHFA in UN policies and practices.

The CCA /UNDAF provides an important opportunityor mainstreaming DRR into the UN systemspractice at the national level. In recognition o thisthe revised CCA/UNDAF Guidelines make explicitre erence to the importance o DRR. The CCA/ UNDAF Guidelines indicate that disaster risk shouldbe refected in all stages o the CCA/UNDAFprocess, including: (a) at the stage o analysis: herethe expected result rom the UNCT involvementin the national analytical process should be toinclude recognition o the risks o crises and naturaldisasters, as well as capacities or crisis prevention

and disaster preparedness, and (b) at the stageo programme ormulation: here UNDAFs shouldrefect risks o crises and natural disasters, as wellas capacity gaps or crisis prevention and disasterpreparedness, as identi ed in the analysis.

What is Disaster Risk Reduction?Disaster risk reduction is de ned by the InternationalStrategy or Disaster Reduction (ISDR) as, Actiontaken to reduce the risk o disasters and the adverseimpacts o natural hazards, through systematic

e orts to analyse and manage the causes odisasters, including through avoidance o hazards,reduced social and economic vulnerability tohazards, and improved preparedness or adverseevents. A list o DRR terms and concepts is given inAnnex 1.

A hazard or shock becomes a disaster when ita ects vulnerable communities. Communityvulnerability is exacerbated by poor social, economicand physical development planning decisions. Atthe heart o DRR is the need to consider: (a) inwhat ways communities and their developmentare vulnerable to disasters; (b) how communitiesdevelopment choices increase or decrease thelevels o disaster risk to which they are exposed/ vulnerable; and (c) to what degree communitycapacity can be strengthened to better deal withexisting and uture risk. There is also a realizationthat community is not a homogeneous entity. Itscomposition includes women, men, boys, girls, theelderly, poor, rich and the disabled, all o whom havedi erential access to power and resources, which inturn a ects their vulnerability and capacity. DRR includes e orts to minimise risks and relatedvulnerabilities. This includes e orts to prevent disaster risk, and to limit the adverse impacto hazards when they occur, through disaster

mitigation, preparedness and response .Meaning ul progress requires these e orts to beembedded in national development processes andully institutionalised by government.

A comprehensive approach to reduce the risks odisasters and measure progress towards puttingDRR processes in place is set out in the HFA.A diagram showing the critical areas o DRR, asidenti ed in the HFA, is given in Annex 2.

The HFA ve priorities or action are:

1. Ensuring that there is appropriate nationaland local prioritisation or DRR and thatthe necessary institutional basis orimplementation is in place. Countries will only


12/80


be able to reduce risk sustainably i they haveappropriate institutional capacity, which includeshaving: appropriate legislation supported bymechanisms to en orce compliance; appropriateresources (e.g. nancial and human); and thepolitical will to allocate resources to DRR.

2. Undertaking risk assessments and havingmechanisms in place or e ective riskmonitoring and early warning. DRR includeshaving knowledge and know-how to respondto the main hazards (e.g. earthquake risk) andthe vulnerabilities (physical, social, economicand environmental) that a country or geographicarea ace. This includes the ability to monitorand track changes to hazards or levels ovulnerability, and the ability to communicatee ectively early warning to at-risk populationsand decision-makers.

3. Building a culture o sa ety througheducation (both ormal and in ormal) as well

as knowledge and innovation generationand promotion. DRR relies on the awarenesso all critical actors to appreciate and ul l theirroles and responsibilities. This ranges rom theability o government o cials to integrate DRRinto their sectoral plans, to the knowledge oschool children on how they should react whenan earthquake strikes. Both in ormal and ormaleducation has a key role to play in achieving thisculture o sa ety.

4. Reducing the underlying risk actors. DRRaims to reduce the loss rom disasters byaddressing their root causes, or example byensuring that critical in rastructure is disaster-proo (resistant to disaster risk), supportingdiversi cation o livelihoods in drought prone

areas, managing natural resources and adoptingintegrated approaches to planning.

5. Preparing responses at all levels. When adisaster strikes the scale o its impact is, in part,determined by the speed and e ectivenesso the response o all actorscommunitiesand governments alike. Preparedness is a keyprerequisite to e ective response. This includese ective emergency management planning andstockpiling essential relie items.

The Link with Climate ChangeClimate change and disasters are integrallylinked. Climate change a ects physical hazardsand the coping capacity o communities to dealwith disasters. It is important that national levele orts to adapt to climate change and reducedisaster risk are e ectively harmonized. This is oparticular importance in LDCs where governmentcapacity is especially strained, and SIDS, which areextremely vulnerable to climate-related disasters.Risk management approaches are an importantcomponent o climate change adaptation. As aresult, climate change is considered as a cross-cutting theme throughout this document, and itis hoped that it will provide a use ul contributionto those UNCTs also seeking to address climatechange risk in their uture work.


13/80


14/80


emergency response, when disasters do occur,relies on the appropriateness and timelinesso national and local interventions. The HFAmakes speci c re erence to empoweringcommunities and local authorities to managetheir own development by supporting theiraccess to necessary in ormation, resources andauthority to implement DRR actions as a part otheir development decision-making. Capacitydevelopment should be at the centre o DRRplanning and programming, not inserted as ana terthought or as an add on.

5. Results-Based Management (RBM). RBM isa strategic management approach that UNCTsmust use with partners to plan, cost, implement,monitor and measure the changes romcooperation, rather than only the inputs providedor activities conducted. The approachs ocus onresults is highly bene cial or DRR planning andprogramming, ensuring that progress towards riskreduction is achieved and measured.

Confict and disasters are also highlighted in theCCA/UNDAF Guidelines as important elementsor high-quality analysis. Although causality isdisputed, conficts and disasters do have importantinterrelationships. These two dimensions o crisiso ten occur in the same geographic location andhave common infuencing actors, such as poorgovernance (including lack o accountability to thepoorest), and environmental stress.

1.2 Critical Elements or the UNCT toIncorporate DRR into the CCA/UNDAFProcessIncorporating DRR into the CCA/UNDAF is arequirement or all UNCTs where disaster risk providesan existing or potential barrier to development andpoverty reduction. Examples o UNDAFs that include

DRR issues are available in Annex 3. Drawing onthe HFA, UNCTs should ensure that their e orts tointegrate DRR into the CCA/UNDAF process areguided by the ollowing critical elements.

1) Identi cation o the root causes o disasterrisk in terms o hazard, exposed elements andvulnerability o populations, in rastructure andeconomic activities.

2) Promotion o a multi-hazard approach to DRRwhich addresses all the major disaster risks whichthe country aces.

3) Development o lasting in-country capacity atindividual, institutional and societal levels.

4) Reduction o the vulnerabilities o the poorestand other marginalised groups. Reducing disasterrisk and enhancing the coping mechanisms opoor communities should be analysed within thecontext o poverty alleviation programmes.

5) Reduction o speci c risks and vulnerabilities thatmay undermine e orts to achieve the MDGs and other international conventions to which thecountry is party.

6) Identi cation o how UN agencies cancontribute to the reduction o disasterrisk including ensuring that UN programmingoutcomes will not create new or increased risksand vulnerabilities, and protecting the UNDAF

outcomes rom the threat o crisis (natural andman-made disasters) and climate change.

7) Building on existing experiences, capacities andmechanisms, including utilising lessons learned on DRR rom past development and humanitariancooperation 6.


15/80


16/80


2.2 Getting It DoneThe CCA/UNDAF Guidelines outline the basic stepsto be undertaken by the UNCT to integrate DRR intonational level development analysis. These steps aresummarised in Diagram 1. The remainder o Part 2suggests how DRR concerns can be considered ateach step.

Step 1: Understanding National Processes,

Timelines and ActorsIn order to identi y gaps in addressing disaster riskand to assess the comparative advantage o theUNCT to ll these gaps, the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines recommend a review o processes, timelines andactors involved in the national planning process.Some use ul guiding questions are included in Annex 4(see especially those in point 2).

Since DRR is a multisectoral process, achieving theexpected results rom the analytical process requirescontributions rom a range o stakeholders. UNCTshave fexibility to decide with partners how toachieve these results (see Annex 5 or more detail).An important element o this step will be or the

UNCT to undertake a review o its own comparative

advantage in DRR. This will provide the basis ordeciding programme areas which will be supportedin the uture by the UNCT. I it so chooses, the inter-agency team leading on this issue can undertake aDRR-speci c analysis o strengths, weaknesses,opportunities and threats (SWOT).

Diagram 1. Getting it done

U n

d e r s

t a n d n a

t i o n a

l p r o c e s s e s ,

t i m e l i n

e s a n

d a c t o r s

R e v

i e w a n a

l y t i c p r o c e s s e s

a n d p r o

d u c t s

S e

l e c t a n a p p r o a c h

t o f i l l i n g

a n a

l y t i c g a p s

Step 4. Integrate DDRinto the process of analysis (based on CCA)

Step 4.i) Gather information

Step 4.ii) Assess the situation

Step 4.iii) Select challenges fordeeper analysis

Step 4.iv) Analyse selectedproblems and challenges

Step 1. Step 2. Step 3.

UNDAF

Diagram 1. Getting it done


17/80


Step 2: Reviewing Analytic Processes andProductsThe UNCT and partners should review existingcountry level analysis o critical aspects o nationaldevelopment (including analysis related to thepoverty reduction strategy, gender analysis andhousehold surveys), and assess to what degreethey address disaster risk concerns. This will helpthe UNCT to identi y analytic gaps and to consideran appropriate level o UNCT involvement in urtheranalyses. The aim is not to criticize what exists,but to work with national partners to highlight gapswhere UNCT support can bring added depth andquality. A checklist on how to identi y the statuso DRR analysis in-country, including whether itis adequately covered within wider developmentanalysis, is provided in Annex 4. Major analyticgaps that are identi ed may be addressed as utureactivity areas in the UNDAF.

Step 3: Selecting an Approach to FillingAnalytic Gaps

As outlined in the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines , in orderto respond to any gaps identi ed, the UNCT andpartners may choose any or all o the ollowingoptions:

Option A. Participate in government-led andharmonized donor analytical work.

Option B. Undertake complementary UN-supported analytical work.

Option C. Undertake a ull CCA process.

I Option A is selected, the UNCT can encouragepartners to examine risks urther. The checklist inAnnex 4 provides a guide to explore this in moredetail. I Option B or Option C is selected, theUNCT can use its resources to ll the analytic gaps,including through additional studies.

Step 4: Integrating DRR into the CCAThe time and resources available to the UNCT willdictate the level o detail and depth o analysis easibleor the exercise. As illustrated in Diagram 1, our sub-steps are identi ed in the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines, inorder to undertake analysis within the CCA:

i) Gather in ormationii) Assess the situationiii) Select challenges or deeper

analysisiv) Analyse selected problems and

challenges to identi y root causes

The ollowing discussion shows how DRR can beidenti ed in each o these sub-steps. Throughoutthis process the expected results o the analysis,outlined in Section 2.1, should be considered.

i) Gather In ormationDisaster risk is comprised o our elements: physicalhazards ; exposure to those hazards (o national

assets including populations, in rastructure andsectors); and vulnerability o those assets. Theextent o a disasters impact will depend on thelevels o resilience or capacity to resist/cope withthe risk. An assessment o disaster risk shouldconsider all our elements.

There is a high probability that some assessmentshave already been conducted or speci c hazardsand/or or speci c regions or urban areas. Thesee orts should be identi ed and be taken intoaccount on a priority basis, as they usually providemore detail and involve local knowledge. A quickevaluation should be done to determine the qualityo these di erent assessments and whether theyare up to date. Annex 5 identi es whom best toconsult during the assessment process. Additionalin ormation or more detailed analysis is provided inAnnex 6.


18/80


Hazard In ormation: In ormation on the ullrange o hazards that a ect the country should beexamined. Hazards are characterized by magnitude,duration, location and timing. In addition toconsidering historical trends, it is important toconsider how new developments, including climatechange, will a ect hazard requency and intensity.

Exposure In ormation: Exposure data identi esthe elements at riskthe who, what and where olikely impact. In an ideal situation, the identi cationo elements at risk would be achieved throughconsultation with stakeholders; however, or analysisat a broad level, accounts o historic damages andlosses provide a reasonable indication o exposure 7.Future exposure will be a ected by social, economicand ecological changes.

Vulnerability In ormation : Vulnerability is amulti aceted concept that examines exposure andits causes more closely. Social, gender, economicand environmental actors play a critical role in

determining how susceptible certain populationsare to a hazard event. Whilst traditional copingcapacities, social sa ety nets and even traditionalearly warning systems can greatly reduce thevulnerability o a community, social conditionscan make particular social groups more vulnerablethan others. Women, or example, may be morevulnerable than men.

Capacity In ormation : Capacity assessmentin ormation identi es existing capacities and gaps

o governmental and NGOs (including privatesector, CSOs, CBOs and womens organizations) tomanage and reduce disaster risk 8 . Capacity analysisor DRR should be ramed in alignment with theHFA, which identi es critical capacities requiredto undertake each element o risk reduction. It isimportant to ensure that capacities at sub-national

and community levels are considered alongsidethose o central government, as the local level is therst line o response to disasters. It is also importantto ensure that a community is not considered as ahomogeneous entity but that the di erent capacitieso women, girls, men, boys, the elderly and thedisabled are taken into account.

In ormation or assessing each o these ourelements will come rom a wide variety o sources.Hazard assessments and related analyses are usuallyavailable rom national scienti c and technicalservices, such as meteorological and hydrologicalservices, and national geological services. Inaddition, global and regional data sources o tenprovide rough in ormation about major hazard typesin each country 9 and signi cant regional in ormation.In ormation on vulnerability, exposure and historicdisaster impacts may be available through thestatistical services o various ministries, academicnetworks and other agencies, including the RedCross/Red Crescent.

ii) Assess the SituationThis assessment will help to determine whetherDRR should be prioritised as a speci c UNDAFoutcome area, as well as being addressed as across-cutting theme. It will also spell out how toaddress the risk and vulnerability concerns in otherUNDAF outcomes.

Based on the in ormation gathered in earliersteps, the UNCT will be in a position to determine

whether there is su cient in ormation available to:characterize risk to development sectors; evaluatecapacities to cope with these risks; and based onthese, identi y uture areas o action. Annex 7provides indicative examples o how disasters a ectdi erent sectors. It also illustrates how DRR cancontribute to development e orts in these areas.


19/80


Annex 6 includes guidance on assessing capacitiesand related gaps.

The data on the population and livelihoods atrisk should be considered through an HRBA andgender lens, recognizing that the exposure o theseelements, vulnerabilities and capacities to managethe risks, are distributed unequally. The poor andmarginalized o ten su er disproportionately.

Even i data at sub-national level is not available,analysis o in ormation and resource fows betweenadministrative levels will help to understand i thepolicies and systems in place are supportive o locallevel action.

iii) Select Challenges or Deeper AnalysisBased on the consensus agreed in Step 2, theUNCT and national partners will identi y particularproblems or challenges or deeper analysis. Toguide the selection o priorities, stakeholders andvulnerable groups should be encouraged to engage

in a dialogue regarding acceptable levels o risk (i.e.how much risk a society is willing to tolerate). Thiswill vary between countries). In addition to thecriteria identi ed in the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines orselecting issues or deeper analysis, some risk-related issues include:

Historic patterns o losses that reveal mostintensive loss o lives or livelihoods.

Areas subject to high requency but low intensityevents that repeatedly erode development gains

and livelihood capacities. Critical in rastructure and li eline services. Disparities in patterns o vulnerability, such as

those based on gender. Patterns that suggest key development

outcomes will be a ected.

Indications that development choices mayurther exacerbate vulnerability.

Evidence that climate change will result in morerequent or intense hazard events.

iv) Analyse Selected Problems and Challengesto Identi y Root CausesThe quality o the CCA depends on the depth andquality o the analysis. The analysis organizes themain data, trends and ndings into relationshipso cause and e ect. It identi es the mani estationo the problem (or its e ect on people) and theunderlying and root causes. These elements shouldbe disaggregated as much as possible by sex, age,geographic area and ethnicity, among others. Theproblem tree is one o the tools recommendedby the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines , as it can provideuse ul insights into the causes o disaster risk andpossible solutions. See Diagram 2 or an example oa problem tree related to DRR).

The problem tree ocuses on three levels o analysis:

Immediate Causes the unsa e conditions and/orelements at risk. These may be physical causes suchas unprotected buildings or dangerous locations,ragile socio-economic conditions such as lowincomes and precarious livelihoods, or these may begroups that are especially vulnerable.

Underlying Causes social and economicstructures or conditions that push vulnerable groupsor assets into unsa e locations. Local landowners,commercial companies and local governmentcan infuence vulnerability through their policies,practices and decision-making. Macro- orces arealso a actor or example, issues such as rapidpopulation growth, de orestation and decliningsoil productivity may all play a role. Other dynamic


20/80


pressures may include lack o local institutions orlack o training and skills.

Root Causes concern attitudes and behaviourat di erent levels rom amily, communities andgovernments. Political ideology, economic principlesand culture all infuence behaviour. Decisions andactions, particularly by those in positions o authority,can create the pressures that push people to unsa econditions. In some cases, the underlying or root

causes may be the same or di erent developmentchallenges. Identi cation o overlaps will increasethe likelihood that policy or programmatic responseswill yield multiple positive impacts.

The identi cation o causes through this type oanalysis can help the UNCT to identi y potentialsolutions or reducing risk where it has acomparative advantage.

Diagram 2. Using a problem tree to identify the cause of disaster risk

HazardsFloods; Cyclones, Landslides; Earthquakes; Droughts

IMMEDIATE CAUSES

UNDERLYING CAUSES

ROOT CAUSES

Fragile PhysicalEnvironment

Dangerous locations;Unprotected Buildings &

Infrastructure; Disease

FragileLocal Economy

Livelihoods at Risk;Low income levels

Vulnerable SocietySpecial Groups at Risk;

Lack of Local Institutions;Public Action; Lack of

Disaster Preparedness

Lack of:Local Institutions; Training; Appropriate

Skills; Local Investments; LocalMarkets; Press Freedom; Ethical

Standards in Public Life

Macro-forcesRapid Population Growth; ArmsExpenditure; Debt Repayment

Schedules; Deforestation; DecliningSoil Productivity

Limited AccessPower Structures, Resources, Ideologies, Political Systems,

Economic Systems

! !

Diagram 2. Using a problem tree to identi y the cause o disaster risk


21/80


2.3 DRR as an Element o High-QualityAnalysisIn preparing analytical work to determine the causeso major development problems, including disasterrisks, it is important to consider how DRR is linkedto the other UNDAF inter-related principles (asdiscussed in Section1.1). This section considers howDRR is connected to analysis o our substantiveprinciples: HRBA, Gender, Environment andCapacity Development. The th principle, RBM,which is process oriented, is dealt with as a cross-cutting issue throughout this guidance note.

2.3.1 Human Rights Based ApproachThe CCA/UNDAF Guidelines characteriseidenti cation o rights-holders, and duty-bearers as aspeci c step in the process o analysis or the CCA.An HRBA recognizes people as rights-holders (also re erred to as claim-holders, or subjects orights) and as key actors in their own development.They are not passive recipients o bene ts, or in thecase o risk, passive potential victims. At the sametime, it recognizes the corresponding human rights

obligations o the duty-bearers , which include bothstate and non-state actors, to respect, protect andul l human rights.

2.3.2 GenderTaking an integrated approach to gender analysisand disaster risk can provide critical insights onhow vulnerability to disasters a ects women, men,boys and girls, as well as their di erent capacitiesto support response or mitigation. Gender analysisinvolves, among other tools, the gathering and

use o sex-disaggregated data (both quantitativeand qualitative) that reveals the roles, activities,needs and opportunities, including their accessto resources, o men and women. Gender-basedanalysis does not consider women and men ashomogeneous groups. Instead it considers theirroles in the context o culture, class, ethnicity,income and education. As a result, gender analysiscan provide a valuable basis through which to lookat vulnerabilities and opportunities to respond todisasters across a country context. In carrying outgender-based DRR analysis, e orts should be madeto consider both the needs and vulnerabilities omen and women related to disasters risk, as well astheir potential contributions to risk reduction.

Box 1. Using HRBA to Analyse DRR

Using HBRA means asking the crucial questionso what, why, who and what capacities? In thecontext o disaster risk, this means a risk analysisbased on human rights.

What disasters pose the biggest risk, whereare these disasters happening, and who is most

vulnerable and there ore the most a ected?

Why are these problems occurring? What are theunderlying and root causes o the vulnerabilitieswhich are leading certain groups to su er romdisaster risk?

Who or which individuals and/or institutions havethe duty to reduce these disaster risks?

What capacities are needed to address disasterrisk, both or those who are being denied their rightsthrough disaster vulnerability, and those who havethe duty to address these problems?


22/80


2.3.3 EnvironmentUsing an environmental lens to view the challengeso disaster risk can provide valuable insights intocauses and consequences o disasters. This helps

to ensure that proposed UNDAF outcomes and

outputs are designed to avoid adverse environmentalconsequences. I at all possible, an ecosystem-based or territorial approach to analysis shouldbe considered since neither natural hazards norenvironmental degradation can be ully appreciatedwithin the con nes o administrative or jurisdictionalboundaries.

Box 3. DRR Analysis through anEnvironmental Lens

An environmental approach to disaster risk canbe used to understand better the environmentalcauses and consequences o disaster risk.

Consider: Would an ecosystems-based approach to

disaster risk help to de ne trans-boundary

causes and consequences o disasters? Are environmental conditions a actor

contributing to disasters in high risk areas orsectors; how has environmental degradationa ected the intensity o hazard events and theirimpacts on local communities?

Noting the relationship between environmentaldegradation and poverty, does the loss oecosystem services a ect the resilience o atrisk communities?

What are the environmental consequences oimplementing disaster reduction measures/whatare the potential environmental consequenceso supporting recovery rom the increasedrequency and intensity o hazard eventsassociated with climate change?

What capacities do environmental managershave to support the analysis o disaster risk andthe implementation o DRR measures identi edin the UNDAF?

Box 2. Using a gender-based approach toanalyse DRR

High-quality analysis o disaster risk should include:

Sex-disaggregated data in order to betterunderstand the vulnerabilities and capacities owomen, as well as to measure the impact oprogrammes.

Addressing gender in DRR policy, programmes,

plans, institutional arrangements and M&E. Gender analysis that is sensitive to social actors,

economic status, age and disabilities. Causality analysis sensitive to the di erent ways

that men and women experience, are a ectedby, and can respond to disaster risk.

Identi cation o rights-holders and duty-bearersin regard to disaster risk, in a way whichrecognises patterns o discrimination, and howmen and women relate. Recognition o thedi erent capacities o men, women, boys and

girls in order to appropriately address gaps aswell as capitalize on unique skills and knowledgeo these groups.

Identi cation o those women who aremarginalised and particularly at risk rom gender-based violence, including those belonging toethnic minorities, girls who have lost a parent,women and girls rom very poor households, andemale headed households.

Outline o an action plan or speci cresponsibilities to promote gender sensitive DRRby the relevant stakeholders.


23/80


Ideally, an environmentally-in ormed approach wouldserve to improve environmental conditions andenhance ecosystem services 10 . Moreover, measuresthat strengthen the capacity o environmentalmanagers in various sectors should be encouraged,because they play an important role in disasterreduction through their e orts to protect ecosystemservices, and can provide technical expertise aboutthe physical dimensions o risk.

2.3.4 Capacity DevelopmentDeveloping capacity or DRR is a society-wideendeavour that requires a multi-stakeholderresponse. Lessons learnt rom past experiencedemonstrate the importance o local leadershipand ownershipoutside actors can support butnot drive the process. When undertaking capacitydevelopment work, two critical questions need tobe asked: capacity or/o whom? and capacity orwhat? The UNCT goal is to support their partners indeveloping their capacities to lead, manage, achieveand account or their priorities.

Box 4. Capacity Assessment

Using capacity assessment 1 to identi y DRRneeds helps to unpack and examine many o thecritical building blocks necessary or sustainableDRR and provides a more comprehensive reviewo capacity constraints, leading to more holisticcapacity development responses:

Analysis o the capacity needs across di erent

levels (individual, organizational and societal).Looking across these levels is particularlyimportant given the cross-cutting nature oDRR.

Assessment o core capacity issues including:access to disaster in ormation; the use oknowledge and technology; and the role/ capacity o external and internal actors.

Assessment o unctional capacities to createand manage DRR policies, legislation, strategiesand programmes including identi cation o

the existence o : resource and budgets toimplement DRR plans and strategies; and M&Esystems to track progress and capture lessons.

Assessment o technical capacities required or DRR including: early warning, riskassessment, and sa e design and constructiono buildings.


24/80


This section explains how DRR can be integrated into the process o ormulating the UNDAF. It provides guidance to help the UNCT to identi y the most appropriate areas o support .

3.1 PurposeThe UNDAF provides the UN with the commonramework necessary or a collective, coherent andintegrated response to national priorities and needs.Because DRR is multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder

such an integrated approach is particularly valuable.Historically, support or e orts to address disasterrisk has been piecemealpartly because manyo them have been unded in post-disastercontexts where longer-term planning and capacitydevelopment has not always been easy. Experiencehas shown that achieving meaning ul progress inDRR requires a harmonized approach in support ogovernment prioritisation. The UNDAF can play avaluable role in supporting a coherent approach toDRR, led by government.

In identi ying how DRR will be addressed within theUNDAF, it will be necessary to prioritise short andmedium term deliverables. It will also be necessaryto decide whether DRR should, in addition tobeing considered as a cross-cutting issue, also beidenti ed as a speci c UNDAF priority outcome inits own right.

3.2 Expected ResultsThe UNDAF document describes the collective

results expected rom UNCT cooperation. Asindicated in the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines, UNDAFsshould refect risks o disasters, as well as capacitygaps or DRR and how they will be addressed.The UNDAF results are elaborated through a resultsmatrix indicating the outcomes that the UNCT,together with its partners, commit to achieve. The

collective outcomes identi ed in the results matrixshould govern individual agency programme andproject documents. In the process o ormulating theUNDAF outcomes and outputs, the UNCT shouldconsider how it can contribute to the ollowingaspects o DRR:

Actions that strengthen the resilience (risk-proo ng) o other UNDAF priority areas todisaster risk.

Interventions that ensure that ongoing areaso development (supported by the UN andpotentially other stakeholders) do not increaselevels o disaster risk.

Using opportunities within UNCT programmesas entry points or DRR action.

Supporting speci c DRR interventions, includingnational disaster management institutions,emergency management, disaster preparedness,risk identi cation and early warning systems.

3.3 Getting It Done and Identi ying DRRPriorities and ActionA ter completion o the country-level analysis(outlined in Part 2), the UN, together with its keypartners, will identi y critical actions to address theidenti ed core problems. The process may includeorganising a review and discussion o the analyticalwork undertaken with relevant government agenciesand CSOs, in order to develop a DRR strategy orinclusion in the UNDAF. The prioritisation processshould include identi cation o where the UN

system has both a clear collective comparativeadvantage and the resources to make a di erence.

There are a number o advantages in addressingDRR in the UNDAF in disaster-prone countries.In many countries national capacity to respond toand reduce disaster risk remains limited, hence

Part 3: Strategic Planning


25/80


the UNCT can make a valuable contribution todeveloping this important area. In addition, includingDRR in the UNDAF can provide an important signo political commitment rom the UNCT. This isparticularly important in countries where the ocuso national e orts is predominantly on emergencypreparedness and where there is little concertede ort to address the causes o disaster risk. Finally,supporting DRR e orts in highly disaster-pronecountries will help to increase the likely success o

other areas o UNCT programming, by addressinghow they can be protected against the threat o thenegative impact o disasters. A number o UNDAFshave included DRR as speci c outcomes. Annex 3provides a list o examples.

The UNCT can play a particularly valuable role inpromoting a multi-hazard approach that addresses allmajor disaster risks to which a country is exposed.As the UNDAF process involves many stakeholdersand mandates, it may be necessary to lobby, raiseawareness and provide training in order to ensurethat su cient attention is given to DRR. Addressingthe disaster risk implications o all UNDAF outcomeswill require commitment rom senior management.Dedicated human resources may be required toprovide technical advice to the working groupsor the analysis and ormulation o DRR-sensitiveoutcomes. The timing or engagement is crucial,as it becomes more di cult to incorporate certainaspects once the working groups have agreed onpriority objectives and outcomes.

Capacity development should be at the core o theUNCT support to DRR at country level. It is there oreimportant in developing the UNDAF that the UNCTis clear on its capacity development strategy andhow this will contribute to national DRR e orts. Tomake best use o limited resources, e orts shouldbe made to design development programmes that

support multiple development outcomes. Forexample, programmes which ocus on the protectiono natural resources should be designed to maximisetheir DRR and poverty alleviation potential.

Integrating DRR concerns into the UNDAFrequires: review o the value added by UNagencies in addressing priority areas identi edthrough the analysis process (identi ed in Part 2);and identi cation o planned DRR outcomes andoutputs and the role o each UN agency in delivery.Decisions on how to prioritise and sequenceinterventions will in part depend on national DRRpriorities and the greatest capacity gaps in-country,but also partly on the need to identi y areas thatwill demonstrate impact in the short-term to buildmomentum and political capital.

The linkages between national goals or targetsand UNDAF Country Programme Outcomes areelaborated within the results matrix togetherwith resources requirements. The results matrixdeveloped by the UNCT in Georgia, shown in Annex8, also provides a use ul example in which DRR isconsidered both as a direct outcome o the UNDAFand as a cross-cutting issue. Annex 9 introducesindicative questions that may be used in discussionwith UNCT members responsible or other outcomeareas, to raise awareness and help consider howdisaster risk can a ect di erent developmentpriorities. Annex 10 provides urther guidance onintegrating DRR into MDG based UNDAFs.

3.3.1 Integrating DRR as a Cross-CuttingIssueIn disaster-prone countries, DRR should always beconsidered as a cross-cutting issue in the UNDAF,in line with the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines. This willrequire the UNDAF working groups to assess how


26/80


disasters and disaster issues should be addressedin their areas. Guidance on how to consider this isprovided in Section 2.3. This section examines howDRR relates to the UNDAF inter-related principlesand Annex 9 provides examples o how DRR can beintegrated into e orts to address key developmentsectors, thereby making them more resilient.

As a minimum, attempts should be made tostrengthen the resilience o all UNDAF outcomes to

climate and disaster risk and should avoid creatingnew vulnerabilities. Equally, the UNCT will wantto ensure that its own development actions arenot adding to existing levels o vulnerability orexacerbating the risk posed by natural hazards.Taking a more proactive approach, there may bea number o priority areas in the UNDAF, whichalthough they are not in themselves particularlyvulnerable to disaster risk, can provide valuableentry points or promoting DRR. For example, aUN governance programme may not be directly

vulnerable to disaster risk, but it can provide anexcellent entry point by providing an opportunity tointegrate DRR e ectively at the local level throughongoing decentralisation projects.

3.3.2 DRR as an UNDAF Priority

Depending on the local context and nationalpriorities, the UNCT may also decide to identi yDRR as a separate UNDAF outcome area in its ownright, thereby supporting speci c DRR interventions.In many instances the UNCT may decide that

DRR requires speci c ocus so that within all UNprogramming more concerted e orts are made toenhance the ability o government at all levels, andparticularly vulnerable groups, to prepare, respond,and mitigate disaster risk and environmentalchanges. Again, the UNCT will need to identi y

where it has the greatest comparative advantageto support DRR interventions, in line with thegovernments own priorities and the planned actionso other international organizations. The UNCT canplay a leadership role by promoting a harmonizedapproach or support to the governments DRRe orts. The achievement o e ective andsustainable DRR practices and mechanisms requiresthe mobilization o appropriate nancial and humanresources at all levels. In many countries, the UNCT

can play a critical role in supporting these aspects ocapacity development.

3.3.3 Identi ying DRR Action and Outputswithin the UNDAFFollowing identi cation o disaster risk concerns inthe various UNDAF outcomes, the UNCT will needto identi y concrete risk reduction measures orimplementation. Regardless o the DRR priorities othe government, or the agreed technical elementso programming assistance required, there are a

number o areas that the UNCT can support tocreate an enabling environment or DRR institutionalcapacity development. A checklist o these elementsis provided at Annex 11. The determination oappropriate areas o intervention should be based onexisting capacities and capacity gaps. The capacityin ormation section o Annex 6 gives a use ulsummary o critical DRR capacities to be considered.The HFA provides an overview o the range oactivities required to e ectively address disasterrisk. For a more detailed analysis o how DRR can

be addressed in priority sectors o development, seeChapter 4 o the ISDR publication Words into Action:a Guide or Implementing the Hyogo Framework which provides use ul guidance on reducing the risksin key sectors. Box 5 provides a practical example ohow DRR was integrated into the Maldives UNDAF.


27/80


Once the UNDAF is in place, progress towardsthe results in the matrix will need to be monitored,

as outlined in the next section. However, insome instances, events during the period oimplementation o the UNDAF may require a revisionto the results matrix. Although, as the CCA/UNDAF Guidelines point out changes to UNDAF outcomesshould be made rarely, and only by request o

government, one o the justi cations or suchchanges being made could be a signi cant shi t in

the development environment, such as a ... naturaldisaster. Sudden onset disasters, in particular,can radically change national development needsand priorities, and in some circumstances, cannecessitate a reshaping o the UNs developmentassistance.

Box 5. Example o integrating DRR into UNDAF Results Matrix

National Priority or Goal 2006 to 2010

Seventh National Development Plan: Protecting the environment and making people and property sa er.

UNDAF Outcome

By 2010, communities enjoy improved access to environmental services and are more

capable o protecting the environment and reducing vulnerability and disaster risks withenhanced disaster management capacity.

Country ProgrammeOutcomes Country Programme Outputs

1. Environment servicesand protectionmeasures bene tmore communitieswith greaterparticipation o youthin the planning andimplementation.

1.1 National environmental standards and guidelines on waste management, water andsanitation, environmental health, land management and coastal modi cation madeavailable to guide sectoral policies, programmes and local practices.

1.2 Empower local communities to operate and manage environmental in rastructurein a sustainable manner, namely waste management, water and sanitation andrenewable energy technology built during the tsunami recovery; and progressivelydevolve key environmental management responsibilities to pilot communities.

2. Communitiesbetter able tomanage impactso climate changeand reduce disastervulnerabilities.

2.1 Communities have increased knowledge and are better in ormed on appropriateoptions and mechanisms or mitigation o , and adaptation to climate change anddisasters.

1.1 National, atoll, island and sectoral disaster management plans and climate changeadaptation plans developed and implemented in pilot areas.

United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkRepublic o Maldives - 2008 to 2010


28/80


This section provides an indication o how to include e ective monitoring and evaluation o DRR e orts as part o the UNDAF process.

4.1 PurposeUNDAF monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are linkedbut distinct processes. Monitoring provides anopportunity to track progress towards the resultsagreed in the UNDAF matrix, and check i theassumptions made at the design stage are still

valid and i the project has actually been a ectedby the risks identi ed. In this way, monitoringhelps the UNCT and implementing partnersto make mid-course corrections, including inecessary, revising UNDAF indicators. As a result,the monitoring process can provide a critical entrypoint to consider DRR i it was not adequatelyaddressed as a cross-cutting theme in the originalassessment/strategic planning process. Also,because disaster risk is inherently dynamic, itprovides a valuable opportunity to take stock o anychanges in risk patterns ( or example, resulting roma disaster actually occurring) during the UNDAFcycle. Evaluation determines i the objectives andoutcomes were met and whether these resulted inworthwhile contributions to national developmentpriorities. A well-structured evaluation is importantor DRR interventions given that they are o ten eltto be invisible, with success measured in disasterevents not taking place.

UNDAF M& E should always be aligned toexisting national systems and priorities. In thosecases where national systems do not exist,the ocus should be on their development andinstitutionalization. Because DRR is an evolvingcross-cutting issue it is o ten di cult, especially orcountries with weak institutional structures, to havesystems in place that adequately monitor disaster

risk and successes/ ailures across sectors/levels oadministration. Whilst systems may be in place tomonitor emergency preparedness (e.g. stockpileso relie materials) and emergency response (e.g.tracking o distribution o relie items) systems areo ten not there to assess risk reduction e orts. Amajor challenge in many countries is the absenceo qualitative and quantitative data on disaster-related issuesmeaning that baselines and relatedindicators are di cult to put in place. Thus, in

many countries the UN will have a key role to playin supporting the establishment o national M&Esystems or DRR.

4.2 Expected ResultsFor DRR e orts, the M&E process is particularlyhelp ul in:

Identi ying i development programmes andprojects are designed with due consideration odisaster risks and regularly assessing the impact

o those risks on ongoing programmes; Ensuring that development programmes do not

inadvertently increase vulnerability to disasterin social, physical, economic and environmentalterms;

Ensuring that disaster and rehabilitationprogrammes are designed to contribute todevelopmental aims as well as actively reducinguture risk;

Veri ying that the work o UNCT on DRR is reallymaking a di erence or men, women, boys and

girls; Regularly reviewing partners capacity

development needs or DRR; and

Improving results-based reporting on DRRachievements across the UN system, rather thanon a project by project basis.

Part 4: Monitoring and Evaluation


29/80


Box 6. Example o how DRR can be integrated into UNDAF M&E process

UNDAF Outcome Groups (one per outcome) are responsible or:

Joint monitoring with programme partners (based on M&E plan).

Reporting to the UNCT about progress (their ndings feed into the Resident Coordinators annual report). Identifying capacity development needs among partners (especially government), particularly related to data collec -

tion, analysis, monitoring and reporting. Opportunity or DRR input - Because DRR is a cross-cutting issue, in highly disaster-prone countries e orts shouldbe made to ensure that all relevant outcome groups receive DRR inputs (regardless o whether DRR is an individualoutcome in its own right). This might require dedicated human resource (DRR experts) that can provide technicalinputs to each outcome group.

UNDAF M&E plan - This is a live instrument, to be updated as needed. Results in the M&E plan must be identical tothe UNDAF Results Matrix to ensure consistency and accountability (the M&E plan must be updated in parallel with theResults Matrix).The M&E plan has three components:

The Narrative Management Plan that describes how UNCT and partners will coordinate UNDAF M&E. The M&E framework, consolidating monitoring information (results, indicators, baselines and targets; means ofveri cation; and assumptions and risks) in one table.

The M&E calendar that helps to coordinate the different types of studies and evaluations conducted by agencies andtheir partners.

Opportunity or DRR input - The M&E plan and Results Matrix are intended to be fexible tools that can be amendedto take account o change. This is particularly important i a major disaster occurs during the UNDAF.

In risk prone countries the Narrative Management Plan could include identi cation of a DRR Monitoring Of certo check: whether development initiatives are exposed to risk; in how ar they have reduced or might have crea-ted new risk; and what necessary adjustments might be required.

In highly disaster-prone countries DRR should be integrated into M&E frameworks regardless of whether it isa speci c UNDAF Outcome. [See Section 4.4 and Annex 8 or examples o risk sensitive indicators]. BecauseDRR progress is o ten hard to measure it will be particularly important to put in place sound baselines to mea-

sure progress, in some countries these might have to be established. The national HFA progress reports mightprovide a starting point. The M&E calendar shows potential synergies to draw in information on how disasters affect all critical areas of

the UNDAF e.g. i a partner is doing a study on the impact o disasters on one o the UNDAF priorities.

Annual Progress Report and Review Meeting - Builds on reviews by agencies and their implementing partners at the tech-nical level. The meetings serve to eed into the annual work-plans and or policy advocacy.

Opportunity or DRR input - The Annual Review might provide an opportunity to modi y activities in the annualwork plans to incorporate DRR i evaluations and studies have shown that progress has been hampered by disasterevents or are at ri sk o being a ected in the uture.

UNDAF Evaluation - Will normally take place in the ourth year o the cycle. It asks three key questions:

Did the UNDAF make the best use o the UNCT comparative advantage in country? Did the UNDAF generate a coherent UNCT response to national priorities? Did the UNDAF help achieve the selected priorities o national development?The Evaluation eeds into preparat ion o the next UNDAF.

Opportunity or DRR input - The UNDAF evaluation provides a good opportunity to:Review the degree to which risk reduction e orts have been success ul/made progress.Help identi y in countries where DRR has not been adequately considered, how much o a barrier disasters and riskhave been to progress in other UNDAF outcome areas.Identi y to what degree DRR should be considered in the next UNDAF.


30/80


4.3 Getting It DoneUNDAF M&E consists o a number o di erentcomponents, each o which should be carriedout with the ull involvement o partners, linkingwherever possible to government M&E processes.Each step o the M&E process provides importantentry points or considering DRR (regardless owhether it is a separate UNDAF outcome area).

4.4 DRR-Related M&E

4.4.1 M&E or DRR in the UNDAF

In highly disaster-prone countries DRR should beintegrated into UNDAF M&E rameworks regardlesso whether DRR is considered a speci c UNDAFoutcome or not. At the very least, any country

considered disaster-prone/highly vulnerable toclimate change impacts must ensure that disasterissues are properly addressed in the assumptionsand risk section o the M&E ramework. Thisis because disasters threaten all aspects odevelopment. An example o how DRR has beenincluded into the risks and assumptions sectiono the M&E ramework is provided in Box 7 (theaspects speci cally related to DRR are highlighted).

Because DRR is a cross-cutting issue it is alsoimportant to consider how DRR should be integratedinto other aspects o the M&E ramework. Inthe UNDAF or Georgia, or example, DRR wasintegrated into the Indicator(s) & Baselines andAssumptions & Risks sections (see Box 8 - theaspects speci cally related to DRR are highlighted).

Box 7. Example o Integrating DRR into the UNDAF M&E Framework Risk & Assumptions

UNDAF Outcome 4 Regional, global and South-South cooperation strengthened to addresscross-border social, economic and environmental constraints

Indicators(s) & Baselines Sources o verifcation Risks & Assumptions

4.1. Number o regional tradeagreements concludedsuccess ully, and implemented(Baseline: Number o existingtrade agreements)

4.2. Number o South South initiativesagreed andimplemented (Baseline: Identi cationo South-Southopportunities)

MOF, Report on theState o the Economy

UNCTAD Handbook onInternational TradeStatistics

NSO, StatisticalYearbook

Socio-economic and politicalsituation stable and improved.

Uncertain markets, highenvironmental risk(disasters), lack oalternative orms o savingsor rural population

United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkMongolia - 2007 to 2011


31/80


More examples rom the Georgian UNDAF are givenin Annex 8. UNDAF indicators must actor in humanrights standards and be sensitive to gender, age and

disability. When considering DRR this provides keyopportunities to measure how interventions havea ected the most vulnerable. This is critical where,or example, the overall impact ( or example, inGDP) o disasters may have allen over the UNDAF

implementation period, but where the degree oexposure o vulnerable communities may have risen.Equally, when using per ormance o the indicator(s),

or example poverty rate, e orts should be madeto care ully examine their correlation with hazardevents. This is particularly challenging in disaster-prone countries which ace annual disaster events(e.g. foods) where the impact on poverty is harder

Box 8. Example o Integrating DRR across the UNDAF M&E Framework

UNDAF Outcome 1 Reduced number o households living in poverty through the realisationo economic potential and provision o social wel are.

Indicators(s) & Baselines Sources o verifcation Risks & Assumptions

1.1. Poverty level:a) O cial poverty rate (proportion ono population below o cial nationalpoverty line de ned at 130 GeorgianLari/ month), does not increase in yearso major hydro-meteorological andgeophysical hazardsBaseline (a): 51% (2004 )

b) Extreme poverty rate (proportion opopulation below extreme poverty linede ned at 63 Georgian Lari per month)does not increase in the years o majorhydro, meteorological and geophysical

hazards and in geographic areas a ectedBaseline: 17% (2004)

State Department o Statistics oGeorgia, UNDP

Economic conditions are stableor improvedPolitical confict is stabilisedNatural disasters are undercontrolFunding crisis is predicted andminimisedSecurity conditions are ensuredto permit /project operationPartners involved are able todeliver services to the targetpopulation

1.2 Poverty gap ratio:Baseline: 20% rom o cial poverty lineand 5.6% rom extreme poverty line(2004).

State Department o Statistics oGeorgia, UNDP

United Nations Development Assistance FrameworkGeorgia - 2006 to 2010


32/80


to monitor than in those countries which acedisasters on a less requent basis (e.g. earthquakes)but where the impact is more noticeable.

In support o agencies seeking to develop indicatorsor DRR, the ISDR Secretariat has producedIndicators o Progress: Guidance on Measuring the Reduction o Disaster Risks and the Implementationo the Hyogo Framework or Action on Disaster Risk Reduction . This includes a list o proposed

benchmarks and indicators or each o the HFAoutcomes and priorities that can be used or adaptedor country speci c monitoring rameworks. Theindicators or the HFA priorities will be especiallyuse ul or UNDAFs that includes separate outcomeson DRR. The publication also provides a sectionwith technical guidance on developing indicators andbenchmarks. Box 9 gives example o risk-sensitiveindicators or measuring progress towards theMDGs. More examples are provided in Annex 12.

Box 9. Example: Risk-sensitive Indicators in the UNDAF

MDG Goal 1 - Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1: Halve the number o peoplewhose income is below 1 USD per day by2015

Proportion o population with income below 1 USD per day doesnot fuctuate with variations in hydro-meteorological phenomenon(rain all, cyclones and foods) and hazard events like earthquakes.

Share o poorest section o population in national consumptiondoes not decline in years o extreme weather and hazard eventslike cyclones and earthquakes.

Proportion o population whose income is below 1 USD per dayprovided or by sa ety nets, by provision o diversi ed livelihoodsthrough micro-credits, cash- or-work and insurance.

Target 2: Halve, between 1990 and 2015,the proportion o people who su er romhunger

Prevalence o underweight children (under ve years o age) doesnot increase during occurrence o major hazard events.

Proportion o population below minimum level o dietary energyconsumption does not increase in years o major hazard events.

MDG Goal 2 - Achieve universal primary education

Target 3: Ensure that, by 2015, childreneverywhere, boys and girls Alike, will beable to complete a ull course o primaryschooling

Percentage o primary school buildings certi ed to be in con ormitywith hazard-resistant standards relevant or the region.

Loss o school days at schools used as shelters does not exceedx% over that o other schools.

GOALS & TARGETS INDICATORS MEASURING DISASTER RESILIENCE


33/80


Measurement o progress in each area o DRRrequires a combination o quantitative and qualitativeindicators. Measuring progress on DRR canpresent problems because o its reverse logic i.e.the success o an intervention is that something(the disaster or levels o loss) does not happen.However, evidence rom subsequent disaster eventsand the response to them is a strong indicator o theimpact o pre-disaster interventions. In addition, theanalysis o impacts can provide use ul in ormationabout disaster risk trends. Operational early warningand response systems can also be monitored,evaluated and strengthened through exercises anddrills. With care ully developed baselines, targetsand indicators in place, progress can be measured.Another challenge with measuring DRR progressstems rom the requent absence o high-quality,consistent and timely quantitative in ormation.This challenges both developing the indicators inthe rst place (given that they should stem rom

Documents

Integrating disaster risk reduction into the CCA and UNDAF - A guide for UN Country Teams (UNDG - 2011)