Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Training Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................3
Context........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Summary – Day One (1)...............................................................................................................................................5
Key Points Raised.....................................................................................................................................................5
Summary - Day Two (2)................................................................................................................................................7
Key Points Raised.....................................................................................................................................................7
Summary- Day Three (3)..............................................................................................................................................9
Key Points Raised.....................................................................................................................................................9
Summary- Day Four (4)..............................................................................................................................................11
Key Points Raised...................................................................................................................................................11
CDEMA Model National Recovery Framework and Adaptation Guide.......................................................................11
Key Points Raised...................................................................................................................................................12
Country-Level Experiences on Putting Together and Implementing a PDNA.............................................................12
St. Lucia.................................................................................................................................................................12
St Vincent and the Grenadines..............................................................................................................................13
Haiti.......................................................................................................................................................................13
Belize.....................................................................................................................................................................14
Guyana.................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Recommendations on Risk Mitigation and Recovery Strategies................................................................................15
Next Steps/Recommendations..................................................................................................................................15
Closing Remarks.........................................................................................................................................................16
Annexes.....................................................................................................................................................................17
Annex 1: PDNA Evaluation.....................................................................................................................................17
Annex 2: List of Participants..................................................................................................................................21
2 | P a g e
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BBB Building Back Better
BCPR Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery
BDP Bureau of Development Policy
CCRIF Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility
CDEMA Caribbean Disaster Management Agency
CRMI Caribbean Risk Management Initiative
DALA Damage and Loss Assessment
DANA Damage and Needs Assessment
EC European Commission
ECLAC United Nation Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
EU European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographical Information Systems
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SIDS Small Island Developing States
UNDG United Nations Development Group
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WB World Bank
3 | P a g e
CONTEXT
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in collaboration with the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) launched a four day regional workshop focused on Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) in Barbados on July 8th, 2014. Through their partners at the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) and Bureau for Development Policy (BDP) based in New York and the Caribbean Risk Management Initiative (CRMI) managed in Panama, the training initiative built on the experiences of the December 2013 floods in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and St. Lucia by introducing participants from across the region to the PDNA methodology and protocols; the primary objective is to strengthen national level capacity to plan for and implement a PDNA. The PNDA is a tool intended for wide stakeholder use to examine the human and national impacts of an event involving disaster in a country. It was developed jointly through a tripartite group collaboration of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), World Bank (WB) and European Commission (EC).
Introduction
Participants were welcomed by Ian King (UNDP Barbados Programme Manager), Joanne Persad (CDEMA Programme Manager) and Jacinda Fairholm (CRMI Project Manager). A diverse group of regional participants from National Disaster Offices, Ministries of Finance and Economic Development, Housing and Agriculture, among others, shared their expectations to learn more about the PDNA, its application and contextualization at the country level.
In setting the context for the PDNA, Ian King highlighted that economic risk was growing at a faster rate than economic growth as a result of increased vulnerability and increased exposure to cyclical events and other global trends such as climate change which have specific differential impacts on small island economies. He mentioned that while disasters challenge national and local capacities including financial and institutional operations they also offer unique yet transient opportunities for change that can rectify unsafe development practices and help countries to increase their resilience and build back better (BBB).
More countries and governments are seeing the advantages of the PDNA approach particularly as it relates to resource mobilization. The global community sees the PDNA as a process that provides measurable and comparable information across countries and regions. Technocrats have a critical responsibility to produce sound reports that are able to support the decisions necessary for the advancement of the PDNA process.
4 | P a g e
SUMMARY – DAY ONE (1)
The first day of the workshop1 outlined the step-by-step process of the PDNA from country request to acceptance and implementation. Participants were exposed to key concepts and definitions which underpin the PDNA methodology including how to assess and estimate the value of disaster effects as well as how to measure disaster impact and determine recovery needs. In addition, participants discussed the relevance of the PDNA’s contribution to the portfolio of disaster assessments. There is recognition that it requires a multi-stakeholder, multi-sector approach needs to be conducted on a national level and may involve the use of regional expertise.
KEY POINTS RAISED
Where the PDNA Fits In With Other Assessments
The PDNA methodology is intended to complement other tools such as the Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLa) and the Damage and Needs Assessment (DANA). It was noted that it is critical to ensure that these types of sectoral and other assessments are conducted prior to the PDNA. However, there should not be a substantive difference between these assessments and the PDNA. The PDNA serves as a protocol for joint action as well as a methodology for assessment. It provides a platform for coordinated assistance to governments and functions as a comprehensive, integrated assessment of a disaster in order to determine the effects and impacts of the disaster and helps to identify the financial requirements for recovery and reconstruction.
The PDNA Decision Making Process & How It is Triggered
A PDNA can be triggered either upon request of the Government of the affected country or by invitation from a member of the tripartite group (UNDG, EC or WB) responsible for the development of the PDNA. Consequently, it is important that technocrats understand their role and the PDNA process in order to suitably inform and advocate for the use of the PDNA methodology following the impact of a disaster in countries. PDNA is important in cases where resources in country are constrained but productive sectors need to be revitalized and livelihoods quickly engaged in order to access partners for support in recovery efforts. It should be consistent with the country’s development agenda (i.e. poverty reduction strategy, gender strategy, national development plans etc.)
Ownership & Support for the PDNA
The PDNA is a comprehensive, coherent assessment which supports National Development Planning processes. Therefore, it is critical that the PDNA process is government-initiated and led. The PDNA focal point is usually centralized within the Economic Planning Unit to ensure that the process sufficiently addresses economic issues related to the disaster. Where there is limited expertise present in country, external expertise is available through the tripartite group to provide support for this highly participatory, multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral approach.
Impact Measurement at the Community Level
The resultant impact of disasters on small economies can be quite significant. There is a perception that this can create challenges with adequate access to community-level data or insufficient data collection and thereby affect
1 All documents and materials provided during the 4-day workshop are available for download until December 1 st, 2014 via the link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8kfb2r10ldk5o0x/AAC9bnL_YrpN3mFiZtvucf3za
5 | P a g e
the analysis. In most instances, data exists but may be stored in various ways and in multiple institutions. Often the challenge lies, not around whether the data exists but on how it can be accessed and utilized in its existing format. Whilst the data utilized is derived from secondary sources, primary data can also be collected throughout the PDNA process via focus group discussions and other mechanisms to aid in understanding the impact.
Embedding Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
There was a discussion on how best to encourage or enforce an approach that takes disaster risk reduction into account during deliberations for borrowing capital by creating loan conditions that favour DRR. Participants recognized that this approach has a number of advantages and disadvantages. It was agreed that efforts to tie DRR to loan conditions for borrowing countries are best realized when there is an internal display and national acceptance that DRR can be achieved within the country. The borrowing country itself must be responsible for institutionalizing DRR, then lending itself to leadership and creating conditions and accountability for increased preventative measures related to development.
Expected Timeframe for Short, Mid and Long-term Recovery Phases
Timeframes are usually determined on a case-by-case basis with the various phases of recovery structured over a recommended five year period. Much depends on the change in dynamics following the disaster. A distinction should be made between development and full recovery. The former occurs over a minimum ten year period whilst the latter can occur within an initial five year window of the disaster.
6 | P a g e
SUMMARY - DAY TWO (2)
The second day of the Workshop was characterized by presentations in the pre-lunch session and group work in the afternoon. These presentations examined the Generic Assessment Process of the Post Disaster Needs Assessment from the Disaster Effect to the Recovery Strategy, and Overviews of the Agriculture, Infrastructure and Cross Cutting Sectors and the various Sub-Sectors categories.
Participants were introduced to additional concepts within the PDNA methodology including the estimation of the economic value of effects using damage and loss methodology. They were reminded of the principles of damage and loss and received tips on for facilitating a smooth process of estimation.
Facilitators highlighted the importance of engaging a multi-sector approach for calculating damage and loss. They also guided participants through the processes for estimating the values of loss, governance processes and risks. An overview of the social, productive and infrastructure sectors and cross-cutting themes such as gender, DRR, livelihoods and environment was delivered to reinforce an understanding of the sector assessment process. Sector specific presentations on agriculture and infrastructure emphasized the complexity involved in each sector and sub-sectors and illustrated the considerations that need to be made when conducting assessments. All presentations stressed the importance of data verification.
The questions that the presentations generated and the subsequent discussions highlighted the fact that the PDNA is not an exact science. It can be difficult to estimate the value of damages and losses, or even to capture all affected areas of particular sectors. The presentations also highlighted the difficulties in the relocation of families, farms and infrastructure. The point was made that local persons in various sectors not only have access to the required data but in most cases, have the capacity to conduct the requisite assessments and valuations.
The afternoon session was dedicated to group activities. Participants were given a case study on a country known as ‘Someland’ and split into various sector work groups (social, productive, agriculture, housing and infrastructure) to develop a pre-disaster situational analysis, identify the effects of the event, estimate the economic value of those effects and produce a table of effects.
KEY POINTS RAISED
Insurance of Public Assets
Although some countries are insuring public assets, there are other mechanisms such as the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) which provides insurance by using a parametric modeling system to value of damage based on historical trends. Whilst CCRIF will disburse funds to countries where the parametric insurance policy has been triggered, it is not expected that the payments made will cover the value necessary for the complete rebuilding of assets. CCRIF payments are meant to be a temporary measure that allows for the reactivation of governance systems.
Recovery of Production
Following a disaster and after the recovery phase, production levels should be increased to supplement the higher production costs incurred during the period of repair and replacement of items.
7 | P a g e
8 | P a g e
Agriculture
Damage and losses incurred by subsistence farmers and households where farming is not the primary source of income can be difficult to assess. As a result, it is important to recognize the role that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) can play in this regard as they sometimes have information that is more up-to-date than that captured by the Ministry of Agriculture.
Forestry is a critical area that is often difficult to measure since many countries do not have an adequate forest inventory. PDNAs can assist with measurement as it involves a multi-sector effort that will result in the capture and analysis of information related to the diverse uses of forestry ranging from environmental resources and tourism to water conservation and infrastructure.
The concept of opportunity cost is used to determine the loss of land depending on its usage. The present day value of land is calculated and used to calculate loss of land and other natural resources as a result of degradation, salinization and other effects.
The option for relocation vs. BBB as part of the recovery process is an issue that needs to be debated further within the region given its political implications. It can be based on a programme of suitable incentives and disincentives.
The value-based strategy used for replanting mangroves cannot be easily applied to address the issue of accurate valuation of forestry as it would not adequately cover all areas that need to be considered in that sector.
Environmental Costs
A recommendation was made to examine the costs associated with post-disaster clean-ups and the environmental impact/costs associated with the provision of items such as bottled water.
Use of Information
Apart from its use during response to a disaster, pre-disaster baseline data assists with general recovery planning especially at the community level where issues of social displacement can easily arise. Therefore, greater emphasis should be made on the importance of planning.
Participant Feedback
What was not covered in the overviews either as a substantive sector or as a sub-sector was mining or oil/gas drilling. The examples of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago were used, where mining and petroleum industries respectively represent significant economic activity and are major contributors to the countries’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Unfortunately, both sub-sectors are susceptible to the impacts of hazards.
Group Exercise – Application of the PDNA to develop Post-Disaster Data
The group exercise allowed participants to appreciate the difficulties and the work associated with the understanding of the pre-disaster situation, the examination of the post disaster effects, the analysis of the impacts, and the proposal of recommendations for recovery. Participants found the exercise challenging yet
9 | P a g e
extremely useful since most of the sectors to be considered during a PDNA were represented in each of the five (5) groups.
SUMMARY- DAY THREE (3)
On day three participants examined sectoral linkages and cross-cutting issues during the recovery phase. Key points reflected the importance of understanding the impact of total loss on the economy since losses will be accounted in GDP. It was noted that damages should capture the social and productive sectors whereas the infrastructure and environment sectors should capture losses. In costing effects during recovery, damage costing must consider replacement costs and BBB should incorporate mitigation and resilience aspects. Sessions allowed participants to move away from focusing on the effects of damages to undertaking an impact analysis.
Participants reviewed the potential impact of disasters on growth including the resultant financing gaps that can be created and options for closing these funding gaps. They were reminded of the linkage between a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio, taxes and implications of debt during the recovery process. In the recovery process, governments may have options to explore funding assistance but for highly indebted countries such as the Caribbean SIDS acquiring additional loans may not be an option. In the likelihood that the affected countries are already restructuring, they may seek to request cuts from creditors.
Participants were divided into break-out groups in order to practice the development of sector reports and support sector recovery strategies. They reported that this exercise, which was based on the Someland case study, was instrumental in learning how to apply the PDNA during disaster recovery. Session feedback recommended that the role of the National Disaster Office in sector assessments should be clearly defined.
KEY POINTS RAISED
Disaster Response & recovery Funding Mechanisms
The presentations triggered questions related to the effectiveness of CCRIF in supporting countries after a disaster, since it is designed to measure the intensity of weather system. A recommendation was made for CCRIF to consider a recalibration of its structure and payout beyond the assessment of intensity.
Inter-Agency Cooperation & Roles
Guidance should be given on the implementation of relevant Policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that can assist with strengthening inter-agency cooperation and support cross-cutting issues.
The role of a country’s National Disaster Management Office, Ministry of Finance and Census Bureau is critical when conducting a Social Impact Assessment (SIA). Where capacities exist, CDEMA Participating States should seek to capitalize on funding opportunities.
More detailed information on the concept of BBB and examples for each sector would help the development of a recovery strategy.
Managing Investor Confidence
10 | P a g e
With the exponential increase in debt experienced in many Caribbean countries and the economic crisis (2008-2009), there has been growing uncertainty displayed by investors. It was noted that Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) should collectively seek opportunities to address national indebtedness. Consequently, it was acknowledged that it may be necessary to look at the Caribbean markets including the placement of and the target groups for bond investments.
Prioritization of Macro-economic Issues and Social Services Post-Disaster
After a disaster there are competing demands for restoration of and access to services in critical areas such as the tourism infrastructure, transportation and water. Whilst there is no scientific methodology for costing impact of disasters, it was noted that there are existing methodologies that can be used to capture relevant costs. e.g. Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean (ECLAC) Methodology.
A brief discussion ensued around how countries balance the management of macro-economic issues with the provision of social services at the local level after a disaster. This can present multiple challenges particularly in countries where tourism plays a significant role in the economic development. Examples of how countries could carefully prioritize actions necessary to address both macro-economic and social issues were presented on the final day of the workshop.
11 | P a g e
SUMMARY- DAY FOUR (4)
The final day provided an opportunity for conducting a role play on the development of a recovery strategy, sharing of country level experiences on the post-disaster needs assessment, a synopsis of the CDEMA Model National Recovery Framework and Adaptation Guide as well as a discussion of the next steps to be taken.
Development of a Recovery Strategy – Role Play Exercise
In the role play exercise, participants were divided into groups with each individual taking on the role of a representative from the infrastructure, housing, agriculture, productive, and social (health, and education/culture) sectors. Sector representative were asked to share their respective strategies and discuss sector priorities. One individual played the role of Ministry of Finance who was charged with ensuring group consensus on the country’s recovery priorities for the short to long-term. The Finance representative was tasked with the presentation of an overall recovery strategy to members of the national and international community in order to garner feedback.
KEY POINTS RAISED
Feedback on the Development of a Recovery Strategy (Role Play Exercise)
Access to reliable information, preparation, clear justification and a sound understanding of finance were highlighted as key factors during the development of a recovery strategy. Participants reminded each other of the importance of easily accessible data which could be presented to policy makers on short notice in a clear, succinct and visually-comprehensible fashion with limited technical jargon. It was acknowledged that policymakers faced a number of pressures and therefore were not expected to understand the technical aspects of issues outside of their assigned portfolio. The job of the technocrat is to make these issues understandable so that decisions can be made.
One recommendation made during group feedback involved the use of the critical path methodology to develop recovery strategies. This methodology is widely utilized by project management experts; it assists with the identification of key findings, priorities and budgets that can support critical linkages and relationships between sectors.
International Donor Community Influence on Prioritized Recovery Measures
The level of influence will vary and is dependent on political will, clarity of needs and the economic or fiscal strength of the government of the affected country following the outcome of the PDNA process.
CDEMA MODEL NATIONAL RECOVERY FRAMEWORK AND ADAPTATION GUIDE
Ramon Husein, a consultant contracted by CDEMA to develop a Model National Recovery Framework and Adaptation Guide delivered a presentation on the process to date. Mr. Husein explained that model is being developed on the assumption of worst case scenario for countries and would look at the sub-phases of recovery to identify needs and propose actions to minimize recovery. The framework incorporates cross-cutting issues and themes such as gender, DRR and climate change. It considers natural and anthropogenic hazards as well as progressive weakening factors such as national debt and logistical constraints. The framework also incorporates
12 | P a g e
further implications for the impacts of disasters on economies due to high level of gross GDP, as well as psycho-social recovery of the affected population. Mr Husein explained that feedback from stakeholder consultations would be used to inform the design of a seamless recovery model. Key findings from both research and consultations to date have resulted in the following recommendations:
The need to improve recovery rates and the use of resource sharing agreements such as the PDNA should be reinforced regionally as a means of assisting with overall coordination efforts.
Recovery policies should consider what can be done to reduce immediate losses, shorten stagnation time and increase the economic growth rate
Countries should set and monitor adherence to appropriate building standards
The management of recovery from disasters is a national priority and plays an instrumental role in facilitating the s recovery of networks and services that ultimately create an enabling environment to reduce the cost of doing business.
KEY POINTS RAISED
Terminology Used by the PDNA and Other Assessment Tools
In light of the evolving terminology used to conduct the PDNA and other complementary assessments, participants were encouraged to gather robust data on human development in a manner that can adequately inform a PDNA upon request by Government. There was acknowledgement that with different assessments being used, there is an expectation that immediate linkages exists. However, it was noted that some gaps exist between the assessment tools and that a closer look would be taken to address this situation.
COUNTRY-LEVEL EXPERIENCES ON PUTTING TOGETHER AND IMPLEMENTING A PDNA
ST. LUCIA
Some senior public servants received training on the PDNA prior to the trough event which affected St. Lucia in December 2013. Many parts of the country were affected with a record of 171.1m in rainfall over a 24 hr period. Severe damage to infrastructure including roads, schools and the airport occurred. The UNDP delegation was invited by Government to conduct a PDNA which comprised of DaLa and SIA with a mandate to assess the impact of floods and to devise a strategy. The UNDP team comprised of experts on various sector and cross-cutting issues. With information available on total damage and losses, priorities were identified in the areas of infrastructure, environment and agriculture, disaster risk management and livelihoods.
Lessons Learnt
There is a strong case for disaster risk management to be used as a component of an overall deficit management strategy for building resilience
A major driver of growth has been spending in the construction sector. However, the net benefits identified by most experts in this sector have not yet been realized.
13 | P a g e
Other countries should adopt the PDNA approach as a good example for building resilience.
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
The country was affected by a trough event in December 2013. Significant rainfall was recorded in several parts of the country over a 24 hr period. Critical damage to infrastructure including roads, bridges, hospital, schools, houses, tourism sites and the water network occurred resulting in the loss of lives and displacement of persons. Some communities were cut off from the rest of the island resulting in delays in assessment, initial relief and response. Multiple challenges were experienced in the collection of data for assessments and included the infiltration of political appointees as well as the need to ensure that data collected could be properly triangulated to electoral and boundary statistics which were available. The UNDP delegation was invited by Government to conduct a PDNA. A DaLa, DANA and SIA were also conducted. Recovery measures undertaken by Government included the free replacement of damaged or lost identification, hospital repairs through a public private partnership and free food for affected persons in the first six months after the disaster. Priorities during the recovery and reconstruction phases also included the development of disaster plans for key sectors, livelihoods, enhanced early warning systems and the regularisation of squatter settlements.
HAITI
The challenges of poverty, political instability, the history of weak government and environmental degradation were compounded following the earthquake of January 2010. It resulted in the displacement of many persons and caused an initial crisis around reconstruction which in turn led the government to form an agency with a mandate for housing and reconstruction. Although the establishment of camps for Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) helped to address some of the initial housing challenges, this temporary measure was accompanied by high health and sanitary risks. The presence of these camps also posed delays for the reconstruction process since many persons who received alternative housing returned to IDP camps to access the humanitarian aid available. A 16/6 methodology 2for camp management which included a mechanism for adequate monitoring and development was finally adopted.
Lessons Learnt/Key Points Raised
There is a need to work with local authorities including the police to manage the IDP system.
As a part of the recovery strategy for housing, there is a large programme with UNDP and the WB that introduces the BBB concept to engineers and masons. There is also a programme focused on seismic activity particularly in the north of the island which is also vulnerable to hurricanes. Adherence to building codes remains the main challenge due to the prohibitive costs for suitable construction materials. A suitable housing policy is being put in place within the responsible ministry but the challenge will be with implementation.
2 More information can be accessed via www.eshelter.cccmhaiti.info
14 | P a g e
BELIZE
Three out of six districts in Belize were affected in the last quarter of 2013 due to excessive rains. A national disaster was not declared but many subsectors in agriculture were affected. Many farmers had already invested significantly in preparation for the planting season and lost a combination of crops and livestock.
Lessons Learnt
There is a need for countries to have a sound inventory about what is in the field before disasters occur.
The absence of institutions to assist with start-ups placed farmers in a compromising situation. Due to the high cost of inputs, they did not have the necessary funds to replace seeds, fertiliser and other items. Increased food imports from Mexico and neighbouring countries heightened the risk of imported contraband along with legitimate goods. It also resulted in higher costs of fruit and vegetables on the local markets.
There is a need to establish a reserve or fund available to help with initial response.
There is a need to develop more comprehensive information on the agriculture sector including the development of farmer profiles which should include their location, type of farming and the types of crops that they produce.
Take the opportunity to raise awareness about climate change and associated future projections. However there needs to be continual educational awareness around the likely impact of climate change.
It is useful to have established relationships with affected communities prior to impact to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable are truly addressed.
In instances where a national disaster is not declared, it is very difficult to deploy the necessary resources to support the response and prioritisation of needs.
Greater emphasis should be given to the importance of technology such as GPS and GIS systems to assist with data collection and mapping.
GUYANA
Following the floods in 2005, approximately 30% of the population was affected with an estimation of damages to the tune of 59.49% of GDP. The National Disaster Office and the Ministry of Agriculture implemented projects funded by WB geared to address the priorities/needs identified during the ECLAC assessment. The 2005 floods acted as a wakeup call for the country.
Lessons Learnt
Investment in capital, capacity building and infrastructure resulted in positive growth with an improvement across all sectors since 2005.
The alignment of the recovery programme with the country’s poverty reduction and growth strategy worked well.
15 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATIONS ON RISK MITIGATION AND RECOVERY STRATEGIES
A presentation outlining recommendations for infrastructural related risk mitigation and recovery strategies geared towards reduced vulnerabilities was delivered to participants. Recommendations included:
The significance of preventative actions and the importance of monitoring and forecasting data to develop baselines.
Access to information about seabed conditions, an inventory of buildings (including characteristics) within five miles of the shorelines, long-term tidal trends, development of beach profiles and other data which can be sourced from various agencies including the Coastal Zone Agency, Lands and Surveys Agency and the National Disaster Office
Hazard mapping, early warning systems and contingency planning were also recommended. The participants were reminded to clearly indicate the level of threat, type of response and response time involved for each hazard. As such, a sound understanding of the social dynamics and expertise in determining how to respond to and mobilise affected populations.
Structural mitigation works should be conducted
Provision of economic incentives should be provided for eco-friendly initiatives
NEXT STEPS/RECOMMENDATIONS
These included:
The profile for workshop participants should be expanded to include the ability to conduct PDNAs, related trainings and expertise in mapping.
A modular version of the PDNA guide should be developed for users.
The delivery of similar PDNA workshops at the national level to build knowledge and expertise within various sectors. UNDP Barbados and the OECS in collaboration with GFDRR is supporting a sub-regional project focussed on enhancing the PDNA capacity at the national level for 7 countries.
In light of discussions on the complementary nature of the IDA, DANA, DaLa and PDNA, there is an opportunity for a review of these tools under an upcoming CDEMA project in order to capitalise on the standardisation of regional assessment tools.
In an effort to sustain the success of this workshop, it will be necessary to expand the small core of persons trained in this area and increase the number of PNDA and DaLa teams at the region’s disposal. Participants were encouraged to volunteer to join their country’s assessment teams/processes as a means of developing a corps of experienced PDNA practitioners in the region.
Opportunities exist for improving the use of information across the region. This should involve a closer look at how various platforms used in different territories are developed. In addition, it would require
16 | P a g e
greater synergies between the entities that develop or manage data and those that use data. Regional platforms such as DEWETRA and DesInventar were highlighted as opportunities to harness and easily manipulate country-level data prior to disasters as a means of assisting with the quantification of projected impacts using a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) based platform.
Given the similarity of some projects, UNDP and CDEMA will explore opportunities for closer collaboration including consideration for how the capacity of statistical departments can be strengthened and better linked to disaster risk management. This enhanced capacity would help countries to understand inter alia the cumulative impact of small disasters on a country and the need for recovery planning across the spectrum from small to large events.
UNDP looks forward to following up with participants on next steps.
CLOSING REMARKS
At the conclusion of the workshop facilitators, representatives of respective organizations and participants shared closing remarks. Ms. Demeter expressed WB’s vision for regional organizations to draw on regional expertise and take the lead role on the PDNA for affected countries. She highlighted the organization’s broader programme of work with regional entities that could contribute to the support and development of capacity at the national level. She encouraged country representatives to tap into UNECLAC as a regional resource and utilize existing assessment data to design and implement suitable recovery strategies or plans.
Ms. Kambon wished participants well and encouraged them to use the knowledge and experiences acquired to advise policymakers on how pre-disaster and post-disaster baseline information can be used to make informed decisions regarding disaster assessments as well as related response and recovery strategies.
On behalf of CRMI, Ms. Fairholm thanked participants for their high levels of engagement, quality input and commitment. Special thanks were extended to the UNDP Barbados Support Team, CDEMA and all facilitators for their contributions throughout the four-day event.
Ms. Persad conveyed CDEMA’s appreciation for the contributions of participants and facilitators in addressing the issues around recovery programming in an enlightening, practical and hands-on manner. She hoped that participants would feel empowered to drive the PDNA process at the national level on their return to their respective countries.
Certificates of participation were awarded to all participants during a brief closing ceremony.
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: PDNA EVALUATION
17 | P a g e
Evaluation form for the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Training
Please indicate your impressions of the items listed below. (Percentage (%) based on the total number of responses=26)
StronglyAgree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. The training met my expectations. 46% 46% 8%
2. I will be able to apply the knowledge learned. 27% 65% 8%
3. The training objectives for each session were identified and followed. 23% 58% 11% 8%
4. The content was easy to follow. 8% 69% 19% 4%
5. The presentations and materials were pertinent and useful. 31% 69%
6. The trainers were knowledgeable. 73% 23% 4%
7. The quality of instruction was good. 38% 58% 4%
8. Participation and interaction were encouraged 54% 42% 4%
9. Adequate time was provided for questions and discussion 8% 62% 19% 11%
10. Time management was good 31% 58% 11%
11. How do you rate the training overall?
Excellent Good Average Poor Very poor
46% 50% 4%
18 | P a g e
12. What aspects of the training could be improved? Please make recommendations
Most of participants (58%) didn’t answer to the question. Among those that did respond, the main suggestion was to provide more time for sessions, particularly group work and exercises.
More time should be allocated to sessions. Sessions were too rushed.
More time allotted to group work. Some of the assignments were rushed.
I am generally satisfied and appreciative of the experience shared during the training. My only recommendation is that we consider facilitating similar training in the various countries.
I recommend National level PDNA trainings.
More time for the exercise.
The role play scenario; more time for the process.
The exercise on identifying damages and losses could be improved by explaining more why the items are classified as damages/losses.
The practical sessions could be improved by including more than one guide or trainer/coordinator
Hand-out with examples of assignments/group activities could be provided after group presentation; instructor gets to see how we fend first.
Training was timely, provided after an overview of the PDNA methodology was conducted in St. Lucia. All presentations were full of information.
Time allocation for the presenter/facilitators needs to be more realistic
13. What knowledge/skills acquired from the training will you now apply on the job?
77% Overall understanding of PDNA process (how it is done)
88% Overall understanding of the Assessment Methodology
54% Application of methodology in future assessments
62% Participation in a PDNA/Participation in a team of sector experts
8% Sector guidelines Vol A and Vol B
19 | P a g e
14. Do you need additional support to be able to apply the newly acquired knowledge/skills? Please explain
31% of 26 respondents didn’t answer the question. However, those answers provided reflect similar points. They mainly include the need for country-specific PDNA training, and/or sector-specific PDNA training. The importance of refresher courses in the future was also noted as well as the utility of a list of resources and other relevant documentation to assist participants with the newly acquired skills.
Need country training programs to train and inform more technical staff in the understanding and application of the disaster damage assessment and methodology. Develop a trainer-of-trainers program by country.
Yes, training like this in my country would be helpful for the other sectors (infrastructure, agriculture, finance, etc…)
Yes, I would require in-country training, perhaps sector-by-sector to better develop skills.
An exchange program could be implemented to strengthen knowledge and skills in implementing the PDNA Methodology. E.g. if the PDNA is being implemented in country A, then practitioners of other countries could observe or be part of the process. Given that the PDNA methodology is likely to be modified over the years to come, then refresher training may be considered.
A list of resources, such as standards and guides to assist in estimating damage and loss.
Yes, the PDNA, to be applicable, requires more people to be involved at the country level. More so, to understand its purpose and application. Support will be needed to promote/advocate its use at the country level.
I will need additional support in promoting the PDNA process and also in applying the newly acquired skills, and understanding the overall assessment methodology. But before a request can be made, I will definitely need to carry out an in-house practice session at home, with pertinent partners so as to better understand possible challenges.
In the near future, it is hoped that my country will proactively request instructors (resource-personnel) be invited into my country to train multi-sectoral representatives.
We will need support in terms of training, developing a network amongst participants to sustain the success of the PDNA.
20 | P a g e
The process should be introduced to Governments in order to better manage the recovery process. In-country training for CDEMA participating states to include all sectors. Ensure that all additional information is forwarded to participants.
More training at the national level for key sector specialists in the PDNA methodology.
Yes, training in PDNA naturally by sectors.
I would like to have a country-specific training.
Need to improve proficiency through practice. A refresher course in the next 3-5 years.
Yes, perhaps practice on the PDNA to really understand and enhance the skills.
Working along with Sector Experts in the field.
National Disaster Offices, Ministry of Works, Division of Statistics; these ministries/divisions need to be exposed to this training as well.
It would be fantastic if local-in-country training seminar and capacity could be developed to create local PDNA teams in country, similar to Jamaica’s Dala/DANA teams. What is the sustainability plan?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
21 | P a g e
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
NAMES TITLE/AGENCY COUNTRY CONTACT INFORMATIONParticipants
01 Mr. Fillmore Mullin Director, National Office of Disaster Services
Antigua [email protected]
02 Mr. Lawrence Luke Bethel Training Officer, National Emergency Management Agency
Bahamas [email protected]
03 Ms. Michelle Gardiner Finance Officer, National Emergency Management Agency
Bahamas [email protected]
04 Ms. Judy Thomas Director, Department of Emergency Management
Barbados [email protected] [email protected]
05 Ms. Fay Garnett District Agriculture Coordinator, Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Belize [email protected]
06 Mr. Clifford Martinez District Agriculture Coordinator, Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
Belize [email protected];[email protected]
07 Mr. Andrew Darroux District Development Officer, Ministry of Social Services, Division of Local Government.
Dominica [email protected]
08 Mr. Steve Joseph Programme Officer, Office of Disaster Management
Dominica [email protected]
09 Ms. Shari Joseph Project Officer, Division of Economic & Technical Cooperation
Grenada [email protected]
10 Ms. Yolande Newton Project Officer, Division of Economic & Technical Cooperation
Grenada [email protected]
11 Col. Francis Abraham Deputy Director, Civil Defence Commission
Guyana [email protected]
12 Ms. Akilah Dorris Community Monitoring and Development Officer,Ministry of Local Government
Guyana [email protected]
13 Mr. Moise Eils JN-Pierre Central Coordinator, Dirreccion Proteccion Civil
Haiti [email protected]
14 Mr. Gabriel Jean Max Central Coordinator- Haiti [email protected]
22 | P a g e
Direction Protection Civile/ PASNGRD (Programme d'Appui au Systeme National de Gestion des Risques et des Désastres)
15 Mr. Gregory Bowman Chief Technical Officer, Ministry of Housing, Informal Settlements, Land & Surveys and Physical Planning
St. Vincent [email protected]
16 Ms. Michelle Forbes Deputy Director, National Emergency Management Organisation
St. Vincent [email protected]
17 Andrina Abraham Department of Economic Planning & National Development
St. Lucia [email protected]
18 Ms. Skeeta Gibbs Department of Economic Planning & National Development
St. Lucia [email protected]
19 Ms. Denise Anderson Regional Coordinator, Preparedness and Response Unit, ODPM
Trinidad [email protected]
20 Dr. Virginia Clerveaux Director Department of Disaster Management and Emergencies
T & C. Islands [email protected]
21 Mr. Danier F. Lightbourne Director of Department of Planning
T & C. Islands [email protected]
22 Mr. Cromwell Williams Chairman - Nat'l Damage Assessment Sub-Committee, Public Works Department
St. Kitts [email protected]
23 Ms. Kimberley Evelyn Disaster Management Department
Nevis [email protected]
24 Ms. Sheniah Armstrong Planning and Preparedness Manager, Department of Disaster Management, British Virgin Islands.
Virgin Islands U.K.
25 Lealou Reballos Disaster Risk Reduction Specialist
PAHO/WHO [email protected]
26 Elizabeth Riley Deputy Executive Director CDEMA [email protected]
27 Ms. Joanne Persad Mitigation and CDEMA [email protected]
23 | P a g e
Preparedness Specialist28 Mr. Robert Harewood Programme Officer
Response and RecoveryCDEMA [email protected]
29 Mr. Ramon Husein Managing Director Husein Environment & Water
30 Mr. Christopher Lashley Director of Projects Husein Environment & Water
31 Mr. Anthony Kellman Field Programme Monitoring Officer
32 Mr. Fransen Jean Food Security Officer FAO [email protected]
Facilitators/Presenters33 Mr. Vincent Little Regional Policy Advisor FAO [email protected]
34 Ian King Programme Officer UNDP [email protected]
35 Ms. Jacinda Fairholm Project Manager CRMI UNDP [email protected]
36 Asha Kambon Consultant Facilitator [email protected]
37 Mr. Michael Hendrickson Economic Affairs Officer UNECLAC [email protected]
38 Mr. David Smith Managing Director, Smith Warner International
Facilitator [email protected]
39 Ms. Katalin Demeter Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist
World Bank [email protected]
24 | P a g e
