PDNA TRAINING

Presenter: UNDP , Vienna February 13-17 2012

OVERVIEW OF HRNA

METHODOLOGY

1. Conceptualizing the disaster

1.1 Risk identification and analysis (H, E, V, C)

It involves: hazard analysis, vulnerability assessment, and, establishment of risks. At the end of this sub-stage, the assessment process would have:

(a) identified and described drought hazards,

(b) identified elements at risk,

(c) identified the exposure of elements at risk to the identified hazards,

(d) identified and analyzed the vulnerability of elements at risk to hazards,

(e) established the risks from the hazards (such as: death, loss, damage, and disruption).

1.2 Determining sectors/themes to include

Rationale for selection (why it is important to include the sector/theme in the PDNA): Factors to consider include:

a) the extent of hazard/disaster impact b) importance of the sector or theme in national or community

development and DRR c) status and trends in riskiness of the sector (extent and impact

of the disasters affecting the sector) d) existence of DRR measures to address disaster risks affecting

the sector e) expected benefits from promoting recovery and

mainstreaming DRR in the sector/theme f) ease of accessing required capacities and skills for recovery

and mainstreaming DRR g) nature, skills and receptiveness of key stakeholders involved

with the sector/theme h) ability and potential to sustain recovery in the sector/theme

2. Identifying (generic) issues to analyze

The following generic issues need to be covered in the HRNA for/by all sectors:

1) What is the vulnerability and exposure status of the sector? What is the nature and extent of vulnerability and exposure of the

sector? How has vulnerability and exposure been affected by the disaster?

2) How did (and the extent to which) exposure and vulnerability of the sector affect/determine damages and losses?

3) How was the community affected by the disaster - how the disaster affected livelihood, social capital, environmental assets, institutions, governance, coping and adaptive strategies?

4) What was the extent of damages/losses? 5) How the sector (individually and in synergy with others)

affects/reduces exposure, vulnerability and risk? 6) How did they cope? 7) What are continuing relief/humanitarian needs? 8) What are the subjective perceptions on determination of post-disaster

needs and recovery objectives of impacted populations?

2. Identifying (generic) issues to analyze (contd) 9) How can they recover from the disaster?

10) What are the recommended interventions to address felt/observed needs?

11) How can they prevent or reduce future disasters?

12) What feasible prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures and options exist to address unacceptable risks?

13) What are the implications for policies, institutions, resources and development programming for early and longer term recovery as well as reconstruction?

3. Generating the evidence: data, information (identification, collection)

3.1 Data and information generation

Factors influencing data and information needs in PDNA: - The type, quality and frequency of information required for PDNA depend on several considerations, including the following:

1) purpose, complexity and scope of assessment

2) type of hazard

3) nature of vulnerability and capacities

4) level of analysis and analytical techniques to be employed

5) the sector of interest (such as agriculture, water)

6) the element at risk

7) resource and skill availabilities

8) database already existing and feasibility of collecting additional data

9) the allocated time for data collection, analysis, assessment

3.2 Identifying data/information sources/availability

(A) Generic sources

Baseline (secondary data):

National statistics, demographic, social, economic characteristics

Typical sources of information: recent household surveys; updated maps, sectoral baselines, cadasters

Impact assessment (secondary data):

Post-disaster remote sensing, Humanitarian needs assessments, Governments preliminary assessment reports, NGOs/UN agency situation reports,, etc..

Field verification and stakeholder consultation (primary data)

(B) Identification of potential sources of information for the PDNA

Baseline information collection consultancy (WB-contracted)

Plenary discussion, including available information on sources of information from agencies

4. Analyzing human impacts

4.1 Levels of impact/analysis

macro level,

sector level (productive and social),

community/household level,

cross-cutting level

4.2 Estimating the human development effect of a disaster in HRNA

4.2.1 Key Principles

The assessment measures the difference between pre- and projected post-disaster levels of human development directly resulting from the disaster in the short term as well as the medium term, including the cumulative deficits accruing until human development has recovered.

For each level of analysis: Do with/without analysis NOT before/after

4.2.2 Steps/procedure Analyse the performance on human development

components before the disaster occurred utilizing the pre-crisis baseline (pre-disaster human development trends, including main challenges to development trends, and the salient features of the policies being implemented pre-crisis that influenced the condition of human development for affected populations)

Project/forecast human development performance into the future (both for the year in which the disaster occurred and for the following year or years) based on past performance had the disaster not occurred utilizing clearly stated assumptions.

Measure/assess the difference between the HD status expected prior to the disaster and the HD status expected (projected) as a result of damages/losses/other impacts in the short and medium term.

Steps and procedures (contd)

NOTE: levels of human development are measured by various indices of human development (e.g. HDI) and/or changes in MDG (or other development targets). For the PDNA, changes in levels of human development can be proxied by macro/sector/thematic outcomes (e.g. food security).

4.3 Determining human impacts of disasters scenarios

These guidelines offer five generic pre-crisis baselines, scenarios and trends. The nature of the effect varies depending upon pre-crisis trends as well as the specificity of the disaster.

Trend A: Upward trend indicating progress

Example of increasing levels of education, poverty reduction, etc

Generic Depiction: pre-disaster growth trends upward, so the effect of disaster damage has two components. Damage accrues until the pre-disaster level is restored (red area) but there is also an additional opportunity cost associated with the human development gains not realised as a result of the disaster. Such cumulative losses accrue until the actual post-disaster trend catches up to the projected pre-disaster trend or pathway (blue area).

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 End 2010 End 2011 End 2012 End 2013 End 2014 End 2015

Post-disaster trend projection

Post-disaster level

HD Team estimate of Post-Disaster Recovery Pathway

Pre-disaster trend

Pre-disaster level

Scenario A: Losses Accruing to Human

Development with Positive Pre-Disaster

Trend

Scenario B: Downward trend indicating progress

Progress in human development may be reflected

by downward trends, for example, decreasing prevalence of diseases.

Generic Depiction: the difference between the

pre- and post-disaster levels is reflected in the height of the red triangle. The area of the triangle represents the effect of damage on human development that accumulates until the pre-disaster level is restored; the blue triangle represents disaster damage as opportunity cost, i.e., until the actual post-disaster trend bisects the projected post-disaster trend.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 End 2010 End 2011 End 2012 End 2013 End 2014

Post-disaster trend projection

Post-disaster level

Performance Pre-Disaster

HD Team Estimate of Post-Disaster Recovery Pathway

Scenario B: Downward Trend Indicating Progress

Scenario C: Stagnant trend indicating neither progress nor regression

This trend reflects areas that may be slow to change (or reflect no change), such as year-on-year changes in literacy, or those development challenges that prove resistant to improvement over time. For example, the poverty rate falls and life expectancy increases, but the ratio of boys to girls is essentially unchanged.

Generic Depiction: The pre-disaster projected trend was stagnant and the effect of disaster damage accrues until the pre-disaster level/pathway is once again restored (blue area).

35.00

37.00

39.00

41.00

43.00

45.00

47.00

49.00

51.00

53.00

55.00

2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 End 2010 End 2011 End 2012 End 2013 End 2014

Post-Disaster Level

Post-disaster trend

projection

HD Team Estimate of Post-Disaster Recovery Pathway

Performance Pre-Disaster

Trend C: Stagnant Trend

Trend D. Upward trend indicating regression

Example: significant deterioration in the nutritional status of children under-5 years of age, indicating a decrease in human development.

Generic Depiction: Performance of an aspect of human development was worsening, rather than improving, before the disaster and is projected to continue to deteriorate, even without the disaster. For example: the prevalence of key infectious diseases is increasing rather than decreasing over time. In this example, the disaster exacerbates the situation. The recovery of this aspect of human development aims to restore the situation to the pre-disaster level, and help put it on a positive pathway (in this case, downward sloping).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Pre-disaster level

HD Team Estimate of Post-Disaster Recovery Pathway

Post-disaster trend projection

Post-disaster level

Performance Pre-Disaster

Scenario D. Upward Trend Indicating

Regression

4.3.5 Trend E: Downward trend indicating regression Example: life expectancy at birth decreases

sharply, showing a steep downward trend indicating outright loss of development progress.

Generic Depiction: As for scenario D, the disaster

accelerates a pre-disaster negative trend in human development. The situation represented in Scenario D and E (Figures 10 and 11) provides some of the greatest post-disaster challenges because the recovery must aim to restore human development at least to its pre-crisis level (represented in blue). In order to do so, post-disaster initiatives must partially address underlying pre-disaster development challenges.

25.00

27.00

29.00

31.00

33.00

35.00

37.00

39.00

2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 End 2010 End 2011 End 2012 End 2013 End 2014

Post-disaster level

HD Team Estimate of Post-Disaster Recovery Pathway

Performance Pre-Disaster

Projected pre-disaster pathway

Pre-disaster level

Scenario E. Downward Trend Indicating Regression

5. HRNA in recovery and reconstruction needs assessment and programming

5.1 Areas of relevance in PDNA

(a) specification of recommendation options,

(b) decision-making to determine the optimal option/s,

(c) developing the recovery framework,

(d) making reconstruction human-centric

5.2 Adopting the options approach to specifying recommendations

a) Downscale recommendations to project/enterprise level, to the extent possible

b) (programme vrs project-level specification;

c) generality vrs specificity of recommendations

d) Present the options in the context or part of risk assessment

e) Indicate economic and social policy implications beyond the fiscal and local economic effects

5.3 Understanding the value of DRR (to guide specification/selection recommended options)

It is not always that positive Cost Benefit Analysis of DRR interventions imply higher expected return. The value of DRR can be a change in output (as defined) and/or minimization of output loss. Disasters often cause instability of output and returns. Therefore, DRR involves trade-off between higher output and more stable output. Thus, expected return can be negative but outcome variability reduced (stability increased).

However, it is important to consider that managing risk often

entails high opportunity costs. Thus, it is not prudent to merely compare the cost of risk management in a DRR project with the potential or actual costs avoided if expected hazards occur and make a positive determination of high benefits from the DRR intervention. Where this comparison is done, the opportunity cost of the DRR measure needs to be taken into account, particularly in risk transfer projects where risk reduction finances have to be diverted from other needs.

5.4 Decision-making on recommended options: provide guidance on selecting among the options

5.4.1 Core activities (a) examining options for addressing risks determined in the earlier stages through

identifying and analyzing alternative options, (b) determining the level and incidence of benefits and costs, (c) determining the feasibility, effectiveness and potential adverse effects of the options. 5.4.2 Some decision-making tools for consideration of risk from natural hazards in

investment (in conventional projects (e.g. roads, energy) whose primary objective is not disaster reduction):

Event-tree analysis Relative ranking Monetary and non-monetary valuation techniques Cost-benefit analysis Cost-effectiveness analysis Risk-benefit analysis Risk programming Contingent cost analysis Multivariate utility analysis Comparative Risk Assessment

5.4.3 Considering impact of recommendations on disaster risk

It is not enough to determine the effect of disaster risk on development interventions. It is also necessary to assess the impact of planned development programmes and projects on disaster risk by ensuring, when preparing and implementing development programmes, that they do not increase disaster risk by increasing peoples vulnerability to hazards .Analysis of the ways in which development programmes and projects affect disaster risk is a necessary element of disaster risk reduction.

Determining the impacts of development actions on disaster risk involves analyzing ways in which development programmes, projects and policies affect the hazards profile and processes, as well as vulnerability and exposure to hazards: sustainability analysis of target area. These analyses can be done within the generalized framework of Strategic Environmental Analysis (SEA) that includes standard Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Impacts of development on hazards can be analyzed using EIA approaches because most natural hazards in Africa are environmental, while impacts on vulnerability and exposure can be analyzed using SEA approaches.

5.4.4 Deciding on appropriate risk management (including investment) options

Issues to consider: a) principles governing risk mitigation decisions - for example, a

precautionary approach, uniform safety standards or subsidiarity principles; whether decisions on risk bearing and mitigation are made by private individuals or communities or professional experts; who should pay for risk mitigation

b) acceptable levels of risk this is an important activity in deciding the right level of protection; it depends on several difficult economic, social and political considerations, such as how to value lives lost, the relation between perceived risk and actual exposure, and, comparing risks in comparable activities.

c) the appropriate scale and strictness of interventions, including regulation - these should depend on the nature of the hazard and the socio-economic characteristics of the related risks.

d) the appropriate risk management strategy - the option range includes prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures.

e) appropriate policy tools - these include direct government provision of safety, regulations, economic incentive, land use planning, information provision, community participation and action.

5.4.4 Deciding on appropriate risk management (including investment) options (contd)

(f) necessary organizational and institutional

structures - for example: stakeholder fora, coordination mechanisms, hazard regulators and safety providers.

(g) how national development plan can be transformed or build on to implement the PDNA recommendations agreed to by government

(h) the PDNA process can be leveraged to promote DRR in line with the HFA

6. Ensuring consistency of PDNA findings with priori government assessments and determination

numbers of people and assets affected

food security needs/implications

impacts on macroeconomic variables

convergence, consistency between PDNA recommendations and national/sector priorities and investment

7. Application of HRNA for development programming

Inter-sectoral linkages

Spatial implications

Community involvement

Thank you