REGIONAL CONSULTATION WORKSHOP ON HARMONISATION OF THE CDM STRATEGY AND FRAMEWORK AND THE SENDAI

FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

22 November, 2016

Workshop Report

2 | P a g e

Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Objectives of the Harmonisation Process and Progress ............................................................... 7

1.2 Mapping of CDM Strategy and Framework to Sendai Framework for DRR.................................. 8

1.3 Mapping of the Revised CDM Action Plan to the Global Target Indicators .................................. 8

1.4 Mapping of the CDM Audit Tool to the Sendai Monitor and Global Target Indicators ................ 9

2 Objectives of the Regional Consultation Workshop ........................................................................... 10

3 Achievements of the Workshop ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Monitoring progress in the Sendai Framework for DRR and the Sustainable Development Goals

(SDGs) 11

3.2 The Revised Comprehensive Disaster Management Action Plan ............................................... 13

3.3 Harmonised CDM Performance Monitoring Framework and Revised CDM Action Plan ........... 15

3.4 Harmonised CDM Audit Tool ...................................................................................................... 16

4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 18

The workshop was organized by: With financial support by:

3 | P a g e

List of Acronyms ADA Austrian Development Agency

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CDM Comprehensive Disaster Management

CDEMA Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency

CHC Coordination and Harmonization Council

CU

CWP

Coordination Unit

Country Work Programme

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness Programme of ECHO DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ECHO European Commission's Humanitarian aid and Civil Protection department

OIEWG Open-ended Inter-Governmental Working Group NDMO National Disaster Management Organisation

PMF Performance Monitoring Framework

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030

UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

4 | P a g e

Executive Summary The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-20301 was adopted by United Nations Member

States on 18 March 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan.

The Sendai Framework is a 15-year, voluntary, non-binding agreement which recognizes that the State

has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibility should be shared with other

stakeholders including local government, the private sector and other stakeholders. It aims for the

following outcome: The substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health

and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses,

communities and countries.

The 2014-2024 Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Strategy as well as the related indicators

were developed through a consultative process of CDM stakeholders. The strategic objective of CDM is

the integration of disaster management considerations into the development planning and decision-

making process of CDEMA’s Participating States and forms part of the Caribbean Community strategic

mechanism for achieving resilience within CARICOM. The CDM Strategy is accompanied by a

Comprehensive Disaster Management Action Plan (referred to as a “preliminary CDM Action Plan”)

which was also developed in a consultative process involving the CDM Coordination and Harmonization

Council (CHC) and Sector Sub-committees2. This process was undertaken in 2013-2014. The Performance

Management Framework was initiated in June 2014 after the Action Plan and Strategy were developed.

Both these instruments also preceded the development of the SFDRR in 2015 and the Global Indicators

2016.

Since the adoption of the new global framework for disaster risk reduction in 2015, worldwide processes

have been initiated to harmonize regional or sub-regional DRR frameworks or strategies with the Sendai

Framework. Following these efforts, in the Caribbean region, CDEMA and UNISDR have agreed to align

the Regional Outcome Indicators of the Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) strategy with the

global target indicators from the Sendai Framework in order to facilitate reporting of Caribbean

countries to both frameworks. It is further envisioned to reflect relevant elements from the sustainable

development indicators and climate change negotiations3 in the revised disaster risk management

reporting and monitoring framework for the Caribbean.

The process of harmonisation will take place in two phases:

2016: Harmonization of CDM Regional Outcome indicators and the CDM Audit Tool with the Global Target Indicators of the Sendai Framework plus aligning the CDM Action Plan with the CDM Strategy and Sendai Framework

2017: Implementation of the CDM Audit tool and the development of CDM Country Work Programmes in 6 CDEMA Participating States

1 http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291

2 CDM Sector Sub-committees: Health, Tourism, Education, Agriculture, Civil Society, Finance and Economic

Development, Physical and Environmental Planning 3 This link will be made as soon as the indicators for climate change are available, most likely in 2020.

5 | P a g e

The results of the 2016 process were the focus of discussion during the Regional Consultation

Workshop. Participants were invited to review and provide comments and inputs on the following three

results:

1) Revised CDM Action Plan;

In relation to the revised Action Plan, recommendations to improve on the current iteration were made

by participants across the outcomes including: revisions to text presented both in terms of sequencing

and re-wording; additional actions to aid in achieving the indicators; and suggestions for consistency in

terminologies used. It is anticipated that the revise Action Plan will be shared for final comments by the

first quarter of 2017.

2) Mapping of synergies and gaps between Sendai Framework and the CDM strategy, the Sendai

Framework Global Target indicators and both the CDM PMF and revised CDM Action Plan;

Recommendations regarding the mapping of synergies and gaps between the Sendai Framework and

the CDM Strategy were generally accepted. Reflections on the proposed indicators led to discussions on

the issue of scale, highlighting the sensitive nature of scale for the region. Losses as a result of hazard

events are not usually high for Caribbean countries and thus the use of per 100,000 population does not

reflect the value of losses if taken by itself. When the statistics are normalised or other statistics such as

percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) are used, impacts can be interpreted differently reflecting

the realities of Caribbean countries. Within this session, the characterisation of hazards as small and

medium scale was also discussed. The prevailing concept was that the characteristics of the hazard

determine the scale of the hazard.

3) Mapping of synergies and recommendations for streamlining the monitoring tools and indicator

terminology between the CDM Audit Tool and the Sendai Monitor and Global Target indicators of the

Sendai Framework.

General recommendations and more than fifty specific recommendations towards harmonisation of the

CDM Audit tool with both the Sendai Monitor and Global Targets and Indicators were the focus of

discussions. Groups provided feedback on the fifty plus specific recommendations ranging from

acceptance to modifications of the proposed recommendations. All inputs from participants were

captured and an indication of how they were integrated was provided subsequent to the workshop.

With the inputs from the CDEMA CU and this broad stakeholder consultation, there are validated

recommendations for harmonising the CDM Audit Tool with the SFDRR. This report is available at the

workshop website.

Overall the workshop was seen as a success as there was raised awareness of the global DRR processes

and the harmonisation efforts on-going in the Caribbean. Stakeholders were able to provide their inputs

into the harmonisation process allowing for the expected outcomes of the workshop to be achieved.

Subject to the integration of the comments as appropriate the revised CDM Action Plan has been further

revised and validated. The results of both the harmonised revised CDM Action Plan and the CDM PMF

with the Global Targets and Indicators have been validated.

6 | P a g e

The Consultation was attended by 47 participants representing CDEMA Participating States, Cuba,

Dominican Republic, United Nations organisations, National Red Cross Societies, Donor Agencies and

Non-Governmental Organisations (Annex 1).

This workshop was jointly organised by CDEMA and UNISDR under the framework of the Caribbean

Action Plan 2015-2016 of ECHO’s Disaster Preparedness Programme (DIPECHO) under the Project

entitled ‘Implementing the post 2015 Disaster Risk Reduction framework in the Caribbean at the local,

national and regional levels’ and the Austrian Development Cooperation-funded project entitled

‘Harmonization of the 2014-2024 Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Strategy and monitoring

& reporting system with the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction’.

Next steps include consideration and incorporation of the validated recommendations for harmonising

the CDM Strategy and Framework (2014-2024), CDM PMF, CDM Action Plan and the CDM Audit tool into

a technical note to the CDM Strategy and Framework. There is a call for making the CDM audit an online

tool to improve analysis of information and functionality of the tool. At the national level, the revised

harmonised CDM Audit Tool will be applied in 2017 and Country Work Programmes (CWPs) that are

aligned to the CDM Strategy and the Sendai Framework for DRR will be developed in 6 pilot countries

initially.

7 | P a g e

1 Introduction The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-20304 was adopted by United Nations

Member States on 18 March 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in

Sendai, Japan. Since the adoption of the new global framework for disaster risk reduction in 2015,

worldwide processes have been initiated to harmonize regional or sub-regional DRR frameworks or

strategies with the Sendai Framework. Following these efforts, in the Caribbean region, CDEMA and

UNISDR have agreed to align the Regional Outcome Indicators of the Comprehensive Disaster

Management (CDM) strategy with the global target indicators of the Sendai Framework in order to

facilitate reporting of Caribbean countries to both frameworks. It is further envisioned to reflect relevant

elements from the sustainable development indicators and climate change negotiations5 in the revised

disaster risk management reporting and monitoring framework for the Caribbean.

1.1 Objectives of the Harmonisation Process and Progress

Since the adoption of the Sendai Framework for DRR, worldwide processes to harmonize regional or

sub-regional DRR frameworks or strategies with the Sendai Framework have begun. In the Caribbean,

CDEMA and UNISDR have agreed to align the Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) strategy and

monitoring system with the Sendai Framework for DRR. This alignment will also reflect relevant

elements from the sustainable development indicators and at a later stage, indicators related to climate

change.

The main objective and outcomes for 2016 and 2017 are shown in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de

la referencia.. This consultation was part of the regional consultation process that will be followed by

final validation of outputs based on the finalised Sendai Framework Global Target Indicators, a Technical

Annex that will capture the harmonised elements of the CDM Strategy and Framework (inclusive of the

CDM Action Plan and CDM Audit Tool).

4 http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291 5 This link will be made as soon as the indicators for climate change are available, most likely in 2020.

8 | P a g e

Figure 1. Main objective and outcomes of harmonisation process in the Caribbean

1.2 Mapping of CDM Strategy and Framework to Sendai Framework for DRR

A mapping exercise in 2015 of the content of the two frameworks confirmed that there is high

comparability between the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the CDM Strategy and

Framework. Subsequently, there have been activities to harmonise the monitoring frameworks of the

two strategies including 1) the revision of CDM Action Plan; 2) the mapping exercise to identify synergies

and gaps between the Global Target Indicators and both the CDM PMF and revised CDM Action Plan;

and 3) the mapping exercise to determine synergies and provide recommendations for streamlining the

monitoring tools and indicator terminology between the CDM Audit Tool and the Sendai Monitor and

Global Target Indicators.

On 2 June, the CDEMA CU was provided with an orientation to the Global Targets and Indicators6 and

the harmonisation process to be undertaken between 2016 and 2017. A presentation on the progress

made on harmonising the CDM PMF with the Global Target Indicators was made to the Internal Sector

Leads of the CDEMA CU. Based on this meeting, eight indicators corresponding with Global Targets A

and B were articulated for inclusion at the goal level of the CDM Strategy by the CDEMA CU. These eight

indicators are shown in Figure 4. These proposed indicators were reviewed and validated during the

meeting of the Sector Leads of the Sub-committees of the Coordination and Harmonisation Council held

on 4 July, 2016.

1.3 Mapping of the Revised CDM Action Plan to the Global Target Indicators

The CDM Strategy is accompanied by a Comprehensive Disaster Management Action Plan (referred to as

a “preliminary CDM Action Plan”) which was developed in a consultative process involving the CDM

6 Issued on 3 March, 2016

Main objective

• Facilitate reporting of Caribbean countries to the CDM Strategy and Sendai Framework

2016

Outcomes

• Harmonised and validated CDM Performance Monitoring Framework

• Revised, harmonised and validated CDM Action Plan

• Harmonised and validated CDM Audit TooL

2017

Outcomes

• Revised CDM Audit tool applied in 6 countries

• 6 CDM Country Work Programmes and related PMF

• Technical annex to the CDM Strategy and Framework

9 | P a g e

Coordination and Harmonization Council (CHC) and Sector Sub-committees7. This process was

undertaken in 2013-2014. The CDM PMF was initiated in June 2014 after the Action Plan and Strategy

were developed. Both these instruments also preceded the development of the SFDRR in 2015 and the

Global Target Indicators 2016. Based on the sequence of the development of these instruments, the

preliminary CDM Action Plan was not fully aligned to the Regional Outcome Indicators and Targets of

the CDM Strategy.

In order to optimise resources and reduce duplication of efforts, including those for monitoring and

reporting, there was a need to align the preliminary CDM Action Plan with the CDM PMF as well as with

the Sendai Framework. Initial reflections on the alignment required between the CDM Action Plan and

the CDM Strategy Outcome indicators and targets highlighted two types of gaps: 1) There is no full set of

Actions to fulfil the indicators and targets; and 2) Priority Actions were identified but do not contribute

to the comprehensive fulfilment of the targets identified.

Two processes were undertaken in relation to the CDM Action Plan – its revision and then

harmonisation with the Global Targets and Indicators. In relation to the revision of the CDM Action Plan,

the Internal Sector Leads of the CDEMA CU revised the actions to better align them to the indicators of

the CDM PMF from 20 - 21 June, 2016. The results of this process were shared with the Sector Leads of

the Sub-committees of the Coordination and Harmonisation Council on 4 July, 2016 for their review,

inputs and validation. With the inputs from these two meetings, the current version of the Action Plan

was prepared and shared for further inputs and validation during this Regional Consultation Workshop.

The Revised Action Plan was then mapped to the Global Target Indicators. The results of this mapping

were complementary to the mapping undertaken for the CDM PMF highlighting the need for indicators

related to Global Targets A and B.

1.4 Mapping of the CDM Audit Tool to the Sendai Monitor and Global Target

Indicators

The Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) Audit Tool was developed by CDEMA, replacing the

Disaster Management Audit that CDEMA had used in the past for assessing CDM capacity at national

and regional levels. The CDM Audit is designed to enable the CDEMA Coordinating Unit to assess the

capacities of its Participating States (PS) and regional specialized agencies working to advance disaster

risk management, including the CDEMA CU itself towards advancing all phases of the disaster

management cycle. A key goal of the Audit is to reduce the reporting burden on CDEMA PS by collecting

and storing information that are relevant to national, regional and international reporting needs. This

process of developing the Audit was undertaken within the timeframe of the Hyogo Framework for

Action (HFA) Monitor. The Audit was mapped to the HFA Monitor for which there was 90% coverage of

the elements by the CDM Audit.

7 CDM Sector Sub-committees: Health, Tourism, Education, Agriculture, Civil Society, Finance and Economic

Development, Physical and Environmental Planning

10 | P a g e

The Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-2030) has now replaced the HFA and efforts have been taken to

harmonise the CDM Audit with the corresponding Sendai Monitor. This process has been undertaken

through a consultancy with the objectives to:

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

Targets

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

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

Indicators

3. Identify recommendations for inclusion of Sendai Global Target Indicators at i) the output level

based on the CDM Audit Tool that is specifically for country level monitoring and ii) the outcome

level based on the existing CDM PMF

The results of the mapping exercise were captured in the report of the consultant. Discussions on the

recommendations for harmonisation were held with CDEMA CU prior to the workshop as part of the

validation process. These recommendations were presented during the workshop () and the focus of

group deliberations during this workshop as a means of validation.

2 Objectives of the Regional Consultation Workshop The main objective of the consultation workshop was to provide inputs and validate results on the

harmonization of global and regional DRR frameworks with specific emphasis on Global Target

Indicators with Regional Outcome Indicators and the CDM Action Plan, and the Sendai Monitor with the

CDM Audit Tool indicators. The relevant disaster risk reduction elements of the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) were highlighted during the Consultation by UNISDR. It was noted that next

steps in the harmonization process will involve the mapping of the relevant SDGs to the CDM-related

documents. Noting the heavy reporting burden experienced by small countries, the mapping of the CDM

Strategy and Framework to both the Sendai Framework and the SDGs, and later to the UNFCCC targets

will allow for holistic monitoring and reporting by Caribbean countries and the Region of progress

towards these global agendas.

The expected results of the Consultation were:

Harmonised and validated CDM Performance Monitoring Framework

Revised, harmonised and validated CDM Action Plan

Harmonised and validated CDM Audit Tool

The main findings and recommendations form the workshop are outlined in this report. The concept

note and agenda can be found on the workshop website along with the reference documents for the

workshop.

3 Achievements of the Workshop This section of the report provides conclusions on the discussions that took place during the workshop

on each aspect of the harmonisation process.

11 | P a g e

3.1 Monitoring progress in the Sendai Framework for DRR and the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs)

Conflicting evidence on progress as monitored under the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) and the

issues encountered were highlighted as the history of the development to the Sendai Monitor. An

overview of the innovations of Sendai Framework and explicit links to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development (Figure 2) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change were

highlighted. The processes related to the monitoring of the Sendai Framework from 2016-2022 (Figure

3) along with an assessment of the availability of methodologies, data and indicator categories for

compound, global and national indicators was also shared.

Figure 2. Linkages between the Global Target Indicators and the Targets of the Sustainable Development Goals

Participants were invited to comment or ask questions regarding the information presented on the

overview of the harmonisation process and objectives of the workshop as well as the monitoring on

progress in the Sendai Framework and SDGs. In response to queries related to the number of indicators

at the global level and the challenges faced by Caribbean countries in reporting, an update to the

meeting on the developments of the last Open-ended Inter-governmental Working Group (OIEWG) on

the indicators held in Geneva from 14-18 November, 2016 was provided. It was noted that the

deliberations involved compromise to move from the 160 indicators previously agreed to in March 2016

to 38 indicators that countries believed were attainable. It was further noted that developing countries

in these deliberations had particular interest in Target F that deals with international cooperation,

highlighting the heavy reporting burden experienced by these countries and the need for support to

obtain greater capacities to undertake reporting by 2020.

12 | P a g e

Figure 3. Monitoring the Sendai Framework for DRR 2016-2022

13 | P a g e

Other discussion points in relation to the presentation included:

The misnomer is reference to the term global targets, noting that it is at the national level that

countries will be expected to adopt indicators.

Unless clearly defined in terms of the data required, there may be misreporting between global

targets A and B and targets C and D.

The issue of scale was highlighted noting that Caribbean countries do not normally register high

numbers of deaths as a result of hazard impacts. The use of the statistic, per 100,000 population

in some indicators presents a disadvantage for Caribbean countries when interpreted

independently. Normalisation of the statistics and using statistics such as percentage of gross

domestic product (GDP) better highlight the losses experienced by Caribbean countries.

Noting that there are now 38 indicators based on the deliberations of the OIEWG on the

indicators, these may still be too many for Caribbean countries to report on and perhaps there

should be a prioritisation of indicators that all countries can report on given available data.

Apart from the DesInventar Databases, there are other sources of data on loss and damage such

as UN ECLAC and Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) that should be utilised for data

harvesting.

3.2 The Revised Comprehensive Disaster Management Action Plan

Participants were able to gain an appreciation for the content of the CDM Action Plan, the process of

development, challenges identified as a result of the timing of development of the Action Plan and the

outcome indicators of the CDM PMF, and its revision over the past six months including CDEMA CU

inputs in collaboration with UNISDR and Sector Leads Discussions. Key challenges addressed in the

review and update CDM Action Plan included:

1) No full set of actions to fulfill the indicators and targets; and

2) Priority Actions were identified but did not contribute to the fulfillment of the targets identified.

Group discussions on each of the 22 indicators led to recommended amendments to the CDM Action

Plan detailed in Boxes 1-4. These recommendations and comments will be considered and integrated as

appropriate to produce the draft final iteration that will be shared post-workshop.

14 | P a g e

Box 1. Recommended Amendments to Outcome Area 1

Box 2. Recommended Amendments to Outcome Area 2

OUTCOME AREA 1

General comments on this Outcome Area were in relation to the differentiation on priority actions

that should take place at the Coordinating Unit level versus those at NDO level.

Outcome 1.1: Queried the placement of 1.1 and whether it would be more relevant to indicator 2;

Merge into one action - Develop Country Work Programme, Process and Performance Monitoring

Framework. It was queried as to whether sectors should report to the NDOs or use existing

structures.

Outcome 1.3: Include as an action - Create a publicly available database of all partners at the

regional and national level (who, what, where, link to CDM Strategy) as part of the CRIS with non-

PSs wherever possible; Effectively measure alignment of programmes annually using common

indicators (At project design phase, alignment to the CDM Strategy should be made); Determine

partners’ broader programming activities to determine the entry points for DRM; Strategically

engage development partners’ to improve on alignment; Create a calendar of events as part of Press

or CDEMA website where all meetings are highlighted so everyone can maximize on travel

allowances

Outcome 1.5: Include as an action - Formalise partnerships through MOUs with the private sector;

Public/private partnerships should be included as an action.

OUTCOME AREA 2

In general, not many additions or revisions were proposed under this Outcome Area.

Outcome 2.1: Retain the action but remove sector specific reference to agriculture; Action 2.1.1

(Strengthening architecture…) may be more appropriate under Outcome 2.2

Outcome 2.2: Requires better sequencing and actions to address gaps related to implementation

of information system at national and regional levels; Consider ICSAC Committee within CDEMA

system as another actor

Outcome 2.3: Need additional actions around advocacy; Review to identify repeated actions and

opportunities to merge actions

Outcome 2.4: There are specific areas where actions can be merged that would allow for

consolidation of actions, while some actions need to be re-worded; Need to consider including

actions that assess the impact of training; Consider training needs within the private sector in

addition to those at the public and community levels

15 | P a g e

Box 3. Recommended Amendments to Outcome Area 3

Box 4. Recommended Amendments to Outcome Area 3

Proposed next steps in relation to the finalization of the CDM Action Plan are:

I. Integrate recommendations shared by partners into the Plan II. Share revised CDM Action Plan with CDM stakeholders by the first quarter of 2017

3.3 Harmonised CDM Performance Monitoring Framework and Revised CDM Action

Plan

In relation to the mapping exercise of both the CDM PMF and the revised CDM Action Plan to the Global

Targets Indicators, the following key findings were shared (see also presentation):

1. There is heavy focus on institutional arrangements to support implementation of the CDM Strategy – Ten (42%) of the 24 indicators of the CDM PMF are related to Global Target E

2. Ample coverage of Global Targets C, D and E in the CDM PMF was observed. 3. Global Targets A and B were not directly reflected in the CDM PMF although they could be

implied in the text of the Regional Goal ‘Safer, more resilient and sustainable CDEMA Participating States through Comprehensive Disaster Management’.

OUTCOME AREA 3

There was general agreement on the actions identified although there is a need to reflect on the

sequencing of actions particularly at Outcome 3.1. A few recommendations were made however for

better alignment.

Outcome 3.1: At 3.1.5 Recommended to this be broken down into two actions – 1) Develop DRM

at the sectoral level, and 2) Develop DRM sectoral plans at the national level; Insert ahead of 3.1.9:

Ensure governance arrangements are already in place; Inclusion of reference to adaptation of best

practices into other sectors

Outcome 3.2: At 3.2.1 to 3.2.5 there is heavy emphasis on hazard assessment and not enough

emphasis on risk assessment; Recommended to include 1) Develop risk analysis tools which reflect

DRM and climate related risks; and 2) Develop a guidance document; Develop baseline tools which

do not exist for priority sectors recommended for inclusion; Requires an addition step in relation to

the prioritization of the sectors as there many still be a need for further prioritization.

OUTCOME AREA 4

Better sequencing of actions was proposed for this Outcome Area along with improvements to the

layout of the actions for each indicator. There is a need to use consistent terminology, e.g. CBDRM

versus community resilience;

In relation to Early Warning Systems (EWS), there needs to be a distinction between national and

community level interventions.

16 | P a g e

Recommended actions proposed by the CDEMA CU to bridge gaps are presented in Figure 4 below. It

was noted that all proposed indicators are streamlined with the indicator language in the CDM PMF

referencing small and medium scale events. Stakeholders had no objections to the inclusion of the

proposed indicators. There was much discussion however around the challenges that may arise within

the context of Small Island Developing States that have much smaller populations than other countries.

The most glaring challenge was in relation to how the statistics used in the indicators can portray the

countries as low priority for international cooperation among other things as discussed previously in

Section 3.1. While the proposed recommendations were deemed acceptable, it was noted that the

statistics need to be qualified in reporting on the indicators.

The classification of small and medium scale impacts was also discussed with participants querying the

definition of such impacts. In providing clarity on this point, CDEMA noted that the characteristics of the

hazard are used in classifying impacts as small or medium scale.

Figure 4. Proposed Indicators for Inclusion in the CDM Performance Monitoring Framework

3.4 Harmonised CDM Audit Tool

An overview of the methodology, findings and recommendations related to the mapping exercise

undertaken between the CDM Audit Tool and both the Sendai Monitor and Global Targets and

Indicators (March 2016) was presented to participants (see also presentation). Stakeholders were made

aware of the intended focus on processes, operational to output level, and intermediate outcome levels

of the Sendai Monitor as well as the Global Targets and Indicators that focus more on the outcome and

17 | P a g e

impact level such as reducing loss of lives and damages and international cooperation were highlighted.

In addition, a CDM Audit overview was provided highlighting the themes addressed in the Audit and its

design.

The approach taken to the analysis included grouping similar indicators, with special attention paid to

the differences in terminologies and units of measurement. Recommendations for adjustments to the

CDM Audit were proposed using colour coding for strong, moderate and weak alignments as explained

in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Colour coding assigned to recommendations for adjustments to the CDM Audit indicator

Key findings presented include:

1. The CDM audit takes a strategic and unbiased approach towards assessing DRM/DM/DRR; whilst

the scope of the CDM Strategy and SFDRR are more driven by national priorities, experience and

political processes.

2. The CDM audit is a timeless tool; whilst the CDM Strategy and the SFDRR are time-bound

programmatic frameworks

3. The CDM audit can collect useful data for approximately 30% of the global indicators 4. Approximately 66% of the SM indicators have linkages with the CDM audit OR the CDM audit

can collect useful data for approximately 66% of the Sendai Monitor indicators. This is understandable since they are both (SM and CDM audit) tracking DRR related outputs/processes and outcomes at the national level.

In linking the findings back to the findings of the CDM PMF mapping and the inclusion of additional

indicators that measure impact-related progress, it was highlighted that similar to those findings, the

CDM Audit did not track any of the indicators related to Global Targets A and B and a few for Global

Targets C and D.

General recommendations included:

• The CDM audit should ideally be an online tool to allow countries to manage their data entry

and be able to manipulate reporting and analysis to support their national reporting needs, as

required

18 | P a g e

• The CDM Strategy PMF needs to be mapped to the CDM audit to see those indicators that can

support monitoring of the regional strategy. This will strengthen the ability of the CDM audit to

support regional reporting requirements.

• ‘Additional’ indicators should be seen as the value-added of the CDM audit since they can allow

the Caribbean to keep track of those areas that can go unchecked, but have implications for the

overall DRR programs.

• The components of the CDM audit that are mapped to instruments such as the SFDRR and CDM

Strategy can be considered as the ‘living components’ of the tool. The ‘other’ sections not

mapped should remain as core components of the CDM audit tool. Administration of the tool, if

online, should decipher those questions that are linked to national, regional and or international

reporting requirements. This way, countries can select the scope of the information they would

like to populate and there should be the option to populate the entire tool, should the country

desire to do so. The key message is that the scope of benefits of the CDM audit tool to be

leveraged should be the decision of the Participating States.

• The CDEMA CU needs to re-examine the CDM audit questionnaire to ensure they are consistent.

Further, lessons learned from the administration of the CDM audit in the field can also be

incorporated during this process.

• There is need for a glossary with the terminologies used in the CDM audit.

• There is also need for a list of acronyms

Over fifty specific recommendations were made to promote better harmonisation between the CDM

Audit and Sendai Monitor and Global Target Indicator. These were discussed by participants and their

combined comments to the initial recommendations were recorded in Annex 2. Post-workshop the

comments were addressed and indications of how they were addressed are included in Annex 2.

It was concluded that the CDM Audit Tool is very comprehensive and valuable tool for the region.

Emphasis needs to be given to enhance marketing of the tool among CDEMA PS and partners so that the

size of the tool is adequately justified.

4 Conclusions The Caribbean Region is well on the way to harmonising the CDM Strategy and Framework with the

Sendai Framework and its monitoring tools noting that the Sustainable Development Agenda is also a

key element of the harmonisation to be undertaken. Consultations at the sector level and through this

Workshop, have allowed for stakeholders to be apprised of global and regional DRR frameworks and

efforts to harmonise them for streamlined reporting. Participants have also been actively engaged in the

review of harmonised elements of the two DRR Frameworks and have therefore contributed by their

comments and feedback to the achievement of the following expected outcomes of the Workshop:

Revised CDM Action Plan

19 | P a g e

Harmonised and validated CDM PMF and revised CDM Action Plan

Validated Recommendations for harmonised CDM Audit Tool

Once feedback from individuals and the collective deliberations within the workshop have been

addressed, key documents such as the revised CDM Action Plan, final reports of the harmonisation

between 1) the CDM PMF and Revised Action Plan and the Global Target Indicators and 2) the CDM

Audit Tool and both the Global Targets and Indicators and Sendai Monitor will be shared on the

Workshop website. It is anticipated that the revised CDM Action Plan will be available to partners by the

first quarter of 2017.

The next step for the harmonisation process is for the CDEMA CU to seriously consider and action the

full suite of recommendations that have been validated by stakeholders. This of course is subject to the

availability of resources since some recommendations require more than a mere change or updating of

indicators in the CDM audit tool, for instance, there is a call for making the CDM audit an online tool to

improve analysis of information and functionality of the tool.

At the national level, the revised harmonised CDM Audit Tool will be applied in 2017 and Country Work

Programmes that are aligned to the CDM Strategy and the Sendai Framework for DRR will be developed

in 6 pilot countries initially.

In addition, the amended elements to the CDM Strategy and Framework, CDM PMF, CDM Action Plan

and the CDM Audit Tool will be reflected in a Technical Note to the CDM Strategy.

20 | P a g e

Annex 1. List of Participants

Name Agency Function Country Email:

Duken Alvares Oxfam Coordonnateur projet DIPECHO Haiti dalvares@oxfam.org.uk

Sandra Amlang UNISDR Programme Officer Panama samlang@eird.org

Virginie André ECHO Technical Assistant for the Caribbean Nicaragua virginie.andre@echofield.eu

Damian Barker

Department of Disaster Management Deputy Director Anguilla damian.barker@outlook.com

Hanoch Barlevi UNICEF Emergency Specialist Panama hbarlevi@unicef.org

Ramsurup Chubilall CDC Director General Guyana c.ramsurup@cdc.guy

Cecilie Clarke-Marshall IFRC

Integrated Programme Coordinator

Trinidad and Tobago

cecilie.clarkemarshall@ifrc.org

Alexcia Cooke UNISDR Regional Liaison Officer Barbados dipechocaribbean@eird.org

Gayle Drakes CDEMA Education and Training Specialist Barbados gayle.drakes@cdema.org

Dennis Edwards

Jamaica Red Cross President Jamaica dennisjedwards@yahoo.com

Danielle Evanson UNDP

Programme Manager Barbados danielle.evanson@undp.org

Jacinda Fairholm UNDP Regional Advisor Panama jacinda.fairholm@undp.org

Michelle Forbes NEMO DIRECTOR (AG)

St. Vincent and the Grenadines vincymichelle@yahoo.co.uk

Sergio García de Diego

Save the Children

Regional DIPECHO & EuropeAid Advisor

sergio.garciadediego@savethechildren.org

Gloria Gely Civil Defense Cuba

Andria Grosvenor CDEMA

Planning and Business Development Manager Barbados andria.grosvenor@cdema.org

Michelle Harris CDEMA Administrative Officer Barbados michelle.harris@cdema.org

Carl Herbert NEMA National Disaster Coordinator

St. Kitts and Nevis carlrock@yahoo.com

Kerry Hinds

Department of Emergency Management Director Barbados

kerry.hinds@barbados.gov.bb

Natalie Hutchinson

Global Affairs Canada

Senior Development Officer Barbados

natalie.hutchinson@international.gc.ca

21 | P a g e

Name Agency Function Country Email:

Evangeline Inniss-Springer

Department of Disaster Management Deputy Director

British Virgin Islands einniss@gov.vg

Ronald Jackson

Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency Executive Director Barbados ronald.jackson@cdema.org

Velda Joseph

National Emergency Management Organization (NEMO) Director Saint Lucia

director@nemo.gov.lc/vjoseph@gosl.gov.lc

Kevin Kiffer GOAL Assistant Country Director - Program Hait kkiffer@ht.goal.ie

Mercedes López Merino

Alianza por la Solidaridad

Haiti mlopez@aporsolidaridad.org

Arturo Lopez Portillo

Association of Caribbean States

Director of Transport and Disaster Risk Reduction

Trinidad and Tobago alopez@ace-aec.org

Tamara Lovell IFRC

Regional Disaster Management Coordinator, Anglo-Caribbean Pan-American Disaster Response Unit (PADRU) Barbados tamara.lovell@ifrc.org

Bernard Thomas Marksman

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Red Cross Society Director-General

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Bernard Marksman' <bernardmarksman@gmail.com>

Clive Murray CDEMA Communication & Education Specialist Barbados clive.murray@cdema.org

Rikardia Pardo

Department of Disaster Management and Emergencies Deputy Director

Turks and Caicos rpardo.ddme@gmail.com

Fitzroy Pascal

Office of Disaster Management

Acting National Disaster Coordinator Dominica

fitzroypascal@hotmail.com ; odm@dominica.gov.dm

Donna Pierre

Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency

Disaster Risk Management Specialist Barbados donna.pierre@cdema.org

Saudia Rahat Consultant Consultant Barbados saudia_rahat@yahoo.com

Pryiadarshni Rai IFRC

Community Resilience Delegate Haiti pryiadarshni.rai@ifrc.org

Elizabeth Riley CDEMA Deputy Executive Director Barbados elizabeth.riley@cdema.org

22 | P a g e

Name Agency Function Country Email:

Anthony Robert

European Union

PROGRAMME MANAGER Barbados

anthony.robert@eeas.europa.eu

Jean-Michel Sabbat

Direction de la Protection Civile

Expert National Formation Haiti jmsabbat@yahoo.com

Raul Salazar UNISDR Programme Officer Panama rsalazar@eird.org

Patricia Shako The Nature Conservancy

Director, Eastern Caribbean patricia.shako@tnc.org

Josephine Shields-Recrass

International Fedeartion of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Head -Country Cluster Team -Caribbean js@netscape.net

Sarah Soriano

Delegación de la Unión Europea en República Dominicana

Oficial de Programas

Dominican Republic

sarah.soriano@eeas.europa.eu

Peter Sturesson

EU Delegation to Barbados Head of Section Barbados

peter.sturesson@eeas.europa.eu

Keshra Thomas IFRC CADRIM Intern, CADRIM Barbados keshrathomas@hotmail.com

Arlini Timal

The Office of Disaster Preparedness and Management

Training and Education Specialist

Trinidad and Tobago timalarlini@gmail.com

Terence Walters

NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT AGENCY (NaDMA)

National Disaster Coordinator Grenada terryactive@yahoo.com

Morena Zucchelli

COOPI-COOPERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE Country Director Haiti coord.haiti@coopi.org

Janire Zulaika ECHO Program Assistant Dominican Republic janire.zulaika@echofield.eu

23 | P a g e

Annex 2. Recommended Actions from Working Groups on the

Harmonisation of the CDM Audit Tool with both the Sendai Monitor and

the Global Targets and Indicators.

MITIGATION; COMPONENT : Disaster loss and impact: Hazard Knowledge

A2 is concerned with tracking both small-scale and large-scale events.

G-9 is primarily concerned with accessibility of information.

The CDM PMF is concerned with small and medium scale events.

Recommendation: whilst there is already good alignment across all the indicators. It can be strengthened by

reframing M2.1 as follows:

Existence of record of small, medium and large scale historical events that is publicly accessible.

Same comment as above.

Recommendation: M3.1 can be stated as existence of a national system of capturing current small, medium and

large scale events, and that is publicly accessible.

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

M4.4 unit of measurement is ‘relevant information on disasters’ being available and accessible.

G-5 unit of measurement is # of countries. It is also concerned with multi-hazard risk information being available and

accessible.

Recommendation: M4.4 should be stated as # of countries with hazard assessment information available and

accessible at all levels (regional, national and local), to all stakeholders (through networks, development of

information sharing systems, websites etc)

A15 includes a question on whether the platform makes use of GIS. Therefore countries completing M5.1 of the CDM

audit will be supplying information to answer this question of A15 in the SM.

A7, A8 and A11 all include a question pertaining to targeted hazards and includes a list of hazards.

Recommendation: M5.2 can be restated as # of national studies (by type, status and hazard)

Type = (i) risk assessments, (ii) multi-hazard risk profile and (iii) local level risk and hazard maps

Status = planned, in progress, completed and made public

Hazard = (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c) wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) heavy snow,

(g)volcano, (h )drought, (i) forest fire, (j) epidemic, (k) others (specify)

24 | P a g e

M5.4. unit of measurement is ‘evidence’ that maps are produced at the appropriate scales to be utilized. However, it

can be argued that definitive evidence that the scales are appropriate is that the hazard maps are actually utilized in

development planning. A8 and A11 all include a question with a list of ways the hazard information can be utilized in

development planning.

Recommendation: M5.4 can be restructured to be better aligned with the SM indicators, as follows – evidence of

use of hazard maps at the national and local levels for development planning (by type).

Type of development planning = (a) national DRR strategy, (b) local DRR strategy, (c) spatial & land use planning,

(d) building design criteria, (e) structural design of infrastructure, (f) national contingency plan, (g) local contingency

plan, (h) DRR plan monitoring and enforcement, (i) economic planning, (j) environment policy, (k) others (specify)”

The information for local and national levels will be addressed at M5.4. If the recommendation for treatment of M5.4

is accepted then this CDM audit indicator can be adjusted to only capture use by key sectors. The SM does not have

indicators related to tracking use of hazard information at the sector level.

M5.7 is focused on products of hazard mapping exercises.

G-10 is focused on hazard and risk in the context of policies and mechanisms.

A8 and A11 both include a question on whether data is in an accessible, understandable and usable format.

Recommendation: M5.7 can be restated as evidence that data policies and mechanisms are in place and are

enforced so that hazard and risk data are centrally stored and accessible to all stakeholders.

A7, A8, A10 and A11 include questions as to whether probabilistic methodologies are used.

A13 fits seamless into the indicator: Does a standardised approach or methodology exist for calculating the costs and

benefits of DRR when determining public investments?

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Legislative framework

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

B8 inquires as to whether parliamentarians’ association/committee dedicated to support the implementation of DRR.

Parliamentarians include ministerial level representatives.

B12 places emphasis on local government coordination mechancisms for DRR, which is established by law.

Recommendation: P1.7 can be restated as “existence of national disaster legislation that establishes DRR

committees at various administrative levels (local, national, sectoral).

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

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

B1 includes a question as to whether the sectoral law is required to comply with national DRR law

Recommendation: P2.2 can be restated as Existence of key sector legislation that is congruent with disaster

legislation, and this is a requirement by law.

25 | P a g e

OR

There can be a new indicators, which is stated as existence of DRR law/legal framework that requires sectoral laws

to comply with the national DRR law/legal framework.

Comment (CDM audit): What is the CDM Framework? How is it different from having the legal, policy, strategy,

planning and institutional arrangements in place? All of which are covered individually in the preparedness

component.

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Policy framework

Note: neither the Sendai global indicator nor the SM indicators include specific indicators on having DRR policies in

place; although, it is alluded to in several instances in the SM, e.g. A4 and A5.

(P6.3) DMC committees ≡ (E-5) bodies/forums

B7 explicitly aims to track sector coordination and roles and responsibilities.

P6.3 will provide data in useful format for use by E-5 and B7.

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

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Strategic framework

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

B2 explicitly mentions whether the national DRR strategy/plans are based on ‘risk assessments’ and ‘targeted

hazards’.

P8.3 will provide data in a usable format for E-1 and B2.

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

Recommendation: CDM audit should also measure congruence with the SFDRR since most PS are signatories.

P8.5 can be restated as # of countries with Strategies, CWPs or programmes that are congruent with the Regional

CDM Strategy and Framework and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

B13 and B14 are focused on ‘mechanisms’ to periodically assess and report on progress made in implementing

national and local DRR strategies, respectively. It can be assumed that these mechanisms will include M&E

methodologies.

The unit of measurements across all the indicators are compatible.

Recommendation: see comment at P8.5. Therefore, P8.12 can be restated as evidence that key sectors’ strategies

or frameworks are congruent with the Regional CDM Strategy and Framework and the Sendai Framework for

Disaster Risk Reduction

P8.13 unit of measurement is # of countries. E-4 ter unit of measurement is # of sector/hazard DRR strategies.

Similarly, B3 includes a question to list the sectoral plans established.

26 | P a g e

Recommendation: P18.13 can be restated as # of sectors with DRR strategies that cover multiple hazards.

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Governance; Key Element: Planning framework

G-4 is tracking national as well as local governments and there is also emphasis on the testing of the plans.

E8 (D4) is focused mainly on the testing and updating of national plans to enhance response capacities.

E9 D(5) is focused mainly on the testing of local level plans, particularly evacuation plans.

Recommendation: P10.1 can be restated as # of local and national level disaster management plans and

procedures approved (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plans, SOPs)

and is tested/exercised and updated, regularly. Table 12 contains more details on these different types of plans. This

revised indicator can provide data that can be computed to estimate the # of local governments (one of G-4 unit of

measurement).

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

Recommendation: if the recommendations for changes to P10.1 are accepted then this CDM audit indicator would

not be required. Alternatively, in keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1; P10.3 can be restated as

frequency of updating disaster management plans and procedures (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan,

evacuation plan, contingency plan, SOPs) based on drills/exercises and disaster events. This change will make the

CDM audit indicator all encompassing of the various types of DM-related plans that exist that should be tested and

updated regularly.

Note: if the recommendations for changes to P10.1 and/or P10.3 are accepted, then P10.4 indicator would not be

required.

E5 to E7 is targeting all administrative levels

E6 (D2) and E7 (D3) both emphasize whether there is a requirement to have contingency plans at the local and

sector levels, respectively.

Recommendation: the data to be collected by P10.8 will be in a usable format to compute E5-E7. However, P10.8

can be restated as Evidence that disaster preparedness /contingency plans are in place (at national, local and sector

levels) and this is a requirement (in law or policy).

E9 (D5) is investigating the % of local governments regularly exercising drills and trainings. Therefore, P11.5 and

E9(D5) have different unit of measurements - the former is qualitative and the latter is quantitative.

Recommendation: P11.5 can be restated as % of local governments that participate in DM activities (by type: HVAs,

simulations/drills, training)

The CDM audit also includes delegation of authority, which is not a requirement of E2(C2). Fortunately; the CDM

audit data collection tool includes separate questions as it relates to delegation of authority and financial resources.

Hence the information collected by the CDM audit can be used by E2 (C2)

The unit of measurement between these indicators are compatible.

27 | P a g e

B19 includes a list of activities for addressing transboundary risks – (a) hazard monitoring, (b) risk assessment, (c)

early warning systems, (d) information sharing, (e) risk pooling or insurance as contingency finance, (f) disaster

response, (g) evacuation, (h) general DRR strategy, (i) others (specify).

Recommendation: P15.1 can include the list of activities noted in the Sendai Monitor to qualify the scope of the

‘mutual aid MOUs’.

E15 (D10) is focused on ‘legal or formal mechanisms’ whilst P15.2 is explicit as to what the legal or formal

mechanism should be – mutual aid MOUs.

PREPAREDNESS COMPONENT: Education & Information; Key Element: Education

Recommendation (CDM Audit): This CDM audit indicator is broad and incorporates the scope of P16.3 and P16.4.

This indicator can be considered for removal from the CDM audit.

Both A20 and P16.3 indicators aim to track whether CDM is incorporated into primary and secondary schools’

curricula.

A21 is seeking to track the number of undergraduate or post-graduate programmes on DRR. P16.4 unit of

measurement is # of countries.

Note: There is better alignment in the unit of measurement between A21 and P17.3 below.

P17.2 is concerned with #/types of formal CDM programmes related to education at the certificate and academic

degree levels. Hence, it is more aligned to A21 since they will have the same unit of measurement.

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

These two indicators match well since A22 is also concerned with assessing whether a national strategy is in place to

advance DRR public education and awareness.

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

provided by P19.6.

P19.8 and G-14 have different unit of measurement.

Recommendation: P19.8 can be restated as #/type of annual national level CDM related awareness campaigns

(and broken down by which hazard the campaigns addressed, e.g. hurricanes or others)

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

P19.9

A22 is concerned with whether the strategy is considerate of gender and vulnerable groups (the aged, children,

disabled, poor). This information can be provided by P19.15

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

management

None

28 | P a g e

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

Courses

A23 is concerned with whether there is a dedicated plan or policy to strengthen the DRR capacity of public officials at

both national and local levels.

A23 contains a process level indicator regarding the number of training course.

Recommendation: P23.6 can be restated as # of training courses offered and # of persons trained per course for

advancing CDM implementation at national and sectoral levels (including Monitoring and Evaluation)

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

sector.

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

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

None

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

E9 (D5) is concerned with drills related to disaster response, including evacuation and there are process indicators

that measure % of local governments.

Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be

included to make this indicator all encompassing. Hence, P30.1 can be restated as % of local governments that

conduct annual simulation exercises of their DM-related plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan,

evacuation plan, contingency plan

SOPs).

E85 (D25) is the % of public and private schools undertaking regular drills in accordance with the contingency plans.

E90 (D29) is the % of public and private hospitals undertaking regular drills in

accordance with the contingency plans. The unit of measurement between P30.2 and E85 and E90 are the same.

Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be

included to make this indicator all encompassing. Hence, P30.2 can be restated as % of key sector facilities (schools,

hospitals, mid and large hotels, etc.) that exercise their DM-related plans (by type: EWS response plan,

preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan

SOPs).

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

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

P31.6 is specific to the priority hazard in the Caribbean, whilst G-2 and A6 are not specific with regards to the hazard.

However, P31.6 should provide useful information to report on G-2, particularly in the Caribbean context.

29 | P a g e

E18 (D13) is the same as G-1. P31.7 should provide useful information to report on G-2, particularly in the Caribbean

context.

P31.8 is pitched at the regional level, which means CDEMA and/or specialized regional institutions will provide

information. More than likely the hazard monitoring systems will provide information to all CDEMA PS. A6 requires a

listing of all the hazards monitored.

Recommendation: the CDM audit tool should include the following questions: (i) types of hazards monitored by the

regional monitoring system(s) and (ii) CDEMA countries covered by each hazard monitoring system.

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

E18 (D13) is also interested is tracking early warning related to a list of specific hazards.

Recommendation: P32.3 can be restated as # of warning systems in place (by hazard: (a) earthquake, (b) flood, (c)

wind (due to cyclone etc.), (d) landslide, (e) tsunami, (f) heavy snow, (g)volcano, (h )drought, (i) forest fire, (j)

epidemic, (k) others (specify))

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

None

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

E1 (C1) is focused on existence of dedicated budget for DRR. But E1 (C1) is also concerned with DRR budget

available as a proportion of the total national budget, and its % breakdown by sub-categories. E2 (C2) is focused on

budget available for local governments for DRR activities.

Recommendation: P35.1 should be reframed to track the actual amount of budget assigned. This would be easier to

track than ‘adequate resources available’. The amount of funding allocated should also be recorded by the sub-

categories outlined in the SM indicator. Therefore P35.1 can be restated as % of national budget assigned to DRR

needs (at national and local levels) and its composition by category (Prevention of new risk generation, existing risk

reduction, preparedness, response/recovery and reconstruction/rehabilitation).

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

P35.6 can provide information in part or in full for the following 5 global indicators and 1 national indicator related to

the SFDRR. The ‘% breakdown by donor/partner investment’ will provide data for F-7 alt and part of F-15. For F-15,

the aspect concerned with “received by developing countries” will be verified. The comparison with economic

losses registered can be easily done if global indicator C-1 is incorporated into the CDM audit tool, as

recommended (See section 5).

It should be noted that data on total global ODA and its break down by sectors such as DRR is tracked by agencies

such as the OECD. In this regard, the CDM audit indicator provides data (value/% of donor/partner investment) for

verification of F-6, F-17 and F-19 at the country level (CDEMA PS) for global aggregation.

This CDM audit indicator is also a useful source of information to verify data required for E1 (C1)

30 | P a g e

E51 (C22) is tracking whether policies are in place to set aside budget for contingency needs. There is also a

process indicator to measure % of annual budget set aside for contingency needs. The P35.8 is tracking

mechanisms in place.

Recommendation: P35.8. can be restated as financial reserves (% of annual budget) and contingency mechanisms

(policies, formal agreements, MOUs etc.) are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.

B6 inquires whether the country has a dedicated institutional framework (office, agency, system) for implementing the

Sendai Framework.

Recommendation: the CDM indicator should be reframed as follows:

1. Full time status of the NDC can be removed since it is captured in the indicator below (P36.3) 2. Responsibility for implementing the (i) national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai

framework, should be included Therefore P36.2. will be # of countries with a National Disaster Office (NDO) with responsibiity for implementing the

(i) national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai framework,

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

P38.5 can provide data for both the F-11 and its alternate indicator. It provides data more applicable for F-11 since

the unit of measurement is the same - # of partnerships. It is assumed that “CDM projects” should include

components on capacity building for DRR since this is a serious limitation across Caribbean states. The economic

value of the partnerships can be informed by P35.6.

In terms of F-11 alternate indicator, the data provided from this CDM audit indicator can serve as verification

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

Paragraph 48 of the SFDRR speaks to the development and the strengthening of national capacities by international

organisations through clear and focused programmes that support the priorities of States in a balanced, well-

coordinated and sustainable manner, within the respective mandates of the int’l org.

P38.6 will provide some of the information for F-5. Details regarding “balanced, well-coordinated and sustainable

manner” will not be captured. Gauging these parameters can become a complex and complicated evaluation

exercise so it is not recommended that these elements be included in the CDM audit tool since it is already a large

and complex tool.

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

None

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

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

E-2 has a different unit of measurement - % of local governments.

Recall the comment at M8.2 regarding conflict in terminologies (community vs local level).

31 | P a g e

Recommendation: P44.1. can be restated as % of communities (municipalities, local governments or equivalent)

that have a well-defined comprehensive community resilience programme that support the achievement of (i) the

national DRR strategy, (ii) regional CDM strategy and (iii) Sendai framework. This revised P44.1 would still provide

data that is compatible for B10

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Mobilization

R1.2 makes mention of a ‘convertible’ and ‘alternate’ NEOC. Is there need for both?

Recommendation: R1.2 be maintained at # of countries with a dedicated and resilient NEOC to keep the indicator

simple. Queries as to whether there is a ‘convertible’ ‘alternate’ NEOC can be addressed in the CDM audit tool

(questionnaire).

These two indicators are a perfect fit.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Damage Assessment

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

reviews.

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

A16 recognizes a role for media beyond response. This is important for advancing the wider DRR programme.

Recommendations: R9.1 can be restated as # of countries that have legally or through official mechanisms,

assigned roles and responsibilities to the media to accurately and responsibly represent/ analyze DRR information in

public domain. If this revised R9.1 indicator is accepted it would need to be moved into the mitigation section of the

CDM audit.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Activation; Key Element: Needs assessment

E62(D15) specifically asks whether the country have agreements in place within its territories and with its

neighbouring countries that allows for the free or easier flow of goods and services during and post-disaster recovery

and reconstruction.

There is different emphasis for R10.1 – it is concerned with a regional system.

Recommendation: R10.1. can be restated as Evidence of a regional system/agreements/formal mechanism to

manage the request for and transportation of intra-inter-regional disaster assistance to affected country(ies)

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Rescue

B9 examines incentives in a different format to promote volunteerism.

Recommendation: R18.2 can be restated as # of countries with policies related to volunteers health

coverage/insurance/ compensation/tax ememption status.

B9 includes process indicators that measure the number of NPO/NGO dedicated for DRR and the number of DRR

volunteer

32 | P a g e

Recommendation: R18.3. can be restated as # and types of volunteers (by NGO and individuals)

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Medical

The units of measurement are the same with R19.7. However, the SM places emphasis on contingency and business

continuity planning and CDM audit introduces a new term “emergency response plan”. It is known that emergency

response is sometimes used for disaster management (DM) (UNISDR, 2007). and DM is the management of

resources and responsibilities for dealing with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness,

response and recovery (IFRC, n.d.b). See Table 12 for more details on these terminologies. It can be considered that

the ERP will cover elements of contingency and BCPs that make up preparedness and response strategies.

Recommendation: ERP as a specific type of plan is not promoted in the UNISDR for instance in the Terminology of

DRR (2007).

In keeping with the recommendation provided at P10.1, the list of types of plans should be included to make this

indicator all encompassing. Hence, R19.7 can be restated as % of HS facilitates (by type: public or private) that have

an ERPs DM-related plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan

SOPs, business continuity).

E90 (D29) contains a question related to regular drills of plans.

Comments at R19.7 apply here.

Recommendation: R19.8 can be restated as % of HS facilitates (by type: public or private) that exercise their DM-

related plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan

SOPs, business continuity).

E 91 (D30) is concerned with a policy in place to ensure health workers are trained for emergencies. There is also a

sub-indicator to measure the # of health workers trained. This information is more detailed than what is collected by

the CDM audit.

Recommendation: R20.2 should include a sub-indicator on the # of health disaster coordinators trained

Same comment as above

Recommendation: R20.3 should include a sub-indicator on the # of medical staff and health care providers trained

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Life support-

E12 (D7) includes a question as to whether shelters’ location and structural strengths consider disaster risk.

Considering disaster risk in the location of shelther is implicit in R27.4.

Recommendation: R27.4 can be restated to be more explicity as Evidence that shelters location consider the risks

posted by hazards (earthquakes, volcanic, landslide, flood, hurricane wind, and storm surge)

E74 (C31) includes a question as to whether contingency arrangements to purchase food or controlling food exports

in the case of food crisis

33 | P a g e

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Transportation

E14 (D9) includes a question as to whether airports are considered in business continuity plans.

Recommendation: R28.1. can be restated as # of countries with airports that have plans (by type: EWS response

plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan, contingency plan, SOPs, business continuity) for post disaster operations.

E14 (D9) includes a question as to whether ports are considered in business continuity plans

Recommendation: in keeping with the recommendation at R28.1, this CDM audit indicator (R28.7) can be restated

as # of countries with ports that have plans (by type: EWS response plan, preparedness plan, evacuation plan,

contingency plan, SOPs, business continuity) for post disaster operations. OR: R28.1. can be restated to include

both ports and airports, negating the need for indicator R28.7.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Finance

These 2 indicators are compatible as mechanisms and protocols noted in R30.1 can include policies.

Recommendation: R30.1 can be restated as # of countries with a mechanism and protocols (including policies) to

enable the government to provide timely additional financial resources to departments/agencies for disaster response

Comment: there are no indicators to measure this standard. None of the global or national indicators related to the

SFDRR address the requirements of R31. Therefore no indicators are recommended.

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Resources; Key Element: Procurement

None

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Immediate Rehabilitation; Key Element: Restoration of life lines

None

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: Immediate Rehabilitation; Key Element: Return to normalcy (initial)

E79 (C34) covers social protection for affected individuals. There is no explicit mention of displaced or relocated

individuals.

Recommendation: R35.2. can be restated as # of countries with a mechanism/process/policy for providing social

services (housing needs, recovering household losses, access to education and health care) to people affected by

hazard events. If this recommendation is accepted, then the following indicators from the Sendai Monitor would also

be linked to this revised indicator:

E47(D23)Temporary housing

E80 (C71): Cash transfers for vulnerable households

E86 (D26): Continued schooling

E92 (D32): Continued health service provision

34 | P a g e

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: Gradual transfer to recovery responsibilities

None

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: After action analysis

A4 is more concerned with whether there is a guideline/methodology to undertake post-disaster review. However,

R37.5 can provide additional information (the count of countries that actually execute the post event analysis) for this

SM indicator. Having methodologies/ guidelines in place does not guarantee application/use.

A4 includes a question as to whether government is required to use the results of reviews (of disaster causality,

occurrence and response/recovery based on evidence) to inform risk-sensitive reconstruction or change in DRR

policy (including “build back better”). R37.6 only focuses on the review of response operations and the revision of

response plans and procedures.

Recommendation: R37.6 can be restated as # of countries that revise response plans/reconstruction

processes/mitigation strategies, DRR policies/strategies/legislation/procedures on the basis of lessons learned from

the review of disaster causality, occurrence and response/recovery based on evidence

RESPONSE; COMPONENT: De-activation; Key Element: Resource restoration

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Reconstruction and repair of damaged infrastructure; Key Element: Early Recovery

and Reconstruction

None

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Reconstruction and repair of damaged infrastructure; Key Element: Priority setting for

reconstruction

E1 (C1) is keen to track the % breakdown of budget by phases of the DM cycle.

Recommendation: if the recommendation for the revision of P35.1 is accepted then P40.3 would not be needed.

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Macroeconomic and Budget management (stabilization and protection of social

expenditures); Key Element: International/bilateral financial instruments, external assistance, foreign aid

None

RECOVERY; COMPONENT: Revitalization for affected sectors (exports, tourism and agriculture); Key Element:

Business Continuity Planning

BCP is used to help institutions to return to normal operations as soon as possible after disaster impacts.

E14 (D9) is targeting public sector

E64 (D16) is targeting private sector

E84 (D24) is targeting education sector

E89 (D28) is targeting health sector

35 | P a g e

Recommendation: R44.1 can be restated as existence of a sector-specific Business Continuity Plan (by key

sectors: public, private, education, health, agriculture, tourism, energy).