1. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF1 Training of Trainers on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into the CCA and UNDAF Training of Trainers on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into the CCA and UNDAF Welcome!

2. 2 Yodit Christopher Moustapha Elly Marta Madhavi Nokeo Francis Mileydi Andrew Jorg Anna Zeina Bernado Lana Anvar GP Frederico Maria Goulsara Amjad Antony Noud Niranjan Donato Rita Marisol Hamdou BACK Qudsia Rajan Ian Daniel Siti Ricardo Rhea

3. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF3 Participants Introductions  Your name  Your function  Your organization  One thing you love (one word)

4. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF4 ToT Objectives At the end of the workshop participants will be able to :  Support UNCTs in integrating DRR in their common country programming processes

5. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF5 ToT Objectives At the end of the workshop participants will be able to: Have a full understanding of the UNDAF process and how to address DRR in all its stages (including country analysis, strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation) Explain the Disaster Development nexus and how the Hyogo Framework for Action adds value to UN programming at the country level Explain how DRR links to climate change, conflict and key programming principles/cross cutting themes in the context of the UNDAF Facilitate group discussions and exercises on DRR related issues

6. Learning Needs Assessment

7. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF7 Learning Needs Assessment 45.7% : Our Agency/UNCT is interested in moving towards risk proofing all our programmes and projects, but has no measures in place yet (or does not know how to ensure its done 90% : capacity to support integration of DRR at the regional/national level is very weak 57% feel comfortable with facilitating discussions, while 36% handle presentations well, but deal less effectively with controversial questions

8. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF8 Expectations Clear understanding of the UNDAF process and how I can systematically play a role in integrating disaster reduction and preparedness Concrete tools, methodologies on how to integrate DRR in country level programming Learn from other people's experiences, what other agencies are doing in the field of mainstreaming DRR Great networking opportunity Better understand my role as a future trainer

9. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF9 Expectations that will not be covered: oGet trained on disaster risk reduction oMethodologies and tools for elaborating rapid and robust assessment oAny others? Anything unclear ?

10. Agenda

11. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF11 Your Role as Resource Persons As a resource person on the UNSSC roster you would be expected to support: Full-fledged training workshops for UN staff and partners involved in the UNDAF 2010 roll-out phase DRR input in UNDAF Roadmap/Analysis workshops DRR input in UNDAF Strategic Planning workshops Onsite or remote support to UNCTs on integrating DRR in UNDAF (e.g. through PSGs, advise, follow up, reviews)

12. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF12 Ground Rules What are some ground rules to guide our work together during this retreat?

13. Parking Lot

14. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF14 Logistics DSA Coffee breaks, lunch and dinners Facilities Folders and USB stick Internet

15. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF15 Our motto… "You cannot teach people anything. You can only help them discover it within themselves" Galileo

16. UN Reform and the Common Country Programming Process

17. Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) 2007 - Highlights The 2007 TCPR acknowledges the ongoing reform efforts; Reaffirms the need to enhance the relevance, effectiveness, accountability and credibility of the United Nations system; Leading role of Governments in coordination Acknowledges value added of different UN development institutions; UNDAF, common programming tool of the UN development system;

18. Chief Executives Board CHAIR High-Level Committee on Management CHAIR United Nations Development Group Working Group on Resident Coordinator System Issues Working Group on Joint Funding, Financial and Audit Issues Working Group on Country Office Business Operations Issues Working Group on Programming Issues UNDG-ECHA Working Group on Post-Crisis Transition Executive Committee on Humanitaria n Affairs UNDG Advisory Group Development Operations Coordination Office CHAIR High-Level Committee on Programmes CEB Secretariat United Nations Development Group structure within the Chief Executives Board (CEB) UN Country Teams (136) Regional Directors Teams (6)

19. Key challenges for reform Striking a balance between Inclusiveness (within the UN family) vs. Effectiveness (cost & programmatic) Fragmented UN agency governance Operational issues: proprietary policies, systems & tools Complexity of reform with parallel structures on security, humanitarian, and development agendas Allaying agency fears of losing mandates and identity.

20. The simplified CCA/UNDAF guidelines Submitted to UNDG for endorsement at 30 November 2009 session

21. Messages from the field “Please simplify” The purpose of UNDAF is unclear: strategic, or operational?” The process and document are inward looking rather than aligning with national processes, programmes…” Inflexibility to adapt to country contexts and realities: “no one size fits all” (MICs, LDCs, post- conflict, etc.) Heaviness of the process has detracted from the substance and implementation…

22. Simplified guidelines No changes in the substantive content of the existing guidelines, hyperlinked as relevant 15 pages draft CCA-UNDAF guidelines emphasize: –National ownership inclusive of all relevant stakeholders –Alignment with national priorities, systems, programming –Integration of 5 programming principles –Inclusiveness of the UN system with participation of specialized & non-resident agencies –Mutual accountability for development results

23. The UNDAF process…simplified! 4 mandatory steps: –Roadmap must be developed for preparation of UNDAF –Country analysis must inform strategic planning of UNDAF –Strategic Planning: a results matrix for every UNDAF is a must –M&E: M&E plan, annual review process evaluatory exercise UNCTs may undertake each step in a flexible manner in response to the national context and with a view to meeting the minimum requirements

24. The timeline until now…

25. Simplified process: Steps 1 & 2 Step 1: Roadmap: –Timeline: remove UN-prescribed calendar months, to closely align UNDAF with the national processes –Potentially significant reduction in the current timeline of 24 months –Major potential timesaving: recommendation for ex-ExCom to review CPD approval process –Do away with UN-prescribed mechanisms: example joint strategy meetings. Allow UNCTs flexibility to identify appropriate consultative processes with national stakeholders Step 2: Analysis: –Analysis is an important contribution that the UN system can and does make on an ongoing basis –Flexibility to summarize findings from recent up-to-date data sources and analytical processes –UN inter-agency toolkits & frameworks support assessment & analysis (CEB toolkit for mainstreaming employment & decent work; Education for all Global Action Plan, and others)

26. Simplified process: Step 3: Results Integrated results matrix: merge the results framework and the M&E framework to reduce the burden of process and make M&E an integral part of the results matrix Simplified results matrix: conflate the two outcome levels into one, with emphasis on strategic but specific enough to country context. Number of priorities & outcomes are optional. Options for results matrix: UNCTs are given 2 options: either keep the UNDAF results matrix at a higher strategic outcome level or develop a fuller results matrix, that includes outputs.

27. Simplified process: Step 4: M&E Annual review process: align the UNDAF annual review process with the national review process. To facilitate the process, inter-agency groups are formed around each national priority. Reporting: align the reporting with the one UN results report prototype Evaluation: UNCTs to identify a process whereby UN’s contribution is evaluated and linked with national evaluations. However, the modalities are flexible.

28. A framework for setting strategic priorities “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” Kurt Lewin

29. Strategic: referred to a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result Priority: the right to take precedence in obtaining certain supplies, services, facilities, etc., esp. during a shortage ….from the dictionary…

30. 1.Top strategic priority 2.Potential high priority: use negotiation/consensus building to seek alignment 3.Potential high priority: draw on regional/global UN capacity where feasible 4.Lower priority: does not meet major challenge Strategic Priority Setting for UN Country Teams UNCT Comparative Advantage Alignment of key actors to support UNCT action Major Challenge 1 3 4 2 MD/MDGs/ International norms

32. Setting strategic priorities: table discussion Each tables takes one circle: imagine you are supporting a UNCT discussion on the circle... What do you think would be the key issues raised ? What type of challenges could you be facing? Report on max 1 flipchart sheet You have 20 minutes…

33. UNCT comparative advantage Mandate to act Capacity to Act Better positioned than other to act (staff, expertise, funds, proven record of success etc)

34. Stakeholder analysis…a suggested format Stake holder Category Stake holder Name Stakeholder Priorities Stakeholder perception Stakeholder influence Coping Strategies to address Stakeholder perceptionNotes

35. Few points to remember… Work the framework as a UN team! RC role critical to forge UNCT consensus Use lessons learned from current UNDAF The 3 circles should not be dealt with separately Yes to inclusiveness BUT the UNDAF does not have to reflect 100% of UN interventions in the country

36. Common Goals Collective Action

37. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF37 Session 2 Disaster Risk Reduction and the Hyogo Framework for Action

38. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF38 Session objectives By the end of the session participants will: Increase their understanding on how development processes make positive or negative influence on disaster risk Gain a better appreciation on how disasters can have a positive or negative impact on development Strengthen their understanding of disaster risk reduction Increase their knowledge of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)

39. 39 Why are disasters a development concern? Development can increase vulnerability Development can reduce vulnerability Disasters can set back development Disasters can provide development opportunities DISASTER REALM DEVELOPMENT REALM NEGATIVE REALM POSITIVE REALM

40. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF40 Development can reduce vulnerability Disaster risk is lower in high development countries than in low development countries Development processes can reduce the physical exposure to hazard eg. earthquake resistant building code etc. Source: UNDP

41. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF41 Disasters - a development concern: Some facts Reported disasters caused by the impact of natural hazards : 1975 – June 2008

42. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF42 Disasters - a development concern: Some facts Number of people reported killed: 1975 – June 2008 Asian Tsunami Hurricane Katrina, Pakistan Earthquake China Earthquake, Burma Cyclone

43. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF43 Disasters - a development concern Estimated damage (US$ billion) caused by reported disasters caused by the impact of natural hazards: 1975 – June 2008

44. ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF44 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION People Killed (%) by type of hazard 1994-2004

45. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF45 DRR: An Agenda in Progress REACTIVE PROACTIVE (Sustainable development (JoPI and MDGs); HFA – 2005; CC Bali PoA 2007) Prior to 1990s – civil defence, relief organisations, disaster preparedness for response focus During 1990s – IDNDR, Yokohama strategy, Small Island Developing states (SIDs), Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA): disaster cycle, focus on disaster mitigation, UN system reform, emergence of disasters / development link Since 2000 – UNISDR, HFA: Disaster risk reduction –greater emphasis on development approaches, links to climate change

46. Imagine an uninhabited island…

47. …and a Hazard = no disaster yet

48. … and Vulnerability = Risk!

49. Capacity Capacity = reduced impact of disaster

50. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF50 Physical Factors Technical construction, quality a. Settlements b. Quality of buildings c. design and material Critical infrastructure Population growth and density Environmental Factors Usable soil and usable water Vegetation, biodiversity, forest Stability of the eco-system Natural resource depletion Toxic and hazardous pollutants Vulnerability Factors Economic Factors Socio-economic status Poverty and nutrition Access to credit and loans Access to critical and basic socio- economic infrastructure Structure of income and economy Access to resources and services Reserves and financing opportunities Incentives or sanctions for prevention Research and development Social Factors Traditional knowledge systems Risk perception Levels of literacy and education Legal situation and human rights Domination and power relations Civil participation, social organization Legal framework, norms, legislation Basic human rights Gender aspects, minorities Access to information

51. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF51 Gender insensitivity in DRR: 1.can increase vulnerability (e.g. ignoring special needs) 2.can negatively impact on gender relations (e.g. new roles) 3.re- enforce existing unfavourable gender relations Identifying and including women as a resource in DRR (identifying women as victims alone) Interventions/programmes often assume gender neutrality and as a result: 1.do not reach most vulnerable segments in society 2.marginalise them even further What are the main DRR related gender issues?

52. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF52 The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events. DRR definition

53. DRR - Cross Cutting Element DEVELOPMENT Source : IFRC ( http://www.ifrc.org/what/disasters/management/index.asp) DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT

54. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF54 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005 – 2015 “Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters” Adopted by 168 countries as a ‘Framework for Action’ at 2005 World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR), Kobe - Japan It emphasises on substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic, and environmental assets of communities and countries

55. 55 The Hyogo Framework For Action Expected Outcome The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries The integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning. The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards. The systematic incorporation of risk reduction into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes. Strategic Goals Multi-hazard approach Gender perspective and cultural diversity Community and volunteers participation Capacity building & technology transfer Cross Cutting Issues Priorities for Action 1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation. 2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning. 3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. 4. Reduce underlying risk factors. 5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

56. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF56 HFA: Strategic Goals 1.The integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning 2.The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards 3.The systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes

57. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF57 1. GovernanceEnsure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis for implementation 2. Risk identificationIdentify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning 3. KnowledgeUse knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels 4. Reducing the underlying risk factors Mainstreaming in various sectors (environment, health, social support, insurance and risk transfer, critical infrastructure and construction, etc.) 5. Preparedness for response Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels HFA: Five Priorities

58. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF58 Community and volunteer participation Multi hazard approach Gender perspective and cultural diversity Capacity development and technology transfer HFA - Cross Cutting Issues

59. 59 Share success stories, including what were the challenges and how they were overcome in implementing DRR activities under your assigned HFA priority Prepare 1 flash card with 1 sentence on each example and the name of the country Each table will briefly share one example in the plenary debrief Exercise (15 min)

60. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF60 Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF An Introduction

61. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF61 Background  UN 1997 reform agenda stressed challenges and new developments – including growing levels of disaster risk.  Since late 1990s a number of international commitments to DRR made including: (NB shift in focus away from seeing disasters as purely humanitarian) UN Millennium Declaration General Assembly (since 2004) Johannesburg Programme of Implementation Bali Action Plan Hyogo Framework for Action

62. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF62 Background  Growing awareness of the potential impact of climate change has focused increasing attention and awareness on how existing climate risk is being managed.  As the impact of climate change is increasingly felt so too will the scale and unpredictability of climatic hazards & related disasters. Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming Module – Disasters & Development – Presentation 02 (Disaster Nexus) – Slide 62 – 20 February, 2016

63. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF63 Background  Hyogo Framework for Action includes specific commitments to integrating DRR: through the Resident Coordinator system and the United Nations Country Teams; and into development assistance frameworks, such as the Common Country Assessments, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework and Poverty Reduction Strategies.

64. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF64 Background  2007 UNSG’s Policy Committee made specific recommendation on DRR and climate change agreeing on three decisions centred on: The importance of raising greater, political attention/advocacy on benefits of DRR & consequences of not investing in it; To commit the UN to enhance links between DRR and climate change adaptation agendas; and To promote the better mainstreaming of DRR and the HFA into the UN system’s policies and practices.  UN Development Group (UNDG) Task-team established under the UNDG Programming Group.

65. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF65 Integrating DRR into CCA/UNDAF  Integrating DRR in CCA and UNDAF process is... an important stepping stone towards integrating DRR into national level development an important sign of the UNCTs political commitment for risk reduction an opportunity to increase likely success of country programmes in risk prone countries.  In support of this process UNDG has developed a guidance note for UNCTs.

66. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF66 Purpose of the Guidance Note  An annex to the core CCA/UNDAF guide.  Intended to support UNCTs embarking on CCA/UNDAF in countries where disaster risk is an important challenge development.  Targeted at UN but also of interest to other stakeholders providing helpful guidance on integrating DRR into broader development analysis, strategic planning and programming.  Close relationship between DRR & climate change adaptation means also of use when working on climate change issues.

67. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF67 The Guidance Note Identifies critical steps for integrating DRR into the analytical and strategic planning process to help UNCTs to:  Analyse disaster risk  Review how disaster risk interacts with development  Examine national capacities and risk reduction options  Identify priorities for DRR intervention  Agree on the most appropriate areas for UNCT support in DRR  Include DRR as an integral part of UNDAF M&E

68. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF68 Content of the Guidance Note  Introduction: The relationship between disaster and development and key commitments to DRR.  Part 1: DRR and the CCA UNDAF key principals for engagement.  Part 2: DRR in the country level analysis.  Part 3: DRR in the preparation of the UNDAF and key considerations.  Part 4: M&E of DRR efforts.

69. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF69 Examples of DRR in work of UNCT Disaster risk reduction has been integrated into the work of the UNCT in a range different ways e.g.  Integrating DRR into the full process of UNDAF development (analysis, strategic planning/outcome formulation) e.g. Indonesia  Joint UNCT reviews of the UNDAF e.g. Cape Verde  Making DRR a major theme of an UNDAF review or evaluation e.g. Turkey  Joint UN Programming for DRR e.g. Pakistan & Mozambique.

70. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF70 Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF Integrating DRR into the CCA and UNDAF An Introduction

71. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF71 Background  UN 1997 reform agenda stressed challenges and new developments – including growing levels of disaster risk.  Since late 1990s a number of international commitments to DRR made including: (NB shift in focus away from seeing disasters as purely humanitarian) UN Millennium Declaration General Assembly (since 2004) Johannesburg Programme of Implementation Bali Action Plan Hyogo Framework for Action

72. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF72 Background  Growing awareness of the potential impact of climate change has focused increasing attention and awareness on how existing climate risk is being managed.  As the impact of climate change is increasingly felt so too will the scale and unpredictability of climatic hazards & related disasters. Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming Module – Disasters & Development – Presentation 02 (Disaster Nexus) – Slide 72 – 20 February, 2016

73. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF73 Background  Hyogo Framework for Action includes specific commitments to integrating DRR: through the Resident Coordinator system and the United Nations Country Teams; and into development assistance frameworks, such as the Common Country Assessments, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework and Poverty Reduction Strategies.

74. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF74 Background  2007 UNSG’s Policy Committee made specific recommendation on DRR and climate change agreeing on three decisions centred on: The importance of raising greater, political attention/advocacy on benefits of DRR & consequences of not investing in it; To commit the UN to enhance links between DRR and climate change adaptation agendas; and To promote the better mainstreaming of DRR and the HFA into the UN system’s policies and practices.  UN Development Group (UNDG) Task-team established under the UNDG Programming Group.

75. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF75 Integrating DRR into CCA/UNDAF  Integrating DRR in CCA and UNDAF process is... an important stepping stone towards integrating DRR into national level development an important sign of the UNCTs political commitment for risk reduction an opportunity to increase likely success of country programmes in risk prone countries.  In support of this process UNDG has developed a guidance note for UNCTs.

76. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF76 Purpose of the Guidance Note  An annex to the core CCA/UNDAF guide.  Intended to support UNCTs embarking on CCA/UNDAF in countries where disaster risk is an important challenge development.  Targeted at UN but also of interest to other stakeholders providing helpful guidance on integrating DRR into broader development analysis, strategic planning and programming.  Close relationship between DRR & climate change adaptation means also of use when working on climate change issues.

77. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF77 The Guidance Note Identifies critical steps for integrating DRR into the analytical and strategic planning process to help UNCTs to:  Analyse disaster risk  Review how disaster risk interacts with development  Examine national capacities and risk reduction options  Identify priorities for DRR intervention  Agree on the most appropriate areas for UNCT support in DRR  Include DRR as an integral part of UNDAF M&E

78. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF78 Content of the Guidance Note  Introduction: The relationship between disaster and development and key commitments to DRR.  Part 1: DRR and the CCA UNDAF key principals for engagement.  Part 2: DRR in the country level analysis.  Part 3: DRR in the preparation of the UNDAF and key considerations.  Part 4: M&E of DRR efforts.

79. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF79 Examples of DRR in work of UNCT Disaster risk reduction has been integrated into the work of the UNCT in a range different ways e.g.  Integrating DRR into the full process of UNDAF development (analysis, strategic planning/outcome formulation) e.g. Indonesia  Joint UNCT reviews of the UNDAF e.g. Cape Verde  Making DRR a major theme of an UNDAF review or evaluation e.g. Turkey  Joint UN Programming for DRR e.g. Pakistan & Mozambique.

80. Working in teams Belbin Team Roles

81. Team Role: Belbin’s definition “A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way”

82. How do you build a perfect team out of imperfect people? The perfect individual could be described as: Out-goingOrganisedMotivating Creative Hard-driving Objective Diplomatic MeticulousKnowledgeable Unlikely to find all of these qualities in one person...

83. Problems with Teams Why fail/succeed? Why make the right/wrong decisions? Why not perform as well as expected, with tensions, misunderstandings? Problem often at personal level: how team members feel about themselves and each other. People find it hard to deal with these behavioural, emotional issues.

84. Address the problem Need a way of looking at these issues, measuring their effect, and need a language for talking about them What makes a balanced and effective team - better the mix, the better the performance

85. Basic Maxims The effectiveness of a team will depend on the extent to which members correctly recognize and adjust themselves to the relative strengths within the team

86. Belbin Team Role Expert System Belbin - 9 team roles type Each type has a typical behavioural strength and a characteristic weakness

87. 9 Team Roles Plant Resource Investigator Co-ordinator Shaper Monitor Evaluator Teamworker Implementer Completer-Finisher Specialist

88. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF TEAM-ROLE CONTRIBUTION ALLOWABLE WEAKNESSES PLANT: Creative, Solves difficult problems Loses touch with everyday realities MONITOR EVALUATOR: Discerning and Objective Uninspiring, Slow-moving CO-ORDINATOR: Makes good use of group activities Manipulative IMPLEMENTER: Disciplined, Efficient, Practical Slow to see new possibilities COMPLETER FINISHER: Painstaking, Conscientious Anxious, Reluctant to delegate RESOURCE INVESTIGATOR: Enterprising, Quick to explore opportunities Weak in follow through SHAPER: Driving and challenging Provocative, Aggressive TEAMWORKER: Co-operative, Averts friction Indecisive Limited in Interests SPECIALIST: Single-minded, Professionally dedicated

89. Phrases and Slogans

90. Strong ownership of idea when co- operation with others would yield better results Looks down on others Ignores details Too preoccupied to communicate effectively Neglects practical matters Source of original ideas Creative, imaginative, unorthodox Solves difficult problems Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Plant

91. Letting down colleagues/ clients by neglecting to make follow-up arrangements Over optimistic Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed Creative negotiator Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative Explores new opportunities Develops outside contacts and brings home new ideas Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Resource Investigator

92. Takes personal credit for the effort of the team Can be seen as manipulative Delegates personal work Inclination to be lazy if someone else can be found to do the work The team controller Mature, confident, trusting Good chairperson – recognises skills Clarifies goals, promotes decision making, delegates well Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Co-ordinator

93. Consistently tramples on people’s feelings Inability to recover situation with good humor or apology Can be provocative Sometimes hurts people’s feelings Prone to frustration and irritation Drives other people to excel Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Shaper

94. Constant harsh criticism, regardless of people’s feelings Sometimes lacking in tact – “these are the facts” Inability to inspire others Too critical The analyser of problems Cool, strategic, discerning Sees all options Judges accurately Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Monitor Evaluator

95. Avoids situations that involve pressure Never giving their opinion Indecisive in difficult situations Easily influenced Always deferring to others – “what do you think?” Focuses on harmony Co-operative, mild, diplomatic Listens, builds understanding Defuses conflict Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Teamworker

96. Obstructs change Unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances Inflexible – slow to respond to new situations Sticks only to the proven and reliable Effective organiser Disciplined, reliable, conservative, efficient Turns ideas into practical actions Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Implementer

97. Always focusing on small details mistakes in a way which de- motivates Unnecessarily rushing the planning stage of a project Reluctant to delegate and worries too much Perfectionist – “you wont do it the right (my) way” Meets deadlines Guarantees delivery on time Conscientious – notices errors and omissions Can be totally relied upon Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Completer-Finisher

98. Does not want to get involved in broader team issues “Not my problem” syndrome Focuses too much on technical details Too theoretical with little concern for how their ideas link to the big picture “The expert” Single minded, self starting, dedicated Provides knowledge and skills in short supply Non Allowable Weaknesses Allowable Weaknesses Strengths Specialist

99. What & How Self-perception inventory Database generates: 1.Team role preferences 2.Counselling report 3.Character report 4.Team reports Observer assessments 1.4 per participant 2.Generates a complete profile

100. The UN System and Team Roles UNSSC - 6,000+ UN staff in the database Your profiles are generated against this multicultural UN data Your profile can change over time depending on your job It’s up to you to validate your report

101. Individual Reports  Assessment Results in Rank Order  Pie Charts of Self-Perception Versus Observers  Self Perception Team Role Profile  Bar Graph of Observer Words  Counselling Report  Character Profile  List of Observer Responses  Personal Work Style

102. Action-oriented roles: 1.Shaper, Implementer, Completer-Finisher People-oriented roles: 1.Co-ordinator, Resource Investigator, Teamworker Thinking roles: 1.Plant, Monitor Evaluator, Specialist

113. Your Report

114. Monitor Evaluator - judges impartially Team Role Opposites Specialist - specifies Resource Investigator - recognises opportunities Implementer - applies Teamworker - supports Completer Finisher - perfects established systems Co-ordinator - generalises Plant - theorises Shaper - drives

115. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF COSH RITW MESP Needs Ideas Plans Contacts Organisation Follow Through CFIMP COPLRI As projects progress, different team roles are required

116. TEAM ROLE PAIR NICKNAMETEAM ROLE PAIR NICKNAME RI - BUTTERFLY COLLECTOR CO - COUNSELLOR SH - BOSS ME - PLANNER ME - CALCULATOR ME - TEAM CONSCIENCE PL - HIDDEN TALENT CO - EDITOR PL - MAVERICK SH - PURSUER RI - DETECTIVE RI - DYNAMO TW - TECHNICAL SUPPORT PL - NAVIGATOR SH - INQUISITOR RI - CONTRACTOR ME - CORRECTOR IMP - ORGANISER TW - EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH PL - SCULPTOR PL - BRAINS IMP - CONFORMER IMP - DOER SH - TASK MASTER CF - REFINER CO - PROJECT LEADER SH - TEAM CAPTAIN RI - SCOUT SP - PROFESSOR PL - EXPLORER IMP - MR FIX IT SH - STEAMROLLER CO - JUDGE RI - FACILITATOR RI - COMMUNICATOR PL - ARCHITECT SP CO SP TW SH ME SP ME CF ME CF SP TW PL SP ME TW IMP TW CF SH CO CF CO CF TW IMP SP IMP RI SP CO IMP Belbin Team-Role Combination Nicknames

117. SPIRIT SPIRIT DYNAMIC INTERACTIONTOGETHERNESS PERSECUTION OF OPPONENTS TEAM GROUP SIZE SIZE LIMITED MEDIUM or LARGE SELECTION SELECTION CRUCIALIMMATERIAL LEADERSHIP LEADERSHIP SHARED or ROTATINGSOLO PERCEPTION PERCEPTION MUTUAL KNOWLEDGEFOCUS ON UNDERSTANDINGLEADER STYLE STYLE ROLE SPREADCONVERGENCE CO-ORDINATIONCONFORMISM 6 Differences team/group

118. THE COHERENT PROFILE Self & Observer Data in Accord TR RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPI CO RI ME CF SP PL TW IMPSH Observer 1 CO RI CF PL ME IMP SH TWSP Observer 2 RI CO ME SP CF IMP PL SHTW Observer 3 CO ME RI CF PL IMP SH SPTW Observer 4 CO RI ME PL CF TW IMP SHSP Overall CO RI ME CF PL IMP SP TWSH

119. TR RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPI SH ME IMP SP PL CF RI CO TW Observer 1 IMP ME SH CF PL RI SP TW CO Observer 2 ME SH IMP CF PL RI SP TW CO Observer 3 ME IMP SH CF RI SP PL TW CO Observer 4 IMP ME SH CF RI SP PL TW CO Overall ME IMP SH CF SP PL RI TW CO THE COMPATIBLE PROFILE Self & Observer Data in Line

120. TR RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPI ME CF CO PL RI SP IMP TWSH Observer 1 SH CF ME IMP RI SP TW PLCO Observer 2 TW RI IMP ME SP CO SH CFPL Observer 3 PL SP CO RI SH ME IMP CFTW Observer 4 SP IMP SH PL CF CO RI METW Overall ME SP RI CF IMP PL SH COTW THE CONFUSED PROFILE Self & Observer Data without Pattern

121. TR RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPI PL TW RI IMP ME SP CO SH CF Observer 1 SP IMP ME RI SH CF CO PL TW Observer 2 SP ME IMP SH CF PL RI TW CO Observer 3 ME SP SH CF IMP PL RI TW CO Observer 4 SP IMP SH ME CO PL RI CF TW Overall SP ME IMP PL SH RI CF TW CO THE DISCORDANT PROFILE Self & Observer Data Conflict

122. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF122 DRR linkages with programming principles Each group takes 1 principle: discuss and identify the relationship (2 ways…) between DRR and the principle Take note on flipchart (1 page) You have 40 minEach group takes 1 principle: discuss and identify the relationship (2 ways…) between DRR and the principle Take note on flipchart (1 page) You have 40 min

123. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF123 DRR & the UNDAF in Conflict Contexts Some critical issues

124. Conflict & the UNDAF ●Conflict is always present in society...when managed non- violently it can promote development & social change. ●But violent conflict nearly always reverses development gains. ●Development plays an important role in addressing the causes of violent conflict & supporting local capacities for peace. ●It is important to ensure that UNCT strategies & programmes are designed to address the root causes of conflict & do not contribute to a resumption of conflict. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF124

125. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF125 Conflict & the UNDAF Conflict is an important cross-cutting issue in UNDAFs…but many of the issues are often highly-sensitive e.g. with govt. High quality UNDAFs require strong government ownership – usually major challenge post-conflict. UNDAF often viewed as unsuitable for fast-changing post- conflict situations…post-conflict needs assessment (PCNA) can be seen as a good alternative for joint programming in immediate post-conflict. Once the UNCT judges the situation to be sufficiently stable, preparations of a proper UNDAF may begin.

126. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF126 DRR, Conflict & the UNDAF Many fragile states (conflict prone) are also highly vulnerable to natural hazards. Disaster’s influence on conflict is particularly important in countries faced with natural resource based conflict. Vulnerability & capacity for disasters is strongly impacted by violent conflict. Disaster risk reduction/recovery interventions… 1.can (at the local level) reinforce confidence between government and its citizen & support social cohesion 2.but they can also contribute to societal tensions if not conflict-sensitive (potential to DO HARM).

127. UNDAF KENYA EXPERIENCE

128. Background Information  2004-2008 UNDAF  APRIL 2007 Start of Preparatiion of 2009-2013 UNDAF  13 2007 DEC. Draft 2009- 2013 UNDAF  31 DEC ERUPTION OF POST ELECTION CHAOS  JAN-JULY 2008 UNCT/UNIASC Engagement with Post Election Crisis  August 2008 Review of the draft UNDAF begins

129. MDGs VISION 2030 Fostering Democratic Governance Disaster Risk Reduction & Recovery Poverty Reduction Country Programme Action Plan Governance Peace & Conflict Disaster & Recovery Poverty Reduction Environment & Energy Environment & Energy Peace Building & Conflict Prevention

130. MDGs : a shared Vision of Development. Thank you for your collaboration and partnership.

131. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF131 Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into country-level analysis

132. The options for country analysis 1.Participating in government-led analysis 2.Complementary UN supported analysis 3.A full CCA process

133. DRR in Country Analysis Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF133

134. Country Analysis GATHERING INFORMATION ANALYSIS Of root causes & their linkages ASSESSMENT Shortlist major development problems for deeper analysis Guidance available in Annex 4, 5 and 6 of the DRR/UNDAF Guideline

135. Detailed Steps of Analysis 1. CAUSAL ANALYSIS Getting to root causes Legal, Institutional, and policy frameworks 2. ROLE/PATTERN ANALYSIS 3. CAPACITY GAP ANALYSIS

136. What is a Causal Analysis? The essential first step for common programming A technique for identifying causes of a problem which can then be used to formulate appropriate responses We can map the problem and its causes in the form of a problem tree

137. The problem tree Deforestation Forest clearance for agriculture Tree cutting for charcoal production Low agriculture productivity Lack of agriculture training centers Dependency on charcoal for cooking and small industries Engagement of international Partners through non-state actors Outdated agriculture and energy Policies and lack of land tenure system Low capacities of Ministries Root causes Root causes Underlying causes Underlying causes Immediate causes Immediate causes Manifestations

138. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF138

139. 81 Immediate Causes Underlying Causes Root Causes Problem 1: HIV/AIDSProblem 2: Girl’s Education Core Problem Area Gender Discrimination

140. Causal Analysis – Let’s practice! Four tables will be provided with a development problem manifestation. Two are development problems and two are disaster risks 1.Read country case studies scenarios and the problem manifestation/disaster risk statements (10’) 2.Develop a causal analysis using the problem tree methodology – use cards! (40’)

141. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009141 AFRICANA 1 Andrew Anvar Bernardo Jorg Elly Lana Moustapha Rhea Sita ASIANA 1 Donato Christopher Federico Madhavi Maria-Jesus Nakeo Rajan Zenia ASIANA 2 ASIANA 2 Antony Gulsora Ian Mariasol Marta Mileydi Niranjan Rita BACK AFRICANA 2 Qudsia Noud Daniel Anna Francis Hamdou Ricardo Yodit

142. Causal Analysis - Gallery Silent Gallery: visit the other group from your region and provide feedback on their analysis – use post its! Remember the following: 1.Immediate causes directly related situation 2.Underlying causesservices access, practices 3.Root causessociety, policies, resources One person stay behind to address queries of other groups You have 10 minutes…

143. Detailed Steps of Analysis 1. CAUSAL ANALYSIS Getting to root causes Legal, Institutional, and policy frameworks 2. ROLE/PATTERN ANALYSIS 3. CAPACITY GAP ANALYSIS

144.  Rights holders  Who are they?  What are their claims?  Duty bearers  Who are they?  What are their duties?  Rights holders  Who are they?  What are their claims?  Duty bearers  Who are they?  What are their duties? Check what the human right standards say about their claims and duties Check also what role is expected from rights- holders & duty bearers in national laws, procedures and policies Stakeholder Analysis

145. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS Mandates/Roles/Respons ibilities CAPACITY GAPS ANALYSIS State and non-state actors (Duty bearers) -…. 1.Institutional 2.Risk assessment, monitoring and early warning 3.Knowledge, innovation and education 4.Reduce underlying risk factors 5.Preparedness and emergency response Vulnerable groups (Right holders) -….

146. Stakeholder and Capacity analysis – Let’s practice! Same groups as previous exercise. Select one problem/cause flow from the causal tree and identify stakeholders and related capacity gaps Read additional information provided (5’) Fill in suggested format - on the flipcharts! (40’)

147. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009147 AFRICANA Andrew Anvar Bernardo Jorg Elly Lana Moustapha Rhea Sita ASIANA Donato Christopher Federico Madhavi Maria-Jesus Nakeo Rajan Zenia ASIANA ASIANA Antony Gulsora Ian Mariasol Marta Mileydi Niranjan Rita BACK AFRICANA Qudsia Noud Daniel Anna Francis Hamdou Ricardo Yodit

148. Setting Strategic Priorities

150. UNCT comparative advantage Mandate to act Capacity to Act Better positioned than other to act (staff, expertise, funds, proven record of success etc)

151. Strategic Priority Setting Looking at your problem tree identify 1 specific challenge that you would like to look at in more detail. On your table agree should this area be a UN priority for intervention. Capture your table’s finding on a flip-chart. Don’t forget to identify: (a) What is the challenge you are seeking to address? (b) What is (is not) the UNCT’s comparative advantage? mandate capacity positioning

152. Strategic Priority Setting Some Concluding issues Being strategic is of critical importance to UNCTs particularly in the context of: (a) reduced resources flows (from donors); and (b) supporting national capacity. Strategic Priority Setting Framework should be used to help the UNCT prioritize the main areas of intervention (outcome level). Being strategic is also critical when looking at DRR i.e. gets the UN to really focus on its own comparative advantage & on consulting the government on the main DRR priorities.

153. Results Based Management An overview…

154. What is results based management? RBM is a management approach aimed at ensuring that activities achieve desired results

155. What are the key elements of RBM ?

156. Formulate SMART results, based on sound analysis Select indicators Have baselines and targets Identify risks and assumptions Performance Measurement Strategic Planning Performance Management Using performance information for managing the strategic plan Evaluation and lessons learned Monitoring program implementation Reviewing & reporting performance Key phases of RBM

157. What is a Result ? A Result is a describable or measurable change resulting from a cause-and effect relationship

158. Principles of RBM (1)“If-Then” causality between levels of results (2)Common results language to describe changes (3) Collective accountability increases as you move up the chain of results towards outcomes and impacts (4) A results matrix is a means not an end (5) A results matrix is contextual And Uses the best judgment of the UNCT at all times

159. Typical pitfalls Wordy (..and no change language) To promote equitable economic development and democratic governance in accordance with international norms by strengthening national capacities at all levels and empowering citizens and increasing their participation in decision-making processes Too ambitious Strengthened rule of law, equal access to justice and the promotion of rights Containing multiple results The state improves its delivery of services and its protection of rights—with the involvement of civil society and in compliance with its international commitments

160. Typical pitfalls Wishy-washy, not a result (ie. Support provided to improve..) Support to institutional capacity building for improved governance So general, they could mean anything To promote sustainable development and increase capacity at municipal level Overlapping with National goals/ MDGs (impacts) Substantially reduce the level of poverty and income inequality in accordance with the MDGs and PRSP Confusing means and ends Strengthen the protection of natural resources through the creation of an enabling environment that promotes sound resources management

161. A Typology for RBM Outcome Impact Output Activity Poverty reduced 3000 new small enterprises developed in poorest provinces 7 model business incubators operational in poorest provinces - Acquire facilities - Staff training - Micro-credit provision.. ResultsLike… Focus @ Timeframe <1 yr <5 yrs 5 yrs 5-10 yrs more less Collective Accountability Institutional/ Behavioural Operational/ skills, abilities, products & services Human! Outcome Employment and income generation increased Institutional/ Behavioural 5 yrs then if then

162. The UNDAF Matrix

163. UNDAF Action Plan AgencyKey actions Implem. partners Indicative resourcesMonit oring proce ss Monito ring mecha nism TotalCoreNone core To mobilize UNDAF outcom e 1 Agency outcom e 1 Agency output 1.1. Agency output 1.2.

164. Formulation of UNDAF Outcomes and Outputs

165. The HIGH LEVEL RESULTS of UNCT action  Changes in institutional performance or behaviours  Strategic contribution to the country priorities/MDGs  Focus on 3-5 priorities  N o of UNDAF outcomes depends on challenges and UNCT comparative advantages  Collective UNCT results, i.e., produced by the combined effects of agency outcomes  Reflect a choice about strategy or policy  Debatable & controversial UNDAF Outcomes

166. Agency Outcomes  The 2 nd level Results of UN system cooperation  Sum of the agency outcomes contribute to the achievement of UNDAF outcomes  6 to 8 Agency Outcomes suggested per UNDAF outcome  Accountability may be single agency, but is increasingly shared  Produced by the combined effects of outputs  Normally not as controversial and debatable as UNDAF outcomes (…but may be)

167. Outputs are deliverables  Operational changes: new skills or abilities, the availability of new products and services  Must be achieved within the programme period  Managers have a high degree of control  If the result is mostly beyond the control or influence of the programme or project, it cannot be an output  Failure to deliver is failure of the programme or project  4 to 6 outputs per agency outcome  Unless under a joint programme, outputs are NOT collective results Outputs

168. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF168 Integrating DRR into the UNDAF M&E process

169. Monitoring vs. Evaluation MonitoringEvaluation  Systematic, ongoing  During programme implementation  Tracking of activities and progress  According to AWP  For short term corrective action  Accountability for implementation  Contributes to evaluation  Conducted by insiders Are we doing things right?  Systematic, periodic  During and after programme implementation  Judgement of merit, value or worth of a programme/project  Compared to evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, impact)  For decision-making about future programmes  Accountability for results  For office & organizational learning  Conducted by impartial outsiders Did we do the right things?

170. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009 ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF170 General M&E principles Aligned on existing national systems and priorities Where these are not existing, focus on developing and institutionalizing M&E capacities

171. Why to evaluate UNDAFs? A joint UN assessment of the results of the UNDAF which determines… 3 key questions: 1.Did the UNDAF make the best use of the UNCT’s comparative advantages in the country? 2.Did the UNDAF generate a coherent UNCT response to national priorities? 3.Did the UNDAF help achieve the selected priorities in the national development framework? …used to inform the next UNDAF

172. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF172 Why to monitor UNDAFs? To monitor progress towards the results agreed in the UNDAF matrix To check if assumptions made at the design stage are still valid To verify if the project has been affected by the identified risks

173. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF173 Why DRR in UNDAF M&E To do mid-course corrections To identify critical entry point to consider DRR if not adequately addressed as a cross cutting theme To take stock of any changing in risk patterns (DRR is dynamic)

174. 174 Challenges - Reverse logic: DRR success is that something does not happen - Frequent absence of high quality, consistent and timely quantitative information (developing indicators/measuring progress)

175. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF175 DRR related M&E results Identify if programmes/projects are designed with due consideration of disaster risks and assess regularly the impact of risks on programmes Ensure that programmes do not inadvertedly increase vulnerability Disaster and rehabilitation programmes contribute to development aims and reducing risk Review partner’s CapDev needs for DRR Improve results-based reporting for DRR as a one UN

176. Examples of DRR integration in the M&E process UNDAF outcome groups (DRR experts) 176 UNDAF M&E Plan (DRR Monitoring Officer) Annual progress report and review meeting (modify activities) UNDAF Evaluation (how DRR should be considered in the next UNDAF)

177. UNDAF M&E Framework OutcomesIndicators (w. baseline) Sources of verification Risks & Assumptions UNDAF Outcome 1 Agency Outcome 1.1 Major Outputs… Agency Outcome 1.2 Major Outputs… Indicator 1 Baseline: Indicator 1.1 Baseline: Indicator 1.2 Baseline: Source 1 Agency resp. Source 1.1 Agency resp. Source 1.2 Agency resp. Summary of risks and assumptions for each UNDAF and Agency outcome UNDAF Outcome 2 … UNDAF Outcome 3 …

178. What is an indicator? A tool to measure evidence of progress towards a result or that a result has been achieved

179. Indicators…  Indicators describe how the intended results will be measured - accountability  Objectively verifiable, repeatable measures of a particular condition  They force clarification of what is meant by the result …….the fine print!  Must be accompanied by baselines and targets

180. Turin, 23-27 Nov 2009ToT on Integrating DRR into the CCA UNDAF180 Making indicator specific & measurable DimensionsOutput Indicator Sample Unmeasurable indicator Capacity of the local legal community enhanced to become more gender sensitive + quantity % change in No. of local lawyers and paralegals who handle GBV cases + quality % change in No. of local lawyers and paralegals who handle GBV cases with the certificate of GBV training and with a separate room to interview GBV victims + time frame % change in No. of local lawyers and paralegals who handle GBV cases with the certificate of GBV training and with a separate room to interview GBV victims in Year XXXX + target group % change in No. of local lawyers and paralegals, from law associations & IDP camps that UNDP supports, who handle GBV cases with the certificate of GBV training and with a separate room to interview GBV victims in year XXXX + location % change in No. of local lawyers and paralegals, from law associations & IDP camps that UNDP supports in Region Y & Z, who handle GBV cases with the certificate of GBV training and with a separate room to interview GBV victims in year XXXX

181. UNDAF indicator examples DRR outcome: Legislation for crisis management is adopted (Annex 8, page 60) Non-DRR focused outcome: Official poverty rate does not increase in years of major hydrometereological and geophysical hazards

182. Baseline, Target and Achievement Baseline Commitment Current Level of Achievement Performance Achievement At end of period Target Planned Level of Achievement

183. Your turn… 183 National Disaster Management Plan developed and operational Capacities of the government authorities at the local level enhanced 4 trainings organised on flood early warning systems for 5 municipal authorities Number of people exposed to natural hazards decreased Proportion of local lawyers and paralegals, from law associations & IDP camps, who handle GBV cases with the certificate of GBV training after a disaster occurred Emergency response planning for health sector expanded for several districts The government with the participation of civil society develops vulnerability assessments in 10 cities

184. UNDAF M&E Framework OutcomesIndicators (w. baseline) Sources of verification Risks & Assumptions UNDAF Outcome 1 Agency Outcome 1.1 Major Outputs… Agency Outcome 1.2 Major Outputs… Indicator 1 Baseline: Indicator 1.1 Baseline: Indicator 1.2 Baseline: Source 1 Agency resp. Source 1.1 Agency resp. Source 1.2 Agency resp. Summary of risks and assumptions for each UNDAF and Agency outcome UNDAF Outcome 2 … UNDAF Outcome 3 …

185. Assumption: A Definition  A necessary condition for the achievement of results at different levels.  Part of the cause-effect logic  Stated as though it is actually the case  Less probable at the higher level of the hierarchy  Can help identify additional results or outputs

186. Risk: A Definition  A potential event or occurrence beyond the control of the programme that could adversely affect the achievement of the desired results  A threat to success  Not just the negative of an assumption  A trigger for reconsideration of strategic direction

187. Conclusion We can’t know if we are achieving results, as a system, unless there is effective monitoring and evaluation of the UNDAF We need: A robust and operational M&E framework

188. Group exercise (60 min) Go back in the same country working groups as the day before. Each group will develop the M&E matrix with DRR sensitive indicators (incl. Baselines), sources of verification, risks and assumptions for one of the outputs identified during the exercise carried out in the Strategic Planning session. If time allows repeat the exercise for other outputs. Share in plenary one example 188

189. Exercise: Reviewing an UNDAF from a disaster risk reduction perspective Each table will be provided with the pillar of the Malawi UNDAF on Good Governance 1.Read UNDAF pillar for Malawi 10’ 2.Discuss in the group how the Outcomes and Outputs can contribute to DRR 20’ 3.Identify opportunities and eventual additional text to integrate DRR (based on examples of intervention provided) 20’ 4.Feedback 10’