1 Monitoring and Evaluation of Disaster Recovery & Risk Reduction Disaster and Crisis Recovery Operations for Increased Resilience JVI, September 10-14, 2012
2 A Strong Case for M&E in Reconstruction As development community moves towards results-based frameworks for measuring impact of programs, similar push needed for reconstruction programs post-disaster. M&E should be put at forefront of reconstruction programs. Reconstruction programs have lagged One reason is the lack of availability of effective monitoring and control tools. M&E frameworks across different reconstruction programs not fully comparable. Developing standardized M&E frameworks in reconstruction is important given increasing frequency and scale of disasters. Post-disaster Reconstruction involves substantial resources and can take priority over country developmental agendas in short term.
3 Key Messages Reconstruction Performance Management helps improve the likelihood of achieving development objectives Performance Management should be an inalienable part of the overall recovery program from the get go A five pillar approach to Performance Management provides multi-dimensional views into development Reconstruction Performance Management has significant operational and strategic implications
4 Conceptual Framework The Five Pillar Approach to Performance Management Disaster Risk Financing Performance Management of DRR Results /Outcome Based Program Level M&E Project Level Physical and Financial Progress and Output M&E Aid Tracking Mechanisms Governance & Accountability Systems Social Impact Monitoring A Multi-Faceted Approach to Reconstruction Performance Management
5 Why Results-Based Performance Management for Reconstruction and Recovery Projects? Allows mid-course corrections in program design and implementation Allows multidimensional views into development Facilitates better management of multi-donor, multirecipient projects Integral part of Project Planning, Target Setting & Results Management Underscores that demonstrating clear Results plays a role in funding Helps understand, respond to and shape the dynamics of situations on the ground Helps Improve the Likelihood of Achieving Developmental Objectives What gets measured gets done
6 Monitoring versus Evaluation There exists clear distinction between monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring aims to keep track of activities and results of post-disaster programs. Evaluation assesses program s impact on the economic and social realities of beneficiary communities. Evaluation a challenge in post-disaster settings because: Projects are hastily prepared Baselines to be used for comparison in the evaluation process are not available Data are especially hard to obtain and analyze
7 Benefits of Results-based Approach to M&E of Reconstruction Programs Well-suited to measure intermediate-level and longer-term reconstruction and recovery outcomes. In Results Framework (RF) approach programs are assessed only against outcomes within their designed means and not to impracticable higher level achievements. RF approach helps develop clearer and streamlined results chains that systematically link: program and intermediate outcomes; intermediate outcomes and outputs, and; outputs and inputs
8 Reconstruction Results M&E - Some basic concepts Intermediate outcomes are hence carefully designed in this system to: Capture and track the intended changes as they begin to unfold or otherwise Control the process and pace of progress of achieving the desired results for progressive problem identification, and the design and targeting of solutions Allow space for timely course corrections.
9 M&E systems can simultaneously exist at many levels Overall national reconstruction program (multi-sector and thus broad-based) Sector level, encompassing projects by all agencies covering one particular sector Project level Beneficiary households level by conducted household surveys. Social impact assessment, participatory monitoring tools e.g. community scorecards
10 Strategic Roadmap for Results Framework Operationalization Stage 1: Development, Refinement and Finalization of a Central Results Framework (RF) and Results Monitoring System (RMS) Stage 2: Operationalization of the Central RF and RMS Stage 3: Development and Operationalization of Interfaces between Central and Project RFs Implementation of a Well Drawn out Strategic Roadmap is Key
11 Ongoing Performance Management via a Results Monitoring System Program Outcome Indicators Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters Reporting Frequency Data Collection Instrument & Responsibility Indicator Value 2012 Baseline 2011 Mid-term Target Value (June 2015) End-term Target Value (June 2020) Component I Program Outcome Indicators Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters Reporting Frequency Data Collection Instrument & Responsibility Indicator Value 2012 Baseline 2011 Mid-term Target Value (June 2015) End-term Target Value (June 2020) Intermediate Outcome Indicators Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters Reporting Frequency Data Collection Instrument & Responsibility Indicator Value 2012 Baseline 2011 Mid-term Target Value (June 2015) End-term Target Value (June 2020) Performance Management is an Ongoing Process
12 Leadership for Results Building Credibility & Transparency on Program Performance Ensuring Technical (inhouse and outsourced) Resources for Results Evaluation Inculcating a Culture of Results based Portfolio Management Role of Country Leadership on Results in the Recovery Process Leading a Consultative Process for Determining Results Indicators and Performance Benchmarks Institutional Change Management Strategic and Operational Decisions based on Results At the heart of it, Results-based Performance Management is a Change Management Exercise requiring Management Endorsement and Support
14 Queensland Good Practices The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience 2009 provides: clear and measurable results and targets on national actions on seven key fronts in the pursuit for building a more disaster-resilient Australia action groups, along with corresponding key outcomes which can form the basis for measurement, monitoring and evaluation of QRA s strategic objective of building disaster resilience Action Group Leading change and coordinating effort Understanding risks Communicating with and educating people about risks Partnering with those who effect change Empowering individuals and communities to exercise choice and take responsibility Reducing risks in the built environment Priority Outcomes 1 Pertinent to Operation Queenslander Leaders from all levels of government, civil society and private sector drive development of partnerships and networks to build resilience Public-sector led preparation and provision of guidelines and resources to support community efforts in resilience-based planning, disaster risk management, and disaster response and recovery capability development Risk assessments are undertaken for priority hazards and widely shared among as-risk communities, stakeholders and decisionmakers Risk assessments consider risks and vulnerabilities and capabilities across the social, economic, built and natural environments Consistent methodologies and data frameworks are applied in risk and disaster impact assessment Information made available on websites and in other forms about DRM including relevant local knowledge to different target audiences Communities are supported through targeted training and awareness activities, including on enhancing local capacities to mitigate and cope with disasters Development of strong linkages between policy, research and operational expertise on DRM Development of partnerships between government, businesses and not-for-profit sector for the promotion of innovative DRM approaches and shared understanding of disaster resilience Use of existing community structures and networks to promote and enhance disaster resilience Enhanced community awareness of vulnerable elements of society and consideration of their needs in development of plans and programs Stronger community understanding of the financial implications of disasters and choices and incentives available to mitigate financial risks to households and businesses (such as availability and coverage of insurance, government s support grants and subsidies) All levels of decision-making in land use planning and building control systems to take into account risk information on social, built, economic and natural environments Building standards and their implementation is regularly reviewed to ensure appropriateness with the risk environment Development decisions take account of both private and public risks Exposure and vulnerability of settlements, businesses and infrastructure from unreasonable risks is reduced through structural mitigation and improvements or risk transfer mechanisms 1 In some cases, these are not repeated verbatim from the national strategy and have been adjusted for content to highlight their relevance for the current reconstruction and recovery program, and to make them more measurable for possible as disaster risk management outcomes for the current reconstruction program.
15 Program Development Objective Facilitate the recovery of the affected regions in KP, FATA and Balochistan from the impact of the armed conflict and the floods of 2010, and reduce the potential for crisis escalation or resumption Revised MDTF Results Framework Outcome Indicators MDTF makes significant contributions towards the following key crisis recovery outcomes envisaged under the PCNA and the Post Crisis-DNA in x % of the affected districts: A. Rapid Restoration of Disrupted Service Delivery 1. Resumption of Multi-Sectoral Service Delivery in % of affected districts of KP and FATA B. Improved Service Delivery 1. State Delivers basic services efficiently and equitably 2. Increased and sustained community access to basic health, water and sanitation services 3. Immediate greater reach of basic education services 4. Greater quality of basic education 5. Increased community level provision of basic infrastructure through CDD 6. % reduction in the developmental deficits in various sectors such as education, health, transport, energy, irrigation, agriculture, WSS, governance structures, etc. C. Increased and Sustained Employment Generation and Livelihood Support 1. Effective social safety nets reach the neediest 2. Urgent and sustained recovery of subsistence and commercial agricultural activity and production 3. Sustainable employment base in KP and FATA D. Improved Governance 1. Strengthened relationship and trust between state, communities and civil society 2. Greater transparency and accountability in public resource management 3. Improved investment climate generating growth and employment Intermediate Outcomes Intermediate Outcome Indicators 15
16 Intermediate Outcomes A. Rapid Restoration of Disrupted Service Delivery Intermediate Outcome Indicators % of damaged education facilities reconstructed or rehabilitated in affected districts of KP and FATA % of damaged health facilities reconstructed or rehabilitated in affected districts of KP and FATA % of damaged transport infrastructure reconstructed or rehabilitated in affected districts of KP and FATA % of damaged irrigation infrastructure reconstructed or rehabilitated in affected districts of KP and FATA % of damaged water and sanitation infrastructure reconstructed or rehabilitated in affected districts of KP and FATA % districts of KP and FATA where education services are substantially restored % districts of KP and FATA where health services are substantially restored % districts of KP and FATA where transport services are substantially restored % districts of KP and FATA where irrigation services are substantially restored % districts of KP and FATA where WSP services are substantially restored B. Improved Local and Provincial Service Delivery C. Increased and Sustained Employment Generation and Livelihood Support Improvement of Multi-Sectoral Service Delivery in % of affected districts of KP, FATA and Balochistan Expansion and Enhancement of Multi-Sectoral Service Delivery in % of affected districts of KP, FATA and Balochistan % districts with increased CDD outreach to affected communities % districts with enhanced and improved community infrastructure in affected areas % of eligible beneficiaries in affected region receiving income support grants % districts that benefit from and where communities actively participate in employment (workfare, skills development) generation schemes % districts with increased microcredit outreach to affected communities % districts where affected communities benefit from public sector support for agricultural activity and enhanced production 16
17 Monitoring and Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction Results
18 Dissecting GFDRR s Results Framework (1/4): Track I Global and Regional Cooperation Global Collaboration Regional Activity Innovation Global Collaboration Regional Activity Innovation GFDRR s Results Framework is designed to measure impact of each of GFDRR s business lines through a causal results-chain of program and intermediate outcomes that ultimately lead to progress towards the HFA priorities
19 Dissecting GFDRR s Results Framework (2/4): Track II DRR Mainstreaming DRR Mainstreaming Risk Assessments & Early Warning Systems DRF&I Safe Schools & Hospitals DRR & CCA Mainstreaming Risk Assessments & Early Warning Systems Disaster Risk Financing & Insurance Urban Development Planning and Safe Schools & Hospitals
20 Dissecting GFDRR s Results Framework (3/4): Track III Sustainable Recovery Swift Response Capacity Building DRR Institutionalization Swift Response Capacity Building DRR Institutionalization
21 The Results of the Evaluation (2/6) - Highlights of Key Results from Track II While GFDRR has made significant progress on certain fronts (institutionalization of risk assessment tools), it is evident that more emphasis needs to be placed towards advancing other initiatives (safe schools and hospitals)
22 Americas Africa Asia Papua New Guinea Indonesia Marshall Islands Australia Solomon Islands Vanuatu Key Client Country Has Made Significant Progress Towards HSA Mainstreaming Priorities No No Yes Yes DRR Mainstreaming GFDRR/Bank Has Made Significant Contribution Towards HSA Mainstreaming Priorities No Yes No Yes
23 Recap of Key Messages Results-Based Performance Management Helps Improve the Likelihood of Achieving Developmental Objectives Fundamental to a results-centric M&E regime is the development and operationalization of an overarching Results Framework Implementation of a Well Drawn out Results Agenda & Strategic Roadmap is Key Results-Based Performance Management has Significant Operational and Strategic Implications Results-based Performance Management is a Change Management Exercise requiring Management Endorsement and Support