Page 1 of 1
Civil Society Statement on Proposed Indicators
Clodagh Byrne
to:
[email protected]
30/09/2015 16:53
Cc:
"[email protected]"
Hide Details
From: Clodagh Byrne <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
History: This message has been forwarded.
1 Attachment
Civil Society Statement on Indicators.docx
On behalf of GNDR and the civil society group, please find our submission on the proposed
indicators attached.
With best wishes,
Clodagh Byrne
file:///C:/Users/Chowdhury01/AppData/Local/Temp/notes9AE7EA/~web4359.htm
02/10/2015
Statement and position from the representatives of civil society on SFDRR indicators
Given in various sessions during 30th September 2015, Geneva
I am speaking on behalf of civil society members present but as with our input on
terminology it is important to note that many organisations and our networks not present
today, notably those representing indigenous people and migrants who may have specific
positions on the proposed indicators which are not included within this statement. Our
recommendations below relate to ensuring that the indicators monitored under Sendai are fit
for purpose, inclusive, and serve as appropriate guidance to support the effective
implementation of the Sendai framework through supporting the development of effective
disaster risk management policies and responses.
Before discussing changes and additions to the proposed indicators for targets A, B, C and
D, we feel it is important that we highlight a number of overarching issues with we believe to
be crucial to the success of any future Sendai monitoring system. We propose that these are
discussed as priorities in the subsequent sessions of the working group.
Overarching issues:
1. Including resilience indicators to monitor the global Sendai goal
The SFDRR’s goal is described as reducing risk creation, risk exacerbation and thus
build resilience. The progress towards this overarching goal of resilience is not fully
captured in the 7 targets of the SFDRR, or the indicators under them. There is
therefore a need for a set of indicators that measure the progress towards this
overarching goal, to complement the indicators that measure the reduction in losses
and risk. The need for the incorporation of resilience indicators has been raised by
Australia.
Further, a number of Governments have made calls for a more resilience focussed
indicator for target 1.5 of the SDG framework, including Ecuador, Algeria and
Canada.
SDG Target 1.5: By 2030 build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable
situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme
events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters’.
UNEP and UN Statistical systems Organizations have proposed additional indicators
to measure target 1.5 looking specifically at resilience, while Canada has proposed
replacing the current loss based indicator with an indicator focussed on the
existence of early warming programs.
We feel that a shared composite index which measures the overall goal of resilience
in the SFDRR and supports the resilience focus of target 1.5 in the SDG framework
would be a useful linkage across these two frameworks. The incorporation of a
resilience index within the Sendai framework need not impose an additional data
collection burden on member states as many potential indicators of resilience can
simply be pulled from the SDGs, minimising additional data collection. We are
prepared to submit suggestions on the currently proposed SDGs indicators that
could be included. Such a proposition of a composite resilience index has also been
made for the SDGs as a proposal by UNEP, the Overseas Development Insititute,
and Oxfam International for a more fit-for-purpose measure of Target 1.5, and as
such, inclusion in the SFDRR monitoring framework would provide necessary
coherence. One can read this proposal here:
http://www.odi.org/publications/9775-resilience-sdgs-2030-developing-poorvulnerable-climate-indicator-target-disasters
We would therefore request that the indicators of resilience as identified by the
expert panel are reviewed during the next OEWG meeting.
2. Disaggregate data by age, sex, disability, income, type of hazard and location
for all indicators. We believe that this should be a priority in order to ensure policy
responses can more effective. We support UNDESA’s passionate statement on the
need to be ambitious in our data disaggregation, and also Australia and El Salvador’s
intervention. Specifically:
a. Proper collection, use, and analysis of SADD enable operational agencies to
manage the risks across a lifecourse and genders and deliver assistance
more effectively and efficiently. The evidence suggests that the employment
of SADD and gender and generational analyses assists in saving lives and
livelihoods in a crisis, it is a key mechanism to ensure that no one is left
behind.
b. In order to ensure the differential impacts of disaster on different age cohorts
is properly analysed and that DRM policies and strategies are responsive to
these differential risks age disaggregated data should be disaggregated by
cohorts of 0-5 and 5-15 and from 60+ in 5 year cohorts as best practice (or 10
year cohorts at a minimum). It is essential that monitoring of age
disaggregated data does not stop at age 65, but should continue throughout
the life course to reflect the realities of an ageing world and to ensure no one
is left behind.
c. Disability-disaggregation of data already exists at many levels, including
specific local and national registers (including those of Disabled Person’s
Organisations), research/surveys, and individual experience, and can
therefore be built up and co-ordinated over time to ensure global consistency.
3. Measuring inclusion across the SFDRR indicators
In addition to the disaggregation of data, it is important to measure the contributions
of different at risk groups to disaster risk reduction and management processes. In
order to this, it is important to incorporate a measure of inclusion within the Sendai
monitoring system. This can be achieved through identifying/ integrating specific
markers of inclusion within the proposed indicators. It is essential to monitor and
measure the level of inclusion of disaster risk reduction in disaster risk reduction
interventions and policy formulation at different levels (from local to national to global)
and across all targets and goals, either through an integrated framework or as a
separate marker. Member states should have a framework or set of indicators to
enable them to report on how inclusive their progress is, in order to ensure a
measure of how well progress is reaching the most vulnerable to disaster. Some
specific suggestions come under our recommendations for Target E and G below.
4. Need to establish a baseline circa 2015
We learnt from the HFA the importance of establishing a baseline as close to the start of the
frameworks implementation as possible. Without this, mid-term evaluation becomes
ineffective and less useful for the learning of implementers.
We feel that while
disaggregated data would be useful, access to this retrospective data may be limited
currently and this should not restrict the collection of disaggregated data going forward which
will serve as a future baseline.
Comments on specific Targets
5. Target B
Our comments relate to including indicators that better capture the variety of impacts for
different communities, groups and individuals. Looking at houses damaged and lost, and
food aid received is not enough to capture how disaster impacts manifest themselves for
different people. We therefore propose the following inclusions:
- We therefore support India and Zimbabwe’s proposal for the inclusion of an indicator
under target B on the number of people whose livelihoods have been disrupted
(including those livelihoods relying on productive assets). Livelihood disruption
should be measured in a gender sensitive manner and be disaggregated by group.
- We also support UAE’s intervention regarding the need for a broader look at health
impacts and propose that B2 should instead focus on health not illness, and include
long term health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder.
- Further, we feel B6 should not measure the number of people who have received
food aid but those in need of it, a proposal also submitted by Zimbabwe.
6.
Target C
We support India’s suggestion to develop a more robust methodology under C1
which reflects the broader economic impacts of disaster. It is essential that this also
has a focus on the informal sector.
Under C2 it is essential to take into account the impact of agricultural loss on
people’s livelihoods. In this regard, we would propose that C.2.1 agricultural land
impacted is disaggregated by proportion of that land which is under cultivation by
small holder farmers.
We agree that C2 also needs to take into account fisheries (as suggested by
Netherlands) and forestry.
A more accurate estimate of livestock loss under this indicator would be to use
average net present value of the animals over the duration of ownership. By only
looking at livestock lost, the replacement cost method excludes the costs associated
with animals that are injured in a disaster. Furthermore, replacement costs fail to
account for the variety of direct value that livestock contributes to food, savings and
income.
We feel it is important to include an indicator measuring income lost due to
disruption, damage or loss of stock within small SMEs and informal services.
In line with the ongoing discussion for the need for more forward looking positive
indicators, we would endorse Columbia’s proposal to consider financial protection
through insurance as an indicator of mitigated economic impact. However we feel
that it is also important to monitor access to financial protection to ensure it is
accessible to the most vulnerable. Equally financial protection should include pension
access and income subsidies for the most poor.
- There is also need to recognise the value of biodiversity to our economic systems.
Therefore, we support Morocco in their suggestion for an indicator of environmental
degradation.
-
7.
Target D:
-
-
We would echo proposals by Brazil and Czech Republic for including an indicator for
the resilience of infrastructure and services. We echo the calls for measuring the
continuity of services as a positive indicator for resilience.
We propose that within target D.5 on disruption of basic services, we Include pension
and social protection mechanisms within basic services.
-
We also endorse Brazil’s call for more people centred indicators under this target,
expressing some of these indicators of economic impact as impacts on people. We
therefore support proposals by the NRC for the following amendments or additions:
D5: % of people/households who no longer have access to health services which
have been interrupted by the impact of hazard events.
D5: Number/% of children and youth who no longer have access to education
services which have been interrupted by the impact of hazard events.
(Calculated as % of total population normally served by the given service)
8.
Target E
We agree with Madagascar’s intervention that we need more detail for indicator E1. We
recommend that alongside indicator E.1, we not only measure the number of countries
adopting and implementing national DRR strategies, but in addition whether that formulation
and implementation is inclusive i.e.it is done with participation and decision making from all
stakeholder groups as per stated in the SFDRR.
9.
Target G
Equally in Target G, it is important to ensure that inclusion and accessibility is monitored
throughout the indicators.
- G3 needs to specifically disaggregate who is covered by multi-hazard early warning
system, and how accessible, understandable and usable the information is.
- G4: In addition to numbers of countries with risk assessment plans, it is essential to
include a indicator measuring proportion of local governments who have included at
risk stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of the plans.
- G.5 and G6: Needs to include participation of stakeholders in the implementation of
national risk assessment processes.
- Further, throughout G we must clarify the definition of ‘Accessible, understandable
and usable format’ should be expanded to explicitly mention persons with disabilities
with ‘targeted stakeholders’, as it reflects the spirit of the text, giving examples of
different means of conveying info through early warning systems (orally, visually,
etc.).