Developing Indicatorsto measure progress of implementation of HFA An Indian Perspective P.G.Dhar Chakrabarti Executive Director National Institute of Disaster Management, New Delhi Geneva 21.11.2005
Hyogo mandate “Consult with relevant United Nations agencies and organizations, regional and multilateral organizations and technical and scientific institutions, as well as interested States and civil society, with the view to developing generic, realistic and measurable indicators, keeping in mind available resources of individual States. These indicators could assist States to assess their progress in the implementation of the Framework of Action. The indicators should be in conformity with the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration; Once that first stage has been completed, States are encouraged to develop or refine indicators at the national level reflecting their individual disaster risk reduction priorities, drawing upon the generic indicators”. (Para 33 (c) HFA)
Three parameters GOALS PROCESS OBJECTIVE
PROCESS • ISDR to develop basic indicators • ISDR shall consult - Relevant UN agencies - Regional and multilateral organizations - Technical and scientific institutions - Interested States - Civil society • States to further refine indicators according to its national priorities
GOALS • Indicators shall be • > Generic > Realistic > Measurable • Indicators to take into account available resources of individual States • Indicators to be in conformity with the internationally agreed development goals
OBJECTIVE The indicators to assist States to assess their progress in the implementation of the Framework of Action Therefore…. The focus of the indicators is on the States - these are meant for the States - these are expected to be owned by the States Global indicators can be worked out only on the basis of State indicators, not otherwise
Constraints of the States • Disaster reduction mechanism in most States of developing world is still in its early infancy • Disaster data not well developed in most States • Limited data on basic disaster loss is available, but times series data on such losses and data on various processes prescribed in HFA indicators hardly available • Regional and local level data even more difficult to be accessed and compiled
Complexity of task • HFA prescribes 5 PFAs, 11 Activities and 51 Formulations • Each of these formulations heavily loaded and can be further broken into many components • Most of these are process oriented and information on such processes mostly not available in public domain • MDGs and other development goals add more variables to these components • Developing of indicators on this complex matrix an extremely difficult and challenging task • Measuring indicators and monitoring performances even more difficult
Working Document • Commendable effort considering complexities • Oversimplifies the process of national indicators • Assumes data on the process without addressing how such data shall be collected and compiled • Focuses on global indicators, like Percentage of countries…. Percentage of policies, plans…. Proportion of ODA……etc which would be difficult to be developed unless country level information are first compiled
Indian perspective • PFA prescription of generic > realistic > measurable methodology is most appropriate • Bundling of indicators to make it simple and workable • Outcome indicators that are easily quantifiable be separated from process indicators • Many of the process indicators specially those involving local authorities and communities have to be assessed and sometimes evaluated qualitatively • Such assessments and evaluation shall be done selectively on the basis of structured sampling • National statistical system on disaster related information shall be thoroughly reviewed.
Suggested model INDICATORS OUTCOME PROCESS TYPE- I TYPE-II TYPE-III Mostly in positive-negative format Easily quantifiable Assessment at local and community level on basis of sample study Assessment at national level on basis of detailed study Selective impact evaluation study OUTCOME
Indian working document • The draft is tentative and still under formulation • 148 sub-formulations under 51 formulations of 11 activities of 5 PAA condensed to 45 generic indicators. • About 14 of them are Outcome Indicators that can easily be measured in quantitative terms • 12 Process Indicators to be assessed comprehensively on the basis of various details to be collected • 9 Process indicators shall be assessed selectively on the basis of structured studies in chosen areas among representative communities • 10 Process indicators shall be evaluated qualitatively in selected areas • Quantitative tools shall be developed for measuring results of assessments and evaluation
Global indicators • Global indicators can be developed only on the basis of a sound system of national indicators • Conceptual framework for national indicators can be suggested to the States • Process of development of indicators shall be dynamic with learning experiences on the processes • Many such experiences shall be State specific • Basic generic indicators shall be used for global comparisons • Reporting mechanism shall be developed on basic indicators • Ranking of States may be worked out on the basis of such generic indicators.
Phasing indicator development • Immediate phase (0-1yr) outcome indicators be developed • Intermediary phase (2-5 years) selected process indicators common to all States may be developed. • These can be reviewed in Hyogo+5 Conference • Longer time frame (5-10 years) further improvements can be carried out on the basis national and cross-national learning experiences • National Platform can monitor the progress • ISDR may monitor progress globally and bring out annual Report on the Progress of HFA Implementation