REVIEW OF EXISTING TOOLS AND METHODOLOGIES PROPOSED FOR EARLY RECOVERY, ANALYSIS OF THEIR

APPLICABILITY TO EARLYRECOVERY AND PREPARING THEIR DISSEMINATION

PIERRE HARRISSON

Geneva, February 2007

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ALNAP: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action

BCPR: UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery CERF: (Central Emergency Response Fund CPR Post-Conflict Prevention Network CVOs Civil Voluntary OrganizationsCWGER IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery DFID: Department for International Development (United Kingdom)EPRP Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning ER: Early RecoveryFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFEAT: Fast Environment Assessment Tool HC/RRHRR: Humanitarian Response Review IASC: UN’s Inter-Agency Standing Committee ISDRIFRC: International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentIRLA: Integrated Rapid Livelihood Assessment for Early Recovery ISDR: International Strategy of Disaster ReductionJICA: Japan International Cooperation AgencyILO: International Labour OrganizationNGOs Non Governmental OrganizationOCHA: United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOHCHR: Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human RightsPCM: Project Cycle ManagementPCNA Post Conflict Needs AssessmentPDNA: Post Disaster Needs AssessmentRBM: Results-Based MatrixTORs Terms of ReferenceTRM: Transition Results Matrix UNDGO United Nations Development Group OfficeUNDG-ECHA: United Nations Development Group-Emergency- Executive

Committee on Humanitarian Assistance UNEP: United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFPA: United Nations Fund for Population ActivitiesUN-HABITAT: United Nations for Human SettlementsUNHCR: United Nations High Commission for RefugeesUNICEF: United Nations Children FundUNDP: United Nations Development ProgrammeUNITAR: United Nations Institute for Training and ResearchUNOSAT: UNITAR Operational Satellite Applications ProgrammeVCA: Vulnerability and Capacity AssessmentWB:. World BankWHO: World Health OrganizationWFP: World Food Programme

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 2

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….. 4 - BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………. 4 OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE CONSULTANCY………. 5

1. APPROACHES, METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS: WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT? 6

2. PHASING OF RECOVERY……………………………………………………… 7

3. METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR EARLY RECOVERY: FOR WHOM AND FOR WHICH PURPOSE? …………………………………………………….. 9

3.1 INVENTORY AND EXAMPLE OF APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR EARLY RECOVERY …………………………………… 10

4. IDENTIFED GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………….. 18

ANNEXES:………………………………………………………………………………… 22ANNEX 1: INVENTORY

ANNEX II: PERSONS, INSTITUTIONS MET

ANNEX III: TERMS OF REFERENCES

3

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

In July 2005, a Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) highlighted deficiencies in humanitarian responses and gave recommendations to improve the predictability, timeliness and effectiveness of response to humanitarian crises. In response to the recommendations, the UN’s Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) established in September 2005 clusters to better coordinate the action in nine areas of intervention/sectors where gaps had been identified ( the clusters being nutrition, water and sanitation, health, camp coordination and management, emergency shelter, protection, logistics, emergency telecommunications and early recovery). Sectors or areas of activities considered to be well covered were not included among clusters. Sometimes clusters are understood as sectors of activities, but in fact they are not. A cluster is a group of organizations and other stakeholders, with a designated lead at global and at country level, working in one of these areas where gaps in response have been previously identified by the HRR. Sectors are specific to single areas of expertise, e.g food sector. A cluster therefore can be a combination of Food and Nutrition sectors.

The IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER) was formed at the global level under the leadership of UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR). It consists of 19 UN and non –UN members, from both humanitarian and development-oriented communities.

CWGER proceeded to a mapping and analysis of existing capacities for early recovery among cluster members and identified gaps to be addressed on a priority basis: Critical gaps in the global system-wide capacity in early recovery were identified. These are focused on the need to strengthen strategic planning capacity, including tools/methodologies, financing mechanisms, predictable surge capacity, training, information management, knowledge management, and inter-agency cooperation agreements/mechanisms. (Progress Report, IASC Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery, December 2005). Therefore, CWGER adopted as a strategic objective to “focus on strengthening global-level cluster capacity for among other things, “planning early recovery at a much earlier stage in a more inclusive and comprehensive manner, based on a common understanding of each situation through the development of new strategic tools, methodologies, and training as well as through knowledge management.” Progress Report, Dec.2005, p.3)

4

Cluster members took the commitment to “cooperate towards development and operationalization of agreed common cluster services, tools, strategies, and products”. (CWGER, Progress report, p3). As stated in TORs for this consultancy, (Annex III) “The CWGER strives to improve needs assessments, strategic planning and programme development for early recovery through the development of new tools and methodologies. As for the development of new tools, careful attention needs to be paid to developing only new tools and methodologies in areas where none currently exists and when their development will bring essential added-value to the strategic planning capacity for early recovery. As for the existing tools and methodologies, efforts will focus on reviews and revisions, so to effectively integrating early recovery”

OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE CONSULTANCY

Taking the initial overview of existing tools already compiled as baseline information, mandate was given to the consultant to:

-continue the research and compilation of existing tools to complete the draft overview;-do a desk review and mapping of existing tools and methodologies;-interview key staff of CWGER member agencies;-draft the inventory of tools and methodologies for ER with two components:

1) overview of existing tools2) summary of most adequate tools for ER

-support consultation with cluster members on findings.

To implement this mandate, during the period 21 November 2006 -15 February 2007, the consultant proceeded to a desk review and analysis of existing tools, using information resources from member organisations, met various members (Annex II) and participated in CWGER plenary meetings. Further, regular contact was maintained through working sessions with BCPR staff to inform them on the advancement of the consultancy.

This report is presenting the main findings, some unresolved questions and a few recommendations for the follow up.

The presentation of the results is done in the following points:

1- Approaches, methodologies and tools: what are we speaking about 2. Phasing of recovery 3. Tools for Early Recovery: for whom and for what purpose?

3.1 Inventory and example of appropriate methodologies and tools for ER

4. Gaps 5. Institutional measures to strengthen Early Recovery mainstreaming 6. Lessons learnt and actionable recommendations.

5

1. APPROACHES, METHODOLOGIES, and TOOLS: WHAT ARE WE SPEAKING ABOUT?

Reviewing and analysing the main tools used by UN and non UN actors for assessment, strategic planning, programme design, monitoring and evaluation, coordination and funding and knowledge management, the consultant found a diversity of products under different names. Materials used as tools can be labelled in diversified forms as Agendas, Analysis toolkits, Analysis Frameworks, Approaches Guidance notes, Guidelines, Practical Guide, Guiding principles, Provisional Guide, Practitioners Guide, Handbook, Framework, Manual, Methodology, Resource kit, Tool, Toolkit, Technical Note, and many more.

In fact, different materials have been produced by organisations at a precise point in time, for a specific purpose, sometimes for different types of clients, some type for use by a specific group of actors. Their scope, level of analysis and their concrete applicability at global and country level differ. Generally tools are developed within a more general approach or conceptual framework. They can limit themselves to a series of more or less precise recommendations, principles for action, they sometimes proceed to a step by step description of phases to achieve a result. A Handbook or Manual can present different approaches or methodologies to plan, organize or implement an activity or group of activities. Finally different approaches or methodologies are recurring to a multiplicity of techniques or instruments for gathering and analysing data and preparing reports. The same technical instruments like surveys, questionnaires, interviews take another dimension if used in a participatory or a top-down approach. Some are generic tools for socio-economic analysis, others are topic specific.

Some of the tools are mainly used in humanitarian response situations, others in generic strategic planning, policy, programming and management tools that can be used in a variety of situations. In some cases, they have been developed by the humanitarian actors and in others by academics, think tanks, researchers and practitioners, by and for the development community.

One should always remember the approach, the context and historical characteristics of a tool in order to judge its suitability or not for a different setting. Obviously the tools included in the inventory have generally not been developed for Early Recovery situations and their suitability will depend a lot on specific situations and on the capacities of the actors to use or adapt them for Early Recovery purpose.

6

2. PHASING OF RECOVERY

In order to distinguish which tools are more appropriate for use in Early Recovery situations, it is necessary to agree on the phasing of Early recovery in a continuum relief-recovery-development. UNDGO is considering “period of transition” for planning and programme implementation purpose, the time following the immediate post-crisis or post-disaster relief but preceding the full recovery and conditions for sustainable development at country level. It is estimated that the recovery phase after a crisis or a disaster can extend for a decade.

Considering the absorptive capacities and economic growth in countries after a conflict or a disaster, UNDP, Word Bank and UNDGO1) are using the following typology for the phasing of recovery:

Stabilization/Transition: 12 monthsTransformation: 12-36 monthsConsolidation: 36-120 months

Considering ER situations in regard to phasing, it starts already during the immediate emergency response and finish at that moment when national authorities take over the recovery process with the mobilization of their own resources and the technical and financial support of the international communities. It means that the ER period can be different according to the specific country setting and also depending on the national capacities. The IASC Guidance note considers that the ER phase is the first part of the transition/stabilization period.

“The term “transition” is applied to many different, often overlapping processes of transformation. For the purposes of this document “transition” refers to a period in time immediately following a crisis, when pre-existing plans, strategies and programmes no longer reflect the most pressing priorities and needs in a given national setting. The aim of the UN system in transition should be to assist national authorities to initiate immediate, priority crisis resolution and recovery activities, and to move from a post-crisis recovery short or medium term strategy into a longer-term strategy.

Within the overall timeframe of transition therefore, there are two distinct phases of transformation that the country undergoes: the early recovery phase, which is the period immediately following the onset of the crisis, where the priorities are to show immediate results for vulnerable populations and to promote opportunities for recovery. There is a second, longer phase of recovery following an increase in national capacity that is demonstrated by national leadership of the recovery process and the articulation of a national plan.

(Practical Guide to the transition. Early Recovery Guidance Note.)

In terms of identification of needs and damages during the ER it is possible to do a rapid needs assessment and from there to elaborate a common response

1 UNDP/DGO/World Bank: Practical Guide to Post Conflict Needs Assessment (PCNA), (2004)

7

strategy between the main actors. The outcome, an “Early Recovery Strategy” or to an “Interim Transition Strategy” will have an implementation horizon of 12-18 months. The first recovery responses will be normally integrated in the normal country planning process. This phasing of ER has to be taken into account in order to differentiate which tools will be more appropriate for ER response. Considering the timeline retained, they will be mainly assessment and strategic planning tools including in the best cases elements of programming, monitoring and evaluation. Joint initiatives in order to elaborate a realistic ER strategy focusing on priorities of priorities in a short period with limited available funding take a particular relevance in this situation. The capacity building of nationals to take over in order to support and not to substitute national stakeholders will also be crucial after immediate relief in order to prepare sustainable take over by national authorities. The main challenge in such a short period is to produce an interim strategic plan relying on incomplete analysis of factors of crisis and to accept that the priority programmes resulting of strategic planning will remain transitory; it means to accept that objectives conceived in a longer timeframe will be partially realized and outcomes would be only building blocks for a full solution requiring more time and involvement of all stakeholders. Knowing that all the needs cannot be covered, it becomes fundamental in such a situation to have “friendly user” tools to address among the necessities only the priorities relevant to prepare a more sustainable and nationally owned response later on. It is imperative to avoid the application of generic responses without a clear understanding of the specific local or national situations.

The concept of Early Recovery could be defined a short phase that overlap with humanitarian relief and consolidation of recovery towards sustainable development. But, as understood and formulated by the different UN and non UN members of the CWGER, it is also a process involving the various actors in a critical real time evaluation of their response in post-conflict and post-disaster situations.

“Early Recovery is defined as recovery that begins in a humanitarian setting. It is a multidimensional process, guided by development principles, that seeks to build upon humanitarian programmes and to catalyse sustainable development opportunities. Early recovery aims to generate to the extent possible self-sustaining nationally owned and resilient processes for post-crisis recovery. Early recovery encompasses livelihoods, shelter, governance, environment and social dimensions, including the reintegration of displaced populations. It stabilizes human security and where the opportunity exists begins to address underlying risks that contributed to the crisis.”(Practical Guide to the transition. Early Recovery Guidance Note.)

More than a precise chronological phase, the ER seen by international actors as an effort to strengthen the effectiveness of the linkage between post-crisis humanitarian assistance and development , could be understood from an in country perspective as an approach to permit a quick return of the population’s sustainable livelihoods.

Seen from the in-country perspective, concrete measures to strengthen ER capacities of national authorities, CVOs and local populations could be taken at national and international level not exclusively during the short ER period in post-crisis situation but before and after.

8

3. METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR EARLY RECOVERY: FOR WHOM AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

“The challenge for the Early Recovery Cluster is to bring together a broad range of organizations, both humanitarian and developmental, to work in a coordinated, cohesive and accountable manner to support effectively the restoration of national capacities to recover”. (IASC Working Group Meeting, Early Recovery, 15-17 November 2006).

The present review and analysis is taking stock of the different approaches, methodologies and specific technical instruments used by UN agencies and other actors in order to give a more coherent response and a more appropriate support to countries (authorities and population) in their efforts to cope with effects of disasters and conflicts. The objective is to “bring essential added value to the strategic planning for early recovery”. This process can be achieved only in close collaboration between international community actors and national actors, taking into account capacities and specific national or local situations but also political will and capacity of international actors to really work together for a better use of scarce human and economic resources to support recovery at national level.

At the global level, a better knowledge of the different approaches used by UN and non UN agencies, the dissemination of best practices, the modification of methodologies and techniques in order to better adapt them to specific post-crisis settings, will contribute to strengthen system-wide preparedness and enhance the capacity for quick and coordinated responses.

At country level, it will facilitate the collaboration between UN and non UN organizations intervening in support to the national government and to the population in general to do a quick and realistic assessment of the situation, to prepare a joint concept analysis as basis for priority setting for strategic planning and programming. Moreover through the setting or forums and a network associating international and national actors it will contribute to avoid isolated initiatives and facilitate a real leadership of the process of recovery.

The Early Recovery perspective intervenes precisely to remind all actors involved in the heat of fire, the need to take into consideration factors of risk mitigation, sustainability and ownership by nationals in planning and implementing recovery. Quick answers are not always good solutions. Reviewing the tools widely used by different actors in post-crisis situations gives the opportunity to do better preparedness, to foresee contingency planning realistically applying criteria corresponding to different situations, and to design and implement new training packages for “sectors or areas of intervention” for leaders and for national staff.

9

In order to measure if the actual approaches, methodologies and tools are appropriate, a well documented evaluation of recent responses in different parts of the world would be useful mainly to modify and recommend “preferred tools” for early recovery. This information gathering and knowledge management exists already but is done mainly by international staff with a perspective of support of the international community to affected countries. It would be interesting in order to have appropriate tools to get more inputs from national actors involved in recovery, local authorities but also civil society representatives, to take more into account their capacities and their approach to cope with conflict and disaster.

The selection of most appropriate tools, the modifications of some of them, the elaboration of new ones will benefit to the UN and non UN agencies, but also to nationals (governments and civil society organisations). It has not been possible in the timeframe of this consultancy to widely review the tools applied by the international and local NGO communities. It would be good to associate them progressively to the Early Recovery Working Group initiatives.

3.1 INVENTORY AND EXAMPLE OF APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES AND TOOLS FOR EARLY RECOVERY

The consultant worked on the basis of a first basic matrix of tools elaborated with information given by the representatives of agencies’ members of the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (CWGER). To complete the inventory, interviews have been conducted with UNDP BCPR staff and representatives of different agencies. It has been completed by a review of the material received from them and a systematic review of the information in their websites. Nevertheless, this desk review does not pretend to be exhaustive. The inventory of tools, the modification of some of the existing ones and the preparation of new tools for Early Recovery is an on going process where there will be work in progress for a few years. The CWGER can do part of the work at global level promoting more inter-agency coordination and exchanges, but the results will be realistically achieved by taking more into account identified needs for specific tools as expressed by international members of Country teams, international NGOs and national stakeholders striving to give ER responses in post-crisis situations.

Different criteria have been retained to do a classification and analysis of tools. If some tools are generic one dealing with assessment of main damages and disrupted services at national level, other are more sector specific. Both type of tools are presented and analysed in the Matrix in Annex I.

The following framework presents the categories retained for the classification of tools in the Matrix.

10

A. GLOBAL POST-DISASTER AND POST-CONFLICT TOOLS

A-1 CONFLICT ANALYSIS A-2 EARLY RECOVERY AND TRANSITION A-3 NEEDS/ DAMAGES ASSESSMENTSA-4 PROGRAMMINGA-5 SATELLITE, REMOTE-SENSING,GEO-REFERENCED TOOLSA-6 PREPAREDNESS, CONTINGENCY PLANNINGA-7 RESPONSE COORDINATIONA-8 FUNDING, FINANCESA-9 EVALUATION & MONITORINGA-10 NETWORKS, AWARENESS, COMMUNICATION

B. THEMATIC/SECTORAL TOOLS

B1. FOOD SECURITYB-2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATORY VULNERABILITY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS B-3 LAND/PROPERTY MANAGEMENTB-4 LIVELIHOODS AND INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIESB-5 BASIC INFRASTRUCTUREB-6 CHILDREN/YOUTHB-7 GENDER MAINSTREAMING/HIV-AIDSB-8 ENVIRONMENTB-9 PROTECTION/ HUMAN RIGHTS

GLOBAL POST-DISASTER AND POST-CONFLICT TOOLS

For the majority of the tools classified under these categories, after the name of the tool, it is possible to find the following information: agency who produced the tools, short description, methodological analysis/approach, specific technical instruments, use in early recovery, sector or theme considered by the tool, level of application (national, local) phase of the response process taken into consideration by the tool (preparedness, assessment, strategic planning, programming and implementation, monitoring and evaluation, coordination), cross-cutting issues taken into account (Gender/HIV-Aids, Protection/Human Rights, Environment). The web link for the tool is given when available on line. In order to understand the methodological approach, the consultant reviewed in detail the tools in the inventory and in some cases tried to understand in which context the tool has been developed by the agency. For the description and methodological approach, the consultant used as much as possible the categories or concepts used by the authors of the tool in order to maintain a minimum of coherence in the analysis.

Many tools are interrelated or developed from a basic approach. For example the various conflict analysis tools are mainly adapted from the “Strategic Conflict Assessment” methodology developed by DFID for the different phases of the conflict cycle. Actually DFID is developing a specific tool for planning requirements for a multi-disciplinary mission in a stabilisation (transition) context, based on a rapid assessment. (Joint Stabilisation Assessment). Others have been produced by the Conflict Prevention and Post-Conflict Prevention Network (CPR). Alert International produced a Handbook with a recompilation of the main existing approach for crisis analysis with a particular attention to the integration of conflict analysis and needs assessment.

11

The Early Recovery and Transition category regroups the draft guidance note of IASC CGWER on Early Recovery and UNDG-ECHA guideline on transition. (Practical Guide to the Transition. Early Recovery Guidance Note –Draft).These tools are still under elaboration. ER is presented as a process and there is an effort to establish the link with normal country planning considering ER as the first phase of a transition period post-crisis. Following the program cycle approach, the guidance notes give the main steps for ER implementation: priorities for kick starting ER efforts, key principles to be taken into account when setting up coordination modalities for ER, needs assessment methodology, main steps for strategic planning, key principles and guidance for ER programming, indications on monitoring and evaluation and some resource mobilization mechanisms.

The UNHCR-JICA Handbook for Transition Assistance (2006) has been retained considering it covers different aspects to be taken into account during the transition phase , presenting a repertory of conflict analysis tools, needs assessment methodologies and planning tools, taking into consideration human security approaches, conflict and gender mainstreaming, security and judicial reform, economic recovery instruments, project management approach to planning and implementation, monitoring and evaluation and including coordination tools.

Under Needs/Damages Assessments in the inventory are described and analysed the main Assessments tools used actually by OCHA, BCPR, ECLAC, ILO, World Bank. A light version of Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) is under development by ECLAC aiming to be a simplified PDNA to be used precisely in ER phase post-disaster. A similar approach to adapt the PCNA is under discussion. There is an agreement on the necessity to have a common tool specially adapted to early recovery situations in order to facilitate the elaboration of an interagency common interim situation analysis and a coordinated planning for the ER phase. This tool should take the form of a rapid assessment tool having in mind a limited planning horizon, time constraints and limited resources, considering the possibility to do more detailed multi sectoral assessments later on for long term planning in collaboration with national stakeholders. For the moment OCHA and ILO have rapid assessment tools linked to the preparation of project profiles for a quick response. NGOs have also developed rapid assessments tools to be used mainly at community level. ILO and FAO are currently working jointly towards the preparation of a rapid needs assessment tool using the livelihoods framework.

Different Programming tools exist mainly elaborated by the development community. Among them, the Result base and Management Matrix (RBM,TRM) and Management, the Project Cycle Management (PCM) and the Planning by objectives. The main challenge really is to link assessment-strategic planning and programming. Particularly to focus on priorities for project implementation having in mind the necessity to achieve measurable outcomes in a short timeline, but keeping the perspective of medium and long term planning for sustainable recovery.

Satellite, Remote-sensing, geo-referenced tools can be grouped chronologically into four primary stages of analysis: 1) Strategic collection of geo-spatial data for areas of political instability or prone to natural hazards (pre-crisis-anticipation); 2)Production of damaged assessment maps (Crisis to Immediate Post-Crisis Period -Real Time); 3)Collection and Integration of field information into post-

12

crisis geo-spatial products ( Humanitarian Intervention & Integration and validation of data collected in the field; 4)Production of thematic impact maps for direct and indirect damage and production of detailed planning maps & monitoring of early recovery projects (based on inputs from field experts), and (Recovery Monitoring). UNOSAT proposes on-line images of sites before disaster and different thematic maps for assessment and planning. It can facilitate planning of operations in emergency and early recovery responses. For example the city of Matagalpa in Nicaragua used the satellites images in order to plan the reconstruction. UNOSAT can also train the national cadastre staff and other stakeholders intervening in recovery to the use of satellite map and geo-referenced techniques. In recent crisis, for example in Lebanon, satellite imagery has been useful for agencies in order to assess damages.

An appropriate and efficient response in humanitarian crisis, particularly in early recovery depends greatly on the degree of preparedness and contingency planning to cope rapidly with post-disaster and post-conflict situations. ISDR plays an important role in mainstreaming risk reduction and is putting at the disposal of different actors tools for risk mitigation and exchange of knowledge on vulnerabilities. UNICEF rolled out its Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning (EPRP) in 90% of UNICEF field offices. Surge capacities are developed at regional level in order to support national staff in case of crisis. But, despite trainings, the capacity of the field offices to intervene quickly needs to be strengthened. In any case, the pre-crisis assessment for emergency planning purposes constitutes an important tool to facilitate response in emergency and early recovery and to help plan better during the transition period. Multi-sectoral assessments requires too much time to be realized in emergency response situations and the availability of good pre-crisis data would facilitate a quicker and better strategic planning and priority setting in the ER phase. It would also permit to maintain a network of national capacities that can be mobilized in post-crisis situations.

The development of surge capacity and contingency planning and better tools for funding and coordinating this activity are part of the work plan of the Early Recovery Cluster and surely specific tools should be developed to better identify not only international support and analysis of capacities, but also to establish baselines at country level linked for example to the Human Development Reports and Millennium Development Goals activities and to the current national planning exercises. OCHA is preparing with the support of ILO the training of Cluster leaders. A specific training on Early Recovery approach for internationals should be done for the HC/RR with eventually the creation at global interagency level of a mobile team not only to support countries in post crisis situation but to work with country teams to do preparedness and make agreement on activation procedures for international ER support in case of sudden disaster or conflict.

This inventory identified only a few references on Response Coordination. There is a lot of guidance notes on the necessity of a better coordination, but not enough mechanism to put in practice this coordination in crisis situations. The adoption by IASC of the Network approach at field level is going in the good direction but evaluation of recent experiences reveals that there is still place for improvement. The CWGER actual consultancy on interagency agreements will contribute to better document the coordination issue and to propose ways to do better. Surely best

13

practices could be derived from the analysis of recent post-crisis interventions, with a particular attention to the mapping of interagency coordination mechanisms, and to the post-crisis coordination with civil society and national authorities. Good examples of consortia approach can be derived from the development community experience. UN-HABITAT and UNDP are actually updating the Disaster Web portal. A better knowledge of the existing responses and approaches including the question of coordination of response and joint mobilisation of financial support could contribute to the adoption of coordination mechanisms.

Only a few instruments for Joint Mobilisation of Financial support exists. Different rapid response funds at the level of each particular agency are not well known by the overall humanitarian community. Maybe specific funding instruments apart from those existing for emergency and reconstruction should be adopted for ER or at least a window for funding ER activities should be open in the actual funding instruments (conditions of access to CERF of World Bank funding). But part of the solution has to be found directly at country level promoting the creation of contingency budget allocations for emergency and ER response. More international financial support should be given to preparedness, to capacity building for ER and to the setting up at national level of “emergency funds” and surge capacities networks.

The inclusion of monitoring and evaluation measurable indicators in strategic planning and programming in ER is considered important. Tools in the inventory has been developed by UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR and UN-Habitat. Surely other agencies have their own monitoring and evaluation tools not necessarily presented here. One of the main challenges is to use more monitoring and real time evaluation as a management instrument in order to better measure impact of interventions and modify project components if necessary in order to give a more appropriate response in ER.

THEMATIC/SECTORAL TOOLS

These tools have been classified in the inventory under the following categories: Food Security, Community Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Land/Property Management, Livelihood and Income Generating Activities, Basic Infrastructure, Children/Youth, Gender Mainstreaming/HIV-Aids, Environment, Protection/ Human rights.

Tools to address Food Security have been mainly developed by FAO and WFP. Crop and Food Assessment Missions can take place in a post-disaster or post-conflict situation to prepare the humanitarian response. But the exercise is normally conducted also in a country at risk and the baseline established can be used to prepare a strategic response to restore livelihoods post-disaster and post-conflict. UNHCR and WFP have developed Joint Assessment Guidelines. The tool is mainly for refugee situation. Nevertheless one could use available checklists for assessment of food, health, shelter needs in post-disaster, post-crisis situation. IFRC also prepared Food Security Assessment Guidelines for Africa.

WFP is proceeding since 2004 to an on going exercise of review until 2007 of its approach of Food Security Assessment and issued a Handbook. A better

14

understanding of causes of malnutrition provides a sound basis for the design and implementation of interventions across the sectors. Understanding the roles of different actors lead to more effective strategies and efficient use of limited resources. Using information on nutrition and other background information supports analysis and decisions on interventions and programs for both short and long-term projects. The approach of training of WFP and national personnel to do better Food need assessment constitutes a preparedness measure for a quicker and better response not only in the immediate relief phase post-conflict or post-disaster but also in the recovery and development phase. A better understanding of the root causes of food insecurity particularly of the role of markets is crucial. The shift from a pure food aid approach to other type of non food responses is going in the direction of sustainable solutions and can facilitate the link between relief and development. Lessons learnt from the actual experiences at country level can be used for a better coordinated multi-sectoral response in Early Recovery. Finally, the participation of WFP and FAO in Joint assessment missions with their own sectoral expertise contribute to an integrated response. More recently specific studies and awareness booklets have been produced on food security analysis through a livelihoods approach. It is recognized that it is impossible to separate food insecurity from associated sectoral crises in the fields of health, water, protection, sanitation, shelter, and others. There is highly dynamic interplay between these sectors, especially as situations deteriorate they often times co-exist and impress on the need to incorporate crosscutting sectoral issues.

A sub-working group on Local Level Needs Assessment is reviewing existing guidance, tools, and practices in local level approaches, and analysing their applicability to Early Recovery. Since it is the main field to be covered by another consultancy, only a quick review of the existing material had been done for the present inventory. The consultant retained mainly the tools on Community Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis identified by the Community Risk Assessment and Action Planning Project under the responsibility of Provention Consortium.2 The “Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) 3 has a good database on participatory approach tools at local/community level. IFRC Vulnerability and Capacity Toolbox provides a conceptual framework and guidelines for vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA), identifying potential threats, vulnerabilities and assessing capacities and resources.

The inventory includes Land/Property Management tools developed mainly by UN-Habitat, OCHA and UNOSAT. Based on the lessons learnt from Kosovo, UN-Habitat tool on land management in post conflict situations presents a step by step process to set up a land management system from the immediate emergency phase through recovery and reconstruction. Some actions taken in the preliminary period are transformed in building blocks for the institutionalisation later on. It takes into account the gender and human rights dimensions. International presence is needed but conceived as support for human and institutional capacity building not as substitution of local authorities. The land management is put into relationship with

2 The ProVention Consortium Secretariat is hosted at the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Geneva. http://www.proventionconsortium.org/ 3 ALNAP regroups 60 members. http://www.odi.org.uk/ALNAP/

15

other factors in order to solve conflict related to land issues, avoiding confronting a situation where reconstruction is impossible due to the impossibility to use the available land.

Main tools on Livelihood and Income Generating Activities analysed are from ILO, UNHCR, and WB. The Sussex Institute of Development Studies has a specific web portal on livelihoods4, providing a multiplicity of existing tools for different phases of the project cycle. ILO and FAO are developing a new tool for ER called Integrated Rapid Livelihood Assessment for Early Recovery (IRLA). The IRLA approach consists of three inter-related elements: Baseline; Quick Impact Assessment--which will form the livelihood element of the flash appeals; Rapid Livelihood Assessment (impact, capabilities and opportunities). Taken together, these three elements represent an assessment system, the time frame for which is 40 days after a sudden onset disaster.

The global tools for post-conflict and post-disaster assessment have sections on evaluation of Basic Infrastructure damages. For example, Section 3 of ECLAC Manual deals with this issue. On disruption of health system facilities, WHO have developed a specific methodology.

UNICEF Emergency Field Handbook addressed the issue of youth and children. This Handbook is structured around UNICEF’s Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies. These commitments outline the organization’s role in providing protection and assistance to children and women. They make a clear distinction between life-saving interventions that should be carried out immediately (within the first six to eight weeks of any crisis) and the broader spectrum of essential activities that may be added once an initial response is well established. Although this distinction is most clear for sudden-onset emergencies, the logic of the Core Commitments should apply to all humanitarian crises: Focus first on those interventions proven to be essential for immediate survival and protection. The Core Commitments enhance the timeliness and effectiveness of UNICEF’s response and help prioritise and clarify its partnerships with national counterparts, other UN agencies and the broader community of non-governmental organizations.

Other tools on special protection of children refugees developed mainly by UNHCR are analysed under the category Protection/Human Rights.

Gender Mainstreaming in post-conflict and post-disaster situations is a concern of many agencies who prepared specific guidelines. (IASC,UNDP, ILO, FAO, WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF; UNFPA etc.) . For example the IASC Gender and Humanitarian Assessment Resource Kit is representing a compendium of tools developed by the main UN agencies. UNFPA issued a CD-ROM with the main tools developed by UN and non UN actors, used in the field for Reproductive Health in post-conflict and post-disaster responses.

Tools for Environmental Assessment and Management of environmental problems in post-crisis settings have been mainly developed by UNEP, UN-Habitat OCHA and UNHCR. They can be classified in the following sub-categories:

4 http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_toolbox.html

16

environmental needs assessment and analysis, rapid environmental assessment, environmental management, response to chemical risks, flood impact, environmental waste management, environment and refugees, capacities for environmental response. Mainstreaming of environment as a cross-cutting issue is not always easy. Lessons learnt from Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, Sudan, Somalia revealed that the environmental aspect is not always taken into account at the same level in Post Conflict Needs Assessment (PCNA). In some cases the assessment is conducted by a specific cluster, in other cases by a combination of a specific cluster and cross-cutting work in the other clusters and in other cases the environment dimension is only covered through environment mainstreaming in different clusters. The environmental recommendations are not always given their due place in the final multi sectoral report. Or at the moment of establishing the TRM, the costing of interventions in order to mitigate environmental interventions does not appear. It means concretely that the recommendations and proposed measures for environmental impact mitigation remains good resolutions without being compulsory in the programme planning. The environmental assessment, management and monitoring requires capacities not always present at the Country team level or in the counterpart national ministry or agency. The lack of a good baseline or the lack of good background information in projects can affect the accuracy of the environmental review during the Early recovery phase.5

The inventory analyses different “Rapid environmental impact assessment” tools more appropriate for the Early Recovery period than the component of the environmental component of the PCNA or a detailed Environment Impact Assessment.6 The Joint UNEP-OCHA Environmental Emergencies Section is currently elaborating a “Fast Environment Assessment Tool (FEAT)”. Once complete, FEAT will be used to undertake rapid environmental assessments immediately following natural disasters. It will assist in the identification of acute and life-threatening environmental impacts. The same Joint UNEP-OCHA section is also doing a more user friendly revision of the Guidelines for environmental assessment, tools developed to assess and give an adequate response to chemical risks post-disaster or post-conflict.

Tools on Protection/Human Rights in this inventory are mainly related to situations of refugees and displacement. At the end of this consultancy the consultant was informed that the revised and updated OHCHR Database on Human Rights Education and Training is now available on-line (http://hre.ohchr.org ), but unfortunately he could not review its content to include relevant tools for protection and human rights in the present inventory.

5 The consultant had access to two draft reports of UNEP : Lessons Learned: Environmental Review of the Iraq Multi-Donor Trust Fund, Draft 1.1, UNEP Post Conflict Branch, Geneva, March 2006 and UNDG Post-Conflict Needs Assessments: Review of Lessons Learned for Environmental Needs and Priorities, UNEP Post Conflict Branch, Geneva, July-August 2006.6 UNEP issued an « Environmental Impact Assessment Training Resource Manual in 2002. The application of this tool can be done only by specialists.

17

4. IDENTIFED GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Reviewing and analysing the approaches of agencies and the tools they use it is possible to present a few general findings:

1. There is a need of a better understanding of Early Recovery phasing and approach in order to choose “preferred tools”.

2. There is a lot of tools with potential if used for Early Recovery, developed in specific contexts and for specific purposes. (mainly for humanitarian response and project development planning). A temptation is to use already done generic tools and make them fit to different post-conflict and post-disaster settings. There will be always a need to look at the reality, doing a pre-assessment phase as suggested for example in the UN/World 7 Bank PCNA Review, to make the right choice of tools cocktail depending on the presence on the spot of International partners, of the existence or not of stable State authorities and institutions, on the capacities and possibilities of action of CVOs, on the planning period retained. In summary, choose tools and more important priorities of responses aiming at stabilisation and transformation towards recovery and development based on good practices, stakeholders and institutional rapid assessment.

3. This does not mean that the international community, particularly the UN agencies, must abandon efforts to develop a common tool for assessment of the situation, elaborate of a joint strategy in coordination with national authorities, but that “Generic multi sectoral tools” will have to be used considering the specifications of each national post-crisis situation.

4. Ideally, in the needs assessment exercise, the elaboration of an Interim Transition Strategic Paper and the priority setting in the programming and costing Matrix (TRM; RBM etc) should take into account existing national and sub-national development plans and to pre-crisis baselines.

5. The HC/RR has the lead role in coordinating UN agency support. But this coordination role should not substitute the real role of state authorities, inclusively in transition periods. The main gap is often the lack of means and human capacities at the level of the Country team to face unforeseen situations. The degree of preparedness of the Country team, national authorities, CVOs and population to cope with disaster and conflict impact will make the difference in the rapidity and the efficiency of the response. There is a need in a certain sense of change of institutional culture in order to consider preparedness more important than the post-crisis and post-disaster response. In the case of ER response, it means training and awareness not only of UN agencies staff at HQ level but at field level in countries at risk, with the introduction in the normal planning and monitoring process of a ER lens conducting to the mapping of national, local capacities, the support to the preparation of good baselines linked to the MDG and Human Report exercise.

7 UN/World Bank PCNA Review, In Support of Peacebuilding: Strengthening the Post Conflict Needs Assessment, January 2007.

18

6. A specific training of country teams with the support of a surge capacity at global level not only to intervene for emergency and early recovery but to prepare field staff to give an adequate response where ER is built on emergency relief and prepare the longer term planning after a first transition/stabilisation phase post-crisis. The inventory of tools should be completed by the identification of training tools and of the actual resources in UN and outside UN system to support training at global and field level. This should contribute to turn from an offer-driven to a demand-driven approach.

7. The introduction in the normal planning and monitoring process of a ER lens conducting to the mapping of national, local capacities, the support to the preparation of good baselines linked to the MDG and Human Report exercise.

8. A specific training of country teams with the support of a surge capacity at global level not only to intervene for emergency and early recovery but to prepare field staff to give an adequate response where ER is built on emergency relief and prepare the longer term planning after a first transition/stabilisation phase post-crisis. The inventory of tools should be completed by an identification of training tools and of the actual resources in UN and outside UN system to support training at global and field level. This should contribute to turn from an offer-driven to a demand-driven approach.

9. Better awareness on ER will be facilitated by knowledge management of Lessons learnt and best practices, or as preferred concept in UNDP Capacity Development Practice Note 8,“Best Fit” practices contributing more to sustainable change. The process is as important as the tools used in the process. The analysis of the rolling out of Cluster approach at country level is a good indicator on the “acceptability” of the ER approach, due to different factors: an important one will be the real degree of coordination between UN agencies before the crisis and the level of coordination with national authorities and CVOs. Others will be related more to the existing capacities in the country team or to the level of dialogue between the global level and the CT level on the opportunity or not to deploy support for ER. A gap remains: these lessons learnt are usually produced by International staff members or by external consultants; the analysis should involve more local partners who from their point of view can give interesting despite the fact they are sometimes critical observations on the way they have experienced this rolling out.

10. This inventory focused mainly on global methodologies and tools. There is still a need to investigate more on sectoral and more specialized tools, particularly for the other clusters than ER where gaps in response has been identified by the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) (nutrition, water and sanitation, health, camp coordination and management, emergency shelter, protection, logistics, emergency telecommunications).

11. IASC recommended an involvement of NGOs in the process. CWGER is conscious of this necessity to include NGOs in the process at global and not only as implementing partner at country level. The involvement should not be

8 UNDP, Capacity Development Practice Note, July 2006

19

limited to HQ of international NGOs or to Coalitions of International partners, but in the rolling out at country level the development of forums or other appropriate mechanism to involve NGOs and CVOs is recommended.

12. There is generally a gap in the integration of the cross-cutting issues in the existing tools and in the assessment, strategic planning and programming by clusters at national level. “A cross-cutting issue is one that dynamically interacts with all or a substantial number of sectors and, therefore, requires a multi-sectoral approach. The choice to treat an issue as “cross-cutting” as opposed to “sectoral” is tactical and should be assessed in each country setting.”9 The cross-cutting issues are often better addressed when they are a cluster or sub-cluster by themselves than with a mainstreaming approach. “In spite of efforts made, including the use of checklists, interaction with clusters and review of draft reports with provision of comments and inputs, cross-cutting issues are only in some cases mentioned in the narrative reports, and rarely if at all identifiable in the TRM. Therefore, neither budget nor indicators for monitoring the implementation of priority interventions is provided.”10 The gap is not in the existence or not of tools for rapid environmental impact assessment or for gender analysis in post-crisis situation. It is in the way the tools are used and in the capacity of the staff to consider medium term effects. It is also in the real linkage between needs assessment, strategic planning and programming and costing in TRM. And, despite the fact that there is not always a clear procedure for it, by the fact that in the priority settings issues like environment, gender and human rights are unfortunately given an insufficient attention.

13. A gap generally identified in case studies is the lack of linkages between needs assessments, strategic plan (interim transition paper) and programming (TRM). This is due to many reasons: the situation of the countries with too much unsatisfied needs in relationship to international standards or indicators; the fact also that the generic tools used are not “Best Fit” to the objectives of the assessments, are too heavy and cannot discriminate the most important needs at a precise moment in a specific setting. A recommendation then is to develop light versions of these heavy tools, for example a light PDNA and a light PCNA. Another proposal which appears in a UNICEF programme evaluation is to adapt the tools to the real capacities of the national staff to implement them and to the available resources at country level. UNICEF evaluation recommends to “Focus on field-friendly tools, “good enough” guidelines and light lessons learned systems.”11 It is considered that the “organisational culture” put “too great a focus on excellence, while simpler and faster tools may be more effective in practice”. 12 The UN/WB PCNA Review goes in the same direction, proposing to review the linkages between the PCNA and the TRM “moving from the comprehensive assessment to a selective actionable TRM”; this by “creating the right mechanisms and process

9 UN/World Bank PCNA Review, In Support of Peacebuilding: Strenghthening the Post Conflict Needs Assessment, January 2007.10 Same.11 Evaluation report 2005 Global: Evaluation of UNICEF learning strategy to strengthen staff competencies for humanitarian response 2000-200412 Evaluation report 2005 Global : Evaluation of DFID-UNICEF Programme of Cooperation to Strengthen UNICEF Programming as it Applies to Humanitarian Response 2000-2005

20

for distilling the right strategic results from full cluster assessments.” The TRM objective is then to “Foster strategic consideration of tradehoffs to achieve selectivity of results”.13 In other words, to be able to separate the priorities considering the timeframe available and the limited resources in the first phase of the transition period, the Early Recovery. Criteria and procedures for decision-making in close consultation with national authorities should be established to avoid the too frequent situation where priorities are de facto decided according to the will of donors to fund activities instead of addressing the most urgent needs.

14. The economic dimensions of Early Recovery understood within the Livelihoods approach should be given more importance and specific collaboration with IFIs, UN and the national authorities enhanced.

15. The application of needs assessment, gender analysis, environmental assessment and other similar tools cannot be done in a post-conflict setting without a previous or integrated analysis of conflicts, root causes and of stakeholders considering their position in relationship to the conflict and their potentiality to implement solutions taking into account vested interests.

16. In a preparedness and risk mitigation perspective, the UN agencies and IFIs should advocate for and support the setting up of Emergency/ ER funds at national level in countries more at risk. A part of such a fund should be for awareness, training and contingency planning.

17. Considering that Good Coordination not only at global but at Country level is often the nerve of the war, agreements, activation scenarios and procedures, based on lessons learnt of “Best Fit” practices should be supported with the mapping of interagency coordination mechanisms, and of post-crisis coordination with civil society and national authorities. Good examples of consortia approach can be taken from the development community experiences. It could take the form of a platform of international and national actors involved in recovery.

13 UN/World Bank PCNA Review, In Support of Peacebuilding: Strengthhening the Post Conflict Needs Assessment, January 2007

21

ANNEX 1

INVENTORY

22

ANNEX II

PERSONS, INSTITUTIONS MET

Ola Amgren , Senior Adviser , Post Disaster Recovery, Bureau of Crisis Prevention & Recovery, UNDP

Francesca Battistin, Junior Socio-Economic Recovery Specialist, InFocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction, International Labour Office

Cynthia Burton, Senior Officer, Post-Disaster Recovery/Asian Tsunami/Earthquake Operations, Disaster and Response Department, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Lisa Eklund, Adviser, United Nations Population Fund

Riet Gruenen, Adviser on Gender and Human Rights, United Nations Population Fund

David Jensen, Policy and Planning Coordinator, Post-Conflict Branch, United Nations Environment Programme

Esteban Leon, DMP UN-Habitat, Geneva

Mario Lito Malanca, Emergency and Post Conflict Officer, International Organization for Migration

Jahal de Meritens, CWGER Coordination and SecretariatRené Nijenhuis, Programme Officer, Environmental Emergencies Section (Joint UNEP/OCHA), Emergency Service Branch, Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Francesco Pisano, Head, Institutional Relations, UNOSAT, UNITAR Operational Satellite Programme

Alain Retiere, Principal Coordinator, UNOSAT, UNITAR Operational Satellite Programme

Gaëla Roudy Fraser, Programme Specialist, Transition Recovery Unit, Bureau of Crisis Prevention & Recovery, UNDP

Olivier Senegas, Head, Procurement, Projects and Supplier Relations, UNOSAT, UNITAR Operational Satellite Programme

Olivier Van Damme, Programme Officer, UNOSAT, UNITAR Operational Satellite Programme

23

ANNEX III

TERMS OF REFERENCES

24