Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and

Transcripción

Strengthening the Social Analysis Component
in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment
Guatemala – Hurricane Stan aftermath, October 2005. (Guatemalan Red Cross)
Workshop Report
Panama, 29-31 January 2007
Table of Contents
Summary of main points .......................................................................................................................... 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Participants......................................................................................................................................... 2
Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 2
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................... 3
“Components of a Good Social Analysis”: an attempt to take stock ................................................. 5
1) “Social Analysis”: what are we talking about? ................................................................................ 5
2) Possible components of Social Analysis (data collection and analysis work itself) ........................ 6
a) In respect of pre-conditions ...............................................................................................6
b) In respect of principles on which social analysis is based ..................................................... 6
c) In respect of examples of data to be gathered ..................................................................... 6
d) In respect of processes to follow ........................................................................................7
e) Objectives of Social Analysis.............................................................................................7
Related initiatives ..................................................................................................................................... 8
All India Disaster Mitigation Institute................................................................................................... 8
Community Risk Assessment Toolkit (ProVention and other partners) .............................................. 8
Community Risk Reduction Index (Oxfam).........................................................................................8
Emergency Food Security Assessment (WFP) .................................................................................. 9
Health Assessment (PAHO) ............................................................................................................... 9
Household Economic Approach (Save the Children).......................................................................... 9
Needs Assessment in Response (Tsunami Evaluation Coalition) .................................................... 10
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA)....................................................................................... 10
Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (Benfield Hazard Research Centre) ............................... 11
Recovery Index (UN University – Institute for Environment and Human Security) ........................... 11
REDLAC Rapid Assessment ............................................................................................................ 12
Regional governmental organisations (representing national governments) .................................... 12
Social Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................... 12
Tool for Participatory Assessment in Operations (UNHCR) ............................................................. 12
UNICEF ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (IFRC) ................................................................................ 13
The World Bank................................................................................................................................ 13
Workshop feedback and learning.......................................................................................................... 15
Annex 1 . Participants list ...................................................................................................................... 16
Annex 2. « Componentes de un Buen Análisis Social »: un intento de ordenar las ideas............... 17
1) “Análisis social”: ¿de qué estamos hablando? ............................................................................. 17
2) Posibles componentes del Análisis Social (compilación de datos y análisis en sí mismo) .......... 18
a) Respecto a condiciones previas ...................................................................................... 18
b) Respecto a los principios en los que se basa el análisis social ........................................... 18
c) Respecto a ejemplos de datos a ser recopilados ............................................................... 18
d) Respecto al proceso a seguir .......................................................................................... 19
e) Objetivos del análisis social ............................................................................................ 19
List of acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 21
“Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment” workshop
1
Summary of main points
Background
As experience with recent disasters has shown, comprehensive assessment of damage,
losses, needs, vulnerabilities and capacities plays a key part in providing effective
frameworks for recovery. Often however there is insufficient attention paid – particularly in
early assessments – to addressing social vulnerability and livelihoods needs and a general
failure to include affected communities in recovery planning and programming, especially in
its earliest phases. In general there is still need for a better understanding of how social
groups are affected differently by disasters, what are the broader impacts and secondary
impacts on social infrastructure and livelihoods systems, and what means might be most
effective for reducing both immediate and future risks.
Strengthening assessment in these areas requires more attention to social vulnerability and
livelihoods analysis, greater emphasis on the participation of affected communities, closer
collaboration with civil society organisations to reach communities and strengthen social
protection and safety nets, and increased analysis of risks and mitigation opportunities. In
fact when asked in the context of reviews of the responses to recent disasters,
communities have consistently stated a lack of involvement in identifying their needs and
prioritising strategies for recovery assistance. Many of these points have also been
highlighted in the recent Tsunami Evaluation Coalition review of “The role of needs
assessment in the tsunami response” (available at www.tsunami-evaluation.org).
Together with the IFRC, ProVention organised a workshop in Panama from January 29-31,
2007 to share experience and ideas for strengthening the social analysis components in
post-disaster rapid impact/vulnerability assessment. The workshop focused in particular on
assessment in the first 1-4 weeks after a disaster, drawing on the knowledge and
experience of a range of international and regional organisations. The intent of the
workshop and potential related follow-up activities is to strengthen the rapid assessment
process in order to improve the transition from relief to recovery and increase the attention
to risk and vulnerability reduction from the outset in disaster response operations.
Participants
Participants in the workshop included representatives from international organisations, the
Red Cross / Red Crescent, NGOs, international financial institutions, regional governmental
organisations, and research centres, drawing on a rich mix of experience from both the
Americas and from other places around the world and representing both humanitarian
response and long-term development.
A full list of participants is included in Annex 1.
Objectives
Three objectives were defined for the workshop:
1. To share the methodologies that different organisations have been using to conduct
post-disaster rapid impact/vulnerability assessment and their experiences and
reflections on what they think works well and what could be improved in their
approaches;
2. To use this information to advise the development of a social analysis component to
include in standard assessment processes, such as the ECLAC and World Bank
assessment;
2
3. To explore whether there are useful ways to draw from the strengths of each other's
methodologies to improve our own approaches or to share information with each
other in future disasters on areas of assessment which one may cover and another
may not and/or to triangulate data and inform analysis
Results
One of the primary achievements of the workshop was the strong networking that
developed among the diverse range of participants and the rich sharing of experience and
perspectives in the group. While the scope of the exchanges was not always specific to
social analysis, this dialogue should pave the way for future work and collaboration.
In addition the primary presentations and related documents from the workshop were
captured on a CD-ROM that was distributed to all participants.
At the end of the second day groupwork among the participants had also led to a set of
notes that were fashioned by the facilitators into an outline of the “Components of a Good
Social Analysis”, presented in the next section in English and in Annex 2 in Spanish.
►
English – "Components of a Good Social Analysis" workshop paper
►
Spanish – "Componentes de un Buen Análisis Social" workshop paper
In addition the recommendations produced by the participants were gathered during the
last day. These recommendations have been summarised as follows:
►
►
Production of a short document (two or three pages maximum) outlining “what is
social impact about”
Identification of key actors with institutional support who are ready to create a task
force/working group on the issue of social impact, in view of:

►
►
►
Reflecting on the issue, on the basis of discussions held in Panama;
Supporting the inclusion of social analysis in a few model situations, in order
to have more real study cases;
Defining the feasible boundaries of social analysis in emergency
assessments;
Collecting and disseminating good practices and lessons learned in respect
to social analysis.
Development of a module on social analysis to be included in the ongoing revision
of the ECLAC assessment methodology and development of the Post-Disaster
Needs Assessment (PDNA) initiative.
Integration of this type of module on social analysis into the training programmes of
interested partner organisations.
Continuation of the dialogue through the development and support of a topic
interest group (TIG) on social analysis.
Next Steps
These recommendations are currently being discussed by ProVention, the IFRC, the World
Bank, UNDP, ECLAC and other partners for further development as a collaborative
initiative. In terms of direct follow-up, the following have been suggested as concrete next
steps to build on the progress achieved at the workshop in developing a preliminary outline
of components of a good social analysis:
3
1. Develop a reference group to advise on revision to the ECLAC methodology and
inclusion of social analysis as a key component within this and the PDNA initiative
(ProVention, IFRC, UNDP, ECLAC, and the World Bank are currently in dialogue
on this).
2. Contact other organisations, particularly NGOs like other members of the
Emergency Capacity Building initiative, to update them about workshop and gauge
interest about future collaboration on the topic.
3. Form a broader interest group and continue the dialogue at other meetings and
through e-mail.
4. Develop a compendium or mapping of related activities
4
“Components of a Good Social Analysis”:
an attempt to take stock
This working document was elaborated during the workshop on “Strengthening the Social
Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment” held in Panama from
29th to 31st January 2007 and compiled by workshop facilitators Ana Urgoiti and
Christophe Lanord.
1) “Social Analysis”: what are we talking about?
In the context of this workshop, we are talking about “Good Social Analysis in PostDisaster Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment”. This is not the same thing as:
►
All types of analysis in Social science;
►
All types of analysis in Post-Disaster Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment;
►
►
Other types of Social Analysis in Impact and Vulnerability Assessment, be it before
or long after a disaster;
The assessment in itself: an assessment can include or not a social analysis, but is
different from the analysis itself.
Furthermore, we are speaking about analyzing data: some of the data to be analyzed may
be available before the disaster. In other words, one should not confuse between data
collected during an assessment by a team in the field and data related to the social
situation of the area or country affected. However, of course, these two types of data
should be read together.
At an early stage after the disaster happens, we need to have all the relevant information
that will inform our immediate decisions, but also we can start gathering relevant
information for recovery, reconstruction, development process that may come later.
Actually, social analysis should not be seen as a separate activity that only occurs after
humanitarian life-saving activities but can take place simultaneously, given the significant
interrelationship between relief and recovery.
Similarly, the impact of the disaster on the social aspects is to be differentiated from the
impact of the humanitarian response on the social aspects (be it the possible impact or
actual impact)1. However, the social analysis undertaken in the first part of the response
should address both aspects, in order to facilitate the design of that response.
A working definition of Social Analysis in this context could include the following elements:
A social analysis is an investigation, gathering and treatment of information that includes
elements such as the social characteristics of the population and locality we are targeting:
the size and location of populations, ethnicity, livelihoods and income, infrastructure, intrahousehold, community and broader power relationships, organization of civil society and
State administration, relations with community key-actors, identification of capacities,
education, public health, level of conflict and nature of conflict-management mechanisms
and cultural issues. This information should be built on the basis of a multi-thematic
participation taking into account private and public sector and the community.
1
One participant to the workshop mentioned that “humanitarian assessment / response is “social” in itself.
A humanitarian response that would not be focused on the human being cannot be conceived. So far,
humanitarian response is (and should be) based on a “exclusively social assessment”. However, this
aspect was not discussed during the workshop.
5
2)
Possible components of Social Analysis (data collection and
analysis work itself)
We need to emphasize that some elements below are not related specifically to social
analysis, but are related to any assessment, even those not including a social analysis
dimension! This paper, however, does not attempt to define those elements that are
specific and those that apply to all assessments.
a) In respect of pre-conditions
Financial, environmental and human resources (including the knowledge and capacity
aspects, i.e. the social capital of the community) should be available. There should be a will
from the various actors to undertake this analysis and to work with the communities; local
society groups and local institutions, in order to ensure that they see the value of it and are
involved in the process. Moreover, there should be a will from actors to share this
information between themselves. Social analysis works better when not done
independently by several different actors in isolation of each other but rather in a spirit of
cooperation and information-sharing (including with those “being analyzed”). Ownership of
data/knowledge needs to be negotiated and understood.
As other pre-conditions, social analysis should:
►
have a strong link to risk reduction work (including underlying causes and dynamics);
►
assess local knowledge;
►
use existing tools / data, such as the Humanitarian Development Index (HDI);
►
entail the development of vulnerability indicators.
b) In respect of principles on which social analysis is based
All the principles and standards guiding humanitarian action [e.g. impartiality, human rights,
Code of Conduct, Sphere and Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE)
standards, specific values and principles of one given actor, such as rights and needs
based approach, etc.] should in any case apply to social analysis activities - no reason to
do a special categorization for the latter. However, given the sensitive nature of some
social issues, we need to re-affirm and emphasize impartiality, neutrality, humanity,
universality and protection of informants.
Ownership by communities and local actors of the processes, decisions and results has to
be guaranteed.
c) In respect of examples of data to be gathered
We can have different levels of social analysis: macro (national), meso (local /community /
sub-national) and micro (household). The process should make sure that persons like the
marginalized, (most) vulnerable, handicapped, children, persons affected by HIV/AIDS,
“invisible”, elderly, indigenous persons, landless tenants (and other categories) are
included in the process. However, one should make sure that such analysis does not lead
to stereotyping.
A large number of factors could be considered: cultural, economical, political, power
relationships, environmental (including the relationship between human beings and the
nature in a given context), decision-making structures, religious, ethnic, gender, age
interrelations, potential conflicts. Other aspects such as coping mechanisms and strategies,
vulnerability to specific hazards, local capacities, livelihoods should be considered as well.
Of course, the list of possible data that could be collected would be huge. So priorities have
to be established and the process needs to be seen as an incremental one, not a report
with all the answers. Also it is imperative to utilize all pre-existing sources of information
and do triangulating.
Moreover, the social analysis has to be feasible: a “good enough” approach could be
adopted. A balance between exhaustiveness and accuracy, on the one hand, and rapidity,
6
on the other hand, is what we should attempt. However, this applies to any part of
assessment / analysis. In this context, the diversity of actors is to be used in order to
reduce the risk of gaps, duplications, biases, etc.
d) In respect of processes to follow
There should be a “common framework” for defining those processes, including data
collection (tools and sources), analysis, validation of the analysis produced, mechanisms
for sharing and dissemination of those results.
Clear methodologies have to be established, that take into account active stakeholder
participation, consultation, and verification of communities, institutions and local/national
governments.
The importance of having a baseline, of analyzing social aspects as an on-going process,
of focusing on human beings is clear - but, once again, this is not specific to social analysis.
Similarly, the method of data collection should be based on trust and mutual respect vis-àvis the community and civil society organizations and be ethical (although this should be
the case for any kind of data collection in the humanitarian context: this does not apply only
to social analysis activities). The same applies to aspects related to the security of
humanitarian workers and affected people.
The time factor is also to be defined. Social Analysis should be undertaken in the predisaster period and be used as a basic tool in recovery and reconstruction in the postdisaster analysis. Overall a multi-disciplinary approach should be applied to this analysis.
e) Objectives of Social Analysis
►
A social analysis will help to understand the complexity of societies we are working
with and the potential conflicts (political, social, etc.) that may stem from a disaster.
►
Social analysis will provide better decision-making, reduce wrong doings and
increase cost-effectiveness.
►
A social analysis will provide a framework to understand the ways in which people
and communities interact with their socio-cultural, economic and environmental
surroundings, and how this can evolve with time.
►
More specifically, Social Analysis must (and this “must” should be part of any TORs
on that aspect) help us to:
Target programs or interventions;
Improve basic rights recognition / protection;
Enhance risk reduction;
Strengthen existing social mechanisms (like coping) to foster long term
sustainability (strengthening the social system and not just addressing the
symptoms);
Increase ownership of the processes and results by local / national actors;
Develop a “Do no harm” approach;
Assess what could be factors critical to success of the response to disaster;
Identify most vulnerable / “invisibles”;
Better focus the assistance;
Avoid or prevent social conflict.
►
Results level of analysis and details of analysis should be driven by decisions which
need to be taken at each stage of disaster response. In addition, social analysis
must lead to the identification of specific actions to improve the recovery of affected
people.
7
Related initiatives
The workshop presented an opportunity for the participants to familiarise themselves with a
variety of initiatives related to social analysis and rapid assessment. Workshop participants
were asked to prepare posters to share key points from their own organisations’ and
personal experience related to these topics. Posters were also included from several
participants / organisations that were unable to attend the meeting. Presentations were also
made on several broader collaborative initiatives and on key topics of interest as identified
by the participants during the workshop.
The following notes present an overview of these initiatives, drawing on the range of
materials that were presented during the workshop:
All India Disaster Mitigation Institute
Based on its experience working with communities in India that have been affected by large
disasters over the last 10 years, AIDMI has developed a number of innovative tools for
engaging with communities in post-disaster assessment and recovery planning, including
the Community Damage Assessment and Demand Analysis guide at
www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/AIDMI_ELS-33.pdf.
AIDMI has also developed a number of case studies to highlight experience and lessons
learned after specific disasters, such as the one on Integrated Relief and Recovery after
the 2006 Flood in Surat City which is available at
www.southasiadisasters.net/downloads/snet/26 Sad.net Flood Recovery 2006.pdf.
Community Risk Assessment Toolkit (ProVention and other partners)
The CRA Toolkit is a collection of methodologies and case studies on participatory
community risk assessment along with guidance notes to help users identify the most
appropriate assessment methodologies and applications.
At the workshop Ben Wisner also highlighted a number of key aspects in approaching
community risk assessment, including:
►
►
►
►
►
the importance of building on local community knowledge and civil society networks
to take advantage of prior community risk assessment and preparedness planning
that communities may have undertaken
the need to constructively complement local knowledge with external knowledge
and assistance (and to recognise the different technical, social, economic, and
political facets of that knowledge)
the importance of factoring broad dynamic pressures into the analysis and the
challenge to fit CRA into the “project cycle” and to sustain and “scale it up”
the need for trust and respect in this process
the long experience in other fields with similar approaches such as Participatory
Action Research (PAR)
For more information, see the Community
www.proventionconsortium.org/CRA_toolkit.
Risk
Assessment
Toolkit
at
Community Risk Reduction Index (Oxfam)
During the workshop Isabelle Bremaud, the Regional Humanitarian Adviser for Disaster
Risk Reduction for Oxfam GB for Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean, presented
8
an overview of a community risk reduction index that Oxfam developed with partners in
Haiti. This index included 10 parameters covering physical safety, hazard awareness,
organisational preparedness, recovery ability, social capital, psychological resilience,
cultural capital, and political capital.
Oxfam’s current programming also emphasizes contingency planning at both national and
community levels as a key tool for both risk reduction and planning for effect assessment
activities. For more information, see the Risk-Mapping and Local Capacities: Lessons from
Mexico and Central America at
www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/resources/wp_mexca_risk.htm.
Oxfam is also a partner in the Emergency Capacity Building initiative (www.ecbproject.org),
a collaborative effort of seven humanitarian agencies that are jointly tackling common
problems in emergency response and preparedness.
Emergency Food Security Assessment (WFP)
The World Food Programme has developed the Emergency Food Security Assessment to
help identify immediate basic needs for water, food, and health care. This assessment is
meant to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of the impact of disasters or other shocks at
the micro level (community and household) and an analysis of the three dimensions of food
security – availability, access, and utilisation. The assessment itself includes three phases:
initial investigation, rapid assessment, and in-depth follow-up assessment of the situation
and underlying causes.
For more information, see :
►
►
►
the Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook under the Guidelines and
Tools section at www.wfp.org/operations/Emergency_needs/
a resource site for Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping (VAM) at
www.wfp.org/operations/vam/vam_in_action/saf_initial.asp
a review of VAM and other WFP tools at
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp103646.pdf
Health Assessment (PAHO)
The Pan American Health Organisation has a range of resource available about assessing
health impacts after disasters and assessing the capacities of health facilities to respond to
future disaster risks in their ‘Virtual Disaster Library for Disasters’ at
www.helid.desastres.net.
Household Economic Approach (Save the Children)
Recognising that people are vulnerable to different things for different reasons, Save the
Children has developed the Household Economic Approach to provide a quantitative
description of the economy of a defined population and to better predict the effects of
drought and other economic shocks on rural populations and on the ability of households to
maintain their food and non-food consumption. The HEA provides a framework for
developing a contextual picture allowing further interpretation of climatic changes,
nutritional reports, market changes, restricted access to ‘normal’ coping, and any other
information brought for analysis.
For more information, see The Household Economy Approach: A resource manual for
practitioners at www.savethechildren.org.uk/foodsecurity/publications/manual.htm.
9
Needs Assessment in Response (Tsunami Evaluation Coalition)
One of five thematic evaluations undertaken by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition on the
international humanitarian response to the tsunami specifically “evaluates the adequacy,
appropriateness and effectiveness of the assessment the first three months after the
tsunami. It focuses on the impact of assessment on the response of international agencies
and institutional donors and, ultimately, on the affected populations".
For more information, see “The Role of Needs Assessment in the Tsunami Response” at
www.tsunami-evaluation.org/The+TEC+Thematic+Evaluations/needs.
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA)
UNDP, ILO, and ECLAC are currently
leading an initiative to develop an
improved set of tools for post-disaster
needs assessment. The primary
purpose of the PDNA is to provide all
actors in the recovery process,
including national and local authorities,
international agencies and local
communities, with a multi-sectoral,
technical overview of the damage and
loss patterns and the principal
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs
and priorities to be addressed during
post disaster recovery. The PDNA will
also ensure smooth transition and
better articulation between emergency
response and early recovery.
Recovery needs (fill the gap from immediate response
to reconstruction in order to reduce losses)
Plans
and
Programmes
After
Quick and dirty
(Flash appeal)
Local level
Area based
Community
Driven
Recovery
Framework
(Donors
Conference)
Reconstruction
Strategy
(IFIs working
Group)
3-7 days
2 weeks
1 month
2-3 months
Source : Ricardo Zapata, ECLAC, 2007 presentation
Disaster
management
agencies, OCHA,
IFRC, local Red
Cross/Crescent,
NGOs, bilateral
donors (OFDA,
ECHO, etc.)
Risk and
vulnerability
assessments
Meteorological and
geographic hazard
mapping (national,
regional, international
sources), GIS, remote
sensing, statistical
series, etc.
Existing response
plans, resources,
capacities,
communities at risk,
etc.
Disaster damage
and losses data
Preparedness:
prepositioned
shelters, supplies,
evacuation and
response plans, etc.
Emergency relief
information (affected
population,
mortality/morbidity,
shelters, wat/san,
nutrition, health, etc.)
10
NEEDS
Before
Statistical offices,
economic and social
indicators
Source : Ricardo Zapata, ECLAC, 2007 presentation
NEEDS
EMERGENCY
Base line data
Strategic planning
recovery and
reconstruction
framework
Needs Assessment
NEEDS
EMERGENCY AND
HUMANTIARIAN
RESPONSE
(immediate)
Improved
preparedness, early
warning, organization
and training, capacity
building
Reconstruction
Development
Emergency
Response
Data
PRE DISASTER (from
early warning to
immediate coping)
Needs
assessment
Post Disaster
Recovery
RECOVERY PHASE
(immediate or early to
short term)
RECONSTRUCTION
PHASE (short to long
term)
DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
Economic, technical
and sector capacities,
financing needs and
gaps
HDI, MDGs,
Country’s
development
strategy, CAS, etc.
Financial ministries,
international financial
institutions, donors and
NGOs (consultative
groups, donor
conferences, etc.)
Planning ministries,
inline ministries,
UNDP, IFIs, donors
and NGOs
Reconstruction needs
based on dialogue
/negotiation with
affected community /
population /
geographical or political
unit / countrywide
Improved resilience,
risk reduction,
transfer and
inclusion of risk
appropriation to
development
framework
Hotspots, GRIP (as
information provider)
PDNA
Damage and loss
assessment and
damage and needs
identified sectoral
and at local level
Development of
programmes,
projects and actions
Implementation,
monitoring, evaluation
and re-assessment
For more information, see:
►
Results of January 2006 PDNA planning meeting in Rome, Italy www.recoveryplatform.org/rome.html.
Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment (Benfield Hazard Research
Centre)
Charles Kelly at the Benfield Hazard Research Centre, and in collaboration with CARE and
other partners, has been developing a set of resources to guide Rapid Environmental
Impact Assessment, including analysis of both the affected communities and the
organisations involved in the response and recovery. This work has been developed
around a set of core lessons learned from past disasters:
►
►
►
►
►
environmental conditions often contribute to disasters
disaster generate significant volumes of debris and recovery can’t start until the
debris is removed
relief and recovery aid can have a positive or negative environmental impact
failure to systematically incorporate environmental impact assessment can
jeopardize disaster management efforts
there is presumption that recovery will not have new negative environmental
impacts if something which was already existing is just being replaced
For more information, see the resources on Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in
disaster response at www.benfieldhrc.org/rea_index.htm.
Kelly also mentioned a set of other related resources:
►
Fast Environmental Assessment Tool (Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit) – in
design
►
Framework for Assessing, Monitoring and Evaluating the Environment in Refugeerelated Operations (UNHCR/CARE) –
www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/rea/rea_unhcr_framework.htm
►
The Common Guidelines and Methodology for Rapid Field Assessment (IUCN) –
www.iucn.org/tsunami/docs/rapid-terrestrial-assessment-guidelines-revised-2.pdf
►
Brown/Green Assessments –
http://tsunami.obeysekera.net/Presentations/jayaweera.pdf
►
Natural Hazard Environmental Impact Assessment (Caribbean Development
Bank) – www.caribank.org/Publications.nsf/EIASourceBook/$File/SourceBook5.pdf
Recovery Index (UN University – Institute for Environment and
Human Security)
Together with the University of Colombo and other partners, UNU-EHS developed a
“recovery index” in Sri Lanka that was a measure of recovery potential based on the
estimated reconstruction cost of each house (by damage category) divided by the free
available income of the household. The survey showed significant differences in the
percentage of households needing more than 2 years to recover between the towns of Gall
and Batticaloa. The survey also showed significant differences in projected recovery times
among households with different primary job or livelihood types.
For more information, see a summary of the project at
www.unisdr.org/ppew/tsunami/highlights/Summary-UNU-EHS-VulAss.pdf.
11
REDLAC Rapid Assessment
The REDLAC partners in Latin America have drafted a methodology and tools of rapid
humanitarian impact assessment to better support the develop of joint initiatives for disaster
response that maximize the use of existing resources and have the greatest impact on
preventing and mitigating vulnerability to future disasters.
For more information, contact Douglas Reimer at the REDLAC Risk, Emergency and
Disaster Task Force in Panama (see http://ochaonline2.un.org/Default.aspx?tabid=8223 for
contact information).
Regional governmental organisations (representing national
governments)
Inter-institutional networks for disaster risk reduction and disaster response have a key role
to play, particularly in terms of engaging national governments and promoting policy
commitment to comprehensive assessment as the foundation for both pre-disaster risk
reduction planning and post-disaster recovery planning.
For more information, see the following sites:
►
►
►
Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA) -- www.cdera.org
Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América
(CEPREDENAC) -- www.cepredenac.org
Comité Andino para la Prevención y Atención de Desastres (CAPRADE) -www.caprade.org
Social Impact Assessment
The body of work on Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was also suggested as a point of
reference in considering what standards and norms should be set for social analysis in
rapid assessment. SIA also brings the element of considering the impact of response and
recovery interventions themselves on conditions of vulnerability.
For more information, see the following sites:
►
►
►
IAIA International Principles for Social Impact Assessment at
www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Guidelines_Principles/SP2.pdf
IAIA Public Participation Best Practice Principles at
www.iaia.org/Non_Members/Pubs_Ref_Material/SP4%20web.pdf
ProVention Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction guidance note on
Social Impact Assessment at
www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/tools_for_mainstreaming_GN11
.pdf
Tool for Participatory Assessment in Operations (UNHCR)
UNHCR, working with several partner organisations has developed a tool to support
UNHCR Branch and Field Offices in conducting participatory assessments together with
partners. The focus is on understanding protection issues and their underlying causes and
engaging different segments of the community in planning processes to create rights-based
and community-based programmes. The tool covers a range of components in situation
analysis including analysis of existing information, participatory assessment, and
participatory planning.
12
For more information, see the UNHCR Tool for Participatory Assessment in Operations at
www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/450e963f2.html.
UNICEF
UNICEF has developed a range of tools for assessing protection, health, nutrition,
education, HIV, and water & sanitation issues after disasters. For more information, see the
UNICEF Emergency Field Handbook at www.unicef.org/publications/index_28057.html.
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (IFRC)
The IFRC has developed a programme and set of tools for working with communities to
identify vulnerabilities to disaster risks and capacities for implementing effective risk
reduction measures. The approach focuses on active participation of key community
stakeholders to enable them to identify and prioritise needs (which are not always as
obvious as they seem). Now in use for more than 10 years, these tools are being used in
increasingly effective ways to better understand various dimensions of vulnerability and to
link post-disaster rapid assessment to previous knowledge of risk.
During the workshop Walter Cotte from the Columbian Red Cross also shared a model
outlining the interrelationship between capacity and system variables:
Approach
System
Will
Reduction
Means
Response
Qualification
Recovery
In addition, the IFRC is committed to increased partnering in assessment activities, which
was highlighted by a number of the Red Cross partners from the region and by Cynthia
Burton drawing on the experience of the IFRC collaboration with the World Bank and other
partners in Yogyakarta (described in more detail below).
For more information, see the
►
►
IFRC guide to vulnerability and capacity assessment at
www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/CRA/VCA1999_meth.pdf
IFRC Guidelines for Emergency Assessment at
www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/71600-Guidelines-foremergency-en.pdf
The World Bank
The World Bank uses the ECLAC methodology on a regular basis to estimate the broad range
of disaster impacts and their implications on the economic and social sectors, physical
infrastructure, and environmental assets. Recognising the need to strengthen relationships
and capacity for social sector analysis and coordination, the World Bank is also seeking to
establish more effective partnering in assessment and has recently issued a revised policy on
emergency response and recovery assistance. The ECLAC manual is available at
http://www.eclac.cl/cgi-bin/getProd.asp?xml=/publicaciones/xml/4/12774/P12774.xml.
After the earthquake in Yogyakarta in May 2006, the World Bank worked closely with the
IFRC to integrate assessment information on social impacts being undertaken by NGOs
through community surveys into the comprehensive Bank and government-led assessment
13
process. This cooperation was viewed to have been quite successful in terms of raising the
profile of risk reduction in World Bank planning and in linking the broader socio-economic
analysis of the World Bank to the assessment activities being undertaken by NGOs and
other organisations at community levels and across a broad range of sectoral topics.
The World Bank Institute offers several training modules on assessment, including the
Introduction to Damage and Reconstruction Needs Assessment Toolkit at
http://vle.worldbank.org/gdln/dm/start.htm.
14
Workshop feedback and learning
As highlighted earlier, there was strong feedback from the participants that one of the
principal values of the workshop was in enabling and encouraging stronger networking on
the topic. Participants also brought with them a wide variety of materials, tools, and
methodologies to share and promote. Beyond this basic sharing of existing resources,
another intention of the workshop was to raise new ideas and present an opportunity to
challenge current practice. Certainly with the PDNA initiative and other broader initiatives
that are being pursued at the moment, there is an opportunity to advocate and influence
both policy-making and programme planning to ensure greater attention to social analysis.
The workshop traced the agenda needed for change and improvement through a series of
breakout activities and small group discussions. Highlights from those discussions are
presented below:
Reasons why we don’t do social analysis now
►
►
►
►
Predominance of “emergency paradigm” and perceived lack of time
Lack of frameworks, tools, organizational culture, and institutional
demand
Lack of trained, capable, and expert staff
Misconception of what social analysis means
Components of a Good Social Analysis (outlined on p.5)
Mistakes to avoid when undertaking social analysis
►
►
►
►
►
►
To assume it’s not feasible given the constraints
Oversimplification; not having a clear analytical framework
Orienting the analysis in only one dimension (e.g. gender,
protection) and leaving out other sectors; lack of balance between
the specific and the general
Trying (too hard) to quantify the social impact
Duplication of work
Failure to partner to augment capacities and draw in local expertise,
especially from the communities themselves and from local
development professionals
Needs to address key challenges and impediments
►
►
►
►
►
►
Mechanisms for breaking down ongoing isolation and ‘silo’-isation
Improved evidence and indicators to “establish qualitative analysis
in quantitative basis” and to talk in terms of the bottom line with the
International Financial Institutions and governments
Better coordination and use of resources, including leveraging of
new resources
More standardization and shared forums for analysis
Better solutions for upscaling once pilots have been completed
Improved validation of our own information
Recommendations and Next Steps (outlined on p. 3)
15
Annex 1. Participants list
Participants
Angeles Arenas
Margaret Arnold
Isabelle Bremaud
Cynthia Burton
Walter Cotte
Giorgio Ferrario
Charles Kelly
Lucien Jaggi
Margarita Lovon
Stephen McAndrew
Ian O'Donnell
Claudio Osorio
Leo Prop
Douglas Reimer
Raúl Rodríguez Soto
Anna Maria Selleri
Alejandro Santander
Marjorie Soto Franco
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Miguel Vega
Ricardo Zapata
UNDP, Panama
World Bank
OXFAM GB, Guatemala
IFRC - Recovery Coordinator, Geneva
Columbian Red Cross
IFRC - Regional Delegation, Lima
Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre
WFP
WFP
IFRC - PADRU, Panama
ProVention
UNICEF
IFRC - Regional Delegation, Panama
OCHA, Panama
Plan
IFRC - Shelter Department, Geneva
PAHO
IFRC - Operations Support Department,
Geneva
CEPREDENAC
Independent consultant / Oberlin
College
Salvadorean Red Cross
ECLAC
Facilitators
Ana Urgoiti Aristegui
Christophe Lanord
Independent consultant
Independent consultant
[email protected]
[email protected]
Admininstration
Jenisse Rosales
Krystell Santamaría
[email protected]
[email protected]
UNDP - BCPR, Geneva
UN University, Institute for
Environment and Human Security
IADB, Washington
ICRC - Economic Security Department,
Geneva
UNHCR, Geneva
WFP, Rome
UNDP - BCPR, Geneva
World Bank
Save the Children, U.K.
ISDR, Panama
Save the Children, East Africa
WFP
[email protected]
[email protected]
Linda Stops
Walter Wintzer
Ben Wisner
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Others Interested
Ola Almgren
Mihir Bhatt
Joern Birkmann
Caroline Clark
Sandrine Delattre
Julianne DiNenna
Anette Haller
Hossein Kalali
Francis Muraya
Michael O'Donnell
Haris Sanahuja
Buzz Sharp
Piero Terranera
16
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Annex 2. « Componentes de un Buen Análisis
Social »: un intento de ordenar las ideas
Este documento de trabajo fue elaborado durante el Taller en “Fortalecer el Análisis Social
en las evaluaciones rápidas de impacto y vulnerabilidad tras el desastre” celebrado en
Panamá entre el 29 y 31 de Enero de 2007. Pretende capturar los comentarios que
realizaron las personas que participaron en dicho Taller sobre un borrador previo.
1) “Análisis social”: ¿de qué estamos hablando?
En el contexto de este taller, estamos hablando de un “Buen Análisis Social en las
evaluaciones rápidas de impacto y vulnerabilidad tras el desastre”. Lo que no es lo
mismo que:
►
►
►
►
todo tipo de análisis en las ciencias sociales;
todo tipo de análisis en las evaluaciones rápidas de impacto y vulnerabilidad tras el
desastre;
otros tipos de análisis social en evaluaciones de impacto y vulnerabilidad, sea
antes o mucho después del desastre;
la evaluación en sí misma: una evaluación puede incluir o no análisis social, pero
es diferente del análisis mismo.
Además, estamos hablando sobre analizar datos: algunos de los datos a ser analizados
pueden estar disponibles antes del desastre. En otras palabras, no deberíamos confundir
los datos recopilados durante una evaluación por los equipos del terreno con los datos
relativos ala situación social del área o país afectado. En cualquier caso, por supuesto,
ambos tipos de datos deben ser leídos de forma conjunta.
En un primer momento tras el desastre, necesitamos tener toda la información relevante
que podrá nutrir nuestras decisiones inmediatas, pero también podemos empezar a
recopilar información que será importante para los procesos de recuperación,
reconstrucción, desarrollo… que vendrán después. De hecho, el análisis social no debe
ser visto como una actividad separada que sólo ocurre tras las actividades humanitarias de
socorro, sino que pueden suceder de forma simultánea, dada la significante inter-relación
entre socorro y recuperación.
De forma similar, el impacto del desastre en los aspectos sociales debe ser diferenciado
del impacto de la respuesta humanitaria en esos mismos aspectos (sea el impacto posible
o el real). De todas formas, el análisis social iniciado en la primera parte de la respuesta
debería cubrir ambos aspectos, para facilitar el diseño de la respuesta.
Una definición sobre Análisis Social en este contexto que nos sirva para trabajar podría
incluir los siguientes elementos:
Un análisis social es una investigación, recopilación y manejo de información que incluye
elementos como las características sociales de la población y la localidad a la que nos
estamos dirigiendo: el tamaño y localización de la población, cuestiones étnicas, hogares e
ingresos, infraestructura, relaciones de poder al interior del hogar, en la comunidad y otras
más amplias, organización de la sociedad civil y de la administración del estado,
relaciones con actores clave de la comunidad, identificación de capacidades, educación,
salud pública, nivel de conflicto y naturaleza de los mecanismos de gestión de conflictos y
cuestiones culturales. Esta información debe ser construida sobre la base de una
participación multitemática, contando con los sectores privado y público y la comunidad.
17
2)
Posibles componentes del Análisis Social (compilación de datos
y análisis en sí mismo)
Necesitamos resaltar que algunos de los elementos que siguen no son específicos al
análisis social, pero están relacionados con cualquier evaluación, ¡incluso aquellas que no
incorporan la dimensión del análisis social! Este documento, de cualquier forma, no
pretende definir los elementos que son específicos y aquellos que son de aplicación a
cualquier evaluación.
a) Respecto a condiciones previas
Los recursos financieros, ambientales y humanos (incluyendo, capacidad y conocimiento,
por ejemplo, el capital social de la comunidad) deben estar disponibles. Los diferentes
actores deben tener la voluntad de emprender este análisis y trabajar con las
comunidades, grupos y organizaciones de la sociedad civil local para asegurar que ven el
valor que tiene este análisis y se involucren en el proceso. Además, debe existir la
intención por parte los actores de compartir esta información entre ellos. El análisis social
funciona mejor cuando no se realiza de forma independiente por parte de varios actores
aislados unos de otros, sino cuando se realiza en un espíritu de cooperación y de
compartir la información (incluso con “aquellos que están siendo objeto del análisis”). Hay
que negociar y comprender de forma clara la apropiación de los datos y del conocimiento.
Entre otras precondiciones, el análisis social debería:
►
tener un sólido enlace con el trabajo de reducción de riesgos (incluyendo las
causas y dinámicas subyacentes);
►
identificar conocimientos locales;
►
utilizar herramientas y datos ya existentes, por ejemplo el IDH;
►
permitir el desarrollo de indicadores de vulnerabilidad.
b) Respecto a los principios en los que se basa el análisis social
Todos los principios y estándares que guían la acción humanitaria (Ej.: imparcialidad,
derechos humanos, Código de Conducta, normas de Esfera y de INEE, valores y principios
específicos de cada actor, como los enfoques basados en derechos y necesidades, etc.)
deberían aplicarse a las actividades de análisis social – no hay una razón especial para
hacer una categoría aparte. De cualquier modo, dada la especial sensibilidad de algunas
cuestiones sociales, necesitamos reafirmar y enfatizar la imparcialidad, la neutralidad, la
humanidad, la universalidad y la protección de las personas informantes.
Hay que garantizar la apropiación del proceso, de las decisiones y del resultado por parte
de la comunidad y de actores locales y nacionales.
c) Respecto a ejemplos de datos a ser recopilados
Podemos encontrar diferentes niveles de análisis social: macro (nacional), meso
(local/comunidad/sub-nacional) y micro (hogares). El proceso debería asegurar que
personas como personas marginadas, (más) vulnerables, personas que viven con una
discapacidad, niños y niñas, personas afectadas por VIH/SIDA, “invisibles”, personas de
edad avanzada, indígenas, sin tierra (y otras categorías) están incluidas en el proceso. De
cualquier forma, habría que asegurarse que este análisis no nos hace estereotipar a nadie.
Un gran número de factores podrían ser considerados: culturales, económicos, políticos,
relaciones de poder, medioambientales (incluyendo las relaciones entre seres humanos y
su entorno natural en un contexto concreto), estructuras de toma de decisiones, religiosos,
étnicos, cuestiones de género, interrelaciones entre edades diferentes, posibles conflictos.
Hay otros aspectos como mecanismos y estrategias de afrontamiento, vulnerabilidad a
peligros específicos, capacidades locales, hogares, que también deberían ser
considerados.
18
Por supuesto, el listado de posibles datos que podrían ser recolectados es inmenso. Hay
que establecer prioridades. También, es imperativo utilizar todas las fuentes de
información pre-existentes pero “triangulando”.
De cualquier modo, el proceso debe ser visto de forma incremental, no un informe con
todas las respuestas. Más aún, el análisis social debe ser realizable: un enfoque estilo
“good enough” podría ser adoptado. Un balance entre exhaustividad y precisión, de un
lado, y rapidez, de otro lado, es a lo que deberíamos tender. De cualquier modo, esto se
aplica a cualquier parte de una evaluación / análisis. En este contexto, la diversidad de
actores se puede utilizar para reducir la posibilidad de vacíos, duplicaciones, sesgos, et
d) Respecto al proceso a seguir
Debería existir un “marco común” para definir esos procesos, incluyendo la recolección de
datos (herramientas y fuentes), análisis, validación del análisis producido, mecanismos
para compartir y difundir esos resultados.
Deben establecerse metodologías claras, que tengan en cuenta la participación activa de
todos los interesados, consultas, verificación, etc. por parte de las comunidades,
instituciones y gobiernos nacionales y locales.
Es clara la importancia de tener unas líneas de base, de analizar los aspectos sociales de
forma continuada y de enfocarse en el ser humano, pero – de nuevo – éstos no son
elementos específicos del análisis social.
De forma similar, el método utilizado para recolectar datos debe estar basado en la
confianza y mutuo respeto vis a vis la comunidad y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y
ser ético (aunque este debería ser el caso para cualquier clase de recolección de datos en
el contexto humanitario: esto no se aplica únicamente a las actividades de análisis social).
Lo mismo diríamos para los aspectos relacionados con la seguridad de los trabajadores
humanitarios y de las personas afectadas.
El factor tiempo es una cuestión por definir. Debe impulsarse en tiempos previos al desastre
y ser utilizado como información de base para la recuperación y reconstrucción en el
análisis post-desastre.
Habría que incorporar un enfoque multidisciplinar a los análisis.
e) Objetivos del análisis social
►
Un análisis social nos ayudará a comprender la complejidad de las sociedades con las
que trabajamos y los posibles conflictos (políticos, sociales, etc.) que se pueden derivar
tras el desastre.
►
El análisis social proporcionará una mejor toma de decisiones, reducirá los errores
e incrementará el coste-efectividad.
►
Un análisis social nos proporcionará el marco para entender las formas en las que
las personas y las comunidades interactúan en su entrono socio-cultural,
económico y medioambiental, y cómo esta interacción evoluciona con el tiempo
►
De manera más específica, un análisis social deberá (y este “deberá” debería
formar parte de cualquier ToR en este aspecto) ayudarnos a:
Definir programas e intervenciones;
Mejorar el reconocimiento o la protección de derechos básicos;
Promover la reducción de riesgos;
Fortalecer mecanismos sociales existentes (como el afrontamiento) para
promover sostenibilidad a largo plazo (fortalecer el sistema social y no sólo
solucionar sus síntomas) ;
Incrementar la apropiación de los procesos y los resultados por parte de los
actores locales y nacionales;
19

►
Desarrollar un enfoque de “No dañar”;
Identificar cuales podrían ser los factores críticos para el éxito de la
respuesta al desastre.
Identificar a los más vulnerables /invisibles
Focalizar mejor la asistencia
Evitar o prevenir conflictos sociales
El nivel de detalle y de resultados del análisis debería ser decidido en cada fase de
la respuesta de emergencia. Además, el análisis social debe llevarnos a la
identificación de acciones específicas para mejorar la recuperación de la población
afectada.
Compilado por Ana Urgoiti y Christophe Lanord
Basado en las contribuciones de las personas que participaron en el taller
01/02/07
20
List of acronyms
AIDMI
CAPRADE
Comité Andino para la Prevención y Atención de Desastres
CDB
Caribbean Development Bank
CEPAL
Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (see also ECLAC)
CEPREDENAC
Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en
América
CRA
Community Risk Assessment
ECLAC
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (see also
CEPAL)
IADB
Inter-American Development Bank
IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
ILO
International Labour Organization
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
OCHA
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
PADRU
Pan-American Disaster Response Unit (of the IFRC)
PAHO
Pan-American Health Organisation
PAR
Participatory Action Research
PDNA
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment
RELAC
Risk, Emergency, and Disasters Task Force of the Regional Inter-Agency
Standing Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean
SIA
Social Impact Assessment
TEC
Tsunami Evaluation Coalition
TIG
Topic interest group
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nationals Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF
United Nations Children's Fund
UNU-EHS
United Nations University – Institute for Environment and Human Security
VAM
Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping
VCA
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment
WFP
World Food Programme
21
12/2007 E200
The ProVention Consortium is a
global coalition of international
organisations, governments,
academic institutions, the private
sector and civil society
organisations dedicated to
reducing the risk and social,
economic and environmental
impacts of natural hazards on
vulnerable populations in
developing countries.

Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

If it`s a medical emergency, call 9-1

Los manos invisibles que nos alimentan

As from September, K3 started to implement the "Reading

Cambridge English - The English Institute