Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment

Transcripción

1 Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Impact and Vulnerability Assessment Guatemala Hurricane Stan aftermath, October (Guatemalan Red Cross) Workshop Report Panama, January 2007

2

3 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 ) Análisis social : de qué estamos hablando? ) 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

4 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 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

5 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: Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 3

6 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 Develop a compendium or mapping of related activities 4

7 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 Post- Disaster 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. Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 5

8 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

9 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. Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 7

10 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 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 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 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

11 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 Oxfam is also a partner in the Emergency Capacity Building initiative ( 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 a resource site for Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping (VAM) at a review of VAM and other WFP tools at 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 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 Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 9

12 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 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. Plans and Programmes Data Recovery needs (fill the gap from immediate response to reconstruction in order to reduce losses) EMERGENCY Before Emergency Response NEEDS Quick and dirty (Flash appeal) 3-77 days Post Disaster Recovery NEEDS Reconstruction Development Needs Assessment Local level Area based Community Driven 2 weeks NEEDS 1 month After Recovery Reconstruction Framework Strategy (Donors (IFIs working Conference) Group) Source : Ricardo Zapata, ECLAC, 2007 presentation 2-33 months PRE DISASTER (from early warning to immediate coping) EMERGENCY AND HUMANTIARIAN RESPONSE (immediate) RECOVERY PHASE (immediate or early to short term) RECONSTRUCTION PHASE (short to long term) DEVELOPMENT AGENDA Base line data Statistical offices, economic and social indicators Disaster management agencies, OCHA, IFRC, local Red Cross/Crescent, NGOs, bilateral donors (OFDA, ECHO, etc.) Economic, technical and sector capacities, financing needs and gaps HDI, MDGs, Country s development strategy, CAS, 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. Hotspots, GRIP (as information provider) 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.) PDNA Financial ministries, international financial institutions, donors and NGOs (consultative groups, donor conferences, etc.) Planning ministries, inline ministries, UNDP, IFIs, donors and NGOs Needs assessment Improved preparedness, early warning, organization and training, capacity building Damage and loss assessment and damage and needs identified sectoral and at local level 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 Strategic planning recovery and reconstruction framework Development of programmes, projects and actions Implementation, monitoring, evaluation and re-assessment Source : Ricardo Zapata, ECLAC, 2007 presentation 10

13 For more information, see: Results of January 2006 PDNA planning meeting in Rome, Italy - 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 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) The Common Guidelines and Methodology for Rapid Field Assessment (IUCN) Brown/Green Assessments Natural Hazard Environmental Impact Assessment (Caribbean Development Bank) 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 Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 11

14 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 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) -- Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres Naturales en América (CEPREDENAC) -- Comité Andino para la Prevención y Atención de Desastres (CAPRADE) -- 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 IAIA Public Participation Best Practice Principles at ProVention Tools for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction guidance note on Social Impact Assessment at 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

15 For more information, see the UNHCR Tool for Participatory Assessment in Operations at 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 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 Will Means Qualification System Reduction Response 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 IFRC Guidelines for Emergency Assessment at 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 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 Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 13

16 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 14

17 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) Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 15

18 Annex 1. Participants list Participants Angeles Arenas UNDP, Panama Margaret Arnold World Bank Isabelle Bremaud OXFAM GB, Guatemala Cynthia Burton IFRC - Recovery Coordinator, Geneva cynthia.burton@ifrc.org Walter Cotte Columbian Red Cross walter.cotte@cruzrojacolombiana.org Giorgio Ferrario IFRC - Regional Delegation, Lima georgio.ferrario@ifrc.org Charles Kelly Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre @compuserve.com Lucien Jaggi WFP lucien.jaggi@wfp.org Margarita Lovon WFP Margarita.Lovon@wfp.org Stephen McAndrew IFRC - PADRU, Panama stephen.mcandrew@ifrc.org Ian O'Donnell ProVention ian.odonnell@ifrc.org Claudio Osorio UNICEF cosorio@unicef.org Leo Prop IFRC - Regional Delegation, Panama leon.prop@ifrc.org Douglas Reimer OCHA, Panama reimer@un.org Raúl Rodríguez Soto Plan raul.rodriguez@plan-international.org Anna Maria Selleri IFRC - Shelter Department, Geneva am.selleri@ifrc.org Alejandro Santander PAHO santanda@paho.org Marjorie Soto Franco IFRC - Regional Delegation, Panama marjorie.sotofranco@ifrc.org Linda Stops IFRC - Operations Support Department, Geneva linda.stops@ifrc.org Walter Wintzer CEPREDENAC wwintzer@cepredenac.org Ben Wisner Independent consultant / Oberlin College bwisner@igc.org Miguel Vega Salvadorean Red Cross miguel.vega@cruzrojasal.org.sv Ricardo Zapata ECLAC Ricardo.ZAPATA@cepal.org Facilitators Ana Urgoiti Aristegui Independent consultant anaurar@yahoo.es Christophe Lanord Independent consultant christophe@lanord.com Admininstration Jenisse Rosales IFRC - Regional Delegation, Panama jenisse.rosales@ifrc.org Krystell Santamaría IFRC - Regional Delegation, Panama krystell.santamaria@ifrc.org Others Interested Ola Almgren UNDP - BCPR, Geneva ola.almgren@undp.org Mihir Bhatt All India Disaster Mitigation Institute dmi@icenet.co.in Joern Birkmann UN University, Institute for Environment and Human Security birkmann@ehs.unu.edu Caroline Clark IADB, Washington carolinec@iadb.org Sandrine Delattre ICRC - Economic Security Department, Geneva sdelattre@icrc.org Julianne DiNenna UNHCR, Geneva dinenna@unhcr.org Anette Haller WFP, Rome anette.haller@wfp.org Hossein Kalali UNDP - BCPR, Geneva hossein.kalali@undp.org Francis Muraya World Bank fmuraya@worldbank.org Michael O'Donnell Save the Children, U.K. m.odonnell@savethechildren.org.uk Haris Sanahuja ISDR, Panama hsanahuja@eird.org Buzz Sharp Save the Children, East Africa B.Sharp@scuk.or.ke Piero Terranera WFP piero.terranera@wfp.org 16

19 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 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. Strengthening the Social Analysis Component in Rapid Assessment workshop 17

20 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