ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN POSTDISASTER SITUATIONS A PRACTICAL GUIDE

environmental needs assessment in post-disaster situations a practical guide for implementation draft 1 decem

ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN POST-DISASTER SITUATIONS
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
DRAFT
1 December 2007
United Nations Environment Programme
NOTE
This draft guide is intended as a first step towards elaborating a
systematic approach to addressing and assessing environmental impacts
and concerns following natural disasters – especially those issues
which might have a negative impact on the safety and welfare of
people. The guide has been primarily designed to inform and influence
the early recovery process. It is intended as a pilot tool and will be
revised further as field tests are carried out. Drafting of the manual
has included input from many international agencies and individuals
and thanks are expressed to them. The manual also draws on a number of
published resources listed in the Bibliography.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Environment in a Post-disaster Context
1.3 Environmental Needs Assessment
2. THIS GUIDE
2.1 Overview
2.2 Intended Audience
3. THE PROCESS
3.1 Background
3.2 The Environmental Needs Assessment Team
3.3 Outline Steps of the ENA Process
4. ENA PracticalITIES – Getting Started
4.1 Phase I Pre-disaster Baseline
4.1.1 Overview
4.1.2 Recording information
4.2 Phase II Situation Analysis and Site Assessment
4.2.1 Overview
4.2.2 Recording information
4.3 Phase III Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation
4.3.1 Overview
4.3.2 Recording information
5. USING ENA DATA FOR PLANNING EARLY RECOVERY
6. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
FEEDBACK
Annex I Draft Terms of Reference for Team Leader
Annex II Draft Format for ENA Report
ABBREVIATIONS
ENA Environmental Needs Assessment
ENAT Environmental Needs Assessment Team
ER Early Recovery (as part of the IASC Cluster System)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations)
GIS Geographical Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
HIC Humanitarian Information Centre
IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee
NGO non-governmental organisation
PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
GLOSSARY
Biodiversity – Biodiversity, or biological diversity, is the
variability among living organisms
From all sources including inter alia terrestrial, marine and aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part.
Carrying capacity – The maximum number of a given organism, or
population, that a particular environment can sustain.
Consultation – A two-way exchange of information, comments, ideas and
suggestions. Consultation outputs are considered as inputs for
decision-making; they must be taken into account, but need not
determine decisions.
Disaster – A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a
society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental
losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society
to cope using its own resources.
Displaced persons – persons who, for different reasons or
circumstances, have been compelled to leave their homes. They may or
may not reside in their country of origin, but are not legally
regarded as refugees.
Early recovery – Recovery that begins early in a humanitarian setting.
Early recovery is not intended as a separate phase within the
relief-development continuum, but rather as an effort to strengthen
the effectiveness of the linkage. Early recovery encompasses
livelihoods, shelter, governance, environment and social dimensions,
including the re-integration of displaced populations.
Ecologically sensitive area – Habitats such as wetlands, aquifer
recharge zones, important wildlife habitats and so forth which are, or
might be, sensitive to degradation or destruction by human activities.
Ecosystem – A functional unit consisting of all the living organisms
(plants, animals and microbes) in a given area, as well as the
non-living physical and chemical factors of their environment, linked
together through nutrient cycling and energy flow. An ecosystem can be
of any size – a log, pond, field, forest, or the Earth’s biosphere –
but it always functions as a whole unit. Ecosystems are commonly
described according to the main type of vegetation (e.g. forest
ecosystem, old-growth ecosystem or range ecosystem).
Ecosystem integrity – The degree to which the fundamental ecological
processes (e.g. water and nutrient cycling, the flow of energy and
biodiversity) are maintained.
Ecosystem services – The benefits which an ecosystem provides, which
include storing water, preventing soil erosion, nutrient recycling and
serving as a source of genetic diversity.
Participation – A process by which stakeholders are active and equal
partners in decision-making, and may have shared ownership and control
over project/programme design and implementation (and also eventual
evaluation).
Protected area – Portions of land protected by special restrictions
and laws for the conservation of the natural environment. They include
large tracts of land set aside for the protection of wildlife and its
habitat; areas of great natural beauty or unique interest; areas
containing rare forms of plant and animal life; areas representing
unusual geologic formations; places of historic and prehistoric
interest; areas containing ecosystems of special importance for
scientific investigation and study; and areas that safeguard the needs
of the biosphere.
Rehabilitation – The full, or at least partial, restoration of
degraded landscapes and/or impaired ecosystem services to their state
prior, for example, to the site being occupied as a site for
transitional shelter for displaced people.
Transitional settlement – settlement and shelter resulting from
conflict and natural disasters, ranging from emergency response to
durable solutions.
Vulnerability – The extent to which a community, structure, service or
geographic area is likely to be damaged or disrupted by the impact of
a particular hazard.
Water catchment – An area, often a combination of mountain ranges and
basins, that ‘catches’ rainfall or snow. Water from rain or snowmelt
is absorbed into the soil and stored in underground reservoirs, or is
fed into a river, aquifer, or lake.
World Heritage Site – A designated and protected site of great
cultural significance or a geographic area of outstanding universal
value.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
During and after any crisis, decision-makers at the national and
international levels rely on rapidly acquired information to analyse
impacts, set priorities, identify gaps, plan early recovery responses,
mobilise resources and engage in advocacy. Timely and well-founded
information on post-disaster environmental impacts and possible risks
to health, livelihoods and the environment and ecosystem services is
an invaluable contribution to these efforts.
Despite a growing recognition of the important links between the
environment and other life-supporting sectors and systems,
environmental information to inform decision making is often
unavailable or inaccessible in a post-crisis situation. National
databases may have ceased to function or census data may be outdated.
The capacity of relevant state institutions may also be weakened,
poorly resourced and in serious need of support. Insecurity or poor
communication with affected areas may also constrain access to primary
data, while competing interests or priorities can also hamper the
gathering of vital information. Often, therefore, despite good
intentions, environmental considerations are often overlooked.
Despite these challenges, the objectives and priorities for early
recovery must be based on a timely and well-grounded assessment of
identifiable needs, including those relating to the environment.
Although a number of tools and mechanisms exist for assessing and
analysing humanitarian relief and broader recovery needs, none has yet
been developed or adapted to provide a sound or timely methodological
guidance for early recovery needs with regards the environment1.
Furthermore, no instruments are available for ensuring that early
recovery support is linked with considerations for safeguarding the
environment and the services it provides.
The development of a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) methodology
by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Early Recovery Cluster
provides an opportunity to address this gap. Within this framework,
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been requested to
take the lead in developing a post-emergency environmental needs
assessment method in order to fully integrate environmental needs
within early recovery programming.
2.
ENVIRONMENT IN A POST-DISASTER CONTEXT
The cause-effect relationship between environmental degradation,
poverty and disasters is complex and has been the subject of many
analyses. All signs, however, show that the number of
environment-related disasters is currently on the increase, with
flooding expected to be among the highest of future predictions. As
the many ramifications of a changing global climate also become more
apparent, it must be expected that certain zones which to date may not
have experienced serious impacts of natural disasters may in future
become more vulnerable to such events.
Predicting natural disasters is a growing area of research. The scale
of human suffering however in post disaster situations is rarely
considered ahead of a disaster occurring. In some cases, this places
an immediate extra burden on perhaps already damaged or degraded
environmental services for the provision of emergency shelter, water
or waste provisioning. In almost every disaster situation, however,
there are some forms of environmental impact, some of which in turn
may have additional secondary negative implications for the already
affected communities.
Understanding the dynamics between a disaster, its environmental (as
well as social and economic) impacts, the needs of the community and
implications for the early recovery process is therefore a vital need.
Table 1 shows some of the recurrent environment-related consequences
associated with recent disasters.
Table 1. Common and Recurrent Natural Disasters and some
Environment-related Consequences
Type of Disaster
Associated Environmental Impact
Hurricane/Cyclone/
Typhoon
*
Loss of vegetation cover and wildlife habitat
*
Short-term heavy rains and flooding inland
*
Mud slides and soil erosion
*
Saltwater intrusion to underground fresh water reservoirs
*
Soil contamination from saline water
*
Damage to offshore coral reefs and natural coastal defence
mechanisms
*
Waste (some of which may be hazardous) and debris accumulation
*
Secondary impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Impacts associated with reconstruction and repair to damaged
infrastructure (e.g. deforestation, quarrying, waste pollution)
Tsunami
*
Ground water pollution through sewage overflow
*
Saline incursion and sewage contamination of groundwater
reservoirs
*
Loss of productive fisheries and coastal forest/plantations
*
Destruction of coral reefs
*
Coastal erosion and/or beneficial deposition of sediment on
beaches/small islands
*
Marine pollution from back flow of wave surge
*
Soil contamination
*
Loss of crops and seed banks
*
Waste accumulation – additional waste disposal sites required
*
Secondary impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Impacts associated with reconstruction and repair to damaged
infrastructure (e.g. deforestation, quarrying, waste pollution)
Earthquake
*
Loss of productive systems, e.g. agriculture
*
Damage to natural landscapes and vegetation
*
Possible mass flooding if dam infrastructure weakened or destroyed
*
Waste accumulation – additional waste disposal sites required
*
Secondary impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Impacts associated with reconstruction and repair to damaged
infrastructure (e.g. deforestation, quarrying, waste pollution)
*
Damaged infrastructure as a possible secondary environmental
threat, e.g. leakage from fuel storage facilities
Flood
*
Ground water pollution through sewage overflow
*
Loss of crops, livestock and livelihood security
*
Excessive siltation may affect certain fish stocks
*
River bank damage from erosion
*
Water and soil contamination fertilizers used
*
Secondary impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Beneficial sedimentation in floodplains or close to river banks
Volcanic Eruption
*
Loss of productive landscape and crops being buried by ash and
pumice
*
Forest fires as a result of molten lava
*
Secondary impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Loss of wildlife following gas release
*
Secondary flooding should rivers or valleys be blocked by lava
flow
*
Damaged infrastructure as a possible secondary environmental
threat, e.g. leakage from fuel storage facilities Impacts
associated with reconstruction and repair to damaged
infrastructure (e.g. deforestation, quarrying, waste pollution)
Landslide
*
Damaged infrastructure as a possible secondary environmental
threat, e.g. leakage from fuel storage facilities Secondary
impacts by temporarily displaced people
*
Impacts associated with reconstruction and repair to damaged
infrastructure (e.g. deforestation, quarrying, waste pollution)
Drought
*
Loss of surface vegetation.
*
Loss of biodiversity
*
Forced human displacement.
*
Loss of livestock and other productive systems.
Epidemic
*
Loss of biodiversity
*
Forced human displacement
*
Loss of productive economic systems
*
Introduction of new species
Forest Fires
*
Loss of forest and wildlife habitat
*
Loss of biodiversity
*
Loss of ecosystem services
*
Loss of productive crops
*
Soil erosion
*
Secondary encroachment for settlement or agriculture
Sand Storms
*
Loss of productive agricultural land
*
Loss of productive crops
*
Soil erosion
At the same time, however, there are a number of humanitarian- and
relief-related activities that are commonly undertaken during the
early recovery phase which may themselves have an impact on the state
of the environment. Specific attention needs to be given to these –
many of which are cross-cutting activities from other related clusters
– among which are:
*
over-extraction of ground water aquifers;
*
water contamination form improper sewage disposal;
*
selection of inappropriate or energy-intensive systems such as
desalination plants;
*
unsustainable supply of shelter materials;
*
unsustainable use of timed for construction and Fuelwood;
*
deforestation;
*
land degradation and soil erosion;
*
waste disposal; and
*
selection of sites for temporary shelter and site planning.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Until very recently, post-disaster needs assessments were being
carried our primarily to identify immediate and life-saving needs. As
part of the ongoing humanitarian reform, renewed attention has been
given to the needs of people and their communities following the end
of the emergency phase and before full scale development starts to
fill the void. This period – simply defined here as “Early Recovery” –
is clearly one where needs and opportunities are changing.
Early recovery efforts by governments and UN and non-UN actors often
suffer from a combination of isolated initiatives and sporadic
strategic leadership. This leads to an absence of a comprehensive
strategy, a duplication of efforts in some areas, a waste of resources
and lives in others, and a failure to factor in risk reduction
considerations and put in place the conditions for sustainable
long-term recovery.
In recognition of this, renewed effort is now being given to
supporting this early recovery phase of post-disaster situations, by
addressing needs and opportunities across the board, taking all
sectors into account, taking institutional and community needs into
account and consolidating data into a format where it can be
immediately inserted into the available mechanisms for funding
support.
Addressing environmental consideration features as part of this
process and, in a bid to highlight the many ways in which
environmental issues need to be considered during early recovery, this
guide has been commissioned. Development of this guide – in support of
early recovery and as part of the broader post-disaster needs
assessment (PDNA) is intended to help:
*
identify environmental impacts and risks caused by the crisis and
relief operations as well as potential environmental pressures
from recovery;
*
identify the negative response-related activities or coping
mechanisms resulting from an emergency that can impact the
environment or create new environmental risks;
*
assess institutional capacities at the national and local levels
to mitigate environmental risks and manage environmental recovery;
*
provide a forward looking plan that aims to “Build Back Better”,
by integrating environmental needs within early recovery
programming and across the relevant relief and recovery clusters;
and
*
provide a standard reference point for future environmental
assessments in the post-conflict setting, in spite of the fact
that this tool is expected to be modified to suite the needs of
different situations.
In addition to the above, a number of secondary objects might be
highlighted, these being the opportunity to:
*
generate strategic baseline data that could eventually feed into a
monitoring and evaluation system to track implementation of
environmental recovery interventions;
*
identify initiatives that can be strengthened to provide or help
rebuild livelihoods and sustain human security – especially those
that depend on the environment and natural resources;
*
identify how environmental degradation may have contributed to the
underlying causes of the emergency and how environmental
vulnerabilities can be addressed during recovery;
*
identify opportunities to re-orient livelihoods along sustainable
pathways, using environmentally sound construction practices
and/or alternative energy options, by identifying ecosystem
restoration requirements; and by mainstreaming disaster risk
reduction; and
*
provide an understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of women
and other vulnerable groups and identify their capacities and
needs to engage in the environmental recovery process.
The actual timing and time require for an ENA to be carried out is
difficult to generalize, but this should always be considered as part
of the early recovery and other cluster interventions in a
post-disaster situation. Table 2 shows an indicative timeframe for
conducting an ENA, assuming that a Team Leader has already been
identified.
Table 2. Indicative Stages of an ENA
Main Activities
Duration
Pre-disaster baseline data gathering
1 week
Training of ENA Team
2 days
Situation analysis
2-3 weeks (depending on the scale and severity of the disaster this
may take much longer)
Consultations and stakeholder engagement (if separate to above)
2 weeks
Draft ENA produced and circulated to government and UN agencies
1-2 weeks
Revision of ENA report and completion of proposed environment strategy
1-2 weeks
Sharing of strategy with government, donors, UN agencies, community
representatives.
Follow-up with data transfer to central repository
1 week
Note: If needs be, an early rapid assessment of the situation may
already allow a broad outline of a costed proposal to be compiled and
circulated to donors. During the ENA process, however, more reliable
information will be constantly becoming available which will likely
influence earlier recommendations.
2. THIS GUIDE
2.1 OVERVIEW
This guide is intended for use by anyone concerned with environmental,
and related, impacts occurring in a post-disaster situation. It should
be of particular relevance to those interested in ensuring that
environmental issues are taken into account from the earliest possible
moment of planning for early recovery.
This guide is not intended to present a blueprint of how to conduct an
environmental needs assessment given that practically every situation
will have its own particular concerns. It should, however, help
provide some proven basic guidance on:
a.
how an ENA team – or Team Leader at least – might organise
themselves prior to conducting the ENA, as well as during
subsequent stages of the assessment;
b.
some key issues which the ENA team and decision-makers might need
to consider;
c.
approaches that should be respected during specific stakeholder
consultations;
d.
how non-cluster specific cross-cutting issues and concerns such as
gender and governance might be integrated into the various lines
of questioning and assessments; and
e.
how the collected information might be presented in a format
suitable for quick and easy reading and referral.
The guide has been designed with a view to helping people take each of
the modules and adapt these, as necessary, to particular situations.
2.2 INTENDED AUDIENCE
The ENA guide has been written with the expectation of it being used
primarily by a core group of people who might constitute an
Environmental Needs Assessment Team (ENAT), though in particular the
ENA Team Leader. Draft Terms of Reference for this position can be
found in Annex I.
For this reason, the guide assumes that at least one member of an ENAT
will either have some level of prior environmental or assessment
experience and organizing and managing stakeholder consultations. As
one of the main concerns of carrying out an ENA in the first instance
is to influence decisions being taken for the early recovery process,
some working knowledge of the development scene would also be
advantageous
The ENA tool is designed to be as flexible as possible so as to
encourage and allow its use in a range of different situations, such
as those highlighted in Table 1, by different users.
It is assumed that at least some users of this tool will be arriving
at a site and situation with which they have no or little previous
experience. Some contact with agencies active on the ground may have
been established ahead of time but this will need to be re-inforced –
by the ENAT Team Leader in particular – as quickly as possible.
At the same time, however, it must be expected in many situations that
key agencies and individuals may have a number of competing interests
and needs: the environment may not be among his/her priorities, in
which case the ENAT, or similar, must be prepared to operate –
initially at least – on their own. It is imperative however that links
be established with the humanitarian response movement as soon as
possible both in terms of accessing vital information, ensuring that
efforts are not being duplicated and in order to allow information
from the ENA to in turn become part of the information gathering and
decision-making processes. .
Section 3 of this guide provides some additional information on the
background of the ENA (3.1) and goes into a little more detail on the
role and possible structure and operating modality of the ENAT. A
simple outline of the ENA process is given in Section 3.3.
Section 4 houses the main content of the ENA which is designed around
four separate but interlinked phases: Pre-disaster Baseline (4.1),
Situation Analysis (4.2) and Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation
(4.3).
Field practitioners and potential members of the ENAT and other
assessment teams are thus likely to focus mainly on sections 3 and 4,
in addition to relevant annexes. At the same time however, the guide
has also been structured to inform decision-makers such as senior
staff of relevant ministries and agencies on the importance of
ensuring that environmental considerations are duly considered in the
early recovery process. For this reason, information contained in
Section 5, as well as the ENA Summary Report are likely to be the most
relevant.
3. THE PROCESS
3.1 BACKGROUND
The ENA is designed to give quick initial results since some of the
problems may pose an immediate threat to human welfare. In addition,
however, it can also enable more concrete recommendations to be
developed with the active participation of institutions and
individuals selected from amongst the affected community. The ENA
should also examine possible secondary environmental risks as part of
the early recovery process since these have the potential to unduly
affect the recovery process at some point in the future. Possible
secondary risks could include pollution through gradual leakage of
damaged chemical storage facilities, or an earthquake aftershock that
might trigger off additional damage.
The time required to complete the ENA will vary from one situation to
another depending mainly on the availability and quality of
information, the scale of the enquiry as well as the experience of the
users (see Table 2 for a broad estimate of time required for this
process).
A number of different sources of information are needed to be
consulted at various stages of the ENA, ranging from online research
to direct consultations with key stakeholders. Table 3 identifies some
likely or possible lines of enquiry which the ENA Team might find
helpful to consider.
Table 3. Information that the ENA Team might Receive from Different
Sources and Interlocutors
Level
Type of Information
Online services
*
Maps
*
History of site and previous disasters
*
Sector specific databases
*
Disaster response
*
Information regarding risk mapping and analysis
Survey reports
*
Environmental impact assessments
*
Other PDNA-linked reports
*
Other cluster-related reports (demography, livelihoods, shelter,
etc)
*
Disaster preparedness and recovery strategies/ plans
Line ministries
*
Pre-disaster status reports on the environment
*
Presence of sites of ecological importance
*
Regulations governing access to natural resources
*
Information concerning possible sourcing of shelter and
construction materials
*
Information on waste management systems, policies and practices
Secondary data
*
Pre-disaster environment baseline data collection
*
Initial severity and impact information
*
Humanitarian relief information
*
Initial environmental impact extrapolation
Community leaders
*
Former use of natural resources by community members
*
Community level links with livelihood security before the disaster
*
Governance issues regarding land tenure
*
Customary regulations governing access to natural resources
*
Main immediate and longer term needs
Individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups (fishermen, farmers,
pastoralists…)
*
Former use of natural resources
*
Links with livelihood security before the disaster
*
Pre-disaster and current livelihood coping strategies
*
Trends in rural and urban activities in relation to natural
resource use and management
*
Main immediate and longer term needs
Source: Modified from FAO/ILO 2007
3.2 THE ENVRONMENTAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TEAM
This ENA has been designed with the use by non-specialists in mind.
Someone with prior experience of conducting an environmental impact
assessment or rapid environmental assessment, or an experienced
environmentalist with practical social skills in the line of community
consultations should have no difficulty in completing the assessment.
The ENA, however, also offers the possibility of establishing a small
multidisciplinary team or people, under the co-ordination of an
appointed or elected Team Leader. Draft Terms of Reference for such a
Team Leader are outlined in Annex I.
Member of such a team might typically be drawn from specialist UN
agencies, government line ministries (Environment, Water, Marine and
Coastal Resources, Waste and Sanitation…) as well as national and
international environment-related NGOs, local authorities and,
wherever possible, some representation from the affected communities.
Community involvement is strongly advised in this process, but
recognition is given to the fact that this may require more time than
might be available in many situations.
In addition to specific environment-related knowledge or skills, it is
essential that other potential cross-cutting concerns are catered for
within this team, for example in relation to gender or with specific
concern for governance issues and/or the vulnerable members of a
community. The purpose of such integration is not to gather a complete
new set of information on say gender, but to make sure that gender
issues are taken into account in meetings and interviews and in the
overall formulation of action plans and recommendations, and that such
issues are clearly and consistently considered by all members of the
team.
A team of 4-5 people is probably optimal size for this ENA: Additional
specialist assistance and input can be obtained on a needs basis, thus
keeping the core team to a small and manageable size. The ENA Team
should be made up of men and women.
It is important that the Team Leader, at least, is experienced with
the content of the ENA before s/he takes up their role in the field.
The Team Leader should, in turn, ensure that all members of the team
are provided with copies of the ENA (both in paper and electronic
modes) and that they are then guided through the various steps. This
process will allow a subsequent division of labour to be developed
between the team members, so that each is clearly aware of their own,
and others, roles in this assessment process.
During the assessment itself, at least daily meetings should be held
by all team members to share information, identify any problems or
gaps, and to plan for the next day’s activities. Such opportunities
should be taken also to identify where additional resource persons
might be needed. Team members should also be kept appraised of
security and assessment-related logistical arrangements and
constraints.
3.3 OUTLINE STEPS OF THE ENA PROCESS
The ENA is structured around three separate but inter-related steps,
designed in such a way as to help focus attention on different levels
and needs, and to streamline information gathering from the many
envisaged different sources. This will also allow for some of the data
to be verified by different sources as any assessment team is likely
to be provided with many contrasting and sometimes conflicting points
of view.
Phase I – Pre-disaster Baseline
Gathering as much reliable information on the actual situation
immediately before the disaster – as well as and lead up events to the
disaster – is an essential point of departure for the ENA. Many
different sources of information will need to be consulted. Even then,
however, it must be expected that many gaps will become evident in the
information available, which may need to be addressed in subsequent
steps through specific, directed lines of enquiry.
Phase II – Situation Analysis and Site Assessment
Additional information will continue to be collected during this phase
of the assessment to initially allow a risk mapping exercise to be
carried out before then proceeding to actual on-the-ground data
collection, observation and verification. A series of outline
questionnaires are provided to help guide the ENA team during this
comprehensive stage of the process.
Phase III – Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation
Engaging with a broad range of people – from decision-makers in line
ministries to actual practitioners who have a direct dependency on
certain natural resources – is a fundamental part of the ENA process.
Some consultation will naturally occur during the site assessment
work, but given the importance of making sure that peoples’ own voices
and experiences are recorded, and their immediate (at least) needs
identified, special attention is given to this phase of work.
Consultations are also an essential opportunity to ensure that all
members of the affected society have an opportunity to contribute to
he early recovery process, while at the same time ensuring that
cross-cutting issues such as gender are properly addressed.
Section 5 of this guide looks at how the data emerging specifically
from the ENA can be used to guide and influence relevant aspects of
the early recovery process. Specific attention needs to given to
addressing identified needs at the community and institutional levels,
as well as to looking at future opportunities and synergies, while
ensuring that the environment is not unduly impacted by these
processes.
4. ENA PracticalITIES – Getting Started
4.1 PHASE I PRE-DISASTER BASELINE
Who: Phase I would ideally be conducted by a core team of 4-5 people,
co-ordinated by a Team Leader.
When: Information gathering should begin even before the team is
deployed, particularly since many reports and databases may be
available online. The Team Leader may need to assume this
responsibility alone initially.
Resources needed: Internet access.
Time required: As a rough guide, 3-4 days could usefully be spent
sourcing and reading background materials.
4.1.1 Overview
The point of departure for the ENA is acquiring some degree of
baseline – pre-disaster information – of the area that has been
impacted. Baseline information is not only essential in order to
understand what the environmental situation and dynamics was before
the disaster occurred, but it is a vital requirement to help guide the
early recovery process in terms of both rebuilding livelihoods and
security as well as re-establishing and strengthening environmental
integrity.
When it is then possible, for example if more time and resources are
available or if the security situation improves, this initial series
of data gathering should be followed by a far more detailed overview
of the situation, as outlined in Phase II and subsequent steps of this
process.
Key sources of pre-disaster baseline information are likely to
include, but not be restricted to:
*
Environmental profiles for the country/region.
*
Satellite images and maps.
*
Project reports from national and international environmental
agencies.
*
Local knowledge.
*
Previous environment-related assessments.
*
Specific databases, for example, if a national park or marine
reserve in within the affected area, specific reports will likely
be available.
*
Wildlife and fisheries management plans.
*
Housing and related development plans.
*
Land tenure records.
In certain situations and depending on the severity of the disaster,
gathering pre-existing information may be difficult or even impossible
as records may have been lost or destroyed. Some of the people
formerly responsible for environment-related management tasks may have
been killed. Concerns for the environment are also often not at the
forefront of peoples’ thinking immediately after a disaster has
occurred, despite there being some very credible reasons why this
should happen.
To guide the initial data gathering process, questions to consider
include, but again are not restricted to:
*
Who were the main actors (government, non-governmental and
communities) responsible for managing natural resources before the
disaster?
*
What is the current situation regarding the status of these
organizations and structures?
*
Sites of Environmental Interest and Importance
Particular attentions needs to be given to identifying the
presence and pre-disaster status of protected areas and the
presence of ecosystems that may provide particular services, such
as water provisioning, spawning grounds for offshore fisheries or
sites of exception biological diversity. Such sites include:
*
National Parks
*
Nature Reserves and Hunting Reserves
*
UNESCO World Heritage Sites
*
Marine reserves
*
Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance)
*
Wildlife corridors
*
Watersheds and other ecosystems providing vital services
Who might be the most useful people to contact for further
information regarding the pre-disaster situation?
*
What were some of the key environmental features in that region
before the disaster? Examples might include productive coastal
fisheries, ecotourism, endemic species, a source of drinking water
and so forth.
*
What was the land ownership system? Who had access to natural
resources?
*
Were there obvious links with or dependencies upon natural
resources or critical ecosystem services, such as fisheries or
freshwater provisioning which might have been impacted by the
disaster?
*
Are there sites of ecological interest or value in the immediate
region? If so, what was their pre-disaster status?
4.1.2 Recording Information
Analysis of such information will also help plan for subsequent steps,
e.g. by identifying who needs to be consulted, how the ENAT might
allocate individual responsibilities for certain tasks, how the field
work will be conducted, and so forth.
Additional information coming from the emergency phase may also prove
helpful in piecing together an overview of the pre-disaster situation.
4.2 PHASE II SITUATION ANALYSIS AND SITE ASSESSMENT
Who: Phase II would ideally be conducted by a core team of 4-5 people,
of whom at least one would have some degree of environmental
experience, and another a good understanding of the actual situation
on the ground.
When: Immediately after baseline data has been acquired and analysed.
Resources needed: transport and communication logistics; translators;
recording materials; meeting room; possible additional technical
expertise; GPS; access to information hubs…
Time required: This phase of work may take at least 5-10 days,
depending on the scale and depth of the analysis.
4.2.1 Overview
In order to now assess the scale and severity of the situation three
broad approaches are recommended:
*
further data gathering which may take the form of background
research and desk studies, combined with some interviews of key
government and non-governmental actors in country;
*
preliminary risk analysis supplemented by on-site assessments,
which would include direct observations (Section 4.2); and
*
stakeholder consultations with representatives of the affected
community (Section 4.3).
Possible sources of additional information to guide this phase
include:
*
Government ministries such as those for the environment or natural
resources (if different), forestry, water, livestock, agriculture
and so forth.
*
National or regional disaster preparedness plans.
*
Geographical, geomorphological and climatic maps of the
country/region.
*
National or international bodies gathering geographic information
systems data, e.g. UNOSAT. This is essential in order to a)
quickly identify registered sites of special interest, e.g.
National Parks or specific vulnerable ecosystems such as
watersheds, forests or coastal ecosystems and b) to begin a
process of data collation and registry.
*
Relevant specialist UN agencies such as UNDP, UNEP, UNHCR, FAO or
WMO.
*
On-the-ground conservation organisations, national and
international.
*
Community structures which may have a role in managing natural
resources.
*
Relief website http://www.reliefweb.org and other internet search
facilities.
*
Previous reports of similar types of disaster within the country
or region.
*
Specialist databases such as those of the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (www.fao.org) or Livestock Emergency Guidelines and
Standards: www.livestock-emergency.net/
*
The Humanitarian Information Service (HIC) if present.
*
Legal documentation on issues such as land tenure, gazettement of
protected areas and so forth.
It would be useful to identify and agree upon a focal point for all
such contacts since additional information may be required or need to
be fed back to these sources at some point in the future.
As a structured way of analysing this information and determining
possible next steps, consider treating this exercise as part of a mini
desk study, where members of the ENAT might be assigned different
roles in terms of information gathering and analysis. Regular meeting
should be help within the ENAT to share information, verify data,
identify gaps and see what sort of a picture is emerging.
While helping ensure the quality of data being gathered, regular
meetings should also help ensure that too much data is not being
gathered as this is a common tendency in many post-disaster
situations.
It is important that the ENA Team agrees upon a defined physical area
for the site assessment. It would be useful for the Team Leader at
least to have made an initial reconnaissance trip of the site ahead of
this phase of work so that s/he might be able to advise members of the
team of the overall situation. Visual aids such as photographs should
be taken to orient people: these are also an excellent additional
reference source and should, if possible be taken with referenced
metadata. Maps should be consulted and annotated as required.
Defining the scope of the assessment will depend on a number of
factors, some of the main and possibly recurring of which are
security, access, scale of the disaster, density and location of the
affected population, identification of where other data are being
gathered and might be available, and in response to specific expressed
needs of the affected community. This will, however, clearly vary from
one situation to another and it may be helpful for the ENAT if a
checklist of key considerations is developed at this phase of work in
order to help structure and guide decisions regarding the physical
scope of the assessment.
Specific questions which might help guide this part of the process
are:
*
Relating directly to the type of disaster, what are some of the
generic and specific information sources likely to be required?
What sort of data is ideally needed?
*
Are disaster recovery and management plans available? If so, when
were these last updated and where can they be obtained?
*
Has there already been an environmental assessment of this
situation and, if so, how can this information be obtained? Can
the people who conducted this be contacted?
*
What information is available thus far on a planned humanitarian
response? Who are the key contacts?
*
What is the status of the early recovery process in the country
and how can the results of this ENA be integrated into this
process to inform and guide early recovery?
*
What gaps are immediately obvious in the type of information now
being gathered? How might these be addressed, and by whom?
4.2.2 Recording Information
Form I provides an outline for recording some essential background
information with regards the disaster, where it has taken place and
what its broad and most immediately recognised impacts have been. Much
of the information required to complete this form should already be
available at the time when an ENA is able to be conducted, once the
emergency phase has passed.
Possible sources of information include earlier situation analysis
from other field missions as well as background information obtained
online or though other specialist reports. Some degree of consultation
is expected to be likely although would probably focus at the agency
and institutional levels at this stage.
Building on information obtained from the pre-disaster analysis, and
with some knowledge already of the scale and extent of the disaster,
an attempt should be made to map the situation to identify areas at
risk (such as specific communities or vulnerable ecosystems) and begin
to identify possible hazards in each. Possible steps to follow
include:
a.
obtain or create a base map of the area using available
information, satellite images, local knowledge etc;
b.
identify where the impacts of the disaster have been most severe,
noting also relevant changes to infrastructure, housing and so
forth;
c.
pinpoint areas that may be at further risk (from secondary
disaster-related impacts or those which might be affected by
unsustainable exploitation of natural resources);
d.
identify which measure might be needed – and whom to consult with
– in order to help mitigate further impact on the environment.
Form II looks at certain key environment-related issues, as well as
cross cutting concerns like gender, age, vulnerability and governance.
Specific sectors are investigated through a series of suggested
questions, the purpose being to ultimately have a well grounded
assessment of key environment-related concerns and to begin to
prioritise a response to these.
A separate assessment, perhaps by one designated member of the ENAT,
should be conducted of the current capacity of institutions and other
governance-related structures to function, from an environmental
management and recovery perspective. This may involve some degree of a
damage and loss assessment in terms of infrastructure and resources,
which would then lead into a broader and more rigorous investigation
of the economic costs associated with recovery in the
environment-related domain.
This phase of the ENA would also likely begin to start to examine some
of the links between peoples’ livelihoods and their coping mechanisms
in relation to use and dependencies on diverse natural resources
and/or ecosystem services. More in-depth questions on this issue,
however, is likely to take place in Phase III of the ENA, where
attention is more specifically focused on community interventions.
4.3 PHASE III STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION
Who: The ENA team working in consultation with a range of identified
stakeholders and stakeholder groups.
When: During (if possible) and after the site assessment.
Resources needed: transport and communication logistics; translators;
recording materials; suitable meeting rooms/venues; …
Time required: It is difficult to quantify time required in this
instance (see below): at least 5 days should be set aside for initial
consultation.
4.3.1 Overview
Engaging stakeholders through a consultation process has become a
widely accepted practice in post-disaster needs assessments. A wide
range of tools are available to guide this, but a certain degree of
training is required in order to ensure that the principles and
possible approaches of participatory-based appraisals are respected
and used correctly.
Initial consultations should be held by the core team with leaders
from amongst the affected community, as well as and local authorities
to explain the purpose of the ENA, to record their views and opinions
on the issues being discussed and to seek their approval and advice on
how to proceed.
Additional meetings would be arranged with a broad representation of
local stakeholders from within community, NGOs active in the region,
and others, at times and venues suitable to them. For this, the core
team is likely to be split into smaller groups in order to be more
time efficient. Further meetings will also need to be arranged with
local authorities and line ministries, as necessary and appropriate.
The latter, for example, will be necessary in relation to
considerations regarding future needs and options regarding early
recovery as t might relate with the environment and ecosystem
services.
There is an abundance of information on preparing for and conducting
consultations, which will not be repeated here. Checklist 1 summarises
some key issues which should receive particular attention in the
current context of conducting an ENA.
Checklist 1. Some Issues to Consider when Engaging in Stakeholder
Consultations
Requirement
*
Clarify the purpose of each specific consultation within the ENA team
and agree upon who will conduct respective sessions
Seek prior permission from community leaders or heads of households
before engaging in any consultation process
Arrange all group meetings at a time and venue suitable to the
community representatives
Prepare well in advance for each consultation
Consult with a range of people from within the community – men and
women, youth and elderly, different professions etc.
Identify experts on local environmental conditions before the disaster
Consider using a semi-structured interviewing process, but have a
mental or written checklist as a back-up
Encourage openness in all discussions and respect peoples’ opinions
Offer people a range of PRA-type tools and help guide them through
their application
Encourage people to tell stories about the environmental situation
before the disaster. This, for example, could help identify some
important pointers to assist with the early recovery planning
Verify secondary data by first hand observations
Encourage role plays only if this seems appropriate given the
situation
Be prepared to answer questions from the community
Review the line of questions and discussions before concluding the
meeting. Have any new gaps been identified? Have cross-cutting issues
been addressed through the discussions?
Addressing these issues should help ensure that basic rights and needs
are respected and that cross-cutting issues are also taken into
account
In addition, to gain specific information as to how people might have
used natural resources in the past, a number of tools and approaches
can be introduced to the consultation process which can provide high
quality insight and understanding of the former situation. These tools
and approaches include:
*
Community mapping of natural resources.
*
Seasonal calendars.
*
Transect walks.
*
Livelihood analysis.
*
Key issues and stakeholder matrix.
*
Ranking issues and priorities.
*
Root cause analysis.
*
Clarifying community and institutional relationships.
*
Project impact flow diagram.
Each of the above has got a very different role to play in the process
of consultation and information gathering. Users should be well versed
in their potential as well as associated pitfalls of each before
engaging these exercises with community groups.
((Note: I do not intend to include descriptions of these here as they
will I believe feature in the Livelihood Assessment Toolkit but
awaiting confirmation of this .))
4.3.2 Recording Information
Use of the above tools and approaches should provide a great deal of
information, which will need to be carefully analysed and cross
checked in order to begin to determine priority needs and
opportunities. Checklist 2 outlines some of the main issues which need
to be considered to ensure that the main environmental issues relating
to a particular situation have been examined, that basic rights and
needs are respected and that cross-cutting issues have been taken into
account.
Checklist 2. Summary of Key Issues to Address in Consultations
Question/Issue
Yes/No
Have members of the affected community been consulted by the ENA Team?
Were people briefed on the nature of the ENA being undertaken, and
which they might expect to come from this?
Have specific stakeholder groups that depended to some degree on
natural resources been identified and consulted?
Was attention given to ensuring that a representative sample of men
and women have been consulted?
Have representatives been consulted from different age groups?
Has information been gathered on former, traditional means of natural
resource management?
Has information been gathered on local structures of governance and is
there an indication as to whether these will continue in the same
manner as before?
Have people been able to express their immediate and longer term needs
regarding their current personal situation?
Has some indication been given to consulted communities as to what the
next steps of follow-up action might be?
5. USING ENA DATA FOR PLANNING EARLY RECOVERY
Information obtained through the process outlined above is expected to
include both quantitative and qualitative data. What is essential in
this next phase of work is to ensure that in whatever format the
analysed data is compiled, the most important aspect is to ensure that
the information is eventually presented in a language, style and
format which will ensure that the intended audience will be able to
absorb its messages.
To do this, a simple ENA Summary Report is suggested – a draft outline
is given in Annex II.
Use of Checklist 3 may also help guide this presentation in terms of
some key issues that may need to be highlighted through the above
findings.
Checklist 3. Early Recovery Checklist based on an ENA
*
Is there evidence that environmental degradation may have
contributed to the underlying cause(s) of the disaster?
*
What are the main environmental impacts and risks caused by the
crisis?
*
What is the scale of the impact, e.g. the physical area, number of
displaced people, economic losses, etc?
*
Can any secondary risks be identified at this time, e.g.
aftershock, additional land slippage, etc?
*
Are there additional or potential environment-related impacts
associate with current or planned relief operations?
*
Is the region’s environment more vulnerable as a result of this
disaster?
*
Are there potential environmental pressures once a shift towards
recovery begins?
*
Identify any negative response-related activities or coping
mechanisms resulting from the emergency that can impact the
environment or create new environmental risks.
*
Have institutional capacities been assessed at the national and
local levels to mitigate environmental risks and manage
environmental recovery?
*
Generate strategic baseline data that could eventually feed into a
monitoring and valuation system to track implementation of
environmental recovery interventions.
*
Identify the spontaneous initiatives that can be strengthened to
provide or help rebuild livelihoods and sustain human security
(especially those that depend on the environment and natural
resources).
*
Identify opportunities to re-orient livelihoods along sustainable
pathways, using environmentally sound construction practices,
introducing alternative energy options, identifying ecosystem
restoration requirements; and mainstreaming disaster risk
reduction.
*
Provide an understanding of the specific vulnerabilities of women
and other vulnerable groups and identify their capacities and
needs to engage in the environmental recovery process.
*
Provide a forward looking plan that aims to “Build Back Better” by
integrating environmental needs within early recovery programming
and across the relevant relief and recovery clusters.
Answers to the above questions and issues will provide specific
guidance to input to the overall early recovery process. The following
matrix may also assist as an additional reference point for some of
the main, commonly recurring, issues which need to be considered in
the ENA process.
FEATURE
ENA REFERENCE SECTION
Nature of the disaster
Scale and geographical extent
*
Phase I and II
Environmental impacts of the disaster
*
Phase I, II and III
Human environment
*
Phase II and III
Number of people affected
*
Phase I and II
Recurring natural hazards
*
Phase I, II and III
Human hazards (major industrial sites, facilities or installations
that may be vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters, or which
pose on-going threats to populations)
*
Phase I and II
Risk mapping/secondary risks
*
Phase I and II
Environmental Situation
Environmental vulnerability
*
Phase I and II
Priority environmental impacts to address
*
Phase I, II and III
Priority environmental issues (e.g. safe waste removal)
*
Phase II and III
Critical resource identification (e.g. coral reefs, national park…)
*
Phase I, II and III
Livelihood links with environment
*
Phase II and III
Institutional Assessment
Functional capacity of line ministries
*
Phase II
Capacity of local governance structures
*
Phase II and III
Capacity of key stakeholder groups
*
Phase II and III
Needs assessment
*
Phase II and III
Emerging Pressures and Vulnerabilities
Unsustainable pressure on selected natural resources
*
Phase II
Impaired ecosystem services
*
Phase II
Unfair advantage taking
*
Phase II
Recovery Opportunities and Needs
Natural resource use on a sustainable basis
*
Phase II and III
Added protection for key environmental resources and ecosystem
services
*
Phase II and III
Appreciation of value of natural resources in terms of risk reduction
*
Phase II and III
Improved disaster risk reduction plans
*
Phase II and III
Improved livelihood options
*
Phase II and III
6. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bisnath, S. 2007. Practical Guide to Gender Aware Post-Disaster Needs
Assessments for Recovery (as part of the PDNA Methodology and Toolkit).
UNDP.
ECLAC. 2003. Handbook for Estimating the Socio-economic and
Environmental Effects of Disasters. Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean. 44pp.
ECLAC. 2007. Meeting on methodologies for disaster assessment –
A regional approach. Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago 14 May 2007.
Document LC/CAR/L.116.
http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/2/28822/L.116.pdf
FAO/ILO. 2007. The Livelihood Assessment Toolkit : Analysing and
Responding to the Impact of Disasters on the Livelihoods of People
(Draft). FAO, Rome, Italy and ILO, Geneva, Switzerland.
IWGAID. 2008. Protecting Animals from Disasters. International Working
Group on Animals in Disasters. 10pp.
Kelly. C. 2004. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment
in Disasters.
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/rea/rea_guidelines.htm
Serje, J. 2007. Damage and Loss Assessments and the Information
Management Component of the PDNA Methodology and Toolkit. UNDP.
Shelter Centre. 2007. (Draft.) Shelter after Disaster: An Update of
the 1982 UNGRO Guidelines. Shelter Centre, Geneva, Switzerland.
UNHCR/CARE International. 2005 (Pilot). Framework for Assessing,
Monitoring and Evaluating the Environment in Refugee-related
Operations. UNHCR and CARE International, Geneva, Switzerland.
FEEDBACK
We are interested in any feedback on the use of this tool, on aspects
such as relevance and ease of use as well as practicalities and
content. Your comments would therefore me most welcome.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
STRUCTURE OF THE ENA PROCESS
CHECKLISTS
FORMS PROVIDED
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS
THANK YOU
Please return any comments to Andrew Morton ([email protected])
ANNEX I DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR TEAM LEADER
0
ANNEX II Draft Format for ENA Report
The ENA Report should be kept as brief and factual as possible, and
less than 10 pages for ease of inclusion into the Flash Appeal.
1. Executive Summary (1 page)
A brief summary of the full report describing the nature and scale of
the crisis, priority humanitarian and environmental issues, needs and
concerns, potential flash points which might need to be monitored and
the main recommendations. The summary should also indicate the initial
amount of funding required and main potential implementing bodies.
2. The Context of the Crisis ( 2pages)
*
Whet the event has taken place and prior history
*
Nature of the crisis
*
Scale of the crisis
*
Estimates of damage and loss – social implications, environmental
isues, economic concerns
*
What actions have been taken thus far; have environment-related
issues being flagged
*
Who if anyone is responsible for environmental issues at the
national level; what has been
3. The ENA and Other Responses (3 pages)
*
Background to the ENA
*
Situation Analysis
*
Needs analysis and main findings
*
Links with other initiatives, especially cross-cutting issues
*
Recommendations
4. Roles and Responsibilities
Which agencies/clusters are already involved – from co-ordination to
implementation to information gathering, analysis and sharing – and
where are there gaps.
5. Project Summary (for inclusion in Flash Appeal)
AGENCY
PROJECT SUMMARY
AMOUNT REQUESTED (US$)
Project Title:
Objective:
Beneficiaries:
1 Recognition is given to the excellent ECLAC Handbook for Estimating
the Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts of Disasters (ECLAC
2003), but many practitioners have found that this tool is more
appropriate for economic-related assessments, with less attention
being given to community needs.
vi