Incorporating disaster risk reduction dimension into
MDGs based UNDAF: result matrices
The Results Matrix is one of the core tools of the UNDAF. Each UNCT will have to apply the
suggested measures into the UNDAF matrix as per national priorities and context. The table of
MDGs interventions and indicators referred to earlier in this document can now be applied to the
Results based matrix.
Some parts of Georgia’s UNDAF is used to illustrate sample modifications of national priorities,
outcomes and indicators to reflect disaster risk reduction. The use of Georgia’s UNDAF as an
example is not to suggest that the Georgia UNDAF needs to be modified. Rather, the purpose is to
use actual examples to illustrate where some of the interventions suggested in this guidance note
may be factored in. These suggestions are highlighted in yellow. Where existing features of the
UNDAF support Disaster risk reduction criteria, these are indicated in green.
UNDAF Results Matrices Based on Georgia’s Example
1. Poverty and Economic Growth
National Priority: Eradicate extreme poverty
National MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty
Target 1: Halve, between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of people living below the poverty line
DRR sub indicator: Proportion of people living below the poverty line does not increase in years of hazard events
Target 2: Halve, between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of people that have unbalanced diets
DRR Sub Indicator : Proportion of people with un balanced diets does not increase in years during which many natural hazards occur( droughts, earthquakes) Target 3: Ensure the socio-economic rehabilitation and civil integration of the population affected and displaced as a result of conflict and natural calamities UNDAF Outcome 1:
Reduced number of households living in poverty through the realisation of economic potential and the provision of social welfare
Country Programme Outcomes Country Programme Outputs Partners 1.1 Increased Government capacity to 1.1.2 Creation of income generation opportunities through MoA, MoLHSA, MoE adopt and implement government and employment and production supported including diversified income joint poverty reduction policies and options for populations in high-risk areas to reduce their programmes, through the realisation of vulnerability to hazards (WB, IMF, IOM, WFP, FAO). economic potential 1.1.3 Access to and the utilisation of resources by the poor, MoA, MoLHSA, MoE vulnerable and food insecure improved (WFP, WB, UNDP, IOM,
1.2 The adoption and implementation of 1.2.2 Formulation of social protection and child welfare system State United Social Investment Fund SUSIF, Government and joint social protection reform supported (UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNHCR, IOM) including MoLHSA, MoJ, MoF, MoES mechanisms addressing the needs of micro-finance and social safety nets and micro-insurance schemes to verified vulnerable population groups insulate livelihoods against disaster risks.
(pensioners, elderly, disabled adults and children, street children, children at risk
of institutionalisation, disadvantaged
households, and those vulnerable to
National Priority: Governance, anti-corruption, civil service and public finance reforms, and meeting the Copenhagen criteria National MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development
National MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
UNDAF Outcome 2:
Efficiency and accountability of governance structures at central and local levels strengthened, towards an inclusive and participatory decision-making process Local and national governments design and apply regulatory frameworks that ensure a safer environment, reduce structural vulnerabilities and guide socio-economic-agents’ behaviours towards risk reduction and disaster prevention.
Country Programme Outcomes Country Programme Outputs Partners 2.1 Systems and tools for strategic planning 2.1.1 Data collection and analytical capacity strengthened and Competent bodies of the Executive branch and policy making including those for systematised, with the use of Information & Communications developing national disaster management Technology (ICT) for vulnerability to natural hazards and trends of regulatory and institutional frameworks disaster impacts (UNDP, FAO, UNFPA, UNHCR, IOM). strengthened 2.1.2 Dissemination of disaggregated data and analysis including those Statistics Department of the Ministry of on disaster vulnerability within government and civil society enhanced Economics through the use of DevInfo (UNDP, FAO, UNFPA, IOM, UNICEF).
2.2 Management and technical capacity 2.2.2 Competencies and responsibilities of different levels of Competent bodies of the Executive branch
government clarified including responsibilities for disaster risk strengthened reduction, vulnerability assessment and disaster preparedness and response (UNDP, IOM). 2.2.3 Financial sustainability and autonomy of local government Relevant committees of the Parliament including for disaster mitigation, preparedness and response promoted
2.2.4 Government capacity to assume and implement competencies USAID through Development Alternatives,
including those provided for under the National disaster management Inc.
regulatory framework ensured (UNDP, FAO, UNIFEM, IOM).
4. Volatility and Instability
National Priority or Goals: 1. Protect national security and promote human rights and 2. Disaster prevention and mitigation to reduce human suffering National MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty
Target 3: Ensure the socio-economic rehabilitation and civil integration of population affected and displaced as a result of conflicts and disasters caused by the impact of
UNDAF Outcome 4:
Risk and impact of man-made and natural disasters is reduced
Country Programme Outcomes Country Programme Outputs Partners
4.1.1 Natural disaster risk reduction policies are developed and effective Relevant Government entities 4.1 Natural disaster management Government emergency management capacity is established (i.e. with a clear capacities at the national level are Swiss Agency for Cooperation and and coordination-oriented mandate, authority, lines of responsibility, and full Development, US Government, other established and functioning institutionalisation) (UNDP, UNRCO Transition Unit). donors 4.1.2 The international DMT’s emergency preparedness and management DMT, non-UN member agencies capabilities are maintained and strengthened with the aim of supporting the Government in providing an adequate response (UNDP, UNRCO Transition 1Unit).
4.2 National disaster preparedness and 4.2.1 Government’s preparedness capacity to provide an adequate response is DMT non-UN member agencies, donor early warning systems are in place and strengthened (UNDP, UNRCO Transition Unit, other relief UN agencies). agencies functioning Relevant Government entities (Hydro-
meteorology Dept., Ministry of 4.2.2 Seismic monitoring capacity and agriculture-related forecasting is Agriculture, State Department of Statistics) strengthened (UNDP, UNRCO Transition unit).
Academic institutions (Institute of Geophysics, Earthquake Engineering) 4.3 An effective disaster response is 4.3.1 A cooperation mechanism between the international DMT and national Swiss Agency for Cooperation and ensured through immediate relief, Government, with clear lines of responsibility for crisis management, is Development, rehabilitation and recovery activities established and functioning (UNDP, UNRCO Transition Unit). US Government, World Bank
4.3.2 The national disaster response is strengthened through emergency relief, Relevant Government entities rehabilitation and recovery activities (UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP, UNDP, SDC, US Government FAO, UNFPA).
1 In Georgia’s context, and more specifically considering the non-existence of national disaster management capacity, a well functioning international Disaster Management Team
(DMT) is needed to fill this gap. Therefore, maintenance and strengthening of the DMT, even though not directly falling under UNDAF guidelines, is included as one of the CP
MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
1. Poverty and Economic Growth [UNDAF Outcome 1]
Outcome Indicators (with baseline) Sources of verification Risks & Assumptions
1.1 Poverty level: Expected UNDAF Outcome 1
Reduced number of households a) Official poverty rate (proportion on of population SDS, UNDP Economic conditions are stable or improved living in poverty through the below official national poverty line defined at 130 GEL/ Political conflict is stabilised realisation of economic potential month), does not increase in years of major hydro- Natural disasters are under control and provision of social welfare meteorological and geophysical hazards Funding crisis is predicted and minimised Baseline (a): 51% (2004) Security conditions are ensured to permit b) Extreme poverty rate (proportion of population below /project operation extreme poverty line defined at 63 GEL per month) does Partners involved are able to deliver services not increase in the years of major hydro, meteorological to the target population and geophysical hazards and in geographic areas affected
Baseline: 17% (2004)
1.2 Poverty gap ratio: SDS, UNDP
Baseline: 20% from official poverty line and 5.6% from
extreme poverty line (2004)
4. Volatility and Instability [UNDAF Outcome 4]
Outcome Indicators (with baseline) Sources of verification Risks & Assumptions
4.1 National disaster management system is operational Evaluation, assessment Natural disasters management is improved Expected UNDAF Outcome 4
reports on IDPs Risk and impact of man-made and Baseline: (very limited disaster management capacity natural disasters is reduced. exists in Government Agreements
Base line of average human and economic losses from disasters: progressively reduced over UNDAF period Baseline: (official UN or other evaluation/assessment reports) 4.4 Peace agreements are endorsed/facilitated by the UN and other international mechanisms
4.5 Number of IDPs reduced and number of returnees in
conflict areas increased
4.1.1 Government formally establishes disaster Government capacity building occurs CP Outcome 4.1:
management entity with clear lines of responsibility and Natural disaster risk reduction Adoption of Laws could be delayed process / authority policies and management prioritisation capacities are in line with 4.1.2 Legislation for crises management is adopted
international norms 4.1.3 International DMT is functioning
4.2.1 Government’s emergency preparedness plans are Contingency plans Government’s capacities are still limited CP Outcome 4.2:
available and regularly updated Disaster preparedness and early Early warning/ Limited coordination between various State warning system at the national 4.2.2 Early warning reports are produced and utilised forecasting reports agencies level is in place and functioning under the specialised governmental entity Early warning reports / mechanism are not
4.3.1 MoU between international DMT and Government Contingency plans are not updated regularly; CP Outcome 4.3:
is signed Effective disaster response is MOU with the Government is not ensured through immediate relief, 4.3.2 In case of emergency the MoU is activated and implemented fully; rehabilitation and recovery emergency relief and rehabilitation ensured Not enough (or lack of) coordination between activities 4.3.3 Long-term recovery is effected various response actors
4.3.4 Contingency plans are in place (both Government
and the DMT)