Aller au contenu principal

Addressing the data gap: analysis of infrastructure damages and service disruption in PDNAs

Pays
Monde
Sources
UNDP
+ 1
Date de publication
Origine
Voir l'original

Executive summary

Living in a world faced with unprecedented climate change and disaster impacts to people and their property emphasizes the importance of monitoring and reporting disaster risks, and of assessing damage and losses from disasters to enable evidence-based planning, decision-making and investment to ensure resilient livelihoods.

The Sendai Framework Monitor and the Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNAs) are internationally recognized mechanisms that encourage and support national governments and stakeholders in improving the collection of relevant data on disaster losses, providing a basis for recovery planning and sustainable and resilient development.1 This report aims to: 1. examine data on disaster losses related to infrastructure damage and service disruption in PDNAs submitted by nations between 2010 and 2020, and to identify where gaps still exist in PDNA reporting; and 2. identify obstacles and offer suggestions to improve reporting, including by improving the current PDNA methodology.

Gaps in Sendai Framework Monitor reporting were identified in the 2021 UNDRR report: Addressing the infrastructure failure data gap: A governance challenge.2 Even though this process was developed separately from the PDNA process and for different purposes, there are similarities in their data collection requirements, and there is an opportunity to enhance data availability and improve analysis for better decision-making if the two processes are used to inform each other.

Analysis of past PDNAs and Sendai Framework Monitor reporting shows that some of the most significant data gaps relate to the impact of disruptions to services (as opposed to physical damage and losses involving assets) and mid- to long-term effects on socio-economic recovery and development. PDNA estimates of service disruption as part of the losses analysed could complement the monitoring and reporting of Target D indicators of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (Reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services), in accordance with the nations’ commitments to implementing the Sendai Framework.

Detailed analysis of a selection of 57 PDNA processes conducted worldwide over the last decade shows that PDNA reports do not clearly include estimates of service disruptions in the disaster losses analysed. Even though service disruption costs are calculated in PDNA processes, they are not presented separately and in a standardized way in the final versions of PDNA reports. This is a lost opportunity to include them in a more comprehensive analysis of disaster impacts, which could complement the monitoring and reporting of SFDRR Target D.

In general, the analysis shows that infrastructure losses and related service disruptions are estimated less frequently than physical damage in PDNA processes. The main reasons for this in the PDNA reports analyzed are: a lack of pre-disaster data; inadequate preparation of responsible officials to collect and prioritize such data; and limited understanding of the estimation of service disruption as part of disaster losses. These factors, combined with the time limitations that usually characterize post-disaster situations, results in estimation of disaster losses being overlooked in post-disaster evaluation processes.

Data collection and assessment for disaster losses are often linked to short-term recovery needs and priorities, instead of having a long-term outlook.
This leads to a vicious circle of disaster-recoveryrepeat. Additionally, lack of pre-disaster baseline data, including alignment of terminology and specification of indicators, makes comparisons with the post-disaster situation in terms of estimates of changes in economic flows (losses and service disruption) more difficult and time consuming. Unpreparedness in terms of baseline data availability, a general lack of understanding of the concepts of losses and service disruption, prioritizing damage over losses and time pressures are the main issues hampering more frequent and thorough estimates of service disruption losses in PDNA processes. An increase in the ratio of losses assessed and higher quality analysis and reporting of service disruption indicators in PDNA reporting could complement SFDRR monitoring and reporting, and could improve risk-informed decision-making in development strategies.

The PDNA methodology includes social, productive and infrastructure sectors as well as cross cutting themes in the analysis. Each sector includes subsectors such as housing, education, and health in the social sector; agriculture, industry, and tourism, in the productive sector; and water and sanitation, energy and electricity, and transport and communication, in the infrastructure sector. This categorization can be used to start discussions with the Government on the selection of sectors for the PDNA. However, it is recognized that the Government should take final decision in this regard. There are two aspects to this issue. First, the PDNA methodology allows some adaptations to national accounts, meaning that PDNA sectors are recorded under different names and divided into subsectors that are then analyzed as standalone sections. Some subsectors are switched or moved from one sector to another in the evaluation of damage and losses, hampering standardization and comparison of results. Second, definitions of basic services and critical infrastructure vary across nations and may not be consistent with the reporting requirements of the PDNA methodology and the Sendai Framework. This can make aligning data from national statistics, the PDNA methodology and SFDRR Target D indicators problematic.

With regard to the presentation of service disruption losses in PDNA reports, the analysis found that the results presented are not systematic and standardized, and they are not readily available. Service disruption is one of four main cornerstones of the PDNA methodology when establishing the effects and impacts of disasters, however they are not sufficiently distinguishable in tables of losses. Even when analysis is available, the results and findings are scattered across PDNA sector reports and are, therefore, very difficult to use in Sendai Framework monitoring and reporting. The issue is that even though service disruption data are assessed as part of sectoral reports, the PDNA methodology does not explicitly suggest standardized, separate and tabular presentation of such findings. Instead, in the absence of clear indicators, these estimates are “blended and aggregated” with other estimates of losses and are, therefore, difficult to assess and prioritize in subsequent recovery efforts.

Changes and improvements could be introduced through a four-step processed described further in this report. Overall, terminology related to service disruption and infrastructure damage should be aligned, consistent and better understood. In addition, better understanding of the calculation and presentation of service disruption should be fostered so that PDNA training materials can be updated, adapted and tailored to the needs of each country. Localized training should be considered in preparedness efforts for all potential stakeholders involved in pre- and post-disaster data collection. Collection of pre-disaster baseline data, analysis supported by IT (where possible) and regular reviews of such data should become common practice. The proposed indicators for reporting on service disruption should be measurable and practical, while data collection should be standardized for PDNA reporting and easily transferable to Sendai Target D reporting, to ease reporting requirements for national governments. In order to implement this process worldwide, it is suggested that the tripartite partners (UN, EU and WB) should endorse and support the idea of strengthening the data collection and presentation process for losses from service disruption in PDNA reports. The advocacy process should clearly communicate this policy change, targeting both national governments, as beneficiaries in the PDNA process, and PDNA experts, as implementors.

This would result in PDNA and Sendai monitoring and reporting processes complementing each other without duplication of efforts and or potential losses. The complementarity of a common approach like this should also yield systematic long-term improvements that will eventually result in better risk-informed decision-making for recovery and investment planning.