TsunamiRecovery ImpactAssessmentand MonitoringSystem · WHOLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData Tsunamirecoveryimpactassessmentandmonitoringsystem:secondregionalTRIAMSworkshop …

Second regional TRIAMS workshopBangkok, 21–23 March 2007

Tsunami RecoveryImpact Assessment andMonitoring System

This publication has been prepared by the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization and the International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies. It is published by the World Health Organization on behalf of all three partners. All the maps in this document have beenproduced by Public Health Mapping and GIS (Communicable Diseases) and Health Actions in Crisis (Recovery Department) of the World HealthOrganization.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofthe United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization or the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societiesconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dottedlines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the United NationsDevelopment Programme, the World Health Organization or the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in preference to othersof a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization and the InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is beingdistributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. Inno event shall the United Nations Development Programme, the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties be liable for damages arising from its use.

This publication does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Development Programme, the World HealthOrganization or the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel: +41 22 791 2476; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]). Requests for permission to reproduce or translateWHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806;email: [email protected]).

© United Nations Development Programme, World Health Organization and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2008

2008

United Nations Development Programme

One United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017 USATel: +1 (212) 906-5000Fax: +1 (212) 906-5364Website : www.undp.org/

2008

World Health Organization

Health Action in Crisis20, avenue AppiaCH 1211 Geneva 27SwitzerlandTelefax: +41 22 791 4844E-mail: [email protected] site: www.who.int/hac/

2008

International Federation of Red Crossand Red Crescent Societies

P.O. Box 372CH-1211 Geneva 19SwitzerlandTelephone: +41 22 730 4222Telefax: +41 22 733 0395E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ifrc.org

The second regional TRIAMS workshop was made possible through the supportof the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) andthe American Red Cross.

Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency

Second regional TRIAMS workshopBangkok, 21–23 March 2007

Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessmentand Monitoring System

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Tsunami recovery impact assessment and monitoring system: second regional TRIAMS workshop, Bangkok, 21–23 March2007.1.Natural disasters. 2.Relief work. 3.Indonesia. 4.Maldives. 5.Sri Lanka. 6.Thailand.I.World Health Organization. II.United Nations Development Programme. III.International Federation of Red Cross and RedCrescent Societies.

ISBN 978 92 4 159639 8 NLM classification: WA 295

AbbreviationsADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

AIDMI All India Disaster Mitigation Institute

BMI Body Mass Index

BPDE Electronics Data Processing Body (Indonesia)

BPS Bureau of Public Statistics (Indonesia)

BRR Aceh and Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (Indonesia)

DAD Development Assistance Database

DCS Department of Census and Statistics (Sri Lanka)

DHS Demographic and Health Survey

DDPM Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (Thailand)

ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid Department

EMIS Education Management Information System (Maldives)

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey

HR Human resources

IAS Information Analysis Section

IDP internally displaced person

International Federation International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

NDMC National Disaster Management Centre (Maldives)

NER National Enrolment Ratio

NGO non-governmental organization

NSO National Statistical Office (Thailand)

OSE United Nations Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery

RADA Reconstruction and Development Agency (Sri Lanka)

RAN Recovery Aceh-Nias Database

RHS Reproductive Health Survey

SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

TEC Tsunami Evaluation Coalition

TIAS Tsunami Impact Assessment Survey

TRIAMS Tsunami Impact Assessment and Monitoring System

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDP-BCPR UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNORC United Nations Recovery Coordinator for Aceh and Nias

VRS Vital Registration System

WHO World Health Organization

WHODAS World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule

1

Table of contentsExecutive summary ____________________________________________________ 4

Section I: Setting the scene_____________________________________________ 6

Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 6

Objectives and expectations of the workshop _______________________________________ 9

Section II: Monitoring the progress of tsunami recovery: Country experiences_________ 10

Status of TRIAMS implementation _______________________________________________ 10

Indonesia ___________________________________________________________ 10

Maldives ___________________________________________________________ 11

Sri Lanka ___________________________________________________________ 12

Thailand____________________________________________________________ 13

Summary ___________________________________________________________ 13

Progress of recovery efforts by country ___________________________________________ 14

Indonesia ___________________________________________________________ 14

Maldives ___________________________________________________________ 20

Sri Lanka ___________________________________________________________ 36

Documenting achievements at the country level using the TRIAMS frameworkand selected indicators _______________________________________________________ 47

The impact of the disaster in terms of lives lost: the caseof the most-affected districts in Aceh province________________________________ 47

The overall impact of recovery activities on health statusand quality of life in tsunami-affected communities ____________________________ 52

Section III: Review of TRIAMS indicators ____________________________________ 55

Adoption and utilization of the TRIAMS indicators, by area of recovery_____________________ 55

Vital needs __________________________________________________________ 55

Basic social services___________________________________________________ 56

Infrastructure ________________________________________________________ 57

Livelihoods__________________________________________________________ 58

Revision of the core TRIAMS indicators ___________________________________________ 60

Vital needs __________________________________________________________ 60

Basic social services___________________________________________________ 61

Infrastructure ________________________________________________________ 62

Livelihoods__________________________________________________________ 63

2

Section IV: Incorporating disaster risk reduction into recovery_____________________ 66

What is disaster risk reduction?_________________________________________________ 67

The challenges of disaster risk reduction in practice__________________________________ 68

Disaster risk reduction efforts in the context of the tsunami:country presentations ________________________________________________________ 69

Indonesia: Developing policies and guidelines to reduce risk______________________ 69

A “safer islands” approach in the Maldives __________________________________ 71

Integrating disaster risk reduction in recovery: capturing post-tsunamiexperiences in Sri Lanka________________________________________________ 72

Risk reduction indicators in the context of TRIAMS ___________________________________ 73

Key messages and recommendations ____________________________________________ 76

Country recommendations for incorporating disaster risk reduction_______________________ 77

Section V: Country action plans __________________________________________ 78

Indonesia _________________________________________________________________ 78

Maldives__________________________________________________________________ 80

Sri Lanka _________________________________________________________________ 82

Thailand __________________________________________________________________ 84

Section VI: Conclusions and next steps _____________________________________ 86

Main challenges for the next phase of the TRIAMS initiative ____________________________ 86

Next steps ________________________________________________________________ 88

Facilitating organizations________________________________________________ 88

Implementing agencies_________________________________________________ 88

Partners, donors and other stakeholders ____________________________________ 88

Annex I: Outcomes statement __________________________________________ 91

Annex II: Agenda ____________________________________________________ 93

Annex III: Participants _________________________________________________ 96

3

Executive summaryThe second regional workshop on the Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System(TRIAMS), held in Bangkok from 21 to 23 March 2007, provided an excellent opportunity to consoli-date what has been done so far by the participating tsunami-affected countries (Indonesia, the Maldives,Sri Lanka and Thailand) in documenting the progress, the achievements and the challenges of the tsuna-mi recovery. The workshop was also an opportunity for the affected countries and the main internation-al organizations that have contributed to the tsunami relief and recovery effort to share their experiencesof TRIAMS implementation to date. In addition, the workshop gave rise to a rich discussion on the wayforward for the overall recovery process, which is far from being concluded in the countries concerned,and on what still needs to be accomplished or improved through the replanning of recovery activities.

Section II of this publication, which alone constitutes almost half of the report, is based primarily on thepresentations given by the countries on the first day of the workshop. It shows the status of TRIAMSimplementation in the four participating countries, selected examples of sectoral analysis in these coun-tries, and brief results of some of the studies documenting the impact of the overall recovery process onthe health status and quality of life of tsunami-affected populations. These examples clearly indicate thatit is both possible and mandatory to address the five key questions formulated in the TRIAMS ConceptPaper of March 2006.1

In particular, the documentation produced so far by the TRIAMS initiative provides evidence of the needto address in any future recovery process the questions of whether pre-existing inequalities or inequitiescan and/or should be addressed and whether the use of resources made available by the recovery processis generating new inequalities or inequities. The TRIAMS initiative has shown that the monitoring sys-tem to capture this dimension is feasible, cheap and necessary. It can not be set up, however, without theinvolvement of local governments, line ministries, civil society and the beneficiaries.

Section III presents the revised list of TRIAMS core indicators, which was the outcome of an intense dis-cussion on the use of these indicators over the previous year, the difficulties, feasibility and sustainabilityof collecting the related information, and their relevance in informing and guiding the replanning of therecovery activities in each sector and to the overall recovery process. Some indicators on disaster riskreduction were added to the list of TRIAMS core indicators.

Section IV is a summary of the presentations and subsequent discussion on the monitoring of disaster riskreduction activities during the recovery process. There is a clear window of opportunity to direct appro-priate resources during the recovery to disaster risk reduction, but not enough has been done to monitorthis aspect during the first phase of the tsunami recovery. The introduction of specific disaster risk reduc-tion indicators in all four countries is an important step in assessing the impact of innovative disaster riskreduction policies developed in the aftermath of the tsunami.

4

1 UN, WHO and International Federation, Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS)Workshop Report, 2006, Annex IV, p. 73. Both the report and the concept paper can be found atwww.who.int/hac/triams.

Section V presents the individual country plans of action for the implementation of TRIAMS-relatedactivities during the period 2007–2009. Not all of these plans of action are at the same stage of elabora-tion, but all express the countries’ commitment to pursue the TRIAMS initiative as a key element inmonitoring the tsunami recovery and in supporting the replanning of its final phase.

Section VI summarizes the main conclusions of the workshop and outlines the next steps of the TRIAMSinitiative to be taken at international level, in support of the country action plans.

In tandem with this publication, a dedicated TRIAMS web site (www.who.int/hac/triams) has been cre-ated containing all the documents, surveys, studies and maps produced in the framework of the TRIAMSprocess, including the reports of this and the previous regional workshops. The site has a general sectionand separate sections for each of the four participating countries. It will be regularly updated with the lat-est information and analysis on the progress of TRIAMS implementation as it becomes available.

It is clear that TRIAMS must continue and that it still needs the attention and support of the internation-al community. The reasons for this are threefold. First, the recovery process is not complete in any of thefour participating countries. Second, and probably more importantly, because the initiative is still in itsinfancy, there is a need to find suitable methodologies and modalities for the TRIAMS core indicators tobe collected and analysed in a systematic and periodic way by local actors in the different sectors of therecovery. Third, and most importantly, there has to be a proper investment in capacity-building in orderto enable central and local governments, dedicated recovery agencies, line ministries and civil society tomake full use of the results of the analysis of the TRIAMS indicators in the planning and implementationof the recovery activities that remain to be conducted.

5Executive summary

Section ISetting the scene

Introduction

The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami of 26 December 2004 was a disaster of unprecedented pro-portions and, as such, elicited an unprecedented response from governments, the international commu-nity, international and local aid agencies and the public. The extent of the loss of life and devastationprompted a humanitarian operation on a scale never witnessed before, with pledges of financial supportexceeding US$ 13.5 billion.2 Relief and rescue efforts in the days and weeks following the disaster rapid-ly gave way to rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes.

During this phase, it became clear that if those involved in the reconstruction genuinely wanted to “buildback better” and to ensure their programmes were addressing the evolving needs of the affected popula-tions, without generating new inequalities or inequities, there had to be a mutually agreed monitoring andevaluation system that went beyond the mere tracking of financial inputs. This would enable governmentsof the countries concerned, agencies supporting the recovery, donors and affected populations to see howthe vast resources being allocated to the post-tsunami reconstruction were being spent, assess the impactof recovery programmes and identify gaps or unmet needs. The aim of such an initiative would be to refo-cus the priorities of the overall recovery process regularly during its life span, estimated at around five tosix years in the most-affected countries such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

With this in mind, a concept for a Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System(TRIAMS) was developed during the first half of 2005 by the International Federation and WHO, inclose collaboration with the five countries most affected by the tsunami – India, Indonesia, the Maldives,Sri Lanka and Thailand – and in consultation with other international partners and United Nations (UN)organizations. A first regional workshop was held in Bangkok, Thailand in May 2006 to finalize theTRIAMS Concept Paper, to reach consensus among the countries concerned and partners on the coreindicators that would be used to track the recovery effort and assess its impact, and to define the process-es to be adopted in order to apply these indicators.

Almost one year down the road, the second regional TRIAMS workshop, also held in Bangkok, took theprocess to another level. It set out to:� review the progress achieved in four of the countries concerned (Indonesia, the Maldives, Sri Lanka andThailand) in adopting the TRIAMS platform and in applying the core indicators to monitor the tsuna-mi recovery and assess its impact on the quality of life of the affected populations;

� to examine the lessons learned and challenges encountered;� to improve and refine the indicators; and� to establish new country action plans based on the experiences of the past year.

6

2 Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, Synthesis Report, July 2006, p. 16, www.who.int/hac/triams.

While TRIAMS was first conceived to monitor, from an early stage, the recovery process across all sectorsin the specific context of the tsunami, there was a strong sense during the second workshop that it wasnow time to consider what eventually needs to be added in order to monitor the transition from the sec-ond and closing phase of the recovery process to the return to normality, with an eye to related develop-mental aspects specific to each country. To do this, two additional elements were considered for the nextphase of TRIAMS:� to document major changes in sectoral policies and strategies that were introduced during the first twoand a half years of the tsunami recovery;

� to define and introduce in the TRIAMS framework a first set of risk reduction indicators to documentwhat has been done or is going to be done to avoid recreating the conditions of risk that contributed tothe disaster in the first place.

7Section I I Setting the scene

What is TRIAMS?The Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS) is a sub-regional initiative thatdefined, promoted and supported a common system to monitor recovery activities and assess their overall impactin four countries most affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami – Indonesia, the Maldives, SriLanka and Thailand.

The purpose of the TRIAMS initiative is to assist governments, aid agencies and affected populations in assessingand monitoring the rate and direction of tsunami recovery in the countries covered over a period of five years. Itaims to examine if:

• living conditions and standards have returned to pre-existing levels;• recovery interventions are:– targeting the poorest households and communities;– addressing pre-existing inequalities and/or inequities;– not generating new inequalities and/or inequities.

TRIAMS has four components:• core and country-specific output indicators (quantitative), collected through routine government monitoringsystems and other partners’ information systems;

• core and country-specific outcome indicators (quantitative), largely collected through existing governmentsurveys, with samples adjusted to detect changes in tsunami-affected populations and to compare outcomeindicators between tsunami-affected populations and non-affected populations;

• beneficiary perspectives – to better understand how affected people view recovery progress;• triangulation and alternative explanations – using qualitative and other methods to help analyse andinterpret the quantitative numbers and investigate unexplained differences.

Impact assessment and monitoring focuses on four key areas of recovery:• vital needs (e.g. food, water, shelter, etc.);• basic social services (e.g. health care, education);• infrastructure (e.g. public works, social infrastructure);• livelihoods (e.g. formal and informal income generation).

Ideally, information gathered through the TRIAMS system would be used to inform:• the ongoing planning of recovery efforts by all stakeholders;• beneficiaries of the progress and impact of recovery efforts;• donors, partners and the public on the use of resources and the outcomes;• the development of monitoring and evaluation systems in future disaster response and recovery efforts.

A further element considered was the need to ensure that the collection of core and country-specific indi-cators in the context of TRIAMS can be accomplished largely by routine national data collection systemsand that the data management and analysis take place at the most peripheral levels (district and sub-district) in order to inform the planning of recovery activities.

Lastly, the development of TRIAMS as a generic recovery monitoring and evaluation tool for use in futuredisasters was put forward as a challenge to be taken up collectively by all the countries and partnersinvolved so far in the TRIAMS process.

Second regional TRIAMS workshop8

The evolution of TRIAMSMay 2005 The International Federation develops the concept.

July 2005 The concept is endorsed and supported by WHO.

June 2005 The concept is endorsed by President Bill Clinton, the Office of the Special Envoy.

September 2005 The concept is endorsed by the Global Consortium for Tsunami-Affected Countries, andthe mandate to develop and implement it is given to the International Federation andWHO as a separate process from the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition.

September 2005 Sri Lanka takes a policy decision to modify the national sampling frame of theDemographic Health Survey in order to have a representative sampling of the tsunami-affected population.

June–October 2005 Initial work on the first draft of impact indicators is completed.

January–March 2006 A draft concept paper is developed and a list of core output and outcome indicators isrevised and validated through field discussions with tsunami-affected countries andother partners.

May 2006 First regional workshop in Bangkok establishes a consensus on indicators and theoverall framework.

June–August 2006 Additional field work is undertaken, with support from the Karolinska Insititutet, to assistcountries in operationalizing indicators.

August 2006 UNICEF invests in UNORC/IAS to help the Aceh and Nias Rehabilitation andReconstruction Agency (BRR) in monitoring of recovery activities , adopting the TRIAMSframework.

June–November 2006 Ongoing technical and operational support is provided to targeted countries.

December 2006 UNDP joins the initiative at the satellite TRIAMS meeting, during the last meeting of theGlobal Consortium.

January–March 2007 Four national workshops are held to assess the scope, scale and results of recoverymonitoring and evaluation systems and to prepare the draft plan of action for TRIAMSimplementation to be presented at the second regional TRIAMS workshop.

March 2007 Second regional workshop takes place in Bangkok.

Objectives and expectations of the workshop

Objectives

� Illustrate the progress achieved in applying the monitoring and evaluation indicators by area of recov-ery and overall by country.

� Discuss the incorporation of disaster risk reduction measurements in recovery programmes.� Discuss the country action plans on the monitoring and evaluation of local recovery programmes.� Share learning on monitoring and evaluation in tsunami recovery and arrive at learning and guidelinesfor recovery programmes in general.

Participants’ expectations

Country delegations (Indonesia, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand)� Share experiences and lessons learned from impact assessment and monitoring processes already beingimplemented in other countries.

� Review progress so far and incorporate experiences and lessons learned into revised national action plans.� Discuss how to improve data-collection and monitoring systems for tsunami reconstruction.� Revisit, analyse and fine-tune the indicators identified earlier.� Develop country-specific and context-specific indicators that are more meaningful for local govern-ments and more useful for decision-making.

� Find ways to ensure the TRIAMS process is properly integrated into national data-collection mechanisms.� Look at funding sources from partners and donors for data collection.� Use the exercise to influence national policy and improve recovery efforts.

Partners (International Federation, UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency(SIDA), Spanish government, All India Disaster Mitigation Institute (AIDMI), ProVention, Asian Disaster PreparednessCenter (ADPC), European Commission Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO))� Capture the experiences of the different tsunami-affected countries.� Get a good understanding of how the data is being collected and analysed.� Get a picture of the reality and where there are still needs.� Agree on a simple set of indicators and procedures that are not too complicated to implement.� Determine the value, worth and merits of the tsunami response of the past two years and look ahead tothe next three years.

� Put some real meaning into the term “build back better” in an evaluation sense and determine how tomeasure it.

� Take TRIAMS to the next level and see how it can be applied in other recovery programmes.� Assess whether our activities are relevant and appropriate.� See what progress has been made and incorporate learning from the TRIAMS experience in the differ-ent countries into our own toolkits.

� See what support is needed to continue the process.

9Section I I Setting the scene

Section IIMonitoring the progress of tsunamirecovery: Country experiences

The four countries participating in the TRIAMS initiative − Indonesia, the Maldives, Sri Lanka andThailand − reported on progress achieved in the recovery effort using the TRIAMS framework.3

National workshops were held in all four countries in March 2007 in the lead-up to the regional work-shop. The national workshops brought together the relevant government agencies and partner organiza-tions to assess the status of TRIAMS implementation and to identify challenges and specific ways tostrengthen monitoring and data collection systems. The outcomes of the national workshops informedthe discussion in the regional workshop.

For detailed information on the progress of post-tsunami recovery and reconstruction in each country,refer to the year-end reports for 2006.4 Analysis by sector of recovery is covered in Section III (see p. 55).

Status of TRIAMS implementation

IndonesiaResponsibility for coordination and implementation of TRIAMS in Indonesia lies with the Aceh andNias Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (BRR). The BRR was established by the Indonesiangovernment on 16 April 2006 with a four-year mandate to oversee and coordinate the recovery and recon-struction effort in Aceh province. Nias was included following the earthquake that struck the island on28 March 2005, causing widespread damage. In order to ensure broad coverage of the tsunami-affectedareas and the sustainability of recovery work, the BRR established 6 regional offices to cover the province’s15 tsunami-affected districts, plus Nias island.

The Office of the United Nations Recovery Coordinator for Aceh and Nias (UNORC) was establishedin September 2005 to support the government of Indonesia in the tsunami reconstruction and recoveryand to coordinate and provide policy and strategy direction to UN agencies, the international NGO com-munity and bilateral donors assisting in this effort. At the beginning of its mandate, UNORC took overthe Humanitarian Information Centre established in the aftermath of the tsunami by the UN Office forthe Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), keeping the same staff and changing the name of

10

3 Unless otherwise specified, the statistics quoted in this report relating to the progress of the recovery effort in each coun-try were presented by the official government delegations at the second regional TRIAMS workshop in Bangkok inMarch 2007.

4 www.who.int/hac/triams.

this group to the United Nations Monitoring andInformation System (UNMIS). The unsatisfactory per-formance of UNMIS and a lack of funding led to itsclosure in June 2006. UNICEF financially supportedthe creation of the Information Analysis Section (IAS)in June 2006, with a two-year commitment.

UNIAS is located in UNORC’s offices. A full turnoverof local and international staff took place during thesecond half of 2006. A steering committee provides thestrategic direction. At its first meeting in July 2006, thesteering committee clearly stated the importance ofinvolving the kecamatan (district) offices in data collec-tion and analysis.

In November 2006, UNIAS produced the firstTsunami Recovery Information Package (TRIP) report,using the TRIAMS framework and core and country-specific indicators.5 This report provided moredetail than the BRR’s second year-end report, but data were still only aggregated at district level. Therewas also a lack of analysis.

In preparation for the second regional TRIAMS workshop, a provincial workshop was held in early March2007 in Banda Aceh to assess the status and results of recovery monitoring and evaluation systems, par-ticularly the TRIAMS indicators. Participants included UNORC, UNIAS, UN-Habitat, the BRR andnumerous government agencies. They recommended that monitoring and evaluation systems focus moreon the quality aspects of recovery in the infrastructure, public services and labour sectors and the use ofmore specific indicators to capture the recovery reality, such as recovery in urban centres.

Indonesia is anxious to move beyond mere data collection towards more analysis and the creation of a sus-tainable information management system. In the future, after the BRR ends its mission, local govern-ments will maintain the information system, supported by the Bureau of Public Statistics (BPS) and theElectronics Data Processing Body (BPDE).

MaldivesIn the Maldives, the Ministry of Planning and National Development has set up a task force consistingof government agencies, the UN, the International Federation and its member National Societies, NGOsand others from the donor community to act as a coordinating mechanism for TRIAMS implementation.It has also established a core team of key government officials and created a focal point within the min-istry to collect tsunami recovery indicator updates.

Important monitoring activities in the Maldives have been accomplished in the aftermath of the tsunami.The Tsunami Impact Assessment Survey (TIAS), a countrywide socio-economic assessment at householdlevel supported by UNDP, was carried out in mid-2005 to examine the poverty situation, comparing datacollected during Vulnerability and Poverty Assessments (VPAs) 1 and 2 in 1997 and 2004 respectively andthe situation in 2005 after the tsunami struck.

11Section II I Monitoring the progress of tsunami recovery: Country experiences


TRIAMS brings all of us together, bringing allthe people concerned (line ministries, etc.)with the tsunami recovery effort together atone table. That is what we have been waitingfor for a long time, that is, to work collectively.TRIAMS is a process and as a vehicle hasbeen working very successfully. One of thereasons why we have been able to put

together a master plan, an action plan and agood coordination that we are seeing wassomething that was initiated from being part

of the TRIAMS process.

Maldives government official

Good progress has been made in integrating the TRIAMS framework into tsunami recovery reporting.TRIAMS indicators have been set as a component within MaldivInfo (the national adaptation of the UN’sDevInfo) and provided the basis for the second year-end report. In addition, data collection at atoll andisland level has been a regular practice in the Maldives for some time. The Census 2006 results have beenreleased and analysis is under way. Data from the Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES), theTIAS and additional surveys conducted in 2006 (Reproductive Health Survey, Multiple Indicator ClusterSurveys I and II, statistical yearbooks) have been incorporated into an integrated database of MillenniumDevelopment Goal (MDG) and other indicators, including the TRIAMS indicators. This database isbeing developed jointly by the Ministry of Planning and National Development and UNICEF. Lastly,tsunami reconstruction and recovery and disaster risk reduction have been mainstreamed in the 7thNational Development Plan.

Sri LankaIn Sri Lanka, the Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA) has been the leading government actorin TRIAMS implementation, in cooperation with the Office of the UN Resident Coordinator. A workinggroup comprising mainly government and UN agencies has been active since 2005 to support TRIAMS.

To date, Sri Lanka has: conducted a baseline study of tsunami-affected households; modified the samplingframe of future national household surveys to enable reporting on this tsunami-affected cohort; modifiedsome national surveys to examine issues of particular importance for tsunami-affected populations; andbegun work on an MDG localization exercise with the Department of Census and Statistics that willderive MDG data for DS division levels.

In addition to the TRIAMS work already completed, Sri Lanka will pilot-test the full range ofTRIAMS indicators in two districts, Matara in the south and Ampara in the east, to analyse pre-existinginequalities across the sub-districts and their possible evolution during the tsunami recovery process.Preliminary findings from Matara were presented at the workshop (see pp. 36-47). The full results of thepilot-test in both districts will be available at a later date.

To introduce a qualitative component in tsunami recovery impact assessment and monitoring, Sri Lankais carrying out a survey at six-monthly intervals to gauge beneficiaries’ perspectives of and satisfaction withinterventions in the four areas of recovery covered by TRIAMS, i.e. vital needs, basic social services, infra-structure and livelihoods. The findings can be generalized to the entire tsunami-affected population. Asthe survey is repetitive, it enables analysis to measure the improvement of the recovery from the recipi-ent’s (tsunami survivor’s) point of view. The ultimate aim is to gather evidence of the changes effected byrecovery interventions, in order to inform stakeholders regularly of unmet needs and to influence thereplanning process.

As tsunami-affected populations continue to recover, new priorities are surfacing, such as the needs ofpeople displaced by the escalating conflict. There is an emerging consensus within the UN Country Teamthat the exercise must move beyond the tsunami recovery effort to look more broadly at strengtheningsub-national data capacities with a focus on monitoring recovery and developmental activities as well as assess-ing the impact of these interventions. In the context of Sri Lanka, this reorientation offers a number ofdifferent opportunities:� to support the government’s policy of targeting “lagging” DS divisions by producing high quality andreliable data that would shed light on inter- and intra-district disparities with a particular focus onhuman development indicators;


� to bring together different UN efforts to strengthen data gathering and analytical capacities at bothnational and local levels;

� to pilot a system that will support improved monitoring of recovery efforts tied to the escalation of theconflict and future natural and man-made disasters. In this regard, the conceptual framework ofTRIAMS will be sustained for some time and will be used to inform other emergency as well as devel-opmental priorities.

ThailandThailand had some constraints in moving forward with the TRIAMS initiative after the first TRIAMSworkshop in May 2006. There are 30 departments from 10 ministries involved in collecting data on the55 TRIAMS indicators, underscoring the need for good coordination and information exchange.Moreover, most indicators have to be reported at provincial, district and sub-district levels, which hasmade data collection and collation more complicated.

In preparation for the second regional TRIAMS workshop, a national workshop was organized in March2007. The Ministry of Interior’s Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) was desig-nated as the focal point for TRIAMS. The DDPM successfully organized the national TRIAMS work-shop, with good participation at the national level and of officials of the six tsunami-affected provincesrepresenting all the sectors involved in the tsunami recovery.

Health indicators in documenting the tsunami recovery in Thailand are the most complete. MahidolUniversity’s Faculty of Tropical Medicine, in collaboration with the federal Ministry of Health, support-ed the six Provincial Health Offices in conducting several studies linked to the collection and analysis ofdata related to TRIAMS health indicators. In late 2005, health facilities in the six tsunami-affectedprovinces in southern Thailand were mapped using the Geographic Information System (GIS), and dataon demographic distribution, deaths and orphans by village and information on health facilities and otherbasic social services and infrastructure were collected and analysed by sub-district in a comprehensivereport. Mahidol University and the Provincial Health Offices have also carried out an assessment ofdisability and quality of life and mental health in the tsunami-affected areas using the WHODAS II(World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II) questionnaires and monitored key healthindicators at the sub-district level in tsunami-affected provinces to assess health impacts using TRIAMSindicators in order to create a database of these indicators.

SummarySome of the challenges reported by the four countries were in the following areas:�· coordination between different line ministries involved in data collection;�· lack of baseline data from before the tsunami;�· availability of data on some indicators and the reliability of some data;�· comparison between tsunami-affected and non-affected populations;�·disaggregation of data down to sub-district level and the collation of data from many different levels;�· limited resources, manpower and capacities;�· the involvement of local authorities in data collection and analysis;�· sectoral and intersectoral analysis at peripheral level, time pressures and constraints;�· and, in the case of Sri Lanka, the collection of data in conflict-affected areas.

The difficulties and limitations facing tsunami-affected countries will need to be kept in mind as they imple-ment the TRIAMS framework and related indicators in the monitoring of ongoing recovery interventions.


Progress of recovery efforts by country

IndonesiaIn Indonesia, significant progress has been achieved, but much remains to be done. The second year-endreport presents the achievements of the recovery process according to the proposed TRIAMS framework,but with information aggregated only by district.6 A few examples of complementary data analysis at sub-district level supported by TRIAMS for the housing and health sectors are presented below.

While housing is over its peak, it is still the priority sector. By December 2006, 57,000 of the planned120,000 permanent housing units had been completed, leaving around 51% of needs still to be met.

Figures 1 and 2 present the housing needs assessment by district carried out in Aceh province in May 2005by the BRR Garansi Survey and the housing needs estimated by the BRR in November 2006 respective-ly. The maps show that the impact of the tsunami was greatest on the tip and on the west coast of the


Figures 1 and 2

Housing needs by district in Aceh province,May 2005

Housing needs by district in Aceh province,November 2006


northern part of Aceh province. The five districts shown in red on the map each recorded more than10,000 houses destroyed or damaged, even though the three districts on the west coast had a much lowerpopulation density than other districts.

Analysis of the housing needs by kecamatan (sub-district), as shown in Figures 3 and 4, reveals that theworst-affected districts present a homogeneous pattern, with well over 1,000 units needed per kecamatan,whereas on the east coast the needs are much less homogeneous across the kecamatan.

The east coast of the northern part of Aceh province has a much higher population density than the westcoast, reflected in the smaller surface area of each kecamatan, and has a good road network. Moreover,tsunami damage to infrastructure, in particular to primary and secondary roads, bridges and harbours, wasmuch greater on the west coast. These factors help explain the difference in the speed of recovery in thehousing sector between the east and west coasts, as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

Estimates of the housing needs for the whole of Aceh province increased from 102,310 houses inMay 2005 to 128,805 in November 2006, a 26% rise. The possible reasons for this increase are multiple,indicating the evolution from damage to loss (e.g. new needs arising from extended families, who may


Figures 3 and 4

Housing needs by kecamatan (sub-district)in Aceh province, May 2005

Housing needs by kecamatan (sub-district)in Aceh province, November 2006

have shared a house before the tsunami, now claiming for separate houses) and/or reflecting the adoptionof new policies in the housing sector (e.g. the provision of permanent houses to the more than 7,000households who were renting their homes at the time of the tsunami and who have been accommodatedfor a long time in former army barracks). They may also reflect the low occupancy of new permanenthouses in some areas where houses have been built, while the intended occupants are still living in tem-porary shelters. The absence of basic community infrastructure, such as water supply and sanitation sys-tems, and of access to basic social services may explain this phenomenon.

The BRR is playing a crucial role in promoting the creation of new settlement areas and discussing theoperational implications with line ministries, implementing agencies and donors. It is adopting a morecomprehensive approach to the planning of these new settlement areas, seeing them as a full package com-prising not only the construction of new housing needed but also the provision of an adequate water sup-ply, appropriate sanitation infrastructure, roads and basic social services. These plans have been submit-ted for new partnerships, including with the private sector, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas.

Lastly, the continuing rise in housing needs is a reflection of the BRR’s policy not to close the list of ben-eficiaries in this sector. This has led to constant negotiations with local communities and implementing


Figures 5 and 6

Housing completed by district in Aceh province,May 2005

Housing completed by district in Aceh province,November 2006

partners on where and how many new houses areneeded in a context where the speed of constructionis clearly very different from one area to another butin general much slower than expected.

In this regard, it is important to underline the enor-mous challenge facing the BRR in coordinating thehigh number of partners and implementing agenciesoperating in the housing sector. Often more than oneNGO is working in the same village, sometimes withdifferent standards and at different speeds. Again, theBRR’s role in refining the recovery plans is crucial asneeds become partially covered.

Figure 7 highlights the critical importance of needsassessment and of constant monitoring of needs andcommitments. The areas with diagonal blue linesshow where commitments to build permanent hous-ing are higher than the needs assessed in November2006. Accountability is an issue that must beaddressed jointly by all the partners involved. It seemsinevitable that overcommitment will occur, close toareas where all the needs are not covered. The issue ishow to put in place efficient corrective measures toredirect the available resources.

A beneficiary verification process is under way toensure recipients of permanent housing meet the cri-teria for eligibility. The new policy adopted by theprovincial government of providing a permanenthouse also to households that were renting before the tsunami has prompted a significant increase in thenumber of beneficiaries in this area. But this does not seem to be the only reason for the further rise inneeds resulting from the most recent beneficiary survey. Further analysis is needed on this point once thefull data are available.

Analysis of the findings in the health sector in Indonesia revealed that in some districts more health clin-ics have been built than the needs assessed (324 health facilities have been built or rebuilt overall, com-pared with the 127 units destroyed in the tsunami). By the end of the reconstruction, Aceh will have amore extensive health network than anywhere else in Indonesia, including West Java. The challenge willbe to ensure that the health facilities are properly equipped and staffed and sustainable beyond the recov-ery phase. Both health infrastructure utilization and housing occupancy will need continued monitoringand analysis for some time.

Figures 8 and 9 show investment in health infrastructure, i.e. puskesmas (auxiliary health centres) andpustus (health posts), in Simeulue district in Aceh province. The average number of inhabitants per pustuper kecamatan before the tsunami was 3,412, with a total of 24 pustu covering between 1,700 and 10,000inhabitants per pustu across the 9 kecamatan of this district. A joint WHO and Provincial Health Office


Figure 7

Percentage of permanent houses committed comparedwith the November 2006 housing needs

assessment and mapping of the health facilities in Simeulue district found that the new district average inMarch 2007 had decreased to 1,687 inhabitants per pustu, owing to the rehabilitation/reconstruction ofdamaged or destroyed pustu and the construction of an additional 26 new pustu. The range is nowbetween 996 and 4,879 inhabitants per pustu. The average number of inhabitants per pustu in NiasSelatan district is around 7,500, with coverage ranging between 4,259 and 11,132 inhabitants, while inAceh Tamiang district the average is 8,480 inhabitants per district, with coverage ranging from 4,645 to12,322 inhabitants per pustu.

The notion of building back better should be applied consistently across the districts and sub-districts ofthe overall province. It seems that this is not the case. The statistics show that inequalities in geographi-cal access to basic health services have been generated by the tsunami recovery.

In addition, there appears to be a need to identify which services to strengthen as a priority. For example,Figure 10 presents the average kecamatan population covered by one village midwife in Simeulue district.The average for the whole district is 4,017 inhabitants per midwife, with three of the eight kecamatan


Figure 8

Location of puskesmas and pustu and average population per kecamatan in Simeulue district,November 2004

with no midwife deployed at village level, and with a range between 1,092 and 4,879 inhabitants permidwife. The coverage of this crucial health service is now far below that of the pustu.

The need to develop a strategic plan for the use of the remaining available resources in the health sectoris urgent, given that the building of additional new health infrastructure has already been planned for thesecond half of 2007 and for 2008.

Some of the other vital needs have proved difficult to monitor in Indonesia. In other cases, monitoring ofindicators, e.g. household food consumption, has revealed that the situation is worse for people in areasnot affected by the tsunami. In tsunami-affected areas, there are many organizations providing nutrition-al assistance, but this does not extend to unaffected parts of the country.

Other recovery statistics from Indonesia show that by December 2006, 50,340 ha of agricultural land ofthe 60,000 ha destroyed by the tsunami had been restored to production; 1,510 km of the 3,000 km ofroads, 158 bridges (38 more than before the tsunami) and 7 out 14 seaports had been rebuilt or repaired.


Figure 9

Location of pre-existing and new puskesmas and pustu and the average population per keca-matan in Simeulue district, March 2007

While 2,500 teachers perished in the tsunami, 5,400 (more than double) have been trained, but only 747of the 2,006 schools needed have been built.

Other recovery statistics from Indonesia show that by December 2006, 50,340 ha of agricultural land of the60,000 ha destroyed by the tsunami had been restored to production; 1,510 km of the 3,000 km of roads, 158bridges (38 more than before the tsunami) and 7 out 14 seaports had been rebuilt or repaired. While 2,500teachers perished in the tsunami, 5,400 (more than double) have been trained, but only 747 of the 2,006schools needed have been built.

MaldivesThe situation was unique in the Maldives because although loss of life was much lower than elsewhere, thewhole country was affected by the tsunami. The country is made up of 1,190 islands, 199 of which are inhab-ited. The average height above sea level is 1.8 metres, making many of the islands unsafe for habitation. Thegovernment has adopted a population consolidation policy to reduce the number of inhabited islands to pro-vide for safer settlements and more efficiency in the provision of the necessary infrastructure, such as schools,hospitals and harbours. In terms of housing, 5,940 people were still in temporary shelters, while 1,073 hadbeen housed either in their old homes or in new homes, indicating that there is still a significant gap.


Figure 10

Average population coverage by village midwives per kecamatan in Simeulue district, March 2007


Figure 11

Housing needs in the Maldives (as established in July 2005)


Figure 12

Maldives: Percentage of houses repaired in January 2005, July 2005, January 2006 and July 2006 respectively


Figure 13

Maldives: Percentage of houses reconstructed in January 2005, July 2005, January 2006 and July 2006 respectively

In the health sector, 16 health facilities have been completed and handed over, but primary health careservices are still weak owing to lack of funding and capacities. Both infant and maternal mortality rateshad improved, after a rise in 2004.

The provision of safe water in the Maldives is of vital importance as sources are limited. In order to boostrainwater collection, 20,000 water storage tanks were distributed to households and internally displacedpeople (IDPs) on 90 islands. Sewage systems have also been constructed to reduce pollution of ground-water supplies and reverse osmosis desalination plants established on some islands to ensure access topotable water. Maintenance and utilization of this new infrastructure rely on sustainable solutions beingdelivered through partnerships between the government and the communities.

The education sector in the Maldives was hard hit. Where IDPs had gathered, there was overcrowding in“host” schools, which created initial difficulties. Around 50 temporary classrooms (25% of which havesince been made permanent) and 10 toilets were established on 6 different islands pending the construc-tion of more permanent buildings. An additional 40 schools are currently being upgraded, and 7 newpreschools, 16 primary schools and 20 teacher resource centres are under construction.

Attracting funding for reconstruction of harbours and jetties has been especially difficult because they areperceived by donors as commercial infrastructure rather than as a primary access for island communities.

A lingering problem in the Maldives has been that of psychological well-being. According to the TIAS, inthe 14 most-affected islands about two-thirds of the women and half of the men still have less confidencein the future or feared more for the security of their families. To address this, some aid agencies are con-ducting psychosocial programmes.

An assessment of the current status of TRIAMS implementation was carried out and has since been updat-ed to take account of the changes in the indicators made at the second regional workshop in Bangkok. Anoverview of the resulting indicators, by type, is given in Table 1.

Of the 49 indicators listed, information on 9 has not been available so far, and nor is it likely to becomeavailable over the next three years.

The list of TRIAMS indicators was reviewed from three different angles, namely:� Are the data relevant for the situation in the Maldives?� Are the data on a given indicator regularly available?� Are other data regularly available that are relevant but not included in the list?

Regarding the relevance of the data, the indicator relating to land titles is not applicable in the Maldives.The indicators on which information is available but static and therefore not relevant are: the number offunctioning island offices; the number of latrines for the population in temporary housing; and the per-centage of tsunami-affected communities consulted (all have been consulted on a number of occasions).Therefore, these indicators are of no use either for monitoring progress or for evaluation.

On the issue of the regularity of data availability, the answer can be found in the source of information.For a number of indicators, data have to be collected through large-scale surveys such as the VPA, theHIES, the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) or the census. These are not conducted on a regularbasis and therefore only provide a few observation points. Such information can be used for evaluation


but is not adequate for monitoring progress. Indicators on which data are regularly gathered, eitherthrough the education or health data collection systems or the monthly monitoring of progress carried outby the National Disaster Management Centre, can be used for both evaluation and monitoring. Themonthly data on progress are especially useful for monitoring.

Regarding the gaps in the coverage of the proposed TRIAMS indicators, analysis of the monthly NDMCdata shows that more information is available on the physical progress of reconstruction/recovery than iscovered by the indicator list. Three separate data series on IDPs and housing reconstruction and repair areavailable to supplement the vital needs output indicators and four series on the reconstruction of variousfacilities can be added to the infrastructure output indicators.

The modified list of indicators is presented in Table 2. As mentioned earlier, the indicators derived fromlarge-scale surveys can serve for programme evaluation, but cannot be used for monitoring progress. Mostof the information relating to these indicators is available for 2004 and 2005 from the VPA2 and TIAS,respectively. Some is also available from the 2006 population census, but it is envisaged that only two newsurveys will be conducted before the end of the monitoring period. A DHS is planned in 2007, while aHIES/VPA is pencilled in for 2009. As data analysis for such surveys takes a substantial amount of time,survey results are expected to be available only in 2008 and 2010 respectively.

The information in Table 2 has been relabelled in Table 3, whereby regularly available data are deemedsuitable for monitoring, while the information available only from the two large-scale surveys that areplanned for the coming years can be used only for evaluation. Furthermore, the number of indicators


Table 1: Maldives: List of TRIAMS indicatorssuggested at Bangkok meeting

Type of Indicator Total Yes No Not required/not applicable

Vital Needs OUTPUT Indicators 7 5 1 1

Vital Needs OUTCOME Indicators 9 8 1 0

Basic Services OUTPUT Indicators 11 7 2 2

Basic Services OUTCOME Indicators 3 3 0 0

Infrastructure OUTPUT Indicators 5 4 1 0

Infrastructure OUTCOME Indicators 1 0 0 1

Livelihoods OUTPUT Indicators 9 6 3 0

Livelihoods OUTCOME Indicators 4 3 1 0

Total 49 36 9 4

that are only available for the coming years if the HIES/VPA is conducted in 2009 are listed for easeof reference.

The most serious problem is that all livelihood outcome indicators in the list are derived from theHIES/VPA and therefore will be available only if the survey is conducted in time.

With respect to the infrastructure outcome indicators, only the number/percentage of functioning islandoffices has been included. As all island offices were fully functioning again (though not always from per-manent structures) shortly after the tsunami, this is a static characteristic that does not need to be tracked.

Overall, information is regularly available for 31 indicators. This includes 10 data series to be obtainedfrom the monthly monitoring carried out by the National Disaster Management Centre, another 10 fromthe health system and 4 from the education system. The remaining 7 indicators are to be obtained fromthe unpublished administrative information available from various ministries, as indicated in Table 4.


Table 2: Maldives: Modified list of TRIAMS indicators

Type of Indicator Total Regular SurveysOf which:

HIES/VPA 2009 onlyNot required/not applicable

Not available from2007 onwards

Vital Needs OUTPUT Indicators 9 4 3 1 1 1

Vital Needs OUTCOME Indicators 9 4 4 0 0 1

Basic Services OUTPUT Indicators 11 7 1 0 2 1

Basic Services OUTCOME Indicators 3 3 0 0 0 0

Infrastructure OUTPUT Indicators 9 8 0 0 0 1

Infrastructure OUTCOME Indicators 1 0 0 0 1 0

Livelihoods OUTPUT Indicators 9 5 1 0 0 3

Livelihoods OUTCOME Indicators 4 0 4 4 0 0

Total 55 31 13 5 4 7

For the indicators that can be used for regular monitoring, it is important that all information be madeavailable in a standardized format to facilitate the monthly updating of the database. The most importantaspects of this are consistency in the format used and the precoding of various characteristics, especiallythe location (island), as there are many islands with similar (and sometimes identical) names, which caneasily cause coding errors.

In conclusion, implementation of the monitoring system using the 31 indicators regularly available is pos-sible without too many additional inputs once the framework has been put in place. For evaluation, it isimportant that additional information become available as planned from the DHS in 2007 and theHIES/VPA in 2009.

If other data series are available from administrative sources that may shed light on developments in areasnot adequately covered by the series presented in Table 4, these could be added. No such information isknown to be available at this moment.


Table 3: Maldives: TRIAMS indicators by type of use

Type of Indicator Monitoring EvaluationOf which:

HIES/VPA 2009 only

Vital Needs OUTPUT Indicators 4 3 1

Vital Needs OUTCOME Indicators 4 4 0

Basic Services OUTPUT Indicators 7 7 0

Basic Services OUTCOME Indicators 3 3 0

Infrastructure OUTPUT Indicators 8 8 0

Infrastructure OUTCOME Indicators 0 0 0

Livelihoods OUTPUT Indicators 5 5 0

Livelihoods OUTCOME Indicators 0 0 4

Total 31 13 5


Table 4: Maldives Government monitoring and evaluation

IndicatorsCurrentlycollected(Yes/No)

If no,why

Frequency ofdata collection

If collected,most recentdata value

Vital needs OUTPUT Indicators

% of population with access to water froman improved source, by administrative level

Yes, but proxyindicatorsavailable

5 years

% of population without basic sanitationfacilities, by administrative level


5 years

Household food consumption (24 hour recall) NoNo survey on foodconsumption/security

5 years

Proportion of tsunami-affected population withhousing damaged/destroyed living in emer-gency shelter/temporary houses/permanenthouses, by sub-district, by time period

Yes Quarterly

Measles immunization coverage,by administrative level

Yes Annually

# of titles of land given, by economic statusand gender, by district

Yes

Contraceptive prevalence rate Yes 5 years 37%

Vital needs OUTCOMES Indicators

% of children under 5 who are underweight Yes 5 years

% of children under 5 who are wasted(moderate or severe)

Yes 5 years

% of children under 5 who are stunted(moderate or severe)

Yes 5 years

% of low birth weight newborns Yes Annually/5 years

% of children under 5 who have experienceda diarrhoea episode in the past 2 weeks


Quarterly

Infant mortality rate Yes Annually12/1,000 livebirths (2005)

% of population with worse functioning(WHODAS II)

NoNo survey yetconducted

% of population under stressor with poor well-being

Yes

Maternal Mortality Ratio Yes72/100,000live births


plan 2007–2009 using TRIAMS indicators

Current or potential data sourceResources required tocollect data routinely

Othercomments

Census/DHS

Census/DHS

HIES

NDMC/relevant sectors

RHS, 1999, 2004

MICS I, MICS II /DHS 2007



VRS/MICS I, MICS II /DHS 2009

Disease surveillance systemAttack rate forchildren <5

VRS

DHS, 2007DHS funding gap –US$ 200,000

TIAS, Census 2006

VRS


Table 4 (contd.): Maldives Government monitoring and


If no,why

Frequency ofdata collection

If collected,most recent data value

Basic Services OUTPUT Indicators

# of primary school children per school,by sub-district

Yes Annually250 students per

primary school (2006)

# of primary school children per teacher,by sub-district

Yes Annually18 primary

students per teacher(2006)

# of hospital beds per 10,000 population,(inpatient and maternity) by sub-district/district

Yes Annually

# of outpatient consultations per personper year, by administrative level

No, but can be collectedfrom health facilitydata systems

Annually

% of children of 12–23 months who arefully immunized against all antigens,by administrative level

Yes, but proxy data onvaccination coverage isavailable for atoll level

Annually/5 years

# of health facilities with emergencyobstetric care per 10,000 population,by sub-district/district

Yes Annually

Adequate ante-natal coverage (at least4 visits during a pregnancy), by sub-district

Yes, but national levelcurrently available

5 years 98%

% of sub-district covered by mobilepsychological support workers, by district

No

Out of pocket expenditure for health NoNo surveyconducted

# of people per latrine (for tsunami-affectedpeople living in temporary campsites)

N/A

% of tsunami-affected communities consultedby implementing agency, by district

N/A

Basic Services OUTCOMES Indicators

Net primary school enrolment ratio Yes Annually99% (almost achieveduniversal primaryeducation) (2006)

Primary school drop-out rate Yes Annually3% (reliability question:mismatch between NERand drop-out rate) (2006)

% of births attended by a skilledbirth attendant

YesAnnually/5 yearly

85%


evaluation plan 2007–2009 using TRIAMS indicators

Current or potential data source Resources required to collect data routinely

Annual school census data collected for the EMIS(EMIS however is not fully functional owing to problems with software)

Redevelop EMIS software including fully integratedautomated data input system US$ 60,000. Capacity

building (training programme) US$ 110,000

Health care service records

Health facility data systemsImprovement of medical records

and registration systems

MICS I/MICS II, DHS 2007 Child Health & Nutrition tracking online databasesystem (2008 onwards), MICS I/MICS II, DHS 2007 Child Health & Nutrition

tracking online database system (2008 onwards)Capacity building

Health Care service records

RHS, 1999, 2004Capacity building for analysing/collating data

from island level registers

Proxy data on number of persons trainedat island level are available, in terms of access

to psychosocial support services

DHS 2007

Annual school enrolment data collected for the EMIS from schools as numerator.Denominator obtained from age-specific population projections based on national

census data provided by Ministry of Planning and National Development.Funding gap for DHS 2007

Annual school census data collected for the EMIS Same as indicators 12 & 13

RHS, VRS




If yes, most recent data value

Infrastructure OUTPUT Indicators

# of harbours/jetties rehabilitatedby type, by district

Yes8 completed,

4 in progress, 16 funding confirmed24 funding sources/not confimed

# of destroyed/damaged schools rebuilt orrehabilitated, by category, by sub-district

Yes

51 primary schools/secondary schools/preschools will be rehabilitated.25 school facilities completed, 17 primary schoolsand 9 preschools in process of construction.

1 vocational school to be constructed.20 Teacher Resource Centres in process

of construction, 2 completed

% of destroyed/damaged health facilitiesrebuilt or rehabilitated, by category,by sub-district

Yes 16 completed, 4 in progress

# of sq km of natural habitat,restored, by type

No

# of km of coastal protection constructed/repaired, by type (biofencing, sea walls,quay walls, breakwaters), by district

Yes2,200m revetments – approximately 3,000m

of cement sand bag revetments

Infrastructure OUTCOMES Indicators

% of local administration officefully functioning, by district

N/A



Current or potential data source Resources required to collect data routinely

Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructurein-house coastal infrastructure monitoring programme

Extra note: Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructurehas very limited data analysing capacity (human resources) and burdens itsindustry development unit, to analyse the monitoring units data. Hence needdata analysis personnel. Capacity building to train existing and new staff is

required. 2 professional demographic statisticians (6 months each) + continu-ous on-the-job training for 5 staff – $200,000

Ministry of Health projects department

All of the Maldives is not mapped, hence the damage causedto natural habitats is also not fully mapped. Urgent assistance

is required to map and accurately locate all islands in the Maldives.This would also help in disaster management activities of all sectors.

National land survey - $200,000

Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructurein-house coastal infrastructure monitoring programme

Extra note: Ministry of Construction and Public Infrastructurehas very limited data collection capacity (human resources)

and burdens its industry development unit to analysethe monitoring unit data. Hence need data analysis

personnel, as indicated above.

Ministry of Atolls Administration




If no,why

Livelihood OUTPUT Indicators

# of sq km of land returned to crops No

Maldives has data on the agriculture sector of affectedislands but the area was not measured in the aftermathof the tsunami. Indicator 35 can capture information

on progress or impact.

% of tsunami-affected population who havereceived loans

Yes, but need to definethe denominator of

the indicator

% of population of tsunami-affected districtswho have received grants, by administrativelevel and by gender

Yes, but not genderdisaggregated

% of tsunami-affected population enrolledin social protection programme, by gender

NoCan be collected if there is coordination betweenthe Red Cross & the Ministry of Gender and Family

# of people employed by different sectors Yes

% of damaged/destroyed boatsrepaired/replaced, by use (fishing, tourism,ferrying and other income-generatingactivities) and by island

Yes

# of home gardens affected and regained NoSome households discontinued home

gardening after the tsunami

# of people receiving fishing gear, by gender Yes

# of hotel rooms available comparedwith before the tsunami

Yes

Livelihood OUTCOMES Indicators

% of population living belownational poverty line

No, but income dataavailable

Average household income,by administrative level and by gender

Yes

Labour force participation rate, by gender Yes

% of households that have regainedtheir pre-tsunami livelihoods, by gender

YesSignificant no. of households have changed

their livelihoods after the tsunami



FrequencyIf collected,most recentdata value

Current or potential data sourceResources required

to collect data routinely

No baseline data exist, therefore notmeaningful to collect endline data

QuarterlyNo. of loans disbursed tofemales: 118; No. of loansdisbursed to males: 346

Bank of Maldives, Ministry of Atolls Developmentand Ministry of Family and Gender

Quarterly Cash grants: 63,477 Ministry of Finance and Treasury

Need better coordination between NGOsand line ministries

VPA II, TIAS 2005 and Census 2006

Quarterly 82%Ministry of Fishing, Agriculture

and Marine Resources

Difficult to collect

Quarterly 97%

Quarterly Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation

5 years Ministry of Planning and National DevelopmentFinancial assistance for DHS –

$200,000 gap

5 years Ministry of Planning and National DevelopmentFinancial assistance for DHS –

$200,000 gap

5 years53% total; 63.7% male,

36.7% femaleCensus 2006

Financial assistance for DHS –$200,000 gap

No baseline, not relevant to collect

Sri LankaIn Sri Lanka, most sectors, starting with agriculture, are recovering well. Progress is slower in the socialservices sector, for example in the reconstruction of education infrastructure, as this requires big build-ings. In the housing sector, 51% of needs are covered. However, there are disparities in the progress ofreconstruction between southern areas and the north and east, owing to the escalation of the conflict inthe latter two areas. The conflict has also made data collection difficult in these areas.

According to the results of an HIES comparing tsunami-affected populations and non-affected popula-tions, the coastal population is more prosperous than that of the hinterland, as has been the case histori-cally. The significant infusion of resources in coastal areas has had an unusual impact, in that income isnow higher than that of the country on average. In most areas of Sri Lanka, access to safe water and san-itation is very good. Immunization coverage is also very good, reaching up to 90%, as is the case with theother TRIAMS health indicators.

WHO supported the Federal Ministry of Health and the Matara Health District Office in carrying out adetailed analysis at sub-district level of selected TRIAMS health indicators and other country-specifichealth indicators. These were collected and analysed through the routine health information system at dis-


Figures 14 and 15

Sri Lanka district divisions GN divisions, Matara district

trict level and, when possible, for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. The outcome of this process was dis-cussed at the national workshop held in March 2007 in advance of the second regional TRIAMS work-shop. The maps and text below are a synthesis of this work. The Ministry of Health of Sri Lanka indicat-ed in the TRIAMS plan of action its intention to standardize this data collection and analysis in order toextend it to other districts.

Matara district is part of the coastal region of Sri Lanka that was severely affected by the 2004 tsunami.Only the four DS divisions (sub-districts) of Matara directly along the coast were affected by the tsunami.

Matara district reported 16,928 people affected by the tsunami, with 1,243 deaths and 612 people miss-ing. The number of completely damaged and unusable partially damaged housing units was 2,392, while3,837 houses were damaged but still usable. The damage was distributed across the 70 tsunami-affectedGN divisions out of the total 203 GN divisions in Matara district. In the 70 affected GN divisions, 296out of the total 431 census blocks were affected. The reported population directly affected by the tsuna-mi represents 2.1% of the total district population in 2006.


Figures 16 and 17

Health facilities and main roads in Matara district Total population and population density (inhabitants/km2),by GN division, 2006


Table 5: Selected health indicators, by Ministry of Health Area,by health facility, Matara district *

Ministry ofHealth Area

Health Facility Type – LocationOut

patientsNumberof beds

Inpatients

Caesariansections 2004

Caesariansections 2004

Caesarian sec-tions 2006 (Q.1–2)

Akuressa

Central Dispensary – Rotumba 8,640

247 281 135Central Dispensary – Maramba 12,484

District hospital – Akuressa 62,502 140 8334

Deniyaya District hospital – Deniyaya 42,366 148 7600

DevinuwaraRural hospital – Devinuwara 19,014 15

109 155 92Central Dispensary & Maternity – Thalalla 32,623 15 123

DickwellaDistrict hospital – Dickwella 71,711 82 6,000

147 177 98Rural hospital – Urugamuwa 19,976 8 510

Hakmana

Central Dispensary – Hakmana 40,737

80 102 62Peripheral unit – Gangodagama 37,918 60 4,368

Peripheral unit – Naravelpita 44,420 69 2,910

Kamburupitiya

Base hospital – Kamburupitiya 99,428 172 13,141

149 154 96Central Dispensary & Maternity home –Kirinda

34,876 6

Rural hospital – Ruhunugama 38,642 23

KotapolaCentral Dispensary & Maternity home –Pallegama

21,673 12 238122 127 75

Central Dispensary – Kotapola 31,251

MalimbodaCentral Dispensary – Horagoda 4,844

120 117 75Central Dispensary – Thelijjawila 16,354

MataraCentral Dispensary – Kekanadura 23,144

371 453 245General hospital – Matara 40,6550 1,064 91,604

Morawaka

Central Dispensary – Beralapanathara 7,126

96 137 68

Central Dispensary – Derangala 15,200

Central Dispensary – Dihigaspe 12,837

Central Dispensary – Makandura 6,500

Peripheral unit – Morawaka 58,332 98

MulatiyanaPeripheral unit – Mawarala 40,585 96 2,678

114 129 61Rural hospital – Deiyandara 24,922 56 2,683

Pasgoda Rural hospital – Urubokka 36,580 67 4,838 118 139 78

ThihagodaCentral Dispensary – Thihagoda 6,358

106 114 81Central Dispensary – Yatiyana 27,662

Weligama

Central Dispensary – Galbokka 37,200

244 205 131

Central Dispensary – Kamburugamuwa 23,397

Central Dispensary – Mirissa 25,602

District hospital – Weligama 54,714 161 7,709

Rural hospital – Midigama 23,518 12 16

Welipitiya Central Dispensary – Denipitiya 12,837 147 186 97

Total 1,482,523 2,304 152,752 2,170 2,476 1,394

* Sources: Office of the Deputy Provincial Director of Health Services, Health Bulletin, 2005, and the consolidated quarterly reports of the DistrictHealth Office into yearly reports for 2004 and 2005 and for the first two quarters of 2006.

Ministry of Health Areas coincide with the sub-district administrative divisions, with the exception of twoareas (Akuressa and Kamburupitiya), which are both made up of two sub-districts.

While the physical destruction was limited to a slim coastal strip, and few people in Matara district weredirectly affected, the impact of the tsunami has been huge on the district’s local economies, not only inthe coastal belt but throughout the district.

Matara has one of the highest population densities in Sri Lanka, increasing from 599 inhabitants/km2 in2001 to 661/km2 in 2006. The sub-districts along the coast have the highest population density, with val-ues between three to four times higher than those in the northern part of the district.

The road network and distribution of health facilities ensure that the populations of all sub-districts havevery good geographical access to health facilities.

The Matara General Hospital, with 1,064 beds, has a huge volume of work. Some health facilities arelocated very close to one another, with very low utilization of inpatient services, as in the WeligamaMinistry of Health Area. Here, a rural hospital with 12 beds reported 16 inpatients during 2005, whilethe district hospital with 161 beds, just 5 km away, reported 7,709 admissions for the same year.

Figure 18 illustrates the number of inpatient beds available (including maternity beds) per 10,000 peoplewithin each Ministry of Health Area in 2005.

The fact that certain sub-districts present a 0 value for the number of beds per 10,000 population in thesouthern part of Matara district does not indicate a low geographical accessibility of health services forthese populations, owing to their proximity to the health facilities of neighbouring sub-districts, both tothe south and to the north. By contrast, the low value of this indicator in the northern sub-district ofKotapola, with only 12 inpatient beds available, and the distance from the nearest district or rural hospi-tals exceeding 20 km, would seem to indicate poor access to hospital care for the 60,000 inhabitants ofthis sub-district.

Figure 19 presents the number of outpatient consultations per person per year carried out in 2005. Again,it seems that the low value of this indicator (less than one visit per person per year) reflects a very low uti-lization of basic health services in the two northern sub-districts compared with the other sub-districts ofMatara district. However, the very low and low values of the indicator for the Welipitiya and Malimbadasub-districts seem not to reflect a very low utilization, owing to the high value of the indicator in thesouthern sub-districts of Weligama and Matara, whose health facilities are close by and are also providingservices to the populations of the two aforementioned neighbouring sub-districts.


Figure 19 presents the number of outpatient consultations per person per year carried out in 2005.Again, it seems that the low value of this indicator (less than one visit per person per year) reflects a verylow utilization of basic health services in the two northern sub-districts compared with the other sub-districts of Matara district. However, the very low and low values of the indicator for the Welipitiya andMalimbada sub-districts seem not to reflect a very low utilization, owing to the high value of the indi-cator in the southern sub-districts of Weligama and Matara, whose health facilities are close by and arealso providing services to the populations of the two aforementioned neighbouring sub-districts.

In general, it seems that the very good geographical accessibility of health facilities highlighted byFigure 19 corresponds to a good utilization of out- and inpatient services, as indicated by the analysis ofoutpatient visits and inpatients treated by the health facilities in 2005 presented in Table 5.

The indicator represented in Figure 20 for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 is the percentage of caesareansections performed over the total number of attended deliveries by sub-district. The number of caesareansections performed by sub-district and by year are presented in Table 5.

Only two health facilities perform caesarean sections in Matara district. Nevertheless, the registration of thisservice is recorded by the sub-districts that referred thepregnant women. The recording of this informationseems reliable and consistent over the three-year period.

The pattern of this indicator over the three years seemsto suggest that the tendency to over-diagnose the needfor a caesarean section is increasing over time butshows important differences in the value of this indi-cator between the northern and southern sub-districts.

The percentage of deliveries managed through caesare-an section are extremely high in the overall district, butparticularly in the southern part. There is a need toinvestigate if the high number of caesarean sections inthe Matara General Hospital is linked to the numberof patients referred by other districts, and if this is thecase, to what extent.

The over-medicalization of deliveries does not neces-sarily translate into further reductions in maternal andperinatal mortality. A retrospective study of these indi-cators over the same period may help to assess if thehigh costs represented by the caesarean sections have apositive health outcome for the beneficiaries.

The Body Mass Index (BMI) of pregnant women atthe first antenatal visit is an important parameter inthe individual follow-up of these women, but it canalso be used as an anthropometric indicator highlight-ing the nutritional status of the overall population of


Figure 18

Number of inpatient beds per 10,000 people, by GN,Matara district, 2005

pregnant women. The coverage of pregnant womenattending antenatal care in Sri Lanka is very high, andamong them the detection of BMI is also very high.

The indicator, as presented in Figure 21, also showsimportant differences between the northern andsouthern sub-districts of Matara district, with a smalldeterioration in the northern district of Kotapola,from 38.9% in 2004 to 43.8% in 2006, which is theonly sub-district above the threshold of 40%, general-ly considered the value indicating an alarming nutri-tional situation among the assessed population. In therest of the sub-districts, the indicator presents neithersignificant negative nor positive changes.

The pattern of the low birth weight indicator over the2004–2006 period and across the sub-districts mirrorsthe findings of the BMI index among pregnantwomen at the first antenatal visit.

More that 90% of deliveries take place in health facil-ities, where almost all newborns are weighed. So thecoverage of this indicator, based on data provided byroutine information systems, seems quite reliable andrepresents almost the whole population, with uniformcoverage across the sub-districts.

Although the indicator is below the national average of17% reported in 2002 in all the sub-districts, there areimportant inequalities again between the northern andsouthern sub-districts. In addition, the situation seems to be quite stable across the three-year period.

Weight for age is an anthropometric indicator highlighting undernutrition but can not detect acute orchronic malnutrition.

The data presented in Figure 23 are consolidated in the Ministry of Health Areas’ quarterly reports onthe growth monitoring programme. This programme collects data for children below one year of age,those between two and three years of age, and those between four and five years of age. The data havebeen aggregated for the under-five population.

As the purpose of the programme is to monitor the children’s growth, the children were weighed severaltimes during the same year. These data can not be taken as showing the prevalence of undernutrition.Nevertheless, the distribution of undernutrition across the age groups reflects the expected pattern, beinghigher in the age group of children above one year of age.

Despite the above-mentioned limitation, it seems that children under five have a better nutritional statusin the coastal belt than in the northern sub-districts.


Figure 19

Number of outpatient consultations per person per year,by GN, Matara district, 2005


Figure 20

Percentage of caesaran sections over the total number of deliveries registered, Matara district,2004, 2005, 2006 respectively


Figure 21

Percentage of pregnant women with a BMI less than 18.5, Matara district,2004, 2005, 2006 respectively


Figure 22

Percentage of low birth weight, Matara district, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively


Figure 23

Percentage of children under 5 below 3rd centile, Matara district, 2004, 2005, 2006 respectively

Table 6 shows a very high immuniza-tion coverage with several antigensacross all the sub-districts, as well asconsistency between the reported andestimated denominators.

As seen in Figure 24, coverage of hous-es with latrines in 2005 is quite highacross all sub-districts, with the excep-tion of Weligama sub-district.

Preliminary analysis and furtherquestions� The brief analysis presented alongwith each figure is very preliminary.

� These preliminary findings neverthe-less highlight inequalities in thenutritional status of pregnant womenand newborns between the northernand southern sub-districts of Mataradistrict that need to be investigated.

� One hypothesis is that the lowerhousehold food security in thenorthern sub-districts is due to lowerincome.

� Is the allocation of resources tobuild a large number of new healthfacilities in the coastal sub-districtjustified?

� Is this choice sustainable in terms of human resources and maintenance costs?� Can resources available for restoring livelihoods in the tsunami-affected population have a positive spill-over effect for the disadvantaged rural communities of the northern part of the district, in order toaddress pre-existing inequalities?

� If yes, which actions are needed from the livelihood sector in order to facilitate redressing these inequal-ities within the district?

� What are the obstacles to this happening?


Figure 24

Coverage of sanitation, by GN division,Matara district, 2005

Documenting achievements at the country level usingthe TRIAMS framework and selected indicators

The impact of the disaster in terms of lives lost: the case of the most-affected districtsin Aceh provinceThe final draft of the TRIAMS framework was presented and discussed at the first regional TRIAMS work-shop in Bangkok in May 2006. The framework proposed four broad areas in which to group the overallrecovery effort, namely vital needs, basic social services, infrastructure and livelihoods. This framework wasused to develop and reach consensus on the core and country-specific output and outcome indicators.

At the same time, the framework indicated the need to carry out a more structured analysis of the impactof the tsunami on local communities. It provided some technical indications and a tool to facilitate thisanalysis, and applied them to some examples.7


Table 6: Selected health indicators by GN division, Matara district, 2005*

Sub-districtsEstimatedlive births

Registeredlive births

Estimatedinfants

DPT3 MeaslesDPT3

coverage(est. pop.)

DPT3coverage(reg. pop.)

Measlescoverage(est. pop.)

Measlescoverage(reg. pop.)

Akuressa 1,521 1,217 1,202 1,405 1,413 117 103.63 118 104.15

Devinuwara 920 755 746 695 668 93 87.69 90 85.77

Dickwella 1,017 862 851 942 1,012 111 98.96 119 106.31

Hakmana 638 527 521 625 595 120 98.17 114 93.76

Kamburupitia 1,065 822 812 939 1,093 116 83.47 135 80.53

Kotapola 1,228 1,003 991 1,217 1,229 123 106.81 124 107.86

Malimboda 634 528 522 580 559 111 102.96 107 96.89

Matara 2,123 1,522 1,503 1,554 2,170 103 62.84 144 89.7

Morawaka 1,014 813 803 859 870 107 104.48 108 105.58

Mulatiyana 890 782 772 946 909 122 111.17 118 106.82

Pasgoda 1,062 823 813 969 970 119 92.03 119 92.13

Thihagoda 628 503 497 432 456 87 71.31 92 75.27

Weligama 1,289 1,108 1,094 1,234 1,225 113 98.34 112 97.62

Welipitiya 925 825 815 806 913 99 90.13 112 102.1

Total/Average 14,954 12,090 11,943 13,203 14,082 111 – 118 –

* Source: Office of the Deputy Provincial Director of Health Services, Health Bulletin, 2005.

7 See WHO and Karolinska Institutet, Conceptual Framework for Analysis of TRIAMS Data – A Pathway to ProvideContext to Data Analysis: Indonesia Case Study, February 2007, unpublished, www.who.int/hac/triams.

One of these examples was built on the officially reported numbers of deaths and missing people aggre-gated by district in the aftermath of the tsunami (Figure 25) and on the detected changes in the popu-lations by district (Figure 26) in four selected districts in the severely affected northern part of Acehprovince. The surface of each histogram representing each of the four districts is proportional to the sizeof its population before the tsunami in order to help visualize the impact of the tsunami on these dis-tricts’ populations.

At the first regional TRIAMS workshop in March 2006, a discrepancy was noted between the reportednumber of deaths and missing persons in Banda Aceh (15,394) and the overall change in population inthis district, with more than 105,394 people no longer living in this district in March 2005, comparedwith the estimated pre-tsunami population of November 2004. The explanation provided at that time wasthe inaccuracy of the recording of deaths and missing persons in the aftermath of the tsunami, with thebodies of many people living in Banda Aceh district identified in the surrounding Aceh Besar district.

According to the second year-end report, since the first TRIAMS workshop peripheral local governmentstructures (at the sub-district or kecamatan level) have been encouraged to take a more active role in therecovery process. A critical area for this to happen is in information management and the regular provi-sion and use of vital data.

The data presented in the four maps in Figures 27–30 illustrate the absolute numbers and the percent-ages of deaths and missing persons recorded among the total pre-tsunami population by the kecamatanoffices of the Banda Aceh district following the tsunami. Figures 27 and 28 present this informationby urban and peri-urban area within each kecamatan, while Figures 29 and 30 present the informationby kecamatan.8

It is important to emphasize that through the consolidation of the data collected by the nine kecamatanoffices, the total number of deaths and missing persons recorded for the Banda Aceh district rose from15,394 to 57,263. The kecamatan offices collected and consolidated the information by urban, peri-urbanand rural area. This has made it possible to present the information for each area in visual form, provid-ing a level of detail which can be very useful in planning the provision of basic social services, both in set-ting priority areas for intervention and in determining the resilience of the affected communities. A muchlower response capacity can be expected in communities where more than 70% of the population diedand where the survivors may need more support from the district authorities and international partnersin the reconstruction effort.

A focused analysis of tsunami mortality in the Banda Aceh district is presented in the maps inFigures 27–30. They compare absolute numbers and percentages of deaths and missing persons, as wellas the same information aggregated by urban area/rural villages (Figures 27 and 28) versus kecamatan(Figures 29 and 30).

Analysis of the mortality data aggregated by kecamatan suggests that the impact of the tsunami wasgreater and much more homogeneous in the two western coastal kecamatan, Meuraksa and Kuta Raja.These two were the only ones of the nine kecamatan of the Banda Aceh district that reported more than10,000 deaths or missing persons and that had the highest percentages of deaths and missing persons(more that 65% of the total pre-tsunami population).


8 Source: Kecamatan offices.


5.4-15,394

35-107,342

21.3-16,874

8.6-13,785

Banda Aceh283,819

Aceh Besar306,716

Aceh Jaya79,218

Aceh Barat160,755

100

50

0

ChangeRemaining

% changeTotal population change

District namePopulation size

%of

affe

cted

popu

latio

n

Figure 25Reported number and percentages of deaths and missing persons amongthe total pre-tsunami population in four districts of Aceh province

37.3-105,938

3.3-10,175

23.4-18,558

6.4-10,305

Banda Aceh283,819

Aceh Besar306,716

Aceh Jaya79,218

Aceh Barat160,755

100

50

0

ChangeRemaining

% changeTotal population change

District namePopulation size

%of

affe

cted

popu

latio

n

Figure 26Comparison between the pre-tsunami and March 2005 population in four districtsof Aceh province, as percentages and absolute numbers

The four coastal kecamatan all reported more than 6,000 tsunami-related deaths or missing persons each,ranging from 22,718 in the westernmost kecamatan to 6,107 in the easternmost. The four kecamatan inthe centre and south of Banda Aceh district reported between 75 and 620 deaths and missing personseach. The exception was the south-western kecamatan of Jaya Baru which, despite being far from thecoast, reported 5,966 deaths and missing persons.

Analysis of the number of deaths and missing persons reported by the individual urban and rural areaswithin each kecamatan confirms the homogeneous pattern of the mortality data in the worst-affectedcoastal kecamatan in the west, all of which reported more than 60% of the pre-tsunami population deador missing. The two transitional kecamatan towards the east and the south of the district, Kuta Alam andJaya Baru respectively, show a different picture, with the percentages of the pre-tsunami population whodied or were missing ranging widely from 0.5% to 75%, suggesting very different resilience capacities of


Figures 27 and 28

Percentage of tsunami deaths and missing personsover the total pre-tsunami population, by urban area/rural village, Banda Aceh district1

1 Source: Kecamatan offices2 Source: Kecamatan offices

Number of tsunami deaths and missing persons(total 57,263), by urban area/rural village,Banda Aceh district2

communities within the same kecamatan. This information needs to be cross-checked with the damageto infrastructure and material losses incurred as a result of the tsunami. For example, was the destruc-tion higher where more deaths have been reported or is the devastation and the need to rebuild housesand social services as great in those areas reporting fewer deaths and missing persons?

This information and the kind of analysis that was done in March 2007 should have been made avail-able much earlier in the recovery process in order to assist the social services in determining which areasneeded to be targeted as a priority for the reconstruction of health facilities and schools. The data havelong been available in the kecamatan offices but were not used to inform the planning process. The dis-connect between local government authorities, line ministries and the BRR is a key concern that hasbeen addressed recently through the creation by the BRR of six regional offices whose role it is to inter-act with the district authorities in the recovery effort. It may nonetheless still represent a challenge.


1 Source: Kecamatan offices2 Source: Kecamatan offices

Figures 29 and 30

Percentage of tsunami deaths and missing personsover the total pre-tsunami population, by kecamatanoffice, Banda Aceh district1

No. of tsunami deaths and missing persons(total 57,263), by kecamatan office,Banda Aceh district2

Properly documenting the impact of the disaster is crucial to inform the planning of relief operations, buta deeper analysis of damage and losses is essential as the situation stabilizes and the planning of recoverygets under way.

The early involvement of local government offices at district and sub-district levels in providing reliableand timely information can be a first step in ensuring a key role for local government (district and sub-district offices) and communities in the planning of the recovery, through a bottom-up planning process.This involvement can also ensure that more attention is paid over time to assessing damage and relatedlosses that must also be taken into consideration in the planning of recovery interventions.

The heterogeneous capacity of the kecamatan government offices in playing this pivotal role has to be con-sidered. Early in the recovery process, a specific effort in this field is required, with proper allocation ofresources for operational support and/or capacity-building of local government structures when needed.

The overall impact of recovery activities on health status and quality of lifein tsunami-affected communitiesAt the first regional TRIAMS workshop in March 2006, the tsunami-affected countries agreed on a com-mon set of output and outcome indicators.9

The outcome indicators included a group of indicators to assess the overall impact of the recovery, name-ly: the percentage of the population with worse functioning (WHODAS II); the infant mortality rate; andthe percentage of the population with poor quality of life. The main characteristic of these indicators isthat they can not be directly linked to one single area of the recovery process but to all. It is the concur-rence of all recovery efforts and the related level of development achieved that contribute to the crude orinfant mortality rate and the overall quality of life and health functioning of the affected populations.

TRIAMS advocated the adoption of standardized tools to collect some of these indicators, preferably dur-ing already planned household surveys. A difficulty has been to adapt the sampling methodology ofnational or sub-national surveys in order to have a stratification of the sampling for the tsunami-affectedversus non-affected populations. The technical reasons for this are linked to the fact that the tsunami-affected population is often just a small fraction of the district population, which is frequently the small-est unit of these surveys, and/or to the huge movements of people displaced by the tsunami across differ-ent locations. The latter has been compounded by other, new population movements resulting from thepeace consolidation in Aceh province and the resurgence of the internal conflict in eastern coastal districtsof Sri Lanka.

That said, the WHODAS II set of 12 questions to assess health functioning in the population was addedto the health survey conducted in Aceh province in August−September 2006. In Thailand, a dedicatedhousehold survey was carried out in December 2006 using the WHODAS II questions together with theWHO Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire and a short questionnaire on mental health.

Table 7 presents the results of the mean score of the WHODAS II in Aceh province in Indonesia and inthe six tsunami-affected provinces in Thailand, compared with the reference population.


9 UN, WHO and International Federation, Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS)Workshop Report, 2006, pp. 36−37, www.who.int/hac/triams.

Both WHODAS II surveys in Indonesia and Thailand show a higher mean disability score, which clear-ly indicates a worse health functioning of the investigated populations than of the reference population.

The Aceh health survey is representative of the population of the whole province. It is not possible todetect any significant differences in the variables across the districts or between the tsunami-affected pop-ulation and the non-affected population. Nevertheless, the findings highlight the need for further inves-tigation, owing to the complexity of the situation across the whole province. The overlap of different high-ly vulnerable groups, such as the tsunami-affected populations that have remained in their places of origin,people displaced by the tsunami and people moving as part of the consolidation of the peace process, aswell as populations living in conflict-affected areas which have hitherto had very limited access to basicsocial services for a long time but now have increased accessibility, has generated much more diversifiedneeds than the simple physical reconstruction of damaged infrastructure. Further investigation shouldfocus on the specific areas that have led to the higher disability score and on whether any of the aforemen-tioned groups is showing a higher disability score than others.

In Thailand, the ad hoc household survey to assess the overall impact of the recovery process on the pop-ulations of the six tsunami-affected provinces was conducted in December 2006. The sampling allows arepresentative sample of the tsunami-affected and non-affected populations in the six provinces. Threemain outcome indicators were investigated, namely health status, quality of life and mental health. Thesampling methodology enabled these indicators to be compared between villages not affected by thetsunami, villages affected by the tsunami where no deaths were reported and villages affected by the tsuna-mi where deaths were reported.

It is important to underline the coherence of the results of the three main outcome indicators assessed inthis survey, as presented in Table 8. Consistently, all are significantly worse in tsunami-affected villages,both with or without deaths.

Table 8 also shows that besides being in a worse state of health, respondents in the tsunami-affected vil-lages were also more dissatisfied with different aspects of life (i.e. had a worse quality of life) and were suf-fering greater stress levels several months after the event.

Table 9 presents the outcome of the WHODAS II questionnaire investigating health functioning bydomain and by category of village.


Table 7: Mean score of WHODAS II in Indonesia and Thailand

IndonesiaN: 10,598

September 2006

ThailandN: 1,190

December 2006

Reference population(WHODAS II surveys in14 countries with over100,000 respondents

in the general population)

WHODAS IImean score

8.41 13.01 6.48

The survey results reveal that despite a fairly long gap between the occurrence of the tsunami and theassessment, problems of poor physical and mental health persist in the affected villages. Besides thesignificant loss of life caused by the tsunami, respondents living in affected areas continue to report worsehealth and have difficulty carrying out activities related to their daily lives. They continue to experiencea greater need for health care and are spending less days performing their usual roles. This in turn isassociated with dissatisfaction with life in general, reported higher stress levels and greater unhappinessin this population. In other words, despite efforts at reconstruction, the tsunami-affected populationseems still to be worse off. The implications of these findings for current and future interventions needto be discussed.


Table 8: Mean scores for WHODAS, Quality of Life (QoL) andMental Health questionnaires by village categories

Village category WHODAS II WHOQoL Mental Health

Unaffected 8.3 2.3 2.0

Tsunami-affected without deaths 12.3 2.4 2.1

Tsunami-affected with deaths 14.2 2.4 2.3

Total 13 2.4 2.2

P Value: < 0. 01 0.01 < 0.0

Table 9: WHODAS II household survey, Thailand, December 2006:General mean score and by domain

Village categoryWHODASscore

Cognitionscore

Mobilityscore

Life activitiesscore

Societyscore

Unaffected 8.3 7.0 12.0 12.7 11.3

Tsunami-affected without deaths 12.3 12.5 15.4 22.4 14.6

Tsunami-affected with deaths 14.2 16.0 19.6 21.8 16.4

Total 13.0 14.0 17.6 20.7 15.3

Section IIIReview of TRIAMS indicators

Adoption and utilization of the TRIAMS indicators,by area of recovery

The workshop broke up into four working groups, each one comprising representatives of the four par-ticipating countries, donors and implementing organizations, in order to review the progress of the adop-tion and utilization of the TRIAMS indicators in each area of recovery: vital needs, basic social services,infrastructure and livelihoods. Countries pooled information on the various indicators in their respectivesector, compared successes and difficulties encountered, and came up with recommendations to improvethe TRIAMS indicators and the process as a whole. Each group then presented the results of their discus-sions in a plenary session.

Vital needs

The working group looked closely at the progress made so far in the vital needs sector in the four coun-tries. Topics discussed were IDPs, shelter, land, water and sanitation, nutrition, mortality and measles vac-cination – issues that need to be addressed in order to get the population back on the road to recovery.

Tracking of assistance to IDPs in transitional shelters is going well in the Maldives and Sri Lanka. InIndonesia, registration and validation of beneficiaries of housing programmes is still under way, and inThailand it is no longer an issue. Supply of housing is still a major priority. In three of the four countries,with the exception of Thailand, at least 40% of housing needs remain to be covered. In these three coun-tries, there are a number of cross-cutting issues: relocation often crops up as a difficulty, as does how todeal with specific categories of people, such as renters, particularly in Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

As the overall recovery process moves on, activities and their associated monitoring indicators related towater and sanitation, nutrition and selected health outputs, such as measles vaccination, no longer fall intothe category of what is considered “vital” but shift to other areas of recovery such as basic social servicesor infrastructure. Water and sanitation have also not proved easy for the three countries to monitor sepa-rately in the tsunami context. Access to water and sanitation is being tracked more at the settlement levelthan at the housing level.

In all four countries, there is little to capture or that is being captured in this sector other than inIndonesia, where land certification is being tracked.

55

Challenges� How do you detect the gradual shift of specific activities in this area in the continuum between relief,recovery and development?

� In terms of basic social services, how do you deal with the equity issue related to investment oftsunami funding between tsunami-affected and non-affected areas? In Sri Lanka, it is going to be trou-blesome to deal with conflict areas and non-conflict areas on an equal footing in terms of the tsunamiresponse for years to come. In Thailand, TRIAMS reporting is ongoing, but it has not been institution-alized and there is no plan to update it routinely.

� In the Maldives, the issue is how to link TRIAMS reporting with the national agency for disaster man-agement and with disaster risk reduction and how to integrate the issues into planning for monitoringand evaluation to influence the decisions made.

� In Indonesia, there is a tendency towards localization, that is, to develop monitoring so that data isuseful locally and that local authorities can access and use the information in decision-making.

� The monitoring of vital needs is coming to a close in most countries, and the focus should now shift topublic policy issues.

Recommendations� There is a need for a concerted effort to track occupancy of transitional shelters until there is no oneleft in transitional shelters and everyone has been provided with permanent housing.

� Monitoring and impact assessment indicators related to specific health and nutrition activities consid-ered linked to vital needs during the relief and the early recovery phases are probably better detected byroutine information systems within the framework of national line ministries.

� Monitoring of housing, land and access to clean water cannot easily migrate to national systems, sincesettlement recovery is not routinely tracked in these systems. In view of the billions of dollars that arebeing poured into settlement reconstruction, perhaps there is a mandate for TRIAMS to keep on track-ing impacts through purpose-made monitoring and evaluation formats, with the deep involvement oflocal governments at district as well as sub-district level.

Basic social services

The working group on basic social services found that progress in all four countries was uniform and thechallenges were very similar.

Generally speaking, data to calculate indicators related to the delivery of basic social services are integrat-ed into routine information systems and periodic national surveys, and if not they are mostly availablefrom the line ministries upon request.

The group looked at the relevance of the TRIAMS indicators, what decision each one is leading to andhow they link into the national development process and the MDGs.

Challenges� Even if the data exist, they are not being routinely reported or fed into one coordinating agency.� Not all output indicators are relevant to measure a desired outcome/impact.

56 Second regional TRIAMS workshop

� Sometimes data exist from routine data collection systems, but the quality is questionable owing to lim-ited capacity or the politicization of data collection.

� In some countries there is limited functionality of routine data collection systems, e.g. EducationManagement Information System, Health Management Information System in Indonesia.

� Data may exist for TRIAMS indicators, but they do not help to identify gaps, e.g. does the enrolmentratio measure the number of children not attending school? What proxy indicators or additional infor-mation can be used to measure these?

� Resources for collecting data on indicators are limited.� A lot of data collection is going on at both national and international level − MDGs, TRIAMS, nation-al development indicators. These efforts should be streamlined.

Recommendations� There is a need to ensure that TRIAMS is integrated into and converged with national and internation-al data collection systems.

� A set of common indicators that are collected from various sources and put into common databases witheasy accessibility is needed.

� Investments should be made to improve data reliability and quality.� Routine data collection systems should be strengthened in preference to conducting one-off surveys.� Capacities for data collection at district/sub-district level need to be strengthened.� Data coordination is essential.� Targets for indicators should be identified in line with international, national or provincial targets inorder to measure progress.

Infrastructure

The working group on infrastructure looked at the individual components from a slightly differentperspective. As with the basic social services group, it did not concentrate on the values that came out ofthe data collection exercise but rather on the availability of the data and whether there was a monitoringprogramme for each indicator or not. Indicators were broken down by country.

In the Maldives, there is no regular monitoring of reconstruction/repair of roads and bridges.Rehabilitation of harbours and jetties is monitored twice a year. Data on the reconstruction or rehabilita-tion of schools are available from the Ministry of Education, which produces an annual report.Monitoring of reconstruction/rehabilitation of health facilities is ad hoc and tsunami-specific data areavailable. Data on the restoration of the natural habitat are not available in the Maldives, but coastalprotection is monitored twice a year nationwide. The functioning of local administrations is assessed bythe Ministry of Atolls Administration.

In Sri Lanka, data on reconstruction/repair of roads and bridges are collected quarterly by the RoadDevelopment Authority and of harbours and jetties by the Ministry of Fisheries. Likewise, there is regu-lar, monthly monitoring of reconstruction/rehabilitation of schools and health facilities by the ministriesconcerned. Ad hoc tracking of restoration of the natural habitat and coastal protection is carried out bythe Ministry of the Environment and the Coast Conservation Department respectively. Data on the func-tioning of local administrations are available from the Ministry of Public Administration.

57Section III I Review of TRIAMS indicators

Thailand, for the most part, conducted one-off assessments of the status of reconstruction of variouskinds of infrastructure, the results of which are available from the relevant ministry (transport, health, naturalresources and the environment) or in the case of schools from the provincial authority (Provincial EducationOffice). Data on the functioning of local administration offices are available from the Provincial Office.

In Indonesia, data are available on all the indicators in the infrastructure sector but the source andfrequency of data collection were not specified.

A general comment was that monitoring in this area of recovery was losing momentum and was unlikelyto continue for more than a couple of years. Attention is increasingly focusing on national developmentrather than tsunami-specific recovery. The group felt that the indicators needed to be fleshed out and amore complex measurement system designed.

Challenges� TRIAMS indicators related to infrastructure have not been properly applied yet in all the countries.� Infrastructure indicators should also measure outcomes, not just outputs.� In Thailand, tsunami reconstruction work is completed, making the need for a tsunami recovery sys-tem redundant in this particular area of the recovery. Some line authorities see no benefit in monitor-ing certain recovery indicators.

� The quality of information may be questionable. There is no independent check on data.� There is a danger that TRIAMS is duplicating/fragmenting existing data collection and analysis, andplacing an additional burden on a country’s resources.

� Focusing exclusively on tsunami recovery widens the disparity between tsunami victims and other peo-ple in the same social group.

� Some indicators are oversimplified, e.g. km of road repaired/new.

Recommendations� TRIAMS should be a part of national monitoring systems, since infrastructure projects are usually partof national development projects.

� It is time to pass on acquired analytical skills to the line agencies.� The transition can now be made from the recovery to the development stage and tsunami-related infra-structure projects integrated into national development programmes.

Livelihoods

The concept of livelihoods is less tangible than some of the indicators in other areas of recovery andgroups a whole range of different activities under the one heading. The working group suggested devel-oping a better-rounded definition of what is meant by livelihoods during recovery processes and revis-iting some of the indicators to bring them more in line with some of the work that is being done onsustainable livelihoods. Currently the indicators are specific to the tsunami destruction. With this inmind, the group reviewed the experiences collected on each indicator separately by country, with theexception of Thailand.


Some countries had difficulty obtaining disaggregated sub-district or district-level data on the number ofsquare kilometres of land returned to crops.10

In the Maldives, the tsunami destroyed whole islands, increasing water salinity to the point that it isdifficult or impossible for the land to return to its normal state. Sri Lanka and Indonesia, however, havecollected data on this indicator. Indonesia reported that 68% of land (54,300 ha) has been rehabilitated.

On the percentage of the tsunami-affected population who have received loans, Indonesia reported43,263 loans disbursed; the Maldives has so far disbursed 464 loans for a total amount ofUS$ 1,066,551.65 (75% to males and 25% to females); Sri Lanka counted the number of borrowers at57,862 to a total of US$ 200 million.

Again, in some countries it is sometimes difficult to obtain information on the percentage of the populationof tsunami-affected districts who have received grants. It was proposed to change the indicator to specify thetype of loan by sector, e.g. fishing industry, agriculture, etc. In Indonesia, every household has received somekind of grant, but the specific figures are not available. In Sri Lanka, 175,595 grants have been disbursed forall recovery activities. In the Maldives, approximately 63,477 beneficiaries have received cash grants.

Indonesia has so far replaced or repaired 4,420 (32%) of the 13,828 fishing boats damaged or destroyed.Sri Lanka has repaired 100% and replaced 95%. In the Maldives, the figure is 82% (542 out of 644 dam-aged fishing boats). As regards fishing gear, Sri Lanka has replaced 100% of that lost and the Maldives hasso far replaced 67.6%.

Graphics were presented showing the number of people employed by sector and by gender in Indonesia,the Maldives and Sri Lanka.

Challenges� There is a lack of reliable baseline data, for example on the percentage of land returned to crops.� Adequate disaggregating indicators at sub-district or district levels are lacking.� Countries don’t always define indicators in the same way.� The accessibility of financial assistance for women in the islands is a major concern, as women arehaving difficulty getting access to loans and could be monitored only if the indicator was disaggregatedby gender.

� There is a lack of coordination across various sectors in obtaining TRIAMS data.

Recommendations� Some indicators can be collected yearly rather than quarterly, e.g. the number of boats repaired/replacedmight not change across the whole year (although it was acknowledged that the frequency of datacollection was determined by each country).

� Alternative ways of measuring livelihoods should be found. People may not necessarily have resumedthe livelihood they had before the tsunami.

� The indicator on the number of square kilometres of land returned to crops needs to be modified.� Livelihood outcome indicators need to be cross-referenced with health, nutrition and education indica-tors during the intersectoral analysis of the recovery process.


10 Countries, particularly the Maldives, did create country-specific indicators in May 2006 to reflect the uniqueness of thetsunami recovery in their own country.

Revision of the core TRIAMS indicatorsThe workshop provided a good opportunity to improve/update the list of the TRIAMS core indicatorsdefined during the first regional workshop in May 2006. The result was a new version of the indicatortable (see pp. 64-65) based on the outcomes and recommendations of the working groups, on suggestionsfrom individual participants, and on the final plenary discussion.

The plenary discussion focused on the reformulation of the indicators to capture the change of thinkingsince the first regional workshop. The agreed new version was then used by the country teams to finalizetheir action plans.

The amendments to the indicators in all the sectors reflect a clear trend away from focusing exclusivelyon tsunami-affected populations. While retaining indicators that were defined to capture progress duringthe early recovery phase, new indicators were developed to capture the transition between recoveryand development.

After the adoption of the core TRIAMS indicators, it is now clear that some indicators need to bedisaggregated at sub-district level, while others are relevant in gaining a specific picture at district level.These administrative levels may differ from one country to another. It was agreed, therefore, to put “byadministrative level” for every indicator, on the understanding that the countries would disaggregate tothe smallest denominator possible according to how the indicator can be collected, and at which level theindicator better illustrates the information and facilitates the analysis. This, it was stressed, is the key tothe TRIAMS approach because it is the unavoidable first step in enabling analysis of the recovery progressin each sector to take place at peripheral level and for the bottom-up planning of recovery activities.

Vital needs

The following modifications to the vital needs indicators were proposed:

Output indicators� Add “tsunami-affected and/or overall population” to the indicators on access to water and sanitation andto housing/temporary shelter occupancy, in order to eventually broaden the denominator of the tsuna-mi-affected population to include the whole population, whether tsunami affected or not. Often thefigures of the tsunami-affected populations within the districts or sub-districts are not known or areinaccurate, owing to the subsequent movements of the displaced populations.

� Delete the indicator on household food consumption. This indicator has not been collected by anycountry so far, owing to the complexity of data collection.

� Introduce the concept of new houses occupied rather than simply rebuilt or built. This makes it possi-ble to cross-check how many people are still living in temporary shelters.

� Delete “by economic status” from the indicator on land titles given.� Add “meeting or exceeding local hazard-resistance standards” to the percentage of new housing built,thus incorporating a disaster risk reduction element in monitoring this important recovery activity.


Outcome indicators� Add an indicator on percentage of overall population living in safe and durable housing.� Add an indicator on percentage of the population issued with land certificates (specific to Indonesia),while retaining the one under output indicators on the number of land titles given.

� Add percentage of households without home ownership. With this indicator, the specificity of thetsunami-affected population is lost, but it will help to identify the more vulnerable households in theoverall population.

After much discussion, the proposal to add “meeting or exceeding local hazard-resistance standards”was changed to “meeting applicable local hazard-resistance standards” since it was felt that if a standardexists, there is no obligation to exceed it. It was also agreed that the local authority that checks andapproves these structures as compliant with applicable local standards should be the source of informationfor this indicator and that the onus should not be on the agencies managing the housing programme tocheck if a house meets the required safety standards.

Basic social services

The following modifications were proposed to the basic social services indicators:

Output indicators� Add number of physicians, nurses and midwifes per 10,000 population, thus introducing a healthhuman resources component into the monitoring of recovery.

� Revise the indicator on immunization to “percentage of one-year-olds immunized with DPT3”.The concept of “full immunization” (the previous wording) differs from country to country; in all thecountries, however, there is a target to achieve full coverage of DPT3 within the first year, and thesystem in place to collect this information is part of the health information system. This uniformityenables comparability across countries.

� Rephrase the indicator on “percentage of sub-district covered by outreach psychological supportby community workers” to “number of trained health workers providing psychosocial support per10,000 population”.

Outcome indicators� Move indicator on “adequate antenatal coverage (at least 4 visits during pregnancy)” from output tooutcome indicators.

Following further discussion on the indicator on the provision of psychosocial support, the word “health”was taken out as it was successfully argued that workers providing psychosocial support were not neces-sarily “health workers” but often trained community workers.

There was some discussion as to whether to add the term “trained” for health professionals (physicians,nurses and midwives) and teachers, since this would add a qualitative component. However, it wasargued that this might eliminate a lot of people, as many programmes just provide basic services. Theassumption is that all physicians, nurses, midwives and teachers are “trained”, but there is no meansof verifying it.


With respect to the timing of the four antenatal visits and whether there were systems in place to meas-ure this, it was clarified that it was not important to capture if visits happened at the right time but ratherthat at least four visits take place during pregnancy.

Regarding the number of primary schoolchildren per school by sub-district, there was a proposal by theworking group on basic social services, supported by some participants, to modify the indicator to theratio of pupils per classroom.

Another suggestion was made to delete the indicator on number of outpatient consultations per personper year, as this has proven difficult to capture and reporting is patchy. The recommendation was to keepit, however, as the number of consultations shows what the health system is capable of delivering and thedegree of utilization of the health service. It provides a rough idea of the real accessibility of a health facil-ity. Even if there is geographical proximity to a health facility, it may not be financially accessible.

Infrastructure

The following modifications were proposed to the infrastructure indicators:

Output indicators:� Replace “number of damaged/destroyed schools rebuilt or rehabilitated by category” with “number ofnew/rebuilt/rehabilitated schools, by category”.

� Add a new indicator on “number of new/rebuilt schools by category that meet applicable hazard-resistance standards”.

� Replace “number of damaged/destroyed health facilities rebuilt or rehabilitated by category” with“number of new/rebuilt/rehabilitated health facilities, by category”.

� Add a new indicator on “number of new/rebuilt health facilities by category that meet applicablehazard-resistance standards”.

The changes in wording of the indicators on schools and health facilities were described as “substance notsemantics” since they show a move away from the concept of simply rebuilding/rehabilitating infrastruc-ture that was damaged or destroyed to one in which the network of schools and social services is upgrad-ed according to changing needs in an area. For example, a new school may need to be built in a differentarea, because people in the area in which the old school was destroyed by the tsunami have moved else-where. This also encompasses the notion of “build back better” rather than just “build back”.

As with housing, the word “exceeding” was removed from “meeting applicable hazard-resistance stan-dards” for both schools and health facilities. Similarly, it was pointed out that rehabilitated schools orhealth facilities could not be expected to meet hazard-resistance standards, only those that were built new.

It was decided to keep the indicator on the number of schools because it is linked to a sector in which thereare a lot of resources still to be used in the next two years. The challenge is to ensure that schools are rebuiltaccording to the new population patterns across the different districts. There is also a need to see how andwhere governments and aid agencies are working together to build new schools. A proposal was also accept-ed to include the number of school buildings, since some schools can be made up of several buildings.


The indicator on the percentage of local administration offices fully functioning was retained eventhough collecting this information may be difficult. The indicator is important to show the engagementof sub-district government offices in the overall recovery process. The challenge of the recovery processis to involve the local government offices at peripheral level. This is why there is the effort to decentral-ize data analysis at the local level.

With respect to the functioning of local administration offices, a suggestion was made to track whether ahazard or disaster management component is included in local or district plans. This was excluded, as itwas considered too ambitious to expect from local government offices at the present time.

The decision was taken to add the volume of trade and passengers through ports to the outcome indi-cators. This proposal was made in the Indonesia national workshop but it had not been taken up in theinfrastructure working group. The exchange of goods and people through specific entry points is an indi-cator of successful rehabilitation of ports and a sign of economic development. These indicators aremeasured through national statistics, so reporting would not pose a problem.

Livelihoods

The following modifications were proposed to the livelihoods indicators:� Delete the indicator on the number of square kilometres of land returned to crops, since the baselinedata do not always exist and in countries other than Indonesia and Sri Lanka the data are hard to find.

� Reword the indicators on the “percentage of the tsunami-affected population who have received loans”and “percentage of the tsunami-affected population enrolled in social protection programmes” toinclude “overall population” as well as the tsunami-affected population.

t was pointed out that in Aceh it was mostly people in areas not affected by the tsunami who were livingbelow the poverty line, while in tsunami-affected areas there are a lot of people above the poverty line.The challenge, therefore, is how to use resources intended for tsunami-affected populations to benefitpopulations who were worse off before the tsunami and still are. Through the indicators, the TRIAMSprocess helps to highlight such inequities and to challenge governments and donors to consider whereinvestments should be made so as not to increase the disparities between the richest and the poorest. Thisis one of the dilemmas that needs to be documented and addressed.

A concern was raised that if you delete the indicator on the percentage of land returned to crops, you nolonger have an indicator to represent the agricultural sector. It was therefore suggested that a new indicatorbe added under the outcome indicators that would give an idea of the overall development in this sector.

From the perspective of Sri Lanka, it was suggested that in the area of livelihoods, there is a need forindicators that capture processes rather than simply the number of loans/grants. Livelihoods are bettergauged by assessing the asset base of a household, i.e. its access to land, labour, skills and social networks.The outcome would be a rise above the poverty level. There should be more flexibility in how differentcountries approach issues of livelihoods and what the most meaningful calculation of this is for them.


The Maldives also stressed that some people have changed their livelihoods after the tsunami. For exam-ple, fishermen or those engaged in agriculture may have chosen to adopt a different occupation. So anindicator stating that production has increased does not answer the question why. There is a qualitative


Table 10: Revised matrix presenting selected indicators by area of recoveryand by type of indicator

Area of recovery Recovery OUTPUT indicators

Vital needsin relief andrecovery

� % of tsunami-affected and/or overall population with access to water from an improved source, by admin.� % of tsunami-affected and/or overall population without basic sanitation facilities, by admin.� proportion of tsunami-affected and/or overall population with housing damaged/destroyed livingin emergency shelter/temporary houses/permanent houses, by admin., by time period

� measles immunization coverage, by admin.� # titles to land given, by gender, by admin. (modified by specific country definition)� % of housing built meeting applicable hazard-resistance standards, by admin.

Basic SocialServices

� # primary schoolchildren per school, by admin.� # primary schoolchildren per teacher, by admin.� # hospital beds per 10,000 population (inpatient & maternity), by admin.� # of physicians, nurses and midwifes per 10,000 population, by admin.� # outpatient consultations/person/year, by admin.� % of one-year-olds immunized with DPT3, by admin.� # of health facilities with emergency obstetric care per 10,000 population, by admin.� # trained workers providing psychosocial support per 10,000 population, by admin.

Infrastructure

� # km of repaired/new road by type of road, by district� # bridges repaired by district� # harbours/jetties rehabilitated by type, by district� # of new/rebuilt/rehabilitated schools, by category, by admin.� # of new/ rebuilt schools by category that meet the applicable hazard resistance standards, by admin.� # of new/rebuilt/rehabilitated health facilities by category, by admin.� # of new/rebuilt health facilities by category that meet applicable hazard-resistance standards, by admin.� # sq km of natural habitat restored, by type� # km of coastal protection constructed/repaired, by type (bio-fencing, seawalls, quay walls, breakwaters),by admin.

Livelihoods

� % of tsunami-affected and/or overall population who have received loans, by type of loan,by gender, by admin.

� % of tsunami-affected and/or overall population enrolled in social protection programmes, by type,by gender, by admin.

� # people employed by different sectors, by gender, by admin.� % of boats damaged/destroyed repaired/replaced, by use (fishing, tourism, ferrying and otherincome-generating activities) and by district

aspect to the question and this reinforces the need for qualitative approaches within the TRIAMS frame-work to help interpret the quantitative data. Thus far, only Sri Lanka has undertaken the qualitativework of TRIAMS.


Recovery OUTCOME indicators

� % of children below 5 who are underweight, by admin.

� % of children below 5 who are wasting (moderate and severe), by admin.

� % of children below 5 who are stunting (moderate and severe), by admin.

� % of low birth weight newborns

� % of children under 5 who have experienced a diarrhoea episode during theprevious 2 weeks, by admin.

� % of overall population living in durable and safe housing, by admin.

� % of population issued with land certificates that have changed name orcollateralized in past year (country specific), by admin.

� % of households without home ownership, by admin.

Outcome indicatorsnot linked to a specific

area of recovery

� % of population with worse functioning(WHODAS II)

� % of population under stress or with poorwell-being

� % of population with poor quality of life

Infant mortality rate

� % of tsunami-affected communitiesconsulted by implementing agencies,by district

� net primary school enrolment ratio, by admin.

� Primary school drop-out rate, by admin.

� % of births attended by a skilled birth attendant, by admin.

� adequate antenatal coverage (at least 4 visits during a pregnancy), by admin.

� % of local administration offices fully functioning, by district

� volume of trade (MT) through ports

� # passengers through ports

� % of population earning below national poverty line, by admin.

� average household income by gender, by admin.

� labour force participation rate by gender

� % of households that have regained their pre-tsunami livelihoods, by gender,by district

� crop and cash crop agricultural production, by admin.

66

Section IVIncorporating disaster risk reduction

into recoveryThere is an important window of opportunity during the recovery phase following a major disaster tointroduce strategies, policies and practices that will help to reduce the risk of a future hazard having a sim-ilar impact. The notion is encompassed in the term “build back better” coined by former US PresidentBill Clinton in his role as UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery.

The workshop devoted a good half-day to the issue of disaster risk reduction, the importance of incorpo-rating it into recovery programmes, and the desirability of measuring if and how this dimension has beenaddressed by the recovery interventions in the context of the tsunami.

The session was led by UNDP, which has been cooperating with a number of governments and otherstakeholders in introducing disaster risk reduction measures in ongoing tsunami recovery programming.In so doing, it hopes to lay the foundations for disaster risk reduction in future recovery programmes.

In all the affected countries, the tsunami recovery processes provided the impetus for national levelreform of institutions and legislation with a view to minimizing the risks of a future disaster on thisscale. Indonesia and Sri Lanka both made clear policy pronouncements in the wake of the tsunami,when fear of a recurrence of the tsunami was at its height.

Making policy statements and developing guidelines is one thing. However, there is a clear need to meas-ure the extent to which disaster risk reduction efforts have been undertaken by the tsunami recovery. Tothis end, the ProVention Consortium proposed a number of ways in which disaster risk reduction ele-ments can be included in theTRIAMS indicators across the four areasof recovery.

Following this, the country teams were invited to come up with three key recommendations for moni-toring the integration of disaster risk reduction in post-tsunami recovery and to keep these in mind inthe development of their country action plans.

ProVention ConsortiumThe ProVention Consortium is a global alliance of donor governments, international financial institu-tions, international development and humanitarian organizations, UN agencies, academic institutions,NGOs and the private sector. It was created by the World Bank in 2000 and is currently hosted bytheInternational Federation Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland.

The aim of ProVention is to look at critical issues of disaster risk and vulnerability and their link topoverty and development. Its current areas of programme interest are mainstreaming disaster riskreduction, risk analysis, community risk assessment, recovery, risk transfer and micro-insurance, pri-vate sector engagement, risk research and learning, and knowledge management.

What is disaster risk reduction?All of us are essentially vulnerable. The key concept in disaster risk reduction is to manage that vulnera-bility; it is not possible to eliminate it entirely. Disasters are an extreme shock to the system, and disasterrisk reduction is about protecting against those shocks.

Disaster risk is a vicious cycle: risk accumulation leads to increased exposure to risk and vulnerability;this in turn leads to greater disaster losses, which set back development gains, increasing poverty andinequality and decreasing the capacity to cope; this causes risk to accumulate, and so the cycle is perpet-uated. The idea is to transform these patterns into a virtuous cycle whereby disaster risk reductionlowers exposure to risk, leading to a more appropriate response to emergencies and to more successful,sustained development that reduces exposure to hazards and susceptibility to harm.

The Economic Commission of Latin Americastudied the effects of disasters on develop-ment in Gujarat over the last 15 years in rela-tion to the projected growth that would haveoccurred if those disasters had not causedsuch severe impacts. The resulting graphic(see Figure 31) shows that disasters lead toreal development losses and setbacks, wipingout years of development investment. Theseinvestments need to be protected from thefluctuations caused by exposure to risk.

A lot of emphasis is placed on the physical andobvious elements of disaster risk reduction,such as making houses stronger (hazard resist-ant), but there is a very little on what kind ofprocesses can be put in place to make sure thatit really happens.

Building back better does not necessarilymean build back bigger. It has a quality com-ponent with respect to being inclusive of com-munity concerns, minimizing wastage andintegrating community participation. There is

67Section IV I Incorporating disaster risk reduction into recovery

On the disaster risk reduction side, we are stillchallenged to think about what “building back better”

really means: reducing risks and reducingvulnerability. It is a complex subject. Even though theaims seem really simple, how to get there and how to

do it requires taking account of a lot of differentaspects to the solution – social, technical, economicand funding implications. This kind of monitoringsystem (TRIAMS) really has the potential to providethe feedback we need to diagnose and treat the riskissues. I hope your interest in disaster risk reductionwill continue and, although it seems like a formidablechallenge, so will the notion of finding new ways tomeasure and track aspects of it. ProVention is

interested in supporting new approaches and toolsthat test disaster risk reduction. This is where a lot ofour interest lies. We are open to suggestions andideas to bring all that learning together and use it

in other countries as well.

Ian O’Donnell, ProVention

a need to look at transformative processes and recognize that decision-making happens at community andlocal level and that decisions are also being made every day at individual and household level.

It is important that reconstructed communities are left not only with reduced risk but also with the capac-ity to manage future risk. This means not just building back better this one time but building back bet-ter every time. Disaster risk reduction indicators are relevant, therefore, to track changes during both therecovery and longer-term development.

The challenges of disaster riskreduction in practice

There is nothing new about the idea of reducing disaster risk. Statements to this effect are made after everydisaster. Yet, the experience in past recovery programmes shows that it is not so easy to put into practice.In Gujarat, for example, the same village has been flattened twice by earthquakes in the past 50 yearsbecause it was rebuilt to inadequate standards. There are numerous examples around the world of thesame infrastructure being rebuilt in the same way by the same bilateral donors and financial institutions.


SGDP with disasters

Log. (SGDP with disasters)Log. (Potential growth without disasters)

Potential growth without disasters

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1999

-00

1998

-99

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

25

20

15

5

-5

10

0

Figure 31Impact of disasters on GDP in Gujarat, India

DROUGHT

DROUGHT

DROUGHT

DROUGHT

DROUGHT

FLOODS

FLOODS

CYCLONE

CYCLONE

EARTHQUAKE

Following Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998, there was talk of “transformation”. Althoughmany good things were done, it did not go as far as everyone wanted, mainly because donor interest andcoordination were not cohesive enough.

So, even though the rhetoric is there, things are not necessarily “built back better”. The question thatneeds to be asked is why.

The reasons are multiple and complex. In the aftermath of a disaster, there is a rush to rebuild quickly,sometimes in clearly impossible time frames of twelve, six or even as little as three months. The pressureis therefore there not to be inclusive and not to take the disaster as an opportunity to build back better.

The work involved and some of the prerequisites for ensuring risk reduction are time-consuming. In theMaldives, for instance, risk assessment undertaken after the tsunami took two years to complete. Few gov-ernments have the luxury to tell people who have lost their homes that they have to wait two years whilea risk assessment is performed before rebuilding can start.

Moreover, resettling people from hazardous zones where they have perhaps been living for generations ispotentially controversial and divisive: Who owns the land? How will people’s livelihoods be sustained ifthey are located far from their income source? What about their cultural attachments, particularly whengenerations of families have been living in a village or district or on an island for hundreds of years?

Some people question the cost benefit of disaster risk reduction. Is it really worth it? What is the pay-off? The difficulty lies in measuring the benefits of disaster risk reduction. Successes in risk reductionneed to be measured in terms of the damage and losses that have been prevented and do not occur inthe future. However, measuring these hypothetical impacts is quite difficult. As was demonstrated earli-er in Figure 31, disasters certainly cause significant development losses and wasted investment. The ques-tion that we should really be asking in relation to incorporating disaster risk reduction in recoveryprogramming is: Can we afford not to?

Disaster risk reduction efforts in the contextof the tsunami: country presentations

The delegations of Indonesia, the Maldives and Sri Lanka reported on the steps they have taken so far totackle the issue of disaster risk reduction in their national recovery contexts. Although Thailand has takensimilar steps, it did not present them at the workshop.

Indonesia: Developing policies and guidelines to reduce risk

Indonesia is one of the world’s most hazard-prone countries. Central Java and Sumatra are located in the“Line of Fire”, an area where there is a high probability of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In littlemore than two years, there has been a massive tsunami in Aceh, earthquakes in Nias and Yogyakarta, a


small tsunami in west Java and an earthquake in the city of Bandang. Other areas of Indonesia are sim-ilarly prone to a range of hazards. A national effort is therefore needed to deal with the issue.

The responsibility for disaster risk reduction in Indonesia lies with the central government. Every govern-ment agency has some policies related to disaster risk reduction, and several claim that they should be theones to host this effort. But it is still not clear who will take responsibility when disaster strikes.

The BRR has chosen to step forward and set an example by developing policies and guidelines to main-stream disaster risk reduction into the recovery of Aceh and Nias and its future development in order toreduce disaster risk and enhance resilience and sustainability. It is hoped that the work done now in thepost-tsunami context will serve to reduce risk in future disasters.

The BRR has a limited life span, so it is important to ensure that the work it does now in disaster riskreduction can be sustained beyond 2009. With this in mind, it has been working with Unsyiah Universityto develop the disaster risk reduction policy and guidelines. In future, Unsyiah University will be respon-sible for continuing this work, and to this purpose has created a Disaster Mitigation Unit. It is up to thecentral government, rather than external donors, to allocate resources for this initiative.

Besides the role of central government in national-level policy and planning, disaster risk reductionneeds to be understood and implemented in government administrations at the provincial, district, sub-district and village levels. Government offices at these, local, levels need re-energizing and their capaci-ties building so that they may take their significant place in disaster risk reduction, as well as in responseand recovery efforts.

There are two prerequisites for disaster risk reduction to work in practice. One is the political will. You canhave resources, you can have policies and guidelines, but it will not work if there is no political will to supportthem. The other is that it should be rooted in the community. The community is the first line of response ina disaster; the people are the ones who manage emergencies at the household and community levels. By man-aging emergencies well, they prevent theescalation of these emergencies into disas-ters. If readiness and capacity are insuffi-cient, if vulnerabilities are too great, if thescale of the hazard is too great, then the riskis too high, emergencies may not be man-aged locally and the communities may notcope. Disaster will occur.

When a small tsunami struck West Javarecently, although the possibility of atsunami was detected two hours inadvance, there was no system of warningpeople, and people would not haveknown how to react to such a warning.This has to be solved and prepared forthrough capacity-building at the commu-nity level. This is something that theIndonesian Red Cross is beginning to do.


Usually, when we talk about data collection,evaluation, lessons learned and transfer ofexperiences, we put lessons learned in

suitcases and carry them from one country toanother. What was learned in Afghanistan wetake to Indonesia and then to Pakistan. It is avery one-way form of communication. I thinkwhat is important in TRIAMS is that now fortwo years in sequence, four countries try tomake sense out of what should be monitored,what can be started and what is the wayforward. So we do away with the suitcasemodel and develop a sharing model.

Bruno Dercon, UN Habitat

Proposed community-based disaster risk reduction activities:� Raising public awareness regarding hazards and disaster risk reduction.� Capacity-building of BRR regional offices and local government offices in disaster risk reduction andhow to incorporate it into all programming.

� Developing a culture of safety.� Developing and promoting a community-based disaster risk reduction strategy and an early warning system.

To achieve these outputs, the BRR is proposing an intersectoral strategy because all sectors, from healthand education to the economic sector, have a stake in disaster risk reduction.

A “safer islands” approach in the Maldives

Long considered to be relatively “safe” from large-scale disasters, the Maldives was for the first time madeaware of its vulnerability to high-impact, regionwide hazards after the tsunami of December 2004. Thisprompted the government to seek practical ways to integrate disaster risk reduction and risk managementinto its planning and policy agenda.

The challenges facing the Maldives are unique. The country is not fully mapped; only 60% of the islandshave so far been mapped, making it difficult to carry out a nationwide risk assessment. Moreover, the aver-age height of the islands above sea level is only 1.8 metres. The question in the Maldivian context, there-fore, is where do you go to protect yourself against risk?

The tsunami underlined the critical importance of providing environmentally safe zones for isolatedcommunities. The government of the Maldives therefore initiated a programme for voluntary migrationto larger islands with the long-term objectives of reducing the number of inhabited islands and consoli-dating the population in smaller groups of settlements across an identified number of islands. The idea isto develop “safer islands” with better natural protection and enhanced coastal defences. The locationswhere environmental changes are expected to increase vulnerability are to be identified and communicat-ed to decision-makers to support planning and long-term development and risk reduction.

A comprehensive risk assessment is being carried out. The physical hazard assessment is complete but theeconomic and social assessments are still under way. The integration of the hazard profile with the socio-economic profile will provide decision-makers with the exact implications of the proposed “safer island”strategy and planned “growth centres”.

Meanwhile, a number of steps have already been taken. The Ministry of Education is reviewing the schoolcurriculum with a view to integrating chapters on disaster risk reduction at primary level and to develop-ing preparedness plans in schools. A Disaster Management Act has been drafted and is undergoing finalreview prior to being tabled in parliament. A national disaster management plan has been developed, aswell as specific plans by the Health and Tourism ministries. Lastly, building codes and byelaws are beingrevised or updated in order to integrate standards to address hazard risk patterns.

Another concern is the rehabilitation of existing structures that are inside risk zones. Protecting individ-ual and essential structures, such as power stations and public works facilities, that would be directly inthe way of a future tsunami is also a challenge that needs to be addressed.


A further challenge is the creation of a nationwide early warning system, which is not something theMaldives can do by itself. An early warning system does not yet exist for the Indian Ocean, and this ini-tiative needs to be taken at the international and regional level before it can be fully implemented at localand national level in the Maldives.

One last problem for the Maldives, which has already been mentioned, is the issue of primary access toislands. The only way for the population to access the islands is through small harbours. However, recon-struction of harbours is viewed as a commercial venture, not a humanitarian one, for which it has beendifficult to raise funding. In the case of the Maldives, it should be viewed as vital infrastructure and needsto be incorporated into risk assessment and risk reduction frameworks, along with better policy, andfunded accordingly.

Integrating disaster risk reduction in recovery:capturing post-tsunami experiences in Sri Lanka

The tsunami was the stimulus for the development of a national disaster risk management strategy in SriLanka. In May 2005, the government passed the Sri Lanka Disaster Management Act No. 13. The Actprovided for the creation of the National Council for Disaster Management, within which the DisasterManagement Centre was set up to act as lead agency in the country for disaster risk management. TheMinistry of Disaster Management was established in December, and renamed the Ministry of DisasterManagement and Human Rights a month later.

A big achievement was the development of a “Road Map for Disaster Risk Management”, which is a com-prehensive document articulating the immediate and longer-term priorities and resource requirements forthe next ten years in relation to disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and response.11 A NationalDisaster Management Plan and Policy is also being developed.

The Sri Lanka team presented examples from two sectors, livelihoods and housing, in which efforts arebeing made to integrate disaster risk reduction into the recovery process.

One of the projects in the livelihoods sector is a palmyra planting initiative in Hambantota district. Thepalmyra nursery is an alternative livelihood project for women, supported by UNDP. Palmyra has multi-ple uses and is therefore economically viable. It also plays a critical environmental and disaster risk reduc-tion role through the prevention of soil erosion along vulnerable coastlines. Palmyra is more commonlyfound in the north and east of the country, areas afflicted by the internal conflict. Establishing marketlinkages between the north and south are seen as a way to contribute to peacebuilding efforts.

Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction concepts into housing projects has proved to be more of a chal-lenge. Extreme time pressure to construct permanent housing has meant that risk reduction concerns wereswept away in the rush to rebuild by many, but not all, stakeholders. Moreover, although there has beena lot of discussion about disaster risk reduction at the national level, it has not filtered down to those


11 Ministry of Disaster Management, Disaster Management Centre, Towards a Safer Sri Lanka: Road Map for Disaster RiskManagement, Colombo, December 2005.

implementing the projects, and knowledge of the subject is lacking at the field level. These factors haveled to risks being recreated, such as:� hazard assessments of potential sites not being carried out;� building guidelines on safe construction techniques not being adequately developed and included inhousing reconstruction policy;

� masons, contractors, inspectors and project managers not being trained in disaster-resistant construc-tion techniques;

� insurance policies for newly rebuilt homes not widely provided, although some small-scale initiativeshave been taken in this area.

There are several disaster risk reduction tools and methodologies that are being applied in Sri Lanka.These include community-based hazard mapping in tsunami-affected districts and developing disasterpreparedness and response plans in ten tsunami-affected districts. Based on these, simulation/evacuationdrills are being conducted in local areas.

Emphasis is placed on initiatives at the local level. These include: mobilizing communities; creating aware-ness using participatory rural appraisal techniques; developing community-based hazard maps andresponse plans; training village disaster management committees in first aid and search and rescue; andupdating early warning plans.

A risk profile is also being undertaken. This is a compilation of district-level hazard zonation maps for fivekey hazards affecting the country (floods, landslide, cyclone, drought, coastal erosion) with overlays of vul-nerable elements at risk and a description of existing coping capacities. Its purpose is to depict risk spa-tially, guide the formulation of disaster management policies, and aid the development of mitigation andpreparedness plans and the allocation of resources for disaster risk reduction.

One of the key challenges facing the introduction of disaster risk reduction measures is that they take timeto implement satisfactorily and at all levels. The pace is very slow, which is why the Road Map is a ten-year plan. It is very important to sustain donor interest and to measure progress against this time frame.

Risk reduction indicators in the context of TRIAMS

TRIAMS is an ideal opportunity to monitor the extent to which disaster risk reduction is being incorpo-rated into the recovery process in tsunami-affected countries. With this in mind, in June 2006 theProVention Consortium solicited working papers from several experts on four aspects of disaster riskreduction: linking risk to relief and development; social vulnerability; institutional capacities; and infra-structure and municipal planning.12

The purpose of the exercise was to look at ways to add a disaster risk reduction dimension to existingmeasurements. For example, rather than simply calculating the number of houses reconstructed, the meas-urement could be the number of houses reconstructed according to established building codes or that have


12 http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/Updates/triams-risk-reduction.pdf.

incorporated hazard-resistant features. In the case of infrastructure, such as schools and health facilities,the measurement could be not only are they built in a safe way but also how many children/people haveaccess to these facilities.

On the basis of the four working papers and feedback from a larger review group, a set of indicators wasidentified as being the most adaptable and feasible for immediate implementation within TRIAMS usingdata sources that are likely to exist already (see Table 11).

Disaster risk reduction was not included in the set of indicators developed at the first regional TRIAMSworkshop in part due to the lack of technical expertise among the workshop participants. Given the inter-est of the participants in this area, the International Federation agreed to engage ProVention after theworkshop to look further into the options for inclusion of such indicators. For the purposes of TRIAMS,the relevant indicators have been grouped according to the four areas of recovery.

Household budget surveys and local employment surveys.For some of the indicators, the informationalready exists; for others, systems will need to be developed on the ground. In addition, it is crucial toobtain more qualitative information about what is really going on in the population in terms of theirawareness of hazards, their perceptions of risk and safety, and the adoption of safe behaviours, a role thatthe Red Cross Red Crescent would be well suited to undertake. It was also noted that other indicationsof reduced vulnerability probably do exist with various national government monitoring systems, and fur-ther review of these national systems is warranted.

The approach is intended to be flexible, as all the countries participating in TRIAMS were affectedin different ways and their outlook towards future risks is influenced by different patterns of hazardand vulnerability.


The International Recovery Platform (IRP) isthe thematic platform of the InternationalStrategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) withresponsibility for advancing a sustainablerecovery agenda towards the achievement ofstrategic goal (c) of the Hyogo Framework forAction: the systematic incorporation of riskreduction approaches into the design anddevelopment of emergency preparedness,

response and recovery programmes in the reconstruction of affected communities. The IRPfocuses on mainstreaming a culture of prevention, mainly by supporting and facilitating theadoption of appropriate recovery practices by disaster-affected populations and their govern-ments, with particular emphasis on high-risk/low-capacity countries. In this context, TRIAMSrepresents an important initiative. Making a concerted effort across the countries affected bythe Indian Ocean tsunami to adopt key indicators for the monitoring of recovery interventionsand to periodically assess the impact of what has been achieved so far is crucial to support-ing effective recovery and to contributing to advancing good international recovery practice.

InternationalRecover y P lat form


Table 11: Proposed disaster risk reduction indicators for TRIAMS

Area of recovery OUTPUT indicators OUTCOME indicators Data source

Vital needs

� % of housesconstructedaccording to buildingcodes withappropriate hazard-resistant features

Surveys conducted to determineoccupancy as source for otherTRIAMS indicators

� % of population withappropriateawareness ofdisaster hazards andpreparedness steps

� % of population practisingsafer behaviours as aresult of disasterpreparedness awareness

Surveys in schools and markets,particularly in high-risk areasEvidence of local preparednessplans and drills

� % of population perceivingthat they are safe (vs.unsafe, powerless, etc.)

Surveys, particularly in high-riskareas

Access to basicsocial services

� Number of citizensand other interestgroups (smallbusiness owners,fishermen, women,etc.) that have beenformed or restartedsince the tsunami

� Restoration of socialcapital for promoting localdisaster resilience

Registration and governmentalrecognition of such groups; localpress coverage can be mined forthe existence and range andfrequency of activity of suchgroups

Rehabilitating &reconstructinginfrastructure

� Number and % ofschools rebuilt, re-located, or retrofittedto take into accounttheir exposure tofuture hazards

� % of children attendingschools in safe structuresand school environments

� Reestablishment of tradeand transport linksbetween disaster affectedrural areas and marketsfor products, labour andservices

Municipal data, Ministry ofHealth and education data

Local economic surveys. Thisshould be an indicator of servicerestoration for the infrastructureoutput indicators in the TRIAMScore list

Livelihoods

� Depth of poverty andpoverty severity (need tolook beyond just incidenceof poverty to evaluateextent to whichinequalities are changingand whether thevulnerabilities associatedwith poverty are beingmitigated)

� Diversity of livelihood andlocal economic activities

Registration for social protectionand safety net services

Poverty gap is often measured asthe mean percentage distancebelow the poverty line multipliedby the proportion of people thatlive below the poverty line

Household budget surveys andlocal employment surveys.

Key messages and recommendations

Key messages� After the tsunami, all four countries introduced disaster risk reduction measures. A number of themhave come up with new legislation and new or strengthened institutional arrangements and are carry-ing out risk assessments. But there is still a long way to go between doing the assessments and applyingthem, particularly right from the beginning of a complex recovery process after a huge natural disaster.

� Risk reduction is fine as a concept, but recovery takes place under serious time constraints. There is noeasy way around it except to plan before a disaster happens (and to communicate more clearly to affect-ed populations, donors and the public realistic timeframes for recovery). For example, if a hazard mapexists prior to a disaster, it is more likely that it can be used to plan the recovery. A comprehensiveapproach to risk management can help to deal with the time pressure in a recovery situation.

� Risk reduction needs to be seen – and measured – in the context of ongoing development and not as aone-time “recovery” exercise.

� Not enough is being done to monitor the disaster risk reduction aspects of recovery programming. Muchremains to be done in terms of developing indicators, integrating them into the four areas of recovery, collect-ing information on them and making sure the information feeds into risk reduction efforts during recovery.

Recommendations� Proper disaster preparedness and planning will help reduce the need to respond under heavy time pres-sure. Existing skills need to be consolidated and updated and new skills added and imparted.

� A multi-hazard approach is needed if recovery programmes are to be sustainable and development issuesaddressed. Risk assessments must take into account all potential hazards, such as flooding, cyclones andlandslides, and not just the recurrence of a tsunami.

� Countries need to set aside resources for disaster risk reduction. This is important for the sustainabilityof risk reduction measures beyond tsunami programmes. There needs to be some financing by the gov-ernments and some community financing.

� In all four countries, as well as in UN agencies, monitoring and evaluation of specific activities address-ing risk reduction in tsunami recovery programmes need to be mainstreamed and institutionalized –both so that this monitoring becomes an ongoing activity with a solid institutional commitment andbase and so that “normal” development decision-making is also reviewed with an eye on risk reduction.

� There is a need to look at poverty as one of the core drivers of vulnerability, and the potential to exac-erbate inequalities in recovery programmes. Some activities to restore services, for example, may havenegative and disruptive effects on patterns of access to those services.

� To be effective in the long term, disaster risk reduction measures need to be integrated into all recoveryand development projects. Ultimately, all recovery as well development activities should leave peoplewith greater resilience and capacity to cope with natural hazards than before the activity began.

� The need for local and national governments to respond appropriately when standards are not metplaces critical emphasis on monitoring the effectiveness of inspection and enforcement systems.

� Many lives could have been saved during the tsunami if an early warning system had been in place.Establishing an early warning system is the concern of all the affected countries and requires investmentsat the international level. More importantly, it requires investments in building capacities at the nation-al, provincial, district and community levels. As the small tsunami in Java showed, these efforts shouldbe made in parallel, and necessary investments in strengthening community awareness and prepared-ness should not wait until comprehensive alert systems are completed. The last mile needs to be com-pleted first in order to be better placed to save lives now.


Country recommendations for incorporatingdisaster risk reduction

Each of the four participating country teams were asked to come up with three key recommendations ontechnical and institutional aspects for monitoring disaster risk reduction in post-tsunami recovery. All thegroups recognized the need to integrate disaster risk reduction as a cross-cutting issue into all areas ofrecovery. They also acknowledged the need for a “champion of the cause” that can pursue this in eachcountry and with the different sectors.

Indonesia� Make one institution/agency responsible and accountable for disaster risk reduction. In meantime, BRRwill continue to build on recent efforts and progress.

� Finalize the technical and financial aspects of disaster risk reduction. Ensure financial allocation is madefor it across sectors.

� Transfer responsibility from the BRR to the agreed agency.

Maldives� Strengthen the Maldives institutional disaster management capacity.� Integrate disaster preparedness and disaster risk reduction into the education system, to embed them inthe long-term memory of the nation.

� Make disaster risk reduction the output or the outcome of all development and recovery projects.

Sri Lanka� Expedite the process of vulnerability mapping at community level.� Conduct regular monitoring of construction to ensure that disaster risk reduction building guidelinesare being met.

� Conduct perception surveys among members of the community to see how vulnerable or how safe theyfeel (indicator: % of population feels safe).

Thailand� Develop key indicators at national level, clearly define them and create a database system.� Harmonize the outcome indicators with the national set-up. Development of analysis system – accord-ing to standardized criteria, benchmarking.

� Develop institutional responsibility for monitoring.� redefine where responsibility lies for disaster risk reduction;� create working committees at national level bringing together the different institutions involved indisaster risk reduction;

� create a working group to monitor progress.


Section VCountry action plans

The final part of the workshop was devoted to discussing and finalizing the action plans for the implemen-tation of TRIAMS in each country in the coming three years and to identifying the likely resource require-ments. The country teams worked on the draft action plans prepared before the workshop in their groupsand then presented the results to the plenary. Most of them noted that at the end of this process the planswere still in a draft form and would need to be subsequently refined. Refer also to the report of the firstTRIAMS workshop in Bangkok in which the indicators, their sources and frequency are detailed.13

Indonesia

In Indonesia, the adoption of TRIAMS indicators is undertaken by the BRR and by the different line min-istries involved in the recovery effort. The UN Office of the Recovery Coordinator hosts the IAS, which hasfully incorporated the TRIAMS framework and indicators in documenting recovery progress. An oversightcommittee comprising the BRR, UNICEF, UNORC and several government institutions (planning, statis-tics, etc.) guides the overall work plan of the IAS and works to ensure application of its results.

Objectives� Enhance the capacity to support data analysis and utilization for management decision-making andimproved planning.

� Incorporate both structural and non-structural aspects of disaster risk reduction in recovery programming.� Institutionalize TRIAMS in the BRR and local government.

Key actions − overall and by area of recovery

Overall� Develop a realistic capacity-building plan for both local government and targeted ministries whichwill take over the key responsibilities of BRR.

� Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan for disaster risk reduction and include it as part of theTRIAMS action plan.

� Develop a detailed budget for key activities, acknowledging the US$ 2 million input from UNICEFto date.

78

13 UN, WHO & International Federation, Tsunami Recovery Impact Assessment and Monitoring System, TRIAMS WorkshopReport, September 2006, www.who.int/hac/triams.

� Map beneficiary perspective assessments and other qualitative efforts under way in Aceh and develop anapproach to enhance qualitative interpretations of TRIAMS indicator analyses.

Vital needs� Migrate from recovery output indicators to development indicators (e.g. locational and structural riskreduction, tenure security, mass land certification, neighbourhood upgrading and community-basedengagements, etc.).

� Key implementing agencies will not only be limited to tsunami-recovery agencies (i.e. BRR, NGOs,UN agencies) but will shift to long-term development institutions (government, BPS, BPDE, Ministryfor Housing and Settlement (Dinas Perkim)).

Basic social services� Stakeholders in the health sector need to have an in-depth discussion with the Provincial Health Officeand BPS to find out:� the schedule of surveys;� surveys conducted/to be conducted and methodology;� indicators and outcomes of each survey;� how the process of monitoring and evaluation is implemented.

� Improve the collection of qualitative information on education through donor appeals to support theMinistry of National Education in collecting data to/from the district offices and by establishing an edu-cation monitoring and information system.

� Discuss with the relevant government agencies (Provincial Health Office, BPS, Ministry of Health,Education Management Information System, Ministry of National Education and Bappeda) the impor-tance of long-term regional collection of indicators on basic social services for Aceh and Nias.

Infrastructure� Infrastructure output indicators should be completed with targets.� More outcome indicators in the infrastructure sector are needed.� TRIAMS team should discuss how to ensure through appropriate indicators that infrastructureresults in:� quality (technical, safeguards, economic feasibility);� user satisfaction demand side;� good utilization rates demand side;� sustainable operations and maintenance. This is the critical issue: after all the infrastructure is built,what will happen after the BRR is disbanded in 2009? Who will maintain the hospitals, for example?

Livelihoods� Indonesia may retain some of the indicators that were deleted from the TRIAMS indicator table as partof its country-specific indicators (e.g. sq km of land rehabilitated, as this remains relevant in Aceh).

� Each individual indicator will be clearly defined (why it is being measured) along with specific targetsand baselines.

79Section V I Country action plans

� Work will be carried out to improve both the accuracy and reliability of data used to build the indica-tors, so that the analysis of this information can more effectively influence programming.

� Focus will be increased on overall economic health indicators along with the breakdown within eachsector to assist in future programming strategies. This will also provide the context to measure individ-ual project successes and long-term sustainable development. Potential information on which to devel-op appropriate indicators include:� # of days/cost to start a business, attractiveness to investors, real GDP, inflation, etc.;� % of people employed by companies versus self-employed (shows consolidation and economic growth);� follow-up is needed with appropriate expert organizations/personnel working in each sector to ensurethe accuracy of indicators and data collection procedures.

Resource requirements

These need to be determined more precisely but are estimated at around US$ 6 million for 2007–2009to address capacity-building needs and disaster risk reduction.

Maldives

In the Maldives, TRIAMS continues to be led by the Ministry of Planning and National Development,with significant support and leadership from the UNDP country team. The International Federationand WHO provided technical support during 2006 and early 2007 to assist in the harmonization ofdata-sharing and to conduct a trend analysis of the TRIAMS indicators according to the 2006 actionplan identified during the first regional workshop in Bangkok. The government and implementing part-ners are eager to build on the TRIAMS process through the creation of MaldivInfo, using the TRIAMSframework to bridge the gap between recovery and development. Additionally, the challenges in build-ing and utilizing this type of analytical framework are well known to the government. This has led to thecreation of a very realistic and viable action plan.

Objectives� Strengthen existing data collection and management systems.� Strengthen coordinating mechanisms already in place.� Develop capacities – manpower and resources

Key challenges and actions

ChallengeMainstreaming and coordination of data collection.


Actions:� Identify/recruit a TRIAMS coordinator (local person for two years 2007−2008).� Identify/strengthen existing data-collection systems within line ministries and build decentralizedsystems for output indicators in line with the requirements of donor/international agencies.

� Produce common definitions, standards/procedures for data analysis (international consultant for onemonth, September 2007).

Expected result:Capacity established at Ministry of Planning and National Development (coordinating agency forTRIAMS) for regular collection of data from the relevant sources.

Actions:� National workshop to mainstreamTRIAMS indicators into national planning process and 7th NationalDevelopment Plan (2007).

� Integrate TRIAMS responsibilities into routine functions of the line ministries and National DisasterManagement Centre.

� Develop plan of action for routing TRIAMS data to Ministry of Planning and National Development(2007).

� Produce annual TRIAMS report and utilize it for budget planning (local consultant, March 2008).

Expected result:TRIAMS indicators are incorporated into national development planning and reporting processes and aformalized structure for monitoring and reporting on TRIAMS established within the government.

ChallengeLimited national capacity for data analysis.

Actions:� Conduct a skills audit for assessing and improving existing capacity to implement TRIAMS (interna-tional consultant for one month, September 2007).

� Training courses (2007−2009), long term and short term.� Training workshops (mentoring activities, on-the-job learning).� Biannual development planning workshops (6 workshops over three years, 2007−2009).

Expected result:Improved national capacity for data analysis, reporting mechanisms, and strategic and policy analysisfor TRIAMS.

ChallengeNo consistent collection of standard indicators by various national surveys.

Actions:� Use three studies already planned to collect data on TRIAMS indicators:

� Demographic Health Survey (2007);� National Land Survey (2007);� Household Income and Expenditure Survey (2008).


Expected result:Surveys and studies conducted to collect outcome indicators identified in TRIAMS and the results analysed.

ChallengeNo national database exists with coordinated data input, both for emergency preparedness and recoverymonitoring purposes. The recent sea swells (May 2007) in the Maldives and the resulting appeal couldhave greatly benefited from such a database with a clear evidence base.

Actions:� Strengthen planning and aid coordination mechanisms through support to MaldivInfo and DAD (2008).� Incorporate emergency preparedness/risk reduction indicators into MaldivInfo and project formulationand management processes (2008).

Expected outcome:A coordinated national database with emergency preparedness and situation-related data.

Resource requirements� Technical resources – local/ international consultants.� Financial resources – US$ 1,013,000.

Sri Lanka

The need for effective monitoring and evaluation systems at all levels has been recognized from the outsetof the recovery effort in Sri Lanka. The leadership exhibited by RADA and other key government agenciesand the support of various UN partners notwithstanding, the monitoring of recovery has been fragment-ed and not well linked to either the replanning of recovery efforts or to national data-collection systems.

While the need for TRIAMS has been widely recognized, and some preliminary steps taken, further work isneeded to ensure that TRIAMS supports national and local efforts to monitor tsunami recovery while alsostrengthening national systems. The Sri Lanka action plan is an initial attempt to accomplish these aims.

Objectives� Strengthen the capacity of the district administration to track and monitor progress.� Utilize the data gathered for planning purposes at the local level.� Build on existing investments by establishing linkages to support MDG localization efforts at both districtand divisional levels and the promotion of DevInfo by national counterparts (Lanka info launched last year).

Challenges

� Lack of analysis capacity at local level.� Weak coordination between local data gathering mechanisms.


� Different administrative boundaries between Ministry of Health areas and DS divisions (second admin-istrative division).

� Capacity development needs.� Training to enhance analytical capabilities at the district level.� Development of methodologies and strategies to enable existing data collection mechanisms to gatherrequired information at sub-district level.

� Promotion of coordination efforts at sub-district level through local government authorities.

ActionsPilot TRIAMS initially in 2-3 districts (representing distinct geographical areas).

Expected outcomes� Availability of high-quality disaggregated data to be used for planning purposes and for comparisonacross districts.

� An integrated data-collection system at local level focused on the MDGs and TRIAMS indicators.� Promotion of DevInfo as the common system for tracking both sets of indicators.� Integration of TRIAMS indicators into the national data collection systems.

Time frameThe pilot phase for TRIAMS is planned for between April and June 2007, after which a comparativeanalysis will be conducted and the methodology refined.

Depending on the lessons learned in the pilot districts and availability of further funding, the project willbe expanded during the second half of 2007 to an additional four districts in the south that have beentsunami impacted but do not have other constraints. Expansion to the north and east will depend in parton accessibility issues related to the conflict.

Resource requirementsTo be determined.


Thailand

TRIAMS means “prepared” in Thai. Many govern-ment officials supporting the TRIAMS process haveacknowledged that the recovery process is not yet overin Thailand and additional work is needed.Furthermore, some are interested in using this processin order to be better prepared, in terms of analysis, for

the next disaster. In order to achieve both these aims − to monitor current recovery and to be better pre-pared for the next time − Thailand’s action plan will focus largely on capacity building of the governmentat local, provincial and national levels.

Objectives� Conduct monitoring in tsunami-affected areas to address unmet needs and inequalities.� Strengthen the coordinating role of the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, with theMinistries of Public Health and Interior and partner organizations (international agencies, Thai NGOsand local institutes/universities) in support.

Challenges� Lack of availability of some data in the routine reporting system in Thailand.� Lack of understanding of indicators and knowledge of data collection.� Coordination problems among various sectors.� Lack of a coordinated data base and data-collection system.� Insufficient or lack of trained manpower.� No national plan for recovery.

Actions� Organize meetings for all stakeholders at national, provincial, district/sub-district and communitylevels to determine TRIAMS priorities and action steps for each level.

� Hold a workshop on TRIAMS to coordinate among agencies and develop the process and activities.� Ensure full commitment to TRIAMS by setting up a memorandum of understanding among the vari-ous ministries concerned defining their respective responsibilities and identifying activities:� to adapt indicators to the Thai situation;� create templates (questionnaires and report forms) and the time frame for the indicators.

� Capacity building − human resource development at provincial level:� household survey/special survey;� data collection and analysis;� reporting and presentation at national and local level.

� Improving knowledge of data management.� Ensure sufficient budget allocation.


We collect the data but it is never used forinformation. We never analyse and synthesize it

deeply enough to create knowledge.

Concluding remarks of a Thai government officialduring the workshop

� Establish an information centre which regularly updates information/data.� Improve implementation procedures, e.g. creating user-friendly data collection tools.

Time frameShort term: March 2007–February 2008� 1 national workshop.� 2 technical workshops.� 2 executive workshops.

Long term (March 2008–December 2010)� Development of training courses in:

� disaster risk assessment;� disaster management, e.g. Public Health and Emergency Management in Asia and the Pacific(PHEMAP) course;

� United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC)methodology;

� Executive meeting once a year (three in total).� Training in above courses:

� pilot phase in six tsunami-affected provinces:� expanded to nationwide training (70 provinces not tsunami affected).

Resource requirements� Short term (US$ 200,000−250,000):

� administration/coordination;� implementation;� capacity building.

� Long term (US$ 500,000–600,000):� administration/coordination;� implementation;� capacity building.


Section VIConclusionsand next steps

Main challenges for the next phaseof the TRIAMS initiative

The organizations involved in facilitating and implementing TRIAMS have had some unique experiencesthis past year and a half. Clear lessons and recommendations are emerging both for TRIAMS and forhumanitarian response in general, which deserve special attention.

1. Data should be disaggregated to the lowest level possible if we are to monitorinequalities. Strict targeting criteria may contribute to inequalities.

The ability of those working in recovery to truly address ongoing needs and redress inequities will largelybe influenced by their ability to disaggregate and utilize reliable data. There is a need to disaggregate datato the lowest level possible in order for the information to be most useful. There is a danger that our inter-ventions will be too localized and too tsunami specific and therefore contribute to inequities with popula-tions not affected (e.g. Aceh inland populations versus coastal populations, Sri Lanka tsunami-affected ver-sus conflict-affected populations). Effective monitoring and evaluation, in this case TRIAMS, can helpproduce the evidence base to demonstrate to decision-makers that their targeting criteria and donor poli-cies are causing harm. Although many purport to “do no harm” and to “build back better”, these tenets arenot always supported by policies or practices. Perhaps with the right evidence base, agencies will feel moreempowered to include less-affected or non-affected populations in their recovery programmes.

2. Monitoring systems must adapt as recovery priorities change. Monitoring and evaluationdata must be used to validate or update plans.

The need for continuous needs assessments in post-disaster situations is well known, as the needs of affectedpopulations do change. However, too often we assume certain needs are static, and memoranda of understand-ing and project agreements are not modified accordingly. Needs assessments, planning and monitoring and eval-uation should be part of one, continuous, circular system. As the environment and needs change, so too mustour monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that we are capturing, analysing and reacting to these impor-tant changes in the environment. Whilst the TRIAMS indicators are changing in recognition of the evolvingrecovery situation, more work is needed to ensure that analysis informs plans. Hence, if monitoring data showoversupply or gaps, memoranda of understanding with governments and other partners should be modified.

86

3. We have a responsibility to build capacity both within the governments of affectedcountries and within our own agencies to achieve better data collection and analysis.

Throughout the tsunami-affected countries, a lot of data has been captured, but there is still a long wayto go in analysing that data. Data must be turned into useful information and that information must befed in appropriate ways to decision-makers on a regular basis. Data management ideally should be donemore at the local level. Although experts could be brought in to assist in the data collection and analysis,this will not lead to sustainable capacity within organizations or governments; it may also lessen the incen-tive to use data, if stakeholders do not generate it themselves. In post-disaster situations, additional effortsmust be made to build the capacities of humanitarian actors, be they local, national or international.

4. Coordination among the various sectors is crucial as some TRIAMS data are alreadyavailable but are not routinely shared.

While coordination has been a buzzword for some time, actors supporting relief and development are stillnot doing enough to share data. More importantly, we are not doing enough to share useful informationand discuss analysis. Only the latter can lead to successful joint planning. Isn’t this really the point of coor-dination? Working together on shared assumptions and analysis in order to plan interventions in the mostefficient and effective way possible?

Although it can be difficult, given limited capacities, it is important to address impact issues such as occu-pancy, as well as outstanding risks (e.g. safety, flood risk, tenure security). Without such monitoring, thereis a danger that we will not identify the real constraints faced by affected populations to rebuild sustain-able and resilient communities.

87Section VI I Conclusions and next steps

Next steps

Facilitating organizationsUNDP, the International Federation and WHO will actively support a three-pronged approachover the next two years. This will include:1. Mobilization of resources. The three co-sponsoring agencies will each play a facilitating role inensuring appropriate resource mobilization to support the continued country-level implementationof TRIAMS.

2. Evaluation of the TRIAMS framework and results to date to identify lessons learned. This will beginin early 2008 and will be coordinated by the International Federation.

3. Development of a Recovery Indicators and Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit. UNDP will coordi-nate this phase, which is expected to begin later in 2007.

Implementing agenciesGovernments in the affected countries (reconstruction agencies and line ministries), together with their UN,Red Cross Red Crescent, NGO and local partners, need to continue implementation of TRIAMS accordingto their own localized action plans. Within this, several items should be prioritized for 2007, including:� finalizing the country action plan for 2007–2009, with a particular emphasis on the capacity-buildingcomponent and corresponding budget;

� operationalizing the new TRIAMS indicators adopted during the second regional workshop, particular-ly the risk reduction indicators that may also have financial implications;

� considering a follow-up national workshop in August 2007 with implementing stakeholders to discuss thefindings and the implications of TRIAMS data and analysis, which is now available in several countries.

Lastly, several countries still need to elaborate the qualitative component of their TRIAMS action plans,sequencing activities in a way that allows the qualitative analysis to assist in the interpretation of the quan-titative findings.

Partners, donors and other stakeholdersTRIAMS progress and success to date is largely due to the hard work of implementing countries, support-ed by key partners. To date, SIDA, through WHO, has provided considerable financial support to facili-tate the development and testing of the TRIAMS conceptual framework. UNICEF has also made signif-icant investments in several countries, providing the necessary environment to allow TRIAMS to buildmomentum. The American Red Cross and the International Federation have provided support for keypersonnel in both the Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery since 2005 and in theInternational Federation in Geneva since 2006. These are just a few of the important partners financiallysupporting TRIAMS to date.

To continue to learn from the tsunami experience and to ensure comprehensive data analysis supports therecovery process, additional financial support is needed. Without continued support from the currentTRIAMS partners, as well as from new partners, much momentum will be lost. Resources are needed to:� assist countries in continued implementation of TRIAMS, including the adoption of the riskreduction indicators;

� evaluate and comprehensively identify the lessons learned from the TRIAMS framework;� support the development of the recovery indicator and corresponding recovery monitoring and evalua-tion toolkit.


The interest in and enthusiasm for TRIAMS, despite considerable challenges and barriers, was notedthroughout the workshop. Take the perspectives shared during the workshop by some of the externalstakeholders:

89Section VI I Conclusions and next steps

There are three obvious paths for TRIAMS – direct use for impact assessment, capacity building in monitoringand evaluation, and a way of generating lessons that can be applied to other emergencies. Is it somehow toolate to do the first one? Do we have extra time? Or are we just interested in capacity building and lessonslearned? To my mind, we should focus on the first thing. It’s not too late. What we see is 50% of the tsunamifunds overall have been utilized and over the last three days we have seen a number of potential pitfalls, e.g.oversupply of facilities or underutilization of certain facilities or potential for interventions to exacerbate existinginequalities. These things require us to have a system rather urgently to see this information entered into thecontext, to review it and to make decisions. So I am leaving this with a renewed sense of urgency to have good

systems for monitoring and acting on this information.

Robert Ondrusek, UNICEF Tsunami Support Unit

TRIAMS is important for three reasons and on three levels:

1 Important to establish a direct follow-up of what is happening and has happened with the tsunami-related interventions. TRIAMS provides a direct measurement of the outcome and perhaps also theimpact of these interventions. It is important as a management tool for decision-making and foraccountability – reporting back to citizens and financiers and so on.

2 It is more about methodology, attitude and so on, where you work with indicators and sets of indicatorsand you have the opportunity during the work to reflect on what do these indicators really mean. Howcan we use them? How can the experience of discussing them in detail be transferred to other ways ofmeasuring both tsunami interventions and other development efforts in the various countries?

3 Capacity-building. Learning by doing and capacity building in the sense that you create space formonitoring and hopefully also for evaluation in the proper sense. What I see as a donor representativeis that we have failed by underutilizing the capacities in the countries we are cooperating with,bypassing, creating our own mechanisms for follow-up and evaluation. Here we have very concretecapacity building for countries’ own purposes but also to illustrate and very concretely show thecapacity that exists and that donors can cooperate directly with for future evaluations and also for amore effective follow-up. It serves your own need for follow-up but also reporting back to donors.

I think it is a very good initiative with enormous importance for the future.

Stefan Dahlgren, Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA)


Implementing TRIAMS is quite different from a field office perspective. To be really honest and realistic,it is hard work to do in such a short time, to put in place systems that are reliable and produce qualitativedata and to improve the capacity of how to use the data in a set-up that is integrated in the normal, regularsystem. It is a challenge but it is feasible with good coordination among the UN and other stakeholders

(governments and NGOs). It is a task which I hope will have a spill over in the country itself.

We know the complaints in the past that M&E is very important but it is always the same problem: the dataare not available or they are not reliable. So I hope that this exercise is not only related to tsunami

but to the long term. It is an opportunity for us to do this and I think it will run.I hope to say this time next year that it is working.

Ingrid Kolb-Hindarmanto, UNICEF

Information is a key factor for decision-making processes, and in this sense the quality of informationwe rely on is crucial. TRIAMS has proven to be a great and useful tool to define what information is needed,how to collect it, how to process all the data and how to read and use it to get a good picture of the reality.

The tsunami recovery process has been a very good opportunity for learning but we have toalso realize there is still a long way to go.

I would like to highlight one challenge: the necessity of finding a balance between the specificities andparticularities of every single disaster and a homogeneous information system. I think this is very important

so that we can link the information and the data that we gather now to the MDGs in the future.This could make us more cost-efficient in the job we do.

Finally, in promoting and supporting the ownership and role of local governments, the role of theinternational community should be to encourage and support local authorities in this process, so that they

can lead the process of gathering the information and take advantage of it in this process.

Ugo Blanco, Spanish Agency for International Cooperation

We recognize the incredible work that the country delegations have done. I know myself that we arewrestling with our own accountability framework. It is not easy to do. The next steps for TRIAMS − thechallenge is to refine the work you are doing and utilize it, especially in the activities under way and

changing plans to make the most effective use of resources that are available and ultimately integratingthem at national level so that they can be sustained not just for tsunami recovery but also for developmentactivities and future disasters in the long run. In terms of support, we are hopeful that other agencies

with mandates to support this kind of work will become more actively engaged.It would be a waste to stop this now. We need to see support for this effort.

Jerry Anderson, Sr. Director, Tsunami Recovery Programme, American Red Cross

Annex IOutcomes statement

The second regional TRIAMS workshop set out to facilitate learning based on an exchange of experiencesbetween countries in implementing TRIAMS and in improving the way in which the tsunami recovery isbeing monitored. To this end, more than 60 people representing governments, the United Nations, theRed Cross Red Crescent, donors, specialized agencies, local universities and other stakeholders cametogether to share perspectives and progress to date. Cross-fertilization was apparent across the four coun-tries attending the workshop notable by the intense dialogue and active participation of all.

At the first regional TRIAMS workshop, indicators were developed with the aim of illustrating the con-tinuum from relief to recovery, but now, at the second workshop, the need to capture the continuumbetween recovery and development was strongly recognized as a challenge.

With this in mind, the need to enhance local and national capacities to perform proper monitoring of therecovery process in all the main sectors was further reiterated, as was the need to conduct analysis of thecore and country-specific indicators over time, in order to illustrate trends. Moreover, the analysis mustbe used to replan operations where challenges, gaps or even over-commitments are noted. To date, the useof such analysis as a reflection of changing needs to inform plans has been weak. Another weakness notedover the past year concerns the lack of cross-sectoral analysis conducted at the local level. This requiresfurther emphasis and should be complemented by qualitative approaches which will make it possible tobetter understand unexplained differences within and between various districts.

In light of the workshop discussions and the exchange of experiences, the set of core indicators wasimproved, with new indicators added, existing ones reformulated and others that did not reflect theemerging priorities of recovery deleted.

The overall monitoring and impact assessment framework was further enhanced through an exchange onboth the progress and the challenges of not only incorporating disaster risk reduction into recovery butalso of measuring its outputs and outcomes. Through the sharing of experiences and the recommenda-tions on disaster risk reduction presented by the ProVention Consortium, a few core risk reduction indi-cators were added to the TRIAMS framework.

Following this, countries further operationalized and updated their plans of action, identifying ways toaddress the significant challenges surfacing in year one of implementing TRIAMS. Within these plans,country-specific indicators were also modified based on learning, recommendations and exchange of expe-riences, including the adoption of a few risk reduction measures.

The various partners actively involved in the meeting reaffirmed their interest in and commitment toidentifying lessons from the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the tsunami recovery process. Such les-sons can contribute to the development of a global approach and eventually to a toolkit to better informthe monitoring, assessment and planning of recovery processes in the future following natural and man-made disasters.

91

Partners need to remain engaged to mobilize needed resources and support countries in the ongoingimplementation of TRIAMS. Collectively, building on the analysis supported by the TRIAMS frame-work, we need to find ways to ensure resources are used in a way that contributes to the overall develop-ment of the countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis.


Annex IIAgenda

93

Day 1: Wednesday, 21 MarchTime Activity Responsible Notes8:00 – 8:30 Registration and Network Coffee and refreshments will be served

8:30 – 8:45 Welcome to the meeting

8:45 – 9:15 Opening Remarks and MeetingObjectives and Expected Outcomes

Co-sponsoring agenciesFacilitator

9:15 – 9:45 Participants’ introductions andexpectations from the workshop

Head of each delegation

9:45 – 10:00 Administrative Issues andHousekeeping

Facilitator

10:00 – 10:30 Strengths and weaknesses of themonitoring of the recoveryinterventions, progress achievedso far on the development of theTRIAMS conceptual framework

Nevio Zagaria, WHO,Margaret Stansberry,International Federation

Presentation on the TRIAMS ConceptualFramework

10:30 – 11:00 COFFEE BREAK

Section 1: Current state of tsunami recovery and of its M&E11:00 – 13:00 M&E as critical tools to document

Tsunami recovery progress atcountry/local level, and guide thestrategic re-planning

Plenary discussion

Plenary countrypresentations (15’ each)

Countries’ presentations focused on:1. outcome of analysis of the monitoring and impact

assessment recovery indicators by sector/area ofrecovery and across the areas/sectors

2. how the dimension of the disaster riskreduction has been addressed by the recoveryinterventions so far

13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH BREAK

14:00 – 15:30 Four Working Groups, one for eacharea of the tsunami recovery:1. Vital needs2. Basic social services3. Infrastructure4. Livelihood

Each working group shouldhave at least onerepresentative fromeach countryEach working group willappoint a lead facilitatorbased on sectoral expertise

Each Working Group should:a) review the progress in each area

of the tsunami recoveryb) Discuss the lessons learned in conducting M&Ec) Highlight the remaining challenges linked to

the use of TRIAMS core and country specificindicators in performing M&E

d) Streamline and update TRIAMS framework fortheir assigned area based on the current stageof recovery (output, outcome, impact indicatorsand recommended qualitative approaches)


16:00 – 17:00 Continuation of the 4 workinggroups and preparation of thepower point plenary presentation

Each working group should haveone rapporteur; non-countryspecific persons and technicaladvisors for recovery areasshould float between groups

The power point presentation for the plenarysession should clearly indicate the proposedchanges , improvement of the indicators and/or thedata collection, and analysis methodologies

17:00 – 17:30 Quick feedback on discussionsand day’s proceeding

Group comes back to give some quick feedback

17:30 Close

18:00 – 19:30 Reception hosted by UNDP


Day 2: Thursday, 22 MarchTime Activity Responsible Notes

8:30 – 9:30 Presentation of outcomes of theday 1 working group

Plenary A 15' power point presentation for each of theworking groups

9:30 – 10:30 Discussion Plenary Consensus should be reached in improvement ofTRIAMS indicators (risk reduction indicators to beadded after Section 2)


11:00 – 11:30 Continuation of the discussion Plenary Summary and discussions on improvements /modifications of TRIAMS indicators andmethodologies for data collection and analysis

11:30 – 12:30 Other M&E of Tsunami Recovery:Linking Relief to Rehabilitation toDevelopment (LRRD), TsunamiEvaluation Coalition Study

Donor Assistance Database (DAD),presentation by UNDP

Plenary Presentation by Stefan Dahlgren, SIDA and TECmember (30 minutes including Q&A)

TBC

12:30 – 13:30 LUNCH

Section 2: The challenge of addressing disaster risk reduction dimension during the recovery processin the tsunami-affected countries

13:30 – 14:45 New thinking and experiences inaddressing DRR during therecovery: the local, national andglobal perspectives

Panel Session led by KamalKishore and Sanny Jegillos,UNDP:1. ProVention2. Maldives3. Indonesia

Background papers:ProVention concept paper on risk reductionindicatorsRapid DRR assessment in the MaldivesThe steps to achieve a national DRR policy: theexample of IndonesiaEach group presenting will have 25 minutesincluding time for Q&A

14:45 – 16:00 Facilitated plenary discussions onindicators to monitor the adoptionand implementation of appropriatemeasures addressing disaster riskreduction

Plenary discussion Outcome of this session should be concreteindicators and methodologies for data collectionand analysis at local level of the M&E of DRRinterventions


16:30 – 18:30 Working groups for each of thetsunami affected countries ondeveloping a TRIAMS Plan ofAction

Working group by country Finalization of TRIAMS national plan of action forthe 2007–2009, including budget and including theoperationalization of selected disaster riskreduction indicators

95

Day 3: Friday, 23 MarchTime Activity Responsible Notes

Section 3: The development of national plan of action for the M&E of the tsunami recovery

8:30 – 9:30 Working groups for each of thetsunami affected countries ondeveloping a TRIAMS Plan ofAction

Working group by country Finalization of TRIAMS national plan of action forthe 2007–2009

9:30 – 10:30 Donors and partners perspectiveon investing through M&E duringrecovery

Plenary with presentationsand reflections by donor &partner agencies

Presentation or comments by donor agencies oninvesting in M&E during recovery – challenges,successes, how TRIAMS may help address thesechallenges; (can also include reflection on GoodHumanitarian Donorship Initiative, accountability,equity dimension, Paris Declaration etc.)


11:00 – 13:00 The challenges of the nationalrecovery and the future role of theTRIAMS initiative: Country Plans ofAction

Plenary discussion

Plenary Country presentations focusing on the future ofrecovery monitoring and impact assessmentculminating with a detailed plan of action alongwith resource requirements.

11:30 – 12:30 Other M&E of Tsunami Recovery:Linking Relief to Rehabilitation toDevelopment (LRRD), TsunamiEvaluation Coalition Study

Donor Assistance Database (DAD),presentation by UNDP

Plenary Presentation by Stefan Dahlgren, SIDA and TECmember (30 minutes including Q&A)

TBC

13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH BREAK

14:00 – 15:30 Summary recommendations forrecovery monitoring and impactassessment – including futureapplications


16:00 – 17:00 Discussion of next steps Plenary Possibly a set of recommendations summarizingthe key points of each section of the workshop willbe presented and agreed during this final session

17:00 – 17:30 Meeting Adjourned

Annex II I Agenda

Annex IIIParticipants

96

GlobalAnderson, GeraldSenior Director, Tsunami Recovery ProgramAmerican Red CrossAddress: 2025 E Street NW, 2nd Floor NW2-077,Washington DC 20006Tel: +1 202 303 5272E-mail: [email protected]

Almgren, OlaSenior Recovery AdvisorBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery-UNDPAddress: Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10Tel: +41 22 917 8556E-mail: [email protected]

Bermeo, MiguelDeputy Director GenevaBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery-UNDPE-mail: [email protected]

Blanco, UgoCoordinator of the Spanish Agency forInternational Cooperation in IndonesiaDevelopment AttachéEmbassy of Spain, JakartaAddress: Jl. H. Agus Salim 61Tel: +62 21 3142355Fax: +62 21 31935134E-mail:[email protected] [email protected]

Cox, AidanRegional Advisor – Aid ManagementAddress: UNDP Regional Centre in BangkokTel:+66 2 288 2735E-mail: [email protected]

Cunliffe, ScottRegional Disaster Risk Reduction AdvisorAddress: UNDP Regional Centre in BangkokTel:+66 2 288 2751E-mail: [email protected]

Dahlgren, StefanSenior EvaluatorDepartment for Evaluation and Internal Audit,SIDAAddress: SE-105 25 STOCKHOLM, SwedenTel: +46 8 698 5069E-mail: [email protected]

Grisewood, ChristinaEditor, IndependentAddress: St. Colman’s Scariff Co. ClareIreland, Republic ofTel: +353 6 192 1685E-mail: [email protected]

Jegillos, SannyRegional Programme CoordinatorAddress: UNDP Regional Centre in BangkokTel:+6622882536E-mail: [email protected]

Kishore, KamalRegional Disaster Reduction AdvisorUnited Nations Development Programme(UNDP), BCPRAddress: 55, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi -110003IndiaTel: +919810095470E-mail: [email protected]

O’Donnell, IanSenior OfficerProVention Consortium, Disaster Preparednessand Response Dept.International FederationAddress: Chemin des Crêts 17 CP 372 1211Geneva 19Tel: +41 22 730 4373E-mail: [email protected]

Ondrusek, RobertProgramme OfficerTsunami Support Unit, Programme Division,UNICEFAddress: 3 United Nations Plaza, New York10017Tel: +212-326-7195E-mail: [email protected]

Petragallo, SamuelTechnical OfficerWHOAddress: 20, Avenue Appia 1211 Geneva 27Tel: +41 22 791 1235E-mail: [email protected]

R. Bhatt, MihirAll India Disaster Mitigation InstituteAddress: 411, Sakar Five, Near Natraj Cinema,Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 009, IndiaTel:+91-79-26586234/26583607E-mail: [email protected]

De, SaumikRegional Coordination AssociateUnited Nations Development Programme(UNDP), BCPRAddress: 55, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi -110003IndiaTel: +911124628877 ext. 462E-mail: [email protected]

Stansberrry, MargaretSenior OfficerTsunami Response Planning Monitoring,Evaluation and Reporting (PMER) DeptAddress: International FederationTel: +41 22 730 4571E-mail: [email protected]

Teckle, NeschaRegional CPR Advisor/ Team LeaderAddress: UNDP Regional Centre in BangkokTel:+66 2 288 2701E-mail: [email protected]

Vyas, KamleshTRIAMS Workshop Facilitator (Supreme QualityServices ht Ltd.)Address: C-7/103, PWO, Sector 43, Gurgaon –112002, IndiaTel: 091-98117 08456(M)E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

MacDonald, J. WayneSenior Project OfficerOffice of Evaluation, UNICEFAddress: Three United Nations Plaza New York,NY 10017,USATel: +1 212 326 742E-mail: [email protected]

Zagaria, NevioCoordinatorRecovery and Transition Programmes,Health Action in Crises, WHOAddress: 20 Avenue Appia 1211 Geneva 27Tel: +41 22 791 2534E-mail: [email protected]

IndonesiaAzwar, TeukuNAD PHO, IndonesiaTel: + 62 811 68 2303E-mail: [email protected]

Besana, FrancoTechnical OfficerHealth facility AssessmentWHO IndonesiaTel: +62 812 1011631E-mail: [email protected]

Darajat, Eddie RasyidChief Information Officer (CIO)BRR NAD-Nias, IndonesiaTel: +62 812 699 1717 / 0811917817E-mail: [email protected]

Dercon, BrunoHousing Policy AdviserUN-HABITAT’s Aceh Nias, Settlements SupportProgrammeAddress: Menara Thamrin Building Suite 1406Jalan M.H. Thamrin Kav. 3 Jakarta 10250,IndonesiaTel: + 62 21 314 1+1308 ext. 181E-mail:[email protected],[email protected]

Fahrian Bin Marjasin, DedyKasubdit Pengembangan Sarana & PrasaranaWilayahBAPPEDA NAD, IndonesiaTel: +62 812 698 26 00E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

97Annex III I Participants

Fithriadi, Mohammad (Riri)Monitoring OfficerUNDP IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

Kolb-Hindarmanto, IngridPlanning OfficerUNICEF Banda Aceh Zone OfficeAddress: Jl. Mesjid Ashadaqah No 2 LamlagangBanda Aceh 23243 IndonesiaTel: +62 812 699 0484E-mail: [email protected]

MudjihartoCrisis CentreMinistry of Health, IndonesiaTel: +62 816 110 3585E-mail: [email protected]

M Kes, Mafrawi (Drg.)Head of Basic and Referral Health DivisionPHO-NAD, IndonesiaTel: +62 813-603-33300E-mail: [email protected]

Nuaimi, MorisPlanning OfficerBAPPENAS, Republic of IndonesiaTel: +62 813 9909 6911E-mail: [email protected]

Poulsen, UffeHead, Information Analysis SectionUNORC, Indonesia

Purwanto, EddyChief Operating Officer (COO)BRR NAD-Nias, IndonesiaTel: +62 812 699 1706E-mail:[email protected] /[email protected]

Suemantri. SoeharsonoSenior ResearcherNational Institute for Health Research andDevelopment,Ministry of Health, IndonesiaTel: +62 812 801 3628E-mail: [email protected]

Suhaimi, UzairKasubdit statistic Pendapatan Tenaga KerjaBPS (Pusat)/ Jakarta, IndonesiaTel: +62 813 802 3721E-mail: [email protected]

SulasmiField Medical OfficerWHO AFO, IndonesiaTiadi, KuningHead of Data & InformationIndonesiaTel: +62 815 885 8475

Tripathi, Satya SundarUN Recovery CoordinatorUNORC, IndonesiaTel:+62 8121050837Fax: +62 651 41913E-mail: [email protected]

MaldivesAbdulla, Abdul BariAssistant Resident Representative (Programme)Livelihoods and Decentralization , UNDPAddress: UN Building, Bruzu Magu, Male’Tel: +960 7795511E-mail: [email protected]

Aboobakuru, MaimoonaDeputy DirectorMinistry of HealthAddress: H. Bright Corner, Male’Tel: +960 7795502E-mail: [email protected]

Ahmed, InazAssistant DirectorMinistry of Planning and National DevelopmentAddress: M. Goodness, Male’Tel: +960 7782897E-mail: [email protected]

Fathimath, YumnaDeputy DirectorMinistry of Gender and FamilyAddress: G. Mehura, Male’Tel: +960 334 33 46E-mail: [email protected]

Guirguis, SherineMonitoring and Evaluation Officer, UNICEFAddress: UN Building, Bruzu Magu, Male’Tel: +960 32 4501 Ext. 246E-mail: sguirguis@unicef

Nashia, AminathDeputy DirectorDepartment of External ResourcesAddress: M. Nash, Male’Tel: +960 7778241E-mail: [email protected]

Naushad, AbdullahDirector, EngineeringMinistry of Construction and Public InfrastructureAddress: M. Shaama, Male’Tel: +960 7756454E-mail: [email protected]

Shafeeu, AhmedDirectorMinistry of EducationAddress: V. Edhuruvehi 3GC FlatTel: +960 7775039E-mail: [email protected]

Sinnan, HussainResearch OfficerMinistry of Fisheries, Agriculture and MarineResourcesAddress: M. Iruzuvaage, Male’Tel: +960 7774642E-mail: [email protected]

Sri LankaDe Saram E.M. SunilDeputy DirectorMinistry of Plan ImplementationAddress: Central Bank of Sri Lanka,Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1,Sri LankaTel: +94 11 238 9458E-mail: [email protected]

Dissanayake, LakshmanDirector, Community Extension CentreUniversity of Colombo, Community ExtensionCentre, Sri LankaTel: +94 77 780 3423E-mail: [email protected]

Hewavithana, Nishantha KumaraManager OperationsCentre for Policy Alternatives Social Indicator(CPA-SI)Address: 105, 5th Lane, Colombo 03, Sri LankaTel: +94 237 0474 / +94 77 614 4580E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Malalasekera, PrashanProject Liaison Officer (Tsunami Recovery)UNDP Sri LankaAddress: 202-204 Bauddhaloka MewathaColombo 07E-mail: [email protected]

M.D.M. FernandoSenior StatisticianDept. Of Census and StatisticAddress:15/12 Maitland Crescent, Sri LankaTel: +94 2676195

Perera, Rachel C.Director Donor CoordinationRADA (Reconstruction and Development Agency)Address: 41 Janadhipathi Mawatha, Colombo 1,Sri LankaTel: +94 2496800-4E-mail: [email protected]

Ranasinghe, ThusharaMinistry of Health, Sri Lanka

R. KesavanWHO, Sri Lanka

Sobhan, BabarM and E AdvisorOffice of the UN Resident CoordinatorAddress: 14 Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7, SriLankaTel: +94 11 2 580 6918 ex. 128E-mail: [email protected]

Sumanapala, PathiranehelayaDirectorNational Planning Department, Ministry ofFinance and PlanningSri LankaTel: +94 11 248 2591E-mail: [email protected]

ThailandCalderon, Luis Jorge PerezDeputy Executive DirectorAddress: Asian Disaster Preparedness CenterTel: +66 2 354 9199E-mail: [email protected]

Duangkeo, SiriluksanaChief of Research and Development Sub-BureauResearch and International Cooperation BureauAddress: Dept. of Disaster Prevention andMitigation: DDPM3/12 U-Thongnok Road, Dusit District, Bangkok,Thailand 10300Tel: +66 2 81 174 3930E-mail: [email protected]

Kriengsonthikul, WimonratProgramme Associate of our IPDP UnitAddress: UNDP Thailand12th Floor, UN Building, Rajdamnern NokAvenue, Bangkok, ThailandTel: +662-288- 2146E-mail: [email protected]

98

Mallik, Arun K.WHO ThailandPermanent Secretary Building, 3,4th FloorMinistry of Public HealthTiwanon Road, Nonthaburi 11000 ThailandTel: +662 590 1524, +661 921 5486E-mail: [email protected]

Moller. JesperUnicef Regional Office East Asia PacificE-mail: [email protected]

Paksuchon, AmornthipHuman Resource Development OfficerAddress: Dept. of Disaster Preventionand Mitigation (DDPM)3/12 U-Thongnok Road, Dusit District, Bangkok,Thailand 10300Tel:+66 2 243 5279, +66 8 9735577E-mail: [email protected]

Panjapiyakul, PornpetChief of research and developmentin health sectionBureau of Health Service System DevelopmentAddress: Department of health service supportMinistry of Public HealthMuang district, Nonthaburi province,Thailand, 11000Tel: +66 2 590 1689, +66 2 590 1803-4Mobile: +66 81 802 2385E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Potisat, KorakotPlan and Policy AnalystAddress: Dept. of Disaster Prevention andMitigation (DDPM)3/12 U-Thongnok Road, Dusit District, Bangkok,Thailand 10300Tel: +66 2 243 5279,+66 8 9098526E-mail: [email protected]

Rattanalangkarn, PakamasSocio Economic StatisticianAddress: National Statistical OfficeTel: +66 2 281 0333 ext 1407E-mail: [email protected]

Sattayawuthipong, WanchaiPhuket Provincial Chief Medical OfficerAddress: Phuket Provincial Health OfficeTel: +66 2 243 0020 ext 3551E-mail: [email protected]

Seetamanotch, WiwatDeputy Provincial Chief Medical officerAddress:Tel: +62-288-1887E-mail: [email protected]

Singhasivanon, PratapDean of Faculty of Tropical Medicine, MahidolUniversityAddress: 402/6 Rajavithi Rd. RatchathewiBangkok 10400Tel: +66 2 354 9199E-mail: [email protected]

Sittiprasertkul, PikulAddress: National TRIAMS Workshop ConsultantBangkokTel: +66 2 81 925 7798E-mail: [email protected]

Suwee, WilasDirector, Bureau of Statistical ForecastingAddress: National Statistical OfficeTel: +66 2 281 0333 ext 1400E-mail: [email protected]

Tomar, BhupinderProgramme CoordinatorThailand Tsunami Recovery Programme100/158-9 Moo 6, Main RoadSrisuchart Village, chalermprakiat R.9 (Bypass),T. Ratsada, A. MuangPhuket 83000, ThailandTel: +66 76 376 253/54E-mail: [email protected]

Van ‘t Hoff, BastiaanUNICEF ThailandAddress: 19 Phra Atit RoadBangkok 10200, ThailandTel: +66 2 356 9486E-mail: [email protected]

Wangdee, ChayanitUNICEF ThailandAddress: 19 Phra Atit RoadBangkok 10200, Thailand

Second regional TRIAMS workshop

The Fundamental Principlesof the International Red Crossand Red Crescent Movement

HumanityThe International Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement, born of a desire to bring assistance withoutdiscrimination to the wounded on the battlefield,endeavours, in its international and national capacity, toprevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it maybe found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and toensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutualunderstanding, friendship, cooperation and lastingpeace amongst all peoples.

ImpartialityIt makes no discrimination as to nationality, race,religious beliefs, class or political opinions. Itendeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, beingguided solely by their needs, and to give priority to themost urgent cases of distress.

NeutralityIn order to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movementmay not take sides in hostilities or engage incontroversies of a political, racial, religious orideological nature.

IndependenceThe Movement is independent. The National Societies,while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of theirgovernments and subject to the laws of their respectivecountries, must always maintain their autonomy so thatthey may be able at all times to act in accordance withthe principles of the Movement.

Voluntary ServiceIt is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in anymanner by desire for gain.

UnityThere can be only one Red Cross or Red CrescentSociety in any one country. It must be open to all. Itmust carry on its humanitarian work throughout itsterritory.

UniversalityThe International Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement, in which all societies have equal status andshare equal responsibilities and duties in helping eachother, is worldwide.

1165

0002

/200

8E

This document is a synthesis report of the second regional workshop on the Tsunami RecoveryImpact Assessment and Monitoring System (TRIAMS), which took place at the Amari WatergateHotel in Bangkok, Thailand, on 21 to 23 March 2007. The workshop was organized jointly by theInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (International Federation), theWorld Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Itbrought together government officials from four of the countries worst affected by the tsunami of 26December 2004 − Indonesia, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand − as well as representatives ofinternational aid agencies and donors to review what has been achieved so far through the TRIAMSinitiative and to decide jointly the way forward in monitoring the remaining recovery activities.

In tandem with this publication, a dedicated TRIAMS web site

www.who.int/hac/triamshas been created containing all the documents, surveys,studies and maps produced within the framework of theTRIAMS process, including the reports of this and the

previous regional workshops. The site has a general sectionand separate sections for each of the four participatingcountries. It will be regularly updated with the latestinformation and analysis on the progress of TRIAMS

implementation as it becomes available.

Maldives Sri Lanka ThailandIndonesia

www.who.int/hac/triamsGeneral section

Documents

TsunamiRecovery ImpactAssessmentand MonitoringSystem · WHOLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData Tsunamirecoveryimpactassessmentandmonitoringsystem:secondregionalTRIAMSworkshop …