ˆˇ - home | undrr...˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ funded b y eur opean union civil p rot ec tion references basu,...

�� Funded by European UnionCivil Protection

Module 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Response

Uscore2: City-to-City Peer Review Tool

This document has been prepared as part ofthe Uscore2 - City-to-city local level peerreview on Disaster Risk Reduction project.The sole responsibility for the content of thispublication lies with the author(s). Thisdocument covers civil protection activitiesimplemented with the financial assistance ofthe European Union’s DG-ECHO Call forproposals 2016 for prevention andpreparedness projects in the field of civilprotection programme under, agreementnumber: ECHO/SUB/2016/743543/PREV04.The views expressed herein should not betaken, in any way, to reflect the officialopinion of the European Union, and theEuropean Commission is not responsible forany use that may be made of the informationit contains.

Website: www.Uscore2.euTwitter: @Uscore2EU

1

��Funded by

European UnionCivil Protection

CONTENTSIntroduction 3

Background 4

Further Information 5

How can Disaster Response be Assessed and Improved? 6

How can this be measured? 7

Methodology 8

Phase 2, Step 7: Information to send to Review Team prior to the Review Team visit 8

Suggestions for the type of pre-visit evidence that could be shared between theHost City and Review Team 8

Phase 2, Step 8: Arrangements for the Peer Review Visit 10

Who should the Review Team interview? 10

How can the Host City multi-agency capacity be demonstrated? 11

Phase 2, Step 9: Review Team: Gathering Evidence 12

Phase 3, Step 11: Recording Information and Drafting Initial Recommendations 18


22 Module 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Response

Uscore2 is a peer-to-peer review process forcities, designed with funding from the EuropeanCommission, it enables cities to share andlearn from good practice in Disaster RiskReduction (DRR) in other cities across theworld. Uscore2 focuses on the use of city-levelpeer reviews as a tool with which the activitiesof one city in the area of disaster riskmanagement and civil protection are examinedon an equal basis by fellow peers who areexperts from other cities. This approachfacilitates improvements in DRR through theexchange of good practice and mutual learning,whilst also maintaining impartiality andtransparency. This peer review programmeintegrates an evidence based methodology forimpact evaluation, enabling participants todemonstrate the value generated by theinvestment in the peer review.

Cities undertaking a peer review of disasterresponse for DRR will generally be undertakingthis as part of a wider review as outlined in theUscore2 Step-by-Step Guide to City-to-Citypeer reviews for Disaster Risk Reduction. TheStep-by-Step Guide provides an essentialoverview of the peer review process, the ImpactEvaluation Methodology (IEM) used to measurethe impact of the peer review, and the 11Modules for conducting city-to-city peerreviews for DRR.

It is strongly recommended that citiesinterested in inviting another city to peer reviewtheir DRR activity work through the Step-by-Step Guide as a precursor to undertakingModule 9.

This Module Guide gives information relevant tothose steps in the peer review process whichare specific to Essential 9.

During the development of Uscore2, the peerreview process has been piloted by three cities:Amadora (Portugal), Salford (UK) and Viggiano(Italy). The pilot cities spoke positively of theirexperiences:

“Peer reviews are interactive and aboutmutual learning, exchange of best practiceand policy dialogue, a support tool forprevention and preparation under the EUcivil protection mechanism and promote anintegrated approach to disaster riskmanagement, linking risk prevention,preparation, response and recovery actions.”


INTRODUCTION

3Module 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Response


BACKGROUND

4

This Module explores how effective disasterresponse may be strengthened throughincreased preparedness and planning;enhanced emergency response services; andensuring adequate funds are available for postevent response and recovery. These issuesshould be supported with information regardingidentified risks within a city (Module 2), and howthese risks are effectively managed by disasterrisk governance strategies (Module 1) (UNISDR n.d).

This topic is important as preparedness andplanning for disaster response facilitates theidentification of vulnerable populations andtheir exposure to risk (Harris et al. 2016), theresilience and response capabilities of a city(Basu et al. 2013), and the effectiveness of earlywarning systems (Keating et al. 2016).

Notwithstanding the social implications ofeffective disaster response mechanisms, theeconomic implications must also beconsidered. In 1998-2017 disaster-hit countriesreported direct economic losses valued at US$2,908 billion, of which climate-related disasterscaused US$ 2,245 billion or 77% of the total.This is arguably part of a rising trend comparedwith losses reported between 1978 and 1997when 68% (US$ 895 billion) of losses (US$1,313 billion) were due to climate-relateddisasters (CRED and UNISDR, 2018).

In order to respond effectively to emergencies,cities should invest time and resources in thedevelopment of disaster preparedness. Thisincludes having plans and procedures in place,technical and institutional capacitiesappropriate for the city’s risk scenarios,mechanisms for the coordination and exchangeof information including early warnings,exercises and drills, together with adequatefunds for response (Cardona 2005).

The ultimate objective of the preparednessplanning process is to develop joint workingapproaches to facilitate effective command andcontrol and common understanding between awide array of responders. Also important is thecoordination of activities to support effectivepreparedness, effective coordination betweenlocal and central authorities, and a peoplecentred approach that identifies who isvulnerable and why (Ostadtaghizadeh et al.2015).

Peer review offers a systematic way to supportcities in assessing their response capabilitieswhich need to be in place and well-practicedand rehearsed. Systematic planning thatinvolves all relevant actors is the foundation ofeffective disaster response and is facilitated bythe peer review process.



ReferencesBasu, M., Srivastava, N., Mulyasari, F., & Shaw, R. (2013). Making Cities and Local GovernmentsReady for Disasters: A Critical Overview of a Recent Approaches. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in PublicPolicy, 4(4), pp. 250–273.

Cardona, O. D. (2005). Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management: Program for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean: Summary Report, 43.

CRED, UNISDR (2018). Economic Losses, Poverty and Disasters 1998 – 2017, p3.

Harris, M., Shaw, D., Scully, J., Smith, C. M., and Hieke, G. (2016), The Involvement / ExclusionParadox of Spontaneous Volunteering, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 46 No.2, pp.352–371.

Keating, A., Campbell, K., Szoenyi, M., McQuistan, C., Nash, D., & Burer, M. (2016). Developmentand testing of a community flood resilience measurement tool. Natural Hazards and Earth SystemSciences Discussions, (May), pp. 1–39.

Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Paton, D., Jabbari, H., Khankeh, HR., (2015). Community DisasterResilience: a Systematic Review on Assessment Models and Tools. PLOS Currents Disasters,available from: http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/community-disaster-resilience-a-systematic-review-on-assessment-models-and-tools/

UNISDR. (n.d), Essential Nine: Ensure Effective disaster response, available from:http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/index/Essential%20Nine:%20Ensure%20Effective%20Disaster%20Response%C2%A0/?id=9

Further InformationFor further information on peer reviews visit: www.Uscore2.eu. Also refer to ISO 22392 whenpublished. Currently it is in draft and will contain further information about peer reviews.


The description of Essential 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Response taken from the UNISDR’sMaking Cities Resilient website and given below, describes the activities a city should bedemonstrating to improve resilience in this area. Local governments are often the closest level ofgovernment to local communities and are therefore critical in leading any response to a disaster.


HOW CAN DISASTER RESPONSE BEASSESSED AND IMPROVED?

6

Essential Nine: Ensure Effective Disaster Response

Create and improve preparedness plans• Create and regularly update contingency and preparedness plans which are communicated toand understood by all stakeholders. These may include law and order, providing vulnerablepopulations with food, water, medical supplies, shelter and staple goods.

• Hold regular training, drills and exercises for all aspects of the wider emergency response‘system’ including community elements and volunteers.

Ensure the Provision of and Strengthen early warning systems• Develop and install detection, monitoring equipment, early warning systems and effectiveassociated communication systems to all relevant stakeholders and community groups.

• Ensure interoperability of emergency response system and capabilities with adjacent regionsand countries, between agencies and with neighbouring cities to enhance the ability to providemutual aid to each other.

Upgrade the city’s emergency response services• Integrate risk reduction and emergency response with wider groups including responders orsupport capabilities such as engineers, contractors, etc. to be able to effectively engage inpreparedness, response and recovery operations.

• Ensure that a viable mechanism will exist for the rapid, rational and transparent collectionand disbursement of funds after a disaster.

• Assign adequate funds for post event response and recovery.


The following table describes the high level indicators for Essential 9 taken from the DisasterResilience Scorecard Preliminary Level Assessment. These are used in this Module as indicatorsagainst which to gather evidence and make recommendations.


7

HOW CAN THIS BE MEASURED?

Ref Subject / Issue Question / Assessment Area

P 9.1 Early warning Does the Host City have a plan or standard operatingprocedure to act on early warnings and forecasts? Whatproportion of the population is reachable by early warningsystem?

P 9.2 Eventmanagement plans

Is there a disaster management / preparedness /emergency response plan outlining the Host Citymitigation, preparedness and response to localemergencies?

P 9.3

P 9.4

Staffing /responder needs

Does the responsible disaster management authorityhave sufficient staffing capacity to support first responderduties in surge event scenario?

Equipment andrelief supplyneeds

Are equipment and supply needs, as well as theavailability of equipment, clearly defined?

P 9.5 Food, shelter, staplegoods and fuel supply

Would the Host City be able to continue to feed andshelter its population post-event?

P 9.6

P 9.7

Interoperability andinteragency working

Drills

Is there an emergency operations centre, withparticipation from all agencies, automating standardoperating procedures specifically designed to deal with“most probable” and “most severe” scenarios?

Do practices and drills involve both the public andprofessionals?

The full Detailed Assessment from the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities is availablethrough the following link:http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/toolkitblkitem/?id=4



METHODOLOGYPHASE 2, STEP 7: INFORMATION TO SEND TO REVIEWTEAM PRIOR TO THE REVIEW TEAM VISIT

Please refer to the Step-by-Step Guide for advice on both conducting and hosting peer reviews.This section sets out information that is specific to this Module, which begins in Phase 2, Step 7.

8

As set out in the Step-by-Step Guide if Modules1 (Organise for Disaster Resilience) and 2(Identify, Understand and Use Current andFuture Risk Scenarios) are not undertaken atthe same time as Module 9, then an overview ofboth the Host City’s disaster risk governanceand DRR risk assessment should be included inthe pre-visit information sent to the ReviewTeam.

The Host City should aim to send the pre-visitevidence to the Review Team three monthsahead of the review visit. It is recommendedthat the pre-visit evidence is limited to 3 – 8items for each Module.

Suggestions for the type of pre-visit evidencethat could be shared between the Host City andReview TeamA selection of evidence should be sent to theReview Team before their visit to the Host City.This could include the type of information listedbelow or any other information that the HostCity and the Review Team agree would be ofbenefit.

It is highly recommended that the Host Cityprepare a summary of how the city ensureseffective disaster response including:

• How the Host City’s stakeholders are involvedin drawing up the city’s emergency plans

• A chart illustrating the response activationprotocols including key stakeholders /organisations and community representation.If a chart is not available, a list of keystakeholders could be submitted

• An example or case study describing how theHost City’s response plan(s) have helped in

responding to a specific incident(s), includinghow any plans have reduced the impact ofthe incident(s) and helped to maintain cityresilience (economic, social, health orenvironmental)

• A summary of the lessons learnt from theincident including what worked well andwhat issues have been addressed to improveresponses to emergencies in the future.

In addition, evidence to support one of theindicators, P9.6 Interoperability andInteragency Working, offers an opportunity toprovide an overview of roles and responsibilitiesof different stakeholders in the Host City and,as such, including some information relevant tothis indicator can give a useful introduction forthe Review Team. One of the following woulddemonstrate the Host City’s baseline for P9.6:• An emergency plan or other document thatprovides an example of how differentagencies in the Host City will work togetherin a disaster and their roles andresponsibilities in an emergency

• An example of a protocol or procedure thatsets out the principles under which agencieswill work together in an emergency

• A debrief report capturing the lessonsidentified following a cross-sector exercise oremergency

• The outcomes of local completion of theUNISDR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard forCities, Module 9.

For the remaining indicators, no more than 4other items in total should be selected from thesuggestions below to demonstrate the HostCity’s baseline capacity.



9

P9.1 Early Warning• An overview of the Host City’s early warningsystems and a short explanation of how theeffectiveness of these systems is evaluated

• A plan that illustrates how the Host Citywould act and its standard operatingprocedures when early warnings are issued

• Details of any public facing websites,applications or social media platforms thatgive information on potential disasterscenarios

• An example of any public information issuedto citizens that advises them what to do in anemergency.

P9.2 Event Management Plans• An example of a disaster management planin the Host City that would be used torespond to an emergency

• A formal report, perhaps drafted for the localgovernment or Mayor, evaluating the HostCity’s disaster response arrangements

• A report from, or description of, an exampleof a city-to-city knowledge exchange that hasstrengthened the Host City’s disasterresponse.

P9.3 Staffing / responder needs• A short description or overview as to how theHost City ensures it has skilled,knowledgeable and experienced staff in placeto respond to disasters

• Sample rosters and rotas that show how theHost City ensures it has sufficient staffavailable at all times to respond to a disaster

• An example of a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) or a Mutual AidAgreement that will enable the Host City todraw on responders from elsewhere in thecountry if the city’s own resources arestretched.

P9.4 Equipment and Relief Supply Needs; P9.5Food, Shelter, Staple Goods and Fuel Supply • An example showing how the Host City models the requirements for food, shelter, fuel and essential supplies that would be needed by its population in the most severe scenario the city could face• An extract from an inventory of theequipment and supplies that the Host Citymaintains in case of an emergency, togetherwith a short description of how thesesupplies meet predicted need in anemergency

• A typical agreement or Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) between the Host Citygovernment and a private sector organisationfor supplies or services in an emergency.

P9.7 Drills• A copy of the programme together with a listof the stakeholders that participated in arecent training and exercising event torehearse the response to a disaster

• A video recording a recent drill within theHost City

• A newspaper article or similar publicinformation describing an emergency drill inthe Host City.



10

PHASE 2, STEP 8: ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PEER REVIEW VISIT

As described in the Step-by-Step Guide, in the3-6 months before the peer review visit, theHost City and Review Team are recommendedto agree an agenda for the visit. This willinclude a range of activities to enable theReview Team to understand how the Host Cityis ensuring it has effective disaster responsearrangements. The types of activities couldinclude some or all of those listed below, or anyother relevant actions. It is anticipated that thereview of this Module will take a day. For allinterviews, the Host City should ensuretranslators are available if they are required.

At the start of the Review Team’s assessment ofModule 9, the Host City is highly recommendedto make a summary presentation to the ReviewTeam which sets out the approach to disasterresponse. This could include information about:

• The stakeholders in the Host City that areinvolved in responding to a disaster

• The governance arrangements in the HostCity to oversee and ensure an effective andcoordinated disaster response

• The arrangements in the Host City fororganisations to react to early warnings andto start to mobilise and deploy the city’sresources for dealing with an emergency

• The emergency operations centre(s) in theHost City and how these support agencies inworking together effectively, as well asenabling agencies to maintain their ownessential services.

Who should the Review Team interview?When considering who is important for theReview Team to interview and / or receive apresentation from, it is highly recommendedthat the Mayor and / or other key local politicalleaders who give leadership in a disasterresponse and a mandate to strengthen disasterresponse arrangements across the Host Cityare included and available. The Host City and

Review Team should consider all Modulesbeing assessed during the peer review andcombine relevant questions with each seniorpolitician or officer into one appointment.The Host City and Review Team may also wishto consider who would be most appropriate inlight of their initial exchange of pre-visitinformation and also given the most probableand most severe disaster scenarios for the HostCity. Suggestions include: • Senior managers of institutions that areresponsible for issuing early warnings withinthe Host City, whether part of the citygovernment or the private sector

• Representatives from any institutions orcommunity groups that will be mobilisedwhen early warnings are issued to help thepopulation to prepare for predicted events

• Officials who are responsible for drawing upthe Host City’s emergency plan(s)

• Community representatives who have drawnup an emergency plan for their localcommunity, perhaps to promote ‘self-help’and a community response alongside theHost City’s emergency response

• Senior managers in different organisationsand from different sectors who have aresponsibility for and an investment inensuring an effective disaster response

• Practitioners and technical experts who havebeen involved in disaster response

• People in the Host City who are responsiblefor, or who are part of, the city’s supplychains for essential supplies and services toexplore how key supply chains will bemaintained in a disaster

• Representatives from civil society, NGOs andvolunteer organisations that can provideassistance to the Host City in an emergency

• Representatives from neighbouringmunicipalities or regional or nationalgovernment who can offer support to theHost City in a disaster.



11

How can the Host City multi-agency capacity bedemonstrated?In addition to interviews and presentations,suggestions for activities within the programmefor the visit include but are not limited to:• Visiting one of the research establishments,monitoring centres or other sites that issuesearly warning information

• Visiting an emergency operations centre,especially any facility that enablesparticipation from all agencies

• Visiting at least one of the key emergencyresponse agencies with a significant role indisaster response to understand and view thecapabilities available for an effective disasterresponse

• Site visits to key institutions to see staff atwork in preparation for disaster response, toexplore how institutions are protecting thedelivery of critical services in disasters or tosee demonstrations of specialist capabilities

• Visiting one of the Host City’s emergencysupplies stores and one of its distributioncentres through which it will dispersesupplies to citizens

• Site visits to protection systems that defendthe Host City from emergencies and help toreduce the severity of an emergency

• Site visits to pre-identified assembly points incase of evacuation and areas identified fortemporary housing and shelter.

Exercises and TrainingEspecially in the context of this Module,observation by the Review Team of a public orpractitioner training event taking place in theHost City at the time of the visit, or observationof a table top or live exercise to rehearse thecity’s emergency response would be veryhelpful. If required, ‘real time’ translation of thetraining / exercise into the preferred languageof the Review Team should be organised by theHost City.Observing a training event or exercise isbeneficial in that it will enable the Review Teamto visualise how the Host City emergency plansare practically applied and how differentresponding organisations interface andcoordinate with each other. Such exercises willprovide the Review Team with an understandingof the roles and responsibilities of eachorganisation and will assist identifying currentstrengths and gaps in local capacity. Suchexercises should assist in identifying the bestand most-effective approaches to strengthenthe Host City’s disaster response. The stakeholders involved in such exercisesshould not be restricted to governmentalinstitutions and should include manystakeholders, from different sectors, that wouldbe called upon in a disaster response.

Module 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Responsele 6: Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Resilience


12

PHASE 2, STEP 9: REVIEW TEAM: GATHERING EVIDENCE

The Review Team will gather evidence from thepre-review information submitted before thepeer review visit, together with informationfrom interviews and activities undertakenduring the visit, to gain a view of theeffectiveness of the existing Host City disasterresponse capability. This will include:

• Effectiveness of the multi-agencyassessment of the risks to the Host City andwhether there are suitable, sufficient andscalable plans and procedures, capabilities,systems and arrangements to respond todisasters in place

• Effectiveness of the strategies within theHost City in engaging all relevant agenciesand organisations to support and augmentthe disaster response, including where surgecapacity is needed, to ensure comprehensiveand sustainable arrangements

• Effectiveness of communication, how thepopulation is informed about the best actionsto take when a disaster is predicted or occurs

• Effectiveness of how the Host City acts tomaintain essential services during and in theaftermath of a disaster.

The Review Team will structure their evidencegathering and interviews to enable the HostCity to describe and demonstrate theirapproach against each of the indicatorsincluded in the Disaster Resilience ScorecardPreliminary Level Assessment. Overall, theReview Team should determine:

• Who leads / contributes / coordinates /assesses performance in this area? Is thiseffective? Is shared ownership of DRRevident?

• Who is missing / underperforming orunderrepresented?

• What skills and experience are evidenced?Are there deficits?

• What activities currently supportperformance in this area, are these activitieseffective?

• What, if any, additional activities would theHost City like to undertake in future? Whatare the barriers to extending activities?

• How are resources / information / trainingshared? Are there exclusions or barriers toaccess?

• How is the Host City accessing local /national / international sources of expertiseto improve DRR in this area? Which networksis the Host City part of to support thisactivity?

Although the Review Team should design theirown detailed questions in order to exploreissues they consider relevant in the context ofthe Host City, the following questions areoffered as suggestions that may be helpful instakeholder interviews for Module 9. They areexample questions and it is wholly acceptableto tailor them or, equally, not to use them,according to the individual peer review. TheReview Team could choose to select just therelevant questions as well as asking additionalquestions that have not been listed below.



13

Ref Subject / Issue Suggested Questions


P 9.1 Early warning Describe the city’s plan or standard operating procedureto act on early warnings and forecasts? What proportion ofthe population is reachable by early warning system anddoes the city feel this is comprehensive enough

• What arrangements are in place for the Host City tounderstand the risks it faces and those for which earlywarnings can be given?

• What early warning systems exist within the Host Cityand how does the Host City ensure these reach bothorganisations that respond in an emergency and thecity’s population?

• How does the Host City’s disaster planning contribute toand support public awareness and education aboutresponding to a disaster, facilitate communityengagement and advocate for an all-of-society responseto a disaster?

• How do the Host City’s early warning systems reachvulnerable communities and those in the Host City forwhom the city’s language is not their first language?

• How does the Host City evaluate the effectiveness of itsearly warning systems?

• How would the emergency response organisationsrespond to early warnings, especially in the case of themost probable and most severe disaster risks?

• How would the Host City want to improve its earlywarning systems?

• How does the Host City test its plans and arrangementsfor acting on early warnings and which stakeholders areinvolved in doing this?

P 9.2 Event managementplans

Describe the disaster management / preparedness /emergency response plan outlining city mitigation,preparedness and response to local emergencies?

• How does the Host City assess and decide which risks itshould prepare an emergency plan for? Are responseplans developed for all risk scenarios identified by theHost City?

• What arrangements does the Host City have in place tomonitor new and changing disaster risks?


14


P 9.2 Event managementplans

• How has the Host City prepared its disaster responseplan and which stakeholders have been engaged in itspreparation?

• Are response plans developed for the commonconsequences identified in relation to the differentrisks?

• What governance structures and processes are in placeto ensure the Host City has the capabilities in place todeliver its plans? E.g. specialist equipment, expertresponders and operations centres?

• What powers and capacity does the Host Citygovernment have to act in an emergency? Does the HostCity consider these sufficient?

• What access does the Host City have to a budget fordisaster response activities (national or local)? Does theHost City consider these sufficient?

• In a disaster, what arrangements are in place to ensurethat decisions are informed and evidence based? Howdoes the Host City draw on scientific, technical oracademic advice and knowledge in a disaster?

• What makes the Host City’s disaster response planeffective? What are the particular strengths of currentarrangements?

• Does the Host City’s disaster response planningregularly draw on learning and good practice from othercities?

• Does the Host City actively promote principles ofequality and non-discrimination in planning to respondto disasters?

• Does the Host City model how climate change mightaffect the impact and consequences of future disastersand how this may affect disaster response?

• Is the Host City resourced to respond to future disasterscenarios modelled using climate change projections?

• When was the Host City’s disaster response plan lastreviewed?

• How does the Host City activate its major incident plan? • How was the plan used during a recent incident?



15


P 9.3 Staffing / responderneeds

P 9.4 Equipment and reliefsupply needs


How does the responsible disaster management authorityensure they have sufficient staffing capacity to supportfirst responder duties in surge event scenarios?

• Does the Host City have access to the capabilities itneeds to respond to the risks it has identified?

• Who can mobilise and allocate resources for disasterresponse activities?

• What plans are in place to resource the response toincidents?

• Do all agencies in the Host City understand their rolesand responsibilities in a disaster?

• Are contracts in place to procure additional resources ifrequired in a disaster?

• Do the Host City’s contractors within its supply chainshave tested contingency arrangements in place so theycan continue to provide supplies and services to theHost City during a disaster?

• Has the Host City got plans in place to address surges indemand for basic services e.g. healthcare in anemergency?

How are equipment and supply needs, as well as theavailability of equipment, clearly defined and ensuredwhen needed?

• How does the Host City ensure it has the supplies,services and specialist capabilities available to dealwith the most probable and most severe scenarios?

• How does the Host City access additional support in adisaster from the private sector? From neighbouringareas? From regional and national governments?

• What arrangements does the Host City have in place tofinance any equipment and supplies needed in anemergency?

• How does the Host City plan for a long-term, sustainedand continuous disaster response?

• What plans does the Host City have to ensure suppliescan be transported into the city and can be effectivelydistributed to those in need?

• How does the Host City plan for complex logisticaloperations in an emergency with adequate storage anddistribution arrangements in a disaster?


16



P 9.5 Food, shelter, staplegoods and fuel supply

How would the city be able to continue to feed and shelterits population post-event?

• How does the Host City model the food and shelterneeds of its population in the most probable and mostsevere scenarios?

• How does the Host City promote and try to ensure thecontinuity of its essential services in a disaster?

• What arrangements are in place for the evacuation andshelter of citizens?

• How does the Host City plan for long-term, sustainedand continuous support for people in need of food andshelter?

• How does the Host City plan to provide basic servicessuch as education and healthcare post-event?

• What arrangements does the Host City have to supportcommunities in staying together after a disaster?

• How does the Host City plan to maintain and supportcommunity cohesion and to avoid civil disturbance in adisaster?

• What arrangements does the Host City have to helpcommunities to recover and build back better after adisaster?

P 9.6 Interoperabilityand interagency working

Describe the arrangements for an emergency operationscentre, with participation from all agencies, automatingstandard operating procedures specifically designed todeal with “most probable” and “most severe” scenarios?

• Who is in overall charge in the Host City for disasterresponse? Who has the authority in the city tostrengthen approaches to disaster response?

• How is the input from different sectors and stakeholderscoordinated? How do different stakeholders Commandand Control their response to an incident?

• How does the Host City plan and fund its emergencyoperations centre(s) and how does it ensure emergencyoperations centres are resistant to known risks,especially the most severe scenario?

• How do regional and national governments work withthe Host City government to strengthen disasterresponse? How does the Host City influence the regionaland national direction in disaster response?

• How does the Host City ensure an integrated responseto incidents and emergencies?



P 9.6 Interoperabilityand interagency working

• How do multi-agency partners coordinate theirresponse?

• How does the Host City work across silos to makedisaster response “everyone’s business”?

• How does the Host City’s disaster response work inpartnership or alongside the arrangements inneighbouring cities, especially if a wide-area disasteroccurs?

• How do existing institutions within the Host City chargedwith disaster response and recovery understand andengage in their broader DRR responsibilities?

• How has the Host City used training, exercises and drillsto test and rehearse the effectiveness of inter-agencyworking?


P 9.7 Drills How often do practices and drills involve both the publicand professionals and does the city feel this is adequate?

• How does the Host City ensure individual agencies havewell trained and rehearsed capabilities in place?

• What arrangements are in place to practice cross-sectorand multi-agency disaster response? How often is thisdone?

• How does the Host City engage citizens in emergencyexercises and drills? How often is this done?

• What arrangements are in place to identify and to act onlearning from exercises and drills?

• How does the Host City evaluate the effectiveness of itsprogramme for exercises and drills?


PHASE 3, STEP 11: RECORDING INFORMATIONAND DRAFTING INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Step-by-Step Guide describes howthe Review Team can record informationduring the peer review visit and includesa generic form that can be used tocapture information during individualpresentations, interviews and otheractivities.

At the end of each day, it isrecommended that the Review Teamassemble to consider all the informationthat it has heard during the day andsummarise the evidence to understand:

• Areas of good practice and strengthson which the Host City can build

• Areas where further information maybe needed before the peer review visitis finished

• Areas where possiblerecommendations for the future maybe made.

This process will help to inform both theremainder of the visit and the drafting ofthe peer review outcome report.

The two tables below are offered as away of recording the overall findings forModule 9 together with the initialrecommendations arising from theactivities experienced during the day.

Module 9: Ensure Effective Disaster Response18


19

Good practice identified

Justification forassessment

Comments

SUMMARY OF INITIAL FINDINGS

P 9.1 Early warninga) Does the Host City have a plan orstandard operating procedure to act onearly warnings and forecasts?

b) What proportion of the population isreachable by early warning systems?

P 9.3 Staffing / responder needsDoes the responsible disastermanagement authority have sufficientstaffing capacity to support firstresponder duties in surge eventscenarios?

P 9.5 Food, shelter, staple goods andfuel supplyWould the Host City be able tocontinue to feed and shelter itspopulation post-event?


P 9.2 Event management plansIs there a disaster management /preparedness / emergency responseplan (strategy) outlining the Host Citymitigation, preparedness andresponse to local emergencies?

P 9.4 Equipment and relief supplyneedsAre equipment and supply needs, aswell as the availability of equipment,clearly defined?


20

Good practice identified

Justification forassessment

Comments

SUMMARY OF INITIAL FINDINGS

Other


P 9.6 Interoperability and interagencyworkingIs there an emergency operationscentre, with participation from allagencies, automating standardoperating procedures specificallydesigned to deal with “most probable”and “most severe” scenarios?

P 9.7 DrillsDo practices and drills involve both thepublic and professionals?


21

Time horizonJustification Description ofareas forpotentialdevelopment

INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

E.g. Extent to which data on the city’sresilience context is shared with otherorganisations involved with the city’sresilience.

E.g. Ensure aconsistent flowof informationbetween multi-agencypartners.

E.g. A regularflow ofinformationwould improveunderstandingof risk and aidplanning forpartneragencies.

E.g. Short,medium, long termimplementation.

P 9.1 Early warninga) The Host City has a plan or standardoperating procedure to act on earlywarnings and forecasts.

b) The proportion of the populationthat is reachable by early warningsystem.

P 9.2 Event management plansThere is a disaster management /preparedness / emergency responseplan (strategy) outlining citymitigation, preparedness andresponse to local emergencies.



22



P 9.3 Staffing / responder needsThe responsible disaster managementauthority have sufficient staffingcapacity to support first responderduties in surge event scenarios.

P 9.4 Equipment and relief supplyneedsThe equipment and supply needs, aswell as the availability of equipment,are clearly defined.

P 9.5 Food, shelter, staple goods andfuel supplyThe Host City would be able tocontinue to feed and shelter itspopulation post-event.



23



P 9.6 Interoperability and interagencyworkingThere is an emergency operationscentre, with participation from allagencies, automating standardoperating procedures specificallydesigned to deal with “most probable”and “most severe” scenarios.

OtherArea / issue


P 9.7 DrillsThe practices and drills involve boththe public and professionals.

24

NOTES:


25

NOTES:


2

Designed and printed by Agilisys Document Solutions (October ‘18)T: +44 (0)1942 404929 E: [email protected]

Further information is available from: www.Uscore2.eu

ISO22392 is being drafted and will contain further information about peer reviews

ˆˇ - home | undrr...˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ funded b y eur opean union civil p rot ec tion references basu,...

Documents