Subprogramme

#2

Disasters and Conflicts

Lead Division:

DEPI

Expected Accomplishment

#2/3

(2) Rapid and reliable environmental assessments following conflicts and disasters as requested

(3) The post-conflict assessment and recovery process contributes to improved environmental management and the sustainable use of natural resources

Coordinating Division:

DEPI

Indicator of Achievement

(2) Increased percentage of identified acute environmental risks that are mitigated in the post-conflict and post-disaster relief period

(3) (i) Increased percentage of inter-agency post-crisis needs assessments and early recovery plans that identify, prioritize and cost environmental damage and needs, and (ii) increased percentage of the total long-term relief and crisis recovery funding focused on environment an natural resource management and associated livelihood projects

Baseline  and Target

(2) Ratio of assessments conducted to number of post-conflict and post-disaster operations. Dec 2007: n/a, Dec 2009: tbd, Dec 2011: 90 percent

(3) (i) Percentage of recovery plan by UN entities with environmental components in supported countries. Dec 2007: n/a; Dec 2009: tbd; Dec 2011: 90 percent; and (ii) Percentage increase in funding with relief and recovery operations for environmental and livelihood projects. Dec 2007: n/a; Dec 2009: tbd; Dec 2011: 10 percent increase

PoW Outputs and ID Numbers (#ID: SP-EA-Output, e.g. 1-1-1)

IMDIS Category, Quantity

Accountable Division

#211

Environmental expertise for emergency response coordinated and mobilized to identify and mitigate acute environmental risks to human health stemming from specific emergencies and related secondary risks [12 interventions]

Fact-finding missions, 12

DEPI

#222

Field-based environmental assessments conducted to identify environmental risks to human health, livelihoods and security, and environmental needs integrated within national recovery plans and appeals, and United Nations recovery activities in post-crisis countries [4 countries]

Field projects, 4

DEPI

#223

Environmental considerations integrated within relief and recovery policies, practices and appeals [4 countries]

Contribution to joint outputs, 4

DEPI

#224

Network of UNEP experts and associated institutions established and trained to contribute to emergency response missions, environmental assessments, and real-time technical assistance to crisis-affected countries [1 network]

Training courses, seminars and workshops, 1

DEPI

#231

Environmental policy and institutional support provided to post-crisis countries [4 countries]

Advisory services, 4

DEPI

#232

Environmental clean-up projects catalysed at sites contaminated by hazardous substances and wastes as a result of conflicts or disasters [4 projects]

Field projects, 4

DEPI

#233

Ecosystem restoration and management projects catalysed for sites damaged by conflicts or disasters [4 projects]

Field projects, 4

DEPI

#234

Sustainable building and construction guidelines implemented on a pilot basis as a contribution to the efficient use of resources in crisis-affected countries [4 pilots]

Field projects, 4

DTIE

#235

Environmental considerations integrated into UN peacebuilding and recovery activities in post-crisis countries and regions [4 countries]

Contribution to joint outputs, 4

DEPI

Environment Fund

Extra-Budgetary

GEF

Total

Estimated Budget

$

$

$

$

Secured

$

$

$

$

Unsecured

$

$

$

$

Programme Framework logic:

The UNEP Medium-term Strategy 2010-2013 (MTS) identifies "Disasters and Conflicts" as one of six priority areas of work for the organization. This development is the result of increased global awareness of the environmental dimensions of conflicts and disasters, as well as of the comparative advantage UNEP has built over the past decade in this emerging area of work.

Within the framework of the UNEP Disasters and Conflicts sub-programme, conflict is understood to mean violent conflict, referring to wars or other struggles that involve the use of force. Disaster refers to an event induced by natural processes (natural hazards) and/or originating from industrial accidents (technological hazards), which causes widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and exceeds the ability of the affected group or society to cope using its own resources. In the Programme of Work, the phrase "man-made disasters" or "human-made disasters" is understood to encompass violent conflict. Considering the shared environmental consequences of both phenomena, UNEP uses the term crisis to refer to both conflicts and disasters.

Violent conflicts and disasters impact the environment in three main ways. First, direct environmental impacts from conflicts and disasters can cause acute threats to human life and health due to the release of polluting and hazardous substances into the air, soil and water, and result in the destruction of ecosystems and wildlife.

Second, damage to natural resources such as forests, pastures, soils, wetlands and coral reefs threaten human livelihoods and security. The sudden loss of environmental goods and services often implies the immediate loss of livelihoods and complete reliance on humanitarian aid, or the development of coping strategies to survive the socio-economic disruption caused by a crisis. This in turn can entail the liquidation of natural assets for immediate survival income, or the overuse of marginal areas, which can lead to long-term environmental damage. Poor and vulnerable populations are particularly affected.

Third, relief and recovery operations themselves can have far-reaching environmental consequences. Not only does the recovery process divert human and financial resources from ongoing sustainable development activities in the region, but natural resources including land, water, timber, and fuel are required to meet immediate relief needs and provide the foundation for recovery. Without due consideration for environmental sustainability, these operations can create new sources of risk, destroy natural habitats and ultimately undermine the recovery process. At the same time, however, the recovery process presents new opportunities for policy reform, building back better and re-orienting a country towards sustainable development.

Work presented under this Programme Framework builds on the capacity developed by UNEP in the course of the last decade to address the environmental dimensions of conflicts and disasters. Since it was established in 1999, the Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) has operated in more than forty countries impacted by conflicts or disasters, accumulating substantial experience in post-crisis environmental assessment and recovery operations. As a consequence, UNEP has become the focal point for environment in a wide range of UN and other international processes, including humanitarian response clusters, early recovery programmes, and post-crisis needs assessments. Based on UNEP's added value, demand for environmental expertise is growing continually.

This programme framework focuses on UNEP's work in post-crisis situations, including the identification of risks to human health, livelihoods and security from the environmental impacts of conflicts and disasters, the integration of environmental needs and priorities into recovery, peacebuilding and development planning, and capacity-building for improved environmental management to support long-term stability and socio-economic development. As such, it covers the response aspects of the Disasters and Conflicts Programme of Work 2010-2011. A second Programme framework comprises all the activities conducted by UNEP in addressing vulnerabilities and reducing risk of future disasters and conflicts.

The framework combines Expected Accomplishments 2 (post-crisis environmental assessment) and 3 (post-crisis environmental recovery) as the two are intrinsically linked, forming two steps - one in the short to medium term, the other in the medium to long term - of a single approach. As UNEP shifts towards integrated programming at the country level, projects could increasingly deliver these two phases simultaneously, as is currently the case in DR Congo. The implementation strategy is as follows:

Post-Crisis Environmental Assessment: UNEP will respond to requests for technical assistance in countries where critical ecosystems or natural resources have been directly or indirectly degraded, damaged or destroyed by conflicts and disasters. Field-based assessments using sound science and state-of-the-art technology will identify environmental risks to human health, livelihoods and security with the aim of integrating environmental needs into relief and recovery programmes.

Post-Crisis Environmental Recovery: Based on the outcomes of environmental assessments, UNEP will develop recovery programmes that encompass environmental governance, clean-up, ecosystem rehabilitation, sustainable reconstruction, and peacebuilding projects. These programmes will provide an initial anchor for UNEP in crisis-affected countries, which can be used as a basis for wider programming involving other priority areas. UNEP will also act as the focal point for environmental issues within the UN Country Team and integrate environmental needs into UN-wide recovery and peacebuilding programmes. Given the often extreme needs in post-crisis settings, UNEP's preferred approach is to implement a single needs-driven country-based programme consisting of multiple projects delivered by different divisions under the various sub-programmes. Disasters and Conflicts will provide both technical support and overall coordination for the UNEP country-based programme to ensure a coherent and effective approach.

Operations under this Programme Framework provide an initial anchor for UNEP in crisis-affected countries that can be used as a basis for wider programming involving multiple UNEP divisions and sub-programmes, thereby ensuring the sustainability of results. Indeed, crisis response and recovery operations are by nature limited in time. As the country recovers and enters the "normal" development stream, a robust hand-over strategy is developed in full cooperation with the relevant Regional Office and all relevant internal partners to plan for the transition out of the post-conflict recovery phase into long-term programming to address broader environmental needs.

Four criteria are used to determine when such long-term programming should take place: (i) the decline of the UN security phase from 2,3,4 to 1 or 0, signaling an end to insecurity and increased economic and political stability; (ii) a shift in project financing from post-crisis reconstruction and recovery funds to normal "development cooperation" financing; (iii) when post-crisis capacity-building targets have been met, including the establishment of a basic legal framework for environmental governance combined with a functioning institution, trained staff, baseline environmental information and the capacity for public consultation; and (iv) when the national environmental authority shifts from UNEP as the primary provider of technical support to multiple providers, including other UN agencies, international NGOs and bilateral aid organizations.

These criteria will be jointly assessed on an annual basis by the Disasters and Conflicts sub-programme and the Regional Office to determine a suitable hand-over or transition point. Where the relevant UNEP Regional Office has the capacity to maintain field operations, a hand-over plan will be developed at the start of the final year of a funded post-crisis project. All files, sources of information, lessons learned, and relevant staff will be transferred to the Regional Office as specified in the plan during the hand-over period. Where the relevant Regional Office does not have the capacity to maintain operations, alternative institutional options will be assessed, including UNDP, the World Bank, and other development partners. In addition, early engagement will be promoted with the GEF Secretariat and agencies to determine whether GEF-funded mechanisms could support longer-term programming by UNEP or partner agencies.

In accordance with the Bali Strategic Plan of Action, projects under this Programme Framework will strengthen the capacity of countries in transition through capacity-building and technological support, and enhance country-level availability/access to information and knowledge collected within target countries. In addition, following the Governing Council's Decision 25/9 on South-South cooperation, UNEP will also further develop triangular cooperation partnerships (North-South-South) to leverage complementary resources and specialized technical expertise for the identified assessment and recovery work. Projects under this framework are accordingly designed to promote institutional linkages and networks to facilitate the sharing and exchange of information, advisory support and services, and opportunities for cooperation on joint activities.

With regard to gender integration, the environmental assessment methods used within the proposed projects will incorporate gender-specific analytical tools and use sex-disaggregated data collection methods. In particular, assessments will consider how environmental damage from disasters and conflicts disproportionately affects groups such as women and children; and will ensure that environmental recovery projects take their specific needs into account. These projects will also support and enhance the role of women as active actors in post-crisis settings. considering that women are uniquely vulnerable to environmental degradation, mainly in post-crisis settings,

Scientific tools developed by UNEP, as well as the wealth of knowledge and data garnered through past or ongoing projects addressing similar issues, will be instrumental in assessing environmental needs in post-crisis situations and designing environmental recovery strategies. DEWA for example will have a critical role in assisting with environmental assessments and the design of appropriate methodologies, as well as building the capacity of national counterparts to manage the data needed to carry out assessments at the national level, for example through the GEO process. Similarly it will be important to take stock of lessons learned and reflect best practices from ongoing or past work across the organization on issues such as transboundary resource management, for example from the extensive range of projects  supported by DGEF in the African region.

The projects included under this framework can be grouped in three clusters, reflecting the needs and requests of Member States and partner organizations:

• Three "generic" projects, or "templates," (22/3-P1, 22/3-P2, 22/3-P3) provide UNEP with the programmatic mechanism needed  to respond in a timely way to the crisis events (conflicts, disasters, industrial accidents) that will occur in the course of the biennium. Considering that the timing and location of such events cannot be predicted, these projects detail the three sequential phases of the response mechanism that will be activated in case of request for UNEP's services. The first response phase comprises rapid assessments of acute environmental risks (1-3 days of field time) that aim to recommend appropriate action for mitigation. If a rapid assessment concludes that further investigation is warranted, a second phase, comprised of a detailed field-based assessment of post-crisis environmental impacts and needs (1-12 weeks of field time) will be conducted. If in turn a clear opportunity emerges from the findings of the detailed assessment for UNEP to assist the national authorities to address identified environmental priorities, a third phase, consisting of a country-level environmental recovery programme will be implemented. All activities will be undertaken as requested by Member States or the UN system. In its Programme of Work 2010-2011, UNEP has committed to conducting a minimum of twelve emergency response interventions, four post-crisis environmental assessments, and four environmental recovery programmes during the biennium.

• A project (22/3-P4) for enhancing the capacity of UNEP and the wider UN family, as well as Member States, to provide a more effective response to environmental needs in the aftermath of conflicts and disasters. This includes building the environmental capacity of the humanitarian cluster system.

• A series of twelve country-level projects for environmental assessment and recovery, including long-standing UNEP programmes in Afghanistan and Sudan. Building on expertise developed at the country level over the past nine years, these projects aim to strengthen the capacity of national and local environmental authorities, and depending on identified environmental priorities, to rehabilitate ecosystems, mitigate risks and ensure that resources are used sustainably within recovery and development processes. For ease of reference, a distinction is made between new projects proposed for the biennium (see section 2: P22/3-P5 through P10) and ongoing approved projects that will continue through the biennium (see section 2 bis).

The majority of these projects will span the biennium and continue beyond 2011, as the environmental needs identified in these countries will require more than two years to address adequately. However, the proposed projects are designed to guarantee delivery of the all programmatic outputs over the course of the biennium. A range of concrete deliverables is envisaged, including: provision of rapid environmental assistance; delivery of post-crisis environmental assessment and publication of assessment reports; increased integration of environmental needs into humanitarian policy and operations; provision of expertise and training to support environmental governance in post-crisis countries; full or partial clean-up/rehabilitation of contaminated sites; improved delivery of critical ecosystem services through environmental management and; provision of technical support and best practice in sustainable reconstruction.

Finally, this Programme Framework includes a "support project" (22/3-P11) that encompasses the two critical management functions of monitoring and evaluation, and communications and outreach - at Expected Accomplishment level.

Key Actors in the field and Programme Framework partnerships

To implement the projects and programmes under this framework, UNEP has developed strong partnerships with the following key international actors in the field of disasters and conflicts:

• United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC): UNDAC is the principle UN mechanism for providing the first line of response to major disasters. Upon request from a disaster-stricken country, stand-by teams of disaster management professionals can be deployed within hours to carry out rapid assessment of priority needs and support national authorities and the UN family to coordinate international relief on-site. Several UNEP staff have received UNDAC training and been included in the roster of experts. UNEP has also deploys external experts to UNDAC missions upon request.

• Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA): OCHA's mission is to mobilize and coordinate humanitarian action in partnership with national and international actors in case of disasters and other emergencies. UNEP's formal partnership with OCHA, the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, is the UN mechanism to coordinate the international emergency response to acute environmental risks caused by conflicts, disasters and industrial accidents.

• United Nations Development Group (UNDG): The UNDG unites the 32 UN funds, programmes, agencies, departments, and offices that play a role in development. In 2001, the UNDG developed an inter-agency post-conflict needs assessment (PCNA) tool, which has since been successfully applied in many post-conflict countries. As the focal point for environment within the Group, UNEP provides core environmental expertise to the PCNA process, by developing and refining environmental assessment tools, and deploying experts upon request. The PCNA, in turn, is often used as UNEP's trigger mechanism for conducting a full post-conflict environmental assessment.

• Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC): In late 2005, the cluster approach of the IASC was developed as a follow-up to the Humanitarian Response Review. This approach established nine humanitarian response clusters and identified a lead agency for each. It also integrated cross-cutting issues such as the environment in order to both "do no harm" and "build back better". Within the Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery, UNEP is the focal point for providing technical guidance on integrating environmental issues within relief and early recovery operations, As such, UNEP works to develop core environmental assessment tools (including an environmental module for the post-disaster needs assessment process), and is available to deploy experts upon request.

• International Recovery Platform (IRP): As the thematic platform of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) system, the IRP is a key pillar for the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, a global plan for disaster risk reduction adopted by 168 governments in 2005. The role of the IRP is to identify gaps and constraints in disaster recovery and to serve as a catalyst for the development of tools, resources, and capacity for resilient recovery. IRP is an international source of knowledge on good recovery practice. UNEP is, since January 2008, a member of the IRP's steering committee.

Other critical information:

Internal management arrangements and reporting requirements:

A Programme Framework Support Project (22/3-P11) funds the two critical management functions of (i) monitoring and evaluation, and (ii) communications and outreach at Expected Accomplishment level. The support activities are the responsibility of the Coordinating Division.

Silja Halle, Programme Officer, Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch, is assigned by the Programme Framework Coordinating Division to compile and report on Programme Framework progress six-monthly to the Sub-programme Coordinator.

Framework risk rating = Medium

Risk  analysis

Proposed risk management strategy

Lack of political support

o      Probability of occurrence = Medium

o      Impact severity = High

• Lack of recognition by national and local authorities of the importance of emergency strategies, assessment plans or recovery programmes.

• Difficulty in achieving political acceptance of lessons learned, particularly when findings are politically sensitive.

• Lack of institutional capacity at national level often preventing the uptake of assessment findings.

• Political dialogue less constructive than anticipated, hampering the development of legal and management frameworks.

• Low participation of both public authorities and civil society in trainings and capacity building activities, due to either lack of interest, or other obstacles.

• Unexpected UNHQ policy decision on sensitive issues related to the environmental dimensions of conflicts and/or disasters may significantly undermine the programmatic approach undertaken as well as the work plan implementation.

• Establishing and maintaining strong institutional linkages and relationships.

• Demonstrating clearly the benefits of proposed actions and ensuring ownership from Governments when designing interventions through: (i) constant dialogue with authorities within recipient countries, and (ii) early involvement and sensitization of policy-makers (e.g. learning by doing process).

• Ensuring early preparation of trainings.

• Need to consider and closely follow-up "policy guidance" from UN General Assembly and Security Council.

Security issues

o      Probability of occurrence = High

o      Impact severity = Medium

• Most post-conflict countries operate at UN Security Phase 3 and 4, entailing significant risk for staff and equipment.

• Ensuring detailed preparation, training and adherence to security regulations to operate, particularly for fieldwork (experts deployed need to be trained and experienced in working in elevated security phase environments).

• Up-to-date assessment of security situations and necessary evacuation procedures are required. Should the security situation deteriorate to the extent that the United Nations can no longer work in a given country, enough flexibility in the schedule should allow the project to be suspended until such time that project activities can be reactivated at a later point.

Natural hazards

o      Probability of occurrence = High

o      Impact severity = Medium

• Several of the countries where projects are implemented are particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. In case a severe disaster occurs, project preparation/implementation could be interrupted or delayed.

• Maintaining flexibility in the project timeline/workplan in order to either postpone implementation or select an alternative location without undermining PoW delivery.

Logistical issues

o      Probability of occurrence = High

o      Impact severity = Low

• The lack of capacity and supporting infrastructure in post-crisis settings can lead to high cost and high risk projects with fieldwork logistics being in some cases one of the major constraints to the achievement of specific activities. The usual impacts are schedule slippages with associated project cost implications.

• Developing reasonable contingency plans with schedule flexibility and dedicated budget lines.

Coordination and communications issues

o      Probability of occurrence = Medium

o      Impact severity = Low

• Exceeded project management capacity preventing key decisions to be made on time, due to unplanned multi stakeholder involvement (national and international partners).

• Lack of sufficient coordination/communication between divisions and relevant UNEP country offices due to inter-divisional and inter-regional nature of some actions and reinforced by competing priorities within each UNEP division.

• Establishing clear and systematic modalities of implementation agreed by each partner from the outset.

• Ensuring that an effective communication strategy (communication channels) is agreed between each partner and between relevant UNEP divisions and country offices as well as guaranteeing clear allocation of communication responsibilities.

Lack of partner capacity and commitment

o      Probability of occurrence = Medium

o      Impact severity = Medium

• Lack of technical and human resources capacity of partners. This presents risks to their ability to follow through on commitments made, and could have implications for the ability to deliver.

• Lack of engagement and/or no continuity among operational partners in the countries.

• Low participation of both public authorities and civil society in trainings and capacity-building activities, due to either lack of interest, or other obstacles.

• Lack of technical and human resources leading to continued dependence on beyond the post-crisis recovery phase.

• Strategically selecting project partners with value added to the process.

• Strengthening partner capacity throughout the project (e.g. emphasis on learning by doing type of activity). This would mean that risks drop over time as capacity increases.

• Ensuring early preparation of trainings.

• Ensuring continuity of mandates through timely formal communication and formal meetings (country visit, delegations).

• Given the often extreme needs in post-crisis settings, UNEP's preferred approach is to implement a single needs-driven country-based programme consisting of multiple projects delivered by different divisions under the various sub-programmes. The Disasters and Conflicts sub-programme provides technical support and overall coordination for the UNEP country-based programme until such a time as the national context allows for transition from a post-crisis recovery phase to a longer-term development phase, in which the Regional Office takes on the coordination role. A strategy is developed in full cooperation with the Regional Office and all relevant internal partners to plan for the transition out of the post-conflict recovery phase into long-term programming, and the hand-over to the Regional Office or external development partners, such as the World Bank and UNDP.

Funding issues

o      Probability of occurrence = Medium

o      Impact severity = High

• Difficulty to communicate the value-added of new projects and to raise funds for country projects where numerous environmental activities are already taking place.

• Insufficient funds mobilized resulting in undermined PoW delivery and UNEP's reputation due to high expectations from national counterparts on UNEP's resource mobilization capacity and subsequent successful implementation of planned activities.

• Decrease in commitment from the international community in providing financial resources according to country-defined needs in the environment-security domain.

• Developing a multi-stakeholder fundraising strategy that draws upon best practice in UNEP, and through ensuring the complementarity of UNEP activities to existing programmes.

• Developing high-quality proposals.

• Systematic networking, communication, fundraising and awareness efforts towards donor agencies active worldwide and in relevant specific regions.

• Early sensitizing of donor community, identifying synergies and priorities, developing high-quality proposals.