IPC: PCT/IB2007/004184 Applicants: Jose Luis Stephano Hornedo,

Lead agency coordinates disparate recovery efforts. In developing the recovery program, the lead agency pays special attention to harmonizing strategies across sectors. Harmonizing strategies means distributing resources to avoid discrimination against minorities and inequities in spending and quality of delivery. The lead agency also must maintain the urgency to deliver results by keeping its focus on deliverables and targets.

Five criteria exist for choosing the lead agency. Globally, post-disaster recovery experience reveals a range of potential institutional set-ups. The selection of the lead agency usually depends on five criteria. They are the (a) characteristics of the disaster; (b) current governance structure; (c) agency’s prior disaster recovery experience; (d) agency’s ability to reach out and include communities in defining and implement- ing their recovery process, and capacity to work with local authorities and nongovernmental organizations; and (e) overarching coordination, monitoring, oversight, and control frameworks in operation among a country’s agencies, line ministries, local governments, and civil society. The government may choose a lead agency after having necessary consultations with key stakeholders and future implementers of programs both within and outside the government. Nevertheless, the decision must be made urgently.

Three options for structure of lead agency. The three most typical compositions of lead agencies follow.

1. Strengthen and coordinate existing sectoral line ministries to lead the reconstruction by sector. This option depends on establishing recovery frameworks under which individual line ministries work independently to manage recovery, and to supervise and implement projects, in their sectors. This option usually begins with the line ministries jointly preparing an action plan for recovery that identifies the respective roles and activities of the line ministries to support reconstruction. In this option, the exist- ing capacities of government line ministries must be adequate to deal with additional urgent responsi- bilities. Possible difficulties include:

• Rapid recruitment of temporary human resources may not adequately supplement the capacities

• Recovery coordination may be difficult if the line ministry staff lack sufficient experience

2. Create a new institution to manage recov- ery. This option creates a single lead imple- menting agency. This agency envisions, strat- egizes, plans, implements, and controls the overall multisectoral reconstruction program. This option has several advantages. They are the agency’s autonomy, the clear line of responsibilities, effective internal and external communication, and the capacity to handle complicated financial and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) arrangements.

Potential disadvantages of option 2 include the lead agency’s lack of authority to achieve results, possible lack of ownership by line ministries, and the line ministries’ potential institutional resentment due to compromised authority and duplicated mandates at various levels of government. Another risk could be insufficient inclusion of civil society and communities affected by the disaster in recovery planning. Moreover, start-up will incur high administrative costs, may inadequately represent local needs, and struggle to meet urgent planning and implementation demands.

3. Hybrid arrangement. A third option increas- ingly being used by governments is a hybrid institutional model. It combines the advantages of the above options while offsetting their risks. Under this arrangement, existing govern- ment structures are strengthened through the creation of a temporary agency with a built-in end-date. The agency will provide overarching central guidance, management, and support services to keep the reconstruction program on its planned course.

The creation of a new institution may be desirable in situations in which existing government agencies are unlikely to be able to coordinate and implement a high number of additional projects at increased speed while sustaining their routine public services. The hybrid option ensures relatively speedy delivery of recon- struction deliverables and meeting targets. It consolidates recovery into a single agency that will oversee the process. This agency will be the single point of coordination of national and international stakeholders. It will be responsible for ensuring the inclusion of line ministries, local authorities, the private sector, and civil society in all phases of the recovery. This agency will work with local governments and nongovernmen- tal organizations to delegate implementation responsibilities.

One drawback of the hybrid is that, as the recovery transitions to development and the temporary agency’s mandate expires, its accumulated capacity, knowledge, and experience may be lost.

Box 3.2 Hybrid Model in Indonesia

The hybrid model was used in Indonesia following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The sunset clause existed from the outset. The four-year mandate of the Agency for the Rehabilitation and Reconstruc- tion of Aceh and Nias maintained urgency for recon- struction and enforced a handover strategy to the existing administration in Indonesia.

Box 3.1 Senegal’s Flood Recovery Institution

In 2012, following widespread urban flooding three years earlier, the Senegalese Government estab- lished the Ministry for Restructuring and Managing Flood Zones (MRAZI), the first ministry in Senegal’s history exclusively dedicated to address floods. The ministry was designed to promote coherent flood management. It was based on mobilizing all stakeholders to jointly develop a real strat- egy for flood risk management and future flood prevention. MRAZI also is intended to reduce the negative impacts of floods and to coordinate the implementation of action plans resulting from the national strategy.