Recomendaciones para prevención de TEV en otros procedimientos traumatológicos

Compared to the RPS, the CDP-ELA discusses M&E functions as a performance measurement to present suggestions on how to improve future efforts in the LGU. The following are various tools that LGUs may use for performance measurement (monitor and evaluate the achievement of results):

• Annual/End-of-Term Accomplishment Report

Shows the accomplishments of the LGUs, the beneficiaries, area coverage, and the costs of implemented programs and projects. Figure 34 shows the Annual/End-of-Term Accomplishment Report template.

• Community Based Monitoring System (CBMS)

Allows monitoring and tracking progress of LGUs towards the attainment of their goals (including the MDGs).

45 Full discussion on frequency of M&E/syn- chronization of M&E with various planning cycles/ local plans can be found in the RPS Manual (http:// www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports/DILG-Reports- 2011712-ea7ba5859e.pdf).

• Local Governance Performance Management System (LGPMS)

Enables LGUs to conduct self-assessment in terms of their performance at three levels of results: (1) input; (2) output; (3) outcome. The self-assessment involves looking at the local government (provincial, city and municipal) in five performance areas and 17 service areas through the use of 107 indicators.

• M&E Strategy Template

Produces information that may be used in the next planning period and for other decision-making purposes. The following are the key elements of an M&E Strategy:

a. Clear and expected results (goals, objectives, outputs);

b. Explicit targets per result;

c. Indicators to measure progress towards results;

d. Data source to assess performance; e. Collection methods;

f. Frequency at which measurements will be made; and

g. Roles and responsibilities.

Monitoring and evaluation are differentiated in terms of meaning and importance in the manual. While both provide information to decision makers, they differ in the kinds of information. Properly utilized, both information are mutually reinforcing such that monitoring can provide quantitative and qualitative data that can serve as inputs to evaluation (vice versa):

• A well-functioning monitoring system can greatly reduce the need for in-depth evaluation as problems are revealed and resolved in a timely manner;

• Monitoring can indicate the need for in- depth evaluation of problems and issues; • In-depth evaluation may show the need for a

new and improved monitoring system. The CDP-ELA manual also recommends the conduct of M&E on an annual basis or at the end

109

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

2014 - 2020

108

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project

Figure 32. Sectoral Development Planning Process

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project

identifies that the following existing structures can be triggered for M&E in local plans: • Local Development Council (LDC)47_; • Sectoral or Functional Committees of the

LDCs;

• Local Planning and Development Office (LPDO);

• Project Monitoring Committee48 _(PMC); • Legislative Oversight Committee49 _(LOC); 46 Full discussion on M&E responsibility can be found in the CDP Manual (http://www.dilg. gov.ph/PDF_File/reports/DILG-Reports-2011712- 1939d5d3d3.pdf)

47 The LDC is tasked to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the implementation of development programs and projects as stated in Section 109 (a) (5) of EO 93 of 1993.

48 The PMC is tasked to monitor government projects funded from foreign and national funds including development projects funded from the IRA per EO 93 of 1993.

49 The LOC (Sanggunian) is an integral part of the legislative process. It has the duty to ensure that plans, programs, and projects are implemented and administered efficiently, effectively and in a manner

Despite the LGUs’ principal responsibility to conduct of M&E, participation of other stakeholders/local constituents is encouraged. This can be achieved by: (1) including a CSO/ private sector representative in the monitoring team; (2) establishing regular formal or informal feedback mechanisms.

8.2 Disaster Risk Resiliency Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluating Performance on DRRM

The Disaster Risk Resiliency Indicators (DRRI) developed by EMI can be used as a tool for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The DRRI is a set of ten (10) indicators that establishes initial benchmarks to measure to what extent risk reduction approaches have been mainstreamed in the organizational, functional, operational and development systems and processes of local governments. The indicators capture the potential for achieving disaster consistent with legislative intent.

50 Project monitoring results may be discussed during the executive meetings of the LGUs.

111

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

2014 - 2020

110

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project

resilience in particular sectors, based on pre- defined benchmarks and performance targets. Anchored on EMI’s concept and approach to DRR mainstreaming and aligned with the five (5) elements of the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient, the DRRI is divided among 5 key areas: (1) Legal and Institutional Processes and Policies; (2) Public Awareness and Capacity Building; (3) Critical Services and Infrastructure Resiliency; (4) Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Planning; and (5) Development Planning,

Regulation, and Risk Mitigation.

The rationale for applying the DRRI indicators is illustrated in the next figure. The main aim of the indicators is to track progress on the mainstreaming of risk reduction approaches in a local government’s systems and processes. That primary mainstreaming goal is further divided into three strategic goals. Each of the goals corresponds to one or more key areas affecting a local government’s disaster resilience. Finally, two indicators corresponding to each of the five key areas of mainstreaming are identified, the descriptors for which provide a measure of the performance of the local government in mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in a particular key area.

The five (5) key areas for mainstreaming DRR,

Figure 35. M&E Strategy Template

their corresponding indicators, and the

characteristics evaluated are listed in the table in the next page.

The DRRI allocates a 1-5 ranking for each of the ten (10) indicators that fall under the five (5) main areas of mainstreaming, using five Performance Target Levels of attainment. Each indicator has specific descriptors for its corresponding attainment levels, as well as guide questions that can be used to provide specific details to support the assigned ranking.

The DRRI was used in Quezon City to establish an initial benchmark on risk resiliency of Quezon City. On two separate occasions the QC Technical Working Group were asked to do a self-assessment using the DRRI, the first in November 2012 at the start of the project and the second in July 2013 towards the end of the project. The results of these assessments are shown in Table 13.

On the average, there is a slight increase from the results of the first assessment with the second assessment. However, it is also observed that there were decreases in scores from the first to the second assessments in areas such as Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (Indicator 9) and Risk Sensitive Urban Development

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project

on DRM mainstreaming which could mean that Quezon City has yet to fully establish the necessary systems and policies for on disaster risk reduction. It could also be translated to a general willingness of Quezon City to invest in DRR activities

Figure 36. Aims, Strategic Goals, and Key Areas for Mainstreaming DRR

113

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

2014 - 2020

112

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project Areas Indicators Characteristics

Indicator 1: Effectiveness of

Legislative Framework • Laws, acts and regulations• DRR Policies • Compliance and accountability

• Resource mobilization and allocations (financial, human) Indicator 2: Effectiveness of

Institutional Arrangements • Organizational structures that define roles and responsibilities• Review, update, enforcement, monitoring and reporting process • Partnerships with civil society and communities

Awareness and

Capacity Building Indicator 3: Training and Capacity Building • Institutional commitment to training and capacity building with dedicated resources and evaluations • Knowledge management, research and development

Indicator 4: Advocacy, Communication, Education and Public Awareness

• Commitment to advocacy and public awareness and education programs that engage all relevant audiences and stakeholders including civil society and community organizations

• Commitment to participatory processes and community involvement

• Research facilitation, use of information technology and communication (ITC) to disseminate information • Pro-active and constructive media relations Indicator 5: Resiliency of

Critical Services • Inclusive, participatory and transparent shelter and housing policies and programs • Protection of living (i.e. shelter) and livelihood conditions (i.e.

access to and availability critical services including opportunities for livelihood) against disasters

• Resiliency of health services to deliver services during a disaster Indicator 6: Resiliency of

Infrastructure • Resiliency of water, sewer and storm drain systems• Resiliency of transportation systems • Contingency for delivery of essential services Emergency

Preparedness, Response Planning

Indicator 7: Emergency

Management • Functioning Emergency Operations Plan with Basic Plan and ESF system • Year-round response planning and functioning standard operating

procedures

• Drills and Simulation involving relevant stakeholders including civil society and communities

• Preparedness programs for first responders and leaders and representatives of communities at risk

Indicator 8: Resource Management, Logistics and Contingency Planning

• Self analysis of resource management and logistics

• Contingency planning for key institutions for pre-defined scenario analysis and planning parameters

• Ability to manage delivery of resources to most vulnerable populations

2014 - 2020

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project

Areas Indicators Characteristics

Indicator 9: Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

• Awareness of hazards and vulnerabilities (natural and man-made) • Risk identification and assessment, vulnerability and capacity

analysis

• Impact assessments (loss analysis) by relevant sectors and segments of populations at risk

• Use of forecasting and early warning in preparedness and response planning

Indicator 10: Risk-Sensitive Urban Development and Mitigation

• Risk-sensitive land use planning and urban re-development, • Enforcement of codes and standards, particularly in shelter and

housing programs; quality control norms in construction • Capital investments in disaster risk reduction

• Reinforcing and retrofitting of critical assets and infrastructure

Table 13: Summary of Results of the DRRI for Quezon City

DRRI Tool Components 15-Nov-12 19-Jul-13

Legal and Institutional Process

•Indicator 1: Effectiveness of Legislative Framework 3.06 3.54

•Indicator 2: Effectiveness of Institutional Arrangements 2.94 3.30

Awareness and Capacity Building

•Indicator 3: Training and Capacity Building 2.59 3.10

•Indicator 4: Advocacy, Communication, Education and Public Awareness 2.74 3.50 Critical Services and Infrastructure Resiliency

•Indicator 5: Resiliency of Critical Services 2.58 2.70

•Indicator 6: Resiliency of Infrastructure 2.67 2.70

Emergency Management and Response Planning

•Indicator 7: Emergency Management 3.03 3.10

•Indicator 8: Resource Management, Logistics, and Contingency Planning 2.76 3.00 Development Planning, Regulation and Risk Mitigation

•Indicator 9: Hazard, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 3.11 3.00

•Indicator 10: Risk-Sensitive Urban Development and Mitigation 2.92 2.70

115

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

2014 - 2020

114

Building a Disaster Resilient

Quez

on City Project