ANNEX VI

FINAL NARRATIVE REPORT

Building Capacity in Disaster Risk Reduction through Regional Cooperation

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................2

2.

LIST OF ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................3-4

3. ASSESMENT OF THE ACTION...........................................................................................................5-6

4. ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS..............................................................................................................6-38

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT..............................................................................................................38-43

6. ACTIVITIES THAT WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED ............................................................................45-46

7. PARTNERS AND OTHER CO-OPERATION............................................................................................48

8. VISIBILITY..........................................................................................................................................48

9. LESSONS LEARNT...............................................................................................................................49

2011
Page 1 of 52
643525876.doc
 1. Description

1.1.Name of beneficiary of grant contract: United Nations Development Programme

1.2.Name and title of the Contact person:
1.3.Name of partners in the Action: Regional Cooperation Council, Disaster Preparedness and
Prevention Initiative for South East Europe (DPPI), World Meteorological Organisation
(WMO), Secretariat of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR),
national Disaster Management Authorities, National Hydro-Meteorological Services and other
international and national organisations active in DRR in participating IPA countries.
1.4.Title of the Action: Building Capacity in Disaster Risk Reduction through Regional
Cooperation
1.5.Contract number: IPA/2009/199-906
1.6.Start date and end date of the reporting period: 19 March 2009-18 September 2011
1.7. Target country(ies) or region(s): Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo (as defined by UNSCR
1244/99), and Turkey
1.8.Final beneficiaries &/or target groups1 (if different) (including numbers of women and men):
Citizens, enterprises, businesses, organisations, public administration, research institutions and all
other socio-economic sectors in participating IPA countries vulnerable to disasters caused by the
impact of natural hazards.
Target groups: Disaster Management Authorities at national and local-self government level of
participating IPA countries; high level political decision makers, government officials and experts
from ministries and agencies responsible for disaster risk reduction, European integration,
sustainable development, poverty reduction, environment, climate adaptation, education and hydro-
meteorological services.
1.9.Country(ies) in which the activities take place (if different from 1.7):

1
“Target groups” are the groups/entities who will be directly positively affected by the project at the Project
Purpose level, and “final beneficiaries” are those who will benefit from the project in the long term at the level
of the society or sector at large.

2011
Page 2 of 52
643525876.doc
2. List of Annexes
_________________________________________________________________________________

2011
Page 3 of 52
643525876.doc
1. Annex 1: Progress financial report
2. Annex 2: Regional Conference on Mainstreaming DRR into Development Policies,
20-22 June 2011, Skopje, Macedonia – agenda, invite letter and list of participants
3. Annex 3: Training seminar on “Flood Risk Assessment at the Local Level” and
“The Role of System 112 in the context of DRR through DRM”, 5-8 July 2011,
Sarajevo, BiH – agenda, invite letter and list of participants
4. Annex 4: Training seminar on “Disaster Risk Reduction”, 14-15 September 2011,
Skopje, Macedonia – agenda, invite letter and list of participants
5. Annex 5:IPA beneficiary phone-conferences report February 2010
6. Annex 6: Guidelines for national project team for collection of information and
documentation on Governance, institutional framework and resources in DRR”
7. Annex 7: Outline of assessment reports of IPA beneficiaries
8. Annex 8: IPA beneficiary needs assessment report for 8 IPA beneficiaries
9. Annex 9: National Policy Dialogues in 8 IPA beneficiaries – agenda, invite letter
and list of participants
10. Annex 10: National Policy Dialogue - adopted NPD recommendations for 8 IPA
beneficiaries
11. Annex 11: National Platform Training in Montenegro, 18-20 April 2011 – agenda,
invite letter and list of participants
12. Annex 12: National Platform Training in Serbia, 14-15 June 2011 – agenda, invite
letter and list of participants
13. Annex 13: National Platform Training in Kosovo, 30 June-01 July 2011 – agenda,
invite letter and list of participants
14. Annex 14: Proposal for Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South
East Europe
15. Annex 15: Draft South East Europe Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy Outline
16. Annex 16: Terms of reference for conduct of Institutional Capacity Assessment of
Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative in South East Europe
17. Annex 17: DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment
18. Annex 18: Terms of Reference for Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Assessment –
Measuring capacities of DRR system
19. Annex 19: Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Assessment – Mission schedule and
UNDP requirements
20. Annex 20: DRR Capacity Assessment reports for Albania, Serbia, Montenegro,
Macedonia (FYRo), Turkey, Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)
21. Annex 21: Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Development Guidelines for Western
Balkans and Turkey
22. Annex 22: Terms of reference for consultant for legal support to DPPI
23. Annex 23: DPPI Host country agreement
24. Annex 24: DPPI Statute and Rules of Procedure
25. Annex 25: Disaster Risk Reduction Overview Course, 14-18 June 2010, Becici,
Montenegro - agenda, invite letter and list of participants
26. Annex 26: Regional meeting for Strengthening Regional Cooperation in
Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Services for Disaster Risk Management,
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 28-29 March 2011 (with WMO)
27. Annex 27: Initial Regional Conference for Cooperation in South Eastern Europe, 1
June 2011, Belgrade, Serbia-Agenda, Invitation letter, List of participants,
Conclusions from the Meeting
28. Annex 28: Emergency Management Regional Conference for Strengthening
Regional Cooperation and Coordination in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East
Europe – agenda, invite letter, list of participants and Conference conclusions

29. Annex 29: Training workshop on drought risk assessment, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 20-24
September (with WMO)
30. Annex 30: Training workshop on flood risk assessment, Istanbul, Turkey; September 27
– 1 October 2010 with WMO
31. Annex 31: National workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments in 4
IPA beneficiaries– agenda, invite letter and list of participants
32. Annex 32: Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessments in the SEE region
33.
2011 Annex 33: Minutes of the 1st Project steering committee meeting
34. Annex 34: Minutes of two Meetings between UNDP and EC, held on March 29 th andPage31st4 of 52
2011
643525876.doc
35. Annex 35: Minutes of the Steering Committee Annual Review Meeting March 2011
36. Annex 36: Terms of reference for Regional DRR Project Manager
 3. Assessment of implementation of Action activities
3.1. Executive summary of the Action
Please give a global overview of the Action's implementation for the reporting period (no more than
½ page)
Despite the slight delay of project implementation and the establishment of the Project Team, due to lack
of availability of qualified candidates, the project was implemented and results achieved in line with the
Addendum 1, signed on August 30, 2010 and subsequent exchange of letters dated 26 November 2010
and January 2011 requesting project revision to include achievable results specifically tailored to address
the needs of the region as identified by 8 IPA beneficiaries and 8 UNDP country offices. Furthermore, the
activities and costs are implemented and disbursed in line with the budget modifications that were
submitted to EC on 4th of May 2011 and 1st of July 2011. Subsequently all budget changes were also
detailed in a request for a second amendment made to the EC on 16 August 2011 including the
notifications letters 1 and 2, and have been applied in such instances where they have not exceeded the
15% threshold.
The aim of the Regional Project on Disaster Risk Reduction in South Eastern Europe (RDRRP)/ Building
Capacity in Disaster Risk Reduction through Regional Cooperation and Collaboration in South East
Europe (SEE) was to increase the SEE region's capacity and cooperation in the area of disaster risk
management/reduction, with focus on the Western Balkans and Turkey (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo (as defined by
UNSCR 1244)2, and Turkey.) that due to their geographical position and similar geographical
characteristics, face the threat of similar natural hazards such as floods, forest fires, earthquakes and
landslides. Most of the IPA beneficiaries have gone through major political, social, economic and
administrative changes, which are reflected in their legislative, institutional and organizational frameworks
for disaster risk reduction and disaster management.

The Action was designed to target wide audience, including the Disaster Management Authorities at
national, sub-national and local level; high-level political decision-makers, government officials and
experts from ministries and agencies responsible for disaster risk reduction, European integration,
sustainable development, poverty reduction, environment, climate adaptation, education and hydro-
meteorological services. The project activities complemented the work performed by the WMO in the area
of hydro-meteorology in the Western Balkans and Turkey, with financing from the European Commission
under IPA Multi-beneficiary 2008 DRR Programme, and actors/organizations such as the Regional
Cooperation Council (RCC) and the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South East Europe
(DPPI SEE).

2
Hereafter referred to as Kosovo.
2011
Page 5 of 52
643525876.doc
Despite delays and numerous obstacles that the project encountered during the implementation, the
project attained number of key results that are summarised below:
1) Mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into development plans (i.e. Kosovo (as defined under
UNSCR 1244/99),
2) development of national strategies for DRR (i.e Serbia and Albania),
3) establishment of National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (Montenegro and Serbia) and
the countries’ fulfillment of the Priority Action 1 of the Hyogo Framework for Action,
4) improved mechanism for regional cooperation through development of draft Regional DRR
Strategy Outline and draft Regional Proposal for cooperation in WB and Turkey (i.e. bilateral and
multilateral agreements and protocols on exchange of equipment and resources including
establishment of Centers of Excellence),
5) Strengthening the role of Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative in South East Europe
(DPPI SEE) as the regional legal entity tasked to monitor the implementation of the draft
Regional DRR Strategy Outline and to facilitate the coordination, and
6) Strengthening of the regional capacities for identification and assessment of risks and hazards in
line with the HFA Priority Action 2 through Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessment.
Capacities for emergency response have been developed as part of security sector reform, in some cases
NATO integration process, and will have a long-term impact on human security and development.
However, lack of political commitment and capacities remain obstacles to the implementation of reforms
and the development of policies in line with EC regulations for the Disaster Risk Management and
Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change, including mainstreaming of DRR into national
development plans.

2011
Page 6 of 52
643525876.doc
Issues
1. Delays in project implementation due to lack of available expertise in the region
2. Lengthy and complex process of establishing and formalising the partnership with DPPI
including lengthy process of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding
3. Challenging partnership and coordination with RCC
Actions undertaken for resolving the issues
1. Building on the lessons learnt with support of EU the Contribution Agreement has been adjusted
through Amendment no 1 (including revision of Annex I “Description of the Action” and a no-
cost extension of the implementation period from 18 to 30 months) to reflect the developments
and progress achieved. The activities therein were adjusted and tailored to the extent possible, as
per guidance of EU Task Manager, to address the needs of the region.
2. UNDP shared the amended project and continued to build on a mutually beneficial relationship
with a number of project partners namely WMO, BCPR/CADRI, UNDP Global Risk
Identification Programme (GRIP), and UNISDR, and supported joint planning and
implementation of forthcoming project activities ensuring their role and ownership of activities.
3. Based on the recommendations from the EC Monitoring Mission (carried out in October 2009),
UNDP improved the system and methods of internal communication including regional meetings,
mailing list, intranet and workspace that were used to ensure inputs and easy access to project
documents by IPA beneficiary partners. Improved communication and information exchange with
RCC and DPPI through regular update on project implementation, and information sharing.
Enhanced coordination with the RCC contributed to improved consultation with the RCC on
project implementation, and collaboration in project components that pertain to strengthening of
the regional cooperation.

4. Activities and results____________________________________________________________

Please list all the activities of the contract implemented during the reporting period as per Annex 1
Activity 1.1. Regional Conference on Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Development
Policies
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In cooperation with the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) and Capacity for
Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI) as technical resource, the Regional Conference for Mainstreaming
DRR into Development Plans was held in Macedonia on 20-22 June 2011, with 35 representatives,
including key IPA beneficiary institutional counterparts as primary target group. RDRR Project covered
per diems and travel cost (flight tickets and travel by car) for RDRR Project beneficiaries, DRR focal
point from Kosovo and RDRR project team representative. Attached is the Excel List of participants for
reference (Annex 2). The RDRR Project covered 19 flight tickets/travel by car and 80 per diems for the
project’s beneficiaries and these costs are reported under Budget Lines 2.1.1. and 2.1.2. in the Financial
Report. Organisational costs including conference room and technical equipment rental, printing of
conference materials, provision of interpreting services, as well as lunch and refreshment costs are
reported under Budget Line 5.7.1.
The conference gathered participants from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo (as defined
under UNSCR 1244/99), Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, represented disaster risk
management agencies, as well as relevant development sectors whose work/development activities are
exposed to potential negative effect of hazards, such as Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning,
Ministry of European Integration, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Directorate for Water Management, and
Ministry of Education and Science. Through extensive discussion and knowledge sharing on available
DRR mainstreaming tools and practices, the event increased participants’ level of understanding of DRR
mainstreaming on:
a) linkage between disasters and development in the context of HFA;

2011
Page 7 of 52
643525876.doc
b) importance of mainstreaming of DRR in development policies, strategies and plans;
c) integration of cross-cutting issues (such as environment, climate change adaptation and gender) into
disaster risk reduction;
d) Identification of key issues and priorities through extensive feedback that was gathered on benefits
and challenges of DRR mainstreaming in South East Europe, and the DRR and HFA priorities for the
future.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
(national/expat consultant/expert for 6 months; preparation and organization of the regional conference)
decreased by EUR 30,000 for the following reason: preparation and organization of the regional
conference was a coordinated effort of a team of UNDP DRR focal points, established in 2009, to support
project implementation at national level within all 8 IPA beneficiaries, and a team of technical experts
from UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (UNDP BCPR) and Capacity for Disaster
Reduction Initiative (CADRI). Hence, there was no need to recruit a consultant for implementation of the
conference. This arrangement resulted in savings of EUR 30,000 on sub-heading 1.2.1.
Activity 1.2. Training on Disaster Risk Management and Disaster Risk Reduction
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In cooperation with Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative in South East Europe (DPPI SEE),
three trainings on disaster risk management and disaster risk identification were implemented in the
period July-August 2011 by the Balkans Institute for Emergency Management (BIEM). The trainings
were organised within the framework of DPPI Disaster Management Training Project (DMTP), aimed at
supporting and strengthening the DPPI capacities and their role in facilitating the cross-border
cooperation and the national capacities for disaster risk reduction and all its aspects. As a result of
competitive procurement process, RDRR project commissioned a consultancy company – Balkans
Institute for Risk Assessment and Emergency Management (BIEM) – for design and delivery of three
trainings. These costs are reported under Budget Line 1.2.2. Consultancy and technical support provided
by BIEM entailed the following:
 design and delivery of three trainings (consultancy fee, travel and per diem for consultants who
were engaged for design and delivery of the three trainings);
 administrative costs related to implementation of the trainings: travel, accommodation and meals
for participants from IPA beneficiaries under the RDRR Project, communication and printing
costs as well as trainings’ organizing costs (room rental, rental of equipment for interpreting,
interpreters, refreshment).
Trainings were organised as follows:
1) “Assessment of flood risk at the local level” and
2) “The Role of System 112 in the context of Disaster Risk Reduction through Disaster Risk
Management” in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina on 5-8 July 2011, with 36 participants,
including IPA beneficiary institutional counterparts and the project team. (Annex 3)
3) Disaster Risk Reduction training held in Skopje, Macedonia on 14-15 September 2011, with 23
participants, including representatives of disaster risk management agencies, relevant Ministries
from the development sector, local municipalities and representatives of the academic
community. (Annex 4)
DPPI SEE covered travel cost, accommodation and meals for Training 1 and 2, held on 5-8 July 2011, for
participants from Bulgaria and Slovenia. Regional DRR Project covered all other costs related to design
and delivery of three trainings through engagement of BIEM (as noted above).
The participants from Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia (FYRoM), Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Slovenia, including Danish Emergency Management Agency (DEMA), and the project team, through
extensive discussion and group work increased their level of understanding and knowledge on:
2011
Page 8 of 52
643525876.doc
 1) causes of floods and linked hazards,
2) role of Operational Communication Centres in the context of Early warning systems, and learned
more about regional experiences in the respective fields.
Through experience and knowledge exchange, participants discussed practical tools available for creating
and running a platform for risk assessment and preparedness planning, and their level of applicability at
the country level. The participants also exchanged best practice, as well as gaps and needs in the field of
flood risk assessment and flood risk reduction in the region. Furthermore, substantial and concrete
feedback was gathered on the benefits and challenges in functioning of the 112 Centres in the region, and
respective priorities for the future.
Regional DRR project covered the cost of the third training including travel cost, accommodation,
breakfast, lunch and dinner, as well as training’s organising costs (room rental, interpreters, refreshment)
for 1,5 day of the seminar.
The participants from Macedonia (FYRoM), through extensive discussion and group work, increased
their level of understanding of multi-scenario approach to emergency management, and comprehensive
approach to risk assessment and preparedness planning. Through crisis management and risk assessment
case studies, followed by plenary session on evaluation of existing practices in the field of risk assessment
and crisis management, extensive feedback was gathered and recommendations defined on supporting
and enhancing existing efforts in Macedonia (FYRoM), and the wider region of SEE in the field of
disaster risk reduction and disaster risk management.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
As a result of discussions with DPPI, UNDP and EC in March 2010 the focus of this activity was
adjusted towards disaster risk management and alignment with trainings of the Disaster Preparedness and
Prevention Initiative (DPPI SEE) within the framework of Disaster Management Training Programme
(DMTP). Consequently, the Activity 1.2. as per amended project focuses on training on disaster risk
management/disaster risk reduction.

One of the conclusions of the Project Steering Committee meeting held on 30 March, 2011 (Annex 35)
was lack of DPPI SEE Secretariat capacity for provision of technical support due to 1) the election and
appointment of new Head of the DPPI Secretariat who was nominated at the DPPI Regional meeting held
on 29 March 2011 and 2) number of pending tasks that new HoS needs to address in the period April-
June 2011. It was concluded that at that stage DPPI SEE did not have sufficient resources to support
implementation of activities in a timely manner. Hence, the Project Steering Committee proposed that
Balkans Institute for Risk Assessment and Emergency Management (BIEM) from Belgrade was engaged
to provide consultancy support to implementation of this activity in full coordination with UNDP and
through DPPI SEE. By that time, BIEM had the required capacities including proven experience in
conducting a number of studies for UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina over the period 2009-2011, including
development of DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment Report that was endorsed at the DPPI SEE
regional meeting held on 28 March 2011.

Results of this activity

The activity resulted in increased knowledge of DRM and DRR practitioners on:
1) flood risk assessment methodologies and practices at the local level,
2) structural and non-structural measures for flood risk reduction,
3) mechanisms and tools of 112 Operational-communication centres, and steps to be taken in the
future at strengthening their role and position in the context of effective early warning and
country-level and regional level alike.

Activity 1.3. Technical support to facilitate the process of eventual integration of DRR into relevant
sectors

2011
Page 9 of 52
643525876.doc
This activity was not implemented in order to avoid duplication of already existing material on sector
integration of DRR, namely the “Guidelines for mainstreaming disaster risk assessment in development”
that were developed in June 2004 by UNISDR Africa Office. Please see section 6. of the Final narrative
report for more details.
Activity 2.1.: Technical support to strengthen IPA Beneficiaries’ capacity to comply with the Hyogo
Framework for Action’s requirements
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
Eight separate coordination conferences through utilisation of electronic and communication channels
were held with national project teams and 8 IPA beneficiaries in the period 09-11 February 2010 (Annex
5). As a result and in order to facilitate the coordination the following has been developed and agreed a)
Guidelines for national project team for collection of information and documentation on “governance,
institutional framework and resources in DRR”, and b) Outline of assessment reports of IPA
beneficiaries. The two documents are aimed at facilitating the development of IPA beneficiary needs
assessment reports that will include:
- Institutional capacity assessment for 8 IPA beneficiaries in the field of disaster risk
reduction and management
- Legislation framework and the IPA beneficiaries’ alignment with the requirements of the
Hyogo Framework for Action
- Recommendations for capacity and legislation enhancement for disaster risk management
and regional cooperation in the field of disaster risk reduction.
Based on the a) Guidelines for national project team for collection of information and documentation on
“governance, institutional framework and resources in DRR” (Annex 6), and b) Outline of assessment
reports of IPA beneficiaries (Annex 7), the needs assessment missions were carried out in all 8 IPA
beneficiaries in 2010. This resulted in 8 draft IPA beneficiary Needs Assessment Reports - namely for
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR
1244/99), Turkey and Macedonia (FYRoM).
The key findings indicate the following that are common to all IPA beneficiaries across the region:
1) different level of IPA beneficiaries’ capacities to identify and mitigate risks,
2) scattered planning of prevention and preparedness that are non-existent in some IPA
beneficiaries,
3) very limited capacities for emergency response and preparedness,
4) decentralised authority for governing disaster risk reduction and protection, and finally
5) lack of cooperation within the IPA beneficiaries’ and across the region. Furthermore, the existing
standard operating procedures and legislation is not aligned with either UNDP Global Risk
Identification Programme (GRIP) or EU requirements.
The key findings and recommendations for building and strengthening of the capacities were consulted
with the IPA beneficiary counterparts to ensure the understanding and governments’ acknowledgement of
the recommendations that were developed in line with the 5 priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for
Action. The UNDP and WMO international consultants successfully completed their visits to 8 IPA
beneficiaries (Note: WMO international consultant did not visit Kosovo, as agreed) to present and discuss
the findings of the needs assessment reports as well as the structure of the respective National Policy
Dialogues.
Following final round of internal consultations of UNDP and WMO, 8 IPA beneficiary needs assessment
reports were finalized in September 2011, posted on UNDP website and shared in electronic form with
the key IPA beneficiary counterparts and UNDP DRR focal points.
Based on findings contained in 8 IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports, as well as outcomes of 8
National Policy Dialogues implemented under Activity 2.2., UNDP international consultant developed a
draft Proposal for Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe. The proposal
outlines priorities and areas for regional cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in South East
2011
Page 10 of 52
643525876.doc
Europe (SEE) that include, amongst others, exchange of experts, assistance in case of disasters, and
signing of bilateral and multilateral protocols for cross border assistance. The document was presented to
the IPA beneficiaries at the WMO Regional Meeting for Strengthening Regional Cooperation in
Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Services for Disaster Risk Management held on 28 and 29 March,
2011 in Sarajevo, and subsequently shared with relevant counterparts for feedback. In 2012, the document
served as grounds for development of a draft Regional DRR Strategy Outline produced under Activity
3.1.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
The budget line 1.2.4.2. was introduced in line with the Article 9.2 of the General conditions to clearly
reflect the cost of one international consultant as reported in the IR1, page 10, and in a letter of
clarifications submitted to the EC on 24 February 2012, page 1.
The international consultant was engaged for a period of 105 days and the payments were not made on
monthly basis but per deliverable as stipulated in the contract between UNDP and the Consultant.
The contract for this consultant entails following deliverables:
1. Upon initiation of the contract, after delivery of guidelines for national project team for collection
of information and documentation in IPA beneficiaries and outline of IPA Beneficiary Needs
Assessment report;
2. Upon completion of all IPA beneficiary needs assessment visits and delivery of first draft of IPA
beneficiary needs assessment reports;
3. Upon completion of all National Policy Dialogues and submission of final IPA beneficiary needs
assessment reports/proposals;
4. Upon submission of the first draft of the regional cooperation proposal based on the research and
analysis performed together with WMO international consultant;
5. Upon support to preparation of the brainstorming workshop materials and submission of the
workshop results’ report;
6. Upon completion of the final Regional Workshop and delivery of the regional proposal/roadmap
for regional cooperation on disaster risk reduction.
Note: IN accordance with UNDP Human Resources policies, payment to Special Service Agreement
(SSA)/Individual Contract (IC) holders is made following delivery of a product defined in the ToR. Local
contracts are made in Convertible Marks (BAM) exclusively, whilst international contractors may be paid
in either USD or EUR. Total payments to consultants are in lump sum which includes consultancy fee,
DSA, terminals and ticket costs. During the recruitment prices, lowest offer (cost-wise) of technically
qualified applicants are considered and eventually contracted.
The Financial IR1 reflected the expenditures of 13,883.76 EUR which is the payment for the first
deliverable/one milestone (this deliverable included 2 months of the consultant’s work).
The financial IR 2 reflected expenditures of 51,3888.88 EUR which is the payment for the subsequent
three deliverables/milestones (this included 6.5 months of the consultant’s work).
The final report reflected the additional expenditures of EUR 7,871.15 which is the payment for the
subsequent two deliverables/milestones (this included 2 months of the consultant’s work).
Thus, the total amount spent on the engagement of the international consultant was 73,143.79 EUR
covering 6 milestones corresponding to 10,5 months/1 man work at average unit rate of 6, 966.97 EUR.
Further to above and in order to ensure clarity and consistency as per UNDP’s letter with clarification of
February 2012 the costs are thus presented as milestones.
Results of this activity
- 8 IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports finalized (Annex 8)
- Draft Proposal for Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe
(Annex 14)

2011
Page 11 of 52
643525876.doc
 The broad objectives of the regional cooperation are:

 To establish sustainable mechanisms to support the strengthening and development of DRR in the
IPA Beneficiaries
 To provide a forum for exchange of knowledge and experience and to document lessons learned
and establish good practice
 To identify areas of potential collaboration between participating IPA Beneficiaries to the mutual
benefit of the partners in reducing the risks across the region
 To promote regional activity aimed at supporting the integration of DRR into ongoing regional
development
 To stimulate the development of capacities in DRR within the region as a whole
 To promote a regional debate around the importance of building linkages between DRR and CCA
and thus promoting integrated programmes seeking to optimise funds and resources
 To create a mechanism for mobilising resources for DRR on a regional basis.
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
Methodology
The DRR IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports build on the work and desk reviews that were
conducted by the UNISDR for South East Europe and include the following:
1) Review and assessment of the DRR legislation framework
2) Review and assessment of current human resources and financial capacities for disaster risk
reduction
3) Review and assessment of the regional cooperation and international cooperation
4) Recommendations for the improvement and building of the DRR capacities in line with 5 Hyogo
Framework for Action obligations
5) All 8 IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports served as baselines for the Draft Proposal for
Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe that provides a situation
analysis and recommendations for regional cooperation on DRR.
The methodology of the assessments differs from the UNISDR reports since the UNDP and WMO
assessments are carried out in a consultative and participatory manner including extensive field visits. The
methodology includes interviews with all relevant institutions and agencies as well as a detailed review of
existing legislation and capacities in the DRR/DRM arena as of 2010.
Albania
In May 2010, UNDP and WMO international consultants visited Albania. The visit entailed discussions
on project implementation and constructive consultations with representatives of the General Directorate
of Civil Emergencies, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Health and Albanian Red
Cross. The outcomes of the needs assessment mission and respective discussions are reflected in draft
needs assessment report that was submitted mid-June 2010, and finalised and distributed in September
2011.
Key findings of the Albania needs assessment indicated the following:
Strengths Weaknesses

-The country has legal and policy documentation that -Lack of DRR mainstreaming into development plans.
provides a framework for future DRR action. -DRR has not yet been integrated into national, communal
-The Government has recognised that mechanisms for and sector policies
establishing good DRR practice are needed, although these -While there are governance systems, structures and legal
are not fully in place yet. provisions in place at the national and local level, Albania’s
-Albania has well established institutions that deal with approach to disaster risk is largely focused on preparedness
preparedness, response and recovery at the national and local and response.
government level, as set out by the Civil Emergency National -DRR activities are developed principally on a conceptual
Plan and other instructive material; although they do require basis. Research and monitoring institutions like INEWE, the
revision and updating. Department of Seismology within the Institute of Geo-
-effective partnerships exist between the main relevant sciences and other relevant institutions covering DRR

2011
Page 12 of 52
643525876.doc
government organisations, such as the General Directorate requirements and needs tend to adopt a reactive as opposed to
for Civil Emergencies and the various prefecture a proactive attitude.
administrations and civil society, in particular the Albanian -A gap exists in the legal provisions and obligations for
Red Cross, overall DRR coordination between the General Directorate
for Civil Emergencies and the line ministries/other
organisations and respective implementation partners.
-At the regional level, both disaster monitoring technology
and regional coordination on early warning lack permanent
institutionalisation.
-Absence of education curricula that cover DRR or other
disaster risk concerns in primary and secondary schools, the
absence of gender mainstreaming in practical DRR guidance
and activities, the lack of insurance system involvement in
DRR and the lack of an adequate 24/7 early warning system.
-Inadequacy of forecasting techniques, defective
environmental control measures, inadequate training for
emergency personnel and the population in
prevention/protection measures, the inadequate participation
of local communities in DRR and inadequate market
mechanisms to help buffer against disasters and the
expansion of their associated risks.

Opportunities Threats

-The prioritisation of disaster response by high level -Ongoing gap between legal provision obligations and the
decision-makers creates a premise to place other aspects of mechanisms for implementation.
DRR on top of political agendas. A revision of the Law on -The heavy focus on disaster response and recovery
Civil Emergencies, the National Plan for Civil Emergencies situations and the almost indifferent attitude towards disaster
and other legal provisions on DRR could provide necessary preparedness and prevention should also be addressed.
conditions for DRR mainstreaming into development plans -If DDR needs are always approached in a centralised
and activities. manner then the neglect of communities’ own capacities
-World Bank project on Disaster Risk Mitigation and could lead to a decrease in such capacities.
adaptation plans aimed at improving or establishing crucial -Lack of government finance to ensure the sustainable
DRR elements such as the involvement of the insurance development of the technical institutes might also impede the
system in DRR, euro-code adaptation, adequate hydro- development of DRR.
meteorological monitoring system and such like.
-The National Strategic Development and Integrated
Development Plans of Albania should focus on DRR
actions.
-Increased inclusion of women
-Reorganization of relevant research and monitoring
institutions
-Albania’s Training of Trainers initiative offers the
opportunity to further develop DRR capacities. Moreover,
even though volunteerism in general has diminished over
recent years, mass survey results or the experiences of
previous disasters suggest that most Albanians would be
willing to volunteer in the event of an emergency.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Following the positive outcome of the discussion among disaster and development practitioners on the
next steps on how to strengthen the DRR system in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the National Policy
Dialogue that was held on 21 and 22 June 2010 in Sarajevo, the report was successfully finalized by the
national consultant in cooperation with the Ministry of Security of BiH, Sector for Protection and Rescue.
The positive outcomes of the discussions held during the National Policy Dialogue (21-22 June 2010,
Sarajevo, BiH) were duly taken into account. The report incorporated specific inputs and comments made
during the National Policy Dialogue. The report’s recommendations were circulated beginning July to all
respective officials for comments. This was followed by discussions among the Entity Governments of
the Federation of BiH and Republika Srpska and Brcko District. At that point, it was expected that the
final version of the report, dating July 2011, would be submitted to the BiH Parliament for endorsement
in the third quarter of 2011. However, due to political disagreement prominent in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, even though general elections were held in October 2010, no state-level government has
been formed until the end of the project.
2011
Page 13 of 52
643525876.doc
Key findings of the BiH Needs Assessment indicate:

Strengths Weaknesses

- Experience with disasters. - There is no strategy that clearly defines priorities.

- Ministries have capacities for planning. - Limited capacity for implementation by the ministries due to
- Existence of institutions such as Hydro-meteorological highly decentralised system.
Institutes. - Limited capacities at the entity and cantonal/region levels
- NGO and international organisations have established a for planning and implementation.
good-working relationship with the Government and are - Lack of education and training.
active in BiH. - No specific budget for DRR.
- Developed national-level methodology for risk assessment - Legislation at all levels lacks DRR components.
and seminars that carry down the message of DRR to the - Two separate NHMS with low human and technical
entity, cantonal/region, municipal, etc. levels. resources.
-General lack of experience in the dissemination of warnings
to the public.
Opportunities Threats

- DRR has been recognised as a priority by the Government - Lack of awareness of DRR.
and so DRR can be mainstreamed into development - Danger that the legislature will overlook the issue of risk
documents, strategies, etc. and that DRR will not be incorporated in respective
- BiH is actively attempting to develop a National Platform legislature
for DRR. - System is much decentralised, with unclear definition of
- Ongoing activities to conduct a risk assessment (at the state duties and responsibilities which often lead to overlap.
level), as well as the fact that the risk assessment represent a - Data about hazards is scattered throughout the country.
good starting point to develop a strategy for DRR. - Role of civil society is not well established in the legislature.
- Cooperation and participation in regional and international -The hydro-met sector will not be fully integrated into DRR.
projects to exchange knowledge, expertise and lessons -Currently there is a low number of scientifically skilled and
learned regarding DRR and strengthen cooperation regionally adequately trained forecasters, meteorologists and hydrologist
and internationally. and there is difficulty in recruiting graduate meteorologists,
-International support and financing. particularly forecasters, which prevents or delays the
-Close cooperation with the SEE and EUMETNET NHMS. development and improvement of the service.
- Establishing a single early warning system for BiH.

Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)

During the reporting period, the UNDP team was heavily engaged in the finalisation of the needs
assessment process, and development of the draft report that was submitted beginning June 2010,
following the receipt of comments/revisions. A number of project beneficiaries, such as the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, Hydro-Meteorological Institute, Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Education,
Ministry of Spatial Planning, Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture among others, have been involved in
the consultation process. The National Policy Dialogue was held on 7 and 8 September 2010 and chaired
by the Deputy Prime Minister that was followed by the establishment of a working group for the
finalisation of the Needs Assessment Report.
The UNDP team coordinated with the working group and the national consultant the process of
incorporation of recommendations and suggestions into the assessment report. To that end, the report,
including the recommendations, was amended and shared with the UNDP’s international consultant and
Project partners for review. Following UNDP’s international consultant’s additional work on the draft
report, and incorporation of final feedback on the side of UNDP and key international project partners
into the document, the report was finalized in September 2011.
Key Findings of Kosovo Needs Assessment indicate the following:

2011
Page 14 of 52
643525876.doc
 Strengths Weaknesses

-Legal and institutional framework for spatial planning. - Lack of a multi-hazard DRR strategy and plan that specifies
-Network of Emergency Operations Centres, aside from its the modalities for integrating DRR into development.
role in early warning, is a resource for disaster preparedness -Investment plans in “Kosovo” are not yet based on a deep
and operational management. consideration of the causal factors underlying disasters i.e.,
-“Kosovo” has a five level system of warning, even though it the exposure and relatively high vulnerability of people and
has yet to be formalised through a Government Instruction. property to hazards.
-Risk assessment, even though it focuses exclusively upon -There is a lack of resources and funding.
hazards, is a priority area for the AEM. It can serve as a -The Spatial Plan of “Kosovo” needs proper implementation
starting point for the development of preparedness, response and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and at present
and recovery plans against multi-hazard disasters. these are weak or lacking.
-Hazard monitoring institutions in “Kosovo” have adopted a - DRR laws contradict each other.
pro-active approach towards DRR. These institutions -DRR agencies lack a strong foundation of expertise and
maintain good cooperation with the AEM and the SitCen. technical competence.
-For “Kosovo” regional cooperation on DRR is not at a level
that could really contribute to its development.
-“Kosovo’s” education does not include DRR or emergency
response.

Opportunities Threats
-Prioritisation of disaster response by high level decision- -The real threat to DRR in “Kosovo” is the tendency to take a
makers creates a foundation for DRR (preparedness and non inter-institutional approach and rely on the actions of
prevention) to be also prioritised. individual agencies and sectors.
-Bilateral cooperation on DRR has the potential to increase -Funding of DRR might be perceived by some as a process of
DRR capacities. cutting expenditure elsewhere in order to support the
-Women’s traditional knowledge of natural resources is development of DRR.
important for disaster risk. In the same way, their knowledge -This could be seen as a threat to the mainstreaming of DRR
of their surroundings and of natural resources can be essential into development and undermine the role of mainstreaming to
for disaster recovery. Encouraging women’s participation can eventually protect development gains and save resources.
help to create safer communities; women are proactive in
preparedness and response and have an important role in
taking appropriate and timely action in response to warnings.
-The relatively high investment in infrastructure provides an
opportunity to mainstream risk management into investment
planning.

Montenegro
The national needs assessment mission in Montenegro included a number of bilateral meetings held in the
period mid-May to mid-July 2010 and included representatives of the Ministry of Finance, EU
Integration, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Defence,
Ministry of Spatial Planning, Red Cross Society, and Seismology and Hydrology Institutes, among others.
Furthermore, informal meetings were held with the representatives of the US Embassy (in the framework
of State partnership) to reflect on the progress and activities undertaken within the framework of NATO
Membership Action Plan.
The draft needs assessment report for Montenegro was completed in mid-September 2010 and distributed
to key national partners for inputs prior to the National Policy Dialogue.
Key findings of the Montenegro Needs Assessment indicate the following:
2011
Page 15 of 52
643525876.doc
Strengths Weaknesses

• Experience with disasters; • Experts leaving

• Documented damages; • Laws lack necessary DRR components
• Easy and good communications flow; • Lack of concrete information on the number of informal
• Relatively high level of autonomy of local governments settlements
in creating local development policies and measures, • Limited human capacities
• Existence of Institutions such as Seismology and Hydro- • No specific allocation mechanisms for DRR in budgets
meteorological Institutes (HMI); • HMZCG underfinanced and unable to operate 24/7
• Network of online stations that connect SZCG with the analyzing and forecasting system
neighboring countries; • EWS is underdeveloped as its development is funded usually
• A single system for developing assessments and plans at by donations
all levels • Lack of technical capacity
• Good relationship with NGO’s and international • No existing database of hazards and their dissemination
organization • No integration of DRR into education
• Experienced and knowledgeable management staff • Lack of DRR action plan
• Excellent informal relations and communication between • Lack of exchange of information
the members of Sector for Emergency Management with • Lack of risk assessment at the municipal level
colleagues in the region and international community • Lack of climate change adaptation in DRR
• Under developed national capacities for climate services to
support medium and long-term sectoral planning in the
context of reducing overall risks
• Lack of developing capacities for the implementation of
policies, strategies and mechanisms
• Lack of protocols and mechanisms of information
management for effective response that are permanently in
place and regularly updated to anticipate future disasters
Opportunities Threats
• The new legislation should be adjusted to include • Lack of DRR awareness
development of DRR strategies and plans at the • HMZCG will not be actively integrated in the Early warning
community level system
• National Platform for DRR should promote disaster risk • Underdeveloped and under equipped local staff who might
reduction measures, including protection and rescue not be capable to take over responsibilities defined in the
• Cooperation and participation in international projects new legal framework
• Bilateral, regional and international partnership • Low level of knowledge and awareness of media in
emergency situations
• Inadequately defined and improved role of media in the
field of DRM and DRR

• High number of erected illegal buildings

FYR of Macedonia
As noted in the IR1, the country team faced delays in recruitment of a national DRR consultant in
Macedonia (FYRo). Following intense consultations with national counterparts, namely Crisis
Management Centre and Directorate for Rescue and Protection, the national consultant was engaged for
the period between mid-August to beginning October 2010. The DRR national consultant finalized
collecting information in the third quarter of 2010 and worked extensively on developing the needs
assessment report in the fourth quarter. The draft report, with key findings and recommendations for
strengthening of the DRR system in FYR of Macedonia, was discussed at the National Policy Dialogue
2011
Page 16 of 52
643525876.doc
held on November 15, 2010 in Skopje. Feedback from the NPD was subsequently incorporated in the
draft report. Final version of the report was available end September 2011.

Key findings of the Macedonia (FYRo) needs assessment indicate the following:

Strengths Weaknesses

-Increased awareness of DRR -Macedonia’s strategic development documents

-The introduction of the National Platform for DRR has increased do not incorporate DRR as defined by UNSIDR,
the attention and awareness of the majority of entities participating in the namely they are based on the concept of self-
PRS and CMS as well as of the Government concerning the importance protection and civil protection as part of the
of these priorities. traditional defence protection system or as a
- The National Platform for DRR clearly and concretely defines response to the risks we face.
strengthening of an integrated and efficient DRR policy through -The reactive approach i.e., the treatment of the
prevention, early warning and disaster management as a priority. The consequences of potential military destruction or
National Platform should allow the Crisis Management System (and the natural or technological disaster prevails.
CMC, as its focal point) to serve as a basic institutional framework, -Revision of these reactive and expensive ways
meaning that the entities participating in the CMS should also participate of dealing with multi-sectoral and proactive
in the National Platform. policies seems necessary.
-The acceptance of the HFA and its five main priorities for action, as
well as the introduction of the National Platform for DRR, is a strong
input that can facilitate the transition from reactive to preventive policies,
risk management and a DRR system.
-The introduction of the National Platform for DRR is a serious effort to
overcome the shortcomings identified in the functioning of the security
policy, especially in its natural disaster risk management segment.
-Reform processes in the field of defence and security have already led to
improvements in efficiency.
Opportunities Threats
- Legislation and other sectoral development
-The hydro-meteorological sector in Macedonia (FYRo) has a great documents
potential for contributing to DRR. It could, for example, be considered -Unclear definition of competences within the
that a 24-hour early warning centre be established within the risk management process, namely risk
meteorological service in order to secure appropriate human, technical assessment, vulnerability assessment and
and financial resources in the hydro-meteorological sector and to improved preparedness (e.g. the Law on
maintain its role in various stages of DRR (such as hazard mapping and Protection and Rescue and the Law on Crisis
warning, etc.), enable it to analyse climate change at the local level and Management). As a result of this unclear
improve the automatic hydrological and weather radar network. repartition of competencies, the field of natural
- Secondary school curricula on protection and rescue. The Education disaster risk management remains segmented.
Development Bureau, in cooperation with the PRD and CMC, could - The problem of overlaps should be solved
transform project activities on peace, tolerance and protection from legally and not through the National Platform.
elective to mandatory courses. -Almost 70% of respondents to the survey
- The compulsory and/or optional curricula in primary and secondary supported the statement that institutions are fully
education should include these priorities. Formal education should build involved in the activities of the National
upon the currently used ad-hoc approach to education and training by the Platform. However, the responses also show that
CMC, DZS and CKRM. the effective functioning of the National Platform
will depend on the institutions’ equipment, their
(limited) human resources, provided training for
implementation of activities envisaged for the
Platform as well as resolution of institutional
overlaps.
-Definition of crucial terminology is not always
homogeneous.
-More systematic efforts are needed to integrate
the DRR approach into national policy
development and to coordinate the efforts of the
various sectors’ policies.

2011
Page 17 of 52
643525876.doc
Serbia
National DRR consultant in Serbia encountered difficulties in collecting information from key national
stakeholders, in particular from the Republic Hydro-meteorological Service due to ongoing process of
drafting of the new law on Hydro-meteorological Service. Following a period of internal consultations
and review in the period 01 July-30 September 2010, the draft report was shared with the national
counterparts for review and comments. The Ministry of Interior, Sector for Emergency and Management
and Republic Hydrological and Meteorological Service commented that the report did not reflect the
current situation and ongoing efforts in Serbia with regard to disaster risk reduction. Therefore, it was
concluded by the counterparts that the report contained out-dated information and, as such, should be
revised. Therefore the Ministry of Interior and the HMS took the lead in preparing the Recommendations
which were presented, discussed and endorsed as a result of the Dialogue. The needs assessment report
underwent additional revision by the Ministry of Interior in the last quarter of 2010 and first quarter of
2011. Final report was available end September 2011.
Key findings of the Serbia needs assessment indicate the following:
Strengths Weaknesses

- DRR legislation exists, giving a formal base for further -Institutions already included in DRR activities work in isolated
improvement. ‘silos’, without horizontal and vertical coordination.
-DRR activities exist at all three vertical levels of -Existing DRR legislation focuses only on emergency, response
governance (provincial, district and municipal). and recovery.
-A legal framework for inclusion of DRR into sustainable -Lack of coordination between different levels of governance.
development exists. -Development plans include historical disaster occurrences
-Emergency and rescue funding exists, and is distributed only, risk assessment was not required.
between national, provincial and local levels. -Lack of provision for DRR funding mechanism, including
-Disaster related data is recorded by relevant institution, such preparedness, prevention, and mitigation.
as Weather Office, Water Management, and Forest -Lack of standardised data collection and recording methods in
Management Companies. compliance with international standards.
-Awareness raising activities and programmes exist at all -Lack of disaster related data integration and aggregation.
vertical levels of governance, organised by various -Spatial and temporal disaster risk assessment has not been
governmental, education and non-governmental institutions. done, or if it has been done, that information is not available to
-Major tertiary education institutions offer accredited DRR stakeholders.
related courses. -No overall coordination of awareness raising programmes
-There is a provision for early warning in the Law on -Coordination of a DRR training and education curricula does
Emergency Situations. not exist.
-Continuous hazard monitoring is being done by the -Lack of coordinated DRR research.
Republic Hydrometeorological Service. -No overall chart of early warning system.
-Contingency plans exist regarding flood, fire protection, -No feedback or evaluation mechanism at reviewing early
technological hazards, environmental pollution, earthquakes warning system’s effectiveness.
and landslides. -Lack of hazard monitoring coordination between various
-Emergency response plans exist at every vertical level of governmental institutions, such as Republic
governance, adjusted for particular disaster, such as road, rail Hydrometeorological Service and Ministry of Environment.
and airplane accidents, floods, and toxic spills. -Risk related information is not incorporated into emergency
-Gender Equality Law is formally approved by Serbian preparedness.
Parliament, and it provides basis for inclusion of gender -Contingency plans are outdated and not suitable for use.
equality in DRR activities. -No regular update of contingency plans.
-Lack of training coordination at municipal and local level.
-Gender equality is still not included in DRR activities.

2011
Page 18 of 52
643525876.doc
Opportunities Threats

-To develop a mechanism for coordination between various -Expanded legislation framework to become complicated and
DRR institutions, enabling smooth information flow and difficult for implementation.
coordinated decision making. -Inclusion of risk assessment information into development
-To expand existing legal framework and include plans without proper risk assessment framework and
preparedness, prevention, and mitigation. methodology.
- -To minimise future risks by including risk assessment into -Financial mismanagement of DRR funds.
development plans. -DRR information system to be driven by the information
-Development of an overall DRR funding mechanism, technology trends.
including other funding sources but budget. - Potential conflict between governmental institution regarding
-Development of a standardised disaster related data coordination of awareness raising programmes.
collection and distribution methods. -Overlapping and duplication of a DRR training and education
-Development and implementation of risk assessment curricula.
methodologies. -Command and coordination conflicts regarding early warning.
-To develop an overall awareness raising framework. -Contingency plans’ miss-coordination, overlapping and
-To improve and coordinate existing DRR training and duplication.
education curricula.
-Development of a coordinated DRR research and
implementation framework.
-Development and coordination of early warning at all
levels of governance.
-Inclusion of hazard monitoring into an integrated spatial and
temporal disaster risk monitoring system.
-To shift from a traditional Disaster Management to a
Disaster Risk Reduction approach, and in line with five
priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action.

Turkey
In Turkey, the DRR consultant, with support from UNDP Turkey CO focal point, in the period May-June
2010 finalised collection of information from a number of national stakeholders (DRR structures, Hydro-
meteorological Institute, State-level ministries, relevant universities, civil society sector, private sector
representatives, and international organisations). The draft needs assessment report was delivered on 30
June 2010, and was finalised by mid-October, prior to the National Policy Dialogue. The draft report was
endorsed and conclusions of the National Policy Dialogue incorporated in the final draft. The final draft
of the report was developed by end April 2011, and report finalized in September 2011.
The Key findings of the Turkey needs assessment indicate the following:

Strengths Weaknesses

-DRR is represented at the highest political level with -Lack of coordination of emergency management and of
DEMP. national DRR strategy.
-DRR is high on the political agenda and integrated into -Lack of legislation framework regulating the work and
national legislation, development plans, national education mandates in the field of DRR
curriculum, and research. -Newly established municipalities lack capacity to correctly
- National Platform consists of governmental institutions and implement building regulations and implement the Building
NGOs. Inspection Law No 4708.
- Dense seismic network and reliable earthquake prediction -Municipalities lack technical personnel to prepare hazards
systems have been established in the regions presenting the maps, conduct risk assessments and implement DRR activities.
highest seismic risks. KOERI disposes of extremely high -Emergency management capacities of local administrations are
technical capacities. An earthquake monitoring department is rather weak.
established within the government. -Coordination and cooperation between central and local
-The hydro-meteorological network includes high level administration needs to be improved; rapid turnover prevents
technical capabilities and high level of awareness. provincial officials from getting familiar with on-the-ground

2011
Page 19 of 52
643525876.doc
-Members of government and provincial organizations are realities.
well trained -The capacities of NGOs are weak.
-Procedures for developing regulations, post-disaster -No nationwide hydro-meteorological risk assessment; socio-
assessments and preparedness established. economic vulnerability assessments need to be strengthened.
- Gender and Climate Change issues are gradually being -Both BU-KOERI and EMP operate seismic networks without
integrated in legislation and policies. coordination or cooperation among the institutions.
-DSI, DMI and the General Directorate of Electric Power
Resources Survey and Development Administration operate
nationwide hydro-meteorological networks separately. A new
law needs to clearly define their responsibilities and
coordination mechanisms need to be developed.
-Mandates and communication routes for alerts, advises and
warnings from hydro-meteorological and seismic services
directly should be clarified and in some cases created.
Warnings need to be more user-friendly.
-Community participation and gender sensitivity have not been
taken into consideration effectively in any of the disaster
management phases.
Opportunities Threats
-The National Platform offers potential to improve the -With a major earthquake anticipated in the Municipality of
impact of DRR activities and decrease the number of Istanbul, hydro-meteorological risks and DRR measures in
partially overlapping and non-compatible projects. The other provinces tend to be neglected. Similarly, research
National Platform should prioritize projects, integrate activities are mostly focused on Marmara Region. DRR efforts
existing projects and improve their quality and geographical are mostly concentrated on urban areas, the dominant
extend. perception being that only building face disaster risks.
-The Compulsory Earthquake Insurance scheme is a sound -DSI and DMI are not members of the National Platform and
basis for preparing additional disaster insurance laws. not included in government training programs. This could
-National Training Centers exist. Officials at national and prevent an effective integration of hydro-meteorological
provincial level are well trained and can in turn train services in DRR planning processes.
officials at district and municipal level.
-The newly developed 112 emergency system should allow
for data collection and could be integrated within the Early
Warning System. There is potential to implement 24/7
warning system in coordination with the hydro-
meteorological services and seismic services.
-Several projects aim to integrate databases and improve
disaster-related information management.
-The municipality of Istanbul can serve as a model to
implement DRR projects in other cities.
-Women’s traditional natural resource knowledge on disaster
risk is important. In the same way, women’s knowledge of
their surroundings and of natural resources can be essential
to disaster recovery. Encouraging women’s participation can
help to create safer communities. They are proactive in
preparedness and response, and have an important role in
taking appropriate and timely action in response to warnings.
-With the signature of the Yokohama and Kobe declarations
and of the Kyoto Protocol, Turkey is obliged to further
integrate climate change in its policies and DRR activities.
-International, bilateral and regional cooperation have the
potential to greatly increase DRR capacities, especially in
domains of training and in monitoring activities. Turkey’s
status as candidate country offers opportunity to hasten
changes in legislative and institutional structures.
-Economic growth, improvements in technology, integration
of sustainable development, awareness and education
programms and increased community participation require
attention.

Activity 2.2. National Policy Dialogue for National Platform establishment/strengthening

Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:

8 National Policy Dialogues were organized in each IPA Beneficiary in 2010 that aimed at gathering all
key stakeholders and opening dialogue, discussion and endorsement of the IPA beneficiary needs
assessment reports, and most importantly recommendations for improved national and regional
2011
Page 20 of 52
643525876.doc
cooperation in line with the five HFA priority areas. The events were organized in collaboration with the
UN ISDR Secretariat, the World Meteorological Organization, Hydro-Meteorological Services, and other
relevant disaster and development practitioners; given the crucial roles that these institutions can play in
the establishment of the early warning systems to scientifically assess the risks, vulnerabilities and impact
of risks and hazards.

The National Policy Dialogues for Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania were scheduled in the
period June-July 2010, while the dates of the National Policy Dialogues for Kosovo (as defined under
UNSCR 1244/99), Turkey, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia were postponed to September
2010. This postponement occurred due to the holiday season in the period July-August 2010.
Organisation of National Policy Dialogues during the holiday period would largely undermine the level of
ownership and would impair the quality and substantive nature of the outcomes. All costs related to
organisation of the 8 National Policy Dialogues are reported under Budget Line 5.7.2., except for certain
translation/interpreting costs in relation to NPDs that are reported under Budget Line 5.5. (please refer to
Section 5.6. of the narrative component of the Final report).

Reason for modification for the planned activity

N/A
Results of this activity
8 National Policy Dialogues (Annex 9) held as follows:
a) 7-8 June 2010– Croatia
b) 14-15 June 2010– Albania
c) 21-22 June 2010– Bosnia and Herzegovina
d) 7-8 September 2010- Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)
e) 11 and 12 October 2010– Turkey
f) 25 and 26 October 2010– Serbia
g) 15 November 2010- Macedonia (FYRo)
h) 24, 25 and 26 November 2010 – Montenegro (NOTE: Montenegro was initially planned for 8 and
9 October 2010. Unfortunately, the project faced unexpected delays beyond UNDP control. The
responsible Ministry, namely Deputy Minister of Interior, was out of the country until 8 th October
and was able to confirm the dates only upon his return).
In addition, to 8 National Policy Dialogues, a pre-workshop on Disaster Risk Reduction was held
in Turkey, 11-12 March 2010, Ankara, Turkey.
Both the level of participation and the quality of inputs obtained and ensured were at the highest
levels (i.e. pro-active participation of Deputy Prime Minister in Kosovo, BiH Parliament,
Government of Croatia, Deputy Minister in Montenegro, etc.). Attached is the list of endorsed
NPD recommendations for 8 IPA beneficiaries (Annex 10).
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
Albania
The National Policy Dialogue was held in Albania on 14-15 July 2010. The Dialogue included
participation of the Deputy Minister, Ministry of Interior, General Director of Civil Emergencies within
the Ministry of Interior, Director of the Institute of Energy, Water and Environment, Albanian Red Cross
Society, Albanian Air Force, Institute of GeoSciences, and a number of other key partners, as well as
UNDP’s Albania Country Director. The draft IPA beneficiary needs assessment report was presented by
the Albanian national consultant, followed by constructive discussion and adoption of National Policy
Dialogue Recommendations.
The key recommendations for Albania included:

2011
Page 21 of 52
643525876.doc
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is placed high at the national and level priority local including
institutional and legal frameworks for effective implementation
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance existing early warning through 24/7 HMS
and Seismology and inclusion of climate change in the national Strategy for Disaster Risk
Reduction
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through establishment of Training Centres
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors through development of HMS and Seismology centres and
services
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through awareness and
education, partnership with private sector and training
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The National Policy Dialogue in Bosnia and Herzegovina was held on 21 and 22 June 2010 in Sarajevo in
the BiH Parliament Assembly Building, and was chaired by the representatives of the Parliament. The
Dialogue gathered around 60 practitioners in the country in the field of disaster risk reduction, response
and development, and proved to be an excellent expert forum that included substantive feedback and
discussion on the technical contents and the actual needs of the country. The second day of the Dialogue
included political support from the BiH Parliament members and the endorsement of the
recommendations that were discussed and prepared at the end of Day 1 – expert forum of the Dialogue.
Moreover, the Dialogue served as a solid platform for discussion among disaster and development
practitioners on the next steps and how to strengthen the DRR system in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The following recommendations have been endorsed:
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional
basis for implementation through legislation reforms, establishment of National Platform and
effective planning
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through strengthening of
HMS and Seismology centres and development of national strategy for disaster risk reduction
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through improved education and awareness raising plans
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors through development of plans and mainstreaming of disaster
risk reduction into national development strategies (i.e. IPA MIPD) and establishment of trust
fund
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through building resilient
communities, partnership with private sector and NGOs.

Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)

The Kosovo Policy Dialogue was held on 7 and 8 September 2010 and proved to be one of the most
successful in terms of pro-active role of the Government and national ownership of the process. The
revision of the assessment report including the incorporation of the inputs and comments was led by the
Deputy Minister and the government working group. A number of issues have been raised such as the
mandate and the need for establishment of the DRM agency. The Needs assessment report will serve a as
baseline for establishment of a new department or agency that will develop a strategy for DRR including
disaster risk assessment. Kosovo will need further support to build human resources and train experts on
HFA, its requirements, ISDR and EU requirements.
Key Recommendations were endorsed at the NPD as follows:
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis
for implementation through establishment of National Platform, mainstreaming of disaster risk
reduction into development plans, establishment and development of relevant institutions
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through development of risk
assessments, improved EWS and communication system, establishment of HMS and Seismology
centres

2011
Page 22 of 52
643525876.doc
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through education and training centres
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors through development of risk reduction plans, monitoring
systems and effective coordination at regional level
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through development of
National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, awareness raising and education plans, community
participation and partnership with private sector.
Montenegro
The draft needs assessment report for Montenegro was completed by mid-September 2010 and distributed
to key national partners for review and input. Although the National Policy Dialogue was initially
scheduled for mid-October 2010, unfortunately, the dates of the NPD could not be confirmed due to
absence of the representative of key partner institution from the country, namely the Ministry of Interior
of Montenegro. Despite numerous consultations, the date could not be set before the Deputy Minister
returned to the country after 8 October 2010. The National Policy Dialogue in Montenegro was scheduled
for 24-26 November 2010 in Kolasin, Montenegro. The Dialogue gathered 42 practitioners As a three day
event, the Dialogue served as a solid platform for discussion among disaster and development
practitioners and had set solid ground for strengthening DRR activities in the country. In the frame of
National Policy Dialogue, a separate session was organised on Introduction to the concept of a national
platform for DRR (NP), which served to familiarize the stakeholders with the NP related-process as well
as to provide guidance on strengthening of the DRR system in the country.
Key recommendations were endorsed as follows:
6. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional
basis for implementation through development of by-laws regulating disaster risk reduction and
management, establishment of a national platform for DRR, clarification of roles and mandates,
development of national disaster risk plans and establishment of national financial instruments.
7. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through establishment of a
national communication centre, development of risk assessment at all levels and harmonisation of
methodologies for risk assessment
8. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through raising awareness of risk reduction into curriculum, development of awareness raising
strategy and harmonisation of national terminology with the UNISDR DRR related terminology.
9. Reduce the underlying risk factors through mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into
development plans and include DRR into Government Plans for Informal Settlements
10. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through development of
national capacities, community participation and legislation reform

FYR of Macedonia
Although planned for 21 and 22 October 2010, the National Policy Dialogue in FYR of Macedonia had to
be postponed as previously scheduled dates for the Dialogue coincided with the dates of Regional IPA
Multi-beneficiary meeting in Brussels and SEESAC Exercise. Consequently, the National Policy
Dialogue was postponed to November 15, 2011 in order to secure the participation of key national
counterparts at the event.
On November 15, the DRR consultant presented the draft Needs Assessment report and reflected on the
main findings as well as recommendations on strengthening the DRR system in the FYR of Macedonia.
The Dialogue gathered 31 participants. The draft report was well received by participants and the event
resulted in a constructive discussion that, among other topics, included the issue of potential duplication
of roles of two key national institutions in the field of DRM - namely the Crisis Management Centre and
the Directorate for Rescue and Protection. These issues were openly brought up at the event and
subsequently led to initiation of meetings and launch of dialogue between the mentioned institutions on
this particular issue. At the NPD it was agreed that the report, along with the Recommendations, would
be distributed to all participants and other stakeholders who did not take part in the event for provision of
comments. On the second day of the National Policy Dialogue a site visit to the Strumica micro region
2011
Page 23 of 52
643525876.doc
was organized for participants of the NPD interested in the site visit. Strumica micro region is a pilot
project aimed at strengthening the capacities of the crisis management system in the country,
implemented by UNDP Macedonia. The activities implemented in Strumica include: strengthening of the
capacities for crisis preparedness of selected schools through “Train the Trainers” module, installation of
evacuation plans, panic installation, first aid kits, training drills etc, vulnerability and capacity assessment
in the municipalities, preparation of hazard maps, trainings on protection and self-protection of women
and disabled persons and awareness raising.

Key Recommendations were endorsed as follows:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional
basis for implementation through integration of disaster risk reduction into the development plans
and polices, adjustments of the national legislations and strengthening of the coordination role of
National Platform
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through risk analysis and
monitoring plans, establishment of fully functional EWS and a 112 centre.
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to strengthen the culture of safety and resilience at all
levels through increase of central, regional and municipal capacities, trainings and education,
establishment of observatory for DRR and education.
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors through establishment of risk identification, analysis and
monitoring and enhanced role and cooperation of HMS in monitoring and EWS
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through risk assessment and
development of EWS including capacities for monitoring, warning, forecasting and mapping if
hazards.
Serbia
The National Policy Dialogue in Serbia was held on 25-26 October in Belgrade and gathered 53
participants. Key topics for discussion included current situation in the field of DRR in the country as
well as the need for improved coordination and clarification of responsibilities among different
stakeholders. The governing of emergency response and protection has been transferred to civil sector
from the Ministry of Defence, which traditionally was responsible for civil defence issues in all countries
of the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, the transition process from defence to civil sector in Serbia has been
ongoing for the past four years while the capacities and human resources remain limited (i.e. only 4
people remain employed in the Department for Emergency Response and Protection of the Ministry of
Interior). Following constructive discussion, recommendations for building the national capacities in the
field of DRM and DRR were endorsed by participants at the event. With UNDP support, the Ministry of
Interior of Serbia engaged a National Disaster Risk Advisor to start work on development of a National
Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Protection. In addition, the requirements for improved regional
cooperation have been identified and endorsed.

Key Recommendations were endorsed as follows:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional
basis for implementation through strengthened coordination, planning and management and
establishment of a National Platform
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through enhanced EWS and
establishment of 112 system and strengthening of seismological survey.
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through development of national curriculum for DRR, strengthened inter ministerial and agency
coordination and development of a National training centre
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors trough development of National Strategy for Disaster Risk
reduction and efficient sectors’ plans
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through establishment of
Regional centre for Emergency Management to include as research, education and training

Turkey
2011
Page 24 of 52
643525876.doc
Pre-workshop on Disaster Risk Reduction was held on 11 and 12th of March 2010 at the Dedeman
Hotel, Ankara, Turkey with participation of 54 representatives of relevant governmental and other
agencies. Key objectives of the pre-workshop were as follows:

1. to align the disaster risk reduction (DRR) works carried out within country in different thematic areas
(namely: policy and strategy, legal framework, plans, organizations and structure for DRR, development,
finance, civil society, private sector, information management, capacity development, early warning,
preparedness, gender issues, cooperation, key stakeholders, etc) with regards to gathering relevant
information required to develop IPA beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for Turkey,

2. to assist key partners and stakeholders to understand and take ownership of the Regional DRR project
goals and objective, as well as finalize consultative process with the national DRR authorities;

3. to identify DRR expertise available in Turkey for undertaking appropriate assessment foreseen under
Regional Programme on Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe;

Outcomes of the Pre-workshop were reflected in the draft IPA beneficiary needs assessment report for
Turkey.

The RDRR Project covered workshop organizing costs which included accommodation costs for
participants from outside of Ankara, meals, refreshments, meeting room and technical equipment rental.
The pre-workshop report including the Agenda, and the List of Participants is enclosed as Annex 45. The
costs related to organization of the Pre-workshop are reported under Budget Line 5.7.2.
National Policy Dialogue in Turkey was initially scheduled for 11 and 12 September 2010, and
postponed based on the request of the Government due to Ramadan and Eid holidays. The period from 1
July to 30 September was allocated for preparation for the National Policy Dialogue, including
development of the agenda, preparation and translation of the draft IPA beneficiary needs assessment
report into Turkish for distribution, confirmation of the list of invitees and dispatch of invitation letters;
finalization of other logistical requirements and visit to national partners to ensure high level participation
at the event.

The National Policy Dialogue in Turkey was held on 11 and 12 October 2010. The Dialogue gathered 194
participants from different institutions and resulted in a constructive discussion on the draft needs
assessment report and concrete suggestions for the next steps. The concept of having a working group
session for discussion of the Recommendations for future actions in DRR in Turkey addressing the five
Hyogo Framework for Action priorities proved to be excellent and the most effective format of the NPD
in Turkey as it allowed for participation of all technical staff from various agencies. In addition, Turkey
Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (DEMP) and certain number of other institutions have
been restructured to address country’s needs and to centralise responsibilities under direct supervision of
the Turkey Prime Ministry.

Key recommendations were endorsed as follows:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation through improved comprehensive planning and
programming and establishment of a National Platform
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning through strengthening of
HMS and seismology services, legislation adjustments and enhanced EWS and 112 centre
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels
through curriculum, awareness raising and establishment of a National Training centre
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors through integration of DRR into policies, plans and
programms, develop and integrated climate change capacities and development of National
Strategy and Action Plan for DRR
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels through strengthening the role
of media, public campaigns, partnership with private sector and establishment of National
Exercise Simulation Centre (NESC)
2011
Page 25 of 52
643525876.doc
Croatia

The National Policy Dialogue in Croatia was held on 7 and 8 June 2010. The first day of the Dialogue
gathered experts who jointly worked through the draft report and recommendations that were politically
supported on 8 June by the appointed Government Official Mr. Damir Trut - currently the Director of the
Croatia National Protection and Rescue Directorate. The Dialogue gathered 50 participants from the
National Protection and Rescue Directorate, State Hydro-meteorological Service, Seismology Service,
Central Office for Development Strategy and Coordination of EU Funds- CODEF, Ministry of
Environment Protection, Spatial Planning and Construction, Ministry of Culture, and Ministry of Science,
Education and Sport, among others. The recommendations will be discussed by the Government and
should be adopted as a decision by the Government of Croatia.

Key Recommendations were endorsed as follows:

1. To encourage all existing disaster risk reduction actors in Croatia, as defined by the existing legal
framework, to work together and invest additional efforts in recognizing and fulfilling existing
disaster risk reduction tasks and responsibilities
2. To strengthen o the National Platform to advocate for disaster prevention and disaster risk
reduction; provides coordination, analysis and advice on areas of priority; and undertakes
strategic DRR planning and management
3. To facilitate and support establishment of mirrored/similar/same mechanisms at the county and
local self-government levels through strengthening and reinforcing local capacities, institutions
and governance capabilities
4. To enhance the early warning system and interoperability of the System 112
5. To strengthen technical and human resources of the State Seismological Survey
6. To enhance technical and human resources of the Meteorological and Hydrological Service in
operational monitoring, warning, forecasting and mapping of hydrological, meteorological and
ecological risks
7. To further strengthen operational cooperation of the National Protection and Rescue Directorate
and the Hydrological and Meteorological Service
8. To enhance investments in climate modeling and forecasting and analysis to support strategic and
sector planning for at-risk sectors
9. To increase the awareness of the citizens and media regarding the early warning system and the
European Emergency Number 112
10. The Ministry for Science, Education and Sport is mandated to mainstream disaster risk reduction
into national educational curriculum by establishing Curriculum Revision Working Group
composed of the representatives from the Ministry for Science, Education and Sport, from the
National Protection and Rescue Directorate, Meteorological and Hydrological Service, the
Republic Seismological Survey, other respective line Ministries, the Croatian Red Cross, expert
organizations and individuals
11. To develop the disaster risk reduction Strategy and corresponding Implementation/Action Plan
12. To develop national capacities for climate services to support medium and long-term sector
planning
13. To proceed with the establishment, in Croatia, of the Centre of Excellence for a training of fire
fighters and coordination of response to forest fires in the countries of South Eastern Europe,

Activity 2.2. National Policy Dialogue for National Platform establishment/strengthening

Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:

3 National Platform Trainings were organized in 3 IPA beneficiaries in 2011, with the aim of launching
the dialogue, discussion and exchange of experiences on the establishment of National Platform for
Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as identification of priorities in compliance with the HFA requirements.
The events were organized in collaboration with the UN ISDR Secretariat and UNDP Capacity for
Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI), with representation of relevant disaster and development
practitioners, as well as academia and civil society representatives.
2011
Page 26 of 52
643525876.doc
While some IPA beneficiaries have a national platform established, others do not, and some have other
coordination mechanisms in place. Initially, it was planned to hold National Platform trainings alongside
National Policy Dialogues. However, UNISDR was not available to provide technical support during the
implementation of 2010 National Policy Dialogues; instead, UNISDR was available only on the
following dates:

 Montenegro - 18-20 April 2011

 Kosovo (as defined by UNSCR 1244/99) - 24-27 May 2011
 Albania - end June 2011
 Serbia and Turkey dates remained to be confirmed

National Platforms in Macedonia and Croatia have been established. For BiH, the National Coordination
Body has been established in 2009 and for the time being it serves as a National DRR Platform.

Based on the request of DUZS (National Protection and Rescue Directorate of the Republic of Croatia)
addressed to the Regional DRR project through UNDP Croatia, the RDRR project covered design and
printing costs of the Croatia National Platform material, as support to organization of the 2 nd meeting of
Croatian National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction held on 14-15 October 2010 in Zagreb, Croatia.
Croatia National Platform material included design and printing of Croatian National Platform for DRR
flyer (300 copies), as well as design and printing of a brochure titled: Children and Youth in Rescue and
Protection (300 copies) (Annex 44). This support to Croatian NP for DRR was considered as one ½ of
unit rate in the financial component of the final report. Croatian DUZS covered costs of the venue,
catering and coffee breaks for organization of above mentioned NP meeting. These costs are reported
under Budget Line 5.7.2. in the Financial report.

Reason for modification for the planned activity

National Platform training for Turkey was not implemented due to the fact that Turkey National Platform
for Disaster risk reduction was officially established on 12 February 2011. Hence, based on national
priorities for 2011, key project counterparts in Turkey did not express a need for the NP training in the
course of the project.
Even though Albania counterparts initially expressed interest in implementation of a National Platform
workshop, during discussion with project counterparts in April 2011, respective national counterparts
declined their interest in the workshop due to the fact that focus of their work in 2011 was on revision of
the existing Disaster Risk Reduction strategy. Subsequently, the National Strategy would stipulate the
role and tasks of the National Platform. All costs related to organisation of the 3 National Platform
Workshops are reported under Budget Line 5.7.2., except for the cost of translation services during
implementation of the National Platform training in Serbia, which is reported under Budget Line 5.5.
(please refer to Section 5.6. of the narrative component of the Final report).
Results of this activity
3 National Platform Trainings held as follows:
a) 18-20 April – Montenegro
b) 14-15 June – Serbia
c) 30 June-01 July – Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)
d) As support to 2nd meeting of Croatian National Platform for DRR held on 14-15 October 2010,
design and printing of Croatian National Platform for DRR flyer (300 copies), as well as design and
printing of a brochure titled: Children and Youth in Rescue and Protection (300 copies).
Both the level of participation and the quality of inputs provided at the events were high.
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
Montenegro

2011
Page 27 of 52
643525876.doc
The National Platform Training was held in Becici, Montenegro on 18-20 April 2011 and was facilitated
by UNISDR. The training served as excellent platform for discussion on the rationale for establishment of
the National DRR Platform in Montenegro, its scope of work, composition, and steps for setting up
National Platform, followed by presentation of Croatia National Platform Case Study and thematic
discussions (Annex 11).
Serbia
The National Platform Training in Serbia was held on 15-16 June 2011 in Belgrade, Serbia, facilitated by
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), UNDP Capacity for Disaster Reduction
Initiative (CADRI) and UNDP Serbia, with Italian National Platform serving as resource National
Platform. The NP Training proved to be an excellent expert forum that included substantive feedback and
discussion on the technical contents and the actual needs of the country. The second day of the Dialogue
included case study of the Italian National Platform followed by presentations of UNISDR and UNDP on
institutional support to National Platforms and presentation by CADRI individual roles in developing a
National Platform (Annex 12).
Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99)
The Kosovo National Platform Training was held on 30 June-01 July 2011 and proved to be one of the
most successful in terms of proactive role of the Government and national ownership of the process. The
event gathered around 25 participants, as well as representatives of the Swiss National Platform on DRR
and a number of UN agencies. As a two day event, the Platform served as a solid platform for discussion
among disaster and development practitioners on the DRR system in Kosovo and rationale for
establishment of the National Platform in Kosovo, as well as on further support to build human resources
and train experts on HFA, its requirements, as well as ISDR and EU requirements. The event also set
solid ground for further DRR activities in the country (Annex 13).
Activity 3.1.: Preparation of the Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy for South East Europe,
with focus on Western Balkans and Turkey
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In line with the approved revision of the Annex 1“Description of the Action”, and Activity 3.1, for
development of the Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy, draft South East Europe Disaster Risk
Reduction Strategy Outline was developed in the period August-September 2011. The document was
developed based on findings and recommendations of the needs assessment reports achieved under
Activity 2.1., as well as the Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessments in the SEE region
produced under Activity 5.2. The document outlines a comprehensive framework to define strategic
priorities and action areas for reducing disaster risks in the SEE region. In addition, it aims to enhance
institutional capacities, coordination mechanisms and monitoring arrangements to support
implementation of disaster risk reduction measures and climate adaptation actions at the sub-regional,
national and local level. All costs related to implementation of Activity 3.1. are reported under Budget
Line 1.2.6.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
One of conclusions of the Regional DRR Project Steering Committee meeting held on 30 March, 2011
(Annex 35), was that the development of a strategy is a very lengthy consultative process that requires a
team or even the establishment of a task force from the region to produce a strategic document that all
IPA beneficiaries would endorse and adhere to. Hence, it was agreed that the project team focuses on
ensuring the development of a high-quality product in the form of a Strategic Outline that will define a set
of strategic, realistic and achievable objectives and goals for regional cooperation in disaster risk
reduction. To that end, it was agreed to utilize the findings of the Regional Cooperation Proposal in DRR
in SEE for that purpose. The Draft Strategy Outline at the Regional Ministerial Conference held on 12-13
September 2011.
Results of this activity:
1. Draft South East Europe Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy Outline (Annex 15) that identifies key
strategic priorities for the countries of Western Balkans and Turkey including actions required.

2011
Page 28 of 52
643525876.doc
 a) STRATEGIC PRIORITY 1: Strengthen commitment for comprehensive disaster risk reduction
across sectors
b) STRATEGIC PRIORITY 2: Develop capacities to identify, assess and monitor disaster risks
and strengthen early warning systems
c) STRATEGIC PRIORITY 3: Build resilience through knowledge, advocacy, research and
trainings
d) STRATEGIC PRIORITY 4: Improve accountability for implementing disaster risk reduction
and climate adaptation actions
e) STRATEGIC PRIORITY 5: Integrate disaster risk reduction into emergency response,
preparedness and recovery

Overall monitoring and coordination responsibilities are expected to lie with the DPPI SEE, national
disaster and emergency management authorities, national hydro meteorological services, the RCC, EU,
the United Nations system, including its specialized agencies and especially the UNDP Country Offices,
the World Bank and GFDRR, in line with section 4 of the document.

Baseline indicators to monitor the Strategy’s implementation will be developed through a proposed five-
year Regional Programme of Action and aligned with the global HFA Progress Monitoring and Reporting
Framework’s indicators3.

To facilitate effective monitoring of the implementation of the Strategy, the EU and RCC encourage
countries to participate in the global biennial HFA monitoring and progress reporting process by
reviewing national multi-sectoral progress on disaster risk reduction, and submitting national progress
reports through the online tool; the HFA Monitor4.

Activity 3.2. DPPI Capacity Assessment

Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In line with the initial Project Action Plan, the terms of reference under this activity were envisaged to
include only SWOT analysis of DPPI. However, based on discussion with the EC and project partners
held in March 2010 and later in May 2010, the scope of the terms of reference was expanded to conduct
Institutional capacity assessment of the DPPI that focused on:
a) Human resources and financial capacity
b) Legal basis
c) Review and assessment of the Strategy and Action Plan for DPPI
d) Development of Road Map/Strategic Goals for DPPI 2011-2014
Following the revision of the ToR in April 2010, the discussions were held with DPPI and Regional
Cooperation Council on the scope of the task, which led to the conclusion that the scope of the
assessment was too broad and comprehensive for a single consultant. Hence, ToR has been revised again,
and re-modified into Request for Proposal for provision of consultancy services for conducting
Institutional Capacity Assessment of Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative (DPPI). (Annex 16)
As reported in the 3rd Quarterly progress report for 2010, pages 6 and 7, the changes to the ToR and scope
of DPPI institutional capacity assessment were discussed and agreed with the EC, RCC and DPPI SEE.
The changes entailed engagement of the consultancy company instead of a single consultant. The
procurement process for provision of consultancy services for Act. 3.2. was conducted in competitive
manner and in line with UNDP procedures that include public advertisements in the region (each of 8
UNDP country offices also had advertised the Request for Quotations nationally). However, the process
resulted in receipt of only one offer from the Balkans Institute for Emergency Management (BIEM).
After international advertisement over the period July-August 2010, and re-advertisement, a consultancy
firm – Balkans Institute for Risk Assessment and Emergency Management (BIEM) - was engaged in
3
Hyogo Framework for Action Monitoring at the national level website:
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring/hfa-monitor/?pid:73&pil:1
4
HFA Monitor website: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/hfa-monitoring/national/?pid:73&pih:2
2011
Page 29 of 52
643525876.doc
August 2011 as a consultancy company to perform the task. The Assessment included visits and extensive
consultation with DPPI member states. Draft report of the DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment was
developed in March 2011, and presented at the last DPPI SEE Regional meeting held in Sarajevo, on 29
March 2011 for overview and discussion. Following the presentation of the key findings and
recommendations, the document was submitted to DPPI member states for final review in the 2 nd quarter
of 2011. Comments submitted by DPPI member states were incorporated in the final version of the
document, followed by design, production and distribution of the document to DPPI member states in
September 2011.
The DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment report was endorsed at the Project Steering Board (RCC,
DPPI CiO, DPPI Secretariat and EU) meeting held on 30th March 2011 (please refer to Annex 35 for more
detailed information).

The Institutional Capacity Assessment of Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative (DPPI)
conducted under Act. 3.2.:

 was endorsed at the DPPI Regional meeting held in March 2011;

 was acknowledged by both DPPI Chair in Office and representative of the RCC as a comprehensive
documents that will serve as a Book of Rules and baseline document for development and/or revision
of Memorandum of Understanding that regulates the cooperation and contribution of the DPPI
members;
 had undergone three rounds for comments by the member states before its finalization and as such
represents opinions of members states and not of BIEM’s or UNDP’s;
 UNDP Project Team attended number of consultations and DPPI regional meetings to ensure that the
content of the Report reflects the DPPI member states opinions, recommendations and suggestions;
 Based on the findings of the Capacity Assessment Report and recommendations of the RCC the
following documents were developed: a) Rules of Procedures and b) Financial management protocol.
This activity was co-funded by DPPI with their contribution of 5,000 USD for the engagement of
legal experts.

The document was included on CDs in 240 copies and distributed to respective RDRR Project
beneficiaries through the DPPI SEE Secretariat.

All costs related to implementation of Act 3.2. are reported under Budget Line 1.2.7., except for the cost
of proofreading, design and printing of the DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment (please refer to
Section 5.4. of this report for more detailed information). This publication was printed on CDs in 240
copies and distributed to RDRR project beneficiaries through the DPPI SEE Secretariat.

Reason for modification for the planned activity

N/A

Results of this activity

DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment (Annex 17) with key recommendations as follows:

The Future priorities of the DPPI SEE should be to:

• serve as a regional DRR network and facilitator for issues of disaster preparedness, prevention and
management the region of SEE;
• support ongoing efforts of member countries to develop and enforce adequate national responses to
disaster preparedness, prevention and management disaster policy and legislation in line with the EU,
UNISDR, UNDP and the international community;
• strengthen and enhance bilateral, multilateral, sub-regional and regional cooperation and facilitate the
adoption of bilateral and regional agreements between the SEE countries and the exchange of
information and good practice of disaster preparedness, prevention and management at all levels of
DRR authorities and the relevant ministries of these countries, as mutually agreed and in accordance
with national policies;
2011
Page 30 of 52
643525876.doc
• establish and maintain close cooperation with the UNDP, WB and EU ;
• assess the practices and efficiency of National Platforms for DRR and issues related to disaster
preparedness, prevention and management;
• contribute to the establishment/development of a Regional Platform and Strategy for disaster
preparedness, prevention and response;
• strengthen national and regional capacities to improve disaster preparedness, prevention, response
and recovery efforts.

Particular emphasis is required in a number of areas:

 The rapidly growing need to integrate or link climate change adaptation and DRR at all levels
throughout the world. This issue should be regarded as a matter of great urgency for the SEE
region.

 Each country and region as well as the international community should invest greater effort in the
attempt to mitigate urban risks and mitigation measures, such as land-use planning, management
of disaster-prone human settlements, enhanced knowledge and capacities for effective disaster
management, should also be considered. The ISDR Global Campaign for Building Resilient
Cities 2010-2011 (My City is Getting Ready) should thus facilitate and stimulate active
participation of stakeholders, including local government and civil society organisations
regarding the mitigation of urban risks.

 Advanced technology should be further exploited to help establish, maintain and bring together
high-quality research and practice. To this end, it is vital to further strengthen policy-making and
institutional capacities at various levels: regional, national, local and community.

 A large gap remains between industrialised and industrialising nations in terms of their ability to
cope with and mitigate disaster vulnerabilities. Thus, continued attention at the policy level is
required in order to enhance the capacity of people and communities through training, education
and the exchange of good practice, new technology and innovative ideas.

 In light of the growing importance of disaster‐related activities at the sub‐regional and regional
level cooperation should be further encouraged in order to facilitate the exchange of knowledge in
relation to progress made and challenges faced with a view to strengthening cooperative and
supportive relationships between countries and between sub‐regions.

Activity 4.1. Provide support to development of the disaster risk management capacities in IPA
beneficiaries
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In cooperation with the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, six DRR Capacity Assessment
Missions were implemented within the framework of Activity 4.1., with twofold aim: 1) engaging key
stakeholders, including the National Disaster Management Organisation, in developing and formulating
common vision for effective DRR system, and 2) development of recommendations to UNDP and other
DRR donors working on the scene. Enclosed are the Terms of Reference for Disaster Risk Reduction
Capacity Assessments and Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Assessment-Mission and UNDP
requirements for reference (Annex 18 and Annex 19).

DRR Capacity Assessment Missions were conducted for the following IPA beneficaries:
- Kosovo (as defined by UNSCR 1244/99) - 28 March– 01 April 2011
- FYR of Macedonia - 21 March-01 April 2011
- Albania - 4-9 April 2011
- Montenegro –16-22 April 2011
- Serbia – 23-27 May 2011
- Turkey –1-3 June 2011

2011
Page 31 of 52
643525876.doc
Following implementation of DRR Capacity Missions, DRR Capacity Assessment reports were
developed for the 6 IPA beneficiaries that also served as baseline for Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity
Development Guidelines for Western Balkans and Turkey that were developed and distributed to all 8
IPA beneficiaries in September 2011. The Guidelines were based on four sets of key documents,
produced in 2010-2011 within the project namely: 1) Needs Assessment Reports for 8 IPA beneficiaries,
2) DRR Capacity Assessment Reports for 6 IPA beneficiaries, 3) Institutional Capacity Assessment of
Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South Eastern Europe (DDPI SEE), and 4) Draft
South Eastern Europe Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy Outline. The Guidelines are applicable to eight
IPA beneficiaries in the region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo 5, Macedonia (FYRo),
Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey), and focus on capacity development to attain economies of scale in
delivery and promote harmonization of approaches.  Additionally, the document addresses the issue of
capacity development for regional institutions, building on the achievements made by DPPI SEE in the
region. All costs related to implementation of Activity 4.1. are reported under Budget Line 1.2.8. in the
Modified Budget as of notification letter dated 01 July 2011.

Results of this activity

- 6 DRR Capacity Assessment reports (Annex 20)

- Disaster Risk Reduction Capacity Development Guidelines (Annex 21)

Recommendations in accordance with HFA priorities are as follows:

HFA 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with strong institutional basis
for implementation

 Regional awareness campaign on DRR with an emphasis on prevention.

 Revision of existing legislation (including secondary legal acts) with inclusion of DRR concepts
into the existing sectoral and relevant legislation with clear roles and responsibilities for
coordination at regional level and utilization of DRR European platform and DPPI.
 Development of regional gender sensitive DRR policy.
 Participation in the UNISDR ‘Safer Cities’ campaign and organization of information exchanges
and study tours at municipal level.
 Translation of UNISDR terminology guide on DRR in national languages and formal adoption by
national authorities, leading to better regional understanding of specific terminology used.
 Advocacy for fixed (%) annual budget allocations for DRR in national budgets, as well as
allocation from national budgets of fixed (%) for regional DRR activities, possibly through DPPI
or European Platform for DRR.
 Development of regionally coordinated National DRR Strategies with attached Action Plan and
commitment from the Governments for the funding and implementation or regional activities.
 Identification of mechanisms for DRR capacity exchanges in the region, including financial and
technical means, including bilateral and triangular partnerships on specific issues within the
region. Consideration to be given to the existing capacity in Turkey and openness for sharing
existing experiences.

HFA 2: Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning

 Develop unified regional risk assessment methodology using experience of GRIP and
requirements of EC.
 Consider establishment of a Regional Risk Information System, with technical support from
GRIP.
 Establish a Regional Disaster Observatory (RDO) to enhance region’s capacity for
disaster/emergency preparedness and response, with technical support from GRIP. RDO is an

5
As per UN GA Resolution 1224.
2011
Page 32 of 52
643525876.doc
 institutional arrangement for systematically collecting, storing, analyzing and interpreting
disaster-related data for decision-making in risk and disaster management.
 Develop and deliver regional technical training courses focusing on risk assessment and decision-
making, and aiming towards the standardization of risk assessment methodologies in the region.
 Establish cross-border partnerships and start dialogue to enhance climate risk assessment and
management, with technical support from GRIP and CADRI.
 Design a framework for regional early warning system with focus on transboundary hazards.
 Enhance regional capacity and information exchange between respective seismic services in the
region.
 Develop comprehensive regional risk profile with mechanisms for regular update and
maintenance.

HFA 3: Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels.

 Design and implementation of DRR public awareness campaign, focusing on reducing risk-
enhancing behaviours and including the use of the media (radio, newspaper, social media, mobile
communications and television) as well as the Internet. Ensure broad participation of all national
and regional stakeholders in the campaign. Regional DRR public awareness strategy document
would be useful alongside attached action plan and confirmed funding from member states.
 Translate the 2009 UNISDR DRR terminology into national and regional languages and have
commonly agreed regional terminology. Widely disseminate it as part of the above-mentioned
campaign.
 Initiate regional discussion on inclusion of DRR into school curricula at different levels at
regional scale.
 Design and deliver regional training programme for teachers on DRR, preparedness and response,
alongside training of trainers.
 Initiate discussion on identifying a regional capacity to serve as an academic think tank for DRR
in the region to work with academia, on job training, face to face and on line training
programmes.
 Advocate for regional partnership on establishment of regional seismic awareness/engineering
MA programme based on experiences from Turkey and Macedonia.
 Advocate for regional approach to DRR among other regional stakeholders, such as UNICEF,
National Red Cross/Crescent Societies, etc.
 Identify specific role for media in DRR, preparedness and response at regional level. Develop and
deliver regional awareness raising course for media on DRR.

HFA 4: Reduce the underlying risk factors.

 Organise trainings for the technical staff of relevant national institutions (environment,
agriculture, water management, energy, tourism, land management, special planning, etc.) and
also at municipality level in mainstreaming DRR/CCA/ES in long term plans using the national
risk assessment results.
 Advocate for standard regional microzonation lands and territories in line with Eurocodes
construction and land management requirements. Advocacy campaign for enforced regional
compliance with building codes, followed by recommendations of incentives and punishments for
compliance and violation respectively of building codes.
 Promote the UNISDR campaign on safer schools and hospitals at regional level.
 Further develop regional capacity and methodology to assess stability of critical and lifeline
facilities against earthquakes (schools, hospitals, bridges, tunnels, etc.)
 Identify three main categories of critical facilities at regional level and conduct their assessment
based on the agreed regional methodology. Ensure issuance of technical passports of the seismic
condition and general condition of the buildings. This can be initiated first with study tours to see
best practices in Armenia and Tajikistan.
 Increase the involvement of the private sector in DRR activities building on achievements already
made in promoting public private partnerships.

2011
Page 33 of 52
643525876.doc
HFA 5: Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

 Develop national contingency plans for three main types of hazards and synthesize those into a
regional contingency plan of the most common three hazards in the region.
 Develop regional training strategy and action plan and conduct regional rescue and response
exercises based on risk assessments and contingency plans available.
 Develop Standard Operational Procedures for all stakeholders involved in disaster response –
clarifying roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders and regional response coordination system,
with particular focus on civil society and private sector organizations.
 Provide tools and training for at regional level on recovery including pre-disaster recovery
planning and PDNA methodologies.
 Advocate for establishment of regional Crisis Management Centre for regional preparedness and
response operations.
 Advocate for regional legal framework for disaster response.
 Identify necessity and feasibility of establishment of regional (transboundary) 112 service.

Reason for modification for the planned activity

Development of Disaster Risk Management Capacity Development Guidelines for Western Balkans and
Turkey requires comprehensive assessment of capacities and needs of national disaster (risk) management
agencies/directorates, to be utilised as basis for Guidelines’ development. IPA beneficiary needs
assessment reports, developed under Project Activity 2.2., provided good insight into capacities, gaps and
needs of the key institutions at the IPA beneficiary level. However, their purpose was not to provide
detailed assessment of institutional, human resource, technical, financial and other capacities of disaster
risk management authorities in 8 IPA beneficiaries from national to local level. In order to obtain this
information, technical support was provided by UNDP BCPR-CADRI team to implement 6 DRR
capacity assessment missions utilising comprehensive Capacity Assessment Methodology developed by
UN Development Group (UNDG) and successfully applied during Capacity Assessment exercise in
Armenia in 2009-2010. The methodology guides assessment of capacities and formulation of capacity
development strategies at the country level.

Even though it was initially planned that DRR Capacity Assessment missions involve all 8 IPA
beneficiaries, Croatia did not express interest in BCPR Capacity assessment mission for reason of its
rather advanced status in DRM/DRR aspect in comparison to other IPA beneficiaries, and the fact that
Croatia respective authorities had other topics on agenda for this period. In addition, in Bosnia and
Herzegovina project has run into obstacle in CA mission implementation due to pending establishment of
the state-level government since October 2010. Based on the findings collected during DRR Capacity
Assessment Missions in the 6 IPA beneficiaries in the region, 6 reports were developed containing key
findings and recommendations for capacity building in 6 countries and regionally. As noted in the Interim
Report for the second year of project’s implementation, UNDP BCPR and CADRI did not charge
consultancy fees for support to project implementation, but only travel and DSA expenses, as part of
regular lump sum payment scheme for external UNDP consultants. These costs are reported under Budget
Line 1.2.8.
Activity 4.2. Enhance the capacities of DPPI
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In line with the approved revision of the Annex 1 “Description of the Action”, Activity 4.2., relates to
support to strengthening DPPI capacities to facilitate regional collaboration and cooperation in the area of
disaster risk management. In this regard, concrete support to DPPI was identified in the form of provision
of twofold technical assistance: 1) development of DPPI host country agreement, and 2) development of
DPPI statute and rules of procedure. Upon recruitment of international consultant in July 2011, draft
documents were developed in consultation with DPPI member states, and shared with all member states
for review and feedback. Official feedback by DPPI member states was provided in August 2011 and
2011
Page 34 of 52
643525876.doc
subsequently incorporated by the consultant into the final DPPI host country agreement, and DPPI statute
and rules of procedure. Final documents - DPPI statute and Rules of procedure - were officially presented
to DPPI member states at 23rd DPPI SEE Regional meeting on 8-9 November 2011, in Sarajevo, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, on which occasion all DPPI member states agreed on the final versions of the documents
and proposed them for official adoption. All countries underlined that the documents are to be utilized as
key instruments in achieving operational effectiveness of the DPPI SEE and it’s Secretariat. Attached is
the Terms for Reference for the engagement of a consultant for reference (Annex 22). All details related to
this engagement are reported under Section 5.2 Management of consultants.
Results of this activity
- DPPI host country agreement (Annex 23)
- DPPI statute and rules of procedure (Annex 24)
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A

Activity 5.1.: Organize regional events aimed at supporting cooperation and a well coordinated
approach of the disaster risk reduction in the SEE region
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In cooperation with the UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) Disaster Risk
Reduction Overview Course was held in Montenegro on 14-18 June 2010, with 46 participants,
including IPA beneficiary institutional counterparts, RDRR project team and DRR focal points as primary
target group. BCPR covered accommodation, breakfast and lunch for five days of training. RDRR
Project covered partial per diems and travel costs (flight tickets and travel by car) for RDRR Project
beneficiaries and UNDP DRR Focal Points. Attached is the Excel List of Participants for reference
(Annex 25). The RDRR Project covered 9 flight tickets/travel by car and 43 per diems for the project’s
beneficiaries and DRR Focal Points and these costs are reported under Budget Line 2.3.1. and 2.3.2. in
the Financial Report. Per diems for Kosovo and Albania participants and RDRR Project Team are
reported under 4.1.2.
The participants from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo (as
defined by UNSCR 1244) Turkey, Moldova and Ukraine, together with UNDP DRR focal points, through
extensive discussion and group work, increased their level of understanding of disaster and development
interface, HFA goals and priorities, and learned more about regional experiences of UNDP in DRR.
Furthermore, through DRR Mainstreaming and Risk Assessment Case Study, followed by risk assessment
exercise, and country level evaluation of existing and previous DRR programmes in the region, extensive
feedback was gathered on the benefits and challenges in the region, and DRR and HFA priorities.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
The activity resulted in a pool of DRR practitioners and key institutional counterparts in the SEE region
conversant with DRR theory and practice in the context of development work in the region.
1. Regional meeting for Strengthening Regional Cooperation in Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate
Services for Disaster Risk Management, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 28-29 March 2011 (with
WMO). In cooperation with WMO, the project provided support to the organization of the WMO
Regional meeting for strengthening Regional Cooperation in Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate
Services for Disaster Risk Management on 28-29 March 2011 in Sarajevo. At the meeting, the Draft
regional cooperation proposal for DRR was presented by UNDP for comments and feedback. During the
discussion, the need for a regional DRR strategy was highlighted. This Regional DRR Strategy should be

2011
Page 35 of 52
643525876.doc
based on a comprehensive framework for disaster risk management including multi-stakeholder and
multi-hazard approach and should identify and prioritize areas for regional cooperation.
UNDP furthermore supported the participation of representatives of Disaster Risk Management (DRM)
Agencies in South East Europe. UNDP component supported travel costs and per diems for
representatives of DRM Agencies from seven IPA beneficiaries, i.e. one representative per IPA
beneficiary (all except from Kosovo as defined under UNSCR 1244/99). The costs were minimized due
to the fact that representatives of DPPI member states attended DPPI Regional Meeting which took place
at the same time (28-29 March 2011). Hence, the support of UNDP component was two-fold and
reflected in ensuring the presence of respective representatives of DRM Agencies at both WMO Regional
Meeting and DPPI Regional Meeting. Total of 6 air tickets/travel by car and 22 per diem were covered
and reported under Budget Line 5.7.1. in the Financial Report. Note: costs of one air ticket for
Macedonian representative were not included as they were not claimed by the participant during the
reporting period. Attached is the List of Participants for reference (Annex 26).
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
The meeting created an opportunity for close interaction between representatives of Disaster Risk
Management (DRM) Agencies and the hydrometeorological service providers (NHMS) as key
stakeholders at the national and regional level highlighting the impact of Climate Change on Disaster
Risk reduction. Consequently, the meeting served to review, discuss and finalize recommendations for a
regional road map for Strengthening Regional Cooperation in Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate
Services for Disaster Risk Management based on the outcomes of national and regional consultations.

During the discussions, the need for a clear regional strategy in DRR highlighting the long-term priorities
for capacity development and cooperation with a corresponding regional action plan for implementation
was highlighted. It was recommended by the participants that this strategy should include the following:
 The regional DRR strategy should be based on a comprehensive framework for disaster risk
management including a multi-stakeholder and multi-hazard approach and should identify and
prioritize concrete areas of regional cooperation;
 The regional DRR strategy should ensure that gaps, needs and priorities are addressed in a
coordinated fashion and with a long-term capacity development perspective;
 The regional strategy would be underpinned with phased project proposals targeted at capacity
development. Various projects in the region supported through bi-lateral and multi-lateral
cooperation should be better integrated and aligned to avoid redundancies and address gaps;
 The strategic priorities for the development of meteorological, hydrological and climate services
should be developed in the context of the SEE regional strategy for DRR;
 The regional DRR strategy must be complemented with corresponding regional agreements and
trans-boundary agreements and regional operational plan (Who, What, When, How and with
whom). More specifically the Regional DRR Strategy and Regional Operational plans should
consider the hazards posing risks across borders in the region, e.g., forest fires, floods, droughts,
heat waves;
 There is a need for multi-stakeholder regional mechanisms to develop a regional strategy, identify
areas of cooperation and develop, monitor and evaluate the regional implementation plan;
 The regional DRR strategy should address cooperation in a number of areas:
a) Harmonisation of risk assessment methodologies, tools and capacities;
b) Coordination and harmonization of EWS for cross border hazards;
c) Sharing of good practices in DRR;
d) Regional Trainings and workshops;
e) Development of regional project proposals and coordination with donors
f) Establishment and/or utilization of Centres of excellence.

2. Initial Regional Conference for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Coordination in

Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe was organized on 01 June 2011, Belgrade, Serbia.
The event gathered 47 key representatives of DRM institutions in the SEE region, i.e. sectors for
2011
Page 36 of 52
643525876.doc
emergency management, and other relevant institutions with the aim of substantive discussion on the
Draft Proposal for Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe and
incorporation of conclusions into Regional DRR Strategy Outline that will be presented at the 2 nd
Regional conference scheduled to take place in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina in September 2011.
Attached is Excel list of participants along with the Agenda, the Invitation letter and the Conclusions
from the meeting for reference (Annex 27). RDRR project covered 3 flight tickets and terminal costs, 1
travel by car, accommodation and full board for 16 representatives from 5 project IPA beneficiaries, as
well as conference organising costs (lunch and refreshment, rental of headphones for simultaneous
interpreting, and simultaneous interpreting services). Travel costs related to this event are reported under
Budget line 2.3.1 while accommodation costs for participants, cost of lunch and refreshment, cost of
rental of 80 headphones for simultaneous interpreting, and simultaneous interpreting services were
claimed under Budget Line 5.7.1.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
 Agreement to Support the establishment of a network of specialized regional centres within the
South-eastern Europe with a primary purpose of training and monitoring in terms of response to
disasters. One regional centre would be located in each of the states and would be specialized for
a certain area of expertise. Attached are Main conclusions from the Conference (Annex 27)

3. Emergency Management Regional Conference for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and

Coordination in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe was held in Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, on 12-13 September 2011, with 77 participants, including key disaster risk
reduction/management stakeholders and authorities from the SEE region, representatives of the
parliament from 7 IPA beneficiaries (all IPA beneficiaries but Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR
1244/99)), representatives from hydro-meteorological institutes in the region, and international
community. Attached is Excel list of participants for reference (Annex 28). RDRR project covered 19
flight tickets/travel by car and accommodation and full board for 29 participants, as well as conference
implementation costs (printing of conference material and supplies, simultaneous interpreting services,
and lunch and refreshment costs). All of these costs are reported under Budget Line 5.7.1.
The participants from Croatia, Macedonia (FYRo), Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Montenegro, together with project partners, were presented with key results and outcomes of the UNDP
Component of Activity 1: Building Capacity in DRR through Regional Cooperation and Collaboration in
South East Europe (SEE). Following presentation from WMO, EC and Assistant Ministers of
Interior/Heads of DRM agencies in the region, panel discussion provided excellent platform for
presentation and discussion on disaster risk reduction issues in South East Europe in the context of
regional cooperation and coordination, as well as capacity building in the region. Panel discussion also
secured platform for presentation of key findings of the IPA beneficiary DRR needs assessment reports
and DRR Capacity Development reports, as well as Draft SEE DRR Strategy Outline and Draft Regional
Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessment in the SEE.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
The meeting created an opportunity for close interaction between representatives of Disaster Risk
Management (DRM) Agencies on identified goals and challenges of the region in the field of DRR,
including defining of next steps towards effective regional cooperation and coordination in the area of
DRR and DRM. The meeting also served to review and discuss IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports,
Draft SEE DRR Strategy Outline and Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessment in the SEE.
During the discussion, overall significance of aforenoted knowledge products was underlined by IPA
beneficiary partners. However, due to the fact that Conference participants did not have sufficient time to
review and provide feedback to Draft SEE DRR Strategy Outline and Draft Regional Strategy for
Disaster Risk Assessment in the SEE, all IPA beneficiary counterparts jointly proposed that UNDP, in
2011
Page 37 of 52
643525876.doc
October 2011, undertakes a round of consultative visits to all 8 IPA beneficiaries in order to obtain any
additional feedback to the knowledge products, and secure final official endorsement of the Draft SEE
DRR Strategy Outline, Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessment and IPA beneficiary DRR
needs assessment reports. As proposed, UNDP committed to organise and lead final consultations in the
month of October 2011. Due to the fact that project end date is 17 September 2011, UNDP BCPR, as
technical support provider to UNDP project, agreed at the Conference to assist the Project team and
UNDP DRR focal points in coordinating consultative visits with the aim of obtaining official
endorsement of IPA beneficiaries to respective project knowledge products.
Despite numerous efforts on the side of Project team to secure participation of key representatives from
Kosovo (as defined by UNSCR 1244/99) at the Regional Conference, Kosovo participants were not able
to attend for administrative reasons. Namely, in accordance with the Conclusion of the Council of
Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, only the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina has the
authority to grant approval for a visa to holders of the “Republic of Kosovo” passport. With this aim,
Project team prepared a letter for the Council of Ministers, with all relevant details about the Conference
and participants, with kind request for Council of Minister’s approval of visa to respective Conference
invitees from Kosovo. However, later on we learned that the letter was not put on the agenda of the
session of the Council of Ministers beginning September. However, UNDP DRR focal point from
Kosovo attended the Conference, and project team ensured that through UNDP DRR focal point all
relevant information and documents are shared with Kosovo Prime Minister Office.
Turkey representatives to the Conference declined their participation in the Conference due to
restructuring of Turkish Emergency Management Directorate (TEMAD) that has been ongoing since the
second half of 2011. In order to minimise the impact of absence of Turkish counterparts at the
Conference, the Project team managed to secure attendance of key official from the Turkish Embassy in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was nominated to attend and pass on all relevant discussion points and
Conference conclusions to TEMAD counterparts. Project team also communicated all relevant
Conference outcomes and follow-up actions to Ms. Katalin Zaim, UNDP DRR Focal Point in Turkey,
who passed the information to key IPA beneficiary counterparts in Turkey.
Activity 5.2.: Regional Disaster Risk Assessment
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In the period May-June 2010, consultations were held with WMO and UNDP GRIP consultant on the
details and structure of UNDP GRIP team and their engagement in implementation of the drought risk
assessment training workshop held in September 2010 in Slovenia, and flood risk assessment training
workshop in Turkey held in October 2010. UNDP GRIP consultant was engaged to cover the aspects of
vulnerability and exposure of the flood and drought risk assessment, followed by an assessment of needs
and gaps for IPA beneficiaries.
The UNDP GRIP consultant made substantial contributions on Day 3 and Day 4 of the two trainings and
focused on the nature of risk assessment process, role of risk identification within Disaster Risk
Management and Disaster Risk Reduction Processes, followed by group work on the assessment of
national-level needs and gaps in this sector, as well as discussion on practical implications of these
processes in each of 8 IPA beneficiaries. Upon training, the UNDP consultant developed draft IPA
beneficiary situation analysis for risk assessment, as key knowledge product under this activity. The
success of the activity highly depends on DRR and DRM officials' willingness, availability and
commitment to advocate for DRR issues in the frame of policy and decision-making discussions in the
region.
WMO in cooperation with UNDP was responsible for organizing the trainings in Slovenia and Turkey
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
a) The Drought Risk Assessment Training was held in Ljubljana from 20 to 24 September 2010 and
has gathered 31 participants from the SEE. IPA beneficiaries were supported in development of situation
analysis reports for risk assessment. The RDRR Project covered the costs for participation (travel and per
diems) of representatives of disaster risk management agencies and the Project Team. In total, the RDRR
2011
Page 38 of 52
643525876.doc
Project covered 7 flight tickets and 36 per diems, as shown in the financial report under Budget Line 2.3.1
and 2.3.2. The List of Participants is provided in Annex 29.
b) The Flood Risk Assessment Training was held in Istanbul from 27 September to 1 October 2010
and has gathered 45 participants from SEE. RDRR Project covered the cost for the participation (travel
and per diems) of representatives of disaster risk management agencies and the Project Team. In total, the
RDRR Project covered 10 flight tickets and 36 per diems which are presented under Budget Line 2.3.1
and 2.3.2 in the financial report. The List of Participants is provided in Annex 30.
Activity 5.2.: Regional Disaster Risk Assessment
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
In line with the approved revision of the Annex I “Description of the Action”, and Activity 5.2., that
relates to development of the Regional Disaster Risk Assessment, Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster
Risk Assessment in the SEE Region was developed by the UNDP international consultant with technical
support from UNDP Global Risk Identification Programme (UNDP GRIP). The document was developed
based on outcomes of 4 National Workshops on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments that
were implemented in the period August-September 2011, as well as the outputs of National Policy
Dialogues organized under Activity 2.2., Regional Conference organized under Project Activity 1.1., and
comprehensive review of IPA beneficiary needs assessment results under Project Activity 2.1. and Project
Activity 4.1.

The document focuses on supporting 8 IPA beneficiaries in conducting National Risk Assessment based
on the EU Disaster Prevention Framework and requirements defined in the EU guidelines for National
Risk Assessment and Mapping, while considering practical needs and situation of each of the IPAs in the
SEE region. The overall goal of the draft strategy is to improve coherence and consistency among the risk
assessments undertaken in the SEE IPAs at national levels, promote their application for sound decision
making in the prevention, preparedness and planning stages, and to make these risk assessments more
comparable among IPAs using EU standards. The draft strategy defines 5 priority areas for
implementation in the period 2012-2014 in the region. It was presented to IPA beneficiary counterparts
from disaster risk management/disaster risk reduction institutions at the Emergency Management
Regional Conference for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Coordination in Disaster Risk
Reduction in South East Europe held on 12 and 13 September, 2011 in Sarajevo. Regional Conference
participants recognized the importance of the Draft Strategy as the first and the only document that
attempts to identify areas for strengthening regional cooperation on mitigating risks common to the
region. During the Regional Conference it was agreed that the document is reviewed by discussed and
officially endorsed during UNDP-led consultations with key IPA beneficiary project beneficiaries in
October 2011.
Reason for modification for the planned activity
N/A
Results of this activity
- Draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessments in the SEE Region
- 4 National Workshops on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments (Annex 31) held as
follows:
o 22-24 August 2011 – Montenegro
o 30 August – 01 September 2011 – Macedonia (FYRo)
o 5-6 September 2011 – Croatia
o 8-9 August 2011 – Turkey
National Workshops served as very effective tools for development of IPA beneficiary risk assessment
situation analysis, and support to key partners in development of risk assessment implementation plan.
National workshops were implemented based on expressed interest and availability of IPA beneficiaries.
For those IPA beneficairies that did not express interest/availability for national risk assessment
workshop, situation analysis were developed based on desk-based review of relevant UNDP RDRR
2011
Page 39 of 52
643525876.doc
project knowledge products and country-level policy documents in the respective field. All costs related
to implementation of the 4 National Workshops on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments are
reported under Budget Line 5.7.2., except for translation/interpreting costs in relation to National
Workshop in FYRoM and Turkey (please refer to Section 5.6. of the narrative component of the Final
report).

Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:

Montenegro
National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments was held in Montenegro on 20-
22 April 2011. The workshop included representatives of the Sector for Emergency Situations of the
Ministry of Interior, representatives of National Directorate for Water, representatives of Crisis teams on
the local level from 12 municipalities and UNHCR Montenegro, UNDP Montenegro and Regional DRR
Project team. The Workshop served as platform for assessment of ongoing local flood risk assessment
process in Montenegro, with discussion on concrete measures to be undertaken for improving national
legislative framework on risk assessment, as well as preparedness plans in line with UN and EU
standards. Workshop resulted in a number of action points for improvement of quality of data collection
and strengthening of technical, human and financial resources for developing dynamic hydro-
meteorological model for risk assessment.
Macedonia (FYRoM)
National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments was held in Macedonia on 31
August-01 September 2011. The Workshop included participation of 30 representatives from Ministry of
Environment, Ministry of Finance, Crisis Management Centre (CMC), Regional Centers of CMC,
academia representatives, Red Cross Society representatives and JICA. The Workshop served as solid
platform for discussion on national risk assessment process that was launched in the second quarter of
2011 in Macedonia, and steps forward in establishment of central database for collection of historic data
on disasters and disaster losses.
Croatia
National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments was held in Croatia on 05-06
September 2011. The workshop gathered 20 participants from key institutions involved in development of
national disaster risk assessment, namely National Protection and Rescue Directorate, Hydro-
meteorological institute, Croatian Water Management Agency, Red Cross Society and different Ministries
from the development sector. The event served as introductory session to the EC Guidelines for Disaster
Risk Assessment and Mapping, and UNDP Global Risk Identification Programme methodology for risk
assessment, followed by support to participants to perform preliminary analysis of situation in Croatia in
the field of risk assessment, and to define the scope and context of Disaster Risk Assessment and
associated project proposal such as Country Situation Analysis and National Disaster Observatory.
Turkey
The National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk Assessments in Turkey was held on 8-9
September 2011. The event gathered 85 representatives from various institutions including Turkish Prime
Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency, General Directorate of State Meteorological
Service, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of Health, public and academic institutions, non-governmental organisations and UNDP. The
Workshop served as platform for 1) increase of government officials’ understanding of DRR based on
risk assessment, and their familiarization with National Risk Assessment supported by UNDP GRIP; 2)
review of past work in the country on disaster risk reduction, and disaster risk assessment in particular; 3)
exploring a roadmap for implementing Disaster Risk Assessment in Turkey.
5. Project Management
5.1. Project Management
RDRR project encountered a delay in project delivery due to extensive process of establishment of the
Project Team. The recruitment processes for Project Manager (ToR - Annex 36) and Project Associate

2011
Page 40 of 52
643525876.doc
(ToR- Annex 37) have been repeated twice due to the insufficient number of qualified candidates that had
a direct knock-off on UNDP’s efforts and the project implementation.

The recruitment of the Project Associate was finalised; however significant delay occurred. The Project
Manager was recruited on September 1, 2009. Unfortunately, due to health issues, the Project Manager
was granted a sick leave and then resigned from the post of Project Manager after two months. Hence, for
afore noted reasons, salaries budgeted in the initial Annex III – Budget of the Action under budget line
1.1.1. for Project Manager for the period from 19 March 2009 and including April, May, June and July
2009, as well as November and December 2009, and January, February and March 2010, were not
expended. Furthermore, Ms. Ida Kuburovic Hodzic, who worked on the project as Project Associate in
the period 14 July 2009 to 31 March 2010, took over the post of Project Manager a.i. from 01 April 2010.

In the attached financial report, under budget line 1.1.1., the unit rate is the average salary for 19.5
months (Sept-Oct 2009, April 2010-March 2011 and April-18 Sep 2011) of project manager as per
UNDP rates for Project Managers grade SB4/2 (NOTE: A project Manager is a local staff member
engaged on a Service contract with the salary defined in the signed contract in the local currency – BAM,
and disbursed in the same currency, as per UNDP Human Resources policy and Country Office BIH
Service Contract salary scale. The salary in local currency is recorded in the UNDP’s financial system
and converted to USD, in accordance with BAM/USD exchange rate for the month in question. When
reporting to the EU, UNDP converts USD amount to EURO using exchange rate of the date when the EU
instalment was received. This is agreed and standard procedure for reporting to EU (please refer to
FAFA for more details on this).

Due to the delay in the recruitment of the project team, the salaries for administrative/support staff for the
period starting 19 March to April, May, June and half of July 2009, have not been expended. Ms. Ida
Kuburovic Hodzic worked as Project Associate in the period 14 July 2009-31 March 2011 (8,5 months in
total). Ms. Nejla Sakic joined the Regional DRR project as Project Associate on 01 August 2010, working
13.5 months (August 2010 to 18 September 2011) .

The (average) salary for administrative support staff for the actual 22 months as per UNDP rates for SB
3/2 is reported as a unit rate under budget line 1.1.2. in the financial report. (NOTE: Project Associate is
also local staff member engaged on a Service contract with the salary defined in the signed contract in
the local currency – BAM, and disbursed in the same currency, as per UNDP Human Resources policy
and Country Office BiH Service Contract salary scale).

For the purpose of effectively neutralising potential negative effects of absence of the Project Manager in
the team in the period November 2009-March 2010, the project has been managed by Ms. Amna Berbic,
Human Security Cluster Coordinator, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Cluster Coordinator provided
project assurance by carrying out project oversight and monitoring. Moreover, she was involved in
ensuring coordination between UNDP DRR Focal Points and Project partners (BCPR-CADRI, UNISDR,
WMO, RCC, DPPI SEE and EC), as well as the consultation processes with donor and project partners, in
particular with the RCC and DPPI SEE. Once Ms. Ida Kuburovic Hodzic came on board as Project
Manager a.i., Ms. Kuburovic Hodzic took over project implementation and monitoring role. Ms. Berbic
has continued to support the consultations with donors and project partners, among others by attending
project and partner events, presenting project to IPA beneficiary stakeholders and promoting regional
cooperation in the frame of project activities.

UNDP country office, furthermore, has provided financial and administrative support to project
implementation.

The salaries for Project manager a.i. and Project Assistant were budgeted and expended.
The delays encountered in the establishment of the project team, and re-advertisement of the post of
national DRR consultant under Activity 1.2. in most of the IPA beneficiaries due to lack of qualified
candidates on the market, were reflected in lower disbursement of project funds during the first year of
project implementation. Project monthly disbursement plans have been developed that have allowed for
closer and improved monitoring of disbursement of funds on all five of the project activities.
2011
Page 41 of 52
643525876.doc
Two Regional meetings were organized in 2009. 1st Regional meeting was organized on September 17-
18, 2009 in Sarajevo, BiH, and gathered UNDP DRR focal points and key project implementing partners
(WMO, DPPI, BCPR) to agree on internal project management arrangements and strategy for
development of action plan among UNDP and key project implementing partners. 2nd Regional meeting
was held in the period 30 November – 02 December 2009, in Sarajevo, with two purposes: 1) to provide
DRR Overview Course for 8 UNDP DRR project focal points who will provide support to UNDP project
management team in implementation of national level activities in the 7 IPA beneficiaries and Kosovo (as
defined under UNSCR 1244/99); 2) to facilitate consultation process among UNDP, WMO, UN partner
institutions and 6 representatives from key IPA beneficiary institutions in the SEE on project management
issues between UNDP, WMO and IPA beneficiary counterparts. The two meetings resulted in
harmonisation of the implementing arrangements, and revision and agreeing on the project action plan.
A Project team visit was organised to European Commission’s DG Enlargement, Brussels, in May 2010
upon request from the European Commission’s Task Manager, Ms. Daniela Topirceanu. The project was
represented by Ms. Amna Berbic as Human Security Cluster Coordinator alongside Mr. Peter van
Ruysseveldt, UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina Deputy Resident Representative.
Due to the fact that no budget line was foreseen in the initial Annex III – Budget of the Action to cover
expenses of travel of the project team, the amount of 1,328.16 EUR to cover 2 airplane tickets and 2
terminal expenses for travel of Ms. Berbic and Mr. Ruysseveldt to Brussels. There costs were reported
under Annex III- Budget for the Action, budget heading Travel, sub-heading 2.3.1.
5.2: Management of consultants
Topics/activities covered <please elaborate>:
Between mid-February and mid-September 2010, national consultants conducted the IPA beneficiary
needs assessments in the eight IPA beneficiaries. IPA beneficiary Needs Assessment and Analysis
include:
a) Analysis of disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction in the participating IPA beneficiaries,
b) Assessment of the degree of integration of DRR into the national development plans and strategies, and
c) Analysis of the disaster risk management related legislation, institutional and technical capacities for
disaster risk management, as well as human resource capacities,
d) Recommendations for prioritization of issues at the regional and national DRR initiatives.
By end May 2010, recruitment process was finalised in Albania, Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR
1244/99), Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia (FYRo) and
Croatia. In addition, UNDP Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244/99) finalised the recruitment of a
local DRR Specialist as part of the UNDP Kosovo 3SD Project, to act primarily as a linkage and to
provide support and synergy to Kosovo project team during the needs assessment phase and beyond. The
Kosovo DRR Specialist is not part of the EU project and the salary was not charged to EU budget.

The recruitment process encountered delays in Macedonia and Montenegro due to the lack of qualified
candidates. The project management hired one consultant for Albania and Kosovo, and one consultant for
Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ToR for national consultants is attached to this report,
including details on clear deliverables and timelines of the respective consultancy posts (Annex 38).

Salaries for national consultants are reported under budget lines 1.2.4.1. (former BL 1.2.4.) and 1.2.5. An
additional budget line (1.2.4.2.) was introduced in the budget under Heading 1 – Human resources, Sub-
heading 1.1. Salaries (consultants/national/expat) that includes salary costs for international consultant to
technically support implementation of project activity 2.1. (see below).
Salary unit rate under budget line 1.2.4.1. includes consultancy fee with maximum monthly rate of up to
4,887.27 EUR for 8 national consultants. Salary unit rate under budget line 1.2.5. includes consultancy
fee with maximum weekly rate of up to 1,185.28 EUR for 8 national consultants.
As reported under Activity 2.2., (and in line with the Terms of reference for the national consultants), the
national consultants were tasked to organize, present and moderate the National Policy Dialogues and to
conduct interviews, desk review and completion of the IPA beneficiary needs assessments. The national
consultants were tasked to conduct the following under the Activity 2.2.:
2011
Page 42 of 52
643525876.doc
  Make all necessary arrangements and consultation with the respective government counterpart on
the date, content and list of participants; 
 development of National Policy Dialogue structure, including development of invite letter,
agenda, definition of goals and outcomes of each session; 
 presentation of key findings of the beneficiary needs assessment report, facilitation and collection
of feedback, and overall facilitation of the event; 
 incorporation of inputs and comments obtained during National Policy Dialogue; 
 Distribution of revised draft IPA beneficiary needs assessment reports to participants for revision
and approval, and finalization of IPA beneficiary needs assessments. 

In addition to 8 national consultants, 1 international consultant was hired to technically support

implementation of project activity 2.1. - coordinate work of national DRR consultants, actively join the
needs assessment missions, ensure harmonization and quality of IPA beneficiary needs assessment
reports, and develop DRR Regional cooperation proposal. ToR for international consultant is attached to
the report, including the details on clear deliverables (Annex 39). For this reason, an additional budget
line (1.2.4.2.) was introduced in the budget under Heading 1 – Human resources, Sub-heading 1.1.
Salaries (consultants/national/expat) that includes salary costs for international consultant (as per
conclusions of the Meeting between UNDP and EC held on 29 th and 31st March 2011 – see Annex 20 to
the 2nd progress report). 10,5 months of international consultant’s technical support have been
implemented during the reporting period. In order to clearly present the costs related to engagement of
international consultant, the milestones were introduced in the Final Financial Report as a unit rate. The
payments were not made on monthly basis but per deliverable as stipulated in the contract between
UNDP and the Consultant.
The contract for this consultant entails following deliverables:
1. Upon initiation of the contract, after delivery of guidelines for national project team for collection
of information and documentation in IPA beneficiaries and outline of IPA beneficiary Needs
Assessment Report
2. Upon completion of all national assessment visits and delivery of the first draft of national reports,
3. Upon completion of all National Policy Forums and submission of final national reports/proposals,
4. Upon submission of the first draft of the regional cooperation proposal based on research and
analysis performed together with WMO international consultant,
5. Upon support to preparation of the brainstorming workshop materials and submission of workshop
results’ report,
6. Upon completion of final Regional Workshop and delivery of the regional proposals/roadmap for
regional cooperation on disaster risk reduction.

Note: In accordance with UNDP Human Resources policies, payment to Special Service Agreement
(SSA)/Individual Contract (IC) holders is made following delivery of a product defined in the ToR. Local
contracts are made in Convertible Marks (BAM) exclusively, whilst international contractors may be paid
either in USD or EUR. Total payments to consultants are in lump sums which include consultancy fee,
DSA, terminals and ticket costs. During the recruitment process, lowest offers (cost-wise) of technically
qualified applicants are considered and eventually contracted.

In July 2010, UNDP launched an international tender to contract a consultancy firm to implement the
Institutional Capacity Assessment of the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative (DPPI SEE). The
request for proposals (RfP/BiH/10-012) was advertised internationally over the period July-August 2010.
Initially, only one responsive offer was received and therefore, UNDP re-advertised the request for
proposals ((RfP/BiH/10-012-II) over the period August-September 2010. The re-advertisement resulted
with only one responsive proposal from the Balkans Institute for Risk Assessment and Emergency
Management, Belgrade (BIEM). The contract was awarded in amount of 32,260 USD for a period of 3
months (Contract Ref. UNDPBiH-10-109-RDRRP-Balkans Institute-P). The Assessment included visits
and consultations with 8 DPPI member states. The draft report was developed in March 2011. The final
report was submitted in the beginning of 3rd quarter of 2011.

2011
Page 43 of 52
643525876.doc
In relation to implementation of Activity 1.2, the Terms of Reference for Request for Proposal for
consultancy company to provide services of design and delivery of disaster risk management and disaster
risk reduction trainings (Annex 40), which was integrated in the Request for Quotation (RfQ), were
launched through advertisement in local newspapers and internationally from 19 th to 30th May 2011. The
advertisement resulted with only one responsive quotation from the Balkans Institute for Risk Assessment
and Emergency Management, Belgrade. The value of the contract was 59,153.65 EUR. (Contract Ref.
(UNDPBIH10-11-052-RDRRP-BIEM-P-Amend. No.1).

Costs related to engagment of the above consultancy firm are reported under Budget Line 1.2.2. of the
Final Financial Report. Note: Difference in the reported total amount under Budget Line 1.2.2 lies in the
difference in the Exchange rate USD/EUR. Namely, all expenditures are recorded in the UNDP’s
financial system in the actual resbursement currency and converted to USD, in accordance with
EUR/USD exchange rate for the month in question. When reporting to the EU, UNDP converts USD
amount to EURO using exchange rate of the date when the EU instalment was received. This is agreed
and standard procedure for reporting to EU (please refer to FAFA for more details on this).

In May 2011, in the frame of the Project Activity 5.2, the Terms of Reference for International IPA
beneficiary Situation Analysis Consultant (two consultants) was developed (Annex 41). In accordance
with UNDP Standard Operation Procedures, Regional DRR Project management team, together with
BCPR and UNDP Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP), performed selection process for the
post of an International IPA beneficiary situation analysis consultant through BCPR Express Roster. The
candidate was identified as the most technically qualified for the assignment as per the ToR for the post
of International Consultant 2.

Note: Selection was performed in parallel for 2 International consultants. However, second selected
candidate submitted financial offer that largely exceeded amount budgeted for the activity that could not
be negotiated.  
Based on extensive discussion with UNDP GRIP, BCPR and CADRI, it was decided to hire one
consultant for the task alongside technical support by UNDP Global Risk Identification Programme
(UNDP GRIP).   The selected consultant together with UNDP Global Risk Identification Programme,
worked on implementation of National Workshops for Scoping and Planning for Risk Assessment in
Montenegro (22-24 August 2011), Macedonia (FyRo) (30 Aug-01 September), Croatia (5-6 September
2011), and Turkey (8-9 August 2011). Based on 4 workshop conclusions, as well as review of needs
assessment results gathered in the frame of the project, Draft Regional Disaster Risk Assessment Strategy
in SEE was developed (Annex 32).
Payments of salary cost for International IPA beneficiary Situation Analysis Consultant were made per
milestones (6 in total) and reported under Budget Line 1.2.10 in the Final Financial Report.

In relation to technical support to implementation of Project Activity 3.1., and in accordance with UNDP
Standard Operation Procedures, Regional DRR Project management team performed selection process
for the post of an International Consultant for development of Regional Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy
Outline in July 2011. Project management team, with UNDP BCPR support, performed sourcing of
candidates through UNDP BCPR Express Roster. Out of the three sourced candidates, only one candidate
was available for consultancy assignment in the proposed timeframe (Aug-Sept 2011). A candidate
identified as the most technically qualified due to the substantial experience in the disaster risk reduction
field, and in particular in the field of development of strategic documents, and proven experience in
facilitation of workshops/consultations, and research skills, for the assignment as per the ToR.

As per the Contract, the consultant was responsible to perform desk-based survey of IPA beneficiary
needs assessment reports and other relevant knowledge products and surveys in order to identify strategic
direction for the SEE region in the field of disaster risk reduction. The task involved systematic
identification of current disaster risk capacities in the 8 IPA beneficiaries with particular focus on areas of
regional cooperation identified in the IPA beneficiary Needs Assessment Reports and Proposal for
Regional Cooperation in DRR in South East Europe.

During the assignment the consultant was specifically responsible to:

2011
Page 44 of 52
643525876.doc
  Review and consolidate: a) findings in the 8 IPA beneficiary DRR needs assessment reports
developed in 2010;  b) findings in the 6 IPA beneficiary DRR capacity assessment reports
developed in 2011 by UNDP BCPR/CADRI; c) findings of Report of the “Regional Meeting for
Strengthening Regional Cooperation in Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Services for
Disaster Risk Management” held in Sarajevo, 28-29 March 2011; review draft Proposal for
Regional Cooperation in Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe developed under Act. 2.1
and utilize the document as basis for production Regional DRR Strategy Outline; review existing
bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements among 8 IPA beneficiaries in the field of disaster risk
management/disaster risk reduction and prepare a draft Regional DRR Strategy Outline for
comments;
 Revise the document in line with submitted comments;
 Prepare presentation of the final document and its key findings and recommendations at the
Regional Conference scheduled in September 2011.

Payment of salary costs for International consultant for development of Regional Disaster Risk Reduction
Strategy outline was made based on above stipulated milestones (three in total) and is reported under
Budget Line 1.2.6 in the Final Financial Report.

In June 2011, UNDP launched a vacancy for Support to Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative
for South Eastern Europe (DPPI SEE) – Consultant under Project Activity 4.2.. Upon performed
interview of the candidates, a consultant with the required work experience for the assignment was
selected for period from July to September 2011. Attached is the Terms of Reference for Support to
Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South Eastern Europe (DPPI SEE) (Annex 22). The
payments of salary costs were made per deliverable (4 in total) and are reported under Budget Line 1.2.9
in the Final Financial Report.

5.3: Office equipment and premises

Two Requests for Quotation have been advertised in the third and fourth quarter of 2009 by UNDP CO in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The original idea of co-locating the Project Team with the DPPI team (as a way
to increase the knowledge and information sharing from the project to DPPI) was abandoned because the
current office premises rented by DPPI do not meet UNDP’s security standards. Hence, the Project Team
remained within the current UNDP premises.
The following equipment for DPPI and RDRR office has been procured for the purpose of enhancement
of office capacities: one small office desk (deskholder), two office chairs, three office desks for
computer, one executive table for six persons, two black umbrella holders, one closed cabinets, four
cassettes with three drawers, two coat hangers, two trash bins and two Thinkpad laptops, one Small office
desk, one office desk for meetings, one flower banister, one Cannon Powershot Siemens SX 120IS 10
MP, one Think Pad Laptop X201i, one office Desk (for computer), one Cassette (3 drawers) and one
trash bin.

The ownership of the Title of equipment that was procured for DPPI was transferred to DPPI.

The ownership of the Title of equipment for RDRR office, if agreed with EC, should be transferred to
UNDP BiH future project on Disaster Risk Reduction.

As reported in 1st Annual Progress Narrative Report, the project team remained accommodated in UNDP
premises. Since UNDP common premises are cost-shared with all other UNDP projects and UN agencies,
the project was required to pay for the costs of rent and communication. In this respect, as noted in the
Notification letter No. 1 (dated 04 May 2011), the modification was made within the budget heading 4.
Local office which remained under the threshold of 15% and reallocation of Euro 3,980 from budget
items 4.1 Vehicle cost-fuel and 4.1.1. Driver to the budget items 4.2 Office rent and 4.4. Other Services
(tel/fax, electricity/heating, and maintenance) was made.

2011
Page 45 of 52
643525876.doc
Actual expenditure exceeds budget on Budget Line 4.2, but the total cost of the Heading 4-Local Office
does not exceed the total budget of the Heading.

5.4: Publication, production, design, publication and distribution

During the implementation of the RDRR Project, a number of documents have been produced under
respective activities and, for easier reference, made available to RDRR project beneficiaries on the GRIP
site http://174.122.150.229/~gripwebo/gripweb/?q=node/378.

Since costs of the production of publications were covered through consultancies, the only costs reported
under Budget line 5.1 in the Final Financial Report are related to proofreading, design and printing of the
DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment. This publication was printed on CDs in 240 copies and
distributed to RDRR Project beneficiaries through the DPPI Secretariat. Thus, savings were made in
amount of EUR 45,887.26 on Budget line 5.1.

5.5: Evaluation costs

Even though EUR 20,000 was initially budgeted for Budget Line 5.4, no costs incurred during the life
span of the RDRR Project as no evaluation occurred. EC monitoring Missions were conducted on three
occasions.

5.6: Translation, interpreters, knowledge products/publications, reports, and regional conference

Expenditure reported under Budget 5.5 Translation, interpreters amounts to EUR 17,821.27. Thus,
significant savings were made on this Budget Line in the amount of EUR 62,178.73.
Costs claimed per translation/interpreter under the budget item 5.5 refer to following
interpreting/translation services:

1. Proofreading/editing services (English language)-Act. 2.1 IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment

Report for Bosnia and Herzegovina
2. Translation services-Act. 2.1 IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for FYRoM
3. Translation services-Act. 2.1 IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for FYRoM
4. Written translation of NDP Recommendations/2.1 NPD in FYRoM
5. Translation services-Act. 2.1 IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for Kosovo
6. Translation services-Act. 2.1 NPD documents/ NPD in Bosnia and Herzegovina
7. Proofreading of draft IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report/Act. 2.1. Bosnia and
Herzegovina
8. Translation services-Act. 2.1 IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report in Turkey
9. Translation services-Act. 2.1 Regional Cooperation proposal document for Kosovo
10. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Bosnia and Herzegovina
11. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Bosnia and Herzegovina
12. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Croatia
13. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Kosovo
14. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Montenegro
15. Translation services-Act. 2.2 HFA document for Kosovo Policy Dialogue
16. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in Serbia
17. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in FYRoM
18. Interpreting services-Act. 2.2. National Policy Dialogue in FYRoM
19. Translation services-Act. 2.2 National Platform training in Serbia
20. Translation services-Act. 2.2 NPD related documents in Croatia
21. Translation services- Act. 4.1 DRR Capacity Assessment documents for FYRoM
22. Interpreting services-Act. 4.1 DRR Capacity Assessment Mission in FYRoM
23. Interpreting services- Act. 4.1 DRR Capacity Assessment Mission for Albania
24. Interpreting services- Act. 4.1 DRR Capacity Assessment Mission in Serbia
25. Written translation of draft Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessment in South East Europe
(English into B/C/S language) Act. 5.2

2011
Page 46 of 52
643525876.doc
 26. Translation services- Act. 5.2 National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk
Assessment in FYRoM
27. Translation services- Act. 5.2 National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk
Assessment in FYRoM
28. Translation services- Act. 5.2 National Workshop on Scoping and Planning Disaster Risk
Assessment in Turkey
29. Proofreading services- DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment/Act 3.2
30. Proofreading services- Act. 2.1, Final IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for Albania
31. Proofreading services- Act. 2.1, Final IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for Kosovo
32. Proofreading services- Act. 2.1, Final IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report for BiH
33. Proofreading services- Act. 2.1, Final IPA Beneficiary Needs Assessment Report of FYRoM

6. Please list activities that were planned and that you were not able to implement, explaining the
reasons for these.
Activity 1.2. Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming Training Course

In the initial Description of the Action, which was in force until September 2010, this activity differed in
its purpose. Initially, the focus of the activity was on disaster risk mainstreaming and not on disaster risk
management. Resulting from discussions with DPPI, UNDP and EC in March 2010 the focus was shifted
to disaster risk management and alignment with trainings of the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention
Initiative (DPPI SEE) within the frame of Disaster Management Training Programme (DMTP).
Consequently, Activity 1.2. in the amended project document relates to training on disaster risk
management/disaster risk reduction.

One of the conclusions of the Project Steering Committee meeting held on 30 March, 2011 (Annex 11),
was that DPPI SEE Secretariat capacity for technical support to trainings’ implementation is very limited
for two reasons: 1) new Head of the DPPI Secretariat was nominated at the DPPI Regional meeting held
on 29 March 2011, 2) number of pending tasks that new HoS needs to address in the period April-June
2011. It was concluded that at this stage DPPI SEE does not have time to support implementation of
activities in a timely manner. Hence, the Project Steering Committee proposed that Balkans Institute for
Risk Assessment and Emergency Management (BIEM) from Belgrade be engaged to support the
implementation of this activity in coordination with UNDP and through DPPI SEE. BIEM has the
required experience in the area of disaster risk reduction/management, and has developed a number of
studies for UNDP Bosnia and Herzegovina over the past two years, including the DPPI Institutional
Capacity Assessment Report that was endorsed at DPPI SEE regional meeting on 28 March 2011.

Activity 1.3. Technical support to facilitate the process of eventual integration of DRR into relevant
sectors
In line with revised Description of the Action, implementation of Activity 1.3. was scheduled in the
beginning of 2011. However, over the course of project implementation it became evident that a range of
tools, frameworks and methodologies for DRR mainstreaming were developed in the period between
2004-2007. These publications include Guidelines for Mainstreaming disaster risk assessment in
development produced in June 2004 by UNISDR Africa Office in collaboration with African
Development Bank (AfDB), the Commission of the African Union, and the Secretariat of the New
Partnership for Africa’s Development. The UNISDR Guidelines present key principles for mainstreaming
DRR in nine key development sectors and themes, such as poverty reduction, agriculture and rural
development, environmental protection, water resource management, land use planning, infrastructure
development, gender issues, HIV/AIDS and health issues, and climate change adaptation. Furthermore,
guiding principles are keyed to the five (5) thematic areas of the Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
accepted under UNISDR. As such, 2004 UNISDR Guidelines accurately respond to content of DRR
Mainstreaming Guidelines that were to be produced under Activity 1.3. of the UNDP project. In order not
to duplicate already produced document, project team utilized 2004 UNISDR guidelines and distributed
them to IPA beneficiaries as a tool to address challenges that SEE region faces in complying with the
requirements of the Hyogo Framework for Action.

Activity 2.2. National Policy Dialogues for National Platform establishment

2011
Page 47 of 52
643525876.doc
Initially, it was planned by project management to hold National Platform trainings alongside National
Policy Dialogues. However, UNISDR was available to conduct five NP trainings that were scheduled in
consultation with respective counterparts, as follows:
 Montenegro - 18-20 April 2011
 Kosovo (as defined by UNSCR 1244/99) - 24-27 May 2011 (later on rescheduled to 30 June-01
July)
 Albania - end June 2011
 Serbia and Turkey dates remained to be confirmed

However, in the second quarter of 2011 Turkey and Albania declined interest in implementation of
National Platform training.
Turkey National Platform training was not implemented due to the fact that Turkey National Platform for
Disaster risk reduction was officially established on 12 February 2011. For this reason, key project
counterparts in Turkey did not express a need for implementation of the NP training in the course of the
Regional DRR project.
Even though Albania counterparts initially expressed interest in implementation of National Platform
workshop, during discussions with project counterparts in April 2011 they declined interest due to the fact
that focus of their work in 2011 is revision of existing Disaster Risk Reduction strategy.
National Platforms in Macedonia and Croatia have been established. The Croatia NP was used as good
practice example at Montenegro National Platform training implemented in April 2011. For Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the National Coordination Body was established in 2009, which serves as the DRR National
Platform. Hence, there is no need to establish a new body for this purpose.

Activity 4.1. Provide support to development of disaster risk management capacities in IPA
Beneficiaries

The description of the Action notes that Disaster Risk Management Capacity Development Guidelines
will be prepared in close cooperation with national disaster (risk) management authorities and DPPI.
Having in mind the knowledge products developed within the project the following was concluded:

 IPA beneficiary Needs Assessment reports developed under Act. 2.1. provide a broad
assessment of legislative, institutional and financial capacities of the DRM/DRR system,
strategies/policy documents in the DRM/DRR field, and gender mainstreaming in DRR aspect. On the
other hand, there is a need to conduct capacity assessment missions that will solely focus on disaster
management institutions such as Ministry of Security and Civil Protection Directorates/Agencies, by
assessing in detail their human resources capacities, knowledge and technical expertise, financial and
institutional gaps and needs with follow-up actions identified in detail in consultation with partners.

 Activity 4.1. will build on the results of Activity 2.1., that is IPA beneficiary needs assessment
reports. Yet the activity 4.1. will now focus on disaster risk management
agencies/organizations/directorates, and assess their institutional, human resource, technical, financial
and other capacities from national to local level, extent of cooperation and coordination among all levels.
This information will be used as the basis for provision of technical support to countries in development
of DRR Capacity Development Guidelines or DRR Capacity Development Strategy Outline.

The project team sought technical support from UNDP BCPR-CADRI team to implement the DRR
capacity assessment missions by utilizing comprehensive Capacity Assessment Methodology developed
by UN Development Group (UNDG) (attached is ToR as Annex 12 and Mission Plan as Annex 13). The
methodology guides assessment of capacities and formulation of capacity development strategies at the
country level.
DRR Capacity Assessment Missions have been conducted in 6 IPA beneficiaries.
2.4. What is your assessment of the results of the Action so far?

2011
Page 48 of 52
643525876.doc
The results achieved under the Action contributed directly to mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction into
development plans (i.e. Kosovo), development of national strategies for DRR (i.e Serbia and Albania),
establishment of National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (Montenegro and Serbia) and improved
mechanism for regional cooperation (i.e. bilateral and multilateral agreements and protocols on exchange
of equipment and resources). In addition, the understanding and knowledge including direct linkage
between disaster risk reduction, prevention and development has been increased in the region.
Subsequently, restructuring of national institutions, as is the case of Turkey or the establishment of a new
agency/department in case of Kosovo has taken place in order to effectively address the IPA
beneficiaries’ needs. The project also had a direct impact on building and/or strengthening of national
capacities to align the legislations, plans and procedures governing disaster risk reduction with
international standards. The process of harmonisation and alignment is a long term process and will
happen naturally as the countries either join EU or get status of a candidate country.
Despite delays in the first year of implementation, changes to the responsibilities of the project team have
proven successful in the overall management (including financial management) and implementation of
the project. Through the establishment of National project teams for implementation of Act 2.1. and 2.2.,
and the completion of needs assessment missions in 8 IPA beneficiaries in close collaboration with
national stakeholders as primary beneficiaries, the project ensured stronger commitment by the national
counterparts. Important progress has been achieved by the IPA Beneficiaries in enhancing their capacities
to achieve the HFA priorities. This has been supported by the needs assessment missions and reports
carried out under Act. 2.1. and the organisation of the 8 IPA Beneficiary Policy Dialogues.
The needs assessment reports, together with the Regional Proposal for Cooperation in DRR in SEE,
directly contributed to the quality of the Draft DRR Regional Strategy Outline in the SEE as well as Draft
Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Assessments in the SEE Region.
Furthermore, the finalisation of the DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment Report under Project Activity
3.2., as well as DPPI Host country agreement and DPPI Statute and Rules of procedure directly
contributed to strengthening DPPI capacities for regional cooperation, and increase of DPPI’s recognition
as leading regional platform for disaster risk management in the SEE.

Based on the findings of Activity 5.2., areas for strengthening regional cooperation on mitigating risks
and hazards that are common to the region were identified.

Please list potential risks that may have jeopardized the realisation of some activities and explain
how they have been tackled. Refer to logframe indicators.
The majority of potential risks have been noted under each of the Activities described in 2.1. Section of
this report. A few more need to be addressed in this section of the report.
1) Even though the project has established excellent partnerships on day to day basis with respective
partners, the lack of commitment at political and operational levels is evident throughout the project
implementation. For example, delays were encountered in setting the date of National Platform Trainings,
and consequently their implementation. Additional delays were encountered in implementation of DRR
Capacity Development Guidelines in some of the IPA beneficiaries for the same reason. The situation and
status varied from beneficiary to beneficiary, but overall project progress across the region can be
described as satisfactory.
2) Even though the revised Annex I - Description of the Action was approved by the EC in the last
quarter of 2010, the revision of Annex III-Budget for the Action was pending approval until September
2011. Consequently, certain project activities were on hold until project obtained approval from the EC
on the 1st Annual Progress Narrative and Financial Report. The EC’s Task Manager has requested that
UNDP do not submit the request for amendment of the Budget for the Action (Annex III to the
contribution agreement) until after the approval of the 1 st Annual Progress Report. The approval of the 1 st
Annual Progress Report was not obtained in time and the request for amendment of the Budget was
submitted to the EC only on 18 August 2011. As such, date of submission of Request for amendment was
not timely since, according to the General Conditions, Amendment of the Agreement should be sent to
the Contracting Authority one month in advance. Since the last day of implementation of the Action is 18
September 2011, this means that addendum required would enter into force after the end of the
Agreement. Under these circumstances, the EC agreed to analyse all expenditures incurred during the
2011
Page 49 of 52
643525876.doc
project lifetime to be declared in the final report, and accept them to the extent to which they prove
acceptable in the Framework of the Action.
Approval of the 1st Annual Progress Report was obtained per informal communication by the EC Task
Manager by e-mail dated 07 September 2011 confirming that provided clarifications on IR1 were
sufficient.
Approval of the 2nd Annual Progress Report had not been obtained.
The Request for Addendum No 2 was not approved.
3) Political risk - general elections were held in 2010 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the state level
government was formed only 14 months later. This situation hampered the implementation of Activity
4.1. in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as commitment from respective partners to document produced in
the frame of the project under Activity 2.1.
Please list all contracts (works, supplies, services) above 100.000 USD awarded for the implementation
of the action during the reporting period, giving for each contract the amount, the award procedure
followed and the name of the contractor.
No contracts awarded equal to or above the threshold of USD 100,000.

2011
Page 50 of 52
643525876.doc
6. Partners and other Co-operation
At the beginning of project implementation, there was a significant lack of cooperation on the side of
Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative in South East Europe (DPPI SEE), mostly due to poor
coordination mechanism between Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) and DPPI SEE. This represented
a significant risk to project implementation, in terms of securing political support at the regional level .
However, the project management team had put extensive efforts to establish a successful and mutually
beneficial relationship with DPPI SEE. Hence, based on the MoU signed between UNDP and DPPI SEE,
the project team and DPPI SEE have ever since been regularly exchanging progress on implementation of
project activities, while DPPI SEE has briefed the project team on their activities and planned events in
which UNDP could take active participation. UNDP supported and coordinated with DPPI SEE the
activities that relate to cross border cooperation, development of knowledge products and harmonisation
processes across the region. This relationship was further strengthened by launch and implementation of
the Activities 1.2, 3.2 and 4.2., targeted to enhance DPPI’s regional coordination capacities in the region.
Since the beginning of project implementation, UNDP has successfully liaised with the WMO
representatives and fully supported regular coordination with WMO Component of the Regional DRR
programme, as a prerequisite to effectiveness of the UNDP Component of the Regional DRR Programme.
In addition, UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) provided technical support to the
project implementation, particularly in developing specialised terms of references for consultancy
assignments, and identification of adequate technical consultants in the field of disaster risk reduction. To
that end, technical and specialised support was provided by UNDP Capacity Assessment for Disaster Risk
Reduction (CADRI), in order to ensure that project activities are performed in line with the HFA, UN
International Standards for Disaster Reduction, Global Risk Identification Programme (GRIP) and Office
for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
How would you assess the relationship between your organisation and State authorities in the
Action countries? How has this relationship affected the Action?
UNDP continued to work in close cooperation with key stakeholders in each of the 8 IPA beneficiaries, in
particular through direct contact by the project DRR Focal points in each of the 8 IPA beneficiaries with
their IPA beneficiary counterparts (primarily Agencies/Institutions for Crisis Management, Ministries of
Interior and Ministries of Security). The coordination between the project management team and UNDP
DRR focal points has been established and maintained at operational level of respective IPA beneficiary
institutions, from expert advisors in the DRM sector up to Assistant and Deputy Ministers in some IPA
beneficiaries. The project also built on the experiences and partnerships with international, regional and
IPA beneficiary partners established in the past project implementation period. The revised project
description included clear outline of roles, as well as responsibility and accountability of project partners,
such as support of the UNISDR to developing and implementing trainings for National Platforms in
cooperation with UN CADRI. DPPI SEE was responsible and accountable for delivering DMTPs and
contributing to DPPI Institutional Capacity Assessment. RCC has been asked to provide support in
organising and galvanising political support to the Regional Strategy on DRR through Regional
Conference.
8. Visibility
How is the visibility of the EU contribution being ensured in the Action?
UNDP was ensuring visibility of the EU contribution by using the EU logo on all relevant documents that
relate to project implementation. In addition, all project related communication and official documents
entailed information that the project is funded by European Union. Moreover, in respective exchange with
partners and target group of the project, EU contribution and commitment to the issue of DRR in the SEE
countries was repeatedly underlined, as well as relevance of the Action for further commitment of the EU
to the regional and national initiatives in the field of DRR.
All publications were designed in line with EC- UN Joint visibility guidelines.
The European Commission may wish to publicise the results of Actions. Do you have any objection
to this report being published on EuropeAid Co-operation Office website? If so, please state your
objections here.

2011
Page 51 of 52
643525876.doc
9. Lessons Learnt
National ownership of the Emergency Response to disasters is strong, although overall lack of political
commitment makes it difficult for the involved institutions to implement DRR related reforms and
accelerate integration processes as required by the EU policies and legislations on Environment and
Disaster Risk Reduction.
Capacities for emergency response have been developed in support of security sector reform and will
have a long-term impact on human security and development. However, the abovementioned lack of
political commitment, as well as lack of common understanding and capacities, remains an obstacle to
implementation of reforms and development of policies in line with EC regulations for the Disaster Risk
Management and Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change, including mainstreaming of DRR into
national development plans. Whilst some progress has been made, which varies across the region,
including limited progress on regional cooperation which mainly includes bilateral cooperation
agreements, so far there has been no sustained effort by the IPA beneficiary authorities to develop
national and/or entity based initiatives.
In addition, UNDP encountered difficulties in agreeing and confirming the cooperation mechanism with
DPPI due to legal status of DPPI, and overall role of the RCC. UNDP and DPPI therefore worked on
developing and signing of the Memorandum of Understanding that stipulates coordination mechanisms,
roles and responsibilities of the two sides. However, signing of the Memorandum of Understanding by
DPPI took over three months. Consequently the project encountered delays in implementation of
activities in support of DPPI including activities in promoting the project. In addition, UNDP faced
challenges in partnering and cooperation with RCC that had a direct knock-on effect on the project and
has caused delays in implementation. However, cooperation between UNDP and RCC has improved
significantly in 2011, which has to large extent contributed to timely implementation of certain activities
that respond to the needs of the IPA beneficiaries.
Regarding the design of the Regional Programme, one of the key lessons learnt is that any future initiative
must ensure governments’ buy-in into the process and proposed programme/project. This includes
extensive and focused consultation process with strong emphasis on strengthening and empowering
national capacities for better regional cooperation on Disaster Risk Reduction. Such process will ensure
respective government’s ownership of the project and its activities, and its full commitment towards most
effective delivery and impacts of the project.
Special attention and focus should be given to the timeframes for project implementation, considering the
nature of the project that focuses on strengthening and empowering the capacities of the region in the
field of DRR. While certain project activities may have a short-term impact, most of the project activities
aim at achieving long-term impact and sustainability in the field of DRR. For instance, in order to
strengthen the existing capacities of IPA beneficiaries in the field of DRR, one primarily needs to perform
comprehensive analysis of the IPA beneficiaries, their capacities, gaps and needs, and the extent to which
they comply with required standards and legislation. Only after such assessment the project would be able
to tailor its activities in order to address needs and priorities of the IPA beneficiaries in the field of DRR.

Name of the contact person for the Action: Amna Berbic

Location: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

2011
Page 52 of 52
643525876.doc