Lessons Learned Exercise User Guide Emergency Preparedness and Response Systems [Updated 2025] Disclaimer 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions. This work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Attribution. Please cite this work as follows: World Bank. Lessons Learned Exercise User Guide: Emergency Preparedness and Response Systems. Updated 2025. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Credits: The World Bank Group. Translations. If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation. The World Bank shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation. Adaptations. If you create an adaptation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank. Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole responsibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank. Third-party content. The World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work. The World Bank therefore does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual component or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties. The risk of claims resulting from such infringements rests solely with you. If you wish to reuse a component of the work, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright owner. Examples of components can include, but are not limited to, tables, figures, or images. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org Graphic design: Blue Robin Designs, LLC Cover Photo: Debris image by pexels of pixabay Publication updated in 2025. For additional information, please contact: Mary Boyer: Program Lead, Emergency Preparedness & Response Thematic Area Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land mboyer@worldbank.org TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 1. INTRODUCTION ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 8 2. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW������������������������������������������������������������� 10 3. LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 OVERVIEW������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 LLE METHODOLOGY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12 OBJECTIVES OF THE LLE������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13 GOOD PRACTICES WHEN IMPLEMENTING AN LLE ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 13 4. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 INCLUSIVE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND GENDER EQUALITY ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 ENHANCING EP&R IN FCV SETTINGS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 COMMUNITY-BASED DRM �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 5. ENGAGEMENT PROCESS����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 LLE VERSUS R2R�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND GUIDING QUESTIONS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 25 6. PROCESS OUTLINE �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������32 TASK 1: LLE INCEPTION AND DESIGN �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 TASK 2: PRE-MISSION PREPARATIONS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 33 TASK 3: LLE MISSION ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 34 TASK 4: FINAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 DETAILED TIMELINE AND DESCRIPTION OF PHASES AND TASKS�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 INFORMATION GATHERING METHODOLOGY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 38 7. ENGAGEMENT, OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 8. EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS LLES ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44 9. SUMMARY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 45 APPENDIX 1: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY TEMPLATE������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND GUIDELINES�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 DAILY MISSION AGENDA TEMPLATE FOR INTERVIEWS�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 54 APPENDIX 4: WORKSHOP FACILITATION GUIDELINES ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������55 APPENDIX 5: LLE WORKSHOP AGENDA �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������57 Lessons Learned Exercise | 3 APPENDIX 6: WORKSHOP PROJECT CONCEPT TEMPLATE��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 59 APPENDIX 7: WORKSHOP TABLETOP EXERCISE SCENARIO AND PROBLEM SETS ��������������������������������������������������� 62 APPENDIX 8: WORKSHOP EVALUATION TEMPLATE������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 APPENDIX 9: LLE FINAL REPORT – SUGGESTED WIREFRAME ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 APPENDIX 10: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR COMPLETION OF THE LLE ��������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 A. CONTEXT �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 70 B. OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSIGNMENT��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 C. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR SENIOR CONSULTANT ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 77 D. OTHER�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 APPENDIX 11: FURTHER SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO INCLUDE CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES WITHIN THE METHODOLOGY� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 Flooded houses by hurricane Ian rainfall in Florida residential area by bilanol 4 | Lessons Learned Exercise ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was developed and later updated as part of a global thematic area, “Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R)” under the Global Unit for Disaster and Climate Risk Management (IDURM), and is the second edition of the report developed by a team led by Elad Shenfeld, Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist. The second edition was developed by a team led by Mary Boyer (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), and comprised of Elif Ayhan (Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Program Leader, World Bank), Zoe Trohanis (Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Ana Campos (Lead Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Karima Ben Bih (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Mirtha Liliana Escobar (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Anna-Maria Bogdanova (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), Keiko Sakoda (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist), Carmen Rosa Zena Acosta (Consultant, World Bank), Christoph Michael Klaiber (Extended Term Consultant, World Bank), Mary Showstark (Consultant, World Bank), Micol Ullmann Auger (Consultant, World Bank), Kerri Dionne Cox (Consultant, World Bank), Jemma Vasilyan (Disaster Risk Management Analyst, World Bank), Hugo Thomas Wesley (Disaster Risk Management Analyst, World Bank), and Prepared International (PPI). The report greatly benefited from comments and guidance from Magnus Lindelow (Lead Economist, World Bank), Miguel Angel De Corral Martin (Senior Strategy and Operations Officer, World Bank), Nicholas James Callender (Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank), and Atul Agarwal (Senior Operations Officer, World Bank), Stephane Hallegatte (Senior Climate Change Advisor, World Bank), and Mersedeh Tariverdi (Senior Data Scientist, World Bank) through the peer review process chaired by Niels Holm-Nielsen (Practice Manager, World Bank). The team would like to express its gratitude to Niels Holm-Nielsen, Practice Manager of the Global Unit for Disaster and Climate Risk Management, for his strategic guidance in the preparation of this report. Editing services were provided by the World Bank’s Global Corporate Solutions. Flooded houses by hurricane Ian rainfall in Florida residential area by bilanol Lessons Learned Exercise | 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management CBO Community-Based Organizations CERP Contingent Emergency Response Project CPGA Crisis Preparedness Gap Analysis CRT Crisis Response Toolkit DRM Disaster Risk Management EOC Emergency Operations Center EP&R Emergency Preparedness and Response FCV Fragile, Conflict, and Violent GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery LLE Lessons Learned Exercise NGO Nongovernmental Organization PAD Project Appraisal Document PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment R2R Ready2Respond RDNA Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment RRP Rapid Response Option SOP Standard Operating Procedure TTL Task Team Leader VAWG Violence Against Women and Girls 6 | Lessons Learned Exercise Flooded houses by hurricane Ian rainfall in Florida residential area by bilanol WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE (EP&R) LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE (LLE)? The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) approach to EP&R aims to build government capacities to systematically respond to crises by establishing legal and institutional frameworks for clear mandates and accountabilities, invest in personnel, facilities, equipment, and information technology to enhance EP&R systems, and ensure their continuity. The GFDRR program created the LLE as an innovative approach to help governments capture the lessons from their recent emergencies and improve their EP&R capacity. It provides an opportunity for key stakeholders to discuss country systems and improvements. *The LLE is designed to inform a project concept note, among other uses. Document Objective This document provides detailed implementation guidance for the LLE, including client engagement, workshop planning, data gathering, the analytical approach, and the reporting framework. 1. INTRODUCTION As disasters caused by natural hazards increase in frequency and complexity, there is a growing need for effective preparedness and response. The World Bank continues to adapt its crisis response toolkit to address these challenges to help governments and partners strengthen resilience and improve their crisis management capacities. The Lessons Learned Exercise (LLE) is an innovative process that helps governments and partners assess and improve their Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) systems. The LLE uses a recent disaster as a “focusing event” to examine a country’s preparedness and response capabilities, concentrating on three stages: the preparedness phase before the disaster, the immediate response, and a post-event analysis of outcomes. By taking advantage of the “window of opportunity” that typically follows a disaster—when there is often a surge in political will for reform—the LLE helps governments seize valuable lessons and build upon them. The process brings together key stakeholders, including government agencies, the private sector, and humanitarian organizations, to review the effectiveness of response efforts, identify strengths and weaknesses, and develop actionable recommendations for enhancing future preparedness and response. By capturing lessons from previous crises, the LLE helps countries build more resilient systems, improve coordination, and strengthen institutional frameworks, ensuring better responses to future emergencies. It is important to understand how the LLE fits within the World Bank’s larger crisis response framework and how it differs from other diagnostic tools, such as the Ready to Respond (R2R), Crisis Preparedness Gap Analysis (CPGA), Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA), Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA), and disaster risk financing diagnostics. Each of these tools serves a distinct purpose, targeting different stages of crisis preparedness and response, and focusing on distinct areas like immediate needs, resilience, governance, and financial systems. Together, these diagnostic tools help assess countries’ immediate, medium, and long-term needs, as well as their overall readiness and emergency response capacities. 8 | Lessons Learned Exercise Figure 1: Illustrative list of available disaster and emergency-related assessments Ra pid Da ma ge Ne e ds Asse ssm e nt Cri s i s Prepared n es s G ap An al ys i s Urgent prioritization for relief Focus: Post-disaster immediate needs RDNA CP G A Purpose: Guides food, shelter, medical support High-level, cross-sector analysis Focus: Crisis resilience across sectors Purpose: Identifies gaps in management systems Global Rapid Post-Disaster Imm e dia te Damage Estimation Pre - C ri s i s Re sponse Rapid, desk-based damage assessment Focus: Direct economic damages to housing, non-residential buildings, GRAD E infrastructure, and agriculture R ea d y 2R es po n d Purpose: First-order estimation of damages to guide World Bank, partner Data-driven assessment and government response Focus: Emergency preparedness Cri s i s / D i s as te r R 2R and response system Purpose: Assesses legal, E ve nt institutional, personnel, equipment, facilities, and information management Post-Disaste r capacities Ne e ds Asse ssm e nt Multi-sector recovery planning PDNA Focus: Economic, social sectors Purpose: Guides long-term Po s t- C ri s i s recovery priorities As s es s m en ts Sec tor Disaster risk financing, health preparedness, As se ssm e nts shock responsive social protection, critical Le ssons Learn e d infrastructure etc. Exe rcise Collaborative post-crisis review Focus: Evaluating response systems LLE Purpose: Post-disaster lessons and systems improvement for future response One of the strengths of the LLE is its ability to bring together diverse perspectives, fostering mutual understanding among all stakeholders involved in disaster response. This collaborative process leads to the creation of a strategic plan that guides the strengthening of EP&R systems, ensuring that governments are better prepared for future crises. The LLE also helps align the priorities of various agencies, ensuring a more coordinated, inclusive, and effective approach to crisis management. Beyond project-level applications, the LLE also plays a key role in informing the World Bank’s broader strategic engagement. By examining recent crises, the LLE can assess the strength of country systems and the impact of prior investments aimed at building resilience and improving crisis response capacities. This includes evaluating the effectiveness of donor responses—such as those from the World Bank and its crisis toolkit—and identifying areas where further investments may be needed. As more LLEs are deployed, including in fragile and conflict-affected (FCV) contexts, they generate lessons that help refine and enhance the crisis response toolkit, ensuring that it remains adaptive and effective in addressing emerging challenges. The final LLE report identifies critical gaps in legal, institutional, policy, and planning frameworks, providing actionable recommendations supported by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery’s (GFDRR) comparative advantage in linking and facilitating global best practices. These recommendations help clarify roles, responsibilities, and coordination structures across all levels of government to ensure a more effective and efficient crisis response. The LLE is not just a retrospective analysis of crisis events but a dynamic tool that feeds directly into the broader Crisis Response Toolkit. By offering a systematic evaluation of response systems, the LLE helps identify key areas for improvement and appropriate and other contingent financing mechanisms. In doing so, it enhances a government’s crisis management capacity, ensuring more effective and resilient responses to future disasters. Lessons Learned Exercise | 9 2. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW The GFDRR’s approach to EP&R is grounded in a conceptual framework that takes a comprehensive approach to assessing and designing system improvements and is based on the five components of a highly functional EP&R system. The five components are: (i) legal and institutional framework; (ii) personnel; (iii) facilities; (iv) equipment; and (v) information management. This approach can help avoid fragmented investments in EP&R, where governments do not holistically view the various components as an integrated system. Rather than piecemeal investments, the approach pushes for a strategic and systemic EP&R investment plan to establish a functional and resilient EP&R system across levels and departments of government, including established collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector engagement, and inclusion of civil society at large. This model ensures that the program aligns with existing EP&R systems and international standards for resilience. The approach also provides consideration for stress-testing the system, ensuring that despite any potential disruption, the EP&R system’s capacity to ensure public safety and limit economic disruption is retained.. Ultimately, the program offers a more comprehensive approach to strengthening government EP&R systems and the creation of strategic EP&R investment plans. The five components and framework, including indicative activities, are shown below: Figure 2: EP&R System’s Core Components 10 | Lessons Learned Exercise 3. LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE Overview The LLE is an innovative approach that supports governments to harness lessons from recent disaster events and improve their EP&R capacities. It provides key government and emergency relief entities an opportunity to discuss the government’s EP&R systems, procedures, and experiences and to better understand each entity’s perspective and placement within the response operation. It aims to facilitate discussions on EP&R systems, procedures, and experiences between key government and private sector organizations, NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), and disaster relief agencies. These engagements are expected to result in collaborative recommendations for EP&R capacity improvements, including a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the strengthening of the EP&R system. A strong benefit of the LLE is ultimately of enabling an enriched, mutual understanding of each stakeholder’s perspective, resources, and capacity for preparedness activities and response operations. The LLE is an integral part of the World Bank’s Crisis Response Toolkit (CRT), playing a pivotal role in enhancing government resilience and improving crisis management capacities. By examining the handling of recent disaster events, the LLE allows governments and their partners to reflect on and assess their EP&R systems. This process focuses on strengthening existing frameworks and identifying critical gaps, ultimately contributing to more effective crisis response and recovery. One of the primary strengths of the LLE lies in its ability to frame the assessment of a crisis response around the baseline legal and institutional frameworks that were in place at the time of the event. This approach helps assess whether the disaster was managed within the established protocols, coordination structures, and plans. By evaluating these elements, the LLE can ensure that future responses are based on sound foundations and strengthens the overall crisis management system. The CRT benefits from insights gained through the LLE. The exercise serves as a critical feedback loop, ensuring that response mechanisms are well-coordinated and efficient. Specifically, the LLE can inform improvements to standard operating procedures (SOPs), crisis coordination mechanisms, and disaster preparedness plans at all levels of government. This reflection and evaluation process not only ensures that lessons are captured and applied but also aligns future responses with global best practices and proven approaches. By identifying gaps in the legal and institutional frameworks, the LLE provides recommendations for strengthening systems to enhance government responsiveness. For instance, the RRO tool, which aims to expedite the process from event onset to fund disbursement, can benefit from the LLE by pinpointing key areas where responsiveness can be improved, such as government-led coordination and decision- making. Addressing these areas can lead to quicker and more efficient mobilization of resources, minimizing delays during crises. Furthermore, the LLE supports governments in refining their emergency response plans, ensuring that coordination structures at national and local levels are robust and well-defined. By focusing on the alignment between crisis events and the existing Lessons Learned Exercise | 11 framework, the LLE provides governments with actionable insights that can be used to fine-tune their crisis management protocols and disaster response frameworks. This comprehensive evaluation process strengthens a country’s ability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to future crises with greater agility and effectiveness. LLE Methodology The LLE takes a recent emergency as a “focusing event” to examine EP&R capabilities and capacities. The LLE process considers the actions of different levels of government (e.g. national, municipal, and local) and its partners prior to the event, during the event, and after the event. Although a single focusing event is proposed as a tool for engagement, the LLE will also appropriately capture any EP&R observations, comments, and feedback relating to other events stakeholders have participated in. The LLE takes advantage of the window of opportunity following a disaster where there may be political will for change and improvement. It captures and builds on lessons from previous disaster events in the country and incorporates global EP&R expertise and good practice. At its core, the LLE is a collaborative process that provides a platform for key stakeholders such as government first responders, the private sector, civil society organizations, and disaster relief agencies to create the path forward for EP&R improvements. By taking shape around a recent disaster event that affected the country, the LLE is also contextualized to the country’s EP&R landscape with pragmatic operational effectiveness as its core theme. Finally, the LLE can work as an independent effort to build confidence and capacity within a country’s EP&R systems. To maximize LLE potential, it can be combined with other tools within GFDRR, such as the R2R diagnostic tool, to leverage momentum into EP&R investment projects. The LLE culminates in a final report that consolidates all the information gathered to generate a thoughtful and focused analysis that leads to practical, supported findings and recommendations for EP&R system improvement. The extensive guidelines provided for the LLE approach in this user guide enable it to be replicated by firms or other teams by following the guided questions. The resulting report and recommendations can inform the creation of a project concept note, among other uses, or the more in-depth R2R assessment, which can inform a project appraisal document (PAD). The LLE will be coordinated by the World Bank and implemented by World Bank staff, consultants, or firms selected to conduct the exercise. The exercise will be managed and scheduled in a collaborative effort, with clear ownership by the government. Based on government demand, GFDRR EP&R Program can provide technical support. Working with GFDRR ensures efficient coordination and leverages the program’s global experience in delivering the exercise elsewhere and its network of firms and consultants, thus avoiding the challenges associated with organizational self- assessment. 12 | Lessons Learned Exercise Objectives of the LLE 2.   Provide a targeted, collaborative, government-led review of EP&R actions based on a recent disaster, facilitated through desk review, surveys, interviews, field visits, and workshops. 3.   Deliver a discussion-based tabletop exercise that clarifies how preparedness for, and response to, similar disasters can be enhanced within the country. 4.   Enhance participant understanding of integrated emergency management systems, including an exploration of legislative roles and responsibilities, mechanisms for multi-agency coordination, and the use of emergency response plans and protocols to support incident command. 5.   Development of a final LLE report which captures findings and recommendations that can be used to guide the next steps of EP&R capacity growth throughout the country, including identifying gaps in legal, institutional, policy, and planning frameworks Good Practices when Implementing an LLE Map 1: Overview of past LLEs worldwide (Status: March 2024) The LLE has been implemented in Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Vietnam, and the most recent R2R in Vanuatu contained a LLE component. Depending on the country’s requirements, the LLE has been used to capture findings and recommendations, to prepare a follow-up R2R diagnostic assessment, and to inform program and future engagements and next steps for EP&R growth. The World Bank’s participation and backing have ranged from aiding in the conceptualization of the LLE—with the country assuming responsibility for implementation—to supplying consultants to oversee and execute the process. Lessons Learned Exercise | 13 The following good practices were identified: 1. Ownership The success of an LLE depends on levels of demand from and collaboration with the government. Relevant government counterparts should be involved from the inception of the exercise. Once an LLE is officially requested by the government and key counterparts identified, dialogue should be maintained throughout the LLE process and relevant government stakeholders (ministry or disaster management agency) should be involved at an early stage. Early engagement can take the form of selecting the focusing event, identifying desired outputs, agreeing on the LLE timeline, identifying key stakeholders, selecting mission dates, reviewing and providing comments on the desk review, and preparing the inception report. 2. Expectation Management The LLE can serve as an entry point for a broader assessment process, and it may not necessarily lead to further financing for EP&R from the government, World Bank, or other partners. This type of expectation alignment may be needed at several stages. First, clear discussions are needed with the jurisdiction to discuss follow-up actions and any investments or program support from the World Bank and other actors. Additionally, when interview partners are queried during the process about their effective response decisions and available capacities, it may create an expectation that this LLE will directly lead to further concrete support. However, it is important to clarify that the LLE is only a first step in a broader EP&R growth process, and that the LLE itself may not result in immediate concrete changes. 3. Selection of the Focusing Event To predicate an LLE, a recent disaster should have affected the country within the past few years. In case of multiple events in the recent past, selecting the focusing event for the LLE should be done by the government. It should ideally be within 12 to 24 months prior to the LLE and possibly have led to some form of post-disaster assessment, with or without the international community’s involvement. In some cases, a disaster event that did not receive international support during the response phase will allow the LLE to solely focus on the country’s EP&R capacity exclusive of external assistance. 4. Comprehensive Stakeholder Involvement Key stakeholders, which may be core to the response of many emergencies impacting the country, should be identified as early as possible. The identification of these stakeholders is crucial as it informs breadth and depth of LLE results and recommendations. This point will also enable the LLE team to share information ahead of time and gather additional input for the desk review. Reviewing the country’s disaster management legislation and national disaster response plans may be the best starting point when considering stakeholder identification, but it should not replace asking the government directly who the critical players are. When the LLE is specific to a particular sector, there will be a requirement to include a more comprehensive representation from that sector at a deeper and broader level. 14 | Lessons Learned Exercise The LLE should integrate gender and social inclusion considerations throughout its assessment process, highlighting the importance of actively engaging marginalized groups, including women, persons with disabilities, the elderly, Indigenous Peoples, and other vulnerable populations. For example, training first responders in gender- sensitive approaches and ensuring that emergency housing and shelters are accessible to persons with disabilities are practical applications of this focus to ensure that systems are equipped to address the needs of diverse groups effectively. By embedding gender and social inclusion considerations into every phase of planning and investment, the LLE can help integrate these aspects into the core of EP&R systems, reducing the likelihood of their marginalization. Similarly, stakeholder consultations play a critical role in ensuring that disaster management operations are both effective and sensitive to the unique challenges posed by ongoing instability in fragile, conflict, or violent (FCV) settings. Local communities and stakeholders should be involved in addressing FCV considerations, such as confirming that spaces designated for disaster management are secure and away from active conflict or violence, and regularly assessing evacuation routes to minimize risks. By involving affected populations and local experts in these consultations, the LLE helps to tailor disaster response strategies to the specific security and logistics challenges of FCV contexts, enhancing the overall safety and effectiveness of emergency operations. The LLE should also consult and include the affected populations or, at a minimum, collect their perceptions and feedback on the assistance received. Non-traditional actors, such as representatives of women, vulnerable populations, ethnic minorities, elderly people, and people with disabilities, are an indispensable source of information when following a systemic approach. 5. First-Hand Experience and Knowledge The stakeholders, and ideally the representative participants, should be familiar with the selected disaster event to ensure data collection is optimal. Although recommended, identified stakeholders do not need to have been directly involved with the response operation. However, these stakeholders should be involved in the EP&R system in the given country so that their inputs can be captured for the LLE exercise. In addition, given the dynamic nature of government staffing, it is highly likely that key responders have moved into different roles within the government and might be harder to track. If certain stakeholders have been directly involved in the LLE’s focusing event, the discussion should be expanded to ensure their first-hand experiences and insights are captured, including qualitative information about the response operation. This can be used to enrich the LLE deliverables with first-hand information. Additionally, the consultant team must possess appropriate experience, blending operational and analytical skills, to ensure that the exercise is practical and uncovers tangible challenges and opportunities during disaster response. Without these skills and mindset, the exercise risks being overly academic and not credible to the EP&R community. 6. Contextualization of the Review Questions: Despite being a standardized tool, there is flexibility to tailor the LLE questions and components to the specific context and governance system of a jurisdiction. The LLE is primarily designed for implementation at the country-level; however, it can also be applied at the regional, local, or sectoral level. In fact, disaster response might be localized to only a certain part of the country and hence the LLE will need to focus on Lessons Learned Exercise | 15 experiences and actions at the sub-regional and local level. Cross-border issues relating to specific disaster response may arise, and it could be necessary to bring together actors from different countries. Disasters might also disproportionately impact specific sectors. For instance, lessons from pandemics or epidemics are particularly pertinent to the health care sector. In LLEs conducted in FCV settings, it is crucial that questions are interpreted in a conflict-sensitive manner to realistically assess EP&R capacities. For example, the security of warehouses may be difficult to guarantee in conflict settings, and hence an equal geographical distribution of warehouses and response stations might not be the ideal solution. This approach ensures a thorough understanding of the jurisdiction’s limitations and challenges to facilitate an effective EP&R response in a specific region, avoiding any misinterpretation of findings from that region when applied to the entire country. 7. Data Triangulation and Verification The availability of secondary literature is expected to be limited immediately following an event. A desk review will primarily involve existing legal and policy documents, pre-event response plans, and situation reports produced during the response to inform stakeholders. Comprehensive post-action reviews, evaluations, and reflections are likely to be lacking. Accordingly, the LLE will depend on oral exchanges and sharing of experiences, which can sometimes be subjective or incomplete. For instance, first responders may not be involved in central decision-making, and politicians may be unaware of challenges faced on the ground. Gathering a comprehensive understanding is one of the central objectives of the LLE, although this reliance on personal experiences means that the information gathered may be subjective, influenced by individual experiences and emotions, and incomplete. Therefore, data triangulation and verification become even more crucial. 8. Ethical Implementation LLEs are typically conducted by experienced consultants hired by the World Bank for this specific purpose. This approach supports the objectivity and quality of results, as well as the involvement of subject-matter experts. LLE participants might also be more open to engaging with independent parties, especially in FCV settings where relationships between actors may be tense. A respectful and ethical implementation of the assessment is essential to prevent any harm to the reputation of the World Bank, the counterparts in the jurisdiction, and the EP&R system. Consultants must adhere to several working principles, including do-no-harm, confidentiality, inclusivity, and impartiality. The team needs to be able to build trust with the authorities responsible for EP&R through transparent and open discussions. They should also be able to engage with various audiences in a gender-sensitive and conflict-sensitive manner, demonstrating a broad understanding of all system components. The ability to speak local languages fosters trust and enhances the accuracy of the assessment results, and gender balance within the assessment team facilitates connections with women and marginalized communities. Flexibility is also vital to manage any delays in the process and to allocate sufficient time for review and stakeholder buy-in. 9. Attention for Cross-Cutting Issues The LLE is structured around five components of the EP&R systems, yet there are several cross-cutting issues which need to be considered throughout the process. While the LLE tool may not designate a specific section to assess gender and inclusivity 16 | Lessons Learned Exercise within the EP&R system, consideration of this cross-cutting theme should be maintained throughout the assessment. Rather than conducting isolated analyses of these cross-cutting issues—such as gender and inclusivity, age, disability, vulnerability, FCV settings, health, risk communication, and disaster risk financing—the LLE proposes various suggestions and questions to address these issues in the assessment results in a more explicit manner than has been done until now. 10. Conducive Environment An LLE necessitates an environment marked by trust and openness to facilitate transparent and candid sharing of experiences, including strengths and weaknesses. It would be erroneous to assume that such a spirit always prevails immediately after response situations. On the contrary, the stress and pressure of responding to events may have led to tensions and frustrations that were not present before the event occurred. It is therefore crucial to accurately assess the level of trust in an EP&R context before deciding to initiate an LLE. There are cultures that are more open to such approaches than others. Sometimes, this assessment will require the passage of time before such an exercise can be undertaken. On other occasions, the LLE itself can serve as a confidence-building measure if properly implemented and based on a thorough understanding of any areas of friction and sensitive topics. However, if not carried out appropriately, the LLE risks exacerbating existing tensions or creating new ones, potentially causing harm with long-term consequences. In FCV settings, a sensitive interpretation of the opportunities to conduct an after-action reflection process will be even more important to avoid the LLE contributing to conflict dynamics. The LLE should ideally be part of a wider government-approved development process, as in Vanuatu, to ensure the necessary support base and ownership. Lessons Learned Exercise | 17 4. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES Inclusive Disaster Risk Management and Gender Equality The impacts of disasters do not affect all people equally. Groups such as women, girls, persons with disabilities, ethnic and racial minorities, Indigenous Peoples, youth, the elderly, and other marginalized communities are often disproportionately affected by shocks. The world’s most economically and socially disadvantaged populations often bear the brunt of these impacts, and gender dynamics further exacerbate these inequalities. Emerging evidence suggests1 that violence against women and girls (VAWG) increases in disaster settings and that disasters can increase risk factors for VAWG. Persons with disabilities are up to four times more likely to perish in disasters due to a complex interplay of physical, economic, and social barriers.2 However, empowering citizens and communities, particularly those most excluded, and supporting community participation, results in improved resilience to disasters, better development outcomes, and more sustainable solutions. The LLE represents an opportunity to identify any differentiated impact of disasters on women, girls, persons with disabilities, ethnic and racial minorities, Indigenous Peoples, youth, and other marginalized communities. Concrete examples of how the disaster and the disaster response have affected these groups will demonstrate how society at large deals with gender equality and diversity. The LLE is also an opportunity to review organizational practices and the degree of gender and inclusivity mainstreaming within structures and decision-making processes. The lack of integration of gender and inclusivity considerations within pre-disaster frameworks is linked with the level of preparedness and resilience of vulnerable groups, as well as the level of attention afforded to them both prior to and during emergencies. The assessment thus serves to test and validate any existing plans and policies, while also identifying any remaining gaps on how to better include these groups into EP&R systems and frameworks. In this context, the LLE will need to apply a gender and inclusivity lens throughout all components of the exercise to verify if these topics are appropriately integrated in the EP&R system. Mainstreaming gender and inclusivity begins by prioritizing it in institutional and legal frameworks and response plans. It extends further into ensuring that assessments of community engagement and information are conducted comprehensively, encompassing all segments of society. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015‒2030 emphasizes a participatory and gender-inclusive approach by setting the ambitious goal of enhancing access to multi-hazard early warning systems for all by 2030. 3 Moreover, it is essential for facilities and equipment to incorporate gender and disability considerations to ensure a response that is both efficient and effective in meeting the needs of the entire population. This requires adequate preparations before an emergency, building on a solid and accurate analysis of the existing capacities and needs in the jurisdiction. Finally, the component of personnel demands comprehension of needs related to gender and diversity to ensure trainings, exercises, and international coordination mechanisms are truly enhancing awareness of the particular needs of marginalized groups, and that EP&R staff are ready to respect and address these in emergency situations. The LLE presents an opportunity to check if these intentions were effectively translated into practice. 1 van Daalen, Kim R., Sarah Savić Kallesøe, Fiona Davey, Sara Dada, Laura Jung, Lucy Singh, Rita Issa, and Christina Emilian. 2022. “Extreme Events and Gender-Based Violence: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.” Lancet Planet Health 6: e504-e523. 2 Disability in a Time of Climate Disaster | Harvard University Center for the Environment. 3 Inclusive Early Warning Systems: A lifeline for all (worldbank.org). 18 | Lessons Learned Exercise The degree to which marginalized groups are successfully integrated into EP&R systems depends on larger developments in the country. However, even in jurisdictions where gender and inclusion are not perceived to be priorities, the LLE provides the possibility to raise awareness by asking the right questions and reminding EP&R personnel of the importance of gender and inclusion considerations. Concrete suggestions for questions related to gender and inclusivity are included in this user guide. Enhancing EP&R in FCV Settings Disasters are not limited by geography and can strike anywhere, including in jurisdictions affected by FCV and in low- and middle-income countries. In fact, FCV countries often exhibit heightened vulnerability to disasters.4 Disasters stem not only from natural hazards, but are also a product of human vulnerability and levels of asset exposure to said hazards. The effects of FCV and disasters are often mutually reinforcing, creating a cycle of vulnerability. Climate change, increased urbanization, and escalating poverty are anticipated to complicate this relationship. Recent analysis by the World Bank has indicated the difficulties of integrating this nexus into operational models,5 simultaneously underlining the need to address disaster risks at the same time as drivers of fragility and conflict. The ways in which we reduce risk, prepare, and respond to disasters can both trigger and amplify conflicts. However, these situations also present an opportunity to reduce conflicts, foster cooperation, and build peace. Disaster risk management (DRM) provides a chance to extend response, recovery, and reconstruction phases into longer-term and broader risk reduction and resilience building endeavors. At the same time, FCV settings may exhibit existing familiarity with international support systems and crisis coordination mechanisms coupled with heightened awareness among populations regarding coping strategies for shocks and risks. This familiarity may create a conducive environment for EP&R. LLEs need to reflect this complex relationship and must be context- and FCV-sensitive to understand mutually reinforcing disaster and FCV risks. The disaster-FCV nexus needs to be explicitly considered throughout the five R2R components to ensure an appropriate interpretation of decisions and actions, but also of the possibilities and limitations for EP&R actors. The LLE will need to pay attention to dynamics and requirements throughout the exercise and it may be valuable to engage with DRM officers or relevant officials at the sub-national level, as their insights could provide local perspectives that may differ from those of national-level actors, who may reference plans that may not function the same way on the ground. National and international EP&R capacities should be differentiated and assessed in parallel. An LLE can also use frameworks like the Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) to examine how disaster and response efforts may have either exacerbated or addressed FCV drivers, and how EP&R can be strengthened from a “do-no-harm” perspective to improve future responses. The LLE also provides an opportunity to assess the role of trust in state institutions during disaster response. In some contexts, rapid and inclusive responses can enhance the visibility and legitimacy of the state, thereby reinforcing trust in government institutions. On the other hand, if response efforts are 4 Peters, K. (2017). “The next frontier for disaster risk reduction: Tackling disasters in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.” Research Paper. London: ODI. https://www.odi.org/publications/10952-next-frontier-disaster-risk-reduction-tackling- disasters-fragile-and conflict-affected-contexts. 5 P17695800efa600c50a37707acdca8c7445.pdf (worldbank.org) Lessons Learned Exercise | 19 led primarily by international partners with limited government involvement, this can erode state legitimacy and detract from longer-term state-building objectives. Caution is recommended when analyzing international capacities and assistance; as long as these are not integrated into national frameworks and owned by national or local actors, these cannot be (financially) sustainable. This complexity can be especially pronounced in FCV countries where international actors maintain a prolonged presence, spanning even decades. Nonetheless, the LLE outcomes must offer practical and enduring recommendations. In this context, the LLE can contribute to assessing the actual implications of EP&R in FCV settings. In theory, legal and institutional frameworks need to anticipate all types of risks and disasters, including natural and man-made disasters. However, the occurrence of violence and conflict in a country may weaken the capacity of governments and local institutions to prioritize and deliver DRM, further compounded by the ambiguity in roles and responsibilities that often exists across different government actors, including on issues related to EP&R. For instance, in contexts characterized by an ongoing state-building process or the absence of a stable political settlement, there may be absent, parallel, or unclear processes for crisis preparedness and response. The LLE might be able to provide an understanding of these dynamics and its causes. In the absence of trust, transparency and clear communication are expected to be lacking in these contexts, and the LLE is likely to identify limitations in this component as a result. However, actual disaster responses might have served as confidence-building measures at the local level, and the LLE is recommended to actively look for such examples. In this sense, LLEs can serve as powerful tools to document how response efforts either build or erode confidence in state institutions, a critical consideration for the World Bank’s engagement in FCV settings. By highlighting lessons and best practices, the LLE can provide key insights into how response efforts can contribute to enhancing state legitimacy. The review is expected to record challenges around security and access to facilities, especially warehouse and shelter capacity. Rather than only identifying these issues, the LLE could also aim to identify any mitigation measures to avoid this in the future. In FCV settings, international support in a variety of sectors, especially health, water and sanitation, and food, is expected to be present before a disaster strikes. It would be interesting to explore how these existing capacities were able to absorb new needs and whether the existing procedures and mechanisms were appropriate to deal with new challenges. Finally, personnel in FCV settings are usually more familiar with international support coordination structures because of the existing presence of large international organizations. EP&R personnel might have participated in inter-agency training and exercises, and therefore it would be valuable to assess the results of this exposure and familiarity, especially in terms of international coordination structures. Concrete suggestions for questions related to FCV settings are included in this user guide. Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic The experience of responding to the COVID-19 crisis in many countries worldwide has highlighted the inadequate level of preparedness for this type of crisis. As the world copes with the challenges and aftermath of COVID-19, EP&R capacity will become more critical than ever. Countries will need to expand, develop, and update their emergency plans and response protocols; prepare appropriate policy and legal instruments; improve coordination and communication mechanisms; improve engagement with local organizations and communities; and mobilize and stock resources. All of this will 20 | Lessons Learned Exercise require further investments to enhance countries’ DRM capacities alongside investments in the health sector. International support coordination, supply chain networks, and coordination should be considered in strengthening a country’s preparedness and should be integrated into the exercise. Disease outbreaks have distinct features that set them apart from other crises, including their duration, the public health measures required to contain transmission, and the profound economic and social impacts they can have. These may include closing schools, imposing travel and trade restrictions, and other severe disruptions to economic activity. Disease outbreaks also have a significant potential for disinformation, which can complicate response efforts. Additionally, the critical importance of health products—such as diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines—often becomes a central challenge, particularly when these resources are scarce or prohibitively expensive. Reflecting these differences, most countries will have institutions and actors that are specifically focused on preparing for and responding to disease outbreaks, including national public health institutes, laboratories, regional and sub-regional bodies, and others. These capacities play a vital role in determining the trajectory of an outbreak, as well as the associated social and economic costs. However, they often interface and overlap with broader EP&R actors to some extent, but not always as effectively or extensively as is necessary. Climate and disaster risks do not halt during a pandemic, and governments must plan for dual emergencies with possible cascading effects. Additionally, the rising threats of cyberattacks further complicate these scenarios, underscoring the need for robust, multi-faceted emergency preparedness strategies. Combining the impacts of natural hazards, pandemics, and cyber threats demands comprehensive planning to ensure government continuity. The need is most pronounced in post-disaster situations when multi-sectoral issues must be addressed simultaneously, including meeting basic needs such as access to clean water, food and shelter, and the delivery of essential public services such as protection and security, social safety nets, rescue, and (mental) health care, inclusive of vulnerable groups. Prescriptions, dialysis, and cancer care are some of the most difficult challenges to manage post-disaster. Effective coordination is particularly important at the intersection of systems and agencies that are usually detached; for instance, the way in which first responders coordinate their dispatch and field operations with the capacity of health care facilities will be crucial to enable an effective emergency response. In this context, the LLE can be used to assess health-related aspects of EP&R systems as well as the integration and coordination of the health care and EP&R systems at national and local levels. Aspects that can be included are how emergency operation centers (EOC)s/emergency call centers and first responders interface with the health system (emergency vehicles, health facilities, etc.). Other key areas to assess include the systems’ actual operations—such as dispatch and field operations—looking at coordination protocols, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and emergency response plans. Further, some aspects related to health facilities, equipment, personnel, and medical supplies can be included in an LLE. Where the pandemic persists, the LLE already has proven success when being conducted remotely. Lessons Learned Exercise | 21 Community-Based DRM The LLE should also address community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM), an approach to DRM that both originates from and is organized by local communities. One of the key aspects of successful CBDRM is maintaining interest in and motivation for DRM at the community level while simultaneously incorporating CBDRM approaches at the national policy level. All of this should be underpinned by building community-level capacity to understand and carry out hazard, vulnerability, exposure, and risk analysis and apply it to EP&R resilience-related decision-making processes. Communities are the first affected and the first to respond to a disaster. An all-inclusive EP&R system provides a structure to engage actors at various levels, from the national to local. Improving communities’ preparedness and resilience should be achieved through accessible and regular training and capacity-building formats managed by civil protection actors. Empowering communities through enhanced risk understanding and knowledge of short-term preparedness measures carries the potential to significantly reduce disaster response time and establish local awareness to build resilience; it can be achieved through programs focusing on training, education, awareness, and communication. These programs can be delivered by local NGOs, the Red Cross, the private sector, and other non-governmental civil society organizations with strong community outreach practices. Additional initiatives may include simulation exercises and disaster risk awareness campaigns, evacuation drills, shelters, and setting-up volunteer community resilience support groups. For communities to take responsibility locally, these programs should be informed by local knowledge. In this context, the LLE can assess how communities and CBOs fulfill their roles in EP&R, particularly during the LLE’s focusing event. In addition to government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector, the LLE activities should include CBOs and volunteer groups to review and provide recommendations for improvements in the following key components of CBDRM: 1) institutional arrangements for CBDRM between local and national levels of government, as well as between government agencies, CBOs, NGOs, and the private sector; 2) community-based early warning systems; and 3) community- based contingency planning, including response, recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. 22 | Lessons Learned Exercise 5. ENGAGEMENT PROCESS Work with the client begins with conversations that assess the opportunity based on the five components of the EP&R Conceptual Framework. Then, based on the government’s level of interest, country context, and the current system’s level of development, an LLE (which can inform a further operation) or the more in-depth R2R assessment (which can inform a PAD, among other uses) may be initiated. Typically, the LLE serves as the first stage of engagement to build interest in EP&R investments and leads into a full R2R diagnostic assessment, although in some cases countries may proceed directly to an R2R diagnostic assessment.6 In line with the good practices described above, there are several minimum requirements to conduct a successful LLE process: Figure 3: Minimum Requirements for an LLE Process LLE versus R2R A task team leader (TTL) can choose between an LLE and an R2R, or other tailored tool, when offering EP&R support to the jurisdiction. The decision on which instrument is most appropriate depends on several factors. A first element is the degree of interest and engagement of the authorities. An R2R assessment is usually a longer and more comprehensive process that requires more time and efforts by the national authorities, involving the invitation of external stakeholders to participate in the process, the sharing of documents and information, and support for the validation of the investment recommendations. Requiring less time and effort, an LLE can be conducted in a more concise format and is usually a shorter and less in-depth process. A second element is the actual objective of the exercise. An LLE is usually an entry- point activity to launch the topic of EP&R and test the ground for further engagements. An R2R is suitable when the availability of future investments is given, and actual investments can be implemented after the assignment is over. When there are no concrete plans for the authorities or the World Bank to follow up on the EP&R agenda, the R2R may not result in any action, even though the tool is considered an instrument rather than an end product. The LLE presents a lower risk of failing to produce concrete results, since it contains no specified expectations for follow-up, but the process itself can achieve the placement of EP&R on the national agenda and encourage exchange and collaboration among EP&R actors. 6 For more information on the engagement process, see the EP&R Strategy Note; for details on the R2R, see the R2R User Guide. Lessons Learned Exercise | 23 The third element to be considered is the level of trust and openness. The LLE requires the presence of a basic level of trust and openness since it brings the different actors together. The R2R might be more suitable when the environment is less conducive since the assessment addresses each actor individually and can, in fact, provide common ground for the EP&R community to work together after the assessment is over. As a fourth element, the LLE focuses on a specific event, guided by the actual developments in a situation, and therefore some components can be afforded more weight than others. The R2R is a systemic approach whereby 360 questions are afforded the same relevance for the eventual scoring of EP&R capacities. A fifth and final element differentiating the two instruments is that, even though both tools use the same methodological frameworks with the five components, they apply a different approach. The LLE assumes a retrospective approach, analyzing what concretely happened in a given situation, with the focus on concrete situations and examples. The R2R, though, looks at the status quo and existing policies, plans, and capacities at the moment with the aim of making prospective recommendations. Even when the R2R is based on events in the past, irrespective of which event, the aim is to assess the present and to see what is in place, but the R2R cannot necessarily test theory with practice. This difference is visible in the tense in which the questions are asked: present versus past . Figure 4: Characteristics of an LLE versus an R2R Based on a concrete Informed by actual and focusing event possible events of any nature Entry point to start a Designed to deliver concrete process investment recommendations Present-focused and Retrospective prospective Requires level of trust Provides groundwork for all and transparency EP&R actors Qualitative method Mixed: quantitative & qualitative methods Due to their different designs, both instruments can be applied gradually, whereby an LLE can prepare the ground for a more extensive R2R. Alternatively, the R2R can identify the need to conduct a more detailed assessment of concrete situations to deepen the recommendations or to build trust between specific EP&R actors. 24 | Lessons Learned Exercise Methodological Framework and Guiding Questions The LLE can be implemented in any country using an implementation approach catered to the country’s context and is based on the government’s priorities (described in the Process Outline section below). It is framed around the World Bank’s EP&R framework to ensure a consistent, comprehensive, and integrated foundation. Through organizing results in this way, national leadership and ownership will be ensured, and recommendations can be implemented through other development partners. The final report and recommendations will be framed within the five components of the EP&R framework. A summary of each component is provided below, acknowledging that the practical application of plans and policies will be most relevant. Under each component, standard questions are provided; however, they should not be seen as exhaustive and require adaptation to the context. The number of questions has been kept relatively small, and they focus on the response side of the EP&R system, since they serve to facilitate an exchange of experiences based on the methodology within the scope of the LLE rather than offering a comprehensive review of the system at large. Minimum reflections on how to consider cross-cutting aspects, such as gender and inclusivity, FCV, and risk communication are included in the questions, and additional ideas on how to further explore these topics within the LLE methodology are provided in Annex 11. Figure 5: Component 1 ‒ Legal and Institutional Framework Legal & Institutional Framework Information Facilities Equipment Personnel Internal and external clarity about various public and private agencies’ roles is critical during disaster and emergency response. Where ambiguity exists, so does inefficiency and jurisdictional overlap. When lives and economic activity are threatened during an event, this ambiguity can increase both perceived and actual losses. To address this challenge, improvements regarding the clarity of the roles of agencies and stakeholders involved in EP&R activities are crucial to strengthening resilience at all government levels. Ideally, these accountabilities and mandates are clearly enshrined in Lessons Learned Exercise | 25 legislation with directive regulations. However, even without complete organizational clarity, investment in EP&R can often improve a jurisdiction’s ability to mitigate impacts and limit disaster and emergency-related losses. Furthermore, every agency’s mandate to deliver services during an emergency is imperative so as to analyze and confirm instructions for appropriate continuity. In this context, World Bank investments are key to ensuring that financial and technical support is provided at the right time, to the right agency. Guiding Questions 1.   Was the EP&R legislation at the various governance levels complete and clear so as to enable an effective and efficient response? Did the legislation mandate the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, including women, marginalized groups, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and older adults engaged in EP&R decision-making roles? 2.   Were specific mechanisms in place to facilitate the participation of diverse stakeholders, and were these mechanisms effective in practice? 3.   Were all EP&R actors aware of their responsibilities during the event, and were they able to execute these tasks as required? Were accountabilities for EP&R actors clear during the event in terms of gender-sensitive and inclusive disaster management? Did they receive training in these practices, and were these practices applied effectively to ensure a consistent approach across all levels of legislation and policy? 4.   Were agency-specific operational response plans in place, and did they include the required SOPs, protocols, and guidelines? Did these SOPs and protocols incorporate gender-sensitive approaches, and were they effective in ensuring an inclusive response? Was conflict and violence effectively integrated into disaster risk reduction strategies, including business continuity during states of emergency? 5.   Did the critical infrastructure assurance program contribute to the response, leading to the prevention of secondary effects of disasters? Did it consider and address the specific needs of vulnerable populations, including women, in its design and implementation? 6.   Did the financial instruments for financing EP&R enable an efficient response, and was the risk management strategy based on an understanding of the needs of marginalized groups in society, including women, people with disabilities, and elderly people? Were financial resources equitably allocated to address their specific needs, and was the strategy inclusive and effective in practice? 7.   Were emergency procurement systems and frameworks appropriate to respond quickly and effectively following a disaster, and were gender norms considered for the distribution of goods and disbursement of funds? Were there specific measures to address gaps related to these norms, and were these measures effective in ensuring an inclusive response? 8.   Were public financial management policies and procedures for emergency expenditures adequate, and were financial and insurance products effective in meeting the needs and preferences of women, marginalized, and vulnerable groups? Were these products aligned with broader social protection programs? How were legal or cultural barriers identified and addressed, and were these efforts effective in practice? 26 | Lessons Learned Exercise Component 2 ‒ Information The collection, analysis, and swift dissemination of information enables better decision- making before emergencies, during response operations, and through the transition to early recovery. Impacts from disasters are felt locally, so community engagement is vital to a well-developed preparedness state. The information used for EP&R includes information generated from early warning systems to provide residents—and the response teams that support them—with advance notice of emerging hazardous events. In addition, the coordination of emergency information from responding agencies and social media ensures horizontal and vertical situational awareness that enables efficient, coordinated, and prioritized response operations. Finally, the development of hazard and vulnerability maps along with other geo-referenced emergency information (captured digitally and shared electronically) provides decision- makers with a key resource for planning across time scales to reduce risk. However, for quality information to have an impact, it must be utilized by well-trained, committed personnel that have the appropriate equipment and skills to respond safely and effectively. Guiding Questions 1.   Were communities, including vulnerable populations, effectively engaged in EP&R activities for them to be an integrated part of the response operation? Did awareness of the needs of these populations lead to effective assistance? Were there specific mechanisms to ensure their engagement, and were these mechanisms effective? 2.   Did pre-disaster public preparedness education and community-led mitigation result in the desired outcomes and activities during the response operation to minimize loss of life and damage? Were community education programs effective in teaching women and girls how to protect themselves during the disaster and early recovery? Were these programs effective in achieving their goals? 3.   Was the early warning system able to detect the hazard in a timely manner? Were the early warning messages developed promptly after the hazard was detected? Were the early warning messages communicated in simple, non- technical language? Did the development of the early warning messages involve a participatory, diversified, and gender-inclusive approach? How effective were the early warning messages in reaching all segments of the population? Did the population understand the early warning messages? Did the early warning system include multiple channels of dissemination? Were there any challenges in communicating the early warning messages to the population? How could the early warning system be improved based on the population’s feedback? 4.   Did the information management system enable timely and effective sharing of information between agencies based on evidence and early warning updates, and the connection of existing data sets? Did this information include gender-disaggregated data? Was the data effective in supporting risk analysis and decision-making? 5.   Was geo-located, current, and jurisdiction-specific vulnerability information available within the disaster management information system to ensure integrated risk analysis and vulnerability analysis at the sub-regional/regional level? Lessons Learned Exercise | 27 6.   Were the available geographic information system capacities and geo- referenced data layers sufficient to contribute to the integration and use of geomatics in the event response? Did these capacities include gender and social vulnerability data? Were these capacities effective in supporting a comprehensive response? 7.   Was disaggregated data on marginalized groups, such as women, children, elderly people, persons with disabilities, and various minority groups, systematically collected and disaggregated by type and degree of functional disability, age, gender, and geographic location? Was geo-referenced vulnerability data available for emergency managers in an accessible and user- friendly format allowing quick use during emergencies? Component 3 – Facilities Coordination efforts for EP&R activities require a structural presence, be it for command and control, communication and information sharing, emergency aid movement, or the staging of response teams and their equipment. These facilities act as a core element in establishing a culture of preparedness, ensuring a dependable common operating picture and resilient services when most other critical infrastructure and government service is disrupted. This component ensures a nexus for information, personnel, and equipment as an EP&R system matures through focused investment. Guiding Questions 1.   How effective was the coordination role of EOCs? Did they possess the required capacities, budget, operational resources, and policies to assume their mandate as prescribed in the legislation? Did the composition of the EOC staff reflect the diversity of the affected population, including women, members of marginalized groups, persons with disabilities, and individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds? How did this diverse composition impact the effectiveness of the EOC in key decision-making roles? Were the policies and practices effective in supporting diverse representation? 2.   Did the logistics management in the jurisdiction support an effective distribution of domestic and international relief goods in the intermediate aftermath of the event, relying on sustainable network and appropriate warehouse storage facilities? Were stocks in warehouses culturally appropriate and in line with the practices and customs of the target populations, including the specific needs of women and other vulnerable populations? Were these efforts effective in ensuring an inclusive response? 3.   Did the location, resources, and capabilities of local response stations foster an effective response of first responders, including ambulances, police, firefighters, hazard-specific response, and civil protection? Were these stations geographically accessible to diverse communities, including those with specific gender needs? Were they safeguarded and secured against violence to ensure operational continuity? How effective were these response stations in addressing the unique needs of women, men, and marginalized groups? 4.   Could the population find adequate shelter before, during, and after the event that met the requirements of the emergency? Did these shelters adhere to international standards of accessibility and safety for all? How effectively did these shelters address the specific needs of women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups? 28 | Lessons Learned Exercise 5.   Were disaster evacuation routes effectively used by all parts of the population before and during the event? How well did these routes accommodate the specific safety and accessibility needs of women children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups? Component 4 ‒ Equipment The appropriate acquisition, use, and maintenance of EP&R equipment is essential for effective rescue operations. Investments can assist governments in overcoming capital requirements to provide access to lifesaving technologies and resources. Combined with an established parts and service supply chain, it enables governments to ensure that core EP&R agencies have the tools to deliver their services safely and effectively. Guiding Questions 1.   Were emergency social services adequately prepared to handle a surge in patients, and did they have the required capacities to effectively care for injured individuals, including the necessary staffing and crisis standards of care? Were these services equipped to provide timely assistance to vulnerable populations, including women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and VAWG victims? How effective were these services in meeting these specific needs? 2.   Were psychological services effective and appropriate, and were these services prioritized for persons with existing pre-disaster mental health conditions and disabilities, for children, and for VAWG victims? How effective were these services in addressing the specific needs of these vulnerable groups? 3.   Were public health and water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities safe, accessible, and responsive to the needs of all individuals, including women, girls, and marginalized gender identities? How effectively did these facilities address gender-specific needs and ensure inclusivity? 4.   Did emergency responders have the required information and communication technology to communicate internally and between agencies? Were information and communication technology tools and platforms user-friendly, accessible, and responsive to the specific needs and preferences of different users, including women, girls, and persons with disabilities? How effective were these tools in facilitating communication and coordination? 5.   Was broadband infrastructure and communication infrastructure protected against the impact of the event, and if these were damaged, were capacities available to repair the infrastructure in a timely manner? 6.   Did emergency responders have sufficient and appropriate equipment to respond to the event? Was specialized equipment available to evacuate persons with restricted mobility from the specific hazard situation caused by the event? 7.   Was the response capacity in line with the requirements of the context, including type of common hazards, accessibility requirements (small streets, mountains, water, etc.) and considering security issues when operating in FCV contexts? Were gender-specific needs considered in planning and executing response operations? How effective were these considerations in practice? Lessons Learned Exercise | 29 8.   Was a support team available for emergency responders that was trained in communicating with children, adults with mental health conditions, speakers of different languages, and other vulnerable populations? Did this training include strategies for addressing the specific needs of women and other marginalized groups? How effective were these teams in providing support? Component 5 ‒ Personnel A highly skilled and experienced workforce is one of the most valuable resources in any EP&R system. To achieve this, a culture of preparedness must be established that places the trust of the public and political leadership in the agencies tasked with ensuring public safety and minimizing economic disruptions. This requires intensive and extensive training of those involved in EP&R to acquire knowledge, develop skills, and gain practical experience. This development of personnel must take advantage of the best available plans, protocols, frameworks, information, facilities, and equipment to ensure an interoperable systems approach is broadly understood. It must also ensure investment in personnel development transitions from the individual to the team, and from the team to the agency culture. Guiding Questions 1.   Was the incident organization structure in place in the jurisdiction effective in preparing the EP&R personnel on how to respond, including the availability of policies, common resources, and rosters? Did coordination mechanisms between various agencies, particularly in terms of civil-military coordination, allow for a clear division of responsibilities during emergencies? Were gender- sensitive policies and practices integrated into these structures? 2.   Did the incident organization structure enable an effective and efficient response based on clear policies and procedures? Was guidance provided to EP&R personnel on gender-sensitive communication, leadership, and decision- making in crisis situations, and did it have an impact on the response? 3.   Were the EP&R personnel in the jurisdiction adequately trained to respond to the specific event, including through inter-agency training, robust training material, qualified trainers, and adequate and varied training methods? Was the EP&R training program effective to teach first responders how to better support vulnerable parts of the population during the event? Was the EP&R training program effective in teaching EP&R personnel how EP&R in FCV settings should be conducted? 4.   Were the EP&R personnel in the jurisdiction adequately prepared to respond to the specific event, thanks to the organization of exercises and drills, including in inter-agency collaboration and opportunities to validate and practice response plans? Was the EP&R exercise program effective to teach first responders how to better support vulnerable parts of the population during the event? Was the EP&R exercise program effective in teaching EP&R personal how EP&R in FCV settings should be conducted? 30 | Lessons Learned Exercise 5.   Was the jurisdiction adequately prepared for international support coordination, including by assigning a central agency to coordinate incoming assistance, familiarity with international aid practices, standards, and systems, and testing the compatibility between national and international logistics and distribution systems? Were relief goods distributed in consultation with local communities and marginalized populations to ensure that the persons most in need received assistance first? 6.   Did the central agency have mechanisms in place for donor coordination? Was the coordination with international agencies part of a longer-term strategic approach, especially in FCV settings? 7.   Are processes in place to integrate lessons learned of the specific event into future training and exercise programs and to update relevant response plans? How are gender-specific lessons incorporated to improve the effectiveness and inclusivity of future responses? Lessons Learned Exercise | 31 6. PROCESS OUTLINE The LLE is completed through a four-phase, six-step sequential process. Each step informs the next, building meaningful information regarding the selected disaster event and EP&R capabilities. The information collection methods vary across each step to confirm findings during final analysis without duplicating effort during the project. The timeframe from initiation to completion of the LLE process is anticipated to be three to four months. Total cost, including support from the GFDRR program, will be approximately US$50,000 for the delivery of the LLE and another US$50,000 for travel costs, mission expenses, logistics for the final workshop, etc. Based on the specific stage of the project cycle or World Bank engagement in the country, the output of this process may inform a project concept note, technical assistance project, ongoing lending operation, or various other uses. Figure 6: Timeline and Format of LLE Implementation Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4: 2-4 Weeks 6-8 Weeks 2-4 Weeks 2-4 Weeks Pre-Mission In-Country LLE Final Inception Stakeholder Report Desk Review Survey Workshop Report Engagement The LLE implementation takes a total of 14-20 weeks on average Significant attention has been given to establishing and maintaining scope throughout the project. By identifying and anchoring the LLE in a previous disaster, not only will clarity on specific lessons learned be more easily determined, but a natural bound on the discussion will be set. Moreover, by focusing on an event that surpassed local capacity but did not cross the threshold of government’s request for external support (such as the UN coordination assistance), results and recommendations will be more practical and pragmatic. The exercise will typically follow a four-phase approach conducted by a selected firm or consultants. The GFDRR program can support the TTL in selecting the firm or consultants (“LLE Team”), utilizing market research that the program conducted to identify domestic, regional, and international high-quality firms and individual consultants with the capacity to complete the work. The GFDRR program on EP&R will support the identification and hiring of consultants using this carefully selected cadre of experts, with qualified experience across sectors, skills, and regions. Suggested terms of reference are included in Appendix 10 of this guide. Once the LLE Team is selected, they will adhere to the following four-phase approach while the TTL manages and coordinates with technical support from the GFDRR program, as needed: The LLE typically requires 14‒20 weeks for completion; however, this timeline is highly dependent on government interest and DRM team prioritization. When establishing the timeline, attention should be given to upcoming country holidays, elections at each jurisdictional level, etc., to ensure participant availability. 32 | Lessons Learned Exercise Task 1: LLE Inception and Design To formally initiate the project, the LLE Team should hold the project mobilization meeting and meet with key government counterparts to confirm: i.   The project’s strategic goals, objectives, and key aspects ii.   The project team tasked with execution iii.   Agreement on the selection of the LLE focusing event iv.   The project’s scope, methodology, activities, and timeline v.   The anticipated project outcomes In addition, the LLE inception should provide an opportunity for discussion on administrative issues such as project management approaches, communications protocols, and quality assurance and control measures to ensure alignment from the point of mobilization. Following the project mobilization meeting and confirmation of the proposed LLE focusing event, an inception report should be prepared that: i.   Describes the understanding of the objectives and tasks, schedule, staffing, and exercise management approach. ii.   Sets out the control process, including the critical path, to ensure the exercise reaches its goals. iii.   Describes the methodology, principles and procedures, and process, including suggested workshop agenda, the methodology for information collection, and frameworks and theories that will be used. Task 2: Pre-Mission Preparations 2.1 Desk Review The desk review report should provide a brief analysis of academic literature to explore the country’s EP&R systems, the LLE focusing event, and any other relevant disaster events, including disaster assessments and lessons learned. It should include proposals for later stages of project delivery, including a draft engagement plan and data collection schedule in addition to establishing a list of stakeholders for interview, locations for field visits, and workshop participants. The desk review will also likely identify tentative observations or interim conclusions that shape some of the questions investigated and tested during the stakeholder engagement. 2.2 Develop and Distribute the Pre-Engagement Survey Distribute an online pre-engagement LLE survey to understand the country, provincial, or local context; the national response framework; and participant accountabilities, capabilities, and capacities. Feedback from the survey will improve the final tailoring of the engagement plan and one-on-one interview and engagement materials. Lessons Learned Exercise | 33 Task 3: LLE Mission 3.1 Stakeholder Engagement During these initial engagements, the LLE Team conducts small group interviews by video conference or in person to explore the contributions of responders and government departments at the national, provincial, and local levels. It considers the experiences and viewpoints of impacted communities. For government and response stakeholders, a set of high-level questions structured around the following themes may be used in a semi-structured interview format to engage participants during meetings: i.   The level of organizational preparedness for response to a major disaster event, such as personnel, equipment, training, plans, and SOPs. ii.   Any gaps or challenges identified as a result of the response to the LLE focusing event. iii.   Improvement programs delivered or underway due to the focusing event or similar recent disaster experiences. Interviews with community-based stakeholders should concentrate on their involvement with public authorities in preparedness, such as risk sensitization activities and community-level exercises, their perceptions of the effectiveness and utility of early warning systems, and their experiences from interactions with public authorities and responders during the LLE focusing event. 3.2 LLE Workshops Over the course of the mission, a series of LLE stakeholder workshops, interviews and field visits should be organized to present emerging findings aligned to each of the key themes from the EP&R Conceptual Framework, with separate sessions considering: i.   Legal and institutional accountabilities: at the local and metropolitan level; and between the community, metropolitan, provincial, and national levels ii.   Information: including provision of community risk information; engagement and preparedness activities; emergency response plans; and early warning arrangements, including alert issuance, warning dissemination, and communication iii.   Facilities: the current status of EOCs and disaster management information systems at the metropolitan, provincial, and national levels; EP&R training facilities; status of emergency shelters and logistics facilities iv.   Equipment: hazard-specific response capabilities; technical rescue; and community-based response capabilities v.   Personnel: arrangements for emergency response command; control and coordination; training for responders; multi-agency and community-based drills and exercises The LLE workshop is one of the main deliverables of the LLE. To enhance the government’s overall activities related to EP&R/DRM, the workshop will build on information gathered through earlier tasks, particularly the one-on-one interviews conducted during the week preceding the workshop. The workshop will aim to identify ongoing gaps and specific recommendations with respect to key government entities and relief organizations on the front lines of the country’s EP&R systems. This exercise will be tailored to the country’s national and local context to ensure relevance. The 34 | Lessons Learned Exercise workshop will focus on reviewing the DRM capacity and will include representatives of the agencies directly involved with response and recovery activities and those agencies providing support. The workshop will bring different stakeholders together, share and confirm findings of the data collection stage, and define/confirm next steps. The workshop will also be an opportunity to engage in a tabletop simulation leading to a potential second phase, based on government interest, of a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems. The World Bank country office and the government will work together to determine an appropriate venue based on the number of participants (see more information related to the workshop in Appendices 4‒8). On the final day of the approximately week-long program of workshops, interviews, and field visits, a concluding session should provide an opportunity for the LLE Team to present to the key government authority who owns the exercise (for example, the national DRM agency), the conclusions and outcomes from the LLE process, including recommendations emanating from each of the individual thematic workshops. This meeting will provide an opportunity for stakeholders and senior management to validate the emerging LLE findings and recommendations. Task 4: Final Analysis and Report The EP&R Lessons Learned Exercise – Final Report will summarize the LLE process and set out key findings and recommendations for actions that have been agreed with counterparts from the government. The report should include a short slide deck summarizing the process and key outcomes, as well as copies of the materials generated for the stakeholder workshops. Detailed Timeline and Description of Phases and Tasks The following table outlines a typical timeline for an LLE, including project phases, task assignments, and outputs. Each LLE is expected to vary according to circumstances and country context. Table 1: Typical LLE Timeline, Phases and Tasks Step Description and Output Timeline Task 1: Project Inception 1.1 Project Conduct a mobilization teleconference meeting involving team members Month 1 Mobilization and the World Bank Group leadership team. Meeting Output: Meeting Minutes Format: Word/PDF 1.2 Inception Develop a project inception report that confirms project methods, tasks, Month 1 Report deliverables, and associated project administration. Output: Report (LLE Team) Format: Word/PDF Task 2: Pre-Mission Preparations 2.1 Desk Review Prepare a desk review report that provides a brief review of academic Month 2 Report literature related to the country’s EP&R system, existing documentation on the LLE focusing event and other relevant disaster events, and the EP&R legal and policy framework. Output: Draft Report (LLE Team); Approved Report (DRM team) Format: Word/PDF Lessons Learned Exercise | 35 Step Description and Output Timeline 2.2.1 Pre - Mission List of key government stakeholders Month 2 Survey: Create an initial list of participants from government, private sector, and non-profit EP&R partners. This document will also be used to identify potential field visits, key stakeholders for the interviews, and workshop invitations. Output: Draft List of Participants (LLE Team); Approved List of Participants (DRM team)Format: Excel 2.2.2: Pre - Mission Develop and distribute the pre-mission survey Month 2 Survey: This tool will focus on the country context, national response framework, and participant accountabilities based on the desk review report. The survey will be adapted into an online survey document and distributed based on the stakeholders’ list identified in task 2.2.1. Output: Survey (LLE Team) Format: Office Forms Phase 3: LLE Mission 3.1.1 In-Country Send interview/workshop invitation letters Month 3 Stakeholder Engagement and Invitations should be distributed based on the list of participants identified Field Visits in task 2.2. Output: Draft Invitations (LLE Team); Distribute Invitations (DRM Team) Format: Word for Draft; PDF for Final Version 3.1.2 In-Country Logistics planning Month 3 Stakeholder Logistics planning must be completed for the mission, including: (i) Engagement and transportation (cars for interviews); (ii) booking of the workshop venue; (iii) Field Visits any catering related to the workshop (coffee/lunch, etc.); (iv) printing of documents; and (v) provision of exercise props for the workshop. Output: Logistics Plan (LLE and DRM teams) Format: Word 3.1.3 In-Country Interview planning Month 3 Stakeholder Start letting the key stakeholders know about the mission and start Engagement and scheduling the interviews. Field Visits Output: Mission Schedule (LLE and DRM teams) Format: Word 3.1.4 In-Country Workshop planning Month 3 Stakeholder Information gathered from the desk review report and pre-mission survey Engagement and will be consolidated to form a foundation for the LLE interviews and Field Visits workshop. In particular, the analytical results will guide the final planning considerations for the mission and workshop. Output: Interview Questions (LLE Team); Workshop Slide Deck (LLE Team) Format: Word / PowerPoint 3.2.1 LLE Kick-off meetings Month 4 Workshops At the start of the LLE mission, kick-off meetings should be scheduled with the government counterparts to introduce the mission goals and plans. 36 | Lessons Learned Exercise Step Description and Output Timeline 3.2.2 LLE Interviews and field visits Month 4 Workshops Conduct information gathering interviews with identified government, private sector, NGO, and CBO EP&R partners.Conduct potential field visits. Output: Participant Interview Notes (LLE Team) Format: Word 3.2.3 LLE Deliver LLE workshop Month 4 Workshops Deliver a one-and-half day workshop to collaboratively engage with major partners in the country’s EP&R systems to discuss lessons learned and recommendations for improvements. Output: Completed Project Concepts (LLE Team); Workshop Evaluation Report (LLE Team) Format: Word 3.2.4 LLE Mission wrap- up Month 4 Workshops Conduct wrap-up meetings for the LLE mission Output: LLE Mission Summary (LLE and DRM Team) Format: Word Phase 4. Post-Mission 4.1 Complete LLE Complete a report that summarizes the entire process and provides Month 5 Final Report recommendations for immediate improvement measures. These recommendations will be based on the information gathered during the pre-mission and mission phases and will also include all information collected for informing EP&R investment prioritization at this stage. Output: Report (LLE Team) Format: Word for Draft; PDF for Final Version Lessons Learned Exercise | 37 Information Gathering Methodology To ensure robust information for accurate analysis and practical EP&R capacity recommendations, the LLE uses a multi-modal approach to information gathering. The six methods for information collection are described below. Figure 7: Methods for gathering information World Bank Desk Review Pre-Mission Survey Staff Engagement Site Visits Participant Workshop Interviews Desk Review A brief analysis of peer-reviewed and gray literature regarding EP&R in the target country should be completed. This review should also include a high-level gap analysis of government-produced DRM documents and may include reference sources from nearby jurisdictions with similar risk profiles to ensure a more robust analysis. Pre-Mission Survey A brief survey should be circulated to prospective and confirmed LLE participants prior to the mission. The survey results should be analyzed and consolidated with literature review findings to inform mission planning and refine workshop materials. The survey may also provide a secondary benefit of increasing awareness of and participatory interest in the LLE for those that may be undecided. A recommended survey template can be found in Appendix 2. It is recommended to share the pre-workshop survey at least eight weeks ahead of the LLE mission to make sure enough respondents can answer and ensure that the answers inform discussions during the mission. The preliminary survey analysis should be conducted ahead of the mission and further refined during the mission. Pre-workshop survey findings can also be used during interviews to identify areas for improvement. 38 | Lessons Learned Exercise World Bank Staff Engagement World Bank staff currently engaged, or recently engaged, in DRM projects involving the country in question may be consulted before, during, and after the mission and workshop. The insights and general impressions on the state of EP&R capacity in the country, particularly related to the selected focusing disaster event, will help establish context. By capturing the advice and input of appropriate World Bank DRM staff, a more accurate picture may emerge, and opportunities to align LLE recommendations with those of ongoing or emerging World Bank projects may be identified. Site Visits The LLE mission should start with a kick-off meeting with the government, to make sure that the LLE Team, DRM team, and government counterparts have a consistent understanding regarding the different activities during the mission. This stage is important to ensure that the relevant disaster management authority can also be involved in the organization or delivery of the workshop and mission activities (for example, they will deliver an EP&R overview at the beginning of the workshop). The LLE should not plan more than three meetings a day to leave enough time for quality data collection and avoid delays. Often, there is a snowball effect when undertaking interviews, with respondents suggesting other counterparts to meet or interview. It is therefore important to leave some leeway to make sure these other potential respondents can be met. Throughout the LLE mission and specifically during potential site visits, the LLE Team will record empirical observations about EP&R-related elements, such as the condition of critical infrastructure (storm shelters, early warning systems, EOCs, etc.). In addition, notes regarding the downscaling and mainstreaming of national policy frameworks to the local and operational levels will also support LLE analysis and recommendations. Completing site visits have also been shown in previous LLEs to validate the motive and commitment of the LLE Team with participants and country counterparts. Participant Interviews During the LLE mission, participants should be engaged in direct interviews using open-ended questions that focus on EP&R elements noted in the EP&R framework as applied to the selected disaster. These interviews may occur through one-on-one meetings, guided field tours, working group sessions, or other means suitable to the LLE Team and the participants. These general interview questions are listed in Appendix 3, although additional directed or follow-up questions may be included in these discussions. As the meeting duration is likely to be 1‒1.5 hours, it will be helpful to ensure participants have sufficient time to guide the discussion in their own words as a means of determining EP&R strengths and opportunities for improvement. Lessons Learned Exercise | 39 Workshop A critical element of the LLE is a 1.5-day workshop delivered during the second week of the mission. The workshop should be divided into three sessions that engage and challenge participants in diverse ways; two sessions are delivered on the first day, with a third session held on the morning of the second day. The first session seeks participant feedback on the selected disaster event through the lens of the country’s national emergency response plan, should such a plan exist. The session encourages open reflection on what went well and what participants believe can be improved, both within their organizations and in the organizations that they directly worked with during those events. The second session introduces the EP&R framework at a high level to encourage participants to view EP&R systemically and help conceptualize potential solutions for challenges they encountered during the disaster event (LLE focusing event). The third session, scheduled for the morning of the workshop’s second day, is a discussion-based tabletop exercise. This tabletop exercise walks through a scenario based on a similar event to the disaster event. At critical points, the LLE Team will pause the scenario to ask the participants to work together to identify potential solutions to the challenges that were identified during the LLE based on findings from the disaster event and similar events. In this way, the LLE captures potential solutions noted from other LLE information gathering and direct collaborative innovation led by participants during the tabletop exercise. Additional details regarding the workshop can be found in Appendices 4 and 5. 40 | Lessons Learned Exercise 7. ENGAGEMENT, OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING Engagement The LLE has been designed to maximize the efficiency and use of time for participants, especially for government representatives. Participant time commitments are estimated at about 16 hours, including the workshop. The LLE approach will ensure reasonable review periods and lead time for all participants to improve engagement and produce high-quality results. It is not intended that new data should be generated by organizations participating in the LLE—only existing data, records, and information will be targeted. This should significantly reduce the workload required by organizations and enable strong participation. Oversight To ensure clear leadership, oversight, effective collaboration, and timely decision- making, it is recommended that the director of the country’s disaster management authority be confirmed as the primary LLE contact for the government. The World Bank country team or EP&R team will also identify a primary counterpart in the government to be the main LLE contact person to enable effective communications. Reporting Throughout the LLE, regular updates will be provided to the World Bank and client government’s primary contacts. These updates will include progress confirmation, potential issues that may affect LLE timelines and potential solutions, and opportunities to broaden and deepen participant engagement. In addition to these regular project management reports, the LLE will also produce three key output reports: 1. Inception report The first report in the LLE output series, the inception report, should confirm the engagement approach and buy-in from participants. The report should describe the understanding of the LLE objectives and tasks, the schedule, and the LLE approach overall. It should lay out the control process, including a critical path, to ensure the LLE achieves its goals. A detailed description of the methodology, a detailed work plan, suggested workshop agenda, data collection, and core government documents for reference and guidance should also be included. 2. Desk review report The desk review will carry forward and expand on the inception report with a focus on the country context for EP&R, and particularly the details associated with the disaster event selected as the focusing event for the LLE. The report should also address logistics planning elements for the LLE mission, such as the draft mission agenda, list of interview and workshop participants, interview details and agreed-on guiding questions for the interview, and potential field visits. The report’s country context elements should consider academic and gray literature that describes the country’s legal and institutional framework for EP&R as well as a detailed description of the selected disaster event, its causes, and consequences. Lessons Learned Exercise | 41 3. Final report The LLE final report will consolidate all the information gathered during the LLE to generate a thoughtful and focused analysis that leads to practical findings. The report should recommend solutions to system gaps noted during information gathering with a priority on those solution concepts identified and refined during the LLE workshop. It should summarize the government’s EP&R capabilities and clearly identify the elements requiring the most urgent attention. If resources and government interest permit, the final report may also include an action plan, as an annex, to help guide follow-on discussions and potential investment projects resulting from the LLE. Additional LLE documents available through the GFDRR program may provide helpful guidance and key insights for LLE teams, EP&R teams, and TTLs as they contemplate, develop, and deliver the LLE. This suite of documents comes from previous LLEs delivered in South Africa, Vietnam, Tanzania, and Sierra Leone. Also, a series of helpful templates of specific project documents can be found in this report’s appendices. Those documents not included as templates in the appendix may be requested from the GFDRR program or accessed directly on the program website. Baseline Participants List The following list should be considered as a baseline for the list of interviewees and workshop participants. When developing the list, particular attention should be given to legislation or other policy instruments that assign government departments or other agencies with EP&R roles, either in leadership or support functions. Additional positions and agencies, including NGOs relevant to the selected disaster event should be added based on the context of the jurisdiction. Examples of NGOs that may be appropriate for participation include national Red Cross/Red Crescent societies, the World Health Organization, development organizations, etc. Table 2: Indicative list of interviewees and workshop participants Position or Government Possible Areas of Expertise Department (*based on World Bank’s EP&R Framework) Head of Finance Dept. /Ministry Accountability and authority; financial preparedness Municipal Chief Administrative Accountability and authority; financial preparedness; early warning systems; Officer logistics warehouses and response stations; EOCs; international support coordination; emergency social services; community engagement Head of Planning Dept. /Ministry Accountability and authority; information management systems; early and selected technical personnel warning systems; geomatics; shelters and open spaces Head of Emergency Accountability and authority; financial preparedness; community Management Dept. /Ministry and engagement; early warning systems; information management systems; selected technical personnel geomatics; EOCs; training centers; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open spaces; emergency social services; ICT: hazard-specific response capacity; urban firefighting and technical rescue; incident organization structure; training and knowledge-building; exercises and drills; international support coordination Managers of Emergency Community engagement; information management systems; early warning Operations Centers systems; geomatics; training centers and capacity; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open spaces; EOCs; incident organization structures; exercises and drills; training and knowledge-building; international support coordination; emergency social services; urban firefighting and technical rescue; hazard-specific response capacity; ICT 42 | Lessons Learned Exercise Position or Government Possible Areas of Expertise Department (*based on World Bank’s EP&R Framework) Chief of Police Community engagement; information management systems; early warning systems; geomatics; training centers and capacity; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open spaces; EOCs; incident organization structures; exercises and drills; training and knowledge-building; emergency social services; urban firefighting and technical rescue; hazard-specific response capacity; ICT Chief of Fire Service Community engagement; information management systems; early warning systems; geomatics; training centers and capacity; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open spaces; EOCs; incident organization structures; exercises and drills; training and knowledge-building; emergency social services; urban firefighting and technical rescue; hazard-specific response capacity; ICT Chief of Ambulance / Emergency Community engagement; information management systems; early warning Medical Services systems; geomatics; training centers and capacity; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open spaces; EOCs; incident organization structures; exercises and drills; training and knowledge-building; emergency social services; urban firefighting and technical rescue; hazard-specific response capacity; ICT Head of Dept. /Ministries with Accountability and authority; community engagement; information Hazard-Specific Accountabilities management systems; early warning systems; geomatics; training centers (Dept. of Forests for Forest Fire and capacity; logistics warehouses and response stations; shelters and open Management, Ministries with spaces; EOCs; incident organization structures; exercises and drills; training Hydrometeorology/Weather and knowledge-building; international support coordination; emergency services, etc.) and selected social services; urban firefighting and technical rescue; hazard-specific technical personnel response capacity; ICT Head of IT and GIS Dept. /Ministry Information/communications technology; information management systems; and selected technical personnel early warning systems; geomatics; training centers and capacity; shelters and open spaces; EOCs Head of Housing Dept. /Ministry Shelters and open spaces; emergency social services; community and selected technical personnel engagement Head of Transportation Dept. / Shelters and open spaces Ministry and selected technical personnel Head of Public Health Dept. / Community engagement; emergency social services; shelters and open Ministry and selected technical spaces personnel Head of Public Works Dept. / Community engagement; shelters and open spaces; emergency social Ministry and selected technical services; logistics warehouses and response stations; accountability and personnel authority Head of Social Services Dept. / Community engagement; shelters and open spaces; emergency social Ministry and selected technical services personnel Lessons Learned Exercise | 43 8. EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS LLES LLE – Bolstering EP&R in Tanzania The first LLE was undertaken in July 2019 in Tanzania and enabled key stakeholders to draw lessons from recent floods, exploring how to bolster Tanzania’s EP&R capacity. The work culminated in a workshop that gathered over 55 high-level participants across 20 different government departments. Participants represented key public sector entities engaged in the country’s DRM efforts, including fire and rescue services, police and military, the Ministry of Water and Agriculture, and the Tanzania Red Cross Society. The initiative was spearheaded by Tanzania’s Disaster Management Department within the Prime Minister’s Office. Pairing collaborative discussions with field visits, interviews, and surveys, the exercise served as an invaluable opportunity for participants to explore how Tanzania’s EP&R systems performed in the aftermath of floods. After two days of critical reflection, the participants pinpointed opportunities for improvement across all five components of EP&R systems, including (i) the need to establish procurement and resource mobilization procedures, (ii) the value of focused EP&R training, (iii) the vital role of watershed-based early warning systems, and (iv) the importance of establishing a modern national emergency operations and communications center. LLE – Identifying Pathways to Improve EP&R in Vietnam The second LLE was undertaken in February 2020 in Vietnam. It was initiated as a collaborative learning opportunity using the 2017 Typhoon Damrey as a focusing event. The exercise facilitated key government, private sector, and disaster relief agency discussions of systems, procedures, and experiences related to EP&R capacity in Vietnam, leading to collaborative recommendations for improvements. Key focus areas were identified through preparatory work and further explored though interactions with multiple stakeholders at the national and sub-national level. These interactions provided invaluable additional information and context. The approach proved successful in engaging the government at all levels to consider pathways to improving EP&R capacity. This engagement fed into an analytical product that identified 25 recommendations aligned to the World Bank’s R2R review structure. LLE – In Combination with an R2R Diagnostic Assessment in Vanuatu Where the R2R diagnostic tool analyses data on EP&R arrangements that are either in place or missing, the LLE demonstrates the system’s performance during emergency response to recent crisis. In Vanuatu, the combination of the R2R with an LLE proved to be of added value. The two disaster cases focused on that were included in the LLE (2021) were the 2017 Manaro volcanic eruption and the 2020 tropical cyclone Harold. The LLE focused in both cases on the impact on the population and societal functions, including food security, evacuation, sheltering, and the environment. Both cases demonstrated that a first quick impact assessment could have strengthened and improved the early response coordination and articulated the immediate needs for international support earlier. It was also observed that human capacities in Vanuatu are extremely limited and absent on some islands. This led to the recommendation that community 44 | Lessons Learned Exercise participation, volunteering, and training in support of the essential information needs and analyses that take place in EOCs should be improved. This recommendation was also opportune on the basis of the R2R diagnostic assessment, but combined with the LLE the recommendations were more recognizable and targeted and thus received more support and prioritization. Further recommendations included that emergency support functions (or clusters) such as water, sanitation, and hygiene, sheltering, and health care should be better linked and concrete recommendations for more efficient pre-positioning of equipment and other resources were indicated. Recommendations for improved risk and post-impact communication to the population based on the lessons learned from both catastrophic impacts were formulated. 9. SUMMARY The LLE provides an approach for supporting client governments to harness the lessons from their recent disasters and improve their EP&R capacity. Together with the workshop’s collaborative, interactive nature, the multi-modal approach to information gathering during the LLE ensures a robust understanding of capabilities and investment priorities. In combination with other GFDRR program tools (including the R2R diagnostic tool, catalogs of technical specifications and terms of reference, and just-in-time market analysis of consultants), LLE results can be transformed into viable EP&R investment projects or project components within broader DRM engagements. This document provides all technical guidance and tools necessary to design and deliver a successful LLE. For more information on this and other tools and services of the GFDRR´s approach to EP&R, please visit the GFDRR website – www.gfdrr.org. Lessons Learned Exercise | 45 APPENDIX 1: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER Location, Date Insert government coat of arms / flag here [Name and Surname- [Name and Surname-XXX] [Position-XXX] [Address-XXX] Invitation to the [insert disaster event year(s) and name] Lessons Learned Exercise [insert LLE date] | [insert country name] Dear XXXXX, The World Bank Group has the pleasure of inviting you to participate in the [disaster ] Lessons Learned Exercise (LLE) which will take place in various locations throughout [country] from [LLE date]. The LLE is organized by the [World Bank Team name] team in partnership with the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the government of [Country]. Through the lens of the [Country emergency response plan name], the LLE will give key government and emergency relief entities and other stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the systems, procedures, and experiences related to emergency preparedness and response (EP&R) and to better understand each agency’s perspective, capacities, and placement within the response operation. The outcome from this LLE will be collaborative, fiscally sustainable recommendations for investment in [Country] EP&R capacity. During the course of the LLE, the World Bank will conduct short interviews with key personnel that have experience with the [disaster], specifically those with leadership accountability, who will be vital to an informed outcome for this effort. The interviews will focus on three areas of discussion: 1) progress in the field of emergency preparedness and response, 2) areas for improvement within specific functional areas, and 3) details about the operational capacity and processes for the functional areas that are relevant to the interview participant. We would be grateful if you could kindly confirm, via email to xxxxxx@worldbank.org, your availability and interest regarding an interview during the week of [LLE date]. Should you have any questions about the event, please do not hesitate to contact XX. XXXX XXXXXXX, We look forward to your participation in this LLE. Sincerely, Name Title World Bank Group 46 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 2: SURVEY TEMPLATE BASELINE SURVEY FOR THE [DISASTER EVENT] LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE (LLE) Background and Objectives This document is intended to gather information for the [Disaster Event] Lessons Learned Exercise (LLE) organized by the government of [Country] and the World Bank Disaster Risk Management team. The objective of this survey is to engage in an initial baseline data gathering for the LLE process and to collect the information that will help to inform follow-up discussions and the LLE workshop. The survey will focus on the following areas: Topic 1. Initial lessons learned from the [disaster event date and name] response Topic 2. Progress and knowledge of the current situation Information on the survey form ◆  All the data referring to the respondent in this survey are confidential and will be used specifically for the LLE. ◆  For each question on the form, you can explain your opinion and add more fields if necessary. We thank you for your cooperation and for taking the time to complete this survey. The results are key to strengthening [Country]’s capacity for disaster preparedness and early recovery. Identification of the entity Identification of the respondent Name: Name: Country: Title: Date: Email: Lessons Learned Exercise | 47 Topic. 1 Initial Lessons Learned from the [Disaster Event] Based on the response to the [Disaster Event]: 1.1 Was your ministry/agency as fully prepared as it could be for the emergency? YES NO Describe: 1.2 Was your ministry/agency equipped, mandated, and capable of responding to an emergency such as the [Disaster Event]? YES NO Describe: 1.3 Did you have sufficient resources to fulfill your responsibilities and missions? If not, how did you obtain them? YES NO 48 | Lessons Learned Exercise Describe: 1.4 What resources were not available? Describe: 1.5 Were there any standard operating procedures (SOPs)/standard protocols and guidelines related to these types of extreme conditions? YES NO Describe: 1.6 Were there any mutual aid agreements in place/memoranda of understanding? Were you able to mobilize personnel and equipment during the event? YES NO Describe: 1.7 Are there any “best practices” you can derive from this event? YES NO Lessons Learned Exercise | 49 Describe: 1.8 Can you create an easily accessible repository for lessons learned and best practices you have documented? YES NO Describe: 1.9 Has your ministry/agency been able to work effectively with other ministries/ agencies during the response? Are there certain aspects of response that could be improved through collaboration with response partners? YES NO Describe: 1.10 What recommendations would you make to others responding to similar events? Describe: 50 | Lessons Learned Exercise Topic. 2. Progress and knowledge of the current What do you consider to be the greatest strengths and opportunities for improvement of your institution in terms of emergency management in [Country]? Add more fields if necessary. STRENGTHS OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT 2.1 Does your sector or institution have an emergency operations plan, coordination or communication protocols, or other instruments that define the response tasks, institutional responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms? YES NO Describe: 2.2 Does your institution have an updated resource inventory? YES NO If your answer is YES, mark with a (x) the types of items that the inventory contains Lessons Learned Exercise | 51 Type of elements (x) Last update date Human resources Equipment Tools Space Humanitarian aid Medical supplies Others. Specify: 2.3 Is there any capacity-building training/technical support that your organization should receive? YES NO If yes, what issues do you consider necessary to address? 1 2 3 4 5 Again, thank you very much for your time and collaboration. 52 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND GUIDELINES As the meeting is likely to last between 1.5 hours for critical participants and 1 hour for other participants, it will be helpful to ensure participants have sufficient time to guide the discussion in their own words as a means of determining EP&R strengths and opportunities for improvement. As such, these questions have been tailored to the focus and approach of the LLE: Progress in EP&R ◆  What advances in emergency planning and response have been made in recent years (key legislative milestones, institutional improvements, etc.)? ◆  What major disruptive events have tested the system? What was your role in those events and what has changed since? ◆  Does [Country] participate in any international agreements or bilateral cooperation mechanisms? If so, what are recent examples where support was offered from outside the country or vice versa, and what was the decision- making process in this context? Areas for improvement ◆  Based on recent disaster experiences in the country, what are your major functional challenges related to: 1.   Legal and institutional frameworks? 2.   Information? 3.   Facilities? 4.   Equipment? 5.   Personnel? Emergency roles ◆  What emergency role(s) do you undertake as the lead or support under the [Country emergency response plan]? ◆  How would you describe your response plan for the emergency role(s) you lead or support? Does it include standard operating procedures (SOPs)/standard protocols and guidelines related to these types of extreme conditions? If yes, how did you apply the SOPs in your response operations during the [Disaster Event]? ◆  How often do you exercise/test your response capacity using your plan, and what is your approach to ensure continuous improvement by applying the lessons you have learned? ◆  How do you engage with the other departments and partners listed that support your emergency role(s) to ensure a common concept of operations and up-to-date contact information? ◆  What processes do you have in place for communicating with the public, external NGOs or CBOs, and your response team during a response? The questions listed under the methodology in the above section can be used to further detail the different components. This being said, the interviews are explorative and so seek to gather the experience and lessons learned of the interview partner and, therefore, do not have to be exhaustive. Lessons Learned Exercise | 53 Daily Mission Agenda Template for Interviews [Date – Location] [Time – Organization] S/N Name Designation Organization Phone No. Email 1. Richard Director Department of 9008675309 xxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx Grannde Disaster Management 54 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 4: WORKSHOP FACILITATION GUIDELINES Workshop Facilitation 1.   The workshop facilitators will guide the discussion to ensure that any out-of- scope items are noted for follow-up. Ideally, two facilitators and one support person will take notes and arrange logistics matters. 2.   All participants, regardless of their current role or position, will be encouraged to actively participate and share their experiences and insights. In general, it is advised to have a more or less equal level of representation of the various agencies to foster exchanges. Also, participants of non-traditional EP&R actors and representatives of the population, including vulnerable groups, should be invited. The workshop should promote an environment that fosters psychological safety, and where possible, be conducted in the country’s language. 3.   Improvement to preparedness and response capacity requires retrospection without organizational or individual blame, driven by a desire to improve. Facilitators and participants will ensure a constructive, interest-based, and forward-focused environment. This should be clearly explained at the onset of the workshop, and facilitators need to ensure that this positive atmosphere remains throughout. 4.   The workshop will begin and end on schedule to respect the participants’ time, and the agenda will respect any cultural or religious time schedules existing in the country. 5.   The setup of the conference room needs to reflect this participatory approach, either by arranging the seating in small working groups or ensuring that participants are mixed so that exchange of experiences is facilitated. Participant Preparation Workshop participants should consider the following questions in preparation for the workshop, and these questions should be sent to them in advance of the workshop: 1.   Was your ministry/business/agency equipped, mandated, and capable of responding to emergencies such as the [Disaster event name and year]? 2.   What has worked well during the government response to the [Disaster event name and year]? 3.   What did not go well or had unintended consequences? 4.   Was your ministry/business/agency able to work effectively with other ministries/agencies during the response? Are there certain aspects of response that could be improved through collaboration with response partners? 5.   If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently? 6.   Has your ministry/business/agency established a process for updating, validating, or improving its EP&R plan? When was the last time your plan was tested and updated? 7.   As you improve your plan, where might be the best opportunities to collaborate across government, with the public and with the private sector? 8.   What recommendations would you make to others responding to similar events? Lessons Learned Exercise | 55 Additional Workshop Considerations It is important to note that this workshop has not been designed to provide the final and complete recommendations or outputs of the LLE process. Rather, it represents one tool that will assist in developing the next level of analysis (final report) including a potential second phase of a broader quantitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems that will lead to an EP&R investment prioritization. Questions During the Workshop The presentation and discussions should be organized in line with the five components of the methodology to ensure a clear and logical approach. The discussions will include an overview of the data collected so far during the desk review, survey, and the interviews in response to the guiding questions as presented in the section on methodology. The approach to the discussions should be reflective and summative, whereby questions and statements are alternated to encourage the discussions. Whereas the first phase (Day 1) is retrospective and aims to exchange experiences and insights, the tabletop exercise intends to go into more depth and explore practical and concrete lessons and practices, as in the actual event. Tabletop Exercise 1. Directions ◆  The facilitator should introduce the exercise ground rules and objectives (included in available LLE slide decks) and then read the introductory scenario. ◆  Responses will be time-limited, and participants should understand in advance how much time they will have for each exercise question. ◆  At the exercise’s end, the facilitator should walk through the exercise questions and seek feedback and discussion from various tables about their decisions and the reasoning behind them. 2. Expected Action ◆  Participants will be expected to consider the facts as presented and make decisions as a team or table group. ◆  Within their table groups, participants should ensure everyone at the table can contribute their views. The LLE Team should encourage this engagement by engaging the discussion at the tables during the debate about the questions. 3. Reflection Disaster exercises enable learning and improvement in a consequence-free environment. As with actual disasters, that learning is maximized by actively listening to colleagues and partners, lead agencies, and those providing support. As the position, interests, and capabilities of each organization are better understood, the EP&R system will in turn be vastly improved. An example of a tabletop exercise is included in Appendix 6 (no additional supplies are required for this activity). 56 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 5: LLE WORKSHOP AGENDA Insert government coat of arms / flag here [COUNTRY] EP&R LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE | Workshop Agenda Workshop Dates: Xxxxxx XX-XX Workshop Duration: 1.5 days Workshop Objective: Using the [disaster event date and name] as focusing event and the World Bank’s Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) framework as a foundation, this workshop will bring together government and disaster relief agencies to improve EP&R capacity in [Country]. Together we will explore lessons learned from these disasters through the eyes of participants and collaboratively define opportunities for capacity improvement. The workshop will begin in the morning of Day 1 with participant reflections on what worked well during response operations and where there is room for improvement. A second session in the afternoon will introduce the World Bank EP&R framework as a high- level platform to view EP&R systemically and to frame solutions to challenges noted in the first session. During the morning of Day 2, participants will engage in a discussion-based tabletop exercise using a similar scenario to the [disaster event date and name]. At critical challenge points, the facilitators will pause the scenario to ask participants to work together in interdisciplinary groups to identify potential solutions to the identified challenge. The workshop will close with a summary of the information gathered during the full Lessons Learned Exercise and provide clarity on the project’s next steps. ; Lessons Learned Exercise | 57 Workshop Agenda: Day One TIME TOPIC FACILITATOR 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 9:10 a.m. Workshop Overview and Goals Xxxx Xxxxxx, World Bank Group 9:40 a.m. Overview of the [Country] EP&R System Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 10:10 a.m. LLE Initial Findings Xxxx Xxxxxx, World Bank Group 10:40 a.m. Break --- 11:00 a.m. Reflective Discussion on the [Disaster Event] Response [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 12:30 p.m. Lunch --- 1:20 p.m. Group Photo *Meeting location 1:40 p.m. Introduction to the World Bank’s EP&R Capacity World Bank LLE Team Platform 2:00 p.m. Project Development Session for EP&R Capacity [Country lead disaster management Improvement agency] and World Bank LLE Team 3:00 p.m. Break --- 3:15 p.m. EP&R Project Presentations [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 4:30 p.m. Day 1 Summary and Close [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team Day Two TIME TOPIC FACILITATOR 8:30 a.m Welcome and Tabletop Exercise Introduction [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 9:20 a.m. Start Exercise [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 10:15 a.m. Break --- 10:30 a.m. Tabletop Exercise Continues [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 11:30 a.m. End Exercise and Debrief [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 11:50 a.m. Next Steps and Workshop Evaluation [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 12:05 p.m. Certificate Award Ceremony [Country lead disaster management agency] and World Bank LLE Team 12:20 p.m. Closing Remarks Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 12:30 p.m. Lunch --- 58 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 6: WORKSHOP PROJECT CONCEPT TEMPLATE LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE | [Country]: [Disaster Event Year and Name] Project Concept Template Project Title: Objective: Primary Objective: Specific Objectives: Key Stakeholders: Outputs: Lessons Learned Exercise | 59 Outcomes: Required Budget (US$ or [Country Currency]): How long will it take to complete the project (# of months)? How would you measure success? 60 | Lessons Learned Exercise Workshop Participants S/N Name Designation Organization Phone No. Email 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lessons Learned Exercise | 61 APPENDIX 7: WORKSHOP TABLETOP EXERCISE SCENARIO AND PROBLEM SETS *NOTE – The following exercise scenario and problem set was generated for the Tanzania LLE, which was completed in July 2019 and focused on the 2014 and 2016 Kilosa floods. Master Scenario It is a Friday at 11:00 a.m. in early March 2020. A very strong El Niño has led to higher- than-normal rainfall for several weeks across various regions in Tanzania, including Morogoro, Dodoma, and Mbeya. The soil is saturated across the regions and the Mkondoa River (Morogoro), Wami River (Dodoma), and Mbaka River (Mbeya) are all completely full; the water is getting close to the top of the riverbanks across the river basin for each of these rivers. Thankfully, so far there has been no flooding or need to evacuate, and no major damage from rainfall has been reported in any of these areas. Inject 1 ‒ Early Warning Systems A rainfall warning report has just been issued by the Tanzania Meteorological Agency (TMA) reporting that, in two days, a major rain system is expected to slowly pass through Morogoro and surrounding regions in the Mkondoa River basin and then move onward through Dodoma region in two days. TMA indicates that the storm will bring over 150 mm of rain in a 24-hour period across the affected area. You know that neither of TMA’s current radar stations is working and that the forecast may not be fully accurate as a result. Also, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation has not yet issued a river flood warning. You know this represents a lot of rain and may result in flooding for the Morogoro and Dodoma regions, but you are not certain of the timing and likelihood as there has been no river flood warning issued yet. Q: In addition to the warning you will issue regarding urban flooding for low- lying areas, should a river flood warning be issued now to the people in these regions or should you wait for the official warning message from Ministry of Water and Irrigation? What are your reasons for your choice? Regardless of when the river flood warning message is issued, what should be the very clear message to the public to go with this warning? Inject 2 – Social Media Management It is now 1:00 p.m. You decided to wait to issue the river flood warning until there was official confirmation from the Ministry of Water and Irrigation about river flooding. They have technical expertise and critical information. Thanks to a recent project which upgraded river monitoring gauges and river flood forecasting models, you are confident that the Ministry of Water and Irrigation will soon issue an accurate river flood forecast. You did not want to start a possible evacuation and need to manage the costs and consequences, without factual confirmation from the ministry. Unfortunately, a small group of people on Facebook began circulating messages in the Dodoma region. They were sure catastrophic life-threatening flooding was going to start by noon tomorrow because they watched a YouTube video about something like this that happened in Uganda a couple of years ago. As a result, this false message spread very fast within several communities, and a significant ad hoc evacuation has started with about 1,000 people already moving. 62 | Lessons Learned Exercise Q: Should you allow the evacuation to continue just in case and hope that the Facebook group was correct, or should you counter the Facebook message with the facts from the TMA warning and try to stop or reduce the evacuation? What are your reasons for your choice? Regardless of your choice, do you think having someone continue to monitor Facebook and other social media sites so that you can correct inaccurate information would be helpful? Inject 3 – Response Leadership/Structure It is now 5:00 p.m. You decided to correct the Facebook information online and also quickly engaged the communities through the local police and informal networks to calm the situation. Thankfully, you were able to prevent the unnecessary early evacuation. However, the Ministry of Water and Irrigation has just issued a river flood warning for the Morogoro region based on the data from TMA and data from their own recently improved network of river monitoring stations. The river levels are anticipated to be higher than the 2009 Kilosa flood and expected to arrive in Morogoro region in the late afternoon/early evening on Sunday. It will take a week for the river levels to stabilize below a flood level. While the Wami River in the Dodoma region may experience some flooding, it is expected to be localized, with only limited damage as most other areas of the Wami river basin will not receive so much rain. Due to this river flood warning from the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, the District Commissioner and Regional Commissioner agreed and declared a Level 2 emergency in anticipation of the situation getting out of control this Sunday. The Regional Commissioner has called a meeting of the Regional Safety and Security Committee to manage the situation. However, the Disaster Management Act (2015) is clear that leadership during the Level 2 emergency rests now with the Regional Administrative Secretary. Q: Should you advise the Regional Administrative Secretary to ensure that the emergency response process aligns with the law, or should you suggest that the response should be handled as it has been in the past regardless of the new law? Inject 4 – Situational Awareness It is now noon on Saturday, and the flood is still expected to arrive late on Sunday afternoon. Based on your advice, the Regional Administrative Secretary (RAS) spoke with the Regional Commissioner about the leadership situation. Both agreed that it was best for the response to align with the law. They also agreed that the Regional Commissioner would stand by to support the RAS with implementing what was decided, to unlock resources for the response, and to speak with the media to provide reassurance to the public, helpful safety messages, and encouragement to those that would soon be responding on the scene throughout the region. The public, the media, elected officials at all levels, international development partners, and the private sector have been calling and emailing the RAS constantly seeking information and updates on the situation. Also, various government agencies have been trying to gather any information they can find about the weather and river conditions as well as what response is taking place. Q: Do you advise that the RAS continue to try and manage these information requests on its own, or do you engage the national EOC for support? You think the national EOC can do the best job to gather all the event information from various participating agencies and formulate a common situation report each Lessons Learned Exercise | 63 day that can be used by everyone to ensure a common picture of the event. However, you know the RAS is used to gathering the information by itself through dozens of informal, direct connections to various people and agencies. Which approach do you choose and why? Inject 5 – Capacity for Emergency Functions It is late Saturday night, and you engaged the national EOC a few hours ago to provide support for situational awareness. They have since provided a daily briefing cycle that will be used throughout the emergency to ensure a consistent and timely flow of information. Everyone now knows when they can expect the daily update and where it is coming from. This will ensure responders have the information needed for their daily operational plans and that the media receives accurate information for reporting. The RAS, as the lead for the emergency, has asked that all the national emergency functions listed in the Tanzania Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan stand up their operations in preparation for the arrival of the flood in the Morogoro region tomorrow. However, none of the emergency functions have clear procedures in place at the regional or national level for their activation process or know who is supposed to be doing what once they get together. Q: Do you decide to forget about the emergency functions and just figure it out as the flood develops or do you form ad hoc teams for each emergency functions comprised of all listed member agencies and led by the listed emergency functions lead? What are the reasons for your decision? Inject 6 – Prioritization of Resources It is almost midnight on Sunday, and the flooding has started. You advised that the emergency functions should be used as intended and that ad hoc emergency functions teams should be formed by the identified emergency functions leads and that based on the situation, the emergency functions should ensure they have the appropriate resources in place for the expected elevated levels of evacuations, injuries, and possible fatalities. This approach has paid off as it has made the management of the emergency across multiple incident sites spread across multiple districts much easier and the flow of accurate emergency information much faster. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation has reported that water levels are expected to climb until late Monday, remain at their peak for three days and then start to drop. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation has also issued a second flood warning for the Mbeka River in Mbeya region due to existing river conditions and the rapid approach of an intense weather system that will include 120mm for rain and create a flash flood of the Mbeka River overnight. This flood is expected to be severe, but less intense and subside more quickly than the situation in the Morogoro region. The public has been notified, and evacuations are already underway. A Level 2 emergency has been declared for the Mbeya region as well. The emergency functions leads are unsure about how to prioritize their resources as they do not have enough for the expected requirements in both the Morogoro and Mbeya regions. Q: Do you let each region sort out their needs independently or do you advise that the national EOC and Tanzania Disaster Relief Committee (TanDREC) consider the resource/relief requests from both regions, prioritize those resources based on the best available information, and inform both Regional Disaster Management Committees about what resources they can expect to receive and when? What are the reasons for your decision? 64 | Lessons Learned Exercise Inject 7 – Technical Communication Capacity It is now late Monday and river floods have reached peak levels. You advised that the national EOC and TanDREC consider and prioritize resources for the two affected regions. As a result, both regions were able to plan appropriately for the resources that could be provided by the government and were also able to make clear requests to the private sector and aid organizations for resources. As expected, river levels are significantly higher than the 2009 Kilosa flood. The embankment protecting Kilosa has failed in several areas, causing significant damage to infrastructure, agriculture, and livestock. Thanks to the advanced early warning about the flood, no lives have been lost yet. Mobile communications are not available due to damaged cell phone towers from several landslides caused by the heavy rains and disruption to cell phone tower primary and backup electrical supply. The flood has washed out the bridge at Kilosa as well as the rail bridge upriver from Kilosa and the bridge crossing the Miyombo river south of Kilosa. The small road linking Kilosa to Pwaga has also been washed out from heavy rain. As a result, the areas of Kilosa south of the Mkondoa River have been completely isolated—no phones and no ground access. The Tanzania police have requested their helicopter to be stationed in Kilosa until a temporary bridge can be installed. This will ensure delivery of immediate relief supplies and treatment of medical emergencies. Q: There are a significant number of people stranded in the south side of Kilosa. Despite the lack of communication capacity, do you station a combined team of police, Tanzania Red Cros Society, Tanzania Fire and Rescue Force, and medical personnel on the isolated side of the river? Also, do you suggest identifying one clear commander for this multi-agency response team? What are the reasons for your decision? Inject 8 – Sheltering of Evacuees It is the following Friday, and the flood has completely receded. All water and hygiene facilities in Kilosa have been destroyed and there is considerable damage visible. A temporary bridge has been established to the south side of the Mkondoa River, and mobile communications are back to normal. As a result of the flood, over 35,000 people are homeless. It is only the start of the rainy season, and most people only have tents or tarpaulins for shelter. You know that if these evacuees are not supported, there will certainly be significant outbreaks of disease, leading to preventable deaths. Q: Do you provide people with a small amount of cash to find their own semi- permanent shelter, or do you advise a request for international assistance to provide rapid semi-permanent shelter in the Kilosa area, but in areas that are well-drained and away from further flooding? What are the reasons for your decision? Lessons Learned Exercise | 65 Closing Note Your proposal to request international assistance from the United Nations was endorsed by TanDREC. As a result, evacuees were placed into temporary encampments and were able to be directly involved in the recovery of their community. This increased community psychosocial welfare and provided economic stimulus for those who lost their agricultural or livestock livelihood for this year. Best of all, there have been no recorded outbreaks of infectious disease. The community will take time to recover, but the future is promising. It is now past the rainy season, and the flood threat has passed for Tanzania. Because of your thoughtful action, prioritized improvements to the EP&R system, and collaboration during response, no lives were lost during this year’s Kilosa flood disaster. Congratulations on finishing the exercise! 66 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 8: WORKSHOP EVALUATION TEMPLATE Insert government coat of arms / flag here [Country] Emergency Preparedness & Response Lessons Learned Exercise [LLE Workshop Dates] [Workshop Location] Workshop Evaluation Name: Agency: 1.   Overall, how successful was the [Country] Emergency Preparedness & Response (EP&R) Lessons Learned Exercise (LLE) workshop? Extremely Very Successful Successful Somewhat Not successful Successful Successful O O O O O If you selected “Not Successful,” please indicate why: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2.   With 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest, how would you rate the following after the [Country] EP&R LLE workshop? 5 4 3 2 1 I have better knowledge of EP&R principles O O O O O I have better understanding of [Country]’s O O O O O EP&R system I have better understanding of solutions for O O O O O EP&R capacity improvement Lessons Learned Exercise | 67 3.   Do you think this type of workshop is a good practice to improve EP&R capacity? Yes No O O Please explain _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4.   What did you like about the workshop? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 5.   What more would you want to see in future LLE workshops? _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6.   If you would like to share a quote that can be used for communication ends (in online articles, reports, etc.) please share it here with your name and title: Quote: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ ; 68 | Lessons Learned Exercise APPENDIX 9: LLE FINAL REPORT – SUGGESTED WIREFRAME 1. Acknowledgments 2. Executive Summary 3. List of Acronyms 4. Introduction 5. LLE Methodology 5.1. Goals and Objectives 5.2. Information Gathering Methodology 5.2.1. Literature Review 5.2.2. Pre-Mission Survey 5.2.3. World Bank Staff Engagement 5.2.4. Site Visits 5.2.5. Participant Interviews 5.2.6. Workshop 6. Analysis of Selected Disaster Event 7. Findings and Recommendations 7.1. Legal and Institutional Framework 7.1.1. Findings 7.1.2. Recommendations 7.2. Personnel 7.2.1. Findings 7.2.2. Recommendations 7.3. Information 7.3.1. Findings 7.3.2. Recommendations 7.4. Equipment 7.4.1. Findings 7.4.2. Recommendations 7.5. Facilities 7.5.1. Findings 7.5.2. Recommendations 7.6. Recommendations Summary 8. LLE Summary Annexes (as necessary) Lessons Learned Exercise | 69 APPENDIX 10: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR COMPLETION OF THE LLE Government of [Insert Jurisdiction] Strengthening Government Emergency Preparedness and Response Systems TERMS OF REFERENCE Senior Consultant [INSERT JURISDICTION] LESSONS LEARNED EXERCISE (LLE) FOR EP&R A. Context Rationale: Emergency preparedness and response (EP&R) investments start a dialogue that shifts government attention from post-disaster reconstruction toward investment in risk management and preparedness. Early interventions can be vital in saving countless lives, resources, and improving development outcomes for those living in the most vulnerable and challenging environments. Furthermore, EP&R investments produce immediate, tangible, and quantifiable benefits to jurisdictional resilience by speeding response time and preventing financial loss. A series of comprehensive studies completed by the United Nations World Food Programme and UNICEF provides a clear demonstration of investment value.17 Cost savings highlight the financial impacts on the jurisdiction that were avoided due to the investment. Time savings highlight the efficiency of response operations with the understanding that during emergencies, response speed is one of the most significant drivers of survival rates and loss avoidance. Therefore, EP&R investments aim to strengthen government’ ability to: (i) protect public safety; (ii) build institutional capacity; (iii) increase resilience to disasters and climate change; and (iv) safeguard development gains. Background: LLE A potential entry point for an EP&R engagement is an LLE, which is an in-country capacity-building exercise that builds on lessons from previous disaster events and knowledge exchanges. The LLE focuses on one or a series of disaster events, following a post-disaster assessment to look at the government’s emergency response and to engage in an initial baseline data gathering that will then lead to a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems. 1 https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_WFP_Return_on_Investment_for_Emergency_Preparedness_Study. pdf.Objectives, Scope of Work, and Deliverables 70 | Lessons Learned Exercise B. Objectives of the assignment The objective of these terms of reference is to engage a qualified senior consultant with proven technical expertise and an international background in EP&R program development. This senior consultant will support the World Bank and the government of [Insert Jurisdiction] in understanding the systemic opportunities to develop and strengthen this core element of its disaster risk management (DRM) program at national, sub-national, and local levels. This represents a critical first step in the investment planning process for systemically and sustainably modernizing the country’s EP&R capacity. The focus of the LLE is to give key government and emergency relief entities an opportunity to discuss the government’s EP&R systems, procedures, and experiences and to better understand each agency’s perspective and placement within the response operation. In addition, the LLE provides insight on private sector resilience for critical infrastructure and services, as well as an understanding of the integration of non-profit organizations with government-led response operations. The LLE looks at the government’s emergency response to a disaster event and will engage in an initial baseline data gathering that may lead to a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems. Importantly, it also incorporates global expertise on disaster preparedness and emergency response. The LLE is not an evaluation but rather a collaborative process that provides an effective platform for the consolidation of lessons learned by key government first responders to the disaster event. As such, the LLE focuses on a high-level overview of the response operation and helps the government discuss questions such as: What did we learn? What went well? What did not go well or had unintended consequences? What can be improved for the future? and What recommendations can we make to others responding to similar events? The suggested process of an LLE is as follows: development of the inception report and desk review, a pre- mission survey and data collection, mission interviews, LLE workshop, and LLE final report. The outcome of the LLE will provide a quantitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems with a framework to improve efficiency, avoid duplication of efforts, and enhance the benefits of collaboration among key government and emergency relief entities. This assessment will include a proposed investment roadmap, including a strategic plan to guide the strengthening of the EP&R systems and inform a new or existing investment operation. The World Bank’s R2R diagnostic tool will provide the framework for the LLE engagement with a focus on five primary components that enable a high-functioning EP&R capacity. These are: i) personnel, ii) facilities, iii) equipment, iv) information, and v) legal and institutional framework. The following section describes this process in more depth and includes details on projects tasks, work timeline, and schedule for deliverables. Scope of work The selected senior consultant will accomplish the foregoing objective through an in-depth desk review (including the disaster event and country’s EP&R legal and institutional framework) and agency-specific meetings followed by a collaborative and participatory two-day workshop conducted during a mission as part of a World Bank team. Lessons Learned Exercise | 71 a. Agency-specific meetings The following set of high-level questions will be used in a semi-structured interview format to engage agency participants during meetings: Progress in EP&R ◊  What advances in EP&R have been made in recent years (key legislative milestones, institutional improvements, etc.)? ◊  What major disruptive events have tested the system? What was your role in those events, and what has changed since? ◊  Does [Insert Jurisdiction] participate in any international agreements and bilateral cooperation mechanisms? If so, what are recent examples where support was offered from outside the country or vice versa, and what was the decision-making process in this regard? Areas for improvement ◊  Based on recent disaster experiences in the country, what are major challenges related to: (1) legal and institutional frameworks; (2) information; (3) facilities; (4) equipment; and (5) personnel? Additional detailed questions may be identified for meetings based on an agency’s assigned or actual roles. This approach of combining high-level commonly asked questions with agency-appropriate detailed questions will create a more informed understanding and insightful report.28 b. Workshop The LLE workshops are the main deliverables of the LLE. The workshop will be designed in collaboration between the senior consultant, the World Bank, and the government of [Insert Jurisdiction] and led by the government of [Insert Jurisdiction]’s disaster management organization. The workshop is anticipated as a two-day event to convene government, private sector, and non-profit EP&R partners. It will enable better understanding of each agency’s perspective, their placement within the EP&R platform, and their respective capacities and interdependencies. The selected senior consultant will build on the existing work that is taking place in the country with respect to EP&R and the data that was gathered as part of this work. The selected senior consultant will work in collaboration with other individual/firms working in the space. Workshop methodology: The senior consultant to be selected for the task will propose the methodology and techniques required to comply with all the provisions set out in these Terms of Reference. Phases and Deliverables The following deliverables will be developed and delivered by the selected senior consultant during the project through the four (4) phases described below: 2 More optional specific questions in Annex 1 of these Terms of Reference. 72 | Lessons Learned Exercise Task 1: Project Initiation Task 1.1: Project Mobilization Meeting To formally initiate the project, a mobilization teleconference meeting will be held between the consultant and the World Bank. The meeting will confirm: i) the project’s strategic goals and key aspects; ii) the project team tasked with execution; iii) the project’s scope, objectives, and activities; and iv) anticipated project outcomes. In addition, there will be a discussion on administrative issues such as project management approaches, communications protocols, and quality assurance/quality control measures to ensure alignment from the point of mobilization. Output: Meeting minutes Task 1.2: Complete Inception Report Following the government decision regarding the LLE focusing event, an inception report will be developed that i) describes the understanding of the objectives and tasks, schedule, staffing, and exercise management approach; ii) lays out the control process, including the critical path, to ensure the exercise reaches its goals; and iii) describes the methodology, principles, procedures, and process, including suggested workshop agenda, methodology for information collection, and frameworks and theories that will be used. Once reviewed and cleared by the World Bank’s Task Team Leader/DRM agency/main counterparts, the inception report should be presented to key stakeholders to build participant interest, address LLE ownership, and raise awareness of the project. Based on experience from previously implemented LLEs (Tanzania, Vietnam, and South Africa), it is important that this step is implemented in collaboration with the government or disaster management authority as well as key stakeholders involved in the country’s emergency planning and response, which should be identified as early as possible for the LLE exercise. Identifying these stakeholders is key as it informs the results and recommendations of an LLE. This point also enables the LLE team to share information ahead of time and get additional resources to inform the desk review. Output: Inception report Task 2: Pre-Mission Preparation Task 2.1: Develop Desk Review A desk review report will be prepared to guide the operations during the project’s field phase with the focus of describing the draft mission plan and the data collection schedule, list of interview and workshop participants. The report will also provide details for each interview, including the participant’s name, a proposed location and time, and focus and guiding questions for the interview. Also, the report will provide a brief review of academic literature to explore the background of [Insert Jurisdiction]’s EP&R system and study of the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Recovery Framework. Finally, the report will describe the desk review of existing documentation on the LLE focusing event and relevant disaster events (including disaster assessments, lessons learned, etc.), and describe the EP&R legal and policy framework, existing emergency/contingency plans, and standard operating procedures. In developing this deliverable, the consultant will be highly reliant on both the World Bank team and government counterparts as far as confirming interview and workshop participants, locations, and schedule. The document will be used to provide feedback and guidance to the team regarding whether there are other stakeholders that may have been overlooked or topics that could be explored further. Lessons Learned Exercise | 73 Output: Desk review Task 2.2: Develop and Distribute the Pre-Mission Survey Based on the desk review (that is, interview schedule and workshop participation list) a pre-mission survey will be developed for distribution to identified participants. The survey will assist with understanding of the country context, national response framework, and participant accountabilities and will improve the tailoring of one-on- one interviews and workshop materials. Based on experience from previously implemented LLEs, it is recommended to share the pre-workshop survey ahead of the mission to make sure enough respondents can answer. In addition, this would allow the LLE team to conduct the preliminary survey analysis and refine it during the mission. Some initial results of the survey could also be an entry point during the mission interviews. Output: Pre-mission survey Task 3: Mission in [Insert Jurisdiction] Task 3.1: Complete Information Gathering Interviews The LLE mission should start with a kick-off meeting with the disaster management authority to make sure the LLE team and client are on the same page regarding the various stages of the mission, outputs, and expectations. This stage is important to make sure the relevant authority can also be involved in workshop organization/ facilitation (for example, they will deliver an EP&R overview at the beginning of the workshop). One-on-one interviews with government, private sector, and non-profit EP&R partners will be conducted during the first week of the mission. They will focus on the area of [Insert City, Province, or Region (if applicable)] with travel outside the city if necessary to meet with participants or visit relevant facilities. It will be possible to include a field visit to the location of the LLE focusing event to interview relevant stakeholders and visit the affected area. Participant interviews will focus on seeking information to answer questions identified in the project scope. A set of high-level questions structured around the following themes will be used in a semi-structured interview format to engage agency participants during meeting: (i) progress in EP&R and (ii) areas of improvement based on recent disaster experiences in the country. Additional detailed questions may be identified for meetings based on an agency’s assigned or actual roles. This approach of combining high-level commonly asked questions with agency- appropriate detailed questions will create a more informed understanding and insightful report. Information gathered during the interviews will aid final preparations for the workshop and be used to ensure accuracy and utility of the LLE final report. During the interview process, the LLE team will identify a time to make a field visit to the chosen disaster event. It will provide clearer context and credibility to the team when delivering the workshop. In addition, it can be useful for organizing specific activities during the workshop (such as a tabletop exercise). Output: Summary of information gathered Task 3.2: Deliver LLE Workshop The LLE workshop is one of the main deliverables of the LLE. To enhance the government’s EP&R/DRM overall activities, the workshop will build on information gathered through earlier tasks, particularly the one-on-one interviews conducted 74 | Lessons Learned Exercise during the week preceding the workshop. The workshop will aim to identify ongoing gaps and specific recommendations with respect to key government entities and relief organizations on the front lines of the country’s EP&R systems. This exercise will be tailored to the country’s national and local circumstances to ensure relevance. The workshop will focus on reviewing the DRM capacity and will include representatives of the agencies directly involved with response and recovery activities and those agencies providing support. The workshop will bring the different stakeholders together, share and confirm findings of the data collection stage, and define/confirm next steps. The workshop will also be an opportunity to engage in a tabletop simulation leading to a potential second phase, based on government interest, of a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems. The World Bank country office and the government will work together to determine an appropriate venue based on the number of participants (see more information related to the workshop in Annex 1). Output: Workshop delivery. Task 4: LLE Final Report Development Task 4.1: Complete [Insert Jurisdiction] LLE Report A concise report will be completed that summarizes the entire process and provides clear, actionable recommendations for improving EP&R capacity at the national, regional, and district levels throughout the country. These recommendations will be based on the information gathered during the report preparation phase and the mission and will also include all data collected for informing EP&R investment prioritization at this stage. The focus of this report will be on the government’s EP&R capabilities. The report will identify which elements of disaster preparedness and response require further attention. It will conclude with some broad guiding recommendations with a particular focus on areas of highest priority as identified by project participants. Also, the report will provide a process road map for moving LLE outcomes toward a more detailed EP&R assessment and investment plan that quantifies the best opportunities for return-on-investment and response time improvements. In addition to the final report, the selected senior consultant will prepare a presentation (to donors, government, and the World Bank) of the final report and main findings. The draft report is due within sixteen (16) weeks of project initiation and should be approximately fifteen (15) pages, including a concise executive summary. In addition to the final report, an executive summary and recommendations report and an LLE action plan can also be added as options in the inception note. Output: Final report, presentation (optional: executive summary and recommendations report and LLE action plan). ; Lessons Learned Exercise | 75 Work Timeline Task Task Name Description Schedule No. 1 Project Initiation Award date + 2 weeks 1.1 Project mobilization Conduct a mobilization teleconference meeting meeting involving team members and the World Bank Group leadership team. 1.2 Complete inception Develop a project inception report that confirms project report methods, tasks, deliverables, and associated project administration. 2 Pre-Mission Preparations Award date + 4 weeks 2.1 Develop desk review Provide a brief review of academic literature related to [Insert Jurisdiction]’s EP&R system and existing documentation on the LLE focusing event and relevant disaster events and EP&R legal and policy framework. Create an initial list of participants from the government, private sector, and non-profit EP&R partners. This document will also include details associated with interview conduct and workshop delivery. 2.2 Develop and distribute Focus on the country context, national response the pre-mission survey framework, and participant accountabilities. 3 [Insert Jurisdiction] Award date Mission + 10 weeks 3.1 Complete information Conduct one-on-one information gathering interviews gathering interviews with government, private sector, and non-profit EP&R partners. 3.2 Deliver LLE workshop Deliver a one-day workshop to collaboratively engage major partners in [Insert Jurisdiction]’s EP&R system for discussion on lessons learned and recommendations for improvements. 4 LLE Final Report Award date Development + 14 weeks 4.1 Complete [Insert Complete a report that summarizes the entire process Jurisdiction] LLE final and provides recommendations for immediate report improvement measures. These recommendations will be based on the information gathered during the mission and report preparation and will also include all information collected for informing EP&R investment prioritization at this stage. 76 | Lessons Learned Exercise Deliverables Schedule Deliverable Description Schedule for Acceptance Criteria Delivery LLE inception The project inception report will confirm Award date + 2 The World Bank Group report project methods, tasks, deliverables, and weeks acknowledges receipt associated project administration. As such it and responds with any will ensure partner alignment from the date questions. of project mobilization. LLE desk review This report will provide overview of academic Award date + 3 The World Bank Group literature related to [Insert Jurisdiction]’s EP&R weeks acknowledges receipt system and existing documentation on the and responds with any LLE focusing event and relevant disaster questions. events and EP&R legal and policy framework. Interview and This document will provide the initial list of Award date + The World Bank Group workshop participants from government, private sector, 4 weeks acknowledges receipt schedule and and non-profit EP&R partners. It will also and responds with any participant list include details associated with interview questions. and pre- mission conduct and workshop delivery. survey (can be part of the LLE desk review) workshop The workshop will collaboratively engage with Award date + The World Bank Group delivery major partners in [Insert Jurisdiction]’s EP&R 10 weeks acknowledges system for discussion on lessons learned and workshop completion recommendations for improvements. The and responds with any workshop will be tailored to the country’s questions or required context, to recent disasters, and major participant follow-up. emergency events affecting the country. [Insert The LLE final report will summarize the entire Award date + The World Bank Group Jurisdiction] process and provide recommendations for 14 weeks acknowledges receipt EP&R system LLE immediate improvement measures. These and responds with any final report recommendations will be based on the questions. information gathered during the mission and report preparation. It will also include all information collected for informing EP&R investment prioritization at this stage. C. Minimum Qualifications for Senior Consultant The selected senior consultant should be able to demonstrate: ◆  More than 25 years of experience in the field of disaster or EP&R systems, including legal and institutional frameworks, information, facilities, equipment, and personnel requirements to ensure comprehensive understanding of EP&R systems. ◆  Demonstrated competency in conceptualization, formulation, and execution of EP&R-related projects. ◆  Achievements in one or more of the following fields: disaster management, emergency response planning/operations, data collection/management, interview conduct/remote data collection, etc. ◆  Field experience for projects of a similar nature in fragile or developing nations. Lessons Learned Exercise | 77 D. Other D.1.Selection Procedure The firm will be selected following World Bank Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers (January 2011). D.2.Payment Schedule The selected senior consultant will be remunerated per deliverable (see D.4 section below). D.3.Duration of Assignment The duration of the contract will be four (4) months as from project initiation/ mobilization. D.4.Estimated Days Per Phase 1.   Inception and design phase. Inception report: 5 days (this will be developed in advance) 2.   Desk phase. Desk review: 5 days 3.   Field phase. Workshop delivery: 10 days 4.   Analysis and delivery phase. LLE final report and presentation: 5 days Estimated total: maximum 30 days (target is 25 days). Notes: ◆  Final deliverables will be submitted, incorporating comments on the draft versions within 10 working days of receiving comments. All deliverables will be provided in English. ◆  All outputs produced as part of the consultancy process will be the sole property of the World Bank. 78 | Lessons Learned Exercise Annex 1: LLE Workshop LLE Workshop: The LLE workshop is the main deliverable of the LLE. Below is more detailed information about the workshop. Objective of the LLE Workshop: The workshop will focus on the core components of EP&R systems: 1) information, 2) equipment, 3) personnel, and 4) facilities. The primary objective of the workshop is to build on the data that was gathered during the first steps of the exercise (survey and interviews) and identify ongoing gaps and specific recommendations with respect to key government entities and relief organizations on the front lines of the country’s EP&R systems. The workshop will also be an opportunity to engage in an initial baseline data gathering for a potential second phase, based on government interest, of a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems. Outcome of the LLE Inception Workshop: Participants in this workshop will have an opportunity to review the methodology and timeline of the LLE focusing event response in [Insert Jurisdiction] and to discuss the government’s response to the event. The aim is to develop a current perspective from each ministry/agency (with priority focus on agencies with response roles associated with current legislation) regarding the government’s response capacity. In addition to knowledge exchange, participants will also have an opportunity to discuss the government’s systems, procedures, and experiences related to EP&R and to better understand each ministry’s/agency’s perspective and its own placement within the response operation in [Insert Jurisdiction]. It is important to note that this workshop has not been designed to provide the final and complete recommendations or outputs of the World Bank LLE process. This is the first stage that will assist in developing the next level of analysis (final report) including a potential second phase of a broader qualitative assessment of the country’s EP&R systems that will lead to an EP&R investment prioritization. Workshop Guidelines: 1.   The workshop facilitators will guide the discussion to ensure that any out-of- scope items are noted for follow-up. 2.   All participants, regardless of their current role or position, will be encouraged to actively participate and share their experiences and insights. 3.   Improvement to EP&R capacity requires retrospect without organizational or individual blame, driven by a desire to improve. 4.   Facilitators and participants will ensure a constructive, interest-based, and forward-focused environment that fosters psychological safety. 5.   The workshop will begin and end on schedule to respect the time of participants. Lessons Learned Exercise | 79 Participant Preparation: Workshop participants should consider the following questions in preparation for the workshop: 1.   Was your ministry/agency equipped, mandated, and capable in responding to emergencies such as the LLE focusing event in [Insert Jurisdiction]? 2.   What worked well during the government response to the LLE focusing event in [Insert Jurisdiction]? 3.   What did not go well or had unintended consequences? 4.   Has my ministry/agency been able to work effectively with other ministries/ agencies during the response? Are there certain aspects of response that could be improved through collaboration with response partners? 5.   If you had it all to do over again, what would you do differently? 6.   Has your ministry/agency established a process for updating, validating, or improving its EP&R plan? When was the last time your plan was tested and updated? 7.   As you improve your plan, where might be the best opportunities to collaborate across government, with the public and with the private sector? 8.   What recommendations would you make to others responding to similar events? Annex 2: Optional Guiding Questions for LLE Regarding legal and institutional frameworks: 1.   Are your accountabilities clear for all phases of disaster management, including response operations and central coordination, as well as short- and long-term risk reduction activities? 2.   Do you think the appropriate delegations of authority are established and understood to allow expedited decision-making during response operations? 3.   Are you aware of any emergency procurement/purchase frameworks that enable rapid resource acquisition during disasters and emergencies? 4.   If you have an operational role during response, is your plan specific and clear enough to support you and others in your ministry or agency? 5.   Do you think critical infrastructure resilience, such as telecommunications, electricity, durable medical and pharmaceutical supplies, and supply chain are sufficiently planned for and have been proven resilient through testing and real events? Regarding information and communications: 1.   Are you aware of any community education programs to improve family preparedness and, if so, how helpful are these programs? 2.   Do you think district leaders are provided sufficient training and tools to advocate for resources, policies, and programs associated with community preparedness? 3.   Do you have high confidence that you would receive sufficient advance warning about an emergency event to enable your ministry or agency to take action to save lives and limit adverse economic impacts? 80 | Lessons Learned Exercise 4.   Do you have access to an online central information source where you can 5.   share and gather information about current emergency events, existing hazards, or service disruptions in the private sector? 6.   Does your ministry or agency have the capability to communicate with others in government or the private sector despite disruptions to telephone services using digital radio systems, satellite phones, etc.? Emergency plans: 1.   What are the main hazards that you should prepare for? 2.   In case of emergency, what would be the impact of these hazards? 3.   What are the strengths and weaknesses of your respective agency? 4.   Do you have any plans or SOPs related to the hazards (emergency operations plan, contingency planning)? 5.   Where should your agency participate/what should be the role of your agency in case of emergency? 6.   What type of EP&R-related documents do you have? Incident response: 1.   Did you have sufficient resources to fulfill your responsibilities and missions? If not, were you able to acquire them (by other means)? How did you obtain them? 2.   What resources were not available, and how successful were you in acquiring them? 3.   Assuming at least one or more of the needed resources were not available, how did you set priorities and what were they? 4.   How did you triage incidents, and how were they addressed in priority? 5.   Were there any SOPs/standard protocols and guidelines related to these types of extreme conditions? 6.   Were there any mutual aid agreements in place (personnel and equipment)? Were you able to mobilize personnel and equipment during the event? 7.   What surprises did the team have to deal with? 8.   What circumstances were not anticipated? 9.   Did you develop any useful workarounds or solutions to problems that cropped up during the event? Document the details in a way that will make sense later. 10.   For any problems that went unresolved, what preventive measures can you invent now that can help things go more smoothly next time? 11.   Are there any new “best practices” you can derive from this event? 12.   Note anything that went well and that you would want to repeat in a similar situation. 13.   Can you create an easily accessible repository for lessons learned and best practices you have documented? 14.   What would you have changed in the preparation for the event if you could go back in time? Lessons Learned Exercise | 81 APPENDIX 11: FURTHER SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO INCLUDE CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES WITHIN THE METHODOLOGY Component 1: Cross-Cutting Considerations Criteria: Accountability & Authority ◆  How were EP&R actors trained to understand and implement gender- sensitive and inclusive disaster management practices? ◆  What mechanisms were in place to monitor and evaluate the performance of EP&R actors in adhering to gender-sensitive and inclusive disaster management policies during the event? ◆  Were there clear guidelines and accountability measures in place for EP&R actors to address and report gender-specific issues during the disaster response? ◆  How were EP&R actors held accountable for ensuring that their actions and decisions did not disproportionately impact marginalized groups, including women and persons with disabilities? ◆  Were accountabilities for EP&R actors clear during the event in terms of gender-sensitive and inclusive disaster management, and did they ensure a consistent approach throughout all levels of legislation and policy? ◆  Were diverse stakeholders, including women, marginalized groups, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and older adults engaged in EP&R decision-making roles and positions, and could they meaningfully participate in all stages of EP&R, including planning, coordination, and decision-making processes with their knowledge, perspectives, and leadership? ◆  Was VAWG effectively addressed as a core area of DRM work during the disaster, including through the establishment of multi-sectoral coordination systems between disaster management, law enforcement, health authorities, and other relevant entities? ◆  Were the precautions and measures in EP&R plans adequate to assist and protect women and girls at risk of physical and sexual violence? ◆  Was conflict and violence effectively integrated into disaster risk reduction strategies, including business continuity during states of emergency? 82 | Lessons Learned Exercise Criteria: Financial Preparedness ◆  Was the risk management strategy based on an understanding of the needs of marginalized groups in society, including women, people with disabilities, and elderly people? ◆  How were the specific needs of marginalized groups, including women, people with disabilities, and elderly people, identified and incorporated into the risk management strategy? ◆  Were there mechanisms in place to continuously update and refine the risk management strategy based on feedback and changing needs of these marginalized groups? ◆  Were gender norms considered to disburse goods and funds and address related gaps? ◆  Were financial and insurance products effective in meeting women’s needs and preferences aligned with broader social protection programs and without any legal or cultural barriers? ◆  As part of the financial protection strategy, was the grievance redressal mechanism effective to the needs of women and marginalized populations? Component 2: Cross-Cutting Considerations Criteria: Community Engagement ◆  How were local communities empowered to prioritize and allocate funding to address their specific needs, particularly those of women and marginalized groups? ◆  What mechanisms were in place to ensure continuous feedback from women and people with disabilities regarding their participation and the assistance provided during emergencies? ◆  Were the specific measures effective to promote the participation of women and people with disabilities to increase the awareness of their needs and to ensure that effective assistance is provided to them during emergencies? ◆  Were the security and safety of volunteers guaranteed while participating in EP&R activities, especially in FCV settings? ◆  Were community education messages launched on how women and girls can protect themselves effectively? ◆  Did local communities have the freedom to use their funding to attend to their communities’ most pressing needs, enabling them to be flexible and effective in providing lifesaving support to their communities at large? Lessons Learned Exercise | 83 Criteria: Early Warning Systems ◆  Was scientific information communicated in simple non-technical language based on a participatory, diversified, and gender-inclusive approach? ◆  How were diverse community members, including women and marginalized groups, involved in the development and dissemination of early warning messages to ensure they were accessible and understood by all? ◆  Were warning messages communicated over various platforms (digital and non-digital; formal and informal networks) and through a variety of media, using the Common Alerting Protocol to ensure consistency and inclusivity? Criteria: Information Management Systems ◆  Was geolocated, current, and jurisdiction-specific vulnerability information available within the disaster management information system to ensure integrated risk analysis and vulnerability analysis at the sub-regional/regional level? ◆  Was digitization of data encouraged for accuracy, record keeping, and cross- sector sharing? ◆  Was the interoperability ensured between disaster risk information systems and social protection databases (for example, by developing, adopting, and implementing a data governance framework with a set of principles, procedures, and responsibilities for data management)? 84 | Lessons Learned Exercise Criteria: Geomatics ◆  Were minority and excluded groups involved in risk identification and management for gender-equitable, more inclusive disaster preparedness and plans? ◆  What strategies were implemented to ensure that the information was culturally relevant and accessible to all community members, including those with limited access to technology? ◆  Was the prioritization of geographic areas in terms of hazards based on inclusion-focused conflict analysis? ◆  Was disaggregated data on marginalized groups—such as women, children, elderly people, persons with disabilities, and various minority groups—systematically collected and disaggregated by type and degree of functional disability, age, gender, and geographic location? ◆  How was the disaggregated data utilized to inform and improve disaster risk management strategies and interventions? ◆  What measures were in place to ensure the continuous updating and accuracy of the disaggregated data on marginalized groups? ◆  Was geo-referenced vulnerability data available for emergency managers in an accessible and user-friendly format, allowing quick use during emergencies? ◆  Was information supporting disaster risk knowledge accessible using multimedia open-source mechanisms? ◆  Was sensitive data of marginalized populations, including names, contact details, type of disability, age, gender, etc. protected in an appropriate manner whereby emergency responders can only access the data they need? Lessons Learned Exercise | 85 Component 3: Cross-Cutting Considerations Criteria: EOCs ◆  Were EOC facilities physically accessible and safe for all individuals, including persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with mobility impairments? ◆  Did the composition of EOC staff reflect the diversity of the affected population, including women, members of marginalized groups, persons with disabilities, and individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds to ensure representation in key decision-making roles within the EOC? ◆  Did mobile command posts analyze gender-sensitive data to identify and address the specific needs and vulnerabilities of different groups, particularly women and marginalized communities? ◆  Did the EOC partner with external organizations and experts specializing in gender equality and diversity and with services pre-identified to respond to VAWG during the emergency? ◆  Did social media monitoring collect gender-disaggregated data, including demographic characteristics of affected populations, such as gender, age, ethnicity, and disability status? 86 | Lessons Learned Exercise Criteria: Logistics Warehouses and Response Stations ◆  Did warehouses contain essential relief goods for women, the sick, children, the elderly, pregnant individuals, or lactating women, such as hygiene supplies, diapers, infant nutrition, mobility assistance supplies, medical support, dialysis machines, ventilators, etc.? ◆  Were stocks in warehouses culturally appropriate and in line with the practices and customs of the target populations? ◆  Were warehouses accessible to all, including women and people with disabilities, through wheelchair ramps, lights, ventilation, etc.? ◆  Were warehouses located in a safe geographical area, avoiding any unnecessary exposure to crime or risks related to sex- and gender-based violence? ◆  Were prisons secured, if destroyed? ◆  Were warehouses situated in neutral environments and overseen by impartial actors to prevent the misuse of relief goods within the context of conflict and avoid a further breakdown in trust? ◆  Were local response stations geographically close enough to diverse communities to facilitate the visit to response stations for persons with limited mobility? ◆  Were local response stations accessible for persons with limited mobility or other disabilities (including through wheelchair ramps), clear of physical hindrances, and clearly designated through signs and posters? ◆  Did hazard response stations provide a suitable working environment for both male and female personnel, including through dedicated and safe spaces for women such as sleeping quarters, water, and sanitation facilitation, and changing facilities? ◆  Were response stations in FCV settings adequately safeguarded and secured against violence, ensuring their operational continuity through the implementation of robust security measures? Lessons Learned Exercise | 87 Criteria: Shelters and Open Spaces ◆  How were gender-specific risks and vulnerabilities incorporated into the inclusion-focused conflict analysis for prioritizing geographic areas? ◆  What steps were taken to ensure that the prioritization process was transparent and inclusive of the perspectives of marginalized and minority groups? ◆  Did designed sites and shelters meet internationally agreed-on standards and consider women’s and girls’ physical safety? ◆  Were emergency housing and temporary shelters accessible to individuals with disabilities, including the provision of ramps, accessible transportation, sign language interpreters, and alternative formats for communication and information dissemination? ◆  Were marginalized women, particularly women heading households, unemployed women, women below the poverty line, and socially marginalized women, prioritized when allocating temporary shelters and reconstructed houses? ◆  Were the open areas designated for disaster management operations readily accessible to the general population, especially those who are marginalized or have limited mobility? ◆  Were evacuation routes effectively used by marginalized groups, including women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities? ◆  Were medical, reproductive health, hygiene, and safety supplies readily available (pre-stocked) in emergency shelters, such as sanitary towels and diapers? ◆  Did shelters provide for safe spaces for women, adolescents, and children (child-friendly spaces), including through the provision of toys or other recreational material, and options for family grouping? ◆  How was the physical safety of women and girls ensured in the design and management of shelters, and what specific features were included to enhance their security? ◆  Did the early warning system for VAWG exist in shelters so that individuals can report threatening behaviors before incidents occur, triggering appropriate preventive measures, and are these on-the-ground reporting mechanisms safe and confidential? ◆  Was adequate lighting ensured in shelter, in indoor and outdoor shared areas, and on firewood collection routes? ◆  Were interpretation and translation services provided to ensure that language barriers did not hinder access to information and services for individuals in shelter communities? 88 | Lessons Learned Exercise Component 4: Cross-Cutting Considerations Criteria: Emergency Social Services ◆  Did health emergency response plans include maternal and child health services as part of the immediate disaster response? ◆  Did health emergency response plans include medical services for women and girls who experience violence as part of the immediate disaster response? ◆  Was there a safe space dedicated for victims of VAWG in emergency care in a confidential and respectful manner? ◆  Were medical, reproductive health care, and safety supplies deployed in an emergency (for example, post-rape kits, psychological counseling, basic sexual and reproductive health kits, dignity kits, and first aid kits)? ◆  In FCV settings, was the safety and security of individuals injured by the disaster ensured? ◆  In FCV settings, was the safety and security of emergency health personnel ensured for them to execute their responsibilities? ◆  Were interpretation and translation services provided to ensure that language barriers did not hinder access to emergency health services for foreigners or language minorities? ◆  Was the business continuity of health facilities ensured during the emergency and in the immediate response phase? ◆  Were public health and water, sanitation, and hygiene facilities safe, accessible, and responsive to the needs of all individuals, including women, girls, and marginalized gender identities? ◆  In FCV settings, were water distribution points and sanitation services secured to enable safe access for all? ◆  Were medical, legal, and health services provided at the same time, in the same location, and ideally by the same person to avoid burdening survivors of physical or sexual violence with multiple visits and points of contact? ◆  Was psychosocial support prioritized for persons with existing pre-disaster mental health conditions and disabilities, and for children? Lessons Learned Exercise | 89 Criteria: Information/Communications Technology ◆  Were information and communication technology tools and platforms user- friendly, accessible, and responsive to the specific needs and preferences of different users, including women, girls, and persons with disabilities? ◆  Was interoperability of radio systems in place with organizations representing women, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, remote communities, and other marginalized groups? ◆  Were communication strategies inclusive and accessible to diverse populations, considering linguistic, cultural, and literacy differences and using a variety of communication channels, including mobile phones, social media, and community radio, to reach different segments of the population, including women, persons with disabilities, and marginalized groups? Criteria: Hazard-Specific Response Capacity ◆  Were emergency responders in FCV settings informed about the location of mines and other explosive devices to prevent any harm to the responders and the population? ◆  Was specialized equipment available to evacuate persons with restricted mobility over water? ◆  Were flood warning systems accessible and inclusive, ensuring that all segments of the population were informed about actions to take and to avoid? ◆  Was specialized equipment available to rescue persons with restricted mobility in the event of structural collapse and entombed rescue? ◆  Was a support team available for emergency responders that was trained in communicating with people and children with mental health conditions in the event of structural collapse and entombed rescue? 90 | Lessons Learned Exercise Criteria: Urban Firefighting and Technical Rescue ◆  Was personal protective equipment and gear designed to accommodate the anatomical and physiological differences of all firefighters, including women and persons with disabilities, to ensure that personal protective equipment and gear was comfortable, functional, and ergonomically designed for all users? ◆  Were fire services able to access and navigate through all parts of the urban center, including narrow streets and slums, such as through the availability of smaller trucks or motorcycles? ◆  Was specialized equipment available to rescue persons with restricted mobility from entrapment? ◆  Was a support team available for emergency responders trained in communicating with persons with mental health conditions when faced with entrapment situations? ◆  Was psychosocial support available for victims of prolonged extrication? ◆  Was a support team available for emergency responders trained in communicating with children and adults with mental health conditions when confined? Lessons Learned Exercise | 91 Component 5: Cross-Cutting Considerations Criteria: Incident Organization Structure ◆  Did formal policy direction recognize the significant role of gender in EP&R? ◆  Did coordination mechanisms between various agencies, especially in terms of civil-military coordination, allow for a clear division of responsibilities during emergencies? ◆  Was the incident organization structure supported by a clear risk communication approach and strategy, outlining the various responsibilities of the agencies involved? ◆  Was guidance provided to EP&R personnel on gender-sensitive communication, leadership, and decision-making in crisis situations? ◆  Was an effective code of conduct established for EP&R personnel regarding how to carry out their duties in a respectful and inclusive manner, including for female colleagues and colleagues with disabilities? Criteria: Training and Knowledge-Building ◆  Was the EP&R training program effective in including sessions on how to address VAWG in the preparedness, response, and recovery phase of disasters? ◆  Was the EP&R training program effective in including sessions for first responders to better support people with disabilities in emergency situations? ◆  Was the EP&R training program effective in teaching communication strategies to enhance understanding and collaboration with individuals from diverse cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrounds? ◆  Was the EP&R training program effective in clarifying and communicating FCV concepts and specific conflict-related risks in the country to foster understanding how EP&R in FCV settings should be conducted? 92 | Lessons Learned Exercise Criteria: Exercises and Drills ◆  Was the EP&R exercise program effective in building the capacity of emergency responders to recognize and address the specific needs of diverse populations in crisis situations? ◆  Was the EP&R exercise program effective in offering guidance on gender- sensitive approaches to EP&R, including the integration of gender considerations in decision-making processes, communication strategies, and resource allocation mechanisms? ◆  Was the EP&R exercise program effective in preparing community volunteers, local EP&R structures, and marginalized parts of the society, including women, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, children, and the elderly through their participation as role players? ◆  Was the EP&R exercise program effective in preparing social and health services to practice the organization of and coordination with psychosocial support, with child-safe and women-safe spaces during emergency response? ◆  Was the prevention of and response to VAWG effectively tested and validated in the EP&R exercise program? Lessons Learned Exercise | 93 Criteria: International Support Coordination ◆  Were there clearly assigned accountabilities to coordinate international support with a variety of international actors, including organizations focused on gender equality and inclusivity, such as UN Women, UNICEF, the FAO? ◆  Were personnel tasked with coordinating international support experienced with the cluster system and any cross-cutting issues, such as gender and relevant tools (for example, the IASC Gender Marker)? ◆  Was the coordination with international agencies part of a longer-term strategic approach, especially in FCV settings? ◆  Did the central agency have mechanisms in place for donor coordination? ◆  Was aid reception and storage guided by international disaster response law? ◆  Was priority for incoming emergency aid given to essential goods for the survival of marginalized populations? ◆  Was the population informed about incoming aid, in line with any existing risk communication strategy, to enhance transparency, accountability and trust? ◆  In FCV settings, was the security of incoming aid and the storage of relief goods guaranteed by national or, when needed, international actors? ◆  Were relief goods distributed in consultation with local communities and marginalized populations to ensure that the people most in need received assistance first? ◆  Were relief goods distributed in a gender-sensitive, accessible, and inclusive manner, avoiding that people were located in unsafe and stressful situations when queuing up, that all persons could carry the goods, and that persons with disabilities had equal access? ◆  Were feedback mechanisms in place for the population to provide comments on the quality and quantity of the relief goods and on the distribution channels? 94 | Lessons Learned Exercise