Baseline and endline studies to be commissioned by the EU-funded intervention
The indicator, together with SENDAI indicators G1, G3, G4 and G5, is used to measure progress in achievement of Target G of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: "Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030". G-2 is an indicator representing one of the aforementioned four key elements of the multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS), (2) detection, monitoring, analysis and forecasting of the hazards and possible consequences.
Two options for computation of the country score are suggested, from a simpler to a more complex one to reflect the quality/achievement of the system. In either option, the index will be between 1 and 0.Â
a) A simpler methodology calculates a score by country which depends on the existence of a multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system for each of the major hazards determined by each country. Each country will report in a simple form, hazard by hazard, if there is a monitoring and forecasting system for it (in a binary form, 0 or 1). The score of the country will be the weighted average of the scores for each major hazard. At global level, the score will be the arithmetic average of the country scores, i.e. the sum of all country scores divided by the number of reporting countries.
b) Member States will assess the level of implementation for the monitoring and forecasting system of each of the major hazards, and enter all information in the web-based Sendai Framework Monitor. Member States will assess this level of implementation according to the following weighting:
• Comprehensive implementation (full score): 1.0,
• Substantial implementation, additional progress required: 0.75,
• Moderate implementation, neither comprehensive nor substantial: 0.50,
• Limited implementation: 0.25,
• If there is no implementation or no existence, it will be 0.
This index is more complicated than option a) written above, however, it enables monitoring the improvement in the quality of the system.
In order to calculate in a more objective way the score for each hazard, countries can use sub-indicators with level of implementation or achievement for each of these four elements: monitoring; forecasting; warning messages; process, roles and responsibilities. These sub-indicators are proposed to be considered of equal importance (25% each), thus the score will be calculated by the arithmetic average.
See the Technical Guidance for more details on the computation methods (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf).
The indicator, together with SENDAI indicators G1, G3, G4 and G5, is used to measure progress in achievement of Target G of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: "Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030". G-2 is an indicator representing one of the aforementioned four key elements of the multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS), (2) detection, monitoring, analysis and forecasting of the hazards and possible consequences.
Two options for computation of the country score are suggested, from a simpler to a more complex one to reflect the quality/achievement of the system. In either option, the index will be between 1 and 0.Â
a) A simpler methodology calculates a score by country which depends on the existence of a multi-hazard monitoring and forecasting system for each of the major hazards determined by each country. Each country will report in a simple form, hazard by hazard, if there is a monitoring and forecasting system for it (in a binary form, 0 or 1). The score of the country will be the weighted average of the scores for each major hazard. At global level, the score will be the arithmetic average of the country scores, i.e. the sum of all country scores divided by the number of reporting countries.
b) Member States will assess the level of implementation for the monitoring and forecasting system of each of the major hazards, and enter all information in the web-based Sendai Framework Monitor. Member States will assess this level of implementation according to the following weighting:
• Comprehensive implementation (full score): 1.0,
• Substantial implementation, additional progress required: 0.75,
• Moderate implementation, neither comprehensive nor substantial: 0.50,
• Limited implementation: 0.25,
• If there is no implementation or no existence, it will be 0.
This index is more complicated than option a) written above, however, it enables monitoring the improvement in the quality of the system.
In order to calculate in a more objective way the score for each hazard, countries can use sub-indicators with level of implementation or achievement for each of these four elements: monitoring; forecasting; warning messages; process, roles and responsibilities. These sub-indicators are proposed to be considered of equal importance (25% each), thus the score will be calculated by the arithmetic average.
See the Technical Guidance for more details on the computation methods (www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf).