Figure 2. General evaluation criteria for the survey

• A score of 0 indicated that in the current state, the element under consideration was insufficiently developed.

• A score of 1 indicated insufficiency but with partial attempts made.

• The score of 2 represented the reference level set in the survey.

• A score of 3 was given when a criterion surpassed the reference level (see Figure 2).

The specific elements of value within each evaluation criterion were indicated to help guide the assessor, and was tailored to each question. These assessments went through multiple verification processes. A first draft analysis was presented and verified by all of the stakeholders during a first multi-country workshop in November 2019, and adjustments were made. Then, simplified self-assessment surveys were given to national stakeholders to conduct selfassessments, following the evaluation criteria noted above. These self-assessments were used to cross-check the main assessments for major inconsistencies. The inconsistencies were then further evaluated and researched by the assessors, who made adjustments to the score if necessary. The final assessments were presented in a national workshop, along with a draft version of the recommendations derived from them. Once again, modifications were made based on the feedback received. Lastly, a finalised version with conclusive recommendations was presented in a final workshop and endorsed by the DRR focal points and the directors of the national DRR authorities of each of the concerned countries.

For each of the four countries, the sum of the scores in each section was used to identify opportunities to improve the current EWS situation. Radar charts were used to graphically represent EWS standards, excellence and the position of the country score for each EWS component and its sub-components. In this respect, the aim of the proposed road map was to fill the identified gaps and to reach at least a baseline score for each EWS component.

The road maps were therefore developed with the baseline analyses in mind, identifying specific descriptions of recommendations and priorities to improve on within each of the four components. Actions were then identified, based on these priorities. For the continental and sub-continental level, the baseline analysis was not used. Instead, the road map outlines what could be done based on an analysis of the current institutional framework and capacities of the African Union Commission (AUC) and the Regional Economic Communities (RECs).

GRADING SCALE SCORE DESCRIPTION

The principle is not met: there is no evidence of required elements nor there are ongoing initiatives.

The principle is partially achieved: some efforts to achieve the criteria are observed but additional initatives need to be implemented. The principle is achieved: there is consistent evidence that the standard have been successfully reached. The principle is exceeded. There is evidence that a variety of methods is used to go beyond the minimum expectations and ensure an exceptionally high level of quality. 0 The current state of the system does not comply with international standards and good practices. Ongoing initiatives to strenghten it do not exist or will not suffice to make it compliant.

1

The current state of the system does not comply with international standards and good practices. Ongoing initiatives could suffice to make It compliant. 2 The current state of the system complies with standard, recommendations and reference good practices.

3 The current state of the system exceeds international standard, recommendations and reference good practices.

Figure 2. General evaluation criteria for the survey