We must seek – new options We must treat – what`s exposed

Sustainagility (barefoot bob, 2008)
I ve seen the waters start to rise - & I know that what s been done s not
wise
I know that I can t change - what others did - so placing blame
won t help me find a new way to survive – so…
We must seek – new options
We must treat – what s exposed & weak
We must teach – each other
& change before the change becomes too deep
(change our risk & vulnerability)
(change to be sustained – that s sustainagility)
Once we had many of us here
Now it seems there s less & less each year
Some have chosen to migrate , others met a different fate,
& those who stay don t want to live in fear – so…
Winds of change are whirling all around us –
So the time is now for us to act
Get assessment of what s weak & Find the best way we can treat them
As we try to get on the sustainagility track Climate Change, Disaster, & Development Risks bob alexander FORIN Advanced Institute – Southeast Asia 11-­‐19 March, 2012 What s Been Shared Already? —  interesting times : new hazards, levels, CEPs (Taiwan: ↑ rain & frequency of extreme rain) —  Process: socio-­‐natural hazards & vulnerability —  Development: for whom? short vs. long-­‐term security & living standard ? —  CC: physicalist paradigm?; not natural! —  Prospective risks: 30-­‐40 years ahead? —  Many examples by participants & speakers —  A mandate & a list of questions (e.g., #15) DAVID: Risk-­‐based planning & project appraisal; other risks Development & Vulnerability [sparrow: not every ac0on that gets you out of dung is helpful] -­‐  Resource transformation/overuse (scarcity, power /conflict, environmental consequences) -­‐  Effluents (health/productivity impacts) -­‐  Technology →Dangerous substances/ techniques (chemicals, nuclear, dams, cascade) -­‐  Population ↑ (migrate, ↑ resource use/waste; desert., ↓ water table [drought], conflict) -­‐  Urbanization (marginalization,↓ resources) -­‐  Integration (sectoral, geographic, financial) -­‐  ↑ Rich/Poor gap (poor lose systems of coping) Paradigm Shock/TransiBon? Is the new well-­‐being paradigm more uncertain? What are the risk drivers? What s feasible to address unacceptable levels? Paradigm 1 (assets, institutions, risks) Shock/Trend Paradigm 2 (assets, institutions, risks) CC/GEC/CEP & Vulnerability —  CC/GEC/CEP variability ∆: (1) short: severity/frequency of shocks; (2) long: productive base of society —  natural variability (& events) vs. CC incremental variability → same response: ↓ vulnerability factors —  win-­‐win : today s development/
shock needs & tomorrow s uncertainty needs —  Distraction (from root causes), scapegoat (hazard paradigm), or opportunity (integration/funding)? IntegraBon C
hallenges —  Separation of responsibilities (NGOs [aid, reduction], Government [civil defense, planning, environment]) —  Inertia of misconceptions (CCA environment & future ; DRR response & past ) —  Political will (horizontal-­‐vertical integration) —  Perceived DRR/CCA budget conflicts …and OpportuniBes —  development/PR/SP investments reflect how CEPs & development changing extensive/intensive risks —  Eliminates shopping list & budget conflicts How can we reach our development targets while accounting for current and future risks? Integrated Municipal Planning/BudgeBng: Marinduque —  CCA/DRR/Dev on small mining-­‐devastated island —  Partnership: LGUs, CSOs, community members —  Methodologies: -­‐  Education of public on DRR/CCA/SD (exhibits, local -­‐ 
-­‐ 
-­‐ 
-­‐ 
cable, forum/colloquium/symposia) Stressed urgency to barangay-­‐based institutions and officials; Policy advocacy at higher levels Assessment and acquisition of capacity for training and management for livelihoods, planning & budgeting processes, legislative enactment Monitoring (ensure sub-­‐groups perceptions heard) Appraise projects (per activity) with stakeholder team Priority Needs: Governance —  Decentralization & intra-­‐government horizontal/ vertical integration (empowerment & accountability) —  Budgets/resources (at levels appropriate for needs and for both reduction & residual risks) —  Governance contingency plans (for potential disruptions from events) —  Risks included in: PRSPs/TSP/development plans —  Capacity-­‐building with effective tools Priority Needs: Tools At project level: —  Integrated Project Appraisal (e.g., IESIA) —  VCAs for development projects that includes CC/CEP (e.g., CDRC Philippines) At government planning level: —  Integrated Planning (e.g., Strategic Env. Assessment) —  Scenario building & using —  Monitoring/Evaluation 1
Spatial: Other Communities
Extra-­‐Community
Upscale: National/Provincial/District Governments
COMMUNITY MAINSTREAMING
2
Development Planning
Other priorities
Risk Reduction priorities
Analysis:
Assessment:
Share (Mind Maps)
Vulnerable Groups
Local Government Groups
BSF Producers/
Institutions Internal
Food & In-­‐
come
Health care
Edu-­‐
cation
Acceptable Levels
INGOs & Agencies
Scientific Researchers
External
4
Sectoral / Functional Access
Shelter &
Power
Water & Sani-­‐
tation
Quantitative
Physical Safety
METHODS
Multi-­‐Disciplinary
Transport
Communi-­‐
cation
Enter-­‐
tainment
Culture/
Religion
Qualitative
Risk Factors: Hazards, Stressors, and Trends
Biophysical:
ØExposure
ØVulnerability & Capacity
3
Unacceptable Levels
Government agencies
Local NGOs
Community Stakeholders
Identification of Expected Losses of Each Group:
Environ-­‐
mental
Services
Risk Reduction Prioritization
Risk Knowledge
Iterate
Temporal: Past & Present Future
8
Socio-­‐Economic:
Ø Vulnerability & Capacity
6
7
5
Maldives: Assess Risk ReducBon PrioriBes Per ModificaBons & Trends —  Objective: -­‐  assessing: vulnerability levels to be prioritized for reduction -­‐  as vulnerable to: event, climate, dev. risk scenarios -­‐  with respect to: the process for co-­‐determining risk knowledge among identified vulnerable subgroups Maldives: Methodology —  Designed to bridge insider/
N
G’
Water Level - Well
Ground Water level
Historical Flood Events (Kinbigasmagu)
Sea Level
Atholhuge
School
Nearest House
Extent of Settlement footprint
Telecom
G
1967
Power House
G
Nearest House
outsider perceptions —  Both biophysical & socio-­‐
economic (quant & qual) components —  Future scenarios based on both historical data and trend information allow dynamic simulation G’
2004
1950’s
1987
Regular
(Udha)
1
0
2006
1987
1967
Low Tideline
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Environment
Population
Food/Goods Access
Livelihoods/Income
Health Care
Education & Training
Shelter
Power
Water
Sanitation
Transportation
Communication
Physical Safety
Disaster Event Scenario
Likely: tsunami (2-­‐4 meters)
Future Scenario
Population & investments
Heightened eastern ridge; low Coral reef, coastal vegetation, and beach porosity & elevation of reclaimed erosion effects
land; inadequate coastal vegetation; expected beach erosion & accretion; Some deaths; 10-­‐25% pop. displaced; Displaced population return; natural evacuation required
population increase
Household fruits/vegetables of 50% of New fish market, commercial/retail households damaged up to 1 year
shops
50% of commercial centers (e.g., fish New bank, fuel storage building, fish market, fuel store) closed; warehouses / processing center, warehouses, ice fish processing zone damaged
plant
No direct effects
New health center
New secondary/primary/pre-­‐school; No major damage – closed a few days
converted pre-­‐school
10% destroyed; 50% damaged
No planned changes
5 0 % o f t r a n s f o r m e r s d a m a g e d ; New power house
generators down 1 week
r a i n w a t e r s h o r t a g e ( f r o m t a n k Desalinization plant, water supply destruction) & groundwater saline (1-­‐60 center
days) until next big rainfall
50% decrease in pump station operations 1 week; outer waste walls destroyed (but New waste management site
no waste influx)
Fuel store damage (storage down, fuel New harbor design: dredged basin, prices up); 33% land transport loss; sea boat repair area, loading/unloading transport assumed OK (but uncertain area
due to new harbor design)
No direct effects
No planned changes
New town hall, fire station, coast No direct effects
guard, buffer zones, drainage areas
C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e & No direct effects
Psychosocial Activities
New community center, drainage play areas, converted play areas, parks, 1
Spatial: Other Communities
Extra-­‐Community
Upscale: National/Provincial/District Governments
COMMUNITY MAINSTREAMING
2
Development Planning
Other priorities
Risk Reduction priorities
Analysis:
Assessment:
Share (Mind Maps)
Vulnerable Groups
Local Government Groups
BSF Producers/
Institutions Internal
Food & In-­‐
come
Health care
Edu-­‐
cation
Acceptable Levels
INGOs & Agencies
Scientific Researchers
External
4
Sectoral / Functional Access
Shelter &
Power
Water & Sani-­‐
tation
Quantitative
Physical Safety
METHODS
Multi-­‐Disciplinary
Transport
Communi-­‐
cation
Enter-­‐
tainment
Culture/
Religion
Qualitative
Risk Factors: Hazards, Stressors, and Trends
Biophysical:
ØExposure
ØVulnerability & Capacity
3
Unacceptable Levels
Government agencies
Local NGOs
Community Stakeholders
Identification of Expected Losses of Each Group:
Environ-­‐
mental
Services
Risk Reduction Prioritization
Risk Knowledge
Iterate
Temporal: Past & Present Future
8
Socio-­‐Economic:
Ø Vulnerability & Capacity
6
7
5
Exercise: FuncBon Level Change 1)  What is your proposed project place? 2)  Pick 1 normal & 1 vulnerable group in that place 3)  Pick a major vulnerability process involving CEP, development, and hazard of that place 4)  Pick one Function & define its key Elements and institutional Processes in that place 5)  Describe 3 effects of the trends/shocks on the elements/institutional processes of that function 6)  Describe the differences in potential change in the level of function of the 2 groups Risk Factors: Trends
• Climatic
• Population
• Resource
(conflict)
• Economic
• Governance
• Technological
Shocks
• Health
• (Socio-)Natural
(hazards)
• Economic
• Conflict
• Crop / animal
health
Seasonality
• Prices
• Production
• Health
• Employment
opportunities
Source: Modified from DFID, 1999
Vulnerability Process: Visayas/Mindanao 1997-1998 (CDRC)
Type of hazards:
■ Drought
■ El Niño
■ Deforestation
■ Secondary
disasters: epidemic,
pests, fire
Unsafe conditions:
■ Insufficient food from
farming
■ Unstable livelihoods
■ 1 slash & burn corn
harvest /year
■ No savings
■ No irrigation facilities
Elements at risk:
■ Steep terrain prone to
■ Crops (die preerosion/landslides
harvest)
■ Lack of farm cultivation tools
■ Loss of livelihood & animals
■ Loss of assets
■ Many children malnourished
(sold to buy food)
■ Lack of basic services
■ Children (malaria/ ■ Indigenous people in remote
measles)
areas
■ People (wild crops ■ Weak relationships with
poisonous)
government structures
■ Forestland (fire?)
■ Not sure how to ↓ secondary
■ Planting season
hazard risk
■ Indigenous coping lost in
young generation
Dynamic pressures:
■ Slash & burn under
pressure
■ Logging/mining in
watershed
■ No indigenous land rights
■ Decline in soil fertility
■ seasonal migration of male
labor
■ Essential assets sold
■ Dependent on money
Root causes:
■ Laws & service/resource
distribution biased against
indigenous
■ local rights dominated by
national interests
■ Debt crisis, SA, WTO
programs of govt. do not
benefit marginalized
indigenous