Catalyst Regional Workshop Reports

Transcription

CATALYST REGIONAL WORKSHOP REPORTS
Deliverable 4.2 – Version 1.0
July 2013
The project has received funding from the European Union’s
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant
agreement no. 283177 (CATALYST).
CATALYST Regional Workshop Reports
1
Deliverable title:
Deliverable number:
D4.2
Editors:
Matt Hare (seeconsult), Caroline van Bers (seeconsult)
Contributing Authors (in alphabetical order): Caroline van Bers (seeconsult), Elisa Calliari (FEEM),
Matt Hare (seeconsult), Marius Hasenheit (seeconsult), Fons Jaspers (Alterra),
Peter van der Keur (GEUS), Christian Kuhlicke (UFZ), Jochen Luther (UFZ), Jaro
Mysiak (FEEM).
Current version:
Version 1.0 (1 July, 2013)
Status:
Final
General readership:
PU – public document
Correct reference:
This document can be quoted or referred to as:
Hare M. & van Bers, C. (Eds) (2013), CATALYST Regional workshop reports.
Version 1. July 2013. Osnabrück. downloadable at http://www.catalystproject.eu
Individual regional sections can be referred to as:
van der Keur, P., van Bers, C. & Henriksen, H-J (2013) European
Mediterranean Regional Workshop, in Hare M. & van Bers, C. (Eds),
CATALYST Regional workshop reports. Version 1. July 2013. Osnabrück.
downloadable at http://www.catalyst-project.eu
Calliari, E., Hare, M.P., & Mysiak, J. (2013) Central America and the Caribbean
Regional Workshop, in Hare M. & van Bers, C. (Eds), CATALYST Regional
workshop reports. Version 1. July 2013. Osnabrück. downloadable at
http://www.catalyst-project.eu
Luther, J. & Kuhlicke, C (2013) East and West Africa Regional Workshop, in
Hare M. & van Bers, C. (Eds), CATALYST Regional workshop reports. Version 1.
July 2013. Osnabrück. downloadable at http://www.catalyst-project.eu
van der Keur, P., & Jaspers, F. (2013) South and South-East Asia Regional
Workshop, in Hare M. & van Bers, C. (Eds), CATALYST Regional workshop
reports.
Version
1.
July
2013.
Osnabrück.
downloadable
at
http://www.catalyst-project.eu
2
Delivery date:
End of February, 2013
Submission date:
03.07.2013 (Version 1.0)
Due date:
Month 17
Prepared under contract from the European Commission
Grant agreement no: 283177 Theme [ENV.2011.1.3.4-1]
[Capacity building in natural hazards risks reduction] in the 7th EU Framework Programme
Disclaimer: The results contained in this report were produced within the CATALYST project "Capacity
Development for Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation" funded under the FP7 by the European
Commission. This report is the sole responsibility of the CATALYST Project and does not represent the
opinion of the European Community nor is the European community responsible for any use that
might be made of the data appearing herein. This is a deliverable based on CATALYST Think Tank
Member's opinions, gathered in regional workshops and therefore our thanks go to all the Think Tank
Members for their support. Regional sections (2-5) of this deliverable are revised versions of
workshop summary reports or workshop minutes that were sent for review by the regional Think
Tank Members concerned. In this respect, although all effort has been made to faithfully reproduce
those opinions, some errors in transcription or interpretation may remain. Any such errors can be
reported to the CATALYST project and future versions of this report will be altered accordingly. It
should also not be assumed that all Think Tank Members or CATALYST project partners may agree
with the opinions described in this document.
CATALYST, “CApaciTy deveLopment for hazard riSk reduction and adapTation” is a coordinating
action funded within the EU Seventh Framework Programme which aims to bring together existing
networks of researchers, policy and decision makers, members of nongovernmental organisations, and
small- and medium-sized enterprises to identify and share information about best practices and
critical knowledge gaps.
Coordinator: Seeconsult GmbH (Seecon), Germany
Partners: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Italy; Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
GmbH – UFZ, Germany; The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) - for the advancement of science in
developing countries, Italy; Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig onderzoek (Alterra), the Netherlands;
National Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), Denmark; United Nations University –
Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), Germany
Duration: October 2011 – September 2013
email: info@catalyst-project.eu
website: http://www.catalyst-project.eu
3
Contents
List of tables.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
List of figures............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
List of acronyms...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 14
1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 17
1.1
The CATALYST Think Tank process .................................................................................................................... 17
1.2
The structure of this deliverable ........................................................................................................................... 19
2
THE EUROPEAN MEDITERRANEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ....................................................... 22
2.1
Overview of workshop goals, thematic issues, approach and attendees ............................................. 22
2.1.1
Workshop goals...................................................................................................................................................................... 22
2.1.2
Thematic issues ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23
2.1.3
Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
2.1.4
Attendees ................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2
State of the art............................................................................................................................................................... 25
2.2.1
Earthquake hazards ............................................................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.2
Drought hazards .................................................................................................................................................................... 27
2.2.3
Flooding hazards ................................................................................................................................................................... 33
2.3
Moving towards best practices .............................................................................................................................. 34
2.3.1
2.3.2
Drought hazards .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
2.3.3
Flooding hazards ................................................................................................................................................................... 40
2.4
Gaps in research and networks ............................................................................................................................. 40
2.4.1
Monitoring and forecasting.............................................................................................................................................. 40
2.4.2
Vulnerability assessments ................................................................................................................................................. 41
2.4.3
Institutional aspects............................................................................................................................................................. 42
2.5
Recommendations for fostering capacity development.............................................................................. 42
4
2.5.1
2.5.2
Water Resources (including flooding and drought) ............................................................................................. 43
2.6
Recommendations for the online teaching module ...................................................................................... 45
3
THE EAST AND WEST AFRICA REGIONAL WORKSHOP ................................................................. 46
3.1
3.1.1
Workshop goals...................................................................................................................................................................... 47
3.1.2
Thematic issues ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48
3.1.3
Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
3.1.4
Attendees ................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
3.2
State of the art of DRR and CCA activities including good practices ...................................................... 54
3.2.1
DRR and CCA-related activities at the UNEP Africa Office ................................................................................ 54
3.2.2
DRR and CCA-related activities by UN-Habitat in Africa ................................................................................... 56
3.2.3
The Groundwater for Emergency Situations (GWES) project by UNESCO’s International
Hydrological Programme (IHP) ..................................................................................................................................... 57
3.2.4
DRR and CCA-related activities by UNDP’s Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) ................................ 58
3.2.5
Mainstreaming of DRR in the work of Plan International ................................................................................. 60
3.2.6
DRR and CCA-related activities at the ICLEI Africa Office ................................................................................. 61
3.2.7
DRR and CCA-related activities by the IFRC and its Southern Africa Representation Office in
Gaborone, Botswana ............................................................................................................................................................ 62
3.2.8
DRR and CCA-related activities by Enda TM ............................................................................................................ 64
3.2.9
The country-wide disaster risk management system in Ethiopia .................................................................. 65
3.2.10 Academic capacity development within the Periperi U university network.............................................. 67
3.2.11 Projects by Christian Aid in collaboration with the University of Ouagadougou ................................... 68
3.2.12 Vulnerability assessment in Addis Ababa by EiABC of Addis Ababa University....................................... 69
3.2.13 Exploring the social vulnerability of households in informal settlements in Dar es Salaam by
IHSS of Ardhi University ..................................................................................................................................................... 70
3.2.14 Vulnerability assessment in Douala by the University of Yaoundé ................................................................ 71
3.3
Moving towards best practices .............................................................................................................................. 72
3.4
Gaps and barriers in and barriers for DRR/CCA ............................................................................................ 75
3.4.1
Identified gaps, barriers and needs............................................................................................................................... 76
5
3.4.2
Conclusions of the gaps session....................................................................................................................................... 79
3.5
Recommendations for fostering capacity development.............................................................................. 81
3.6
Recommendations for the sustainability of the Think Tank ..................................................................... 83
4
THE CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ......................................... 84
4.1
4.1.1
Workshop goals...................................................................................................................................................................... 85
4.1.2
Thematic issues ...................................................................................................................................................................... 85
4.1.3
Approach ................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
4.1.4
Attendees ................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
4.2
State of the art............................................................................................................................................................... 88
4.2.1
Social Vulnerability .............................................................................................................................................................. 88
4.2.2
Ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction ........................................................................................................ 91
4.2.3
Governance of risk and climate adaptation.............................................................................................................. 92
4.3
(Moving Towards) Best practices ......................................................................................................................... 93
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
Gaps in research and networks ............................................................................................................................. 96
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.5
Recommendations for fostering capacity development............................................................................100
4.6
Recommendations for sustainability of the Think Tank ...........................................................................102
4.7
Recommendations for the online teaching module ....................................................................................103
5
THE SOUTH AND SOUTH EAST ASIA REGIONAL WORKSHOP .................................................. 105
5.1
Overview of workshop goals, thematic issues, approach and attendees ...........................................105
5.1.1
Workshop goals....................................................................................................................................................................105
5.1.2
Thematic issues ....................................................................................................................................................................105
6
5.1.3
Approach .................................................................................................................................................................................105
5.1.4
Attendees .................................................................................................................................................................................106
5.2
State of the art and good practice .......................................................................................................................106
5.2.1
Institutional arrangements & coordination ...........................................................................................................107
5.2.2
Partnerships & cooperation ...........................................................................................................................................108
5.2.3
Human capacities................................................................................................................................................................111
5.2.4
Technical capacities ...........................................................................................................................................................111
5.2.5
Financial resources ............................................................................................................................................................112
5.3
Moving towards best practices ............................................................................................................................113
5.4
Gaps in research and networks ...........................................................................................................................117
5.4.1
Data/Model Issues ..............................................................................................................................................................117
5.4.2
Hazard assessment, and vulnerability.......................................................................................................................117
5.4.3
Identification of costs and benefits of investing in DRR/CCA .........................................................................118
5.4.4
Networks .................................................................................................................................................................................118
5.5
Recommendations for fostering capacity development............................................................................118
5.5.1
Institutional arrangements for mainstreaming DRR/CCA ..............................................................................118
5.5.2
Strengthening of local disaster management organisations..........................................................................119
5.5.3
Mainstreaming uncertainty in capacity development .......................................................................................119
5.5.4
The role of local level practitioners and local leaders .......................................................................................119
5.5.5
Human capacities................................................................................................................................................................120
5.5.6
Technical capacities ...........................................................................................................................................................121
5.5.7
Data Collection, Management and Modelling........................................................................................................121
5.5.8
Communication ....................................................................................................................................................................121
5.5.9
Data and knowledge sharing .........................................................................................................................................122
5.5.10 Resources for capacity development ..........................................................................................................................123
5.5.11 Needs assessment ................................................................................................................................................................123
5.5.12 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................................................................................123
5.5.13 Recommendations for how CATALYST and its successors can fill the gaps in DRR/CCA ..................124
5.6
Recommendations for sustainability of the Think Tank ...........................................................................125
5.6.1
Follow up project ideas.....................................................................................................................................................125
5.7
Recommendations for the online teaching module ....................................................................................126
7
5.7.1
Topic 1: Media development for DRR/CCA..............................................................................................................126
5.7.2
Topic 2: Integrated Analysis for DRR/CCA ..............................................................................................................126
5.7.3
Topic 3: DRR management, institutional interface between local, national and international
DRR organisations ..............................................................................................................................................................126
5.7.4
Topic 4: Community-based risk reduction...............................................................................................................127
5.7.5
Topic 5: Community mapping .......................................................................................................................................127
5.7.6
General considerations about the topics in the curriculum ............................................................................127
5.7.7
Terminology...........................................................................................................................................................................128
6
CATALYST ADDITIONAL EVENTS, MAY 2013 ................................................................................ 129
6.1
Side Event at the UNISDR Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction ............................................129
6.1.1
Side event goals and approach .....................................................................................................................................129
6.1.2
Feedback ... .............................................................................................................................................................................130
6.2
Technical Workshop at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit ...................................................................131
6.2.1
Workshop goals and approach .....................................................................................................................................131
6.2.2
Feedback ... .............................................................................................................................................................................131
7
EVALUATION AND LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................ 134
7.1
Workshop evaluation...............................................................................................................................................134
7.1.1
Workshop expectations ....................................................................................................................................................134
7.1.2
Ability to raise important issues...................................................................................................................................136
7.1.3
Views on the practical aspects of the workshop ...................................................................................................136
7.1.4
Infrastructure/ Equipment .............................................................................................................................................139
7.1.5
General Comments on Workshops...............................................................................................................................139
7.1.6
Recommendations for future workshops .................................................................................................................139
7.2
Lessons learned..........................................................................................................................................................140
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 142
APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................................................ 145
Appendix I: Agendas ................................................................................................................................................................145
A: European Mediterranean Regional workshop..................................................................................................................145
8
B: Central America and the Caribbean Regional workshop ............................................................................................150
C: East and West Africa Regional workshop ...........................................................................................................................153
D. South and South-east Asia regional workshop .................................................................................................................157
E: CATALYST Side-Event at UNISDR Global Platform ........................................................................................................161
F: CATALYST Technical Workshop at Asia-Pacific Water Summit ...............................................................................162
Appendix II: Participant lists ................................................................................................................................................163
A: European Mediterranean Regional workshop..................................................................................................................163
B: Central America and Caribbean Regional workshop ....................................................................................................165
C: East and West Africa Regional workshop ...........................................................................................................................167
D: South and South-east Asia Regional workshop................................................................................................................168
E: CATALYST Side-Event at UNISDR Global Platform ........................................................................................................170
F: CATALYST Technical Workshop at Asia-Pacific Water Summit ...............................................................................171
Appendix III: Original workshop summary reports ...................................................................................................172
Appendix IV: Workshop evaluation form........................................................................................................................173
9
List of tables
Table 1: Structure of workshop...........................................................................................................................................106
Table 2: Ability to raise important issues at each workshop (numbers refer to the number of
respondents agreeing with rating) ....................................................................................................................................137
Table 3: Practical aspects of the programme (numbers refer to the number of respondents agreeing
with rating) ..................................................................................................................................................................................138
List of figures
Figure 1: The CATALYST regions.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2: The CATALYST Think Tank process 2012-2013......................................................................................... 18
Figure 3: Keynote by Gerd Tetzlaff, University of Leipzig .......................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Input talk by Elena Lopez-Gunn, UCM, Spain ............................................................................................... 24
Figure 5: Workshop meeting room in Giovinazzo. ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 6: The four thematic foci of the workshop and the CATALYST project and how they link to the
three specific aims/expected outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 7: Workshop participants (photo by Nathalie Jean-Baptiste). ................................................................... 53
Figure 8: Working on the recommendations. .................................................................................................................. 83
10
List of acronyms
CAC
CATALYST region Central America and Caribbean
CATALYST
Capacity Development for Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation
CBA
cost-benefit analysis or community-based adaptation
CBO
community-based organisation
CCA
climate change adaptation
CCRIF
Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CSO
civil society organisation
DFID
Department for International Development (UK)
DRM
disaster risk management
DRR
disaster risk reduction
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EM-DAT
Emergency Events Database
EUM
CATALYST region European Mediterranean
EWA
CATALYST region East and West Africa
EWS
early warning system
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation
GAR
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction
GCM
global climate model
GEC
global environmental change
GFDRR
Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
GHG
greenhouse gas
GIS
geographic information system
HFA
Hyogo Framework for Action
IADB
Inter-American Development Bank
IAM
integrated assessment model
ICT
information and communication technology
ICZM
integrated coastal zone management
IDNDR
International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
IPCC
International Panel on Climate Change
IWRM
integrated water resource management
LDC
least-developed country
LDRM
local disaster risk management
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
11
MFI
micro-finance institution
NAPA
National Adaptation Programme of Action
NGO
nongovernmental organisation
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
RCM
regional climate model
REDD
reduced carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
SIDS
small island developing states
SMEs
small- and medium-sized enterprises
SRES
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
SSA
CATALYST region South and South East Asia
TTM
member of CATALYS Think Tank process
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNISDR
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
WHO
World Health Organisation
WMO
World Meteorological Organisation
12
13
Executive summary
The four workshops, and two additional events, reported in this deliverable, are activities of the four
regional Think Tank processes that comprise the CATALYST Think Tank on disaster risk reduction and
climate change adaptation in the face of hydro-meteorological and geological hazards. This Think Tank
is a recognised added value of the CATALYST project which now includes approximately 115
practitioner-members from the four CATALYST regions. These Think Tank members are collaborating
with the CATALYST project partners to develop knowledge products (Best Practice Papers, etc. - see
Jaspers et al. (2012) for a full list) that are useful in supporting their own activities, and those of
others, in the CATALYST regions.
The four workshops, and two additional events (one side-event and a technical workshop) are
described in this document are:
•
European Mediterranean regional workshop
•
East and West Africa regional workshop
•
Central America and the Caribbean regional workshop
•
South and South-East Asian regional workshop
•
CATALYST side event at the 2013 UNISDR Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
•
CATALYST Technical Workshop at the 2013 2nd Asia Pacific Water Summit
This document's purpose is to summarise the approach and key results of each of the four CATALYST
regional workshops, involving 109 participants, and each of the two additional events, as well as to
provide an evaluation of the regional workshops. This document can be used by readers who are
interested in knowing more about the main source of knowledge used to generate key CATALYST
knowledge products mentioned above. It is intended, as well, that this compendium of stakeholder
knowledge will also be of use for scientists seeking more insight into issues important to practitioners
within the four CATALYST regions, and thus aid the bridging of the science-policy gap in DRR/CCA that
is a concern of some Think Tank Members.
14
Each workshop describes stakeholder views of the regional state of the art in DRR/CCA practices;
moving towards best practices; gaps in research and networks; recommendations for fostering
capacity development in the region, and recommendations for the CATALYST online teaching module
as well as for the sustainability of the CATALYST Think Tank. The additional events provide extra
information on these themes. In summary, hundreds of regionally relevant ideas, experiences and
recommendations related to best practices, gaps, and capacity development were collected during the
workshops and additional events. Indeed, examples of best practices identified in regions were
provided by the workshop participants where available. Across the four regions there were common
issues that were raised by Think Tank Members – improved leadership, greater enforcement, support
for community participation, data sharing, improved financial mechanisms, mainstreaming DRR/CCA
into policy making, spatial planning, and improved school curricula on DRR/CCA – as well as issues
distinctive to the needs of the region and the hazards they are threatened with.
In the European Mediterranean region Think Tank, outputs of the workshop discussions included calls
for more emphasis on institutionally reinforcing rural-urban mutual support in times of flood and
drought crisis, in order to share resources between the two communities for the benefit of both;
improving levels of leadership on DRR and CCA, particularly in initiating process and for sustaining
them over time and for enabling transformational adaptations where key factors are adaptive
management, learning, innovation and leadership; and for putting more resources into DRR planning
for local level preparedness in earthquake-prone areas, especially in the area of simulation training,
and the convening of citizens as part of citizen-based first-response teams. Additionally, the issue of
supporting data sharing across different administrative levels, e.g. national to community level was
raised as being important. Also, it was felt that the DRR/CCA community needs to make better use of
scientific knowledge and to advance the use of ‘open access’ and ‘open source’ materials and data.
In the East and West Africa regional Think Tank, outputs of the workshop discussions included the
recognition that although Africa has a reputation for suffering mainly from drought-related rural
crises, the rapid urbanisation of the continent means that DRR/CCA needs to focus more on reducing
risks in urban environments stemming from flooding and other interrelated and cascading hazards,
both in the short and in the long term. This in turn requires that DRR/CCA be mainstreamed into
spatial and urban planning which in itself needs to be strengthened, e.g. through setting up specific
units and master plans and an increased enforcement of planning laws, such as building codes. It was
also concluded that there is a need for a permanent, approved, continental and regional knowledge
(management) network with a scientific foundation and a strong link to policy and practice, a role that
could be taken up by the African Climate Policy Centre, for example. The improved selection and
15
implementation of demonstration projects on DRR/CCA - their communication and scaling up - would
also support capacity development in the region, along with scientific, evidence-based monitoring and
evaluation of DRR/CCA activities, which will allow practitioners to understand which are the best
options to consider in their own activities.
In the Central America and Caribbean region, Think Tank, given its members’ interest in reducing
social vulnerability, outputs of the workshop discussions included calls for more investment in
sustainable ecosystem management, as a means of offering cost-effective solutions for reducing
communities’ vulnerability to disasters, and more research investment in identifying the benefits and
costs of ecosystem-based DRR/CCA; more financial, institutional and capacity development support
for community participation in the development of DRR/CCA strategies and projects; the elevation of
DRR as a policy priority to create a sound institutional and legislative framework, with appropriate
resources for its implementation; and the development and mainstreaming of insurance schemes for
disaster risk in the rural context which would complement broader risk reduction strategies, to by
enabling communities to have prompt access to monetary resources to support recovery should a
disaster occur. One of the most innovative pieces of research to be discussed at the workshop was new
research currently be done on the cognitive impacts of disasters on children and their ability to
recuperate afterwards, in terms of cognitive development. This has the potential to further develop
practitioners’ understanding of social vulnerability.
In the South and South-east Asia region Think Tank, outputs of the workshop discussions also included
calls for resources to be put into improving leadership on DRR and CCA (at all levels). In addition, an
important area was felt to be the need for increased support for and expansion of community-based
DRR planning. Making further inroads into mainstreaming vulnerability assessments, DRR and CCA
into national and local development planning was another important issue, and closely linked to this
was the call for the formal and rational integration of uncertainty into planning of DRR and CCA. A
further issue of much importance to the think tank members was to improve rules and means for
exchanging knowledge and data for assessments of risks, vulnerabilities etc.
The participants' evaluations of the workshops were very positive, in that the workshops met the
expectations and needs of most participants. A major recommendation for future workshops is that
more time is devoted to them (beyond the 2,5 days allocated) in general and for group discussions in
particular. There is a clear desire among the participating Think Tank Members that CATALYST Think
Tank should continue beyond the lifetime of the project.
16
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 The CATALYST Think Tank process
The CATALYST project (October 2011 – September 2013) has been set up and funded by the European
Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) to strengthen capacity development for
stakeholders involved in disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA), in the
context of natural hazards (both hydro-meteorological and geological). The project aims to compile
and analyse DRR/CCA knowledge from four regions of the world, in order to develop knowledge
products that are useful to practitioners from diverse sectors by including these practitioners in their
development. The CATALYST regions of interest are the European Mediterranean, East and West
Africa, Central America and the Caribbean, and South and South East Asia (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: The CATALYST regions
For further information on the goals and objectives of CATALYST see Jaspers et al. (2012).
The four workshops reported in this deliverable are activities of the four regional Think Tank
processes that comprise the CATALYST Think Tank (see Figure 2). This Think Tank is a recognised
added value of the CATALYST project which now includes approximately 115 members from the four
CATALYST regions and from the following sectors:
17
July 2013
1. governmental bodies
2. inter-governmental bodies
3. non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
4. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
5. the scientific community.
These Think Tank members are collaborating with the CATALYST project partners to develop
knowledge products (Best Practice Papers, etc. - see Jaspers et al. (2012) for a full list) that are useful
to support their own activities, and those of others, in the CATALYST regions. For more information on
the design and activities of the CATALYST Think Tank see Hare et al. (2013).
Figure 2: The CATALYST Think Tank process 2012-2013
The goal of each of the regional workshops, held in the four CATALYST regions between September
2012 and January 2013 - the European Mediterranean East and West Africa, Central America and the
Caribbean, and South and South East Asia - , and including 109 participants in total, was to bring
together regional Thin Tank members to share and discuss regional expert knowledge, from the point
of view of selected DRR/CCA topics of importance to the region (see Mysiak et al., 2012). This
18
Introduction
knowledge would then be integrated, together with earlier knowledge elicited from the regional
processes, into the development of the following future CATALYST deliverables:
1. Synthesis report of best practices on key topics (D5.1)
2. Best practices papers (for policy makers) (D6.4)
3. Project synthesis report: analysis of network and research gaps (D5.2)
4. Synthesis of recommendations for fostering capacity development and strengthening networks
in DRR (D5.3)
5. Module on NH/DRR for capacity development in DRR/CCA (D5.4)
1.2 The structure of this deliverable
This deliverable's purpose is to summarise the approach and key results of each of the four CATALYST
regional workshops, and the 2 CATALYST additional events, as well as to provide an evaluation of the
workshops. This deliverable can be used by readers who are interested in knowing more about the
main source of knowledge used to generate key CATALYST knowledge products mentioned above. We
hope this compendium of stakeholder knowledge will also be of use for scientists seeking more insight
into issues important to practitioners within the four CATALYST regions. The following four sections
(Sections 2-5) provide such a summary of each of these workshops, beginning with the European
Mediterranean regional workshop (Section 1) and ending with the South and South-East Asian
regional workshop (Section 5). In each of these sections, first information about the goals, thematic
issues, approach and attendees of the workshops is described. Subsequently, the results of the expert
discussions in the workshops are presented under subsections related to the deliverables listed above:
state of the art in practices; moving towards best practices; gaps in research and networks; and
members´ recommendations for fostering capacity development in the region. If discussed in the
workshop, members' recommendations for the future CATALYST online teaching module and for the
sustainability of the CATALYST Think Tank are included. More detailed information about what was
discussed in the workshops can be gained from minutes of the workshop available from the CATALYST
website (see Appendix III for the website links to follow). It is important to note that each of these
regional sections was based on a workshop summary report or set of minutes that was sent to the
regional Think Tank Members for checking and review. Responses to this consultation were integrated
into revised reports/minutes which were then used to develop Sections 2-5.
To meet the needs of the project and demands of Think Tank Members for more opportunities to meet
face by face after the four regional workshops, the CATLYST project organised two additional events
linked to major DRR/CCA conferences taking place in May: the 2013 UNISDR Global Platform in
19
July 2013
Geneva, and the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit in Chiang Mai. Section 6 recounts briefly the main
discussion points from these additional events.
The deliverable concludes in Section 7 with an evaluation of each of the workshops based on
questionnaires filled out by the attendees at the end of the workshop.
20
Introduction
21
July 2013
2 The European Mediterranean Regional Workshop
Peter van der Keur (GEUS)
Caroline van Bers (seeconsult)
& Hans-Jorgen Henriksen (GEUS)
2.1 Overview of workshop goals, thematic issues, approach and attendees
Place: Vedetta sul Mediterraneo Giovinazzo,Bari, Italy
Date: 27-28 September, 2013
Number of participants: 18 TTM & 5 project partners
Organisers: GEUS, seeconsult
Co-Hosts: Water Research Institute of the Italian National Research Council (IRSA/NRC)
2.1.1 Workshop goals
The role of the EUM CATALYST regional workshop was to analyse capacity development in DRR/CCA
related themes in the selected regions from the multiple perspectives of the Think Tank Members
(TTMs) and project partners. The focus was on the state of the art of capacity development in the
assessment of the biophysical and social vulnerability aspects of natural hazards as well as for the
identification and assessment of good practices, gaps and barriers. This culminated in an effort by
workshop participants to fill these gaps and develop recommendations for fostering further capacity
development in DRR/CCA.
22
European Mediterranean Regional Workshop
2.1.2 Thematic issues
Based on the goals outlined above, the workshop programme was organised around a natural hazardbased approach with the following themes:
•
State of the art in earthquake DRR;
•
State of the art and best/good practices in drought DRR concerned with the management of
water resources focussing on agriculture/irrigation;
•
State of the art and best/good practices in drought DRR related to water resources: focussing
on hydrological issues;
•
Best/good practices in DRR related to floods;
•
Gaps and barriers in best/good practices and capacity development; and
•
Filling the capacity development gaps and fostering further capacity development.
The hazards selected- earthquakes, droughts and floods - are the dominant natural hazards in the
region.
2.1.3 Approach
The workshop centred around a set of 10-minute keynote presentations for inspiration (Figures 3 and
4) and that were followed by discussion around the themes listed in the previous section (Figure 5). A
World Café approach was used with three groups of three to eight participants in each group plus one
moderator and one rapporteur. The outcomes of these discussions were then summarized in a plenary
session for further discussion with the group as a whole. This was followed by a presentation of the
local perspectives on drought in the agricultural sector within the Puglia region in Southern Italy and a
round table discussion with local experts.
23
July 2013
Figure 3: Keynote by Gerd Tetzlaff, University of Leipzig
Figure 4: Input talk by Elena Lopez-Gunn, UCM, Spain
Figure 5: Workshop meeting room in Giovinazzo.
2.1.4 Attendees
The participants comprised invited TTMs of the EUM region, local experts from the Puglia region
working on issues related to agricultural and hydrological drought as well as regional process leaders
and other members from the CATALYST project group. A handful of the TTMs have affiliations in nonEUM countries, but represent the EUM region by virtue of the extensive knowledge and practical
experience they have of the EUM region. The participants are listed in (see Appendix II(A)).
24
2.2 State of the art
Key information on State of the Art (SoA), i.e. current practices, in DRR and CCA within the EUM region
including selected surrounding countries, the latter mainly from the knowledge and experience of
TTM affiliated countries, has been provided according to hazard type, earthquakes, drought
(hydrological and agricultural) and floods. Experts on these topics provided introductory 10 minutelong presentations on selected SoA topics which opened the floor for four separate round table
discussions that elaborated upon and extended the presentations.
2.2.1 Earthquake hazards
General
Generally, the SoA examples provided must be seen in the light of a broad definition of the concept of
resilient and non-resilient regions, depending on criteria such as infrastructure, health systems etc. In
addition, population density in the EUM region is increasing with demographic change towards an
older population. This exposure coupled with vulnerability in urban areas as well as construction
techniques and corruption issues increase disaster risk in the earthquake prone countries.
Monitoring
Earthquake-related monitoring software is very expensive and still has many operational problems.
Consequently, charts are more commonly used by practitioners. The current simulators are visual
tools that are effective for decision making. The computerized virtual (and often spectacular) disaster
simulation systems on the market are not practical in the field, and are not necessarily accurate.
Currently, only a few Mediterranean countries have established programs to monitor earthquake
hazards. National earthquake observatories are established in Turkey and Portugal. In Portugal the
risk of earthquakes is real but low. Earthquake and potential tsunami assessments are provided by the
Kandilli Observatory at the Bosphorus University in Turkey and in Italy by the Civil Protection Agency
and the Seismological Institute where there is a monitoring seismic network in place.
Measures
With respect to preparedness in general, awareness-raising is a key measure not only before but also
after an earthquake in relation to aftershocks. Civil protection begins with people.
25
July 2013
School programs
School programs on civil protection exist in Turkey, and Portugal is initiating such a program. In Italy,
school programs are not common.
Volunteer programs
There are volunteer programs in Istanbul neighbourhoods as well as in Italy and Portugal. Generally,
volunteer programs for first response are localized in communities. In Turkey earthquake insurance is
obligatory. With respect to disaster risk management in general, citizens are happy to contribute and
to volunteer but they are not necessarily well-trained. In Portugal citizens volunteer if there are
individual benefits for them, for example in the form of discounts on school fees.
Disaster risk management plans
Istanbul has a disaster risk management plan and Italy has such a plan in the Gargano region that
includes emergency plans but the plan lacks mitigation planning.
Global initiatives
There are a number of global initiatives that assess earthquake risk in the Euro-Mediterranean and
other earthquake regions of the world. Examples are:
•
Global Earthquake Model (GEM) - a partnership-based development of a database and
methodology to measure earthquake risks, hazards and exposure (GEM)1 .
•
SHARE project - aims at harmonizing the assessment of hazards and agency requirements. It is
a global initiative (share)2 .
•
Earthquake Megacities Initiative 1999 (EMI) - focuses on urban development and local DRR
and is used in a number of countries, e.g. India and Nepal and cities, e.g. Istanbul (EMI)3 .
Training
Training for earthquake risk reduction can involve the education of civil engineers and construction
workers and can range from a focus on single unit dwellings to training of urban planners for riskresilient city planning. The general impression is that many laws and building codes exist in the EUM
region, but they are not enforced, so awareness-raising and training on enforcement of these codes is
1
http://www.globalquakemodel.org/landing/index.html
2
http://www.share-eu.org/
3
http://www.emi-megacities.org/miscdocs/events_timeline_sep07.pdf
26
needed. Mandatory simulation training exercises could also be helpful, as now happens in other
earthquake regions of the world, such as in Mexico City. However, simulation exercises are often only
recommended and not made mandatory.
Technology and Communication
There is underutilized potential in implementing new technologies for risk reduction measures, such
as in the use of cell phone technology in the immediate broadcast of earthquakes.
Communication, such as delivery of risk information to the public remains a significant problem. The
events related to the L’Aquila earthquake (see GRM (2009))4 in Italy and with some scientists, who, it
was suggested, may have been wrongly accused with respect to their delivery of risk information, may
impact on the work of scientists in the future.
2.2.2 Drought hazards
General
Even when drought has been historically a recurrent feature in European climate, several studies have
lately demonstrated an increasing trend in Europe’s exposure to drought hazards (EEA, 2012). Under
various scenarios of several climate change models, drought episodes will intensify in most of western
Europe, and particularly in the Mediterranean area.
In the context of the workshop for the EUM region a distinction was made between agricultural and
hydrological drought. Agricultural drought links various meteorological and hydrological
characteristics to agricultural impacts, focusing on precipitation shortages, differences between actual
and potential evapo-transpiration, soil water deficits, and reduced ground water levels. Agriculture is
usually the first economic sector to be affected by drought. Hydrological drought refers to the effect of
periods of precipitation shortfalls on surface and groundwater supply. The frequency and severity of
hydrological drought is often defined at the basin scale. Although climate is a primary contributor to
hydrological drought, other factors such as changes in land use, land degradation, and the construction
of dams all affect the hydrological characteristics of the basin. A further consideration is
institutionally-driven droughts, which in some cases affect the agricultural sector more than expected
in the Mediterranean. This form of drought is based on the assumption that institutions make water
access difficult through their own mismanagement or lack of foresight.
4
http://www.grmcat.com/images/Italy-EQ-Report.pdf
27
July 2013
Hydrological drought occurs when water storage and streamflow are less than normal, thus impacting
ecosystem services and people. The problems identified vary from concrete issues such as insufficient
drinking water supply, insufficient cooling water availability, salinization of groundwater and soils,
navigation and secondary problems like land subsidence. Furthermore, hydrological droughts can be
accompanied by heat waves, wild fires and dust storms.
However, as the forms of droughts and their effects are interlinked, the reference in this report is only
to drought, unless otherwise specified.
The socio-economic effects of drought can develop over weeks and months, and it is difficult to predict
and to put a value upon the consequences. The root of the drought problem that is not always
acknowledged is that more water is used than is naturally replenished, or in the case of institutionallydriven drought, the existing water reserves are depleted because of mismanagement. Irrigated
agriculture is a highly productive but also vulnerable sector. In the case of drought, the economic
consequences to agriculture are significant. The European Environment Agency's report on water
scarcity of 2009 (EEA, 2009)) concludes that the problems of water scarcity in this region are
compounded by illegal abstraction and lack of knowledge of the locations where irrigation is taking
place and volumes of water extracted for irrigation purposes.
An overview of measures types
The actions contained in the drought management plans can be differentiated according both to the
time horizon, i.e. short-term and long-term, and to the nature of action, i.e. structural and nonstructural. Moreover, the actions can be clustered according to the main goals, i.e. water demand
reduction, water supply increase, and impacts minimization. Mostly, drought is dealt with through
short-term actions, that is, actions aiming to introduce quick change in the system, in order to reduce
the drought impacts. Measures can be structural or non-structural. The most common short-terms
actions aiming to increase water availability in case of crises concern the enhancement of water
distribution network efficiency, by improving the operational activities or reducing water losses in the
network. A structural action could aim to facilitate the access to non-conventional sources of water by
the building of a new dam for water harvesting.
Short-term, non-structural actions aiming to minimize the drought impacts can be based on the
compensation principle. That is, authorities provide public aids to compensate income losses, they can
introduce tax reduction or delayed payment deadline. Relief payments however often serve as a
disincentive for the sustainable management of natural resources because it reinforces existing
management practices, which may not be sustainable in the long term. Another short-term nonstructural measure is demand-side management. Demand-side measures aim to obtain a quick
28
reaction from water users in terms of reductions in water demand. This goal could be attained on a
voluntary basis (public information complain for water saving) or they can be mandatory (penalties
for wasting water).
Economic and Financial Measures
In general, economic incentives are one way of managing drought events by, for example, taxing
abstracted and consumed water according to volume used. There is a need for more transparency in
the various financial approaches as well as decisions on who shall pay for the costs of drought
adaptation and for the losses (crop damage etc.) due to drought events. A financing mechanism that is
often being promoted is public-private partnerships (PPP) which are of growing importance. PPP
shifts the burden of the financial costs from the government to other parts of the society.
The establishment of public-private partnerships in disaster management systems has developed
differently in the various European countries. Whereas private responsibility for coping with hazards
has a longer tradition in Great Britain, responsibility for risk management and civil protection is
almost entirely in the hands of public authorities in most of continental Europe. This is partly due to
the varying nature of the natural hazard-induced risks in different countries.
Several examples of successful PPP in drought management can be found in the scientific literature
concerning the support provided by PPP in developing countries. In some cases, the partnerships
contributed mainly to developing innovative infrastructure to enhance water distribution. A PPP has
been supported by UNICEF in Qardho (Somalia) in 2006, the aim of which was to improve water
provision and management of the water system to cope with drought conditions. Through the
partnership, the roles of local community, government and private sector in water management were
strengthened, with UNICEF acting as facilitator in the process. The PPP approach in Somalia has been
successful because by bringing together all stakeholders both private and public, it ensures ownership
of the project by everyone, and ensures sustainability of the water supply.
It is difficult to move from disaster event management to a risk management approach. Farmers in the
affected regions tend towards short-term thinking. They do not adapt their crops to water availability.
In fact, the real cost of water in many parts of the Mediterranean is too high for an efficient agricultural
system although farmers in the Puglia region do pay a water tax to cover environmental costs.
In general, it is difficult to introduce new drought-resistant varieties of crops because of the difficulty
of knowledge transfer to and buy-in from farmers. The main issue is that the quality of the new
product is unfamiliar to farmers. Other experiences of PPP for drought risk management have been
29
July 2013
intended to support the development of drought-tolerant crop varieties with improved yields under
moderate drought conditions. These experiences have been carried out mainly in Africa.
In EUM and in other western countries, PPPs have been focused mainly on the development of
disaster-risk financing and insurance instruments. Strategies have been proposed to help droughtprone countries increase their financial resilience to natural disasters, as part of their broader disaster
risk management agenda. Strategies and mechanisms for financial protection against disasters have
been used to reduce the impact and overall cost of disasters by taking pressure off fiscal and individual
budgets in the aftermath of a disaster. Mechanisms that provide rapid, cost-efficient liquidity to
governments or individuals have proved to reduce the cost of disasters. These also helped to mitigate
inefficiencies in emergency responses which often lead to loss of life and household asset depletion.
Communication
Researchers and scientists need to be able to clearly communicate knowledge and to transform
complex data into more accessible information for the decision makers, practitioners and in some
cases the public. Furthermore, it may also be necessary for researchers and scientists to receive more
training in the communication of research results that may lead to more complexity in the decision
making, e.g. on uncertainty in modelling results and forecasts.
The dramatic increase of droughts over the last decades makes this type of disaster a critical event for
many societies. Droughts cannot be forecasted much in advance, but can be anticipated to the extent
that it is possible to prevent them from becoming a serious threat, primarily through good
communication and adaptive action. A standard communication strategy (or communication plan)
should be prepared before an event occurs. This strategy should ensure that different audiences are
reached with key messages. It is also important that a distinction be made between primary target
audiences, those who must be reached first in order to act on behalf of the rest of the population, and a
secondary target audience (those who are not essential in the early phase communication process). It
is advisable that some key steps be planned ahead of the event, as a measure of public
policy/communication strategy.
Before the drought: education campaigns (by Governments, Ministries) to raise public awareness are
highly recommended. These help people to understand the importance of not wasting water and to
adopt a more rational use of water at times when it is available. A short history of local drought
episodes is also useful in helping local communities to face future events, and in taking long-term
precautionary measures that can ease and/or avoid difficult situations.
30
During the drought: bulletins updating local communities about the drought status (via social media,
newspapers, TV-radio, short notes disseminated through public personalities, door-to-door delivery)
are important to keep attention alive and to help people to comply with appropriate actions . Make
sure the message is concise and clear: short messages are better than long ones (e.g. Drought is
everyone’s concern/ wasting water affects all people).
After the drought: bulletins updating local communities about damages, sanitary consequences (if any)
and the measures taken/needed to reset normal everyday life.
There are a number of important actors involved in good communication. These include:
•
Scientists: collect and process data: they have to make information transparent and accessible
to policy makers, decision makers and public health officials, no matter the information
content.
•
Policy makers/decision makers: data coming from scientists should be shared among the Civil
Protection forces, and sanitary officials in order to ensure that preventive/buffering actions
can be taken in due time.
•
Sanitation personnel: highlight the importance of, for example, the right water sanitation and
hygienic measures, and they identify social sectors that are more at risk.
•
Media/communication professionals/PIOs officials: these professionals need to interface with
(1), (2) and (3) above, to convey in a timely way the correct and appropriate messages
(language- and content-wise) via social media, newspapers, TV-radio, etc.
Monitoring and Forecasting
Drought forecasting is recognized as a difficult task for climate modellers. The state-of-the-art seasonal
forecast models tend to show drought onset conditions only a few weeks in advance. This tendency
limits forecasters’ ability to predict drought conditions a month or more ahead of time which would be
the right time period for proactive responses. Rudimentary drought forecasts can be made almost
entirely on the basis of remotely-sensed data focusing on vegetation stress indices related to soil
moisture deficit and climate observation networks. The European Commission issued a
Communication on “Addressing the Challenge of Water Scarcity and Droughts in the European Union”
(COM(2007)414) in December 2007, asking for a wide range of actions for the adaptation to, and the
mitigation of, the effects of drought and a changing climate in Europe. The requested measures include
the development of a European Drought Observatory (EDO), providing consistent and timely
information on droughts from continental to regional and local scales. EDO is currently under
31
July 2013
development by the JRC’s Institute for Environment and Sustainability with the Directorate General for
Environment, the European Environment Agency and the Member States. EDO is providing a
European-wide picture of the occurrence, severity, extent and duration of droughts in Europe,
including direct access to information provided by national, regional and local services. These data are
freely accessible on the internet from the JRC website (http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu).
However, more sophisticated drought forecasts need the integration of remote-sense data, in situ
monitoring of meteorological, hydrological and agro-physical parameters and various kinds of models
with the current state of available water resources during drought events. For this reason, the
Committee of Regions of the European Union has proposed that the current European Drought
Observatory be converted into a European Water Observatory, with a wider remit that includes
validating and ensuring the uniformity of available information on the condition of European water
resources as a dynamical tool for drought risk management across Europe (Committee of Regions,
ENVE-V-008, 2011). This proposal is strongly supported by the Apulia region whose president was
appointed as rapporteur for the Committee of Regions concerning the opinion paper on “the role of
regional and local authorities in promoting sustainable water management”.
Although data on drought conditions are increasingly available, the accessibility of this data to people
actually affected by drought is still rather low. According to the Hyogo Framework for Action, capacity
building for drought risk management requires the development of a people-centered monitoring and
early warning system, that is, a system capable of providing useful and understandable information to
the community at risk. To achieve this objective it is crucial to negotiate a credible and legitimate
knowledge system, which should include both expert and local knowledge. Currently, drought
monitoring systems are exclusively based on scientific knowledge, which is hardly understandable by
communities at risks. Moreover, the prevailing technical orientation of drought management imposes
a one-dimensional definition of drought and drought impacts, seeing it as a departure from normal
precipitation and a reduction in the water available. Therefore, current drought monitoring
approaches are not capable of providing policy makers with reliable data about the wide range of
drought impacts.
32
2.2.3 Flooding hazards
General
The overall challenges related to flooding hazards are due to climate change, urbanization, and coastal
migration and poor Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Technological optimism and
economic crises are other main challenges.
Monitoring and forecasting
One specific type of flooding hazard occurring in the Mediterranean is flash flooding. Flash floods
develop in short time frames and are often very localized. Common monitoring networks that measure
precipitation and river discharge often lack the fine resolution to detect flash floods. Flash flood
dynamics are currently still poorly understood and the forecasting of such events is uncertain. The
irregular occurrence entails a moral hazard of developing human activities in river floodplains that in
more than 99% of the time seem to be safe with modest river discharges and flood levels. The EU
Floods Directive5,6 requires Member States to assess flood risk along water courses and coastlines. The
EU-funded HYDRATE7 improved the scientific basis of flash flood forecasting by extending the
understanding of past flash flood events, advancing and harmonising a European-wide innovative
flash flood observation strategy and developing a coherent set of technologies and tools for effective
early warning systems.
As an example from outside the EUM region, in The Netherlands, the public is not aware of any risk,
e.g. with respect to dikes to protect them from flooding. They trust the technology used in dike
projections against flooding from sea and river, and uncertainties are not calculated or even
acknowledged. Italy has separate institutions for different regions in flooding Early Warning Systems
(EWS) for real time protection. They have no institutional links, and the authorities are involved on
various scales. In the Netherlands, there is a Rhine Flooding Management system which is an informal
coordination framework, and in UK there is a national flooding system under a National Framework,
and regional flooding under a national system. Therefore the systems are disjointed and not
integrated.
5
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:en:pdf
6
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm
7
http://www.hydrate.tesaf.unipd.it/
33
July 2013
Measures
The Netherlands has a Preparedness Package for flooding: this provides information for Dutch citizens
on how to act in an emergency, and how to prepare for one. The site includes a ZIP code searchable
interactive map that indicates what kind of risk are associated to the area. Risks from natural hazards
include flooding, and earthquakes. The Netherlands has also introduced legislation in the form of
checking whether local authorities are sufficiently including water systems in their spatial planning
(the “Water Test”, part of the Resolution for Spatial Planning and the Spatial Planning Act). In addition
a fixed percent of land should be kept for drainage in urban planning situations. In the UK they show
alternative flooding sites, which are sites covered with gravel and grass that soak up the excess water.
In Italy, the population does not consider flood risk a real problem, e.g. episodic rivers, which are dry
for years but once every 15-20 years are able to produce a big flood. The interrelation between
drought and flooding are not well understood. And construction still happens in flood prone areas as
spatial planning conflicts with business interest. The district of Cologne is an example of best practice
to follow as they consider not only HQ100 but also HQ500 areas and beyond in spatial planning.
HQ100 areas are those that, from a statistical point of view, are affected by a flood every 100 years
(based on a data series of water levels in the past). Accordingly, an HQ500 area refers to an area that is
statistically affected every 500 years (defined as extreme flood event in Cologne).
In the Regional Plan of the district of Cologne, the HQ100 and HQ500 areas are mapped. In addition,
areas at the river Rhine in Cologne which would be flooded by at least 2m in case of an HQ500 event
are mapped in the Regional Plan, in order to further distinguish between different degrees of
exposure.
2.3 Moving towards best practices
Awareness-raising
Emergency preparedness and awareness-raising for preparedness is essential, as the first 24 hours
following an earthquake is the most significant period for saving lives. Awareness at the household
level is very important and should include an emergency plan for the household members including a
safety pack with flashlight, mobile phone, whistle, food and water, first aid/medicine. The next level of
awareness and preparedness should take place in the community and local municipalities. National
awareness programs should include well-executed emergency plans which provide immediate
34
authority for action and harmonised legislation. There is a need for implementation of ISO
standards(ISO)8,9 for emergency preparedness.
Technology
On the technological side there is a need for striking a balance between providing accurate data which
is easy to use in the field and data which is useful for informing decision makers. The communication
should include various channels such as mass media and social media, e.g. YouTube, sms / mobile
phone technology for early warning and disaster recovery
Legislation
Most laws and regulations generally focus on post-disaster actions rather than pre-disaster mitigation
and preparedness. In Turkey, following the 1999 Marmara Earthquakes, revisions and decrees were
added to existing laws and new agencies were established to support disaster management. Legal
reforms for risk management should provide a better administrative system in which responsibilities
are enhanced and clarified, thus decreasing inefficiency and chaos in disaster management.
Training
With respect to training, there is a need for local response teams in terms of search and rescue,
training the military in handling disasters, and basic first aid for the general public. In general there is
need for the development of curricula at the elementary school level with respect to public awareness
and education in, e.g. first aid as well as well-trained volunteers.
Also there is a need to ensure that civil engineers are trained in better construction methods, and
enforcement as well as implementation of coordinated land use restrictions for new construction.
Current regulation is focused on building codes; however, in general, there is uncertainty and a lack of
awareness at times with respect to these codes.
2.3.2 Drought hazards
Risk-based approaches integrated into national planning
Management focused primarily on reaction rather than adaptation supported by experimentation is
typical of historical approaches to water scarcity and drought. Under such crisis management
approaches, drought gets the attention of decision makers only when the phenomenon is at its peak of
intensity and spatial extent. Mounting evidence of the ineffectiveness of the crisis management
8
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1496
9
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53347
35
July 2013
approaches has driven increasing interest in recent years in the adoption of a more proactive riskbased management approach.
Risk-based approaches focus more on the causes of drought impacts rather than on the effects
themselves. Although the shift from crisis to risk management has been slow for a number of reasons,
various examples of drought risk management planning can be found in the EUM region. Italy
developed a National Action Plan to cope with Drought and Desertification (ICCDD,2000). This plan
aimed at facilitating the coordination among the actors at different level, in order to enhance the
sharing of knowledge and information concerning the drought processes. The capacity development at
local level through technical assistance and training activities was one of the main objectives. The
general objectives of the national plan were used as basis for the Regional Action Plans. These plans
identified both mitigation and adaptation measures to cope with drought impacts.
Due to its high irregularity in temporal and spatial distribution of water resources, Spain has
developed in the last year an intensive strategy for water management including the development of
drought plans for every river basin. The Spanish national drought indicator system has been
developed in the last years as a response to Article 27 requirements of the National Hydrological Plan
Act10. The drought management plans are allowing for better planning and prediction of the possible
changes areas affected might suffer and for a better reaction to those future situations. They establish
links between the river basin drought status and the management actions to be implemented. The
management alternatives consist of a catalogue of management actions, ranging from enforcing
demand reduction strategies to establishing priority of uses to allocate scarce water or approving
emergency works. The drought management plans have already proof to be useful and efficient during
different drought periods suffered in Spain (Estrela and Vargas, 2012). In Australia drought is
considered the ‘normal’ case11,12 i.e. abolish „drought crisis management“ and integrate drought
management into normal IWRM planning.
Agricultural drought management and renewing the urban-rural compact13
Other measures for reducing agricultural drought mentioned by TTMs included the management of
groundwater resources, to be used as a strategic reserve; the development and application of
improved / novel irrigation techniques; the storage of rain/storm water from cities for use in rural
10
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0790062032000122998
11
http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/laughlin_clarke_pubn.pdf
12
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/amp/pwsp/documents/Don_Shiv_casestudies_australia.pdf
13
See Gutman (2007)
36
areas (local scale); and that the reuse of waste water for irrigation purposes should be more
widespread and integrated.
In Switzerland, the storage of river water in reservoirs, e.g. for the Upper Rhine, is being considered.
This is conceptually a valid approach, however difficult it might be to operationalize.
Also to be taken into consideration is the management of rural / urban areas in integrated ways. There
is a need for good quality and quantity of water for urban areas and to link costs of drought related
measures in rural areas, e.g. drought management, to financial compensation from end users in urban
areas. Stakeholders including farmers and people from industry should be involved in IWRM- based
drought management, to increase the different urban/rural actors' responsibilities, sensibilities and
accountability.
Monitoring and Forecasting
In the joint and integrated efforts, the monitoring data must not be confined to the EU area, but should
be shared with the African Mediterranean countries.
Institutional aspects
There is a need for rethinking the enabling environment, top down and bottom up approaches due to
the level of complexity and the combinations of networks between organisations that provide
forecasting and organisations responsible for aid operations. Decision making in DRR and water
resource management is a long-term process and it is often difficult to predict the outcomes. Generally,
stakeholders do not look beyond 5-10 years. Multi-stakeholder partnerships should be considered,
and also how to work better in reacting to disasters.
Leadership is also of fundamental importance in processes of learning, innovation and adaptive
management. When dealing with adaptive challenges, mobilizing people to take action beyond the
formal and informal expectations that define your scope of power is key, such as raising unexpected
questions upward, challenging expectations or engaging people across boundaries from outside the
organization. When dealing with transformative challenges, leadership is also key for assuring that the
needed learning and scenario development has been provided as part of problem definition, and that
learning and exploring different opportunities has been allowed for, in order to identify the best,
viable solutions to the problem.
37
July 2013
Sustainable communities and adaptation are key issues for EUM. Any system must be able to be adapted
locally. It is not possible to use the same approach for all of Europe, however EU can make overall
decisions, but local communities must be able to adapt according to local conditions.
Legislation
The implementation of DRR and CCA supporting legislation is a process that will take time. The
legislation should include, for example, management of affect behaviour regarding disasters, capacity
of organisations, building networks, and definitions of responsibilities and tasks, information and
education on various levels. Experiences in different case studies showed that coping with drought by
imposing water limitation on farmers often leads to unintended side-effects. Other measures need to
be implemented in order to support policy effectiveness. Imposing a water use limitation due to water
scarcity could force farmers to use groundwater as a prime source of water for irrigation, with
devastating impacts on the state of the resource. Information sharing, knowledge transferability, and
technical assistance are crucial to enhance DRR legislation implementation.
When inserting DRR and CCA in policy and regulations, agreements about binding technical standards
should be established, with government coordination. Specifically, more focus should be put on the EU
flood directive and the mapping of hazards, land use planning, etc. There may be a basis for the
creation of an EU drought directive too. There is in fact a special EU group working on water scarcity
and drought issues: the "Water scarcity and drought expert group", established within the WFD
Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), which approved an updated mandate on water scarcity and
droughts, to deliver a set of common drought and water scarcity indicators. The EC, however,
apparently does not foresee the need for a “Drought Directive” or a change in the current policy, and
specifies in their Nov 2012 Report on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Droughts Policy
that “where relevant, further policy measures may be addressed in the Adaptation to climate change
Strategy foreseen for spring 2013”.(EUR-LEX)14.
Also current legislation regarding earthquake and drought should be harmonized as they are
confusing and ineffective. Organizational structure concerning disaster management is often
complicated, with an abundance of central governmental agencies with a complicated arrangement of
authorities.
14
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0672:EN:NOT
38
Communication
First of all, it is important to learn from abroad and share expertise and data to improve knowledge in
the field. When tackling extreme events it is important to have a common base of knowledge. In
general, there is a need to address potentially affected people or the individual / private citizen from
different communications platforms instead of addressing state /public actors. At the same time, there
is also a need for greater acceptance of the fact that there is a risk of being flooded. With this level of
awareness, common sense should take over and actions should be: Move all your stuff from the ground
floor to the upper floor.
Training
The need for training should include:
•
Decision making game tools like “Sim City” or Agent based models by which decision makers
can imagine different scenarios.
•
University curricula. An inventory of what exists is needed.
•
Solving the language problem. Not all is available in English.
•
Vocational training of professionals.
•
The Train the Trainer concept (e.g. NeWater)15 which is useful.
Financing
There is a need for various national financial incentives to implement DRR measures at the individual
household. Parts of the national budget should be reserved for DRR and the subsidizing of no-regret
CCA measures. At the same time, one should consider taxing activities that are not DRR- and CCAsupporting.
Compensations and insurance are also an important means to reduce financial impact, and it is
considered by TTMs that there is need for a change in approach towards this.
15
http://www.newater.uni-osnabrueck.de
39
July 2013
2.3.3 Flooding hazards
Monitoring
In most countries in the EUM region, early warning is provided by meteorological offices and includes
assessing the flooding danger and vulnerability. The parameters are where and how people are
affected and what responses are required. In order to assess and monitor the vulnerability of people to
flooding events, indicators can be a useful tool. Mapping vulnerability indicators can reveal hot spots
and identify needs for action. A set of indicators should include core indicators, i.e. indicators that are
generally applicable as they are based on data that is usually available in local statistics (e.g. age based
household types). Besides these core indicators, it is recommended to consider also local specific
factors, i.e. indicators that usually require a survey in the respective area. An example is the degree of
natural hazard insurance coverage, because this is seen as a crucial factor of coping capacity once a
flood has occurred.
2.4 Gaps in research and networks
2.4.1 Monitoring and forecasting
The monitoring of drought events (scale, duration, impact on people) should be used to build
statistical types of relationships and for the implementation of questionnaires for evaluation and for
systematically mapping of how potentially affected people respond to drought. Indicators and
guidelines on how to evaluate the vulnerability of people are needed as well as municipal-specific
indicators.
The models and data used should be combined into integrated frameworks to ensure the extraction of
more information by means of data mining approaches. To avoid a fragmented drought approach, EUM
countries should move from the European Drought Observatory model towards the more integrated
European Water Resources Observatory model. Modelling and observations should be combined.
There is also a need for the development of improved drought forecasts, not only for evaluating
physical consequences but also to monitor preferences of people and anticipated behaviour as part of
the knowledge base. Furthermore, there is a need for a long term integrated research approach of 10
years or more. In addition, there is a need for the development of university curriculum for drought
management, training of professionals in integrated drought management, including sustainable
communities, adaptation, deficit irrigation management, public-private partnerships, and multi
stakeholder partnerships in managing drought DRR.
40
There is a significant uncertainty range due to different climate model scenario results and, although
quantification is needed, at the same time it is important also to build trust between scientists, the
public and policy. Researchers have to convince policy makers and the public that the signal plus the
uncertainty exceed existing uncertainties. It was noted however, that for many possible extreme
events, one cannot increase the amount of information since there is often only one data point
available. The SREX report (IPCC, 2012) considers extremes, in most cases on 95 % level, which
represent an event which occurs quite often, but which in order of magnitude is below the real
extreme events, but that only occurs a few days each century. In conclusion, there is a need for further
research and development as well as more sophisticated and advanced tools and equipment to reduce
the uncertainty.
Furthermore, there is a need to improve seasonal forecasting of climatic conditions. Currently it does
not really exist. However, it would be a very valuable tool. There is an urgent need for an early
warning system for drought because models do not project far enough. We have to compare and
integrate information from different sources. SPI Index16 is the wrong index because data cannot be
compared. Seasonal forecast is very promising once it has been further developed. JRC is working on
an early warning system for drought. Furthermore, the US has a system17 in place to monitor and
forecast drought conditions: the US Drought Monitor (current conditions), the three-month official
forecast and the US Hazards Outlook18.
2.4.2 Vulnerability assessments
There is also a need for vulnerability studies of strategic public buildings in order to estimate costs of
restructuring after an earthquake. Italy has a large proportion of buildings at risk and a very large
amount of money needs to be spent for significant risk reduction. The solution could be to create an
autonomous fund, preferably self-funded, and independent from politics. Turkey has a temporary
recovery fund established through temporary recovery fund tax following the 1999 Marmara
earthquakes.
There is no linearity between the size of hazard and adverse effect (fatalities). DRR means reduced
number of fatalities and affected people.
16
http://icdc.zmaw.de/climate_indices.html?&L=1#c2656
17
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
18
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/threats/threats.php
41
July 2013
2.4.3 Institutional aspects
More research needs to be carried out on the institutional context of good practice in DRR and CCA.
2.5 Recommendations for fostering capacity development
Preparedness
Awareness raising for risk preparedness must be established at local level, customized for each
community. It must be specific about where exactly you need to go/what to do in case of disaster for
each community. In Istanbul, each district has local shelters – public spaces in the event of an
earthquake disaster for residents to gather in. In general, there is a higher level of common knowledge
in wealthier districts in contrast to poorer neighbourhoods.
There is need for organizational development to increase the flow of information, encourage selforganized groups, unite and streamline communities to be self-reliant and to organize local resilience
forums that work with civil protection and government. Furthermore, more widespread introduction
of joint academic programs at university level such as Erasmus exchange, where students can join
disaster management programs would be useful.
It is important to disseminate or make the data on hazard risk mapping available to the public. In
Portugal, such maps are no longer confidential, but it is difficult to integrate the information at the
local level into civil protection plans of small towns. The coordination is disjointed.
Mitigation
There is a need for improving financial capacity within all of the EUM countries for disaster mitigation
purposes. Such mitigation actions can range from structural (land-use planning, building retrofitting,
strengthening) measures to non-structural ones (such as insurance or other institutional and legal
development).
In the EUM region, only Turkey has obligatory earthquake insurance. Otherwise, there are no
insurance requirements in Europe and equally important there is no culture for it. It would be
problematic to make earthquake insurance obligatory in EU.
United Nations DRR and national platforms insist that information must be publically issued, but
political interests often override public safety. The public also does not demand the information or the
42
education. Civil organizations could be more proactive in demanding this, and scientists end specialists
should raise public attention to these issues.
2.5.2 Water Resources (including flooding and drought)
Financial incentives
Financial resources may be needed to incentivize farmers to adopt and make the transition, e.g. to
reuse waste water. Land use with a low water footprint should be promoted and crop subsidies
adjusted accordingly to influence farmer crop management.
‘User pays principle’ should be promoted - users of water want to be serviced by institutions
that provide them with accurate and timely drought and/ or flood forecasting. Such services
cost resources. Who is sourcing these costs? The general public, via general taxes, or those
that want such forecasts?
Following this principle, one specific financial instrument consists of making water fees and
rates (such as the price for drink water supplies) drought- or water scarcity- dependent. This
mechanism is being tested in Israel. Such a mechanism has different merits. As servicing
drinking water becomes more complicated and more expensive in times of drought, extra
resources are needed. These are paid by the consumers. The second merit is that it acts as an
incentive to save water and that it creates awareness on the costs of water delivery. Droughtdependent fees for opening sluices in case of drought should also be considered. This is not
yet being practiced, but it is an effective financial instrument to create awareness upon the
cost of water.
Environmental taxes in drought prone areas can sensitize people to their water demand and might
result in a overall decrease in water demand. Droughts in water scarce areas are often strongly linked
to water demand. The tax revenues should be spent on capacity building, increased monitoring and
forecasting, subsidies leading to decreased water use and, eventually, in creating increased water
storage to overcome periods of water shortage.
43
July 2013
Institutional aspects
The creation of international enabling environments to find solutions for droughts on the river basin
scale should be established. Regional approaches are also needed: We cannot use one approach to
drought risk management for all regions. Drought management plans are good, but they should be
more holistic, i.e. they should be integrated into flood management and other plans.
Everybody needs to be involved in planning adaptation (from the local to the highest levels of
decision-making). One way of securing this is by inserting CCA and DRR into every policy/regulation.
Countries and national platforms (http://www.unisdr.org/partners/countries) are key partners to
implementing disaster risk reduction strategies at a country level to help build resilient communities.
NAPAs (national adaptation plans) were first developed for developing countries to adapt to climate
change. There is an opportunity to use the NAPAs for including DRR in developing countries and to
adopt an adapted form of NAPAs for the EUM too.
Curricula and training
The reuse of water as a drought measure is available in Italy, but its more widespread implementation
is a problem because of lack of experience and price. A ‘’demonstration farm’’ using only reused water
in irrigation areas may help to convince farmers of the value of this measure and raise awareness.
Also, knowledge exchange involving farmers is needed to raise awareness. With respect to deficit
irrigation there is need for technical assistance. Reused water is not popular among farmers because
they have not been involved in the decision, so they do not trust the water quality. Furthermore, the
cost of ground water in some areas is less than the price of reused water. Also there is the illegal trade
in water to consider.
Stakeholders (especially farmers) are sceptical that they can influence decisions because there exists:
•
Distrust by decision makers of local knowledge.
•
Cultural barriers to knowledge exchange among the local actors (no history of stakeholders
collaboration with / input to decision makers).
•
Missing political alliances.
44
The European Mediterranean Regional Workshop
2.6 Recommendations for the online teaching module
Apart from the curricula and training suggestions in the above sections, additional general training
themes of importance are:
•
Curricula on both DRR and CCA
•
The use of media for mass awareness campaigns. Courses on media, e.g. Harvard or
www.coursera.org, open access courses and accreditation, possibly free of charge
•
How to move from data-use to information and knowledge must be improved.
•
The use of GI-SCI technologies as a key emerging technology, alongside biotech and nanotech.
Also, these ‘’new’’ technologies should be implemented in training and education:
•
Google earth for DRR to locate hotspots.
•
Quick guides for geo-informatics for disaster management free of charge
•
Free and open source software (Q-ES) with links to free download tutorials.
Portals to take into account, when developing curricula include:
•
“Preventionweb.net”
•
IHP programme of UNESCO. The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) is an
intergovernmental programme of the UN system devoted to water research, water resources
management, and education and capacity building.
•
Online curriculum on adaptive water management, which has been developed in the
framework of another (already completed) project (EU FP7 NeWater). The online curriculum
contains education material, and is aimed at lecturers of universities who wish to change their
curriculum to include climate change and adaptation. The material is commons copyright and
therefore has the flexibility that it can be used in parts or as a whole. For each topic, there is a
PowerPoint (syllabus material), with discussion questions, exercises and references for further
reading. The information is available on www.newatereducation.nl.
•
www.mapaction.org - Field guide to “humanitarian mapping”. Where to go to, where are the
worst affected areas in the first two weeks after a disaster, and training of local organization
with use of free data.
Finally, any training should:
•
Develop the skills needed for working with disasters. This requires different training of skills.
•
Provide a new framing of issues needed to arrive at a solution. This requires a historical
analysis. Sustainability and profitability should go hand in hand when engaging in long-term
planning.
45
July 2013
3 The East and West Africa Regional Workshop
Jochen Luther (UFZ)
& Christian Kuhlicke (UFZ)
Place: Hilton and Sheraton Hotels in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Date: 10-11 October, 2013
Number of TTM participants: 17 TTM; 8 guests; 4 project partners
Organisers: UFZ
Co-Hosts: Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), the Disaster Risk
Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS) and Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building
Construction and City Development (EiABC) of Addis Ababa University (AAU)
In order to make disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) an integral part of
sustainable urban development, it has been widely stated that capacity development is needed on all
levels and for different sectors. Rapid urbanisation and disaster dynamics are gradually changing the
face of risk which is becoming more urban than before, calling for rethinking DRR and CCA strategies
and programmes. Therefore this CATALYST regional workshop brought together policy makers,
practitioners, and researchers working in different fields (urban planning, emergency management,
humanitarian aid, etc.) and in different international and national bodies (international organisations,
governments, NGOs, academic institutions, etc.). The aim was to share their views, experiences and
needs related to capacity development for urban DRR and CCA and the capacity development
opportunities that they provide.
Furthermore, as the workshops are a pivotal moment in the activities of the CATALYST project, their
results are meant to feed substantially into the key deliverables of the project, such as the capacity
development module, the synthesis reports on best practices, research/networks gaps and
recommendations, and the final dissemination documents (best practice papers and a best practice
policy notebook). All these deliverables will be widely circulated and made freely available on the
CATALYST website19. Ideally, new partnerships and continuous cooperation will result from this
19
http://www.catalyst-project.eu/07public-dl.html
46
East and West Africa Regional Workshop
workshop and the project’s activities – among different African stakeholders and between actors in
Africa and Europe and the other CATALYST regions (Mediterranean Europe, Central America and
Caribbean, and South and Southeast Asia).
The workshop took place on 10 and 11 October 2012 at the Hilton and Sheraton Hotels in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, and was organised by the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH –
UFZ20 (Leipzig, Germany) in collaboration with the Federal Disaster Risk Management and Food
Security Sector (DRMFSS)21 within the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of Ethiopia and the
Ethiopian Institute of Architecture Building Construction and City Development (EiABC)22 of Addis
Ababa University (AAU).
Strategically scheduled, the workshop overlapped and formed part of the Regional Conference on
Capacity Development for Integrating Disaster Risk Management into Urban Settings in Africa23 on 11
October 2013, co-hosted by the DRMFSS the federal Ministry of Urban Development and Construction
with support from the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP).
In addition, the Sixth National Conference and Exhibition on Disaster Risk Management in Ethiopia
was held on 12 October at the same venue, marking the International Day for Disaster Reduction
(IDDR)24 of which the 2012 theme was “Women and Girls: the (in)Visible Force for Resilience”. The
IDDR is celebrated globally on 13 October every year with a view to raising awareness on actions
taken to reduce disasters risks.
The main objective of this CATALYST regional workshop was to develop a shared vision on how DRR
and CCA should be (better) integrated into urban planning in African cities – and how urban planning
could contribute (more) to DRR and CCA.
With regard to these thematic foci, the workshop pursued the following specific aims:
Identifying good practices for integrating DRR and CCA in sustainable urban development and for
developing respective capacities;
20
http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=11382
21
http://www.dppc.gov.et
22
http://www.eiabc.edu.et
23
http://www.dppc.gov.et/Pages/Urban_DRM_2012.html
24
http://www.unisdr.org/we/campaign/iddr
47
July 2013
Identifying gaps and barriers that impede the integration and implementation of DRR and CCA in
sustainable urban development;
Developing overall recommendations that foster a better integration and mainstreaming of DRR
and CCA into sustainable urban development through developing specific capacities.
This workshop was framed by elaborating on its thematic context, namely the capacity development
needed when considering DRR and CCA in urban settings and in urban planning. Based on the previous
work within and outside of CATALYST on the hazards in and the vulnerabilities of urban settlements
(GFDRR, 2010), this workshop dealt the challenge of finding approaches that are compatible for the
African urban context and that provide a bridge between DRR, CCA, and urban planning. Although
most examples and issues mentioned come from East and West Africa (which is the proper CATALYST
case study region), examples from Southern Africa and activities on the continental (sub-Saharan)
scale were also presented.
For a long time there had hardly been any interaction between the different “communities” of DRR,
CCA and urban planning, and even profound differences. For example in terms of terminology, a
definition of vulnerability in the DRR communities is that it is the result of social, economic, and
political processes, leaving socioeconomic resources unequally distributed („Taking the Naturalness
out of ‚Natural‘ Disasters“, O‘Keefe et al. 1976). Exemplary for the CCA community, in the IPCC’s 4th
Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) vulnerability is defined as a “function of the character, magnitude,
and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive
capacity”. However, recent shifts towards a stronger integration between the CCA and DRR
communities are expressed in a more integrative view in the IPCC Special Report on Managing the
Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (IPCC 2012). Here,
vulnerability is referred to as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected”.
Yet, there is still institutional fragmentation across areas such as:
Hazard and risk management
Climate change adaptation
Urban planning
Development cooperation
Complex emergencies and conflicts
Environmental management
Poverty reduction
48
It is an underlying basic assumption of this CATALYST work that there is a continuum of urban risks in
Africa (Wisner and Pelling 2008) – from everyday hazards (high frequency, small impact on the overall
city though main cause of death and injury) to large-scale disasters (low frequency, large impact on the
city, catastrophic in some parts but in others with low rates of death and injury). In the following, a bit
more background on the core themes is given.
Generally, the workshop focused on the following four themes:
1. Different ways of assessing risks and vulnerabilities. They range from bottom-up, participatory
assessments (Wisner 2006) to top-down, indicator-based assessments (e.g. Social
Vulnerability Index, Cutter et al., 2003).
2. Different measures aiming at reducing the impacts of large scale and/or everyday disasters
and the consequences of climate change as well as on how to assess these measures. Measures
are often divided into non-structural measures (e.g. awareness raising, early warning,
education) and structural measures (e.g. dikes and levees, retention basins, drainage systems).
3. Incorporation of knowledge in decision and policy-making which is generated from indigenous
experiences/local knowledge (e.g. communal practices, individual experience and adaptation
strategies) and scientific information (e.g. climate change scenarios, hydrological modelling).
4. Specific capacity development in the field of DRR and CCA in an urban setting provided by the
workshop participants. Capacity development can be defined as “the process by which people,
organisations and society systematically stimulate and develop their capacities over time to
achieve social and economic goals, including through improvement of knowledge, skills,
systems, and institutions” (UNISDR, 2009).
Historically anchored in development aid/cooperation paradigms, capacity development is linked to
the development process of individuals, organisations, institutions and societies at large. Initially it
was mainly seen as an intervention linked to teaching and training, directed at individuals working in
organisations. It was also often referred to as capacity building, implying that capacities did not yet
exist and needed to be built up from scratch. By contrast, the current understanding recognises that
there is no situation in which capacity does not exist – the question is rather whether existing
capacities are acknowledged and sufficiently enabled.
Different types of capacities are distinguished (Jaspers et al. 2012, CaDRI 2011, Kuhlicke et al. 2011).
With respect to the method, it is important how the capacities are developed, e.g. through training,
peer-to-peer learning (shadowing and mentoring activities), knowledge synthesis and production of
49
July 2013
knowledge resources, public awareness-raising, change management, professional certification
schemes, formal education, and so on.
3.1.3 Approach
Preparation of the workshop
The workshop was meant to be interactive and embedded in a regional context through collaborating
closely with actors from the city where the workshop would take place. Furthermore, the workshop
should ideally be linked to other national or international meetings.
Group discussions were central to the workshop and were structured along the lines of the four
themes mentioned before (see Figure 6), but always maintained a focus on cities and urban
settlements:
1. Analysis, assessment and monitoring of hazards and vulnerabilities contributing to disaster
risks;
2. Inventory and assessment of measures to be used for DRR and CCA;
3. Role of scientific and local knowledge and uncertainties in DRR and CCA decision/policy
making;
4. Review and assessment of capacity development activities for 1.-3.
In terms of the preparation for the workshop, every participant was asked to prepare one short input,
foreseen either for the session focusing on good practices (Group session I) and/or on capacity
development activities (Group session III). This input was supposed to be about a good practice that
participants were aware of, either because it relates to their own work or experience, or it was the
work of the institution they represented. The input could also have been about a specific capacity
development activity that they were currently offering to stakeholders, or currently developing. The
presentation should refer to one of the thematic foci of the workshop (1-4, above) and give arguments
why this example was a good practice. The following questions were meant to give some guidance:
If they wanted to focus on a good practice:
Please describe your good practice, what is its motivation, what does it want to achieve?
Why do you consider it as a good practice? More generally, what is a good practice in your
opinion?
50
What could others learn from it with regard to policy recommendations and capacity
development?
If they wanted to focus on a capacity development activity:
Please describe your good activity, what is its motivation, what does it want to achieve?
Who is your “audience”
What could others learn from it with regard to capacity development?
Figure 6: The four thematic foci of the workshop and the CATALYST project and how they link to the three specific
aims/expected outcomes
Activities during the workshop
The workshop was opened by a number of welcome speeches that linked the workshop to the African
and Ethiopian context and placed it in the overall research strategy of CATALYST and its funding body,
the European Commission:
Welcome by Jochen Luther & Christian Kuhlicke and Nathalie Jean-Baptiste, UFZ (CATALYST
Regional Process Leader East and West Africa) and short presentation of the UFZ and urban
research therein;
Welcome by Ephrem Gebremariam, EiABC, Addis Ababa University;
Welcome by Animesh Kumar, DRMFSS, Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture;
51
July 2013
Welcome by Stéphane Hogan, European Union delegation to the African Union25;
Welcome by Caroline van Bers, seeconsult GmbH (Coordination CATALYST project).
Then, introductory presentations were given by Jochen Luther & Christian Kuhlicke (UFZ) that had
the aim of setting the scene for the workshop discussions (see the thematic issues under Section 3.1.2).
The workshop ideas were realised by carrying out intensive group work, by involving DRMFSS and
EiABC, and by connecting the workshop directly to the events mentioned before and to the CLUVA
project.
Each of the four themes was reflected in the different group sessions, containing the reworded
questions of the online forum discussions that are also included in the CATALYST report on capacity
development for DRR (D3.1, i.e. Jaspers et al. 2012). Group session I focused on good practices in
urban DRR and CCA, Group session II on gaps, barriers and needs, Group session III on capacity
development activities, and Group session IV on recommendations for capacity development in the
context of urban DRR and CCA as well as for the project and similar activities.
Two parallel and mixed groups were presenting and discussing good practices and capacity
development activities in group sessions I and III.
The idea of the composition for the three groups in group session II, different from the group sessions I
and III, was to allow for a more “internal” discussion between participants coming from similar
organisations and levels, namely (1) UN agencies, (2) NGOs and (3) research, revealing possibly
contradicting perspectives and mutual expectations. For this group work it was decided to use the
Ketso kit26 as tool to structure the discussion.
The final group session IV on recommendations was held as a plenary and combined with the closing
words of the workshop due to time constraints. Participants were asked to write key
recommendations on cards and put them up on a flip chart. The cards were then clustered and each
participant could allocate three points to different recommendations (or all points to one), marking
which ones would he/she thought to be most important. The main guiding questions were:
What are other cross-cutting issues?
What can the regional stakeholders offer to or get from each other?
How could you as a Think Tank member (TTM) benefit from a science project such as CATALYST
(wishes, doubts)?
25
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/african_union/index_en.htm
26
http://www.ketso.com
52
Post workshop activities
Directly following the workshop, participants were invited to fill out an evaluation sheet (for the
results see Section 7).
After the workshop, detailed minutes were produced with the help of recordings, photographs and
notes which formed the basis for this summary. The summary was backed with information from the
presentations and further documents/online information on the presented practices and the
respective organisations behind them.
3.1.4 Attendees
The 29 participants of the workshop (see Appendix II(C) and Figure 7) were composed of the
following groups :
17 CATALYST Think Tank members (TTMs), with a formal memorandum of understanding (MoU)
or with strong commitment but without a formal MoU either (1) because they became involved in
CATALYST at a later stage and thus eventually might sign a MoU or (2) because their organisation
would not allow them to sign a MoU;
2 Guests (their involvement was restricted to this workshop);
4 CATALYST project partners; and
6 CLUVA project partners.
Figure 7: Workshop participants (photo by Nathalie Jean-Baptiste).
53
July 2013
3.2 State of the art of DRR and CCA activities including good practices
This section refers to DRR/CCA practices and related capacity development activities currently being
carried out, i.e. examples mentioned by the workshop participants during the group discussions on
good practices and capacity development. The following initiatives, tools and case studies can only
show a selection of the plethora of activities on various levels on the African continent. They are of
course predetermined first by the selection of invitees and second by those that actually were able and
willing to participate. Examples for practices, methodologies, etc. are organised by the organisation
that is in charge of them or that represented them. Wherever possible, the organisation/network or
the context of the example is briefly introduced. No judgement of the examples is intended.
Participants were rather asked to justify themselves why they think their example is a good practice.
3.2.1 DRR and CCA-related activities at the UNEP Africa Office
Climate change as well as disasters and conflicts are two of the six priority areas in the United Nations
Environment Programme’s (UNEP)27 current medium-term strategy. With a primary focus on Africa,
Small Island Developing States and mega deltas, UNEP’s work in 2010-13 will continue to support
countries to reduce vulnerability and build resilience to the impacts of climate change, focusing on
incorporating the natural defences provided by ecosystems for adaptation. UNEP’s Disasters and
Conflicts sub-programme provides four core services to countries all over the world:
Disaster risk reduction: UNEP works to prevent and reduce the impacts of natural hazards on
vulnerable communities and countries through sustainable natural resource management. It helps
states to address environmental degradation as an underlying risk factor (through risk
assessments, strategic planning, best practices sharing). This means integrating environmental
considerations into risk reduction policies and practices.
Post-crisis environmental assessments: To inform local populations, decision-makers and recovery
organisations, UNEP conducts field-based scientific assessments to identify the environmental
risks to human health, livelihoods and security following conflicts, disasters and industrial
accidents.
Post-crisis environmental recovery: In the aftermath of a crisis, UNEP implements environmental
recovery programmes through field-based project offices to support long-term stability and
sustainable development in conflict and disaster-affected countries. UNEP provides national
27
http://www.unep.org
54
environmental authorities with a blend of institutional and legal support, staff training and
mentoring, and basic office and field equipment, depending on the identified needs.
Environmental cooperation for peace-building: UNEP aims to use environmental cooperation to
transform the risks of conflict over resources into opportunities for peace in war-torn or fragile
societies. UNEP has become a recognised neutral facilitator that can promote dialogue and
cooperation over shared resources or common environmental challenges.
Explicitly mentioned during the workshop was the Global Adaptation Network (GAN) that was
developed through a UNEP-facilitated consultative processes with key partners and potential target
groups between 2008-2010, funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
(SIDA). The overall objective is to help build climate resilience of vulnerable communities, ecosystems
and economies through the mobilisation of knowledge for adaptation. It aims at to creating links with
already existing adaptation networks and knowledge initiatives, facilitating access to their services.
The Africa Adaptation Knowledge Network AAKNet28 is one of its four regional networks but is,
however, not yet as active as the other (Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia Pacific, and West Asia).
It builds on on-going efforts around the region to mobilise existing knowledge and best practices, such
as the UNEP-UNDP Climate Change Adaptation and Development Initiative CC-DARE29. It is not to be
limited to national institutions but to be extended also to universities throughout the continent any
beyond The reasons for launching this network were that there was a general feeling that, although
many African institutions are doing excellent work, they are not connected, and that data is not
sufficiently shared (e.g. in Kenya there is an institution that deals with remote sensing and produces
excellent information on drought, national vegetation index and so on but it just keeps the information
within the institution).
Out of the many activities carried out by the UNEP Regional Office for Africa, a guidebook on CCA30
was pointed out. The office reacted to an agreement of the African Ministerial Conference for the
Environment (AMCEN) to act on climate change and sustainable development. It proposed to translate
the science information and the current international policies on climate change into a guidebook and
move these towards practical implementation. In this way information would be saved and accessible
even when people move to more lucrative jobs once their capacity had been enhanced. A highlighted
feature was that it was written by African authors who worked on the 5th assessment report of the
28
It has just launched its website: http://www.africa.ganadapt.org
29
http://www.ccdare.org
30
http://www.unep.org/roa/amcen/docs/publications/guidebook_CLimateChange.pdf (Chapter 4 is most relevant
here, but Chapter 7 is receiving the highest attention.)
55
July 2013
IPCC, creating a stronger ownership. The guidebook relates, for example, to issues of governance,
technology, financial capacity building needs, opportunities that are available for the continental
actors. This guidebook did not present anything new, it just synthesised what is available for an
audience consisting of policy and decision makers, civil society organisations, practitioners from both
the public and private sector, climate change negotiators, etc. Therefore, it is written in a simple way.
For example, it covers the resources provided by the GEF, which has been around for quite a while, but
which countries still have difficulty in gaining access to.
3.2.2 DRR and CCA-related activities by UN-Habitat in Africa
In the context of cities and urban settlements, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme
(UN-Habitat) with its Risk Reduction and Rehabilitation Branch31 and its Regional Office for Africa
and Regional Office for the Arab States) is a very important player. To address urban DRR, UN-Habitat
has established a framework for monitoring progress of DRR and resilience that follows the human
settlements, urban systems, and resilience building approaches. Furthermore, the Sustainable Relief
and Reconstruction Approach (SRR Policy) aims at creating appropriate human settlement conditions
for facilitating the transition from relief to sustainable development, understanding long-term impacts
of short-term interventions, linking recovery processes with long-term development strategies,
developing capacities at all levels and of all actors, and at revisiting past practices and changing
mitigation strategies for vulnerability/risk reduction towards building resilience.
Examples came from Hargeisa (integrated settlements upgrading approach including DRR component
with good cooperation and a basis for future positive interaction between vendors and the
municipality, understanding of design principles and advantages by vendors, improved mobility and
access to the markets, reconstruction of damaged wall for protection from river floods), Gardho
(general urban planning including disaster risk assessments) in Somalia, and from Maputo
(participatory planning and mapping of the drainage system, building back better and safer through
technical assistance and on-the-job training services) in Mozambique. An example specifically of
capacity development is the on-going establishment of a sub-regional centre for disaster mitigation and
sustainable reconstruction (DIMSUR). It aims at maintaining a partnership with the Southern African
Development Commission (DRR Unit) and the states in the geographical sub-region by providing
technical support, a platform for the discussion and exchange of good practices, experience and
knowledge in DRR, maximising the use of existing expertise in the sub-region, establishing synergies
31
http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=286
56
between CCA and DRR agendas, and so on. There are four participating countries with focal points
(Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, and Comoros).
Another initiative just launched is the City Resilience Profiling Programme (CRPP). Expected outputs
are an adaptable urban systems model suitable for all human settlements; a set of indicators and
standards for calibrating urban systems ability to withstand and recover from crises; software systems
that produce urban resilience profiles; global standards set for urban resilience; and a new normative
framework for monitoring urban systems globally. Up to 10 pilot cities will be selected from the
UNISDR Making Cities Resilient (MCR) Campaign. Key partnerships with city networks, the industry,
professional networks, academia, and other agencies are being established and linkages to existing
and planned campaigns are expected.
3.2.3 The Groundwater for Emergency Situations (GWES) project by UNESCO’s International
Hydrological Programme (IHP)32
An interesting activity by a programme of another United Nations organisation, the International
Hydrological Programme (IHP) of the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and
Culture (UNESCO), was presented at the workshop, namely the Groundwater for Emergency
Situations (GWES) project of which the main results are compiled in a methodological guide33. The aim
of the GWES project is to identify emergency groundwater resources bodies resistant to natural and
man-made disasters that could replace damaged public and domestic drinking water supplies. The
guide provides background information on groundwater protection with particular reference to its use
in emergency situations as result of natural hazards and hydrological extremes. It also outlines the
governance policy framework in which groundwater as an emergency resource may be integrated into
overall emergency management and service provision. To illustrate the principles and techniques in
the guide, a number of real-world case studies from different regions are presented. This
Methodological Guide supports the scope of the GWES project: Identifying, investigating, assessing,
managing and mapping groundwater resources resistant to natural disasters that could be used in
emergencies resulting from different extreme climatic and geological disaster events.
32
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/ihp
33
available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001921/192182e.pdf
57
July 2013
3.2.4 DRR and CCA-related activities by UNDP’s Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP)34
The Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) was represented by two participants. AAP was launched
in 2008 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
and the World Food Programme (WFP). It is financially supported by the Government of Japan in
order to create an environment in which more informed and appropriate CCA decisions and practices
can be undertaken within the context of sustainable development.
Many African countries are receiving assistance on a range of CCA activities. However, these are
generally taking place through small-scale, ad hoc, single sector projects occurring mostly
independently of each other and with little coordination with national development plans. Central to
the AAP methodology is helping the governments of 20 African countries to develop the professional
capabilities they need to succeed in their challenging work of bringing about transformational change
characterised by multi-sectoral, integrated, and long-term planning.
AAP focuses on five capacities that are crucial to designing and implementing a resilient development
agenda:
Data and Information Management,
Institutions and Leadership,
Analysis and Implementation,
Knowledge Management, and
Innovative Finance.
It is a strategic programme and does not do work in the field and consists of three components: (1)
National Projects, (2) an Inter-Regional Technical Support Component, and (3) a Cross Practice
Initiative. Projects to build these five capacities are being implemented by a National Team in each of
the 20 AAP countries (80% of the resources go directly to the national activities). Each team is led by
the host government and assisted by the UNDP country office. The Regional Team helps the National
Teams through technical assistance provided in two streams. Through Stream 1, National Teams
obtain rapid and direct responsive technical support through a range of both passive (helpdesk) and
active (anchor consultants) initiatives. The proactive strategic enhancement activities in Stream 2,
concentrate on creating leadership, organisational effectiveness, integrated planning frameworks and
34
http://www.undp-aap.org/about-us
58
climate action intelligence35. The AAP’s Cross Practice Strategy draws on expertise from across UNDP
Headquarters’ core practice areas. One of its concrete activities is the AAP’s Media Capacity Building
Project, based in Nairobi, which supports the professional development of national journalists in each
of the 20 AAP countries to increase their ability to inform and reflect public debate on development
resilience within a changing climate.
Examples from these diverse activities were the support of innovative, multi-scale climate financing
(e.g. in Nigeria, where especially regional budgeters should be involved and shown what they could
lose if they do not invest in prevention) and multi-sectoral adaptation planning (e.g. in Mauritius in
partnership with its Ministry of Finance). Furthermore, AAP supports government organisations in
recruiting adequate personnel in a timely manner and in procuring necessary equipment (e.g. in
Lesotho and Burkina Faso). In the past, there were examples of many projects that were granted but
the recruitment and procurement could not be completed until the end of the project. In terms of using
scientific knowledge and supporting its generation, e.g. in Lesotho the meteorological service,
parliamentarians, ministries, etc. were connected and trained by AAP staff and data was also collected
from volunteers via SMS (a cheap but effective way to collect data while at the same time including
indigenous knowledge).
There is a lot of information within a community that sometimes comes from beliefs that are based on
the cultural system but can also be very scientific. From an experience in Kisumu, local indigenous
forecasters were sometimes better able to predict the weather than the meteorological service. Also in
Masaya, locals can know more about climate change than models.
A separate presentation was given on the knowledge management component of AAP36. There is a
need for increasing the knowledge especially of new financing mechanisms in an increasingly complex
framework. AAP uses two existing UNDP facilitated platforms for knowledge sharing –Teamworks and
the Adaptation Learning Mechanism (ALM)37 that operates in close partnership with the UNFCCC,
UNEP, the World Bank, FAO and other specialised UN agencies. It is the best existing platform for
building a culture of sharing. Furthermore, national and regional workshop, on-line meetings as well
as “Knowledge Fairs” are held for sharing results, tools, methods, or good practices. Knowledge
management is itself a way to transfer best practices. It saves reinvention and provides faster transfer,
35
Climate Action Intelligence (CAI) uses technical tools that facilitate the mapping of initiatives and organisations in order
to gain clarity on who does what, when, and where. See http://www.undp-aap.org/workareas/climate-action-intelligence.
36
http://www.undp-aap.org/workareas/knowledge-management
37
http://www.adaptationlearning.net
59
July 2013
and locates critical expertise. Other partners in the field of knowledge management are AfricaAdapt
(see below), the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)38, and the Regional Climate
Change Adaptation Knowledge Platform for Asia (example of intercontinental knowledge sharing).
This presentation triggered a discussion about the National Adaptation Programmes of Action
(NAPAs)39. NAPAs are a type of reporting envisaged by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) and provide a process for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to identify
priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change – those
for which further delay would increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage. They are not
supposed to include original research, but use existing information and include profiles of priority
projects that are intended to address those needs that have been identified. The steps for the
preparation of a NAPA include synthesis of available information, participatory assessment of
vulnerability to current climate variability and extreme events and of areas where risks would
increase due to climate change, identification of key adaptation measures as well as criteria for
prioritising activities. AAP is not only supporting LDCs to develop and update their NAPAs but also
countries that are not required to come up with NAPAs. In most countries it took three years to
identify priorities (most were in the areas of food security, desertification, water-borne diseases), with
the evaluation of the data process being very regional. At present, some countries are very well
organised with a strong national cooperation, good institutions to implement the projects, and political
will to adopt good practices of CCA. But some countries are on the opposite track.
3.2.5 Mainstreaming of DRR in the work of Plan International40
Plan International is one of the oldest and largest children's development organisations in the world.
It is independent, with no religious, political or governmental affiliations. Although DRM as a specific
issue is relatively new for Plan International, it is now incorporated into every country management
plan and DRM units for preparedness to response have been created41. Therefore, “internal” capacity
development comes first and happens mainly through face-to-face meetings and online modules. But
Plan International is also active in developing the capacities of others. For example, it facilitates the
Uganda National Platform for DRR and works with the civil protection unit in Zimbabwe.
38
http://cdkn.org/regions/africa/
39
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php
40
http://plan-international.org/where-we-work/africa
41
http://plan-international.org/what-we-do/emergencies, see also the DRM strategy available at:
http://plan-international.org/files/global/publications/emergencies/disaster-risk-management-strategy.pdf
60
3.2.6 DRR and CCA-related activities at the ICLEI42 Africa Office
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), the world's leading association of cities and local
governments dedicated to sustainable development, engages in many DRR and CCA-related activities
from the local to the global level. It represents the interests of local authorities within the United
Nations and at international policy forums and offers information, tools, networking, training and
consulting services on the ground. Key environmental work streams within the Africa Office (based in
Cape Town, South Africa) and includes climate resilience, low emission development, integrated urban
water management, urban biodiversity and integrated urban planning. ICLEI Africa is also home to the
ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Centre and the flagship biodiversity programme, namely Local Action for
Biodiversity (LAB).
The project that was referred to during the workshop was called “Sub-Saharan African Cities: A FiveCity Network to Pioneer Climate Adaptation through Participatory Research and Local Action”43 and
ran between 2009 and 2012. This project aimed to address the knowledge, resource, capacity and
networking gaps of five Southern African cities by strengthening their ability to plan for, and adapt to,
the impacts associated with climate change. The five urban centres and their allocated climatic
variables chosen for this project were:
Cape Town, South Africa – Increasing temperatures
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania – Changes in precipitation and rainfall patterns (drought)
Maputo, Mozambique – Changes in precipitation and rainfall patterns (flooding)
Port Louis, Mauritius – Changes in wind speed
Walvis Bay, Namibia – Increases in sea level (permanent and non-permanent)
The overarching objectives of this project were to develop five tailor-made adaptation frameworks
and to establish a standardised approach for the collection and analyses of climatic base-line data.
Specifically, multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral local stakeholder platforms were to be established
(and/or built upon) comprising of academics, communities and the local government in order to
facilitate knowledge sharing, promote proactive climate adaptation and resource opportunities
available for African cities with the view to ensure long-term sustainability. ICLEI Africa was closely
working with UN-Habitat in this project and was supported by the Climate Change Adaptation in Africa
(CCAA)44 research and capacity development programme which was launched in 2006 and jointly
42
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=13086
43
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=africa-adaptation
44
http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=1131
61
July 2013
funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the United Kingdom’s
Department for International Development (DFID).
Among the techniques employed to obtain information from the participating community members
were ICLEI's Local Interactive Climate Change and Risk and Adaptation Prioritisation (Local RAP) tool
as well as a photography workshop. The first part of the RAP enables the community to identify its
own vulnerabilities and certain (climatic) risk conditions / characteristics. The second part includes a
stakeholder platform for identifying and prioritising locally appropriate adaptation options pertaining
to the climatic variables identified during the community-based assessment (CBA) in part I. This is
complemented by a sectoral risk tool that runs in parallel with the more technical people, policy
makers, and the planners from the transport, energy, and water sector so that they could identify and
prioritise their vulnerabilities and measures as well.
Furthermore, an online tool was developed where the local government can accesses the RAP tool and
the sectoral tool, helping to generate a report with locally appropriate SMART goals (Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Time-sensitive), which together with the visible benefits were
seen as criteria for a good practice. These kind of projects feed into decision making processes such as
the local climate change solutions congress, from which the African Mayor’s declaration on climate
change45 resulted.
3.2.7 DRR and CCA-related activities by the IFRC and its Southern Africa Representation Office
in Gaborone, Botswana46
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is the world's
largest humanitarian network that reaches 150 million people in 187 National Societies through the
work of over 13 million volunteers. It is extremely active in DRM with very comprehensive
approaches. Capacity building is here understood as developing the internal capacities of the National
Societies and their volunteers. Among the many practices, the VCA47 tool for training volunteers and
staff for general DRR was mentioned. Furthermore there are the Community First Aid Tool and the
Disaster Management Information System48. Courses offered in this context have a typical duration of
45
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=12202
46
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/africa
47
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/preparing-for-disaster/disaster-preparedness-tools/disaster-
preparedness-tools
48
https://www-secure.ifrc.org/DMISII/Pages/00_Home/login.aspx
62
two weeks and are part of most projects. However, in many projects the ideas of prevention and
resilience are often still too abstract and therefore missing.
Specifically related to climate change (but not only in Africa), in 2002 the Netherlands Red Cross
together with the IFRC established the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre49 which supports
National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in their work to reduce loss of life and damage to the
livelihoods from climate change and extreme-weather events. See also IFRC (2006).
The project presented was called “Diversified Agriculture and Livelihood Support Option for the
Zambezi River Basin” (DALSO) within the Zambezi River Basin Initiative (ZRBI). The ZRBI represents a
shared vision amongst southern Africa National Societies of maximising the impact of Red Cross
interventions in an integrated and holistic way50. It focuses on building communities’ capacities and
resilience to cope with the challenges related to flooding and general poverty in the districts along the
Zambezi River. Consequently communities are also supported in a variety of activities to improve
livelihoods in the sectors of water supply and sanitation, health and agriculture. The IFRC Southern
Africa office was asked to appoint a technical team to support the development of the ZRBI concept
and to convene a meeting of the disaster management coordinators (DMCs) of the seven National
Societies involved in the initiative (Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and
Zimbabwe).
The DALSO project is a follow-up to the previous food security DRR project that was implemented in
2011/12 to complement the on-going ZRBI. It is a multi-partner arrangement between DRM branch of
the FAO, the IFRC/National Red Cross, national DRM units and Ministries of Agriculture and other FS
DRR partners in the Namibia and Zambia, where IFRC through its National Societies is implementing
the activities. Geographically, the project will cover the Caprivi region (Namibia) and the districts of
Kazungula, Sesheke and Siavonga (Zambia) and will try to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable
communities and household livelihoods to the risk of food insecurity and agriculture losses caused by
seasonal floods. Arguments by the presenter for it being a good practice were that it follows a longterm planning approach (as encouraged by the HFA), it creates synergies and linkages with integrated
activities transcending the programme areas, it combines risk reduction (prevention) with response
(instead of response only) and that it addresses vulnerabilities instead of only actual effects on the
elements at risk. Furthermore, the focus is on National Societies and volunteers within their
communities so that all stages of DRR–from planning to implementation–are targeted and embedded
49
http://www.climatecentre.org
50
http://www.icp-confluence-sadc.org/projects/zambezi-river-basin-initiative-zrbi
63
July 2013
in the local/regional context. Through this regional approach, where the communities in the two
countries share many of the same challenges and resources, can benefit from similar solutions.
3.2.8 DRR and CCA-related activities by Enda TM51
Environment Development and Action in the Third World (Enda TM) was created in 1972, as a
joint programme of the African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (IDEP), the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Swedish International Development and Cooperation
Agency (SIDA). Its headquarters are based in Dakar, Senegal, and works in 40 countries in Africa, Asia,
Latin America and Europe. At the local level, Enda TM seeks to improve the lives of vulnerable groups,
while at the international level it is involved in action-oriented research, capacity building and
advocacy initiatives around topics such as climactic change, the Millennium Development Goals, fair
trade, WTO negotiations, debt cancellation, human rights, and violence against women and children.
Enda TM is furthermore one of the three host organisations – the other two being the Forum for
Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) and the Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) of
the East African Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) – of the independent bilingual
network (French/English) AfricaAdapt52. The network’s aim is to facilitate the flow of climate change
adaptation knowledge for sustainable livelihoods between researchers, policy makers, civil society
organisations and communities who are vulnerable to climate variability and change across the
continent.
The AfricaAdapt platform was mentioned during the presentation on climate change vulnerability
assessment and adaptation planning in urban areas with examples from Gambia and Senegal. One of
the case studies is the densely populated city of Banjul, Gambia. Located in low-lying coastal lands it is
exposed to climate variability, coastal erosion, saline infiltration of ground water, the Gambia River’s
seasonal flooding, and a loss of biodiversity (e.g. encroachment on wetlands and cutting of mangrove
forest). Here, solid waste was used to fill in wetlands which turned out to be a bad practice. The
objectives of the study are to assess and map vulnerability, raise awareness on climate change,
suggest possible adaptation measures, identify and assess existing and past local knowledge systems
and coping strategies for disaster management, and to develop systems by which successful work
undertaken can be reproduced in a flexible but sustainable manner in the future by local civil society
51
http://endatiersmonde.org
52
http://www.africa-adapt.net
64
and/or community-based organisations using methodologies that they themselves have been
instrumental in developing.
The other case study presented was a vulnerability assessment in Pikine in the region of Dakar,
Senegal. It is also a densely populated, peri-urban and low-lying area with a high water table. Socioecological vulnerability materialises in the form of informal settlements, encroachment on wetlands,
disappearance of the vegetation cover, poor waste management and drainage systems, seasonal
flooding, and frequent outbreaks of parasitic diseases.
Trying to ameliorate the situation, Enda TM is engaging stakeholders (national, district and local
levels) from the start through participatory approaches such as surveys (e.g. CBOs are asked what they
need to build flood-proof houses), trainings for journalists, CBOs and students (risk
communication/knowledge sharing), simple transfers of simple technology, and a stakeholder
platform/workshops for the interaction among community leaders, government agencies and
departments, city councils, NGOs/CBOs, and the media. Local but also countrywide platforms are
needed for exchange and collaboration. The research activities make use of participatory tools (e.g.
Cristal, Adaptation Decision Explorer, Climate information Portal) for resource and capacity mapping,
vulnerability assessments, developing, screening and selecting adaptation options.
As for its characterisation as a good practice by the presenter, the project gained political approval and
collaboration and there was local and institutional ownership and inclusiveness. The study
furthermore enhanced the local capacities for assessing vulnerability, for adaptation planning, and for
sharing knowledge among community members through its research activities. It had a replicable
approach which encourages continuous sharing of skills and knowledge.
3.2.9 The country-wide disaster risk management system in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, the Disaster Risk Management & Food Security Sector (DRMFSS)53 of the Ministry of
Agriculture, showed a good example for a national comprehensive legal and institutional framework
that benefitted significantly from secondments by technical staff of the United Nations’ World Food
Programme (WFP). Although Ethiopia has seen steady and high economic growth in the last several
years, it is globally one of the most disaster-prone countries and the impact of disasters on rolling back
the socio-economic gains cannot be underestimated. Ethiopia made a paradigm shift around 2008
from an emergency-focused system with conventional and mostly ad-hoc response towards a
proactive disaster risk management system. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) led to a
realisation that DRM is a more effective and economic way of mitigating the effect of disasters. It
53
http://www.dppc.gov.et/
65
July 2013
inspired the Government of Ethiopia to establish the new institutional structure (DRMFSS)
commissioned to implement the new approach. It adopted the full cycle of DRM, consisting of
prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. One of the first steps was
the establishment of an information system that could answer questions like:
Where do disasters take place?
Why do they take place there?
Who gets affected?
What makes them vulnerable to these disasters?
As a result, DRMFSS launched an innovative programme on Disaster Risk Profiling for every district
(Kebele) in the country that would use a standard method of looking at risk:
examining underlying causes of disaster risk and designing risk reduction programmes
defining the kind of early warning and response system that needs to be established in different
risk contexts
informing a comprehensive contingency plan at district level
The Disaster Risk Profiles give ready and real-time information to achieve these objectives (e.g. kind of
hazards and their interrelations in a district). This information can then be used not only to decide
what kind of hazards need to be monitored but also redesigning the early warning tools (collected on
weekly, monthly and quarterly basis) to suit the relevant requirements. The multi-sectorial and multihazard contingency planning process involves five essential steps: risk analyses; identifying, defining
and prioritizing contingencies; analysing scenarios for the planning process; preparing a plan for each
selected scenario; and maintaining and updating the plans. The Disaster Risk Profiles provide
information on the first three steps, implying that while preparing the contingency plans these steps
need not be repeated.
This programme is fully government-led and operated and presents a classic case of streamlined
capacity development of governments at all levels. Once the methodologies, indicators and study tools
were developed and tested in the field, data was collected and trainings were conducted (all by
government staff) at the federal level that were cascaded down to the lowest administrative levels. So
far, data for over 200 districts have been collected, consisting of over 80,000 household surveys, over
3000 focus group discussions with communities and over 2000 interviews with key district level
government and non-government staff. Besides community involvement during the development of
the profiles, they also pay attention to gender issues (a related study on gender-based profiles is being
conducted).
66
The programme is being funded by a series of donors, while the government and the GFDRR are
putting the implementation of this activity on top of their agenda. Such profiles also work as baselines
for project implementation by NGOs and other agencies. This has also led to a standardisation of risk
assessments in the country, wherein the assessment methodology has been endorsed by the Central
Statistical Agency. The implementation of the Disaster Risk Profiling programme is leading to an
informed decision-making process in Ethiopia. This is being regarded as a best-practice case in the
IGAD region that needs replication in other parts of the world.
There are some strong coordination mechanisms in place in Ethiopia, including the national and subnational DRM platforms, which would be further strengthened by the plan to establish a “multi-donor
trust fund”. Apart from that, there is an online database for risk baselines and risk assessments under
construction. So whoever in this country is implementing any programme on DRM follows the same
profile, the same standardised and basic modality of implementation of the programmes.
3.2.10 Academic capacity development within the Periperi U university network54
The network Periperi U, standing for Partners Enhancing Resilience to People Exposed to Risks,
is a good example for successful multidisciplinary and cross-country cooperation between African
universities and for the advancement and integration of DRR in academic curricula. This good practice
comes in the form of applying and integrating formal education, short course training, applied/local
research, risk and vulnerability reduction policy advocacy for both rural and urban settings, and
partnership development and experience sharing through training and exchange visits within Africa
and beyond. It is funded by USAID and managed by the Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods
Programme (DiMP) at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, simultaneously one of its partners. This
research centre is the regional administration and technical support point for ProVention’s Applied
Grantee Programme in Africa, the focal point for the African Urban Risk Analysis Network, and a central
member of the global PHREE-Way initiative (Partnership for Humanitarian and Risk Education
Expansion).
From 2006-2007 Periperi U began with a pilot-test year in five academic institutions located in
Algeria, Ethiopia, South Africa and Tanzania. This resulted in six locally relevant risk reduction short
courses being conducted by four institutions that reached over 170 practitioners and students –
covering a broad portfolio of topics, from seismic vulnerability to community risk assessment. The
clear successes from the pilot year provided confidence for the partnership to expand its activities
more broadly across Africa. With the aim of strengthening disaster risk-related teaching and learning
54
http://riskreductionafrica.org/en/rra-ddr-per/rra-whatisperiperi
67
July 2013
capacity in institutions across East, West and Southern Africa, the partnership grew to include ten
universities.
Both Periperi U and DiMP communicate through the Risk Reduction Africa website that aims at
providing a platform for exchanging information on short to long-term graduate and postgraduate
courses, their costs, available scholarship support and entry requirements. The website is available in
English, French and Portuguese, which recognises the many challenges in working across Africa, and
the obstacles generated by only communicating in English.
These collective efforts were illustrated by the example of the Department of Disaster Risk
Management & Sustainable Development at Bahir Dar University (College of Agriculture &
Environmental Sciences) in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia that in turn works closely together with the National
Disaster Risk Management & Food Security Sector (DRMFSS, see above).
3.2.11 Projects by Christian Aid in collaboration with the University of Ouagadougou
An association from Burkina Faso called “SOS Santé et Développement”, financed by Christian Aid55
and involving the University of Ouagadougou within the CLUVA project context was presented as a
good practice for assessing vulnerabilities and for developing capacities related the adaptation of local
(rural) communities to climate change. They are working closely with the government which has
agreed to accept several conventions and to adopt contingency plans, a national adaptation plan, and a
plan to reinforce the capacities of the emergency services. Starting with 11 villages, this association
helps to acquire more information about the regions in the country and adapt their approach to other
villages. The approach relies on four steps, namely (1) the participative diagnosis of community
vulnerability, (2) the adaptation of target group-specific communication tools, (3) the approach to
reinforce capacities and realise adaptation actions, and (4) the realisation of advocacy. During the
vulnerability assessment and for the identification, characterisation and prioritisation of activities,
meetings in the villages are held with responsible members of the household using MARP tools (tree of
problem; social map of resources, transect walks, historic profile of the village, etc.). In terms of
communication with the population, a very visual and interactive approach is followed through maps
and drawings about the state of the environment before humans intervened, what was changed, how it
is today and how it could be in the future. Also a bilingual sensitisation calendar was created. For the
third step, messages on climate change impacts and adaptation are transmitted through open air
theatres for children and adults, through local singers and radio emissions, animation workshops and
55
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/whatwedo/africa/burkina_faso.aspx (member of the ACT Alliance)
68
trainings on simple structural measures (water barriers with stones, “half-moon” irrigation, new
breeds, fireplace safety, composting, etc.).
Another project by Christian Aid that was mentioned is called Building Disaster Resilient Communities
(BDRC). Since 2009, it has aimed at supporting a systematic method for a baseline assessment of
community vulnerability56 in Burkina Faso and Mali. The first of the three phases of the approach is
about choosing relevant actors, meeting authorities, informing other concerned participants, building
a team, selecting concepts and tools, etc. The second phase is dedicated to participatory data collection
which involves mobilising representatives of the communities, mapping risks and capacities, and
group discussions. In the third phase, an action plan is elaborated that contains the specific problems,
proposed activities, their costs (and the overall costs of the action plan), a timeline, responsibilities,
and the available resources of the community.
Further information can also be found at http://community.eldis.org/.59e3c45b, which is a site
maintained by five agencies – ActionAid, Christian Aid, Plan International, Practical Action and Tearfund
– to share their experiences from each of their five-year, DFID-funded projects across a range of
disasters. It also publishes Joto Afrika, a new series of briefings and online resources reporting on
climate change in sub-Saharan Africa that provides a forum for sharing experiences, thoughts and
actions on climate change issues, for discussing articles or for submitting own material and ideas.
3.2.12 Vulnerability assessment in Addis Ababa by EiABC of Addis Ababa University57
The Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building Construction and City Planning (EiABC) of
Addis Ababa University is involved in a number of international, national and city-wide activities
related to CCA and through this, DRR. In the context of the CLUVA project58, approaches and results of
vulnerability assessments in different informal areas of Addis Ababa were presented. It highlights
especially the participation of different stakeholder groups and the good cooperation between
Academic institutions, the city government and community-based organisations.
The task that EiABC and UFZ are involved in is characterised by the use of a comprehensive
vulnerability framework that focuses on four specific dimensions: (1) assets (resources that people
have when faced with a disaster), the (2) institutional dimension (urban governance at local level), the
(3) attitudinal (trust and social inclusion, network and risk awareness as key items to understand the
56
Évaluation – vulnerabilité – capacités (EVC)
57
http://www.eiabc.edu.et
58
http://www.cluva.eu
69
July 2013
urban dynamics when a disaster occurs) and the (4) physical dimension (the state of the urban
environment within which all the above dimension interact). Apart from a study on the assessment of
the institutional capacity of Addis Ababa, results from participatory assessments of the other three
dimensions were presented. It showed that the groups especially vulnerable are the urban poor, the
non-working (those below 15 years of age and the elderly older than 60 years of age), people with
disabilities, women-led households, people with a low level of literacy, education and awareness, and
people living in illegal/informal settlements who depend to a large extent on urban agriculture.
In addition and coinciding with this workshop, the conference ADDIS 205059 – an alternative pathway
into Ethiopia’s future – was held on 9-10 October 2012 at the EiABC campus in Addis Ababa. The
Green Forum Ethiopia under the leadership of the German Heinrich Boell Foundation in Addis Ababa
commissioned the ETH Future Cities Laboratory (FCL) in Singapore EiABC to invent an alternative
“green” scenario for the city of Addis Ababa in the year 2050. The conference concentrated on the
issues of energy, mobility, cultural and social space, housing and information because urban growth,
infrastructural deficiencies, water and energy shortages, and environmental hazards challenge the
current modus operandi.
3.2.13 Exploring the social vulnerability of households in informal settlements in Dar es Salaam
by IHSS of Ardhi University60
Also from the CLUVA project context, at the Institute of Human Settlements Studies (IHSS) of Ardhi
University in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, vulnerability assessments are carried out in especially floodprone areas in the coastal city of Dar es Salaam. They start from the arguments that (1) vulnerability
assessment needs to be embedded in the socio-economic, political, environmental and cultural
contexts in order to be effective, that (2) it should rather follow a bottom-up approach, considering
how households and communities are vulnerable to and adapt to climate change induced hazards; and
that (3) the use of mixed methods (participatory – qualitative, indicator-based – quantitative) is better
able to explain who is vulnerable, how vulnerability manifests itself among those at risk and for which
reasons. Qualitative approaches take into account the participation and perception of those at risk to
provide explanations, whereas quantitative approaches allow for measuring vulnerability by relating
different variables. The vulnerability framework used is the same as by EiABC and has the overall aim
of identifying who is vulnerable, what conditions influence this vulnerability and which capacities exist
in terms of coping and adapting to environmental hazards.
59
http://www.hebel.arch.ethz.ch/?cat=43
60
http://www.aru.ac.tz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=231
70
Semi-structured interviews in 10% of the households, focus group discussions (men vs. women, highly
flooded zones vs. moderately flooded areas) for mapping community facilities and services, and
observations were conducted to reveal attitudes, expectations and networks of the population. For
example, the perceived degree of risk is largely influenced by past experiences and flooding is seen
only a secondary problem. Residents trust other residents rather than the government. The networks
consist of tribal and religious groups, women and widow groups, youth clubs, elderly associations,
political parties, friends, and relatives with overlapping frequentation. Together with local and
international NGOs, UNICEF, USAID, faith-based organisations and governments, they have developed
the coping strategies of prevention before (e.g. raising building foundations, construction of protection
walls and drainage channels), during (temporary relocation, placing household materials higher, using
sand bags, tree logs and car tires), and after (cleaning of rivers and drainage channels) a flood event.
The asset and physical vulnerabilities are characterised by poor building materials, poor basic
infrastructure facilities (e.g. solid waste management, sanitation system), social services disruption,
and so on. At the same university, the Disaster Management Training Center (DMTC) is a partner of the
Periperi U network (see above).
3.2.14 Vulnerability assessment in Douala by the University of Yaoundé
A further partner of the CLUVA project is the University of Yaoundé in Cameroon, working on a case
study site (Mambanda) in the coastal city of Douala, the oldest and economically most important in the
country. This city is located at the Wouri estuary about 24 km inland of the Atlantic Ocean with very
abundant rainfall (up to 4000 mm between March and November). Both location and precipitation are
the cause of frequent floods, aggravated by the accumulation of sand and by wind storms,/high tides
linked to sea level rise. The city’s population of about 2.5-3 million inhabitants is expected to grow at a
rate of 5% per year and reach 5 million in 2025.
Mambanda is located directly along the estuary’s creeks and is characterised by unplanned,
spontaneous and illegal occupation since the last 30 years. There are many poorly built houses, few
usable roads, many drains and pit holes around the houses, non-protected latrines communicating
with the drainage system and the rivers, formal and informal electric networks, little social
infrastructures (schools, hospital, etc.), and insalubrity. Thus, vulnerability is high in all its dimensions,
and no adaptation or evacuation plan exists.
However, formal and informal community-based organisations are complementing in many ways the
existing individual strategies of the households. They are setting up “internal” frameworks, acquiring
legal status, collecting money and providing small-scale financing, sensitising the community,
communicating with local governments and NGOs, and realising small projects (construction and
71
July 2013
maintenance of drains and paths, embankments of roads, new bridges, connecting to electricity,
cleaning the environment, building social infrastructure, etc.). However, they are facing many
difficulties while doing so: urban planning and land management is weak, very poor communities are
neglected by governments, political lifetime of mayors is too short to obtain sufficient knowledge on
actors and issues, and more solid waste management and enforcement of regulations are needed.
One of the aims of CATALYST is to collect and share knowledge, approaches, and experiences between
stakeholders within and between the case study regions. Practices are being collected from internet
and literature search, from interviews and workshops such as this one for the Africa region. It is
assumed that, if practices are selected by stakeholders and participants to be presented in one way or
the other, that they are “good” practices. Thus during the group sessions the teams tried to identify
characteristics and quality criteria for good practices. From these, eventually “best or transformative”
practices will be identified and selected for the project’s knowledge products. Best practices would
then refer to DRR and CCA practices that ideally would be being carried out or that are already being
carried out with a high potential of replication and transformation.
Criteria for good practices could be:
Embedded in a country-wide and even regionally/continentally mainstreamed legal and
institutional DRR/CCA framework with the national and regional governments on board or
leading it;
Compliance with a sustainable development framework;
Definition of standards that influence the standards and practices of other actors.
Using or referring to clear definitions of key terms (such as risk, vulnerability, DRR, etc.)
Acknowledgement and application of (public) participation at various levels and stages in the
decision-making and implementation process (in order to incorporate especially local knowledge
and representative views of all population groups, etc.);
Where donors not only act as donors that want to see value for money, but where they engage as
facilitators and on a long-term basis and take over those activities (such as procurement or
recruitment) that beneficiaries are not capable of at the moment;
Focus not only on short-term post disaster relief but also on long-term preventive measures;
72
Sharing their results and methods and ensuring their activities are sustained and rooted in the
respective target community (formal and informal spokesmen on board).
Authorship and therefore ownership by local/African authors;
Benefitting from secondments which are also typical for the German Development Cooperation
(GIZ61, a bilateral development agency) that allow for renewal and exchange from “inside”.
Acknowledgement of a difference between the rural and urban context and ability to transfer
approaches from rural to urban areas (from different geographical areas in general);
Addressing both the source and the receptor area of a hazard
An important statement given in this context and shared by all participants was that one needs to
engage in CCA through disasters within a specific context (thus through DRR). There is a need to
“demystify” climate change. This involves two-way communication – giving statistics and scientific
facts to the community and also taking information back from these communities.
There was also agreement that if an organisation or community is not capable of conducting successful
DRR/CCA projects, external actors should engage as funders, facilitators, trainers, etc. However, the
actual “process” should not be taken over by the latter; it should rather remain as much as possible in
the hands of the respective country, community or organisation.
In terms of lessons learnt for the project, the distinction between good practices for general DRR and
CCA on the one hand and capacity development activities on the other seemed artificial. During the
group session on capacity development there were long discussions about what it really means, and
what the added value of the concept is compared to general development cooperation and
humanitarian aid efforts. For example, The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) - for the
advancement of science in developing countries 62, which is a CATAYST project partner, claims that
everything they do worldwide can actually be called capacity development. Other voices were that all
development is about enhancing capacities.
Furthermore, it was not always easy to allocate the practices mentioned to the four thematic foci of the
workshop. Many organisations are taking on holistic approaches that often cover all these aspects in
61
An additional interview with a GIZ employee seconded to the Ethiopian Ministry of Urban Development was
conducted in Addis Ababa on 17 October 2012. Information can be found at http://www.giz.de
62
http://www.twas.org TWAS offers prizes, PhD fellowships, South-South-Partnerships, grants for equipment and
consumables, exchange opportunities, meetings or support for them, and collaborations in certain research projects. TWAS
has strong links with the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, and with UNESCO
which administers TWAS’ funds and personnel.
73
July 2013
their projects. It however turned out that a certain focus was on activities related to the assessment of
vulnerabilities (often with a strong participatory component) and to the training of different target
groups. But also examples of comprehensive legal and institutional or internal organisational
frameworks were mentioned. The assessment of hazards, concrete structural measures, and the
evaluation and monitoring of measures and programmes were less present in the presentations but
were intensively discussed.
We are aware that there are many other important players carrying out good practices – within
international organisations such as (UNISDR) as the coordinating DRR mechanism within the UN
system63, UNECA’s African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC)64, the joint World Meteorological
Organization’s (WMO) and Global Water Partnership’s (GWP) Associated Programme on Flood
Management (APFM)65, UNICEF, FAO, etc.; funded by international finance institutions such as the
World Bank which is the implementing organisation for the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery (GFDRR)66, the Global Environment Facility (GEF)67, or the African Development Bank
(AfDB) and by bilateral development agencies (GIZ, DFID, AFD, IDRC, etc.); within international NGOs
(e.g. Oxfam68, CARE International69) and faith-based organisations (the two biggest networks being the
catholic CARITAS Internationalis70 and the protestant ACT Alliance71, but also many others) and
relevant partnerships, networks and consortia (e.g. ClimDev-Africa72, ACCRA73, GNDR74, etc.).
63
A comprehensive overview of the roles, mandates and areas of work of a core set of United Nations agencies and
the World Bank in support of national effort to reduce disaster risk is compiled in the publication "Disaster risk reduction in
the United Nations 2011" which is available at: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/18933.
64
http://new.uneca.org/acpc/home_acpc.aspx
65
http://www.apfm.info
66
https://www.gfdrr.org
67
http://www.thegef.org
68
http://www.oxfam.org
69
http://www.care-international.org
70
http://www.caritas.org
71
http://www.actalliance.org
72
http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/climate-for-development-in-africa-climdev-
africa-initiative
73
http://community.eldis.org/accra
74
Global Network for Disaster Reduction, http://www.globalnetwork-dr.org
74
In addition to these actors covering many aspects in DRR and CCA, other actors are more specialised in
terms of areas of intervention, region, scope, etc. PreventionWeb75 is the leading public web portal on
DRR/DRM by UNISDR, whereas ReliefWeb76 is the specialised digital service of the United Nations
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for reliable humanitarian information on
global crises and disasters. Comprehensive information on climate change issues is provided by the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)77.
3.4 Gaps and barriers in and barriers for DRR/CCA
After collecting and discussing an impressive variety of DRR/CCA practices, Group session II was
dedicated to identifying the gaps and needs in as well as the barriers for DRR/CCA, and to the
underlying question who claims these gaps, barriers and needs. First, all groups discussed what kind
of gaps could exist. These were:
Missing linkages and coordination (i.e. also fragmentation of responsibilities);
Institutional gaps (e.g. missing responsibilities and legal frameworks, low enforcement);
Knowledge gaps (about what is going on e.g. in the informal sector, data access, etc.);
Gaps in financing;
Gaps between talk and action and barriers in implementation, including a lack of participation of
all potentially involved parties.
Additional questions only partly addressed were:
1. What are the gaps or weaknesses in the assessments of hazards, vulnerabilities, and related
uncertainties? Are foresight studies/scenarios commonly applied in the DRR/CCA processes?
What is the level of social inclusiveness/(public) participation in these exercises?
2. What are the gaps, weaknesses, needs with respect to interventions/measures?
What possibly very effective measures in DRR do you know of that are not/only little applied?
What are the gaps or weaknesses in the assessments of measures (e.g. cost-benefits of
measures, assessment criteria, quality indicators, etc.)?
3. In your area, does the policy and decision making to support DRR/CCA use the insights and
lessons learnt from scientific projects and other studies (including uncertainty)? If yes, how?
75
http://www.preventionweb.net
76
http://reliefweb.int
77
http://unfccc.int
75
July 2013
3.4.1 Identified gaps, barriers and needs
Gaps in coordination
As a result from the discussion, there seems to be a big disconnect between a number of things – talk
and action, levels of intervention (e.g. local to national), science and practice, different initiatives,
sectoralisation of responsibilities (development aid vs. humanitarian aid), etc.
All groups agreed that there is especially a lack of coordination. For example there is competing
funding even between UN agencies, with the funding sometimes not being sufficiently targeted and
channelled. In general, UN participants mentioned that even within the UN many activities lack
coordination and synergy. A highlighted issue was also the lack of synergy between DRR and CCA
activities. The issue exists not only at the regional or national level. On the continental level, for DRR
there is UNISDR Africa and for climate change (adaptation) there is UNECA (ACPC), both responding
with different funding sources and with different international organisations behind them. These
efforts need to trickle down to the regional and national levels. The main problem is that on the
ground, the same community is dealing simultaneously with plantations, afforestation, water
conservation, etc., whereas at higher levels they are dealt with as separate sectors. There is the risk,
and evidence of, the duplication of funds in terms of manpower, finance, and decision making.
Especially representatives from NGOs and research institutions, working closely together with other
NGOs and local communities, claimed that there are furthermore “messy” approaches in risk
assessment which cause confusion although there is awareness (e.g. confusing messages to the target
groups by the many actors). They were missing clear guidelines and attributed the mess also to
structural changes in the donor organisations.
Institutional gaps
The lack of coordination directly leads to institutional gaps. Many participants mentioned the marked
mobility of structures and agencies, resulting in a lack of institutional memory. Not every UN agency
has a national or regional presence in a country, so in some areas efforts do not get through. If national
DRR platforms do not work properly, UNISDR addresses the RECs and larger NGOs instead or in
addition. Some bigger organisations, such as UN institutions seem to be “victims of visibility”, i.e. they
are to a large extent busy with managing their reputation and not with managing the actual problem.
From an UN perspective, NGOs have to keep themselves relevant and also need to survive.
According to the participants, there is a lack of clear frameworks (policy/law) on all levels, of
leadership and authority at the community level, and of community participation (there is a lot of
participation in the assessment, but not much in decision making). On the one hand a legal, more
76
formal framework is needed, on the other hand it should be inclusive enough to allow for these
participatory decision-making processes so that communities do not only implement what comes from
higher levels. NGOs often can only be active at the local level, not where more large-scale and longterm decisions are made, so that is why their engagement is often short-term. This relates to very
centralised governance schemes in many countries, where local governments cannot design their
development plans.
Institutionally a lack of trust (and therefore again of coordination) between different levels was
identified. If they do not trust each other it means they cannot implement common goals. Different
institutions/actors have different and often conflicting interests – everyone wants to follow own
interests and institutions in the same field work without communicating with each other. But to
effectively implement DRR at all levels more political will and commitment is needed that can make
things happen. This is also linked to the issue of financing. If they are not willing they are not assigning
a budget.
Knowledge gaps and communication/information barrier
Many problems are related to gaps and barriers in knowledge, information/data sharing and
communication. First, there are problems related to language and education. Issues of illiteracy and
innumeracy are still a barrier to overcome. It is furthermore challenging to translate scientific
language into everyday language, to understand the different disciplinary languages used in risk
assessments, and to translate material into local languages. This leads to a lack of understanding of
certain technologies which in the end are not used.
Second, lacking information and communication infrastructure is often a clear barrier. The lack of
proper communication was actually seen as the most important issue by many participants. It leads to
reduced effectiveness of the networks, to information overload and to duplication of information.
Information should be linked to different actors and not diffuse, i.e. where it comes from and whom it
is aimed at. Despite modern information and communication technologies, distance between (remote)
locations could still be a barrier in the African countries for timely DRR activities.
Another problem that is also related to communication barriers is the fact that often there is not one
single entry point of intervention (i.e. different ministries and actors), so information gets lost. There
are institutions and structures existing and in place now to address these gaps, but they are still very
undeveloped, with varying performances and rather broad and sometimes overlapping mandates
(examples are ACMAD, AMCAP, AMCEN, AMCAW, and IGPAC). However, some participants argued that
the data collection capacity seems to have been higher before and has been decreasing lately. The
quality is still good or better, but the quantity is not as good as before. Often, experience is not well
77
July 2013
documented and/or this documentation is neither well-funded nor shared. So there is minimal
institutional memory and a tendency to pilot and pilot with not a lot of documentation (or if it is there
it is not readily available, e.g. on a platform). Thus there is a lot of knowledge, but it lacks
dissemination and easy access. Finally, indigenous knowledge is often not recognised and
acknowledged enough.
Financial gaps
Obviously, for some activities there are inadequate resources (e.g. a lack of equipment) and
insufficient funding is sometimes the most important issue. There is especially limited and untargeted
funding to the local and/or (government) levels for which it is still difficult to influence budget
allocation. But sometimes it is an issue of priority. Problems are conflicts of interests, and the
misallocation and embezzlement of resources as they are often not channelled to their target/final
destination. So even if the funding is there, it cannot be directed to DRR issues because they have not
been defined as such. This results in unsustainable projects that only have project objectives and no
overall objectives. And of course there are issues of corruption.
One group was wondering whether it was necessary to make infrastructure gaps a separate issue
because in Africa’s towns there are problems with infrastructure in terms of quality, durability, etc.
Finally they related the issue of infrastructure to financing.
Gaps between talk and action/implementation
Many issues that came up during the discussions were related to the enforcement of laws and the
implementation of plans and programmes. There is generally a weak enforcement of laws and
multilateral agreements, which can only happen in stages. For example, the African component of the
Global Adaptation Network has not really taken off (especially in comparison to Asia and South
America), although it had been launched in 2009. However, many things were triggered in 2005 after
the Johannesburg Plan of Action78, but there are still gaps between talk and action. There are good
talks and actions on the ground, but not higher up. The psychology of decision makers is about
economy.
As for the UN agencies, they are increasingly becoming facilitators and half-implementers of all these
activities, whereas before they were more seen as donors. Thus, the national governments’ buy-in of
UN activities is still insufficient.
78
http://www.worldsummit2002.org
78
In terms of implementation, there seems to be no clear definition of DRM and DRR, etc., so
stakeholders are not able to define clear implementation levels and ways (a chicken and egg problem).
It maybe inherent to DRR and CCA that its mandate is too broad which makes it difficult to determine
exactly what the issues are and who to approach to find out more about them. It is a domino effect that
there is a lack of enforcement, no clearly responsible authority, accountability, etc.
An issue that came up several times was the lack of participation not only in decision-making but also
during the implementation of measures, whereas in the assessments it is often already well
acknowledged.
Other gaps
For donors there is often an absence of evidence that their funded activities actually make a difference
on the ground, and what they are eager to see is value for money. One reason might be that the time to
assess the impact is usually directly after a disaster, but this is also the time when everyone is busy
with reconstruction and not with evaluating a measure. So even though it is important, it is,
paradoxically, less and less practical.
The informal settlements and the rapid urbanisation pose a huge underlying challenge, as the
population growth is exceeding the abilities of urban planners to provide what is required. For
example, there is often no secure space for temporary shelter after evacuation. There are also no
applicable standards for post crisis shelter in urban settings, where density is the major constraint.
Conflicts and crises were seen as a stand-alone barrier. Years of achievements are destroyed in
minutes by these kinds of disasters, not only the “natural ones”. The media is there for a while, but
then it is forgotten.
Finally, diverse scientific/methodological approaches could be difficult to bring together. In addition
to training students it would be also useful in many cases to train practitioners in the use of methods
and tools that emerge from science.
3.4.2 Conclusions of the gaps session
From the discussions in the three groups it appeared that in terms of assessing hazards, vulnerabilities
and subsequent risks, there are many approaches to choose from. So there is not necessarily a lack of
methods to execute these approaches – actors are rather overwhelmed with choices and offers which
may even lead to “messy”, uncoordinated activities. However, gaps in data availability and quality
were mentioned by all groups. Uncertainty in these data and also in decision-making, however, did not
79
July 2013
come up as an issue. At a higher level, regional climate change projections and population prospects
for the larger cities are recognised but do not necessarily feed into decisions (yet).
As for the level of participation, it seems to be common practice during the assessment of (social)
vulnerabilities in the many bottom-up approaches presented or existent. It is much less present when
implementing measures or crafting new laws, policies or more strategic decisions.
Actors have a diverse pool of measures, especially non-structural measures (also in terms of tools,
trainings, etc.) to choose from. What is lacking is evidence that these measures make a difference,
which is related to missing methods for assessing the impact these measures may have, and to the
quality, long-term monitoring, and maintenance of these interventions.
In Africa there are increasingly institutions in place that provide and share scientific knowledge on
hazards and vulnerabilities. However, these are often still fledgling and they lack resources and
sometimes political commitment within their countries and regions. Indigenous, local knowledge is
there and respected especially on the local level, where, for example, NGOs try to integrate it into their
work.
Interestingly, the most problematic issues were not so much related to the questions that were posed
to guide the discussions. A lack of coordination, trust and political will; vague legal and institutional
frameworks linked to weak enforcement of laws and problematic implementation of strategies and
measures; insufficient information exchange (partly due to missing infrastructure, distance, local
languages, definitions of terms and goals); and underlying challenges such as population growth and
disasters themselves (both natural and human-induced, such as armed conflicts) were seen as the
greatest barriers for successful and effective DRR and CCA.
80
In general, there needs to be more of the following: advocacy and action, bridging, and dissemination.
Cross-cutting issues were (* = received the most points):
1. Greater coordination between CCA, DRR and urban planning and between practitioners from
all levels and fields (but not for more actors and networks!)* (5+6 points). There is a need for
greater coordination between DRR and CCA at all levels, and in particular for their integration
into urban planning. Improved coordination is also necessary and between the many disparate
actors from all levels and fields. Points and areas of synergies between DRR and CCA need to be
identified and communicated. This does not necessarily mean more actors and networks, but
greater efforts/ new sharing platforms.
2. Advocacy for an institutionalised DRR/CCA framework* (7 points) with clear goals that is
embedded in a regulatory framework. There is a clear demand for an institutionalised DRRCCA framework with clear goals and objectives, embedded within a regulatory framework that
defines responsibilities and accountability. This, in turn, promotes investment in DRR-CCA
which should be sustained over the long term. Political commitment for DRR/CCA needs
continuously to be sought after, e.g. for funding DRR activities at higher levels.
3. Regional and country-wide knowledge platforms/networks. A generally approved
continental/regional knowledge (management) network and platform is needed with a
scientific foundation and a strong link to policy and practice (national nodes, 3 points). It
should consist of centres of excellence (including the UN) that build, maintain and support
networks for exchange between countries on DRR/CCA (1 point). This would ensure more
experience sharing between DRR / CCA community e.g. through standardised training modules
(1 point). For this, it is necessary to map agencies and their competencies to complement each
other or to support communities. This also includes better decision making processes. The best
is joint face-to-face trainings.
4. Data. There is an on-going need for basic data for hazard and vulnerability assessments that is
standardised, formally validated, easily and quickly accessible (3 points) to many users, and
affordable (cheap or free of charge, use of GPS and SMS). Data collection in each country, and
regional exchange of it, needs support.
5. Demonstration projects or role model organisation. There are numerous successful
projects that serve to demonstrate the effectiveness of new approaches, methods, tools and
81
July 2013
techniques in DRR/CCA. Demonstrating the good use of data also helps to build trust. It would
be good to identify a resilient community, institution or good practice (e.g. for data
collection/sharing, see the “knowledge fairs” by UNDP AAP) from DRR/CCA programming that
can be a model for replication (2 points). However, it is necessary to find ways to scale-up best
practices without replicating full studies (thus to bridge the gap between pilots + full-scale
implementation, 2 points). The need to develop a guidebook (2 points), e.g. for awareness
raising through community-based approaches (1 point) or for a more focused institutional
capacity development (leading to institutional effectiveness), was also mentioned.
6. Monitoring and evaluation. It is recommended that a comprehensive (evidence-based)
monitoring and evaluation strategy be put in place (1 point) and to provide funding for it so
that eventually funding goes to those areas with the highest needs (1 point). This would help to
ensure sustainability.
7. Secondments. In general, IOs should support secondments into national governments so that
a momentum of change comes from “inside”.
8. Communities should bid for / take over facilitation and challenge the higher levels.
9. Training of journalists to create awareness and build media capacity.
10. DRR/CCA in (school) curricula. Lastly, mention was made of the need to strongly foster the
introduction of DRR/CCA in school curricula (1 point) and at all levels of education. Capacity
development is also about training teachers. They will train pupils who will ask questions (e.g.
of their parents) and will hopefully want to know more and engage in DRR and CCA activities.
Thus, preparing standardised training modules was seen as useful (1 point).
11. Find new financing mechanisms and foster their understanding.
An issue that always came up (see Figure 8) was what capacity development actually means, pointing
at the meaning of clear definitions. Here, it is referred to Jaspers et al. (2012) and CADRI (2011). To
conclude, capacity development needs to take place on all levels, more specifically on:
institutional level (i.e. government authorities, legal frameworks, inspection and control, human
resources, public involvement);
technical level (hazard characteristics, data management);
on the level of coordination, implementation and monitoring (knowledge, information, and data
management, stakeholders coordination, etc.).
82
Figure 8: Working on the recommendations.
3.6 Recommendations for the sustainability of the Think Tank
Furthermore, recommendations for the Think Tank and the remaining duration of the CATALYST
project (and a possible follow-up, respectively) were collected. Recommendations included starting to
think of a succession strategy to ensure CATALYST’s sustainability (2 points), e.g. to keep a small
project secretariat to service and secure the TTM network, to set up a regional knowledge centre to
continue the work of CATALYST or to build into an existing platform, network, or organisations that
could take this on.
Maintaining the website and the online network for on-going discussions on selected regions until
another entity takes over was proposed. For this, it would be useful to map the different agencies and
their competencies and how they could complement each other.
Final reports of CATALYST should provide various small concept notes addressing the knowledge gaps
identified during the project so that other agencies, research institutes, academic institutions, NGOs,
professionals, practitioners, or students can take on the suggestions that are appropriate to their
capacity. This is already intended for the synthesis products of WP5 and the further
dissemination/knowledge products of WP6.
Gender issues may deserve more attention in DRR, CCA and urban planning within the CATALYST
regions and the countries involved. Lastly, the multiple hazards dimension was stressed. For example,
possibly add malaria as a natural hazard, as it is climate change-induced or at least aggravated by
climate-induced hazards.
83
July 2013
4 The Central America and Caribbean Regional Workshop
Elisa Calliari (FEEM)
Matt Hare (seeconsult)
& Jaroslav Mysiak (FEEM)
Place: Hilton Rose Hall Resort and Spa, Montego Bay, Jamaica
Date: 3-5 December, 2013
Number of TTM participants: 22 TTM/Guests; 5 Project partners
Organisers: FEEM
Co-Hosts: Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)
The Central America and Caribbean Regional Workshop (CAC-RW) took place from 3 to 5 December
2012 at the Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa in Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was organized in collaboration
with the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)79, the specialised institution of
CARICOM for natural disaster prevention, mitigation, and response, in the context of its 7th Annual
Caribbean Conference on Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM 7), held from 3-7 December also
at the Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa. CDM 7 was convened under the theme: “CDM: Building Disaster
Resilience – A Shared Responsibility.” Comprehensive Disaster Management (CDM) is the Caribbean
brand of Disaster Risk Management and the CDM Conference is structured to promote best practices,
share lessons learnt, discuss on-going research and chart the way forward for the advancement of
CDM in the Caribbean. Organized by the Coordinating Unit of CDEMA and co-hosted by the Office of
Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) in Jamaica, the Conference is the
Caribbean’s largest gathering of professionals in the fields of disaster management as well as from
sectoral and thematic fields who have specific responsibilities in this area. The choice of linking the
CATALYST workshop to the Caribbean’s premier event on Disaster Risk Management was motivated
by the opportunity to present the project to a wider public, to network with institutions, organizations
and practitioners in the field of DRR and to sow the seeds for future collaborations, giving continuity to
CATALYST’s achievements after the conclusion of the project.
79
For more information on the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency, the reader can refer to D3.1 and
the institutional website http://www.cdema.org/
84
Central America and the Caribbean Regional Workshop
The Central America and Caribbean Regional Workshop was officially included in the CDM7 Agenda.
The first day of the workshop (December 3rd) was reported in the Conference Magazine among the
Professional Development Sessions. Moreover, on December 4th, an open session of the Conference
(Concurrent session 2C) was organized and chaired by the CATALYST project and all CDM7
participants were invited to take part80. Conversely, the CAC-RW participants had the opportunity to
take part in CDM7 Opening Ceremony and Exhibition, as well as to attend poster presentations during
lunch breaks, being registered for CDM7 on December 3-4.
The workshop aimed at deepening discussion on the three topics identified as thematic priorities for
the region, namely:
•
social vulnerability, in its urban and rural dimensions;
•
ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction;
•
and governance of risk and climate change adaptation in the context of the international
agreement replacing the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) after 2015.
In particular, participants were asked to discuss current practices and challenges in DRR and explore
future challenges posed by human induced climate change; identify good practices examples for the
thematic areas addressed; and gather recommendations for fostering capacity development. A major
goal of the workshop was also to promote and strengthen cooperation and synergies among the
different players in the field of DRR/CCA in the Central America and Caribbean region.
As already mentioned, the workshop focused on social vulnerability, in its urban and rural dimensions;
ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction, and governance of risk and climate adaptation. These
topics had been identified by the CATALYST Think Tank members as key thematic priorities for the
Central America and Caribbean region in the context of the virtual meetings and the on-line
discussions preceding the event. A brief description of these topics follows:
Social vulnerability: Social vulnerability is a measure of both the sensitivity of a population to natural
hazards and its ability to respond to and recover from the impacts of hazards (Cutter & Finch, 2008).
There are a number of characteristics of people and social groups that contribute to shaping their
80
The joint CDM 7 and CATALYST session saw the participation of nearly 50 people.
85
July 2013
vulnerability to natural hazards, among which the most commonly recognized are age, health, gender,
race and income. The urban or rural connotation of communities is also important in defining their
vulnerability, given their different degree of reliance on the environment and natural resources, the
different amount of resources available to prepare and recover from disasters and the different access
to public services like health and education.
Ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction: Healthy ecosystems can contribute positively to
reducing disaster risk, both strengthening the livelihood base of communities and reducing their
physical exposure to natural hazards. On the one hand, they provide many livelihood benefits and
products - such as food, medicine, fuel and construction materials - that help reduce the socialeconomic vulnerability to hazards. On the other hand, ecosystems such as wetlands, forests and
coastal reefs, can serve as natural protective barriers and mitigate the impacts of many common
natural hazards like storms, landslides, floods and droughts. Moreover, well managed ecosystems
often represent a more cost-effective way to regulate hazards compared with artificial alternatives
such as dykes and concrete walls (ProAct Network, 2010) and constitute therefore a more plausible
option for communities with limited financial resources.
Governance of risk and climate adaptation in the context of the international agreement
replacing the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (HFA): The Hyogo Framework for Action
recognizes the central role of governance in reducing risk, emphasizing the need to elevate DRR as a
national and local priority and in developing sound policy, legislative and institutional frameworks to
this aim. A key challenge for a Post-2015 framework will be the integration of climate change
adaptation in the global blueprint for disaster risk reduction, recognizing the common goals of DRR
and CCA in reducing the vulnerability of communities and achieving sustainable development.
4.1.3 Approach
A specific session of the workshop was dedicated to each of the three above-mentioned thematic
priorities. A fourth and final session addressed the cross-cutting theme of Capacity Development in the
region.
Every session consisted of:
•
Plenary part comprising 3-4 introductory presentations addressing an overview of current
practices (20 minutes each)
•
Discussions in break-out groups (BOG) partly dedicated to an in-depth analysis (1.5 hours
each)
•
Reporting from the BOG back to the plenary
86
The presentations were meant to report current or past DRR practices, (risk and vulnerability)
assessment methodologies and tools, existing databases, case studies, knowledge gathered and lessons
learned related to the session theme. They served as a stimulus for debate in the subsequent group
discussions. Both presentations and discussions were structured in a way to encourage:
•
Discussion of current practices and challenges in disaster risk reduction, and of future
challenges posed by human induced climate change;
•
Identification of best practices examples for the thematic areas addressed;
•
Gathering of recommendations for fostering capacity development.
The division of participants into the two BOGs was designed to provide a balanced representation of
the different institutions and expertise present at the workshop. Both groups were asked to deliberate
on good practice examples, perceived drawbacks and opportunities within the thematic priority of the
session. In fulfilling this task, each group was supported by a moderator, who guided and facilitated
discussion, and a rapporteur who captured and noted down the main points raised. At the end of each
session, the rapporteurs summed up and reported the results to the plenary, encouraging discussion
on the main points raised.
4.1.4 Attendees
The workshop saw the participation of 22 Think Tank members and 5 members of the Consortium
(see Appendix II(B)). Moreover, the support of Claudia Garcia (trainee at the Food and Agriculture
Organization - FAO) as an interpreter from Spanish into English proved to be precious in encouraging
the participation of the Spanish speaking participants in the workshop activities.
The group composition provided a balanced representation of the different actors working on DRR in
the region, which made the discussion rich and interesting thanks to the different perspectives and
points of view expressed. Nine participants out of 22 operate in Universities and Research Centres, six
in International Organizations (both at the Regional and Global scale), two work for governmental
bodies, four for NGOs and one for a Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME).
As for the geographical origin of participants, the majority of them are located in the region, equally
distributed between Central America and the Caribbean. The other participants, although having
affiliations from non-CAC countries, possessed extensive knowledge and practical experience in the
region.
87
July 2013
4.2 State of the art
Information on the State of the Art (SoA) of DRR and CCA practices in Central America and
the Caribbean was mainly provided by the plenary presentations given by the Think Tank
members and complemented by the group discussions. This section is aimed at offering
examples of activities, tools and methodologies currently undertaken and employed in the
region: far from being exhaustive, the set of initiatives listed below provides an overview of
projects and experiences the Think Tank members are involved in or of which they are
aware.
4.2.1 Social Vulnerability
Many interesting initiatives are conducted at the community level to identify areas of
vulnerabilities in several Caribbean states and to set the way to build resilience to climate
change and related disasters in natural resource based livelihoods. CANARI provided
examples of projects aimed at building the capacity of stakeholders -particularly those most
vulnerable - to participate effectively in ecosystem management and to develop appropriate
responses to climate change, through participatory action, research, application and
dissemination of lessons learned. A pilot project currently underway in the Caura Valley
(Trinidad), funded by the UNDP, Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and its Small Grants
Programme (SGP) and ending in February 2013, focused on building awareness of climate
change at the community level, conducting participatory vulnerability assessments and
promoting brainstorming on resilience building measures for implementation. Another
pilot project undertaken in Saint Lucia (Nov. 2011) and replicated in Tobago (Oct. 2012)
involved civil society in the identification of what people are already doing and what they
believe is needed to address the impacts of climate change. In Tobago (Oct. 2012)
stakeholders were asked to develop a 3D model of the island and map the location of
resources that are impacted by climate change.
The workshop participants also mentioned specific assessment tools that are being used in
the region and that can be recognized as good practices experiences.
88
Vulnerability Assessment tools
The Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (VCA) has been developed by the International
Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies as a participatory tool to collect,
analyse and systematize information on a given community’s vulnerability to hazards. The
information is used to identify the key risks a community is facing and detect existing
capacities, in order to set up consistent activities aimed at reducing people’s vulnerabilities
and increasing their capacities to cope with disasters. The VCA process is carried out by the
communities themselves. This methodology is currently being employed by the Jamaican
Red Cross, which also organizes training activities to spread its use at the community level.
For instance, in 2011 a four-day workshop was organized for 29 representative of ten
communities in St. Catherine, in the context of the overall disaster mitigation project funded
by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and focused on Vulnerability
Capacity Assessment.
The Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (CVCA) provides a framework for analysing
vulnerability and capacity to adapt to climate change at the community level, prioritizing
thus local knowledge on climate risks and adaptation strategies in the data gathering and
analysis process. This methodology has been used in Honduras by the NGO “Care
International” (Care International, 2009).
The Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL) is a
project planning tool aimed at identifying some of the local determinants of vulnerability
and exposure to climate variability and climate change, in order to support the design of
activities that foster climate adaptation at the community level. CRiSTAL (IISD, 2012) is not
a stand-alone tool for vulnerability or risk assessment. However, it can contribute to
vulnerability and risk assessments by collecting, synthesizing and organizing information
about the development context, the climate context, climate impacts and risks and the
design of adaptation responses. This methodology has been used in many Central America
and Caribbean countries like Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua.
The common denominator of the above-mentioned examples, that also seems to explain the
success in their application, is their focus on local communities and the actual involvement
89
July 2013
of such local actors in the assessment exercise. However, as was pointed out by TTMs, these
practices need solid financing. Organising effective participation is not cheap, and this needs
to be recognised by funding agencies.
Risk Assessment
An interesting example of a risk assessment tool is provided by the Dewetra Platform, an
Information Technology system for natural disaster risk assessment and prediction. The
system offers a flexible and robust instrument to support the operational activities of Civil
Protection in Italy and is being replicated in countries within the CDEMA membership in the
context of the “Enhancing Resilience to Reduce Vulnerability in the Caribbean
(ERC)”project, running from 2011 to 2013. The Caribbean Dewetra Platform will enhance
on-going efforts for the collection, analysis and application of data to improve early warning
systems, foster hazard mitigation and eventually climate change adaptation measures and
provide National Disaster Management Agencies with additional technical support to
strengthen their planning and operations. Another important output of the project will be
the strengthening of national disaster mechanisms to incorporate best practices in
volunteerism, as those provided by the Italian Civil Protection Department. It was noted,
however, by at least one TTM during the workshop, that implementation of the Dewetra
platform is technically demanding and that the cost of implementation is high, especially in
terms of data, and may therefore not be suitable for developing countries with low
resources and technical capacities.
Impact Assessment
The Damage and Loss Assessment (DaLA) Methodology has been developed by the United
Nation Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UN-ECLAC) for
estimating the impacts of Natural Disaster .The methodology is meant to measure in
monetary and social terms the impact of disasters on the society, economy and environment
of the affected country or region. It allows for an evaluation of the damages and losses
generated by the disaster, as well as an assessment of its secondary or macroeconomic
effects. The evaluation of damages and losses is pivotal in identifying the needs for
90
reconstruction and recovery. One of the participants highlighted, however, that this tool
does not fully link sectors, and there appears to be an assumption of zero societal change.
It has to be noted that for all of the above quantitative, indicator-based assessment
methods, TTMs warned that there are disadvantages, that might restrict certain countries
from employing them. These disadvantages include: the absence of historical baseline data
against which to compare modern data; the costs of data collection, and the difficulty in
obtaining required data. This is a capacity gap to be filled if these types of methods are to be
further widely adopted in low capacity countries, or else one should encourage the adoption
of hybrid qualitative/quantitative approaches to fill this gap. Currently, CDEMA is an
example of one way of filling the capacity gap, acting as a regional Caribbean coordinator for
data collection.
4.2.2 Ecosystem services for disaster risk reduction
An interesting initiative focusing on building resilience to natural hazards through land and
water management has been conducted in the department of San Marcos, between the
Guatemala and Mexico border. The Tacaná Project, carried out within the IUCN Water and
Nature Initiative, involved local communities in the creation of “micro-watershed councils”,
aimed at coordinating watershed management among groups of villages. The community
councils worked on the restoration of natural infrastructure and in the diversification of
farming systems, including terracing of degraded slopes and reforestation through the
introduction of agroforestry. By restoring watersheds the risk of devastating floods was also
significantly reduced81.
An important tool to foster environmental protection and preserve the benefits provided by
ecosystems that has been cited by the workshop participants is the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) instrument. Although EIA legislation is present in almost the totality of
countries in the region, its enforcement seems to be uneven. The proper implementation of
this tool is essential, especially for those countries that mainly relay on tourism. Indeed,
tourism can represent a major driver in the degradation of the environment and in the
depletion of natural resources, if not properly regulated.
81
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/guatemala_mexico_tacana_project.pdf
91
July 2013
Efforts to mainstream disaster risk reduction in EIAs have been made, led by the Caribbean
Development Bank (CDB) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). The two institutions
produced a sourcebook for integrating natural hazards concerns including potential climate
change impacts, into the application of EIAs at country level (CDB 2004). The document
identifies ten steps for including DRR considerations into EIAs, offering thus a framework to
define acceptable levels of risk based on environmental sustainability criteria. Grenada and
Trinidad and Tobago have already incorporated such provisions in their EIA processes.
4.2.3 Governance of risk and climate adaptation
The HFA emphasizes the need to monitor and review the progress in DRR at the national,
sub-regional and regional levels. The Caribbean Implementation of the Hyogo Framework
for Action mid-term review (Carby, 2011), focusing on Cuba, Dominica, Jamaica, the Virgin
Islands (UK) and the Cayman Islands, shows that progress has been made in the areas of
hazard mapping, monitoring and warning systems, community based disaster management,
as well as in education and dissemination. However, more needs to be done in some specific
areas such as risk transfer. Taking Jamaica as an example, the country has been able to
develop a Comprehensive Disaster Risk Management strategy, with a strong focus on
reducing community vulnerability while ensuring, at the same time, that the capacities to
carry out response at the municipal and national level exist. Disaster Management has been
integrated into planning and development processes and the importance of the restoration
and preservation of natural ecosystems has been recognized. The presence of strong
institutional and legal frameworks is key to determining the success or failures in the HFA
implementation.
As for other Caribbean countries, a project due to begin in January 2013 and funded by the
“Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN)” and partnering with the “World
Resources Institute”, will analyse the state of play of adaptation policy and institutional
capacity in key areas of vulnerability assessment, prioritization, coordination, information
management, and mainstreaming of adaptation in Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago.
In one of the break-out groups, TTMs discussed different ways in which governments of the
region were trying to organise their ministries to mainstream DRR/CCA into policy making.
92
There appeared to be three general ways: a) to create a super-ministry with responsibility
for DRR/CCA that had power over all over ministries; b) to provide the mandate to an
existing ministry or c) to organise an inter-ministerial committee on DRR/CCA. Which,
among these, can be considered the best approach and in what context is an open question
still to be addressed (see section 4.4.3).
A final criticism made by a TTM about current governance aspects of social vulnerability
was that funding and aid tended to ignore the urban indigenous poor.
4.3 (Moving Towards) Best practices
This section presents projects, methodologies and experiences carried out in Central
America and the Caribbean which were highlighted by the workshop participants as
offering interesting insights into addressing similar challenges in the region. In particular,
the listed examples could be valuable for other countries by virtue of their holistic approach
to vulnerability reduction, their capacity to ensure community participation and draw upon
traditional/local knowledge, and their potential for replication.
The “TerraCoco” project, implemented by the “Redes de Gestión de Riesgos y Adaptación al
Cambio Climático” in the community of Escuintla, southern Guatemala, can be considered as
an example of holistic approach combining poverty eradication, social inclusion,
environmental and DRR concerns.
The project aims at transforming what is usually regarded as waste, i.e. coconut fibres, in an
opportunity to improve the living condition of the community of Escuintla. Coconuts are
collected from the garbage by unemployed youth and then ground to extract the fibres.
These are used to produce handcrafts (like sandals and vases) by the women of the
community and plaited to create nets that are then positioned to stabilize the slopes of the
hills nearby, helping thus to reduce the risk of landslides. The strength of the project is its
capacity to address, at the same time, both social and environmental determinants of local
vulnerability.
93
July 2013
Additionally, a key point raised in the workshop, through presentation of the work of
Vicarelli and Aguilar (2011), is that social vulnerability assessment should ideally include
assessment of the impact of disaster “shocks” on child cognitive development, which can be
significant. The work (op cit) also shows that assessments of the effect of recuperation
programmes on mitigating the cognitive impacts of such shocks would be very valuable as a
way of improving disaster responses with respect to social vulnerability. As will be
discussed later, the TTMs did not object to the need for more research to support ways of
carrying out such assessments.
Finally, as will be discussed in the gaps section below (4.4), problems of data collection and
costs to do with quantitative approaches will necessitate the development and adoption of
hybrid qualitative/quantitative assessment methods, as a best practice in countries with
low resources and capacities.
The Risk & Vulnerability Assessment Methodology project (RiVAMP) has been developed by
UNEP to quantify the role of ecosystems for DRR and CCA, as well as other benefits for
sustainable development at large (UNEP, 2010). It makes use of evidence based, scientific
and qualitative research to demonstrate the role of ecosystems for disaster risk reduction,
helping thus policy makers to make better informed decisions. A crucially important
advantage of the RiVAMP methodology is rich participation of local level stakeholders. Local
experts and local community are involved in order to: i) identify local knowledge on
ecosystems services; ii) identify threats to the ecosystems; iii) understand historical
processes which led to the decline of the ecosystems.
A pilot project is currently being implemented in Jamaica. However, the methodology has
been developed for SIDS and other coastal areas that are highly vulnerable and exposed to
tropical cyclones and related hazards and to accelerated sea level rise: hence, the potential
for its successful replicability is high. For instance, IUCN is currently using RiVAMP for
coastal regions.
94
Regional organizations play a fundamental role in defining and shaping regional level risk
management policies, in promoting knowledge sharing among countries and between key
agencies and individuals, and in supporting national efforts in the fields of development and
disaster risk management (UNDP, 2002).82 This has proved to be true in the Central
America and Caribbean Region, with organizations like the Central America Integration
System (SICA), CARICOM, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) recognizing disaster risk management as a key
governance issue.83 As an example of the support of regional organizations in the
implementation of effective DRM strategies, it can be recalled that CDEMA84 provided its
member states with a model “National Disaster Management Bill and Regulations” which
presents a comprehensive approach and analysis of all the legislative requirements to adopt
a Comprehensive Disaster Management framework.
Looking at the national level, Cuba’s experience has been recognized to be valuable to other
countries in the region and beyond by virtue of its capacity to implement effective DRR
strategies actions despite the very limited financial resources available. The country’s legal
risk management framework is one of its key assets in disaster risk reduction, coupled with
the very clear set of roles and responsibilities within the Civil Defence system. In particular,
Cuba can count on a centralized decision making structure and decentralized
implementation process that involves the provincial and municipal authorities and all
sectors of civil society in the prevention, mitigation and emergency response phases. The
participation of civil society is promoted through training activities and education: a
national simulation exercise (Meteoro) is carried out every year to rehearse response
strategy and procedures in view of the hurricane season, while disaster preparedness,
prevention and response are part of school and many university curricula. As a result, both
research and local anecdotal information are considered in decision-making.
82
UNDP, Expert Group Meeting on the Role of Regional Organisations in Strengthening National
Capacities for Disaster Reduction, Geneva, October 2002.
83
For more information, see “Report on Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction (D3.1)”,
§2.2.3
84
CDEMA is the specialised institution of CARICOM for Disaster Risk Management.
95
July 2013
Cuba is not the only country in which to look for best practices. In a further indication of a
move towards best practices, the CCCCC, based in Belize, is developing a risk management
framework to enhance the “risk ethic” in government decision making. According to a TTM ,
Belize's government is succeeding in integrating different ministries and sectors into
integrated decision-making on DRR/CCA. The TTM believes it can be a model of governance
that can be transferred to other countries.
TTMs also suggested an institutional change to promote best practices in the funding of
DRR/CCA. This would be to fund at the level of programmes more often, rather than at the
level of individual projects. Hence, DRR/CCA activities can become more strategic and longterm, thus overcoming the problem of discontinuities in political commitment, as and when
governments change.
Finally, it was discussed by TTMs that ecosystems services maintenance can be supported
by the government through either government incentives or through the enforcement of
legislation or both. Unfortunately TTMs pointed out that enforcement is not always a
practicable option in some countries, which leaves that country with only half of the
possible management options open to it. If a country seeks to move towards best practices
in this area, then it needs to have the ability to implement both options involving incentives
and enforcement as and where necessary. Hence, some TTMs felt that supporting
institutional and organisational development to improve enforcement capabilities at the
national and local level will be very important as one moves towards best practices in
ecosystems services (see also Hare et al. 2013).
The identification of gaps and barriers for the effective deployment of DRR and CCA
strategies was mainly carried out in the context of the group discussions, where
participants were asked to deliberate on perceived drawbacks and barriers within the
thematic priority of the session. Useful insights were also collected in the Q&A sessions
following the plenary presentations.
96
It was undisputed amongst TTMs that more research should be devoted to the impacts of
weather extremes on human cognitive/physical development, in particular with regard to
rural areas of developing countries. The study conducted by Vicarelli and Aguilar (2011)
analysed the medium-term effects of early-life weather shocks, as those engendered by
ENSO85, on the cognitive and health outcomes of rural Mexican children, demonstrating that
five years after the shock children show lower cognitive abilities and lower height and
weight. However, the direct and indirect role of weather factors on cognitive/physical
development is still not well understood (i.e. temperature, stress), and more emphasis
should be placed on investigating this aspect within adaptation studies. Moreover,
considering that the contraction of income and food consumption was recognized as a
possible mechanism driving these results, poverty reduction interventions should include a
vulnerability reduction component and the role of weather index insurance in rainfedagriculture should be taken into account.
As has been mentioned earlier, TTMs felt that research in DRR in the region is inhibited by
the lack of current and accurate data. The main challenges identified by the workshop
participants include the lack of historical baseline data, the high costs for the generation of
new dataset and the difficulties in data sharing, with the latter being often costly, prohibited
or inhibited by the dearth of data-sharing agreements. According to some TTMs, these
difficulties may well require the development of more qualitative or hybrid
qualitative/quantitative approaches. Hampering the effectiveness of research activities in
the region is also the absence of a proper link between research and policy.
It was also discussed in the workshop by TTMs, that poverty assessments often do not
capture the nuances of poverty, such as the role of the grey/black economy. This gap should
be addressed in future research on social vulnerability. Additionally, TTMs discussed that it
should be emphasised that social vulnerability should not be seen as purely a issue to do
with the poor. Rich people can be vulnerable to loss of livelihoods and homes. However,
85
ENSO stands for “El Niño Southern Oscillation”.
97
July 2013
TTMs concluded that one needs to be very clear in differentiating between risk and adaptive
capacity. The rich will tend to have more adaptive capacity to reduce the impacts on their
lives than do the poor. Finally, a TTM also highlighted to the need to have assessment
methods for different scales.
In terms of network gaps, a TTM identified the need to integrate existing networks of
disaster response practitioners and networks of disaster preparedness practitioners.
It is difficult to identify best practices to be replicated when talking about ecosystem
services for DRR. Ecosystems are very site specific and any intervention conducted must
take into account local peculiarities: therefore, the possibility of replicating or upscaling
successful experiences is limited.
Another problematic issue concerns the economic value that should be attributed to
ecosystems when serving as natural buffers against hazards. This is a very delicate point, as
it is related to the willingness of governments to employ such a solution within their DRR
strategies. Of course, ecosystems services can in certain circumstances be regarded as a “no
regret solution” for the multiple benefits they provide. Not only can they help in reducing
the risk of disasters, but they can also improve the livelihoods of local populations, through
the provision of food, construction materials, fuel and medicines. This shows the
importance of promoting sustainable environmental management at the community level.
Nevertheless, the potential benefits need to be qualified. TTMs discussed how there needs
to be much more independent research conducted on analysing the actual effectiveness of
ecosystems services in DRR, since ecosystems services are not a “silver bullet” - they can
work to reduce risk in some circumstances but not in others. More is needed to be found out
about how and in what context ecosystems services can support DRR, especially since
ecosystems are multi-functional, making it very difficult to identify what part is actually
making an impact. Also, according to a participant, the fact that an ecosystem is providing
multiple services, as described above, may mean that over time (without crises) non-DRR
services may take precedence in a community's plans and thus weaken the effectiveness of
the DRR element of the ecosystem service when a crisis occurs. Another issue that a TTM
mentioned is that there are no agreed units for measuring the efficacy of ecosystems
98
services for DRR. Similarly, according to a TTM, more research is needed on how hazard
impacts may be simply transferred to another geographical area as a result of improving
ecosystems services for DRR in another (e.g. an increase in ecosystem-based sea defences in
one part of the coast might lead to more flooding in a less protected area, as the tidal surge
releases its energy elsewhere).
Finally, it was pointed out by TTMs that research needs to be done on understanding the
role of different land-ownership patterns on the success of schemes for payments for
ecosystems services (PES). Land ownership patterns and laws in the CAC region varies
dramatically between countries. It was pointed out by a participant that PES, combined with
weak governance systems, can lead to increased social vulnerability as a result of local
communities losing the rights to use ecosystems in which they live, in favour of private
owners who might be considered by the government to be better able to maintain them.
One TTM suggested that “80%” of best care of ecosystems are provided by the local
communities. In conclusion, the social and communal aspect of ecosystems services needs
to be taken into account in decisions on the maintenance of ecosystems. Linked to this is a
vital research question raised by a participant: more case-based research should be done on
identifying where the money for PES ultimately go – to the local community or to other
parties?
It is also important to note that ecosystems-based DRR should not be seen as alternative or
in competition with engineering or structural measures, but the two should be considered
as synergetic and complementary approaches.
The transferability of successful experiences at the institutional level should be fostered.
However, challenges remain due to the partial integration of the countries of the Region.
Different organizations operate in the field of DRR - e.g. CDEMA, CEPREDENAC, OECS and
ACS - but collaboration seems to be weak among them. In particular, knowledge sharing
between Central America, on the one the hand, and the Caribbean, on the other, needs to be
enhanced. For instance, the Caribbean experience with the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk
99
July 2013
Insurance Facility (CCRIF)86 could be valuable for the introduction of a similar instrument in
the Central America countries, where the role of insurance based risk transfer is reported to
be limited.
At the national level, the need to promote the participation of local authorities and
communities has been highlighted as a major issue. To do so, decentralization of resources
and responsibilities is believed to be essential. Moreover, a lack of collaboration among the
different actors involved in DRR at the national level has also been identified. In particular,
non-governmental bodies working on the field tend to have very few connection with
authorities, thus leading to weak coordination among the respective interventions. What is
needed is a more holistic approach, where all sectors of society, the private sector, civil
society organizations, NGOs, non-traditional decision makers, are embedded in a
participatory institutional framework.
An interesting research topic, based on discussions arising with TTMs during the workshop,
would be to analyse which of the 3 identified types of government ministry structure,
identified in section 4.2.3, best suits the mainstreaming of DRR/CCA into policy, and in what
context.
At the institutional level, capacity development activities should comprise the development
of inclusive and inter-sectoral policies and legislation, the support for decentralization
initiatives, and the promotion and strengthening of civil society participation in disaster
risk management and in local development and decision making. In the case of the latter,
86
The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), the first ever multi-country pool, was set
up to provide its members with access to affordable and effective coverage against natural disasters.
Functioning as a mutual insurance company controlled by the participating countries, CCRIF allows its members
to purchase liquidity coverage, which can be employed after a major hurricane and earthquake, giving time to
activate other resources for long term reconstruction. CCFR acts as a joint reserve mechanism backed by the
international reinsurance markets and allows Caribbean governments to purchase catastrophe coverage at the
lowest possible price.
100
some TTMs considered that it is therefore vital that the next generation of decision-makers
are taught how to make decisions in an integrated manner, as well as how to include
qualitative community knowledge in their considerations. With reference to greater
community participation, it was also discussed by TTMs that a post-HFA framework should
actively promote capacity development that supports institutions to encourage active
involvement of community stakeholders in DRR, i.e. to create an “institutional embedding of
community involvement” as one TTM said. Part of this process of embedding, claimed one
TTM, is also to train communities to avoid being manipulated by government during
pseudo-participatory processes.
However, it was noted towards the end of the workshop, that organising effective and fair
participation of communities in DRR /CCA is easier preached than implemented. People
promoting participation (e.g. researchers and NGOs) need to have a better understanding of
the decision-making institutions and processes in which communities are supposed to
participate, so that the communities are involved in the parts of the process in which they
can make a difference institutionally – without this understanding participation cannot be
properly embedded and made effective. Decision makers, on the other hand, need more
training on the different levels of participation that are possible, i.e. in increasing order of
level - information provision, consultation, active involvement. The higher the level, the
better, but more costly it is to implement. Thus, as is mentioned elsewhere in this section,
funding agencies need to properly fund participatory aspects of a project to a level of active
involvement if possible.
Attention should also be drawn to the development and mainstreaming of insurance
schemes for disaster risk, mainly in the rural context. At a regional scale, exchanges,
cooperation and application of lessons learnt should also be fostered.
Capacity development measures for knowledge creation and enhancement purposes should
focus on the creation of regional data bases (for example, on losses) to promote knowledge
sharing among different actors operating in the field. The education and proper informing
of the citizenry are also seen as fundamental to promoting awareness and building a
“culture of safety”.
In terms of developing capacities in risk mapping, TTMs suggested that the CATALYST
project also include the French territories of the Caribbean in their overview of good
101
July 2013
methods to disseminate. TTMs also suggested that more training needs to be provided to
decision makers on the correct interpretation and use of risk maps. A lesson from an
assessment made by one of the TTMs on the Tsunami disaster in Japan, and from other
TTMs, is that there are difficulties inherent in a hazard-centric approach to DRR and that
decision-makers need to be able to learn to disengage themselves from planning based on a
single-hazard approach and move to planning in the context of multiple potential
(cascading) hazards.
An issue that was raised by one TTM was that there are too many tools in circulation,
especially assessment tools. Capacity development could be enhanced by rationalising this
current set of tools, and providing guidelines for how to choose between the use of the
remainder.
4.6 Recommendations for sustainability of the Think Tank
A few recommendations for the future and sustainability of the Think Tank were made
during the workshop. Some TTMs felt that it would be important for the continuation of the
Think Tank to further integrate the Caribbean and Central American practitioner
communities represented in the Think Tank and encourage a greater interchange of
information, knowledge, and learning, between the two. Additionally, specific TTMs were
interested in participating in follow-up “CATALYST -local” projects, proposed by the
CATALYST team, to interpret the CATALYST knowledge products so that they are applicable
to the institutional and cultural contexts of their own countries. Such projects would have
the benefit of maintaining the Think Tank as an active network.
Further recommendations for the sustainability of the Think Tank were collected during the
2nd Virtual Meeting for the Central America and Caribbean Region, held on March 1st 2013.
The meeting was meant as follow-up to the Regional Workshop and allow for discussions on
topics that, because of time constraints, were not foreseen by the Workshop Agenda.
A general consensus on the opportunity to keep the Think Tank group operating beyond the
scope of the project emerged from the discussion. The Think Tank is considered to be a
good network that could be used to create consortia for collaborating on specific projects,
such as the “CATALYST-local” ones suggested above, or to act as a critical mass for
102
conveying messages on key topics. One of its main strengths is identified in the good mix of
experience and expertise represented in the group.
As for the tool that could be employed to assure the sustainability of the Think Tank, the
CATALYST website is not seen as the best option. Some members find it difficult to use and
do not access it often. It was advised that existing social networks, such as LinkedIn, could
provide better alternatives. One possibility would be to have a reserved LinkedIn group for
the CATALYST project, so that people could stay in contact through a tool they already use
and are familiar with. Moreover, it was suggested that, instead of the website, Dropbox be
employed to share folders and documents,.
FEEM expressed its availability in organizing future Virtual Meetings, with specific thematic
foci, in order to further foster collaboration and knowledge exchange among the Think Tank
members.
Recommendations for the on-line teaching module were also gathered through the 2nd
Virtual Meeting for the Central America and Caribbean Region. The on-line module will be
based on the integrated knowledge on DRR/CCA compiled by the CATALYST project and
will be available for the CAC region both in English and in Spanish. It is intended as training
and guidance material for practitioners in the field at the intermediate level, and will focus
on ways and tools to improve capacity development.
As for its content, the Think Tank members stressed the importance of including topics such
as geologic risk, tools for empowering local communities and authorities, and ecosystem
services for DRR. With regards to the latter, Dr. Renaud (UNU-EHS) confirmed his
suggestion made in the Workshop and offered the possibility of using some material on
ecosystems services already available for a Master's course offered in Cologne, in which he
and Dr. Murti (IUCN) are involved. It was also recommended that the module include a
section where people can download useful examples and documents.
103
July 2013
As for the functioning of the module, it was suggested that an open source copyright free
(creative commons) approach be adopted where the general public can download and reengineer the material for its particular purposes.
104
South and South-East Asia Regional Workshop
5 The South and South East Asia Regional Workshop
Peter van der Keur (GEUS)
& Fons Jaspers (Alterra)
Place: United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC), Bangkok, Thailand
Date: 23-25 January, 2013
Number of participants: 22 TTM; 3 Guests; 5 Project Partners
Organisers: GEUS, Alterra
Co-Hosts: UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
The goals of the workshop were:
1. To identify the current Best Practices / State-of-the-Art in DRR and CCA in the South and
Southeast Asian region
2. To identify gaps in Best Practices in DRR and CCA for the South and Southeast region, and
why this is so.
3. To discuss how gaps in existing capacity development can be filled and how to foster
further capacity development
4. To discuss training and mainstreaming uncertainty in capacity development in DRR and
CCA
The thematic issues discussed included flood and drought hazards as well as tsunami threats.
5.1.3 Approach
The approach and structure of the workshop is summarized in Table 1 below. The approach follows
the thematic issues and is dealt with by group discussions and plenary. The groups are subdivided into
Group 1, with most TT members from South Asia, including India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and Group 2
and 3 representing the Southeast Asian region, including Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam and
Indonesia.
105
July 2013
Table 1: Structure of workshop
PART I – setting the scene plenary
Setting the scene. Welcome and Opening, overview workshop, TT process sofar and selected results.
Introduction by workshop participants
PART II – Plenary
State-of-the-Art & Best Practices by TT members
PART III – Group and plenary sessions
Gaps in Best Practices
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Plenary session
PART IV – Group and plenary sessions
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Plenary session
Part V – Special sessions: Training and Mainstreaming uncertainty in Capacity Development
Group 1 – Training for capacity development
Group 2 - Uncertainty
Plenary session
Part VI - Field trip
5.1.4 Attendees
The attendees of the workshop were Think Tank members of the South and Southeast Asian region,
Catalyst project members and invited guests, see Appendix II(D).
5.2 State of the art and good practice
In this part of the workshop, 22 TTMs representing the DRR/CCA community of South and South-east
Asia presented their activities including the good practices, aspects that were supportive of success,
and those that were obstacles. Their results are presented according to the aspects relevant to
capacity development for DDR/CCA: institutional arrangements, partnerships, human capacities,
technical capacities, financial resources and process-related aspects. This is in line with the ADPC
studies recently conducted in 15 countries of South and South-east Asia (AMCDRR, 2012) which
concluded that a systematic and comprehensive delivery of disaster risk reduction and climate change
is a challenge and that resilience should be the unifying concept behind such delivery.
106
5.2.1 Institutional arrangements & coordination
Mainstreaming DRR/CCA
It was felt by TTMs that mainstreaming CCA and DRR into national development plans is essential but
appears very difficult. One TTM pointed out that institutional and legislative systems at the national
level have a limited influence on local development processes because of the lack of political authority,
technical capacity, financial resources and the hierarchical approach of implementation. Another
suggested that vertical integration is fragmented and that governments seem only partly interested in
local development. There is a need for a harmonization of the coordination between governmental
agencies and (bottom-up) community interests.
Good practice
There was a general acceptance of the benefits of devolved responsibilities and resources. For
example, the National Institution on Disaster Management in India is institutionalized and integrated
even at the district level. Efforts are being made in Bangladesh where hazard, vulnerability and risk
analysis as well as the development of risk response strategies are being realized with the engagement
of the community and the local authority of Patuakhali. Linkages are also being made on DRR/CCA
with key international and national policies.
Integrated risks planning
“Joined-up” risk-based approaches are still rare. It was thought by TTMs that there is an urgent need
for a paradigm shift in disaster management from conventional response and relief to a more
comprehensive, integrated risk reduction culture, and that it is essential to consider disaster risks in
urban and rural planning activities. TTMs suggested that risk, hazard and vulnerability assessment at
the local level is difficult because of confusion about the different concepts. Long term climate change
impacts are difficult to comprehend by local communities and therefore to include in local planning.
Good practice
UST, for example, is integrating DRR activities within its water and sanitation improvement planning.
It is executing participatory disaster management assessment within communities involved in all its
WASH Food Security projects in Bangladesh (including in Shariatpur, Gaibandha, and Nilphamari en
Amtali). The community groups discuss and draw the disasters they have encountered during the year,
and provide information as to their vulnerability to such disasters and what measures they take to
reduce these risks. Based on this assessment, the community is supposed to develop plans to
107
July 2013
safeguard water and sanitation, etc, in the face of the identified disasters. For example, in Shariatpur,
external funding has been successfully attracted to develop climate-resilient WASH facilities as a result
of such a participatory assessment and planning activity.
In the Philippine villages of Mapulog in the municipality of Naawan, Misamis Oriental, and San Roque
in Kulambugan, Lanao del Norte, the introduction of an early warning system resulted in a more
resilient community when integrated with a cooperative approach to village-level planning (more
information can be found from AFRIM).
Obstacles
TTMs felt that the integration of hazards into risk management is difficult because of the dominance of
a single-hazard approach. Additionally, insufficient coordination and vertical planning across
administrative levels, and a lack of interlinking programs and projects provide further obstacles.
5.2.2 Partnerships & cooperation
Increasing participation in DRR
In participatory planning, the participatory approach to risk management is widely acknowledged.
However, TTMs noted that the culture of planning and regulation through government-civil society
partnerships is rare. Community engagement in local development processes is often isolated and
transient. Where interaction occurs, this mostly relies on NGO involvement; local government
structures are rarely open to partnerships.
Strengthening local disaster management organisations
Local Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) need a common arrangement. It is important that
they can operate effectively during hazards and can maintain operationality during periods of nondisaster as well. Their mandate and actual activities might not be broad enough, according to some
TTMs. Additionally, one TTM suggested that local people may not be able to sufficiently influence the
DMCs (ADPC). Important to TTMs would be the integration of multi-sectoral interests into DRR/ CCA
planning.
Good practices
108
Good DMC planning practice was identified in Bangladesh for risk-reduction planning at intermediate
union and upazila adminstrative levels87; Bangladesh NGOs are proactive in using community-based
results to feed into local DMC . India is starting to develop a district disaster management plan for each
of its districts. The role of local government is defined over the whole DRR sequence: pre-, during- and
post-disaster.
Advocacy and promoting community-based disaster reduction management program also resulted in a
national Community Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) programme covering 60% of the
communities in Vietnam and a national Forum on DRR/CCA. In Nepal, the enhancement of capacity for
social, technical, economical and rescue knowledge sharing was realized by community participation
and decentralization from central to local governments.
Community Based Disaster Preparedness (CBDP) programming started in Indonesia under the
auspices of the Indonesian Red Cross (RC) back in 2003 and thus constituted the first DRR-like
programmes with support from the RC/RC Societies in Indonesia. The ICBRR programme ´model´
which evolved is being widely applied by the RC/RC and Indonesian Red Cross in several provinces.
In areas where Red Cross managers and volunteers have established favourable working relationships
with local government representatives, the ICBRR programmes stand a much better chance of
advancing
its
core
activities
of
DRR/CCA
(e.g.
risk
mapping,
simulation
drills
and
adaptation/preparedness measures) and even to the extent whereby local governments allocate funds
directly for DRR/CCA activities carried out jointly with Red Cross/NGOs - and most importantly, with
local communities. Sustainable ICBRR programme areas (viz. impact) can be found in the provinces of
Lampung (South Sumatra), Yogyakarta/Central Java as well as some districts of West and North
Sulawesi. The trade-off between 'who runs what' in communities and the sustainability
(maintenance/adoption/management) of DRR/CCA initiatives is naturally relative, i.e. in some
cultures government-led development initiatives are more successful than pure community-led
initiatives and vice versa. But the notion of joint initiatives ought to become much more commonplace
as disaster and climate-related challenges around the world surely indicate.
87
In Bangladesh administration a ‘union’ is a level below ‘upazila’ which in its turn is the level below
‘district’. A ‘union’ typically comprises of a number of villages.
109
July 2013
A good practice noted by TTMs has been the organisation of self-help groups, youth groups, village
management committees and a body called the Panchati Raj Institution (PRI): a local parliament which
can make decisions related to development issues in their local area. The PRI concept is mainly in
India, Nepal and Bangladesh. The concept is different in Pakistan. Disaster risk reduction through PRI
has been successful since they are institutionally recognized and are not based on caste or gender.
Local empowerment, e.g. Nepal Local Self-Governance Act (1999), is supportive to this development.
In the West Bengal state of India, UNICEF´s community based disaster risk reduction program has
been able to motivate PRIs to create a social risk safety by using its own funds.
The Volcanology Center And Geological Disaster Mitigation Institute for the volcano Mt. Merapi in
Indonesia is considered as being neutral when taking decisions and helpful in bringing together civic
society and government when doing so. There are also coordinated efforts and partnerships to
support the roll-out of the national CBDRM program in Vietnam; Vietnam has a rich tradition of mass
organization. In Indonesia, community-based and civil society organisation partnerships are being
linked-up to universities to permit access to scientific-based information and approaches, as well to
enable active engagement with provincial and district governments on public policy issues and
capacity development.
The Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC), for example, tries to integrate partners
systematically in all action areas and at all levels for effective collaboration. It follows the principles of:
1. Usable knowledge (data infrastructure and accelerated scientific efforts); 2. No-regret investments
(integrate adaptation and development measurers); 3. Resilience (strengthen adaptation capacities);
4. Mitigation and Adaptation (synergies in planning at river basin level); 5. Financing (balance
investment with potential damage).
Obstacles
It was felt by TTMs that it is difficult to integrate the local community and the government level. TTMs
reminded the workshop that the poor in local communities can be the most vulnerable. The poor
remain consistently unable to influence local development processes but are at the same time are the
most affected by disasters and climate risks. Risk tolerance and risk acceptance are low in these
groups, which results in unrest and reduced motivation for adaptation, warned one TTM.
Awareness is also needed if civil society is to contribute to such partnerships on DRR. TTMs suggested
that a wide range of stakeholders can be motivated towards DRR/CCA by awareness-raising,
information exchange and networking on DRR and CCA themes.
110
For some TTMs, the problem lies in the fact that multi-stakeholder collaboration is most difficult
because of different perspectives and different organizational cultures among potential collaborators.
Coordination is also a problem between collaborators; one TTM suggested that the management of
coordination should be an inter-agency responsibility, and not just inter-NGO like it is now. Finally,
one TTM pointed out that carrying out research in cooperation with other organizations is difficult to
realise.
5.2.3 Human capacities
Leadership
Awareness of the risk of disaster and longer term climate impacts and their integration in
development processes depend on various factors, but especially on strong leadership.
Good practice
An example of strong leadership is found in southern Sri Lanka, where a local mayor helps to push
things forward with government and local partners. A driver of this according to one TTM may be that
the mayor post is for 5 years only.
5.2.4 Technical capacities
Use of local technical knowledge
There are many examples of community level traditional technical knowledge suitable for replication.
However, replication may not easily happen, as in Nepal, where locally developed low-cost earthquake
resistant and climate-friendly straw houses were not accepted in other communities as the latter
prefer the status-sensitive ‘paka’ houses. One should take care when trying to replicate “blueprints” for
activities that have been successful elsewhere.
Combining local and science based knowledge
It was felt by TTMs that best results can be expected when traditional knowledge is combined with
scientific knowledge.
111
July 2013
Good practice
In Indonesia, the local level provides a variety of good local practices. In Nepal, an approach to
scientific and local knowledge integration is applied as an iterative process through dialogues.
Obstacles
According to various TTMs, scientific knowledge and local knowledge are not easy to combine.
Use of risk monitoring technology
Good practice
Application of modern technology for early warning systems and risk monitoring of glacial processes
have been applied for remote communities in the Hindu Kush Himalaya area. This provides useful geoinformation for disaster and risk management real-time information and maps on glacier aspects in
Hindu Kush Himalaya area.
Obstacles
For the function of glacier risk monitoring and exchange of data, the region lacks capacity, budget and
priority. The preparation of disaster risk plans are to be based on the assessment of disaster impacts,
but there is not enough information available, so it is difficult to find information for climate change at
the local level.
5.2.5 Financial resources
Budget allocation at local levels
There are examples of national budget allocations for disaster management, but local level influence
on allocation for risk reduction is important and local level allocations are often limited to
preparedness and response measures.
Good practice
Developing a risk reduction plan with local governance during the whole of the year from
governmental rural budget: 20-30 out of 100 days of work for every family head in rural areas should
112
be focused on DRR actions (CORDAID).
This makes it possible that DRR/CCA tasks remain
implemented also beyond periods of actual disaster.
Good financial resources management is found in Matara town (Sri Lanka) where waste management
money is used for dealing with flooding risk.
Mitigation measures in the form of social insurance
Community insurance against disasters in some regions works fine, and not in others. Buying financial
insurance is easy, claiming on it is difficult. There are also initiatives for combined social and financial
insurance - CORDAID can provide some examples of this. It was mentioned in the workshops that
already in some countries, the government compensates for harvest losses in the new district budget
for the year thereafter.
Moving towards best practices depends on overcoming identified barriers preventing the introduction
and implementation of such practices. The following are the priority issues mentioned by the TTMs:
1. Poor advocacy: referring to normative
institutional/administrative;
2. Short term policy-making;
3. Poor delegation of responsibility/power;
4. Opportunism;
5. Reliance on physical infrastructure;
6. Post-disaster financing bias;
7. Poor use and understanding of concepts;
8. Poor institutional understanding;
9. Lack of capacity in assessments;
10. Management of uncertainties;
11. Best practice bubbles.
instruments,
especially
legal
and
Poor advocacy of DRR
Disaster risk reduction is in need of an improved definition or at least re-definition. Furthermore, risk
reduction needs redefining in a local or regional context depending on a variety of socio-economic as
well as biophysical conditions.
113
July 2013
Short-term policy-making
Translating policy into action or implementation remains a challenge. The problem can be in part
attributed to short-term political memories. With such limited terms, politicians and governments in
general are less accountable for ensuring that their policies are implemented.
Poor delegation of Responsibility/Power
Political systems do not necessarily give authority for DRR to individuals who have expertise in DRR.
Citizens who are in a position to play a role in DRR are often not empowered by authorities to take on
this responsibility. A related obstacle is the lack of inclusivity: those communities and populations who
should be involved in CCA/DRR, for example, indigenous peoples whose knowledge may be invaluable
to DRR, are excluded.
Opportunism
Opportunism is another issue. In some countries of South and Southeast Asia, there is an incentive for
inaction because the compensation programmes offset losses, or are unable to prevent false reporting
of losses.
Reliance on physical infrastructure
There is a tendency in DRR to rely too much on physical infrastructure. These are solutions that tend
to address symptoms (e.g., dikes and sluices) rather than the source of the problem. Furthermore, they
can contribute to further environmental and socio-economic problems (e.g. dams that reduce water
availability downstream).
Post-disaster financing bias
The focus of funding for DRR tends to be in the allocation of funds in the aftermath of a disaster, rather
than before, where it may be more effective in reducing the impact of an event. Lack of allocation of
resources for mitigation and involvement of private sector in DRR / CCA.
114
Poor use and understanding of concepts
It is too easy to say DRR and CCA, especially CCA, are conceptually debatable. Mainstreaming was
questioned; what is CCA and what is not CCA? For example, DRR is established in Vietnam
(conceptually), but for CCA this is not the case. What do we mean with respect to climate resilient
livelihoods?
Poor institutional cooperation
In Indonesia, there is a lack of coordination poor distribution of information, and not much
cooperation between NGOs and government within DRR and CCA. There are problems with continuity
in governments within different areas (development of champions within government is not working),
for example, all the top level posts change if the government changes.
More generally, an institutional mechanism is needed to link the scientific community to the national,
district, local and grass root levels. There is no adequate scientific knowledge transfer to these
different levels.
It was felt by various TTMs that coordination and participatory contingency planning between
government and NGO activities on DRR/CCA are difficult processes. It is important to untangle the
reasons for a lack of coordination. TTMs mentioned that in some cases the lack of cooperation occurs
as each agency/partner is protective of its turf and doesn't appreciate others stepping on it.
Furthermore, data are considered a strength and not shared. There are also problems linking policy to
the local level. For example, linking village to District and Provincial policy priorities and planning
appeared difficult, and that national strategies often do not reach the local level because of
implementation problems.
Lack of capacity in assessment
Risk assessment modelling skills are not sufficient for core processing in DRR, but currently no
capacity exists and it is not of priority to local governments. Assessment processes for vulnerability
are needed.
115
July 2013
Managing Uncertainty
Questions as to how to integrate uncertainty in disaster risk preparedness in relation to extreme
climate events and variability, now and in the future, were also discussed. Some inspiration can be
found from how uncertainty is handled as part of IWRM.
Disaster risks will continue to increase in Asia and elsewhere, even without including climate change
(CC). CC impacts in the next 2-3 decades will be relatively small compared to impacts due to
variability, but CC uncertainties should be taken into account in policy making and long term planning
(and not lead instead to inaction).
There are all kinds of categories of uncertainties to deal with: alternative models, parameter
uncertainty, the handling of extremes and the uncertainties caused by downscaling and in scenarios
and climate models. It was pointed out that just by collecting more information, the total uncertainty
may not always be reduced. As a result, focusing on a “no regrets policy” seems a feasible way forward.
On the other hand, there is a necessity to build trust and convince people not to be overwhelmed by
uncertainties. We need to understand hazards from a historical perspective, and the better we are
prepared for particular issues (e.g. for investigating the unknown), the better we are also prepared for
uncertainty.
Climate uncertainty challenges our established knowledge. But, on the other hand, early warning and
updated predictions about pathways of cyclones, for example, are viable approaches for addressing
uncertainties in a practical way.
The perspective of many decision makers nowadays is that climate change science and climate
modelling increase uncertainty. We currently have a generation of decision makers which does not
deal well with such uncertainties. RIO+20 clearly is an example of this. Maybe we don’t understand
how hydrological processes, important for assessing water resources, are impacted by climate change.
Perhaps we do not understand the main drivers of climate change and how to capture them in climate
modeling.
Best Practice Bubbles
Many best practices are like bubbles with a short life span and cannot be sustained due to missing
enabling environments.
116
Science is still limited in its capacity to predict, measure and find solutions for climate change and
natural disasters. For this and other reasons, it is not always trusted. For example, a significant
concern is that we are underestimating rare events. In the absence of better science from conventional
fields, a stronger link with indigenous knowledge is strongly advised.
5.4.1 Data/Model Issues
Data issues rank high in the concerns that stakeholders have concerning CCA and DRR. Some of the
limitations and gaps identified in this workshop include:
•
the lack of an overview of available data and the lack of a central repository of data;
•
scattered and sometimes inaccessible datasets because of ownership/governance issues
and/or high costs;
•
data interpretation at different levels by the different users is often limited by a lack of
resources, both financial and human;
•
a failure to translate science/data for the public/policy sector, and in particular the results of
climate change models;
•
a lack of real-time data and related to this regular updating of data;
•
insufficient land use data; and
•
models cannot be run because they require too much data.
There has been much discussion in this and previous think tank workshops on the translation of data
in a way that is useful at the local level. However it, needs to be stressed that this is often not possible
without understanding community processes. It is not sufficient to “translate” data to the local context.
It is necessary to develop local capacity to interpret, register and use the data.
5.4.2 Hazard assessment, and vulnerability
More needs to be invested in the science and practice of hazard assessment. The major hindrances are
limitations of data /statistical analysis and the absence of multi-hazard maps. (see Matrix project:
http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/). In terms of vulnerability, more research is needed to provide local
communities with clearer concepts of vulnerability that they can understand, and assessment methods
they can more easily work with.
117
July 2013
5.4.3 Identification of costs and benefits of investing in DRR/CCA
In planning for the future, we know that current systems are not sufficient for the anticipated increase
in hazard events. However, uncertainty influences the incentive or willingness to invest in CCA and
DRR, leading to potential costly inaction. There remains the question of the value of a measure in
reducing impacts versus the cost of the damage if the measure is not implemented.
5.4.4 Networks
It is important to build DRR platforms which allow for a single information repository and/or open
access repositories. One TTM called for the establishment of networks to share knowledge, skills and
experience about DRR/CCA and strategic partnerships with other universities. Additionally, there
should be an effort to create synergies between the local level and academics, scientists and
practitioners.
5.5.1 Institutional arrangements for mainstreaming DRR/CCA
It was suggested that one should promote the adoption of a globally accepted conceptual framework
(post HFA) that unites DRR, CCA and other risks based on the unifying concept of resilience.
For example, one could incorporate vulnerability into national development planning, and recognize
national and local capacity through the establishment of nationally accepted technical standards and
approaches for the assessment of vulnerability and early warning systems needed at the community
level.
Additionally, TTMs considered it important to improve the applicability of developed models and
associated scenarios, by concerted action of both science and governments. The science sector needs
to be more transparent about its models, including uncertainties and implications of the results
whereas, at policy level, more accurate data collection and compilation must be ensured.
TTMs suggested that it would be necessary to: establish joint funding mechanisms at the national level
for DRR and CCA with a focus on targeting the most vulnerable for risk management in local
development planning, and ensure the mechanism's flexibility for the short and the longer term;
118
allocate resources towards preferred approaches like ‘soft’ (capacity building) measures;
institutionalise awareness raising for DRR/CCA; and sponsor organisations interested in open
information sources.
5.5.2 Strengthening of local disaster management organisations
Promote the use of participatory risk assessment within local development processes as a tool with
multiple benefits. DRR/CCA can best be organized as a community-based activity, with a major role for
successful local leaders with an open access to data, and appropriate tools and techniques.
Establishing effective cross-government and multi-sector working relationships, additionally at the
local level, may result in more sustainable and resilient practices.
Local communities are hesitant about being involved in new and innovative DRR/CCA approaches
because they lack experience with respect to the projected potential extremes of the hazard. Such
approaches need not always be changed, but should be specially packaged for specific local audiences
and the level of their experience.
5.5.3 Mainstreaming uncertainty in capacity development
The management of residual risks and uncertainties requires preparedness and effective responses
(early warning, evacuation plans, relief supplies, post-disaster livelihood support/recovery) and
increased capacity (flexibility in decision making, adaptive learning/management, improved
knowledge/skills and system transformation over time) to cope with surprises. It is therefore
important to focus on the preparedness phase of DRR. Which guidelines are needed in DRR must be
further explored.
5.5.4 The role of local level practitioners and local leaders
Local level practitioners and local leaders are required to adapt science-based expert knowledge to
specific local conditions and needs, as well as to translate the DRR/CCA message to local context,
customized for the user.
It was suggested that the level of scientific understanding should be strengthened in order to build
local capacity, for local specialists such as, for example, “barefoot hydrologists”. Local leaders and
practitioners have a key role here, but need to be involved and trained on DRR/CCA aspects of flood
and cyclones and “creeping” drought hazards.
119
July 2013
Finally, it was recommended that one promotes effective DRR/CCA decision making at the district
level, which is more in line with community frames and values. For this, one needs appropriate
institutions, accountability rules, skills and responsibilities for planning and implementation with an
appropriate budget.
5.5.5 Human capacities
It was felt important to extend knowledge and awareness-raising on CCA/DRR at various levels from
the community to university levels through:
•
Elementary/secondary education curricula on Climate Change;
•
Community Service Organisations (CSOs) and community leaders closer to the community and
in a better position than International Organisations to disseminate knowledge; and
•
Practitioners at the (sub)district level on standardized knowledge packages to prepare for
work in the field with the local leaders or field staff.
It was thought important to develop a toolkit for knowledge management with a system for tracking
curricula for training, if possible accessible on the basis of knowledge gaps and enriched with a roster
of DRR/CCA experts. Furthermore, diverse forms of knowledge dissemination and exchange are
needed to reach the various audiences. For example, through field visits, demonstration projects and
case studies.
It
is
important
to
promote
the
vocational
training
of
professionals
such
as
planners/engineers/technical people to match the rate at which the science evolves and knowledge
develops on DRR/CCA. One-off vocational training is not enough or effective. It needs to be embedded
in an institutionalized capacity building. On the job training is a most effective way as a capacity
building activity. For professionalizing the Disaster Management System and building synergy
between scientists and practitioners, on the job training is required on integrated disaster
management system, multiple hazard, multi-sector and multilevel coordination. In the Hindu Kush
Himalaya region, the aim is to convert locals into barefoot geo- hydrologists so they can understand
warning messages and read simple weather systems.
Training for policy makers, government staff, and resource persons responsible for DRR/CCA activities
is lagging. There is poor capacity for hazard accounting which makes training on assessment in natural
120
system observations especially needed. Improvement is needed in the assessment, planning,
monitoring and evaluation for communities, local authorities and Civil Society Organisations.
5.5.6 Technical capacities
Strengthen an “open capacity culture” with improved communication between the organisations
working on climate predictions and modelling scenarios and those on the “receiving end”, ensuring
that those who need or can benefit from the data understand their implications. Similarly, the risk and
vulnerability assessment carried out at local levels should reach research policy support systems at
higher levels.
5.5.7 Data Collection, Management and Modelling
Modelling helps us to get new and practical insights into CCA/DRR. There is a need to improve our
data collection and management methods to avoid the errors that make it even more difficult to model
scenarios. The problem needs to be addressed from two sides. At the policy level, we can ensure more
accurate data collection and compilation through, for example, training. The science sector needs to be
more transparent about their models, including uncertainties and implications of the results. This is an
important step in building trust in science. Training in model development at various levels would be
very helpful in ensuring that those who need or can benefit from the data understand their
implications. Furthermore, there is a need to strengthen the communication between those modelling
scenarios and those on the receiving end. Note that the WMO has made a first attempt at including
socio-economic data in climate change scenarios.
5.5.8 Communication
Mass Media (print and electronic media) is a powerful social estate. Media can make or break
campaigns. It is in the character of the media to focus more on sensational types of information.
Therefore, it requires an effort to get the media’s attention drawn to the news and information on
social and environmental issues with limited or zero sensational value. Despite this, in recent history,
we have seen that the media has played a pivotal role in creating wider public awareness and policy
influence in the realms of environment and climate change. Most importantly, the emergence of new
media, especially social media has created new alternatives for people to connect to the external
world. Of late, social media begun to shape the mass media and its character.
121
July 2013
It was suggested that there is a need to intensify the use of social media, in addition to mass media, to
promote social campaigns or a development activity. While mass media serves as an authentic source
for news and information, social media acts as a powerful disseminator. Media practitioners need
more specific communication training on the application of social media.
In discussing the role of media in DRR/CCA, a key problem is overcoming sensationalism. To overcome
this, more needs to be invested in training the media (although it should not be referred to as such)
and on building trust with the media. They need to know from us what messages we would like to get
across. And if we establish personal connections with individual media persons we have a better
chance of being able to review an article before it goes to print. In addition, social media can
support/promote better journalism. Organisations for media promoting green topics do exist in Nepal,
for example.
The importance of media relations has been recognized by the development sector which has been
engaging with the media through focused workshops, seminars and orientation exercises. Recent
initiatives in India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan have been hugely successful in creating a
committed cadre of media persons to write and speak on issues related to environment, development
and disaster risk reduction. A good practice is the implementation of regional climate change media
workshops and which have had good results in India.
5.5.9 Data and knowledge sharing
Risk assessment in DRR and CCA at all levels is time consuming and requires many resources for
downscaling to the local level and linking to community relationships. A first priority is access to
packaged data (access to databases and portals) and to appropriate tools and techniques. A basic
difficulty is unclear roles regarding data provision and exchange between communities and the
government. Open access to data and better links (and shared language) between government and
community level are therefore needed. Organisational capacity development will also be needed in
order to develop well-equipped and community-facilitating organisations.
Promote an ‘open copyright society’ maintained under a single system (e.g. Hyogo Framework) with
freely available online publications and data, access to training and other forms of knowledge transfer,
while linking with existing global and regional specialized sites, so that the information is easily
identified and accessible. Some useful examples of this are Harvard journals and the European Union’s
Open Source Policy which it actively promotes by sponsoring organisations interested in open sources.
122
Contribute to DRR/CCA data and information exchange by sharing insights, local knowledge and
development outputs from specific initiatives and projects in appropriate forums, including national
experts, and local and national authorities. At the global level, a comparative analysis between regions
could feed into regional climate change meetings. The various standardized global and regional data
sets (e.g. DesInventar, EMDAT-CRED) could be maintained under a single system (e.g. Hyogo).
In the case of training, it is not sufficient to make curricula openly available. Online curricula often
need to be adjusted to the circumstances and needs of the users/students. However, customizable
curricula do exist (e.g. Newater online curriculum) that can be adapted to the user groups, and these
can be enhanced with train-the-trainer programmes.
5.5.10 Resources for capacity development
Adding financial resources does not necessarily equate with increased capacity. It needs to be
recognized that there are other determinants of capacity such as technology, data, and training. For
example, there are sufficient financial resources to implement the Tsunami early warning system in
India but there is no capacity to implement it.
5.5.11 Needs assessment
Society is not prepared for climate change and adapting to it. The available systems are in many cases
not sufficient for the potential increase in hazards. Carrying out comprehensive needs assessments can
help to define what is required in the way of capacity development.
5.5.12 Vulnerability Assessment
Vulnerability assessment is concerned with risk tolerance and risk acceptance, and both are a function
of the perception of risk. There is often a misinterpretation of risk tolerance. Risks may even be
acceptable if the public thinks it is normal, and the public may even benefit from particular disasters
(e.g. compensation/insurance programmes that more than offset losses).
So the goal of protection should be that it be based on tolerance and acceptance, recognising that
perception changes over time. However, the definition of a vulnerable population is not necessarily
based on the perception of those affected. Donor entities are often the ones who determine the extent
to which a population is vulnerable. The solution is to give ownership of the issue to the government
123
July 2013
who are then responsible for recognizing their national and local capacity. Vulnerability should be
incorporated into national development planning.
5.5.13 Recommendations for how CATALYST and its successors can fill the gaps in DRR/CCA
The CATALYST project and its successors (see section below) can contribute to filling the gaps in
CCA/DRR capacity development in a number of ways by:
•
linking project insights with existing modules/training;
•
identifying local knowledge that could be useful for CCA/DRR measures;
•
developing a roster of DRR/CCA experts;
•
mapping of all training programmes;
•
facilitating the exchange of good practices from other regions and a comparative analysis of
good practices among the regions;
•
creating an inventory of demonstration projects and tracking their progress;
•
an extensive annotated bibliography on DRR/CCA per region including excellent examples of
particular risk assessments/vulnerability assessments that can help others to guide their own
assessments;
•
a toolkit for knowledge management;
•
developing a directory of interested organizations who can advance capacity development
after the project ends;
•
training should not link to function but to a functional level. This means providing a wider
training than strictly needed in order to allow for changes in a person’s function.
For all of CATALYST’s efforts, it is important that we do not duplicate the work of Prevention Web and
other climate-change DRR-related websites and portals, such as the Pacific Disaster Net which offers
information offline as well as online. Furthermore, there is a strong need to coordinate the knowledge
and data that is already there. Prevention Web and similar initiatives play an important role in this
regard.
Some examples for promoting knowledge management and dissemination include the United Nations
Global Environment Facility. The GEF has a continuous exchange of documents, practices, etc. which is
not limited to online access. An important element is making information available in different media.
See www.thegef.org/gef/ .
124
Another valuable example is the WMO, who have established a “Global Framework for Climate
Services to strengthen the provision and use of climate predictions, products and information
worldwide.” In principle, they should provide data access to all users. For more information, see
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_services.php
5.6 Recommendations for sustainability of the Think Tank
TTMs expressed their desire to build on this collaboration with individuals with diverse expertise and
experiences from different countries. The Think Tank should be used to strengthen new and
innovative ideas.
Maintaining the online discussion forum remains a challenge. Several participants suggested the use of
social networks such as Facebook or LinkedIn since they have had success with these (e.g. ICCO has
open and closed groups on Facebook for exchange with partners and others). It was pointed out,
however, that if the online discussion forum does not function without moderation then neither will
these other forums.
A designated moderator is needed in order to keep the discussion going and to individually address
members of the forum for feedback and information (e.g. SEA forum – South-East Asia forum for DRR
evaluators). It was also proposed that the input/themes of discussion need to be more concrete, e.g.
exchanging examples of science reaching the local level (e.g. hazard assessment technology).
5.6.1 Follow up project ideas
It was proposed that the CATALYST partners together with Think Tank members work to secure
dedicated resources for the following initiatives:
•
disseminate and undertake capacity development 'on the ground’;
•
undertake assessments to learn about gaps. These can be considered collectively or
independently. A few important themes were identified including land use management, water
management, and resilience and livelihoods.;
•
post-processing CATALYST products so that they are tailored to specific needs and regions.
There were no suggestions made for potential sources of funding. The resources for these initiatives
need to be secured on a case-by-case basis, especially for the local level.
125
July 2013
The TTM suggested the following training themes as being of importance. These themes are
summarized below according to the type of knowledge and skills to be gained, the resulting attitude or
perspective of the participant, and target group and/or level of the participation in the training course.
5.7.1 Topic 1: Media development for DRR/CCA.
The media are often not provided all the appropriate information. As a result of this and because of a
tendency to focus on sensational stories, there is a tendency to misinform the public on DRR-CCA
issues, according to some TTMs.
Knowledge. With a focus on engaging with the media, this training will help those in DRR/CCA
organisations to develop an understanding of how the story-to-media process can function well, with
reference to social media, print media, and broadcast media (radio, TV) in particular.
Skills. The skills to be gained include the preparation of a media brief, fact finding methods and
checking information sources. In addition, participants will learn to optimise their use of social media.
Participants will be given an exercise involving investigation of a story. Working in groups, they will
develop a media brief.
Attitudes. The training will have the effect of building confidence in engaging with the media and
improving the integrity of the information provided
Target groups. The participants may include community groups / NGO representatives, local leaders,
and journalists.
5.7.2 Topic 2: Integrated Analysis for DRR/CCA
DRR analysis involves a multi-sector assessment. This looks in particular at the integration of food
security and livelihoods, water and sanitation.
Knowledge. Through this topic participants learn how people’s livelihoods and lives are affected by DRR
and CCA
Skills. Participants will be able to undertake risk analysis and multi-sectoral analysis, as well as learning
an approach to integration, and facilitation skills in multiple arenas.
Attitude. Accepting and using/integrating information from various (different) perspectives.
Target groups. Trainers, academics and NGOs
5.7.3 Topic 3: DRR management, institutional interface between local, national and
international DRR organisations
Knowledge. Developing an understanding of institutional frameworks (roles, responsibilities, parties) of
the various organisations involved in DRR at different levels (local, national and international).
126
Skills. Analysis, communication, behaviour, management.
Attitude. An understanding and empathy for those working at various levels of DRR – in terms of
priorities, institutional, (political) and regulatory constraints.
Target group. Anyone working in DRR at any level (but courses are focused on one level at a time).
5.7.4 Topic 4: Community-based risk reduction
There is considerable capacity to reduce risk by potential disaster events if communities are given the
knowledge, skills and tools to do so.
Knowledge. Understanding of various aspects of communities such as leadership and decision-making,
administration, employment/livelihood, etc, and the nature and priorities of different communities (e.g.
fishing/coastal community, agricultural community); tools and techniques of vulnerability mapping, risk
mapping; use of scientific knowledge (concepts, data, methods, etc) and indigenous knowledge of risk.
Understanding of community risk assessment (CRA).
Skills. Ability to analyse community leadership/community structure; vulnerability mapping and
community risk assessment, use/interpretation of scientific and indigenous knowledge.
Attitude. Learning by doing, self-motivated, self-accelerated, short and longer term planning
Target group. NGOs, governmental agencies and international organisations working at the
community level who can themselves act as trainers for communities (Train the trainers).
5.7.5 Topic 5: Community mapping
Knowledge. Leading a community mapping exercise, and the tools for mapping in the context of
DRR/CCA.
Skills. Simple techniques for mapping water resources at the community level, working in a team,
accessing indigenous knowledge, accessing (scientific) data, measurement and monitoring.
Attitude. Trust in colleagues, team work, cooperation .
Target group. Communities and NGOs.
5.7.6 General considerations about the topics in the curriculum
We must ensure that the academic sector has an understanding of the needs of the practitioners in the
field (with their ‘feet on the ground’). This will require some translation in terms of language, approach,
setting, material, and culture. Related to this, local examples are also important for effective training.
The university-level education of school teachers in DRR/CCA has not yet been a topic in the CATALYST
project. However, curricula do exist and the project could at least draw attention to them. In general, a
great deal of training material is available, so rather than reinventing the wheel, the focus of CATALYST
module should be on identifying and if possible filling the gaps. The project should also draw attention to
127
July 2013
the manuals and training materials that are not openly accessible, in order to encourage more sharing of
training and guidance. Finally, it was requested by TTMs that DRR curricula should be regularly updated.
5.7.7 Terminology
Also in training, much attention is given to the use of terminology and changes to it over time. However,
it should be stressed that the content/description of most concepts does not change even if the name
changes. The discussion should focus on the content rather than the terminology. As an example, DRR is
a comprehensive cross-cutting concept that encompasses inclusiveness and cooperation and other
“buzz words” of the day.
128
CATALYST Additional Events
6 CATALYST Additional Events, May 2013
The CATALYST project organised two additional events connected to major conferences: 2013 UNSIDR
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit.
6.1 Side Event at the UNISDR Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
Place: Geneva, Switzerland
Date: Monday 20 May,2013
Time: 17.00 – 19.00
Number of participants: 13, plus 8 project partners
Organisers: seeconsult
6.1.1 Side event goals and approach
The purpose of the CATALYST meeting at the UNISDR Global Platform for DRR was to provide the
TTMs with an update on CATALYST progress with a focus on the
products being published in the remaining months of the project.
Thus the Think Tank members had another opportunity to discuss
and have input and give feedback to the final knowledge products
(listed above in Section 1). Finally, we used the opportunity to further
stimulate concrete ideas for follow-up projects to disseminate our results at the local and national
levels.
The agenda and the list of participants can be found in Appendices I(E) and II(E) respectively.
After an overview of project progress by the coordinators, Seeconsult, a short presentation was given
by UNU-EHS describing the work on synthesising knowledge about best practices in DRR/CCA. These
best practices have been derived through the Think Tank process and on the basis of research carried
out by project partners. Examples were presented from each of the four CATALYST regions on the ‘state
of the art’ (i.e. what we know about current practices) and on ‘best practices’ (i.e. what we believe we
should be doing). It was stated that the main objective of the project was to gather and share knowledge
129
July 2013
for capacity development and, specifically, to show how to develop the capacity needed to move
stakeholders involved in DRR/CCA from knowledge to action.
6.1.2 Feedback ...
On Best Practices...
One TTM suggested that the CATALYST Project compares its best practices with those identified by the
UNISDR committee in Nairobi – the former focuses on capacity development, whilst the latter does not.
Perhaps, it was suggested, the two reports could be consolidated. One practice recommended was the
Swiss-Re farmers' productive safety net programme, which currently covers 25000 households in the
Harita area of northern Ethiopia, and which has paid out insurance-based compensation to farmers
affected by drought in 2013.
Another TTM warned, and this is becoming a regular message to the project, that a best practice that
works well in one place in a region may not work well at all in other places in that region.
On Capacity development and training ...
TTMs suggested that capacity development needs to be focused on supporting governments in the
preparation of DRR National Action Plans. Once those plans are done, along with a suitable assessment
of DRR needs, one can then know what training to provide. Currently, the TTMs added, there are
numerous courses on offer, but training needs to be adapted to national plans and local contexts.
Training material on urban planning and DRR can be gathered from existing UNISDR guidance on the
topic, and from copyright-free material available at Periperi U, a USAID/UNISDR funded project set up
to mobilise local resources in ten African universities to build context-specific DRR capabilities in:
formal education, short course training, local research risk , vulnerability reduction and policy
advocacy.
On communication …
Finally, one has to be careful about the choice of terms used in DRR communication and the perception
of terms and their different uses across fields of investigation. For example, whilst one TTM suggested
that, within sociology, terms such as “resilience” are more apt for use with the general public than
CATALYST Regional Workshop Reports on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation
130
referring to “disasters”, another, from the area of cultural heritage claimed that the term “disaster” was
being used as a driver of disciplinary integration.
On the continuation of the project...
It was suggested that the project should continue, and by doing so, focus on the local level interpretation
of CATALYST knowledge and know-how. Other recommendations were to keep a small project
secretariat going and keep the website maintained but simplified. If there were resources, keeping the
E-bulletin going would also be useful. It would be of fundamental necessity to put more resources into
the moderation of online discussions, whether they remained on the current platform or were moved to
platforms such as LinkedIn, so as to retain them as spaces for practitioners to share ideas and news.
6.2
Technical Workshop at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit
Place: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Date: Friday 17 May,2013
Time: 09.00-12.00
Number of participants: 6 (from 12 registered), plus 1 project partner
Organisers: GEUS; Co-organiser: UNESCAP
6.2.1 Workshop goals and approach
This technical workshop of the Asia Pacific Water Summit was intended to promote the work and
results of the CATALYST project among practitioners; to discuss potential transformative practices in
the SSA region for further developing the capacities of the region to implement effective DRR/CCA; and
to identify future directions for the Catalyst project. The agenda and the list of participants can be found
in Appendices I(F) and II(F) respectively.
6.2.2 Feedback ...
On knowledge sharing...
On the subject of how the sharing of knowledge could be improved across different levels, it was
suggested that boundary partners should be involved in defining and implementing the knowledge
gathering. Boundary partners refers to the people and organizations that would be using the results,
e.g. relevant government bodies and other actors in development. If boundary partners are included in
131
July 2013
defining objectives, interpreting data and evaluating results, there is a better chance that the results
will actually be used, and the knowledge successfully shared. The Mekong River Commission (MRC)
projects were mentioned as a way this can be done in practice, although this concerns intergovernment collaboration only.
The integration of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies into the operational stages of
project development activities could improve the sharing knowledge across administrative levels, it
was claimed. Thus, agencies that perform such assessments must be urged (‘lobbied’) to include DRR
and CCA in EIA.
On communication and policy-science intermediaries
Additionally, knowledge sharing from scientific level to operational level in Thailand is, as in most
other regions in Asia presumably, impeded by the non-existence of an intermediary to translate
scientific knowledge into knowledge that can be used by practitioners in DRR and CCA. There are
insufficient organizations that can translate scientific knowledge to operational knowledge. In the
meantime, it was suggested that the use of scientific descriptions in operational DRR and CCA should
be avoided; preferably graphical media should be used to get the message through. In addition, the
younger generation needs to be involved in DRR/CCA and this needs specific communication to these
groups. Communication and involvement needs to be achieved through bottom-up mechanisms, not
top-down ones, as is the case now.
On Education ...
Additionally, it was claimed that knowledge on DRR and CCA should be integrated / mainstreamed
into regular education, i.e. elementary and high schools. It should be acknowledged, in school, that
disaster risk is the normal case and to be dealt with as part of normal life. Capacity development
should focus on enabling individuals to carry out independent risk assessments; i.e. assessing risks
and making decisions in consideration of such risk, since learning about the risks we are taking today
should teach us how to deal with future risks. This enables people to make decisions on their own.
Therefore current education at basic levels must be adapted.
132
On changing the focus of DRR ...
Despite good intentions and increasing knowledge on disaster risk management, natural hazards are
still predominantly dealt with by way of crisis management. It is felt by TTMs that for policy makers
there is a temptation to wait and see, and then repair. To reverse this, one needs to understand the
answer to “Who is going to pay for preventive measures?”. The costs need to be balanced with how
much risk we are willing to take?. Conventional Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) alone is not sufficient for
this purpose; there is a need to include uncertainty assessments in the CBA.
On risk assessments...
Improved maps are needed to estimate vulnerability at the local scale and in the face of many drivers.
Risk assessment of each separate investment or development activity does not confer an adequate
understanding. There is therefore an additional need for better estimations of how the added effect of
many different developments together affects the risk picture.
133
July 2013
7 Evaluation and lessons learned
Caroline van Bers (seeconsult)
Marius Hasenheit (seeconsult)
& Matt Hare (seeconsult)
7.1 Workshop evaluation
The purpose of the CATALYST evaluation of the four regional workshops has been to assess the overall
success of these events in achieving their goals and to use this information to improve subsequent project
workshops. Specifically, the evaluation forms (see Appendix IV) were completed by participants at the
end of workshops in order to determine the extent to which participant expectations were met and goals and
objectives of the event were satisfied. Furthermore, it was important to determine the added value of the
workshop to participants in terms of gaining new information and opportunities through presentations and
discussions (both formal and informal). Finally, it was useful to assess the planning, implementation and
logistical aspects of the event. On average, two-thirds of the participants of each workshop completed the
evaluation form, and specifically for each workshop: EUM 15 of 18 participants; EWA 13 of 23; CAC 13 of
21; and SSA 15 of 25 participants.
7.1.1 Workshop expectations
In most cases, participants had a clear idea of what to expect from the workshop. The exchange of
experience, knowledge, and information was a central factor, and accordingly the learning opportunity
provided, especially that related to DRR and CCA and the interaction between the two. The chance to meet
and interact with individuals working in the same or in a different field under the DRR/CCA umbrella played
an important role in their attendance. Related to this, participants felt the event presented an opportunity to
expand their network.
Most participants felt that their expectations were met fully or at least partially. The responses provided by
respondents of the individual regional workshop are summarised below.
134
Evaluation and Lessons Learned
EUM workshop
Expectations were well met according to 85 percent of respondents (11 participants). For one respondent, the
expectations were met completely. A few reasons for these responses were the well structured workshop,
stimulating discussions and the active participation of the participants. One participant indicated that their
expectations were only partly met because he/she were uncertain as to how the results fit into the “bigger
picture”.
EWA workshop
More than half of the respondents mentioned that their expectations were well met, and almost half
indicated that their expectations were completely met. One respondent mentioned that his/her
expectations were partly met. Respondents referred to the good presentation of DRR/CCA concepts,
useful examples of DRR/CCA and productive exchange with other participants. Some reasons why
expectations may not have been fully met were the lack of time, and, according to one participant, the
failure to integrate DRR/CCA in urban planning.
CAC workshop
Most respondents stated that their expectations were either well met or were fulfilled completely. The
participants appreciated the presentations themselves that were regionally relevant, as well as the
discussions after presentations which allowed for a consensus to be found on key points. One
respondent indicated that her or his expectations were met partly, feeling that some of the discussions
were, however, not well focused.
SSA workshop
The expectations were well met according to two-thirds of the respondents (10 participants). A
further 3 participants indicated that their expectations were partly met. One participant indicated that
their expectations were not well met. The respondents referred to the broad representation of stakeholders
with various ideas and inputs (which brings advantages and disadvantages). It was also indicated that the
resource staff and facilitators were very supportive. However, respondents also mentioned that there was
insufficient time and resources to get a complete overview of CCA and DRR. One participant missed other
stakeholders from a wider range of sectors and another one missed discussions at the more operational
scale/local level.
135
July 2013
Overall participants’ expectations were met at all workshops, although there was a consensus that more time
could have been allocated to the workshops given the breadth of the subject matter being covered.
7.1.2 Ability to raise important issues
It was considered very important that all participants be able to raise important issues during the workshops.
Almost all workshop respondents at all four events were 'completely' or 'well' satisfied with the opportunities
to raise important issues (see Table 2).
Despite the general satisfaction with the opportunity to share views/perspectives and information, an
important observation made by several project partners in each event was that a few participants were less
forthcoming than others. This has been attributed to a few factors that are worth considering for similar
events in future. First, those attending were, in a few cases, replacements for TTMs that were unable to
attend, and therefore some of the replacements had less experience of the CATALYST process and prior
discussions. Substantial effort should be made in future to encourage the situation whereby if members are
not able to attend, the replacement is fully up to date on the process and debates that have already taken
place. Second, some participants felt they were not confident in expressing their views about gaps and
barriers in their work when the meeting was being recorded. Some, for example, felt more open about
expressing their views when it was known that the meeting was not being recorded. This should also be
considered in future when setting up virtual meetings, since to date, all our virtual meetings have been
recorded (see D4.3 CATALYST Virtual Meeting Report).
7.1.3 Views on the practical aspects of the workshop
In addition to the substantive work, the participants also had the chance to evaluate the practical
aspects of the workshop. On the whole, participants who provided input for the evaluation were
satisfied with the topics and themes covered, the amount covered, the level of the content covered, the
length of the event, the workshop preparation in terms of logistics and organisation, the quality of the
moderation and the speakers/presentations. The results are summarised in Table 3. The numbers are
only listed where a number was provided. Where no response was provided for a particular category
(e.g. very poor or low), then the category is omitted. Comments and suggestions are also provided.
Note that not all respondents responded to all questions.
136
Table 2: Ability to raise important issues at each workshop (numbers refer to the number of respondents agreeing
with rating)
Region
EUM
Completely
Well-
Partly
satisfied
satisfied
satisfied
5
8
0
Comments/suggestions
One participant suggested inviting more experts from geophysical or
seismic risk reduction since the EUM region is highly prone to
geophysical hazards. Another participant felt the themes and topics
dealt with during the workshop were too wide-ranging. However,
another suggested more focus should be placed on the ultimate goals of
the project.
EWA
6
5
2
There were no suggestions for improvement in this regard.
CAC
6
6
1
One participant mentioned that small group sessions provided a good
opportunity for open discussions and another considered that the
participants were very receptive to interventions and described the
moderators as flexible. One respondent indicated that some sessions
exceeded time limits and hence limited discussion time. Another
suggestion for improvement was a post-event information sharing that
can be structured to ensure response.
SSA:
2
10
2
One participant suggested that participation in discussion could be
improved if the number of scientific TTMs were more balanced out
with a higher number of TTMs from humanitarian and development
sectors.
137
July 2013
Table 3: Practical aspects of the programme (numbers refer to the number of respondents agreeing with rating)
Region
EUM
EWA
CAC
SSA
Very Useful
9
5
7
7
Useful
4
7
5
8
Of little use
0
0
0
0
About right
12
9
11
9
Too much
1
3
2
3
Too little
0
0
0
0
About right
13
11
13
11
Too advanced
0
1
0
2
Not advanced enough
0
1
0
0
About right
12
11
11
12
Too long
0
1
1
2
Too short
0
1
1
Very good
9
7
10
4
Good
4
2
3
10
Satisfactory
3
1
0
0
Selected comments/suggestions
Topics & themes
Content covered
Level of Content
Length of event
Preparation of event
(EWA) Invitation came too late for visa application; local organisers did not
provide documents and anticipate problems.
Unsatisfactory
1
0
0
0
6
9
6
3
Quality of moderation
Very good
(EWA) Open and integrative moderation; “Ketso” mind mapping exercise was
especially helpful. (SSA): well prepared, clear, competent and well-versed.
Good
7
4
7
8
(SSA) Sometimes too much time devoted in discussion to technicalities.
Satisfactory
0
0
0
2
(SSA) Role of moderators as presenters confusing
4
6
3
4
(EWA)
Speakers/Presentations
Very good
Brief
presentations
but
sufficient
detail.
(CAC):
presenters
knowledgeable on subject matter and coverage of the subjects were good.
Good
9
7
6
10
(CAC) a few last minute presentations not included on the agenda.
(EUM) one presentation was off base and could have been better counselled in
advance.
138
7.1.4 Infrastructure/ Equipment
On the whole, participants at all four workshops were satisfied with the quality of the infrastructure in terms
of venue, materials (handouts) and equipment. Some of the equipment at the EUM workshop could have
been better (beamer not strong enough and there was no internet). Documentation provided for the
workshops was considered sufficient.
7.1.5 General Comments on Workshops
Participants ranked the workshops as very good or good. To support this view, a few sample comments are
provided here:
•
EWA workshop: The expectation of exchange and networking and of gaining knowledge about DRR
and CCA was fulfilled.
•
CAC workshop: “collaborative and supportive which allowed frank and fruitful discussion.”
•
CAC workshop: “ample time for presentations and feedback through the group session and the ideal
size of the selected group (which allowed detailed discussions on the subject and brainstorming).
•
EUM Workshop: “interesting to acquire a new knowledge on concepts that I usually face from
another point of view (more related to modelling)”.
•
SSA Workshop: The plenary moderation was considered to be well prepared, clear, competent and
well-versed.
7.1.6 Recommendations for future workshops
A number of recommendations were made for future workshops. These suggestions were considered in the
development of subsequent events and, where possible and appropriate, incorporated. The most helpful or
substantial suggestions follow (organised by regional workshop):
EUM Workshop:
•
The workshop could have been half a day or a day longer in order to allow enough time for
discussions (editors note: this was followed up on in subsequent workshops).
•
A field trip on a relevant theme would have been appreciated (editors note: this was followed up on
in subsequent workshops).
EWA Workshop:
•
Give every participant time for a small presentation (editors note: this was followed up on in
subsequent workshops)
139
July 2013
•
In light of the fact that there is only one workshop, more frequent virtual contact is desired through
online meetings, discussion fora, and email
CAC Workshop:
•
Allocate more time for small group discussions (editors note: undertaken in other three workshops).
•
Help participants identify funding opportunities for projects.
•
Another participant wanted to learn from general experiences about financial mechanisms to tackle
DRR prevention and recovery.
SSA Workshop:
•
Organize the event by “specific thematic concerns (such as water/climate issues, community-based
initiatives, knowledge management, capacity building etc.) to share findings and best practices
within these certain fields.”
•
“Invite more government representatives....to raise the awareness of DRR and CCA and encourage
positive synergy between governments and CSOs/NGOs.”
•
A discussion concerning CCA financing via governmental and private sectors (and its advantages
and disadvantages) would be welcome. A comparable discussion about DRR and CCA policy and its
influences on local and national policy makers would also be very useful.
•
A theme to focus upon: DDR for privately-owned infrastructure.
7.2 Lessons learned
The workshops described in this deliverable have represented several different ways of supporting
stakeholders, in this case the Think Tank Members, to discuss and elaborate their views and
knowledge on best practices, and other issues, in DRR/CCA. As can be seen, the quantity and depth of
information elicited varies between workshops as well. One of the reasons for this is the degree of
clarity regarding key themes for the workshop that the organisers and participants share. Another
reason derives from the great tension observed through all these workshops, a challenge for anyone
planning them; the tension between giving time for presentations (i.e. for detailed and focused sharing
of information from one stakeholder to the others) and for giving time for group discussions (i.e. for,
sometimes, less focused, but ultimately pluralistic exchanges on topics that can lead to more critical
discussion, if not as much detail). In the traditional workshop setting there is a temptation to provide
everyone an opportunity to make presentations. However, as shown in the TTM feedback on the
140
workshops, making more room for group discussions was called for. Given a limited time for the
workshop, this means that less time for presentations should be permitted, in future.
As discussed in Hare et al., (2013), the fact that participation rates in regional virtual meetings (see
CATALYST Deliverable D4.3, forthcoming) have been good does not obscure the fact that participation
in face-to-face workshops has been higher. Whilst virtual meetings will always have an important role
in the Think Tank for maintaining discussions and member interest outside of workshops,
“there can be no substitute in such a Think Tank process for face-to-face workshops.
The latter serve the role of galvanising enthusiasm for the process, helping the
members to collectively formulate positions on substantive issues, as well as
expanding the professional networks of the participants” (Hare et al., 2013: p 11).
By also inviting selected guests to the workshops, in addition to Think Tank Members, the workshops
have also served as a means of increasing the number of Think Tank Members from 75, before the
workshop series, to a membership of 115. Increased membership is an indicator of the success of the
CATALYST Think Tank, in the same way that this document is an indicator of the richness and
diversity of the discussions that are to be found in it.
141
July 2013
References
Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (2012) Strengthening Local Capacity.
Background Studies on Conference Sub-Themes. 5th ASIAN MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION Yogyakarta, October 22-25, 2012. Available from: http://www.unisdrapps.net/confluence/download/attachments/11534367/AMCDRR_BackgroundWEB.pdf?version=1
Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative (CaDRI) (2011) Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster
Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva.
Carby, B. (2011) Caribbean Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action mid-term review.
Disaster Risk Reduction Centre, University of the West Indies and United Nations Development
Programme. Available from: http://www.bb.undp.org/uploads/file/pdfs/crisis/crmi-hfamtrcarib-rt-2011en.pdf
Care International (2009) Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. Available from:
http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf
Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and Caribbean Community (CARICOM)Secretariat, (2004).
Sourcebook on the integration of natural hazards into environmental impact assessment (EIA):
NHIA-EIA Sourcebook. Caribbean Development Bank: Bridgetown, Barbados.
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L., (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Social Science Quarterly. 84(2), 242-261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
Cutter S.L. and Finch C. (2008). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (7) 23012306
Estrela, T. and Vargas, E. (2012): Drought Management Plans in the European Union. The Case of
Spain. In: Water Resources Management DOI 10.1007/s11269-011-9971-2
European Environment Agency (2009). Water resources across Europe — confronting water scarcity
and drought. EEA Report no. 2/2009. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
European Environment Agency (2012). Water Resources in Europe in the context of vulnerability. .
EEA Report, no.11/2012. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
142
References
Gutman, P. (2007) Ecosystem services – foundations for a new rural-urban compact, Ecol. Econom., 62,
383–387.
Hare, M.P. , van Bers, C., van der Keur, P. , Henriksen, H.-J. , Luther, J., Kuhlicke, C., Jaspers, F.,
Terwisscha van Scheltinga, C., Mysiak, J., Calliari, E., Warner K., . Daniel, H., Coppola, J., and
McGrath P.F. (2013) Brief Communication: CATALYST – a multi-regional stakeholder Think
Tank for fostering capacity development in disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 1, 1–16, www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-scidiscuss.net/1/1/2013/ doi:10.5194/nhessd-1-1-2013
ICCDD (2000). Italian Committee to Combat Drought and Desertification - National Report on the
Implementation of UNCCD, Italy, October 2000
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (2006) Vulnerability and
capacity assessment: lessons learned and recommendations. Available from :
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/8282_llearnedrecommendationsen.pdf
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2012) CRiSTAL User’s Manual - Version 5
available from: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/cristal_user_manual_v5_2012.pdf
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
IPCC (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J.
Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 p
Jaspers, F., Hare, M., van der Keur, P., Luther, J., Calliari, E., and Daniel, H. (2012): Report on Capacity
Development for Disaster Risk Reduction, CATALYST project, Deliverable D3.1 (version 2,0), 137
pp., available at http://www.catalyst-project.eu.
Kuhlicke, C.; Steinführer A.; Chloe, B.; Bianchizza, C.; Bründl, M.; Matthias, B.; De Marchi, B.; Di Masso
Tarditti, M.; Höppner, C.; Komac, B.; Lemkow, L.; Luther, J.; McCarthy, S.; Pellizzoni, L.; Renn, O.;
Scolobig, A.; Supramaniam, M.; Tapsell, S.; Wachinger, G.; Walker, G.; Whittle, R.; Zorn, M.;
Faulkner, H. (2011), Perspectives on social capacity building for natural hazards: outlining an
emerging field of research and practice in Europe. Environmental Science & Police, 14/4: 804814, DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.001
143
July 2013
Mysiak , J., Calliari , E., Carrera, L., Maziotis , A., van der Keur , P., Luther, J., and Kuhlicke C. (2012)
CATALYST Report on issues, gaps and opportunities, network coverage CATALYST project,
Deliverable D2.2. (version 1,0), available at http://www.catalyst-project.eu.
O'Keefe, P.; Westgate, K.; Wisner, B. (1976) Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature,
260, 566-567.
ProAct Network (2010) Maximising Ecosystem Services for Disaster Risk Reduction. Briefing Note
available from:
http://proactnetwork.org/proactwebsite/media/download/resources/Ecosystem-basedDRR/environment_DRR%20briefing.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (2002) Expert Group Meeting on the Role of
Regional Organisations in Strengthening National Capacities for Disaster Reduction, Geneva,
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2010) Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology Development Project (RiVAMP). Linking Ecosystems to Risk and Vulnerability
Reduction: The Case of Jamaica. Available from :
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/13205_RiVAMPexsummary.pdf
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2009). 2009 UNISDR
Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, 2009. Available from:
http://unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf
Vicarelli, M and Aguilar A. (2011) El Niño and Mexican children: Medium-term effects of early-life
weather shocks on cognitive and health outcomes (job market paper) available from :
http://www.aguilaresteva.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/El_Nino_Effects_Child_Dev_v17Nov11.pdf
Wisner, B. (2006) Self-assessment of coping capacity: Participatory, proactive and qualitative
engagement of communities in their own risk management, in: Birkmann, J. (Ed). Measuring
Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. United Nations
University Press, pp. 316-329.
Wisner, B. and Pelling, M. (2008). African Cities of Hope and Risk. in Pelling, M & Wisner, B. (eds.),
2008. Disaster Risk Reduction: Cases from Urban Africa. Earthscan, London. pp17-42
World Bank and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), (2010). Report on the
Status of Disaster Risk Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC. Available from:
http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/sites/gfdrr.org/files/publication/AFR.pdf
144
Appendices
Appendixes
Appendix I: Agendas
A: European Mediterranean Regional workshop
CATALYST Project
Regional Workshop for the European Mediterranean
27 – 28 Sept. 2012
Organisers: GEUS, seeconsult
Hosted by the Water Research Institute of the Italian National Research Council
Bari, Italy
____________________________________________________________________________
Day 1: Thursday 27 September
Part I: Setting the scene
09.00-09.15:
Welcome and Opening Dr. Raffaele Giordano, IRSA-CNR
Overview of workshop objectives. program and expected outcomes
Dr. Peter van der Keur, GEUS & Caroline van Bers, seeconsult, Germany
09.15- 09.30:
Introduction round
09.30-10.00:
Keynote lecture: Linking DRR and CCA, and mainstreaming this into policy
Prof. Dr. Gerd Tetzlaff, University of Leipzig, Germany
10.00-10.30:
Coffee break
Part II:
State of the art - DRR in the European Mediterranean region
10.25-10.30:
Introduction to the session and the World Café approach.
Peter van der Keur and Caroline van Bers
10.30-11.10
Four 10-minute input presentations on the State of the Art
State of the art in earthquake DRR
Dr. Ebru Gencer, University of Columbia, USA
145
July 2013
State of the art in drought DRR related to water resources (1): agriculture/ irrigation
Dr. Elena Lopez-Gunn, Universidad Complutense Madrid, Spain
State of the art in drought DRR related to water resources (2): hydrological issues
Dr. Frank van Weert, Wetlands International / IGRAC, The Netherlands
Inputs from D3.1 deliverable, Report on Capacity Development for Disaster
Reduction, and Task 5.2 on state of the art from the CATALYST perspective
Dr. Hans Jørgen Henriksen , GEUS, Denmark/ Dr. Peter van der Keur, GEUS,
Denmark / Humaira Daniel, UNU-EHS, Germany
11.10-12.30:
Group work I: What are the state-of-the-art DRR practices in EUM region?
World Cafe with three tables (5-6 people each + 1 moderator & 1 rapporteur):
1) Earthquakes 2) Droughts: agricultural impacts 3) Droughts: hydrological
system impacts
Some guiding themes for the discussions: structural/non-structural measures,
hazard assessment and vulnerability, uncertainty issues, science-policy link.
Results presented on flip charts and/or pin boards (coffee avail. during session)
12.30 – 13.00
Presentation of results from the three groups (moderated by Caroline van Bers)
13.00-14.00:
Lunch
Part III:
Transformational best practices in DRR – what best practices are available for
(potential) use in the EUM region?
14.00-14.40: Four 10-minute input talks on the best practices
Best Practices in DRR related to water resources (1): Floods
Dr. Maike Vollmer, UNU-EHS, Germany
Best practices in drought DRR related to water resources (2): Agriculture/ irrigation
Best practices in drought DRR related to water resources (3): Hydrological issues.
146
Appendices
Inputs from D3.1, Report on Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction, and Task
5.3 on Best Practices from CATALYST perspective
Hans Jørgen Henriksen / Peter van der Keur / Humaira Daniel
14.40-15.00
Break
15.00-16.30.
Group work II: What are transformational Best Practices for EUM region, and why?
World cafe with three tables (5-6 people each plus one moderator and one rapporteur):
1) Floods 2) Droughts: agricultural impacts 3) Droughts: hydrological system impacts
The goal: to identify a set of best practices that could transform the
management of the hazard in the region. Some guiding themes for the discussions:
structural/non-structural measures, hazard assessment and vulnerability, drought
management, uncertainty issues, science-policy link.
Results are presented on flip charts and/or pin boards. (coffee available during session)
16.30-17.10:
Presentation of results from the three groups (moderated by Caroline van Bers)
17.10-17.30
Wrap up and presentation of Day 2 program (Peter van der Keur)
20.00
Social
dinner
_____________________________________________________________________________
Day 2: Friday, 28 September
9.00-9.30:
Recap of day 1/ Introduction to Day 2 (Peter van der Keur)
Part IV:
Filling the capacity development gaps and fostering further capacity development
In order to introduce a transformational set of best practices, what capacity do we have to achieve this, and what
further capacity development activities need to be introduced in the region?
9.30-10.10:
Four 10-minute input talks on capacity development needed in the region
Best practices in drought DRR related to water resources (1): Agriculture/irrigation
Best practices in drought DRR related to water resources (2): Hydrological issues.
147
July 2013
Inputs from D3.1, Report on Capacity Development for Disaster Reduction, and Task
5.4 on capacity development requirements from the CATALYST perspective.
Hans Jørgen Henriksen / Peter van der Keur / Humaira Daniel
10.10-10.40
Coffee break
10.40-12.20:
Group work III: What capacity development gaps need to be filled in EUM region?
World cafe with two tables (7-8 people each plus one moderator and one rapporteur):
1) Droughts: agricultural impacts 2) Droughts: hydrological system impacts
The goal: identify capacity development gaps to be filled if transformational best
practices as defined on Day 1 are to be achieved. If possible, outline how these gaps can be filled.
Results are presented on flip charts and/or pin boards. (coffee available during session)
12.20 – 13.00
Presentation of the results of the groups (moderated by Caroline van Bers)
13.00-14.00
Lunch
Part V:
Roundtable Discussion
Moderated by Raffaele Giordano, IRSA-CNR
14.00 – 14.20 Policy issues concerning water management and reclaimed water
Prof. Umberto Fratino, European Innovation Partnership for Water
14.20 – 15.30
Exchange with contributions from scientists and practitioners from southern Italy:
sharing perspectives on dealing with drought in the context of DRR and CCA
Coffee available during the session
Part VI Evaluation
15:30– 15.45
Evaluation of workshop (in writing and discussion)
15.45-16.00
Break
Part VI Wrap up and Next Steps
Moderated by Peter van der Keur and Caroline van Bers
16.00
Wrapping up: reflections on the workshop outcomes
148
Appendices
16.15
16.30
The think tank process now until project end
Feedback on D3.1, Report on Capacity Development for Disaster Reduction
Fons Jaspers, Alterra, The Netherlands
17.00
Online discussion process
17.30
CLOSE
149
July 2013
B: Central America and the Caribbean Regional workshop
CATALYST Project
Regional Workshop for Central America and the Caribbean
3-5 Dec. 2012
Organisers: FEEM
Hosted by the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)
Montego Bay, Jamaica
PRE-EVENT: Sunday, December 2nd , 2012
20:00 – 23:00 CATALYST Welcome drink and dinner
DAY 1: Monday, December 3rd, 2012
Falmouth Room
08:30 – 09:00 Registration of participants
09:00 – 09:50 Opening session
Chair: Matt Hare
09:00 – 09:10
Management Agency)
09:10 – 09:20
09:20 – 09:30
09:30 – 09:50
Welcome address by Jeremy Collymore (Caribbean Disaster Emergency
Introduction to the CATALYST project - Matt Hare (Seeconsult)
Scope of the workshop – Elisa Calliari (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)
Introduction of the participants
09:50 – 15:00 Session 1 - Social Vulnerability: Urban and Rural Dimensions
Chair: Matt Hare
09:50 – 10:10 Urban Vulnerability in Central America and the Caribbean - Ebru Gencer
(Columbia University)
10:10 – 10:30 Rural Vulnerability in Central America and the Caribbean - Marta Vicarelli (Yale
University)
10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break
11:00 – 11:20 Risk & Vulnerability Assessment - Sanya Wedemeir-Graham (Caribbean
Environment Programme)
11:20 – 11:50 Caribbean Dewetra Platform for Natural Disaster Risk Assessment and
Prediction - Robero Rudari Foundation CIMA-The Italian National Civil Protection
Agency (CIMA)
11:50 – 12:00 Questions & Answers
12:00 – 13:30 Lunch
13:30 – 15:00 Group discussions
150
Appendices
15:30 – 18:30 Session 2 - Environmental Vulnerability: Ecosystem Services for Disaster Risk
Reduction
Chair: Jaroslav Mysiak
15:30 – 15:50 Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Disasters - Myriam Urzua
(United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)
15:50 – 16:10 Environmental Management and Vulnerabilities in Central America and the
Caribbean – Keisha Sandy (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute)
16:10 – 16:30 Good practices on measures to reduce environmental vulnerability and their
assessment - Fabrice Renaud (The United Nations University Institute for
Environment and Human Security)
16:30– 16:45 The economic value of ecosystem services – Jaroslav Mysiak (Fondazione Eni
Enrico Mattei and Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change)
16:45 – 17:00 The Stephenson Disaster Management Institute - Andres Calderon (Lousiana
State University)
17:00 – 18:30 Group discussions (coffee available)
18:30 – 19:00 Presentation of the results from the group discussions (Session 1&2), wrap up
DAY2: Tuesday, December 4th, 2012
09:00 – 12:00 Opening Ceremony Plenary for the 7th Caribbean Conference on Comprehensive
Disaster Management
and Exhibition - Redefining Disaster Resilience
Keynote address: Repositioning Disaster Resilience in the Development Agenda
Ministerial/High Level Panel Discussion
Concurrent Poster Presentation
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 16:30 Sessions 3: Governance for DRR – the CATALYST project’s perspective (open
session)
Chair: Barbara Carby - Trelawny Room
14:00 – 14:20 Assessing the success of Hyogo Framework for Action implementation in the
Caribbean - Barbara Carby (University of West Indies)
14:20 – 14:40 Experiences from the practical management of emergencies - Ronald Jackson
(Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management)
14:40 – 15:00 Natural hazards and sustainable development - Carlos Perez Aleman (UNDP –
Nicaragua Office)
15:00 – 15:15 Questions & Answers
15:45 – 16:05 Natural hazard management and climate adaptation – Matt Hare (Seeconsult)
151
July 2013
16:05 – 16:30 Questions & Answers, plenary discussion
16:30 – 18:30 Continuation of sessions 3: Governance for DRR – the CATALYST project’s
perspective (closed session)
Chair: Barbara Carby - Falmouth Room
16:30 – 18:00 Group discussions
18:00 – 18:30 Presentation of the results from the group discussions and wrap up
DAY 3: Wednesday, December 5th, 2012
09:00 – 12:00 Session 4: Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction – Regional
Perspectives
Chair: Fabrice Renaud - Port Antonio Room
09:00 – 09:10 The “TerraCoco” project – Francisco Toledo (Redes de Gestión de Riesgos y
Adaptación al Cambio Climático)
09:10 – 09:30 Learning from megadisasters - lessons learnt from Tohoku, Japan and capacity
development -Federica Ranghieri (World Bank)
09:30 – 09:50 Capacity Development for ecosystem based Disaster Risk Reduction – Radhika
Murti (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
09:50– 10:10 Mexico’s Water Agenda - Gonzalo Roque (Infinita Consulting)
10:10 – 10:30 Capacity Development from the CATALYST perspective - Humaira Daniel (The
United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security)
10:30 – 11:45 Plenary Discussion: Advances in DRR Capacity Development in Central America
and the Caribbean
11:45 – 12:00 Wrapping up: reflection on the workshop outcomes and next steps
12:00 – 13:30 Lunch
14:00 – 18:30 Field Trip to the Montego Bay Marine Park
152
Appendices
C: East and West Africa Regional workshop
CATALYST Project
Regional Workshop for East and West Africa
10-11 October, 2012
Organisers: UFZ
Hosted by Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), the Disaster Risk
Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS) and Ethiopian Institute of Architecture, Building
Construction and City Development (EiABC) of Addis Ababa University (AAU)
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
9h00: Plenary:
Welcome by UFZ – agenda, background and aims of the workshop
Jochen Luther, Christian Kuhlicke, Nathalie Jean-Baptiste, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental
Research GmbH – UFZ, Leipzig (Germany)
9h10: Round of introduction all
9h40: Welcome by the hosts – short presentation of their institutions:
Christian Kuhlicke, UFZ, Leipzig (Germany)
Ephrem Gebremariam, Ethiopian Institute of Architecture Building Construction and City
Development (EiABC), Addis Ababa University, partner in the CLUVA project
Animesh Kumar, Disaster Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS) of the Ethiopian
Ministry of Agriculture & United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
10h10: Welcome by the representative of Delegation of the European Union to AU
Stéphane Hogan, Science Counsellor, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia)
10h20: Welcome by the CATALYST coordination
Caroline van Bers, CATALYST project, seeconsult (Germany)
10h30: Setting the scene – presentation of results of previous project activities and the
thematic
context of the workshop
Christian Kuhlicke & Jochen Luther, UFZ, Leipzig (Germany)
153
July 2013
11h30: 2 parallel group sessions:
Group session I: Success stories about good practices for risk/vulnerability assessments,
measures and their assessment, use of scientific/local knowledge, and capacity
development/training
Input from participants of the workshop (10 minutes input + discussion and feedback)
14h00: Group session I (continued): Success stories about good practices …
15h00: Plenary:
Presentation of results from group sessions I & II and discussion: Good practices
16h00: 3-4 parallel group sessions:
Group session II: Gaps and barriers - what does not work so well and why?
No input required, moderated and intense small group discussion
17h30: Plenary:
Presentation of group sessions results and general discussion: Gaps and barriers
Wrapping up, outlook to the next day and logistical issues (workshop plenary)
Jochen Luther & Christian Kuhlicke, UFZ Leipzig (Germany)
18h00: End of day 1
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Pause in CATALYST-only part of the workshop for the regional conference on
Capacity
Development for Integrating Disaster Risk Management into Urban
Settings in Africa in which the CATALYST workshop was integrated.
9h00: Welcome address
H.E. Ato Mitiku Kassa, State Minister, Disaster Risk Management & Food Security
Sector,
Ministry of Agriculture
9h10: Opening remarks
H.E Ato Desalegn Ambaw, State Minister, Ministry of Urban Development & Construction
9h20: Keynote address
Lynne Miller, Deputy Country Director, UN World Food Programme, Ethiopia
9h30: Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction & Climate Change Adaptation
(CATALYST project)
Caroline van Bers, seeconsult (Germany)
154
Appendices
9h50: Climate Change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa (CLUVA)
Fatemeh Jalayer, University of Naples Federico II, AMRA Center for Analysis and Monitoring of
Environmental Risk, Naples (Italy) & Nathalie Jean-Baptiste, Helmholtz Centre for
Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig (Germany)
10h10: Introduction to the Conference
Animesh Kumar, Disaster Management and Food Security Sector (DRMFSS) of the Ethiopian
Ministry of Agriculture & United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
TECHNICAL SESSION – I
Chair: Ato Mathewos Hunde, Director, EWRD/DRMFSS, Ministry of Agriculture
10h40: Level of Urban Statistical Data Availability in Africa
Raj Gautam Mitra, Head, Demographic and Social Statistics, UN Economic Commission for
Africa (UNECA)
11h10: A Framework for Monitoring Progress of DRR and Resilience: UN-Habitat’s Approach to
Urban Disaster Risk Reduction
Ko Takeuchi, UN-HABITAT, Risk Reduction & Rehabilitation Branch
11h40: Capacity Development in Urban DRR through African Universities: The PERIPERI U
Experience
Tarekegn Ayalew Yehuala, Bahir Dar University & Djillali Benouar, University of Science &
Technology Houari Boumediene, Algiers (Algeria)
12h10: Discussions
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Continuation of the CATALYST-only workshop
13h30: 2 parallel group sessions:
Groups session III: Capacity development activities of workshop participants
Input from participants of the workshop (10 minutes input + discussion and feedback)
15h00: Plenary:
Presentation of group session results and general discussion: Capacity development
16h00: 3-4 parallel group sessions:
Group session IV: Overarching recommendations for integrating DRR, CCA and urban
155
July 2013
planning and respective capacity development
No input required, moderated and intense small group discussion
17h15: Plenary:
Presentation of results of group sessions – discussion & wrapping up
17h45: Next steps in the project and evaluation of the workshop
Jochen Luther & Christian Kuhlicke, UFZ Leipzig (Germany)
18h15 End
156
Appendices
D. South and South-east Asia regional workshop
CATALYST Project
Regional Workshop for South & Southeast Asia
23 – 25 January 2013
Organisers: GEUS, Alterra
Hosted by UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC), Bangkok, Thailand
____________________________________________________________________________
Day 1: Wednesday 23 January
Part I: Setting the scene
9.00 - 9.15
Welcome and Opening Dr. Salmah Zakaria, UN-ESCAP
Overview of workshop objectives. Organization, program and expected outcomes
Dr. Peter van der Keur, GEUS
9.15 - 9.30
Think Tank Process to date & selected results from this process
Caroline van Bers, seeconsult & Peter van der Keur, GEUS
9.30 - 10.00
Workshop participants present their work in capacity development for Disaster Risk
Reduction / Climate Change Adaptation (1 min / participant)
Moderator: Fons Jaspers, Alterra
10.00-10.30
Coffee/tea break
Part II:
State of the art and Best Practices – Disaster Risk Reduction in South and Southeast
Asia
10.30 – 13.00
State-of-the-Art & Best Practices presentations by Catalyst Think Tank Members
(10 minutes ea. including questions & answers) Moderator: Peter van der Keur, GEUS
13.00 – 14.00
Lunch
14.00 – 14.30
Keynote Presentation (NN). Challenges in multilevel capacity development in DRR
and CCA.
Moderator: Hans Jørgen Henriksen, GEUS.
157
July 2013
Part III:
Gaps in Best Practices (knowledge, institutional) in South and
Southeast Asia
14.30 – 16.30
Group Discussions: Gaps in Best Practices
Initiated by brief inputs from Think Tank members.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Moderator: Catharien Terwisscha
Moderator: Fons Jaspers
Moderator: Caroline van Bers
van Scheltinga, Alterra
Rapporteur:
Rapporteur: Peter van der Keur
Henriksen
Hans
Jørgen
Rapporteur: Mareike Bentfeld,
ADPC
16.30 – 17.00 Coffee/tea break
17.00 – 18.00
Plenary: Presentation of main results of group discussions.
20.00
Social dinner – Arranged by Royal Princess Hotel (location to be announced)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Day 2: Thursday, 24 January
9.00 - 9.15
Recap of day 1/ Introduction to Day 2. Peter van der Keur
Part IV:
Filling the capacity development gaps and fostering further capacity
development
9.15 – 10.00
Keynote presentation and discussion: Mainstreaming DRR and CCA in multilevel
policy making and practice. Hans-Jakob Hausmann, Danish Red Cross /Red Crescent
Moderator: Peter van der Keur
10.00 – 12.00
Group Discussions: Capacity development (knowledge/training & institutional) at
local, national and regional/international levels.
Initiated by brief inputs from Think Tank members.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Moderator: Catharien Terwisscha
van Scheltinga, Alterra
Rapporteur:
Hans
Jørgen
Rapporteur: Mareike Bentfeld
158
Appendices
Rapporteur: Peter van der Keur
12.00 – 13.00
Henriksen
Plenary: Presentation of main results of group discussions
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
Part V: Special Sessions: Training and Mainstreaming Uncertainty
14.00 – 15.30
Group 1
Group 2
Training for capacity development
Integrating knowledge of uncertainty in capacity
The proposed CATALYST (online) curriculum,
development for DRR and CCA.
and discussion of goals, themes, format and
Which
methods
communicated to improve planning and policy making
Moderated
by
Catharien
Terwisscha
van
uncertainties
must
be
identified
and
at multiple levels
Moderated by Peter van der Keur
Scheltinga
Rapporteur: Fons Jaspers
Rapporteur: Mareike Bentfeld
15.30 – 16.00
Coffee/tea break
16.00-17.00
Plenary: Presentation of main results of group discussions
Part VI Introduction to field trip on Friday
17.00 – 18.00
Introduction to field trip on day 3. Peter van der Keur and Salmah Zakaria
Evening:
City highlight tour including dinner en route
____________________________________________________________________________
Day 3: Friday, 25 January
Part VII
Field trip
159
July 2013
9.00 – 15.00
Field trip in Bangkok Metro Area (Start & finish at UNCC with possible drops near hotels)
Part VII
Closing session
15.00 – 16.00 Workshop evaluation
Caroline van Bers
Wrap up and farewell
Peter van der Keur and Fons Jaspers
160
Appendices
E: CATALYST Side-Event at UNISDR Global Platform
CATALYST Project
Side-Event at UNISDR Global Platform
20 May. 2013
Organisers: seeconsult
Geneva, Switzerland
Monday May 20
Welcome
17.00
Welcome and Introduction (Caroline van Bers, seeconsult GmbH)
Progress on Synthesis of Results
17.15
Synthesis of Project Results (WP 5) Brief presentations by partners & discussion
Best Practices (Koko Warner, UNU-IHE)
Networks and Gaps (Elisa Calliari, FEEM)
Recommendations for Fostering Capacity Development (Jochen Luther, UFZ)
Online Module NH/DRR (Caroline van Bers)
Other TTM Activities (Matt Hare and Caroline van Bers)
18:30
Input: Stakeholder Advice for Policy (D. 4.4) - sectoral perspectives
Overview and discussion/input
18:45
Follow up CATALYST (local) projects – Status
(5 min update followed by input from partners and TTM)
19:00
Close
161
July 2013
F: CATALYST Technical Workshop at Asia-Pacific Water Summit
CATALYST Project
Technical Workshop at 2nd Asia-Pacific Water Summit
17 May. 2013
Organisers: GEUS, UNESCAP
Chiang Mai, Thailand
____________________________________________________________________________
Friday May 17
Technical Workshop, WRR3, Room D2
09.00 - 09.10:
Welcome and Opening Peter van der Keur (GEUS) and Salmah Zakaria (UNESCAP)
09.10 - 09.15
Overview of workshop objectives. program and expected outcomes
Peter van der Keur, GEUS, Denmark
09.15 - 10.00:
Presentation of the CATALYST project with emphasis on the South and Southeast Asian
region and outcomes of the regional workshop held in Bangkok / UNCC, hosted by UNESCAP.
Peter van der Keur
10.00 - 10.15:
Coffee Break
10.15 - 10.30
Introduction round for round table discussion participants
10.30 - 12.00:
Round table discussion on Transformative Practices for Capacity Development for DRR and CCA
in the South and Southeast Asian region, moderated by Peter van der keur
12.00 - 12.15
Wrap up and closing of workshop session
162
Appendices
Appendix II: Participant lists
A: European Mediterranean Regional workshop
TTM
Organization & affiliated country
Country/Region
represented
Laura Calcagni
IDRAN Engineering and Technology, Italy
Italy
Daniela D’Agostino
CIHEAM-IAMB, Bari, Italy
Italy
Umberto Fratino
Polytechnic, Bari, Italy
Italy & Mediterranean
Ebru Gencer
Columbia University, USA
Turkey
Rafaelle Giordiano
CNR/IRSA, Italy
Italy
Vito Iacobellis
Polytechnic, Bari, Italy
Italy
Luca Limongelli
Regional Dept. Civ. Protec.; Italy
Italy
Pierluigi Loiacono
Regional Dept. Civ. Protec. Italy
Italy
Elena Lopez-Gunn
Universidad Complutense de Madrid /
Spain & Mediterranean
Botin, Spain
Maria Manez
Climate Service Centre, Germany
Spain & Mediterranean
Ivan Portoghese
CNR/IRSA, Italy
Italy
Luis Sa
ANPC-CIVILPROT, Portugal
Portugal & Mediterranean
Richard Teeuw
University of Portsmouth, UK
UK & Mediterranean
Gerd Tetzlaff
DKKV, University of Leipzig, Germany
Germany & Mediterranean
Maike Vollmer
UNU-EHS, Germany
Germany &Mediterranean
163
July 2013
Michele Vurro
CNR/IRSA, Italy
Italy
Jeroen Warner
Wageningen University – Disaster Studies
Netherlands
Group; The Netherlands
Mediterranean
Wetlands International, The Netherlands
Netherlands
Frank van Weert
&
&
Mediterranean
Project Partners
Caroline van Bers
SEECONSULT, Germany
Germany
Humaira Daniel
UNU-EHS, Germany
Germany
Hans Jørgen Henriksen
Geological
Survey
of
Denmark
and
Denmark
Greenland (GEUS), Denmark
Fons Jaspers
Alterra, The Netherlands
Netherlands
Peter van der Keur
GEUS, Denmark
Denmark
164
Appendices
B: Central America and Caribbean Regional workshop
TTM/GUEST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Country/Region
represented
Redes de Gestión de Riesgos y Adaptación al Cambio
Francisco Moises
Climático – Networks for the management of risk and GCA
Cajas Toledo
Climate Change adaptation
Andres Calderon
Stephenson Disaster Management Institute
USA
West Indies Disaster Risk Reduction Centre (DRRC),
Barbara Carby
Jamaica
West Indies University (UWI)
Yvonne Clarke
Jamaica Red Cross
Jamaica
Research Programme for Climate Change – National
Jorge Escandón
Mexico
Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
Urban Planning Program and Urban Design Lab at
Ebru Gencer
USA
Columbia University
Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency
Jamaica
Management
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Ethiopia &
Animesh Kumar
Ethiopia
United Nations World Food Programme
Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies
Michelle Mycoo
Trinidad & Tobago
- University of the West Indies
Radhika Murti
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Switzerland
Keith Nichols
Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre
Belize
Carlos Perez
United Nations Development Programme
Nicaragua
Joanne Persad
Caribbean Disaster and Emergency Management Agency Barbados
Federica Ranghieri World Bank
USA
United Nations University, Institute for Environment and
Fabrice Renaud
Germany
Human Security
Ronald Jackson
165
July 2013
Country/Region
represented
Mexico
TTM/GUEST
16
Gonzalo Roque
17
Roberto Rudari
18
Keisha Sandy
19
Myriam Urzua
20
Infinita Consulting
Foundation CIMA, The Italian National Civil Protection
Italy
Agency
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute
Trinidad & Tobago
Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Mexico
Caribbean (ECLAC)
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
USA
Marta Vicarelli
Sanya Wedemeir
Caribbean Environment Programme-UNEP
Graham
Claudia Garcia
Food and Agriculture Organization (trainee)
21
22
Jamaica
Germany
Project Partners
23
Elisa Calliari
24
Humaira Daniel
25
26
27
Matt Hare
Angela Marigo
Jaroslav Mysiak
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
Italy
United Nations University- Institute for Environment
Germany
and Human Security, Germany
Seeconsult
Germany
Italy
Italy
166
Appendices
C: East and West Africa Regional workshop
TTM/GUEST
Country/Region
Gifty Ampomah
ENDA-TM
Senegal
Shimeles Arragaw
Ministry of Urban Development and Construction
Ethiopia
Tarekgn Ayalew
Bahir Dar University
Ethiopia
Faith Chihumbiri
ICLEI Africa
South Africa
Rebka Fekada
EiABC
Rodrigue Feumba
University of Yaoundé
Cameroon
Ephrem Gebremariam
EiABC
Ethiopia
Yeshitela Kumelachew
EiABC
Ethiopia
Bekelu Gullema
DRMFSS/WFP
Ethiopia
Regina John
Ardhi University
Tanzania
Stéphane Hogan
Delegation of the EU to the African Union
Ethiopia
Animesh Kumar
DRMFSS/WFP
Ethiopia
Marko Lesukat
Plan International & CORDAID
Nairobi, Kenya
Jose Levy
UNDP AAP
Senegal
Emily Massawa
UNEP ROA
Kenya
Stanley Ndhlovu
IFRC Africa
Botswana
Bhanu Neupane
UNESCO
France/India
Jean-Pierre Salamber
University of Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso
Haddis Rebbi
EiABC
Ethiopia
Ko Takeuchi
UN-HABITAT
Kenya
Liku Workalemahu
EiABC
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
CATALYST project partners
Christian Kuhlicke
UFZ
Germany
Jochen Luther
UFZ
Germany
Nathalie Jean-Baptiste
UFZ
Germany
Caroline van Bers
Seeconsult GmbH
Germany
Peter McGrath
TWAS
Italy
167
July 2013
D: South and South-east Asia Regional workshop
TTM
Country/Region
Abdul Ahad Biswas
Patuakhali Science and Technology University (PSTU)
Bangladesh
Mareike Bentfeld
Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC)
Thailand / Germany
Hans Jakob Hausmann
Danish Red Cross
Indonesia / Denmark
Munish Kaushik
CORDAID
India
Nandan Mukerjee
BRAC University Center for Climate Change and
Bangladesh
Shah Md Anowar Kamal
Unnayan Shahojogy Team (UST)
Bangladesh
Bhanu Neupane
United Nations Educational, Scientific
France / Nepal
Thi Yen Nguyen
CARE international
Vietnam
HariKrishnaa Nibanupudi
International
Gregory Pearn
Thailand
Aslam Perwaiz
Thailand
Hang Thi Tanh Pham
UNISDR
Vietnam
Andreas Subiyono
Sheepindonesia
Indonesia
Romina Sta. Clara
ICCO Regional Office for South East Asia
Philippines
Gerd Tetzlaff
University of Leipzig / DKKV
Germany
Jerry Velasquez
UNISDR
Thailand
Bui Viet Hien
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Vietnam
Starjoan Villanueva
Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM)
Philippines
Yulia Rina Wijaya
Sheepindonesia
Indonesia
Shobha Yadav
Institute for Social and Environmental Transition - Nepal
Nepal
Centre
for
Integrated
Mountain
Nepal
168
Appendices
Salmah Zakaria
United Nations- ESCAP Water Security Section
Thailand
Mostafa Zaman
Patuakhali Science and Technology University (PSTU)
Bangladesh
Caroline van Bers
seeconsult GmbH
Germany
Peter van der Keur
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland
Denmark
Fons Jaspers
Alterra / Wageningen University
Netherlands
Hans Jorgen Henriksen
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland
Denmark
Catharien
Alterra / Wageningen University
Netherlands/Bangladesh
Project Partners
Terwisscha
169
July 2013
E: CATALYST Side-Event at UNISDR Global Platform
Participant
Organisation
Country
Ms. Djillali Benouar
University of Science & Technology Houari Boumediene,
Algeria
Ms. Ebru Gencer
Algeria / Periperi U
US National Delegate, International Society of City and
Turkey
Regional Planners (ISOCARP) and UNISDR UPWG
Mr. Munish Kaushik
CORDAID
India
Mr. Animesh Kumar
UNISDR-Regional Office for Africa
Kenya
Mr. Nandan Mukherjee
BRAC
University
Center
for
Climate
Change
and
Bangladesh
Environmental Research
Ms. Radhika Murti
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Switzerland
Mr. Ko Takeuchi
UNHabitat, United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
Kenya
Risk Reduction and Rehabilitation Branch
Mr. Hashid Badji
CADRIS: Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative- Bureau for
Asia
Crisis Prevention and Recovery, UNDP
Mr. Pierpaolo Campostrini
CORILA - Consortium for Coordination of Research Activities
Italy
concerning the Venice Lagoon System (and representing
KULTURisk project)
Ms. Kimberly Hagen,
Department of Geography, Open University
UK
Mr. Dimitrio Innocenti
UNISDR
Switzerland
Mr. Joseph King
ICCROM – Centre International d’etude pour la conservation
France
et la restauration des bien culturels
Mr. Yongkyun Kim
UNISDR Northeast Asia Office and Global Education and
Asia
Training Institute for DRR
Project Partners
Mr. Marius Hasenheit
Seeconsult/CATALYST
Germany
Mr. Matt Hare
Seeconsult/CATALYST
Germany
Ms. Elisa Calliari
FEEM/CATALYST
Italy
Mr. Jochen Luther
UFZ/CATALYST
Germany
Ms. Ulli Meissner
Seeconsult/CATALYST
Germany
Ms. Caroline van Bers
Seeconsult/CATALYST
Germany
Mr. Jaroslav Mysiak
FEEM/CATALYST
Italy
Ms. Koko Warner
UNU-EHS/CATALYST
Germany
170
Appendices
F: CATALYST Technical Workshop at Asia-Pacific Water Summit
Registered for the CATALYST workshop were:
Participant
Organisation
Country
Ms. Fiona Chandler
International Water Centre
Brisbane, Australia
Dr. Albert Salamanca
Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI)-
Bangkok, Thailand
Asia
Dr. Malin Beckman*
Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI)-
Bangkok, Thailand
Asia
Prof.Dr. Monowar Hossain
Institute of water Modelling
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mr. P. Teerasak
FTI
Hanoi, Vietnam
Mr. Laobch Lanthom Phouthacack
Lao DRR MOSTI 12
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Dr. Sangeun Lee*
UNESCO-ICHARM
Ibaraki, Japan
Dr. Wiwat Sutiwipakorn*
formerly lecturer in Civil Engineering,
Hat
Prince of Songkhla University
Thailand
Mr. Chucheep Pankaeo
Dept. of Water Resources (DWR)
Bangkok, Thailand
Mr. Arthit Boonrod
Green Sivikikit Botanic Garden
Bangkok, Thailand
Mr. Chonticha Suksuphak*
PTT Petroleum Public Company
Bangkok, Thailand
Dr. Thanawat, Jarupongsakul*
Dept. of Geology Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand
Ms Salmah Zakaria*
UNESCAP
Bangkok, Thailand
GEUS / CATALYST
Denmark
Yai,
Songkhla,
Project Partners
Dr Peter van der Keur*
* denotes those who finally attended the event
171
July 2013
Appendix III: Original workshop summary reports
The original workshop summary reports of the four regional workshops can be downloaded from the
CATALYST website at www.catalyst-project.eu . The report of the CATALYST Technical Workshop at
the Asia Pacific Water Summit can be found at http://info.apwatersummit2.org/technical-workshopsmaterials-and-presentations/ .
172
Appendices
Appendix IV: Workshop evaluation form
EVALUATION of the CATALYST Regional Workshop
Please complete this form at the end of this event, in order to provide feedback on the
event you have participated in, and to assist us in developing future events.
Please indicate your views
1) What were your expectations for this particular event ?
2) Were your expectations met?
Completely
Well
Partly
Not very well
Not at all
Why/why not?
2a) What were the most important new information / opportunities that you gained
from this event?
3) Programme
Topics/themes
Very useful
useful
Of little use
Content covered
Too much
About right
Too little
Level of content
Too advanced
About right
Too elementary
Length of event
Too long
About right
Too short
173
July 2013
Please give your opinion on the following areas by circling the appropriate score, using the rating
scale below:
(0 = Poor, 3 = Very Good)
4) Preparation (date, invitation, logistical information sent, etc.)
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4a) Quality of plenary moderation
Comments (Optional)
4b) In discussions and working groups during the event, did you feel that you were you able
to raise issues that were important to you?
Completely
Well
Partly
Not very
well
Not at all
Comments (Optional)
Please give your opinion on the following areas by circling the appropriate score, using the rating
scale below:
(0 = Poor, 3= Very Good)
5) Speakers / Presentations
0
1
2
3
Comments (Optional)
174
Appendices
6) Quality of infrastructure, material and equipment
Venue (Rooms, meals etc)
Visual Aids
Handouts and documentation
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Comments (Optional)
(0 = Poor, 3 = Very Good)
7) Overall rating for the event
0
1
2
3
8) Would you recommend this type of event to other stakeholders?
Yes
No
9) Other comments on any other aspect of this event
10) Recommendations for improvement
Thank you for taking the time to complete this evaluation
Your Name ………………………………………………(optional)
175

Catalyst Regional Workshop Reports

Transcription

Similar documents

pdf - Dollar Record Records

Case Study - BJ`s Wholesale Club Oaks, PA

Handout - Searca

To Address the Key Challenges of Converting

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

5 Reasons You Should Attend the Economic Forum

Leaflet Catalyst Recycling

This is a - MacDonald

Time to go banking? The electric is off. The phones are dead. The

Get full bio here - Earthquake Country Alliance